You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know but say in Ben's final heat all of the runners were chemical - who is he cheating? [b]He was the only one though.[/b]
Actually Carl lewis was caught, and the American Athletics/doping authorities covered it up.
[b]hora[/b] - Member
The sad thing is ... the punishment was over-drastic and almost vindictive.
Have you seen the list of charges? He was not given a retrospective lifetime ban [i]just[/i] for doping himself. It has to be viewed in the context of systematic team doping over many years.
[i]Actually Carl lewis was caught[/i]
Don't remember that. Got a link? I mostly remember Lewis campaigning hard to prove others were cheating.
Don't remember that. Got a link? I mostly remember Lewis campaigning hard to prove others were cheating.
It is mentioned in the Guardian article linked by loum.
On this point that everyone was doing it so no one lost out, this is overly simplistic. If you had two equally talented athletes one with a naturally occurring hemocrit of 35% and the other with 45%, the one with the lower level would get a much bigger boost in performance by using EPO to raise his hemocrit to the "health level" of 50% set at the time by the UCI so therefore a much bigger advantage from drug use. Add to this, different riders having the financial resources to pursue more sophisticated programmes and the field has a pretty big slope even if everyone is at it.
Actually Carl lewis was caughtDon't remember that. Got a link? I mostly remember Lewis campaigning hard to prove others were cheating.
Not quite in Ben Johnson's league and p'raps not strictly a cover-up....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay
Carl Lewis
Beaten to it
Blimey, they're all a bunch of lying cheats these athletes. I'll stick to rugby and boxing where no cheating goes on 😆
Not quite in Ben Johnson's league and p'raps not strictly a cover-up...
Well depends if you accept at face value his story that he just accidentally took known and banned masking agents three times as part of a herbal remedy or not. It seems that in the US at that time it was normal to just accept any excuse given, turn a blind eye as long as America keep winning.
Of the 8, Calvin Smith of the USA finished fourth and never failed a drugs test. Robson da Silva from Brazil finished sixth and never failed a drugs test.
Posted 59 minutes ago # Report-PostWackoAK - Member
LA Times article...
not biased what so ever..
Don't agree it's biased in the point it's making. If up take the Armstrong issue away from the article it's a good one. There are not many on here that would be happy to judged in that manner. Given that, Armstrong will always have an excuse as the system is basically unfair. To get the guilty punished any system must be fully open with set rules and the prosector/investigators can never be the judges of the case. It must be seen to be right even if that does not get us the result we think is right. If you think this could not happen in the UK have a look at the Diane Modhal case, an utter disgrace and very little has changed since then.
Any of the above does not change my view that LA probably cheated.
He's still pretty damn awesome though: Out of all the cheats, he (allegedly) cheated much better than all the others [i]and[/i] got away with it for the longest. Go Armstrong!
So who knows? He did win against the best who were doping though so at least he isn't a Ben Johnson if he did dope. He is also genetically odd IMO- a very very fit fella, even now. Thats got to go someway into explaining why he was dominant when he was in his prime
Others beat me to it on Ben Johnson - There was some discussion during the Olympics coverage about the "shame" of that 100m line-up...
Secondly, the genetic thing...
Ashenden addresses these claims in his interview. His view is that there is nothing physiologically unusual about LA. In fact it is another area where LA has lied - and unusually, he has actually admitted to "lying" (misleading / being incorrect, whatever phrase...)...
The great / unnatural physiological claims are based on a high output per kg claimed after his cancer recovery, but the low bodyweight figures these are based on have subsequently been countered (by LA himself), in that he never raced as low as 72kg...
[tinfoil hat mode] The superhuman physiology story almost seems a bit a pre-spinning for his "dramatically improved" performances after cancer recovery [\tinfoil hat mode]
ETA - and if "genetic" - ie he always had it in him, how come his earlier performances were (comparatively) so poor...?
rkk01 do you hate him?
edit- removed.
nothing personal 😉
ETA - and if "genetic" - ie he always had it in him, how come his earlier performances were (comparatively) so poor...?
He was a lot heavier, almost sprinter like in build.
No but as with Clinton (who I also admire), when he came unstuck and was impeached I still saw he positives in his character.
I'd love to be as good at Triathlon and be World Road Champ with comparatively poor performances.
Actually Carl lewis was caught
So was Linford Christie...
rkk01 do you hate him?
I'm not rkk01 but...
... I don't hate him personally but I hate what he is doing to our sport by refusing to fess up and by continuing to drag it out.
If he was clean then face the charges.
If he's not clean but doesn't want to have all the evidence dragged out in court then own up and take the punsihment.
Don't just continue to be a massive douche about it.
If he was clean then face the charges.
In a fair open court with the concept 'beyond reasonable doubt' not what the USADA had planned.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but the latest Velocast podcast has a very informed, unbiased view of it all. It starts from the beginning of his career, and goes through each incident in detail, it told me a lot I didn't know about him, the UCI and the mess it all was back in the 90's / 00s
For instance, the type of cancer Armstrong had would of created massive spikes of testosterone in his urine samples. Other athletes in different sports have been notified of this by their governing bodies, allowing them to catch the cancer early. Armstrong was not, he was racing for 6 months while he had cancer before he was diagnosed. Why didn't the UCI act on these high levels of testosterone? One of two things; total incompetency or corruption at the highest level.
rkk01 do you hate him?
Not in the slightest.
Like many of the posters on this thread, I always admired his comeback from cancer. I was slightly incredulous when that comeback included winning TdFs, but gave the man the benefit of the doubt, even though the suspicions lurked in my mind...
At that stage his denials and anti-doping stance (as viewed from a "general public perspective) were good enough for me. [After the Indurain period I wasn't much in to road cycling and paid little notice of the Tour, although by LA's fifth or so my interest had been re-attracted (equalling Mig etc)]
The more time has passed, his off bike behaviour has persuaded me that there is more to this story. I'd prefer to hear the "truth", rather than allegations and counter claims. Unfortunately LA has done more than anybody else to prevent the various lines of evidence being publicly aired for all (or a court) to evaluate.
I am a strong believer in fairness and "natural justice". The rich and powerful using their money and influence to get others to shut up doesn't sit well - the more of that LA has done, the more he has gone down in my estimation.
I do find the claims of a stitch up / witch hunt to be quite worrying. It really is not a case of USADA presenting an arbitration or nothing - guilty because I say so scenario.
If you don't beleive me, then read Judge Sparks' statement. He does criticise USADA (although they are not alone - LA and UCI were also criticised by the Judge). BUT, his conclusion was that USADA had the right jurisdiction and that they had a [u]fair[/u] system for appropriate due process - including access to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
If LA is so distressed about a fair arbitration, why not go through the process and appeal to CAS? Surely that is why the process is in place - for all athletes... LA does not, and should not get any different treatment to others.
It seems to me that the only consistencey here is LA NOT wanting the various testimonies (ok, [u]some[/u] tainted) and other evidence to be heard in public.
He hasn't even been consistent in his denial of doping...
- To start with he had a very strong anti-doping stance - denied doping
- To back this up, he pursued anyone who spoke out against him, including pursuing libel cases - good on him, I would, if the statements were in fact libel (ie he hadn't doped)
- As more information has come to light, he has stopped threatening libel action. To me that suggests he fears a loss in the courts...?
- And his PR line has changed to reflect this reduced willingness to pursue libel action... He now claims "most tested athlete" and "never failed a drugs test", a subtley very different use of language.
So, "hater" - No, far from it
Disappointed - yes very, for the sport and for LA
Most of all, I would love to see an "honest resolution" to this.
No lynch mob justice, no cover up or shady out of court settlements...
Fair points and good counter. I see where you are coming from.
Hora, listen to the Velocast podcast. It just states what people know about Armstrong and the UCI, and what the various testimonies are etc, it's worth a listen
In a fair open court with the concept 'beyond reasonable doubt' not what the USADA had planned.
It is Lance's continued pedalling of this line that means he "continues to be a douche about it"
If he is found guilty by the USADA he can appeal to CAS. In fact if LA really is so alturistic and truely belives the USADA process if flawed then he is the best placed athlete to challenge them at CAS as he has the resources. Other falsely (sic) accused athlete all across America will thank him for breaking the corupt process.
In case it hasn't been linked before....
I would just love it if the UCI/ASO whoever turned round and told the USADA to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and then Lance went on to become a French hero.
I was never that fond of him but all of the goody goody sticks in the mud and the USADA wanting 'answers' make me like him whole lot more.
what a lovely piece of trolling 🙄
- To back this up, he pursued anyone who spoke out against him, including pursuing libel cases - good on him, I would, if the statements were in fact libel (ie he hadn't doped)
Just to point out a common mistake - check how many cases actually went to court and of the ones that did, why Lance didn't lose. IIRC the only case that went to court was relating to a company's non-payment of bonuses to LA on the basis that they believed he'd cheated. The company had to settle when it became clear that the contract didn't state anything about doping as as such, LA having met the criteria (won the tour) they had to pay out irrespective of whether he cheated or not.
Other cases have been threatened very vocally and either not persued by LA or the witnesses have backed down. At least some have stated that this was due to threats and intimidation.
I suppose if you're going to fraud might as well do it big stylee, TDF 7 times is as big as it gets, i suppose he felt invincible, what with the best doctors, all his team junked up, and the UCI in the bag, what could go wrong--- well its took until now for the thing to unravel to the point where he is snookered-- many of his victims will be feeling good now, this will run for a while , i wonder if he'll end penniless ???
He sued the times for reporting Kimmage iirc and won- they settled out of court iirc
the punishment was over-drastic and almost vindictive. It just leaves a bitter taste allround.
He cheated to win all his titles what would have been appropriate?
No but as with Clinton (who I also admire), when he came unstuck and was impeached I still saw he positives in his character
so you like drug cheats and folk who are unfaithful to their wifes with impressionable interns. This paints an excellent picture of you and it appears you have an amoral compass rather than a moral one.
The LA times link is laughablly one sided and to those claiming the USADA is not fair that is what LA claimed to judge who [ after throwing out his first draft as PR bluster and refusing to read it] decided that it was the legal organisation and he would get a fair trial.
Why you think LA can decide what is fair [ what bias are you acusing the judge of as clearly LA has an agenda] and why you buy into this idea that it is unfair is unclear to me
I guess as many have stated we all held LA up as a hero, a super human who defied the odds, overcame adversity and was untouchable as he kicked ass on a bike - who will ever forget the look?
To realise much of this was a sham is difficult for you to get but please dont clutch at straws as some of it is quite desperate
Alex if you must troll could you at least try and do a rational one?
You keep posting stuff like that and no one is biting
Re the LA times article
They do like one sided polemics over there – interestiungly the link on the article
Evidence has emerged over the years that laboratories certified by the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, have been incompetent at analyzing athletes' samples or fabricated results when they didn't get the numbers they were hoping to see
This does not have any evidence to support that statement re fabricating results.
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2006/dec/11/local/la-me-doping11dec11
from the article
Earlier this year, for example, Pound suggested that former Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong had been guilty of doping in 1999. He based his comments on disputed and supposedly confidential research data compiled by WADA's Paris lab
LA and the UCI gave permission for the data to be revelaed leading a journalist to match his samples with the ones tested in Australia
they later uses Flloyd Landis for evidence of how bad the process is and how it may give false positives
Not included are documents that might shed light on a WADA lab's general proficiency or its treatment of other similar cases, arguably pertinent to defense questions about lab consistency or reliability.
Tygart calls the document package routinely shipped to accused athletes "fair and overly generous." The U.S. agency generally rejects requests for further data unless the athlete "can articulate a need that's not a fishing expedition," he says.
USADA's position will probably be tested by Tour de France champion Floyd Landis, who has been charged with testosterone doping in the 2006 race.
Jacobs, Landis' attorney, submitted a 10-page request in October for documents related to the Paris WADA lab's general experience with the testosterone screening. Landis hopes to challenge whether the French scientists "have sufficient expertise at running this test" and whether they can justify their criteria for declaring the cyclist's sample positive.
I struggle to call that journalism it is
To all The LA fans you have my sympathies the mask has slipped for us all at some point re LA but better to cling to rationality that your dreams
what a lovely piece of trolling
It's what I genuinely think. Was he caught? No. Leave him alone. Plus his previous boy wonder status as an all American hero made me dislike him. Now he is being chucked off is pedestal I think it makes him more of an icon. I will say it again; I think he did dope, I just don't think it detracts from his achievements. The world is not a black and white place and people do lots of regrettable things make mistakes all the time.
Besides who will they give all the tour wins to? Ullrich, Pantani, Kloden, Zulle. Never mind all the stage wins. God sake poor guy has had testicular cancer and been disliked all his professional life (understandably) and now this.
Agree.
Was he caught? [s]No[/s]Yes
FIFY, why don't you do a bit of research?
alex222 - Member
God sake poor guy has had testicular cancer and been disliked all his professional life (understandably) and now this.
That has nothing to do with anything.
Was he caught? No.
what do you think the charges were if not him being caught?
I will say it again; I think he did dope, I just don't think it detracts from his achievements.
So cheating to win does not detract from his achievements?
The world is not a black and white place and people do lots of regrettable things make mistakes all the time.
what mistakes you said he had not been caught but he doped but none of this detracts from his awesomeness though you used to hate him till he was not awesome.
I think peple have mistaken you for a troll as your posts are contradictory, confusing and make little sense
If you need further proof Hora likes them
😛
HTH
alex 222 - but that's not really what you posted before 😉
I agree, the TdF titles shouldn't be handed over to anyone else - unless there is a viable "clean" candidate from the previous podium places...
I also think that it is important to recognise his achievements in beating cancer and on the bike, albeit with the caveat that like most of his contemporaries, the racing achievements will now be tarnished..
As posted above, it's the off-bike behaviour that has reduced my opinion of the man
If there was an official report in public circulation saying that he was caught then maybe he would already have been stripped of his titles.Was he caught?[s] NoYes[/s][b] allegedly; but the internet is full of lots of rumors that many people take to be the truth because they want to believe it[/b]
Some people say that his alleged doping caused testicular cancer which is a pretty low blow.That has nothing to do with anything
what mistakes you said he had not been caught but he doped but none of this detracts from his awesomeness though you used to hate him because lots of annoying Americans banged on about he was the greatest of all time and a super duper hero [s]till he was not awesome[/s] now he has been made a villain and the same annoying Americans are ready to push him off his pedestal I kind of like him.
Was every one else not using synthetic EPO among other performance enhancing drugs?So cheating to win does not detract from his achievements?
I shall repeat my question - who do you gift the tour/stage wins to?
Was every one else not using synthetic EPO among other performance enhancing drugs?
No only the cheats were cheating.
[s]No[/s] only the cheats were [s]cheating[/s] pretty much the entire peleton.
Was he caught? NoYes allegedly; but the internet is full of lots of rumors that many people take to be the truth because they want to believe it
No, not allegedly. He failed a drugs test for a steroid in the 1999 tdf, Then produced a predated prescription for a product that contained the steroid.
This broke UCI rules, as he had to declare he was using such a product, and produce the prescription prior to entering the race, and he did not. The UCI broke their own rules and allowed him to continue, he should have been immediately sanctioned and banned, but the UCI, for whatever reason did not do that. This is not 'allegedly', this is absolute fact, that everyone who follows cycling knows about
As I said before, do a bit of research.
doping caused testicular cancer which is a pretty low blow
😯
His maseuse was to testify he did not have saddle sores
True dat - been a cheat from the start and for reasons unknown UCOI have allways turned a blind eye to it
Was every one else not using synthetic EPO among other performance enhancing drugs?
Not everyone's use of EPO and other drugs was comprehensive/regimented to the degree that US Postal is accused of. EPO does not affect everyone equally.
Everyone doping does not produce the same 'level playing field' as nobody doping.
As posted above, it's the off-bike behaviour that has reduced my opinion of the man
Fair enough I am not really aware of any of that.
This is not 'allegedly', this is absolute fact, that everyone who follows cycling knows about
Presumably you have seen this report? Presumably it is also freely available and that is how you have this knowledge?
As far as I was aware he allegedly failed a drugs test in le tour de suisse not le tour de france and it allegedly disappeared once a charitable donation was made.
No, not allegedly. He failed a drugs test for a steroid in the 1999 tdf, Then produced a predated prescription for a product that contained the steroid.
This broke UCI rules, as he had to declare he was using such a product, and produce the prescription prior to entering the race, and he did not. The UCI broke their own rules and allowed him to continue, he should have been immediately sanctioned and banned, but the UCI, for whatever reason did not do that. This is not 'allegedly', this is absolute fact, that everyone who follows cycling knows aboutAs I said before, do a bit of research.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong ]Armstrong has continually denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world. A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range - by research did you mean have a look on wikipedia?[/url]
edit post not needed
ah ok full quote
Armstrong has continually denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world.[64] A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range.[citation needed] A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance.[65] Emma O' Reilly, Armstrong's masseuse said she heard team officials worrying about Armstrong's positive test for steroids during the Tour. She said: "They were in a panic, saying: 'What are we going to do? What are we going to do?'". According to O'Reilly the solution was to get one of their compliant doctors to issue a pre-dated prescription for a steroid-based ointment to combat saddle sores. O'Reilly said she would have known if Armstrong had saddle sores as she would have administered any treatment for it. O'Reilly said that Armstrong told her: "Now, Emma, you know enough to bring me down." O'Reilly said on other occasions she was asked to dispose of used syringes for Armstrong and pick up strange parcels for the team
you missed off the [citation needed] bit of that quote...
you missed off the [citation needed] bit of that quote...
Presumably you have this citation in your possession seeing how you know it is fact?
Tyler Hamilton's tell-all book about Lance Armstrong and doping in cycling will be released two weeks earlier than originally planned."The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs," is now scheduled for release Sept. 5.
Ballantine Bantam Dell touts the book as the "first deeply detailed window into one of the defining sports stories of our time."
IIRC the U.S. Attournet General dropped the "Misuse of Public Funds" case against LA/U.S. Postal because there was no solid evidence despite having everything USADA have plus a 2 year invstigation by the DEA/FBI.
The USADA seem to be acting on little more than what is already common knowledge plus the 'testimony' of several aggreived parties, all of whom have something to gain from a guilty verdict.
It is [s]possible[/s] likely that doping was indeed part of the regime but in the scheme of things the dopers were, for the most part, ahead of the authorities. There's been conjecture about samples that showed banned substances just prior to them actually being banned which adds credibility to this argument.
Without any concrete evidence that the rules were broken at the time they were in place surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
In the USAG investigation I seem to recall there were 'witness' statements that the entire team were all part of the programme to enable them to keep up with/assist LA to his titles in which case there should be a load of bans coming up and even more reputations destroyed.
Not team the 22 pages but read in-depth and followed it since way back when he is a bully and q drugs cheat. He had tested positive for drugs he had bullied clean riders who spoke out against the omerta and not once had he said "I didn't do drugs" he says "I never tested positive" ... stand up and fight if you are nnocent. JmO.
The idea that the whole peloton was cheating in 99 is false. Lots of the Tour 99 B samples that were retrospectively tested for EPO came up negative. Lance's six positives were a large part of the small proportion of positives.
Actually Carl lewis was caught
Should've run faster then...
Should've run faster then...
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
hes gonna race bmx now apparently?
I didn't know Carl Lewis could even ride a bike!
What the Captain said.
AFAIK no reason has been given for dropping the federal investigation. Lack of solid evidence would be one reason. But let's not forget that the federal investigation and the USADA were looking for different things - one was looking for fraudulent use of of govt funds, the other was looking for cheating in sport.IIRC the U.S. Attournet General dropped the "Misuse of Public Funds" case against LA/U.S. Postal because there was no solid evidence despite having everything USADA have plus a 2 year invstigation by the DEA/FBI.
Have you seen the evidence the USADA hold? I haven't but I'd be [i][b]astonished[/i][/b] if they were prepared to go into a legal process with nothing more than internet rumour and testimony from other guilty/aggrieved parties. I do not know (but I believe) USADA have evidence they are prepared to stand behind.The USADA seem to be acting on little more than what is already common knowledge plus the 'testimony' of several aggreived parties, all of whom have something to gain from a guilty verdict.
That's no reason not to punish them now though, is it?It is possible likely that doping was indeed part of the regime but in the scheme of things the dopers were, for the most part, ahead of the authorities.
see above - have you seen the evidence?Without any concrete evidence that the rules were broken at the time they were in place surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
Correct that this is an investigation into the actions of a team, not as LA would have you believe, a personal witch-hunt. Two doctors and a rider (LA) have been banned. A doctor, a trainer and the team manager/DS have yet to go through the arbitration process.In the USAG investigation I seem to recall there were 'witness' statements that the entire team were all part of the programme to enable them to keep up with/assist LA to his titles in which case there should be a load of bans coming up and even more reputations destroyed.
you missed off the [citation needed] bit of that quote...
Did he? Maybe you should check the wiki article again 😉 - and then try reading the following reference (currently ref 65) which provides a source for that information.
surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
Well if you're calling direct witness testimony "hearsay", then maybe that's the case. You do realise that an awful lot of people are convicted (case proved beyond reasonable doubt according to 12 men good and true) just based upon direct witness testimony and circumstance?
higgo et al, for you: is it simply a case of if someone's caught, he's always a cheat, and anyone not caught, is always clean?
Seems naive to me.
higgo et al, for you: is it simply a case of if someone's caught, he's always a cheat, and anyone not caught, is always clean?Seems naive to me.
No. It's not that simple.
I understand the need for, but am uncomfortable with, the idea of 'strict liability'. So, for example, Alain Baxter was 'caught' but I don't consider him a cheat.
There are those who were 'caught' and doped for a period of time - I'd consider them as cheats for that period of time but give them the benefit of the doubt outside that. Millar is a good example.
Two weeks ago Armstrong had not yet been caught but I was sure he was dirty. There are quite a few people who have not been 'caught' who I have a reasonable suspicion are dirty.
However I don't believe that 'everyone on the peleton was on it' - I am convinced that Sastre and Evans, for example, were clean throughout.
Also (as mentioned somewhere in the 22pages of rubbish) I view riders from the past (Coppi, Anquetil, Simpson, Merckx etc) more sympathetically than riders of the 80s/90s/00s - there's no reason for this - a cheat's a cheat and through history people who doped did it to score an advantage.
There are also different types of 'caught'. I guess the most caught is someone who admits to it. Positive A/B is a pretty good indicator too but (see Baxter) there is always the chance that some took something once completely by mistake. Then there is 'caught' by testimony or other evidence - if enough credible witnesses say you did it, you did it.
A lack of positive tests does not mean someone's clean - look at Bernhard Kohl - he handed over his doping diaries and hasd been on all sorts of stuff for years but only tested +ve once, probably by not following his doping schedule well enough.
Without resorting to cliches, they're case-by-case cases and it's not black/white.
>The idea that the whole peloton was cheating in 99 is false. Lots of the Tour 99 B samples that were retrospectively tested for EPO came up negative. Lance's six positives were a large part of the small proportion of positives.
Just in case it's not been posted already - more detail here:
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Just finished listening to the velocast episode. Very interesting listening and some very good insight from people passionate about the sport of cycling.
The key things I think it highlights are:
- Lance will have had very high levels of testosterone in his pee due to the cancer. This should have been easily detected by a drugs test at an early stage and the cancer could have been prevented from spreading. Why didn't this happen (as it has for other athletes)? Are the UCI massively incompetent or complicit in the doping.
- Omertà is a massive black mark on the sport of cycling, people are still scared of speaking out even today. Lance reinforced this during his time as "patron" (witness Bassons and Simeoni) and this has damaged cycling more than the actual cheating of any individual.
- There appears to be lots of evidence that the UCI are massively corrupt. The latest move by them to question the durastiction of USADA contravenes the WADA code. To be a member of the IOC it is a prerequisite that you follow the WADA code. If the UCI continue the corruption and back Lance against the USADA cycling will be removed from the Olympics. To say that would not be good for cycling is somewhat of an understatement!
- So to people who say this is a witch hunt, you are wrong. This is the unravelling of potentially the biggest corruption sport has ever seen. To people who say there is no evidence, you are wrong, there is evidence all the way back to the missed cancer diagnosis right up to the dodgy bio passport results in his comeback tour.
Millar is a good example.
Millar is someone who said exactly what he needed to a)sell some books and b) get another ride; because he is a professional cyclist and had not yet done enough to retire off the sport.
You know hes still my hero too. Irrational? I'm in denial? Or what he achieved was bigger than cycling? He'll continue to be my hero. Sorry if that offends and no I can't change my opinion on the subject.
I thought if he was ever 'caught' or stripped of his titles I'd dread the day/I'd turn on him. I didn't.
hora - fair enough - and I respect that.
In the mean time, I missed this, from the BBC website yesterday...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19413613 ]UCI offered free legal advice[/url]
As many of us have stated / alluded, the real story isn't necessarily about doping - it's this....
The International Cycling Union (UCI) says it has been contacted by up to 20 sports lawyers offering free legal representation following the decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (Usada) to ban Lance Armstrong for life for doping offences.
The BBC understands that the UCI is now weighing up two specific offers from UK-based lawyers.[SNIP]
Trevor Watkins, head of the sports division at international law firm Pinsent Masons, agrees that "fundamental issues about the structure of sport" are at stake."It is right that Usada should ensure we have a level playing field and its role is clear," he said. "But the UCI's role, as the international federation, is also clear.
[b]"What's not clear is what happens when one body tries to impose a judgement on the other. We need to know who does what. [/b]
The UCI had previously challenged Usada's right to proceed against Armstrong, writing to the agency's chief executive Travis Tygart, demanding that he submit whatever evidence he has to a panel set up by cycling's world governing body.
The [b]UCI has since dropped this demand under pressure from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada),[/b] the main organisation in the fight against drugs in sport, [b]and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)[/b], which runs the Olympic Games and provides Wada with half of its funding.
The BBC has spoken to another leading sports lawyer who is scathing in his criticism of the UCI's role in this process.The lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous as he has a professional interest in the case, said Wada's rules do not give an international federation seniority over a national anti-doping agency in cases of this type.
He also pointed out that Usada was within its grounds to push on with its investigation under the UCI's own "discovery rule", which states that whichever agency comes into evidence of cheating has the authority to pursue the case.
He also believes the [b]governing body's position has been compromised by suggestions it was complicit in Armstrong's cheating[/b].
[b]There is one key issue that everybody agrees on, though: the UCI's decision to effectively come out in support of Armstrong will not only be based on the legal merits of its case[/b]. [b][That's an [u]outstanding[/u] statement...][/b]
With the IOC, Wada and cycling fans around the world watching closely, the UCI must weigh up the political costs of backing such a divisive figure, particularly if the evidence he has sought to contain reaches the public domain anyway.
So, do the UCI want to dance, or are they going to shuffle off into the dark corner and order another beer
EDIT: if they have sense they will shuffle off. if there is any integrity they will all resign and disband.
I suspect[hope]some agency may go after them which would be no bad thing.
Lance continues to be my hero. As a cancer survivor, I know it is difficult to come back and perform. I don't know how they banned him but he will always be an inspiration to me,"
You can admire him for surving cancer, you can admire him for Livestrong [ though I think the money could be better spent and it is as much a vehicle for LA as it is for cancer charity work] but he is still a drugs cheat on a bike and that is not admirable nor is how he treated people who spoke out about it.
The USADA seem to be acting on little more than what is already common knowledge plus the 'testimony' of several aggreived parties, all of whom have something to gain from a guilty verdict.
People keep saying this - perhap sthey do have an ageneda and amotive to lie against LA but it is equally clear that LA has a reason to lie as well to them about his guilt as well. If you want to throw this stone you have to throw it at both parties. What have they all got to gain from guilty as well - we dont even know who al lthe witnesses are so that is just a guess/slur on your part. Again LA has clearly got something to gain from a not guilty verdict. It spart of the myth that everyone is out to get him when in reality he was [largely] out to get anyoine who spoke out.
Without any concrete evidence that the rules were broken at the time they were in place surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
Witnesses who saw him dope are not hearsay as they actually saw it happen , it is witness testimony.
I really hope this triggers the collapse of the UCI's hierarchy (especially McQuaid) but sadly it won't. FIFA manage to survive despite all the corruption allegations, I'm sure the UCI probably will to. How they can be allowed to have a profit-making side business making money from the expansion into the Asian racing market whilst using the UCI to force world tour teams to attend them is beyond me. Accepting 'donations' from riders that have tested positive is not stupid it's corrupt. And all the while they're destroying women's cycling by effectively ignoring it.
I'm glad WADA gave them a slap though when they tried to bully USADA into dropping the LA investigation. I guess they'll now just accept the ruling grudgingly to avoid the spotlight shining on them any more.
hora - Member
Or what he achieved was bigger than cycling?
"I cannont be disqualified from cycling! I AM CYCLING!"
But seriously, no.
Or what he achieved was bigger than cycling?
Was he riding 800cc wheels? Is that how he won all those tours?
Hmm, the post from rkk01 would suggest that this is not going to end anytime soon.Offers of legal advice from lawyers with "an interest in the outcome" Can't be good to see that and you name in the same article.
[i]Was he riding 800cc wheels? Is that how he won all those tours?[/i]
Aw, Gawd !. I haven't even got my 29" or 650b bikes yet.
I'm falling so far behind the times.
😉
Someone a few pages back mentioned the forthcoming Tyler Hamilton book...
[img] 
[/img]
Considering a purchase... presuming there's no injunction taken out against publication.
Has anyone heard whether there has been any legal wrangling over publication?
Someone a few pages back mentioned the forthcoming Tyler Hamilton book...Considering a purchase... presuming there's no injunction taken out against publication.
Has anyone heard whether there has been any legal wrangling over publication?
Publication date has been brought forward 2 weeks. I don't know if that's because:
a) it's all been cleared legally and they want to get it to market quicker to cash in on LA's 'situation'
b) they expect two weeks of extra legal-wrangling so it will actually come out roughly as planned
c) someone thought it would be a good idea
p.s. also considering a purchase but UK publication seems to be Sep 18th still so it's likely that anything interesting in it will be in the public domain by then.
Daniel Coyle - he's written a few (supporting) books about LA - odd co author..?!
Reading back on this a few people seem to think the USADA have no evidence - they shadowed the federal investigation into the misuse of funds - they have sworn grand jury testimony from a lot of witnesses - both ex team mates, ex team staff and other people. If youre called before the grand jury you tell the truth or end up in jail - end of - hence the supporting witness statements. Its these statements that LA doesnt want anyone to read or hear about.
The misuse of funds trial was not dropped it was closed down on the day they were about to charge people - to date no explanation has been given for this, the people running the investigation have still not been told why.
And again this witchunt thing - read the charge sheet this was not a vendetta against one person - it was an investigation into 5 people running a complex trafficking and supplying ring from 1999 to 2010 - its the USADA's job to investigate drugs cheats in sports I dont think doing what youre paid to do is akin to a witchunt!
"its the USADA's job to investigate drugs cheats in sports I dont think doing what youre paid to do is akin to a witchunt!"
I agree but is it their job to judge as well? That's what I do not like. They have a vested interest that is not questioned in a court, this gives them to much power and allows the likes of LA to use the unfair excuse. The USADA should now have to put this in front of a judge or another body or person that is seperate from both sides. This should apply in all contested cases unless there is an admission of guilt.
you seem confused they dont judge a panel of three experts [ all approved by them] - "judge".
Perhaps it should just be a list approved by WADA rather than by them?
I dont see anyway round this and it is not different from the state picking your judge or magistrate. It is not inherently unfair though it may be depending on who is picked.
Part of the reason for this was speed.
Remember the days [ contador recently as well actually] where drug cheats were racing till the trial was held and all results anulled etc.
This charge has been repeated but the federal judge ruled that their processes were sufficient to ensure that LA would get a fair trial - he did not mention that in his refusal to take part press release.