# The plot thickens



## rich p (5 Aug 2010)

Another USPostal rider spilling the beans

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-investigation-gathers-pace


----------



## dan_bo (5 Aug 2010)

Oo, and indeed, er. 

How is Lance gonna dance around this lot?


----------



## Hont (5 Aug 2010)

Lance Armstrong’s defence attorney Bryan D. Daly:

“If Lance Armstrong came in second in those Tour de France races, there’s no way that Lance Armstrong would be involved in these cases."

Yeah, in the same way that Jan Ullrich was never investigated by the Swiss. Oh...wait a minute.

But at the same time, even if they are going after him harder due to his celebrity, why shouldn't they? I'd argue that no one has earned as much money on the back of doping in cycling. It stands to reason; the bigger the fraud, the bigger the investigation.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Aug 2010)

I hate being teased like this! Just tell me who it is, dammit!

And the crap from Tex's defence lawyer just stinks. He may as well have a t-shirt with 'all u haterz r jus jelus'.


----------



## zimzum42 (5 Aug 2010)

The Lance Fanboys have either gone back to watching football now the tour is over, or they have realized the game is up...


----------



## andy_wrx (5 Aug 2010)

New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/sports/cycling/05armstrong.html?_r=2


It's on the front page of the printed edition...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Aug 2010)

They are, almost without exception, all dopers. Many of us 'Lance Fanboys' simply want someone to come up with some proof, you know the stuff, real, actual, conclusive, irrefutable proof, because mere circumstantial evidence, even a gathering and increasingly ominous pile of it, and rumour, doesn't convince us to join your lynch mob.


----------



## mangaman (5 Aug 2010)

GregCollins said:


> They are, almost without exception, all dopers. Many of us 'Lance Fanboys' simply want someone to come up with some proof, you know the stuff, real, actual, conclusive, irrefutable proof, because mere circumstantial evidence, even a gathering and increasingly ominous pile of it, and rumour, doesn't convince us to join your lynch mob.



No lynchmob Greg surely

He's being investigated by the FBI for huge amounts of fraudulent activity. All his contemporaries have been found guilty of doping offences bar none.

None of these cashed in on their fame and "brand" like Armstrong, with the word cancer attached to make it seem bad form to attack him.

It appears the chickens are coming home to roost.

The FBI are not famous for pussyfooting around.

Does not a small part of you want the whole 1999-2007 era of cycling expoed finally. Every rider of note - Heras/ Ulrrich / Basso / Hamilton /Valverde etc etc are now discreditted. If the US teams and Bruyneel were to be nailed, we could wipe clean the slate of the EPO era and start again.

We'd still be looking for cheats, but a detailed knowledge of the USPS and all Bruyneel-related teams' doping regime (allegedly) would be useful for the future of anti-doping campaign strategies.


----------



## JNR (5 Aug 2010)

I just want to find out where I can get me some EPO!


----------



## mangaman (5 Aug 2010)

JNR said:


> I just want to find out where I can get me some EPO!



You should find something here to improve your times in the club 25.

(This has no link with cyclechat but is purely a random google search - I do not condone the use of anything. Etc)

http://www.steroidon...Order-Form.html 

BTW 10 vials of EPO for 242 euros - you can see how riders could be tempted.


----------



## Blue (5 Aug 2010)

zimzum42 said:


> The Lance Fanboys have either gone back to watching football now the tour is over, or they have realized the game is up...



Or maybe they are just tired of the Lance haters going on and on and on and 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Aug 2010)

Here's an interesting view on the character of Mr Armstrong -

http://bikezilla.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/lance-armstrong-hes-earned-more-than-bad-press/


----------



## montage (6 Aug 2010)

Not looking good for lance whether guilty or innocent!


----------



## lukesdad (6 Aug 2010)

All of his contemporaries ?


----------



## kennykool (6 Aug 2010)

Blue said:


> Or maybe they are just tired of the Lance haters going on and on and on and 'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz




+1 - getting tiresome

I'm a fanboy and I hate football. I am even watching the Tour of Poland just now I enjoy cycling so much

Innocent until proven Innocent is how I see this one ending.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

kennykool said:


> +1 - getting tiresome
> 
> I'm a fanboy and I hate football. I am even watching the Tour of Poland just now I enjoy cycling so much
> 
> Innocent until proven Innocent is how I see this one ending.


I'm just wondering Kenny - what would be sufficient to convince you that Lance was a doper and how will you feel if it was established _to your satisfaction_ that he was? It's a straight question, I'm not setting you up for anything.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Aug 2010)

This strikes me as a note of desperation creeping in..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-laywer-condemns-un-american-investigation

"Lance Armstrong’s lawyer Brian D. Daly has condemned the federal investigation of his client and his former US Postal Service team as “un-American and a waste of taxpayers’ money"."

*un-American* FFS!


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

Heh, it certainly looks as if the defence team is in full damage limitation mode. 

I was somewhat sceptical of the investigation, I thought that it would come down to the word of Rider X against Team Tex and that riders would probably stick to their tried and tested 'I saw nothing and I've never failed a drug test' line. If the riders were prepared to stonewall then the enquiry team would have nothing to go on. However, it looks as if riders might be frightened of the consequences of lying to the enquiry, seeing as Novitsky seems to have actual send-you-to-jail teeth. It will be interesting to see how many other riders will be prepared to sing, in exchange for anonymity and immunity from prosecution.


----------



## Hont (6 Aug 2010)

kennykool said:


> I am even watching the Tour of Poland just now I enjoy cycling so much
> 
> Innocent until proven Innocent is how I see this one ending.


Can't believe anyone who follows cycling thinks this. It's following cycling that has taught me to question _every_ outstanding physical performance in sport (not just cycling but athletics, tennis, football, rugby etc.). 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to believe that someone is clean, but believing it despite all of the indicators to the contrary is denial.


----------



## kennykool (6 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> I'm just wondering Kenny - what would be sufficient to convince you that Lance was a doper and how will you feel if it was established _to your satisfaction_ that he was? It's a straight question, I'm not setting you up for anything.




Honestly Chuffy (and laugh if you like) I have actually been asking myself that very question for sometime now as there is more and more "Evidence" pointing towards the fact that he could possibly might have been in some teeny weeny way been involved in such atrocities.....Did I just say that??????

I suppose its the story of the smoking gun....ie. if I were to see video footage of LA actually doing/talking about doing something wrong THEN and ONLY then would I believe it! You can force as much scientific data down my throat but I would need to see/hear it with my own eyes/ears.

He is such a hero of mine that it would take a lot for me to believe what is being said.

In fairness tho - and i say this in all seriousness - even if he was found to be "dirty" i would not change my attitude towards him. Along the same lines Tiger is still my golfing hero - even more so now cos he is a mad shagger ha ha


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Aug 2010)

mangaman said:


> No lynchmob Greg surely
> 
> ....
> 
> We'd still be looking for cheats, but a detailed knowledge of the USPS and all Bruyneel-related teams' doping regime (allegedly) would be useful for the future of anti-doping campaign strategies.



A well reasoned post. More than small part of me wants either a) dopers in all the sports (chiefly cycling and rugby union/league) I follow exposed and banned for life or b) the authorities to get real and allow it because they cannot police it effectively. I'm ambivalent about the outcome.

I harbour huge suspicions about _everyone_ involved in the 99-07 era and flippin' strong ones about the people involved today. Even those from close to home. When I find myself thinking "How does he do that?" these days, when someone comes back from the dead better than Lazarus, I think I'm entitled to be suspicious. I don't think working out how someone top level cheated 10 years ago will help you catch top level cheats today. The doping technology accessed by the top flight will have moved on and only the water carriers will be using dated techniques. 

As an, albeit jaded and cynical, LA fanboy I welcome the FBI investigation and hope it comes to trial as soon as possible. When it goes to court, as it looks like it must, then anonymous sources will have to sit on the witness stand and a jury will sift the evidence and then a verdict will be reached. Some will be happy with the outcome and some are destined to be frustrated. Both parties can't be right. Will it be another case of OJ?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (6 Aug 2010)

Mad shagging is not against the rules of golf. It would be hard to establish a case that Tiger's golf had improved post, or even prior to shagging.

However, doping is against the rules of cycling and if proved guilty would nullify all of Lance's cycling achievements and make the huge personal fortune he has generated from his wins (and resulting sponsorship), to be a fraud on a monumental scale.

The only parallels between Lance and Tiger would be in their position as questionable role models, but that is a moral and personal considering for them, their fans and sponsors. But by cheating at the very thing that has been the bedrock of everything he has have done and espoused over the last dozen years would be more damming of Lance than even Tiger's harshest critics doled out. He would be vilified and even be at some personal risk from those who would feel utterly, utterly ripped off by his monumental hypocrisy.

I have gone from being a staunch supporter who was convinced he was clean, to an admirer who hoped he was clean, to someone who now fears he probably was no better than the others. There maybe no smoking gun, but the odds of him having been clean at a time when he was so much better than all his doped up contemporaries, seem to get shorter by the day.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

kennykool said:


> Honestly Chuffy (and laugh if you like) I have actually been asking myself that very question for sometime now as there is more and more "Evidence" pointing towards the fact that he could possibly might have been in some teeny weeny way been involved in such atrocities.....Did I just say that??????


Fair enough and thanks for answering. I think you're going to find that it's more than 'a teeny weeny way' though and I'm interested to know how you will deal with that.



> I suppose its the story of the smoking gun....ie. if I were to see video footage of LA actually doing/talking about doing something wrong THEN and ONLY then would I believe it! You can force as much scientific data down my throat but I would need to see/hear it with my own eyes/ears.


That's a bit blinkered and naive, if you don't mind me saying so. If you have systematic doping within a team, especially a team that revolved exclusively around Lance (and Johann, let's not forget that slippery crook) and his single goal of winning the Tour then how can the team leader _not_ be aware of what is going on? That's in addition to the other evidence that has come out over the years. Saying that you will only accept it if Lance himself is prepared to corroborate is a lazy way of dismissing things out of hand. 



> He is such a hero of mine that it would take a lot for me to believe what is being said.


Yup, but there must surely come a point where you have to take the cotton wool out of your ears, remove the blinkers and accept that the image and reality are very, very different. You won't be alone, there will be plenty of others who won't accept _anything_ that contradicts their view of Hero Lance.



> In fairness tho - and i say this in all seriousness - even if he was found to be "dirty" i would not change my attitude towards him. Along the same lines Tiger is still my golfing hero - even more so now cos he is a mad shagger ha ha


Hmmm. So being a disgraced cheat wouldn't matter? To be honest, I dislike him as a person, the cheating is secondary and as we all know, pretty much the whole top ten of that era were very, very naughty boys indeed. What does stick in the throat though is the repeated lies and bullshit that he has used to defend himself with. Also the bullying of anyone who dares to speak up (Bassons, Simeoni etc). 

Tiger isn't much of a comparison, he might be a loose trousered knicker dropper but that has nothing to do with his sport.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Aug 2010)

So, was Indurain a doper? Started as a no hoper, miraculous transformation to GC contender, dominated for years. Sounds like someone else.

If not, how do you build a team around someone so outstanding, capable of sticking with him, to get him onto the podium?

And if you are on a team where people in the teem cheat does that make you a cheat too in what is essentially an individual competition where the teams are subordinate?


----------



## zimzum42 (6 Aug 2010)

Indurain was blatantly juiced to some extent, but he was still a physical freak and a legendary rider.

Mercx was juiced, doesn't stop him being a great rider...


They are all juiced in some way or other, even all the legal supplements and stuff are crazy, compared to you and I with a bowl of pasta and a coffee...


----------



## Crackle (6 Aug 2010)

My money on the last clean winner would be Lemond and before him Roche and Delgado were a bit iffy.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

Crackle said:


> My money on the last clean winner would be Lemond and before him Roche and Delgado were a bit iffy.


Delgado was more than just iffy! Lemond sticks out like a sore thumb but I'd put a _very_ small amount of money on Bertie being clean this year. Of course I could be wrong...


----------



## Rohloff_Brompton_Rider (6 Aug 2010)

sorry to butt in guys, i'm confused, isn't LA the most tested sportsman the world has ever seen? didn't all his tests prove him negative?

i must admit i have not followed it too closely, but as it is getting interesting, i'm starting to read archived news.

it does smack of the michel jackson child molester witch hunt which ended in nothing.

surely they will still have blood samples from the years in question, can they not just test them with todays technology?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (6 Aug 2010)

> isn't LA the most tested sportsman the world has ever seen?


This was often spouted by LA, but was apparently completely unsubstantiated.



> surely they will still have blood samples from the years in question, can they not just test them with todays technology?


They have; he failed. But it can't be used as 'evidence'.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

Tim Bennet. said:


> They have; he failed. But it can't be used as 'evidence'.


To be strictly accurate it was his urine samples from the 1999 Tour that were re-tested in 2005. They tested positive for EPO but there was no ‘B’ sample to confirm the results.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Aug 2010)

Sastre was the last clean winner of the TDF.


----------



## Hont (6 Aug 2010)

GregCollins said:


> I harbour huge suspicions about _everyone_ involved in the 99-07 era and flippin' strong ones about the people involved today. Even those from close to home. When I find myself thinking "How does he do that?" these days, when someone comes back from the dead better than Lazarus, I think I'm entitled to be suspicious.


A good state of mind to have IMHO. If everyone was more questioning then it _may_ force the corrupt forces in sport away. Unquestioning support will only end in sports that are rotten from top to bottom.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Sastre was the last clean winner of the TDF.


Oops! Everyone forgets about poor old Carlos.


----------



## Hont (6 Aug 2010)

Tim Bennet. said:


> Mad shagging is not against the rules of golf.


 No but it's not good etiquette.  



Greg Collins. said:


> So, was Indurain a doper?


A massive rider who climbed mountains with the smallest of mountain specialists during the period when EPO was available but undetectable. I think you can work it out for yourself.



bromptonfb. said:


> it does smack of the michel jackson child molester witch hunt which ended in nothing.


I think what you meant to say there was; it does smack of the Michael Jackson child molester investigation which ended in Jackson paying off his accusers.



lukesdad. said:


> Sastre was the last clean winner of the TDF.


For what it's worth I believe in Sastre as well.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (6 Aug 2010)

> To be strictly accurate it was his urine samples from the 1999 Tour that were re-tested in 2005. They tested positive for EPO but there was no ‘B’ sample to confirm the results.


I bow to the nit picking exactitude of my learned friend.

But still seems dodgy.


----------



## Crackle (6 Aug 2010)

lukesdad said:


> Sastre was the last clean winner of the TDF.



Was he? I must admit to not knowing a lot about him, I just assumed he was in the Pantani vein. For some reason, the year he won was not a year I followed racing at all.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Oops! Everyone forgets about poor old Carlos.


 
I think you coul bracket poor old cuddles there too.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (6 Aug 2010)

> Mad shagging is not against the rules of golf
> No but it's not good etiquette.


Apparently it's only bad form if you leave indents on the green.
And then only if said indents lay between you opponent's ball and the hole.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Aug 2010)

Crackle said:


> Was he? I must admit to not knowing a lot about him, I just assumed he was in the Pantani vein. For some reason, the year he won was not a year I followed racing at all.


Get a copy of overcomming, Crackle. Its quite moving, And you ll see why Carlos could never dope.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

lukesdad said:


> I think you coul bracket poor old cuddles there too.


Eh? When did Cuddles win the Tour then? Did I miss a year?!


----------



## Hont (6 Aug 2010)

Tim Bennet. said:


> I bow to the nit picking exactitude of my learned friend.


Nit picking exactitude that falls short unfortunately. There were B samples. It was the B samples that they retrospectively tested. The A samples had been tested at the time (1999) so were obviously not available. The reason that the tests were not allowed as evidence were technical or procedural errors at the lab (IIRC - not a scientist I'm afraid).


----------



## lukesdad (6 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Eh? When did Cuddles win the Tour then? Did I miss a year?!


Sorry you misunderstood,........In the "poor old vein" for the era, is what I meant, but for the cheats he may well have done.


----------



## Hont (6 Aug 2010)

Tim Bennet. said:


> Apparently it's only bad form if you leave indents on the green.
> And then only if said indents lay between you opponent's ball and the hole.


Can one purchase a Mad Shagging repair fork?


----------



## Vidor06 (6 Aug 2010)

I have just finished reading Bill Strickland's Tour de Lance and while the book started off as LA hero worship the further I went the more the author and I were questioning Armstrong and his achievements. When basically everyone on the podium with him in his 7 wins is either a cheat or tainted then you have to question how he was so much better than the cheats.

Until I read the book I was very much in the innocent until proven guilty camp but I must say the evidence both from results and witnesses is becoming increasingly damning.

With regards to the 1999 'failed' samples it is my understanding that those samples were supposed to be anonymous and therefore he got the case thrown out of court when they were linked to him as if they knew the samples were his then they must be tainted in some way.


----------



## rich p (6 Aug 2010)

I strongly suspect that, even if LA is shown beyond all doubt to have been a doper, and it's surely just a matter of time, the large majority of his fans and general public will still admire him. His comeback from cancer, his subsequent discovery awareness campaign and the fact that they'll say he was merely levelling the playing field amongst the other dopers.

One striking thing about Armstrong is that despite many of his rivals being found guilty of doping, such as Pantani and Ullrich, he never came out and pilloried those cheating toe-rags for trying to beat him by unfair means which would certainly have been my reaction. 
He also never went on record saying how terrible it was that Heras, Landis, Hamilton were to resort to dopage and even went the opposite way of offering them public support. Curious.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Aug 2010)

more likely most of us will shrug and sigh and say "see, it proves they were/are all dopers" which in a way, it will.

as for the long after the event +ve B sample, which was a fairly major 'smoking gun', I think it would be a splendid idea if journalists took over the oversight of drugs testing in sport. Guaranteed to be fair and balanced then.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

Hont said:


> Nit picking exactitude that falls short unfortunately. There were B samples. It was the B samples that they retrospectively tested. The A samples had been tested at the time (1999) so were obviously not available. The reason that the tests were not allowed as evidence were technical or procedural errors at the lab (IIRC - not a scientist I'm afraid).


I bow to my colleagues superior nit-pickery! 
Basically they only had one lot of wee to conduct the retropective tests on so couldn't conduct a B test.

Wish I hadn't given away my copy of Lance to Landis as it dealt with this in some detail, including the way that the jourmalist managed to connect the samples with the riders they belonged to.


----------



## Hont (6 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> I bow to my colleagues superior nit-pickery!


I pride myself on my urine expertise.


----------



## Chuffy (6 Aug 2010)

Hont said:


> I pride myself on my urine expertise.


And there was me just thinking you were taking the piss.

<exits with coat>


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Wish I hadn't given away my copy of Lance to Landis as it dealt with this in some detail, including the way that the jourmalist managed to connect the samples with the riders they belonged to.



from http://www.ergogenics.org/78.html

"However, L'Equipe said it was able to make the match. It printed photos of what it said were official doping documents. On one side of the page, it showed what it said were the results of EPO tests from anonymous riders used for lab research. On the other, it showed Armstrong's medical certificates, signed by doctors and riders after doping tests -- and bearing the same identifying number printed on the results. The lab statement said it had promised to turn over its results to the World Anti-Doping Agency "on condition that they could not be used in any disciplinary proceeding.""


----------



## mangaman (7 Aug 2010)

GregCollins said:


> So, was Indurain a doper? Started as a no hoper, miraculous transformation to GC contender, dominated for years. Sounds like someone else.
> 
> If not, how do you build a team around someone so outstanding, capable of sticking with him, to get him onto the podium?
> 
> And if you are on a team where people in the teem cheat does that make you a cheat too in what is essentially an individual competition where the teams are subordinate?



They were all iffy from 1st to last. 

The EPO era transformed cycling as it actually favoured some riders (those with a naturally low haematocrit will benefit than those with a higher natural haematocrit).

Mercxz / Hinauld et al took drugs that were largely ineffective and just gave a cheap power boost at a critical stage.

Indurain was a decent rider before his TDF winning run - he finished 17th then 10th in the years up to his 1st win - whichseems a natural progression.

He was surely the 1st to have been "done" by the EPO generation. I remember well Riis "cracking "him as well as Ullrich - both confessed dopers. Indurain is the last of the great champions of the sport for me- always the gentleman - amazing athlete - won 2 giros as well as the TDF.

I'd be amazed if he took EPO as it wasn't around at the start of his career, and he didn't have a sudden jump in performance like Riis did. He was just a consistant, superb athlete. And still is allegedly - rides a lot of sportives etc now apparantly.


----------



## lukesdad (7 Aug 2010)

Superb athlete my foot . Last time I saw him he was a fat git.


----------



## Hont (7 Aug 2010)

mangaman said:


> He was surely the 1st to have been "done" by the EPO generation. I'd be amazed if he took EPO as it wasn't around at the start of his career


Couldn't disagree more. IMO he was the first guy to really benefit from EPO. Guys as big as Indurain do not go up mountains as well as he did without chemical assistance.

"When I saw riders with fat arses climbing cols like aeroplanes, I understood what was happening."

- Luis Herrera

EPO first became available in 1987. After which time Indurain gradually becomes a tour contender (after abandons in 85 and 86). He beat Riis in 93 and 95 despite the fact that Riis has confessed to using EPO from 93-96. He won the Giro/Tour double twice which, as we see this year, appears to near impossible to do riding clean and I well remember him sprinting away from Lemond at a mountain top finish at Luz Ardiden in 1990. Shades of George Hincapie in 2005.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Aug 2010)

mangaman said:


> Mercxz / Hinauld et al took drugs that were largely ineffective and just gave a cheap power boost at a critical stage.


You're thinking of amphetamines. Riders of the Merckx/Hinault era would have been taking corticosteroids which help recovery. Not in the same league as EPO, but certainly not a one-shot power boost. Bernard Thevenet (TdF winner in 75 and 77) was on cortisone.


----------



## User169 (7 Aug 2010)

Hont said:


> Couldn't disagree more. IMO he was the first guy to really benefit from EPO. Guys as big as Indurain do not go up mountains as well as he did without chemical assistance.
> 
> "When I saw riders with fat arses climbing cols like aeroplanes, I understood what was happening."
> 
> ...



'87 sounds early to me. Epogen was only approved by the FDA in '89, although I suppose there might have been sources prior to that.

The Herrera quote is interesting - he made it in the context of giving reasons for retiring from pro-cycling. He retired in '92 which suggests that usage had become widespread in the early '90s.


----------



## akaAndrew (7 Aug 2010)

rich p said:


> I strongly suspect that, even if LA is shown beyond all doubt to have been a doper, and it's surely just a matter of time, the large majority of his fans and general public will still admire him..



That might well be tarnished too, should this be true...  he caused his own cancer!!

Not even I (or yello for that matter) could go quite THAT far but it is interesting to read what some people believe.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Aug 2010)

akaAndrew said:


> That might well be tarnished too, should this be true...  he caused his own cancer!!
> 
> Not even I (or yello for that matter) could go quite THAT far but it is interesting to read what some people believe.


It's not just a punch drunk fighter's fantasy. There has been concern that there might be a link between PEDs and testicular cancer. Check out this abstract and note that their study started in 1990. Unsurprisingly, when Lance's cancer was diagnosed there were eyebrows raised because of this suspected link.


----------



## johnr (7 Aug 2010)

But won't the issues in this investigation be more legal/procedural that scientific/pharmacological? The risk to riders is getting done for perjury, not cheating. Presumably it'll need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but with witnesses piling in describing in detail what went on, LA's 'I was tested' defence will get thinner. I suppose what he has said on oath is the main issue.


----------



## akaAndrew (7 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> It's not just a punch drunk fighter's fantasy.




Sorry, yes, I know there's talk of a link and it's been researched etc. Plus, intuitively, one might make the assumption that frequent sticking of testosterone patches to your gnads isn't the best of things to go doing for your long term health BUT... even if LA were doing such things, I'd hardly go suggesting he got what he deserved. That's what I meant by going too far!

My veiled point really was that he'd definitely lose the sympathy and support of many people if it were the case.

Got to say though, it's not looking good for Armstrong at the moment. But I don't reckon he'll be the only one to fall. Just the one that'll make the headlines. To me, it seems the Feds investigation has a broader remit than just 'get LA'. He's just going to be caught in the cross-fire, as it were. A big catch in a related trawl.

Anybody read the forums on Cycling News? Blimey, you don't want to be a 'fanboy' over there! I thought I was a hater but I'm lilly livered compared to many of them!! Good source of info though. Since my recent conversion to the dark side of loving cancer, I've found out a lot of stuff (and read considered opinion) over there.


----------



## akaAndrew (7 Aug 2010)

johnr said:


> But won't the issues in this investigation be more legal/procedural that scientific/pharmacological?



I've been pondering this very point. There's a great deal of conjecture about the fall of Livestrong/Armstrong etc but I don't really know exactly what the Feds are concentrating on (evidence wise), what they themselves will use in any charges brought and in the following trials etc. Their remit was (I thought) the use/misuse of federal funds within the US Postal Team. That will take them into the 'did USPS dope?' line of investigation but whether they'll really give a damn about exactly who did or didn't dope, or when or how, I just dunno.

It may well just be financial/legal charges filed by the Feds. Obviously, if LA is directly implicated then that will set off a chain of events. It would be interesting, to me at least, to know exactly what the Feds will do with any direct evidence of riders doping; if they'll make it available to UCI etc, or just sit on it.

...but all will be revealed in the fullness of time.


----------



## Chuffy (7 Aug 2010)

akaAndrew said:


> I've been pondering this very point. There's a great deal of conjecture about the fall of Livestrong/Armstrong etc but I don't really know exactly what the Feds are concentrating on (evidence wise), what they themselves will use in any charges brought and in the following trials etc. Their remit was (I thought) the use/misuse of federal funds within the US Postal Team. That will take them into the 'did USPS dope?' line of investigation but whether they'll really give a damn about exactly who did or didn't dope, or when or how, I just dunno.
> 
> It may well just be financial/legal charges filed by the Feds. Obviously, if LA is directly implicated then that will set off a chain of events. It would be interesting, to me at least, to know exactly what the Feds will do with any direct evidence of riders doping; if they'll make it available to UCI etc, or just sit on it.
> 
> ...but all will be revealed in the fullness of time.


Thoughtful stuff. It's easy to get overexcited by the investigation and I do wonder if the UCI will take any action, regardless of what the Feds turn up. I would fully expect the UCI to sit on things and do nothing. After all, He has retired, other riders (Hincapie, Leipheimer) are either retired or near retirement and it's all ancient history isn't it? I'm sure they would rather let sleeping dogs lie. For me, that isn't good enough. If USP/Disco can be definitively exposed then at last we'll have a chance to draw a line under the whole era. Op Peurto ripped off half the scab but there's still lots of nastiness festering beneath. Plus, there's a better chance that the likes of Bruyneel can be got rid of. Finally, it might just bring home to the current peloton that no-one, _no-one_, is immune. That should scare the crap out of a few people who need shaking up.

But as you say, it may be that the Feds treat this as a fraud case which just happens to coincide with sport. Unless the UCI et al are prepared to listen and act then it's all pretty meaningless.


----------



## stampedingviking (7 Aug 2010)

JNR said:


> I just want to find out where I can get me some EPO!



I've got a fridge full 


















Because I'm on haemodialysis, not for any other reason though.


----------



## akaAndrew (7 Aug 2010)

The fact that the investigators offered this 'amnesty' to ex-USPS riders is what made me think. Basically, they don't give a damn *who *doped, they're just interested in whether state funds paid *for* doping. They'll nail anyone that lies to them for perjury but they won't bring doping charges against individuals who might confess. Why? Because it's not their remit, that's why. They're not interested.

I don't know Armstrong's level of involvement with USPS's 'training' program. There have been allegations that Armstrong insisted his team come 'up to standard' with the European doping programmes but what truth there is in that is anyone's guess. And will the Feds even really care about that anyway? 

So, as I read it, Armstrong could come out of this tarnished only by association. A scratch but nothing damning, and certainly insufficient to dent the adoration of the legions of followers.

My hope is, even if the Feds do have a limit, that they could still potentially stir things up enough for UCI to return the donations and finally do something. Because, for myself, I think was a Armstrong was a systematic doper (no proof, just from what I've read) at some point in his career. He was, no doubt, among many others but nobody has quite built their store around it quite like he has.


----------



## Noodley (7 Aug 2010)

akaAndrew said:


> Armstrong could come out of this tarnished only by association. A scratch but nothing damning, and certainly insufficient to dent the adoration of the legions of followers.



Armstrong could be pictured walking away with syringes in his hands and his legions of fans would say he was trying to help by removing temptation....


----------



## mangaman (8 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Thoughtful stuff. It's easy to get overexcited by the investigation and I do wonder if the UCI will take any action, regardless of what the Feds turn up. I would fully expect the UCI to sit on things and do nothing. After all, He has retired, other riders (Hincapie, Leipheimer) are either retired or near retirement and it's all ancient history isn't it? I'm sure they would rather let sleeping dogs lie. For me, that isn't good enough. If USP/Disco can be definitively exposed then at last we'll have a chance to draw a line under the whole era. Op Peurto ripped off half the scab but there's still lots of nastiness festering beneath. Plus, there's a better chance that the likes of Bruyneel can be got rid of. Finally, it might just bring home to the current peloton that no-one, _no-one_, is immune. That should scare the crap out of a few people who need shaking up.
> 
> But as you say, it may be that the Feds treat this as a fraud case which just happens to coincide with sport. Unless the UCI et al are prepared to listen and act then it's all pretty meaningless.



Interersting Chuffy.

You never know with the FBI - they could decide to get heavy on Armstrong - on his alleged misappropriation of USPS money- and, I'm sure, misrepresentation of his image rights for monetary gain (if they prove he doped).

Either that or they'll gloss everything and Armstrong will retire into an increasingly underwhelming "celebrity" in the US - I see celebrity-based crap shows in his future.

OR they'll pull out all the FBI stops, and reveal they have been tapping his phone to Bruyneel for years, which wouldn't look so good. (for example)

They are an odd and hard to predict organisation!

Also - I agree with Delfse. The widespread use of EPO began during Indurain's career. Indurain's stats are the same throughout his career. Suddenly he is outperformed by Riis and Ullrich in 1996 and we know why now.

Indurain was doing the same years earlier - since 1991 - yet no-one could live with him until the self confessed T-mobile 1996 doped up winner Riis and his sidekick Ullrich.

I think most people would agree Indurain was the best GT time-trialler ever. He held on in the mountains - nothing more really.

He certainly couldn' t dominate nearly 7 years of TTs in the TDF and still attack in the mountains a la Armstrong. 

That's the stuff of fairy tales


----------



## wafflycat (8 Aug 2010)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-officials-speak-with-federal-investigators


----------



## Chuffy (8 Aug 2010)

mangaman said:


> Indurain was doing the same years earlier - since 1991 - yet no-one could live with him until the self confessed T-mobile 1996 doped up winner Riis and his sidekick Ullrich.
> 
> I think most people would agree Indurain was the best GT time-trialler ever. He held on in the mountains - nothing more really.
> 
> ...


Not so: "[size="-1"]Indurain, however, could more than just hold on in the mountains. He was an accomplished climber and could apply pressure in the mountains as well. In addition, he was a force on the flats due to his large frame."[/size]
I thought that part of his particular legend was the way that he would 'gift' victories to the other riders, particularly those who he had been climbing with? That's not someone 'hanging on'. As for being beaten by the T-Mobile blood brothers, well that would just be the natural progression from one generation to another, being juiced to the ears doesn't make you invincible and doesn't stop you from getting older.


----------



## Crackle (8 Aug 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> '87 sounds early to me. Epogen was only approved by the FDA in '89, although I suppose there might have been sources prior to that.
> 
> The Herrera quote is interesting - he made it in the context of giving reasons for retiring from pro-cycling. He retired in '92 which suggests that usage had become widespread in the early '90s.



Roche is rumoured to have used it in '87 for his double


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Thoughtful stuff. It's easy to get overexcited by the investigation and I do wonder if the UCI will take any action, regardless of what the Feds turn up. I would fully expect the UCI to sit on things and do nothing. After all, He has retired, other riders (Hincapie, Leipheimer) are either retired or near retirement and it's all ancient history isn't it? I'm sure they would rather let sleeping dogs lie. For me, that isn't good enough. If USP/Disco can be definitively exposed then at last we'll have a chance to draw a line under the whole era. Op Peurto ripped off half the scab but there's still lots of nastiness festering beneath. Plus, there's a better chance that the likes of Bruyneel can be got rid of. Finally, it might just bring home to the current peloton that no-one, _no-one_, is immune. That should scare the crap out of a few people who need shaking up.
> 
> But as you say, it may be that the Feds treat this as a fraud case which just happens to coincide with sport. Unless the UCI et al are prepared to listen and act then it's all pretty meaningless.


but how far back would you go? If Armstrong was condemned as a drug cheat the UCI would have to start tracking back to....Indurain? Hinault? I'm not arguing with your consistency, but, taken to the limit, cycling history would disappear in a cloud of syringes. And what good would it do?


----------



## Chuffy (8 Aug 2010)

akaAndrew said:


> Anybody read the forums on Cycling News? Blimey, you don't want to be a 'fanboy' over there! I thought I was a hater but I'm lilly livered compared to many of them!! Good source of info though. Since my recent conversion to the dark side of loving cancer, I've found out a lot of stuff (and read considered opinion) over there.


Bloody hellfire! I'm circling it like a stray pube going round the plughole. Sooner or later I'm going to be sucked in forever....
Like you say, very informative and I feel like a complete amateur!

EDIT: one of the guys on there has teh best avatar.


----------



## Hont (9 Aug 2010)

The LA thread is currently running to 671 pages.


----------



## Hont (9 Aug 2010)

mangaman said:


> He held on in the mountains - nothing more really.


That statement is not born out by the facts unfortunately. As well as Luz Ardiden, which I've mentioned, there are numerous other occasions when he arrived at the top in the lead group and gifted the stage. e.g. 1991 at Val Louron when it was just him and Chiappucci. 

Dropping Lemond, Fignon, Hampsten and Delgado is more than just "hanging on".


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Bloody hellfire! I'm circling it like a stray pube going round the plughole. Sooner or later I'm going to be sucked in forever....Like you say, very informative and I feel like a complete amateur!



Take the plunge! Seriously. Yes, there's the normal is/isn't type of debates but there's also some folk over there that know the US cycling scene in depth, know various players and (seemingly) get inside info. I suspect there are some there that have even been (or still are) involved in these things; i.e. not armchair commentators like me and thee! 

I wouldn't dream of entering the debates but admire the perspective and knowledge of many of the debates over there. And if you want a laugh, look out for WonderLance!

Edit: btw, it was from reading the posts and opinions there that made my conversion to the dark side complete.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Aug 2010)

yello said:


> Take the plunge! Seriously. Yes, there's the normal is/isn't type of debates but there's also some folk over there that know the US cycling scene in depth, know various players and (seemingly) get inside info. I suspect there are some there that have even been (or still are) involved in these things; i.e. not armchair commentators like me and thee!
> 
> I wouldn't dream of entering the debates but admire the perspective and knowledge of many of the debates over there. And if you want a laugh, look out for WonderLance!
> 
> Edit: btw, it was from reading the posts and opinions there that made my conversion to the dark side complete.


Heh. I had a 'quick look' and surfaced over an hour later. I'm _so_ going to get sacked!  
Yes, lots of the usual armchair bullshit (guilty as charged up m'lud) but lots of useful info. Do you read Toto? I've been enjoying that for a while now but many of the references go over my head, mainly because I don't know about the US scene. Looks like I might have a chance to pick up on some of those gags now. Cool.  

They don't seem to like Wiggy much!


----------



## kennykool (9 Aug 2010)

Hont said:


> Can't believe anyone who follows cycling thinks this. It's following cycling that has taught me to question _every_ outstanding physical performance in sport (not just cycling but athletics, tennis, football, rugby etc.).
> 
> There's nothing wrong with wanting to believe that someone is clean, but believing it despite all of the indicators to the contrary is denial.



What indicators?


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Do you read Toto? I've been enjoying that for a while now but many of the references go over my head



Yes, and I have the same problem. Also,I don't always recognise the faces tbh and it takes me a little while to work out who they are.

David Millar comes in for some stick to on the forum too. Generally, regarding Armstrong, you get the impression that for some people that it's not a question of 'if' rather than 'when'. And they're deadly serious, convinced of it. Incredible really. There are those that think he's doped from way early, in the pre cycling triathlon days. He's just carried it on into cycling and USPS and, if it's to be believed, pretty much ensured the other riders on the team did too. This all coming from US based cyclists too. Guys that know more of the scene than we do. And to think that the line 'the French hate Armstrong' is such a mantra!


----------



## adam23 (9 Aug 2010)

been following this for days now and trying to make my own mind up and just not sure.
is it typical UK mentality that hates success and any one doing well or is it true about what he has done, i have read loads on here and other sites about
every other rider in the 90's been on drugs who knows who might have one.
if it was a rife as they say then his 7 wins were OK cause the other riders on happy pills just still wernt as good who knows.
i got into cycling very recently and then got a road bike after watching the tour so i look at guys like lance in ore of what they have done and can do 
on a bike drugs or not i couldn't do it.
i watched the tom Simpson doco on BBC4 last week and thought wow what a great rider and racer until they said he loved to abuse tablets to help him perform
my heart sank and although i thought he was super fit i felt a bit cheated, and then he paid the ultimate price and dropped dead and if we are to judge lance like we all
are (well most of) then Simpson should be as well cause lots of people call him a hero.
if the guys on the cycle news forum are right and lance gets stripped or an asterisk by his name then every other sports man or woman should have there's stripped 
and any one who ever tested positive for drugs.
i am still not sure what to believe cause a bit of me hopes its not true but will we ever really know i doubt it tbh


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2010)

adam23 said:


> my heart sank and although i thought he was super fit i felt a bit cheated



I know what you mean adam. I've had the same thing happen to me; not with Tom Simpson but with other riders. I had to adopt a specific attitude to doping to stop me getting too upset by it all. Thing is, cycling has a drug problem. And has had for many years. People can disagree about the scale but there's no doubting that some riders dope. It's in other sports too obviously, but I'm not so interested in them. It just comes as a real smack in the face when the innocent spectator has to deal with the reality of an athletes performance, that they doped.

It's such a complex balance of pressures and expectations. Teams expect results because that's what sponsors want. That gets dumped on the riders shoulders. And they have their own ambitions too. So I do have some sympathy for riders having to compete against a drug culture as well as race but theirs is the ultimate decision. They can say no and race clean. Doping isn't compulsory.

Do keep in mind that you don't have to decide. On doping in cycling generally, or Armstrong specifically. You can stay neutral. In all seriousness, there isn't enough information in the public arena for any one of us to know the truth. All any 'hater' can say is that they've had reason to question the performances, so assessed the facts available, digested the rumour and opinion, and come to a conclusion for themselves... based on whatever criteria they feel works for them. Don't go there if you don't want to. Keep an open mind and just see what happens.


----------



## Hont (9 Aug 2010)

> All any 'hater' can say is that they've had reason to question the performances



Don't mistake being convinced of doping with "hating". I don't hate Indurain (actually quite respect him), but I'm 100% sure he doped. I don't hate Armstrong because he doped - and he did (it's more than just his performances as a quick search will reveal). 

I do, however, strongly dislike him for other actions he has taken.



> They can say no and race clean. Doping isn't compulsory



Certainly that appears to be the case now, but in the mid-90s I'm not so sure. The choice was more: dope or don't race. That's one of the reasons why I don't "hate" Indurain or Ullrich, or actually blame Armstrong (until his comeback) for that matter. Everyone doped. 



> Keep an open mind



I wouldn't. You will only be disappointed.


----------



## yello (9 Aug 2010)

Pretty much agree with everything you say there Hont. I use 'hater' more as a term to denote those that question Armstrong as opposed to those that literally hate him. I don't 'hate' him per se, I don't know him, but I certainly count myself among the group labelled as 'haters'.... if that makes sense. Equally, I like Ulrich and would call myself a fan but completely accept that he doped.

I'd like to read about the drug culture that existed in teams during the 90s. I don't think that lid has really been publicly lifted yet has it? Praps still to fresh and some of the players are still around. But maybe someone like David Millar will do it when he retires. I'm sure there's still a reticence to 'spit in the soup'.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Aug 2010)

'Hater' is a term coined by the fanboys, as in the immortal phrase "all you haters are just jealous", various flavours (and spellings) of which can be found all over the place online. Personally I'd take it as a badge of honour, but it certainly isn't literal.

Well, not _absolutely_ literal. 


Millar? I hope so (and apparently Fat Jan is writing a book too...) but as I think he made a pragmatic decision to rejoin pro-cycling and not name names (as opposed to blowing the lid off, being ignored and being reduced to running a crappy bar somewhere) I wouldn't bank on it being anytime soon.


----------



## Chuffy (9 Aug 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> but how far back would you go? If Armstrong was condemned as a drug cheat the UCI would have to start tracking back to....Indurain? Hinault? I'm not arguing with your consistency, but, taken to the limit, cycling history would disappear in a cloud of syringes. And what good would it do?


Suggesting the UCI should (or would) look back and start stripping the record books is just silly. That won't happen and you know it. What happened with Armstrong (and his teams) is recent enough to be worthy of investigation and clarification, especially since the man himself chose to come out of retirement and Bruyneel is still an active team manager. Cycling history _is_ a cloud of syringes, but letting sleeping dogs lie (and lie again) is a surefire way of guaranteeing that it's future will be also. If you think that is acceptable and that what was ok for the Pelissier brothers, Coppi, Anquetil and the rest is good enough for modern cycling then we'll just have to agree to differ. If you would prefer that cycling got this persistent monkey off it's back then maybe retrospective investigations like this one are the way to go.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Aug 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Suggesting the UCI should (or would) look back and start stripping the record books is just silly. That won't happen and you know it. What happened with Armstrong (and his teams) is recent enough to be worthy of investigation and clarification, especially since the man himself chose to come out of retirement and Bruyneel is still an active team manager. Cycling history _is_ a cloud of syringes, but letting sleeping dogs lie (and lie again) is a surefire way of guaranteeing that it's future will be also. If you think that is acceptable and that what was ok for the Pelissier brothers, Coppi, Anquetil and the rest is good enough for modern cycling then we'll just have to agree to differ. If you would prefer that cycling got this persistent monkey off it's back then maybe retrospective investigations like this one are the way to go.


I was just asking.........


----------



## Crankarm (19 Aug 2010)

http://www.canada.com/health/Steroi...gn=Feed:+canwest/F71+(canada.com+Sports+News)

Will Jeff Novitzky FDA Special Agent and former IRS bloodhound snare Armstrong? He got Marion Jones who was stripped of her 5 gold medals.


----------



## yello (22 Aug 2010)

Crankarm said:


> Will Jeff Novitzky FDA Special Agent and former IRS bloodhound snare Armstrong?



LA might well get tangled up in the net, that's for sure.

It should be remembered that the FDA is not after Armstrong per se. It's primarily investigating the abuse of federal funds within the US postal team years ago. It's investigating claims of drug use within the team only to ascertain if that was what the funds were used for. 

They have an almighty stick to threaten/tempt riders into telling them the truth as well. Note that the ex baseball pitcher Roger Clemens is currently being indicted for lying whilst on oath. A charge that, if proven, he faces a *30 year* prison sentence for! 

Tell me, what would you do? Keep the omerta and risk 30 years inside, or shop your colleagues?


----------



## Panter (22 Aug 2010)

Well, this is an interesting thread  


(and I mean that quite sincerely BTW)


----------



## mangaman (22 Aug 2010)

yello said:


> LA might well get tangled up in the net, that's for sure.
> 
> It should be remembered that the FDA is not after Armstrong per se. It's primarily investigating the abuse of federal funds within the US postal team years ago. It's investigating claims of drug use within the team only to ascertain if that was what the funds were used for.
> 
> ...



This is, of course, the key.

The FBI getting involved for non-sporting reasons is not good news for US dopers.

Dope testing rarely works - that has been shown time and time again. Millar never failed a test - it was a police sting that nailed him.

The FBI ups the ante somewhat. US sports are notorious for having no doping regulations (baseball / basketball / US football - take a look at these guys and find out hw often they are independently teasted)

I disagree with the earlier comment that everyone doped so Armstrong / Ulrich et al are innocent.

Armstrong's attack on Bassons was the main reason I dislike him. He was the 1st to openly attack, in public, someone for publicly coming out in his newspaper column against drugs (remember in the Festina trial all the riders testified on oath that Bassons was the only clean rider).

Armstrong lost all respect on that stage as far as I am concerned.

He was not then the all conquering TDF winner and the "patron" of the peleton - he hadn't won it once then - he was a rider trying to destroy the career of an anti-doping, clean rider. 

Why? I guess we have to draw our own conclusions.


----------



## Bill Gates (24 Aug 2010)

There must be more column inches devoted to LA doping than any other subject on any other sportsman in history. There is a whole industry devoted to the subject. I've been reading about this on different cycling forums for the last 5 years. Some people have files and files on it and bring up all sorts of obscure stuff to prove some point or other. One thing is for sure it's going to run and run for who knows? Maybe another 5 years.

He doped.

He didn't dope.

I really don't give a monkeys!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mangaman (24 Aug 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> There must be more column inches devoted to LA doping than any other subject on any other sportsman in history. There is a whole industry devoted to the subject. I've been reading about this on different cycling forums for the last 5 years. Some people have files and files on it and bring up all sorts of obscure stuff to prove some point or other. One thing is for sure it's going to run and run for who knows? Maybe another 5 years.
> 
> He doped.
> 
> ...



Thanks Bill.

That's really interesting.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (24 Aug 2010)

Run and run, this particular investigation wont. There's a statute of limitations of, I think off hand, 5 years so they can't take too long over it. That said, the FDA will want to get the facts assembled and their case, should they indite, solid. They'll not rush it.

It's really really interesting reading the various US reports on the web. Be they sports editor opinion pieces for their respective journals, or informed observers and/or fans on blogs. The doubts are creeping in slowly, the erosion to Armstrong's public image is tangible. You have to keep in mind a backdrop of US major sports heroes that have fallen from grace. It's becoming believable to more and more people that Armstrong may have doped. He might not get busted but he'll be bruised.

Personally, I think he's going down. I think he'll be lucky to avoid a jail sentence. There are some potentially hefty charges that could come his way, doping is the least of it. We're talking fraud, embezzlement, even drug trafficking. Seriously, it doesn't look good for him and he's lawyering up.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (25 Aug 2010)

yello said:


> Seriously, it doesn't look good for him and he's lawyering up.




It's more serious than that, he's assembling a crack PR team.


----------



## rich p (25 Aug 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It's more serious than that, he's assembling a crack PR team.




EPO and blood doping I'd heard but crack!

The man's a menace.


----------



## yello (25 Aug 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> It's more serious than that, he's assembling a crack PR team.




The dream team, Mark Fabiani. As employed by many a politician, including Bill Clinton to help him get out of the 'mess on a dress-gate'. Ah yes, a bj is not "sexual relations".... I look forward to EPO not being dope.

That said, his first salvo into the PR war was not very original really... 'Landis is not a credible witness'. I think we all have that reservation. Then came the normal Armstrong-like deflection/distraction comment 'salmonella in the US, recall of 380 million eggs, why are the FDA wasting money looking into a bike race that happened years ago'.... ah yes, move along now, nothing to see. But I appreciate his difficulty when he doesn't really know what to respond to; they only have Landis's now public allegations. What else is there? Who else has the FDA spoken to? And what have they said? If they 'respond' too much in advance, they actually draw attention and become in danger of 'protesting too much' and people start asking what there is to be afraid of.  

So I find it interesting that Armstrong feels the needs to pay someone big money to respond at all, ahead of any formal FDA charges or allegations. As I've said before, the FDA are not looking specifically at him, not officially at any rate. They are keeping quiet, and that must be unnerving (understandably) for everyone that was involved in the running of USPS. It must be getting warm in Texas.


----------



## raindog (25 Aug 2010)

Hey yello, we've had a major software glitch over on FF and the whole cycling section has been lost! 
We could sure use some help getting it built up again.

(sorry about the drift there - carry on!)


----------



## zacklaws (25 Aug 2010)

yello said:


> Seriously, it doesn't look good for him and he's lawyering up.



Since when did employing a Lawyer become an admission of guilt?


----------



## yello (25 Aug 2010)

It's not and I'm not suggesting it is. I think it's purely PR at this point, image protection. 

Clearly Armstrong feels the need to be expertly responding to whatever twists and turns the investigation takes before any charges have been made. He has said, and rightly so, that he is available to speak to the investigators as and when. I can understand the need for council then but, until that time, there's nothing else he needs do... nothing he _can_ do. Expert perhaps get public opinion on his side... because he has reason to fear it's going to get dented?


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Aug 2010)

to be fair to Armstrong, anything that comes out of any investigation in to cycling is going to be so haphazard and politicised, that, even if he was as pure as driven snow he'd be well advised to do what he's doing.

I'm just wondering, in all honesty, whether any of us believe that we are, one day, going to read The Truth?


----------



## johnr (26 Aug 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> to be fair to Armstrong, anything that comes out of any investigation in to cycling is going to be so haphazard and politicised, that, even if he was as pure as driven snow he'd be well advised to do what he's doing.
> 
> I'm just wondering, in all honesty, whether any of us believe that we are, one day, going to read The Truth?




Only if Tom Bowyer, or a journalist of similar skill and persistence, gets on the case.


----------



## Stange (26 Aug 2010)

johnr said:


> Only if Tom Bowyer, or a journalist of similar skill and persistence, gets on the case.




doesn't David Walsh count?

Really like Tom Bower, his Branson book is excellent.


----------



## mangaman (26 Aug 2010)

Stange said:


> doesn't David Walsh count?
> 
> Really like Tom Bower, his Branson book is excellent.



Or the FBI - unless I'm wrong, they're taking an interest.

They would worry me if I had anything to hide. Journalists can only do so much.


----------



## yello (27 Aug 2010)

Remember, whilst the big name is Armstrong, the investigation is broader than just one man. There are people who already know the truth, and a great many more suspect it. This investigation could show the rest of the world. Personally, I'm hopeful. 

If the investigation does show that doping was systematic within teams then that's got to be a good thing, no? I just hope it's not all dismissed as something that happened 'back then'. There are already many people (like the aforementioned Fabiani) trying to spin it like that. Things may have moved on but I don't think they've changed completely. Yesterday's bright new dawn?... well, someone forgot to set the alarm clock.

Delzeg is right in many ways. It is the way of the world; court cases are fought in papers, chat shows, phone ins, blogs, forums, etc etc etc these days. It's naive to think public opinion isn't part of it. The reason for my commenting is that I think Armstrong doesn't view this as 'ssdd'. This one's hotter than that.

Lord, I love this though. The wait, the silence. Impending.... what?


----------



## laurence (27 Aug 2010)

he's made a statement...

Ar**strong statement


----------



## yello (27 Aug 2010)

Onion....

Oh, you had me for a moment there!


----------

