The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Smokin Joe]

it is very simple.

Indurain was the "first across the line" in each of the TdFs between 1991 and 1996, in common jargon he "won" these tours.

There are now allegations (repeated on this forum) that he cheated by using PEDs to attain these wins

If this is true then the WADA / UCI and the Spanish equivalent of the USADA have the option to remove these titles .


The other point still remains as to (if proven guilty) whether Indurain is pursued, and stripped of his titles , or allowed to keep the titles as part of an amnesty deal.

I look forward to an explanation.

It is actually very simple. There are no eye witnesses who have come forward and swore they saw Indurain dope. Whether he did or he didn't there is only speculation and not a shred of hard evidence...unlike in the case of that other bloke.

 

[ufkacbln]

If these are unfounded allegations, should the Mods be removing them?

 

[400bhp]

Brad and Father Christmas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20073400

 

[smutchin]

there is only speculation and not a shred of hard evidence...unlike in the case of that other bloke.

"Indurain started off [when he won the Tour in 1991] with an average power output of 5.3 W/kg, followed by 4.91 W/kg, and then it began to climb, so much so that when Indurain won his fifth Tour in 1995, his average power output on the final climbs of the mountain stages was an incredible 6.35 W/kg. (Just to labour the point - if you want to work out the ABSOLUTE power output for each rider, just multiply the power I've shown by the rider's mass. For Indurain, multiply by 80kg and you get a value of 508W)

That high power output was maintained for the next four years, Riis averaged 6.47 W/kg, Ullrich 6.33 W/kg, and then Marco Pantani set the 'record' when he averaged 6.63 W/kg during the 1998 Tour."

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimates.html

d.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It is actually very simple. There are no eye witnesses who have come forward and swore they saw Indurain dope. .

true... but then has anyone like USADA investigated Big Mig?

 

[Smokin Joe]

true... but then has anyone like USADA investigated Big Mig?

On what grounds? Power output alone would not make a case without other evidence and it falls outside the statute of limitations anyway as any drug abuse would have ceased seventeen years ago - again, unlike in Armstrong's case.

 

[dellzeqq]

Prison is no place for a 140 pound guy who shaves his legs.
http://www.roadcycling.com/news-res...gclid=CL-gmPXLmrMCFQzKtAodpX0AtQ#.UIheK2_WLRY

 

[smutchin]

On what grounds? Power output alone would not make a case without other evidence

Absolutely. It isn't proof. Not in the same way that the evidence against Lance has been accepted (by the relevant authorities) as proof of his doping. But it is evidence.

Personally, I think we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. YMMV.

and it falls outside the statute of limitations anyway as any drug abuse would have ceased seventeen years ago - again, unlike in Armstrong's case.

Again, absolutely true. Indurain's titles are safe. But his reputation might not be.

d.

 

[Crankarm]

Should I burn Lance's books or try and get a refund on the grounds he may have cheated? I have Every Second Counts, It's Not About The Bike and Tour de Force. Any advice appreciated. They are sitting in the bookcase in my spare room. I have separeted them from other cycling books just in case if he is guilty of doping.

 

[ufkacbln]

Indurain's titles are safe. But his reputation might not be.

d.

Unless someone decides that he is next for investigation and censure?

Changing the statutes is now set as a precedent in these cases.

 

[asterix]

Unless someone decides that he is next for investigation and censure?

Changing the statutes is now set as a precedent in these cases.

The crude summary is that you appear to defend Armstrong by saying that earlier riders have not been pursued therefore he should also escape with impunity.

Why? Toppling Armstrong is an excellent example that may clean up the pro cycling scene (as well as removing the influence of a toxic personality). Why waste time discussing earlier riders except as a diversionary tactic? What is your motive?

 

[asterix]

Should I burn Lance's books or try and get a refund on the grounds he may have cheated? I have Every Second Counts, It's Not About The Bike and Tour de Force. Any advice appreciated. They are sitting in the bookcase in my spare room. I have separeted them from other cycling books just in case if he is guilty of doping.

I share your pain!

 

[Noodley]

Should I burn Lance's books...just in case if he is guilty of doping.

Crankers, you havenae been keeping up with things have you? Find the nearest bonfire and take them along, get a small child to help you throw them in, and explain to them what you are doing as a warning to them for their later life...

 

[smutchin]

Changing the statutes is now set as a precedent in these cases.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

d.

 

[amaferanga]

Time to repeat a line I have said before here on other occasions.

Judge people by the comments they make about doping. So that's 4 amigos who have amply confirmed to my satisfaction that they are indeed dirty.

Compare and contrast with some others.

Anyone can talk a good game. I wouldn't read too much into what a Pro cyclist has probably been told to say. Do you think Jens is dirty then?