Armstrong charged and banned

[Red Light]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I have won the same number of Tour de France titles as Lance Armstrong. woo-hoo.

 

[MichaelM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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')