# Armstrong charged and banned



## yello (13 Jun 2012)

> The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought formal doping charges against former cyclist Lance Armstrong in an action that could cost him his seven Tour de France titles, according to a letter sent to Armstrong and several others Tuesday. As a result of the formal charges, Armstrong has been immediately banned from competition in triathlons, a sport he took up after his retirement from cycling in 2011


 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...s-from-usada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html

Well, I had to come back for this didn't I? 

Beer anyone?


----------



## rich p (13 Jun 2012)

This has come as great shock to me. I really had no idea that Saint Lance of Oneball was a cheating toerag.


----------



## jdtate101 (13 Jun 2012)

This will drag on a few more years yet and then probably nothing come of it, just like the other attempts. If you believed he doped or not, it really is a circus now. They need to definitively ban and strip him of his title or leave it alone forever. I think everyone is sick and tired of this now.

Also I'm not sure I agree with the ban from Triathlons and Ironmans, simply as I believe in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which has not happened yet.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Jun 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> Also I'm not sure I agree with the ban from Triathlons and Ironmans, simply as I believe in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, which has not happened yet.


 
Why do people keep referring to conventional law as if it has anything to do with WADA (or UASDA) rules and procedures?


----------



## jdtate101 (13 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Why do people keep referring to conventional law as if it has anything to do with WADA (or UASDA) rules and procedures?


 
Just stating that I don't like the idea of a ban before the sentence. Seems a bit arse about face to me, and punishes someone excessively if they end up being proven innocent (especially if it's their main income source). Of course it's not the same as criminal law, but it seems very heartless.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Jun 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> Just stating that I don't like the idea of a ban before the sentence. Seems a bit arse about face to me, and punishes someone excessively if they end up being proven innocent (especially if it's their main income source). Of course it's not the same as criminal law, but it seems very heartless.


 
Heartless? We're talking about Lance Armstrong here - the guy who has been involved in a systematic deception and been utterly ruthless towards anyone who tried to speak out about it. He's the very definition of heartless.


----------



## Crackle (13 Jun 2012)

This is like one of those Ghost Train fairground rides where all the skellingtons pop out.

Hard to know what to think. Every time I hope he's going to be exposed, it all comes to nought. Anyone left to bring charges if this one goes pear shaped?


----------



## Fab Foodie (13 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...s-from-usada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html
> 
> Well, I had to come back for this didn't I?
> 
> Beer anyone?


Pint of your finest ale please ... welcome back


----------



## totallyfixed (13 Jun 2012)

I'm betting the blabbing has started and to hell with the statute of limitations, he will continue to deny because what else can he do? Boy has he painted himself into a corner or what. I am so happy for all those people who he bullied, threatened and cheated.


----------



## rich p (13 Jun 2012)

He clearly had wind of this as he said he wouldn't fight any new revelations and accusations a few weeks ago.


----------



## yello (13 Jun 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> he will continue to deny


 
Indeed he does...



> I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one.


http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstrong-responds-to-usada-allegation

I reckon this one's going to stick Crackle. I reckon the Feds handed over some of the evidence, maybe testimony taken under oath. 10+ witnesses... want to have a guess who they'll be. The recently retired 'big George' perhaps?


----------



## Herzog (13 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> I reckon this one's going to stick Crackle.


 
Hope so.


Flying_Monkey said:


> He's the very definition of heartless.


 
...and of an ars*hole (or as*hole as he's american).


----------



## lukesdad (13 Jun 2012)

retirement didn t last long he was on the front of the peleton last week.


----------



## jdtate101 (13 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Heartless? We're talking about Lance Armstrong here - the guy who has been involved in a systematic deception and been utterly ruthless towards anyone who tried to speak out about it. He's the very definition of heartless.



By heartless I was actually referring to non millionaire athletes who get a ban because of a charge and are then proven to be innocent. If the sport and winnings are their major source of income then a protracted ban whilst the case goes through could lead to financial ruin, family breakup etc etc. this to me is heartless as the athlete had no way of supporting themselves and no means to earn to pay for their defence.


----------



## yello (13 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> retirement didn t last long he was on the front of the peleton last week.


 
He announced 2 days ago that he was retiring at the end of the season.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/george-hincapie-to-retire-in-august_223195


----------



## Herzog (13 Jun 2012)

If (and that's a massive if) the 7 tours were taken away, it poses a bit of a problem. Some years (e.g., 2003, Ulrich 2nd, Vino 3rd) how far down the food chain would we have to go to find a credible winner? The 1999 victory probably could not got to Zülle (2nd), but to Escartin (3rd) for example.

The sport would be in trouble. However, that's assuming anything actually comes of it...


----------



## montage (13 Jun 2012)

This means Wiggo came 3rd in 2009!


----------



## Alun (13 Jun 2012)

montage said:


> This means Wiggo came 3rd in 2009!


Not yet it doesn't !
"There's many a slip twixt cup and lip" as they say.


----------



## MichaelM (14 Jun 2012)

[QUOTE 1889615, member: 76"]Every time this comes up I am left with the same confusion. At present Armstrong is not a proven drug cheat (this may change obviously), and is vilified.

On the other hand Millar is a proven drugs cheat, and yet some of you advocate Olympic selection on the basis he has atoned and worked tirelessly against doping in the sport. When the reality is only that he has not failed *ANY* other drug tests.

The hippocracy doesn't stop there though, in the other thread there is a suggestion that Millar be allowed to ride as he thinks doping is quite bad now, obviously only since he has been caught, he thought it was a reasonably good idea while he was doing it. Chambers on the other hand should be banned for life though for doing exactly the same as Millar

Armstrong though, I don't know if he is innocent or guilty, we'll have to wait and see won't we?[/quote]


----------



## BikeHoond (14 Jun 2012)

Just thinking back to happier days when lance won the boston marathon!





What a weird co-incidence though with Big George announcing his retirement this week.


----------



## slowmotion (14 Jun 2012)

Paul Kimmage's take a little while back, on Dutch TV, NOS....

....." a total fraud"

http://nos.nl/video/210777-lance-armstrong-gebruikte-doping.html


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jun 2012)

There are a lot of people who would like to seem him humiliated regardless of whether he is actually innocent or not of the charges. It might be difficult for him to get a fair trial. If he was stripped of his 7 TdF titles, then they would have to void these years' results as pretty much everyone else was zombied up to the eyeballs, Festina et al, Pantani who died from a cocktail of drugs.

I think they are going to need a bigger boat ..........................


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Maggot, if you can't tell the difference between someone who has admitted what they did, accepted the allotted punishment and totally changed their behaviour, and someone who has consistently denied doing anything wrong and more than this has actively attacked almost anyone who tried to provide testimony to the contrary, then I would suggest that it's you have rather questionable ethics.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Let's not forget too, that this is not just about Armstrong but about several others who are still working in pro-cycling, most notably Radioshack-Nissan manager, Johan Buyneel, and Pedro Alcaya, who is a doctor to several top cyclists including most notably... the brothers Schleck.

And, it might be simple coincidence but you have to wonder at the timing of big George Hincapie's retirement announcement and the non-selection of Chris Horner for the Tour this year.


----------



## raindog (14 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> He clearly had wind of this as he said he wouldn't fight any new revelations and accusations a few weeks ago.


Absolutely - that gave us the hint that everything was about to go pear shaped.

I hope they can nail McQuaid for the Swiss lab hush-up too.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jun 2012)

Oh, okay....I suppose it would be rude not to:


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Jun 2012)

I think this will run and run. The timing amuses me.... There are 52 weeks in a year and this managed to happen (and to generate a press release) in the TdF build-up. Is it a story any longer? I think not.

I remember on_ 'Porridge'_ the Home Secretary visits Fletcher's prison and asks "What are you in for?" 

"I got caught" says Ronnie Barker. 

Many of us have 'favourite' riders who would simply never cheat and 'baddies' who we imagine getting EPO in their bottle as a baby. I always assumed LA was riding on blood he found in a fridge.

The truth is that pro-cycling was absolutely filthy with drug cheats for decades, but quite electrifying and captivating despite the mire.

At some levels it is still a slough of cheats, yet my elder son and I (amongst millions) cannot wait for the Depart this year. 

I've been quite astounded by some sporting achievements I've seen.... but few rival the insanity, courage, guts, skill and dedication of some of the climbing and descending on the TdF. 

Perhaps we should accept that many of the winners of the past few decades were drug cheats and the people they denied a win were simply less successful drug cheats.

For all we know, current winners are the same, but their tipple is currently undetectable. 

Did speeds drop when the sport was cleaned up? Witness D Millar saying how the speed of the peloton is now insanely fast in comparison to the (drug-fuelled) days when he started out. 

It is ugly and mired in filth, but it is spectacular and beautiful and wonderful.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jun 2012)

Storm in a tea-cup, according to R4 this morning, the biggest story in sport today is Harry Redknap leaving Spurs ....


----------



## thnurg (14 Jun 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Storm in a tea-cup, according to R4 this morning, the biggest story in sport today is Harry Redknap leaving Spurs ....


Yeah. I had a double take on that too. "Biggest sporting story is..." they said and I thought "Here comes the Lance Armstrong bit. Eh? What? Harry who? Oh, football. Meh!"


----------



## totallyfixed (14 Jun 2012)

The Tour is a behemoth which will rumble on regardless of the participants, it is a wondrous spectacle but underneath what you and I see is a darker world that dabbles with substances designed to keep the human body performing at levels above and beyond what should be possible.
I love to watch the grand tours, but not so much as I used to, the cynic in me has been brought to the fore and when I see an attack in the mountains from an unlikely candidate I immediately think he is doped. This has soured my viewing and I nurture a hatred for LA and his ilk, but especially LA who has cheated for so long in so many different ways.
There may well be more than a little ducking and diving by a lot of people in the coming weeks and months including retirements and strange drop outs from Le Tour. If the net result is a long overdue clean up of this great sport then I couldn't be happier. If this is to have legs though the rules need to change, the biggest one for me is that if you are caught doping and you don't admit everything including your sources, then you are out for life.
Oh and get rid of those bloody radios that enable a director sportif to manipulate the race and as often as not force the riders to go at a pace that can only be sustained in an unnatural way. Climbs off box.


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jun 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> Oh and get rid of those bloody radios that enable a director sportif to manipulate the race and as often as not force the riders to go at a pace that can only be sustained in an unnatural way.


 If nothing else, do this ....


----------



## yello (14 Jun 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Storm in a tea-cup, according to R4 this morning, the biggest story in sport today is Harry Redknap leaving Spurs ....



Well, in fairness, I think there could well be more to that story! I remember recently Redknap saying he hadn't even been spoken to about the England job. 'Hmm' me thoughts, conspiratorial head on, maybe the FA were afraid/aware of his closet.

Oh, and thanks for the 'welcome back' FF. You've a pint of Scruttocks' Old Indigestible waiting for you at the bar whenever you choose.

Anyways, back to the cycling...


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Maggot, if you can't tell the difference between someone who has admitted what they did, accepted the allotted punishment and totally changed their behaviour, and someone who has consistently denied doing anything wrong and more than this has actively attacked almost anyone who tried to provide testimony to the contrary, then I would suggest that it's you have rather questionable ethics.


 
Shall we add to the list...

Roche
Indurain
Merckx
Hinault
Fignon
etc.
?


----------



## just jim (14 Jun 2012)

Fab Foodie said:


> Storm in a tea-cup, according to R4 this morning, the biggest story in sport today is Harry Redknap leaving Spurs ....


Heard that too. Good old "Today".


----------



## chris barnes (14 Jun 2012)

hi new here have been following cycling for the past number of years. i realise that nothing stirs the emotions as much as LA but the bile on here surprises me regardless of whether he was a drugs cheat (we will never know definatively) he won 7 tours and if we assume for a second that he was cheating then we have to assume the rest of the GC contenders were as well as such that still makes him the most successful tour rider in history.


----------



## Dan B (14 Jun 2012)

totallyfixed said:


> The Tour is a behemoth which will rumble on regardless of the participants, it is a wondrous spectacle but underneath what you and I see is a darker world that dabbles with substances designed to keep the human body performing at levels above and beyond what should be possible.


So is rock music, but I still wouldn't trade it for barbershop


----------



## Strathlubnaig (14 Jun 2012)

Putting personalities and such aside, how can there have been over 500 negative tests then this ?


----------



## Zofo (14 Jun 2012)

Who gives a toss whether he was using drugs or not, the chances are he was, practically the WHOLE peloton was on something or other back then. The guy virtually came off his death bed to win 7 Tours, get off his back!


----------



## Browser (14 Jun 2012)

I can't help being cynical about the timing, but I suppose if you want to launch another investigation into the cleanliness (or otherwise) of the Tour's most successful rider (until proven otherwise) then you'd do it now. On the other hand, if you weren't just trying to rabble-rouse you'd wait until it was all over and finished, wouldn't you?
I don't want to believe that he's guilty, but how many times in the past have major sporting stars proven to be something other than they've previously made out to be? And, sadly, there are too many accounts/reports/allegations of widespread performance enhancement in the pro-cycling world for them all to be untrue


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Who gives a toss whether he was using drugs or not, the chances are he was, practically the WHOLE peloton was on something or other back then. The guy virtually came off his death bed to win 7 Tours, get off his back!


----------



## Fab Foodie (14 Jun 2012)

Timing's great though ...


----------



## rich p (14 Jun 2012)

Why do the pro LA supporters seem to think it's us who are leading the enquiry/witch-hunt ( delete as applicable).

It's the US cycling authorities - his own federation! We have little influence sadly other than comment and speculation.
How anyone can conflate the timing and the TdF is beyond me.


----------



## Herzog (14 Jun 2012)

An interesting graphic towards bottom of the page:

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/...ign=Feed:+cyclingtipsblog/TJog+(Cycling+Tips)


----------



## yello (14 Jun 2012)

chris barnes said:


> the bile on here surprises me.



Oh I wouldn't call it bile, it's more like gloating 

That he was/wasn't the most successful doping/non doping (whichever you believe) cyclist of an era of doping misses the point I think. Armstrong built himself an empire around his 'non doping'. He's made such a big thing of being the "most tested athlete". This sticks in the throat of anyone, like me, that believes he was as doped to the gills as the next guy on the podium. As for the 'those that don't believe in miracles' speech, well. If guilty, he's set himself up for the fall. 

For what it's worth, and in reference to the undoubted doping of that era, should Armstrong be stripped of the wins (and I have no strong opinion on that either way) then I don't think you'll see the jerseys given to anyone else. I think the results will merely have an asterisk by them to indicate 'no winner'. I think it will just become known as the doping era.


----------



## MacB (14 Jun 2012)

It's the constant denial that sticks coupled with the vicious counter attacks, but what does it take to get the truth? For the fan boys I'd say a smoking gun akin to the Monica Lewinsky dress, giving a decent sample to test.

Makes me wonder if RichP has kept that little black number he wore the night he met Lance?


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Why do the pro LA supporters seem to think it's us who are leading the enquiry/witch-hunt ( delete as applicable).
> 
> It's the US cycling authorities - his own federation! We have little influence sadly other than comment and speculation.
> How anyone can conflate the timing and the TdF is beyond me.


 
FWIW Im no big Tex supporter !

I can't help feeling after the Cofidis debacle and illness, he looked at my previous examples and concluded that was how to get on in pro cycling. Looking at him before these events, for example when he won the world champs he was a totally different person.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Who gives a toss whether he was using drugs or not, the chances are he was, practically the WHOLE peloton was on something or other back then. The guy virtually came off his death bed to win 7 Tours, get off his back!


I do! I want to watch something real not something fake.

The parents of the young cyclists who died as a result of epo abuse probably give a very big toss about it too, and how about the clean athletes who never got their chance to win because they were beaten easily by drugged-up cheats who never even got out of breath?

Drugs and blood-doping reduce athletic competition to a blood-sport won by the most sneaky and those most willing to risk death.

If you allow drug cheats to get away with it then you might as well legalise bare-fist boxing and bring back gladiators.

As for the "everyone is doing it" argument... It didn't really stand up in court after the recent riots, did it!

Armstrong swore after recovering from cancer that he would never risk his health by using drugs, so if he did then he is a fool as well as a cheat! Many of the drugs abused by athletes actually increase the risk of cancer.


----------



## Scoosh (14 Jun 2012)

Herzog said:


> An interesting graphic towards bottom of the page:
> 
> http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/06/what-a-mess/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: cyclingtipsblog/TJog (Cycling Tips)


... and an interesting suggestion for a 'Way Out' from one of the Comments following that article:


> *JBS*​In some ways if he goes down for doping in 2009/10 but not the 99 to 05; that could be a good result for all. Lance gets done as a cheat (drug crusaders happy), but keeps his wins (Lance and maybe ASO happy). The wins would then be seen in the same light as Pantani, and Contador's (and Riis' and Ullrich's, et-bloody-depressing-cetera), ie won by a convicted/admitted drug cheat, but there is no evidence against them those years.​That's the only silver lining I can take out of this whole mess​


----------



## just jim (14 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> Oh I wouldn't call it bile, it's more like gloating
> 
> That he was/wasn't the most successful doping/non doping (whichever you believe) cyclist of an era of doping misses the point I think. Armstrong built himself an empire around his 'non doping'. He's made such a big thing of being the "most tested athlete". This sticks in the throat of anyone, like me, that believes he was as doped to the gills as the next guy on the podium. As for the 'those that don't believe in miracles' speech, well. If guilty, he's set himself up for the fall.
> 
> For what it's worth, and in reference to the undoubted doping of that era, should Armstrong be stripped of the wins (and I have no strong opinion on that either way) then I don't think you'll see the jerseys given to anyone else. I think the results will merely have an asterisk by them to indicate 'no winner'. *I think it will just become known as the doping era*.


 
Aren't we still in it?


----------



## iainw (14 Jun 2012)

The timing of it all is fascinating, why now?!


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I do! I want to watch something real not something fake.
> 
> The parents of the young cyclists who died as a result of epo abuse probably give a very big toss about it too, and how about the clean athletes who never got their chance to win because they were beaten easily by drugged-up cheats who never even got out of breath?
> 
> ...


 
Ask yourself this,who or what is fuelling the drugs cheats ? Could it be the demand of the Inhuman feats it takes to win a grand tour or a world championship, or simply the demand for 24/7 eurosport coverage of pro cycle racing required by some of the posters on here for instance.

Unlike some i do not believe drug abuse is rife in other sports, there are examples but no where like cycling. its the demands of pro racing that are the cause of the monster.


----------



## MacB (14 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Ask yourself this,who or what is fuelling the drugs cheats ? Could it be the demand of the Inhuman feats it takes to win a grand tour or a world championship, or simply the demand for 24/7 eurosport coverage of pro cycle racing required by some of the posters on here for instance.
> 
> Unlike some i do not believe drug abuse is rife in other sports, there are examples but no where like cycling. its the demands of pro racing that are the cause of the monster.


 
I've wondered this as I used to take the attitude of just let them use drugs, but I'm not so sure now. Obviously a huge factor will be money which encapsulates the whole corporate media shebang. But I also know full well that people will cheat to win when absolutely nothing is at stake. In fact I've met plenty of people who, rather than expressing chagrin at their own cheating, would be more likely to express amazement that you were not prepared to do the same. I've even been told once, when I had to deal with a fairly serious incidence of internal fraud, that I'd have done the same if I wasn't such a coward.

It's the mindset that says cheating isn't wrong it's getting caught that's the problem. At elite levels in sport, business and politics this is rife. I think the drugs aspect is often considered more heinous just because of the potential for damaging physical side effects.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Let's not forget too, that this is not just about Armstrong but about several others who are still working in pro-cycling, most notably Radioshack-Nissan manager, Johan Buyneel, and Pedro Alcaya, who is a doctor to several top cyclists including most notably... the brothers Schleck.
> 
> And, it might be simple coincidence but you have to wonder at the timing of big George Hincapie's retirement announcement and the non-selection of Chris Horner for the Tour this year.


 
There are an awful lot of co-incidences in your conspiracy theory.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jun 2012)

The idiot news reader on Classic FM last night referred to David Mellor being able to ride for cyclingTeam GB rather than David Millar ..................... 

Easy mistake to make I guess.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I do! I want to watch something real not something fake.
> 
> The parents of the young cyclists who died as a result of epo abuse probably give a very big toss about it too, and how about the clean athletes who never got their chance to win because they were beaten easily by drugged-up cheats who never even got out of breath?
> 
> ...


 
Yours is a noble post. None of us wants to appear to support something tainted. I admire your stance, but I disagree.

I adore the Tour and despite the grime. 

If you want to watch something real rather than fake, and if you equate fakery with endemic drug use, then which decade, year or even single stage of the Tour represents a period when it was worthy of your attention? 

I am almost 50 and do not believe there has been a clean Tour in my lifetime. To my mind, that does not make it fake.

There have been many epic Tours and countless personal performances of quite extraordinary courage and skill.

But by your analysis, almost all were fake. I admire your stance, but I disagree.


----------



## Dave Davenport (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Who gives a toss whether he was using drugs or not, the chances are he was, practically the WHOLE peloton was on something or other back then. The guy virtually came off his death bed to win 7 Tours, get off his back!


 
I believe that he was a great athlete and won what he did on a pretty level playing field and if he'd retired after winning his 7th tour and basically did a 'no comment' as far as drugs go I wouldn't mind. But he didn't so I'm not sad to see his reputation being tarnished.

On a postitive note; I think last years tour was probably the cleanest in years and really hope that I can say the same about this years in a few weeks time.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jun 2012)

Either way expect a big big fight. LA is not a quitter. It may well turn ugly for a lot of people in high places and will run for a long time over shadowing TdFs past, present and future. It could well bring down the world of Pro Cyling.


----------



## fozy tornip (14 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> The parents of the young cyclists who died as a result of epo abuse probably give a very big toss about it too, and how about the clean athletes who never got their chance to win because they were beaten easily by drugged-up cheats who never even got out of breath?


"Losers", in Lance-speak.
The Armstrong story can't satisfy as tragedy, can't achieve the necessary narrative arc, until we move on from hubris. Hopefully USADA can serve up the nemesis.


----------



## Zofo (14 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I do! I want to watch something real not something fake.


 
Such as in the Golden Days when Copi, Mallejac, Rivière, Anquetil, Simpson, Mercx, Yates, Kelly & Pantani where racing ? All dopers . 
The Tour and professional cycling has never been "real" !


----------



## Hont (14 Jun 2012)

There is a strong argument for the "everybody was doing it, so you can't blame him" angle when Armstrong was winning 7 tours. However just about everyone he shared a podium with on those tours has faced some sort of sanction, so why shouldn't he?

What sticks in the craw was that he watched the 2008 tour - Winner Sastre, 2nd Evans - and rather than think "cycling's a lot cleaner now, I should come back and race clean" he thought "I can kick their asses [by cheating]". That is simply deplorable.


----------



## smutchin (14 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Did speeds drop when the sport was cleaned up? Witness D Millar saying how the speed of the peloton is now insanely fast in comparison to the (drug-fuelled) days when he started out.


 
Speeds on the big mountains are significantly slower than they were in the days of Pantani, Virenque et al.



totallyfixed said:


> when I see an attack in the mountains from an unlikely candidate I immediately think he is doped.


 
Well, it's slightly easier for unlikely candidates to attack on the mountains now. Also, you don't see so many of them getting to the top and looking like they've just woken up after a long sleep filled with sweet dreams - they generally look more like broken husks, which is as it should be after putting in that level of effort.

I did notice that Rui Costa looked surprisingly fresh after his stage win in the Tour de Suisse the other day, but on the other hand felt reassured by the fact that Frank Schleck cracked before the summit after the monster effort he put in.

d.


----------



## Crackle (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Such as in the Golden Days when Copi, Mallejac, Rivière, Anquetil, Simpson, Mercx, Yates, Kelly & Pantani where racing ? All dopers .
> The Tour and professional cycling has never been "real" !


 
No one condones that but not all drugs are equal, besides it's irrelevant, we'd like to move on, eliminate such cheating, not condone it. I'd like to see riders win because they have the talent and commitment not because they injected themselves from carthorse to racehorse.

As for Armstrong, he created the biggest lie and is still living it, so big, even if he's found guilty, his supporters will shout injustice and conspiracy. I'd like to see him found out but it's the past. These days I'm much more interested in seeing current cheats and suspected cheats caught and those with a dodgy past asked awkward questions, Bruyneel, Riis, Roche etc... and the UCI face up to it's responsibilities.

None of that stops me enjoying the sport or recognising an epic ride, although bolts from the blue are treated with a healthy scepticism, if it looks unbelievable, it probably was.


----------



## Hont (14 Jun 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> On a postitive note; I think last years tour was probably the cleanest in years and really hope that I can say the same about this years in a few weeks time.


 
Likewise. I think it will be certainly cleaner without Contador and Andy Schleck at the depart. If only his brother, Leipheimer, Horner, and Kloeden were absent too.

Hmm now what does that list of some of the people I don't believe in have in common?


----------



## smutchin (14 Jun 2012)

Hont said:


> Likewise. I think it will be certainly cleaner without Contador and Andy Schleck at the depart. If only his brother, Leipheimer, Horner, and Kloeden were absent too.


 
Horner won't be there. He's been out injured, so chose not to ride the Tour de Suisse in order to receive ongoing treatment. His team stipulated that participation in the Suisse or the Dauphiné was a TdF selection requirement, hence he hasn't been picked.

Whether or not the medical treatment that caused him to miss the Suisse was entirely necessary or was in fact quite convenient remains to be seen...

See previous comment re: Frank Schleck.

d.


----------



## albion (14 Jun 2012)

This really has to be one of the biggest witch-hunts in the history of mankind.

I have always been sceptical about Armstrong but fact s are facts and all we have is witch hunting.
So they are letting off the dopers on condition they 'get Armstrong', who is is the only consistent one in performances so technically doping for him is far less likely.

It also defies logic that he would risk his legacy in continuing to dope post tour-de-france.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2012)

Crackle said:


> No one condones that but not all drugs are equal, besides it's irrelevant, we'd like to move on, eliminate such cheating, not condone it. I'd like to see riders win because they have the talent and commitment not because they injected themselves from carthorse to racehorse.
> 
> As for Armstrong, he created the biggest lie and is still living it, so big, even if he's found guilty, his supporters will shout injustice and conspiracy. I'd like to see him found out but it's the past. These days I'm much more interested in seeing current cheats and suspected cheats caught and those with a dodgy past asked awkward questions, Bruyneel, Riis, Roche etc... and the UCI face up to it's responsibilities.
> 
> None of that stops me enjoying the sport or recognising an epic ride, although bolts from the blue are treated with a healthy scepticism, if it looks unbelievable, it probably was.


 
Irrelevant !...not all drugs are equal !.....

...because they got away with it, is the reason it still exsists.


----------



## uphillstruggler (14 Jun 2012)

i have no opinion on LA, he probably cheated then stamped on anyone who questioned him by using the wealth created by said cheating. or he was just a very good, fit rider with a large heart.........

it would seem that the downtrodden are feeling confident enough (or being coerced) to speak up now and someone somewhere is rich enough to foot the expenses of those very expensive lawyers.

bit of a playground bully getting some back by the sounds of it.


----------



## ColinJ (14 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Yours is a noble post. None of us wants to appear to support something tainted. I admire your stance, but I disagree.
> 
> I adore the Tour and despite the grime.
> 
> ...


I still watch pro cycling and I still enjoy it, but I don't _love_ it with a passion the way that I used to. My naive belief that it was a clean and healthy sport was shattered by the Festina bust and everything that followed. It's like forgiving a partner for an affair - you might still be very fond of them, but things can never be quite the same again ...

When was the last clean Tour ...? Well, I believe that Greg Lemond's win in 1989 was clean. Watching that Tour was what encouraged me to buy a bike and start riding again. I'm sure that cheating was going on then too, but it was shortly after that that EPO abuse became widespread and you can see what happened to the results of great riders like Lemond, Hampsten and Fignon in the early 90s. They could no longer compete and retired rather than joining in the abuse.

There are a few top riders that I really believe are clean. Cadel Evans is one - I'd be horrified if he turned out to be a cheat too. He simply looks like he is suffering a lot when he is going flat out. I get really pissed off seeing riders fly up mountain after mountain and then cross the finishing line looking like they have just done an easy recovery ride, not even having the decency to pretend to be out of breath!

I'm sure that many riders only cheated because they were convinced that everybody else was! Warped logic made it okay because it was a 'level playing field' again. The thing is - it killed the careers and aspirations of many fine young cyclists who were not willing to 'prepare properly'.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> This really has to be one of the biggest witch-hunts in the history of mankind.


 
This has to be one of the biggest overstatements in the history of the universe.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (14 Jun 2012)

Being new to cycling and after some inspiration, I read his book. It's a great book and if he doped after his battle with cancer then he's an idiot. Then again, maybe, he's not such a nice guy and there are people ready to stab him in the back? Regardless, winning 7 alongside other 'dopers' is still something.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Such as in the Golden Days when Copi, Mallejac, Rivière, Anquetil, Simpson, Mercx, Yates, Kelly & Pantani where racing ? All dopers .
> The Tour and professional cycling has never been "real" !


 
It simply is not the case that all through Armstrong's career, everyone was doping. And you are not comparing like with like anyway. The era of 'pot belge', brandy and speed which characterised the riders of the post-war period into the 70s was different from the scene from the late 80s when laboratory pharmaceuticals started to be abused in a big way (i.e. the EPO era). In fact, until the late 60s, speed was not even banned so you can hardly claim that people were 'unreal' or 'cheating' for taking these kinds of things.

In the 90s, there many riders who were basically forced to make the choice of leaving the sport or doping by social pressure (they would be able to keep up if they didn't) or by manipualtive team managers. In fact the 90s fostered a particular culture of cynicism in the sport, where the most devious were the ones who would win. This was already coming to an end by the 2000s as regulation and surveillance started to catch up with drug technologies and doping practices. So did the Law - as the growing sophistication of doping practices meant increasing overlap with organised crime and underground labs. This actually made it far more risky for all involved once the police, prosecutors and courts started getting involved

Managers and teams started to take a stand and more ethical team policies emerged with Highroad and Garmin and others. The biological passport was a turning point, as was the growth of the 'whereabouts' rules. Training has got far more scientific and controlled instead. Younger riders coming in now are much less likely to be under pressure to dope but will face much more rigorous training and monitoring. Another very important factor is that there has been some greater control over the difficulty of the Grand Tours - they are still amongst the hardest competitions in sport, but they aren't insanely, stupidly difficult any more. You don't have to dope just to finish. And you have really seen an end to the 'unbelievable' attacks in the mountains.

It's not all great. The UCI still has to work better with WADA and race organizers. New tests have to be embraced. The biological passport has to be tightened up. But it is better.

As for Armstrong, you can see where he fits in this story. He was a product of the EPO era, and perhaps the most cynical of them all. I don't want to see him stripped of his titles, I think that would be pretty meaningless in the context, but I do want to see him and his co-conspiritors held to some account not just for the doping but for the intimidation, lies and cynicism they fostered, and for cycling to acknowledge its recent past as part of the process of producing a cleaner sport.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (14 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> the intimidation, lies and cynicism they fostered, and for cycling to acknowledge its recent past as part of the process of producing a cleaner sport.



Do any spectators really know what happens within the sport? Innocent until guilty and no smoke without fire to balance the sayings but 7 tours and not caught? If he was and they failed to catch him in 7 tours then the sport is as guilty as he would be.


----------



## Hont (14 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> See previous comment re: Frank Schleck.


 
Agree that it looked better after such an attack, but he still took 30 seconds in no time and he may have just bonked. Dopers still bonk. And Frank still paid Dr Fuentes 7000 odd Euros.

And he's on a team managed by Bruyneel - which was the point of my post really.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Hont said:


> Agree that it looked better after such an attack, but he still took 30 seconds in no time and he may have just bonked. Dopers still bonk. And Frank still paid Dr Fuentes 7000 odd Euros.
> 
> And he's on a team managed by Bruyneel - which was the point of my post really.


 
His doctor (and Andy's) is also one of the 5 people charged by USADA in this case.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> Do any spectators really know what happens within the sport? Innocent until guilty and no smoke without fire to balance the sayings but 7 tours and not caught? If he was and they failed to catch him in 7 tours then the sport is as guilty as he would be.


 
Well, one of the main current allegations is that there was a possibly paid cover-up of a positive test, which could have serious repercussions for the UCI.


----------



## yello (14 Jun 2012)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> the sport is as guilty as he would be.



I'd ask you to think about that statement again. 

Re not being caught, dopers are ahead of the testing. They know how and, more importantly, when to dope. Google Marion Jones if you want an example of a doper that never tested positive.


----------



## Boris Bajic (14 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> I still watch pro cycling and I still enjoy it, but I don't _love_ it with a passion the way that I used to. My naive belief that it was a clean and healthy sport was shattered by the Festina bust and everything that followed. It's like forgiving a partner for an affair - you might still be very fond of them, but things can never be quite the same again ...
> 
> When was the last clean Tour ...? Well, I believe that Greg Lemond's win in 1989 was clean. Watching that Tour was what encouraged me to buy a bike and start riding again. I'm sure that cheating was going on then too, but it was shortly after that that EPO abuse became widespread and you can see what happened to the results of great riders like Lemond, Hampsten and Fignon in the early 90s. They could no longer compete and retired rather than joining in the abuse.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not a mile from you in my viewpoint, but nor am i in the same place. I like your reply but disagree with you on the detail.

I think Greg lemond was a quite remarkable athlete and Cadel Evans still is one. Both men are heroic in what they've endured and battled.

I also believe that both have been involved in untoward medication to improve their performance.

Good friends of mine who are closer to the sport than I am swear that Cadel is clean. Their argument (it turns out) is based on the Hemisphere of his birth and the sad-puppy visage he carries around. People have a soft spot for Cadel Evans in a way that they don't for Lance Armstrong. 

I see great romance, heroic struggle and all the beauty and pain of toil in the TdF *despite* the ignoble use of stimulants.

I quite understand that for you and others the latter cheapens or diminishes the former. For me it was, is and always will be there.


----------



## rich p (14 Jun 2012)

FWIW, Bjarne Riis never had a positive test either and Mr60% has since admitted his guilt. If only Armstrong would do the same and save us all the crap that will be spouted.
Riis's answer to questions regarding his doping were invariably answered with this...

... _Speculations about Bjarne Riis's doping use was further fuelled by his ambiguous denials. When asked whether he used doping he repeatedly stated that "I have never tested positive". A statement that falls somewhat short of an outright denial_.

Now who does that remind you of?


----------



## albion (14 Jun 2012)

Marion Jones kept missing drug tests.

If you do not get tested you do not get caught!


----------



## rich p (14 Jun 2012)

For those of you with an interest in this case and to see its relevance to current pro racing and some of those still involved - yes, you Bruyneel, I suggest you have a look through this...

.... http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

It's incendiary stuff.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Marion Jones kept missing drug tests.
> 
> If you do not get tested you do not get caught!


 
That's what can't happen anymore with the 'whereabouts' rules.


----------



## festival (14 Jun 2012)

Listen to Armstrong, then listen to Kimmage, who do you believe?
Armstrong is a nasty piece of work, a control freak who bullies people into silence.
If you rely on the world of cycle racing for your lively hood you keep your mouth shut and look the other way.
For someone who threatens to sue anyone who goes against him, its funny how the people who have questioned the Armstrong miracle from a position of strength have not been sued. e.g. Kimmage, Walsh, Lemond, Landis.
I don't care about the record books being screwed trying to find a worthy TdF winner. I don't care ( as much ) about all the other cheats getting away with it. And I don't care ( so much ) about the old days when riders took stuff to survive and get a contract.
But I do care about the lies and deception peddled by "Saint Lance "and his mafia who have hijacked our sport and shoot on it.
How many of you on here ride in his teams kit or wear his yellow band and feel that's OK ?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> People have a soft spot for Cadel Evans in a way that they don't for Lance Armstrong.


 
Really? Cadel Evans was one of the least popular members of the peloton, even amongst many Aussies, untils quite recently. His petulant behaviour towards reporters, his 'funny' voice, his cultured off-duty interests, and even rumours about his sexuality, meant that he's never endeared himself to the average (and by average, I mean thick as a brick) male sports fan.


----------



## festival (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Such as in the Golden Days when Copi, Mallejac, Rivière, Anquetil, Simpson, Mercx, Yates, Kelly & Pantani where racing ? All dopers .
> The Tour and professional cycling has never been "real" !


 
Its because its a very "real and brutal" sport that riders in the past needed "help" to survive and earn a living when medical support of the correct kind did not exist.
Its easy to glamorize the past, but If Armstrong is guilty, it will be like comparing defrauding millions from a hospital to fiddling your expenses.


----------



## woohoo (14 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Heartless? We're talking about Lance Armstrong here - the guy who has been involved in a systematic deception and been utterly ruthless towards anyone who tried to speak out about it. He's the very definition of heartless.


 
Anyone doubting this should re-read the details of the Simeoni incident during the 2004 TdF


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> FWIW, Bjarne Riis never had a positive test either and Mr60% has since admitted his guilt. If only Armstrong would do the same and save us all the crap that will be spouted.
> Riis's answer to questions regarding his doping were invariably answered with this...
> 
> ... _Speculations about Bjarne Riis's doping use was further fuelled by his ambiguous denials. When asked whether he used doping he repeatedly stated that "I have never tested positive". A statement that falls somewhat short of an outright denial_.
> ...


 
Noodley.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jun 2012)




----------



## Buddfox (14 Jun 2012)

festival said:


> Listen to Armstrong, then listen to Kimmage, who do you believe?
> Armstrong is a nasty piece of work, a control freak who bullies people into silence.
> If you rely on the world of cycle racing for your lively hood you keep your mouth shut and look the other way.
> For someone who threatens to sue anyone who goes against him, its funny how the people who have questioned the Armstrong miracle from a position of strength have not been sued. e.g. Kimmage, Walsh, Lemond, Landis.
> ...


 
Journalists aren't usually held up to be arbiters of moral standards, so not sure we should be painting Kimmage as a saint by comparison - everyone has their own agendas to push. I'm not sure I have the evidence to believe either of them.

I think Armstrong has probably doped at some point - but if you were him and genuinely innocent, wouldn't it grate on you after a while with all the accusation? I can see how that might have turned him into the malevolent character everyone paints him out to be.


----------



## mangaman (14 Jun 2012)

woohoo said:


> Anyone doubting this should re-read the details of the Simeoni incident during the 2004 TdF


 
Or Bassons - arguably even worse


----------



## festival (14 Jun 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Journalists aren't usually held up to be arbiters of moral standards, so not sure we should be painting Kimmage as a saint by comparison - everyone has their own agendas to push. I'm not sure I have the evidence to believe either of them.
> 
> I think Armstrong has probably doped at some point - but if you were him and genuinely innocent, wouldn't it grate on you after a while with all the accusation? I can see how that might have turned him into the malevolent character everyone paints him out to be.[/quote
> 
> ...


----------



## smutchin (14 Jun 2012)

Hont said:


> Agree that it looked better after such an attack, but he still took 30 seconds in no time and he may have just bonked. Dopers still bonk. And Frank still paid Dr Fuentes 7000 odd Euros.


 
If a doping rider bonks on a climb like that, he isn't doing it right. 



> And he's on a team managed by Bruyneel - which was the point of my post really.


 
Indeed, and it's a fair point. No smoking gun though.

d.


----------



## Hont (14 Jun 2012)

Buddfox said:


> but *if* you were him and genuinely innocent, wouldn't it grate on you after a while with all the accusation?


 
And *if* he were Jesus reincarnate I'm sure there would be an explanation for all this. Unfortunately neither "if" applies.


----------



## smutchin (14 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Really? Cadel Evans was one of the least popular members of the peloton, even amongst many Aussies, untils quite recently. His petulant behaviour towards reporters, his 'funny' voice, his cultured off-duty interests, and even rumours about his sexuality, meant that he's never endeared himself to the average (and by average, I mean thick as a brick) male sports fan.


 
Yebbut cycling generally doesn't appeal to the average male sports fan - I work in an office full of BLOKES who are hardly aware of the existence of any sport that doesn't involve two teams of 11 men chasing a pig's bladder round a field.*

The thing that really turned me into a fan of Evans was stage 7 of the Giro in 2010. I admit that I felt lukewarm towards him before then.

d.

*exaggerated pastiche for comic effect - I actually quite like football.


----------



## dellzeqq (14 Jun 2012)

festival said:


> Its because its a very "real and brutal" sport that riders in the past needed "help" to survive and earn a living when medical support of the correct kind did not exist.
> Its easy to glamorize the past, but If Armstrong is guilty, it will be like comparing defrauding millions from a hospital to fiddling your expenses.


and this, of course,. is both the problem and the joy. Yours is a perfectly respectable point of view. I'm in the 'really don't give a stuff about doping' brigade. Most cycling fans, and all of the sponsors want cycling to be 'clean'. Most of the peloton would grab any advantage they can get away with. In that (un)happy mix lies the (non)future of professional cycling. The finances will always be marginal - who are Berry Floors when they're at home, anyway. 

Personally I don't mind cycling being on the margins - I'm much more concerned about people riding to work or to school. But, for the avid fan, somebody like RichP who hopes for a better brighter day it must be very frustrating to see Lance take the mickey for so long and get away with it.


----------



## roadrash (14 Jun 2012)

doped or not doped ...cheat or not cheat ,these are questions that you or I will never know the answer to.
we can all form our own oppinions of any rider,but thats all they are ,
i think its the same with all sports today .. they arent sports any more ... they are more like a buisiness ...too much money involved , too much pressure to get the sponsors name in the public eye ,unfortunately i cant see it ever changing


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Jun 2012)

Apologies if this has been posted as I haven't read the whole thread, but it makes a very interesting read -

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden


----------



## mangaman (14 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> For those of you with an interest in this case and to see its relevance to current pro racing and some of those still involved - yes, you Bruyneel, I suggest you have a look through this...
> 
> .... http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
> 
> It's incendiary stuff.


 
It certainly is - possesion, using, intent to supply, a whole culture over a number of years and teams.

I'm guessing this is not in the run of the mill 2 year ban territory?


----------



## Noodley (14 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Noodley.


 
Welsh nobber.


----------



## yello (14 Jun 2012)

mangaman said:


> It certainly is - possesion, using, intent to supply, a whole culture over a number of years and teams.


 
Pretty much the scope of the federal investigation. So I think we can assume there was a great deal of information exchange.



> I'm guessing this is not in the run of the mill 2 year ban territory?


 
USADAs powers in terms of punishment are limited. They cannot press criminal charges for instance. They can ban Armstrong from further competition and strip awards but that's pretty much it.

The real damage Armstrong will suffer is in the public eye and obviously financial as sponsors disassociate themselves and other bodies sue for various contractually related reasons.


----------



## rich p (14 Jun 2012)

mangaman said:


> It certainly is - possesion, using, intent to supply, a whole culture over a number of years and teams.
> 
> I'm guessing this is not in the run of the mill 2 year ban territory?


 There's some speculation (of course there is!!!), that the criminal case would have to be re-opened if the doping thing were proved. I don't know if that's true though, being only a barrack-room lawyer.


----------



## Alun (14 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> There's some speculation (of course there is!!!), that the criminal case would have to be re-opened if the doping thing were proved. I don't know if that's true though, being only a barrack-room lawyer.


Like you I don't know, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence here that wasn't available to the federal enquiry, so the grounds to reopen it must surely be limited.


----------



## Alun (14 Jun 2012)

festival said:


> I don't care ( as much ) about all the other cheats getting away with it.
> And I don't care ( so much ) about the old days when riders took stuff to survive and get a contract.
> Its because its a very "real and brutal" sport that riders in the past needed "help" to survive and earn a living when medical support of the correct kind did not exist..


Looks like you almost condone drugs cheats, as long as they're not called Armstrong.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Like you I don't know, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence here that wasn't available to the federal enquiry, so the grounds to reopen it must surely be limited.


 
Well, the way it was closed did prompt some eyebrow-raising, not least from USADA, which is why they made damn sure to request all the evidence straight away.


----------



## Alun (14 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Well, the way it was closed did prompt some eyebrow-raising, not least from USADA, which is why they made damn sure to request all the evidence straight away.


True, but perhaps different levels of evidence are required for a federal investigation as opposed to a USADA one.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (14 Jun 2012)

Herzog said:


> If (and that's a massive if) the 7 tours were taken away, it poses a bit of a problem. Some years (e.g., 2003, Ulrich 2nd, Vino 3rd) how far down the food chain would we have to go to find a credible winner? The 1999 victory probably could not got to Zülle (2nd), but to Escartin (3rd) for example.
> 
> The sport would be in trouble. However, that's assuming anything actually comes of it...


 

Thats a great point to make, if he is found guilty then where the hell does the buck stop ....


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (14 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Who gives a toss whether he was using drugs or not, the chances are he was, practically the WHOLE peloton was on something or other back then. The guy virtually came off his death bed to win 7 Tours, get off his back!


 

Nicely said mate, if he was they all were and they still didn't beat him !


----------



## Herzog (14 Jun 2012)

Still can't believe this thread is 107 posts old and nobody cas cracked the Pharmstrong gag yet...? I thought there were a few wags around these forums (I mean, someone can up with Hellfrauds...).


----------



## raindog (14 Jun 2012)

We have fabulous racing to follow right through the season, but there's only ever a handful of us ever posting about them.
LA has been busted, and suddenly the racing section is full of bike racing experts I've never seen before in here.


----------



## fozy tornip (14 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> We have fabulous racing to follow right through the season, but there's only ever a handful of us ever posting about them.
> LA has been busted, and suddenly the racing section is full of bike racing experts I've never seen before in here.


Nothing suspicious about that. I attribute my sudden improvements as a contributor to this sub-forum to a preternaturally high V02 max, a regular 3 - 6 hours a day training in P+L, and a dramatic weight loss brought on by a bad winter cold.


----------



## festival (14 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Looks like you almost condone drugs cheats, as long as they're not called Armstrong.


 
Read it again carefully, This is about one particular case and IMO if its true its about the biggest con in world sport ever. Therefore its important not to allow other issues to muddy the water, that's what I was trying to say.
Would I feel the same way about a pro rider with a bit of talent who chose to cheat to get through a career that gave him enough at the end to buy a cafe or a bike shop instead of working the fields or in a factory, no.
A cheats a cheat but Armstrong has taken the piss for years with his cheating on an industrial scale, it goes way beyond the world of cycle racing.
Have you ever read Kimmage's book?


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (14 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> I'd ask you to think about that statement again.



Firstly, see flying monkeys post and secondly, I didn't mean that committing the act isn't worse than not being able to catch them, obviously breaking the rules is worse than not catching those that break the rules but Damn...seven wins??


----------



## stoatsngroats (14 Jun 2012)

When one is arrested, that itsn't the end of the matter, only the beginning......

I enjoyed all of the LA years - it captured my interest, it was great viewing, and it introduced some talented cyclists into my life, and the fantastic spectacle of the TdF.

Senna/Prost/Piquet/Mansell, none was perfect - they were only men, but they were _RACING _men, and it was damn good to watch - same for Lance, and his contemporaries......


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Jun 2012)

Hitler reacts to LA's ban -


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia6dV_G5UxE&feature=share


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jun 2012)

Reaction from Bassons and Simeoni, who were both just about forced out of the sport by Armstrong, in the latter's case not for saying anything about Armstrong, but about the infamous Dr Ferrari. Armstrong's action towards Simeoni on Stage 18 of the TdF in 2005 was one of the most disgusting things I have seen in the sport, and was what made me lose any respect I had for him.


----------



## albion (14 Jun 2012)

Let's face it, a fair few do not give a damn whether he is innocent or guilty.
Hatred will always be in abundance for the mega successful.

Historic evidence shows he did not cheat though today someone like Lasse Viren would be a certainty.
Funnily enough, in his day it was all legal, just that fewer knew how to safely do it.


----------



## SoloCyclist (14 Jun 2012)

Lance has denied ever taking drugs but he has admitted to pedalling.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Let's face it, a fair few do not give a damn whether he is innocent or guilty.
> Hatred will always be in abundance for the mega successful.
> 
> Historic evidence shows he did not cheat though today someone like Lasse Viren would be a certainty.
> Funnily enough, in his day it was all legal, just that fewer knew how to safely do it.


It's not about doping. We know they all did it, but look at FM's post just before your own to see why Lance is disliked by so many.


----------



## Crankarm (14 Jun 2012)

festival said:


> Read it again carefully, This is about one particular case and IMO if its true its about the biggest con in world sport ever. Therefore its important not to allow other issues to muddy the water, that's what I was trying to say.
> Would I feel the same way about a pro rider with a bit of talent who chose to cheat to get through a career that gave him enough at the end to buy a cafe or a bike shop instead of working the fields or in a factory, no.
> A cheats a cheat but Armstrong has taken the piss for years with his cheating on an industrial scale, it goes way beyond the world of cycle racing.
> Have you ever read Kimmage's book?


 
He's still a better bike rider and athlete than you will ever be. Nothing like a few vicious slurs and slander to put your case.

I don't know LA from Adam but I am grown up enough to realise that there is an on going investigation and until a finding of guilt or wrong doing is delivered then the guy is innocent. I bet you would hope that if you were ever under investigation that the same would be afforded to you, innocent until found guilty. It really is a fundamental pillar of the developed world's legal systems unless you think he should be treated differently to any one else who is accused of something as he is 7 times TdF winner Lance Armstrong?

What do you think of Wiggo's recent run of success? Are you sufficiently bitter and cynical to point the finger at him?


----------



## rich p (14 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Let's face it, a fair few do not give a damn whether he is innocent or guilty.
> Hatred will always be in abundance for the mega successful.
> 
> Historic evidence shows he did not cheat though today someone like Lasse Viren would be a certainty.
> Funnily enough, in his day it was all legal, just that fewer knew how to safely do it.


 Holy Christ - have you read the body of evidence over the years or are you just an unthinking fanboy?

Those of us who believe Armstrong to be guilty don't hate the mega-successful unless they achieved their success by cheating. That's the crux. Bjarne Riis was successful enough to win the TdF by using drugs and proved that a journeyman could become a winner. That's the point, not envy, jealousy or hatred. Cheating is all.

Historic evidence shows that he did cheat but it was explained away, bought off or ignored. Do the research please.


----------



## NotthatJasonKenny (14 Jun 2012)

I'm no expert (we always say that right before we give our opinions on something best left to the experts!) on the case or the laws surrounding the case but from what I remember when the case was closed, most of the evidence against him is via witness testimonials and a good lawyer (the like of which a rich man like Armstrong can afford) would be able to rip those testimonials to bits as the vast majority have publicly said bad things about Lance.

If this new tribunal can make a decision without Lance using his lawyers then that's hardly a fair hearing and if it's an open court, here come the lawyers.


----------



## Alun (14 Jun 2012)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> I'm no expert (we always say that right before we give our opinions on something best left to the experts!) on the case or the laws surrounding the case but from what I remember when the case was closed, most of the evidence against him is via witness testimonials and a good lawyer (the like of which a rich man like Armstrong can afford) would be able to rip those testimonials to bits as the vast majority have publicly said bad things about Lance.
> 
> If this new tribunal can make a decision without Lance using his lawyers then that's hardly a fair hearing and if it's an open court, here come the lawyers.


I agree with much of what you say, but the USADA have lawyers as well, so in that respect it's a level playing field.


----------



## festival (14 Jun 2012)

Crankarm said:


> He's still a better bike rider and athlete than you will ever be. Nothing like a few vicious slurs and slander to put your case.
> 
> I don't know LA from Adam but I am grown up enough to realise that there is an on going investigation and until a finding of guilt or wrong doing is delivered then the guy is innocent. I bet you would hope that if you were ever under investigation that the same would be afforded to you, innocent until found guilty. It really is a fundamental pillar of the developed world's legal systems unless you think he should be treated differently to any one else who is accused of something as he is 7 times TdF winner Lance Armstrong?
> 
> What do you think of Wiggo's recent run of success? Are you sufficiently bitter and cynical to point the finger at him?


 
And my bikes better than yours.
Grown up? Don't confuse fairness and rights with the actions of people who believe if you can deny,deny,deny and use power to manipulate the system to their own ends.
And by the way I have known Bradley since he was a kid down at Herne Hill, so I will ignore the pathetic comment.


----------



## fozy tornip (14 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> ... so in that respect it's a level playing field.


As bike races should be.


----------



## mickle (15 Jun 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> As bike races should be.


Especially in grass tracking.


----------



## slowmotion (15 Jun 2012)

I don't know what people want their cycling heroes to be, or to look like, or how they wish them to behave.

Lance Armstrong hits none of my "hero" buttons.

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br8uI[/media]

Greg Lemond? My kind of a guy.


----------



## raindog (15 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Reaction from Bassons and Simeoni,


Simeoni....
 “can’t understand why suddenly now they’re investigating him, when for years he was allowed to do whatever he wanted.”


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2012)

NotthatJasonKenny said:


> from what I remember when the case was closed, most of the evidence against him is via witness testimonials


 
I think it fair to say that nobody outside of the federal investigators and the US Dept of Justice knew what the evidence consisted of.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2012)

Christophe Bassons is an incredible character. Or at least comes across as one. David Millar mentions him in his autobiography so if you have it, reread the bits about Bassons!

What most strikes me about Bassons is how placid and reasoned he seems to be. He has a clarity of vision and the strength of character to do what he believes in.


----------



## Herzog (15 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> What most strikes me about Bassons is how placid and reasoned he seems to be. He has a clarity of vision and the strength of character to do what he believes in.


 
Unlike most pro cyclists he's reasonably educated and it shows. I think I'd be a little more upset if my career had been 'stolen' in the same way...


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

It went like this in the media columns.
'he beat me , must be on doping'
and
'well I'm doping so he must do it better'

It must certainly wrankle that those using doping could still not beat Armstrong apart from an occasional inconsistent stage win. One's ego certainly told tell them that 'Armstrong cheats better than me'.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

Crankarm said:


> It really is a fundamental pillar of the developed world's legal systems unless you think he should be treated differently to any one else who is accused of something as he is 7 times TdF winner Lance Armstrong?


 
As FM rightly pointed out at the start of this thread, this isn't a legal case and isn't subject to the same standards. As I understand it, the Feds closed the legal case precisely because they couldn't make the charges stick (or didn't want to try) but that doesn't stop UCI/ASO/WADA/USADA acting according to their own rules and procedures.

d.


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> As FM rightly pointed out at the start of this thread, this isn't a legal case and isn't subject to the same standards. As I understand it, the Feds closed the legal case precisely because they couldn't make the charges stick (or didn't want to try) but that doesn't stop UCI/ASO/WADA/USADA acting according to their own rules and procedures.
> 
> d.


 It'll all end up in CAS, so best not to act in a maverick way like the BOA did over Millar.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> It'll all end up in CAS, so best not to act in a maverick way like the BOA did over Millar.


 
True, but I don't think it's entirely fair to cast the BOA as "mavericks" - whether you agree with it or not, their decision was one of principle. The problem there was jurisdiction - BOA aren't entitled to overrule the IOC's selection criteria. This case is slightly different because it's not one governing body exercising its jurisdiction over another (seems like WADA, USADA, UCI and ASO are _all_ out to get Lance, one way or another).

Also, as noted above, Lance may well have expensive lawyers at his disposal but so does the USADA.

d.


----------



## MacB (15 Jun 2012)

Jeez, the guy's guilty, there's a mountain of cirumstantial evidence, tons of witness testimony and science that indicates he either doped or he was able to break the laws of physics.

That doesn't mean his achievements weren't staggering or that he wasn't the best rider of his time. The guy is the very epitomy of 'whatever it takes' dedication. At the time what it took was everything you'd expect plus dope, so that's what he did. Nothing that happens is really going to tarnish his reputation on the bike as the assumption will always be he was only beating other doped cyclists, so still a level playing field. Yeah I'm sure there were a few 'clean' cyclists that underachieved because of that, but they fall into the realms of ifs, buts and maybes, you can't go back and change things.

It's the damage he's done, and continues to do, off the bike that rankles. Whether you're a general cycling fan, a Lance fan or just have a casual interest, if he'd just fessed up and drawn a line I doubt his long term rep would have suffered too badly. Once things died down people would still remember his epic feats on a bike.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jun 2012)

Lance is innocent you damn haters


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> True, but I don't think it's entirely fair to cast the BOA as "mavericks" - whether you agree with it or not, their decision was one of principle. The problem there was jurisdiction - BOA aren't entitled to overrule the IOC's selection criteria. This case is slightly different because it's not one governing body exercising its jurisdiction over another (seems like WADA, USADA, UCI and ASO are _all_ out to get Lance, one way or another).
> 
> Also, as noted above, Lance may well have expensive lawyers at his disposal but so does the USADA.
> 
> d.


How about "idiots" then! They pay big money to fight a case at CAS which I could have told them they would lose. They then have to get money off the taxpayer to jazz up the Olympic opening ceremony. The BOA had signed up to the 2 year rule, they then clumsily tried to claim a lifetime ban was a "selection" issue, as if they were going to fool anyone at CAS.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

Maybe. Fwiw, I don't entirely agree it was quite so clear cut that they would lose the case, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.

From what Brailsford has been saying, they may still find a way to avoid selecting Millar anyway, so it was probably all a massive waste of time. 

d.


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> From what Brailsford has been saying, they may still find a way to avoid selecting Millar anyway, so it was probably all a massive waste of time.
> d.


I would hope Dave Brailsford will select riders based on merit and how they fit into a team, rather than avoiding selecting someone due to some other agenda.


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Holy Christ ......are you just an unthinking fanboy?.........
> Those of us who believe Armstrong to be guilty ....Historic evidence....


I have no opinion either way. It is even possible that he was sophisticated enough to cheat and ensure he had balanced performance characteristics.

Historic evidence on the face of it seems to be mainly innuendo and conspiracy theory that forms into a belief system.
Sadly it looks so long drawn and inconsequential that doubts will always exist both ways.

Stuff like 'he had/can afford expensive lawyers' is just one example.


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

gb155 said:


> Lance is innocent you damn haters


 He's guilty, it's already been decided!
However it'll only be a 2 year ban as it's a first offence


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> He's guilty, it's already been decided!



Nah, a friend of a friend on the committee was jobless so it has now become 12 months gainful employment to then decide there is only doubtful evidence and/or not enough of it.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I would hope Dave Brailsford will select riders based on merit and how they fit into a team, rather than avoiding selecting someone due to some other agenda.


 
Brailsford has only said that there's enough strength in depth to the team that Millar's inclusion in the long list is by no means a guarantee that he'll make the final squad, but I'm sure it would suit him nicely if he had a valid pretext for dropping him.

On the other hand, Cav wants Millar in the team, so that must carry some weight.

d.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Lance may well have expensive lawyers at his disposal


 
If Armstrong's to be taken at his word (!) then he's not going to contest so any lawyer involvement would be basic procedural, legalities and such like.

If he chooses not to contest then he's basically accepting the evidence as presented and the USADA panel will judge on that basis. That is, little that'd equate to a trial procedure. We'll know soon enough whether he decides to contest as he has to file his response before the end of this month (20th or 25th??).

Of course, come the hour, whether he sticks with his previously stated decision of not contesting (and several commentators have remarked on this point already) is another matter. It'd certainly be atypical. It's possible that he's decided to accept any outcome in the name of getting on with his life. Whilst not what we might expect of him, given his character, I think it would be none-the-less understandable.

For me, a factor is any ban he might face. Given the nature of the evidence, it's hard to see anything other than a life time ban (that is, if USADA decide to go ahead and that, I think, we can assume is likely). That scuppers any notion Armstrong may have had about continuing triathlon (unless he can find some organisation/competition NOT signed up to WADA). Whether Armstrong factored in not being able to compete in triathlon as a likely outcome, I obviously don't know.


----------



## Andrew_P (15 Jun 2012)

Has this all come about because he turned pro for the Ironman and Triathlons?


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

Interesting times! It would be out of character for Armstrong to just accept the charges, but most of the evidence contained in the letter USADA sent to him seems to cover all of the accused so maybe one guilty all guilty?
Except the blood samples from 2009/10 which are said to be "consistent" with using EPO or Blood transfusions or both. I mean which is it? Make your mind up USADA! Not the "smoking gun" some people have been hoping for.
"I saw him take growth hormones prior to 1997" I think that's a bit long in the tooth now!


----------



## rich p (15 Jun 2012)

TBH, if I had to choose one or the other, I might even pick Bruyneel as the one I'd like to see nailed. He's still a big noise in the sport and it would help clean it up if he got a life ban.


----------



## gb155 (15 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> He's guilty, it's already been decided!
> However it'll only be a 2 year ban as it's a first offence



Really?????


----------



## gb155 (15 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> TBH, if I had to choose one or the other, I might even pick Bruyneel as the one I'd like to see nailed. He's still a big noise in the sport and it would help clean it up if he got a life ban.


I've got to agree here, he's the one consistent across the board in relation to previously banned riders of teams he's managed etc


----------



## mangaman (15 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> It went like this in the media columns.
> 'he beat me , must be on doping'
> and
> 'well I'm doping so he must do it better'
> ...


 
What people forget is cycling is a team sport.

Armstrong and Bruyneel took that to a new level.

All his domestiques used to fly up hills with Armstrong just wheel sucking, before Heras, Hamilton etc etc pulled out 100m from the top.

I don't believe the other teams had the money and organisation to get away with it - witness most of Armstrong's team testing positive as soon as they moved to another team.

It's simply wrong to say \armstrong beat Ullrich so he was better - Ullrich was often left isolated, Armstrong never was for 3 weeks


----------



## Crackle (15 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> TBH, if I had to choose one or the other, I might even pick Bruyneel as the one I'd like to see nailed. He's still a big noise in the sport and it would help clean it up if he got a life ban.


 
Oooh, I'd really like to see Bruyneel out the sport.


----------



## ColinJ (15 Jun 2012)

For those of you who just shrug your shoulders and say _"They are all at it, it's a level playing field, just shut up and enjoy the racing!" - _read this article, and pay particular attention to the _'Goldman Dilemma'_, research which shows that over 50% of elite athletes would take a drug which would guarantee them a gold medal but kill them within 5 years, if they thought that it would not be detected!


----------



## MacB (15 Jun 2012)

mangaman said:


> It's simply wrong to say \armstrong beat Ullrich so he was better - Ullrich was often left isolated, Armstrong never was for 3 weeks


 
that's taking a slightly different tack but I agree and I remember being quite dismayed when I saw stats for energy use etc. I hadn't realised just how much difference team protection made and how much fresher a protected rider was when they made their big moves.

But apart from time trials I struggle to think of situations where it really is one against one. Actually the above realisation took a lot of the shine off the big races for me.


----------



## Andrew_P (15 Jun 2012)

ColinJ said:


> For those of you who just shrug your shoulders and say _"They are all at it, it's a level playing field, just shut up and enjoy the racing!" - _read this article, and pay particular attention to the _'Goldman Dilemma'_, research which shows that over 50% of elite athletes would take a drug which would guarantee them a gold medal but kill them within 5 years, if they thought that it would not be detected!


It is a mindset and goldfish bowl effect. You grow to your surroundings and peer group.


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

It looks like Armstrong is preparing to fight the allegations, rather than just accept them, I presume that would include Bruyneel et al as well. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...o-be-named-in-its-reaction-against-USADA.aspx


----------



## ColinJ (15 Jun 2012)

MacB said:


> that's taking a slightly different tack but I agree and I remember being quite dismayed when I saw stats for energy use etc. I hadn't realised just how much difference team protection made and how much fresher a protected rider was when they made their big moves.


Road racing is a strange sport in that respect. It doesn't matter how good (s)he is, a team leader can't cover every attack by 20 different rivals by her/himself, but having a strong team isn't enough, it still takes a great rider to actually win the race. Cavendish must be the ultimate example of that - he needs to be delivered to the last few kms in good enough shape to stand a chance of winning and be given a good leadout too, though he sometimes manages to win by sprinting off riders from other teams.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Has this all come about because he turned pro for the Ironman and Triathlons?


 
I would think that had a lot to do with it, yes. If he had just kept his head down and gone into something else, then probably USADA would have let it go. But I don't think they can accept him going back into pro-sport still claiming he has never doped. And quite right. They don't want triathlon, the fastest growing participation sport in the world, tainted as well.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jun 2012)

Well, Bruyneel's world is all falling apart. There are rumours that Radioshack-Nissan are broke, that they will have their TdF invite rescinded and that the Schlecks are on the point of leaving. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

mangaman said:


> Armstrong and Bruyneel took that to a new level.


 
Don't forget there was Gewiss before them, who famously took all the podium places in Fleche-Wallonne one year, and set a ridiculously fast team time trial record that wasn't broken until Discovery came along. And were all _swimming_ in EPO.

Surprisingly enough, there's a link between Gewiss and Lance in the form of a certain doctor with a penchant for orange juice.

d.


----------



## raindog (15 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> ..... and that the Schlecks are on the point of leaving.


I've got a theory that the Schlecks knew this bombshell was about to break and have tried to distance themselves from JB and that's the root of the recent 'performance problems'. The Schlecks and Cancellara must be looking back at their time with Riis as 'the good old days'


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

It would be odd, though, if the Schlecks distanced themselves from Bruyneel's taint by going back to Mr 60 Percent, as is rumoured.

But then they've never struck me as the brightest sparks...

d.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

The arch obfuscator "demands transparency":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...om-USADA-before-answering-doping-charges.html


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

mangaman said:


> What people forget is cycling is a team sport...
> All his domestiques used to fly up hills with Armstrong just wheel sucking, before Heras, Hamilton etc etc pulled out 100m from the top.....It's simply wrong to say \armstrong beat Ullrich so he was better - Ullrich was often left isolated, Armstrong never was for 3 weeks


I was putting what is often visible in the 'he must certainly cheat' argument'.

Armstrong was always meticulous in getting the top or correct selection of riders into his team to pull him along.
It is sad that cycling gets it all when cheating is far easier in many other disciplines.


----------



## Alun (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> The arch obfuscator "demands transparency":
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...om-USADA-before-answering-doping-charges.html


 I wouldn't laugh, if USADA don't play this by the book, it could provide Armstrong with valuable ammunition for his defence.


----------



## Silver Fox (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> The arch obfuscator "demands transparency":
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...om-USADA-before-answering-doping-charges.html


 
Although it's not looking too good for Armstrong at the moment I'm retaining an open mind over all this.

That aside, considering the consequences if these allegations are proven surely he and his team are entitled to full, detailed disclosure. Regardless of what you think of the man, if the identity of his accusers is being withheld it hardly seems fair.


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> It looks like Armstrong is preparing to fight the allegations, rather than just accept them, I presume that would include Bruyneel et al as well. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...o-be-named-in-its-reaction-against-USADA.aspx


 
An interesting article. Moves the subject on nicely!



> "I'm exploring all my options," the Texan told the Associated Press yesterday. "They're not limited only to arbitration with USADA."


 
"arbitration". Is that an option? A confession for a reduced punishment? He doesn't want to be banned perhaps? Yes, I took drugs but can't we just, you know, _move on_? Tri is where it's at now.



> They are trying to compel USADA to reveal the names of the witnesses who gave details of what they said were doping actions carried out by Armstrong, Bruyneel and others. "*We cannot protect Mr. Armstrong's rights without knowing who is saying what* and what events that allegedly occurred over the course of a decade and a half," Luskin wrote in the letter


 (My bold)

I'm not sure why they need to know names. I can hazard a guess why they WANT to know names but that's another thing! Besides, I would have thought Armstrong et al have a pretty darn good idea already so I'm figuring the desire is more for the names to be in the public domain.


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

"USADA had said anonymity was used due to previous coercion and intimidation"

Got to love the tactics. Is not anonymity the far more dodgy form of coercion?


----------



## yello (15 Jun 2012)

I think USADA are referring to Armstrong's previous with Tyler Hamilton there albion.


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I wouldn't laugh, if USADA don't play this by the book, it could provide Armstrong with valuable ammunition for his defence.


 


Silver Fox said:


> Regardless of what you think of the man, if the identity of his accusers is being withheld it hardly seems fair.


 
Entirely in agreement on both points. I'm just highlighting the delicious irony in him of all people demanding transparency from others.

If USADA do have strong evidence against him, I would hope they aren't stupid enough to let him get off on a procedural technicality.

d.


----------



## Crackle (15 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> I've got a theory that the Schlecks knew this bombshell was about to break and have tried to distance themselves from JB and that's the root of the recent 'performance problems'. The Schlecks and Cancellara must be looking back at their time with Riis as 'the good old days'


It's more likely that with the team bankrupt, they haven't been paid and can't afford their normal 'vitamins'.


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> I think USADA are referring to Armstrong's previous with Tyler Hamilton there albion.



When Lance Armstrong supposedly confronted him in a restaurant ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-drugs-accuser-Tyler-Hamilton-restaurant.html

Nothing quite adds up there if you read it all.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Got to love the tactics. Is not anonymity the far more dodgy form of coercion?


 
Ethically, no. It is standard practice to anonymize those giving evidence if there is a reasonable belief that the person being accused will take action against them. Armstrong has extensive form on this (as noted above re: Hamilton, Bassons, Simeoni, and several others)

You do seem to be ignoring a lot of the obvious here.


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

This 'extensive form' is part of the main evidence here.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> This 'extensive form' is part of the main evidence here.


 
So, what's your point?


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

Sarcasm.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2012)

This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...

There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Sarcasm.


Another Spanish Doctor ? Not heard of him.


----------



## Crankarm (15 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> As FM rightly pointed out at the start of this thread, this isn't a legal case and isn't subject to the same standards. As I understand it, the Feds closed the legal case precisely because they couldn't make the charges stick (or didn't want to try) but that doesn't stop UCI/ASO/WADA/USADA acting according to their own rules and procedures.
> 
> d.


 
Which are what exactly? Guilty until proven innocent which you seem to believe. I don't really care if LA is guilty or innocent. It will however be a damn shame if he is but life will go on. What I care more about is due process, that some is innocent of all allegations until such time as the allegations are proven in a court, a tribunal, etc. To do away with this the authorities might as well just arbitarily arrest and detain people on evidence that has not been properly examined or put to proof or which it totally fabricated, deny them any trial or opportunity to make a defence. I think they used to do this in places like the former East Germany, the former Soviet Republic, Chilie and Argentina or Iran, then execute them. Chilling.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2012)

Crankarm said:


> To do away with this the authorities might as well just arbitarily arrest and detain people on evidence that has not been properly examined or put to proof or which it totally fabricated, deny them any trial or opportunity to make a defence. I think they used to do this in places like the former East Germany, the former Soviet Republic, Chilie and Argentina or Iran, then execute them. Chilling.


 
Crankers, are you not missing the point? This is not arrest and detain situation. Or indeed death. We all have our opinions. It's nothing more than that at present. Whether he is found guilty or not I shall still view him as the biggest drug cheat in all cycling history.


----------



## Boris Bajic (15 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...
> 
> There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
> I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.


 
I may be one such. I only follow the TdF with any real interest - and have done for many years. 

LA was an integral part of TdF lore for pretty much a decade and his shadow remains across some elements of it.

I am no LA fan, apologist or hater. He was a remarkable rider among many others.

He is also (in some ways) a personification of the doping (EPO) story and of the popular notion that one man can be bigger than the event.

While he was riding I was usually in France during the Tour - and in those days I found myself feeling quite defensive of him as I flicked through that day's_ l'Equipe_. Among non-cycling types I find myself being far more negative about him than I really feel. To this day, he is the rider most people in the UK can name. I suspect that even after Brad and Cav have won a jersey each, he still will be. 

I think there are many who want this drug-boy saga neatly wrapped like a Hollywood film or an HH Munro short story. It isn't neatly wrapped and every time it re-emerges we feel the need to scratch the itch.

I dare say the whole 'survivor' thing pulls in a few adoring fans (and it is no mean thing to survive a killer - my family seem to be crap at it). 

There are probably also those (I've never felt the need myself) who see LA as somehow messianic; a true hero who allowed them to find the athlete within. There is no athlete within me, so that's a short search.

Ultimately, he is a story that trannscends pro-cycling, just as Imola 1994 moved beyond Formula 1 and 1966 was about more than just a game of footie.

A rambling jumble of an answer, but does that offer something like what you wanted?


----------



## stoatsngroats (15 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...
> 
> There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
> I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.


 
I enjoyed a good number of years watching TdF, and have a liking for Lance. I read his book a few years ago - "It's all about the bike" I think, and watched in awe of his, and US postal (was there another - I can't remember!) team strategy. 

I haven;t watched since Contador won his first Tdf.

I have not followed much pro cycling since, although I have watched the Olympic cycling, and some of the world Champs.
I have not previously had the urge to comment in the pro cycling section of CC, until this latest LA storm.

It amazes me that so many people, including myself, feel the need to comment on what LA is doing - he's a big celeb, and very controversial.
Is it possible, that _anyone_ here at CC has
(1) strong feelings against the man but believes he is innocent;
or 
(2) Admiration for him but believes he is a cheat.


Or do we fall into a 'belief' camp based on our feelings for him?




Nonetheless, it's an interesting subject !


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> Whether he is found guilty or not I shall still view him as the biggest drug cheat in all cycling history.





Noodley said:


> or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, ..... The more people in pro race the better imo.


I might also genuinely ask whether 'pro cycling' is some sort of closed shop .

edit - Interestingly I first copied those two quotes sections without realising it was from the one source. Their juxtaposition was mentally stimulating.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2012)

Thanks guys, your views are really helpful and appreciated.


----------



## Noodley (15 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> I might also genuinely ask whether 'pro cycling' is some sort of closed shop .


I had also tried to add "is pro cycling not welcoming" or similar in an edit to my question but got bumped in my edit. 

It might be. What would make it more inclusive?


----------



## smutchin (15 Jun 2012)

Crankarm said:


> I think they used to do this in places like the former East Germany, the former Soviet Republic, Chilie and Argentina or Iran, then execute them. Chilling.



You're comparing USADA to the Stasi? Really?

d.


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

Asking that same question without simultaneously judging only those who 'debate on the contrary' is a thought.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (15 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> I had also tried to add "is pro cycling not welcoming" or similar in an edit to my question but got bumped in my edit.
> 
> It might be. What would make it more inclusive?


 
I don't think it's unwelcoming or not inclusive, I just don't think many pro-cycling fans frequent Cycle Chat. And by fans, I mean people who follow the sport all year and all races, not just the Grand Tours or only the TdF or one particular rider or team. You only have to look at who is interested in talking about up and coming riders or women's pro-cycling, or those (for me) interesting races outside the top levels like Langkawi or Colombia and so on, and it's really not more than five to ten people here. I'll admit it's it's pretty trainspottery, so it's hardly surprising...


----------



## stoatsngroats (15 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> Thanks guys, your views are really helpful and appreciated.


To answer the other Q you asked, I don't know enough to really comment often in the pro race forum, so perhaps I shouldn't have made my original post here - but, like I said, LA, and doping are so well known, it can' t be any surprise that many people have an opinion, and many others feel aggrieved that people who know nothing about the sport, and perhaps don't know the detail or history, make their thoughts known, and don't value that input.
Noodley, I seem to remember from a few years ago, that you were one of the many friendly, and involving CC'ers to me when I started posting here - thanks for that!


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

Being a fan does often mean 'of very passionate views'.

Armstrong though is quite fascinating. One side of the argument could be that cancer treatment taught him everything he knew about cheating.
The other that the end product of all that body changing cancer treatment was a 100% focussed 'bionic like' man.


----------



## Crackle (15 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Being a fan does often mean 'of very passionate views'.
> 
> Armstrong though is quite fascinating. One side of the argument could be that cancer treatment taught him everything he knew about cheating.
> The other that the end product of all that body changing cancer treatment was a 100% focussed 'bionic like' man.


 
Or it could actually be neither of those things. The second one is a myth propagated by Armstrong.. I've heard it said that the Cancer was masked or accelerated by the drugs he was taking. I can't say I've read anything that substantiates that.

I used to be a fan of Armstrong, it took a little while and some reading to get behind the smokescreen.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jun 2012)

Being labeled a " fanboy" as soon as someone makes a POV doesn't help.

Funny, the usually well balanced sub forum gets all immotive as soon as big texs' name is mentioned.


----------



## albion (15 Jun 2012)

You have to realise that most forums here are near invisible unless there is a hot topic.

It is also a semi-nightmare trying to choose a forum to start a topic.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> You have to realise that most forums here are near invisible unless there is a hot topic.
> 
> It is also a semi-nightmare trying to choose a forum to start a topic.


 
?


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2012)

Anyone who thinks LA is being wronged can always go and sign this White House petition
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/stop-investigation-usada-lance-armstrong/FX0pVTLL
(I wonder who instigated it?)


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

stoatsngroats said:


> LA, and doping are so well known, it can' t be any surprise that many people have an opinion, and many others feel aggrieved that people who know nothing about the sport, and perhaps don't know the detail or history, make their thoughts known, and don't value that input.


 
For me, that's to the nub of it. I don't see it necessary to have a great knowledge of pro-cycling to have a well-formed opinion on Armstrong and/or doping. Of course, in acquiring the latter you will pick up some of the former.

So when I read Noodley's question, I immediately liked it and was keen to read any answers offered. I wish I'd thought of the question in honesty. Not because I wanted to ask it but because in thinking of it, it would have reminded me that all of us come to this subject via a different path.

I do find it difficult to see how the 'fanboy' can keep their faith. The word 'faith' is sometimes proceeded by the word 'blind', and that's the only way I can explain it. As Crackle alludes, I can't help but feel that if they'd read up on the subject then they'd see 'the truth'.

BUT I'm being unfair there. As I said, we all come at it from different angles. I can understand why people see Armstrong in a certain way, why they damn near idolise him. Because the story IS a remarkable one. So perhaps it matters not a toss (in that context) whether he doped or not. Perhaps it is actually more important to keep the dream alive whatever the costs. That question is not for me alone to answer on the sole basis of what I think.

Because for me, it matters. Matters BIG TIME. I can't see Armstrong any other way than a huge deception, a cheat, a self-serving manipulator. Not just a false god but the devil incarnate... but it is only what I think. I've got no greater or lesser right to judge than anyone else. Perhaps there is a context more important than the one I use.... as much as it galls me to say! 

Got to admit, to get back on track and at the risk of offending some, I do find this subject way more interesting than pro-racing itself!


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

Here's a neat summary of the case as it stands...

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...art-series-events-strip-tour-de-france-titles


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

Ouch. This is going to sting. From CNN



> What Lance Armstrong is allegedly doing -- what all athletes in his shoes seem to do — is beyond damaging. Across the world, millions of people believe in Armstrong's narrative. They love his wins, yes, but what drives them and inspires them is the way he faced cancer and battled back from a near-death experience. Young children in pediatric care have been relayed his story, have been told that one day, if you stay strong and fight and believe, you, too, can be just like Lance Armstrong.


 
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opinion/pearlman-lance-armstrong/index.html?hpt=hp_t3


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Here's a neat summary of the case as it stands...
> 
> http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...art-series-events-strip-tour-de-france-titles


 
Yes, that is very good.

Edit: re SCA, the insurance company mentioned in the last paragraph of the above link, it looks like they're monitoring this case, ready to sue for return of monies...



> “There’s not much we can do right now, but we will watch this with interest. We will review this situation and if it looks actionable, we’ll certainly take action.”


----------



## Red Light (16 Jun 2012)

LA is a fascinating case, not for LA but for people's reactions to him. I don't know whether he doped or not. To date there has been no evidence through testing and no evidence from "witnesses" has had sufficient credibility to prove anything so all the investigations to date have petered out. That's not to say this latest situation won't change that but we'll have to wait and see. 

But, and here's the interesting bit, many many people including many on here are absolutely convinced he is guilty and are rooting for anything that might prove that and bring him down. It's not innocent until proven guilty but guilty even if proven innocent. The question is why is that? Is it because he was so successful? Or is it because he is American? Or his personality?

I suspect if he did dope and get away with it then you can pretty much bet almost all the TdeF results in history should be annulled because if that is what it took to be at the top, all the top riders would have been doping.

Meanwhile I will wait and see. We have had much salivating and frothing at the mouth at the expectation that he was going to get his come uppance many times before but no one has been able to come up with anything that would stick and he has beaten some quite comprehensively in Court. But we shall see if the lynch mob get their day. But whatever the outcome his guilt will continue to be unquestionable for many.


----------



## Erratic (16 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> This is a genuine question so please do not take it as anything other than that...
> 
> There are a few posters in this thread who I have never or seldom seen discussing pro cycling, yet who seem to have opinions on Armstrong. Is this because LA was such a big name that he attracted your attention, or have you been inspired by him and feel he is being slighted, or were you put off pro cycling by his behaviour, or do you not feel as if the pro race discussions on CC are welcoming, or "an other"?
> I am genuinely interested, so please to not take offence. The more people in pro race the better imo.


 

I enjoy these threads, lots of passion, knowledge and most of it carried out in a good natured way. What brings me to this thread is not so much the 'drugs in cycling' question, but more the 'is Lance Armstrong being treated fairly' question. Many of the more knowledgeable on hear quote stories about things LA has done to other riders on tour, to his accusers, as if they themeselves were there to witness it. To me, a lot of it appears to be hearsay and gossip. If he is guilty of something, let the law take its course, if he is not, or there is insufficient evidence to prove his guilt, then move on because constantly raking over old ground cannot be doing cycling any good.

One other thing, I also find it odd that the UCI rather than WADA carries out drugs tests (Is this accurate or have I misread somewhere?)


----------



## stoatsngroats (16 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> ... but it is only what I think. I've got no greater or lesser right to judge than anyone else. Perhaps there is a context more important than the one I use.... as much as it galls me to say!


 
Yello, it's perhaps a shame that many others are less open minded to others opinions than you! 



Red Light said:


> But whatever the outcome his guilt will continue to be unquestionable for many.


 
Red Light, I don't doubt that - Micheal Jackson is another example of this, in my opinion... but that's a whole other can of worms! )



Without doubt I think anyone could agree with this...... up to a particular point, all LA did was bring the world of pro cycling into sharp focus around the world. Long before there were allegations of him doping, he DID, undoubtedly, and perhaps in the eyes of many, (uneducated in the world of pro cycling) 'make' the TdF watchable, exciting, and even take up cycling again. I count myself in that group - I bought a racer, rode many miles, did the L2B, got fitter, began reading here at CC, enjoyed a new past-time in my life (which continues still) watched the TdF's, World class races on TV, enjoyed the Wiggins/Millar/Cav. All due to him, or maybe the TV hype of him.
I wonder how many others he has inspired, not just cycling, but in their lives through the cancer recovery.

It's interesting in any case - whatever anyone's opinion......


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

An aspect of the story that's interesting me is the way some columnists are spinning it. A kind of fighting fire with fire; using the livestrong-esque metaphors of hope and dreams but in reverse; a betrayal. The CNN comment I linked to illustrates it.

Personally, I think it is this fall of Armstrong in the eyes of his believers that will be his greatest punishment.

Here's one from Fox...

http://msn.foxsports.com/olympics/c...is-he-a-hero-or-worst-sports-cheat-yet-061412

I like these quotes from the above....




> The whole world was jumping on board to love him. Yet his defense is that everyone is against him, to make money on a book, to get immunity, to make a name for themselves, or whatever.’


 



> Vendetta? How many people have to say he did it before it’s OK for others to listen?


 
I think the latter one, for me, addresses the 'credible' witness criticism that is often raised by supporters of Armstrong. The tide is not only turning, the wave that's coming at him is getting bigger.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

I can understand posters on here not having the full facts and so not having a fully formed opinion one way or another. What I confess to finding irritating is the accusations that those of us who have followed the story closely over more than a decade, read all the research, the stories behind the stories and come to the conclusion we have - that we are somehow US haterz, LA haterz, biased, prejudiced and back stabbers.
The truth is that we, the long-term cycling nerds are the ones who have been most let down by LA. I used to take a day or two's leave to watch LA thump Ulrich in the Queen stages. What a mug I was to invest so much admiration in the guy.


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> What I confess to finding irritating is the accusations that those of us who have followed the story closely over more than a decade, read all the research, the stories behind the stories and come to the conclusion we have - that we are somehow US haterz, LA haterz, biased, prejudiced and back stabbers.


 
The 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra gets me. As if you're not allowed to form your own opinion based upon all that you've read.



> What a mug I was to invest so much admiration in the guy.


 
As I said before, I reckon that is the most painful of punishments Armstrong ought have - the feeling of betrayal his followers will feel. Not just (not even) the cycling fans but the cancer sufferers. I say "ought' because if we're to believe that Armstrong is a sociopath (as some claim) then he won't actually give a shoot what people think or how he's destroyed their faith.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

Rich, I understand that but the long term nerds as you refer to yourself and others have been cheated from day one by most, if not all winners over the years. Possibly even right up to the current day.

So why the strong feeling about LA?

Is is because he so strongly denies it? Is is because he has never tested positive? Is it because of the 7 TdF wins? Is it because of his continued high profile post retirement?

The oft offered arguement is that the other were also on the the enhancement chemicals, after all that is all they were enhancements I am sure they were but I also accept it doesn't make it right. 

I couldn't start taking these and suddenly be able to win 7 TdF's I would need an amazing intial base fitness, skill and mental strength to acheive that.

I really do not understand in whose best interests this case is for, if they ban him and strip the titles how low can they go on to find a winner who derserves it more than LA? I think it will further tarnish the sport. 

I am not a racing Nerd, I came back to cycling 3 years ago, and then really became interested in the LA story which I am happy to admit has been manipulated but the return to cycling a natural progression was to start to be interested in the sport. So to answer Noodley I had a close interest in the LA Story and loose interest in today's racing only due to my return to cycling.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

USADA typically must abide by an eight-year statute of limitations, which precludes the agency of attempting to invalidate all but Armstrong’s last two Tour de France titles (2004 and 2005). The allegations, however, center around more recent samples, although the labs employed could not precisely determine if Armstrong had actually used endurance-boosting EPO or blood transfusions

So what can they determine ?


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

The statute of limitations has been addressed by USADA and evidence outside of the 8 year period can be used... I'll research the exact wording and post it here since I don't want to get it wrong. There's also precedent for it.

However, in short, by coming out of retirement within the SOL period Armstrong enabled the use of the evidence outside of the period. If Armstrong had stayed retired then this might not have happened. I think FM already mentioned this upstream.

Edit: as reported by various sources from the USADA letter



> "Evidence of banned acts outside of the eight-year limit can be used to corroborate evidence within the limit, and the statute of limitations can be waived when the alleged violations were fraudulently concealed."


 
ld, as to what they can determine, do you mean the labs or USADA?

USADA refer to irregular patterns that conform to manipulation. In itself, not proof of anything but indicative. Dodgy area it's true (and shades of Contador and the presence of clenb) so this is where the other evidence comes into play. Where the eye witness testimony, for example, is needed as corroborative.

I suspect the labs can't determine anything that would be called proof. No smoking gun as it were. Otherwise a positive test would have been triggered in the past. I guess this is were expert analysis is relied upon in interpreting the results that were found.

The evidence has to be looked at in it's entirety to build the case and that's what the USADA assembled panel will do.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> So why the strong feeling about LA?
> 
> Is is because he so strongly denies it? .



This, mainly. I feel much the same about Floyd Landis and Dwain Chambers. And Contador with his contaminated beef bullshit.

I used to feel the same about Vinokourov but he has redeemed himself to some extent by (apparently) keeping his nose clean since his return - he's still an insanely aggressive rider, which is great to watch, but he looks human now. 

The denial thing is the big difference between riders like Landis and riders like Millar. I don't condone what Millar did but he's now anti-doping with the zeal of a born again Christian and is working hard to clean up the sport. Also Millar is one of those people who was more a victim of the doping culture than an instigator like Bruyneel, which mitigates his offence a little.

d.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

So the USADA case hinges on the more recent samples ?

Which I was really trying to get at.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> So the USADA case hinges on the more recent samples ?
> 
> Which I was really trying to get at.


 How recent do you think, as recent as since he turned pro again?


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

2009-10


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

Other than the 3 obvious one's who are the more than "10" cited in the letter?


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

One of the reasons it still matters is that LA is still competing, Bruyneels is still a DS and Dr Ferrari is still offering 'training advice'.
I was pleased to see Ullrich et al get his come-uppance but he's history so it matters less to me than catching current cheats.
This is another myth that we are more anti LA. Not so. We argued equally strongly against Ricco, Landis, Tyler Chimera, Stinkowitz, Basso, Scarponi, and the long-haired Italian who flew to the mountains jersey a couple of years back.
Armstrong is simply a bigger story due to his beyond-cycling fame and 7 wins. Further to fall.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Other than the 3 obvious one's who are the more than "10" cited in the letter?


 They're the ones whose identity is being protected in case LA threatens them.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

By the way, I'm not really a Lance hater. At the time, I enjoyed watching all those Tours he won, and nothing can take away from that. I was always more of an Ullrich fan, tbh, but he turned out to have feet of clay too. None of which was particularly surprising, of course. i even enjoyed watching the likes of Pantani and Virenque, despite everything.

Things like his treatment of Simeoni were what spoilt the enjoyment to be had from watching him race. I've never seen anything like that in pro cycling before or since. Shoddy.

And his behaviour outside racing hasn't been very much to his credit either. 

But you know, I admit I did get a frisson of excitement from things like watching him blitz the Alpe d'Huez time trial, however he did it. 

d.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> .
> 
> But you know, I admit I did get a frisson of excitement from things like watching him blitz the Alpe d'Huez time trial, however he did it.
> 
> d.


 
When he took 3 minutes out of another rider who was doped!!!
Or was that the event that made Basso turn to Dr Fuentes?


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

Is it not the sport itself not to blame? The TdF is good example of asking the almost if not completely impossible of speed and massive endurance to win it. I also think the same applies to Ironman and Triathlons at pro level. Come to think of it most top level sports demand some sort of super human endeavour.

If you start off in complete naivety and seek to make a living at these sports, in fact almost any other sport and then you suddenly realise you need some help to win and earn a good living from your hard training, then what? Either you do the same or return and go back to doing a normal job. Alot of pro atheltes have sacrificed their education or are not gifted in that sphere. I can really see how someone like Bruyneels or any other team manager/coach/agent could manipulate someone in to competeing on a "Level Playing field" for their own and the one taking the drugs benefit.

And where is the line drawn Creatine, Whey Powder, Amino Acid pills or highly financed teams the latter is a huge benefit in Cycling as you all know having the best climbers sprinters and the strongest Domestiques to deliver someone to the yellow jersey, these are all unnatural advantages does anyone consider them to be more natural than EPO or some such?


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2012)

Erratic said:


> Many of the more knowledgeable on hear quote stories about things LA has done to other riders on tour, to his accusers, as if they themeselves were there to witness it. To me, a lot of it appears to be hearsay and gossip.


Perhaps that's because you don't really follow bike racing. The Simeoni incident, which was the tipping point for so many bike racing fans for coming round to the realisation that LA was an arrogant bully, was seen live by millions of people.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> It's not innocent until proven guilty but guilty even if proven innocent.



No, you're mistaken. It's about a balance of probabilities. The evidence against Contador probably wouldn't have been strong enough to get a guilty verdict in a court of law, but in the context of the rules of the sport, the evidence is deemed strong enough to say that he very probably cheated.

He's been stripped of a sporting title, not convicted of a crime. 

The evidence against Lance seems to be of a similar nature. But yes, let's see how the investigation pans out before jumping to any conclusions - I'm all for anyone getting a fair hearing, even Lance. 

d.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Is it not the sport itself not to blame? The TdF is good example of asking the almost if not completely impossible of speed and massive endurance to win it. I also think the same applies to Ironman and Triathlons at pro level. Come to think of it most top level sports demand some sort of super human endeavour.
> 
> If you start off in complete naivety and seek to make a living at these sports, in fact almost any other sport and then you suddenly realise you need some help to win and earn a good living from your hard training, then what? Either you do the same or return and go back to doing a normal job. Alot of pro atheltes have sacrificed their education or are not gifted in that sphere. I can really see how someone like Bruyneels or any other team manager/coach/agent could manipulate someone in to competeing on a "Level Playing field" for their own and the one taking the drugs benefit.
> 
> And where is the line drawn Creatine, Whey Powder, Amino Acid pills or highly financed teams the latter is a huge benefit in Cycling as you all know having the best climbers sprinters and the strongest Domestiques to deliver someone to the yellow jersey, these are all unnatural advantages does anyone consider them to be more natural than EPO or some such?


 
Leaving aside LA for the moment, this is my take on it also. It's not really sport is it ? Rather who's got the most money wins. You only have to look at F1, football and SKY.


----------



## Crackle (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Is it not the sport itself not to blame? The TdF is good example of asking the almost if not completely impossible of speed and massive endurance to win it. I also think the same applies to Ironman and Triathlons at pro level. Come to think of it most top level sports demand some sort of super human endeavour.
> 
> If you start off in complete naivety and seek to make a living at these sports, in fact almost any other sport and then you suddenly realise you need some help to win and earn a good living from your hard training, then what? Either you do the same or return and go back to doing a normal job. Alot of pro atheltes have sacrificed their education or are not gifted in that sphere. I can really see how someone like Bruyneels or any other team manager/coach/agent could manipulate someone in to competeing on a "Level Playing field" for their own and the one taking the drugs benefit.
> 
> And where is the line drawn Creatine, Whey Powder, Amino Acid pills or highly financed teams the latter is a huge benefit in Cycling as you all know having the best climbers sprinters and the strongest Domestiques to deliver someone to the yellow jersey, these are all unnatural advantages does anyone consider them to be more natural than EPO or some such?


 
If it's not on the WADA list it's OK.

EPO was a game changer. Performance boosts of up to 25% and not everyone responds to it in the same way, so it's not even equal amongst dopers. You can't say, they were all doping and he was the best, it's just the luck of the draw, physiologically speaking.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> Perhaps that's because you don't really follow bike racing. The Simeoni incident, which was the tipping point for so many bike racing fans for coming round to the realisation that LA was an arrogant bully, was seen live by millions of people.



Quite. I remember watching the Simeoni incident unfolding on live TV and wondering what the hell was going on. Whatever it was, it wasn't bike racing. 

I've been trying to find a YouTube clip but no joy so far - which is pretty suspicious in itself... #conspiracytheory 

d.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Is it not the sport itself not to blame? The TdF is good example of asking the almost if not completely impossible of speed and massive endurance to win it. I also think the same applies to Ironman and Triathlons at pro level. Come to think of it most top level sports demand some sort of super human endeavour.
> 
> If you start off in complete naivety and seek to make a living at these sports, in fact almost any other sport and then you suddenly realise you need some help to win and earn a good living from your hard training, then what? Either you do the same or return and go back to doing a normal job. Alot of pro atheltes have sacrificed their education or are not gifted in that sphere. I can really see how someone like Bruyneels or any other team manager/coach/agent could manipulate someone in to competeing on a "Level Playing field" for their own and the one taking the drugs benefit.
> 
> And where is the line drawn Creatine, Whey Powder, Amino Acid pills or highly financed teams the latter is a huge benefit in Cycling as you all know having the best climbers sprinters and the strongest Domestiques to deliver someone to the yellow jersey, these are all unnatural advantages does anyone consider them to be more natural than EPO or some such?


 
This is simply not true. Most observers believe Wiggins and Evans, to name but two, are clean. Evans would have won a few more TdFs if that was true albeit at a slightly slower pace than the cheats who did win.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Quite. I remember watching the Simeoni incident unfolding on live TV and wondering what the hell was going on. Whatever it was, it wasn't bike racing.
> 
> I've been trying to find a YouTube clip but no joy so far - which is pretty suspicious in itself... #conspiracytheory
> 
> d.


 
..and as you'll also remember, the view on Simeoni within the peleton was pretty unanimous.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Is it not the sport itself not to blame? The TdF is good example of asking the almost if not completely impossible of speed and massive endurance to win it.



Yes, I agree to some extent, which is why I describe Millar as a "victim". 

On the other hand, he did cheat, deliberately and wilfully. He could have chosen to ride clean and lose nobly, or leave the sport instead. But it's easy to take the moral high ground and hard to know what one would do if one found oneself in similar circumstances. 

d.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ..and as you'll also remember, the view on Simeoni within the peleton was pretty unanimous.



A peloton containing the likes of Basso, Ullrich, Kloden et al...

d.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> This is simply not true. Most observers believe Wiggins and Evans, to name but two, are clean. Evans would have won a few more TdFs if that was true albeit at a slightly slower pace than the cheats who did win.


 
Im not sure which part you re saying is not true rich. US postal were powerful in and out of the peleton because of money, it s the same with SKY and in the past Renault and others. Money makes the playing field skewed before you even turn a wheel.

The UCI FIA and the FA all bow before money.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> A peloton containing the likes of Basso, Ullrich, Kloden et al...
> 
> d.


 
Exactly.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Im not sure which part you re saying is not true rich. US postal were powerful in and out of the peleton because of money, it s the same with SKY and in the past Renault and others. Money makes the playing field skewed before you even turn a wheel.


 I'm disputing that the severity of the route makes them cheat. I believe Evans and Wiggins to be clean and still do well in the TdF. Evans won it and Wiggins came 4th behind 2 or 3 dopers. So it can be done clean.


----------



## Noodley (16 Jun 2012)

Of course it can be done clean.
Anyone who thinks otherwise adds to the problem.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm disputing that the severity of the route makes them cheat. I believe Evans and Wiggins to be clean and still do well in the TdF. Evans won it and Wiggins came 4th behind 2 or 3 dopers. So it can be done clean.


 
Ah I see, do you still think it can be done against a super team tho if all other things are equal ? I think not.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm disputing that the severity of the route makes them cheat. I believe Evans and Wiggins to be clean and still do well in the TdF. Evans won it and Wiggins came 4th behind 2 or 3 dopers. So it can be done clean.


 I think the times expected are an indicator of what the TdF expects of its competitors. Given a bit more time I am sure I could complete the course, at maybe 8-10mph over a couple of months, but the speeds expected the climbing the amount of rest and the minimum stage finish times seem, to me, to force some super human effort to win let alone complete the full TdF.


----------



## Pottsy (16 Jun 2012)

Can someone give me a brief, couple of paragraph summary of 'the Simeoni incident'? I have a vague recollection of it being some kind of Armstrong policing and telling off, but that's all I remember.


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2012)

Pottsy said:


> Can someone give me a brief, couple of paragraph summary of 'the Simeoni incident'? I have a vague recollection of it being some kind of Armstrong policing and telling off, but that's all I remember.


you can read about Bassons while you're there - I'll post the vid later
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-and-simeoni-say-armstrong-probe-is-overdue


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> Of course it can be done clean.
> Anyone who thinks otherwise adds to the problem.


 
The french don't think it can be done full stop ! Hence their own little battles for honour within GTs and good on 'em,racing as it should be, sod the money and the drugs.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Ah I see, do you still think it can be done against a super team tho if all other things are equal ? I think not.


 I'm not sure what your point is Ld. I think super teams assist the main riders, of course. I'm saying that you don't have to be doped to win or complete or compete. Wiggins finished 4th behind 2 or 3 dopers with an unfancied, non-super team. So, yes, it's possible.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> I think the times expected are an indicator of what the TdF expects of its competitors. Given a bit more time I am sure I could complete the course, at maybe 8-10mph over a couple of months, but the speeds expected the climbing the amount of rest and the minimum stage finish times seem, to me, to force some super human effort to win let alone complete the full TdF.


 Well, as I've said before ad nauseam, Evans and Wiggins (who I believe to be clean) have done the tour very well. Evans has won it!! Not super human, just brilliant athletes who train like buggery.
The Disco, USP boys were super human in that they either faded back into ordinariness after leaving or got caught using products. No-one calls Popovych superhuman these days but I remember him blasting up the mountains at the head of the Disco team - that's a super team. One so dosed up that no-one could live with the pace.


----------



## swansonj (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Quite. I remember watching the Simeoni incident unfolding on live TV and wondering what the hell was going on. Whatever it was, it wasn't bike racing.


Surely part of what contributes to winning in any sport is establishing not just physical but psychological domination over your opponents? The particular cause of Armstrong's incident with Simeoni was drug related which puts in an unacceptable category to us as we view it now. But set the specific cause aside for the moment. I think that for a leading rider and his team to send out the message to all other riders that they are not to be messed with establishes an advantage that is likely to be to their benefit on a later occasion and is part of what it takes to win in sport at the top level. Sure, it makes you an arrogant bully, but people who win without having a streak of the arrogant bully about them, without having a willingness to dominate an opponent, are, I suspect, rare. (Senna and Schumaker won more races than Damon Hill, and Hill only won his championship by consciously becoming more selfish) This is one of the reasons why I am very happy not to be competitive.

Blaming Arnstrong for being a drug cheat and a liar and for bringing the sport into disrepute, assuming all those things be true, is fair enough. Blaming him for wanting to beat people seems a little perverse.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2012)

swansonj said:


> Blaming Arnstrong for being a drug cheat and a liar and for bringing the sport into disrepute, assuming all those things be true, is fair enough. Blaming him for wanting to beat people seems a little perverse.


 
That wasn't what was happening in he Simeoni incident. Armstrong was acting like a mafia heavy reminding an errant underling of the code of omerta and what happens when you break it. He effectively destroyed his career. And this, I will remind everyone once again, was not about anything Simeoni had said about Armstrong but about what he said about the incredibly dubious, Dr Ferrari...

And this isn't directed just to you, but I really wish people who come later to threads would actually take the time to read the previous contributions - some of which people actually thought about and spent some time writing - because then we might not get endless repetition of the same opinions, misconceptions and old canards...


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2012)

swansonj said:


> The particular cause of Armstrong's incident with Simeoni was drug related which puts in an unacceptable category to us as we view it now.


Sorry, but it was unacceptable when we viewed it at the time, not only now.

Anyroad, here's the vid for Pottsy - starts about 40 seconds in. This bit isn't shown, but LA made the sign of the zipped-up mouth to the cameraman after he chased him down, meaning Simeoni should keep his mouth shut.


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


----------



## Herzog (16 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And this isn't directed just to you, but I really wish people who come later to threads would actually take the time to read the previous contributions - some of which people actually thought about and spent some time writing - because then we might not get endless repetition of the same opinions, misconceptions and old canards...


 
I think this should be displayed verbatim in any thread whenever _Post Reply_ is hit.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm not sure what your point is Ld. I think super teams assist the main riders, of course. I'm saying that you don't have to be doped to win or complete or compete. Wiggins finished 4th behind 2 or 3 dopers with an unfancied, non-super team. So, yes, it's possible.


 
Most things are possible, what is probable is another matter.

My point is, drugs and the dopers are the symptom, money is the route cause. Remove the money and we can go back to simple cheating which, some seem to find more pallateble.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

"Dear USADA- we have now sent you THREE letters requesting all the relevant info in order for me to respond to your "review board" Until now there has been no response, not even an acknowledgement of receipt. The knife cuts both ways - it's time to play by the rules"

Taken from LA's Facebook https://www.facebook.com/#!/lancearmstrong


----------



## Noodley (16 Jun 2012)

aww diddums, poor wittle wancey...


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> LA made the sign of the zipped-up mouth to the cameraman


 
17s in, he makes it then but I'm assuming that's before the chasing down. Even the commentator is pretty damning of the incident.


----------



## Crackle (16 Jun 2012)

If you think we're harsh on here.....

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17452


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> 17s in, he makes it then but I'm assuming that's before the chasing down.


cheers yello - that's a hotch-potch of the day's stage, and the bits and bobs aren't necessarily in the right order. The zipped mouth was after the chasing down in real time, almost as an explanation for his actions. It was one of the more bizarre moments of Tour history.


----------



## raindog (16 Jun 2012)

Crackle said:


> If you think we're harsh on here.....
> 
> http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=17452


ha ha - enter The Clinic at your peril


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

Blimey 117 pages, hope I am not expected to read all of that before contributing (not that I am going to do either!)


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Blimey 117 pages, hope I am not expected to read all of that before contributing (not that I am going to do either!)


 
I read but don't contribute as it's heavyweight stuff.

There are some very very knowledgeable people there. There's some fools too. In fact, the shoot-to-gold ratio is high but it really is worth tolerating that if you want 1st rate knowledge, comment and analysis. Some contributors are people that know Armstrong, that have ridden and/or worked with him. Others are well connected in cycling, or sports or media. As I say, unless you're a fool or really know your stuff, you really don't want to contribute.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

swansonj said:


> Surely part of what contributes to winning in any sport is establishing not just physical but psychological domination over your opponents? ... I think that for a leading rider and his team to send out the message to all other riders that they are not to be messed with establishes an advantage that is likely to be to their benefit on a later occasion and is part of what it takes to win in sport at the top level.


 
Like Sky in the Dauphiné, chasing down a break and then Wiggo finishing off the job by jumping across the gap? Yeah, that's _magnificent_. Brutal but beautiful. Love it.
(Edit: see also Lemond & Hinault on Alpe d'Huez in 1986)

The difference is that Wiggo dealing that psychological blow to Evans won't end Evans's career. In fact, it's an act that could even come back to bite him because it'll only make Evans more determined to beat him in the Tour.

d.


----------



## albion (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm disputing that the severity of the route makes them cheat. I believe Evans and Wiggins to be clean and still do well in the TdF. Evans won it and Wiggins came 4th behind 2 or 3 dopers. So it can be done clean.


All a belief system?

"“I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one,” Armstrong said in a statement released by his publicist. “That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence. Any fair consideration of these allegations has and will continue to vindicate me.”"

So in this massive doping conspiracy from 1998 to 2007 I'm still baffled as to why only Armstrong was consistent in tests and performance? I don't have a belief but there certainly ain't a lot of science involved.


----------



## Zofo (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> This is simply not true. Most observers believe Wiggins and Evans, to name but two, are clean. Evans would have won a few more TdFs if that was true albeit at a slightly slower pace than the cheats who did win.



Do they? Why, because they've passed the odd drugs test? LAs passed over 500 and still most think he's guilty- double standards or what. If you think Wiggos clean with his performance spike you are sadly deluded my friend.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

Wiggo's "performance spike" needs to be looked at in its proper context before you start jumping to conclusions.

d.


----------



## Erratic (16 Jun 2012)

Blimey, I read a bit about the Simeoni incident, certainly sounds unpleasant and probably uncumfortable to watch however, got this from wikipedia - take it as you see fit...
_"Because Simeoni was a prosecution witness in legal proceedings against Ferrari at the time of Armstrong's move against him in the 2004 Tour, Italian authorities threatened to bring charges of witness intimidation against Armstrong. In March 2005 Armstrong was interviewed by the authorities, *apparently without resolution*. Armstrong had been indicted by Italian authorities in December 2005 and ordered to stand trial for defaming Simeoni on March 7, 2006. In April 2006, the *defamation charges were dropped*"_


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Wiggo's "performance spike" needs to be looked at in its proper context before you start jumping to conclusions.
> 
> d.


To be honest I don't know enough but on that very forum with the thread about Lance Armstrong, I also read some of a thread from 2009 comparing performance spike of Contador and Wiggins, most of it was lost on me but the gist of it seemed to be trying to find out the root cause of the power to BMI spikes. The thread appeared in very specific search for Wiggins.

It would be awful to find out any of the current UK riders were tainted but to state 100% that they completely clean is a bold statement! The rewards are so huge who knows what currently cannot be found in urine and blood tests. I would imagine the anti doping tests are constantly running at least a year behind the Dr's and drug corps.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

I wouldn't be so bold/rash as to state that Wiggins is _definitely_ clean, but if he turns out to be a cheat, his and Brailsford's highly vocal anti-doping stance would be an act of hubris to put Lance in the shade. I just don't see it.

But if you look carefully at what Wiggins has achieved this season, there actually isn't anything remotely suspicious about it. He's just better prepared than his rivals, and Sky are treating every race they enter as a proper race, rather than a glorified training session.

Evans (and others) will make life much harder for him in the Tour, don't worry about that.

d.


----------



## Crackle (16 Jun 2012)

Wiggins came out as a 5 on the UCI hot list, compiled from 2010 tour results on the biological passport. I've also read an interview with a doping expert talking about LA's passport figures who stated that Wiggins's didn't look how he would expect it too. On top of that Wiggins has said he is an admirer of Armstrong, innocent until proven guilty, etc...

All that said, it would surprise me greatly if he was juiced and I've never read a single thing, so far, that point beyond a bit of innuendo. The Clinic on Cyclingnews should be treated with some caution, as any rider that does well is given the same treatment. Plus: If Wiggins was juiced, he'd have beaten Cobo last year in the Vuelta.


----------



## Andrew_P (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> and Sky are treating every race they enter as a proper race, rather than a glorified training session
> 
> d.


 Remind you of any other Teams in the lead up to previous TdF's?


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

Crackle said:


> Wiggins came out as a 5 on the UCI hot list, compiled from 2010 tour results on the biological passport. I've also read an interview with a doping expert talking about LA's passport figures who stated that Wiggins's didn't look how he would expect it too. On top of that Wiggins has said he is an admirer of Armstrong, innocent until proven guilty, etc...
> 
> All that said, it would surprise me greatly if he was juiced and I've never read a single thing, so far, that point beyond a bit of innuendo. The Clinic on Cyclingnews should be treated with some caution, as any rider that does well is given the same treatment. Plus: If Wiggins was juiced, he'd have beaten Cobo last year in the Vuelta.


 
I assume it surprised you greatly when LA was accused of being juiced too


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

User said:


> Noodley, very good question, I think this would be better asked in its own thread, topic etc, and not lost in here..plus maybe in the generel section, as more people would see it...
> it would be interesting to find out why people are not interested or following etc, pro-cycling....


 
I think that is probably evident within this thread, sadly.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

"Wiggins is just better prepared than his rivals"


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2012)

More fuel for the fire... it is being reported that Lance paid more almost half a million dollars to Dr Ferrari* _after_ he claimed to have stopped working with him.

*Let us not forget that Ferrari is banned from working in Italy and all riders who have worked with him face suspension by the Italian federation. There is no doubt about Ferrari's practices.


----------



## albion (16 Jun 2012)

"the evidence from Padova related to Armstrong’s alleged $465,000 payment to Ferrari “was not ready” at that time."

One certainly wonders how they make it ready.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> "the evidence from Padova related to Armstrong’s alleged $465,000 payment to Ferrari “was not ready” at that time."
> 
> One certainly wonders how they make it ready.


 
It's correct to wait and see with such reports, but I just not that it's funny how your scepticism appears to be limited to any evidence against Armstrong...

And you aren't disputing that Armstrong worked with Ferrari though, are you?


----------



## Crackle (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I assume it surprised you greatly when LA was accused of being juiced too


 
It did actually, surprised and saddened me. I lost my innocence the moment I read that first forum post about LA. Since then I've entered my cynical phase, I shall not be hurt by such revelations again. <insert winky smiley to prove I'm only semi-serious>


----------



## albion (16 Jun 2012)

All that Simeoni stuff would have been convincing if Simeoni had not stuffed up in court.
So did he do it on purpose or was he fabricating it all?

I'm now guessing he won't be a witness against Ferrari and Armstrong.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2012)

Armstrong was never a very likable character and I was never a fan, but I still had respect for him until the Simeoni incident.


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Do they? Why, because they've passed the odd drugs test? LAs passed over 500 and still most think he's guilty- double standards or what. If you think Wiggos clean with his performance spike you are sadly deluded my friend.


 No, not because of the passed tests. Have you reaed or researched any of this? As I said before, even Bjarne Riis passed on the tests with blood full of EPO. It would be singularly perverse of Wiggins to consistently bleat anti-drug mantras and publicly volunteer his blood values to the world. Such behaviour leads me (although clearly not everyone) to believe he is clean.
Believe what you will my friend


----------



## rich p (16 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It's correct to wait and see with such reports, but I just not that it's funny how your scepticism appears to be limited to any evidence against Armstrong...
> 
> And you aren't disputing that Armstrong worked with Ferrari though, are you?


 Monkey Man, get the facts right. Dr F was simply a family friend as Lance has stated many times.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> So in this massive doping conspiracy from 1998 to 2007 I'm still baffled as to why only Armstrong was consistent in tests and performance?


 
It'd hardly baffling if you know about the history of doping detection and about the details of Armstrong's career, there are three main reasons, all of which are involved in the current USADA charges:

1. He had a trusted inner circle of advisors, riders etc. which operated to keep others from getting too close - however he's alienated more and more of these over the years and they are the source of many of the allegations;
2. He had the 'best' medical assistance money could buy (which no doubt enabled him to time dosage etc. to minimize chances of getting caught - remember this was pre-biological passport and no-one knew what his personal baseline readings would have been); and
3. He did test positive but this appears to have been covered up. Samples have also been tested retrospectively which show that he was using EPO before there was an approved test available.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Monkey Man, get the facts right. Dr F was simply a family friend as Lance has stated many times.


 
 Yeah, I can appreciate this as I too often give my family friends half a million dollars via Swiss front companies...


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> "the evidence from Padova related to Armstrong’s alleged $465,000 payment to Ferrari “was not ready” at that time."
> 
> One certainly wonders how they make it ready.


 
The bidding hadn't finnished


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Jun 2012)

stoatsngroats said:


> Yello, it's perhaps a shame that many others are less open minded to others opinions than you!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Far from making the TdF exciting and watchable Armstrong made it exceedingly dull as his entire team powered away at the front preventing any attacks for stage after stage. Fair enough if they did it on mineral water, but...


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Far from making the TdF exciting and watchable Armstrong made it exceedingly dull as his entire team powered away at the front preventing any attacks for stage after stage. Fair enough if they did it on mineral water, but...


 
They were a lot more exciting than last years tour and probably this years too.


----------



## smutchin (16 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Remind you of any other Teams in the lead up to previous TdF's?



See, that's exactly the kind of baseless innuendo I have no time for. (Appreciate you're probably being a bit tongue in cheek though.)

d.


----------



## stoatsngroats (16 Jun 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Far from making the TdF exciting and watchable Armstrong made it exceedingly dull as his entire team powered away at the front preventing any attacks for stage after stage. Fair enough if they did it on mineral water, but...


 
That may be a fair point Smokin' Joe, but _I_ seem to remember many exciting moments, enough to make _me_ watch TdF a year later. 
I don't even know which teams race these days, and I can only assume that Cav, Wiggins, perhaps Millar are in the 2012 TdF - but I wouldn't lay any bets. If I've been a victim of the Armstrong effect, so be it - I liked the TdF because of his tenacity; bike skills ( I forget his name, but the rider who fell in front of him, and he took off across the field); discipline etc. But also the TV coverage, scenery, pain, sportsmanship, commentary and wit.
I realise there are others in the TdF, can't remember many now tho.....


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

Beloki


----------



## yello (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Beloki


 
No need to be rude


----------



## stoatsngroats (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Beloki


 
That's the one - I found this incident memorable, I have no doubt that many other riders could have achieved similar evasive action, but it happened to be LA, and I seemed to remember that it was critical for La to finish close to someone further up the road, or close behind.....


----------



## Crackle (16 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> They were a lot more exciting than last years tour and probably this years too.


 
Now, I have to take exception to that. So many moments it's hard to recall them all but Voecklers defence of his lead, the moment he went into someone's driveaway, the Schlecks attack, Evans defence of it, cracking, recovering and dragging himself back up, Contador cracking, loads of stuff.

As exciting as watching Riise give the look to Indurain before powering off, Pantani rising up a mtn, Indurain tt'ing to another win, Armstrong faking bonking and then blowing Ullrich away, well no...... no wait, yes. Much more so, because those moments were real, not faked out by juiced up riders (Schlecks excepted but they lost).


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jun 2012)

We obviously have a different definition of excitement Crax 

The Voeckler break being a good example teams couldn t decide what to do, even after discussing it with their DS at length over radios, sorry i don t call that excitement. The Beloki example given earlier was edge of the seat stuff, as were the LA/Pantani/ Ulrich/ Basso duels. Yes they may have been juiced up, but there was none of the looking at each other bullshit we get now. FFS


----------



## swansonj (16 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> And this isn't directed just to you, but I really wish people who come later to threads would actually take the time to read the previous contributions - some of which people actually thought about and spent some time writing - because then we might not get endless repetition of the same opinions, misconceptions and old canards...


This thread has moved on a couple of pages while I've been out to dinner, so this now feels like ancient history. But: I agree with you. I'm not claiming my post was particularly profound or insightful, but I did feel it made a minor point about an aspect of the Armstrong debate that fitted with the direction the thread as a whole had taken at that point. I had in fact been following all the thread up to that point but I recognised most of the contributors were more knowledgeable than me so hadn't contributed before, this was the first point I felt I had something even vaguely constructive to contribute. But I guess whether I was making a genuine contribution or endlessly repeating the same opinions misconceptions and old canards is a matter of opinion and I apologise if that's all I've done.


----------



## lanternerouge (16 Jun 2012)

The more I watch pro sport the more cynical I become about it. The graphic quoted earlier in the thread is certainly pretty shocking






I have long been convinced that Armstrong is and was a serial doper after reading Kimmage's book among others. For me his aggressive PR campaigns with their repetitious phrases are a dead giveaway. US election style tactics. Get the right message out, never mind the truth.

I also read this excellent article in Sports Illustrated today about the widespread doping in baseball. The differences in performance cited due to steroid use etc are unbelievable. You can easily see how almost any sport can be corrupted. Then flicked the TV on to the US Open where Woods is standing there with his bodybuilder's physique. Then watched the pumped-up Springboks battering England (Spies among others has long been rumoured to be "juiced up" as the South African vernacular has it). It is easy to become paranoid about the veracity of many of the events we are watching on TV.

When I look again at that graphic, it makes me doubt the performances of Team SKY. I really want to believe they are clean, but how can they be? How can they all be so dominant (witness Dauphiné TT for example)? Say it ain't so, Wiggo... are we mugs for believing all this stuff about marginal gains and sports science and training in Tenerife and swimming coaches? I really hope not, and I do think they are probably clean... but then you should read the comments on _l'Equipe_ under the articles about Wiggins' victories... 50% at least think SKY are doping.


----------



## Noodley (16 Jun 2012)

I think any connection made between Armstrong's methods and what Sky riders are doing are bizarre in the extreme.


----------



## lanternerouge (16 Jun 2012)

Good Noodley. Perhaps I don;t understand it well enough. One thing that is reassuring is that they are hardly Pantani-ing it up the mountains. Their performance on the Joux Plane the other day had me wondering. But as said earlier, it would have to be the most brazen and cynical PR campaign if doping were behind it all - I just can't see it, it's not what they are about as people surely.


----------



## Noodley (16 Jun 2012)

I am sure that there may be analyses of figures which may look "abnormal" but if Wiggins is doping then I am quite prepared to eat any hat thrown in my direction. I am generally confident that things are changing, and am realistic about the lure of doping and the reasons for doping. I don't expect everyone who doped to admit it, but I do think that those who still go on about "never failing tests" or who defend those who supported the system and ruined the careers of others need to be held to account.

I would have much more respect for the likes of Roche who is carving out a career as a cycling politician if he turned round and said "listen, I took drugs; it's something we need to address. I do not want the current riders to have to go thru what we did". It would be so easy.


----------



## Red Light (16 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> No, you're mistaken. It's about a balance of probabilities. The evidence against Contador probably wouldn't have been strong enough to get a guilty verdict in a court of law, but in the context of the rules of the sport, the evidence is deemed strong enough to say that he very probably cheated.
> 
> He's been stripped of a sporting title, not convicted of a crime.
> 
> ...


 
There is a big difference though. Contador had traces of a banned substance in his blood. Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned substance. They do share the dubious honour though of being accused of doping by Greg LeMond.


----------



## Noodley (16 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned substance.


 
Err, he has...


----------



## smutchin (17 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> Armstrong has never tested positive for a banned substance.


 
Even if you leave aside the question of whether or not that's actually true, there are other kinds of evidence that are considered sufficient proof (on the balance of probability) in these cases.

Plenty of other riders have been suspended and had titles overturned without actually testing positive.

d.


----------



## Noodley (17 Jun 2012)

Good point smutchin, there does appear to be a strange view of "evidence" in threads related to doping and Armstrong in particular - a lack of understanding of "evidence" perhaps?


----------



## smutchin (17 Jun 2012)

lanternerouge said:


> you should read the comments on _l'Equipe_ under the articles about Wiggins' victories... 50% at least think SKY are doping.


 
Never read the bottom half of the internet!

d.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> Err, he has...


 
You mean the 99 urine test that was he was cleared of after it was linked to a substance in an approved cream for saddle sores?


----------



## smutchin (17 Jun 2012)

...so the real difference between Lance and Bertie is not that one tested positive and the other didn't, but that one came up with a good cover story and the other didn't.

d.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> Good point smutchin, there does appear to be a strange view of "evidence" in threads related to doping and Armstrong in particular - a lack of understanding of "evidence" perhaps?


 
Probably. If there is any "evidence" it was not considered good enough evidence by the US Grand Jury. And much of the "evidence" has been challenged by LA in Court and he has won with out of Court settlements.


----------



## Noodley (17 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> Probably. If there is any "evidence" it was not considered good enough evidence by the US Grand Jury. And much of the "evidence" has been challenged by LA in Court and he has won with out of Court settlements.


 
confirmation of the lack of knowledge of "evidence"


----------



## Noodley (17 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> You mean the 99 urine test that was he was cleared of after it was linked to a substance in an approved cream for saddle sores?


 
yes, that's the one <looks for disbelieving smiley>


----------



## smutchin (17 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> Probably. If there is any "evidence" it was not considered good enough evidence by the US Grand Jury.


 
Evidence of what? Of doping? But doping isn't a federal charge...

They weren't after him for doping per se, rather for misuse of government money (the US Postal sponsorship). They never revealed why they didn't pursue the case either, so you can't know for sure that it was for lack of evidence.

It now seems that they've handed over what evidence they had to USADA, and USADA consider it strong enough to pursue a case against Lance (on different charges and different standards of evidence to the federal case).

d.


----------



## raindog (17 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Evidence of what? Of doping? But doping isn't a federal charge...
> 
> They weren't after him for doping per se, rather for misuse of government money (the US Postal sponsorship). They never revealed why they didn't pursue the case either, so you can't know for sure that it was for lack of evidence.
> 
> ...


You've put that simply and perfectly smutchin, but in a couple of pages someone else will come along and repeat what Red Light said. 

So, to sum up the thread so far.....

LA doped
no he didn't
yes he did
no he didn't
yes he did

he's guilty as hell
no he isn't
yes he is
no he isn't
yes he is

dozens, hundreds, of threads all over the internet are coming up with the same clear cut conclusions we are


----------



## Red Light (17 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> You've put that simply and perfectly smutchin, but in a couple of pages someone else will come along and repeat what Red Light said.
> 
> So, to sum up the thread so far.....
> 
> ...


 
FTFY


----------



## Red Light (17 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> confirmation of the lack of knowledge of "evidence"


 
So do please enlighten us with your wisdom on the true meaning of "evidence".


----------



## raindog (17 Jun 2012)

lanternerouge said:


> Then watched the pumped-up Springboks battering England


(the least said about that match the better )
French rugby commentators were accusing (more or less openly) the England squad of bulking up on steroids years ago.


----------



## stoatsngroats (17 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> LA doped
> no he didn't
> yes he did
> no he didn't
> ...


 
Is this the 5 minute argument, or the full half-hour...?


----------



## yello (17 Jun 2012)

I'd like to think that amongst the did/didn't that there is some discussion that people find informative. Or perhaps I'm being naive.

Personally, I like discussion. Facts exist in a time and a place, a context, and as such are open to interpretation and perception. Simply put, people see things differently. I like the debate inspired by differences of opinion.


----------



## rich p (17 Jun 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hincapie-leipheimer-vande-velde-zabriskie-opted-out-of-olympics

There's 4 who have strangely opted out of the Olympic selection process. Hmmmm!


----------



## yello (17 Jun 2012)

4 of the 10? Add Landis, Tyler Hamilton and Frankie Andreu... that's 7. Maybe Jonathan Vaughters too???


----------



## Red Light (17 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hincapie-leipheimer-vande-velde-zabriskie-opted-out-of-olympics
> 
> There's 4 who have strangely opted out of the Olympic selection process. Hmmmm!


 
Perhaps they are worried about having their image tarnished by being though of as dopers for taking part in competitive cycling.


----------



## Zofo (17 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> I am sure that there may be analyses of figures which may look "abnormal" but if Wiggins is doping then I am quite prepared to eat any hat thrown in my direction.



Get,the ketchup ready, I reckon you may be needing it.


----------



## albion (17 Jun 2012)

Testimony adds weight to Hamilton's confession ... Hincapie told the grand jury that he and Armstrong supplied each other with EPO "
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-hincapie-tells-fda-armstrong-took-peds
More for the 'cos we know' crowd. Anyone know if Hincapie gave evidence?

Funnily enough, is not British cycling so successful because they heavily went into the intelligent sports science route?
If as said most professional cyclists are domestic labourer types then success was easy for them.
Or do they all cheat too?


----------



## Crackle (17 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> You mean the 99 urine test that was he was cleared of after it was linked to a substance in an approved cream for saddle sores?


I nearly spat my coffee out then.


----------



## yello (17 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Anyone know if Hincapie gave evidence?


 
Careful there, that's an older report, following Hamilton's appearance on US TV (the CBS News '60 Minutes' program)

Hinchcapie subsequently categorically denied _speaking to '60 Minutes'_. Note the italics: he did not specifically deny speaking to the feds/grand jury/USADA. Truth is, we the public don't know even though it is widely assumed he did. Clearly, his testimony would not only carry a deal of weight but also be a major hurdle for the Armstrong defence team should he indicate the he saw Armstrong dope. What could they claim was Hinchcapie's motivation?


----------



## rich p (17 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> Get,the ketchup ready, I reckon you may be needing it.


 Forgetting Wiggins on this thread as a bit of a red herring - can you clarify your position re Armstrong's alleged doping?
You think he did dope, you don't know, you don't care?


----------



## Dayvo (17 Jun 2012)

I have neither the knowledge nor prior (to 1997/98) the interest in cycle racing.

Initially I watched TdeF on Channel 4 in the 80s/90s because of the the lovely French countryside and architecture.

After LA won the world championship in Oslo (when I was living here) in 1993, I became more interested in him as a cyclist, then a recoverer of cancer, and then as a multiple TdeF winner.

I wasn't a fan, as such: I also liked Pantani, Ullrich, Voigt and the British riders at that time.

I don't believe LA has doped. I hope he hasn't. I don't know, and I do care.

What I don't like is the allegations, the rumours, the 'guilty before trial' opinions of other people. It's basically gossip and speculation, and until the truth comes out _*once and for all*_, I'm happy to maintain my opinion that he is innocent. If, however, he is exposed as a drug cheat, then I'll just say, well, fukk my old boots, he fooled me, too!

I do hope that the sport rids itself of drug cheats and becomes clean and honourable


----------



## Zofo (17 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Forgetting Wiggins on this thread as a bit of a red herring - can you clarify your position re Armstrong's alleged doping?
> You think he did dope, you don't know, you don't care?


I think in all likelihood that LA did dope, as I think it's inconceivable that someone so competitive would have sat back and watched those around him gain a 5 % advantage. My position is that he still beat them all on a -relatively -level playing field and we should cut the guy some slack in recognition for his achievements, both on and off the bike.


----------



## raindog (17 Jun 2012)

Dayvo said:


> Initially I watched TdeF on Channel 4 in the 80s/90s because of the the lovely French countryside and architecture.


That's a really nice way to ease yourself into following bike racing. Every year the French commentators stress that there are two Tours - one is the race, and the other is the three week trip round the French countryside, villages and towns.


----------



## Peteaud (17 Jun 2012)

Say what you like about him but he was a good musician.

Oh wait that was Louis Armstrong.




My view of the whole LA affair


----------



## swansonj (17 Jun 2012)

Can I just ask a genuine question of those of you who think Armstrong is an arrogant, cynical, cheating bully (and I'm not necessarily disputing that assessment here): what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising? Is Livestrong (a) a cynical attempt to put some cover over his darker side (b) remorse-cum-penance from someone who knows they are guilty and wishes to atone (c) a power/ego trip (d) a genuine attempt by a cancer survivor to use his success to help others - or something else?


----------



## Noodley (17 Jun 2012)

Probably d) with a bit of c) and a) added to the mix. And none of b).


----------



## rich p (17 Jun 2012)

I haven't done the research into that side myself, but I have read some pretty damning critiques of the money trail of Livestrong. Nothing illegal but channelled into his for-profit company. Someone with more knowledge will be along sometime.


----------



## rich p (17 Jun 2012)

Zofo said:


> I think in all likelihood that LA did dope, as I think it's inconceivable that someone so competitive would have sat back and watched those around him gain a 5 % advantage. My position is that he still beat them all on a -relatively -level playing field and we should cut the guy some slack in recognition for his achievements, both on and off the bike.


 It was only a level playing field for those who could afford to dope as scientifically as he did though. 90% of the peloton wouldn't have had the means to do so. Not many domestiques would have been in a position to pay Dr FastCar $450,000 or benevolently donate £120,000 to the UCI.


----------



## Noodley (17 Jun 2012)

...and EPO turned donkeys into champions.


----------



## Red Light (17 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Forgetting Wiggins on this thread as a bit of a red herring - can you clarify your position re Armstrong's alleged doping?
> You think he did dope, you don't know, you don't care?


 
I think you missed a very important option in your multiple choice question. Can you spot what it is yet?


----------



## raindog (17 Jun 2012)

swansonj said:


> Can I just ask a genuine question of those of you who think Armstrong is an arrogant, cynical, cheating bully (and I'm not necessarily disputing that assessment here): what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising?


this is from a recent CyclingWeekly article, and they were always more or less pro-Armstrong

_"On Friday a free supplement was given away by the Guardian newspaper in the UK called Overcoming Cancer. It was written and produced by Media Planet and it's cover featured a big picture of Armstrong riding in his Livestrong kit.
No doubt a coincidence, given the timing, it perfectly illustrates Armstrong's most powerful tool when it comes to fighting allegations of drug use.
He consistently uses his work for Livestrong as a promotional tool for himself, and hasn't been afraid of using it as a way of deflecting questions on doping. Questions have however been raised over the way that Livestrong spends it's money, and how much of that money Armstrong uses to fly around the world in his private jet.
Livestrong has admitted that they no longer give money to cancer research projects, and, although some money undoubtedly goes towards worthwhile projects, the bulk of it is spent on marketing and promotion. They say to raise the awareness of cancer, others may say it's to promote Armstrong's profile."_


----------



## yello (17 Jun 2012)

swansonj said:


> what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising?


 
First thing I want to say to that question is that it's a totally separate issue for me. Armstrong the cyclist and Armstrong the cancer man are different entities for me. And I prefer to keep it that way because it otherwise becomes too emotive.

I know nothing (comparatively speaking) about Livestrong, though I'm aware of some criticism (from both haterz and otherwise) about the operation. I've thought some of that criticism to be over-the-top but, as I say, I don't know enough to judge.

All of that caveat out of the way, I think Livestrong (as in cancer support) is a), a genuine attempt to help. I think in terms of actual day-to-day operation, that Armstrong is perhaps little more than a figurehead or poster boy (to be expected really) and that there are some very committed and hard working people within the organisation. From what I have read, they do do valuable work in communities assisting cancer sufferers and families alike, with things like finding assistance either financial or medical etc. There is probably some ego involved in it but - and this might surprise some of you - I'd cut Armstrong some slack on that. I suspect most charitable works involves a bit of ego and I'm completely ok with that.


----------



## Crackle (17 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> I haven't done the research into that side myself, but I have read some pretty damning critiques of the money trail of Livestrong. Nothing illegal but channelled into his for-profit company. Someone with more knowledge will be along sometime.


 
There's an excellent but very long article here, written by Gifford, who Lance called a 'Hater'.

There are two seperate Livestrongs, a dot org and dot com. The latter is very much for profit and as the article explains, the interdependency between .org, .com and Lance is pretty hard to pick apart.


----------



## yello (17 Jun 2012)

Crackle said:


> There are two seperate Livestrongs, a dot org and dot com. The latter is very much for profit and as the article explains, the interdependency between .org, .com and Lance is pretty hard to pick apart.


 
I know the divisions are murky. BUT (and again I'm going to sound like I'm defending Armstrong!) I suspect no more or less murky than many business set-ups. That may not make it right (depending on your morality) but my guess is that it's all above board and legal. I'm sure that the general public might be equally surprised/disgusted if they saw the operation details of many a charity.


----------



## Noodley (17 Jun 2012)

He still doped.


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> See, that's exactly the kind of baseless innuendo I have no time for. (Appreciate you're probably being a bit tongue in cheek though.)
> 
> d.


Not too unlike the LA attack of the Tour though are they, Team Sky is well funded and is defintely on a mission, you can sense it no?


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> Probably d) with a bit of c) and a) added to the mix. And none of b).


There is a Jorno in the USA who goes further than that, now that above all else would piss me off. But I think the only evidence he could put forward was that it was not clear to an outsider that livestrong.com (top of all health and fitness searches on Google) was commercial and benefited LA and the .org was the charity. Also took a swipe at Livestrong stating that LA (I have never read or seen this)states that some of the funding went towards a cure. All the Livestrong PR I have seen is to help people get through the medical system and assistance.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Not too unlike the LA attack of the Tour though are they...



Well, yes, there are superficial similarities. I've made that same glib observation myself elsewhere. Somewhat facetiously. It's not a comparison that stands up to much scrutiny though. Sky and USP/Discovery have far more points of difference than they have in common.

d.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Jun 2012)

Has he fessed up yet?


----------



## Crackle (17 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> There is a Jorno in the USA who goes further than that, now that above all else would piss me off. But I think the only evidence he could put forward was that it was not clear to an outsider that livestrong.com (top of all health and fitness searches on Google) was commercial and benefited LA and the .org was the charity. Also took a swipe at Livestrong stating that LA (I have never read or seen this)states that some of the funding went towards a cure. All the Livestrong PR I have seen is to help people get through the medical system and assistance.


 
It may well be the journo in the article I linked to. It did donate to research but changed it's priorities in 2009'ish, saying that what they could provide was a drop in the ocean compared to other cancer charity research donations.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jun 2012)

swansonj said:


> Can I just ask a genuine question of those of you who think Armstrong is an arrogant, cynical, cheating bully (and I'm not necessarily disputing that assessment here): what do you make of his cancer charity fundraising? Is Livestrong (a) a cynical attempt to put some cover over his darker side (b) remorse-cum-penance from someone who knows they are guilty and wishes to atone (c) a power/ego trip (d) a genuine attempt by a cancer survivor to use his success to help others - or something else?


 
I don't know anything about Livestrong, so I don't feel qualified to offer any opinion.


----------



## Dayvo (17 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I don't know anything about Livestrong, so I don't feel qualified to offer any opinion.


 
I assume you don't know anything personally about him either, but *you* seem to have found him guilty of drug taking. But it doesn't stop you offering an opinion on that!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jun 2012)

Dayvo said:


> I assume you don't know anything personally about him either, but *you* seem to have found him guilty of drug taking. But it doesn't stop you offering an opinion on that!


 
The difference is that I have followed pro-cycling for a very long time and read extensively about it, the Puerto case etc. and Armstrong. I also teach a bit about the use of surveillance in sport and therefore have done a fair bit of reading on anti-doping and the changes there have been over the years. So I do feel qualified to offer an opinion on that, and direct people to things that they may not have come across in the area. No more than that. If I had delved into Livestrong's finances and history, I might be able to offer an opinion on that too, but I haven't and I can't.


----------



## Dayvo (17 Jun 2012)

Fair enough. I don't doubt your knowledge or expertise, nor your passion towards pro cycling. But I feel strongly, that UNTIL the facts are known, then it is _just_ speculation and rumour.

Facts are facts, and one day, one way or the other, the facts WILL come out. Then we'll know for sure, and we can accept it, whichever way the judgement falls, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jun 2012)

Dayvo said:


> Fair enough. I don't doubt your knowledge or expertise, nor your passion towards pro cycling. But I feel strongly, that UNTIL the facts are known, then it is _just_ speculation and rumour.
> 
> Facts are facts, and one day, one way or the other, the facts WILL come out. Then we'll know for sure, and we can accept it, whichever way the judgement falls, whether we like it or not.


 
The difference is that I think we already know enough to say that on the balance of probabilities that Armstrong doped. And I don't think we'll ever know all the facts: too many trails have already been covered up. If he's found by USADA to have been involved in doping, we all know that this is the tip of the iceberg, however much of the iceberg we actually ever get to see before it melts into the ocean.


----------



## Dayvo (17 Jun 2012)

We'll just have to agree to differ on this.

But I do look forward to the development of this allegation and the resulting investigation.


----------



## MacB (17 Jun 2012)

Dayvo said:


> We'll just have to agree to differ on this.
> 
> But I do look forward to the development of this allegation and the resulting investigation.


 
Now you see I find that weird, I'd like it all done and dusted and things to move on.


----------



## just jim (18 Jun 2012)

MacB said:


> Now you see I find that weird, I'd like it all done and dusted and things to move on.


That could take a while. I get the impression it's just beginning.


----------



## yello (18 Jun 2012)

Oddly, I get the feeling that this could be done and dusted in a matter of months, certainly before the new year. Any fallout would rumble on for years tough.

USADA have said (as I recall) that they aim for a hearing before November. My gut feel is that Armstrong wont contest - because he'd probably have to testify - so the hearing wouldn't be drawn out. I reckon it could be a pretty interesting period until then though, with more allegations and/or evidence to appear.


----------



## Alun (18 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Maybe. Fwiw, I don't entirely agree it was quite so clear cut that they would lose the case, but that's just, like, my opinion, man.
> 
> From what Brailsford has been saying, they may still find a way to avoid selecting Millar anyway, so it was probably all a massive waste of time.
> 
> d.


 Millar is now on the shortlist, are you sure Brailsford is trying to prevent him riding?


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Jun 2012)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html Written in 2008 - Wouldn't look too good stripping out LA, but you could also argue that the crosed out ones 99 - 2005 is a little damning to LA, if he was clean his miracle storyline would be incredible..


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jun 2012)

Im actually past caring now !

As with a lot of sports if cycle racing had never gone proffesional, the problems wouldn't have arrisen.

I'll enjoy the racing for what it is, knowing full well the playing field will never be level and cheating still exsists.


----------



## black'n'yellow (18 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> As with a lot of sports if cycle racing had never gone proffesional, the problems wouldn't have arrisen.


 
cyclists were 'enhancing' performance long before the sport went pro.


----------



## Alun (18 Jun 2012)

If you stripped the results off everyone in the TdF that had doped, past and present, how different would it's history be?


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Im actually past caring now !
> 
> As with a lot of sports if cycle racing had never gone proffesional, the problems wouldn't have arrisen.
> 
> I'll enjoy the racing for what it is, knowing full well the playing field will never be level and cheating still exsists.


 Go to any hardcore Gym to see even non competitive people doping.... I can spot most sports people who have taken some form of Steroid or Growth enhancement I was naming Linford Christie long before the positive. In endurance sports they are much harder to spot because they need other types of enhancement..


----------



## Alun (18 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Go to any hardcore Gym to see even non competitive people doping.... I can spot most sports people who have taken some form of Steroid or Growth enhancement I was naming Linford Christie long before the positive. In endurance sports they are much harder to spot because they need other types of enhancement..


 I can't believe that it is only cycling that has dopers, there were a lot of non cyclists in Operation Puerto who were never identified. At least cycling is trying to address it's doping problem.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jun 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> cyclists were 'enhancing' performance long before the sport went pro.


Ah! apparently there is cheating and there is CHEATING tho hence this thread 

....have you not bothered to read the whole of the thread either ?


----------



## yello (18 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Ah! apparently there is cheating and there is CHEATING tho hence this thread


 
Indeed. There is individual doping, there is encouraging/cajoling others to dope, and there is supplying the dope. Each ought be treated separately and punished accordingly. Armstrong's allegedly got a full house.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> Millar is now on the shortlist, are you sure Brailsford is trying to prevent him riding?


 
Brailsford has for a long time been actively campaigning for stronger penalties for confirmed dopers, and has publicly stated his support for the BOA's lifetime ban, so yes, he has _indirectly_ tried to prevent Millar riding. However, he has also said:


"My job is to pick the fastest team, the best team that can win that race in London. It is not my job to decide if somebody is eligible or not... I will get shown a list of people who are eligible, then I will look at performance and decide who is most likely to get the result and I will pick them."

It's a win-win for Brailsford. If Millar's performances justify selection, then Brailsford can pick him with impunity without being seen to go against his strongly stated principles. He seems to take a pragmatic view. Nothing wrong with that. It's fine for Chris Hoy to say explicitly that he doesn't think Millar should be eligible but Hoy doesn't have the responsibility for picking the team that's widely expected to win gold. And Hoy obviously doesn't feel the need to be diplomatic about it either, the sanctimonious prig.

Imagine if Brailsford left an in-form Millar out of the team and GB didn't win the road race... No one would care much about his principles then. They still might not win the road race, but at least no one will be able to blame Brailsford for standing on his principles.

d.


----------



## Alun (18 Jun 2012)

smutchin said:


> Brailsford has for a long time been actively campaigning for stronger penalties for confirmed dopers, and has publicly stated his support for the BOA's lifetime ban, so yes, he has _indirectly_ tried to prevent Millar riding. However, he has also said:
> 
> 
> "My job is to pick the fastest team, the best team that can win that race in London. It is not my job to decide if somebody is eligible or not... I will get shown a list of people who are eligible, then I will look at performance and decide who is most likely to get the result and I will pick them."
> ...


 From what you said here, when Millar was already on the "long" list:

_"From what Brailsford has been saying, they may still find a way to avoid selecting Millar anyway, so it was probably all a massive waste of time. "_

I thought that you might have been suggesting that Brailsford was still trying to prevent Millar from riding for reason other than selecting the best team.


----------



## smutchin (18 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I thought that you might have been suggesting that Brailsford was still trying to prevent Millar from riding for reason other than selecting the best team.


 
All I meant was that Brailsford could come up with a legitimate reason for leaving Millar out of the team if he really wanted to.

Competition for places is pretty fierce, after all, and selection for the cycling team is entirely discretionary. It's not like on the running track where it would be almost impossible for selectors to leave Dwain Chambers out if he ran inside the qualifying time (which he has so far failed to do anyway #schadenfreude). There is no "qualifying time" for road cycling.

d.


----------



## yello (18 Jun 2012)

Sorry, I've stumbled into the wrong thread. I thought this one was about the Lance Armstrong doping charges 

Seriously guys, isn't there already a Millar/Olympics one?


----------



## smutchin (18 Jun 2012)

Sorry. <slaps own wrist>

d.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (18 Jun 2012)

Alun said:


> I can't believe that it is only cycling that has dopers, there were a lot of non cyclists in Operation Puerto who were never identified. At least cycling is trying to address it's doping problem.


 
I agree completely, which is exactly why it's imperative that Armstrong issue doesn't keep hanging over the sport. There were allegedly some top Spanish footballers and a leading young Spanish tennis player on the Puerto list. I think we all know who the latter was... although as there is no other evidence in his case apart from his bizarrely overdeveloped arm, we can't really name him.


----------



## Noodley (18 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think we all know who the latter was... although as there is no other evidence in his case apart from his bizarrely overdeveloped arm, we can't really name him.


 
Nadal, was it not?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (18 Jun 2012)

Ad break...


----------



## Red Light (18 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/346046/tour-de-france-1999-2008.html Written in 2008 - Wouldn't look too good stripping out LA, but you could also argue that the crosed out ones 99 - 2005 is a little damning to LA, if he was clean his miracle storyline would be incredible..


 
Its interesting that doping seems to stop dead the moment LA stops competing - perhaps all those people doping while he was racing was because it was the only way to keep up with him. And if your theory is correct it means Cadel Evans must have doped to be up there with them too.

But you present an interesting option for WADA. The new rule is if you've won the race you must have doped. That should introduce a fascinating new game of strategy into competitive cycling. How far down the finishing order do you have to position yourself to be the first one left after all the ones in front have been eliminated for doping?


----------



## rich p (18 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its interesting that doping seems to stop dead the moment LA stops competing - perhaps all those people doping while he was racing was because it was the only way to keep up with him. And if your theory is correct it means Cadel Evans must have doped to be up there with them too.
> 
> But you present an interesting option for WADA. The new rule is if you've won the race you must have doped. That should introduce a fascinating new game of strategy into competitive cycling. How far down the finishing order do you have to position yourself to be the first one left after all the ones in front have been eliminated for doping?


 Do you actually follow pro cycling? You seem to know very little about it if you don't know of the cyclists that have been nailed since Armstrong retired.


----------



## Red Light (18 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Do you actually follow pro cycling? You seem to know very little about it if you don't know of the cyclists that have been nailed since Armstrong retired.


 
Did you read the article that was linked? Thought not!


----------



## rich p (18 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> Did you read the article that was linked? Thought not!


 Well, yes I did but your point is?

I presume that you're unaware of the strong suspicions around some of the riders in the top 10's since LA's retirement?


----------



## Red Light (18 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> Well, yes I did but your point is?


 
My point is if you read the tables in the linked article, names are only crossed out, with a limited number of exceptions, in the years that Lance Armstrong won. In the lists for subsequent years most of them are not crossed out.

But LOCO seems to be saying that the fact LA won is sure fire evidence that he doped. Which as I say is an interesting approach as no-one can ever win on the basis that if they won they must have doped. As as soon as they are eliminated for doping, the next one on the list becomes the winner and is instantly disqualified too because to win they must have doped too.


----------



## Andrew_P (18 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> My point is if you read the tables in the linked article, names are only crossed out, with a limited number of exceptions, in the years that Lance Armstrong won. In the lists for subsequent years most of them are not crossed out.
> 
> But LOCO seems to be saying that the fact LA won is sure fire evidence that he doped. Which as I say is an interesting approach as no-one can ever win on the basis that if they won they must have doped. As as soon as they are eliminated for doping, the next one on the list becomes the winner and is instantly disqualified too because to win they must have doped too.


 I am still pro LA, innocent until _*proven *_guilty. There are clouds over nearly all winners or people making sharp improvements.


----------



## rich p (18 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> My point is if you read the tables in the linked article, names are only crossed out, with a limited number of exceptions, in the years that Lance Armstrong won. In the lists for subsequent years most of them are not crossed out.
> 
> But LOCO seems to be saying that the fact LA won is sure fire evidence that he doped. Which as I say is an interesting approach as no-one can ever win on the basis that if they won they must have doped. As as soon as they are eliminated for doping, the next one on the list becomes the winner and is instantly disqualified too because to win they must have doped too.


 I think you misunderstood him.

My point is that there are a significant number of questionable riders in later top 10s which seemed to indicate to me that you don't follow pro cycling very closely or you would have realised this.
Still, hey ho. It's all bluster and speculation until the authorities conclude their investigations.


----------



## Crackle (18 Jun 2012)

Red Light said:


> My point is if you read the tables in the linked article, names are only crossed out, with a limited number of exceptions, in the years that Lance Armstrong won. In the lists for subsequent years most of them are not crossed out.
> 
> But LOCO seems to be saying that the fact LA won is sure fire evidence that he doped. Which as I say is an interesting approach as no-one can ever win on the basis that if they won they must have doped. As as soon as they are eliminated for doping, the next one on the list becomes the winner and is instantly disqualified too because to win they must have doped too.


 
This logic seems a bit contrived to me. I don't think LOCO meant that at all and it falls down if you look at the times up some of the more well known climbs in recent years. Evans, whom you name as an example, has continued to climb the mtns in the same times. Meanwhile, everyone else has got slower. Funnily enough, the fastest time up Alpe d'huez is in '97, pre EPO testing. Hinault, an acknowledged great rider, barely makes it onto the list and Evans is also way down. There's a distinct era of faster times and Armstrong was part of that era, Evans isn't and I think LOCO's assertion is based on knowledge of this. This time difference was mentioned earlier in the thread as well.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Jun 2012)

Crackle said:


> This logic seems a bit contrived to me. I don't think LOCO meant that at all and it falls down if you look at the times up some of the more well known climbs in recent years. Evans, whom you name as an example, has continued to climb the mtns in the same times. Meanwhile, everyone else has got slower. Funnily enough, the fastest time up Alpe d'huez is in '97, pre EPO testing. Hinault, an acknowledged great rider, barely makes it onto the list and Evans is also way down. There's a distinct era of faster times and Armstrong was part of that era, Evans isn't and I think LOCO's assertion is based on knowledge of this. This time difference was mentioned earlier in the thread as well.


 
Can times on climbs ( I like that ) be used as a reliable measure though ? There are a lot of variables, not least tatics on the day. In Armstrongs era there were more contenders with a realistic chance in the GC. A top ten finnish actually meant something. In the present racing 2 or 3 may be have a realistic chance of winning, hence all the looking and marking. Same in Indurain s run. Before that, modern training methods were not in place. You are not comparing like for like. This has also been mentioned earlier, for the life of me I cant remember who by tho'


----------



## raindog (19 Jun 2012)

lukesdad said:


> . In Armstrongs era there were more contenders with a realistic chance in the GC. A top ten finnish actually meant something. In the present racing 2 or 3 may be have a realistic chance of winning, hence all the looking and marking.


I'd say it was exactly the opposite. Armstrong crushed all opposition - nobody else really had a chance at GC. Now, with no single person dominating, it's more open. More authentic too, imo.


----------



## rich p (19 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> I'd say it was exactly the opposite. Armstrong crushed all opposition - nobody else really had a chance at GC. Now, with no single person dominating, it's more open. More authentic too, imo.


 I agree. We're all hoping that the reason no-one dominates is hopefuly because they're not juiced up as much. I remember Basso and Scarponi flying to a comfortable Giro stage victory leaving the opposition gasping. It was either an awesome display of strength or a drug-fuelled express train. Either way it was not exciting.
This years Giro was a prime example of anyone with the balls to give it a go, having a chance. Thomas de Gendt was one of the few who did.
I recall reading a report last year showing that Tommy Voeckler's times up a certain climb (AdeH?) were very similar to his times years ago but his placing was much higher due to nobody doing stellar performances and Pantani like times without even getting out of breath.
When Armstrong was in his pomp the betting was similar to Tiger Woods before he started shagging around. 6/4 and 10/1 bar one.


----------



## rich p (19 Jun 2012)

This is an interesting site if you have the time and inclination. Scientists writing as opposed to muppets like us!
This was written during last years tour.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011_07_01_archive.html

This is their concluding paragraph....


_And I readily acknowledge that any one climb in isolation paints a picture of nothing. But I'd point out that this year, there have been three HC climbs that are regularly done in the Tour - Luz Ardiden, Plateau de Beille and Alp d'Huez. Every one of them has been more than 3 minutes slower than the record times for those climbs, all of which were set in the EPO and blood doping era of the 90s and 2000s. The same was true last year, incidentally - not once was an HC climb done at more than 6W/kg, whereas that was common in the 90s and 2000s - 6.4 W/kg was the average back then. Even when you correct for tactics and weather, the number and magnitude of those differences is compelling._

_The dividing line, I believe, comes in 2008, when the biological passport was introduced (and please read this for the context). And now, as the Tour rolls out of the mountains again, it has once again suggested to me that a) performances of greater than 6W/kg (let alone the 6.2 to 6.7W/kg we used to see) are not credible and that b) the doping problem, while no doubt present, is coming back under control thanks to the stringent testing. Obviously, this is still a hypothesis - let's get thirty or forty climbs that are slower, not the five or six in the last two years. But so far, the data support the hypothesis, and only time will tell if it's true._


----------



## albion (19 Jun 2012)

So being scientific that means all African runners dope too. 
Yep, I'm copying Red Light's 'hang em humour'.


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> So being scientific that means all African runners dope too.
> Yep, I'm copying Red Light's 'hang em humour'.


I would say there is not a major sport that involves people using their bodies that has not got some sort of drug element within its ranks. Only yesterday I saw a sports person who I would say at some time since 2009 has used some sort of Steroid, it prompted a quick search of Google and I am not the only one who thought it could be the case, strangely the tell tale sign was not the muscle, but more the avoidable side effect.

I think the case was and is a message to LA to stop pro competitive Ironmans and Triathlons, I do think that had he stayed quiet on that front it wouldnot have been re-hashed yet again. Lets face it it is a re-hash with maybe one more hear say witness account.

I also think that he cannot help himself (returning to pro sport) and found it really difficult to retire and not compete, it is as much about having something to train for as it is taking part in the event.

I would really like to think the extra time LA spent on the bike during the 7 TdF wins and the amount of running over the Stages prior to tour is the main reason he won 7 and not drugs. Until there is cast iron evidence I will continue to cling on to this. I do think if they had cast iron and not hearsay it would have been launched straight off the bat to encourge LA to 'fess up. But they have not got cast iron proof


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Jun 2012)

Thanks, richp - that site is invaluable and it is one of the main sources for my contention earlier that the biological passport had changed things.


----------



## yello (19 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Lets face it it is a re-hash with maybe one more hear say witness account.


 
I think you have to stop thinking of the USADA case as just being about Armstrong. It isn't, it goes much deeper. It's about systematic doping and the desire to wipe it out. Armstrong is just the king pin, if you will, that needs to be taken out to achieve that goal.

USADA picked up from FDA investigation but with a different focus and a different burden of proof. Read USADA's 15 page letter as a summary of the evidence that the FDA (et al) collected. It's broad. Perhaps the first time that all of the "rehased" evidence has been presented in one official document. The witness testimonies will be key, both in substance and in number - how many voices saying the same thing can you dismiss as "hear say"?

I refer you back to what Christophe Basson's said, what others have said; these charges represent what they have known for 15 years. Whilst previous attempts have been made to prove isolated allegations, they have been just that - isolated. Isolated and therefore relatively easy to defeat when there has been organisations (e.g. UCI) and the omerta closing ranks in silence in defence.

The USADA case has assembled the evidence together in one place (and I'm sure there's more in the wings, yet to come out) and so has amassed the clout the previous attempts lacked. I sincerely hope USADA don't make a mistake procedurally, make sure they get all those i's dotted and t's crossed, because it has to succeed imo. I really do believe that unless the previous endemic culture of doping is outed then it will remain as a lure for future generations.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> I'd say it was exactly the opposite. Armstrong crushed all opposition - nobody else really had a chance at GC. Now, with no single person dominating, it's more open. More authentic too, imo.


 ....and a damn site slower on the climbs. You only need to look at how the Schlecks play out their tactics and Evans one paced climbing to understand why.


----------



## yello (19 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Thanks, richp - that site is invaluable and it is one of the main sources for my contention earlier that the biological passport had changed things.


 
I'm a fan of the passport, despite the criticisms it has. For my money, it represents an attempt to establish a personalised baseline against which future readings can be compared. I'm sure it can be improved but I do think it's the right direction. It is resource hungry, I expect, in terms of collation and analysis of data (i.e. people needed to do those things) but that can be resolved if there is the will to do so. What it does need, however, is the governing bodies to act on the irregular findings.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jun 2012)

Muppets and nobbers Rich, I'm firmly in the nobbers camp !


----------



## Crackle (19 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> This is an interesting site if you have the time and inclination. Scientists writing as opposed to muppets like us!
> This was written during last years tour.
> 
> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011_07_01_archive.html
> ...


 
I was reading that site the other day and looking for that very article which was linked to last year.


----------



## Pottsy (19 Jun 2012)

Personally I find it astonishing that anyone still hangs on to the belief that he didn't dope. Whether he finally gets nailed for it or not, I don't know but I hope so.


----------



## Panter (19 Jun 2012)

As a Lance fanboy, I'm having to grudgingly admit that it's not looking good...
I've taken great inspiration from his books, and his achievements, and I still think he's a formidable athlete as even if he was doping, so was everybody else.
But, the fact still remains that he denied it, so it doesn't make it right.


----------



## MacB (19 Jun 2012)

Panter said:


> As a Lance fanboy, I'm having to grudgingly admit that it's not looking good...
> I've taken great inspiration from his books, and his achievements, and I still think he's a formidable athlete as even if he was doping, so was everybody else.
> But, the fact still remains that he denied it, so it doesn't make it right.


 
You can still keep the admiration and inspiration it just applies to a fictional character...actually if we put a human being up on a pedestal they'll tend to let us down somewhere along the line, much easier to use a made up person


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jun 2012)

Pottsy said:


> Personally I find it astonishing that anyone still hangs on to the belief that he didn't dope. Whether he finally gets nailed for it or not, I don't know but I hope so.


 I don't think its belief Pottsy, more like hope I'd say.


----------



## Pottsy (19 Jun 2012)

I admire a lot of cyclists from the past that I've seen or read about; Coppi, Merckx, Simpson, Chiapucci and many more. Many will have been 'on something' in their day, but it hasn't stopped me admiring them. As you say Panter, they were still outstanding amongst their peer group at the time.


----------



## Panter (19 Jun 2012)

Totally agree, and I hope that the good work the Armstrong foundation carries out won't be too adversely affected.
Myself, I'll still admire the man, but as an exceedingly honest person the deception wouldn't sit well with me.
Although it's easy to sit here and criticize, I imagine if everyone's living the lie and have been for a very long time, there must never be a good time to come clean.

What I really hope is that there is a definitive outcome, and that the truth does come out.
I suppose, really, it's inevitable that he must've doped, but we'll see...


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Jun 2012)

Panter said:


> Totally agree, and I hope that the good work the Armstrong foundation carries out won't be too adversely affected.
> Myself, I'll still admire the man, but as an exceedingly honest person the deception wouldn't sit well with me.
> Although it's easy to sit here and criticize, I imagine if everyone's living the lie and have been for a very long time, there must never be a good time to come clean.
> 
> ...


<Pokes Fingers In Ears> lalalala http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2012/06/13/lance-armstrong-hero-cheat-and-tragic-figure/

Lance Armstrong stands on the highest podium of heroes who inspire middle-age men and women to get off their duffs and sweat. Facing a 19 mile, 4,000 foot climb up Mt. Hamilton near SanJose as I did on Memorial Day, plodders like me will think of Lance. An image of Lance in full grimace will come into our heads. Because Lance suffered to become the greatest Tour de France rider in history, and suffered before that to defeat a cancer that had gone into his brain and lungs, and suffered still more as a youth in a single-mom home, well, maybe we can suffer some, too.
Lance made suffering cool. Lance is like a secular Jesus. His suffering and ultimate triumph gives hope.

This hope is why most weekend cyclists, along with most cancer patients and survivors throughout the world, DO NOT WANT TO HEAR about the possibility of Lance and steroids, Lance and human growth hormones, Lance and EPO, Lance and blood transfusions. We do not want to hear that Lance Armstrong cheated to win. Millions of us have too much invested in Lance Armstrong to learn otherwise.


----------



## yello (19 Jun 2012)

Nice post LOCO. Whilst not necessarily sharing the views expressed, I can see the huge motivation Armstrong was for some and disappointment/betrayal that many will feel should he fall.


----------



## just jim (19 Jun 2012)

Mamils! Lets us not cast aside our Lycra! There is hope! There can be a new beginning! Stick around!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Jun 2012)

LOCO said:


> Lance is like a secular Jesus.


 
Easy, tiger...


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Easy, tiger...


 That was a quote from the Forbes article, he did make a good summary of but did push it a bit with that bit!


----------



## Silver Fox (19 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> I can see the huge motivation Armstrong was for some and disappointment/betrayal that many will feel should he fall.


 
Indeed. The more I delve into this the more I'm beginning to wonder.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Jun 2012)

This is interesting - Victorian doping, all perfectly legal but of dubious efficacy in some cases...


----------



## festival (19 Jun 2012)

He didn't defeat cancer, he got the best treatment and thankfully he was lucky it worked.
He is certainly the greatest *cheat* in the history of the tour, as for suffering, there are plenty of riders past and present who provide honest suffering we can admire.


----------



## yello (20 Jun 2012)

festival said:


> He didn't defeat cancer, he got the best treatment and thankfully he was lucky it worked.


 
I know what you're saying but in fairness I think 'beat cancer' is just a turn of phrase that many would use for simply surviving it. That it's spun as a motivational slogan is another thing, and no great evil imo. Again, I'd cut him some slack on that one.

Indeed, I seem to recall (perhaps from one of his books) him acknowledging the situation as it was. He didn't 'fight it', that he just slept when he was tired, that he was lucky. I think you can rightly accuse him of many things but not necessarily for claiming to have kicked cancer's arse in anything other than a motivational sense.

As I said upstream, I like to keep the two Armstrong's (cancer survivor and cyclist) separate. I don't hate him that much to start deriding everything he's done.


----------



## albion (20 Jun 2012)

I'm always amazed at how many see it all as a belief system.

A fashionable term is 'truthies' (not sure about the spelling).
There are few facts but plenty of truthies.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> I'm always amazed at how many see it all as a belief system.
> 
> A fashionable term is 'truthies' (not sure about the spelling).
> There are few facts but plenty of truthies.


 
Truthers. That's for those crazy 9/11 people. This is not really in any way equivalent (for either side, or for neutrals).


----------



## raindog (20 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> That's for those crazy 9/11 people.


Do you know, some of those guys think the planes were just holograms projected into the sky by the US government.


----------



## festival (20 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> I know what you're saying but in fairness I think 'beat cancer' is just a turn of phrase that many would use for simply surviving it. That it's spun as a motivational slogan is another thing, and no great evil imo. Again, I'd cut him some slack on that one.


 
*I understand the marketing spin, he's not the only one to survive and decide to make a contribution to 'fighting' the disease. Bob Champion, jockey and winner of the Grand national is a case in point. And I recognize people are not perfect, we all have issues and there are enough truly evil people in this world that puts this debate into perspective, but 'Armstrong the brand' has been marketed like a well known fizzy drink or hamburger.*
*His cancer survival has been used to boost his appeal and insipre others which is fair enough but while its a great story, the rest of the Armstrong 'fairy tale' has been built on lies.*
*I don't hate him, that would not be healthy, but I do dislike being taken for a mug.*
*On a lighter note, many years ago before he was famous I met him at the start of a race, I was chatting to a pro rider I knew and after asking Armstrong a simple question about his bike he told me "to fark off" but of course I would never let that cloud my opinion.*


----------



## Crankarm (21 Jun 2012)

Well you don't exchange Christmas cards then .........


----------



## Alun (21 Jun 2012)

Has Armstrong responded to the allegations from USADA? Wasn't today the deadline?


----------



## just jim (21 Jun 2012)

He has till tommorrow. Nothing yet!


----------



## albion (21 Jun 2012)

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/spor...rosecutor-jury-and-judge-lance-armstrong-case


"Mr. Tygart has allegedly caught several other cyclists doping, and offered them immunity in exchange for their testimony against Lance."

"The spokesperson at the USADA did respond to my e-mail, but she declined to comment whether Tygart’s bonuses were tied to finding a certain number of athletes or a particularly high profile athlete guilty of doping."

It is a one sided comment but ain't we seen that somewhere already?


----------



## raindog (22 Jun 2012)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FrJTmB2QJg&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Noodley (22 Jun 2012)

What is "the voice of cycling" saying? <I cannae get that youtube link to work beyond seeing the title>


----------



## just jim (22 Jun 2012)

"I'm not defending Lance...but I'm defending Lance."


----------



## yello (22 Jun 2012)

Pro Lance and factually incorrect.


----------



## yello (22 Jun 2012)

Noodley said:


> What is "the voice of cycling" saying? <I cannae get that youtube link to work beyond seeing the title>


 
Basically trying to dismiss it as SSDD and using the PR defence (never tested positive, discredited & embittered witnesses, etc).


----------



## rich p (22 Jun 2012)

What a heap of platitudiness cobblers and disinformation and misinformation.

When the video finished and there are 6 options to choose from, I found more sense spoken in this one...

... 
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smWOWa0fFc4&feature=relmfu


----------



## raindog (22 Jun 2012)

oops - just posted this in the wrong thread - JB OUT
http://johanbruyneel.com/news_articles/tour_statement_2012.html


----------



## Crackle (22 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> oops - just posted this in the wrong thread - JB OUT
> http://johanbruyneel.com/news_articles/tour_statement_2012.html


 
Messages of support; Liggett was it?


----------



## Noodley (22 Jun 2012)

I wonder if we could petition ITV4 to get different commentators? Liggett and Sherwen are fanboys, totally not objective when it comes down to commenting on doping as they are in the pay of US media. Which is a shame as they have "sold out" over the years.


----------



## roadracerash1 (22 Jun 2012)

These doping allegations are a load of bull. The French couldn't deal with the fact that a foreigner was winning tours and it all started with the media. I think its time the world should start to suck it up and move on. Why do i think that Lance is innocent? Well just watching that documentary made back in 2005 about the science behind lance armstrong is proof in itself that his physiology and biochemistry puts him above his competition. Plus all his blood test results for performance enhancing drugs, which every other athlete had to under go, came back... you guessed it.... negative.


----------



## Crankarm (22 Jun 2012)

roadracerash1 said:


> These doping allegations are a load of bull. The French couldn't deal with the fact that a foreigner was winning tours and it all started with the media. I think its time the world should start to suck it up and move on. Why do i think that Lance is innocent? Well just watching that documentary made back in 2005 about the science behind lance armstrong is proof in itself that his physiology and biochemistry puts him above his competition. Plus all his blood test results for performance enhancing drugs, which every other athlete had to under go, came back... you guessed it.... negative.


 
Oh oh .................... cue another 21 pages.


----------



## fozy tornip (23 Jun 2012)

roadracerash1 said:


> .. the world should start to suck it up .


Much as one might fill a syringe?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (23 Jun 2012)

Must say this thread has been a great read. Simple browsing turned into a much longer piece of brain stimuli. ;-)

I sit on the fence on this one and i hope no one slates me for it. I simply don't have all the facts and i am happy to admit that without this i cannot say for sure wether he is guilty or innocent. The thing is though, there are lots of opinions on here that simply will not be changed regardless of any official outcome. Some on here say that Lance has been doping for years and that this is simple obvious fact. A fact is something that is not in dispute. Isn't it?

Some on here would not have a bad word said against because of the obvious character the man has. To battle cancer and win 7 TDF's is no piece of cake but it most certainly does not make the man innocent of doping. As far as character assumptions go see Ryan Giggs (for the footy fans out there).

End of the day it is all just speculation and, until a verdict is reached, a very good read (for me at least).

I genuinely cannot think of one high energy sport where drugs have not played a big part. To be the best simply means to do whatever it takes. Whilst i do not condone it i can easily see that if you can get away with it then to not do it actually gives you a disadvantage. Certainly in LA's time drugs in the sport (and many other high energy sports) were rife. If one was to put winning above all else in life then the choice/risk doesn't seem to exist at all. Again i would not choose this route but i do not win pro races. To what extent would you sacrifice yourself to be the best appears to be the question.

We don't live in an ideal world and i for one still love to watch the major tourny's start to finish regardless of wether some refer to it as tainted due to doping or not.

Until euro sport starts airing the "drug free tour series" i will continue to sky plus every second of the drug riddled cycling that they have to offer just now.  
It is fantastic inspiration getting out doors when it's raining 24/7 in sunny Scotland.


----------



## yello (23 Jun 2012)

roadracerash1 said:


> These doping allegations are a load of bull.


 
Thanks for that.

I suspect Armstrong's lawyers have agreed with that assessment somewhere in their 18 page letter in response to the USADA charges. I've not read it yet so I don't know if they're actually contesting the charges. My guess is not.

The Bruyneel news doesn't surprise me. My question is 'did he jump or was he pushed?'


----------



## rich p (23 Jun 2012)

roadracerash1 said:


> These doping allegations are a load of bull. The French couldn't deal with the fact that a foreigner was winning tours and it all started with the media. I think its time the world should start to suck it up and move on. Why do i think that Lance is innocent? Well just watching that documentary made back in 2005 about the science behind lance armstrong is proof in itself that his physiology and biochemistry puts him above his competition. Plus all his blood test results for performance enhancing drugs, which every other athlete had to under go, came back... you guessed it.... negative.


 A convincing argument and very well put I might say.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (23 Jun 2012)

rich p said:


> A convincing argument and very well put I might say.


 
Are you a convert?


----------



## david k (23 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> Pro Lance and factually incorrect.


what was incorrect?

i find this thread very interesting, IMO he probably did dope or take EPO and i believe most did (and the more money you had the more sophisticated your drugs). They couldnt test for it at the time, for periods it wasnt even banned as they werent aware of it. Id rather them have caught riders at the time and cleaned it out but its taken them time, i believe its a lot clearner now but may never be totally clean. Not sure there is enough evidence to charge lance with anything now, its a case of 'the horse has bolted'. If he did cheat and i beleive he did, then he and others got away with it.

At some stage we must move on, its really messy, a can of worms, now is time to let it be. i dont like him if what i have heard is correct but that shouldnt be the reason to go after him. after all, his 7 tours are all under question and dont bring the respect they would if these question marks were not over them, we will have to be satisfied that this is the way it will be


----------



## PaulB (23 Jun 2012)

For some insight into the situation, I'd strongly recommend this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Blood-Secret-Life-France/dp/0224080229

It tells the story of the appearance of EPO being interpreted by many teams as having been green-lighted by the cycling authorities at the time and, naturally, that was pushed to its maximum by the riders and DSs until the plug was pulled.

It would be difficult to read this and assume Armstrong (and the book isn't all about him) achieved all he did on eggs and isotonic drinks. In the light of the recent information about tax-evasion, Armstrong's defence is that of someone stating that as what he did was legal, why are we bothering to ask for full clarification on the issue.


----------



## yello (23 Jun 2012)

Thanks for posting that Paul, I'm going to get a 2nd hand copy to read.

Interesting that you say EPO was "green lighted". I didn't know that. I knew there was a period of time when it was used extensively without being specifically 'red lighted' but I must admit I'd assumed it was always a no-no, outed as performance enhancing or at least not in the spirit.


----------



## Andrew_P (23 Jun 2012)

I also read that kind endorsed or ceartainly not tested for in the 94 season in a book about Lance Armstrong but not written by him. How demoralised both Armstrong and Motorola were about the EPO riders being so powerful that season. (Ithink it was 94 it was defintely the season that LA was "carrying" the burden of the Rainbow Jersey) If the book was accurate it gave the impression that LA was considering quitting. I am just getting to the kind of but not completely secret first meeting between LA and Ferrari, and how pissed the Motorola team Dr Testa was when he found out about the meeting. In the book the reason Testa was pissed seemed to be the dramtic improvement riders who went to see him got, without saying through doping..

The book is not completely pro LA but the genral tone of it I do not think it will cover the doping much but I am only half way through it.


----------



## PaulB (23 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> Thanks for posting that Paul, I'm going to get a 2nd hand copy to read.
> 
> Interesting that you say EPO was "green lighted". I didn't know that. I knew there was a period of time when it was used extensively without being specifically 'red lighted' but I must admit I'd assumed it was always a no-no, outed as performance enhancing or at least not in the spirit.


 
I think it's one of the most interesting and illuminating things in this excellent book. If I remember it all correctly (it is some time since I read it, but I did read it twice), the haematocrit level was set at below 50%. As haematocrit is naturally produced, there will be large discrepancies in individuals' levels so it was not easy to define a 'normal' level. It shows how a well-prepared rider will show up and can show up, is EXPECTED to show up on the start line of a major stage race with a haematocrit level up around the 45-48% mark and this can be naturally occurring. However, each day of hard riding will deplete the haematocrit level until by the end of week two, it will be around 30-35% with a naturally occurring drop off in performance. Once EPO came on the scene, the teams knew that they now had a way to 'repair' the decrease and provided the levels remained under the legal limit, they took it as a green light to administer it up to the required level.

So it was used on the riders but this had calamitous side effects. Young riders in Belgium and Holland, were dying in their sleep in alarmingly high numbers. The increase in EPO thickened the blood which could cause blockages and heart attacks when the pulse slowed down during sleep. The tour riders would have the EPO administered, some blood taken and centrifuged (it's funny how so many teams felt the need to travel with a centrifuge) so that the haematocrit level could be determined. If too high, lots of water and extra cycling training was prescribed and they were often woken during the night to train on static bikes set up in their rooms to prevent cardiac arrest occurring during too deep sleep. It was only the discovery of a test that could determine naturally occurring haematocrit from synthetic haematocrit that called a halt on the EPO injections. 

So the book asks, since so many, many riders were caught using EPO and other illegal substances, how is it that Lance Armstrong, assisted by his totally discredited advisor, Michelle Ferrari, was so much better than them?


----------



## yello (23 Jun 2012)

PaulB said:


> IOnce EPO came on the scene, the teams knew that they now had a way to 'repair' the decrease and provided the levels remained under the legal limit, *they took it as a green light* to administer it up to the required level.


 
Ah, okay. That's slightly different and I was aware of that. (Not that some riders respected the 50% limit!) From your original statement, I thought you were saying the use of EPO was officially approved.


----------



## PaulB (23 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> Ah, okay. That's slightly different and I was aware of that. (Not that some riders respected the 50% limit!) From your original statement, I thought you were saying the use of EPO was officially approved.


 
Aye, you're correct. It did read that way so I've done a bit of back-peddling to try and clarify that so it makes marginally more sense to my hungover brain.


----------



## yello (24 Jun 2012)

Next step, now Lance has responded to the USADA charges, is a case review by an independent board. The board comprises medical, legal and technical expertise (whatever the latter one is!) and will decide whether there is sufficient grounds to proceed. The charges are dead in the water if they say no. If yes, USADA could be filing charges as early as next week. Then the real fun would begin.

I'd not be surprised if we now see a flurry of activity in the public arena as Armstrong's PR and legal people try to mass public support. Clearly, they want the review board to say 'no' and will use all means available to influence the decision. Equally, I'm sure behind-the-scenes, 'off the record' phone calls will be made too - it's only to be expected.


----------



## david k (24 Jun 2012)

could be a circus! well even more of a circus, not sure its helping cycling either way


----------



## just jim (24 Jun 2012)

It's helping cycling already. Apart from all the fanboy paroxysms. That's not helping, though to be expected.


----------



## just jim (24 Jun 2012)

In a much more reflective frame of mind is "the look" recipient Ullrich who stands to gain some titles when the gears start turning.
"I get the developments but do not follow it" comes from a man who seems to know much more than he cares to admit.


----------



## raindog (24 Jun 2012)

just jim said:


> "I get the developments but do not follow it" comes from a man who seems to know much more than he cares to admit.


about his own doping you mean?


----------



## just jim (24 Jun 2012)

Yes, at the heart of it. I was always interested in those miraculous transformations after his pre-season pie eating. And if he spilled the baked beans it would provide another layer of context to current events.


----------



## fozy tornip (24 Jun 2012)

just jim said:


> .. his pre-season pie eating.


I've heard it suggested that Ullrich's supposed fondness for Black Forest Gateau is one of those myths with which some cycling fans comfort themselves, and that the likelier explanation was closed season steroid use. To increase power. Bloats you, apparently.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Jun 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> I've heard it suggested that Ullrich's supposed fondness for Black Forest Gateau is one of those myths with which some cycling fans comfort themselves, and that the likelier explanation was closed season steroid use. To increase power. Bloats you, apparently.


 
I think it might be more his fondness for nightclubs


----------



## raindog (24 Jun 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> I've heard it suggested that Ullrich's supposed fondness for Black Forest Gateau is one of those myths with which some cycling fans comfort themselves, and that the likelier explanation was closed season steroid use. To increase power. Bloats you, apparently.


I wouldn't be too sure about that. Likes his cake and beer does Jan.


----------



## Crankarm (25 Jun 2012)

There would be some merit in having a forum for just LA given that he figures so frequently as a topic for discussion and that each thread is longer than War and Peace.


----------



## raindog (25 Jun 2012)

It could be a sub-section of the helmet forum.


----------



## yello (25 Jun 2012)

Heaven forbid a topic being popular eh?  Hardly surprising though given the personality and the topic.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (25 Jun 2012)

Wow this thread just keeps on going, wonder if it has any relationship with Dr. Michele Ferrari


----------



## Noodley (25 Jun 2012)

Crankarm said:


> There would be some merit in having a forum for just LA given that he figures so frequently as a topic for discussion and that each thread is longer than War and Peace.


 
There have been 2 Armstrong threads this year - one when the case was "dropped" and this one. The first thread was 4 pages (73 posts) long.


----------



## Noodley (25 Jun 2012)

^^^ that is commonly known as evidence ^^^


----------



## Alun (25 Jun 2012)

raindog said:


> I wouldn't be too sure about that. Likes his cake and beer does Jan.


 I like his bibshorts, are they Rapha?


----------



## yello (25 Jun 2012)

I've been allowing myself to think in terms of punishment (I really ought not tempt fate, I know, but what the hell!)

I don't think any USADA punishment (ban, title stripping, fine) would be in itself a real issue for a retired and wealthy ex-athlete. They could still live out there lives quietly without major disruption, dealing with their ghosts as they will. What the USADA punishment could lead to (particularly in the case of Armstrong) is another matter; it could financially ruin him and have him publicly vilified front page on national dailies.

But I'd be happy for Armstrong to be named and shamed officially, i.e. the USADA punishment only; for it to be known by all that his exploits are tainted and the record books to reflect that. Should that happen, my interest in the subject would diminish.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> But I'd be happy for Armstrong to be named and shamed officially, i.e. the USADA punishment only; for it to be known by all that his exploits are tainted and the record books to reflect that. Should that happen, my interest in the subject would diminish.


 
It's the UCI that might then act to change the record book. USADA does not have that power. As I've already stated, I don't really agree with doing this. I'd rather the results stood, alongside the knowledge that the winner was most likely illegally assisted.


----------



## Alun (25 Jun 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It's the UCI that might then act to change the record book. USADA does not have that power. As I've already stated, I don't really agree with doing this. I'd rather the results stood, alongside the knowledge that the winner was most likely illegally assisted.


 Agreed, if you start to rewrite the results, where would you stop? Give the 2000/2001 and 2003 TdF to Ullrich? Someone who is currently banned for doping, although not for the years in question.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jun 2012)

Good old Jan, thumbs up for the lifting of the pasty tax < I like a pasty>


----------



## yello (25 Jun 2012)

My loose wording takes people down a street I didn't intend.

I don't want the record books "rewritten" and I realise USADA cannot strip titles they didn't award. In fact, I see no real purpose in stripping the TdF wins etc (though I suspect that would happen) and I'm pretty sure I've said that already.

I do want history to show that Armstrong was a tainted 'winner'. USADA finding Armstrong guilty would ensure that.

Btw, is it UCI or ASO that'd strip the TdF titles? Genuine question, I don't know, though I thought it'd be ASO.


----------



## Alun (25 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> I do want history to show that Armstrong was a tainted 'winner'. USADA finding Armstrong guilty would ensure that.


And all the other winners who doped? Going back how far?


----------



## yello (25 Jun 2012)

It's of no relevance. The USADA action is not against other winners of the TdF. The fact that other riders dope is not a reason to not pursue Armstrong.

For what it's worth, I support action against all riders that dope.


----------



## Alun (25 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> It's of no relevance. The USADA action is not against other winners of the TdF.


Are you against doping in cycling, or not?
It's beginning to sound as if it's just LA you want to show as "a tainted winner".


----------



## smutchin (25 Jun 2012)

It's not yello who's going after Lance, it's the USADA. If you have evidence against other riders, why not give them a call?

d.


----------



## yello (25 Jun 2012)

A note to others - it may look as though Alun has selectively quoted me but I think, in fairness to him, his post crossed with me editing my original one.


----------



## lukesdad (25 Jun 2012)

yello said:


> A note to others - it may look as though Alun has selectively quoted me but I think, in fairness to him, his post crossed with me editing my original one.


 
mmm you ve caught me out with that too yello


----------



## marafi (25 Jun 2012)

A shame he was not lucky enough to get through. Ah well real sport people, work hard and get through without the doping.


----------



## yello (26 Jun 2012)

To follow on from Marafi's point, doping athletes also deny clean ones from success.



lukesdad said:


> mmm you ve caught me out with that too yello


 
Sorry about that  I do have this habit of sub-editing my posts minutes after posting in an attempt to make them clearer or more precise. I want to try and avoid misinterpretation and I don't always see the potential for that immediately on posting.... that's my excuse anyway, and I'm sticking to it


----------



## albion (26 Jun 2012)

"To follow on from Marafi's point, doping athletes also deny clean ones from success."

..............and get let off in the fingering process?


----------



## yello (26 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> ..............and get let off in the fingering process?


 
 I suspect the ones you're referring to are not going to be let off. Why do you think they're 'unavailable' for the Olympics?


----------



## smutchin (26 Jun 2012)

http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.nl/2012/06/out-classing-lance-armstrongs-attorneys.html

http://cyclismas.com/2012/06/the-case-against-lance-armstrong-exactly-where-it-needs-to-be/


----------



## yello (26 Jun 2012)

^^^ Good link. Anna Zimmerman's done a few blog posts on the subject of Armstrong. She's writes clearly and well so they're worth a read imho.


----------



## Dave Davenport (26 Jun 2012)

I'd have to agree with one of the comments on the blog re. the angle being taken by LA's legal bods being aimed at the general public and will be used as a smokescreen to try to convince people he's been the victim of a stich up if/when he gets found guilty.
OK, they're lawyers and you wouldn't mind if a boat full sank (to paraphrase Robert Cray) but slimey as they may be, I think LA is smart (and rich) enough not to hire daft ones.


----------



## yello (26 Jun 2012)

You're right Dave. Armstrong's response to USADA was aimed more at the general public than at USADA. His legal team want to fight this in the court of public opinion.

I think LA's lawyers are also trying to confuse people by using a language of criminal court proceedings, suggesting USADA are being unconstitutional and such like. USADA isn't a court of law and performs according to agreed rules. Every US athlete agrees to those rules when they get their licence. One of Anna Zimmerman's blog posts picks up on this, using a college admissions analogy. A tenancy agreement would be another example; you agree to certain rules when you sign the agreement - no pets, whatever. If you break those rules you can be legally evicted even though owning a pet is not illegal. Simply because you broke the terms of the agreement. Think of the USADA action more along those lines than a court trial.

The 2nd of those above links (The case against Lance Armstrong: Exactly where it needs to be) goes more into the difference between USADA and federal court and the differing burdens of proof etc, and is well worth reading.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Jun 2012)

Well, the case is definitely going ahead: USADA have announced that the independent expert panel has recommended charging Armstrong et al. and this will move to the full hearing process.


----------



## raindog (30 Jun 2012)

Must have a pretty solid case then.


----------



## yello (30 Jun 2012)

From the above link (my bold)...



> All respondents will have the opportunity to exercise their right to a full public arbitration hearing, *should they so choose*, where all evidence would be presented, witness testimony would be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators would ultimately decide the outcome of the case


 
Will Armstrong and his team decide to go public? There could well be potentially damaging testimony for him. Will he want to risk that, whatever the outcome of the hearing? Tbh, I don't even know whether he's contesting. If he doesn't, this could be over very quickly.

A "unanimous" decision too. Doesn't surprise me tbh. I reckon USADA would have sought some kind of sounding or legal advice before evening commencing the process. They would have wanted to be certain they had a case.

Oh gosh.... on the eve of the tour..... they _always_ do that... blah blah blah


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Jun 2012)

Armstrong has now been charged. This report in The Comic says that ten former team-mates will testify against him.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/533665/armstrong-charged-with-doping-offences.html


----------



## yello (30 Jun 2012)

Thanks for the link SJ. I didn't know this...



> The accused have until July 9 to inform USADA if they wish to challenge the evidence against them.


 
I'm intrigued to know what Armstrong will do. He's said he'll not contest but that was before the ban... and it's just not a course of action one would expect from him. If he doesn't contest, he's effectively accepting the validity of the evidence and resigning himself to any punishment.

That would be perhaps the least attention drawing course of action and could minimise the fall out effect of any evidence. If found 'guilty', he could continue to dismiss USADA as a vindictive kangaroo court and hope his sponsors and supporters stay with him. He'd maybe loose titles and take a life time ban (the latter hurting more than the former because of his interest in triathlon) but it could be the least damaging course of action.

Personally, I think there's very little chance of the charges being dismissed if he doesn't contest. Imo, only a procedural mistake would see that happen. I honestly believe he can only be cleared if he contests - I belief the evidence on it's own will be that convincing and he'd need to address it himself before the panel.

If he contests, then he draws out the process and invites more scrutiny. He could suffer the same official punishment but end up being significantly more damaged in the public eye and consequently perhaps with his sponsors. He could obviously get the charges dismissed but he's exposing himself in the process - and who knows what the effect of that might be.

Rock and a hard place innit?

Of course, he could be completely innocent of all charges and all the evidence is invented and witness testimony is simply from embittered individuals. That is a possibility.


----------



## albion (30 Jun 2012)

How are all these anonymous individuals embittered if they have been simply offered deals after themselves testing positive?


----------



## yello (30 Jun 2012)

Are you addressing your question to someone albion? Or are you being rhetorical?

Because, tbh, I don't know what you're saying. You clearly have a point to make but I don't want to presume what it is. Do you want to clarify it?


----------



## albion (30 Jun 2012)

That was you Yello if you ignore the philosophising over it all.

Obviously they do not have to be embittered for Armstrong to be innocent.


----------



## yello (30 Jun 2012)

Perhaps you didn't read my use of the word 'embittered' as ironic? Because it was intended to be and, to make myself clear, I don't think they are at all embittered. However, they may be dismissed as such by the defence team.

To he frank, I'm still not really seeing your point albion but ask yourself this; given the witnesses have been named as part of the evidence in support of the charges against Armstrong, do you think they are there to testify to his innocence?


----------



## albion (30 Jun 2012)

All interesting stuff. Strange how Floyd Landis sort of predicted all this.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ADA-actions-calls-for-case-to-be-dropped.aspx


----------



## yello (30 Jun 2012)

So is this, from your link, related to your point albion?



> That excerpt claims that Tygart told Landis he would get a suspension of less than a year if he gave information on ‘bigger names’ in cycling. Landis interprets this as meaning USADA wanted information on Armstrong, and asserted then that he never saw anything to indicate that Armstrong had doped.


 
If I know what it is you're saying then I will try to respond to it.


----------



## albion (30 Jun 2012)

As strange as the assertion that Armstrong retired a 7 times legend and came back to be 'caught with his hands in the till'.

Landis's stories of course are never quite credible.


----------



## yello (30 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> Landis's stories of course are never quite credible.


 
I'd agree he is an unreliable witness and any defence team would have no problems in raising questions as to his credibility. That said, we don't know if he is one of the 10+ testimonies that USADA have offered as evidence, so his lack of credibility may not be a problem.

Btw (and to guess at what might be your point) we don't even know how many of those testimonies are from cyclists (as opposed to from a support or medial team members), let alone from cyclists that admitted to doping, BUT for what it's worth, I have no problem with anyone being given a lesser sentence for assisting the investigation. Is that what you object to?


----------



## Chuffy (30 Jun 2012)

albion said:


> How are all these anonymous individuals embittered if they have been simply offered deals *after themselves testing positive*?


There are supposedly ten former teammates and associates. Assuming that two of them are Landis and Hamilton, that leaves another 8 who haven't tested positive. I don't recall Zabriskie, Vaughters or Hincapie ever being busted and I'd bet a months wages that they're on the list.


----------



## smutchin (1 Jul 2012)

Zabriskie and Vaughters would have to be regarded as credible witnesses. Heck, Zabriskie doesn't even eat meat (you hear that, Bertie?). 

I'm far from believing the sport is now 100% clean (or will ever be) but it's great that the culture has changed enough for people like Zabriskie to feel they can now speak out (assuming he is indeed one of the witnesses) about what they must have always known about without risk of getting the Bassons/Simeoni treatment. 

d.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> There are supposedly ten former teammates and associates. Assuming that two of them are Landis and Hamilton, that leaves *another 8 who haven't tested positive*. I don't recall Zabriskie, Vaughters or Hincapie ever being busted and I'd bet a months wages that they're on the list.


That (highlighted in bold) doesn't seem to count for anything on this thread!


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I'd agree he is an unreliable witness and any defence team would have no problems in raising questions as to his credibility. That said, we don't know if he is one of the 10+ testimonies that USADA have offered as evidence, so his lack of credibility may not be a problem./cut


 If USADA have 10+ witnesses (including Landis), they would be badly advised to use him, better to go forward with 9+ witnesses.


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Jul 2012)

Anouther 8 ho


Chuffy said:


> There are supposedly ten former teammates and associates. Assuming that two of them are Landis and Hamilton, that leaves *another 8 who haven't* tested positive. I don't recall Zabriskie, Vaughters or Hincapie ever being busted and I'd bet a months wages that they're on the list.


 You surely mean 9? Currently LA has never tested positive and I do not think anyone should forget that :-) 

If they cannot catch what most on this thread think is a supersize doper, testing in a Tdf as late as 2010 then what chance do they have with today's micro dopers? I have sneaky suspicion that some of the evidence of doping may well be from this year.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

LOCO said:


> Anouther 8 ho
> 
> You surely mean 9? Currently LA has never tested positive and I do not think anyone should forget that :-)
> 
> If they cannot catch what most on this thread think is a supersize doper, testing in a Tdf as late as 2010 then what chance do they have with today's micro dopers? I have sneaky suspicion that some of the evidence of doping may well be from this year.


He has been formally charged, and there is nothing from 2012, I would be surprised if USADA could slide anything in without breaching their procedures.


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Jul 2012)

I was wondering if it is a comparision of blood between 2010 & 2012


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

LOCO said:


> Currently LA has never tested positive and I do not think anyone should forget that :-)


 
Well actually he has, for which he produced a backdated doctor's note, and I do not think anyone should forget that 

Besides, Armstrong is not one of the USADA testimonies (though he was invited to speak to them and declined) so does not feature in the 10+.

Loco, your argument is confused, but if you read the charges you will realise there is talk of conspiracy. It's alleged that Armstrong was significantly ahead of others in his doping program. If you read further, you'll see some even implicate UCI hid results. That Armstrong was never formally charged may not be proof that he never tested positive, nor that he never doped.


----------



## raindog (2 Jul 2012)

Only $19.50 
http://www.pedalpushersclub.com/collections/t-shirts/products/defend-lance


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I would be surprised if USADA could slide anything in without breaching their procedures.


 
USADA made a statement to the effect that they only disclosed in the charges document allegations that were already in the public domain (or the SSDD evidence to use the Armstrong parlance!) They did this to protect new witnesses from possible intimidation.

That's a clever statement as it indicates the possibility of new evidence. Whether there is new evidence or not remains to be seen. Certainly the blood test anomalies that USADA mentioned could be the source of new evidence, and that could take the form of expert analysis of the blood passport figures.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> USADA made a statement to the effect that they only disclosed in the charges document allegations that were already in the public domain (or the SSDD evidence to use the Armstrong parlance!) They did this to protect new witnesses from possible intimidation.
> 
> That's a clever statement as it indicates the possibility of new evidence. Whether there is new evidence or not remains to be seen. Certainly the blood test anomalies that USADA mentioned could be the source of new evidence, and that could take the form of expert analysis of the blood passport figures.


USADA have stated in formal charges that the blood is from 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't think that they could pull some 2012 blood from a hat and use it in evidence. The blood from 2010/2011 has surely been tested already and presumably found "clean". I will be interested to see how they present that evidence.


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> USADA have stated in formal charges that the blood is from 2010 and 2011, I wouldn't think that they could pull some 2012 blood from a hat and use it in evidence. The blood from 2010/2011 has surely been tested already and presumably found "clean". I will be interested to see how they present that evidence.


The reason I thought it may have something to do with current blood is that they were testing him straight off the bat when he turned pro to compete in Tri and Ironmans. If he was clean now and not then I would think it would show signifcant changes in bloodwork.

Taken form Facebook

"I refuse to be distracted by USADA's antics. It's 2012, I'm gonna continue to lead LIVESTRONG, raise my 5 kids, and stay fit!"

I do wonder if he will defend it or not


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun, we might be at cross purposes. I want to avoid that so, to be clear, I wasn't picking fault only adding to what you said.

Obviously, I've no idea what USADA have nor how they intend to use it. They do however leave open to interpretation the possibility that they do have undisclosed evidence, and I've read no objection to that, but I guess that has to be disclosed to the accused at some stage prior to the hearing.

I personally have never read any mention of 2012 blood figures, no idea where that idea even came from in truth. I suspect Loco was just asking the question. Armstrong would have been tested in 2012 at some stage because of his involvement in triathlon so it is a possibility. I personally don't see it though.

As I said upstream, I think the blood evidence will be analytical rather than a 'positive test' per se. Without getting too complex (though I can point people to info if they want more detail), testing for EPO doping doesn't always give a clear 'yes/no' (though it can do). There are markers that indicate possibilities and analysts interpret that along with the presence or absence of other indicators etc.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

I would think USADA would have to put all their cards on the table now they have formally charged Armstrong (and others). I would expect a lengthy wait whilst Armstrong's lawyers pick over every minute detail.
I realize that dope testing isn't black and white, but what can be done now, that couldn't be done in 2010/2011?


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> but what can be done now, that couldn't be done in 2010/2011?


 Thats why I thought it might be comaparing two sets of Blood one 2010/11 and one from the recent tests. I cannot imagine they are relying on the same evidence as the Federal case as that failed. TBH if it is just hearsay then even if found guilty for me it would be still not be clear cut. They really need to have something different up their sleeve and as Yello states it is open ended as to what the new evidence is, maybe they are quite happy that everyone is speculating that it is a new personal statement as opposed to scientific evidence.


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I would expect a lengthy wait whilst Armstrong's lawyers pick over every minute detail.


 
Yes, it's the next stage of the process and I do find it intriguing. I must reread stuff and answer my own questions here. They (i.e. Armstrong et al) have until the 9th to advise their intention to contest or no. I'm presuming they have the full evidence in front of them though but, I have to admit, I keep falling foul here. I keep thinking court procedure and the USADA hearing is not a court of law and has it's own procedures.

I don't even know if it's a joint action. That is, are Armstrong, Bruyneel, etc all to be treated as one or whether they can each elect separately to contest, and/or go for a public hearing. I can't imagine the good Dr Ferrari cares too much what USADA may decide but it could have huge ramifications for Armstrong - so it'd not surprise if the 2 of them might want a different approach.


----------



## Crackle (2 Jul 2012)

LOCO said:


> Thats why I thought it might be comaparing two sets of Blood one 2010/11 and one from the recent tests. I cannot imagine they are relying on the same evidence as the Federal case as *that failed*. TBH if it is just hearsay then even if found guilty for me it would be still not be clear cut. They really need to have something different up their sleeve and as Yello states it is open ended as to what the new evidence is, maybe they are quite happy that everyone is speculating that it is a new personal statement as opposed to scientific evidence.


 
Well, it didn't fail, it was dropped, why depends on which conspiracy theory you believe but they were also coming at it from a different angle, they weren't interested in proving doping per se.


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

LOCO said:


> I cannot imagine they are relying on the same evidence as the Federal case as that failed.


 
Sorry to be picky but the federal case didn't "fail". It just wasn't continued. It's not closed, it's still there and can be restarted at any point. In fact, dependant on the outcome of the USADA action, I could see it reopened.

Also, you have to remember the federal case and the USADA action are entirely different beasts and there has apparently been no information passed from the feds to USADA (I suspect what that means in reality is that USADA conducted interviews etc in the first place and the feds sat in on them!). The 2 also had entirely different objectives. Doping is not a crime and the federal case didn't concern itself with that. Given all of that, its likely that it's substantially different evidence with different burdens of proof.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

I'm pretty sure that Armstrong's team is entitled to have ALL the evidence against him before proceeding, otherwise they would not be able to mount a full defence.
Armstrong's side is already calling it a kangeroo court, so USADA would be unwise to fuel that fire.
I am convinced that this matter is headed to CAS at the end of the day, so all USADA actions will be under scrutiny.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Sorry to be picky but the federal case didn't "fail". It just wasn't continued. It's not closed, it's still there and can be restarted at any point. In fact, dependant on the outcome of the USADA action, I could see it reopened.


 This was reported by Cycling News in February
A press release from United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. stated 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."


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

I agree Alun, I too think USADA will be ever so careful with how they handle this. Tripled checked and advice sought before taking a step. They know lawyers will be brandishing fine tooth combs looking for procedural slip ups.


----------



## totallyfixed (2 Jul 2012)

How's this for irony, it's an extract "from Lance to Landis" by David Walsh [do read it if you can] and is from a conversation between Greg LeMond and Lance Armstrong:
GLM - "So you are threatening me? Listen Lance, I know a lot about physiology, no amount of training can transform an athlete with a VO2 Max of 82 into one of 95, and you have ridden faster than me"
LA - I could find at least ten people who will say you did EPO, ten people who would come forward"

Priceless.


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> This was reported by Cycling News in February
> A press release from United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. stated 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."


 
That's right - "his office" ceased their actions, yes. That is, the procedural actions of the central California attorneys office. Note that they didn't conduct the investigation, that was done by the USFDA and remains on file. It's my understanding that it's never closed, can be re-started, re-submitted* or even filed at a different office.

*edit - should have added 'with new evidence' perhaps


----------



## smutchin (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> This was reported by Cycling News in February


 
...and has been explained several times already in this thread.

d.


----------



## albion (2 Jul 2012)

Was Greg LeMond really that thick?


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

It's that naughty kid rattling the letter box again 

albion, are you going to hang around and explain yourself this time?!


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Jul 2012)

Not failing a blood test or drug test is not a proof of innocence. I seem to recall that quite a few athletes - Marion Jones springs to mind - who never failed drugs tests yet were caught up in paper trails that established their guilt. Did Bjarne Ris ever fail a drug test, or was he too tripped up by other evidence? (that's not a rhetorical question; I honestly can't remember)

Another thing I do not understand. In athletics, if one member of a relay squad is caught doing drugs, the whole lot lose their medals, placings, victories. Cycling it seems take a far more generous view. Quite a few of Lance's team mates, peope upon whom he relied to get him to the winner's podium, are proven, even confessed drug cheats. If cycling took the same stance as athletics, we wouldn't even be having a conversation about whether Lance's seven victories should stand.


----------



## smutchin (2 Jul 2012)

Whenever anyone asked Riis directly if he doped, he always gave the deliberately ambiguous answer that he "never failed a test" (sound familiar?) but he later admitted he had used EPO and cortisone after Conconi was nabbed.

d.


----------



## Buddfox (2 Jul 2012)

And, interestingly for the case of Armstrong and what happens to his seven victories, Riis is still in the record books as the winner of the '96 Tour.


----------



## raindog (2 Jul 2012)

Buddfox said:


> And, interestingly for the case of Armstrong and what happens to his seven victories, Riis is still in the record books as the winner of the '96 Tour.


Personally, I like the idea of leaving the record books unchanged but putting an asterisk next to the name. We've just seen the winner's trophy for the 2010 Tour given to Andy Schleck, when he could well have been on a bigger programme than Berto. All a bit daft imo.


----------



## albion (2 Jul 2012)

No one can estimate VO2 max so why would LeMond?


----------



## Buddfox (2 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> No one can estimate VO2 max so why would LeMond?


 
Anyone can estimate it, just not necessarily accurately...


----------



## smutchin (2 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> No one can estimate VO2 max so why would LeMond?


 
Lemond wasn't estimating anything - AIUI, he was referring to Lance's _widely reported_ VO2max figure of 82* and his own significantly higher reading. The point of his question was how Lance could possibly ride faster than him with a lower VO2max.

The obvious answer to that would be that VO2max isn't directly related to performance in the way Lemond thinks it is. Personally, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to comment.

d.

*I don't know if this has ever been officially verified.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

raindog said:


> Personally, I like the idea of leaving the record books unchanged but putting an asterisk next to the name. We've just seen the winner's trophy for the 2010 Tour given to Andy Schleck, when he could well have been on a bigger programme than Berto. All a bit daft imo.


I like the asterisk idea as well, but you would need a lot of them, I think 
If they do strip Armstrong of the titles then they would have to award 3 titles and a podium place to Ullrich, who is currently banned for doping. Not the message that they want to send out!


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Jul 2012)

Given the prevalence of cheating in those days (these dsys?) an asterisk seems th only way to go. As noted above the second place finsher is also dirty, or likely to have been. It would just become too bizarre to do anything other than ake it clear these were not honest victories and leave posterity to draw its own conclsions


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Just to remind folk, doping _in cycling_ specifically is not USADAs concern - doping in US athletes is. If there's a problem with how dopers are handled in cycling, if you're looking for someone that can 'send a message' then it's UCI you should be looking at.

Who strips who of what, who is also guilty of doping - these are secondary questions. Primarily you ought be blaming (and seeking to punish) the dopers and those that organise it.


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Jul 2012)

That's true, but it seems the thread has taken a broader more philosophical tack than merely looking at the USADA's and the UCI's points of reference and respective legal boundaries. There are lots of interesting points to ponder and debate in the big picture view.


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

No objection to the big picture. I like the big picture. What I don't like is the use of spurious arguments to attempt to justify not punishing a doper.


----------



## hoopdriver (2 Jul 2012)

My thinking on asterisks is only a bookkeeping matter. In no way do I want these guys or the creept Frankenstein doctors that facilitate these things to walk away from this mess. I'm thinking jail time, serious jail time.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

I wasn't looking at USADA here as they won't be stripping any TdF titles off anyone, nor will they be sending anyone to jail. I think that is a valid consideration who's name might go on the 7 TdF titles currently standing with LA, given that Berties was given to Schleck and Landis' win subsequently awarded to Pereiro.
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> No objection to the big picture. I like the big picture. What I don't like is the use of spurious arguments to attempt to justify not punishing a doper.


Armstrong should be sanctioned (if found guilty), but I don't see the point of removing one dopers name from a title and inserting another dopers name.


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I think that is a valid consideration who's name goes on the 7 TdF titles currently standing with LA, given that Berties was given to Schleck and Landis' win subsequently awarded to Pereiro.


 
As long as you appreciate that it is a separate issue then that's enough for me.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> As long as you appreciate that it is a separate issue then that's enough for me.


I think it's tied in fairly closely TBH, there aren't many sanctions available (if he is found guilty). Another would be a ban, but like Ullrich he has already retired. I don't know what financial penalties may await him, have Bertie, Landis or Ullrich had to pay any sponsors back, not that I've heard!


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

I can't see how you think it fairly closely tied. You've said you know it won't be USADA that'd strip the titles, so how can it be a consideration for them? Are you suggesting the Armstrong case be dropped because of what might be the consequences of finding him guilty?

Believe me, if USADA do ban Armstrong for life, the stripping of his TdF titles would be a minor worry for him so please don't let it worry you! The insurance company SCA, for instance, will be into him for millions of dollars.


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

It isn't a consideration for USADA why should it be? I don't think any doping case should be dropped because of the consequence of a guilty verdict, nor do I believe that I have ever suggested that.
I do think that those responsible for the titles ASO/UCI or whoever, might give the matter some consideration, I wouldn't say it worries me, though !


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I do think that those responsible for the titles ASO/UCI or whoever, might give the matter some consideration


 
I'm sure they are doing exactly that as it won't be a decision taken lightly.

More importantly (for me anyway) is that it seems to me that you do see it as a separate issue. I'm happy with that.


----------



## PaulB (2 Jul 2012)

Long, detailed and very involved, this is extremely illuminating. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html And so's this http://news.discovery.com/adventure/tour-de-france-drugs-120629.html


----------



## Alun (2 Jul 2012)

I'm surprised that you don't think LA's titles and the verdict are closely linked.
If the verdict is not guilty he will retain them, if found guilty then the Landis/Contador precedent suggests that they will be taken off him and maybe given to another doper. I'd be miffed if I was Contador and LA was found guilty but didn't lose his titles.
One will follow the other and be dependant upon it!


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Fiendishly complex stuff! Frankly, the chemistry of the biological passport is way beyond my comprehension but I understand the gist of it. An interesting point about behavioural changes though. I've read a related comment about the passport actually helping athletes to dope smarter. They don't stop doping just change how and when they dope. I'm sure there's an element of truth in that but another way of looking at it is to say it's having an effect. I'd conservatively say it's a positive one, if the times up Alpe d'Huez are anything to go by!


----------



## yello (2 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> One will follow the other and be dependant upon it!


 
I think we're at cross purposes. You're talking about consequence, I'm addressing procedure or a necessity, if I can put it like that .

Of course, Armstrong being banned could well lead to him being stripped of the TdF titles. I personally care not whether it would or wouldn't, but it could well happen. That one decision will kick off another is not my point. ASO/UCI will decide about the titles for themselves, USADA banning Armstrong would trigger that decision but not require it. And whether titles would or wouldn't be stripped is certainly not a consideration for USADA. There is no link in that respect.



> if found guilty then the Landis/Contador precedent *suggests* that they will be taken off him


 
Exactly - "suggests" and not 'requires'. There is no obligation for it to happen even though it could well happen.


----------



## albion (2 Jul 2012)

Well the BEEBs run a story on the rather uneasy relationship between Armstrong and tour fans.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18666839
Old news too seemingly with L'Equipe moving onto rumours more current.


----------



## yello (3 Jul 2012)

It's a nice piece that one. Even tone, low level, nothing too outrageous. I could get a bit picky over some of the word choice ('cause that's what I do!) but, yes, I like it on balance.

The French commentator on the tour coverage appears very matter of fact about the goings on. He refers to it factually, without any kind of side or tone that I can detect... not that my French is good enough to pick up nuance. I'm sure other pundits are more opinionated though. After all, it is a relevant topic for discussion.

Something the article does pick up on is the history aspect. I think that's worth expanding on. Ime, France loves it's history. There seems to be a great respect for tradition and heritage. The UK has it but to nowhere near the same degree. It seems ingrained in so any French people. A national trait even. I could genuinely see how someone that upsets tradition could get themselves disliked. That said, in my time here, I have never heard a word said against Armstrong by my clubmates. It's just not a subject whereas the tour itself can be. I think that's the lesson I've learnt. The tour is the important thing, nobody is bigger than that. The tour has the tradition (and it has its personalities too for sure, as a part of it) and the tradition rolls on.


----------



## MichaelM (5 Jul 2012)

Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde and Vaughters to give evidence according to Cyclng News.


----------



## albion (5 Jul 2012)

"Four former teammates of Lance Armstrong will receive six month bans after they confessed to doping and testified against the seven-time Tour de France winner, according to De Telegraaf."

Quite a short story.


----------



## albion (5 Jul 2012)

""Miraculously, USADA has arranged for the suspensions to begin at the start at the end of the season so that they are able to race both the Tour de France and the Vuelta a Espana," the article states."

I don't see no miracles


----------



## Crackle (5 Jul 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde and Vaughters to give evidence according to Cyclng News.


The interesting one there is Vaughters. He's been an outspoken supporter of the biological passport but depending on what he's got to say, it could cast a shadow on an awful lot of people, our very own Wiggins came to the fore under Vaughters management. I'll be watching his evidence closely.


----------



## smutchin (5 Jul 2012)

Dave "my body is a temple" Zabriskie too...

<resigned sigh>

d.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Jul 2012)

The doping ban aspect of the story has been denied by Slipstream / Vaughters.


----------



## smutchin (5 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The doping ban aspect of the story has been denied by Slipstream / Vaughters.


 
...at least with regard to members of Slipstream. Could be true of Hincapie and Leipheimer perhaps. That would be less of a surprise at least.

d.


----------



## Paul_L (5 Jul 2012)

Why a 6 month ban as opposed to a mandatory 2 year ban? Some form of plea bargain perhaps?


----------



## smutchin (5 Jul 2012)

BMC have made similar denials to Slipstream.

One for conspiracy theorists: apparently, Johan Bruyneel writes a column for De Telegraaf...

d.


----------



## Jen Dvorak (5 Jul 2012)

I was wondering how Horner made the Olympic team over the guys rolling over on LA. Starting to make sense now. Glad to see it. Come clean and be clean  LA your final bell has finally rung.


----------



## smutchin (5 Jul 2012)

USADA responds to De Telegraaf article...
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...esses-can-lead-to-errors-or-intimidation.aspx


----------



## Andrius.B (5 Jul 2012)

I haven’t been following this sport much, but from what I have read, it seems that there are much more pro cyclists that use doping then everyone thinks.
If this all is true, then this would change my opinion about many things.
If these guys got away with doping for so long, then what makes you think that most of other pro cyclists are not using doping too? After all, there are some types of doping that are extra hard to find, and I too don't fully trust the doping tests. I am sure there are ways to get around it.
I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of all pro cyclists were doping users.

Any way, does anyone know of approximate performance/endurance increase in percentages of doing doping? 5%? 10%?


----------



## Noodley (5 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> I haven’t been following this sport much, but from what I have read, it seems that there are much more pro cyclists that use doping then everyone thinks.
> If this all is true, then this would change my opinion about many things.
> If these guys got away with doping for so long, then what makes you think that most of other pro cyclists are not using doping too? After all, there are some types of doping that are extra hard to find, and I too don't fully trust the doping tests. I am sure there are ways to get around it.
> I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of all pro cyclists were doping users.
> ...


 
I would suggest doing a google search.


----------



## smutchin (5 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> I haven’t been following this sport much...



Really?

d.


----------



## Andrius.B (5 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> I would suggest doing a google search.


I did, but the google results can be very messy and confusing at times.
Didn't get any specific info. That's why I asked. Why should I spend doing 3 hour research to find the info I want, if I can ask it here, and someone who has done the research could take the 10 seconds to post the info he knows.


----------



## Andrius.B (5 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> Really?
> 
> d.


No.


----------



## yello (5 Jul 2012)

It depends on the dope and the doper.

EPO, for instance, works better in some physiologies than in others. However, generally speaking, and from memory and bearing in mind it's not my subject, the gains are less than maybe 5% as I recall. Not massive but enough to make a difference.


----------



## Andrius.B (5 Jul 2012)

5% of 2 hours ride is 6 minutes, which is huge in cycling.


----------



## yello (5 Jul 2012)

I had a feeling I'd regret answering, I was just trying to be nice.

The 5% refers, I believe, to power output and not to speed or time.


----------



## Crackle (5 Jul 2012)

Some of the answers are further back in the thread Andrius.b. It's such a large and complex subject it's difficult to give an easy explanation.

If you back in time to the height of the EPO era, then a large number of riders were riding 'prepared'. Fast Forward to today and the introduction of the biological passport and we think the numbers are much smaller and the effect far less dramatic. Witness Evans winning last year and he is largely thought to be a clean rider. If you look to the top of the previous page and the link Paulb provided, it clearly shows the performance levels declining as testing became better, culminating in the introduction of the biological passport.

5% is often a figure mentioned in terms of extra power output for a doped rider but it's not just the power it's the ability to maintain it. Again, earlier in the thread this was talked about in terms of the times riders take to do well known climbs like Alpe d'huez. THe best times were all posted in what was thought to be the height of EPO use.


----------



## yello (5 Jul 2012)

Thank you crackle. A much fuller answer than I could give.

I'm just reading reports that the source of the story about the 6 months suspension for Hincapie etc was.... Armstrong himself. This would not surprise many and certainly it's the sort of thing I was anticipating.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> The interesting one there is Vaughters. He's been an outspoken supporter of the biological passport but depending on what he's got to say, it could cast a shadow on an awful lot of people, our very own Wiggins came to the fore under Vaughters management. I'll be watching his evidence closely.


Anyone surprised that the five named were part of the USP doping circle must have been living in a cave. It was also pretty obvious that Slipstream was the reformed ex-dopers team right from the start and JV has dropped plenty hints over the years about his murky and regretted past. I wouldn't worry about Wiggy's association with JV, he's straight.


----------



## yello (5 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I wouldn't worry about Wiggy's association with JV, he's straight.


 
Agreed. I think Vaughters is good to his word and Slipstream operates clean. He's got an interesting philosophy; that past is the past, you don't dwell on it and you move on BUT if asked officially then you tell the truth. It's a difficult line to walk imo, and I do feel uneasy about, but I believe him to be.... I want to say sincere but I can't quite get there!


----------



## Crackle (5 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Agreed. I think Vaughters is good to his word and Slipstream operates clean. He's got an interesting philosophy; that past is the past, you don't dwell on it and you move on BUT if asked officially then you tell the truth. It's a difficult line to walk imo, and I do feel uneasy about, but I believe him to be.... I want to say sincere but I can't quite get there!


 
Absolutely, you could say it's a noble stance. I guess he knew that one day his past would catch him up and he's chosen to face up to it, quite probably at some personal cost but at the same time that past will cast a pall on anything he has to say and on his credibility. Or maybe not, it's why I said before, I'll be watching with interest.


----------



## Noodley (5 Jul 2012)

User said:


> to answer an earlier question, why aren't more people in the pro cycling section, I think the above quotes can shed some light.....


 
You think so? Why would anyone that is in anyway interested not take time to bother reading this thread or do a bit of research? Laziness. Pure and simple. And not being that interested.


----------



## smutchin (6 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> It was also pretty obvious that Slipstream was the reformed ex-dopers team right from the start



Yes, Millar more or less says as much in his book. I figured Vandevelde was probably an ex-doper, but not Vaughters, simply because he doesn't come across as someone who ever had that "win at all costs" mentality. But yes, he was at Discovery for a while, so...

Andrius.B, there is no short answer, but if you genuinely want to know more, you could do a lot worse than read Millar's book. 

d.


----------



## Andrius.B (6 Jul 2012)

Thanks guys.
I have been reading for a few hours on this now. Pretty interesting.


----------



## Noodley (6 Jul 2012)

User said:


> to answer an earlier question, why aren't more people in the pro cycling section, I think the above quote can shed some light.....


 
Nope, he's now gone off and read for a couple of hours and now knows more...as I said, take time to find out. 

You're gonna become very tiresome if you just keep writing the same thing btw.


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> It's a difficult line to walk imo, and I do feel uneasy about, but I believe him to be.... I want to say sincere but I can't quite get there!


 
Principled, that's the word I'm looking for. Whether you agree with the principles is another matter.


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2012)

Andrius.B said:


> I have been reading for a few hours on this now. Pretty interesting.


 
Be careful, it can become addictive!

I had pretty much no interest in the subject a few years ago. Then I started reading. I probably come across as a bit zealous to some people but that's because it is all relatively new to me. There are many many people that have been hearing this stuff for decades and have grown weary of it all, I can get my head around that. I know there are people on this forum in that category; they have a good depth on the subject and occasionally chip in. I value such contributions.

For me, speaking generally, I think the thing that is most worrying is how a lie can be believed by so many for so long. People generally are decent and trusting, we tend to believe. That can be manipulated.


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2012)

This is worth a read. It talks a little about blood doping and then goes on to explain the function of the biopassport and how the detection of manipulation/doping is made. It is a complicated subject so don't expect a bite size explanation. I would have liked to have been able to post a quote, just to give a flavour, but that's not really possible as it'd make no sense out of context and sequence and so may put readers off. So you'll just have to read it ...but hang in there, there's no complex jargon!

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833

The interviewee, Michael Ashenden, is no stranger to the subject and has been quite outspoken in the past. He was a member of the UCI anti-doping panel but resigned as he felt conflicted by his role. Interestingly, he says he has not seen the USADA evidence and that surprises me. I would have guessed he was one of the experts called on to do the analysis.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> Absolutely, you could say it's a noble stance. I guess he knew that one day his past would catch him up and he's chosen to face up to it, quite probably at some personal cost but at the same time that past will cast a pall on anything he has to say and on his credibility. Or maybe not, it's why I said before, I'll be watching with interest.


Apparently there's an article on JV in todays L'Equipe which describes him as a Grey Knight. I like that, very apt. He gets a *lot* of grief from people (idiots, in my opinion) who want him to spill his guts about USP etc. He's never denied doping or being party to doping practices during his career as a rider and has dropped loads of hints that don't leave much to the imagination but hasn't gone down the RiisZabel tearful confession route. Largely, I suspect, because anything JV has to say is intimately connected with bigger issues - JV is just a stepping stone to get to Lance, which is probably why he's had so much grief from internet morons (hello Cycling News Clinic people!) and Kimmage. Until the Federal investigation started up, followed by this USADA investigation, there was never a mechanism for JV, or the other old lags on his team (VdV, DZ etc) to tell all in safety. If they'd done a confessional interview without serious back-up you can bet every penny you have that their careers would be over and their reputations trashed, all without harming a hair on Lance's nasty, beaky head. The USADA investigation means that their input will have meaning, weight and consequences. Some people (oooh, more morons!) hail Landis (and Hamilton) as a hero and make unfavourable comparisons to his spotless ex-teammates, but the truth is that Landis only 'fessed up after years of lies and bullshit and when he had absolutely *nothing* left to lose. Had he been offered a job on Radioshack we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Landis deserves credit for finally doing the right thing, but he's no hero.

JV and the others are absolutely doing the right thing at the right time.


----------



## Crackle (6 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> JV and the others are absolutely doing the right thing at the right time.


 
One hopes, we've held our breath before though.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> One hopes, we've held our breath before though.


Granted, but before we tended to have a 'whole sport' hoo-hah (1968 - the Tour of Health, 1999 - the Tour of Renewal etc). We'd never (so far as I can tell) had a team that hung itself so strongly on an anti-doping hook. IIRC some team bosses (Koechli, Legeay) were stringently anti-doping (you only have to look at the JV bee-sting incident to see how Legeay regarded dodgy back-dated TUEs) but that was never their team's main selling point. JV's balls are on the line with Garmin in a way that doesn't apply to other teams.


----------



## Noodley (6 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Apparently there's an article on JV in todays L'Equipe which describes him as a Grey Knight, etc....


 
If I could "like" a post more than once I would have "liked" this one lots.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> If I could "like" a post more than once I would have "liked" this one lots.


Ta. There are some good people (and lots of useful info) in the Clinic, but there are also a whole load of, and apologies if this is a bit too technical, 'farking morons'.


----------



## Crackle (6 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Granted, but before we tended to have a 'whole sport' hoo-hah (1968 - the Tour of Health, 1999 - the Tour of Renewal etc). We'd never (so far as I can tell) had a team that hung itself so strongly on an anti-doping hook. IIRC some team bosses (Koechli, Legeay) were stringently anti-doping (you only have to look at the JV bee-sting incident to see how Legeay regarded dodgy back-dated TUEs) but that was never their team's main selling point. JV's balls are on the line with Garmin in a way that doesn't apply to other teams.


 
I hadn't read the bee sting incident until now. Link here to an interview if anyone wants it.

Legeay is strongly anti-doping as well but yeah, Vaughters team's history and their associations and the fact that it's still very current and happening, gives an edge to everything he might have to say; windows on a soul we all want to see.


----------



## smutchin (9 Jul 2012)

Just read on twitter that Lance has filed for an injunction to halt the USADA's case because it's unconstitutional.

Way to go, Tex - that should silence the critics and get everyone on your side.

d.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jul 2012)

And with an unerring sense of timing my Canadian Triathlon magazine comes through the door with Lance on the front cover and asking how he will transform triathlon. Ooops.


----------



## Buddfox (9 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> Just read on twitter that Lance has filed for an injunction to halt the USADA's case because it's unconstitutional.
> 
> Way to go, Tex - that should silence the critics and get everyone on your side.
> 
> d.



It's fascinating that anyone thinks that's a result he cares about. It seems fairly clear he's not a man who cares what people think! As long as he can still say 'never failed a test' and isn't banned, he'll try any route available!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jul 2012)

Buddfox said:


> It's fascinating that anyone thinks that's a result he cares about. It seems fairly clear he's not a man who cares what people think! As long as he can still say 'never failed a test' and isn't banned, he'll try any route available!


 
I think he does care, because if he gets banned he won't be able to be the best Ironman Triathlete in the world, which is his current goal. He doesn't like being prevented from winning.


----------



## Buddfox (9 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think he does care, because if he gets banned he won't be able to be the best Ironman Triathlete in the world, which is his current goal. He doesn't like being prevented from winning.


 
Sorry, I meant care about what other people think. He's not interested in getting critics on his side, he's interested in competing and being able to say he's never been banned or failed a test.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jul 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Sorry, I meant care about what other people think. He's not interested in getting critics on his side, he's interested in competing and being able to say he's never been banned or failed a test.


 
True.


----------



## albion (9 Jul 2012)

Seems to me the whole lot should be a proper and open trial.

It seems likely to leave at least as many questions as answers.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> Seems to me the whole lot should be a proper and open trial.
> 
> It seems likely to leave at least as many questions as answers.


I agree with this, also I think if true the plea bargained confessions also are not hopeful of a clear black and white outcome. If found guilty I do hope it will without any doubt. and some scientific evidence is produced

Regarding performance enhancing I am not clued up on EPO, but have a lot of laymans knowledge of Steroids. It is not clear to me how often Pro's are tested out of season or when "injured". But I would say you could quite easily improve your strength by 25-30% while on a course and maybe retain 50% of that post if you continue to train at the same level. In Athletics one that was caught was clearly transformed after being injured for a long period, long before testing positive.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> Seems to me the whole lot should be a proper and open trial.


 
Why should Armstrong be treated any differently from any other athlete suspected of doping and in this case, a conspiracy also to conceal doping?

There was the diversionary tactics via spurious court cases from Landis and Hamilton. They lost and so will Armstrong. The US courts have already recognised USADA's 'jurisdiction' over internal sports doping matters.


----------



## just jim (9 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> Seems to me the whole lot should be a proper and open trial.
> 
> It seems likely to leave at least as many questions as answers.


To quote a self- confident someone on a particular thread on a certain cycling forum (currently running in at 419 pages)

"USADA have him by the ball."

edited for synonyms


----------



## albion (9 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Why should Armstrong be treated any differently from any other athlete



That is my same thought but he never has been, chinese whispers and all that.


----------



## just jim (9 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> That is my same thought but he never has been, chinese whispers and all that.


I'm bound to say that Lance was at the tiller of being treated differently - a quite thorough form of expediency. As a result he has a longer distance to fall than others.


----------



## Red Light (9 Jul 2012)

Not sure why we need to bother with a USDA hearing. The lynch mob here have already convicted and hung him before any evidence has been heard. Who needs courts in a guilty until proven innocent system?


----------



## Crackle (9 Jul 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/09/lance-armstrong-lawsuit-doping-agency

Already dismissed, though he can re-file


----------



## Chuffy (9 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Not sure why we need to bother with a USDA hearing. The lynch mob here have already convicted and hung him before any evidence has been heard. Who needs courts in a guilty until proven innocent system?


Just in case you weren't aware, the USADA proceedings aren't a criminal case.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/09/lance-armstrong-lawsuit-doping-agency
> 
> Already dismissed, though he can re-file



But, given the size and expense of his legal team and the various precedents he had to know that he'd be handed his arse on a plate by the judge. So why bother, other than to bellow more stupid and demonstrably wrong talking points out to his idiot fans?


----------



## Crackle (9 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> But, given the size and expense of his legal team and the various precedents he had to know that he'd be handed his arse on a plate by the judge. So why bother, other than to bellow more stupid and demonstrably wrong talking points out to his idiot fans?


 
Well, his legal teams pleadings have not gone down well with the judge....

_Armstrong's complaint is far from short, spanning eighty pages and containing 261 numbered paragraphs, many of which have multiple subparts. Worse, the bulk of these paragraphs contain "allegations" that are wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claimsand which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants. See, e.g., Compl. [#1] ¶ 10 ("USADA's kangaroo court proceeding would violate due process even if USADA had jurisdiction to pursue its charges against Mr. Armstrong.").Fn 1 Indeed, vast swaths of the complaint could be removed entirely, and most of the remaining paragraphs substantially reduced, without the loss of any legally relevant information._

_ Nor are Armstrong's claims "plain": although his causes of action are, thankfully, clearly enumerated, the excessive preceding rhetoric makes it difficult to relate them to any particular factual support. This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims._

_ Accordingly, Armstrong's complaint, and his accompanying motion, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court grants leave to amend, provided Armstrong can limit his pleadings to: (1) the basis for this Court's jurisdiction; (2) the legal claims he is asserting; (3) against which Defendants each claim is being made; (4) the factual allegations supporting each claim; (5) a brief statement of why such facts give rise to the claim; (6) a statement of the relief sought; and (7) why his claims entitle him to such relief.Fn 2. Armstrong is advised, in the strongest possible terms, and on pain of Rule 11 sanctions, to omit any improper argument, rhetoric, or irrelevant material from his future pleadings._

Part of the judges dismissal notice/order. I seriously doubt he can come up anything which will comply with submitting new pleadings under the guidance given i.e facts

Link to pdf http://liveupdateguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Armstrong-TRO-dismissal.pdf


----------



## Chuffy (9 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> Well, his legal teams pleadings have not gone down well with the judge....
> 
> _Armstrong's complaint is far from short, spanning eighty pages and containing 261 numbered paragraphs, many of which have multiple subparts. Worse, the bulk of these paragraphs contain "allegations" that are wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claimsand which, the Court must presume, were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants. See, e.g., Compl. [#1] ¶ 10 ("USADA's kangaroo court proceeding would violate due process even if USADA had jurisdiction to pursue its charges against Mr. Armstrong.").Fn 1 Indeed, vast swaths of the complaint could be removed entirely, and most of the remaining paragraphs substantially reduced, without the loss of any legally relevant information._
> 
> ...


Oh, comedy gold!!!! That's a huge kick in the bollock.

Admin - we're going to need a bigger LOL.


----------



## mangaman (9 Jul 2012)

I can't see that Red Light.

There seems to be a mixed view. 

Personally I think he has demonstrated a continuous campaign against anti-dopers. Most especially Bassons who he effectively destroyed as a rider after Bassons was fingered by eveyone as the only clean rider on the Festina team.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons.

To me, his actions against Bassons (especially as Armstrong,s blood from 1999 showed up positive for EPO) were the most despicable moment of a pretty unsavoury career. He effectively forced Bassons out for not taking EPO and talking about it.

His actions against Simeoni were different - Simeoni admitted Dr Ferrari had doped him with EPO, and Armstrong was out to humiliate him. Why would he do that as Ferrari was still his Dr if he were clean?

His urine from 1999 was positive for EPO was positive although too late to disqualify him
"On August 23, 2005, _L'Équipe_, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO) in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods"

He had the option to retest these samples but refused.

He "donated" $125000 to WADA (as you do) for no apparant reason (other to cover up positive tests.)

http://www.playthegame.org/news/det...over-armstrong-donations-to-the-uci-4933.html

Everyone's innocent until proven guilty in a criminal case.

Sometimes it's not that easy in non-criminal cases, although Armstrong has fought consistently against anti-doping campaigners, tested positive for EPO before it was officially banned and generally threatened and paid people off.

To me he's an immoral solipsist and I have zero respect for him whether he will or won't be found guilty.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Jul 2012)

mangaman said:


> Sometimes it's not that easy in non-criminal cases, although Armstrong has fought consistently against anti-doping campaigners, *tested positive for EPO before it was officially banned* and generally threatened and paid people off.
> 
> To me he's an immoral solipsist and I have zero respect for him whether he will or won't be found guilty.


Banned since the early 90s, well before LA's retrospective positive. Oddly enough, Phil Liggett made the same 'mistake' in a recent interview. Funny that...


----------



## Red Light (9 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Just in case you weren't aware, the USADA proceedings aren't a criminal case.


 
Yes, the criminal case was dropped by the FBI but that hasn't stopped the local lynch mob's guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty stance.


----------



## Red Light (9 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Banned since the early 90s, well before LA's retrospective positive.


 
Funny that the World Anti Doping Agency cannot say when it was banned other than sometime in the early '90's. You would have thought they would have known which year it was.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes, the criminal case was dropped by the FBI but that hasn't stopped the local lynch mob's guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty stance.


Hmmmm, it was 'dropped' at the behest of one man, Andre Birotte Jr. Apparently even the investigators (Novitsky and co) were taken aback. And, as the case never went the distance, it can be reactivated at any point and if USADA get their man (and they will) it would be slightly odd if the Fed case wasn't reopened. Also, and I appreciate that this is a subtlety that many have missed, the federal case was specifically into money laundering and drug trafficking. The Feds don't have a primary interest in doping as that alone is not a criminal offence.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Funny that the World Anti Doping Agency cannot say when it was banned other than sometime in the early '90's. You would have thought they would have known which year it was.


Which bit of 'before 1999' do you not understand?


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes, the criminal case was dropped by the FBI but that hasn't stopped the local lynch mob's guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty stance.


Presumably you include Travis Tygart in the 'local lynch mob'?


----------



## albion (10 Jul 2012)

For Bassons it was his own team/s who destroyed him.

What we just don't really know is if Armstrong felt Basson's comments about 'almost everyone is doping' were wrong in fact.


----------



## mangaman (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Banned since the early 90s, well before LA's retrospective positive. Oddly enough, Phil Liggett made the same 'mistake' in a recent interview. Funny that...


 
Sorry Cuffy - can't find an Armstrong EPO link your link.

There was a steroid contoversy I recall, but if Armstrong was found guity in the 1990s why was he allowed to compete in 1999?


----------



## mangaman (10 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> For Bassons it was his own team/s who destroyed him.
> 
> What we just don't really know is if Armstrong felt Basson's comments about 'almost everyone is doping' were wrong in fact.


 
What, the Festina team??

They were the only people who said he was the only one who refused to take EPO - and they said it under oath in a court of law.

Armstrong destroyed his cycling career and that should never be forgotten.


----------



## Red Light (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Presumably you include Travis Tygart in the 'local lynch mob'?



I don't think I've ever seen him post on here but then with all the pseudonyms you never know.


----------



## Red Light (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Which bit of 'before 1999' do you not understand?



The bit where WADA don't seem to know in which year it was banned.


----------



## Red Light (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Hmmmm, it was 'dropped' at the behest of one man, Andre Birotte Jr. Apparently even the investigators (Novitsky and co) were taken aback. And, as the case never went the distance, it can be reactivated at any point and if USADA get their man (and they will) it would be slightly odd if the Fed case wasn't reopened. Also, and I appreciate that this is a subtlety that many have missed, the federal case was specifically into money laundering and drug trafficking. The Feds don't have a primary interest in doping as that alone is not a criminal offence.



As I said guilty until proven innocent and even then guilty. What did LA do to you that you are so eager to assert his absolute guilt before the evidence has even been heard? Are you angling to be a USADA arbitrator on the case?


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

I love this....



> _this Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims._


 
 As they say in the US 'busted!' 

Expect more delaying tactics. Armstrong really does not want the USADA hearing to go ahead. Whether it sanctions him or not, the testimonies are going to damage him. As someone in CN's 'The Clinic' said, Armstrong doesn't want the USADA hearing because he cannot corrupt it.

And that's not just a smart arse remark. There's a lovely subtext. USADA is not a court, not a federal agency. It's more akin to a club punishing a member than to a court of law. And so, in contract to a court of law, its punishment is but a scratch... but a scratch that'll do for Armstrong (to hijack the bard).

That's the beauty of it all.... Armstrong cannot get at it! Precisely because USADA has legally recognised and limited scope, and cannot imprison or otherwise restrict freedoms; it operates within its own agreed processes and procedures. The courts will not interfere. Athletes have tried in the past to disrupt it with court actions, and they have failed. They've signed up to USADA, they've agreed to the rules in being licensed athletes.



Red Light said:


> What did LA do to you that you are so eager to assert his absolute guilt before the evidence has even been heard


 
Let me turn that question around; why is Armstrong so keen for the evidence not to be heard?


----------



## Crackle (10 Jul 2012)

We should really take a moment to admire the names involved here.

Judge Sam Sparks
Chief Executive Travis Tygart
and of course Lance

All good solid American names.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> As I said guilty until proven innocent and even then guilty.


 
You didn't pay any attention to what Chuffy actually wrote, did you? What he said was simply factually correct. What you are saying is just overheated rhetoric.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Jul 2012)

I found this footnote in the Judge's ruling particularly telling:

"Contrary to Armstrong's apparent belief, pleadings filed in the United States District Courts are not press releases, internet blogs, or pieces of investigative journalism. All parties, and their lawyers, are expected to comply with the rules of this Court, and face potential sanctions if they do not."

For all the Lance fanboys here who have been whittering on (usually in relative ignorance) about the law and legal process, what the judge is saying is that there is certainly one party involved here who does have contempt for the legal process, and it's not USADA, it's Armstrong.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

mangaman said:


> Sorry Cuffy - can't find an Armstrong EPO link your link.
> 
> There was a steroid contoversy I recall, but if Armstrong was found guity in the 1990s why was he allowed to compete in 1999?


The steroid (cortisone) thing was a positive test during the '99 Tour. His team presented a backdated TUE (basically a doctors note) allowing him therapeutic use for saddle sores. cortisone, of couse, is a well known and very powerful PED.

The retrospective EPO positive is, again, from the 1999 Tour. The lab did some retrospective testing of the '99 Tour samples and a L'Equipe journalist managed to find out that the positive samples were Armstrongs. There's more on this from Michael Ashenden - http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden/


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> I don't think I've ever seen him post on here but then with all the pseudonyms you never know.


If you don't know who Travis Tygart is, you really should just quit now.

Michael Ashenden doesn't post on here either btw.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> The bit where WADA don't seem to know in which year it was banned.


<sigh> Clearly well before 1999, which is when Lance's positive samples date from. Are you just being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> That's the beauty of it all.... Armstrong cannot get at it! Precisely because USADA has legally recognised and limited scope, and cannot imprison or otherwise restrict freedoms; *it operates within its own agreed processes and procedures*. The courts will not interfere. Athletes have tried in the past to disrupt it with court actions, and they have failed. They've signed up to USADA, they've agreed to the rules in being licensed athletes.


And what is even neater is that Bill Stapleton helped draw up those guidelines! Talk about being hoist by your own petard.


----------



## smutchin (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Funny that the World Anti Doping Agency cannot say when it was banned other than sometime in the early '90's. You would have thought they would have known which year it was.


 
It does seem a bit strange that they should post such vague information on their website, but you're clutching at straws if you think that damages their credibility.

d.


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> And what is even neater is that Bill Stapleton helped draw up those guidelines! Talk about being hoist by your own petard.


 
Indeed. So, yes, you can say (at a stretch) that not only did he agree to the rules, he was probably party to drawing them up. It's pure poetry.


----------



## Red Light (10 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You didn't pay any attention to what Chuffy actually wrote, did you? What he said was simply factually correct. What you are saying is just overheated rhetoric.


 
Its factually correct is it that the USADA will get Lance Armstrong? I would regard that as speculation but Chuffy seems to regard it as fact even before the evidence has been heard. Now who wasn't paying attention to what he wrote?


----------



## totallyfixed (10 Jul 2012)

Thanks guys for keeping this going, it's a lot easier to keep up to date than going in to the Clinic [I'm clearly not well] a couple of times per week and sifting through the spaghetti and dross of the thousands of postings there have been on the LA thread.
Slightly OT but just maybe connected, has anyone noticed on the TdF how some of the usual suspects are not going as well as might be expected?


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

I suspect Armstrong will re-file. The case wasn't thrown out, just knocked back on procedural grounds; the complaint document was meant to be brief, to summarise the main arguments in a concise manner. The judge didn't look at the case on its merits.

So will Armstrong ask USADA for an extension? Will Team Armstrong file a bullet point complaint to the court pronto? Or take their 20 days to do so? All entertaining stuff.


----------



## Red Light (10 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> It does seem a bit strange that they should post such vague information on their website, but you're clutching at straws if you think that damages their credibility.
> 
> d.


 
I don't think anybody can damage WADA's credibility - its too damaged already. Dick Pound made sure of that. The Landis outcome was the right result for the wrong reason thanks to a massively incompetent French lab and leaks to the media. Which is a shame as we really need good unimpeachable enforcement against drug taking in sport. 

But so which year was EPO first banned seeing a WADA don't seem sure?


----------



## smutchin (10 Jul 2012)

IIRC it was banned in 1992, just before the Barcelona Olympics.


----------



## Crackle (10 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I suspect Armstrong will re-file. The case wasn't thrown out, just knocked back on procedural grounds; the complaint document was meant to be brief, to summarise the main arguments in a concise manner. The judge didn't look at the case on its merits.
> 
> So will Armstrong ask USADA for an extension? Will Team Armstrong file a bullet point complaint to the court pronto? Or take their 20 days to do so? All entertaining stuff.


 
He's running out of time. Unless he can make a successful challenge before the USADA hearing starts he's stuffed, I'm not sure a court will interfere at that point, bearing in mind USADA proceedings are already sanctioned by Congress and partly government funded.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> I don't think anybody can damage WADA's credibility - its too damaged already. Dick Pound made sure of that. The Landis outcome was the right result for the wrong reason thanks to a massively incompetent French lab and leaks to the media. Which is a shame as we really need good unimpeachable enforcement against drug taking in sport


I like their credibility.
Unimpeachable? Go on, tell us that USADA is corrupt, because they're the ones kicking Lance squarely in his ball.



> But so which year was EPO first banned seeing a WADA don't seem sure?


You really don't want to acknowledge that it was banned before 1999. Why is this such a problem for you?


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I like their credibility.
> Unimpeachable? Go on, tell us that USADA is corrupt, because they're the ones kicking Lance squarely in his* ball*.
> 
> 
> You really don't want to acknowledge that it was banned before 1999. Why is this such a problem for you?


 

hahaha very good.


----------



## Dave Davenport (10 Jul 2012)

I think I might register an internet domain name; www.livestrongindependenttriathlonassociation.com


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> I think I might register an internet domain name; www.livestrongindependenttriathlonassociation.com


You might just get away with it, after all, his lawyers are kind of busy going through their submission with a bottle of Tippex and a red pen.


----------



## john duley (10 Jul 2012)

After all his "Livestrong" campaigns will powerful American interests put pressure on USDA to quietly drop this case?


----------



## Cheddar George (10 Jul 2012)

"powerful American interests" ...... tell me more.


----------



## smutchin (10 Jul 2012)

I bet Lance's lawyers know the exact date, if not the hour, EPO was banned. 

d.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> You might just get away with it, after all, his lawyers are kind of busy going through their submission with a *bottle of Tippex and a red pen*.


 
Bucket of Tippex and a paint roller more like!


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> I bet Lance's lawyers know the exact date, if not the hour, EPO was banned.
> 
> d.


 I hope so because no-one else seems to, even you used IIRC. I had a quick scan of the net but I couldn't find it.


----------



## smutchin (10 Jul 2012)

I don't have a vested interest in the details, hence I haven't bothered to look it up. I'm fairly sure it was in 1992 but I don't trust my memory enough to state it as fact. I have no idea why the information on the Wada site is so vague but that's not important. All that really matters is that the ban was in place well before Lance allegedly tested positive for EPO in 1999.

Regarding cortisone, you're supposed to provide TUE forms in advance of use. Providing a backdated TUE after you've tested positive not only looks a bit fishy, it is explicitly against the rules, although the authorities at the time clearly accepted Lance's explanation.

d.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Right then....
Definitive answer here - "In 1992 Erythropoietin (EPO) was added"

WADA formally took over administration of the IOC banned list in 2003, which may explain why their website is a little fuzzy over the exact date. After all EPO had already been banned for 11 years in 2003, so the precise date is pretty academic, unless you're desperately trying to avoid accepting that it was illegal in 1999.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> I don't have a vested interest in the details, hence I haven't bothered to look it up. I'm fairly sure it was in 1992 but I don't trust my memory enough to state it as fact. I have no idea why the information on the Wada site is so vague but that's not important. All that really matters is that the ban was in place well before Lance allegedly tested positive for EPO in 1999.
> 
> Regarding cortisone, you're supposed to provide TUE forms in advance of use. Providing a backdated TUE after you've tested positive not only looks a bit fishy, it is explicitly against the rules, although the authorities at the time clearly accepted Lance's explanation.
> 
> d.


Correct on the date.

Emma O'Reilly claimed that the note from Lance's mum backdated TUE was produced in haste and desperation because the team knew damn well that he'd taken a PED. Sore arse? My arse...


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> I don't have a vested interest in the details, hence I haven't bothered to look it up. I'm fairly sure it was in 1992 but I don't trust my memory enough to state it as fact. I have no idea why the information on the Wada site is so vague but that's not important. All that really matters is that the ban was in place well before Lance allegedly tested positive for EPO in 1999.
> 
> Regarding cortisone, you're supposed to provide TUE forms in advance of use. Providing a backdated TUE after you've tested positive not only looks a bit fishy, it is explicitly against the rules, although the authorities at the time clearly accepted Lance's explanation.
> 
> d.


I think the reason they accepted his explanation was that the amount of cortisone was below the threshold and consistent with topical treatment for saddle sores, although some will have other explanations


----------



## john duley (10 Jul 2012)

"powerful American interests" ...... tell me more.

Well you have various Cancer charities which are given support by Congressmen both Democrat and Republican. Plus the athletic boards of various American sports who would not like to see their biggest All-American-Hero in the last twenty years brought down by yet another All-American drugs scandal, Marion Davis anyone?


----------



## smutchin (10 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I think the reason they accepted his explanation was that the amount of cortisone was below the threshold and consistent with topical treatment for saddle sores, although some will have other explanations


 
The explanation is less important than the fact that he didn't provide the TUE in advance, which is specifically a bannable offence akin to missing a test.

d.


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> The explanation is less important than the fact that he didn't provide the TUE in advance, which is specifically a bannable offence akin to missing a test.
> d.


 
Only putting some meat on the bones for you, not trying to justify it.
I hope the case doesn't rest on the fact that LA used an allowable amount of cream on his arse, but didn't declare it in advance.


----------



## smutchin (10 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Only putting some meat on the bones for you, not trying to justify it.


 
Appreciated - sorry, didn't mean to seem like I was criticising your response.



> I hope the case doesn't rest on the fact that LA used an allowable amount of cream on his arse, but didn't declare it in advance.


 
He's going to need a lot more cream on his arse over the coming weeks with the rogering the USADA are planning to give him.

d.


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Right then....
> Definitive answer here - "In 1992 Erythropoietin (EPO) was added"
> 
> WADA formally took over administration of the IOC banned list in 2003, which may explain why their website is a little fuzzy over the exact date. After all EPO had already been banned for 11 years in 2003, so the precise date is pretty academic, unless you're desperately trying to avoid accepting that it was illegal in 1999.


 
Chuffy, your link is to a IAAF document, but was that the banned list applicable to the TdF in 1992?
I'm not trying to suggest that EPO wasn't banned in cycling during the Armstrong era, but given the significance of EPO, I find it strange that no-one can say when it was banned.
If the IAAF list was the formal list for the TdF at the time, please accept my apologies.


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

Looking forwards to Jan Ullrich being a 4 times winner of the TdF!


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

oh no.... did you have to go and open up that avenue of debate again?


----------



## User169 (10 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Chuffy, your link is to a IAAF document, but was that the banned list applicable to the TdF in 1992?
> I'm not trying to suggest that EPO wasn't banned in cycling during the Armstrong era, but given the significance of EPO, I find it strange that no-one can say when it was banned.
> If the IAAF list was the formal list for the TdF at the time, please accept my apologies.


 
EPO was put on the IOC's banned list in 1990. Armstrong competed in at least 2 olympics since that time, including Barcelona in 1992.


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Life time bans announced for Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martí

http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-usps7102012

3 down then....


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Chuffy, your link is to a IAAF document, but was that the banned list applicable to the TdF in 1992?
> I'm not trying to suggest that EPO wasn't banned in cycling during the Armstrong era, but given the significance of EPO, I find it strange that no-one can say when it was banned.
> If the IAAF list was the formal list for the TdF at the time, please accept my apologies.


It is, but as far as I understand it the IOC banned list seems to have been the de-facto banned list for sport generally, hence WADA taking it over. Pretty sure UCI would take their lead from that list, especially as cycling seems to have been an early adopter of our friend Edgar.

Delftse Post - can you source that 1990 reference? Would be interested to see if the 1992 date is innacurate.


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Life time bans announced for Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martín
> 
> http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-usps7102012
> 
> 3 down then....


USADA ROCK!!


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

USADA didn't hang around then did they then. The 3 presumably advised no intention to contest (or simply did not respond) so USADA gave them with the maximum sanction.

Violations are;



> (1) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, hGH, corticosteroids, and masking agents.
> 
> (2) Trafficking of EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, hGH, corticosteroids and masking agents.
> 
> ...


 
I bet Armstrong is really crapping himself now.


----------



## User169 (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> It is, but as far as I understand it the IOC banned list seems to have been the de-facto banned list for sport generally, hence WADA taking it over. Pretty sure UCI would take their lead from that list, especially as cycling seems to have been an early adopter of our friend Edgar.
> 
> Delftse Post - can you source that 1990 reference? Would be interested to see if the 1992 date is innacurate.


 
Chuffy - see para headed "New Challenges"...

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Interesting, from the announcement....



> The other respondents in this case have either asked for and been granted a five-day extension to complete their response, or have requested to move forward with an arbitration hearing where all evidence will be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators will ultimately decide the outcome of the case.


 
So I'm guessing the sanctioned 3 did not respond. I don't now how to read that "or" though. Do I take from that someone has requested a hearing? We know Armstrong has asked for, and been given, the extension.


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

USADA seem to have given LA another 5 days, but Sam Sparks has given him 20 days to refile his claim at the District Court. I can't see the arbitration panel sitting whilst there is still a (slim) chance that the District Court might rule against them.


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Or if Armstrong refiles pronto, Sparks will deliver his judgement by the 14th.

USADA won't wait. And Armstrong wants to stop the hearing.


----------



## User169 (10 Jul 2012)

Sam Sparks once began an order..

_"When the undersigned accepted the appointment from the President of the United States of the position now held, he was ready to face the daily practice of law in federal courts with presumably competent lawyers. No one warned the undersigned that in many instances his responsibility would be the same as a person who supervised kindergarten."_


----------



## User169 (10 Jul 2012)

Another good benchslap from Sparks..

_"[T]he Court is forced to conclude Allan E. Parker, Jr., the attorney whose signature appears on this motion, is anything but competent. A competent attorney would not have filed this motion in the first place; if he did, he certainly would not have attached exhibits that are both highly prejudicial and legally irrelevant; and if he foolishly did both things, he surely would not be so unprofessional as to file such exhibits unsealed. A competent attorney who did those things would be deliberately disrespecting this Court and knowingly shirking his professional responsibilities, offenses for which he would be lucky to retain his bar card, much less an intact bank balance"_


----------



## User169 (10 Jul 2012)

Another classic here...

http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/08/Sam-Sparks-kindergarteners-order.pdf


----------



## raindog (10 Jul 2012)

So Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti have accepted the charges of supplying and administering drugs to US Postal, so it's difficult to see how LA and JB can continue to contest and deny. Or am I missing something?

"USADA CEO Travis Tygart confirmed to _Cyclingnews_ that Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti accepted their lifetime bans. "The respondents chose not to waste resources by moving forward with the arbitration process, which would only reveal what they already know to be the truth of their doping activity."


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

I don't post conjecture from bods of the 'The Clinic' as a rule but this one did grab my attention (and, no, it's not the one about part of the 110 pages - or whatever is was - containing the information that Armstrong was fourth in a swimming race when he was 15 or whatever )

No, this one is legally interesting. Apparently, there is no personal statement from Armstrong in all of that 110 (or whatever) pages. Odd given he is the one filing it. It only contains statements from Armstrong's lawyers. So? We'll if Armstrong puts his name to a false statement on an official court document then he can be done for perjury! It was also suggested that without a personal statement, then judge cannot decide the matter. Armstrong is already under warning from Sparks that if he messes the court around again he is likely to face punishment. He really is between the rock and hard place, running out of options.


----------



## Buddfox (10 Jul 2012)

Exactly what have they been banned from? I can't figure it out from the links... I'm probably being slow. Is it all professional sport worldwide? Or just in the US? Or just cycling?


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

raindog said:


> So Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti have accepted the charges of supplying and administering drugs to US Postal, so it's difficult to see how LA and JB can continue to contest and deny. Or am I missing something?


 
I guess they have the right to individually contest the evidence if they so wish. Until they notify USADA of their intention (and do I guess Bruyneel has elected to contest???) then USADA do nothing. The 9th passed for the sanctioned 3 so USADA acted.

I'm trying not to read into that that it's going to be the same decision for Bruyneel and Armstrong should they not contest, but it's hard to see it any other way.


----------



## Alun (10 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I don't post conjecture from bods of the 'The Clinic' as a rule but this one did grab my attention (and, no, it's not the one about part of the 110 pages - or whatever is was - containing the information that Armstrong was fourth in a swimming race when he was 15 or whatever )
> 
> No, this one is legally interesting. Apparently, there is no personal statement from Armstrong in all of that 110 (or whatever) pages. Odd given he is the one filing it. It only contains statements from Armstrong's lawyers. So? We'll if Armstrong puts his name to a false statement on an official court document then he can be done for perjury! It was also suggested that without a personal statement, then judge cannot decide the matter. Armstrong is already under warning from Sparks that if he messes the court around again he is likely to face punishment. He really is between the rock and hard place, running out of options.


Does there have to be a statement from LA himself, has Judge Sparks said so? Seems to me he would have mentioned it, if it was required.


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Exactly what have they been banned from?


 
It is a really good question! No idea in truth but I'd guess we can assume they cannot perform a role as a sports or team doctor to any USADA affiliated sport in the USA. Beyond that, no idea!

I don't know if that ban automatically extends worldwide courtesy of WADA affiliation, or whether it has to be ratified by WADA first. Equally, and in terms of cycling, I don't know if UCI have also (or can also) ban them, or it would necessarily follow from a WADA ban. My guess (and it is a guess) is that whilst each separate body has to formally make the judgement for themselves that is effectively a rubber stamping of the USADA decision.

One of the things I am really interested to see is just how UCI respond should Armstrong be sanctioned.


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Does there have to be a statement from LA himself, has Judge Sparks said so? Seems to me he would have mentioned it, if it was required.


 
As I said, no idea. Just conjecture from elsewhere.

We ought keep in mind that we don't know whether Sparks considered any of the document for evidential value.... he just threw it back saying 'summarise'.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (10 Jul 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Another classic here...
> 
> http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/08/Sam-Sparks-kindergarteners-order.pdf


 
That's great...

Bring a sack lunch and toothbrush in case the party runs late!


----------



## Crackle (10 Jul 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Another classic here...
> 
> http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2011/08/Sam-Sparks-kindergarteners-order.pdf


I found a number of his orders last night when I was looking for the Armstrong one. Shame I didn't stop to read any, only the titles. Armstrong got off lightly it seems.


----------



## Crackle (10 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> It is a really good question! No idea in truth but I'd guess we can assume they cannot perform a role as a sports or team doctor to any USADA affiliated sport in the USA. Beyond that, no idea!
> 
> I don't know if that ban automatically extends worldwide courtesy of WADA affiliation, or whether it has to be ratified by WADA first. Equally, and in terms of cycling, I don't know if UCI have also (or can also) ban them, or it would necessarily follow from a WADA ban. My guess (and it is a guess) is that whilst each separate body has to formally make the judgement for themselves that is effectively a rubber stamping of the USADA decision.
> 
> One of the things I am really interested to see is just how UCI respond should Armstrong be sanctioned.


 
According to Cycling news http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-del-moral-and-marti-banned-for-life-in-us-postal-case

"The bans will preclude all three men from having any involvement in sports which are signatories to the WADA code."


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Chuffy - see para headed "New Challenges"...
> 
> http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/A-Brief-History-of-Anti-Doping/


Ta.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Jul 2012)

I can't help noticing a distinct lack of explanations and/or excuses from Lance's fans here...


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> According to Cycling news http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-del-moral-and-marti-banned-for-life-in-us-postal-case
> 
> "The bans will preclude all three men from having any involvement in sports which are signatories to the WADA code."


Ferrari was already banned in Italy - didn't stop Pozzato and several others as yet unidentified.


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

Lance Armstrong's Lawyer Says He Is "Certain To Lose" His Doping Case


----------



## Crackle (10 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Ferrari was already banned in Italy - didn't stop Pozzato and several others as yet unidentified.


 
I imagine if you're working outside the system, then the system formally expelling you doesn't cause you much trouble. Bruyneel however will feel very differently.

What I'm getting from this is that unless it goes to a formal hearing we may not initially see what evidence USADA has. Now in Armstrong's position, which is the lesser of two evils, take the ruling and keep it all a closed book or contest it and wash your laundry in public. Now I said initially, because I'm pretty sure that there is going to be a bit of a queue forming of people wanting to sue Armstrong for monies he's received and/or cases he's previously won, at which point we may learn a lot more but right now, we may not, which strikes me as being very unsatisfying.


----------



## Smokin Joe (10 Jul 2012)

Funny how the circle forms, isn't it? When Greg Lemond retired in 1994 he was the only American to have won the Tour de France. By '99 two Americans had won it. In 2006 that went up to three Americans. Now in 2012 we will probably be back to the stage where Greg Lemond is the only American to have won the Tour de France


----------



## yello (10 Jul 2012)

from the Associated Press report....



> Armstrong was granted his five-day extension while he files his court case. USADA indicated that Armstrong's former team manager Johan Bruyneel, who also has been charged, has told USADA he will challenge the case in arbitration.


 
So Bruyneel's chosen to challenge. I wonder if that means we'll see the evidence?


----------



## raindog (10 Jul 2012)

At least today's news has pushed the Sky thread down a few places in TheClinic.


----------



## Red Light (10 Jul 2012)

raindog said:


> So Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti have accepted the charges of supplying and administering drugs to US Postal, so it's difficult to see how LA and JB can continue to contest and deny. Or am I missing something?
> 
> "USADA CEO Travis Tygart confirmed to _Cyclingnews_ that Ferrari, Del Moral and Marti accepted their lifetime bans. "The respondents chose not to waste resources by moving forward with the arbitration process, which would only reveal what they already know to be the truth of their doping activity."


 
i suspect that none of them expects to be active in cycling again so the ban has no real impact, that it would cost a lot of money to run a defence in the USA from Europe and they just did not think it worth the cost or effort to contest it. The cost pretty much bankrupted Landis.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I can't help noticing a distinct lack of explanations and/or excuses from Lance's fans here...


 Your point being ?...self gratification their illusions have been shattered ?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Your point being ?...self gratification their illusions have been shattered ?


 
The only point being that it is looking pretty bad for Lance and even the fans must realise it now.


----------



## lukesdad (10 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The only point being that it is looking pretty bad for Lance and even the fans must realise it now.


 No need to rub it in then is there ?


----------



## Chuffy (10 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> No need to rub it in then is there ?


Sorry, don't know if you are/were a fan, but for a non-fan, reading the blind idiocy that his army of, what, believers? fans? followers? have been spouting online for years then as far as I'm concerned it's time for barbecue sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise, chilli sauce and a side order of onion rings. Not only that, once USADA have done with him I'll be pouring on extra gravy and sticking in a sparkler.

Nothing personal but if you are/were/remain a fan then that's just tough.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

No surprises, Armstrong's refiled, 'only' 25 pages this time. I wonder if that'll be more to Sparks' liking this time!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18772583

He really has to show there is reason to doubt USADA's processes and/or that they've stepped outside of their protected mandate. There is reason to suggest he might be right, several have questioned USADAs powers before now. Some interesting considerations raised here...

Lance Armstrong: Victim?



> USADA says it has direct authority over thousands of citizens, with the ability to deprive them of property rights, ruin their reputations, and even conduct warrantless searches and seizures. It argues that it can use the courts to compel people who have nothing to do with sports to testify in its private proceedings under threat of perjury, to surrender evidence or other documents, and to name names. It insists that it doesn’t have to follow the usual rules of justice guaranteed by the Constitution


 
It does paint a very 'big brother' picture of USADA and whilst I'm sure everyone wants them to do the job of catching dopers, what means do we allow them to do that? It's a valid question.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Sorry, don't know if you are/were a fan, but for a non-fan, reading the blind idiocy that his army of, what, believers? fans? followers? have been spouting online for years then as far as I'm concerned it's time for barbecue sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise, chilli sauce and a side order of onion rings. Not only that, once USADA have done with him I'll be pouring on extra gravy and sticking in a sparkler.
> 
> Nothing personal but if you are/were/remain a fan then that's just tough.


 
I'm afraid this is going to end badly for you, whatever the outcome, millions will still idolise him, much in the same way they do Pantani and Virenque.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

...and many of those millions will feel betrayed, heart broken. You should read some of the personal comments left on the web reports....



> And one more thing, Lance: my older brother absolutely worshipped you. He had a brain tumor and you were his absolute role model. i am glad he died of his brain tumor before discovering his hero was a fake, a liar and a scam


 
From http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7#ixzz20FK1MwRZ


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

It seems as though Bruyneel also had been given the 5 day extension, it's Pedro Celaya (ex USPS doctor) that opted to contest..



> Bruyneel, who sat out of the Tour this year, also has until Saturday to respond, the antidoping agency said, but Celaya has asked to go directly to arbitration.


 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/s...nce-armstrong-receive-lifetime-bans.html?_r=1


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> ...and many of those millions will feel betrayed, heart broken. You should read some of the personal comments left on the web reports....
> 
> 
> 
> From http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7#ixzz20FK1MwRZ


 Yes yello you ve allready posted that link. The excitement must really be getting to you


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

I know. I was sourcing the reference for the quote.

But, yes, I am finding the soap opera captivating at the moment!

Edit: Ah, I see what you mean. I'll correct the link on the second quote.

Edit edit: nope, I was right first time. I do get stuff wrong, prone to it in fact, but on this rare occasion I think I got it!


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Yes yello you ve allready posted that link. The excitement must really be getting to you


 Maybe not


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2012)

ah cross posted


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> It does paint a very 'big brother' picture of USADA and whilst I'm sure everyone wants them to do the job of catching dopers, what means do we allow them to do that? It's a valid question.



USADA only has "direct authority" over people who have voluntarily agreed to abide by their rules. If Lance doesn't like they way they conduct their investigations, he shouldn't have signed up. 

The lesson? Always read the small print.

d.


----------



## Crackle (11 Jul 2012)

Here's the full complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99740088/Lance-Armstrong-Amended-Complaint

Long reading and I've only skimmed it. One of the bits that struck me was an allegation that USADA officials accompanied Novotsky during his evidence gathering. Now, that both surprised me and enlightened me. Clearly they gathered some real hard evidence of doping which the federal investigation was not able to use due to the burden of what they had to prove but of course USADA can.

The question is, have USADA exceeded their remit. I guess we'll have to wait to find out.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> If Lance doesn't like they way they conduct their investigations, he shouldn't have signed up.


 
In fairness, he (and every other athlete for that matter) have little choice. Further, they don't directly get to amend the terms of the contract that their sports body has with USADA, It's either sign and accept as is or don't play. It is quite disturbing to think that you could actually 'sign away' what you might consider some basic human rights you'd take for granted. Not suggesting that has happened in practice but it is something to be aware of.

It is a bigger question though. For Armstrong to show that, and get his injunction, is a big ask. If he later succeeded in open court at having USADAs jurisdiction over turned, then there are implications for all previous investigations and sanctions. I don't think Sparks will entertain that. Bodies such as USADA were created precisely to allow for arbitration outside of the court. So long as USADA is operating within it's remit as originally defined then I can't see Armstrong getting his injunction. Sparks won't simply agree with rhetoric either. Armstrong has to document his reasons for believing that USADA are beyond scope, and he has to back them up.

But the stakes are high and he's on a hiding to nothing so I can understand why he's playing a longshot.


----------



## Crackle (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> He really has to show there is reason to doubt USADA's processes and/or that they've stepped outside of their protected mandate. There is reason to suggest he might be right, several have questioned USADAs powers before now. Some interesting considerations raised here...
> 
> Lance Armstrong: Victim?
> 
> ...


 
It's an interesting article and fills in some nagging questions that have been forming, particularly around what evidence they have and where they got it and why we haven't seen it and whether we'll see it.


----------



## Buddfox (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> In fairness, he (and every other athlete for that matter) have little choice. Further, they don't directly get to amend the terms of the contract that their sports body has with USADA, It's either sign and accept as is or don't play. It is quite disturbing to think that you could actually 'sign away' what you might consider some basic human rights you'd take for granted. Not suggesting that has happened in practice but it is something to be aware of.
> 
> It is a bigger question though. For Armstrong to show that, and get his injunction, is a big ask. If he later succeeded in open court at having USADAs jurisdiction over turned, then there are implications for all previous investigations and sanctions. I don't think Sparks will entertain that. Bodies such as USADA were created precisely to allow for arbitration outside of the court. So long as USADA is operating within it's remit as originally defined then I can't see Armstrong getting his injunction. Sparks won't simply agree with rhetoric either. Armstrong has to document his reasons for believing that USADA are beyond scope, and he has to back them up.
> 
> But the stakes are high and he's on a hiding to nothing so I can understand why he's playing a longshot.


 
And he will play every shot he has available, however unlikely. Whatever else you might think of him, the guy is a fighter and he's not going to let this go. I think that's also why the other three just rolled over - they probably thought there was limited chance of winning so it wasn't worth it, and not being Americans they probably could have cared less what USADA thought - and they're 'outsiders', i.e. not competitors.

I don't think Armstrong will win in court, but it allows him to make some of his arguments in public, about how USADA's processes are weighed against the athlete. From comments around, it seems that some people are acknowledging that the odds are not balanced!


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

An interesting aspect to Armstrong's new complaint is his assertion that his contract (licence) is with UCI and not USADA. I believe he suggests (well, not "he", his lawyers) that USADA cannot initiate an investigation unless requested to by UCI. Does he believe UCI will (still) offer him some protection?

Re the federal v USADA evidence subject, there seems to be conflicting ideas. It is claimed (by both WADA and the feds) that no evidence from their investigations was shared with USADA. I believe that. That's not to say the info didn't go the other way though. I guess this specifically refers to witness testimony though (and remember doping wasn't part of the federal investigation). Perhaps USADA conducted the interviews in the presence of a federal agent? Perhaps there were two sets of interviews?

Whatever the case, I don't think there's much mileage in Armstrong offering the argument, to a federal judge, that effectively implies 'the feds lied'. He really does need to provide some solid back up for that line!

My guess? This latest complaint will be bounced pretty quickly too. I don't think Armstrong's team have enough to back their claims, and Sparks isn't going to go out and look for it for them. He'll decide on the basis of what is put before him.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> In fairness, he (and every other athlete for that matter) have little choice.


 
They have the choice not to break the rules. Or do something else instead of pro sport.

When rules are shown to be unreasonable, they get changed - cf the British Olympic lifetime ban policy.



> But the stakes are high and he's on a hiding to nothing so I can understand why he's playing a longshot.


 
Lance likes to paint himself as being more honourable than Landis, but he's showing himself to be even more desperate. People ask why the likes of Millar should be treated any differently to other dopers. How they respond to being caught is one of the main reasons.

d.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> They have the choice not to break the rules. Or do something else instead of pro sport.
> 
> When rules are shown to be unreasonable, they get changed - cf the British Olympic lifetime ban policy.
> 
> ...


I think LA is wanting the chance of a fair trial, when it is alleged that he has broken the rules, he doesn't seem to be getting that. Everyone should be entitled to a fair trial, even murderers. LA was involved in Pro sport long before USADA came along. The BOA lifetime ban was overturned because WADA objected, when Chambers tried to overturn it as an individual he had no chance.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I think LA is wanting the chance of a fair trial ... he doesn't seem to be getting that.


 
Judge Sam Sparks disagrees with you. Take it up with him.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> They have the choice not to break the rules.


 
Off course but that's not really my point. The point is that they have no option but to agree to the rules that control them. It's a take or leave it deal. Now, I don't want to make too much of that because, in practice, there's not a problem and the conditions are not _too_ onerous (even though I'm sure some of the out of competition testing can be inconvenient sometimes) but there is an area for potential concern, and I acknowledge that. Particularly when the organisation is in effect contracting-out elements of your agreement.

I don't think any of that applies in Armstrong's case however. He's just grasping, looking for any argument he can find to prevent the USADA review. I'm confident Sparks will see it like that.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> Judge Sam Sparks disagrees with you. Take it up with him.


 I didn't know Judge Sparks had delivered his judgement on LA's revised submission, Crikey that was quick!


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I think LA is wanting the chance of a fair trial, when it is alleged that he has broken the rules, he doesn't seem to be getting that.


 
Alun, he IS getting that. 'Fair' as within the agreed procedures of USADA. Procedures that Armstrong has accepted. This is not a court of law and different rules apply here. Armstrong knows he can contest the allegations in an open or closed hearing (his choice) but he doesn't want that.


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I didn't know Judge Sparks had delivered his judgement on LA's revised submission, Crikey that was quick!


 
Not yet but I'm assuming he will give the revised submission the same short shrift he gave the original. Want to make a bet on it?

d.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

I would sooner see Armstrong taken down in a fair trial, rather than what appears to be happening.
I'm not sure Judge Sparks has the authority to prevent it either, whatever his own views may be.
CAS is limited to applying the laws applying USADA operate under, although they can exercise "interpretation", so their hands maybe tied as well.
People may think Armstrong deserves what he gets, but the next athlete to come along may not !


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I would sooner see Armstrong taken down in a fair trial, rather than what appears to be happening.


 
I guess we having differing perceptions of "what appears to be happening".

d.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I would sooner see Armstrong taken down in a fair trial, rather than what appears to be happening.


 
With all due respect, you're seem to be using Lance-speak. What makes you think he'll not get a fair hearing from USADA? Do you think the panel are all 'haterz'?


----------



## smutchin (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Off course but that's not really my point. The point is that they have no option but to agree to the rules that control them. It's a take or leave it deal. Now, I don't want to make too much of that because, in practice, there's not a problem and the conditions are not _too_ onerous (even though I'm sure some of the out of competition testing can be inconvenient sometimes) but there is an area for potential concern, and I acknowledge that. Particularly when the organisation is in effect contracting-out elements of your agreement.


 
If it really were a human rights issue as Lance seems to want us to believe, I'd agree that it's a cause for concern. But it isn't, it's a sporting issue.

Besides, there are sporting unions and the CAS to prevent the USADA from behaving in an unreasonable way on a whim.



> I don't think any of that applies in Armstrong's case however. He's just grasping, looking for any argument he can find to prevent the USADA review. I'm confident Sparks will see it like that.


 
Quite.

d.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> If it really were a human rights issue as Lance seems to want us to believe, I'd agree that it's a cause for concern. But it isn't, it's a sporting issue.


 
I think the area being explored is where the sporting issue might unfairly override other rights. Years ago, when I did contract law, there was the adage that you can't contract out of the law. Basically, there is no contract if the terms themselves require illegal activity - no matter whether there's agreement. I see a similar argument at play here. 

Now, I suspect you are right. I suspect there are 'checks and balances', be they from CAS, WADA or otherwise , but that doesn't mean that USADA hasn't gone beyond its remit on this, or other, occasions. I'd like to think that USADA (or whoever) cannot kick my door down at 3am and torture my family even though I'd be deemed to have agreed to that by virtue of having a licence.


But, as I said, in this case, I think it's a moot point.


----------



## marinyork (11 Jul 2012)

smutchin said:


> If it really were a human rights issue as Lance seems to want us to believe, I'd agree that it's a cause for concern. But it isn't, it's a sporting issue.


 
Armstrong's refiled papers aren't like that at all. They talk about all the issues mentioned above in a particular article and a few other obvious ones omitted. It just looks strange to us because we don't think about it in these sorts of ways. It then goes on about USADA and the UCI a lot.

The arguments are that the 'Stevens Act' doesn't apply.
Armstrong has no legal arbitration agreement with USADA and jurisdiction rests with the UCI (this is actually quite funny to read if you read the loophole that Armstrong's lawyers have spotted earlier on in their paper or if as other people say it backfired big time).
the eight year limitation period
And the federal bribery statute
They then try to appeal to the judge by comparing the board as being 'grand jury like'.
It then follows the above article ^^
Then the counts and so on.


----------



## Crackle (11 Jul 2012)

marinyork said:


> Armstrong's refiled papers aren't like that at all. They talk about all the issues mentioned above in a particular article and a few other obvious ones omitted. It just looks strange to us because we don't think about it in these sorts of ways. It then goes on about USADA and the UCI a lot.
> 
> The arguments are that the 'Stevens Act' doesn't apply.
> Armstrong has no legal arbitration agreement with USADA and jurisdiction rests with the UCI (this is actually quite funny to read if you read the loophole that Armstrong's lawyers have spotted earlier on in their paper or if as other people say it backfired big time).
> ...


 
Excellent summary, Marin.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

I did like



> It then goes on about USADA and the UCI a lot.


 

Yep, Armstrong is arguing that his 'agreement' is with UCI - that USADA don't have the authority to judge him and that they have acted as a 'state agent' (and so outside their remit) in doing so.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Can we set up some forum software to post *"THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW"* and *"THIS IS NOT A TRIAL"* every second post? Preferably in large bold letters with a siren flashing, just for those people who persist in missing the point...


----------



## marinyork (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I did like
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Armstrong is arguing that his 'agreement' is with UCI - that USADA don't have the authority to judge him and that they have acted as a 'state agent' (and so outside their remit) in doing so.


 
Glad to be of some entertainment, but it's not me that wrote this stuff it was Armstrong's lawyers.

He is arguing that it a state actor and this is specifically mentioned in point 33 (and in points 34-36 and less so after that).

As for sportings rights they would override some of the other rights if for example there was an international treaty signed and incorporated into US Law. This is exactly what has happened. Armstrong's lawyers even say this several times as part of their largely erroneous arguments about grand juries and the DOJ et al investigation - which a federal judge will probably laugh at.

It's quite amusing reading it in totality, because if you took the whole lot seriously there are several (unlikely) possible gets outs for Armstrong that result in amusing stalls for time or partial victories that he doesn't want.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

marinyork said:


> Glad to be of some entertainment


 
Hey, I wasn't being critical marin. 

I found the statement 'they go on about UCI and USADA' to be amusing in it's succinct accuracy!


----------



## Crackle (11 Jul 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-comments-on-usada-lifetime-bans

McQuaid has piled in by not piling in.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

He has a point....



> “I’ve read what they’ve said but as they’re not licence holders so I don’t know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for,” he told _Cyclingnews._


 
...but I wonder if he is deliberately distancing UCI from the USADA action?


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> He has a point....
> 
> 
> 
> ...but I wonder if he is deliberately distancing UCI from the USADA action?


No, he doesn't. ITIC (new acronym alert: If Twitter Is Correct) then the WADA Code also covers support staff. Not _quite_ sure how/if that applies to Ferrari, but CONI managed to ban him without murmur, so no reason why USADA can't do the same.

And yes, sounds very much like he is trying to shrug it off. Mind you, isn't our favourite Texan also arguing that this is just a USADA thing?


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> He has a point....
> “I’ve read what they’ve said but as they’re not licence holders so I don’t know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for,” he told _Cyclingnews._​...but I wonder if he is deliberately distancing UCI from the USADA action?


I misread this the 1st time I read it, "how THEY can ban them" is referring to USADA rather then UCI.
That sounds more like a "comment", rather than a "no comment ".
I think he'd like as much distance between UCI and LA as possible, and that Armstrong keeps his mouth shut.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I misread this the 1st time I read it, "how THEY can ban them" is referring to USADA rather then UCI.
> That sounds more like a "comment", rather than a "no comment ".
> I think he'd like as much distance between UCI and LA as possible, and that Armstrong keeps his mouth shut.


I've seen suggestions that LA might prefer to not argue, let USADA do their worst and then spend the rest of his life bitching about the 'unconstitutional witch hunt'. That way no evidence has to come out. If Celaya has opted to contest, then surely that theory gets blown out of the water?


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

Can't Celaya opt to be heard behind closed doors?


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Can't Celaya opt to be heard behind closed doors?


 
I believe so, yes.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

re McQuaid's statement, I took it to mean that if the 3 are not licence holders of a WADA affiliated body (which I presumed they weren't) then the USADA sanction is largely, um, ceremonial (?). And there's probably nothing for UCI to do.

I would imagine that part of the reason that the 3 didn't contest is because it didn't matter a sh*t to them what USADA did. Like being barred from your local. You just shrug your shoulders and go to another.

Edit: broadened what I meant.... took me a while because I'm watching the tele!


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> re McQuaid's statement, I took it to mean that if the 3 are not UCI licence holders (which I presumed they weren't as they're support staff) then there's not anything for UCI to do.


 I thought that 1st time I read it, but he says "I don’t know how THEY can ban them" rather than "I don’t know how WE can ban them".
As in THEY=USADA and WE=UCI, unless it's a slip of the tongue or the fingers.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

Armstrong withdraws injunction request and USADA give Armstrong a 30 day extension.



> Armstrong attorney Tim Herman says he has withdrawn a request for U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks to issue temporary restraining order in the case.


http://www.yorkdispatch.com/sports/ci_21051898/armstrong-attorney-lance-gets-30-day-extension

Whilst there's an inclination to think some kind of deal might have been made, on the face of it I can't see why.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

Maybe Sparks picked up the phone and had a quiet word with Herman 'look son, this is a pile of poo, do yourself a favour and withdraw it or I'll toss it out". End of that play option, so team Armstrong pick up the phone to Tygart and say 'look, we'll play the game, we'll come and talk, just give us a bit of time'

See you all in 30 days


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I'm afraid this is going to end badly for you, whatever the outcome, millions will still idolise him, much in the same way they do Pantani and Virenque.


 
To say nothing of Tommy Simpson.


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> With all due respect, you're seem to be using Lance-speak. What makes you think he'll not get a fair hearing from USADA? Do you think the panel are all 'haterz'?


 
Very simple. In a fair system the judiciary is separate from the prosecutors who are separate from the legislators and the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them and know who has accused them.

Here USADA appear to be in the role of legislators, prosecutors and jury while the accused is being refused the right to know who has accused him and what the evidence is.


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Can we set up some forum software to post *"THIS IS NOT A COURT OF LAW"* and *"THIS IS NOT A TRIAL"* every second post? Preferably in large bold letters with a siren flashing, just for those people who persist in missing the point...


 
Can we interleave them with *"CHUFFY HATES LANCE"* posts too?


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Very simple. In a fair system the judiciary is separate from the prosecutors who are separate from the legislators and *the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them and know who has accused them*.
> 
> Here USADA appear to be in the role of legislators, prosecutors and jury while the accused is being* refused the right to know who has accused him and what the evidence is*.


 
He has no such "rights". This a USADA arbitration hearing and not a court of law. You have to understand that distinction. He will get to know the details (evidence, witnesses) when the USADA procedures say so.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> He has a point.


 
I've just realised this is Pat McQuaid we're talking about. So I'm going to revise my interpretation... McQuaid hasn't a clue what he's talking about and has got it all arse about face!


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Armstrong withdraws injunction request


 
Clarification; the request for the restraining order has been withdrawn, the charge document for a civil action remains. Sparks will still consider this charge and respond within 20 days (I believe).

I think we can say that Armstrong is being extended every legal courtesy, both by the federal judge and by USADA. I think USADA know they can wait.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> He has no such "rights". This a USADA arbitration hearing and not a court of law. You have to understand that distinction. He will get to know the details (evidence, witnesses) when the USADA procedures say so.


Wasting your time mate. How many times has this been pointed out?


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Can't Celaya opt to be heard behind closed doors?


But what odds would you get on those doors remaining closed I wonder?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> To say nothing of Tommy Simpson.


 
See my post on doping and history near the start of this thread...


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> See my post on doping and history near the start of this thread...


I wonder if my post on Cycle Chat way back in 2004 is still floating around on the interweb?


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Or if Armstrong refiles pronto, Sparks will deliver his judgement by the 14th.
> 
> USADA won't wait. And Armstrong wants to stop the hearing.


I can't see the arbitration panel sitting whilst there is still a (slim) chance that the District Court might rule against them.
Told Ya ! 

As Judge Sam Sparks said in another judgement "Don't disrespec the Court, dude!" (Paraphrased)


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> He has no such "rights". This a USADA arbitration hearing and not a court of law. You have to understand that distinction. He will get to know the details (evidence, witnesses) when the USADA procedures say so.


 
We were not talking about whether it was a Court of Law or not. Its about what is a fair hearing and what it not. You may choose to defend a Kafkaesque process but it is a violation of human rights to penalise people without a fair hearing and access to the evidence against them. In Europe it would come under Section 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights but the US does not have a Convention on Human Rights but its Constitution which does not cover the same situations as Section 6


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I think USADA know they can wait.


 
Can they? The TdeF finishes in a couple of weeks and it was surely more than coincidence that their actions against a 7 times TdeF winner are announced during the TdeF.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (11 Jul 2012)

Lance gets no sympathy from me, after his conduct and the way he treated Filippo Simeoni he showed exactly the kind of person he is. During this time he attempted to intimidate a witness in a case against Michele Ferrari which Armstrong had nothing to do with, he thinks he is untouchable and can make his own rules. I hope his world comes crashing down and he is exposed as the cheat and unsportsman like, self serving, nasty piece of work he plainly is.


----------



## Alun (11 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Clarification; the request for the restraining order has been withdrawn, the charge document for a civil action remains. Sparks will still consider this charge and respond within 20 days (I believe).
> 
> I think we can say that Armstrong is being extended every legal courtesy, both by the federal judge and by USADA. I think USADA know they can wait.


I think Judge Sparks wants to consider Armstrong's resubmitted application more carefully than might have been thought, and not simply toss it out.
A call has been made from the Court to USADA asking them to grant sufficient time for this to happen, the alternative being the Court granting the temporary injunction to halt proceedings.
USADA has obliged the court with 30 days, and LA's lawyers have withdrawn the now unnecessary temporary injunction request.

USADA have consolidated both Bruyneel's and Armstrong's cases, but LA has a 30 day extension and Bruyneel has until Saturday, can't see that working in practice, perhaps Bruyneel will be granted a 30 day extension, when they realise what has happened. Where that leaves the LA specific charges, ( 2009/2010 blood samples and pre 1997 human growth hormone) remains to be seen.

Something is going on behind the scenes and Jan will have to wait a bit longer to crack open that bottle of vintage Schnapps!


----------



## Alun (12 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Can they? The TdeF finishes in a couple of weeks and it was surely more than coincidence that their actions against a 7 times TdeF winner are announced during the TdeF.


Perhaps they thought that they could combine awarding Wiggins the 2012 TdF, and redistributing Armstrong's 7 titles as spoils of war to other riders, in one big ceremony!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I wonder if my post on Cycle Chat way back in 2004 is still floating around on the interweb?



Cycle Chat wasn't born until 2005


----------



## swansonj (12 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> We were not talking about whether it was a Court of Law or not. Its about what is a fair hearing and what it not. You may choose to defend a Kafkaesque process but it is a violation of human rights to penalise people without a fair hearing and access to the evidence against them. In Europe it would come under Section 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights but the US does not have a Convention on Human Rights but its Constitution which does not cover the same situations as Section 6


Absolutely. Isn't it possible to agree the following things all at once:
LA is almost certainly guilty
USADA is not a law court
USADA is largely if not entirely following its own stated procedures, which LA along with everyone else under its jurisdiction has in principle accepted
LA's objections to USADA's procedures are probably more motivated by a calculating strategy to avoid being banned, or to minimise the consequences if he is, than by considerations of fairness
USADA's procedures and powers have an unfair feel about them, in that they result in sanctions similar to those a law court could impose, and they have powers that equal or go beyond those a law court would have, yet they are lacking many of the protections for the accused and the checks and balances that are the quid pro quo of the powers that a law court has.


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

I don't know where to start. To be frank, there is confusion shown by some as to the USADA process . All I will say is that its powers both for investigation and sanction are limited. The have nowhere near the remit that a court of law has. They cannot imprison people for instance (and that is a key distinction). You have an agreement with them and that agreement defines their terms of operation. So long as they don't step outside of that then there is no problem and a court of law will not interfere.

Think of them like your local DVD rental store. You take your DVD late and you are fined £5. You have no 'rights' to challenge that. They don't care why it's late, there' no discussion about it - pay it or don't borrow again. You agreed to that when you joined the club.

As with USADA, it's no good claiming some 'basic human rights' or a personal notion of a fair judgement. USADA is operating within it's agreed terms, it is fair. A court of law is not inclined to get involved precisely because it doesn't want to be clogged up by people filing claims against their local Blockbusters for 'unfair' penalties of £5.

USADA has sanctioned many athletes. Armstrong is not the first and he'll hopefully not be the last (!). All have gone through the process, all have received the same fair treatment. Why the problem with them now? Should they treat Armstrong differently?

Perhaps the problem some have is what a USADA sanction will result in. Perhaps you think only a court of lawyer can decide this. Because Armstrong being sanctioned will kick a chain of events that will punish far more than a lifetime ban from sports will. To me, that only merely indicates what a house of cards Armstrong's life is. All underpinned by a central premise. Pull that premise out and the cards tumble. You cannot stop the USADA action because of that.


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> USADA have consolidated both Bruyneel's and Armstrong's cases,


 
Have they? And what do you mean by "consolidated"? We've already seen 3 sanctions, and 3 different courses of action being taken by the remaining defendants so I want to be clear what you mean. 

On a general point, I'm not quite sure whether you're referencing fact or simply conjecturing when you say things like...



> A call has been made from the Court to USADA asking them to grant sufficient time for this to happen, the alternative being the Court granting the temporary injunction to halt proceedings.


 
I presume it's conjecture (which I have no problem with, in fact I enjoy it!) but I want to be sure.

On that particular point, I've not read anything that gives reasons for what happened... but I have read a lot of opinion! I wouldn't actually agree with your interpretation (if that's what it is) but can see that it's an entirely possible explanation too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Sparks made phone calls before Herman withdrew the TRO request.


----------



## swansonj (12 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I don't know where to start. To be frank, there is confusion shown by some as to the USADA process . All I will say is that its powers both for investigation and sanction are limited. The have nowhere near the remit that a court of law has. They cannot imprison people for instance (and that is a key distinction). You have an agreement with them and that agreement defines their terms of operation. So long as they don't step outside of that then there is no problem and a court of law will not interfere.
> 
> Think of them like your local DVD rental store. You take your DVD late and you are fined £5. You have no 'rights' to challenge that. They don't care why it's late, there' no discussion about it - pay it or don't borrow again. You agreed to that when you joined the club.
> 
> ...


Yello
Granted, which I think pretty well everyone agrees, that USADA operates under a set of procedures that athletes agree to in advance and therefore have little grievance over, granted that the procedures seem quite likely to produce the right outcome in this case, granted that claims about infringing people's rights have rather limited basis in a voluntary, contractual system:
Nonetheless, do you feel entirely comfortable with the USADA system? Do you genuinely feel the system, quite apart from how it is operating and will play out in the LA case, is a sufficiently good and fair system?


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

Here's my answer re what UCI can about the sanctions. WADA obviously read of my confusion and issued a press release!

WADA statement on Mutual Recognition




> In the case of members of the athlete entourage that can happen in a number of ways, as the IOC and other international federations have demonstrated in the past by withdrawing accreditation or permission to be involved in events, refusing team membership or participation, and removing the right to be part of a medical or coaching commission for itself or National Federations


----------



## Alun (12 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Have they? And what do you mean by "consolidated"? We've already seen 3 sanctions, and 3 different courses of action being taken by the remaining defendants so I want to be clear what you mean.
> 
> On a general point, I'm not quite sure whether you're referencing fact or simply conjecturing when you say things like...
> 
> ...


 
Yello, the "consolidated" part comes from your link
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/sports/ci_21051898/armstrong-attorney-lance-gets-30-day-extension 
_Johan Bruyneel, the manager on Armstrong's winning teams, who also has been charged, is not covered by the 30-day extension, even though USADA had *consolidated* their cases, USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner said. _
I don't understand exactly what she means either, but I'm taking the usual meaning of "consolidated"

Yes, what I said is my opinion which I think is as valid as anyone else's at this stage, that's why I started the link with "I think" but as I put sentences on new lines to make it easier to read, it might look as if it is different.

The part about the Schnapps, I just made up  http://www.yorkdispatch.com/sports/ci_21051898/armstrong-attorney-lance-gets-30-day-extension


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

swansonj said:


> Nonetheless, do you feel entirely comfortable with the USADA system? Do you genuinely feel the system, quite apart from how it is operating and will play out in the LA case, is a sufficiently good and fair system?


 
In short, yes.

Clearly, organisations do go rogue and beyond scope sometimes (wittingly or unwittingly), and there's always need for 'checks and balances' - both of these points I've commented on upstream.

In this case though, I feel USADA has played by it's book. I'd even go further, I'd say they've been extra diligent in doing it right knowing full well it's a high profile case. They sanction athletes all the time without there ever being mention of the process, a brief paragraph in the sports column being all most of us would ever know about it. They know this would be headlines, they knew they'd be in the spotlight so I feel confident they've acted within their remit.

Armstrong is questioning that remit in the courts, as he is entitled to, and Judge Sparks will make consider that complaint, but I honestly feel it will amount to nothing. I feel Armstrong will have to accept USADAs jurisdiction in this matter and know that there processes are fair according to a legal definition.

Let me turn the question around; what gives you reason to doubt USADA?


----------



## Alun (12 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Here's my answer re what UCI can about the sanctions. WADA obviously read of my confusion and issued a press release!
> 
> WADA statement on Mutual Recognition


 
To be fair, I think it's probably more for Pad McQuaid's benefit, he didn't seem to have a full grasp of the matter when he made his "no comment" the other day.


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Yes, what I said is my opinion which I think is as valid as anyone else's at this stage


 
Absolutely! No probs with that at all!

I think 'consolidated' means, in that context, all on one charge sheet. The original charge letter. It seems to me, from there, each defendant can go their own - as indeed they have. I agree with you - I think Bruyneel could well still be on the 5 day extension, not 30. Perhaps USADA ought clarify that.

You're also right with where you put "I think". I could see your initial statement was an opinion. I just wasn't sure about what followed! I try not to assume when I'm trying to understand something....forgive me if it comes across as pedantic or nit-picky


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> To be fair, I think it's probably more for Pad McQuaid's benefit,


 
Yes, I think so too!


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2012)

USADA's procedures have been challenged before and thrown out of the supreme court. The only difference I see here is how they potentially got access to the evidence they have and whether it makes them a State Actor.

USADA's ability to financially ruin an athlete is down to the actions of the athlete in the first place and as Swansonj alluded earlier, Armstong's guilt, vis-a-vis the evidence gathered, is an entirely different matter to whether USADA has the correct procedures.


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> USADA's procedures have been challenged before and thrown out of the supreme court. *The only difference I see here is how they potentially got access to the evidence they have and whether it makes them a State Actor.*


 
I think you're right. It seems there could be precedent for suggesting it does.What effect would have on proceedings though? Would the whole action be halted or would USADA have to obtain witness testimony (for example) again? I wonder if them acting like a state agent only forces them to proceed as one from here on in?

It's been quite categorically stated that they didn't get evidence from the feds so that really only leaves the possibility that it was obtained jointly; USADA interview with a federal officer in the room perhaps?


----------



## marinyork (12 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> USADA's procedures have been challenged before and thrown out of the supreme court. The only difference I see here is how they potentially got access to the evidence they have and whether it makes them a State Actor.


 
A lot of people are assuming that the evidence was collected in a way that will make a court take USADA to the cleaners but I just don't see it. They have these arguments all the time with grand juries and has been argued about throughout US history (this is why I know a small amount about it all). Some of the noises coming from Mr Tygart down the years also might make people think that it's got a case there but a court will simply ignore all that. It's about as irrelevant as the noises Armstrong makes.

Nevertheless it is interesting to talk about because there are several unlikely outcomes possible if armstrong got any kind of ruling in his favour.


----------



## Alun (12 Jul 2012)

Judge Sam Sparks is taking 20 days? to look at this submission, he hasn't thrown it out immediately.
I think he'll take a close look at USADA's mandate, any alleged "mission creep" and the status of the testimonies.
He might well side with USADA, but I don't think he'll rubber stamp anything!


----------



## Red Light (12 Jul 2012)

swansonj said:


> Absolutely. Isn't it possible to agree the following things all at once:
> LA is almost certainly guilty
> USADA is not a law court
> USADA is largely if not entirely following its own stated procedures, which LA along with everyone else under its jurisdiction has in principle accepted
> ...


 
`i don't have much trouble with most of that except with the pre-judging of his guilt. He is innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent and we should extend him that courtesy. There is a wide assumption of his guilt but all attempts to prove it so far have failed so we are left with rumour, hearsay, innuendo and guilt by association. Those are not good enough when you are talking of destroying someone's reputation, career anf finances.

Why am I banging on about this? Because I am fed up with pseudo-judicial agencies bully boy tactics when they can't prove anything legally. Imagine for example if TVLA were able to fine innocent people for not having a TV License instead of sending them repeated threats of prosecution for which they have no evidence week after week after year after year.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Jul 2012)

Well, well, well... WADA have said that all relevant authorities should respect the USADA ruling, which means McQuaid and the UCI should STFU and take notice. Would be a nice change.


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

As to be expected, a Congressman weighs in with his 2 cents worth in a letter to USADAs funding body the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-congressman-questions-role-of-usada-in-armstrong-case



> "Congress designated USADA as the United States’ National Anti-Doping Organization in 2000, but the agency is seeking to sanction Armstrong for conduct beginning in 1998. Furthermore, during Armstrong’s cycling career, the International Cycling Union (UCI) had exclusive authority to sanction Armstrong for violation of its anti-doping rules," he said.


 
Quite how he determines that UCI had "exclusive authority", I don't know. USADAs response was swift...



> The evidence is overwhelming, and were we not to bring this case, we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping, and failing to do our job on behalf of those we are charged with protecting.


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

marinyork said:


> A lot of people are assuming that the evidence was collected in a way that will make a court take USADA to the cleaners but I just don't see it.


 
For me, the scenario that gives me concern is the presence of a federal agent in the room whilst USADA conducted interviews. I've read that there is a legal precedent for that establishing 'state agency'. It's a waiting game and we'll just have to see how Sparks decides the issue.


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

Some more info about USADA's evidence
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ood-attempt-convict-cheater-article-1.1113450


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Some more info about USADA's evidence


 
Interesting stuff. Good to see some numbers given to data "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions".... not that I'd know either way!

I found this comment interesting....



> If Armstrong's federal lawsuit moves forward, the significance of the blood tests could be weighed by a jury in Sparks' courtroom in Austin, Texas. If the lawsuit fails, and Armstrong challenges USADA's accusations on its own terms, the matter will head to an arbitration hearing, where the blood tests will be debated by experts and assessed by a panel of independent arbitrators.


 
Do I read that correctly? If Armstrong's lawsuit succeeds, then the matter is decided in court. If not, then in a USADA hearing. That is, the lawsuit will determine a location but not halt proceedings completely. I'd be comfortable with that. But I wonder if that wasn't the paper's intended implication.


----------



## Crackle (13 Jul 2012)

I don't get that, nor do I pay it much credence. I don't get the fully consistent with doping; if so why has the UCI not acted previously, they must have the same data. Decided in court, well that would blow USADA's credibility and procedures out the water and open them up to a whole bunch of appeals, surely?


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> I don't get the fully consistent with doping; if so why has the UCI not acted previously, they must have the same data.


 
Michael Ashenden explained why that might be (I'm pretty sure there's a link upstream for his explanation). In my crude terms, it's due to the detection mechanism and the levels of analysis. If a result doesn't trigger suspicion on the 1st level test then the analysis doesn't ever happen. As I understood it, the parameters on that first level test are such that suspect results can pass. But I stand to be corrected as Ashenden's description (whilst basic) was beyond my full understanding.


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Do I read that correctly? If Armstrong's lawsuit succeeds, then the matter is decided in court. If not, then in a USADA hearing. That is, the lawsuit will determine a location but not halt proceedings completely. I'd be comfortable with that. But I wonder if that wasn't the paper's intended implication.


 I don't know where that has come from, not heard anything about it before. Could it be just idle speculation from the journalist?


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> Decided in court, well that would blow USADA's credibility and procedures out the water and open them up to a whole bunch of appeals, surely?


 
It could couldn't it? May not though if it refers only to the evidence collected for this investigation. I'm reading between the lines somewhat but I think what is in contention here is any evidence flow between the feds and USADA, or any joint evidence gathering.

Given the nature of the federal investigation, I don't actually think there was too much of their evidence that would have been of use to USADA. Blood/urine test results etc, I would imagine USADA would have ready access to regardless of who the testing agency was. And obviously the independent analysis of those results didn't need the feds either. So I reckon the testimony evidence is the focus and whether the feds assisted (in some manner) there. On that issue, USADA didn't need the feds to make the interviews happen. Anyone (private individuals included) can subpoena another to provide testimony if they choose not to speak voluntarily.


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> I don't get that, nor do I pay it much credence. I don't get the fully consistent with doping; if so why has the UCI not acted previously, they must have the same data. Decided in court, well that would blow USADA's credibility and procedures out the water and open them up to a whole bunch of appeals, surely?


 
If it were to be heard in court I don't think this sort of statement would cut it

_That would *ring bells*," said Wadler. "That would certainly require *some explanation* as to why there was such an aberration. From a strictly medical point of view, *that's a little unusual*."_
Wadlers statement doesn't say that the blood HAS been doped, just that he would need some explanation

_This data is fully *consistent with* blood manipulation including EPO use *and/or* blood transfusions_.
USADA aren't actually saying that the blood HAS been doped, but that it is consistent with blood that has been subject to EPO or it has been transfused or both. Too many variables there for my liking, and a jury's I would think.


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

If USADA is to be treated as a "State Actor" is that possibly the reason that the hearing would be in a District Court?


----------



## Smokin Joe (13 Jul 2012)

It isn't just about the credibility of drug tests. If enough reliable witnesses come forward to claim they saw Armstrong doping then that alone could be regarded as sufficient proof, similarly to a criminal investigation into a murder where there is no forensic evidence but plenty of eye witnesses who swear they saw X shoot Y.

It will be interesting to see who exactly has testified against Lance. Aren't relations with his ex wife a bit fraught?


----------



## swansonj (13 Jul 2012)

I am not (and have never pretended to be) an expert on doping. But I am professionally immersed in debates about how confident scientists should be, and how confident they say they are, in their own data. Arguments based on "we can't see any other explanation for these findings" should always be treated with suspicion because scientists almost always subconsciously downplay the likelihood of alternative explanations they haven't thought of. To say "this sequence of haematocrit readings is compatible with doping" seems true. To say "it is hard to think of any alternative explanation" is probably also fair. To say "this therefore suggests doping took place" is also fair comment - except that it almost certainly doesn't suggest it as strongly as the person saying that means. That, sadly, is the human nature as applied to scientists, and I speak as one myself.

I guess this comes back to the level of proof required. IF the test were "beyond reasonable doubt" (which we all know is not the case for USADA) then there would have to be a lot of debate about whether "we can't think of any alternative explanation" applied to these blood tests would be good enough (though I repeat I am not an expert in either the lay or court senses, so I can't really judge how strong this particular piece of evidence is, it's just my hunch). If the test were "balance of probabilities" it probably would be good enough. As I understand it, the USADA test is somewhere between those two.

(and of course, those of us who are simply trying to make our best assessment of the truth, rather than to follow USADA procedures, don't judge these data in isolation - if we have other reasons for suspecting LA of doping, that quite legitimately alters our assessment of the relative likelihood of the doping versus no doping alternative explanations.)


----------



## Red Light (13 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Some more info about USADA's evidence
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ood-attempt-convict-cheater-article-1.1113450


 
I would love one of our resident statisticians to comment on those numbers. If its accepted that his levels fluctuate normally between 40 and 43 and being 1.8 under the lower figure is considered not unusual, why is being 2.7 above the upper figure proof of doping? And was the 1.8 low figure evidence that LA was taking drugs to depress his performance? 

It says he was at high altitude during that period but also its known that athletes lift their haemocrit levels by living at high altitude or by sleeping in low oxygen atmospheres so what is the effect of that? Its one of the reasons the chemical test for EPO was introduced because the use of haemocrit thresholds was so controversial and discredited because of variability in natural levels and environmental influences.

Someone cycling down the road on a bike would be fully consistent with the rider having stolen it. Does that mean we are all bike thieves here?


----------



## Red Light (13 Jul 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> It isn't just about the credibility of drug tests. If enough reliable witnesses come forward to claim they saw Armstrong doping then that alone could be regarded as sufficient proof, similarly to a criminal investigation into a murder where there is no forensic evidence but plenty of eye witnesses who swear they saw X shoot Y.
> 
> It will be interesting to see who exactly has testified against Lance. Aren't relations with his ex wife a bit fraught?


 
The issue of witnesses is must be both reliable and independent. Many of the witnesses so far have severe reliability issues and none of them are what could be classed as disinterested parties. Its the equivalent in your analogy of a gang shooting and the statements by gang members as to who fired the shot in the absence of any forensic evidence.


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Someone cycling down the road on a bike would be fully consistent with the rider having stolen it. Does that mean we are all bike thieves here?


Or as the USADA would say:
"fully consistent with the rider having stolen it or borrowed it or both borrowed it and stolen it"


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Jul 2012)

False analogy. But do keep trying.


----------



## Red Light (13 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> False analogy. But do keep trying.


 
Proof by assertion. Do keep not explaining.


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

If Armstrongs blood tests in 2010 were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions" why was his performance in the 2010 TdF so crap?


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> If Armstrongs blood tests in 2010 were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions" why was his performance in the 2010 TdF so crap?


He was another year older and kept falling off?


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> The issue of witnesses is must be both reliable and independent. Many of the witnesses so far have severe reliability issues and none of them are what could be classed as disinterested parties. Its the equivalent in your analogy of a gang shooting and the statements by gang members as to who fired the shot in the absence of any forensic evidence.


So who would qualify as a reliable and independent witness, in your opinion?


----------



## Alun (13 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> He was another year older and kept falling off?


 He was not performing well before he started falling off, and to go from 3rd in 2009 to 64th in 2010 is a bigger drop than most riders experience in 12 months.


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

Just as an interesting diversion, we've often heard the 'Armstrong has been tested over 500* times and never tested positive' line. That number has been hotly contested by many. Ever wondered how many tests it actually was? Well, read on....

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

I'll cut to the chase.... 236 times is the number the above article comes up with. There's also info on the positives tests.

*600 allowing for inflation.


----------



## User169 (13 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Just as an interesting diversion, we've often heard the 'Armstrong has been tested over 500* times and never tested positive' line. That number has been hotly contested by many. Ever wondered how many tests it actually was? Well, read on....
> 
> http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
> 
> ...


 
Very confusing that Armstrong's lawyer is called "Tim Herman". I keep reading "Tim Henman".

I would have thought the sanctions for giving factually incorrect statement to the court are fairly draconian, so I guess there must be some logic on which the numbers can be justified.


----------



## Red Light (13 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> So who would qualify as a reliable and independent witness, in your opinion?


 
Someone who has a track record of being a truthful and accurate witness of events for the reliable bit and someone who has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the outcome.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Someone who has a track record of being a truthful and accurate witness of events for the reliable bit


And how would this be assessed? Are there accreditation schemes for witnesses? Would witnesses only be accepted if they have a reliability score of 75% or more? The reliability and standing of the witness is down to whoever hears the evidence, be that a judge, a panel or a jury.



> and someone who has no personal interest, direct or indirect, in the outcome.


Again, the motivation of a witness and the potential impact on their evidence is up to whoever is hearing the case. You are effectively ruling out anyone with a connection to the events they witnessed.

You are talking complete horse toffee.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Very confusing that Armstrong's lawyer is called "Tim Herman". I keep reading "Tim Henman".


They'll both go down in history as being famous for losing, so the names may as well be interchangeable.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2012)

There is still the issue of reliability of the tests.

The test for EPO has been shown to have a high false positive rate in people who have undergone exercise.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> There is still the issue of reliability of the tests.
> 
> The test for EPO has been shown to have a high false positive rate in people who have undergone exercise.


I've never come across that mentioned in any cycling/doping related articles. Have you got a link or source?


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I've never come across that mentioned in any cycling/doping related articles. Have you got a link or source?


 
Wikipedia:



> *Detection of EPO use*
> 
> Some success has also been realized in applying a specific test to detect EPO use. An inherent problem, however, is that, whereas pharmaceutical EPO may be undetectable in the circulation a few days after administration, its effects may persist for several weeks. In 2000 a test developed by scientists at the French national anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) and endorsed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was introduced to detect pharmaceutical EPO by distinguishing it from the nearly identical natural hormone normally present in an athlete’s urine. The test method relies on scientific techniques known as gel electrophoresis and isoelectric focusing. Although the test has been widely applied, especially among cyclists and triathletes, it is controversial, and its accuracy has been called into question. The principal criticism has been toward the ability of the test to distinguish pharmaceutical EPO from other proteins that may normally be present in the urine of an athlete after strenuous exercise.
> The validity of a doping conviction based on the EPO test method was first challenged successfully by Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke. Beke was suspended from competition for 18 months in March 2005 by the Flemish Disciplinary Commission after a positive urine test for EPO in September 2004. In August 2005, the Commission reversed its decision and exonerated him based on scientific and medical information presented by Beke. He asserted that his sample had become degraded as a result of bacterial contamination and that the substance identified by the laboratory as pharmaceutical EPO was, in fact, an unrelated protein indistinguishable from pharmaceutical EPO in the test method. He claimed, therefore, that the test had produced a false positive result in his case.


 
Cycling News




Joris Delanghe et al Testing for recombinant human erythropoietin





> Testing for recombinant Epo in urine may seem practical at first sight but appears to be a very difficult task. The amount of endogenous Epo in urine is extremely low . The physiological background for testing Epo in urine is complex and the handling of Epo by the renal tubules is poorly understood . Furthermore, exercise-induced renal ischemia and the accompanying postexercise proteinuria may affect the clearance of this 32- to 39-kDa protein and the quality of the urine matrix.


 
Drugds in sport


> In the _Blood_ journal study, a research group led by Associate Professor Monique Beullens and Professor Mathieu Bollen (of the Department of Molecular Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium) and their colleague Dr. Joris R Delanghe (of the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Gent, Belgium), showed the widely-used IOC and WADA EPO test can lead to the false-positive detection of rhEPO in post-exercise, protein-rich urine of endurance sports athletes.
> As a result of a disputed case of alleged rhEPO-abuse by an endurance athlete with post-exercise proteinuria, European scientists wondered whether the test for rhEPO could lead to false-positive results, perhaps as a result of cross-reactivity of the EPO-antibodies with other proteins of urine that were unrelated to EPO.
> The straightforward experimental protocol of the reported study leaves little doubt that the major urinary protein that the WADA test visualizes with the EPO antibodies is not EPO.
> The article by Belgian scientists therefore challenges WADA claim that "_the detection method for EPO is valid and reliable_". Other WADA statements such as the method for EPO detection "_has undergone an extensive scientific validation_" and "_it is a well-established procedure widely accepted by the scientific community, as demonstrated by publication in a number of international scientific journals_" are similarly false.
> Contrary to the WADA claims, the _Doping Journal_ analysis of citation impact of earlier publications on EPO testing in urine indicates the IOC/WADA method for EPO testing is not scientifically popular or well-established. An in-depth analysis of the articles behind the IOC's urine test for EPO showed earlier publications missed critical control experiments and were not designed to exclude non-specific false-positive misidentification of other non-EPO urine components.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Ta.


----------



## lukesdad (13 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> So who would qualify as a reliable and independent witness, in your opinion?


 
Kevin Livingston.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jul 2012)

I am reliable. And independent. Pick me.


----------



## Buddfox (14 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> And how would this be assessed? Are there accreditation schemes for witnesses? Would witnesses only be accepted if they have a reliability score of 75% or more? The reliability and standing of the witness is down to whoever hears the evidence, be that a judge, a panel or a jury.
> 
> 
> Again, the motivation of a witness and the potential impact on their evidence is up to whoever is hearing the case. You are effectively ruling out anyone with a connection to the events they witnessed.
> ...



Isn't this why lawyers spend a lot of time in cross-examining witnesses, to establish their credibility? I guess you could call that the test to which you refer. My guess is it wouldn't take a lot to discredit some if not all the witnesses here. Unfortunately with LA there's so much background noise that it's hard not to show you don't have some kind of vested interest. Hincapie might be OK?


----------



## yello (14 Jul 2012)

Another question answered for me this morning; Bruyneel didn't have the 30 day extension like Armstrong does, only 5 days. He's opted for arbritation

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling...han-bruyneel-fight-doping-charges-arbitration

Maybe his pockets aren't as deep as Armstrong's? I guess his hearing won't be until after Armstrong's complaint has been decided upon. Another clever tactical move by Bruyneel?


----------



## User169 (14 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Joris Delanghe et al Testing for recombinant human erythropoietin[/SIZE
> 
> Drugds in sport





That work was disputed, btw. The journal that published the work subsequently published an analysis from one of the french doping labs basically accusing the authors of shoddy work. Its not an easy test to interpret, but Given that many dopers seem to have passed inumerable tests, i think it more reasonable to saythat the testing regimes are skewed in favour of false megatives.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

There are problems with the testing, and there have been cases where this doubt has been sufficient to overturn suspensions and bans in court.

That is where we need to look. If there is sufficient doubt then there is a defence.

Add to that the question (again in the above references) as to whether testing old samples is valid and my point remains that there may be enough doubt to invalidate much of the evidence.

The controversy over the tests is simply another factor

The false negative rate is acceptable as this may miss the offender, but has no lasting effect in the way that a false positive can. A false positive is unacceptable because of the devastating consequences.


----------



## yello (14 Jul 2012)

I neglected to mention an important factor in the analysis of the blood passport data that Michael Ashenden mentioned. That is, a race calender. The analysts only see the blood values, they don't know anything about when the athlete was competing (for obvious anonymity reasons). That apparently can give a whole new dimension to the analysis. Overlay the athletes race calendar over the data and certain values can look more (or less) suspicious.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jul 2012)

An excellent point yello, one often overlooked or unknown by many who make comments about data as if it is "fact" beyond question or further discussion.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The false negative rate is acceptable as this may miss the offender, but has no lasting effect in the way that a false positive can. A false positive is unacceptable because of the devastating consequences.


 
Saying it is 'unacceptable' doesn't help here. It's like people asking for 100% certain proof of some hypothesis. There will _always_ be false positives and false negatives in any test. The only question is what chance of each there is and what chance on each side one is prepared to accept for both the specific and wider purposes of the test. And if you are saying 'no chance', then you are really saying 'no testing'.


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I neglected to mention an important factor in the analysis of the blood passport data that Michael Ashenden mentioned. That is, a race calender. The analysts only see the blood values, they don't know anything about when the athlete was competing (for obvious anonymity reasons). That apparently can give a whole new dimension to the analysis. Overlay the athletes race calendar over the data and certain values can look more (or less) suspicious.


I'm sure that Ashenden and his colleagues are well aware of that. From what I've read, the passport analysis is effectively weighted to make it very difficult to get a positive result. Also, in this specific case, we know exactly who the athlete is and what he was doing, so that particular issue isn't a factor.

I know there have been a few cases where the B sample has turned out negative, which would be consistent with what Cunobblychap's examples describe, but I don't think anyone has ever had a sanction overturned because of a false positive. Why should Armstrong be any different? Besides, the case against him is going to be build on a huge amount of evidence, not just the blood data. Any part of it would be enough to bring down a smaller rider. It says worlds about Armstrong's power and influence that it's taking such a massive effort to nail the cheating bastard.


----------



## Red Light (14 Jul 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> That work was disputed, btw. The journal that published the work subsequently published an analysis from one of the french doping labs basically accusing the authors of shoddy work.



Oohhh!!!! Pots, kettles and black. What came out at the Landis arbitration was some of the shoddiest labwork I have seen courtesy of LNDD. If they had been a medical diagnostics company the regulatory authorities would have shut them down.


----------



## yello (14 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I'm sure that Ashenden and his colleagues are well aware of that.


 
Yes they are. As I said, It was an article written by Ashenden that I read it in. Or am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Yes they are. As I said, It was an article written by Ashenden that I read it in. Or am I misunderstanding you?


No, you're right. I just don't have your forensic eye. I was making a logical assumption.


----------



## yello (14 Jul 2012)

On the subject of Ashenden, he said that he hasn't actually seen the Armstrong data that USADA have. Now either he's playing with words or he's not one of the experts in the USADA case. That would surprise the hell out of me given his standing and experience but it makes sense if you consider that Ashenden is pretty much on record as saying 'Armstrong doped' from having reviewed Armstrong blood data before. USADA may not want to risk having a witness who's testimony can be called into question despite their expertise in the field.


----------



## User169 (14 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> Oohhh!!!! Pots, kettles and black. What came out at the Landis arbitration was some of the shoddiest labwork I have seen courtesy of LNDD. If they had been a medical diagnostics company the regulatory authorities would have shut them down.



Fair enough. I'll have to take your word for it, and i've no doubt you're an expert in the field.

Btw,would the landis you're talking about be the one who conceded that he'd been doping all along?


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Saying it is 'unacceptable' doesn't help here. It's like people asking for 100% certain proof of some hypothesis. There will _always_ be false positives and false negatives in any test. The only question is what chance of each there is and what chance on each side one is prepared to accept for both the specific and wider purposes of the test. And if you are saying 'no chance', then you are really saying 'no testing'.


 

If I have problems going to the loo then at my age there is a chance I have a prostate problem. So I have a blood test that shows I have advanced Prostate Cancer, and undergo radical surgery and chemotherapy...................... then get told it was a false positive and all of that was unnecessary?

Is that acceptable?


False positives occurring means that the test itself is not fully valid as evidence and needs to be backed up by ther evidence and should NOT be accepted as unequivocal evidence


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> False positives occurring means that the test itself is not fully valid as evidence and needs to be backed up by ther evidence and should NOT be accepted as unequivocal evidence


 
You appear to misunderstand the nature of evidence. There is no such thing as evidence being 'fully valid'. It is still evidence. It may or may not be conclusive evidence. It may or may not be _enough_ according to the rules of any given organisation. It would not be in itself be enough in most courts of law. But I am sure there is more evidence, and of more than one type, here than just one test result...


----------



## Red Light (14 Jul 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Fair enough. I'll have to take your word for it, and i've no doubt you're an expert in the field.
> 
> Btw,would the landis you're talking about be the one who conceded that he'd been doping all along?



No Landis fought it and lost before he fessed up. But that's nothing to do with the shoddiness of LNDD's work. The superficial signs are in the way information leaked out into L'Equipe before anyone had been notified but their technical operating procedures were even more lax than their information handling procedures. "We made it up as we went along" would not be an unfair summary.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You appear to misunderstand the nature of evidence. There is no such thing as evidence being 'fully valid'. It is still evidence. It may or may not be conclusive evidence. It may or may not be _enough_ according to the rules of any given organisation. It would not be in itself be enough in most courts of law. But I am sure there is more evidence, and of more than one type, here than just one test result...


 
Not at all.... one of the cornerstones in this case is the results of tests carried out and allegedly showing that EPO was used... discrediting that evidence to the point where it is disallowed is not going to be that difficult


----------



## marinyork (14 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not at all.... one of the cornerstones in this case is the results of tests carried out and allegedly showing that EPO was used... discrediting that evidence to the point where it is disallowed is not going to be that difficult


 
Ah yes. People don't like the 'non-analytic evidence' so demand that it must be based on tests. When you cannot construct such a test to your liking instead of relying on the other stuff as well, it's all thrown out of the window. Sounds a bit convenient logic to me.

And there's an awful lot more to decision theory than hypothesis testing. That's the whole point!


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Not at all.... one of the cornerstones in this case is the results of tests carried out and allegedly showing that EPO was used... discrediting that evidence to the point where it is disallowed is not going to be that difficult


No. The only EPO test against LA is the retrospective tests carried out on his 99 samples. I can't see that being any part in USADA's evidence. The cornerstone in this case is going to be the additional blood tests backed up by eye witness testimony from team mates.


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> No. The only EPO test against LA is the retrospective tests carried out on his 99 samples. I can't see that being any part in USADA's evidence. The cornerstone in this case is going to be the additional blood tests backed up by eye witness testimony from team mates.


Another house of cards then ?


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Another house of cards then ?


What, like the whole LA myth? Please do read what Yello posted about the 'most tested' lie. As someone else said, he isn't even the most tested American called Armstrong.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jul 2012)

Can someone just poke me with a stick when he is found guilty of something? Many thanks. I have no preference as to what he is found guilty of.


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> Can someone just poke me with a stick when he is found guilty of something? Many thanks. I have no preference as to what he is found guilty of.


Guilty of being a complete daffodil. I'm the judge. SENTENCED!


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (14 Jul 2012)

Is it possible that the 'missing' 240+ tests were those carried out by his own medical team to check that his haematocrit levels or for other doping markers? Or would that imply a pass mark and hence a risk of failure?


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

Stig-OT-Dump said:


> Is it possible that the 'missing' 240+ tests were those carried out by his own medical team to check that his haematocrit levels or for other doping markers? Or would that imply a pass mark and hence a risk of failure?


The 'most tested' line that he has deployed for many years (it's the fan's No 1 line of defence) clearly implies that it's testing by race organisers/UCI. Self-testing by Ferrari etc, which they would have to do for precisely the reasons you state, DOES NOT COUNT.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jul 2012)

He may have very well been the "most tested" in that he was tested by his own team to make sure he would not be detected by official tests.


----------



## marinyork (14 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> He may have very well been the "most tested" in that he was tested by his own team to make sure he would not be detected by official tests.


 
What else are tests for!


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (14 Jul 2012)

There was the Pantani test.
'Where did you put the coke Marco?'
A similar test was still being used at bunga bunga parties quite recently, allegedly. They weren't putting blood samples into centrifuges over the same weekend though.

Sorry, I digressed a bit there.


----------



## Noodley (14 Jul 2012)

Chesney Hawks. "I am the one and only"


----------



## lukesdad (14 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> What, like the whole LA myth? Please do read what Yello posted about the 'most tested' lie. As someone else said, he isn't even the most tested American called Armstrong.


 
I allways read yellos posts... its usually informed and balanced. The LA myth ? Its no myth its fact. You can preach as much as you like. I'm interested in " The team mates" who they are and what they ve got to say. You ve brought nothing new to the table, other than, I think........


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I allways read yellos posts... its usually informed and balanced. The LA myth ? Its no myth its fact. You can preach as much as you like. I'm interested in " The team mates" who they are and what they ve got to say. You ve brought nothing new to the table, other than, I think........


<sigh> Read this http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/ and then tell me that I'm just a jealous hater...


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Just as an interesting diversion, we've often heard the 'Armstrong has been tested over 500* times and never tested positive' line. That number has been hotly contested by many. Ever wondered how many tests it actually was? Well, read on....
> 
> http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
> 
> ...


Hey, Lukesdad! Think you missed this one...


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Hey, Lukesdad! Think you missed this one...


 
Not at all. So you've diluted " the whole LA myth" to, the amount of times he claims he s been tested ?( Big Tex will probably count routine hospital one s as well )
The results of the tests are common knowledge, as is the argument to how reliable they are.

The interesting part ( for me ) is the "Team mates evidence" that i want to hear !


----------



## Chuffy (15 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Not at all. So you've diluted " the whole LA myth" to, the amount of times he claims he s been tested ?( Big Tex will probably count routine hospital one s as well )
> The results of the tests are common knowledge, as is the argument to how reliable they are.
> 
> The interesting part ( for me ) is the "Team mates evidence" that i want to hear !


I sense goalposts being shifted....


----------



## Red Light (15 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Guilty of being a complete ****. I'm the judge. SENTENCED!



Good to see you finally admitting your guilt


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I sense goalposts being shifted....


 Really, In what way ?


----------



## Chuffy (15 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Really, In what way ?


The "most tested" line is hugely important - it's been a cornerstone of his defence (usually by his army of yellow ribboners) and it has been comprehensively debunked and revealed as a flat lie. You can't just side-step that.


----------



## BJH (15 Jul 2012)

I suspect this is he or isn't he debate will all be found to be a waste of time within a short time.

Looking at attempts to discredit USADA, bring legal action against USADA and then getting a tame senator to question USADAs prosecution/persecution of him leaves me with an absolute certainty in my mind that he knows his numbers up.

I have gone through the full range on LA from initially being a fan when he was riding, through becoming convinced that the sheer quantity of circumstantial evidence made him guilty, through to prosecute him and then reaching the point of thinking it was all just water on the bridge and there was no point prosecuting?

Once this latest piece came out I am back to thinking sod it, if it destroys the record books then so be it, although who ends up being awarded the win will be evn more controversial.

For me, the federal investigation must have brought some ex team mates to their senses when they suddenly realised they could be facing up to time in a federal prison and at that point they have begun to talk. One that was known his number was up and hence the desperation.

Weird thing is, if he hadn't come back he might not be in this position, but now the genie is out of the bottle lets see where it ends up.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jul 2012)

... but you ve fallen for the same smokescreen (trap) whether its 250 or 500 tests is irrelevant, its the results that are important and their realiability/interpretation/action taken. The whole saga has been diluted and you are contributing to it by going after the yellow ribboners.


----------



## Chuffy (15 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ... but you ve fallen for the same smokescreen (trap) whether its 250 or 500 tests is irrelevant, its the results that are important and their realiability/interpretation/action taken. The whole saga has been diluted and you are contributing to it by going after the yellow ribboners.


Really?! The whole 'most tested athlete' thing is the smokescreen! No. Team Armstrong has consistently lied about the number of tests and being most tested athlete, for years. The yellow ribboners have just helped by spreading the lie. I'm not interested in them, they just get a passing mention, no more.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jul 2012)

Of course its the bloody smokescreen or part of it anyway so its proved he s only had 250.... then he counters all blood tests no matter who they were conducted by... then you, ah but thats not what you meant is it ?...... game of tennis, adding to the soap opera ,further dilution and diverting the focus.

Your posts on here have been full of referrence to people who disagree with you, here and on other forums, whether the subject has been Armstrong, wiggins, Sky or whatever, obviously no interest whatsoever.


----------



## Chuffy (15 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Of course its the bloody smokescreen or part of it anyway so its proved he s only had 250.... then he counters all blood tests no matter who they were conducted by... then you, ah but thats not what you meant is it ?...... game of tennis, adding to the soap opera ,further dilution and diverting the focus.


What on earth are you on about? Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Diverting focus to or from what?



> Your posts on here have been full of referrence to people who disagree with you, here and on other forums, whether the subject has been Armstrong, wiggins, Sky or whatever, obviously no interest whatsoever.


Again, what are you trying to say?

Look, I doubt we're ever going to agree on anything Armstrong related but I really don't understand what you're getting at, sorry.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> What on earth are you on about? Seriously, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Diverting focus to or from what?
> 
> 
> Again, what are you trying to say?
> ...


 
We probably agree on more than we appear to,however I can do without the flowery language and personal attacks from both sides. IT DIVERTS THE FOCUS.


----------



## Chuffy (15 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> We probably agree on more than we appear to,however I can do without the flowery language and personal attacks from both sides. IT DIVERTS THE FOCUS.


I didn't attack you. I didn't understand what point you were trying to get across, which is why I asked. Repeating things in BOLD doesn't help and I still have no idea what IT is or what it DIVERTS THE FOCUS to or from.

Look - you're getting wound up and I'm just getting more perplexed. Let's call this quits, at least for tonight.


----------



## yello (16 Jul 2012)

re the 500 tests lie, I think I see what ld is saying; it's the results of those tests that we should be looking at, the number of them is irrelevant (whatever that number is). Lieing is not a crime (except under oath!) and.. ah, actually doping isn't either... that destroys that line! You know what I mean! 

The thing I would say about exposing the lie is (and to use court parlance) 'it goes to character'.


----------



## Chuffy (16 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> re the 500 tests lie, I think I see what ld is saying; it's the results of those tests that we should be looking at, the number of them is irrelevant (whatever that number is). Lieing is not a crime (*except under oath*!) and.. ah, actually doping isn't either... that destroys that line! You know what I mean!


Is that why he has never said under oath that he has never doped? 



> The thing I would say about exposing the lie is (and to use court parlance) 'it goes to character'.


My point exactly.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> re the 500 tests lie, I think I see what ld is saying; it's the results of those tests that we should be looking at, the number of them is irrelevant (whatever that number is). Lieing is not a crime (except under oath!) and.. ah, actually doping isn't either... that destroys that line! You know what I mean!
> 
> The thing I would say about exposing the lie is (and to use court parlance) 'it goes to character'.


 A rational line of thought, that is, untill you apply it to the up and comming evidence to be given by, I assume equally dodgy charachters ? Hopefully the process will succeed the trouble is will it be concluded to everybodys satisfaction ? I have my doubts, probably to most of the posters here it will, but far too many will be let off the hook not least the UCI.


----------



## raindog (16 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> ....... but far too many will be let off the hook not least the UCI.


Let's hope not, if that story of the Swiss lab positive being bought off is true. In fact, I'm dying to see what evidence they've got for that - I find it to be the hottest item of this whole saga.


----------



## lukesdad (16 Jul 2012)

raindog said:


> Let's hope not, if that story of the Swiss lab positive being bought off is true. In fact, I'm dying to see what evidence they've got for that - I find it to be the hottest item of this whole saga.


 Im "dying" to see all the evidence they ve got. Question is will we ? That particular piece of evidence if it exsists, would sink the whole ship.


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> A rational line of thought, that is, untill you apply it to the up and comming evidence to be given by, I assume equally dodgy charachters ?.


 
Are you're suggesting (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that all of the witnesses will be lieing in their testimonies?


----------



## Alun (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Are you're suggesting (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that all of the witnesses will be lieing in their testimonies?


 I think the important point from the Armstrong camp is whether sufficient doubt can be cast on their characters and/or previous deceptions to render their testimonies "unreliable".


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Are you're suggesting (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that all of the witnesses will be lieing in their testimonies?


 You ve got it arse about face yello, If they ve lied before (give 'em the benefit of the doubt...told big fibs) . Is that not the anology being applied to " Big Tex " ?


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

To answer a question with a question is deflection, so I'll take it from your response that you expect all 10+ witnesses to be telling big fibs. I'm only trying to establish what you're suggesting here.


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I think the important point from the Armstrong camp is whether sufficient doubt can be cast on their characters and/or previous deceptions to render their testimonies "unreliable".


 
We don't know who the witnesses testimony comes from but I feel safe in saying that doubt can be cast as to the 'reliability' of a few of them. However, getting the review panel (or court of law, if it goes that way) to dismiss *all* of them as 'unreliable' is going to be difficult. I personally don't see it happening.


----------



## Alun (17 Jul 2012)

I can't help thinking that the USADA's case seems to be weaker than it appeared a few weeks ago, when many regarded it as game, set and match.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> I can't help thinking that the USADA's case seems to be weaker than it appeared a few weeks ago, when many regarded it as game, set and match.


 
How would you know?


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2012)

Lance told him.


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> We don't know who the witnesses testimony comes from but I feel safe in saying that doubt can be cast as to the 'reliability' of a few of them. However, getting the review panel (or court of law, if it goes that way) to dismiss *all* of them as 'unreliable' is going to be difficult. I personally don't see it happening.


This is true, could come down to, which one do you distrust the least.

We need some hard evidence, unchallengble test results and a traceable paper trail.


----------



## Noodley (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> We need some hard evidence, unchallengble test results and a traceable paper trail.


 
Not me, I'm happy to go with whatever there is.


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> Not me, I'm happy to go with whatever there is.


 Well you have allways been easily pleased < according to Mrs noods anyways >


----------



## lukesdad (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> To answer a question with a question is deflection, so I'll take it from your response that you expect all 10+ witnesses to be telling big fibs. I'm only trying to establish what you're suggesting here.


 Sorry missed this post ^ it was in answer to your 'goes to charachter quote' if thats a deflection well.....


----------



## Noodley (17 Jul 2012)

I am starting to think that Armstrong's career is more like Minder every day...Bruyneel is Arthur Daly, Armstrong is Terry McCann, Pat McQuaid is Dave at the Winchester. Dick Pound is DS "Cheeky Charlie" Chisolm, and Armstrong's domestiques are "Mournful Morris", Second-hand Sid", Freddy the Fly", "Hacksaw Harris" and "Fat Charlie". When Terry leaves, Arthur brings in Ray Daley aka Alberto Contador, but Terry soon returns and things start to go badly wrong... Rula Lenska plays Kristin Armstrong, Sheryl Crow and Anna Hansen.


----------



## marinyork (17 Jul 2012)




----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

lukesdad said:


> it was in answer to your 'goes to charachter quote'


 
Now you've got me baffled and I've still no idea what you meant... but I'll let it go.



Alun said:


> I can't help thinking that the USADA's case seems to be weaker than it appeared a few weeks ago


 
I doubt the evidence has changed so I have to assume that your assessment of the situation has. So what is it that makes you think their case is weaker?


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

I thought it might be useful to give a 'state of play' update (as best as I can understand it!)

Item 1: We know that USADA have given Armstrong a 30 extension. So he has until August 10th to respond. He can either elect to contest (or not). If he decides to contest, he can have an open or closed hearing. He will be entitled to see the full evidence and cross examine witnesses at the hearing. If he does not respond, or chooses not to contest, then USADA will make their judgement.

Item 2: There is a court hearing scheduled (with Judge Sparks) at 2pm on August 10th if the parties (USADA and Armstrong) do not come to an agreement. That basically means if Armstrong refuses to acknowledge USADA's jurisdiction. If there is agreement (Armstrong decides to contest OR accepts USADA's judgement) then this hearing will not go ahead. USADA can file to dismiss but I somehow doubt they will.

My feeling is that Armstrong will not respond to USADA. They will sanction him, the court hearing will take place and Armstrong's case will be dismissed.


----------



## smutchin (17 Jul 2012)

If Bruyneel is Arthur Daley, does that make Dr Ferrari "Er Indoors"? (Never actually seen on Tour.)


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I thought it might be useful to give a 'state of play' update (as best as I can understand it!)
> 
> Item 1: We know that USADA have given Armstrong a 30 extension. So he has until August 10th to respond. He can either elect to contest (or not). If he decides to contest, he can have an open or closed hearing. He will be entitled to see the full evidence and cross examine witnesses at the hearing. If he does not respond, or chooses not to contest, then USADA will make their judgement.
> 
> ...


Do you mean his (assumed) argument in Item 2 that USADA don't have jurisdiction?


----------



## Alun (17 Jul 2012)

Bruyneel is the "stalking horse", his case will be heard first, the witnesses will reveal themselves, and Armstrong will have them dealt with !
A man answering his description is already being sought regarding "Tackgate", and now he's spiked Frank's lemonade. He was less trouble when he was in the Tour!


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Do you mean his (assumed) argument in Item 2 that USADA don't have jurisdiction?


 
Yes, sorry, my phrasing was ambiguous. I think Sparks will dismiss Armstrong's complaint and the USADA sanction will stand (to be appealed to CAS perhaps).


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Yes, sorry, my phrasing was ambiguous. I think Sparks will dismiss Armstrong's complaint and the USADA sanction will stand (to be appealed to CAS perhaps).


For a bit I wondered if you actually meant the whole case...
Have we already discussed the 'take the rap then spend years bitching about witchhunts and haters?' option?


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> Bruyneel is the "stalking horse", his case will be heard first,


 
I've not read that any date has been given for Bruyneel's hearing as yet. I suspect it will be after August 10th so (under the scenario I gave above, i.e. Armstrong not contesting) Bruyneel's hearing would actually be _after_ Armstrong is sanctioned.


----------



## yello (17 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Have we already discussed the 'take the rap then spend years bitching about witchhunts and haters?' option?


 
I suspect that should Armstrong be sanctioned by USADA he'll be far too busy defending law suits and the like to issue PR statements about haterz etc!


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I've not read that any date has been given for Bruyneel's hearing as yet. I suspect it will be after August 10th so (under the scenario I gave above, i.e. Armstrong not contesting) Bruyneel's hearing would actually be _after_ Armstrong is sanctioned.


Would make more sense too. There must be a lot of evidence in common and you don't want to waste star witnesses and headline evidence on the small fish first. Actually, thinking about it, how _do_ they deal with that? Also, when does Celaya go to court?


----------



## Alun (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I've not read that any date has been given for Bruyneel's hearing as yet. I suspect it will be after August 10th so (under the scenario I gave above, i.e. Armstrong not contesting) Bruyneel's hearing would actually be _after_ Armstrong is sanctioned.


You don't think Armstrong will contest this? I think he'll take it to the wire!
Why do you think he won't contest it, if being sanctioned means he'll be so busy defending lawsuits he won't even have the time to issue PR statements?


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I suspect that should Armstrong be sanctioned by USADA he'll be far too busy defending law suits and the like to issue PR statements about haterz etc!


He's got a big team for the law suits (hellloooooooo SCA!!!!) and I suspect that the Yellow Ribboners and celebrity chums will stand by him. I'd give £5 to a legit cancer charity if he _doesn't_ go down the 'kangaroo court, no right to defend myself, unconstitutional' line of defence. If he chooses not to defend ('unfair trial, biased jury' etc) that will be considered the smallest of small print and he's a brazen enough liar that he might just get away with it.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> You don't think Armstrong will contest this? I think he'll take it to the wire!
> Why do you think he won't contest it, if being sanctioned means he'll be so busy defending lawsuits he won't even have the time to issue PR statements?


If he doesn't contest then the evidence doesn't get heard and I doubt Mr A wants his filthy laundry aired in public. Of course this does rather depend on Bruyneel and Celaya opting for the same and I think Celaya has decided to fight.

Yello is yer man for the detail and process though.


----------



## Alun (17 Jul 2012)

What is the history for the other drug cheats getting hammered with lawsuits?


----------



## Alun (17 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yello is yer man for the detail and process though.


No, Yello is too impulsive, shoots from the hip, he lets his emotions interfere with logical process. He's not a bad sort though!


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> What is the history for the other drug cheats getting hammered with lawsuits?


Who? What other lawsuits?

LA won a case against SCA who wanted to withhold a $5m bonus payment after they got wind that he was a lying, cheating sack of shoot there were serious allegations against him. The case was settled out of court with LA getting the $5m plus fees. If it's proven that he was doped to the ears, SCA have a strong claim to get their $5m back. Other close sponsors (this is just my conjecture) like Oakley, Nike, Trek etc may also take a view that they've been conned (although really, they can't possibly be that stupid).


----------



## Chuffy (17 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> No, Yello is too impulsive, shoots from the hip, he lets his emotions interfere with logical process. He's not a bad sort though!


I thought Bradley described him well the other day.


----------



## yello (18 Jul 2012)

2 reasons why I believe Armstrong wont contest (and Chuffy's mentioned one); Armstrong wants to stop the evidence seeing the light of day, and secondly, to contest means he accepts USADA's arbitration process.

IF the court case goes ahead (that is, Sparks does not dismiss it out of hand) THEN Armstrong will fight that "to the wire" (obviously, it's his action).

I am certainly not impulsive. I do a good degree of sifting and sorting of info before I post here. Equally, whilst my position on Armstrong is obvious, I'd like to think my assessment of that info isn't driven by emotion and remains clear headed. If my posts appear one-sided then it's simply that there isn't too much in the way of good news for team Armstrong.

One thing I am going to remain resolute in is not getting drawn into petty forum squabbles. Neither will I get personal. What people choose to believe is down to them and you'll receive no barbed or sarcastic remarks from me about it. After all, none of us knows 'the truth' and until such a time, all of our opinions are as valid as each others (though with varying degrees of probability!) So it follows that I don't believe that I am 'right'. If I don't understand someone's position then I will ask because, believe it or not, I'm interested in the subject and want to know where I've missed, or not considered, something.

Finally, more than anything in this discussion, I want to see people contribute from a knowledgeable background and/or with a considered perspective. It doesn't matter if I disagree with the view (as I said, I don't take it personally) - I've read enough on the subject now for the emotions not to kick in.


----------



## gb155 (18 Jul 2012)

There is a lot of irrational HATE here for my boy lance Armstrong 

I have to ask, did you guys hate so much on a jucied up David millar? Or is David a Saint as he's a brit and LA is a big bad yank?


----------



## yello (18 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Also, when does Celaya go to court?


 
I've not read a date fixed for that either. Again, I'd guess after the 10th August and before the 'before November' date USADA originally gave when they made the charges.


----------



## yello (18 Jul 2012)

gb155 said:


> There is a lot of irrational HATE here for my boy lance Armstrong


 
Where is the irrationality? Please, if you see a flawed argument then point it out. Let's discuss it. I'm serious, What drives me now is not hatred, I'm past that, it's a desire to know and to understand. 



> I have to ask, did you guys hate so much on a jucied up David millar? Or is David a Saint as he's a brit and LA is a big bad yank?


 
It's a different subject but there's no nationalism at play here - I'm not "a brit" either.


----------



## Alun (18 Jul 2012)

[/quote]


Chuffy said:


> Who? What other lawsuits?


That's what I'm getting at!
Plenty of drug cheats in Procycling some famous, some not so. I can't remember hearing of any getting taken to the cleaners by sponsors etc. I wondered what precedent there was, if any?


----------



## PaulB (18 Jul 2012)

Hasn't this gone on WAY too long at 44 pages? Once it descends to being more heat than light, it's time to walk away, innit?


----------



## festival (18 Jul 2012)

gb155 said:


> There is a lot of irrational HATE here for my boy lance Armstrong
> 
> I have to ask, did you guys hate so much on a jucied up David millar? Or is David a Saint as he's a brit and LA is a big bad yank?


 
Stupid Question IMO.
There may be some hate, but by now I would suggest opinions are well thought out, not irrational.
No, Millar is not hated, although opinions are divided about him, you cannot compare Millar to the Armstrong case.
I refer you to his comments since winning a stage the other day. I think most sensible people would appreciate his words and see the difference.
Nationality has nothing to do with it,


----------



## Chuffy (18 Jul 2012)

gb155 said:


> There is a lot of irrational HATE here for my boy lance Armstrong


No, entirely rational. I don't like arrogant, cheating bullies. Weird I know...



> I have to ask, did you guys hate so much on a jucied up David millar? Or is David a Saint as he's a brit and LA is a big bad yank?


What does Millar have to do with this? I started following cycling in 2003, so Millar's bust kind of went over my head at the time. Besides, my dislike of Armstrong stems from his character, the doping stuff is just the icing on that particular cake.

I get that LA is your hero, but that's tough. If you pick someone with feet of clay as a hero, you can't complain when they eventually come crashing down.


----------



## Chuffy (18 Jul 2012)

Alun said:


> That's what I'm getting at!
> Plenty of drug cheats in Procycling some famous, some not so. I can't remember hearing of any getting taken to the cleaners by sponsors etc. I wondered what precedent there was, if any?


How many others got a $5m bonus payment? Not many I'd guess. The precedent here is the 2006 lawsuit.
I'm only guessing at the other sponsors taking action and purely because I can't think of any other pro with such strong brand associations, although I'm sure Trek, Oakley, Bontrager, Nike (none of which I'll touch with a bargepole btw) have had the benefit from LA over the years and probably won't take much of a reputational hit.


----------



## Boris Bajic (18 Jul 2012)

It bothers me not at all whether he is guilty or not. I started to follow the TdF when doping of one kind or another was almost assumed.

It blew my socks off despite the stories and the scandal and the tawdry tales. It still does.

I'm human, so I have my favourites and my pantomime baddies. There is no logic to which rider falls into which camp.

What I find slightly troubling on this thread and others is that one or two TdF followers appear to have bestowed upon LA a sort of Messianic Halo and the perceived power (through survival and winning) to spread good and inspirational energy throughout the civilised world.

Some people seem somehow to have so much of their emotional self and esteem invested in the _Myth of Lance_ that it might all get a little uncomfortable if he's proved to be a cheat, a liar, a bully and a fraud - a jolly tough, brave and strong one, but a fraud.

Nothing to date has been proved or disproved. Most of us look on in bemused disinterest.

Those for whom the Legend of Lance is a marrow-deep reality and a Spur to a Greater Tomorrow might like to think up another star to hitch their wagon to in the event of a possible proof that the myth is just that... a myth.

Guilty or not, I think I'll always love the TdFfor its beauty, brutality and crushing ability to sweep even the greatest aside with apparent contempt. Whether Lance is a cheat or a God, nothing will change for me.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2012)

To me the position goes beyond the norm and becomes unpleasant when the rules start changing in order to get the result you want.

There is something unpleasant when an organisation such as the WADA starts acting outside its jurisdiction.

The 8 year "window" has been observe until now, but is now being extended for this on case. Evidence that was unacceptable in court and by the UCI is being accepted here.

The fact that allegedly Armstrong has no right to cross examine, or even know who witnesses are. The WADA can accept a written statement, present it and there is no way to challenge the document. If as has been suggested some riders have been offered effective bribes such as anonymity, reduced penalties and in some cases immunity then there could be a reasonable suspicion of the testimony in any other court

Whether he is guilty or not there is something unpleasant about the actions of the WADA.

Interestingly there s a point of view that Armstrong should simply ignore them as an irrelevance


----------



## marinyork (19 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The 8 year "window" has been observe until now, but is now being extended for this on case. Evidence that was unacceptable in court and by the UCI is being accepted here.


 
This is the only interesting thing you've said on this thread. It doesn't necessarily apply to the whole lot, but a very large chunk of it.


----------



## Chuffy (19 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> To me the position goes beyond the norm and becomes unpleasant when the rules start changing in order to get the result you want.
> 
> There is something unpleasant when an organisation such as the WADA starts acting outside its jurisdiction.


The action is being brought by USADA, not WADA.



> The 8 year "window" has been observe until now, but is now being extended for this on case. Evidence that was unacceptable in court and by the UCI is being accepted here.


The 8 year rule can be set aside if the subject (LA) can be shown to have dishonestly evaded justice. What does "evidence that was unnacceptable in court and by the UCI" mean? What evidence are you referring to, why is is unnacceptable, why are you bringing UCI into this (it's very definitely not their case) and just to hammer home the point, yet again, THIS. IS. NOT. A. COURT. OF. LAW.



> The fact that allegedly Armstrong has no right to cross examine, or even know who witnesses are. The WADA can accept a written statement, present it and there is no way to challenge the document. If as has been suggested some riders have been offered effective bribes such as anonymity, reduced penalties and in some cases immunity then there could be a reasonable suspicion of the testimony in any other court


Armstrong gets to cross-examine and finds out who the witnesses are when this thing comes to the hearing (assuming it gets that far). He hasn't been given the witness list up to now (and I'd bet he knows damn well who they are anyway) because of the risk of the witnesses being threatened (see: the Cache Cache incident and the recent leaking of the ex-Postal riders mid-Tour). The stuff about 'bribes' has already been rebutted and stems from the lies and disinformation that Lance's legal team has been spreading in order to undermine witness testimony. Looks like it's working.



> Whether he is guilty or not there is something unpleasant about the actions of the WADA. Interestingly there s a point of view that Armstrong should simply ignore them as an irrelevance


It's USADA. If you don't even know who is taking the action (and the rest of your post suggests that you haven't read this thread) why should anything you say be taken seriously? As for the point that LA should 'ignore them as an irrelevance' - the only person who could possibly argue that with a straight face is Armstrong himself. It's one step removed from 'only God can judge me'.

Your post is inaccurate fanboy horse piffle from start to finish.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Jul 2012)

Careful with those BOLD statements now


----------



## marinyork (19 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> The 8 year rule can be set aside if the subject (LA) can be shown to have dishonestly evaded justice. What does "evidence that was unnacceptable in court and by the UCI" mean? What evidence are you referring to, why is is unnacceptable, why are you bringing UCI into this (it's very definitely not their case) and just to hammer home the point, yet again, THIS. IS. NOT. A. COURT. OF. LAW.


 
Just for Cunobelin's benefit AAA Case No. 77 190 168 11 JENF. That's not new it's been said before and hinted at in this thread as well (you'd think someone with a PhD and more importantly a supposedly moderately intelligent person would actually be able to read mine and other people's posts and read between the lines but hey). An intelligent person might argue about the differences in cases rather than rambling on about other issues.


----------



## rich p (19 Jul 2012)

p.s. Is it appropriate to say how nice it is to have you on here Chuffy? No rubber pant pics though!


----------



## Chuffy (19 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> p.s. Is it appropriate to say how nice it is to have you on here Chuffy? No rubber pant pics though!


Off topic! Ban him! soppy old bugger


----------



## yello (19 Jul 2012)

The following is an even handed assessment of the current situation and some key issues....

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-18/lance-armstrong-usada/56322272/1



> "I would be very surprised if USADA lost on the question of its jurisdiction," said Steven J. Thompson, a Chicago attorney who has experience in doping cases and the USADA process.


 


> While McCann* predicts the court is likely to uphold USADA's jurisdiction, he said a judge might find some of the agency's "testing methods or system of charging methods to be unconstitutional but that is different than a court saying USADA lacks jurisdiction to have any testing or any system of charging."


 
*Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute at Vermont


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> ........
> Your post is inaccurate fanboy horse piffle from start to finish.


 

Personally I find the actions of Armstrong questionable and somewhat distasteful, but those of Tygart et al are no better.
if you are happy that the dirty tricks by Tygart et al are acceptable then you are entitled to that opinion, and can dismiss the facts if you wish.


Personally I would have preferred the case to have been heard and established once and for all with a far more reputable and established system than the one being cobbled together at present.

The big problem with this is exactly the fact that by altering rules to suit themselves Tygart et al are going to always give Armstrng the "vendeta" defence even if found guilty, and I suspect this will be exacerbated as Tygart brings the case back again and again if they do fail to get the guilty decision they so desperately crave.

Being found guilty in a court of law would have been a far better result.


----------



## Chuffy (19 Jul 2012)

Someone else reply, because I can't be arsed.


----------



## pubrunner (20 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> *As for the point that LA should 'ignore them as an irrelevance'* - the only person who could possibly argue that with a straight face is Armstrong himself. It's one step removed from 'only God can judge me'.


 
Well in a sense, it is an irrelevance. Armstrong is at a stage of his life, where he isn't going to win races - cycling or triathlons. He won his last TdF *7* years ago; he may be guilty of not, but on the strength of his victories, he has accrued considerable money, fame and support and is better placed than just about any other cyclist, to present a rigourous defence. 

If Armstrong is banned from competing in triathlons, I don't suppose he'll lose any sleep over it; he's made masses of money and regardless of any punishment, will still have masses of adoring fans.

I was a big fan of Eddie Merckx; but years *after* he retired, I learnt that he had used drugs to gain an advantage. Apparently, he was caught 3 or 4 times, but he claimed that every case was a 'stitch-up'. Well, he would, wouldn't he ? And no doubt Armstrong will do the same - and some will believe him. It seems odd, how so few are prepared to criticise Merckx ?

Hard to see where it will all end; what is sad, is that when 'clean' riders produce astounding performances, they fall under suspicion. Pro cycling is very bittersweet. I still have a couple heroes left and I am keeping my fingers crossed that they won't end up dopers. Hopefully, the testing will get stronger than new doping technologies . Sadly, there is no money to made in testing and tons of money to be made in cheating.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Jul 2012)

pubrunner said:


> Well in a sense, it is an irrelevance. Armstrong is at a stage of his life, where he isn't going to win races - cycling or triathlons. He won his last TdF *7* years ago; he may be guilty of not, but on the strength of his victories, he has accrued considerable money, fame and support and is better placed than just about any other cyclist, to present a rigourous defence.
> 
> If Armstrong is banned from competing in triathlons, I don't suppose he'll lose any sleep over it; he's made masses of money and regardless of any punishment, will still have masses of adoring fans.
> 
> ...


If Armstrong doesn't give one, why is he sending lobbyists to put the boot into USADA with senior politicians? Oh and incidentally, it was Merckx who introduced LA to Doc Ferrari. Doping may have been less effective back in Merckx's day, but the morality of it doesn't change and Merckx was a nasty piece of work.


----------



## pubrunner (20 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> If Armstrong doesn't give one, why is he sending lobbyists to put the boot into USADA with senior politicians? Oh and incidentally, it was Merckx who introduced LA to Doc Ferrari. Doping may have been less effective back in Merckx's day, but the morality of it doesn't change and Merckx was a nasty piece of work.


 
I'm not attempting to support Armstrong, I just think that it is all a bit late.

Message to cyclists; cheat & you *might* get caught years after you've had the money and the glory. If Armstrong has been cheating, he has deprived the first clean rider to have finished behind him; we 'need' to know at the time, so that the 'true' winner may receive the plaudits. I read somewhere, that his guilt is partially based on a sample from 3 years ago - what have they been doing with it ?

More tests need to be carried out, to identify cheats during racing; it could be done, but I'm not sure that the will exists to make it possible.


----------



## slowmotion (20 Jul 2012)

It would be so much simpler if "professional" sporting events were fought out between lawyers rather than horrid sweaty people.


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Personally I find the actions of Armstrong questionable and somewhat distasteful, but those of Tygart et al are no better.
> if you are happy that the *dirty tricks by Tygart* et al are acceptable then you are entitled to that opinion, *and can dismiss the facts if you wish*.
> 
> Personally I would have preferred the case to have been heard and established once and for all with a far more reputable and established system than the one being cobbled together at present.
> ...


 
I'm astounded. Seriously I am. How can you make such an uninformed post after all that's been discussed?

What are the facts that are being dismissed here? What are the "dirty tricks" you refer to? Which rules are being altered? Please, if you have something to back those claims up then share it.

You are aware I assume that bodies like USADA were created worldwide after national agreement, and empowered by legal systems specifically to deal with doping in sport. They've been in existence for years (not "cobbled together") and have firmly established processes and procedures. Their remit and jurisdiction is tried and tested. They *are* the 'court of law' for doping. USADA is *exactly* the right place for the Armstrong case.

Seriously, I prefer blind faith to pretence. Support Armstrong by all means, I can respect that, but don't hide it behind fallacy.


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2012)

pubrunner said:


> If Armstrong is banned from competing in triathlons, I don't suppose he'll lose any sleep over it; he's made masses of money and regardless of any punishment, will still have masses of adoring fans..


 
Personally, I think you're wrong there. I think he'd take a USADA sanction IF IF IF he could continue to compete in (and earn money, respect, adoration, etc) from triathlon. I'd go so far as to say it's one of the motivations underpinning his actions at the moment.


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2012)

slowmotion said:


> It would be so much simpler if "professional" sporting events were fought out between lawyers rather than horrid sweaty people.


 
There's actually a salient point to made here! That is (and as I touched on above), bodies like USADA were created partly to remove these disputes from courts of law.

Their creation followed a will, consensus and desire between nations to tackle the increasing problems of doping in sport worldwide. They've been specifically mandated, legislated and resourced to do just that. They can communicate and co-operate across borders in a manner that courts cannot, or have difficulty in doing. This is necessary to combat doping in the global sports field. They have powers that some see as 'unfair' or 'unconstitutional' because they are unable to issue punishments as severe as those available courts of law (loss of liberty, livelihood, etc)

In a nutshell, doping was a problem that national courts were ill-designed to tackle.


----------



## rich p (20 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Someone else reply, because I can't be arsed.


 I had to resist for 2 good reasons

1) It would largely be a waste of time to argue with someone who has understood so little of what has been said, and little of procedures in sport vis a vis doping

and

2) I knew Yello would be along soon enough to express it much better than I would.

and I was correct, on both counts probably.


----------



## swansonj (20 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> You are aware I assume that bodies like USADA were created worldwide after national agreement, and empowered by legal systems specifically to deal with doping in sport. They've been in existence for years (not "cobbled together") and have firmly established processes and procedures. Their remit and jurisdiction is tried and tested. They *are* the 'court of law' for doping. USADA is *exactly* the right place for the Armstrong Case.


Yello, I think you conflate two slightly different things. You argue strongly that USADA is the correct body to hear the Armstrong case and that they are following their procedures (which are of course different procedures to a court of law, because they are not a court of law). But I think only a few people who haven't had the chance to understand the setup and a few die-hard LA loyalists would dispute that; for most people, that is a given. The different issue is whether their procedures are the best ones. It is logically possible to agree that USADA are following their procedures, and those procedures are "fair" in the sense that LA agreed to them as all professional athletes within their jurisdiction have, but nonetheless they are "unfair" in the sense that they contravene some element of the individual's rights or that they bias decisions too much in one direction or another or that they contravene natural justice in some way.

I have certainly read suggestions of that nature*. I'm not saying they are necessarily valid criticisms, I find it difficult to disentangle facts from hype. But I am saying it is legitimate to discuss whether USADA's procedures are set up in the best and fairest way possible, without having it thereby implied that you are challenging USADA's legitimacy or jurisdiction or that you are suggesting they are not following their own procedures as they exist at present.

*Off the top of my head, there are issues of knowing who the witnesses against you are; USADA's access to evidence assembled for criminal investigations, specifically the grand jury issue; incentives offered to witnesses; the justification for exempting from the limitations period; the appropriate burden of proof; and probably others as well. I stress I am not taking a view on any of those issues, just saying it is legitimate to debate those issues without being taken as rejecting USADA's jurisdiction or asserting LA's innocence.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Jul 2012)

USADA respond to Lance - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html

I think the phrase STFU springs to mind...


----------



## Crackle (20 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> I had to resist for 2 good reasons
> 
> 1) It would largely be a waste of time to argue with someone who has understood so little of what has been said, and little of procedures in sport vis a vis doping
> 
> ...


 
H'eggzactly.


----------



## Crackle (20 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> USADA respond to Lance - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html
> 
> I think the phrase STFU springs to mind...


 
Yep, he can't pick and choose when the rules suit him.

At the risk of repeating myself and everyone else but for the benefit of those who can't grasp the significance. The only thing we are waiting to find out is whether the way the evidence was gathered compromises USADA's independence from the state.

Armstrong, still has the option of appealing to CAS against any findings and probably will if he does finally contest it.

The ramifications of this arbitration have yet to ripple out as far as the UCI and WADA but most of us suspect they will, this one has got plenty of legs in it yet.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> I had to resist for 2 good reasons
> 
> 1) It would largely be a waste of time to argue with someone who has understood so little of what has been said, and little of procedures in sport vis a vis doping
> 
> ...


 
Yes.

And to Cunobellin - you really are doing a very good impression of not knowing anything about what's going on or having done anybody else here the favour of having read the rest of the thread. Mind you, you're not alone, someone does this about every 5 pages on Armstrong threads...


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2012)

swansonj said:


> Yello, I think you conflate two slightly different things.


 
No,I don't think I do. If you refer to a post I made earlier (#876), I highlighted a distinction between jurisdiction and process/method that suggested concerns over the latter.



> The different issue is whether their procedures are the best ones.


 
I agree 100% and also with the substance of the rest of your post. Of course it's possible to question the processes that USADA use (I referred to them only as "tried and tested"). And I agree such questioning doesn't equate to pro-Lance, anti-USADA.

The only thing I would say is that the courts to date have found no fault, and USADA have been questioned in court several times before. Beyond that, we can only speculate that USADA may have done something differently, something outside of the agreed processes. I can see an area for concern but even if a court did rule in favour of Armstrong on that point, I can't see that it changes the substance of the evidence - only the means by which it was collected.

More generally, if people want to argue that the USADA processes are unfair on the grounds of constitutional rights, or human rights etc then I'm going to disagree with them in the context of this case. Debate it on a philosophical or moral level (whatever) by all means (not that that was my intention with this thread) but recognise how this is rooted and will probably play out. I just cannot see the federal court siding with Armstrong on the substance of his complaint and shutting down USADA.

As USADA have said, you don't change the rules for one athlete - no matter who they might be.


----------



## yello (20 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> USADA respond to Lance - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html


 
Nice catch USADA! I liked this....



> "Thus, Armstrong clearly understood he was subject to the USADA Protocol, including its results management and adjudication rules," USADA said in its motion Thursday.


 
This surprised me though....



> Thursday's 19-page motion by USADA asks U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks to dismiss Mr. Armstrong's lawsuit


 
I knew filing for dismissal was an option open to USADA, I just didn't think they'd take it.

And another point I was wrong on (it does happen  ); the USADA hearing date is the 13th and not the 10th. I thought both were the same date and, more pertinently, the USADA deadline before the court date. I'm a little baffled how (or even what in truth!) Judge Sparks is going to rule on unless USADA have supplied him with their evidence and answers to his questions re process. As it said in the USA Today article I linked to above....



> "Courts are not likely to act clairvoyantly and pre-judge alleged constitutional infirmities before they occur, so he is likely going to have to go through the arbitration process," said Jim Godes, a San Diego attorney with expertise in sports law.


 
The more I think about this, the more I think it's not going to pan out for Armstrong as he wants. It looks like he's going to have to go through the process before he can show it's unfair, or unconstitutional, or whatever. Even if courts sided in his favour, and any USADA sanction is over turned for reasons of process, then there's a chance the evidence will be out in the public domain.


----------



## marinyork (20 Jul 2012)

swansonj said:


> *Off the top of my head, there are issues of knowing who the witnesses against you are; USADA's access to evidence assembled for criminal investigations, specifically the grand jury issue; incentives offered to witnesses; the justification for exempting from the limitations period; the appropriate burden of proof; and probably others as well. I stress I am not taking a view on any of those issues, just saying it is legitimate to debate those issues without being taken as rejecting USADA's jurisdiction or asserting LA's innocence.


 
The grand jury thing is probably a non-issue. There are all kinds of ways round this in cases where someone merely is asked to leave the room. Or parallel interviews and so on.

The limitations period was covered earlier in this thread. To be brief you can argue fraudulent concealment (again see earlier).


----------



## Crankarm (21 Jul 2012)




----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

Another summary article, this one with a bit of background on USADA and Tygart....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ng-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356?pgno=3

I always read these articles even though inevitably you're going over familiar ground. They all will have their own slant obviously, often even a clear bias, but you usually pick something new up....



> Landis told his story to federal investigators in 2010, naming names and at one point wearing a hidden recording device for a sting operation. Soon a host of other cyclists were obliged to cooperate with the feds, *and Tygart sat in on some of the interviews* -- an arrangement that Armstrong’s attorneys have tried to portray as inappropriate.


 
That's the first time I've read that (outside of forum conjecture!) so it possibly answers one of my questions.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Another summary article, this one with a bit of background on USADA and Tygart....
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ng-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356?pgno=3
> 
> ...


 That is interesting. Keep up the good work, Yello.


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> There's actually a salient point to made here! That is (and as I touched on above), bodies like USADA were created partly to remove these disputes from courts of law.
> 
> Their creation followed a will, consensus and desire between nations to tackle the increasing problems of doping in sport worldwide. They've been specifically mandated, legislated and resourced to do just that. They can communicate and co-operate across borders in a manner that courts cannot, or have difficulty in doing. This is necessary to combat doping in the global sports field. They have powers that some see as 'unfair' or 'unconstitutional' because they are unable to issue punishments as severe as those available courts of law (loss of liberty, livelihood, etc)
> 
> In a nutshell, doping was a problem that national courts were ill-designed to tackle.


 
The big problem with this is these supranational sporting bodies are turning out to be riddled with politics, bribery and corruption and refusing to either acknowledge it or do anything about it. Just look at Sepp Blatter's recent defence of "bribery and corruption were not illegal at the time I was involved" defence. Ecclestone looks like he is due to be arrested on corruption and tax evasion, football is trying to ignore its serious problems while sacrificing a few in pretence, there are scandals currently running with Olympics committee members, UCI and the Obree story of changing the rules to eliminate an individual, WADA and all its problems and its labs leaking to journalists before the results have even been announced. If I had any trace of confidence in the cleanliness of the administration of these activities I might have some sympathy with you but I don't.


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Another summary article, this one with a bit of background on USADA and Tygart....
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ng-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356?pgno=3
> 
> ...


 
And yet despite all that "evidence"


> The federal grand jury probe generated reams of sworn testimony but *ended in February with no charges filed*.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> And yet despite all that "evidence"


Are you serious, really? I have lost count of the number of times the difference between USADA's investigation and the Federal investigation have been explained. In the same way, the key arguments about how USADA might be challenged seem to have eluded you. And an organisation that might be politicised in some way, really, no kidding, well I never, I don't think I've ever seen that before, except when NASA faked the moon landings.


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> Are you serious, really? I have lost count of the number of times the difference between USADA's investigation and the Federal investigation have been explained. In the same way, the key arguments about how USADA might be challenged seem to have eluded you. And an organisation that might be politicised in some way, really, no kidding, well I never, I don't think I've ever seen that before, except when NASA faked the moon landings.


 
So have I lost count of the number of times that defence of the process has been wheeled out. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that not only are the organisations politicized but many of them are institutionally corrupt and turning a blind eye to it. But acknowledging that doesn't suit the objectives of the lynch mob.

I was no fan of Landis but what came out in the transcripts of his hearing about the scientific incompetence of the LNDD and the way it was defended shook my faith in any semblance of fairness in the process. On the evidence Landis should have been acquitted even though he turned out to be guilty.


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

Redlight, if it makes you feel any better then know that any USADA sanction of Armstrong would damage UCI too!


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2012)

Red Light, every time you post this tripe (posts passim) , you just reveal how little of the background you know of the case. As to Yello and Crackle I'd say, stop wasting your breath. The arguments have been reiterated ad nauseam on here and elsewhere and if someone won't accept them, read them or wilfully misinterprets them it's probably time to let it go.


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> So have I lost count of the number of times that defence of the process has been wheeled out.


 
There's a reason for that. It is process that will decide this. It is only pointed out because some seem to forget that.


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> There's a reason for that. It is process that will decide this. It is only pointed out because some seem to forget that.



But that doesn't mean the process is sound or fair or the outcome reliable and reputable. The right answer for the wrong reason is still wrong. Many here, most notably Cuffy, seem to be intent on championing any process that will give the result they want. A process which is judged to be much more fair and impartial has weighed the evidence and found no case so they are pinning their hopes on a less fair process. And any process that refuses to provide the evidence to the accused when they are charged is not fair. If they are worried about witnesses being intimidated then monitor them and prosecute if it happens. Otherwise all we have is a Kafkaesque trial with an outcome that will be highly questionable whatever it is.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> But that doesn't mean the process is sound or fair or the outcome reliable and reputable. The right answer for the wrong reason is still wrong. Many here, most notably Cuffy, seem to be intent on championing any process that will give the result they want._* A process which is judged to be much more fair and impartial has weighed the evidence and found no case*_ so they are pinning their hopes on a less fair process. And any process that refuses to provide the evidence to the accused when they are charged is not fair. If they are worried about witnesses being intimidated then monitor them and prosecute if it happens. Otherwise all we have is a Kafkaesque trial with an outcome that will be highly questionable whatever it is.


If you mean the Federal case against LA that was nothing to do with whether he doped or not, they couldn't have cared one way or the other as that is not an offence in the US. They were investigating whether he had used government funds to finance doping, nothing else.


----------



## Chuffy (22 Jul 2012)

Wasting valuable keyboard time here people - get out in the sun and leave Redders to his willful idiocy.


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> A process which is judged to be much more fair and impartial has weighed the evidence and found no case so they are pinning their hopes on a less fair process.


 
Leaving aside the reference to the federal investigation (which I'm assuming gave the result *you* wanted, no?), I think the reason people remind you of process is illustrated by your above statement.

That is, you have decided that the federal investigation is "more fair" than the USADA one. The reason you have decided that is immaterial really. You're entitled to that view, as erroneous as it may or may not be. Thing is, *you* thinking that counts for squat.

USADA have sanctioned numerous athletes in front of a review panel already (from memory, around 60 times) and the US federal government have seen no reason to dismantle USADA nor question their authority or remit, despite protests and court cases from some of those athletes. And with all due respect, it's what the US government think that counts here.



> And any process that refuses to provide the evidence to the accused when they are charged is not fair.


 
Again; who says it's "not fair"? You do. The US government disagrees. Tell me, who should I side with? Further, it was intentional - they deliberately set it up that way.

Seriously, you have to understand the difference, and why there is a difference, between a court of law and USADA. You're going to bang your head against a wall otherwise.


----------



## Chuffy (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Leaving aside the reference to the federal investigation (which I'm assuming gave the result *you* wanted, no?), I think the reason people remind you of process is illustrated by your above statement.
> 
> That is, you have decided that the federal investigation is "more fair" than the USADA one. The reason you have decided that is immaterial really. You're entitled to that view, as erroneous as it may or may not be. Thing is, *you* thinking that counts for squat.
> 
> ...


With all due respect Yello, you're the one doing the headbanging. Redlight has been told this repeatedly but either doesn't care or isn't bright enough to understand. He's happily nodding along to his pearls of wisdom and you're the one with a headache. It's good that everything he's come out with (see also Cunobelin's posts) has been comprehensively rebutted with actual facts, not just grumpy rhetoric, but it's probably time to acknowledge that there's no point wasting key strokes on these fools.


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

I consider it my mission in life to bring light. 

In truth, it doesn't bother me to cover old ground. It actually helps my own thinking rather than being frustrating... but point taken, I'll rein it in for the sake of others!


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Wasting valuable keyboard time here people - get out in the sun and leave Redders to his willful idiocy.



Dunno 'bout you but I'm out and about enjoying the sunshine leaving you wilfully wasting your time at a keyboard. Wonder how many words you've posted in this thread versus me?


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> With all due respect Yello, you're the one doing the headbanging. Redlight has been told this repeatedly but either doesn't care or isn't bright enough to understand. He's happily nodding along to his pearls of wisdom and you're the one with a headache. It's good that everything he's come out with (see also Cunobelin's posts) has been comprehensively rebutted with actual facts, not just grumpy rhetoric, but it's probably time to acknowledge that there's no point wasting key strokes on these fools.



What was it Cicero said? If you have no basis for an argument abuse the plaintiff? You really do yourself no favours by trying to do character assassinations rather than addressing the issues or just keeping schtumm.


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Leaving aside the reference to the federal investigation (which I'm assuming gave the result *you* wanted, no?)



i don't really care what the result it to be honest. I won't change my life one bit. But its clear that it will send you and Chuffers either into paroxsysms of delight or the depths of despair. Which i guess is why the two of you spend so much time on here arguing it and in Chuffer's case hurling abuse at those who don't sign up to the cult of the absolute guilt of Armstrong. At the moment all we know is that no case in Court or under the adjudication of the sporting bodies has stood up to examination. As for USADA we'll just have to wait and see if its a rehash of all the old stuff, a load of hearsay or a stunning new revelation.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

In the case of Mayweather v Pacqiuao the domestic case partially relies on drugs test results, yet despite court subpoenas they have refused to release results and has even gone to court to have this decision upheld!

The case makes interesting reading!

Also look at the case of Latasha Jenkins and Inigo Landaluce where poor techniques by labs have resulted in successfully overturned cases.

Now I know that this will be deemed irrelevant, but the point will remain that the conduct of the USADA, the labs conducting the tests and test veracity will be factors in the case and if Armstrong is found guilty gives him all the evidence needed to launch a successful appeal.

Which is of course the worst scenario.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2012)

Background noise now switched off. Rare but sometimes necessary.


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Now I know that this will be deemed irrelevant, but the point will remain that the conduct of the USADA, the labs conducting the tests and test veracity will be factors in the case and if Armstrong is found guilty gives him all the evidence needed to launch a successful appeal.


 
I'm not in a position to know whether those cases will be relevant or not. I've not read mention of them before. I'm sure if they are then Armstrong's defence team will make use of them at some point.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. I fully expect Armstrong to launch some kind of appeal should he get sanctioned but clearly he has to go through the USADA process first. Whether that appeal (first with CAS and then wherever might follow that) overturns the USADA decision is another matter though.


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Whether that appeal (first with CAS and then wherever might follow that) overturns the USADA decision is another matter though.


 
Its interesting that CAS have just overturned FIFA's ban of Mohamed Bin Hamman because there was "no direct evidence", even though there was witness testimony and physical evidence, of his alleged bribery.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I'm not in a position to know whether those cases will be relevant or not. I've not read mention of them before. I'm sure if they are then Armstrong's defence team will make use of them at some point.
> 
> For what it's worth, I agree with you. I fully expect Armstrong to launch some kind of appeal should he get sanctioned but clearly he has to go through the USADA process first. Whether that appeal (first with CAS and then wherever might follow that) overturns the USADA decision is another matter though.


 
If you do nothing else skim the last few pages of Lessons from USADA v. Jenkins: You Can’t Win When You Beat a Monopoly

The "it's not a court of law" statements above are of course true, butthis article explamins why legal advocates have concerns over just that!

The system fails to protect the athletes basic rights in a court of law.



> The story of USADA v. Jenkins reveals a system created by a monopoly that wields power without sufficient restriction or balance. The system’s current flaws can be addressed by adopting the above specific suggestions. However, as much as athletes would like to be optimistic, those suggestions are not likely to be adopted or sustained until the monopoly’s powers are countervailed in one of three ways:
> 
> (1) The legal fiction that sustains the monopoly, namely the theory of voluntary association, is replaced with a legal doctrine that recognizes the monopolistic power of sports governing bodies; or
> 
> ...


 
So whether you wish to dismiss the concerns over the USADA'as ill educated, there are senior members of the the US legal system who share the concerns.

Secondly the mention of appeals, this is another common mistake amongst us ill-educated and ill-informed, when we point out that another major concern is that you cannot appeal to the USADA, any appeals are heard by the CAS ( The Court of Arbitration for Sport) who have already sat on the USADA and ae fully advised bythe USADA. There is no independent appeal, in fact theoretically it is possible that two of the three person panel finding the individual guilty can actually hear an appeal against their own decision, and in a best case scenario will still have an (alleged) interest in holding up the original decision

.. and I am afraid you are mistaken with the statement "first with CAS and then wherever might follow that" USADA have closed down the appeal process. After CAS there is no right of appeal, USADA can bring the same case as many times as they like (they wrote out double jeopardy) yet the athlete can only appeal once to a possibly biased hearing!


By all means those who think the USADA is a knight in shinng armor may continue to do so, byt the previously dismissed points about their dirty tricks and their failure to meet basic legal and constitutional standards are sooner or later going ti bite them

Latasha Jenkins case was won by a lecturer and four law students, with an experienced and unscrupulous operator like Armstrong, and a ferocious legal team there is a lot for them to be worried about.

If Armstrong can voice and raise the legitimate concerns held by others in the legal system about USADA and iyt's procedures, this may yet end up with USADA on trial instead!


----------



## raindog (22 Jul 2012)

Bloody hell, Brad just won the TdeF and Cav just got the sprint for the 4th year running on the Champs and you're still quibbling about this?


----------



## yello (22 Jul 2012)

I'll read in more detail later but at first glance I'd say the process worked. LaTasha Jenkins attended a hearing, presented her case and the review panel found in her favour; the testing lab made a procedural error and USADA were unable to prove that the violation hadn't undermined the test results. Armstrong has nothing to fear from the review panel.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2012)

raindog said:


> Bloody hell, Brad just won the TdeF and Cav just got the sprint for the 4th year running on the Champs and you're still quibbling about this?


 You're assuming that these two are interested in cycling?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> You're assuming that these two are interested in cycling?


 
Depends upon what you call an interest?

Wiggins and Cavendish?

If we were in the US then it would have been different.

Cavendish missed a drugs test in 2011

USADA have on at least one occasion decided on a six month suspension for this....had we been under USADA's jurusdiction, then there is a chance we would not have been celebrating Cavendish's fourth win!


----------



## PaulB (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Depends upon what you call an interest?
> 
> Wiggins and Cavendish?
> 
> ...


What a sad, pedantic misery-guts you are. There's nothing like spreading your doom-and-gloom and hoping everyone catches it, is there? FFS!


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Depends upon what you call an interest?
> 
> Wiggins and Cavendish?
> 
> ...


 
To say nothing of Wiggo smuggling drugs in his nappies. Clearly he's been party to a "massive doping conspiracy" worthy of a lifetime ban and stripping of his titles


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

PaulB said:


> What a sad, pedantic misery-guts you are. There's nothing like spreading your doom-and-gloom and hoping everyone catches it, is there? FFS!


 
Delighted to help!


----------



## Chuffy (22 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I consider it my mission in life to bring light.
> 
> In truth, it doesn't bother me to cover old ground. It actually helps my own thinking rather than being frustrating... but point taken, I'll rein it in for the sake of others!


I always forget that you suffer fools much more patiently than I do, which is admirable. So long as it pleases you, keep it up!


----------



## Chuffy (22 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> What was it Cicero said? If you have no basis for an argument abuse the plaintiff? You really do yourself no favours by trying to do character assassinations rather than addressing the issues or just keeping schtumm.


Just stating the facts.
You've comprehensively lost the argument yet you insist on coming back for more. At what point in this process am I supposed to say 'that Redlight chap, I respect his persistence'?


----------



## Noodley (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin and Red Light, you have reached the point of being marked down as "nobbers" on my list.

Yenners was the only one on it until today...

(not that it matters, but just saying)


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> Cunobelin and Red Light, you have reached the point of being marked down as "nobbers" on my list.
> 
> Yenners was the only one on it until today...
> 
> (not that it matters, but just saying)


 
Why thank you sir!

Which type by the way?


> *1.  nobber, n.1  *
> 
> ...A blow to the head....
> *2.  † nobber, n.2  1821*
> ...


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> Cunobelin and Red Light, you have reached the point of being marked down as "nobbers" on my list.
> 
> Yenners was the only one on it until today...
> 
> (not that it matters, but just saying)


 
Nothing like a measured and well informed response to a valid point being raised.

It is always reassuring when this is the best someone can come up with, simply reinforces the fact that the questions you have raised are ones they simply cannot or will not answer, often because they are uncomfortable with the position they have put themselves in and this is the easy way out.

Why answer the points when you can evade?


----------



## Red Light (22 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Just stating the facts.
> You've comprehensively lost the argument yet you insist on coming back for more. At what point in this process am I supposed to say 'that Redlight chap, I respect his persistence'?


 
When Armstrong is acquitted by the USADA or CAS?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Why answer the points when you can evade?


 
Neither you nor red light have no points that have not been answered _ad nauseam_. You don't get a special prize for carrying on regardless, nor does this make all the many people who clearly know far more about his than you somehow wrong because they can't be bothered dealing with your sheer bloody-minded persistence any more.


----------



## Chuffy (22 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Nothing like a measured and well informed response to a valid point being raised.
> It is always reassuring when this is the best someone can come up with, simply reinforces the fact that the questions you have raised are ones they simply cannot or will not answer, often because they are uncomfortable with the position they have put themselves in and this is the easy way out.


You and that other chap have had your points not just rebutted but stamped into a jammy puddle. At this point in the thread (and the other) being called a nobber is about the best you can expect or deserve. You've lost, comprehensively. Give it a rest.


----------



## Red Light (23 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Give it a rest.


 
I will if you will.


Flying_Monkey said:


> Neither you nor red light have no points that have not been answered _ad nauseam_. You don't get a special prize for carrying on regardless, nor does this make all the many people who clearly know far more about his than you somehow wrong because they can't be bothered dealing with your sheer bloody-minded persistence any more.


 
Yes you made your certainty of his guilt clear in the first few posts of this thread. Why would I expect anything else from a signed up member of the lynch mob? And why do you find an innocent until proven guilty stance so difficult to accept?

P.S. Not sure if you realise but unwinding the triple negatives of your first sentence it reads "You and red light have points that have not been answered ad nauseam" Just thought you'd like to know that


----------



## Red Light (23 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> You and that other chap have had your points not just rebutted but stamped into a jammy puddle.


 
Yes, I've noticed you like to stomp "innocent until proven guilty" into a jammy puddle whenever you get the chance.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

Methinks you protest far too much.



I know that the gist of this thread is that questioning the USADA, its actions or their problems is unwelcome and difficult, but tough as they exist.

If you wish to sit in a little fantasy world of denial then feel free to ignore reality and what is actually happening, then feel free.

Even the most basic assumptions such as the nature of the contract between athletes and the USADA are questioned by senior figures in the US legal system - then surely an open mind would and should at least listen?

However that is not the case - in reality there is a wish to close the discussion and limit it to sycophantism. 

I suppose that is your right.

Us "nobbers" should have known better than to try and post anything that did not fit the prescribed agenda, or the ethos that the USADA cannot be challenged or it's actions questioned.

.


----------



## yello (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> You're assuming that these two are interested in cycling?


 
Cheap shot and not a response I was expecting from you Rich. Where you including me in that statement? If so, I'm offended.

Clearly, having an interest in cycling does not mean you have to follow pro-cycling. I happen to but many on this forum don't. I'm surprised, and disappointed, by some of the names that 'liked' your post - I would have thought they knew better.


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Cheap shot and not a response I was expecting from you Rich. Where you including me in that statement? If so, I'm offended.
> 
> Clearly, having an interest in cycling does not mean you have to follow pro-cycling. I happen to but many on this forum don't. I'm surprised, and disappointed, by some of the names that 'liked' your post - I would have thought they knew better.


Yello my dear friend!!! I fear you have misinterpreted my barb. I have nothing but respect for you and agree almost 100% with everything you post in these sections.
The 'two' I was referring to were Cunobellin and Red Light which was obviously understood by the 'likers' who, I'm sure, hold you in as high esteem as I do.
Reading my post again, I can see how you misconstrued it and I can only offer my unreserved apologies.


----------



## yello (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Even the most basic assumptions such as the nature of the contract between athletes and the USADA are questioned by senior figures in the US legal system - then surely an open mind would and should at least listen?.


 
You are right, there are questions being asked. I've posted on that subject myself already. I'm not sure I'd agree there are "senior figures in the US legal system" asking them but that's not to dismiss there being questions. The Straubel report you posted a link to yesterday asked some of them.

The point in my posting on this thread is primarily to document the USADA process as it continues for those that are interested in it. I'm no legal expert, all I do is read and summarise - sometimes I venture an opinion on what might happen. With regard to the questions being asked of USADA's processes, I acknowledge them, see the basis for some of them but I stay grounded. There are always questions of any process, always people to question any authority. I have no real interest in those questions in this context. My focus has been on what is happening and what might happen, and not on what people think should be happening. 

In all honesty, I feel Armstrong's best chance of avoiding sanction is for there to have been a procedural error somewhere along the line, an error the review board pick up on. Trying to argue 'unconstitutional', 'no jurisdiction', or whatever is a waste of time I feel. The USADA remit is too well defined and protected by the federal government for those arguments to be entertained. There's simply no framework for them. The time for those arguments is after the USADA process. Unfortunately for Armstrong, I think he needs to exhaust the agreed procedures (USADA then CAS) before he can take his case to a federal court.


----------



## yello (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> Reading my post again, I can see how you misconstrued it and I can only offer my unreserved apologies.


 
No worries mate, I hoped that was the case but as there were only two posts between raindog's and yours (mine being one), it kind of felt like I was being referred to. I can breath normally now and don't need to storm off in a huff!


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> No worries mate, I hoped that was the case but as there were only two posts between raindog's and yours (mine being one), it kind of felt like I was being referred to. I can breath normally now and don't need to storm off in a huff!


 Phew


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> Phew


 p.s. Am I on your ignore list now? I couldn't PM you earlier.


----------



## PaulB (23 Jul 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Methinks you protest far too much.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It must be horrible to know that should you suffer from a sudden bolt of realisation, you will realise how awful it is to be you. You posted the above at half-past midnight! You stayed up that late, wrapped yourself in that cloak of self-righteousness and spewed forth that pile of pathetic wanketry. I feel sorry for you and the baggage of self-importance it is your burden to be inflicted with.


----------



## yello (23 Jul 2012)

rich p said:


> p.s. Am I on your ignore list now?


 
Who said that?


----------



## yello (23 Jul 2012)

People, seriously, can we not get abusive. It's not necessary. If you've exhausted yourself discussing rationally then simply don't respond. Take a break.

In terms of on-going stuff, it's going to be quiet for another 2 weeks-ish (unless Judge Sparks grants USADAs claim to dismiss) and I'd like this thread to still be here (and not locked!) for then


----------



## gb155 (23 Jul 2012)

> People, seriously, can we not get abusive. It's not necessary. If you've exhausted yourself discussing rationally then simply don't respond. Take a break.<br /> <br />In terms of on-going stuff, it's going to be quiet for another 2 weeks-ish (unless Judge Sparks grants USADAs claim to dismiss) and I'd like this thread to still be here (and not locked!) for then




For when Sir lance is cleared?


----------



## yello (23 Jul 2012)

That could happen, yes. I wouldn't go holding my breath though


----------



## Crackle (23 Jul 2012)

Use the ignore button. I have and some of the posts aren't making sense if you reply to them, so stop replying!

I thank you.


----------



## gb155 (23 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> That could happen, yes. I wouldn't go holding my breath though


Don't worry, I'm not


----------



## Red Light (23 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> You are right, there are questions being asked. I've posted on that subject myself already. I'm not sure I'd agree there are "senior figures in the US legal system" asking them but that's not to dismiss there being questions. The Straubel report you posted a link to yesterday asked some of them.
> 
> The point in my posting on this thread is primarily to document the USADA process as it continues for those that are interested in it. I'm no legal expert, all I do is read and summarise - sometimes I venture an opinion on what might happen. With regard to the questions being asked of USADA's processes, I acknowledge them, see the basis for some of them but I stay grounded. There are always questions of any process, always people to question any authority. I have no real interest in those questions in this context. My focus has been on what is happening and what might happen, and not on what people think should be happening.
> 
> In all honesty, I feel Armstrong's best chance of avoiding sanction is for there to have been a procedural error somewhere along the line, an error the review board pick up on. Trying to argue 'unconstitutional', 'no jurisdiction', or whatever is a waste of time I feel. The USADA remit is too well defined and protected by the federal government for those arguments to be entertained. There's simply no framework for them. The time for those arguments is after the USADA process. Unfortunately for Armstrong, I think he needs to exhaust the agreed procedures (USADA then CAS) before he can take his case to a federal court.



You might like to have a look at all controversy around the Minnesota Vikings where there has been a long running legal tussle over whether Federal legislation has primacy over NFL rules. Despite being caught doping, the individuals concerned continued playing for some years because of a battle over whether the NFL could over-rule Federal employment law by banning them. The NFL is much much older than USADA so the legal primacy is not as clear cut as some might think. We might find out more in the coming years for USADA as the Armstrong/Bruyneel cases unfold.


----------



## marinyork (23 Jul 2012)

I think it's a waste of time discussing this at the moment given yesterday and the road race and time trial coming up. Of the three points from the lessons learned from jenkins piece only point 2 is anything like a new point. Point 3 we've actually already discussed in this thread. The reason why it is of interest is that if Armstrong did manage it, it would result in big changes. It is extremely unlikely a court would define it as state action as this sort of argument has been used throughout US history and what state action is has been defined a few times very carefully. If a lawyer got a dollar for every time the argument would use they would be very rich. It's still worth Armstrong's lawyers having a go, because it could magic a (partial) victory out of nowhere - but it's very unlikely.

Point 1 and the tidying up is true, but is somewhat misleading in the sense that Cunobelin means it.

I think we should all come back in a couple of weeks. It seems very odd the morning after so much success in the tour that we have trolls going on about this and starting tom simpson threads. Yesterday and today were one of the few times in my lifetime that cycling has actually been talked about by the general public out there.


----------



## albion (23 Jul 2012)

The interesting thing aout Armstrong is that prior to cancer at the age of 25 he was incredibly successful with cancer being the obvious reason for only ok olympic results that year.

The guy won a minimum of $1 million in 1993 and whether guilty or not they guy was always an incredible athlete.
What irritates me is that to support the allegations the story always always runs on how average he was.

6th place at the Olympics when no doubt cancer ridden can't be bad.


----------



## rich p (23 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> The interesting thing aout Armstrong is that prior to cancer at the age of 25 he was incredibly successful with cancer being the obvious reason for only ok olympic results that year.
> 
> The guy won a minimum of $1 million in 1993 and whether guilty or not they guy was always an incredible athlete.
> What irritates me is that to support the allegations the story always always runs on how average he was.
> ...


 There's a teensy bit more evidence than being better post-cancer.


----------



## Dave Davenport (23 Jul 2012)

albion said:


> The interesting thing aout Armstrong is that prior to cancer at the age of 25 he was incredibly successful with cancer being the obvious reason for only ok olympic results that year.
> 
> The guy won a minimum of $1 million in 1993 and whether guilty or not they guy was always an incredible athlete.
> What irritates me is that to support the allegations the story always always runs on how average he was.
> ...


 
Sorry, but I don't think anyone believes LA is average.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> You are right, there are questions being asked. I've posted on that subject myself already. I'm not sure I'd agree there are "senior figures in the US legal system" asking them but that's not to dismiss there being questions. The Straubel report you posted a link to yesterday asked some of them.


 
The Straubel report does raise some interesting points, and there are a few which are so basic that anyone with an open mind could see how there are real issues that could be exploited to get Armstrong off the hook



> The point in my posting on this thread is primarily to document the USADA process as it continues for those that are interested in it. I'm no legal expert, all I do is read and summarise - sometimes I venture an opinion on what might happen. With regard to the questions being asked of USADA's processes, I acknowledge them, see the basis for some of them but I stay grounded. There are always questions of any process, always people to question any authority. I have no real interest in those questions in this context. My focus has been on what is happening and what might happen, and not on what people think should be happening.


 
Questioning is the right way forward.



> In all honesty, I feel Armstrong's best chance of avoiding sanction is for there to have been a procedural error somewhere along the line, an error the review board pick up on. Trying to argue 'unconstitutional', 'no jurisdiction', or whatever is a waste of time I feel. The USADA remit is too well defined and protected by the federal government for those arguments to be entertained. There's simply no framework for them. The time for those arguments is after the USADA process. Unfortunately for Armstrong, I think he needs to exhaust the agreed procedures (USADA then CAS) before he can take his case to a federal court.


 
You are correct, (and despite the inane rantings and abuse of some here) this is the point.

If one really has a care about cycling, it's public image and the future then Armstrong needs to be found unequivocally guilty or unequivocally not guilty.

The cases I posted show exactly how technicalities have reversed decisions in the past, this is the worst case - if Armstrong manages to get out on a technicality then professional cycling will continue to suffer from the dropout.

As one US reporter put it....



> If Lance Armstrong *LOSES* his case against the USADA, his critics will vilify him, his supporters will stand by him, he’ll be out several million dollars in attorney’s fees, he’ll be forever banned from professional sport, and his records may be stripped from him.
> 
> If Lance Armstrong *WINS* his case against the USADA, his critics won’t be convinced and will vilify him, his supporters will continue to stand by him, he’ll be out several million dollars in attorney’s fees, he’ll be too old to be competitive as a professional triathlete, and his records will be questioned by many.


----------



## ufkacbln (23 Jul 2012)

PaulB said:


> It must be horrible to know that should you suffer from a sudden bolt of realisation, you will realise how awful it is to be you. You posted the above at half-past midnight! You stayed up that late, wrapped yourself in that cloak of self-righteousness and spewed forth that pile of pathetic wanketry. I feel sorry for you and the baggage of self-importance it is your burden to be inflicted with.


 
This post really speaks volumes about your personal standards... If I ever stoop that low, I think it will be time to leave.


----------



## albion (23 Jul 2012)

Dave Davenport said:


> Sorry, but I don't think anyone believes LA is average.



That is the impression I usually got from those convinced he was guilty.
That was before taking any real interest in the, no doubt forever, puzzling story.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> Use the ignore button. I have and some of the posts aren't making sense if you reply to them, so stop replying!
> 
> I thank you.


These Bose Idiot Cancelling headphones are remarkably effective. Just send in the coupon in your Sunday supplement magazine for a free trial! Full refund if not fully satisfied.


----------



## yello (24 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> You might like to have a look at all controversy around the Minnesota Vikings


 
Could you fill me in as to the relevance please? Are you aware that the NFL have their own drug testing, as do many/most professional sports leagues in the USA? So it's outside USADA's jurisdiction.

I don't know what the NFL's procedures are for testing, violations, sanctioning etc (I suspect it's in the players' contracts) and I don't know if they use the same arbitration process as USADA.

One of the purposes of USADA is to provide a more efficient/streamlined arbitration and sanctioning process and avoid prolonged battles clogging up the federal courts.


----------



## Red Light (24 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Could you fill me in as to the relevance please? Are you aware that the NFL have their own drug testing, as do many/most professional sports leagues in the USA? So it's outside USADA's jurisdiction.


 
Yes it is but it is a parallel that suggests that state and federal law could have primacy over drug testing bodies. The difference between NFL and cyclists is that the NFL players have the NFLPA union fighting for them. In cycling the cyclists are on their own and running the arbitration case bankrupted Landis so its a process only accessible to the most successful and wealthiest of sports personalities.



> I don't know what the NFL's procedures are for testing, violations, sanctioning etc (I suspect it's in the players' contracts) and I don't know if they use the same arbitration process as USADA.
> 
> One of the purposes of USADA is to provide a more efficient/streamlined arbitration and sanctioning process and avoid prolonged battles clogging up the federal courts.


 
There is an interesting Bulgarian case where CAS overturned a ban on two athletes for nandralone use because the testing protocol had not been properly followed. I wonder what the testing protocols are for USADA, what they allow in terms of testing years after the event and what validation there is for the storage of samples and the testing after such long periods. In the UK the shelf life for whole blood in blood banks is 35 days so its unclear what the consequences would be in the testing of degradation of the blood samples kept for longer periods. If the tests came from LNDD in France then there are plenty admissions in the Landis transcripts that they did not follow procedures and the USADA acknowledged this was an issue in that case. So its not finished until the CAS lady sings anyway.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Jul 2012)

Union type representation, and consultation with cyclists was one of the Straubel report findings.

As fr the bllod testing of the previous samples, that is one of the controversies as no-one actually knows how EPO acts when stored, and how the balance of different types is affected.

The biggest problem being that the A samples tested negative at the time, and the B samples can only be used in certain circumstances with the athlete being informed.

The testing performed in this case on the B samples is in contravention of USADA's own rules, statutes, and time scales. Also the USDA requires BOTH samples to be positive. SO as the A samples were negative the bod test results do not actually meet USADA's criteria for a positive test.

As Chuffy has posted earlier, this may or may no be part of the case, and the fact that they could be challenged on USADA's own procedures is an interesting posssibility


> Upon receipt of a positive laboratory A report or a report indicating an elevated testosterone/epitestosterone ratio or epitestosterone concentration, USADA will promptly notify the USOC, the applicable NGB and athlete at the address on the Doping Control Notification/Signature Form and shall advise the athlete of the date on which the laboratory will conduct the B sample analysis. The athlete may attend the B sample analysis accompanied by a representative at his or her own expense. Prior to the B sample opening, USADA shall provide to the athlete the A sample laboratory documentation set forth on Annex B. A sample shall not be considered positive until after the B sample analysis confirms the A sample analysis.


----------



## raindog (27 Jul 2012)

interview with McQuaid
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-disavows-uci-responsibility-in-armstrong-case

*Cyclingnews:* Because I'm with _Cyclingnews_ and it's my job to be a downer, I would like you to comment on an article in the _New York Daily News_ (by Nathaniel Vinton), who wrote, "If USADA’s case against Armstrong is valid, then professional cycling has been the victim of breathtaking corruption", bigger than any other sport. If USADA can prove its case, how does that impact the UCI, cycling in the Olympics - if a sport is going to get voted out of the Games in Rio...
*Pat McQuaid:* First of all, I have said and the UCI said they won't comment on the Armstrong case until it's over.
Secondly, to give you a brief comment on what you just said, it's not going to have any effect on cycling. If guys are beating the system, they're beating WADA's system, they're beating the controls. The UCI can't do anything about that. We don't control the laboratories and what they can and cannot test for, it's WADA that controls all that. If there are cyclists beating controls, then there are athletes from other sports beating the controls. We saw that with Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery. You can't therefore blame that on the UCI or on the sport of cycling.


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2012)

McQuaid's response was a model of deflection, ignoring the doped elephant in the room....



> "If USADA’s case against Armstrong is valid, then professional cycling has been the victim of breathtaking corruption", bigger than any other sport.


----------



## rich p (27 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> McQuaid's response was a model of deflection, ignoring the doped elephant in the room....


 I thonk that was the quote from the jornu, Yello!


----------



## yello (27 Jul 2012)

I know..... it was the elephant McQuaid chose to ignore.


----------



## rich p (27 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I know..... it was the elephant McQuaid chose to ignore.


 Ah, I see.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I know..... it was the elephant McQuaid chose to ignore.


To be fair to him, what can he say? For someone in his position to wade in would be inappropriate.
Yes, I know he's a dick and completely compromised, but even so...


----------



## yello (28 Jul 2012)

Don't fall for the deflection Chuffy!

I've been thinking about the context of what McQuaid said and I find his response indicative of the combative climate that exists between UCI and, well, just about anyone really!

What McQuaid could have said was something along the lines of 'we support and co-operate with all anti-doping initiatives'. Not commenting on Armstrong, or the USADA case, nor the journo's comments. That would have been the even-handed, classic style of response.... even if boring. But he chose to fire a broadside at WADA - and it's not even WADA that made the comment about corruption! Wading in inappropriately is something McQuaid is pretty good at!

I don't think anyone believes that UCI is responsible for the effectiveness of the tests. But they choose to act (or not) on the results... any that's what's being alluded to, not the testing effectiveness. McQuaid turned a journalists remark into an attack on WADA. Why?

Consider the comment that USADA's case "is not going to have any effect on cycling". McQuaid's puffing out his chest, defending his fortress and seems to infer in the process that he's going to ignore whatever USADA says. As they've done to other drug testing agencies in the past perhaps?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Jul 2012)

WADA writes and compiles the international standards for testing, and lists banned substances

The national programmes such as USADA agree to abide by these

So technically any action by the USADA that is not carried out to WADA standards could be challenged


----------



## Chuffy (4 Aug 2012)

New info - UCI tried to take over the investigation, after McQuaid said they had nothing to do with it and USADA had jurisdiction.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ol-of-ArmstrongUSPS-doping-investigation.aspx
You have to love the quote from Tygart at the end. UCI are very definitely in the poo over this...


> “The USPS Doping Conspiracy was going on under the watch of UCI, so of course UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired,”


----------



## Chuffy (4 Aug 2012)

Oh! And there's this...http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...why-strict-compliance-with-local-is-critical/


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Aug 2012)

McQuaid almost sounds like he's part of Armstrong's defence team rather than someone representing cycling. Oh, and he's entirely wrong.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (5 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> interview with McQuaid
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-disavows-uci-responsibility-in-armstrong-case
> 
> *Cyclingnews:* Because I'm with _Cyclingnews_ and it's my job to be a downer, I would like you to comment on an article in the _New York Daily News_ (by Nathaniel Vinton), who wrote, "If USADA’s case against Armstrong is valid, then professional cycling has been the victim of breathtaking corruption", bigger than any other sport. If USADA can prove its case, how does that impact the UCI, cycling in the Olympics - if a sport is going to get voted out of the Games in Rio...
> ...


 
But, lemme point out that IIRC, the UCI was in bed with Armstrong, and there are more than just rumors of them taking bribes from Pharmstrong, to make sure any/all "positive tests" go away. They(UCI) would have ALOT to lose if it's found out they were in bed with Lancey poo, any and ALL credibility by them would be lost.

Bottom Line: Pharmstrong's a shady dude/conman/scam artist, with an arrogance about him that portrays guilt, and he knows he's guilty, he will stop @ NOTHING to make himself look like a saint. He's one of the biggest frauds/phoney's in the world. I will laugh when he finally admits to what we've all known for years: he's a cheater, and he cheated. Everyone else BUT him cheated? right......everyone else BUT him, when it came time for his teammates to cheat, he said "no, Im an honest guy and thats wrong"? BS, he cheated along with the rest of them. I dont "get" why folks still take falls for him, or just wont rat him out.

I think the guy's a conman, and fraud. Of course this is just MY opinion


----------



## lukesdad (6 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> But, lemme point out that IIRC, the UCI was in bed with Armstrong, and there are more than just rumors of them taking bribes from Pharmstrong, to make sure any/all "positive tests" go away. They(UCI) would have ALOT to lose if it's found out they were in bed with Lancey poo, any and ALL credibility by them would be lost.
> 
> Bottom Line: Pharmstrong's a shady dude/conman/scam artist, with an arrogance about him that portrays guilt, and he knows he's guilty, he will stop @ NOTHING to make himself look like a saint. He's one of the biggest frauds/phoney's in the world. I will laugh when he finally admits to what we've all known for years: he's a cheater, and he cheated. Everyone else BUT him cheated? right......everyone else BUT him, when it came time for his teammates to cheat, he said "no, Im an honest guy and thats wrong"? BS, he cheated along with the rest of them. I dont "get" why folks still take falls for him, or just wont rat him out.
> 
> I think the guy's a conman, and fraud. Of course this is just MY opinion


 
Stop sitting on the fence and tell us what you really think


----------



## rich p (6 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> But, lemme point out that IIRC, the UCI was in bed with Armstrong, and there are more than just rumors of them taking bribes from Pharmstrong, to make sure any/all "positive tests" go away. They(UCI) would have ALOT to lose if it's found out they were in bed with Lancey poo, any and ALL credibility by them would be lost.
> 
> Bottom Line: Pharmstrong's a shady dude/conman/scam artist, with an arrogance about him that portrays guilt, and he knows he's guilty, he will stop @ NOTHING to make himself look like a saint. He's one of the biggest frauds/phoney's in the world. I will laugh when he finally admits to what we've all known for years: he's a cheater, and he cheated. Everyone else BUT him cheated? right......everyone else BUT him, when it came time for his teammates to cheat, he said "no, Im an honest guy and thats wrong"? BS, he cheated along with the rest of them. I dont "get" why folks still take falls for him, or just wont rat him out.
> 
> I think the guy's a conman, and fraud. Of course this is just MY opinion


 You have read the thread?


----------



## rich p (6 Aug 2012)

1969758 said:


> Just the back cover in WH Smith's. I was undecided is it a good read?


 It's how I passed my 'o'-level Eng. Lit. Adrian, but we're all grown-ups now, right?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Aug 2012)

WADA confirms UCI is wrong. Why are McQuaid and the leadership of the UCI so intent on making themselves look stupid? Is there really more to come out that will damage the UCI?


----------



## asterix (8 Aug 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> This will drag on a few more years yet and then probably nothing come of it, just like the other attempts. If you believed he doped or not, it really is a circus now. They need to definitively ban and strip him of his title or leave it alone forever.* I think everyone is sick and tired of this now.*
> ..


 
..and 49 pages later..


----------



## rich p (8 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> WADA confirms UCI is wrong. *Why are McQuaid and the leadership of the UCI so intent on making themselves look stupid*? Is there really more to come out that will damage the UCI?


 
Old habits die hard.


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

The most difficult thing about the UCI is that it is based in Switzerland.

This is where in my opinion most of the worlds dodgy money lands and actually helps breed corruption.


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2012)

Back now from a bit of cycle touring that included a few days at the Semaine Federale - have I missed anything? 

Yes, I've had a bit of catching up to do - there's been a fair amount of activity at the federal court, documents submitted etc etc. Got to say, I'm really impressed with USADA's legal eagles. On the ball, to the point and playing the game. They're obviously confident.

There's been some beautiful slap downs too, notably at UCI and their farcical claim for jurisdiction (only a few days after saying 'nought to do with us' too! Hmmmm,.... I wonder why the about face )

Anyways, latest appears to be that USADA have offered to go straight to CAS if everyone's in agreement.




> Accordingly, USADA proposes that it is willing to agree to a single, final and binding CAS hearing with Mr. Armstrong under U.S. law and the USADA Protocol and held in the U.S. but with international CAS arbitrators in which the issues would be whether Mr. Armstrong committed anti-doping rule violations and, if so, the appropriate sanctions. *If the parties are truly interested in an efficient, fair and just result based on the evidence, as USADA is, then this proposal would immediately place the case in the hands of neutral CAS arbitrators who could quickly decide it.*


 
(My bold)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-responds-on-uci-jurisdiction-landis-evidence

Got to hand it to USADA, they're playing a blinder!

Re the decision of Pepe Marti to now go to arbitration....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/martis-lifetime-ban-suspended-by-usada

At this stage, I don't know how to read it other than as simple fact. If it were to be a open hearing, then it might have implications what with the evidence becoming common knowledge. Several theories around as to why Pepe's changed his mind but none that I'd entertain at this point.


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2012)

Oh, and tomorrow's the day that Judge Sparks will issue his judgement on Armstrong's claim. I'm anticipating 'case dismissed'. I think the USADA process will continue. It'll be an interesting few days as the 13th is the deadline that Armstrong has for advising USADA of his intentions.There'll be more twists and turns yet though I reckon. This is great theatre!


----------



## Chuffy (9 Aug 2012)

Armstrongs's legal team and UCI seem to be offering themselves up on a daily basis for a fresh kicking. Can they _really_ be that stupid or incompetent? It doesn't even seem to be successful as a tactic for stringing things out and forcing USADA to a) reveal evidence and b) spend extra money.

Everything they are doing smacks of absolute desperation.


----------



## albion (9 Aug 2012)

"USADA received much of the same information from this intermediary "

Lots of wheeling and dealing results makes for performing seals.


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Everything they are doing smacks of absolute desperation.


 
It is incredible isn't it? You read McQuaid/UCI's letters and they just come across as ill considered rant. You can mentally see him at his desk with the dictaphone in hand spouting diatribe for some poor secretary to type up. Compare that to the measured tones from USADA and you can just feel the differences in confidence. McQuaid makes it easy to make him look like a chump, it's shooting fish in a barrel for USADA.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Aug 2012)

If nothing else comes out of this, it should at least prompt a changing of the guard at the UCI, with those who know what's good for cycling for the future (basically those of the Vaughters school of thought) replacing the dinosaurs (represented by McQuaid, Roche et al.).


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2012)

Didn't Vaughters once talk of a breakaway league?


----------



## Chuffy (9 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Didn't Vaughters once talk of a breakaway league?


Yes. No. Sort of. Maybe. You know how shifty he can be sometimes...


----------



## yello (10 Aug 2012)

As an interesting aside, perhaps people recall UCIs threat to sue Landis. Well, seemingly they are trying/tried. I was just reading through Pat McQuaid's letters to WADA & USADA when I came across this gem....



> It is correct that the UCI sued Mr Landis but then for the fact that he accused the UCI of having concealed a positive test, which is not true. The UCI did not sue Mr Landis for what he said on the subject of other persons.In the latter case *Mr Landis has until now avoided the summons to be served upon him*.


 
From http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat-Pat-Letter-to-Bock

(Be warned, if you choose to read the letter, McQuaid has a real scatter-gun, rambling style and it doesn't always seem to make sense. But, to be fair, he is advancing an argument and does address issues - it's just a shame he's not been able to present it all in a more coherent manner. Again to be fair, I suspect time has not been on his side)


----------



## yello (10 Aug 2012)

On a more substantive issue, and from the same letter linked to above, comes this rather juvenile (imo) statement...



> We also find it important that current cycling is clean and in this respect *we regret that** USADA probably allowed riders that admitted doping to participate in the Tour de France*,even if the facts that they allegedly testified upon date from many years ago


 
Clearly McQuaid is referring to testimony which he hasn't seen and assuming that riders have admitted to doping. Not a wise thing to put into an official letter methinks - leads to questions like 'what gives you reason to assume that?' being asked.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (10 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Clearly McQuaid is referring to testimony which he hasn't seen and assuming that riders have admitted to doping. Not a wise thing to put into an official letter methinks - leads to questions like 'what gives you reason to assume that?' being asked.


 
And given that his main (incorrect) argument is that USADA don't have jurisdiction, it is particularly odd that he is here claiming that they should have taken action on these issues earlier...


----------



## yello (10 Aug 2012)

From http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...a-hearing-jurisdiction-due-process/56930568/1



> Armstrong had faced a Monday deadline to decide whether to take his case to arbitration, but *USADA agreed to extend the deadline to Aug. 23* while his lawsuit is pending.


 
My guess? Judge Sparks has suggested USADA extend their deadline whilst he prepares his response. USADA don't want/need to upset the courts and can wait.


----------



## yello (10 Aug 2012)

From a McQuaid press conference....




> This affair is a trial in the court of public opinion and that's not fair or just. I'm in no way trying to save Lance Armstrong's skin, in any way. The question at stake is that the authority of the UCI as an international federation and my colleagues by what is going on here with USADA and the support of WADA."


 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

....and also apparently



> McQuaid asked if it's a WADA/USADA witch hunt against Armstrong: "Yep. And they’re prepared to bend rules to ensure that it’s done."


 
https://en.twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/233993321318580226


----------



## rich p (10 Aug 2012)

McQuaid is just making a complete fool of himself.


----------



## raindog (10 Aug 2012)

Hasn't he always?


----------



## 86TDFWinner (10 Aug 2012)

> Armstrongs's legal team and UCI seem to be offering themselves up on a daily basis for a fresh kicking. Can they _really_ be that stupid or incompetent?


 
Yes, LA brought this all on himself with his arrogance & his "you cant bust me" attitude. besides, didn't he just claim a few months back that if the USADA brought charges against him, he wouldnt fight them? seems someone cant stop lying.



> It doesn't even seem to be successful as a tactic for stringing things out and forcing USADA to a) reveal evidence and b) spend extra money.


 
he doesnt care...as long as his secret doesnt become exposed, he'll stop at nothing to make sure that doesnt happen.



> Everything they are doing smacks of absolute desperation.


 
Of course it does, good luck trying to reason with an idiot.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (10 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> McQuaid is just making a complete fool of himself.



Yes, yes he is......


----------



## 86TDFWinner (10 Aug 2012)

So much for him "not fighting any charges the USADA bring against him"......what a phoney.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mo...armstrong-doping/index.html?section=si_latest


----------



## Red Light (10 Aug 2012)

> AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge had tough questions for U.S. anti-doping officials in their pursuit of Lance Armstrong, grilling them at length in a hearing Friday.
> 
> U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wondered whether USADA has given the seven-time Tour de France winner a legitimate chance to defend himself against charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.
> 
> ...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120810/cyc-armstrong-doping/


----------



## 86TDFWinner (11 Aug 2012)

Wanna bet the judge "suddenly" gets amnesia(wink wink a nice payoff from Lance) & rules in favor of.the cheater?


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

So decision delayed whilst both sides provide Sparks with more info...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-case



> Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were *primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of* which did not provide Armstrong with enough information to mount an edequate defence.


USADAs charge sheet is light on evidence (no names, no events, just "conclusions" as Sparks said). We know this was deliberately so to avoid witness intimidation. So what interests me here is that USADAs new input to the court will be a matter of public record. Will we get to see names of witnesses, nature of their testimony and details of any additional evidence?

Ominously, and as also referenced by RedLight above, Sparks asked Team Armstrong why they were in court....



> The judge also questioned Armstrong’s lawyer Tim Herman, regarding the actual reasoning behind the federal court being involved at all.
> “Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?" Sparks said.


 
Looks to me that Sparks wasn't convinced by Armstrong's claims re jurisdiction and wants him to provide a more convincing argument


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

Another summary of the court hearing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...be86dc-e2be-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html



> Sparks gave no indication how he would rule, but he was clearly troubled by the vagueness of USADA’s charging letter to Armstrong and the agency’s decision to withhold key information, including the names of witnesses and what they told investigators at this stage.
> “No case filed in this court or any court in the United States would go to trial,” under similar circumstances, Sparks said.


 
Again, we know why the charge sheet was vague. Also remember USADA is operating according to agreed processes, it's not a federal court and doesn't have the same rules.

I found this an interesting, if somewhat aside, comment...



> There’s something under the current when UCI says ‘This is our case, USADA step back,’ and USADA says ‘Not on your life,’” Sparks said.


 
Who knows just how Sparks meant that, be it a reference to conspiracy or merely to the frosty relations, but 'hammer nail head'?


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Again, we know why the charge sheet was vague. Also remember USADA is operating according to agreed processes, it's not a federal court and doesn't have the same rules.



It doesn't but it still comes under the law and must operate within it. There are many areas where the rules which are made up by organisations are nullified by over-riding legislation. If this were in Europe he would probably have recourse to the Human Rights legislation as well as it cannot be a fair trial without knowing who is accusing him and what the evidence is against him. A similar area under UK law is that you cannot deprive someone of a right to earn a living and any contract clauses that attempt to do that are over-ruled usually by the Courts.

The comment on UCI looks like he is asking why the two bodies are fighting over it and whether there is an agenda behind them wanting to run this case and exclude UCI. He does note that despite the statements in that dispute that their rules appear to conflict as to who is responsible.


----------



## rich p (11 Aug 2012)

There's nothing new in what Sparks has said. We all knew what the arguments were going to be. It seems to me that this is dragging on unnecessarily. Either Sparks has to rule that he doesn't have the right to grant the injunction (in which case USADA don't have to provide any more detailed information) or he does and they do. He surely could have decided which yesterday.


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> He surely could have decided which yesterday.


 
Maybe he has, just not officially. He perhaps needs time to ensure that his official ruling is water tight, to draw up the documentation etc??

I am a little baffled as to the questions he's seemingly asked of Armstrong and USADA though.

This case is, I thought, about subject matter jurisdiction and yet he's asked that very question of Armstrong _again_. If that's the matter the court case was intended to address and Armstrong's lawyers haven't addressed it convincingly then you'd have thought that was game over. Is he hinting that there is convincing argument that Armstrong could provide?

As to wanting more detail from USADA, again I thought this was about jurisdiction not evidence.

For what it's worth, my gut feel from what I've read is that Sparks has decided that USADA's process is the correct one for this matter and that the courts don't have (nor want) jurisdiction. Whilst the delay doesn't come as a total surprise to me, I must admit to not seeing what else is needed. But then, I can only go on what gets reported and I'm obviously no legal eagle.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Aug 2012)

Sparks is grandstanding. As we know from his previous melodramatic throwing out of Armstrong's initial case, he is an inveterate publicity-seeker, whatever his other qualities as a judge. As to what he will rule, who knows? 

In the meantime, CyclingNews is describing the UCI as 'outnumbered, outgunned and... out-thought', and McQuaid is going on about how WADA has been involved in a fifteen year conspiracy against cycling. This makes me hope that Sparks does not rule in favour of Armstrong here for no other reason than if the current leadership of the UCI can feel itself vindicated in any way, we will have to put up with these idiots running the sport we love for longer still.


----------



## rich p (11 Aug 2012)

...yeah but it's not as if Sparks only looked at the case yesterday, is it. Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.
Anyway, whatever; if he grants the injunction, what will happen to the evidence? Is it shelved, hidden away, destroyed? Could USADA pass it on to WADA, CAS or even, God forbid, the UCI?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> ...yeah but it's not as if Sparks only looked at the case yesterday, is it. Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.
> Anyway, whatever; if he grants the injunction, what will happen to the evidence? Is it shelved, hidden away, destroyed? Could USADA pass it on to WADA, CAS or even, God forbid, the UCI?


 
Drawing maximum attention to yourself is all about timing! But if Sparks rules against USADA - which I don't think he will - they will just take it to a higher court (and win). The whole thing will just drag on. And as things drag on, the media tend to lose interest, which I think may well be Armstrong's main concern here.


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Sparks is grandstanding.


 
True, yes, that's another interpretation


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> .Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.


 
There was some related stuff filed this last week, so there was a bit of 'last minute' reading.

Re what happens should Sparks decide in favour of Armstrong, I'm guessing it depends who he sees as having the relevant jurisdiction. IF he says it's a federal issue then I reckon proceedings will stall and log jam. I'd guess the preferred route from USADA's perspective would be WADA. If it goes to UCI..... I really wouldn't want to guess what would happen... and that's me trying to be fair to McQuaid!

I was thinking about McQuaid's letter to WADA and whilst it's indicative as to McQuaid's state of mind, it really is an irrelevance... albeit an interesting one. It wouldn't surprise me if WADA didn't bother with a reply, not a point-by-point one anyway.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> There's nothing new in what Sparks has said. We all knew what the arguments were going to be. It seems to me that this is dragging on unnecessarily. Either Sparks has to rule that he doesn't have the right to grant the injunction (in which case USADA don't have to provide any more detailed information) or he does and they do. He surely could have decided which yesterday.



He has the right to issue an injunction but he needs to decide whether the situation warrants it. I suspect he will set out a set of conditions - full disclosure of the evidence for example - that USADA must meet to make it a fair hearing. That seemed to be the direction of his questioning of USADA yesterday while that of LA's lawyers was more about the reasons for issuing an injunction so that he can reasonably have been said to include them in any conditions he sets.

But there was a clear indication as things stand with secret evidence he does not think justice is available to LA.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2012)

Sparks has accused USADA of being on a fishing expedition:



> U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, said yesterday the agency’s notice to Armstrong about doping violations lacks specific allegations that would allow Armstrong to mount a “meaningful response.” He said five people accused of doping violations along with Armstrong aren’t American or U.S. competitors and questioned lawyers for the agency, whose allegations go back 12 years, why it waited so long.
> 
> “I’m not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish,” Sparks said. “Were you so busy, year after year?”



It also appears they have no drug test evidence against him:



> Bill Bock, an attorney for the USADA, told Sparks the agency “alleged a lot of doping in a very organized fashion over a long period of time.” The USADA doesn’t have any positive drug tests for Armstrong or the other individuals targeted for doping violations, he said.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...o-block-anti-doping-agency-s-arbitration.html


----------



## rich p (11 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> He has the right to issue an injunction but he needs to decide whether the situation warrants it. I suspect he will set out a set of conditions - full disclosure of the evidence for example - that USADA must meet to make it a fair hearing. That seemed to be the direction of his questioning of USADA yesterday while that of LA's lawyers was more about the reasons for issuing an injunction so that he can reasonably have been said to include them in any conditions he sets.
> 
> But there was a clear indication as things stand with secret evidence he does not think justice is available to LA.


 Well he won't be in a position to issue an injunction if he decides that he doesn't have jurisdiction. Which is the whole point of this obfuscation isn't it?


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

The allegations may go back 12 years but the investigation was started by, or around the time of, the Landis accusations only 2 years ago. Praps FM's right, Sparks likes an audience!

I think we all knew that there were no (official) positive test results included in the evidence. That doesn't however equate to "no drug test evidence".


----------



## albion (11 Aug 2012)

12 years of gossip is much of the evidence. Which is obviously more accurate than a thousand plus years of bible gossip.

It just happens that drug takers will back some of this up so they can continue doing what they are doing.


----------



## Crackle (11 Aug 2012)

Drug taking will be old hat soon, if it isn't already. Genetic manipulation via a virus is the new big thing, apparently.


----------



## Baggy (11 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> Drug taking will be old hat soon, if it isn't already. Genetic manipulation via a virus is the new big thing, apparently.


Like Spidey senses?
If so, I think I got bitten by a snail some time ago...


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

Do snails bite?

More of a slobbery, gummy suck I would have thought... yuk  Did it leave a mark?


----------



## lukesdad (11 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> Drug taking will be old hat soon, if it isn't already. Genetic manipulation via a virus is the new big thing, apparently.


 
Watching the olympics I see crax, it was quite interesting listening, didn't realise CJ was that clued up TBH.


----------



## Baggy (11 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Do snails bite?
> 
> More of a slobbery, gummy suck I would have thought... yuk  Did it leave a mark?


Ok, it was more of a suck, with a slight rasping sensation. It left no marks. There must be some explanation for my average speed though...

As you were.


----------



## Crackle (11 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Watching the olympics I see crax, it was quite interesting listening, didn't realise CJ was that clued up TBH.


Well I read about it in a quality newspaper h'actually (in the Olympics section). It was both illuminating and alarming but there was a lot of conjecture so I don't know if it is actually possible or just theoretically so.

Is there something slower than a snail you can be bitten by?


----------



## yello (11 Aug 2012)

Baggy said:


> As you were.


 
Ok.

I've kind of got my head around Sparks' questions now.

It appears that USADA weren't as forthcoming in their charging letter as they normally are (names and dates etc). That was for reasons of 'witness intimidation' but Sparks is concerned that this does not offer Armstrong the chance to see enough of the evidence against him (even by the lesser standards of a USADA process). He's offering USADA the chance to allay those fears; either by convincing him that there is a good reason for the charges to be minimally conveyed, or by fleshing out those charges.

With regard to Armstrong's claims re jurisdiction, Sparks wants to be convinced that the courts have a question to answer. Team Armstrong have seemingly focused too strongly on USADA not having jurisdiction, rather than trying to convince Sparks that the court has jurisdiction to decide who has jurisdiction (I know I know - I can only suggest you read that a couple of times!) I'll try and rephrase. In the first instance, Sparks isn't concerned whether UCI or USADA has jurisdiction, he wants Armstrong to convince him that jurisdiction is a matter for the court to decide. So far, Armstrong's legal team haven't done that so they are being offered the chance to redress it.


----------



## lukesdad (11 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> Well I read about it in a quality newspaper h'actually (in the Olympics section). It was both illuminating and alarming but there was a lot of conjecture so I don't know if it is actually possible or just theoretically so.
> 
> Is there something slower than a snail you can be bitten by?


 
As I heard it the gene in question was found in all black sprinters, but only in the very best of white sprinters...... nothing seemed to be conclusive and would only benefit second rate white athletes, though whether or not that would make them winners was doubtful.


----------



## Red Light (11 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Ok.
> 
> I've kind of got my head around Sparks' questions now.
> 
> ...



You missed out his "are USDA on a fishing expedition" question.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> ...yeah but it's not as if Sparks only looked at the case yesterday, is it. Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.
> Anyway, whatever; if he grants the injunction, what will happen to the evidence? Is it shelved, hidden away, destroyed? Could USADA pass it on to WADA, CAS or even, God forbid, the UCI?


 
I have posted this before, and it was rubbished, but there is no limit to this, within the USADA rules they can charge the same person with the same case and evidence was many times as they wish. There is no "double jeopardy"

However an athlete can only appeal once.


----------



## rich p (11 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I have posted this before, and it was rubbished, but there is no limit to this, within the USADA rules they can charge the same person with the same case and evidence was many times as they wish. There is no "double jeopardy"
> 
> However an athlete can only appeal once.


 Sorry old chap - I tend to gloss over the dross you write these days.


----------



## marinyork (11 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I have posted this before, and it was rubbished, but there is no limit to this, within the USADA rules they can charge the same person with the same case and evidence was many times as they wish. There is no "double jeopardy"
> 
> However an athlete can only appeal once.


 
There seemed to be quite a lot of rubbishing of Ashley Judd on this forum, so maybe you've just found your man for your next film. He might need a film career after this anyway.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Sorry old chap - I tend to gloss over the dross you write these days.


 
But true and accurate dross


----------



## rich p (11 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> But true and accurate dross


 That'll be a first then


----------



## ufkacbln (11 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> That'll be a first then


 
You obviously haven't read the previous posts then


----------



## PaulB (12 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You obviously haven't read the previous posts then


Here we go again; past eleven o'clock on a Saturday night and more collobks from the man with the envious social life, Cunobellend. Why don't you give it a well-earned rest?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Aug 2012)

Such inteligence and a high level of debate?
Don't shoot the messenger, check the facts.....

Is there a "double jeopardy rule or does the USADA have the ability to repeat the same charges?

Dismissing it collobks and personal insults are not going to change the facts!

You claim it is collobks - now prove it...... or just add a few insults if you are unable to do so, far easier!


----------



## PaulB (12 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Such inteligence and a high level of debate?
> Don't shoot the messenger, check the facts.....
> 
> Is there a "double jeopardy rule or does the USADA have the ability to repeat the same charges?
> ...


 
Since you're all about collobks and your 'mind' is irretrievably made up on this issue, I'll take the insults option.


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Aug 2012)

PaulB said:


> Since you're all about collobks and your 'mind' is irretrievably made up on this issue, I'll take the insults option.


 
Yep - I admit it - my mind is absolutely made up that USADA does not have a "double jeopardy" clause and that this is a factual statement..... how unacceptable, actually using a fact and an informed decision based upon it!

What standards will we stoop to next?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Aug 2012)

So, no-one's read Jonathan Vaughters' superb little piece in the New York Times today about doping? You all really should. Of course, one can also note that, given the current inquiry, it isn't just about him. I expect Vaughters was one of those who gave a full and frank account of what they know about Lance to USADA.


----------



## rich p (12 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> So, no-one's read Jonathan Vaughters' superb little piece in the New York Times today about doping? You all really should. Of course, one can also note that, given the current inquiry, it isn't just about him. I expect Vaughters was one of those who gave a full and frank account of what they know about Lance to USADA.


 What makes you think we haven't read it?

You don't expect cyclists to do the tour on bread and vaughter, do you?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> You don't expect cyclists to do the tour on bread and vaughter, do you?


 
That's terrible...


----------



## Noodley (12 Aug 2012)

truly appalling


----------



## yello (12 Aug 2012)

I chuckled.


----------



## raindog (12 Aug 2012)

worra hoot


----------



## rich p (12 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> That's terrible...


 


Noodley said:


> truly appalling


 
Why, thank you!


----------



## PaulB (12 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Yep - I admit it - my mind is absolutely made up that USADA does not have a "double jeopardy" clause and that this is a factual statement..... how unacceptable, actually using a fact and an informed decision based upon it!
> 
> What standards will we stoop to next?


It depends on how much precious time you can afford to condescend to us out of your non-stop social agenda. They can't find a good word for you, but I can...


----------



## rich p (14 Aug 2012)

If they try to smother the investigation then Hamilton's kiss-and-tell autobiog. may spill some beans, although whether he'll have the nerve to name names...

... http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-to-release-autobiography


----------



## raindog (14 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> If they try to smother the investigation then Hamilton's kiss-and-tell autobiog.


"Hamilton explained that his time in front of a grand jury during the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation into Lance Armstrong's alleged doping practices he realised that there was a story that needed to be told."

should read.....

"..........he realised that there was a pile of money to be made."


----------



## rich p (14 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> "Hamilton explained that his time in front of a grand jury during the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation into Lance Armstrong's alleged doping practices he realised that there was a story that needed to be told."
> 
> should read.....
> 
> "..........he realised that there was a pile of money to be made."


  Quite so!

He'd blown all his money on his chimera!


----------



## yello (14 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> If they try to smother the investigation then Hamilton's kiss-and-tell autobiog. may spill some beans, although whether he'll have the nerve to name names...


 
He'll certainly name names if USADA sanctions Armstrong! His editors are probably poised to make the necessary changes so the book can be the first to hit the shelves post verdict. He'll not be the only one wanting a slice either.


----------



## iLB (14 Aug 2012)

Hamilton is releasing his book on LA's birthday


----------



## User169 (14 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> Well I read about it in a quality newspaper h'actually (in the Olympics section). It was both illuminating and alarming but there was a lot of conjecture so I don't know if it is actually possible or just theoretically so.
> 
> Is there something slower than a snail you can be bitten by?


 
Do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read that. Probably rather theoretical at the moment, I'd have thought.


----------



## Arsen Gere (16 Aug 2012)

Armstrong wins marathon.

http://triathlete-europe.competitor.com/2012/08/14/lance-armstrong-wins-marathon/


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Aug 2012)

Yes, there will be plenty of unscrupulous local races that will care more about the publicity from having Armstrong there than the fact that he's currently banned from racing at higher levels.


----------



## Crackle (16 Aug 2012)

Delftse Post said:


> Do you have a link? I'd be very interested to read that. Probably rather theoretical at the moment, I'd have thought.


Unfortunately not. I actually bought the paper version. I'll see if I can find it, though some articles don't always appear online or take a while to appear.


----------



## rich p (18 Aug 2012)

Another fly in the ointment with USA Cycling saying that the UCI have jurisdiction.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/letter-from-usa-cycling-included-in-armstrong-case

_The letter continues to outline that USADA’s authority is not valid when the UCI has a vastly opposed opinion on how the Armstrong case should be handled. USADA states it has authority whilst acting under UCI and through USAC however, UCI’s interpretation of the WADA code suggests otherwise..._


----------



## david k (18 Aug 2012)

to summarise is the only evidence an x colleague saying he doped?


----------



## Noodley (18 Aug 2012)

If the UCI are the only organisation with jurisdiction over doping we'd all be as well go out and get off our tits.


----------



## yello (18 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Another fly in the ointment with USA Cycling saying that the UCI have jurisdiction.


 
I've just spent the last few hours reading stuff (including USA cycling's letter) and that's not quite my interpretation of what they said. First some context, the letter was offered by Armstrong's lawyers as part of their final submission (deadline midnight last night, Texas time) to Sparks before his decision re jurisdiction. Also offered was a UCI letter. UCI wrote to USA cycling requesting they state their position (telling them to if you like). This kind of put USA Cycling on the spot, UCI are the gaffers as it were. I get the impression that USAC would have rather stayed out of it. Anyways, what they do say (and, as I say, I think their letter is hardly solid endorsement of UCI) is that they feel UCI can interpret the WADA rules as they like. They don't say they agree with UCI's interpretation.




> USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's anti-doping code, its application to international cycling events and the Code's jurisdictional provisions within the scope of its authority


 
If anyone's interested, you can read Team Armstrong's submission (and the UCI and USAC letters) here. The USADA submission is here, but more on that later when I respond to David k's question.

Team Armstrong (and UCI) are trying to muddy the waters with this talk of jurisdiction. It's true that it's not obvious at first glance what the chain of command is, since UCI and WADA are obviously totally separate bodies whose responsibilities overlap. That can be spun to confuse BUT it is actually quite clear.

Sports bodies (like UCI) sign up to the WADA code if they want their sport to be part of the Olympics (amongst other things). You don't get to pick and choose, or 'interpret', the rules as it suits you - you sign up or you don't belong. It really is that simple. It's all part of the international deal that was agreed in the early 2000s to combat the international nature of sports doping. WADA have recently clarified the situation to UCI and stated that USADA are operating completely within scope. End of story really.


----------



## yello (18 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> to summarise is the only evidence an x colleague saying he doped?


 
No is the short answer. USADA were a tiny wee bit more forthcoming re the evidence in yesterday's submission to the court (link above)....



> Where, as here, the charges are* based on witness evidenc*e rather than laboratory analysis of samples


 
My bold.... "based on". So the thrust of it is seemingly testimony but backed up. We can only really guess as what else there is.

There's also an explanation of why USADA weren't more forthcoming with the details of the evidence in their initial charge letter but, to be perfectly honest, I don't fully understand it yet and I'll have to give it another couple of reads. It's to do with process and the division between review board and arbitration panel - frankly it sounds a little tenuous but, as I say, I don't fully understand.


----------



## rich p (18 Aug 2012)

Thanks Yello for clarifying. I've been prone to a lack of detailed understanding ever since Mr Lewis wrote that I need to analyse better in 'o'-level Economics!


----------



## yello (18 Aug 2012)

It's only my interpretation of it Rich, other's are seeing it as support. I do feel the context helps though.

It's like being asked to comment on someone's new dress or whatever; you know what you think, you know what you're supposed to say but you'd prefer to say nothing at all.


----------



## Chuffy (18 Aug 2012)

Tangential to the thread topic (not sure it merits a thread of its own) - good interview with JV, following up his NYT piece.


----------



## Red Light (18 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> to summarise is the only evidence an x colleague saying he doped?


 
Seems like it. From the USADA letter linked above by Yello:



> Where, as here, the charges are based on witness evidence rather than laboratory analysis of samples........


----------



## Slaav (19 Aug 2012)

Although very interested in the detail and the opinion of people with far more knowledge than I do, I can safely say that the law 'can' be an ass!

Sometimes it really does not matter who or what is correct; it so many times boils down to who has the best lawyer or slimiest retards on their team who are prepared to lie, cheat and duck and dive better than the others.

Wrong and justice (although mostly) is sometimes a side show. Not sure what camp I come down on though but must say that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and even looks like a duck......


----------



## yello (19 Aug 2012)

Slaav said:


> it so many times boils down to who has the best lawyer or slimiest retards on their team who are prepared to lie, cheat and duck and dive better than the others.


 
One of the things I like about the USADA process, and such arbitration services generally, is that they seemingly can't be got to. They operate in their own protected space with their own rules (and I know same have concerns about that). Courts will respect and protect that, and are very very reluctant to interfere.

Unlike law courts, where deep pockets and crafty lawyers can clog the mechanism, the arbitration process is streamlined and laid out, a step-by-step process that has to be followed to conclusion. There's a very simple beauty to it all. And in this case perhaps, the mouse that roars.


----------



## raindog (19 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Tangential to the thread topic (not sure it merits a thread of its own) - good interview with JV, following up his NYT piece.


thanks for that Chuffy, that's a very interesting interview

there's a great response in there to the people who say "make peds legal, then we'll have a level playing field"



> “If you make everything legal, believe me, some people are going to push things way beyond where they are now,” he argues. “Some people will say no to what is essentially suicide, so the winner is the guy who’s willing to risk his health more than anyone else.”


----------



## yello (19 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Seems like it.


 
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion Red Light. For me, 'based on' does not mean 'only'.

USADA are being very coy/protective about the evidence they have but we do know from the charge letter that they have both testimony and test results (specifically, the 2009 & 2010 blood test results). Note also that the charge letter states that it references only a "portion" of the evidence gathered in USADA's investigations. So I think it save to conclude that there is more than only witness testimony.


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I have no idea how you came to that conclusion Red Light. For me, 'based on' does not mean 'only'.



It says it's based on witness statements rather than lab results, not witness statements and lab results.


----------



## yello (19 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Tangential to the thread topic (not sure it merits a thread of its own) - good interview with JV, following up his NYT piece.


 
Cheers, that gives me something to read this afternoon! JV appeared briefly in The Clinic if you want to wade through the JV thread to find his contributions. I think he was sort of paving the way (for himself too) and gauging reaction, as it was both before and after his NYT article.

For myself, I did think his NYT piece was emotive - perhaps too big on ideals and short of suggestion, but an excellent opening gambit. I'm hoping he can follow up with ideas as we know he has them. I was encouraged by this remark of his (from the 1st page of the article, which I skimmed)...



> Frankly, I won’t be happy or feel better until I see that it’s done something to change the environment


 
So clearly he feels the environment needs changing. That seems a little different to his (as I see it) public attitude of 'understand, learn, move on'. Maybe he sees a change on the horizon?


----------



## yello (19 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> It says it's based on witness statements rather than lab results, not witness statements and lab results.


 
Do you think 'based on' means 'only'? And are you ignoring what it explicitly states in the charge letter?


----------



## Red Light (19 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Do you think 'based on' means 'only'? And are you ignoring what it explicitly states in the charge letter?



If you look up the conjunction form of "rather than" you will find it means "and not" according to most dictionaries including the main US dictionary, Merriam-Websters. Whatever it says in the charge letter this is the USADA's response to the Judge's request for clarification.


----------



## yello (19 Aug 2012)

That JV article that Chuffy linked too is well worth reading. It owes a great deal to Joe Lindsey, the interviewer/reporter.

JV is an idealist, without doubt. I like that. Personally, I feel you have to aim for ideals even if you also accept that you'll never quite get there.

It's notable that there's no questions or quotes re USPS years. In the context of the USADA investigation and of the nature of the interview, that's telling. I think we can conclude that JV is one of those who have offered testimony. He personally stands to potentially loose a deal, as he points out, so it's a brave thing to do. Respect.

I didn't realise that distrust and dislike of UCI ran as deep within the teams and the peloton as JV seems to suggest. It feels like he wants to say 'corrupt' but can't quite bring himself to. Unpopular tours that exist for the UCI coffers etc. Pretty harsh words for organisers too.

But, of all, I think this is what I personally was looking for....




> Since the 1998 Festina scandal (and likely before) there has been a tremendous resistance to uncovering the sport’s past. Do we need to? Is it possible to simply draw a line and forget what came before, to start anew without some kind of mass confession?
> 
> Vaughters doesn’t believe it’s possible. “You’re two thirds of the way through a dark tunnel; backing up is not an option,” he says, citing the scandals, positive tests, and many admissions so far.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Aug 2012)

Slaav said:


> Wrong and justice (although mostly) is sometimes a side show. Not sure what camp I come down on though but must say that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and even looks like a duck......


----------



## oldroadman (19 Aug 2012)

This thread. Opinions and heresay. JV confesses - why - a deal and testify against his "old mate". Let's just keep dragging up things about a bad time in the sport, until there are no sponsors, no races, and it's wrecked. Funny you don't hear about what happened in baseball and US football from USADA.


----------



## ufkacbln (19 Aug 2012)

oldroadman said:


> This thread. Opinions and heresay. JV confesses - why - a deal and testify against his "old mate". Let's just keep dragging up things about a bad time in the sport, until there are no sponsors, no races, and it's wrecked. Funny you don't hear about what happened in baseball and US football from USADA.


 
The NFL opted out of the WADA / USADA system.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (19 Aug 2012)

oldroadman said:


> This thread. Opinions and heresay. JV confesses - why - a deal and testify against his "old mate". Let's just keep dragging up things about a bad time in the sport, until there are no sponsors, no races, and it's wrecked. Funny you don't hear about what happened in baseball and US football from USADA.


 
Wit respect, ORM, it is not about the past or just about cycling. Armstrong is trying to make a second professional racing career in triathlon. If he had retired quietly, I don't think USADA would care. And personally, as a triathlete, I am very pleased USADA has taken this action before triathlon gets mired in a similar mess that characterized cycle racing in the EPO era.

Also - see what Cunobelin says about top American pro-sports - USADA would love to get their teeth into them, but they simply don't care because they make enough money in the USA not to worry about how the rest of the world thinks of them.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (19 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> If he had retired quietly, I don't think USADA would care. And personally, as a triathlete, I am very pleased USADA has taken this action before triathlon gets mired in a similar mess that characterized cycle racing in the EPO era.
> 
> .


 
This. Not to mention Armstrong has an arrogance about him that just oozes guilt. BTW, anyone who's still clinging to the "he never tested positive" excuse.....is just blatantly delusional IMO. He has SO "tested positive", more than once......Tour De Suisse just to name one time.


----------



## Chuffy (19 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Wit respect, ORM, it is not about the past or just about cycling. Armstrong is trying to make a second professional racing career in triathlon. If he had retired quietly, I don't think USADA would care.


I'm sure USADA have been grinding their teeth about Armstrong for years, but have never had proof. Had he not gone for Comeback 2 I daresay Landis would have stayed under his rock...

Ah, hubris.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I'm sure USADA have been grinding their teeth about Armstrong for years, but have never had proof. Had he not gone for Comeback 2 I daresay Landis would have stayed under his rock...
> 
> Ah, hubris.



Great point. I really think the eyewitnesses are what'll do him in, he knows it too.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> USADA would love to get their teeth into them, but they simply don't care because they make enough money in the USA not to worry about how the rest of the world thinks of them.


 
It's worth thinking about this very point more broadly. There's a lot of ifs here but...

If USADAs investigation should reveal corruption in the UCI, and this in turn leads to cycling being booted out of the Olympics then what happens to British cycling?

Pro-cycling could continue, with UCI in charge, just as the American NFL, NBA, NHL (and who ever else) do as a non-Olympic sport. Think though, the UCI also governs track cycling, bmx and also the paralympics cycling events. Without Olympic recognition and exposure, how will those events fare? Would Sky be interested in supporting British cycling? And what of national lottery funding?

Many ifs, but it illustrates the connections and what could be at stake. I don't see anything like the above happening btw, that's a real doom and gloom scenario. More realistic, imho, is an IOC approved cleansing of UCI (so still an old boys network )


----------



## Scoosh (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> More realistic, imho, is an IOC approved cleansing of UCI (so still an old boys network )


... or perhaps a new, clean, non-corrupt (allegedly ) body is raised up to run pro cycling ?  (with or without a big, shiny HQ in Swizzerland )

The 'Break-Away' organisation which I believe was mentioned some time ago ?


----------



## GBC (20 Aug 2012)

Just as a matter of interest, is there any precedent of someone being found guilty of doping on the word only of witnesses, not backed up by any scientific evidence?
I've no prejudice either way on the question, though I will certainly be disappointed if the drug allegations are shown to be true, particularly because of the damage that it will do to the sport. As to Armstrong himself, if he's exonerated, he'll retain his standing as one of the greats of cycling, but nothing will really make him other than a quite unlikeable character.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

I guess if JV is to be believed, there'd be interest within pro-teams to replace the UCI as the governing body. I can't myself see a breakaway league (I feel the suggestion illustrates the mood rather than indicates action) and I think the pro-teams would accept (at least in the short term) a reconfigured UCI.

But equally, I don't suspect the Olympics matter much to the pro-teams and they would happily operate outside of them. I'm sure ASO would be interested too, and offer to transition any change over - if not run pro-cycling themselves  Would we want that?


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2012)

Scoosh said:


> ... or perhaps a new, clean, non-corrupt (allegedly ) body is raised up to run pro cycling ?  (with or without a big, shiny HQ in Swizzerland )


 
Perhaps Amaury Sports could take it over


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

GBC said:


> Just as a matter of interest, is there any precedent of someone being found guilty of doping on the word only of witnesses, not backed up by any scientific evidence?


 
The short answer is yes but it's a bit of a moot point since, in this case, there is more than witness testimony.

It's important to remember that in this process there is not the same burden of proof required as in a court of law. I don't remember the exact wording but the case doesn't need to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' but to something like 'comfortable satisfaction'. Now before that kicks off a storm of protest, I would say that this point has been well covered earlier in the thread. It is as it is and there are internationally agreed and accepted reasons for it.

Testimony is evidence just as scientific evidence is and the arbitration panel will decide if it is sufficient (based on the 'comfortable satisfaction' criteria) to sanction.


----------



## GBC (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> The short answer is yes but it's a bit of a moot point since, in this case, there is more than witness testimony.
> 
> It's important to remember that in this process there is not the same burden of proof required as in a court of law. I don't remember the exact wording but the case doesn't need to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' but to something like 'comfortable satisfaction'. Now before that kicks off a storm of protest, I would say that this point has been well covered earlier in the thread. It is as it is and there are internationally agreed and accepted reasons for it.
> 
> Testimony is evidence just as scientific evidence is and the arbitration panel will decide if it is sufficient (based on the 'comfortable satisfaction' criteria) to sanction.


 
Certainly in this part of the world, I think the phrase you were looking for is 'the balance of probability'.
I do appreciate what constitutes evidence and what doesn't, but it does concern me that not only is there no scientific evidence against him, (as far as I know), but that that evidence was proactively searched for through regular testing and wasn't found. However, nothing is going to be resolved here


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

User3094 said:


> Having just read David Millars book, I'm confused as to why its just Lance being singled out for "Victimisation" (yes yes apart from being 7 times winner etc etc)....


It's the team management (which included LA) and the medical support staff who are being pursued here. It also has potential ramifications for the way the UCI has conducted itself. This is only a one-man witch hunt if you believe the PR guff that Lance's team are spouting.



> The implication is that pre-Festina, and arguably even pre Operacion Puerto, the *entire* peloton were doping?


No, they were not.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

As the estimable Wellington Lord Boot said:- *"I mistrust the judgement of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned."*


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Armstrong's case dismissed by Sparks.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

I'm not surprised. So, will Armstrong go to arbitration? He has until the 23rd to let USADA know.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Aug 2012)

I want to get this in before anyone else does: clearly it is because Judge Sparks is part of the anti_Armstrong conspiracy and witchhunt!

Do I get a prize?


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Armstrong's case dismissed by Sparks.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit
> 
> I'm not surprised. So, will Armstrong got to arbitration? He has until the 23rd to let USADA know.


No surprise. Does he have any other legal recourse to delay this even further?


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I want to get this in before anyone else does: clearly it is because Judge Sparks is part of the anti_Armstrong conspiracy and witchhunt!
> 
> Do I get a prize?


No, just a slap.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

*Race Radio* ‏@*TheRaceRadio* 
Nice to see that Judge Sparks says Lance will have to pay USADA's legal bills and court costs


----------



## Crackle (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> *Race Radio* ‏@*TheRaceRadio*
> Nice to see that Judge Sparks says Lance will have to pay USADA's legal bills and court costs


I would think that's the least of his worries just now.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> I would think that's the least of his worries just now.


 
Yep, he's going to be facing much higher costs in the not too distant future, and not just financial ones.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

If anyone's interested, Spark's decision in full

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision

Just reading through it and I had to laugh (and post), Sparks described USADA's charging letter as "woeful"  ... to the point that he could have been inclined to halt the USADA process. But he acknowledges there'd be little practical point; USADA would issue a more detailed one and it'd be all go again (lawyers' pockets being the only beneficiaries!) and, more importantly, Armstrong will have the opportunity to see the full evidence against him, and cross examine, as a part of the USADA due process.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> I would think that's the least of his worries just now.


Oh yes, but I have a low amusement threshold when it comes to watching Lance taking custard pies.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

The judges decision was quite informative (I think so anyway) in laying on the 'international hierarchy' as it calls it. Basically, the olympic movement is top of this tree and they have empowered WADA to control drug testing and results management. That is performed at national level by the various national agencies, like USADA. In short, WADA out rank UCI and any other international sports federation in the matters pertaining to doping. That's why UCI's complaints, and equally those half hearted ones of US Cycling, fell on deaf ears.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Sparks has been quite critical of USADA on a number of aspects and, notably, of the infighting between USADA and UCI



> However, if these national bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infigthing, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts


 
or, sort it out amongst yourselves, we're staying out of it!


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> If anyone's interested, Spark's decision in full
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/103348811/Sparks-Decision
> 
> Just reading through it and I had to laugh (and post), Sparks described USADA's charging letter as "woeful"  ... to the point that he could have been inclined to halt the USADA process. But he acknowledges there'd be little practical point; USADA would issue a more detailed one and it'd be all go again (lawyers' pockets being the only beneficiaries!) and, more importantly, Armstrong will have the opportunity to see the full evidence against him, and cross examine, as a part of the USADA due process.


 
There are two interesting conclusions though. First the Sparks said he had severe doubts about the motives of USADA in bringing the case (footnote 19 on p4) and second, Armstrong has won assurances that he will have full access to the evidence against him to prepare his case and the Court will intervene against USADA if he does not get it (footnote 26 on p19). He has also left it open for Armstrong to come back to Court if the arbitrators show any signs of bias against him (footnote 27 on p19) It seems therefore that while pragmatically dismissing the case Sparks has whipped the secrecy cloak away from USADA and Armstrong has won some important points about process.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2012)

So the "crap" that was dismissed as irrelevant, a waste of time and elicited a barrage of personal insults a month ago has now raised itself as relevant in this decision...... nice to be proven right!


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Sparks has whipped the secrecy cloak away from USADA


 
Could you please justify that statement? Sparks has required USADA to do absolutely nothing. Further, he is satisfied that the USADA arbitration offers Armstrong all due process. He voiced concerns but saw no justifiable reason to interfere.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> So the "crap" that was dismissed as irrelevant, a waste of time and elicited a barrage of personal insults a month ago has now raised itself as relevant in this decision...... nice to be proven right!


 
I forget, what specifically did you point out that turned out to be relevant?


----------



## just jim (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I forget, what specifically did you point out that turned out to be relevant?


Something about amphetamines wasn't it?


----------



## raindog (20 Aug 2012)

McQuaid must be in a cold sweat tonight


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Could you please justify that statement? Sparks has required USADA to do absolutely nothing. Further, he is satisfied that the USADA arbitration offers Armstrong all due process. He voiced concerns but saw no justifiable reason to interfere.


 
_"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. [26]_​​_[26]The Court does not rely solely on counsel's assurances, however. The Supplementary Procedures to the USADA Protocol contain two provisions which suggest Armstrong is likely to receive adequate notice of the specific allegations and evidence against him prior to any substantive hearing. First, Rule R- 17 allows a party to request a preliminary hearing, during which "the parties and the arbitrator should discuss the future conduct of the case, including clarification of the issues and claims, a schedule for the hearings and any other preliminary matters." Id. at 88. Second, Rule R- 18, governing the exchange of information between the parties, not only requires the parties to exchange all exhibits they intend to submit at the merits hearing five days in advance, but also allows the arbitrators to order "production of documents and other information," including lists of anticipated witnesses. _​​*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.*"_​​Previously USADAs stance has been that they can't release the evidence because he might intimidate the witnesses. Now they have to provide it or risk being back in front of Sparks.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I forget, what specifically did you point out that turned out to be relevant?


I can heartily recommend the 'ignore' feature.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I forget, what specifically did you point out that turned out to be relevant?


 
1. That the USADA was less than forthcoming about the evidence - and that that was questionable practice
2. That unless the USADA was careful they would end up being on trial as well
3. That a worst case scenario was Armstrong being supported in his claims against USADA and the case being dismissed because of a failure on USADA to play by the rules.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

You can say whatever you like, but it's about as audible as a ghost farting in a hurricane.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

​


> _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.*"_


 
"If it should come to pass"...

Yes, as I said, he's required them to do nothing other than follow their procedures as laid out in their own protocols. Armstrong will see the evidence in accordance with that. Sparks has made no additional requirement, no "clock of secrecy" has been "whipped away".

Red Light, please, look objectively rather that twisting words to meet your own interpretation.


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> 1. That the USADA was less than forthcoming about the evidence - and that that was questionable practice
> 2. That unless the USADA was careful they would end up being on trial as well
> 3. That a worst case scenario was Armstrong being supported in his claims against USADA and the case being dismissed because of a failure on USADA to play by the rules.


 
1. was a concern raised by many, myself included, However, Sparks accepted it albeit with reservation.
2. is self evident and would apply to any person bringing a court action
3. again, self evident and it didn't happen. USADA played by the rules as many thought they would.

If you want to credit yourself with identifying those issues and claim some kind of victory for it then please do, be my guest. I'm interested only in USADA v Armstrong.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

I think it's fair to say that Judge Sparks doesn't follow cycling and is unaware of the politics between various bodies. No reason why he should be, but it certainly colours his remarks.


----------



## rich p (20 Aug 2012)

If a barrack room lawyer clutching at straws can't see the woods for the trees - does it make a hollow sound?


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

What would Arthur Wellesley make of it?


----------



## yello (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I think it's fair to say that Judge Sparks doesn't follow cycling and is unaware of the politics between various bodies. No reason why he should be, but it certainly colours his remarks.


 
I reckon that's a fair assessment. He's been even handed and done as any parent of squabbling teenage kids would do in as much as he doesn't care who started it! The difference being, he's saying it's not his problem to sort out either.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I reckon that's a fair assessment. He's been even handed and done as any parent of squabbling teenage kids would do in as much as he doesn't care who started it! The difference being, he's saying it's not his problem to sort out either.


This almost as much about USADA taking on elements of the UCI isn't it? If USADA have been frustrated by Lance's apparent teflon coating, how much more angry much they be about the way that the UCI (specifically McQuaid and Verbruggen) seem to have shielded him?


----------



## rich p (20 Aug 2012)

The silly thing is that if the UCI had taken over there is no way that USADA wouold have let them cover things up, surely? LA was always on a loser.
If he was innocent he'd have happily gone to an independent arbitrator as was offered.


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> You can say whatever you like, but it's about as audible as a ghost farting in a hurricane.


 
aka


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Aug 2012)

There's one rather bizarre statement in the ruling - Sparks describes USADA's the timing of their decision to proceed with a case against Armstrong now as "mystifying."

It's not though, it's quite obvious why USADA are doing this now. It is because:
1. they were waiting for the federal inquiry into the US Postal team to wrap up;
2. they now have access to all the material that was gathered during that process; and,
3. Armstrong had decided to make a comeback in professional sport, in triathlon.

I am mystified that anyone could describe the timing as 'mystifying.'


----------



## Chuffy (20 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There's one rather bizarre statement in the ruling - Sparks describes USADA's the timing of their decision to proceed with a case against Armstrong now as "mystifying."
> 
> It's not though, it's quite obvious why USADA are doing this now. It is because:
> 1. they were waiting for the federal inquiry into the US Postal team to wrap up;
> ...


You'd almost expect the words 'and who is this Armstrong guy anyway?'


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> You'd almost expect the words 'and who is this Armstrong guy anyway?'


 
"I believe he is a professional velocipede pilot, your honour."


----------



## threebikesmcginty (20 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> McQuaid is just making a complete fool of himself.



And you'd know! 




Edit: Went back in time there...


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2012)

Seems to me having read the transcript through now that its far from a USADA victory. In summary the decision is that USADA has been told to correct the things in its processes and procedures that Armstrong has complained about or face coming back to Court to explain why they haven't. So Armstrong hasn't got the hearing blocked but he has got it now much more on his terms and pressure on USADA and its arbitrators to be seen to be being neutral and fair.


----------



## swansonj (20 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There's one rather bizarre statement in the ruling - Sparks describes USADA's the timing of their decision to proceed with a case against Armstrong now as "mystifying."
> 
> It's not though, it's quite obvious why USADA are doing this now. It is because:
> 1. they were waiting for the federal inquiry into the US Postal team to wrap up;
> ...


OK, bear with me please, because I willingly confess that my attention has wondered a bit and some of the details of the first 56 pages are a bit hazy in my memory. But your no 2 is that USADA have access to all the material gathered in the federal investigation. I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> You can say whatever you like, but it's about as audible as a ghost farting in a hurricane.


 
Those who want to selectively read only those posts that suit their agenda are perfectly entitled to ignore the ones that don't leave them feeling warm, fuzzy and comfortable in their little world.


----------



## ufkacbln (20 Aug 2012)

swansonj said:


> OK, bear with me please, because I willingly confess that my attention has wondered a bit and some of the details of the first 56 pages are a bit hazy in my memory. But your no 2 is that USADA have access to all the material gathered in the federal investigation. I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?


 
Part of the issue is the fact that in a court there is a certain protection when giving evidence that does not exist in a USADA tribunal

Michelle Collins was banned for eight years for doping (2004) despite having never failed a test. Part of the evidence were emails that were "incriminating" She relied on the Fifth Amendment - the right against self incrimination.

USADA and CAS (the one and only appeal) decided that this was not a court of law and therefore the Fifth amendment did not apply.

Evidence given under this protection in a Court of Law could be challenged as it 's use breaches the "contract" between the courts and defendant

As a basic of the "United Sates Constitution" the question is whether this right can be denied. Armstrong is playing this one for all it is worth, taking it further than previously. He may yet be able to exclude some evidence on these grounds.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (20 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I want to get this in before anyone else does: clearly it is because Judge Sparks is part of the anti_Armstrong conspiracy and witchhunt!
> 
> Do I get a prize?


 
LOL, thats certainly how LA and his lawyers will spin it surely. "Everyone's out to get him...blah blah blah"..... Looks like this time, he's going down. If your own city's judge dismisses your case, it doesn't look good. Maybe the judge isn't a Pharmstrong fan?


----------



## 86TDFWinner (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> *Race Radio* ‏@*TheRaceRadio*
> Nice to see that Judge Sparks says Lance will have to pay USADA's legal bills and court costs


He certainly has the $$ to do so, why not.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (20 Aug 2012)

Red Light et al. - the whole thing might be complex, but this court case was really very simple. The basis of Armstrong's claim is that the court system should have jurisdiction. The ruling is that it's none of the court's business unless USADA mess up their own procedures. Case dismissed. All the rest, whether you or I agree with it, is merely Judge Sparks' opinion, which, whilst always interesting and sometimes even entertaining, has no bearing on who won or lost. Armstrong lost.


----------



## Alun (20 Aug 2012)

swansonj said:


> OK, bear with me please, because I willingly confess that my attention has wondered a bit and some of the details of the first 56 pages are a bit hazy in my memory. But your no 2 is that USADA have access to all the material gathered in the federal investigation. I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?


I don't know much about US law but I did find this document: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm#IIA1
Which contains the following text:
_"Transcripts of witness testimony, statements made by Government attorneys, and any other statements made by or before the grand jury, while in session, clearly constitute "matters occurring before the grand jury" and may not be disclosed, except in conformity with one of the exceptions to Rule 6(e)"_
Make of it what you will !


----------



## 86TDFWinner (20 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Oh yes, but I have a low amusement threshold when it comes to watching Lance taking custard pies.


 
Why? he's certainly earned any scorn he's received here and elsewhere. Had he just come out from the getgo and said "yeah, I did it, and here's why", all of this wouldn't have continued. BUT, it's his arrogance, and general douchebaggery, that puts most folks off. Time for Pharmstrong to start taking his LONG OVERDUE medicine.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (20 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Evidence given under this protection in a Court of Law could be challenged as it 's use breaches the "contract" between the courts and defendant
> 
> .


 
I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.


----------



## Alun (20 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.


Trying to use the law to defend their client? How very dare they, disgraceful behaviour!


----------



## Red Light (20 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> Why? he's certainly earned any scorn he's received here and elsewhere. Had he just come out from the getgo and said "yeah, I did it, and here's why", all of this wouldn't have continued. BUT, it's his arrogance, and general douchebaggery, that puts most folks off. Time for Pharmstrong to start taking his LONG OVERDUE medicine.


 
Back to prosecuting people because you don't like them rather than because they've been proven to have done something wrong? And what better evidence than them having the affront to claim innocence. Perhaps we could apply that to the UK Courts. "The defendent has pleaded Not Guilty Your Honour"; "Not Guilty? What more proof do we need? Send them down!"


----------



## Buddfox (21 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light et al. - the whole thing might be complex, but this court case was really very simple. The basis of Armstrong's claim is that the court system should have jurisdiction. The ruling is that it's none of the court's business unless USADA mess up their own procedures. Case dismissed. All the rest, whether you or I agree with it, is merely Judge Sparks' opinion, which, whilst always interesting and sometimes even entertaining, has no bearing on who won or lost. Armstrong lost.


 
This reads in a somewhat contradictory way, no? Whilst the result might be black or white, and I don't think anyone's disputing that Armstrong "lost" if one is to consider just that binary, simple aspect of the event, the detail of the judgement itself is more complex, as you say, and there are several shades of grey contained within the detail. Sparks does appear to have fired a warning shot across USADA's bows about their process - of course, USADA may never have been intending to do anything other than play their hand by the book, but they're now on notice. More significantly, I think, it appears to open the door more visibly for LA's legal team to challenge the fairness of the USADA process in due course. The courts may subsequently rule against LA and in favour of USADA's future conduct, but it's on balance probably helpful for LA to have had that opportunity spelled out (even if it theoretically existed anyway). I don't really believe LA ever expected to "win" this case but he has undoubtedly gained some small victories from it. The war is far from over, but I expect team LA is more pleased than disappointed with this outcome.


----------



## Red Light (21 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.



By the way, if the seven times winner of the TdeF had to use performance enhancing drugs to win, what do you think the chances are that a three times winner from a decade before had to do the same?


----------



## Red Light (21 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light et al. - the whole thing might be complex, but this court case was really very simple. The basis of Armstrong's claim is that the court system should have jurisdiction. The ruling is that it's none of the court's business unless USADA mess up their own procedures. Case dismissed. All the rest, whether you or I agree with it, is merely Judge Sparks' opinion, which, whilst always interesting and sometimes even entertaining, has no bearing on who won or lost. Armstrong lost.



Its more than "unless they mess up their own procedures, case dismissed". Its your charge sheet is unacceptably vague, your motives are questionable, your original plan to withold the evidence is unacceptable but if you correct those as you have now agreed to do and abide by your own procedures I shall let it go ahead for now. But be warned I will be watching you and if you don't you will not like the consequences. Case adjourned.


----------



## yello (21 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I am mystified that anyone could describe the timing as 'mystifying.'


 
Personally, I thought Sparks did seem to be (or pretend to be) a little uninformed on some issues. I don't expect him to know the history of UCI/WADA, nor even be fully conversant with the arbitration process procedure used by bodies such as USADA, but some of his remarks did seem to reflect a lack of knowledge.I'm reminded of your 'show boating' remark (or was it spotlight) FM - I guess everyone likes to add their own touches sometimes, and I guess court judges are no different.

I think it's to be expected in a way. We probably look to judges to give personalised opinion rather than just hand down a dry verdict... certainly makes matters more entertaining!


----------



## yello (21 Aug 2012)

swansonj said:


> I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?


 
That aspect was questioned early on in the process, yes. I believe, though I don't know, that evidence gathered by the feds via GJ cannot be used by USADA.

But cutting to the chase, the important point to note here is that both the feds and WADA/USADA have confirmed that none of the USADA evidence was gathered by the feds. Not much more that can be said in truth.


----------



## yello (21 Aug 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Sparks does appear to have fired a warning shot across USADA's bows about their process - of course, USADA may never have been intending to do anything other than play their hand by the book, but they're now on notice.


 
Yes, I think that's fair to say.

I personally don't think USADA have done anything other than play by the book, and they fully intend to do so in the future. I suspect they're well aware of the need to get this one pitch perfect and didn't need Sparks to point it out. I reckon they did sail close to the wind with the charging letter though!

In dismissing the case 'without prejudice', Sparks has kept the avenue of complaint open for Armstrong in the future - but he hasn't expanded or extended it. That is, there are no additional rights available to Armstrong by virtue of Sparks' remarks. Armstrong has the same options open to him now, the same rights, as if Sparks had said nothing - as if the court case hadn't taken place.

I can't agree with your final analysis though. I can't see that team LA is more pleased than disappointed with the outcome. They're nowhere different now than if the court case hadn't happened. They still have to answer USADA.

I guess if one believes that USADA had intended to do all manner of unscrupulously bad things and now Judge Sparks has straightened them out then fine, that's one's prerogative. It's also delusional.


----------



## yello (21 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.


 
Are you really Greg Lemond?  Quite an entrance you made there in The Clinic!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (21 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Case adjourned.


 
But it wasn't adjourned, it was dismissed. If the opinions that Sparks had were more than opinions, i.e. if they had legal weight, then there would have been a different verdict. You can try to spin this how you like, but the verdict and the fact that Armstrong was ordered to pay costs speak for themselves. Sparks likes to tell everyone how their legal cases should be presented etc. - we know that from his previous remarks. He has a reputation. What matters legally and factually is the verdict, which was that the courts do not have jurisdiction over this case. You can't get past this.


----------



## Chuffy (21 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Yes, I think that's fair to say.
> 
> I personally don't think USADA have done anything other than play by the book, and they fully intend to do so in the future. I suspect they're well aware of the need to get this one pitch perfect and didn't need Sparks to point it out. I reckon they did sail close to the wind with the charging letter though!
> 
> ...


Yes....and at the same time, no.

Buddfox alluded to this in his post earlier. What the last Sparks ruling has done for Lance's cause is to sow some doubt about USADA's process and motivation. _We_ (at least, those of us with a slightly unhealthy interest in the history of doping in cycling and USP/Lance in particular) probably understand this better than the judge, but that's not the point. Even though Sparks has dismissed the case I think that Lance's team will have an eye on the court of public opinion as a final arbiter of his legacy and Sparks has given them plenty of useful ammunition, even if, as you point out, they haven't gained anything tangible in a legal sense. I would expect some of those quotes from Sparks to be wheeled out in the next few months - it's not going to be hard to turn any adverse verdict from USADA into a vicious witchhunt conducted for political purposes and that will play well with both his hardcore fans and the many, many casual fans whose only understanding is 'Lance. Cancer. Hero'.

Not saying that Team Tex launched their suit just for PR purposes btw, I think they genuinely wanted to try and derail the USADA process. It's just that they can salvage something usable from this.


----------



## yello (21 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> What the last Sparks ruling has done for Lance's cause is to sow some doubt about USADA's process and motivation. <snip> Even though Sparks has dismissed the case I think that Lance's team will have an eye on the court of public opinion as a final arbiter of his legacy and Sparks has given them plenty of useful ammunition


 
Yes, good point and agreed. Some may sway Lance-ishly as a result, or at least become more receptive to certain ideas. After all, a federal judge said it. It could be a short-lived effect though and I'm not sure it'll ultimately make much difference when said same folk can read the evidence in their Sunday sports section.


----------



## rich p (21 Aug 2012)

Whether Armstrong can spin it as a witchunt and play to the public, rather depends on how persuasive the evidence is. At least it seems as though we're going to hear it and be in a position to judge without his obfuscation. If he's innocent then he has nothing to fear


----------



## DogTired (21 Aug 2012)

Without trying to stoke up sides  , is there a _fairly_ objective summary of the overall situation knocking around that someone could recommend? All sorts of bits have come out, such as the UCI involvement (and the characters involved there) and how USADA have gone about things?

Any related background on LA would be interesting reading as well. You can google until the end of time and only find nice things said. Which is odd...


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> By the way, if the seven times winner of the TdeF had to use performance enhancing drugs to win, what do you think the chances are that a three times winner from a decade before had to do the same?


 
Problem with your arguement is: NO ONE'S COME FORWARD IN 22 YRS TO SAY LEMOND DID ANYTHING IIRC? Not one former: teammate, coach, rider, etc, etc. I've never seen/heard/read anything that suggested, or led me to believe that he did, do you know something we don't after all these years? if so, by all means, please post said "proof/assumptions/rumours/innuendos/etc" here so that we can ALL see for ourselves that he did infact "dope" as you're alluding to? See, Lemond is MUCH different than Mr.One Ball. No one's EVER accused him(Lemond) of doping, unlike One ball, who seems to have a new report out, every other week. I get it, you dont like Greg, but to insinuate that he's a "doper' and lump him in with all the rest,w/o any credible proof, makes you look silly IMO.

While we're on the subject of past champions "doping", then why not strp: Anquetil and Merckx of their respective yellow jerseys too, afterall both have admitted to doping right? if you want to go there,(and it appears you do) why not strip: Hinault/Indurain, and others as well for their titles? How do we know they weren't doping either? I mean, hell Indurain won 5 straight TDF's, an unheard of feat @ the time, certainly HE did something to accomplish that, right?

It's a nice attempt by you, I applaud your effort.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Are you really Greg Lemond?  Quite an entrance you made there in The Clinic!


 
I wish......thank you


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Without trying to stoke up sides  , is there a _fairly_ objective summary of the overall situation knocking around that someone could recommend? All sorts of bits have come out, such as the UCI involvement (and the characters involved there) and how USADA have gone about things?
> 
> Any related background on LA would be interesting reading as well. You can google until the end of time and only find nice things said. Which is odd...


 
I was hoping someone else might respond... I'm kind of getting tired of my own voice! Besides, I'm a hater, I probably have an agenda, and am biased etc...

There's no single text that I'm aware of that covers all you mention....yet! I'm sure there'll be a few that give the 'Lance - rags to riches and back again' story in the years to come.

I would however suggest David Walsh's 'From Lance to Landis' as that'll give a background from a certain perspective. I can't recommend it as I've not read it but it does cover a number of bases.

Google has been my friend in this matter. From the official websites of WADA, USADA, UCI etc, through online newpapers articles, op-eds, blogs, etc to forums. CyclingNew's forum (particularly 'The Clinic' sub-forum) is a valuable resource of both links and opinions. Beware though, it is robust and you will have to wade through pages of one-eyed hater spew to find information.


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> Problem with your arguement is: NO ONE'S COME FORWARD IN 22 YRS TO SAY LEMOND DID ANYTHING IIRC? Not one former: teammate, coach, rider, etc, etc. I've never seen/heard/read anything that suggested, or led me to believe that he did, do you know something we don't after all these years? if so, by all means, please post said "proof/assumptions/rumours/innuendos/etc" here so that we can ALL see for ourselves that he did infact "dope" as you're alluding to? See, Lemond is MUCH different than Mr.One Ball. No one's EVER accused him(Lemond) of doping, unlike One ball, who seems to have a new report out, every other week. I get it, you dont like Greg, but to insinuate that he's a "doper' and lump him in with all the rest,w/o any credible proof, makes you look silly IMO.
> 
> While we're on the subject of past champions "doping", then why not strp: Anquetil and Merckx of their respective yellow jerseys too, afterall both have admitted to doping right? if you want to go there,(and it appears you do) why not strip: Hinault/Indurain, and others as well for their titles? How do we know they weren't doping either? I mean, hell Indurain won 5 straight TDF's, an unheard of feat @ the time, certainly HE did something to accomplish that, right?
> 
> It's a nice attempt by you, I applaud your effort.


 
I see I've touched a raw nerve. Well Fignon has said that everyone in the peleton doped at that time. And then there's that superhuman VO2max of 93 which would automatically raise questions these days. Even Lemond questioned Contador's VO2max on that climb as certain proof of doping. But of course he is safe in that there are no stored blood or urine sample from that time although LA has intimated that others from that time know things about Greg.


----------



## raindog (22 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> unlike One ball


 
I'm no Armstrong fan, but continually calling someone one ball, because they were unfortunate enough to have cancer, is poor stuff imo.


----------



## rich p (22 Aug 2012)

This thread is sadly degenerating into a playground squabble.


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> This thread is sadly degenerating into a playground squabble.


 
Welcome to web forums.


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> This thread is sadly degenerating into a playground squabble.


 
It needn't. A couple of later posts have turned that way but it can be turned back - with the will of the participants.

86TDF, this isn't The Clinic and people aren't quite so trigger happy in here. Could you please exercise some restraint?  By injecting venom, you risk derailing an otherwise relatively amicable thread - and risk it being locked. Nobody wants that as we want this to play out.... well, maybe not to the end, since the Armstrong saga will drag on for years!, but at least until the conclusion of the USADA (and inevitable CAS) process.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Without trying to stoke up sides  , is there a _fairly_ objective summary of the overall situation knocking around that someone could recommend? All sorts of bits have come out, such as the UCI involvement (and the characters involved there) and how USADA have gone about things?
> .


dream on..........

without wanting to spoil anybody's fun - isn't this all ancient history now? Even Armstrong. Here we are, a nation of couch potatoes, producing cyclists like the world has never seen before, riders like Dani King, Lizzie Armitstead, Cav, Jason Kenny, Laura Trott, Hoy, that geezer with the 'burns, and all of them seem so refreshingly unblinded by ambition, yet so dedicated - which leads me to think that if one more of my neurons even has to hear the word Armstrong that would be one neuron too many.


----------



## rich p (22 Aug 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> dream on..........
> 
> without wanting to spoil anybody's fun - isn't this all ancient history now? Even Armstrong. Here we are, a nation of couch potatoes, producing cyclists like the world has never seen before, riders like Dani King, Lizzie Armitstead, Cav, Jason Kenny, Laura Trott, Hoy, that geezer with the 'burns, and all of them seem so refreshingly unblinded by ambition, yet so dedicated - which leads me to think that if one more of my neurons even has to hear the word Armstrong that would be one neuron too many.


 
Might be advised to avoid the Lance Armstrong thread then, Dell


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> riders like Dani King


 
I read that as Don King!







The thought of him on a bike gave me a broad smile! Looks like he sees the funny side too!


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2012)

Anyways, decision time for Armstrong by tomorrow.

You know, I reckon he could actually be very well served by going into arbitration. The arbitration panel is independent, not part of USADA. Three on the panel; one selected by USADA, one by Armstrong and the 3rd selected by the other 2. The arbitration process allows for pre-arbitration questions, it's in that window where Armstrong could legitimately raise relevant questions, such as scope or statute of limitations even.

No telling how the arbitrators would respond of course but they can at least address some of the questions that Sparks couldn't (because the court lacked jurisdiction). It could be Armstrong's best chance. Ironic huh? The process he has vilified as 'unconstitutional' etc offers him a way out!


----------



## DogTired (22 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I would however suggest David Walsh's 'From Lance to Landis' as that'll give a background from a certain perspective. I can't recommend it as I've not read it but it does cover a number of bases.


 
Thanks - I'll check that book out. Personally my opinion floats from let sleeping dogs lie, nail any cheating, is it worth undoing any inspirational work by charities, don't let any cheats any further into politics, are USADA right, are they vexatious, this will drag on until the end of time...

After reading David Miller's book I'm even more interested in the motivations around doping.

Also agree with dz that things have moved on with the latest crop of cyclists. In the main, anyway. Nice piece in the DMail about VPendleton: "Sexist Team GB athletes tried to make me cut off my hair"...


----------



## raindog (22 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> "Sexist Team GB athletes tried to make me cut off my hair"...


reminded me of this....
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
just keep clicking on "refresh"


----------



## just jim (22 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> reminded me of this....
> http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
> just keep clicking on "refresh"


I did - and I got this:
*WILL CYCLISTS TURN PROPERTY PRICES GAY?*
Sorry about going O.T. Back to the subject in hand eh? I try to follow this unfortunate business on The Clinic, though it gets a bit extreme. That's why I continue to check in with this relatively together thread. Let's keep it that way huh?


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> I see I've touched a raw nerve. Well Fignon has said that everyone in the peleton doped at that time. And then there's that superhuman VO2max of 93 which would automatically raise questions these days. Even Lemond questioned Contador's VO2max on that climb as certain proof of doping. But of course he is safe in that there are no stored blood or urine sample from that time although LA has intimated that others from that time know things about Greg.


 

You've touched no "nerve" at all...usually, thats a Lance fanboys fall back response, "well Lemond doped too". Then, when I ask(and I have about 30 times now & counting) for said person(s) to post said "proof" of Lemond "doping", they slither away with their heads between their legs and say things like "Oh I mustve touched a nerve or something...hahahaha", meanwhile producing no such "proof" as to what they've said. As I said, YOU make YOURSELF look silly just saying it, as we ALL know if he did, it wouldve come out by now certainly right? Guys last TDF win was 22 years ago, and he's been retired for 18 yrs, it would've come out by now had he infact "doped" as you claim(oh ermm...I mean: Lance claimed )Of course. I get a laugh out of the "Lemond doped too" crowd.......They want so badly for someone else to catch the shoot Pharmstrong is.....

Get back to me when you have 1(just one) CREDIBLE source that says he(Lemond) did, otherwise, stop talking out of your buttox about it, as you're obviously just trying to troll for the sake of trolling.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> It needn't. A couple of later posts have turned that way but it can be turned back - with the will of the participants.
> 
> 86TDF, this isn't The Clinic and people aren't quite so trigger happy in here. Could you please exercise some restraint?  By injecting venom, you risk derailing an otherwise relatively amicable thread - and risk it being locked. Nobody wants that as we want this to play out.... well, maybe not to the end, since the Armstrong saga will drag on for years!, but at least until the conclusion of the USADA (and inevitable CAS) process.


 
My apologies...Im just BEYOND sick of the "Lemond doped too" false arguement folks like to spew, then when I call them out on it, and ask them to produce said "proof", they start backtracking, changing the subject...blah blah blah(Just like Red Light did above with his response), it went from "Well Lemond doped too, hee hee" to "all of a sudden" : "well thats what Lance said...not me...blah blah blah". Lance's credibility was shot a long time ago, why anyone would believe anything out of his mouth is beyond me.

I wasnt "injecting venom" I was simply asking said accuser to provide said proof of Lemonds supposed "doping", where/when it took place, who he "doped" with, etc,. If he cant produce it, then he shouldnt bring it up IMO. Thats how you shut the "Lemond doped too" crowd up...ask them to produce anything about it...they go away. Other than that, I have no issues with anyone.


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2012)

Ah well, that's all settled then  As this isn't the Greg Lemond thread, nobody should bringing up the subject!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Aug 2012)

Red Light can perfectly legitimately defend Armstrong but defaming Lemond in order to do so, is a step too far. There have never been any credible allegations against Lemond and it is generally accepted that one of the main reasons for his eventual retirement in 1994, along with what he felt at the time was illness, was the incredible change in form of many previously ordinary riders, in other words EPO.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> It needn't. A couple of later posts have turned that way but it can be turned back - with the will of the participants.
> 
> 86TDF, this isn't The Clinic and people aren't quite so trigger happy in here. Could you please exercise some restraint?  By injecting venom, you risk derailing an otherwise relatively amicable thread - and risk it being locked. Nobody wants that as we want this to play out.... well, maybe not to the end, since the Armstrong saga will drag on for years!, but at least until the conclusion of the USADA (and inevitable CAS) process.


 
Don't tell PaulB and RichP that - personal insults are their forte if you dare to cross his "guilty as hell and damn the proof " stance.


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light can perfectly legitimately defend Armstrong but defaming Lemond in order to do so, is a step too far. There have never been any credible allegations against Lemond and it is generally accepted that one of the main reasons for his eventual retirement in 1994, along with what he felt at the time was illness, was the incredible change in form of many previously ordinary riders, in other words EPO.



Awww, come on, Lemond fanboy was so far up his own backside in his hatred of LA he deserved a bit of a tweaking


----------



## MacB (22 Aug 2012)

I'm impressed that there are still, otherwise apparently sane, people that believe that Lance didn't use performance enhancing drugs. In fact I see a multiple of business opportunities here....all to be offered under the parent corporation of Gullible Inc


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Ah well, that's all settled then  As this isn't the Greg Lemond thread, nobody should bringing up the subject!


 
No one said anything about bringing/not bringing it up...it's when they start saying blatant BS that everyone here knows isn't correct, that really incites a defense of Lemond. You want to talk about it, assume it, blah blah blah, no problems, BUT, be prepared to be called out on it when you say it, thats all. I've asked here(and other places) where is this so called "proof" from even 1 CREDIBLE: rider/former teammate/coach/etc/etc that Lemond doped? There isn't any & there won't be any.

Pharmstrong fans like to talk about "witch hunts" all the time, "Lemond doped too" is as big of a "witch hunt" as one could argue.

As of today: Lance: banned from cycling, dogged with years of doping allegations, and about to have ALL of his TDF wins vacated for just that.

Lemond: will become the ONLY american to win the most TDF's.........


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Red Light can perfectly legitimately defend Armstrong but defaming Lemond in order to do so, is a step too far. There have never been any credible allegations against Lemond and it is generally accepted that one of the main reasons for his eventual retirement in 1994, along with what he felt at the time was illness, was the incredible change in form of many previously ordinary riders, in other words EPO.


Again, NEVER said he couldnt "defame" Lemond or anyone, but we ALL know : Greg never doped. Until there's one CREDIBLE source that claims he did, whats the point of mentioning that he did? Just b/c someone else does something, doesn't mean you or I do it. Red Light, please accept my apologies, I wasn't trying to be a dick to you. Please understand, thats a Lance fanboy reactionary retaliation tactic whenever their man is in hot water, they ALWAYS say "well Lemond doped too". Then I sometimes step in, ask to please post/verify said "proof" when he did "dope", and then that usually runs them off. It's as if it's a purely trollish move, just to get a rise out of folks, and take heat off Pharmstrong. It worked, congrats.

I could say that Hinault doped.....how do we know they haven't? (see what i mean, he's been retired for many years, and I've never read anything about him doping).


----------



## 86TDFWinner (22 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't tell PaulB and RichP that - personal insults are their forte if you dare to cross his "guilty as hell and damn the proof " stance.


Never "insulted" anyone...simply asked OP to provide said proof that Lemond doped, when and where?..and, not surprisingly, that "proof" has yet to show up.

I look @ it this way: Once Lance gets busted and they strip him of most/all of his TDF wins, that immediately means Lemond becomes the ONLY american who's won the most TDF's ever.....I can live with that.


----------



## Noodley (22 Aug 2012)

I''m with 1986TDF on this one, Lemond is 100% above suspicion. 
And as usual his name is dragged into the mire by Armstrong apologists. 

I gave up reading Red Light and Cunobelin's contributions to Racing weeks ago - if I read a thread about the lace industry in 19th century France I would learn more about pro bike racing than from reading their posts.


----------



## rich p (22 Aug 2012)

Yeah, we get it Greg.
Can we accept that Lemond is for another thread and keep this one mainly to the nailing of Armstrong?


----------



## rich p (22 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't tell PaulB and RichP that - personal insults are their forte if you dare to cross his "guilty as hell and damn the proof " stance.


  Me, insulting?


----------



## Noodley (22 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Me, insulting?


 
French lace in the 19th century...


----------



## rich p (22 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't tell PaulB and RichP that - personal insults are their forte if you dare to cross his "guilty as hell and damn the proof " stance.


As a matter of fact, I want the case to be aired publicly and independently judged and have never said anything else. What I don't want is the case to be smothered by lawyers and obfuscation by Armstrong and his cohort of professional PR smokesmen.
It's you, Cunobellin, who appears to want the arbitration to be stifled by nitpicking the minutiae of the process. Not that it matters one iota what you and I think anyway although it appears that you and Red Light are under the illusion that you and the 'haterz' actually have some influence.
I challenge you to find any of the posters here who believe LA to be guilty, who don't want to see him nailed fairly, legally and squarely. We don't want him to wriggle out on a technicality.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> As a matter of fact, I want the case to be aired publicly and independently judged and have never said anything else. What I don't want is the case to be smothered by lawyers and obfuscation by Armstrong and his cohort of professional PR smokesmen.
> It's you, Cunobellin, who appears to want the arbitration to be stifled by nitpicking the minutiae of the process. Not that it matters one iota what you and I think anyway although it appears that you and Red Light are under the illusion that you and the 'haterz' actually have some influence.
> I challenge you to find any of the posters here who believe LA to be guilty, who don't want to see him nailed fairly, legally and squarely. We don't want him to wriggle out on a technicality.


 
Absolutely, totally and incredibly wrong assumption!

Pointing out that these are issues is unwelcome in some quarters, but that does not stop Armstrong and his team using them, or make them any less valid.... if you wish to interpret that as "wanting" the arbitration to be stifled then that is your problem,

The fact that you chose to compound your initial error by using insults rather than to discuss these validated points speaks more of your closed mind than anything I could post.


----------



## Red Light (22 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> No one said anything about bringing/not bringing it up...it's when they start saying blatant BS that everyone here knows isn't correct, that really incites a defense of Lemond. You want to talk about it, assume it, blah blah blah, no problems, BUT, be prepared to be called out on it when you say it, thats all. I've asked here(and other places) where is this so called "proof" from even 1 CREDIBLE: rider/former teammate/coach/etc/etc that Lemond doped? There isn't any & there won't be.



As I said, it has been suggested that anyone with a VO2max over 90 should automatically be considered to be cheating. Lemonds was 93. Lemond questioned Contador's performance on Stage 18 of the 2009 TdeF As having an inhuman VO2max yet estimates are it was only around 80.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...formance-could-betray-sports-drug-cheats.html


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> As I said, it has been suggested that anyone with a VO2max over 90 should automatically be considered to be cheating. Lemonds was 93. Lemond questioned Contador's performance on Stage 18 of the 2009 TdeF As having an inhuman VO2max yet estimates are it was only around 80.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article...formance-could-betray-sports-drug-cheats.html




I saw that too, but that doesnt mean everyone doped. I believe that was the year(89) that Lemond.was coming back from his hunting accident. If his numbers were off.the.charts like folks have suggested, IMO, he wouldve beaten Fignon by more.than 8 seconds, hed.have lapped the field, again my opinion. Besides the ONLY reason Lemonds.name.has ever been mentioned as possibly doping is from who? Pharmstrong & thats bc he was trying to bash Lemond for questioning him. If Greg.doesnt question it, we dont hear his name being mentioned.


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Absolutely, totally and incredibly wrong assumption!
> 
> Pointing out that these are issues is unwelcome in some quarters, but that does not stop Armstrong and his team using them, or make them any less valid.... if you wish to interpret that as "wanting" the arbitration to be stifled then that is your problem,
> 
> The fact that you chose to compound your initial error by using insults rather than to discuss these validated points speaks more of your closed mind than anything I could post.


 
FWIW, where did I insult you? Seriously, I can't remember ever doing so unless you count my genuine and sincere offer to vet your posts prior to posting in order to save you from further embarrassment. I hope you're not going to throw that act of selfless goodwill in my face.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> I saw that too, but that doesnt mean everyone doped. I believe that was the year(89) that Lemond.was coming back from his hunting accident. If his numbers were off.the.charts like folks have suggested, IMO, he wouldve beaten Fignon by more.than 8 seconds, hed.have lapped the field, again my opinion.



No it doesn't but the current trend of performance analysis and bio passports to detect doping rather than blood testing is an interesting development for people like Lemond who, in my mind, takes an unhealthy interest in other people doping. It would be interesting to analyse with current technology Lemond's performances and see how he comes out. In fact I might have a word with someone about doing just that.

And it wasn't about winning by 8 seconds on that final stage but coming from 50s behind and winning by 8 seconds in a race that drove Fignon, who was no mean rider, to his absolute limit and beyond. Yet Lemond still did the stage 58s quicker than him.

I am not saying Lemond doped but you need to look to yourself also throwing around accusations too against someone who has yet to be shown to have doped and then throwing a fit when someone even dares to suggest that your hero might have partaken of the substances almost everyone in the peleton took in those days (according to Fignon)


----------



## gavroche (23 Aug 2012)

Just for the record, Fignon was not at his best on this final day as he was suffering from saddle sore and couldn't fing a comfortable position to ride in. That must have affected his performance surely.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

> Just for the record, Fignon was not at his best on this final day as he was suffering from saddle sore and couldn't fing a comfortable position to ride in. That must have affected his performance surely.


Yes, but what would Napoleon have done if he'd been DS on the day? 

Come on people, we have a lyingmonobollockedcokesnortingcolleaguebullyingshitbag to fry. _Focus._


----------



## gavroche (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yes, but what would Napoleon have done if he'd been DS on the day?
> 
> Come on people, we have a lyingmonobollockedcokesnortingcolleaguebullyings***bag to fry. _Focus._


 What does DS mean?


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

gavroche said:


> What does DS mean?


Directeur Sportif. The bloke in the team car shouting order at the riders.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

Just for the record folks, my request to tone it down was based not on the defence of Lemond but - and this might surprise some of you - the insult directed at Armstrong. The guy had testicular cancer, you don't mock him for that whatever else he has or has not done.

My apologies, I should have made that clear in the first place


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> As I said, it has been suggested that anyone with a VO2max over 90 should automatically be considered to be cheating. Lemonds was 93. Lemond questioned Contador's performance on Stage 18 of the 2009 TdeF As having an inhuman VO2max yet estimates are it was only around 80.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article...formance-could-betray-sports-drug-cheats.html


 
Quoting nude socialist is hardly a very robust publication to say the least  . And many people won't be able to read that. Were there particular bits you were interested in?


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> Quoting nude socialist is hardly a very robust publication to say the least  . And many people won't be able to read that. Were there particular bits you were interested in?


Have you got lost on the way to a different thread?


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Have you got lost on the way to a different thread?


 
It's a very old and well known tongue in cheek nickname for that particular publication, one others have quoted before . I don't actually mind it that much, but the point remains about what I said. If red light spends a lot of time reading it it actually explains some of his slightly odd 'mainstream' views about physics but that's an entirely different topic.

I'm just interested if he has got anything more on what he says about the VO2max.

The whole lemond thing (it's daft picking out just him) it's hard to say, we know for example that US athletics had a lot of doping in the 1980s and 1990s that was covered up until very recently.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> The whole lemond thing (it's daft picking out just him)



Its not daft picking on him when you are tweaking someone who calls themselves 86TDFWinner


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its not daft picking on him when you are tweaking someone who calls themselves 86TDFWinner


 
Well not really, it started really by a reply they said to Cunobelin about the old issue of what is 'evidence' to USADA.

It seems to be a very weird world we're getting into if the only thing 'allowed' as 'evidence' is positive tests.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> It's a very old and well known tongue in cheek nickname for that particular publication, one others have quoted before . I don't actually mind it that much, but the point remains about what I said. *If red light spends a lot of time reading it* it actually explains some of his slightly odd 'mainstream' views about physics but that's an entirely different topic.


Ah, that explains it. The perils of the Ignore list.


----------



## laurence (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yes, but what would Napoleon have done if he'd been DS on the day?
> 
> Come on people, we have a lyingmonobollockedcokesnortingcolleaguebullyings***bag to fry. _Focus._


 
he would have ordered the Polish soldiers to lance the boil.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> he would have ordered the Polish soldiers to lance the boil.


 
As opposed to USADA who are boiling Lance.


----------



## laurence (23 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> As opposed to USADA who are boiling Lance.


 
*boom tish*


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> *boom tish*


 
I am taking notes from rich p...


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I am taking notes from rich p...


Weren't you an academic once?


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I am taking notes from rich p...


 
You won't get NADA.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> It seems to be a very weird world we're getting into if the only thing 'allowed' as 'evidence' is positive tests.



Well hard evidence is better than character assasination and innuendo which is what this thread seems to run on. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice there have been in the UK have been because they were not based on hard evidence but hearsay. And it looks like USADA are going to go down the hearsay evidence route in the absence of any hard evidence.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> If red light spends a lot of time reading it it actually explains some of his slightly odd 'mainstream' views about physics but that's an entirely different topic.



Actually I read it very rarely these days, Nature is a much better publication. As for your fixation on my physics which you have now raised several times on different threads let me just say that while you may be reading the published papers on Opera I am talking to the guys that are doing the experiments and writing the papers. So my "slightly odd mainstream views about physics" are actually the outcome of talking to the people actually doing the mainstream physics. HTH & HAND


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well hard evidence is better than character assasination and innuendo which is what this thread seems to run on. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice there have been in the UK have been because they were not based on hard evidence but hearsay. And it looks like USADA are going to go down the hearsay evidence route in the absence of any hard evidence.


 
You're simply misconstruing things. USADA allows various other 'non-analytic' evidence as it has come to be known. 

And as I said about the grand juries (ages ago now) you're guessing what they've got hold of due to a lot of misunderstandings by people on the internet. That's not you but other people. The opinions seem to lurch between they've got hold of some 'juicy' stuff obtained 'illegally' or that they can't have got this so have got a load of poor stuff and half truths they got by their ears stuck against the door of a grand jury or something like that. Both are probably nonsense, we'll have to see. And that's not changed for a while.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> You're simply misconstruing things. USADA allows various other 'non-analytic' evidence as it has come to be known.
> 
> And as I said about the grand juries (ages ago now) you're guessing what they've got hold of due to a lot of misunderstandings by people on the internet. That's not you but other people. The opinions seem to lurch between they've got hold of some 'juicy' stuff obtained 'illegally' or that they can't have got this so have got a load of poor stuff and half truths they got by their ears stuck against the door of a grand jury or something like that. Both are probably nonsense, we'll have to see. And that's not changed for a while.



I'm talking about the specifics of the LA case, not USADA cases in general. And its not based on speculation about what evidence the Grand Jury turne up and whether its available to USADA. Its based on what USADA said in front of Sparks as recorded in his judgements. and that is its going to be based primarily on hearsay evidence.


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Actually I read it very rarely these days, Nature is a much better publication. As for your fixation on my physics which you have now raised several times on different threads let me just say that while you may be reading the published papers on Opera I am talking to the guys that are doing the experiments and writing the papers. So my "slightly odd mainstream views about physics" are actually the outcome of talking to the people actually doing the mainstream physics. HTH & HAND


 
I'm not fixated, I just have (despite other failings) a better memory than many other of my detractors think I do and you didn't answer previously. I just find some of the things you post very odd that's all. We all do that sometimes - some stuff I post comes across odd sometimes as I don't have the time or more likely I've had to summarise it down which leads to complaints (but people complain an awful lot more if I write more).

As for knowing OPERA people, you sound like an upset postgrad physics student trying to drub up some story in a minor dispute within a department. BTDTGTTS .

For something as the story we were talking about where pretty much anybody could understand it if they actually read a decent report/paper, I don't see the point recycling their views. Fair dos if it is something high level. Otherwise, wouldn't other people do it . It's a bit like another bloke in another section of the forum who seems to have the same attitude. But if you can read Swedish extradition treaties, you most certainly can read that.


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> As for knowing OPERA people, you sound like an upset postgrad physics student trying to drub up some story in a minor dispute within a department. BTDTGTTS .



Wish I were that young. Perhaps if I just say I'm an FInstP inter alia.


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Wish I were that young. Perhaps if I just say I'm an FInstP inter alia.


 
I know this red light, it's not like you haven't made hints before . But all of that means I'm even more puzzled by many of the things you say (which is not something that's changed for a while).


----------



## MacB (23 Aug 2012)

This is fun, all I can see is Marin arguing with himself


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> I know this red light, it's not like you haven't made hints before . But all of that means I'm even more puzzled by many of the things you say (which is not something that's changed for a while).



Much to learn still you have young Marinyork


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

MacB said:


> This is fun, all I can see is Marin arguing with himself


 
It's just waiting isn't it. We could have a speculative section of the forum awaiting events perhaps. Or mid season breaks. Or writers' strikes. I think we need more vuelta coverage actually.


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> As opposed to USADA who are boiling Lance.


 Nearly up to my standard Monkey Man


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Nearly up to my standard Monkey Man


 
I wouldn't presume to aspire to such heights depths.


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its not daft picking on him when you are tweaking someone who calls themselves 86TDFWinner


 Is tweaking a euphemism for trolling?


----------



## Red Light (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Is tweaking a euphemism for trolling?



No


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Is tweaking a euphemism for trolling?


Possibly not...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=*tweaking*


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Possibly not...
> www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=*tweaking*


 Thanks Chuffy for the fuller explanation.
Next question then; is methamphetamine hydrochloride on the WADA list and is Red Light accusing LemondTdFWinner of being on it?


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Thanks Chuffy for the fuller explanation.
> Next question then; is methamphetamine hydrochloride on the WADA list and is Red Light accusing LemondTdFWinner of being on it?


I think amphetamines might be on the list...


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I think amphetamines might be on the list...


 Really? In that case, Jacques Anqu... oh hang on. stet that.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

I haven't said anything in a while.... that's all really.


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I haven't said anything in a while.... that's all really.


 Give it a rest mate


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

Ok......


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Ok......


Why is your dog being attacked by a reggae octopus?


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

I hope some more bitter losers or ego-crazed sporting administrators with a vendetta come out with some new trumped up nonsense pretty soon. Otherwise we're all going to vanish up each other's fundaments.


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

So, anyway, come back Yello, there's a good chap.
Can you predict the future for me? Today is deadline day for Team LA to accept the punishment or go to arbitration.
If, the former, then LA will have his titles stripped, have to pay back the winnings(?), and owe SCA Promotions the £5m he copped for the seven wins. The evidence will remain, in theory at least, unheard and he can play the "I'm innocent but I'm tired of fighting this witchunt....ad nauseam). Many will accept that argument and continue to believe.
If he contests it, then all the stuff will come out and he surely must expect to be found guilty. Same punishments, morally bankrupt and financial implications of a high order too.
What's your call on this one or have I summed up wrongly?


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Why is your dog being attacked by a reggae octopus?


 
I've no idea. I'll ask him what happened later. At the moment he's a bit, um, chilled out shall we say.

Anyways, here's an interesting read to pass the time for midnight Texas time. Betsy Andreu answers 5 questions....

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/5-questions-betsy-andreu



> This is arguably the biggest fraud in the history of sport. Bernie Madoff would be proud. Maybe even jealous.


 
God I fancy that women.


----------



## just jim (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> So, anyway, come back Yello, there's a good chap.


 
This thread would be useless without yello!
(no offence rich p, mind)


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> I am not saying Lemond doped but you need to look to yourself also throwing around accusations too against someone who has yet to be shown to have doped and then throwing a fit when someone even dares to suggest that your hero might have partaken of the substances almost everyone in the peleton took in those days (according to Fignon)


 
AGAIN, problem with your arguement: Lance HAS tested positive(on more than one occasion, thats fact), he's been dogged by doping allegations for the better part of a decade. he's been banned from competition...


Lemond? last I looked: NONE of that stuff he was involved in......so, yeah, i can bitch and complain about someone who;'s been clean for over 20+ yrs, and not a single thing from any CREDIBLE sources has claimed otherwise, while a guy who many dont like has been dogged by doping allegations for over 10+ yrs, and is about to get all of his TDF titles stripped from him, when people seem to turn a blind eye, to a known cheater, then call out a guy who's been cleabn for over 20+ yrs. Not only do I find that hypocritical, but also Ironic.

*I will ask you(or anyone else) again to please post ANY CREDIBLE: sources that claim that Lemond has doped @ ANY time during his career. ANY investigations into such? Any suspensions from any cycling governing body? Any grand jury investigations involving Greg for anything?*

*Please post ANY of this material/proof/evidence Ive asked for, can you not do that, or do you choose not to do that? It's a simple question, that requires a simple answer, anything else but a response WITH THE ANSWERS to what i've asked you for now(3 times), proves you know nothing about Lemond, and you're infact a troll, a liar, and or a siht starter & you're just a typical Pharmstrong lackey/koolaid sipping fanboy, prove me wrong and post said "proof" please*.......I'll be waiting for your response.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

gavroche said:


> Just for the record, Fignon was not at his best on this final day as he was suffering from saddle sore and couldn't fing a comfortable position to ride in. That must have affected his performance surely.


 
Nope, according to some, Lemond obviously cheated to win somehow b/c he made up 58 seconds during a TT to win the TDF.


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

just jim said:


> This thread would be useless without yello!
> (no offence rich p, mind)


 Yeah but he's off having a cold shower dreaming of Betsy!


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Can you predict the future for me?


 
Nope. No idea what he'll do.

I can suggest what I think to be a logical best step - elect for arbitration and raise questions about USADA's scope to sanction - but in doing that, he accepts USADA's jurisdiction and I'm not sure he'll ever do that. He wants to play out the 'kangaroo court' line. He wants to take this to where he can control it better, i.e. the courts, but there's no route there yet. He can't do that until his exhausted the arbitration processes available to him (USADA then CAS)... and by that stage he's probably sunk anyway.

He could, and it'd not surprise me if he id, simply ignore today's deadline and try and weather it out. Simply dismiss USADA and cycling as jealous witch-hunters, and hope his public stay faithful. He will be sanctioned and receive a lifetime ban (we know USADA will do that because we've seen it already) That means no triathlon, and that will hurt. He may then try and fight that latter aspect in the courts - but not get anywhere because he can't claim foul over something he ignored.

Imho, he simply has to elect for arbitration (no doubt closed) to stand any chance.

SCA are watching and waiting. No doubt so are The Sunday Times.... and a few others.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I hope some more bitter losers or ego-crazed sporting administrators with a vendetta come out with some new trumped up nonsense pretty soon. Otherwise we're all going to vanish up each other's fundaments.


 
LOL, why are they "bitter"? please explain.....


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> LOL, why are they "bitter"? please explain.....


 Are you American? Chuffy is using heavy irony.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Nope. No idea what he'll do.
> 
> I can suggest what I think to be a logical best step - elect for arbitration and raise questions about USADA's scope to sanction - but in doing that, he accepts USADA's jurisdiction and I'm not sure he'll ever do that. He wants to play out the 'kangaroo court' line. He wants to take this to where he can control it better, i.e. the courts, but there's no route there yet. He can't do that until his exhausted the arbitration processes available to him (USADA then CAS)... and by that stage he's probably sunk anyway.
> 
> ...


 
They'll also IMO, strip him of atleast a few, if not ALL of his titles.....thats probably the most important thing to him.

Like i said earlier, once that happens, he automatically becomes irrelevant, and Lemond becomes the ONLY american to win the TDF.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Are you American? Chuffy is using heavy irony.


 I am, but I dont "get" why anyone would be "bitter" about it? Armstrong did this to himself, so he needs to accept any scorn/criticism he receives for this matter. How again is someone "bitter" about it?


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

I'll let him explain - I'm due at the Chili Pickle for a meal and they do the best Indain food, ever, anywhere in the world. Cyalaters.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> They'll also IMO, strip him of atleast a few, if not ALL of his titles.....thats probably the most important thing to him.


 
I deliberately didn't mention that because I genuinely don't have an opinion how that'll pan out. I'm simply not sure. And, in truth, not concerned.

And on another subject (and it is _another_ subject  ), I know you're a big fan of Lemond etc but is there really a need to mention him quite so often? No one here has ever doubted his being clean - no one here with any degree of credibility at least.


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I deliberately didn't mention that because I genuinely don't have an opinion how that'll pan out. I'm simply not sure. And, in truth, not concerned.


 
Hard to say, too many combinations depending on what they go with.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm due at the Chili Pickle for a meal and they do the best Indain food, ever, anywhere in the world.


 
You're illustrating irony aren't you?


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Aug 2012)

I don't think this has been linked before, but it makes an interesting read -

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I've no idea. I'll ask him what happened later. At the moment he's a bit, um, chilled out shall we say.


May I refer you to Section 8 of the WADA Banned List.



> Anyways, here's an interesting read to pass the time for midnight Texas time. Betsy Andreu answers 5 questions....
> http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/5-questions-betsy-andreu
> God I fancy that women.


Blimey, most unlike you Yello! Mind you, she does have a bit of a fanclub doesn't she? Fine lady.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> I am, but I dont "get" why anyone would be "bitter" about it? Armstrong did this to himself, so he needs to accept any scorn/criticism he receives for this matter. How again is someone "bitter" about it?


Standard issue in the Armstrong Fan Club kit (along with the secret decoder ring that tells you when the testers are coming round) is a set of key phrases and stock responses. One of the commonest is to portray anyone critical of LA as being 'bitter' or 'jealous'. Also gets used to describe vehement anti-dopers like Kimmage and Walsh. In the case of Kimmage it's probably correct, but that doesn't make him wrong.

And please, enough of the Lemond stuff already. We get it. Use the Ignore list if you have to, it would be better for all of us.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

Cheers SJ, I meant to link it earlier but got caught up responding to other stuff.

The article does unintentionally give rise to a false impression. At the time of the Swiss lab test (2001), UCI weren't signed up to WADA so any test result would not have gone to them - only UCI. So somewhat easier for them to orchestrate a cover up. Note also this....



> Saugy told USADA that Armstrong’s samples were indicative of EPO use. *In May 2011* Saugy admitted to attending a meeting with former US Postal sports director Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong to discuss details of the early EPO test method.


 
So USADA only had notice (officially) of a possible cover up comparatively recently.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> May I refer you to Section 8 of the WADA Banned List..


 
S'okay, he has a TUE.... well, he does now.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Cheers SJ, I meant to link it earlier but got caught up responding to other stuff.
> 
> The article does unintentionally give rise to a false impression. At the time of the Swiss lab test (2001), UCI weren't signed up to WADA so any test result would not have gone to them - only UCI. So somewhat easier for them to orchestrate a cover up. Note also this....
> ...
> So USADA only had notice (officially) of a possible cover up comparatively recently.


The bit that struck me was where he explains that it might be possible for the sample to be _indicative_ rather than a straight positive. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that the 'I had a positive taken care of' line has a touch of self-aggrandising simplification about it. Any meeting between LA, the lab + UCI is completely and utterly out of order though.


----------



## Crackle (23 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> So, anyway, come back Yello, there's a good chap.
> Can you predict the future for me? Today is deadline day for Team LA to accept the punishment or go to arbitration.
> If, the former, then LA will have his titles stripped, have to pay back the winnings(?), and owe SCA Promotions the £5m he copped for the seven wins. The evidence will remain, in theory at least, unheard and he can play the "I'm innocent but I'm tired of fighting this witchunt....ad nauseam). *Many will accept that argument and continue to believe*.
> If he contests it, then all the stuff will come out and he surely must expect to be found guilty. Same punishments, morally bankrupt and financial implications of a high order too.
> What's your call on this one or have I summed up wrongly?


 
Just that bit. I'm not sure it's true anymore, of course you'll never carry everyone but there's been quite a bit of self-examination in the press, especially the American press and doubts expressed. Armstrong is not where he was when this begun and probably won't ever be.


----------



## yello (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> The bit that struck me was where he explains that it might be possible for the sample to be _indicative_ rather than a straight positive.


 
I think I posted a link a whilst back to Ashenden's fuller explanation of how this can happen. I liked also when he mentioned that WADAs limits were "ultra conservative". It seems analysts can be pretty darned certain of the presence of EPO but the official threshold would call it a negative. Complex stuff methinks.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I think I posted a link a whilst back to Ashenden's fuller explanation of how this can happen. I liked also when he mentioned that WADAs limits were "ultra conservative". It seems analysts can be pretty darned certain of the presence of EPO but the official threshold would call it a negative. Complex stuff methinks.


Similar to a drink drive test. Someone can have 34mg in their blood and walk free because they are below the threshold for a prosecution but they cannot dispute they have been drinking.


----------



## Crackle (23 Aug 2012)

This is the basis of the biological passport is it not.


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I think I posted a link a whilst back to Ashenden's fuller explanation of how this can happen. I liked also when he mentioned that WADAs limits were "ultra conservative". It seems analysts can be pretty darned certain of the presence of EPO but the official threshold would call it a negative. Complex stuff methinks.


Yup. And given that the TdS sample has been loudly touted as a covered up +tive (thanks to Lance's description) if it turns out to be 'merely' indicative then so far as perception goes, the waters just get more heavily muddied than ever before. Haterz will simply go with the 'WADA limits are too strict and it's as good as a positive' line. Fanboys will go with the 'see, he passed another test and Floyd is a fat liar' line and anyone with sense will focus on the fact that a meeting between athlete, laboratory and governing body in charge of sanctions is completely and utterly out of order, _no matter what the status of the sample._

Something for everyone...<sigh>


----------



## marinyork (23 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> Just that bit. I'm not sure it's true anymore, of course you'll never carry everyone but there's been quite a bit of self-examination in the press, especially the American press and doubts expressed. Armstrong is not where he was when this begun and probably won't ever be.


 
I think the American media are less hostile because fairly similar things have happened in Athletics for even further back in time that came to light not so long ago e.g. Antonio Pettigrew, Graham trial and co that's put it back in their minds.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I deliberately didn't mention that because I genuinely don't have an opinion how that'll pan out. I'm simply not sure. And, in truth, not concerned.
> 
> And on another subject (and it is _another_ subject  ), I know you're a big fan of Lemond etc but is there really a need to mention him quite so often? No one here has ever doubted his being clean - no one here with any degree of credibility at least.


 

Fair enough.......I think he gets his titles stripped, and the record books show as much, thats just my opinion.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (23 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Standard issue in the Armstrong Fan Club kit (along with the secret decoder ring that tells you when the testers are coming round) is a set of key phrases and stock responses. One of the commonest is to portray anyone critical of LA as being 'bitter' or 'jealous'. Also gets used to describe vehement anti-dopers like Kimmage and Walsh. In the case of Kimmage it's probably correct, but that doesn't make him wrong.
> 
> And please, enough of the Lemond stuff already. We get it. Use the Ignore list if you have to, it would be better for all of us.


 

LOL, I knew that(about Pharmstrong)......I'll chill out on Lemond.....


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

Good man.


----------



## beastie (23 Aug 2012)

I


Red Light said:


> I'm talking about the specifics of the LA case, not USADA cases in general. And its not based on speculation about what evidence the Grand Jury turne up and whether its available to USADA. Its based on what USADA said in front of Sparks as recorded in his judgements. and that is its going to be based primarily on hearsay evidence.


You obviously don't understand what hearsay is. Hearsay in testimony is reporting what some body else said about the defendant/incident etc. If a witness says " I saw LA take EPO" or " he sold me some smack" for example; that is NOT hearsay but direct evidence. Simples


----------



## rich p (23 Aug 2012)

For those who want to know some of the background to all this...
... http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years


----------



## thom (23 Aug 2012)

Betsy Andreu 5 questions


----------



## Chuffy (23 Aug 2012)

Something coming out at 10 o'clock EST (3am GMT) according to @theraceradio.


----------



## Andy84 (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Something coming out at 10 o'clock EST (3am GMT) according to @theraceradio.




US cyclist Lance Armstrong has announced he will no longer fight drug charges from the US anti-doping agency, ahead of a Friday deadline.

In a statement sent to Associated Press, Armstrong, 40, says he is innocent but weary of the accusations.

His decision could lead to sanctions from the doping agency, including a lifetime ban from cycling and the loss of his tour titles.

The seven-time Tour de France winner retired from cycling in 2011.

The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) alleges he used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO, steroid and blood transfusions.

Armstrong sued in federal court to block the charges but lost.

'Nonsense'

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now," Armstrong said in the statement.

"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999.

"Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's [USADA's chief executive] unconstitutional witch hunt.

"The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense."

Armstrong had until 06:00 GMT Friday to decide whether to continue fighting the USADA charges.

The cyclist earlier accused the agency of offering "corrupt inducements" to other riders to testify against him.

The agency can impose a lifetime ban and recommend Armstrong be stripped of his titles.

Armstrong, who survived testicular cancer prior to his record-breaking Tour wins, retired after the 2005 Tour de France but made a comeback in 2009.

He retired for a second time in February 2011.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384#TWEET204705


----------



## johnr (24 Aug 2012)

USADA banned him for life and stripped him of all titles according to BBC . Bet Mr McQuaid is breathing a sigh of relief that he has just put up his hands.


----------



## raindog (24 Aug 2012)

Does this mean we never get to see the evidence?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2012)

I guess it was too much to expect to hear "enough is enough, yeah I did it".


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

I don't think this is over yet. I was hoping Armstrong might take the arbitration line but I guess that was too much to expect. The guy is just going to continue the 'deny deny deny' line. He's a fool, he's continually painting that corner smaller.

USADA could release a fact find, or statement of findings (or whatever the official term is) that discloses evidence. They'll wait until the arbitration of Bruyneel and that other bloke (was it Pepe Martin) before that though.

I suspect USADA will announce their sanction and the date for the hearing(s) pretty quickly. They'll want to make this seem like business as usual.


----------



## Noodley (24 Aug 2012)

Now let's sit back and watch him "get fed up fighting it" when people start coming after their money...


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

I think I'm giving up. 50+ pages more overnight in The Clinic to read and digest. I've got real work to do and the only way I'll have time to catch up is if it rains today!

I've not even read Armstrong's statement in full. Apparently, it threatens/mention/hints at legal action should/when USADA sanction him. That doesn't surprise me. More than anything else, Armstrong wants to stop the details of the evidence getting out.


----------



## Aperitif (24 Aug 2012)

Thanks everyone - it has been a good read so far. This morning I read Matt Seaton's blog and..."yello, you are Matt Seaton AICMFP"! 
Matt Seaton's blog.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Seaton held few punches there. I suspect a few journalists will now find themselves less afraid to write what they've 'known all along'.


----------



## Noodley (24 Aug 2012)

...if only they had had the courage to do this many years ago. They need to take a serious look at themselves! 

Now, I wonder when the (updated) English version of LA Confidential will appear on the shelves


----------



## asterix (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I think I'm giving up. 50+ pages more overnight in The Clinic to read and digest. I've got real work to do and the only way I'll have time to catch up is if it rains today!
> 
> I've not even read Armstrong's statement in full. Apparently, it threatens/mention/hints at legal action should/when USADA sanction him. That doesn't surprise me. More than anything else, Armstrong wants to stop the details of the evidence getting out.


 

They are saying that the killer blow is the prospect of his former team mates testifying against him. It is unfortunate that he has 'given up' because if his team mates want to testify under oath it would be better to give them the opportunity IMO.


----------



## subaqua (24 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> Does this mean we never get to see the evidence?


 
likely


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

Pretty much as expected. Still blustering and obfuscating and issuing litiginous threats.
Comically he still maintains that USADA don't have jurisdiction despite Sparks throwing his case out.
His statement also says," _At an absolute minimum, UCI and USADA should go to CAS to resolve the jurisdiction issue before any proceedings begin, a solution offered by UCI but rejected by USADA."_
USADA offered to go to CAS to have thecase heard but Lance Armstrong, the doper, offers to go to CAS to resolve jurisdiction. Yet another obfuscation and pathetic delaying tactic.


----------



## asterix (24 Aug 2012)

Is it therefore true that since 1995 (Miguel Indurain) only in 3, recent, years have riders (Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans and Bradley Wiggins) won the Tour clean?


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

subaqua said:


> likely


 
I'd say 'unlikely'.

The evidence will out one way or another. We've the arbitration for both Bruyneel and Martin to come, USADA to make conclusory statements - both of those could see official channels. Then we've got Hamilton's book, probably other witnesses too may want to publish, JV will slowly dribble info out just to prolong his own torture. There'll be lawsuits against Armstrong with the court packed with journalists hanging on every word of the prosecutions case. A potentially restarted federal case the same. Then there'll be leaks of course.

We'll see the evidence one way or another.


----------



## jdtate101 (24 Aug 2012)

A sad day for the sport, no matter what camp you sit in.
One thing I'm quite sure of is that we've not seen the last of this circus yet, as only the UCI can strip him of his titles, and from what I've read, they don't agree with the USADA case. It will probably have to go to CAS first to see who has the overriding authority (USADA or UCI), which will probably take years to resolve!

On so it rumbles on...and on and on and on and on......(repeat until the end of time!)


----------



## ComedyPilot (24 Aug 2012)

Oh dear..........

The 'greatest' TDF winner turns out to, well....................

I'm not angry, just disappointed.


----------



## MichaelM (24 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> Fair enough.......I think he gets his titles stripped, and the record books show as much, thats just my opinion.


 
Please p.m. me 6 numbers between 1 and 44!


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

He's still an awesome bike rider.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

asterix said:


> Is it therefore true that since 1995 (Miguel Indurain) only in 3, recent, years have riders (Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans and Bradley Wiggins) won the Tour clean?


 Sastre?


----------



## Strathlubnaig (24 Aug 2012)

Who was it said 'pro cycling is like sausages...I love them but don't want to know how they are made' ?


----------



## Fletch456 (24 Aug 2012)

His titles are being removed as a result of him announcing he will no longer fight the charges.... I don't like the man and there is far too much mud for some to stick if it went to court but this is bad for cycling - just tweeted by Cycling Weekly "Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his seven Tour titles and banned from WADA sport after announcing he will not contest USADA case. " As for the governing body/ies - Nose spite and face comes to mind.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (24 Aug 2012)

Tell me this, who actually 'strips the titles' ? Is it the UCI, ASO ?? Is USADA's title stripping merely symbolic ?


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

An interesting interview with Tygart here in which he says that they will release the evidence after the other cases have been heard. Whether Bruyneel will want to go to arbitration whereby some or all of the evidence will be aired is doubtful. Lance would be bunging him a few bob to keep schtum if he had any left.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24R6Deq5I


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Sastre?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Tell me this, who actually 'strips the titles' ? Is it the UCI, ASO ?? Is USADA's title stripping merely symbolic ?


 
I put forward a suggestion in the caff...



threebikesmcginty said:


> I'd like to think it was a sort of anti-award ceremony whereby someone theatrically rips the medals off him and then a flunky kicks his sorry arse out of the door.


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> He's still an awesome bike rider.


I prefer to think of him as a wart on the arse of professional cycling, the worst thing that ever happened to it in it's history.

And that isn't because he doped - they nearly all did at one point - it's because of the Mafia Don like hold he tried to put on anyone who attempted to clean the sport up.

Lance Armstrong is a walking turd.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Fletch456 said:


> His titles are being removed as a result of him announcing he will no longer fight the charges.... I don't like the man and there is far too much mud for some to stick if it went to court but this is bad for cycling - just tweeted by Cycling Weekly "Lance Armstrong will be stripped of his seven Tour titles and banned from WADA sport after announcing he will not contest USADA case. " *As for the governing body/ies - Nose spite and face comes to mind*.


USADA, an anti-doping agency covering all sports, are the people to thank for this. The UCI, who are the guys actually in charge of cycling, have been doing their desperate best to kick this under the carpet and have been covering Armstrong's arse since 1999.

It is the job of both of them to stop dopers and kick them out of the sport. Only one of them is actually making a serious attempt at doing this.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Aug 2012)

Just been chatting about this at work - just seems to be another sad indictment of the world we live in. Money and power have a lot to answer for.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Twitter still crawling with deluded fanboys and girls. Clueless morons, every last one of them.


----------



## Ian H (24 Aug 2012)

It's just part of the rich tapestry of cycle sport - and I'm not talking only about pro sport.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Ian H said:


> It's just part of the rich tapestry of cycle sport - and I'm not talking only about pro sport.


Ok, so I doped with glucose tablets on the Kernow & South West 600k. Better strip me of my SR series.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I'd say 'unlikely'.
> 
> The evidence will out one way or another. We've the arbitration for both Bruyneel and Martin to come, USADA to make conclusory statements - both of those could see official channels. Then we've got Hamilton's book, probably other witnesses too may want to publish, JV will slowly dribble info out just to prolong his own torture. There'll be lawsuits against Armstrong with the court packed with journalists hanging on every word of the prosecutions case. A potentially restarted federal case the same. Then there'll be leaks of course.
> 
> We'll see the evidence one way or another.


This, I think, hope. People need to see the evidence but exactly. With this capitualtion out will come peoples stories. This is a last tactic by Armstrong to keep it all quiet and it will work for a short time and in the longer term we'll be arguing over it for years. Satisfying for those of us who know but quite difficult to explain how this makes him guilty to anyone outside the sport.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (24 Aug 2012)

brilliant, anyone want to buy some US Postal jerseys?


----------



## Fletch456 (24 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Tell me this, who actually 'strips the titles' ? Is it the UCI, ASO ?? Is USADA's title stripping merely symbolic ?


 According to Cycling Weekly Tweet "To confirm, USADA does have authority to strip Armstrong on his Tour titles (and other results) under WADA code which UCI/cycling..... "


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

re who does the stripping of titles, I _think_ it's probably formally/officially UCI but it's like a royal ascent thing - UCI are bound by their agreement with WADA and have to respect the decision. So practically it is USADA that strips the titles. IF UCI refuse to recognise the sanction, they themselves face sanction and probably expulsion from the olympic movement by the IOC. So no cycling at the Olympics Games.

Another thing, re Armstrong's appeal. My understanding is that he can't. By refusing the arbitration process, he has effectively said he does not contest the charges or - to rephrase - he accepts the sanction. There's no route to CAS. You can't appeal a decision you've effectively agreed with. As I said earlier, I reckon he's painted himself into a corner.

If he tries the court route, they'll just bounce it saying he hasn't exhausted the options made available to him. Again, you can't complain about a process you haven't taken part in.

He'll continue his fight in the court of public opinion, and the tide will slowly slowly turn against him until nobody cares. And he'll still protest his innocence. It's the one thing I've never been able to factor in to my thinking - Armstrong himself. Some say he's a sociopath, that he'll never admit because he doesn't believe he's done anything wrong. I've no idea about that but there'll no doubt be bio-pics in time that explore his personality. It'll be something to watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon.


----------



## gb155 (24 Aug 2012)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> brilliant, anyone want to buy some US Postal jerseys?


Yup

Lance Armstrong is still a legend 

Thus ends my involvement in this topic


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

gb155 said:


> Yup
> 
> Lance Armstrong is still a bellend
> 
> Thus ends my involvement in this topic


I agree entirely.


----------



## MichaelM (24 Aug 2012)

gb155 said:


> Lance Armstrong is still a legend


 
Built on lies, lies, and more lies.


----------



## albion (24 Aug 2012)

"Some say he's a sociopath"

Did he kill Nixon too?


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Built on lies, lies, and more lies.


'Legend' and 'almighty c*nt' are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Cyclopathic (24 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> LOL, I knew that(about Pharmstrong)......I'll chill out on Lemond.....


I thought you were Greg Lamond?


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

If he's stripped of the titles, who gets them?

1999 it would be Zulle of Festina fame.

2000, 2001, 2003 would be Jan Ullrich..... Not exactly Mr Clean. 

2002 Beloki..... Lots of smoke, but no fire. Well... not much. But we all love him because of that horrid crash taking his pure speed from him.

2004 Kloden. Blood doping allegations - not sure where that one ended up....

2005 would be Basso. Lots of smoke. Not without fire.

So... Take lance's victores away and award the races to Zulle, Ullrich, Beloki, Kloden and Basso instead. That'd be fair.

I've thought that pro cycling was dirty since before I started to read about it and watch it in the mid-80s. I'm pretty sure it's still dirty in parts and I do not subscribe to the notion that certain riders cannot possibly be doping because we love them or we admire them or they have cute, sad faces or they inspired us to turn our lives around or started a cancer charity.

I always thought LA was a doper, partly because I spent the TdF weeks in France for his winning years. Opinion was clear and undivided over there.

But... Why remove his victories and hand them to other dopers or probable dopers?

Or... Do we count back down the GC for all those years until we get to a clean rider (one who was so little known that he was hardly tested)?


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Some hilarious fanboy posts on the Road.CC story. I mean, either *seriously* deluded or paid for because I can't believe anyone can be as stupid as some of these guys.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Some hilarious fanboy posts on the Road.CC story. I mean, either *seriously* deluded or paid for because I can't believe anyone can be as stupid as some of these guys.


 
I never believe _anything_ I read on that site...


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I never believe _anything_ I read on that site...


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> But... Why remove his victories and hand them to other dopers or probable dopers?


 
What makes you think they'll be handed to anyone else?


----------



## MichaelM (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Some hilarious fanboy posts on the Road.CC story. I mean, either *seriously* deluded or paid for because I can't believe anyone can be as stupid as some of these guys.


 
I particularly like the "_come on USADA - show us what evidence you've got"_ type posts.


----------



## Cyclopathic (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> He's still an awesome bike rider.


But how great would he have been without dope. No doubt he'd have been good but would he have been great? Possibly not. Also it's about much more than bike riding skill. His actions have an impact on the sport and others in it. I think that his actions really do bar him from being considered great in any way.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I particularly like the "_come on USADA - show us what evidence you've got"_ type posts.


Great, aren't they? You could almost believe the old hater myths about Lance having an army of interns posting favourable propaganda and smearing enemies.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Twitter still crawling with deluded fanboys and girls. Clueless morons, every last one of them.


 


Chuffy said:


> 'Legend' and 'almighty c*nt' are not mutually exclusive.


 


Chuffy said:


> Some hilarious fanboy posts on the Road.CC story. I mean, either *seriously* deluded or paid for because I can't believe anyone can be as stupid as some of these guys.


 
Do you have a life? If there was a medal for unpleasantness then you'd be sprinting for it.


----------



## thom (24 Aug 2012)

_UCI comment:_
_
The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him._

_The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code._

_Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken._

_As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code._

_Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make._


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Do you have a life? If there was a medal for unpleasantness then you'd be sprinting for it.


Wow, thanks! I'd like to thank my parents, my wife, my pet cat, all of my old school teachers etc etc etc....


----------



## Cyclopathic (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Some say he's a sociopath, that he'll never admit because he doesn't believe he's done anything wrong. I've no idea about that but there'll no doubt be bio-pics in time that explore his personality. It'll be something to watch on a rainy Sunday afternoon.


 
Who will they get to play Lance? My vote is for Danny DeVito.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> _UCI comment:_
> 
> _The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him._
> 
> ...


 
Point 2 doesn't sound promising to me, I wouldn't start making arrangements for Rio just yet


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Point 2 doesn't sound promising to me, I wouldn't start making arrangements for Rio just yet


Why not?


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Why not?


 
If as I think the UCI wants total control of its sport, there is only one option for them.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> Who will they get to play Lance?


 
Robert Downey Jr is the only one who could match him for chemical intake.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> If as I think the UCI wants total control of its sport, there is only one option for them.


UCI tried to get control of this case and failed. What do you mean 'only one option'?


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Robert Downey Jr is the only one who could match him for chemical intake.


No. He's already playing Jonathan Vaughters. Robert Carlyle as Begsie - that's a better match for Lance.


----------



## PpPete (24 Aug 2012)

Cyclopathic said:


> I thought you were Greg Lamond?


 
He's denied it.... but more importantly, he's never tested positive for it !


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> No. He's already playing Jonathan Vaughters. Robert Carlyle as Begsie - that's a better match for Lance.


 
Actually, how about Richard E Grant's Withnail?


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> UCI tried to get control of this case and failed. What do you mean 'only one option'?


 
Read between the lines, its a challenge.


----------



## zimzum42 (24 Aug 2012)

asterix said:


> Is it therefore true that since 1995 (Miguel Indurain) only in 3, recent, years have riders (Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans and Bradley Wiggins) won the Tour clean?


You reckon Big Mig was clean?

He's my number 1 cycling hero, but I don't reckon he was clean...


----------



## Buddfox (24 Aug 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> You reckon Big Mig was clean?
> 
> He's my number 1 cycling hero, but I don't reckon he was clean...


 
Have heard plenty say the same, and indeed his increase in performance one of the primary reasons why Lemond decided to knock it on the head.


----------



## Dags11 (24 Aug 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Have heard plenty stay the same, and indeed his increase in performance one of the primary reasons why *Lemond* decided to knock it on the head.


.......before _he_ got caught too?


----------



## thom (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> UCI tried to get control of this case and failed. What do you mean 'only one option'?


I think the implication is that the UCI would withdraw from WADA oversight and hence as a sport they would not be able to be part of the Olympics.
We'll see but I think it's an absurd idea personally.
More likely in my opinion is that if something sticks to the UCI itself as involved in wrongdoing/coverup, there will be refactoring within the UCI.


----------



## Hont (24 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> If he's stripped of the titles, who gets them?


 
That's surely a distraction to the main point. When you have the evidence you have to proceed until the end, otherwise no justice is done, no message is sent and the public remain unenlightened. If they have to declare no winner for those seven tours then so be it.


----------



## Hont (24 Aug 2012)

QOTD (from cyclingnews.com):

Another French cycling celebrity, Bernard Hinault, gave his very pesonal view: "I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine. It's a problem that should have been solved 10 or 15 years ago and that wasn't."


----------



## asterix (24 Aug 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> You reckon Big Mig was clean?
> 
> He's my number 1 cycling hero, but I don't reckon he was clean...


 
No, I wouldn't go bail for him, either.

When it comes to cycling heroes, although he can look a bit of a drip, I'd have to go for Cadel Evans. Impossible to believe he would cheat.


----------



## raindog (24 Aug 2012)

Hont said:


> QOTD (from cyclingnews.com):
> 
> Another French cycling celebrity, Bernard Hinault, gave his very pesonal view: "I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine. It's a problem that should have been solved 10 or 15 years ago and that wasn't."


 
 love the bloke - most of the time anyway.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Hont said:


> QOTD (from cyclingnews.com):
> 
> Another French cycling celebrity, Bernard Hinault, gave his very pesonal view: "I don't f***ing care. It's his problem not mine. It's a problem that should have been solved 10 or 15 years ago and that wasn't."


 
Cool.

Hadn't thought of it before, but I'm looking forward to other peloton exs feeling free to speak their minds.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> I think the implication is that the UCI would withdraw from WADA oversight and hence as a sport they would not be able to be part of the Olympics.
> We'll see but I think it's an absurd idea personally.
> More likely in my opinion is that if something sticks to the UCI itself as involved in wrongdoing/coverup, there will be refactoring within the UCI.


 
Hmm , unlike athletics and swimmimg the Olympics is not regarded as the pinnacle in pro-cycling. One way or the other pro cycling is going to change, I would like to think in the way you suggest, recent history however does not install me with confidence.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> I think the implication is that the UCI would withdraw from WADA oversight and hence as a sport they would not be able to be part of the Olympics.
> We'll see but I think it's an absurd idea personally.
> More likely in my opinion is that if something sticks to the UCI itself as involved in wrongdoing/coverup, there will be refactoring within the UCI.


It's quite a stretch to get to that conclusion from the UCI statement. That's not reading between the lines, that's just making stuff up from scratch. There is no way that UCI will risk Olympic status, even if the WADA code chafes occasionally.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Hmm , unlike athletics and swimmimg the Olympics is not regarded as the pinnacle in pro-cycling. One way or the other pro cycling is going to change, I would like to think in the way you suggest, recent history however does not install me with confidence.


Not the pinnacle? Two things:- 1) the riders who contested the road race and the time trial might want to argue with you on that point and 2) who do you think oversees track cycling, the Chuckle Brothers?


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

I can't see it happening either but if the UCI tried to leave WADA then the pro teams would almost certainly split before the sponsors ran for the hills.


----------



## albion (24 Aug 2012)

UCI will do as they are told.

It is how it works.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Aug 2012)

This is all very predictable but disappointing. I had hoped that Armstrong would at least have the courage to confront the evidence if he really was innocent or to put up his hand and admit it if he was not. This decision lets him and his dwindling band of true believers continue to live a life of denial and conspiracy theorizing. Still, when the USADA official report is released after the conclusion of the case as a whole (it's not just about Lance, remember), we might get to see a little more of the evidence, though unfortunately we will not get Armstrong's take on it or be able to see him examined on it.

I am, however, pleased that triathlon, the sport I am currently involved in, will not be tainted by his presence.

(Thinking of the long run of course, this decision has interesting political implications. Armstrong is well-known to have political ambitions and being the 'victim of an international conspiracy led by the French' will do him no harm at all amongst his potential core constituency of Texas voters).


----------



## thom (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> It's quite a stretch to get to that conclusion from the UCI statement. That's not reading between the lines, that's just making stuff up from scratch. There is no way that UCI will risk Olympic status, even if the WADA code chafes occasionally.


Um, I'm not trying to argue the point but it wasn't those lines that were being read into, more so the fact that the UCI had questioned USADA's jurisdiction in a court case. I think some people read too much into that and jumped to the conclusion that the UCI could leave the WADA umbrella but I think after a court ruling, the UCI's line was more so they had wanted to clarify jurisdiction on the matter, rather than challenge it per se.


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well hard evidence is better than character assasination and innuendo which is what this thread seems to run on. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice there have been in the UK have been because they were not based on hard evidence but hearsay. And it looks like USADA are going to go down the hearsay evidence route in the absence of any hard evidence.



Surely there would be no need to classify the evidence as hearsay, all it takes is for LA to accept arbitration at which point the evidence will come out?

Surely the very fact that he doesn't want to accept this suggests he believes it's more than hearsay??


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Um, I'm not trying to argue the point but it wasn't those lines that were being read into, more so the fact that the UCI had questioned USADA's jurisdiction in a court case. I think some people read too much into that and jumped to the conclusion that the UCI could leave the WADA umbrella but I think after a court ruling, the UCI's line was more so they had wanted to clarify jurisdiction on the matter, rather than challenge it per se.


My reply was more aimed at Lukesdad than you.
Yes, if the UCI had really pushed hard and ultimately refused to accept the WADA Code then the IOC would have taken a very dim view. But that was earlier in the process and I don't see how anything in their last statement points towards a threat to withdraw from the Code and hence the Olympics, either directly or indirectly.


----------



## thom (24 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> Surely there would be no need to classify the evidence as hearsay, all it takes is for LA to accept arbitration at which point the evidence will come out?
> 
> Surely the very fact that he doesn't want to accept this suggests he believes it's more than hearsay??


USADA have already pledged to release all the evidence in the future when it is appropriate as regards related legal cases.
I think others have also pointed this out on the board.


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Dags11 said:


> .......before _he_ got caught too?




Never been any evidence to suggest that so no need to drag LeMond into this, he has been critical of LA for sometime so has always been clear on his position


----------



## johnr (24 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> "Some say he's a sociopath"
> 
> Did he kill Nixon too?


 Now spreading that rumour would be a good way for canny PR people to try and rehabilitate him in the eyes of right thinking people


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Um, I'm not trying to argue the point but it wasn't those lines that were being read into, more so the fact that the UCI had questioned USADA's jurisdiction in a court case. I think some people read too much into that and jumped to the conclusion that the UCI could leave the WADA umbrella but I think after a court ruling, the UCI's line was more so they had wanted to clarify jurisdiction on the matter, rather than challenge it per se.


 
Actually from the statemant I think its about the limit of juristriction. Re. the stripping of titles and should a third party have the power to do so ? It won't only be the UCI watching this with interest.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> What makes you think they'll be handed to anyone else?


You think he'll keep them, like Bjarne Riis?


----------



## Eager2bSmaller (24 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> Surely there would be no need to classify the evidence as hearsay, all it takes is for LA to accept arbitration at which point the evidence will come out?
> 
> Surely the very fact that he doesn't want to accept this suggests he believes it's more than hearsay??


 
Or he could be so fed up of it all, doesn't believe there is any chance of getting a fair trial, and so there is no point to fighting it, as the outcome has already been decided before it begins.

Personally, without absolute proof of an action, from the actual time of the offence, I do not see how they can strip him of the titles. It seems to me a gross miscarriage.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

Eager2bSmaller said:


> Or he could be so fed up of it all, doesn't believe there is any chance of getting a fair trial, and so there is no point to fighting it, as the outcome has already been decided before it begins.
> 
> Personally, without absolute proof of an action, from the actual time of the offence, I do not see how they can strip him of the titles. It seems to me a gross miscarriage.


 Innocent of all charges but refuses the chance to hear the evidence, refute it even though by not doing do he'll lose all his TdF wins, his credibility and moral high ground? What are the chances?
Hmmmm...


----------



## NickM (24 Aug 2012)

He'll be President of the USA soon. Then USADA had better watch out, and he'll get his titles back.

Or maybe not...


----------



## Scoosh (24 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> .....
> (Thinking of the long run of course, this decision has interesting political implications. Armstrong is well-known to have political ambitions and being the 'victim of an international conspiracy led by the French' will do him no harm at all amongst his potential core constituency of Texas voters).


Armstrong for US Secretary of State !


----------



## festival (24 Aug 2012)

Any reason why the evidence cannot be made public?
Of course Armstrong will use his usual theory that if he says something loud enough and often enough it has to be the truth, backed up by the usual threats of course.
The Armstrong worshipers will pay no heed to the evidence, they won't let the facts get in the way of their devotion of the cheat, but it would be good to get it out into the open.
Mr Phil "Lance is my mate" Liggett seems to be keeping his head down.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> What makes you think they'll be handed to anyone else?


 
It's a race. There is a winner. If you remove from the results anyone who is shown to have competed in contravention of the rules, you are left with a winner.

Maybe that won't happen. I'm not a part of Pro Cycling, so i have no way of knowing.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> You think he'll keep them, like Bjarne Riis?


 
I have no idea. My guess? The titles will be stripped but not awarded to anyone else. Officially, there'll be no winner.


----------



## zimzum42 (24 Aug 2012)

The wikipedia 'talk' page for LA is warming up, there's mans out there can't wait to get stuck in to that page of praise!


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

Hont said:


> That's surely a distraction to the main point. When you have the evidence you have to proceed until the end, otherwise no justice is done, no message is sent and the public remain unenlightened. If they have to declare no winner for those seven tours then so be it.


 
It may not be the main point, but it is not a distraction. We are not the executive body in this matter, just a bunch of Internet chatters.

One of the main questions for me (among any others) is the matter of who gets the spoils if the person originally declared the winner is stripped many years later following an investigation.

In the case of Pro-Cycling in the 90s and 2000s, it is rather like choosing which fox would be the best choice to guard a hen house.

I love the extremes, the agonies, the beauty, the courage, the skill and the blunt intrusion of reality of Pro Cycling, but never for a moment did I think the sport clean.

Frankly I still don't, but I love it all the same. I loved watching LA win his tours, but it will mean nothing to me whether he's stripped or not. 

I've also been impressed by Vino, Pantani (very), Ullrich, Millar (D), Riis and many other dopers. I marvel at what they do.

It matters not a jot to me that the sport has been (and may still be) filthy with cheats. But if we're going to start stripping titles from the man who won 13 years ago, we do meet the issue of which other doper or probable doper gets declared the winner in his place.

If they declare no winner, they are making a most unusual statement and implying that the event wasn't a competition after all.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Aug 2012)

Stripping someone of a title does not automatically mean someone else will take their place.

You're essentially just putting a star next to the name and putting a footnote.


----------



## thom (24 Aug 2012)

festival said:


> Any reason why the evidence cannot be made public?
> Of course Armstrong will use his usual theory that if he says something loud enough and often enough it has to be the truth, backed up by the usual threats of course.
> The Armstrong worshipers will pay no heed to the evidence, they won't let the facts get in the way of their devotion of the cheat, but it would be good to get it out into the open.
> Mr Phil "Lance is my mate" Liggett seems to be keeping his head down.


No reason, which is why Tygart has said it will all get released... !!! ...!!!


----------



## davefb (24 Aug 2012)

I have to say, I do think it's a bit barmy to keep on with this in a way, just because of the time lapse and lack of evidence..
There's loads of other athletes with big question marks over their careers ( and other cyclists, which would be the travesty of naming them as tdf winners in place of armstrong).
Sad though, I mean we should be celebrating a great come back from massive adversity , but instead its still the cheating . 

Also to balance the 'well he obviously is guilty' is the issue of the cyclists that are getting seemingly better treatment of their admitted crimes by dobbing him in it... 

Just wish they'd got a positive test if he was so obviously cheating.


----------



## thom (24 Aug 2012)

http://audioboo.fm/boos/932360-gary-imlach-on-lance-armstrong-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

There has been a winner of the TdF since 1903, other than in the war years when it wasn't run for obvious reasons. I can't see ASO declaring "no winner", it's like saying the FA Cup final was a draw.


----------



## johnr (24 Aug 2012)

This one will run and run, and unfortunately I think most of the main actors will be people either trying to get on the gravy train, or keep their secured places aboard.

In an ethical world, the UCI leadership having nailed their colours so firmly to Pharmstrong's mast and failed, would do the decent thing and resign. But I think we all know that McQuaid and his cronies are not going to give up their international jollies easily.

The 'moral authority' above them is the Olympic body and they're all cut from the same cloth (for me, one of the highlights of the last Olympics was the approbrium heaped on Sepp Blatter by the crowd when he had the affrontery to present the medals at the women's football.) Whatever the McQuaid UCI does they are not going to order him to 'put his house in order'.

Within cycling, so many of the senior players are tainted that it is difficult to see a 'coalition of the righteous' ever being formed with the determination and cohesion to carry out a thorough and necessary house cleaning (isn't it sadly ironic that the flag bearer for clean cycling carries the logo of the Murdoch empire?).

It's certainly a golden opportunity for an investigative journalist to build a career, but they're unlikely to come from the ranks of the cycling press caravan who are almost all fanboys (sic) wedded to the same expenses-fuelled juggernaut as those they purport to hold to account and primarily motivated by their desire to keep their place within that world.

Sadly, one of the strongest likely outcomes could be that multi-national sponsors say 'stuff the lot of you' and walk away causing an implosion of pro cycling.

My hope is that within the cycling world a small cadre of courageous individuals will take on the task of cleaning it all up, and that the base of 'warts and all' fans like ourselves will have people to support in their gargantuan task. We are legion!


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Eager2bSmaller said:


> Or he could be so fed up of it all, doesn't believe there is any chance of getting a fair trial, and so there is no point to fighting it, as the outcome has already been decided before it begins.


 
That's one interpretation, I'll give you that.

He was offered a path to challenge the allegations in a closed hearing in front of an independent panel (one of the 3 members who he himself would have chosen). He then would have had the option of appealing to CAS if he didn't like the panel's decision. He had _a chance_ - even in his own terms. He knew refusing to go to arbitration would automatically lead to a guilty verdict. He deliberately chose the path that offered no chance.

We're not talking about disobeying your mum here. We talking about an internationally recognised, legally sanctioned body performing in the role that they were specifically set up to perform in. He can refuse to recognise their authority all he likes but simple fact is that they have it.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

400bhp said:


> Stripping someone of a title does not automatically mean someone else will take their place.
> 
> You're essentially just putting a star next to the name and putting a footnote.


As with Bjarne Riis?


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

User3094 said:


> Isnt it the 100th TdF in 2013? Quite ironic that no-ones actually won it yet


Too cryptic for me, I'm afraid!


----------



## NickM (24 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> ...We are not the executive body in this matter, just a bunch of Internet chatters...


Armstrong's place in cycling history, and its worth, will be determined by the perceptions of those who _follow_ cycling - the consumers of the product. Most of whom no longer buy his version of events.



Boris Bajic said:


> ...If they declare no winner, they are... implying that the event wasn't a competition after all.


It wasn't, if it was falsified by doping. It was akin to a circus - a spectacle, and nothing more.


----------



## Hont (24 Aug 2012)

davefb said:


> Just wish they'd got a positive test if he was so obviously cheating.


 
Apparently they did. And they hushed it up. Which is why we're at where we are now. 11 years later.


----------



## NickM (24 Aug 2012)

johnr said:


> ...I think we all know that McQuaid and his cronies are not going to give up their international jollies easily.
> The 'moral authority' above them is the Olympic body...


Which made it all the more sickening to see McQuaid handing out cycling medals. Couldn't they have found somebody honourable?


----------



## RWright (24 Aug 2012)

asterix said:


> Is it therefore true that since 1995 (Miguel Indurain) only in 3, recent, years have riders (Carlos Sastre, Cadel Evans and Bradley Wiggins) won the Tour clean?


 
We should find out the answer to that by about 2024.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I have no idea. My guess? The titles will be stripped but not awarded to anyone else. Officially, there'll be no winner.


For the first time in the 100+ years of the TdF, I doubt it!


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

NickM said:


> Armstrong's place in cycling history, and its worth, will be determined by the perceptions of those who _follow_ cycling - the consumers of the product. Most of whom no longer buy his version of events.
> 
> *It wasn't, if it was falsified by doping. It was akin to a circus - a spectacle, and nothing more*.


 
I'm not sure your first point either disagrees or agrees with my point you quoted next to it.

Your second point (which I quote in bold) is quite valid. But if the TdF was rendered invalid between 1999 and 2005 by cheating through doping, which were the years when it was a valid competition?

Some would argue that a Londoner with sideburns and Olympic medals _would_ never dope. So 2012 was valid...

Some say that a cuddly-looking cobber with a melancholic facial expression _could_ never dope. So 2011 counts too.

The sucker for a sweet tale will tell you that a lumbering farmer from the Basque region with an abnormally large heart is _too much the agrarian hero_ to dope. That's another five Tours in the clear.

I don't entirely agree with all of the above, but if they were 'good' years, which others were?

We all seem to like Greg Lemond these days (although I remember him as a Yank interfering in a European race). He _has_ to be clean because he was shot while hunting and speaks out against doping.

Cav is also clean,_ of course_, because he's a Manxman who sounds like a Scouser and we love them. Or something.

I adore the TdF but I'm not sure which year qualifies it as a valid competition if we use your criteria. I'm pretty sure that in some way, for one jersey or another (sometimes all of them) there has never been a year in which cheats didn't falsify the outcome.

That is the TdF. Long live, the filthy, cheat-ridden, doped-up, dirty-blooded TdF. I adore it.

If you rgue that doping render it a circus, then you are free to glory in the past century of TdF circuses. I still see it as a race.

A grimy, sometimes seedy, often tainted but always glorious and romantic and heroic race.


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

This affair is a long way from over. Armstrong won a court case against SCA in '06 when they tried to withhold a 5 million dollar bonus for his Tour wins because of a suspicion that he had been doping. His win came about because he committed perjury by denying it. I can't see how they won't sue to get the money back and land him with a criminal conviction and a jail term.

As for the "Fed up with fighting" line, he's spent ten years fighting tooth and nail against anyone who questioned him, spending a fortune on lawyers. The idea he would abandon before arbitration - where the decision would be final - is ridiculous, unless of course he is terrified of the evidence against him coming into the public domain.


----------



## NickM (24 Aug 2012)

That's a well reasoned response, Boris. I too am not sure that the outcome of any Tour de France, ever, can be taken entirely at face value. I seem to feel more cheated by that than you do - perhaps because for many years of avid following I assumed (perhaps naively, perhaps out of wishful thinking) that the sport was essentially kosher, and now it has become all too clear that it is more usually bent.

I suppose that it's a matter of individual response, and that that is all it ever can be.


----------



## NickM (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> ...and land him with a criminal conviction and *a jail term.*


Now _there's_ a sporting outcome that might be worth a punt. I wonder what odds are available?


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

I don't know if this has been posted in the interim, but USADA have confirmed they will publish the evidence against Armstrong. Up to ten former team-mates have testified.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...im-to-strip-Tour-titles-and-ban-for-life.html


----------



## davefb (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> This affair is a long way from over. Armstrong won a court case against SCA in '06 when they tried to withhold a 5 million dollar bonus for his Tour wins because of a suspicion that he had been doping. His win came about because he committed perjury by denying it. I can't see how they won't sue to get the money back and land him with a criminal conviction and a jail term.
> 
> As for the "Fed up with fighting" line, he's spent ten years fighting tooth and nail against anyone who questioned him, spending a fortune on lawyers. The idea he would abandon before arbitration - where the decision would be final - is ridiculous, unless of course he is terrified of the evidence against him coming into the public domain.


 
[

thats somewhat of a stretch, he didnt win a court case by just going "no i didnt"..
He won because not only did he say 'that wasnt what was said' , it was also backed up by everyone else and medical documentation.. The issue was someone said they overheard him talking to his cancer doctor... Of course the defence was that these were treatments during the cancer treatment, which was backed up by the medical records..

So actually it was one person said they overheard something and 8 said otherwise....

Obviously none of this proves he didn't, but it certainly doesn't prove he did.... It would of course be interesting if there was ANYONE involved who didn't have an axe to grind, wasn't doing it to avoid prosecution.. but compared to the convictions of people like Landis, there seems to be nobody.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I don't know if this has been posted in the interim, but USADA have confirmed they will publish the evidence against Armstrong. Up to ten former team-mates have testified.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...im-to-strip-Tour-titles-and-ban-for-life.html


 
They haven't confirmed *when* they will release the information though ! Because of the ongoing allegations they can't publish at the moment, but I think that there might be "delays" even after that.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I don't know if this has been posted in the interim, but USADA have confirmed they will publish the evidence against Armstrong. Up to ten former team-mates have testified.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...im-to-strip-Tour-titles-and-ban-for-life.html


 
Interesting spin in that article....




> His decision to walk away from the charges against him casts a cloud of doubt over proceedings.
> 
> The USADA have treated his move as an admission of guilt, but it is a guilt that has not been proven by arbitration hearings where the evidence against him has been judged on its merits.


 
As I said before, Armstrong had the opportunity to have that evidence "judged on it's merits". He knew how walking away would interpreted.... but he still chose to do it. The only doubt I see cast is over Armstrong's motivation for refusing arbitration.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> As I said before, Armstrong had the opportunity to have that evidence "judged on it's merits". *He knew how walking away would interpreted*.... but he still chose to do it. The only doubt I see cast is over Armstrong's motivation for refusing arbitration.


He knew that some people would interpret it as guilt, and that some people would interpret it as a witchhunt.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> They haven't confirmed *when* they will release the information though ! Because of the ongoing allegations they can't publish at the moment, but I think that there might be "delays" even after that.


 
They'll release the evidence after Bruyneel and Martin have had their hearings, and the dates for that hasn't been decided yet. Isn't that a sufficient statement for now? Believe me, they'll do it if they can. It really is not in USADAs interests not to.


----------



## rowdin (24 Aug 2012)

Just in.
Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and given a lifetime ban by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.

USADA decided he used performance-enhancing drugs to achieve his success.

Armstrong, who retired a year ago, strongly denies doping.

But the anti-doping agency said Armstrong's decision not to take the charges against him to arbitration triggers the lifetime ineligibility and erased his results from 1 August 1998.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> He knew that some people would interpret it as guilt, and that some people would interpret it as a witchhunt.


 
I'm not sure what you're saying so, I agree, yes and yes. But I think that was obvious so I'm not seeing your point.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

rowdin said:


> But the anti-doping agency said Armstrong's decision not to take the charges against him to arbitration triggers the lifetime ineligibility and erased his results from 1 August 1998.


 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-bans-armstrong-for-life-disqualifies-all-results-since-1998

Woosh! Back to 1998! I wasn't expecting that. USADA must be pretty damned sure they hold an unbeatable hand.

Edit: corrected URL - CyclingNews changed it!


----------



## rowdin (24 Aug 2012)

He's lost more than his tdf wins?


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> They'll release the evidence after Bruyneel and Martin have had their hearings, and the dates for that hasn't been decided yet. Isn't that a sufficient statement for now? Believe me, they'll do it if they can. It really is not in USADAs interests not to.


As I said, I know they can't release the evidence before the other cases conclude.
I think there will be delays afterwards, terms like "in due course" and "at the right time" do not fill me with confidence as to when the evidence will ACTUALLY be released. It is not sufficient statement, it is whitewash!
Why is it not in USADAs interest not to release the data, if they have got the result they want?


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usa...-disqualifies-all-results-since-august-1-1988
> 
> Woosh! Back to 1998! I wasn't expecting that. USADA must be pretty damned sure they hold an unbeatable hand.


404 error, what's going on here then?
OK found it!


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

rowdin said:


> He's lost more than his tdf wins?


 
Well, yes, Tour of Switzerland and the Dauphine off the top of my head, plus probably other US events, but my point really was I didn't expect USADA to reach back that far.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Excellent (as always) summary from INRNG here.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Well, yes, Tour of Switzerland and the Dauphine off the top of my head, plus probably other US events, but my point really was I didn't expect USADA to reach back that far.


Is there much more than his TdF's? Oh, the Leadville 100. That goes too.


----------



## Crackle (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Excellent (as always) summary from INRNG here.


 
This....

"If you think it is a joke to award the result to Jan Ullrich, Fernando Escartin or Joseba Beloki then the same logic dictates it is a farce for Armstrong to keep the win because he was doing the same. At the same time we can take some tiny satisfaction the rules are being applied to the letter, a refreshing change. But away from the rules the moral lesson is that there are no winners and those who could be declared a winner never stood on the podium, never wore yellow in Paris or made millions from the glory. _They remain losers, it’s a farce, so don’t dwell on it_."

says exactly what I had a couple of goes at typing without quite getting it right.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

How about all my old videos of Armstrong's TdF victories, showing also Pantani, Ulrich, Virenque, Basso, Beloki, Hincapie, Rasmussen. Do I have to bin these? I also have some of Indurain winning as well. Are these at risk???!


----------



## MichaelM (24 Aug 2012)

Cycling News Para 3:

_...including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes._

Really? That'll be a lot of $$$ to pay back.


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Excellent (as always) summary from INRNG here.


 
Thanks for that. Succinct and to the point.

It also pointed out a couple of mistakes I'd been making. It's Pedro Celaya, along with Bruyneel, that have opted for arbitration, not Pepe Marti - or Martin, as I'd been calling him! But I guess you all realised what I meant


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Cycling News Para 3:
> 
> _...including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes._
> 
> Really? That'll be a lot of $$$ to pay back.


 
Well, in practice, I don't think that ever actually happens. Medals and jerseys yes, but the prize money....


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (24 Aug 2012)

bloody hell, well I don't know what I am going to do with my hallway picture of his seven titles...


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Excellent (as always) summary from INRNG here.


It says in this article, that the rules state that the titles must be given to the second placed rider.
That should clear up any confusion on this thread.
I'll be pouring out a schnapps later to toast Jan Ullrich, winner of 4 TdFs. Well done Jan !


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

What sanction and compulsion do USADA have over a Swiss or Italian citizen? Were the offences committed on US soil which gives them jurisdiction?


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> How about all my old videos of Armstrong's TdF victories, showing also Pantani, Ulrich, Virenque, Basso, Beloki, Hincapie, Rasmussen. Do I have to bin these? I also have some of Indurain winning as well. Are these at risk???!


Got any of Merckx and Anquetil?


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> What sanction and compulsion do USADA have over a Swiss or Italian citizen? Were the offences committed on US soil which gives them jurisdiction?


 
Through WADA basically. USADA conducted the investigation and issue the sanctions, other affiliated bodies are bound to respect the decision. I know, it runs counter intuitive to laws as we take them to be but it's about combating the international nature of doping in sport. There's no 'tax haven' for doping.


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> What sanction and compulsion do USADA have over a Swiss or Italian citizen? Were the offences committed on US soil which gives them jurisdiction?


All doping cases are handed to the riders home federation for investigation and punishment. USADA only have jurisdiction over American citizens.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> What sanction and compulsion do USADA have over a Swiss or Italian citizen? Were the offences committed on US soil which gives them jurisdiction?


Don't the US have jurisdiction over everybody in the world?


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> All doping cases are handed to the riders home federation for investigation and punishment. USADA only have jurisdiction over American citizens.


 But Bruyneel has acceded to USADA's demand for arbitration.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

Well the feel good glow for cycling following the Lympics will now well and truly disappear. It will be back to business as usual in the press as cyclists are re-crowned public enemy No. 1. I guess the yanks decided to make as much noise about this as they could as they are not doing very well in cycling at the mo. Strange they were more than happy to lap it up when Lance was winning - seven tours he won. The Yanks though know a thing or two about stepping outside the law and witch hunts.


----------



## dan_bo (24 Aug 2012)

Can we set up the sweary algorythm to say l***e a*******g now?


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Got any of Merckx and Anquetil?


 
I have some of Merckx but these are of him rather than him winning. My first proper bike was a Merckx.

I think a few others have used the F word. It's a total farce.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (24 Aug 2012)

dan_bo said:


> Can we set up the sweary algorythm to say l***e a*******g now?


 
Who?


----------



## just jim (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Well the feel good glow for cycling following the Lympics will now well and truly disappear. It will be back to business as usual in the press as cyclists are re-crowned public enemy No. 1. I guess the yanks decided to make as much noise about this as they could as they are not doing very well in cycling at the mo. Strange they were more than happy to lap it up when Lance was winning - seven tours he won. The Yanks though know a thing or two about stepping outside the law and witch hunts.


 
I am feeling rather more optimistic about the future. A line has been drawn (and not the arbitrary kind) and Armstrong stepped over it. He's got a longer way to fall than others, to be blummin sure.
It is a seismic moment for the sport, and I hope it will make others think twice and realise they have a great deal to lose - especially up and coming riders.

No pressure on Wiggins to speak up about recent developments though


----------



## dan_bo (24 Aug 2012)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Who?


Already!


----------



## Get In The Van (24 Aug 2012)

not sure if this has been posted up earlier on in this thread but this is a run down of the top 5 riders in each of the tours Lance won....makes kinda sad reading for the widespread abuse that was/still going on

The Tours That Lance Won
1999​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO)​3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04)​4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO)​5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​​​2000​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO)​5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO)​​​2001​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​4. Andrei Kivilev​5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​​​2002​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping)​4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​​​2003​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)​4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping)​5. Haimar Zubeldia​​​2004​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08)​3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)​4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​​​2005​1. Lance Armstrong​2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)​3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)​5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)​


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Aug 2012)

just jim said:


> I am feeling rather more optimistic about the future. A line has been drawn (and not the arbitrary kind) and Armstrong stepped over it. He's got a longer way to fall than others, to be blummin sure.
> It is a seismic moment for the sport, and I hope it will make others think twice and realise they have a great deal to lose - especially up and coming riders


 
I agree. This is all about the past.


----------



## albion (24 Aug 2012)

It will be interesting if/when the evidence is released.
Anecdotal evidence here is far too enthusiastic to have intended effect.

Sadly the whole thing is a green light for further cheating, especially in the real big money sports.
I consider cycling to be a minor money sport .


----------



## raindog (24 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Sadly the whole thing is a green light for further cheating, especially in the real big money sports.


Cheating and getting busted for it years later is a green light for others to cheat?


----------



## raindog (24 Aug 2012)

Get In The Van said:


> 4. Christophe *Moreau* (‘98 busted for EPO)​​


​Moreau ​


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Well the feel good glow for cycling following the Lympics will now well and truly disappear. It will be back to business as usual in the press as cyclists are re-crowned public enemy No. 1. I guess the yanks decided to make as much noise about this as they could as they are not doing very well in cycling at the mo. Strange they were more than happy to lap it up when Lance was winning - seven tours he won. The Yanks though know a thing or two about stepping outside the law and witch hunts.




I wouldn't criticise the US on this one. Reality is that one of their sporting icons has been caught and exposed as a cheat. I applaud their efforts in getting on with it, you surely can't be suggesting that they have only done this now because they don't have as much success at the moment.
For USADA to go ahead with this is a brave decision on their part, it would have been the easiest decision in the world to let this go and accept the arguments about what good it will do, how much damage will it do to cycling or the wider area of sport , or even just plain sticking up for the good old boy hero of US sport being attacked by those godamm Frenchies.
He has had his chance to defend himself and chosen not to, everything he says after that is nonsense and clearly aimed at avoiding evidence being aired in public. 
The TexMex barbecued chickens have come home to be roasted.


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

The most positive thing to come out of this will be the knowledge that whatever you take in the way of PEDS that may be undetectable now science will eventually catch up and you'll be nailed it some point in the future.


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Just had a little check on some Twitter accounts.

Seems like a reluctance to comment from a number of big names in British cycling.

Presumably they are all too busy??

Come on let's hear from you Lord Lanceamort is definitely dead and won't be coming back so you have nothing to fear I can't wait to see who moves first on this one, it's just like the Sun and the Prince Harry pictures all over again !


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> The most positive thing to come out of this will be the knowledge that whatever you take in the way of PEDS that may be undetectable now science will eventually catch up and you'll be nailed it some point in the future.


 
Huge numbers of people in US athletics got away with it from the mid 80s to around 2000. A few got caught (although quite a number quite a number of years later). It was one of the reasons why USADA was set up because the previous USOC systems were probably corrupt and/or incompetent.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> The most positive thing to come out of this will be the knowledge that whatever you take in the way of PEDS that may be undetectable now science will eventually catch up and you'll be nailed it some point in the future.


Do you think that all the dopers have been caught, or just a percentage of them?
The sad thing is that there are people who think they can get away with it, and unfortunately some (many?) do


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Eager2bSmaller said:


> Or he could be so fed up of it all, doesn't believe there is any chance of getting a fair trial, and so there is no point to fighting it, as the outcome has already been decided before it begins.
> 
> Personally, without absolute proof of an action, from the actual time of the offence, I do not see how they can strip him of the titles. It seems to me a gross miscarriage.



Well they can because he has not offered any defence.

If you follow your logic on this a court case for murder would go as follows, the alleged murderer is charged on the back of eye witness testimony, but refuses to attend court where the evidence can be heard, then claims that he's innocent as there is no firm evidence against him.

I think you should prepare yourself for a big shock because once these other cases are settled and the evidence comes to light I think you will have some very detailed eye witness accounts including household name riders who will say they saw him dope. 

When that happens, he will no doubt claim they are all liars and it's a further conspiracy which the Lance fans will no doubt accept because there is no time machine for us all to travel back and physically see him drop the offending growth hormones etc into his veins


----------



## albion (24 Aug 2012)

Whilst Armstrong may well be guilty, you can bet a few dollars on one of those who gave written statements coming back once retired, and saying 'I only said what was asked of me in order to continue racing'.

This leaves me slightly doubting we will ever get to see the evidence.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Whilst Armstrong may well be guilty, you can bet a few dollars on one of those who gave written statements coming back once retired, and saying 'I only said what was asked of me in order to continue racing'.
> 
> This leaves me slightly doubting we will ever get to see the evidence.


 FFS


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Whilst Armstrong may well be guilty, you can bet a few dollars on one of those who gave written statements coming back once retired, and saying 'I only said what was asked of me in order to continue racing'.
> 
> This leaves me slightly doubting we will ever get to see the evidence.


How many dollars would you like to bet? Add a few noughts if you want.

What you've suggested won't happen, because if any rider did later admit he'd lied LA could and would sue the arse off him for giving false evidence to the body that stripped him of all his TdF wins. And the evidence will come out after the correct procedures have been followed, as many have pointed out here.

I'm afraid those of you who still cling to the belief that it is all an anti-American witch hunt are sadly deluded.


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> Well they can because he has not offered any defence.
> 
> If you follow your logic on this a court case for murder would go as follows, the alleged murderer is charged on the back of eye witness testimony, but refuses to attend court where the evidence can be heard, then claims that he's innocent as there is no firm evidence against him.
> 
> ...


The growth homone allegations were from a time prior to 1997, I can't be more specific because USADA haven't published that information yet. As Armstrong has been banned from Aug 1998, I can only assume that USADA have let him off those charges.


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2012)

400bhp said:


> Stripping someone of a title does not automatically mean someone else will take their place.
> 
> You're essentially just putting a star next to the name and putting a footnote.


 
This is worth repeating.

There are various things you can do. In athletics some gold medals have been left 'vacant' for stints of time until it's been decided what to do and as 2nd place has failed a doping test of heavily suspected they haven't been upgraded to Gold. As people have posted several times now the top few in the TDFs in those years and how nearly all of them were done or heavily suspected of doping I think they'd be left vacant.

For example I watched Marion Jones win the 100m sprint in the 2000 Sydney summer olympics. In 2003 BALCO broke. 2004 she got linked to it. After various other things hintingly heavily at drug use she got stripped of the gold in 2007 after admitting. The IOC spent 2 years arguing about whether to award the silver to Thanou, but since Thanou had missed tests and been through all that jazz too and suspended from the 2004 olympics after, they now have 2 silver medals and a bronze medal and no gold.

Similarly I saw the american team win the 4x400m in Sydney. By various convoluted stories going on from 2003 it turns out that 3 of them doped and got rumbled for it between 2003 and 2008 at which point medals were taken away and overturned (by CAS) until eventually Nigeria was elevated to gold.

I'd think a very similar thing could happen with this, that the TDF winners for 1999-2005 will simply remain vacant (after a similar process of a couple of years arguing about it).


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> What you've suggested won't happen, because if any rider did later admit he'd lied LA could and would sue the arse off him for giving false evidence to the body that stripped him of all his TdF wins. And the evidence will come out after the correct procedures have been followed, as many have pointed out here.


 
Or worse than suing them (remember the federal investigation). Again sorry to be a bore but very similar things have happened in athletics. And riders would have knowledge of the fallout from BALCO as well as knowing how Lance is.


----------



## Zofo (24 Aug 2012)

What a farce--trying to re-write history never works, so lets face it- most sensible cycle fans know who the best man was over 7 tours , it was probably a fairly level playing field anyway as practically the whole peloton was on something. LA is a living legend-get over it!.


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> The growth homone allegations were from a time prior to 1997, I can't be more specific because USADA haven't published that information yet. As Armstrong has been banned from Aug 1998, I can only assume that USADA have let him off those charges.



I stand by everything I said in the original post, I used growth hormone in this example not from any specific individual charge, just one of the likely things he has used in his career.
Substitute EPO and the rest stands.
The coffee may well be brewing but Isuspect not everyone has woken up yet.


----------



## albion (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> What you've suggested won't happen, because if any rider did later admit he'd lied LA could and would sue the arse off him for giving false evidence to the body that stripped him of all his TdF wins.



And there was me already of the thought that the chorus would become 'Armstrong has paid him'.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Zofo said:


> What a farce--trying to re-write history never works, so lets face it- most sensible cycle fans know who the best man was over 7 tours , it was probably a fairly level playing field anyway as practically the whole peloton was on something. LA is a living legend-get over it!.


The old 'level playing field' line is complete crap. Read this interview with Vaughters where he explains it. Page 4 is the relevant page, but do read the rest of the story.

I'd also refer you to my earlier post about Lance being a legend...


----------



## BJH (24 Aug 2012)

Zofo said:


> What a farce--trying to re-write history never works, so lets face it- most sensible cycle fans know who the best man was over 7 tours , it was probably a fairly level playing field anyway as practically the whole peloton was on something. LA is a living legend-get over it!.



That only stands if you can prove categorically that not a single rider in those tours didn't dope. If one was clean then that makes him a cheat.

That's right a real life, all American living legend cheating, liar. 

I have no doubt that based on his track record for resorting to threats of legal action, if he was innocent he would spend every penny he has to defend himself. Of course he would also need to be absolutely innocent before attempting this course of action.

He's been caught and the ban is the consequence for his actions and you really do need to get over it


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> This is worth repeating.
> 
> There are various things you can do. In athletics some gold medals have been left 'vacant' for stints of time until it's been decided what to do and as 2nd place has failed a doping test of heavily suspected they haven't been upgraded to Gold. As people have posted several times now the top few in the TDFs in those years and how nearly all of them were done or heavily suspected of doping I think they'd be left vacant.
> 
> ...


This isn't athletics, though. It is Pro cycling and it is governed by the rules of the UCI which state that where a rider is disqualified after the results of a race have been sanctioned then the first 20 places shall be adjusted. That means the win goes to the second placed rider. What he goes on to do in future is a different matter, unless he too is disqualified from the race in question.


----------



## marinyork (24 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> This isn't athletics, though. It is Pro cycling and it is governed by the rules of the UCI which state that where a rider is disqualified after the results of a race have been sanctioned then the first 20 places shall be adjusted. That means the win goes to the second placed rider. What he goes on to do in future is a different matter, unless he too is disqualified from the race in question.


 
Think you're missing the point completely trying to be clever pointing out the obvious.

The point really being that just like in athletics they'll spend ages arguing about it (as has actually happened in cycling - again obviously). It's not like athletics actually wants vacant medals is it? The other point being looking at another sport so we can get some perspective without going into battle with each other arguing endlessly about the past.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (24 Aug 2012)

Zofo said:


> What a farce--LA is a living legend-get over it!.


 
LA will continue to devide opinion, its a marmite situation... I personally view LA based on the manner he acted towards Filippo Simeoni. I do not believe that this was the behaviour of a decent or basically nice person. Some people will view him as a legend while others like myself think he painted himself into a corner and would not want to face the humilation of being forced to face the truth.. He was a bully, a manipulator, a farce.
I wanted a hero, I wanted that super guy who got ill and recovered to greatness. I wanted that great story and to know the good guys win. Instead i got a fake, and a bully who found it acceptable to intimidate people for which he was warned by italian police about.
I was overjoyed about the news, not because I care about doping or charges against LA but because I sleep easier at night believing if your a nasty scumbag karma eventually gets you


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> I stand by everything I said in the original post, I used growth hormone in this example not from any specific individual charge, just one of the likely things he has used in his career.
> Substitute EPO and the rest stands.
> The coffee may well be brewing but Isuspect not everyone has woken up yet.


So to summarise:
1) You stand by everything you said.
2) You state he used growth hormone, because it was likely that he used it.
3) It might not have been growth hormone, it might have been EPO.
4) But you stand by everything else that you said.


----------



## rich p (24 Aug 2012)

This is a cathartic day when the man who put the science into scientific doping has admitted his guilt to any right thinkng person and all some on here are concerned about is who finished second. FFS! It's irrelevant!


----------



## laurence (24 Aug 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> LA will continue to devide opinion, its a marmite situation... I personally view LA based on the manner he acted towards Filippo Simeoni. I do not believe that this was the behaviour of a decent or basically nice person. Some people will view him as a legend while others like myself think he painted himself into a corner and would not want to face the humilation of being forced to face the truth.. He was a bully, a manipulator, a farce.
> I wanted a hero, I wanted that super guy who got ill and recovered to greatness. I wanted that great story and to know the good guys win. Instead i got a fake, and a bully who found it acceptable to intimidate people for which he was warned by italian police about.
> I was overjoyed about the news, not because I care about doping or charges against LA but because I sleep easier at night believing if your a nasty scumbag karma eventually gets you


 
^^^^^ this. The Simeoni episode was the turning point for me. any pretence in my mind that he was clean went on that stage.

he has always reminded me of the Bubble Boy in the Seinfeld episode of the same name. no one could say anything bad about the BB because he lived in a bubble and was sick, no matter how odious he was (and he was very odious). whenever you criticised LA people would say "but he had cancer".


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

User said:


> can I ask a simple question, how come Armstrong gets a life ban but a pro rider still riding gets a 2 year ban max,


As I understand it, he isn't getting a simple ban for doping. It's for doping *&* dealing/trafficking in illegal drugs.That's where the testimony from team mates comes in.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> ^^^^^ this. The Simeoni episode was the turning point for me. any pretence in my mind that he was clean went on that stage.
> 
> he has always reminded me of the Bubble Boy in the Seinfeld episode of the same name. no one could say anything bad about the BB because he lived in a bubble and was sick, no matter how odious he was (and he was very odious). whenever you criticised LA people would say "but he had cancer".


I was (probably) lucky because I only got into cycling in 2003, so I never went through the process of having to decide how I felt about this new 'hero'. I just thought he came across as a rather unpleasant alpha-male. Nothing I read or saw subsequently changed my mind on that.


----------



## zimzum42 (24 Aug 2012)

I remember Lance as a young rider in some of the early 90s tours, and he was a prick then. Some people said it was refreshing to see a new attitude in the peloton, but the rest of us just saw an arrogant bastard who had no respect for other riders (save for him coming over all emotional about Casartelli and then stealing the headlines)


----------



## Alun (24 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> Think you're missing the point completely trying to be clever pointing out the obvious.
> 
> The point really being that just like in athletics they'll spend ages arguing about it (as has actually happened in cycling - again obviously). It's not like athletics actually wants vacant medals is it? The other point being looking at another sport so we can get some perspective without going into battle with each other arguing endlessly about the past.


Not trying to be clever at all.
The UCI have laid down rules for when cyclists are disqualified.
Armstrong has been disqualified.
The rules should be followed as in the cases of Contador and Landis.
What has happened in Athletics maybe interesting, but I don't see how it will influence what should happen in this case.
There'll be plenty of argument, but provided the UCI follow their own rules, there should be no justification to ask Judge Sparks or his equivalent to intervene.


----------



## david k (24 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> The most positive thing to come out of this will be the knowledge that whatever you take in the way of PEDS that may be undetectable now science will eventually catch up and you'll be nailed it some point in the future.


we hope


----------



## MichaelM (24 Aug 2012)

Zofo said:


> What a farce--trying to re-write history never works, so lets face it- most sensible cycle fans know who the best man was over 7 tours , it was probably a fairly level playing field anyway as practically the whole peloton was on something. LA is a living legend-get over it!.


 
I always knew it was Ullrich (check the records from 1999 -2005).


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> I remember Lance as a young rider in some of the early 90s tours, and he was a prick then. Some people said it was refreshing to see a new attitude in the peloton, but the rest of us just saw an arrogant bastard who had no respect for other riders (save for him coming over all emotional about Casartelli and then stealing the headlines)


 
Armstrong wasn't, and won't be, the only prick or arrogant b*****d in Pro bike racing. Mudslinging isn't helpful to the debate. Are you suggesting all riders in these years who doped were pricks and arrogant b****ds as you put it?


----------



## fozy tornip (24 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> people would say "but he had cancer".


Had cancer, then became cancer. The _ne plus ultra_ of sports cheats.
F*ck him: squatting on his great steroidally enbeefed haunches curling turd after toxicTexan turd down onto our beloved sport for what seemed like forever.


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I was (probably) lucky because I only got into cycling in 2003, so I never went through the process of having to decide how I felt about this new 'hero'. I just thought he came across as a rather unpleasant alpha-male. Nothing I read or saw subsequently changed my mind on that.


 
You appear to be verging on pathological hatred of the guy. Get a grip.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> Had cancer, then became cancer. The _ne plus ultra_ of sports cheats.
> F*ck him: squatting on his great steroidally enbeefed haunches curling turd after toxicTexan turd down onto our beloved sport for what seemed like forever.


I'm confused. Do you like him or not? Enough with the ambiguity already!


----------



## Crankarm (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> The old 'level playing field' line is complete crap. Read this interview with Vaughters where he explains it. Page 4 is the relevant page, but do read the rest of the story.
> 
> I'd also refer you to my earlier post about Lance being a legend...


 
You're his biggest by the looks of it. You can't stop thinking or writing about him .


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> You're his biggest by the looks of it. You can't stop thinking or writing about him .


And your obsession with me is explained by what, precisely?


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

I must say that some folk seem to have a hatred of the man that verges on the ridiculous.

What the hell are you going to do when it is all done and dusted?


----------



## fozy tornip (24 Aug 2012)

Stamp the earth down.


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

And move onto to whom?


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

johnnyh said:


> I must say that some folk seem to have a hatred of the man that verges on the ridiculous.
> 
> What the hell are you going to do when it is all done and dusted?


Chuffy will find something to amuse himself with !


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Aug 2012)

William Fotheringham - as always - makes a great deal of sense here -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/aug/24/lance-armstrong-usada


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Chuffy will find something to amuse himself with !



Heheh sure hope so


----------



## david k (24 Aug 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> LA will continue to devide opinion, its a marmite situation... I personally view LA based on the manner he acted towards Filippo Simeoni. u


 
how did he act


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

johnnyh said:


> And move onto to whom?


Stupid and reductive question. You might as well say that having arrested Mulcaire we should stop caring about press corruption. Armstrong matters, because he's the poster boy, but this is much, much bigger than just him. McQuaid and Verbruggen have serious questions to answer for a start...


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I always knew it was Ullrich (check the records from 1999 -2005).


 
Ha ha! I too remember thinking that Ullrich must be a potential winner some year soon. Awesome rider..... But a doper just like Lance.

Looking back now, it's easy to forget that after 2 TdF wins, people were wondering who would win next.

In those days, five wins was an extraordinary total and six were unimaginable. Nobody spoke of seven.

Lance doped. Many of his contemporaries doped. I hate to say it, but he is one of the key reasons that the TdF enjoys its current high profile.

Dirty, filthy, seedy TdF. 

Wonderful, epic, heroic, bloody, draining TdF.

The world is more fun with a TdF. Cycling is more fun with a TdF. We all knew there was widespread doping.


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

Blimey, with the end in sight it seems you are turning the canons on me 

Not stupid, but something needs to fill the void.

Chill a bit and try lightening up, else you will come across as an Über member indeed


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

User said:


> But for some reason, I don't know why, a feeling, a hunch this is playing in to armstrong hands, it's like do your worse and we'll chip away until we're happy with the out come, There's no way armstrong is going to lie down and eccept this, powerful, egotistical maniacs don't lie down and go away...


In this case, they do. It's called damage limitation.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (24 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> how did he act


 
You can read the basics on the fued at
http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni

some horrible utube videos showing it all as well. Filippo being spat at and bullied


----------



## Blue (24 Aug 2012)

I recall reading a book called 'The Lance Armstrong Performance Program'. Scattered throughout, after descriptions of training methods, were little paragraphs entitled "What would Lance do?". If he is found guilty that book would need an interesting rewrite!!


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

Might it not elivate his status as a personality and aid him in self promotion in future business?

Ultimately he could add to his wealth from all of this, no such thing as bad publicity as they say.

If he is as you say he is, ,and personally I have never met the man to pass comment, then he will turn this into a platform for his own ends and thank you all for it.

Just my thoughts


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

johnnyh said:


> Blimey, with the end in sight it seems you are turning the canons on me


These are the Boys. They'd like a quiet word with you about your spelling.....








> Not stupid, but something needs to fill the void.


Look, this is going down in history as one of the Big Moments in cycling. Up there with Festina, Puerto etc. If you think this is just about some people who don't like one bloke because he's a bit squinty and arrogant then you need to do a lot of reading and research. Cycling as a sport has been on it's knees for decades, largely thanks to the likes of Armstrong, Bruyneel, Ferrari, Verbruggen & co. Rather than asking who the haters are going to hate on next, why don't you look a bit deeper and ask *why* fans of the sport feel this passionately about cheats, liars and dopers.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Ha ha! I too remember thinking that Ullrich must be a potential winner some year soon. Awesome rider..... But a doper just like Lance.
> 
> Looking back now, it's easy to forget that after 2 TdF wins, people were wondering who would win next.
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, but outside of the US, that's bollox.


----------



## david k (24 Aug 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> You can read the basics on the fued at
> http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni
> 
> some horrible utube videos showing it all as well. Filippo being spat at and bullied


 
seems nasty. all i see and i could be wrong is that armstrong was a bully. not that it should makes any difference to the results of the case against him but it makes it sweeter if true


----------



## MichaelM (24 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Ha ha! I too remember thinking that Ullrich must be a potential winner some year soon. Awesome rider..... But a doper just like Lance.


 
U IZ JUST A HATER.

Ullrich never tested positive and his record stands proud between 1999 and 2005.


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy old bean, forgive my iPad posting and auto text, very poor of me, and I shall provide tea and cake when the lads knock on the door 

Also note I am not ignorant of the impact of this case on a sport that has been plagued with drug cheats since before my time, I am against cheats in all forms and would applaud all sportsmen who have admitted to it or been caught doing it having their titles stripped and being thrown out of the record books. That includes the likes of Merckx and co. 

I just think some folk need to chill a bit and lower their stress levels.

I am sure Mr Armstrong will dine out on this for many years to come.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> seems nasty. all i see and i could be wrong is that armstrong was a bully. not that it should makes any difference to the results of the case against him but it makes it sweeter if true


 
You think big tex was a bully ? You ain't seen nothing. Hinault was a the bully of all bullies !


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

johnnyh said:


> Chuffy old bean, forgive my iPad posting and auto text, very poor of me, and I shall provide tea and cake when the lads knock on the door
> 
> Also note I am not ignorant of the impact of this case on a sport that has been plagued with drug cheats since before my time, I am against cheats in all forms and would applaud all sportsmen who have admitted to it or been caught doing it having their titles stripped and being thrown out of the record books. That includes the likes of Merckx and co.
> 
> ...


Buy Crankarm a nice cup of camomile tea, I think he needs it.

I'm perfectly relaxed. This has been a _good_ day to be a cycling fan. A GOOD DAY, Y'HEAR? REALLY FRIKKIN' GREAT!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> You think big tex was a bully ? You ain't seen nothing. Hinault was a the bully of all bullies !


I find it hard to believe that Hinault was actually real.


----------



## chris barnes (24 Aug 2012)

just been on an american news site the comments after the story about lance are roughly 95% in favour of Lance he has very cleverly managed in the minds of the many to turn himself into the bullied hero being picked on by the authorities. Everybody needs a hero and many don't want to give up on lance.... yet


----------



## johnnyh (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Buy Crankarm a nice cup of camomile tea, I think he needs it.
> 
> I'm perfectly relaxed. This has been a _good_ day to be a cycling fan. A GOOD DAY, Y'HEAR? REALLY FRIKKIN' GREAT!!!!!!!!


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

400bhp said:


> Sorry, but outside of the US, that's bollox.


 
It isn't. 

Almost nobody I knew who wasn't a cyclist had heard much about the TdF before LA.

Cyclists of a certain type knew, but people broadly did not.

As LA grew in media stature, so the TdF seemed to get more known. LA put the TdF into the mass media and that broader coverage drew people in. Not cyclists, but people who have since become cyclists. 

Most people who were new to the topic in 2002, 2003 and later hung all their new knowledge on LA.

Many of the people I know who are recent converts to cycling (road cycling in particular) have a knowledge of TdF history that gets very fuzzy before LA's second or third win. That is not a function of their age. It is a function of the LA effect and one or two other things.

I am not a torch-bearing lover of LA. I saw the TdF before him and loved it. I loved it during and after him.

But many, many people I know (and many more I know of) who ride got their first inkilng that cycling wasn't a weird, fringe activity for the uncool from LA. LA was not the only catalyst, but he was a significant one.

Find a bunch of lycra-clad, carbon-riding, team-strip 30-somethings and ask them to name a pre-1999 winner of any jersey. They will get few.

Ask them for post-2001 lists and they will get the lot.

Most 'LA-driven' TdF fans got interested in or after 2003 - after the first couple of wins. Say 'Mario Cippolini' to these folk and they stare blankly.

I have no fondness for LA, but it is not bollox to say that he did much to raise the profile of the TdF.


----------



## lukesdad (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I find it hard to believe that Hinault was actually real.


 
I'm afraid he was and the written word doesn't do him justice by a long chalk.


----------



## Boris Bajic (24 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> U IZ JUST A HATER.
> 
> Ullrich never tested positive and his record stands proud between 1999 and 2005.


 
 I felt terribly sorry for Ullrich in his 'nearly man' years.

But yes, I do rather think he drank from the naughty fountain.

Hate him? No.

He's a hero to me, just like Pantani, Virenque, D Millar, Armstrong, Riis and many others.


----------



## just jim (24 Aug 2012)

Lance speaks: "Haven't We All Done Steroids In A Way?"
And: “If we can’t believe in Lance Armstrong, who can we believe in?”


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I'm afraid he was and the written word doesn't do him justice by a long chalk.


I think I need to add Slaying The Badger to my library....


----------



## laurence (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I find it hard to believe that Hinault was actually real.


 
he is, we have shared cake.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> he is, we have shared cake.


And yet you live? I find this hard to credit. Come on,spill...


----------



## laurence (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> And yet you live? I find this hard to credit. Come on,spill...


 
well... i was in the Village Depart, as you do.. and Hinault and Prudhomme were on this podium thingy. people sang happy birthday - no idea who to - and there was a very large cake (fruit sponge type thing). Bernie had some and they were offering it, so i nabbed a piece.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> well... i was in the Village Depart, as you do.. and Hinault and Prudhomme were on this podium thingy. people sang happy birthday - no idea who to - and there was a very large cake (fruit sponge type thing). Bernie had some and they were offering it, so i nabbed a piece.


Careful now, you can get pregnant from that kind of contact.


----------



## laurence (24 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Careful now, you can get pregnant from that kind of contact.


 
it's ok, i ate it with a plastic fork.


----------



## Chuffy (24 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> it's ok, i ate it with a plastic fork.



You've just made Baggy cry.


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> U IZ JUST A HATER.
> 
> Ullrich never tested positive and his record stands proud between 1999 and 2005.


Absolutely ! I like the fat German, but 2002 was not his best year. Although CAS have said that they won't hold it against him !


----------



## steveindenmark (25 Aug 2012)

If the powers that be in cycling had the balls to put their house in order to begin with a lot of this type of thing would not occur. I don`t understand why they are still handing out 2 year bans. They should not only adopt a one strike and your out for life policy, they should adopt a one strike and your out PLUS we will then drag you through the courts in an an attempt to sieze all your assets which you have made from cycling.

Armstrong will be minted through his public appearances, books and endorsements. He will continue to make after dinner speeeches, more books etc telling the world how he was a scapegoat and a victim.

Make it plain that if you prove positive just once and it will start to make a difference.


----------



## raindog (25 Aug 2012)

The LA machine left alot of damage in it's wake - it would be nice if some of that could now be put right.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/frankie-andreu-responds-to-armstrongs-ban


----------



## lukesdad (25 Aug 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> If the powers that be in cycling had the balls to put their house in order to begin with a lot of this type of thing would not occur. I don`t understand why they are still handing out 2 year bans. They should not only adopt a one strike and your out for life policy, they should adopt a one strike and your out PLUS we will then drag you through the courts in an an attempt to sieze all your assets which you have made from cycling.
> 
> Armstrong will be minted through his public appearances, books and endorsements. He will continue to make after dinner speeeches, more books etc telling the world how he was a scapegoat and a victim.
> 
> Make it plain that if you prove positive just once and it will start to make a difference.


 
I'd love to see life bans, but as I've been told stopping someone from earning a living for life, would be laughed at in a court of law.


----------



## yello (25 Aug 2012)

I'm done. I'm finished. I'm tired of reading all of these allegations. There comes a time in every man's life when you say enough is enough and move on. That time is now. I can no longer keep up with the thread in The Clinic.


----------



## screenman (25 Aug 2012)

Did he ever fail a drugs test? This was a question a non cyclist asked me yesterday, I said I thought not.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

screenman said:


> Did he ever fail a drugs test? This was a question a non cyclist asked me yesterday, I said I thought not.


 Holy farking bejesus! Have you read this thread or the links or any of the plethora of info over the last 15 years?
Post no. 1495 and we're back to square one!
P.S. I don't have Yello's patience


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I always knew it was Ullrich (check the records from 1999 -2005).



Can't be. He doped and was banned from the TdeF. Check the records for 2005.

Many parallels with Armstrong except the Swiss anti doping authority dropped the case as having no jurisdiction over him after he retired whereas USADA kept after Armstrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Ullrich#Operaci.C3.B3n_Puerto_doping_case


----------



## lukesdad (25 Aug 2012)

ooh ive just seen where the post numbers are !


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

johnnyh said:


> What the hell are you going to do when it is all done and dusted?



It will never be done and dusted. It will go on and on and on like all conspiracy theories with Chuffy and co - who it now appears was not even into cycling when it happened - convinced there is no question he doped and others saying it was a witch-hunt with evidence that was never tested, never failed a drug test etc.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Aug 2012)

I don't have a strong view on this... To me anyone who completes a TdF is qute a person - anyone who gets close to winning a jersey is a bit of a hero.

But I'd like to draw readers' attention to another public figure pilloried for decades (millenia) in certain parts but revered as a messiah in others.

Although never actually a TdF winner, he was absolutely crucified by the powers that were and the allegations against him were never proved.

Coincidence?

Although this all happened a couple of thousand years ago, I think there are parallels here with the current story.

By saying the above, I do not want to give the impression that I have a strong view on Saint Lance of Ventoux.


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Aug 2012)

laurence said:


> he is, we have shared cake.


----------



## zimzum42 (25 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Armstrong wasn't, and won't be, the only prick or arrogant b*****d in Pro bike racing. Mudslinging isn't helpful to the debate. Are you suggesting all riders in these years who doped were pricks and arrogant b****ds as you put it?


No, not at all. All I'm saying is that back in the day, even before I really knew what doping was or the scale of it, Armstrong came across as a bit of a prick. to me. In my opinion.

you would save us all a lot of bother if you stopped getting hot flushes over this every time someone says they don't like him.

There's plenty of riders who were doped to the eyeballs but who I still liked at the time and still like now. Virenque, Pantani, Dufaux, Rominger, Indurain, Ullrich, Riis, to name a few.

I just never liked your saint Lance, sorry you have such a beef about that


----------



## pubrunner (25 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> . . . But I'd like to* draw readers' attention* to another public figure pilloried for decades (millenia) in certain parts but revered as a messiah in others . . . . . . .


 
It'd help me, if you actually gave his name


----------



## david k (25 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> You think big tex was a bully ? You ain't seen nothing. Hinault was a the bully of all bullies !


ha ha yes thats true, read a book about his tdf with Lemond. Funny how we or I view him diffeently, yes he wasnt a really likeable character but people respected him. my feelings towards lance are different although i cannot really explain why . someone on here said they spoke to him when he first became a pro, he just said 'nice bike' and lance swore at him????


----------



## Smokin Joe (25 Aug 2012)

pubrunner said:


> It'd help me, if you actually gave his name


Gary Glitter.


----------



## david k (25 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I'm afraid he was and the written word doesn't do him justice by a long chalk.


ive read slaying the badger, good book and he was a bully. but as i say i dont have the same ill feeling towards him as i do lance, maybe because i was too young i just dont know

being an arse doesnt mean you are more or less guilty of doping than someone who isnt, it just makes me more determined to see you brought to justice


----------



## david k (25 Aug 2012)

on reflection my dislike of lance is more to do with his attitude than it is his doping.

i think back in the day drugs were so available i dont think it was seen in the same way as it is today. perceptions change over time and im glad to see it is frowned upon now and riders/pro sports people know this. it used to be like taking multi vitamins years ago


----------



## Chuffy (25 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I'm done. I'm finished. I'm tired of reading all of these allegations. There comes a time in every man's life when you say enough is enough and move on. That time is now. I can no longer keep up with the thread in The Clinic.


Fair enough....but you'll be back. 
...and can I just say a big 'thank you' for patiently reading, digesting and explaining a lot of the stuff that some of us lazy sacks of crap didn't have the patience for. Good work that man.


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> i think back in the day drugs were so available i dont think it was seen in the same way as it is today.



Cue English cycling hero (still) Tommy Simpson.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Cue English cycling hero (still) Tommy Simpson.



More Armstrong-like obfusaction and deflection. Wasn't it Cunobellin's turn?


----------



## MacB (25 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> More Armstrong-like obfusaction and deflection. Wasn't it Cunobellin's turn?


 
now you've started arguing with the invisible man, you and Marin could do a double act


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

MacB said:


> now you've started arguing with the invisible man, you and Marin could do a double act


 You don't know what sport you're missing Mac! Unignore and feed the trolls!


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

Can I add my thanks to yello, for his dedication and ability to maintain high standards throughout. I gave up trying to follow the meedya weeks ago and have relied on yello's posts to keep up to date..and I never had any standards to maintain in the first place.

So, I vote for yello to be awarded all of Armstrong's titles from 1998 onwards...


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> More Armstrong-like obfusaction and deflection. Wasn't it Cunobellin's turn?



Why? It was pertinent to the point raised by david k and Tommy Simpson is an English cyclist the site of whose drug induced death is a revered shrine in English cycling and illustrates nicely the contrast in the way we treat drug taking then with drug taking now in cycling.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Why? It was pertinent to the point raised by david k and Tommy Simpson is an English cyclist the site of whose drug induced death is a revered shrine in English cycling and illustrates nicely the contrast in the way we treat drug taking then with drug taking now in cycling.


 We did all this crap in a Cunobellin thread that got locked 2 weeks ago and here you are trying to divert the thread and conflate two separate issues yet again.


----------



## MacB (25 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> You don't know what sport you're missing Mac! Unignore and feed the trolls!


 
nah, tried that and it's actually more interesting just seeing the opposing views....and they are nearly always opposing...funny that


----------



## raindog (25 Aug 2012)

I was wondering when Simeoni would speak about this
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-justice-has-come-a-bit-late-in-armstrong-case
as I said on the previous page, alot of damage was done to various people from the LA juggernaut


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

Breaking Billy Ocean-style News! Red Light spells Nobber



Anyway, that's me outta here...


----------



## pubrunner (25 Aug 2012)

Lance Armstrong showed undoubted strength, determination and tenacity, to overcome cancer and also to 'win' the TdF (with or without drugs) so many times,

I've won very little in my life - and nothing in cycling; but if anyone contested the 'fairness' of what I have won, I'd never give up on trying to prove otherwise. And yet, Lance Armstrong is now willing to relinquish his titles, because he is 'tired' of fighting the charges against him; this appears to be at odds the 'fighting' qualities mentioned previously ?

Mind you, I notice that Nike, Armstrong’s biggest sponsor and partners in his Livestrong cancer charity, said they would *continue* to support him.

This is going to run & run . . . .

Frankly, we'd be better off just getting on our bikes and going for a ride . . . when the rain stops  .


----------



## screenman (25 Aug 2012)

richP, so I take your answer is no.


----------



## Crackle (25 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> More Armstrong-like obfusaction and deflection. Wasn't it Cunobellin's turn?


 
Is this more information without knowledge, insight or understanding. More, Google is my brain and internet whispers are my understanding and context: I google, therefore I know.

No need to answer, just let me know if it ever changes.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

screenman said:


> richP, so I take your answer is no.


 eh, what?


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> eh, what?


 
He made a proposal of marriage to you up-thread...we've all been waiting on your reply ever since.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Aug 2012)

I am just looking forward to the next volume of Lance's autobiography:_ It's Not About the Drugs_.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> He made a proposal of marriage to you up-thread...we've all been waiting on your reply ever since.


 Wow, I've come over all coy.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (25 Aug 2012)

So, if Pantani doped and could be found to have done so, virtually impossible I know, and if Bjarne Riis admitted so, then that would leave Jan Ullrich, potentially as six times winner of the TDF!! 

Did Ullrich ever test positive?


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

Hammond's comments on ITV4 Vuelta Highlights:

Never saw anything suspicious, and no pressure at Disco (2005 2006) to dope.
He was known as a clean rider and he never saw or heard anything.
If he had been in Armstrong's position he would have fought to clear his name.
He finds the ending very disappointing...


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

Monsieur Remings said:


> Did Ullrich ever test positive?


 
He was found guilty of doping offences earlier this year by CAS, not the same a testing positive tho.

But he was stripped of all his results from May 2005 onwards - which I think was a 3rd place in a race against his mates


----------



## Chuffy (25 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> Hammond's comments on ITV4 Vuelta Highlights:
> 
> Never saw anything suspicious, and no pressure at Disco (2005 2006) to dope.
> *He was known as a clean rider and he never saw or heard anything.*
> ...


Assuming this is Hammond referring to himself, that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## screenman (25 Aug 2012)

I just want to see where he failed a test.


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

screenman said:


> I just want to see where he failed a test.


 Who are you meaning? Armstrong, Ullrich, Hammond?


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> If the powers that be in cycling had the balls to put their house in order to begin with a lot of this type of thing would not occur. I don`t understand why they are still handing out 2 year bans. They should not only adopt a one strike and your out for life policy, they should adopt a one strike and your out PLUS we will then drag you through the courts in an an attempt to sieze all your assets which you have made from cycling.
> 
> Armstrong will be minted through his public appearances, books and endorsements. He will continue to make after dinner speeeches, more books etc telling the world how he was a scapegoat and a victim.
> 
> Make it plain that if you prove positive just once and it will start to make a difference.


 
They hand out 2 year bans because that is what has been agreed by the signatories to the World Anti Doping Code.
There are moves to make it a 4 year ban but it will probably take some time for all the signatories to reach agreement.
Any sanction must be seen to be proportionate to the offence, or it could lead to legal challenges.
To step back from cycling for a minute, the ban for a drink driving offence in Britain is usually 12 months, compare that with your proposed lifetime ban for a first doping offence and you can see the difficulties WADA face.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (25 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> Who are you meaning? Armstrong, Ullrich, Hammond?


 
Wiggins.


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

I wonder what Armstrong's response would be if I asked him to send me the cost of his books?

If he sends me the money, then I'll mention to him that I never bought them - just to see how he feels to be cheated


----------



## thom (25 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> They hand out 2 year bans because that is what has been agreed by the signatories to the World Anti Doping Code.
> There are moves to make it a 4 year ban but it will probably take some time for all the signatories to reach agreement.
> Any sanction must be seen to be proportionate to the offence, or it could lead to legal challenges.
> To step back from cycling for a minute, the ban for a drink driving offence in Britain is usually 12 months, compare that with your proposed lifetime ban for a first doping offence and you can see the difficulties WADA face.


 
From http://road.cc/content/news/64076-u...ng-life-disqualifies-him-all-results-1-august
An extract from USADA's statement: 

_In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory.​_


----------



## zimzum42 (25 Aug 2012)

screenman said:


> I just want to see where he failed a test.


You still don't get it do you - the whole thing is about armstrong and the governing bodies colluding and covering up the cheating

Read the thread and the links properly


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> From http://road.cc/content/news/64076-u...ng-life-disqualifies-him-all-results-1-august
> An extract from USADA's statement:
> 
> 
> _In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory._​


Yes I read that earlier, I think Steveindenmark was calling for a lifetime ban for ALL first offenders, whereas Armstrong is a special case.


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> Breaking Billy Ocean-style News! Red Light spells Nobber



Hold the front page, put the Crown Jewels on p2, for Noodley is ....errr.....Noodley


----------



## raindog (25 Aug 2012)

I'm not crazy about Kimmage, but this is spot on.....

"Paul Kimmage welcomed the news, but expressed his regret that the weight of evidence built up by USADA might not get the kind of public airing it warrants. "The only disappointment in it is that we don’t know the degree to which the governing body was complicit in this and the same people that facilitated this are still in charge of the UCI now," Kimmage said. "That would lend me to be pessimistic. Who’s to say it can’t happen again with somebody else. That’s the question mark for me in terms of how the sport goes on and what the future is for the sport."


----------



## david k (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Why? It was pertinent to the point raised by david k and Tommy Simpson is an English cyclist the site of whose drug induced death is a revered shrine in English cycling and illustrates nicely the contrast in the way we treat drug taking then with drug taking now in cycling.


i dont think it was just the public perception of drugs but also sportsmen and women also


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

Spot-on from Kimmage.


----------



## david k (25 Aug 2012)

i think there was so much drug taking going on its impossible to really who was the highest placed clean rider in any of those tdf's. It would be difficult to sort out now, i would be in favour of just leaving it as it is but without awarding lance as the winner, similar to suggested before


----------



## BJH (25 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> So to summarise:
> 1) You stand by everything you said.
> 2) You state he used growth hormone, because it was likely that he used it.
> 3) It might not have been growth hormone, it might have been EPO.
> 4) But you stand by everything else that you said.



Man your in for one hell of a shock when this finally breaks that LA is a cheat

Don't bother getting all quote back at me I am happy for you to carry on believing in him living a drug free life in Texas with the Easter Bunny and Santa


----------



## BJH (25 Aug 2012)

What more can he do? All of the controls that he has done – over 500 since 2000 – have come back negative. Either the controls don’t serve any purpose or Armstrong was legit. The whole case is based on witnesses, it’s deeply unjust.”

What a quote from The greatest cyclist of all time as he sadly embarrasses himself supporting his chum

Another one of those terrible convictions based on testimony from witnesses whatever happened to just accepting his word it seems good enough for many lance fans


----------



## david k (25 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> What more can he do? All of the controls that he has done – over 500 since 2000 – have come back negative. Either the controls don’t serve any purpose or Armstrong was legit. The whole case is based on witnesses, it’s deeply unjust.”
> 
> What a quote from The greatest cyclist of all time as he sadly embarrasses himself supporting his chum
> 
> Another one of those terrible convictions based on witness testimony from witnesses whatever happened to just accepting his word it seems good enough for many lance fans


didnt they say they have bllod test results from when he returned that are irregular?


----------



## BJH (25 Aug 2012)

Yes the charges include his comeback period too


----------



## MichaelM (25 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> I'm not crazy about Kimmage, but this is spot on.....
> 
> "Paul Kimmage welcomed the news, but expressed his regret that the weight of evidence built up by USADA might not get the kind of public airing it warrants. "The only disappointment in it is that we don’t know the degree to which the governing body was complicit in this and the same people that facilitated this are still in charge of the UCI now," Kimmage said. "That would lend me to be pessimistic. Who’s to say it can’t happen again with somebody else. That’s the question mark for me in terms of how the sport goes on and what the future is for the sport."


 

Kimmage interview:
http://www.98fm.com/2012/category-news-sport/category-sport/paul-kimmage-armstrong-2012-2408/

Starts off with a soundbite from a previous Kimmage/Armstrong confrontation.


----------



## fozy tornip (25 Aug 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> You still don't get it do you - the whole thing is about armstrong and the governing bodies colluding and covering up the cheating
> 
> Read the thread and the links properly


 
There's unlimited supply
And there is no reason why
I tell you it was all a frame
They only did it 'cos of fame
Who?
UCI
UCI
UCI

And you thought that we were faking
That we were all just money making
You do not believe we're for real
Or you would lose your cheap appeal?

Don't judge a book just by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like

UCI
UCI
UCI


----------



## steveindenmark (25 Aug 2012)

They could always make it far more entertaining in all sport and just declare that it fine to take whatever you want and let them get on with it. They could have a drug taking tour and a non drug taking tour. We would get to see two tours a year.

So now they are going to take the titles from one cheat and give them to another. With a bit of luck there may be such a long line of convicted dopers down the line that when they get to about 121st it will be a "clean" Brit who ends up winning one of the Armstrong tours.

The whole thing is like a farce.

What needs to be remembered is that some of these guys are making millions out of the sport. Armstrong will still have the houses and bank accounts and will continue to make money because of cycling. If it was a lifetime ban on the first offence these people would not be able to cheat the public and the fans.

Obviously that will not happen in the near future.

A wonderful Olympics for cyclists and now this happens. If they don`t sort their own house out, they will never have any credability.

Steve


----------



## Smokin Joe (25 Aug 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> They could always make it far more entertaining in all sport and just declare that it fine to take whatever you want and let them get on with it. They could have a drug taking tour and a non drug taking tour. We would get to see two tours a year.
> 
> Steve


A five year old could spot so many obvious flaws that in that idea that I'm surprised people still put it forward.


----------



## beachcaster (25 Aug 2012)

As frankie boyle says...........it would be much more fun if it was all legalised. I agree it would be great to see the 100yds sprint does in less than 4 seconds..and the hardest mountain climbs attacked at 60 mph.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Aug 2012)

pubrunner said:


> It'd help me, if you actually gave his name


 
It was a terribly weak and unfunny attempt to draw a humorous comparison between the way some people view L Armstrong Esq and others (or the same lot) view J Christ Esq.

It fell very flat, as it was neither as funny nor as clever as it seemed to me before I typed it.

The traditional mark of failed humour is having to explain it.

I'll get my shroud.....


----------



## DogTired (25 Aug 2012)

A bit tangential...

Can someone who knows the regulations tell me if its an offence not to report witnessed incidences of doping?

Just wondering if the omerta comes from the regulations, plain ol' keep yer trap shut or other pressure.


----------



## johnr (25 Aug 2012)

On a lighter note:
Granddaughter No 2's new word to take back to school after the hols is 'schadenfreude'. I had to explain why I was in such a good mood.


----------



## zimzum42 (25 Aug 2012)

S.Africa's leading cartoonists take:


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Aug 2012)

People are starting to talk more now...


----------



## zimzum42 (25 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> People are starting to talk more now...


People aren't going to like the last bit about Wiggo and Froomedog...


----------



## davefb (25 Aug 2012)

zimzum42 said:


> People aren't going to like the last bit about Wiggo and Froomedog...


ironically, the info I'd seen was 'just look how wiggins and froom can't do the same as the guys from the 90's"..


----------



## thom (25 Aug 2012)

What sad days ? 
Neil Armstrong died today. RIP.


----------



## Crackle (25 Aug 2012)

So who won from 1999 to 2005, a question we've all been asking. Found this blog link.

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.c...-de-france-or-tour-dutopia-from-1999-to-2005/


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

davefb said:


> ironically, the info I'd seen was 'just look how wiggins and froom can't do the same as the guys from the 90's"..


 That's what I heard. I read an interview with Wiggins where Rogers was telling him that the wattages Nibali etc were putting out on a break were such that unless the rider was doped it was unsustainable. He was proved right.


----------



## marinyork (25 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Not trying to be clever at all.
> The UCI have laid down rules for when cyclists are disqualified.
> Armstrong has been disqualified.
> The rules should be followed as in the cases of Contador and Landis.
> ...


 
Forgot to say that at the moment there is no official 3rd place in the 2005 tour de france. Correct me if I'm wrong. I was going to say this earlier, but just been reminded by a piece crackle posted. Which actually says things better than I could.


----------



## marinyork (25 Aug 2012)

Crackle said:


> So who won from 1999 to 2005, a question we've all been asking. Found this blog link.
> 
> http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.c...-de-france-or-tour-dutopia-from-1999-to-2005/


 
Excellent article, my only minor quibble with it would be the comparison of the 1988 men's 100m sprint olympic final aka 'the dirtiest race in history'. Does the author fully realise how good a comparison this actually is or not?


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

Monsieur Remings said:


> So, if Pantani doped and could be found to have done so, virtually impossible I know, and if Bjarne Riis admitted so, then that would leave Jan Ullrich, potentially as six times winner of the TDF!!
> 
> Did Ullrich ever test positive?


6 times winner? Which years are you thinking about?


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> Man your in for one hell of a shock when this finally breaks that LA is a cheat
> 
> Don't bother getting all quote back at me I am happy for you to carry on believing in him living a drug free life in Texas with the Easter Bunny and Santa


For the record I've thought that Armstrong was a doper for years.
What has upset you, was my summary of your post inaccurate in some way?


----------



## marinyork (25 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> 6 times winner? Which years are you thinking about?


 
Self explanatory.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (25 Aug 2012)

From Cycling News....
Spidertech-C10 team director Steve Bauer, who wore the yellow jersey in the Tour de France for 14 days in the mid-to-late 1980s, said it's time to put the controversy to rest.
“I have a personal statement that's pretty simple,” he told _Cyclingnews_ on Friday. “Lance versus USADA has nothing to do with our sport now. And that's all I have to say about that.”
But Bauer did have more to add, saying the future of the sport looks positive because of the much stricter drug testing regimes and protocols.
“The UCI has done a great job of developing the anti-doping program: the biological passport that all our professional cyclists have to abide by and adhere to,” he said. “We have the most stringent anti-doping policy of any sport in the world, which has probably imposed the cleanest professional sport in the world. So that's it. That's all I've got so say.”

Bauer, for those who don't know, was slyly beaten to silver in '84 in LA by an american cyclist, Grewal, who later admitted to doping.
Bauer is a bit of a hero of mine, having grown up in the same town, and I think his views should be respected, he knows what he is on about.


----------



## albion (25 Aug 2012)

USADA now needs to stop looking the other way when it comes to actual big money American sports.

On a world basis I'm sure drugs in boxing are almost standard issue.
It is so dodgy it is hard to envisage anything otherwise.


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> People are starting to talk more now...



"He also claimed that Armstrong used a large network to help him with his doping, and his avoidance of positive doping controls. "

That I don't believe. Large networks make it extremely difficult to keep things secret with all the politics and back-stabbing that goes on in pro-cycling.


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Aug 2012)

I like this quote from the end of the piece: _ " the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."_

My power production on a bicycle is also comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s.

Not very favourably comparable, but comparable nonetheless.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> "He also claimed that Armstrong used a large network to help him with his doping, and his avoidance of positive doping controls. "
> 
> That I don't believe. Large networks make it extremely difficult to keep things secret with all the politics and back-stabbing that goes on in pro-cycling.


 I must agree with you for once. There's no way all the riders who doped with USP and Disco would keep schtum about it, would they?
Oh hang on a minute...


----------



## Boris Bajic (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> "He also claimed that Armstrong used a large network to help him with his doping, and his avoidance of positive doping controls. "
> 
> That I don't believe. Large networks make it extremely difficult to keep things secret with all the politics and back-stabbing that goes on in pro-cycling.


 
Quite. I too think that bit is wobbly logic or worse, even though it means agreeing with RL.

If you want something to get out, involve lots of people and tell them it's a secret.


----------



## Monsieur Remings (25 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> 6 times winner? Which years are you thinking about?


 
In 1996 he was 2nd to Riis.
In 1997 he was the winner.
In 1998 he was 2nd to Pantani.
In 2000, 2001 and 2003 he was 2nd to Armstrong.


----------



## smutchin (25 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Quite. I too think that bit is wobbly logic or worse, even though it means agreeing with RL.
> 
> If you want something to get out, involve lots of people and tell them it's a secret.


 
What's the statute of limitations on this theory? I mean, does the fact that it's all coming out now not count?

d.


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

Monsieur Remings said:


> In 1996 he was 2nd to Riis.
> In 1997 he was the winner.
> In 1998 he was 2nd to Pantani.
> In 2000, 2001 and 2003 he was 2nd to Armstrong.


Thanks!
I think he'll get 4 wins on the back of Armstrongs disqualification.
I can't see him getting Riis' win as the decision has already been made on his doping, and I can't see a new investigation being launched into a rider who died many years ago in unfortunate circumstances.


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I must agree with you for once. There's no way all the riders who doped with USP and Disco would keep schtum about it, would they?



Quite agree. So why do you think after saying nothing for many years they suddenly said something?


----------



## 400bhp (25 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Spidertech-C10 team director Steve Bauer...........” . And that's all I have to say about that.”
> ..................” That's all I've got so say.”...............


 
It's Forrest Gump.


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

I have won the same number of Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong. woo-hoo.


----------



## MichaelM (25 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> From Cycling News....
> 
> Bauer, for those who don't know, was slyly beaten to silver in '84 in LA by an american cyclist, Grewal, who later admitted to doping.
> Bauer is a bit of a hero of mine, having grown up in the same town, and I think his views should be respected, he knows what he is on about.


 second over the top of Fleet Moss to Stefan Rooks during the inaugural Kellogs Tour of Britain in .... was it 87 or 88?

All information is to the best of my memory!


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

One question. WADA has an 8 year statute of limitations on offences which is why Riis still has his 1996 win despite his 2007 admission of doping to win it. So how do USADA under WADA reach back to 1998 for Armstrong?


----------



## thom (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> One question. WADA has an 8 year statute of limitations on offences which is why Riis still has his 1996 win despite his 2007 admission of doping to win it. So how do USADA under WADA reach back to 1998 for Armstrong?


Are you seriously asking that question ? 
Are you saying you really haven't been paying attention ?


----------



## Monsieur Remings (25 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Thanks!
> I think he'll get 4 wins on the back of Armstrongs disqualification.
> I can't see him getting Riis' win as the decision has already been made on his doping, and I can't see a new investigation being launched into a rider who died many years ago in unfortunate circumstances.


 
Yep, like I implied, very unlikely that Pantani will be stripped posthumously. Worms, open and can come to mind...


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> One question. WADA has an 8 year statute of limitations on offences which is why Riis still has his 1996 win despite his 2007 admission of doping to win it. So how do USADA under WADA reach back to 1998 for Armstrong?


Because of Armstrong's duplicity, apparently!

I'm not sure that Riis still has his title just because of the statute of limitations. His case was decided upon at the time and a decision reached. Overturning that decision may meet with legal challenges.

Of course, USADA wouldn't be involved due to Riis' nationality (just sayin')


----------



## Alun (25 Aug 2012)

Monsieur Remings said:


> Yep, like I implied, very unlikely that Pantani will be stripped posthumously. Worms, open and can come to mind...


True, we can still post about Bruyneel, but when that is concluded, what next?


----------



## guitarpete247 (25 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> What sad days ?
> Neil Armstrong died today. RIP.


+1


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Are you seriously asking that question ?
> Are you saying you really haven't been paying attention ?



Oh, I've seen the USADA heinous crime statement but the WADA Code Article 17 is quite clear:

"ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred."


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> I have won the same number of Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong. woo-hoo.


 
Seven then.........

Despite the claims, the USADA has no method of withdrawing these titles. They are still extant, and until the Awarding bodies take any action merely a wet dream for Tygart et al

They may end up embarrassed if the UCI and the rest do not comply


----------



## thom (25 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Oh, I've seen the USADA heinous crime statement but the WADA Code Article 17 is quite clear:
> 
> "ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
> No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred."


I can't help you then - facts and that. Either you comprehend them, or you don't.


----------



## albion (25 Aug 2012)

Armstrong chose to come back for 2009, mainly because of all the cheat jibes.

It bit his butt.


----------



## Red Light (25 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> I can't help you then



Quelle surprise.


----------



## Noodley (25 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> I can't help you.


 
It is probably true that nobody can help him.


----------



## Red Light (26 Aug 2012)

So what happens now if, possibly with behind the scenes help from Armstrong and others, Bruyneel takes on USADA, trashes their evidence and gets cleared? Would it still be safe to continue the penalties on the others because they did not contest them? Just a hypothetical what-if.


----------



## Red Light (26 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> It is probably true that nobody can help him.



You're a nobody and you can't


----------



## Alun (26 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Seven then.........
> 
> Despite the claims, the USADA has no method of withdrawing these titles. They are still extant, and until the Awarding bodies take any action merely a wet dream for Tygart et al
> 
> They may end up embarrassed if the UCI and the rest do not comply


ASO have stated that they will wait to see what happens in the UCI/USADA standoff.
UCI have stated that they await the USADAs "reasoned decision" and have not been galvanised into action following the USADA judgement statement. I think that they might want to see the evidence.


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Landis

The Landis file has certainly grown since my last read.
He surely has to be the worlds worst witness?

"During 2006 and 2007, Landis is believed to have raised about $1 million from the “Floyd Fairness Fund.""
Is that real?

edit http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html?_r=1&hp

" a security breach at the French antidoping lab that tested Landis’s urine samples from the 2006 Tour de France. Investigators found that an e-mail message sent to another lab in an apparent effort to discredit the Châtenay-Malabry antidoping lab"

Desperate times for him then methinks. I recall that hacking episode but did not realise it was subterfuge.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...d-ordered-to-pay-478000-in-restitution_235964

Can he write a good book?


The funny thing is that I recall have some backing Landis back then. His claim was that he was hacking looking for evidence as to his innocence.


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...as-vuelta-learns-of-armstrong-decision_235767

Corresponds to my current mindset as my comments have already shown.

'Others chimed in as well. Oscar Pereiro, who inherited the 2006 Tour crown after Floyd Landis tested positive, said the case against Armstrong was “pathetic.”

“It all seems pathetic to me what’s happening, this puts the entire anti-doping system in doubt,” Pereiro told Europa Press. “I am convinced that the riders who have declared against Armstrong did so with the promise of not being sanctioned and that they do not have to return the money they’ve earned. Does that seem normal?”

That recent Mail article scarily hints that the cycling Taliban is moving target towards Sky next.
'


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (26 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> I have won the same number of Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong. woo-hoo.


 
I so want to get that printed on a yellow jersey


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/01/09/usada-chief-travis-tygart-on-blood-testing-steroids-boxing/

That failed event is surely what fueled the Travis rumour mill of him looking for another BALCO being under a shape up ultimatum.


----------



## rich p (26 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Quite agree. So why do you think after saying nothing for many years they suddenly said something?


 Because they had to fess up to the GJ or face imprisonment for perjury. The fact that they had several eye-witnesses willing to testify against them persuaded them it was in their best interests to tell the truth to USADA. Clearly, they would have kept quiet during earlier times in their own interest, to protect their careers and in doing so it protected the omerta surrounding the all-powerful, litiginous and wealthy Armstrong.


----------



## david k (26 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> "He also claimed that Armstrong used a large network to help him with his doping, and his avoidance of positive doping controls. "
> 
> That I don't believe. Large networks make it extremely difficult to keep things secret with all the politics and back-stabbing that goes on in pro-cycling.


could this be part of the evidence ?


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Aug 2012)

david k said:


> could this be part of the *evidence* ?


----------



## david k (26 Aug 2012)

Uncle Mort said:


> There's quite a good piece on this by Matt Seaton in the Observer today.


good report, i liked this

_"he no longer believes in the plausibility of his own denials."_


----------



## Smokin Joe (26 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Because they had to fess up to the GJ or face imprisonment for perjury. The fact that they had several eye-witnesses willing to testify against them persuaded them it was in their best interests to tell the truth to USADA. Clearly, they would have kept quiet during earlier times in their own interest, to protect their careers and in doing so it protected the omerta surrounding the all-powerful, litiginous and wealthy Armstrong.


Exactly.

And once you have let the cat out of the bag to one agency it suddenly becomes much easier to repeat it to someone else. USADA obviously got to know what the riders told the Feds and targeted those riders as part of their investigation.


----------



## Noodley (26 Aug 2012)

And a possible answer as to how he never failed a test:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Aug 2012)

Nice story, but the wrong question?

The majority of athletes are notified!

You are actually allowed to compete in other events, follow a warm-down procedure and even talk to the press between notification and the actual test performance.

So that part of the story is really a non-starter and a bit of a red herring.

However the question that has been missed and needs to be asked is concerning the actions and presence of the Doping Control Officer:

The WADA requires the athleteto be supervised from notification to


> Staying in direct observation of the Doping Control Officer (DCO) or Chaperone from the time of notification until the sample collection session is complete


 
Was this condition breached ?

That is the real story...


The story hasn't picked up on this important point - poor journalism


----------



## BJH (26 Aug 2012)

Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

Any observations on this quote in Cycling News today ?


----------



## yello (26 Aug 2012)

You know what is actually starting to piss me off? (And, no, it's nobody on this forum  )

The journalists doing these reports, condemning Armstrong, condemning the UCI, using expressions like 'the rumours were always there', like they've always known. I like that it is out in the open now, I like that public opinion is finally being challenged - there's enough opinion coming out now to sway even the most robust of believers. But it all begs the question....

Where the f*ck were those said same journalists before 23rd August?


----------



## Noodley (26 Aug 2012)

True yello. Very true. They also need to take a long hard look at themselves. Very few had the courage to speak out - and those who did were demonised, mostly by peope using forums I should add, e.g. Ballester, Walsh, Kimmage. Likewise the riders. Maybe now people will acknowledge just how brave they riders who broke the Ometa really were? I doubt it tho.


----------



## raindog (26 Aug 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-hotel-search-cancelled-in-2005
can't help grinning at this bit....
“I don’t know who gave this order but I know that the investigators were furious that they had to pull back. On that evidence, Lance Armstrong was well protected in France.”
I've read so often, even on here where you'd think people might know a bit better, that the nasty French "couldn't stand an American winning their race and were out to get him"


----------



## Noodley (26 Aug 2012)

The floodgates have been opened....


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> And a possible answer as to how he never failed a test:
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls


 
Keep up! I already posted that two pages back...


----------



## Noodley (26 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Keep up! I already posted that two pages back...


 
You might be on my ignore list


----------



## thom (26 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> You know what is actually starting to piss me off? (And, no, it's nobody on this forum  )
> 
> The journalists doing these reports, condemning Armstrong, condemning the UCI, using expressions like 'the rumours were always there', like they've always known. I like that it is out in the open now, I like that public opinion is finally being challenged - there's enough opinion coming out now to sway even the most robust of believers. But it all begs the question....
> 
> Where the f*ck were those said same journalists before 23rd August?


You are right. It show a lot of people to be impotent in the face of his celebrity. 
I'm pissed off also with Alastair Campbell tweeting about how thousands of passed tests amount to something. Such fabrication and wilful ignorance makes me cynical about his motives in commenting on the times he met Lance, solely interested in boosting his twitter followers.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> You might be on my ignore list


 
You're definitely on mine...


----------



## yello (26 Aug 2012)

Armstrong can't run in the NY marathon....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/broadway-article-1.1144271



> “That’s an event that we test,” a USADA attorney told the Daily News. “So that would fall under our authority.”


 

...though I suspect that'll be the least of his worries!


----------



## steveindenmark (26 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe, my comment about a drugs allowed tour was said tongue in cheek. It is obvious we don`t have to discuss it because it is still going on anyway.

Neil Armstrong a true legend RIP


----------



## Smokin Joe (26 Aug 2012)

steveindenmark said:


> Smokin Joe, my comment about a drugs allowed tour was said tongue in cheek. It is obvious we don`t have to discuss it because it is still going on anyway.
> 
> Neil Armstrong a true legend RIP


Sorry, didn't realise.


----------



## smutchin (26 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."
> 
> Any observations on this quote in Cycling News today ?



I'd like to see some evidence that the performances are comparable before jumping to a conclusion. Others have made the opposite claim about Wiggins and Froome's power output, ie that it's nowhere near the peaks of the EPO era. Does anyone actually have any hard data to back up either claim? (clue: No, they don't.)

d.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> I'd like to see some evidence that the performances are comparable before jumping to a conclusion. Others have made the opposite claim about Wiggins and Froome's power output, ie that it's nowhere near the peaks of the EPO era. Does anyone actually have any hard data to back up either claim? (clue: No, they don't.)
> .


We don't have it for them in particular but we do have a pretty good idea of the power outputs of the peloton in general:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html

And the analysis suggests that the power output is what you would expect without doping.


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> The floodgates have been opened....


Its the amount of complete bollocks spoken that moves everyone into a very small corner.

The wonder of the internet has certainly enhanced dumb tribalism.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (26 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Its the amount of complete bollocks spoken that moves everyone into a very small corner.
> 
> The wonder of the internet has certainly enhanced dumb tribalism.


 
It also undermines powerful and corrupt individuals who are now less able to dominate by their real-life presence alone. This is a good thing.


----------



## raindog (26 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> The wonder of the internet has certainly enhanced dumb tribalism.


which can work both ways of course


----------



## Red Light (26 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-hotel-search-cancelled-in-2005
> can't help grinning at this bit....
> “I don’t know who gave this order but I know that the investigators were furious that they had to pull back. On that evidence, Lance Armstrong was well protected in France.”



From the man who lost his clients a lot of money going up against Armstrong in Court. No conflict there then


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

Seems that was the guy hired as an arbitrator in a case against Lance whilst he was also representing defendants in a libel and slander suit brought on by Armstrong.

So why do people post stuff that ends up having the opposite effect intended?


----------



## kedab (26 Aug 2012)

*dips toe in*, *takes toe out*


----------



## festival (26 Aug 2012)

Just saw Armstrong interviewed on tv today.
He was at the atb race and we saw his current partner and child, the fact that all his lady friends look a bit like Stepford wives may say something but I was wondering, wouldn't it be normal for a partner to ask " what actually is the truth about these drug alligations darling?"
Could a normal person go about their life without asking questions of their partner?
Did any of them dare?


----------



## Smokin Joe (26 Aug 2012)

This is from today's Observer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers

The piece by Emma O'Reilly is pretty damning.


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

"As an anti-doping Tour winner, I would expect Bradley to say this is good for the sport "

Its the flipping Taliban again at it again. There is no room for dissenters.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (26 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> This is from today's Observer.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers
> 
> The piece by Emma O'Reilly is pretty damning.


 
Thanks for that SJ, reading the Observer goes above and beyond.


----------



## StuAff (26 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> "As an anti-doping Tour winner, I would expect Bradley to say this is good for the sport "
> 
> Its the flipping Taliban again at it again. There is no room for dissenters.


Indeed. It's not good for the sport, anyway. It's not 'healing' or 'catharsis', it's the painful, unpleasant state that pro-cycling got itself into and is (we can only hope) is now getting itself out of. The best way Brad and every rider, every team who wants a clean sport...is to stay clean. Never mind preaching it, just practice it.


----------



## StuAff (26 Aug 2012)

festival said:


> Just saw Armstrong interviewed on tv today.
> He was at the atb race and we saw his current partner and child, the fact that all his lady friends look a bit like Stepford wives may say something but I was wondering, wouldn't it be normal for a partner to ask " what actually is the truth about these drug alligations darling?"
> Could a normal person go about their life without asking questions of their partner?
> Did any of them dare?


What Kristin Armstrong and Anna Hansen know or don't know is probably something that will be much speculated upon, but never confirmed.


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

Yup,

getting on with their own career is what its about. 
Emma O' Reilly's statement is the only one so far that does not hint at self interest.

addition edit - Slightly naive though 

". Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David. Unfortunately, I was somewhat naïve and thought that David’s book was about helping to cure cycling of its scourge of drugs."


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

What's the point on power outputs?

If it matters then the logical conclusion is that records in all sports can never be beaten ever again.
That can only end up as a witch hunt.


----------



## david k (26 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> What's the point on power outputs?
> 
> If it matters then the logical conclusion is that records in all sports can never be beaten ever again.
> That can only end up as a witch hunt.


i thought the same but then again if a collective data was taken you wouldnt expect it to go backwards by a margin if at all


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

I cant quite understand why you would change your mind.

How many years did it take British mens middle distance running to improve to the old standards?
In fact discount one guy and it is still well behind.


----------



## albion (26 Aug 2012)

That David Walsh taliban mentality type guy who paid Emma has 4 books written about Armstrong.

It is a fair bet Wiggins is next on his book agenda.
Writing 4 books on 1 guy almost sounds pathological but I guess people lap them up.


----------



## Red Light (26 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> That David Walsh taliban mentality type guy who paid Emma has 4 books written about Armstrong.
> 
> It is a fair bet Wiggins is next on his book agenda.
> Writing 4 books on 1 guy almost sounds pathological but I guess people lap them up.


 
Walsh was a Sunday Times man and this is what the Sunday Times said back in 2006 when they settled out of Court:

"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression,"


----------



## Strathlubnaig (27 Aug 2012)

http://rittecycles.com/lance-armstrong/


----------



## yello (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> "The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance-enhancing drugs and sincerely apologised for any such impression,"


 
I wonder if they'll be releasing another statement on the subject shortly.


----------



## mickle (27 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> http://rittecycles.com/lance-armstrong/


What a load of bollocks.


----------



## Pottsy (27 Aug 2012)

I agree.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I wonder if they'll be releasing another statement on the subject shortly.



Surely they had their chance and chose not to contest the charges in Court but to settle. In line with USADA v Armstrong their guilt is therefore unarguable. Anyway they've already rolled out the usual troop of David Walsh, Betsy & Frank Andreu and Emma O'Reilly to relive their 2006 limelight.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> What a load of bollocks.



Time will tell.


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (27 Aug 2012)

Well I still like the man, regardless, and his picture stays on my wall. 
He has helped me get back on the bike and for that reason alone I will be grateful, otherwise I would still be a 18 stone fat git approaching death at the speed of a train.


----------



## smutchin (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Time will tell.



No, it's mostly emotive bullshit now and it will continue to be mostly emotive bullshit. 

Just take for example the bizarre claim that drugs cannot turn an also-ran into a champion. 

Ever heard of Ben Johnson?

d.


----------



## lukesdad (27 Aug 2012)

kevin_cambs_uk said:


> Well I still like the man, regardless, and his picture stays on my wall.
> He has helped me get back on the bike and for that reason alone I will be grateful, otherwise I would still be a 18 stone fat git approaching death at the speed of a train.


 
This seems to be the main reason so many like him so much, a personal inspiration.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> No, it's mostly emotive bulls*** now and it will continue to be mostly emotive bulls***.
> 
> Just take for example the bizarre claim that drugs cannot turn an also-ran into a champion.
> 
> ...


 
But on the evidence that the peleton (or at least all the leadership contenders) were all doping around that time if you didn't dope you didn't stand much of a chance and if you did you were on a level playing field at the top. And on that level playing field he managed something that no-one else else managed on drugs and that was to win seven times in succession.

And what do we know of Ben Johnson's competitors? Well we know that five of the Olympic 100m finalists tested positive or were implicated in drug taking at some point in their careers. So again it was probably another case of winning on a level doped playing field.

What Armstrong does demonstrate though, if you believe he and his team were long term dopers, is the incompetence of WADA and the drugs testing labs in detecting doping. How can they not detect doping in over 500 screens of an allegedly committed doper to say nothing of all the tests on his team mates?


----------



## Ian H (27 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> No, it's mostly emotive bulls*** now and it will continue to be mostly emotive bulls***.
> 
> Just take for example the bizarre claim that drugs cannot turn an also-ran into a champion.
> 
> ...


I have read elsewhere (a past baseball scandal, nothing to do with cycling) that drugs don't work miracles, but mostly help you to train harder - you still have to do the work. This may be slightly different for multi-day endurance sports such as the Tour.
I agree with his assessment of pro-cycling, but not of Armstrong. My gripe about about Armstrong is not so much the doping - he merely did it more cleverly than the others - but his attitude to the whole world of pro-cycling. He was never really part of it, just turned up for the Tour, won it, and went home (slight exaggaration I know).
As for those years being the most exciting, I actually just got a bit bored with the Tour during that period.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> But on the evidence that the peleton (or at least all the leadership contenders) were all doping around that time if you didn't dope you didn't stand much of a chance and if you did you were on a level playing field at the top. And on that level playing field he managed something that no-one else else managed on drugs and that was to win seven times in succession.
> 
> And what do we know of Ben Johnson's competitors? Well we know that five of the Olympic 100m finalists tested positive or were implicated in drug taking at some point in their careers. So again it was probably another case of winning on a level doped playing field.
> 
> What Armstrong does demonstrate though, if you believe he and his team were long term dopers, is the incompetence of WADA and the drugs testing labs in detecting doping. How can they not detect doping in over 500 screens of an allegedly committed dopers to say nothing of all the tests on his team mates?


 
Agreeing with Red Light is beginning to piss me off.

Fignon was particularly frank about the matter-of-fact attitude to doping (albeit using different substances) when he joined the pro ranks as a youngster.

The euphemism of the day was_ 'une bonne preparation'_, which meant many things and ultimately only one thing.

Johnson was not an 'also ran'. he was very fast and was made faster still by drugs. Much like Lewis, Christie and others.

The fog of hindsight blurs the realities with Armstrong. He did win it seven times (and yes, the testers don't come out of this well) but he did have a most remarkable team of doped and fast riders around him. I know he was not the first, but they really were a remarkable bunch in some of his glory years.


----------



## festival (27 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> What a load of bollocks.


 I agree with you, sport has no future with attitudes like that load of bollocks.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The fog of hindsight blurs the realities with Armstrong. He did win it seven times (and yes, the testers don't come out of this well) but he did have a most remarkable team of doped and fast riders around him. I know he was not the first, but they really were a remarkable bunch in some of his glory years.


 
Which is an interesting question around Sky's current dominance and Team GBs dominance at the Olympics. Large amounts of money have been spent on everything from clothing, helmets, bike design, aerodynamic positioning etc and bringing in the best support riders money can buy that many of the smaller teams cannot dream of affording. And that is with the UCI rules restricting what equipment you can use. Is that any different from doping in the sense that they are buying an advantage that is nothing to do with their innate capability. At several times in this year's Tour Brad came through because of the number of support riders Sky had available to sacrifice for him on the climbs.


----------



## marinyork (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Which is an interesting question around Sky's current dominance and Team GBs dominance at the Olympics.


 
You must think up better examples. The team GB if you're talking cycling at the olympics there was no team GB dominance in 2004. There was a dominant team at those games, they were called Australia. And in 2000 you could argue depending on which disciplines that there was joint dominance from Germany and France with Australia on the rise.

As a side note to this the 2004 men's time trial got rewritten a couple of weeks ago and the 2000 men's time trial will likely do so too.


----------



## Alun (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Which is an interesting question around Sky's current dominance and Team GBs dominance at the Olympics. Large amounts of money have been spent on everything from clothing, helmets, bike design, aerodynamic positioning etc and bringing in the best support riders money can buy that many of the smaller teams cannot dream of affording. And that is with the UCI rules restricting what equipment you can use. Is that any different from doping in the sense that they are buying an advantage that is nothing to do with their innate capability. At several times in this year's Tour Brad came through because of the number of support riders Sky had available to sacrifice for him on the climbs.


Sky is a very well organised, money no object team. The difference between that and doping, is that doping is against the rules!


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> You must think up better examples. The team GB if you're talking cycling at the olympics there was no team GB dominance in 2004. There was a dominant team at those games, they were called Australia. And in 2000 you could argue depending on which disciplines that there was joint dominance from Germany and France with Australia on the rise.
> 
> As a side note to this the 2004 men's time trial got rewritten a couple of weeks ago and the 2000 men's time trial will likely do so too.


 
And what got them from 2004 to their dominance in 2008 and 2012? Hours in wind tunnels and the lab, a big share of £125m per annum funding, a velodrome to train in......... Few countries can afford that.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Sky is a very well organised, money no object team. The difference between that and doping, is that doping is against the rules!


 
Legally absolutely. But morally?


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2007250, member: 45"]Are people on here excusing drug use in sport??[/quote]
By default.

There is a small hardcore where anything that is not "Armstrong is the spawn of the Devil" is automatically promoting drugs.







The "elephant in the room" is large, grey and has four large feet. It is the questions that need to be asked about the actions and conduct of the drugs testing agencies, labs. organisations and some of the individuals concerned.

This is an opportunity to clean up both sides of the issue, shame that any criticism of the agencies is shouted down


----------



## PpPete (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> And what got them from 2004 to their dominance in 2008 and 2012? Hours in wind tunnels and the lab, a big share of £125m per annum funding, a velodrome to train in......... Few countries can afford that.


 
Money doesn't guarantee medals though...
Swimming and Athletics received very similar share of the funding to that going to Cycling.

be interesting to know what Jamaica's Athletics budget is.


----------



## yello (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Surely they had their chance and chose not to contest the charges in Court but to settle. In line with USADA v Armstrong their guilt is therefore unarguable.


 
Do you honesty believe any of that? Can you not see the glaringly obvious flaw in what you say? I'd like to think you're capable of objective thought but you seem to be trying very hard to convince me otherwise.

Are there any situations that you will not twist to protect whatever preconceived notions you have?


----------



## smutchin (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> if you did you were on a level playing field at the top.



Yeah, I used to think something like this but then I actually read a bit about how EPO works... Now I wouldn't be so foolish as to believe anything so ridiculous. 

Anyway, there's no "level playing field" for people who refuse to dope, eg Bassons.



> What Armstrong does demonstrate though, if you believe he and his team were long term dopers, is the incompetence of WADA and the drugs testing labs in detecting doping. How can they not detect doping in over 500 screens of an allegedly committed doper to say nothing of all the tests on his team mates?



Well, maybe the UCI and others within the sport covering up positive tests was one of the things that prevented them catching Lance sooner? Hmmm?

And stop repeating the 500+ tests myth - it's been well and truly debunked. 

d.


----------



## DogTired (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Legally absolutely. But morally?


 
Depends on that person's subjective moral standpoint. Throwing money at a problem rarely brings success.

Personally? Morally wrong if they were suppressing or abusing people to get their money - otherwise its just money - 1s and 0's in a bank's computer. Some people have more money, some have less. Some pedal (or peddle) harder, some less.


----------



## smutchin (27 Aug 2012)

Ian H said:


> drugs don't work miracles, but mostly help you to train harder - you still have to do the work.



Yeah, that's how I understand it too, but they can do enough to help athletes of relatively modest natural talent become super athletes... 



Boris Bajic said:


> Johnson was not an 'also ran'. he was very fast and was made faster still by drugs.



Yeah, OK, I don't mean to dismiss his natural ability entirely - he was pretty fast even without the drugs but not a winner at the highest level - that's what I mean by also-ran. 

Although, to be fair, maybe he could have been that good if the field was clean. Who knows?

d.


----------



## DogTired (27 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> Yeah, that's how I understand it too, but they can do enough to help athletes of relatively modest natural talent become super athletes...
> d.


 
David Millar's Book, Racing through the Dark P76 (talking about EPO specifically):

"Does it make a difference? It can turn a donkey into a race horse..."

Lots of riders refer to a peloton of 2 speeds so it makes quite a difference.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2007250, member: 45"]Are people on here excusing drug use in sport??[/quote]

I do not excuse it, but its absence would have led to not seeing M Pantani destroy the mountains.

It would have meant missing many of the crazy battles of the 1990s and 2000s.

I'm not saying that what we would have seen would have been worse, but what we did see (drugs and all) was quite extraordinary.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> But on the evidence that the peleton (or at least all the leadership contenders) were all doping around that time if you didn't dope you didn't stand much of a chance and if you did you were on a level playing field at the top. And on that level playing field he managed something that no-one else else managed on drugs and that was to win seven times in succession.


 
Firstly, not everyone was doping. Secondly, where do you think the pressure to dope came from? Why do you think it wasn't dealt with earlier? It didn't just arise out of nowhere nor did it continue for inexplicable reasons. There were significant figures who used their personal power, and groups of people with strong connections etc. which wer able to pressure others, hide what was going on, and who also shut down complaints and revelations. This is the whole point of the allegations against Armstrong, Bruyneel and the three doctors what some people still fail to appreciate. It isn't (just) about whether someone used drugs to win, but exactly about tackling the interpersonal and social structures within cycling that allowed doping to flourish.


----------



## raindog (27 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do not excuse it, but its absence would have led to not seeing M Pantani destroy the mountains.
> 
> It would have meant missing many of the crazy battles of the 1990s and 2000s.


And that's created an enormous problem. You can see evidence of that in the race threads on the CN forum, where anything less than an impossible superhuman acceleration up a steep climb is considered "boring" by the younger generation following the sport.

Give me clean and "boring" over artificial crap everytime, thanks. The 1990s and the 2000s are the lost years imo.


----------



## DogTired (27 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I do not excuse it, but its absence would have led to not seeing M Pantani destroy the mountains.
> 
> It would have meant missing many of the crazy battles of the 1990s and 2000s.
> 
> I'm not saying that what we would have seen would have been worse, but what we did see (drugs and all) was quite extraordinary.


 
It was pretty dull watching Arnstrong dominate the TdF. Just reading a bio of Eddy Merckx - the speed of riders in the late 60s early 70s is still extraordinary! For me, its not about absolute performance - guys competing and giving it their all, far in excess of what I could achieve is the compelling part.


----------



## johnr (27 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> http://rittecycles.com/lance-armstrong/


 Interesting article. No idea who the business or the author are, but it's quite a poignant little polemic on a money-maker and a fan trying to come to terms with their hero's betrayal... and failing.

Reminds me of my own reaction to Neil Young's support for Reagan and Bob Dylan's zionism in the 1970s.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> It was pretty dull watching Arnstrong dominate the TdF. Just reading a bio of Eddy Merckx - the speed of riders in the late 60s early 70s is still extraordinary! For me, its not about absolute performance - guys competing and giving it their all, far in excess of what I could achieve is the compelling part.


 
I didn't see the racing in the 60s and 70s. I've read about it since, but my itroduction was in the already drug-sodden 80s.

From much of what I read, the 60s and 70s were a utopia of Corinthian values and no-one touched a drop of anything that might enhance their speed or endurance. Sorry, I had to stop typing there until I'd managed to get back on my chair.

Sure, the 1990s and 2000s were bad (maybe the worst) but competitors compete. They do go for the edge.

To somehow draw a distinction between the 'non-cheating' dopers of the 60s and 70s and the cheating EPO monkeys of the later years might be seen in some quarters as eccentric.

Yes, the domination of Armstroing was dull in some ways (much as the Wiggins machine was this year) but the Tour is more than just a yellow t-shirt. Some of the EPO-fuelled racing in those 'lost' years was extraordinary.

Wrong, certainly. Cheating, certainly. Entertaining and impressive for its sheer impossibility? Without a doubt!

I do not condone cheating, but in cycling it predates my birth and my engagement with the sport. I grew to love a dirty sport. The 90s were just 'the same but more so'.


----------



## Boris Bajic (27 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> And that's created an enormous problem. You can see evidence of that in the race threads on the CN forum, where anything less than an impossible superhuman acceleration up a steep climb is considered "boring" by the younger generation following the sport.
> 
> Give me clean and "boring" over artificial crap everytime, thanks. The 1990s and the 2000s are the lost years imo.


 
I agree. Which were the 'clean and boring' years of the TdF?

I started to pay attention to it in the early-mid 980s. I can't think of a clean (or boring) race since that time.

I love it nonetheless.


----------



## johnr (27 Aug 2012)

Sorry if I've missed an earlier reference to this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/25/lance-armstrong-johan-bruyneel-cycling

Looks like Brunyeel's going to go down slugging. Be interesting to see if he can do that and cover Pharmstrong's back at the same time.


----------



## Alun (27 Aug 2012)

johnr said:


> Sorry if I've missed an earlier reference to this
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/25/lance-armstrong-johan-bruyneel-cycling
> 
> Looks like Brunyeel's going to go down slugging. Be interesting to see if he can do that and cover Pharmstrong's back at the same time.


Or draw fire away from him!


----------



## PaulB (27 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2007250, member: 45"]Are people on here excusing drug use in sport??[/quote]
Here's one I've always thought relevant; why is it that one branch of medicine - pharmacology - is mostly illegal while another branch of medicine - psychology - is considered perfectly acceptable? That was a question raised, of all people, by Chris Eubank. He'd been beaten by a fighter who boasted he'd been to a hypnotherapist who encouraged his aggression once in the ring. I think Sky are well known to employ psychologists to get the best from their riders and once again, this is the province of the best-funded and will be denied to those teams and nations who don't possess the necessary wealth to employ such specialists.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Or draw fire away from him!



Or act as a proxy for him to discredit the evidence.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Aug 2012)

PaulB said:


> Here's one I've always thought relevant; why is it that one branch of medicine - pharmacology - is mostly illegal while another branch of medicine - psychology - is considered perfectly acceptable?


 
But they aren't the same. What you have done is put two things in one box called 'medicine' and said that we have an inconsistent attitude to 'medicine'. But 1. Psychology could equally be put in a box called 'social science'; and 2. No-one has ever argued that all 'medicine' should be banned. The point is about substances or processes that offer a known physical advantage beyond simply repairing or preventing injury. You can't ban psychological techniques because their advantage is not physical and, in any case, very difficult to demonstrate in any objective way.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2012)

I suppose that technically there is less "cost" to the individual with psychology than with pharmacology.

Pharmacology has and will push athletes to the limits and beyond. This is where at the worst case deaths occur

It's not new, 1n 1896 Arthur Linton became the first cyclist to die from a performance enhancing drug (Strychnine) in 1960, another cyclists Knud Jensen died of an overdose of amphetamine and Nicotinyl Nitrate, then there is Tom Simpson, with amphetamines and alcohol.

It is unlikely that any psychologist will be able to push an athlete into dangerous realms of performance, they will be limited by the body's ability.

Of course it may also be why many of the "greats" in Sport are thoroughly nasty people as their drive and singularly selfish attitude are exactly what has allowed them to step ahead of the others


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Of course it may also be why many of the "greats" in Sport are thoroughly nasty people as their drive and singularly selfish attitude are exactly what has allowed them to step ahead of the others


 
I think this is a bit of a stereotype. For every Lance Armstrong, there's a Greg Lemond or a Bradley Wiggins. Chris Hoy is a lovely human being by all accounts. Drive doesn't necessarily equate to being 'nasty' or any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour. In fact, I would argue that it's precisely the line between being driven and being for want of a better word 'over-driven' that leads down the road to cheating.


----------



## PaulB (27 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> But they aren't the same. What you have done is put two things in one box called 'medicine' and said that we have an inconsistent attitude to 'medicine'. But 1. Psychology could equally be put in a box called 'social science'; and 2. No-one has ever argued that all 'medicine' should be banned. The point is about substances or processes that offer a known physical advantage beyond simply repairing or preventing injury. You can't ban psychological techniques because their advantage is not physical and, in any case, very difficult to demonstrate in any objective way.


They belong in the same box; both brands are often to be found in the same establishment (a hospital) and are practiced by doctors and consultant doctors of medicine. There is more mental illness than physical illness. I'm not saying they are the same at all and maybe it isn't relevant in this specific case of Lance Armstrong as this thread concerns but since the issue of cost was raised earlier, I threw this one in. 

And the mind is a very complex thing and therefore you can and should ban certain psychological techniques as their advantage can well be physical. You could get soldiers to go over the top and walk towards certain death in the past whereas now, you could convince someone to wear a rucksack of bombs and detonate themselves on a bus.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think this is a bit of a stereotype. For every Lance Armstrong, there's a Greg Lemond or a Bradley Wiggins. Chris Hoy is a lovely human being by all accounts. Drive doesn't necessarily equate to being 'nasty' or any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour. In fact, I would argue that it's precisely the line between being driven and being for want of a better word 'over-driven' that leads down the road to cheating.


 
Which is why I said "many" not "all"

I was specifically relating to adverse and negative effects in both pharmacology and psychology.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think this is a bit of a stereotype. For every Lance Armstrong, there's a Greg Lemond or a Bradley Wiggins. Chris Hoy is a lovely human being by all accounts. Drive doesn't necessarily equate to being 'nasty' or any kind of morally reprehensible behaviour. In fact, I would argue that it's precisely the line between being driven and being for want of a better word 'over-driven' that leads down the road to cheating.


Indeed. What seems to happen is that people who like following winners are prepared to excuse behaviour and personality traits that they wouldn't tolerate in a 'lesser' person. You don't have to be an peanut to be a champion and Chris Hoy is the example I always use when this crops up.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> It was pretty dull watching Arnstrong dominate the TdF. Just reading a bio of Eddy Merckx - the speed of riders in the late 60s early 70s is still extraordinary! For me, its not about absolute performance - guys competing and giving it their all, far in excess of what I could achieve is the compelling part.


 
Just out of interest, Merckx believed Armstrong to be innocent and he himself was the subject of a number of unproven allegations of doping which he too denied.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Firstly, not everyone was doping.


 
True, possibly Kivilev and Zubeldia weren't although the latter's performance in the mountains in 2003 against Ulrich and Armstrong would indicate he was on whatever they were on.


----------



## Alun (27 Aug 2012)

PaulB said:


> Here's one I've always thought relevant; why is it that one branch of medicine - pharmacology - is mostly illegal while another branch of medicine - psychology - is considered perfectly acceptable? That was a question raised, of all people, by Chris Eubank. He'd been beaten by a fighter who boasted he'd been to a hypnotherapist who encouraged his aggression once in the ring. I think Sky are well known to employ psychologists to get the best from their riders and once again, this is the province of the best-funded and will be denied to those teams and nations who don't possess the necessary wealth to employ such specialists.


There will always besome teams who have more money than others, it's not restricted to cycling though. Liverpool FC is one of the richest football clubs in the world, but has consistently underperformed to the disappointment of it's fans.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

[QUOTE 2007846, member: 45"]These people could do with stepping back and taking the idol down off the pedestal. If they'r willing to do this then they'll see things pretty differently.[/quote]
It's just one of the reasons why I don't have, or like the idea of, personal heroes. It requires too much suspension of critical faculties, plus an emotional investment that just seems illogical and stupid.


----------



## Ian H (27 Aug 2012)

There are rules and there are unwritten rules. Pro cycling is in the process of changing the unwritten rules (it might take a while for the amateurs to catch up).


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Tygart says Armstrong used undetectable drugs. Penalties for the witnesses to be announced in the next few weeks.
http://www.ksdk.com/sports/article/...trong-could-have-kept-5-Tour-de-France-titles


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> Well, maybe the UCI and others within the sport covering up positive tests was one of the things that prevented them catching Lance sooner? Hmmm?


 
How did the UCI cover them up? L'Equipe often seemed to know them before WADA or the UCI had been informed.


----------



## albion (27 Aug 2012)

There is a sure fire way to catch a drug cheat.

You place him under water for 10 minutes and if he lives he is innocent. You then hang him for witchcraft.


----------



## Get In The Van (27 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> It's just one of the reasons why I don't have, or like the idea of, personal heroes. It requires too much suspension of critical faculties, plus an emotional investment that just seems illogical and stupid.


 


John Lydon sums it best for me
"i don't have any heros, they're all useless"


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Indeed. What seems to happen is that people who like following winners are prepared to excuse behaviour and personality traits that they wouldn't tolerate in a 'lesser' person. You don't have to be an peanut to be a champion and Chris Hoy is the example I always use when this crops up.


 

Again this is why I said "most"...

This should be taken in the original context of :


PaulB said:


> Here's one I've always thought relevant; why is it that one branch of medicine - pharmacology - is mostly illegal while another branch of medicine - psychology - is considered perfectly acceptable?


 
There are always going to be exceptions, and the extremes will always be that - extremes.

But it is not that clear cut, Graeme Obree is another example where the psychological profile drives the individual. His is a far more complex and difficult one, but would he have been as successful without this part of his make-up?


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> There is a sure fire way to catch a drug cheat.
> 
> You place him under water for 10 minutes and if he lives he is innocent. You then hang him for witchcraft.


I covered Witchcraft on Page 54
Armstrong charged and banned


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

Get In The Van said:


> John Lydon sums it best for me
> "i don't have any heros, they're all useless"


Especially the butter vendor himself.


----------



## DogTired (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Just out of interest, Merckx believed Armstrong to be innocent and he himself was the subject of a number of unproven allegations of doping which he too denied.


 
Not sure if it makes any difference but the Merckx quote was before any of the USADA evidence came to light. Merckx did test positive, at least twice (I havent finished the book yet) I think once on the Giro when there were suspicions about tampering with water bottles and again for a substance that back-tracking his Dr stated it was due to a cough medicine he prescribed. At the time the penalty for doping was 2 week suspension...

Merckx could also be an Armstrong like piece of work when it came to threatening other riders that they'd never ride again if they crossed him.


----------



## woohoo (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Just out of interest, Merckx believed Armstrong to be innocent and he himself was the subject of a number of unproven allegations of doping which he too denied.


Not entirely surprising given that
a) his son, Axel, is Directeur sportif for the Trek-Livestrong U-23 team
and
b) Eddy introduced Armstrong to Dr Ferrari.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Not sure if it makes any difference but the Merckx quote was before any of the USADA evidence came to light.



The USADA evidence still hasn't come to light. We've had trails and speculation on what it might contain but at present only USADA know what the evidence actually is.


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

woohoo said:


> Not entirely surprising given that
> a) his son, Axel, is Directeur sportif for the Trek-Livestrong U-23 team
> and
> b) Eddy introduced Armstrong to Dr Ferrari.



And yet one is an iconic figure in cycling and the other is a hate figure for many. Why the different treatment?


----------



## woohoo (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> And yet one is an iconic figure in cycling and the other is a hate figure for many. Why the different treatment?


That's a different aspect; my post hjghlighted that Eddy Merckx can't be considered as neutral commentator given his and his son's close relationship with Armstrong.


----------



## albion (27 Aug 2012)

Sadly they all seem to be dressed in camouflage.

It came close but 'Mr 4 books' splashed the cash.


----------



## Smokin Joe (27 Aug 2012)

A very informative summary here -

http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike


----------



## Flying_Monkey (27 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> There is a sure fire way to catch a drug cheat.
> 
> You place him under water for 10 minutes and if he lives he is innocent. You then hang him for witchcraft.


 
albion, your posts are getting increasingly pointless.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> albion, your posts are getting increasingly pointless.


Any idea what 1704 is about? I'm baffled, unless he's replying to Ignored Member.


----------



## thom (27 Aug 2012)

Comments in France:
Dick Pound : http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Pound-une-defense-ridicule/308964
Basson : http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...ard-virenque-dans-les-cotes_1751911_3242.html


----------



## raindog (27 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Basson : http://www.lemonde.fr/sport/article...ard-virenque-dans-les-cotes_1751911_3242.html


thanks for the links
'In winter training with Festina, I could drop Virenque on the climbs"


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> A very informative summary here -
> 
> http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike



Not really as its very far from a neutral summary. For example it fails to comment that all the other people there including Armstrong's cancer doctors who were treating him contradicted Betsy and Frankie Andreu's testimony leading to SCA losing their case and $7.5m. And his doctors are unlikely to lie and falsify his medical notes as that could be a career ending step if they did. That's a fairly big chunk of information to leave out but one you would leave out if you were trying to make a case rather than a neutral summary.


----------



## ufkacbln (27 Aug 2012)

All of this comes to a single point which was shouted down previously.

With no legal trial in a court of law there was always going to be the possibility of the stalemate we have now.

There was an article at the start of all of this suggesting that Armstrong should simply refuse to play along with USADA

The Haters would still hate, the Fans would still be Fans and the ones who wanted unequivocal proof of the truth would still have to rely on the opinions and claims of the two extreme groups and their claims.

The present position does not do the Sport any good at all, and the longer it runs, the more the Sport will suffer.


This article is perhaps a fair summing up of the position of a journalist with a foot in neither camp:



> There were no winners here, and a lot of losers.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Aug 2012)

$500 million Lance has raised for his Foundation to help the fight against cancer. This is where he says his work continues not fighting the "nonsense" allegations against him.

$500 million ...................... pretty impressive really.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Aug 2012)

User3094 said:


> It is. Nothing to do with him being the main proponent in a structural cheating ring though.
> 
> *All this reminds me of the Stephen Lawrence enquiry somehow*.


 
Errrr ..........how?


----------



## albion (27 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> albion, your posts are getting increasingly pointless.


And pointlessness quite sums up how the any real discussion has evolved.

That 'fingers in ears' posting also sums everything up nicely.

It would be worthwhile to abandon the discussion, at least until USADA releases all of its evidence.
Putting it all into the public domain is best all round.


----------



## Crankarm (27 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> And pointlessness quite sums up how the any real discussion has evolved.
> 
> That 'fingers in ears' posting also sums everything up nicely.
> 
> ...


 
For me the thing that makes USADA look like total clowns  is that they gave LA a life time ban. The guy is 41 years old retired from Pro bike racing for several years save for his foray into triathlon. He doesn't need the money. If anything the ban is pure spite. How about when he made a comeback running the Shack, will his 2nd place finish in 2007 be expunged too?


----------



## Red Light (27 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ]This article is perhaps a fair summing up of the position of a journalist with a foot in neither camp:



That's no more neutral than the article SJ linked to IMO.

Anyway she misses out that the whole of the drugs testing industry were in on the Armstrong conspiracy and falsified all his results.


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> For me the thing that makes USADA look like total clowns  is that they gave LA a life time ban. The guy is 41 years old retired from Pro bike racing for several years save for his foray into triathlon. He doesn't need the money. If anything the ban is pure spite. How about when he made a comeback running the Shack, will his 2nd place finish in 2007 be expunged too?


Quite right. Following the guidelines laid down by the WADA Code? Assclowns, they should be running a zoo, not cycling.


----------



## thom (27 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> For me the thing that makes USADA look like total clowns  is that they gave LA a life time ban. The guy is 41 years old retired from Pro bike racing for several years save for his foray into triathlon. He doesn't need the money. If anything the ban is pure spite. How about when he made a comeback running the Shack, will his 2nd place finish in 2007 be expunged too?


 
The way I see it is Armstrong looks like a guy who'd prefer to live the rest of his life as the idol of a gullible minority rather than a man with some sense of humility as perceived by the rest of the world. In other words, a conman and a coward.
I think the UCI probably will look like clowns.
I think USADA pretty much look like the only ones with a backbone.

What kind of sanction do you think a guy should get if from a legal/quasi-legal point of view he has accepted charges that place him at the center of the most spectacular sporting fraud in history ?

To quote Paula Radcliffe on the matter "Drug cheats out".


----------



## Alun (27 Aug 2012)

What I find incredible is that Armstrong has been offered 5 of his TdF wins back.

Giving Armstrong a lifetime ban, is about as meaningful as banning Ullrich, 5 years after he had retired anyway, and then giving him another 3 TdF wins whilst he's still serving his 2 year ban. No wonder they've want to give them back to Armstrong!


----------



## albion (27 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Any idea what 1704 is about? I'm baffled, unless he's replying to Ignored Member.



Sorry, I stupidly thought I was member 1704 and you had me on ignore.

Mr 4 books is that Walsh guy who has authored 4 books on Armstrong. He also paid Emma the masseur for her story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> What I find incredible is that Armstrong has been offered 5 of his TdF wins back. Giving Armstrong a lifetime ban, is about as meaningful as banning Ullrich, 5 years after he had retired anyway, and then giving him another 3 TdF wins whilst he's still serving his 2 year ban. No wonder they've want to give them back to Armstrong!


Had he cooperated with USADA (and he refused to do so, of his own volition) then he might well have been allowed to keep the wins that were outside of the statute of limitations. I suspect he'd still have been given a lifetime ban though. Of course, cooperation would mean throwing a _lot_ of people under the bus so it's no wonder he felt too tired to do so. Personally it would have been better if he had cooperated, but a lifetime ban means he can't have anything to do with cycling. Remember when he and Verbruggen were planning to buy the TdF? He's where he belongs, well away from cycling. People like Crankarm don't get this...


----------



## Chuffy (27 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Sorry, I stupidly thought I was member 1704 and you had me on ignore.
> 
> Mr 4 books is that Walsh guy who has authored 4 books on Armstrong. He also paid Emma the masseur for her story.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers


Oh, the guy who played a huge part in revealing all this stuff? The guy without whom little or none of this stuff would ever have come out? That guy?
And this would be Emma the masseuse who was paid (at her standard hourly business rate iirc) because she ended up spending so much time checking that what Walsh and Ballestre wrote from her interviews was accurate?

If you want to have a go at someone who deserves it, why not try Sally 'two books' Jenkins?


----------



## smutchin (27 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> That's no more neutral than the article SJ linked to IMO.



It's possibly the most idiotic piece I've read on this subject yet. This is what passes for journalism at the Washington Post? Egads. 



> Anyway she misses out that the whole of the drugs testing industry were in on the Armstrong conspiracy and falsified all his results.



On which subject, here's an interesting statement from Don Catlin in January this year in response to suggestions by Sports Illustrated that he was in on the conspiracy, specifically on his reasons for not providing certain test results when requested...
http://www.antidopingresearch.org/Catlin-Armstrong-Roberts-Sports Illustrated-p1.php

Sounds plausible to me - not quite the "highly unusual" scenario depicted in that cavalierfc piece. There's a lot of misleading reporting on both sides - it's just less of a story if Catlin didn't continue testing Lance for purely logistical reasons...

On the other hand, Catlin doesn't deny the old positive tests were Armstrong's. He only says he doesn't know one way or the other. Which seems fair enough. 

So, who would be doing the covering up and why?

As they say in The Wire: follow the money. 

Doctors do indeed risk their career by engaging in doping activities. If they get caught. If...

d.


----------



## albion (27 Aug 2012)

"What I find incredible is that Armstrong has been offered 5 of his TdF wins back"

So he could be another of their reformed characters I guess.
It is the very first time I have heard this.


----------



## DogTired (27 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> $500 million Lance has raised for his Foundation to help the fight against cancer. This is where he says his work continues not fighting the "nonsense" allegations against him.
> $500 million ...................... pretty impressive really.


 
Its very impressive - but raising a load of money is not the same as doing worth with it. The Foundation sits on a pot of $110million yet in 2011 _*did not fund a single research grant*_. Quite incredible, that. It seems to produce reports to try and influence policy-makers. Yada.

It does spiffy stuff like this:
"LIVESTRONGTM at School - Offers a curriculum of online lessons for grades K–12 to help school professionals talk with students about cancer in a way that is age appropriate, inspiring and empowering."

Also, lots of other stuff about media impressions, Facebook 'likes', awareness courses etc. Its a bit odd, yep, it undoubtedly does some good but has a parochial view and I'd be interested in what the other $360million achieved.

If talking and 'awareness' cures cancer then this is definitely the right way to spend $470million.


----------



## Alun (27 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Had he cooperated with USADA (and he refused to do so, of his own volition) then he might well have been allowed to keep the wins that were outside of the statute of limitations. I suspect he'd still have been given a lifetime ban though. Of course, cooperation would mean throwing a _lot_ of people under the bus so it's no wonder he felt too tired to do so. Personally it would have been better if he had cooperated, but a lifetime ban means he can't have anything to do with cycling. Remember when he and Verbruggen were planning to buy the TdF? He's where he belongs, well away from cycling. People like Crankarm don't get this...


Tygard has said that he can STILL keep 5 wins, if he turns Supergrass. Who would he turn in? The whole thrust of the last 1700 posts is that HE is public enemy No.1, only aided and abetted by others. I wonder how much evidence there is on Bruyneel that Tygard feels it necessary to offer 5 TdF wins (as many as anyone else has ever won) as an inducement?


----------



## albion (28 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> If you want to have a go at someone who deserves it, why not try Sally 'two books' Jenkins?



I was having a go at Walsh. He sinisterly seems to have Wiggins on his agenda now.

If the guy had stuck to the subject of Armstrong he would not have pissed me off so much.


----------



## Alun (28 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> "What I find incredible is that Armstrong has been offered 5 of his TdF wins back"
> 
> So he could be another of their reformed characters I guess.
> It is the very first time I have heard this.


Here you go!
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...ce-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1


----------



## marinyork (28 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Giving Armstrong a lifetime ban, is about as meaningful as banning Ullrich, 5 years after he had retired anyway, and then giving him another 3 TdF wins whilst he's still serving his 2 year ban. No wonder they've want to give them back to Armstrong!


 
You keep on going on an on about this, but it seems far from clear there is a need to 'give' the victories to someone else. In recent years there are two vacancies in the tour de france podiums, and you know this perfectly well and yet you haven't responded meaningfully to that point at al with anything that adds to the discussion.


----------



## smutchin (28 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Tygard has said that he can STILL keep 5 wins, if he turns Supergrass. Who would he turn in? The whole thrust of the last 1700 posts is that HE is public enemy No.1, only aided and abetted by others. I wonder how much evidence there is on Bruyneel that Tygard feels it necessary to offer 5 TdF wins (as many as anyone else has ever won) as an inducement?



Well, whatever Lance and Johann did, they didn't do it alone. I don't think anyone here really believes the buck stops with Lance.

Tygart is clearly gunning for the UCI now, but he may also have other targets in his sights. 

Maybe Lance is taking the flak to protect bigger interests who could hurt him a lot more than any sporting body taking away his titles... 

It'll be interesting to see how far this one goes. 

d.


----------



## albion (28 Aug 2012)

Maybe you are right but it is still complete rubbish that people are not banned for life.
As far as I'm concerned the cycle teams are where the buck mainly stops.

Armstrong is a pig headed strong person. He can't be persuaded towards Tygards truth.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> The way I see it is Armstrong looks like a guy who'd prefer to live the rest of his life as the idol of a gullible minority rather than a man with some sense of humility as perceived by the rest of the world. In other words, a conman and a coward.
> I think the UCI probably will look like clowns.
> I think USADA pretty much look like the only ones with a backbone.
> 
> ...


 
:troll:


----------



## Crankarm (28 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> Well, whatever Lance and Johann did, they didn't do it alone. I don't think anyone here really believes the buck stops with Lance.
> 
> Tygart is clearly gunning for the UCI now, but he may also have other targets in his sights.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe, maybe. I don't think he is a grass though. But just perhaps LA is just tired of the whole circus now, racking up huge legal bills defending himself and sapping his energy. As he said in his recent statement he has been fighting the trolls since 1999. Maybe he has just decided to move on, to focus on what is currently important in his life and it is his diplomatic way of saying that he no longer gives a sh1t. After all he has now been retired 5 years and left it all behind.

Why didn't USADA just offer an amnesty to all Pro riders in these years so they could at least get to the bottom of exactly who did what and when rather than this witch hunt and creating a scenario for conspiracy theories and the lynch mob which we have read plenty of in this thread by the LA haters?


----------



## rich p (28 Aug 2012)

2008639 said:


> Crankarm your verdict on Thom is laughable.


 I assumed it was ironic.


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

2008639 said:


> Crankarm your verdict on Thom is laughable.


To be fair to Crankarm, it appears that with the absence of any lingering semblance of a defence, it's the only thing that Lance Armstrong can say on the matter any more to his accusers.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Tygard has said that he can STILL keep 5 wins, if he turns Supergrass. Who would he turn in? The whole thrust of the last 1700 posts is that HE is public enemy No.1, only aided and abetted by others. I wonder how much evidence there is on Bruyneel that Tygard feels it necessary to offer 5 TdF wins (as many as anyone else has ever won) as an inducement?



McCarthy anyone?


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Its very impressive - but raising a load of money is not the same as doing worth with it. The Foundation sits on a pot of $110million yet in 2011 _*did not fund a single research grant*_. Quite incredible, that.



The Foundation is not about funding research. It's about supporting the victims and survivors of cancer and their families and raising public awareness of the disease so that unlike with Armstrong, it can be caught at an earlier stage.

But perhaps you think the MacMillan nurses are a waste of money too. http://m.macmillan.org.uk/home


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> Doctors do indeed risk their career by engaging in doping activities. If they get caught. If...



So why would a group of leading cancer doctors falsify treatment notes and later perjure themselves with the risk of losing their careers, status and jobs just so one of their patients, who at the time was pretty much an unknown competitor in a, for the USA at that time, fringe sport and for whom they gave a 2% chance of surviving a metastasised cancer, could later escape doping charges? It's pretty far fetched to think if he said what Betsy Andreu says he said to his doctors that it was not written down there and then in his hospital records.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> The way I see it is Armstrong looks like a guy who'd prefer to live the rest of his life as the idol of a gullible minority rather than a man with some sense of humility as perceived by the rest of the world.



Seems from the opinion polls in the US ( which are the only ones that will matter to a Texan) the majority believe he didn't dope so your "gullible minority" is actually a majority. Haven't seen any opinion polls for other countries though.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> who at the time was pretty much an unknown competitor in a, for the USA at that time, fringe sport


 
That's rubbish. Armstrong had already won the world RR champs in 93, so was hardly 'unknown' - and another bloke called Lemond had already won three TDF titles - it's possible the Yanks may have noticed that. It might not have been major league baseball, but it was not 'fringe' either....


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> Maybe Lance is taking the flak to protect bigger interests who could hurt him a lot more than any sporting body taking away his titles...



Perhaps the US Postal Service was developing a drug and blood delivery business for professional sports teams. After all why else would they possibly want to sponsor a cycling team?


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Aug 2012)

This has been an interesting and mostly good natured thread.

To those who scoff at the impact of Armstrong on the wider image and enhanced profile of pro cycling: Look at the numbers for this thead.

There have been some fascinating links and some very insightful posts here.

Ultimately it's a guessing game, as none of us (as far as I can tell) will be deciding on the future or past of Lance or the TdF.

I'm a fan of the Tour. The whole LA thing is to a large extent just another station we saw through the window as our train went past.

Of course there are people who have attached some emotional baggage (or similar) to the whole LA phenomenon, just as there are those who cannot but spit when his name comes up.

Mr Imlach (I think) told me via the medium of Radio 4 some days ago that the whole LA thing was less a question of proof than one of faith. I may have misquoted him, but that was the angle. This thread rather backs him up on that.

Much of the thread has been happy-happy, but there are signs of some quite harsh invective emerging. The crosser people get, the more inclined I am to see the issue as a conflict of faith.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> That's rubbish. Armstrong had already won the world RR champs in 93, so was hardly 'unknown' - and another bloke called Lemond had already won three TDF titles - it's possible the Yanks may have noticed that. It might not have been major league baseball, but it was not 'fringe' either....



At that time it was fringe in the US and was here too at that time. It was only through the Armstrong years and after that the Tour de France and cycling rose to public prominence. I bet even now if you asked most people to name world road race champions, Cav is the only one they would come up with if any and back then they wouldn't have a clue or even have known any of the names.


----------



## mangaman (28 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> (Thinking of the long run of course, this decision has interesting political implications. Armstrong is well-known to have political ambitions and being the 'victim of an international conspiracy led by the French' will do him no harm at all amongst his potential core constituency of Texas voters).


 
He may try to spin that, but the French and the European cycling establishment did nothing to stop him as Bernard Hinault rightly says - the UCI even took money from him while he hounded French and Italian cyclists out of the sport.

It ultimately took the US to bring him down.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> At that time it was fringe in the US and was here too at that time. It was only through the Armstrong years and after that the Tour de France and cycling rose to public prominence. I bet even now if you asked most people to name world road race champions, Cav is the only one they would come up with if any and back then they wouldn't have a clue or even have known any of the names.


 
Your definition of 'fringe' is obviously slightly more 'fringe' than mine is. The 7-Eleven team was riding the TdF from 1986 and had a good profile in the US, as did cycling in general through the 80s/90s. Nine American cycling medals at the LA Olympics in 84. Like I said, it might not have been the NFL or NBA, but it simply wasn't 'fringe' in the way you are describing it.


----------



## yello (28 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> The crosser people get, the more inclined I am to see the issue as a conflict of faith.


 
You're right there.

I have to admit to completely under-estimating the strength of belief. I've been blind-sided by it. Chuffy did point it out to me, but I still discounted it. I guess I'm just too pragmatic to understand people's drive to stay true to faith.


----------



## Alun (28 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> You keep on going on an on about this, but it seems far from clear there is a need to 'give' the victories to someone else. In recent years there are two vacancies in the tour de france podiums, and you know this perfectly well and yet you haven't responded meaningfully to that point at al with anything that adds to the discussion.


 Other than for 2 World Wars there are no years without an overall winner.


----------



## MichaelM (28 Aug 2012)

Crankarm said:


> Maybe, maybe. I don't think he is a grass though. But just perhaps LA is just tired of the whole circus now, racking up huge legal bills defending himself and sapping his energy. As he said in his recent statement he has been fighting the trolls *hiding the truth* since 1999. Maybe he has just decided to move on, to focus on what is currently important in his life and it is his diplomatic way of saying that he no longer gives a sh1t. After all he has now been retired 5 years and left it all behind.
> 
> Why didn't USADA just offer an amnesty to all Pro riders in these years so they could at least get to the bottom of exactly who did what and when rather than this witch hunt and creating a scenario for conspiracy theories and the lynch mob which we have read plenty of in this thread by the LA haters?


 
I'm sure it was just a simple typo, but I got your meaning.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> You're right there.
> 
> I have to admit to completely under-estimating the strength of belief. I've been blind-sided by it. Chuffy did point it out to me, but I still discounted it. I guess I'm just too pragmatic to understand people's drive to stay true to faith.



The belief is on both sides. Nobody here has seen any of the evidence USADA has yet people are convinced of his absolute guilt or his innocence already and many were already convinced before any of the USADA stuff blew up in the first place. Personally I am reserving judgement until the evidence is released and we can see it for ourselves. But until then I continue with the innocent until proven guilty stance. At the moment he has a default judgement and is technically guilty but any evidence has yet been weighed and judged. 

There is the line that has been used that he caved under the weight of the evidence against him but remember that he does not get to see any of the evidence until he has taken the decision to challenge it so like us he has little other than rumour and leaks to tell him what is in the evidence. And the latest offer from USADA hints that he took them by surprise in not fighting it and their evidence may not be as convincing as they said.

It will be interesting to follow the Bruyneel case as it unfolds and the evidence against Armstrong if and when USADA release it. But a bit like some other debates on here, an evidence based approach gets lost amongst the professions of faith and belief.


----------



## Crankarm (28 Aug 2012)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Wait a second. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> You're right there.
> 
> I have to admit to completely under-estimating the strength of belief. I've been blind-sided by it. Chuffy did point it out to me, but I still discounted it. I guess I'm just too pragmatic to understand people's drive to stay true to faith.


I'm starting to think of Armstrong fans in the same way as I think of Creationists. Deluded and wrong, but irretrievably wedded to their beliefs. There is literally *no* evidence that will shake their faith. What I find frustrating is that they won't accept they are hopelessly wrong, which in turn is a function of my position (rational & scientific etc).

This is not an issue of faith vs faith. It's faith vs evidence.


----------



## marinyork (28 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Other than for 2 World Wars there are no years without an overall winner.


 
You haven't said anything about the vacant positions in recent years. Podiums. Yes podiums. Pay attention. You actually said before that people had to be upgraded in position. Do you have any thoughts on this or are you going to keep on repeating the same things?

World War 2 is similar in many sports. However that irrelevance aside, I don't see why we simply can't have a vacant winner in the TDF with appropriate will. We've got two vacant podium places at this point in time. Once again your thoughts?


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> *That's rubbish.* Armstrong had already won the world RR champs in 93, so was hardly 'unknown' - and another bloke called Lemond had already won three TDF titles - it's possible the Yanks may have noticed that. It might not have been major league baseball, but it was not 'fringe' either....


 
I'm not sure it's rubbish. Armstrong had already won the rainbow thingummy, but was little known in the US beyond his own family and the domestic road racing and triathlon communities.

Lemond, too, was not a widely recognised figure in the US.

Even in Europe, Armstrong was not too well known before he got his first TdF win. I followed cycling back then and was aware that a yank had won the World Champs and the odd TdF stage. Could I name him? Could most people?

There will always be people who come on and say that they had him marked down as a future multiple TdF winner as soon as he stopped doing Triathlon, or as soon as he got a stage in the Tour... Before he got sick, he was one of very many fast, young riders who looked as though they might have an impact.

I've spent quite a while working in the US and do not recall overhearing a conversation about pro cycling. I overheard 38,486,000 chats about sport: NBA, Football and Baseball. None about pro cycling or the Tour.

I imagine most US citizens still know little about Lemond. What is known about Lance Armstrong is sometimes clouded by strongly partisan views and unusual reporting in the domestic media.

Armstrong (the man, the brand, the survivor et al) has become a phenomenon and a divider of opinion since his first few consecutive TdF wins. Had you asked anyone in Europe or the US to name 20 pro cyclists at any time pre-1999, almost nobody would have got past five names and none of those would have been Lance Armstrong. In the US, few people outside cycling would have got past two names.

You can argue that LA was hardly an 'unknown' in '93, but he was very close to that even in Europe and absolutely that in the US.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I followed cycling back then and was aware that a yank had won the World Champs and the odd TdF stage. Could I name him? Could most people?


 
Not sure what that proves - other than the fact that you perhaps didn't follow cycling as closely as you thought you did.

Armstrong was not an 'unknown' to anyone who followed cycling in the early 90s. It's impossible to prove a negative in this context, so there's no point trying.


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

*Sun Times reviews Armstrong 'liar and cheat' libel payout​*


----------



## marinyork (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Your definition of 'fringe' is obviously slightly more 'fringe' than mine is. The 7-Eleven team was riding the TdF from 1986 and had a good profile in the US, as did cycling in general through the 80s/90s. Nine American cycling medals at the LA Olympics in 84. Like I said, it might not have been the NFL or NBA, but it simply wasn't 'fringe' in the way you are describing it.


 
Not sure how olympic medals in a single one off games (five of them were on the track in particular) shows a big interest in cycling. The US won no olympic medals in 1980 (obviously) and 1976 and 1972 and infact you have to go back to the very early days of the olympics in 1912 before you find another US olympic cycling medal winner. Nor did they follow the success of their home games up with just 1 medal in 1988. Of course your argument in a sense is dishonest as I suspect you know perfectly well that the countries that boycotted the 1984 games were traditionally decent cycling countries in the 70s at the olympics. Funnily enough by amazing coincidence the US's number of medals shrank back down in 1988, I wonder why  . Then in 1992 at the olympics the medals have followed a different pattern. Apart from that the 1984 US cycling team is famous for doping.

Apart from that the idea that olympic medals means interest in (track) cycling is not something I see. If that had applied here in the past we'd be sorted.


----------



## smutchin (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> The belief is on both sides. Nobody here has seen any of the evidence USADA has yet people are convinced of his absolute guilt or his innocence already and many were already convinced before any of the USADA stuff blew up in the first place. Personally I am reserving judgement until the evidence is released and we can see it for ourselves. But until then I continue with the innocent until proven guilty stance. At the moment he has a default judgement and is technically guilty but any evidence has yet been weighed and judged.


 
I've never seen an electron. I only have the word of so-called "scientists" that such things exist. Why should I take their word for it? I refuse to believe in "electrons" until I've seen one with my own eyes.

d.


----------



## yello (28 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> *Sun Times reviews Armstrong 'liar and cheat' libel payout*​


 
Doesn't surprise me in the least.

I think they'd actually hang fire before re-opening until USADA releases the evidence though. Possibly even until UCI/ASO ratifies the decision - which they will in time.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Not sure what that proves - other than the fact that you perhaps didn't follow cycling as closely as you thought you did.
> 
> Armstrong was not an 'unknown' to anyone who followed cycling in the early 90s. It's impossible to prove a negative in this context, so there's no point trying.


 
I'm not trying to prove anything and I'm certainly not trying to get into a willy-measuring competition about how much or how little I followed cycling in the early 90s. A lifelong follower of Arsenal, I'm still told frequently by more ardent followers that I don't hate Spurs enough to be a true believer. That may be true. 

I really did follow cycling in the early 90s (and long before) and I really would have had trouble naming L.A. in '93 if asked. I might have said "That Yank bloke". When my eldest was learning to ride in 1997 we did pretend races and we were 'Zabal & Cippolini'. No Armstrong. I always did these pretend sprint-races commentaries with my kids while they were learning to pedal (and I always lost). there was no 'Armstrong' until the youngest started riding and he asked to be him. That was 2004. He'd been tipped off by an elder sibling that Armstrong was fast. The middle kid (born '95) always wanted to be Pantani. Ooops! 

I'm sure there were those who knew Armstrong and his deeds back then in '93. I was not among them. This may be because I spent the TdF weeks in France in those days and the French media did tend to concentrate on European (French) riders. I don't know.

Fame is hard to quantify.

I'm just suggesting that it is* not* rubbish to say that Lance was pretty much unknown in the US in 1993. He was. And apart from Armstrong, almost every pro cyclist before and since (including Lemond, Hincapie, Hamilton, Landis et al) remains so outside a small but very keen US road racing community.


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Doesn't surprise me in the least.
> 
> I think they'd actually hang fire before re-opening until USADA releases the evidence though. Possibly even until UCI/ASO ratifies the decision - which they will in time.


Yes I think the revelation of evidence will free up a lot of people to speak and act.
The question would be whether LA would seek to defend himself if he does get sued, what with the associated airing of evidence and explicit court judgement that he's avoided with USADA. There was a very large pay-cheque that one guarantor sought to avoid paying after one of the TdF's. Certainly it would be good for business from a news & pr point of view at the very least for the Sunday Times.


----------



## DogTired (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> The Foundation is not about funding research.
> *But perhaps you think* the MacMillan nurses are a waste of money too. http://m.macmillan.org.uk/home


 
I love it when someone puts "*But perhaps you think" *and then follows up with some arbitrary tosh*!*

As for the Foundation not funding research - its first item on their agenda apparently:
"The Foundation is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for those
living with, through and beyond cancer by _*supporting scientific research*_, educational community
programs and public awareness efforts."

Talking about fighting and actually fighting are 2 different things. Considering the report writing and talking the Foundation has a fantastic burn rate of cash. LAF has a lot of buzzword-compliant statements but is light on actual help for cancer sufferers.

Interesting you raise Macmillan - they provide actual health care! Real actual get-yer-hands-dirty-assistance. Not a report or education-program. They actually provide financial support too. Something LAF doesn't do.

If you have anything else, let me know. Always happy to make the effort and find the facts for you.


----------



## smutchin (28 Aug 2012)

The Lance Armstrong Foundation provides a lot of financial support for cancer survivors.

Well, one cancer survivor in particular.

Funny that the person who gets most financial support from the organisation should be someone who shares its name!

d.


----------



## davefb (28 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> I've never seen an electron. I only have the word of so-called "scientists" that such things exist. Why should I take their word for it? I refuse to believe in "electrons" until I've seen one with my own eyes.
> 
> d.


 
theres some *very* easy experiments to show a lot of the properties of one though... very easy..
though obviously you won't be able to actually see one though....

So the scientists don't just say "well they exist" , they show through evidence and repeatable experiments..

otherwise it'd be "I've got on good authority from an gamma particle that those electrons exist"


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

A translation of the Basson article


----------



## Alun (28 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> You haven't said anything about the vacant positions in recent years. Podiums. Yes podiums. Pay attention. You actually said before that people had to be upgraded in position. Do you have any thoughts on this or are you going to keep on repeating the same things?
> 
> World War 2 is similar in many sports. However that irrelevance aside, I don't see why we simply can't have a vacant winner in the TDF with appropriate will. We've got two vacant podium places at this point in time. Once again your thoughts?


Keep your shirt on! I am not really bothered by podiums vacant or otherwise.
I didn't make the rule that says riders have to be upgraded, it is a UCI rule, you can look it up if you don't believe me. It seems to apply in the case of Armstrong, I don't see why it shouldn't be applied, obviously you do. That's fine with me!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Aug 2012)

A really good piece on Cycling News involving Kimmage today, in which he outlines what needs to change with the UCI. Meanwhile WADA is calling for 'truth and reconciliation' - in other words the Vaughters / Slipstream way This is surely the most important course of action - we absolutely must get this right.


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

For those who prefer to listen rather than read : http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/race-radio/2012/8/27/lance-armstrong-special-edition.html


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

smutchin said:


> I've never seen an electron. I only have the word of so-called "scientists" that such things exist. Why should I take their word for it? I refuse to believe in "electrons" until I've seen one with my own eyes.
> 
> d.


 
That's a very healthy attitude and you should review the evidence there is for the "existence" of an electron and make your own mind up.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

I must be missing something here ? A US agency is to determine how many times a rider has one the TDF depending on what he tells them ?


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> *Sun Times reviews Armstrong 'liar and cheat' libel payout*​


 
It has ironic parallels. The _"pre-trial legal wrangling between Armstrong's lawyers Schillings and the Sunday Times - including a row over whether an initial hearing to decide the meaning of the article should be heard by a judge or a jury which went all the way to the Court of Appeal"_ a bit like the Sparks hearing and then _"Following that ruling, The Sunday Times opted to settle the case"_ a bit like Armstrong deciding not to contest. So presumably the Sunday Times doesn't have a leg to stand on since it conceded rather than go through the Courts.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I must be missing something here ? A US agency is to determine how many times a rider has one the TDF depending on what he tells them ?


Yes. It is their job and their right under the WADA Code.


----------



## Smokin Joe (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> It has ironic parallels. The _"pre-trial legal wrangling between Armstrong's lawyers Schillings and the Sunday Times - including a row over whether an initial hearing to decide the meaning of the article should be heard by a judge or a jury which went all the way to the Court of Appeal"_ a bit like the Sparks hearing and then _"Following that ruling, The Sunday Times opted to settle the case"_ a bit like Armstrong deciding not to contest._* So presumably the Sunday Times doesn't have a leg to stand on since it conceded rather than go through the Courts.*_


It didn't go through the courts because it would have lost due to the lack of evidence at the time. However, if there are now eye witness statements from former team-mates and possibly additional evidence it alters the balance somewhat.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yes. It is their job and their right under the WADA Code.


 
To barter and bribe ?


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> To barter and bribe ?


 
Sorry I forgot they ve done that allready


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

marinyork said:


> Not sure how olympic medals in a single one off games (five of them were on the track in particular) shows a big interest in cycling. The US won no olympic medals in 1980 (obviously) and 1976 and 1972 and infact you have to go back to the very early days of the olympics in 1912 before you find another US olympic cycling medal winner. Nor did they follow the success of their home games up with just 1 medal in 1988. Of course your argument in a sense is dishonest as I suspect you know perfectly well that the countries that boycotted the 1984 games were traditionally decent cycling countries in the 70s at the olympics. Funnily enough by amazing coincidence the US's number of medals shrank back down in 1988, I wonder why  . Then in 1992 at the olympics the medals have followed a different pattern. Apart from that the 1984 US cycling team is famous for doping.
> 
> Apart from that the idea that olympic medals means interest in (track) cycling is not something I see. If that had applied here in the past we'd be sorted.


 
WTf are you talking about? The only point I'm trying to make is that people in the US had actually heard of and ridden bicycles before Armstrong came along...nothing more. The minutiae of olympic medal wins is irrelevant other than to prove the point that Americans were performing comparitively well on bicycles before the emergence of the aforementioned super hero....


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I must be missing something here ? A US agency is to determine how many times a rider has one the TDF depending on what he tells them ?


 
Its getting to have so many parallels with one of the shameful pieces of US history, the House Committee on Un-American Activities "cleansing" of the movie industry in which people were encouraged to name their friends as being communist sympathisers in return for more lenient treatment of their own alleged communist activities. Those that refused to "co-operate" by confessing and naming others had their lives and careers ruined.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its getting to have so many parallels with one of the shameful pieces of US history, the House Committee on Un-American Activities "cleansing" of the movie industry in which people were encouraged to name their friends as being communist sympathisers in return for more lenient treatment of their own alleged communist activities. Those that refused to "co-operate" by confessing and naming others had their lives and careers ruined.


 
do you really think that - or are you exaggerating for comic effect...?


----------



## thom (28 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> It didn't go through the courts because it would have lost due to the lack of evidence at the time. However, if there are now eye witness statements from former team-mates and possibly additional evidence it alters the balance somewhat.


Are you referring to the FBI case ? I was listening to the velocast I linked to above and it's actually pretty good at going through the case against LA, and there's stuff I hadn't really heard before like the 6 retrospective tests of LA's blood that tested positive for EPO, like stuff on Carmichael blah blah blah. Anyway, re the FBI case, the podcasters say it is a matter of fact that the FBI really wanted to continue with the case and it was only shut down because there was a lot of political pressure and a particular US senator forcibly closed it off.
Apparently it is not at all clear there was the lack of evidence for a criminal conviction.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> WTf are you talking about? The only point I'm trying to make is that people in the US had actually heard of and ridden bicycles before Armstrong came along...nothing more. The minutiae of olympic medal wins is irrelevant other than to prove the point that Americans were performing comparitively well on bicycles before the emergence of the aforementioned super hero....


 
As the editor of one of the US cycling magazines said, before Armstrong the market wouldn't support even one road cycling magazine. Now it supports four.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> do you really think that - or are you exaggerating for comic effect...?


 
There are many parallels in the approach then and now.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Are you referring to the FBI case ? I was listening to the velocast I linked to above and it's actually pretty good at going through the case against LA, and there's stuff I hadn't really heard before like the 6 retrospective tests of LA's blood that tested positive for EPO, like stuff on Carmichael blah blah blah. Anyway, re the FBI case, the podcasters say it is a matter of fact that the FBI really wanted to continue with the case and it was only shut down because there was a lot of political pressure and a particular US senator forcibly closed it off.
> Apparently it is not at all clear there was the lack of evidence for a criminal conviction.


 
Isn't it wonderful how speculation, rumour and innuendo fills the vacuum created by a lack of the real information.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> There are many parallels in the approach then and now.


 
Absolute bullshit.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Absolute bulls***.


 
..bit hard to pinpoint, care to narrow it down a bit ?


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> There are many parallels in the approach then and now.


 
Righto. Has anyone invoked Godwin's Law yet..??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (28 Aug 2012)

Interesting article on Livestrong which helps paint a further picture of LA

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> It didn't go through the courts because it would have lost due to the lack of evidence at the time. However, if there are now eye witness statements from former team-mates and possibly additional evidence it alters the balance somewhat.


 
The Sunday Times lost the Court battle on how their article should be interpreted. The High Court decided what they had written was saying Armstrong was "a fraud, a cheat and a liar". And on that basis they decided to settle out of Court and say they had not meant to accuse him of being a fraud, a cheat and a liar.. They could have gone through the subsequent Court process in which case they could potentially go for an Appeal now on the basis that Armstrong had lied in Court. But since they decided not to, and the Court case that did take place was about interpreting what the Sunday Times had written, not whether it was correct and not or whether Armstrong was indeed a fraud, a cheat and a liar, I suspect it will be very difficult for them to come back on it just as it will be for Armstrong downstream to challenge the USADA finding having decided to not challenge it now. BICBW


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> To barter and bribe ?


Plea bargain.


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

V for Vengedetta said:


> Interesting article on Livestrong which helps paint a further picture of LA
> 
> http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all


 
Yes, interesting indeed given that many here are convinced by the stories the article starts with and the author admits to not liking LA and not being one of his favourite journalists but then says:
​_During an investigation that played out over several months—involving dozens of interviews and careful examination of Livestrong’s public financial records—I found no evidence that Armstrong has done anything illegal in his role as the face of the organization. As far as I can tell, he paid for the private jet himself—which is now for sale, by the way, along with his ranch outside Austin—and he’s apparently been scrupulous about his expenditures as they relate to the nonprofit. When Armstrong travels on Livestrong business, the foundation insists, he picks up his own tabs._​


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Righto. Has anyone invoked Godwin's Law yet..??
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


 
Have you read Godwin's Law? I suggest you do as I've never heard it being invoked by mention of the House Committee for Un-American Activities before - and for a very obvious reason.

N.B. See also in your link above: Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Plea bargain.


 
Yes, I believe that's what they call it.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

2010200 said:


> So what are you saying about it?


 
Do you really believe USADA give a feck how many TDF titles big tex holds ?


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

2010200 said:


> So what are you saying about it?


No idea.


----------



## Noodley (28 Aug 2012)

I wonder if they'll have a "Buy one, get one phantom copy free" deal?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=317819927&pf_rd_i=468294


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> No idea.


 
Your sig line ?


----------



## MacB (28 Aug 2012)

So folks, what do we think, did he dope or didn't he?


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Plea bargain.


 
That's where you agree to plead guilty in return for a concession from the prosecution. What's it called when you agree to offer someone else's guilt in return for a concession from the prosecutor?

Did you read this bit in your link?

_Theoretical work based on the prisoner's dilemma is one reason that, in many countries, plea bargaining is forbidden. Often, precisely the prisoner's dilemma scenario applies: it is in the interest of both suspects to confess and testify against the other suspect, irrespective of the innocence of the accused. Arguably, the worst case is when only one party is guilty: here, the innocent one is unlikely to confess, while the guilty one is likely to confess and testify against the innocent._​​


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

2010234 said:


> I would imagine that they give a f*** whether or not he gives a f***


 
Sorry imagination isn t good enough we ve had enough of that allready


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Your sig line ?


No. Just my standard response to your posts. Other alternatives are 'what the 'ck are you on about?' and 'for god's sake, please make some sense'.


----------



## tigger (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> The Sunday Times lost the Court battle on how their article should be interpreted. The High Court decided what they had written was saying Armstrong was "a fraud, a cheat and a liar". And on that basis they decided to settle out of Court and say they had not meant to accuse him of being a fraud, a cheat and a liar.. They could have gone through the subsequent Court process in which case they could potentially go for an Appeal now on the basis that Armstrong had lied in Court. But since they decided not to, and the Court case that did take place was about interpreting what the Sunday Times had written, not whether it was correct and not or whether Armstrong was indeed a fraud, a cheat and a liar, I suspect it will be very difficult for them to come back on it just as it will be for Armstrong downstream to challenge the USADA finding having decided to not challenge it now. BICBW


 
Not sure if I agree with your interpretation there. Once Armstrong issued a libel case The Sunday Times started back tracking as it felt it didn't have enough evidence to support doping accusations in court (i.e. what Smoking Joe said). The Sunday Times (News Int) tried to hide behind the process (sound familiar?) and argue that their published article did not intend to characterise Armstrong as a "fraud, a cheat and a liar" - i.e. it wasn't libellous or defamatory. The Court of Appeal hearing decided against News Int. So... at that point they had two options... plough on with an unbelievably expensive full High Court libel trial or, in the absense of feeling confident, settle out of court. They decided on the latter given the lack of evidence at the time.

Libel and Defamation are incredibly complex areas of the law that I certainly don't understand and I suspect the same of you and pretty much anyone else who will ever read this thread. However, the foundation of any successful libel claim is based around accusations/statements being false. If they are not false, there is no libel.

Only News Int and Armstrong's team will know the terms of the out of court settlement and whether this can be revisited.


----------



## Chuffy (28 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> I wonder if they'll have a "Buy one, get one phantom copy free" deal?
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/...&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=317819927&pf_rd_i=468294


I'm going to get my twin to read it for me. Etc, etc...


----------



## lukesdad (28 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> No. Just my standard response to your posts. Other alternatives are 'what the 'ck are you on about?' and 'for god's sake, please make some sense'.


 
Your responses are pretty standard, I'll agree with you there ! Once the red mist has cleared the fallout may become apparent. Oh and by the way the almighty won't help you


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Have you read Godwin's Law? I suggest you do as I've never heard it being invoked by mention of the House Committee for Un-American Activities before - and for a very obvious reason.


 
Of course I've read it - what would be the point of linking you to a page that I had never read? The point I was making was that your attempt to draw parallels with the McCarthy witch-hunts implies that you have already lost the argument...


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> Of course I've read it - what would be the point of linking you to a page that I had never read? The point I was making was that your attempt to draw parallels with the McCarthy witch-hunts implies that you have already lost the argument...


 
Wonderful. You first claim to have read it and then demonstrate you haven't read it. Where does McCarthyism feature in Godwin's Law?


----------



## johnr (28 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> *Sun Times reviews Armstrong 'liar and cheat' libel payout*​


 this could be the start of phase two.


----------



## black'n'yellow (28 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Wonderful. You first claim to have read it and then demonstrate you haven't read it. Where does McCarthyism feature in Godwin's Law?


 
jesus - you are hard work. It doesn't. That's why I used the word 'parallel'. Am I allowed to say FFS on this forum...??


----------



## Red Light (28 Aug 2012)

black'n'yellow said:


> jesus - you are hard work. It doesn't. That's why I used the word 'parallel'. Am I allowed to say FFS on this forum...??


 
Except you didn't use the word "parallel". I did. You simply responded to a post suggesting parallels between HUAC and USADA's approach with



> Righto. Has anyone invoked Godwin's Law yet..??


 
which as we now agree does not apply to HUAC (or USADA). 

It wouldn't be nearly as hard work if you weren't trying to wriggle out of what you actually said.


----------



## rich p (28 Aug 2012)

I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.


----------



## MacB (28 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.


 
told you


----------



## rich p (28 Aug 2012)

MacB said:


> told you


 I know but I'm a slow learner?


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.


----------



## Crankarm (29 Aug 2012)

Can we make it to 100?

LA announces he will come out of retirement to ride the 2013 TdF with the aim of winning to prove the trolls wrong? And wins it CLEAN as he always did.


----------



## johnr (29 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> For those who prefer to listen rather than read : http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/race-radio/2012/8/27/lance-armstrong-special-edition.html


 Thanks for that. It;s like a revision guide for this thread.


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

johnr said:


> Thanks for that. It;s like a revision guide for this thread.


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.


 
 I've toyed with the idea, but haven't done it.

A few people have posted that they're ignoring me (a wise move), but I've yet to hit the button. In fact I'm not sure how to do it.

But... (and this is as close to a point as I get) is there not some Low-Cal insipidness to an online forum without the bits you dislike?

I watch large people buying Diet Coke and wonder whether they wouldn't be happier to have the full smack, but slightly less of it.

I like my forums full-sugar. Even if that sugar has a little jalapeno and maybe some sole-of-shoe unpleasantness in it. This is not a directed barb, just an indication of my distaste for some of the views I read. But I'd rather read them than not.

For the same reason, I occasionally buy and enjoy the Daily Telegraph and sit in a comfortable chair getting angry with the editorial.

Most people I know read only that part of the press which aligns with their political outlook. To me, that's the press version of 'ignore'.


----------



## lukesdad (29 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.


 
I tried that, but it just left an empty thread


----------



## rich p (29 Aug 2012)

another excellent piece de-bunking a lot of the smoke and mirrors from Science in Sport

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html


----------



## lukesdad (29 Aug 2012)

2010598 said:


> You even have yourself on ignore?


 
You should try it Adrian


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Most people I know read only that part of the press which aligns with their political outlook. To me, that's the press version of 'ignore'.


Personally I think some of the opinions aren't about balance. The actual debate has moved on for a lot of people and the ignore button is an actual intelligent way to filter out a point of view that I don't need to engage with from now on.
You have 'a point' in general but you know, it's one thing reading the Telegraph to get balance, it's another thing reading something from further along the right wing spectrum...


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I've toyed with the idea, but haven't done it.
> 
> A few people have posted that they're ignoring me (a wise move), but I've yet to hit the button. In fact I'm not sure how to do it.
> 
> ...



+1. Plus the threads on helmets, Armstrong or Current Affairs and Debates nearly always get rather fractious and heated and if you ingnored all the posters in there you disagree with you would take out also a lot of useful content about the prime (albeit declining) purpose of CC which is about bikes and cycling. My view is that if you can't stand the heat of those debates you should stay out of them rather than ignoring posters because they are saying things you don't like. I have only one person on my ignore list and they were someone who tried to carry over those fractious debates into the rest of the forum and it was easier to ignore them so I wasn't tempted to reply. But other than that as Voltaire/Evelyn Beatrice Hall said "I (may) disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


----------



## smutchin (29 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> another excellent piece de-bunking a lot of the smoke and mirrors from Science in Sport
> 
> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html


 
Yes, an excellent piece.

d.


----------



## johnr (29 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> another excellent piece de-bunking a lot of the smoke and mirrors from Science in Sport
> 
> http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html


 I couldn't open it. Any ideas?


----------



## thom (29 Aug 2012)

johnr said:


> I couldn't open it. Any ideas?


yhm - pmed the text to you


----------



## rich p (29 Aug 2012)

johnr said:


> I couldn't open it. Any ideas?


 Not really! It works for me. Maybe Thom has though.


----------



## 86TDFWinner (29 Aug 2012)

PpPete said:


> He's denied it.... but more importantly, he's never tested positive for it !


 

And there's never been 1 CREDIBLE source that says he has, that's important too.


----------



## Noodley (29 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I tried that, but it just left an empty thread


 
You'd still have had my posts surely?


----------



## lukesdad (29 Aug 2012)

Only the private ones, and thats the only place you must call me Shirley


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Do you really believe USADA give a feck how many TDF titles big tex holds ?


 
Enough to make fatuous and untrue claims that they have stripped him of them when in reality they have neither done so, or are able to do so?


----------



## ufkacbln (29 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> I love it when someone puts "*But perhaps you think" *and then follows up with some arbitrary tosh*!*
> 
> As for the Foundation not funding research - its first item on their agenda apparently:
> "The Foundation is dedicated to enhancing the quality of life for those
> ...


 
But is there any proof of Rich P's allegations that Armstrong has been "filling his pockets"?

If true then the implications that Armstrong has been embezzling or misappropriating funds is something even darker, and these claims need to be substantiated.... it would be interesting to see the evidence behind the claims.


----------



## david k (29 Aug 2012)

86TDFWinner said:


> And there's never been 1 CREDIBLE source that says he has, that's important too.


do we know that?


----------



## yello (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Enough to make fatuous and untrue claims that they have stripped him of them when in reality they have neither done so, or are able to do so?


 
Strictly speaking correct no doubt but somewhat splitting hairs in my opinion. As the body in charge of the results management process, they have done all they have been required (and are empowered) to do. What happens after that ought be a formality.


----------



## DogTired (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> But is there any proof of Rich P's allegations that Armstrong has been "filling his pockets"?
> .


 
Not that I've come across. A few commentators have mentioned unease about LiveStrong but haven't been specific so that means nothing. Personally, looking at what the LAF annual reports specify as being produced it seems a bit light on 'fighting cancer' as opposed to talking about it, writing reports and campaigning - it really is quite an empty cupboard when you read it. There's nothing enduring in terms of fighting cancer, some education programs, thats about it. It does get through $50 million a year too.

McMilllan isnt about Mr McMillan, Wellcome isnt about Mr Wellcome - LAF does seem to be about LA though and without adding something new its not fighting cancer - supporting to some degree sufferers. The LAF will not improve cancer treatment, but may improve your external circumstances while you're ill.

Without research and/or peer-reviewed output its difficult to say just what it does or if its any good. Personally it seemed, weak, waffly, parochial and concerned with publicity and perception. How many quality man-years has it added to the lives of cancer sufferers?


----------



## MacB (29 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> But is there any proof of Rich P's allegations that Armstrong has been "filling his pockets"?
> 
> If true then the implications that Armstrong has been embezzling or misappropriating funds is something even darker, and these claims need to be substantiated.... it would be interesting to see the evidence behind the claims.


 
Look man, you've got to try to read nuance and get a flavour of how the corporate world works. Things move on and there's a very good reason that 'plausible deniability' became a buzz phrase. It's only idiots and losers that get caught with a hand in the till these days. But deals get done left, right and centre that you'll never find any paper trail on even with a full forensic audit. A lot of times there's not even been a verbal agreement, it's all part of the unwritten rules that cover mutual back scratching. They have it down to a fine art and it can be several people removed from the person of interest.

As a 'front' a large charitable organisation with a very woolly agenda is just about the perfect vehicle. You don't have to milk that front directly but you can use it to leverage all sorts of fun and games.


----------



## Alun (29 Aug 2012)

MacB said:


> Look man, you've got to try to read nuance and get a flavour of how the corporate world works. Things move on and there's a very good reason that 'plausible deniability' became a buzz phrase. It's only idiots and losers that get caught with a hand in the till these days. But deals get done left, right and centre that you'll never find any paper trail on even with a full forensic audit. A lot of times there's not even been a verbal agreement, it's all part of the unwritten rules that cover mutual back scratching. They have it down to a fine art and it can be several people removed from the person of interest.
> 
> As a 'front' a large charitable organisation with a very woolly agenda is just about the perfect vehicle. You don't have to milk that front directly but you can use it to leverage all sorts of fun and games.


That would be a no, then?


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Without research and/or peer-reviewed output its difficult to say just what it does or if its any good. Personally it seemed, weak, waffly, parochial and concerned with publicity and perception. How many quality man-years has it added to the lives of cancer sufferers?


 
One unlikely “nav” beneficiary is cycling journalist Charles Pelkey, diagnosed last summer with male breast cancer. Pelkey has been a critic of Armstrong—“I don’t particularly like the man,” he says—but after he tweeted about his cancer, a Livestrong navigator contacted him to offer assistance. “There are really wonderful people who work there,” Pelkey says. “I respect everything they do.”​http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all​


----------



## Noodley (29 Aug 2012)

And after all this waffle, he's still a huge drug trafficking dope cheat.


----------



## DogTired (29 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> One unlikely “nav” beneficiary is cycling journalist Charles Pelkey, diagnosed last summer with male breast cancer. Pelkey has been a critic of Armstrong—“I don’t particularly like the man,” he says—but after he tweeted about his cancer, a Livestrong navigator contacted him to offer assistance. “There are really wonderful people who work there,” Pelkey says. “I respect everything they do.”​http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all​


 
Yep, that's a very interesting, well written article. Apart from the quoted bit above the rest damns with faint praise or is damning. Apparently *“I think the product is hope,” says Mark McKinnon*. But in 'Its not about the bike' LA's Dr says that cancer is an indiscriminate killer and personal attitude means nothing to the end result. So, from one perspective this is a waste of cash. If the funding produced a cure, this would give hope anyway.

"Not all the money goes where Livestrong says it goes,"

"IN ONE CASE, ARMSTRONG himself stood to profit from the sale of a major Livestrong asset"

"In certain instances, though, he has leveraged this charitable appeal for personal gain. During his comeback, the lines between Cancer Lance and Business Lance became especially blurry"

“It was a lot more difficult to raise $250 for Livestrong this year,” says one longtime foundation fundraiser. “People asked a lot more questions.”

Professor Zimbelman: "The issue with Lance Armstrong isn’t whether he has done good for cancer victims, but rather, whether he first cheated to beat his opponents, then used his fraudulent titles to help promote an organization that appears to do good but also enriches a fraudster."


----------



## Red Light (29 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Yep, that's a very interesting, well written article. Apart from the quoted bit above the rest damns with faint praise or is damning. Apparently *“I think the product is hope,” says Mark McKinnon*. But in 'Its not about the bike' LA's Dr says that cancer is an indiscriminate killer and personal attitude means nothing to the end result. So, from one perspective this is a waste of cash. If the funding produced a cure, this would give hope anyway.


 
Correct, cancer does not respond to the attitude of the sufferer but there is much more to cancer than the medical treatment. Its a tough and gruelling treatment and people are facing their mortality probably for the first time and are in an emotional hell. It may not change the outcome but it sure as hell makes the journey more bearable for the individual and those close to them.

And early detection has a far greater effect on cancer survivability than any of the treatment improvements. So raising awareness, getting people to recognise the symptoms AND do something about them will save far more lives than an extra $500m research funding. The global spend on cancer research is about €14Bn p.a. so the LAF money would be a tiny additional drop in the ocean of research funding whereas funding to support cancer sufferers and those close to them on the journey they are embarking is a Cinderella area and LAF money can make a big difference.


----------



## Noodley (30 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> "The issue with Lance Armstrong isn’t whether he has done good for cancer victims, but rather, whether he first cheated to beat his opponents, then used his fraudulent titles to help promote an organization that appears to do good but also enriches a fraudster."


 
Welcome to my first ever sig line...


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

I personally do not have Livestrong on trial here. I'm sure they have talented and committed people working for them and provide a service to people in need. I'm aware of the criticisms but have not looked at them sufficiently to form an opinion, and I think I'll leave it like that.


----------



## Noodley (30 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I personally do not have Livestrong on trial here. I'm sure they have talented and committed people working for them and provide a service to people in need. I'm aware of the criticisms but have not looked at them sufficiently to form an opinion, and I think I'll leave it like that.


 
Hater


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

Hell yes! Out and proud!


----------



## lukesdad (30 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Strictly speaking correct no doubt but somewhat splitting hairs in my opinion. As the body in charge of the results management process, they have done all they have been required (and are empowered) to do. What happens after that ought be a formality.


 
Well thanks at least for clearing that one up.


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

Oh just come out ld, you'll feel much happier for it!


----------



## thom (30 Aug 2012)

Phil Liggett appears to like LA:


----------



## lukesdad (30 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Oh just come out ld, you'll feel much happier for it!


 
Hah... on Big Tex I don't give a hoot and never have done, didn't like him as a racer or a man. I feel genuine sadness for the millions he seems to have inspired to get on their bikes, follow racing and hang on to him as, I suppose a hero (not sure thats quite the description they should use perhaps their inspiration !) No one can alter the fact this is the case, uncomfortable for many of you I know. Nothing I suspect will change this, whether it be facts or ridicule. You are just going to have to live with that one.

However Big Tex and his mates have plummeted the sport into disrepute further than even I thought possible. The real crime to me,is how it was allowed to happen. Corruption drugs and bullying exsisted long before the presence of Big Tex , no action was taken,in fact it was quite openly promoted in many circles. This did not leave an open door for what was to come,it was an invite. Once big money started to enter the sport, its fate was sealed, (cycling is not alone in this). Whilst drugs and bullying are the symptom money is the cancer. To a certain extent we are all partially to blame, our thirst for more racing TV coverage,excitement etc. The Big Tex effect drew money into the sport and we lapped it up. The UCI and other custodians of the sport should have been the sports safeguards, but looking at history we should have known better.

My interest in the whole nasty affair is not really what happens to Big Tex, as ive indicated but what happens elsewhere within the sport, I'm not sure some are going to go quietly, and those waiting in the wings don't install me with confidence. The ASO are going to want to preserve the heritage of their events (I'd like to be a fly on the wall in their meetings) I think the UCI old guard are going to want to hang onto power for as long as they can, if only to clear out their cupboards before they go and will the replacements be any better ? What is interesting is how the teams react, to what happens at the other two.

As to events on the otherside of the pond. I would rather have seen the Federal case succeed Im still not sure exactly why it didn't its easy to say pressure was brought to bear hmm maybe but from the outset of the case we were told would run its course. Parts of the USADA investigation sit uncomfortably with me and as such so does the reach of their juristriction, although this now seems not to be as sweeping as was first thought.

I know to some of you the nailing of Big Tex is the main concern here fair enough , However my concerns lay in a different direction, in which nothing is certain.


----------



## rich p (30 Aug 2012)

FWIW, LD, I think most of us would agree, as the Monkey Man has highlighted in his other thread. The UCI is the main issue now and it may need to be the teams that force the revolution.
I still lay a lot of the blame for the excesses of the worst doping years at the feet of Bruyneel, USP and Armstrong who turned it into a science and for that reason I want to see them recieve their punishment.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Aug 2012)

2012876 said:


> When does someone get to serve prison time?


Fraid you won't get to see that. Not going to go near a criminal court.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Aug 2012)

2013166 said:


> Most unfair. Marion Jones got some.


True dat. 

But a pound to a bottle of Talisker no household names will ever face criminal prosecution in this case. in the unlikley event anyone goes to court it will merely be the foot soldiers, or the back room boys and girls or some PA or administrator offered up as scapegoats. Anyone higher up will plea bargain (a ghastly invention) their way out of real trouble to avoid a trial.


----------



## mickle (30 Aug 2012)

Right now all of LA's sponsors are standing shoulder to shoulder in 'support' of him after his 'enough is enough' statement. As some commentators have said, this was his least worst option when faced with the prospect of having to face the evidence and testimony thay had against him. It's obvious that the USADA wouldn't have taken it this far unless they had compelling evidence, and Lance wouldn't have jumped like he did unless he thought they had compelling evidence. So now it gets interesting. How long will his corporate supporters stay on his side? When the evidence sees the light of day the UCI's hand will be forced and Nike and Oakley and the rest will find their position untenable. The more that fall the less strong his position will be. I reckon they'll all be lining up to sue him in a couple of months.


----------



## tigger (30 Aug 2012)

Saw one of the Livestrong Giro helmets yesterday and wondered who will want these tarnished items now...


----------



## Crackle (30 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> Right now all of LA's sponsors are standing shoulder to shoulder in 'support' of him after his 'enough is enough' statement. As some commentators have said, this was his least worst option when faced with the prospect of having to face the evidence and testimony thay had against him. It's obvious that the USADA wouldn't have taken it this far unless they had compelling evidence, and Lance wouldn't have jumped like he did unless he thought they had compelling evidence. So now it gets interesting. How long will his corporate supporters stay on his side? When the evidence sees the light of day the UCI's hand will be forced and Nike and Oakley and the rest will find their position untenable. The more that fall the less strong his position will be. I reckon they'll all be lining up to sue him in a couple of months.


 
Par for the course so far. His corporate sponsors are still seeing a strong brand which won't damage theirs short term. You can bet your bottom dollar that behind the scenes they are making preparations to ditch the Livestrong co-branding but in the meantime they need to shift the stock.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> True dat.
> 
> But a pound to a bottle of Talisker no household names will ever face criminal prosecution in this case. in the unlikley event anyone goes to court it will merely be the foot soldiers, or the back room boys and girls or some PA or administrator offered up as scapegoats. Anyone higher up will plea bargain (a ghastly invention) their way out of real trouble to avoid a trial.


 
Certainly the case previously.

PS - is Talisker performance enhancing?


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Hah... on Big Tex I don't give a hoot and never have done, didn't like him as a racer or a man.


 
That's the way to do it!

I share many of the concerns you have voiced and I also want to see a top down shake up of the sport. But I'm not afraid or ashamed to say I want Armstrong to go down as a part of the deal the shakes up the UCI. He doesn't get cut any slack from me even though I'll readily agree he was part of an era of doping. What he did, imo - the bullying, the manipulation, the sheer scale of deceit - transcended any other rider or teams actions, made him more than just simply a part of the era.

I listened yesterday to an interview with Travis Tygart. He says USADA's intention was to get the doctors and ds's out of the game, he says he accepts Armstrong was to some degree a victim and a pawn. They offered Armstrong the chance to come in and talk - Armstrong declined. Had he talked... well, who knows? A real 'what if' scenario that one.

Seriously though, I am pleased that you have put your own cards on the table (as it were) since I found your one-liner style of commenting a little too cryptic. I couldn't work out if you simply had fanboy's denial as motivation. Now I know where you're coming from I can better interpret the one-liners!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Certainly the case previously.
> 
> PS - is Talisker performance enhancing?


Only if you micro-dose.


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> Right now all of LA's sponsors are standing shoulder to shoulder in 'support' of him after his 'enough is enough' statement.


 
It is an interesting one. I'm hardly being a hater if I suggest they'll be reviewing their business strategies and making contingency plans though - that's just plain simple good business sense. I also think it fair to say that nobody will be signing him up either, or even renewing contracts at this point in time!

Trek and Nike are the one's I'm particularly interested. I wouldn't expect formal announcements as such, more of a phased drifting away from Armstrong the individual though perhaps retaining the Livestrong links.


----------



## raindog (30 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> Trek and Nike are the one's I'm particularly interested.


doesn't he part own Trek though?


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> doesn't he part own Trek though?


 
I believe so, yes. I don't know what his role is or isn't, whether he's just a stock holder etc... so I didn't mention it.


----------



## BalkanExpress (30 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm not trying to prove anything and I'm certainly not trying to get into a willy-measuring competition about how much or how little I followed cycling in the early 90s. A lifelong follower of Arsenal, I'm still told frequently by more ardent followers that I don't hate Spurs enough to be a true believer. That may be true.
> .


 

Well let's check... just how much do you hate Sp*rs?  or


----------



## lukesdad (30 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> That's the way to do it!
> 
> I share many of the concerns you have voiced and I also want to see a top down shake up of the sport. But I'm not afraid or ashamed to say I want Armstrong to go down as a part of the deal the shakes up the UCI. He doesn't get cut any slack from me even though I'll readily agree he was part of an era of doping. What he did, imo - the bullying, the manipulation, the sheer scale of deceit - transcended any other rider or teams actions, made him more than just simply a part of the era.
> 
> ...


 
I'm neither a fanboy or a hater ( tho' it seems you have to be the second to avoid ridicule on this thread ) on the subject of those who've stood up to Big Tex, let's not forget Bertie shall we ? I'm a fan of Bertie by the way, tho' alas no longer a boy.


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Aug 2012)

BalkanExpress said:


> Well let's check... just how much do you hate Sp*rs?  or


 
Umm.... I don't. It niggles me that I don't, but I can't help but like them.

That whole snarling disdain and enmity for The Spurs seems to have started (unhelpfully) in the past couple of decades.

I feel sorry for Spurs sometimes, because they don't even seem to be able to win a bottle of plonk in a raffle, never mind anything on the football field.... But coming from an Arsenal supporter that's a bit rich.


----------



## tigger (30 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I'm neither a fanboy or a hater ( tho' it seems you have to be the second to avoid ridicule on this thread ) on the subject of those who've stood up to Big Tex, let's not forget Bertie shall we ? I'm a fan of Bertie by the way, tho' alas no longer a boy.


 
Me too on both counts. Although I do feel a bit dirty liking Bertie...?


----------



## rich p (30 Aug 2012)

It's a mistake to confuse wanting Armstrong to get brought to book with being a hater.


----------



## Dayvo (30 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> It's a mistake to confuse wanting Armstrong to get brought to book with being a hater.


 
I like him but/and I want justice to be done!


----------



## lukesdad (30 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> It's a mistake to confuse wanting Armstrong to get brought to book with being a hater.


 
As it is to regard somebody who found inspiration from him a fanboy Rich its only terminology. Of course I know you're above calling anybody a fanboy


----------



## Noodley (30 Aug 2012)

fanboy or nobber


----------



## rich p (30 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> As it is to regard somebody who found inspiration from him a fanboy Rich its only terminology. Of course I know you're above calling anybody a fanboy


 True Ld - I'd never be that polite


----------



## mickle (30 Aug 2012)

raindog said:


> doesn't he part own Trek though?


He bought into SRAM a few years ago - cant find anything about him owning any of Trek on a quick search. Its still a wholly owned family business as far as i know.


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I'm neither a fanboy or a hater


 
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to label you as either. I'm only trying to understand your position... which I now think might be best described as 'contrary'  (That IS a leg pull btw!) 



> tho' it seems you have to be the second to avoid ridicule on this thread


Yes, I will ridicule 'fanboys' - but that's by definition. The ridicule comes before the definition. That is, if someone maintains a ridiculous position then I will call them a fanboy. I recognise Armstrong is inspirational for some and I have no problem with that.

I too like Contador - for how he rides. I'd rate him as possibly one of the most exciting riders I've seen (in my admittedly short experience of pro-cycling). In honesty, I found it difficult to be objective with his clenbuturol positive but I came to the conclusion that on balance of probability he doped. As much as I liked him and rated him as a cyclist, I didn't accept the tainted meat story. If I had, I would have earned the title 'fanboy'!


----------



## mickle (30 Aug 2012)

I'd love to know whats going through Gregory LeMond's mind right now.


----------



## 2PedalsTez (30 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Phil Liggett appears to like LA:




It seems David Millar doesn't agree with Phil Liggett stating "not the voice of cycling"


----------



## yello (30 Aug 2012)

2PedalsTez said:


> It seems David Millar doesn't agree with Phil Liggett stating "not the voice of cycling"


 
I didn't listen. I heard Ligget's earlier 'Ballz' program and didn't want to hear more misinformation.... what did Millar say about it?


----------



## tigger (30 Aug 2012)

Who knows who?

http://dimspace.co.uk/la/ArmstrongBusinessConnections1707.pdf


----------



## Crackle (30 Aug 2012)

2PedalsTez said:


> It seems David Millar doesn't agree with Phil Liggett stating "not the voice of cycling"


I managed to get through 8 minutes of that before I stopped in disgust


----------



## Red Light (30 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Anyone higher up will plea bargain (a ghastly invention) .......


 
....and the means used apparently to get riders to give evidence against Armstrong.


----------



## 2PedalsTez (30 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> I didn't listen. I heard Ligget's earlier 'Ballz' program and didn't want to hear more misinformation.... what did Millar say about it?



He 'tweeted' just over an hour ago..
"Everybody should watch the @PhilLiggett interview. For me he is not the 'voice of cycling'" 

I watched the entire interview and was quite surprised at how defensive he was.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> ....and the means used apparently to get riders to give evidence against Armstrong.


which makes for tainted evidence imo, and evidence that would get ripped to shreds in an English law court


----------



## Red Light (30 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> which makes for tainted evidence imo, and evidence that would get ripped to shreds in an English law court


 
Careful or you'll be getting yourself a fanboy tag


----------



## mickle (30 Aug 2012)

Is Ligget accusing the USADA of bribing witnesses?


----------



## 2PedalsTez (30 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> Is Ligget accusing the USADA of bribing witnesses?



He certainly suggested that there were financial incentives involved!


----------



## Crankarm (30 Aug 2012)

2PedalsTez said:


> *He certainly suggested that there were financial incentives involved!*


 


.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> It's a mistake to confuse wanting Armstrong to get brought to book with being a hater.


... even if they make spurious allegations that they cannot substantiate?

Your record is really one of bigotry in this case


----------



## thom (30 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ... even if they make spurious allegations that they cannot substantiate?
> 
> Your record is really one of bigotry in this case


Can you substantiate your allegation that they can't substantiate their allegations ?


----------



## BalkanExpress (30 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Umm.... I don't. It niggles me that I don't, but I can't help but like them.
> 
> That whole snarling disdain and enmity for The Spurs seems to have started (unhelpfully) in the past couple of decades.
> 
> I feel sorry for Spurs sometimes, because they don't even seem to be able to win a bottle of plonk in a raffle, never mind anything on the football field.... But coming from an Arsenal supporter that's a bit rich.


 
I have very bad news...no, it's not that you are not a true Arsenal fan it is much, much worse than that:

You have got old and developed a sense of perspectice


----------



## rich p (30 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> ... even if they make spurious allegations that they cannot substantiate?
> 
> Your record is really one of bigotry in this case


 I'm sorry old bean, but wtf are you on about?


----------



## BJH (30 Aug 2012)

That Liggett interview is nuts.

Just because the riders who finished second may also be tainted is not a defence against stripping LA.

I couldn't give a a flying f',k whether that first clean, or at least untainted rider, came in last. They are still more credible than a dirty winner.

Previous examples have shown that dirty riders have often appeared reluctant to take on the winners mantle after event. So whether JU doesn't want it does not count as evidence.

LA might have brought great amounts of cash and new supporters to cycling but that matters nothing. He's a cheat and he has been caught so Liggett discredits the sport by propagating the idea of brushing I all under the carpet.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> I'm sorry old bean, but wtf are you on about?


 
Which is really the sad part - either you really don't understand or are in denial


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> Can you substantiate your allegation that they can't substantiate their allegations ?


Don't need to, the fact that the individual concerned has failed to substantiate the allegation is sufficient substantiation to substantiate my allegation that they can't substantiate their allegations


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (30 Aug 2012)

mickle said:


> He bought into SRAM a few years ago - cant find anything about him owning any of Trek on a quick search. Its still a wholly owned family business as far as i know.


 
Lance Armstron stated under oath during the arbitration case brought by Tailwind sports who ran the US Postal service team against SCA Promotions, a sports promotion company that he owned 10% of tailwind sports. Tailwind Sports reportedly acquired Trek and sold it on.

http://alturl.com/2qebj


----------



## thom (31 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Don't need to, the fact that the individual concerned has failed to substantiate the allegation is sufficient substantiation to substantiate my allegation that they can't substantiate their allegations


To be honest, I don't know what allegation you're talking about - cunningly you didn't articulate the alleged insubstantial allegation and it might help if we know what you're on about.


----------



## albion (31 Aug 2012)

Maybe Adam Ant was a cyclist?

"Ridicule is nothing to be scared of "

I now wonder what got his back up to inspire that line.
The inspiration behind song lines always makes fascinating reading.


----------



## DogTired (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> ....and the means used apparently to get riders to give evidence against Armstrong.


 
Not sure how true this is but plea bargaining does need careful use to avoid abuse (even if it is useful in some areas.)

However there's a bucketload of difference between getting someone to give *factual* evidence and getting someone just to give evidence (which may or may not be factual).


----------



## johnr (31 Aug 2012)

2012876 said:


> When does someone get to serve prison time?


 He's white, rich and has strong political connections in the USA, so it won't be him


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> To be honest, I don't know what allegation you're talking about - cunningly you didn't articulate the alleged insubstantial allegation and it might help if we know what you're on about.


Simply RichP has on a number of occasions. alleged that LA is embezzling funds form the LAF , yet failed to ofer anything outside his closed "LA is the root of all evil and guilty of everything" agenda


----------



## Noodley (31 Aug 2012)

Armstrong also has an interest in Stingerz (gels, etc) so don't buy them.


----------



## yello (31 Aug 2012)

A sneak preview of the Tyler Hamilton book...



> Hamilton explains that his own drug use began before Armstrong joined the team in 1998 but that Armstrong provided him with EPO shortly before the 1999 Tour de France. Hamilton was with Armstrong at the latter's home in Nice, France at the time. He also details the doping plan for the team during the race, which he alleges took place with Armstrong's knowledge, which included a motorcyclist travelling behind the convoy with a thermos of EPO that would be given to the riders following the stage. Hamilton also says that team management encouraged and supervised the use of PEDs and that they were distributed in white lunch bags.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-says-armstrong-gave-him-epo-before-1999-tour-de-france

and some more from....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...acuses-doping-article-1.1148508#ixzz255mVRmJp



> Hamilton says Armstrong told him at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland that he had tested positive for EPO but that Armstrong wasn't concerned about it because of his friendship with the leader of the International Cycling Union, or UCI.


----------



## rich p (31 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Simply RichP has on a number of occasions. alleged that LA is embezzling funds form the LAF , yet failed to ofer anything outside his closed "LA is the root of all evil and guilty of everything" agenda


 Can you point out where I said that? I simply asked if the funds were going to the for-profit or the charity part of Livestrong. That is to say, was it enriching Lance Armstrong personally to a considerable extent, rather than his charity part. A legitimate question which has been raised and debated for years if you'd been following the trail for more than a few weeks.


----------



## rich p (31 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> A sneak preview of the Tyler Hamilton book...
> 
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-says-armstrong-gave-him-epo-before-1999-tour-de-france
> ...


 That's a bit more specific and damning than I'd hoped to be honest. I'm not sure how Lance will dismiss the detail and specifics of the systematic programme. Just a bitter team-mate who needs to sell a book, line again?


----------



## kevin_cambs_uk (31 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> A sneak preview of the Tyler Hamilton book...
> 
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-says-armstrong-gave-him-epo-before-1999-tour-de-france
> ...


 
how on earth did no one spot all of this?


----------



## rich p (31 Aug 2012)

Here's a nice letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil (the idiot) Liggett

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/filthy-business-indeed


----------



## Strathlubnaig (31 Aug 2012)

The FCC has stated that the victories should not be reallocated for the 'lost years' and they also want their prize money back....
http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/La-ffc-veut-un-palmares-vierge/309566


----------



## Alun (31 Aug 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> The FCC has stated that the victories should not be reallocated for the 'lost years' and they also want their prize money back....
> http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/La-ffc-veut-un-palmares-vierge/309566


Which are the "lost years"? Just where Armstrong won, or does it include where other dopers (suspected or established) have won?
I can't read the article, it appears to be written in some foreign tongue.


----------



## thom (31 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Simply RichP has on a number of occasions. alleged that LA is embezzling funds form the LAF , yet failed to ofer anything outside his closed "LA is the root of all evil and guilty of everything" agenda


I've looked to try to work out where this was suggested and I couldn't find it. Maybe you could point it out ?


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Here's a nice letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil (the idiot) Liggett
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/filthy-business-indeed


 
Not surprising given his history But interesting how you either support the Rich P view or are labelled an idiot. I suspect Phil talks directly to a lot more of the people involved in this than you do and his statement that someone he spoke to directly was offered a lot of money if he would say Armstrong doped should be of deep concern to everyone and questions the validity of the USADA witness evidence which is the main plank of their case.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> Not sure how true this is but plea bargaining does need careful use to avoid abuse (even if it is useful in some areas.)
> 
> However there's a bucketload of difference between getting someone to give *factual* evidence and getting someone just to give evidence (which may or may not be factual).


 
But this is more akin to a gang being questioned over who stabbed the victim with in this case the suspected guilty party identified to them first. In those circumstances they are all likely to say "Yeah it was him wot done it"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Careful or you'll be getting yourself a fanboy tag


A tag I was once proud to wear fwiw.

Nowadays I'm part of Team "They're (probably) all cheats".


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> A sneak preview of the Tyler Hamilton book...
> 
> 
> 
> > Hamilton says Armstrong told him at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland that he had tested positive for EPO but that Armstrong wasn't concerned about it because of his friendship with the leader of the International Cycling Union, or UCI.


 
I can see how he might with the connivance of UCI be able to quash one result although where is the evidence? Has anyone asked the Swiss lab because the Swiss are nothing if not fastidious in recording the details? I would have thought if Hamilton had told the USADA that, armed with the details and his ID number they could have gone in and got hold of the original positive test and we would not be talking about results that "are consistent with doping" but of a failed and suppressed EPO test uncovered.

But we are talking mainly about the Tour de France, a race in which the testing lab, LNDD, has direct links into L'Equipe which has often published the results before UCI, the rider or WADA had received them and L'Equipe is no friend of Armstrong. It was even L'Equipe that first broke the leaked retrospective test results for EPO IIRC. So how in seven TdeF's did he manage to noble that whole system?

And why have a motorbike with EPO follow the peleton? I thought the whole point was you doped with EPO and then let it flush out the system leaving behind long lasting performance enhancement. So why did they need to top up on it after every race and why carry it round in a motorbike with the peleton and not take it direct to somewhere near the end of the stage if they did indeed need post race top-ups? 

Many many questions which will need to await publication of the book. But even then as a twice caught and banned doper he must have limited earning opportunities and no publisher is going to be that interested in a book from him without something tasty to sell it (curious its due out a couple of weeks after the USADA decision) and it basically a book about his life of doped cycling both with and without LA. So whatever is said in the book has to be viewed with some caution.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

Noodley said:


> Armstrong also has an interest in Stingerz (gels, etc) so don't buy them.


It's worse than that.

Armstrong breathes the same air as the rest of us so hold your breath!


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> A tag I was once proud to wear fwiw.
> 
> Nowadays I'm part of Team "They're (probably) all cheats".


 
I suspect too they all were and the subsequent evidence is that they were. They should probably vacate all the podium positions for those years and probably the top five at least to be consistent.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> I suspect too they all were and the subsequent evidence is that they were. They should probably vacate all the podium positions for those years and probably the top five at least to be consistent.


You'll have seen the NYtimes tainted top ten finishers grid form the last 10 tours. I think there is a link to it somewhere above There are lots, well a few, blank spaces. They'd be the cheats who didn't get caught (yet.)

I've no doubt in 10 years time whatever cheating/doping system which is currently in use at the top today will become detectable and they will have moved on anyway but for now we will kid ourselves it is a clean sport.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

2014725 said:


> We are all homeopathic dopers.


and sharers of Caesar's last breath it seems whereas Armstrong lives and continues to pollute.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> You'll have seen the NYtimes tainted top ten finishers grid form the last 10 tours. I think there is a link to it somewhere above There are lots, well a few, blank spaces. They'd be the cheats who didn't get caught (yet.)
> 
> I've no doubt in 10 years time whatever cheating/doping system which is currently in use at the top today will become detectable and they will have moved on anyway but for now we will kid ourselves it is a clean sport.


 
Yes and its incomplete. There is another table of the Top Five for the seven years of which only two have not been found to be dopers or implicated in doping (and one of those being dead probably never will). Yet the NY Times grid has plenty of vacancies in the Top Five. Beloki for example.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yes and its incomplete. There is another table of the Top Five for the seven years of which only two have not been found to be dopers or implicated in doping (and one of those being dead probably never will). Yet the NY Times grid has plenty of vacancies in the Top Five. Beloki for example.


Palamares to the podium girls it is then.


----------



## montage (31 Aug 2012)

Did anyone see the article in cycling news that seems to have been promptly deleted? Basically ligget is claiming that usada tried to bribe him and others to testify against Armstrong.


----------



## psmiffy (31 Aug 2012)

Something like this


----------



## thom (31 Aug 2012)

When the dust settles, I really hope ITV don't broadcast a Liggett (&Sherwen) commentary at future TdF's unless Liggett's tune is changed markedly.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

montage said:


> Did anyone see the article in cycling news that seems to have been promptly deleted? Basically ligget is claiming that usada tried to bribe him and others to testify against Armstrong.


 
Not him but someone he spoke to last week. His other major claim of "Why are the USADA doing this" which he repeated several times has some some support though. Judge Sparks said in his decision that

_"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"_​


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> When the dust settles, I really hope ITV don't broadcast a Liggett (&Sherwen) commentary at future TdF's unless Liggett's tune is changed markedly.


 
Ah MacCarthyism at its best. "If you disagree with us you must be a collaborator and stripped of your livelihood." And you complain about the Omerta. Why are you and others so afraid of a healthy debate that you feel the need to wish harm on those with different viewpoints?


----------



## StuAff (31 Aug 2012)

I don't want Liggett and Sherwen commentating either. Because they're rubbish.


----------



## Chuffy (31 Aug 2012)

StuAff said:


> I don't want Liggett and Sherwen commentating either. Because they're rubbish.


Even if they weren't fully paid up members of Team Tex, their commentary is shite anyway. But this latest guffing off from Liggett should get them fired.


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

StuAff said:


> I don't want Liggett and Sherwen commentating either. Because they're rubbish.


 
That is a different and a valid perspective but very different from the "he can carry on only if he toes our party line" which Thom is promoting.


----------



## thom (31 Aug 2012)

There must be quite a few recently retired UK pros who'd be up for "expert opinion" roles. 
I quite like Ned Boulting - anyway, this is heading off topic so I'll shut up !


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Even if they weren't fully paid up members of Team Tex, their commentary is s***e anyway. But this latest guffing off from Liggett should get them fired.


 
Why? Because Liggett is not following your mantra? Even if you disagree with what Liggett has said, why should what he said get Sherwen fired? I really do dislike the lynch mob and MacCarthy mentality of some of the anti-Armstrong camp.


----------



## thom (31 Aug 2012)

USOmerta


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Aug 2012)

thom said:


> USOmerta


 
A good piece. What the people who are inexplicably still defending Armstrong here don't appear to understand, with their ridiculous analogies to McCarthyism and so on, is that there is a much better analogy here, which the word 'omerta' indicates, and that is to a mafia trial. Trying to pin down the actual crimes that mafia dons have committed is always difficult because of the ways in which colleague and underlings 'distribute' the crime and act as alibis. And of course the rewards for conformity with the mafia are great, and the punishment for speaking out are shunning and banishment (or worse). Everyone knows there are mafias, but few will talk about it and many openly support the benefits they bring to them and their community. The only way in which mafias are brought down and dons convicted is either through investigations into other more mundane crimes (like tax evasion and fraud), and the courage of informers and those other members of the network who are persuaded to give evidence in return for more lenient treatment. The activities that went on during the EPO era of cycling were very mafia-like. Armstrong was certainly not the only one, but he comes pretty close to being a 'cappo di tutti cappi' figure by the end of the period - and certainly symbolically.


----------



## rich p (31 Aug 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/larsson-applauds-armstrong-decision
May have been posted before but does anyone know if Larsson has a book coming out to explain his extraordinary outburst?


----------



## PpPete (31 Aug 2012)

Alun said:


> Strathlubnaig said:
> 
> 
> > The FCC has stated that the victories should not be reallocated for the 'lost years' and they also want their prize money back....
> ...


 
Here you go

_The French Federation (FFC) wishes that "positions left vacant following the removal of titles from Lance Armstrong, are not reassigned, leaving blank the winners of the Tour de France for seven years" between 1999 and 2005. According to the FCC, such a measure would prevent "any controversy as to the credibility of eventual winners.» The International Cycling Union (UCI) has yet to confirm or not the decision of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) to ban Lance Armstrong for life and to cancel all of his results since 1998, including seven victories in the Tour de France._

_FFC, who believes that "Lance Armstrong's refusal to challenge USADA accusations sounds like an admission of guilt," also wants the "reimbursement of prizes obtained during Tour de France and other competitions for a total estimated at around 2.95 million euros. "_

Edit - sorry forgot those froggies invert their , and .
it's 2.95 million , not 2950 million


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> A good piece. What the people who are inexplicably still defending Armstrong here don't appear to understand, with their ridiculous analogies to McCarthyism and so on, is that there is a much better analogy here, which the word 'omerta' indicates, and that is to a mafia trial.


 
And what you don't appear to understand is you have not seen any of the evidence that USADA claim to have to know whether its a damning indictment or a crock of sh*t and yet you are quite prepared to harangue and insult those of us who are holding judgement until the evidence is available.

And your analogy to the mafia is quite appropriate because the prosecutors in those cases always base their prosecutions on hard evidence and a scrupulous judicial approach whereas here we have the lynch mob out to hang the alleged Godfather before the evidence has even been set out by the investigators.


----------



## DogTired (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> And what you don't appear to understand is you have not seen any of the evidence that USADA claim to have to know whether its a damning indictment or a crock of sh*t and yet you are quite prepared to harangue and insult those of us who are holding judgement until the evidence is available.


 
The charge sheet is to hand. LA knows it and knows what is behind it. The alpha male's alpha male who never backs out of a fight and has ruled his world by bullying, threats and abuse has plainly bottled it. If it was a crock do you think LA would fail to contest?

Not a chance - he'd be going for the throat to destroy the last people who have challenged him.

I have a suspicion he knows more than you or I about the whole situation and he doesnt want to answer the claims or get them aired.


----------



## Crankarm (31 Aug 2012)

Come on, 2 more pages to go.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> And your analogy to the mafia is quite appropriate


 
I'm glad you agree with me.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

Well, I knew a chap who used to garden for a fellow whose aunt was married (her first marriage) to the third son of the best friend of the uncle (by marriage) of the chap who taught Geography in the Texas high school nearest to the one attended by Lance Armstrong.

He said (and this is inside information, so treat it as such) that Lance just wasn't the kind of kid who'd get mixed up in all that ugly old drug stuff.

He knew this because he'd been assured of it by someone as close to the family as he was himself.

Now that I've revealed that (probable) truth, there is no way this thread will reach 100 pages.

Please all pack up your prejudices, clear up the mess you've made and go home!

I hope this has helped.


----------



## rich p (31 Aug 2012)

Has Lance started a lawsuit for defamation against Tyler H yet or is he still tired?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

PpPete said:


> Here you go
> 
> _The French Federation (FFC) wishes that "positions left vacant following the removal of titles from Lance Armstrong, are not reassigned, leaving blank the winners of the Tour de France for seven years" between 1999 and 2005. According to the FCC, such a measure would prevent "any controversy as to the credibility of eventual winners.»_




Yep. Cos they just don't want those podium girls to get the palamares.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> And what you don't appear to understand is you have not seen any of the evidence that USADA claim to have to know whether its a damning indictment or a crock of sh*t and yet you are quite prepared to harangue and insult those of us who are holding judgement until the evidence is available.
> 
> And your analogy to the mafia is quite appropriate because the prosecutors in those cases always base their prosecutions on hard evidence and a scrupulous judicial approach whereas here we have the lynch mob out to hang the alleged Godfather before the evidence has even been set out by the investigators.


Actually, looking at the way USADA behave I think they are guilty of Armstrongism too.


----------



## rich p (31 Aug 2012)

Not sure if this has been posted yet
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...mstrong-teammate-friend-turns-banal-very-ugly


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

DogTired said:


> The charge sheet is to hand. LA knows it and knows what is behind it. The alpha male's alpha male who never backs out of a fight and has ruled his world by bullying, threats and abuse has plainly bottled it. If it was a crock do you think LA would fail to contest?
> 
> Not a chance - he'd be going for the throat to destroy the last people who have challenged him.
> 
> I have a suspicion he knows more than you or I about the whole situation and he doesnt want to answer the claims or get them aired.


 
I'm sure Lance knows more about what he did than absolutely anyone. But he doesn't know what the evidence against him is because part of the USADA game is that people cannot see the evidence against them before deciding whether to challenge the case or not. Why he decided not to contest is speculation but I can quite understand that there comes a time in life when you have to question do you really want to spend the next several years in a room with lawyers arguing the toss with every step followed by the media or do you just want to let it go? Years ago if I were in his position and innocent I too would have fought it but now I would let it go. A few years ago I was involved in a commercial legal dispute and my advice was its not worth the hassle, just let it go but the legal department decided they were going to go for it anyway. I and others did spend lots of time with the lawyers doing all the preparatory work and we could have done far more useful things with our time but we did win the case. And that was in the English Courts. My experience of US Courts is that its an order of magnitude greater effort involved. The UK case cost c£0.5m of legal fees, a similar US case I was involved in cost nearer $40m


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Actually, looking at the way USADA behave I think they are guilty of Armstrongism too.


 
As someone said, if Armstrong and USADA were a couple up in front of him in a divorce hearing he would have given all the money to the dog.


----------



## mickle (31 Aug 2012)

rich p said:


> Here's a nice letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil (the idiot) Liggett
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/filthy-business-indeed


Vey good.


----------



## Chuffy (31 Aug 2012)

Mike the mechanic speaks out too.


----------



## Noodley (31 Aug 2012)

If anyone from ITV4 is reading this - get rid of Liggett now, he has no credibility left. A complete nobber.


----------



## yello (31 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Mike the mechanic speaks out too.


 
He's a contributor to The Clinic forum on Cycling News (he's TexPat if you're interested), a valuable source of 1st hand account.

Edit: that's the first time I've read all of the story in one piece, bits are familiar to me from various sources...


----------



## oldroadman (31 Aug 2012)

This is a very boring thread which has gone on far too long on the basis of opinion and conjecture. Why not just sit back, wait, and watch the action?


----------



## Noodley (31 Aug 2012)

why not ignore reading it or posting in it?


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Mike the mechanic speaks out too.


 
Ah, the disgruntled ex-employee mechanic raises his head again. Where is all the new stuff or is USADA's cased just based on a rehash of the same old same old from the usual suspects? This by the way was the report on what happened between Lance and Mike in 2005.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

All I want to say is that this is no time for irrelevant and pointless posts just to get to 100 pages.

I hope this helps.

By the way, I always knew that Armstrong was either a Dirty, Lying, Cheating Bully or a Misunderstood Saint (please delete as history dictates).


----------



## Russell Allen (31 Aug 2012)

We've almost reached the magic ton, just goes to show that love him or hate him (or in my case dont care) LA certainly gets people talking


----------



## just jim (31 Aug 2012)

oldroadman said:


> This is a very boring thread which has gone on far too long on the basis of opinion and conjecture. Why not just sit back, wait, and watch the action?



No it's not. And no we can't.


----------



## Noodley (31 Aug 2012)

It would be fun if the Mods closed it on 99 pages...


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> All I want to say is that this is no time for irrelevant and pointless posts just to get to 100 pages.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> By the way, I always knew that Armstrong was either a Dirty, Lying, Cheating Bully or a Misunderstood Saint (please delete as history dictates).


 
Is drinking caffeine during page 99 considered as cheating?


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Is drinking caffeine during page 99 considered as cheating?


 
If everyone else is doing it, how can it be seen as cheating?

The top guys are getting through these threads so fast that without caffeine you are simply not going to keep up.

But what does this have to do with Armstrong?


----------



## yello (31 Aug 2012)

You do realise of course that the mods are watching this thread and anyone found guilty of using post enhancing drugs will have their posts deleted and all trophy points removed. You've been warned.


----------



## BJH (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> I'm sure Lance knows more about what he did than absolutely anyone. But he doesn't know what the evidence against him is because part of the USADA game is that people cannot see the evidence against them before deciding whether to challenge the case or not. Why he decided not to contest is speculation but I can quite understand that there comes a time in life when you have to question do you really want to spend the next several years in a room with lawyers arguing the toss with every step followed by the media or do you just want to let it go? Years ago if I were in his position and innocent I too would have fought it but now I would let it go. A few years ago I was involved in a commercial legal dispute and my advice was its not worth the hassle, just let it go but the legal department decided they were going to go for it anyway. I and others did spend lots of time with the lawyers doing all the preparatory work and we could have done far more useful things with our time but we did win the case. And that was in the English Courts. My experience of US Courts is that its an order of magnitude greater effort involved. The UK case cost c£0.5m of legal fees, a similar US case I was involved in cost nearer $40m



You cannot compare commercial litigation to this case. You say he has not been allowed to view the evidence before deciding whether to defend himself and cite the difficulty of the legal system as a potential reason.
Sorry but that really does not stack. His position here is very similar to when Michael Jackson decided to pay off a kid and his family instead of going through the legal process to defend his name and reputation.
I believed MJ to be guilty simply because he could not seriously say that he did not want his good name sullied in courts be defending himself when any normal person faced with that allegation would spend every penny they had to do so.
LA has made millions from the sport and according to him won those Tours fair and square. If I was him I would be willing to see every one of these alleged liars in court and Tyler would already have received paperwork from my solicitor.
I cannot believe that he would not do the same in these circumstances. Tired my ar&e !!!!!


----------



## BJH (31 Aug 2012)

Wanting Liggett out is not a witch hunt. It's taking a view that his credibility is now shot by the comments he has made.


----------



## BJH (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> Ah, the disgruntled ex-employee mechanic raises his head again. Where is all the new stuff or is USADA's cased just based on a rehash of the same old same old from the usual suspects? This by the way was the report on what happened between Lance and Mike in 2005.




Is he not entitled to remain annoyed with him if he feels he was treated badly? Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he wasn't treated badly.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

I wonder if there's a special prize for the first post on the 100th page.

If there were - and if Lance won it - would he have to return it in line with his punishment?


----------



## BJH (31 Aug 2012)

Another thought on Liggett with his description of USADA as nefarious.

If they are as bad as he is now claiming then we should be clearly doubting any testing they carried out on LA so how many of the claimed 500 tests were under USADA jurisdiction????


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

BJH said:


> Is he not entitled to remain annoyed with him if he feels he was treated badly? Just because he's disgruntled doesn't mean he wasn't treated badly.


 
He's entitled to feel what he wants. But in reading about his views and feelings and wondering whether he was treated badly it is worth knowing that a Court threw out all his claims that were the basis of his disgruntlement. And in the light of that the person being portrayed as the "win at all costs, never give up" Armstrong, having won all the major points in the case offered him a settlement (which he accepted) rather than press home the legal advantage and probably bankrupt him with legal costs.


----------



## Dayvo (31 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I wonder if there's a special prize for the first post on the 100th page.
> 
> If there were - and if Lance won it - would he have to return it in line with his punishment?


 
If I make that exclusive first post on page 100, I'd like a replica yellow jersey signed by LA!  He seems to have a few surplus ones, now.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

Dayvo said:


> If I make that exclusive first post on page 100, I'd like a replica yellow jersey signed by LA!  He seems to have a few surplus ones, now.


 
1. I wouldn't use it to wipe the crap of the soles of my shoes. That devalued so-called hero can go and take a flying fornicatory act at the Moon for all I care.

2. Really? A signed _Maillot Jaune_ from the greatest of them all? Wow!


----------



## Russell Allen (31 Aug 2012)

please let this be 100, I have always wanted to score the magical ton


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

Russell Allen said:


> please let this be 100, I have always wanted to score the magical ton


 
I find this eager and pointless search for the elusive ton a cheap and tawdry exercise.

Somebody should do something to put a stop to it at once.

No wonder our jails are so full!


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Dayvo said:


> If I make that exclusive first post on page 100, I'd like a replica yellow jersey signed by LA!  He seems to have a few surplus ones, now.


 
USADA have taken back the colour yellow which is apparently owned by the TdeF so he now only has signed replica white ones.


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

NOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> NOOOOOOOO!


B****r, didn't mean that to happen. Anyone want a white replica jersey signed by LA?


----------



## 2PedalsTez (31 Aug 2012)

Mr Liggett bites back.. (Twitter)
" I should make it quite clear. I have no business interests with Lance Armstrong as reported on Cyclingnews.com. Please retract -- Phil Liggett (@PhilLiggett)"


----------



## BJH (31 Aug 2012)

Red Light said:


> He's entitled to feel what he wants. But in reading about his views and feelings and wondering whether he was treated badly it is worth knowing that a Court threw out all his claims that were the basis of his disgruntlement. And in the light of that the person being portrayed as the "win at all costs, never give up" Armstrong, having won all the major points in the case offered him a settlement (which he accepted) rather than press home the legal advantage and probably bankrupt him with legal costs.



Yes money does tend to give you a better chance in court, especially in the US


----------



## BJH (31 Aug 2012)

Surely this makes 101


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> If everyone else is doing it, how can it be seen as cheating?
> 
> The top guys are getting through these threads so fast that without caffeine you are simply not going to keep up.
> 
> But what does this have to do with Armstrong?


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> You do realise of course that the mods are watching this thread and anyone found guilty of using post enhancing drugs will have their posts deleted and all trophy points removed. You've been warned.


 
I'm not going to respond to that allegation. Does that mean I get my posts and trophy points removed?


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> You do realise of course that the mods are watching this thread and anyone found guilty of using post enhancing drugs will have their posts deleted and all trophy points removed. You've been warned.


 
Test me!


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Test me!


 
Do you admit to using Post Enhancing Drugs?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Aug 2012)

10 posts to go to 2000 posts. This thread has definitely been artificially stimulated.


----------



## ufkacbln (31 Aug 2012)

This post has a TUE


----------



## Red Light (31 Aug 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> This post has a TUE


 
This one had steak for tea.


----------



## Chuffy (31 Aug 2012)

yello said:


> He's a contributor to The Clinic forum on Cycling News (he's TexPat if you're interested), a valuable source of 1st hand account.
> 
> Edit: that's the first time I've read all of the story in one piece, bits are familiar to me from various sources...


Yes, I knew that, and likewise. Heard bits. Interesting that his POV is more about what a complete arse Lance is, rather than doping evidence per se.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Sep 2012)

Yeah 100 pages!

EPO = Electronic Performance Overload


----------



## Crankarm (1 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> why not ignore reading it or posting in it?


 
Why not Noodley, why not?


----------



## Crankarm (1 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> USADA have taken back the colour yellow which is apparently owned by the TdeF so he now only has signed replica white ones.


 
So does he have to hand back the trophies and medals as well? Do all the official TdF videos/DVDs of the years LA won have to be recalled to try to erase his wins from the official record? It is rather Orwellian.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yes, I knew that, and likewise. Heard bits. Interesting that his POV is more about what a complete arse Lance is, rather than doping evidence per se.


 
Never been a fan of Ligget.


----------



## Crankarm (1 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I'm not going to respond to that allegation. Does that mean I get my posts and trophy points removed?


 
No, but I get the time bonuses for being the 2000th post and on page 100.

This thread is now closed.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Sep 2012)

Right. Back to the topic. Tyler Hamilton's book. Looks like a cracker. All we thought and more. And it's not just Armstrong. The entire UCI and also Bjarne 'Mr 60%' Riis don't look like they come out of it well at all.


----------



## johnr (1 Sep 2012)

2PedalsTez said:


> Mr Liggett bites back.. (Twitter)
> " I should make it quite clear. I have no business interests with Lance Armstrong as reported on Cyclingnews.com. Please retract -- Phil Liggett (@PhilLiggett)"


 I thought it said 'had' not 'has'... but the boy's obviously catching heat from somewhere


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Right. Back to the topic. Tyler Hamilton's book. Looks like a cracker. All we thought and more. And it's not just Armstrong. The entire UCI and also Bjarne 'Mr 60%' Riis don't look like they come out of it well at all.


 
Indeed.

And just to endorse FM's remarks, more sneak preview, too many snippets to quote, you'll have to read it yourself....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tyler-hamiltons-book-reveals-in-depth-doping-network

...though I found this little trick interesting



> Hamilton confirms the use of a powder termed "_polvo_", likely protease, an enzyme tucked under the fingernail and introduced into the stream of urine to beat the EPO test. He states several times that Riis helped him refine his transfusion schedule, and that doctors and soigneurs on CSC aided in defeating doping controls by being on "standby" with intravenous saline to water down haematocrit if doping controllers showed up, and doctors on Phonak helped with transfusions.


 
I am wondering if there will be reprisals for Riis and others.


----------



## Noodley (1 Sep 2012)

I'd best get my pre-order for Tyler's book into Amazon...


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2012)

I'm seriously thinking about it too Noodley! The salacious details will be re-printed on the web, I'm sure, and the book itself will end up in the discount bins at some point.... but I wanna know now!


----------



## raindog (1 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> I am wondering if there will be reprisals for Riis and others.


I wouldn't mind if there was - the guy's always given me the creeps.

But doesn't anyone else find this super-depressing? Talk about being taken for a ride, we've been well and truly shafted for twenty years. I seriously feel like packing up watching the sport. With EPO bike racing has shot itself in the foot big time.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> ...though I found this little trick interesting
> 
> 
> > Hamilton confirms the use of a powder termed "_polvo_", likely protease, an enzyme tucked under the fingernail and introduced into the stream of urine to beat the EPO test. He states several times that Riis helped him refine his transfusion schedule, and that doctors and soigneurs on CSC aided in defeating doping controls by being on "standby" with intravenous saline to water down haematocrit if doping controllers showed up, and doctors on Phonak helped with transfusions.
> ...


 
Actually this again brings into question the "Armstrong is the root of all evil" fixation of some, and the real need to step back and look at reality.

I questioned the suggestion a few pages back that Armstrong was being notified in advance of tests so that he was able to cheat the results. I pointed out that this was common practice and that most athletes were in fact notified so as "proof" of Armstrong's guilt" it as flimsy.

The real question hidden in the noise should be what the chaperones were doing between notification and testing. If they were not doing their job then the system would fail. None of the above should have been possible if true observation had taken place.

If this is case as suggested then this is indeed what has happened.

The other point that is again going to be dismissed is that these "Armstrong" revelations are again going to shout down all the other revelations.

It would appear from these books that the majority of riders either participated or were aware of these practices. It calls into question in some way the integrity of every single rider and team in the Tour at that time.... if these revelations are true then it would not have been possible for any rider not to know what was going on.

Is it time to forget the Armstrong fixation and look at the actions of all the main protagonists and the sport as a whole?


----------



## raindog (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Is it time to forget the Armstrong fixation and look at the actions of all the main protagonists and the sport as a whole?


Who's fixated on Armstrong? I'm not, and never have been. Some of us have been "looking at the actions of the sport as a whole" for decades.


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> But doesn't anyone else find this super-depressing? Talk about being taken for a ride, we've been well and truly shafted for twenty years. I seriously feel like packing up watching the sport.


 
Personally, no, I don't find it depressing. But I don't have the emotional investment in cycling, and the love for the history of cycling, that many of you do. I'm not into pro-cycling like many that post here are, I only have an interest in it. So I can understand how it might hurt those with those passions.

All I can say is that this is yet another dark period. One I feel cycling has got to to go through, but properly this time. No false dawns like after Festina. There has to be some shakedown of UCI, and I think that will happen, but I think there are too many good people in cycling for it not to come through this patch. Don't give up on it.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> Who's fixated on Armstrong? I'm not, and never have been. Some of us have been "looking at the actions of the sport as a whole" for decades.


 
Read back.... the testing regimes, effectiveness of testing other matters were queried way back and summarily dismissed as "fanboy fantasy" and a torrent of abuse by some of the more fixated posters.

An open mind or querying anything outside the closed agenda was unacceptable.

I agree with you fully and that is why I think we need to move away from Armstrong, and look at the widerpicture, although it will be unacceptable and unwelcome for some.


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Actually this again brings into question the "Armstrong is the root of all evil" fixation of some, and the real need to step back and look at reality.


 
I don't think anyone thinks Armstrong was the only problem, but he is part of "the reality". He was not merely an innocent victim of the times, he took it to another level, beyond being merely a doper. That was the reality. Further, in a thread about Armstrong being sanctioned, addressing that issue is not "fixation", it's staying on topic.


----------



## Noodley (1 Sep 2012)

I find it strange that the Armstrong apologists seem to think that those of us who have been vocal in condemning all riders who dope always seem to think we in someway 'target' Armstrong - there is no targetting other than he is the most vocal in his denials and is the biggest dope cheat of them all. And that is not to say we do not recognise that he is but part of the problem - but unless he and others come clean then we can never find out the true extent of the problem (including chaperones, who would be under the instruction of far more powerful and influential people, e.g. Armstrong's cronies to turn a blind eye)

So get the feck over yourselves and Armstrong. If you cannot see the full picture, which includes Armstrong and his ilk, then you cannot fully contribute to any debate. Denying Armstrong's part in it and wanting to point fingers elsewhere is not gonna add anything. Accept he was one of the biggest dopers and traffcikers, one of the most influential people in ensuring the Omerta was maintained and that he benefitted finanically within and outwith the sport due to his cheating...and then we can move on to "the others". Unlike Armstrong who is not interested in the sport, we are.

I have expereinced this kind of bullshit for years when I have brought up individual riders and their dodgy practices, and the apologists always use the same arguments - now we have something of more substance and they still hold the same line. I can only assume that they are very shallow, needy individuals who have very little self-worth or self-awareness and live their lives within a very narrow field of understanding, and certainly devoid of a sense of charcater and values.

I'm more than happy to get stuck into the UCI, team managers, team staff, etc...maybe Hamilton's book will give us more to go on - but I suspect the fanboys will merely claim he is embittered, unreliable, never that good anyway, etc. The same old pish that has been spouted for, what seems like, forever.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> So does he have to hand back the trophies and medals as well? Do all the official TdF videos/DVDs of the years LA won have to be recalled to try to erase his wins from the official record? It is rather Orwellian.


 
Now somebody has worked out who the winners were for those years you'll get back all your DVDs and videos re-edited to show the true winners. Its amazing what they can do with CGI these days. Step forward two time TdeF winners Fernando Escartin and Jose Azevedo! Whoops, no, scratch that, Azevedo was with Lance in US Postal so must have doped.


----------



## PaulB (1 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Right. Back to the topic. Tyler Hamilton's book. Looks like a cracker. All we thought and more. And it's not just Armstrong. The entire UCI and also Bjarne 'Mr 60%' Riis don't look like they come out of it well at all.


You can't put too much trust in the word of a liar. Since he has a history of being 'economical with the actualite' his comments have to be judged accordingly. His is one of the books I will certainly not be laying too much store by.


----------



## Noodley (1 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> You can't put too much trust in the word of a liar. Since he has a history of being 'economical with the actualite' his comments have to be judged accordingly. His is one of the books I will certainly not be laying too much store by.


 
Seriously, I did not communicate with PaulB whilst I was writing my earlier reply 

But this reply proves my point perfectly....


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> I find it strange that the Armstrong apologists seem to think that those of us who have been vocal in condemning all riders who dope always seem to think we in someway 'target' Armstrong - there is no targetting other than he is the most vocal in his denials and is the biggest dope cheat of them all. And that is not to say we do not recognise that he is but part of the problem - but unless he and others come clean then we can never find out the true extent of the problem (including chaperones, who would be under the instruction of far more powerful and influential people, e.g. Armstrong's cronies to turn a blind eye)
> 
> So get the feck over yourselves and Armstrong. If you cannot see the full picture, which includes Armstrong and his ilk, then you cannot fully contribute to any debate. Denying Armstrong's part in it and wanting to point fingers elsewhere is not gonna add anything. Accept he was one of the biggest dopers and traffcikers, one of the most influential people in ensuring the Omerta was maintained and that he benefitted finanically within and outwith the sport due to his cheating...and then we can move on to "the others". Unlike Armstrong who is not interested in the sport, we are.
> 
> ...


 
Which is exactly the point.

Armstrong in many ways has been a mask for reality.

However the problem with Armstrong is a two way street.

I chose the  testing notification as an example with good reason.

The entire press story has taken what is a widespread practice and made it unique to Armstrong

A serious and relevant point then becomes mired down as part of the "Armstrong debate" and gets none of the wider spread circulation and examination that it really deserves.

That is the real danger here.

We really need to move away from personalising this issue and looking at the system, dismissing this as trying to point the finger elsewhere and apologist could not be further from the truth, it is simply a way of avoiding an unpleasant truth.

The real truth is that at the time drugs in cycling were rife and the whole subject is at the moment a very large and securely locked very dark box of secrets

We should really be looking at Armstrong as the key to opening that box then investigating the contents rather than just commenting on the key and missing that opportunity.


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> We should really be looking at Armstrong as the key to opening that box then investigating the contents rather than just commenting on the key and missing that opportunity.


 
With all due respect, I think that is what is happening.


----------



## thom (1 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> So get the feck over yourselves and Armstrong. If you cannot see the full picture, which includes Armstrong and his ilk, then you cannot fully contribute to any debate. Denying Armstrong's part in it and wanting to point fingers elsewhere is not gonna add anything. Accept he was one of the biggest dopers and traffcikers, one of the most influential people in ensuring the Omerta was maintained and that he benefitted finanically within and outwith the sport due to his cheating...and then we can move on to "the others". Unlike Armstrong who is not interested in the sport, we are.


It all proves Armstrong is the correct target to break the omerta. Before pointing the finger elsewhere, you need to see an Armstrong apologist accepting that important point.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> With all due respect, I think that is what is happening.


 
For some, but not all.


----------



## PaulB (1 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Seriously, I did not communicate with PaulB whilst I was writing my earlier reply
> 
> But this reply proves my point perfectly....


Yes, there are those who want it all their own way. They want their cake and eat it. Those who have nailed their colours to the mast will seek out any confirmation bias and use it as corroborative evidence. I think most reasonable, rational people accept Armstrong's guilt and dismiss anything that runs contrary to that view while the Armstrong fan-boys are the exact opposite. So why set any store by Hamilton's book when his word has to be treated with scepticism and he has a financial interest in 'giving them juice'? There are many books on the subject from more reliable sources than this.


----------



## thom (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> For some, but not all.


Agreed. I think you can see people who are interested in doing so commenting on a thread different to the "Armstrong charged and banned" thread here:
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reforming-the-uci.109762/


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Agreed. I think you can see people who are interested in doing so commenting on a thread different to the "Armstrong charged and banned" thread here:
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/reforming-the-uci.109762/


 
Again though that was becoming down to the investigating the actions of a few and speculation. There is the problem that once again it becomes personalised and this masks the true reality

This is really "old news" in that the events happened some time ago.

Rather than speculate, or guess, why not simply sit back for 6 months, open the box, take time to look at the contents and then have an informed and full investigation.

Which of course leads to the question as to who should investigate. All of the present organisations, WADA, USADA, UCI are all in some way tarnished and too close to be independent


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> I find it strange that the Armstrong apologists seem to think that those of us who have been vocal in condemning all riders who dope always seem to think we in someway 'target' Armstrong - there is no targetting other than he is the most vocal in his denials and is the biggest dope cheat of them all. And that is not to say we do not recognise that he is but part of the problem - but unless he and others come clean then we can never find out the true extent of the problem (including chaperones, who would be under the instruction of far more powerful and influential people, e.g. Armstrong's cronies to turn a blind eye)
> 
> So get the feck over yourselves and Armstrong. If you cannot see the full picture, which includes Armstrong and his ilk, then you cannot fully contribute to any debate. Denying Armstrong's part in it and wanting to point fingers elsewhere is not gonna add anything. Accept he was one of the biggest dopers and traffcikers, one of the most influential people in ensuring the Omerta was maintained and that he benefitted finanically within and outwith the sport due to his cheating...and then we can move on to "the others". Unlike Armstrong who is not interested in the sport, we are.
> 
> ...


 
And what the Armstrong lynch mob fail to understand is that as of today we have little further information on Armstrong and what he did or didn't do on which to hang him than we did a year ago. The evidence that USADA have is not published yet so we don't know who it is and what they have said and until we do its pure speculation as to what the case is against him. Some of us including UCI and ASO are waiting for that information before making a judgement but that has not stopped the lynch mob here stringing him up and anything associated with him at the same time. Now of course the lynch mob in their defence have always been convinced, evidence or not, that he is guilty and after the deep disappointment that the FBI and FDA found insufficient evidence for a prosecution of someone "so obviously guilty" after spending $40m and interviewing witnesses under sub-poena and oath, its not surprising they are trigger happy on this morsel of hope.

I am not pro-Armstrong, I am not anti-Armstrong but I am very strongly pro proper process and not finding people guilty before the evidence has been seen and considered. In this case we are not going to get the benefit of a hearing and cross examination of the witnesses but I still want to see what the basis for the USADA case is and whether its repetition of the same tired old claims (which is all that has surfaced in the press so far) or genuinely new credible evidence. At present all we have is USADA hearsay that they have spoken to witnesses that have testified against him but we don't know what they said or who said it and it is no more valid than Phil Liggetts hearsay that someone was offered money to testify until names and times and faces are put on it so it becomes testimony not hearsay.

Personally I think its unlikely that he won the TdeF seven times beating known drug cheats of the ability of Ulrich, Kloden and Basso without being on the same enhancers as they were but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until I see the new evidence and even then would need to see strong evidence of behaviour much more sinister than just doping to treat him more harshly than the rest of the top of the TdeF peleton of those years has been treated for their doping.

But enjoy your lynch mob party because you don't need evidence to have an excuse to hang someone you don't like.


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> There are many books on the subject from more reliable sources than this.


Oooh, more books from USPS insiders telling all about the organised doping that went on? Excellent! Please point me towards them, I wish to go shopping.


----------



## Crackle (1 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> I wouldn't mind if there was - the guy's always given me the creeps.
> 
> But doesn't anyone else find this super-depressing? Talk about being taken for a ride, we've been well and truly shafted for twenty years. I seriously feel like packing up watching the sport. With EPO bike racing has shot itself in the foot big time.


 
Disappointing, not quite depressing. You only need to look in the Clinic to see what the consequences of this are, a hard edged cynicism amongst those who follow the sport, sod the sponsors, it's the fans who are the most screwed up by this, those who follow the racing I mean.

I'm hoping that the creditable performances we are seeing now is at least an indication that things might be changing but if it turns out not to be, then I think I'll quit following.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

I used to take banned substances as a supporter!

In the days of the coverage being at obscure hours of the day and night than alcohol and caffeine were staples!


----------



## mickle (1 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> And what the Armstrong lynch mob fail to understand is that as of today we have little further information on Armstrong and what he did or didn't do on which to hang him than we did a year ago. The evidence that USADA have is not published yet so we don't know who it is and what they have said and until we do its pure speculation as to what the case is against him. Some of us including UCI and ASO are waiting for that information before making a judgement but that has not stopped the lynch mob here stringing him up and anything associated with him at the same time. Now of course the lynch mob in their defence have always been convinced, evidence or not, that he is guilty and after the deep disappointment that the FBI and FDA found insufficient evidence for a prosecution of someone "so obviously guilty" after spending $40m and interviewing witnesses under sub-poena and oath, its not surprising they are trigger happy on this morsel of hope.
> 
> I am not pro-Armstrong, I am not anti-Armstrong but I am very strongly pro proper process and not finding people guilty before the evidence has been seen and considered. In this case we are not going to get the benefit of a hearing and cross examination of the witnesses but I still want to see what the basis for the USADA case is and whether its repetition of the same tired old claims (which is all that has surfaced in the press so far) or genuinely new credible evidence. At present all we have is USADA hearsay that they have spoken to witnesses that have testified against him but we don't know what they said or who said it and it is no more valid than Phil Liggetts hearsay that someone was offered money to testify until names and times and faces are put on it so it becomes testimony not hearsay.
> 
> ...


 
I'm struggling to understand what you and Cunobelin are on about.

'... all we have is USADA hearsay that they have spoken to witnesses that have testified against him but we don't know what they said or who said it and *it is no more valid* than Phil Liggetts hearsay...

Srsly? The evidence accumulated by the _United States Anti-Doping Agency_ (and the testimony of a dozen former colleagues) is _no more valid_ than the uninformed, ignorant witterings of a half pissed TV commentator?


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> But doesn't anyone else find this super-depressing? Talk about being taken for a ride, we've been well and truly shafted for twenty years. I seriously feel like packing up watching the sport. With EPO bike racing has shot itself in the foot big time.


 
Its always been that way (not that it excuses it) and probably always will be. Given that Armstrong had 500 or whatever the number of tests was and they didn't find anything in all but perhaps one or two, you really have to ask if the sport - and all other sports - are clean now or just ahead still of the testers. And whether the authorities are better off catching up with their testing than chasing down "cold cases"

There is an interesting blog on it here which includes this picture from a French magazine article of the 1930s.


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> I'm struggling to understand what you and Cunobelin are on about.
> 
> '... all we have is USADA hearsay that they have spoken to witnesses that have testified against him but we don't know what they said or who said it and *it is no more valid* than Phil Liggetts hearsay...
> 
> Srsly? The evidence accumulated by the _United States Anti-Doping Agency_ (and the testimony of a dozen former colleagues) is _no more valid_ than the uninformed, ignorant witterings of a half pissed TV commentator?


I think you'll find that if you strip out the moronic drivel from apologists and those people incapable of reading, this thread shrinks down to about 60 pages.


----------



## mickle (1 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Its always been that way (not that it excuses it) and probably always will be. Given that Armstrong had 500 or whatever the number of tests was and they didn't find anything in all but perhaps one or two, you really have to ask if the sport - and all other sports - are clean now or just ahead still of the testers. And whether the authorities are better off catching up with their testing than chasing down "cold cases"
> 
> There is an interesting blog on it here which includes this picture from a French magazine article of the 1930s.


 
You've not been keeping up, Armstong has done no more than 250 tests. And probably fewer.


----------



## thom (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Again though that was becoming down to the investigating the actions of a few and speculation. There is the problem that once again it becomes personalised and this masks the true reality
> 
> This is really "old news" in that the events happened some time ago.
> 
> ...


 
Each time you convict a drug cheat it is personalised. I think you find people who care about the issue want to talk about it.
It is not old news by any stretch of the imagination. This personality is the keystone to probably the largest fraud in sporting history.

Have an investigation ? USADA & WADA are about anti doping enforcement. Their investigation is right here and now !
The UCI look tarnished and the emergence of evidence may prove damning and provoke reform. See the other thread.

One of the concerns I heard from a commentator is that over the next few months, while we await evidence to become public, that firstly interest will die down and secondly the guilty protagonists have an opportunity to shift their position and exert some control, principally damage limitation to their commercial interests. This is clear with LA.

Right now is the time for people to show they do care and that pressure is brought to rid cycling of the corruption that has followed it for too long. If you're thinking about shelving this issue for now, face it, you'll never have the stomach to look at it's contents, let alone doing anything about it.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> I'm struggling to understand what you and Cunobelin are on about.
> 
> '... all we have is USADA hearsay that they have spoken to witnesses that have testified against him but we don't know what they said or who said it and *it is no more valid* than Phil Liggetts hearsay...
> 
> Srsly? The evidence accumulated by the _United States Anti-Doping Agency_ (and the testimony of a dozen former colleagues) is _no more valid_ than the uninformed, ignorant witterings of a half pissed TV commentator?


 
Until we see the evidence yes. If we hear from Liggetts or USADA sources direct rather than reported anonymously through third party recounting then it becomes testimony. But at the moment they are both saying I've got someone that told me something and that is hearsay.

Remember the school teacher Chris Jeffries arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates in Bristol. The media and public had a field day not discouraged by the police because "he didn't look right". And then it turns out he was totally innocent. Wait to see the evidence and then lets discuss it.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I think you'll find that if you strip out the moronic drivel from apologists and those people incapable of reading, this thread shrinks down to about 60 pages.


 
Ah, so anyone who doesn't agree with the Chuffy, Rich P, Noodley etc lynch mob is a moronic, shallow needy individual who can't read. Who was it saying about an Omerta earlier?


----------



## yello (1 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Right now is the time for people to show they do care and that pressure is brought to rid cycling of the corruption that has followed it for too long. If you're thinking about shelving this issue for now, face it, you'll never have the stomach to look at it's contents, let alone doing anything about it.


 
^^^ I 'liked' it (all of it, not just the quoted bit) but also have to add a  .

I like it when people passionate and knowledgeable about the sport speak. thom, you bring something to this discussion that I never could.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> One of the concerns I heard from a commentator is that over the next few months, while we await evidence to become public, that firstly interest will die down and secondly the guilty protagonists have an opportunity to shift their position and exert some control, principally damage limitation to their commercial interests. This is clear with LA.


 
I look forward to you organising a lobby of USADA to publish their evidence asap so this doesn't happen. Its all in their hands now. Meanwhile though the Bruyneel hearing should be an interesting proxy for the LA hearing that won't now happen and should keep the topic alive for you.


----------



## Ian H (1 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> There is an interesting blog on it here...


 
That's a reasonable account. It sets the current situation in an historical context.


----------



## thom (1 Sep 2012)

Lance Armstrong: Case Closed
(link from Science of sport)


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Each time you convict a drug cheat it is personalised. I think you find people who care about the issue want to talk about it.
> It is not old news by any stretch of the imagination. This personality is the keystone to probably the largest fraud in sporting history.
> 
> Have an investigation ? USADA & WADA are about anti doping enforcement. Their investigation is right here and now !
> ...


 
The concern I have is that the USADA has not come out of this too well.

The moving goalposts, claims that they had stripped titles when they hadn't (and may not be able to), the fact that this has allowed the "Witch hunt" defense some credibility is an issue... and let's not forget thatthe UCI (technically) was followingthe WADA / USADA drug testing regimes at this time.

It really needs to be something independent and removed from the present hysteria.


----------



## thom (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The concern I have is that the USADA has not come out of this too well.


Is this your only concern, your principal concern, a secondary concern ?!

Specifically, are you at all concerned about the content of this thread, the LA story, that he is being exposed by USADA as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history ?


----------



## PaulB (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Oooh, more books from USPS insiders telling all about the organised doping that went on? Excellent! Please point me towards them, I wish to go shopping.


I don't mean that. I mean books from way before this Pharmstrong stuff came out. Stuff that gives an insight into the mind of the pro cyclist and the ways in which they got into the doping. We all know the ones I mean and a knowledge of them gives a greater understanding of the prevailing conditions of the big tours. If you don't know them, go shopping.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin, Red Light,

You are getting desperate and starting to be more than a little insulting to the intelligence of everyone here. Even a cursory reading of these forums would make you realise that none of the people arguing on this topic (with the possible exception of that new arrival, 1986tourwinner, or whatever he's called) are obsessed by Armstrong or are discussing this to the exclusion of everything else. Most people on this thread have a long, long interest in pro-cycling, a lot of knowledge about it, and are genuinely concerned for the future of the sport. My personal obsession is actually Colombian and Japanese cyclists, which you'd know if you'd been here a while and been paying attention. Armstrong is a giant and unavoidable figure in the sport; it's his stature that casts the shadow here, not the choices of forum members.

However incorrect or misinterpreted what you say is, I still assume you feel the same way about pro-cycling as a whole, so please have the good faith not to start sayings things about other members that are blatantly untrue. 

Thank-you.


----------



## mickle (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The concern I have is that the USADA has not come out of this too well.
> 
> The moving goalposts, claims that they had stripped titles when they hadn't (and may not be able to), the fact that this has allowed the "Witch hunt" defense some credibility is an issue... and let's not forget thatthe UCI (technically) was followingthe WADA / USADA drug testing regimes at this time.
> 
> It really needs to be something independent and removed from the present hysteria.


 
'Not come out of this too well'? Really? By whose measure? Every time Lancey boy signed in to a race he signed in to the duristiction of the WADA (of which USADA is a subsidiary).

Still not entirely sure what point you are trying to make, pehaps you need some better facts.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Is this your only concern, your principal concern, a secondary concern ?!
> 
> Specifically, are you at all concerned about the content of this thread, the LA story, that he is being exposed by USADA as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history ?


Is he (being exposed as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history)?

Or is the TdeF, the UCI, and pro-cycling, et al, in general being exposed as the most systematic, institutional, of fraudsters in sporting history.

The amount of collusion that must have gone on to allow any individual to get away with what Armstrong appears to have done; flagrant, repeated and sustained fraud, suggests the sport was rotten to the core. Given how many of that era are still involved, the taint still lingers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2016872, member: 45"]Armstrong has been *stripped of his titles* and has conceded that he's a cheat. End of.[/quote]
Has he though?

The latest I've read, but may not be fully current, is that ASO sadi ""We are still waiting for important decisions to be taken by the competent authorities with responsibility for this matter, which are Usada and the International Cycling Union, before issuing any further comment."


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> I don't mean that. I mean books from way before this Pharmstrong stuff came out. Stuff that gives an insight into the mind of the pro cyclist and the ways in which they got into the doping. We all know the ones I mean and a knowledge of them gives a greater understanding of the prevailing conditions of the big tours. If you don't know them, go shopping.


Your earlier post clearly implied that there were other books which covered the same ground as Hamilton's, eg USPS - and there aren't.

I can see why you (or anyone else) might have a problem with Hamilton. After all the years of lies and unconvincing excuses it's hard to suddenly trust the guy. However, what he seems to be saying, from what we've seen of the book so far, is being corroborated by other riders. Also, he gave testimony to the Federal investigation - do you think he lied to them, and risked jail for perjury? If you've followed the arc of his initial lies, through to his attempted comeback, subsequent ban for another doping offence and treatment for depression then it seems unlikely that he would suddenly start up on a whole fresh wave of untruths.


----------



## tigger (1 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Cunobelin, Red Light,
> 
> You are getting desperate and starting to be more than a little insulting to the intelligence of everyone here. Even a cursory reading of these forums would make you realise that none of the people arguing on this topic (with the possible exception of that new arrival, 1986tourwinner, or whatever he's called) are obsessed by Armstrong or are discussing this to the exclusion of everything else. Most people on this thread have a long, long interest in pro-cycling, a lot of knowledge about it, and are genuinely concerned for the future of the sport. My personal obsession is actually Colombian and Japanese cyclists, which you'd know if you'd been here a while and been paying attention. Armstrong is a giant and unavoidable figure in the sport; it's his stature that casts the shadow here, not the choices of forum members.
> 
> ...


 
Put 'em on your ignore list. Can't work out if they are trolls, the same person or possibly just very _ _ _


----------



## PaulB (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Your earlier post clearly implied that there were other books which covered the same ground as Hamilton's, eg USPS - and there aren't.
> 
> I can see why you (or anyone else) might have a problem with Hamilton. After all the years of lies and unconvincing excuses it's hard to suddenly trust the guy. However, what he seems to be saying, from what we've seen of the book so far, is being corroborated by other riders. Also, he gave testimony to the Federal investigation - do you think he lied to them, and risked jail for perjury? If you've followed the arc of his initial lies, through to his attempted comeback, subsequent ban for another doping offence and treatment for depression then it seems unlikely that he would suddenly start up on a whole fresh wave of untruths.


 
Fid it duck. 

My problem with Hamilton is that he's a proven liar with a book to sell but worse than that, much much worse than that is that he's a snitch. A grass. A nark. A tell-tales-out-of-school stool-pigeon. Nothing good ever comes from out of a dirt-bag like that. Naturally it will be snapped up by those with an agenda against Pharmstrong while those still in that river in Egypt will condemn him for being an also-ran trying to even up the score by siding with those out to get him. Everyone's looking for confirmation bias but it should be read with the foreknowledge of where it's come from. And that renders it pretty much worthless.


----------



## thom (1 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Is he (being exposed as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history)?
> 
> Or is the TdeF, the UCI, and pro-cycling, et al, in general being exposed as the most systematic, institutional, of fraudsters in sporting history.


Certainly this goes beyond LA, that is clear but you can't deny that he is the one it centered around or that it was his palmares that was to benefit the most. 
Is there any indication that the TdF/Amaury was part of the collusion ? On this I'm not sure.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Sep 2012)

tigger said:


> Put 'em on your ignore list. Can't work out if they are trolls, the same person or possibly just very _ _ _


 
I don't use an ignore list, but this is making me reconsider.


----------



## rich p (1 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I don't use an ignore list, but this is making me reconsider.


 Neither did I but way back in post 1816 I changed my policy for the trolls on here.


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (1 Sep 2012)

I love all the rants about Landis and Hamilton being unrelialble because they lied in the past. They were buried deep in a culture of doping. The peer pressure would have been immense. At a time when admission of guilt would have had incredibly severe repercussions they lied about their misdeeds. A bit like my kids lying about eating biscuits when they have crumbs on their lips, or me fibbing to my good lady wife about just how much I have had to drink when I stagger in after a "do".
Then, when they won't lose their livelihood, UNLESS they have committed libel / slander - whichever it is when you lie in print - they suddenly become unreliable. Yet for whatever reason, they are not taken to court by the people they have outed (if that is the right phrase).
Now I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have aged, I have become a lot more candid about what I do. I was up to all sorts in my youth and always thought I could talk my way out of things. These days, I know my sins will find me out and realise I am better spilling the beans first so at least I can put an Alistair Campbell-like spin on things.
I would say that Flandis and Hamilton are all the more reliable because of their pasts. It doesn't make them admirable or less odious than they might have been, but a wish to be candid, clear and privately absolved for having spoken out and come clean would be a very powerful motivator.

An on a totally different matter, the time I realised Lance doped was when I read "It's not about the bike". His attitude when facing cancer, the desire to win, the need to know and use every scientific advantage to achieve an aim was just so different to my experience (and it wasn't my battle with cancer, it was my son's) made me realise that he would not hesitate at using anything that would give him an advantage in any competition, that he would know what to ask, and of whom.

Well, I've added very little to the debate, just expressed an opinion that the people protesting innocence are less reliable than those proclaiming guilt. As you were....


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Sep 2012)

Stig-OT-Dump said:


> I love all the rants about Landis and Hamilton being unrelialble because they lied in the past. THey were buried deep in a culture of doping. The peer pressure would have been immense. At a time when admissionof guilt would have had incredibly severe repercussions they lied about their misdeeds. A bit like my kids lying about eating biscuits when they have crumbs on their lips, or me fibbing to my good lady wife about just how much I have had to drink when I stagger in after a "do".
> Then, when they won't lose their livelihood, UNLESS they have committed libel / slander - whichever it is when you lie in print - they suddenly become unreliable. Yet for whatever reason, they are not taken to court by the people they have outed (if that is the right phrase).
> Now I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have aged, I have become a lot more candid about what I do. I was up to all sorts in my youth and always thought I could talk my way out of things. These days, I know my sins will find me out and realise I am better spilling teh beans first so at least I can put an Alistair Campbell-like spin on things.
> I would say that Flandis and Hamilton are all the more reliable because of their pasts. It doesn't make them admirable or less odious than they might have been, but a wish to be candid, clear and privately absolved for having spoken out and come clean would be a very powerful motivator.


Good post.

Up until very recently all sports people caught doping would deny any knowledge of how the substance came to be in their system because that was what the culture of their sport programmed them to do. Landis and Hamilton were no different to anyone else there, with the odd exception such as millar.


----------



## rich p (1 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Good post.
> 
> Up until very recently all sports people caught doping would deny any knowledge of how the substance came to be in their system because that was what the culture of their sport programmed them to do. Landis and Hamilton were no different to anyone else there, with the odd exception such as millar.


 Agreed. The smokescreens were automatic however preposterous their excuses ( poisoned, chimera, sex, beef - take your choice).
I wonder if there will be a a more open acceptance if they do get nicked in future - hmmm! Frank Schleck listening?


----------



## Noodley (1 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> chimera sex beef


 
That sounds like it would be quite nice covered in batter


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> You've not been keeping up, Armstong has done no more than 250 tests. And probably fewer.


 
Which bit of "500 or whatever the number of tests was" did you not understand?


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Is this your only concern, your principal concern, a secondary concern ?!
> 
> Specifically, are you at all concerned about the content of this thread, the LA story, that he is being exposed by USADA as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history ?


 
The USADA is not my only concern by any means, nor the primary concern.

The problem I have is very simple. and to that end I use the "warnings" as an illustration.

The allegation was that Armstrong was able to "avoid tests" and "fix the results" because *HE* was warned befiore the tests.

If this was the case and Armstrong was unique then the focus should fully be on Armstrong and how he managed this.

However if you look at the fact then *ALL* the athletes are warned in advance.If Hamilton's testimony is then believed then it appears that these warnings were used by a wide range of riders to avoid positive tests.

If the rules were applied correctly and the riders chaperoned then this should not be possible.

It is no longer a case of how one rider managed to beat the system, but how the system has collapsed and failed completely.

If you concentrate on the original case and only investigate Armstrong then it does the sport as a whole a disservice by failing to investigate how al the others abused the same system.

The content of this thread is similar.

There are too many who dismiss any suggestion that the investigation needs to be widened as "pointing the finger elsewhere" or "FanBoy twaddle" or in one case as a "W@nkfest"

By all means if the thread is simply a sycophantic rant about Armstrong then the suggestion about looking at the wider implications is inappropriate, but if anyone is really interested in the sport then looking at how so many riders were able to beat the system is entirely appropriate.

The question is surely how cycling as a sport became the biggest sporting fraud in history?


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2012)

tigger said:


> Put 'em on your ignore list. Can't work out if they are trolls, the same person or possibly just very _ _ _


They're separate people and in other areas of online cycling life they are both sensible and respected posters. Sadly, on this board and topic they are neither.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Neither did I but way back in post 1816 I changed my policy for the trolls on here.


 
You mean when you decided to exclude anything outside your closed agenda and decided to limit your view to sycophantic posts?



rich p said:


> I need to tell some of you guys that this thread actually becomes more entertaining when you 'ignore' the apologists, barrack-room lawyers, trolls and muppets. I've always been rather anti ignore list but it's actually quite cathartic.


 
By all means your right, but says more about you than any of the arguments on the thread.


----------



## BJH (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Again though that was becoming down to the investigating the actions of a few and speculation. There is the problem that once again it becomes personalised and this masks the true reality
> 
> This is really "old news" in that the events happened some time ago.
> 
> ...



Not sure that either WADA or USADA are discredited unless of course you accept the LA view of the world


----------



## BJH (1 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Is he (being exposed as probably the biggest sporting fraud in history)?
> 
> Or is the TdeF, the UCI, and pro-cycling, et al, in general being exposed as the most systematic, institutional, of fraudsters in sporting history.
> 
> The amount of collusion that must have gone on to allow any individual to get away with what Armstrong appears to have done; flagrant, repeated and sustained fraud, suggests the sport was rotten to the core. Given how many of that era are still involved, the taint still lingers.



This isn't an either or. On your second question yes the sport could well be the most fraudulent around. But that doesn't change the fact that Big Tex sat right at the top of the tree growing in that cess pool.


----------



## rich p (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You mean when you decided to exclude anything outside your closed agenda and decided to limit your view to sycophantic posts?
> 
> 
> 
> By all means your right, but says more about you than any of the arguments on the thread.


 I didn't ignore you Cuno cos you're such entertainment but if you class yourself as one of my sycophants....

p.s. You lost the argument waaaaay back - everything else is just sport.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

BJH said:


> Not sure that either WADA or USADA are discredited unless of course you accept the LA view of the world


 
... or read the US press?

Two main reasons.

The Armstrong defence raised questions that have been supported by some areas of the media. The latest by Tygart stating that they would only have sought to remove two titles, and that removing the other five is a punishment for not co-operating will only serve to reinforce the Armstrong "Witch hunt" allegations.

The reality is that this does not make the USADA the best independent investigators in the view of many.


Secondly all the testing was carried out under WADA / USADA jurisdiction. Widespread failure of the system is the responsibility of all the organisations involved.

There needs to be a full investigation of doping during this period and which ever organisation performs this needs to be free of suspicion or baggage


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> I but if you class yourself as one of my sycophants....
> .


You wish.... but I have standards and an open mind

Both exclude being your supporter


----------



## BJH (1 Sep 2012)

Stig-OT-Dump said:


> I love all the rants about Landis and Hamilton being unrelialble because they lied in the past. They were buried deep in a culture of doping. The peer pressure would have been immense. At a time when admission of guilt would have had incredibly severe repercussions they lied about their misdeeds. A bit like my kids lying about eating biscuits when they have crumbs on their lips, or me fibbing to my good lady wife about just how much I have had to drink when I stagger in after a "do".
> Then, when they won't lose their livelihood, UNLESS they have committed libel / slander - whichever it is when you lie in print - they suddenly become unreliable. Yet for whatever reason, they are not taken to court by the people they have outed (if that is the right phrase).
> Now I can't speak for anyone else, but as I have aged, I have become a lot more candid about what I do. I was up to all sorts in my youth and always thought I could talk my way out of things. These days, I know my sins will find me out and realise I am better spilling the beans first so at least I can put an Alistair Campbell-like spin on things.
> I would say that Flandis and Hamilton are all the more reliable because of their pasts. It doesn't make them admirable or less odious than they might have been, but a wish to be candid, clear and privately absolved for having spoken out and come clean would be a very powerful motivator.
> ...



Agree with you on Landis and Hamilton. 

I don't see them as snitches or unreliable. They were fully part of an organised doping programme designed to systematically ensure that their man won. Their actions in continuing to lie when caught was inevitable.

Once the lies unravelled and they were caught bang to rights, they had nowhere else to go but to try to clear their conscience. As discredited ex sports stars I am sure their finances have taken a bashing and sure this motivates their desire to write a book and they will make lots of money from it.

That doesn't necessarily discredit them as witnesses, neither did it discredit other contributors to the David Walsh book who received some payment.

The law provides adequate cover to LA should the words that have been written turn out to be lies made up by embittered people.

Landis for me comes across as someone who is looking for closure. He has made his assertions concerning LA and the UCI some time ago yet neither has so far gone to court despite numerous threats to do so. My guess is that he can't wait for the opportunity to stand up and talk in public under oath. I equally believe that LA is fully aware of this and clearly does not want to give him the opportunity to do so.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> The question is surely how cycling as a sport became the biggest sporting fraud in history?


 
I doubt its the biggest sporting fraud in history - its just that cycling has tackled its doping to an extent, something that hasn't happened to the same degree in most other sports. Its just in doing that its got itself a great deal of publicity and therefore is one of the highest profile sporting frauds.

Victor Conte recently said that 60% of the Olympics 2012 athletes will have been doping. He was convicted in 2005 for conspiracy to distribute steroids and was the supplier of a number of high profile athletes including Dwain Chambers. Despite all that he was at the Olympics supporting several of the US athletes.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> They're separate people and in other areas of online cycling life they are both sensible and respected posters. Sadly, on this board and topic they *don't agree with me so* are neither.


 
FTFY


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2012)

BJH said:


> Agree with you on Landis and Hamilton.
> 
> I don't see them as snitches or unreliable. They were fully part of an organised doping programme designed to systematically ensure that their man won. Their actions in continuing to lie when caught was inevitable.
> 
> ...


The idiocy of people who churn out the 'book deal $$$' line in response to the likes of Hamilton telling their story, yet ignore the millions that Lance made through his two volumes of self-mythologising claptrap is just ridiculous. And really, just how much do you think Hamilton is likely to make?


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> The idiocy of people who churn out the 'book deal $$$' line in response to the likes of Hamilton telling their story, yet ignore the millions that Lance made through his two volumes of self-mythologising claptrap is just ridiculous. And really, just how much do you think Hamilton is likely to make?


 
Yebbut nobody but a few fans would buy a book about Hamilton. But if he spices it up with inside dirt on doping in cycling and launches it within a few weeks of the Armstrong story breaking he can make a lot of money. So there is a clear conflict in how much he bigs it up to make more money (and with his history and depression he can't have a lot of opportunities to make a living now). That's not to say its all untrue but it just has to be viewed with a degree of caution given his clear conflicts of interest, his history and his likely financial need.


----------



## BJH (1 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> The idiocy of people who churn out the 'book deal $$$' line in response to the likes of Hamilton telling their story, yet ignore the millions that Lance made through his two volumes of self-mythologising claptrap is just ridiculous. And really, just how much do you think Hamilton is likely to make?



Well cheers for the idiocy reference. 

I don't think he will make millions, my point was that talking about his past is probably his only form of income these days. But that does not discredit his testimony.


----------



## smutchin (1 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> That sounds like it would be quite nice covered in batter



I thought it was a Captain Beefheart album. 

d.


----------



## Chuffy (1 Sep 2012)

BJH said:


> Well cheers for the idiocy reference.
> 
> I don't think he will make millions, my point was that talking about his past is probably his only form of income these days. But that does not discredit his testimony.


I was actually agreeing with your post! Sorry, should have made that clearer. TH has a coaching business these days, I suspect he makes a living. No idea about Floyd though. Neither of these guys are heroes - they only decided to come clean when their backs were to the wall, and Floyd in particular was more than open to being paid off with a job offer. That said, they do deserve some measure of respect for finally coming clean, however they got there.


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (1 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Yebbut nobody but a few fans would buy a book about Hamilton. But if he spices it up with inside dirt on doping in cycling and launches it within a few weeks of the Armstrong story breaking he can make a lot of money. So there is a clear conflict in how much he bigs it up to make more money (and with his history and depression he can't have a lot of opportunities to make a living now). That's not to say its all untrue but it just has to be viewed with a degree of caution given his clear conflicts of interest, his history and his likely financial need.


 Now I'm not an expert, but I reckon most of the sporting "auto" biographies I've read were ghost written.
With that in mind, do you think a publishing house would spend money on a ghost writer, editing, publishing and promotion of the biography of an ex- and possibly disgraced athlete when the main point of interest doesn't coincide with a talking point of the day?
Don't you think that there are loads of has-beens, nearly weres and should've beens who don't bore the pants off anyone who will listen and would just LOVE someone to take their story to the masses, convinced it would grip everyone's interest and capture their imagination for at least a while?
Sometimes the right time to tell a story is when people are sat there and prepared to listen.


----------



## Red Light (1 Sep 2012)

Stig-OT-Dump said:


> Now I'm not an expert, but I reckon most of the sporting "auto" biographies I've read were ghost written.
> With that in mind, do you think a publishing house would spend money on a ghost writer, editing, publishing and promotion of the biography of an ex- and possibly disgraced athlete when the main point of interest doesn't coincide with a talking point of the day?
> Don't you think that there are loads of has-beens, nearly weres and should've beens who don't bore the pants off anyone who will listen and would just LOVE someone to take their story to the masses, convinced it would grip everyone's interest and capture their imagination for at least a while?
> Sometimes the right time to tell a story is when people are sat there and prepared to listen.


 
They are almost certainly ghost written but as you say, unless the athlete can sell them a juicy story on a topic of current interest then they won't get a publisher. So if Hamilton had gone to them, presumably needing the money, with the offer of a story of his life, training and how he toiled up Alp d"Huez and Tourmalet do you think they would have bought it? But go to them with I can dish the dirt on the true story of doping and they would be all over it with a title to match. The question is is the story fact or fiction because no story, no book, no money.


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (1 Sep 2012)

1 I'd say they came to him
2 if it's not fact he and the publishers would be on a defamation charge quicker than you could say 'litigation' so the publisher's lawyers would've wanted more than enthusiastic testimony before they went in to print.
3 the publishers know what sells copy. He may have talked for hours on training regimes, alpine routes and daring descents but all they'd publish would be transfusions, doping and stage wins.

With the vested interests of ASO, the UCI, sponsors and TV companies do you really think these guys felt they ever had a choice? Publishers or whoever, I'm sure the corporations were making more out if doping than all but the biggest of (texan) riders.


----------



## johnr (2 Sep 2012)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Race-Cover-ups-Winning/dp/0593071735
seven quid off already! Perfect reading while I'm waiting for the tour of britain to roll by!


----------



## albion (2 Sep 2012)

There's money to be made in that there guilt.

Heck, they can even cease to be a human being.


----------



## PaulB (2 Sep 2012)

BJH said:


> Agree with you on Landis and Hamilton.
> 
> I don't see them as snitches or unreliable.
> 
> That doesn't necessarily discredit them as witnesses,


 
I see Hamilton as nothing more than a snitch on the make. A Judas awaiting his 30 pieces of silver which is EXACTLY what discredits him as a witness. I'm keeping my powder dry about the other one but it seems a lot of people are pre-justifying the cost of buying (into) Hamilton's book. Of course I'm going to read it but anyone with two functioning brain cells knows the score with Pharmstrong so all Hamilton's book will do is stoke the flames and give ammunition to both sides in the pro and anti-Lance brigades. How juicy!


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

johnr said:


> http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Race-Cover-ups-Winning/dp/0593071735
> seven quid off already! Perfect reading while I'm waiting for the tour of britain to roll by!



Interesting that he describes himself as a former Olympic Gold Medalist despite having surrendered his medal last year and being stripped of it this year by the IOC. Does that make Armstrong a former seven times winner of the TdeF?

Worth reading his Wikipedia entry to see how much of a doper he was and all of the evidence is post leaving USPS. If Armstrong taught him how to dope without getting caught he certainly didn't learn anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hamilton#Olympic_gold_and_doping_confession


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

johnr said:


> http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Race-Cover-ups-Winning/dp/0593071735
> seven quid off already! Perfect reading while I'm waiting for the tour of britain to roll by!



#32 on the Amazon Top 100 Books list before its even been published. Who said he wasn't going to make millions out of it?


----------



## mickle (2 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> Fid it duck.
> 
> My problem with Hamilton is that he's a proven liar ...... he's a snitch. A grass. A nark. A tell-tales-out-of-school stool-pigeon.....



FFS.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

Stig-OT-Dump said:


> 1 I'd say they came to him



Most likely he met up with the co-author, a surprise surprise Sunday Times journalist, who had spent 2005 with the Tour writing his eulogy of Armstrong while not spotting anything untoward, and about Hamilton, Ulrich etc. There is an interesting comment in an Amazon review of one of the two virtually identical books he published on Armstrong:

"We see how Armstrong has to contend with more than just winning the Tour de France; he has to contend with the multitude enemies, seemingly lead by journalist David Walsh, that are just out to get him: those that want to `prove' that he took performance enhancing drugs and in doing so make there own fortunes."



> 2 if it's not fact he and the publishers would be on a defamation charge quicker than you could say 'litigation' so the publisher's lawyers would've wanted more than enthusiastic testimony before they went in to print.



Maybe or maybe like David Walsh's publishers they did the calculations. But from the reviews so far it seems he's accused everyone in cycling of that era and made himself a victim of them.

Whatever is in there though was clearly not credible enough for the Grand Jury to proceed with a prosecution of anyone. 



> 3 the publishers know what sells copy. He may have talked for hours on training regimes, alpine routes and daring descents but all they'd publish would be transfusions, doping and stage wins.



The co-author knows what sells to publishers. It appears he spent 18 months interviewing Hamilton before writing it and had planned to launch it on Armstrong's birthday (nice!) but then the story broke and they brought it forward.



> With the vested interests of ASO, the UCI, sponsors and TV companies do you really think these guys felt they ever had a choice? Publishers or whoever, I'm sure the corporations were making more out if doping than all but the biggest of (texan) riders.



Are you saying Armstrong was a victim too? After all he could have had no expectation of seven wins (which is what made all the money for him) when he was setting out for his first and second win.


----------



## PaulB (2 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> FFS.


He is. If he wants to confess his own sins in public, that's his prerogative but to confess someone ELSE'S sins, that's the mark of a Judas. Not meaning to be all biblical or anything but some things just bring contempt and grassing your fellow conspirator up is one of them.


----------



## Noodley (2 Sep 2012)

A classic Armstrong-apologist tactic Mr P


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> If you concentrate on the original case and only investigate Armstrong then it does the sport as a whole a disservice by failing to investigate how al the others abused the same system.


You're doing cycling a disservice cycling by refusing to accept that the reality is that the Armstrong case is key to unveiling the abuse of the system. 
I'm sorry, I don't agree with your analysis on various factual points. Let's leave it at that.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2017770, member: 45"]If I've got this right, we're now down-playing the faults of one drug user by up-playing those of another.[/quote]

Which is what happens when the fixation is with the personality and not the actual evidence.

_*If*_ you argue that Hamilton's evidence against Armstrong is tainted by motive and dismiss it then do you accept the evidence against the others as well?

If this happens then the Armstrong / Hamilton feud is only going to divert attention from the other riders (allegedly) taking part in systematic abuse of drugs in cycling.

What should be happening is that the allegations in the book should be treated as that and investigated.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> You're doing cycling a disservice cycling by refusing to accept that the reality is that the Armstrong case is key to unveiling the abuse of the system.
> I'm sorry, I don't agree with your analysis on various factual points. Let's leave it at that.


 
I am not denying that Armstrong is the way in, it is simply that I am concerned that much of the real story is going to be hidden in the noise.

In the meanwhile, can I refer you back to an earlier post where my position on Armstrong being the key?



Cunobelin said:


> (snipped)
> The real truth is that at the time drugs in cycling were rife and the whole subject is at the moment a very large and securely locked very dark box of secrets
> 
> _*We should really be looking at Armstrong as the key to opening that box*_ then investigating the contents rather than just commenting on the key and missing that opportunity.


 

(My emphasis)

Hardly refusing to accept that Armstrong is the key!

The difference is that I want to look at the wider picture.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> What should be happening is that the allegations in the book should be treated as that and investigated.



They already have. His story has been given under sworn testimony to a Grand Jury. They found insufficient evidence in it to do anything. It would be interesting to see what he said under oath because either he was prepared to say a lot lot less under oath or the Grnad Jury found him not to be a credible witness.


----------



## Noodley (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin, what you should be doing is telling the authorities what they should be doing - and not us.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2017808, member: 45"]Step back a bit. It's only the knitters on here who take any notice of themselves.[/quote]

Even knitting can affect cycling!
Does this count as a fairing and hence aerodynamic advantage?






!


----------



## Chuffy (2 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> He is. If he wants to confess his own sins in public, that's his prerogative but to confess someone ELSE'S sins, that's the mark of a Judas. Not meaning to be all biblical or anything but some things just bring contempt and grassing your fellow conspirator up is one of them.


And you think these guys all operate in a little bubble, with no-one else involved? And why should he effectively lie again, by covering up for Armstrong & co?


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> And you think these guys all operate in a little bubble, with no-one else involved? And why should he effectively lie again, by covering up for Armstrong & co?


 
The question is not should he lie again but is he lying again.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Even knitting can affect cycling!
> Does this count as a fairing and hence aerodynamic advantage?
> 
> 
> ...


 
Clearly trying to pull the wool over UCI


----------



## rich p (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> You wish.... but I have standards and an open mind
> 
> Both exclude being your supporter


 Listen up matey as I'm only going to say this once - even though I've said it, as have many others, many times before.
I once had an open mind, and I think I'm speaking for a lot of people who have watched cycling for many years. I started off admiring and respecting Armstrong and loving the way he rode the TdF, his power and strength of will, the look he gave Ullrich and the dominance of USPS. I have stated before, I used to take a day off work on the queen stage just to see LA hopefully destroy the opposition. However, the trickle of evidence of doping from circumstantial to hard eveidence gradually eroded my admiration and belief to the point that I was left with no alternative to the fact that LA and USPS were clearly doped.
This wasn't a position I got to by flipping a coin - it was achieved by starting with an open mind, seeing the evidence and then arriving at a conclusion. That's how evidence based decison making works.
There is no compulsion or requirement for you to agree but I do resent being called closed-minded and fixated, even by you, for whom I have very low regard.
As to being fixated with Armstrong, I conversely believe you to be guilty of that. I have a history on here of posting and deploring any rider who has been charged, convicted or accused of drug-taking; accusing the UCI of systemic failure; ridiculing Verbruggen and McQuaid, and much going back years.
I also post in this section ad nauseam about the actual races such as the Vuelta a Espana which I can inform you is currently going on. I even started a thread on the Eneco Tour, which as many in the know will tell you is a leap of hope over expectation. You, on the other hand, I have only seen posting in Racing on the Armstrong thread. Thank you and goodnight.


----------



## Noodley (2 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> He is. If he wants to confess his own sins in public, that's his prerogative but to confess someone ELSE'S sins, that's the mark of a Judas. Not meaning to be all biblical or anything but some things just bring contempt and grassing your fellow conspirator up is one of them.


 
Is this stance unique to Liverpudlians and Cockney gangsters?


----------



## Noodley (2 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Listen up matey


 
I always know the rest of a post is gonna be fun when it starts with "listen up matey"


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I am not denying that Armstrong is the way in, it is simply that I am concerned that much of the real story is going to be hidden in the noise.
> 
> In the meanwhile, can I refer you back to an earlier post where my position on Armstrong being the key?
> 
> ...


 
The problem is you come across as reluctant to condemn LA and determined to use the wider picture to excuse his behaviour. There is no room for that. It needs to be clear that drug cheats do not get away with it and are responsible for their actions when they break the rules.

There are wider issues and you know, funnily enough everyone knows that but on a thread about LA, it's hardly surprising that isn't the primary focus of the discussion. I refer you to the UCI thread for example. Or start a new one !


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2012)

Good post Rich. It about sums up how I feel too. I've so wanted LA to be innocent but the evidence is now insurmountable. All I can hope for now is that the people I watch today in particular Rodriguez are shown to be clean. Too often now I've admired climbers only to find out they've not done it "on their own".

I am finding David Walsh a touch cloying though. In typical News International fashion, none of this would have been discovered if not for him.


----------



## lukesdad (2 Sep 2012)

Havn't you lot got anything better to do on a Sunday morning ?


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Havn't you lot got anything better to do on a Sunday morning ?


No actually I haven't. I'm on call and can't leave the house.


----------



## Noodley (2 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Havn't you lot got anything better to do on a Sunday morning ?


 
I do, mowing the lawn. Hence I am here.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Sep 2012)

Here's looking forward to another 100 pages.


----------



## rich p (2 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Havn't you lot got anything better to do on a Sunday morning ?


 It's bladdy raining Ld! It's either this or the housework.
Hmmmm, hoovering just became a lot more attrative


----------



## MichaelM (2 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I doubt its the biggest sporting fraud in history - its just that cycling has tackled its doping to an extent, *something that hasn't happened to the same degree in most other sports*. Its just in doing that its got itself a great deal of publicity and therefore is one of the highest profile sporting frauds.
> 
> Victor Conte recently said that 60% of the Olympics 2012 athletes will have been doping. He was convicted in 2005 for conspiracy to distribute steroids and was the supplier of a number of high profile athletes including Dwain Chambers. Despite all that he was at the Olympics supporting several of the US athletes.


 
I find it strange that you're so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to one individual - wanting to see what USADA have etc, yet imply that there is a drug problem in other sports without offering any evidence to substantiate your view.


----------



## MichaelM (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Which is what happens when the fixation is with the personality and not the actual evidence.


 
I must say I am baffled by your views.

On the one hand you seem to discount evidence/witness reports against Armstrong as being "the same old rehashed stories" or from a disgruntled ex employee/team mate. On the other, you seem to be of the view they were all at it and so it's wrong to go after Armstrong.

Do you honestly believe that he won 7 tours without doping?

Edit: I see Thom has put it better than me.



thom said:


> *The problem is you come across as reluctant to condemn LA and determined to use the wider picture to excuse his behaviour.*There is no room for that. It needs to be clear that drug cheats do not get away with it and are responsible for their actions when they break the rules.
> 
> There are wider issues and you know, funnily enough everyone knows that but on a thread about LA, it's hardly surprising that isn't the primary focus of the discussion. I refer you to the UCI thread for example. Or start a new one !


----------



## MichaelM (2 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Havn't you lot got anything better to do on a Sunday morning ?


 
I'm in a cast and non weight bearing following surgery to my achilies. I've already watched the highlights of yesterday's stage of the Vuelta and played the guitar for a couple of hours. Got to fill my day somehow.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I find it strange that you're so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to one individual - wanting to see what USADA have etc, yet imply that there is a drug problem in other sports without offering any evidence to substantiate your view.


 
If you want to open up a debate on whether there is a problem in other sports I am happy to enter it but I made no accusations against an individual just a doubt that some other sports were any cleaner. But have a look at what is happening in the NFL (where the players union is defending the players accused of doping) or the history of positive drugs tests in some high profile athletes. 

Or I could take the approach others here take by calling you an idiotic needy trolling moron who can't read for daring to question me on it


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Sep 2012)

I don't know if this has been posted as I can't be bothered to look through the 500 pages of this thread, but -

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tyler-hamiltons-book-reveals-in-depth-doping-network


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I'm in a cast and non weight bearing following surgery to my achilies. I've already watched the highlights of yesterday's stage of the Vuelta and played the guitar for a couple of hours. Got to fill my day somehow.


 
Can you not get them to fit you with one of the boot braces rather than a cast? You could at least get around a bit then although not get on a bike.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I don't know if this has been posted as I can't be bothered to look through the _*500 pages*_ of this thread, but -
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tyler-hamiltons-book-reveals-in-depth-doping-network


 
106 so far.

Is your 500 an enhanced 106?


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Sep 2012)

Crankarm said:


> 106 so far.
> 
> Is your 500 an enhanced 106?


I'm using Lance-a-matics.


----------



## mickle (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> I am not denying that Armstrong is the way in, it is simply that I am concerned that much of the real story is going to be hidden in the noise.
> 
> In the meanwhile, can I refer you back to an earlier post where my position on Armstrong being the key?
> 
> ...



No-one is suggeting otherwise. What are you getting at?


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Listen up matey as I'm only going to say this once - even though I've said it, as have many others, many times before.
> I once had an open mind, and I think I'm speaking for a lot of people who have watched cycling for many years. I started off admiring and respecting Armstrong and loving the way he rode the TdF, his power and strength of will, the look he gave Ullrich and the dominance of USPS. I have stated before, I used to take a day off work on the queen stage just to see LA hopefully destroy the opposition. However, the trickle of evidence of doping from circumstantial to hard eveidence gradually eroded my admiration and belief to the point that I was left with no alternative to the fact that LA and USPS were clearly doped.
> This wasn't a position I got to by flipping a coin - it was achieved by starting with an open mind, seeing the evidence and then arriving at a conclusion. That's how evidence based decison making works.
> There is no compulsion or requirement for you to agree but I do resent being called closed-minded and fixated, even by you, for whom I have very low regard.
> ...


 
And some of us have been on a parallel path to you. I too used to rush home to watch the TdeF and the Ulrich stare was something that stays with me even though he later denied it was what it appeared. I have seen the claims and counter-claims about Armstrong, read daily the Landis hearing reports and transcripts (which showed inter-alia appalling procedural laxity by LNDD that would have had them shut down in an instant if offering medical diagnostics). I'm following the Vuelta although I come to it late each day to catch up but no I don't post on the races. 

But where I am different from you and why I am posting on Armstrong is because as I have said before I am strongly against conviction based on rumour and media (which has caused some of the most notable miscarriages of justice and abuse of human rights) and strongly for a proper, fair *and transparent* investigation and trial. Sir William Blackstone's much quoted statement _"It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to wrongly incarcerate one innocent man"_ is worth heeding because ignoring it has cause some tremendous injustices. 

I am not alone in having serious doubts about what USADA is doing and how it has gone about it. Judge Sparks expressed serious reservations about their motives and methods in his judgement and warned them of the consequences of not giving Armstrong a fair hearing. Even those greatest non-fans of Armstrong, ASO, are holding fire on their judgement. And in the absence of a hearing I want to see the evidence and follow the Bruyneel hearing before I reach a conclusion. Remember that the FBI and FDA did not find sufficient evidence to launch a prosecution after spending $40m on the investigation and allegedly interviewing under sub-poena and oath the same witnesses that USADA is relying on. So there is clearly some question on the adequacy of the evidence although the conspiracy theorists will of course retort that a retired cyclist controls the US Government, UCI, WADA, ASO, IOC and everybody else and is having it all suppressed.

The trouble with this thread though is anybody that holds a view, for whatever reason, that is not convinced of Armstrong's absolute guilt and questions the strength/validity of the secret evidence on which the USADA ruling is based is derided, ridiculed and abused, called moronic, lying needy trolls in an attempt to ridicule them into going away or conceding the party line. 

If you are not prepared to accept that other people have come to views different to yours and debate the reasons in a rational and reasonable way I really don't know why you bother posting.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'm using Lance-a-matics.


 
Or you could be radical and use an evidence based approach and come up with the correct answer of 352. 

*Product details*


*Hardcover:* 352 pages


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Or you could be radical and use an evidence based approach and come up with the correct answer of 352.
> 
> *Product details*
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, but with Lance-A-Matics nothing you say need bear any resemblance to the truth.


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> It's bladdy raining Ld! It's either this or the housework.
> Hmmmm, hoovering just became a lot more attrative


 
Bah! Bl**dy fair weather cyclists!


----------



## Noodley (2 Sep 2012)

You could twat them on twitter.


----------



## raindog (2 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2018011, member: 45"]I'm seriously worried now that those involved with the scandal won't have thought about any of the stuff being posted on here. Is there some way we can invite them along?[/quote]
Maybe they're already here?


----------



## mickle (2 Sep 2012)

[QUOTE 2018035, member: 45"]I'm worried that some think that _they_ are those people.[/quote]
Are you though?


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> No-one is suggeting otherwise. What are you getting at?


 
It was a simple answer to Thom's post



thom said:


> You're doing cycling a disservice cycling by refusing to accept that the reality is that the Armstrong case is key to unveiling the abuse of the system.
> I'm sorry, I don't agree with your analysis on various factual points. Let's leave it at that.


 
Simply pointing out that I had previously posted that Armstrong is the Key.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Listen up matey as I'm only going to say this once - even though I've said it, as have many others, many times before.
> I once had an open mind, and I think I'm speaking for a lot of people who have watched cycling for many years. I started off admiring and respecting Armstrong and loving the way he rode the TdF, his power and strength of will, the look he gave Ullrich and the dominance of USPS. I have stated before, I used to take a day off work on the queen stage just to see LA hopefully destroy the opposition. However, the trickle of evidence of doping from circumstantial to hard eveidence gradually eroded my admiration and belief to the point that I was left with no alternative to the fact that LA and USPS were clearly doped.
> This wasn't a position I got to by flipping a coin - it was achieved by starting with an open mind, seeing the evidence and then arriving at a conclusion. That's how evidence based decison making works.
> There is no compulsion or requirement for you to agree but I do resent being called closed-minded and fixated, even by you, for whom I have very low regard.
> ...


----------



## rich p (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


>


 You're obviously younger than I thought so I'll cut you some slack.


----------



## Alun (2 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> I find it strange that you're so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to one individual - *wanting to see what USADA have etc*, yet imply that there is a drug problem in other sports without offering any evidence to substantiate your view.


 
Don't you want to see what USADA have?
I thought that everyone on here would want to, whichever side of the fence they are on.


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

inrng : Armstrong's marketing flame extinguished in of all places, Dallas, Texas.


----------



## festival (2 Sep 2012)

Just thought I would look in to see how this discussion has developed to 107 pages.
Armstrong has been charged and is now well and truly BANNED.
I see cunobeline is still wittering on and on about it.
That name is of a King of the Britons in the time of the Romans I believe, so he has a very high opinion of himself, but we already know that.
I suggest we leave him to it as he seems fixated by it


----------



## MichaelM (2 Sep 2012)

Alun said:


> Don't you want to see what USADA have?
> I thought that everyone on here would want to, whichever side of the fence they are on.


 
I was making the point that Red Light seems to insist on giving Armstrong the benefit of the doubt whilst not being quite so generous in other directions.


----------



## martint235 (2 Sep 2012)

Without starting a huge war, I keep seeing news articles saying he's been stripped of his Tour titles, however I've also seen it written that only the UCI can do this and they were digging their heels in largely in stubbornness at being told what to do by USADA. So has he been stripped of the titles or not?


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

festival said:


> Just thought I would look in to see how this discussion has developed to 107 pages.
> Armstrong has been charged and is now well and truly BANNED.
> I see cunobeline is still wittering on and on about it.
> That name is of a King of the Britons in the time of the Romans I believe, so he has a very high opinion of himself, but we already know that.
> I suggest we leave him to it as he seems fixated by it


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Without starting a huge war, I keep seeing news articles saying he's been stripped of his Tour titles, however I've also seen it written that only the UCI can do this and they were digging their heels in largely in stubbornness at being told what to do by USADA. So has he been stripped of the titles or not?


Some light perhaps :
*McQuaid says UCI not afraid to sanction Lance Armstrong*


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Without starting a huge war, I keep seeing news articles saying he's been stripped of his Tour titles, however I've also seen it written that only the UCI can do this and they were digging their heels in largely in stubbornness at being told what to do by USADA. So has he been stripped of the titles or not?


 
This is one of the unmentionables.... He has not been striped of any titles.

So at the risk of "wittering on" , the facts are as follows:

Tygart of the USADA is now on record as having said they would have only sought the removal of two titles had Armstrong cooperated. The decision to remove all 7 was because he failed to do so.



> Tygart has said that Armstrong was given the opportunity to meet with USADA, but refused. He says now that had he done so, he could have held onto five of his seven Tour titles.
> 
> If Armstrong had “come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute (of limitations) should apply, that would have been fine by us,” he said.
> ​Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12738/Tygart-says-USADA-could-reduce-Armstrongs-lifetime-ban-if-he-cooperates.aspx#ixzz25LQVwT3j​


 
The argument by the Armstrong team is that they have no right to do so, and this seems to be borne out by UCI statements. They are awaiting evidence before making a decision. At the moment Armstrong does hold the 7 titles, and they have not been revoked.

So basically the claims by the USADA are simply untrue, but questioning the USADA or their actions is also an anathema - despite the fact they look disorganise, and unaware of their limitations, you are not allowed to point this out or it is apologist, pro Armstrong and very very silly!


----------



## Crackle (2 Sep 2012)

Rumours of positive tests circulating

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-in-possession-of-positive-armstrong-samples


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> Rumours of positive tests circulating
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-in-possession-of-positive-armstrong-samples


 
Let's get this straight....... questioning the USADA is appropriate and is NOT apologist or pro-Armstrong.


Positive blood samples would be an excellent and unequivocal end to the saga, but not if as appears to be the case they are performed in such a way that they would breach the WADA rules and hence technically inadmissible?

The WADA / USADA protocol states that an athlete has the right to be present at the testing of a B sample. Again (if Tygarts"s statement is true) they have breached their own rules.


----------



## Alun (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Let's get this straight....... questioning the USADA is appropriate and is NOT apologist or pro-Armstrong.
> 
> 
> Positive blood samples would be an excellent and unequivocal end to the saga, but not if as appears to be the case they are performed in such a way that they would breach the WADA rules and hence technically inadmissible?
> ...


This is a copy from the WADC

[Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may in
its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]

It would appear that USADA is within it's rights to test the B sample without Armstrongs authority. ( I think the UCI have conceded results management to USADA in this case now.)


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Let's get this straight....... questioning the USADA is appropriate


Are you one of LA's attorneys who did all the work but didn't get the gig ?


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

Alun said:


> This is a copy from the WADC
> 
> [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may in
> its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]
> ...


spoilsport ;-)


----------



## Crackle (2 Sep 2012)

Alun said:


> This is a copy from the WADC
> 
> [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may in
> its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]
> ...


 
If I recall, that is a recent'ish change, don't know when without looking but it points to a later test, we must wait and see.


----------



## Alun (2 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> If I recall, that is a recent'ish change, don't know when without looking but it points to a later test, we must wait and see.


Whether it applies retrospectively or what the status of a "comment" is I don't know.


----------



## Flying Dodo (2 Sep 2012)

Although Hamilton's book will explain a lot, I'm sure some details about how Lance managed to get away with it for so long won't be fully known. He's never going to change his line about never testing positive.


----------



## thom (2 Sep 2012)

Flying Dodo said:


> Although Hamilton's book will explain a lot, I'm sure some details about how Lance managed to get away with it for so long won't be fully known. He's never going to change his line about never testing positive.


Actually it's funny: he has seen USADA's evidence and I think now his line has changed to something like:
"I never took unfair advantage over my competitors"...


----------



## Red Light (2 Sep 2012)

Alun said:


> This is a copy from the WADC
> 
> [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may in
> its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]
> ...


 
But also Article 2.1.2 itself says:

_2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation under Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B Sample confirms the presence of the Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample._​​i.e. it would appear that testing the B sample alone and getting a positive is not in itself enough. It has to be measured in the A sample and that measurement be confirmed by the B sample if requested. This is further supported by Article 7.1 which requires the process to be kicked off by an adverse finding on the A sample and 7.2 requires that the athlete is informed and can request a confirmatory test of the B sample. As you note they can still go ahead with the B sample test without that request but 7.2e requires that the athlete or his representative have the opportunity to attend the B sample opening and testing as CB has said.

So if this has been done then its in violation of the WADA Code.


Now the question is then do they still have the A samples to re-test? The retention rules say they should only be retained for 8 years unless the samples are anonymous when they can be retained indefinitely for scientific purposes. i.e. they cannot be retained more than 8 years for retesting. That limits the number of samples that could have been re-tested to those post 2004.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

Alun said:


> This is a copy from the WADC
> 
> [Comment to Article 2.1.2: The Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility may in
> its discretion choose to have the B Sample analyzed even if the Athlete does not request the analysis of the B Sample.]
> ...


 

Interesting.. Covers consent, but not the practice.

The test can be carried out without consent or authority of the individual - that has always been the case and is not in dispute. It is a well documented step.

What is questionable is the given right of the individual (or their representative) to be present when the test is carried out.

The WADC (2009) states that :


> the Anti-Doping Organization
> shall promptly notify the Athlete, in the manner set
> out in its rules, of:
> (a) the Adverse Analytical Finding;
> ...


It would be a shame if the biggest verifiable piece of proof of Armstrong's guilt was disqualified on the grounds of USADA's misconduct


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> If I recall, that is a recent'ish change, don't know when without looking but it points to a later test, we must wait and see.


As an aside, WADA is suggesting that they should be able to remove the B sample testing altogether... In APril 2011 David Howman stated that:


> Under the current system, a rider’s urine sample is split into two equal halves. The A and the B test are sealed in front of the sportsperson, then transported to the testing lab. The A sample is tested and if an adverse finding is recorded, the athlete then has the possibility to have the B sample analysed. They are only sanctioned if the B sample is also positive.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Noodley (3 Sep 2012)

Can I interupt the quoting and re-quoting and interpretation of testing laws for a few seconds and ask a quick question of Red Light and Cunobelin - because I have lost track...

Do you think Armstrong doped? A simple yes or no reply would suffice, no hiding behind lengthy waffle if you please.


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Can I interupt the quoting and re-quoting and interpretation of testing laws for a few seconds and ask a quick question of Red Light and Cunobelin - because I have lost track...
> 
> 
> Do you think Armstrong doped? A simple yes or no reply would suffice, no hiding behind lengthy waffle if you please.


 
I've saved them the effort Noods - they'll probably send me a thank-you PM anytime now.

_Listen you impudent Scottish muppet, I don't know whether he doped, I have little or no interest in professional cycle racing (is that what it's called?), I have no interest in finding the truth, but I'm fascinated to a morbid degree in nit-picking the legal minutiae and semantics of the case because I have an inflated sense of self-worth and believe that what I think, actually has an influence on the way the UCI and USADA act_.


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

Personally, I'm not getting too worked up about those test results until I hear some kind of official comment. Tbh, I didn't see the programme (on French tele) and I find the reports a little vague. So I'll worry about who can test what, and when, with or without consent, once we've worked out what's being talked about here.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Can I interupt the quoting and re-quoting and interpretation of testing laws for a few seconds and ask a quick question of Red Light and Cunobelin - because I have lost track...
> 
> Do you think Armstrong doped? A simple yes or no reply would suffice, no hiding behind lengthy waffle if you please.


 
I have said a few posts above my personal opinion is its unlikely he would have been able to compete in a field of now known dopers without having been on what they were on. However we don't convict people in this country on personal opinion polls (thank God) but on an examination of the evidence to standards of beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probabilities. And so far the official evidence that is public says he didn't dope and the new evidence that is alleged says he did is being held secret by USADA. And until that evidence is published and available for review then he has the benefit of the innocent until proven guilty standard in my book and, I would suggest, should have in everyone else's books. Because doing it by public opinion polls in the presence of rumour and absence of the official evidence is just a lynch mob mentality.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> _Listen you impudent Scottish muppet, I don't know whether he doped, I have little or no interest in professional cycle racing (is that what it's called?), I have no interest in finding the truth, but I'm fascinated to a morbid degree in nit-picking the legal minutiae and semantics of the case because I have an inflated sense of self-worth and believe that what I think, actually has an influence on the way the UCI and USADA act_.


 
Thank you for letting us know your position in this debate. That must have been very difficult for you but they assure me you will feel better for it


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

Yes Red Light, I think I've worked out your opinion on this now. You've been consistent and said pretty much the same thing in every post. Your point has been noted. Can we move on?


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

Oh, and the beauty of having an ignore list for the first, and hopefully last time, is that I don't need to read their repetitive drivel any more.


----------



## smutchin (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Article 2.1 is established by either of the following: presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of the B Sample and the B Sample is not analyzed



This tallies with how I understood the procedure. 

Here's a speculative theory...

The USADA retested the A samples from 2004 and 2005 (still within the 8yr cutoff), maybe using new tests that weren't available at the time, or maybe testing for different markers or masking agents they didn't know about at the time. Some or more of the samples tested positive. 

Maybe they did then ask Lance if he wanted the B samples tested and he waived that right.

Instead, he chose to question the USADA's jurisdictional legitimacy. That failed. Then he decided to throw in the towel, hoping that would prevent the evidence coming to light. 

As for procedural violations, isn't the basis for the USADA taking the case back further than the 8 year cutoff that Lance himself was guilty of procedural violations?

That would explain Tygart's comments about letting him keep five of his titles - they've presented Lance with damning evidence relating to 2004 and 2005 and said we'll leave it at that if you help us catch the even bigger fish... 

This is pure conjecture but it shows that the USADA doesn't necessarily have to break the rules - nor even bend them that far - if they want to get their man. Nor does it imply that Lance is their only - or even necessarily their main - target. Claims of a witch hunt are a smokescreen - one of many such tactics Lance has employed. Unsuccessfully. 

Of course, none of us knows what evidence the USADA actually have. We don't know if there's any truth in this positive test story, and even if it is true we don't know how the positives were obtained. 

We do know that the USADA has evidence though, whatever form that evidence may take. You can continue to be sceptical until you've seen it with your own eyes, that's your prerogative, but I choose to believe that they aren't lying when they say they have evidence, and furthermore, I take Lance's actions as tacit acceptance that their case is strong. I don't buy the "too tired to fight any more" line. It doesn't ring true. 

d.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Sep 2012)

martint235 said:


> Without starting a huge war, I keep seeing news articles saying he's been stripped of his Tour titles, however I've also seen it written that only the UCI can do this and they were digging their heels in largely in stubbornness at being told what to do by USADA. So has he been stripped of the titles or not?


No he hasn't, as yet.

He's been banned from competing in events subject to governance by WADA/USADA which means he can happily compete in, for example, mountain bike racing, triathlons and a fair few road races in the states.

They are all cheats by the way. Including most of the ones who don't wear lycra and ride desks and lab tables.


----------



## mickle (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> ... the new evidence ... is being held secret by USADA.


 
Really? 'Held secret'? Lancey boy was about to be given the opportunity to counter their evidence, but at the very moment he had to face it he threw in the towel.

I suspect, not that I have any legal training or anything, that the USADA's evidence againsts Armstrong will remain out of the public domain until bodies such as the UCI have been given a chance to go through it. That's not secrecy, that's process.

I was wondering what was eating you. This post, more than any other, tells us what underpins your weird stance - you really do seem to believe that Armstrong is the victim of some great conspiracy.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> Yes Red Light, I think I've worked out your opinion on this now. You've been consistent and said pretty much the same thing in every post. Your point has been noted. Can we move on?



Just responding to Noodley's direct question - unless you have a problem with that.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

mickle said:


> Really? 'Held secret'? Lancey boy was about to be given the opportunity to counter their evidence, but at the very moment he had to face it he threw in the towel.
> 
> I suspect, not that I have any legal training or anything, that the USADA's evidence againsts Armstrong will remain out of the public domain until bodies such as the UCI have been given a chance to go through it. That's not secrecy, that's process.
> 
> I was wondering what was eating you. This post, more than any other, tells us what underpins your weird stance - you really do seem to believe that Armstrong is the victim of some great conspiracy.



The evidence is being held secret by USADA although the latest is that they will publish it in a couple of weeks. The deal for Armstrong was decide to contest and then we will show you the evidence so not even Armstrong has seen it. Do you have a problem with waiting a few weeks to see it rather than jumping to conclusions?


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> That would explain Tygart's comments about letting him keep five of his titles - they've presented Lance with damning evidence relating to 2004 and 2005 and said we'll leave it at that if you help us catch the even bigger fish...


 
Broadly speaking, I agree with your speculation. I don't think this was ever a 'get Lance at all costs' witch hunt. I think the intention was broader and related more to the doctors and DSs still in the sport, and more broadly still about eradicating a doping ethos. I also think Armstrong was offered the chance to be a part of that broader intention but, as we know, he declined.


----------



## mickle (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> The evidence is being held secret by USADA although the latest is that they will publish it in a couple of weeks. The deal for Armstrong was decide to contest and then we will show you the evidence so not even Armstrong has seen it. Do you have a problem with waiting a few weeks to see it rather than jumping to conclusions?


 
But I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Lance Armstrong, in case you have forgotten, turned and walked away rather than see the evidence against him. All anyone can say is that (especially given his previous rabid enthusiasm for attacking anyone who mentioned PEDs and him in the same sentence) that it all looks deeply suspicious. I'm pretty sure that's all anyone is saying. Your terminolgy, esp. use of the word 'secret', is putting a conspiratorial spin on events which isn't warranted.


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

"Held secret" is spin. There's a procedure being followed, that's all. There are 2 issues as I recall; a requirement to notify UCI, and a requirement to disclose evidence to defendants. Once the hearing date(s) are announced for Bruyneel and Marti then (I believe) USADA have 5 days to disclose the evidence to them.... or it might be no later than 5 days before the hearing.... can't remember which. Whatever it is, I think USADA will disclose the evidence in due course.

Speaking personally, I wish USADA would publish their report too (if only to satisfy Red Light!), it might help dampen down a great deal of speculation, either one way or the other. But I understand that official process is not governed by what individuals might want.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Sep 2012)

Some of the evidence certainly isn't secret if you're a TV journalist working for Stade 2 in France. USADA giving evidence to a French TV station at the same time as sending the same evidence to UCI (apparently)? 

At best sharp practise surely, at worse a flagrant attempt to bully the UCI into ratifying USADA's asinine "We've striped his titles" claim.

They are all cheats, one way or another, it seems, even the 'good' guys....


----------



## thom (3 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> "We've striped his titles"


Zebra stripes ? Could be quite a nice effect...


----------



## smutchin (3 Sep 2012)

Let's wait and see, eh? The leak reported in the Dutch press about former teammates testifying remains nothing more than a rumour at the moment. We don't know if there's any truth in this latest story, nor what its source might be. It's certainly not an official announcement by USADA.

d.


----------



## Crackle (3 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> Personally, I'm not getting too worked up about those test results until I hear some kind of official comment. Tbh, I didn't see the programme (on French tele) and I find the reports a little vague. So I'll worry about who can test what, and when, with or without consent, once we've worked out what's being talked about here.


 
This for me but I thought it was definitely worth linking to as it would put the top hat on everything if confirmed.


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> I thought it was definitely worth linking to as it would put the top hat on everything if confirmed.


 
Agreed, absolutely. It's totally within the context of this thread. I'm not shooting the messenger!

I really ought have a look at L'Equipe to see how they're reporting it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Sep 2012)

2019528 said:


> Carry on, Greg's not dyslexic.


Perhaps not. But the note from my doctor does confirm [sp]brian[/sp] damage.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Sep 2012)

2019599 said:


> Bollocks, another game of top trumps lost.


Well, if one will bring a knife to the gun fight......


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

This 'stripping of titles' is another irrelevance. There are bigger issues than who won the tour in 2003.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> This 'stripping of titles' is another irrelevance. There are bigger issues than who won the tour in 2003.


USADA don't agree with you Rich. I do, but there's scant consolation for either of us in that.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> "Held secret" is spin.



Well if its not secret then you can tell us who the testimony is by, what it contains and what the tests indicative of doping are. Or even provide us with a link to the evidence files published by USADA.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Let's wait and see, eh? The leak reported in the Dutch press about former teammates testifying remains nothing more than a rumour at the moment. We don't know if there's any truth in this latest story, nor what its source might be. It's certainly not an official announcement by USADA.



And UCI have just said that there is no adverse Swiss finding that was suppressed.

"The UCI has nothing to fear in relation to samples going under the counter because it's never happened. A lot of what I've heard over the years are statements coming from Landis and Hamilton which are hearsay about statements made out on the bike in training. That's all it is. The facts that show that that evidence is not there"
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/...not-afraid-to-sanction-lance-armstrong-35130/


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well if its not secret then you can tell us who the testimony is by, what it contains and what the tests indicative of doping are. Or even provide us with a link to the evidence files published by USADA.


 
You're good at twisting words to a meaning that suits you, I'll give you that. And trying to divert attention from the salient issue too.

Do you honestly expect us to believe that you used the expression 'held secret' with absolutely no intention to create the implication that USADA are acting in a clandestine manner? Or acting in a manner other than to agreed and set-out procedures?

The point is that the people who need to will see the evidence in due time. Not when I want, not when you want, but as regulation and process dictates. I know you don't like that, I know you choose to interpret that as poor process (and perhaps worse). I get that. I think we all get that. So can you let it go now please?

I'm trying to move this discussion on. Trying to stay with the state of play yet you, forgive me for saying, seem intent on going over the same couple of points. Ask yourself, what do you want to achieve by doing that?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> _I don't know whether he doped, I have little or no interest in professional cycle racing (is that what it's called?), I have no interest in finding the truth, but I'm fascinated to a morbid degree in nit-picking the legal minutiae and semantics of the case because I have an inflated sense of self-worth and believe that what I think, actually has an influence on the way the UCI and USADA act_.


 
Thank you for clarifying your position.......


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Thank you for clarifying your position.......


See, I told you there was a reason I don't have you on ignore, me old mate. It's your shining wit - that's really not a Spoonerism by the way.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Well if its not secret then you can tell us who the testimony is by, what it contains and what the tests indicative of doping are. Or even provide us with a link to the evidence files published by USADA.


'Held secret' and 'kept private' are to different things though surely?


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Sep 2012)

It has been well demonstrated that a thread cannot make more than 110 pages without some sort of thread-enhancing supplement.

These supplements are forbidden under current Internet rules. Rigorous testing will be carried out.

As this thread has now reached 110 pages, any poster should be aware that the authorities will be keeping a very close eye on developments.

Please bear in mind that if you do post further thoughts, you may trigger legal cases up to ten years from today and if supplements or stimulants are found or suspected to have been used, you can be stripped of any_ 'likes'_ obtained in all associated threads during the period in queston.

I know that sounds harsh, but we need to clear out the cheats and dopers and people who use banned substances in their posts.

Your compliance will be appreciated. Please stop posting on this thread at once and do not return.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> See, I told you there was a reason I don't have you on ignore, me old mate. It's your shining wit - that's really not a Spoonerism by the way.


 
Your normal high standard of contribution to the debate.


----------



## smutchin (3 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Your compliance will be appreciated.



Sure. Would you like me to piss in a bottle and send it to you for testing? 

d.


----------



## thom (3 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Sure. Would you like me to piss in a bottle and send it to you for testing?
> 
> d.


tone lowering alert:
It's just occured to me why they call them a) and b) samples, as opposed to number 1 and number 2 samples.


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Your normal high standard of contribution to the debate.


 Given that your response to my reasoned post, explaining my position in a clear manner in #2097, was to post a picture of a pram and a duck I don't feel any need to respond to that any further.
I do wonder if you're not getting this all slightly out of perspective and it might be a good thing if you step back a little. Just a thought.


----------



## thom (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> was to post a picture of a pram and a duck


it was rather fowl and childish wasn't it ?
edit : yes I know, pot, kettle, black etc...


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> it was rather fowl and childish wasn't it ?


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Sure. Would you like me to piss in a bottle and send it to you for testing?
> 
> d.


 
I may be taking the piss, but that doesn't mean I want bottles full of the stuff posted to me.


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

Are we going to stay on track and be 'nice' to each other in the process? Or do we want this thread locked?


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> You're good at twisting words to a meaning that suits you, I'll give you that. And trying to divert attention from the salient issue too.
> 
> Do you honestly expect us to believe that you used the expression 'held secret' with absolutely no intention to create the implication that USADA are acting in a clandestine manner? Or acting in a manner other than to agreed and set-out procedures?


 
I think your fevered imagination is working overtime. Words mean what they mean and the OED definition of "secret" is:

"Kept from public knowledge, or from the knowledge of persons specified; not allowed to be known, or only by selected persons"​​And it remains kept secret until it is released and becomes public. Even UCI do not know what is in it and at one stage USADA were not intending to let Armstrong know so he could prepare his defence (although Judge Sparks got them to change that stance and give assurances otherwise). To claim the evidence is other than secret at present is the real twisting of words from their natural meanings.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Given that your response to my reasoned post, explaining my position in a clear manner in #2097, was to post a picture of a pram and a duck I don't feel any need to respond to that any further.
> I do wonder if you're not getting this all slightly out of perspective and it might be a good thing if you step back a little. Just a thought.


 
Your observation skill are not the best then?


----------



## rich p (3 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Your observation skill are not the best then?


 Sorry, I have no idea what your point is but this childish tit for tat is unseemly and diverts the thread. I shall desist from reading your posts by reluctantly adding to the ignore list after all. It's been fun. Au revoir.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

smutchin said:


> Sure. Would you like me to piss in a bottle and send it to you for testing?
> 
> d.


 
Two bottles please - it needs an A and a B sample.


----------



## yello (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light, I'm not entering into a semantics debate as it does not further the discussion. I'll simply take it that you didn't mean to imply that USADA are being clandestine.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> 'Held secret' and 'kept private' are to different things though surely?


 
Yes as are secrecy and privacy.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> Red Light, I'm not entering into a semantics debate as it does not further the discussion. I'll simply take it that you didn't mean to imply that USADA are being clandestine.


 
Correct. I meant that it has not been made available to anyone outside of USADA and certainly not the public. And until it is its impossible to assess what the evidence is and its strength. At the moment we have rumours of positives concealed with UCI help which the UCI have denied. We have rumours of retrospective B tests which would breach the rules for testing and adverse findings. So until the evidence is out there and people can comment on it we really are no further forward than we were six months ago in terms of evidence of guilt. So lets wait for that evidence.


----------



## Panter (3 Sep 2012)

Just a quick line to thank the contributors to this thread. I've been (fairly) avidly following it, unless it suddenly jumps multiple pages since I last looked, in which case I catch up at the end 
Anyway, it's made fascinating reading for this new-to-cycle-racing and LA fanboy, I shall continue to follow it with interest


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Sorry, I have no idea what your point is but this childish tit for tat is unseemly and diverts the thread. I shall desist from reading your posts by reluctantly adding to the ignore list after all. It's been fun. Au revoir.


 
Success!


----------



## tigger (3 Sep 2012)

Panter said:


> Just a quick line to thank the contributors to this thread. I've been (fairly) avidly following it, unless it suddenly jumps multiple pages since I last looked, in which case I catch up at the end
> Anyway, it's made fascinating reading for this new-to-cycle-racing and LA fanboy, I shall continue to follow it with interest



Really? For me its the opposite. It's the most disappointing thread I've read for a while. Going absolutely nowhere apart from semantic circles. It's a shame as the pro racing section here s normally a decent read with knowledgable contributors. 

Bottom line is Armstrong is a cheat. This is of no great surprise to anyone who has followed road racing with an open mind in recent years. We still don't know the full details yet, we don't know what the ramifications will be for him or those around him, and there are some questions around the process followed and juristiction of the body involved. 

So what? Who gives a toss about semantics? He's a massive fraud on an industrial scale. Let's just hope our sport can recover once the full horror story is revealed.


----------



## just jim (3 Sep 2012)

In the meantime, I wanted the Tyler Hamilton book preordered on Kindle but it's not possible, unless I'm doing it wrong...


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

tigger said:


> Bottom line is Armstrong is a cheat. This is of no great surprise to anyone who has followed road racing with an open mind in recent years. We still don't know the full details yet, we don't know what the ramifications will be for him or those around him, and there are some questions around the process followed and juristiction of the body involved.


 
And your open minded evidence for that is?


----------



## tigger (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> And your open minded evidence for that is?



Damn I logged out and read the thread, which meant you weren't on ignore! 

All I can say to that is I'm off upstairs on the turbo trainer, absolutely pissing myself every step of the way. Take a step back and read what you post sometimes . . .


----------



## Flying Dodo (3 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Actually it's funny: he has seen USADA's evidence and I think now his line has changed to something like:
> "I never took unfair advantage over my competitors"...


 
In fact I'm reminded of an interesting parallel between Lance and one of his fellow Americans, Bill Clinton. Clinton stuck to his line of saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". And, based on what is common US terminology, "sexual relations" does not cover the oral relief provided by Monica Lewinsky. So technically, when he was first asked, he was correct. Of course he did later admit to a relationship that was not appropriate.


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

tigger said:


> All I can say to that is I'm off upstairs on the turbo trainer, absolutely pissing myself every step of the way.


 
No need to be so frightened.


----------



## tigger (3 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Actually it's funny: he has seen USADA's evidence and I think now his line has changed to something like:
> "I never took unfair advantage over my competitors"...


 
Yeah I noted that too... "I played by the same rules as everyone else"... sadly, and quite probably, true


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Actually it's funny: he has seen USADA's evidence and I think now his line has changed to something like:
> "I never took unfair advantage over my competitors"...


 
When was he shown the evidence? It certainly wasn't before his deadline to decide whether to contest and I'm pretty sure no-one outside USADA has seen it yet.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> When was he shown the evidence? It certainly wasn't before his deadline to decide whether to contest and I'm pretty sure no-one outside USADA has seen it yet.


 
Apart from the French Press to whom USADA has (allegedly) leaked the information





GregCollins said:


> Some of the evidence certainly isn't secret if you're a TV journalist working for Stade 2 in France. USADA giving evidence to a French TV station at the same time as sending the same evidence to UCI (apparently)?
> 
> At best sharp practise surely, at worse a flagrant attempt to bully the UCI into ratifying USADA's asinine "We've striped his titles" claim.
> 
> They are all cheats, one way or another, it seems, even the 'good' guys....


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

Cunobelin said:


> Apart from the French Press to whom USADA has (allegedly) leaked the information


 
If they have leaked the information to the French Press and before its been made available to the UCI, WADA etc then that is a gross breach of procedure and the Code and you have to ask who is doing it in USADA and what are their motives.

And if they are giving it to the Press at the same time as its made available to UCI then the Press haven't seen it yet because UCI have not seen it and do not expect to see it for a couple more weeks at least.

So repeating my question, who outside the USADA has actually seen the evidence?


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

Hamilton's book for the UK market will be different from the US version due to tighter UK libel laws.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (3 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Hamilton's book for the UK market will be different from the US version due to tighter UK libel laws.


 
You mean due to Britain's completely absurd libel laws that are used frequently by libel tourists trying to close down what in other parts of the world would be considered free speech?


----------



## johnr (3 Sep 2012)

just jim said:


> In the meantime, I wanted the Tyler Hamilton book preordered on Kindle but it's not possible, unless I'm doing it wrong...


 No you're not, but you can press the button saying you'd like them to put it on asap


----------



## Red Light (3 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> You mean due to Britain's completely absurd libel laws that are used frequently by libel tourists trying to close down what in other parts of the world would be considered free speech?


 
I don't mean anything. I'm just reporting what was said in a newspaper report a few hours ago.


----------



## Dan B (4 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Which bit of "500 or whatever the number of tests was" did you not understand?


Is that a bit like "86% of head injuries or whatever the number was"?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## johnr (4 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> At best sharp practise surely, at worse a flagrant attempt to bully the UCI into ratifying USADA's asinine "We've striped his titles" claim.


 May be a bit more complicated than that. If the rumours are to be believed, some of the evidence may directly point to UCI being involved in covering up positive dope tests. In those circumstances they would notionally be judge and co-defendant. It puts USADA in a dilemma. I'm sure they will follow the rules to the letter, but putting it in the public domain at the same time as UCI gets it would go some way stymying any attempt by them to suppress or distort the report.

The publication of the evidence will set in train events with consequences for Armstrong and his backers, for the UCI and their relationships with WADA and the IOC and for the wider cycling community. It's going to be messy and long. We've only got red light and cunobelin to deal with, they're going to have every cycling wide boy and their lawyers baying foul.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Sep 2012)

johnr said:


> May be a bit more complicated than that. If the rumours are to be believed, some of the evidence may directly point to UCI being involved in covering up positive dope tests. In those circumstances they would notionally be judge and co-defendant. It puts USADA in a dilemma. I'm sure they will follow the rules to the letter, but putting it in the public domain at the same time as UCI gets it would go some way stymying any attempt by them to suppress or distort the report.
> 
> The publication of the evidence will set in train events with consequences for Armstrong and his backers, for the UCI and their relationships with WADA and the IOC and for the wider cycling community. It's going to be messy and long. We've only got red light and cunobelin to deal with, they're going to have every cycling wide boy and their lawyers baying foul.


 
Almost makes me smile!

The point is that every time the USADA breaks its own rules, alters it's own goal posts or resorts to leaks it loses credibility. If they played by their own rules then there would be no possibility of anyone claiming foul play - simples

Are you really happy that the USADA is acting in this way?

Are you willing to defend their actions?


As I have clearly stated before, no-one comes out of this well, Armstrong, the UCI, USADA or any of the professional cyclists in the Peloton at he time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

johnr said:


> It puts USADA in a dilemma. I'm sure they will follow the rules to the letter, but putting it in the public domain at the same time as UCI gets it would go some way stymying any attempt by them to suppress or distort the report..


Glaring contradiction unless their 'rules' are so poorly drafted as to allow such grandstanding.

USADA indulging in Armstongism; behaving as badly as the cheats.


----------



## screenman (4 Sep 2012)

Tigger, you read on the other posts as a a Conti fan, after your slating of Armstrong for being a cheat it reads a bit hypocritical.


----------



## raindog (4 Sep 2012)

the thread from hell


----------



## asterix (4 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Hamilton's book for the UK market will be different from the US version due to tighter UK libel laws.


 
LA dare not face his accusers.


----------



## Red Light (4 Sep 2012)

asterix said:


> LA dare not face his accusers.


 
Last I heard he lived in the US, not the UK. Or are you saying his accusers are only in the UK? And if you read the report the publishers are also concerned about people other than Armstrong starting libel cases. But I realise that doesn't fit with your world view so best ignore the evidence eh?


----------



## 007fair (4 Sep 2012)

I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.


----------



## raindog (4 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.


I can do it in two short words.

He doped.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.


 
Armstrong is a bullying, lying, doping, drug-procuring, threatening, control-freak former professional cyclist who was once considered very successful but might now not be. He may also be a Messiah who was very brave about being very poorly and inspired a lot of people to do a lot of things. Anti-Doping systems were once risible and the authorities who ran them may have been corrupt. This is now either not so or less so. None of us knows a thing about this, but we all have great theories about secure stable doors. The horse has been loose for the past ten years. There is an uncorked bottle in the stable and no sign if a Genie. The number of chickens does not equal the total for the egg count some days previously. No sign of a fat lady yet.

I think that's it.


----------



## thom (4 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.


Well it doesn't look good for LA... I think we've established that at some point, pretty much everyone wanted to think LA was clean but most people have conceded that their minds have been changed and they feel conned. Some aren't quite there yet and the way I see it is they are trying to justify their position through a slowly changing stubborn and aggressive argument. Which is an appropriate apeing of LA's defence so, you know, good on em but they might be being ignored now. For many, the refusal of LA to argue the USADA case is as good as conclusive proof that the as yet unpublished USADA case will contain damning evidence. I think there are still people arguing about process but really, given that argument ought to be put forth by LA's legal representatives and they aren't doing so, I don't set any stall by it. The process of stripping LA's titles is ongoing - USADA need to send the UCI evidence, who then review it and could decide to contest USADA (who are supported by WADA) at CAS.


----------



## tigger (4 Sep 2012)

screenman said:


> Tigger, you read on the other posts as a a Conti fan, after your slating of Armstrong for being a cheat it reads a bit hypocritical.


 
Yeah there's no disputing that, human nature for you... totally irrational! I like the way Contador rides, always to win, he animates races and just looks damn talented on a bike in my opinion. Equally I know he's questionable given the Clenbuterol postive and the links to Operation Puerto etc etc. Like I said before, its a dirty/guilty admiration. I think I've been quite balanced about that by recognising this???

On the flip side, I can't see how I've slated Armstrong either? I'm neither a fan nor a hater. I didn't follow racing during the Armstong years so in that sense I have no real motivation towards him. (I did watch the 2009 Tour and really enjoyed his contribution and the aura around him actually).

I've merely pointed out two things. Firstly, there must be very compelling evidence (which we still don't know the full details of yet) of him cheating on a grand scale over a very long period of time. Think about it, if you are truly innocent, and you have the might and finances at your disposal as Armstrong does, you'd fight this tooth and nail (as he has done for most of his career). Secondly, his "supporters?" on this thread refuse to recognise this and instead continually focus on the process and jurisdiction of the investigation, with added sprinkles of repetitive, futile logocentricity and personal slight. Much to the detriment of this thread and forum in my opinion...


----------



## 007fair (4 Sep 2012)

Thanks!  It appears that most feel LA is guilty leaving aside horses, doors, bottles Genies and fatladies (useful as they were) ..

The salient facts are;

Armstrong maintains innocence.
Armstrong never failed any of over 500 (?) tests.
Case against him is based on actual witnesses to his pivotal role in organising and covering up endemic professional cycling illegal drug use.
Armstrong too tired to carry on with upcoming trial and in effect admits that the evidence against him is too strong.
USADA position defaults to LA being guilty and they ban and strip him of titles.
UCI still stand by him. (Why? Because they are implicit in the whole scheme. If not, why risk being painted with the same brush? Because everyone was doing the same drugs at the time and so its not fair to single out LA?)
 To me the facts seem to suggest guilt. But I find it interesting that he is so adamant of his innocence. I know he has alot to lose if he admits but usually the pressure and guilt eventually surface and admission follows. It appears to me that he is convinced in his mind that he is absolutely innocent. Either because he feels that he did not do anything that others weren't, or that he has no case to answer at all (ie he was always clean). 
I'm a bit confused with UCI's stance also. Are they implicit in the whole coverup scheme? If not, why risk being painted with the same brush? 


I don't want to p*ss anyone off by going over old ground. The above is just for my own clarity!


----------



## Happiness Stan (4 Sep 2012)

To all of you who decide to throw away their Livestrong band, please cut it in two so it doesn't strangle swans, ducks etc.


----------



## thom (4 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> The salient facts are; without wanting to have a go at you (because I completely sympathise that the thread is so big it is beyond making much sense of from scratch now) I just wanted to show these points are questioned
> 
> Armstrong maintains innocence. -> his line is now "never took unfair advantage over competitors"
> Armstrong never failed any of over 500 (?) tests. -> perhaps the number is around 240 and the evidence appears to be he failed a corticosteroid test and at least one epo test done years after the event, and has a blood profile on his return to the TdF that was consistent with blood doping
> ...


My comments in red (&blue link) ;-)


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2012)

I don't get the thing one sometimes hears about the Tour-viewing public having been_ 'conned'_ or _'cheated'_.

Who really thought they were watching largely clean racing in the 1980s?

Likewise the 1990s or the 2000s?

I was too young to follow these things in the 70s, but everything I read suggests things were much the same.

The drugs (in the top echelons and seeping elsewhere) were a given. Where does the conning come in?

I recall attempts made to smear Clinton with a sex scandal during his second-term election. The wide response from Joe Public was that it was the wrong smear to try. The World already knew he had difficulty keeping it in his trousers and had voted for him once already. The attempt (or course) failed.

Similarly, for someone to get interested in a sport which has been strongly (and correctly) associated with PED use for decades and then say they feel cheated or conned by winners who appeared superhumanly superior to other riders who were known to have enhanced their performance with drugs seems.... naive.

If not naive, then what? I've loved the TdF for decades, but never thought it clean. I don't recall reading many artcles back in the day suggesting it was.

When I go to a Magic Show, I do absolutely expect the pretty girl to be sawn in half and then made whole again by the dark arts. If it turns out to be done with mirrors and clever lighting, I will feel conned and cheated. But clean pro-cycling in the Armstrong era? Really?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> He doped.


Allegedly. And other people actively colluded whist others looked the other way. Allegedly.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I think the best way of answering that one, is to ask, do you think they are racing 'clean' now?


Nope.


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I think the best way of answering that one, is to ask, do you think they are racing 'clean' now?


 
I have no way of knowing. Some are widely thought not to be.

But if it turns out that winners of GT jerseys, stage winners and podium-placed riders were riding dirty in the past few years, I won't feel cheated.

I am fond of a sport that I became fond of as a dirty sport. I separate love and approval. I love the sport even if I do not always approve. If it gets clean (or is becoming clean) that's a lovely thing.

I still marvel at what Pantani did in '98, even though it turns out that very little of the blood in his veins was what we might call blood. 

It's the sense of being cheated or conned that I don't understand. I'm not about to make a comment about whether racing is clean today.

Certainly a lot of noise is being made about cleaning it up. That is a good thing or a part of a good thing.


----------



## thom (4 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I don't get the thing one sometimes hears about the Tour-viewing public having been_ 'conned'_ or _'cheated'_.


I said that people feel conned so I suppose you are making a point about the naivety of someone like me.

When you look back in the thread, often you see that people who now condemn LA freely admit to believing he was clean. Many LA fans actually think he is/was clean. Until recently this was still a controversial position regarding LA... because the whole LA story goes beyond the bike, indeed it wasn't about the bike for many people, but about the inspirational cancer story told to many people who didn't really know much about Pro-cycling.
I'm sure you're aware of this really.

When I started watching TdF in the late 80's, I was a young teenager watching without much knowledge of the history of the sport. I didn't think about it because I really didn't know of the existence of doping.

I don't think every sport in the world has had pervasive drug abuse. Perhaps naive, there you have me, but I suspect I'm standing with a lot of people and I find it odd you don't perceive that.

Edit : I'd go beyond this and point out that many of the stories of young riders entering the pro-ranks in the doping years were stories of disillusionment as they faced the reality of how much doping permeated the sport. It was news to people such as David Millar.


----------



## Buddfox (4 Sep 2012)

tigger said:


> ... and instead continually focus on the process and jurisdiction of the investigation, with added sprinkles of repetitive, futile logocentricity and personal slight. Much to the detriment of this thread and forum in my opinion...


 
This may (or may not) seem surprising, but the process that is being undertaken and the positions / approaches of the various authorities involved (USADA, UCI, WADA, Sparks, the protagonists etc.) also offers up a great deal which might be described as driving intellectual curiosity. It's perfectly possible to thing LA is guilty and still derive satisfaction from analysing and questioning the process which is being undertaken. Getting the right result out of the UCI has quite some value to the future of professional cycling. It's really not all about being a deluded fan. Sorry if that is unacceptable to some of the more vocal on this thread, or if it causes "much detriment".


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> *I said that people feel conned so I suppose you are making a point about my naivety*.
> When you look back in the thread, often you see that people who now condemn LA freely admit to believing he was clean. Many LA fans actually think he is/was clean. Until recently this was still a controversial position regarding LA... because the whole LA story goes beyond the bike, indeed it wasn't about the bike for many people, but about the inspirational cancer story told to many people who didn't really know much about Pro-cycling.
> I'm sure you're aware of this really.
> When I started watching TdF in the late 80's, I was a young teenager watching without much knowledge of the history of the sport. I didn't think about it because I really didn't know of the existence of doping.
> ...


 
No. I see the point you were making. My reference was more to those who do feel conned than those who see it in others. 

I am as guilty as the next person of building the LA thing up when he was first winning. Not because I thought he was clean, but because he was winning. The crazy thing (and it was crazy) after Beloki crashed in front of him was unbelievable even at the seventh viewing.

I used to tell my kids stories about Hinault, Lemond, Abdu...thingummy, Pantani and others when they were little. They drank up the magic as much as I did. I just never saw the _'bonne preparation' _as an issue.

My surprise is simply a matter of people still feeling conned or cheated after all that has come out in the past fifteen years.

That does seem naive, but I may be being harsh in that assessment.


----------



## User169 (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I'm doubtful too after reading up on GM blood boosting.


 
What GM blood boosting, Smeggers?


----------



## thom (4 Sep 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> My surprise is simply a matter of people still feeling conned or cheated after all that has come out in the past fifteen years.
> 
> That does seem naive, but I may be being harsh in that assessment.


Ah OK, I take your point. Yeah I think it's at the first point of seeing through the story that people feel conned.
Personally I would have defended LA a few years ago without really liking his personality and the cult surrounding it. I dunno at which point the penny dropped with me and how I felt but I wasn't really into the larger than life personality thing to start with.

It is true that self selection means the people on this forum know more than average about cycling so the issues around LA ought not to be so surprising but I imagine that parts of the wide constituency of LA fans will have felt fooled on reflection. Although the LA foundation did get an upsurge in donations recently, their income has been steadily suffering in light of the allegations and that article in one of the Dallas newspapers backs that up.


----------



## swansonj (4 Sep 2012)

The


007fair said:


> I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.


(1) The evidence is now very strong indeed that Armstrong doped.
(2) There are several other quite interesting side issues to be debated, including: Are the procedures that are being used being applied properly? Are those procedures the best or fairest that could have been devised?
(3) Some people probably raise these other issues in order to muddy the waters of Armstrong's highly probable guilt. But they are legitimate issues nonetheless.
(4) Because some people are so focussed on Armstrong's guilt, to them, any attempt to raise such side issues appears to be perceived as an attempt to say that Armstrong is not guilty and therefore they slap it down.
(5) As a result, catching up on the odd thirty pages when getting back from a holiday is a rather depressing experience.


----------



## Red Light (4 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> I've been away. This is a long thread. Can someone summarise 112 pages please in 1 short paragraph. Thanks.


 
He's either guilty even if proven innocent* or innocent until proven guilty depending on your point of view. Take your pick. The former is in the majority here.

* any proof being a conspiracy to hide the truth of his guilt.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Whilst the chemical evolve, I think so has the attitude....
> 
> 
> These days if doping is happening, it is very much is down to the individual and has no 'structural' or moral support within the sport, as in the dark days of the past.
> ...


I don't share your hope. If doping is happening it will (still) be institutionalised and done with the knowledge, tactic consent, and in some instances active collaboration/insistence of others in the team.

Those who doped in the past, and lied about it, are members of and managers of teams. I'm utterly unconvinced they've had any sort moral rebirth.


----------



## thom (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Could you imagine if the whole Sky project went t*ts up? There'd be a national uproar.


There would be uproar, disgust, shame. It's inconceivable how bad that would be for cycling, not only in this country.
Let's hope they're riding the line correctly...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I hope your not right, but yet.........
> 
> Could you imagine if the whole Sky project went t*ts up? There'd be a national uproar.


 
I've read various articles claiming some characteristics of some of the performance improvements/failures from some individuals give cause for concern.

Do I think Sky would not cheat if certain circumstances were right? I'd like to think they would not, but I didn't come up the Severn on a bicycle, they are only human, after all.


----------



## MacB (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> I hope your not right, but yet.........
> 
> Could you imagine if the whole Sky project went t*ts up? There'd be a national uproar.


 
I'm disgusted Smeggers - your/you're are not interchangeable - if you play so free and loose with the English language it has to call into question the veracity of your entire posts.


----------



## User169 (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Trying to find the link*. But basically I think, genetically invisible EPO.
> 
> * Biosimilar Growth Hormone.... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777019/


 
Thanks, Smeggers. Not sure I see the link to doping though. As I read it, this is an article about "generic" medicines in the biopharma field and what you have to do establish biosimilarity to an existing marketed product.


----------



## just jim (4 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> This may (or may not) seem surprising, but the process that is being undertaken and the positions / approaches of the various authorities involved (USADA, UCI, WADA, Sparks, the protagonists etc.) also offers up a great deal which might be described as driving intellectual curiosity. It's perfectly possible to thing LA is guilty and still _derive satisfaction from analysing and questioning the process which is being undertaken_. Getting the right result out of the UCI has quite some value to the future of professional cycling. It's really not all about being a deluded fan. Sorry if that is unacceptable to some of the more vocal on this thread, or if it causes "much detriment".


I'm not getting much satisfaction reading the Cunobelin/ Redlight tag-team's pedantic postings.
I think Thom has said it better that I can, on post back -a-ways. Well done sir!


----------



## just jim (4 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> He's either guilty even if proven innocent* or innocent until proven guilty depending on your point of view. Take your pick. The former is in the majority here.
> 
> * any proof being a conspiracy to hide the truth of his guilt.


Must he?
I suppose it sums up your skewed interpretations of some very measured and patient contributions thus far!


----------



## Crackle (4 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I don't share your hope. If doping is happening it will (still) be institutionalised and done with the knowledge, tactic consent, and in some instances active collaboration/insistence of others in the team.
> 
> Those who doped in the past, and lied about it, are members of and managers of teams. I'm utterly unconvinced they've had any sort moral rebirth.


 
You're probably both right and wrong. If I had to choose a balance for the moment, my optimistic half full beer glasses would say you are currently more wrong than right as I think we are seeing at the moment but I don't think anyone who follows the sport is naive enough to think doping is a thing of the past and the future is all rosy. It seems we can only judge the current generation in another generation or two's time, so be it.


----------



## asterix (4 Sep 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> To all of you who decide to throw away their Livestrong band, please cut it in two so it doesn't strangle swans, ducks etc.


 
Re-cycle it?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Sep 2012)

This is really interesting and illustrates just what happened (or happens?) when you confess and go public in pro-cycling.


----------



## yello (4 Sep 2012)

^^^ That is a really good article. Speaks much to the attitudes in pro-teams.


----------



## yello (4 Sep 2012)

To perhaps put the cat among the pigeons, the question that some (not here maybe) have been asking hits the headlines.... did doping cause LA's cancer?

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...ntary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions

Read and form your own opinion.


----------



## Crackle (4 Sep 2012)

yello said:


> To perhaps put the cat among the pigeons, the question that some (not here maybe) have been asking hits the headlines.... did doping cause LA's cancer?
> 
> http://www.globalpost.com/dispatche...ntary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions
> 
> Read and form your own opinion.


 
It's not the first time it's been speculated. Much more likely is that the drugs both masked and quickened his cancer development.


----------



## Buddfox (4 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> This is really interesting and illustrates just what happened (or happens?) when you confess and go public in pro-cycling.


 
Interesting article, so frustrating that this is what happens. Although I did reflect on this statement: "...despite the shorter sentence, no team was willing to allow him back. It wasn’t for a lack of talent. He’d won Paris-Nice, made the top twenty in the Tour as a second-year professional and become a reliable domestique." Talent of course that was driven by taking drugs...!


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Where's the clinical evidence for this tin-foil hatted nonsense? Even the article says "there is no vast scientific literature".
> 
> I might not like the bloke for what he's done, but c'mon, *we'll be blaming 9/11 on him next*.


 

I think that was Ferry Porsche. And what a timeless piece of design it was!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Interesting article, so frustrating that this is what happens. Although I did reflect on this statement: "...despite the shorter sentence, no team was willing to allow him back. It wasn’t for a lack of talent. He’d won Paris-Nice, made the top twenty in the Tour as a second-year professional and become a reliable domestique." Talent of course that was driven by taking drugs...!


 
I don't think you can make up for having no talent at all by taking drugs. It's quite clearly he had talent. And Armstrong would have been a top rider regardless (although rather less superhuman and more beatable).


----------



## Buddfox (4 Sep 2012)

On a broader note, when sometimes listening to the Eurosport or ITV4 commentary, I wish, every time they mentioned the name of a cyclist who'd been done for doping, that they added the fact that they were a convicted doper. I mean, not to the point of ridiculousness (if you've mentioned Valverde 10 times in 20 minutes, probably once is enough) but it would keep the issue in the public eye!


----------



## Buddfox (4 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I don't think you can make up for having no talent at all by taking drugs. It's quite clearly he had talent. And Armstrong would have been a top rider regardless (although rather less superhuman and more beatable).


 
Yes, opinion seems divided on that. The contrary view tends to hark back to the Millar quote from his book "EPO can turn a donkey into a racehorse", others argue that it's marginal gains. I am happy to confess as to having no idea!


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> Where's the clinical evidence for this tin-foil hatted nonsense? Even the article says "there is no vast scientific literature".
> 
> I might not like the bloke for what he's done, but c'mon, we'll be blaming 9/11 on him next.


 
There are links between anabolic steroids and some cancers: prostrate and breast cancers, in particular, but apart from some posts of dubious value on online forums, I have not seen specific evidence of a link between anything that Armstrong is alleged to have taken and testicular cancer. It isn't inconceivable enough to be tinfoil hat territory, but AFAIK it remains almost entirely speculative.


----------



## Buddfox (4 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I don't think you can make up for having no talent at all by taking drugs. It's quite clearly he had talent. And Armstrong would have been a top rider regardless (although rather less superhuman and more beatable).


 
Without wanting to labour the point as it is drifting a bit off topic, but my uncertainty over the performance impact is one of the things I find most frustrating about the entire saga, LA or others. When I first got into cycling, my hero was Richard Virenque. There was a time when I admired Riis, Armstrong and Pantani. But now, not only am I frustrated to know that they were all cheats, I have no real idea how to judge their performances. Boris Bajic has mentioned Pantani a number of times. I was in the Alps a few weeks back toiling up to Alpe d'Huez and Les Deux Alpes and on returning, my friend showed me the videos of him ascending both in 'record' times. I watched it for about 30 seconds and realised I was totally turned off by the whole thing. All I could think was "You're cheating, I've no idea how good you really were". And that's deeply disappointing - and for me the reason why I just wipe the whole period from the memory bank. Would Virenque have ever been KoM if he hadn't doped? Who knows? I hope in ten years when I show friends the clips of the stage yesterday in La Vuelta (for example), it's because it's still regarded as genuine racing, and not a bunch of cheats out to fool us all.


----------



## Happiness Stan (4 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Nope.


 So Wiggings, Millar, Cavendish, Froome are dopers?


----------



## thom (4 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> There are links between anabolic steroids and some cancers: prostrate and breast cancers, in particular, but apart from some posts of dubious value on online forums, I have not seen specific evidence of a link between anything that Armstrong is alleged to have taken and testicular cancer. It isn't inconceivable enough to be tinfoil hat territory, but AFAIK it remains almost entirely speculative.


In one of the links I posted a while back, I think the hour long podcast with a couple of scottish guys talking about the history of the LA case, they state that doctors confirmed the type of testicular cancer LA had could have been caused by the testosterone (iirc) he was supposed to have been taking. Nothing conclusive, just that sometimes it causes that particular form as opposed to others.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Sep 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> So Wiggings, Millar, Cavendish, Froome are dopers?


----------



## rich p (4 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> In one of the links I posted a while back, I think the hour long podcast with a couple of scottish guys talking about the history of the LA case, they state that doctors confirmed the type of testicular cancer LA had could have been caused by the testosterone (iirc) he was supposed to have been taking. Nothing conclusive, just that sometimes it causes that particular form as opposed to others.


Thom, that post was back in the last century on page 56 or something....

Anyway apropos of nothing much, I found this clip elsewhere which is worth a quick gander...
WARNING - CONTAINS RUDE WORDS


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

Happiness Stan said:


> So Wiggings, Millar, Cavendish, Froome are dopers?


Millar has admitted to being a doper. Does that make him an ex-doper? Once a doper?

As to the rest, are they dopers, have they ever been dopers, will they ever dope? Dunno, to soon to say, ask me in 20 years time and we will no doubt know. For now I won't canonise any of them just yet. Have they been a dopers lieutenant, or domestique, or team mate, or shared a hotel room on a grand tour with a doper and looked the other way? You tell me.


----------



## rich p (4 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Millar has admitted to being a doper. Does that make him an ex-doper? Once a doper?
> 
> As to the rest, are they dopers, have they ever been dopers, will they ever dope? Dunno, to soon to say, ask me in 20 years time and we will no doubt know. For now I won't canonise any of them just yet. Have they been a dopers lieutenant, or domestique, or team mate, or shared a hotel room on a grand tour with a doper and looked the other way? You tell me.


 Greg, are you still of the opinion that they should all be allowed to dope?
Forgive me if I've misrepresented your postion on here a while ago?


----------



## tigger (4 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> This may (or may not) seem surprising, but the process that is being undertaken and the positions / approaches of the various authorities involved (USADA, UCI, WADA, Sparks, the protagonists etc.) also offers up a great deal which might be described as driving intellectual curiosity. It's perfectly possible to thing LA is guilty and still derive satisfaction from analysing and questioning the process which is being undertaken. Getting the right result out of the UCI has quite some value to the future of professional cycling. It's really not all about being a deluded fan. Sorry if that is unacceptable to some of the more vocal on this thread, or if it causes "much detriment".



That's a very fair point Buddfox. I didn't intend to dismiss the curiosity surrounding process etc. It's certainly worth questioning this, but for me it's important to separate the facts of the case (whatever they may be?) from the jurisprudence if you like. 

And yes, what the UCI do (and more frighteningly, how they may have been involved) is what I am waiting nervously to hear next.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Sep 2012)

rich p said:


> Greg, are you still of the opinion that they should all be allowed to dope?
> Forgive me if I've misrepresented your postion on here a while ago?


 
short answer; yes

longer answer; nowt to forgive. Yes, if I was 'king of the world' I'd rule that doping is like any other technology in sport (how well would Pistorius run on Douglas Baader style prosthetics?) and is to be allowed, like they already do in tennis. (chortle). But knowing the inherent conservatism of the UCI they'd rule coke, strychnine and speed as the only technologies allowed.

Then we can have 'open' competitions between the professional drugged up loons with life expectancies of slightly less than the shelf life of milk and other competitions for those amateurs who ride clean.

I suspect that within my lifetime genetic manipulation will begin to take over from drug based doping, will be undetectable, will be in widespread use outside of sport and the ruling bodies will cave on it.


----------



## tigger (4 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I suspect that within my lifetime genetic manipulation will begin to take over from drug based doping, will be undetectable, will be in widespread use outside of sport and the ruling bodies will cave on it.



Given what they've inherited from the gene pool, my sons are gonna be unbeatable ;-)


----------



## raindog (4 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> ......... and other competitions for those amateurs who ride clean.
> .


Come on Greg, how would you know they were clean? It would be the same situation we have now with the pros.

this is what Vaughters says about a "level playing field" where everyone dopes

“If you make everything legal, believe me, some people are going to push things way beyond where they are now,” he argues. “Some people will say no to what is essentially suicide, so the winner is the guy who’s willing to risk his health more than anyone else.”


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> “If you make everything legal, believe me, some people are going to push things way beyond where they are now,” he argues. “Some people will say no to what is essentially suicide, so the winner is the guy who’s willing to risk his health more than anyone else.”


 
Seems to me that this is pretty much unarguable.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> Come on Greg, how would you know they were clean? It would be the same situation we have now with the pros.
> 
> this is what Vaughters says about a "level playing field" where everyone dopes
> 
> “If you make everything legal, believe me, some people are going to push things way beyond where they are now,” he argues. “Some people will say no to what is essentially suicide, so the winner is the guy who’s willing to risk his health more than anyone else.”


As an aside the suicide rate and mental illness cases amongst ex pro's is alarmingly high, and has been for a very long time.


----------



## MacB (4 Sep 2012)

lukesdad said:


> As an aside the suicide rate and mental illness cases amongst ex pro's is alarmingly high, and has been for a very long time.


 
not just in cycling and the long term health of professional athletes isn't exactly rosy either...money and enablers are bad but you'll always have the 'immortality' of the young to contend with as well.


----------



## david k (4 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Seems to me that this is pretty much unarguable.


good signature


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> Come on Greg, how would you know they were clean? It would be the same situation we have now with the pros.
> 
> this is what Vaughters says about a "level playing field" where everyone dopes
> 
> “If you make everything legal, believe me, some people are going to push things way beyond where they are now,” he argues. “Some people will say no to what is essentially suicide, so the winner is the guy who’s willing to risk his health more than anyone else.”


already happens, the doping ban does nothing to prevent those who want to push it from killing themselves. So a very arguable point.


----------



## raindog (5 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> already happens, the doping ban does nothing to prevent those who want to push it from killing themselves. So a very arguable point.


True, but to make it legal to kill yourself or damage your health with drugs in sport, isn't the way forward imo.


----------



## Noodley (5 Sep 2012)

That's me got my US-version on Tyler's book ordered.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> True, but to make it legal to kill yourself or damage your health with drugs in sport, isn't the way forward imo.


iirc it hasn't been illegal to commit suicide in England & Wales since the early 60's. Thousands of people damage their health every year through drugs, the most popular of which would appear to be alcohol, consumption of which is perfectly legal. So....

What is the moral argument for one standard (of liberty) in the street and another on the 'playing field'?


----------



## MacB (5 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> What is the moral argument for one standard (of liberty) in the street and another on the 'playing field'?


 
My gut instinct has always been in agreement with you and to let them get on with it. But I would have qualms about the peer pressure and pressure to succeed aspect. Open up a free for all and I reckon you'd be scooping up new users that would never have done so otherwise.

Which sits squarely against my belief that all drugs should be legalised, in some ways it feels like clinging to the past. The rose tinted view of the amateur endeavours of sportspeople. The more you look at it the more you realise that money, and advantage, has always been a factor.


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

MacB said:


> My gut instinct has always been in agreement with you and to let them get on with it. But I would have qualms about the peer pressure and pressure to succeed aspect. Open up a free for all and I reckon you'd be scooping up new users that would never have done so otherwise.


 
And there isn't peer pressure around drinking and smoking?



> Which sits squarely against my belief that all drugs should be legalised, in some ways it feels like clinging to the past. The rose tinted view of the amateur endeavours of sportspeople. The more you look at it the more you realise that money, and advantage, has always been a factor.


 
With you on that one. Legalising and making drugs available on a controlled price basis via Government could remove at a stroke the financial incentive for the criminal cartels to profit out of getting people hooked.


----------



## thom (5 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> iirc it hasn't been illegal to commit suicide in England & Wales since the early 60's. Thousands of people damage their health every year through drugs, the most popular of which would appear to be alcohol, consumption of which is perfectly legal. So....
> 
> What is the moral argument for one standard (of liberty) in the street and another on the 'playing field'?


 
Perhaps the conclusion should be that alcohol be prohibited then...
Is that more or less ridiculous than sanctioning unfettered drug taking in sport ?

I think this particular topic may deserve it's own thread.


----------



## Buddfox (5 Sep 2012)

So has anyone read the extracts of Hamilton's book in the Times today? I've not seen it and don't subscribe, but judging by the news reports this morning it's pretty damning. Not that that's much of a surprise!


----------



## lukesdad (5 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> That's me got my US-version on Tyler's book ordered.


 
You ve just got to learn to read now then !


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Is that more or less ridiculous than sanctioning unfettered drug taking in sport ?


The fetters don't work. If you allow unfettered consumption of certain harmful drugs in the street why not on the playing field?



MacB said:


> The rose tinted view of the amateur endeavours of sportspeople.


 
Is why. 

"C'mon yew Cortinthian Casuals!"


----------



## Crackle (5 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> I think this particular topic may deserve it's own thread.


 
Yeah, can we keep this to it's own thread please.


----------



## MichaelM (5 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> Without wanting to labour the point as it is drifting a bit off topic, but my uncertainty over the performance impact is one of the things I find most frustrating about the entire saga, LA or others. When I first got into cycling, my hero was Richard Virenque. There was a time when I admired Riis, Armstrong and Pantani. But now, not only am I frustrated to know that they were all cheats, I have no real idea how to judge their performances. Boris Bajic has mentioned Pantani a number of times. I was in the Alps a few weeks back toiling up to Alpe d'Huez and Les Deux Alpes and on returning, my friend showed me the videos of him ascending both in 'record' times. I watched it for about 30 seconds and realised I was totally turned off by the whole thing. All I could think was "You're cheating, I've no idea how good you really were". And that's deeply disappointing - and for me the reason why I just wipe the whole period from the memory bank. Would Virenque have ever been KoM if he hadn't doped? Who knows? I hope in ten years when I show friends the clips of the stage yesterday in La Vuelta (for example), it's because it's still regarded as genuine racing, and not a bunch of cheats out to fool us all.


 
I watch it with a completely different attitude. My earliest recollection of anyone doping was Theunise back in the 80s. Since then I've watched cycling thinking that they (leaders/big names) are probably on something.

Memorable days nonetheless:

Riis mountaintop finish (I think the stage was cut short due to weather and the cut off rule was axed due to numbers outside the cutoff).

Landis' big day out - he had to be on something after the previous day. Still impressive viewing.

Rasmussun vs Contador on some mighty climb - I thought they were both on something. Rasmussen came out on top (took yellow?) but was consequently thrown out by his team.

The past two years don't seem to have had much in terms of unbelievably impressive performances. I'd like to think that Evans and Wiggins did it clean (Evans just seems to struggle so much!), but I wouldn't bet my house on it.


----------



## thom (5 Sep 2012)

Tyler Hamilton, ABC live now : http://livetvcafe.net/video/8XBK9SMHGS9U/NBC
edit : over now ! Tyler was looking tanned and relaxed ;-)
2nd edit : here you go


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> With you on that one. Legalising and making drugs available on a controlled price basis via Government could remove at a stroke the financial incentive for the criminal cartels to profit out of getting people hooked.


 
However, the question of legalizing recreational drugs in wider society is a very different one from the question of performance-enhancing drugs in competitive sports.


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Sep 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> However, the question of legalizing recreational drugs in wider society is a very different one from the question of performance-enhancing drugs in competitive sports.


Quite right.

You have a choice whether to take recreational drugs, if you're unable compete in your sport without them it's a different matter.


----------



## 007fair (5 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Tyler Hamilton, ABC live now : http://livetvcafe.net/video/8XBK9SMHGS9U/NBC
> edit : over now ! Tyler was looking tanned and relaxed ;-)
> 2nd edit : here you go



It stopped before I could see Pippa Middleton !!

If that was the type of witness / evidence Lance would have to have faced in court I don't blame him for feeling tired. And I'm irritated by the fact that they always bring up his cancer awareness stuff. If Lance can decompartmentalise the two sides of his character so should the rest of us.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> *And I'm irritated by the fact that they always bring up his cancer awareness stuff. If Lance can decompartmentalise the two sides of his character so should the rest of us.*


 Comedy gold!


----------



## thom (5 Sep 2012)

Donald Trump has some advice


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Tyler Hamilton, ABC live now : http://livetvcafe.net/video/8XBK9SMHGS9U/NBC
> edit : over now ! Tyler was looking tanned and relaxed ;-)
> 2nd edit : here you go




Ambiguous response:

Interviewer reading out statement from LA: "Its not about setting the record straight or righting a wrong; it is greedy, opportunistic and self serving....". How do you respond?
TH: Its the truth, its the truth.


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

Buddfox said:


> So has anyone read the extracts of Hamilton's book in the Times today? I've not seen it and don't subscribe, but judging by the news reports this morning it's pretty damning. Not that that's much of a surprise!


 
I read them and they were not what I had expected. Its mostly about Hamilton and what he did with only oblique references to Armstrong and without the killer blows that some were predicting (at least not in the abstracts The Times has chosen. The Times bigs up elsewhere in its associated story the comment attributed to Armstrong by associating it with doping:
​_Hamilton depicts a man “haunted” by the thought rivals might be one step ahead, talking of “Lance’s Golden Rule: whatever you do, those other f***ers are doing more”, which he claims made Armstrong train harder and also chase the most effective doping with Michele Ferrari, his trusted doctor. _​ 
But in the abstract from Hamilton in context its:

_He was incapable of being passive, because he was haunted by what others might be doing. This was the same force that drove him to test equipment in the wind tunnel, to be finicky about diet, to be ruthless about training. _​​_ It’s funny, the world always saw it as a drive that came from within Lance, but from my point of view, it came from the outside; his fear that someone else was going to outthink and outwork and outstrategise him. I came to think of it as Lance’s Golden Rule: Whatever you do, those other f***ers are doing more._​​It sounds very much like Lance's Golden Rule was not a rule made up by Lance but one made up by Hamilton about Lance.


----------



## Noodley (5 Sep 2012)

Red Light, have you ever given even the slightest bit of attention to Pro Racing before this thread started? Cos if you have, you have missed a shitload of stuff!


----------



## thom (5 Sep 2012)

Hamilton on ESPN :


----------



## tigger (5 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> ​It sounds very much like Lance's Golden Rule was not a rule made up by Lance but one made up by Hamilton about Lance.


 

So.....??????


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

Noodley said:


> Red Light, have you ever given even the slightest bit of attention to Pro Racing before this thread started? Cos if you have, you have missed a s***load of stuff!


 
On this forum or in real life? On the former only as a lurker. In the latter I was following cycle racing when you were probably still a nobber in nappies. I watched all the Tours that Lance formerly won which is more than quite a few on here can say.


----------



## Red Light (5 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Hamilton on ESPN :




Hamilton: Lance should not be singled out - it was the culture then.


----------



## albion (5 Sep 2012)

That is the main problem I find.
Everyone is creating or sharing a picture for their own purpose and much to cycling's detriment.

Even now, all we get is the namby pamby stuff that still needs believers.


----------



## MichaelM (5 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Hamilton: Lance should not be singled out - it was the culture then.


 
He's not. Just about everyone else has either been found guilty or has admitted to doping. He's about the only one claiming he was clean (yeah right !) and passed 500 (or whatever the number was) tests - though I do believe he's changed his stance on this to "not taking unfair advantage".


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (5 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Hamilton on ESPN :



whoah Thom. You can't just go dropping bombs like that into a thread. If Hamilton was on ESPN it should have a whole thread to itself. ESPN must be way worse that EPO or HGH. It has an extra letter.
That aside, did he win when he was on it? I think we should be told.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> He's not. Just about everyone else has either been found guilty or has admitted to doping. He's about the only one claiming he was clean (yeah right !) and passed 500 (or whatever the number was) tests - though I do believe he's changed his stance on this to "not taking unfair advantage".


 
Hamilton says he passed 200 tests which maybe makes Armstrong's 500 seem not so unrealistic despite what the bean counters here have come up with as the right number.


----------



## Noodley (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> On this forum or in real life? On the former only as a lurker. In the latter I was following cycle racing when you were probably still a nobber in nappies. I watched all the Tours that Lance formerly won which is more than quite a few on here can say.


 
Watching Lance not win 7 Tours is not the same as paying attention to Pro Racing.


----------



## MichaelM (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> *Hamilton says he passed 200 tests *which maybe makes Armstrong's 500 seem not so unrealistic despite what the bean counters here have come up with as the right number.


 
No he did not.

Either you misheard what he said, or you are twisting his words and lying to meet your own ends.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> No he did not.
> 
> Either you misheard what he said, or you are twisting his words and lying to meet your own ends.


 
I suggest you listen the the ESPN interview above around 6:30 and then apologise.

Interviewer: "How many tests did you pass that you shouldn't have passed"
Hamilton: "I mean I probably took you know a couple of hundred tests in my career and I'd say at least half of those I was glowing to some degree "

Or perhaps you'll now try to claim it was Rory Bremner doing the interview.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

With Hamilton doing the rounds on his book saying virtually the whole peleton doped and cheated following on the USADA/Armstrong spat and the probably weeks of day by day revelations to come out of the pending USADA hearings, I wonder how many sponsors for professional cycling will still be left after this. Nike, Oakley etc have said they are standing by Armstrong in his Livestrong capacity but as one of the ESPN interviewees says, in the USA cancer is big but cycling is niche. But there must be conversations going on in marketing departments and boardrooms across the world asking why they are associating themselves with this sport still. Even Sky must be asking questions by now.


----------



## zimzum42 (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> With Hamilton doing the rounds on his book saying virtually the whole peleton doped and cheated following on the USADA/Armstrong spat and the probably weeks of day by day revelations to come out of the pending USADA hearings, I wonder how many sponsors for professional cycling will still be left after this. Nike, Oakley etc have said they are standing by Armstrong in his Livestrong capacity but as one of the ESPN interviewees says, in the USA cancer is big but cycling is niche. But there must be conversations going on in marketing departments and boardrooms across the world asking why they are associating themselves with this sport still. Even Sky must be asking questions by now.


I doubt it - so long as cycling still draws in viewers, the sponsors will stick to it like flies to....

Show some evidence that cycling TV audiences are falling in Europe and maybe we will see sponsors drop off


----------



## PaulB (6 Sep 2012)

thom said:


> Hamilton on ESPN :



What a hideous rat-faced rat fink dirt-bag that rat is. He can confess his own crimes all he wants but to grass up someone else is beneath contempt. I've just finished David memememeLOOKATME Millar's book on a similar theme but even he had the grace to limit it to himself and not drag others into the cesspit.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> What a hideous rat-faced rat fink dirt-bag that rat is. He can confess his own crimes all he wants but to grass up someone else is beneath contempt. I've just finished David memememeLOOKATME Millar's book on a similar theme but even he had the grace to limit it to himself and not drag others into the cesspit.


Why the visceral dislike of a snitch? Not trolling, serious question. I was brought up to believe dobbing wrong do-ers in it was one's duty. Not grassing was the moral coward's choice.


----------



## PaulB (6 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Why the visceral dislike of a snitch? Not trolling, serious question. I was brought up to believe dobbing wrong do-ers in it was one's duty. Not grassing was the moral coward's choice.


That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is but compounded by the fact he's a proven liar adds to his crime sheet of shame. Knowing about him makes me sick but to see his rat-face attempting to justify his telling tales out of school like it's his duty brings chunks of semi-digested food up into my throat. I'm in no way attempting to cast nasturtiums on this odious dirt-bag to defend Lance Armstrong by the way. I am virtually certain Armstrong is guilty but to cash in on it in this way is lower than a snake's scrotum. With orchiditis.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB do us a favour and review the book for us, it'll be far more entertaining !


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2012)

Hope there is a chapter devoted to Tugboat otherwise I'll want my dosh back.


----------



## zimzum42 (6 Sep 2012)

There's a difference between 'snitching/grassing' and whistleblowing...


----------



## PaulB (6 Sep 2012)

User3094 said:


> ^ The problem of Pro Cycling for the last 20 years, right there ^


What, you want liars making stuff up about cheats? The problem of the seekers of gossipy tittle-tattle right there^.


----------



## 007fair (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> What, you want liars making stuff up about cheats? The problem of the seekers of gossipy tittle-tattle right there^.


So its better to keep the lid on the dirt ? How will that do any good in the long run?


----------



## lukesdad (6 Sep 2012)

007fair said:


> So its better to keep the lid on the dirt ? How will that do any good in the long run?


 I think he s talking about source.


----------



## MichaelM (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> I suggest you listen the the ESPN interview above around 6:30 and then apologise.
> 
> Interviewer: "How many tests did you pass that you shouldn't have passed"
> Hamilton: "I mean I probably took you know a couple of hundred tests in my career and I'd say at least half of those I was glowing to some degree "
> ...


 
You quoted the ABC link in 2304. He says " I passed hundreds of tests when I probably shouldn't have..." which isn't quite the same as saying "I've passed 200 tests."

The first shows that testing isn't 100% foolproof. The second implies that the athlete was clean (hence Armstrong's usual reply).

Also, "hundreds" or "a couple of hundred" is - as I'm sure you're aware - is common parlance for many/numerous. Hamilton does not say 200 in either of the clips you posted, yet you chose to twist this and use a specific number of 200 in order to support Armstrong's claim of 500.


----------



## Buddfox (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is but compounded by the fact he's a proven liar adds to his crime sheet of shame. Knowing about him makes me sick but to see his rat-face attempting to justify his telling tales out of school like it's his duty brings chunks of semi-digested food up into my throat. I'm in no way attempting to cast nasturtiums on this odious dirt-bag to defend Lance Armstrong by the way. I am virtually certain Armstrong is guilty but to cash in on it in this way is lower than a snake's scrotum. With orchiditis.


 
You don't work in a bank, do you?


----------



## raindog (6 Sep 2012)

Vaughters on TheClinc
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-confirms-past-doping-by-danielson-others-at-garmin
he seems to be a very articulate bloke and has taken a dig at some of the crap on there....

"All of your theories and conspiracies.... It's like watching monkeys trying to figure out how to open a coconut."


----------



## oldroadman (6 Sep 2012)

The sport is cleaning up. Preparation was never discussed years ago, but everyone inside knew things, and just got on with it, because there was nowhere to go with anything without proof. And no-one would have corroborated the allegations, so anyone making them would simply have to leave the sport, which gave them a modest living. A moral problem? Of course, but when you have a mortgage to pay and a family to feed, unless you are certain of a new start, what would you do? It's a brave man that risks his loved ones for a moral point, and plenty probably wished they could, but being blacklisted (and NOT just in the sport) is not funny.
The Hamilton book is a cash in, in my view (with which you might disagree), he has history of storytelling and pathetic excuses when caught (the phantom twin!), and I see him a little like Kimmage, now very bitter and seeking a bit of revenge, at the same time making a profit.
Now, who is the moral one? Not TH or LA, that's for sure. Willy Voet (who did time for his sins), far more credible, nothing left to lose, so spill the facts.

The environment today, according to people I know, is far, far cleaner than it ever was, and just witness how riders finish knackered instead of looking fresh, and times on the big climbs have slowed, as have wattage outputs according to the stats.
That said, Bertie rode everyone off his wheel yesterday, which means either:

Everyone is clean and very tired from a long season, but Bertie is fresh.
Bertis has been at the Spanish steak again.

I think the former is more likely (and sincerely hope so).


----------



## Crackle (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is but compounded by the fact he's a proven liar adds to his crime sheet of shame. Knowing about him makes me sick but to see his rat-face attempting to justify his telling tales out of school like it's his duty brings chunks of semi-digested food up into my throat. I'm in no way attempting to cast nasturtiums on this odious dirt-bag to defend Lance Armstrong by the way. I am virtually certain Armstrong is guilty but to cash in on it in this way is lower than a snake's scrotum. With orchiditis.


 
I don't agree with the way you've said but I do agree it's hard to find any reason to trust him. His book is just another cynical move to line his shrinking pockets, one which I won't be subscribing to. It'd be very hard to believe anything he might write unless it was corroborated elsewhere.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> I don't agree with the way you've said but I do agree it's hard to find any reason to trust him. His book is just another cynical move to line his shrinking pockets, one which I won't be subscribing to. It'd be very hard to believe anything he might write *unless it was corroborated elsewhere*.


Well, nothing contradicts any of the other evidence we've had so far. Also, Coyle wasn't just writing up interviews with Hamilton, he was checking out what Hamilton told him. I'd be very surprised if there is anything in there that turns out to be fabricated.


----------



## Crackle (6 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Well, nothing contradicts any of the other evidence we've had so far. Also, Coyle wasn't just writing up interviews with Hamilton, he was checking out what Hamilton told him. I'd be very surprised if there is anything in there that turns out to be fabricated.


 
Well lend us the book when you've read it then


----------



## MacB (6 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> Well lend us the book when you've read it then


 
bloody cheapskate, Hamilton's got to make a living


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

raindog said:


> Vaughters on TheClinc
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughters-confirms-past-doping-by-danielson-others-at-garmin
> he seems to be a very articulate bloke and has taken a dig at some of the crap on there....
> 
> "All of your theories and conspiracies.... It's like watching monkeys trying to figure out how to open a coconut."


I love that monkeys quote - he doesn't spare them his (well deserved) contempt, but he still goes in, answers hard questions and gives time to a bunch of people who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire. Not so sure than Danielson et al will be so impressed though at being outed like that!


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> Well lend us the book when you've read it then


Have you still got that copy of Lance to Landis I sent, you cheeky bugger!

Look, this is all very familiar stuff. Landis dropped his bombshell, no-one _quite_ believed him, proven liar etc etc and those who really didn't want to believe it did everything they could to discredit him. Subsequently, he's turned out to be both correct and truthful in what he said. Despite the avalanche of evidence we've had since, you're trying the same tactic with Hamilton. Why? You know how it's going to end.


----------



## thom (6 Sep 2012)

More signs of the omerta being broken


----------



## Crackle (6 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Have you still got that copy of Lance to Landis I sent, you cheeky bugger!
> 
> Look, this is all very familiar stuff. Landis dropped his bombshell, no-one _quite_ believed him, proven liar etc etc and those who really didn't want to believe it did everything they could to discredit him. Subsequently, he's turned out to be both correct and truthful in what he said. Despite the avalanche of evidence we've had since, you're trying the same tactic with Hamilton. Why? You know how it's going to end.


 
You never sent it to me, that was the Fignon book and that was passed on.

It's a question of perspective. I'm not denying the thrust of his claims, just the colour he's painting them. Good example is the article in Cycling News about Jaksche, which when you read it gave one impression but that impression altered when you read Vaughters interview.

I can't help feel Hamilton remains as cynical as ever. Telling the truth is just another means to an end. That it maybe the truth, doesn't make it taste better. If he has any salubrious details to tell, I'd like to read another perspective on them and I don't mean the kind of outright denials we're hearing from Riise.


----------



## just jim (6 Sep 2012)

Johan Museeuw: “We must break with the hypocrisy. The only way to come out of that murderous spiral is to tackle the constant denial, the silence that continues to haunt us"
More of this please.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> You never sent it to me, that was the Fignon book and that was passed on.


Who the bloody hell did I send it to then? Could have sworn it was you.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

Crackle said:


> It's a question of perspective. I'm not denying the thrust of his claims, just the colour he's painting them. Good example is the article in Cycling News about Jaksche, which when you read it gave one impression but that impression altered when you read Vaughters interview.
> 
> I can't help feel Hamilton remains as cynical as ever. Telling the truth is just another means to an end. That it maybe the truth, doesn't make it taste better. If he has any salubrious details to tell, I'd like to read another perspective on them and I don't mean the kind of outright denials we're hearing from Riise.


That's more sensible and I agree, to a certain extent. My problem with Landis was trying to work out the division between his eye-witness testimony and his interpretation of events.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is but compounded by the fact he's a proven liar adds to his crime sheet of shame. Knowing about him makes me sick but to see his rat-face attempting to justify his telling tales out of school like it's his duty brings chunks of semi-digested food up into my throat. I'm in no way attempting to cast nasturtiums on this odious dirt-bag to defend Lance Armstrong by the way. I am virtually certain Armstrong is guilty but to cash in on it in this way is lower than a snake's scrotum. With orchiditis.


 
Thanks for explaining your position, I suspect it is a cultural/socio-religious thing, and best we agree to differ on the matter of are snitches/tell-tales/grasses/whistleblowers/informants the lowest of the low as I'd argue, as someone with significant responsibility for our corporate whistleblowing policy, it really depends on if they are telling the truth and 'shopping' real wrongdoing or not!

For the avoidance of doubt.... As an ex-fanboy I am certain as it is possible for me to be at the moment in the current state of the publicly available 'evidence' that Armstrong was, and in my book therefore is and always will be, it is my inner referee* coming out, a dirty cheat. In so doing I feel he had an awful lot in common with EVERYONE else involved in TdF in that era, including those who rode desks, wrenches, coaches and bikes.

There is a saying in Rugby Union refereeing circles Q. "How do you know a player will cheat?" A. "Because he has a seven (or a nine) on his back"


----------



## 400bhp (6 Sep 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Thanks for explaining your position, I suspect it is a cultural/socio-religious thing, and best we agree to differ on the matter of are snitches/tell-tales/grasses/whistleblowers/informants the lowest of the low as I'd argue, as someone with significant responsibility for our corporate whistleblowing policy, it really depends on if they are telling the truth and 'shopping' real wrongdoing or not!


 
That's a nice way to put it and I agree.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (6 Sep 2012)

PaulB said:


> That's a terrible attitude. Snitches are the lowest of the low as it is


 
Sorry, but this is the morality of the mafia. Whistleblowers are often the only way in which systematic and organised corruption can come to light. I agree that making money out of it is more dubious, and I am not defending all informers or snitches by any means, but to denounce all and any whistleblowing is ethically very difficult to justify.


----------



## Smokin Joe (6 Sep 2012)

I wonder if Paul B would "Snitch if he discovered one of his neighbours was abusing children or had mugged some old dear?

"Snitching" is when you tell teacher your classmate is eating sweets, informing about acts of serious criminality - which EPO use is in sporting terms - is a different matter.

There is a line which often needs to be crossed.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Sep 2012)

So. Where do we stand on Lance ratting out Hamilton to the UCI?


----------



## PaulB (6 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I wonder if Paul B would "Snitch if he discovered one of his neighbours was abusing children or had mugged some old dear?
> 
> "Snitching" is when you tell teacher your classmate is eating sweets, informing about acts of serious criminality - which EPO use is in sporting terms - is a different matter.
> 
> There is a line which often needs to be crossed.


No, I'd help him, obviously. What a ridiculous thing to bring up. 

'Serious criminality'! Don't talk soft. If it was 'serious criminality' then he'd have gone to the police, wouldn't he? He's a snitch, end of story.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> I wonder if Paul B would "Snitch if he discovered one of his neighbours was abusing children or had mugged some old dear?


 
Personally I would think in that situation, if he reported his discovery to the relevant authorities to take action that would be acceptable. If he published his allegations in the local newspaper that would not. Its not what you tell, its who you tell it to that makes the difference.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> You quoted the ABC link in 2304. He says " I passed hundreds of tests when I probably shouldn't have..." which isn't quite the same as saying "I've passed 200 tests."


 
No, it started with 2310 with the ESPN video, was replied to by you in 2312 and then my quote of 200 tests in 2314. There was no follow up to my 2304 post. I don't know why you are continuing to mislead when the facts are there to check and easily prove you wrong.



> Also, "hundreds" or "a couple of hundred" is - as I'm sure you're aware - is common parlance for many/numerous. Hamilton does not say 200 in either of the clips you posted, yet you chose to twist this and use a specific number of 200 in order to support Armstrong's claim of 500.


 
A couple is two. To try to claim that a couple of hundred is not 200 is sheer desperation. Hamilton in the ESPN clip says just after 6:30 in that he had a couple of hundred tests despite your categoric claim that he didn't.


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

Chuffy said:


> So. Where do we stand on Lance ratting out Hamilton to the UCI?


 
Sheryl Crow did Alpe d'Huez in 89 minutes. She's a rock star. Its obvious she was on the drugs too. She should be stripped of her 9 Grammy Awards and have a life time performing ban.


----------



## Smokin Joe (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Sheryl Crow did Alpe d'Huez in 89 minutes. She's a rock star. Its obvious she was on the drugs too. She should be stripped of her 9 Grammy Awards and have a life time performing ban.


Keep digging that hole, you're not too far from Australia now.


----------



## MichaelM (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> A couple is two. To try to claim that a couple of hundred is not 200 is sheer desperation. Hamilton in the ESPN clip says just after 6:30 in that he had a couple of hundred tests despite your categoric claim that he didn't.


 
Are you telling me that you genuinely believe that Hamilton used the term "a couple of hundred" to mean 200 exactly? (especially after you'd put the other interview in an earlier post).


----------



## johnr (6 Sep 2012)

Watching the Vuelta yesterday brought home to me the on-going damage to cycling by dopers. To see two drug cheats put in 'remarkable' feats even had the ITV-home of Phil Liggett-4 team raising eyebrows at the end. Their commentary team were completely uncritical and hyperbolic in the best Liggett-Sherwen tradition, but having been gripped by the first 2 weeks I just can't watch it anymore.

If this goes on much longer I might have to sue Pharmstrong andf UCI myself.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Sep 2012)

2026462 said:


> You are assuming that RedLight is doing the digging from somewhere round here.



Google's everywhere!


----------



## Red Light (6 Sep 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Are you telling me that you genuinely believe that Hamilton used the term "a couple of hundred" to mean 200 exactly? (especially after you'd put the other interview in an earlier post).


 
A couple of hundred, two hundred, they mean the same thing. Now you can argue about what he meant by that but you cannot argue that he didn't say he took a couple of hundred/200 tests. Did he mean exactly 200? Did Armstrong mean exactly 500?


----------



## fozy tornip (6 Sep 2012)

Give it, and us, a rest now.


----------



## tigger (6 Sep 2012)

Red Light said:


> Did Armstrong mean exactly 500?



Still being a bit finicky aren't we? Maybe he meant around 236? At least that's what one commentator has put forward.
Sorry if this has been posted before, I thought this was a well reasoned analysis and worth a read (mainly as I concur!)

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

1. "Lance passed 500 tests. He must be innocent"

This is straight from the press release, because it's been Armstrong's most used retort to the doping question. Two things:

First, there is no way he was tested 500 times. DimSpace has compiled a record of all the possible tests Armstrong may have been subjected to, with over-estimates, and it comes to 236. So there's more than a little hype in that number that started at 400, then hit 500, and just like that fish your uncle caught on his summer vacation in 1997 grew in size with every story-telling, ended up around the 600 mark.


----------



## rich p (6 Sep 2012)

fozy tornip said:


> Give it, and us, a rest now.


 Ignore the trolls - I heartily recommend it. If all the sensible posters did the same we could get this thread back on track.


----------



## Scoosh (6 Sep 2012)

<Mod hat on>

119 pages, 2365 posts - time to wrap it up now.

The matter has been decided.

Move on now.

Thread being locked (with OP's consent)


----------



## Shaun (8 Sep 2012)

This discussion is now continued here: http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/


----------

