kedab
Veteran
- Location
- nr cambridge
just cos he never got caught 
The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*
- Thread starter mickle
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Not sure I agree with that. Sometimes a rider dopes without the team being involved, so if the team were banned, that would be the end of that particular sponsor. Not to mention the fact that it's hardly fair.
Oldspice
Senior Member
Lance Armstrong's Tour de France victories will not be reallocated
Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles will not be awarded to any other riders, the International Cycling Union has announced.
Armstrong was stripped of his yellow jerseys for doping by cycling's governing body on Monday.
"The management committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events," said a UCI statement.
American Armstrong crossed the line first every year between 1999 and 2005.
The UCI acknowledged that "a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period - but that while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places".
The body has also ordered Armstrong and others to pay back all prize money from this period, and has commissioned an independent investigation into the whole Armstrong affair. Pending the results of the report, defamation proceedings against Paul Kimmage, a former cyclist and Sunday Times journalist, have been suspended.
The statement added: "The committee agreed that part of the independent commission's remit would be to find ways to ensure that persons caught for doping were no longer able to take part in the sport, including as part of an entourage."
Armstrong, 41, and his United States Postal Service team ran "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen", a 1,000-page United States Anti-Doping Agency report concluded.
In the report, it was also claimed that Armstrong paid the UCI $100,000 (£62,300) for the fight against anti-doping.
Floyd Landis, a former colleague of Armstrong's who now admits to using drugs, claims this was hush money to cover up a positive test for the banned substance EPO that was collected from Armstrong during his victory at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.
The UCI admitted it received money from Armstrong in 2002, but said in 2010 that this was not part of a cover-up.
BBC Sport understands that at Friday's UCI management committee hearing there was an attempt by more than one member to force honorary president Hein Verbruggen to resign, but it did not gain enough support and failed.
Verbruggen and president Pat McQuaid, who has been asked to resign in an open letter by America's three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond, have come under intense pressure to stand aside in the wake of the Armstrong scandal. There was no attempt to get McQuaid to quit.
McQuaid said the governing body are "determined to turn around this painful episode in the history of our sport".
"We will take whatever actions are deemed necessary by the independent commission and we will put cycling back on track," said McQuaid.
"Today, cycling is a completely different sport from what it was in the period 1998-2005.
"Riders are now subject to the most innovative and effective anti-doping procedures and regulations in sport.
"Nevertheless, we have listened to the world's reaction to the Lance Armstrong affair and have taken these additional decisive steps in response to the grave concerns raised."
World anti-doping body Wada said it backed the UCI's decision to create an independent review commission.
British Cycling president Brian Cookson said: "The UCI has taken another worthwhile step in its response to the Usada investigation into Lance Armstrong.
"I can assure everyone that my UCI management committee colleagues and I are unanimous in our determination that this independent commission will just be the start of the process and nothing will be off the agenda.
"Cycling must and will learn the lessons of the Armstrong era."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20103406
Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles will not be awarded to any other riders, the International Cycling Union has announced.
Armstrong was stripped of his yellow jerseys for doping by cycling's governing body on Monday.
"The management committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events," said a UCI statement.
American Armstrong crossed the line first every year between 1999 and 2005.
The UCI acknowledged that "a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period - but that while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places".
The body has also ordered Armstrong and others to pay back all prize money from this period, and has commissioned an independent investigation into the whole Armstrong affair. Pending the results of the report, defamation proceedings against Paul Kimmage, a former cyclist and Sunday Times journalist, have been suspended.
The statement added: "The committee agreed that part of the independent commission's remit would be to find ways to ensure that persons caught for doping were no longer able to take part in the sport, including as part of an entourage."
Armstrong, 41, and his United States Postal Service team ran "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen", a 1,000-page United States Anti-Doping Agency report concluded.
In the report, it was also claimed that Armstrong paid the UCI $100,000 (£62,300) for the fight against anti-doping.
Floyd Landis, a former colleague of Armstrong's who now admits to using drugs, claims this was hush money to cover up a positive test for the banned substance EPO that was collected from Armstrong during his victory at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.
The UCI admitted it received money from Armstrong in 2002, but said in 2010 that this was not part of a cover-up.
BBC Sport understands that at Friday's UCI management committee hearing there was an attempt by more than one member to force honorary president Hein Verbruggen to resign, but it did not gain enough support and failed.
Verbruggen and president Pat McQuaid, who has been asked to resign in an open letter by America's three-time Tour de France winner Greg LeMond, have come under intense pressure to stand aside in the wake of the Armstrong scandal. There was no attempt to get McQuaid to quit.
McQuaid said the governing body are "determined to turn around this painful episode in the history of our sport".
"We will take whatever actions are deemed necessary by the independent commission and we will put cycling back on track," said McQuaid.
"Today, cycling is a completely different sport from what it was in the period 1998-2005.
"Riders are now subject to the most innovative and effective anti-doping procedures and regulations in sport.
"Nevertheless, we have listened to the world's reaction to the Lance Armstrong affair and have taken these additional decisive steps in response to the grave concerns raised."
World anti-doping body Wada said it backed the UCI's decision to create an independent review commission.
British Cycling president Brian Cookson said: "The UCI has taken another worthwhile step in its response to the Usada investigation into Lance Armstrong.
"I can assure everyone that my UCI management committee colleagues and I are unanimous in our determination that this independent commission will just be the start of the process and nothing will be off the agenda.
"Cycling must and will learn the lessons of the Armstrong era."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20103406
Trail Child
Well-Known Member
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
johnr
Über Member
- Location
- Grand depart 2014 county (east)
The strength of Boardman's proposal is that sponsors, managers and fellow riders would all have a vested interest in maintaining a clean team - cheats would be isolated. The downside is clear - a miasma of recrimination, fractures, withdrawals, bankruptcy,
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
You told me it was thanks to his Dad!You bloody newcomers, I got into cycling due to Eugene Christophe
While it might seem harsh I suspect it would be highly effective. Getting caught, and costing 30 - 50 people their jobs would mean you would never get a job in pro cycling again and would probably spend the rest of your life sleeping with one eye open, a ban from UCI/WADA would be the least of your worries. The risks would far outweigh any benefits, especially as it is now harder to dope individually as opposed to part of an organised programme. Teams would move heaven and earth to make sure riders were not doping. I think generally teams in the past have not known because they have not been interested - so long as a rider was performing they didn't ask how.
smutchin
Cat 6 Racer
- Location
- The Red Enclave
Look at FdJ, whose boss, Marc Madiot, is a vocal anti-doper but one of whose riders was recently caught doping.
Look at Rabobank, where Theo de Rooij's laissez-faire attitude to doping has ultimately killed the team.
Then look at Garmin-Slipstream and Sky, and whatever you might think of them and the people involved, the fundamental point about the way those teams are set up is that they actively discourage doping. (It would be hard for them to actually prevent it if a rider were determined to dope, but they also have mechanisms in place to highlight any unusual changes in a rider's performance and/or blood profile.)
It's no longer good enough just to state that the team has an anti-doping policy.
Look at Rabobank, where Theo de Rooij's laissez-faire attitude to doping has ultimately killed the team.
Then look at Garmin-Slipstream and Sky, and whatever you might think of them and the people involved, the fundamental point about the way those teams are set up is that they actively discourage doping. (It would be hard for them to actually prevent it if a rider were determined to dope, but they also have mechanisms in place to highlight any unusual changes in a rider's performance and/or blood profile.)
It's no longer good enough just to state that the team has an anti-doping policy.
My fear is that with the high penalties for the innocent parties (assuming a single maverick ped user) would be a vested interest in not disclosing.
Middle of a successful season, and you suspect one of the riders is corrupt - would they announce this or deal with it in house if it meant losing everything?
The proposalm is unworkable as it would mean Teams would be testing forever their riders and it is already too busy a schedule for that.
As a business proposal it would bankrupt Cycling and any other Sports for that matter.
Put the whip down for a moment and realise that Cycling has less registered athletes than most other organisations, tests more than everyone else, catch more dopers per head than everyone else and has been at cutting edge every step of the way.
How did WADA and its associated national anti doping agencies compare to UCI catching doping cyclists? VERT few and UCI have caught some that slipped through WADA net. DONT believe the HYPE that cycling is that poor we are actually well ahead of most if not everyone even without historic doping culture so we need to be better as well!
It is easy to say why did you not catch them but they are actually out of season longer than in it and at the hands of national anti doping organisations but they have came up with squat!
If you look at what everyone wants you to look at you will read their message and start to believe. Ask yourself WHY do they want me to look/read this and how much DONT I know that they are not showing me?
I have been through a lot of the data and it is shocking what is going on and shameful.
Everyone needs to start Keeping it Real from 2012!
As a business proposal it would bankrupt Cycling and any other Sports for that matter.
Put the whip down for a moment and realise that Cycling has less registered athletes than most other organisations, tests more than everyone else, catch more dopers per head than everyone else and has been at cutting edge every step of the way.
How did WADA and its associated national anti doping agencies compare to UCI catching doping cyclists? VERT few and UCI have caught some that slipped through WADA net. DONT believe the HYPE that cycling is that poor we are actually well ahead of most if not everyone even without historic doping culture so we need to be better as well!
It is easy to say why did you not catch them but they are actually out of season longer than in it and at the hands of national anti doping organisations but they have came up with squat!
If you look at what everyone wants you to look at you will read their message and start to believe. Ask yourself WHY do they want me to look/read this and how much DONT I know that they are not showing me?
I have been through a lot of the data and it is shocking what is going on and shameful.
Everyone needs to start Keeping it Real from 2012!
asterix
Comrade Member
- Location
- Limoges or York
..and it could well be right!
Well said Kittel!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kittel-sick-of-armstrong-supporters
"I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!"
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kittel-sick-of-armstrong-supporters
"I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!"
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
so the clean ones ensure they have contracts that compensate them if one of their fellows is a doper, and penailse them if they turn a blind eye.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
Boardman? I know someone who raced with him. Says he was a freak of nature and clean as a new pin. Doesn't say that about a lot of their contemporaries.just cos he never got caught
