UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => shootin' the shit => two wheel spiel => Topic started by: SA Chris on September 12, 2012, 08:16:35 am
-
I honestly don't know what to make of it?
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html)
Has anyone read The Sectret Race yet?
-
Not read the book yet but from reading this and other reviews it is becoming extremely difficult to keep believing Lance was clean. Sad really. I would love to read something about how the culture of the sport has changed and how such systematic doping couldnt happen today. I have no doubts about Brad Wiggins at all but I would like to see an open and frank comparison between how things were and how they are now.
-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Armstrong-Force-Daniel-Coyle/dp/0007191839 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Armstrong-Force-Daniel-Coyle/dp/0007191839)
'Tour de Force' Daniel Coyle.
Is a most excellent read. Easily the best book on the Tour I've read. It focuses on Lance's 6th win in 2004.
He was 'entrenched' and neither for or against Armstrong. Its an exciting read in its own right, and makes no judgments (indeed its not a book abut doping) however at the end it seems very clear what he was upto.
-
Haven't read Hamilton's book, but some of it was in The Times last week.
Seems to point a long way towards his deep involvement with organised, systematic doping.
His "evidence" corroborates what other former team mates have said as well.
IMO - guilty as fook
-
I think that no matter what they say, the rule that one is innocent until proven guilty is a conditio-sine-qua-non of civilization.
Stripping him of the titles is an offence to the law.
My opinion.
-
I don't know what to think about all this but anybody who can come back from cancer and win The Tour several times doping or not deserves respect in my book.
-
He chose not to contest the charges Nibile.
He was undoubtedly a phenomenal athlete, but that anyone with more than a passing interest in pro cycling can still think he was clean astonishes me. In honesty, I don't care about what is done with his titles, doping was so common in the sport from the mid 90's to the introduction of the EPO test, and later the blood passport, that it's impossible to declare a deserving winner of those races.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012_08_01_archive.html (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012_08_01_archive.html)
-
Doping was so common in the sport from the mid 90's to the introduction of the EPO test, and later the blood passport, that it's impossible to declare a deserving winner of those races.
Indeed. Surely whoever the titles are now passed to will need to demonstrate they were clean too.
And peewwee yes, coming back from cancer to a proefssional cycling career is nothing short of amazing. He still has my respect regardless of whether he retains the titles or not. As Duma says I'm not sure many cyclists were clean back then.
-
I wonder about this too, if drug abuse was rife within the sport it seems a little harsh to single him out. That's not saying that I agree with it, but look at competitive bodybuilding, they basically have a clean version of the sport too which all but acknowledges drug abuse in the main competition.
-
I think that no matter what they say, the rule that one is innocent until proven guilty is a conditio-sine-qua-non of civilization.
I am in no way an expert (in fact, I'd barely say I'm knowledgeable, but I did do some googling...). but, USADA vs Lance Armstrong is a civil case and, if Armstrong had decided to contest it, would be decided on a "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".
Beyond reasonable doubt is the required burden of proof for a criminal case and is where innocent until proven guilty comes from...
There some great quotes from a study in 2005 into Armstrong:
At 21, Armstrong had a distinctly average 21 percent muscle-efficiency rate. Seven years later that rate had increased to 23 percent, a huge leap.
Then:
"We don't know exactly what accounted for Armstrong's muscular-efficiency change," Coyle said. But he suspects that Armstrong was able to convert fast-twitch muscle fibers to slow-twitch muscle fibers.
Read it here. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html)
I reckon they should just put an asterisk next to those results, as, like others have said it would now be almost impossible to work out who won fairly.
-
Harsh to strip the title. He was the best of a group of cyclists who used drugs to compete. It was a level playing field in many ways. It should be put down as an era of drug taking that is now hopefully over.
-
I wonder about this too, if drug abuse was rife within the sport it seems a little harsh to single him out.
He hasn't really been singled out, pretty much every other successful cyclist who was thought to be doping at the time was caught and faced bans/had titles stripped etc. It has just taken longer than elsewhere to catch up with Armstrong, and he is obviously the biggest figure in the sport.
This is quite an interesting (if long) read that brings together a lot of articles, and asks a lot of questions about the testing or lack thereof that Armstrong was subjected to before his cancer. http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike (http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike)
-
Hopefully they won't reassign those Tour 'victories' to anyone else. Of the top 10 finishers in those 7 tours, 42 out of 70 (I think) have now tested positive. And he's not being singled out – it's not just about him, though his ego would like to think it is - he's just the biggest name. Cancer or no cancer, he's a cheat, and by popular opinion, a really quite unpleasant person.
And I'll never be able to watch Dodgeball again. That's the big travesty.
-
Right or not I worry that these recent developments may undermine his charitable work, I think men's health issues do not receive sufficient attention as it is and without the high profile Livestrong image they may fall out of the public eye even further. I hope even if his athletic legacy is destroyed his charitable work goes from strength to strength
-
I wouldn't worry Tim, it seems the anti Armstrong sentiment is confined to a relatively small field of people who follow bike racing, it seems only about 50% of them feel that this has discredited Lance.
It is a shame in a way that Livestrong is tied so closely to his personality...
-
Sorry if off topic.
I don't care to know if he was or wasn't clean.
I am only scared by a system that judges on a probability base. It goes against all my principles and against all that I've studied for years.
-
Sorry if off topic.
I don't care to know if he was or wasn't clean.
I am only scared by a system that judges on a probability base. It goes against all my principles and against all that I've studied for years.
There is only one certainty in life, everyone dies. Everything else is a probability (albeit some things are highly im/probable).
-
Lance can be certain about whether he did or did not use
-
Nibs, please read through the article I posted, it does a good job of putting together all of the facts about his doping, including his samples that tested positive for EPO. As far as I understand the USADA ruled based on the evidence they had collected, and then asked Armstong if he would like to contest the decision, which would have resulted in all the evidence being made public (including testimonies from lots of former team mates, and possible Cheryl Crow!). Armstrong decided he did not want this to happen, and as such did not contest their ruling. As far as I can see this is the equivalent to pleading guilty in a court.
-
Sorry if off topic.
I don't care to know if he was or wasn't clean.
I am only scared by a system that judges on a probability base. It goes against all my principles and against all that I've studied for years.
Would you care more it was a climber who was cheating - claiming FA's or repeats that they hadn't done ?
Probability and statistics can be misused but probability can put something beyond reasonable doubt as they say in court.
We covered this ground a few years ago (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10174.0.html)
-
I guess so, but when it comes to judging, well the answer is implicit its forming an opinion based on evidence. That may be convincing/compelling or it may not.
-
Ther's a very interesting series of articles on The Science Of Sport (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07/tour-in-mountains-analysis-discussion.html) blog, in which they analyse stats - power outputs, hill climb times - from recent tours and tours from the Lance era. They think the sport is probably now clean because performances have dropped back into the realms of the humanly-plausible.
Let's simplify it into the obvious metrics - power and time. The difference between the current era and previous eras is startling. In the last four years, none of the Tour's decisive HC climbs have been done at greater than 6 W/kg. Even the Contador-Schleck showdown on the Tormalet, with the Tour title at stake, was ridden at 5.9 W/kg.
The graph below was put together by Alex Simmons, and it shows the time on the famous Alp d'Huez climb as a function of power output. There's a lot of data there but slide your finger across from a time of 38:30. That's the kind of performance (or faster) we saw in the previous generation. Then consider the more recent times - Frank Schleck did 40:46 in 2006, the first time in 12 years they didn't break 40. The best performances in the last 3 years are all slower than 41 minutes. That fits well with what I've added to the graph in blue and yellow - those are the equivalent performances to two climbs in the 2010 Tour, where riders simply don't get above 6W/kg anymore. Not even once, let alone repeatedly during the race, as they once did.
And from last year (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/07/tour-2011-alp-dhuez-leaving-mountains.html):
all three regularly completed HC climbs in this Tour have been over three minutes slower in this Tour than were seen the 1990s and 2000s. And not a single HC climb in the last two Tours have been done at anything close to 6.2 W/kg, let alone the 6.4 W/kg seen in years gone by.
And so the combination of performance times decreasing, the physiological implications of those performances and the bio-passport data suggest progress in the anti-doping fight
-
I was under the impression that Lance decided not to contest the decision, because USADA wouldn't present the evidence, so in effect he had no idea what to defend himself against.
I'm really just waiting for them to actually present something to the UCI, so that they can confirm something and then the ASO can decide what they want to do with his titles.
I don't see the point in removing them from him. It will certainly help nobody in the sport, to give them to Jan.
Another, rather unpleasant point from the side of USADA is that from what I understand, the WADA rules are that you cannot go back any further than 8 years for doping convictions, but USADA is trying to go back 14 years. However, this WADA rule is currently trying to be changed and will re-include any periods that had previously expired.
Seems rather convienient.
-
Thanks for the link Stubbs, it's well interesting. It's very important to let people know that the fact that he's never been found positive is not true. I did not know it, for example.
It's very difficult to explain what I think, so sorry if I went off topic and wasn't clear, I should have been more precise.
-
Seriously guys, I know he was a role model to people and all that, but face it, he's a premium grade cheat. I understand that peole want to cling onto what remains of their faith in him, but really from the position of someone who's not idolised him it all looks a bit pathetic. As if he's playing some game and is eventually going to emerge victorious. Wake up - he's as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
This idea that everyone being on drugs in cycling back in the day makes it ok is frankly laughable. He could have made a stand and bust the drugs game wide open, but he chose to go along with it and litigate against anyone who dared speak out. As a result he probably made doping in cycling worse and extended the drug era. He is not a hero. He sounds more like an arsehole to me.
Also this idea that beating bollock cancer gives him carte blanche to do whatever he wants and still be called a great athelete. Frankly that's insulting to real clean atheletes.
-
This is quite an interesting (if long) read that brings together a lot of articles, and asks a lot of questions about the testing or lack thereof that Armstrong was subjected to before his cancer. http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike (http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike)
From a quick explore of info I can find, out-of-competition testing wasn't introduced until 1997.
Lance was diagnosed in Oct 1996
His previous event podium was in Spring 1996, which I guess would have been the last time he was UCI tested that year.
Therefore, the whole thread about the UCI should have detected his cancer if they were testing properly doesn't seem valid.
Of course, I might be wrong. I only spend 2 mins googling for the info.
-
Would you care more it was a climber who was cheating - claiming FA's or repeats that they hadn't done ?
I guess in many ways this is similar to the simpson saga where probability was questioned and he chose not to defend the accusations?
-
If I caught Lance smoking his drugs at a crag, it would kill the sport for me.
(http://www.popscreen.com/assets/thumbs/v/original/52218dAe_o.jpg)
Oy! Armstrong - No.
-
Would you care more it was a climber who was cheating - claiming FA's or repeats that they hadn't done ?
I guess in many ways this is similar to the simpson saga where probability was questioned and he chose not to defend the accusations?
Apart from this is a multi million pound sport. Not just the athletes, but the sponsors, the bike brands etc. One of the reasons its so compelling is because of how the UCI etc are implicated. Bit more than a bloke talking about a route he did or didn't do.
-
We covered this ground a few years ago (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,10174.0.html)
some excellent material in that thread right from the start
-
Right or not I worry that these recent developments may undermine his charitable work, I think men's health issues do not receive sufficient attention as it is and without the high profile Livestrong image they may fall out of the public eye even further. I hope even if his athletic legacy is destroyed his charitable work goes from strength to strength
Tim, there's another article on Outside that takes a peek under the covers of the Livestrong Foundation to try and find out what it is that is that it really does do.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all)
-
Seriously guys, I know he was a role model to people and all that, but face it, he's a premium grade cheat. I understand that peole want to cling onto what remains of their faith in him, but really from the position of someone who's not idolised him it all looks a bit pathetic. As if he's playing some game and is eventually going to emerge victorious. Wake up - he's as guilty as a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.
This idea that everyone being on drugs in cycling back in the day makes it ok is frankly laughable. He could have made a stand and bust the drugs game wide open, but he chose to go along with it and litigate against anyone who dared speak out. As a result he probably made doping in cycling worse and extended the drug era. He is not a hero. He sounds more like an arsehole to me.
Also this idea that beating bollock cancer gives him carte blanche to do whatever he wants and still be called a great athelete. Frankly that's insulting to real clean atheletes.
+1
Also people seem to overlook the group of clean cyclists who never made it 'big' due to Armstrong and co
-
Right or not I worry that these recent developments may undermine his charitable work, I think men's health issues do not receive sufficient attention as it is and without the high profile Livestrong image they may fall out of the public eye even further. I hope even if his athletic legacy is destroyed his charitable work goes from strength to strength
Tim, there's another article on Outside that takes a peek under the covers of the Livestrong Foundation to try and find out what it is that is that it really does do.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all)
I sort of think that is missing the point, it is a question of profile, I might be being dim here but I cannot think of one men's health initiative other than the, all be it tacky and probably pointless, wrist band thingy and (without wanting to sound like a misogynist) I can think of at least half a dozen health initiatives geared solely to women's health. Ok Livestrong may not contribute much to primary cancer research but at least it is raising profile which is more than any other organisation is doing at the moment.
-
Never heard of Movember?
-
ha ha I was being thick
-
but you still have to conceed that men's health issues are fairly low down the spectrum, for instance did you know that oral cancer now provides the greatest burden of human papilloma virus related malignancy (which obviously affects both genders) but young men are not given the HPV vaccine? (with the caveat that the efficacy of HPV vaccination against orpharyngeal carcinoma is unknown)
Can you hear the hobby horse galloping into view
-
Would you care more it was a climber who was cheating - claiming FA's or repeats that they hadn't done ?
I guess in many ways this is similar to the simpson saga where probability was questioned and he chose not to defend the accusations?
Apart from this is a multi million pound sport. Not just the athletes, but the sponsors, the bike brands etc. One of the reasons its so compelling is because of how the UCI etc are implicated. Bit more than a bloke talking about a route he did or didn't do.
Ok maybe the comparison is somewhat stretched, but to some extent there are some parallels. Albeit small ones. Like this --------------=--------=--------
-
but you still have to conceed that men's health issues are fairly low down the spectrum, for instance did you know that oral cancer now provides the greatest burden of human papilloma virus related malignancy (which obviously affects both genders) but young men are not given the HPV vaccine? (with the caveat that the efficacy of HPV vaccination against orpharyngeal carcinoma is unknown)
Can you hear the hobby horse galloping into view
Hasn't the Exeter uni study shown a clearer link between Squamous cell Carcinomas and Radon gas density? Which brings into doubt the "requirement" of HPV in the development of the Carcinoma?
-
You don't need HPV to get head and neck SCC. It appears to be linked to some oral-pharyngeal SCC's, particularly in the younger patient set. The main risk factors are smoking and drinking.
-
the traditional type of SCC in the oropharynx is smoking and alcohol related, they tend to occur in the elderly and have a poorer prognosis. There has been a shift over recent years toward a younger group of patients with a better prognosis which have been shown to be HPV positive (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21969503 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21969503)). Several massive studies have shown this and HPV is felt to have a major oncogenic role in these cases.
-
but you still have to conceed that men's health issues are fairly low down the spectrum, for instance did you know that oral cancer now provides the greatest burden of human papilloma virus related malignancy (which obviously affects both genders) but young men are not given the HPV vaccine? (with the caveat that the efficacy of HPV vaccination against orpharyngeal carcinoma is unknown)
Can you hear the hobby horse galloping into view
Hasn't the Exeter uni study shown a clearer link between Squamous cell Carcinomas and Radon gas density? Which brings into doubt the "requirement" of HPV in the development of the Carcinoma?
As above, not to denegrate the university of exeter obviously but substantial work has been done in this area and the role of HPV is pretty much established. HPV testing is now performed as part of standard work up in many head and neck cancers.
-
To me like others have said.he was the best of a doped era.
He is still an amazing athlete.
I've seen some sites where they say his cancer is from steroids which of say bollocks to (hehe) .I have never spoke to anyone who has taken epo but I'd assume that's the main drug for benefit.the steroids will be for recovery an.d Little strength.the amount cyclists will take will be a tenth of what pro body builders will take and they are not dropin like flies from bollock cancer.
-
interesting to note though that said drugs do have an effect on the testicles do they not?
-
definatly,but its temporary.but ive looked on the net and it says there are not links between the 2
i dont know how the whole lance 'did he didnt he' will ever end.either way one side of the opinion on him will feel its the wrong decision
-
i dont know how the whole lance 'did he didnt he' will ever end
I do, It'll probably end with anyone who's not still brainwashed into the armstrong cult of celebrity concluding he was the biggest and nastiest cheat in the history of professional sport.
-
What the fuck are u talkin about dave? Are there still people out there who think cyclists get up day after day for wks on end cycling hundreds of miles a day on pasta n powerade? U can't remove someone of their efforts of yrs gone by when everyone was doing the same thing. U can't blame the athletes alone, it's also their sponsors, driven by the adoring fans. They don't want to see Fred Mercxx doing a time trial in 3hrs 53 mins when there are 20 guys, maybe on gear maybe not (of course they're on it but there's no proof so how can they be) doing it in 3hrs 40mins. This then becomes the norm.
A lance Armstrong witch hunt that's funny, of course he was on gear. But he was the best cyclist in a world full of people on gear. Is he a role model? Of course he is! arnies a role model, as is Carl Lewis, as is flo-jo, as is hulk hogan etc etc
-
i dont know how the whole lance 'did he didnt he' will ever end
I do, It'll probably end with anyone who's not still brainwashed into the armstrong cult of celebrity concluding he was the biggest and nastiest cheat in the history of professional sport.
it wasnt cheating ,it was the norm.
other sports like baseball had its steroid era.it was just what the majority did.Body building is a sport where if you dont do it you will win f all,everyone takes steroids and hgh.
-
What so they all enable "drugs mode" and suddenly everyone's on a level playing field again? Ha ha ha ha.
-
U can't remove someone of their efforts of yrs gone by when everyone was doing the same thing.
The point being you have no way of knowing if they were all doing the same.
-
You can't be certain contemporary athletes are not using banned methods that are currently undetectable.
I am not convinced you should go back over the track record of athletes and try to remove medals/wins. There ought to be a cut off point, you wouldn't want people doing dna samples of dug up bones of ex athletes and retroactively stripping them off medals surely? Ideally, people wouldn't cheat, but that isn't going to happen, especially with money involved.
That's my retarded opinion anyway.
-
I'm not sure many cyclists were clean back then.
i agree
and today?
do they climb and race significantly slower?
do they train less and participate to less events?
if the answers are "no", i guess not many cyclists are clean right now too...
-
for the climbing and racing, the answer is yes. The average pace of the Peleton is down, and the rate people are climbing has dropped notably as well. From what I've read this is the most convincing evidence that widespread doping has ended/slowed in the last few years.
Some of the peak energy burn rates for the leaders on the climbs are similar, but they are just one day peaks. During the doping days these rates were sustained day after day.. (blood doping effects, impacts of doping on recovery etc..)
-
I'm not sure many cyclists were clean back then.
i agree
and today?
do they climb and race significantly slower?
Yes, see the links I posted a page or so back. For example: Alpe d'Huez hasn't been ridden in under 40 minutes since 2006, but was in every Tour of the decade before that.
do they train less and participate to less events?
if the answers are "no", i guess not many cyclists are clean right now too...
Seems to be strong evidence that they're cleaner than back then.
(TomTom beat me to it. See the Science of Sport blog (http://www.sportsscientists.com/) for a lot more details)
-
This idea that everyone being on drugs in cycling back in the day makes it ok is frankly laughable. He could have made a stand and bust the drugs game wide open, but he chose to go along with it and litigate against anyone who dared speak out.
Obviously I don't agree with the whole 'if everyone's on drugs then it's ok stance' but I think the idea that it would have been that easy to bust the game wide open is slightly naive. We're not talking about one or two athletes here, we're talking about a whole peloton of riders who were doping with a very strong belief in the 'omerta'. If you knew all your team mates were doping would you really blow the whistle? The team you were riding for would probably fold and you'd be out of a job.
You only have to look at what happened to Simeoni back in 2004 when he took legal action against Armstrong after Armstrong questioned his testimony against the Texan's trainer Michele Ferrari (someone who now has a lifetime ban from sports for doping violations).
Simeoni was in a breakaway in the tour and posed no threat to the overall lead. Armstrong, leading the tour, singlehandedly chased the breakaway down and made it clear that unless Simeoni dropped back, the breakaway wouldn't be allowed to escape. The message was clear: make a stand against the status quo and you'll never win anything in your career.
Having read David Millar's book it seems pretty clear you had two options as a clean rider:
i. Make a stand in which case the peloton would make your life hell and you'd probably never win a race in your life (thereby ruining your own career)
ii. Keep the omerta in the peloton (but ride with the disadvantage that you knew others were doping)
Not surprisingly given the above options many riders chose to dope.
-
Sadly true.. the quote from catch 22 comes to mind
"But what if everyone behaved like that?"
"well I'd be a damned fool not to join them"
-
U can't remove someone of their efforts of yrs gone by when everyone was doing the same thing.
The point being you have no way of knowing if they were all doing the same.
Strange I'm sure I read a quote a page or 2 back sayin 42 people out of the tour were caught later on. Must be mistaken. I'd lv all professional athletes to be drug free, but they're not. If they were companies wouldn't spend millions developing these drugs n the powers that be wouldn't spend millions on testing. There's the crux of it, it really doesn't matter what people think to the contrary cos it happens all the time n will continue to
-
If they were companies wouldn't spend millions developing these drugs n the powers that be wouldn't spend millions on testing.
None of these drugs have been formulated to make athletes better; they all have medical uses and are being misused by athletes. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin#Medical_uses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin#Medical_uses)
-
Surely with regards to Armstrong it is more than 'everyones doing it, so I will too'. Not only was he the leader of his team, but was effectively the leader of the peloton. That puts him into the position of enabler/pusher.
Whilst the idea of stripping awards from many years ago may not seem sporting, it is a deterrent to future riders. We will never know who was the best clean rider from that generation, but if punishing Armstrong leads to a cleaner peloton in the future then so be it.
-
What so they all enable "drugs mode" and suddenly everyone's on a level playing field again? Ha ha ha ha.
This is a big point imho. From what I've read, which is probably from an anti-Lance viewpoint, Lance was at the forefront of the undetectable threashold. He wasn't just the best rider on drugs, he was the rider on the best drugs. He got the new and best stuff first, he distributed it across his team, was pally with the head of the UCI, and even had his own drugs man on a scooter during races (if everything is to be believed). The idea that it's a level playing field if you're on drugs is laughable, as pointed out by Dave.
How many "journeymen" from that era were great riders who were just principled and clean?
-
What so they all enable "drugs mode" and suddenly everyone's on a level playing field again? Ha ha ha ha.
This is a big point imho. From what I've read, which is probably from an anti-Lance viewpoint, Lance was at the forefront of the undetectable threashold. He wasn't just the best rider on drugs, he was the rider on the best drugs. He got the new and best stuff first, he distributed it across his team, was pally with the head of the UCI, and even had his own drugs man on a scooter during races (if everything is to be believed). The idea that it's a level playing field if you're on drugs is laughable, as pointed out by Dave.
How many "journeymen" from that era were great riders who were just principled and clean?
If they all enable drugs mode... then it's all about who's got the best drugs and the best doctor.
In my opinion, Armstrong was just as likely to be a shit cyclist on ace drugs. If he'd been on the same gas as everyone else, there absolutely no evidence that he would still have won. Why does this matter? If right, it proves that the drugs field isn't level. It's also important to kill the "I don't care, he was still the best" comment which is based on the dribblings of an EPO-crazed mind.
The biggest argument anyway against drugs mode... is that it kills cyclists. Who aren't the brightest bunch, and just inject what they're told by doctor/armstrong/sponsor whatever. Then they drop dead, a la simpson et. al.
I remember reading in some book or other a whilst back - the irish guys? - about him walking through a hotel at night and seeing cyclists doing pullups on doorframes to get their heart rate back up, as the blood was too thick and their heart rate monitor had woken them up in the middle of the night to keep them alive.
In summary... Armstrong? He was supposed to be a clean athlete and a role model. He's just a dick.
-
Still, the fame and success probably helped him pull Sheryl Crow, so probably worth it on the balance, as at least he can never be stripped of that.
-
I have no idea what planet u lot are on? Of course he was given the best drugs he was the best rider, why wud u give someone comin in 47th place the best stuff?
There is no such thing as a level playing field ever!
This starts when little johnny shows a bit more potential for football than someone else, when little daisy wins a beauty pageant for standing upright. It's all driven by ego, yours or someone else's
-
I have no idea what planet u lot are on? Of course he was given the best drugs he was the best rider, why wud u give someone comin in 47th place the best stuff?
There is no such thing as a level playing field ever!
This starts when little johnny shows a bit more potential for football than someone else, when little daisy wins a beauty pageant for standing upright. It's all driven by ego, yours or someone else's
Bobbins dense. You're being dense. Lance is famous for being shit before his post cancer comeback. He even admits it in his book.
There's no possible reason to assume that the best rider would get the best dope. In fact, the motivation is less for that rider, innit?
Let's take another. Hmm, first doper I can think of... I know, Ben Johnson. So, clearly, when on drugs he was the best. 1987, 1988, two world records on dope. Boy was like a rocket when on roids.
In 84, when not on roids or on shitter ones he came 3rd. His PB around then was the canadian record at 10.12 - clearly way behind Lewis even in 81. So wikipedia tells me.
So Ben Johnson was on the best shit in 87, and 88 - but prior to that wasn't the best. Or wasn't on dope. But either way, you can't say he was the best.
None of that proves that, if you lined up all the sprinters, Johnson wouldn't be the best, if there weren't any on dope. But the converse isn't necessarily true either.
All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.
-
All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.
The most 'effective' cheater... the best ones don't get caught...
-
All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.
The most 'effective' cheater... the best ones don't get caught...
THERE WAS NEVER A POSITIVE TEST
hahahahahahahaha
-
I thought the best drug taker was the one having the most fun? I bet that wasn't the cyclists.
-
Lund what uve just said screams to me " when not on roids or on shitter ones he came 3rd" so what ure in fact saying is someone on better ones beat him. "clearly way behind Lewis" yes see my previous sentence.
The motivation is less for the best to do the best drugs? All I can say is we obviously view things differently, for which I'm sure ure grateful ;D
What I really want to know is where were u guys when lance was winning the tour every yr, i'll make a pretty broad statement now n say u were watching n cheering for lance winning cos it was a spectacle n good for the sport n he was a beast.
Obviously I feel a bit stupid now that millions of people watched a very poor rider win the tour every yr, the same guy who still has not failed a drugs test, the same guy who's terrible career has led to raising awareness of testicular cancer etc etc
-
Of course we weren't cheering for Lance, we're British, and as such only support plucky underdogs, not dominant arrogant jocks, especially american ones ;D
-
I always thought (I've never met him so its only based on media) that Armstrong was a wanker. I am greatly in admiration of a man who overcame testicular cancer and became champion of his chosen sport. But he's still a wanker. A prize tool.
To clarify my second sentence - even if you strip the drugs away and assume he would be a mediocre peleton rider etc.. (pure guesswork) thats still some achievment having had very highly developed testicular cancer. I've read the wankers book. He's a wanker, but man that section of his life sounds grim and scary...
Heres another log to throw on the fire...
I am no physician, nor sports scientist but I think I can see a difference in the physiology of Wiggins, Frome, Thingy-doublebarrelled-thing who won yesterday) and even Cav - compared to the 'beasts' back in the day.. More stick like than body builder.. Its also interesting that Cadel Evans body shape seems to have changed from 'willowy' to 'filled out' in the last 2-3 years. Hmm.. chinny recon....
-
Of course Stubbs, n if it's any conselation I totally disregarded your previous post as written by someone who still believes in fairies :-*
-
My post about drugs? Is my view incorrect, and if so could you point me to some reading regarding drugs formulated specifically for sports?
-
So Lance is famous for being shit before his post cancer comeback. Being the world champion is shit :jaw: If only I could be that crap.
-
What I really want to know is where were u guys when lance was winning the tour every yr, i'll make a pretty broad statement now n say u were watching n cheering for lance winning cos it was a spectacle n good for the sport n he was a beast.
I was at uni, getting high and not watching sport...
-
What u want me to point to the title of such publications as "we will make billions of dollars, yen, pounds, out of enabling people to become fitter, faster, stronger, bigger by using the substances we will create for them even tho this practice is frowned upon and illegal"?
My search for this title came back with no hits so u must be right. I bow to your wisdom in these matters.
As we know roids came about cos of world war 2, the fact that these then got abused n other lengthy treaties I cud write only go to show how effective they were and how some people see opportunities to make money in anything. Not least the naivety of adoring fans of most sports across the globe
-
Obviously I don't know your background here Lund but I'll bet that whatever was getting u high wasn't the shittest stuff u cud get, or if u didn't have cash at the time when u did u got the better stuff?
-
Just a news report showing that a team had drugs that aren't something that could legally be given by a doctor for an ailment. Steroids (anabolic or otherwise), testosterone, EPO, blood transfusions: these are the mainstay of the drugs used in cycling and other sports. I quite like the idea that bigpharma would spent the time and money to come up with drugs (i assume though randomised trials etc.) just to give to a few wealthy athletes, rather than spend their resources coming up with ones that they can market to hospitals and doctors worldwide.
I'd love to read your treaty, is it like the treaty of independence?
-
I have no idea what planet u lot are on? Of course he was given the best drugs he was the best rider, why wud u give someone comin in 47th place the best stuff?
There is no such thing as a level playing field ever!
This starts when little johnny shows a bit more potential for football than someone else, when little daisy wins a beauty pageant for standing upright. It's all driven by ego, yours or someone else's
Bobbins dense. You're being dense. Lance is famous for being shit before his post cancer comeback. He even admits it in his book.
There's no possible reason to assume that the best rider would get the best dope. In fact, the motivation is less for that rider, innit?
Let's take another. Hmm, first doper I can think of... I know, Ben Johnson. So, clearly, when on drugs he was the best. 1987, 1988, two world records on dope. Boy was like a rocket when on roids.
In 84, when not on roids or on shitter ones he came 3rd. His PB around then was the canadian record at 10.12 - clearly way behind Lewis even in 81. So wikipedia tells me.
So Ben Johnson was on the best shit in 87, and 88 - but prior to that wasn't the best. Or wasn't on dope. But either way, you can't say he was the best.
None of that proves that, if you lined up all the sprinters, Johnson wouldn't be the best, if there weren't any on dope. But the converse isn't necessarily true either.
All you can say is that Lance was the best cheater.
steroids are good but they dont turn a good athlete in to a champion.they are not a magic potion.to get results from them you have to put in the hard graft
-
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdff9f60-a1b9-11e0-b9f9-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz26l9LVjxI (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/bdff9f60-a1b9-11e0-b9f9-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz26l9LVjxI)
Our cod arrives – plus Millar’s side order of chips and a second bottle of wine – as he tells me about the effects of EPO, taken for a few weeks before competitions, far enough in advance that it isn’t detectable during races. In short, the drugs do work – they can “turn a donkey into a racehorse”, as one of his teammates put it – but they also killed any sense of satisfaction.
-
Funny how people still want to call Armstrong the greatest athelete, yet I suspect would not call rich simpson the greatest climber? I bet Lance can throw a bike pretty hard.
-
people have seen lance power up the big climbs.the only vid ive seen of simpson is getting whapped in a boxing match
-
For me one of the most interesting comments was one Jonathan Vaughters made on the Cycling News forums as follows
"Here's a fun example: So, Tommy D... Here's a guy that has used o2 vector doping, and with some success. But when you test him, without o2 vector doping, you quickly see this guy has massive aerobic ability. O2 transport isn't the limiting factor with his body/mind. However, he is not a mentally strong athlete. He succumbs to nerves and pressure very easily.
So, in looking at his physiology and psychology, the rate limiting factor is the latter, not the former. So, working on that makes huge strides. Giving him o2 vector doping is akin to putting a bigger engine in a car with a flat tire, because you want it to go faster. yes, it will make the car with the flat tire go faster, but you could just go ahead and fix the flat tire instead?
This isn't true with with lots of guys. Imagine a psychologically strong athlete that has great tactical sense, and is muscularly very strong as del, but who doesn't have a great o2 delivery system. This athlete benefits perfectly from o2 vector doping, and it would be difficult for them to perform as well without it. So, as a manager, i need to know that going in.
With Tommy D, I knew I could get great performances out of him, clean, but it would take some unconventional work. This is not always true."
To me the second last paragraph hinted at Lance as he was a muscular rider pre cancer and packed on muscle again easily before the comeback 2.0 but like everyone else I'm reading between the lines.
-
Funny how people still want to call Armstrong the greatest athelete, yet I suspect would not call rich simpson the greatest climber? I bet Lance can throw a bike pretty hard.
Uve lost it dave
-
On an aside Stubbs, I used to go to a gym, a lot, between the ages of say 15-23. This was back in the day, lets say there were 100 regular members, of this figure 6of us weren't on roids. There were many more members than this but let's keep the numbers small for the sake of the exercise. Deca or whatever else was the choice cost the guys £40 a mth for the wimps n about £75 for the beasts, sure it was mth cud ave been wk. do u see where this basic bit of Mathis is heading? I'll leave that in, spellcheck tickled me I obviously meant Maths. This was one gym in one area? Money money money
-
I see there's money in providing juicers a short cut to getting biceps that take the attention away from their beer gut, but I'm not sure the requirements of this relatively small group compares to the medical requirements of the whole world. I guess the other point is as this is illegal I assume you get your little ampoules in a little brown bag and don't have much idea of what you're getting - hardly pushing research forward.
As an aside I wonder what like roid use is like these days now that less people think it would be cool to look like Arnold. I know Mark S pops up every time this is mentioned, but the idea I get is that usage is less?
-
I see there's money in providing juicers a short cut to getting biceps that take the attention away from their beer gut, but I'm not sure the requirements of this relatively small group compares to the medical requirements of the whole world. I guess the other point is as this is illegal I assume you get your little ampoules in a little brown bag and don't have much idea of what you're getting - hardly pushing research forward.
As an aside I wonder what like roid use is like these days now that less people think it would be cool to look like Arnold. I know Mark S pops up every time this is mentioned, but the idea I get is that usage is less?
Dense, Stubbs is totally right.
The development cost, to a pharma company, of a drug is in the billions. In fact, the average is given as either 1.3 billion dollars, or as 4 billion dollars.
Economics dictates that it would be daft to spend that amount on a drug specifically for body builders and athletes. It would be far too expensive for all concerned.
Thankfully for Lance and his buddies, there are a lot more sick people and the NHS/medical insurance companies have deeper pockets than there are athletes and national sporting federations.
There is not one single drug out there that has been developed as a sporting enhancer. They're all accidental, a bit like baby bio in blackpool.
-
Though Viagra started as a cardiovascular drug until the interesting side effects were discovered in trial.. And kerching..
(I'm being devils advocate a little.. Sorry)
-
Steady on guys. Lets not let facts and rationalism cloud the issue, which is that lance is a true god among men who's just an awesome all round guy, a true american hero who was forced at gunpoint to get doped off his tits, not that it would of helped him since he's the worlds best athlete anyway and always will be.. and peices of shit like steve redgrave aren't fit to lick the dirty needles of the true cancer-slaying messiah.
-
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy..
-
Dense, Stubbs is totally right.
The development cost, to a pharma company, of a drug is in the billions. In fact, the average is given as either 1.3 billion dollars, or as 4 billion dollars.
Economics dictates that it would be daft to spend that amount on a drug specifically for body builders and athletes. It would be far too expensive for all concerned.
Thats the costs of developing a legal drug not one that can be knocked off on the black market without undergoing rigorous efficacy and safety testing, so if you accidentally discover a drug that has some desirable side-effects for a niche market but know that there isn't any profit to be made going through the legalaise you could cynically suggest that its made and sold illicitly for profit without the research costs.
-
Though Viagra started as a cardiovascular drug until the interesting side effects were discovered in trial.. And kerching..
(I'm being devils advocate a little.. Sorry)
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/source-roger-clemens-host-athletes-pop-viagra-onfield-performance-article-1.171270 (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/source-roger-clemens-host-athletes-pop-viagra-onfield-performance-article-1.171270)
-
So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra? ;)
-
(http://images.wikia.com/marveldatabase/images/3/33/CaptainAmericacComics1a.jpg)
-
Thats the costs of developing a legal drug not one that can be knocked off on the black market without undergoing rigorous efficacy and safety testing, so if you accidentally discover a drug that has some desirable side-effects for a niche market but know that there isn't any profit to be made going through the legalaise you could cynically suggest that its made and sold illicitly for profit without the research costs.
But Dense was talking about "companies" spending "millions developing these drugs" so nothing to do with a hypothetical meth farm creating a wonder drug that has never been seen before.
-
So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra? ;)
Yes, it sucks, I can't stay close to the rock.
-
So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra? ;)
Yes, it sucks, I can't stay close to the rock.
i climbed on the back of some fat bird,was like the top out of delstree
-
So anyone here ever climbed on Viagra? ;)
Yes, it sucks, I can't stay close to the rock.
:D
-
Dense was talking about no such thing tea boy. It's hard to have a reasoned debate about anything without someone picking apart everything a.n.other has said. What dense was saying in essence was people cheat people use roids people use weed or another drug to get them up a bold gritstone route people used to go to stoney n train on some kind of gear. These things are all bought.
Tbh I've never seen a paper written on how to make heroin, crack or coke. Someone's missing a trick, I'll bet a bit of money could be made from that. No, how would pharmaceutical comps get the go ahead? That's stopped that idea stone dead then, I feel like an idiot again
-
Tbh I've never seen a paper written on how to make heroin, crack or coke.
I don't think that trio feature, but almost every other conceivable drug and its synthesis are detailed in...
(http://www.erowid.org/library/books/images/pihkal.jpg) (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal.shtml) and (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/images/tihkal.jpg) (http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal.shtml)
-
a 4 year old could make crack (as long as they could reach the microwave - and had the cocaine to start with)
-
Nice one lagers I put that in to see how many posts it wud take to come back with an answer like that. Surprised it took so long tbh?
Since this thread has got so topsy turvy my very original point was that u can't take something away from someone x amount of yrs down the line. Of course if we're saying someone has been stripped of a vc 60 yrs later for lying this is far different from saying 60 guys on a start line 40 of whom are on enhancement, of course both these scenarios are hypothetical.
I actually can't stand roids n think the very idea is cheating but when stupid sweeping statements are made I find it insulting
-
when stupid sweeping statements are made I find it insulting
best disconnect that internet service
-
Dense I'm not sure it's possible to have a reasoned debate on the internet
-
How can I expect to have a reasoned debate with someone when they're not agreeing with me?
-
Lebowski - Walter's an Asshole (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E#)
-
How can I expect to have a reasoned debate with someone when they're not agreeing with me?
(http://img1.jurko.net/avatar_11076.gif)
-
This makes intresting reading.
http://x2t.com/173242 (http://x2t.com/173242)
-
Well here is it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716)
Cycling legend Lance Armstrong's team ran "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme the sport has ever seen" according to a report by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.
The full reasoned decision here (quite long!) Reasoned Decision (http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision#)
-
Anyone care to read that document and summarise it in no more than 100 of your own words? Thanks.
-
Anyone care to read that document and summarise it in no more than 100 of your own words? Thanks.
"Guilty as fuck"?
Just scrolled through the summary and read a few bits. It's frightening. How he forced other riders to take drugs, also.
-
A few more than 100, but the main meat of the summary:
Page | 2
This Reasoned Decision includes a summary of the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Armstrong doped throughout the majority of his professional cycling career. Among the evidence in this case are the sworn statements of more than two dozen (24+)witnesses, including fifteen (15) professional cyclists, and a dozen (12) members of Armstrong’s cycling teams, including eleven (11) former teammates and his former soigneur (masseuse). Nine (9) of the professional cyclists were, like Mr. Armstrong, clients of Dr. Michele Ferrari and have first hand knowledge of his doping practices.The evidence in this case also includes banking and accounting records from a Swiss company controlled by Dr. Ferrari reflecting more than one million dollars in payments by Mr.Armstrong, extensive email communications between Dr. Ferrari and his son and Mr. Armstrong during a time period in which Mr. Armstrong claimed to not have a professional relationship with Dr. Ferrari and a vast amount of additional data, including laboratory test results and expert analysis of Mr. Armstrong’s blood test results. This evidence is incorporated by reference into this Reasoned Decision as if fully set forth.
While this Reasoned Decision summarizes overwhelming evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s doping that would have been presented at the hearing had Mr. Armstrong not refused to challenge the charges against him, it necessarily cannot include all of the evidence that would have been presented at such a hearing. Had there been a hearing even more evidence would have been presented, including, evidence obtained through arbitration panel subpoenas and potentially evidence from government investigations
-
As guilty as Jim'll.
-
I've had a flick through and I'm struggling to remember any allegations about Armstrong that are NOT confirmed by this.
Hospital bed confession, Tour de Suisse positive, testosterone oil, huge payments to Ferrari, systematic team doping - all in there.
USADA have really thrown a whole library at LA.
Oddly, a faint ray of hope is Hincapies statement (on his website) that claims he's been clean since 2006 - that means that he rode the 2007 tour without rocket fuel - which backs up Alberto Contadors claim to be clean!
-
Anyone care to read that document and summarise it in no more than 100 of your own words? Thanks.
From what I can tell:
Lance doped. He pressured team-mates to dope. He was bullied non-dopers. The authorities knew.
-
Yep. :agree:
I'm gutted.
-
the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme the sport has ever seen
Surely that's an achievement.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5169EV2XXRL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jpg)
At least he was being truthful when he said that.
-
While the title is still apt, this book should be reclassified as fiction. (Approached as a fairy story loosely based on true events it's actually quite good).
Oh, and ignore my blathering about Bertie from last night - turns out his current trainer is repeatedly named as nothing but a doping facilitator in the USADA report (although I think he is one of the three who are contesting the USADA charges)
-
I have just read that book having picked up a copy at a boot sale. I don't particularly have a massive interest in cycling but was keen to read about a man who on the face of it was a legend.
After reading it i thought that he came over as one of the most egotistical, bullying, arrogant tossers i have ever read about. His fight with cancer was commendable but no different to what thousands of unfortunate people go through every year, but the rest of his personal traits were pretty horrific. I cant imagine that he has many true friends at all the way he treated people and don't find the accusations of him being the ring leader in the whole drug debacle surprising at all.
I feel pretty strongly about drugs cheats in sport and don't think that the excuse that "everyone was doing it" stand for anything. Much like the east European athletes in the 80s it puts a pall over the sport for a long time.
What he and others have done is given the likes of me, and many others not particularly interested in cycling, the opinion that the sport is rife with drugs, always was and always will be. Which is a shame on the likes of Wiggins and Cavendish who really have to go some way to appease the doubters.
-
Tyler Hamiltons book, The Secret Race is the most enlightening read on the whole Armstrong, USPostal, drugs in cycling subject, and makes it pretty clear what an arsehole Lance was/is..
Its also a really good book, easy to read, and is brutally honest about the whole doping thing.
-
I'm reading that ATM as well Percy.
It is well written as you say. Makes you realise how much of their lives were taken up with drug sourcing, using, covering up etc
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/11/armstrong-usada-sophisticated-doping-scheme (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/11/armstrong-usada-sophisticated-doping-scheme)
This isn't my thing so i can't really comment. It might interest someone...
-
eek!
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63449000/jpg/_63449996_tour_de_france_winners_624.jpg)
-
Lance Armstrong Nike Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U#)
-
eek!
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/63449000/jpg/_63449996_tour_de_france_winners_624.jpg)
And 14 out of the last 17 years, 7 of which are armstrong. But he's still a hero, right?
-
The only way for Lance to save his image would be if he cured cancer; "raising awareness" 'won't cut it no more. I'm waiting for him to pop up on ebay, offering to swap a private jet for a rotary evaporator and a Johnny Ball chemistry set.
-
I read (and skimmed parts of) the USADA report linked above and it makes for grim reading. Systemic abuse on a massive scale. The testimony of various people quoted under oath bring an immediacy that makes for compelling reading. Certainly better than anything Lance has ever (ghost) written.
Still, I'm comfortable with fact that the sport is relatively clean now, the stats bear it out over the last couple of years. No freaky breakaways, lower wattage/km and slower times. Viewers complaining about boring stages and team tactics need a slap.
-
As guilty as Jim'll.
why have both of these taken so long to come out? (I am genuinely asking)
-
Both clever, persuasive, manipulative bully's. but both given the space to do it in...
-
Also a genuine question/ponder... Does the 'lot of work for charity' somehow position such guys above the target line for suspicion to an extent?
I'm sick of hearing the 'Lance beat cancer and made loads for charity' schtick like it makes it all excusable
-
The only way for Lance to save his image would be if he cured cancer...
He's pretty doomed then...
"Most people—including nearly everybody I surveyed while reporting this story—assume that Livestrong funnels large amounts of money into cancer research. Nope. The foundation gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005, the year it began phasing out its support of hard science. A note on the foundation’s website informs visitors that, as of 2010, it no longer even accepts research proposals."
Taken from here (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all) - an interesting bit of writing about the Livestrong organisation.
-
Does the 'lot of work for charity' somehow position such guys above the target line for suspicion to an extent?
It worked pretty well for Jimmy Savile.
-
Does the 'lot of work for charity' somehow position such guys above the target line for suspicion to an extent?
It worked pretty well for Jimmy Savile.
:lol:
-
UCI ratifies USADA's findings. "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520)
Will be interesting to hear the decisions next week about reallocating his titles and prize money. Bye bye Oakley :wave:
-
he is going to need deep pockets for how much he will be paying out for various people wanting money back/court cases
-
so is every racer that used drugs going to have to pay money back? the whole us postal team was doping so thats alot of money. or are the dopers who testified against lance going to be let off cos they helped get lance. 11 dopers let off to get one. what about who they give the titles too now, how do we know they were not on drugs? seems like most of the top boys were doping so should be interesting.
-
so is every racer that used drugs going to have to pay money back? the whole us postal team was doping so thats alot of money. or are the dopers who testified against lance going to be let off cos they helped get lance. 11 dopers let off to get one. what about who they give the titles too now, how do we know they were not on drugs? seems like most of the top boys were doping so should be interesting.
Prize money is one thing.
Armstrong sued several people and companies for damages/bonuses for accusing him of doping (including the Times ; http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/13/sport/armstrong-doping-sunday-times/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/13/sport/armstrong-doping-sunday-times/index.html))
That makes him different to a lot of the other dopers...... and he deserves to be countersued for that money and also charged for perjury.
-
He could do time like Archer did!
-
I think in a couple of cases he was (with retrospect) quite canny - as he stated he had (and still has) never failed a drugs test - instead of saying he didnt dope..
-
The sports editorial in The Times suggested that the likes of Dave Millar should have re pay money. I know Dave is seen as a big voice in the peloton on doping - but the guy who wrote it has a point. Mind you he clearly doesn't understand the sport either.
I'm not sure what the answer is. The UCI should be scrapped or re - configured, and why is Contador still riding?
-
The UCI should be scrapped or re - configured, and why is Contador still riding?
Word
-
he is going to need deep pockets for how much he will be paying out for various people wanting money back/court cases
There was quite an interesting lawyer (specialising in sport) being interviewed about this the other day on R4 - he reckoned it was unlikely Armstrong could be made to pay back very much at all.
-
Hey now, have a heart you people. He was driven to it by this all consuming need to match his big brother. I mean Stretch was really something else
-
he is going to need deep pockets for how much he will be paying out for various people wanting money back/court cases
There was quite an interesting lawyer (specialising in sport) being interviewed about this the other day on R4 - he reckoned it was unlikely Armstrong could be made to pay back very much at all.
That's because he's blown his $$$$ on lawyers ;)
-
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html (http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html)
Interesting column in the Fairfax press over here by former-FDJ rider Brad McGee. Interesting stuff about David Millar and the real reason French riders are never in the running to win the TdF...
-
Not much new but an interesting interview with David Millar. Some bits in Spanish but mostly English
http://youtu.be/vP1WuyXcv6g (http://youtu.be/vP1WuyXcv6g)
-
Less serious
South Park Promo - We All Got Duped! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sxuXt_R6Mw#ws)
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20203638 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20203638)
Looks like Verbruggen and McQuaid might finally get some
-
"Back in Austin and just layin' around..." (https://twitter.com/lancearmstrong/status/267364416864002048)
(http://stat.mobli.com/media_stills/media_22700756.jpg)
He's clearly not getting the message that those don't belong to him.
-
Armstrong to admit doping to Oprah.... maybe (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/09/lance-armstrong-oprah-winfrey-interview)
-
It's taking place in his home too. What's betting it's in the room with the maillot jaunes above?
-
You couldn't make this up. When is the film out!? Lance to star as himself in an attempt to pay off the lawsuits?
-
It's taking place in his home too. What's betting it's in the room with the maillot jaunes above?
Classic Lance - you come to me.
-
Random bit of analysis I just stumbled across (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html) (not actually read it I'm afraid as I couldn't care less so can't comment on the content).
-
Twenty quid says he has a little cry, and gets everyone on side!
-
http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah-wilfrey-lance-armstrong (http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah-wilfrey-lance-armstrong)
Barney hits the nail on the head again
-
For those who are bothered enough to watch you could print this out and have some fun...
(http://drunkcyclist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BingoStrong.jpg)
-
More tit bits coming through...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-comes-clean-oprah (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-comes-clean-oprah)
-
lance armstrong comes - clean oprah?
-
This is great..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-cost-benefit-analysis-confession (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-cost-benefit-analysis-confession)
-
From here (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-confesses-to-doping-during-winfrey-interview)
Armstrong told Tygart: "You don't hold the keys to my redemption," he said. "There's one person who holds the keys to my redemption," he went on, pointing at himself, "and that's me."
Nicole Cooke retired yesterday and she spoke a lot about doping (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nicole-cooke-retires-from-cycling#null)
I can't help thinking that the cheats win on the way up and the way down.
"When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him a tissue, spare a thought for all of those genuine people who walked away with no reward,” Cooke said. "Tyler Hamilton will make more money from a book describing how he cheated than I will make in all my years of honest labour."
As an aside she hasn't had nearly enough recognition for her achievements.
-
I'm slightly surprised by what he has said in this interview, I had expected him to maintain a stance of more denial.
-
I don't think he had a chance to keep denying any more!
Sounds is ok on this but image rubbish
Oprah and Lance Armstrong: The Worldwide Exclusive - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co0vv0roMlQ#ws)
-
I'm slightly surprised by what he has said in this interview, I had expected him to maintain a stance of more denial.
Indeed. A very basic summary of it seems to be:
I got caught up in the lie.
I was a jerk.
I am going to spend a lot of time trying to get people to forgive me.
I am an idiot.
-
Will see what the second part is like, but he seems to have done the bare minimum possible, probably exactly in line with what his lawyers said he should say. Very calculated.
-
Will see what the second part is like
Hour long version...
Oprah and Lance Armstrong: The Worldwide Exclusive - FULL (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43EE9I8ZMFc#ws)
-
Cav trying to make a point
We don’t assume every current BBC presenter is a sexual deviant because of what Jimmy Savile and his cronies were doing in the 1970s.
So why are we carrying the can for Lance and his inner circle?
-
Paul Kimmage still dishing it out...and rightly so!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/19/lance-armstrong-cycling (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/19/lance-armstrong-cycling)
-
Books to be reclassified (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720) :lol:
-
I couldn't resist posting this
http://badassdigest.com/2013/01/31/lance-armstrong-performs-radioheads-creep/ (http://badassdigest.com/2013/01/31/lance-armstrong-performs-radioheads-creep/)
-
Paul Kimmage still dishing it out...and rightly so!
have you seen his recent rant against team sky on twitter?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
-
I see his point as seems goalposts being moved. I think he has seen it all and until there is total transparency will still have suspicions. It's a shame as I like Sky, Wiggins and Froome and want to believe them but I see the point of the doubters. I wonder what we would all think if it wasn't a UK team?!
Think this is the Twitter link
https://mobile.twitter.com/PaulKimmage/tweets
There is a great link to a French article on there about Lances positive cover up test, someone's put an English link.
-
Secret pro blog
http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2013/02/let-the-season-begin/ (http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2013/02/let-the-season-begin/)
On twitter
http://twitter.com/IamtheSecretPro (http://twitter.com/IamtheSecretPro)
-
Paul Kimmage still dishing it out...and rightly so!
have you seen his recent rant against team sky on twitter?
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx)
Recent? It was during the tour, not quite recent!
-
Oops sorry - i am new to twitter and a mate had just retweeted it - :oops:
-
I heard on the radio this morning that there are proofs of Mario Cipollini's doping to be coming out soon. Epo and hormones they said.
-
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steroids.png)