Armstrong charged and banned

[rich p]

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

That sounds like it would be quite nice covered in batter

I thought it was a Captain Beefheart album.

d.

 

[Chuffy]

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]

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]

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 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]

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!