The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[gb155]

Why it is every single rider has all said they stopped in 2006 for the good of the sport ya ya ya

It stinks the way it's coming across

That said, I think it's fair to say lance might have once or twice dabbled

 

[ColinJ]

Why it is every single rider has all said they stopped in 2006 for the good of the sport ya ya ya

LA had retired by then?

"It wos Lance wot made me do it!"

 

[Noodley]

Why it is every single rider has all said they stopped in 2006 for the good of the sport ya ya ya

It stinks the way it's coming across

That said, I think it's fair to say lance might have once or twice dabbled

Is that an admission that he cheated?

 

[gb155]

LA had retired by then?

"It wos Lance wot made me do it!"

But that's what I mean, it stinks, lance forced the whole of postal, discovery etc etc

It's all plea bargains and looks like all statements were copied from a master

 

[gb155]

Is that an admission that he cheated?

He leveled the field

 

[dodgy]

He leveled the field

 

[beastie]

I think Dowsett is entitled to his view. Pro cyclists appreciate the suffering that their fellows have to put themselves through. And, let's face it, LeMond and Armstrong bought a whole lot of money in to the sport.

Ok but...

Alex Dowsett " I don't really think about it, we are all racing clean now"

This just 2 days after one of his contemporaries was popped for ....... oh yes EPO. If he didn't want to shoot in his own nest then a banal reply would have done. I was wrong to call it a copout though, he was very explicit in his views. At least he was prepared to say what he thinks, even though he was ill advised to do so. I bet Brailsford choked on his coffee when he saw that.

 

[smutchin]

Funny you should mention it, as I was about to post this fairly forthright blog post on the subject...
http://stevetilford.com/?p=22105

My own position on this matter is broadly in agreement with comment #15. Personally, I don't for a second believe that Levi et al stopped doping the minute they left USPS. And their remorse rings a bit hollow when it's coming at the end of their career - too little, too late. I think regardless of the bravery shown by those who have come forward, the sanctions the USADA is proposing are far too lenient, especially in Levi's case considering it's not a first offence. But if we keep digging, we'll probably have to end up giving life bans to 90% of the pro peloton, and I'm not entirely convinced that's good for the sport either.

d.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ok but...


This just 2 days after one of his contemporaries was popped for ....... oh yes EPO. If he didn't want to s*** in his own nest then a banal reply would have done. I was wrong to call it a copout though, he was very explicit in his views. At least he was prepared to say what he thinks, even though he was ill advised to do so. I bet Brailsford choked on his coffee when he saw that.

It turns out that the Dowsett quote is two months old, and that he is now saying that he wouldn't shake his hand.........

 

[DogTired]

But that's what I mean, it stinks, lance forced the whole of postal, discovery etc etc

It's all plea bargains and looks like all statements were copied from a master

Consistent witness statements usually add to the strength of the case. If they all said something different then they'd be greater cause for concern, which there isnt.

Unless you meant they copied from a master (taking EPO, steroids, testosterone) and that master was Lance Armstrong???

 

[gb155]

Consistent witness statements usually add to the strength of the case. If they all said something different then they'd be greater cause for concern, which there isnt.

Unless you meant they copied from a master (taking EPO, steroids, testosterone) and that master was Lance Armstrong???

Your missing the point to get your own views aired

It's almost word for word and the fact that they all care so much for Yong riders now, not they are all at the tail end and not in 2006 when doing vanished over night, just screams Bs

 

[Red Light]

No - you've misinterpreted this.

The samples were being used for the detection of substances on the prohibited list (as EPO was). That was the whole point of the research. So they do not need the Athlete's consent. There is nothing in the above text to support your differentiation between "a new test method for EPO, not for testing an athlete for drug use".

The samples were used for the purpose of the detection of substances (EPO, which was on the prohibited list). So the rules allow it. Clear as day.

No they were not. The purpose of the research was to investigate whether a new test worked. It was not to screen the samples for prohibited substances. Just as in the test of a new medical diagnostic the purpose is to see if it works, not to diagnose patients. A subtle but significant difference.

 

[DogTired]

Your missing the point to get your own views aired

It's almost word for word and the fact that they all care so much for Yong riders now, not they are all at the tail end and not in 2006 when doing vanished over night, just screams Bs

Your point regarding witness coherency was being addressed. You need to be specific and provide examples when you say "word for word" and show where it is. As for motives, like you I suspect its not about upcoming Chinese riders. Its probably a whole range of things for each rider.

But I care less about motives than getting the story out.

 

[rich p]

It turns out that the Dowsett quote is two months old, and that he is now saying that he wouldn't shake his hand.........

According to this the quote was from this morning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

 

[Red Light]

Consistent witness statements usually add to the strength of the case. If they all said something different then they'd be greater cause for concern, which there isnt.

Unless you meant they copied from a master (taking EPO, steroids, testosterone) and that master was Lance Armstrong???

Its an easily detected difference in fact I might run them all through some plagiarism detection software to see if they are all common sourced. The difference is similar to lobbying campaigns. Its very easy to see who has written in personally and who has just copied a form response given to them by a lobbying organisation. Yes, if there is a common source of what happened (Lance Armstrong) then the content will be similar but the style in which is is recounted will still be very different person to person if they are personal submissions. And was Lance the common source for them all having the same reason at the same time for giving up?