# The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*



## mickle (7 Sep 2012)

What do we think? Guilty?



*This thread comes under the duristiction of the World Anti Disagreement And Repetition Agency. Participants must agree to abide by the WADARA code.


----------



## Aperitif (7 Sep 2012)

You're just taking the mickle. Is that not a banned substance?


----------



## ColinJ (7 Sep 2012)

I'm ignoring him until he goes away!


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Sep 2012)

This thread needs a poll.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2012)

Guilty as charged but currently out on bail awaiting pre-sentencing reports is how I read the current state of affairs.

Added to which

significant, well small but vocal, section of the "cycling public" dissatisfied with HOW the verdict was reached rather than WITH the verdict itself.
significant, smaller but equally vocal, section of the "cycling public" wondering why the focus is on Armstrong (scapegoating?) when he clearly was effectively only the most prominent public symptom of systematic, widespread, institutionalised cheating which was done with the knowledge, and the active collusion, of the so-called cycling regulatory authorities of the time.


----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

Good points Greg. So can we agree to have separate threads as follows:

"USADA and Rider Revelations"
"USADA/UCI/WADA process"
"What's the real big issue?"
"How very dare they!"


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Good points Greg. So can we agree to have separate threads as follows:
> 
> "USADA and Rider Revelations"
> "USADA/UCI/WADA process"
> ...


Good idea - would it also be of benefit if we moved all these discussions into a Pro-cycling current affairs subsection, to demarcate the races from the politics ?
My principal interest is in the first thread - less opinionated I would hope.


----------



## zimzum42 (7 Sep 2012)

Caption Competition?


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


Doc: "Congratulations, It's a boy! What were you injecting yourself with btw ?"
LA: "Doc, I guess I really over did the Human Growth Hormone this time"
Doc: "Lance don't worry, the UCI have _no_ idea how to test for pregnancy yet" 
(Edited somewhat from first attempt)


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Good idea - would it also be of benefit if we moved all these discussions into a Pro-cycling current affairs subsection, to demarcate the races from the politics ?
> My principal interest is in the first thread - less opinionated I would hope.


Seperate threads would be potentially useful. Not so keen on a cycling politics sub-section though. I don't see how you can untangle the two.


----------



## PaulB (7 Sep 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


You want happy ending?


----------



## raindog (7 Sep 2012)

the last supper


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


"This heart scan, it may look like there's nothing there but I can assure you, I can hear some very strange murmurs"


----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

Certainly an improvement.


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

Gregg Germer - why he didn't dope


----------



## yello (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Gregg Germer - why he didn't dope


 
A good read that.You can appreciate the pressures, and the difficult decisions.

A question I've always asked myself about the mindset of a doper is the 'what if' scenario. Do they ever think about how good they might have been without doping? Greg touches on that...



> At about 19 years old I made a choice … I would not dope … I wanted to see how far I could go in cycling, despite the odds I knew were before me; and enter the world of professional European cycling.


 
David Millar's book highlights how easy it is to find yourself lost and making choices you feel pressured to make. Ultimately, it's no excuse though there's a context to understand.

And then of course there are those that just decide to cheat.


----------



## Smokin Joe (7 Sep 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


"Yep, it's definately a dead twin".


----------



## EltonFrog (7 Sep 2012)

I'm very new to cycle racing, watches my first TdF this year, so by no means qualified to make a statement, but I do have question based on what I understand of the events all those years ago.

If they were all at it, then we're they not racing on a level playing field? If so did this not make the taking of drugs redundant?


----------



## Crackle (7 Sep 2012)

CarlP said:


> I'm very new to cycle racing, watches my first TdF this year, so by no means qualified to make a statement, but I do have question based on what I understand of the events all those years ago.
> 
> If they were all at it, then we're they not racing on a level playing field? If so did this not make the taking of drugs redundant?


The quick answer is no it doesn't. Different people respond to drugs in different ways, different drugs have different effects, who has the best drugs, can afford the best doctor and the most comprehensive 'program', wins. It's far from equal.

The full answer is probably contained in the closed thread and the links that people have put up.


----------



## just jim (7 Sep 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


"O.K, that just leaves us Trek, Oakley and Nike to unplug."


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

CarlP said:


> I'm very new to cycle racing, watches my first TdF this year, so by no means qualified to make a statement, but I do have question based on what I understand of the events all those years ago.
> 
> If they were all at it, then we're they not racing on a level playing field? If so did this not make the taking of drugs redundant?


Ok, simple answer is no. The so-called 'level-playing field' is a myth, or a convenient lie that can be used by dopers and their apologists to excuse cheating.

Not everyone was doping - do some Google research on Jonathan Vaughters and his time with Credite Agricole. They were a well known team during this period (sadly they folded a few years ago) and the team management were vehemently anti-doping. Also, Google Christophe Bassons and David Moncoutie, two well known non-dopers. So, simply put, they were not all doing it and those who chose to ride clean were disadvantaged.

Secondly, not everyone responds the same to doping. 'Lesser' riders, eg those with a lower Hct score (Google is your friend) stood to gain a great deal from doping with EPO. Riders with a naturally high Hct score gained very little. Universal doping would not provide a level playing field with everyone gaining, say, 15% on their natural base performance.

Thirdly, not everyone could afford the best doctors and doping program. Apparently Dr Ferrari (the best doping expert) would charge a small fortune and is alleged to have had an exclusive deal with Armstrong and USPS. So, if you were a less well off rider, on a smaller team, you made do with who and what you could afford. Doping was very expensive. Again, not a level field.

...and fourthly, apparently some riders and teams (LA/USPS) were protected by the UCI, so even if they turned up positive, the positive would be made to go away. Not a level playing field _at all_.

I hope that helps. There is a lot of info on the internet, in fact if you read through the (locked) thread on here you'll pick up a lot of stuff.


----------



## mickle (7 Sep 2012)

CarlP said:


> I'm very new to cycle racing, watches my first TdF this year, so by no means qualified to make a statement, but I do have question based on what I understand of the events all those years ago.
> 
> If they were all at it, then we're they not racing on a level playing field? If so did this not make the taking of drugs redundant?


 
This has been raised as a defence by some Lance fans. But the unalterable fact is that performance enhancing drugs are illegal in UCI sanctioned cycle sport. And the use of PEDs impacts heavily on those athletes who, for reasons of ethics or personal health choose not to dope.


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

A moment of truth, and not just for Armstrong

Edit : "If USADA's evidence proves doping, I will admit I got it wrong. These are times when everyone in cycling must be ready to acknowledge their errors if they really want the sport to advance. I am ready"
.​

​


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

CarlP said:


> I'm very new to cycle racing, watches my first TdF this year, so by no means qualified to make a statement, but I do have question based on what I understand of the events all those years ago.
> 
> If they were all at it, then we're they not racing on a level playing field? If so did this not make the taking of drugs redundant?


 No offence Carl but go and read the 'Lance Armstrong banned' locked thread and come back to us in a week or two!


----------



## Herbie (7 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> What do we think? Guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread comes under the duristiction of the World Anti Disagreement And Repetition Agency. Participants must agree to abide by the WADARA code.


 
guilty as sin


----------



## 007fair (7 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> No offence Carl but go and read the 'Lance Armstrong banned' locked thread and come back to us in a week or two!


or from page 112 where I requested a summary ..


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> or from page 112 where I requested a summary ..


 I wanted him to suffer like the rest of us


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


 
I'll ask the questions and you watch the polygraph.


----------



## asterix (7 Sep 2012)

CarlP said:


> I'm very new to cycle racing, *watches my first TdF this year*, so by no means qualified to make a statement, but I do have question based on what I understand of the events all those years ago.
> 
> If they were all at it, the*n we're they not racing on a level playing field?* If so did this not make the taking of drugs redundant?


 
You didn't notice the hills then?


----------



## RedRider (7 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> the last supper


Armstrong: "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Disciples: "(Gasp!) We thought you said never to mention your blood!?!?"




Doubting Thomas: "I soddin knew it."


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

Interesting, the UCI are not considering taking USADA to CAS regarding LA...
"The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."

Also denied entry to the Chicago marathon.

It seems like the USADA sanctions really will hold.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Interesting, the UCI are not considering taking USADA to CAS regarding LA...
> "The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
> "And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."
> 
> Also denied entry to the Chicago marathon.


Which is great. provided the UCI can get ASO to follow suit.


----------



## thom (7 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Which is great. provided the UCI can get ASO to follow suit.


My thoughts would be that would be very unlikely if technically possible. More likely could be LA going to CAS.
I wonder to what extent it's in the UCI's interest to keep this out of the courts too...


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Interesting, the UCI are not considering taking USADA to CAS regarding LA...
> "The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
> "And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."
> 
> ...


 
Be interesting to see how they react to a file that allegedly contains the allegation that UCI had a Swiss positive test dropped when UCI have strenuously denied it ever happened. Plus ditto the allegation that Armstrong had them call Hamilton in.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Which is great. provided the UCI can get ASO to follow suit.


What do ASO have to do with it? They're a race organiser, not a governing body.

I'd still not put it past McQuaid to do a u-turn. After all, he said that UCI would accept USADA jurisdiction while composing a letter to Judge Sparks disputing it! He's also given himself wiggle room in that statement..."_And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise_, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> My thoughts would be that would be very unlikely if technically possible. More likely could be LA going to CAS.
> I wonder to what extent it's in the UCI's interest to keep this out of the courts too...


Good point well made. UCI have lots of reasons, or so it appears at present, to ensure it goes nowhere near a court.

and boy will I be glad when the evidence is made public so we can stop speculating.


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> What do ASO have to do with it? They're a race organiser, not a governing body.


 
Last time ASO had a spat with UCI and said they were running their races to their rules, not UCIs, UCI backed down.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Be interesting to see how they react to a file that allegedly contains the allegation that UCI had a Swiss positive test dropped when UCI have strenuously denied it ever happened. Plus ditto the allegation that Armstrong had them call Hamilton in.



that file will get weeded is what.


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> that file will get weeded is what.


 
To weed it they would have to leave out the Landis & Hamilton evidence completely. Selectively editing their statements would be tampering with the evidence and a big no-no.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> To weed it they would have to leave out the Landis & Hamilton evidence completely. Selectively editing their statements would be tampering with the evidence and a big no-no.


How do we know what their statements actual say? It isn't a court of law thing, they can disclose as much or as little as they like, especially now LA has thrown in the towel.


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> How do we know what their statements actual say? It isn't a court of law thing, they can disclose as much or as little as they like, especially now LA has thrown in the towel.


 
Forensics have their ways of finding these things out - I won a US court case by showing that material was (fraudulently) added later to a document.

Now none of this is a legal process and its between Switzerland and the USA to complicate matters but it would be a very serious matter if USADA were found to be editing evidence in their favour.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Forensics have their ways of finding these things out - I won a US court case by showing that material was (fraudulently) added later to a document.
> 
> Now none of this is a legal process and its between Switzerland and the USA to complicate matters but it would be a very serious matter if USADA were found to be editing evidence in their favour.


They don't have to edit it. (SHAMEFULLY) They merely only have to present those parts of the file to public scrutiny they chose to. They're not under any obligation to anyone to do otherwise. (WORSE LUCK) They could send the whole thing to UCI but redact (or weed or omit) whatever they like when they publish it - (DISGRACEFULLY) there's simply no 'due process' despite acts having been committed that are crimes in some of the territories they were committed in.

But no doubt someone will pop up in a minute to tell me that, in their, no doubt, supremely qualified opinion I've not followed pro-cycling for long enough or in sufficient detail or breadth to be entitled to express any opinion on anything, or they'll report this thread/comment or demand folk be banned..... 

(Thread lock is the new black)


----------



## Strathlubnaig (7 Sep 2012)

Interesting summary article in the globe & mail today
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-line-up-to-talk-about-doping/article4523921/


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> They don't have to edit it. (SHAMEFULLY) They merely only have to present those parts of the file to public scrutiny they chose to. They're not under any obligation to anyone to do otherwise. (WORSE LUCK) They could send the whole thing to UCI but redact (or weed or omit) whatever they like when they publish it - (DISGRACEFULLY) there's simply no 'due process' despite acts having been committed that are crimes in some of the territories they were committed in.


 
We'll see but such gaps are fairly easy to spot in evidence and don't forget a lot of it is testimony so it will be continuous rather than in lots of bits and pieces which makes the detection of missing bits even easier. Any gaps will be as embarrassing for USADA, particularly because of the US philosophy of full disclosure) as the gaps in the Nixon tapes. Redactions will just cause a furore of pressure and speculation about what is under the black ink.


----------



## mickle (7 Sep 2012)

Im sorry. What gaps are these of which you speak?


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Im sorry. What gaps are these of which you speak?


 
The gaps which would exist if USADA were, hypothetically, to edit out from their evidence files the bits that UCI has strongly contested. See post #40


----------



## lukesdad (7 Sep 2012)

Any Improvement on the horizon ?.... Nah thought not !


----------



## rich p (7 Sep 2012)

I see this thread is already gone down the road of the other with provocative, trolling (yes, Norm) and deliberately controversial posting. Good sense and good moderation seems to be sadly missing. That's my lot - cheers.


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

I'm curious as to why you think its trolling to discuss scenarios around the obvious conflict between USADA and UCI and what will happen when USADA release their evidence file to UCI. It would seem you just want to get anything that is not "the sun shines out of USADAs back-side" banned so only views you agree with can be posted.


----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

OK here is my view....Red Light and Cunobelin should be banned from these threads.


----------



## Russell Allen (7 Sep 2012)

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah USADA Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah UCI Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ARMSTRONG Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah WADA Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ... Guilty as charged

its all been said before


----------



## Red Light (7 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> OK here is my view....Red Light and Cunobelin should be banned from these threads.


 
And your rationale for coming to that conclusion? Is it that neither of us will be brow-beaten into condemning Armstrong without seeing the USADA evidence and only people who believe that he is the spawn of Satan should be allowed to post? This really has got into, to use Lance's phrase, a witch hunt with people baying for Phil Liggett's blood because he dared to speak in favour of Lance and now suggestions the two of us be banned for the crime of not assuming his guilt before the USADA evidence has been released and reviewed.

I really don't understand why otherwise largely sensible posters in other parts of the forum suddenly become so repressive when Armstrong is mentioned.


----------



## Noodley (7 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> And your rationale for coming to that conclusion?


Because you are not actually contributing or acknowledging what has happened.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Because you are not actually contributing or acknowledging what has happened.


 
What has happened that I should acknowledge?


----------



## Russell Allen (8 Sep 2012)

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that there is a 99.9999% certainty that LA was on "the Juice" when he won those titles. There is no doubt that most of the other top finishers were too, and LA beat them on a level-ish playing field. There is also no doubt that he was a fantastic athlete. What rankles with most people is the denial in the face of the evidence and the denial of any chance to the clean cyclists. The whole of the sport was pretty dirty from the riders right through to the governing body back then. I don't have anything personal against LA but he is like a figurehead/totem for a very dark period in pro cycling. I don't feel the required changes to the sport can really come about till LA and the UCI etc etc are honest about what went on. I don't even think LA should lose his titles, who would you give them to ?????, we should just flag the whole period as the "doping era" and put it behind us. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Russell


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> More likely could be LA going to CAS..


 
Can he do that? (Sorry, I'm out of touch now!) By deciding not to contest, he effectively accepted the USADA decision. I don't think he can appeal a decision he's deemed to have accepted. I think only UCI, and perhaps USADA, can appeal.

I think UCI have 3 options; ratify the USADA decision, appeal it to CAS, or simply ignore it. I doubt they'll appeal it - that could be suicide for them if the evidence of cover-up is there. I don't think they'll ignore it as that'd risk WADA and/or IOC penalties. As I've said before, I think UCI are between a rock and a hard place. I reckon they'll ratify the decision because it's their least damaging option. 

I think (and I'm not certain here) USADA can appeal to CAS if UCI decide, on having gone through a formal process and reviewed USADA's reasoned decision, not to ratify the decision. I think it a moot point though since I doubt it'd happen.


----------



## just jim (8 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> And your rationale for coming to that conclusion? Is it that neither of us will be brow-beaten into condemning Armstrong without seeing the USADA evidence and only people who believe that he is the spawn of Satan should be allowed to post? This really has got into, to use Lance's phrase, a witch hunt with people baying for Phil Liggett's blood because he dared to speak in favour of Lance and now suggestions the two of us be banned for the crime of not assuming his guilt before the USADA evidence has been released and reviewed.
> 
> I really don't understand why otherwise largely sensible posters in other parts of the forum suddenly become so repressive when Armstrong is mentioned.


 
I think a lot of the sensationalist language is coming from you. Shame really.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that there is a 99.9999% certainty that LA was on "the Juice" when he won those titles. There is no doubt that most of the other top finishers were too, and LA beat them on a level-ish playing field. There is also no doubt that he was a fantastic athlete. What rankles with most people is the denial in the face of the evidence and the denial of any chance to the clean cyclists. The whole of the sport was pretty dirty from the riders right through to the governing body back then. I don't have anything personal against LA but he is like a figurehead/totem for a very dark period in pro cycling. I don't feel the required changes to the sport can really come about till LA and the UCI etc etc are honest about what went on. I don't even think LA should lose his titles, who would you give them to ?????, we should just flag the whole period as the "doping era" and put it behind us.
> 
> Russell


 
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would consider there is a high probability that whoever won those titles was on the juice because everyone else behind them in at least the top five (bar a couple so far not proven) were on the juice and if you believe Tyler Hamilton most of the peleton were on the juice. But as Hamilton also says he also trained harder, paid more attention to the technical details of the equipment and the science of training and probably post cancer had a much higher pain tolerance and there were two in the top five over those seven years who have not been alleged to have doped, so there is a margin for doubt which I would put nearer 10% than 0.0001%. So I agree with you there and about the titles etc but.......and here is the difference between me (and I think CB) and those who are baying for our blood on here.......I want to see the new evidence USADA have before I decide whether he is provenly guilty given its now not going to be tested in a hearing.

Three weeks ago Armstrong was not guilty. Today he has been declared guilty for no-contest by USADA. But the governing body of the sport, UCI, have disputed that pending seeing the evidence file and the Judge who reviewed the case expressed severe doubts over the motives and procedures of USADA. In those circumstance I want to see the evidence and hear the UCI view on it (they definitely contest vigorously some of the crucial evidence that is alleged to be in it and that is in Hamilton's latest book). 

Whatever the outcome I watched those races through the 90s and 00s and thoroughly enjoyed them and still do and whether they doped or not will not change that enjoyment. Why? Well I enjoy the psychological side of the sport. The side we saw between Wiggins/Froome and Evans and Nibali on the climbs this year of challenging and probing each other looking for the psychological advantage that they are going to break you before they break themselves. And there is little doubt in my mind that without Froome, Wiggins would have broken under Nibali's challenges in the mountains this year. Does the fact that Wiggins had the advantage of Froome and the others didn't have a Froome equivalent in those battles diminish his win? No it doesn't. Armstrong was a master at the psychology and the Ulrich stare, although he has denied it, was one of the pinnacles of a psychological challenge at a critical moment that broke the competition. And although he didn't win that poker playing battle was back there when her returned to the TdeF although by then he didn't quite have the hand to play anymore. Cavendish uses it to great effect too - you know and they know he is going to win it even before the sprint has started unless they get lucky - as do the track cyclists in that long slow build up to the final sprint. And whatever the drugs did to the physical side of winning, they didn't change that mental battle between the top masters of their sport. Those who don't pick up on that side of the sport found this year boring but I found it fascinating especially wait and anticipation of the lead up to the mountain stages where you knew it would all happen.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

just jim said:


> I think a lot of the sensationalist language is coming from you. Shame really.


 
Like calling people trolls isn't sensationalist? But you are entitled to your opinion and I probably did over-egg it. But the facts remain that a number of people on here called for Phil Liggett to lose his job for his comments in support of LA and are calling for me to be banned for trolling for wanting to see the new USADA evidence on which the recent decision has been made before coming to a conclusion on LAs guilt (as do UCI). And some are suggesting that holding views in contentious helmet threads that are in line with the policies of the CTC and ECF is evidence of my systemic trolling to support a ban.


----------



## asterix (8 Sep 2012)

The 'level playing field' argument is specious.

Is it really a good thing in a sport when aspiring champions are confronted with the necessity of doping in order to compete with the best?

If Armstrong doped then he is a crook. Simple.


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

Lots of food for thought from McQuaid's press conference yesterday evening....

http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/...30840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html

- no plan to challenge USADA sanction
- will consider truth and reconciliation/amnesty
- could appeal to CAS not on evidence but USADA jurisdiction
- IOC member says LA could keep his 2000 olympic bronze
- if 7 TdF titles are stripped they may not be given to anyone else

But one has to keep in mind that McQuaid could well say something totally different next week! I'll be interested to read more of the proposals for the amnesty. (Aside; one of UCI's objections to the USADA case was the possible use of a reduction of sentence for witness testimony but, meh, whatever!)

What also interested me was the IOC statement saying LA could keep his bronze medal....



> the matter could turn on different interpretations of the eight-year statute of limitations stipulated in the World Anti-Doping Code.


 
I don't know what to make of that at the moment. It seems a bit of an incongruous statement so I think I need more context.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> I think UCI have 3 options; ratify the USADA decision, appeal it to CAS, or simply ignore it. I doubt they'll appeal it - that could be suicide for them if the evidence of cover-up is there. I don't think they'll ignore it as that'd risk WADA and/or IOC penalties. As I've said before, I think UCI are between a rock and a hard place. I reckon they'll ratify the decision because it's their least damaging option.


 
I think it will depend very much on what is in the evidence file. If the allegations that UCI was complicit in covering up positive tests is a main part of the body of evidence I don't think they will have a choice but to contest it. Otherwise they will find themselves in the same position as LA is now of guilt by no-contest. But I'd better not go there because discussion that situation here is considered trolling apparently  .


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I think it will depend very much on what is in the evidence file. If the allegations that UCI was complicit in covering up positive tests is a main part of the body of evidence I don't think they will have a choice but to contest it.


 
I wonder whether USADA's reasoned decision would make explicit allegations of a UCI cover-up? After all, UCI wasn't the subject of their investigation. USADA's report could well leave open the question as it'd not be necessary (if you consider their remit) for them to actually point the finger. Could they make their case without addressing specifically the issue of *why* certain results may have gone undetected? I think so. USADA may have even preferred to leave that stone unturned, leave it as something for UCI to address.


----------



## lukesdad (8 Sep 2012)

The UCI saying they still havn't received the evidence. Why is it taking so long ?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> I see this thread is already gone down the road of the other with provocative, trolling (yes, Norm) and deliberately controversial posting. Good sense and good moderation seems to be sadly missing. That's my lot - cheers.


Translated

Someone has dared to disagree with me!....


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

asterix said:


> The 'level playing field' argument is specious.
> 
> Is it really a good thing in a sport when aspiring champions are confronted with the necessity of doping in order to compete with the best?
> 
> If Armstrong doped then he is a crook. Simple.


 
The playing field is never level in this sport or in others unless the teams are all given the same budget, bikes etc. We have done so well in the Olympics and Paralympics because of a big budget and investment in good facilities and research. Our cyclists have spent hours in expensive wind tunnels for example perfecting equipment and positioning on the bike to give them an edge. Which is why they are dominating other nations at the moment. Swim suit material and design made a big difference to swimming when it was first introduced giving those who had access to it an advantage.

At present as Emma Pooley has just pointed out, Sky have a budget that allows them to buy the best riders and mechanics, spend the money on research and equipment etc in a way that other teams can only dream of. Was it a level playing field between Wiggins, Evans and Nibali this year? I would say definitely not and the other teams were complaining that they didn't have the manpower to protect their contenders for the win in the way Sky did. Evans when he broke in the mountains didn't have the advantage that Wiggins had when Nibali was breaking him of having a well paid Froome-dog under team orders to nurse him through it. And with the team focussed on the overall win, Cavendish could not win as many stages as he would have with the team behind him as it was last year. That playing field was anything but level but it didn't detract from the win at all for me and it seems to be almost universally agreed on here too.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> The quick answer is no it doesn't. Different people respond to drugs in different ways, different drugs have different effects, who has the best drugs, can afford the best doctor and the most comprehensive 'program', wins. It's far from equal.
> 
> The full answer is probably contained in the closed thread and the links that people have put up.



The other issue is cyclist safety

In he early days, deaths were not uncommon (Tom Simpson for example) 

Now with organised doping often under medical supervision this is rarer and doping theoretically safer

However there are long term effects... And a price to pay still

Rides who push further with greater doping are at greater risk, and the safety margins are and I'll be tested


----------



## Noodley (8 Sep 2012)

It was too much to expect that those needing banned would be. I'm off to speak about Racing, with people who are actually interested in it. 

Well done to the trolls for spoiling so many threads without getting banned.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> It was too much to expect that those needing banned would be. I'm off to speak about Racing, with people who are actually interested in it.
> 
> Well done to the trolls for spoiling so many threads without getting banned.


 
A flounce with double salchow to be sure. But you still haven't said what it is you think we haven't acknowledged or why it is not a contribution. But then I have seen scant evidence in your posts of a contribution on the subjects under discussion, just a lot of complaints about other "nobber" posters. And this thread is no different with your biggest contribution to the subject matter being:



> Good points Greg. So can we agree to have separate threads as follows:
> 
> "USADA and Rider Revelations"
> "USADA/UCI/WADA process"
> ...


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Now with organised doping often under medical supervision this is rarer and doping theoretically safer


 
There have still been quite a few deaths out of competition and in their sleep thanks to organised doping even with medical supervision.


----------



## lukesdad (8 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2029178, member: 45"]Armstrong cheated. Teams having more money isn't cheating. Doping is. That's simple statement one.

And simple statement two is that not all riders are cheating. This level playing argument is nonsense. A rider at the top of the tree cheating blows the fair chance of anyone who doesn't, and also puts pressure on those playing fair to do the same.

It's not complicated, however much people try to complicate it.[/quote]

The advanced levels of cheating under discussion were enabled by the influx of money into the sport at that time. Simple statement three.


----------



## lukesdad (8 Sep 2012)

The playing field just got leveller, Berties back !


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> The advanced levels of cheating under discussion were enabled by the influx of money into the sport at that time. Simple statement three.


 
Probably true and as Hamilton said they could then afford better doctors than the testers. But it was not just a cycling thing and much of it was driven IMO by the emergence of Sky and the broadcast rights bidding wars and hunt for content that went with them. The money angle hit football and Formula 1 too with lots of negative consequences but also a popularisation of the sport that brought it to many millions who never watched it before and made it more accessible to its followers. I can remember when there was no cycling on any channel And now we can follow most of the major races on TV/on-line. Is that better or worse? Hard to call in my view but Emma Pooley was certainly complaining about the lack of money and media interest in women's cycling. But then being paid the £2m p.a. Wiggins is said to be paid must be quite attractive when you are living hand to mouth all the time in the teams and personally as a top sportsperson in your discipline. There has even been a comment in just the last day or two that Cav's problem is no other team bar a couple can afford him.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> Can he do that? (Sorry, I'm out of touch now!) .


Actually, I don't know - my thoughts were that LA potentially could challenge UCI's decision on whether to accept USADA's instruction in CAS, arguing that the UCI ought to reject USADA for whatever reason they can come up with. I imagine it would be clutching at straws.
I agree, the UCI do seem to have their hand forced, hence their PR strategy of deliberately playing down any presumed conflict with USADA. I think that is the takeaway point from the Reuters interview yesterday.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> What also interested me was the IOC statement saying LA could keep his bronze medal....


I suspect that's just because they haven't clarified the legal position, rather than they have a preference either way.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> There have still been quite a few deaths out of competition and in their sleep thanks to organised doping even with medical supervision.



Hence rarer and safer

Not rare and safe


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> I suspect that's just because they haven't clarified the legal position, rather than they have a preference either way.


 
Interesting nevertheless as WADA comes under the IOC and WADA have made their views quite clear that the USADA ruling stands.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

An interesting management development at Rabobank. Apparently Bjarne Riis is taking a lot of flak in Denmark in light of Tyler Hamilton's book too.


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> I suspect that's just because they haven't clarified the legal position, rather than they have a preference either way.


 
I'm hopeful that that's the interpretation! It kind of seems to me, well, an obvious statement to take (that is, 'either we will or we won't let him keep the medal') - hence me being intrigued as to context.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> I'm hopeful that that's the interpretation! It kind of seems to me, well, an obvious statement to take (that is, 'either we will or we won't let him keep the medal') - hence me being intrigued as to context.


It's complicated because WADA's code was only adopted by the IOC in 2004 for Athens, so the retrospective application of sanctions to LA's bronze in 2000 is just different to the TdF ongoing conspiracy argument. You can imagine an IOC lawyer being asked by a journo and just giving a dead bat reply.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> I'm hopeful that that's the interpretation! It kind of seems to me, well, an obvious statement to take (that is, 'either we will or we won't let him keep the medal') - hence me being intrigued as to context.



The Washington Post has an interesting interview with an IOC legal expert that sheds some light.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...06ac52-f925-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html

What is also interesting is that neither the UCI or WADA have notified the IOC of USADA's decision.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> An interesting management development at Rabobank. Apparently Bjarne Riis is taking a lot of flak in Denmark in light of Tyler Hamilton's book too.



So who will be the last men standing?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Sep 2012)

McQuaid is now considering the prospect of a doping amnesty... however what WADA has suggested 'truth and reconciliation' which while it may involve an amnesty is also rather more than that.


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> It's complicated because WADA's code was only adopted by the IOC in 2004 for Athens, so the retrospective application of sanctions to LA's bronze in 2000 is just different to *the TdF ongoing conspiracy argument.*


 
Yes, good point. It could be a nuanced decision then for the IOC, depending on what evidence they consider is relevant to them and to LA's Olympic performance. It could send a confusing message should they decide not to strip the medal.

I have to admit though I didn't think USADA would strip LA's titles pre their being in charge of results management. It seems it's exactly that issue that the IOC lawyer addresses....



> “Is there reasoning to say it didn’t exist when the violation was committed and therefore we are not bound?” Oswald suggested, freeing the IOC to strip the medal.


 
It's going to be something to look out for either way, albeit though perhaps a minor sideshow.


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

I'm suspicious of McQuaid (understatement!) so I wonder what his motivation is for this suggested amnesty. There's an element of trying to showing who's boss, I'm sure, but I feel he's trying to put the USADA sanction into some kind of 'doping era' context. Personally, I think the horse has bolted and he's in damage limitation mode.


----------



## asterix (8 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> The playing field is never level in this sport or in others unless the teams are all given the same budget, bikes etc. We have done so well in the Olympics and Paralympics because of a big budget and investment in good facilities and research. Our cyclists have spent hours in expensive wind tunnels for example perfecting equipment and positioning on the bike to give them an edge. Which is why they are dominating other nations at the moment. Swim suit material and design made a big difference to swimming when it was first introduced giving those who had access to it an advantage.
> 
> _and so on.._


 

You have missed my point entirely. This could be deliberately or through simple lack of comprehensive ability or maybe both. Given my past experiences of your debating style I believe it is both.


----------



## Smokin Joe (8 Sep 2012)

I blame the Beatles.


----------



## yello (8 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I blame the Beatles.


 
The Rolling Stones surely?

I'll have nothing ill said about that lovely Paul McCartney. He's a magnificent song writer and a saint.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

A blog entry, Neil Browne, media omertà.


----------



## rich p (8 Sep 2012)

This thread becomes a model of sensible discussion with the use of the ignore button with Yello and Thom offering sensible and reasoned argument. I do heartily recommend it so we can get this thing back on track.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

Reports (Eurosport) that Geert Leinders no longer working for Sky now.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Reports (Eurosport) that Geert Leinders no longer working for Sky now.



Bit old hat. That report was dated July 11th.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

asterix said:


> You have missed my point entirely. This could be deliberately or through simple lack of comprehensive ability or maybe both. Given my past experiences of your debating style I believe it is both.



Good grief. What has got into you? In any other part of this forum thread drift and expansions from points raised are all a normal part of thread development. Here they are a heinous crime. Step back and have a look at yourselves and your attempts to have anything you don't agree with censored and banned. Go out for a ride, switch off the computer for a few days, put me on ignore......but for God's sake get a sense of proportion back. Its only an internet forum.


----------



## Noodley (8 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> This thread becomes a model of sensible discussion with the use of the ignore button with Yello and Thom offering sensible and reasoned argument. I do heartily recommend it so we can get this thing back on track.


 
It does. Despite my earlier flounce, I decided to give the ignore button a go. So, although I can see that the most recent post is by an "ignored member" I cannot see the drivel.


----------



## thom (8 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Bit old hat. That report was dated July 11th.


FYI, the Eurosport report was today, the link to the Guardian article was to explain who Geert Leinders is.
Thanks for reminding me why you're normally ignored.


----------



## Red Light (8 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> FYI, the Eurosport report was today, the link to the Guardian article was to explain who Geert Leinders is.
> Thanks for reminding me why you're normally ignored.



Please put me back on ignore - it saves me and everyone else having to read your continual carping.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> This thread becomes a model of sensible discussion with the use of the ignore button with Yello and Thom offering sensible and reasoned argument. I do heartily recommend it so we can get this thing back on track.



Is this not worrying in itself?

The thread only makes sense to you if you delete anything you disagree with, or does not fit your agenda!

Long live healthy debate?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> I'm suspicious of McQuaid (understatement!) so I wonder what his motivation is for this suggested amnesty. There's an element of trying to showing who's boss, I'm sure, but I feel he's trying to put the USADA sanction into some kind of 'doping era' context. Personally, I think the horse has bolted and he's in damage limitation mode.




Tygart and the USADA are also on record as being willing to negotiate and reduce Armstrong's punishment


----------



## Scoosh (8 Sep 2012)

<Mod hat on - again >


asterix said:


> You have missed my point entirely. This could be deliberately or through simple lack of comprehensive ability or maybe both. Given my past experiences of your debating style I believe it is both.





thom said:


> ....
> Thanks for reminding me why you're normally ignored.





Red Light said:


> Please put me back on ignore - it saves me and everyone else having to read your continual carping.





Cunobelin said:


> Is this not worrying in itself?
> 
> The thread only makes sense to you if you delete anything you disagree with, or does not fit your agenda!
> 
> Long live healthy debate?


... and you wonder why we Mods close threads ? 

If you can't leave the petty, playground (primary school playground  ) name-calling and petulance, you may well be the recipients of the temporary thread ban.

You have been warned cautioned advised !


----------



## Noodley (8 Sep 2012)

If I "ignore" scoosh as well, then does his warning really count?


----------



## Scoosh (8 Sep 2012)

I suppose, if I had any idea of whose picture that was ... I might be pleased - or offended. 

Fortunately, I have absolutely no idea.

Ignorance is bliss (in this case )


----------



## johnr (8 Sep 2012)

So where is this ignore button?


----------



## Shaun (8 Sep 2012)

johnr said:


> So where is this ignore button?


 
Click the person's avatar on the left <--- and then click the 'Ignore' link on the middle right of their member card.


----------



## rich p (9 Sep 2012)

Shaun said:


> Click the person's avatar on the left <--- and then click the 'Ignore' link on the middle right of their member card.


...Shaun, I'm one of your biggest fans, and that's not a piss take, BTW.
I have only ever reported one post in my CC 'career' (and this has driven me to it), but you'd be doing CC a big service if you excluded certain people from this thread. The risk of vitriol, personal abuse and persistent diversion is stifling sensible debate. When some posters can manage to push such patient , knowledgeable and insightful posters such as yello, to name but one, to the 'ignore' button I think it's time the Mods werea little more proactive. It's your forum and you may disagree but that's my twopennyworth.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> ...Shaun, I'm one of your biggest fans, and that's not a **** take, BTW.
> I have only ever reported one post in my CC 'career' (and this has driven me to it), but you'd be doing CC a big service if you excluded certain people from this thread. The risk of vitriol, personal abuse and persistent diversion is stifling sensible debate. When some posters can manage to push such patient , knowledgeable and insightful posters such as yello, to name but one, to the 'ignore' button I think it's time the Mods werea little more proactive. It's your forum and you may disagree but that's my twopennyworth.


I agree. Why does everyone else have to take avoiding action, especially when there is now an 'exclude from thread' tool available?


----------



## Shaun (9 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I agree. Why does everyone else have to take avoiding action, especially when there is now an 'exclude from thread' tool available?


 
Because it's a personal preference - us mods don't know who likes who and who doesn't and we can't be expected to bias the discussion in the thread to suit the preferences of individuals or select groups. From my perspective I want to include _everyone_ wherever possible - that's how a community works best.

That being said, sometimes people get blinkered into pedantry point scoring over a topic, or post, or "details" or even with other members personalities (to the exclusion of everyone else on the thread) so that's where a temporary thread exclusion can now help.

We'll carry on watching the thread and see how it goes.


----------



## asterix (9 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Good grief. What has got into you? In any other part of this forum thread drift and expansions from points raised are all a normal part of thread development. Here they are a heinous crime. Step back and have a look at yourselves and your attempts to have anything you don't agree with censored and banned. Go out for a ride, switch off the computer for a few days, put me on ignore......but for God's sake get a sense of proportion back. Its only an internet forum.


 
As explained by Mr Paul my point was a simple one. For you to evade it was time-wasting and IMO discourteous. The act of a politician rather than someone who wants real debate.



Red Light said:


> The playing field is never level in this sport or in others unless the teams are all given the same budget, bikes etc. We have done so well in the Olympics and Paralympics because of a big budget and investment in good facilities and research. Our cyclists have spent hours in expensive wind tunnels for example perfecting equipment and positioning on the bike to give them an edge. Which is why they are dominating other nations at the moment. Swim suit material and design made a big difference to swimming when it was first introduced giving those who had access to it an advantage.
> 
> .


 

[QUOTE 2029178, member: 45"]Armstrong cheated. Teams having more money isn't cheating. Doping is. That's simple statement one.

And simple statement two is that not all riders are cheating. This level playing argument is nonsense. A rider at the top of the tree cheating blows the fair chance of anyone who doesn't, and also puts pressure on those playing fair to do the same.

It's not complicated, however much people try to complicate it.[/quote]


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2012)

asterix said:


> As explained by Mr Paul my point was a simple one. For you to evade it was time-wasting and IMO discourteous. The act of a politician rather than someone who wants real debate.


 
My point was two fold. First just picking up on whether an all doped peleton is a level playing field or not, an undoped peleton is not a level playing field either because of all the other factors such as ability, money, equipment etc. so level playing field whether correct or not is a non-argument.

Second it got to this state because of the pressures on the individual to perform and if you want to get noticed and into one of the teams with money where you have a better chance of winning, then the pressure/temptation is there to do something to enhance your performance. That is how the whole doping thing started off rather than as a team initiated thing, Seems to me the teams got involved when most of their riders were already doping and by the time you got into a team like USPS you probably would have already been doping just to get to the level to be considered in those days. I haven't read Hamilton's book yet but the abstracts that have been published suggest that he was doping before he joined Armstrong/USPS rather than as a result of joining him.

Even today with many of the teams being fastidious about being clean the pressure will still be there on the individuals to do a little better to be able to join a top team and it will always be there.

HTH.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Sep 2012)

When, if ever, are USADA going to give

a) the UCI
b) the IOP
c) the general public

access to all the available evidence and testimony?

The longer this drags on, and talk of 'truth and reconciliation' and 'amnesty' begins, the more worried I become that a deal is being done, behind closed doors, that protects certain vested interests ,which will mean Armstrong (who I believe to be a filthy dirty cheat) takes a sanction but doesn't lose all his TdeF titles.


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Sep 2012)

Only another 113 pages of personal invective to go and we'll be back where we were. Hurrah!

Plus ca change, plus it's the same thing.

I like Cyclechat, but I worry that these Lance threads are taking some of the spice out of the usually very constructive and helpful helmet threads.

I think he doped, by the way. But I just love the crackle of a fully doped charge up an impossible mountain.


----------



## just jim (9 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Only another 113 pages of personal invective to go and we'll be back where we were. Hurrah!
> 
> Plus ca change, plus it's the same thing.
> 
> ...


Why don't you contribute something useful then?
Bu useful, I mean something insightful, informative - entertaining even.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> But I just love the crackle of a fully doped charge up an impossible mountain.


 
That crackle wasn't the doping, it was the electric motor and battery concealed in the down-tube arcing over under the strain


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> When, if ever, are USADA going to give
> 
> a) the UCI
> b) the IOP
> ...


 
Not sure what the delay is or why there needs to be one. You would hope the file would have been complete when they issued the Notice Letter three months ago on June 12. Providing copies should be no more than a trip to the copy room - or if their copier is broken down, the nearest Kinko shop - and it could have been out of there and on its way to UCI, the IOC, WADA and L'Equipe the next day. And yet two weeks after LA conceded in the case there is still no word of when it will be made available. The longer they delay the greater the suspicions that the file we will see is not the file of June 12 but a modified version thereof.


----------



## MacB (9 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> When, if ever, are USADA going to give
> 
> a) the UCI
> b) the IOP
> ...


 
It's the money mate, there's too big a house of cards sitting on all this. I think the best we can hope for will be a couple of sacrificial lambs and some paid off early retirements. The rest will be left to time and natural retirement to sort out. That's only a guess but I can't see how the sort of cleanup, and appropriate level of sanction, needed could realistically be achieved.

I'd imagine this will be justified with the usual 'few bad apples', 'avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and various methods of implausible plausible deniability.


----------



## Red Light (9 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> It's the money mate, there's too big a house of cards sitting on all this. I think the best we can hope for will be a couple of sacrificial lambs and some paid off early retirements. The rest will be left to time and natural retirement to sort out. That's only a guess but I can't see how the sort of cleanup, and appropriate level of sanction, needed could realistically be achieved.
> 
> I'd imagine this will be justified with the usual 'few bad apples', 'avoiding throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and various methods of implausible plausible deniability.


 
But with the scale of what is emerging allegedly with Hamilton seemingly saying virtually everyone in the peleton doped and most of the teams were complicit in it as were some of the sporting bodies, you are either going to have a never ending investigation with a large proportion of the riders, managers, staff etc being implicated and an ongoing trial by media. There is not much point in a truth and reconciliation process as that will just feed the media frenzy and as is happening now with Geert Leinders highlighted earlier, people will lose their jobs because of the image problems of being associated with doping, not the regulatory processes. And its not clear who you are reconciling with anyway. Easier to attempt to draw a line under the whole episode and move on


----------



## lukesdad (9 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I agree. Why does everyone else have to take avoiding action, especially when there is now an 'exclude from thread' tool available?


 
What's up, playground bullies not getting their own way ? I f you want a private debate do it by PM or frigging Email !


----------



## MacB (9 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> What's up, playground bullies not getting their own way ? I f you want a private debate do it by PM or frigging Email !


 
 Nah, what we need is a counter, like you can see peoples post counts, likes, etc...we need one to show how many people are ignoring them


----------



## lukesdad (9 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> Nah, what we need is a counter, like you can see peoples post counts, likes, etc...we need one to show how many people are ignoring them


 
Can't really see any of the contributors to this thread being bothered about a popularity contest TBH.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Sep 2012)

The extent of doping is in reality what needs to be investigated.... although this is unpopular with a few and usually dismissed as trying to get Armstrong off the hook by diverting attention.

Armstrong is simply a key to opening the box, what is needed is an independent assessment of the contents of that box.

None of the present agencies have come out of this well, and all have vested interests.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The extent of doping is in reality what needs to be investigated.... although this is unpopular with a few and usually dismissed as trying to get Armstrong off the hook by diverting attention.


 
Who is it 'usually dismissed' by? It's unpopular with the UCI hierarchy for obvious reasons, but WADA has called for exactly this honest assessment and you will find that almost everyone here supports it.


----------



## smutchin (11 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I haven't read Hamilton's book yet but the abstracts that have been published suggest that he was doping before he joined Armstrong/USPS rather than as a result of joining him.


 
M'colleague got a copy in the post this morning and I started it over lunch. It's a good read so far...

*****SPOILERS*****
According to Hamilton's version of events, both he and the team were clean when it formed as Montgomery-Bell at the end of 1994. He was a wide-eyed, idealistic neo-pro at the time, and the team was under the leadership of Eddie Borysewicz (who was anti-doping despite having previously been involved in a blood-doping scandal at the 84 Olympics). USPS became headline sponsor in 1996 and the team was still being run clean at the time (which doesn't necessarily mean individual riders weren't doping under their own auspices, of course). After a disastrous 96 season, Johnny Weltz was made DS at the start of the 97 season, and Pedro Celaya joined as team doctor, along with several experienced pros, who he hints were already doping. This is the point when USPS started systematic doping. Hamilton himself started doping in April 97, shortly after Liege-Bastogne-Liege.

I had to stop reading and get back to work, but the next chapter starts with the line: "When I heard Lance was joining Postal for the 1998 season, I was excited and nervous..."

I think it's about to get _very_ interesting!

d.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Sep 2012)

...any sign of the evidence yet ?


----------



## smutchin (11 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ...any sign of the evidence yet ?


 
He talks about Hincapie storing EPO in the fridge in their shared flat, and seeing teammates being handed white bags, which he presumes to be full of EPO. He also talks about Riis flying past him up mountains at superhuman speed. He doesn't accuse _everyone_ though - he says Andy Hampsten was always clean, and Scott Mercier quit cycling rather than become a doper.

So to answer your question... it depends what you consider "evidence", which is the kind of question that could easily generate 100 pages of discussion without reaching any firm conclusions...

d.


----------



## smutchin (11 Sep 2012)

More interesting background reading: http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/08/news/road/old-doping-accusations-lead-to-altercation_82154

Hamilton claims in the book that he doesn't remember the incident when he and Jemison are supposed to have approched Prentice Steffen in 1996 to ask about EPO. He admits it probably happened but that it was most likely Jemison who was after the juice and he was just there to offer moral support.

It's written in a way that's clearly meant to make you sympathetic to Hamilton but I'm trying not to let that cloud my judgment.

d.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> He talks about Hincapie storing EPO in the fridge in their shared flat, and seeing teammates being handed white bags, which he presumes to be full of EPO. He also talks about Riis flying past him up mountains at superhuman speed. He doesn't accuse _everyone_ though - he says Andy Hampsten was always clean, and Scott Mercier quit cycling rather than become a doper.
> 
> So to answer your question... it depends what you consider "evidence", which is the kind of question that could easily generate 100 pages of discussion without reaching any firm conclusions...
> 
> d.


 
At the UCI !


----------



## Red Light (11 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> M'colleague got a copy in the post this morning and I started it over lunch. It's a good read so far...
> 
> *****SPOILERS*****
> According to Hamilton's version of events, both he and the team were clean when it formed as Montgomery-Bell at the end of 1994. He was a wide-eyed, idealistic neo-pro at the time, and the team was under the leadership of Eddie Borysewicz (who was anti-doping despite having previously been involved in a blood-doping scandal at the 84 Olympics). USPS became headline sponsor in 1996 and the team was still being run clean at the time (which doesn't necessarily mean individual riders weren't doping under their own auspices, of course). After a disastrous 96 season, Johnny Weltz was made DS at the start of the 97 season, and Pedro Celaya joined as team doctor, along with several experienced pros, who he hints were already doping. This is the point when USPS started systematic doping. Hamilton himself started doping in April 97, shortly after Liege-Bastogne-Liege.
> ...



So the indications are that the team and Hamilton were already well into doping while Lance was undergoing cancer therapy and well before he joined the team as I suspected from the abstracts. After all if Hamilton had known Armstrong doped and was into organised doping he would have asked him in Spain where the Po was, not if he had any. 

And judging from the other "I need it for a friend" story that he forgot, Hamilton must have been well into it in 1996, not as a result of being corrupted by the team in 1997. My advice to people who are going to be cross examined in Court is to always stick to the truth no matter how uncomfortable or inconvenient it is because the truth is internally self consistent while made up stories almost never are. It only requires one loose end to be left hanging in a made up story and suddently the whole thing starts unravelling at an alarming rate.


----------



## Red Light (11 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ...any sign of the evidence yet ?



I hadn't spotted this story before - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19413613 - and wonder if that is partly behind the hold up by making USADA ultra careful about what they release.


----------



## smutchin (11 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> So the indications are that the team and Hamilton were already well into doping while Lance was undergoing cancer therapy and well before he joined the team as I suspected from the abstracts.



There are also strong indications that Lance was already well into doping while he was at Motorola, pre-cancer.

Hamilton may or may not be telling the whole truth about when and how he got into doping himself, but that has no direct bearing on the evidence relating to Lance's doping - unless your thinking is along the lines of "some of it is lies, therefore all of it must be lies".

d.


----------



## asterix (11 Sep 2012)

Hamilton admits his misdeeds and says that LA is currently doing what he himself did and lying about cycling 'clean'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9750759.stm

For Armstrong to suggest that 10 of his former team-mates have been corrupted into agreeing to testify against him beggars belief IMO. The guy is simply not worth defending since he won't defend himself and I speak as someone who respected him and believed that he did not dope. Unfortunately my illusion is shattered. If Armstrong does care about cycling he should defend his corner or admit he doped.


----------



## Noodley (11 Sep 2012)

There is unlikely to be much by way of anything worth reading here due to the inactivity of the mods in dealing with the trolls, who have won out as the main contributors with anything sensible to say have vacated the room.


----------



## Red Light (12 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> There are also strong indications that Lance was already well into doping while he was at Motorola, pre-cancer.
> 
> Hamilton may or may not be telling the whole truth about when and how he got into doping himself, but that has no direct bearing on the evidence relating to Lance's doping - unless your thinking is along the lines of "some of it is lies, therefore all of it must be lies".
> 
> d.



Armstrong may well have been but there would need to be evidence of that beyond that of the Andreus claims from way back.

On Hamilton the guy has made a big thing about how this is the truth that is now setting him free. If you then find that parts of it are not the truth, especially about how and when he got involved in doping then you have to question which parts of the rest of the book are the truth and which are also being spun for appearances. Doesn't say its all lies, just you have to be very careful about what you take as being true. If you've ever sat through Court cross examinations you will usually find if the witness has been shown to be lying about one part of their testimony, then the whole of their testimony is called into question.


----------



## Red Light (12 Sep 2012)

asterix said:


> Hamilton admits his misdeeds and says that LA is currently doing what he himself did and lying about cycling 'clean'.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/9750759.stm
> 
> For Armstrong to suggest that 10 of his former team-mates have been corrupted into agreeing to testify against him beggars belief IMO. The guy is simply not worth defending since he won't defend himself and I speak as someone who respected him and believed that he did not dope. Unfortunately my illusion is shattered. If Armstrong does care about cycling he should defend his corner or admit he doped.



Do we know who those "10 former team mates" are yet? It depends very much who they are and under what conditions they gave their testimony and whether five of them are Hamilton, Landis, Andreu, Anderson and O'Reilly. USADA have already gone public with "tell us the what we want to hear and we'll give you a much lighter penalty" with Armstrong and if the testimony was given under those conditions it would IMO be questionable. No honour among thieves and all that.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Who is it 'usually dismissed' by? It's unpopular with the UCI hierarchy for obvious reasons, but WADA has called for exactly this honest assessment and you will find that almost everyone here supports it.


That would refer to individuals on the locked threads, and I don't think that would be appropriate here.


----------



## fossyant (12 Sep 2012)

Behave - you are entitled to your own opinions but don't drag the thread down again folks - not 'improved much'.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

It's like supervising a bunch of 25 or more 5-6 year old boys !


----------



## smutchin (12 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Do we know who those "10 former team mates" are yet? It depends very much who they are and under what conditions they gave their testimony and whether five of them are Hamilton, Landis, Andreu, Anderson and O'Reilly.


 
After reading Tyler's book, the one I'd be _really_ interested to hear from is Kevin Livingston.

d.


----------



## smutchin (12 Sep 2012)

Is Tyler telling the truth?

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderr...e-tyler-hamilton-and-lance-armstrongs-legacy/


----------



## Red Light (12 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Is Tyler telling the truth?
> 
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderr...e-tyler-hamilton-and-lance-armstrongs-legacy/


 
I did wonder why nobody has any photos of this happening to share. If he's got a photo of the drinks can and it was contemporaneous then how come he hasn't got photos of anything else that was going on? People take photos all the time even in the days before smart phones.

And the fact that he can describe and get to a room he went to just says he remembers a room they went to not that what he saw in there was not an added fabrication. I could tell you about a hotel room I've previously stayed in and tell you all about how I saw David Beckham there making out with the Queen. The fact I could lead you to the room and it exactly matches the description I gave of it doesn't make the rest of the story true (its not AFAIK for the avoidance of doubt !)

The problem I have with Coyle though is he previously lived and travelled with Armstrong and the team for 2004 to write his eulogy, Lance Armstrong; Tour de Force and he didn't notice anything at all untoward in all that time living with them as a fly on the wall journalist? Did he not notice that they were doping or that suddenly they all became unavailable to him (while they doped with him not there) ? And then he added about 20 extra pages to the original 315 pages, gave it a new title, Lance Armstrong's War, and misleadingly (IMO) sold the same book all over again much to the upset of a number of purchasers. So not averse to trying to make a buck or two out of a story.


----------



## smutchin (12 Sep 2012)

Coyle is no Hamilton apologist. I'd suggest reading the book before making further comment on its content.


----------



## Red Light (12 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Coyle is no Hamilton apologist. I'd suggest reading the book before making further comment on its content.



I don't think I said he was. I was just questioning his claims in the interview you linked too. But yes I will read the book as soon as it's out in a digital version.


----------



## lukesdad (12 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> After reading Tyler's book, the one I'd be _really_ interested to hear from is Kevin Livingston.
> 
> d.


Really ? When that was suggested months ago only Yello saw the significance.


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> After reading Tyler's book, the one I'd be _really_ interested to hear from is Kevin Livingston.
> 
> d.


 
I bought a signed copy of his first autobiography when I walked past a signing on Charing Cross Road in '84.

It was an OK read, but those were the early days. After that, I just thought he was way too bitter about the abolition of the GLC. 

I didn't even know he rode a bike!


----------



## smutchin (12 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Really ? When that was suggested months ago only Yello saw the significance.


 
If Livingston's name was mentioned previously, it may well have passed me by. I'm sure lots of other interesting detail has also passed me by due to the fast pace and low signal:noise ratio of the other thread.

d.


----------



## Norm (12 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> There is unlikely to be much by way of anything worth reading here due to the inactivity of the mods in dealing with the trolls, who have won out as the main contributors with anything sensible to say have vacated the room.


I thought that Shaun's post on this subject was fairly clear.


----------



## rich p (12 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> I thought that Shaun's post on this subject was fairly clear.


 Norm, it may well be clear but unfortunately most of the more knowledgeable and thoughtful posters have vacated this thread or put the eejits on 'ignore'.
I understand that it's not easy for you and the mods but the end result is that reasonable debate has gone thataway.


----------



## Noodley (12 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> I thought that Shaun's post on this subject was fairly clear.


 
Just passing comment Norm, whatever the intention the fact is that the majority of the regular and informed Racing posters will not be seen here. I know of a few who have contacted me stating their intention to not bother coming back to CC - their choice, but not a favourable one to make, as they actually brought something to the racing forum. But I'l shut up.


----------



## tigger (12 Sep 2012)

It's probably run its course for now, a kind of limbo period until the UCI make a move? I wonder if they will play the long game and quietly back the USADA once the dust has settled?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19527032


----------



## Norm (12 Sep 2012)

Whilst the levels of frustration on both 'sides' are obvious to the impartial reader, the problem is that the accusation of troll could be equally levelled by both sides but that wouldn't make it correct. As said previously, two sides have strong opinions and little beyond gossip, hearsay and titbits of varying levels of relevance to support those opinions.

The parallels to religious debates are striking.


----------



## rich p (12 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Whilst the levels of frustration on both 'sides' are obvious to the impartial reader, the problem is that the accusation of troll could be equally levelled by both sides but that wouldn't make it correct. As said previously, two sides have strong opinions and little beyond gossip, hearsay and titbits of varying levels of relevance to support those opinions.
> 
> The parallels to religious debates are striking.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2012)

USADA released any evidence or direct testimony to anyone else yet? Or are we still in speculation mode?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Norm, it may well be clear but unfortunately most of the more knowledgeable and thoughtful posters have vacated this thread or put the eejits on 'ignore'.
> I understand that it's not easy for you and the mods but the end result is that reasonable debate has gone thataway.


What is there to debate, reasonably or otherwise? No new evidence or testimony, just loads of rumour and speculation, press articles and the odd book.


----------



## rich p (12 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> What is there to debate, reasonably or otherwise? No new evidence or testimony, just loads of rumour and speculation, press articles and the odd book.


 Yeah, okay.


----------



## lukesdad (12 Sep 2012)

tigger said:


> It's probably run its course for now, a kind of limbo period until the UCI make a move? I wonder if they will play the long game and quietly back the USADA once the dust has settled?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19527032


 Aren't the UCI still waiting for something from USADA ?


----------



## tigger (12 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Aren't the UCI still waiting for something from USADA ?



Oh yeah! At least we think they are. It's a waiting game either way!


----------



## smutchin (12 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Aren't the UCI still waiting for something from USADA ?



Yes - a massive kick in the teeth. 

d.


----------



## lukesdad (12 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Yes - a massive kick in the teeth.
> 
> d.


 I do hope so.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Sep 2012)

This is the very reason why we need an independent investigation here.

The USADA is in some ways discredited by it's breaches of its own rules and the UCI is accused of hiding results, and corruption.

Neither is really suitable to take this forward beyond the Armstrong investigation.

Worst case scenario is we end up with bickering and infighting that not only clouds, but even overtakes the issue of doping in this period.


----------



## lukesdad (13 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Just passing comment Norm, whatever the intention the fact is that the majority of the regular and informed Racing posters will not be seen here. I know of a few who have contacted me stating their intention to not bother coming back to CC - their choice, but not a favourable one to make, as they actually brought something to the racing forum. But I'l shut up.


 
Ooh a Masonic flounce ?


----------



## lukesdad (13 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> This is the very reason why we need an independent investigation here.
> 
> The USADA is in some ways discredited by it's breaches of its own rules and the UCI is accused of hiding results, and corruption.
> 
> ...


----------



## mickle (13 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> This is the very reason why we need an independent investigation here.
> 
> The USADA is in some ways discredited by it's breaches of its own rules and the UCI is accused of hiding results, and corruption.
> 
> ...


 
The truth, as they say, will out.

But in the meantime please feel free to flog your own particular - if not entirely yet but certainly comatose - dead horse. But not here, because the rules of engagement of this thread includes 'no repetition'.


----------



## albion (13 Sep 2012)

Probably like much of the general population I have now learnt to stay away from the Armstrong threads.

However I got to listen to World Service hard talk with Tyler Hamilton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00xqj1l/Hardtalk_Tyler_Hamilton_Former_professional_cyclist/

"You need to read it in the book"


----------



## Norm (13 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Yeah, okay.


Have a little real think about it, Rich, and I reckon you'll have a sudden eureka moment and understand how, if that had been posted by certain others, you would have no trouble seeing it as being derogatory, inflammatory, extraneous, adding nothing of consequence, promoting response in kind... in other words, it is the perfect example of the way a troll would post.

For showing such a perfect example of Shaun's point, you have my thanks. But those thanks would be multiplied a thousand times if you, and others, did take that little time out to reflect before being so quick to see it in others.


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2012)

Eh? Nothing like trolling. It was a shrug of the shoulders response to Greg's suggestion that there is nothing to discuss.
Clearly there is, as the numerous posts testify. The point I, and Noodley, are making is that the most interesting and well-read posters have felt the need to vacate the thread.
To be honest, I don't want to debate these semantics with you Norm as I've accepted that the debate has been stifled and has nowhere to go on here at the moment.


----------



## Norm (13 Sep 2012)

A missed opportunity.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> A missed opportunity.


 
It is unfortunately, the result of Scoosh killing the existing thread that had lots of knowledgeable stuff in it, even with the more pointless bits, and now all we have is a shadow of a discussion - which even I don't feel like getting involved in.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Sep 2012)

Except to add this: WADA talking sense compared to the UCI...


----------



## Crackle (13 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Except to add this: WADA talking sense compared to the UCI...


 
_"They, along with USADA, have been labelled as witch hunters by a minority"_

Gosh, really. Not seen any of that here.


----------



## Buddfox (13 Sep 2012)

Howman added: “... There’s a situation at the moment where a lot of words have been spoken in a scenario where we’ve got to shut up and wait for the reasoned decision from USADA. We’ll do that because we’ve got to show the world that we’ve looked at it carefully. We don’t want to start saying what we think or feel in the media. It’s just not right."

Was he talking about these threads...?


----------



## Buddfox (13 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2038052, member: 45"]So, to those of us who have enjoyed learning from reading the words of those who know more, where are we now? Can anyone give a succinct summary of the next steps?[/quote]

I don't think much has changed in the last several days, mostly the Hamilton book, Talansky's interview and a sense that the 'omerta' is starting to shake. For me at least it's still all eyes on USADA and their next move


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I don't think much has changed in the last several days, mostly the Hamilton book, Talansky's interview and a sense that the 'omerta' is starting to shake. For me at least it's still all eyes on USADA and their next move


 
I think that's fair enough.


----------



## rich p (13 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Howman added: “... There’s a situation at the moment where a lot of words have been spoken in a scenario where we’ve got to shut up and wait for the reasoned decision from USADA. We’ll do that because we’ve got to show the world that we’ve looked at it carefully. We don’t want to start saying what we think or feel in the media. It’s just not right."
> 
> Was he talking about these threads...?


 A dig at McQuaid.


----------



## Buddfox (13 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> A dig at McQuaid.


 
Indeed...


----------



## Red Light (13 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Whilst the levels of frustration on both 'sides' are obvious to the impartial reader, the problem is that the accusation of troll could be equally levelled by both sides but that wouldn't make it correct. As said previously, two sides have strong opinions and little beyond gossip, hearsay and titbits of varying levels of relevance to support those opinions.
> 
> The parallels to religious debates are striking.


 
Can we not move Armstrong threads alongside helmet threads for the same reason? I'm not sure why one thread has driven members out of the forum and out of CC but perhaps putting it in a place for controversial subjects would help.

It deals with another aspect raised by Noodley which is a perception that their forum has been invaded by people with no interest in Pro Cycling. Just to say that you can read CC in Forum Mode where you would go to the ProCycling forum to read what there is on the subject or you can read it in latest posts mode, as I do, where you see a list of the latest posts from across all forums. I did not go to the ProCycling forum as some seem to think to disrupt it. I saw a thread title in the list of latest posts that interested me and posted a reply. I really don't notice which forum in CC any of the posts I make go to. But perhaps if Armstrong were taken out of ProCycling the regular forum posters might at least feel their forum was almost back to how it was.

Just my £0.02


----------



## Red Light (13 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> The truth, as they say, will out.
> 
> But in the meantime please feel free to flog your own particular - if not entirely yet but certainly comatose - dead horse. But not here, because the rules of engagement of this thread includes 'no *hesitation**, deviation** or* repetition '.


 
FTFY


----------



## Rob88 (14 Sep 2012)

Amongst all the passion and shoot from the hip stuff going on around here with the "regulars" fighting their corner to preserve their rights to ownership of the dominant value system governing this small part of the space time continuem, something very important has just happened as Albion, above pointed out, the whole drama has been encapsulated in a nutshell - It is a stunning piece of radio. He gives the web link above.
The whole Armstrong thing is desperately sad and the questioner certainly does not pull his punches. According to current thinking, (well Radio 4 last week anyhow) polygraphs can be manipulated, facial movement and body language disguised but the voice will always betray. People invariably pick up when someone lies on the phone because all the senses focus.


----------



## Noodley (14 Sep 2012)

Rob88 said:


> The whole Armstrong thing is desperately sad.


 
Nope, I am laughing quite loudly.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Nope, I am laughing quite loudly.


 
Given that the evidence is showing widespread doping throughout the professional Peleton at this period of time, I for one fail to find anything funny.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Yeah, okay.


Besides. We all know think believe are sure are certain hope he's guilty as sin.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Eh? *Nothing like trolling. It was a shrug of the shoulders response to Greg's suggestion that there is nothing to discuss.*
> Clearly there is, as the numerous posts testify. The point I, and Noodley, are making is that the most interesting and well-read posters have felt the need to vacate the thread.
> To be honest, I don't want to debate these semantics with you Norm as I've accepted that the debate has been stifled and has nowhere to go on here at the moment.


That's how I took it btw. 

I guess I have a teeny advantage in this. I've met Rich P, I've ridden with him, I hold him high regard as a man of maturity, knowledge and experience (and a lovely wife who is btw WAY out of his league), and all round decent cycling bloke. I know he, like many others in here, hold my simplistic 'oh sod it, just let 'em all dope, suicide isn't illegal' opinions in contempt, which he is completely entitled to do, and I see no reason to fall out with anyone over any of this.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Besides. We all know think believe are sure are certain hope he's guilty as sin.


 Careful Greg, I got labelled a troll for using that smiley
That encapsulates it though - some know, some dither, some deny and some hope.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

Cross-posted. Thanks Greg - PM the mods would you?
No don't!!

Punching above my weight!!!! Cheeky sod.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Careful Greg, I got labelled a troll for using that smiley
> That encapsulates it though - some know, some dither, some deny and some hope.


I know it. I just hope they can prove it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

2039347 said:


> *We can be reasonably sure that he is dishonest*. Read the bit in "It's not about the bike" where he describes how awful it was to have to produce the semen for freezing without thinking "yeah right".


Something he shares in common with the whole of humanity surely? Anyone feel free to cast the first stone if they like.....

It's more about the scale of his dishonesty, and the dishonesty of others who should be judged by higher standards.

I expect sports people to cheat. It's what they do. I don't expect sports governing bodies to cheat too.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I know it. I just hope they can prove it.


 That's what makes the whole legalese bleating on here so pointless. As if those of who 'know' he's guilty don't care about due process etc.
We are the last people who would want to see him wriggle off on a technicality.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

2039361 said:


> But that bit was a colossal lie and one which may have damaged the psyches of a legion of young fanboys. Oh hang about, now I understand it all.


On reflection I was way more upset when I realised/learned that some of my minor heroes (Millar, Virenque, Pantani) were dirty than I was when it dawned on me that LA probably was too.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

2039347 said:


> We can be reasonably sure that he is dishonest. Read the bit in "It's not about the bike" where he describes how awful it was to have to produce the semen for freezing without thinking "yeah right".


 I was suppose if it might prove to be the last toss (ahem) of the dice, it might not be such an uplifting moment as we you experience in the shower?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> That's what makes the whole legalese bleating on here so pointless. As if *those of who 'know' he's guilty* don't* care about due process* etc.
> We are the last people who would want to see him wriggle off on a technicality.


I don't think that (in bold) has always been articulated so clearly. Or frequently enough.

I don't want ANYONE involved, not a single colluding mo-fo, from the top of ASO & UCI to the bottom of this whole sad sorry mess, to walk away scot-free, and I'm genuinely worried that LA will get what his cheating doping carcass undoubtedly deserves and everyone else will continue as before, as the cash rolls in.


----------



## Crackle (14 Sep 2012)

Well Martin is having trouble giving away his Lance Armstrong book 

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/book-raffle-every-second-counts-by-la.111056/


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> Well Martin is having trouble giving away his Lance Armstrong book
> 
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/book-raffle-every-second-counts-by-la.111056/


 That was a crap read even when I was a believer!


----------



## MacB (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I don't think that (in bold) has always been articulated so clearly. Or frequently enough.
> 
> I don't want ANYONE involved, not a single colluding mo-fo, from the top of ASO & UCI to the bottom of this whole sad sorry mess, to walk away scot-free, and I'm genuinely worried that LA will get what his cheating doping carcass undoubtedly deserves and everyone else will continue as before, as the cash rolls in.


 
Now that is a serious concern, LA as the only big bad wolf and maybe even getting significantly more than his share of the blame.

Problem is Greg, as you know too well, none of them will really suffer. Oh we'll hear lots about loss of reputation and the trauma that causes them and their families. But it won't really hit them in the wallets and that's about as close to a shot through the heart as you'll get with a lot of these types. We'll see public apologies...probably plenty of tears, at least on the US side and plenty of 'how much the fans mean to me/us' type statements.

The dirty money will stay where it always does and far more of it than should be possible will be cloaked in a veil of legitimacy. A lot of the same money wil lbe involved in keeping the circus going and earning even more.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

Indeed, Mac, which is why the UCI needs to be cleansed in this process but somehow it's difficult to see Fat Pat falling on his sword unless there's clear and unequivocal proof. If he and Verbruggen aren't forced out then the cleaner peloton will have to be team and rider led and Greg doesn't trust those bastards! see above!


----------



## Crackle (14 Sep 2012)

The UCI also needs the money now no-one is 'sponsoring' their drug testing program, hence them trying to promote their own tour. Of course promoting and policing their own tour has no conflict of interest, well it might not if done well but this is the UCI we're talking about.


----------



## theclaud (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> That's how I took it btw.
> 
> I guess I have a teeny advantage in this. I've met Rich P, I've ridden with him, I hold him high regard *as a man of maturity, knowledge and experience* (and a lovely wife who is btw WAY out of his league), and all round decent cycling bloke. I know he, like many others in here, hold my simplistic 'oh sod it, just let 'em all dope, suicide isn't illegal' opinions in contempt, which he is completely entitled to do, and I see no reason to fall out with anyone over any of this.


 
Not just a ridiculous old lush, then?


----------



## Shaun (14 Sep 2012)

I'm not a racing fan by any stretch of the imagination, but on a technical point regarding doping in general in sport, how quickly do the test results come back - would it be possible to dope-test _before_ the start of a race as well as after? or is it too complex/timely a process (which is why it's only done after)?

Equally can Pro cyclists be grown on a normal diet, water and good training alone? Do they need supplements in order to be competitve?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> Now that is a serious concern, LA as the only big bad wolf and maybe even getting significantly more than his share of the blame.
> 
> Problem is Greg, as you know too well, *none of them will really suffer*. Oh we'll hear lots about loss of reputation and the trauma that causes them and their families. But it won't really hit them in the wallets and that's about as close to a shot through the heart as you'll get with a lot of these types. We'll see public apologies...probably plenty of tears, at least on the US side and plenty of 'how much the fans mean to me/us' type statements.
> 
> The dirty money will stay where it always does and far more of it than should be possible will be cloaked in a veil of legitimacy. A lot of the same money wil lbe involved in keeping the circus going and earning even more.


 
I don't want anyone to suffer, as such. I want the cheating arses, especially of the suit wearers, thrown out of professional sport. Forever. See Shoeless Joe Jackson et al.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

theclaud said:


> Not just a ridiculous old lush, then?


I see no contradiction here.


----------



## Norm (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Careful Greg, I got labelled a troll for using that smiley


Thus showing you have not only completely missed the point which Shaun and I were trying to make, and also showing how sensitive some can become when the word 'troll' is used.

For the record, you were not labelled a troll. One post was used as an example of how the word troll should be used with care and your response, above continues that tradition.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Thus showing you have not only completely missed the point which Shaun and I were trying to make, and also showing how sensitive some can become when the word 'troll' is used.
> 
> For the record, you were not labelled a troll. One post was used as an example of how the word troll should be used with care and your response, above continues that tradition.


 Give it a rest Norm, please.


----------



## MacB (14 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I don't want anyone to suffer, as such. I want the cheating arses, especially, of the suit wearers thrown out of professional sport. Forever. See Shoeless Joe Jackson et al.


 
no it was a poor choice of words on my part, what I was trying to convey wasn't a desire for vengeance but rather a level of redress that actually acts as a future deterrent. I'm also not seeing this just for cycling, or even pro sport, but in the wider context. I'm tired of seeing frauds and cheats, whether contrite or defiant, walking away with so much of the proceeds of their deceit intact. Plus, as you say, being able to continue to be influential in the very industry they perpetrated their deceit.

To me this sends a multi tiered message which starts with don't get caught and moves on to if you do get caught make it big enough to have been worthwhile.

To illustrate, in the context of LA, I think he should be fined the entirety of his earnings, in every area, from the point at which he first cheated. But I'd expand that to every person involved above a certain level across the teams and governing bodies.


----------



## Norm (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Give it a rest Norm, please.


Do you mean 'Give it a rest as long as you don't interrupt our complaining' or 'Give it a rest and let me have the last word', as my post was a direct response to yours.


----------



## PaulB (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Indeed, Mac, which is why the UCI needs to be cleansed in this process but somehow it's difficult to see Fat Pat falling on his sword unless there's clear and unequivocal proof. If he and Verbruggen aren't forced out then the cleaner peloton will have to be team and rider led and Greg doesn't trust those bastards! see above!


Says a man who has run a Bob Graham! 


That's nowt to do with this thread or those comments, I just think, nay BELIEVE, that more people should be aware that Mr. P did a Bob Graham round! A BOB GRAHAM ROUND!!!! If you don't know what one of these is or think it may be slightly less than a super-human achievement, then I strongly suggest you look up what it entails because believe me, this is the stuff of true legends.


----------



## rich p (14 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Do you mean 'Give it a rest as long as you don't interrupt our complaining' or 'Give it a rest and let me have the last word', as my post was a direct response to yours.


I have no idea what you're on about. You seem to have a bit of a personal antagonism towards me though. As I said earlier I respect the Mods and their difficult job and I have no desire to get into semantics with you.
I'd rather discuss the topic not the discussion but you seem to be intent on derailing it at the moment.


----------



## Red Light (14 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Indeed, Mac, which is why the UCI needs to be cleansed in this process but somehow it's difficult to see Fat Pat falling on his sword unless there's clear and unequivocal proof. If he and Verbruggen aren't forced out then the cleaner peloton will have to be team and rider led and Greg doesn't trust those bastards! see above!



It's should be very easy to prove one way or the other whether UCI colluded in suppressing a positive EPO test. We know the year and race and athlete and someone just needs to go and audit the Swiss lab. The Swiss are nothing if not meticulous in record keeping. At the moment all we have is hearsay and denial. Why doesn't somebody go and get the evidence?


----------



## Red Light (14 Sep 2012)

2039347 said:


> We can be reasonably sure that he is dishonest. Read the bit in "It's not about the bike" where he describes how awful it was to have to produce the semen for freezing without thinking "yeah right".



I can think of a lot of less awful ways but they won't work for that purpose  I can see it being a pretty awful experience not for the process but for everything that goes with it in the circumstances. This is it and you are off for major surgery that will leave you sterile and may leave you impotent and you may not have long to live either.


----------



## Red Light (14 Sep 2012)

2039934 said:


> All true, but that wasn't what was wrote.


 
Its a long time since I read his book and I don't carry it around with me physically or in my memory. So I will take your word about what was writ.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> To illustrate, in the context of LA, I think he should be fined the entirety of his earnings, in every area, from the point at which he first cheated. But I'd expand that to every person involved above a certain level across the teams and governing bodies.


 
This, plus interest. As a minimum. And that doesn't even go half way; you can't confiscate the doors that were opened, the experiences that were gained, the favours that were given, etc., etc.. to every lying, conniving, cheating man jack of 'em.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Sep 2012)

Why don't the UCI just declare an amnesty for years up to say 2007 on the basis thay everyone was on some happy pill or wonder drug and that they, other senior figures and other bodies in cycling connived and colluded with this and they UCI now want to draw a line under it. Period. No wins would be erased, no cyclists banned etc nor monies recovered just the knowledge that these were the "dark years". However Bertie still felt he needed to take some clenbuterol so doping is never going to go away. Perhaps there should be a C sample taken as well as A and B which would be held in perpetuity. Testing needs to be massively tightened up. They should have more holes in them than a sieve.

Just my 2p worth.


----------



## rich p (15 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Why don't the UCI just declare an amnesty for years up to say 2007 on the basis thay everyone was on some happy pill or wonder drug and that they, other senior figures and other bodies in cycling connived and colluded with this and they UCI now want to draw a line under it. Period. No wins would be erased, no cyclists banned etc nor monies recovered just the knowledge that these were the "dark years". However Bertie still felt he needed to take some clenbuterol so doping is never going to go away. Perhaps there should be a C sample taken as well as A and B which would be held in perpetuity. Testing needs to be massively tightened up. They should have more holes in them than a sieve.
> 
> Just my 2p worth.


 Reading the other day that they now have a test for HGH, and 2 Paralympians were caught by it, I wondered whether there would be any retrospective testing of stored samples.


----------



## Cycleops (15 Sep 2012)

Why don't they stage a 'drugs enhanced' tour, that way we can see whose drugs are the most effective!


----------



## Noodley (15 Sep 2012)

Cycleops said:


> Why don't they stage a 'drugs enhanced' tour, that way we can see whose drugs are the most effective!


 

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGI8YNa5f-M


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2012)

2041249 said:


> Which part of riders damaging their long term health doesn't bother you?


I did think you were a fan of nannying. Many sports damage the long-term health prospects of the participants to a greater or lesser degree, often via actions which are intrinsic to the enjoyment of the sport by participants and spectator alike. Yet society is happy for these sports to continue.

Morally what is the difference between someone, I dunno, getting brain damage from being repeatedly punched in the head in a boxing ring versus getting an equivalent injury from doping on a bike?


----------



## david k (16 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I did think you were a fan of nannying. Many sports damage the long-term health prospects of the participants to a greater or lesser degree, often via actions which are intrinsic to the enjoyment of the sport by participants and spectator alike. Yet society is happy for these sports to continue.
> 
> Morally what is the difference between someone, I dunno, getting brain damage from being repeatedly punched in the head in a boxing ring versus getting an equivalent injury from doping on a bike?


you can cycle and avoid doping, its part of the challenge of boxing


----------



## mickle (16 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I did think you were a fan of nannying. Many sports damage the long-term health prospects of the participants to a greater or lesser degree, often via actions which are intrinsic to the enjoyment of the sport by participants and spectator alike. Yet society is happy for these sports to continue.
> 
> Morally what is the difference between someone, I dunno, getting brain damage from being repeatedly punched in the head in a boxing ring versus getting an equivalent injury from doping on a bike?



Genius.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2012)

2042585 said:


> We need to consider the relative qualities of the freedom of choice here.


No. It is far easier to simple dismiss points of view other than our own with gems like


mickle said:


> Genius.


which, of course, carries the day.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Sep 2012)

Can we have the word "Improved" removed from the thread title?


----------



## mickle (16 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> No. It is far easier to simple dismiss points of view other than our own with gems like
> 
> which, of course, carries the day.



If it really was your point of view you might have a point.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> If it really was your point of view you might have a point.


 
I have a point, all of my very own, but I can't help it if the narrow-minded can't see it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2012)

david k said:


> you can cycle and avoid doping, its part of the challenge of boxing


actually, it doesn't have to be, amateur boxers rarely if ever get brain damage and neither do bare knuckle fighters.. It's all about how a sport is designed by the folk that regulate/govern it, and no one is compelled to take part, it's all done on the basis of a presumption of informed consent.


----------



## david k (16 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> actually, it doesn't have to be, amateur boxers rarely if ever get brain damage and neither do bare knuckle fighters.. It's all about how a sport is designed by the folk that regulate/govern it, and no one is compelled to take part, it's all done on the basis of a presumption of informed consent.


still different to doping


----------



## mickle (16 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I have a point, all of my very own, but I can't help it if the narrow-minded can't see it.


No need to be rude.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> No need to be rude.


Now mickle, that is a pot talking to a kettle.


----------



## Scoosh (16 Sep 2012)

<Mod hat on again> - it's getting a bit too familiar ...

Careful now - and keep it on topic, please.

If you two (Greg and Mickle ) wish to carry on a running thread, please do it by PM.


----------



## rich p (16 Sep 2012)

To be honest Greg, if you want to discuss your perfectly valid and possibly even defensible ( maybe ) point of view it might be best starting another thread on it.


----------



## just jim (16 Sep 2012)

Lance has made a recent appearance in public. Notice that the sound cuts out just as he says the words "seven times". Have the media, like USADA, conspired to stifle Lance and his achievements?

Naw.


View: http://youtu.be/539qgaopynE


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> actually, it doesn't have to be, amateur boxers rarely if ever get brain damage and neither do bare knuckle fighters.. It's all about how a sport is designed by the folk that regulate/govern it, and no one is compelled to take part, it's all done on the basis of a presumption of informed consent.


 
My department did some research into the cerebral blood perfusion in the brain and showed that even amateur boxers after a feew fights have areas of the brain that have a damaged blood supply.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Can we have the word "Improved" removed from the thread title?


 
Would the "The new _*enhanced*_ Lance Armstrong discussion thread" be better?


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Would the "The new _*enhanced*_ Lance Armstrong discussion thread" be better?


I think "The *same tired old *Lance Armstrong discussion thread" would be more accurate.


----------



## mickle (16 Sep 2012)

Scoosh said:


> <Mod hat on again - it's getting a bit too familiar ...]
> 
> Careful now - and keep it on topic, please.
> 
> If you two (Greg and Mickle ) wish to carry on a running thread, please do it by PM.



Ex cuse me?! This is a thread about Lance Armstrong which i started with the plea for a bit of sanity. Gregs suggestion that the damage caused by doping in cycling is in any way comparible to, or acceptable because ,boxers routinely suffer head trauma is as irrelevent to this conversation as it is fatuous. Its typical of the incessant tedious trolling which has driven away the people who wanted to have a decent discussion on this subject. The most significant event thats ever occurred in pro cycling. Srsly.


----------



## Noodley (16 Sep 2012)

Exactly.
If you truly want to "mod" the thread, then hand out a few bans. And make sure it's the de-railers who get banned and not people with genuine interest in the topic.


----------



## Scoosh (16 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Ex cuse me?! This is a thread about Lance Armstrong which i started with the plea for a bit of sanity. Gregs suggestion that the damage caused by doping in cycling is in any way comparible to, or acceptable because ,boxers routinely suffer head trauma is as irrelevent to this conversation as it is fatuous. Its typical of the incessant tedious trolling which has driven away the people who wanted to have a decent discussion on this subject. The most significant event thats ever occurred in pro cycling. Srsly.


The best way to treat posts which you consider to be 'irrelevant ... fatuous' is to ignore them. Don't respond to them. Let them hang there, unheeded and unloved. Srsly. 

I am not making any comment nor observation about whether the posts were 'irrelevant .... fatuous' - just making a suggestion on how to continue the thread in the manner in which you and others wish it so to do.

I am attempting to be neutral here, as I always try so to be. I'm not perfect (but you know that already ) but I do want to keep things going along in discussion mode, rather than have them heading to bickering mode. 

Please try to understand and assist.

Thanks.


----------



## rich p (17 Sep 2012)

It gets worse - this is ourageous from the head of the UCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.atwistedspoke.com/ucis-mcquaid-loses-usada-testimoney-in-irish-pub/


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> To be honest Greg, if you want to discuss your perfectly valid and possibly even defensible ( maybe ) point of view it might be best starting another thread on it.


No point. FM has, elsewhere, already decreed the case against it to be completely unarguable. 

Like you I'm rather tired of the accusations of trolling, and the implication that I'm presenting views that I don't actually hold simply for the sake of argument. Folk here can't seem to understand the difference between 21stC professional sport and their 19thC Corinthian sporting ideals, nor can they understand analogy, engage in discussion on moral equivalence, or debate by means other than one word snipes and demands that folk be banned. This is what 'hard-core' expert and informed pro-cycling fans are like these days is it? Jebus.

Meanwhile racers still dope, employ banned doctors, and do everything they can to stay one step ahead of the testers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> My department did some research into the cerebral blood perfusion in the brain and showed that even amateur boxers after a feew fights have areas of the brain that have a damaged blood supply.


I shall have a read of that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> It gets worse - this is ourageous from the head of the UCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> http://www.atwistedspoke.com/ucis-mcquaid-loses-usada-testimoney-in-irish-pub/


I dunno. I've lost a few things in the Stag's Head over the years.

I'd be fairly sure USADA have a photocopier and a secure email system.


----------



## Crackle (17 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> It gets worse - this is ourageous from the head of the UCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> http://www.atwistedspoke.com/ucis-mcquaid-loses-usada-testimoney-in-irish-pub/


 

Pfffffttt!

Now if I was a conspiracy theorist.....

Still, we should get to see the evidence now or careful snippets of it.


----------



## Red Light (17 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> It gets worse - this is ourageous from the head of the UCI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> http://www.atwistedspoke.com/ucis-mcquaid-loses-usada-testimoney-in-irish-pub/


 
A mistake or a deliberate way of getting the documents into the public domain without officially releasing them? Let the media argue your case for you rather than have a UCI/USADA battle over it? It seems odd that someone would steal a pack of documents in a plain envelope or that a plain envelope would be anywhere than in a briefcase - and it certainly doesn't say that that or other documents were stolen.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Sep 2012)

You do all realise that article is satirical, don't you?

(i.e. it's not actually true).


----------



## rich p (17 Sep 2012)

Holy Jesus, Mary mother of God, as my Mum used to say


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Holy Jesus, Mary mother of God, as my Mum used to say


 
I know...


----------



## rich p (17 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I know...


 I suppose it just goes to illustrate what people think of Fat Pat that they'd swallow this one!


----------



## Scoosh (17 Sep 2012)

You can't wriggle out of it that easily !


----------



## Crackle (17 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You do all realise that article is satirical, don't you?
> 
> (i.e. it's not actually true).


 
It read like a story but it didn't click until later. Shame really. He'd gone up in my estimation.


----------



## User169 (17 Sep 2012)

There will be no announcements from the UCI until after the pubs have shut.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Sep 2012)

One could point out that alcohol is on the banned list, so the alleged performance of Danny Boy would have been illegally enhanced


----------



## johnr (17 Sep 2012)

On a lighter note, did anyone else pick up the sarky aside in the commentary on the last stage of the ToB?
Discussing Kristian House's sun tan and his annual wintering in Austin, Texas, one of them noted, 'I suppose that makes him the most successful cyclist in Austin'.

I liked it.


----------



## rich p (18 Sep 2012)

Yes, I heard that and chuckled. The Irish guy was a breath of fresh air after Uncle Hugh.


----------



## smutchin (18 Sep 2012)

Good stuff, this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-michael-ashenden-on-omerta-101


----------



## johnr (18 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Yes, I heard that and chuckled. The Irish guy was a breath of fresh air after Uncle Hugh.


 Agree. One of the questions ITV4 is going to have to address over the winter is how they address/report cycling in the post-Pharmstrong era. Liggett's a disgrace, his and Sherwen's double act was well past its sell-by date before his bribery allegations against USADA, hints and nods will no longer do. They have to work out a company approach to reporting which is adult.

By the by, any smoke signals coming out of the UCI-fest in Holland? Or is the hot debate still Roche's silly 'zipped up jerseys rule' and whose turn it is to sign the expenses forms.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Good stuff, this:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-michael-ashenden-on-omerta-101


 
Just read that - an excellent piece by someone who no one here can deny knows more than almost anyone else about doping in cycling.


----------



## rich p (18 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Just read that - an excellent piece by someone who no one here can deny knows more than almost anyone else about doping in cycling.


 I read it too and he's very good as per usual. He really should be working with the UCI to help clear the mess up but...

I recall reading a piece some months ago where he admitted how much he'd learnt about the mechanics of the epo/micr-dosing methods from Landis which maybe illustrates that the rider's doctors are better than the testers as Tyler H said.


----------



## raindog (20 Sep 2012)

An open letter to Pat McQuaid
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18601


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Sep 2012)

Have USADA sent the evidence to UCI by surface mail or what? An example of the establishment at its finest, at this rate the protagonists will have retired or died before the issues are resolved and the evidence is made public.


----------



## BJH (20 Sep 2012)

100 pages anyone?


----------



## david k (21 Sep 2012)

there are many things on the banned list you would be surprised at, well im referring to the banned list i was given when i signed a professional contract as a rugby player some years ago, caffeine was one that jumped out at me, also the advice to avoid day nurse!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## Buddfox (21 Sep 2012)

I think you have to drink a lot of coffee before you breach the caffeine limit, I think it's something like 8 espressos?


----------



## raindog (21 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I think you have to drink a lot of coffee before you breach the caffeine limit, I think it's something like 8 espressos?


Surely any Italian could do that with ease. Ever seen the way they slam 'em back over there?


----------



## Red Light (21 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I think you have to drink a lot of coffee before you breach the caffeine limit, I think it's something like 8 espressos?


 
Or one Turkish coffee


----------



## Red Light (21 Sep 2012)

So now Kimmage has been subpoenaed to appear in a Swiss Court and defend his claim that the UCI covered up a failed Armstrong EPO test, will we now at last see an examination of the evidence and a legal ruling on the validity of that claim? And if as he has said in the past he intends to do, and does an Armstrong and doesn't defend it despite the subpoenae, does that mean its not true?


----------



## mangaman (21 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Have USADA sent the evidence to UCI by surface mail or what? An example of the establishment at its finest, at this rate the protagonists will have retired or died before the issues are resolved and the evidence is made public.


 
They've given it to Tyler and he is cycling it to Switzerland in his panniers.

Unfortunately now he's not "enhanced" it could take him decades...


----------



## rich p (21 Sep 2012)

2051829 said:


> It means that anyone would remain free to doubt it.


 Who are you talking to Adrian?


----------



## Red Light (21 Sep 2012)

2051829 said:


> It means that anyone would remain free to doubt it.


 
A courtesy not extended here to those with doubts about the USADA decision though.

Hi Rich


----------



## Paulus (21 Sep 2012)

I have just ordered Tyler Hamilton's book, The Secret Race. I do feel a bit uneasy about buying a book by a convicted drug cheat and obviously helping to fill his coffers. But I feel the need to hear his side of the story and with the evidence seemingly stacking up against L.A i am compelled to give it a go and see what he says. Am I a bad man?


----------



## oldroadman (21 Sep 2012)

Paulus said:


> I have just ordered Tyler Hamilton's book, The Secret Race. I do feel a bit uneasy about buying a book by a convicted drug cheat and obviously helping to fill his coffers. But I feel the need to hear his side of the story and with the evidence seemingly stacking up against L.A i am compelled to give it a go and see what he says. Am I a bad man?


 
No, just interested in how many bends can a story take before it's out of sight. I find it hard to get my head around how, under duress from the legal system in the "land of the free" offering any kind of evidence, hearsay or not, gets you off the hook. I hold no brief for LA or the "omerta" business, but TH is about as far from credible as you can get with his history!


----------



## Norm (21 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I think you have to drink a lot of coffee before you breach the caffeine limit, I think it's something like 8 espressos?


Is that a lot? Wow, it's lucky that I'm not a pro racer... for this amongst many, many other reasons.


----------



## smutchin (21 Sep 2012)

oldroadman said:


> TH is about as far from credible as you can get with his history!



Having read the book, I entirely disagree. It's a very credible account. 

d.


----------



## rich p (21 Sep 2012)

oldroadman said:


> No, just interested in how many bends can a story take before it's out of sight. I find it hard to get my head around how, under duress from the legal system in the "land of the free" offering any kind of evidence, hearsay or not, gets you off the hook. I hold no brief for LA or the "omerta" business, but TH is about as far from credible as you can get with his history!


 Bloke pleads innocence until confronted with no way out - fesses up. It really isn't that uncommon you know.


----------



## Erratic (22 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Bloke pleads innocence until confronted with no way out - fesses up. It really isn't that uncommon you know.


Or, bloke pleads innocence, fesses up when he is broke and makes money out of pointing the finger at someone else.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Is that a lot? Wow, it's lucky that I'm not a pro racer... for this amongst many, many other reasons.


 
_Is there something you wish to share?_


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Sep 2012)

oldroadman said:


> No, just interested in how many bends can a story take before it's out of sight. I find it hard to get my head around how, under duress from the legal system in the "land of the free" offering any kind of evidence, hearsay or not, gets you off the hook. I hold no brief for LA or the "omerta" business, but TH is about as far from credible as you can get with his history!


 
USADA are on record as saying that they would not have sought the removal of all of Armstrong's titles "if he had cooperated", and are also on record as saying that a reduction in his ban is still on the cards in return for cooperation.

Allegedly all the statements in the USADA case were rewarded with significant reductions in bans.

Whether this is any different from other "bargains" struck in Court cases or other Tribunals is a moot point.


----------



## rich p (22 Sep 2012)

Erratic said:


> Or, bloke pleads innocence, fesses up when he is broke and makes money out of pointing the finger at someone else.


 He fessed up, as did all the others apparently, when the Grand Jury asked him questions that would have resulted in perjury charges and imprisonment had he lied.


----------



## Norm (22 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> _Is there something you wish to share?_


Not until after my 8th coffee.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (22 Sep 2012)

For info, no comment.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...nce-armstrong-file/article4561260/?cmpid=rss1


----------



## Noodley (22 Sep 2012)

From the above linked article:
"The chief of world cycling's governing body is questioning why American anti-doping authorities have not yet sent him the file of evidence that prompted them to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and ban him for life."

My assumption as to why:
Probably so they make sure they have enough copies of all the information before they send it to the UCI and it gets altered, lost, burned, shredded...


----------



## Scoosh (22 Sep 2012)

Are they not waiting for the - is it 2 remaining cases (the doctors or whoever) - to be dealt with before they give _anything_ to the UCI ?

When are the hearings for them ? 

What ??  They've already happened ?  Where was I ??


----------



## david k (23 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I think you have to drink a lot of coffee before you breach the caffeine limit, I think it's something like 8 espressos?


i was told 3 or 4 strong coffees, but not sure if this was accurate


----------



## BJH (23 Sep 2012)

I don't find it unbelievable that either Tyler Hamilton or Floyd Landis could not have simply reached the point where they have got to the point where they have had to draw a line under what they did and tell all.

I don't see either as a "snitch" 

I am sure the Federal investigation has made a lot of fellow traveller on the LA gravy train suddenly wake up and smell the coffee. 

Don't particularly admire either, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss them as making stories up to simply sell a book. Let's face it Hamiltons book was being planned before Lance suddenly got tired of fighting, so he would be facing the wrath of the LA lawyers if his claims could not be substantiated.

More like seeing GH and the rest of the old team mates all confirming the story would have been the final credibility killer


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Sep 2012)

With the world championships out of the way will someone from USADA have time this morning to nip down to the post office and send the evidence to UCI? Or do they, for some strange reason, not trust the US Postal Service?

They surely couldn't have got LA to effectively plead 'no contest' on the basis of a bluff could they?


----------



## just jim (24 Sep 2012)

USADA are not making this up as they go along. There is a schedule.
That is all.


----------



## just jim (24 Sep 2012)

"facts are the facts"
Interview with Travis Tygart in L’Équipe.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Sep 2012)

aha, the old "end of the month" defence. Odd. Very odd. Does the evidence need to mature like a good Cheddar I wonder.

or are they just giving people time to cut deals....


----------



## oldroadman (24 Sep 2012)

Norm said:


> Is that a lot? Wow, it's lucky that I'm not a pro racer... for this amongst many, many other reasons.


 

There used to be a limit on caffeine concentration. There is not one now. Simple reason being that if you get enough of the stuff inside you to make a real difference, it makes you feel so horrible (and has a very bad let down afterwards, sometimes during a race) that performance goes out of the door and you end up searching for suitable bushes to squat behind, or simply stopping to remove stomach contents with reverse digestion. Either way not going to win you anything!
I also stand by my comments on Mr Hamilton, whilst wanting the whole business cleared up as soon as, so the sport which is far cleaner today than it has ever been (read history from the 20s and 30s!! Strychnine and all sorts) can move forward.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> aha, the old "end of the month" defence. Odd. Very odd. Does the evidence need to mature like a good Cheddar I wonder.


 
I don't know what the problem is. That's the time they've been given.


----------



## DogTired (24 Sep 2012)

What are the views on possible wriggle room for the UCI not to remove LA's titles? Can they just not do it, fudge it, fight it regardless, stall, deem it irrelevant or ignore it?

Interested in this, as should LA lose his titles potentially SCA promotions can go and get their $5 million prize money back. They're probably one of the few bodies without vested interests big enough to tackle the LA movement.


----------



## albion (24 Sep 2012)

No positive tests.
But UCI covering things up.
"Cleaner than ever."

A weird claim.


----------



## DogTired (24 Sep 2012)

albion said:


> No positive tests.
> But UCI covering things up.
> "Cleaner than ever."
> 
> A weird claim.


 
UCI set the hematocrit positive test threshold at 50% whereas normal levels are in the low 40's - that's a bit of evidence for covering up widespread doping when r-EPO use was rampant. Why did LA not fail a drug test for beta-hCG when he had testicular cancer?

With regard to no positive tests:
1 LA tested positive in the 1999 TdeF for corticoids.
2 According to a L'Equipe investigation, backdated tests showed r-EPO usage in 1999 - they published and invited LA to sue which he didnt. The UCI's response was to identify who leaked information about the tests as opposed to investigating the positive results. (It turned out to be the UCI which provided the information anyway).
3 No team member of the Festina team ever tested positive prior to Willy Voet being caught with a small pharmacy in his car and admitting to systematic doping of their team. So not being caught does not equate with not being a drug cheat.


----------



## Noodley (24 Sep 2012)

DogTired said:


> With regard to no positive tests:


 

....don't forget the positive for EPO that was hushed up, which was reported in Tyler Hamilton's book


----------



## Buddfox (24 Sep 2012)

DogTired said:


> What are the views on possible wriggle room for the UCI not to remove LA's titles? Can they just not do it, fudge it, fight it regardless, stall, deem it irrelevant or ignore it?


 
My understanding is if they do most of the above (i.e. ignore it, fudge it etc.) the IOC says that cycling (track and road) is no longer an Olympic sport since they haven't adhered to the agreement(s) between the IOC, WADA and national agencies (in this case USADA). My guess is they're waiting to see if the evidence is weak enough to give them an excuse to fight it on 'genuine' grounds. I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense believes that this will be the case, but it remains a case of wait and see, officially at least.


----------



## DogTired (24 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> ....don't forget the positive for EPO that was hushed up, which was reported in Tyler Hamilton's book


 
Yeah, just caught up with the TH thread - crazy stuff! Out of interest did you buy the US version and if so where from???


----------



## Noodley (24 Sep 2012)

DogTired said:


> Out of interest did you buy the US version and if so where from???


 
I did, from US amazon - but having seen the differences posted online I am not sure it is worth the effort tbh.


----------



## Noodley (24 Sep 2012)

So who is gonna rush off and press the buy button?

http://www.pedalpushersclub.com/products/defend-lance


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Sep 2012)

DogTired said:


> What are the views on possible wriggle room for the UCI not to remove LA's titles? Can they just not do it, fudge it, fight it regardless, stall, deem it irrelevant or ignore it?.


 
Just to play Devil's Advocate.... so long as USADA fail to actually provide any evidence, there is no need to respond


----------



## Russell Allen (24 Sep 2012)

I think a few more may rush out and buy this one





Russell


----------



## albion (24 Sep 2012)

I heard that hardtalk interview.

It did not wet my appetite.


----------



## Red Light (24 Sep 2012)

just jim said:


> USADA are not making this up as they go along. There is a schedule.
> That is all.


 
I thought their schedule was "within two weeks" about four weeks ago.


----------



## Red Light (24 Sep 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> I think a few more may rush out and buy this one
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Are they going to over-print it with "This testing was in breach of the WADA Code" ?


----------



## Red Light (24 Sep 2012)

2058406 said:


> I doubt it. That would make it much less snappy and, now it is done, who cares?


 
Just curious though how samples provided by Armstrong "tested positive for the performance enhancing drug EPO by Sal Ruibal"


----------



## Red Light (24 Sep 2012)

Hint: ---->  <-----


----------



## DogTired (24 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> So who is gonna rush off and press the buy button?
> 
> http://www.pedalpushersclub.com/products/defend-lance


 
To defend him properly it needs longer sleeves to hide the bruises on the upper arms.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2058414, member: 45"]Would that make him not a doping cheat?[/quote]

Nope, but it alters the "quality" of the evidence, and allows a loophole to have it dismissed.

It also allows the "Witch hunt" defence as USADA are bending their own rules to pursue the matter.

Finally the issue that WADA is on record as saying that B samples should be stopped as they are unreliable due to deterioration

Daavid Howman :



> According to Howman, the number of times there is a difference between the two is ‘almost zero’. When that does happen, he said that it was often due to degrading of the sample over time, suggesting any differences in the past are down to false negatives of the B sample rather than false positives of the A test.
> 
> Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8002/WADA-considering-dropping-B-sample-test-by-2015.aspx#ixzz27SQLRyy0​


 
So they sate that B samples are unreliable yet now breach their own rules of conduct to provide evidence that they are on record as stating is unreliable when it suits their agenda.


----------



## Red Light (25 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> So they sate that B samples are unreliable yet now breach their own rules of conduct to provide evidence that they are on record as stating is unreliable when it suits their agenda.


 
More than that it was a clear breach of the rules as it was said it was as part of research into a new test for EPO. The WADA Code says:

_6.3 Research on Samples_
_No Sample may be used for any purpose other than_
_as described in Article 6.2 without the Athlete's_
_written consent. Samples used for purposes other_
_than Article 6.2 shall have any means of identification_
_removed such that they cannot be traced_
_back to a particular Athlete._​​I feel pretty sure that Armstrong would not have given his written consent and the samples clearly did not have their identification removed. To say nothing of the fact that L'Equipe is not the official reporting line for results.


----------



## Red Light (25 Sep 2012)

2058743 said:


> And yet he has conceded and given up.


 
Under circumstances in which he was denied sight of the evidence against him. Whether this is in there or not only USADA know at present.


----------



## Red Light (25 Sep 2012)

2058867 said:


> So what? He was cheating and has conceded it. If, as Greg suggested, he folded on a bluff who cares?


 
So do you now also conclude that Kimmage was lying and conceded it when he refused to contest the libel case against him?


----------



## albion (25 Sep 2012)

So one bad Apple out, 10 more ducking and diving


----------



## Red Light (25 Sep 2012)

2058890 said:


> You miss the point, I don't care. One extreme bad apple is out of the game and publicly humiliated. That is a not bad result.


 
What is a bad result is that the authorities are prepared to ignore their own rules and flout human rights to get that result. We have learnt the hard way in the legal sphere where the authorities flouting the rules to get a conviction leads us.


----------



## Red Light (25 Sep 2012)

2058941 said:


> I really don't care.


 
So you keep saying as you continue to care enough to pen another post.


----------



## Red Light (25 Sep 2012)

albion said:


> So one bad Apple out, 10 more ducking and diving


 
All of which as Big Mig has said, is ruining the sport.


----------



## rich p (25 Sep 2012)

A piece by Robin Parisotto which may help those who keep bleating (erroneously!) that Lance has never failed a test and why the blood passport is important.

http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.fr/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html

FWIW, I remember the minor imcredulity at Armstrong's blood values and the comments hereabouts at the discrepencies but it was never taken up at official level by the UCI. You have to ask why.
I also recall when Armstrong and Bruyneel were caught unprepared by a tester in remote place where he was 'training' off season. Against all the protocols he was allowed to question the testers authorisation while he 'showered' for 30 minutes. Again, the UCI took no action.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Sep 2012)

2058867 said:


> So what? He was cheating and has conceded it. If, as Greg suggested, he folded on a bluff who cares?


anyone who plays him at poker might!

(EDIT: and the irony of someone whose entire career turns out to have been based on a gigantic series of "I'm clean" bluffs being caught out by a bluff is simply too delicious)

It does all raise a nice moral conundrum. If someone is dirty you may have to fight dirty to bring them down; then you become dirty yourself. That you have become dirty in the process doesn't diminish the dirtiness of the person you fought one bit but you may find folk reluctant to shake your dirty hand in future, and less than fully engaged when you claim rights yourself under due process etc..

That, I guess, is the price of putting great wrongs right. Which would be fine and dandy if the UCI agreed with USADA but then we'd have no fun.


----------



## bof (25 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> A piece by Robin Parisotto which may help those who keep bleating (erroneously!) that Lance has never failed a test and why the blood passport is important.
> 
> http://downthebackstretch.blogspot.fr/2012/09/its-all-about-blood.html
> 
> ...


 
Very interesting!!! Was Armstrong effectively forced into publishing these values or was he poorly advised by his then medical advisor?


----------



## rich p (25 Sep 2012)

bof said:


> Very interesting!!! Was Armstrong effectively forced into publishing these values or was he poorly advised by his then medical advisor?


 As I recall it was his own decision to publish his figures to dispel the doubts but but did the opposite. I can't recall the mechanics of it and I may be wrong. He was supposed to be working with Don Caitlin who would test him frequently as an independent, albeit paid, doctor but it never happened due to logistics and finance I believe.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Against all the protocols he was allowed to question the testers authorisation while he 'showered' for 30 minutes. Again, the UCI took no action.


 
Not "against protocols" at all!

The protocol allows a number of events to happen between notification and testing.

What is questionable here is the actions of the "Chaperone" who should have supervised the movements between the notification and test.

There is a dual responsibility - the athlete to ensure they are observed, and the chaperone to observe.


----------



## DogTired (25 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> More than that it was a clear breach of the rules as it was said it was as part of research into a new test for EPO. The WADA Code says:
> 
> _6.3 Research on Samples No Sample may be used for any purpose other than_​_as described in Article 6.2 without the Athlete's written consent. Samples used for purposes other_​_than Article 6.2 shall have any means of identification removed such that they cannot be traced_​_back to a particular Athlete._​​I feel pretty sure that Armstrong would not have given his written consent and the samples clearly did not have their identification removed. To say nothing of the fact that L'Equipe is not the official reporting line for results.


 
The WADA Code in place at the time says different.

_6.3 No sample may be used for any purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of substances) or methods on the prohibited list, or as otherwise identified by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program) without the Athlete's written consent._

Thusly as the substance was on the prohibited list permission was not required. The samples had the 6 digit code attached which is to all intents and purposes a random number which matches the UCI held doping control forms which didnt get sent to the Lab. So the tests were anonymised by key.

The UCI, with LA's permission, gave L'Equipe the doping control forms. The reporter had to travel to UCI headquarters and were given them by the UCI medical director at the time.

WADA stated that the reason for having some form of key was to preserve the possibility of conducting a longitudinal analysis later on, which seems reasonable enough.

In terms of L'Equipe not being the official reporting line for doping results - no, I think that would be the UCI. But they are allowed to report news.


----------



## Buddfox (27 Sep 2012)

So USADA have confirmed they will release their report by the 15th October. At least we know how long we have to wait now...! From the BBC:

Usada's Annie Skinner said her organisation was "in the process of finalising the written reasoned decision in its US Postal Services pro cycling doping case".
She added: "We will provide the reasoned decision addressing the lifetime bans and disqualifications imposed to the UCI and World Anti-Doping Agency as provided for under the world rules. We expect it to be sent no later than 15 October."
Cycling's governing body, the International Cycling Union, is awaiting the report before deciding whether or not to confirm Armstrong's ban.
UCI president Pat McQuaid admitted it was likely to be a case of rubberstamping Usada's decision though.
"Unless the Usada's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport or not to recognise the Usada's sanctions on Lance Armstrong," he said.
"The UCI assumes that the decision and file will also detail the sanction the USADA may wish to enforce upon the riders who have provided testimony in exchange for reduced sanctions."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Sep 2012)

Guess they've got one of those really big heavy-duty staplers on back order then. Hence the delay.


----------



## marinyork (27 Sep 2012)

Maybe that was part of the deal, Tyler's book deal got some time before all the paperwork came out to not dent sales.

I'm only messing about. It's not that long to wait now.


----------



## DogTired (27 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Guess they've got one of those really big heavy-duty staplers on back order then. Hence the delay.


 
Not helped by having to check, double check and go through everything eleventy times. I suspect they've checked the details more times than a man marking himself up to perform his own vasectomy.


----------



## Red Light (27 Sep 2012)

marinyork said:


> Maybe that was part of the deal, Tyler's book deal got some time before all the paperwork came out to not dent sales.
> 
> I'm only messing about. It's not that long to wait now.


 
Did they say October 15th this year?


----------



## kedab (27 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Did they say October 15th this year?


 let's hope so...i recently finished reading 'from lance to landis' and most of the way through i was thinking, 'wow, this is nuts', i also 'borrowed' a copy of 'l.a confidenitel' from the interwebs (translated of course) and most of the way through that i was thinking, 'merde!'


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Sep 2012)

DogTired said:


> Not helped by having to check, double check and go through everything eleventy times. I suspect they've checked the details more times than a man marking himself up to perform his own vasectomy.


yeah, cos you wouldn't do that before threatening LA with your evidence would you.


----------



## Red Light (27 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> yeah, cos you wouldn't do that before threatening LA with your evidence would you.


 
I saw one report that they were adding new evidence to the file. Which would raise the question of whether the evidence they used to convict him was adequate.


----------



## mickle (27 Sep 2012)

I've been thinking, and I wonder if anyone reading this knows the answer... Did Lancey boy lose both testicles? He did didn't he? If so, I presume he was on testosterone replacement therapy like wot I now am. Since testosterone is a banned substance under the regulations I'd be interested to know how, and by whom, his dosage was controlled. I vaguely remember that he had special dispensation, but having been on it now for a few months I'm very aware that even a tiny 'overdose' can have a profound effect over time.


----------



## mickle (27 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I saw one report that they were adding new evidence to the file. Which would raise the question of whether the evidence they used to convict him was adequate.


Who cares?


----------



## Red Light (27 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> I've been thinking, and I wonder if anyone reading this knows the answer... Did Lancey boy lose both testicles? He did didn't he? If so, I presume he was on testosterone replacement therapy like wot I now am. Since testosterone is a banned substance under the regulations I'd be interested to know how, and by whom, his dosage was controlled. I vaguely remember that he had special dispensation, but having been on it now for a few months I'm very aware that even a tiny 'overdose' can have a profound effect over time.


 
How does it go? Who cares?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I saw one report that they were adding new evidence to the file. Which would raise the question of whether the evidence they used to convict him was adequate.


But LA folded.

Even if it was a gigantic bluff based on hunches and gut feeling USADA raised the stakes and LA threw in his hand, he blinked, he played Ullrich to their Strongarm Armstrong, he put his hands up and surrender, he cried 'Uncle!', knowing that doing so was, in effect, a 'no contest' plea.

As in 'You have accused me of doping and I ain't gonna argue. I am not going to contest the charges. I am guilty. Do with me as you will I throw myself on the mercy of the court.'

For those who always 'knew' this equates to "Who cares"

For those, like me, who didn't, it equates to a kick in the balls.


----------



## Red Light (27 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> As in 'You have accused me of doping and I ain't gonna argue. I am not going to contest the charges. I am guilty. Do with me as you will I throw myself on the mercy of the court.'


 
So is he getting five of his Tour wins back? Travis said he could if he admitted it


----------



## kedab (27 Sep 2012)

i've never really dipped my toe into the whole, 'did he? didn't he?' Armstrong debate before but i've read a few comments on L.A that go along the lines of, 'he's a cancer survivor, why on earth would he risk further endangering his life with drugs after coming through that?!'...i tip my hat to L.A and all other cancer survivors, i am one. did it stop me bouncing around raves during my teens? absolutely not. just because we survive that dreadful disease doesn't mean we're all going to follow a straight path post cancer. i'm not advocating anything here, i'm saying like


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> So is he getting five of his Tour wins back? Travis said he could if he admitted it


Last time I checked the 'record books' he still has them ALL.

Last time I checked what Travis said he'd said he could keep some ?five? if he pleaded guilty/cooperated/shopped everyone else.

LA, finding himself between a rock and a hard place, chose to do what LA chose to do, pretty much like LA has done all along.


----------



## Hont (27 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Did Lancey boy lose both testicles? He did didn't he?


No he is very much like Hitler* in that respect.

*I know it was just a song


----------



## Hont (27 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> For those who always 'knew'...


No need for the apostrophes.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> But LA folded.
> 
> Even if it was a gigantic bluff based on hunches and gut feeling USADA raised the stakes and LA threw in his hand, he blinked, he played Ullrich to their Strongarm Armstrong, he put his hands up and surrender, he cried 'Uncle!', knowing that doing so was, in effect, a 'no contest' plea.
> 
> ...


A kick in the *ball*, Greg.


----------



## Russell Allen (27 Sep 2012)

There is no greater tribute for a Fanboy to the legend of LA than to lop off a perfectly functioning nut.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> There is no greater tribute for a Fanboy to the legend of LA than to lop off a perfectly functioning nut.


I have four perfectly functioning nuts.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Sep 2012)

It appears the UCI are getting stressy....


----------



## Buddfox (28 Sep 2012)

It's things like this that make me despair at the UCI. What an utterly unnecessary and antagonistic press release. Just keep this sh*t behind closed doors please.


----------



## Red Light (28 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> It's things like this that make me despair at the UCI. What an utterly unnecessary and antagonistic press release. Just keep this sh*t behind closed doors please.


 
In the light of:

_"The UCI has requested USADA to provide its decision and case file and has learnt of the reported delays through the media and not by any official communication from USADA"_​​perhaps not.


----------



## rich p (28 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> It's things like this that make me despair at the UCI. What an utterly unnecessary and antagonistic press release. Just keep this sh*t behind closed doors please.


 It beggars belief that the organisation that keeps bleating on that they are in the forefront of fighting doping, seems to be doing their utmost to undermine the organisation that actually is. Shut the fark up Pat and wait for it to arrive!


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> So USADA have confirmed they will release their report by the 15th October. At least we know how long we have to wait now...! From the BBC:
> 
> Usada's Annie Skinner said her organisation was "in the process of finalising the written reasoned decision in its US Postal Services pro cycling doping case"."


 
Very interesting, that is a massive change from prosecuting a single cyclist.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> So is he getting five of his Tour wins back? Travis said he could if he admitted it


 
Pedantically, he can't get them back as they haven't actually been removed yet!


----------



## Red Light (28 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Pedantically, he can't get them back as they haven't actually been removed yet!


 
Even more pedantically its not known whether they've actually been removed yet because USADA and UCI have different views on whose jurisdiction the decision is.


----------



## beastie (29 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Even more pedantically its not known whether they've actually been removed yet because USADA and UCI have different views on whose jurisdiction the decision is.


Actually they have not been removed until ratified by UCI. Won't belong now though


----------



## just jim (29 Sep 2012)

So to recap, Lance doped. Sorry to be pedantic.


----------



## beastie (30 Sep 2012)

No one read Walsh in the ST yet?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Sep 2012)

beastie said:


> Actually they have not been removed until ratified by UCI. Won't belong now though


 
If they ever get the evidence?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Sep 2012)

just jim said:


> So to recap, Lance doped. Sorry to be pedantic.


 
That is the subtle swing on the USADA's part.

Whereas before this was about Lance Armstrong, and the dossier was the evidence about his actions, failures and use of PEDs, the dossier is apparently no longer specifically about him at all, but to quote USADA the dossier is now the "US Postal Services pro cycling doping case"

It will be interesting if the evidence is about the whole team, whether the amnesties given to some rider will also be supported by the UCI, or whether they act upon the evidence on the other riders and participants.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Sep 2012)

beastie said:


> No one read Walsh in the ST yet?


 
Factually inaccurate about the wins though.?

The interesting tisng though is how much of the widespread issues are closed down to a personal level again.




> The cyclist had been a very successful amateur rider but his professional career was overshadowed by his refusal to take drugs and remain quiet about it.


 
It was not Armstrong as a single rider, but a culture throughout the Peleton.

Once again, let's use the Armstrong case as a key and unlock the box, see who else is dirty and take action fairly and equally across the board for all those who are guilty.

If that means censuring other riders, and removing Pantani's win (or others) then why not?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-ex-wife-involved-in-doping-scheme


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2012)

If all this stuff about the UCI and the cover up is in the evidence then it's hard to see how the UCI can rubber-stamp it and not go to CAS and carry on as if nothing has happened.
They'll be admitting their own guilt and chasing down Kimmage will be history.
I'm not sure what strategy they can adopt apart from rigorous defence which will mean a forensic scrutiny of the evidence at CAS.


----------



## smutchin (30 Sep 2012)

Bit by bit, the floodgates are opening...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-ex-wife-involved-in-doping-scheme

[eta: just noticed FM already posted this link...]


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2012)

I don't suppose there's any way of putting a link up, or getting access to, the Walsh thing in today's sunday times?


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> I don't suppose there's any way of putting a link up, or getting access to, the Walsh thing in today's sunday times?


 I believe you have to pay to access the Murdoch press.


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2012)

2068252 said:


> No, you can always ignore it.


I think Rich means "if you want to read it".


----------



## Red Light (30 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> I don't suppose there's any way of putting a link up, or getting access to, the Walsh thing in today's sunday times?


 
Its not really worth reading because either the USADA report is ready and has been given to David Walsh to read and report on before it gets sent to UCI or David Walsh is making it up about the contents of the report. As you might expect all the usual suspects such as Emma O'Reilly feature in it but then given that he also wrote numerous reports on the Ryder Cup for this week's Sunday Times I doubt he had much time to do anything other than rehash the same-old same-old.

He does announce that the report is going out to the UCI this week though which might be a bit of a surprise to USADA just after they announced it would be out by the end of next week.


----------



## Red Light (30 Sep 2012)

2068325 said:


> Are those different?


 
This next week will tell.


----------



## smutchin (30 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> I don't suppose there's any way of putting a link up, or getting access to, the Walsh thing in today's sunday times?



http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/108440794


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2012)

cheers s


----------



## craigwend (30 Sep 2012)

I'm begining to think this was faked now! 






http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Sep 2012)

craigwend said:


> I'm begining to think this was faked now!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Of course it is, this is the bike that NASA researched for the moon....





Those tyres are far too skinny


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2012)

Nope.

































Still hasn't improved.


----------



## Russell Allen (2 Oct 2012)

Just breathing a bit of life back into this thread....!!

I was rather hoping this thread would also reach " the magic ton" but alas I am destined for disappointment.

Lets hope the 15th of October brings some new information

Russell


----------



## DogTired (2 Oct 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> Lets hope the 15th of October brings some new information


 
And finally brings justice to someone who's been getting away with it for years.

Only Moby, Adele, Enya and the bloke who sets the price for citrus-based chain cleaner left to go and our work here is done.


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2012)

let's just post our fave Lance Vids...

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6EX6qDIw4w&feature=related


----------



## Andrew_P (3 Oct 2012)

Has Bruyneel folded? Last I could find was he was going to carry on fighting, maybe thats why there is a delay.


----------



## smutchin (3 Oct 2012)

This is just astonishing...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108847964/Judgment-Floyd-Landis-En


----------



## Cheddar George (3 Oct 2012)

Hopefully there will be so much crap raining down on the UCI that the court case against Kimmage will be dropped.


----------



## Oldspice (3 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> let's just post our fave Lance Vids...
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6EX6qDIw4w&feature=related




That's a really nice Video. thanks for shareing.



PS I like Lance, although never watched him race, seems like a nice chap.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (3 Oct 2012)

The Swiss court's ruling was bizarre. They basically said that Landis can't accuse the UCI of any of the things that are in the USADA case against Armstrong et al. and which form part of the evidence in those cases, and which they haven't even seen. Defamation / Libel etc. is such bullshit.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> This is just astonishing...
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/108847964/Judgment-Floyd-Landis-En


I think I've lost the capacity to be surprised by the UCI.


----------



## rich p (3 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The Swiss court's ruling was bizarre. They basically said that Landis can't accuse the UCI of any of the things that are in the USADA case against Armstrong et al. and which form part of the evidence in those cases, and which they haven't even seen. Defamation / Libel etc. is such bulls***.


 
You have to laugh at this though from the Swiss court ruling

_"It also prohibits Landis from calling the UCI "full of shoot", "clowns" and "liars"_

I think we said something similar so I'm expecting a visit from the authorities any minute.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> You have to laugh at this though from the Swiss court ruling
> 
> _"It also prohibits Landis from calling the UCI "full of s***", "clowns" and "liars"_
> 
> I think we said something similar so I'm expecting a visit from the authorities any minute.


 
So, let's get this straight. If I were to say that the UCI was "full of shoot" and that they were "clowns" and "liars", then a Swiss court might try to force me to take an advert out to say that I would promise that I would never again say that the UCI was "full of shoot" and that they were "clowns" and "liars"?

That's scary. In that case, I will certainly not say that the UCI is "full of shoot" and that they are "clowns" and "liars".

I will just think it to myself.

Thank-you.


----------



## Red Light (4 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The Swiss court's ruling was bizarre. They basically said that Landis can't accuse the UCI of any of the things that are in the USADA case against Armstrong et al. and which form part of the evidence in those cases, and which they haven't even seen. Defamation / Libel etc. is such bulls***.


 
It was a default judgement because Landis decided not to contest the charges just like Armstrong decided not to contest the charges against him. The case was filed in April 2011 so well before any of the latest USADA case came forward.


----------



## Red Light (4 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> So, let's get this straight. If I were to say that the UCI was "full of s***" and that they were "clowns" and "liars", then a Swiss court might try to force me to take an advert out to say that I would promise that I would never again say that the UCI was "full of s***" and that they were "clowns" and "liars"?
> 
> That's scary. In that case, I will certainly not say that the UCI is "full of s***" and that they are "clowns" and "liars".
> 
> ...


 
Not without giving you a chance to defend yourself and its unlikely unless you went to the newspapers and they printed your allegations. But yes its the law of libel/slander - you can't just go round saying things about people without them being demonstrably true.


----------



## Red Light (4 Oct 2012)

2076091 said:


> That politics buggered then.


 
Even in politics!


----------



## smutchin (4 Oct 2012)

2075800 said:


> The best part is his having to take an advert in which he says all the things he won't say. That has got to be some sort of legal joke.


 
Inrng has a good take on it - it's a warning from the Swiss courts that they won't allow the UCI to use them to do their dirty work...

http://inrng.com/2012/10/uci-are-not-terrorists/

d.


----------



## PpPete (4 Oct 2012)

> if it’s forbidden to say McQuaid and Verbruggen are full of shoot, should we deduce they regularly use colonic irrigation?


 
pffft !


----------



## Scoosh (4 Oct 2012)

> And if it’s forbidden to say McQuaid and Verbruggen are full of s***, should we deduce they regularly use colonic irrigation?


That is brilliant !


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> It was a default judgement because Landis decided not to contest the charges just like Armstrong decided not to contest the charges against him. The case was filed in April 2011 so well before any of the latest USADA case came forward.


 
I knew you'd say that, but they are really not alike at all apart from at the most superficial level. For an interesting insight into why, I would read about Greg Lemond's experience.


----------



## DogTired (4 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> let's just post our fave Lance Vids...
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6EX6qDIw4w&feature=related


 
Not Lance exactly but a superb demonstration of why taking drugs and biking are bad.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLUryIKNTmg


----------



## smutchin (5 Oct 2012)

Dick Pound interview on VeloNation - worth reading:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...trong-the-governance-of-cycling-and-more.aspx


----------



## Red Light (6 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> He does announce that the report is going out to the UCI this week though which might be a bit of a surprise to USADA just after they announced it would be out by the end of next week.



Looks like I was right and Walsh was in the land of make believe with no inside track despite pretending to have one in his article.


----------



## raindog (7 Oct 2012)

Very, very interesting interview with Lemond - don't miss it!
http://media.newstalk.ie/podcast/67851/popup


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> Very, very interesting interview with Lemond - don't miss it!
> http://media.newstalk.ie/podcast/67851/popup


 
There's also a summary here. He's one of the good guys of cycling.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2012)

Lemond is interestingly calling for what many of us have suggested previously and looking beyond Armstrong to real reform.


----------



## just jim (7 Oct 2012)

Funny - I considered the gist of the C.N article to be about Armstrong:
"LeMond: *Armstrong* has been trying to destroy me for 10 years"
Maybe I'm reading between the lines.
Hmmm. That reminds me of another title I read somewhere...
"The New Improved *Lance Armstrong* Discussion Thread"
Not much room for obfuscation there I'd have thought, though you have been trying awfully hard.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2012)

just jim said:


> Funny - I considered the gist of the C.N article to be about Armstrong:
> "LeMond: *Armstrong* has been trying to destroy me for 10 years"
> Maybe I'm reading between the lines.
> Hmmm. That reminds me of another title I read somewhere...
> ...


 



> He also spoke about the changing the way the UCI handles drug testing and means of encouraging caught riders to reveal their sources, suppliers and methods. For LeMond to truly trust the sport, there are some things that really need to change.


 


> They need to insist on the outing of the top brass. It needs to change. Drug testing needs to be separated from the governing body [the UCI] completely.


 


> "I would buy into the UCI’s part much more in the sport if they would voluntarily help set-up an independent doping agency like USADA and WADA to where there is a real body of scientists that cannot be influenced by anybody. Not anybody."


 
Obviously my mistake in thinking that these statements were referring to reforming the system.......... an extremely easy one given the content and context?

What are these statements about, if not wider reform?


----------



## Red Light (7 Oct 2012)

David Walsh, fresh from getting it wrong last week about the release of the files to UCI, assures us now there was just too much work to do on them and they will go out this week - its only taken him ten days to catch up with a USADA press release - and introduces us to Scott Mercier. He also laments the lack of impact Tyler Hamilton has had on Armstrong and damns the current peleton in the same sentence:

_"Several weeks after the publication of Tyler Hamilton’s detailed exposé of US Postal’s systematic doping programme there has been almost no condemnation of Armstrong from today’s prisoners of the road."_​_http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/cycling/article1142802.ece_​


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Lemond is interestingly calling for what many of us have suggested previously and looking beyond Armstrong to real reform.


 
Some of us have indeed been calling for real reform. Some of us have even started threads about it. However some of us have also recognised that this isn't really possible without dealing honestly with the legacy of the Armstrong period.


----------



## rich p (7 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Some of us have indeed been calling for real reform. Some of us have even started threads about it. However some of us have also recognised that this isn't really possible without dealing honestly with the legacy of the Armstrong period.


 Some of us have been banging on about this for years, not just since August 2012.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Some of us have been banging on about this for years, not just since August 2012.


 
Yes, indeed. And some of us have even shown an actual interest in racing before that date!


----------



## rich p (7 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yes, indeed. And some of us have even shown an actual interest in racing before that date!


 ...and since that date too, to be strictly accurate!


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Some of us have indeed been calling for real reform. Some of us have even started threads about it. However some of us have also recognised that this isn't really possible without dealing honestly with the legacy of the Armstrong period.


 
The Armstrong _*Period*_ is the point. The USADA appears to have changed their stance in that they are no longer referring to the evidential document as being about Armstrong individually, but rather the US Postal Service team as a whole. It has been clealy referred to as the US Postal Service by USADA in press eleases

Could of course be a misprint or misquote, so we will have to wait until the Dossier arrives to see which way the USADA is going tp play this


----------



## smutchin (7 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The USADA appears to have changed their stance in that they are no longer referring to the evidential document as being about Armstrong individually, but rather the US Postal Service team as a whole. It has been clealy referred to as the US Postal Service by USADA in press eleases


 
I don't think it was ever only about Lance, much as he would like everyone to think it was.

d.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> I don't think it was ever only about Lance, much as he would like everyone to think it was.
> 
> d.


It was for a lot of people though, even to the stage where any suggestion that looking at the wider picture was dismissed as "diverting the issue" and inappropriate


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> It was for a lot of people though, even to the stage where any suggestion that looking at the wider picture was dismissed as "diverting the issue" and inappropriate


 
I don't think that was anyone's problem with you and Red Light.


----------



## just jim (7 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The Armstrong _*Period*_ is the point. The USADA appears to have changed their stance in that they are no longer referring to the evidential document as being about Armstrong individually, but rather the US Postal Service team as a whole. It has been clealy referred to as the US Postal Service by USADA in press eleases
> 
> Could of course be a misprint or misquote, so we will have to wait until the Dossier arrives to see which way the USADA is going tp play this


 
Think of all the time spent .jpg thread-bombing you could have saved by sticking to this one line? (highlighted in yellow just for you)
My guess - a lot.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2012)

just jim said:


> Think of all the time spent .jpg thread-bombing you could have saved by sticking to this one line? (highlighted in yellow just for you)
> My guess - a lot.


 
Could you explain the reference to yellow, as the meaning is unclear?

Like many cyclists I have a lot of custom with Yellow.... I bought both mine and my Wife's Rudy Project Sunglasses from them, also the Assos and Giordana clothing.

I have cycle clothing, pannier covers and even a couple of sets of Ortlieb panniers in Yellow..... and outdoor clothing

I also have a yellow sash from my time serving with the Sealed Knot.

Why do you feel yellow has any significance to examining the wider picture and th USADA report??


----------



## just jim (7 Oct 2012)

Ahhhh. That's better.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Oct 2012)




----------



## DogTired (8 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> It was for a lot of people though, even to the stage where any suggestion that looking at the wider picture was dismissed as "diverting the issue" and inappropriate


 
I reckon there's a common trend when looking at this (or maybe its just me). Lance is a hero. Strange whispers about Lance. Try and discover more about the back story. THEY DID WHAT?!?!?! Realise LA is big, but the issue is a whole lot bigger. In fact peloton bigger. Realise it stops with the UCI but in reality has been going on since the beginning of competitive cycling. While LA is still a problem, he's not _the_ problem.

Most people are at differing levels of this trend and awareness of it.

I love cricket, but at the end of the day its stick and ball. F1 too, but thats cars going around and around. I suspect the wider public have a similar philosophy with regard to cycling and care little about omerta, the intricacies of drugs and who said what when.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Oct 2012)

Michael Ashenden is saying that Armstrong's 2009 TdF biological passport results were consistent with reinfusions. LA's spokesperson's response seems to deliberately evade the issue, saying that dope test results how you are either doping or not - but that is exactly the point of the biological passport as opposed to traditional doping controls - it can show patterns consistent with forms of cheating that are not just a matter of 'he was taking substance X'.


----------



## Noodley (8 Oct 2012)

In other breaking news, a spokesman for Armstrong says "wibble" ...


----------



## smutchin (8 Oct 2012)

Still banging the "never failed a drug test" drum...

Hubris, thy name is Armstrong.


----------



## DogTired (8 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Michael Ashenden is saying that Armstrong's 2009 TdF biological passport results were consistent with reinfusions. LA's spokesperson's response seems to deliberately evade the issue, saying that dope test results how you are either doping or not - but that is exactly the point of the biological passport as opposed to traditional doping controls - it can show patterns consistent with forms of cheating that are not just a matter of 'he was taking substance X'.


 
Blimey - why did he ever bother with needles? He might as well have got a hoze-lock adaptor fitted.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Oct 2012)

2084247 said:


> Were you in the vicinity of any modern art yesterday afternoon?


 
Yes!

I don't know how it helps you, or how you think it will contribute to the thread, but it would be churlish not to answer......but it was "Anvilman", part of the Henry Cort Exhibition in Fareham:







Did it help?


----------



## Red Light (8 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Michael Ashenden is saying that Armstrong's 2009 TdF biological passport results were consistent with reinfusions.


 
Your riding a bike down the street is consistent with you having stolen it. There is a massive gap between the (carefully chosen) words "is consistent with" and it being a fact.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Michael Ashenden is saying that Armstrong's 2009 TdF biological passport results were consistent with reinfusions. LA's spokesperson's response seems to deliberately evade the issue, saying that dope test results how you are either doping or not - but that is exactly the point of the biological passport as opposed to traditional doping controls - it can show patterns consistent with forms of cheating that are not just a matter of 'he was taking substance X'.


 
Trouble is that like many of the tests they are not all verified and accepted.

You can tell by examining blood cells if the blood sample contains the red blood cells of a donor, but it is more difficult if the transfusion is the cyclists own blood. It has been suggested that chemical traces of preservatives, and chemicals used inthe storage of blood can be indicators, equally it has been suggested that profiling the maturity of the cells and looking at some enzymes can identify the re-infusion of the cyclist's own blood, but these are not established in use (yet)

Hamilton was found positive by the flourescent testing of cells to establish two "populations" of cells demonstrating that some did not actually belong to him!


----------



## DogTired (8 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> There is a massive gap between the (carefully chosen) words "is consistent with" and it being a fact.


 
Hmm less of a gap than "is inconsistent with" and being a fact. The point is looking at markers and indicators. Do these fit a known pattern? Yes, then they are consistent with.

Its used all of the time, the dent on the bonnet is consistent with striking a pedestrian, the wounds are consistent with gunshot wounds. This is standard terminology for a domain expert pronouncing an opinion on the evidence which precludes actually seeing the crime, which is rare.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Oct 2012)

2085018 said:


> It was your reference to Yellowism


 
You misunderstand..... I was asking Just Jim to explain why he was posting in yellow "just for me"

He doesn't actually seem to be courteous or well mannered enough to be willing to do so...

Perhaps in his choice to post in yellow, he is in fact the manifestation of a true closet Yellowist and ashamed to "come out".


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Your riding a bike down the street is consistent with you having stolen it.


 
Another poor analogy. There is rather more here than that (which you would know if you had read the actual article).


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2012)

Armstrong a dirty filthy doper?

Who knew?

and that's the question we want answered.


----------



## Red Light (8 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Another poor analogy. There is rather more here than that (which you would know if you had read the actual article).


 
Yes, I read about his reading of the tea leaves. Didn't add any more substance to it. Ashenden's opinion has been well known ever since he was an expert witness claiming Armstrong used EPO for SCA Promotions - a case that they lost. I'd be really interested to know what is the validation behind the claims he is making and whether they are an approved part of the testing protocol or just something he's made up himself.


----------



## DogTired (8 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes, I read about his reading of the tea leaves. Didn't add any more substance to it. Ashenden's opinion has been well known ever since he was an expert witness claiming Armstrong used EPO for SCA Promotions - a case that they lost. I'd be really interested to know what is the validation behind the claims he is making and whether they are an approved part of the testing protocol or just something he's made up himself.


 
Its worth being clear that SCA did not lose the case due to Ashenden. SCA lost because their contract stated they had to pay because LA won multiple TdFs.The judgement came about because regardless of the evidence regarding drug taking, LA _had_ (at that point) won the TdFs, so SCA had to pay, which they did. Their argument was that if they'd known up-front about any drug-taking they would not have insured against LAs wins. That was not upheld.

If you're interested in the Ashendens claims then research them and report it! And have a look at the arguments of the opposing expert witness Prof Ed Coyle as well.


----------



## Hont (9 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Your riding a bike down the street is consistent with you having stolen it. There is a massive gap between the (carefully chosen) words "is consistent with" and it being a fact.


A better analogy is...

"Your riding of a bike down the street, with 12 people chasing after you saying 'stop thief', you are holding a hacksaw and there is a hacksawed bike lock trailing behind you, is consistent with you having stolen it.


----------



## smutchin (9 Oct 2012)

Why haven't the USADA published their evidence yet?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2012/toto-turns-263


----------



## smutchin (9 Oct 2012)

More Ashenden...
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Oct 2012)

LA reads more like la-la in this

_"It’s their drama. Not mine. I was raised in a way, and maybe my mom was this way, and her life wasn’t perfect, it was complicated. But she always looked forward. She looked a day, and a month, and a year, and 10 years from now. Some people don’t do that. They sit around and talk about the past. You always get high-school friends who sit around and talk about “hey remember that time…” and I’m like “why are you asking me about that?”_

_That’s the funny thing. What else do they want to strip? The Tour of Colorado? Tour of the Gila? It’s so dumb._

_I don’t care. Honestly. And I mean that. I wake up and my mind and my conscience and my view on my life and my world, my future and my kids’ future is perfectly clear."_
Bonkers. Delusional bonkers nut-jobbery. Can the doping have affected his mental health?​


----------



## Red Light (9 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> A better analogy is...
> 
> "You're (note spelling) riding a bike down the street, with 12 people chasing after you saying 'stop thief', you are holding a hacksaw and there is a hacksawed bike lock trailing behind you, is consistent with you having stolen it.



Not a better one but one that is also consistent with your having stolen it. It is also consistent with you being part of a posse of 13 people that is chasing the thief taking the evidence of his theft with you for when you catch him.


----------



## DogTired (9 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> LA reads more like la-la in this
> 
> _"It’s their drama. Not mine. I was raised in a way, and maybe my mom was this way, and her life wasn’t perfect, it was complicated. But she always looked forward. She looked a day, and a month, and a year, and 10 years from now. Some people don’t do that. They sit around and talk about the past. You always get high-school friends who sit around and talk about “hey remember that time…” and I’m like “why are you asking me about that?”_
> 
> ...


 
Standard political chicanery. It was classic foboffery during the Blair/Campbell years. "Yes but we need to put this behind us and move on" was the mantra. Good to hear about his Mum's philosophy though. Shame he missed out on how it was her apple pie alone that made him a champion.

Should the UCI ratify USADA's title stripping then he'll have $6.5million of drama when SCA try and get their cash back.


----------



## Noodley (9 Oct 2012)

One thing with Armstrong is that he is an "all or nothing" chap...so far his all has been given to the lie. One day we may get his all in relation to the truth. If that day comes (soon enough) it may be the best thing for him and the sport. He may even be able to redeem himself.


----------



## Buddfox (9 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> One thing with Armstrong is that he is an "all or nothing" chap...so far his all has been given to the lie. One day we may get his all in relation to the truth. If that day comes (soon enough) it may be the best thing for him and the sport. He may even be able to redeem himself.



Ironically he likely would also make a bucket load of cash!


----------



## rich p (9 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Ironically he likely would also make a bucket load of cash!


 But then he'd just be another mercenary ex-doper and comsummate liar who was out to make a quick buck by regurgitating lies, innuendo and hearsay. Get a grip, man


----------



## Noodley (10 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> A better analogy is...
> 
> "You're (note spelling) riding a bike down the street, with 12 people chasing after you saying 'stop thief', you are holding a hacksaw and there is a hacksawed bike lock trailing behind you, is consistent with you having stolen it.


 
Or.."you are Jimmy Saville...and are dead"

Or.."you are you freddy starr and say you never appeared on a jimmy saville show so it canae be true..oh, you I appear on one of his shows...really? with the girl who made allegations sitting next to me?...oh feck...but, did I tell you about the time I was in panto..."


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> A better analogy is...
> 
> "You're (note spelling) riding a bike down the street, with 12 people chasing after you saying 'stop thief', you are holding a hacksaw and there is a hacksawed bike lock trailing behind you, is consistent with you having stolen it.


 
... or

"You're (note spelling) riding a bike down the street, with 200 other cyclists and people chasing after your group saying 'stop thief', you are all holding a hacksaw and there is a pile of 200 hacksawed bike locks trailing behind you, is consistent with your entire group having having stolen them.[/quote]


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> But then he'd just be another mercenary ex-doper and comsummate liar who was out to make a quick buck by regurgitating lies, innuendo and hearsay. Get a grip, man


 
Certainly seems to have worked for Tyler Hamilton!


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2012)

> *@**DavidWalshST*
> USADA has written a summary, circa 200 pages, that will be available to public. Perhaps some time today. Thousands of pages in full report.


----------



## Noodley (10 Oct 2012)

Excellent, minute dissection and mis-interpretation alert for every single sentence by those on my ignore list...just to maintain a false stance. Anyway, have fun...I'll enjoy seeing the replies to the nonsense that is made up.


----------



## DogTired (10 Oct 2012)

200 pages? Thats some summary. Get public opinion on your side before releasing to the UCI, anticipating the possible UCI reaction?

If everything was working in order this wouldnt need to happen.


----------



## mickle (10 Oct 2012)

From Road.cc






Lance Armstrong (pic courtesy Photosport International)

*One of Lance Armstrong’s lawyers has gone on the offensive against the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) ahead of the agency’s release of its reasoned decision to ban the former cyclist and strip him of results including his seven Tour de France titles. USADA has previously said that the decision will be supplied to the UCI no later than next Monday, 15 October.*
"The rules require us to provide a reasoned decision in every case, and we are happy to let the evidence speak for itself," said USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner, quoted yesterday on the website of the newspaper USA Today.
She was responding to a letter sent by Armstrong’s lawyer Tim Herman to USADA’s attorney Bill Bock in which he hit out at the agency accepting testimony from “serial perjurers” and also criticised it for using lawyers from a firm that had previously represented tobacco companies.
"This reasoned decision will be a farce, written by USADA with the significant assistance of lawyers from one of Big Tobacco's favorite law firms at a time when Lance Armstrong is one of America's leading anti-tobacco advocates," stated Herman. "While USADA can put lipstick on a pig, it still remains a pig."
USADA applied its sanctions in August after Armstrong decided not to contest its charges through arbitration, as he was entitled to do.
In the days leading up to that, he had lost an action brought before a district court in Austin, Texas in which he had sought to establish that USADA had no jurisdiction in the case, and that it had infringed his constitutional right to due process.
In his letter, Herman apparently ignores that decision, continuing to insist that USADA lacks jurisdiction, among other things.
He claimed that USADA’s case was built on the evidence of “serial perjurers,” a reference, presumably, to Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, who initially denied their own doping before subsequently confessing, and who are believed to be among the agency’s witnesses.
However, the agency is also understood to have witness statements from riders with a previously unblemished record such as George Hincapie, as well as evidence of positive tests by Armstrong that contradict Herman’s assertion that his client never failed a doping control.
"Fair-minded people will see whatever USADA issues is far from a 'reasoned decision' and is instead further evidence of the vendetta by USADA and its talebearers seeking publicity by targeting Mr. Armstrong, his business relations and the Lance Armstrong Foundation," added Herman.
One issue that is currently unclear is just how detailed the USADA report on Armstrong will be, at least in terms of what can be publicly disclosed, given that many of the same issues and witnesses are likely to form part of its case against his former manager at US Postal and elsewhere, Johan Bruyneel, who has chosen to fight the charges against him at an arbitration hearing scheduled for next month.


http://road.cc/content/news/68670-a...ensive-against-usada-ahead-agencys-report-uci


----------



## Noodley (10 Oct 2012)

You couldnae make it up. Is that the best that Armstrong's lawyers can come up with? 

Seriously, I could do better. In fact, one of my cats could do better. And make it sound less sleakit.


----------



## beastie (10 Oct 2012)

Leipheimer, Zabriskie, Hincapie and others suspended. " reasoned decision" to be released today. I have just read it on Cycling News. Plenty more of interest


----------



## mickle (10 Oct 2012)

Goody goody!! :rubshandswithglee:


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2012)

> *@**sportingintel*
> This is it, the end of Lance Armstrong myth, the end of the lies, the dossier of proof, 1,000 pages.


----------



## Crosstrailer (10 Oct 2012)

USADA have now sent all of the evidence to the UCI and the anti-doping authority. Really hope this puts this issue beyond all doubt and Armstrong is proved to be the cheat I am convinced he is.

CHEAT TO WIN


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2012)

Bruyneel is well and truly up shoot creek now, isn't he?

And what of Verbruggen and McQuaid's case against Kimmage?

ROFL


----------



## MickL (10 Oct 2012)

George Hincapie comes 'clean' http://t.co/188SdKbC I think the fall out is about to kick off


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Oct 2012)

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

The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants’ doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Oct 2012)

Hincapie

Because of my love for the sport, the contributions I feel I have made to it, and the amount the sport of cycling has given to me over the years, it is extremely difficult today to acknowledge that during a part of my career I used banned substances. Early in my professional career, it became clear to me that, given the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs by cyclists at the top of the profession, it was not possible to compete at the highest level without them. I deeply regret that choice and sincerely apologize to my family, teammates and fans.
Quietly, and in the way I know best, I have been trying to rectify that decision. I have competed clean and have not used any performance enhancing drugs or processes for the past six years. Since 2006, I have been working hard within the sport of cycling to rid it of banned substances. During this time, I continued to successfully compete at the highest level of cycling while mentoring young professional riders on the right choices to make to ensure that the culture of cycling had changed.


----------



## raindog (10 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


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


from Tygart.......

"I have personally talked with and heard these athletes’ stories and firmly believe that, collectively, these athletes, if forgiven and embraced, have a chance to leave a legacy far greater for the good of the sport than anything they ever did on a bike.
Lance Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution. He rejected it."


----------



## Smokin Joe (10 Oct 2012)

It's a conspiracy I tells ya, a conspiracy.

You're only picking on him because he has one ball.


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> from Tygart.......
> 
> "I have personally talked with and heard these athletes’ stories and firmly believe that, collectively, these athletes, if forgiven and embraced, have a chance to leave a legacy far greater for the good of the sport than anything they ever did on a bike.
> Lance Armstrong was given the same opportunity to come forward and be part of the solution. He rejected it."


 
What would be _really_ good for the future of the sport is if other riders who were never part of USPS and "never tested positive" came forward now and admitted everything. Never mind waiting for the UCI to set up a truth and reconciliation committee (which they're clearly very reluctant to do), a lot of riders could do themselves and the sport a lot of good by coming forward under their own initiative.

d.


----------



## Dogtrousers (10 Oct 2012)

U


Hont said:


> A better analogy is...
> 
> "You're (note spelling) riding a bike down the street, with 12 people chasing after you saying 'stop thief', you are holding a hacksaw and there is a hacksawed bike lock trailing behind you, is consistent with you having stolen it.


The original spelling was correct. "Your riding a bike" refers to the fact that a bike is being ridden, and it is this fact that "is consistent with...". It's not a contraction of "you are"

That its all. As you were.


----------



## raindog (10 Oct 2012)

http://www.fraudstrong.org/


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

yes, yes it's all very well all these ex-USPostal riders coming clean and lancing Lance, and having a money trail to boot but whether USADA has got jurisdiction is the crucial point in all this.


----------



## beastie (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> yes, yes it's all very well all these ex-USPostal riders coming clean and lancing Lance, and having a money trail to boot but whether USADA has got jurisdiction is the crucial point in all this.


I thought that question was decided by Sam Sparks.


----------



## BJH (10 Oct 2012)

So all those people who said that Landis was a has been / proven liars making up stories to make cash now have a confirmation from Michael Barry that Floyd was indeed telling the truth. Can't wait to hear their apologies. Can't wait to see the full dossier either.


----------



## yello (10 Oct 2012)

Witch hunt. Why do they always say these things just before stage 3 of the Tour of Beijing?


----------



## BJH (10 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Your riding a bike down the street is consistent with you having stolen it. There is a massive gap between the (carefully chosen) words "is consistent with" and it being a fact.


 
Ashenden is an expert in his field who is stating a belief based on the fact that LA's blood values did not decrease during a high intensity stage race. I think he is more than entitled to state his opinion and it's not unreasonable for a reasonable person to believe he's probably correct.


----------



## BJH (10 Oct 2012)

2090968 said:


> We do know that he didn't tell the truth consistently.


 
But he certainly did on this one and will be proven to have done the same on Lance.


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> Ashenden is an expert in his field who is stating a belief based on the fact that LA's blood values did not decrease during a high intensity stage race. I think he is more than entitled to state his opinion and it's not unreasonable for a reasonable person to believe he's probably correct.


 
What's more, the caution in his language belies the strength of his belief. For someone in his position to go even as far as he did in his comments is a sign that he is pretty damn sure of his facts.

d.


----------



## Erratic (10 Oct 2012)

Been slowly 'leafing' through the document by the USADA, phew, I can see why LA did not mount a defence, similarly, not sure how he can go on saying nothing. Interesting days ahead...


----------



## Red Light (10 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> Ashenden is an expert in his field who is stating a belief based on the fact that LA's blood values did not decrease during a high intensity stage race. I think he is more than entitled to state his opinion and it's not unreasonable for a reasonable person to believe he's probably correct.


 
Ashenden is a person who was paid by SCA Promotions to testify that Armstrong had used drugs. He is conflicted.


----------



## Red Light (10 Oct 2012)

Erratic said:


> Been slowly 'leafing' through the document by the USADA, phew, I can see why LA did not mount a defence, similarly, not sure how he can go on saying nothing. Interesting days ahead...


 
Where did you get the document? It doesn't seem to be on the USADA site yet.


----------



## Erratic (10 Oct 2012)

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


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

2090986 said:


> That is as maybe but I still wouldn't trust him myself.


 I found his testimony and intricate detail very convincing once he'd decided to fess up. Ashenden has credited Landis with opening his eyes to the way blood doping was used and how it evaded detection.


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

Bloody hell, this is going to take longer to read than Tyler's Book.


----------



## smutchin (10 Oct 2012)




----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> I thought that question was decided by Sam Sparks.


 So did everyone else apart from a couple of serial apologists on here!
Sorry, the sarcasm would have been lost on someone new to the thread(s)!


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2012)

> When Mr. Armstrong refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing beforeneutral arbitrators he confirmed the judgment that the era in professional cycling which hedominated as the patron of the peloton was the dirtiest ever.
> Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold.Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six(36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping


 
Reinforces the need to look at the wider picture and start using this evidence to look at other riders an teams?


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> yes, yes it's all very well all these ex-USPostal riders coming clean and lancing Lance, and having a money trail to boot but whether USADA has got jurisdiction is the crucial point in all this.


 

Hardly coming "clean", they are admitting in several cases to being very "dirty"


----------



## raindog (10 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Reinforces the need to look at the wider picture and start using this evidence to look at other riders an teams?


This isn't the first piece in the puzzle, it's one of the last.


----------



## Smokin Joe (10 Oct 2012)

Why Armstrong did not contest the USADA allegations -

_"The Usada report *condemns Lance Armstrong* for refusing to face doping charges against him and describes what the case against him would have looked like, had he agreed to testify._
_It is excoriating:_
_Witness after witness would have been called to the stand and witness after witness would have confirmed the following: That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up by Dr. Michele Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong’s doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat. That Lance Armstrong would have his blood withdrawn and stored throughout the year and then receive banned blood transfusions in the team doctor’s hotel room on nights during the Tour de France. That Lance Armstrong surrounded himself with drug runners and doping doctors so that he could achieve his goal of winning the Tour de France year after year. That Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth"._​


----------



## Crackle (10 Oct 2012)

A reason he chose not to contest it

_"Had there been a hearing even more evidence would have been presented, including, evidence obtained through arbitration panel subpoenas and potentiallyevidence from government investigations."_


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2012)

This is exactly what I had anticipated and more.


----------



## jifdave (10 Oct 2012)

Thought hincapie was brave admitting he doped, now he's retired.... :-(


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2012)

The table on p.107 of the document of payments from Lance Armstrong to Dr Ferrari totally over $1 Million is damning. And detailed eyewitness testimony from not just Hamilton and Landis and those who Lance crosssed in his career, but the golden boys of US cycling: Zabriskie, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vandervelde...

He is so farked.


----------



## Smokin Joe (10 Oct 2012)

At least Jimmy Savile was dead by the time it all went tits up.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2012)

p.130 onwards on how Armstrong avoided getting tested positive is enlightening. The report finally lays to rest the myth of 'the most tested athlete'. Armstrong probably had no more than 200 tests during his career and included in this are 'health' tests which specifically did not check for substances like testosterone. US Postal almost always had an hour's notice of 'unannounced' tests. LA was notorious for giving inadequate whereabouts information that delayed or inhibited off-season testing. And on occasions, he just seems to have fronted out the testers, by just refusing to have a test immediately. For most of the period to 2005 here were no tests for blood transfusions or HGH so these were used without fear, apparently saline solution could easily counteract EPO testing - which in any case they knew would only ever happen in the morning and they would be safe taking it at night - and mcirodosing of testosterone was achieved through patches.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2012)

And the UCI seems to have either passively or actively abetted USPS / Discovery / Armstrong all the way. It looks pretty bad for them too. Verbruggen and McQuaid both out of this very badly indeed. McQuaid should resign immediately.


----------



## just jim (10 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> This is exactly what I had anticipated and more.


Indeed, it's sound like the "avalance" (I'm here all week) many expected.
And ya know what? This really is the new improved Lance Armstrong thread, after all.


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

fark me FM, I'm only on page 33. Spoiler please - I still don't know for sure if Lance doped or is a saint


----------



## Noodley (10 Oct 2012)

Can someone let me know when they find any evidence of an apology from the fanboys who have, for year after year, shouted down those who wanted the truth: "never failed a test", "most tested athlete", "<enter whatever lie of own preference>"

And an invite to the fanboys: you only need to say sorry once, admit you were wrong, and then we can move on.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And *the UCI seems to have either passively or actively abetted USPS / Discovery / Armstrong all the way.* It looks pretty bad for them too. Verbruggen and McQuaid both out of this very badly indeed. McQuaid should resign immediately.


Thanks for highlighting that point FM. The lure if the almighty dollar and cycling going mainstream in the states eh?

I'm a happy ex-fanboy now (without the time yet to read it all for myself)

LA = filthy cheat
USPS/Discovery = filthy cheats
UCI = aiders and abettors of filthy cheats


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Can someone let me know when they find any evidence of an apology from the fanboys who have, for year after year, shouted down those who wanted the truth: "never failed a test", "most tested athlete", "<enter whatever lie of own preference>"
> 
> And an invite to the fanboys: you only need to say sorry once, admit you were wrong, and then we can move on.


People who demand apologies?





Bunch of nobbers


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> f*** me FM, I'm only on page 33. Spoiler please - I still don't know for sure if Lance doped or is a saint


 
Ha ha, I have just skim-read the document. I will read it in detail later (I think I am going to write an article about the limits of surveillance in sport and the Lance Armstrong case).


----------



## yello (10 Oct 2012)

I'm surprised how anecdotally it reads rather than being in legalise. I wonder how the full document (running to 2000 pages I believe ) reads?

But even in summary, it's real 'belt and braces' stuff. Some of the incidents will come as no surprise to seasoned followers but the level of detail joining up the dots, and the corroboration thereof, is staggering. I wonder how UCI will respond? The eyes of the cycling world are on them.


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Can someone let me know when they find any evidence of an apology from the fanboys who have, for year after year, shouted down those who wanted the truth: "never failed a test", "most tested athlete", "<enter whatever lie of own preference>"
> And an invite to the fanboys: you only need to say sorry once, admit you were wrong, and then we can move on.


 We need a truth and reconciliation thread for the fanboys Noods!


----------



## Red Light (10 Oct 2012)

Heads we win, tails you lose.

_UCI has refused to provide USADA laboratory data without Mr. Armstrong’s consent, which he has refused to_
_give. Had Mr. Armstrong elected to go forward with the American Arbitration Association_
_hearing, then either the laboratory and collection data required to verify the accuracy of his blood_
_test results would have been provided upon his consent, or if he refused consent, then he would_
_have been precluded from arguing that the laboratory results were not reliable._​p146​


----------



## beastie (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> So did everyone else apart from a couple of serial apologists on here!
> Sorry, the sarcasm would have been lost on someone new to the thread(s)!


I


rich p said:


> So did everyone else apart from a couple of serial apologists on here!
> Sorry, the sarcasm would have been lost on someone new to the thread(s)!


Yes I should have really noticed it


----------



## beastie (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Spoiler please - I still don't know for sure if Lance doped or is a saint


 
Sarcasm!!???


----------



## PaulB (10 Oct 2012)

That's one long and very involved read but if anyone harboured any doubts as to just how dirty the sport and a certain Mr. Pharmstrong was, that will evaporate with anything more than a cursory perusal of that. It's been a significant year for the release of long, involved documents that shake people from their complacency or entrenched beliefs, what with this and the Hillsborough papers.


----------



## tigger (10 Oct 2012)

I've just skim read all 200 pages (emphasis on skim). Personally I think it's all hearsay. 







(Ducks for cover)


----------



## Noodley (10 Oct 2012)

USADA missed a trick by not having a picture on page 1:


----------



## PaulB (10 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I've just skim read all 200 pages (emphasis on skim). Personally I think it's all hearsay.


 

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reoG0SVdFhY


----------



## tigger (10 Oct 2012)

Or did I mean heresy?


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

2091503 said:


> Is this really the one point in the whole document you feel is worthy of comment?


 I'm guessing one of the serial muppets is nit-picking?


----------



## Noodley (10 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm guessing one of the serial muppets is nit-picking?


 
I'm tempted to unignore just to get a laff...


----------



## tigger (10 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> I'm tempted to unignore just to get a laff...


 
Just done it! Bit of a non event at the moment


----------



## Red Light (10 Oct 2012)

2091503 said:


> Is this really the one point in the whole document you feel is worthy of comment?


 
Nope. The whole section at the end about the Indiana hospital room incident is interesting. They rehash lots of old stuff but they completely omit that his primary cancer doctor, Craig Nichols, said in a sworn testimony "I have never seen any evidence, either from myself or any other doctor, that indicates Lance Armstrong admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs."

It seems something of a big omission since they use other extracts from his testimony to try to bolster their case.

They also use McIlvain's testimony to argue that there were two doctors (men) in the room so Betsy must be telling the truth but again they fail to mention that in her sworn deposition she said:

QUESTION: Were you ever at a hospital room or other part of the hospital with Mr. Armstrong where he said anything about performance-enhancing drugs?​MCILVAIN: No.​QUESTION: Do you have any recollection of any doctor in your presence asking Mr. Armstrong if he used in the past any performance-enhancing drugs or substances?​MCILVAIN: No.​ 

Like yello, I am surprised at the way it is written and it reads much more like polemic than legal case. I am also surprised how much of it is rehashing old public domain material rather than presenting new material uncovered by investigation and enquiry.


----------



## Red Light (10 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> I'm tempted to unignore just to get a laff...


 
HELLO NOBBER!


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> Sarcasm!!???


 That one maybe irony!


----------



## rich p (10 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> I'm tempted to unignore just to get a laff...


 No, we must resist. Don't give in to temptation just for a cheap laugh. You're better than that.


----------



## User169 (10 Oct 2012)

On newsnight right now - Daniel Coyle being interviewed.


----------



## Zofo (10 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Can someone let me know when they find any evidence of an apology from the fanboys who have, for year after year, shouted down those who wanted the truth: "never failed a test", "most tested athlete", "<enter whatever lie of own preference>"
> 
> And an invite to the fanboys: you only need to say sorry once, admit you were wrong, and then we can move on.



yeah sorry about that, think I'll go,and burn his books- what a jerk!!
Oh well at least,Brad's clean eh?


----------



## tigger (10 Oct 2012)

Think I'll hit the "I" button again


----------



## Pottsy (11 Oct 2012)

Sorry but I only watch this thread from a passive outside viewpoint, though I'm fascinated. I've been convinced for years Lance doped purely by understanding of physical limits, times up climbs, the era and other anecdotal stuff. Let alone today's stuff!

Does anyone here still believe he didn't dope? Intentional closed question.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Nope. The whole section at the end about the Indiana hospital room incident is interesting.


 
It's also an addendum. The detailed consideration of this particular incident is not included in the main body of evidence upon which he conclusions are based. But I guess you knew that...


----------



## johnr (11 Oct 2012)

Looks like the Armstrong Xmas card list is going to be significantly shorter this year


----------



## Minotier (11 Oct 2012)

Watched the film Dodgeball last night Mr Armstrong's cameo made me cringe, just a little bit.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm guessing one of the serial muppets is nit-picking?


 
..or once again daring to have an opinion different to yours?


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> We need a truth and reconciliation thread for the fanboys Noods!





rich p said:


> I'm guessing one of the serial muppets is nit-picking?


 

,,, and so we return to the same high standards of debate and contribution that had other threads closed?


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It's also an addendum. The detailed consideration of this particular incident is not included in the main body of evidence upon which he conclusions are based. But I guess you knew that...



Yes it is an appendix and its purpose seems to be to say "Look what a nasty person he is" but it illustrates the polemic nature of the document because it completely ignores the key evidence that negates their conclusion that Betsy Andreu was not mistaken. Unless, as has been discussed before, you believe his doctor put his medical career and reputation on the line by lying under oath for someone who at the time was still a minor sportsperson in the US.


----------



## asterix (11 Oct 2012)

Pottsy said:


> Sorry but I only watch this thread from a passive outside viewpoint, though I'm fascinated. I've been convinced for years Lance doped purely by understanding of physical limits, times up climbs, the era and other anecdotal stuff. Let alone today's stuff!
> 
> *Does anyone here still believe he didn't dope?* Intentional closed question.


 
Oh yes. And the Earth_ is_ flat.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

I must admit that I did find 'appendix b' (the hospital room incident) a little clumsy. USADA went to great lengths to say it wasn't being presented as evidence of an admission of guilt but as something else entirely. I'm undecided - perhaps they might have been better off leaving it out entirely??

As it was, I think USADA were keen to present everything they had. That particular incident didn't fit the linear narrative of the report (which was basically a witness testimony linked chronology) and so appeared somewhat tacked on. In fairness though, perhaps a problem of presentation rather than substance.

In any event, and even if one chooses to ignore that section, the report is otherwise comprehensive and the sheer weight of testimony and detail can only lead you to one conclusion. As a document, it succeeds in it's objective and fully supports USADA's decision.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ,,, and so we return to the same high standards of debate and contribution that had other threads closed?


if you don't like the comments, or their tone, report them, otherwise why add fuel to the embers?


----------



## Dayvo (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> if you don't like the comments, or their tone, report them, otherwise why add fuel to the embers?


 
Or ignore them! Make a change for you being on the other end of an 'ignore button.'


----------



## screenman (11 Oct 2012)

Still not proven guilty in court, nor has he ever been tested positive.


----------



## MacB (11 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> Still not proven guilty in court, nor has he ever been tested positive.


 
But this post is clear evidence that you're as big a numpty as I always suspected


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

If anyone does want to read a summary of the summary, this NY Times article is a good place to start....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/s...ing-case-against-lance-armstrong.html?hp&_r=0


----------



## screenman (11 Oct 2012)




----------



## fossyant (11 Oct 2012)

Keep it civil folks !


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2091723, member: 45"]So Lance is a doping cheat? Thought so. 

Anyone still trying to defend him?[/quote]

Most of the Radio Five Live listenership, apparently. Unless the presenters are only reading out the pro-Lance comments and ignoring the antis. But I'm sure the good old BBC wouldn't be so incompetent and unprofessional. Much. 

But since most of the comments are just rehashes of the "most tested" canard and "level playing field" myth, they're clearly not based on having actually read the report. 

d.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Do you really think so?



Yes, I really think the idea that they were all doing it, therefore it was a level playing field is a myth, in a broad sense of the word. 

I used to think it was true(ish) but then I read some stuff and realised the error of my ways. I don't see how anyone can still cling to the story if they've read the USADA report. Hence the fact that they do shows they haven't. 

d.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes it is an appendix and its purpose seems to be to say "Look what a nasty person he is"



Yeah, because Lance would have come out of this smelling of roses if it weren't for that pesky appendix!



> but it illustrates the polemic nature of the document because it completely ignores the key evidence that negates their conclusion that Betsy Andreu was not mistaken.



Perfectly reasonable point. And for that reason, they shouldn't have presented the Betsy hospital story as evidence. Oh wait... they didn't. 

But it was part of their investigation, hence they included it. And didn't include the non-existent evidence of doctors who refused to testify. Amazing.

d.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

There was something in Michael Barry's confession that struck me - something very simple, probably shared by many a young cyclist.



> As a boy my dream was to become a professional cyclist who raced at the highest level in Europe. I achieved my goal when I first signed a contract with the United States Postal Service Cycling team in 2002. Soon after I realized reality was not what I had dreamed. Doping had become an epidemic problem in professional cycling.


Here was a kid with a dream. He didn't want to dope but felt he had no choice ( or that's how it was presented to him). That's wrong. Whatever one thinks of a 'level playing field', one shouldn't be effectively forced into breaking the rules. 



> I crossed a line I promised myself and others I would not: I doped. It was a decision I deeply regret. It caused me sleepless nights, took the fun out of cycling and racing, and tainted the success I achieved at the time. *This was not how I wanted to live or race.*


 
(My bold) From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/michael-barry-confesses-to-doping


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)




----------



## PaulB (11 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> Still not proven guilty in court, nor has he ever been tested positive.


Neither was John Terry but he's still serving a (shamefully short) ban, is he not?


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Nope. The whole section at the end about the Indiana hospital room incident is interesting. They rehash lots of old stuff but they completely omit that his primary cancer doctor, Craig Nichols, said in a sworn testimony "I have never seen any evidence, either from myself or any other doctor, that indicates Lance Armstrong admitted, suggested or indicated that he has ever taken performance-enhancing drugs."
> 
> It seems something of a big omission since they use other extracts from his testimony to try to bolster their case.
> 
> ...


 
Doing the usual literal answer thing, if Craig Nichols had been told verbally then thats correct, he hasn't 'seen' any evidence. None of the Drs had as LA spoke it. Testicular cancer can be caused by steroid use so its pretty naive for a Dr to say LA hasnt indicated when as a performance athlete he is in front of you with testicular cancer.

With regard to McIlvain, after LeMond was pressured by the LA machine he started taping phone conversations. He had an interesting one with McIlvain. I'm not retyping the conversation but the better bits include (the background is that Lemond possibly wanted her to testify in the future):

McIlvain: "Cause I'm not going to lie. You know, I was in that room. I heard it."
McIlvain: "Well, the thing of it is, Greg, there is so many people protecting him that it is just sickening, you know."
McIlvain: "... Chris Carmichael made a call to my friend and said, "Oh, you know, I've been sitting here, thinking, thinking, thinking who was in that room. If I totally remember the incident, yes he did admit to what he was taking."

I think that puts your McIlvain "No" into a proper perspective. Her sworn deposition doesnt match her own recollection


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Do you really think so?


 I suggest you read Tyler hamilton's book if you haven't already.
He shows compelling evidence that it was far from everyone who was on a full doping regime. If you weren't in Armstrong's A team you had to fend for yourself and hamilton himself fell out of favour with LA and had to ride panyagua - their term for rding clean.
In addition most riders were simply unable to afford to pay the likes of Ferrari over a million dollars. Hamilton details his relative struggle compared with Armstrong let alone the humble domestiques.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

2091756 said:


> Court could come yet. Unlikely I accept but is it impossible?
> As for, never tested positive, have you read the document?


 
Depends what you mean by tested positive. LNDD broke the WASA Code in multiple ways by using the 1999 samples without the athlete's consent and allowing the anonymity of the samples to be compromised. (They also clearly also did not "randomly select" the samples from that year but targeted Armstrong as its statistically extremely improbable from all the samples taken that year in the TdeF, so many would turn up in a random selection to be from Armstrong). The results of the 1999 sample retests were therefore rightly thrown out in the past as they were not analysed for testing purposes (but for test development purposes) and had been used in flagrant breach of the WADA Code. USADA ignore all this and claim it as a positive test. With the Swiss tests given they are a WADA accredited test body, curiously they rely heavily on reports published in Cycling Weekly for their evidence rather than interviews with the Head of the Swiss test lab they refer. They then retrospectively partially apply test criteria that were not in operation at the time of the test but much later and then say the refusal of the athlete to hand over the results is evidence of his guilt (which is in direct contravention of his 5th Amendment Rights (the right to remain silent) under the US Constitution). So its while it may indicate EPO use they were not tests that Armstrong failed.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

I see Nike have continued to pledge their support for LA.
Has anyone heard from Phil Liggett today yet?


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Depends what you mean by tested positive. LNDD broke the WASA Code in multiple ways by using the 1999 samples without the athlete's consent and allowing the anonymity of the samples to be compromised. (They also clearly also did not "randomly select" the samples from that year but targeted Armstrong as its statistically extremely improbable from all the samples taken that year in the TdeF, so many would turn up in a random selection to be from Armstrong). The results of the 1999 sample retests were therefore rightly thrown out in the past as they were not analysed for testing purposes (but for test development purposes) and had been used in flagrant breach of the WADA Code. USADA ignore all this and claim it as a positive test. With the Swiss tests given they are a WADA accredited test body, curiously they rely heavily on reports published in Cycling Weekly for their evidence rather than interviews with the Head of the Swiss test lab they refer. They then retrospectively partially apply test criteria that were not in operation at the time of the test but much later and then say the refusal of the athlete to hand over the results is evidence of his guilt (which is in direct contravention of his 5th Amendment Rights (the right to remain silent) under the US Constitution). So its while it may indicate EPO use they were not tests that Armstrong failed.


 
This is incorrect as detailed in post #342 of this thread.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Yes, I really think the idea that they were all doing it, therefore it was a level playing field is a myth, in a broad sense of the word.


 
If its a myth how do you reconcile that with the USADA statement (p7):

_Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping_​


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I see Nike have continued to pledge their support for LA.


 
Interesting that. I'm sure they have an exit strategy, I wonder what circumstances will trigger it?


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> This is incorrect as detailed in post #342 of this thread.


 
Whether you are right or not in 342, (and my view is you are not because they were not being used for the detection of prohibited substances but to develop a test for detecting prohibited substances), the results were thrown out for the reasons I stated.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> View attachment 13699


 
Actually its not evidence for the prosecution. Its supposed to be the judgement in the case. The two are very very different and the latter is supposed to consider all aspects of the evidence not just those favourable to the prosecution. But its one of the problems of combining the role of prosecution and judiciary which is the situation with USADA in a non-contested case.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> If its a myth how do you reconcile that with the USADA statement (p7):
> 
> _Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping_​


 
Because the amount of doping, the substances, the expertise behind the doping plans varied according to what you could pay Ferrari. Take 20 athletes, all the same - the best doped one wins.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> There was something in Michael Barry's confession that struck me - something very simple, probably shared by many a young cyclist.
> 
> 
> Here was a kid with a dream. He didn't want to dope but felt he had no choice ( or that's how it was presented to him). That's wrong. Whatever one thinks of a 'level playing field', one shouldn't be effectively forced into breaking the rules.
> ...


 
What is curious though is the motif running through both the Hincapie and Barry new confessions of "we stopped in 2006 and are now confessing for the sake of the kids to come in cycling" which eerily echo words in Tygart's statement yesterday - "_for the young riders who hope to one day reach their dreams without using dangerous drugs or methods._ " One could almost think they all shared a common ghost writer.


----------



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Has anyone heard from Phil Liggett today yet?


 
I'm sure he'll be coming up with some real belters "...never failed a, oh shoot,..level playing field, oh shoot...most tested, oh shoot..."

But as someone on said a few weeks ago: one thing you can say about him, once he's bought he stays bought.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Because the amount of doping, the substances, the expertise behind the doping plans varied according to what you could pay Ferrari. Take 20 athletes, all the same - the best doped one wins.


 
But they weren't all USPS riders and as has been covered before, its difficult to find anyone left in the top ten positions each year who didn't dope. Now I will agree if there was a lantern rouge in the peleton who was at the back because they didn't dope, then clearly it was not a level playing field for them. But the consensus seems to be that all the top positions were incredible riders of their day who became a bit more incredible by using drugs.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

There were many riders that were not doping nor wanting to dope even if they could afford it. That the majority of the podium were doping does not prove 'they were all at it' , merely the effectiveness of the doping regime. Doping should never be, nor have been, a proviso for competing.


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> If its a myth how do you reconcile that with the USADA statement (p7):
> 
> _Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping_​


 
I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.


I think that, for me, is the most important thing. 

I remember back in the 80s one DS being asked how his team kept on winning. Came the answer 'our chemists are better'. I have always thought that, setting aside a few refuseniks, the playing field was level, but it now appears that USPS did derive an advantage from superior technology.

I love the bit about flushing the drugs down the toilet........................ in a camper van.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Not to mention that different riders respond differently to EPO. Two riders can be on the same doping regime but one will get more of an advantage than the other. This has been mentioned several times both in this thread and the previous one. It's almost as if some people are ignoring such simple facts to suit their own spurious arguments (while ironically at the same time criticising the USADA for appearing to do the same).

d.


----------



## totallyfixed (11 Oct 2012)

If you can listen, Radio 5 live now, Saun Yates denying he ever knew anything in Pro cycling was going on - unbelievable, Michael Hutchinson also.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.


 Exactly so and many of us have been making that point for a very long time.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> If you can listen, Radio 5 live now, Saun Yates denying he ever knew anything in Pro cycling was going on - unbelievable, Michael Hutchinson also.


FFS!
Sean Yates was up to his eyeballs in it.
What is more of a concern is that he was on the management side when Armstrong was doping at Disco. His position at Sky would be untenable if he was to fess up in any way.


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

This is the passage from USADA I was talking about

"_The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and *ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices*_"


----------



## Crackle (11 Oct 2012)

So now we await:-

- The first litigation to recover monies given to him
- The re-start of the Federal investigation in some form via the Dept. of Justice
- The quiet fading of Armstrong sponsors
- The doo to hit the fan at the UCI

Anything else?


----------



## jifdave (11 Oct 2012)

collapse of livestrong? will sponsors still support it?


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> So now we await:-
> 
> - The first litigation to recover monies given to him
> - The re-start of the Federal investigation in some form via the Dept. of Justice
> ...


I'd like to see some reaction from the peloton now.
I think most of his money has been made from outside actual racing so that money won't be recoverable in the main. He was making upwards of $100,000 for an hour's speaking engagement for donkey's years apart from Livestrong for-profit arm.


----------



## totallyfixed (11 Oct 2012)

Radio 5 is very very good right now, ex editor of Cycling News working a knife into Sean Yates as I speak - brilliant.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

He was good but maybe went on a bit and was repeating himself. Perhaps given too much airtime?


----------



## Doseone (11 Oct 2012)

I really bought in to the whole LA myth when he was winning his tours. I suppose nothing can take away the enjoyment I got from watching at the time 'cos it was sport at its best, the plucky American cancer survivor against the evil cheating East German, and the Evil Cheating Kazakh. Now it turns out it was an Evil cheating American too.

I haven't followed every twist and turn and all the technicalities of the case, but any small shred of respect I had left for the man has gone and I hope they throw the whole book at him.

Fortunately my Discovery Channel shirt is too small for me these days (must have shrunk in the wash) but I'm going to have to stick with my Lone Star Giro helmet 'cos its a good helmet, but I might try and take the stickers off.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Doseone said:


> I haven't followed every twist and turn and all the technicalities of the case, but *any small shred of respect I had left for the man has gone* and I hope they throw the whole book at him.


 
Listening to BBC 5, it seems you are not alone.


----------



## Yogi49 (11 Oct 2012)

Well there goes the reason I got into cycling.

I read Armstrong's It's Not About The Bike about a month before getting my first road bike as I found it a real inspiration. And if I'm honest I feel a bit cheated, that this book that got me off my ass wasn't as non-fiction as I thought it was! 

Shame...


----------



## Doseone (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> Listening to BBC 5, it seems you are not alone.


I'm sure. I think he's finished in every respect now.


----------



## ColinJ (11 Oct 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Radio 5 is very very good right now, ex editor of Cycling News working a knife into Sean Yates as I speak - brilliant.


I'll try and listen to it on iPlayer later!


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> So now we await:-
> 
> - The first litigation to recover monies given to him
> - The re-start of the Federal investigation in some form via the Dept. of Justice
> ...


 
- First thing for me is the UCI have to ratify the contents for LA to officially 'lose' his TdF titles....
- LA to admit tearfully his doping while saying he realised the power of drugs as they saved his life when he had cancer and he wanted to be an inspiration to fellow survivors so just carried on...
- Business as usual! Elected as President in 10 years time.
- Discovers he's taken so many drugs, he is, in effect, now immortal.
- Manages to jump on each of the 6 billion graves of the people who branded him a drugs cheat.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.


 
Do they know that was not the case in the other teams. How did what happened in USPS compare for example with what happened in Festina?

But it will always be the case that the best funded teams will have an advantage. Wiggins clearly had a big advantage this year because of the quality and number of team members around him which having money allowed Sky to assemble. So on the crucial climbs he was always well covered, Froome's little breakaways excepted, while Evans struggled often on his own. You could say (and many have) that it was the systematic and controlling manner in which Sky managed the peleton that led to Wiggin's win.


----------



## laurence (11 Oct 2012)

to me it's the bullying and arrogance of the man... i disliked him for that. the doping, well, it was obvious the more time went on - his partnership with Dr Ferrari was a BIG clue. the fact he laughed after bullying Simeoni on the road, in front of the press, shows how he thought he was above the law. he used the press to his advantage and when things showed any sign of going wrong he played the cancer card and shouted witch-hunt

for me, the report just ties up the threads. i remember the story of him keeping testers waiting when they arrived at his house and how he laughed it off in the press and berated the testers.

he was a nasty man before he had cancer. nothing changed


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> This is the passage from USADA I was talking about
> 
> "_The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed *to groom and pressure athletes* *to use dangerous drugs*, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and *ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices*_"


 
I haven't read all the athlete depositions yet but it seems clear that most of them were already doping when they arrived at USPS. So I can see how you can groom them to do it better by giving them access to better doctors but how do you pressure them to do what they were already doing?


----------



## totallyfixed (11 Oct 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I'll try and listen to it on iPlayer later!


Stick with it as there is a break from 11ish until 23 mins past when it starts again. Boy there are some people on this show who are either naive and thick with it; have ostriches for parents; deceiving themselves because they can't understand how this could happen; or they are lying and I know which one I am going for .


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Do they know that was not the case in the other teams. How did what happened in USPS compare for example with what happened in Festina?
> 
> But it will always be the case that the best funded teams will have an advantage. Wiggins clearly had a big advantage this year because of the quality and number of team members around him which having money allowed Sky to assemble. So on the crucial climbs he was always well covered, Froome's little breakaways excepted, while Evans struggled often on his own. You could say (and many have) that it was the systematic and controlling manner in which Sky managed the peleton that led to Wiggin's win.


 
I'm missing your point, I think.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

I'd like to think Armstrong will confess, as I do actually think that'd be the best thing for him to do,but I'm not convinced we'll see it. I think he'll choose the more torturous route.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> I'm missing your point, I think.


 
My point is its never a level playing field - money buys advantage whether its by funding better training, better team mates, better equipment, better coaches...... or better doctors. Someone who can afford to train at high altitude and sleep in a hypobaric room will have an advantage, for similar reasons to having blood transfusions or EPO, over those who cannot afford to. One is exogenous manipulation of the blood and the other endogenous. One is legal, one isn't. Both are made possible by access to money.

And how does the organisation of doping that went on in USPS compare with the organised doping that went on in Festina (other than the obvious one that Festina's courier got caught). Do we know which one is worse? Did USADA investigate Festina and other teams before making their pronouncement that USPS was the worst?


----------



## MacB (11 Oct 2012)

What I don't want to see is some schmalzy US public apology along the lines of Tigger Woods, with the waterworks in full flow.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Do they know that was not the case in the other teams. How did what happened in USPS compare for example with what happened in Festina?


 
I've been wondering about this myself. Presumably it's a question of scale - USPS had a much bigger budget than Festina. In the same way that Sky have a much bigger budget than Garmin so can apparently achieve more using the same methods.

We know all about Gewiss-Ballan, of course, but there are other teams about which we may have strong suspicions, but they've yet to be investigated to the same degree (possibly because they fall outside the USADA's jurisdiction). I imagine a certain large Spaniard is feeling a little exposed right now.

d.


----------



## PpPete (11 Oct 2012)

Hope you can all forgive a naive question who came to this sport rather late.
There's lots of mention in the Reasoned Decision of Kevin Livingston. I've not heard of him before. What happened to him? He doesnt seem to be amongst those who have fessed up.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> My point is its never a level playing field - money buys advantage whether its by funding better training, better team mates, better equipment, better coaches......


 
That's professional sport for you. It's one of the reasons I've mostly lost interest in football. Unfortunately, cycling does seem to be going the same way a bit.



> Did USADA investigate Festina and other teams before making their pronouncement that USPS was the worst?


 
It doesn't take much investigating to reveal that Festina didn't win seven Tours de France.

d.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

MacB said:


> What I don't want to see is some schmalzy US public apology along the lines of Tigger Woods, with the waterworks in full flow.


 
I did find Tygart's statement schmalzy in a way only the American's can do.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> Hope you can all forgive a naive question who came to this sport rather late.
> There's lots of mention in the Reasoned Decision of Kevin Livingston. I've not heard of him before. What happened to him? He doesnt seem to be amongst those who have fessed up.


 
IIRC he now owns a bike shop in Aspen. Based in premises owned by one Mr L.Armstrong. I think this is mentioned in Tyler Hamilton's book.

http://www.kevinlivingston.com

d.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> That's professional sport for you. It's one of the reasons I've mostly lost interest in football. Unfortunately, cycling does seem to be going the same way a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Ah but they might have done if they hadn't got caught. And what about Ulrich's teams? Did he dope alone or was there organised doping in his teams. He is after all the winner of one and presumed winner of 5 TdeF's now


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

2091703 said:


> Apologies if you have made this plain before and it is lost. What is your opinion here. Did he or didn't he?


 
Simply - he did, however it is not that simple...

I think this is a mess.

Armstrong is undoubtedly guilty, but USADA has compromised itself on several occasions in the process, and this has always given the opportunity to challenge or disallow evidence. I have said from the start that the worst case scenario was to have valid evidence disallowed due to technicalities. RedLight’s unwelcome point above is a classic example,- the USADA is in breach of WADA codes, and the UCI refuses to beak the rules in the same way. Are they wrong to act legally?


There is also (again unpopular) fact that some of the tests etc are still not unequivocal, with the USADA themselves questioning the validity of B sample testing due to chemical changes and degradation.

Neither the UCI, nor USADA come out of this unscathed or with intact reputations, there is also going to be infighting between the two and that leads to a dilemma……

What is needed is to move away from the emphasis on “Get Lance” and look the evidence that doping in this period was rife, systematic and virtually universal.

By all means deal with Armstrong as an individual, but don’t let this cloud the depth and extent of the problem.

What I would like to see is an independent investigation into doping across professional cycling at this time, and then use those lessons to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated, and improve the current situation

The end result could at least com up with some sort of constructive and positive outcome.


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> My point is its never a level playing field - money buys advantage whether its by funding better training, better team mates, better equipment, better coaches...... or better doctors. Someone who can afford to train at high altitude and sleep in a hypobaric room will have an advantage, for similar reasons to having blood transfusions or EPO, over those who cannot afford to. One is exogenous manipulation of the blood and the other endogenous. One is legal, one isn't. Both are made possible by access to money.
> 
> And how does the organisation of doping that went on in USPS compare with the organised doping that went on in Festina (other than the obvious one that Festina's courier got caught). Do we know which one is worse? Did USADA investigate Festina and other teams before making their pronouncement that USPS was the worst?


 
Of course athletes will always try to gain the competitive edge, whether from training harder, using and developing new technology, *but NOT by cheating with potentially harmful PEDs.*

I can't believe I had to respond to you with that.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> if you don't like the comments, or their tone, report them, otherwise why add fuel to the embers?


 
Nott a mater of liking, or disliking, simply questioning why there seems to be a desire to bringthe thread to a close?


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

If you're comparing USPS with Telekom, I reckon Riis is the one that's most like Armstrong. Ullrich is more like Tyler Hamilton. Personally, I strongly suspect Riis is just as bad as Armstrong, only less of a bully and less successful (in terms of results).

d.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> RedLight’s unwelcome point above is a classic example,- the USADA is in breach of WADA codes


 
It's unwelcome because it's untrue. Just repeating it ad nauseam won't ever make it true.

d.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> Of course athletes will always try to gain the competitive edge, whether from training harder, using and developing new technology, *but NOT by cheating with potentially harmful PEDs.*
> 
> I can't believe I had to respond to you with that.


 
Where do you draw the line between sleeping in a hypobaric chamber to elevate your red blood cell count and having an autologous blood transfusion (which is very low risk and not a PED)? Which is cheating and why?


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Where do you draw the line between sleeping in a hypobaric chamber to elevate your red blood cell count and having an autologous blood transfusion (which is very low risk and not a PED)? Which is cheating and why?


 
If I have to explain to you why pumping your body with damaging drugs (that HAVE killed people), self administering blood transfusions, untested wonder drugs, is dangerous, more dangerous that sleeping in a hypobaric chamber, then there's no point discussing.


----------



## festival (11 Oct 2012)

Well, seems to me the dam has burst its banks at last and the evidence is flowing fast.
So far, I see Nike have commented that its business as usual, although that could be them completing any obligations then withdrawing quietly? 
Seen nothing from Trek or Oakley? All these big companies will be desperate to avoid bad publicity but business is business.
Is it too much to expect them to disassociate themselves with the cheat? 
And I am waiting with baited breath to hear what the "fountain of all cycle race knowledge" Mr Liggett has to say on the latest news?


----------



## raindog (11 Oct 2012)

For the people who, even now, keep trotting out the "even playing field" crap, there's this from David Walsh this morning...
"....they (_the UCI_) should be apologizing to Paul Kimmage and to all the riders who were completely screwed by a doping culture. Riders who didn’t want to dope, who got out the sport, some who even stayed in and got absolutely hammered on the roads because they were at such a disadvantage because they wouldn’t dope"

and I think this, about Emma O'Reilly and Betsy Andreu is worth quoting......
"...For me they’re the two strongest people in all of this. They’ve been fantastic throughout all of this. They’ve been strong, always standing up for what was right, and standing up for what was right when it hurt them financially, when it hurt them with stress and people persecuting them. If anyone comes out of this as a hero it’s Emma and Betsy"


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> What is needed is to move away from the emphasis on “Get Lance” and look the evidence that doping in this period was rife, systematic and virtually universal.


 
It's not an either/or. One can acknowledge the latter by addressing the role of the former.

I don't think anyone would conclude after reading the USADA report that Armstrong was just a doper. Arguably he contributed significantly to the rife and systematic nature of doping in that era.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

Nothing yet from Hein?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-says-armstrong-never-never-never-doped


----------



## beastie (11 Oct 2012)

Alex Dowsett on BBC - " LA still a legend", " I don't really think about it, we are all racing clean now". 

What a fecking copout....


----------



## albion (11 Oct 2012)

If all true I see little change in the testing landscape.

So it is quite safe to assume a high percentage of the top 'Roy Keane' type footballers, the likes of Kelly Holmes, Mo Farah, Usain Bolt, Yohan Blake etc etc all dope/doped.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> For the people who, even now, keep trotting out the "even playing field" crap, there's this from David Walsh this morning...
> "....they (_the UCI_) should be apologizing to Paul Kimmage and to all the riders who were completely screwed by a doping culture. Riders who didn’t want to dope, who got out the sport, some who even stayed in and got absolutely hammered on the roads because they were at such a disadvantage because they wouldn’t dope"


 
Absolutely right - anyone who sticks with the even playing field notion should read more about the concept of passive doping.


----------



## albion (11 Oct 2012)

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

Sure George.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-federation-forwards-bruyneel-charges-to-federal-prosecutor
The Belgian prosecutor may be looking into Bruyneel now.


----------



## laurence (11 Oct 2012)

2092292 said:


> Is it time to start a book on who will be doing jail time?


 
or who will meet with an 'accident'


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

This is from the Clinic but Bertagnolli's affidavit throws a few names into the mix...
...
* *Bertagnolli* started working with Ferrari in 2006, to have his thyroid problems treated.

* In July 2007, he went to St. Moritz to see Ferrari, who provided him with EPO, to be injected intravenously. Bertolini, Chicchi, Gasparotto and Pellizotti were with him in St. Moritz. *Bertagnolli* also recalls seeing Vinokourov and a group of other cyclists with Ferrari in Livigno, 2006.

* *Bertagnolli* started taking EPO in 2003, as advised by doctor Manelli, but in a very amateuristic way: Ferrari showed him how to use the product properly, in order not to test positive.

* A lot of *Bertagnolli*'s Liquigas colleagues also went to Ferrari: he names Pellizotti, Chicchi, Gasparotto... and Kreuziger. He recalls seeing Popovych and Bileka at Ferrari's house and also mentions Morris Possoni.

* In 2007 *Bertagnolli* started with blood transfusions. Ferrari told him which refrigerator to buy to store his blood in the best way (at the right temperature). He stored his blood in plastic bags. He affirms he did not transfuse blood prior to working with Ferrari, and it scared him a lot.

* In 2008 Liquigas forbid its riders to work with Ferrari, so *Bertagnolli* only performed a single transfusion. In 2009 he did "some", in 2010 the transfusions were three.

* *Bertagnolli* met Ferrari at the end of 2010. Ferrari told him to "throw away all evidence", because he knew of the ongoing Popovych investigation. Ferrari told him to consider using polypropylene blood bags or "flebi di vetro" (an object in glass used for transfusions).

August 27, 2010: in an intercepted conversation in Ferrari's mobile camper, Ferrari and *Bertagnolli* talk about a number of riders and doping practices:

* *Bertagnolli* says "everybody is going a little slower"; Ferrari says it's because the riders don't take EPO anymore

* *Bertagnolli* says "Pozzovivo hurts us on the climbs"; Ferrari says it's because he weighs about 50 kg; *Bertagnolli* answers he never ever saw him do things like that, "he's all muscles"

* Ferrari says some riders are using AICAR, but the product can be detected and it has to be imported

* *Bertagnolli* says the product comes from Slovenia; he names Grega Bole and Spilak as possible users, and also Chiarini

* Ferrari thinks it's madness to use AICAR because the molecule is easily detectable

(some less important parts and an interruption in the registration)

* *Bertagnolli* thinks "for Scarponi it's important to see how the Petacchi case will pan out"

* Ferrari responds Petacchi is in trouble although Bernucci took all of the blame

* *Bertagnolli* thinks it's incredible some riders still go to Manelli (the first doping doctor *Bertagnolli* himself consulted): Astarloa, Bernucci, Celestino and Honchar were some of his clients, and they all tested positive

* Ferrari asserts the Mapei Lab is a joke and the tests there don't prove anything

* Retacrit is another detectable EPO molecule; Maccanti and Biondo have been found positive for NESP after using Retacrit and thus, Ferrari thinks it's a molecule for "suicidal fools"; he wonders why the testers don't always detect it

Another conversation, September 28, 2010 (due to technical problems the Italian police only recorded the first 30 minutes of the conversation):

* Ferrari shows he's better at interpreting blood data than the UCI

* Ferrari is "obsessively monitoring" the blood data of his clients

Some pages seem to be missing here, or I didn't read the document too well.

December 1, 2010, another conversation:

* Ferrari asks *Bertagnolli* which blood bags he used, Contador might have used bags in PVC, *Bertagnolli* has been using polypropylene bags which are not detectable, so he's not in trouble

* some stuff about blood transfusions, no details

* riders who want to dope can't go to Teide anymore because the place is "bruciata" - monitored and known by the antidoping authorities

* Ferrari speculates someone in the lab might have spiked Contador's blood with clenbuterol

* *Bertagnolli* asks if Contador might have used Actovegin, but Ferrari says no; "Actovegin is made of calf's blood, normally they don't use clen for that"


----------



## albion (11 Oct 2012)

I still suggest cycling gets a raw deal.

The bigger money by far is in other sports so cheating there is going to be worse in many cases.
Its much about the money.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Oct 2012)

If anyone believes the level playing field myth, they should read the rider reactions here. Cyclists who were as good, as talented, as hard-working, as those involved in this (and other) doping schemes, were relegated to being also-rans. Sure, many of those who got to the top of the sport during this period were cheating. But that's the point. They were at the top. There were many who were not involved who were effectively 'just taking part'. And then, there were those who were doping but were haphazard, unscientific, unsystematic. I'm sorry but there's no way I can believe any more that Lance Armstrong was just a better athlete and was taking drugs like all the rest. He was so systematic about it, this was a whole different level, even from many others who were doping, let alone all those hundreds of riders who lost their chance at success because they chose not to dope.


----------



## Hont (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Bertagnolli's affidavit throws a few names into the mix...


 
Not many surprises there.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> Alex Dowsett on BBC - " LA still a legend", " I don't really think about it, we are all racing clean now".
> 
> What a fecking copout....


I think Dowsett is entitled to his view. Pro cyclists appreciate the suffering that their fellows have to put themselves through. And, let's face it, LeMond and Armstrong bought a whole lot of money in to the sport.


----------



## albion (11 Oct 2012)

2092319 said:


> Victim of its own half hearted attempts to get clean.



Far more likely down to most cyclists being very low paid with nothing to lose in coming clean.
Solo sports like tennis and athletics will cover their tracks far easier, and as we now know ,Fifa is all about the money.


----------



## Hont (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-federation-forwards-bruyneel-charges-to-federal-prosecutor
> The Belgian prosecutor may be looking into Bruyneel now.


 
I've just asked the Swiss government, via their website, if they are going to start an investigation into corruption in the UCI.


----------



## Crosstrailer (11 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> I've just asked the Swiss government, via their website, if they are going to start an investigation into corruption in the UCI.


 
Can you ask them to have a look at FIFA and that cockwand Sepp Blatter as well.

Thanks


----------



## Hont (11 Oct 2012)

Dogtrousers said:


> U
> The original spelling was correct.


 Indeed. Corrected and clarified.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> I've just asked the Swiss government, via their website, if they are going to start an investigation into corruption in the UCI.


 
Great idea, but unless the crimes include forging cuckoo clocks or embezzling Toblerone I suspect they might not go for it.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> If I have to explain to you why pumping your body with damaging drugs (that HAVE killed people), self administering blood transfusions, untested wonder drugs, is dangerous, more dangerous that sleeping in a hypobaric chamber, then there's no point discussing.


 
I didn't ask about pumping your body full of damaging drugs or untested wonder drugs. I asked about autologous blood transfusions - which are not that risky


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I didn't ask about pumping your body full of damaging drugs or untested wonder drugs. I asked about autologous blood transfusions - which are not that risky


 
At risk of sounding like a teenager, whatever.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> Not many surprises there.


 
No, true but elsewhere I saw LL Sanchez mentioned as a Ferrari client.
Leipheimer's statement also mentions him (Levi, that is) being seen by Ferrari at the same time as Popovych, Vino and Sky's very own Michael Rogers.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

*UCI Statement on USADA reasoned decision*
11.10.2012
The UCI has been advised by USADA that it’s reasoned decision and supporting material is available to view on its website (10th October 2012).
The UCI will examine all information received in order to consider issues of appeal and recognition, jurisdiction and statute of limitation, within the term of appeal of 21 days, as required by the World Anti-Doping Code.
The UCI will endeavour to provide a timely response and not to delay matters any longer than necessary.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> At risk of sounding like a teenager, whatever.


 
Yes, the standard teenager response to a question they don't want to answer.


----------



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

This is quite entertaining, trying to guess what bilge other posters are responding to


----------



## Crosstrailer (11 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> This is quite entertaining, trying to guess what bilge other posters are responding to


 
LOL Think somebody just turned on the bilge pump..........


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-federation-forwards-bruyneel-charges-to-federal-prosecutor
> The Belgian prosecutor may be looking into Bruyneel now.


 
Aren't KBWB jumping the gun a bit here? Bruyneel is contesting the accusations through the official USADA process yet KBWB seem to be talking of placing sanctions on him before his case is even heard.


----------



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> LOL Think somebody just turned on the bilge pump..........


 
It must be the "not following procedures" line and the "right to appeal" line that is being followed, given the responses. And I would guess at Red Light. Am I right?


----------



## ohnovino (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I didn't ask about pumping your body full of damaging drugs or untested wonder drugs. I asked about autologous blood transfusions - which are not that risky


Didn't Riccardo Ricco nearly kill himself with an autologous blood transfusion?


----------



## ohnovino (11 Oct 2012)

2092292 said:


> Is it time to start a book on who will be doing jail time?


I'll have a fiver on Mr Armstrong himself, on multiple counts of perjury during the SCA court case.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I didn't ask about pumping your body full of damaging drugs or untested wonder drugs. I asked about autologous blood transfusions - which are not that risky


 
Depends on how the blood was taken. And stored. And then re-infused.

Thats why hospitals emphasise using a sterile environment, proper storage facilities and sterile re-introduction when necessary. Not taking it out whenever, storing it in a domestic fridge and then hanging the blood-bags from hotel picture hooks when re-infusing.

Granted not as risky as jumping 50 foot onto a spike, but definitely risky enough to kill you.

google:
"risks of autologous blood transfusion"


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> It must be the "not following procedures" line and the "right to appeal" line that is being followed, given the responses.


 
Now, apparently, it's the Belgian cycling authorities who "aren't following procedure" because they've shown an interest in the evidence published by the USADA. Funny that - a cycling authority being interested in reports of doping activities by an individual whose licence they issued. Whatever next?

It looked to me like the Cycling News report said they were going to "investigate further" but I must need new reading glasses because others have read the same story and concluded that the Belgians have already decided to ban Bruyneel for life.

d.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> It's unwelcome because it's untrue. Just repeating it ad nauseam won't ever make it true.
> 
> d.


 
I think it is agreed that LNDD was using the samples for research into a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use. What you conveniently forgot to mention back in post 342 was that Clause 6.3 was about Research on Samples.

_6.3 Research on Samples_​_No sample may be used for any purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise identified by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program) *without the Athlete's written consent*_​​LNDD was pretty certainly in breach of even the 2003 Code by using Armstrong's samples without his consent and it looks like the 2009 changes were made to make that even clearer.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Entirely irrelevant.

Page 15:


> 2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence The World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by “any reliable means.” *This case was initiated by USADA based on evidence other than a positive drug test.* It is not necessary for there to have been a positive drug test in order for a rule violation to have been established and many cases reflect this principle. It could not be otherwise because at any given time there are many drugs and methods of doping on the prohibited list that are not detectable through laboratory testing.
> 
> There is, however, evidence from a number of Mr. Armstrong’s past samples that corroborate the other evidence of his doping. As explained below, had this matter gone to a hearing USADA would have asked the hearing panel to permit use of the scientific evidence to corroborate the testimony of its witnesses. However, *the witness testimony and other document evidence is so strong USADA would have confidently proceeded to a hearing without any evidence from samples had the panel accepted the UCI’s contention that only the UCI has jurisdiction to examine evidence gathered from samples collected by the UCI*.


----------



## Crackle (11 Oct 2012)

Would this be a good time to remind people that...


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I think it is agreed that LNDD was using the samples for research into a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use. What you conveniently forgot to mention back in post 342 was that Clause 6.3 was about Research on Samples.
> 
> _6.3 Research on Samples_​_No sample may be used for any purpose other than the detection of substances (or classes of substances) or methods on the Prohibited List, or as otherwise identified by WADA pursuant to Article 4.5 (Monitoring Program) *without the Athlete's written consent*_​​LNDD was pretty certainly in breach of even the 2003 Code by using Armstrong's samples without his consent and it looks like the 2009 changes were made to make that even clearer.


 
No - you've misinterpreted this.

The samples _*were*_ being used for the detection of substances on the prohibited list (as EPO was). That was the whole point of the research. So they do not need the Athlete's consent. There is nothing in the above text to support your differentiation between "a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use".

The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.


 
The question is not whether the tests themselves were legitimate but whether or not the tests were conducted anonymously as they should have been or whether Armstrong's samples were identified and targeted by the testers.

Either way, it's irrelevant to the USADA's case against Armstrong.

d.


----------



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Either way, it's irrelevant.


 
Ok, it's Red Light again, ain't it? This is getting too easy...


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> The question is not whether the tests themselves were legitimate but whether or not the tests were conducted anonymously as they should have been or whether Armstrong's samples were identified and targeted by the testers.
> 
> Either way, it's irrelevant to the USADA's case against Armstrong.
> 
> d.


 
The samples were provided on the 98 and 99 TdF. LA was the race leader of the 99 TdF for 2 weeks so would have a higher proportion of samples. There were 70 samples and 52 were still suitable for testing. The only identification was a random 6 digit code - there was nothing to identify the test to the rider at the lab.

Only the UCI had the information which linked the code to the rider and this was released to the investigating reporter at L'Equipe with LA's permission at the UCI headquarters. So again, can't see what the issue is.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> The samples were provided on the 98 and 99 TdF. LA was the race leader of the 99 TdF for 2 weeks so would have a higher proportion of samples. There were 70 samples and 52 were still suitable for testing. The only identification was a random 6 digit code - there was nothing to identify the test to the rider at the lab.
> 
> Only the UCI had the information which linked the code to the rider and this was released to the investigating reporter at L'Equipe with LA's permission at the UCI headquarters. So again, can't see what the issue is.


 
Don't get me wrong - I entirely agree with you. It's not me questioning the USADA's procedure.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Can you put yourself on your own ignore list? I must try it.

Edit: nope....



> The following error occurred:
> You may not ignore yourself.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

I'm assuming more nit-picking Noodles but it beggars belief that on the day that the biggest sporting fraud I remember, systematic cheating resulting in someone winning 7 TdFs and then amassing a small fortune on the back of it is exposed and the perpetrator confirmed as a liar, a perjurer, an intimidator of witnesses, that some people can try to divert that simple truth down blind alleys.


----------



## asterix (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> Can you put yourself on your own ignore list? I must try it.
> 
> Edit: nope....


 
Why don't you set up a 2nd user id and start an argument with yourself? Make sure you ignore yourself in good time, before you take it too far and get yourself banned for self-abuse..


----------



## Zofo (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Where do you draw the line between sleeping in a hypobaric chamber to elevate your red blood cell count and having an autologous blood transfusion (which is very low risk and not a PED)? Which is cheating and why?



Or full scale training at altitude even-? as per Sky team


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes, the standard teenager response to a question they don't want to answer.


 
No, not really, I just simply can't understand any of your points, and you're very hard work to discuss matters with. So I won't bother.

IF you have a problem with the generally accepted notion that there wasn't a level playing field as far as doping goes in the Armstrong era, then take it up with the USADA, it's primarily their assertion and one I and others on here happen to agree with.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> Why don't you set up a 2nd user id and start an argument with yourself? Make sure you ignore yourself in good time, before you take it too far and get yourself banned for self-abuse..


 
My god you're clever devious! Why didn't I think of that?! Blimey, I could even log in as the 2nd id and ignore my 1st id right back. Hours of fun!


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Zofo said:


> Or full scale training at altitude even-? as per Sky team


 
I refer you to the answer given by Mr Paul above.


----------



## gb155 (11 Oct 2012)

Why it is every single rider has all said they stopped in 2006 for the good of the sport ya ya ya 

It stinks the way it's coming across 

That said, I think it's fair to say lance might have once or twice dabbled


----------



## ColinJ (11 Oct 2012)

gb155 said:


> Why it is every single rider has all said they stopped in 2006 for the good of the sport ya ya ya


LA had retired by then? 

_"It wos Lance wot made me do it!"_


----------



## Noodley (11 Oct 2012)

gb155 said:


> Why it is every single rider has all said they stopped in 2006 for the good of the sport ya ya ya
> 
> It stinks the way it's coming across
> 
> That said, I think it's fair to say lance might have once or twice dabbled


 
Is that an admission that he cheated?


----------



## gb155 (11 Oct 2012)

ColinJ said:


> LA had retired by then?
> 
> _"It wos Lance wot made me do it!"_


But that's what I mean, it stinks, lance forced the whole of postal, discovery etc etc 

It's all plea bargains and looks like all statements were copied from a master


----------



## gb155 (11 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Is that an admission that he cheated?


He leveled the field


----------



## dodgy (11 Oct 2012)

gb155 said:


> He leveled the field


----------



## beastie (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I think Dowsett is entitled to his view. Pro cyclists appreciate the suffering that their fellows have to put themselves through. And, let's face it, LeMond and Armstrong bought a whole lot of money in to the sport.


Ok but...


beastie said:


> Alex Dowsett " I don't really think about it, we are all racing clean now"



This just 2 days after one of his contemporaries was popped for ....... oh yes EPO. If he didn't want to shoot in his own nest then a banal reply would have done. I was wrong to call it a copout though, he was very explicit in his views. At least he was prepared to say what he thinks, even though he was ill advised to do so. I bet Brailsford choked on his coffee when he saw that.


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Funny you should mention it, as I was about to post this fairly forthright blog post on the subject...
http://stevetilford.com/?p=22105

My own position on this matter is broadly in agreement with comment #15. Personally, I don't for a second believe that Levi et al stopped doping the minute they left USPS. And their remorse rings a bit hollow when it's coming at the end of their career - too little, too late. I think regardless of the bravery shown by those who have come forward, the sanctions the USADA is proposing are far too lenient, especially in Levi's case considering it's not a first offence. But if we keep digging, we'll probably have to end up giving life bans to 90% of the pro peloton, and I'm not entirely convinced that's good for the sport either.

d.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> Ok but...
> 
> 
> This just 2 days after one of his contemporaries was popped for ....... oh yes EPO. If he didn't want to s*** in his own nest then a banal reply would have done. I was wrong to call it a copout though, he was very explicit in his views. At least he was prepared to say what he thinks, even though he was ill advised to do so. I bet Brailsford choked on his coffee when he saw that.


It turns out that the Dowsett quote is two months old, and that he is now saying that he wouldn't shake his hand.........


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

gb155 said:


> But that's what I mean, it stinks, lance forced the whole of postal, discovery etc etc
> 
> It's all plea bargains and looks like all statements were copied from a master


 
Consistent witness statements usually add to the strength of the case. If they all said something different then they'd be greater cause for concern, which there isnt.

Unless you meant they copied from a master (taking EPO, steroids, testosterone) and that master was Lance Armstrong???


----------



## gb155 (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Consistent witness statements usually add to the strength of the case. If they all said something different then they'd be greater cause for concern, which there isnt.
> 
> Unless you meant they copied from a master (taking EPO, steroids, testosterone) and that master was Lance Armstrong???


Your missing the point to get your own views aired 

It's almost word for word and the fact that they all care so much for Yong riders now, not they are all at the tail end and not in 2006 when doing vanished over night, just screams Bs


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> No - you've misinterpreted this.
> 
> The samples _*were*_ being used for the detection of substances on the prohibited list (as EPO was). That was the whole point of the research. So they do not need the Athlete's consent. There is nothing in the above text to support your differentiation between "a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use".
> 
> The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.


 
No they were not. The purpose of the research was to investigate whether a new test worked. It was not to screen the samples for prohibited substances. Just as in the test of a new medical diagnostic the purpose is to see if it works, not to diagnose patients. A subtle but significant difference.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

gb155 said:


> Your missing the point to get your own views aired
> 
> It's almost word for word and the fact that they all care so much for _*Yong*_ riders now, not they are all at the tail end and not in 2006 when doing vanished over night, just screams Bs


 
Your point regarding witness coherency was being addressed. You need to be specific and provide examples when you say "word for word" and show where it is. As for motives, like you I suspect its not about upcoming Chinese riders. Its probably a whole range of things for each rider.

But I care less about motives than getting the story out.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> It turns out that the Dowsett quote is two months old, and that he is now saying that he wouldn't shake his hand.........


 According to this the quote was from this morning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Consistent witness statements usually add to the strength of the case. If they all said something different then they'd be greater cause for concern, which there isnt.
> 
> Unless you meant they copied from a master (taking EPO, steroids, testosterone) and that master was Lance Armstrong???


 
Its an easily detected difference in fact I might run them all through some plagiarism detection software to see if they are all common sourced. The difference is similar to lobbying campaigns. Its very easy to see who has written in personally and who has just copied a form response given to them by a lobbying organisation. Yes, if there is a common source of what happened (Lance Armstrong) then the content will be similar but the style in which is is recounted will still be very different person to person if they are personal submissions. And was Lance the common source for them all having the same reason at the same time for giving up?


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> According to this the quote was from this morning
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165


he's just been on the radio and said that it was two months old.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> No they were not. The purpose of the research was to investigate whether a new test worked. It was not to screen the samples for prohibited substances. Just as in the test of a new medical diagnostic the purpose is to see if it works, not to diagnose patients. A subtle but significant difference.


 
Nope there is no mention of "screen the samples". You're adding an interpretation that is not in the regulations. The words are clear - the samples were being used to test for prohibited substances. There is no more to the regulations and the tests were within the rules. The samples were being used to test for prohibited substances. The words are not in the text to support your interpretation.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its an easily detected difference in fact I might run them all through some plagiarism detection software to see if they are all common sourced.


 
Go for it, document the results and come back with the similarity metrics. Otherwise this is conjecture.


----------



## asterix (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> My god you're clever devious! Why didn't I think of that?! Blimey, I could even log in as the 2nd id and ignore my 1st id right back. Hours of fun!


 
Yes, it's probably going on all the time if we did but know it. Especially in CAD.


----------



## beastie (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> It turns out that the Dowsett quote is two months old, and that he is now saying that he wouldn't shake his hand.........



Really..... that is disingenuous by the BBC. I thought it was in a direct reply to a question posted today.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> he's just been on the radio and said that it was two months old.


 Oh! I blame the beeb!


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Nope there is no mention of "screen the samples". You're adding an interpretation that is not in the regulations. The words are clear - the samples were being used to test for prohibited substances. There is no more to the regulations and the tests were within the rules. The samples were being used to test for prohibited substances. The words are not in the text to support your interpretation.


 
Even WADA, in their riposte to the Vrijman report confirm my analysis:

_The process used by the French Laboratory in conducting its research was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions. _​


----------



## ohnovino (11 Oct 2012)

That Dowsett quote comes from the Tour of Beijing this morning, they've just shown the video of it on the BBC News channel.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Oh! I blame the beeb!


for my money the Beeb's News sections are totally, utterly useless. I'd rather read the Mail


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Even WADA, in their riposte to the Vrijman report confirm my analysis:
> 
> _The process used by the French Laboratory in conducting its research was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions. _​


 
Your interpretation goes much further than that statement. It's certainly open to spin but to say it confirms your analysis is stretching it a bit.

And more to the point, it's still irrelevant to the USADA's case against Armstrong.

d.


----------



## beastie (11 Oct 2012)

Not this time. The Beeb have edited the report to confirm that he made the statement today, and they reference the follow up radio interview where Dowsett tries to wriggle out of it, by claiming he first called LA a legend 2 months back. DB probably came up with that story with Yates in the car together.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

Armstrong tested positive for EPO on 6 occasions. For a variety of reasons these positives were not able to be used to ban him at the time. None of these reasons were because the tests weren't correct in their analysis.
Hence LA tested +ve for dope. This has been used as corroborative evidence in building the USADA case but is not central to it.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Even WADA, in their riposte to the Vrijman report confirm my analysis:
> 
> _The process used by the French Laboratory in conducting its research was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions. _​


 
Er, no it doesn't confirm your analysis which was that the tests contravened the rules (and I think earlier you mentioned human rights as well)., but the goalpost moving is welcomed.

The process was not that used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions - you obviously wouldn't freeze them for 5 years, wait and then test positive. But positive they are and they form part of a quite frankly vast body of evidence to prove LA doped. They are not the single reason why sanctions have been applied. Furthermore on the basis of these tests L'Equipe called LA a cheat and invited him to sue. He never did. Considering his penchant for legal action, applying pressure and bullying this is untypical behaviour.

Why?


----------



## Crackle (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> he's just been on the radio and said that it was two months old.


No it was definitely this morning at the Tour of Beijing and he's a pr**k, fully entitled to his views but nevertheless a pr**k.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Don't sit on the fence there Crackle!


----------



## PaulB (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> It turns out that the Dowsett quote is two months old, and that he is now saying that he wouldn't shake his hand.........


No it's not. He's just been on TV saying very positive things about Pharmstrong today, in China where he's riding in the Tour there.


----------



## Crackle (11 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2093026, member: 45"]Have we moved from "he didn't do it!" to "it's not fair!"?[/quote]
What's next, it was a plot by the Chinese.


----------



## festival (11 Oct 2012)

Alex Dowsett's comments!
Its a minor detail among all the stuff coming out today, but really, what plonker.
"he's a legend" "it dosn't matter".
Well why don't we just give up right now and let everyone take what they like.
Dowsett did come from the Livestrong feeder team, maybe he has got something he would like to share? no he's just a complete self-gratification artist!


----------



## Crosstrailer (11 Oct 2012)

Cannot believe that Red Light is trying to explain all of the evidence away. Utterly incredible. There's none so blind who will not see.......


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

Well, he did do it. He cheated. He lied. He bullied other riders, although one former team mate has been on Radio 5 this evening to say that he saw nothing and was never put under any pressure. He's not particularly generous about his competitors. He may not be a nice person at all, but, then again, he never pretended to be a nice person. But...........he was a great, great cyclist. And whatever name they put on those seven TdFs now, nobody other than a few thousand cyclists and the French will think that anybody other than Armstrong won those races.

He's got away with it ........and married Cheryl Crow. That's the way it is, and the rest of the world is going to just have to suck it up.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhG2kWVLY


----------



## laurence (11 Oct 2012)

he didn't marry Sheryl Crow. he dumped her around the time she was diagnosed with cancer.


----------



## Dave Davenport (11 Oct 2012)

Although it was exciting, I never got the 'what fantastic riding / bike handling' bit. He rode across a dry field in a straight line, I think even I'd have been able to manage that.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

laurence said:


> he didn't marry Sheryl Crow. he dumped her around the time she was diagnosed with cancer.


oooohhhhh!!!!!!

you see, there's a third way. You can be outraged by Armstrong, or you can be one of the two people in the world who believe him. Or you can shrug and say that there was some kind of unholy deal, and, at the end of it, he got the fame, the glory, the gorgeous girlfriend, the UCI got the money, and, actually, professional sport is kind of weird and it probably matters more that there is only on black rider (if that) on each TdF.


----------



## Smokin Joe (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> oooohhhhh!!!!!!
> 
> you see, there's a third way. You can be outraged by Armstrong, or you can be one of the two people in the world who believe him. Or you can shrug and say that there was some kind of unholy deal, and, at the end of it, he got the fame, the glory, the gorgeous girlfriend, the UCI got the money, and, actually, professional sport is kind of weird and it probably matters more that there is only on black rider (if that) on each TdF.


A lot of the money may disappear should he be sued, the USADA investigation highlights the fact that he committed perjury in a court case and misused Federal funds should the powers that be decide to follow those up. And to people like LA the money is only part of what they want, had he stuck to his original intention of retiring in '05 he would still have had enough to live in extreme comfort for a lifetime or three. It is people's respect and adulation that the likes of Armstrong crave, with that taken away and his exposure for what he is in the public domain he will be hurting very badly. He probably realises that there is more to come as those who remained silent for years now decide to jump on the bandwagon.

Personally, I would not be surprised to see him fall on his sword, literally.


----------



## BJH (11 Oct 2012)

I am a little bit gob smacked catching up on the latest posts here and reading the various websites.

Sean Yates - really, your a DS but all you did was wake up, ride your bike, then drive a car, issue a few race instructions and saw absolutely nothing? - incredible Sean, incredible.

Lance was only levelling the playing field - so thats not really cheating is it - bizarre!!

It almost feels like this guy will need to walk into the middle of the White House lawn and take a dump on the stars and stripes before some people will wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> No - you've misinterpreted this.
> 
> The samples _*were*_ being used for the detection of substances on the prohibited list (as EPO was). That was the whole point of the research. So they do not need the Athlete's consent. There is nothing in the above text to support your differentiation between "a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use".
> 
> The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.


 
A poor grasp of medical ethics then?

Lets take AIDS testing in the UK.

For about 5 years all pregnant women in the UK were tested for AIDS as a random sampling of the population to assess the presence of the virus in the UK population.

These tests would have not been allowed without anonymity as a basic requirement for the research

If we follow the argument that tests carried out under such circumstances are allowed to be used in evidence against the individual, then every female who was pregnant during this period needs to declare the test to their life / medical insurance company!


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Are you enjoying a glass of something there dell?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

MacB said:


> What I don't want to see is some schmalzy US public apology along the lines of Tigger Woods, with the waterworks in full flow.


can't the US govt just get his confession over and done via waterboarding...?


----------



## MacB (11 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> can't the US govt just get his confession over and done via waterboarding...?


 
we're talking the US here so anything is possible, they have a long history of forgiving/overlooking all sorts from slebs, politicos, corporates, etc, etc. But if the tide happens to turn it's like a pack of hungry dogs.


----------



## BJH (11 Oct 2012)

On a separate note, I feel pretty annoyed with the statements made yesterday by Hincapie and Barry.

Don't sit their blathering about the work you have done for younger cyclists and to promote good values in cycling since you cleaned up after 2006 (!) - make your apologies and just go.

I notice Michael Barry has switched off comments on his site below his admission, although he has always been more than happy to receive them in the past including the many thanking him for what he has done for Canadian cycling - bit like Ben Johnson for athletics hey??

When he put his denial on his site following FL's claims I made a comment pointing out that if some one had accused me in the way he had been, I would have been far stronger in my rebuttal than he had and used everything in my power to defend my reputation and good name. For me, the very fact that he had simply trotted out the same old crap made a fairly convincing case for me that he had indeed doped.

He could have come clean at any point but instead managed to eke out a couple more seasons or so and goes into retirement before he can be brought to book.

So Michael, George and chums I dont want to hear any further comments from you - you have no credibility in talking up the good you have done, you are part of the problem not the solution. I wonder how many sleepless nights you have had over the last couple of years knowing this was coming out at some point - hopefully you had the chance to think about the generation of young talent that had their potential successes and future careers cheated from them.

You can tell your children all about it when they grow up.


----------



## rich p (11 Oct 2012)

I posed a question a few weeks ago about the methods Sky use to ensure they hire riders without a doping history.
It seems it doesn't work because it's been more than a whisper for years that Rogers and Barry were suspicious and now Possoni has been revealed as a Ferrari client. Add to that Yates, the dodgy doctor from Rabobank and possibly Bobby Julich then Sky have a few skeletons in the cupboard.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

In fairness, I think Cunobelin did make a good point. I just failed to see how it was relevant... but perhaps it was too oblique for me. It was like there were similar keywords (drug testing, anonymity, evidence) but it didn't otherwise fit the context.


----------



## laurence (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> In fairness, I think Cunobelin did make a good point. I just failed to see how it was relevant... but perhaps it was too oblique for me. It was like there were similar keywords (drug testing, anonymity, evidence) but it didn't otherwise fit the context.


 
they all crossed the line too.

probably been through countless lawyers by the time it hit the page


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> Are you enjoying a glass of something there dell?


answer me this. Would you rather
- be very, very cross about Lance Armstrong
or
- not be too bothered, reasoning that it's in the past

If I were to be sour about drugs cheats then I'd be kicking all the people that I admired in cycling over a thirty year period in to the long grass. I'll settle for remembering the good times.

Smoking Joe may be right. This may be the beginning of a reckoning - but somehow I doubt that Armstrong will live the rest of his life in penury and obscurity


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> answer me this. Would you rather
> - be very, very cross about Lance Armstrong
> or
> - not be too bothered, reasoning that it's in the past


 
Are those my only choices? I'd like to choose a path somewhere between the two.

I thought you were only have fun dell so I responded, I thought, in kind. I don't live in a black and white world, shades are wear (note the deliberate typo) it's at man. Armstrong is both saint and sinner. A supreme athlete and a doper. I can remember it all. Remembering the bad stuff doesn't pain me.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Oct 2012)

If we didn't know better, we might think dell was in the running for UCI President...

There are other options than being 'very, very cross' and 'not being too bothered', like for example being interested in the truth and considering how this could be a springboard to a wider reform of professional cycling - and given that Armstrong is still denying every single last aspect of this, it's not yet the time to forgive and forget.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

2093159 said:


> Medical ethics? We are talking about policing compliance with a banned substance regime in sport. What has that got to do with medicine?


 


One of two things happened here, and you need to make up your mind which.

This was part of a research project and the samples should be anonymised (standard research ethics requirement), in which case if the samples were identified , the research process is compromised and invalidated.

Or it was a formal test of a B sample, in which case the WADA regulations were breached.

Which way do you want to invalidate the result?


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Well, he did do it. He cheated. He lied.
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhG2kWVLY




Agree, in my cynical view the winner gets the cheque. But in terms of bike handling, he's a poof as the following demonstrates.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZmJtYaUTa0&feature=player_embedded


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> One of two things happened here, and you need to make up your mind which.


 
You know, before you posted that, I typed up a longish post addressing that very point.... and then binned it! Not because it didn't matter but because we'll never know. Picking one is a somewhat futile exercise.

For what it's worth, I don't think option 1 (retest of anonymised samples) was a breach. Precisely because they were anonymised. I suspect lab re-tests are not uncommon, to test new tests amongst other reasons. I'd even imagine that's partly why samples are stored.

If there was a breach, it's when the results came in and someone then tapped a number into a computer to find out who the sample belonged to. Out of curiosity or whatever. They then maybe picked up the phone and spoke to a journalist. I don't know who was in a position to do that but I assumed it wasn't the lab... maybe only UCI or AFLD. I certainly don't think it happened the other way around. I don't think anyone ordered a retest of Armstrong's samples.

But, as I say, it's all speculation and we'll never really know. It certainly doesn't matter what I think. The official line is 'no breach', obviously. However it happened, USADA didn't order it and the information was presented to them, even if it be fruit from the forbidden tree (or whatever the expression is). And, as has been pointed, USADA have stated that they don't rely on this information and feel they can make a case from witness testimony alone. Personally, I go with that.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

2093286 said:


> I don't care. A drugs cheat has been routed out, the governing body exposed as corrupt and inept. No can we get on with re-building.


 
Couldnt agree more but its nice to tie up the ends and stop the nonsense snowball. The research project which identified positive EPO tests was anonymised. The tests were complete and finished and the reports done with the positive results were assigned to the random ID. So the research is not compromised and is not invalidated. Post this a reporter managed to piece together that LA was responsible.

So there is no argument that this invalidates the results.


----------



## Happiness Stan (11 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Well, he did do it. He cheated. He lied. He bullied other riders, although one former team mate has been on Radio 5 this evening to say that he saw nothing and was never put under any pressure. He's not particularly generous about his competitors. He may not be a nice person at all, but, then again, he never pretended to be a nice person. But...........he was a great, great cyclist. And whatever name they put on those seven TdFs now, nobody other than a few thousand cyclists and the French will think that anybody other than Armstrong won those races.
> 
> He's got away with it ........and married Cheryl Crow. That's the way it is, and the rest of the world is going to just have to suck it up.
> 
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtZhG2kWVLY



A professional bike rider manages to ride across a field - whoop de woo. I'm even more impressed how he walks out in front of the speeding pack in order to remount. Once a dick, always a dick.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> A professional bike rider manages to ride across a field - whoop de woo. I'm even more impressed how he walks out in front of the speeding pack in order to remount. *Once a dick, always a dick*.


get some sleep. You'll feel more at one with the world in the morning.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

2093286 said:


> I don't care. A drugs cheat has been routed out, the governing body exposed as corrupt and inept. No can we get on with re-building.


 

Thank you.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Thank you, neither UCI or USADA comes out well


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> You know, before you posted that, I typed up a longish post addressing that very point.... and then binned it! Not because it didn't matter but because we'll never know. Picking one is a somewhat futile exercise.
> 
> For what it's worth, I don't think option 1 (retest of anonymised samples) was a breach. Precisely because they were anonymised. I suspect lab re-tests are not uncommon, to test new tests amongst other reasons. I'd even imagine that's partly why samples are stored.
> 
> ...


 
OK, to clear this up, again. Lab develops a test for EPO. They want to check it so get samples from 98/99 TdF to run against. The samples have a 6 digit number which is matched to the doping control form but is essentially randomly assigned. Many months later whispers come out that a lot of the tests were positive, but no-one know whose. The doping control forms were held by the UCI. A reporter from L'Equipe approached the UCI and LA to ask if he could have access to the doping control forms for those years. Unsuspecting, access was given and he managed to match the named forms to the EPO results.

So its not a breach, a reporter had a lot of work to do, went about it cleverly and access was by permission of the UCI AND Lance Armstrong himself. Conceptually its not hugely different from the police matching the fingerprints (as a random key) on a TdF trophy to a lying fraudster.


----------



## DogTired (11 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> A poor grasp of medical ethics then?
> 
> Lets take AIDS testing in the UK.


 
Actually let's not take AIDS testing in the UK. This is about the WADA code for drug testing in sport (the 2003 edition in force at the time). AIDS testing in the UK doesnt bring enlightenment to the subject.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> So its not a breach, a reporter had a lot of work to do, went about it cleverly and access was by permission of the UCI AND Lance Armstrong himself.


 
I'm not disagreeing with you! I think you might have missed the part where I said I didn't think there was a breach. My point was that IF (note IF) there was a breach, it was someone making the journalist's task just a little easier. In fairness, we can't be certain that didn't happen.

I would however be interested to know at what point Armstrong gave his consent and to what exactly. Exactly what did Armstrong give permission for?


----------



## smutchin (11 Oct 2012)

http://ihatebicyclists.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/if-you-hate-lance-armstrong-you-hate-america/

lolz


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you! I think you might have missed the part where I said I didn't think there was a breach. My point was that IF (note IF) there was a breach, it was someone making the journalist's task just a little easier. In fairness, we can't be certain that didn't happen.
> 
> I would however be interested to know at what point Armstrong gave his consent and to what exactly. *Exactly what did Armstrong give permission for?*


Who cares, he's a cheat.


----------



## Crosstrailer (11 Oct 2012)

Looks like Red Light has retired, hurt and we now have Dellzeqq in to bat as chief apologist. Oh dear, he's gone first ball........


----------



## tigger (11 Oct 2012)

So as a quick status update... Big Tex definitely did cheat after all. There is no question of that. The majority are glad that this is finally outed. A few people still think the process followed by USADA is questionable. So we still haven't moved on...

So the next burning issues must be focused around the UCI surely? How will they react? Will heads role? How deeply complicit were they?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Oct 2012)

We will have to wait a few weeks while they digest the full implications...


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> It almost feels like this guy will need to walk into the middle of the White House lawn and *take a dump* on the stars and stripes before some people will *wake up and smell the coffee*.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Looks like Red Light has retired, hurt and we now have Dellzeqq in to bat as chief apologist. Oh dear, he's gone first ball........


I'm not apologising for him. I still admire the man, despite the fact he cheated. Not least because he annoys the living **** out of you.

Face it - he got the millions, he got the girls, he got the undying adulation of his fellow Americans and he got free sunglasses. And he raised half a billion bucks for charidee. And he got to ride really nice bikes.

He'll leave a bit of wreckage behind - possibly a lot of wreckage. Hein and Pat will shuffle off in to the shades, maybe some of the money will go.......but that's not the greatest tragedy


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

2093286 said:


> No can we get on with re-building.


 
I have doubts after this year is finished whether there will be any sponsors left to fund the rebuilding.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Looks like Red Light has retired, hurt and we now have Dellzeqq in to bat as chief apologist. Oh dear, he's gone first ball........


 
Actually having a great evening with friends. Meanwhile a few ad hominems is the sum total of your life this evening.


----------



## Red Light (11 Oct 2012)

I see the sweetheart deals have been published. Six months ban for Levi, George, Christian, Tom and Dave instead of two years for being good boys and taking the USADA shilling. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19917856


----------



## Aperitif (12 Oct 2012)

I come to this a bit late (well, early - so what...) and I would like to link to a nice article by William Fotheringham: HERE.


----------



## johnr (12 Oct 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/11/lance-armstrong-bradley-wiggins

Wiggo weighs in.


----------



## Crosstrailer (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Actually having a great evening with friends. Meanwhile a few ad hominems is the sum total of your life this evening.


 
What a ridiculous comment. How do you know what I was doing last night ?. Answer - you don't.

I hope you have another great day today


----------



## PaulB (12 Oct 2012)

It's going to get mighty expensive for the Texan http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/11/lance-armstrong-tour-de-france

And on top of THAT $7.5 million, there's the small matter of ANOTHER $7 million he'll now have to pay back to the TdF organisers!


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Red Light said:
> 
> 
> > Crosstrailer said:
> ...


 
Clearly you were sat at your computer missing my posts and speculating about the reasons. But Dell did sterling work in giving you something to rail against in my absence.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

PaulB said:


> It's going to get mighty expensive for the Texan http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/11/lance-armstrong-tour-de-france
> 
> And on top of THAT $7.5 million, there's the small matter of ANOTHER $7 million he'll now have to pay back to the TdF organisers!


 
_But others suspect there is little appetite for a re-opening a prosecution against Armstrong. They argue that the likelihood is that government lawyers had already amassed the same evidence as Usada, but had been put off by the high burdens of proof associated with putting a criminal case in front of a jury._​​Sort of sums it up really. The USADA evidence wouldn't stand up in Court even though it might get a conviction in the Court of CycleChat Opinion.


----------



## kennykool (12 Oct 2012)

well - I've been off here for a while but thought I'd better "man up" and post a reply!

Its well documented that I am a Lance "fanboy" (as some of you so kindly put it) and I must say - I am absolutely devestated by theis whole affair. I am still digesting the stories that are coming out daily but even I must say "its not looking good" (Understatement of the year?)

This guy WAS a hero of mine. He is the reason I started cycling at the end of the day but he has been well and truly knocked off the pedastal that i had him on. I backed the guy on this forum for a good while and now I feel a little foolish

Strange times - very strange indeed!

It doesnt seem fair that Hincapie, Zabnski & co get a winter ban for "grassing up" their mate. Surely they should all get life bans too?


----------



## PaulB (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> _But others suspect there is little appetite for a re-opening a prosecution against Armstrong. They argue that the likelihood is that government lawyers had already amassed the same evidence as Usada, but had been put off by the high burdens of proof associated with putting a criminal case in front of a jury._​​Sort of sums it up really. The USADA evidence wouldn't stand up in Court even though it might get a conviction in the Court of CycleChat Opinion.


Nowt to do with USADA evidence. He committed perjury which he'd find impossible, or more expensive than the cost, to defend against.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

PaulB said:


> Nowt to do with USADA evidence. He committed perjury which he'd find impossible, or more expensive than the cost, to defend against.


 
Well you'd have to prove perjury in Court. And the only new evidence there is is that assembled by USADA. So if not the USADA files what is your new evidence to prove perjury?


----------



## mickle (12 Oct 2012)

Jeezuss Red Light that horse starting to decompose.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

kennykool said:


> It doesnt seem fair that Hincapie, Zabnski & co get a winter ban for "grassing up" their mate. Surely they should all get life bans too?


 
But that was the sweetheart deal. "You follow the script on Armstrong (and don't forget the I'm think of the children bit - that always plays well with the American public) and you can be back racing again next season."


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Jeezuss Red Light that horse starting to decompose.


 
If the smell's bothering you I suggest climbing down from it.


----------



## Crosstrailer (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Clearly you were sat at your computer missing my posts and speculating about the reasons. But Dell did sterling work in giving you something to rail against in my absence.


 
And wrong again....how can someone be wrong so many times in one thread ?

MOD EDITED


----------



## kennykool (12 Oct 2012)

2094057 said:


> Would it help if we all gave you a virtual hug?


Virtual Group hug would be great thanks


----------



## kennykool (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> But that was the sweetheart deal. "You follow the script on Armstrong (and don't forget the I'm think of the children bit - that always plays well with the American public) and you can be back racing again next season."


 Yeah but that says to me - ok guys you can go out there and dope as a team, but if all of you "grass up" the main man then you'll get a lesser ban and the main man gets shafted

They are all guilty - and have admitted it!


----------



## PaulB (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well you'd have to prove perjury in Court. And the only new evidence there is is that assembled by USADA. So if not the USADA files what is your new evidence to prove perjury?


I wouldn't have to prove anything. It's case closed on this one, despite the decreasingly meagre straws you're desperately clutching at. And the UCI can take back his winnings once they accept his guilt so that's a dead-end too.


----------



## Andrew_P (12 Oct 2012)

The catch 22 for LA is that he still has interests alot of them chairtable (I fecking hope there is nothing in the wings on Livestrong & Armstrong) revolving around his 7 Tour wins the others who were all forced (LMAO) to take drugs between 1999 and 2006 and then were able to ride clean as the big bad Armstrong was not holding a gun to their head anymore and have either announced retirement, are retired already or will take a 6 month break. They were all in a position to dig the knife in for whatever reason without any real downside in fact they can cash in further with Books and interviews.

There is no way he could ever come out and confess, he had managed to stay in the limelight since retirement from the sport that made him famous (infamous now surely). No other cyclist still relied on their past glories as much as LA

I still enjoy watching some of the YT videos and think regardless of the drug taking he was a great to watch, and inspired a 1000's to get on their bike, this Vid still helps me get up a few hills despite the "conviction"


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

PaulB said:


> I wouldn't have to prove anything. It's case closed on this one, despite the decreasingly meagre straws you're desperately clutching at. And the UCI can take back his winnings once they accept his guilt so that's a dead-end too.


 
You are if you are going to try him for perjury and as noted above, the USADA files, which are the only "new" evidence, are unlikely to meet the Court's level of proof. Its not clear what might happen in the SCA Case as it was an arbitration hearing not a Court finding and SCA settled with Armstrong before the ruling. 

As for your assertions on winnings, time will tell.


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

Respect to Spartacus (though you have to wonder if he was only fooling himself if he didn't have a clue sooner)...


> @*friebos *Cancellara: 'Bruyneel's name appears in 129 of the 200 pages. I don't know if I can still work with him.' via @*sport_nieuws*


 
Full story (in Dutch): http://www.nu.nl/sport/2932149/cancellara-twijfelt-samenwerking-met-bruyneel.html


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Respect to Spartacus (though you have to wonder if he was only fooling himself if he didn't have a clue sooner)...


 
Remember this?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

Well, Verbruggen is apparently going to openly lie. He was famously recorded on Dutch TV as saying (translated here): 'Armstrong never doped. Never, never, never." Now he is claiming that he never said this! It's quite amazing how brazen someone can be. But then again, he is up to neck in this.


----------



## Dayvo (12 Oct 2012)

Aperitif said:


> I come to this a bit late (well, early - so what...) and I would like to link to a nice article by William Fotheringham: HERE.


 
Yebbut, what about the _original_ post, AP?


----------



## Noodley (12 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Respect to Spartacus (though you have to wonder if he was only fooling himself if he didn't have a clue sooner)...


 
This is the same Cancellara that rode under Riis at CSC? And was Petacchi's lead-out man at Fassa Bortolo? He's being a bit selective about who he has difficulty riding for if he's now saying he'll find it difficult to ride for Bruyneel - and he must live the life of a hermit if he didnae know before now!!


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> I still enjoy watching some of the YT videos and think regardless of the drug taking he was a great to watch, and inspired a 1000's to get on their bike, this Vid still helps me get up a few hills despite the "conviction"



And what about Harold Shipman, all the people he cured even if he did murder a few of them. And that Fred West, what a fecking builder, you never saw him on Watchdog. Then there's that Jimmy Savile, what's the odd rape or shag with an underage girl when he raised all those millions for charity. 

Scandalous the way some people are picked on.


----------



## Andrew_P (12 Oct 2012)

Out of interest how many of today's Pro Cyclists's would you put your house on that they are racing 100% clean? Loads of threads over at The Clinic pointing the boney finger at Team Sky yet hardly a mention on here?


----------



## ColinJ (12 Oct 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> If you can listen, Radio 5 live now, Saun Yates denying he ever knew anything in Pro cycling was going on - unbelievable, Michael Hutchinson also.


Available for another 6 days on iPlayer - link. I am listening to it now.


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> This is the same Cancellara that rode under Riis at CSC? And was Petacchi's lead-out man at Fassa Bortolo? He's being a bit selective about who he has difficulty riding for if he's now saying he'll find it difficult to ride for Bruyneel - and he must live the life of a hermit if he didnae know before now!!


 
Absolutely spot on.

However, the positive I take from this is that it's an unequivocal statement of disapproval. We need more people of Cancellara's status in the sport coming out and saying stuff like this. I don't want to go so far as to say "never mind what they've done/what they knew in the past" but statements such as this will help move the sport forwards, which is more important.

Or am I being hopelessly naive?

d.


----------



## Noodley (12 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> However, the positive I take from this is that it's an unequivocal statement of disapproval. We need more people of Cancellara's status in the sport coming out and saying stuff like this. d.


 
We do. I have been surprised at how few have done so tbh, unless I am just not as "social media" aware as I should be and have missed it.


----------



## Nearly there (12 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Out of interest how many of today's Pro Cyclists's would you put your house on that they are racing 100% clean? Loads of threads over at The Clinic pointing the boney finger at Team Sky yet hardly a mention on here?


I believe Brailsford would like to have trust in all his riders from Sky and team GB are now clean but If a rider drifts to the dark side he can't control that can he?


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> And what about Harold Shipman, all the people he cured even if he did murder a few of them. And that Fred West, what a fecking builder, you never saw him on Watchdog. Then there's that Jimmy Savile, what's the odd rape or shag with an underage girl when he raised all those millions for charity.
> 
> Scandalous the way some people are picked on.


 
Do you really class cheating in a bike race on a par with rape, torture and murder?


----------



## Andrew_P (12 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> And what about Harold Shipman, all the people he cured even if he did murder a few of them. And that Fred West, what a fecking builder, you never saw him on Watchdog. Then there's that Jimmy Savile, what's the odd rape or shag with an underage girl when he raised all those millions for charity.
> 
> Scandalous the way some people are picked on.


 A tad extreme analogy there old bean..

I was reasoning mainly why he will probalbly never mea culpa, he cannort afford to. I was also questioning the plea bargaining being a bit extreme, bit like letting Fred West off because he grassed Harry Shipo up


----------



## raindog (12 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Loads of threads over at The Clinic pointing the boney finger at Team Sky yet hardly a mention on here?


LOL - TheClinic points a boney finger at everyone who rides or has ridden.


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

Nearly there said:


> I believe Brailsford would like to have trust in all his riders from Sky and team GB are now clean but If a rider drifts to the dark side he can't control that can he?


 
Yes, he can - and he does. Garmin and Sky have very strong internal controls, with constant monitoring of their riders, so any suspicious changes in their blood values or performance should be quickly picked up.

David Millar talks about this in his book. One of his problems while at Cofidis was a lack of pastoral care by the team - they basically gave him a bike and some kit and told him when and where to turn up to race. When he got involved in setting up Garmin, they decided the team needed a central base, which they established in Girona. This has benefits for both team and riders - they train together, all their needs as riders are catered for, they aren't as exposed to dangerous external influences. Sky have taken this approach even further.

Then you get a team like AG2R, whose director Vincent Lavenu makes all the right antidoping noises, but doesn't provide the same level of pastoral care, so it's sad but hardly surprising when one of his riders (Steve Houanard) succumbs to the pressure to perform and does turn to the dark side.

Of course, the kind of closely controlled setup that Sky operate costs an awful lot of money to run...

d.


----------



## beastie (12 Oct 2012)

I would not bet my house on any rider being beyond suspicion, would you. Riders who are most likely to be clean now must include British cyclist, because they are British, obviously.


----------



## MacB (12 Oct 2012)

Is it time for a New New Improved LA Thread?


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> And what about Harold Shipman, all the people he cured even if he did murder a few of them. And that Fred West, what a fecking builder, you never saw him on Watchdog. Then there's that Jimmy Savile, what's the odd rape or shag with an underage girl when he raised all those millions for charity.
> 
> Scandalous the way some people are picked on.


dammit, SJ, you missed out Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Caligula. The AiS prize for *Moral Outrage* is still up for grabs..........


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> I would not bet my house on any rider being beyond suspicion, would you.


I would - otherwise why would I follow pro-cycling if I didn't think any of them were above suspicion? Bet my house? Cadel Evans and just about anyone on Garmin Sharp. I don't have too many doubts about most of Team Sky.


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

kennykool said:


> This guy WAS a hero of mine...I backed the guy on this forum for a good while and now I feel a little foolish


He was a hero to a great many, me included (up to the first blood passport season of 2008 when watching everyone crawl up mountains switched on a light bulb in my head). You've seen the light now, be proud that this quote no longer applies to you...

 "If anyone still believes he was not doping, then they believe in Santa Claus." Professor Jordan Kobritz quoted in the Guardian

You might want to change your sig though...

"What would Lance do?" Dope, lie, cheat, bully and threaten everyone in his way.


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

kennykool said:


> Virtual Group hug would be great thanks


 Kenny great to see you and have the balls to come in. For what it's worth, many of us were duped but the scales fell from our eyes a few years sooner.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Oct 2012)

kennykool said:


> Yeah but that says to me - ok guys you can go out there and dope as a team, but if all of you "grass up" the main man then you'll get a lesser ban and the main man gets shafted
> 
> They are all guilty - and have admitted it!


My point for some time, its not just about Armstrong, there is a need for a far fuller investigation of the whole peloton

Mind you, there is an interesting question to be raised, with the USADA doing deals to get evidence,,,,, what happens if the UCI decides lifetime bans are appropriate despite the deals?


----------



## mickle (12 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> My point for some time, its not just about Armstrong, there is a need for a far fuller investigation of the whole peloton


To which the response has largely been, - for some time: 'Yeah._ And??'_
No-one, as far as I am aware, is suggesting otherwise. So why do you still continue to bang your lonely drum?

Armstrong is the biggest fish, the most successful TdF rider of all time. And from the evidence we've long suspected and niow seen, was involved in more than just his own cheating. Why would they not hunt him down first?

What TF are you on about?


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

More to the point, Lance Armstrong is an _American_ who was riding for an _American_ team. Hence he was the main target of the _American_ anti-doping authority's investigation into a fraud perpetrated against the _American_ government.


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

https://twitter.com/pgball/status/256754784294563840/photo/1


----------



## beastie (12 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> I would - otherwise why would I follow pro-cycling if I didn't think any of them were above suspicion? Bet my house? Cadel Evans and just about anyone on Garmin Sharp. I don't have too many doubts about most of Team Sky.



I love watching cycling, but I couldn't afford to lose my house! Yes I am fairly certain that Cuddles is clean, and you are probably right about Garmin and Sky, to which you could probably add certain French teams. I would bet my house on Sky and Garmin having NO institutionalized doping or even a "look the other way" policy. Any one doping at these squads must surely be a loose cannon.


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

Plus Millar finally feels able to speak his mind...

*http://tinyurl.com/9a5x3us*


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

Wonder how long this will last...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

Millar is demanding Verbruggen resign. I'd been asking for McQuaid to go, but I forgot that Verbruggen is still _Honorary_ President despite having stepped down as President a while back. He's far more responsible for all this than McQuaid, and there's nothing remotely honorable about him.


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Another thing occurs to me with some people bleating about whether the evidence stands up to courtroom scrutiny is the total irrelevancy of that. In Spain it wasn't even a crime to take peds until recently.
In the non-sporting world it's not a crime to take an ephedrine based cold treatment or any manner of non-prescription medicines.
Allan Baxter didn't get 3months in prison for taking sinex, he got a sporting ban.
The long and the short of it for me is that Armstrong's cheating in sport has been exposed. Whether he gets prosecuted for real crimes in the USA is of lesser import.
This exposure will serve to reinforce the clean-up of modern cycling and be a serious deterrent to team-organised doping in the future. That for me is enough.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

Spot on, rich p. It has nothing to do with any jurisdiction's standards of proof in the criminal courts. That's just a red light herring. As the USADA reasoned decision document points out, the nearest equivalent is the standard of proof required for professional misconduct charges, and the evidence in the report leaps over that line.


----------



## marinyork (12 Oct 2012)

I've been surprised how much publicity this has got on the beeb. The BBC are now writing more complex web pages to explain all this to the general public much to my surprise. Sky News interviewed Wiggins about it and he looked fairly p*ssed off being there talking about Lance Armstrong and about the actual content of the files.


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

According to Race Radio, Bruyneel has been fired by RNT...
https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/256766686793965569


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Do you really class cheating in a bike race on a par with rape, torture and murder?


I was pointing out that your charity work (ie giving other peoples money to a good cause) does not give you a free pass to get away with any wrongdoing - which would be the obvious interpretation of my post to a non-fanboy.


----------



## yello (12 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It has nothing to do with any jurisdiction's standards of proof in the criminal courts.


 
Indeed. And didn't many of us go to great lengths to try and explain that from day 1?


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> He was a hero to a great many, me included (up to the first blood passport season of 2008 when watching everyone crawl up mountains switched on a light bulb in my head). You've seen the light now, be proud that this quote no longer applies to you...
> 
> "If anyone still believes he was not doping, then they believe in Santa Claus." Professor Jordan Kobritz quoted in the Guardian
> 
> ...


We were all fooled for some of the time. The initial suspicions voiced by the French media were viewed as sour grapes when he won the '99 Tour, with jokes going round about how they had found traces of unusual substances like soap and toothpaste in his samples. As time went on however and more and more started to come out opinion gradually changed. We all started off wanting to believe, we gave up as it became increasingly unbelievable.


----------



## yello (12 Oct 2012)

marinyork said:


> I've been surprised how much publicity this has got on the beeb.


 
Me too. I new this would be big (The Fall of the House of Armstrong was never going to be quiet) but I wasn't expecting it to generate the coverage it is doing... not quite yet anyway. I think it probably speaks to the popularity of cancer Armstrong rather than cycling Armstrong.


----------



## Crackle (12 Oct 2012)

2094697 said:


> But if there were proof to a criminal standard sufficient to stick Armstrong inside for a while that would stand as a rather good lesson to others for the future.


Well, there's a good chance of a perjury charge sticking.


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> According to Race Radio, Bruyneel has been fired by RNT...
> https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio/status/256766686793965569


 
Reported on Luxembourg newspaper site...

http://www.wort.lu/en/view/radioshack-nissan-trek-separating-from-manager-bruyneel-50780057e4b0069dd6579285


----------



## smutchin (12 Oct 2012)

> Pro cycling’s big lie began losing its impetus when organized doping within the Festina team was exposed at the 1998 Tour. The revelations of the 2006 Operación Puerto blood-doping ring (of which Hamilton was a part) triggered the multiple admissions of EPO use by members (including Holm) of the Deutsche Telekom team of Bjarne Riis and Jan Ullrich. Those confessions accelerated the process, but neither the Festina affair, the Puerto scandal or the Telekom mess were fully investigated by the French, Spanish or German cycling federations, nor the UCI.


 
http://www.pelotonmagazine.com/Wilcockson/content/21/1902/Different-Takes-on-the-USADA-Decision


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> http://www.pelotonmagazine.com/Wilcockson/content/21/1902/Different-Takes-on-the-USADA-Decision


I'm finding this, _"I knew these guys and I am truly shocked_" reaction we keep hearing, even from Brialsford who was with David Millar when he was busted slightly hard to take. Yates too but also some journos, riders and DSs.
For crying out loud, we who have followed the sport, have known for years through the incredible times and speeds, the series of busts and the drip feed of circumstantial evidence. Where have these people been for the last decade?

I do like this Goebbel's quote even if it doesn't cast us in a good light but it's Armstrong to a tee...

“One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets…. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”


----------



## User169 (12 Oct 2012)

kennykool said:


> Yeah but that says to me - ok guys you can go out there and dope as a team, but if all of you "grass up" the main man then you'll get a lesser ban and the main man gets shafted
> 
> They are all guilty - and have admitted it!


 
I thought USADA had said that they'd have been easier on Armstrong if he'd been cooperative?

In any event, it's standard tactics for acting against cartels, both in the US and Europe.


----------



## johnr (12 Oct 2012)

kennykool said:


> Virtual Group hug would be great thanks


 ok +1


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

I have now read the whole 202 pages of the USADA's reasoned decision and all of the English language avadavits in the appendix.  

Some of the things that struck me which have not been commented on (or at least I haven't seen any comment on)...

-USADA got no evidence from FBI investigation, despite requesting it. That's odd no? Political pressure being applied?
-Kevin Livingston refused to testify. Why would that be? Let's see who his current employer is....
-Chris Carmichael seems to get off pretty much scot-free.
-The long held suspicion that Lance asked Trek to sever their ties with Greg Lemond looks to be confirmed.
-Axel Merckx was said to be working with Ferrari by Frankie Andreu. I thought Eddy had been a bit reticent with his ridiculous Lance defence.


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> Reported on Luxembourg newspaper site...
> 
> http://www.wort.lu/en/view/radiosha...rom-manager-bruyneel-50780057e4b0069dd6579285


 
Confirmed:
http://radioshacknissantrek.creates...633D88233AF8/75C8DE8EA89D0DC874AF8F7A76570606


----------



## Buddfox (12 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> I have now read the whole 202 pages of the USADA's reasoned decision and all of the English language avadavits in the appendix.
> 
> Some of the things that struck me which have not been commented on (or at least I haven't seen any comment on)...
> 
> ...


 
On a couple of those points, as far as I understand it - since the FBI evidence was gathered in the context of a criminal trial, it couldn't be shared. i.e. it was gathered under sub poena, but for the USADA purposes they wouldn't have had the same ability to sub poena witnesses. There may be other reasons but I believe that's part of it.

The Chris Carmichael vs Michele Ferrari role is commented on in Hamilton's book. Whilst Carmichael is good at his own PR in relation to his coaching of Armstrong, it appears that he was really a bit part player, and not involved on the PEDs side. Ferrari was in reality LA's coach (and doctor). It has never really seemed that Carmichael had any input on the PED side.


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Axel was outed years ago IIRC.
I wonder if Kevin L testified to the Grand Jury but refused to re-iterate it for USADA? His rent would have gone through the roof if he'd split on Lance.
I don't have the book at the moment but someone may remember if KL fell out with LA according to Tyler H.


----------



## raindog (12 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> -Axel Merckx was said to be working with Ferrari by Frankie Andreu. I thought Eddy had been a bit reticent with his ridiculous Lance defence.


Isn't there some kind of business connection between Eddy, Axel and LA/Trek? Can't remember what though.


----------



## Hont (12 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> The Chris Carmichael vs Michele Ferrari role is commented on in Hamilton's book. Whilst Carmichael is good at his own PR in relation to his coaching of Armstrong, it appears that he was really a bit part player


Thanks.



rich p said:


> someone may remember if KL fell out with LA


They definitely fell out. I think Lance even mentions it in one of his books, but they obviously made up because Livingston now appears to be working in Lance's bike shop.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Oct 2012)

Here's a revealing insight ... (link)


Brian Smith said:


> It was the autumn of 1994 and I had joined Lance Armstrong on a training ride on the banks of Lake Como.
> 
> We had enjoyed a successful season as colleagues on the Motorola team. I was certainly feeling I’d done pretty well in my first year there. I’d won the British title and just completed my first grand tour at the Giro d’Italia. I’d also won the first European race of the season for Motorola. I’d made a contribution. Proved myself to be a good, solid pro.
> 
> ...


----------



## oldroadman (12 Oct 2012)

LA is about the last person I would have wanted to work for or with, in any capacity. Rather have a modest level of financial reward in a small outfit (even if a few members were naughty and thought the less of non-chemical riders), and be able to live with myself than play any sort of games with future health.
I'm still here, and a few of the poor lads are not.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Oct 2012)

oldroadman said:


> LA is about the last person I would have wanted to work for or with, in any capacity. Rather have a modest level of financial reward in a small outfit (even if a few members were naughty and thought the less of non-chemical riders), and be able to live with myself than play any sort of games with future health.
> I'm still here, and a few of the poor lads are not.


Yes - I think Brian Smith made the right choice!


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

Nothing from the UCI yet - I wonder if Travis Tygart will be wondering aloud to the media about this ridiculous delay.


----------



## Smokin Joe (12 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Nothing from the UCI yet - I wonder if Travis Tygart will be wondering aloud to the media about this ridiculous delay.


They're too busy checking through their files and shredding documents.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Oct 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Yes - I think Brian Smith made the right choice!


 
And clearly 'oldroadman' did too...


----------



## Noodley (12 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> They're too busy checking through their files and shredding documents.


 
I wonder if paraffin sales in Aigle will be on the increase as well...


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> What TF are you on about?


 
1995 - 2005 inclusive.... you did know that didn't you?

What TF were you referring to if not one of these?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> I thought USADA had said that they'd have been easier on Armstrong if he'd been cooperative?
> 
> In any event, it's standard tactics for acting against cartels, both in the US and Europe.


 
Tygart has openly stated that they would not have gone for all 7 titles if he had co-operated


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Tygart has openly stated that they would not have gone for all 7 titles if he had co-operated



And is now lobbying others to penalise him too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705


----------



## beastie (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> And is now lobbying others to penalise him too.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705


Sorry but there is no mention of Tygart or lobbying in that article. It points out certain aspects of the USADA summary. 

On another front- are you a lawyer or such like? I only ask because you seem very keen on the legal ramifications of the whole LA affair.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> Sorry but there is no mention of Tygart or lobbying in that article. It points out certain aspects of the USADA summary.


 
?? _Usada says his statements in court were false and consequently "subject to the penalties of perjury"._ ??

As far as I know only the Courts, not USADA, can penalise someone for perjury so they are clearly suggesting the Courts penalise him.



> On another front- are you a lawyer or such like? I only ask because you seem very keen on the legal ramifications of the whole LA affair.


 
No, but I spend a lot of time working with lawyers on legal matters.


----------



## beastie (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> ?? _Usada says his statements in court were false and consequently "subject to the penalties of perjury"._ ??
> 
> As far as I know only the Courts, not USADA, can penalise someone for perjury so they are clearly suggesting the Courts penalise him.
> 
> ...


You spend a lot of time on this thread, you can't spend that much working.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> You spend a lot of time on this thread, you can't spend that much working.


 
Yes, so?


----------



## beastie (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes, so?


So what. Just an observation.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Oct 2012)

Bruyneel's gone. (Or has that been said?)


----------



## Bollo (12 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Bruyneel's gone. (Or has that been said?)


It has. Stories starting to appear in the mainstream press now.
It'll be interesting to see if this creates a domino effect where the recently sacked decide to take a few down with them.


----------



## Crackle (12 Oct 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted. More stuff coming out by the day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/12/lance-armstrong-jan-ullrich-doping


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> No, but I spend a lot of time working with lawyers on legal matters.


I have such fond memories of spending a lot of time working with lawyers on illegal matters.


----------



## PaulB (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes, so?


It's gone beyond 'just a bit tragic' now, in your sad case.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I have such fond memories of spending a lot of time working with lawyers on illegal matters.


 
That's what happens when you're on the wrong side of the law


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Not sure if this has been posted. More stuff coming out by the day.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/12/lance-armstrong-jan-ullrich-doping


That's rich. Did LA give Jan his eating disorder too?

I wonder why they didn't speak put sooner.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> That's what happens when you're on the wrong side of the law


Nothing was ever proved.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2012)

2095460 said:


> Is that to criminal standard or to civil standard?


On the balance of probability one of the bigger boys made me do it.


----------



## Crackle (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> That's rich. Did LA give Jan his eating disorder too?
> 
> I wonder why they didn't speak put sooner.


Well it was more the detail of when and why, rather than his 'he made me do it' excuse.


----------



## Red Light (12 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Nothing was ever proved.


 
Ah, the Armstrong defence. Nice one


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2012)

I recall reading, perhaps in Tylers's book, that the year after Festina was clean, due to them all running scared, but USP upped the ante and the others followed suit so Ullrich and Pevenage may be telling the truth, but the bit about having no choice but to join the arms race is a bit dificult to swallow!


----------



## Monsieur Remings (13 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I recall reading, perhaps in Tylers's book, that the year after Festina was clean, due to them all running scared, but USP upped the ante and the others followed suit so Ullrich and Pevenage may be telling the truth, *but the bit about having no choice but to join the arms race is a bit dificult to swallow!*


 
Unless you take the position that some drugs were better than none, and then the whole thing becomes much more complicated.

Like a lot on this thread I'm reading more than I'm commentating since the USADA report, and whilst I don't believe the 'level playing field' is a proper argument for the justification of cheating, is it perhaps naive to think that any help from the use of drugs would not be beneficial to those involved in a rivalry with a team that blatantly did have the best 'recipe'?

One of the most disturbing things to have come out of the USADA statement was the evidence to the fact that domestiques were also bullied into doping, EPO etc Now, when you consider that this obviously 'worked', what were rival teams to do to compete other than to implement some systematic, team -wide practice themselves?

History itself, as well as the hugely differential sums of money paid to corrupt doctors, says that there was no level playing field and that the best drugs (and monitoring by doctors) won, not the best man/men. But, I believe there would have been those, like Ullrich et al, who would have tried to have gained what they considered that 'level playing field' through the use of PE drugs however off the mark they may have been in regard to the US Postal 'recipe.'

On a more general note, I expect a purge of the UCI. I can't see many more riders being implicated but the credibility of this organisation now must surely be the focal point given that other notable national anti-doping agencies are coming forward with evidence of their own past concerns.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> .......... is a bit dificult to swallow!


 

I think most were injecting?


----------



## just jim (13 Oct 2012)

Not today Lance, not today.


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2012)

just jim said:


> Not today Lance, not today.


 
Excellent and prescient article Jim.


----------



## cyberknight (13 Oct 2012)

Not gettingdrawn into any disputes, i just thought it was funny


----------



## 007fair (13 Oct 2012)

what a refreshing story Scott Mercier's is 

How can 1 human feel they have to give up so much to retain integrity when LA seems to thrive on the lack of it.
I wonder what lance tells his kids?


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2012)

I have just read a thread on bikeradar, in relation to Brian Smith the current commentator and ex-Motorola rider. He states that 2 weeks after a ride with Lance, during which Smith stated he would never use PEDs due to promising his father that he would remain clean, he was called into a meeting with Jim Ochowicz and informed that he would not be offered a contract for the following season. It might just be a coincidence. But I don't think there are any coincidences when that cheating bullying tosser is involved.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Oct 2012)

2095471 said:


> And ran away?


certainly. in fact I remember overtaking them. But the forces of law and order were quicker and had very long arms.


----------



## PpPete (13 Oct 2012)

And another one's gone.


----------



## Mapster5 (13 Oct 2012)

Just been reading the write up about it all in yesterday's telegraph sports section and can't really believe how creepy and sordid it all was even the picture of Armstrong makes him look like a creepy weirdo


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Oct 2012)

*It was a cover-up – and I was part of it *

"I had been taken aside by a number of riders and _race organisers in the UK_ and abroad and had it explained to me in the clichéd words of one syllable why it was not in my interests to report certain things. In the sharing of that information you were told how it worked, how dope tests could be got around, who was complicit in this sort of cover-up. And I think that cover-up went on and perhaps to some extent is still going on." Andrew Sutcliffe Cycling Weekly Editor '91 - '98 quoted in today's Indie.


----------



## rich p (13 Oct 2012)

I'm not sure if this has been posted before but here is Levi Leipheimer's affidavit to USADA...
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer,+Levi,+Affidavit.pdf
the last bit where LA sends perturbing text messages to his wife is chilling


----------



## raindog (13 Oct 2012)

chilling indeed - thanks for the link rich


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm not sure if this has been posted before but here is Levi Leipheimer's affidavit to USADA...
> http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Leipheimer, Levi, Affidavit.pdf
> the last bit where LA sends perturbing text messages to his wife is chilling


If someone you knew sent what you regarded as threatening text messages to your wife over dinner what would you do when next you saw them?

I know my reaction would not be a passive one.

funny lots these pro-cyclists..


----------



## Oldspice (13 Oct 2012)




----------



## raindog (13 Oct 2012)

Betsy Andrew finally vindicated - she's one gutsy woman
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/betsy-andreu-no-longer-a-voice-in-the-wilderness
“Of all the guys Frankie has ever ridden with, two people supported Frankie. One was Greg LeMond, the other was JV. JV was the only teammate, the only one, who supported us from the very beginning through this thing. Frankie even told me that JV hated the doping culture as much as Frankie did. Maybe they were the sacrificial lambs. You had guys like Bassons, who never had a career because of all this, and then you had people like Frankie and JV whose careers were essentially killed because they wouldn’t get on the comprehensive doping programme and wouldn’t see Ferrari."


----------



## yello (13 Oct 2012)

It was a witch-hunt. Damion Ressiot, the journalist responsible for the story about Armstrong's 6 positive 1999 samples, himself says so....



> I did focus on him as a person, on the challenge that he threw at the journalists ("Do you think I'm doped? Prove it!") and I admit that it's a little cruel to stigmatise him only


 
There were another 6 positives not disclosed by Ressiot. Who were they? Look at page 202 of David Walsh's 'L.A. Confidential' for some clues!

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=damien_ressiot_05

But, ask yourself, do you really care?


----------



## Noodley (13 Oct 2012)

So, who has a copy of LA Confidential they can look up?


----------



## steveindenmark (13 Oct 2012)

I see US Postal Services now want $43 million off him. All the sponsors should do this to all the pro riders who have taken money under false pretences for years. Maybe then the new riders will begin to realise that they are never safe if they cheat.


----------



## yello (13 Oct 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> I see US Postal Services now want $43 million off him.


 
I need a link for that!


----------



## steveindenmark (13 Oct 2012)

It may be in Danish and so you will need to translate it. (I am in Denmark)

http://sporten.tv2.dk/2012-10-13-us-postal-kræver-43-mio-af-armstrong?forside

Steve


----------



## ColinJ (13 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> I have just read a thread on bikeradar, in relation to Brian Smith the current commentator and ex-Motorola rider. He states that 2 weeks after a ride with Lance, during which Smith stated he would never use PEDs due to promising his father that he would remain clean, he was called into a meeting with Jim Ochowicz and informed that he would not be offered a contract for the following season. It might just be a coincidence. But I don't think there are any coincidences when that cheating bullying tosser is involved.


*Cough* ...


----------



## PpPete (13 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> Betsy Andrew finally vindicated - she's one gutsy woman
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/betsy-andreu-no-longer-a-voice-in-the-wilderness


 
This was the most telling part for me, partly because I was already convinced of LA's guilt, and was just glad that the likes of George H. were part of the testimony.


> “I buy that they’re sorry they were going to be ‘outed’. They could have chosen to lie but they told the truth. So I’m supportive of that too. It’s the classic, you don’t say you’re sorry until you get caught. You’re only contrite after you’ve made your millions and when you’re compelled to tell the truth.”
> “I’m grateful but man they didn’t really care about the truth when we were trying to get it out there. They just didn’t care. The one that was hardest was George because we were so incredibly close to him. When he just lambasted me in a email to Frankie, about me bringing down the sport that tells you he had no intention of ever coming forward. He was content.”


I just lost all respect for those who only just fessed up.


----------



## Oldspice (13 Oct 2012)

There is a vicious rumor going round that Lance Armstrong's bike has tested positive for car. This is not true.


----------



## rich p (14 Oct 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> It may be in Danish and so you will need to translate it. (I am in Denmark)
> 
> http://sporten.tv2.dk/2012-10-13-us-postal-kræver-43-mio-af-armstrong?forside
> 
> Steve


I clicked on a few other stories linked there Steve and using auto-translate i can tell you that...

...
*Høgh calms: Stephan is pìss strong*


*and*

*Murray beat Federer: He served the poor *


----------



## Erratic (14 Oct 2012)

This (below) is on BBC radio5 live tomorrow night (15th Oct) 19:00.
Chapman did something similar on ex SA Cricket Captain Hanse Cronje - it was a tremendous show, hope for the same with this...

Peddlers - cycling's dirty truth 
Mark Chapman presents a special programme focusing on drugs in cycling through the Lance Armstrong era.
Hear from one of Armstrong's former team mates, Tyler Hamilton, as well as interviews with Dick Pound, the former head of WADA and Emma O'Reilly, Armstrong's former masseuse. Plus British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance enhancing drugs and Christophe Basson, a French cyclist who was driven out of the sport by Armstrong and other riders after he spoke out against drugs.


----------



## Paul_L (14 Oct 2012)

LA's lawyer just about to be interviewed on 5 Live (Gary Richardson's programme)


----------



## Paul_L (14 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> This was the most telling part for me, partly because I was already convinced of LA's guilt, and was just glad that the likes of George H. were part of the testimony.
> I just lost all respect for those who only just fessed up.


 
Just read that.

I thought it would be hard to lose respect for people like Hincapie, Barry et al but their silence and complicity in the omerta is quite hard to accept as a fan.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Oct 2012)

The Sunday Times is looking to get its money back
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/cycling-armstrong-sundaytimes-idUSL1E8LCDN120121013

Now.......all this talk of people suing Armstrong is fine and dandy, but I haven't noticed the perpetrators of financial fraud like Conrad Black having to live out their lives in the projects, despite judgements for zillions against them. Armstrong will have hidden, or simply moved the cash a long time ago. A million Americans go skint every year, 90,000 of them in Texas. My guess is that Mellow Johnnies pays him a decent salary, but not sufficient to re-imburse the insurers or the Sunday Times.


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

Paul_L said:


> LA's lawyer just about to be interviewed on 5 Live (Gary Richardson's programme)


 
For me, that was a bit of a waste of time. I wish the interviewer was more knowledgeable on the subject rather than dwelling on what he thought was a clever question.


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> My guess is that Mellow Johnnies pays him a decent salary, but not sufficient to re-imburse the insurers or the Sunday Times.


 
Have you an idea of Armstrong's worth? He's not short of a few bob you know. But it's all rather irrelevant.


----------



## Crackle (14 Oct 2012)

I was reading an article somewhere (I'll link if i find it again), which basically said it's still going to be extremely difficult to prove perjury, difficult, complex and expensive, despite the USADA report. In fact the only people likely to have the resources are the Dept of Justice.


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

Paul_L said:


> I thought it would be hard to lose respect for people like Hincapie, Barry et al but their silence and complicity in the omerta is quite hard to accept as a fan.


 
I must admit to be turning that way too. Particularly after reading the Betsy Andreu interview. This statement particularly swayed me...



> You’re only contrite after you’ve made your millions and when you’re compelled to tell the truth.


 
I've always had a kindly feeling towards Hincapie, recognised his selflessness (or what I thought was). I think I'm now suffering with a very mild dose of what Armstrong fans are dealing with.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> Have you an idea of Armstrong's worth? He's not short of a few bob you know. But it's all rather irrelevant.


in global terms, getting on for half a billion. But..........he's a resourceful man, a tricky item. I doubt he's got it in a bank account labelled 'Lance Armstrong'. He may suffer some losses, but he'll never be anything other than very wealthy.


----------



## Paul_L (14 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> I must admit to be turning that way too. Particularly after reading the Betsy Andreu interview. This statement particularly swayed me...
> 
> 
> 
> I've always had a kindly feeling towards Hincapie, recognised his selflessness (or what I thought was). I think I'm now suffering with a very mild dose of what Armstrong fans are dealing with.


 
I wonder if George started to turn against Armstrong when Radioshack chased the breakaway he was in when he rode for HTC, in the 2009 Tour (i think it was then) which would have resulted in Hincapie ending the day in yellow, something he never did in the 17 TdFs he rode. I'm sure i read somewhere that he never forgave Armstrong, his former best pal for this.

Also puts a different slant on this years finale into Paris when he was allowed to lead the peloton onto the Champs. Almost appears like this was a "thank you for your silence".


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> He may suffer some losses, but he'll never be anything other than very wealthy.


 
Which means that no-one should bother? There are all kinds of reasons for seeking to have court judgments reversed or to sue, and the money is only part of it. I'm slightly surprised that someone as intelligent as you could miss the symbolic aspects, not to mention the cumulative impact of multiple cases on Armstrong's credibility and on his networks.


----------



## PaulB (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> The Sunday Times is looking to get its money back
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/cycling-armstrong-sundaytimes-idUSL1E8LCDN120121013
> 
> Now.......all this talk of people suing Armstrong is fine and dandy, but I haven't noticed the perpetrators of financial fraud like Conrad Black having to live out their lives in the projects, despite judgements for zillions against them. Armstrong will have hidden, or simply moved the cash a long time ago. A million Americans go skint every year, 90,000 of them in Texas. My guess is that Mellow Johnnies pays him a decent salary, but not sufficient to re-imburse the insurers or the Sunday Times.


Maybe he'll use the example of Conrad Black in his defence?


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> The Sunday Times is looking to get its money back
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/13/cycling-armstrong-sundaytimes-idUSL1E8LCDN120121013
> 
> Now.......all this talk of people suing Armstrong is fine and dandy, but I haven't noticed the perpetrators of financial fraud like Conrad Black having to live out their lives in the projects, despite judgements for zillions against them. Armstrong will have hidden, or simply moved the cash a long time ago. A million Americans go skint every year, 90,000 of them in Texas. My guess is that Mellow Johnnies pays him a decent salary, but not sufficient to re-imburse the insurers or the Sunday Times.



I suspect its more news fluff and bluster than reality. They settled out of Court. The settlement agreement will have included clauses, which they will have willingly signed, which will be binding and say they agreed with his version of events. That is going to be a tough one to overturn in Court versus had they continued to fight the case and lost. In that latter case they could easily have the case re-opened on the basis of new information or the Court being mislead but not when they have proposed a settlement and signed a binding agreement.


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Which means that no-one should bother? There are all kinds of reasons for seeking to have court judgments reversed or to sue, and the money is only part of it. I'm slightly surprised that someone as intelligent as you could miss the symbolic aspects, not to mention the cumulative impact of multiple cases on Armstrong's credibility and on his networks.



IIRC there are very few Court judgements. They were (nearly?) all settled out of Court, an outcome that is normally triggered by the defendant, and as noted above not so easily re-opened because the Court will say you withdrew from having us decide the issue and instead willingly signed to say you were wrong.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (14 Oct 2012)

Breaking news. Armstrong never doped. Just followed a strict diet is all.


----------



## Paul_L (14 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Breaking news. Armstrong never doped. Just followed a strict diet is all.
> 
> View attachment 13874


As sponsored by the US Doping Association (organic department) !!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> in global terms, getting on for half a billion. But..........he's a resourceful man, a tricky item. I doubt he's got it in a bank account labelled 'Lance Armstrong'. He may suffer some losses, but he'll never be anything other than very wealthy.


Times settled out of court. QED no court judgement to reverse. He'll keep his loot.

LA is an "American Hero" and lots of folk there don't care to see the heroes tarnished, caring, I guess, more for the hero than the sport?

So my guess is, in the states, his status, financial and otherwise won't change. With friends in high places I honestly can't see the DoJ going after him.


----------



## raindog (14 Oct 2012)

you couldn't make this up could you?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-lie-detector-usada


----------



## steveindenmark (14 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I clicked on a few other stories linked there Steve and using auto-translate i can tell you that...
> 
> ...
> *Høgh calms: Stephan is pìss strong*
> ...


 
The translator is slighly worse than Google translate 

But you get the idea, sort of.

Steve


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> you couldn't make this up could you?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-lie-detector-usada


 
Well, to an extent, I think the Guardian have made it up! That is to say that whilst the lie-detector quotes are accurate, the Guardian article doesn't reveal why they were made. And that was in direct response to the interviewer's question. Personally, I thought Henman's answers were respectful responses to an absurd question.


----------



## Dave Davenport (14 Oct 2012)

LA's lawyer as quoted by the beeb.
"People are fans. Most of the people that I've talked to, this is their opinion - it is 'we don't care whether he did or he didn't'."
Start of a change of tack?


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> LA's lawyer as quoted by the beeb.
> "People are fans. Most of the people that I've talked to, this is their opinion - it is 'we don't care whether he did or he didn't'."
> Start of a change of tack?


 
Absolutely! And, if the Radio 5 interviewer had been paying attention, that was the avenue to have picked up on and followed.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> Well, to an extent, I think the Guardian have made it up! That is to say that whilst the lie-detector quotes are accurate, the Guardian article doesn't reveal why they were made. And that was in direct response to the interviewer's question. Personally, I thought Henman's answers were respectful responses to an absurd question.


 
Actually, it was in response to questions on Radio 5Live. And if I was Lance, I'd be looking for a change in legal representation, Henman seemed all at sea. Probably because he is trying to defend the indefensible, mind you.


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Actually, it was in response to questions on Radio 5Live. .


 
I know. I thought that was clear from context. My apologies.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Oct 2012)

Armstrong could well learn a lesson from OJ Simpson and get a lucrative book deal. "How I would have done it if I had done it, which of course I didn't".


----------



## PaulB (14 Oct 2012)

Monday, 4.45 pm.

Anyone want to start a book on the exact time 50 pages are reached?


----------



## dodgy (14 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Times settled out of court. QED no court judgement to reverse. He'll keep his loot.
> 
> LA is an "American Hero" and lots of folk there don't care to see the heroes tarnished, caring, I guess, more for the hero than the sport?
> 
> So my guess is, in the states, his status, financial and otherwise won't change. With friends in high places I honestly can't see the DoJ going after him.


 
His friends in high places haven't been much help to him recently. USADA had the balls to hunt him down, why not the DoJ?


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> USADA had the balls to hunt him down, why not the DoJ?


 
Imo, cost is one factor. A court process would have been costly and with different burdens of proof and different processes probably taken ages, subject to log jams and with no certainty of securing a conviction. Basically, a judgement call is made by a DA on whether to go ahead or not, same as in any conviction. This particular DA (Birotte) called it as he did. Or he was 'got to', as you prefer.


----------



## Crosstrailer (14 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> you couldn't make this up could you?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-lie-detector-usada


 
Think he has been watching too much Jeremy Kyle.....


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Oct 2012)

_The canonisation of Lance Armstrong will commence on Thursday, when he will be lauded for "15 years, of serving and empowering" 2.5 million cancer survivors. The following day Hollywood will pay its respects, in the form of a gala featuring Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Robin Williams._

_On Saturday, more than 100,000 American Football fans, and millions of TV viewers on ABC, will laud the cyclist, and his eponymous foundation, at the start of the second quarter of the College game between Baylor and the University of Texas. The entire student section, which seats 17,000, will simultaneously don specially designed Nike shirts, promoting Armstrong's Livestrong brand._

_On Sunday 4,000 cyclists will pay $50 to participate in a challenge event in Armstrong's home town of Austin, Texas. His foundation's sponsors will underwrite performances by local drama groups, musical acts, and sporting activities ranging from tennis to yoga. _

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...fuses-to-accept-a-heros-downfall-8210381.html


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

2097881 said:


> No point in doing anything other than fronting it out at this stage and he has had ample time to prepare his response.


 
and, of course, such events are part of his response


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2012)

He really is a prize-winning nobber


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2012)

Actually I wonder if it would be possible to arrange for there to be placards at the colege game to spell out DOPE CHEAT that stands out against the t-shirt clad throngs...


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> He really is a prize-winning nobber



I thought everyone was in your world


----------



## johnr (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _The canonisation of Lance Armstrong will commence on Thursday, when he will be lauded for "15 years, of serving and empowering" 2.5 million cancer survivors. The following day Hollywood will pay its respects, in the form of a gala featuring Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Robin Williams._
> 
> _On Saturday, more than 100,000 American Football fans, and millions of TV viewers on ABC, will laud the cyclist, and his eponymous foundation, at the start of the second quarter of the College game between Baylor and the University of Texas. The entire student section, which seats 17,000, will simultaneously don specially designed Nike shirts, promoting Armstrong's Livestrong brand._
> 
> ...


 
And Nike - the dopers' clothing line of choice - are giving him $7.5 million annually. This year's pocket money will pay off the TdF.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _The canonisation of Lance Armstrong will commence on Thursday, when he will be lauded for "15 years, of serving and empowering" 2.5 million cancer survivors. The following day Hollywood will pay its respects, in the form of a gala featuring Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Robin Williams._
> 
> _On Saturday, more than 100,000 American Football fans, and millions of TV viewers on ABC, will laud the cyclist, and his eponymous foundation, at the start of the second quarter of the College game between Baylor and the University of Texas. The entire student section, which seats 17,000, will simultaneously don specially designed Nike shirts, promoting Armstrong's Livestrong brand._
> 
> ...


Eek! I thought that that was a first-rate parody until I saw the link. Then I read the article and discovered that LA is no longer a mere mortal...




> To reinforce the point, the front page of Armstrong's website carries a freshly-posted paean of praise from Sarah O'Leary, who is described as a "marketing expert, public speaker, licensed minister and issues-focused independent".
> She writes: "The gun that should be smoking isn't, and wouldn't have any real effect on the brand Livestrong if it were. Lance stopped being a mere professional cyclist while he was still on his bike, and the accusations against him have had their 15 minutes of fame. Unlike mere mortal performers, Lance lives in rarefied air that only a scant few professional athletes reach. He is substantially bigger than his sport."


----------



## Crackle (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _The canonisation of Lance Armstrong will commence on Thursday, when he will be lauded for "15 years, of serving and empowering" 2.5 million cancer survivors. The following day Hollywood will pay its respects, in the form of a gala featuring Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Robin Williams._
> 
> _On Saturday, more than 100,000 American Football fans, and millions of TV viewers on ABC, will laud the cyclist, and his eponymous foundation, at the start of the second quarter of the College game between Baylor and the University of Texas. The entire student section, which seats 17,000, will simultaneously don specially designed Nike shirts, promoting Armstrong's Livestrong brand._
> 
> ...


 
Very good article that and it's kind of expected. Armstrong was never going to lie down and Livestrong is the only place he could go to once he was banned. In a way I don't want to see Livestrong fail because of what it means to others but the process of prizing him away from it is going to be a long one and a complex one, assuming it happens.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Very good article that and it's kind of expected. Armstrong was never going to lie down and Livestrong is the only place he could go to once he was banned. In a way I don't want to see Livestrong fail because of what it means to others but the process of prizing him away from it is going to be a long one and a complex one, assuming it happens.


It looks to me as if both Livestrong and Armstrong will prosper - although I accept that the response he receives at public events will affect the outlook of his financial backers. My guess, for what it is worth, is that he will receive tumultuous applause.


----------



## johnr (14 Oct 2012)

and talking of 'I used to but I don't anymore', anyone heard from the voice of cycling recently? Or has laryngitis finally claimed Phil Leggett? I think we should be told.


----------



## festival (14 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> and talking of 'I used to but I don't anymore', anyone heard from the voice of cycling recently? Or has laryngitis finally claimed Phil Leggett? I think we should be told.


 

There will be a short delay, I hear he is having a problem removing his head from his arse.


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> It looks to me as if both Livestrong and Armstrong will prosper - although I accept that the response he receives at public events will affect the outlook of his financial backers. My guess, for what it is worth, is that he will receive tumultuous applause.


 
You could well be right and I certainly wouldn't bet against it. I'm quite content to sit back and watch that part of the story unfold as it will.


----------



## DogTired (14 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Very good article that and it's kind of expected. Armstrong was never going to lie down and Livestrong is the only place he could go to once he was banned. In a way I don't want to see Livestrong fail because of what it means to others but the process of prizing him away from it is going to be a long one and a complex one, assuming it happens.


 
Will people turn around at some point and think 'Liar, bully, cheat" - and he sits on a charity thats spent $500million?

People seem to think that Livestrong does a 'lot of good work'. Raising cash and spending it wisely are 2 different things. If his fans went through the annual reports (on the web) to find out what Livestrong achieves for 35-50million a year some eyes may be opened...


----------



## festival (14 Oct 2012)

Just read comments from Mike Turter, race director of the Tour down under.
"If your saying to me are you sorry we had Lance at the race? absolutely not."
While I understand the need to promote your product and LA's drawing power at the time etc etc, he followed up with, "Until there is 100% clear, factual evidence to indicate there's an issue then i will listen to that."
FFS. what planet are these people living on? and this guy is also the president of the oceanic cycling federation. Good grief!


----------



## asterix (14 Oct 2012)

Are charities the first refuge of a scoundrel?


----------



## raindog (14 Oct 2012)

festival said:


> FFS. what planet are these people living on? and this guy is also the president of the oceanic cycling federation.


I think there's still a lot of "mates is mates" going on.


----------



## yello (14 Oct 2012)

and arse covering


----------



## Crackle (14 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> People seem to think that Livestrong does a 'lot of good work'. Raising cash and spending it wisely are 2 different things. If his fans went through the annual reports (on the web) to find out what Livestrong achieves for 35-50million a year some eyes may be opened...


 
We might see it happen, we might see Livestrong dissected and compared to other charities, at which point who knows.


----------



## just jim (14 Oct 2012)

To reinforce the point, the front page of Armstrong's website carries a freshly-posted paean of praise from Sarah O'Leary, who is described as a "marketing expert, public speaker, licensed minister, and issues-focused independent"

Whatever it takes.


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> It looks to me as if both Livestrong and Armstrong will prosper - although I accept that the response he receives at public events will affect the outlook of his financial backers. My guess, for what it is worth, is that he will receive tumultuous applause.



I'm inclined to agree - look at all the publicity he is getting. I bet it breaks attendance records as a result. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I'm inclined to agree - look at all the publicity he is getting. I bet it breaks attendance records as a result. As they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.


Tell that to Gary Glitter.


----------



## Scoosh (14 Oct 2012)

festival said:


> Just read comments from Mike Turter, race director of the Tour down under....
> ....
> 
> FFS. what planet are these people living on? and this guy is also the president of the oceanic cycling federation. Good grief!


Are the Presidents of these federations not the ones who vote for the UCI President ??


----------



## festival (14 Oct 2012)

Scoosh said:


> Are the Presidents of these federations not the ones who vote for the UCI President ??


 
Exactly.


----------



## Russell Allen (14 Oct 2012)

I think of the USADA report as having breached the dam, the true ramifications wont be known until the floodwater has made its way downstream. I think a few ex sponsors\teams\riders etc are going to be dragging LA through the courts, bogging him down in legal action for years to come. I also believe that once the public shine comes off Saint Lance of Livestrong, his charity may get some less than welcome investigative attention from the press.

This is all going to take a long time to work its self out but I think the genie is out of the bottle now.



Russell


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Oct 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> I think of the USADA report as having breached the dam, the true ramifications wont be known until the floodwater has made its way downstream. I think a few ex sponsors\teams\riders etc are going to be dragging LA through the courts, bogging him down in legal action for years to come. I also believe that once the public shine comes off Saint Lance of Livestrong, his charity may get some less than welcome investigative attention from the press.
> 
> This is all going to take a long time to work its self out but I think the genie is out of the bottle now.
> 
> ...


I think you're right.

There'll be more dirt to come too, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few leaks from former or current UCI employees detailing what they knew and what they did to cover it up. I can see public opinion eventually turning in America too, whether it does or not any political ambitions Armstrong had are stone dead.


----------



## totallyfixed (14 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Will people turn around at some point and think 'Liar, bully, cheat" - and he sits on a charity thats spent $500million?
> 
> People seem to think that Livestrong does a 'lot of good work'. Raising cash and spending it wisely are 2 different things. If his fans went through the annual reports (on the web) to find out what Livestrong achieves for 35-50million a year some eyes may be opened...


And 46% of them believe the earth was created in a single day 10,000 years ago, probably a higher percentage in Austin.


----------



## rich p (14 Oct 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> And 46% of them believe the earth was created in a single day 10,000 years ago, probably a higher percentage in Austin.


 ..by Lance?


----------



## totallyfixed (14 Oct 2012)

I wouldn't rule anything out, seriously.


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Will people turn around at some point and think 'Liar, bully, cheat" - and he sits on a charity thats spent $500million?
> 
> People seem to think that Livestrong does a 'lot of good work'. Raising cash and spending it wisely are 2 different things. If his fans went through the annual reports (on the web) to find out what Livestrong achieves for 35-50million a year some eyes may be opened...




http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996

What exactly are your concerns?


----------



## PaulB (14 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996
> 
> What exactly are your concerns?


Those who do a lot of work for 'charidee' tend to be absolved for a lot of sins. Priests, Savilles, Pharmstrongs; they get away with a lot, don't they? Until the tally man comes around.


----------



## Red Light (14 Oct 2012)

PaulB said:


> Those who do a lot of work for 'charidee' tend to be absolved for a lot of sins. Priests, Savilles, Pharmstrongs; they get away with a lot, don't they? Until the tally man comes around.



I'm still missing the specifics of what you think it's done. All I'm seeing at the moment is some non-specific mud slinging.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Oct 2012)

Dick Pound says he doesn't believe the UCI didn't know, and also that he suspects that the way they organized EPO tests was designed to fail.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (14 Oct 2012)

48 freaking pages, my LA tolerance has reached George Carlin levels... 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg&feature=player_embedded

do not watch if easily offended.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996
> 
> What exactly are your concerns?


 
My concern is what they do. Not what they say they do. Not what people think they do. What they actually do and deliver. This you can get from the Livestrong web-site. The annual output is pretty thin for $30 - $50 million.

In terms of the link:
1. The BBB is not in any way an independent assessor of charities.
2. In any case the review has expired so this is next to meaningless.
3. It states that LAF funds research but LAF does not fund research which pretty much shows the information is out of date, incorrect and just plain wrong. At a minimum standard 15 should be a big fat red !.
4. Considering the validaty of facts in the link theres not much point considering it further.

If you can come up with a nice link of what cancer sufferers have got for half a billion dollars of donations it would make interesting reading. Having gone through several years of the Armstrong reports where LAF go on about championing 'Cancer Awareness' above just doing something about it, the tangibles are thin on the ground.


----------



## mrbadexample (15 Oct 2012)

I've read the "Reasoned Decision". Every word of every page. Not all the appendices + supporting information but most of the important ones.

I'd always been a fan of LA - I've taken days off work to sit and watch the mountain stages, I've got myself out to France to see a bit of the action. I'm gutted. I finally believe that there's a 99.9% chance he doped. But I don't think the USADA _proved_ it. The report was a lot of hearsay from the likes of Landis & Hamilton, other riders with something to gain. A lot of guilt by association, a lot of non-evidence ("Hamilton gets the peloton to wait after LA crashes" - what's that got to do with drugs?"). They use the word "overwhelming" 18 times. Say it enough and people will believe it. To me it _did_ smack of a witch-hunt, with Tygart determined to make his name as the man who took Armstrong down. 

So yeah, he did it, but the USADA didn't prove it with any truly concrete evidence to my mind. I don't think you'd have hung a murderer on that evidence.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

mrbadexample said:


> I've read the "Reasoned Decision". Every word of every page. Not all the appendices + supporting information but most of the important ones.
> 
> I'd always been a fan of LA - I've taken days off work to sit and watch the mountain stages, I've got myself out to France to see a bit of the action. I'm gutted. I finally believe that there's a 99.9% chance he doped. But I don't think the USADA _proved_ it. The report was a lot of hearsay from the likes of Landis & Hamilton, other riders with something to gain. A lot of guilt by association, a lot of non-evidence ("Hamilton gets the peloton to wait after LA crashes" - what's that got to do with drugs?"). They use the word "overwhelming" 18 times. Say it enough and people will believe it. To me it _did_ smack of a witch-hunt, with Tygart determined to make his name as the man who took Armstrong down.
> 
> So yeah, he did it, but the USADA didn't prove it with any truly concrete evidence to my mind. I don't think you'd have hung a murderer on that evidence.


 
Is it hearsay or witness testimony as there's a subtle difference between the 2? Just out of interest what evidence would you need in order to say that LA's doping had been proved?

I'm not sure it was a witch-hunt - that tends to be a paranoid undirected search amongst a population. A vendetta maybe. But one man's vendetta is another man's crusade to ensure that justice was served to a ruthless cheat.


----------



## Oldspice (15 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> 48 freaking pages, my LA tolerance has reached George Carlin levels...
> View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg&feature=player_embedded
> 
> do not watch if easily offended.




Jeez that clip is from 2010.


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

mrbadexample said:


> Say it enough and people will believe it


That made me smile. '500 tests and never failed' ring a bell 



> I don't think you'd have hung a murderer on that evidence.


I agree.... but then it's not a murder trial. That said, weight of witness testimony, in the absence of forensic evidence, can (and has?) been used to get conviction in a criminal trial


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> That made me smile. '500 tests and never failed' ring a bell
> 
> 
> I agree.... but then it's not a murder trial. That said, weight of witness testimony, in the absence of forensic evidence, can (and has?) been used to get conviction in a criminal trial


 There was a fair bit of forensic eveidence too. Apart from the positive tests deemed unusable in an actual ban but present nevertheless, they showed emails of transactions between LA and Ferrari when he had denied a connection and Dr F was banned. They also showed LA paying over $1m to Dr F - how much evidence do people want!
His best mate George Hincapie apart drom the others gave witness (not hearsay) evidence FFS!


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2012)

has Pepe Marti ever been credited with being a trainer, providing coaching plans? I can find nothing but evidence of supplying banned drugs to many of the named cyclists.
I only mention this in passing as he was listed as being Alberto Contador's 'trainer' up until 2011. Take from that what you will.


----------



## PaulB (15 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I'm still missing the specifics of what you think it's done. All I'm seeing at the moment is some non-specific mud slinging.


It's given you a reason to man the barricades.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Oct 2012)

dodgy said:


> His friends in high places haven't been much help to him recently. USADA had the balls to hunt him down, why not the DoJ?


So it wasn't his friends in high places that called off the Federal Investigation Bureau and thus ensured that any potential charges were not pressed then? Do you not think the chaps at Nike, amongst others, might have the odd senator or congressman lobbying for them?

USADA are relatively free from political influence, if you think the US DoJ is, well.....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Oct 2012)

2097609 said:


> They do seem to have a stronger "no one is above the law" attitude than we do.


They spout that rhetoric certainly. But in practice, not so much,


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Oct 2012)

In the eyes of many Americans he is a 'god', a 'hero', a cancer survivor and as such an inspiration. He is 'bigger than the sport' which in America ain't hard, cycling isn't exactly mainstream over there. He is the public face of a charity foundation which is understood to do lots of great work for and on behalf of those with, and who have survived cancer. (What the foundation does or doesn't do is a bit of a red herring - charities often, ime nearly always polarise opinion in the areas of governance, effectiveness and mission, I know I work for one, and you only have to read threads in here relating to charities to understand that one person's outstanding organisation is another's thieving scum. This is largely because the average Jane or Joe doesn't understand charity law but somehow _knows_ what a given charity should or shouldn't do)

So my take is he will remain on his podium, he may get sued and the cases will take years and will, in the majority, be settled quietly out-of-court, he will remain an idol in the US of A for the majority of the public there for his post TdeF activities, business will continue pretty much as usual, and the odd cycling fan in Europe who thinks he's scum will be regarded as the crank. and the news agenda will move on.....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Oct 2012)

2098920 said:


> I am disappointed.


It's a British disease, disappointment.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

In case you haven't heard enough to be convinced or otherwise, this is on Radio 5 live tonight (Monday Oct 15th) at 7pm.

*19:00 – 21:00*

* 5 live Sport Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth *

Mark Chapman presents a special programme focusing on drugs in cycling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> It's a British disease, disappointment.


 
You've mis-spelt 'Welsh'.


----------



## Red Light (15 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> In case you haven't heard enough to be convinced or otherwise, this is on Radio 5 live tonight (Monday Oct 15th) at 7pm.
> 
> *19:00 – 21:00*
> 
> ...




Ah Five Live, bless 'em. Wonder whether they will follow it with one of their trademark phone in lycra, don't pay road tax, red lights etc rants.


----------



## mickle (15 Oct 2012)

It's really interesting to read some of the articles which are featured/linked to on his own website. It looks like whoever is managing it is just pasting up any recent article which has a 'positive' bent. But what's queer is that the articles are saying stuff like -_ 'Who cares if he cheated? The whole peleton was on PEDs anyway, he was just levelling the playing field'_, or _'Who cares if he cheated, he's a cancer fighting hero'_. He seems to be using these articles to bolster his defence - in spite of the fact that they don't support his official stance.

Also. As a cancer survivor I've decided to approach the Livestrong Foundation and ask what they can do to support me.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah Five Live, bless 'em. Wonder whether they will follow it with one of their trademark phone in lycra, don't pay road tax, red lights etc rants.


 
No - if you check the link regarding the programme they won't.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> You've mis-spelt 'Welsh'.


Gallaf sillafu "Cymraeg" yn berffaith, diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

Liggett wakes up and smells the coffee



> PHIL LIGGETT: I, look, I admit I've, I've been very proud to commentate on Armstrong over these, over these years because I've seen a man and I've seen how he's battled the elements and I've seen how he's come forward, and I'm very sad. What do I think? Everybody else did it, so I find it very difficult not to think that Lance did it


 
Taken from the Australian Broadcasting Corp program '4 Corners' (like the BBC's Panorama) which has just finished airing it's Amstrong investigation. Transcript here....

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm

Edit: the program is there too, I thought it would be geo-locked.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Gallaf sillafu "Cymraeg" yn berffaith, diolch yn fawr iawn i chi.


 
Wrong form - you've mis-spelt 'Cymry'!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Wrong form - you've mis-spelt 'Cymry'!


Chwarae Teg. I have at that. It's been a long time and I'm very rusty

_"Gallaf sillafu "y Gymry" yn berffaith, diolch yn fawr iawn i chi" _

Yn y cyfamser rydych yn dal i fod yn hiliol


----------



## Red Light (15 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Chwarae Teg. I have at that. It's been a long time and I'm very rusty
> 
> _"Gallaf sillafu "y Gymry" yn berffaith, diolch yn fawr iawn i chi" _
> 
> Yn y cyfamser rydych yn dal i fod yn hiliol




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7702913.stm


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm
> 
> Edit: the program is there too, I thought it would be geo-locked.


 
F*** me. All I can say is watch it. If only for Liggett, damn near in tears, as he accepts the scale of the lie.



> PHIL LIGGETT: I know the power of this man when he walks into the room and I know the hope he gives cancer survivors. I mean I don't know if he is proved to be, to have taken drugs how he can face any of these people. Because I mean he can, he can call up Barack Obama, he has his cell phone number on his cell phone, and how can you call up these people knowing that you've taken drugs all your life, to cheat to seven Tours? It's a problem I wouldn't want.


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

It's not just about Armstrong either. It puts the doping in it's context and points a finger firmly at the UCI. A very well assembled documentary. I recommend that you watch it.

Edit: now on youtube in the event ABC geo-lock it


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q03sc8Aoyk0&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Crosstrailer (15 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _The canonisation of Lance Armstrong will commence on Thursday, when he will be lauded for "15 years, of serving and empowering" 2.5 million cancer survivors. The following day Hollywood will pay its respects, in the form of a gala featuring Sean Penn, Ben Stiller and Robin Williams._
> 
> _On Saturday, more than 100,000 American Football fans, and millions of TV viewers on ABC, will laud the cyclist, and his eponymous foundation, at the start of the second quarter of the College game between Baylor and the University of Texas. The entire student section, which seats 17,000, will simultaneously don specially designed Nike shirts, promoting Armstrong's Livestrong brand._
> 
> ...


 
I had a look at the Nike livestrong collection (and boy are Nike really pitching this on the anti cancer don't mention the cycling ticket) and I can't help thinking they need to add a 'Cheat to win' T-shirt to the collection...

Hopefully the Baylor Bears will work Texas over anyway !


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Oct 2012)

Like I said way back on the old thread, one of Armstrong's aims is elected office in Texas, and beyond. The beyond part might be out for now, but the Texas part is still very much on track.


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> It's not just about Armstrong either. It puts the doping in it's context and points a finger firmly at the UCI. A very well assembled documentary. I recommend that you watch it.
> 
> Edit: now on youtube in the event ABC geo-lock it
> 
> ...




Dick Pound quoting Verbruggen "It's the Spectators fault, they don't want to see riders doing 25Kph, they want to see them doing 41. So, the riders must prepare"

Incredible!

Maybe it's time to find another sport to follow.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Dick Pound quoting Verbruggen "It's the Spectators fault, they don't want to see riders doing 25Kph, they want to see them doing 41. So, the riders must prepare"
> 
> Incredible!
> 
> Maybe it's time to find another sport to follow.


 
The Dick Pound quote stuck out like a sore thumb - amazing! (its at about 38:30). Phil Liggett is obviously quite cut-up about the whole thing, how he never suspected anything is bizarre. LA's performance under oath, bearing in mind what is known now, is as brazen as humanly possible. An exemplary lesson in how to withstand a good legal grilling.


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2012)

Liggett is still a fool. A conflicted fool, who I can have a little sympathy for but a fool nonetheless.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter


----------



## Dave Davenport (15 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Liggett is still a fool. A conflicted fool, who I can have a little sympathy for but a fool nonetheless.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter


 
I'd just read that and thought he came across as a complete twat.


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

I reckon Liggett's confused. In denial, seemingly pinging backwards and forwards trying to reconcile his emotions. I could actually be sympathetic if I felt he'd been duped.... but in his position I find it very very difficult to believe he wasn't aware of what was happening. Not just Armstrong but in cycling generally.


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2012)

Slightly off topic but did anyone see this report on a piece written by Joey Barton. I'm no fan of Barton but he's more astute than I gave him credit for and serves a timely reminder that Cycling is not the only sport with problems.


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

Careful Smeggers, you could be falling for it 

Edit: I believe it's a trait of a liar to evade a question and respond with the rhetorical question. 'Why would I do that?' 'Why would I risk that?' type of thing. It's a self-reassuring tactic, to avoid having to actually lie and expose oneself. Someone telling the truth has no difficulty in responding directly... 'no, I did not dope'. Btw, did you notice the big swallow he took when he actually said 'I did not take drugs'? Again apparently, that is a sign of a lie.


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Slightly off topic but did anyone see this report on a piece written by Joey Barton. I'm no fan of Barton but he's more astute than I gave him credit for and serves a timely reminder that Cycling is not the only sport with problems.


 
I too was surprised by that. Not at all what I would have expected from Barton. He appears to give the issue some thought rather than just twittered a half-arse response.

Edit: reading through the comments, I see a 'dimspace' has chimed in. I wonder if it's THE dimspace of velorooms.com etc. I'd guess so as he comes across very knowledgably.


----------



## johnr (15 Oct 2012)

Liggett's got contracts 'til 2016! I hope none of them are with ITV4. 

The world has gone completely loco. We have Joey Barton making articulate sense about our issue and raising direct and pertinent questions about his own sport and Nike. And on the other hand, the voice of cycling, fresh from a pasting over his 'someone told me USADA bribed witnesses' debacle, weighing in with an admission that whilst he has not read the USADA evidence someone texted him to say Pharmstrong would be dead if he'd taken all those drugs, so that shows he couldn't have.

The whole cycling gravy train needs uncoupling and scrapping if we're ever to get a fresh start: UCI, bent management of cycling teams, all those that finance them (Nike, Trek and Oakley first) and all the sycophantic toadies who pass themselves off as commentators and reporters.

Thanks for your attention, I feel a lot better now.


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2012)

yello said:


> Edit: reading through the comments, I see a 'dimspace' has chimed in. I wonder if it's THE dimspace of velorooms.com etc. I'd guess so as he comes across very knowledgably.


 
The comments section is actually very good.


----------



## Russell Allen (15 Oct 2012)

With reference to the Joey Barton article, I'm sure nobody doubts that other sports have an issue with doping, one only has to look at tennis, Rafael Nadal's pulling out of his olympic matches with injury (rumoured to be a notorious doper avoiding the stringent testing) and Andy Murray seemed to bulk up enormously one off season a few years ago. Anyone who thought football (which requires a blend of stamina and strength and involved wages of millions of pounds) would be immune to the use of PEDS would be mad. I'm sure Sepp Blatter and all his cronies at FIFA are more than aware of what is going on and choose to turn a blind eye for fear of damaging the reputation of the sport....alienating sponsors blah blah
...............sound familiar....................LOL

Russell


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2012)

This quote from Liggett nearly had my in tears (of laughter):

"I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”

Are you sure now Phil, it wasnae a letter sent in a bottle by a seagull? 

He is a cockwomble.


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> This quote from Liggett nearly had my in tears (of laughter):
> 
> "I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”
> 
> ...


 
Dear Mother of God. The man is certifiable.


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> This quote from Liggett nearly had my in tears (of laughter):
> 
> "I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”
> 
> ...


 I've just read the piece, Noodles...

... _Liggett said: “I don’t believe it’s possible to write a book like Tyler Hamilton has done without it being the truth. I don’t think it’s possible. Everyone has read the book. There has to be a lot of truth in book but at the end of the day there has be a shadow of doubt.”_
It's just contradictory garbage - much like his commentary!


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2012)

I think there's a reason for Liggett's confusion


----------



## rich p (15 Oct 2012)

Have you seen this tweet from Danny Pate!

*Got an SMS from a secondary person about a guy who I'm not even sure of his name...BUT he said unicorns poop cupcakes, must be true*


----------



## Smokin Joe (15 Oct 2012)

mrbadexample said:


> So yeah, he did it, but the USADA didn't prove it with any truly concrete evidence to my mind. I don't think you'd have hung a murderer on that evidence.


Really?

Many a murder has gone to the gallows based on eye witness evidence. Despite what you might think from watching CSI not every case is decided on forensic evidence, and until a few decades ago the vast majority weren't.


----------



## RedRider (15 Oct 2012)

*Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth ...a two-hour prog on radio 5-live . On now ie 7-9pm, 15/10/12. Tyler Hamilton being interviewed now*


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2012)

sh*t sh*t sh*t.... I forgot all about it.... I'll have to try and listen to the fist 35 minutes on listen again.


----------



## Crosstrailer (15 Oct 2012)

The more I think about this the more I believe that Armstrong needs to text the number at the end of the Jeremy Kyle show and demand lie detector tests for the key witnesses. It could be the greatest JK show ever.

"And you know what............he was telling the TRUTH !!!!! THATS RIGHT JUST STORM OFF LANCE BECAUSE THE TRUTH HURTS !!!!!"​​​


----------



## beastie (15 Oct 2012)

Quick close the thread before it gets to 4 figures!


----------



## ColinJ (15 Oct 2012)

May I be the first to congratulate you all for managing to somehow stay just this side of _threadlock_ for long enough to get to 1,000 posts!. And now I'm bored of it, and won't bother trying to keep up any longer ... 

(Oh sod it - I forgot to have anything to eat, so I'll post this a couple of posts early and head down to the kitchen! )


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Oct 2012)

Dr Ferrari says he needs time to study the document... I bet he does.


----------



## Smokin Joe (15 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2100611, member: 45"]I, on the other hand, used to think that Lance was a druggy cheat.

Now I'm convinced that he's innocent.[/quote]
There's not a shred of evidence that he got his team-mates to dress as schoolgirls and sit on his crossbar, it's all just hearsay.

Mind you, I still don't believe Jimmy Savile won those seven Tours on only cigars and hairspray. Something fishy there if you ask me,


----------



## totallyfixed (15 Oct 2012)

Forgive me if someone has already posted this link, I borrowed it from The Clinic, "The World According to Lance" being shown in Australia. It's good. Betsy, Phil Liggett, etc
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm


----------



## totallyfixed (15 Oct 2012)

This is just the perfect programe for all those doubters to watch, especially the fanboys. For me it's great because I have closely followed the story since Lance started racing and now to see the clips of everyone I had only previously read about, tremendous. A great deal more to come yet and still the Peleton remains by and large strangely silent.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Oct 2012)

Michael Ashenden says Australian cycling has to answer some hard questions about the Armstrong affair.


----------



## DogTired (15 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Dr Ferrari says he needs time to study the document... I bet he does.


 
He's probably double-checking to make sure he remembered to invoice everyone.


----------



## Paul_L (16 Oct 2012)

Wow, just watched the ABC documentary. A recommended watch.


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

Even google thinks its all a bit suspicious

There's a Daily Mail article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...nation-linked-alleged-drug-test-cover-up.html which underneath has the following google ads appended.

Drugs Facts and Information
Information on the risk of drugs 24 hours a day, 365 days a year
www.TalktoFRANK.com

EPO Cyclist Supplements 
Fastest Way to Increase Your Endurance and Speed - Guaranteed!
www.EPOBoost.com
How apt!
​


----------



## asterix (16 Oct 2012)

Would it be possible to clean out the UCI?

Or just shoot the lot of them?


----------



## 007fair (16 Oct 2012)

UCI are without doubt complicit which is why they did nothing about it when informed. UCI and LA are blood brothers in more than one sense. 
The only reason they are still there is that some people still think the evidence is not scientific enough .. and UCI hang on to this and just play dumb

UCI should be disbanded utterly and rebuilt


----------



## Pottsy (16 Oct 2012)

With Millar at the head of the new version? 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19956995


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Oct 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Forgive me if someone has already posted this link, I borrowed it from The Clinic, "The World According to Lance" being shown in Australia. It's good. Betsy, Phil Liggett, etc
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm


_Yet, as his career disappears before his eyes, Lance Armstrong, seven times winner of the Tour de France, is still protesting his innocence. _
Not really. His career is simply moving on


----------



## 007fair (16 Oct 2012)

Pottsy said:


> With Millar at the head of the new version?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19956995


 
As an ex cheat he should never be the president. It should be someone like Greg Lemond, Betsy Andreu or Scott Mercier, Bassons.. people who stood up when the pressure was greatest and therefore proved their integrity.


----------



## asterix (16 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> As _[he is]_ a reformed cheat.I would say he is _perfectly_ qualified. "To catch a thief" and all that.


 
Is what I am sure you mean?

And I tend to agree. Millar gives every appearance of being a reformed character and sincere. What is more his past can no longer catch up with him, we know about it.


----------



## 007fair (16 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> As a reformed cheat.I would say he is _perfectly_ qualified. "To catch a thief" and all that.


I think he could help. But not president - there would be always that doubt that he could be swayed like we was before.




2101281 said:


> Luke 15:7


 
Hmmm ..forgiveness is one thing. Awarding failure with presidency is another. I'm not saying he should n't get involved.. just not be in charge


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

2101281 said:


> Luke 15:7


 
I not sure repenting in the biblical sense equates to confessing-when-confronted-with-clear-evidence-of-your-crimes-in-a-French-Police-interview-room. And you get to keep the spoils of your sins.


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

007fair said:


> As an ex cheat he should never be the president. It should be someone like Greg Lemond, Betsy Andreu or Scott Mercier, Bassons.. people who stood up when the pressure was greatest and therefore proved their integrity.


 
Chris Boardman. Great at politics. Innovative. He's got the 'enterprise view'. Done TdF, time trials, involved on the track. The LA/UCI/TdF stuff overshadows the fact that the UCI doesnt just 'do' the TdF.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Oct 2012)

_LANCE ARMSTRONG: If you have a doping offence or you test positive, it goes without saying that you're fired from all your contracts. Not just the team, but there's numerous contracts that I have that would all go away._
_JEFFREY TILLOTSON: Sponsorship agreements, for example?_
_LANCE ARMSTRONG: All of them. *And the faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do off of the bike would go away too.*_
_*And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased.*_
_So I don't need it to say in a contract you're fired if you test positive. That's not as important as losing the support of hundreds of millions of people._


----------



## Crackle (16 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _Yet, as his career disappears before his eyes, Lance Armstrong, seven times winner of the Tour de France, is still protesting his innocence. _
> Not really. His career is simply moving on


 
I fear you're right. I thought it would be enough to see him exposed but now I'm filling with a slow outrage that he's showing no contrition and worse he's still playing the moral hero and feel some despair that people think that it's OK to hold up as an idol someone as morally vacuous as Armstrong. Whilst at the same time his sponsors, far from moving to distance themselves, continue the symbiotic feeding off the profits of his false idolatory.

Crackle 52:1022

Glad I got that off my chest.


----------



## 007fair (16 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Chris Boardman. Great at politics. Innovative. He's got the 'enterprise view'. Done TdF, time trials, involved on the track. The LA/UCI/TdF stuff overshadows the fact that the UCI doesnt just 'do' the TdF.


Good shout He should be a candidate too. Him and G Obree?!


----------



## 007fair (16 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _LANCE ARMSTRONG: If you have a doping offence or you test positive, it goes without saying that you're fired from all your contracts. Not just the team, but there's numerous contracts that I have that would all go away._
> _JEFFREY TILLOTSON: Sponsorship agreements, for example?_
> _LANCE ARMSTRONG: All of them. *And the faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do off of the bike would go away too.*_
> _*And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased.*_
> _So I don't need it to say in a contract you're fired if you test positive. That's not as important as losing the support of hundreds of millions of people._


Just astounding ... kinda makes you think he must be innocent !


----------



## raindog (16 Oct 2012)

two page interview with Bassons
http://bicycling.com/blogs/thisjustin/2012/10/15/bassons-people-now-see-i-wasn’t-lying/


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Oct 2012)

And now some other US cyclists plan to protest at Nike... perhaps it won't all be a matter of continued cashflow for Lance.


----------



## User169 (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And now some other US cyclists plan to protest at Nike... perhaps it won't all be a matter of continued cashflow for Lance.


 
Oakley aren't looking too clever either if the Australian docu is to be believed.


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And now some other US cyclists plan to protest at Nike... perhaps it won't all be a matter of continued cashflow for Lance.


 
An half hearted protest ("We're still kind of talking about it. I don't know if 'do the right thing' will get it across well enough.") by a very minor figure in professional road racing. Did anyone here actually remember him?


----------



## MichaelM (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> An half hearted protest ("We're still kind of talking about it. I don't know if 'do the right thing' will get it across well enough.") by a very minor figure in professional road racing. *Did anyone here actually remember him?*


 
Can't say I remember him.

There again I can't say I actually remember Bassons or Simeoni either. Of course I know the story behind each, but I can't actually remember them.

I remember Armstrong though. And Ullrich, and Pantani and Virenque and Riis..

Do you honestly and genuinely believe that Armstrong raced clean?


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> An half hearted protest ("We're still kind of talking about it. I don't know if 'do the right thing' will get it across well enough.") by* a very minor figure in professional road racing. Did anyone here actually remember him?*


That's the accusation levelled at many riders who tried to expose the extent of doping in the peloton. No hoper, minor figure, a failure looking for excuses etc.


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> That's the accusation levelled at many riders who tried to expose the extent of doping in the peloton. No hoper, minor figure, a failure looking for excuses etc.


 
He was racing in 1991-3. Was doping rampant in the peleton then?


----------



## beastie (16 Oct 2012)

007fair said:


> Good shout He should be a candidate too. Him and G Obree?!


Obree's the last person I would choose. Fraud, disorganized.......... hang on it might just work!


----------



## mangaman (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> He was racing in 1991-3. Was doping rampant in the peleton then?


 
Yes, and he didn't want to be part of it and became a mountain biker in the US - which is why you haven't heard of him.

Did you read the article?


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

mangaman said:


> Yes, and he didn't want to be part of it and became a mountain biker in the US - which is why you haven't heard of him.
> 
> Did you read the article?


 
I follow mountain biking as well and still don't recall him. Did he have any major wins? Sixth in the World Cross Country Championships seems to be his pinnacle.

Did you read the article? You know the bit where it says "Willerton said he never personally witnessed any doping at the time, but he had started to hear the rumors." and that with being Armstrong's team mate for year. Which kind of knocks Smoking Joe's suggestion on the head.


----------



## ColinJ (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> He was racing in 1991-3. Was doping rampant in the peleton then?


Just read what Greg Lemond, Laurent Fignon, Andy Hampsten and other great riders had to say about it!

(Let me summarise - in the early 90s some of the world's best riders suddenly found themselves being destroyed by masses of hitherto unheard of domestiques, and thought _"WTF - what is going on here!"_)


----------



## User169 (16 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Do you honestly and genuinely believe that Armstrong raced clean?


 
That's not the point - it's just _not fair_.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I fear you're right. I thought it would be enough to see him exposed but now I'm filling with a slow outrage that he's showing no contrition and worse he's still playing the moral hero and feel some despair that people think that it's OK to hold up as an idol someone as morally vacuous as Armstrong. Whilst at the same time his sponsors, far from moving to distance themselves, continue the symbiotic feeding off the profits of his false idolatory.
> 
> Crackle 52:1022
> 
> Glad I got that off my chest.


Vacuous? Morally vacuous? Hardly!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I follow mountain biking as well and still don't recall him. Did he have any major wins? Sixth in the World Cross Country Championships seems to be his pinnacle.


 
You don't seem to have a point here apart from to try to personnally belittle anyone who is trying to do anything positive for the sport. You've already lost the argument on Armstrong (well, you never knew enough to be taken seriously on that anyway) and you not only don't have the good grace to back down a bit and admit you were wrong, you start attacking other people who are doing trying to do something. Unbelievable.


----------



## mangaman (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You don't seem to have a point here apart from to try to personnally belittle anyone who is trying to do anything positive for the sport. You've already lost the argument on Armstrong (well, you never knew enough to be taken seriously on that anyway) and you not only don't have the good grace to back down a bit and admit you were wrong, you start attacking other people who are doing trying to do something. Unbelievable.


 
Come, come FM
6th in the World Champs - pah, who does this fellow Willerton think he is?

Redlight could whip his ass on a unicyle up the Ventoux backwards, while still posting strangely irrelevant graphs about windspeeds on a different thread on his phone.


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I fear you're right. I thought it would be enough to see him exposed but now I'm filling with a slow outrage that he's showing no contrition and worse he's still playing the moral hero and feel some despair that people think that it's OK to hold up as an idol someone as morally vacuous as Armstrong. Whilst at the same time his sponsors, far from moving to distance themselves, continue the symbiotic feeding off the profits of his false idolatory.
> 
> Crackle 52:1022


 
The next bit is in the hands of the UCI. Do they ratify the sanctions (meaning that LA does lose his TdF titles) or not? If no then no-one will take cycling or his wins seriously. If yes then maybe SCA will sue him for the prize money, with costs maybe $7million. If yes, then a lot of people will think job done and look very carefully at his foundation (not the one covering up his injection marks, the other one) and start asking careful questions there.

Its easier to have friends in high places when things are going well, not so when you're tainted.


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2012)

You're still missing the point - (is there a child stamping his foot smiley?) - has USADA got jurisdiction or not?


----------



## MichaelM (16 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> That's not the point - it's just _not fair_.


 
I was tempted to define "raced clean" given his fondness for process and fairness.


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> You're still missing the point - (is there a child stamping his foot smiley?) - has USADA got jurisdiction or not?


 
Sorry Rich if I've misunderstood - USADA do the sanctions and the UCI will/may/should/hmm ratify them. He can't lose his titles until the UCI ratifies the decision so officially he still is the TdF 7 times winner. UCI said they'd get back in 21 days, once they realise they've run out of options.

A juicier point is if someone with jurisdiction will prosecute LA for perjury considering his comments (some under oath) and the USADA testimony. Oh yeah and USPS asking for their dosh back.


----------



## User169 (16 Oct 2012)

For heavens sake, who _cares_ if he doped or not.


----------



## Crackle (16 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Vacuous? Morally vacuous? Hardly!


I was just trying to ascribe 'a lack of' to him and continuing the religious theme. I'm fully open to suggestions of how to describe him (I may also have misunderstood your post).


----------



## philipbh (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> You're still missing the point - (is there a child stamping his foot smiley?) - has USADA got jurisdiction or not?


 Page 155 - 163 onwards "Results Management" has the answer you are looking for

USADA claim jurisdiction based on

Arguments set forth
UCI not challenging USADA's assertion of results management responsibility within 21 days (which expired on June 12th 2012) as set out in the CAS articles of arbitration


----------



## mickle (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> has USADA got jurisdiction or not?


 
Every time a professional cyclist signs in to a race he signs to say that he agrees to be bound by the rules and regulations of the WADA, of which USADA is a member. So yes.


----------



## User169 (16 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> Page 155 - 163 onwards "Results Management" has the answer you are looking for
> 
> USADA claim jurisdiction based on
> 
> ...


 

(not sure that richp was being entirely serious!)


----------



## Happiness Stan (16 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> For heavens sake, who _cares_ if he doped or not.


 No I don't care about that, come on now who does? It's more the lies, intimidation, bullying, lies, bribery, obtaining wealth and status through deceiptful acts, using federal funds to buy drugs, tarnishing a whole sport, the lies, the arrogance, the continuing lack of regret or remorse.


----------



## rich p (16 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I was just trying to ascribe 'a lack of' to him and continuing the religious theme. I'm fully open to suggestions of how to describe him (I may also have misunderstood your post).


 maybe 'morally bankrupt' would be a better phrase!
bankrupt? Ah, we can only hope.


----------



## Happiness Stan (16 Oct 2012)

Question:
If I see someone wearing a Livestong wristband do I:
a) Ignore it
b) Ask them what the wristband means to them
c) Ask them why they are supporting a charity founded on deceipt by a bully, cheat, liar etc.
d) Call them a 'cock-end'?


----------



## Crackle (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> maybe 'morally bankrupt' would be a better phrase!
> bankrupt? Ah, we can only hope.


Ah yes. It's probably what I was aiming for. I mix my metaphors sometimes.


----------



## MacB (16 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> maybe 'morally bankrupt' would be a better phrase!
> bankrupt? Ah, we can only hope.


 
Hmmm, on that one I make Dell right, Fortress Armstrong will weather the storm, he's unlikely to ever fall to the depths his actions deserve. Don't forget that up in the rarefied atmosphere he inhabits the biggest crime is getting caught but that's only really a crime if you're not able to influence/spin it away.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Oct 2012)

MacB said:


> Hmmm, on that one I make Dell right, Fortress Armstrong will weather the storm, he's unlikely to ever fall to the depths his actions deserve. Don't forget that up in the rarefied atmosphere he inhabits the biggest crime is getting caught but that's only really a crime if you're not able to influence/spin it away.


 
I agree with dell to that extent. However, I part company when he goes further and implies that as a result we shouldn't bother ourselves with this or care.


----------



## 007fair (16 Oct 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> Question:
> If I see someone wearing a Livestong wristband do I:
> a) Ignore it
> b) Ask them what the wristband means to them
> ...


all of the above except A Actual word used in D is open


----------



## Dayvo (16 Oct 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> Question:
> If I see someone wearing a Livestong wristband do I:
> a) Ignore it
> b) Ask them what the wristband means to them
> ...


 
You reply in the appropriate order of importance:

d)
c)
b)
and when they try to attempt an explanation
a)


----------



## MacB (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I agree with dell to that extent. However, I part company when he goes further and implies that as a result we shouldn't bother ourselves with this or care.


 
and in that you and I are in total agreement


----------



## johnr (16 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> _LANCE ARMSTRONG: If you have a doping offence or you test positive, it goes without saying that you're fired from all your contracts. Not just the team, but there's numerous contracts that I have that would all go away._
> _JEFFREY TILLOTSON: Sponsorship agreements, for example?_
> _LANCE ARMSTRONG: All of them. *And the faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do off of the bike would go away too.*_
> _*And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased.*_
> _So I don't need it to say in a contract you're fired if you test positive. That's not as important as losing the support of hundreds of millions of people._


 I think this part of Armstrong's testimony is the most sickening. Then, he stresses the importance of the faith cancer survivors have in him; now, he's cowering behind them at the last redoubt.

And he was wrong about the multi-nationals putting principle before profit as well, wasn't he.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Oct 2012)

_“If I doped, I would potentially stand to lose everything,” he said. “It’s a long list. My reputation, my livelihood, my marriage, my family, my house. Everything I’ve achieved, my Olympic medals, my world titles, the CBE I was given.* "I would have to take my children to the school gates in a small Lancashire village with everyone looking at me, knowing I had cheated, knowing I had, perhaps, won the Tour de France, but then been caught.* “My wife organises races in Lancashire."I have my own sportif, with people coming and paying £40 each to ride.* If all that was built on sand, if I was deceiving all those people, I would have to live with the knowledge it could all disappear just like that*.”_
_LANCE ARMSTRONG: All of them. *And the faith of all the cancer survivors around the world. So everything I do off of the bike would go away too.*_*And don't think for a second I don't understand that. It's not about money for me. Everything. It's also about the faith that people have put in me over the years. So all of that would be erased.*_So I don't need it to say in a contract you're fired if you test positive. That's not as important as losing the support of hundreds of millions of people._
Now... my point (before people start busting blood vessels), is that no denial is worth anything.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (16 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> This quote from Liggett nearly had my in tears (of laughter):
> 
> "I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”
> 
> ...


and then he got a text from a 3rd party offering to claim his compensation about the accident he had recently....


----------



## Strathlubnaig (16 Oct 2012)

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-a-scandal-too-far/

Interesting read. the last line does ring true if we are all very honest, properly honest I mean.


----------



## johnr (16 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-a-scandal-too-far/
> 
> Interesting read. the last line does ring true if we are all very honest, properly honest I mean.


 Wouldn't come up on my computer - liked the UCI corruption graphic tho'


----------



## johnr (16 Oct 2012)

The tapes of the testimony shown in the Australian documentary made interesting viewing. Seeing the evidence of him lying on oath makes you wonder what the FBI were playing at dropping their investigation.


----------



## mickle (16 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Interesting read. the last line does ring true if we are all very honest, properly honest I mean.


 
Properly honest? 
You know what? I can say, in all honesty, in the same situation as them: No. I wouldn't have doped. Because for me, a game won by cheating isn't a game worth winning. And because I have a frickin moral backbone.


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You don't seem to have a point here apart from to try to personnally belittle anyone who is trying to do anything positive for the sport. You've already lost the argument on Armstrong (well, you never knew enough to be taken seriously on that anyway) and you not only don't have the good grace to back down a bit and admit you were wrong, you start attacking other people who are doing trying to do something. Unbelievable.


 
He's a minor player in professional cycling whose out to get his little bit of fame. Any suggestion he was forced out of the sport by his unwillingness to dope to compete, or that Armstrong damaged his sporting career by cheating is trounced by his admission that he never came across doping and only heard rumours of it in his road cycling career.


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> He's a minor player in professional cycling whose out to get his little bit of fame. Any suggestion he was forced out of the sport by his unwillingness to dope to compete, or that Armstrong damaged his sporting career by cheating is trounced by his admission that he never came across doping and only heard rumours of it in his road cycling career.


 
Not quite true. He would be a victim of passive doping and that could've destroyed him (physically and career wise). As he never came across doping he would have no chance of competing with the cheats so would inevitably, given the performance boost PEDs give, been forced out.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Oct 2012)

New allegations that Nike are up to their necks in this too - did they pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to have Armstrong's 1999 positive test covered up?


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Not quite true. He would be a victim of passive doping and that could've destroyed him (physically and career wise). As he never came across doping he would have no chance of competing with the cheats so would inevitably, given the performance boost PEDs give, been forced out.


 
Maybe but also from his performance in cross country mountain biking he was not that competitive anyway. Some people are destined never to reach the top no matter how hard they try and how much they dope and I suspect he is one of them. And now he gets his five minutes of fame by turning up outside Nike with a half formed message of protest.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Maybe but also from his performance in cross country mountain biking he was not that competitive anyway. Some people are destined never to reach the top no matter how hard they try and how much they dope and I suspect he is one of them. And now he gets his five minutes of fame by turning up outside Nike with a half formed message of protest.


 
There's absolutely no evidence for this view - you have just made it up on the basis of nothing at all. You seem to be completely cynical about everyone's motivations except Lance Armstrong... and you seem to want massive standards of proof when it comes to Armstrong but are quite happy to openly makes stuff up about others. As I said, unbelievable.


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> New allegations that Nike are up to their necks in this too - did they pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to have Armstrong's 1999 positive test covered up?


 
Hardly new. A rehash of 2006 hearsay which the person at the centre of it has denied.

_"Devries has always denied the allegations. He submitted a affidavit during the SCA case saying that LeMond’s allegations were made up."_​


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-a-scandal-too-far/
> 
> Interesting read. the last line does ring true if we are all very honest, properly honest I mean.


Nope, been there, done the would you like a little bit of corruption to make you somewhat richer. Lost the job, the others carried on and made a mint and never got caught. I've never regretted walking away.

Common amongst the cheats is a regret and a lack of self-respect about what they did. Win at all costs? Nah - when that ephemeral win fades and the crowds have gone home you're stuck with yourself to talk to.

Those Nigerian 419 scams - they only work on you if you're dishonest. Scammers know you can't cheat an honest man.

Apologies, a bit of seriousness crept in there about human nature. As RedLight isnt around, here's a video of an amusing weatherman to make up for things:

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5Z7iJ4woQE&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You seem to be completely cynical about everyone's motivations except Lance Armstrong...


 
You are right that I am cynical about a lot of people's motivations in this.


----------



## DogTired (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Hardly new. A rehash of 2006 hearsay which the person at the centre of it has denied.
> 
> _"Devries has always denied the allegations. He submitted a affidavit during the SCA case saying that LeMond’s allegations were made up."_​


 
Stephanie McVeigh (on LA's side) also testified under oath during the SCA case that Betsie Andreu's (not on LA's side) allegations were made up. This worked right up to the point when she admitted on a taped phone call with LeMond that the allegations were true.

There's a pattern here but I just can't put my finger on it...


----------



## Crackle (16 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> New allegations that Nike are up to their necks in this too - did they pay $500,000 to Verbruggen to have Armstrong's 1999 positive test covered up?


 
Dunno, that struck me as a bit like Liggett's text. Needs a bit more corroboration.


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Stephanie McVeigh (on LA's side) also testified under oath during the SCA case that Betsie Andreu's (not on LA's side) allegations were made up. This worked right up to the point when she admitted on a taped phone call with LeMond that the allegations were true.
> 
> There's a pattern here but I just can't put my finger on it...


 
I think you mean Stephanie McIlvain. And under oath in front of the Grand Jury in a seven hour investigation into the LeMond phone call recording she has reaffirmed that she did not hear the alledged admission by Armstrong.

The doctor who looked after Armstrong also testified that Armstrong had never told his doctors of any drug use (and he had the problem of it being in the medical notes kept by the hospital if he had lied and that lying would have been a career ending move). But USADA forgot to mention that and Stephanie's testimony in their "judgement".


----------



## Norm (16 Oct 2012)

I've removed a number of posts (personal attacks) from this thread. Please play nicely or we might have to remove some posters,too. Thanks.


----------



## Crackle (16 Oct 2012)

Sometimes I get to read a post I didn't mean to.

"His supervising physician, Dr. Craig Nichols, signed an affidavit stating that he had not asked Armstrong the questions recounted by the Andreus and that he could find no reference to the subject in Armstrong's medical records. The Andreus could not identify the doctors who came into the room but said Nichols was not one of them."

I guess it's all in the way you choose to say it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I was just trying to ascribe 'a lack of' to him and continuing the religious theme. I'm fully open to suggestions of how to describe him (I may also have misunderstood your post).


Morally bankrupt? Morally corrupt?

By which I mean he has morals, there is no 'space' or 'emptiness' within him, it's just that the nature of his morals, and moral character, is/are bad.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I think you mean Stephanie McIlvain. And under oath in front of the Grand Jury in a seven hour investigation into the LeMond phone call recording she has reaffirmed that she did not hear the alledged admission by Armstrong.
> 
> The doctor who looked after Armstrong also testified that Armstrong had never told his doctors of any drug use (and he had the problem of it being in the medical notes kept by the hospital if he had lied and that lying would have been a career ending move). But USADA forgot to mention that and Stephanie's testimony in their "judgement".


You have said several times that no doctor would risk his career by lying. Unless you came down with the last shower you can't really believe that. Doctors, policemen, lawyers, politicians, captains of industry, successful people from all walks of life have lost their livelihoods by becoming corrupt. Entry to a particular profession is no guarantee of a person's honesty.

And what Stephanie Mcllvain said under oath means nothing when you hear what she said in the taped call to Lemond.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> Question:
> If I see someone wearing a Livestong wristband do I:
> a) Ignore it
> b) Ask them what the wristband means to them
> ...


take a marker pen and delete the V?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Properly honest?
> You know what? I can say, in all honesty, in the same situation as them: No. I wouldn't have doped. Because for me, a game won by cheating isn't a game worth winning. And because I have a frickin moral backbone.


^this.

I despise those who coach players to cheat. I despise those players who cheat. I'd rather lose than cheat.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Now... my point (before people start busting blood vessels), is that no denial is worth anything.


It all sounds just like Mandy Rice-Davies once said.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

2102587 said:


> It's a good job you never got involved in the round ball version of football.


I stopped playing, much to the Aged P's disappointment, at more or less the same time I started getting coached to cheat. The oval ball game back then was a bit different. These days? Not so much.


----------



## BJH (16 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> He's a minor player in professional cycling whose out to get his little bit of fame. Any suggestion he was forced out of the sport by his unwillingness to dope to compete, or that Armstrong damaged his sporting career by cheating is trounced by his admission that he never came across doping and only heard rumours of it in his road cycling career.



Reality here is that you or the rest of us have Don't any idea just how good this guy was or could have been in a none drugged world. Maybe he was a minor player because the bunch of cheating gits were taking all the top places ahead if him.
So what benefit will he get from his protest ? I don't see him making anything, maybe he just genuinely feels cheated out of his career like many other have been


----------



## Paul_L (16 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ^this.
> 
> I despise those who coach players to cheat. I despise those players who cheat. I'd rather lose than cheat.


 
I'm currently going through my British Cycling level 2 coaching. There's nothing like a bunch of 6 to 9 year olds riding round a school playground having fun on bikes. A great antidote to the current mess, or at least the mess from 1998 to 2006.


----------



## BJH (16 Oct 2012)

I have only one question I would like to ask Lance in the wake of his ex team mates blowing the lid off his world.

How do you like those frickin apples now?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2012)

2102606 said:


> Not so much but there is a bit of a gap you don't see the same sort of mouthing off at the ref, at least not in televised games.


True. To a degree. But even at elite level 'soccer attitudes' are creeping into the game and they are writ large in the community game.

And to which my answer is 'bloodgate', the 'hand of Back', various divers, deliberate tripping, tip tackles and the entire career of that Ritchie McCaw


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Oct 2012)

Lance Armstrong now has more bollocks than Tour de France victories.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> And what Stephanie Mcllvain said under oath means nothing when you hear what she said in the taped call to Lemond.


that's in the Australian programme linked to upthread. She's perjured herself. And for what?


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> You have said several times that no doctor would risk his career by lying. Unless you came down with the last shower you can't really believe that. Doctors, policemen, lawyers, politicians, captains of industry, successful people from all walks of life have lost their livelihoods by becoming corrupt. Entry to a particular profession is no guarantee of a person's honesty.


 
Have you read Craig Nichols MD's sworn affidavit? It says that in the 280 pages of medical notes (which are separately submitted on sworn affidavit by a member of the hospital's medical records staff) from them neither he nor any of the other of the doctors treating him made any note of his saying he used performance enhancing drugs, that if it had been asked it would have been recorded as a matter of form by himself or his colleagues (and would be something he would definitely remember also) but that it would be highly unusual to ask a professional athlete with testicular cancer if they had used PEDs and he could not recall ever having asked it of other professional athletes he treated.

But he goes further and states:

_I am a blood specialist and very familiar with the use and effects of EPO. Had Lance Armstrong been using EPO to enhance his cycling performance, I would have likely identified differences in his blood levels. After all, I had treated him and administered EPO during his treatment years when he was not cycling between October 1996 and January 1997 and was very familiar with his blood levels............_​​_Therefore, it is undoubtedly the case that the administration of EPO for the treatment of Lance Armstrong's chemotherapy-induced anemia cannot have had any performance-enhancing effects on Lance Armstrong's cycling. In addition, the fact that throughout the frequent check-ups until October 2001, when they ceased, I did not notice any unusual or irregular blood cell levels in Lance Armstrong's blood, indicates to me that Lance Armstrong was not administering EPO between January 1997 and October 2001._​ 
And if you scroll further through the pack of affidavits linked to above you come to a number of other interesting ones. There is one from UCI saying that the TdeF tests are taken not by them but by a doctor from the French Ministry of Sports who then passes the samples on to the French WADA accredited lab, LNDD. So if there was a cover up in the TdeF it was the French Government and WADA lab that were the conspirators, not UCI.

Then there are two very interesting affidavits in favour of Lance Armstrong from a certain Travis Tygart saying:
​_USADA has drug tested Mr. Armstrong twelve (12) separate times on the following dates: November 20, 2001, December 6, 2001, October 22, 2002, November 18, 2003, April 22, 2004, April 23, 2004, April 24, 2004, April 25, 2004, December 7, 2004, January 26, 2005, February 19, 2005, and April 5, 2005. Mr. Armstrong has never had an adverse analytical finding reported to USADA. USADA lias never charged Mr. Armstrong with a doping violation for a positive test or being unavailable for testing or otherwise._​​and Don Caitlin saying:

_Our laboratory is the exclusive destination and analytical facility for all specimens taken by the United States Anti Doping Association ("USADA"). While I have no idea whether Mr.Lance Armstrong's specimens have been tested by our lab, as all competitors are anonymous, if a specimen has been collected by USADA from Mr. Armstrong, our lab would have performed the analysis. The protocols and procedures employed by our laboratory are extremely sophisticated and highly reliable. If a USADA specimen was analyzed by our lab without a banned substance being detected. 1 can state with confidence that such a banned substance was not in detectable amounts in the specimen. I have attached to this affidavit two papers descriptive of the tests employed to detect EPO ("erythropoielin"), a drug which tends to boost the hemotocrit levels (essentially, the percentage, by volume, of red blood cells in the blood), thereby increasing endurance. This procedure reliably detects EPO if it is present. We also have vast steroid coordinates in our database and the testing procedures and protocols are likewise dependable for the detection of all such substances of which we are aware._​​So I guess Travis and Don are implicated in the cover up too. Of course you find none of this in the USADA case.




> And what Stephanie Mcllvain said under oath means nothing when you hear what she said in the taped call to Lemond.


 
Have you listened to the tape? She is very clear that if she is subpoenaed she is not going to lie. So why did she say she didn't hear Armstrong say he'd used PEDs during her seven hours of subpoenaed questioning by the Grand Jury under penalty of perjury if she lied?


----------



## Red Light (16 Oct 2012)

Levi's been fired by Pharma Quick-Step. Perhaps he won't be racing next year after all after his 6 month ban ends. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19969458

Now was he fired for doping or being punished for breaking the Omerta?


----------



## RedRider (16 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> 1/2 way through the R5 programme. Quite shocking.
> 
> I wonder if Simeoni and Bassons can sue for a loss of career?


A good listen and some new stuff for me. It'd be interesting to see footage of that shameful stage where the peloton hung bassons out to dry.


----------



## Crosstrailer (17 Oct 2012)

Levi Leipheimer fired by Quick Step.....


----------



## totallyfixed (17 Oct 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-lance-armstrong-fairness-fallacy


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Levi's been fired by Pharma Quick-Step. Perhaps he won't be racing next year after all after his 6 month ban ends. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19969458
> 
> Now was he fired for doping or being punished for breaking the Omerta?


"We commend the rider for his open co-operation with Usada and contribution to cleaning up the sport of cycling." So much so that we've fired his ass.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> "We commend the rider for his open co-operation with Usada and contribution to cleaning up the sport of cycling." So much so that we've fired his ass.


 
Ah but they would say that wouldn't they.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

Re SCA and a possible comeback. Have just been doing some reading up on the case and read a report that SCA settled out of Court after the judge commented that there was no clause in the contract covering cheating so that even they could prove he cheated, why was he was not still due his money. It may explain why they haven't already slung in a lawsuit despite announcing they were considering it back in June.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Re SCA and a possible comeback. Have just been doing some reading up on the case and read a report that SCA settled out of Court after the judge commented that there was no clause in the contract covering cheating so that even they could prove he cheated, why was he was not still due his money. It may explain why they haven't already slung in a lawsuit despite announcing they were considering it back in June.


 
The SCA guy on that Aussie documentrary this week said "we had a bad contract ... if he was officially declared the winner we had to pay out, and he was so we had to" (or words to that effect). Perhaps they're waiting for him to be officially DQ'd?


----------



## Buddfox (17 Oct 2012)

But in all certainty the out of court settlement agreement will preclude that?


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> But in all certainty the out of court settlement agreement will preclude that?


You'll have to hire a hotshot lawyer to answer that one. 

Or wait for a bit.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (17 Oct 2012)

the evidence speaks for itself.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> But in all certainty the out of court settlement agreement will preclude that?


 
That would be my expectation. The settlement was initiated by SCA, not Armstrong, so I would expect it to have clauses which would prevent a re-opening by SCA. If it doesn't then Armstrong needs to find some new lawyers who know what they are doing.


----------



## thom (17 Oct 2012)

*The Associated PressVerified*‏@*AP*​
BREAKING: Lance Armstrong stepping down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity.


----------



## just jim (17 Oct 2012)

Daniel Borochoff, founder and president of Chicago-based CharityWatch, said last week it may take some time for donors to digest the allegations against Armstrong.
"Individuals that admire and support an individual who is later found out to be severely tarnished, don't want to admit it, don't want to admit that they've been duped," Borochoff said. "People, though, do need to trust a charity to be able to support it."

Couple of candidates on this thread for sure 

Mercury News


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> That would be my expectation. The settlement was initiated by SCA, not Armstrong, so I would expect it to have clauses which would prevent a re-opening by SCA. If it doesn't then Armstrong needs to find some new lawyers who know what they are doing.


 
Nope. SCA had a contract to pay out bonuses to Tailwind sports if LA won TdFs. $1.5million for 01 and 02, $3 million for 03 and $5 million for a 6th straight win in 04. SCA contested the $5million payment in 2004 when evidence of the use of PEDs came to light. SCA quite rightly chose to contest this on the basis they would not have taken the contract if they were aware of PED use up front, so they chose not to pay fully aware that this would end up in court. As a sign that this was not due to financial reasons they put the $5 million in escrow.

LA naturally took them to court and the decision was that as LA had won the 2004 TdF SCA had to pay up. The contract said if he was declared the winner he got the cash. That's the state until the UCI ratify the USADA decisions. It should also make the inverse true - if LA is stripped of his titles he'll need to pay back the money regardless.

When the court decision was made, the money was released from escrow with interest and costs. Nothing to do with settlements initiated by SCA - they paid up on a contested contract, quite honourably. There is nothing to suggest anywhere that there will be clauses preventing a re-opening by SCA and they have indicated that they are watching this closely.


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> *The Associated PressVerified*‏@*AP*​
> BREAKING: Lance Armstrong stepping down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity.


 
To go on to do what though?!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

Matt White has been fired by Cycling Australia.


----------



## laurence (17 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> *The Associated PressVerified*‏@*AP*​BREAKING: Lance Armstrong stepping down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity.


 expect the words 'witch hunt' to appear in his statement.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah but they would say that wouldn't they.


Actually I don't think they _did_ need to say that. It's archetypal modern management doublespeak. It's mealy mouthed, and hyprocritical.

Surely all they needed to say was....

"In the light of the disclosures made by Mr Levi Leipheimer in his public statement on 10 October, the team has decided to terminate the contract. This decision has the full support of the team owner, the board represented by Mr Bessel Kok and team manager Mr Patrick Lefevere."


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

2104037 said:


> Concentrate on clearing his name I expect.


Spend more time with his family perhaps?

EDIT "To spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship,"


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

According to TalkSport Nike have terminated LAs contract. No more details than that...

Nike said: "Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner.
"Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer."


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Nope. SCA had a contract to pay out bonuses to Tailwind sports if LA won TdFs. $1.5million for 01 and 02, $3 million for 03 and $5 million for a 6th straight win in 04. SCA contested the $5million payment in 2004 when evidence of the use of PEDs came to light. SCA quite rightly chose to contest this on the basis *they would not have taken the contract if they were aware of PED use up front*, so they chose not to pay fully aware that this would end up in court. As a sign that this was not due to financial reasons they put the $5 million in escrow.
> 
> LA naturally took them to court and the decision was that as LA had won the 2004 TdF SCA had to pay up. The contract said if he was declared the winner he got the cash. That's the state until the UCI ratify the USADA decisions. It should also make the inverse true - if LA is stripped of his titles he'll need to pay back the money regardless.
> 
> When the *court decision was made*, the money was released from escrow with interest and costs. Nothing to do with settlements initiated by SCA - they paid up on a contested contract, quite honourably. There is nothing to suggest anywhere that there will be clauses preventing a re-opening by SCA and they have indicated that they are watching this closely.


 

Your account differs from that of the lawyers involved:

*Tailwind/Lance Armstrong v. SCA Promotions (Arbitration, Herman Howry & Breen) - Breach of Contract: ​*
_ This case revolved around allegations that our client, Tailwind/Lance *Armstrong, had breached an agreement by taking banned, performance-enhancing substances* in his 2004 Tour de France victory. SCA was under contract to pay Lance Armstrong a bonus of $5M if he won the race, which he did. After the arbitration proceedings, *but before the panel issued its ruling, SCA settled the case* by paying Armstrong $7.5 million._​_http://barnesandroberts.com/verdicts.shtml_​


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

As I have a professional interest I took a look at what CharityWatch (aka the American Institute of Philanthropy) have to say about Livestrong Foundation.

They score it A-

Feel free to read up on their methodology, assessment criteria and scoring.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Nikes statement is fairly plain!


Folk will say they've rushed to judgement and will take a lot of comfort from the straw to clutch that is "seemingly"


----------



## Crosstrailer (17 Oct 2012)

Pharmstrong has now stepped down as chairman of Livestrong......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19978608


----------



## tigger (17 Oct 2012)

The Livestrong brand is still clearly seen as one worth protecting and must be very good business for Nike. Timing is perfect with Armstrong also announcing stepping down as Livestrong Chairman today.

My proposed conversation between Lance and Nike reads like this:
"Given the heat of the current situation. We cannot sponsor you personally anymore and we need you to step down as Chairman of Livestrong. Otherwise its business as usual".


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Spend more time with his family perhaps?


Spend more time with his families, to be strictly correct Greg!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

2104048 said:


> I thought that was just for politicians.


I quit a job once citing those reasons. I'd make a dire politician.


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Your account differs from that of the lawyers involved:
> 
> 
> *Tailwind/Lance Armstrong v. SCA Promotions (Arbitration, Herman Howry & Breen) - Breach of Contract: *​
> _ This case revolved around allegations that our client, Tailwind/Lance *Armstrong, had breached an agreement by taking banned, performance-enhancing substances* in his 2004 Tour de France victory. SCA was under contract to pay Lance Armstrong a bonus of $5M if he won the race, which he did. After the arbitration proceedings, *but before the panel issued its ruling, SCA settled the case* by paying Armstrong $7.5 million._​_http://barnesandroberts.com/verdicts.shtml_​


 
No, as I said - the proceedings ended as the court decided (ie a *court decision*) that as LA had been declared the winner of the 2004 TdF, SCA had to honour the contract. There's really not a lot of point in waiting for the ruling when the proceedings have been halted on that basis. SCA knew they had to pay and shows good faith on their behalf.

SCA would not have taken the contract if they were aware of PED use, which is why they used Betsy Andreu's testimony dating to 1996, which is clearly out of scope time-wise of the SCA-Tailwind contract.

"*Hamman's view was that if SCA had known about the hospital room allegation, it never would have done business with Tailwind Sports*".

Hamman is Bob Hamman, company president of SCA, who initiated the proceedings by not paying the contract.


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> According to TalkSport Nike have terminated LAs contract. No more details than that...
> 
> Nike said: "Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner.
> "Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer."


The roof is falling in on Armstrong.


----------



## Dayvo (17 Oct 2012)

Just LA and Red Light who maintain Lance's innocence, then.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> According to TalkSport Nike have terminated LAs contract. No more details than that...
> 
> Nike said: "Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner.
> "Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer."


 
Well I guess the insignificant ex-pro-cyclist who protested at Nike might have actually been right (and been effective) after all then. What's Red Light going to move on to now?

And this also shows that dell and others may be wrong about Lance's financial and other interests not being affected by all this. The Americans may love a winner, but Armstrong is starting to look like a loser now, and once that happens he will sink like a stone. Now he's lost Livestrong and Nike, I suspect that even his political ambitions will have to put on hold for a very long time...


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well I guess the insignificant ex-pro-cyclist who protested at Nike might have actually been right (and been effective) after all then. What's Red Light going to move on to *now then now then now then*?


 
No idea!


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well I guess the insignificant ex-pro-cyclist who protested at Nike might have actually been right (and been effective) after all then. What's Red Light going to move on to now?
> 
> ...


Every little helps, as they say.
I didn't actually stop Blair invading Iraq but I'm still glad I went on the anti-war demo.


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well I guess the insignificant ex-pro-cyclist who protested at Nike might have actually been right (and been effective) after all then. What's Red Light going to move on to now?
> 
> And this also shows that dell and others may be wrong about Lance's financial and other interests not being affected by all this. The Americans may love a winner, but Armstrong is starting to look like a loser now, and once that happens he will sink like a stone. Now he's lost Livestrong and Nike, *I suspect that even his political ambitions will have to put on hold for a very long time...*


For ever.

Armstrong is finished, he still has his supporters but as everything sinks in and probably a lot more comes out even the Good 'ol Boys will desert him. He may slink off stage still a rich man, but he has long passed the stage where money was his motivator, power, respect and influence is what he craves and turning into a sick joke will hurt him more that anything else could.


----------



## Dayvo (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> What's Red Light going to move on to now?


 
Thomk's helmet thread! 
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/helmet-saved-my-life-yesterday.115501/

The last few pages are enough for a _further_ insight into the man's mind!


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2012)

I have to say I'm shocked. I need to read the detail when it comes out but I was not expecting any of that to happen so fast or so easily.

Of course, Nike dropped Woods and then quietly picked him up again a year later and they still have the Livestrong brand and Armstrong is still on the board there but really the speed of this has surprised me, there must have been lots of stuff going on in the background as they all worked out their damage limitation strategies.


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

Who's next, Oakley?


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

I see that Stuart O'Grady is shocked too at the revelations. Do they take us for idiots? Given that most of us have known the truth largely for years it seems implausible that Stewie was unaware.


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> The speed is surprising, I was expecting at least to have to wait the 21 days for the UCI to release its verdict.


 
Considering the closeness of all concerned it could be indicative of which way the UCI will jump. Shows how bad the focus groups are reporting too...


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I have to say I'm shocked. I need to read the detail when it comes out but I was not expecting any of that to happen so fast or so easily.
> 
> *Of course, Nike dropped Woods and then quietly picked him up again a year later* and they still have the Livestrong brand and Armstrong is still on the board there but really the speed of this has surprised me, there must have been lots of stuff going on in the background as they all worked out their damage limitation strategies.


Different case entirely, Wood's shennanigans had nothing to do with his golf and when the dust settled he was still a top player. Armstrong has been exposed as a bullying cheat and has retired so no chance to redeem himself on the bike.


----------



## 007fair (17 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> As I have a professional interest I took a look at what CharityWatch (aka the American Institute of Philanthropy) have to say about Livestrong Foundation.
> 
> They score it A-
> 
> Feel free to read up on their methodology, assessment criteria and scoring.


Interesting They don't exactly lavish praise on Livestrong 

'*The Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF)*, founded by the champion bicyclist and cancer survivor of the same name, is celebrating its 10-year anniversary this year. Wouldn’t you think a charity that receives massive publicity for having one of the most popular causes and most admired celebrities as the face of the organization would be able to easily raise lots of money? Unfortunately this is not the case. LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin. While LAF had difficulty raising contributions efficiently, it did prove to be a savvy merchandise marketer. LAF sold over $24 million in merchandise, including the ubiquitous yellow “LIVESTRONG” wristband, as well as clothing, sports gear and even dog leashes. Yet after spending $10 million in solicitation costs, the group brought in only $22 million in contributions, according to AIP’s analysis of LAF’s 2005 financial statements.'


----------



## ohnovino (17 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Who's next, Oakley?


People on Twitter yesterday were claiming that all references to Lance are being removed from the Oakley stores.


----------



## BalkanExpress (17 Oct 2012)

ohnovino said:


> People on Twitter yesterday were claiming that all references to Lance are being removed from the Oakley stores.


 
Once they hit the bargain bin I may finally be able to afford a pair


----------



## Crosstrailer (17 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> Just LA and Red Light who maintain Lance's innocence, then.


 
Nice one centurion !


----------



## Panter (17 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> Just LA and Red Light who maintain Lance's innocence, then.


 
No, and me, I'm just venting quietly.

Have to admit though, it does look as if there may be a sniff of substance to these vicious allegations. 

*Sad face*


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Oct 2012)




----------



## dellzeqq (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Nikes statement is fairly plain!


is it? I read it as 'business as usual'. They're supporting Livestrong (which is fair enough). They're not supporting a rider who's retired.


----------



## johnr (17 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> But in all certainty the out of court settlement agreement will preclude that?


 Didn't they just decide not to proceed?


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> is it? I read it as 'business as usual'. They're supporting Livestrong (which is fair enough). They're not supporting a rider who's retired.


Smacked of a deal to me, you resign as Chairman and we will honour the Livestrong contract.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> I meant the "insurmountable evidence" bit, but whatever....


I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. But.......Loco's on the money. It's a deal.


----------



## mickle (17 Oct 2012)

I believe this is just the start of an enormous unravelling.


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> is it? I read it as 'business as usual'. They're supporting Livestrong (which is fair enough). They're not supporting a rider who's retired.


 
Not sure - depends on the contract LA had with Nike. Its not clear which contract is being canned, probably a personal one. Nike would have to be fairly dumb to dump Livestrong straight away as it would be seen to be hurting the vulnerable. Best way to come out of it - really sad we can't deal with LA (not because he's guilty, but because the evidence is seemingly insurmountable) yet still help kids with chemo.


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Oct 2012)

I quite enjoyed this


----------



## Buddfox (17 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> I believe this is just the start of an enormous unravelling.


 
It's starting to feel like it, isn't it? His best plan now is probably just to keep his head down and then hope that in six months it's all just removed itself from public conscience. If there's any kind of shenanigans with the UCI, or a genuine truth and reconciliation process within the peloton, he may not get a choice.

It still wouldn't surprise me if 18 months down the road we get 'Lance Armstong: My True Story' or something where he attempts to redeem his public image.


----------



## kedab (17 Oct 2012)

is it wrong that i frikin love all this?! you couldn't have scripted anything so extraordinary. it's insane and in it's own dark way completely compelling...much like the TdF.


----------



## johnr (17 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> I quite enjoyed this


 Do you think Dan Wetzel has a business card with 'expert' on it?

I wonder whether the IOC told Nike to get out of the drugs business as part of their contract negotiations with them.


----------



## PpPete (17 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> I quite enjoyed this


 
What a shitty piece of spin masquerading as journalism !
Still and all, it seems even his supporters now seem to be admitting he's a cheat even as they try to salvage something from the mess.



> The stakes remain way too big to let the fraudulent world of elite cycling destroy his work with Livestrong.


Horseshit...


----------



## BJH (17 Oct 2012)

cago-based CharityWatch, said last week it could take some time for donors to digest the allegations against Armstrong.

“Individuals that admire and support an individual who is later found out to be severely tarnished, don’t want to admit it, don’t want to admit that they’ve been duped,” Borochoff said. “People, though, do need to trust a charity to be able to support it.”

Probably applies to fan boys too


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> What a s***ty piece of spin masquerading as journalism !
> Still and all, it seems even his supporters now seem to be admitting he's a cheat even as they try to salvage something from the mess.
> 
> 
> Horses***...


 not quite the response to my fishing trip


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

kedab said:


> is it wrong that i frikin love all this?! you couldn't have scripted anything so extraordinary. it's insane and in it's own dark way completely compelling...much like the TdF.


waaaay more exciting than some crummy French bike race.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Do you think Lance is that bothered about Livestrong for this to be seen as a "deal"?
> 
> Nike: We would like you to step down as chairman of Livestrong in order to maintain its integrity.
> LA: Great, good idea! What do I get in return?
> ...


Nike: We would like you to step down as chairman of Livestrong in order to maintain its integrity.
LA: Great, good idea. Do I stay on the board?
Nike: For sure.
LA: Do I still get paid for public speaking engagements on behalf of Livestrong?
Nike: Yeah why not.
LA: Does the foundation pick up all my expenses?
Nike: Can't see why it shouldn't.
LA: Great
Nike: One more thing
LA: and?
Nike: We are also going to withdraw all sponsorship of you.
LA: OK. What about sponsorship of the foundation?
Nike: that stays as it is.
LA: Great! Where do I sign!  Now where's my EPO? I must have some booze EPO. I demand to have some EPO!


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Oct 2012)

BalkanExpress said:


> Once they hit the bargain bin I may finally be able to afford a pair


 
We have had them for years!

Gunwharf discount stores regularly knock out Livestrong for peanuts.

They used to have the £100 bibshorts @ £15 andthe tops @£10

Oakley also regularly have the glasses at less than £50

There are a lot of people around here wearing the brand, because of the price!


----------



## Dayvo (17 Oct 2012)

It certainly is a fascinating story and I'm sure there'll be a film about it one day.

However, I suspect that this may end tragically quite soon.

Having been undeniably (in 99.99% of cases) exposed as the cheat, liar, bully, deceiver, manipulator that he is, and, having lost face, friends, reputation, titles, fame, not to mention the damage to his ego, and everything that else that most certainly will becoming his way in the very near future, I don't think there is anywhere for LA to turn to or hide, and suspect that suicide could be his only 'escape'. I very much hope that is NOT the case here.

I was living in Oslo in 1993 when he became world champion and he was, I supose, _the_ cyclist who aroused my interest, and many others, in pro cycling. Although not a fan-boy, I admired him and the way he rode.

It's only in the last 8 months or so that I started to believe the rumours and accusations about him.

He deserves no sympathy at all from anyone, but I hope he is able to find peace within himself and live a quiet, nondescript life somewhere.


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2012)

Regarding Nike's utterly cynical statement, I think this sums it up nicely:

http://deadspin.com/5952466/nike-dumps-lance-armstrong-in-the-smarmiest-way-possible


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> It certainly is a fascinating story and I'm sure there'll be a film about it one day.
> 
> However, I suspect that this may end tragically quite soon.
> 
> Having been undeniably (in 99.99% of cases) exposed as the cheat, liar, bully, deceiver, manipulator that he is, and, having lost face, friends, reputation, titles, fame, not to mention the damage to his ego, and everything that else that most certainly will becoming his way in the very near future...


 
Naaah, to paraphrase "The Tick (tm)", "A git with money aint hardly a git at all."


----------



## mickle (17 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> .... but I hope he is able to find peace within himself ....


 
Nah. fark him. When the dust settles I fear we will discover that Mr Armstrong's shenanegans have irreparably damaged our beloved sport in the eyes of the general public. He can fester in the self-made hell of his own shame and embarassment for all eternity as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## mangaman (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well I guess the insignificant ex-pro-cyclist who protested at Nike might have actually been right (and been effective) after all then. What's Red Light going to move on to now?


 
Over here on Radio 4, they're just interviewing the insignificant bloke live. 

He comes across very well - very articulate interview I thought - not just about Lance, but about the whole multinationalisation of sport. There was a lot of talk that Nike may have been complicit in the doping programme.

This was the 1st story on PM and went on for about 10 minutes.

Clearly Lance won't care much, but Nike aren't going to have enjoyed the interview.

I think the reason the story is getting so big here is the hint that the Global Corporations do more than provide free kit to their athletes

When Nike et al start to get seriously bad publicity in large markets, they finally start to worry - and things could get worse for them if any of this turns out to be true.

Eddie Mair said Nike were accused of making the payoff to the UCI to cover Lance's failed tests - which is a pretty specific allegation.


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

Have you raed this before mangaman?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2005...t-blasts-ucis-handling-of-armstrong-case_8889

_“There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has"_


----------



## Scoosh (17 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> He [LA] deserves no sympathy at all from anyone, but I hope he is able to find peace within himself and live a quiet, nondescript life somewhere.


For someone who _has_ to be in control, 'the main man', that would be the ultimate horror for LA - having to live quietly, a nondescript life somewhere. His worst nightmare. 

'Tis a bit churlish and unkind ... but .....


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Oct 2012)

Now Nike have binned LA I wonder what hoodies all the drug dealers will be wearing now. It was a bad business move by Nike as there are far more drug dealers than cycle supporters 

I totally disagree what LA has done. But what you need to remember about the era that he raced in is that they were all at it. When they dish out all his yellow jerseys I wonder how far down the line you need to go to find someone who was actually "clean". He gave us all some great entertainment over the years and showed courage through his battle with cancer.

What will the end of the story be?

Well the guy is minted, that is for sure. I think he is more interested in his cancer charities than in cycling and that is what he will concentrate his energy on. The Yanks love a villian and they will forgive him in quick time. What was that Tiger Woods up to ? Geoge Bush...lovely man. 

Eventually he will write a book "Lance Armstrong, the whole truth". He will come clean and we will all want to read it. By that time the new cycle supporters will have almost forgotten him and it will only be us fossils who are interested.

I wish him well. Drugs or no drugs, most pro cyclists could not have held a candle to him. 

Steve


----------



## Scoosh (17 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Have you raed this before mangaman?
> http://velonews.competitor.com/2005...t-blasts-ucis-handling-of-armstrong-case_8889
> 
> _“There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong,” Schenk added. “The UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong – to my knowledge 500,000 dollars – and now there is speculation that there are financial connections to Armstrong, as well as the American market. I do not know what sort of connections Verbruggen has"_


Notice the original date of that report- - September 15, 2005 !!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

More evidence that LA got special consideration from the UCI when he made his comeback...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

And this is a really enlightening piece interviewing Prentice Steffan, the doctor who resigned from USPS rather than be involved in doping, and who has been a major advocate for striking off the doctors involved, 'no-needle' policies and much more.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Do you think Lance is that bothered about Livestrong for this to be seen as a "deal"?
> 
> Nike: We would like you to step down as chairman of Livestrong in order to maintain its integrity.
> LA: Great, good idea! What do I get in return?
> ...


Nike - you're busted
Lance - if I step aside, and forget the half million will you support Livestrong?
Nike - sounds reasonable


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Oct 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> I wish him well. Drugs or no drugs, most pro cyclists could not have held a candle to him.
> 
> Steve


I couldn't agree with that for a minute. Before his comeback (when he teamed up wit JB) Armstrong was a decent cyclist, but nothing special. He didn't climb and he didn't time trial, he was never considered a GT contender. He was the product of the most sophisticated doping programme ever and he was lucky in that his body responded to EPO much more efficiently than it does with most people. 

Read up on the effects of EPO and you'll see what I mean. As for the courage in fighting cancer, there is no courage involved, just the skill of the doctors and luck.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> Just LA and Red Light who maintain Lance's innocence, then.


 
Just found a very interesting store on the web of documents relating to LA. They include this one with David Walsh which is a proposal to take down LA as a very profitable (financially) exercise from a team doctor (who worked on the USPS team in 1996). Some quotes from the email trail:

From Prentice Steffen to David Walsh (Subject: Highly Confidential; Date: 11 June 2004)
The potential financial upside to this undertaking and whomever may
join me in it is considerable:
60,000,000 Total paid by USPS to LA, et al
180,000,000 Potential fine (3 times fraud amount)
54,000,000 30% is the average awarded to the whistleblower(s)
32,400,000 Less the 40% the attorneys keep as their contingency fee​​I'll be interested to know what you think about this and whether you
may agree to contact Emma about this. I recall that you mentioned
she was interested in finding a way for her story to involve a pay
day. Time is critical as only the first person(s) to file such a
suit are eligible for the reward​​​​The reply from David Walsh to Prentice Steffen:

Prentice,
If it can be worked, it's a brilliant idea. Emma is totally in favour, as
her evidence is going to be in the public domain anyway.

Will be touch,

David​​Puts David Walsh and Emma O'Reilly in a somewhat different light.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Smacked of a deal to me, you resign as Chairman and we will honour the Livestrong contract.


 
They kept quiet on what the pay-off for termination was.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And this is a really enlightening piece interviewing Prentice Steffan, the doctor who resigned from USPS rather than be involved in doping, and who has been a major advocate for striking off the doctors involved, 'no-needle' policies and much more.


 
Resigned in 1996 it should be mentioned after a year with the team so not there during Armstrong's residency. And see my earlier post about his little money making scheme for him, Dave Walsh and Emma O'Reilly. Well big money making actually.


----------



## Erratic (17 Oct 2012)

Expect a few more to follow suite as the legal men tie up the loose ends and reach their conclusions over contracts, same with UCI - feel sorry for his kids, hope they are protected from all this.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Nah. f*** him. When the dust settles I fear we will discover that Mr Armstrong's shenanegans have irreparably damaged our beloved sport in the eyes of the general public. He can fester in the self-made hell of his own shame and embarassment for all eternity as far as I'm concerned.


 
He was not the only rider doping, nor was USPS the only team.


----------



## Crosstrailer (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Resigned in 1996 it should be mentioned after a year with the team so not there during Armstrong's residency. And see my earlier post about his little money making scheme for him, Dave Walsh and Emma O'Reilly. Well big money making actually.


 
Red Light, Straight question - do you honestly believe Lance Armstrong is innocent and is not a doper ? Its a Yes or No answer.......


----------



## Dayvo (17 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Red Light, Straight question - do you honestly believe Lance Armstrong is innocent and is not a doper ? Its a Yes or No answer.......


 
No chance!


----------



## laurence (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Just found a very interesting store on the web of documents relating to LA. They include this one with David Walsh which is a proposal to take down LA as a very profitable (financially) exercise from a team doctor (who worked on the USPS team in 1996). Some quotes from the email trail:
> 
> 
> ​Puts David Walsh and Emma O'Reilly in a somewhat different light.


 
odd that find any stories against LA unbelievable unless they can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, yet you believe these emails are real and based a defence on them.


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greipel-voices-support-of-usada-investigation

Good for Greipel!


----------



## DogTired (17 Oct 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> I wish him well. Drugs or no drugs, most pro cyclists could not have held a candle to him.
> Steve


He was an average cyclist - check out his TdF results. Then smashing everyone out of the blue. He has an average VO2 max and an average lung capacity.

Plenty did beat him. The only thing special about him was his drive to find the best PEDs and PED administrator.

The only way pro cyclist would hold a candle to Lance was if it was a small effigy.


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2012)

Geoff thomas wrote..."@lancearmstrong please for your sake, come clean. If not yours, for the millions you have inspired over the last 15+ years."

If the chap has any dignity at all then he has to come clean.

Take a few corporations down with him too, plus at lease one governing body.

But, your earlier post might be right Dayvo


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greipel-voices-support-of-usada-investigation
> 
> Good for Greipel!


 
Lets hope thiss opens up the box for others.


----------



## Buddfox (17 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/greipel-voices-support-of-usada-investigation
> 
> Good for Greipel!


 
Yeah, that's excellent work - outside of the UK, the first 'big name' to speak out properly? Would be great if e.g. Gilbert did the same, for example.


----------



## laurence (17 Oct 2012)

i doubt he'll come clean... he thrives on having someone to fight against - the perpetually abused fighting back. he will view this as another fight, they're all out to get him, a witch-hunt.

he always insisted the french hated him - yet i never witnessed that in all the years i saw the TdF there. everyone was against him, without any evidence to suggest this was true.

he lives in his world, he is Baron Munchausen/Don Quixotehe, he is fighting the good fight - in his mind. the more i watched him over the years the more i disliked him, his lies, his use of the press to bully and belittle others, his abuse of power. you could see the deluded man emerging from the 'hero' and once you saw the emperor's new clothes, you realised he was naked.

personally i hope someone investigates his claims that during his comeback he was riding for free... i was pretty sure he received a whopping fee to start the TDU. again, more lies.

did he ever tell the truth?


----------



## Happiness Stan (17 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> He was not the only rider doping, nor was USPS the only team.


 Surely you recognise this quote:
A "serial" cheat who led "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".

He was the Don of Doping and treated cycling like his own personal fiefdom. And he lied, bullied, intimidated, and bribed to keep it that way.


----------



## ufkacbln (17 Oct 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> Surely you recognise this quote:
> A "serial" cheat who led "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".
> 
> He was the Don of Doping and treated cycling like his own personal fiefdom. And he lied, bullied, intimidated, and bribed to keep it that way.


 
... and where does that quote say he was the only one?


----------



## MichaelM (17 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Red Light, Straight question - do you honestly believe Lance Armstrong is innocent and is not a doper ? Its a Yes or No answer.......


 
It depends on what you mean by that.

WADA/USADA have broken their own rules and procedures and required Armstrong's permission to re-test the samples etc.. therefore, it's not fair that Armstong's samples were looked at, hence he must be innocent until it's proved otherwise.


----------



## Happiness Stan (17 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ... and where does that quote say he was the only one?


 
It doesn't it says he led the way and took doping to new heights.

Tell me,
when you get stopped for speeding do whine to the Old Bill,
"I wasn't the only one speeding blah blah blah". 
And when you do, do they then laugh at you and give you a £60 fine and three points?

To stretch the anology, other riders were doing 99mph on the motorway, Lance was doing 130mph. Who should therefore attract most of our oppobrium?


----------



## MichaelM (17 Oct 2012)

2104961 said:


> Not again


 
I was taking the michael - R.L didn't answer the same question when I posed it earlier.


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I was taking the michael ...


Thank Gawd!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Nah. f*** him. When the dust settles I fear we will discover that Mr Armstrong's shenanegans have irreparably damaged our beloved sport in the eyes of the general public. He can fester in the self-made hell of his own shame and embarassment for all eternity as far as I'm concerned.


The sport of professional road cycling was irreparably damaged in the eyes of the general public long, long, before LA jumped on the doping bandwagon. (and only pro-cycling fanboys would think otherwise.  )

But I agree with your sentiments.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> Well the guy is minted, that is for sure. I think he is more interested in his cancer charities than in cycling and that is what he will concentrate his energy on. The Yanks love a villian and they will forgive him in quick time. What was that Tiger Woods up to ? Geoge Bush...lovely man.
> 
> Eventually he will write a book "Lance Armstrong, the whole truth". He will come clean and we will all want to read it. By that time the new cycle supporters will have almost forgotten him and it will only be us fossils who are interested.


I fear that even as we speak he is rewriting his history to argue that he only cheated because he was a cancer survivor who was prepared to stop at nothing to help other people with cancer. He knew multiple TdF wins would give him the platform for his livestrong dream and if that meant doping then the ends justified the means.

Without dopage he'd have been a water carrier.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> 2012:-
> *Team Sky & Olympics* - 2 steps forward
> Lance Armstrong - 3 steps back.


You think the general public think they are clean? Really?
Do remind me who won the olympic men's gold road race?
roll on drums.... a doper!

Edit: and I had general public people asking me during TdF and Olympics if I _really_ thought Cav and Wiggo were clean.


----------



## Crosstrailer (17 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> It depends on what you mean by that.
> 
> WADA/USADA have broken their own rules and procedures and required Armstrong's permission to re-test the samples etc.. therefore, it's not fair that Armstong's samples were looked at, hence he must be innocent until it's proved otherwise.


 
Its a yes or no answer. Arguing about the technicalities in not in the question. Please re-read it........


----------



## Crosstrailer (17 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> You think the general public think they are clean? Really?
> Do remind me who won the olympic men's gold road race?
> roll on drums.... a doper!


 
I was really disappointed he won it TBH


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

2104961 said:


> Not again


 
Interestingly I came across the following strongly worded protest from the Summer Olympic International Federations and IOC Athletes Commission to WADA about the violations by LNDD/WADA of the regulations and the rights of athletes in the retrospective 1999 sample tests and demanding the suspension of LNDD . So myself and MichaelM are not the only ones that think the rules were badly broken in that incident. Not that I expect it to cut much ice here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> I was really disappointed he won it TBH


I threw a cushion at the TV and broke a lamp.


----------



## Red Light (17 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Red Light, Straight question - do you honestly believe Lance Armstrong is innocent and is not a doper ? Its a Yes or No answer.......


 
I've answered this ages ago in this thread or one of its locked predecessors already. But to save trawling back to find it let me repeat. I think there is a very high probability that he doped as did anyone at the top of the sport in those years. But the way that USADA have gone about trying to prove it is a travesty of justice and that is what I am posting about. The file when it was released just confirmed my fears.


----------



## User169 (17 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Its a yes or no answer. Arguing about the technicalities in not in the question. Please re-read it........



Michaelm is pulling your plonker!!


----------



## PaulB (17 Oct 2012)

So, 61 pages. What have we learned that's shed light on this subject so far? 61 pages and numerous others on the thread that was blocked for the (increasingly shrinking) pro and anti brigades? What does this tell us? You, over there in the check trousers - no, not you, the one with the Harrington and the stupid hair; what's your point?


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2012)

Da Da dum dum de de.

They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
When he said the world was round
They all laughed when Edison recorded sound
They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
When they said that man could fly

They told Marconi
Wireless was a phony
It's the same old cry


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

Anheuser-Busch (the 'beer' giant) deserts Armstrong too.


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2012)

Yes but has USADA got jurisdiction?
Oh, and they missed out a semi-colon on page 73 of the document.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I think there is a very high probability that he doped as did anyone at the top of the sport in those years


 
A weasly answer.

What we know, and we do know it now, is that he doped in multiple ways for years and years, and that not only this, he was involved in planning his doping on a scale that was unprecedented, and he colluded in persuading others to dope (or leave his team, or even the sport), he threatened, bribed, covered up, lied about his doping and that of his associates etc. etc. etc. He wasn't just engaged in something which was culturally normal, he was a major player in the creation and sustenance of that culture, making things worse than they had been before at a time when the fight against doping in sport was growing as an issue. 

The courts have ruled against your arguments about jurisdiction and process. The appropriate body has made the decision which it has been shown it has the power to make, using the standards of proof which it always uses and to which Armstrong and all cyclists are signatory by virtue of their participation in the sport, and has published a full report on the evidence, which is damning. You haven't got a leg to stand on.


----------



## MichaelM (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Interestingly I came across the following strongly worded protest from the Summer Olympic International Federations and IOC Athletes Commission to WADA about the violations by LNDD/WADA of the regulations and the rights of athletes in the retrospective 1999 sample tests and demanding the suspension of LNDD . *So myself and MichaelM are not the only ones that think the rules were badly broken in that incident.* Not that I expect it to cut much ice here.


 
Just to be clear, I don't think the rules were broken (by USADA /WADA - though not a doubt in my mind that Armstrong cheated). Even if rules were broken (by UASDA/WADA), I don't care.



Delftse Post said:


> Michaelm is pulling your plonker!!


 
I was indeed


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> A weasly answer.
> 
> What we know, and we do know it now, is that he doped in multiple ways for years and years, and that not only this, he was involved in planning his doping on a scale that was unprecedented, and he colluded in persuading others to dope (or leave his team, or even the sport), he threatened, bribed, covered up, lied about his doping and that of his associates etc. etc. etc. He wasn't just engaged in something which was culturally normal, he was a major player in the creation and sustenance of that culture, making things worse than they had been before at a time when the fight against doping in sport was growing as an issue.
> 
> The courts have ruled against your arguments about jurisdiction and process. The appropriate body has made the decision which it has been shown it has the power to make, using the standards of proof which it always uses and to which Armstrong and all cyclists are signatory by virtue of their participation in the sport, and has published a full report on the evidence, which is damning. You haven't got a leg to stand on.


 
For a moment I replaced doping wth corporate manipulation and I thought I was reading an obituary of Robert Maxwell.


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2012)

Come in, Sean Yates, your time is up...

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html


----------



## 400bhp (17 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Come in, Sean Yates, your time is up...
> 
> http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html


 
This is the only way IMO. Unrepentant (past and present tense) users have no place in the sport.


----------



## tigger (17 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Come in, Sean Yates, your time is up...
> 
> http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html



It has to be really doesn't it?


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Come in, Sean Yates, your time is up...
> 
> http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html


 
The Guardian, William Fotheringham, was indicating there might be further statements from Sky tomorrow.


----------



## Bollo (17 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Yes but has USADA got jurisdiction?
> Oh, and they missed out a semi-colon on page 73 of the document.


I found a grocers' apostrophe in there as well.

This will be my only contribution to this thread.


----------



## tigger (17 Oct 2012)

Apologies if this has been posted before, but this truth amnesty put forward by our very own Peter Keen is the best next step in my view

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/13/peter-keen-lance-armstrong-truth-commission


----------



## Archie (17 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Just found a very interesting store on the web of documents relating to LA. They include this one with David Walsh which is a proposal to take down LA as a very profitable (financially) exercise from a team doctor (who worked on the USPS team in 1996). Some quotes from the email trail:
> 
> From Prentice Steffen to David Walsh (Subject: Highly Confidential; Date: 11 June 2004)
> The potential financial upside to this undertaking and whomever may​join me in it is considerable:​60,000,000 Total paid by USPS to LA, et al​180,000,000 Potential fine (3 times fraud amount)​54,000,000 30% is the average awarded to the whistleblower(s)​32,400,000 Less the 40% the attorneys keep as their contingency fee​​I'll be interested to know what you think about this and whether you​may agree to contact Emma about this. I recall that you mentioned​she was interested in finding a way for her story to involve a pay​day. Time is critical as only the first person(s) to file such a​suit are eligible for the reward​​​​The reply from David Walsh to Prentice Steffen:
> ...


Looking at the numbers alone this stinks like a month old kipper. Steffen knew in 2004 what USPS paid in sponsorship? According to this link the figure wasn't known until fairly recently and I doubt Steffen could even conceive it was near that amount at the time.

Then we're supposed to believe the USG will get 3X the money defrauded in fines? Then pay out 30% of this to the whisleblower? Nope, I'm calling BS, and I doubt Steffen or Walsh would swallow it at the time either. They're reasonably intelligent individuals, after all. 


Red Light said:


> Puts David Walsh and Emma O'Reilly in a somewhat different light.


I don't think it puts anyone in a different light.


----------



## StuAff (17 Oct 2012)

Trek and Honey Stinger the latest companies to drop him....


----------



## User169 (17 Oct 2012)

StuAff said:


> Trek and Honey Stinger the latest companies to drop him....



doesn't he own or part-own honey stinger? He's now dropping himself?


----------



## StuAff (17 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> doesn't he own or part-own honey stinger? He's now dropping himself?


Yup, he's a shareholder, but they're dropping him anyway!


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Oct 2012)

apparently he's a shareholder in Trek. And SRAM


----------



## Oldspice (18 Oct 2012)

I guess this page will have more gaps in it soon.
http://lancearmstrong.com/sponsors


----------



## Crosstrailer (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Michaelm is pulling your plonker!!


 
Yes my ribs have only just stopped aching from his Oscar Wilde like rapier wit........


----------



## mickle (18 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> He was not the only rider doping, nor was USPS the only team.


Yes. Your point?


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Yes. Your point?


 
As stated.......


----------



## Dayvo (18 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I threw a cushion at the TV and broke a lamp.


 
Is your aim that bad, then?


----------



## Paul_L (18 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> Apologies if this has been posted before, but this truth amnesty put forward by our very own Peter Keen is the best next step in my view
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/13/peter-keen-lance-armstrong-truth-commission


 
That is an excellent piece and the situation regarding Kim Anderson and Neil Stephens really does illustrate the magnitude of the problem. Sack (or ask to resign) an ex doper and promote in his place an ex doper.


----------



## DogTired (18 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Interestingly I came across the following strongly worded protest from the Summer Olympic International Federations and IOC Athletes Commission to WADA about the violations by LNDD/WADA of the regulations and the rights of athletes in the retrospective 1999 sample tests and demanding the suspension of LNDD . So myself and MichaelM are not the only ones that think the rules were badly broken in that incident. Not that I expect it to cut much ice here.


 
1. We've been over the reasons why the rules were not broken, including quoting the WADA code in force at the time.
2. The letter appears to be based strongly on the contents of the UCI commissioned report written by Emile Vrijman (who doesnt have high standing amongst clean sport supporters). When LA wrote a letter containing similar comments to the *strongly worded protest* requesting the sacking of Dick Pound to the IOC, Jacques Rogge replied that he would welcome an independent investigation into the issues.

A slapdown like that should make you stop and think.


----------



## Noodley (18 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> Apologies if this has been posted before, but this truth amnesty put forward by our very own Peter Keen is the best next step in my view
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/13/peter-keen-lance-armstrong-truth-commission


 
Interesting article, but IMO there can be no "truth" and reconciliation if it is anonymous. Where's the truth in that? Stand up, be counted, be part of the solution, hold your hands up, be transparent, avoid the possibility of "hiding", and then we can move on...do not allow them to hide. It requires courage and it requires honesty. What it does no require is the option of allowing people to remain anonymous.


----------



## Silver Fox (18 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> What we know, and we do know it now, is that he doped in multiple ways for years and years, and that not only this, he was involved in planning his doping on a scale that was unprecedented, and he colluded in persuading others to dope (or leave his team, or even the sport), he threatened, bribed, covered up, lied about his doping and that of his associates etc. etc. etc. He wasn't just engaged in something which was culturally normal, he was a major player in the creation and sustenance of that culture, making things worse than they had been before at a time when the fight against doping in sport was growing as an issue.
> 
> The courts have ruled against your arguments about jurisdiction and process. The appropriate body has made the decision which it has been shown it has the power to make, using the standards of proof which it always uses and to which Armstrong and all cyclists are signatory by virtue of their participation in the sport, and has published a full report on the evidence, which is damning.


 
That sums it all up in a nutshell.

Shame on you Armstrong.


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

Do we know yet when Bruyneel, Marti and the other bloke are due to go to arbitration yet? The chances of them doing so must be slim, to say the least, but it would be fun if they did.


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

From Honey Stinger's website...
_“We’re thrilled and honored to have the opportunity to work with an athlete of Lance’s stature,” Gamber said. “Our relationship with Lance comes at a time when Honey Stinger is riding a wave of momentum, and this partnership is a major step for our brand.”_
_Armstrong’s impact on the success of the company could be substantial. His endorsement carries significant weight in the outdoors recreation industry_.


They may have to rephrase it a bit!


----------



## smutchin (18 Oct 2012)

Verbruggen has apparently been quoted in De Telegraaf as saying there's no evidence against Lance. 

Un-farking-believable. 

d.


----------



## smutchin (18 Oct 2012)

If you can read Dutch, click here:
http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/13089646/__Geen_bewijs_tegen_Armstrong__.html


----------



## 400bhp (18 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Interesting process. Essentially, they are re-signing their own contracts. May have implications under employment law, but it would take a very immoral ex-doper to push it that far. Sean?


 
I suspect they are self employed and covered by contract law not employment law?


----------



## 400bhp (18 Oct 2012)

Adrian - I don't know the intricacies of pro-cycling but it would seem plausible to me.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> Is your aim that bad, then?


In the words of Elvis Costello; my aim is true.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Oct 2012)

StuAff said:


> Trek and Honey Stinger the latest companies to drop him....





dellzeqq said:


> apparently he's a shareholder in Trek. And SRAM


and in the same way as he has stood down as chair of Livestrong but remains on its board and will be compensated, in effect, as its number one employee when he speaks in public for them, then losing his sponsorship has no effect on his ownership, or other governance/employee status' with any these organisations. The shareholder/owner within him has relaised it is time to wind his neck and and lower his profile tis all.

In other words; all this 'dropping him' is just the worst kind of PR driven spintastic bullshit.


----------



## Fab Foodie (18 Oct 2012)

2105642 said:


> Clicked there, still can't read Dutch


Yeah, I even double clicked and all I got was double Dutch ....


----------



## smutchin (18 Oct 2012)

I clicked, but it's all Greek to me.


----------



## philipbh (18 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Verbruggen has apparently been quoted in De Telegraaf as saying there's no evidence against Lance.
> 
> Un-f***ing-believable.
> 
> d.


 
its all been shredded / flushed / buried under a tree somewhere


----------



## kedab (18 Oct 2012)

Dayvo said:


> It certainly is a fascinating story and I'm sure there'll be a film about it one day.
> 
> However, I suspect that this may end tragically quite soon.
> 
> He deserves no sympathy at all from anyone, but I hope he is able to find peace within himself and live a quiet, nondescript life somewhere.


 
i wholeheartedly agree.


----------



## mangaman (18 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> 2012:-
> Team Sky & Olympics - 2 steps forward
> Lance Armstrong - 3 steps back.


 
True - cycling post-Brad and Olympics was all the rage for about 2 months in this country for the 1st time I can remember.

People were aware of doping - just as they are in athletics and just about every sport - but the British cared little about Contador, for example, as they had never heard of him.

The only cyclists most Britains could name would be Brad, Vicky P, Chris Hoy and Armstrong.


----------



## 400bhp (18 Oct 2012)

Are you trying to be clever?


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> If you can read Dutch, click here:
> http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/13089646/__Geen_bewijs_tegen_Armstrong__.html


 
He says Armstrong hasn't failed any doping tests, so there's no case to answer. That's about it really.


----------



## StuAff (18 Oct 2012)

The shareholding in Trek is only a fraction of a percent, I can't imagine SRAM were any more generous.


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> He says Armstrong hasn't failed any doping tests, so there's no case to answer. That's about it really.


 
Now he's saying that he's been misquoted by De Telegraaf. Apparently, his comments were in reply to Greg Lemond's wife's suggestions that he got a payment from Nike to coverup a failed drug test. He says that Armstrong didn't ever fail a test, so the Lemond story is false.


----------



## Chrisc (18 Oct 2012)

Should he be talking to anybody prior to the UCI actually getting their finger out and responding to this document? Dozy...


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Now he's saying that he's been misquoted by De Telegraaf. Apparently, his comments were in reply to Greg Lemond's wife's suggestions that he got a payment from Nike to coverup a failed drug test. He says that Armstrong didn't ever fail a test, so the Lemond story is false.


 Well, apart from the inadmissable EPO tests, the allegedly covered up tour de suisse test and the backdated TUE and the irregular blood tests in 2009(?), he's absolutely right.


----------



## jdtate101 (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> He says that Armstrong didn't ever fail a test, so the Lemond story is false.


 
I expect what he means is LA never 'publicly' failed a test, and as we now know these two poles are MILES apart. Without a public fail (ie supporting evidence which is undisputed by all agencies and individuals involved) there is no smoking gun. LA is dirty, no doubt, but unfortunately the only one who REALLY knows the truth is LA, and lets face it hell will freeze over before he confesses.


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

Guardian has picked it up now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/18/hein-verbruggen-denies-lance-armstrong?newsfeed=true


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Guardian has picked it up now...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/18/hein-verbruggen-denies-lance-armstrong?newsfeed=true


 Poor old Hein; he does get 'mis-quoted' an awful lot!


----------



## Chrisc (18 Oct 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I expect what he means is LA never 'publicly' failed a test, and as we now know these two poles are MILES apart. Without a public fail (ie supporting evidence which is undisputed by all agencies and individuals involved) there is no smoking gun. LA is dirty, no doubt, but unfortunately the only one who REALLY knows the truth is LA, and lets face it hell will freeze over before he confesses.


 
If they offer him enough money he might... TV networks would pay a lot to get that exclusive interview.


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

It looks from Bruyneel's quotes above that he intends to contest the charges unless he feels his case is prejudiced by USADA leaking the Armstrong evidence. Maybe setting up a get-out for himself.
FWIW, I had assumed that the USADA eveidence wouldn't hit the streets until after the Bruyneel, Marti and Celayo cases.


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> It looks from Bruyneel's quotes above that he intends to contest the charges unless he feels his case is prejudiced by USADA leaking the Armstrong evidence. *Maybe setting up a get-out for himself*.
> FWIW, I had assumed that the USADA eveidence wouldn't hit the streets until after the Bruyneel, Marti and Celayo cases.


 
That's the way I read it.


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

OK, so De Telegraaf has now published the SMS exchange:

*Hein Verbruggen:* _Wie is dit? Hein _
*Hans Ruggenberg:* _Hoi Hein. Hans Ruggenberg van de Telegraaf. Belde je met het oog op de laatste ontwikkelingen._
*Hein Verbruggen:* _Hallo Hans, gegeven de gekte en nonsens heb ik besloten om geen interviews of verklaringen te geven voordat eea wat rustiger is. Wil je echter een off the record info dann kun je bellen. Ik zit in China. H_
*Hans Ruggenberg:* _Oké Hein begrijpelijk. Wilde inderdaad een reactie voor de krant. Off the record info is lastig in deze zaak, zoals je begrijpt. Laat maar weten als je een verklaring wilt geven...succes. Hans _
*Hein Verbruggen:* _Enige wat ik kan zeggen is dat er heel, heel veel verhalen en verdachtmakingen zijn, maar geen spoor van BEWIJS. Is er ook niet. LA werd nooit positief bevonden; ook niet door USADA. En wie de kontroleprocedures kent weet ook dat er niks te regelen valt, enz enz. Maar ik ben het "moe"stadium al beetje voorbij. Mooie nacht! Hein_
*Hans Ruggenberg:* _Jammer dat de krant voor morgen al weg is. Zal het voor de dag erna meenemen. Nogmaals succes met alles en dank voor je reactie. Groeten Hans_
*Hein Verbruggen:* _Mooi. H _

Reporter asks for telephone call - Verbruggen says no, unless it's off-the-record. Reporter says he can't do it off the record, but asks Verbruggen to let him know if he wants to give a statement.

Hein then says:

_"The only thing I can say is that there are lots and lots and lots of stories and insinuations, but not a trace of EVIDENCE. There is nothing. LA never tested positive; also not by USADA. Those who know the testing procedures know that nothing can be fiddled, etc. etc. Anyhow, I'm already past the stage of being tired. Good night!"_

Reporter says it's a shame the paper's already gone to press and thanks him for the reaction.


----------



## smutchin (18 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> It looks from Bruyneel's quotes above that he intends to contest the charges unless he feels his case is prejudiced by USADA leaking the Armstrong evidence. Maybe setting up a get-out for himself.


 
He's clutching at straws. It'll be a sports tribunal, not a criminal court. He's not OJ farking Simpson. Suggesting the publication of the evidence will prejudice his case is tantamount to questioning the independence of the CAS.

d.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> _"The only thing I can say is that there are lots and lots and lots of stories and insinuations, but not a trace of EVIDENCE. There is nothing. _


 
This is rather like a criminal saying to the police, 'you won't find anything'.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Oct 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I expect what he means is LA never 'publicly' failed a test, and as we now know these two poles are MILES apart. Without a public fail (ie supporting evidence which is undisputed by all agencies and individuals involved) there is no smoking gun. LA is dirty, no doubt, but unfortunately* the only one who REALLY knows the truth is LA*, and lets face it hell will freeze over before he confesses.


and his doctors
and his team mates
and his management
and his team management
and his dope courier
and his wife
and his girlfriend
and USADA
and UCI

They all REALLY know the truth. The authorities don't need a smoking gun, just a simple balance of probabilities. To use your smoking gun analogy the crime/mystery is not 'what happened to/where's the gun?' but 'who, regardless of where the gun is now, fired it, in front of witnesses?'


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Oct 2012)

The _Gazzetta_ in Italy is digging into Ferrarri's financial network...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> _"The only thing I can say is that there are lots and lots and lots of stories and insinuations, but not a trace of EVIDENCE. There is nothing. LA never tested positive; also not by USADA. Those who know the testing procedures know that nothing can be fiddled, etc. etc. Anyhow, I'm already past the stage of being tired. Good night!"_


Witness testimony is EVIDENCE. Critically important EVIDENCE when someone can evade positive tests as easily, by whatever means, as LA did.


----------



## Crackle (18 Oct 2012)

Well, technically is it evidence or just allegation until it's presented to an independent tribunal and then the evidence is presented. It doesn't matter, he chose not to contest it. I'm sure Verbruggen doesn't mean that anyway, he's just forgotten to take his pills.


----------



## Beebo (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> If they offer him enough money he might... TV networks would pay a lot to get that exclusive interview.


I await the next episode of Piers Morgan's Life Stories with Lance Armstrong.
Can Piers make Lance cry?


----------



## mangaman (18 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Witness testimony is EVIDENCE. Critically important EVIDENCE when someone can evade positive tests as easily, by whatever means, as LA did.


 
Yes but poor Hein was "past the stage of being tired" when he made that call.

I'm not sure what that means exactly - but it may explain some of his strange behaviour.

I think he should prefix any future statements with an update on his tiredness level.

I wonder if it's a Private Eye style euphemism (tired and emotional)


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Oct 2012)

Beebo said:


> I await the next episode of Piers Morgan's Life Stories with Lance Armstrong.
> Can Piers make Lance cry?


 Piers has been getting on my mammaries on Twitter bandwagoning #armstrong


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Oct 2012)

Anyone taking bets on a confession?


----------



## Scruffmonster (18 Oct 2012)

We all know that he's going to spin this.... right?

You don't get hundreds of people bending to your wim, getting them to take drugs, work for you, respect you, fear you... Unless you're a certain kind of person.

I'm not crediting him with being a good person, but this isn't a slam dunk.

He'll be in front of cameras, confessing, he'll play up his own reluctance to dope, how he hated seeing cheaters prosper... There are ways for him to end the next 12 months in a better position than he's in now.

To state my belief; Cheat. Nasty piece of work. At times, hugely impressive.


----------



## Scruffmonster (18 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Piers has been getting on my mammaries on Twitter bandwagoning #armstrong


 
The concept that Piers can criticise anyone for dispicable behaviour is impossible to comprehend...


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

Isn't Armstrong's gala event in Austin taking place tomorrow evening? Assuming it goes ahead, it will be interesting to see what if anything he says.


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

mangaman said:


> Yes but poor Hein was "past the stage of being tired" when he made that call.
> 
> I'm not sure what that means exactly - but it may explain some of his strange behaviour.


 
That could be my dubious translation! I wasn't sure if he meant he was fed up with the entire saga or simply tired (he's in China, so the exchage took place in the early hours of the morning I guess).

Anyhow, Hein's now off the front pages here in favour of Sylvia Kristel, whose death has just been annouced.


----------



## Chrisc (18 Oct 2012)

UCI spokesman says they will say nothing about the case until the 31st October deadline.


----------



## Dayvo (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> UCI spokesman says they will say nothing about the case until the 31st October deadline.


 
Is that to maximise the time they have to fake their deaths in the underground bunker in Aigle, and move their massed fortunes to the Bahamas?


----------



## ohnovino (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Isn't Armstrong's gala event in Austin taking place tomorrow evening? Assuming it goes ahead, it will be interesting to see what if anything he says.


 I bet the Livestrong phone is ringing off the hook with guests cancelling because they've suddenly come down with flu / not been able to find a babysitter / been abducted by aliens.


----------



## philipbh (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Isn't Armstrong's gala event in Austin taking place tomorrow evening? Assuming it goes ahead, it will be interesting to see what if anything he says.


 
I just received this - all star line up...
http://www.mellowjohnnys.com/email101812/


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> I just received this - all star line up...
> http://www.mellowjohnnys.com/email101812/


 I see Axel's going to be there. Has his Dad said anything lately about his mate Lance?


----------



## Noodley (18 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> I just received this - all star line up...
> http://www.mellowjohnnys.com/email101812/


 
Jens can bugger off as far as I am concerned, deffo a doper.


----------



## Paul_L (18 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Jens can bugger off as far as I am concerned, deffo a doper.


 
I would be so gutted if that is true.

I do hope Jens and the rest of RSNT disassociates themselves from this event.


----------



## Chrisc (18 Oct 2012)

UCI have now come out and said their decision is imminent! Good grief.


----------



## rich p (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> UCI have now come out and said their decision is imminent! Good grief.


----------



## mickle (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> UCI have now come out and said their decision is imminent! Good grief.


Goody goody goody!


----------



## Chrisc (18 Oct 2012)

I'm not gonna hold my breath...
Be good if they drop it tonight tho. Right in the middle of what's possibly the final Lance love in in Austin.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> UCI have now come out and said their decision is imminent! Good grief.


as in sometime next year?


----------



## User169 (18 Oct 2012)

Dutch press are reporting that UCI has just initiated action against Carlos Barredo in view of bio passport irregularities, so they've obviously got bigger things on their plate than LA.


----------



## Smokin Joe (18 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Dutch press are reporting that UCI has just initiated action against Carlos Barredo in view of bio passport irregularities, so they've obviously got bigger things on their plate than LA.


Not to mention all the hours they have to spend on vital issues like the shape of the head tube on a time trial bike.


----------



## raindog (18 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> as in sometime next year?


dell, is your avatar Steve Stills?
I know it's off topic, but I've got to know.


----------



## dellzeqq (18 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> dell, is your avatar Steve Stills?
> I know it's off topic, but I've got to know.


it is. Damn - I'm going to have to change it again


----------



## david k (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> If they offer him enough money he might... TV networks would pay a lot to get that exclusive interview.


how much will it take?


----------



## david k (18 Oct 2012)

and should we all chip in?


----------



## Chrisc (18 Oct 2012)

Odd. Never thought I'd see the words initiated, UCI and action, in one sentence...


----------



## DogTired (18 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> how much will it take?


 
One taser and two sets of batteries.


----------



## johnr (18 Oct 2012)

2105665 said:


> Really?


 Not sure it really matters. There are human rights issues around employers prying into (recreational) drug use when it has no impact on someone's ability to do the job, but when it comes to breaking fundamental rules of the sport, asking someone to reiterate that they're not doing it is always going to be reasonable.

Where it might get a bit more complicated is for someone like Millar who was guilty and served his sentence (and possibly others who were dopers but are now clean). But Sky has made clean riding such a profound principle of their 'brand', that I doubt any court would uphold a former cheat's right to enforce their contract - they can always go and work for Riis after all.


----------



## Scoosh (18 Oct 2012)

Chrisc said:


> UCI have now come out and said their decision is imminent! Good grief.


----------



## johnr (19 Oct 2012)

1. This shocked reaction from an outsider looking in at our pain
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/18/peddlers-cyclings-dirty-truth-review
2. SRAM leave the good ship Armstrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/19/lance-armstrong-cycling-drugs-sram-sponsor

Oakley are taking the 'principled' stance of waiting for UCI to make a decision. No doubt looking for another employee they can get to commit perjury in the hope of getting their man off.


----------



## Oldspice (19 Oct 2012)

*SKINS Compression Chairman Demands Action in Open Letter to UCI President*

​Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/18/4347504/skins-compression-chairman-demands.html#storylink=cpy​


----------



## beastie (19 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> *SKINS Compression Chairman Demands Action in Open Letter to UCI President*
> 
> ​Read more here: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/10/18/4347504/skins-compression-chairman-demands.html#storylink=cpy​



Rabobank seem to agree, the are quitting cycling, men's and women's, at the end of the year.


----------



## Oldspice (19 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> Rabobank seem to agree, the are quitting cycling, men's and women's, at the end of the year.


 
Why quit the womens? There not on drugs


----------



## mangaman (19 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> Why quit the womens? There not on drugs


 
Really?

Why not - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19116592


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2012)

Rabobank

Who's next

Are the wheels are falling off?


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Rabobank
> 
> Who's next
> 
> Are the wheels are falling off?


Hope it is due to the poor performance of the business, using the drug as cover.

I just hope it is not the flood gate opening, all those baying for LA's blood should have been careful what they wished for.

I am not sure if I owned a multi million pound company I would want to take the risk of endorsing a rider, or sponsoring a team right now..


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Hope it is due to the poor performance of the business, using the drug as cover.
> 
> I just hope it is not the flood gate opening, all those baying for LA's blood should have been careful what they wished for.
> 
> I am not sure if I owned a multi million pound company I would want to take the risk of endorsing a rider, or sponsoring a team right now..


 
I read between the lines of their statement that they wanted rid of the [current people in the?] UCI.


----------



## mickle (19 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> ... all those baying for LA's blood should have been careful what they wished for.


 
Eh? _Baying?_ 'We' wished for a clean sport free of cheating and the rigorous enforcement of the rules by the governing authorities. Don't blame us for wrecking our beloved sport blame the farking cheats!


----------



## beastie (19 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Eh? _Baying?_ 'We' wished for a clean sport free of cheating and the rigorous enforcement of the rules by the governing authorities. Don't blame us for wrecking our beloved sport blame the f***ing cheats!



Exactly


----------



## just jim (19 Oct 2012)

At the start (page 8) of this thread there was a comparison made to the discussion being like a religious debate.
Now I never was going to fall for that, and in the light of the avaLance of doping evidence (copyright just jim) do folk still think this is in any way a discussion about belief?

post edited.

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T6ehcsN5Us&feature=relmfu


----------



## mickle (19 Oct 2012)

just jim said:


> The avaLance of doping evidence (copyright just jim)


Yay!


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

just jim said:


> In the previous locked Armstrong thread I mind (though correct me if I am wrong) there was a comparison made to the discussion being like a religious debate.
> Now I never was going to fall for that, and in the light of the avaLance of doping evidence (copyright just jim) do folk still think this is in any way a discussion about belief?


 
I don't think it has been a discussion about belief. Its been a discussion about proper process and even Judge Sparks expressed serious concerns about both USADA's process and motives. However those who are delighted about Lance being done have sought to portray those with concerns about the way it was done as heretics and accorded them the usual treatment heretics get.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I don't think it has been a discussion about belief. Its been a discussion about proper process and even Judge Sparks expressed serious concerns about both USADA's process and motives. However those who are delighted about Lance being done have sought to portray those with concerns about the way it was done as heretics and accorded them the usual treatment heretics get.


 
Painting a view of Lance believers as heretics being martyred would be true if they came up with any pro-lance evidence. Quite frankly the pro-lance stuff has got weaker and weaker to the point of being laughable so its got the correct treatment from all concerned.

Is it about belief? Only for the pro-Lancers as Tom Fordyce, BBC Chief Sports writer puts it:

"Armstrong's comeback from cancer to dominate the world's toughest bike race was such a wonderful story that people want to *believe* that it is true. So great a hero was he to so many that *some are still reluctant not to*."

Oh - and let's have a reference for the Judge Sparks "serious concerns" please - not some paraphrased interpretation - the ACTUAL quote.


----------



## MacB (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Oh - and let's have a reference for the Judge Sparks "serious concerns" please - not some paraphrased interpretation - the ACTUAL quote.


 
he made a few comments but I took them more in the vein of 'throwing a dog a bone' rather than anything else...that the dog supporters try to spin this into an invite to the banquet is to be expected.


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrong.pdf

Full ruling here - courtesy of the WSJ

Footnote 15 talks about due process

Footnote 19 talks about the motive for the charges


----------



## mickle (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> ..... ....... ....... ...... . . . . . . . . motives. ...... .. .. .. .. . .. . .


 
Motives? Read for yourself: http://www.usantidoping.org/ Their strap line; _'Preserving the Integrity of Competition'_ for example.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

MacB said:


> he made a few comments but I took them more in the vein of 'throwing a dog a bone' rather than anything else...that the dog supporters try to spin this into an invite to the banquet is to be expected.


 
Some of Judge Sparks comments on USADA just to refresh your memory of his dog bones;

_"USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives"_​​"I’m not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish”​​_"Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word.......If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing and it is brought to this Court's attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result"_​


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

Isn't this all academic anyway?

Judge Sparks rules that his court has no jurisdiction over the way a sport is run or its rules enforced

Due process has been promised

Both parties should go to arbitration anyway

LA declines arbitration and the rest we "know"


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Painting a view of Lance believers as heretics being martyred would be true if they came up with any pro-lance evidence. Quite frankly the pro-lance stuff has got weaker and weaker to the point of being laughable so its got the correct treatment from all concerned.


 
There you go again reframing it as a pro or anti Lance belief issue. You don't have to be pro-Lance to question whether a proper and fair process has been followed to convict him and therefore whether the conviction is sound. There are plenty of people that Courts rule to be not guilty because proper process was not followed and a conviction would be unsound, even though the probability is that the accused did commit the offence. And plenty of the most famous miscarriages of justice in this country have been where that was not followed.

And if you have been reading this thread at all you will see that USADA have completely blanked out for example in Appendix 2 the sworn statement backed up by his 279 pages of medical notes by his oncologist saying that he never asked Lance about his taking PEMs, there is nothing in his notes recording that he was asked and what his reply was and that if such a question had been asked it would have, as a matter of course, have been recorded in his medical notes by whichever doctor had asked the question. Nor his oncologists sworn affidavit that says his bloods were routinely measured as part of his post cancer monitoring until late 2001 and that there was no evidence from them of EPO use which would have been detectable (those same bloods having been used to monitor his response to EPO injections as part of his cancer treatment). Nor the sworn affidavits from Tygart and Catlin that certainly up to 2001 they had never had an adverse finding against Armstrong and that if he had used EPO they would have detected it. Now I am quite happy that having presented all the evidence it is argued that on balance its in favour of his having doped. But to miss out all the evidence against doping, including USADA's own sworn evidence from its CEO, just smacks of polemic not a balanced judgement. And that again, just for the avoidance of doubt, is not for pro-Lance purposes but to illustrate the severe motives and process problems that exist.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> Isn't this all academic anyway?
> 
> Judge Sparks rules that his court has no jurisdiction over the way a sport is run or its rules enforced
> 
> ...


 
No, he said he was giving USADA the benefit of the doubt having been given assurances that they would now do things they had previously refused to do like giving the defendant access to the evidence against them with sufficient time to prepare their defence. But he clearly said that if they didn't Armstrong could bring it back to his Court and USADA would not like the outcome. So I'm letting this go for now but I will be watching.

The result of Armstrong not going to arbitration though is unfortunately USADA have become investigator, prosecutor and judge. In the legal system we separate out those three roles very clearly because of the enormous inherent conflicts of interest and probability of miscarriages of justice. It should have been that USADA did not make a ruling but put its prosecution case in front of UCI or CAS for a ruling so prosecution and judgement roles were clearly separated.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Motives? Read for yourself: http://www.usantidoping.org/ Their strap line; _'Preserving the Integrity of Competition'_ for example.


 
That's a noble motive. Judge Sparks indicated he thought they were acting under "less noble motives".


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Nor his oncologists sworn affidavit that says his bloods were routinely measured as part of his post cancer monitoring until late 2001 and that there was no evidence from them of EPO use which would have been detectable (those same bloods having been used to monitor his response to EPO injections as part of his cancer treatment).


 
The interesting question for me is the use of the word routine and or regular as if to connote a frequency that would have detected abnormal use of EPO (therapeutic or otherwise)

From the Nicholls affidavit, December 2005

"_Following successful treatment of his cancer in 1996 I continued to check Lance_
_Armstrong's blood levels on a regular basis from January 1997 to October 2001. Initially, he had_
_regular evaluation every several months for the first year, every four months in the second year_
_and twice yearly to 2001"_

So I don't doubt that Dr Nicholls was "familiar" with LA's blood levels - the frequency of his testing would enable possible avoidance of anything irregular in the levels anyway - so his statement has less value (IMO) or allows reasonable doubt to creep in to any cross examination


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> There you go again reframing it as a pro or anti Lance belief issue. You don't have to be pro-Lance to question whether a proper and fair process has been followed to convict him and therefore whether the conviction is sound. There are plenty of people that Courts rule to be not guilty because proper process was not followed and a conviction would be unsound, even though the probability is that the accused did commit the offence. And plenty of the most famous miscarriages of justice in this country have been where that was not followed.
> 
> And if you have been reading this thread at all you will see that USADA have completely blanked out for example in Appendix 2 the sworn statement backed up by his 279 pages of medical notes by his oncologist saying that he never asked Lance about his taking PEMs, there is nothing in his notes recording that he was asked and what his reply was and that if such a question had been asked it would have, as a matter of course, have been recorded in his medical notes by whichever doctor had asked the question. Nor his oncologists sworn affidavit that says his bloods were routinely measured as part of his post cancer monitoring until late 2001 and that there was no evidence from them of EPO use which would have been detectable (those same bloods having been used to monitor his response to EPO injections as part of his cancer treatment). Nor the sworn affidavits from Tygart and Catlin that certainly up to 2001 they had never had an adverse finding against Armstrong and that if he had used EPO they would have detected it. Now I am quite happy that having presented all the evidence it is argued that on balance its in favour of his having doped. But to miss out all the evidence against doping, including USADA's own sworn evidence from its CEO, just smacks of polemic not a balanced judgement. And that again, just for the avoidance of doubt, is not for pro-Lance purposes but to illustrate the severe motives and process problems that exist.


 
I quoted the BBC reporter for evidence of 'belief'. When any party ignore the balance of probabilities of the evidence (either way) then its belief.

Its clear from multiple witness statements that LA admitted taking PEDs to a Doctor. They've also stated that it was neither Craig Nicholls or Scott Shapiro but a different one. So Nichols' statement is entirely consistent with a Dr (he not being him) asking LA and him revealing that he took PEDs.

Nichols also stated that it would be unusual to ask if LA took PEDs. This is odd as your patient is a young man, a professional athelete, with testicular cancer which is linked clearly with steroid use. Other oncologists disagree that you wouldnt ask this. Seems common sense, doesnt it?

As for his comments on LA's blood tests and use of EPO, they're quite frankly risible. He never states he tested for artificial EPO. He would be testing for cancer markers, not doping products. He doesnt mention the sensitivity of the tests. He doesnt mention how quickly hematocrit levels fall. He doesnt say if LA was tested out of season. It never seemed to cross his mind why cyclists are tested ON THE DAY, not once at the end of the race. Because not long after there's no evidence. Glow-time - they were expert at understanding and minimising this. His testimony is fundamentally and fatally flawed in terms of giving LA a clean bill of drug-free health.


----------



## PpPete (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> The result of Armstrong not going to arbitration though is unfortunately USADA have become investigator, prosecutor and judge.


The converse is also true.
But you can't say USADA is at fault because LA chose not to contest the charges



Red Light said:


> In the legal system we separate out those three roles very clearly because of the enormous inherent conflicts of interest and probability of miscarriages of justice. It should have been that USADA did not make a ruling but put its prosecution case in front of UCI or CAS for a ruling so prosecution and judgement roles were clearly separated.


And so it would have done, had not LA realised his number was finally up.


----------



## Chrisc (19 Oct 2012)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch. Eki and Vino become team boss and manager of Katusha and Astana respectively...


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

Meanwhile, back at the Fattoria - Dr Ferrari denies all knowledge

http://www.gazzetta.it/openxlink-4.shtml?http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=123


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Eh? _Baying?_ 'We' wished for a clean sport free of cheating and the rigorous enforcement of the rules by the governing authorities. Don't blame us for wrecking our beloved sport blame the f***ing cheats!


"Don't blame us for wrecking our beloved sport blame the f***king cheats and the craven governing authorities!" surely?


----------



## mickle (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> That's a noble motive. Judge Sparks indicated he thought they were acting under "less noble motives".


 
Less noble motives? Such as, like what, for instance? 

It seems clear to me that what USADA (an anti-drug agency) have done is exposed Armstrong as the (drug) cheat he undoubtedly is and imposed sanctions_. _This outcome is entirely consistent with _'Preserving the Integrity of Competition'._ What other possible (secret, presumably) motivation could they possibly have had_? _


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2108201, member: 45"]He cheated. Everyone knows that beyond a doubt.

What's with the sycophantic bleating?[/quote]
He cheated. Everyone knows that on the balance of probability. But it doesn't matter because, in effect, he pleaded no contest.

Meanwhile Vino has a new job riding a desk at Astana, hmmm who used to ride with them and dope? And Vino's name is on a little list....


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> As for his comments on LA's blood tests and use of EPO, they're quite frankly risible. He never states he tested for artificial EPO. He would be testing for cancer markers, not doping products.


 
Perhaps you should re-read his testimony. They test the blood for much more than cancer markers including white and red blood cell counts, haemocrit etc because they use the tests to monitor the response of the blood to therapeutic EPO used to counter the blood based side effects of chemo. Much like the current blood passport measurements. You also missed out the bit from your speculation where he said:

_Had Lance Armstrong been using EPO to enhance his cycling performance, I would have likely identified differences in his blood levels. After all, I had treated him and administered EPO during his treatment years when he was not cycling between October 1996 and January 1997 and was very familiar with his blood levels._​ 
You also forget Mr Tygarts testimony that in all the blood tests USADA had conducted they did not have one adverse finding. Why do you think that was not mentioned in the USADA file? It can hardly be because they didn't know about it because it was sworn and signed by Travis himself.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> The converse is also true.
> But you can't say USADA is at fault because LA chose not to contest the charges
> 
> 
> And so it would have done, had not LA realised his number was finally up.


 
The system that allows them to become prosecutor, judge and jury is at fault. Good governance should never allow that situation to arise. If they are the investigator/prosecutor then the judgement on their case should be made by someone independent (after all which author is going to admit that the case they've written is rubbish). As it was, although their right to do so was contested, they first announced their judgement and punishment and then released their prosecution case much added to from when they announced their judgement. Again bad process. It smacks of we've decided you are guilty but just need some time to work out why you are. And again please don't pull it back to belief in whether he is guilty or not being the issue. Its about whether the processes that were followed were proper or not.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> The system that allows them to become prosecutor, judge and jury is at fault. Good governance should never allow that situation to arise. If they are the investigator/prosecutor then the judgement on their case should be made by someone independent (after all which author is going to admit that the case they've written is rubbish). As it was, although their right to do so was contested, they first announced their judgement and punishment and then released their prosecution case much added to from when they announced their judgement. Again bad process. It smacks of we've decided you are guilty but just need some time to work out why you are. And again please don't pull it back to belief in whether he is guilty or not being the issue. Its about whether the processes that were followed were proper or not.


That's a fair summary of what happened.

But it doesn't matter because LA chose not to contest ANYTHING. Not the findings. Not the peremptory judgement. Not the abuse of protest. Not the lousy evidence preparation. Not a thing. He just raised his hands in the sure and certain knowledge that this meant "OK I lose and you win."

Now why would an innocent man, with the resources and public profile of LA, and with everything that he stood, and still stands, to lose do that if he didn't dope?


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> That's a fair summary of what happened.
> 
> But it doesn't matter because LA chose not to contest ANYTHING. Not the findings. Not the peremptory judgement. Not the abuse of protest. Not the lousy evidence preparation. Not a thing. He just raised his hands in the sure and certain knowledge that this meant "OK I lose and you win."
> 
> Now why would an innocent man, with the resources and public profile of LA, and with everything that he stood, and still stands, to lose do that if he didn't dope?


 
Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.


Why he did it is possibly irrelevant.

What he did is _critical_. He admitted, by default, to doping even in the face of as defective a process as you've described. Game over. Process debates in respect of LA now a sideshow, complete and utter. 

Maybe USADA will brush up their process(es) for next time. This time, who cares?


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.


 A process that has been declared pursuant to WADA established procedural codes, robust defence of results management authority, evidence of UCI rules contraventions that LA is signed up to by dint of being registered with US Cycling (the national governing body or NGB)

Additionally USADA are allowing due process to happen because they have given the right of reply to other parties within a reasonably [mutually] convenient time scale (as was promised)


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Perhaps you should re-read his testimony. They test the blood for much more than cancer markers including white and red blood cell counts, haemocrit etc because they use the tests to monitor the response of the blood to therapeutic EPO used to counter the blood based side effects of chemo. Much like the current blood passport measurements. You also missed out the bit from your speculation where he said:
> 
> _Had Lance Armstrong been using EPO to enhance his cycling performance, I would have likely identified differences in his blood levels. After all, I had treated him and administered EPO during his treatment years when he was not cycling between October 1996 and January 1997 and was very familiar with his blood levels._​
> You also forget Mr Tygarts testimony that in all the blood tests USADA had conducted they did not have one adverse finding. Why do you think that was not mentioned in the USADA file? It can hardly be because they didn't know about it because it was sworn and signed by Travis himself.


 
Nope - this is confusing his tests during treatment (when he wouldnt be doping but tested extensively) and the post cancer follow-up tests (quarterly at most tests). Where in Nicholls testimony does he state the values of markers which would be accurate over 3-6 months that absolutely preclude the use of all PEDS? Its not speculating to point out the fundamental flaws with regard to detecting long-term EPO use in his testimony - its clear for all to see.

LA would only have been given therapeutic EPO to counter the chemo treatment - NOT in his later post cancer follow-up tests until 2001. Again we go back to glow-time, why they tests cyclists at the end of the day (not just once at the end of a 3 week race). The traceability is short-lived. Its not worth betting that the Dr would be able to find evidence of doping from quarterly, scheduled and known in advance tests

Drug tests, hmm. Festina didnt fail a drugs test. Hardly anyone on the peloton failed a drugs test. Yet it is pretty well confirmed and accepted that most of the peloton were on PEDs to the point where they drove out one of the only clean riders *because he refused to dope*. Again we go back to glow-time and the intelligence that USPS had driving their doping program. Tygart confirming that they didnt test positive, in light of multiple eye-witness reports of doping, shows how weak the tests were.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> The system that allows them to become prosecutor, judge and jury is at fault. Good governance should never allow that situation to arise. If they are the investigator/prosecutor then the judgement on their case should be made by someone independent (after all which author is going to admit that the case they've written is rubbish).


 
Nope, wrong again. USADA act only as prosecutor. The case would be contested by _*independent arbitrators.*_ Armstrong chose not to use this process, to give no defence, to counter no accusations, so the evidence must stand. The case is that he is guilty. He mounts no defence and so is found guilty. That is the same as in any court of law. It's the WADA code and all athletes accept that.

Its not up to the prosecution to admit their case is rubbish, nor is it the defence. Thats the nature of the adversarial system of justice.


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Oct 2012)

User3094 said:


> Knowing what we know now - im amazed that anybody was stupid enough to fail a drugs test. Its not as if they were difficult to fake was it?


 Are they anymore difficult now? http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22381-sports-cheats-will-always-keep-their-nose-in-front.html


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Nope, wrong again. USADA act only as prosecutor. The case would be contested by _*independent arbitrators.*_ Armstrong chose not to use this process, to give no defence, to counter no accusations, so the evidence must stand. The case is that he is guilty. He mounts no defence and so is found guilty. That is the same as in any court of law. It's the WADA code and all athletes accept that.
> 
> Its not up to the prosecution to admit their case is rubbish, nor is it the defence. Thats the nature of the adversarial system of justice.


 
The USADA also acted as judge finding him guilty and issuing the penalties. For all we knew at the time their case file could have consisted of a single page saying "He doesn't look right to me". Even with a no-show or nolo contendere in the Courts its the judge that decides whether the prosecution case has merit and the appropriate penalty not the prosecutor and for good reason. If they had put the file (as it was then, not a month later after they had sexed it up) in front of independent arbitrators who had agreed the USADA case made him guilty and decided the penalty to apply I would be happy. But they didn't they took a case that was unknown to the world, declared him guilty on it, issued the punishment and then spent a month sexing up the case to make it releasable to the public. If you think they acted only as prosecutor I would be interested to know who you think the judge was that stripped (or claimed to have stripped) him of his TdeF wins and also offered him a reduced penalty if he pleaded guilty rather than no-contest.


----------



## Scruffmonster (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.


 
There was a point where people may have heard you saying this and thought... 'He has a point'...
Then they would have heard it lots and lots and maybe thought 'He definately has a point'
Then they would have actually opened their minds and thought... 'Hang on'
Then they would have thought 'Why am I listening to this clown'
Then they would have simply just yawned with every passing word.

Let it go. Nobody gives a damn if you think the process was unsound. The people that should have been following a sound process were all in bed with the defendant. Most, including myself, don't care that they maybe massaged the 'rules' a little bit. (I know, the irony but keep some perspective)

The guy cheated.
Most of his opposition cheated.
The governing body was complicit.
Several doctors provided illegal drugs to hundreds of cyclists to get rich at whatever cost.
The sport is on it's knees.

Pick a new fight. In everyone else's eyes, you lost this one. If you want to do a Lance and say 'I'm not playing anymore but that still means I win' then fine. But you look really silly and it's a pain in the butt to try and read any kind of debate with your grenades of tosh thrown in the middle.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

Scruffmonster said:


> There was a point where people may have heard you saying this and thought... 'He has a point'...
> Then they would have heard it lots and lots and maybe thought 'He definately has a point'
> Then they would have actually opened their minds and thought... 'Hang on'
> Then they would have thought 'Why am I listening to this clown'
> ...


 
So Guantanamo is right - every American knows they were guilty and the end justifies the means? Thank God we have people who don't believe that and hold us all to account on having fair and proper processes.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light, what do you actually want?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, what do you actually want?


 
For people to like him?


----------



## 400bhp (19 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, what do you actually want?


 
"The Truth"

[cue x files music]

Barking mad....


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> The USADA also acted as judge finding him guilty and issuing the penalties. For all we knew at the time their case file could have consisted of a single page saying "He doesn't look right to me". Even with a no-show or nolo contendere in the Courts its the judge that decides whether the prosecution case has merit and the appropriate penalty not the prosecutor and for good reason. If they had put the file (as it was then, not a month later after they had sexed it up) in front of independent arbitrators who had agreed the USADA case made him guilty and decided the penalty to apply I would be happy. But they didn't they took a case that was unknown to the world, declared him guilty on it, issued the punishment and then spent a month sexing up the case to make it releasable to the public. If you think they acted only as prosecutor I would be interested to know who you think the judge was that stripped (or claimed to have stripped) him of his TdeF wins and also offered him a reduced penalty if he pleaded guilty rather than no-contest.


 
For LA to expose the single page of paper with "He doesn't look right to me" hypothesis all he had to do was insist it went to arbitration. He didn't. His problem not USADA's.

Honestly, a part of me wants the USADA case to turn out to be the biggest bluff in sporting history. LA was a bluffer (as that is what bullies so often are) and was beaten at his own game. He had four aces in his hand, a pair of Kings up his cheatin' jersey sleeve, and all USADA had was a pair of deuces. They looked at his 'tells' and made him fold.

Jurisprudence isn't a science it is an art.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> "The Truth"
> 
> [cue x files music]
> 
> Barking mad....


Please let's not go personal.


----------



## PpPete (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Why he did it is irrelevant. It does nothing to excuse the process itself being unsound.


 
I disagree. The situation is somewhat analogous to someone, in a court of law,. pleading guilty. The evidence doesn't get examined by the court.

As for preparing the evidence after the judgement... that is explained in the first chapters of the reasoned decision ( I assume you have read it?)
For those who havn't, in short, they prepared the evidence to go to arbitration. Which LA decided to forego... so instead of putting their witnesses "on the stand" for cross-examination they had to get affidavits.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, what do you actually want?


 
A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe. What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution. And because of that, rather than being a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion we have one that is suspect and will continue to be open to challenge because of it. Maybe not at first in these heady media days but down the line.

On the other hand I could ask what you think the point of a forum like this is if its not to discuss, debate and challenge? Otherwise it just becomes a clique love-in or else we can all stop posting and go home.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> The USADA also acted as judge finding him guilty and issuing the penalties. For all we knew at the time their case file could have consisted of a single page saying "He doesn't look right to me". Even with a no-show or nolo contendere in the Courts its the judge that decides whether the prosecution case has merit and the appropriate penalty not the prosecutor and for good reason. If they had put the file (as it was then, not a month later after they had sexed it up) in front of independent arbitrators who had agreed the USADA case made him guilty and decided the penalty to apply I would be happy. But they didn't they took a case that was unknown to the world, declared him guilty on it, issued the punishment and then spent a month sexing up the case to make it releasable to the public. If you think they acted only as prosecutor I would be interested to know who you think the judge was that stripped (or claimed to have stripped) him of his TdeF wins and also offered him a reduced penalty if he pleaded guilty rather than no-contest.


 
Nope, wrong again. This is confusing how an established system works (which all athletes agree to). The punishments are specified in the WADA code. The rules regarding non-defence are defined in the WADA code and not made up by USADA. USADA did not find him guilty. USADA prosecuted and submitted a case only. Its the established agreed, WADA process that finds him guilty. The judge would be the independent arbitrators. USADA would prosecute on the balance of probabilities, which is the same way as criminal courts.

In the case that a single page was submitted saying "He doesn't look right to me" then the athlete has ample opportunity to go to arbitration. Its not as if they're incarcerated until this happens, thats why there are parallels, but not a duplicate of the criminal process.

Finally, for all those who missed it, USADA only recommend the punishment - UCI ratify it.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> So Guantanamo is right - every American knows they were guilty and the end justifies the means? Thank God we have people who don't believe that and hold us all to account on having fair and proper processes.


 
Aah, the Guantanamo variant of Godwin's Law! Fantastic!


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> I disagree. The situation is somewhat analogous to someone, in a court of law,. pleading guilty. The evidence doesn't get examined by the court.


 
Actually it does get examined by the Court in a no-contest plea or a guilty plea. They don't just take the prosecutors word for it, the judge looks at the prosecutors case to see if there is a proper case and if appropriate determine the sentence that should be applied.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe. What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution. And because of that, rather than being a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion we have one that is suspect and will continue to be open to challenge because of it. Maybe not at first in these heady media days but down the line.
> 
> On the other hand I could ask what you think the point of a forum like this is if its not to discuss, debate and challenge? Otherwise it just becomes a clique love-in or else we can all stop posting and go home.


 
Every case involves doubt and balance of probabilities. There are always a finite of witnesses and the accused rarely confesses. If you want unimpeachable it doesn't exist.

Discussion, debate and challenge are fine, but it relies on participants self-policing the coherence, relevance, background and common-sense of their contributions.


----------



## PpPete (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe[erwise].


No argument there



Red Light said:


> What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making....


Which no doubt would have been brought out in LA's defence had the case gone to arbitration. And their validity [or otherwise - as most on here believe] tested in that arbitration. It's not the prosecution's job (in any process that I can think of) to advance the defence's cause for them.... especially after the defendant has already pleased guilty? Do correct me if I'm wrong on that.



Red Light said:


> ..... and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution.


In accordance with the WADA code

And because of that, we have a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion that no one in their right minds can surely continue to challenge.
Not now, not at any time in the future.



Red Light said:


> On the other hand I could ask what you think the point of a forum like this is if its not to discuss, debate and challenge? Otherwise it just becomes a clique love-in or else we can all stop posting and go home.


No argument there either.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Actually it does get examined by the Court in a no-contest plea or a guilty plea. They don't just take the prosecutors word for it, the judge looks at the prosecutors case to see if there is a proper case and if appropriate determine the sentence that should be applied.


RL that's a gross over-simplification. What happens in the USA depends on the charges and on the jurisdiction.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> Which no doubt would have been brought out in LA's defence had the case gone to arbitration. And their validity [or otherwise - as most on here believe] tested in that arbitration. It's not the prosecution's job (in any process that I can think of) to advance the defence's cause for them.... especially after the defendant has already *pleased guilty*? Do correct me if I'm wrong on that.


 
He didn't plead guilty. He pleaded no contest which is very different. And in most systems its not the prosecutions case to then act as judge and sentencer. That is done by an independent person/body.





> In accordance with the WADA code


 
Article 17 anyone?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

This important piece of critical evidence has just landed in my inbox.....


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> He didn't plead guilty. He pleaded no contest which is very different. And in most systems its not the prosecutions case to then act as judge and sentencer. That is done by an independent person/body.


 
Nope, wrong again. There is no option to plead no contest. He chose not to go to arbitration to which he had every right. He, and everyone else, would be aware that if he did not go to arbitration then the case against him stands.


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Article 17 anyone?


 
Page 154/5 of the USADA reasoned argument deals with this and why the SoL does not apply or can be suspended in this case

Concealment of wrong doing and seeing false testimony...


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Nope, wrong again.* There is no option to plead no contest*. He chose not to go to arbitration to which he had every right. He, and everyone else, would be aware that if he did not go to arbitration then the case against him stands.


 
Ermmm.......WADA Code section 8.3?


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> Page 154/5 of the USADA reasoned argument deals with this and why the SoL does not apply or can be suspended in this case
> 
> Concealment of wrong doing and seeing false testimony...


 
Article 17 is not qualified as to the circumstances in which it applies. Therefore its not open to argument that its application should be qualified.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ermmm.......WADA Code section 8.3?


 
Are we both reading the same code? 8.3 relates to a waiver of hearing by a failure to challenge. There is nothing that says there is an option to plead no contest. This is a meaningless and unspecified term made up by Armstrong in the media to suggest the evidence has no merit.


----------



## mickle (19 Oct 2012)

New,_ New_ Improved Lance Armstrong Thread anyone?


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Article 17 is not qualified as to the circumstances in which it applies. Therefore its not open to argument that its application should be qualified.


 
Strange - its part of the reasoned argument that USADA submitted. If it is as clear cut why did LA not use this as a technicality to excuse the evidence?


----------



## philipbh (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ermmm.......WADA Code section 8.3?


 
_"Wh__ere no hearing occurs, the __Anti-Doping Organization with results management __responsibility shall submit to the Persons described_
_in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the __action taken."_
Organisation with Rights Management Responsibility = USADA (set forth in the Reasoned Argument)
Result: reasoned decision / argument (posts passim, ad nauseam)


----------



## PpPete (19 Oct 2012)

RL
So is the SoL thing your last remaining argument?
Would you give him back his titles if that could, hypothetically speaking of course, be shown still to be valid ?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe. What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution. And because of that, rather than being a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion we have one that is suspect and will continue to be open to challenge because of it. Maybe not at first in these heady media days but down the line.


 
The process has been proper, fair and rational. USADA has done what it has the right to do under the rules set down by WADA, agreed to by the UCI and by every rider who rides professionally by virtue of their signing on to ride professionally. The process has been challenged in the US courts, and the challenge failed. The process itself is not a criminal court case, nor should it be compared to one. You've continually and it seems to me, deliberately, misunderstood this. it is, as USADA observes in the reasoned decision, more comparable to a professional misonduct charge. Those are the kinds of standards of evidence, and levels of proof that we have to look to.

The legitimate process (and it is legitimate) had a clear provision for an independent panel to assess the evidence, with the ability of the persons being investigated to choose members of the panel. Armstrong chose not to engage in the process. There's not much more one can say about that. He deliberately chose not to take up his right to challenge the evidence. The rules are pretty clear about what happens in this case. The rules which, as we've already seen, are legitimate.

All that remains now is for the UCI is accept the outcome. Once they do, and I can't see that they cannot, then this particular case is all but over.

Then, hopefully we can deal with the other remaining investigations, and start on a proper process of reform of professional cycling so that we don't get problems of this scale - we'll never eliminate cheating entirely of course - ever again.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Strange - its part of the reasoned argument that USADA submitted. If it is as clear cut why did LA not use this as a technicality to excuse the evidence?


 
How could he? At the time he decided not to contest nobody knew what was in the evidence file (not even USADA) including their ignoring Article 17.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> _"Wh__ere no hearing occurs, the __Anti-Doping Organization with results management __responsibility shall submit to the Persons described_
> _in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the __action taken."_
> Organisation with Rights Management Responsibility = USADA (set forth in the Reasoned Argument)
> Result: reasoned decision / argument (posts passim, ad nauseam)


 
First you missed out the bit that refers to your claim that there is no option to plead no contest. If you go back and read Article 8.3 it starts:
​_The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules._​​Second, as I said, the process is flawed in allowing the prosecutor to then be the judge and jury in the case of no contest. It being in the rules doesn't make it any less flawed.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

PpPete said:


> RL
> So is the SoL thing your last remaining argument?
> Would you give him back his titles if that could, hypothetically speaking of course, be shown still to be valid ?


 
No, its just another on top of using disbarred evidence (the 1999 retests), missing evidence where its in favour of the defendant (e.g. the Betsy Andreu incident), the ignoring of Article 17, the use of sweetheart deals for testimony, the process allowing USADA to be investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. I would take the attitude that has been taken elsewhere when the process is faulty and against basic Human Rights (Article 6 if he had been based in Europe). And that is to throw the case out even if it means a guilty man walking free. Otherwise you are condoning the slippery slope to where the end justifies the means. And history tells us that every time that happens, we later regret it.


----------



## DogTired (19 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> New,_ New_ Improved Lance Armstrong Thread anyone?


 
Is it possible to get any better than this?


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

2108843 said:


> Space Corps Directive 196156 anyone?


 
Judge Tygart anyone?


----------



## Finn (19 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Is it possible to get any better than this?


 yes.... " The New 'Lance Armstrong Disproved' Thread

.... coat already on ....


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Judge Tygart anyone?



I have to profess to a memory lapse here, I don't actually remember LA wearing that helmet.


----------



## Red Light (19 Oct 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> I have to profess to a memory lapse here, I don't actually remember LA wearing that helmet.


 
No, that's Judge Travis Dredd, LA is the one in the room with the gun.


----------



## just jim (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> No, its just another on top of using disbarred evidence (the 1999 retests), missing evidence where its in favour of the defendant (e.g. the Betsy Andreu incident), the ignoring of Article 17, the use of sweetheart deals for testimony, the process allowing USADA to be investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. I would take the attitude that has been taken elsewhere when the process is faulty and against basic Human Rights (Article 6 if he had been based in Europe). And that is to throw the case out even if it means a guilty man walking free. Otherwise you are condoning the slippery slope to where the end justifies the means. And history tells us that every time that happens, we later regret it.


 
"The Betsy Andreau incident"? A crude, but skewed and condescending perspective. And yes, I have taken you off my ignore list ( a short list I might add).


*Edited by Mods*


----------



## Oldspice (19 Oct 2012)

mangaman said:


> Really?
> 
> Why not - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19116592


 
Just one and that was during the olympics out of a shed load of chaps doing racing for a living.


----------



## just jim (19 Oct 2012)

Christ on a bike!


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Oct 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20009741  Legend that is Geoff Thomas.


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

2105278 said:


> I'm still not drinking Budweiser, except when I buy it by mistake.




And because it's crap and because of those stupid adverts


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> That's a noble motive. Judge Sparks indicated he thought they were acting under "less noble motives".




I wonder what Judge Sparks would say now since everything else has come out of the bottle with the genie?


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> So Guantanamo is right - every American knows they were guilty and the end justifies the means? Thank God we have people who don't believe that and hold us all to account on having fair and proper processes.



Pity Lance didn't leave racing to fair and proper processes instead of being number one, eighteen carat gold, fur lined king of cheating bast4rds


----------



## PpPete (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> PpPete said:
> 
> 
> > RL
> ...


 
All of which points have been dealt with _ad nauseam_ above. On to my second question. 

So - let's just be clear about this.... are you saying you want him to have his titles back ? - or indeed as you may prefer to have it, to keep them since you don't accept the validity of the process by which they were removed from him.


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Actually it does get examined by the Court in a no-contest plea or a guilty plea. They don't just take the prosecutors word for it, the judge looks at the prosecutors case to see if there is a proper case and if appropriate determine the sentence that should be applied.



Guantanamo ? Now that sounds like a great idea for where he can bug out to


----------



## Smokin Joe (19 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, what do you actually want?


100 pages.


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

Well catching up on this after a couple of days has been great fun as it took up all the time that Coronation Street and Eastenders were on!!!

Absolutely lovin the one man protest against the whole of the world ( wonder if it's a religious thing) thing we have going on.

Do I give a damn on WADA Policy 245.7 and did this give them the right to take him down - no ( made that code up by the way, just decided to cheat to help win the ongoing debate)

We keep hearing about legal process and whether it's all strictly by the rules. Reality here is that in a court of law faced with he amount of eye witness testimony we have in this case he would be guilty. He chose not to fight because he knew the outcome.


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

On a different note sad to see Rabobank leave, but great to see them point the finger at the UCI.

Luckily Sky have a really good company bank rolling them who have a worse track record than the UCI.


----------



## BJH (19 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> 100 pages.



When do we want it? Now !


----------



## Bollo (19 Oct 2012)

With the no-contest, Lance isn't admitting defeat but using the same tactic employed by the Tea Party. Don't engage with the opposition. Don't argue on the issues. Instead, create an alternative reality through compliant media outlets. Gather as many supporters as possible into the bubble and discredit and vilify anything that comes from outside. Try to blow the bubble out as big as possible.


----------



## mickle (19 Oct 2012)

Bollo said:


> With the no-contest, Lance isn't admitting defeat but using the same tactic employed by the Tea Party. Don't engage with the opposition. Don't argue on the issues. Instead, create an alternative reality through compliant media outlets. Gather as many supporters as possible into the bubble and discredit and vilify anything that comes from outside. Try to blow the bubble out as big as possible.


Very insightful.


----------



## Bollo (19 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Very insightful.


Wait until you hear my plans for reforming the UCI under Sharia law. Vote Bollo!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Oct 2012)

Bollo said:


> With the no-contest, Lance isn't admitting defeat but using the same tactic employed by the Tea Party. Don't engage with the opposition. Don't argue on the issues. Instead, create an alternative reality through compliant media outlets. Gather as many supporters as possible into the bubble and discredit and vilify anything that comes from outside. Try to blow the bubble out as big as possible.


though the creation of an alternative reality is really, for LA and Tea Party alike, an admission of defeat in the real world. But the analysis is spot on in every other regard.


----------



## johnr (20 Oct 2012)

With the latest reports on the potentially criminal tax evasion/money laundering activities of LA's good doctor (see UCI thread), I find myself wondering whether the US tax authorities might start sniffing around. If hollywood movies/USTV sitcoms are anything to go by they are not likely to be as easily cowed as the FBI were.

Any international accountants on the thread?


----------



## johnr (20 Oct 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/20/lance-armstrong-livestrong-15th-anniversary
Sounds like anyone who is no one was there.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Oct 2012)

I love the concept of SKY being in any way a clean or respectable sponsor

The Murdoch Empire is as corrupt, sleazy and contemptible as any organisation you would care to name.

Or are their activities acceptable now?


----------



## MichaelM (20 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/20/lance-armstrong-livestrong-15th-anniversary
> Sounds like anyone who is no one was there.


 
From the link _"Drug testers never caught Armstrong when he was competing, Goldstein said."_

Well that's me convinced....


----------



## MichaelM (20 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I love the concept of SKY being in any way a *clean* or respectable sponsor
> 
> The Murdoch Empire is as corrupt, sleazy and contemptible as any organisation you would care to name.
> 
> Or are their activities acceptable now?


 
What exactly are you alluding to with that?


----------



## kedab (20 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> On a different note sad to see Rabobank leave.


 
what, what, what?! i have missed this - i love the rabobank kit...what am i to do now


----------



## laurence (20 Oct 2012)

kedab said:


> what, what, what?! i have missed this - i love the rabobank kit...what am i to do now


 
get Euskaltel kit... more orange for your money.


----------



## kedab (20 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/20/lance-armstrong-livestrong-15th-anniversary
> Sounds like anyone who is no one was there.


 
sean penn


----------



## kedab (20 Oct 2012)

laurence said:


> get Euskaltel kit... more orange for your money.


 funny you should mention that...i do like that kit. problem solved and it will serve as a decent hi-vis too


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Oct 2012)

Bollo said:


> With the no-contest, Lance isn't admitting defeat but using the same tactic employed by the Tea Party. Don't engage with the opposition. Don't argue on the issues. Instead, create an alternative reality through compliant media outlets. Gather as many supporters as possible into the bubble and discredit and vilify anything that comes from outside. Try to blow the bubble out as big as possible.


yes indeed. If you can work your way past the advertising take a look (or rather listen) to the video
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/vid...armstrong-speaks-livestrong-anniversary-video
'it's been a difficult couple of weeks, for me, for my family, for my friends, for this foundation'.. 'I've been better, but I've also been worse'.... 'humbling'. After the Nixonian non-denial denial we now have the non-apology apology


----------



## Red Light (20 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I love the concept of SKY being in any way a clean or respectable sponsor
> 
> The Murdoch Empire is as corrupt, sleazy and contemptible as any organisation you would care to name.
> 
> Or are their activities acceptable now?


 
No, they're just much better at hacking the phones of the testers so they know when they can glow.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> What exactly are you alluding to with that?


Google is your friend!

Spend a few minutes on Google investigating SKY and News Corp, and all will be revealed


----------



## Scoosh (20 Oct 2012)

There is a big difference between a professional cycling racing team and how it is run ...


... and a sponsoring company and how it is run.

Isn't there ?


----------



## MichaelM (20 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Google is your friend!
> 
> Spend a few minutes on Google investigating SKY and News Corp, and all will be revealed


 
I'm aware of the antics of the Maxwells, but I don't think your word choice was accidental:



Cunobelin said:


> I love the concept of SKY being in any way a_* clean*_ or respectable sponsor...


 
with obvious connotations to doping.

Now I wouldn't bet my house on all the riders in team SKY being clean, but I very much doubt there's an organized regime. Why you try to muddy the waters this way I don't know.


----------



## BJH (20 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I'm aware of the antics of the Maxwells, but I don't think your word choice was accidental:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Think you mean Murdoch Not Maxwell

I mentioned them first, it was as part of a comment on Rabobank opting to leave, nothing to do with the team or suggesting anything going on.

Merely linking the disgraceful antics of the Murdoch owned press to the equally disgraced antics if the UCI.

It's relevant given Rabobanks comments on not wanting to be associated with the actions of the sports governing body, which every other sponsor must also be questioning at the moment - unless of course disgraceful behaviours is the norm for them too.


----------



## MichaelM (20 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> Think you mean Murdoch Not Maxwell


 
Of course 

Good job I'm not responsible for labeling samples or I might have put Yates on the wrong bottle.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> with obvious connotations to doping.
> 
> Now I wouldn't bet my house on all the riders in team SKY being clean, but I very much doubt there's an organized regime. Why you try to muddy the waters this way I don't know.




Your misinterpretation entirely........if I wanted to refer to the riders and drugs I would do so

Corruption is unacceptable unless you are saying otherwise?


----------



## Erratic (21 Oct 2012)

WOW! a great read (via INRNG) 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...all&adxnnlx=1350799332-GeQVKn1iF56j0pzeK9tfEQ


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

Erratic said:


> WOW! a great read (via INRNG)
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...all&adxnnlx=1350799332-GeQVKn1iF56j0pzeK9tfEQ


 
With the following advert at the bottom of it. Is that Google doing irony?


----------



## Andrew_P (21 Oct 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted, but I read this as a ITV4 please don't sack me! http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-fool-out-of-him/story-fnecsqy7-1226500195180


----------



## david k (21 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Not sure if this has been posted, but I read this as a ITV4 please don't sack me! http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-fool-out-of-him/story-fnecsqy7-1226500195180


 
interesting read, makes you feel almost sorry for him. you can see his point though

also the bit about lance not being able to admit because of all the (myriad) legal lawsuits etc that would happen. think lance has no choice but to front it out or give up entirely, or doe he have other choices/


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> interesting read, makes you feel almost sorry for him. you can see his point though
> 
> also the bit about lance not being able to admit because of all the (myriad) legal lawsuits etc that would happen. think lance has no choice but to front it out or give up entirely, or doe he have other choices/


 
One of the main reasons for a no-contest plea in Court is that it allows the Court to proceed with the criminal penalties without creating any civil liabilities in the process.


----------



## MichaelM (21 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> interesting read, *makes you feel almost sorry for him*. you can see his point though
> 
> also the bit about lance not being able to admit because of all the (myriad) legal lawsuits etc that would happen. think lance has no choice but to front it out or give up entirely, or doe he have other choices/


 
Really?

_"Having been with the riders...there’s never been the slightest inclination these guys have been going back and preparing by taking EPO and human growth hormone."_

Of course not Phil.


----------



## kedab (21 Oct 2012)

i think he's a great commentator but his blind devotion to LA was astonishing and he really began to irk me. he's a smart guy yet he still wants us to believe he didn't have even the slightest inkling as to what was going? don't insult us phil oh and..."Liggett told a cycling website this week were it not for the fact he’d signed contracts to commentate through to 2016, the scandal was so depressing he would have walked away from cycling." - do it, go now and put a good word in for me...i'd frikin love your job


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Really?
> 
> _"Having been with the riders...there’s never been the slightest inclination these guys have been going back and preparing by taking EPO and human growth hormone."_
> 
> Of course not Phil.


 
Well Hamilton's ghost author, Daniel Coyle, managed to spend a whole season with Armstrong and the team and write a book about it without noticing a thing either.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well Hamilton's ghost author, Daniel Coyle, managed to spend a whole season with Armstrong and the team and write a book about it without noticing a thing either.


Liggett is a long time cycling journalist who was once on the verge of becoming a pro cyclist himself, and a close friend of his co-commentator ex pro Paul Sherwin. For him to throw his hands up and plead innocence of what was going on in the very small world of professional cycling is rather stretching one's belief.


----------



## MichaelM (21 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well Hamilton's ghost author, Daniel Coyle, managed to spend a whole season with Armstrong and the team and write a book about it without noticing a thing either.


 
Didn't notice anything or didn't have enough to go public with given Armstrong's penchant for legal threats/action? Besides, it wouldn't really have gone down well in a book on "the greatest most tested cyclist of all time" (TM) would it.


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Didn't notice anything or didn't have enough to go public with given Armstrong's penchant for legal threats/action? Besides, it wouldn't really have gone down well in a book on "the greatest most tested cyclist of all time" (TM) would it.


 
Yep, can't risk your book sales income after all that effort. There'll always be another chance in a few years 

But seriously with Walsh and SCA and the L'Equipe 1999 samples stories and all the rumours that were swirling around him even then, in spending 2005 with Lance on his last Tour he heard no, saw no so spoke no evil? You think?


----------



## johnr (21 Oct 2012)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...d-no-reason-not-to-believe-lance-8219480.html
Article based on same press release by the looks of it.

I think Liggett does himself a disservice: not only did he have no reason not to disbelieve Pharmstrong, he had every reason *to *believe him*. *

After all, not only did he host gigs for him (I'm sure no money changed hands) and have personal assurances from the great man, he is in regular communication with people that tell him USADA bribes witnesses, doctors who assure him Armstrong would be dead if he doped, not to mention the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. What self-respecting journalist would be expected to raise questions in the face of all those reliable sources?


----------



## beastie (21 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yep, can't risk your book sales income after all that effort. There'll always be another chance in a few years
> 
> But seriously with Walsh and SCA and the L'Equipe 1999 samples stories and all the rumours that were swirling around him even then, in spending 2005 with Lance on his last Tour he heard no, saw no so spoke no evil? You think?


If you had a writer shadow you for parts of a season, which parts would you show him? The training super hard and winning the TDF, or the blood doping and EPO injecting? Not very hard to hide it really. Just don't do shoot when the writer is about. 

Dan Coyle does mention the magic number of 6.7 which Ferrari had surmised was the required watts/kg at threshold needed to be in with a chance of winning. LA tested at 7 if IRC. This is considerably higher than is now accepted as the upper limit of human physiology. So plenty evidence, just maybe he didn't know what he was looking at.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> I think Liggett does himself a disservice: not only did he have no reason not to disbelieve Pharmstrong, he had every reason *to *believe him*.*


I've had the considerable pleasure of meeting Phil Liggett at CTC Council. He sees the world through rose-tinted specs because he's such a sweetie himself. In this case it turns out that he's too nice for his own good.


----------



## Red Light (21 Oct 2012)

beastie said:


> If you had a writer shadow you for parts of a season, which parts would you show him? The training super hard and winning the TDF, or the blood doping and EPO injecting? Not very hard to hide it really. Just don't do s*** when the writer is about


 
Do you think they gave Phil the EPO or the clean tour? If Danny Coyle can live and travel with the team for a year and not spot it then odds on a commentator who is travelling separately is even less likely to spot it.


----------



## rich p (21 Oct 2012)

Given that most people who took an active, inquisitive interest in pro-cycling prior to August 2012 knew Armstrong was a doper it belies belief that those invovled in the sport had no inkling or chose to ignore the blindingly obvious.


----------



## Russell Allen (21 Oct 2012)

+1
Anyone who has followed this sport for the last 15 years cannot have been under any illusions about the level of PED use by a lot of professional cyclists. That is not to say that they were all "at it" but usage of PEDS was widespread and best described as an "open secret" Phil Liggett is either totally gullible or he must think we are, i simply find it impossible to believe that he knew nothing. . There are going to be a lot of casualties in the fallout of the LA affair and i suspect Phil Liggett may well be one of them. As I have said earlier in this thread the dam has now burst, we need to wait and see the fallout as the water makes its way downstream. I am waiting for the legal action against LA to start, I am thinking of starting a sweepstake on which former sponsor, team mate, team will get the ball rolling. Its also only a matter of time before the first documentary "expose" of the financial dealings of Livestrong occurs.

Russell


----------



## just jim (21 Oct 2012)

Various apologists and armchair Armstrong lawyers will doubtless step up with more b... I mean water that collects in the lowest part of a ship*, once the UCI takes a sip of coffee and endorses the USADA's reasoned decision tomorrow.
Chances are we won't get an admission ever from the gentleman in question, but he does now look rather burdened by it all.

*


----------



## johnr (21 Oct 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/21/peddlers-cycling-dirty-truth-review
another review of the Radio 5 documentary


----------



## fozy tornip (21 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Not sure if this has been posted, but I read this as a ITV4 please don't sack me! http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-fool-out-of-him/story-fnecsqy7-1226500195180


With this:


> A giant shadow is now cast over Tour de France winners but Liggett said he firmly believes Cadel Evans is a clean rider: "I feel beyond a shadow of a doubt Cadel Evans won a clean Tour de France.
> "That was a good race and a real race."


Phil appears to damn Wiggins with no praise.


----------



## beastie (21 Oct 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> With this:
> 
> Phil appears to damn Wiggins with no praise.


 
He is talking to an Ozzie audience there. Cadel is the man they are interested in.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Given that most people who took an active, inquisitive interest in pro-cycling prior to August 2012 knew Armstrong was a doper it belies belief that those invovled in the sport had no inkling or chose to ignore the blindingly obvious.


 
Not just Armstrong though, so why limit the discussion?

Those who were involved in policing the Sport and testing failed miserably, that includes UCI, USADA and the WADA whose "watch" this all happened on.

They should have also been picking up on all the others as well?


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Oct 2012)

Lets take Michele Ferrari and his misconduct. The list of cyclists who he "worked with" include Armstrong, Cippolini, Vinokourov, Simeoni and Landis, all who have proved positive and / or admitted the use of EPD

Ferrari has also worked with Cadel Evans, should we be worried about this "evidence"?


----------



## rich p (21 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not just Armstrong though, so why limit the discussion?
> 
> Those who were involved in policing the Sport and testing failed miserably, that includes UCI, USADA and the WADA whose "watch" this all happened on.
> 
> They should have also been picking up on all the others as well?


How many times are you going to trot this drivel out?
a) We have always been against all drug takers in the peloton while you are an Armstrong obsessed johnny-cum-lately.

b) We have picking on and deriding the UCI, Verbruggen and McQuaid for nigh on a decade while you have been noticeably absent

c) I was referring to Ligget talking about Armstrong, hence the Armstrong bent

d) This a fecking thread about Armstrong!!!!!!!!

e) May I refer you to the other threads about reforming the UCI

f) FFS say something new instead of stating the bleedin' obvious like you'd just invented the wheel


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Oct 2012)

Suggesting that doping in the peloton was widespread and that the testing regime failed to detect them is drivel?

It may be uncomfortably outside the narrow agenda you are fixated with, but the sad fact is that the WADA, USADA,UCI and the other professional bodies either, failed to detect failed to act, or allegedly openly colluded.

If you really object to the truth, then it is really a problem you should deal with on your own.

Without a full, frank investigation we are (to paraphrase Santayana) in a position where;



> Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Suggesting that doping in the peloton was widespread and that the testing regime failed to detect them is drivel?


 
No, he's suggesting that you are trying to teach your grandma to suck eggs. And he's right.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> No, he's suggesting that you are trying to teach your grandma to suck eggs. And he's right.


 
Wrong...

He has an aversion to anything that suggests the USADA / WADA needs to be investigated alongside the UCI, and throws his toys out of the pram rather than constructively comment.

So lets ask the question...

Should we or should we not be investigating the role of the USADA and WADA during this period?


----------



## mickle (22 Oct 2012)

No one is suggesting that the UCI or other agencies or individuals should not be scrutinized.


----------



## Noodley (22 Oct 2012)

Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.


 
But nobody is responding to you


----------



## asterix (22 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I've had the considerable pleasure of meeting Phil Liggett at CTC Council. He sees the world through rose-tinted specs because he's such a sweetie himself. In this case it turns out that he's too nice for his own good.


 
On one of his rides, I shared a lunch break table with him and some of his friends. Based on that experience I'd agree.


----------



## mickle (22 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.


Yes, of course, good point Noods.


----------



## asterix (22 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.


 
You are so right!


----------



## rich p (22 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Suggesting that doping in the peloton was widespread and that the testing regime failed to detect them is drivel?
> 
> It may be uncomfortably outside the narrow agenda you are fixated with, but the sad fact is that the WADA, USADA,UCI and the other professional bodies either, failed to detect failed to act, or allegedly openly colluded.
> 
> ...


 
I really don't know why but I'll answer your points again.
The 'drivel' reference is to the fact that you have repeated ad nauseam that it's not just Armstrong. No-one has ever said it is. All bodies and riders should be scrutinised. No-one that I know of on here has ever said anything else.
Again I'll point out that it is you who have, rarely if ever, posted anywhere in Pro Race apart from Armstrong threads.
As to your childish 'throwing toys out of the pram' jibe I'll let go as being puerile by even your standards.


----------



## tigger (22 Oct 2012)

So... what time is the UCI decision due?


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> So... what time is the UCI decision due?


 
Apparently around mid-day. Or maybe 1pm. Europe and all that.


----------



## Crackle (22 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.


Yep, it's like trying to talk to the loony when they sit next to you on the bus.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Oct 2012)

My take on the UCI announcement is that LA's a gone-er, they'll let us know in a few weeks who, if anyone, apart from the podium girls, actually won those TdeF's and they the UCI are as fine an upstanding group of folk with noble motives and nothing but the promotion and regulation of good clean cycling fun in mind that you could hope to meet. Oh yes and there will always be dopers who will win and the UCI/WADA/USADA won't catch them, so get over it your sport is bent, and ex-dopers are jolly decent chaps who should be encouraged to take management roles with teams and/or win olympic gold medals as they've are all reformed types these days.

Apart from stripping LA, utter bollox.


----------



## frankiej (22 Oct 2012)

Wow didn't expect to take all those off as he's already been awarded them.

http://www.dependent-news.com/lanceverdict

Still the fairest way I guess.


----------



## tigger (22 Oct 2012)

Hmm... I watched the press conference. So, a categoric ratification of the USADA's report in relation to Armstrong, and a very strong statement that "he has no place in cycling".

Otherwise, nothing else is really answered and the need for reform does not seem to be an urgent priority?
i.e. meeting with teams and organisers in early December,
McQuaid saying he would except a donation from individual athletes again
Not accepting that Armstrong had a suspicious blood result in 2001

The most worrying comment:
"The UCI is listening and will continue to listen" - No Mr McQuaid, we need you to ACT!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Oct 2012)

btw, does this mean Jan Ullrich is now a three times winner?

*runs*


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> btw, does this mean Jan Ullrich is now a three times winner?
> 
> *runs*


 
No it means that Armstrong is now the "former winner of seven TdeFs"


----------



## philipbh (22 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> btw, does this mean Jan Ullrich is now a three times winner?
> 
> *runs*


 
An analysis of the restrospective "winners" here:

http://cypresstrees.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/revised-tour-de-france-top-10-clean.html


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> Hmm... I watched the press conference. So, a categoric ratification of the USADA's report in relation to Armstrong, and a very strong statement that "he has no place in cycling".


 
I thought the wording interesting and precise given they could have used much simpler wording. From the statement on the UCI website:
​_"The UCI confirms that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed."_​​It doesn't say it agrees with it or supports it, just that it will not contest it and will accept the resulting sanctions. A bit like Armstrong's no contest announcement. By no-contesting rather than accepting though they don't open any doors to civil liabilities.


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I thought the wording interesting and precise given they could have used much simpler wording. From the statement on the UCI website:
> ​_"The UCI confirms that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed."_​​It doesn't say it agrees with it or supports it, just that it will not contest it and will accept the resulting sanctions. A bit like Armstrong's no contest announcement. By no-contesting rather than accepting though they don't open any doors to civil liabilities.


 
There's no conspiracy or hidden meaning - its the terminology the UCI use in their press releases as in the 2 below from their web site. There's no subtext, secret messages or subtle codes.

06.02.2012
The UCI *acknowledges the decision* of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to impose a suspension of 2 years on the rider Alberto Contador following the UCI’s appeal, brought in conjunction with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in the case concerning the Spanish cyclist.

09.02.2012
The International Cycling Union (UCI) *acknowledges the decision* of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to impose a suspension of 2 years on the rider Jan Ullrich starting retroactively on August 2011, following the UCI’s appeal. All results achieved by the athlete on or after 1 May 2005 until his retirement, on February 26, 2007, are annulled.


----------



## Andrew_P (22 Oct 2012)

Oakley have now pulled out, house!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light, give it up. It's over.

Armstrong is toast.

We can now move on to making sure that Verbruggen and McQuaid resign, and transforming the management of pro-cycling.


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, give it up. It's over.
> 
> Armstrong is toast.
> 
> We can now move on to making sure that Verbruggen and McQuaid resign, and transforming the management of pro-cycling.


 
The comment about still taking 'donations' from pro-cyclists was quite telling and there'll be a few raised eye-brows about that.


----------



## Crosstrailer (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, give it up. It's over.
> 
> Armstrong is toast.
> 
> We can now move on to making sure that Verbruggen and McQuaid resign, and transforming the management of pro-cycling.


 
Well said.

I am reminded of that gentleman standing on the banks of the tigris announcing to the worlds press that the americans were committing suicide at the gates of Baghdad as two Abrams tanks rolled down the street on the other side of the river.......


----------



## yello (22 Oct 2012)

Well thank goodness that's all over then.

I think I've found my new signature line....

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten." - Pat McQuaid


----------



## ColinJ (22 Oct 2012)

_Who?_


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Oct 2012)

Right, as this thread's done & dusted who's starting the 'UCI reform' one?


----------



## rich p (22 Oct 2012)

I don't know what the precise definition of trolling is but if Red Light even now carries on protesting a mis-trial, lack of jurisdiction and miscarriage of justice then I'd suggest that comes pretty close.


----------



## Crackle (22 Oct 2012)

I think I'm now out of this thread too. Last one out, turn the light off.


----------



## rich p (22 Oct 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> Right, as this thread's done & dusted who's starting the 'UCI reform' one?


 Something like this Dave?
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reforming-the-uci.109762/


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Oct 2012)

I thought that would happen.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> There's no conspiracy or hidden meaning - its the terminology the UCI use in their press releases as in the 2 below from their web site. There's no subtext, secret messages or subtle codes.
> 
> 06.02.2012
> The UCI *acknowledges the decision* of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to impose a suspension of 2 years on the rider Alberto Contador following the UCI’s appeal, brought in conjunction with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in the case concerning the Spanish cyclist.
> ...


 
Well apart from the fact that those are decisions of CAS which are the ultimate arbiter in the case of disputed cases, but they do acknowledge the decision which is very different from saying they are not going to appeal the decision. Remember Pat is a lawyer and wording such as will not appeal will have a specific legal meaning.


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well apart from the fact that those are decisions of CAS which are the ultimate arbiter in the case of disputed cases, but they do acknowledge the decision which is very different from saying they are not going to appeal the decision. Remember Pat is a lawyer and wording such as will not appeal will have a specific legal meaning.


 
Your original point related to a lack of a specific statement of agreement from the UCI towards USADA and that is consistent with other UCI press releases as provided.

There is therefore no substance in your argument above.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light, give it up. It's over.
> 
> Armstrong is toast.
> 
> We can now move on to making sure that Verbruggen and McQuaid resign, and transforming the management of pro-cycling.


 
Feel free to start a new thread on that if you wish. Meanwhile this thread is still called "
*The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

when I last looked and discussion of Lance Armstrong is on topic. I realise that you think "discussion" means "only discussion that FM agrees with" but that is not how public forums work I'm afraid.


----------



## briantrumpet (22 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I don't know what the precise definition of trolling is but if Red Light even now carries on protesting a mis-trial, lack of jurisdiction and miscarriage of justice then I'd suggest that comes pretty close.


Since I decided that Red Light is the intellectual alter ego of dennisn (from the 'other place'), I have no difficulty in finding his posts entertaining.


----------



## Panter (22 Oct 2012)

Once you've all left, and the lights are off, I'm going to hang a Lance Armstrong poster on the wall


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> when I last looked and discussion of Lance Armstrong is on topic. I realise that you think "discussion" means "only discussion that FM agrees with" but that is not how public forums work I'm afraid.


 
You miss the point. And please don't start trying to pretend you are being victimized. It is the unattractive last resort of someone who cannot admit they are wrong. In that sense you have something in common with Lance Armstrong, at least.


----------



## philipbh (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well apart from the fact that those are decisions of CAS which are the ultimate arbiter in the case of disputed cases, but they do acknowledge the decision which is very different from saying they are not going to appeal the decision. Remember Pat is a lawyer and wording such as will not appeal will have a specific legal meaning.


 
This language is (IMO) entirely consistent within the context of arbitration in general (the point of which is to reach a resolution vs. endless and / or obfuscatory legal argument) and the CAS code in particular (see procedural rules R.46 R47 R48 and R49)

Parties either accept (or acknowledge) the ruling as final (as per code) or appeal the ruling (within 21 days) providing their legal grounds for appeal (although no additional evidence is allowable)

I dont think Mr President is being clever - just using the language of the process


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Oct 2012)

Fat lady isn't singing quite yet, there is still a teasing hint of more fun to come in the full decision 

*2. Recognition and implementation of the USADA decision*
UCI will recognize and implement the decision of USADA, which implies that all competitive results achieved by Mr Armstrong in cycling since August 1, 1998 will be disqualified, including his seven Tour de France wins.

This recognition is subject to the following:

a. The recognition does not alter UCI’s position on the issue of the statute of
limitations as exposed above;

b. The recognition also depends on whether Mr Armstrong or WADA will appeal
USADA’s decision to CAS. If Mr Armstrong or WADA appeals to CAS, the UCI
must wait until CAS delivers its award: the USADA decision might be overruled in
whole or in part by CAS.

So my question is _How long a period does LA have to appeal to CAS?_


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You miss the point. And please don't start trying to pretend you are being victimized. It is the unattractive last resort of someone who cannot admit they are wrong. In that sense you have something in common with Lance Armstrong, at least.


 
QED.


----------



## david k (22 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Well said.
> 
> I am reminded of that gentleman standing on the banks of the tigris announcing to the worlds press that the americans were committing suicide at the gates of Baghdad as two Abrams tanks rolled down the street on the other side of the river.......


 
yes, I remember that


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> QED.


 
Indeed. But not how you thought.


----------



## yello (22 Oct 2012)

Am I allowed to loose all semblance of patience now?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> I really don't know why but I'll answer your points again.
> The 'drivel' reference is to the fact that you have repeated ad nauseam that it's not just Armstrong. No-one has ever said it is. All bodies and riders should be scrutinised. No-one that I know of on here has ever said anything else.
> Again I'll point out that it is you who have, rarely if ever, posted anywhere in Pro Race apart from Armstrong threads.
> As to your childish 'throwing toys out of the pram' jibe I'll let go as being puerile by even your standards.


 
I suppose one can only really aspire to stand on the shoulders of a giant such as yourself with the erudite wit and charm.


----------



## Andrew_P (22 Oct 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617
Number one


----------



## Russell Allen (22 Oct 2012)

My biggest concern now is not LA but how we're going to bulk out this thread to reach the magic hundred pages..... I had hoped for something a little less categorical from the UCI. 

Pat McQuaid's pontificating about how he wants to work towards cycling to be clean, how he has always been anti doping, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah were for me very hollow. It sounds very much like the argument that the current problems of the single European currency are a good reason for closer European integration .......The man is a spinner par excellence but I believe he is now on borrowed time ...... If he is still in charge in a years time I will be very surprised.

Lets not pull our punches here, if Pat McQuaid thought he could have fought the USADA decision he would have done, he is now in damage limitation/survival mode. The sooner the big teams and sponsors tell him he's part of the problem rather than the solution and force him out the better. His recent revelatory conversion will not be enough to save "saint Pat the apostle"

Russell


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Oct 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> My biggest concern now is not LA but how we're going to bulk out this thread to reach the magic hundred pages..... I had hoped for something a little less categorical from the UCI.
> 
> Pat McQuaid's pontificating about how he wants to work towards cycling to be clean, how he has always been anti doping, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah were for me very hollow. It sounds very much like the argument that the current problems of the single European currency are a good reason for closer European integration .......The man is a spinner par excellence but I believe he is now on borrowed time ...... If he is still in charge in a years time I will be very surprised.
> 
> ...


 
But are the very teams that are the perpetrators of the doping scandals the best Jury?


----------



## Andrew_P (22 Oct 2012)

*Boris Becker*‏@*Becker_Boris*
"Don't hate the player,hate the game"is my comment about the whole L.Armstrong saga....


----------



## Noodley (22 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I think I'm now out of this thread too. Last one out, turn the light off.


 
Surely you mean "turn the Red Light off"...


----------



## david k (22 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> *Boris Becker*‏@*Becker_Boris*
> "Don't hate the player,hate the game"is my comment about the whole L.Armstrong saga....


well i dont think any of them were born as dopers, a lot is to do with the culture they find theirselves in.

difference with LA was how he led the whole thing, took it to another level, worked so hard to cover it up, its people like him who create the culture


----------



## laurence (22 Oct 2012)

RESULT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Oct 2012)

david k said:


> well i dont think any of them were born as dopers, a lot is to do with the culture they find theirselves in.
> 
> difference with LA was how he led the whole thing, took it to another level, worked so hard to cover it up, its people like him who create the culture


nope. can't agree. people like him exploit the culture that already exists. he didn't come up with dopage. folk were at it before him and are at it now. he just used the uselessness of the governing bodies and testing regimes better than everyone else. seems to me he looked at the sort of culture that shrugs its shoulders and says "cycling will never be completely clean. let's get on with making money please" and did just that.


----------



## david k (22 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> nope. can't agree. people like him exploit the culture that already exists. he didn't come up with dopage. folk were at it before him and are at it now. he just used the uselessness of the governing bodies and testing regimes better than everyone else. seems to me he looked at the sort of culture that shrugs its shoulders and says "cycling will never be completely clean. let's get on with making money please" and did just that.


yeh true, i realise it was there before and a bit like a dictator, shoot one and someone else steps in their place! 
he exploited it more than most though, took it to another level by the sounds of it, and covered it up more rigorously than others


----------



## Russell Allen (22 Oct 2012)

> But are the very teams that are the perpetrators of the doping scandals the best Jury?


 
I didn't suggest that the teams and sponsors be judge and jury, we are not in a court of law, however the big sponsors and bigger teams (especially those teams that want to attract big blue chip sponsors) can now probably see which way the wind is blowing and realize that being associated with doping/cheating is going to be a fairly bad choice for their future sponsorship. Pat McQuaid for all his vocal protestations is very firmly associated with the past rather than the future. Its true as long as there is money involved some people will cheat, but I now see a chance that doping in cycling will be the exception rather than the rule. LA was a sort of totem for a very dark period and I for one am relieved that we are where we are.

Russell


----------



## Norm (22 Oct 2012)

Just in case anyone has forgotten...


rules said:


> Inappropriate conduct - Don't insult, bully, undermine, stalk, flame, troll, bait or otherwise harass other members of CycleChat



There have been several posts removed from this thread. There will be several posters removed from the thread if the behaviour repeats.


----------



## philipbh (23 Oct 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> I didn't suggest that the teams and sponsors be judge and jury, we are not in a court of law, however the big sponsors and bigger teams (especially those teams that want to attract big blue chip sponsors) can now probably see which way the wind is blowing and realize that being associated with doping/cheating is going to be a fairly bad choice for their future sponsorship. Pat McQuaid for all his vocal protestations is very firmly associated with the past rather than the future. Its true as long as there is money involved some people will cheat, but I now see a chance that doping in cycling will be the exception rather than the rule. LA was a sort of totem for a very dark period and I for one am relieved that we are where we are.


 
Interesting point about the sponsorship - which reminded me of something that Pat McQ said yesterday in the press conference

"The UCI take money from the teams"

So if this money is used (as i think he asserted) to combat doping - then the teams will have some interest in and power to demand better doping controls for the sport in future

Questions:

Could or would they demand his resignation?

Is this counter productive given that he has promised to lead the fight against PED use in cycling?

Is the job too difficult anyway and someone will always be calling for better management (similar to football, politics etc)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

Another ex-USPS rider admits to doping, the Norwegian ex-rider, Steffen Kjærgaard - in this case, although he is quite clear that he started before being hired by USPS, he says it was the improvement in his results after using EPO that got him noticed by USPS and then at the team, he was put on 'the carousel' and rode in support of Armstrong in 2000 and 2001. However, he says his programme was separate from others and he doesn't know anything about them... not sure if I believe the latter, but it's possible if he wasn't close to Armstrong and the other American riders (which it seems he wasn't).


----------



## mickle (23 Oct 2012)

Indurain thinks Armstrong is innocent.


----------



## just jim (23 Oct 2012)

Silly!


----------



## Hont (23 Oct 2012)

mickle said:


> Indurain thinks Armstrong is innocent.


 
Translation: "I was a doper and I'm scared my career is going to be revised in the same way".


----------



## Hont (23 Oct 2012)

And Samual Sanchez confirms what many of us suspected, by implying much the same thing...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/samuel-sanchez-criticises-armstrong-ban


----------



## smutchin (23 Oct 2012)

Hont said:


> Translation: "I was a doper and I'm scared my career is going to be revised in the same way".


 
Indeed. It occurred to me a while ago that Indurain had a vested interest in Lance not getting caught and that was the reason for his taciturnity on the issue - Lance was the last buffer between him and an investigation into his own career. Strange that he should draw attention to himself by coming out with a statement now.

Not that I'm suggesting there was anything dodgy about Indurain's TdF wins. Oh no, not I. 

d.


----------



## smutchin (23 Oct 2012)

Samu, you idiot, you're backing the wrong horse.


----------



## rich p (23 Oct 2012)

What a pair of Spanish dickheads.


----------



## rich p (23 Oct 2012)

David Millar, on the Spanish TV documentary linked to by Thom recently, said openly that he believed Indurain was doped on at least some of his wins. Big Mig hasn't responded as far as I'm aware.


----------



## smutchin (23 Oct 2012)

David Millar might say that. I couldn't possibly comment.


----------



## Hont (23 Oct 2012)

Amstrong has removed the "seven times Tour de France winner" statement from his biog on Twitter.*

*I do not follow nor have I ever followed him on Twitter. L'equipe are making a fuss about it: 
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Armstrong-prend-acte/321565


----------



## Dave Davenport (23 Oct 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-landis-and-hamilton-are-far-from-heroes

Pat, Pat, Pat! - Out, Out, Out!

(yes i know 'Maggie' scans better)


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Oct 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-landis-and-hamilton-are-far-from-heroes
> 
> Pat, Pat, Pat! - Out, Out, Out!
> 
> (yes i know 'Maggie' scans better)


Patsy, Patsy, Patsy! scans quite well.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

McQuaid says that Bjarne Riis is 'a bit like' Vaughters - yeah, in the same way that Lance Armstrong is 'a bit like' David Millar.


----------



## raindog (23 Oct 2012)

meanwhile........
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-influence-extends-beyond-sport
"Although Armstrong was unable to influence Obama to cut short his trip overseas, and the millions of people in his Livestrong army failed to sway the election, his political connections may have come in handy when it came to the federal grand jury which was looking into the same evidence that USADA used to strip him of his sporting reputation.
One source suggested to Roberts that Clinton himself swayed US Attorney Andre Briotte into suddenly closing down the 18-month investigation without reason on Superbowl Sunday, although the office denied its decision was the result of political pressure. But the closure did coincide with a large donation from Armstrong - $100,000 - to Planned Parenthood, provider of breast cancer screening to underprivileged women, which was coming under fire from conservatives."


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (23 Oct 2012)

So, Lance Armstrong ''deserves to be forgotten,'' does he?

I'd have thought that pro cycling deserves that Lance Armstrong should never be forgotten.

EDIT: just saw that that was more or less the opening question in the abc interview 3 posts below linked by Happiness Stan.


----------



## Happiness Stan (23 Oct 2012)

Has anyone listened to Phil Lidgett's latest ramblings? He's either uncovering the biggest sports-related conspiracy of all time or he's going insane. Either way it's all getting a bit weird and he is starting to scare me. As a footnote, the interviewer was awful, never did he challenge PL or ask him to explain or expand. he just let him ramble.


View: http://youtu.be/VJz4kwm9mXc


----------



## Happiness Stan (23 Oct 2012)

Sorry guys, from the caption at the beginning, I thought this was the latest news. It isn't.


----------



## Happiness Stan (23 Oct 2012)

Whoooa, he's changed his tune hasn't he? Sorry if I'm 50 odd pages behind all this.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-...tt-describes-armstrongs/4330226?section=sport


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Oct 2012)

This is a great article by Robert Millar -

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

I read Greg Lemond's wikipedia page earlier today. The guy really is a credit to sport.



> "If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud.


 


> From my experience, he's not a nice guy and I've had some very difficult periods with him. And I don't believe he'll finish up having any friends in cycling


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Oct 2012)

Question is though whether Indurain's wins would be 'safe" if he were investigated?

Tygart and USADA are on record as saying that they would not have sought to strip all of Armstrong's wins, and that doing so was a "punishment" for not playing the game.

Now the WADA, USADA and UCI are talking of an Amnesty.

What are the chances of a quick "Mea Culpa", a confession, absolution, a short penance - reconciliation and retention the titles?


----------



## smutchin (23 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> This is a great article by Robert Millar -
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum



That is indeed a great piece. 

d.


----------



## rich p (23 Oct 2012)

It would be interesting and amusing, albeit in a small way, to ask your friends and relatives, "Who was the only American to win the Tour de France?".


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2012)

Winning a race, and being awarded / retaining the title are not necessarily the same thing


----------



## rich p (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> What a pair of Spanish dickheads.


 Now ValvPiti Valverde has come out in support of Armstrong.

What's Spanish for 3 dickheads?


----------



## DogTired (24 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> meanwhile........
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-influence-extends-beyond-sport
> "Although Armstrong was unable to influence Obama to cut short his trip overseas, and the millions of people in his Livestrong army failed to sway the election, his political connections may have come in handy when it came to the federal grand jury which was looking into the same evidence that USADA used to strip him of his sporting reputation.
> One source suggested to Roberts that Clinton himself swayed US Attorney Andre Briotte into suddenly closing down the 18-month investigation without reason on Superbowl Sunday, although the office denied its decision was the result of political pressure. But the closure did coincide with a large donation from Armstrong - $100,000 - to Planned Parenthood, provider of breast cancer screening to underprivileged women, which was coming under fire from conservatives."


 
That's an enlightening article, very interesting! Also shows that Armstrong doesnt do politics, he does threats and bullying. No-one forgets that.

It'll be interesting to see what influence armstrong has in the future now that fate's stuck him on the largest naughty step that could be found.


----------



## DogTired (24 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Winning a race, and being awarded / retaining the title are not necessarily the same thing


I'm not aware of any corner cases where winning and being awarded the title are not the same thing??? But having a title taken away is the same as not winning.

Retaining is a future event so no, retaining the title next year is different from winning it last year.


----------



## DogTired (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Now ValvPiti Valverde has come out in support of Armstrong.
> 
> What's Spanish for 3 dickheads?


Tapas.


----------



## rich p (24 Oct 2012)

'tres pelotudo' maybe!


----------



## DogTired (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> 'tres pelotudo' maybe!


I think I've had that as tapas as well!


----------



## dragon72 (24 Oct 2012)

we'd call 'em "pendejos" here.
ándale.


----------



## PpPete (24 Oct 2012)

Apologies if this link (of more historical interest tham anything else) has been posted elswhere:
http://www.roadcycling.com/news-res...gclid=CMWF1OzWmbMCFanItAodzG0A9Q#.UIfkP2c2fKc
Talks about some of the catalysts that set the whole thing unravelling, but I thought this was particularly telling:


> Another factor that helped bring Armstrong down was the simple fact he is a jerk. While he literally has millions of fans on Twitter, his real life is filled with broken friendships and angry ex-teammates.


----------



## Andrew_P (24 Oct 2012)

I would say the main factor in the case getting revisted was when he re-registered as pro early this year late last year to compete in pro Tris and Ironman's I reckon this pissed a few people off.


----------



## ColinJ (24 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> I would say the main factor in the case getting revisted was when he re-registered as pro early this year late last year to compete in pro Tris and Ironman's I reckon this ****ed a few people off.


Does a UCI (cycling) ban stop him from competing in other pro sports too?


----------



## Alun (24 Oct 2012)

Any organisation that is signed up to the WADA code, I believe! He has been racing in some MTB events since USADA anounced their judgement.


----------



## mickle (24 Oct 2012)

Article in The Onion


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> I'm not aware of any corner cases where winning and being awarded the title are not the same thing??? But having a title taken away is the same as not winning.
> 
> Retaining is a future event so no, retaining the title next year is different from winning it last year.


So we agree?

Winning the race is being the first across the line ......


Awarding the title has always been dependent on other factors

From disqualification for conduct to after race testing the award is not a certainty


----------



## Andy84 (24 Oct 2012)

Hr


Cunobelin said:


> So we agree?
> 
> Winning the race is being the first across the line ......
> 
> ...


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2012)

I can' t quote because you replied within the quotation marks

However......

When did Indurain lose?


Why is discussing whether his titles are "safe" if he is guilty if doping unacceptable to you?


It is surely valid to discuss whether Indurain's wins are valid only if gained legitimately?

It would be interesting to see why this worries you


----------



## Andrew_P (24 Oct 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Does a UCI (cycling) ban stop him from competing in other pro sports too?


he tweeted @ 6.30am the day after his pro licence was issued that he had a early morning visit for a blood and urine test. Any pro or even mixed events I think, strictly amateur for LA now


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> So we agree?
> 
> Winning the race is being the first across the line ......
> 
> ...


Who won the Olympic 100m race in 1988*?
Benjamin Sinclair "_Ben_" Johnson
Who was awarded the Olympic 100m gold medal in 1988?
Carl Lewis

It is a historical fact that Johnson won the race. Ditto that he was disqualified and the medal awarded to Lewis. But Lewis cannot be said to have won the race, having finished second, only that he was awarded the gold medal. Not hard to understand.

and precisely Cunobelin's point.


_*a race in which five, or is it six, of the participants either went on to test positive or be embroiled in drug scandals._


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Oct 2012)

According to NY Daily News seems LiveStrong funds may have been used to pay for a lobbyist to raise questions about USADA’s financing, mission and authority.....

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/wheel-dubious-lance-charity-raises-ethical-flags-article-1.1190810#ixzz2AEsVEMGR​Naughty naughty.


----------



## rich p (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Now ValvPiti Valverde has come out in support of Armstrong.
> 
> What's Spanish for 3 dickheads?


 http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-says-there-is-no-new-proof-against-armstrong
edit - what's Spanish for 4 dickheads


----------



## MacB (24 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> According to NY Daily News seems LiveStrong funds may have been used to pay for a lobbyist to raise questions about USADA’s financing, mission and authority.....
> 
> Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/wheel-dubious-lance-charity-raises-ethical-flags-article-1.1190810#ixzz2AEsVEMGR​Naughty naughty.


 
If there's any meat to that then colour me surprised, I would have expected tracks to be covered better


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-says-there-is-no-new-proof-against-armstrong
> edit - what's Spanish for 4 dickheads


 
If the quotes are correct from Contador I'm really annoyed by this.

They just don't get it do they.

Stupid stupid boys.


----------



## rich p (24 Oct 2012)

It seems that the Spanish certainly don't get it but maybe they think it's in their best interests to keep up the omerta.
Operacion Purto is still active somewhere and Bruyneel could finger AC from the Astana days if he so desired.


----------



## BJH (24 Oct 2012)

Time to repeat a line I have said before here on other occasions.

Judge people by the comments they make about doping. So that's 4 amigos who have amply confirmed to my satisfaction that they are indeed dirty.

Compare and contrast with some others.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2012)

Andy84 said:


> He lost, like what ur going to do in this argument, just give it up.


 
Back on the Mac as opposed to the phone, so can answer in more detail.

This needs some serious explanation.

THe situation as far as I am concerned is quite simple... whether you feel I am going to lose or not is irrelevant, and I am certainly not going to give up because you are uncomfortable with the concept of titles being removed if the winner of the race is shown to have cheated either through conduct, using PEDs or any other reason


it is very simple.

Indurain was the "first across the line" in each of the TdFs between 1991 and 1996, in common jargon he "won" these tours.

There are now allegations (repeated on this forum) that he cheated by using PEDs to attain these wins

If this is true then the WADA / UCI and the Spanish equivalent of the USADA have the option to remove these titles .


The other point still remains as to (if proven guilty) whether Indurain is pursued, and stripped of his titles , or allowed to keep the titles as part of an amnesty deal.

I look forward to an explanation.

Hence there is a clear and unequivocal difference between winning these titles and being awarded and retaining these titles.


----------



## Andrew_P (24 Oct 2012)

Lets face it, they went after the king doper, the talisman, they went for and got the full monty. You can go back years and I would be able to guarantee you that most if not all of the well known riders were at it, using what was available at the time. Eddie Mercx came out about LA, yet he too failed a drug test.

Reading through as much of the report I could stomach you had to be the latter part of dumber and dumber to have failed a drug test. 

Then you have Tom Simpson, fer christ sake everyone worships him he even has a monument on Ventoux, yet Amphetamine, Directics and booze will all used at the time as perfomance enhancers and major contributors to his death.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> Time to repeat a line I have said before here on other occasions.
> 
> Judge people by the comments they make about doping. So that's 4 amigos who have amply confirmed to my satisfaction that they are indeed dirty.
> 
> Compare and contrast with some others.


 
At the very least sympathetic to the Omerta.

It adds to my suspicions about Contador & the Vuelta - in particular "that stage".


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

LOCO said:


> Lets face it, they went after the king doper, the talisman, they went for and got the full monty. You can go back years and I would be able to guarantee you that most if not all of the well known riders were at it, using what was available at the time. Eddie Mercx came out about LA, yet he too failed a drug test.
> 
> Reading through as much of the report I could stomach you had to be the latter part of dumber and dumber to have failed a drug test.
> 
> *Then you have Tom Simpson, fer christ sake everyone worships him he even has a monument on Ventoux, yet Amphetamine, Directics and booze will all used at the time as perfomance enhancers and major contributors to his death.*


 
Having a monument and remembering him, in my opinion, is a good thing.

It reflects on what people are capable of doing to win and what a tragic waste of life it was. 

It should make cyclists think about what sport and life is about and what is important.


----------



## Alun (24 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Back on the Mac as opposed to the phone, so can answer in more detail.
> 
> This needs some serious explanation.
> 
> ...


The Statute of Limitations might not be lifted in the case of Indurain, due to the differences between his case and Armstrongs.


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> it is very simple.
> 
> Indurain was the "first across the line" in each of the TdFs between 1991 and 1996, in common jargon he "won" these tours.
> 
> ...


It is actually very simple. There are no eye witnesses who have come forward and swore they saw Indurain dope. Whether he did or he didn't there is only speculation and not a shred of hard evidence...unlike in the case of that other bloke.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Oct 2012)

If these are unfounded allegations, should the Mods be removing them?


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

Brad and Father Christmas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20073400


----------



## smutchin (24 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> there is only speculation and not a shred of hard evidence...unlike in the case of that other bloke.



"Indurain started off [when he won the Tour in 1991] with an average power output of 5.3 W/kg, followed by 4.91 W/kg, and then it began to climb, so much so that when Indurain won his fifth Tour in 1995, his average power output on the final climbs of the mountain stages was an incredible 6.35 W/kg. (Just to labour the point - if you want to work out the ABSOLUTE power output for each rider, just multiply the power I've shown by the rider's mass. For Indurain, multiply by 80kg and you get a value of 508W) 

That high power output was maintained for the next four years, Riis averaged 6.47 W/kg, Ullrich 6.33 W/kg, and then Marco Pantani set the 'record' when he averaged 6.63 W/kg during the 1998 Tour."

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

d.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> It is actually very simple. There are no eye witnesses who have come forward and swore they saw Indurain dope. .


true... but then has anyone like USADA investigated Big Mig?


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> true... but then has anyone like USADA investigated Big Mig?


On what grounds? Power output alone would not make a case without other evidence and it falls outside the statute of limitations anyway as any drug abuse would have ceased seventeen years ago - again, unlike in Armstrong's case.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Oct 2012)

Prison is no place for a 140 pound guy who shaves his legs. 
http://www.roadcycling.com/news-res...gclid=CL-gmPXLmrMCFQzKtAodpX0AtQ#.UIheK2_WLRY


----------



## smutchin (24 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> On what grounds? Power output alone would not make a case without other evidence


 
Absolutely. It isn't _proof_. Not in the same way that the evidence against Lance has been accepted (by the relevant authorities) as proof of his doping. But it is _evidence_.

Personally, I think we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. YMMV.



> and it falls outside the statute of limitations anyway as any drug abuse would have ceased seventeen years ago - again, unlike in Armstrong's case.


 
Again, absolutely true. Indurain's titles are safe. But his reputation might not be.

d.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Oct 2012)

Should I burn Lance's books or try and get a refund on the grounds he may have cheated? I have Every Second Counts, It's Not About The Bike and Tour de Force. Any advice appreciated. They are sitting in the bookcase in my spare room. I have separeted them from other cycling books just in case if he is guilty of doping.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> Indurain's titles are safe. But his reputation might not be.
> 
> d.


 
Unless someone decides that he is next for investigation and censure?

Changing the statutes is now set as a precedent in these cases.


----------



## asterix (25 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Unless someone decides that he is next for investigation and censure?
> 
> Changing the statutes is now set as a precedent in these cases.


 

The crude summary is that you appear to defend Armstrong by saying that earlier riders have not been pursued therefore he should also escape with impunity. 

Why? Toppling Armstrong is an excellent example that may clean up the pro cycling scene (as well as removing the influence of a toxic personality). Why waste time discussing earlier riders except as a diversionary tactic? What is your motive?


----------



## asterix (25 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Should I burn Lance's books or try and get a refund on the grounds he may have cheated? I have Every Second Counts, It's Not About The Bike and Tour de Force. Any advice appreciated. They are sitting in the bookcase in my spare room. I have separeted them from other cycling books just in case if he is guilty of doping.


 
I share your pain!


----------



## Noodley (25 Oct 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Should I burn Lance's books...*just in case* if he is guilty of doping.


 
Crankers, you havenae been keeping up with things have you? Find the nearest bonfire and take them along, get a small child to help you throw them in, and explain to them what you are doing as a warning to them for their later life...


----------



## smutchin (25 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Changing the statutes is now set as a precedent in these cases.



That's just, like, your opinion, man. 

d.


----------



## amaferanga (25 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> Time to repeat a line I have said before here on other occasions.
> 
> Judge people by the comments they make about doping. So that's 4 amigos who have amply confirmed to my satisfaction that they are indeed dirty.
> 
> Compare and contrast with some others.


 
Anyone can talk a good game. I wouldn't read too much into what a Pro cyclist has probably been told to say. Do you think Jens is dirty then?


----------



## PpPete (25 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> The crude summary is that you appear to defend Armstrong by saying that earlier riders have not been pursued therefore he should also escape with impunity.
> 
> Why? Toppling Armstrong is an excellent example that may clean up the pro cycling scene (as well as removing the influence of a toxic personality). Why waste time discussing earlier riders except as a diversionary tactic? What is your motive?


 
It's not even a good diversionary tactic.
Did Miguel Indurain spend the time since his retirement lying under oath, bullying former team-mates, making questionable payments etc to hide the truth?
The point that USADA have made is that LA's continued strong arm tactics to cover up his doping make the SoL inapplicable in his case. They have NOT set a general precedent for it to be torn up in every case.
If the Spanish anti-doping agency can show that MI used the same sort of tactics as LA to cover up his dopng they might just have a precedent in the USADA / LA. Otherwise the SoL continues to apply.


----------



## rich p (25 Oct 2012)

One thing that puzzles me and I'm sure someone will put me right....

...is that when Novitsky was interviewing the USPS riders under oath, re a conspiracy to defraud, thus forcing them to tell the truth or risk jail-time for perjury, why was Armstrong not subpoenaed too?
Was it because he was judged to be at the centre of the conspiracy?
If he had been, and had lied under oath, he would still be up for perjury á la Marion Jones.


----------



## Zofo (25 Oct 2012)

I hate to kick a man when he's down so I'd like to step back from the feeding frenzy and recognise that LA did do some good for cycling, after all a bet a good percentage of us on here got into cycling beacause of him.

comments ?


----------



## Hont (25 Oct 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Anyone can talk a good game. I wouldn't read too much into what a Pro cyclist has probably been told to say.


Agree with that. It would be a fool who declared a rider innocent based on what came out of their mouths.

The other side of the coin is different I think. The ridiculous defence of Armstong by Indurain, Sanchez, Valverde and Contador (who has every reason to dispise him FFS) is very damning. It just shows how much of a corner you paint yourself into when you don't confess all. Valverde and Contador have both served drugs bans so there is only one reason to fear further scrutiny.


----------



## Hont (25 Oct 2012)

There is truth in that but he's way too much a c--t to cut him any slack.


----------



## Drago (25 Oct 2012)

And despite all the hype and witchuntery (new word, (C) Drago enterprises 2012) he has never tested positive. I know there were techniques for avoiding it, but none of them were infallible and it was an awfully long career.

That said, everyone else was at in during that era so he may very well have been norty. But honestly, who even really cares any more? Unless he turns out to be another Jimmy Savile type then I'm happy to let it go - if he did do it it then at the time it appears it was pretty normal behaviour, and few can doubt the commitment he has made to worthy causes, and rocket fuel or not his battle with cancer was inspiring stuff.


----------



## Zofo (25 Oct 2012)

I agree, is a c**t alright but you have to grudgingly admire his win at all costs mentality. You'd want him on your side in a fight !


----------



## smutchin (25 Oct 2012)

It would be a fool who believed this statement from my new favourite pro cyclist Marcel Kittel _proved_ he's a clean rider himself, but it's clearly from the heart:



> *@**marcelkittel*
> I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Oct 2012)

Another farking LA debate thread! COME ON..................


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (25 Oct 2012)

I think Lance damaged cycling massively, although he raised the profile of the sport he did so through corruption and dishonesty.. I do not think or believe for a second Lance Armstrong did good for anyone other than himself, he did not care for the sport, he did not care for sportsmanship, he did not care for team mates and competitors and went out of his way to destroy peoples cycling careers, peoples business and peoples reputation... Lance is a nasty piece of work. His and his team's treatment of Filippo Simeoni was an absolute disgrace.

Why not kick him when he's down?....its no less than he's done to many other people? ..... Karma is a bitch and I'm loving every moment of watching his house of cards come down


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Oct 2012)

Was there any point in starting this thread?


----------



## thom (25 Oct 2012)

As said above, is there a need for this thread in this section ?

It might be a worthwhile topic for the General Cycling section because it pertains to why people decided to try cycling in their lives.

Mods, any thoughts ?


----------



## Rob3rt (25 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> As said above, *is there a need for this thread in this section ?*
> 
> It might be a worthwhile topic for the General Cycling section because it pertains to why people decided to try cycling in their lives.
> 
> Mods, any thoughts ?


 
No.



Flying_Monkey said:


> Was there any point in starting this thread?


 
No.


----------



## redcard (25 Oct 2012)

How long before 'Well done to Jimmy Savile for opening up the ol' paedophile debate' threads?


----------



## Zofo (25 Oct 2012)

2118727 said:


> Yes it can be private enclave for those sometimes somewhat disparagingly referred to as fanbois.


Well said Adrian, after all no one HAS to post -If they've got something more interesting to do ?


----------



## 007fair (25 Oct 2012)

Zofo said:


> I hate to kick a man when he's down so I'd like to step back from the feeding frenzy and recognise that LA did do some good for cycling, after all a bet a good percentage of us on here got into cycling beacause of him.
> 
> comments ?


The kicking would stop if he confessed (although other things would start - like jail) Otherwise he is saying 'please come back and kick again cos I'm not giving in'


----------



## rich p (25 Oct 2012)

I almost despair - have these people read the evidence, the damage he did and is still doing to pro cycling? Rabobank anyone?
Michael Ashenden has another interesting article and poses some interesting questions that Fat Pat needs to answer..

http://www.siab.org.au/58dgETdx002ag/ArmstrongTriangle.pdf


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Oct 2012)

quote="asterix, post: 2117971, member: 69"]The crude *mistaken and erroneous* summary is that you appear to defend Armstrong by saying that earlier riders have not been pursued therefore he should also escape with impunity.

Why? Toppling Armstrong is an excellent example that may clean up the pro cycling scene (as well as removing the influence of a toxic personality). Why waste time discussing earlier riders except as a diversionary tactic? What is your motive?[/quote]

FTFY

Your misinterpretation entirely ....................

My stance is exactly the opposite.

Armstrong is guilty, and "toppling him" is good news, as you say giving a good example of how "cheating does not pay"

The question really is why now dilute that message by not pursuing the others. Why should all the others (Indurain was raised as an example by another poster) escape with impunity.

Surely the message at the moment is that cheating does not pay.

That is entirely correct and appropriate, so follow the example.

Invesitgate allegations of doping
If substantiated use the lessons learnt from the Armstrong Case, and the experience gained to provide the evidence
Extend statutes of limitations if required
Remove any title gained illegitimately, regardless of who and when

They cheated, they gained a dishonest advantage, and only won the title by fraudulent means - that is enough for me to want to see them censured.

Or are you saying that Indurain's (alleged) cheating is acceptable because he only cheated "just a liitle bit"?

At the end of the day Armstrong's deserved downfall has opened a large Pandora's box..... I wish to see the contents of that box exposed and dealt with.

Others seem to wish to close the box, lock it and walk away.... dismissing discussion about other riders who have doped as a diversion because you are uncomfortable with it is unequivocally in this latter category


----------



## smutchin (25 Oct 2012)

Zofo said:


> I hate to kick a man when he's down so I'd like to step back from the feeding frenzy and recognise that LA did do some good for cycling, after all a bet a good percentage of us on here got into cycling beacause of him.
> 
> comments ?


 
I got into cycling because of Greg Lemond.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Oct 2012)

Greg LeMond for UCI head "I want to tell the world of cycling to please join me in telling Pat McQuaid to f##k off and resign"


----------



## Noodley (25 Oct 2012)

You bloody newcomers, I got into cycling due to Eugene Christophe


----------



## BJH (25 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Prison is no place for a 140 pound guy who shaves his legs.
> http://www.roadcycling.com/news-res...gclid=CL-gmPXLmrMCFQzKtAodpX0AtQ#.UIheK2_WLRY



As its pantomime season, all together now ...... OH YES IT IS !


----------



## BJH (25 Oct 2012)

amaferanga said:


> Anyone can talk a good game. I wouldn't read too much into what a Pro cyclist has probably been told to say. Do you think Jens is dirty then?



Almost certainly.


----------



## BJH (25 Oct 2012)

Reality on whether you judge someone based on their statements is that of course it doesn't guarantee that they are clean

But it's interesting to see who offers a sympathetic hearing and that does speak volumes. We have people being awarded the TdF title after the previous winner is stripped and accept without a murmour. I would be screaming from the roof tops that the cheating B^>#}}<d had stolen my moment of glory. 

I want to see the riders I believe to be clean getting angry in their statements, doesn't mean that they cannot possibly be liars, but experience so far suggests that dirty riders are always careful in their choice of words. Lance was always willing to rattle out his never failed a test line. Yes officially he never did, because the protocols around testing demand they are done in a specific way and involve two samples being checked. I don't ever recall him commenting much about why he had samples containing EPO. Did he ever?


----------



## Baggy (25 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> You bloody newcomers, I got into cycling due to Eugene Christophe


I once couldn't stop cycling thanks to his toe-straps.


----------



## User169 (25 Oct 2012)

Fat Pat's son Andrew accused lemond of doping on his twitter feed today. Like father like son - total jokers.


----------



## mickle (25 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Fat Pat's son Andrew accused lemond of doping on his twitter feed today. Like father like son - total jokers.


You couldnt make it up could you?


----------



## Orbytal (26 Oct 2012)

@mickle I agre with the couldnt make it up but do you believe GL was clean?


----------



## Orbytal (26 Oct 2012)

@amaferanga... Jens clean! have a look at his history, where he comes from 14yo in national state sports programme in East Germany, then all the riders he has been with all confirmed dopers, CSC!

I love the guy and would say to any young pro, ride with him and you would get a better rider back, although they may also come back a shell of the lad that went out! lol. If you want to point at a rider who best describes pro cycling he is your man.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2012)

How many riders were believed to be clean at some point before proven otherwise?


----------



## raindog (26 Oct 2012)

42


----------



## smutchin (26 Oct 2012)

BJH said:


> I want to see the riders I believe to be clean getting angry in their statements, doesn't mean that they cannot possibly be liars, but experience so far suggests that dirty riders are always careful in their choice of words.


 
On which note, great piece by Bradley McGee on the subject...
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

The thing that makes me slightly uneasy about it is that he's writing from the position of being involved in a team with Riis as its head and Contador as its star rider. It makes him look perhaps naive at best, disingenuous at worst - he may well be anti-doping himself, but what measures do the team have in place to prevent their riders veering from the strait and righteous path? The words ring slightly hollow.

Plus he needs to name some names.

d.


----------



## Alun (26 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> How many riders were believed to be clean at some point before proven otherwise?


All of them, except one.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Oct 2012)

I don't buy any of the "there's the A team and the B team and the B team don't know what the A team are doing" It's a conceit. Designed by the guilty to limit damage. Ditto I don't buy the "I was only the DS how was I supposed to know" argument. We are talking about commonplace systematic institutionalised cheating by a large number of players of whom LA was the King.

It's gonna get worse before it gets better. If it doesn't, it won't.

If you doped and didn't fess up voluntarily you've no place in pro cycling.


----------



## Bollo (26 Oct 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Fat Pat's son Andrew accused lemond of doping on his twitter feed today. Like father like son - total jokers.


I do hope Greg Lemond's going to sue. It's what daddy would do


----------



## smutchin (26 Oct 2012)

The cowardly weasels who are no better than Gaddafi have dropped their case against Kimmage.

Best news I've heard all week.


----------



## bof (26 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> The cowardly weasels who are no better than Gaddafi have dropped their case against Kimmage.
> 
> Best news I've heard all week.


Does PM have a golden gun too?
Agree its good news but really - the UCI may be rather useless and venal, but they don't murder people in large numbers.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I
> If you doped and didn't fess up voluntarily you've no place in pro cycling.


 
I'm not even sure about that they have a place even then........ if these people cheated than they should be censured, including removal of titles and bans.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> 42


 
Totally OT - if you ask an Iphone the meaning of life, the reply is chocolate!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I'm not even sure about that they have a place even then........ if these people cheated than they should be censured, including removal of titles and bans.


I agree. But I think life bans would be unimplementable. I quite like Chris Boardman's proposals.


----------



## smutchin (26 Oct 2012)

bof said:


> Does PM have a golden gun too?
> Agree its good news but really - the UCI may be rather useless and venal, but they don't murder people in large numbers.


 
I don't expect you to find my attempts at satire funny but I thought the reference was obvious.

d.


----------



## bof (26 Oct 2012)

smutchin said:


> I don't expect you to find my attempts at satire funny but I thought the reference was obvious.
> 
> d.


Sorry it has gone right over my head


----------



## Buddfox (26 Oct 2012)

Landis is banned from likening the UCI to Colonel Gaddafi in a ludicrous court judgement. It's linked somewhere...!


----------



## ColinJ (26 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I agree. But I think life bans would be unimplementable. I quite like Chris Boardman's proposals.


Sorry, I missed those - what did he propose?


----------



## PpPete (26 Oct 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Sorry, I missed those - what did he propose?


http://road.cc/content/news/69536-c...ear-bans-teams-whose-riders-are-caught-doping


----------



## kedab (26 Oct 2012)

just cos he never got caught


----------



## raindog (26 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I agree. But I think life bans would be unimplementable. I quite like Chris Boardman's proposals.


Not sure I agree with that. Sometimes a rider dopes without the team being involved, so if the team were banned, that would be the end of that particular sponsor. Not to mention the fact that it's hardly fair.


----------



## raindog (26 Oct 2012)

2120969 said:


> You must have had this at school though, "OK you can all stay in during break, unless someone owns up"


But nobody ever did, and then they'd get lammed later on....


----------



## Oldspice (26 Oct 2012)

*Lance Armstrong's Tour de France victories will not be reallocated*
Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles will not be awarded to any other riders, the International Cycling Union has announced.
Armstrong was stripped of his yellow jerseys for doping by cycling's governing body on Monday.
"The management committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events," said a UCI statement.

American Armstrong crossed the line first every year between 1999 and 2005.
The UCI acknowledged that "a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period - but that while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places".
The body has also ordered Armstrong and others to pay back all prize money from this period, and has commissioned an independent investigation into the whole Armstrong affair. Pending the results of the report, defamation proceedings against Paul Kimmage, a former cyclist and Sunday Times journalist, have been suspended.
The statement added: "The committee agreed that part of the independent commission's remit would be to find ways to ensure that persons caught for doping were no longer able to take part in the sport, including as part of an entourage."
Armstrong, 41, and his United States Postal Service team ran "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen", a 1,000-page United States Anti-Doping Agency report concluded.
In the report, it was also claimed that Armstrong paid the UCI $100,000 (£62,300) for the fight against anti-doping.
Floyd Landis, a former colleague of Armstrong's who now admits to using drugs, claims this was hush money to cover up a positive test for the banned substance EPO that was collected from Armstrong during his victory at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.
The UCI admitted it received money from Armstrong in 2002, but said in 2010 that this was not part of a cover-up. 
BBC Sport understands that at Friday's UCI management committee hearing there was an attempt by more than one member to force honorary president Hein Verbruggen to resign, but it did not gain enough support and failed.
Verbruggen and president Pat McQuaid, who has been asked to resign in an open letter by America's three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond, have come under intense pressure to stand aside in the wake of the Armstrong scandal. There was no attempt to get McQuaid to quit.
McQuaid said the governing body are "determined to turn around this painful episode in the history of our sport".
"We will take whatever actions are deemed necessary by the independent commission and we will put cycling back on track," said McQuaid.
"Today, cycling is a completely different sport from what it was in the period 1998-2005.
"Riders are now subject to the most innovative and effective anti-doping procedures and regulations in sport.
"Nevertheless, we have listened to the world's reaction to the Lance Armstrong affair and have taken these additional decisive steps in response to the grave concerns raised."
World anti-doping body Wada said it backed the UCI's decision to create an independent review commission.
British Cycling president Brian Cookson said: "The UCI has taken another worthwhile step in its response to the Usada investigation into Lance Armstrong.
"I can assure everyone that my UCI management committee colleagues and I are unanimous in our determination that this independent commission will just be the start of the process and nothing will be off the agenda.
"Cycling must and will learn the lessons of the Armstrong era."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20103406


----------



## Trail Child (26 Oct 2012)

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/the-apology-lance-armstrong-will-never-give/


----------



## johnr (26 Oct 2012)

The strength of Boardman's proposal is that sponsors, managers and fellow riders would all have a vested interest in maintaining a clean team - cheats would be isolated. The downside is clear - a miasma of recrimination, fractures, withdrawals, bankruptcy,


----------



## Fab Foodie (26 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> You bloody newcomers, I got into cycling due to Eugene Christophe


 You told me it was thanks to his Dad!


----------



## Dilbert (26 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> Not sure I agree with that. Sometimes a rider dopes without the team being involved, so if the team were banned, that would be the end of that particular sponsor. Not to mention the fact that it's hardly fair.


While it might seem harsh I suspect it would be highly effective. Getting caught, and costing 30 - 50 people their jobs would mean you would never get a job in pro cycling again and would probably spend the rest of your life sleeping with one eye open, a ban from UCI/WADA would be the least of your worries. The risks would far outweigh any benefits, especially as it is now harder to dope individually as opposed to part of an organised programme. Teams would move heaven and earth to make sure riders were not doping. I think generally teams in the past have not known because they have not been interested - so long as a rider was performing they didn't ask how.


----------



## smutchin (26 Oct 2012)

Look at FdJ, whose boss, Marc Madiot, is a vocal anti-doper but one of whose riders was recently caught doping.

Look at Rabobank, where Theo de Rooij's laissez-faire attitude to doping has ultimately killed the team.

Then look at Garmin-Slipstream and Sky, and whatever you might think of them and the people involved, the fundamental point about the way those teams are set up is that they actively discourage doping. (It would be hard for them to actually prevent it if a rider were determined to dope, but they also have mechanisms in place to highlight any unusual changes in a rider's performance and/or blood profile.)

It's no longer good enough just to state that the team has an anti-doping policy.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> The strength of Boardman's proposal is that sponsors, managers and fellow riders would all have a vested interest in maintaining a clean team - cheats would be isolated. The downside is clear - a miasma of recrimination, fractures, withdrawals, bankruptcy,


 
My fear is that with the high penalties for the innocent parties (assuming a single maverick ped user) would be a vested interest in not disclosing.

Middle of a successful season, and you suspect one of the riders is corrupt - would they announce this or deal with it in house if it meant losing everything?


----------



## Orbytal (27 Oct 2012)

The proposalm is unworkable as it would mean Teams would be testing forever their riders and it is already too busy a schedule for that.

As a business proposal it would bankrupt Cycling and any other Sports for that matter.

Put the whip down for a moment and realise that Cycling has less registered athletes than most other organisations, tests more than everyone else, catch more dopers per head than everyone else and has been at cutting edge every step of the way.

How did WADA and its associated national anti doping agencies compare to UCI catching doping cyclists? VERT few and UCI have caught some that slipped through WADA net. DONT believe the HYPE that cycling is that poor we are actually well ahead of most if not everyone even without historic doping culture so we need to be better as well!

It is easy to say why did you not catch them but they are actually out of season longer than in it and at the hands of national anti doping organisations but they have came up with squat!

If you look at what everyone wants you to look at you will read their message and start to believe. Ask yourself WHY do they want me to look/read this and how much DONT I know that they are not showing me?

I have been through a lot of the data and it is shocking what is going on and shameful.

Everyone needs to start Keeping it Real from 2012!


----------



## asterix (27 Oct 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Totally OT - if you ask an Iphone the meaning of life, the reply is chocolate!


 
..and it could well be right!


----------



## raindog (27 Oct 2012)

Well said Kittel!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kittel-sick-of-armstrong-supporters
"I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> Not sure I agree with that. Sometimes a rider dopes without the team being involved, so if the team were banned, that would be the end of that particular sponsor. Not to mention the fact that it's hardly fair.


so the clean ones ensure they have contracts that compensate them if one of their fellows is a doper, and penailse them if they turn a blind eye.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Oct 2012)

kedab said:


> just cos he never got caught


Boardman? I know someone who raced with him. Says he was a freak of nature and clean as a new pin. Doesn't say that about a lot of their contemporaries.


----------



## kedab (27 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Boardman? I know someone who raced with him. Says he was a freak of nature and clean as a new pin. Doesn't say that about a lot of their contemporaries.


 
there is a word for what i was being when i made that post but it escapes me - no, idiot is not it - a cheeky dig, not a serious one


----------



## smutchin (27 Oct 2012)

Wow...

http://t.co/KbrLgoTK

Money-where-your-mouth-is time, Brailsford delivers (though I don't believe he didn't know sooner).

d.


----------



## asterix (28 Oct 2012)

Sad to hear about Yates, suspect he was not an easy figure to dismiss. Where will it end?



GregCollins said:


> Boardman? I know someone who raced with him. Says he was a freak of nature and clean as a new pin. Doesn't say that about a lot of their contemporaries.


 
I wouldn't give Boardman a job as a used car salesman!

Anyway, just thought of another thing that was unusual about LA in that he concentrated only on the TdF. Kind of unsporting when the competition exerted themselves elsewhere? But also perhaps it was easier to pass dope tests when you do fewer events.


----------



## Dilbert (28 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> Sad to hear about Yates, suspect he was not an easy figure to dismiss. Where will it end?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I read somewhere that this was exactly why he did it. There was no whereabouts system so they just went an hid in the mountains. The more you raced the more chance of getting tested.


----------



## BJH (28 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> Sad to hear about Yates, suspect he was not an easy figure to dismiss. Where will it end?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
As a strong a case for Chris Boardman as anyone else out there. Maybe we should just accept that when he was moaning during his career, it was indeed justified because far less well equipped riders were able to cheat him out of wins he would have had.


----------



## thom (30 Oct 2012)

2127369 said:


> Bradley Wiggins  up to third in 2009. How satisfying must that be?


LA lost is key to the city of Adelaide today. I wonder if they change the locks.


----------



## johnr (31 Oct 2012)

Any news of the SCA claim? Weren't they due to go to court yesterday if there was no cheque?


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Oct 2012)

The SCA claim would be difficult... they would have to prove that they did not benefit at the time.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

asterix said:


> Sad to hear about Yates, suspect he was not an easy figure to dismiss. Where will it end?


Brailsford and Yates are buddies. They go cycling together. This was not an easy meeting


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> LA lost is key to the city of Adelaide today. I wonder if they change the locks.


 This article is must-read, pure comedy, ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-to-be-stripped-of-his-keys-to-adelaide

_The website reports that rather footing the expense of travelling to the US to retrieve the key, Armstrong's name would be removed from the honour board where the recipients are listed. Others to have received the honour include Cher, who sold her key on eBay for close to $93,000 earlier this year, the Dalai Lama and comedian Barry Humpries who is perhaps best known as Dame Edna Everage_

_In 2011, Yarwood travelled to the US to hand-deliver the key to Armstrong, with Adelaide rate-payers covering the partial cost of the trip however, the American was not in residence in Texas. The key was later posted to him_


----------



## Russell Allen (31 Oct 2012)

Do you think this is a candidate for laser surgery, he looks a little like batmans sidekick


----------



## Strathlubnaig (31 Oct 2012)

Was this posted elsewhere ? Apologies if so. Good blog by The Jensie.


----------



## Buddfox (31 Oct 2012)

It was OK except I felt he should have addressed Tyler Hamilton and what he said in his book about CSC and Jens


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> It was OK except I felt he should have addressed Tyler Hamilton and what he said in his book about CSC and Jens


 Remind me. I've read it but I can't recall what he said.


----------



## Buddfox (31 Oct 2012)

Tyler recounted an episode at the Tour of California I think where Jens blanked him after Hamilton's positive test came out. After the Hamilton book came out, Jensie was somewhat vocal on Twitter about how he hadn't read Tyler's book "Why would I read that?" etc. when you'd think, if your most high profile team mate came out with the revelations he did you'd at least make some comment on your perspective on him.

But it's a small point - it's good also to see cyclists coming out and saying they didn't dope and explaining why they didn't.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

I may just be falling in love with Jensie..............


----------



## Bollo (31 Oct 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> Do you think this is a candidate for laser surgery, he looks a little like batmans sidekick



I think that was a candidate for laser surgery the moment the needle entered the skin. Looks like a hench version of Roy Orbison to me.


----------



## DogTired (31 Oct 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> Do you think this is a candidate for laser surgery, he looks a little like batmans sidekick


At least it didnt take as many needles to make as it did the real Lance.

I do like the webbed right arm though.


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Tyler recounted an episode at the Tour of California I think where Jens blanked him after Hamilton's positive test came out. After the Hamilton book came out, Jensie was somewhat vocal on Twitter about how he hadn't read Tyler's book "Why would I read that?" etc. when you'd think, if your most high profile team mate came out with the revelations he did you'd at least make some comment on your perspective on him.
> 
> But it's a small point - it's good also to see cyclists coming out and saying they didn't dope and explaining why they didn't.


 
Yep, thanks. I remember now that I felt it was an odd snub on reading the book. Slightly jars with this categorical, unequivocal statement of Jens'. I'm willing to believe him though, and that maybe he's had an epiphany and feels free to talk now that there is a lot more support for doing so.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (31 Oct 2012)

South Park has the final word on the subject.....


----------



## Buddfox (31 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Yep, thanks. I remember now that I felt it was an odd snub on reading the book. Slightly jars with this categorical, unequivocal statement of Jens'. I'm willing to believe him though, and that maybe he's had an epiphany and feels free to talk now that there is a lot more support for doing so.



Exactly. The reality is he is a cyclist first and a diplomat second and not afraid to say so.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I may just be falling in love with Jensie..............


What on earth has taken you so long?


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

now worth about as much as Jimmy Savile's Roller


----------



## thom (31 Oct 2012)

NY Times article about the role of social media in pursuing Lance


----------



## just jim (31 Oct 2012)

The Edenbridge Bonfire Society has revealed which celebrity will grace the top of their biggest bonfire on Guy Fawkes night.
link to ITV news site


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Oct 2012)

Ther final humiliation... Lance has to return the keys to the city of Adeleide!


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> LA lost is key to the city of Adelaide today. I wonder if they change the locks.


 


rich p said:


> This article is must-read, pure comedy, ...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-to-be-stripped-of-his-keys-to-adelaide
> 
> _The website reports that rather footing the expense of travelling to the US to retrieve the key, Armstrong's name would be removed from the honour board where the recipients are listed. Others to have received the honour include Cher, who sold her key on eBay for close to $93,000 earlier this year, the Dalai Lama and comedian Barry Humpries who is perhaps best known as Dame Edna Everage_
> ...


 
Do keep up Monkey Man!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Do keep up Monkey Man!


 
You gotta remember, I'm 5 hours behind here...


----------



## mangaman (31 Oct 2012)

2127737 said:


> Amputation maybe.


 
Isn't that his back that's tatted up Adrian.

It's a poor choice of tattoo, but amputation from the neck down seems harsh


----------



## mangaman (31 Oct 2012)

Orbytal said:


> Put the whip down for a moment and realise that Cycling has less registered athletes than most other organisations, tests more than everyone else, catch more dopers per head than everyone else and has been at cutting edge every step of the way.


 
I think this an interesting point Orbytal. Is cycling that much dirtier, or does it just try harder to catch people?

Power sports like American Football, rugby, athletics are full of people with very unnaturally muscular bodies.

How robust is their doping programme?

Interesting article about testing in tennis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...f-the-Lance-Armstrong-scandal-in-cycling.html

To summarise, Murray has said (elsewhere) he has only had 5 blood tests this year - one of them this week.

All during tournaments. There were only 21 out of competition tests in the whole of tennis in 2011 - and there are a hell of a lot of tennis players.

His point was the only real heavy training time they get is December when the ITF should gort busy with surprise blood tests.

Also the "whereabouts" thing, where the governing body can find them only applies to the top 50 in singles and the top 10 doubles.

He also draws attention to the lack of testing at the lower ends of the sport - these are the people trying desparately to break into the sport.

Dick Pound drily wonders "whether the ITF’s program, and others like it, are actually designed to succeed or designed to fail and merely cover their butts"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Oct 2012)

The lack of out of competition testing for tennis players is a joke, and has been for a long time.

One should not assume, necessarily, that those who take part in power sports and who have unnaturally muscular bodies are doping. Many of them are simply gym bunnies and spend too much time pumping iron.


----------



## mangaman (31 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> The lack of out of competition testing for tennis players is a joke, and has been for a long time.
> 
> One should not assume, necessarily, that those who take part in power sports and who have unnaturally muscular bodies are doping. Many of them are simply gym bunnies and spend too much time pumping iron.


 
I agree - although from personal experience gyms are awash with steroids.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Oct 2012)

mangaman said:


> I agree - although from personal experience gyms are awash with steroids.


Oh yes.  Stay away from the free weights room....


----------



## mangaman (31 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Oh yes.  Stay away from the free weights room....


 
I know - I made the mistake of going through a phase of hanging around there surrounded by the same sweaty blokes comparing lats, deltoids etc.

I was offered steroids twice by 2 of them in 2 weeks.

At that point, like a newspaper reporter of the old school, I made my excuses and left.

Now I stick to the aerobic area among the people of a certain age and do the weights at home.


----------



## ColinJ (31 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You gotta remember, I'm 5 hours behind here...


That's what _Mark Forums Read_ and _What's New?_ are for!


----------



## Strathlubnaig (31 Oct 2012)

What a day in the media for anti-Lance stuff, after the South Park trailer (see post on p.84) we now see the english are putting the boot in too


----------



## Scoosh (31 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> What a day in the media for anti-Lance stuff, after the South Park trailer (see post on p.84) we now see the english are putting the boot in too


 
 Keep up there ! 

Why don't people read threads before posting in them .... ?


----------



## johnr (31 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Ther final humiliation... Lance has to return the keys to the city of Adeleide!


 No, no, no. There's a lot more humiliation to come...and it's the keys to the safe deposit box everyone's after.


----------



## Buddfox (31 Oct 2012)

I think the fact he was being paid $3m just to turn up to one race suggests he's probably got enough stashed away for a rainy day / SCA settlements / prize money refunds. That rankles a bit.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (31 Oct 2012)




----------



## thom (31 Oct 2012)

Dallas insurance company SCA Promotions confirmed on Wednesday that it has sent Lance Armstrong a letter demanding the return of $12 million in bonuses, and warned that it might take legal action against the Texan.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> Dallas insurance company SCA Promotions confirmed on Wednesday that it has sent Lance Armstrong a letter demanding the return of $12 million in bonuses, and warned that it might take legal action against the Texan.


 
What strange behaviour for an insurance company. They are usually soooo understanding.


----------



## rich p (1 Nov 2012)

Buddfox said:


> I think the fact he was being paid $3m just to turn up to one race suggests he's probably got enough stashed away for a rainy day / SCA settlements / prize money refunds. That rankles a bit.


 Indeed. If you believe the unchallenged report about the 'charity' ride in Canada, he netted a cool half million for a 2 hour ride and an evening speech. He also was getting $100,000 per after dinner speech. He is not poor.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Indeed. If you believe the unchallenged report about the 'charity' ride in Canada, he netted a cool half million for a 2 hour ride and an evening speech. He also was getting $100,000 per after dinner speech. He is not poor.


He'll repay any winnings from petty cash. He's worth at least $125 million.


----------



## thom (1 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> He'll repay any winnings from petty cash. He's worth at least $125 million.


He's also not stupid - I imagine that most of his wealth is already shifted to un-claimable places in other people's names.


----------



## johnr (1 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> He's also not stupid - I imagine that most of his wealth is already shifted to un-claimable places in other people's names.


 Yep. His lawyers seem to have moved on from 'our boy's innocent. I'm sure they're providing all manner of useful services.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2012)

http://images.spacecrafted.com/widt...kcdn.com/8a0317b05439ae20b8ea7fb9b49d8bd9.jpg

and then there's this
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...email;cheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat Sheet 
the video is just wonderful!


----------



## Shadow (1 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> I He is not poor.


Umm...a poor rider, poor loser, poor sportsman, (and now) a poor liar, an all-round poor human-being.
But I would agree he is not lacking in wealth, he will have plenty and varied investments. With luck, he'll have to cash them in at a loss to repay those who wish to sue him.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Nov 2012)

was sent this e-card today which kinda amused me.


----------



## SoloCyclist (1 Nov 2012)

mangaman said:


> I think this an interesting point Orbytal. Is cycling that much dirtier, or does it just try harder to catch people?
> 
> Power sports like American Football, rugby, athletics are full of people with very unnaturally muscular bodies.
> 
> How robust is their doping programme?


 
Erik Morales' fight went ahead after he passed a 3rd drug test. Also I have read that an opponent will be allowed to decide if he wants to go ahead with a fight after his opponent fails a drug test.

http://mma-boxing.si.com/2012/10/20...fight-danny-garcia-despite-failed-drug-tests/

http://www.boxingnews24.com/2012/10/erik-morales-passes-third-drug-test-garcia-fight-is-on/

Edit: lol at some of the comments on boxingnews24 - 

Most Mexicans have to take to showers to get clean so three drug tests is normal.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Nov 2012)

SoloCyclist said:


> Most Mexicans have to take to showers to get clean so three drug tests is normal.


 
Yeah, that kind of racism is hilarious, isn't it?


----------



## SoloCyclist (1 Nov 2012)

I never read it as racist. I read it assuming he was talking about drug use being rife in mexican boxing. There was a lot of insults being traded on both sides and I found it amusing. I don't have a racist bone in my body.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Nov 2012)

SoloCyclist said:


> I never read it as racist. I read it assuming he was talking about drug use being rife in mexican boxing. There was a lot of insults being traded on both sides and I found it amusing. I don't have a racist bone in my body.


 
I'm not saying you are racist, I am saying the comment is. It's based on the idea that Mexicans are dirty physically, therefore they are also dirty (cheats).


----------



## johnr (2 Nov 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> http://images.spacecrafted.com/widt...kcdn.com/8a0317b05439ae20b8ea7fb9b49d8bd9.jpg
> 
> and then there's this
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/26/buzz-bissinger-still-believes-in-lance-armstrong.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=cheatsheet_morning&cid=newsletter;email;cheatsheet_morning&utm_term=Cheat Sheet
> the video is just wonderful!


 Oh no! Now all the nay sayers will come back out of the woodwork. Memo to self - recheck gnore list.


----------



## johnr (2 Nov 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/01/ioc-lance-armstrong-olympic-bronze
Tying up the loose ends before bearing down on the UCI?


----------



## 400bhp (2 Nov 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-20154327


----------



## thom (2 Nov 2012)

Book keeping - WADA will not appeal the USADA decision


----------



## johnr (3 Nov 2012)

Big interview in the Guardian with Wiggins tomorrow
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/02/bradley-wiggins-fatherhood-tax
This is from the trail on Pharmstrong:

'Wiggins describes the corrosive legacy of Armstrong, newly stripped of his seven Tour wins because of his endemic, team-wide doping regime. "It wasn't a surprise," Wiggins says of the report that damned the Texan. "The anger is more: I've got to pick up the pieces. He's still a multimillionaire, and he's not here to answer the questions. I can't not answer them because I've got to go and race next year, and I hate talking about it."

'Armstrong was never his hero. "He was someone I respected and admired. I've met quite a few sportsmen, but I don't think I've met anybody as … powerful as him." He describes Armstrong as "quite an intimidating person to be around" and someone who exists in a cosseted bubble of entourages and chauffeur-driven cars. "If I'm going to Kilburn, I get on a bus. He'd have a car waiting for him with a bodyguard. He'd go to races on a private jet. I take my kids to school. It's what keeps you normal. I don't want my kids growing up as farking idiots, d'you know what I mean?"'

More of it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/02/bradley-wiggins-interview-tour


----------



## raindog (3 Nov 2012)

That was a good interview - top bloke is Brad.


----------



## just jim (3 Nov 2012)

_"...but I don't think I've met anybody as … powerful as him_."

Surely he can't mean.....


----------



## Erratic (3 Nov 2012)

Armstrong is surrounded by people who perpetuate the myth. I wonder why the sycophants do it, what do they get out of it now that his deception has been so publicly exposed. And, what does anyone say to him when they meet him or have a beer with him, all rather odd and artificial, but I don't suppose he will ever offer the truth other than that which he perceives to be so.


----------



## thom (3 Nov 2012)

Apparently Armstrong had a sense of irony. This is some art he owned :







Article in the Atlantic


----------



## Archie (4 Nov 2012)

Interesting to see this feature from CBS on Betsy Andreu.
*She told you so*

_One woman knew the truth beneath the lies that held Lance Armstrong at the top of the mountain in cycling. But when she refused to play along, she paid a high price_


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Nov 2012)

posted to FB Hangin' in there


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2012)

johnr said:


> Big interview in the Guardian with Wiggins tomorrow
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/02/bradley-wiggins-fatherhood-tax
> This is from the trail on Pharmstrong:
> 
> ...


 
Feckin awesome 

It's so refreshing to listen to a sportsman keep it real - Botham esque.


----------



## Diggs (5 Nov 2012)

The World According to Lance on ESPN Classic at the moment


----------



## johnr (5 Nov 2012)

More from the Wiggins autobiography on Armstrong and doping

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/bradley-wiggins-memoir-doped-lose


----------



## thom (6 Nov 2012)

johnr said:


> More from the Wiggins autobiography on Armstrong and doping
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/bradley-wiggins-memoir-doped-lose


Next article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/bradley-wiggins-memoir-doped-lose
Talks about Lance in 2009:
"But if it were confirmed that he was doping in 2009–10, then he can get farked, completely. Before, he wouldn't have been alone in what he was doing, but the sport has changed since he retired the first time."


----------



## BJH (6 Nov 2012)

Lovely sentiments from Wiggins

That's what I want to hear him saying.


----------



## beastie (6 Nov 2012)

Here's the next instalment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/06/bradely-wiggins-tour-de-france-2012


----------



## rich p (6 Nov 2012)

I find those extracts and sentiments are really moving but grounded. He comes over as an impressive personality.


----------



## fozy tornip (6 Nov 2012)

Separated at birth?
Sir Bradley of Wiggins said


> ... he can get farked, completely...It feels like Lance has dumped on the sport..


Sir Fozy of Tornip said (#1448):


> F*ck him: squatting on his great steroidally enbeefed haunches curling turd after toxicTexan turd down onto our beloved sport.


Brad and me, we're like _that. _


----------



## johnr (7 Nov 2012)

The last instalment of the Wiggins autobiography from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/07/bradley-wiggins-memoir-mark-cavendish


----------



## thom (8 Nov 2012)

An open letter from Jeremy Roy.


----------



## smutchin (8 Nov 2012)

I *heart* Jeremy Roy.


----------



## thom (8 Nov 2012)

smutchin said:


> I *heart* Jeremy Roy.


Yeah, I think it shows much about how the culture of French cycling has changed since Festina.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Nov 2012)

Excellent letter, great attitude.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Nov 2012)

Archie said:


> Interesting to see this feature from CBS on Betsy Andreu.
> *She told you so*
> 
> _One woman knew the truth beneath the lies that held Lance Armstrong at the top of the mountain in cycling. But when she refused to play along, she paid a high price_


 I find that film quite disturbing. Other clips have shown Mr Armstrong trying to control the media and many press conferences, but bullying at a personal level, if it is true, sinks to a new low. Horrid.


----------



## PpPete (9 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> An open letter from Jeremy Roy.


 
Two thoughts....
Why isnt Sky a member of the MPCC group he mentions?
Why the feck, at the bottom of the English translation do I find the following advert:


EPO Cyclist Supplements​Fastest Way to Increase Your Endurance and Speed - Guaranteed!​www.EPOBoost.com​


----------



## PpPete (9 Nov 2012)

PpPete said:


> Two thoughts....
> Why isnt Sky a member of the MPCC group he mentions?
> Why the feck, at the bottom of the English translation do I find the following advert:
> 
> ...


The ad has now changed....


----------



## thom (9 Nov 2012)

PpPete said:


> Two thoughts....
> Why isnt Sky a member of the MPCC group he mentions?
> Why the feck, at the bottom of the English translation do I find the following advert:
> 
> ...


1'st question : Good question - I don't know - it looks like they are setting themselves a little apart from the rest which is slightly anti-social
2'nd question : it's to do with cookies and the profile one of the ad managing engines is building up for you, so they are targeting you for epo because of where you have been looking on the net and is not the specific website as such.
Is there something in your past you want to share with us ?
Perhaps I can refer you here ;-)

Edit : to be clear, I'm just teasing - I think that add targets anyone who goes to cycling sites based upon their cookie history


----------



## User169 (9 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> 2'nd question : it's to do with cookies and the profile one of the ad managing engines is building up for you, so they are targeting you for epo because of where you have been looking on the net and is not the specific website as such.
> Is there something in your past you want to share with us ?


----------



## smutchin (9 Nov 2012)

PpPete said:


> Why isnt Sky a member of the MPCC group he mentions?


 
I don't wish to come across as cynical, especially because Jeremy Roy is obviously a top bloke as well as being a top cyclist, but two points:

1. AG2R are members of the MPCC and one of their riders (Steve Houanard) was recently suspended for a doping offence. There's a lot more to having an anti-doping policy than signing yet another piece of paper (remember all those teams and riders that signed up to similar charters after the Festina affair?).

2. The Swiss terrorists/clowns/liars are listed as supporters of the MPCC. And we all know how vehemently anti-doping they are.

Really, the question you need to ask is: why would Sky sign up to the MPCC? Clearly they already go a lot further than the MPCC with their internal anti-doping controls.

(Edit: and assuming Sky never use corticosteroids, that would make Jeremy Roy's assertion that only MPCC teams have such a policy factually incorrect. We only have their word for it in any case - that goes for any team, whether they've signed up to the MPCC or not.)

d.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Nov 2012)

Ex-WADA medical officer says WADA also helped cover up Armstrong's doping.


----------



## Noodley (10 Nov 2012)

I'm a big fan of FdJ and Jeremy Roy, but find some of his comments very disappointing and echoing the sentiments of many denying dopers.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (10 Nov 2012)

Benoît Joachin regrets not having worked with ''genius'' Ferrari and questions the seriousness of USADA's report because it relied on US testimonies and they didn't ask him anything. (HERE in French)


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> What TF are you on about?


 
This from the WADA:



> Former World Anti-Doping Agency medical director Alain Garnier has lamented “the immense failure of the fight against doping”, saying that “the responsibility for this lies with the International Cycling Union _*and WADA*_.”
> Speaking on the French _Rfi_ radio network, Garnier said that the situation has got so bad that, “The sporting movement should not be trusted with the battle against doping.”


----------



## ColinJ (10 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> 2'nd question : it's to do with cookies and the profile one of the ad managing engines is building up for you, so they are targeting you for epo because of where you have been looking on the net and is not the specific website as such.


I think that particular ad is based on the content of the webpage rather than your search history. I had not been searching for 'epo' but I still saw the same ad. My stalker Michael Parkinson, however, definitely has access to my search history. I searched for information on Sun Life about a month ago and now I am blitzed by SL ads featuring MP wherever I go, sometimes with 3 or 4 such ads per page!


----------



## smutchin (10 Nov 2012)

Noodley said:


> I'm a big fan of FdJ and Jeremy Roy, but find some of his comments very disappointing and echoing the sentiments of many denying dopers.


 
Agreed, to some extent, but in his case it sounds more like naivety than obfuscation.

d.


----------



## Noodley (10 Nov 2012)

I have read it a few times now and, despite agreeing that some of it sounds like he is very naive, I am more disappointed each time I read it.


----------



## MacB (10 Nov 2012)

Noodley said:


> I have read it a few times now and, despite agreeing that some of it sounds like he is very naive, I am more disappointed each time I read it.


 
I'd advise stopping reading it then...no need to thank me, that's a freebie


----------



## jifdave (11 Nov 2012)

armstrong posted an interesting pic on twitter,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...our-de-France-winners-jerseys-on-Twitter.html


----------



## johnr (11 Nov 2012)

jifdave said:


> armstrong posted an interesting pic on twitter,
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...our-de-France-winners-jerseys-on-Twitter.html


 Who dat?


----------



## thom (12 Nov 2012)

jifdave said:


> armstrong posted an interesting pic on twitter,
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...our-de-France-winners-jerseys-on-Twitter.html


Now that he's left the board of Livestrong he's got even more opportunity to relax in that darkened room in Texas with his yellow jumpers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> Now that he's left the board of Livestrong he's got even more opportunity to relax in that darkened room in Texas with his yellow jumpers.


Great news. I wonder if they will stop 'employing' him as well.


----------



## thom (12 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Great news. I wonder if they will stop 'employing' him as well.


So his Livestrong.org profile now omits reference to cycling !


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (12 Nov 2012)

Does anyone know if he's taken down the yellows from the wall of his bike shop?


----------



## Alun (12 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> This from the WADA:
> Former World Anti-Doping Agency medical director Alain Garnier has lamented “the immense failure of the fight against doping”, saying that “the responsibility for this lies with the International Cycling Union _*and WADA*_.”
> Speaking on the French _Rfi_ radio network, Garnier said that the situation has got so bad that, “The sporting movement should not be trusted with the battle against doping.”​


No support on these pages for any criticism of WADA, I'm afraid!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> No support on these pages for any criticism of WADA, I'm afraid!



Really? Where did you get that idea?


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Does anyone know if he's taken down the yellows from the wall of his bike shop?


Dunno, but guess he needs to rename his shop to plain old_ "Johnny"_ now!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Dunno, but guess he needs to rename his shop to plain old_ "Johnny"_ now!


My Old Johnny?


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2012)

My fraud, Johnny?


----------



## Alun (12 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Really? Where did you get that idea?


The lack of responses to your post of last Friday, (apart from Cunobelin who displayed the link that you highlighted).


----------



## Alun (12 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> Dunno, but guess he needs to rename his shop to plain old_ "Johnny"_ now!


 I think his shop is called "Mellow Johnny's", he looks fairly mellow in the photograph.


----------



## philipbh (12 Nov 2012)

ColinJ said:


> My fraud, Johnny?


 Jammy Dodger?


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> I think his shop is called "Mellow Johnny's", he looks fairly mellow in the photograph.


Okay, _Johnny's_ then! 

The name _Mellow Johnny's_ probably originates from Texans mispronouncing _Maillot Jaune_ and since he now officially didn't ever win a Maillot Jaune (Tour de France winner's yellow jersey, for those who don't know), he should change the name of his shop.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> The lack of responses to your post of last Friday, (apart from Cunobelin who displayed the link that you highlighted).


 
I think this thread is simply dying its natural death because there's nothing more to talk about with regard to Armstrong - all the interesting stuff is now about what happens to the management of cycling and that's on other threads. Of course the other thing is that with the race season over, far fewer people even come into this area of the forum... 

WADA, in the meantime, has disputed the allegations.


----------



## rich p (12 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think this thread is simply dying its natural death because there's nothing more to talk about with regard to Armstrong - all the interesting stuff is now about what happens to the management of cycling and that's on other threads. Of course the other thing is that with the race season over, far fewer people even come into this area of the forum...
> 
> WADA, in the meantime, has disputed the allegations.


 Some of the AWOL are not missed. Their families have been informed.


----------



## thom (12 Nov 2012)

The WADA stuff is certainly of concern but I had no time for people who used to detract from the examination of LA/US Postal. I think events have shown, the LA scandal was such a chronic problem that such obfuscation was unacceptable.
Was it not the case that WADA only got oversight of cycling just before the Athens Olympics ? I'm not sure and hope to be confirmed/corrected.

As far as other stuff going on, it's mostly politics and training rides : there are noises about east european/russian money coming into play ( http://uec-federation.eu/news/new_sponsor_of_european_cycling_union-s277.html ) and names like Tchmil lurking in the background.
Bruyneel's case will come up, the Padua case goes on and I don't know what is happening with Puerto but that might reveal something.


----------



## johnr (12 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> Now that he's left the board of Livestrong he's got even more opportunity to relax in that darkened room in Texas with his yellow jumpers.


 Hope they checked the accounts before he left... and the stationery cupboard. 



thom said:


> The WADA stuff is certainly of concern but I had no time for people who used to detract from the examination of LA/US Postal. I think events have shown, the LA scandal was such a chronic problem that such obfuscation was unacceptable.
> Was it not the case that WADA only got oversight of cycling just before the Athens Olympics ? I'm not sure and hope to be confirmed/corrected.
> 
> As far as other stuff going on, it's mostly politics and training rides : there are noises about east european/russian money coming into play ( http://uec-federation.eu/news/new_sponsor_of_european_cycling_union-s277.html ) and names like Tchmil lurking in the background.
> Bruyneel's case will come up, the Padua case goes on and I don't know what is happening with Puerto but that might reveal something.


 And decisions need to be made about Armstrong's cash. As there's very little action on that front, I wonder whether former sponsors have been warned by their lawyers that they knew/should have known what was going on?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Nov 2012)

I can see several problems with the sponsor's cash and winnings.... again the problem is concentrating on the individual at the expense of the bigger picture.

Firstly there would be a solid legal argument that at the time they had benefited from the relationship and therefore it would be difficult to prove that Armstrong had not delivered........ Considering the present situation, if they can now prove that the association has caused the brand greater damage than benefit they may stand a chance.


Secondly a lot of this money does not just go to the individual but other team members as well...... do you just reclaim his portion, or do you also try and reclaim the share paid to the mechanics as well?

This is not at all as easy as it seems.


----------



## rich p (12 Nov 2012)

I don't see the issue with money given to team-mates. If I rob the local post office and give the proceeds to my chums, I think I'm still liable for a cock and hen stretch.


----------



## thom (12 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> I don't see the issue with money given to team-mates. If I rob the local post office and give the proceeds to my chums, I think I'm still liable for a cock and hen stretch.


Wasn't the story that Frankie Andreu didn't get one of those bonuses because Lance was pissed with him fro not doping ?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> I don't see the issue with money given to team-mates. If I rob the local post office and give the proceeds to my chums, I think I'm still liable for a cock and hen stretch.


 
You really think that sponsorship is similar to robbing a Post Office?


----------



## thom (12 Nov 2012)

2149509 said:


> Legally not a problem at all. I am merely enjoying the ironic nature of this potential sanction.


He probably paid tax on it too that he can't reclaim ;-)


----------



## rich p (12 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You really think that sponsorship is similar to robbing a Post Office?


It's the winnings he is supposed to dish out, isn't it?
He also asked Tyler Hamilton to forgo his cut.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> It's the winnings he is supposed to dish out, isn't it?
> He also asked Tyler Hamilton to forgo his cut.


 
His income was from two sources, and in many cases was not simply personal.

For instance Nike sponsored US Postal kit and Trek equipped the whole team with bikes, there were also the running costs

Like it or not, the team and individuals in the team benefited from sponsorship, and a share of the sponsorship deals was paid to the team members who all shared in the cash paid by sponsors

Either way (winnings or sponsorship) it is not going to be easy to prove how much of a particular deal any individual received.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Nov 2012)

... or do the Sponsors have o claim it back from the team members?


All really rather a matter of conjecture. The simple is that it is going to be neither simple, nor easy to regain the money.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Nov 2012)

But once again the question is whether we should be looking at a lone incident.

Should we not be seeking to recover the fraudulent claims for all the others involved?



Frankie Andreu
Michael Barry (cyclist)
Leonardo Bertagnolli
Volodymyr Bileka
Tom Danielson
 

Tyler Hamilton
George Hincapie
Jörg Jaksche
Floyd Landis
Levi Leipheimer
 

Filippo Simeoni
Stephen Swart
Christian Vande Velde
Jonathan Vaughters
David Zabriskie
 
All of these rides were part of the sponsorship fraud in some way or another.


----------



## Alun (13 Nov 2012)

2149670 said:


> Once again, let's start at the top with the standout egregious example and then work our way down


 Do you mean get Armstrong and forget about everyone else?
I can't think where Armstrong gets this witch hunt idea from !


----------



## Alun (13 Nov 2012)

The sponsors have had their publicity, which is why they sponsor things in the first place.
They're getting even more publicity now, they should be well happy !


----------



## Alun (13 Nov 2012)

2149823 said:


> "and then work our way down". Is this not reasonably clear?


 


2149670 said:


> Once again, let's start at the top with the standout egregious example and then work our way down


 
It's the "Once again" bit that led to the confusion, as if you were suggesting that this process had been followed before.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> It's the "Once again" bit that led to the confusion, as if you were suggesting that this process had been followed before.


 
I think he was suggesting that Cunobelin is flogging a dead horse in terms of this thread.


----------



## Alun (13 Nov 2012)

My anticipation of USADA taking action against the other USPS riders who doped is not misplaced then?


----------



## rich p (13 Nov 2012)

As far as I'm concerned Armstrong has been well and truly 'got'. The fallout for him personally interests me less and less. Most pro-cycling fans simply wanted him brought to justice and his wins annulled. We've won.
The battle now is to get the UCI sorted and trying to divert the discussions with anti-WADA stuff is more obfuscation from the usual suspect(s).


----------



## Alun (13 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> The battle now is to get the UCI sorted and trying to divert the discussions with anti-WADA stuff is more obfuscation from the usual suspect(s).


 Flying Monkey raised the issue about WADA in post #1734, I'm surprised that you think he belongs to "the usual suspects".


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Nov 2012)

Is Armstrong sat outside a 7-11 on an old box begging for loose change yet? Nope. Ain't gonna happen. Shame really but there you go. No justice.


----------



## mickle (13 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think this thread is simply dying its natural death because there's nothing more to talk about with regard to Armstrong ......


 
Why, only yesterday he formally quit his role @ Livestrong Foundation. Armstrong hasn't stopped falling yet. And I'm still watching (whilst rubbing my hands together with glee).


----------



## rich p (13 Nov 2012)

Alun said:


> Flying Monkey raised the issue about WADA in post #1734, I'm surprised that you think he belongs to "the usual suspects".


 Did he? How dare he not toe the party line. I'll withdraw the whip.
p.s. He actually just linked to an article and later pointed out that WADA have disputed its veracity so I'm going to cut him some slack.


----------



## DeepBurn (14 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Most pro-cycling fans simply wanted him brought to justice and his wins annulled. We've won.



I don't agree. I think many fans of cycling want to see a scenario where Armstrong no longer leads the life of a multi millionaire as all the money he has made since his comeback hasn't been genuinely earned. 

He's a fraud & should pay for that. Stripping titles is one (important) thing but so is ensuring he doesn't get away with robbery too.

Whether this ever happens is debatable though.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Why, only yesterday he formally quit his role @ Livestrong Foundation. *Armstrong hasn't stopped falling yet*. And I'm still watching (whilst rubbing my hands together with glee).


I'm sure many of us as glued. Having watched the rise we are now rapt at the decline and fall.

But is he hitting anything on the way down and what will the landing be like?


----------



## kedab (14 Nov 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I'm sure many of us as glued. Having watched the rise we are now rapt at the decline and fall.
> 
> But is he hitting anything on the way down and what will the landing be like?


 
it's been said before but given the type of character he is, i fully expect him to weigh up the pros and cons over the next year or two, paying particular attention to whether or not he'll wind up in prison and then, come out with the book/documentary and drag as many people as he possibly can down with him. 'just when they though it was safe...'


----------



## thom (14 Nov 2012)

Posting here as well as on the Tyler thread, a review of the Secret Race in the London Review of Books. It is an exceedingly good if long read. I like the thoughts on what a confession may sound like :

"... the person he increasingly reminds me of is Malcolm Tucker, the foul-mouthed spin doctor in ​_The Thick of It_, who may or may not bear a passing resemblance to Alastair Campbell. For Tucker the only line of defence is attack, because whatever you do, you can be sure the other farkers are doing more. When he is finally cornered at the end of the last series, trapped in a lie before a lightly fictionalised version of the Leveson Inquiry, Tucker’s mea culpa comes out as just another diatribe against his enemies. This is not about me – it’s about you. Whatever I am is because of the world you created. In that world, I was the only honest one: I played the game, and spun the facts, and twisted the truth, because I know what it takes to win; you just turned your noses up at me and let me get away with it. I censure _you_. That’s what I imagine an Armstrong confession will be like."​


----------



## Orbytal (14 Nov 2012)

@thom I think you may well be right.

I also think that there are many in high places hoping LA does not make any comments/confessions, for a while at least anyway.


----------



## 007fair (14 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> Posting here as well as on the Tyler thread, a review of the Secret Race in the London Review of Books. It is an exceedingly good if long read


Superb


----------



## tigger (14 Nov 2012)

I can't help but like this photo. A little defiance in the face of adversity...

http://www.mobli.com/media/show/id/22700756?referer=tw


----------



## tigger (14 Nov 2012)

2149823 said:


> "and then work our way down". Is this not reasonably clear?



Whoops!


----------



## thom (14 Nov 2012)

LA offered SCA $1 million at the weekend. SCA said they'd rather have $11 million.


----------



## thom (15 Nov 2012)

The Lance Armstrong Foundation no longer exists, at least formally speaking.
It is now officially the Livestrong Foundation.


----------



## mickle (15 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> The Lance Armstrong Foundation no longer exists, at least formally speaking.
> It is now officially the Livestrong Foundation.


 
_"Lance doesn't want to be a distraction from the foundation's cause - serving cancer patients and survivors," said McKinnon, a board member and an Austin media producer and communications strategist. "That's why he resigned from the foundation's board. In the spirit of that noble decision, the foundation has to make appropriate changes as well."_

Big of him...


----------



## Oldspice (15 Nov 2012)




----------



## Orbytal (15 Nov 2012)

Very Funny


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> Did he? How dare he not toe the party line.


 
The Omerta is capable of Irony!


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> As far as I'm concerned Armstrong has been well and truly 'got'. The fallout for him personally interests me less and less. Most pro-cycling fans simply wanted him brought to justice and his wins annulled. We've won.
> The battle now is to get the UCI sorted and trying to divert the discussions with anti-WADA stuff is more obfuscation from the usual suspect(s).


 
Which is really the ironic point.

Anyone who dares to cross the drwan line of a certain Omerta is dismissed?

Like it or not there are questions about the failure of the WADA and the USADA in their supervisory role.

Of course if you really want to hide your head in the sand then of course you have every right, but that is exactly the attitude that led to the dire situation that professional cycling has found itself in


----------



## Russell Allen (17 Nov 2012)

Surely we're not going to abandon this thread with only nine pages before the "magic ton" Can someone please say something controversial

Russell


----------



## surfinmonk (17 Nov 2012)

Interesting opinion from a letter in this weeks cycling weekly. (paraphrased)



> Footballers cheat every match and usually get away with it, it is considered part of the game. Maradona's 'Hand of God' won the world cup for Argentina, The ref did not see fit to penalise and no amount of post match video evidence has had no effect on the result. Since Lance did not fail any doping tests he should not be stripped of his victories, regardless of what we now know.
> (and most of the 'Heroes' who confessed "for the good of the sport" did so because they were already caught. The six month bans given to these is USADA showing double standards)


 
Discuss.


----------



## Russell Allen (17 Nov 2012)

now we're talking, over to you orbytal

Russell


----------



## steviesch (17 Nov 2012)

well - cyclists were cheating in every race and getting away with it - it was considered part of the game...but do we condone by watching TDF on the tele...or match of the day for that matter?....i bought a trek bike once - maybe i should have bought.....well... what?...are there any big brands untainted by the "news" - it ain't news! Get your local frame builder to knock you up something in steel...maybe some handbuilt wheels...if a million roadbikes were bought like that I am sure the knock on effect would be that the TDF would be smaller - less activity at the dopage...but a thread with a 100 pages????


----------



## asterix (17 Nov 2012)

Well I must also admit to colluding in LA's infamy because I bought a Trek this year. It is a Soho and I bought it almost entirely because it is belt drive, hub geared, low maintenance bicycle. 

Fortunately Trek have gone some way to removing the stain from the escutcheon by cutting their links with LA as much as they can:


> Trek released the following brief statement late Wednesday.
> "Trek is disappointed by the findings and conclusions in the USADA report regarding Lance Armstrong. Given the determinations of the report, Trek today is terminating our longterm relationship with Lance Armstrong. Trek will continue to support the Livestrong Foundation and its efforts to combat cancer."




http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong



steviesch said:


> ...are there any big brands untainted by the "news" - it ain't news! Get your local frame builder to knock you up something in steel...maybe some handbuilt wheels...if a million roadbikes were bought like that I am sure the knock on effect would be that the TDF would be smaller - less activity at the dopage...but a thread with a 100 pages????


 
As it happens, all my _other_ bikes are steel with handbuilt wheels but they all have Shimano components (bar one that has Campag).

My other problem is that I did actually go to a stage of the TdF and deliberately took a photo of LA and Hincapie. I shall ceremonially destroy the negative (it was a long time ago). Any recommendations as to a suitable ritual to be observed when I do it would be appreciated.

On the plus side I own no books by, or about LA.


----------



## asterix (17 Nov 2012)

surfinmonk said:


> Interesting opinion from a letter in this weeks cycling weekly. (paraphrased)
> 
> 
> 
> Discuss.


 

If we permit cyclists cheats then the LA phenomenom whereby a certain rider wins the TdF every year for several years will become commonplace. I find that very tedious, just as I find football cheats tedious.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Nov 2012)

asterix said:


> If we permit cyclists cheats then the LA phenomenom whereby a certain rider wins the TdF every year for several years will become commonplace. I find that very tedious, just as I find football cheats tedious.


 
Of course the other issue with concentrating on the use of PEDs and a single rider is that other things may have possibly have been missed.

Do the recent revelations of the Vinokourov bribery allegations and fixing of a classic race open up a new line of inquiry.

Given the corruption in the USPS team, and the "win at any cost" ethos.......can we be sure there were no other irregularities?


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Nov 2012)

asterix said:


> Well I must also admit to colluding in LA's infamy because I bought a Trek this year. It is a Soho and I bought it almost entirely because it is belt drive, hub geared, low maintenance bicycle.


 
There are lots of people around here who wear Livestrong shorts.. mainly because the local Nike store used to knock them out at about £15 along with the Nike category winner's tops


----------



## david k (18 Nov 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well apart from the fact.............


 
why has redlight deregistered?


----------



## johnr (19 Nov 2012)

david k said:


> why has redlight deregistered?


 I think you upset him... or maybe it was someone else here


----------



## rich p (19 Nov 2012)

david k said:


> why has redlight deregistered?


 just keep quiet and thank your god.


----------



## asterix (19 Nov 2012)

david k said:


> why has redlight deregistered?


The alternative was having to admit he was wrong about something on a forum. I had to do that once and deregistration is undoubtedly far easier.


----------



## raindog (19 Nov 2012)

asterix said:


> .......... deregistration is undoubtedly far easier.


Even easier than that is to simply never bother with the forum again.


----------



## asterix (19 Nov 2012)

raindog said:


> Even easier than that is to simply never bother with the forum again.


 
Possibly, but don't count on it. I see him as a kind of terminator.


----------



## Orbytal (19 Nov 2012)

asterix said:


> Well I must also admit to colluding in LA's infamy because I bought a Trek this year. It is a Soho and I bought it almost entirely because it is belt drive, hub geared, low maintenance bicycle.





asterix said:


> Fortunately Trek have gone some way to removing the stain from the escutcheon by cutting their links with LA as much as they can:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong
> 
> ...




I think if you wish to erase memories of all the dopers, not just LA and GH, burn all the films whole, don’t even look through them, because you will not find anyone clean from the thousands of pics you undoubtedly took!

I find it absolutely incredible the lack of objectivity from some on here unable to reconcile the history of Cycling is doping years before and after LA etc. If I am wrong how are we still seeing riders being sanctioned for EPO use?

The blind faith in WADA etc is also astounding when they set down the rules for doping and failed themselves to catch these serial dopers. Their greatest achievement, as they have self proclaimed, is catching a doper from 1999 to 2005 after Federal Agents put a gun to the heads of the witnesses. Their biggest weapon is forced testimony and not anti-doping measures!

WADA was created by IOC as their social conscience with a deliberately limited operating basis for the simple reason that those who run Sport at the highest level see it as a controllable necessary evil and as long as some results are uncovered all is good and the big sponsors will remain with them. If anyone thinks the IOC are not looking at what USADA have done and willing to stand back and see it repeated are also naive especially if someone like Coca Cola may be willing to walk if it gets out of hand.

Sport is a business with risks and with all risks these are reviewed and managed to either eradicates them or control them and doping shall remain as long as Sport exists and money can be made so it shall be controlled.

Think for 1 moment that you are big Sponsor of an event do you want to see your event with headlines with nothing spectacular or headlines that show outstanding performances? 
Records have been set using PED's for years so how do clean athletes in the next few generations break them without PED's and why would Sponsors be willing to invest for reduced returns. Human evolution can only happens slowly under natural influences but quicker with added assistance as we have all seen.
We have all broken the law at one time or another such as driving too fast, parking illegally and dashing to get something and back etc. all which we see as Manageable Risks so why should Sport not see issues within their activities as manageable risks also?
WADA cannot do all testing because they can’t afford to and will never be allowed to. I think they should be allowed and separated from everyone but that means IOC lose control and if I ran IOC I would not allow that to happen either.

UCI changes need to be Hein out first with a new operating strategy for Pat to work with. Pat can claim since he took over the Peloton has cleaned up and we would all agree even if you don’t like him. Also there is no readymade successor!
Cycling will continue after LA but the mockery that has happened to him is unfair, unjust and totally immoral on every level and smacks of Dictatorship Ruling and USADA to claim it was not a witch hunt and an investigation into US Cycling is simply insulting to everyone.

Maybe some here are happy to live with catching LA at all costs but I cannot accept that. USADA had an operating responsibility to inform UCI and WADA of their findings up to 2010 before the Feds investigation but failed and openly allowed admitted doping Cyclists to compete, earn form contracts, earn from sponsors and winnings at events when they should have been banned. They did not do this in the name of US Cycling as these riders were not taking to task until now and a lame sanction and their own rules state they should be investigated for their failure but that does not appear to be important!

If anyone is happy to accept the only rules are those made up by WADA as they go along DONT even start to say UCI need to change and/or condemn Hein and Pat as their sins are nowhere near as bad as these. Faults exist at every corner of Sport and everywhere in-between and failure to acknowledge this is blind ignorance to say the least.

I believe LA should be sanctioned as any other rider should but this MUST be within the rules and if the rules are inadequate change them but don’t break them as this makes WADA worse than LA as their mantra is a moral high ground for Sport and they are openly failing to achieve this.

At some point in time the elephant in the room will be pointed at and the serious failings will hopefully be addressed and the moral guidance that has been lost will be reinstated.


----------



## mickle (19 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Of course the other issue with *concentrating on the use of PEDs and a single rider* is that other things may have possibly have been missed.
> 
> Do the recent revelations of the Vinokourov bribery allegations and fixing of a classic race open up a new line of inquiry.
> 
> Given the corruption in the USPS team, and the "win at any cost" ethos.......can we be sure there were no other irregularities?


 
Why can't you see that the horse you are flogging is dead?


----------



## Hont (19 Nov 2012)

asterix said:


> The alternative was having to admit he was wrong about something on a forum.


See I've read that several times now and still the concept makes no sense to me.

_Admitting you're wrong on a forum. __Admitting you're wrong on a forum._

Nope, you might as well have written that in greek.


----------



## Orbytal (19 Nov 2012)

εισδοχής κάνετε λάθος σε ένα φόρουμ


----------



## Hont (19 Nov 2012)

Oh now I get it. No I'd never do that.


----------



## Hont (19 Nov 2012)

Confirmation, it appears, that Amstrong got Sarkozy to fire Pierre Brodry

http://www.24heures.ch/sports/actu/Meme-Sarkozy-a-couvert-Armstrong/story/26590856?cache=9efAwefu

Some reporting that Wonderboy then phoned him up to gloat. Nice.


----------



## david k (19 Nov 2012)

asterix said:


> The alternative was having to admit he was wrong about something on a forum. I had to do that once and deregistration is undoubtedly far easier.


and what was he wrong about? lance not taking peds?


----------



## david k (19 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> just keep quiet and thank your god.


ha, ha. he never took me as the type to run away, i guess i was wrong


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Why can't you see that the horse you are flogging is dead?


 
...or simply off _*your*_ agenda?

Are you genuinely saying we should not be looking into the conduct of USPS and the other teams for bribery and payoffs?


If there was bribery in the same way as Vinokourov was paying to alter the results.... would you rather it was known or hidden?


----------



## johnr (19 Nov 2012)

Sunday Times have brought out a Kindle collection of their journalism on l'affair Armstrong.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lanced-sham...W7WK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353345750&sr=8-1
Hopefully some of the cash is going to Walsh and Kimmage who deserve every penny.


----------



## mickle (19 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ...or simply off _*your*_ agenda?
> 
> Are you genuinely saying we should not be looking into the conduct of USPS and the other teams for bribery and payoffs?
> 
> ...


 
_No-one_ is suggesting that the investigation into performance enhancing drugs should stop at Armstrong. _No one_ is suggesting that credible accusations of impropriety - in any body or organization - should not be investigated. Shaddap already.


----------



## beastie (19 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> εισδοχής κάνετε λάθος σε ένα φόρουμ



Sorry, that's all Greek to me.


----------



## thom (19 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> _No-one_ is suggesting that the investigation into performance enhancing drugs should stop at Armstrong. _No one_ is suggesting that credible accusations of impropriety - in any body or organization - should not be investigated. Shaddap already.


 
I think we're more likely to see a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict than to crack this particular nut...


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> _No-one_ is suggesting that the investigation into performance enhancing drugs should stop at Armstrong. _No one_ is suggesting that credible accusations of impropriety - in any body or organization - should not be investigated. Shaddap already.



So you agree fully then?


----------



## mickle (19 Nov 2012)

Wib


Cunobelin said:


> So you agree fully then?


Wibble.


----------



## laurence (19 Nov 2012)

so... he's guilty then? 

actually can't believe this thread is still raging on.


----------



## thom (19 Nov 2012)

The Line between Cause and Cult : Inside Livestrong


----------



## david k (20 Nov 2012)

Hont said:


> Confirmation, it appears, that Amstrong got Sarkozy mods to fire Pierre Brodry Redlight
> 
> http://www.24heures.ch/sports/actu/Meme-Sarkozy-a-couvert-Armstrong/story/26590856?cache=9efAwefu
> 
> Some reporting that Wonderboy then phoned him up to gloat. Nice.


 
corrected for accuracy


----------



## Crankarm (20 Nov 2012)

Does LA get to keep his yellow jerseys and trophies? He must have a wardrobe full of jerseys to sit and admire.


----------



## thom (20 Nov 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Does LA get to keep his yellow jerseys and trophies? He must have a wardrobe full of jerseys to sit and admire.


 






More versions here


----------



## Hont (20 Nov 2012)

The other ones are in better taste. I'm not sure mentioning the testical deficiency is a good line to take.


----------



## asterix (20 Nov 2012)

Hont said:


> The other ones are in better taste. I'm not sure mentioning the testical deficiency is a good line to take.


 
Yes, we should rise above that sort of thing.


----------



## rich p (20 Nov 2012)

He did nickname himself as Juan Pelota and named his café after it too.

http://www.juanpelotacafe.com/


----------



## craigwend (20 Nov 2012)

where will it end though?

http://newsthump.com/2012/10/25/ant...ards-removal-from-rolling-stones-record-book/


----------



## thom (20 Nov 2012)

rich p said:


> He did nickname himself as Juan Pelota and named his café after it too.
> 
> http://www.juanpelotacafe.com/


I bet the coffee tastes like bollock.

(I'm trying hard to stay away from tea bag allusions...)


----------



## raindog (20 Nov 2012)

craigwend said:


> where will it end though?
> 
> http://newsthump.com/2012/10/25/ant...ards-removal-from-rolling-stones-record-book/


LOL - excellent!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (20 Nov 2012)

Hont said:


> Confirmation, it appears, that Amstrong got Sarkozy to fire Pierre Brodry
> 
> http://www.24heures.ch/sports/actu/Meme-Sarkozy-a-couvert-Armstrong/story/26590856?cache=9efAwefu
> 
> Some reporting that Wonderboy then phoned him up to gloat. Nice.


I'm sure I remember Armstrong presenting Sarkozy with a top of the range bike, maybe 3 years ago. Where there's a gift, there's graft?


----------



## tigger (20 Nov 2012)




----------



## Orbytal (20 Nov 2012)

johnr said:


> Sunday Times have brought out a Kindle collection of their journalism on l'affair Armstrong.
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lanced-sham...W7WK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353345750&sr=8-1
> Hopefully some of the cash is going to Walsh and Kimmage who deserve every penny.


 
I am at a loss how this all computes?
Walsh the great condemner when confronted with scientific facts decided his opinion was more acurate.
PK who is renowned on here by some as a good journalist but still we wait for the facts of the case he has played out for years!

Perhaps some may have forgotten Sunday Times binned PK so chances they will offer cash his way is NADA!


----------



## User169 (21 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I am at a loss how this all computes?
> Walsh the great condemner when confronted with scientific facts decided his opinion was more acurate.
> PK who is renowned on here by some as a good journalist but still we wait for the facts of the case he has played out for years!
> 
> Perhaps some may have forgotten Sunday Times binned PK so chances they will offer cash his way is NADA!


 
Orbytal - which were the facts that Walsh didn't like? Sorry, but there are so many different issues flying around on this thread that I couldn't see actually what you were referring to here.

In relation to PK, I'd say that he's been substantially vindicated!


----------



## Orbytal (21 Nov 2012)

@Delftse Post.

Re Walsh I refer to his fall out with Stephen Roche accusing him of doping despite scientific confirmation he did not, at least not on the occasion in question. After that Walsh for me was sensationist media only based on his ego. Why let facts get in the way of a good story or his ego!

PK was binned by ST as noted so no chance of cash there, I assume you would agree?
With regards to Proof of PK claims Speculation and assumption are what we all can do here with all information we have at our hands but PK is now a journo who should have new and better Proof but we have not seen it or am I missing something that IOC and the Courts are missing? 
You say he was vindicated but where is the proof he is spouting for years but not tabled to show?
It may well be that we can all believe he is correct but there is a world of difference of believing in something and proving it and all I ask for is Proof not speculation.

On doping in Cycling most on here as well as myself could tell you what has/was/is going on so nothing new there but WRT Collusion, Taking Cash, Hiding Tests etc. Proof is required or he may well just bin his journo job and punt in with us as we appear to have the same info as he does!

Is he a saviour or a sensationalist like Walsh? If he had the convictions of his claims he would have filed for Court Action long before now but he didnt or am I also missing something there as well?


----------



## beastie (21 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> Perhaps some may have forgotten Sunday Times binned PK so chances they will offer cash his way is NADA!


 
Well that depends on what his old contract said. Ownership of copyright can depend on whether PK was a staff reporter or freelance, if the article was syndicated or not. Some senior journalists retain copyright or a portion of it even when they are staff.

Please can you expand on the Walsh v Roche scientific confirmation of no doping. I am well aware of the public spat between the two 
but am not sure what you are referring too.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Nov 2012)

beastie said:


> Please can you expand on the Walsh v Roche scientific confirmation of no doping.
> but am not sure what you are referring too.


 
I am not aware of any accepted 'scientific confirmation' of no doping, merely not testing positive in doping controls etc. These are subtly different but important things, indeed the Lance Armstrong case depends partly on understanding the difference.


----------



## beastie (21 Nov 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I am not aware of any accepted 'scientific confirmation' of no doping, merely not testing positive in doping controls etc. These are subtly different but important things, indeed the Lance Armstrong case depends partly on understanding the difference.


I understand the difference but I'm not sure about some others.


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Nov 2012)

In any medical test, there is a "chance element" it is why there is a figure of specificity and sensitivity.

The false negative rate for EPO is well known in the literature. Never mind the possibility of catching a rider who is actively trying to beat the test.

It may be an urban myth, but wasn't there one rider who (according to his urine sample) was pregnant!


----------



## oldroadman (21 Nov 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> In any medical test, there is a "chance element" it is why there is a figure of specificity and sensitivity.
> 
> The false negative rate for EPO is well known in the literature. Never mind the possibility of catching a rider who is actively trying to beat the test.
> 
> *It may be an urban myth, but wasn't there one rider who (according to his urine sample) was pregnant!*


 
A long time ago, yes. Things caught up with him a little later. Mind there was a lot of piss taking in the peloton....


----------



## Orbytal (21 Nov 2012)

beastie said:


> Well that depends on what his old contract said. Ownership of copyright can depend on whether PK was a staff reporter or freelance, if the article was syndicated or not. Some senior journalists retain copyright or a portion of it even when they are staff.
> 
> Please can you expand on the Walsh v Roche scientific confirmation of no doping. I am well aware of the public spat between the two
> but am not sure what you are referring too.




I would suggest that if PK was to inherit anything he would have had to share the hurt when ST lost and he didn't so on the books journo for my assessment.

On Walsh v Roche it is the same as most are referring to, I am assuming? The test advised as positive then advised as not positive based on the doping controls in place. Walsh condemned him and refused to change his stance resulting in the fall out which was poor show after their previous excellent relationship.
If you are wrong you suck it up unless you are Walsh and basically ruins a good relationship for ego. 

Walsh on Armstrong I have no issues.


----------



## mickle (21 Nov 2012)

Hont said:


> The other ones are in better taste. I'm not sure mentioning the testical deficiency is a good line to take.





asterix said:


> Yes, we should rise above that sort of thing.


Nah, bollocks.


----------



## beastie (21 Nov 2012)

mickle said:


> Nah, bollocks.


That's one too many surely?


----------



## beastie (21 Nov 2012)

Orbytal said:


> I would suggest that if PK was to inherit anything he would have had to share the hurt when ST lost and he didn't so on the books journo for my assessment.
> 
> On Walsh v Roche it is the same as most are referring to, I am assuming? The test advised as positive then advised as not positive based on the doping controls in place. Walsh condemned him and refused to change his stance resulting in the fall out which was poor show after their previous excellent relationship.
> If you are wrong you suck it up unless you are Walsh and basically ruins a good relationship for ego.
> ...


That doesn' t really qualify as scientific evidence that he wasn't doping though, is it?

Walsh was more concerned at Roche's adherence to the omerta than nailing him for doping himself. Did you watch the clip, or at least the start?


----------



## Orbytal (21 Nov 2012)

beastie said:


> That doesn' t really qualify as scientific evidence that he wasn't doping though, is it?
> 
> Walsh was more concerned at Roche's adherence to the omerta than nailing him for doping himself. Did you watch the clip, or at least the start?



The clip is part of the issue but not all of it. WRT your first comment try arguing his guilt then try versing it and argue his innocence! Walsh had info 'someone told him was right' and he attacked his friend with it without a call to discuss. Scum journo at best. How dud it all work out for him by the way?


----------



## ufkacbln (21 Nov 2012)

oldroadman said:


> A long time ago, yes. Things caught up with him a little later. Mind there was a lot of **** taking in the peloton....


I think that is the way the tests work


----------



## smutchin (22 Nov 2012)

oldroadman said:


> Mind there was a lot of **** taking in the peloton....


 
Not always their own, from the sound of it.


----------



## thom (29 Nov 2012)

*Anti-Sportsman of the Year*​​​​And in 5'th place, P. Hindes​​​​


----------



## tigger (29 Nov 2012)

thom said:


> *Anti-Sportsman of the Year*​​​​And in 5'th place, P. Hindes​​​​



I'm not unhappy about the result, but maybe they have a point?


----------



## thom (3 Dec 2012)

Michael Ashendon on the cyclismas website talks about that test in Switzerland.


----------



## johnr (4 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> Michael Ashendon on the cyclismas website talks about that test in Switzerland.


 This arguement is going to test the forensic skills of the lawyers on the enquiry - their conclusions will be interesting.


----------



## rich p (4 Dec 2012)

Chhers Thom, another interesting piece from Ashenden.
How much access the commisiion get to the old letters, emails, confidential files and bank statements will be critical.


----------



## Noodley (4 Dec 2012)

Can't see this mentioned anywhere else, get it on your Christmas list - publication date of 13.12.12.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seven-Deadl...m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=0WA0YAFMVBVYQPG5K7CX


----------



## Noodley (8 Dec 2012)

I have just received an e-mail from amazon telling me that the publication of the Walsh book I linked above has been cancelled


----------



## Andrew_P (8 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> I have just received an e-mail from amazon telling me that the publication of the Walsh book I linked above has been cancelled


*David Walsh*‏@*DavidWalshST*
Amazon's email says 'supplier' say 'this item has been cancelled.' Simon & Schuster is supplier. They have NOT said this #*attempted* hijack?
*Details*


----------



## thom (11 Dec 2012)

The story that just keeps on giving. 
*Feds Ponder Joining Suit Against Armstrong​*


----------



## rich p (11 Dec 2012)

...and Landis might get 30% of a considerable sum and 'with one bound, he was free'.
Crazy world.


----------



## Noodley (11 Dec 2012)

LOCO said:


> *David Walsh*‏@*DavidWalshST*
> Amazon's email says 'supplier' say 'this item has been cancelled.' Simon & Schuster is supplier. They have NOT said this #*attempted* hijack?
> *Details*


 
I got an e-mail from amazon today admitting that they are fuds, and that the book was back and available to pre-order...which I did.

Wlash was on Radio 2 this evening, speaking to some sportschap. Quite a good interview.


----------



## Happiness Stan (12 Dec 2012)

I clearly have too much time on my hands:


----------



## kedab (12 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> More versions here


as a cancer survivor myself i should be somewhat offended by this but...ahahahahaha!


----------



## ColinJ (13 Dec 2012)

If anybody is still interested after all that's happened, there is a copy of his first book going cheap in the Hebden Bridge Oxfam shop!


----------



## smutchin (13 Dec 2012)

We had our staff Christmas sale the other day, when the various departments sell off all the stuff they've been sent for review/prizes/subscriber offers etc. 

Among the spoils was a case of Lance Armstrong DVDs. They couldn't shift them even at 50p a pop. By the end of the day, they were giving them away free but still struggling to find takers. 

d.


----------



## johnr (14 Dec 2012)

Just out of interest I looked to see what was avaialble on Amazon: they're still asking top prices for the cursed-one's tat.

They have this interesting profile:
'Lance Armstrong is seven times winner of the Tour de France and fulltime cancer fighter. He oversees the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which assists cancer patients around the world. He won the first of his record-setting seven Tour de France wins after surviving a nearly fatal bout with testicular cancer. He lives in Austin, Texas.'

So Amazon is the new last-refuge-of-a-scoundrel. Remember folks, you heard it here first.


----------



## Noodley (14 Dec 2012)

I wonder how many Christmas cards Lance has received this year - apart from the one from Hein.


----------



## thom (14 Dec 2012)

For what its worth, there is a rumour that Michele Lamborghini will be on Al Jazeera at 6pm today, talking about how he's a good Italian boy who never heard of doping in his life.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Dec 2012)

Ferrari is the least credible person in cycling.


----------



## rich p (15 Dec 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...orner-on-his-career-armstrong-and-pro-cycling
I'm not sure whether it's worth recommending anyone to read this interview with Chris Horner. It's as if the USADA report never happened. On the one hand he says LA did nothing wrong because he never tested guilty and that's the only thing that counts, and praises the UCI for the blood passport which proves guilt without a positive.
I'm not sure if he's in denial, incredibly stupid and naive or has some reason to obfuscate.


----------



## thom (15 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...orner-on-his-career-armstrong-and-pro-cycling
> I'm not sure whether it's worth recommending anyone to read this interview with Chris Horner. It's as if the USADA report never happened. On the one hand he says LA did nothing wrong because he never tested guilty and that's the only thing that counts, and praises the UCI for the blood passport which proves guilt without a positive.
> I'm not sure if he's in denial, incredibly stupid and naive or has some reason to obfuscate.


I don't know what to think about Chris Horner.
On the one hand, as you say, he appears in denial of the USPS scandal and clouds hanging over the reputation of most riders of the time.
On the other hand, he comes across as quite a nice likeable guy, readily available to the media at races, quite unassuming and happily enthusiastic at an age that is ripe within the peloton.
Quite a curious character.


----------



## Crackle (15 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features...orner-on-his-career-armstrong-and-pro-cycling
> I'm not sure whether it's worth recommending anyone to read this interview with Chris Horner. It's as if the USADA report never happened. On the one hand he says LA did nothing wrong because he never tested guilty and that's the only thing that counts, and praises the UCI for the blood passport which proves guilt without a positive.
> I'm not sure if he's in denial, incredibly stupid and naive or has some reason to obfuscate.


He's a conundrum isn't he. After he won the Tour of California and declared himself capable of taking on Contador and Schleck, I thought he's got to be juiced. Then he went on to have an awful tour and a fairly undistinguished season and I didn't know what to think, still don't.


----------



## johnr (16 Dec 2012)

Could Pharmstrong be mobilising his friends/people he has stuff on in some sort of rehabilitation scheme? Discuss.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Dec 2012)

The BBC have striped him of Overseas Sports Personality of the Year 2003

"Following the UCI's decision to strip Lance Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, it has been decided by the BBC to withdraw his overseas sport personality of the year award - Armstrong was voted the winner of this award in 2003 based on his sporting achievements at that time."

Is there any precedent for this?

Will he now admit his wrongdoings?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Dec 2012)

2208245 said:


> Yes, the censure of the BBC is likely to be the straw that breaks that camels back.


We can but hope.

Though damnatio memoriae does feel a little dated.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Dec 2012)

2208267 said:


> I shall have to ask a grown up what that means


Ask them about King Louis of England and the treaty of Lambeth. It is an interesting example.

if you are married to a history teacher


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Dec 2012)

2208283 said:


> King Louis of England? The only King Louis that springs to mind was a jungle VIP.


The much beloved 'King of the Swingers' of my youth? I fear that's a title far to likely to be misinterpreted these days, creating quite a different image in one's mind.

But, truth to tell, we English once a King called Louis.... but you'll not find him in many of the history books.


----------



## tigger (17 Dec 2012)

Tis true. Never officially crowned although as such he reigned for about a year after King John. We never hear about him of course... history is the propagnda of the victor and all that

The most interesting part of this thread for some time I think!


----------



## Dave Davenport (18 Dec 2012)

At last! Some info that could win me a pub quiz!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Dec 2012)

tigger said:


> Tis true. Never officially crowned although as such he reigned for about a year after King John. We never hear about him of course... history is the propagnda of the victor and all that


 
Since he was never crowned he was never King, merely a claimant to the throne, so he never 'reigned'. He tried to conquer the country but failed and was eventually beaten back, and we ended up with Henry III, who was crowned and therefore was king. The comparison can be made to William I, who was also only a claimant until he was crowned after defeating Harold.


----------



## tigger (18 Dec 2012)

Its funny. I thought I should replace "reigned" with "governed" or such like shortly after I posted. But then I thought, "no its fine, we won't get any pedants here... not on THIS forum." 

If memory serves, Edward V was never crowned either yet is regarded as a monarch?

I think we need a new doping scandal or the racing season to start pretty quick!


----------



## smutchin (19 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Since he was never crowned he was never King, merely a claimant to the throne, so he never 'reigned'. He tried to conquer the country but failed and was eventually beaten back, and we ended up with Henry III, who was crowned and therefore was king. The comparison can be made to William I, who was also only a claimant until he was crowned after defeating Harold.


 
I'd never heard of him until he came up in this thread but I was interested so went off and did some reading. From what I can gather, the barons backed his claim and John effectively resigned the throne to him, so Louis was de facto monarch, and would have been crowned had there been an available bishop to do the necessary, but Henry III came along and kicked him out.

Interesting that you should mention William because it strikes me that Louis's claim to the throne was similar to Harold Godwinson's - the difference being the technicality that Harold had a willing bishop handy to officially pop the crown on his head.

d.


----------



## Noodley (19 Dec 2012)

Was Le Mond officially re-crowned as the greatest American Tour de France rider?


----------



## johnr (20 Dec 2012)

Travis Tygart interview from the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/19/travis-tygart-us-anti-doping-lance-armstrong
A sister article setting out his views on Sky policy posted on the appropriate thread


----------



## johnr (20 Dec 2012)

and for you non-Guardian readers, an article on possible use of lie detector tests in doping cases (not much apparently)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/dec/18/lie-detectors-doping-sport


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Dec 2012)

smutchin said:


> Interesting that you should mention William because it strikes me that Louis's claim to the throne was similar to Harold Godwinson's - the difference being the technicality that Harold had a willing bishop handy to officially pop the crown on his head.


 
Although Harold loyalists tried to claim otherwise, William I was most likely the legitimate heir designated by the previous monarch - that was the reason he invaded in the first place. Now, I think the whole idea of a monarchy is wrong but in terms of the both strict law and custom of the time, Louis was not the legitimate heir, he was just offered the throne by a rebellious group of Barons.

PS: I'm not a pedant as such, just a guy with a history degree who had a tutor who specialized in that period...


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Dec 2012)




----------



## Mr Haematocrit (20 Dec 2012)

johnr said:


> and for you non-Guardian readers, an article on possible use of lie detector tests in doping cases (not much apparently)
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/dec/18/lie-detectors-doping-sport


 
Lance Armstrong's lawyer said he 'wouldn't challenge a lie detector test, with good equipment, properly administered which makes you wonder why he has not proposed that his client takes one. I would have thought the outcome would give more weight to one side of Lances denial or the other.


----------



## rich p (20 Dec 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Lance Armstrong's lawyer said he 'wouldn't challenge a lie detector test, with good equipment, properly administered which makes you wonder why he has not proposed that his client takes one. I would have thought the outcome would give more weight to one side of Lances denial or the other.


He's guilty, most of us have known that he's guilty for aeons, even Livestrong and Trek have accepted that he's guilty - WTF?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (20 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> He's guilty, most of us have known that he's guilty for aeons, even Livestrong and Trek have accepted that he's guilty - WTF?


 
Yes I am aware of the events which have taken place, we know hes guilty, but it would be nice for Lance to hold his hands up, but the fact remains that Lance still has not admitted to anything, he still declares his innocence and that he was subject to a witch hunt.
As his lawyer appears to be a advocate and supporter for the lie detector I can't help but find it ironic that he has not pushed Lance towards undertaking the test.
Of course if Lance's denials and declaration of innocence had any substance to them at all, it would be supported by the lie detector in theory. So why not take the test?

I was observing that I thought it was interesting that a Lawyer who represents Armstrong also believes strongly in Lie detector tests but has not used this to support his clients claims, unless he knows the truth and, or believes Lie detectors more than his client.


----------



## Noodley (21 Dec 2012)

Walsh's book is good so far - nothing "new" but well summarised and highlghts journos who were "suspicious" or who "knew" he doped, and how they were very much the minority - but I was quite surprised how little weight they carried given the titles of the 'papers they wrote for - The Times, Gazzetta, L'Equipe - or how well known/respected they are as cycling/sports journos! Some other journos do not come out of it very well at all - Wilcockson being Walsh's main "target" as a suck-up so far (I'm only on chapter 7 so planty more time for others to be "outed")


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2012)

I'm a member of Adventure Cycling the US touring cyclist association. The editor's letters in this month's magazine...





I found myself more than a little underwhelmed. What say you lovely peeps?


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Dec 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Since he was never crowned he was never King, merely a claimant to the throne, so he never 'reigned'. He tried to conquer the country but failed and was eventually beaten back, and we ended up with Henry III, who was crowned and therefore was king *- which was a Good Thing*. The comparison can be made to William I, who was also only a claimant until he was crowned after defeating Harold.


Sorry, you know, 1066 and all that ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I'm a member of Adventure Cycling the US touring cyclist association. The editor's letters in this month's magazine...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Errr, Nobber fan-boy apologist?


----------



## thom (21 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I'm a member of Adventure Cycling the US touring cyclist association. The editor's letters in this month's magazine...
> 
> I found myself more than a little underwhelmed. What say you lovely peeps?


 
He is right in that people do tend towards excessive hero-worshiping.
Otherwise he's a bit dim - it's quite distasteful to say the TdF is just a bike race and work in the cycle industry. Almost as if he wants to lose circulation.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> He is right in that people do tend towards excessive hero-worshiping.
> Otherwise he's a bit dim - it's quite distasteful to say the TdF is just a bike race and work in the cycle industry. *Almost as if he wants to lose circulation.*


When I sent my "Angry of Horsham near Edenbridge" email I was very tempted to cancel my subs but....


----------



## Shadow (21 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> When I sent my "Angry of Horsham near Edenbridge" email I was very tempted to cancel my subs but....


 
I hope the inside of the magazine is a huge improvement over the editor's letter otherwise I feel you are not getting value for money...!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Dec 2012)

Shadow said:


> I hope the inside of the magazine is a huge improvement over the editor's letter otherwise I feel you are not getting value for money...!!


It is very reminiscent of the old CTC Magazine; a nicely eclectic mix of letters, technical articles from folk who make Chris Juden sound like an apprentice, adverts; some of which are for very obscure bits of kit, and beautifully illustrated touring stories most of which are about off-road touring in exotic places; Kyrgyztan, Mongolia, Vancouver Island, Mobile Bay, Iberia this month. Off road touring (in the UK) being my thing you see, albeit of the credit card variety; too old to camp.


----------



## Noodley (21 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Errr, Nobber fan-boy apologist?


 
It's almost as if you were reading my mind


----------



## Fab Foodie (21 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> It's almost as if you were reading my mind


 It happens ....


----------



## Svendo (22 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Errr, Nobber fan-boy apologist?


 
The man likes Michelob light FFS


----------



## johnr (22 Dec 2012)

Nissan drops Radioshack.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/21/nissan-ends-sponsorship-radioshack
Wasn't there a once famous person who rode for them?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Errr, Nobber fan-boy apologist?



Translates as...

Someone isn't rabid and foaming at the mouth enough for the Omertà 

Is he that wrong, or is there a little bit of truth in the article that makes the first part uncomfortable?


----------



## Noodley (22 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Translates as...
> 
> Someone isn't rabid and foaming at the mouth enough for the Omertà
> 
> Is he that wrong, or is there a little bit of truth in the article that makes the first part uncomfortable?


 
Oh, are you still around?


----------



## rich p (22 Dec 2012)

..and now Roberto USPS Heras has had his 2005 Vuelta ban/win overturned buy the Spanish courts. Blinkin' 'eck!


----------



## thom (22 Dec 2012)

Menchov, Boogerd and Dekker
Additional names in Leipheimer's testimony - blood doping in Austria with Rasmussen apparently.
So rich, the 2005 Vuelta might get to Sastre eventually if Heras and Menchov get their results taken away in the wake of the related testimony.


----------



## Noodley (22 Dec 2012)

It matters not if it is awarded to heras or Menchov, or anyone else for that matter - they were all doped. 
None of the titles from the 90s-00s mean feck all, they were won by cheating. I'm sure they are all quite happy with the riches their cheating brought them, at the expense of clean riders and the sport..and the fans. Or at least the fans that care about ethics. And fair play.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> Oh, are you still around?




...and laughing at some of the contributions


----------



## Noodley (22 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ...and laughing at some of the contributions


 
Nobber


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> Nobber




My point proven unequivocally


----------



## Noodley (23 Dec 2012)

Ditto


----------



## thom (23 Dec 2012)

2217561 said:


> Almost time for Xmas day footie in no man's land


Blood-bags for goalposts ? Has anyone brought a ball ?


----------



## thom (23 Dec 2012)

Santa comes early for Lance : Has he been good or bad this year ?
The Sunday Times think bad and want $1.5 million.


----------



## rich p (23 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> Santa comes early for Lance : Has he been good or bad this year ?
> The Sunday Times think bad and want $1.5 million.


 
Poor Lance and he never even tested positive


----------



## Aperitif (23 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> Santa comes early for Lance : Has he been good or bad this year ?
> The Sunday Times think bad and want $1.5 million.


One of the 'Comments' underneath the article: 


> Ha ha
> A Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper is accusing someone else of making deliberately false representations.
> You can't make this $hit up.



Oh - and here's another:


> He did nothing worse than game the corrupt system better than anyone else, all the while being a better, harder working cyclist than any of his mostly cheating competitors. Sure, he deserves to go down in flames and return money, but this press generated vitriol is way out of proportion relative to how other cheats have been treated. Bully? Come on, they were grown men as greedy for success as Lamce at any cost... How is he to blame for that? The "bully" defense is so little girlish...


----------



## Noodley (24 Dec 2012)

Just goes to show that the nobbers will still rally in defence of the nobber-in-chief


----------



## johnr (25 Dec 2012)

I vote Noodley for the midfield enforcer in the Xmas Day kick around Thom proposed


----------



## rich p (26 Dec 2012)

For those muppets who still plead that Armstrong never tested positive ...

...the bio passport has defeated Barredo...

... http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/barredo-retires-in-light-of-biological-passport-violations-case


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (28 Dec 2012)

My new book, 'The Secret Race', has a phrase new to me:







As everyone else will know, it's the Spanish (almost) for riding on bread and water and no Edgar or anything else of that sort. Sadly the jersey was a limited edition (did they think only a few of us ride _pan y agua_?!) and sold out weeks ago.

The book also surprised me by revealing that witnesses claim *there was a day when phArmstrong failed a dope test*. Except after negotiations, he didn't. What it is to have money/power!

It's a fascinating read, if slightly depressing as it reveals the influence a powerful personality can have in coercing others to do what they know is wrong.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (28 Dec 2012)

2223327 said:


> *Really? That is truly shocking.*


 
Ah, is that a sarchasm I see opening up before me?

Perhaps I was insufficiently specific. First it was back in 2001, Tour de Switzerland, for EPO. Second it was a UCI test which their President denied ever having been positive and 3rd, Armstrong donated a total of $125,000 to UCI 'later'.

Now I am just an ordinary guy who goes out on a bike now and then, not one of the cognoscenti who know all there is to know about the pro bike scene, like wot your comment suggests you must do. Once, long after 2001, I used to think Armstrong was a great role model, . I used to think there's this guy he's beaten cancer, done this, done that blah, blah. And I wasn't alone, was I?

Now this book tells me it was all a huge corrupt con trick that sucked us all in and really we should have known right along. We all should have known.

I've got this coffee table book too, 100 years of the TdF, and guess who wrote the foreword. I want to go and cut the pages out and burn them.

So too damned right it's 'truly shocking', sunshine.


----------



## Supersuperleeds (28 Dec 2012)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> Ah, is that a sarchasm I see opening up before me?
> 
> Perhaps I was insufficiently specific. First it was back in 2001, Tour de Switzerland, for EPO. Second it was a UCI test which their President denied ever having been positive and 3rd, Armstrong donated a total of $125,000 to UCI 'later'.
> 
> ...


 

If you want to learn more about it you can read the USADA's reasoned decision about Armstrong. It is amazing what happened. If you google reasoned decision USADA then you can find a PDF of it.


----------



## rich p (28 Dec 2012)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> Ah, is that a sarchasm I see opening up before me?
> 
> Perhaps I was insufficiently specific. First it was back in 2001, Tour de Switzerland, for EPO. Second it was a UCI test which their President denied ever having been positive and 3rd, Armstrong donated a total of $125,000 to UCI 'later'.
> 
> ...


 
You could read this too...
... http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/armstrong-charged-and-banned.104078/

... and the 98 pages of this thread, to see the blood-letting and strife as it unfolded on CC. Not always pretty, I warn you!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I'm a member of Adventure Cycling the US touring cyclist association. The editor's letters in this month's magazine...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So I wrote to him...


Adventure Cycling's mission is to inspire & empower people to travel by bicycle. Lance Armstrong's mission was to cheat his way to a fortune and the status of a global celebrity. The reality of his cheating, and his continued denials of that cheating, does absolutely nothing to inspire and empower people to travel by bike.

Your editorial letter, whilst splendid in its rhetoric, and the alignment with Armstrong it contains, does nothing to inspire or empower people either. Quite the opposite. Lance didn't fail to live up to our impossible fantasies of who he was, he failed to live up to his own impossible fantasies about who he was. A point you appear to miss. Completely.

As for us Brits, we live on a collection of soggy green islands not a single isle, and our priorities are pretty well aligned, certainly more well aligned than yours appear to be given the views in your letter.

Greg Collins
Horsham
West Sussex
About 20 miles from Edenbridge, which I've ridden through many times. A delightful little town.

and he wrote back....


Greg,

Thanks for your feedback about my editorial in the Dec/Jan issue. Most of the responses have focused on whether I'm a socialist or not so it's good to hear from someone who noticed the letter was about Armstrong and personality cults, although I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I'm aligned with him. And, unfortunately, he is the towering figure in American cycling and has had a profound effect on the uptake of cycling in the U.S. so he's fair game, even for Adventure Cyclist magazine, in which his name has rarely appeared.

Also, I've been to the U.K. several times and my tour from Aberdeen across the Highlands up to Stornaway is still in my top five experiences of all time. I hope to return to ride the southwest portion of the chief British Isle before going on to Ireland. I hope I won't be met at the shore with flying bricks. 

I hope you have a terrific 2013.

*Michael Deme*
Director of Publications
Editor, *Adventure Cyclist*Magazine
150 E Pine St
Missoula, MT 59802


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (29 Dec 2012)

2223558 said:


> Most of us wanted to believe it at one time or another and mostly because of the beating cancer thing. We should all have known better and he is a truly disgusting person specifically because of the cold, calculated betrayal of the hopes he sought to have invested in him.
> 
> Apologies for the sarcasm.


 

Not to worry about the sarcasm!

It is interesting that the editor of Adventure Cyclists sees such a distinction between Armstrong's trickery and the powerful 'financial or political criminals' in 'our societies'. I'd suggest they are all part of the same crooked game.


----------



## Noodley (29 Dec 2012)

GregCollins said:


> and he wrote back....
> Greg,
> 
> 1) it's good to hear from someone who noticed the letter was about Armstrong and personality cults, although I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I'm aligned with him.
> ...


 
Are you going to write back to him and highlight that:
1) his article was bugger all to do with personality cults, but more to do with criticising others who view Armstrong as he truly is and then trying to identify others more worthy of scorn. He seems to have an unhealthy attraction towards highlighting British inadequecies rather than those of his home country. Perhaps he does not have the balls to tackle his own countrymen in a magazine published in the US? So he, like Lance, is a coward.
2) in what way does he think that he has treated Armstrong as "fair game"? - that would impy that he thinks he in some way "went after" Armstrong, rather than be an apologist. For someone who is editor of a cycling magazine, albeit not a racing cycling magazine, he does seem to have a fairly limited knowledge about the extent to which Armstrong controlled and bullied others, the amount of money involved and how wide his influence extended. Although he does think he is suitably positioned to pass comment on a matter which he has shown he knows bugger all about. He is nothing more than an apologist for Armstrong. 

And no twee reply, deflecting attention away from your points, can disguise this.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> Are you going to write back to him and highlight that:
> 1) his article was bugger all to do with personality cults, but more to do with criticising others who view Armstrong as he truly is and then trying to identify others more worthy of scorn. He seems to have an unhealthy attraction towards highlighting British inadequecies rather than those of his home country. Perhaps he does not have the balls to tackle his own countrymen in a magazine published in the US? So he, like Lance, is a coward.
> 2) in what way does he think that he has treated Armstrong as "fair game"? - that would impy that he thinks he in some way "went after" Armstrong, rather than be an apologist. For someone who is editor of a cycling magazine, albeit not a racing cycling magazine, he does seem to have a fairly limited knowledge about the extent to which Armstrong controlled and bullied others, the amount of money involved and how wide his influence extended. Although he does think he is suitably positioned to pass comment on a matter which he has shown he knows bugger all about. He is nothing more than an apologist for Armstrong.
> 
> And no twee reply, deflecting attention away from your points, can disguise this.



How's about actually reading his article

The "anyone not foaming rabidly at the mouth" is an apologist is showing itself as tedious and misplaced as usual

There are several points about personality cults, and the actual importance of Armstrong outside the racing world that are relevant, even if outside the Omertà's agenda of compulsory pathological hatred


----------



## Noodley (29 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> How's about actually reading his article
> 
> The "anyone not foaming rabidly at the mouth" is an apologist is showing itself as tedious and misplaced as usual
> 
> There are several points about personality cults, and the actual importance of Armstrong outside the racing world that are relevant, even if outside the Omertà's agenda of compulsory pathological hatred


 
I read it. The only person who sees "foaming at the mouth" appears to be you - as far as I can see, anyone who highlights Armstrong's deeds is "foaming at the mouth" in your book. You carry on with your own views and trolling if you want tho.


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Dec 2012)

2225386 said:


> Is there any level on which it is reasonable to regard Armstrong as a victim in all this, rather than the loathsome, manipulative person he appears to be?


Not at all, he is absolutely and unequivocally the cause of his own downfall

However as frequently stated before, he is not the only one guilty of cheating, using drugs to gain an illegal advantage or any of the other offences

Use Armstrong as a key to open the Pandora's box that was the reality of cycling and you will find that he was the worst, but not the only offender


----------



## Noodley (29 Dec 2012)

Have we not done this one before? Nobody here thinks Armstrong is the only doper, have you not been reading or something? 

Have you had a sudden blow to the head and just woken up?


----------



## thom (30 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> Have we not done this one before? Nobody here thinks Armstrong is the only doper, have you not been reading or something?
> 
> Have you had a sudden blow to the head and just woken up?


I expected that catchy tune with the "let's go around again" line in it. Can't we have it instead ? Its really quite funky.


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)

thom said:


> I expected that catchy tune with the "let's go around again" line in it. Can't we have it instead ? Its really quite funky.


 
Here you go:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGI8YNa5f-M


----------



## just jim (30 Dec 2012)

The difference is that Lance was a kingpin - "The most important person or element in an enterprise or system". No amount of tedious obfuscation will change this fact. Happy new year - the Lance has been boiled!​​( just jim signs off from this thread 4EVA)​


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Dec 2012)

Noodley said:


> Have we not done this one before? Nobody here thinks Armstrong is the only doper, have you not been reading or something?
> 
> Have you had a sudden blow to the head and just woken up?



What I love about the true quality of your contribution is the lack of common courtesy... Really speaks volumes about the value

Doesn't agree with Noodley 's limited agenda - Nobber

Post something that doesn't agree with Noodley's limited agenda -Nobber



Such valuable depth, insight and wisdom really must be admired

Then again it is easier that actually discussing the points you are uncomfortable with


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (30 Dec 2012)

just jim said:


> The difference is that Lance was a kingpin - "The most important person or element in an enterprise or system". No amount of tedious obfuscation will change this fact. Happy new year - the Lance has been boiled!
> 
> ( just jim signs off from this thread 4EVA)


 
Again, from the Daniel Coyle/Tyler Hamilton source it does seem that Armstrong was the most important cyclist in escalating the problem. But he couldn't have done it without the professional, doping doctors. The likes of Fuentes who operated in Spain where no anti-doping laws applied and who made millions of dollars supplying the cheats with their materials.


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> What I love about the true quality of your contribution is the lack of common courtesy... Really speaks volumes about the value
> 
> Doesn't agree with Noodley 's limited agenda - Nobber
> 
> ...


 
You really are very dim. As has been pointed out many, many times, we have been vilifying and publicising every doper since CC began. You name them, we've shamed them.
On the other hand, you have only appeared since Armstrong got nailed.
Who is obsessed with him, us or you?


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> Again, from the Daniel Coyle/Tyler Hamilton source it does seem that Armstrong was the most important cyclist in escalating the problem. But he couldn't have done it without the professional, doping doctors. The likes of Fuentes who operated in Spain where no anti-doping laws applied and who made millions of dollars supplying the cheats with their materials.


This is not intended to be sarcastic, Hotblack, but are you aware that we have been discussing this subject for years? (See my post earlier re multi-page threads).
By all means join the club but this is very old ground to most of us so posting snippets of old news could get tedious.
The next big thing is, hopefully, Fuentes getting his just desserts when Operacion Puerto is re-assessed. There is also Bruyneel's appeal case to come before USADA and Pepe Marti's too. Pepe Marti, incidentally, being Contador's ex-supplier 'trainer'.


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> What I love about the true quality of your contribution is the lack of common courtesy... Really speaks volumes about the value
> Doesn't agree with Noodley 's limited agenda - Nobber
> Post something that doesn't agree with Noodley's limited agenda -Nobber
> 
> ...


 
There you go again, making stuff up that does not exist... 

You and Lance have a lot in common.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> You really are very dim. As has been pointed out many, many times, we have been vilifying and publicising every doper since CC began. You name them, we've shamed them.
> On the other hand, you have only appeared since Armstrong got nailed.
> Who is obsessed with him, us or you?



More valuable contribution from the Omertà 

Seems to me that the need to resort to the usual childishness rather than positive contribution rather reinforces the point


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> More valuable contribution from the Omertà


 
You don't know what that means, do you?  

You might as well have written "More valuable contribution from the Penguin" for all the sense it makes.


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> More valuable contribution from the Omertà
> 
> Seems to me that the need to resort to the usual childishness rather than positive contribution rather reinforces the point


 
My point is that the rest of us are interested in all the dopers in cycling and have been for many years. What your point is I have yet to fathom.


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> My point is that the rest of us are interested in all the dopers in cycling and have been for many years. What your point is I have yet to fathom.


 
I think the point is the rest of us are actually interested in pro cycling and know what we are on about based on many years of following the sport.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (30 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> This is not intended to be sarcastic, Hotblack, but are you aware that we have been discussing this subject for years? (See my post earlier re multi-page threads).
> By all means join the club but this is very old ground to most of us so posting snippets of old news could get tedious.
> The next big thing is, hopefully, Fuentes getting his just desserts when Operacion Puerto is re-assessed. There is also Bruyneel's appeal case to come before USADA and Pepe Marti's too. Pepe Marti, incidentally, being Contador's ex-supplier 'trainer'.


 
Yes, I understand there are huge amounts of this discussion, however the fact that such a high profile cyclist/doper as Hamilton is at last saying this stuff in a kind of confession after years of denial is kind of groundbreaking. One extraordinary thing is his self-perception as an honest kind of guy. 

Shame he is probably making money out of the book but on the plus side it sufficiently well written and annotated for dimwits like me to understand!


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> My point is that the rest of us are interested in all the dopers in cycling and have been for many years. What your point is I have yet to fathom.



That explains your previous claim that referring to other dopers is apologist for Armstrong's behaviour and diverting the discussion from the important matters then?

You really couldn't make this up!


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> My point is that the rest of us are interested in allthe dopers in cycling and have been for many years. What your point is I have yet to fathom.





Cunobelin said:


> That explains your previous claim that referring to other dopers is apologist for Armstrong's behaviour and diverting the discussion from the important matters then?
> 
> You really couldn't make this up!


Are these two posts in any way related?
I honestly have no idea to what you are referring.
How many times can we, as a group, say that we still are and have always been interested and vilifiying all dopers for years?

If you can't understand that much, I have to conclude that you are deliberately misunderstanding to be mischievous.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Dec 2012)

I have no problem understanding this

The claim that discussing other dopers is obfuscating and apologist was all your own work

Or are you now denying that you have ever stated this?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not at all, he is absolutely and unequivocally the cause of his own downfall
> 
> However as frequently stated before, he is not the only one guilty of cheating, using drugs to gain an illegal advantage or any of the other offences
> 
> Use Armstrong as a key to open the Pandora's box that was the reality of cycling and you will find that he was the worst, but not the only offender


 
So what is your point?


----------



## mickle (30 Dec 2012)

FFS


----------



## raindog (30 Dec 2012)

mickle said:


> FFS


indeed


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)

not long til we reach 100 pages...


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I have no problem understanding this
> 
> The claim that discussing other dopers is obfuscating and apologist was all your own work
> 
> Or are you now denying that you have ever stated this?


Yes
Now please either shut up or say something sensible.


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)




----------



## ufkacbln (30 Dec 2012)

Lets confirm that - you are unequivocally claiming that you have never,at any point stated that pointing out that other riders using drugs was obfuscation, apologist And unacceptable


----------



## tigger (30 Dec 2012)

So does this thread automatically destruct when we get to 100 pages?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (30 Dec 2012)

tigger said:


> So does this thread automatically destruct when we get to 100 pages?


 
Maybe it will when Lance Armstrong admits the truth? Or hell freezes over?


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Lets confirm that - you are unequivocally claiming that you have never,at any point stated that pointing out that other riders using drugs was obfuscation, apologist And unacceptable


Are you talking to me?

How many times can I say that I, and indeed the others on here with any knowledge and historic interest in pro-cycling, have always deplored and highlighted drug abuse in cycling. You, on the other hand, have not appeared in this section until you decided to fight Armstrong's case even when he and his lawyers had given up.


----------



## Noodley (30 Dec 2012)

Nothing seems to have changed according to an Italian judge:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-judge-says-doping-is-still-a-problem-in-cycling


----------



## rich p (30 Dec 2012)

On reflection having another argument with a know-nothing is both distracting and pointless.

And so to save everyone's blood pressure and ennui I will put the (insert epithet of your choice) back on ignore and give up my Xmas spirit of inclusiveness as a failed attempt.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Dec 2012)

rich p said:


> Are you talking to me?
> 
> How many times can I say that I, and indeed the others on here with any knowledge and historic interest in pro-cycling, have always deplored and highlighted drug abuse in cycling. You, on the other hand, have not appeared in this section until you decided to fight Armstrong's case even when he and his lawyers had given up.




Simply a lie, and your failure to read what was actually written.....


Please give any example where I have "fought his case"

Unless of course we are back to the anyone in sufficiently rabid is an apologist again?

Your answer to any post that is outside your closed agenda


----------



## tigger (30 Dec 2012)

I think some people should get a room!


----------



## johnr (31 Dec 2012)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> Maybe it will when Lance Armstrong admits the truth? Or hell freezes over?


 
Well, that day has come. Pharmstrong's deadline for appeal passed on 27 December, so whilst the words haven't left his lips, he's just lit the gas under his goose and it is now officially cooked.


----------



## Noodley (1 Jan 2013)

Awww poor Uncle Pat says that nasty man Kimmage is picking on him
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-all-ive-done-since-i-became-president-is-fight-doping

It's almost like reading something Lance woulda said.


----------



## MichaelM (1 Jan 2013)

100 pages again!

Let's close it and start another, could call it...
*The new even more improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread - it's better than ever before!*


See if that gets to 100 pages as well!


----------



## Zofo (3 Jan 2013)

Whose for an official LA book burning day?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> Whose for an official LA book burning day?


 


> "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”
> ― Heinrich Heine


----------



## thom (4 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> _"__Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” _
> _―_ _Heinrich Heine_


It's true, books are often used as fuel in crematoriums these days.


----------



## rich p (4 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> It's true, books are often used as fuel in crematoriums these days.


 
I wonder what the glow time is for "It's Not about the Bike"?


----------



## tigger (4 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> It's true, books are often used as fuel in crematoriums these days.


 
That sounds like a good thread topic - Books you would gladly donate as crematorium fuel


----------



## Aperitif (4 Jan 2013)

tigger said:


> That sounds like a good thread topic - Books you would gladly donate as crematorium fuel


Anything by Robbie Burns.


----------



## thom (4 Jan 2013)

2235395 said:


> All the Mr Men books.


Even Mr Grumpy ?


----------



## BJH (4 Jan 2013)

When the 7 dwarfs where all in the bath together they all felt Happy

When Happy got out, they all felt Grumpy

Love the old jokes!!!!


----------



## BJH (4 Jan 2013)

What would we have ever done with our time if Mr Gunderson had stuck around and not left his kid with a severe case of anger


----------



## Strathlubnaig (5 Jan 2013)

Interesting article in the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/s...g-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?_r=0


----------



## Erratic (5 Jan 2013)

Yep, the NY Times article is interesting, another piece worth a read too...
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/if-lan...to-those-tour-de-france-titles-051119475.html


----------



## jdtate101 (5 Jan 2013)

As with all things Lance, he will only do something if he can get an edge, not because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Andy84 (5 Jan 2013)

He also tweeted this the other day.

https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/286496618507804673

In which he calls a linked blog post "most balanced piece we've seen yet"

The blog post includes the below paragraph

"Outright angels do not win a Tour de France. That is the domain of the most talented, hard, driven, ruthless and selfish riders. Lance did what he had to do to win, and he clearly did it very well. If he cheated, he cheated the other cheats of that era, even if by doing so he also cheated an adoring public. He didn’t kill anyone along the way, and as a father of five, he’s no child molester either. For me, his punishment outweighs the alleged crimes, for a lifetime ban from all sports seems quite draconian in this day and age. I’m surprised USADA hasn’t also fixed an ankle-bracelet to Armstrong’s leg, just in case he tries to sneak into a triathlon or ultra-distance running event in disguise. Maybe in time he’ll appeal his sentence and another sport can get to see what an extraordinary athlete Armstrong still is – triathlon almost did. Sport has to be kept as pure as possible, not just for the sakes of the world’s youth, but for the bridge it offers into all walks of life. Sport transcends business and politics, two of the worst evils known to mankind. On occasion, though not often enough, sport stops wars, and it can act as a healer of racial and cultural differences too – though it still has a long way to go in that direction. The pureness of sport is worth protecting then. Except that its very spirit encourages cheating, for at the upper echelons there’s too much fame and fortune that comes with such a pure and simple thing as winning."


----------



## thom (5 Jan 2013)

If confessing brings thorough evidence of the details of what happened, that is a good thing.
I don't like the idea of reducing a ban but what USADA/WADA do has to be focused on cleaning sport of drug abuse. All the people involved in the USADA report, like Bruyneel, have to be sanctioned successfully.
Even now, I would grudgingly argue that a meaningful confession should offer him some kind of benefit. You want doping authorities to demonstrate to those involved in doping that they have the ability to turn even a kingpin. Ferrari would be incinerated. How many other leads to dodgy doctors could be closed down? USADA's position would become stronger if you had it on record the details of the way Armstrong attempted to get congressmen to influence cases brought against him.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

I am not sure that sanctions are still possible

In some cases there was a "plea bargain" and a nominal fine / suspension given in return for evidence.


I am not sure exactly the legal standing of that contract, but it is likely that there is a clause that along the lines of "full and final settlement" that would preclude further or extended sanctions for these "offences"

On the subject of bargains.....WADA / USADA have clearly stated that they would have been less severe with Armstrong had he confessed and assisted. It would be interesting to see the reaction if he was now allowed to negotiate a reduced ban, even at this late stage?


----------



## Noodley (5 Jan 2013)

The last sentence of the NY Times article:
“He’s doing O.K. for a guy that has had his livelihood and his life torn from him, but he’s very strong,” Herman said.

Aye, a lot fecking better than others who had their livelihoods and lives torn from them due to doping - and the influence of Armstrong.


----------



## Noodley (5 Jan 2013)

Andy Schleck uses the "doping is a thing of the past" line:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-has-already-changed-says-schleck

Nobber.


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Andy Schleck uses the "doping is a thing of the past" line:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-has-already-changed-says-schleck
> 
> Nobber.


Apart from his brother of course...

If and when Armstrong fesses up, I'd like to hear Herman say."I'm as shocked as anyone that my client lied to me for the past 5 years too" ...

or ... "Of course I knew that Lance was guilty as hell but, hey, I'm a lawyer, and I'll sell my soul for a lot less than he was paying"


----------



## Crackle (5 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Andy Schleck uses the "doping is a thing of the past" line:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-has-already-changed-says-schleck
> 
> Nobber.


Yeah, that's why he's been shoot for two years


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2013)

I re-read this 4 year old interview with Armstrong earlier today. Quite fun in hindsight if you have a few minutes to spare
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/345599/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview.html


----------



## Lanzecki (5 Jan 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/s...strong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Jan 2013)

Lanzecki said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/s...strong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html


ah. Bears a striking resemblance to the article mentioned in post #2001


----------



## Lanzecki (5 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> ah. Bears a striking resemblance to the article mentioned in post #2001


 
I don't normally read this topic, But never let it be said that I'm upto date.


----------



## Aperitif (5 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> ah. Bears a striking resemblance to the article mentioned in post #2001


And I take pleasure in quoting Post 2013 in 2013. Thank you.


----------



## Aperitif (5 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> I re-read this 4 year old interview with Armstrong earlier today. Quite fun in hindsight if you have a few minutes to spare
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/345599/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview.html


Poor Lance. Every day is a winding road...


----------



## jdtate101 (5 Jan 2013)

Any confession would sink Bruneel good and proper. That alone would be worth watching, but at what price I'm not sure. LA shouldn't be allowed back into any sport until at least a minimum sentence is served in magnitude to the crimes, in his case 5-10yrs, making him 46-51 when it expires, thus possibly too old to really compete anyway.


----------



## Crackle (5 Jan 2013)

Matt Seaton is probably on the money about this confession

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/05/lance-armstrong-ready-confess-doping


----------



## Zofo (6 Jan 2013)

tigger said:


> That sounds like a good thread topic - Books you would gladly donate as crematorium fuel


I would def throw in " Time Crunched Cyclist" by LAs mate Chris Carmichael. I've had a good read through and nowhere does it suggest getting jacked up to the gills on EPO !


----------



## thom (6 Jan 2013)

I guess the question is in a sense has he effectively already confessed now that the rumours are out, obviating the need to bare his soul and self-flaggelate in order to resurrect his public image ?

It shows no class that his public persona is able to benefit while really he should be held accountable until USADA have satisfied itself that the nitty gritty details of his dirty world of doping have been recorded with a view to getting to those in the murky world that profit from facilitating the scam.


----------



## johnr (6 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Andy Schleck uses the "doping is a thing of the past" line:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-has-already-changed-says-schleck
> 
> Nobber.


I was particularly interested in the quote about Julich: 'At Saxo Bank, he helped me a lot and he was *one of the cleanest* on the team.' (my bold) Does this mean we can expect more details of the drugs culture in his team?

[by the way, Noodley, does the new avatar mark a long overdue icrease in combatativeness on your part?]


----------



## kedab (7 Jan 2013)

i think when the puerto shenanigans finally gets to court later this month we'll have another uncomfortable merry-go-round...certainly for the 50 odd who were initially implicated.i do love a good drama


----------



## Alun (7 Jan 2013)

kedab said:


> i think when the puerto shenanigans finally gets to court later this month we'll have another uncomfortable merry-go-round...certainly for the 50 odd who were initially implicated.i do love a good drama


Just the cyclists, I presume?


----------



## kedab (7 Jan 2013)

yeh, it looks that way. i know that many other sports and i therefore i assume, sports 'people', were also implicated in puerto but it appears as though it's going to focus on the cyclists only, which isn't what i'd call sporting, or in fact, cricket.


----------



## Crankarm (8 Jan 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Interesting article in the NY Times
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/s...g-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?_r=0


 
And the Sunday Times is suing LA for recovery of the monies they paid him when he brought a successful libel action against them. Is the NY Times part of the same newspaper group?


----------



## Strathlubnaig (8 Jan 2013)

Final word on all this cycling and drugs shite...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-cyclists-ask-for-some-drugs-so-they-can,28847/


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (8 Jan 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Final word on all this cycling and drugs s***e...
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-cyclists-ask-for-some-drugs-so-they-can,28847/


 
Now then, you know full well that won't be the final word.. 

We have miles to go yet, try some bennies.


----------



## Alun (8 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> And the Sunday Times is suing LA for recovery of the monies they paid him when he brought a successful libel action against them. Is the NY Times part of the same newspaper group?


 I don't think they are part of the same group, what made you think that they were?


----------



## 400bhp (8 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Andy Schleck uses the "doping is a thing of the past" line:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling-has-already-changed-says-schleck
> 
> Nobber.


 
He's not very bright is he.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (8 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> And the Sunday Times is suing LA for recovery of the monies they paid him when he brought a successful libel action against them. Is the NY Times part of the same newspaper group?


 
The Times is part of the Murdoch empire.

Team Sky is sponsored by News Corpn, part of the Murdoch empire

Team Sky is also sponsored by BSkyB of which the Murdoch empire is a controlling shareholder.

The New York Times has no links with either Murdoch or Armstrong that I can see and so the report may be a genuine piece of news. Armstrong does seem to be between a rock and hard place but I'd suggest if anyone can get out of it, he can.


----------



## johnr (8 Jan 2013)

Betsy Andreu interviewed on Sky news website says he'll not confess unless there'ssomething in it for him. I think Matt Seaton (quoted above) has this one about right when he attributed it to an over-eager reporter.


----------



## Noodley (8 Jan 2013)

I hope Betsy had a word with her husband about his dumb-ass comments about Mancebo the other day


----------



## Andy84 (9 Jan 2013)

Armstrong set for tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arm...ce=cyclingnews&amp;ns_linkname=0&amp;ns_fee=0


----------



## raindog (9 Jan 2013)

Andy84 said:


> Armstrong set for tell-all interview with Oprah Winfrey


the nightmare continues


----------



## Aperitif (9 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> the nightmare continues


'Oprahtunity Knocks'...besides, 'LA Public' can advise his interviewer on how to stabilise yo-yo weight problems I'm sure. Expect a few tears, and the restoration of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Breaking news! "Oprah is not well, and her spot has been taken by special guest interviewer...please welcome the man who put the TV into Travis..."


----------



## jdtate101 (9 Jan 2013)

Oh dear, this isn't going to end well. I'm expecting the minimum of information, lots of arrogance and absolutely NO remorse. I'll watch it, just to see what he will admit to (not that I'm expecting much beyond the bare minimum). It will be a slick, PR machined, well oiled performance with just a hint of "woe is me". Hopefully Oprah is savvy enough to recognise the bull and really press him, but I doubt it, she's not that sort of interviewer (which is why I guess he chose her).


----------



## beastie (9 Jan 2013)

Well he's not going to choose Paxman is he?


----------



## Zofo (9 Jan 2013)

LA doesn't do anything unless it benefits him. Prepare for a masterclass in spin and damage limitation. Its always been supposed he had ambitions to go into politics after all.


----------



## beastie (9 Jan 2013)

2244116 said:


> Obviously not, Paxman knows way too much about cycling.


Bout the same as Oprah I expect.


----------



## thom (9 Jan 2013)

This CBS 60 mins piece should be a timely reminder to the primetime US audience of some of the nastier aspects of LA's behaviour.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jan 2013)

I hope this gets treated with the contempt it deserves. But this is America, and I doubt it.


----------



## jdtate101 (9 Jan 2013)

It will be a complete "soap oprah"............Lance Armstrong, the gift that keeps on giving.....


----------



## Zofo (9 Jan 2013)

Oprah ".......so Lance talk to me, what happened?"
LA "Well Oprah you know I guess I kinda overstepped the line somewhat, but hey I'm a winner and I did what it took to win. No one was hurt and the only one at risk was me.Yeah, some might say it was cheating but, whatever, you know every team was at it back in the day. I guess it is what it is and I'm not gonna sit here and tell you I'm proud to have lied to my family and friends , but hey life sucks sometimes and you just gotta' move on ................"" blah blah blah


----------



## thom (9 Jan 2013)

Questions Oprah should ask Lance : http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah-winfrey-lance-armstrong


----------



## oldroadman (9 Jan 2013)

Will this thread run for ever??
Enough of LA, he is history. An unhappy piece of it, but history.
All that's happening now is simply a money machine. He is banned, let it stay that way.


----------



## Minotier (9 Jan 2013)

Do you think the audience will all get a bike each, like when Oprah gave all another audience a VW Beetle?
Good PR though for a upcoming Congressman/Senator/Governor/Sheriff/Councilman/Representative/Bishop/Whatever.


----------



## Aperitif (9 Jan 2013)

Thanks, Thom - there is the other bit too...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah-wilfrey-lance-armstrong

...about sums up the last few posts somewhat.


----------



## BJH (9 Jan 2013)

Surprised its not Piers Morgan Life Stories and chilli and onions rubbed into his hands so he can turn on the waterworks when required.


----------



## thom (9 Jan 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Will this thread run for ever??
> Enough of LA, he is history. An unhappy piece of it, but history.
> All that's happening now is simply a money machine. He is banned, let it stay that way.


I think you need to tell that to Oprah - I think it stinks that she is getting involved in this.
He ought to front up to the cycling world first but he wants PR rehabilitation without facing up to the damage he has done to cycling.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> I think you need to tell that to Oprah - I think it stinks that she is getting involved in this.
> He ought to front up to the cycling world first but he wants PR rehabilitation without facing up to the damage he has done to cycling.


 
Absolutely.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Jan 2013)

Place your bets @ Ladbrokes!


----------



## totallyfixed (9 Jan 2013)

Yes well, Oprah and Lance, best buddies plus I wonder what they are paying him to appear. Will he confess to all? This is LA we are talking about. He needs adulation, money and competition, I somehow can't see him doing a Floyd. I have a choice of cycling hats to eat if I am wrong.


----------



## rich p (9 Jan 2013)

LOCO said:


> Place your bets @ Ladbrokes!


 USADA at 6/4 on, has got to be a good bet.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> USADA at 6/4 on, has got to be a good bet.


Must admit I thought it was a wind up Livestrong has be a nailed on one too at 1/4, but here it is. Wonder if there is a bet limit


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Jan 2013)

totallyfixed said:


> Yes well, Oprah and Lance, best buddies plus I wonder what they are paying him to appear. Will he confess to all? This is LA we are talking about. He needs adulation, money and competition, I somehow can't see him doing a Floyd. I have a choice of cycling hats to eat if I am wrong.


BBC TV news are covering the announcement and stated that according to a press announcement from Oprah W's side, it will be no fee, no questions barred and no editorial control to LA. As a cynic, I believe that this means we'll learn nothing.

Mind, after I first heard the news on the World Service in the middle of the night, I ended up waking up with a vague notion about ''Lance Armstrong, the Opera'' floating around in my head.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Jan 2013)

I reckon this will be the opening titles music


----------



## BJH (9 Jan 2013)

I generally like to place a bet on the Grand National on something over 100-1 with an each way

Might ask them for odds on I am a douche bag lying toad who cheated lots of other cyclists out of their moment of glory while bullying whoever got in my way and earning millions which will never be able to be recovered from me and betraying the faith of many with Hope Rides Again

Like my national horse, this will no doubt be shot just after the first hurdle.


----------



## raindog (9 Jan 2013)

Please don't mention Neil Young and that Armstrong prick in the same post.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> I generally like to place a bet on the Grand National on something over 100-1 with an each way
> 
> Might ask them for odds on I am a douche bag lying toad who cheated lots of other cyclists out of their moment of glory while bullying whoever got in my way and earning millions which will never be able to be recovered from me and betraying the faith of many with Hope Rides Again
> 
> *Like my national horse, this will no doubt be shot just after the first hurdle*.


 
Here's hoping.


----------



## rich p (9 Jan 2013)

Patrick Lefevre on Levi Leipheimer getting the heave-ho from OPQS after being one of USADA's whistleblowers ( or cornered into telling the truth at last)

*CN HD:* Would you have signed him if you’d known he was involved in the case?
*PL:* No. I don’t believe in signing rider for one year

That sends a pretty clear message then


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

Has the Oprah thingy already been filmed?

Even if it hasn't then I guess we can be confident he is going to admit to doping, given the recent press stories. Someone ust have talked (or it was purposefully leaked).

If he had a shred of decency he would be talking to USADA first, Oprah a very distant second.


----------



## laurence (9 Jan 2013)

is there a sweepstake on how many times he will say "witchhunt"?

maybe he will confess, but i bet he blames someone else... he was forced into it... everyone else was doing it.. etc.
his ego will not allow him to be the bad guy, he always played the victim and he will on this charade of a tv show.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> *Has the Oprah thingy already been filmed?*
> 
> Even if it hasn't then I guess we can be confident he is going to admit to doping, given the recent press stories. Someone ust have talked (or it was purposefully leaked).
> 
> If he had a shred of decency he would be talking to USADA first, Oprah a very distant second.


I doubt it, but Oprah's people and Lance's people will have worked out the script.

William Fotheringham reckons that Armstrong won't confess, but I think he might. Put it this way - Oprah is not going to fly to Texas without good reason, and Armstrong will have had to provide that good reason. Remember that Oprah is way bigger box office than Armstrong.


----------



## BJH (9 Jan 2013)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?



Definitely no heart there just a four inch pump powered by a mini nuclear reactor but everyone else is doing it too


----------



## BJH (9 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2027278, member: 259"]Should he formally be known as Lancelot?[/quote]

Should that not be Lancealotless once he pays back the insurance company andmurdoch ?


----------



## thom (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Has the Oprah thingy already been filmed?
> 
> Even if it hasn't then I guess we can be confident he is going to admit to doping, given the recent press stories. Someone ust have talked (or it was purposefully leaked).
> 
> If he had a shred of decency he would be talking to USADA first, Oprah a very distant second.


No, it will go out live at 2am uk time next thursday i think.
he has no editorial control apparently
should be broadcast on the web globally for the benefit of all of mankind


----------



## threebikesmcginty (9 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> Please don't mention Neil Young and that Armstrong prick in the same post.


 
Yeah too right, I can't stand Neil Young either.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> No, it will go out live at 2am uk time next thursday i think.
> (1) he has no editorial control apparently
> (2) should be broadcast on the web globally for the benefit of all of mankind


 
(1) I don't buy that, do you?

(2)  Oh and it is to be broadcast live on Oprah's web channel apparently (whatever that channel is)


----------



## johnr (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> (1) I don't buy that, do you?
> 
> (2)  Oh and it is to be broadcast live on Oprah's web channel apparently (whatever that channel is)


 OPRAH.COM according to The Guardian


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

They think it is all Oprah and now it is!

I don't think he will confess in the manner every one expects. I think he will admit to doping but under duress of the requirements of the sport and sponsors of the time. I am sure he will say everyone was doing it, there have been enough discredited rival riders of his era when he was at his peak. There were numerous other scandals and riders have continued to test positive. Nope, I think he will blame the whole culture of professional cycling to win at all costs which is what essentially happened, also the infrastructure so to speak the people running the sport from the events themselves, to the governing bodies, the huge amounts of money to play for, his impression at the time of the huge amount of responsibilty he carried having survived cancer and still wanting to be the world's best bike rider. He won't name anyone but he will point a huge heavy finger at the complicit big names who ran the events and the UCI at the time and some of whom who are still there. Whilst not naming anyone directly this will have massive repurcussions for those running the events and sponsors. There may be an awful lot of dodgy deals he may know about that we don't and I would expect him to allude to them again may be not naming anyone. The other thing he will do his utmost to do is try to prevent a prosecution beig brought against him for perjury and stopping himself going to jail as happened to Marion Jones. I think he will try to conveniently skirt around the issue of deceiving those who believed in him as an icon who beat cancer and the higher profile he gave those suffering cancer. It will be an interesting interview, but 90 minutes ............. Jeremy Kyle would get the truth out of him in about 4 minutes max with adverts as well.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

2245774 said:


> Jeremy Kyle? That well regarded investigative journalist, which of his weapons would he use, the lie detector or the paternity test?


 
The lie detector would melt. Anyway Lance doesn't have any balls does he ?


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

2245798 said:


> Just the one.
> 
> For the record, I absolutely loathe and detest Jeremy Kyle and his preying on vulnerable stupid people like the owner of a Victorian freak show.


 
Wos the name of the British woman who had a show similar to Oprah / Jeremy Kyle? Can't remember her name. She would get the truth out of him.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (9 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Wos the name of the British woman who had a show similar to Oprah / Jeremy Kyle? Can't remember her name. She would get the truth out of him.


Trisha? A neighbour of mine was in a band with her, that's the only reason I have half a clue, honest!


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jan 2013)

Trisha Goddard?

Her show was regularly spoofed by students.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Trisha? A neighbour of mine was in a band with her, that's the only reason I have half a clue, honest!


 
Yes her. Spot on well done DM. I think she trained to be a solicitor but gave it up as she found it too exciting.


----------



## Crankarm (9 Jan 2013)

Just had a thought. Oprah could do a spoof of This is Your Life on Lance, well in the last half hour, once the serious stuff was out the way and before the Feds arrest him at the end. Lance may also have a race radio on him but instead of talking to Bruyneel it will be his team of lawyers. "No, don't answer that, yes that's ok."


----------



## Noodley (9 Jan 2013)

Get Vanessa on his case! She'd have him squacking.


----------



## Shadow (9 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> It will be an interesting interview, but 90 minutes .........


 
I think not. This is ameican tv, in prime time, so it is regarded as 'entertainment' for americans with an IQ of about 12.5, barely above the level of 'the price is right'!
As others have said, she ain't Paxo and as DZ says the draw is Oprah, not LA.


----------



## thom (9 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Get Vanessa on his case! She'd have him squacking.


Vanessa has a 1st class english degree from Cambridge.
Most likely she'd ask him how to source the drugs.


----------



## thom (9 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> (1) I don't buy that, do you?
> 
> (2)  Oh and it is to be broadcast live on Oprah's web channel apparently (whatever that channel is)


 
We'll see. I guess it could have been worse. He might have asked Phil Liggett to do the interview.


----------



## johnr (10 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> We'll see. I guess it could have been worse. He might have asked Phil Liggett to do the interview.


 Nah... Phil's too busy knocking off the first draft of the new autobiography he's ghosting: 'Sources Say I Never Doped'. With that and the backing vocals to record for Pharmstrong's new single, Phil's schedule is packed.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (10 Jan 2013)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


 
"Nothing that looks like the truth so far, I guess we'll just have to try wiring you up to the Hadron Collider next."


----------



## Strathlubnaig (10 Jan 2013)

Listen up, LA never knowingly doped ! All he did was enjoy a morning brew...


----------



## Aperitif (10 Jan 2013)




----------



## 400bhp (10 Jan 2013)

> Matt DeCanio, a former professional cyclist who voluntarily confessed to using erythropoietin (EPO) and then campaigned against doping, also criticised the platform chosen by Armstrong
> "Oprah Winfrey appeals to the general American public who shops at Wal-Mart, doesn't know up from down or left from right and just wants to hear a feelgood story," the American told BBC Radio 5 live.
> 
> .


 


Some stuff over on BBC from Millar too.


----------



## Minotier (10 Jan 2013)

Get Lance on This Morning and have Phillip Schofield hand him a piece of paper with times/dates etc and see if he reacts in as controlled a manner as Cameron did whilst fuming internally!


----------



## Crackle (10 Jan 2013)

Fotheringham pretty much agrees with what Matt Seaton said earlier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/lance-armstrong-bare-all-oprah-winfrey

Concession, muddying of the waters and a tilt at public perception but not a confession.


----------



## Noodley (10 Jan 2013)

I cannae see this link having been posted before, but apologies if it has:

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

I'd be surprised if the questioning was as rigorous as that tbh


----------



## Jussi Halonen (11 Jan 2013)

Livestrong, dope hard.


----------



## Boris Bajic (11 Jan 2013)

First question for Oprah to ask:

"Lance, how does a guy with no TdF victories get to 105 pages on a Cyclechat thread?"

I've just read _Seven Deadly Sins_ and I kept finding myself wanting D Walsh to move on and get over it. I felt like someone walking out halfway through *Apollo 13*, not really bothered whether Tom Hanks survives. 

Sir Armstrong is a super cheat. A super super cheat. But I cannot erase from my mind the radio commentaries of his 1999 win (I was in France with no TV). Some of it chilled my blood to listen to. I used snippets of it for the bedtime stories for my (then tiny) children. 

I cannot lose my continued regard for Sir Armstrong as a dramatic and powerful rider. I do not need him as a friend and have anyway never met him.

When I 'raced' the kids in local car parks when they were little, they always wanted to be Armstrong and I always had to be Cippoloini. Insofar as they give a damn about pro-racing, my kids still rather like the man.

Super-super cheat and bully and manipulator, but Pantani was a cheat too... and well... everybody. And we knew it from day one and still tuned in and got excited.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (11 Jan 2013)

In addition to the EPO coffee (post #2090 above) I am also purchasing these....


----------



## smutchin (11 Jan 2013)

Actual news (kind of):
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...rmstrong-received-help-to-beat-epo-tests.html


----------



## Noodley (11 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Some of it chilled my blood


----------



## thom (11 Jan 2013)

smutchin said:


> Actual news (kind of):
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...rmstrong-received-help-to-beat-epo-tests.html


yes, it would be good to see that 60 min CBS program in full


----------



## kedab (11 Jan 2013)

my wife told me of the oprah interview:

'armstrong is going on oprah, kev'. 
'he's...what?! oprah? oh FFS, that'll be a difficult interview for him, what the f*** does she know about procycling?! what...' and so on and so on...poor wifey, she doesn't deserve to bear the brunt of my ranting.

i can only imagine how david walsh must have felt but i'm surprised he and his family stayed sane!


----------



## Crankarm (12 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Lance Armstrong: Swiss lab head denies assisting American
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20993562


 
Hardly surprising really ................. They are not going to admit to helping him now are they?


----------



## Boris Bajic (12 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Hardly surprising really ................. They are not going to admit to helping him now are they?


 
Helping him do what?

Some of you guys just can't believe that a guy can win NO TOURS de FRANCE at all on just godd, old-fashioned hard work.

You always have to look for the bad stuff, don't you?

Trolls!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (12 Jan 2013)

Will he, won't he? USA Today says he will.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Will he, won't he? USA Today says he will.


 
Looks as though I was right about the deals on offer from the WADA......if the article is correct then one wonders just how far the ban will be reduced?



> If he provided new information about cheating in the sport, he could have his ban reduced to no less than eight years, according to the World Anti-Doping Agency code. It's also possible that WADA and USADA could reach an agreement to reduce the ban further depending on his information and cooperation.


----------



## BJH (12 Jan 2013)

Although trying to buy off USADA with a donation should then be added back into the mix

I struggle with the idea that he will give a limited confession that wil be sufficient to allow him to be able to compete in triathlon within a shorter period of time.

How much of a self obsessed person would he need to be to want all of the publicity and baggage that would come with that to try to prove that he was really great anyway even if the competition is a different group of people........

......Oh hang on a minute that's probably what he wants


----------



## Herzog (12 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> I struggle with the idea that he will give a limited confession that wil be sufficient to allow him to be able to compete in triathlon within a shorter period of time.


 
Moreover, it'll be facinating to see how he phrases his confession/concession. The numerous lawsuits against him total a sizable amount and any confession would most likely cause him to lose all of them. His wording will be very, very interesting!


----------



## rich p (12 Jan 2013)

I hear on the grapevine that he's going to blame Tyler H, Big George and Jonathan 'Spats' Vaughters for making him do it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Will he, won't he? USA Today says he will.


I think he will. Tears will be shed. His reputation will be restored as they love a come-back story in the States. And some revolting deal will be done with the anti doping boys and the governing bodies because big bucks are still to be made.


----------



## Herzog (13 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> I hear on the grapevine that he's going to blame Tyler H, Big George and Jonathan 'Spats' Vaughters for making him do it.


 
He'll blame his dad, taking the abandoned son route - or the french and how the never 'got' him.


----------



## Aperitif (13 Jan 2013)

> *ON WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY*
> 
> I've said it before and I will repeat it: I believe that I am the most tested athlete on this planet, I have never had a single positive doping test, and I do not take performance enhancing drugs. At the end of the day, I don't care what anybody says, cycling has done more than any sport to fix its doping problem. *Responding to Dick Pound, the president of Wada, who had said the public knew that riders in the Tour were doping, 2004*
> The facts revealed in the independent investigator's report show a pattern of intentional misconduct by Wada officials designed to attack anyone who challenges them, followed by a cover-up to conceal their wrongdoing. This conduct by Pound is just the latest in a long history of ethical transgressions and violations of athletes' rights. *Calling for Pound's dismissal from the International Olympic Committee after the Vrijman report said Wada had pronounced Armstrong guilty of failing a test in 1999 without adequate basis, 2006*
> ...


 
All this and more in today's Observer (I think). A 'full' confession is on its way. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/12/lance-armstrong-oprah-winfrey


----------



## Crankarm (13 Jan 2013)

Oprah might not be such a soft interviewer. I am sure she will be briefed. Maybe her other guest could be Floyd Landis?


----------



## Strathlubnaig (13 Jan 2013)

Re The Observer article referenced above. What a lazy piece to print, no opinion, no story, no journalism, just a bunch of quotes from the past, tells us nothing at all. Waste of space.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2013)

Crankarm said:


> Oprah might not be such a soft interviewer. I am sure she will be briefed. Maybe her other guest could be Floyd Landis?


Oprah is neither a soft or a hard interviewer. She is a financial and media titan. She makes Armstrong look like a pauper. What Oprah wants, Oprah gets. There will be no surprises. She will be paying money in order to get big ratings and the immediateand long term revenue that those ratings bring. If Oprah is trailing this it's because she reckons this show is going to be a big hit and she will come out of it looking even more serious and important than she does now.

Her US ratings might not be what they were, but they're still vast. She's the most influential woman and the second most influential black person in the US. She's taken on homophobia and, arguably, won. She's taken on racism. She's taken on Fox News. We think of Armstrong as a big deal - this is a show among many, and it will be conducted in the way that she wants it conducted. The upside for Armstrong is that he's not got many places to go if he wants public esteem, and this is a way of managing his 'coming out', bypassing the US press that thinks of him as a busted flush. There will be emotion and there may be tears, but it will all be carefully worked out and agreed in advance.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Re The Observer article referenced above. What a lazy piece to print, no opinion, no story, no journalism, just a bunch of quotes from the past, tells us nothing at all. Waste of space.


that's to misunderstand the purpose of the article. It's a trailer for a show that will go to over 100 countries. The Observer is merely being fed stuff that it obediently regurgitates, but that's what Oprah wants.


----------



## thom (13 Jan 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> The Observer is merely being fed stuff that it obediently regurgitates, but that's what Oprah wants.


Yep - it is a bit much to expect free news to be the height of critical journalism, particularly with regard to a cycling personality.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2013)

I think the one thing that might disrupt Lance's Oprafication is if he went (excuse the term) postal. He has been known to lose it. Having said that, his sworn testimony in the insurance case was so assured, so definite, that the chances of that happening are slight.


----------



## Noodley (13 Jan 2013)

*I'm sure you've all had the opportunity to read this for yourselves but I thought I'd include it here to add to the discussion. The Sunday Times have placed an "open letter" in the Chicago Tribune, and David Walsh asks ten questions which he thinks Oprah should ask:*


1. Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?
2. After returning from cancer, how did you justify putting banned drugs in your body?
3. Did you have any sympathy for those rivals determined to race clean?
4. Do you regret how you treated Betsy Andreu, your former masseuse Emma O'Reilly and Greg LeMond?
5. Do you admit that your friend Dr Michele Ferrari fully supported your team's doping?
6. Is it your intention to return the prize money you earned from September 1998 to July 2010?
7. Did you sue _The Sunday Times_ to shut us up?
8. Was your failure to understand Floyd Landis the key to your downfall?
9. Do you accept lying to the cancer community was the greatest deception of all?
10. Why have you chosen Oprah Winfrey for your first interview as a banned athlete?

I'm sure he could have thought of a better question 10  , but otherwise they all seem fairly straight forward and easy to answer. Perhaps too easy. BUt not bad as an opening gambit.


----------



## StuAff (13 Jan 2013)

And if any of those questions are asked, let alone any of them answered, then…

Nope, it ain't going to happen. Having read so much about him, including from the man's own words, I can't imagine a full, genuine, contrite Lance Armstrong apology happening, ever. Shame statute of limitations almost certainly saves him from ever being charged with perjury.


----------



## BJH (13 Jan 2013)

Surprised myself that Walsh would say these are the top 10 questions to ask him.

They strike me more as opening questions to gain an initial response to lead on to a more devastating second question

Even more surprised that one single question doesn't start with "You're a liar, a cheat, a drug taker, a bully and a con man who has dragged sporting reputation into the gutter ...."


----------



## Noodley (13 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> They strike me more as opening questions to gain an initial response to lead on to a more devastating second question


 
Most definitely, and I think from the last question it is obvious that Walsh wants to be the one asking the follow-up questions.


----------



## Aperitif (14 Jan 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Re The Observer article referenced above. What a lazy piece to print, no opinion, no story, no journalism, just a bunch of quotes from the past, tells us nothing at all. Waste of space.


Yes, well...and as I posted it yesterday, I can imagine all those (potentially) reading, who haven't a clue about the machinations of Pro cycling etc being suddenly 'interested' at a 'sportsman' ranting; and it is also a reasonable precis of a lot of knockabout stuff within these threads.
Calm down.


----------



## lanternerouge (14 Jan 2013)

Dunno if this has been posted previously but: http://www.happyplace.com/20355/bingo-game-for-lance-armstrongs-interview-with-oprah quite useful


----------



## PpPete (14 Jan 2013)

http://www.happyplace.com/18589/10-...strongs-steroid-use-more-than-lance-armstrong
erm, anyone think photo #6 looks like a well-known member on here ?


----------



## Herzog (14 Jan 2013)

Channel 4 reporting that LA has 'apologised' to the staff at Livestrong...


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (14 Jan 2013)

Herzog said:


> Channel 4 reporting that LA has 'apologised' to the staff at Livestrong...


 
So he admits to having something to apologise for. Reports suggest it is a prelim to an admission of doping but the apology was private. It sounds like preparing the ground tho'.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jan 2013)

Oprah interview is being recorded today is it not? Expect "leaked snippets" soon...


----------



## Herzog (14 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Oprah interview is being recorded today is it not? Expect "leaked snippets" soon...


 
Indeed it is!


----------



## BJH (14 Jan 2013)

Think I saw something earlier about an LA special on 5 Live tonight at 9. - just about now!

I will wait for the digests


----------



## craigwend (14 Jan 2013)

Nicole Cooke attacks cheats as she retires from cycling...

Cooke said: "When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him the tissue, spare a thought for all those genuine people who walked away with no rewards - just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20946301


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (14 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> Think I saw something earlier about an LA special on 5 Live tonight at 9. - just about now!
> 
> I will wait for the digests


thanks for the heads up


----------



## Kins (14 Jan 2013)

Bit on the BBC : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21016122


----------



## thom (15 Jan 2013)

Lance "reaching out" to David Walsh ?!?!

& AP are reporting he confessed to Oprah


----------



## Scoosh (15 Jan 2013)

> & AP are reporting he confessed to Oprah


Not much sympathy in the Comments either.


----------



## Kins (15 Jan 2013)

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/50460308/ns/sports-cycling/



> Lance Armstrong confessed to Oprah Winfrey during an interview Monday that he used performance-enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press.
> The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the interview is to be broadcast Thursday on Winfrey's network.


 
The tea boy at Oprah talking out of turn again, sheeeeesh, just can't get the staff.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (15 Jan 2013)

Took hour and a half according to Oprah

https://twitter.com/Oprah/status/290958167955869696


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> Lance "reaching out" to David Walsh ?!?!
> 
> & AP are reporting he confessed to Oprah


Thanks, Thom. Once again, battle commences in the post-article comments 



> HughGass
> F*ck you Lance.
> - The World
> 
> ...


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2013)

I've still heard mention of a partial confession but I don't understand that. Confessing to using PEDs to win is everything in a nutshell. The bullying of Simeoni, Hamilton, Landis, Basson is well-documented already.
The only real 'revelation' he could make, beyond admitting doping, is to implicate Ferrari, the UCI and Bruyneel...

...or dirty Bertie No love lost there!


----------



## Danny (15 Jan 2013)

On Monday there was an interesting article in the New York Times about the way in which Armstrong mixes his charitable and business interests.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (15 Jan 2013)

An eerie hush descends, the world waits.. 

(Oh all right then, not much of hush and a very small part of the world.. ..and someone's spilled the beans anyway..)


----------



## Crackle (15 Jan 2013)

It's still not clear what he's up to.

A full confession: Unlikey, given the Landi case waiting in the wings and the Federal investigation, currently shelved
A full confession with twists: I could see him doing that and pointing the finger at others, in exchange for.......
A partial handwringing: No actual details, just a, I cheated and I'm sorry

There's probably other permutations but I've given up being surprised now. Someone needs to put a stake through his heart, he keeps getting back up.


----------



## ufkacbln (15 Jan 2013)

We know how devious he is

Is it possible that a tear jerking "victim of a broken home supporting his poor mother drove him" defence enough to find some sympathy?

Then lay out a few teasers about what he knows and increase the bargaining offers from the WADA / USADA

He could still be playing games


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2013)

A partial and partial confession with mysterious blaming of unnamed 3rd parties in the manner of Homer Simpson "One of the big boys made me do it and then ran away" is on the cards I fear.


----------



## Dave Davenport (15 Jan 2013)

'The only way to beat those cheating Europeans was to beat them at their own game, did you want to see me (i.e America) loosing to some cheese eating, surrender monkey?'


----------



## musa (15 Jan 2013)

Reports by sky 
http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/n...stand-Lance-Armstrong-has-confessed-to-doping


----------



## User169 (15 Jan 2013)

From 1:20 - Oprah opines..

She seemed to have done her homework.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5862Um6VWpw


----------



## raindog (15 Jan 2013)

but he never tested positive


----------



## User169 (15 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> but he never tested positive


----------



## Andrew_P (15 Jan 2013)

Hmmm seems he might be offering a deal to go after the UCI and various Team Directors (well according to Twitter rumour) Also pointed the boney finger in the direction of the NFL and why the player didn't come under such scrininy from the USADA.


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> Surprised myself that Walsh would say these are the top 10 questions to ask him.
> 
> They strike me more as opening questions to gain an initial response to lead on to a more devastating second question
> 
> Even more surprised that one single question doesn't start with "You're a liar, a cheat, a drug taker, a bully and a con man who has dragged sporting reputation into the gutter ...."


 
I recently read the Walsh book "Seven Deadly Sins" and found it odd. very interesting in parts, but odd nonetheless.

True to form, Walsh likes to swim (up to a point) in the sweet syrup of family tragedy and use it to contextualise his Lancaphobia.

Certainly, the man was not well treated, but his joyful dancing on the grave of Armstrong's reputation is ugly.

David Walsh appears to have membership 001 for the David Walsh Fan Club and seems proud of his ownership of same.

He appears not to know what it takes to be a good winner. If indeed he did win, rather than just pick a winner.

I'm just saying....


----------



## johnr (15 Jan 2013)

Crackle said:


> It's still not clear what he's up to..


 
It's a fiendish, CIA-inspired plot to undermine the announcement of the routes of the 2014 Tour de France opening stages. Are there no lengths to which these people will not go?


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> but he never tested positive


 True RD, and did we ever clear up if USADA has jurisdicion?


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Jan 2013)

What about:

"It's been a difficult road and there's a lot that people simply don't know. I have some stories I just can't tell at the moment for legal reasons, but it's all going to be in my book, published later this year".

I think that (with enough 'smaller' stories to flesh it out would both satisfy Oprah Plc and keep the revenue stream potentially open.

It would also (if managed) allow for redemption through partial confession.

In terms of managed regaining of reputation, esstablishment of possible future income and satisfying the media beast, that might do it.


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2013)

User3094 said:


> _Lance Armstrong did not come clean in the manner I expected, says Oprah Winfrey._
> 
> BBC ticker - now.


Yeah, he came cleaner than she expected according to the Oprah interview linked to above.
She also says that it won't be cut from 2 1/2 hours and will be shown in full over 2 evenings.


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2013)

To be honest, an hour and a quarter is probably enough each evening.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2013)

He's going to come out of it all a feckin' hero by turning whistle-blower, according to the NY Times

_"Armstrong, 41, is planning to testify against officials from the International Cycling Union, the worldwide governing body of cycling, about their involvement with doping in cycling, but he will not testify against other riders, according to the people familiar with his plans. _
_ He is also in discussions with the United States Department of Justice to possibly testify in a federal whistle-blower case. That case involves the cycling team sponsored by the United States Postal Service, and Armstrong would testify against several of the team’s owners, including the investment banker Thom Weisel, and other officials, one person close to the situation said. That person did not want his name published because the case is still open."_

More here on Mr Weasel sorry Weisel

As for me? Hell hath no fury like a fan-boy scorned.


----------



## Herzog (15 Jan 2013)

It'll be interesting if his next 'crusade' is against the doping 'facilitators'. He seems like the kind of bloke who needs to be trying to crush somebody/something at all times.


----------



## User169 (15 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> He's going to come out of it all a feckin' hero by turning whistle-blower, according to the NY Times
> 
> .


 
Interesting. UCI put out a press-release today. No comment until it's seen the interview, but encourages Armstrong to appear before its review committee if the rumours are true.


----------



## raindog (15 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> To be honest, an hour and a quarter is probably enough each evening.


Just ten minutes of Lance and Oprah each evening would be too much for me.


----------



## User169 (15 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> What about:
> 
> "It's been a difficult road and there's a lot that people simply don't know. I have some stories I just can't tell at the moment for legal reasons, but it's all going to be in my book, published later this year".
> 
> ...


 
From what Winfrey said this morning, I got the impression this was what she expected, but he was actually more forthcoming. On the other hand, she has an obvious interest in talking up the interview...


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2013)

Matt Seaton does a 'cost-benefit analysis' of the unfolding "confession". HERE.


> In short, this now looks like a carefully choreographed, slow-release PR plan – likely managed by Armstrong's long-time agent Bill Stapleton – to perform a 180-degree turn on all previously held positions: belligerent denial, self-righteous indignation and bullying belittling of accusers. Instead, we have Lance Armstrong the penitent sinner: the weepy, choked-up prodigal son, who is finally coming clean and seeks redemption. As is well-established, an audience with Oprah achieves that almost instantaneously: I can see her right now, reaching out and taking his hand as he shakes with emotion and talks about the pain of living the false life we all made him lead.


----------



## 007fair (15 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> *I'm sure you've all had the opportunity to read this for yourselves but I thought I'd include it here to add to the discussion. The Sunday Times have placed an "open letter" in the Chicago Tribune, and David Walsh asks ten questions which he thinks Oprah should ask:*
> 
> 
> 1. Did you tell doctors at the Indiana University Hospital on October 27, 1996 that you had taken EPO, human growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone?
> ...


I would like the honest answer in his own words to 'Why own up now?' 

It strikes me that his admission is unbelievably calculated and self serving just as his denial was before. Armstrong had got away with it is many ways, yet now seems to be unable to stay under his rock because he wants/needs to compete again is some form. What is he if he can't? There is no other reason for coming out now, especially not remorse. Any remorse now is purely an act and a ridiculously blatant one at.


----------



## MacB (15 Jan 2013)

User3094 said:


> If the system was corrupt and LA was the figurehead of this corrupt system, then surely it is the moral duty of the penitent man to tackle the rot in the system? Who better to do this than LA? Yes, the witch dunkers amongst you wont get to see him tar and feathered and yes, he is a survivalist of the first order.....
> 
> .....but what other choice does he have?


 
slink off and shut the fark up perhaps?

As it is I reckon the Americans will lap it up, he'll stay in the limelight and get to carry on bullying others


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2013)

User3094 said:


> To never even be given the chance to repent? We've grown up since the Middle Ages.


repent, slink off and shut the fark up. Is that post-modern enough?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (15 Jan 2013)

Armstrong does not 'come clean in the manner that [she] expected':

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

Whatever that means.



> all of us in the room, we were mesmerised and riveted by some of his answers.


 
Like rabbits in the headlamps?

Perhaps not really surprising as it's likely he will seek to do deals. Like getting off the perjury rap.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2013)

I suggest anyone who thinks Lance's redemption should be carried on centre stage whilst bullying yet more folk via the American legal system should read, and reflect on Nicola Cooke's retirement speech. "Cheats win on the way up and on the way down." but only if we let them.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## Grayduff (15 Jan 2013)

2174 post`s wasted on a Drug taking cheating lying twat 2175 with this one..A hero of the track, road ,Olympic champion, Nighthood,Sports Personality of the year and one more thing Tour de France Winner 2012 without Cheating.. and we as a forum have posted 75% less post`s on him... JUST SAYING Bradley Wiggins that is Just in case we had all forgotten..


----------



## smutchin (15 Jan 2013)

He's beyond redemption but if he's going down, I for one would be very happy to see him take the UCI down with him. I don't think he could in any way be said to be "doing the right thing", it's far too late for that, but as big a villain as Lance is, his downfall will mean nothing if the corruption at the highest level of the sport isn't rooted out.


----------



## Zofo (15 Jan 2013)

The best form of defence is attack. Watch the master tactician in action. LA will now play the role of crusader against ''corruption'' in the sport, probably with a view to some future role for himself. Poacher turned gamekeeper ?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2013)

Lance Armstrong UCI President.

read it and weep.


----------



## Grayduff (15 Jan 2013)

2174 post`s wasted on a Drug taking cheating lying twat 2175 with this one..A hero of the track, road ,Olympic champion, Nighthood,Sports Personality of the year and one more thing Tour de France Winner 2012 without Cheating.. and we as a forum have posted 75% less post`s on him... JUST SAYING Bradley Wiggins that is Just in case we had all forgotten.. 2183


----------



## thom (15 Jan 2013)

smutchin said:


> He's beyond redemption but if he's going down, I for one would be very happy to see him take the UCI down with him. I don't think he could in any way be said to be "doing the right thing", it's far too late for that, but as big a villain as Lance is, his downfall will mean nothing if the corruption at the highest level of the sport isn't rooted out.


I'm prepared to believe Oprah has done a good job but only a fool would allow him "redemption" based upon one interview. I think David Millar represents something of a benchmark for redemption as far as cycling is concerned, being that he is the first to see his achievements now as that of an ex-doper. Lance could only start on the road to redemption if this interview is the first step to full disclosure to USADA/WADA of what went on. He needs to face his harshest critics in public too.
I trust USADA to act properly on information they get from him. Lance had the chance to confess to USADA before in order to get the dodgy doctors and the corrupt officials out of cycling. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that his information can still be used to weed out that dishonesty. His reputation will stay below zero to any sane cycling and he will have to accept that.


----------



## Hip Priest (15 Jan 2013)

Well I don't know about you lot but I'm still not certain he doped.


----------



## MattHB (15 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Well I don't know about you lot but I'm still not certain he doped.


No of course not.. Really uncertain


----------



## smokeysmoo (15 Jan 2013)

Hip Priest said:


> Well I don't know about you lot but I'm still not certain he doped


FTFY


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2013)

With uncanny timing the Justice Dept have until the day of the TV transmission to join in with Landis' whistleblower suit. That could be megabucks but will they deem it worth the effort?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arm...d-to-dollar-100-million-whistleblower-lawsuit


----------



## BJH (15 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> but he never tested positive




Is this a serious point?

What happens when you see him admit it in the flesh on Oprah


----------



## raindog (15 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> Is this a serious point?


what do you think?


----------



## BJH (15 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> what do you think?



Desperately hoping not !!!!!


----------



## BJH (15 Jan 2013)

User3094 said:


> To never even be given the chance to repent? We've grown up since the Middle Ages.



The problem with this point is hat he has had countless times to do it. I genuinely believe that others have done this and freed themselves from the lies.

This is orchestrated and manipulated to suit him so smacks of an engineered attempt to get away with admitting but still ending up getting away without a no holds barred admission that he was cheating tw£t


----------



## BJH (15 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Lance Armstrong UCI President.
> 
> read it and weep.



Possibly better than HV was as just a little less close to the devil than him


----------



## Noodley (15 Jan 2013)

Hey Lance...







Hey Hein and Pat...


----------



## thom (15 Jan 2013)

In Girona, it still all starts and ends with Lance Armstrong


----------



## NormanD (15 Jan 2013)

OOPS!!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (15 Jan 2013)

In Girona, he's even responsible for the Green Cross Code. Oh... _that_ Green Cross Code!


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> In Girona, he's even responsible for the Green Cross Code. Oh... _that_ Green Cross Code!


Is that a butcher's shop?


----------



## Zofo (15 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Lance Armstrong UCI President.
> 
> read it and weep.


If Tony Blair can end up as a 'Peace' Envoy in the Middle East then anything's possible.


----------



## black'n'yellow (15 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> If Tony Blair can end up as a 'Peace' Envoy in the Middle East then anything's possible.


 
he's got a point...


----------



## Zofo (15 Jan 2013)

Thanks Lance:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21034694


----------



## thom (15 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> Thanks Lance:-
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21034694


I don't care if its dropped as long as its cleaned up properly and remains subject to WADA's codes.
I doubt cycling is the only Olympic sport with skeletons in it's closet.


----------



## tigger (15 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> Thanks Lance:-
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21034694


That's just scare mongering for now I think. Interesting video link to Oprah on that page.


----------



## StuAff (15 Jan 2013)

From drunkcyclist.com.


----------



## Radchenister (16 Jan 2013)

I see USADA and WADA have made the next move in rejecting the UCI's review process even before the Pharmstrong TV freak show has fully aired - comments cited express a view that over obsessive focussing on the antics of Mr L.E.Gunderson in relation to the UCI's governance of the sport and limited truth and reconciliation measures combines to miss the point of the process entirely ... the fireworks just keep coming, which will continue to amuse us all no doubt?


----------



## Andrew_Culture (16 Jan 2013)

This could be worse than any of us had thought:


----------



## MattHB (16 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> Thanks Lance:-
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21034694


It won't happen.. There's too much of a following that the IOC won't be able to afford to loose. It's a scare story to stop him dropping the UCI into to poopoo. Who knows, they might even have started it.


----------



## rich p (16 Jan 2013)

MattHB said:


> It won't happen.. There's too much of a following that the IOC won't be able to afford to loose. It's a scare story to stop him dropping the UCI into to poopoo. Who knows, they might even have started it.


 It was a story emanating from Dick Pound and there's no love lost between him and the UCI. After all they sued him and won a grovelling insincere apology for defamation.


----------



## Crackle (16 Jan 2013)

User said:


> U.S. government rejects Armstrong's $5 million offer in whisteblower case
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/u-s...s-dollar-5-million-offer-in-whisteblower-case


 
Good but the galling thing is, I suspect he'll still buy his way out and will probably avoid a criminal conviction.


----------



## 400bhp (16 Jan 2013)

Aperitif said:


> Matt Seaton does a 'cost-benefit analysis' of the unfolding "confession". HERE.


 
Wonder if he will have a letter for his children, a la Jones


----------



## 400bhp (16 Jan 2013)

Grayduff said:


> 2174 post`s wasted on a Drug taking cheating lying twat 2175 with this one..A hero of the track, road ,Olympic champion, Nighthood,Sports Personality of the year and one more thing Tour de France Winner 2012 without Cheating.. and we as a forum have posted 75% less post`s on him... JUST SAYING Bradley Wiggins that is Just in case we had all forgotten..


 
You're right, but also wrong.

Most of us here who post/cycle are just normal bods, go about our normal lives. Perhaps skirt with the law once in a while for minor misdemeanors. But, I'm struggling to imagine any of us would ever think about bullying, cajoling, lying, cheating our way to the top of where we work and what we do in our normal lives.

Don't be surprised if we are really really sickened and have strong opinions when someone really really takes the pish and when an organisation is so corrupt.


----------



## johnr (16 Jan 2013)

William Fotheringham in The Guardian characterises the confession as a diversion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-whistleblower-doping

Talking of which, what date is the CAS hearing for the USADA appeals?


----------



## rich p (16 Jan 2013)

johnr said:


> Talking of which, what date is the CAS hearing for the USADA appeals?


Who knows? Bruyneel's defence may shredded by Armstrong/Oprah anyway if it wasn't already threadbare.
Pepe Marti, Contador's ex-'trainer', and Armstrong and Hamilton's EPO home delivery supplier of choice may be scuppered too.
I other news Frank Schleck is still training!


----------



## PpPete (16 Jan 2013)

johnr said:


> William Fotheringham in The Guardian characterises the confession as a diversion:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-whistleblower-doping


 
As ever WF sums it up in one sentence...


> [this is] not to advance the cause of clean cycling but to save the skin of Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Zofo (16 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> From drunkcyclist.com.


" You know, back in the day, Tyler and I were like brothers "


----------



## Kins (16 Jan 2013)

What channel in the UK is the interview being screened on?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jan 2013)

Well, apparently the interview is now being stretched out over 2 nights - clearly Oprah knows a money-spinner when she sees one.


----------



## Crankarm (16 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Who knows? Bruyneel's defence may shredded by Armstrong/Oprah anyway if it wasn't already threadbare.
> Pepe Marti, Contador's ex-'trainer', and Armstrong and Hamilton's EPO home delivery supplier of choice may be scuppered too.
> I other news Frank Schleck is still training!


 
I think those in cycling particularly on the organistional UCI side who were around during the "eras" when doping was endemic who may have known what was going on or who were a major influence or instigated doping will now be crapping themselves or should be.


----------



## rich p (16 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well, apparently the interview is now being stretched out over 2 nights - clearly Oprah knows a money-spinner when she sees one.


 As pointed out in post #2161


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> As pointed out in post #2161


 
Oops...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> What channel in the UK is the interview being screened on?


I haven't seen any reports of a TV channel covering it, all I've read is that it will be streamed live on Winfrey's website. Maybe this page: http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahs-next-chapter/oprahs-next-chapter.html


----------



## rich p (16 Jan 2013)

I heard somewhere that it was going out live on a Discovery Channel - synergy, or summink - but I can't confirm that.

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/off-the-pitch/news/discovery-uk-to-air-armstrong-interview_64095.html


----------



## Zofo (16 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> What channel in the UK is the interview being screened on?


 It will be all over YouTube by around 4am Fri morning


----------



## Zofo (16 Jan 2013)

Christ Alive, what a jerk ! :-

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/cycling-oprah-armstrongs-comments-doping-expected-132946230.html


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jan 2013)

Discovery (520 on Sky) 02:00 am and repeated at 20:00 (both on) this coming Friday.

I won't be watching for fear I put a fist through the TV screen.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jan 2013)

2258845 said:


> Just do it like you used to watch Dr. Who, through your fingers from behind the sofa


I suppose if I put a Cohiba Esplendidos in one hand and three or four fingers of Lagavulin in the other I might not resort to violence. Not too decadent for a Friday evening.


----------



## PpPete (16 Jan 2013)

Now the UCIIC are asserting their independence:
http://road.cc/content/news/73764-u...blic-meeting-truth-and-reconciliation-process

Do the Swiss have nuclear fall-out shelters? They'd probably get a good rate for hiring them out right now.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Jan 2013)

PpPete said:


> Now the UCIIC are asserting their independence:
> http://road.cc/content/news/73764-u...blic-meeting-truth-and-reconciliation-process
> 
> Do the Swiss have nuclear fall-out shelters? They'd probably get a good rate for hiring them out right now.


I was worried about the composition of the independent commission when it was first announced. That link was reassuring.


----------



## mickle (17 Jan 2013)




----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

Lance is driven to compete by a need to crush people, perhaps? He really is that much of a bully? If so such behaviour borders on mental illness.

What Lance Armstrong Did from the New Yorker.


----------



## Sittingduck (17 Jan 2013)

I can't find the interview on Youtube, yet?


----------



## Rob3rt (17 Jan 2013)

It is on tonight SD!


----------



## Herzog (17 Jan 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> It is on tonight SD!


 
Can it be watched on the internet? I don't have a TV and am not going round my in-laws house at 2 am in the morning.


----------



## Rob3rt (17 Jan 2013)

Don't know, if you find a stream of the right channel, then probably.


----------



## MacB (17 Jan 2013)

I'll wait for the edited 'highlights' and, depending on how much I've read here and elsewhere, may never get around to watching them.


----------



## Radchenister (17 Jan 2013)

Link:
http://www.oprah.com/own_tv/onc/lance-armstrong-one.html
See below for explanation \/ .


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Jan 2013)

Herzog said:


> Can it be watched on the internet? I don't have a TV and am not going round my in-laws house at 2 am in the morning.


 
The cut and paste below from Oprah's ''the next chapter'' pages says it will be streamed globally:





> Dear OWNBear: I read your posts about the worldwide live stream of the Lance interview. Excuse me for having doubts because all streams from the US usually are blocked with a message like this (yours):
> Unfortunately this video is not currently available in your country or region. We apologize for the inconvenience.
> So, are you really technically unblocking this live stream so it can be seen worldwide? I live in Switzerland, Europe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Herzog (17 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The cut and paste below from Oprah's ''the next chapter'' pages says it will be streamed globally:


 
Thanks! A bit of coincidence that the guy asking the question is also from Switzerland (it's not me). Looks like a late night for me.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2013)

Armstrong has been 'stripped' of his Olympic medal now. Did he or didn't he, take drugs in Sydney?
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...strong-stripped-of-olympic-medal-8455813.html


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Jan 2013)

User3094 said:


> Good oh...
> 
> Just his money, dignity, and freedom to go now then.....


He can keep his freedom.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> He can keep his freedom.


 
Yeah he can keep it, we'll look after it for him while he's on a 5 to 10 stretch.


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2013)

What price a photograph of him leaving church on Sunday...possibly with child/ren in tow?


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2013)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Yeah he can keep it, we'll look after it for him while he's on a 5 to 10 stretch.


What? Stretch Armstrong!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Jan 2013)

Armstrong's confession came as a shock to as many as a dozen people.


----------



## yello (17 Jan 2013)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Armstrong's confession came as a shock to as many as a dozen people.


 
And I think most of them have posted on this thread


----------



## Aperitif (17 Jan 2013)

Phew! We were beginning to think we had been stripped of our yello!


----------



## festival (17 Jan 2013)

Just in case anyone starts feeling sorry for the cheat when he starts weeping in front of Oprah, please remember this guy called Lemond a drunk and that he had a drug problem.
When Daniel Coyle, author of a book authorized by Armstrong asked him to understand part of David Walsh's motivation was the tragic death of his young son, only for the cheat to go into a disgusting foul mouthed tiraid about Walsh and his family that went on and on.
Or simply, that he called Emma O'Reilly a whore in public.


----------



## Jennifer laine (17 Jan 2013)

Here is an interesting article----Is Lance a hero or a villan???

http://www.tourcycling.com/blog.aspx



mickle said:


> What do we think? Guilty?
> 
> 
> 
> *This thread comes under the duristiction of the World Anti Disagreement And Repetition Agency. Participants must agree to abide by the WADARA code.


----------



## Stephenite (17 Jan 2013)

Well i have the box set to record. I see the programme fits between 'Biggest and Baddest' - a doc about giant pigs in USA, and 'How Do They Do That?'.

Now, that's what i call scheduling! :P

TBH, don't know if i'll have the time to watch it.


----------



## User169 (17 Jan 2013)

Jennifer laine said:


> Here is an interesting article----Is Lance a hero or a villan???
> 
> http://www.tourcycling.com/blog.aspx



I don't think villan or villian (as the article puts it) are real words.


----------



## Crackle (17 Jan 2013)

User said:


> U.S. government rejects Armstrong's $5 million offer in whisteblower case
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/u-s...s-dollar-5-million-offer-in-whisteblower-case


And here's why

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/details-of-landis-federal-whistleblower-suit-revealed

Oooof! If only, eh.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Jan 2013)

Hang on though he still hasn't tested positive has he?

What a complete and utter *anker.


----------



## totallyfixed (18 Jan 2013)

Just finished watching the interview, I won't spoil it for those who haven't yet seen it, suffice to say it is about what many of us expected, disappointing and contrived despite admitting taking peds.


----------



## Zofo (18 Jan 2013)

Just watched the whole thing and, as expected, LA was in charge and only really saying what he wanted to say and in a way that suited him. He refuses to be drawn into issues with named individuals by saying he wont go there etc. It went about as well for him as it could possibly have done, considering he's admitting to being a total fraud, cheat, bully and total peanut.


----------



## black'n'yellow (18 Jan 2013)

hang on - Armstrong took drugs..??


----------



## NormanD (18 Jan 2013)

What?? Lance cheated?? ..next you'll be telling me Monica Lewinsky sucked at being the presidents intern!!


----------



## 2pies (18 Jan 2013)

I'm not defending Lance, I wasn't even a huge fan of him at the time, but the real truth is this:

_Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold._

Reports also say that Lance was the king-pin of it all, as far as US Postal was concerned, but did no other high-profile riders assume similar roles within their teams e.g. Pantani, Ullrich, Beloki, Vinokourov?

Also, other TdF winners have admitted to doping, yet they haven't had their names struck from the records. Why?


----------



## Panter (18 Jan 2013)

Well it's not a god day for this fan boy, everyone seems to be claiming he doped, even Lance now.
Still, I'm going to keep holding the faith


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (18 Jan 2013)

His fanboys will do one of two things


Defend him as a "hero" who has done a lot for cancer ( but not for research ie: he hasn't saved one life)
Say nothing


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

2pies said:


> I'm not defending Lance, I wasn't even a huge fan of him at the time, but the real truth is this:
> 
> _Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold._
> 
> ...


 
Oh it's been a while but why not:


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGI8YNa5f-M


----------



## Zofo (18 Jan 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> His fanboys will do one of two things
> 
> 
> Defend him as a "hero" who has done a lot for cancer ( but not for research ie: he hasn't saved one life)
> Say nothing


 
I'm an EX fanboy and happy to admit I was wrong and what a totally c**t he is!


----------



## david k (18 Jan 2013)

Panter said:


> Well it's not a god day for this fan boy, everyone seems to be claiming he doped, even Lance now.
> Still, I'm going to keep holding the faith


 
 Yes, even Lance is just jumping on the band wagon


----------



## mooseracer (18 Jan 2013)

So it's now without even the tiniest amount of doubt that Lance was a drug cheat. Watching him in the tdf was an inspiration to me and is what got me into road biking and away from the mtb. I can't say I'm outraged particularly, it's the fact he held himself (and was held up) as the 'great hope' of clean cycling, putting the dirty past away for good etc that I suppose makes so many people's blood boil.

The brashness, aggressive nature, bullying etc doesn't really bother me either - exists in many top sportsmen.

I do find it genuinely amazing how people get sooo worked up about this - he's just another druggy from the past, don't worry they're all clean now. Oh, wait.......


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

mooseracer said:


> The brashness, aggressive nature, bullying etc doesn't really bother me either - exists in many top sportsmen.


 
Go on then, your top ten of brash, aggressive, bullying sportsmen are ...?


----------



## mooseracer (18 Jan 2013)

Most of those that spring to mind are American


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

mooseracer said:


> Most of those that spring to mind are American


 
That's okay, we'll not discriminate on the basis of them being americans.


----------



## thom (18 Jan 2013)

david k said:


> Yes, Lance is just jumping on the band wagon


surely you mean the banned wagon


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> surely you mean the banned wagon


 
*You* could get banned for that


----------



## laurence (18 Jan 2013)

in the words of a cycling Champion*

"is that is? is it over?"






*i don't think he had a name


----------



## yello (18 Jan 2013)

laurence said:


> "is that is? is it over?"


 
Hell no, the party's barely started.

I wouldn't want to guess the next twist or turn but this is going to run and run. Like the plot of some day time soap, I want this to entertain me with unexpected, surreal even, plot twists. Who would have scripted UCI's independent commission to turn on the master? There are so many faces in this story line, all trying to compete and promote agendas, some currently in the shadows waiting/fearing for the wind to blow in their direction.... it's complex and could be messy if/when the whistleblower case gets going, or the feds decide to pick up those shelved files...

I do fear the damage that it will bring to today's cyclists for I do feel this is not of their era, and the times they have a-changed. The broom wagon needs to sweep up the remnants of the previous era though, both within officialdom and the teams. It's no reflection on the new breed but it has to happen.


----------



## Zofo (18 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Go on then, your top ten of brash, aggressive, bullying sportsmen are ...?


 
For starters--Michael Schumacher, John McEnroe, & Tiger Woods


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> For starters--Michael Schumacher, John McEnroe, & Tiger Woods


 
They dinnae get anywhere near Armstrong tho do they?


----------



## Kins (18 Jan 2013)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EE9I8ZMFc


Full first hour if you missed it or something. Bit ropey quality wise in places. For all he doesn't or won't say it still a compelling watch.


----------



## thom (18 Jan 2013)

Here's a prime example of bullying :


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> Hell no, the party's barely started.
> 
> I wouldn't want to guess the next twist or turn but this is going to run and run. Like the plot of some day time soap, I want this to entertain me with unexpected, surreal even, plot twists. Who would have scripted UCI's independent commission to turn on the master? There are so many faces in this story line, all trying to compete and promote agendas, some currently in the shadows waiting/fearing for the wind to blow in their direction.... it's complex and could be messy if/when the whistleblower case gets going, or the feds decide to pick up those shelved files...
> 
> I do fear the damage that it will bring to today's cyclists for I do feel this is not of their era, and the times they have a-changed. The broom wagon needs to sweep up the remnants of the previous era though, both within officialdom and the teams. It's no reflection on the new breed but it has to happen.


Yes, I feel for the younger generation who will have to live through this, especially as the end game seems to be as far away as ever. Without agreeing with Lizzie Armitstead in any way, I can appreciate why she might have spoken out about Nicole Cooke's retirement salvo. It even sounds like Mark Cavendish got into a spat with a journalist after being bombarded by a journalist with questions about LA during his team launch. Exasperating for them.


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

In the words of Jim Bowen "Here's what you coulda won"....quite apt in the circumstances


----------



## Kins (18 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Yes, I feel for the younger generation who will have to live through this, especially as the end game seems to be as far away as ever. Without agreeing with Lizzie Armitstead in any way, I can appreciate why she might have spoken out about Nicole Cooke's retirement salvo. It even sounds like Mark Cavendish got into a spat with a journalist after being bombarded by a journalist with questions about LA during his team launch. Exasperating for them.


 
Yep, can't see anyone getting any peace from the fallout for the next six months or so. The worst thing is people who don't follow the sport (and some that do) will tarnish others with the same brush, without knowing any facts etc.


----------



## 007fair (18 Jan 2013)

There was an interesting story I read about 1 relatively unknown clean cyclist who had to retire early because he refused to take drugs From the LA era but not bassons. Scott something ? Anyone know? I can't find the story now .. Bit vague I know but it was posted by someone in one of the mamoth LA threads I can't trawl through them again !


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> They dinnae get anywhere near Armstrong tho do they?


 I think the Badger does, and a couple of belgians I can think, of oh and wait a minute there's Roche and....


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I think the Badger does, and a couple of belgians I can think, of oh and wait a minute there's Roche and....


 
The Badger I would agree with.
And The Cannibal.

But not sure if Roche falls into the same category of bullying, cheating, arrogance etc due to the power struggle he endured within his own team when he won the triple. And afterwards he was nowhere near as good, and his injuries impacted on his ability. I still think Roche is in a very influential position for someone who doped and supports the culture of Omerta.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> The Badger I would agree with.
> And The Cannibal.
> 
> But not sure if Roche falls into the same category of bullying, cheating, arrogance etc due to the power struggle he endured within his own team when he won the triple. And afterwards he was nowhere near as good, and his injuries impacted on his ability. I still think Roche is in a very influential position for someone who doped and supports the culture of Omerta.


 Hmm not sure your mate Kimmage would agree with you there Noods.


----------



## Noodley (18 Jan 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Hmm not sure your mate Kimmage would agree with you there Noods.


 
I just dinnae see Roche at the time of his triple having anywhere near the same influence as Armstrong. I may be wrong, although that would be a first  I don't think he is a positive influence for the sport now and would like him to bugger off unless he changes his views and makes a stand against doping rather than pissing about worrying about riders having their zips done up to thier neck.


----------



## thom (18 Jan 2013)

007fair said:


> There was an interesting story I read about 1 relatively unknown clean cyclist who had to retire early because he refused to take drugs From the LA era but not bassons. Scott something ? Anyone know? I can't find the story now .. Bit vague I know but it was posted by someone in one of the mamoth LA threads I can't trawl through them again !


If you type in "clean cyclist scott" to google, that's all you need to get Scott Mercier ;-)


----------



## Kins (18 Jan 2013)

There the BBC interview with Scott Mercier from last year : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514


----------



## screenman (18 Jan 2013)

I think it is a setup and that he is still innocent.

In other words I was one of the idiots who hoped and felt he was not guilty, just shows my wife is correct when she says I am hopeless at judging a persons character.

I would like to apologise slightly more sincerely than Lance did for wasting the time of others who tried to convince me in the past of his guilt and admit that at my very advanced years (56) that I certainly still get things very wrong.


----------



## Zofo (18 Jan 2013)

Oh well, at least Sir Brad is clean................................................isn't he?


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> Oh well, at least Sir Brad is clean................................................isn't he?


Armstrong's data when climbing were coming out as something like 'theoretical limit of human performance' _plus_ 5%, whereas Sir Brad's were more like 'theoretical limit of human performance' _minus_ a few % which to me sounds perfectly reasonable for a top athlete!


----------



## StuAff (18 Jan 2013)

screenman said:


> I think it is a setup and that he is still innocent.
> 
> In other words I was one of the idiots who hoped and felt he was not guilty, just shows my wife is correct when she says I am hopeless at judging a persons character.
> 
> I would like to apologise slightly more sincerely than Lance did for wasting the time of others who tried to convince me in the past of his guilt and admit that at my very advanced years (56) that I certainly still get things very wrong.


In another thread early last year, I posted this:


StuAff said:


> The whole question of his guilt/innocence on doping...well, the smoking gun, the positive test, remains absent. Like Martin, I think the principle of innocent until proven guilty is one worth upholding. It's hard for me to see the continued campaigning of certain journalists against him as anything other than mudslinging. Yes, it seems ridiculous that he was clean when Pantani wasn't, Ullrich wasn't, Riis wasn't, and so many of his friends and former teammates weren't. But nor is it completely implausible. Apart from the physiological changes caused by cancer and his recovery, he quite clearly applied the same spirit that in many respects got him through the worst of his illness to his training.


Oh, the benefits of hindsight…Certainly, I've had my doubts over the past few years, but I preferred to have a bit of faith in the body of proof, or lack there of. Back then, I hadn't read much of the evidence that makes such an overwhelming case LA's admission is redundant- some I just hadn't read, some has either emerged for the first time or been brought to much greater attention. I was not, for example, aware that Armstrong's performances were out of the realms of any clean athlete, nor of the extent of his bullying of his own team, let alone his other victims like Emma O'Reilly and Betsy Andreu. I certainly wasn't aware, until relevant extracts from Tyler Hamilton's book were published, just how easy it was to dope and get away with it. Riders knew when they could take stuff without fear of being caught, and that skipping a test could be as simple as hiding under the kitchen table. Which makes you wonder how stupid Landis, Vinokourov, Rasmussen and all the others who've been caught had to be...
And on my last point: I was right and wrong. His determination certainly played a part in getting through cancer. He did train harder than others (in part, undoubtedly, facilitated by all the drugs). But he also doped harder....as has been posted over on YACF, if he'd been clean he would have been a real hero, not just a fallen one. Perhaps we'd be now be talking of him as the legitimate winner of multiple Tours. And we'll never know one way or another.


----------



## geopat (18 Jan 2013)

What I can't comprehend is that he said he regretted his comeback as he was pretty sure that if he hadn't made the comeback he wouldn't have been found out and wouldn't be sitting with Oprah right now. By that he confirms even now he would have been happy to be a cheat for the rest of his life as long as he wasn't found out.

He was never ever going to come clean. That really stinks.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

geopat said:


> By that he confirms even now he would have been happy to be a cheat for the rest of his life as long as he wasn't found out.


He broke the rules, and knew when he was doing it that he was breaking those rules, but he didn't consider that to be cheating!


----------



## geopat (18 Jan 2013)

ColinJ said:


> He broke the rules, and knew when he was doing it that he was breaking those rules, but he didn't consider that to be cheating!


 
Yes, but I thought in the interview he was trying to give the impression that was then, the old Lance, not now. But no,he would never have came clean and was happy to deal with the rumours for the rest of his life.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

geopat said:


> Yes, but I thought in the interview he was trying to give the impression that was then, the old Lance, not now. But no,he would never have came clean and was happy to deal with the rumours for the rest of his life.


It's a confusing picture that he is painting, isn't it! He says that he wants to come clean, but there are things he still doesn't want to talk about. There are other things that are almost certainly true that he is probably still lying about. (The hospital conversation.)

It seems that he is willing to own up to most stuff that are from 7 years or more ago and I bet that is because of the Statute of Limitations.

Supposedly, he came back from retirement as a relatively old athlete who hadn't competed much for several years and straight away managed 3rd in the toughest bike race in the world, only _clean_ that time! And why would he be doing it clean when he didn't think that he had done anything wrong cheating _levelling the playing field_ in the first place?


----------



## Melvil (18 Jan 2013)




----------



## Kies (18 Jan 2013)

This interview isn't an apology ... PR exercise in damage limitation. He wants to draw a line under it and move on. thankfully the world won't let him!


----------



## 400bhp (18 Jan 2013)

ColinJ said:


> He broke the rules, and knew when he was doing it that he was breaking those rules, but he didn't consider that to be cheating!


 
Even more odd is that he actually looked up the word "cheat".

He's a sociopath-a Robert Maxwell on two wheels.

I think Betsy Andreu said something like "it's a long process for him to come clean and he's going completely the wrong way about it". Spot on that.


----------



## ColinJ (18 Jan 2013)

400bhp said:


> Even more odd is that he actually looked up the word "cheat".
> 
> He's a sociopath-a Robert Maxwell on two wheels.
> 
> I think Betsy Andreu said something like "it's a long process for him to come clean and he's going completely the wrong way about it". Spot on that.


There is certainly something very intense and cold about him. You can almost see his mind working before he speaks, as if he is calculating what the effect of his words will be.

Let's see if he is redeemed by the waterworks tonight when he chokes up talking about his children and Livestrong ...


----------



## ColinJ (19 Jan 2013)

2263888 said:


> I've got a better idea. Let's not.


I can see where you are coming from, but I'll be struggling to get to sleep at that time so I might as well check it out. 

I won't forgive him for what he did, but I'd like to see what he comes out with.


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Jan 2013)

2263881 said:


> Are you sure about that?


Yes, well, those on the other side of the pond that are the flat earth believers, that think the earth was created 6000 years ago and those that have never read a newspaper will believe it, er that's nearly everyone accounted for then. But the rest of us won't lie down, no siree.


----------



## Noodley (19 Jan 2013)

As much as Oprah is held in high regard I reckon I might do a better job


----------



## rich p (19 Jan 2013)

I didn't bother with this one after the previous night's charade. Winfrey, in the end, wasn't tough enough. despite doing her best to do a thorough and informed job.


----------



## Twilkes (19 Jan 2013)

I've only read bits of the transcripts, but it reminded me of when Nasty Nick got kicked out of the Big Brother house.


----------



## screenman (19 Jan 2013)

Here is what the three USA guys I spoke to yesterday thought.

"Didn't you guys see the interviews? He didn't realize he was doing anything wrong...while he was telling bold face lies for 7+ years. Shesh, cut the guy some slack. He probably just misunderstood the questions and accidentally switched the urine samples...7+ times."

"In my opinion, he seemed arrogant, unaware, and did little to repair his image."

"My thought are he is a liar . This a tough one because his foundation is so great for cancer but he is still a liar!"

Those three which is 100% of the guys I spoke to yesterday do not forgive him, that is for sure. Fact is many are embarrassed by him.


----------



## jdtate101 (19 Jan 2013)

Well just watched the second one, and he almost lost it a few times when talking about his son and how he lied to him too. I think that's the closest we got to seeing the real Lance, although it was still very guarded. Still too many questions not asked or answered fully enough, but I guess you can't do that in such a short interview.
I'd love to believe he was genuine about wanting to change and unburden himself, but the realist in me is just too doubtful to accept that outcome. Too much water has gone under the bridge for us collectively to forgive him. I think the best thing for Lance Armstrong to do now is to co-operate with USADA with no expectation of the life ban being lifted, just do it anyway, totally without limits, and then to disappear for a long time to work on himself. To quote the last line of the interview, "the truth will set you free", ask David Millar about how he felt finally being able to tell the truth and how much it meant to him. If Lance can do this then there is a possibility of him making a return to a normal life (not sport, the life ban should stand no matter what as a warning to others). He needs to take time out and work on himself, if he is genuine about the process.
I want to believe that people like him can finally change, but unfortunately I just don't see it in his case. I guess the only person who truly knows if it's a real desire or just another strategic move, is Lance himself.


----------



## Zofo (19 Jan 2013)

Just watched part 2 and I think the only time we see the "real" Lance is when he talks about telling his son the truth. Other than that then most of the time he's still covering up and holding back . I think Oprah does a resonable job with him considering, in fact she caught him out once by asking him why he came back "clean" in 09 when previously in the interview he said The Tour couldnt be won without doping.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> Just watched part 2 and I think the only time we see the "real" Lance is when he talks about telling his son the truth. Other than that then most of the time he's still covering up and holding back . I think Oprah does a resonable job with him considering, in fact she caught him out once by asking him why he came back "clean" in 09 when previously in the interview he said The Tour couldnt be won without doping.


 
I am still convinced that he is up to his old tricks, and the covering up and holding back is part of this.

There is just enough to tempt and suggest that his testimony is needed or key to the next stages of cleaning up the sport. Especially if there is a public perception of this. A failure of the sports bodies to actively uncover and discover this evidence would / could be seen as reluctance on their part.

That could put him in a very powerful position when it comes to negotiating a bargain with the various sporting bodies - WADA is already on record about reducing his ban. With public hunger to find out what he knows and an equally vested interest in some parties for it to remain undisclosed then it is going to be not only a long saga, but also a lot of disappointed people if he is allowed to bargain down his ban to a couple of years


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jan 2013)

2264195 said:


> But we don't need him to do any of that. The truth, or close enough to it, can be got from others. There is no need to play his games at all.


 
Unless he can build up the perception?

Take the example of the UCi "Bribe"

Armstrong stating that he bribed the UCI and particular individuals would be far more definitive and unequivocal than the present speculation, accusations and denials.


----------



## Chris.IOW (19 Jan 2013)

I've not posted on this thread before, I admit I was one of Lance's biggest fans, and defended him right up to the point the USADA published their Reasoned decision. Then even I saw the light.

I watched the interview hoping for some sort of apology, regret and sincerity from him, one comment stood out for me in the whole interview.."I regret my comeback, We wouldn't be here now if I hadn't come back" So basically no regret about being a cheat, lying, bully and no regret at misleading millions of fans, just sorry he got caught.

He couldn't have looked less interested in the interview if he had been sat reading a paper, from my point of view he needs to disappear from public life now, there will be no forgiveness.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (19 Jan 2013)

I can't see the need for endless analysis, most knew he was a lying cheating ****, that he now admits that he cheated proves what a **** he is but the selective truth just shows he's only admitting as much as he think he needs to. We don't need anything more from him - he can now **** off forever. Once he's given back all the money and gone to prison.


----------



## craigwend (19 Jan 2013)

Yes but what do I do with my 2 books & double video...

It's like finding the diary of your [insert..] had been cheating on you / betrayed you 

All those memories are just


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (19 Jan 2013)

''Death sentence!''

Lordy, how far he's still got to go! If he thinks being prevented from cycling is a death sentence, then the number of athletes he helped shut out of cycling makes him a mass murderer.


----------



## totallyfixed (19 Jan 2013)

I too have watched the second part and my thoughts are that this one should not have been shown, it was all about getting sympathy and trying to show the human side of Lance Armstrong. After lying so much in the first part those of us that follow cycling will not be fooled but so far as the general public is concerned he will have done himself some good [and it pains me greatly to say that]. 
I do wonder how his latest wife is coping with all this and as everything in life where parents screw up it is always the children that suffer.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Jan 2013)

totallyfixed said:


> I too have watched the second part and my thoughts are that this one should not have been shown, it was all about getting sympathy and trying to show the human side of Lance Armstrong.


 
That was the whole point of this exercise... for Armstrong at least. The problem is that we already know far more than he was prepared to admit in the first part, so the second part just looked contrived and insincere.

Verdict: fail.


----------



## deanE (19 Jan 2013)

It would be good to think that it was his son’s argument with another schoolboy that made him realise he needed to come clean, at last. Can’t blame him for a certain amount of damage limitation.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jan 2013)

2264281 said:


> Those things could all be got to in other ways.


But would they be as unequivocal or effective?

The fact that WADA are discussing reduced bans is a signal that they think his evidence is important enough to open negotiations?


----------



## Noodley (19 Jan 2013)

deanE said:


> It would be good to think that it was his son’s argument with another schoolboy that made him realise he needed to come clean, at last. Can’t blame him for a certain amount of damage limitation.


 
Utter nonsense.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jan 2013)

2264501 said:


> It is the obvious and easier route. If letting him have anything at all is the cost associated though, that is too much.



Therein lies the problem......

Too much for Whom?


The WADA has a record of "deals for confessions"

It is simply a case of how far they are willing to go.

There is also an argument that a single massive purge of cycling based on his evidence would benefit cycling if it prevented a long drawn out series of arguments over tag next ten years


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2013)

I've not watched either of them and have just hit delete on the sky+ box to get rid.

"I'm a competitor" says Lance. Yep, one with a pathological need to win.

A stop-at-nothing competitor. A win-at-all-costs competitor. A must-win competitor even if it means cheating.

Only an American sports governing body would be dumb enough to allow him to compete at anything more important to the other competitors than tiddly-winks with that attitude.

Nothings changed. Same old same old Lance. He needs to find another way to validate himself outside of sport and celebrity status. He's a cheat, and until he learns to tame his inner win-demon he always will be.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jan 2013)

2264519 said:


> Me



.....and for many others as I pointed out earlier, however the WADA will have the final decision as to cost / benefit


----------



## Andy84 (19 Jan 2013)

Cavendish speaks.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...e-Armstrong-has-tainted-my-sport-forever.html

Oh dear

“One year I was doing so well I was the single most tested rider on the planet.”


----------



## raindog (19 Jan 2013)

Andy84 said:


> Cavendish speaks.
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...e-Armstrong-has-tainted-my-sport-forever.html
> 
> ...


For one season, that's probably true.


----------



## PpPete (19 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> I've not watched either of them and have just hit delete on the sky+ box to get rid.
> 
> "I'm a competitor" says Lance. Yep, one with a pathological need to win.
> 
> ...


 
Why are you so dis-respectful to the great and noble sport of tiddly-winks?
Are you trying to say it's not as important as cycling?


----------



## rich p (19 Jan 2013)

Andy84 said:


> Cavendish speaks.
> 
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...e-Armstrong-has-tainted-my-sport-forever.html
> 
> ...


Pretty categorical and straightforward condemnation though despite that Armstrongism!


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Jan 2013)

Zofo said:


> I'm an EX fanboy and happy to admit I was wrong and what a totally c**t he is!


 
None so zealous as the convert.

Former smokers, born-again Christians, now some pro-cycling fans too.

Sorry.... It's just the way it seems to me.

Whatever happened to the middle ground?


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> None so zealous as the convert.
> 
> Former smokers, born-again Christians, now some pro-cycling fans too.
> 
> ...


that's entirely unfair. I think you owe Zofu an apology.


----------



## StuAff (19 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Pretty categorical and straightforward condemnation though despite that Armstrongism!


+1. AFAIK, less 'oh dear', more 'damn right'. And assuming for a moment that the test procedures are as thoroughly carried out as the rules allow, then there is now much less scope for a doper to escape a positive test, either because he's not 'glowing' or because he's hiding under a table.


----------



## StuAff (19 Jan 2013)

2265233 said:


> You occupy it and put everyone else off?


+1.
We don't stick our head in the sand and keep singing his praises despite everything. Doesn't make us zealots. AFAIK, I think a significant majority of cycling fans (regardless of how well informed they are about the sport and its history) would have preferred him to have been innocent, somehow, even if he is a complete jerk (to use a milder term). That was my view, but even before the confession, the evidence was overwhelming. He has hurt so many people, in so many ways, that frankly he deserves the world of pain he is going to slide into in the not-too-distant future. Despite his carefully stage-managed 'apology' and its legal-ramifications-carefully-considered wording, I don't think those now preparing their court cases against him will settle for anything less than (metaphorically) several pounds of flesh.


----------



## johnr (19 Jan 2013)

Kimmage reaction to interviews in Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/19/lance-armstrong-cycling

But this had to be copied in full:
In the autumn of 1993, Greg LeMond and his wife, Kathy, were sitting at home in the suburbs of Minneapolis, when they received a visit from Linda Mooneyham, the three-times Tour de France winner has recalled. Her 21-year-old son, Lance Armstrong, had just become the world champion and she had travelled from her home in Texas for advice.
"What does he do now?" she asked. "What does he do with his money?"
"Well, let him find an agent – a good one with an attorney," LeMond replied. "And one word of advice – just be his mom."
They sat on the porch for a while and then moved inside to the kitchen. Linda had something else on her mind: "How do I make him less of an peanut. He doesn't care about anyone."
"Well," LeMond replied. "I can't help you there."


----------



## Crankarm (19 Jan 2013)

Looks like those wanting their pound of flesh will bankrupt him. US Gov from the cash US Postal Service paid Armstrong to set up and run his team will be looking for around $30 million, Sunday Times $2 million, Tour Down Under $4 million, SCA Promotions $12 million plus lots of others. A real feeding frenzy. The sad thing is peoples' lives he destroyed like Frankie and Betsy Andreu will probably get nothing as they don't have a team of crack lawyers to sue Armstrong like the corporates.

He won't even be able to afford to buy an Appollo bike when he has had to give all the cash he has earned back.


----------



## Crankarm (19 Jan 2013)

2265450 said:


> Do they need something?


 
What do you mean and who?


----------



## raindog (20 Jan 2013)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y5OwTizq7o&ap=%2526fmt%3D18


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (20 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> None so zealous as the convert.
> 
> Former smokers, born-again Christians, now some pro-cycling fans too.
> 
> ...


 
There is no middle ground. You either accept cheating or you don't. Crushing Armstrong is a necessary part of sorting it out. Whilst he continues his crusade to shrug off his venality the cheats and their retinues of doctors will remain.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jan 2013)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> There is no middle ground. You either accept cheating or you don't. Crushing Armstrong is a necessary part of sorting it out. Whilst he continues his crusade to shrug off his venality the cheats and their retinues of doctors will remain.


 
A perfectly reasonable view. I disagree, but I respect that viewpoint.

My slightly mocking post was in response to one where the author had admitted to flipping from 'Fanboy' to thinking Armstrong a four-letter word.

Its tone reminded me a little of former smokers who cough theatrically when a cigarette is taken from a packet.

One poster was offended by my post and seemed to think it merited an apology.

To my mind, going from Fanboy (with all that the word implies in this case) to calling Armstrong a total four-letter word invites a slightly mocking comparison to the zealous religious convert. I don't equate one mindset absolutely with the other, but I cannot ignore an unavoidable similarity in tone.

As to your conviction that Armstrong must be 'crushed', I disagree, but I respect the view.


----------



## kedab (20 Jan 2013)

he's managed to keep people talking about him and that will have been part of his strategy, imho. going on oprah does nothing for him in terms of cycling, i think even he knows that he's been set adrift and that the sport will have nothing more to do with him but, in america, as far as the general public go, he'll be forgiven by many that don't have much of an interest in cycling and his force of personality will most likely see to it that, after the lawsuits, he'll manage to live more than comfortably - i think he'll probably get back on the board of Livestrong in time (albeit quietly) and he'll most likely become a tv personality of some description and that'll be that for L.A...

here's what L.A did for cycling as i see it...i had always known of the TdF, i was a sporty child and grew up watching every sport i could - from my first love footy, to crown green bowls...i'd watch it all - i knew of Roche and Kelly and what they meant to Irish cycling, I knew of Boardman and the Lotus bike etc and i'd watch the TdF knowing who Indurain and Hinault and Lemond were and never thought of doping outside of the Olympics and only then in terms of the old 'East v West' - East Germany, USSR etc took steroids and 'of course' the West didn't...until Ben Johnson  L.A transcended the sport, his cancer survival and then his 1st TdF 'win' brought cycling to a whole new audience - the yellow wristbands were worn by some of my mates whod knew nothing of cycling, as such, and as a cancer survivor myself, i thought he was a phenomenal man. i know what chemo and radiotherapy do to your body...in recent years as i've become a huge cycling convert and devoured as much knowledge of the history sport as i've been able to, L.A stands out as the single most dangerous cheat/fraud that a sport has ever seen and beyond that, because he and others around him used cancer as a shield, he makes my blood boil


----------



## rich p (20 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> A perfectly reasonable view. I disagree, but I respect that viewpoint.
> 
> My slightly mocking post was in response to one where the author had admitted to flipping from 'Fanboy' to thinking Armstrong a four-letter word.
> 
> ...


For someone who has no strong opinions about Armstrong you certainly manage to spread your lack of interest widely


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> For someone who has no strong opinions about Armstrong you certainly manage to spread your lack of interest widely


 
I do, don't I?

I have views (opinions) but I've never seen him as a saint and don't want him burnt at the stake. I have no extreme opinions, but I do take a keen interest in stage racing and have for many years. Similarly, I like Arsenal without feeling the need to hate Spurs. 

I confess that prior to his illness he was just that Yank (inaccurate, but I didn't know where he was from) who'd won the Stripey Jersey very young. I didn't even know he's had a stage win in the TdF until he won the whole thing in '99. I didn't know he'd been diagnosed with cancer. For me, all that came after his recovery. He was below my radar.

When he won his forst TdF, I thought him clean, as I'd thought Pantani the year before and as I'd thought Indurain and Roche when they won. I'd thought Ullrich was dodgy because he was born in the old East Germany. There's nothing quite as strong as an opinion based on national stereotyping.

I believed cycling was dirty, but for absolutely no clear reason I thought those guys were clean and others were dopers. When it became clear that they were not, I didn't feel the need to crucify anybody or get very cross about it.

I quite understand that others do. 

I get jolly cross about political corruption in the Balkans, but I am content that to most other people this is a mosquito they don't even bother to brush away.


----------



## rich p (20 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do, don't I?
> 
> I have views (opinions) but I've never seen him as a saint and don't want him burnt at the stake. I have no extreme opinions, but I do take a keen interest in stage racing and have for many years. Similarly, I like Arsenal without feeling the need to hate Spurs.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry BB, you went all verbose again and my attention wandered.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jan 2013)

All these companies getting money back is not automatic in all these cases.

There is a defense that at the time they got what they wanted, and therefore there was no "disbenefit' _*at the time*_

What would have to be proved is that there was something in the contract that stated he would not cheat, take drugs etc.... and that this was a specific breach, and of course there is the question over whether monies should also be recovered from the others who were cheating on the same contract

The only ones "guarranteed" are those where it can be proved that he told lies like the Times case

Not a pleasant thought, but the US legal system is notoriously fickle on financial matters


----------



## Radchenister (20 Jan 2013)

So, is this thread now debating whether:

a. He's just a cheat. 
b. He's a nasty vindictive cheat. 
c. He's a total **** . 

?


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Sorry BB, you went all verbose again and my attention wandered.


 
I was born all verbose and it's just getting worse.


----------



## PpPete (20 Jan 2013)

Radchenister said:


> So, is this thread now debating whether:
> 
> a. He's just a cheat.
> b. He's a nasty vindictive cheat.
> ...


 
d.


----------



## Radchenister (20 Jan 2013)

Ah no, it's the 'Other' section that requires some thought, go on then, you go first  ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2013)

PpPete said:


> Why are you so dis-respectful to the great and noble sport of tiddly-winks?
> Are you trying to say it's not as important as cycling?


yep. But you diss marbles and I'll have you.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do, don't I?
> 
> .
> .
> ...


What do you think is a reasonable 'middle-ground' for the ex-Fanboy to take then?

Cos I wouldn't cross the street to pee on him if he was on fire.


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

> All these companies getting money back is not automatic in all these cases.


 
I have no idea who all of the companies are but the ones I know about are SCA Promotions and The Sunday Times. Neither of those seemingly benefited, or 'disbenefited', from Armstrong's lies. The former being some kind of insurance/gamble and the latter simply a newspaper article.

The terms of the SCA contract, as I understand it, seem to hinge on whether Armstrong was named winner of the TdF and NOT how might have achieved that. Indeed, SCA's first action against Armstrong failed on that very point, whether he doped or not was irrelevant. Now Armstrong has been formally stripped of those titles it would appear that SCA's action next week would be, to use the US expression, a 'slam dunk'. I expect Armstrong to settle out of court.

Similarly, the Sunday Times was sued by Armstrong for alleging/insinuating drug use. They settled out of court presumably because they felt they could not sufficiently substantiate those allegations. Now that Armstrong has admitted doping, it would again seem any action by The Sunday Times to recover that settlement would be a formality - regardless of the terms of that settlement. Again, I would expect Armstrong to settle before any legal action is commenced.

But that's only my opinion based on my reading, I'm no lawyer.

I'm not aware of any other legal actions - though obviously it wouldn't surprise me that there might be some, particularly those based on sponsorship deals. With those latter type of actions I can see that it depends on the specific contract and could well be argued that the sponsors received their benefits in accordance with the contract. In short, I don't see the like of Nike, Oakely, et all suing for breach. I think they'll be content just to cut ties - but I'm naive and not motivated in the same 'money' terms as the business minded. That's why I'm not loaded!


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

Brendan Gallagher of the Sunday Telegraph says in today's paper (not online, sadly) that if SCA recover their damages (or if LA offers to pay up) that in itself would be proof of perjury. The Australian government might want to recover the appearance payments from the Tour Down Under. The whistleblower suit Landis filed is the real financial timebomb- USPS sponsorship of the team was $30m, the False Claims Act under which it was filed means that damages could be three times that, plus penalties. Other defendants include Thomas Weisel, Johan Bruyneel, Bill Stapleton, and their associated companies. Any of them could be held liable.


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> The whistleblower suit Landis filed is the real financial timebomb- USPS sponsorship of the team was $30m, the False Claims Act under which it was filed means that* damages could be three times that*, plus penalties.


 
Yes, I meant to mention that upstream. Clearly, that sponsorship deal was not with Armstrong alone so he singularly wouldn't be in the dock BUT he is presumably part of the management team (be it Tailwind or whoever) that, again presumably, includes Weisel, Stapleton and maybe even Johan Bruyneel. 

I honestly can't see the US Govt NOT launching some form of action, either alone or by joining the Landis action. They more-or-less are obliged to as it concerns the misuse of public/tax payer funds. Armstrong could well be a named as a joint defendant but only because he would be part of the management team of whichever organisation received the sponsorship funds.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> The terms of the SCA contract, as I understand it, seem to hinge on whether Armstrong was named winner of the TdF and NOT how might have achieved that. Indeed, SCA's first action against Armstrong failed on that very point, whether he doped or not was irrelevant. Now Armstrong has been formally stripped of those titles it would appear that SCA's action next week would be, to use the US expression, a 'slam dunk'. I expect Armstrong to settle out of court.!


 
The original SCA action was the one that raised my point. He can still defend on the grounds that *at the time* he fulfilled the contract and was in fact the winner. SCA benefiting from that publicity and the relationship, again *at the time.*

It will be interesting to see how some of these cases pan out


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> SCA benefiting from that publicity and the relationship, again *at the time.*


 
If indeed that was the nature of the contract. I don't think it was a sponsorship deal like that with Nike et all, as opposed to some kind of 'gamble'. That is, Tailwind took out an insurance policy with SCA to cover performance bonuses. (How that works in reality, I don't know. It seems you can insure/gamble on just about anything!) SCA didn't sponsor Armstrong as Nike et al did, they took a risk approach basically 'winning' on the contract if Armstrong didn't win TdFs 4, 5 and 6. They didn't know Armstrong had stacked the deck.

I'd agree though if it were a plain and simple sponsorship deal. Then I think there is a least a line of defence to say that Armstrong kept his side of the bargain (depending on the terms of the specific contract). As I said before, I personally don't see any company with that kind of deal now suing. At the time, as you say, they would have benefited through increased sales etc. But, yes, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## thom (20 Jan 2013)




----------



## Saluki (20 Jan 2013)

One of our friends who is not a cyclist, was wondering about Lance Armstrong and his lies. Our friend wonders if LA can actually ride a bike or if he is lying about that too.
It gave us a bit of a giggle


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> If indeed that was the nature of the contract. I don't think it was a sponsorship deal like that with Nike et all, as opposed to some kind of 'gamble'. That is, Tailwind took out an insurance policy with SCA to cover performance bonuses. (How that works in reality, I don't know. It seems you can insure/gamble on just about anything!) SCA didn't sponsor Armstrong as Nike et al did, they took a risk approach basically 'winning' on the contract if Armstrong didn't win TdFs 4, 5 and 6. They didn't know Armstrong had stacked the deck.
> 
> I'd agree though if it were a plain and simple sponsorship deal. Then I think there is a least a line of defence to say that Armstrong kept his side of the bargain (depending on the terms of the specific contract). As I said before, I personally don't see any company with that kind of deal now suing. At the time, as you say, they would have benefited through increased sales etc. But, yes, we'll have to wait and see.


SCA policies allow firms to run promotions, offer win bonuses, etc, for a percentage fee of the sum being offered. So if a golf club offer x amount for a hole in one, rather than have that money put aside or just hope for the best and try to find the cash if they need to pay up, SCA cover that prize fund for a fee (a percentage of the prize being offered). So Tailwind had cover for LA's win bonuses (not just with SCA, according to this). SCA refused to pay up following doping allegations in 2004, hence the court case with LA, which he won after perjuring himself. At bare minimum, the confession puts them in a strong position for an out of court settlement. It could be argued- and LA's lawyers might well try- that the original settlement's conditions of no further challenges or appeals should still apply. Doubt that'll get them anywhere though.


----------



## lulubel (20 Jan 2013)

My OH summed up my attitude perfectly when she said (after watching both parts of the Oprah show), "I don't like him. I don't hate him either." I never thought he was a hero, and I don't think he's a 4-letter word now. I'm interested in pro cycling, I find it entertaining to watch, but I don't have any emotional involvement with it.

Pretty much the same as BB's attitude, but using less words


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

Thanks for the explanation Stu. So Tailwind were paying the bonuses to Armstrong? With Armstrong being a part owner of Tailwind? That is, Armstrong agreed to pay himself bonuses. And Tailwind took an insurance policy with SCA to cover that! I'm sure it's common enough type of practice but it equally open to a scam!



StuAff said:


> It could be argued- and LA's lawyers might well try- that the original settlement's conditions of no further challenges or appeals- should still apply. Doubt that'll get them anywhere though.


 
No me neither. I believe there's an overriding 'no contracting out of the law' caveat that would strike out such clauses. For example, a 'full and final settlement' clause could only apply if the contract itself was sound/legal in the first place. Or, to put it more starkly, if I contract you to kill my neighbour you can't claim protection under the contract - you could still face murder charges. Equally I can't sue you for breach of contract if you don't kill my neighbour, because the contract itself is illegal.

('You' being the royal 'you', not you personally!)


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

From StuAffs link above....



> Per the settlement agreement, any appeal of the settlement must be heard by the same three arbitrators who heard the original case.


 
"the same three"!  My lord, with all this talk of contracts for killing neighbours, I hope Armstrong isn't having ideas!


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> Thanks for the explanation Stu. So Tailwind were paying the bonuses to Armstrong? With Armstrong being a part owner of Tailwind? That is, Armstrong agreed to pay himself bonuses. And Tailwind took an insurance policy with SCA to cover that! I'm sure it's common enough type of practice but it equally open to a scam!


It's pretty standard practice in sporting businesses, apparently. The win bonus policies were taken out by Tailwind after the 2001 Tour, at a cost of $420,000. Armstrong said under oath in 2005 (yup, that SCA case deposition) that he had a stake in Tailwind of 'perhaps 10 percent'. He denied having a stake to reporters in 2010. LA's lawyer Tim Herman answered queries about this by saying that Tailwind's board had decided to grant him, and others, stock in 2004, but that the transfer did not actually take place until December 2007. Which still means LA was telling porkies at one time or another, just for a change.


----------



## MichaelM (20 Jan 2013)

I've learnt something from this whole L.A. affair...

I've followed pro cycling since the mid eighties. I think Geert Jan Theunisse might be the first positive test I recall. There were other incidents, but I've always watched cycling under the assumption that the winner probably got his drugs right (this attitude has softened recently with Evans and Wiggins winning the tour, but I still wouldn't bet my house on them). To me, it's been great entertainment, but I've never had an emotional attachment or "truely believe in the human spiirt" (words and music - L.A. circa 2005).

What has bothered me though, was L.A.'s evangelizing on being clean. I felt that was an insult to my intelligence, for which he should be hung by his ball on a rusty fish hook.

Being the wit that I am, I was going to post a pic of a rusty fish hook, and so googled the term.

You learn something new every day. As a direct result of this whole sorry affair, I now know what a "rusty fish hook" is.

F.F.S. - cheers Lance!


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jan 2013)

That's why they invented "safe mode" for Google etc!


----------



## BJH (20 Jan 2013)

SCA lost the case on the basis that he won the tour so they had to pay out, he will settle with them out of court as he will not want to discuss it any further in a court of law

Giro and Nike won't sue because they won't win, he fulfilled his contracts by wearing and promoting their brand.

Tour Down Under - nonsense publicity after one of the organisers offered support to him just before he finally admitted, they will not take this to legal because they won't win

Add it all together and the cu7t - because that is what he does indeed deserve to be called - will still exit his years of cheating, deceit and lies as a multi millionaire. Do you think for one minute he will not have had cash put into trust for his kids? What about the cash his ex wife must have walked with following divorce that's not coming back

So no he will not be destitute, he will still have more dosh that most of us posting on here put together - and a whole lot more than some of the riders who had shortened or ruined careers caused by him and his fellow cheats

No real remorse, regret or full apology offered, so no quarter should be given - he deserves everything he gets and more


----------



## yello (20 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> Tour Down Under - nonsense publicity after one of the organisers offered support to him just before he finally admitted, they will not take this to legal because they won't win


 
I'd forgotten about them (or some Aus territory govt/tourist board) asking for their money back. I reckon you're right though, they'll get nowhere since they got what they paid for; Armstrong's appearance.

Of course, Armstrong might - if he was truly a reformed character - voluntarily give the money back


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Jan 2013)

Nike has other problems with suing Armstrong for "cheating" if they could be proven to be complicit in that cheating and the coverups.

Although probably inadmissible as "hearsay" ...

Kathy Lemond stated under oath in 2006 that Julien Devries a mechanic had told her in 2000 about a payment by Nike of $500,000 dollars to Veerbruggen to cover up a positive test for Corticosteroids in 1999

If that is the case then Nike can't really afford to go over this ground


----------



## johnr (20 Jan 2013)

I think we might need a contract lawyer to arbitrate here soon.

If Nike and Oakley have sense they'll have 'good character' clauses in their sponsorship agreements which he would definitely of breached. However, I very much doubt Nike were not aware of what was going on, and Oakley put pressure on one of their employees to perjure herself in the SCA case (according to the Australian documentary linked on this thread about 2000 postings ago), so I doubt they're going anywhere near a court room.

USP bosses from the relevant periods may find themselves in a difficult position if Armstrong's lawyers felt it worth their while to run a defence based on their knowledge and encouragement of winning at all costs. But with Landis calling the shots on this one at the moment, they don't have the option of 'no action'. I think that is why Pharmstrong want a raprochement with Landis. Given how murky the whole thing is (especially with LPh's old political contacts involved) I think this one is most likely to be settled out of court.


----------



## Boris Bajic (20 Jan 2013)

[QUOTE 2267172, member: 45"]So he was a lying, druggy cheat then?[/quote]

*WHAAAAT?!*

(Oh God... I hope nobody sees the tan mark from the Livestrong armband I've worn for the past decade....)


----------



## StuAff (20 Jan 2013)

johnr said:


> I think we might need a contract lawyer to arbitrate here soon.
> 
> If Nike and Oakley have sense they'll have 'good character' clauses in their sponsorship agreements which he would definitely of breached. However, I very much doubt Nike were not aware of what was going on, and Oakley put pressure on one of their employees to perjure herself in the SCA case (according to the Australian documentary linked on this thread about 2000 postings ago), so I doubt they're going anywhere near a court room.
> 
> USP bosses from the relevant periods may find themselves in a difficult position if Armstrong's lawyers felt it worth their while to run a defence based on their knowledge and encouragement of winning at all costs. But with Landis calling the shots on this one at the moment, they don't have the option of 'no action'. I think that is why Pharmstrong want a raprochement with Landis. Given how murky the whole thing is (especially with LPh's old political contacts involved) I think this one is most likely to be settled out of court.


Some interesting details about the USPS sponsorship, and clauses in the contract, here.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> Thanks for the explanation Stu. So Tailwind were paying the bonuses to Armstrong? With Armstrong being a part owner of Tailwind? That is, Armstrong agreed to pay himself bonuses. And Tailwind took an insurance policy with SCA to cover that! I'm sure it's common enough type of practice but it equally open to a scam!


you wouldn't take him on at cards, would you?


----------



## thom (20 Jan 2013)

MichaelM said:


> You learn something new every day. As a direct result of this whole sorry affair, I now know what a "rusty fish hook" is.
> 
> F.F.S. - cheers Lance!


I take it, you would advise against googling "rusty fish hook" should you want to maintain the cleanliness of one's computer...


----------



## thom (20 Jan 2013)

2267385 said:


> I wouldn't do it at work.


Are you saying you would do a "rusty fish hook" at home ?


----------



## Kins (20 Jan 2013)

USPS, I don't get how they would work out how much LA is liable for, how much team mates are liable for and how much the team is liable for? Yes, he was the star and got a shed load of money, but surely they would have to go after the whole team?

Be interesting to see who bothers with lawsuits as some must be complicit if they knew drugs were involved.


----------



## thom (20 Jan 2013)

2267418 said:


> I don't believe any reasonable person could draw that inference from that which I wrote.


I suspect that line could have been well employed throughout this thread by various posters ;-)


----------



## StuAff (21 Jan 2013)

Kins said:


> USPS, I don't get how they would work out how much LA is liable for, how much team mates are liable for and how much the team is liable for? Yes, he was the star and got a shed load of money, but surely* they would have to go after the whole team?*
> 
> Be interesting to see who bothers with lawsuits as some must be complicit if they knew drugs were involved.


They are. Assuming the suit proceeds, as I stated in #2367, any of the mentioned co-defendants in the whisteblower suit (individuals and their companies) could be held liable for the damages.


----------



## Crosstrailer (21 Jan 2013)

Not been on this thread for a while, has Red Light been back by any chance ?


----------



## thom (21 Jan 2013)

Crosstrailer said:


> Not been on this thread for a while, has Red Light been back by any chance ?


who's that ?


----------



## ComedyPilot (21 Jan 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720

Lance Armstrong books to be re-classified as 'fiction'...........


----------



## Noodley (21 Jan 2013)

Has anyone seen that - get this, it's classc - there is a library (seriously, I never thought librarians had a sense of humour) which has re-classified Lance's books as fiction. OMG how funny is that? Eh? I bet none of the rest of you have seen that one.


----------



## rich p (21 Jan 2013)

What about this poor fecker!
http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/ti...ck_with_10_000_Lance_Armstrong_DVDs_to_shift/


----------



## BJH (21 Jan 2013)

Blimey don't know he thought he was going to sell them too they have been almost given away with cornflakes in the last few years


----------



## BJH (21 Jan 2013)

Crosstrailer said:


> Not been on this thread for a while, has Red Light been back by any chance ?



We could always have a debate about whether admission of guilt necessarily means actual guilt so can't wait, we could even make 200 on this one!


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Jan 2013)

This guy has generated 2400 posts despite being out of racing for a while and many fans thinking he is evil incarnate, while they reserve affection for the clean guys like Indurain, Evans, Wiggins, Roche and so on. When I say clean, I mean the ones we quite like or were never caught, which is the same thing really.

It matters not how many of his older books he sells. What brings out a giggle in me (amongst other things) is how many copies of his post-confession books he might sell.

Also, I'm told by industry insiders that marmite will be using him in a forthcoming campaign. That information is pretty close-hold for now, so please don't quote or repeat this post.


----------



## Noodley (21 Jan 2013)

Indurain and Roche were dopers.


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Indurain and Roche were dopers.


 
Sorry, I was trolling. I know they've all used PEDs. Even the ones we like or the ones whose passports look very similar to ours.


----------



## StuAff (21 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> When I say clean, I mean the ones we quite like or were never caught, which is the same thing really.


No, it isn't.


----------



## Boris Bajic (21 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> No, it isn't.


 
Sorry, it was cheap trolling and I deserve a life ban for it. No, two life bans.

To run consecutively.

Please don't anybody rise to anything I write this evening.

It's been a long day. Figuratively of course... in terms of daylight hours it's been quite short.


----------



## StuAff (21 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Sorry, it was cheap trolling and I deserve a life ban for it. No, two life bans.
> 
> To run consecutively.
> 
> ...


Rise to it? You're being hopeful there


----------



## BJH (21 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Sorry, it was cheap trolling and I deserve a life ban for it. No, two life bans.
> 
> To run consecutively.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree wih you you are trolling.

If you have something to point the finger at on Evans or Wiggins then say it. Otherwise don't link them to known dopers.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jan 2013)

There was a whole thread about SKY, Wiggins and Kimmage


----------



## mickle (22 Jan 2013)




----------



## oldroadman (22 Jan 2013)

mickle said:


>



Why not, only keeping the usual process going.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> Yes, I agree wih you you are trolling.
> 
> If you have something to point the finger at on Evans or Wiggins then say it. Otherwise don't *link them to known dopers*.


 
When a chap says he's trolling, I think it prudent to agree with him. Of course I'm trolling. I accept your homologation with good grace. Thank you.

I admire Evans and Wiggins greatly (despite liking Evans less than I did when he was the eternal bridesmaid). Evans was pretty successful as early as 2002 and wore pink in the Giro that year - plum in middle of the LA era when_ 'only dopers were making the podium'_. But we like Cadel (I really do) so it is scandalous to mention doping. He had a tough childhood and comes from an MTB background and he's an honest cobber, so he never would. So you're right; I cannot _'link him to known dopers'_. Apart from Michele Ferrari who was a 'consultant' in his decision to go 'road' full time. And quite a few known dopers with whom he rode. But I really do admire the guy...

It does raise a (non-malicious) chuckle when those of us who cannot possibly know the truth come quickly and assertively to the defence of Wiggins and Evans (both anglophone, both of broadly British heritage) on the matter of doping.

I recall the days (not so long ago) when many, many fans or self-appointed experts would get very angry defending the honour of Armstrong. He was sick! He simply wouldn't do that! Fact!

Similarly, there were ardent defenders of Indurain (another hero of mine) because he "had such a genetic advantage that he didn't need to dope". Indeed. Also, he was a modest man of farming stock who shunned the limelight, so we 'liked' him. No way would he dope. No way Jose!

And Stephen Roche (whose autobiography contains a strong condemnation of doping, amusingly).

And many others....

I do not say_ 'this one does dope and this one does not'_. I just have a wry chuckle at the way it might seem we select those we approve of and those we condemn.

But as we both agree, I was trolling when I mentioned Indurain, Roche, Wiggins, Evans and doping. None of them ever would.

I raise these other names partly because (as this is an Armstrong thread) it tickles me that LA has become a lightning conductor. Everyone else (if we like them) is clean.


----------



## rich p (22 Jan 2013)

Boris, you're turning from the occasionally faintly amusing to the irritating troll some thought you were. I'd say this would be a good time to drop it until you have some evidence that Wiggins and Evans are dopers. There was plenty of evidence that Armstrong was doping which was what persuaded most of the admirers who followed the trail, to realise that some years ago.


----------



## GaryA (22 Jan 2013)




----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Boris, you're turning from the occasionally faintly amusing to the irritating troll some thought you were. I'd say this would be a good time to drop it until you have some evidence that Wiggins and Evans are dopers. There was plenty of evidence that Armstrong was doping which was what persuaded most of the admirers who followed the trail, to realise that some years ago.


 
Sir Rich P,

I post on CC to amuse myself. If I amuse others, it avails me nought. I imagine that 112% of posters in Pro-Cycling and Racing find me an irritating troll. Maybe even more. Calling me out as one aligns very neatly with my own announcements in several recent posts on this topic that I am just that. 

In more serious posts (the Dyspraxia thread in Family Cycling) I am not trolling. Elsewhere I might be. It happens. 

This is not some sort of exclusive club of The Great and The Good. I suspect it is about as far from that as a forum can be. It is a bunch of idiots (to a lesser or greater extent) like me who enjoy discussing things of no consequence with people they've never met. We are not discovering a cure for whooping cough or solving world poverty. Evans was advised by Ferrari in 2000. I don't suppose he doped, but the link is not a good one. 

I'd give the opinions I've trolled in these pages over a coffee or a glass of wine with friends. I admire the impression you give of taking this whole thread very seriously, but I doubt whether the UCI, Lance's lawyers or anyone else involved will be quoting our learned outpourings in any forthcoming legal case. This is the froth, not the beer.


----------



## rich p (22 Jan 2013)

So you admit that you're content to troll on a thread some of us take seriously but refrain from doing so on one that you do. Very grown up.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jan 2013)

Boris, if you're going to continually talk shoot, can you do it briefly. Just follow Rich's method.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is not some sort of exclusive club of The Great and The Good. I suspect it is about as far from that as a forum can be. It is a bunch of idiots (to a lesser or greater extent) like me who enjoy discussing things of no consequence with people they've never met.


You need to spend less time on here annoying people, and more time on your bike!

I have met and ridden with about 100 CycleChat members and I can't think of one idiot among them. I've liked most of them, and some of them I like a lot! 

As for discussing things of no consequence ... I had a lot of support when my mum was dying, when I was depressed, and when I became seriously ill last summer. 

Life is too short for talking about what you are _not_ interested in - move on to something you _are_ interested in!


----------



## yello (22 Jan 2013)

Point of order; Armstrong was not 'self delusional'. He knew exactly what he was doing and why. And probably still does. All very calculated.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Jan 2013)

ColinJ said:


> You need to spend less time on here annoying people, and more time on your bike!
> 
> I have met and ridden with about 100 CycleChat members and I can't think of one idiot among them. I've liked most of them, and some of them I like a lot!
> 
> ...


 
You're right about needing to spend more time riding, but it's cold and wet and windy.

I apologise for any offence caused. My choice of words was insensitive. As one old enough to have lost both parents (several decades ago) and a sibling, I do not wish to appear to trivialise loss or illness. I've emptied enough bed pans for moribund loved ones not to want to bring those upsets to anyone. My reference to _'things of no consequence'_ was related to pro-cycling and other related matters, not to loss, depression or support of those in need. I had no idea there was a deeper function to these pages and apologise (sincerely) for my insnsitivity.

In my defence on the matter of things I'm 'not interested in': I take a very keen interest in stage racing (just TdF & Giro). I have done for many years and have a shelf of books on my favourite riders and races (not that that proves anything other than that I can read). I love the weeks when France stops for the TdF and in my youth I spent many hours in smelly cafes with a Camel Filter, a coffee and_ L'Equipe,_ looking for good articles and titbits.

What I do not and cannot take very seriously is the casting of 'wicked ones' into the depths of the Inferno and the hope-over-experience building-up of our own favourites into Marble Statues of Glorious Cleanliness against whom nary a whisper of doubt may be uttered. That all gets a little 'football fan' for me and it brings out the troll. But can see I've caused offence and will stop here on this topic with an apology.

I will still troll elsewhere and make the occasional serious post, but not on this topic.


----------



## just jim (22 Jan 2013)

Ace. Thanks.


----------



## ColinJ (22 Jan 2013)

A fine apology Boris! 

I must confess that I was very idealistic when I first started watching pro cycling. In fact, it was watching Lemond's 1989 TdF win over Fignon that inspired me to buy a bike for the first time in 20 years.

I tried hard to believe what I was watching, but as the 90s wore on it became harder and harder to do so. Eventually, it got to the point where riders were just taking the p*ss!

I had heated arguments with people about Armstrong. We had all been inspired by him when he made his comeback, but the more robotic his wins became, the more unlikely it seemed to me that he was clean. I watched him make ridiculously hard efforts that would have had riders from an earlier era needing to be put on oxygen, and he'd be pumped up, waving his fists about but looking as though he'd just walked his dog in the park! I just felt so very let down.

It's hard to get back that lost innocence. I think that Lemond was clean, and that Evans and Wiggins _are_, but I could never be truly shocked by a doping revelation again.

I still enjoy watching bike racing but I am no longer obsessed by it. It's fun to watch, in the way that a Hollywood action movie is, but suspension of disbelief is required. I know that non-doping mortals cannot ride up Alpe d'Huez in under 38 minutes, so every time a rider does it in that time, or close to it, I know that he is cheating, even if I don't know _how_!


----------



## Noodley (22 Jan 2013)

Has he buggered off yet?


----------



## yello (22 Jan 2013)

Who? Boris or Armstrong?


----------



## 400bhp (22 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Lance Armstrong, The Seven Deadly Sins Complete Interview With David Walsh
> 
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkARvYIwT8E




I haven't seen that before-thanks.

I can't properly describe this at the moment, but there's something spiritual about the whole story surrounding this. I don't know if that's because I ride bikes or what.

I really should write a book.


----------



## lukesdad (22 Jan 2013)

Crackle said:


> Boris, if you're going to continually talk s***, can you do it briefly. Just follow Rich's method.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (23 Jan 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21143251

Lance Armstrong the movie, like anyone could see that coming


----------



## thom (23 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21143251
> 
> Lance Armstrong the movie, like anyone could see that coming


I heard a story that Wiggo might be getting a musical...


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (23 Jan 2013)




----------



## BJH (23 Jan 2013)

Boris I just typed a long and in my view honest and slightly amusing response, but then opted to delete it instead.

I don't care about what , Roche for example, claims in his autobiography, he has questions to answer based on facts stacked against him. 

You are indeed being a troll by mentioning Bradley Wiggins in the same lines without any evidence to support it, with nothing more than us little Britishers being willing to believe in him as justification.


----------



## rich p (23 Jan 2013)

Some might say that Lance used Oprah.





V for Vengedetta said:


>


----------



## david k (24 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Some might say that Lance used Oprah.


he did but it was more with the intention of damage limitation than actual gain

whether that turns out to be the case i suppose we will see


----------



## Sara_H (24 Jan 2013)

LOL


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (24 Jan 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> You're right about needing to spend more time riding, but it's cold and wet and windy...
> 
> I apologise for any offence caused. . But can see I've caused offence and will stop here on this topic with an apology.
> ..
> I will still troll elsewhere and make the occasional serious post, but not on this topic.


 
There and I was just about to confer the damnation of the ignore list upon you! 

You are right about not being able to spend time on the bike. It brings out the cabin fever..


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (24 Jan 2013)

LA to be sued for passing fiction off as fact - http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-armstrong-lawsuitbre90n02v-20130123,0,592164.story


----------



## yello (24 Jan 2013)

amusing but hopefully thrown out of court


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> amusing but hopefully thrown out of court


Why? The James Frey ?sp? case has parallels. The publishers had to cough up after.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Jan 2013)

Ferrari says Armstrong could have acheived the same results with more intensive altitude training as with drugs:
1. I doubt it - at least not quite as many wins, because you can't keep up that kind of training for quite so many years; and
2. that's the whole bloody point of doping isn't it? that you can get results quicker and easier than working harder...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Jan 2013)

They say confession is good for the soul iirc.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Ferrari says Armstrong could have acheived the same results with more intensive altitude training as with drugs:
> 1. I doubt it - at least not quite as many wins, because you can't keep up that kind of training for quite so many years; and
> 2. that's the whole bloody point of doping isn't it? that you can get results quicker and easier than working harder...


and the muscle he built with his abuse of human growth hormone was his to keep forever.


----------



## PaulB (25 Jan 2013)

Has this been done already or am I first to post it?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (25 Jan 2013)

Two California men have sued Lance Armstrong and his book publishers for fraud and false advertising regarding the book 'its not about the bike', claiming that the cyclist's best-selling memoirs, billed as non-fiction, were revealed to be filled with lies after he confessed last week to systematic doping.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...ng-sued-over-fictional-memoirs-123837097.html


----------



## thom (25 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Two California men have sued Lance Armstrong and his book publishers for fraud and false advertising regarding the book 'its not about the bike', claiming that the cyclist's best-selling memoirs, billed as non-fiction, were revealed to be filled with lies after he confessed last week to systematic doping.
> 
> http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...ng-sued-over-fictional-memoirs-123837097.html


This story just keeps on giving - maybe the guy trying to get rid of 7000 LA DVDs can sue too.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (25 Jan 2013)

thom said:


> This story just keeps on giving - maybe the guy trying to get rid of 7000 LA DVDs can sue too.


I'm thinking of a law suit simply because he's devalued my favourite colour, not once but seven times


----------



## Minotier (25 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> LOL


I couldn't even find my bike!


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (26 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Lance Armstrong 'still lying', says anti-doping expert
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21195249


 
It's my opinion that if I saw Armstrong walk into the same room as me, my best survival tactic would be to walk out of it. As was quoted elswhere, he is so crooked he could hide behind a spiral staircase.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Two California men have sued Lance Armstrong and his book publishers for fraud and false advertising regarding the book 'its not about the bike', claiming that the cyclist's best-selling memoirs, billed as non-fiction, were revealed to be filled with lies after he confessed last week to systematic doping.
> 
> http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...ng-sued-over-fictional-memoirs-123837097.html


 
Well that is most celebrities affected then!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (26 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Lance Armstrong 'still lying', says anti-doping expert
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21195249


And Tygart will be on CBS's 60 minutes on Sunday evening pursuing the same theme - 
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57565950/usada-ceo-armstrong-lied-to-oprah/


----------



## BJH (27 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Two California men have sued Lance Armstrong and his book publishers for fraud and false advertising regarding the book 'its not about the bike', claiming that the cyclist's best-selling memoirs, billed as non-fiction, were revealed to be filled with lies after he confessed last week to systematic doping.
> 
> http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs...ng-sued-over-fictional-memoirs-123837097.html




I can see a movie deal now, but more along the lines of Miracle on 34th Street, or It's a Wonderful Life

Bradley Wiggins will need to go to court and convince the world to believe that cyclist winning without drugs do exist otherwise all the boys and girls in the world will give up cycling.

LA and Bruyneel will be the chief witnesses for the prosecution case

When Brad finally wins the day it will be just in time for the celebration parade through New York of the start of he Giro ( well it has been rumoured to be a possibility) and the kids can rest easy in their bed knowing that Dr Christmas isn't going to come into their bed rooms on Christmas eve and deliver an intravenous drug supply


----------



## 400bhp (27 Jan 2013)

User said:


> Thomas Dekker to lift lid on drugs in meeting with Dutch Anti-Doping Authority
> 
> he states "Therefore, I choose to give the full extent of my knowledge. There are many details and people involved with my doping past.
> "All of that, including the names of people who helped me, will be given to the *[Dutch] Anti-Doping Authority*."
> ...


 
DADA

Hmmmm


----------



## 400bhp (27 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Ferrari says Armstrong could have acheived the same results with more intensive altitude training as with drugs:
> 1. I doubt it - at least not quite as many wins, because you can't keep up that kind of training for quite so many years; and
> 2. that's the whole bloody point of doping isn't it? that you can get results quicker and easier than working harder...


 
Will, if that was the case, why didn't he.

Yehbutt, I could've been a miwwionnaire by getting straight A's at GCSE, A-Levels, 1st class PPE at Oxbridge, then working for an investment bank.

But I robbed a few banks instead...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2013)

have i heard it right that if he comes clean before some deadline next month he can cut a deal on his life ban?

Have seen no papers this weekend but am told something may have been in the torygraph


----------



## thom (27 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> have i heard it right that if he comes clean before some deadline next month he can cut a deal on his life ban?
> 
> Have seen no papers this weekend but am told something may have been in the torygraph


I don't believe its that simple. USADA have issued a writ for him to testify under oath to them about the content of the Oprah interview before 6'th feb (or near enough that day). His lawyers seem to be indicating he'll do that.
Not so much comes from LA but one thing he said on Oprah was he'd like the ban reduced so I think every time news outlets try to flesh out the story for his motivation to come clean, that's what they'll quote. I don't think Tygart would offer a deal to LA along the lines of an up front deal - Tygart is too smart to trust him in that way. I think if he really laid bare substantial evidence of the doping, then he might consider something because it does make sense to offer an incentive to athletes to confess properly. But the chance of LA actually laying it _all_ bare would be slim I think.


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> have i heard it right that if he comes clean before some deadline next month he can cut a deal on his life ban?
> 
> Have seen no papers this weekend but am told something may have been in the torygraph


 
There is no doubt that the USADA are open to reducuing the ban and have been for some time
I think that at least in part the reason for the Oprah teasers. Armstrong was setting out his stall and opening negotiations for the reduction.


----------



## 007fair (28 Jan 2013)

GregCollins said:


> have i heard it right that if he comes clean before some deadline next month he can cut a deal on his life ban?
> 
> Have seen no papers this weekend but am told something may have been in the torygraph


But LA is actually clean anyway.
If you don't believe me just re arrange the letters of his first name.



Sorry if thats been done before


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (29 Jan 2013)

RedBull F1 Driver Mark Webber shows no love for Lance

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/18227/8452154/Webber-has-no-sympathy-for-Armstrong


----------



## raindog (29 Jan 2013)

He's a good bloke is Webber. One of the few in F1 who doesn't flounce about like a spoilt thirteen year old.


----------



## ColinJ (29 Jan 2013)

I'd really like to lance Armstrong!

(I have friends who could hide me away for a while - what's the statute of limitations ruling on jousting attacks? )


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (29 Jan 2013)

raindog said:


> He's a good bloke is Webber. One of the few in F1 who doesn't flounce about like a spoilt thirteen year old.


Button and Webber are both quite handy on a bike too, it seems.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (29 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Button and Webber are both quite handy on a bike too, it seems.


Jenson is a triathlete in his spare time,he was one of the early owners of a McLaren Venge :P


----------



## raindog (29 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Button and Webber are both quite handy on a bike too, it seems.


Absolutely - Button's another one I respect - must be summat to do with riding bikes?


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (30 Jan 2013)

ColinJ said:


> I'd really like to lance Armstrong!
> 
> (I have friends who could hide me away for a while - what's the statute of limitations ruling on jousting attacks? )


 

It seems to me that the Yanks need a new, more up to date, villain to replace Benedict Arnold (who is old hat). Arnold's villainy is not as clear cut or universally disliked as that of Armstrong IMO.


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jan 2013)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> It seems to me that the Yanks need a new, more up to date, villain to replace Benedict Arnold (who is old hat). Arnold's villainy is not as clear cut or universally disliked as that of Armstrong IMO.


(Makes quick visit to Wikipedia to find out who Benedict Arnold was, and makes mental note: Time to reread some history books!)
Er, yes, I agree!


----------



## mickle (30 Jan 2013)




----------



## thom (30 Jan 2013)

Lance answers questions from cyclingnews


----------



## mickle (30 Jan 2013)

Wh


thom said:


> Lance answers questions from cyclingnews


What a total nobber.


----------



## eck (30 Jan 2013)

Conveniently (?), no questions about his threats, coercion and bullying. It's certainly in his interests to keep these off the agenda. And what mickle said ^^^


----------



## Radchenister (30 Jan 2013)

The leader of the cheetahs now wants so be welcomed back amongst his fellow men, the original king of the swingers!   


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JDzlhW3XTM


----------



## ColinJ (30 Jan 2013)

Sara_H said:


> LOL


I know somebody who tried cycling back along the Rochdale canal towpath under the influence of some rather strong weed. He told me that everything was really mellow (man) until he accidentally headbutted a canal bridge and ended up in the canal with his bike!


----------



## smutchin (30 Jan 2013)

eck said:


> Conveniently (?), no questions about his threats, coercion and bullying. It's certainly in his interests to keep these off the agenda. And what mickle said ^^^


 
Yeah, he seems to think that the others have got off lightly compared to him without taking into account that his offences were far greater. What a tool.

Although on the plus side, even he is turning against the UCI now. Seems he's belatedly realised that they're even bigger, nastier bullies than him. Nice lesson for him there about how bullying works.

d.


----------



## rich p (30 Jan 2013)

What a twat...

...that doesn't come as a surprise though


----------



## Crackle (30 Jan 2013)

He comes over better in print than in pictures. Probably suits his insincerity better.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Jan 2013)

I actually agree with a lot of what he says. But it's what he doesn't say, and indeed what he doesn't even get asked that is equally important.


----------



## rich p (30 Jan 2013)

The statement that he and Pat M had a conversation months and months ago about a TRC implies that Fat Pat was aware of Armstrong's guilt at that time. Why else would LA have been suggesting it?


----------



## yello (30 Jan 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I actually agree with a lot of what he says. But it's what he doesn't say, and indeed what he doesn't even get asked that is equally important.


 
It struck me as him trying to say things that people could agree with (UCI is corrupt, McQuaid's a chump sort of stuff). From anyone else you might think 'what a top bloke', from him it smells of agenda and manipulation.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Jan 2013)

yello said:


> It struck me as him trying to say things that people could agree with (UCI is corrupt, McQuaid's a chump sort of stuff). From anyone else you might think 'what a top bloke', from him it smells of agenda and manipulation.


 
Indeed. It did also remind me rather uncomfortably of the way in which David Millar started to talk after confessing. Now I am not suggesting for a moment that Millar was in any way as bad as Armstrong, but in terms of a cynical PR strategy, copying Millar's model would certainly be a good one...


----------



## smutchin (30 Jan 2013)

Yes, I almost felt a twinge of sympathy for him until I remembered all the other stuff he conveniently doesn't mention in that interview. 

d.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (30 Jan 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview

 My generation was no different than any other. The 'help' has evolved over the years but the fact remains that our sport is damn hard, the Tour was invented as a 'stunt, and very tough mother f**kers have competed for a century and all looked for advantages. From hopping on trains a 100 years ago to EPO now. No generation was exempt or 'clean'. Not Merckx's, not Hinault's, not LeMond's, not Coppi's, not Gimondi's, not Indurain's, not Anquetil's, not Bartali's, and not mine.


----------



## beastie (30 Jan 2013)

AAAgghhh he is a total daffodil C U N T


----------



## StuAff (30 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview
> 
> My generation was no different than any other. The 'help' has evolved over the years but the fact remains that our sport is damn hard, the Tour was invented as a 'stunt, and very tough mother f**kers have competed for a century and all looked for advantages. From hopping on trains a 100 years ago to EPO now. No generation was exempt or 'clean'. Not Merckx's, not Hinault's, not LeMond's, not Coppi's, not Gimondi's, not Indurain's, not Anquetil's, not Bartali's, and not mine.


I'd like him to suggest Bernie doped. To his face 
FM's made a good point about LA trying to emulate David Millar's post-doping tactics. I can understand the cynicism about Millar- he only changed his tune on drugs after he got caught, fought to reduce the bans (but then so would everyone else), and so on- and it makes no difference if you lost out to him because you were clean- but what's he supposed to do? He wants to make a living in the sport, and his contrition & remorse does seem genuine. I don't know if LA is actually capable of genuine remorse for anything, his actions suggest anything but. I think I'd prefer it if he was as unrepentant as Vino (!), at least that would be honest....


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (31 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> I don't know if LA is actually capable of genuine remorse for anything, his actions suggest anything but.....


 
I agree totally..... for me the first part of forgiveness is accepting that what you did was wrong and saying sorry, so far Lance has tried to explain it, justify it and dig his way out of the hole he is in, at no time can I recall him admitting that he deceived people or lied. In fact I don't even believe he has even admitted to cheating as he seems to feel he was levelling the playing field.
He is just sorry he got caught.


----------



## thom (31 Jan 2013)

V for Vengedetta said:


> He is just sorry he got caught.


Yes, this is specifically my conclusion from Oprah. From a vague memory, he was asked about whether he regretted his comeback, to which he indicated that since he wouldn't be having his Oprah moment had he not, he thinks it was a mistake. He ought to have taken note of rich p's post a few years back. 
From that answer, I can't read it any other way than he currently still wishes he'd got away with it.

The extent of the deception was so deep and ingrained into his existence that I think this is to be expected.


----------



## smutchin (31 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> I'd like him to suggest Bernie doped. To his face


 
Oh, that would be worth cracking the popcorn out for.



> I don't know if LA is actually capable of genuine remorse for anything, his actions suggest anything but. I think I'd prefer it if he was as unrepentant as Vino (!), at least that would be honest....


 
Surely you're not suggesting that Vino has more integrity than Millar, are you?

As for Lance, as someone on twitter (I think it was nyvelocity) quipped, during that Oprah interview, you could almost see him thinking before answering each question: "What would a human say now?"

The man is a psycopath.

d.


----------



## david k (31 Jan 2013)

If Lance hadnt took this to knew levels and been caught after winning 7 TdF's would we have found out how bad the situation was? Will this in a bizarre way contribute to a cleaner pro cycling?


----------



## StuAff (31 Jan 2013)

smutchin said:


> Oh, that would be worth cracking the popcorn out for.
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you're not suggesting that Vino has more integrity than Millar, are you?


Heaven forbid, no!!


----------



## smutchin (31 Jan 2013)

StuAff said:


> Heaven forbid, no!!


 
Good! I didn't seriously think you were, of course, and I take your point about Millar, but I believe he's a genuinely reformed character and like you, suspect that is something Lance will never be.

d.


----------



## Andrew_P (31 Jan 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-quits-the-change-cycling-now-group

Hmm


----------



## PocketFrog (31 Jan 2013)

Now even the SKY team are at it.







Look at him, stoned out of his gourd, he doesn't even know it's not a bike! smh.


----------



## Hont (31 Jan 2013)

Er... Armstrong's an arse.

I thought I'd try and sum up the previous 2500 posts in a single sentence.

Bugger overlap. 2501 posts.


----------



## eck (31 Jan 2013)

No, Hont. I can't agree. Your post is disrespectful to arses.


----------



## rich p (31 Jan 2013)

LOCO said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-quits-the-change-cycling-now-group
> 
> Hmm


 Ashenden is a consistent voice of common sense.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (31 Jan 2013)

eck said:


> No, Hont. I can't agree. Your post is disrespectful to arses.


 
As in..

"Lance Armstrong's peanut transplant was a failure. The peanut rejected him."?


----------



## johnr (31 Jan 2013)

Hont said:


> Er... Armstrong's an arse.
> 
> I thought I'd try and sum up the previous 2500 posts in a single sentence.
> 
> Bugger overlap. 2501 posts.


 I think 'nobber' gets the majority vote.


----------



## david k (31 Jan 2013)

charlie brookers weekly wipe summed lance up pretty well, very funny


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (31 Jan 2013)

In the off chance you were lying awake at night wondering what America's greatest moral philosopher Charlie Sheen thinks about Lance Armstrong, your wait is over: He’s “kind of a douche,” the “Anger Management” star told Jay Leno on Thursday on “The Tonight Show.”

When asked about the ongoing revelations about Armstrong’s doping, Sheen -- hardly an exemplar of virtue himself -- revealed that he’s not exactly a fan of the disgraced cyclist. At a party some time ago, he eagerly introduced himself to Armstrong, only to be dismissed with a terse, “That’s nice.”

​


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (31 Jan 2013)

Lol ... how bad is your life when even Charlie Sheen thinks you have messed up.
I really think Jay Leno was good with his comments, they should have got him to do the confession interview


----------



## Radchenister (31 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Ashenden is a consistent voice of common sense.


 
Wise move by Ashenden; never thought he sat all that comfortably amongst the CCN group.

He appeared to be aiming for reasoned, professional and factual impartiality, whilst driven towards a better future (to a certain level, I may be wrong - please correct me) ... and it seemed to me that he wasn't dovetailing all that well with the group's path.

The CCN crew appear to be hanging on to issues in a way that is too personal and reactionary; whilst this might have helped in a revolutionary breaking the seal sort of way, they aren't standing up to suggest really credible forms of solution. I wish them well and all that but balanced governance and better control through scientific means might be the new straight and narrow perhaps - not wobbling on that Greg LeMond should be president (IMO); what would he do if he got there?


----------



## Aperitif (1 Feb 2013)

mickle said:


> Wh
> What a *total* *nobber*.


I am stripping him of this title too...it is far to good an accolade. He is a farking daffodil - no more no less. A disgusting person.


----------



## MacB (1 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> and the PR fight back begins....
> 
> http://sport.uk.msn.com/armstrong-im-the-fall-guy


 
I'm starting to think the Oprah interview did him more damage and in ways unexpected by his PR team


----------



## yello (1 Feb 2013)

In a sense, he is the fall guy. In no sense is he not guilty.

Armstrong put himself in the firing line and that's nobody's fault but his own.


----------



## yello (1 Feb 2013)

MacB said:


> I'm starting to think the Oprah interview did him more damage and in ways unexpected by his PR team


 
That seems to be the general consensus state-side. His 'confession' lacked any sense of genuine remorse and every sense of blaming circumstances and others.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> In a sense, he is the fall guy. In no sense is he not guilty.
> 
> Armstrong put himself in the firing line and that's nobody's fault but his own.


In no sense is he the fall guy. He was the flippin' ringmaster not one of the clowns.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Feb 2013)

And apparently, even after his 'confession', Armstrong has no intention of actually losing out materially. He does not intend paying back the winner's bonuses that accrued from his fraud. The explanation given by his lawyer was as follows:

"The bottom line is that Tailwind bought the (insurance) policy (with SCA)," said Herman. "Tailwind paid the premium. Tailwind made the claim, and the money was paid to Tailwind, not Lance Armstrong. I'm sure people will characterize that as a loophole, but it's a pretty significant factor."

A loophole, you say? More like a blatant disregard for any standards of ethics and truth. The guy has no shame.


----------



## rich p (5 Feb 2013)

Utter shitebag. And so are his scheming lawyers although that goes without saying.


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2013)

Looks as if the US authorities may still be after the cheating scumbag despite Andre Birotte not regretting dropping thecase

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-subject-of-criminal-investigation

Hope springs eternal


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> He does not intend paying back the winner's bonuses that accrued from his fraud.


 
re the above, I thought Henman's words could lead to confusion....



> "My only point is no athlete ever, to my understanding, has ever gone back and paid back his compensation," Herman told _USA Today_.


 
Note he said "compensation". Elsewhere, I read him referring to 'repaying winnings'. I think he is deliberately trying to confuse the issue; the SCA insurance policy and Armstrong's prize money. The two are not the same. Henman is perhaps right in that disgraced athletes rarely return their prize money - but that's a completely different issue to taking out an insurance policy with fraudulent intent and then lying under oath to secure it.

As much as we might like to think that Henman is an idiot, he is not. I don't understand what he's doing (his 'loophole' defence looks particularly see-through, an own goal even) but there will be a purpose. It's part of a strategy. I suspect the main part of that strategy is too deflect or redirect attention - he's trying to reshape the issue into something he thinks he can defend.


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Looks as if the US authorities may still be after the cheating scumbag despite Andre Birotte not regretting dropping thecase
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-subject-of-criminal-investigation
> 
> Hope springs eternal


 
Indeed it does.

It seems like a 'no brainer' to me that the Feds would pick this up again.

Personally, like thousands of others, I'd love to know why Birotte shelved/dropped it in the first place. Yes, I've read several ideas and conspiracy theories but they remain that. I can only attribute the reason to be 'political'... with no idea of specifics.

So for similar reasons, I will not actually believe that a Federal investigation has re-started/commenced until I see it being reported officially. Birotte pissed a lot of people off. Some of those will be wanting to 'get even' (political again) but whether they'll have the clout to do so remains to be seen.

If I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet on this one. There's probably too much going on behind the scenes for it to be called by we mere internauts. I watch and wait with interest.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> internauts


----------



## oldroadman (6 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> re the above, I thought Henman's words could lead to confusion....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
"Compensation" is a term used by some US corporations to describe what the pay their employees. As in wages, salary, bonuses. So it could have dual meanings, although here it may be used to describe bonuses paid out for specific objectives.


----------



## johnr (6 Feb 2013)

Puts a new gloss on the confession, doesn't it?

'Yes, I cheated, but that doesn't mean I did anything wrong.'

One thing is certain - a big pay day for lawyers. I guess what his brief is saying is that anyone wanting their money back is going to have to shell out a heap of cash in fees. I presume that the TdF organisers may be able to try to sieze assets in Europe if he still owns property here, but otherwise it's got to be a US court. (I presume Pharmstrong would not be stupid enough to leave the safety of the Austin bunker.)


----------



## Flying_Monkey (6 Feb 2013)

It could get worse (or better?), it seems - apparently Armstrong is being investigated with a view to criminal charges of witness tampering, intimidation and fraud.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (6 Feb 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It could get worse (or better?), it seems - apparently Armstrong is being investigated with a view to criminal charges of witness tampering, intimidation and fraud.


 
Times have changed since Birotte felt that a prosecution would not stick. They have changed a lot. It would not be surprising if Birotte changed his opinion, what is surprising is that he says he hasn't. Why?


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2013)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> It would not be surprising if Birotte changed his opinion, what is surprising is that he says he hasn't. Why?


 
Maybe because he hasn't. Birotte doesn't speak for every office nor every federal officer. There were a lot of people involved in the original investigation that were both surprised and disappointed (to put it mildly) that Birotte decided not to proceed. That was his job, his call for whatever reasons. Seems like he's saying he sees no cause to change his decision. That is, there's some factor we are not seeing, perhaps will never ever know.


----------



## Radchenister (6 Feb 2013)

Phone call from the president  .


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Looks as if the US authorities may still be after the cheating scumbag despite Andre Birotte not regretting dropping thecase
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-subject-of-criminal-investigation
> 
> Hope springs eternal


 


Flying_Monkey said:


> It could get worse (or better?), it seems - apparently Armstrong is being investigated with a view to criminal charges of witness tampering, intimidation and fraud.


 
Write out 100 times - I must read previous posts....


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Phone call from the president  .


 
Well, yes, that's one end of the spectrum.


----------



## rich p (6 Feb 2013)

Radchenister said:


> Phone call from the president  .


 Pat McQuaid?


----------



## yello (6 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> Pat McQuaid?


 
Well, yes, that's the other end of the spectrum.


----------



## smutchin (6 Feb 2013)

This is hilarious, for two reasons - one, that Lance is resorting to scraping the barrel to find "races" he can legitimately win, and two, that people care enough about it to complain...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/feb/06/lance-armstrong-banned-strava


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (6 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> Maybe because he hasn't. Birotte doesn't speak for every office nor every federal officer. There were a lot of people involved in the original investigation that were both surprised and disappointed (to put it mildly) that Birotte decided not to proceed. That was his job, his call for whatever reasons. Seems like he's saying he sees no cause to change his decision. That is, there's some factor we are not seeing, perhaps will never ever know.


 
But isn't that what I said? i.e.



Hotblack Desiato said:


> Times have changed since Birotte felt that a prosecution would not stick. They have changed a lot. It would not be surprising if Birotte changed his opinion, what is surprising is that he says he hasn't. Why?


 
I am saying that I am surprised that he sees no reason to change his opinion. I don't just assume that there is 'some factor we are not seeing' particularly as this is in the 'States where such matters are _supposed_ to be done in the open.

Maybe there is 'some factor'. I ask 'what is it?'. Yes I know, we are as mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed on bullshit..


----------



## BJH (6 Feb 2013)

Still smacks to me of a planned and very orchestrated campaign that he had in mind with a spread out release of confessions aimed at providing the minimum to allow him to get off

The great thing is that it does seem to have backfired

When I rad his lawyers comments around why he will not have to pay it back I felt he was probably correct in terms of a strict legal view point and I don't see him paying it back

What they have probably underestimated is that it's that attitude that just pi##es people off even more.

The one good thing about him being made a scapegoat as he believes is that people like this prosecutor who dropped the case originally, will now see a nice opportunity to go for the jugular

Let's just hope they do because this guy truly deserves everything he gets.

Cold, calculating and with a sheet of ice behind his eyes throughout that interview, worked out prepared answers designed to get him off the hook. For him this has now gone out of control and he ain't the type of guy who confess all and beg for mercy.

As he's from Texas, I would just like to say "Fu5k him and the horse he rode in on"


----------



## jdtate101 (6 Feb 2013)

smutchin said:


> This is hilarious, for two reasons - one, that Lance is resorting to scraping the barrel to find "races" he can legitimately win, and two, that people care enough about it to complain...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/feb/06/lance-armstrong-banned-strava


 
Just read that, and agree is hilarious is anyone really gives a damn if he uses Strava or not. I looked on hos profile and most of his activies are runs and don't really contain many segments. He's been doing loads in Honolulu, whilst hiding out.


----------



## Radchenister (6 Feb 2013)

I say ban him ... if Pharmstron ever comes in our local pub ... offering everyone free pints of EPO ... then we'll get him banned from there as well  .


----------



## johnr (7 Feb 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10647723

* USADA extends deadline
* SCA filing on Thursday
* FDA _*not*_ investigating Pharmstrong
* Department of Justice keeps mum on the whole deal!

Hence the phrase: 'this one will run and run'


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Feb 2013)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> But isn't that what I said? i.e.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Firstly there was not an investigation into Armstrong alone - to quote Birotte's press release at the time that his office:



> is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct _*by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team*_ owned in part by Lance Armstrong."


 
The team was being investigated as a whole, not just Armstrong
So is the right question being asked?

He is referring to a decision made at the time.

The evidence available at the time the decision was made hasn't changed, therefore there is no reason why his decision at the time should change.


----------



## Noodley (7 Feb 2013)

My view, which I have stated previously, is that the federal investigation was "dropped" as they realised it would take years of painful legal process with no gurantee of a victory - much easier to get the information out via USADA. The info is now all out there, more info than there was previously, so the Feds come back in and pick it up again - there is more information/evidence and more people willing to speak, including Armstrong himself, albeit not necessarily the truth.


----------



## steveindenmark (7 Feb 2013)

So now there is talk about Lance Armstrong actually joining forces with the USADA to help stamp out drug taking in cycling. The idea is almost beyond belief but you have to give him 10 out of 10 for business awareness. Can you just imagine the USADA paying him millions of dollars as a consultant? :O)


----------



## rich p (7 Feb 2013)

According to reports he is now 'willing' to speak to USADA having said that they were not competent a week or two ago. I'll believe it when it happens.
More smoke and mirrors and muddying the waters.
Bruyneel and Pepe Marti still haven't been up before the beak yet either. Any news on their cases?
I'm particularly interested in Marti as the USPS supplier of EPO when classified as a 'trainer', a role he also filled for Contador until a year or two ago.I haven't heard anyne speculate about whether AC will be fingered though. I'm not sure why Marti or Bruyneel, for that matter, would bother turning up in the US voluntarly either.


----------



## yello (7 Feb 2013)

I'm more inclined to go with Noodley's take on it rather than the phonecalls, bribes or donations that have been suggested by some. The investigators were angered because they thought the evidence was strong. Birotte didn't necessarily disagree but he could well have other factors to take into account. That's the role of a DA. They have to weigh up the pros and cons of proceeding with a prosecution and the evidence is only part of that decision process - rightly or wrongly.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (7 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Firstly there was not an investigation into Armstrong alone - to quote Birotte's press release at the time that his office:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

That sounds a reasonable explanation although the competence of the whole thing is dubious.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> I'm more inclined to go with Noodley's take on it rather than the phonecalls, bribes or donations that have been suggested by some. The investigators were angered because they thought the evidence was strong. Birotte didn't necessarily disagree but he could well have other factors to take into account. That's the role of a DA. They have to weigh up the pros and cons of proceeding with a prosecution and the evidence is only part of that decision process - rightly or wrongly.


People who go with Noodley's take? Nobbers.


----------



## Kins (7 Feb 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21359550

First $12 million + punitives, let the money train begin.


----------



## Noodley (7 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> People who go with Noodley's take? Nobbers.


 
Always right nobbers.


----------



## yello (8 Feb 2013)

Kins said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21359550
> 
> First $12 million + punitives, let the money train begin.


 
There'll certainly be a few people interested in the outcome, that's for real.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (8 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> There'll certainly be a few people interested in the outcome, that's for real.


 
Yes, there's this book about the TdF I bought that now turns out to be largely fiction, for a start.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Feb 2013)

Kins said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21359550
> 
> First $12 million + punitives, let the money train begin.



The problem remains though whether the contract was fulfilled at the time

Not pleasant but the outcome is far from assured


----------



## yello (9 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem remains though whether the contract was fulfilled at the time


 
Fraudulently.


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> Fraudulently.



Absolutely, but it is not that simple in a court

Edited.. Let me explain

The contract was eith a third party (Tailwind) who are the ones who paid Armstrong, there were no payments made to Armstrong by SCA

The payments were made to Tailwind as a separate entity 

So there may not be the direct link to Armstrong needed to regain the payments. SCA may fail if they are (technically not morally) suing the right body


Finally there is also some doubt whether the time scale precludes the case as well


----------



## Rib (10 Feb 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping

What about this oh wise ones?


----------



## yello (10 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Absolutely, but it is not that simple in a court


 
You are right of course. None of us can know/predict how a judge will call it. One can only hope that any judge is able to see through smoke and mirrors and recognise vicarious liability.


----------



## thom (13 Feb 2013)

A Michael Ashendon press release about Lance in the 2009 TdF and the UCI's approach to looking at his blood profile.


----------



## rich p (13 Feb 2013)

This is like a tennis match - a topspin backhand cross-court from Ashenden puts UCI under pressure on the baseline.
Advantage Ashenden.


----------



## yello (13 Feb 2013)

UCI never fail to take my breath away. Here was I thinking that Ashenden had maybe got egg on his face.... all of a sudden to find out that UCI had actually made that bit up! Whether it was knowingly or mistakenly, it reflects badly on UCI and McQuaid.


----------



## Radchenister (13 Feb 2013)

Ashenden's 'advantage' is that he appears to be acting with integrity, working with facts, like you would expect from a scientist (IMO) - quite what 'game' the UCI are playing is baffling to me? They really should hold a mirror up and have a word with themselves.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-at-loggerheads-over-Texans-test-results.aspx


----------



## Kins (13 Feb 2013)

Rib said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping
> 
> What about this oh wise ones?


 
Nice article, shame I don't think it will happen any time soon.



Radchenister said:


> Ashenden's 'advantage' is that he appears to be acting with integrity, working with facts, like you would expect from a scientist (IMO) - quite what 'game' the UCI are playing is baffling to me? They really should hold a mirror up and have a word with themselves.
> 
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-at-loggerheads-over-Texans-test-results.aspx


Does seem weird how they are handling it. Do they think that a scientist won't have records of tests he carried out? Now, do you think they'll give permission for the other scientists on the panel to open their records? I hope so, but I doubt it.


----------



## Radchenister (13 Feb 2013)

He didn't carry out the tests himself, it's more a case of interpreting and verifying the data he was offered a snap shot of.

Hopefully you would think Ashenden, as a Doctor, would always aim to be balanced with his stance and give over a reasoned professional opinion; which is why, as the over riding professional body, bouncing around personal comments to undermine his position is a high risk game (IMO). They are boxing into corners now - all very personal; it looks to the outsider like they (UCI) are going after destroying the man's credibility.

It's a cliché but people say 'you can't cheat an honest man', in this case I use it meaning he looks like he has nothing to hide ... I may be proven wrong of course but my gut instinct is that Ashenden is seeing things fairly clearly, he comes over as reasoned and motivated by clarity and truth. Whether the problem is McQuaid himself and to what extent the UCI in general need to be taken to task is debatable, as it might cause more damage than good but IMO Ashenden most likely genuinely believes that the UCI need to be challenged.

To me it looks like he is aiming to be precise and understand the facts behind the handling of data, whilst the UCI appear to be happy with further blurring the shades of grey that they seem to have been operating in, which makes you wonder if perhaps they still do need to tighten things further?

Usually when a lone critic takes this type of stance against an organisation they are portrayed to be a trouble maker, moaner, crack-pot etc. and very often they are a bit insular and single minded to the point of being blinkered; it looks like that's the twist that UCI were aiming at here, although they perhaps have misjudged Ashenden and what this looks like to the rest of the outside world?

That's my 2p on it all anyway.


----------



## BJH (13 Feb 2013)

Look its time to end this now, Big Heiny ( yes i have awarded him that name as it suits well given that he's a C ! ) says that everything is above board and he has done nothing wrong, so lets just drop this stuff so that he can get his snout back in the Olympic trough and not have to deal with this nonsense.


----------



## BJH (13 Feb 2013)

Sorry, back on topic again.

Without wishing to cast any doubt on Don Caitlin, who has a fantastic record on this subject. I almost got the impression when I watched him talking about the Los Angeles games on the programme about the Ben Johnson Seoul race, that he had almost opted to walk away from the consequences of just how bad the situation was in them days as it was such a mess.

Ashenden does not appear ready to do the same, he looks like he is ready to take this one right to the end. This spat with the UCI will only serve to spur him on. My money is on him.


----------



## Radchenister (14 Feb 2013)

Hmmm:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...irst-nine-of-Armstrongs-38-blood-results.aspx


----------



## yello (14 Feb 2013)

Much as though I feel I'm ear-wigging on a domestic, this personal spat is essential to the big picture.

I'm glad Ashenden is there, and able, to call 'bullshit' when he hears it.


----------



## Hont (15 Feb 2013)

This makes for interesting reading in retrospect...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/analysis-armstrongs-tour-blood-levels-debated

Not least Damsgaard's comments.

"I have full confidence in the UCI expert panel that they would find it,” he said. “There are 10 or 12 experts with different points of view and they can look through it better than I can on my own.”

Not if they never see it they won't. Given that he has no credibility, I wonder if he knew.

“Lance Armstrong is part of our Biological Passport,” UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said. “As for all profiles generated within this programme *which are submitted on regular basis for reviewing to the independent experts*, the UCI doesn't and won’t make any comment.”

Now what do you regard as _regular_ Enrico?


----------



## sgtjiggy (15 Feb 2013)

I'm not on either side of the dope no dope issue.. maybe there should be a league for clean and a league for the juiced..

Ultimately it's an individual decision to put stuff into your body unless you are some type of conspiracy theorist....

This clip is funny stuff...hope it's not a repost of it is i didn't find it in a search...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9YL04v-J5U&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (15 Feb 2013)

"A sociopath on a bicycle.. ..keep him on the bike.. He's not hurtin' anybody [when he's on the bike] ..those guys who made all that money.. .. are they gonna turn in their yachts? They're not gonna turn in their yachts.."

Hilarious!


----------



## Crankarm (17 Feb 2013)

Can LA still ride in sportives?


----------



## yello (17 Feb 2013)

As long at they're not USADA controlled events, yes.


----------



## ColinJ (17 Feb 2013)

sgtjiggy said:


> I'm not on either side of the dope no dope issue.. maybe there should be a league for clean and a league for the juiced..


A doping cheat is a doping cheat so the dopers would choose to race in the 'clean'' races! Just as they do now, in fact ...


----------



## sgtjiggy (17 Feb 2013)

The only thing I get from professional cycling is improved equipment and technology. I could care less who wins what race. I ride for fitness and fun.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Feb 2013)

sgtjiggy said:


> The only thing I get from professional cycling is improved equipment and technology. I could care less who wins what race. I ride for fitness and fun.


 
You are probably in the wrong part of the forum then.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Feb 2013)

sgtjiggy said:


> The only thing I get from professional cycling is improved equipment and technology. I could care less who wins what race. I ride for fitness and fun.


I, on the other hand, wanted nothing to do with racing throughout the 90s and 00s. It was the current crop of successful Brits and a renewed hope that it was clean that dragged me back.


----------



## sgtjiggy (17 Feb 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You are probably in the wrong part of the forum then.



Open forum is what sparks conversation, whether or not you agree or disagree what is said. My point wasn't to spark contreversy on the pros and cons of doping or not doping, or following racing. I was merely my stating my personal view on the matter.


----------



## sgtjiggy (17 Feb 2013)

2319170 said:


> You are quite right, you have the right to chuck in you two pennyworth even if if it is just to say you have no interest in the subject under discussion.



Ok last post on this this topic, didn't intend to get anyone riled up; The new and improved "Lance Armstrong" thread.... the issues surrounding "Lance Armstrong" are far greater than just cycling and doping.... i hope you treat those that touch on those issues a little less harshly.... c ya!


----------



## rich p (17 Feb 2013)

sgtjiggy said:


> Ok last post on this this topic, didn't intend to get anyone riled up; The new and improved "Lance Armstrong" thread.... the issues surrounding "Lance Armstrong" are far greater than just cycling and doping.... i hope you treat those that touch on those issues a little less harshly.... c ya!


----------



## Radchenister (17 Feb 2013)

Close the door on the way out.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Feb 2013)

Armstrong says he will not testify under oath to USADA. One might almost think he still had something to hide...


----------



## BJH (20 Feb 2013)

So LA has opted not to cooperate with USADA but will be first through the door when an international tribunal finally gets called.

And no doubt when that fine day arrives he will then have further issues so sadly won't be able to be first through the door after all.

So that means he has opted for his own death sentence.

Hopefully no more moaning from him and he now just shuts the F up and stays in Texas.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (20 Feb 2013)

Yes I read that too in the G&M I guess the deadline was today .It says " the disgraced cyclist refused to participate in a process designed “only to demonize selected individuals.”


----------



## rich p (20 Feb 2013)

What a twat. He has no cards to play but still tries to keep bluffing.


----------



## yello (20 Feb 2013)

So basically he'll talk if he doesn't have to tell the truth. No change there then.


----------



## jdtate101 (20 Feb 2013)

....because he's a colossal turd and a huge egomaniac.


----------



## Radchenister (20 Feb 2013)

He'll have to try harder than that to rewrite how he's going to be recorded for posterity.

Now he's acting like a precocious kid who's attempting to put the pieces back a few moves after losing a board game ... game over Mr L.E.Gunderson ... go sit in the corner and stop annoying the decent kids!


----------



## IanSmithCSE (21 Feb 2013)

Good morning

It appears that LA has a strategy;

1)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
2)Attack the regulators on the basis that they are victimising him.
3)Some people will start to feel that he is the victim.
4)Accept that he may face legal challenges, which may be expensive or even bankrupting.
5)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
6)Attack the regulators on the basis that they are victimising him.
7)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
8)Some more people will start to feel that he is the victim.
9)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
10)Attack the regulators on the basis that they are victimising him.
11)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
12)Some more people will start to feel that he is the victim.
13)Victim status will allow reinstatement with some but not all of his previous partners.
14)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
15)Possibly publish books and films based on his achievements and victimisation.
16)Admit to drugs use but say that everyone else was doing it to.
17)Everyone will become so bored with the issue, they will forgive him just to get him to shut up.

There are some sections in USADA report which talk about teams that were not doping, these bits don't get much publicity.

Bye

Ian


----------



## rich p (21 Feb 2013)

Hot off the press....

...Armstrong has said..

...sorry, his lawyer has said, "He will be the first man through the door to answer all questions when the whole of the universe is under consideration in the UCI's 'When Hell Freezes Over T&R Commission'


----------



## thom (21 Feb 2013)

I learned the phrase "See You Next Tuesday" yesterday. I think it applies here.


----------



## Buddfox (21 Feb 2013)

Farcical. Has he (or his lawyer) even attempted to justify this ridiculous decision?


----------



## thom (21 Feb 2013)

2325985 said:


> Really? I sometimes forget quite how young and innocent you are.


Oh to have the wisdom of your many years


----------



## thom (21 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> Personally, I don't blame him... What's he got to gain? Its not about the wider world of doping, its about the vilification of LA, and the chances of him having his ban removed?....... Nada........ assuming he's even interested in competing.
> 
> He's pleaded his guilt, a kangaroo court isn't going to change that, move on.


 
He didn't plead guilty at any point though. He conceded only things that had been demonstrated independently of him.
His only redemption could be a personal one if he felt any guilt or responsibility. Clearly for now he is still deluded within his own ego. In failing to face up to USADA who defeated him, he's likely to stay there and the vilification will continue.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Feb 2013)

thom said:


> He didn't plead guilty at any point though. He conceded only things that had been demonstrated independently of him.
> His only redemption could be a personal one if he felt any guilt or responsibility. Clearly for now he is still deluded within his own ego. In failing to face up to USADA who defeated him, he's likely to stay there and the vilification will continue.


And only things that were outside the statute of limitations....


----------



## Radchenister (21 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> Personally, I don't blame him... What's he got to gain? Its not about the wider world of doping, its about the vilification of LA, and the chances of him having his ban removed?....... Nada........ assuming he's even interested in competing.
> 
> He's pleaded his guilt, a kangaroo court isn't going to change that, move on.


 
We have moved on, he hasn't ... he's like a drunken pub brawler trying to get back in the bar after being kicked out, he doesn't know when to drop it.

He still denies doping on his comeback despite all the evidence stating otherwise - has either directly or indirectly threatened people; he should just park this 'victim' nonsense.


----------



## thom (21 Feb 2013)

2326026 said:


> I think you mean my many many years. If you wanted to be hurtful you could then add something about so little wisdom.


Sorry, I have no witty reply to this one Adrian.


----------



## thom (21 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> In a legal sense. In his head, he's "come out " on the Oprah show, why give the USADA any respect? (In his head obv)


hmm, I don't really think many people buy that as a confession of any consequence though.
He has to know people understand that he was and is clearly holding an enormous amount back - nobody is that stupid.

I think it is kind of your point about what he might have to gain, which is not so much, whereas I suspect he has a lot to lose still, criminally as regards statutes of limitations, and financially in terms of cash clawbacks. He must be very concerned that other people don't start opening up against him if he were to open up properly to USADA.


----------



## yello (21 Feb 2013)

User3094 said:


> and the chances of him having his ban removed?....... Nada........ assuming he's even interested in competing.


 
He's very much interested in competing, in triathlon. I think talking to USADA (on oath) could well have seen his ban reduced (to eight years). Whether that's any good to him or not is another matter.

But that's what this is all about isn't it? Whether it's any good to *him*. Armstrong's not seeking redemption of any form, merely restoration. He wants back what's wrongly been taken from him. It's someone else's fault. That evil Tygart and USADA. Armstrong played no part in it. He was merely doing what he had to do to win against cheats. If only we'd all just understand his perspective then we'd see the truth.

Until he's prepared to answer questions he doesn't want to answer then he's still playing games.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (22 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> He's very much interested in competing, in triathlon. I think talking to USADA (on oath) could well have seen his ban reduced (to eight years). Whether that's any good to him or not is another matter.
> 
> But that's what this is all about isn't it? Whether it's any good to *him*. *Armstrong's not seeking redemption of any form, merely restoration. He wants back what's wrongly been taken from him. It's someone else's fault. That evil Tygart and USADA. Armstrong played no part in it. He was merely doing what he had to do to win against cheats. If only we'd all just understand his perspective then we'd see the truth.*
> 
> Until he's prepared to answer questions he doesn't want to answer then he's still playing games.


 
I think he'll turn into this:


----------



## Supersuperleeds (22 Feb 2013)

If not already mentioned the US Justice Department have joined the Landis whistleblower case.


----------



## yello (22 Feb 2013)

US Justice Dept joins Landis' whistle blower case....

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...ll-reverse-course-and-join-landis-suit_275504

That is going to be interesting, it could cost Armstrong big time.

Edit: just seen ssl's post. In my enthusiasm, I didn't check first before posting!


----------



## Crackle (22 Feb 2013)

It just keeps getting worse or better. President Lincoln was pretty far sighted in 1863 when he introduced the Federal False Claims act.


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2013)

For me, the significance of this is that the US Govt have jumped on board. It says that they want a piece too.

If people have read around on this subject they'll know that it's not an easy case to prove. It'll need to be shown that the USPS were actually damaged by Armstrong et al's fraud. It seems Armstrong et al could own up to fraud yet get judgement in their favour because nobody actually suffered any _financial_ harm. I find that weird but whatever.

A lot of these whistleblower cases are apparently settled out of court but, as the 2 parties have already been in discussion for some weeks, maybe that won't happen.

I'm wondering (and this really is just me 'what if' thinking) if one of the purposes of this case is to get Armstrong in the witness box under oath. The whistleblower case _might_ go in his favour but who knows what his testimony might open up.

One thing does seem clearer to me, the US Govt would not have taken this action without confidence. They've not got the best of track records when prosecuting athletes so I feel they'll be pretty certain of themselves here - whatever their objectives.


----------



## Kins (23 Feb 2013)

Linkage to the BBC on the US Government suing Lance : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21553680

Bloke is gonna be skint.....


----------



## Supersuperleeds (23 Feb 2013)

Kins said:


> Linkage to the BBC on the US Government suing Lance : http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21553680
> 
> Bloke is gonna be skint.....


Landis won't be, he is in line for a circa $22.5m windfall, who says cheating doesn't pay?


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2013)

Kins said:


> Bloke is gonna be skint.....


 
I don't know. Whilst he is a named defendant, any judgement against would be shared around all of the defendants and maybe associates thereof; Johan Bruyneel, Thomas Weisel (was there ever a more apt name?), Bill Stapleton, Bart Knaggs.... basically anyone with involvement in Tailwind Sports. I've no idea on what basis culpability would be determined, but it certainly wouldn't be Armstrong taking the rap for the full value (cited at possibly $90M). Armstrong claimed he only had a small ownership in Tailwind - that could limit his personal liability.

I love this kind of conjecture, but it is only that and I know it. I'm also not overly concerned about the outcome. As I suggested earlier what interests me is what Armstrong says under oath.


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> As I suggested earlier what interests me is what Armstrong says under oath.


 
Though arguably he could be on safer ground in this case as it relates to the USPS years. That may well fall within the statute of limitations period.


----------



## Kins (23 Feb 2013)

I didn't mean from this one law suit alone, but as soon as anyone gets near to a positive result the law suits will soon mount up. He might have some sort of insurance or limited liabilty against some of these but its got to hurt him financially in the end.


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2013)

Kins said:


> I didn't mean from this one law suit alone.


 
S'okay Kins, I wasn't picking on you, more just spurred on by your comment to think aloud.

You're right - as soon as someone gets a result against Armstrong then it'll perhaps give others the confidence and motivation they need to file suits themselves. That's why I think it's so significant that the US Govt has taken this action. It sends a strong message and needless to say there'll be people watching with interest.

That said, outside the whistleblower case, SCA Promotions and the Sunday Times, I don't know who else there is. Armstrong could easily cover SCA and the Times, near enough pockey money for him, but that's not really the point.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> Though arguably he could be on safer ground in this case as it relates to the USPS years. That may well fall within the statute of limitations period.



There was never a Federal case against Armstrong, it was always about the USPS team


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2013)

Sigh. Do you really think I didn't know that 

You've misinterpreted something I've written, not sure how or where, but if I knew then I could clarify it.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> For me, the significance of this is that the US Govt have jumped on board. It says that they want a piece too.
> 
> If people have read around on this subject they'll know that it's not an easy case to prove. It'll need to be shown that the USPS were actually damaged by Armstrong et al's fraud. It seems Armstrong et al could own up to fraud yet get judgement in their favour because *nobody actually suffered any financial harm.* I find that weird but whatever.
> 
> ...


Isn't paying him squillions financial harm?


----------



## StuAff (23 Feb 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> Isn't paying him squillions financial harm?


According to his lawyers, the line they're going to follow is that USPS derived financial benefit from their association with LA et al (the USPS itself has estimated there was $100m in benefits from the deal- opinions on this vary somewhat, however!). How they square that with contracts specifying such trifling concerns as 'no use of PEDs' remains to be seen....


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Feb 2013)

I see what you're saying.


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2013)

Thanks StuAff - that's what I meant. It'll be argued that the USPS got the financial benefits they wanted from the sponsorship deal. That is, they didn't loose out financially on the deal.

As I said, I reckon that seems a bit, um, wrong... but maybe there's a criminal action waiting in the wings depending on how this case goes. I must look into this but I believe the whistleblower case is a civil action, brought by Landis, and not a criminal one. But clearly whatever Armstrong says from the witness box will be listened to with interest - maybe with a view to re-open criminal investigations. (Criminal investigations not necessarily focused solely on Armstrong, just to avoid confusion  )

That's why I thought it significant (and bad news for Armstrong) that the Dept of Justice joined Landis' case.


----------



## StuAff (23 Feb 2013)

2330327 said:


> One person's criminal benefit from a fraud doesn't necessitate another having lost out. In a case of mortgage fraud, for instance, the building society/bank get the payments due.


Indeed. Just because USPS may have benefited overall (and this seems to be highly debatable) does not mean that they were not defrauded. Particularly when the 'wins' that supposedly provided said benefit weren't actually wins....


----------



## Radchenister (23 Feb 2013)

I guess this sorry story has got to the point where lawyers and other carrion feeders feel their blood course and hackles rise - carcass picking time!


----------



## Kins (24 Feb 2013)

Oh Lancey boy (like nancy boy but.... oh never mind) what are you upto now?

It looked for awhile like Usada and him were going to have a little chat, but now Lance has decided not to. I wonder if this in light of the US Gov law suit or just his pigheadedness rearing its head again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21523597


----------



## Slaav (24 Feb 2013)

2330327 said:


> One person's criminal benefit from a fraud doesn't necessitate another having lost out. In a case of mortgage fraud, for instance, the building society/bank get the payments due.


 
Unfortunately I have some experience in matters of Fraud! (Civil litigation)

There is a case where an Appeal was granted in the High COurt (I know it is GB but bear with me) as there was question over whether the Fraud actually induced the claimant entering into the contract. The second part was whether the Claimant was disadvataged overall as a direct result of being lied to/defrauded.

On testing, the Fraud was proven in earlier Courts etc but there was a slight question as to whether the Claimant was actually out of pocket as a direct result of the lies and deceit. If the position WITH the fraud was similar or possibly even better than WITHOUT the fraud, the fact that the fraud took place was not enough for a 'GUILTY' verdict and the CLaimant would LOSE the case.

So proving Fraud in itself, does not actually mean it is a done deal. Unfortunately.....

The only winners will be the lawyers! I can vouch for that.


----------



## yello (24 Feb 2013)

Thanks for that ^^^ Slaav. Very relevant info, I feel it makes the point nicely.


Slaav said:


> So proving Fraud in itself, does not actually mean it is a done deal.


That is my reading of this whistleblower case. It _might_ however (and this is only my thinking) be a stepping stone to a separate criminal action for fraud.


----------



## Slaav (24 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> Thanks for that ^^^ Slaav. Very relevant info, I feel it makes the point nicely.
> 
> That is my reading of this whistleblower case. It _might_ however (and this is only my thinking) be a stepping stone to a separate criminal action for fraud.


 
My reading of LA's lawyers arguments sent a shiver down my back!

They appeared to be suggesting that although USPS will obviously be tainted by the scandal and their reputation tarnished, possibly to the tune of many $M, the NET effect of the whole relationship is still +ve as they were boosted to the tune of $100M or so in the 'good days'.

My guess (and it is just a guess) is that LA's lawyers are grabbing on to some internal or marketing spiel that claimed the relationship was worth some $100M to USPS thus justifying the spend of Public funds on Pro cyclying. There are many such studies that seek to quantify the 'value' of sponsorship etc and thereby perpetuating the industry and practice.

Even if true, it does leave a very nasty taste in the mouth and only a lawyer would come up with it! 

There also appears to be quite a difference between Fraud and Misrep.... but don't know enough about it I am afraid


----------



## raindog (25 Feb 2013)

some poster ideas for the forthcoming LA film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...ders-film-posters#/?picture=404600544&index=5
the last one's good


----------



## Radchenister (25 Feb 2013)

On a similar theme, one of mine (there are always two ):


----------



## yello (25 Feb 2013)

raindog said:


> some poster ideas for the forthcoming LA film
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blo...ders-film-posters#/?picture=404600544&index=5
> the last one's good


 
No 4 for me.


----------



## smokeysmoo (25 Feb 2013)

Apologies if this has been posted. I scooted back a few pages and it didn't jump out at me.

I thought this was a really simple yet devilishly clever piece of work.







It was brought to my attention by NotThatJasonKenny, but as he doesn't venture on here much these days I thought I'd share it on his behalf.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (25 Feb 2013)

I look...I just don't touch!


----------



## smokeysmoo (25 Feb 2013)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> I look...I just don't touch!


Ooo look, a lesser spotted NotThatJasonKenny in the house 

Got more chance of seeing the real Jason Kenny on here than your good self nowadays


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (25 Feb 2013)

Yeah...I get addicted to these things too easily...one minute I'm just looking at bikes, the next minute I've started a helmet debate!


----------



## smokeysmoo (25 Feb 2013)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> the next minute I've started a helmet debate!


Noooooooooo, you said the H word


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Feb 2013)

smokeysmoo said:


> Noooooooooo, you said the H word


----------



## yello (26 Feb 2013)

I read with interest an article on USA Today this morning. An anonymous insider's take on team Armstrong's defence.



> The strategy shows the tightrope of technicalities that Armstrong will seek to walk after the U.S. Justice Department announced Friday that it has joined a civil fraud case against Armstrong under the False Claims Act.


I'll summarise and paraphrase;

- statute of limitations will only put 2004 (the final year of USPS sponsorship) in the frame
- USPS were aware of drug use allegations, should have investigated but didn't
- the sponsorship deal was with Tailwind not Armstrong

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...e-armstrong-false-claims-act-defense/1947651/


----------



## yello (26 Feb 2013)

It seems I'm mistaken about something. I thought this whistleblower case was a essentially a civil matter (Landis & USPS v Arsmtrong et al) - it's not. Criminal charges can be brought too.

I had assumed that criminal charges might follow, depending on what happens in this case. My understanding was that normally civil and criminal matters are decided separately, in separate court cases. Not so in this case and the 2 can effectively run concurrently in the same trial. Whether this is a particularity of the False Claims Act (and whistleblower) or not, I don't know. So there you go. More to play for than I thought.


----------



## Crackle (26 Feb 2013)

yello said:


> It seems I'm mistaken about something. I thought this whistleblower case was a essentially a civil matter (Landis & USPS v Arsmtrong et al) - it's not. Criminal charges can be brought too.
> 
> I had assumed that criminal charges might follow, depending on what happens in this case. My understanding was that normally civil and criminal matters are decided separately, in separate court cases. Not so in this case and the 2 can effectively run concurrently in the same trial. Whether this is a particularity of the False Claims Act (and whistleblower) or not, I don't know. So there you go. More to play for than I thought.


Ahh.. In which case the Federal interest looks much more sinister, perhaps they are just not bothered about the sponsorship argument, which is why Armstrong's team could not negotiate a settlement.


----------



## rich p (26 Feb 2013)

It's amusingly ironic that Armstrong's defence is that the Feds should have started a case much earlier as it was blindingly obvious that USPS were on the dope!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> It's amusingly ironic that Armstrong's defence is that the Feds should have started a case much earlier as it was blindingly obvious that USPS were on the dope!


 
You really couldn't make it up. Years of insisting he was the most tested athlete, that after his cancer experience how could he possibly dope, that people were jealous of his success, that it was all those nasty anti-American Frenchies, and now his defence is 'come on, everyone knew I was doping'???


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Feb 2013)

rich p said:


> It's amusingly ironic that Armstrong's defence is that the Feds should have started a case much earlier as it was blindingly obvious that USPS were on the dope!


 
Goes back to the original fact that the federal case is against the team, not any individual on the team.

I am not sure how the "double jeopardy" system works in the US, but it is possible that if there are sanctions from the team investigation... can he be sanctioned again for the same offences?

There is also the difference in evidence. Civil and criminal cases require different levels of proof. It is entirely possible that the findings of the two may not agree!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Feb 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Goes back to the original fact that the federal case is against the team, not any individual on the team.


 
I notice you are entirely ignoring the fact that Armstrong is essentially saying that not only was he doping but that it was obvious and action should have been taken - which is, you will notice, rather similar to what we have all been arguing for a very long time and the opposite of what you were arguing.

You don't need to concede the point, I am just enjoying the irony.


----------



## johnr (27 Feb 2013)

I think we're heading for 'hang alone, or hang together' situation. The accused are all going to have to stick together and stick to the same story under oath. If one of them slips, or cuts a deal, the whole thing will fall apart. Be interested to hear the defendants' evidence to support the claim that their sponsors whould have known about drug use. I wonder whether we might learn how it is UP knew all and the likes of Nike and Oakley knew nothing when seeking to sponsor a great sporting icon.

I think the movie's guaranteed an oscar.


----------



## rich p (27 Feb 2013)

johnr said:


> I think the movie's guaranteed an oscar.


 
Pistorious may be otherwise engaged john!


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Feb 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I notice you are entirely ignoring the fact that Armstrong is essentially saying that not only was he doping but that it was obvious and action should have been taken - which is, you will notice, rather similar to what we have all been arguing for a very long time and the opposite of what you were arguing.
> 
> You don't need to concede the point, I am just enjoying the irony.


 
Not ignored at all.....

Simply outside the content of the post.
The post was about whether he gains from the team investigation and could it prevent further action against individuals


----------



## yello (28 Feb 2013)

This is worth a read, written by a lawyer specialising in whistleblower cases.
*U.S. vs. Lance Armstrong: Understanding the Latest in the Floyd Landis Whistleblower Case*

Some quotes that answered some of my questions....



> Armstrong’s lawyer has said that the Postal Service made more than $100 million from the sponsorship. Even if the Postal Service did receive some benefit from the success of Armstrong’s team, it should not – and will not – negate any potential liability under the False Claims Act. The Postal Service’s gain is irrelevant to the question of whether Armstrong broke the law. If Armstrong and other defendants procured $30 million from the US government by falsely promising to abide by anti-doping requirements, then they will be liable no matter what gain the US government might have received


 


> The whistleblower lawsuit is a civil case. It’s up to the government to decide whether to pursue criminal charges.


----------



## Crackle (1 Mar 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-facing-two-further-lawsuits

More litigation. C'mon, give the guy a break....


----------



## Kins (1 Mar 2013)

Crackle said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-facing-two-further-lawsuits
> 
> More litigation. C'mon, give the guy a break....


 
Eeer nope! Long as he has two shillings to rub together I think there is open season on him. He's gone from winner to whiner now. Oh woe is me..... etc etc. Sod off.


----------



## rich p (1 Mar 2013)

Crackle said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-facing-two-further-lawsuits
> 
> More litigation. C'mon, give the guy a break....



_..."plan to depose Armstrong" _
Ha! What's in a word!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Mar 2013)

It looks like France might be revoking his Légion d'honneur too 

Sympathy for Lance? Aaaahhh-mstrong.


----------



## rich p (1 Mar 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> It looks like France might be revoking his Légion d'honneur too
> 
> Sympathy for Lance? Aaaahhh-mstrong.


 
Well honour and Armstrong are two words not heard in the same breath these days!


----------



## ColinJ (1 Mar 2013)

I have a friend who would not listen to me 4 or 5 years ago when I was ranting on about Armstrong. 'Lance' was _not_ a drugs cheat. He'd read "It's not about the bike", and no way would Armstrong risk his health after what he'd been through.

The years passed, and somewhere along the line my pal changed his tune. He never admitted that he had done it, but he went quiet for a while, and then eventually emerged as a fellow critic.

The thing is, he _still_ believes that Big Mig was clean! He was able to do what he did because he has huge lungs, a 'special' heart and so on. Let's face it, the guy was the same size as me but he could still give a drugged-up Pantani a tough time in the mountains. The numbers didn't add up ...

At some point in the future, my friend will be telling me that he always knew that Big Mig was too good to be true! 

(I believe that the numbers for Lemond, Evans and Wiggins _do_ add up so I'd be upset if they turn out to be cheaters too.)


----------



## Crackle (1 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> Well honour and Armstrong are two words not heard in the same breath these days!


 
_Armstrong_ did not _honour_ the terms of his contracts..........

I dunno, Rich...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Mar 2013)

Crackle said:


> _Armstrong_ did not _honour_ the terms of his contracts..........
> 
> I dunno, Rich...


On the other hand, his dishonour is legion...


----------



## rich p (1 Mar 2013)

Légion dis'honneur, certainement!


----------



## yello (2 Mar 2013)

Acceptance Insurance is a new name to me. I want to read more of it. Were they an SCA underwriter or was this a completely separate policy? If the latter, Tygart's words of 'organised conspiracy' ring even truer perhaps. The whole saga begins to look more about financial scam/sting as it does about doping to win the TdF.

The FRS lawsuit actually makes me smile. False claims in advertising?! Whatever next!  That does smack of bandwagon stuff! I can't see it succeeding since because, to be serious for a moment, if one looks at it legally the complainant would have to prove the claims made by the sports drink manufacturer were false.




> “Armstrong's successes were the result of his systemic and illegal use of banned performance-enhancing drugs and human growth hormones," reads the lawsuit.


 

That Armstrong doped is fact - that he won the TdF because of the dope and NOT the sports drink might be somewhat harder to prove!


----------



## StuAff (2 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> I have a friend who would not listen to me 4 or 5 years ago when I was ranting on about Armstrong. 'Lance' was _not_ a drugs cheat. He'd read "It's not about the bike", and no way would Armstrong risk his health after what he'd been through.
> 
> The years passed, and somewhere along the line my pal changed his tune. He never admitted that he had done it, but he went quiet for a while, and then eventually emerged as a fellow critic.
> 
> ...


 
RE Mig: Was he 'special'?...er, yes, a resting heart rate of 28 bpm, huge lung capacity, and so on. The guy is still in great shape in his late forties. Did he build on that with doping? Even if it was 'only' the old-style, casual 'preparation', I'd now say 'yup'. Hard to say he was clean with some of those performances, the links to Francesco Conconi…


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Mar 2013)

Back to the legal case...

If the USPS / Federal case is found it will be against all team members and monies recovered twill also be from all those who participated

Firstly the case will be against all the riders, it will not only be Armstrong repaying huge amounts of cash

There are no fast figures as to how much was paid by USPS / Tailwind etc but at that point a successful team member being paid a $50 - 60 k salary was realising some $160,000 including bonuses.

Question gets even more complex when that money was paid in part by Armstrong who gave each ride $50,000 dollars in one year

Even if recovery is attempted it will simply I suspect be bogged down in years of financial claims, counter-claims and jiggery-pokery

I think all the dreams of a bankrupt Armstrong are going to lead to a disappointment


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Mar 2013)

yello said:


> Acceptance Insurance is a new name to me. I want to read more of it. Were they an SCA underwriter or was this a completely separate policy? If the latter, Tygart's words of 'organised conspiracy' ring even truer perhaps. The whole saga begins to look more about financial scam/sting as it does about doping to win the TdF.
> 
> The FRS lawsuit actually makes me smile. False claims in advertising?! Whatever next!  That does smack of bandwagon stuff! I can't see it succeeding since because, to be serious for a moment, if one looks at it legally the complainant would have to prove the claims made by the sports drink manufacturer were false.
> 
> ...


 
.... and the other clever aspect about Armstrong's "it was obvious that USPS was doping" defence is that this at least in part will require the companies to prove that they were neither complicit, uaware, or even suspicious of the doping activities. If evaen a easonable doubt can be placed that they were aware of the team's activities (due diligence?) then the case falls apart


----------



## yello (2 Mar 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> .If evaen a easonable doubt can be placed that they were aware of the team's activities (due diligence?) then the case falls apart


 
On what basis do you say that? There were plenty of rumours but does that equate to 'awareness'? For all we know, USPS sought assurances that there was no substance to the rumours... what more could they be expected to do? If the UCI saw no grounds for action then I feel there can be no fault placed with the USPS.

Personally, I don't care whether these actions bankrupt Armstrong or not - it's enough for me that he's been exposed for the cheat and liar that he his. I would like to see consequences for the UCI and action for cycling generally though.

I suspect that if there is any judgement in favour of USPS, it will be against Tailwind primarily and its management team, and not against individual riders within the team, as the sponsorship contract was with Tailwind. Whether Tailwind decide to go after the riders, doctors etc for the money is their call and, I feel, a separate issue. We do know that under those circumstances that Landis won't be short of a few bob! 

I agree that it'll run and run though, in one form or another.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Mar 2013)

StuAff said:


> RE Mig: Was he 'special'?...er, yes, a resting heart rate of 28 bpm, huge lung capacity, and so on.


(Before I got seriously unfit and then ill ...) I had a resting heart rate of 33-34 bpm without doing any serious training, and I have a huge lung capacity too, but I definitely could never have won the TdF!


----------



## StuAff (2 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> (Before I got seriously unfit and then ill ...) I had a resting heart rate of 33-34 bpm without doing any serious training, and I have a huge lung capacity too, but I definitely could never have won the TdF!


Indeed. Only part of the answer- how much of the rest was pharmaceutical we'll probably never know.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (2 Mar 2013)

StuAff said:


> Indeed. Only part of the answer- how much of the rest was pharmaceutical we'll probably never know.


 
I suspect the amount of effort and training that Big Mig put in compared to Colin might also have just a little bit to do with the differences in outcome. We couldn't all have been contenders if only we had drugs...


----------



## StuAff (2 Mar 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I suspect the amount of effort and training that Big Mig put in compared to Colin might also have just a little bit to do with the differences in outcome. We couldn't all have been contenders if only we had drugs...


Undoubtedly. And we couldn't all be contenders if we did the training, purely because some of us couldn't do it, and some of us couldn't benefit to the same extent.


----------



## ColinJ (2 Mar 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I suspect the amount of effort and training that Big Mig put in compared to Colin might also have just a little bit to do with the differences in outcome. We couldn't all have been contenders if only we had drugs...





ColinJ said:


> I definitely could *never* have won the TdF!


About 10 years ago, on a cycling holiday on the Costa Blanca, I was cycling through a small village near Finestrat (where Big Mig had a second home) and was passing a school when one of the young children in the playground spotted me. He ran over to the wire mesh fence and called out to me. Next thing I knew, there were about 20 kids hanging on to the fence and chanting _IN-DU-RAIN, IN-DU-RAIN_! 

I waved at them and shouted _"¡Hola!"_ Much laughter. My accent was obviously a bit of a giveaway ...


----------



## BJH (6 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> About 10 years ago, on a cycling holiday on the Costa Blanca, I was cycling through a small village near Finestrat (where Big Mig had a second home) and was passing a school when one of the young children in the playground spotted me. He ran over to the wire mesh fence and called out to me. Next thing I knew, there were about 20 kids hanging on to the fence and chanting _IN-DU-RAIN, IN-DU-RAIN_!
> 
> I waved at them and shouted _"¡Hola!"_ Much laughter. My accent was obviously a bit of a giveaway ...



I got distinctly worried at the start of this post that you were about to say that you roasted him on the road !!!

I did once have someone say Come on Lance to me while out riding, but they were definitely trying to take the pi55 ,!!


----------



## ColinJ (6 Mar 2013)

BJH said:


> I did once have someone say Come on Lance to me while out riding, but they were definitely trying to take the pi55 ,!!


I was grovelling up a climb once when somebody called out "Come on, Ivan!" which I took to be inspired by the fact that I was riding my Basso!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (6 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> I was grovelling up a climb once when somebody called out "Come on, Ivan!" which I took to be inspired by the fact that I was riding my Basso!


 
Or it could just be because you were so Terrible.


----------



## ColinJ (6 Mar 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Or it could just be because you were so Terrible.


Ouch! 

The heckler had clearly been watching the Tour that year (the one when Armstrong and Basso were killing other riders on the big climbs; 2005, was it?) because he also claimed that Lance was chasing me.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (7 Mar 2013)

ColinJ said:


> Ouch!
> 
> The heckler had clearly been watching the Tour that year (the one when Armstrong and Basso were killing other riders on the big climbs; 2005, was it?) because he also claimed that Lance was chasing me.


 
I'm sure that was it, I just couldn't resist a bad Ivan the Terrible joke...


----------



## User169 (7 Mar 2013)

News in NL this week is that Boogerd has fessed up. Not entirely surprising, I guess, and it was "I did dope, but not at the Tour" type confession.


----------



## thom (7 Mar 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> News in NL this week is that Boogerd has fessed up. Not entirely surprising, I guess, and it was "I did dope, but not at the Tour" type confession.


yep guardian story here : http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/06/michael-boogerd-admits-doping


----------



## rich p (7 Mar 2013)

Does Boogerd really expect anyone to believe that he didn't dope at the TdF when he was beating juiced up riders like Armstrong? They must take us for idiots.


----------



## User169 (8 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> Does Boogerd really expect anyone to believe that he didn't dope at the TdF when he was beating juiced up riders like Armstrong? They must take us for idiots.


 
Not sure if I got that right - I think he did say he doped during some TdFs, but not all. I'll take a look at the TV interview he gave on Wednesday over the weekend.


----------



## Noodley (8 Mar 2013)

Interesting articles on cyclingnews today about Rasmussen's confession, responses to Boogerd's "almost-confession", and the continued links with Blanco staff including Erik Dekker and medical staff. All very murky.


----------



## Haitch (8 Mar 2013)

Listened to Rasmussen's confession on the radio last night and he made Armstrong and US Postal look like rank amateurs. Epo, blood transfusions, cortisone, annual "medical" plans drawn up by the team managers and administered by the doctors until the bank stepped in because it was worried the riders would get caught. Breukink denies everything, Flecha knows nothing.


----------



## smutchin (8 Mar 2013)

I like this thoughtful piece from Vaughters:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Mar 2013)

Alan H said:


> Listened to Rasmussen's confession on the radio last night and he made Armstrong and US Postal look like rank amateurs.


 
Well, I suspect if you had a full overall confession from Armstrong and Bruyneel, then it would look very similar. It's only because we've still only had partial glimpses put together that it looks less coherent.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Mar 2013)

Alan H said:


> Listened to Rasmussen's confession on the radio last night and he made Armstrong and US Postal look like rank amateurs. Epo, blood transfusions, cortisone, annual "medical" plans drawn up by the team managers and administered by the doctors until the bank stepped in because it was worried the riders would get caught. Breukink denies everything, Flecha knows nothing.




Raises the question again of how much sponsors knew.

It is possible that different deals had different supervision, but it is hard to believe that Sponsors were really as naive as some of the cases where financial claims are being made would have us believe


----------



## johnr (8 Mar 2013)

smutchin said:


> I like this thoughtful piece from Vaughters:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping


 Difficult to disagree with his conclusions - similar to WADA's aren't they? The real problem, which he sidesteps, is how to get from here to there.

Let's start with the defenestration of Pharmstrong and his allies at the UCI and see how the sunny uplands look then, I say.
The various old guards have successfully subverted change for so long, they cannot be allowed to continue to steer the ship.


----------



## Haitch (9 Mar 2013)

If I recollect correctly, he said the sponsors insited blood transfusions had to be stopped because they thought the riders would get caught. The sponsors were not so concerned about Epo and that doping continued.

Rasmussen is suing the Rabobank for 5.6 milion euros so it's in his interest to implicate as many senior people and paint them as black as possible. He named names but chiefly to blame others, not to confess his sins.


----------



## User169 (9 Mar 2013)

Alan H said:


> If I recollect correctly, he said the sponsors insited blood transfusions had to be stopped because they thought the riders would get caught. The sponsors were not so concerned about Epo and that doping continued.
> 
> Rasmussen is suing the Rabobank for 5.6 milion euros so it's in his interest to implicate as many senior people and paint them as black as possible. He named names but chiefly to blame others, not to confess his sins.



Head bloke at Rambobank at the time denying everything, surprise, surprise.


----------



## ufkacbln (10 Mar 2013)

Apparently TKMaxx know something we don't

In Newmarket they have Livestrong Jerseys marked "Current Season"


----------



## Noodley (13 Mar 2013)

Uncle Pat's foot in mouth again

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-armstrong-affair-wil-not-effect-cycling


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Mar 2013)

Noodley said:


> Uncle Pat's foot in mouth again
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-armstrong-affair-wil-not-effect-cycling


 
Yeah, I posted that this morning in the Reforming the UCI thread.


----------



## yello (13 Mar 2013)

Dork is too nice a word for McQuaid.

I thought someone might mention LA's recent statement (in some Texas paper interview) that he believes he'll eventually be forgiven... in the same way that Bill 'I did not put my penis in that women's mouth' Clinton has been forgiven. I thought it a bit soon to be courting the public in a PR game.


----------



## Noodley (13 Mar 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yeah, I posted that this morning in the Reforming the UCI thread.


 
Oops, wondered why it wasnae here...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (13 Mar 2013)

Brailsford seems a little bit prickly here - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-hits-back-at-accusations-and-criticism-of-team-sky


----------



## derrick (15 Mar 2013)

Don't know if it's been on before.


----------



## raindog (22 Mar 2013)

hour long France2 documentary from last night on Armstrong/UCI etc
http://pluzz.francetv.fr/videos/complement_denquete_,78998334.html
as described on CN
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-verbruggens-philosophy-was-to-protect-the-sport


----------



## jdtate101 (25 Mar 2013)

All I've got to say is I think babe got lance beat:


----------



## rich p (27 Mar 2013)

The Spanish are after him too

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-spanish-criminal-investigation-of-armstrong

and the blood bags may be revealed too

_Munoz said that she would follow up on that case when the trial was finished._
_“On the day the Fuentes trial ends, I will, as director of the Spanish anti-doping agency, request the judge to give me all documents, evidence and blood bags. And then we will not stop doing everything we can to punish the dopers.”_


----------



## BJH (27 Mar 2013)

I think I will wait to see just how much stomach the Spanish will have for fully checking these blood bags from this case - it might just see their sporting history shattered.


----------



## BJH (27 Mar 2013)

On another point I see we are now up to page 135

Who was this guy this thread started talking about at the beginning? Was he a cyclist at one point ?


----------



## lukesdad (27 Mar 2013)

BJH said:


> On another point I see we are now up to page 135
> 
> Who was this guy this thread started talking about at the beginning? Was he a cyclist at one point ?


Well with or without the juice he was probably a better cyclist than you !


----------



## BJH (27 Mar 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Well with or without the juice he was probably a better cyclist than you !



Yes indeed a far better cyclist than I could ever wish to be.

And a far worse human being too.


----------



## BJH (27 Mar 2013)

2382562 said:


> You will need to give us a lot of detail to be able to judge that one properly.



F@&k me!

Never expected to have to justify my self against him. I think I once lied about breaking a lampshade when I was a kid, but certainly don't remember carrying out the worst sporting fraud in history.

I am off to confession.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (27 Mar 2013)

2382576 said:


> Matthew 7:1


7:1. What's that in gear inches?


----------



## lukesdad (27 Mar 2013)

BJH said:


> Yes indeed a far better cyclist than I could ever wish to be.
> 
> And a far worse human being too.


Your comment was about his prowess as a cyclist ... no ?


----------



## rich p (28 Mar 2013)

Anyone still following this story and with enough patience might like to wade through the SCA v LA/Tailwind petition!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/124384622/SCA-Promotions-v-Lance-Armstrong

There's some nuggets in there.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (28 Mar 2013)




----------



## yello (29 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> Anyone still following this story and with *enough patience might like to wade through* the SCA v LA/Tailwind petition!


 
Um, no. Can you summarise? 

I could probably bob over to 'The Clinic' for a summary but I'd probably have to read pages of Armstrong being the anti-christ too!


----------



## rich p (29 Mar 2013)

There are a few interesting bits.
SCA assert that Armstrong WAS Tailwind so he can't hide behind, " It was them, not me"
_"Mr Armstrong is the alter ego of Tailwind. There is no separation..."_

There are some pretty uncategorical quotes from Armstrong, Stapleton and his lawyers at the 2005(?) hearing that if doping was ever proven they agreed that the money would have to be returned. Tim Herman,_ "...and we don't dispute that"_
_"and if some day that result changes....SCA's liability to Tailwind doesn't exist! - _Bill Stapleton
Stapleton also says that if he were to ever be proved to have doped/defrauded then Armstrong would owe Tailwind the money who in turn would owe SCA.

They also ask that Tailwind be put into receivership to protect its only asset which is its claim against LA.


----------



## yello (29 Mar 2013)

Thanks rich.



rich p said:


> Stapleton also says that if he were to ever be proved to have doped/defrauded then Armstrong would owe Tailwind the money who in turn would owe SCA.
> 
> They also ask that Tailwind be put into receivership to protect its only asset which is its claim against LA.


 
This is exactly the sort of thing I can see happening. Hiding behind a legal construct. I'd imagine courts have the power to see through the such things... what's the expression... 'pecuniary liability'??? Nah, don't think that's it... it begins with 'p' anyway... I'm getting rusty.


----------



## rich p (29 Mar 2013)

yello said:


> Thanks rich.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly the sort of thing I can see happening. Hiding behind a legal construct. I'd imagine courts have the power to see through the such things... what's the expression... 'pecuniary liability'??? Nah, don't think that's it... it begins with 'p' anyway... I'm getting rusty.


I think the statements of Herman, his other lawyer in 2005 and Bill Stapleton actually hold out more hope than I had thought in that they all say that Tailwind will be owed a refund(!) if LA is ever stripped by the UCI. And also that SCA will be owed in turn by Tailwind hence chasing LA per se is not strictly necessary.
The only fly in the ointment that I can see (although I'm not a fully-qualified barrack-room lawyer like our old chum Red Light) is that their were other directors of Tailwind at that time. Actually I'd be just as happy if they screwed Weisel and Stapleton and Bruyneel if LA squirms away.


----------



## beastie (29 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> I think the statements of Herman, his other lawyer in 2005 and Bill Stapleton actually hold out more hope than I had thought in that they all say that Tailwind will be owed a refund(!) if LA is ever stripped by the UCI. And also that SCA will be owed in turn by Tailwind hence chasing LA per se is not strictly necessary.
> The only fly in the ointment that I can see (although I'm not a fully-qualified barrack-room lawyer like our old chum Red Light) is that their were other directors of Tailwind at that time. Actually I'd be just as happy if they screwed Weisel and Stapleton and Bruyneel if LA squirms away.


Red Light might have slept with a lawyer, that's as close as he/she ever got.


----------



## Crackle (29 Mar 2013)

rich p said:


> There are a few interesting bits.
> SCA assert that Armstrong WAS Tailwind so he can't hide behind, " It was them, not me"
> _"Mr Armstrong is the alter ego of Tailwind. There is no separation..."_
> 
> ...


Excellent summary. The details don't interest me enough to pour through them now. I'm only in it for the Schadenfreude.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Apr 2013)

FINA say he can't swim in their events.

My how I larfed


----------



## PpPete (9 Apr 2013)

Nice to see someone taking the fight to his home turf.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemonds-betsy-andreu-to-speak-at-doping-symposium-in-austin-texas


----------



## kedab (9 Apr 2013)

PpPete said:


> Nice to see someone taking the fight to his home turf.
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemonds-betsy-andreu-to-speak-at-doping-symposium-in-austin-texas


any news if it'll be webcast or some such other thing?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Apr 2013)

A terrible shame... 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-sells-off-austin-estate


----------



## Crankarm (14 Apr 2013)

Mean while there is a Trek Madone Livestrong in the comic this week. I am tempted to make a low offer.


----------



## oldroadman (16 Apr 2013)

Report on CyclingNews this morning (0754), when you try to click on the link to it, "404 -deleted" etc. The report is headlined that LA showed 4 times as positive for steroids in the 1999 Tour. Maybe the lawyers have been busy with threats early today? Og course, it cold simply be a problem with the site...


----------



## User169 (16 Apr 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Report on CyclingNews this morning (0754), when you try to click on the link to it, "404 -deleted" etc. The report is headlined that LA showed 4 times as positive for steroids in the 1999 Tour. Maybe the lawyers have been busy with threats early today? Og course, it cold simply be a problem with the site...


 
Article works for me.


----------



## rich p (16 Apr 2013)

I read the report earlier. It was about the 4 times he was tested positive (or non-negative) in 1999 and got the back-dated TUE.
The UCI didn't think it was indicative of systematic doping - so that's all right then.


----------



## Crackle (16 Apr 2013)

There was a recent statement about the Swiss lab results issued by McQuaid, in which they state he only listed as suspicious not positive and they deny any cover up. Deny is a popular UCI word, it may become interchangeable with UCI in the future: I absolutely UCI that.


----------



## johnr (22 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> I read the report earlier. It was about the 4 times he was tested positive (or non-negative) in 1999 and got the back-dated TUE.
> The UCI didn't think it was indicative of systematic doping - so that's all right then.


 
May make a reappearance in the UCI presidential elections, and possibly courts of law around the world. Given Fat Pat's mantra of 'we did everything to protect and promote the sport', someone might ask the question: 'why didn't you do anything to warn Pharmstrong that you had proof he doped whilst he was perjuring himself to riches through the US courts and tell him - for the good of the sport- to back off'. I'm sure there's an explanation.


----------



## Crackle (24 Apr 2013)

For all those still interested

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-sued-us-government

Looked on the cards for a bit but confirmed now.


----------



## kedab (24 Apr 2013)

78 million eh? that's a tidy little sum  ...not too sure LA has that sort of spare change. maybe he'll get a taste of the medicine he dished out to all and sundry while he was still in his pomp.


----------



## BJH (24 Apr 2013)

Yes, the US Govt will need a whole lot of bullying to stop them wanting to extract back their money.


----------



## Buddfox (24 Apr 2013)

How are they going to prove an amount of loss? Couldn't you argue that USPS got the coverage and value they wanted at the time? I'm not sure they could prove subsequent brand damage. I imagine this gets settled out of court?


----------



## yello (24 Apr 2013)

It'll not be settled out of court, not in my opinion at least. That route was, I think, already talked about/hinted and Armstrong made an offer (as I recall).

re Buddfox's point....



> Couldn't you argue that USPS got the coverage and value they wanted at the time?


 
I think this will be one defence line, yes, and I believe we've already talked about it upstream somewhere. FWIW, I've read different professional opinions on it. Some say that as USPS suffered no financial loss (arguably the opposite) that there's no case to answer. Others say that because Tailwind/Armstrong's action was fraudulent then there is. I'm no lawyer, I don't know. Court to decide.

Wouldn't mind speculating though that Armstrong's shifting assets just in case. Do you reckon that new house purchase will be in his kids' names? Or a trust of some kind


----------



## thom (24 Apr 2013)

Buddfox said:


> How are they going to prove an amount of loss? Couldn't you argue that USPS got the coverage and value they wanted at the time? I'm not sure they could prove subsequent brand damage. I imagine this gets settled out of court?


To us, the uninitiated, I agree, it would seem that way, in that USPS did benefit much form the publicity.
But I doubt they don't have a good angle to go after him on, so it shall be interesting to see what eventuates. 
Also I agree - the US courts system seems set up to prefer resolution of cases out of court with some kind of bargaining, rather than with full transparency and judgement of evidence.


----------



## yello (24 Apr 2013)

Things legal can be semantic and hinge on interpretation.

Was USPS a 'victim' of a fraudulent action? It depends on how you interpret 'victim'. Does 'victim' necessarily entail suffering? If so, what level? Financial? Reputation? etc etc Or does 'victim' only mean to be on the receiving end of a crime? 

The defence will take the former line (yes it was fraud but you didn't lose out by it). The Govt takes the latter, and/or defines victim more broadly to include non-financial loss.

It'll either be be spelt out within the Whistleblower Act or one for the court to decide . I personally don't think it's going to be a particularly interesting case (as I doubt Armstrong will want to contest the fraud aspect!) and could hinge on that single issue.


----------



## thom (25 Apr 2013)




----------



## rich p (25 Apr 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/24/lance-armstrong-wife-testify-landis
Nothing much new but speculation that Kristin Armstrong may be forced to testify.
The story that keeps on giving...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (25 Apr 2013)

Sorry. Who's Lance Armstrong?


----------



## yello (25 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> Nothing much new but speculation that Kristin Armstrong may be forced to testify.


 
I wonder why? I know she's claimed to have 'been there and seen that' but I didn't think Armstrong's guilt needed to be established (again). Maybe the USADA reasoned decision doesn't constitute legal evidence, nor Armstrong's Oprah confession. Maybe guilt does have to established? Maybe there could be some interesting/new stuff that'll come out of this court case. Maybe I could say maybe again.

I dunno, me over simplifying this just assumed a legal more-or-less contractual argument.


----------



## thom (25 Apr 2013)

Anyone with an update on what's going on with Bruyneel ?
The UCI's self commissioned investigation seems to have evaporated too.


----------



## raindog (25 Apr 2013)

I have a sneaky feeling The Hog has been Let Off The Hook.


----------



## thom (25 Apr 2013)

oooh : Tygaart says Armweak has evidence of UCI complicity in his doping


----------



## rich p (25 Apr 2013)

What's in it for LA to spill the beans? He won't do it for the love.


----------



## smutchin (26 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> What's in it for LA to spill the beans? He won't do it for the love.



Reduced sentence?

I hope those who still think it's a personal vendetta against Lance take note of the implications of this story.


----------



## smutchin (26 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> What's in it for LA to spill the beans? He won't do it for the love.



Reduced sentence?

I hope those who still think it's a personal vendetta against Lance take note of the implications of this story.


----------



## johnr (28 Apr 2013)

rich p said:


> What's in it for LA to spill the beans? He won't do it for the love.


 Easy. Makes surprise appearance at Irish EGM, sticks it to Fat Pat, exits with cycling fans applause still ringing in his ears to become the first, Nike-sponsored, pharmaceutical adviser to the horseracing industry, meets and marries princess Anne after whirlwind romance, has coat of arms (crossed Oakley sunglasses) with Latin translation of 'I never tested positive' as motto nailed over entrance to Buck House and uses family connections to gain seat in house of lords and sinecure as head of Sport England,


----------



## Radchenister (28 Apr 2013)

... da plane, da plane ...


----------



## johnr (2 May 2013)

The thread that refuses to die...

Spanish authorities open partial criminal investigation of people exposed in Pharmstrong-gate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/may/01/spanish-court-investigation-doping-cycling


----------



## thom (13 Apr 2014)

Names named in court records:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/217378724/Name-Names


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (13 Apr 2014)

thom said:


> Names named in court records:
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/217378724/Name-Names



He' a twat.


----------



## Dayvo (14 Apr 2014)

Marmion said:


> He' a twat.


 
Is that 'better' or 'worse' than being a knobber?

Just curious, like.


----------



## themosquitoking (16 Apr 2014)

Dayvo said:


> Is that 'better' or 'worse' than being a knobber?
> 
> Just curious, like.


Better, unless the rules have changed it's nobber, dickhead then twat.


----------



## smutchin (17 Apr 2014)

We were discussing the movie Dodgeball in the office this morning, and the name of a certain nobber came up in conversation...

View: http://youtu.be/jlO5n37EJZc


Oh how we laughed.


----------



## The Couch (17 Apr 2014)

I guess most have seen this, but for the ones who haven't...
Tweet:
"_Back in the work world. The clothes are more comfortable and I get two breaks a shift.Video from first day on the job bit.ly/1jHvbtq_"

It's somewhere in between a funny video and an informative video. 
Could have been made a bit more funny/entertaining, but then it might have been too forced.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Apr 2014)

I can't get the video to play, maybe Lance has put a ban on me


----------



## Hont (17 Apr 2014)

Marmion said:


> I can't get the video to play, maybe Lance has put a ban on me


Don't worry, his team are so detached from the real world that they thought there was no need to write a funny script. Just get Lance to change a tyre, that'll be hilarious and operation-redemption will be another step along the way. 

Nah. It's just a middle-aged sociopath changing a tyre.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Apr 2014)

Right, if Lance thinks dust caps are uncool, I'm making sure my bikes all have them.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Apr 2014)

User said:


> Careful there, he advocates breathing.


Gulp!


----------



## thom (17 Apr 2014)

smutchin said:


> We were discussing the movie Dodgeball in the office this morning, and the name of a certain nobber came up in conversation...
> 
> View: http://youtu.be/jlO5n37EJZc
> 
> ...



"I'm sure this decision won't haunt you forever…"


----------



## Supersuperleeds (22 Apr 2014)

Johan Bruyneel got a ten year ban

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/27109747


----------



## raindog (22 Apr 2014)

Supersuperleeds said:


> Johan Bruyneel got a ten year ban
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/27109747


He might appeal! What a bloody nerve......


----------



## smutchin (22 Apr 2014)

His statement is laughable. Also strangely reminiscent of some of the things Lance was saying at first until he eventually realised he didn't have a leg to stand on.


----------



## The Couch (22 Apr 2014)

smutchin said:


> His statement is laughable. Also strangely reminiscent of some of the things Lance was saying at first until he eventually realised he didn't have a leg to stand on.


Actually the statements ("we are the scapegoats for an entire generation... boohoo") on the BBC-website are not complete, on his blog he is continuing the statements with this:

"_I am a Belgian national and I reside in the United Kingdom. I have never been a member of USA Cycling, nor any other national governing body of sport based in the United States. I have never signed any document or agreement granting USADA or the AAA any authority over my livelihood or me. None of the anti-doping rule violations alleged by USADA are said to have occurred on US soil. It simply cannot be correct or acceptable that USADA - a US organization - is freely able to determine the livelihood of any individual that it chooses to prosecute, without boundary and without oversight_."

Not saying he doesn't deserve a ban from cycling (as I feel people like Vino and others still around should face a ban as well). 
However, I do understand (from a legal pov) why he has a problem with the American institutes deciding this.

Probably a lot of people here don't care who puts the dopers away, but I do feel he should get this penalty from the UCI or WADA.
(Although UCI/WADA do seem to need a good kick-in-the-ass from the American institutes before they get off their asses as seen in the Armstrong conviction)


----------



## yello (22 Apr 2014)

The Couch said:


> However, I do understand (from a legal pov) why he has a problem with the American institutes deciding this.



With all due respect, I don't think you do understand it from a legal point of view. What USADA decides is upheld by all similarly WADA affiliated sporting bodies (broadly speaking, those sports signed up to the WADA/Olympic code). USADA has the recognised authority to do what they have done, regardless of what JB thinks. Further, CAS will not overturn that.

It's important to remember this is not a court of law - there are different rules in operation here. People may not like that (and I must admit, I do have some wobbles sometimes) but it is all laid out and agreed. We're not talking about a death sentence here, just doping in sport.


----------



## The Couch (22 Apr 2014)

yello said:


> What USADA decides is upheld by all similarly WADA affiliated sporting bodies (broadly speaking, those sports signed up to the WADA/Olympic code). USADA has the recognised authority to do what they have done, regardless of what JB thinks. Further, CAS will not overturn that.


Don't want to anger anybody here, just wanted to say that to my - unknowledgeable on all these structures - view, I see it like this:

If I break a rule (e.g. I steal something) in France as a Belgian citizen, I can imagine I need to be trialed in France or in Belgium... or - if it's a really big offense - I could/should be trialed by the "International Criminal Court", since that is an institution that represents many countries (and in this case indeed the 2 countries that are impacted).

I don't understand however that the German court would decide on this crime I did.
Then again, I am looking at this perhaps at a too simple perspective.

And just to clarify, I should not get away with it, I need to be locked up (whether if only in this hypothetical, I leave up for discussion)


----------



## smutchin (22 Apr 2014)

The Couch said:


> Actually the statements ("we are the scapegoats for an entire generation... boohoo") on the BBC-website are not complete, on his blog he is continuing the statements



Sorry I wasn't clear about it but I was referring to the full statement on his blog as being laughable.

USADA is an agent of WADA, and UCI is a signatory to WADA's codes, therefore any activity JB took part in under the auspices of the UCI is within the remit of USADA's investigation.

If he tries to appeal on the stated grounds, CAS will give him very short shrift.


----------



## Hont (22 Apr 2014)

The Couch said:


> "_I am a Belgian national and I reside in the United Kingdom. I have never been a member of USA Cycling, nor any other national governing body of sport based in the United States. I have never signed any document or agreement granting USADA or the AAA any authority over my livelihood or me. None of the anti-doping rule violations alleged by USADA are said to have occurred on US soil. It simply cannot be correct or acceptable that USADA - a US organization - is freely able to determine the livelihood of any individual that it chooses to prosecute, without boundary and without oversight_."



It was a US registered team funded by mostly US corporations. He's arguing a technicality. And wtf is he doing living in the UK?

He needs to do a new title for his book now too. 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Might-Well-Win-Mastermind-Record-Setting/dp/1845964683

How about..."We might as well appeal, cos we're f*cked either way"


----------



## smutchin (22 Apr 2014)

Useful reading for anyone who questions the validity of the process:
http://inrng.com/2014/04/bruyneel-b..._campaign=Feed:+inrng/inrng0+(The+Inner+Ring)


----------



## yello (22 Apr 2014)

The Couch said:


> I could/should be trialed by the "International Criminal Court", since that is an institution that represents many countries (and in this case indeed the 2 countries that are impacted).
> 
> I don't understand however that the German court would decide on this crime I did.
> Then again, I am looking at this perhaps at a too simple perspective.



You're not being too simplistic but you are applying the wrong framework - and there's no shame in that as many people intuitively do, have done so and will probably continue to.

As I said, you have to understand it is NOT a court of law, international or otherwise. Look at it as an international agreement between sporting bodies. As a single body, these individual organisations have decided to combine forces and recognise each other's authority precisely because of the international nature of sports. It's a 2 way thing too; courts of law are not the place for dealing with sports violations. I admit, it's requires a bit of a mind flip, as one does automatically think of national rules of justice etc, but you also have to remember that these guys are not deciding to jail or hang people. In fact, they have very limited powers.


----------



## thom (22 Apr 2014)

Here is the verdict of the AAA : http://www.usada.org/uploads/aaa42214.pdf


----------



## SWSteve (22 Apr 2014)

Hont said:


> It was a US registered team funded by mostly US corporations. He's arguing a technicality. And wtf is he doing living in the UK?
> 
> He needs to do a new title for his book now too.
> 
> ...





From Amazon:


> I was thinking that the new title for this book should be: We Might As Well Cheat!
> 
> Also the book should be moved either into the fiction catagory or the true crime catagory


----------



## User169 (22 Apr 2014)

Hont said:


> And wtf is he doing living in the UK?



Out of interest, why shouldn't he live in the UK?


----------



## Hont (22 Apr 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> Out of interest, why shouldn't he live in the UK?


It wasn't that he shouldn't, I was just wondering why he does (given the other options he presumably has)


----------



## User169 (22 Apr 2014)

Hont said:


> It wasn't that he shouldn't, I was just wondering why he does (given the other options he presumably has)



Fair enough - I thought you were suggesting some nefarious reason! Much as I like Belgium, I could think of shed loads of reasons to live in that London!


----------



## Dave_1 (26 Apr 2014)

Delftse Post said:


> Fair enough - I thought you were suggesting some nefarious reason! Much as I like Belgium, I could think of shed loads of reasons to live in that London!



I was wondering if Bruyneel is staying in the UK to avoid extradition to USA or at least protect his fortune when feds convict him in Landis Qui Tam case. Maybe he is just getting his kids best UK education & citizenships. Any other guesses?


----------



## Dave_1 (26 Apr 2014)

[QUOTE 3048372, member: 259"]Tax.[/QUOTE]
good one. v likely. With all the dubious money that is invested in London property I guess Bruyneel will be hoping feds can't get him to pay millions back to USPS in Qui Tam case?


----------



## Dave_1 (26 Apr 2014)

User said:


> I would have thought this was as bad a place to be a person could choose if they don't wish to be extradited to the USA.



I am guessing. Why is he domiciled in UK? He was arrested for questioning at a US airport in 2011 on way to Tour of California

Is it difficult for feds to recover money from Bruyneel in UK with his wealth in the UK if Qui Tam goes against him?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (20 May 2014)

Armstrong called under oath:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lan...for-video-testimony-in-sca-promotions-lawsuit


----------



## Dave Davenport (21 May 2014)

I was flicking through a triathlon magazine whilst at the dentists yesterday, they'd done a poll and apparently 43% of triathletes think LA should be able to compete.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (21 May 2014)

Dave Davenport said:


> I was flicking through a triathlon magazine whilst at the dentists yesterday, they'd done a poll and apparently 43% of triathletes think LA should be able to compete.



At least 43% of triathletes are nobbers


----------



## Andrew_P (27 May 2014)

George Hincapie - The Loyal Lieutenant out today, endorsed my the man himself. Downloaded today hopefully a good read


----------



## JasonHolder (27 May 2014)

zimzum42 said:


> Caption Competition?


GH belly


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (31 May 2014)

He doesn't like it up 'im:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/court-denies-armstrong-request-to-stop-sca-case


----------



## Smokin Joe (31 May 2014)

"Our position is simple. No one should be able to relentlessly perjure themselves and get away with it."

Amen to that.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Guilt in a sport of BS lies and deception is completely irrelevant. NO ONE,
MAN OR BEAST, ON ANY AMOUT OF TEST OR HGH OR WHATEVER YOU THINK MAKES YOU FASTER COULD RIDE LIKE HE RIDES! You could not do what he did. It was unnatural. Steroids peds or not he was and is an amazing cyclist. Most UCI elite roadies take legal peds, and id say 10-20% have taken illegal peds at some time in their life. SO STOP HATIN' CAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE TDF 7 times.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Also several peds he admitted o taking were actually legal when he took them.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

I agree. Further, believe it or not some teems actually come from places they cant get drugs and are legit. They rarely win even stages, but a few teems are not involved completely with the "insert your choice word"


Crackle said:


> The quick answer is no it doesn't. Different people respond to drugs in different ways, different drugs have different effects, who has the best drugs, can afford the best doctor and the most comprehensive 'program', wins. It's far from equal.
> 
> The full answer is probably contained in the closed thread and the links that people have put up.


----------



## mickle (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> Guilt in a sport of BS lies and deception is completely irrelevant. NO ONE,
> MAN OR BEAST, ON ANY AMOUT OF TEST OR HGH OR WHATEVER YOU THINK MAKES YOU FASTER COULD RIDE LIKE HE RIDES! You could not do what he did. It was unnatural. Steroids peds or not he was and is an amazing cyclist. Most UCI elite roadies take legal peds, and id say 10-20% have taken illegal peds at some time in their life. SO STOP HATIN' CAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE TDF 7 times.



Wibble.


----------



## User169 (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> Guilt in a sport of BS lies and deception is completely irrelevant. NO ONE,
> MAN OR BEAST, ON ANY AMOUT OF TEST OR HGH OR WHATEVER YOU THINK MAKES YOU FASTER COULD RIDE LIKE HE RIDES! You could not do what he did. It was unnatural. Steroids peds or not he was and is an amazing cyclist. Most UCI elite roadies take legal peds, and id say 10-20% have taken illegal peds at some time in their life. SO STOP HATIN' CAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE TDF 7 times.


 
Concidentally, Lance has won the same number of TDFs as me: precisely none! And I didn't even have take any PEDs, discounting the odd Belgian beer or two.


----------



## Andrew_P (4 Jun 2014)

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...strong-Yes-I-Feel-Like-I-Won-Those-Races.html


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> It was unnatural.



You got that bit right, nobber.


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

Are you actually defending Lance?


----------



## rich p (4 Jun 2014)

Haterz gonna hate, ya hear me y'all?


----------



## The Couch (4 Jun 2014)

rich p said:


> Haterz gonna hate, ya hear me y'all?


Fo sho, my nizzle


----------



## Andrew_P (4 Jun 2014)

Kind of ashamed to say I still quite like him, just glad there is not a dislike button on here!


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> Guilt in a sport of BS lies and deception is completely irrelevant. NO ONE,
> MAN OR BEAST, ON ANY AMOUT OF TEST OR HGH OR WHATEVER YOU THINK MAKES YOU FASTER COULD RIDE LIKE HE RIDES! You could not do what he did. It was unnatural. Steroids peds or not he was and is an amazing cyclist. Most UCI elite roadies take legal peds, and id say 10-20% have taken illegal peds at some time in their life. SO STOP HATIN' CAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE TDF 7 times.




Quoted this again just because it's funny


----------



## The Couch (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> ... CAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE TDF 7 times.


I'm pretty sure there are many who could beat the tdf 7 times...






Looks pretty weak, no?

(Sorry, can't help myself but go off-topic)


----------



## Dave Davenport (4 Jun 2014)

Reading those last few posts, it feels like I've been caught in some strange time warp that's sent me three years into the past.


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Who could tell?



I'm just shocked anyone still bought into his fairytale bs


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

What? He won the tour de france 7 times. That is 7 times more than you. Being striped of a tittle doesnt make it go away. If i beat you in a race it never goes away.


Delftse Post said:


> Concidentally, Lance has won the same number of TDFs as me: precisely none! And I didn't even have take any PEDs, discounting the odd Belgian beer or two.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Marmion said:


> You got that bit right, nobber.


In a good way bro.


----------



## rich p (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> What? He won the tour de france 7 times. That is 7 times more than you. Being striped of a tittle doesnt make it go away. If i beat you in a race it never goes away.


I was striped of a tittle, once - fecking painful it was too.


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> What? He won the tour de france 7 times. That is 7 times more than you. Being striped of a tittle doesnt make it go away. If i beat you in a race it never goes away.


And where does bribing officials to hide positive tests, ruining the careers of clean riders and journalists who spoke out about doping come into this. And refusing to have anyone on his team who wouldn't dope. And spending an estimated one million dollars on the very best drugs and employing the doctors who knew exactly how to beat the test.

Anyone who thinks that Cancer Jesus was operating on the same level playing field as everyone else has no knowledge of professional cycling, it's history and it's culture.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Smokin Joe said:


> And where does bribing officials to hide positive tests, ruining the careers of clean riders and journalists who spoke out about doping come into this. And refusing to have anyone on his team who wouldn't dope. And spending an estimated one million dollars on the very best drugs and employing the doctors who knew exactly how to beat the test.
> 
> Anyone who thinks that Cancer Jesus was operating on the same level playing field as everyone else has no knowledge of professional cycling, it's history and it's culture.


That makes sence, but again, everybody dopes in pro cycling, at least who wins. Even eddie was claimed to. If all you care about is winning the tour, to you, the fact you won never dies. You can tell he knows way more than you about it. You havent raced or coached it, so what do you know about UCIs anyway? Not. Very. Much. So stop pretending. If lance hid it for years right under everyones nose, AND WAS THE ONE PEOPLE FOCUS ON AND STILL WASNT CAUGHT, can you imagine what it is like when the officials themselves are not putting a magnifying glass to you? It would make it ven easier. I THINK LANCE IS A HORRIBLE PERSON, but he won, and that fact is stable. He is an impressive best-of-today-cyclist, and is in history as a very accomplished rider. Clearly you didnt actually ride. Had you you would have seen first hand how impossible winning the tour really is without drugs.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

rich p said:


> I was striped of a tittle, once - fecking painful it was too.


What was the tittle?


----------



## Dayvo (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> What? He won the tour de france 7 times. That is 7 times more than you. Being striped of a tittle doesnt make it go away. If i beat you in a race it never goes away.


----------



## Dayvo (4 Jun 2014)

rich p said:


> I was striped of a tittle, once - fecking painful it was too.



Looks like we've gained a tittle!


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Cycling history: even the great famed Eddie, called for bluff and didnt fold, yet who is to say, whne no matter how good you think you are, if you are reading this and are not already, you will never be a roadie UCI, so why pretend you know anything about the sport? This entire debate makes no sence, and is illiterate science.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 Jun 2014)

I'm out


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Marmion said:


> I'm out


And you always were out. You were never in. Only UCI pros and coaches are in. So stay out man.


----------



## fossyant (4 Jun 2014)

Oh great, a yank coming in to glorify the single most person who put the biggest shadow over the sport of cycling.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Like Eddie M. did.


fossyant said:


> Oh great, a yank coming in to glorify the single most person who put the biggest shadow over the sport of cycling.


----------



## fossyant (4 Jun 2014)

Well I won't ever buy any of that Trek shite. Lance was a seriously nasty piece of work. Good riddance. Lance did by way far the most damage to the sport.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

That is not my point. I am a UCI MTB rider but u woulnt believe me even if i said my name, the point is lance wanted to win. That came as a price. I dont glorify him, i think he is a "nasty person" but i dont think you can tell me what it takes to win the tour.


User said:


> At the risk of appearing interested in the answer, which are you?


----------



## Herzog (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> ...but i dont think you can tell me what it takes to win the tour.



I can - the shortest cumulative time over all stages. Keep up at the back...


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Bull shot.


Herzog said:


> I can - the shortest cumulative time over all stages. Keep up at the back...


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

User said:


> I can most certainly tell you that, in a clean race and were that achievable, someone would win. Cheating is optional not necessary.


I never said you needed to cheat, especially if no body cheated.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> I am a UCI MTB rider but u woulnt believe me even if i said my name



You're not a proper bike rider then, and we'll not have heard of you anyway. But try us and see. Someone may have heard of you in your obscure not very good sport.


----------



## fossyant (4 Jun 2014)

The guy was a huge cheat, and very nasty. Simples. Feel sorry for his kids.


----------



## rich p (4 Jun 2014)

Dayvo said:


> Looks like we've gained a tittle!


superfluous 'tle' there Dave


----------



## Crackle (4 Jun 2014)

Marmion said:


> You're not a proper bike rider then, and we'll not have heard of you anyway. But try us and see. Someone may have heard of you in your obscure not very good sport.


Oy some of us ride mtn bikes and we're on drugs.


----------



## rich p (4 Jun 2014)

Crackle said:


> Oy some of us ride mtn bikes and we're on drugs.


Viagra doesn't count Crax


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> That is not my point. I am a UCI MTB rider but u woulnt believe me even if i said my name, the point is lance wanted to win. That came as a price. I dont glorify him, i think he is a "nasty person" but i dont think you can tell me what it takes to win the tour.


What's the substance abuse like in your discipline? Widespread or sporadic?


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

So how's that legalisation of weed going in Colorado? Seems like somebody has been enjoying it!


----------



## fossyant (4 Jun 2014)

Widespread in MTB I would say. Massive. There must be enough nutter DH riders that are on something to ride courses that fast as they do.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Jun 2014)

I don't know about you lot but, having seen some of those MTB courses, I'd have weed myself if I'd had to ride them.


----------



## fossyant (4 Jun 2014)

Look I have followed Skollys lads and my lad down some descents I wouldn't normally do. I survived off road. Big off road wuss me.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

My point is it is hard to talk about what it takes to rob a bank without getting caught if you never try and succeed at doing so.


User said:


> What did you say? Your first post wasn't exactly clear.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> My point is it is hard to talk about what it takes to rob a bank without getting caught if you never try and succeed at doing so.


Yeh but Lance never even wore a mask!


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> What's the substance abuse like in your discipline? Widespread or sporadic?


If you are beating everyone it hardly matters. I dont use it, yet im not always winning, but most are on things you find in food, which are test boosters and what not that are legal. If you dont take everything that is legal, believe me, i will always be faster. Lots of things you dont know specifics about yet. Many are legal because testing for them is impossible. 4 things that Lance got in trouble for were actually legal in the 90s, so it is way more complicated than you little kids pretend it is.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Thank you for admitting you are not qualified.


User said:


> And you are no more qualified than anyone else here.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Exactly, so how is it you people talk about it like all the people who do ware masks are not guilty? What is wrong with that picture?


Pedrosanchezo said:


> Yeh but Lance never even wore a mask!


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> 4 things that Lance got in trouble for were actually legal in the 90s, so it is way more complicated than you little kids pretend it is.



Which things were it that got him in trouble? And when did he get in trouble? I don't seem to remember him ever testing positive (openly, there's that suppressed incident, but let's not mention that)


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

montage said:


> So how's that legalisation of weed going in Colorado? Seems like somebody has been enjoying it!


What state do you live in? Oh, not in the US? GO


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> That is not my point. I am a UCI MTB rider .





Acesand8s said:


> If you are beating everyone it hardly matters. I dont use it, yet im not always winning, but most are on things you find in food, which are test boosters and what not that are legal. If you dont take everything that is legal, believe me, i will always be faster. Lots of things you dont know specifics about yet. Many are legal because testing for them is impossible. 4 things that Lance got in trouble for were actually legal in the 90s, so it is way more complicated than you little kids pretend it is.



What team are you on?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> If you are beating everyone it hardly matters. I dont use it, yet im not always winning, but most are on things you find in food, which are test boosters and what not that are legal. If you dont take everything that is legal, believe me, i will always be faster. Lots of things you dont know specifics about yet. Many are legal because testing for them is impossible. 4 things that Lance got in trouble for were actually legal in the 90s, so it is way more complicated than you little kids pretend it is.


It's been about 55 years since I was last called a little kid. What's the best way to cook test boosters?


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

As u said, it is too complicated for your little mind. So go home, or youre already there, and stop commenting on a dead argument. Since u clearly dont know the whole story why bother?


ItsSteveLovell said:


> Which things were it that got him in trouble? And when did he get in trouble? I don't seem to remember him ever testing positive (openly, there's that suppressed incident, but let's not mention that)


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> As u said, it is too complicated for your little mind. So go home, or youre already there, and stop commenting on a dead argument. Since u clearly dont know the whole story why bother?




enlighten me o wise one


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

There are many that you get from eating food, and are thus allowed as supplements, some more dangerous and expensive than others. Again it seems you dont know that much about it either since you are also asking questions.


deptfordmarmoset said:


> It's been about 55 years since I was last called a little kid. What's the best way to cook test boosters?


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

You are literally not worth the time itd take to teach you.


ItsSteveLovell said:


> enlighten me o wise one


----------



## Shaun (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> As u said, it is too complicated for your little mind. So go home, or youre already there, and stop commenting on a dead argument. Since u clearly dont know the whole story why bother?





Acesand8s said:


> You are literally not worth the time itd take to teach you.



Please stop posting in a rude manner or your membership here will be more short-lived than your supposed professional riding career! Be respectful, add some substance to back up your claims / statements, and you'll likely find our regulars will be more willing to engage fully with you.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> What state do you live in? Oh, not in the US? GO



I lived there enough to know that you probably pee your pants every time you step foot in Deja Vu.
Back up your UCI claim with your team already.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Now are you man enough to join me?


I never made a point in the argument, i only suggested that people stop waisting time talking about the weather in Antarctica as it doesnt effect you and you need not bother. Picking on one bank in the US crash wont help you get the point that the US banking systems are corrupt so surely you must get what i am on to.


----------



## themosquitoking (4 Jun 2014)

montage said:


> So how's that legalisation of weed going in Colorado? Seems like somebody has been enjoying it!


Hey, people on weed are capable of not being dicks.


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

@Acesand8s wou;dn't it be helpful to substantiate your claims? Anyone can bound statements round, and then not bother to back it up...


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> I never made a point in the argument, i only suggested that people stop waisting time talking about the* weather in Antarctica as it doesnt effect you* and you need not bother. Picking on one bank in the US crash wont help you get the point that the US banking systems are corrupt so surely you must get what i am on to.



It's like you are trying to be stupid


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

montage said:


> It's like you are trying to be stupid



I think his spelling kind of gives it away...


----------



## Crackle (4 Jun 2014)

I prefer the Froome vs Wiggins argument these days.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Well that is what you are doing. NONE of said argumentative people here have a dog in this fight, so why continue waisting your time, feeding the troll, by responding, to me.?


montage said:


> It's like you are trying to be stupid


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

That i agree with. 'Cept every win he got he keeps and should have every tittle too, if you can stop it before why wait until after?


User said:


> No I don't get what you are on about at all. That cheat cheated no less than anyone else, he deserves everything he gets and, best sit down if you are not already, life is not even handed and fair.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> I think his spelling kind of gives it away...


You mean my grammar.


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> You mean my grammar.



Didn't you spell title as 'tittle' in an earlier post?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Jun 2014)

I don't know about EPOstrophes but the UCI hasn't banned APOstrophes over in Europe.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Why should he keep anything?


Because he won before he got caught with drugs, in my opinion, that is part of the game. Cheating still counts as a win if you are never caught.


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Why should he keep anything?



I think he lost one thing due to his cheating...and the jerseys he lost afterwards


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> Because he won before he got caught with drugs, in my opinion, that is part of the game. Cheating still counts as a win if you are never caught.



Bet your partner has won multiple times


----------



## montage (4 Jun 2014)

montage said:


> Bet your partner has won multiple times



actually I bet you don't have a partner


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

I think you have it backwards as to who here is having more fun behind the screen! Im laughing as if i just discovered i could right now, you guys are sooo funny! Ill be back! 


montage said:


> Because witnessing such an inane amoeba such as yourself go about their single celled organism activities makes me feel good about myself.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

No i meant tittle. A tiny part of the real sport.


ItsSteveLovell said:


> Didn't you spell title as 'tittle' in an earlier post?


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

But they have banned ditto marks, and thats almost the same thing.


deptfordmarmoset said:


> I don't know about EPOstrophes but the UCI hasn't banned APOstrophes over in Europe.


----------



## themosquitoking (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> No i meant tittle. A tiny part of the real sport.


You spell affect "effect".


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

No i meant effect. A change or consequence. 


themosquitoking said:


> You spell affect "effect".


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> What? He won the tour de france 7 times. That is 7 times more than you. Being striped of a tittle doesnt make it go away. If i beat you in a race it never goes away.





Acesand8s said:


> No i meant tittle. A tiny part of the real sport.





he was striped of a small part of the sport?


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Affect means make a difference to. Shows you know how to spell.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

ItsSteveLovell said:


> he was striped of a small part of the sport?


You caught me, it was a complex joke, again beyond you. He was stripped of something that doesnt matter, not of a title, but of a meaningless tittle.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> But they have banned ditto marks, and thats almost the same thing.


I can't get through the day without those ditto marks. But we tend to use '' to signify ditto. Or ''do'' as an abbreviation. 

And the UCI can't do a thing about it!


----------



## themosquitoking (4 Jun 2014)

[QUOTE 3116914, member: 30090"]I think I do.

You mean that doping is rife among UCI cyclists and is very much the culture that you dope. However you are wrong when saying that it does not effect me - of course it does.[/QUOTE]



Acesand8s said:


> No i meant effect. A change or consequence.



http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-versus-effect/ Ahem, i believe it is our language and i know how to use it correctly even allowing for your outrageous cultural spelling errors.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

There is no consequence. Imo. This poster you quoted is playing off my spelling which i did purposely.


themosquitoking said:


> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/03/affect-versus-effect/ Ahem, i believe it is our language and i know how to use it correctly even allowing for your outrageous cultural spelling errors.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

montage said:


> I bet you think a boob feels like a bag of sand


Actually it feels more like a bird.
And you make me laugh the worst. You must be a troll, man.


----------



## themosquitoking (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> There is no consequence. Imo. This poster you quoted is playing of my spelling which i did purposely.


Either spell stuff right or don't if you prefer not to don't call other people out on it.


----------



## SWSteve (4 Jun 2014)

JHC, this is getting worse than CA&D


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Your the one calling people out.


themosquitoking said:


> Either spell stuff right or don't if you prefer not to don't call other people out on it.


----------



## Shaun (4 Jun 2014)

Let's give the tit-for-tat a rest please and either get back to discussing Armstrong (in a substantive and respectful way) or leave the thread to rest until someone has something substantial to add.


----------



## StuAff (4 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> That makes sence, but again, everybody dopes in pro cycling, at least who wins. *Even eddie was claimed to*. If all you care about is winning the tour, to you, the fact you won never dies. You can tell he knows way more than you about it. You havent raced or coached it, so what do you know about UCIs anyway? Not. Very. Much. So stop pretending. If lance hid it for years right under everyones nose, AND WAS THE ONE PEOPLE FOCUS ON AND STILL WASNT CAUGHT, can you imagine what it is like when the officials themselves are not putting a magnifying glass to you? It would make it ven easier. I THINK LANCE IS A HORRIBLE PERSON, but he won, and that fact is stable. He is an impressive best-of-today-cyclist, and is in history as a very accomplished rider. Clearly you didnt actually ride. Had you you would have seen first hand how impossible winning the tour really is without drugs.


No claim about it. Merckx tested positive three times. And LA never won the Tour de France. He broke the rules, he got found out, titles gone. End of story. Well, it will be end of story once SCA Promotions and all the other litigants have finished with him.....
As for the tour being impossible without drugs? Bunk. Slower, definitely, but certainly not impossible. Amateurs have ridden the whole thing clean let alone pros.


----------



## Acesand8s (4 Jun 2014)

Yes


StuAff said:


> No claim about it. Merckx tested positive three times. And LA never won the Tour de France. He broke the rules, he got found out, titles gone. End of story. Well, it will be end of story once SCA Promotions and all the other litigants have finished with him.....
> As for the tour being impossible without drugs? Bunk. Slower, definitely, but certainly not impossible. Amateurs have ridden the whole thing clean let alone pros.


. Winning it whilst others are on them is not possible.


----------



## Acesand8s (5 Jun 2014)

I dont think you should, but you havent riden your whole life. Lets pretend you did. That all you care about is winning. That you are 14 years old and you beat every living man in your little group rides with riders in semi pro categories. Then you go to Europe and every one is faster. But you still beat most cause youre just that awesome. But not all, esp. not in the tour. So you learn the last 3 winners doped. What do you think you would do after getting so far?


User said:


> That is the pathetic arms race justification employed by cheats, "I had to cheat because everyone else was"


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> What do you think you would do after getting so far?



Carry on as I was, or give up.


----------



## Acesand8s (5 Jun 2014)

And if he didnt do it before it plays out this way: he like winning his dream race so much he keeps up with the suport he has and finds out he cant do it again without a more than genetic advantage, so he dopes to win the 2nd or third, and then on.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

Anyway, we've "been there and done that" ad nauseum with nobbers over the years, I'm not even sure why I continue to reply. Nor why anyone else does. So unless you post anything "new" or which I find mildly interesting I think I'll leave you to your nonsense.

You still haven't told us who you are btw, probably cos you ain't "anybody"


----------



## The Couch (5 Jun 2014)

6 new pages to this thread since yesterday morning?!? 

Has somebody gone on Oprah and did I miss this?
(Was it Tom Cruise again...... it was, wasn't it?)


----------



## fossyant (5 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> And if he didnt do it before it plays out this way: he like winning his dream race so much he keeps up with the suport he has and finds out he cant do it again without a more than genetic advantage, so he dopes to win the 2nd or third, and then on.


 
You will not find any fans of dopestrong who actually give a damn about cycling. The man cast a huge shadow over the sport. He is No1 big cheat and that's putting it politely. Now go play with your dirt.

The man cheated to win, as did others. Total scum the lot of them.


----------



## raindog (5 Jun 2014)

WTF happened in here?


----------



## Dogtrousers (5 Jun 2014)

mickle said:


> Wibble.


 Any advance on this?


----------



## Shadow (5 Jun 2014)

Dogtrousers said:


> Any advance on this?


It appears not. But it has gone quiet. Which is a big plus. Acesand8s has hopefully exhausted his/her supply of juice.

And I had thought this was the New and Improved thread.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> And I had thought this was the New and Improved thread.



It is, you shoulda seen the bollox before


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> The Acesand8s were "heels" in the US wrestling world. Does this remind you of anyone?
> 
> "Heels are villainous or antagonistic characters, whose personalities are crafted to elicit a negative response from the audience. They often embrace traditionally negative traits such as narcissism, egomania, unprompted rage, sadism and general bitterness. ... Heels typically inspire boos from the audience and often employ underhanded tactics, such as cheating and exploiting technicalities, in their fighting strategies, or use overly aggressive styles to cause excess pain or injury to their opponents."



.... and more to do with amateur dramatics than any form of sport!


----------



## Acesand8s (5 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> The Acesand8s were "heels" in the US wrestling world. Does this remind you of anyone?
> 
> "Heels are villainous or antagonistic characters, whose personalities are crafted to elicit a negative response from the audience. They often embrace traditionally negative traits such as narcissism, egomania, unprompted rage, sadism and general bitterness. ... Heels typically inspire boos from the audience and often employ underhanded tactics, such as cheating and exploiting technicalities, in their fighting strategies, or use overly aggressive styles to cause excess pain or injury to their opponents."


Congratulations! You got me word for word, though im not this way on purpose. It is also a clothing brand.


----------



## Acesand8s (5 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> The Acesand8s were "heels" in the US wrestling world. Does this remind you of anyone?
> 
> "Heels are villainous or antagonistic characters, whose personalities are crafted to elicit a negative response from the audience. They often embrace traditionally negative traits such as narcissism, egomania, unprompted rage, sadism and general bitterness. ... Heels typically inspire boos from the audience and often employ underhanded tactics, such as cheating and exploiting technicalities, in their fighting strategies, or use overly aggressive styles to cause excess pain or injury to their opponents."


As a quick note, im not a troll, and i really am not deliberately inciting drama, but i do get a kick out of some responces. I havent ran out of juice, but i wont go any further with you. I hope you all may see the light one day. This will be my final comment.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

Acesand8s said:


> This will be my final comment.



You're not an endurance MTBer then if that's all you can manage.


----------



## Shadowfax (5 Jun 2014)

FFS Marmions' left twice and he's still here !


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

Shadowfax said:


> FFS Marmions' left twice and he's still here !



I'm fickle.


----------



## Shadowfax (5 Jun 2014)

Marmion said:


> I'm fickle.


 Ah Mickles' sister ?


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

Shadowfax said:


> Ah Mickles' sister ?



his mother. His sister is tickle


----------



## mickle (5 Jun 2014)

You don't want to meet cousin Fickle!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (5 Jun 2014)

His cousin and sister are the same person...


----------



## Hont (6 Jun 2014)

Not a troll but confesses to behaving exactly like one. 

Does anyone need lessons in the ignore function of this board?


----------



## User269 (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Cheating is optional not necessary.



Not read David Millar's book (amongst others) then?

Mind you, I've often wondered, given that I often race whilst suffering from the effects of performance impairing drugs, would it be cheating if I turned up 'clean'?


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jun 2014)

User269 said:


> Not read David Millar's book (amongst others) then?
> 
> Mind you, I've often wondered, given that I often race whilst suffering from the effects of performance impairing drugs, would it be cheating if I turned up 'clean'?


And Hincapies new book, he recalls I think it was the worlds of 95 where he and Armstrong where blown out of the back early doors and both had to retire from the race exhausted having tried to cling on, he recalled the lead riders were out of this world fast and were still able to have a conversation and some looked out of shape and overweight. The previous year Hincapie had been making decent placing's and in 95 his training figures were all up on 94.

He believes in 96/97 that he had a clear choice and that was to do EPO or find a different job. That is a tough decision especially once you have become used to the trappings of a professional athlete and love doing what you were doing.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jun 2014)

User13710 said:


> I'm reading David Millar's book at the moment, and I think he gives a very convincing account of the steady drip of pressure a very young and not all that worldly person was put under to keep up with the others in his chosen and loved profession. Yes, strictly speaking it is always a choice, but the psychology of why people make the choices they do is extremely complex and interesting. At least, unlike some, Millar came to his senses and owned up, which is also a choice and not by any means an easy one.
> 
> (Sorry if that has all been said on here hundreds of times already, but pro racing is a world I don't know all that much about.)


Only after his house was raided though, not sure he would have confessed before.


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jun 2014)

User said:


> Which is why, when a father figure and exerter of that pressure like Armstrong is caught, it is right to take strong steps to crush them and minimise their future influence. The past is wrecked, the present is murky but the future is worth fighting for.


I have not finished the book, but Hincapie does not feel pressured to take them by anyone directly, most of the pressure as you would expect came from within to be able to compete or to be competitive enough to do the job expected of him.


----------



## User169 (17 Jun 2014)

Seems that WADA has appealed USADA's sanctions against Bruyneel: WADA thinks the 10 year ban is too lenient.


----------



## Louch (17 Jun 2014)

I watched the Armstrong lie , and from the cut scenes took Ferraris advice to ride harder at a lower cadence as a big lad, and have pb'd most hills since. So he's not all bad


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Jun 2014)

Louch said:


> I watched the Armstrong lie , and from the cut scenes took Ferraris advice to ride harder at a lower cadence as a big lad, and have pb'd most hills since. So he's not all bad



Bloody hell Louch, I coulda told you that!


----------



## Louch (17 Jun 2014)

Marmion said:


> Bloody hell Louch, I coulda told you that!


you are too busy fighting the good fight in the Independence thread to coach me!


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (17 Jun 2014)

Louch said:


> you are too busy fighting the good fight in the Independence thread to coach me!



I can do both. And I'm cheaper than Ferrari, I am the Austin Maxi of cycle training.


----------



## tug benson (18 Jun 2014)

Louch said:


> I watched the Armstrong lie , and from the cut scenes took Ferraris advice to ride harder at a lower cadence as a big lad, and have pb'd most hills since. So he's not all bad


You've only PB'd because I've been hauling you ass over them hills...it's me you should thanking not some EPO doctor


----------



## Slaav (18 Jun 2014)

Crackle said:


> I prefer the Froome vs Wiggins argument these days.


 
What argument?


----------



## Beebo (18 Jun 2014)

Slaav said:


> What argument?


 the arguement over who falls off the most.


----------



## Dayvo (18 Jun 2014)

Slaav said:


> What argument?



Froome and Wiggins have got a bet going on which cycling forum churns out the most tripe about them.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jun 2014)

Just had a look in at this thread for the first time in a while... pmsl. Was a bit surprised at first to see I had seven pages to catch up on but it soon became apparent why. Who knew Lance could still provide so much entertainment value?


----------



## Louch (18 Jun 2014)

tug benson said:


> You've only PB'd because I've been hauling you ass over them hills...it's me you should thanking not some EPO doctor


A proper domestique isn't waiting at the top to take pics of me!


----------

