The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[yello]

Lots of food for thought from McQuaid's press conference yesterday evening....

http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/...30840e-f928-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html

- no plan to challenge USADA sanction
- will consider truth and reconciliation/amnesty
- could appeal to CAS not on evidence but USADA jurisdiction
- IOC member says LA could keep his 2000 olympic bronze
- if 7 TdF titles are stripped they may not be given to anyone else

But one has to keep in mind that McQuaid could well say something totally different next week! I'll be interested to read more of the proposals for the amnesty. (Aside; one of UCI's objections to the USADA case was the possible use of a reduction of sentence for witness testimony but, meh, whatever!)

What also interested me was the IOC statement saying LA could keep his bronze medal....

the matter could turn on different interpretations of the eight-year statute of limitations stipulated in the World Anti-Doping Code.

I don't know what to make of that at the moment. It seems a bit of an incongruous statement so I think I need more context.

 

[Red Light]

I think UCI have 3 options; ratify the USADA decision, appeal it to CAS, or simply ignore it. I doubt they'll appeal it - that could be suicide for them if the evidence of cover-up is there. I don't think they'll ignore it as that'd risk WADA and/or IOC penalties. As I've said before, I think UCI are between a rock and a hard place. I reckon they'll ratify the decision because it's their least damaging option.

I think it will depend very much on what is in the evidence file. If the allegations that UCI was complicit in covering up positive tests is a main part of the body of evidence I don't think they will have a choice but to contest it. Otherwise they will find themselves in the same position as LA is now of guilt by no-contest. But I'd better not go there because discussion that situation here is considered trolling apparently .

 

[yello]

I think it will depend very much on what is in the evidence file. If the allegations that UCI was complicit in covering up positive tests is a main part of the body of evidence I don't think they will have a choice but to contest it.

I wonder whether USADA's reasoned decision would make explicit allegations of a UCI cover-up? After all, UCI wasn't the subject of their investigation. USADA's report could well leave open the question as it'd not be necessary (if you consider their remit) for them to actually point the finger. Could they make their case without addressing specifically the issue of why certain results may have gone undetected? I think so. USADA may have even preferred to leave that stone unturned, leave it as something for UCI to address.

 

[lukesdad]

The UCI saying they still havn't received the evidence. Why is it taking so long ?

 

[ufkacbln]

I see this thread is already gone down the road of the other with provocative, trolling (yes, Norm) and deliberately controversial posting. Good sense and good moderation seems to be sadly missing. That's my lot - cheers.

Translated

Someone has dared to disagree with me!....

 

[Red Light]

The 'level playing field' argument is specious.

Is it really a good thing in a sport when aspiring champions are confronted with the necessity of doping in order to compete with the best?

If Armstrong doped then he is a crook. Simple.

The playing field is never level in this sport or in others unless the teams are all given the same budget, bikes etc. We have done so well in the Olympics and Paralympics because of a big budget and investment in good facilities and research. Our cyclists have spent hours in expensive wind tunnels for example perfecting equipment and positioning on the bike to give them an edge. Which is why they are dominating other nations at the moment. Swim suit material and design made a big difference to swimming when it was first introduced giving those who had access to it an advantage.

At present as Emma Pooley has just pointed out, Sky have a budget that allows them to buy the best riders and mechanics, spend the money on research and equipment etc in a way that other teams can only dream of. Was it a level playing field between Wiggins, Evans and Nibali this year? I would say definitely not and the other teams were complaining that they didn't have the manpower to protect their contenders for the win in the way Sky did. Evans when he broke in the mountains didn't have the advantage that Wiggins had when Nibali was breaking him of having a well paid Froome-dog under team orders to nurse him through it. And with the team focussed on the overall win, Cavendish could not win as many stages as he would have with the team behind him as it was last year. That playing field was anything but level but it didn't detract from the win at all for me and it seems to be almost universally agreed on here too.

 

[ufkacbln]

The quick answer is no it doesn't. Different people respond to drugs in different ways, different drugs have different effects, who has the best drugs, can afford the best doctor and the most comprehensive 'program', wins. It's far from equal.

The full answer is probably contained in the closed thread and the links that people have put up.

The other issue is cyclist safety

In he early days, deaths were not uncommon (Tom Simpson for example)

Now with organised doping often under medical supervision this is rarer and doping theoretically safer

However there are long term effects... And a price to pay still

Rides who push further with greater doping are at greater risk, and the safety margins are and I'll be tested

 

[Noodley]

It was too much to expect that those needing banned would be. I'm off to speak about Racing, with people who are actually interested in it.

Well done to the trolls for spoiling so many threads without getting banned.

 

[Red Light]

It was too much to expect that those needing banned would be. I'm off to speak about Racing, with people who are actually interested in it.

Well done to the trolls for spoiling so many threads without getting banned.

A flounce with double salchow to be sure. But you still haven't said what it is you think we haven't acknowledged or why it is not a contribution. But then I have seen scant evidence in your posts of a contribution on the subjects under discussion, just a lot of complaints about other "nobber" posters. And this thread is no different with your biggest contribution to the subject matter being:

Good points Greg. So can we agree to have separate threads as follows:

"USADA and Rider Revelations"
"USADA/UCI/WADA process"
"What's the real big issue?"
"How very dare they!"

 

[Red Light]

Now with organised doping often under medical supervision this is rarer and doping theoretically safer

There have still been quite a few deaths out of competition and in their sleep thanks to organised doping even with medical supervision.

 

[lukesdad]

[QUOTE 2029178, member: 45"]Armstrong cheated. Teams having more money isn't cheating. Doping is. That's simple statement one.

And simple statement two is that not all riders are cheating. This level playing argument is nonsense. A rider at the top of the tree cheating blows the fair chance of anyone who doesn't, and also puts pressure on those playing fair to do the same.

It's not complicated, however much people try to complicate it.[/quote]

The advanced levels of cheating under discussion were enabled by the influx of money into the sport at that time. Simple statement three.

 

[lukesdad]

The playing field just got leveller, Berties back !

 

[Red Light]

The advanced levels of cheating under discussion were enabled by the influx of money into the sport at that time. Simple statement three.

Probably true and as Hamilton said they could then afford better doctors than the testers. But it was not just a cycling thing and much of it was driven IMO by the emergence of Sky and the broadcast rights bidding wars and hunt for content that went with them. The money angle hit football and Formula 1 too with lots of negative consequences but also a popularisation of the sport that brought it to many millions who never watched it before and made it more accessible to its followers. I can remember when there was no cycling on any channel And now we can follow most of the major races on TV/on-line. Is that better or worse? Hard to call in my view but Emma Pooley was certainly complaining about the lack of money and media interest in women's cycling. But then being paid the £2m p.a. Wiggins is said to be paid must be quite attractive when you are living hand to mouth all the time in the teams and personally as a top sportsperson in your discipline. There has even been a comment in just the last day or two that Cav's problem is no other team bar a couple can afford him.

 

[thom]

Can he do that? (Sorry, I'm out of touch now!) .

Actually, I don't know - my thoughts were that LA potentially could challenge UCI's decision on whether to accept USADA's instruction in CAS, arguing that the UCI ought to reject USADA for whatever reason they can come up with. I imagine it would be clutching at straws.
I agree, the UCI do seem to have their hand forced, hence their PR strategy of deliberately playing down any presumed conflict with USADA. I think that is the takeaway point from the Reuters interview yesterday.

 

[thom]

What also interested me was the IOC statement saying LA could keep his bronze medal....

I suspect that's just because they haven't clarified the legal position, rather than they have a preference either way.