The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Noodley]

Has anyone heard from Phil Liggett today yet?

I'm sure he'll be coming up with some real belters "...never failed a, oh shoot,..level playing field, oh shoot...most tested, oh shoot..."

But as someone on said a few weeks ago: one thing you can say about him, once he's bought he stays bought.

 

[Red Light]

Because the amount of doping, the substances, the expertise behind the doping plans varied according to what you could pay Ferrari. Take 20 athletes, all the same - the best doped one wins.

But they weren't all USPS riders and as has been covered before, its difficult to find anyone left in the top ten positions each year who didn't dope. Now I will agree if there was a lantern rouge in the peleton who was at the back because they didn't dope, then clearly it was not a level playing field for them. But the consensus seems to be that all the top positions were incredible riders of their day who became a bit more incredible by using drugs.

 

[yello]

There were many riders that were not doping nor wanting to dope even if they could afford it. That the majority of the podium were doping does not prove 'they were all at it' , merely the effectiveness of the doping regime. Doping should never be, nor have been, a proviso for competing.

 

[dodgy]

If its a myth how do you reconcile that with the USADA statement (p7):

Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping​

I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.

 

[dellzeqq]

I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.

I think that, for me, is the most important thing.

I remember back in the 80s one DS being asked how his team kept on winning. Came the answer 'our chemists are better'. I have always thought that, setting aside a few refuseniks, the playing field was level, but it now appears that USPS did derive an advantage from superior technology.

I love the bit about flushing the drugs down the toilet........................ in a camper van.

 

[smutchin]

Not to mention that different riders respond differently to EPO. Two riders can be on the same doping regime but one will get more of an advantage than the other. This has been mentioned several times both in this thread and the previous one. It's almost as if some people are ignoring such simple facts to suit their own spurious arguments (while ironically at the same time criticising the USADA for appearing to do the same).

d.

 

[totallyfixed]

If you can listen, Radio 5 live now, Saun Yates denying he ever knew anything in Pro cycling was going on - unbelievable, Michael Hutchinson also.

 

[rich p]

I think the reason that people are starting to think it's a myth that widespread doping lead to an even playing field is because USPS obtained exclusivity from some of the top doctors. In other words, their drugs were better and more plentiful than their opponents. In fact, the opening statement from USADA says something along those lines, they hint that doping was widespread amongst many teams, but it was the systematic and controlling manner in which USPS managed doping that 'unevened' the playing field.

Exactly so and many of us have been making that point for a very long time.

 

[rich p]

If you can listen, Radio 5 live now, Saun Yates denying he ever knew anything in Pro cycling was going on - unbelievable, Michael Hutchinson also.

FFS!
Sean Yates was up to his eyeballs in it.
What is more of a concern is that he was on the management side when Armstrong was doping at Disco. His position at Sky would be untenable if he was to fess up in any way.

 

[dodgy]

This is the passage from USADA I was talking about

"The USPS Team doping conspiracy was professionally designed to groom and pressure athletes to use dangerous drugs, to evade detection, to ensure its secrecy and ultimately gain an unfair competitive advantage through superior doping practices"

 

[Crackle]

So now we await:-

- The first litigation to recover monies given to him
- The re-start of the Federal investigation in some form via the Dept. of Justice
- The quiet fading of Armstrong sponsors
- The doo to hit the fan at the UCI

Anything else?

 

[jifdave]

collapse of livestrong? will sponsors still support it?

 

[rich p]

So now we await:-

- The first litigation to recover monies given to him
- The re-start of the Federal investigation in some form via the Dept. of Justice
- The quiet fading of Armstrong sponsors
- The doo to hit the fan at the UCI

Anything else?

I'd like to see some reaction from the peloton now.
I think most of his money has been made from outside actual racing so that money won't be recoverable in the main. He was making upwards of $100,000 for an hour's speaking engagement for donkey's years apart from Livestrong for-profit arm.

 

[totallyfixed]

Radio 5 is very very good right now, ex editor of Cycling News working a knife into Sean Yates as I speak - brilliant.

 

[yello]

He was good but maybe went on a bit and was repeating himself. Perhaps given too much airtime?