Armstrong charged and banned

[rich p]

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]

"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]

could this be part of the evidence ?

 

[david k]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The floodgates have been opened....

 

[Flying_Monkey]

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]

Keep up! I already posted that two pages back...

You might be on my ignore list

 

[thom]

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.