I imagine like most cycling fans, I've been drawn into the almost hourly revelations about Lance, US Postal and the wider peloton with a mix of morbid fascination and resigned disappointment. What I wonder though is where does the road now lead? The latest revelation about the alleged $50k bribe in the USPro champs where Lance won all three races in the series and pocketed $1m (with Phil Anderson being implicated as being party to it) makes me wonder whether this will end up as an Al Capone style prosecution where criminal charges of fraud may arise.
The 5 Live programme this evening was an interesting piece of journalism with the interview with his former soigneur something of an eye opener. If the extent of the doping at Postal was as great as alleged, I wonder who else will now fall. Tom Boonen? Roger Hammond? Were they also part of the alleged ring?
Tyler Hamilton was an interesting interviewee but at no point did he offer to pay back any of the money he earned when using performance enhancing drugs. Like so many of the other former US Postal riders who have admitted to the use of drugs such as George Hincapie, there is no rush to make amends. All can retire to their big houses and drive their luxury cars while telling the fans how they stopped doping many years ago and how much cleaner the peloton is now. Yet there is no offer of recompense to the clean riders who were either driven out of the sport or were deprived of achieving their potential.
The point made on the programme about removing known dopers from involvement in the sport is an interesting one. If we remove the likes of Riis, Vaughters, Virenque etc, will the sport get cleaner or will the temptation to dope continue to be so high given the financial rewards on offer? I sincerely doubt that pro road cycling will ever be a truly clean sport. The Lance years brought some truly memorable spectacle but I now wonder whether the price is one that will end up costing the sport dearly in the long run?
So back to my original question. Where do you think the doping scandal will ultimately lead us?
Cheers
Sanny
whether the price is one that will end up costing the sport dearly in the long run?
What do you mean by this? Can you clarify what a 'dear cost' to Pro cycling would be?
I assume he means the further hardening of the image as a drug riddled quasi-sport (not unlike many high rating US pro sports, it's fair to say, though they'll have to do far better at ignoring the drug use)Can you clarify what a 'dear cost' to Pro cycling would be?
It's also possible that a procession of physiologically normal duffers riding the TdF might not make great tv. I mean, what if I'm* actually as good as a clean cyclist can get ?
(*would 75% of the stw membership care to confess to doping, to put me in with a shout ?)
Where do you think the doping scandal will ultimately lead us?
The same place I was a week ago. I still don't care...
Dear cost? Adverse publicity for sponsors of having a brand more associated with doping than sporting endeavour springs to mind. There must come a point at which the cycling team sponsors decide that the adverse publicity surrounding the sport that looks like it will run for a good while yet becomes a liability and they simply walk away from the sport. I want to believe that the sport is cleaner than it has ever been but I suspect that there may be more damaging revelations to come. Given the reliance of teams on their commercial sponsors, without them it's not unreasonable to suppose that pro road cycling will go into decline. Whether this is inevitable, I don't honestly know but from a brand awareness point of view, will the likes of Nike stand by Lance if there is a succesful criminal prosecution against him? Who knows but it would be a fascinating conversation to eavesdrop on!
If the big names sponsors walk away, this may perhaps be no bad thing. If the commercial pressure to succeed is lessened through reduced financial rewards for the riders and the teams as a result of their being less money in the sport, perhaps the pressure and incentive to dope cheat will lessen. We may lose races and riders in the process but if the level of dope culture is so deeply ingrained in the sport, I wonder whether I want the sport to continue at the level it currently is. I don't have any answers if I'm honest but I do wonder where the sport goes from here. If the omertà has now been broken, it could well be that there are many more revelations to come as riders and journalists alike seek to settle old scores. Is it unreasonable to suppose that the majority of the peloton take or have taken performance enhancing drugs? I think what has changed this time round compared to the likes of the Festina affair and Operacion Puerto is that cycling now has global superstars and a level of public awareness which it has never hitherto enjoyed. It's now so big that any fall will be much more public and be potentially more damaging than ever before.
LOL at Daveyboywonder! It's a good point, well made! 😆
Having just read the Tyler Hamilton book I don't think he is sitting in a nice big house with luxury cars. If I remember right Lance wasn't very forthcoming when it came to making sure the rest of his team got their bonuses. What's worrying is that an unrepentant doper like Vinokourov is going into management with Astana. What a great example for the young riders on that team. But when you have former UCI chief and Honorary President Hein Verbruggen saying just last year the Armstrong had never doped, what hope is there. It's the corruption at the UCI that is really worrying.
whether the price is one that will end up costing the sport dearly in the long run?What do you mean by this? Can you clarify what a 'dear cost' to Pro cycling would be?
I think a "dear cost" is that the public ultimately lose faith with the sport, leading to loss of income from sponsorship, TV deals, etc. Ultimately leading to the decline of the sport.
Nike are sticking with him and Oakley and Radioshack are continuing to monitor the situation but it doesn't look like they are going anywhere.
Where do you think the doping scandal will ultimately lead us?
It's lead us to where we are now - a far cleaner sport on a far more level playing field. The doping of the 90's and 00's is what has ultimately lead us to where we are today.
So the uci is either corrupt or dodgy or worse stupid (or even innocent)
The case will rumble along. To allow those who confessed to race jn the tdf this year was wrong ws it appears that the usada were only interested in Armstrong and not drug cheats in general.
It comes out I some ways that it was Armstrong at all cost and would do anything to get him.
As DBW(I Think?), I don't care and I presume he means that everyone knew anyway and it's no big revelation. I've never spoken to anyone who was into cycling at that time who didn't say otherwise about them all playing the 'game'. In the whole scheme of things, it's not that earth shattering, most of us don't care. It's just ultimately about riding a bicycle around some French streets whilst on drugs. Just like has been the norm in that race pretty much since it started.
Makes sod all difference to me or the riding most of us do. Maybe less marketing money spent on pro cycling and more on pro-bike advocacy would be a nice result.
meanwhile, I just prat about on my local moor enjoying myself. Devoid of all this?.
So where do the Lance revelations ultimately lead us to?
42 pages.
It's lead us to where we are now
This.
Problem is, the UCI are responsible for raising the profile & standards of the sport and attracting the money/sponsors into it. This, surely, means there's a conflict of interests when it comes to 'outing' dopers so, IMHO, the first thing that needs to be done is to and doping controls over to an independent group such as WADA.
It's been talked about for years so maybe Lancegate will be the catalyst for this.
I think a "dear cost" is that the public ultimately lose faith with the sport, leading to loss of income from sponsorship, TV deals, etc. Ultimately leading to the decline of the sport.
The 'public' never knew, but we always did. So you could say it's done more harm to the sport.
Concerned over the assumption it's a cleaner sport now.
42 pages
42! Hitchhikers Guide
Professional road cycling is devoid of sportsmanship, honour or a healthy practice.
Thats how most of the public will view it. NOT one rider but many of them. What next, Skypostal? Its already begun..
Who/what is Pro cycling actually for? The riders? The UCI? The sponsors? Just a basic human need to express speed/effort/achievement on two wheels in a competitive way - like running, swimming, motor racing?
If Pro cycling stops because it has been so damaged - can't see that happening really - will anyone care? Sponsors will shift their money elsewhere. Sure some STWers won't care and will be lost on the moors.
To repair before getting to that stage would it be 'fair' to give life bans out to all doped riders? Vino, cannot manage Astana cos he doped. Riis, out. Contador, out, banned for life. Franck Schleck, banned. Basso, banned. Does that simply make the stakes even higher - would the dopers try harder? But would there be fewer of them? Perhaps.
And I think the UCI is so heavily implicated/involved with the doping scenario that to not go through radical change will not change anything.
meanwhile, I just prat about on my local moor enjoying myself. Devoid of all this?.
I'm with you on that. Enjoying yourself has never been promoted as part of road cycling. But treating yourself as a machine has and drugs are the ultimate end game of that approach.
Bradley wiggins seems a nice guy, with a sense of humour & perspective it seems. That's quite unusual to a casual observer like me. I hope people like him stay on top in the sport and are known to be clean. But there's decades of mud here and that will stick for a long time.
The corruption of the governing bodies is the most worrying thing in my opinion.
Is it now even possible for a successful road pro such as Wiggins to be seen as clean? Or has it all gone beyond the point of trust?
Where do you think the doping scandal will ultimately lead us?
Right now were heading towards an STW with every thread about LA!
What DBW said.
People who follow cycling - "mehhh, we already knew"
People who don't follow cycling - "mehhh, we don't care" or "mehhh we already knew they all doped"
Is it now even possible for a successful road pro such as Wiggins to be seen as clean? Or has it all gone beyond the point of trust?
I remmeber a quote from Louix Theroux's program on bodybuilding. Went allong the lines of "no such thing as clean, just over the counter".
Although yes, I do believe that they're clean now. More testing, biological passports and catching people with tiny trace ammounts says to me they're close to a clean sport.
No that says to me the cheating Spaniard messed up his timings/getting it out of his system calculations a tad.
I think the next phase is for the UCI to be exposed (publicly) for, at best, ineptitude, and at worst, corruption. And heads will have to roll.
[Sex in the City Mode on] Is the UCI the new IOC?
I dont really care that much so long as the sport is cleaner now and in the future.
The biggest problem cycling has is that it is a fairly popular sport with a bit of media interest - It is big enough to be newsworthy but at the same time doesn't have the seriously big money at stake with sponsorship and billion £ media deals that the media would potentially jeapordise by reporting the problem of doping.
Football for example is every bit as dirty as cycling is now, yet the popular perception (conditioned by a pathetic testing regime and also the media reporting) is that doping isn't an issue.
I think the difference with football (and other sports with rumoured doping issues such as baseball and golf) is that the public perception is that these are "skill" sports rather than purely based on physical attributes such as speed or endurance. These attributes are, of course, important in football, but skill is perceived to be overwhelmingly more important.
Even with the best doping team in the world, you couldn't turn a donkey into Christiano Ronaldo or Zenedine Zidane. But you could turn a motivated cyclist with half-decent natural attributes into a tour pro.
Nike are sticking with him and Oakley and Radioshack
well LA is Radio Shack and he co owns it so that bit is hardly news/surprising
Did Nike not stick with tiger so they probably dont care
Hopefully what will happen is that the top layer will change at the UCI and the coaches and team mangers who did cheat will be forced out of the sport
Perhaps Miller will get some political clout and the slow change to a clean[er] tour will continue
It really does need route and branch changes
Lifetime bans for say bertie may have made d ifference but as shown the sport is still willing to overlook blatant cheating/failed drugs tests and it has to go to higher authorities to get decisions
Professional road cycling is devoid of sportsmanship, honour or a healthy practice
wiggos stopping the Tour when Cuddles got punctures and both of them being regarded as clean by all
Dont generalise from LA and the terrible 90's to now and everyone
Some of them are riding clean now
There might be a dip in sponsorship for a bit, but the current sponsors are hardly huge economic giants - they're reasonably sized companies, and there are an awful lot of them out there. Other companies will take up the slack.
Long term, I can't see the Lance case making much difference.
I 'support' a football team, verging on fanatically. But when, for example, a player for someone fails a drug test etc I'm not in the slightest bothered.
I don't really follow competitive cycling. I absolutely love cycling but I don't really care who wins what. Not too bothered if Steve Peat gets a podium at the Worlds or someone else. And for that reason, IF (I've not read any of the stuff about how he's suddenly become guilty) Armstrong is guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs, all I feel is that its a shame he felt the need to do it. I think road cycling has had a reputation of being full of cheats for years/decades so I don't think does it much more harm.
FWIW, I've read two (both?) of his books and enjoyed them both greatly. Seems a shame if he did what he's meant to have done... Also shows the sheer stupidity of the countless others who have done the same and been caught if its really that easy!
And I think the UCI is so heavily implicated/involved with the doping scenario that to not go through radical change will not change anything.
This ^^
The UCI appear to me like the Vatican - more interested in maintaining power and influence that doing what is morally correct.
OP it leads me to conclude that road cycling is for cheating mincers, more interested in selling stamps, bank accounts, TV channels and Lampreys (never seen them in the shops though) than riding bikes simply cos it's good.
Screw roadies, MTB should dissociate from the UCI and keep that amateur/pioneering, 'out for a a laugh with my mates' thing that was the reason most of us got into it in the first place
Anywhoo, this time next year roadying will be like soo last year
Having skipped through the USDA summary last night other than 1 failed cortisone test (which following an alleged between the team & UCI/ tour organisors was cleared up ???) Lance as to his original statement has never failed a drugs test..
This would seem to be key, all samples provided when tested to the in use standard of the day PASSED..
His defence prior to pulling out of the farce was that you never caught me..
Given USDA's entire evidence is not possible to prove scientifically (and this was the mechanism in place at the time) they must accept that Lance's records stand today.
The most telling thing about all the statements the USDA have collated is that it paints a picture where the suggestion is ALL Pro's at that time knew it was happening and were either also doping personally or turning a blind eye.
Thus is USDA wish to stand on the moral high ground then all Pro's in the tours in question would need to be reviewed in the same light by the UCI PRIOR to removing Lance's victorys and handing them to ANY Cyclist that is confirmed as 100% clean beyond all question otherwise all they have achieved is to victimise one individual.
Their will be no winners in any of this other than the laywers, as all that can be argued is "to what rigour must the USDA demonstrate guilt" not is / was LA clean.
The sport has moved on (slightly) but all medics / team managers / riders will always attempt to eek out all possible gains that are legal, in the same way F1 keeps having rule changes over interpretation of the rules pro cycling will never be morally clean of performance enhancing drugs.
well LA is Radio Shack and he co owns it so that bit is hardly news/surprising
I don't think people meant the team. They meant the company that sponsors the team. In any case, I don't know if Lance owns a part of RSNT as it's wholly owned by Leopard SA who own the team's license. I suppose I could order the documents from the relevant authorities but I'd rather idly speculate 😉
Lance as to his original statement has never failed a drugs test..
Have you ever wondered why he does not just say he never took drugs rather than say he never failed a test? Really have you never thought about why he does this 😯
all samples provided when tested to the in use standard of the day PASSED..
ecept the one you mentuion that he failed of course 🙄
the fact he took a banned drug that could not be detected is hardly a defence. He did not pass anything as there was no test for EPO and the report details how they cheated the tests. FWIW the blood samples still exist and the tests now exist and LA could let the B samples be tested to prove it - do you think he will?
It is still cheating as the test is not simply limited to whether you pass the drugs test. He will hardly be alone in being convicted without a positive test in cycling or other sports
Thus is USDA wish to stand on the moral high ground then all Pro's in the tours in question would need to be reviewed in the same light by the UCI PRIOR to removing Lance's victorys and handing them to ANY Cyclist that is confirmed as 100% clean beyond all question otherwise all they have achieved is to victimise one individual.
1.There is a clue in the US bit of the Usnited states doping agency and as to where their jurisdiction may lie. You now want the UCI to take charge - Incredible
2. Moral high ground - what does this slur even mean in this context?
3.Prior to removing LA results - you are not aware of what the actual rules governing the sport are - that is rhetorical.
4. Victimise one person =- did you read how many people were charaged - it is is more than one, did you see how many have been banned.
Did you see how LA treated Simeoni, Le mond etc
Its funny [ ie tragic] to watch the logical sumersaults of folk tryinmg to defend LA
he as a great big dirty cheat who took drugs to win. Everyone knows this everyone
Its is impossible to put fwd a logical case for LA with what we now know
Your posts demonstrates that fact
nwilko - MemberHaving skipped through the USDA summary last night other than 1 failed cortisone test (which following an alleged between the team & UCI/ tour organisors was cleared up ???) Lance as to his original statement has never failed a drugs test..
Yeah... This is slightly about semantics, when people say "Failed a drugs test" what they mean is, went through the entire process of testing and appeals and were found guilty, rather than had a single test fail then have the B test cleared, or had a pair of tests fail then get overruled (for whatever reason). Some people get excited about this but tbh it's a sideshow. And passing or failing tests especially for EPO isn't the end of the story of course.
I rather like Nicholas Roche's piece on it [url= http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/nicolas-roche-if-you-dope-dont-blame-anyone-else-its-your-choice-admit-it-3257272.html ]all.[/url].
Given USDA's entire evidence is not possible to prove scientifically (and this was the mechanism in place at the time) they must accept that Lance's records stand today.
As Junkyard says, Lance could ask them to retest all his samples. I think someone like Michael Ashenden could probably give a statistical variance for the age of the samples to give some "fairness". However Lance has refused all calls.
When they did re-test some samples, they were found to contain EPO but because they were tested for a research programme, the UCI declined to take it further. Sadly, for them, l'Equipe managed to put it all together and even though they called Lance a liar on their front page, he chose not to take them to court. What does that tell you?
They won't award the wins to anyone else, they'll just be empty races. Seems fair but to allow the results to stand is a slap in the face for the clean riders and fans.
An interng programme but none of the info that came out is new! this is all news that was battling around in the 90's especially the Emma O'Reilly stuff, yet there are so many people who wanted to believe. How anyone can believe in LA is beyond me, he is a bully, liar and a cheat. I still love road cycling but this issue will never be solved as LA is too arrogant to ever make admissions.
That Roche article is great, IMO:
If you look at all the riders recently who have been caught and admitted doping, some people are saying it's great that these riders are helping the sport. But saying, 'I'm sorry, I was doping from this year to that year but I'm not going to do it again and I'm cleaner than clean... I'm helping anti-doping because I talk to kids about it,' or whatever, that's a load of bull. That's not helping anti-doping.Helping anti-doping is saying. 'Okay I doped. I got it from this doctor. These are the riders that I met in the waiting room. This is how it's done. These are the new products that are in the peloton that are not yet detectable. These are the products that we use to mask the ones that are detectable. This product does this, this product does that. This is how we beat the test.' That's helping anti-doping.
Spot on
Personally I think it leads to the state that you cannot 100% 'believe' in any pro cyclist.
Much as I'd love to believe in the Sky thing I have difficulty in accepting this years Tour. Froomey I just think is too ggod to believe and all this marginal gains seems like a smoke screen to me. By [i]association[/i] Wiggins is tainted... If it looks like a pig and squeals like a pig... (aka UK Postal jibes)
But then I'm an old cynic that was turned the day I found out the truth about Mr 60% on that mountain stage (Hautacam?) and the shear disgust at LA's treatment of Bassons and Simeoni.
Still love cycling though...
. Froomey I just think is too ggod to believe and all this marginal gains seems like a smoke screen to me.
He cracked in the Vuleta though this year showing he was too knackered to be at his peak - i think with drugs he would have been able to maintain his peak
Its true he has improved a lot in the last few years to be a GC contender
By association Wiggins is tainted... If it looks like a pig and squeals like a pig.
You have no eviodence for Froome and it is a leap tp then assume Wiggins is guitly by association with someoen who just think might be cheating
If you assume and make it up and then link someone else due to "association" then it is not so much a pig as a flying pig.
I think the biological passport is much harder to pass and from what I have heard only micro dosing is likely to be used these days from what I have read
its a fair point that caught cheats should squeal, name names and methods
The Lance years brought some truly memorable spectacle but I now wonder whether the price is one that will end up costing the sport dearly in the long run?
LA did not introduce doping to cycling. Kelly, Mercx, Ullrich, Coppi, Anquetil. All before LA. The damage to cycling was done far before LA arrived. Granted, he didn't help.
JY - correct I have absolutely no evidence, it just seems his rise is all a bit 'unbelieveable' what with his blood disease, etc., in what, March? this year? It just seems a little far fetched. Plus, I will stick my hand up and admit thre's something I just don't like about him. From purely a gut reaction. If I wanted to argue the toss I'd say if it was back in the late 90's or 00's then he would have been shredding in the Vuelta, the blood passport keeps things [i]within[/i] certain margins after all. If LA's bloods escaped the BP reviews then why shouldn't anyone elses?
I am not stating 'for sure' that he's doped, just my spidey senses are a tinglin'
By association I mean if you start to question one, then automatically the other follows... Yes, with even [i]less[/i] justification... 
Same with Sagan, though. Just unbelievable.
By experience I am deeply cynical, this is what I was driving at. Thats where it leads us all to no?
Thus is USDA wish to stand on the moral high ground then all Pro's in the tours in question would need to be reviewed in the same light by the UCI PRIOR to removing Lance's victorys and handing them to ANY Cyclist that is confirmed as 100% clean beyond all question otherwise all they have achieved is to victimise one individual.
Their will be no winners in any of this other than the laywers, as all that can be argued is "to what rigour must the USDA demonstrate guilt" not is / was LA clean.
Kinda agree with this in some respects. If you're gonna say Lance didn't win any tours then we're going to have to apply the same criteria to other riders. And then do you get down to Cofidis being not exactly the cleanest team and Wiggins used to ride for them? etc. etc. BMC are the phoenix risen out of an old team (I can't remember their name) that IIRC folded due to drug issues so is that Cadel implicated?
I suspect a fudge by the UCI - results null and voided, no winners. A statement of intent to be clean blah blah blah, then hiding for a while until the pressure dies down and back to business as usual. And hopefully the sport come cleaner by it's own volition.
And to paraphrase a comment in another thread, if, say, LA was clean but his entire team was doped to the eyeballs like they admit, then does that really make him a true winner. Do you apply that logic to, say, Cadal Evans and his BMC team, or anyone else. It would just descend to a farce so quickly as to make it just comical to the rest of the sporting world.
as has already been explained [b]US[/b]DA banned and stripped of titles the [b]US[/b] riders. Seems that UCI either chose to bury their head in the sand or were bought off. A US governing body can't tell the rest of the sporting world they've been very naughty boys, this is sports not international politics.If you're gonna say Lance didn't win any tours then we're going to have to apply the same criteria to other riders.
if, say, LA was clean but his entire team was doped to the eyeballs like they admit, then does that really make him a true winner
If my auntie was a man she would be my Uncle
That is an If that everyone knows is not true .
So Nike have dropped him, good, and he's stepped down as chairman of Livestrong, wise.
I will love to hear what he says to the livestrong rally this weekend.....
We'll get clean, but boring racing, look at the difference between this years tdf and the vuelta, one was a bit boring, and one wasn't.
I will love to hear what he says to the livestrong rally this weekend.....
Just heard on the radio that he's stepped down as CEO of Livestrong.
[url= http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-lance-armstrong-livestrong-20121017,0,681872.story ]HERE[/url]
no longer chairman but still on the board?
I believe the Lance Armstrong affair does not reflect on Nike, surely it beggars belief a huge corporation like Nike, with their intimate knowledge and involvement in sport had no idea what was going on with Lance Armstrong. It seems to me Nike were happy to be associated with Lance Armstrong and make lots of money on the back of that association, and turn a "blind eye" to the rumours until Lance Armstrong became too much of a liability.
If you take an overview, not only does Lance Armstrong come back from cancer, but (according to him) beats many riders who have now admitted doping, cleanly, incredible! Also the present generation of riders (Wiggins, Froome and co) are performing about 5% less (in terms of power) than Armstrong´s era. 5% is about the advantage successful doping will give you!
There's comment from Bruce Schneier here...
... he writes from a US security viewpoint.
And I wonder why T-mobile pulled out a while ago.
Aren't you all bored of this by now??????
Mods, please can we ban all Lance and Kaesae threads, PLEASE!
Nowhere really...those that don't compete will retire to the pub and have a discussion over a pint of whatever; those who don't cycle may or may not have any interest in it and those who do compete will become entrenched in their belief (whatever that is).
Those who are clean will try harder, those who aren't will try harder to hide the fact they aren't. UCI will look even further at their navel and do very little whilst publicly telling everyone to calm down, they are making it better.
The Pro teams are likely to make a lot of fuss and bluster about being clean, but to be honest, who really knows?
So I suspect those who don't have direct impact from this will do nothing other than have something else to discuss...
I'm glad it has finally come to light, but I seriously doubt anything of real value will be done...this is going to take years to weed out and remove (and at the same time gives those who are still tinkering the chance to get new stuff and new techniques to hide it all).