The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Red Light]

Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.

But nobody is responding to you

 

[asterix]

I've had the considerable pleasure of meeting Phil Liggett at CTC Council. He sees the world through rose-tinted specs because he's such a sweetie himself. In this case it turns out that he's too nice for his own good.

On one of his rides, I shared a lunch break table with him and some of his friends. Based on that experience I'd agree.

 

[mickle]

Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.

Yes, of course, good point Noods.

 

[asterix]

Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.

You are so right!

 

[rich p]

Suggesting that doping in the peloton was widespread and that the testing regime failed to detect them is drivel?

It may be uncomfortably outside the narrow agenda you are fixated with, but the sad fact is that the WADA, USADA,UCI and the other professional bodies either, failed to detect failed to act, or allegedly openly colluded.

If you really object to the truth, then it is really a problem you should deal with on your own.

Without a full, frank investigation we are (to paraphrase Santayana) in a position where;

I really don't know why but I'll answer your points again.
The 'drivel' reference is to the fact that you have repeated ad nauseam that it's not just Armstrong. No-one has ever said it is. All bodies and riders should be scrutinised. No-one that I know of on here has ever said anything else.
Again I'll point out that it is you who have, rarely if ever, posted anywhere in Pro Race apart from Armstrong threads.
As to your childish 'throwing toys out of the pram' jibe I'll let go as being puerile by even your standards.

 

[tigger]

So... what time is the UCI decision due?

 

[DogTired]

So... what time is the UCI decision due?

Apparently around mid-day. Or maybe 1pm. Europe and all that.

 

[Crackle]

Could I also point out that if people stopped respoding to the nobber then this would be a decent thread...put him on ignore or just accept he's a nobber and not worthy of reply.

Yep, it's like trying to talk to the loony when they sit next to you on the bus.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My take on the UCI announcement is that LA's a gone-er, they'll let us know in a few weeks who, if anyone, apart from the podium girls, actually won those TdeF's and they the UCI are as fine an upstanding group of folk with noble motives and nothing but the promotion and regulation of good clean cycling fun in mind that you could hope to meet. Oh yes and there will always be dopers who will win and the UCI/WADA/USADA won't catch them, so get over it your sport is bent, and ex-dopers are jolly decent chaps who should be encouraged to take management roles with teams and/or win olympic gold medals as they've are all reformed types these days.

Apart from stripping LA, utter bollox.

 

[frankiej]

Wow didn't expect to take all those off as he's already been awarded them.

http://www.dependent-news.com/lanceverdict

Still the fairest way I guess.

 

[tigger]

Hmm... I watched the press conference. So, a categoric ratification of the USADA's report in relation to Armstrong, and a very strong statement that "he has no place in cycling".

Otherwise, nothing else is really answered and the need for reform does not seem to be an urgent priority?
i.e. meeting with teams and organisers in early December,
McQuaid saying he would except a donation from individual athletes again
Not accepting that Armstrong had a suspicious blood result in 2001

The most worrying comment:
"The UCI is listening and will continue to listen" - No Mr McQuaid, we need you to ACT!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

btw, does this mean Jan Ullrich is now a three times winner?

*runs*

 

[Red Light]

btw, does this mean Jan Ullrich is now a three times winner?

*runs*

No it means that Armstrong is now the "former winner of seven TdeFs"

 

[philipbh]

btw, does this mean Jan Ullrich is now a three times winner?

*runs*

An analysis of the restrospective "winners" here:

http://cypresstrees.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/revised-tour-de-france-top-10-clean.html

 

[Red Light]

Hmm... I watched the press conference. So, a categoric ratification of the USADA's report in relation to Armstrong, and a very strong statement that "he has no place in cycling".

I thought the wording interesting and precise given they could have used much simpler wording. From the statement on the UCI website:

​

"The UCI confirms that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed."​

​

It doesn't say it agrees with it or supports it, just that it will not contest it and will accept the resulting sanctions. A bit like Armstrong's no contest announcement. By no-contesting rather than accepting though they don't open any doors to civil liabilities.