You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And the UCI could probably do with a good clean as well - lift up all the carpets and clean out everything that was swept underneath them...
Yep, which is why hopefully this whole 'Lance' thing is positive (pun intended 🙂 ) - just need some more detail to come out about UCI collusion to come out and they could well be forced to make changes - of course, it needs to be more than just window dressing but getting rid of Pat and Hein (from the IOC) would be a good start
crazy-legs - Member
"And Contador lost a yellow jersey - not like he got off scott free."
Still sends the wrong message. As soon as Contador tested positive, he should have been suspended from all racing pending the outcome of the case
And if he'd been found innocent he would have missed a season's racing and been punished for nothing.
A & B sample tested positive. Tough shit, you're positive.
Racing/competing while you're waiting the results of B is fair enough but once B is positive as well, you should be suspended while all the legal wrangles go on.
The number of cases when they're positive because of accidental contamination is few and far between compared to cases where they've deliberately doped.
"And if he'd been found innocent he would have missed a season's racing and been punished for nothing."
He could not be found innocent as there is no legal minimum for his drug of choice. Even if injested by accident then it's still illegal so a ban. Having the Spanish Prime Minister state on TV that there would be no banning for the cheating little twerp messed things up for the authorities a tad.
clubber - agree re UCI. I think the real reason this has rumbled on for so long is that it involves not only the cyclists but back up teams, doctors, labs, sponsors, governing bodies, organisers, governments - ie everyone. I imagine (and this is only my opinion) that there are quite a few highly-placed individuals who will be feeling very happy that the spotlight is on Lance and not them.
Mind you, I still say that these riders have got talent. It's not like you could pick someone out of the queue at Tesco, pop them on a bike, give them some drugs, and make a Tour winner.
The number of cases when they're positive because of accidental contamination is few and far between compared to cases where they've deliberately doped.
In fact, the only time the B-sample has not been positive too has been down to procedural issues as far as I remember (Hamilton got away with one I recall). So yes, if A&B are positive, suspension should be compulsory until the case is decided. Then you could say bans are from the date of the hearing, not the date of the test to ensure everyone wants to get it over quickly.
Mind you, I still say that these riders have got talent. It's not like you could pick someone out of the queue at Tesco, pop them on a bike, give them some drugs, and make a Tour winner.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that (though there is debate over how consistently people respond to doping - eg some riders are far better doped than an otherwise comparable rider is when also doping so it becomes a race over who's best at responding to doping).
if you test positive you test positive.
the reason is irrelevant you still get banned- look at thescotssih skier
All athletes are responsible for everything they have in them whatever the cause - strict liability
he was always getting banned everyone knew this but the Spanish would not accept it.
Mind you, I still say that these riders have got talent. It's not like you could pick someone out of the queue at Tesco, pop them on a bike, give them some drugs, and make a Tour winner
True but we can also never sya that any of the winners would have won without cheating
Hamilton was 97 th in the Vuleta when he rode it clean for example. Must have been many clean athlets above him and below the winner [ who also may have been clean for all I know].
That is the problem, it does not enhance your natural abilities it gives you unnatural abilities.
This is totally seperate but you've been caught as a cheat/etc - wouldn't the best thing to do would be to live a quiet life? Not stand up and bang a drum/gain attention/notoriety?
Says it all about the mindset of cheats in general, they feel they have been cheated themselves in someway/blame something else/someone else for why they chose to go down the original path.
crazy-legs - Member
A & B sample tested positive. Tough shit, you're positive.
Racing/competing while you're waiting the results of B is fair enough but once B is positive as well, you should be suspended while all the legal wrangles go on.The number of cases when they're positive because of accidental contamination is few and far between compared to cases where they've deliberately doped.
True, I didn't think of that.
mt - Member
He could not be found innocent as there is no legal minimum for his drug of choice.
Or that, disregard!
This is totally seperate but you've been caught as a cheat/etc - wouldn't the best thing to do would be to live a quiet life? Not stand up and bang a drum/gain attention/notoriety?Says it all about the mindset of cheats in general, they feel they have been cheated themselves in someway/blame something else/someone else for why they chose to go down the original path.
Again, it says something about the mindset and also explains the sudden urge of all his "close lieutenants" to come out and (allegedly) testify against him.
Did LA truly believe that he'd got away with everything so getting away with a bit more was a done deal? Does the criminals vanity lead them to try ever more outlandish /obvious crimes? Is everyone else suddenly suffering a crisis of conscience or are they jumping on a bandwagon.
As I've said before, no-one here knows the full truth (with the probable exception of LA). You've got two known dopers (Hamilton and Landis) who consistently lied and lied for years (and in Landis' case made several million out of that lying), are they suddenly now telling the truth, whole truth and nothing but...
I very much doubt it.
As has been comment above, the sad fact is that they a effing brilliant athletes then they go and cheat. It's a bit glib to say it's because of the money, there must be other reasons why those that seem to already be the best want to cheat to prove it.
hora - MemberThis is totally seperate but you've been caught as a cheat/etc - wouldn't the best thing to do would be to live a quiet life? Not stand up and bang a drum/gain attention/notoriety?
Says it all about the mindset of cheats in general, they feel they have been cheated themselves in someway/blame something else/someone else for why they chose to go down the original path.
...applies perfectly to Lance...
A cheats mindset. Then when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar the 'your eyes are lying' defence comes out before admission.
A normal person may be tempted but his/her values over-ride that temptation.
As has been comment above, the sad fact is that they a effing brilliant athletes then they go and cheat. It's a bit glib to say it's because of the money, there must be other reasons why those that seem to already be the best want to cheat to prove it.
You may be a great athlete but if you are having to compete against dopers then you have to dope to level the field...
Thats an excuse and not a valid reason.
If Lance hadn't had his comeback, it's likely that he'd have got away with it all I reckon. It's only now that he's (almost) officially a cheat that people are brave enough to say things.
Thats an excuse and not a valid reason.
principal is one thing, earning a living is another.
What is the point of him cycling if his results are always going to be mediocre compared to the dopers, nothwithstanding getting dropped from the team for having mediocre results/not doping.
Isn't tha tthe story in all these stories about doping, riders being under big pressure to dope.
Surely most would prefer not to dope and prove that they are better athletes unaided - notwithstanding all the health risks that doping might entail.
Then when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar the 'your eyes are lying' defence comes out before admission.
Bit like LA letter saying it was witchunt and so biased he coulod never prove his case? Ie they are just so after me what can I do but honestly i never did it - well he actually did not say he never did it he just mentioned the drug tests again- again as al notes applies to LA
You may be a great athlete but if you are having to compete against dopers then you have to dope to level the field
two issues in my mind
1. the will to win is so great that some will do anything to achieve this - I class LA as this type
2. You may be perfectly ordinary without the drugs and need to cheat to win- LA record pre comeback means I am not sure re this- could he have won clean against clean athletes I dont know and we never will.
You could have broken the omerta and spoken out and quit - some did this. Some raced on without cheating - cuddles for example
If that injection or that little pink pill is the difference between being good and world class, it's a difficult call. Am not condoneing doping in anyway, it really makes me fed up but I can see that at many levels the temptations and pressure from others could be overwhelming. There are some though that seem to have gone out of their way to be the best by whatever means.
Supose trying to think what you'd do in their situation is one way of looking at it. I probably (when young) would not have stood the test.
Which is exactly why the culture aspect is so important and actually once you get away from the headlines, that's what USADA have actually based their case on - a conspiracy of doping rather than it actually being specific to LA.
glitchy bump
If Lance hadn't had his comeback, it's likely that he'd have got away with it all I reckon. It's only now that he's (almost) officially a cheat....
There's no 'almost' about it. By not contesting the USADA charges against him, he is officially a cheat and has been ineligible for competition since 1998.
Some people may not accept it but the official position is that he's a cheat.
Glitchity bump?
Supose trying to think what you'd do in their situation is one way of looking at it. I probably (when young) would not have stood the test.
Completely agree, however there comes a point when you should just stand up and admit it.
Just been reading The Times and they have Hamilton as saying that "owning up could be the best thing that he (Armstrong) ever does".
LA is a symptom of the problem, a high profile one granted, but the skullduggery/corruption run to the core of the UCI, and unless that is addressed there is always going to be structueal problems at the heart of pro cycling-- the good thing is at last the boil seems to be getting Lanced !
very poor but funny
LA is a symptom of the problem, a high profile one granted, but the skullduggery/corruption run to the core of the UCI
Disagree with the first part, agree with the second. The sport was starting to clean itself up but by the looks of it US Postal ushered in a new and far more sophisticated era of doping. Coupled with LA's bullying of people who spoke out, he's actually as much of the problem as he is the symptom.
Coming back to the veracity of Hamilton's testimony / book....
Never trust a word of a lier and cheat.Common sense?!
Agreed, Hamilton is not the most reliable witness.
But the 'revelations' in his book (which I haven't read) seem to be consistent with the rest of the jigsaw
Previous liar / unreliable or not? - I'd say (and did quite a few pages ^^^) that the account in Hamilton's book has now got to be taken very seriously...
If the book differs significantly from his Grand Jury testimony he is likely to have the FBI on his case...
[i]"Without the authorisation of the United States Congress, the USADA has unilaterally changed the rules by which athletes who have never failed a test are prosecuted. [b]Additionally, USADA’s new, self-imposed rules do not provide athletes appropriate due process rights which all other Americans enjoy." [/b]
"The United States was founded under the fundamental premise that everyone has the due process right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
"To that end, we respectfully request that you call upon the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to develop appropriate constitutional protections and conduct a comprehensive review of USADA's operations and finances, with special attention to USADA's unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test."
[/i]
I was intrigued by these allegations from a group of senators in the States - is it a veiled attempt to question the legality of the USADA's actions? Or perhaps a case of LA having friends in high places...
No, it's idiots getting into the press in an election year. A judge ruled the USADA as constitutional so that's that argument thrown out. They might be his friends too of course.
that is some local councillors[seantors] in California who have done that not the actual senate
the judges ruling in brief re thisOn balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process," Sparks wrote. "This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him."He cited a 2001 decision by the 7th Circuit in Slaney vs. the International Amateur Athletic Association, an attempt by runner Mary Decker Slaney to overturn an arbitration panel's decision that she committed a doping offence.
"Federal courts should not interfere with an amateur sports organization's disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules," Sparks said. "To hold otherwise would be to turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little."
Ta.
Atlaz- LA is by far the biggest firework in the display, but the conditions must have been right for him to feel confident to do what he did-- sure he got bolder and eventually he was king of the peloton or rather Dictator, i suppose he normalised the business, and justified it accordingly, in his world its dog eateth dog, its the republican way godammit.....
Ultimately this is great for cycling and hopefully for other sports that are willing to come clean.. which inevitably they will..
in the meantime a lot of humble pie needs eating .......by all those sycophants of the system ....
I'd urge everybody reading this thread to read the Vaughters comments on the cyclingnews forum linked on a previous page-very interesting stuff.
Vaughters is now able to be honest and open with his opinions, refreshing, as he says though its going to take a year or three to clear the air of the stench, and thats just the riders, UCI ????
He was fairly candid about the fact that the only reason there isn't mass doping at the moment is because the risk/reward balance suggests it isn't currently worth it.
And that as soon as the balance swings the other way, the peleton will mostly be back on it (and steamrollering the remaining clean riders).
in the meantime a lot of humble pie needs eating .......by all those sycophants of the system
I can think of a few 'enablers' who will be non-repentant
Really?
Hmm
Interestin
Hmm
😈
Will the real 1000 please stand up.
1000!
What?
Edit - I see. Lame.
Sad Sack
I see Bitter is not just a drink.
You're right, it's a car manufacturer too.
Another round of bitter?
SO you posted repetitively to get 1000 then called others bitter 😕
Billions of years of evolution to get to this...clearly there is no plan or designer. If there is they are face palming right now.
[img] 
[/img]
SO you posted repetitively to get 1000 then called others bitter
Wouldn't it be funny if he missed the 1000th post too?
post #1009
😆
well spotted - I missed that
Hows that bitter?
Stop frothing.
Come on !. You can't let THIS thread end like, errr, this. How about re-posting the link to the Hamilton article. No way I'm gonna go back and trawl 28 pages for that.
And perhaps someone can post an efficient, possibly amusing precis of this mutha of a thread.
😉
Summary:
Yes he did
No he didn't
You're stoopid
You are
YOU are
[b]YOU[/b] are
(rpt)
The facts as I see 'em:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Was it the drugs, or stopping them that did this to hamilton - or is he just trying to win lance back despite everything ?
Is Hamilton also sorry he was doping and bullied into it by the bigger boys. Or is he just saying it to sell a few books?
I think the first one because we all know repentant dopers are fine by us. So long as they say sorry Jesus as well.
Ok any updates? (from official sources) not homebrew websites.
Can anyone explain why this glitchety thing happens. Thought we had uninteruptable hamsters now.
scaredypants - you make a good point. Maybe Hamilton is Crow just with his pen!$ tucked between his legs?
or is he just trying to win lance back despite everything ?
🙂
Solo - Member
Can anyone explain why this glitchety thing happens
I reckon it's where posts have been deleted and the number of posts against the number of posts per page doesn't work and they get lost for a bit.
hora - Member
Ok any updates? (from official sources) not homebrew websites.
Yep -- he's still refusing to fess up for now, but when a big exclusive is signed he will spill the beans.........
[i]Tour de France Performance: Of the 70 available spots for the top 10 finishers for the seven years Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France, there were only 37 unique individuals. Half of them – 17 of the 36 (excluding Lance Armstrong) were either convicted or implicated for doping.
Of the 21 available podium spots, there were only 9 unique riders and all but one (3rd Fernando Escartin 1999) has been convicted or implicated for doping.
Yes, you read that correctly, with the exception of the first year that Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France, every single 2nd or 3rd place finisher, i.e. the greatest competition, has been either convicted or implicated for doping.
Lance Armstrong took the yellow jersey from an additional 4 riders who were also either implicated or convicted for doping. In other words, he beat 21 known dopers while working with 8 other known dopers over the course of 7 years, held the yellow jersey for 81 of a possible 147 days, and “never tested positive.”[/i]
[url= http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/lance-armstrong-aftermath.html ]150 Watts of Awesome[/url]
we all know repentant dopers are fine by us
No they are repentant cheats which is better than an unrepenatant cheat or a cheat who still denies it but not better than someone who has never cheated.
That is still a straw man you are posting 🙄
Ok any updates? (from official sources) not homebrew websites.
he is still guilty
HTH
Summary:
LA did it some wont accept it and want some more proof [ which i think means a confession from LA]
No one thinks this will ever happen
I'm hopeful that'll he will confess at some point, I suspect that it will be to a publisher when the money is running out.
[i]No one thinks this will ever happen [/i]
Thats me. His name and place in history is assured now, for both [i]winning[/i] and for not fessing up.
EDIT: From LA's PoV, whats not to like ?, thats officially a win-win situation as he probably sees it.
Thats me
me too
Whats not to like
I guess pretty much everything. Which in turn makes me like him because he is so unlikable.
philw - I've read that blog. The writer has some very odd ideas. Starting with her blind LOVE for Frank Schleck (hates Lance but Frank could NOT have doped and people who say he did hate cycling) but not least because Lance Armstrong offered to talk to her over coffee about the "allegations" and she turned it down which seems surprising for someone who writes about Lance constantly. The article about the hypocrisy of cycling fans is a particular low point and her recent post seems to me to be just a ripped off set of info which stops right when Frank Schleck enters the TdF 😉
😯
People love to hate him.
They hate him because he is a bell end.
I like him because the people who hate him are almost all old fan boys.
Plus it helps to keep this thread going.
you do realise in another 900 or so posts there will be some frantic activity
Oh, and for the record, not that anyone cares. But I'm not a hater or a fan-boy. Actually I'm quite ambivalent towards LA.
I think I know how he squares his circle, and I'm not in a position to judge any further than to feel for any clean, Pro, who has lost to a [i]user[/i].
The Bassons of this world probably hate LA, with good reason, denies them what is rightfully theirs
Solo speaks sense. It is refressing
From LA's PoV, whats not to like ?, thats officially a win-win situation as he probably sees it.
well it keeps plausible deniability alive for the gullible, keeps Livestrong going and keeps him in money so it is probably better than confessing.
Shame as perhaps LA lifting the lid and a subsequent full meltdown of UCI and the shock wave could finally make cycling an event for winners who dont dope. Granted this is slightly less likely to happen than an LA confession so we can discuss bertie V Millar as to who is the most honest cheat 😉
I speak nonsense-- its intoxicating
I speak nonsense-- its intoxicating
Same here.Though I think I am more of an irritant than an intoxicant.
rudebwoy - Member
I speak nonsense-- its intoxicating
I agree, it's great.
you do realise in another 900 or so posts there will be some frantic activity
Might be a bit sooner than that - looks as though the USADA evidence could be released (made public) within the next week.
However on the back of this and the hamilton book there seem to be 'confessions' coming out ofthe woodwork at the moment, maybe this is what was needed to finally stop the omerta, or maybe its the fact that most of these guys are fed up with lying everyday and as theyre retired theres not a lot that can be done...