[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

I think the damning stuff in the report is the lying. why say you aren't in contact with Ferrari in 2009 when you were, unless you have something to hide. (hundreds of emails prove he was)

Anyway, I'm clearly out of my depth amongst all the doping & legal experts here. I didn't realise STW was populated with so many globally-renowned lawyers & scientists ... unless we're all just repeating stuff we found on the internet & agree with?

No just agreeing with the uncontested USADA report. What's the source of your fantasy?

The tests say one thing and the person says the opposite.

And it is now known that it was quite easy to cheat the test.

Millar never failed a drugs test.

He was caught in posession of EPO* though, which kind of removes the need for a positive test!

*OK, empty vials...

*OK, empty vials...

And it is now known that it was quite easy to cheat the test.

Indeed, and it's often cyclists who come clean that explain to the testers how they beat the tests, and help improve the testing in the process. Microdosing EPO is a good example of that.

Can't really believe some people are still claiming he's innocent. Where's RealMan?

Legally that can only prove that he was in possession of empty vials. Any conviction would have to come from a confession, no?

Possession of the paraphernalia for doping is enough in France. The bloke booted off the tour this year was caught with a syringe and the fact it was just a placebo given to him by a homeopath didn't save him. Just having the needles is a crime.

Can't really believe some people are still claiming he's innocent.

Celebrity has become a religion, the deference shown to those in the media spotlight often leaves me astonished.

I don't get it, pro cyclist doped and lied about it.....and?

Can't really believe some people are still claiming he's innocent. Where's RealMan?

Some people and some major corporations and organisations! Makes you realise how much influence he has and how much of a myth he's built up over the years.

Possession of the paraphernalia for doping is enough in France.* The bloke booted off the tour this year was caught with a syringe and the fact it was just a placebo given to him by a homeopath didn't save him. Just having the needles is a crime.

Joao,

I'll use you analogy in a slightly different manner. If I drink 6 pints, then get in the car in Inverness, drive to London, and pass a breath test in London 10 hours later, does that mean I wasn't drink driving?.

Does mean that ownership of a high performance sports car means you're guilty of speeding?

Has anyone in a high powered sports car never exceeded the speed limit ever?

Has anyone in a high powered sports car never exceeded the speed limit ever?

Does mean that ownership of a high performance sports car means you're guilty of speeding? I know time and opportunity comes into it, but so does reasonable doubt. Complicated this legal stuff, innit?

Not really. Being in possession of doping paraphernalia is explicitly illegal, owning a high performance sports car is not.

Analogies are not always useful, but isn't a better one that if someone is carrying a car-lock-opening thing then likely they are a car thief, and not an AA/RAC man?

Not just the means, but also motive.

They won't bust a hospital for having the paraphernalia.

Only the ones caught by traffic cops and the tools to do it, but that's not the point I was making. The point being that French law assumes you are speeding simply because you have the tools in your possession to do it. Guilty until proven innocent

Only in relation to this particular offence. I think the point is that there's no good reason for a cyclist to have syringes, blood bags, drugs etc in his possession excluding for medical reasons which he'd have documentation for so the only possibility for having them other than this is doping and so you don't need to be caught doing it, just having the means to do so. View it more like having a dozen packages of heroin on you is a crime and probably classed as an intention to supply drugs despite the fact you may never have been caught selling them.

Glitchy

Reading David Millar's book at present and he says that there is still a reasonable sized doping culture in the sport, but that a lot of it is down to the deliberate misuse of the therapeutic use expemtion certificate or whatever its called.

The point is that it is possible to have a high performance car and not speed. If you have drugs paraphernalia you have to explain what you were going to use it for.

I'm intrigued by this French thing. Could someone provide a link please? The cases I'm aware of for the 2012 Tour involved police suveillance over long periods, money trails, dealers, telephone tapping and enough evidence to quite reasonably bring a prosecution. [url= http://www.sudouest.fr/2012/07/11/di-gregorio-pris-en-flag-766718-8.php ]This one for example[/url]

Nike still supporting Lance. Quite surprising really.

[url= http://store.nike.com/us/en_us/?l=shop,men_livestrong ]Not really. [/url] Far too much invested Livestrong, which effectively IS Lance. They'll be hoping this blows over and the memories of Lance the American multi-TDF winner remain and they can go on selling yellow things that contribute a small amount to a cancer charity.

Ironically, it appears to be the bullying and intimidation of Simeoni and 'witnesses' which has done for him by allowing USADA to set aside the statute of limitations covering earlier doping evidence.

My overriding image of the man will always be the smug 'zipped lips' to the peleton as he dragged him back.

I'm interested at what UCI will do now re the Kimmage libel case. The USADA report doesn't appear to have the smoking gun connecting McQuaid et al to suppression of LA's positive test, although there appears to be plenty that hints at an improper relationship and a deep reluctance to address doping.

Only in relation to this particular offence. I think the point is that there's no good reason for a cyclist to have syringes, blood bags, drugs etc in his possession excluding for medical reasons which he'd have documentation for so the only possibility for having them other than this is doping and so you don't need to be caught doing it, just having the means to do so. View it more like having a dozen packages of heroin on you is a crime and probably classed as an intention to supply drugs despite the fact you may never have been caught selling them.

The point is that it is possible to have a high performance car and not speed.

I find the moral maze around drugs in sport fascinating. I wanted to believe that Lance was clean and read his books and swallowed the story like most of us. And frankly drew some inspiration from them. But in the back of mind was the pretty obvious conclusion that the fairy story was just that. But for me, this is true for most pro sport and I am cynical enough to believe that sport remains riddled with drugs - evidenced by the fact that it had filtered down to my sons' experiences in lowly things such as junior county tennis. There are plenty of UK athletic heros and heroines who have made that jump from strong performer to world beater (often towards the end of their careers) and yet we seem happy to accept their performances almost without question or doubt.

While I abhor cheating/drug taking in sport in principle, I can't help wondering if the only solution in practice is no drugs testing at all. Let's give up on the charade of drug testing and pretending things are clean and leave it up to the sportsmen and woman to decide. Like the Romans in the Colliseum we crave spectacle, enhanced with records and feats of excellence (perceived or otherwise). Reading Tyler's book, there was an interesting sub-plot in that, yes they were all cheats, but the cheating essentially allowed them to push themselves harder/train more intensively. The drugs didnt negate the need to work hard and push bodies to extremes, they facilitated it. And boy, didn't we all lap it up!

Felt odd to see all the LA posters still adorning the walls of my LBS yesterday!

I can't help wondering if the only solution in practice is no drugs testing at all. Let's give up on the charade of drug testing and pretending things are clean and leave it up to the sportsmen and woman to decide

But actually that is no decision. If you allow un-checked doping then you leave an environment where to be a success you need to dope. So even as a supremely talented rider, your choice is also-ran or doping. Nothing in-between as you can be sure if there was no testing, some people would happily dope at great risk to themselves if it meant money and fame.

And if you allowed unfettered doping, there would be those who would be prepared to dope, and pressure teammates to dope to a level potentially seriously harmful to their future health just to squeeze out a little more power over the opposition.

I can't help wondering if the only solution in practice is no drugs testing at all. Let's give up on the charade of drug testing and pretending things are clean and leave it up to the sportsmen and woman to decide

It is an interesting idea, though it would probably turn into a complete freak show that no one could relate to if anything goes.

[quote=martinhutch ]And if you allowed unfettered doping, there would be those who would be prepared to dope, and pressure teammates to dope to a level potentially seriously harmful to their future health just to squeeze out a little more power over the opposition.

Sounds like Lance really doesn't it 😉

Where there are no tests for a drug athletes do kill themselves. In cycling there are the learning-phase EPO deaths and the suspicious deaths over recent years. Comas and the odd death due to insulin abuse are found in bodybuilding so why not cycling? Look no further than the [url= http://www.livestrong.com/article/506888-insulin-for-bodybuilders/ ]Livestrong site[/url] for a how-to. Obviously lean muscle is useful to cyclist as well as body builders, perhaps more useful to cyclists though is using insulin to cram muscle full of glycogen without needing a potentially fattening pasta party.

I suspect some of the strange diets a small number of cyclists have adopted may be to cmplement insulin use.

Let me stress the verb "wonder"! I am not necessarily supporting the idea. But atlas and Martin, are you not merely describing the status quo?

Makes you wonder how clean Dodgeball was....

[url= http://www.ouest-france.fr/actu/actuDet_-Cyclisme.-Contador-soupconne-de-dopage-pendant-le-Tour-2005_39382-2070256_actu.Htm ]All Fuentes' clients on insulin in 05 including Cantador.[/url]

I can't help wondering if the only solution in practice is no drugs testing at all. Let's give up on the charade of drug testing and pretending things are clean and leave it up to the sportsmen and woman to decide

Nope. It seems clear from the cyclists statements that they weren't really happy with doping but felt forced to at the time is order to compete.

True, but everyone does have a choice at the end of the day. And they chose to.......

teamhurtmore - Member
True, but everyone does have a choice at the end of the day. And they chose to.......

I think you might be grossly over simplifying the situation there, the pressure and desire to win at that level of sport is too extreme for most normal push bike riders to appreciate. Myself definitely included. Add to that an all pervasive culture within the sport and it becomes much muddier.

True, but everyone does have a choice at the end of the day. And they chose to.......

If you'd dedicated your whole life to cycle racing, and were really, really good at it, then realised you were never going to win anything against those who were doping, and you were being pressured to do it by team-mates, team managers etc - what do you reckon you would have done?

It seems clear from the cyclists statements that they weren't really happy with doping

I get the distinct impression, from everything I've read, that doping was accepted as 'part of training', viewed in much the same way as altitude training or strict dieting regimes and just an easier or less time consuming way of getting the same results. Obviously the results would be better but it's quite easy to rationalise something like that in your mind and convince yourself that it really IS ok, which would go a long way to explain why LA, AC etc. are able to lie so convincingly.

I also feel it was major reason as to why the authorities have kept quiet/turned a blind eye (condoning is probably too strong a word) because the 'general public' wouldn't really understand, with obvious detrimental effect on sponsorship etc. and not out of any concern for rider welfare.

A thought that has occurred to me after reading about this .. Who will they now declare the winners of the TDF during the years LA won it?
Did I read that 21 out of the 25 podium finishers during that time, are convicted/implicated dopers?! 😯

Well grum. I have been faced with that choice albeit on behalf of my kids (so at the starting point of the ladder/slippery slope) and made the correct choice. We all agreed to step away (talked to people at the forefront of US College tennis, an eye-opener!)

"Pressure" may "explain" but doesn't "condone" drug taking/cheating. IMO that is a a cop-out, albeit a very real one that many people face in their lives. So a banker who is faced with the option of doing a dodgy deal because others do it and his career depends on it - what should he do? Would you condone doing the dodgy deal? I was almost sacked at work in the 1980s for not agreeing to lie in a piece of work. Still made the correct choice.

It reminds me of the kindergarden cliche, "but Miss, Johnny told me to do it..." Doesn't hold for little kids, why should it hold for a pro cyclist?

Pie-monster - accept that it is muddy (hence my first post) but simplifying things down to the core issue - personal responsibility - helps clarify the mud IMO 😉

Who will they now declare the winners of the TDF during the years LA won it?

I think the indication is nobody will be classed as the winner. The record will say Lance won it on the road but was disqualified.

Well grum. I have been faced with that choice albeit on behalf of my kids (so at the starting point of the ladder/slippery slope) and made the correct choice. We all agreed to step away (talked to people at the forefront of US College tennis, an eye-opener!)

"Pressure" may "explain" but doesn't "condone" drug taking/cheating. IMO that is a a cop-out, albeit a very real one that many people face in their lives. So a banker who is faced with the option of doing a dodgy deal because others do it and his career depends on it - what should he do? Would you condone doing the dodgy deal? I was almost sacked at work in the 1980s for not agreeing to lie in a piece of work. Still made the correct choice.

I basically agree but as you say I think the situation would be a bit different if you were already way down the path of dedicating your life to a sport, and in a sport where the culture of doping was so totally prevalent.

I'm not saying it excuses it, but I'm not sure we can hand-on-heart say we wouldn't have done the same in a similar scenario.

Well grum. I have been faced with that choice albeit on behalf of my kids (so at the starting point of the ladder/slippery slope) and made the correct choice. We all agreed to step away (talked to people at the forefront of US College tennis, an eye-opener!)

Which is quite a different scenario to someone from a poorer background with overambitious parents, who have pressured sporting success at the cost of academia on a child throughout their lives. The choice is not the same for everyone, even though it may appear so on the surface.

Grum, its interesting how Tyler describes a sense of almost "elation" at being invited into the EPO club. A sign that he had made it into Lance's inner circle/upper echelon's of the sport. When you read of how their doping was linked to specific instances of reeling-in break-aways in TDF mountain stages and then you see current riders doing exactly the same, its hard not to wonder.......and that is a very sad state!

Making "choices" is often very difficult especially with the corrupting powers of money and status surrounding you. Look at all those expense-fiddling MPs!

MSP - I agree hence the distinction between explaining and condoning. But does "background" [i]determine[/i] legality?

When you read of how their doping was linked to specific instances of reeling-in break-aways in TDF mountain stages and then you see current riders doing exactly the same, its hard not to wonder.......and that is a very sad state!

This very issue bugged me throughout the Vuelta this year. I kept telling myself that Bertie wouldn't be so stupid having just come back from his ban however, some performances were super-human.

It bugged me more in the TdF, I want to believe sky are clean, but if it came out they weren't it would be a disappointment rather than a surprise.

Ooh look, it's even made the Daily Mash! :_)
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/armstrong-now-taking-mushrooms-2012101144612

But does "background" determine legality?

No, and through properly enforced testing and legislation, it will hopefully be a choice that cannot be forced or coerced onto anybody regardless of background.

Lets hope so!

When you understand what the blood doping/EPO/all the other garbage was aimed at doing you can understand a bit of what Team Sky and GB cycling are trying to do.

In effect the end goals are the same, to boost the blood values, recover more quickly and train harder.

Altitude training, sleeping in altitude tents, diets aimed at boosting certain natural hormones, memory foam matresses, anal attention to detail etc. All these things are aimed at gaining the same advantage that you can get by popping a pill or injecting something.

I suppose it is down to your personal outlook on life whether you view these things are a team doing everything it legally can to win or you see it as one big scheme designed to mask and provide plausible deniability to doping.

I choose to remain non cynical.

I do this becuase of the mass of evidence that says these performaces are plausible. Lower Watts per KG than in the EPO era. Less explosive and sustained attacks on the climbs. No evidence to support blood doping other than sucess etc.

But one thing is for sure is that if Team Sky and BC are cheating it won't stay hidden for ever. The one parallel with USPS that is true is that they are winning convincingly and with the comes a lot of people trying to knock you down. With USPS and Lance they found doping, look at what L'Equipe were able to publish back then for example, the ammount of evidence USADA have been able to gather etc. With Sky they haven't found anything yet but if it exists it will come out.

E.g. imagine if a british newspaper had a chance to bring down another Murdoch empire, they would leap at the chance.

MSP - Member
It bugged me more in the TdF, I want to believe sky are clean, but if it came out they weren't it would be a disappointment rather than a surprise.

+1

Kimmage's twitter feed makes me feel more uncomfortable every day.

glitchety bump

Glitch hunt

and again

Reading some of the supporting documents, Lance really does come across like an arse to his so called friends. Of course, being a dick doesn't make him guilty but certainly the doping witness do 🙂

On the side of Team Sky, given Michael Barry has retired (can't be unrelated to this) I wonder if they're going to move Sean Yates aside given his riding with Lance, time working for Discovery after riding and his photos with motoman (in Team Sky kit no less). I know it's hard to avoid working with dopers or people involved in doping in cycling but when Sky set themselves out as whiter than white (rather than Garmin who are happy to hire reformed characters), it's odd they haven;t done much about their doctor and Yates.

Surely the Winner of all those TdFs' involving the great americano-- must be the Lantern Rouge- proof of unaffordability/desire to dope.

Where is Hora today?

Interesting and probably more honest than most, article from velonews in 2008 by [url= http://velonews.competitor.com/2008/04/news/an-essay-by-1984-olympic-gold-medalist-alexi-grewal_74053 ]Alexi Grewal[/url] which goes some way to explaining the mindset.

Kimmage's twitter feed makes me feel more uncomfortable every day.

I know it's hard to avoid working with dopers or people involved in doping in cycling but when Sky set themselves out as whiter than white (rather than Garmin who are happy to hire reformed characters), it's odd they haven;t done much about their doctor and Yates.

Team Sky certainly have their issues but that doesn't mean they are all a bunch of dirty doping cheats. Kimmage doesn't have eveidence of them doping, just issues with the way they claim to be anti doping. Kimmage has a point.

They have backed themselves into a corner with their "won't hire people connected to doping" stance. To their credit they have fired the ex rabobank doc but they have an issue with Yates. Clearly a top class DS but may have been dodgy in the past.

Brailsford recently said that openness was they key. He is right but he hasn't acted on it. They need to either change their policy to a more pragmatic approach as per Garmin or get busy with the P45s.

But Brailsford seems reluctant, he appears to want to be a great team, beyond suspicion, but not an anti-doping advocate. My view is that you can't be one without the other and him and Brad need to come out, break the omerta and condem the dopers. I think Brailsfords reluctance to do this may be becuase he fears the recriminations of this stance from the UCI and the peleton and they need those parties on their side to win the TDF.

This is one reason why the UCI need to fall.

To their credit they have fired the ex rabobank doc

Their spokesperson made it clear he was not fired but they'd chosen not to renew the contract. No details of the investigation released either. Not too transparent.

Clearly a top class DS but may have been dodgy in the past

I'm not sure "may" is the right term, more like "almost certainly".

In any case I agree that Team Sky have two choices. Say they embrace reformed characters or fire some people. Certainly, they should be issuing a press release about Michael Barry as again, it's hardly in keeping with their mantra and no comment makes it look like they knew something or had something to hide.

I don't believe for an instant that Brailsford is running a new version of US Postal with an organised doping ring, but the public statements are not aligned with what they deliver.

But Brailsford seems reluctant, he appears to want to be a great team, beyond suspicion, but not an anti-doping advocate. My view is that you can't be one without the other and him and Brad need to come out, break the omerta and condem the dopers. I think Brailsfords reluctance to do this may be becuase he fears the recriminations of this stance from the UCI and the peleton and they need those parties on their side to win the TDF.

He's got enough trouble inside Sky without taking on Lance's remaining buddies in the peleton.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Dowsett should probably have shut his mouth on that issue. When I read it the first time I wondered how much of an arse kicking he must have got from Brailsford for coming out in support of someone that I'd imagine the majority of pro cycling knows to be a doper (clearly at the very least, one prominent Team Sky rider).

Also, the quotes attributed to him read like he had them rewritten by certain forum members 🙂

Surely the Winner of all those TdFs' involving the great americano-- must be the Lantern Rouge- proof of unaffordability/desire to dope.

now that would be truly brilliant 🙂

Oh FFS 'yeah but he did a lot for charideeeee!' doesn't matter one iota.

I think Sky's position is understandable, commercially it is better not to be discussing doping all the time and fundamentally it is a commercial business not a moral crusade. Therefore Sky would prefer to avoid the doping issue for these reasons. There is of course a cost to this because there will be doubters if you aren't a vociferous anti-doper, but I guess they have weighed up the pros and cons and come out where they are.

Personally I would prefer them to take a leadership position but I can understand why they might choose not to.

EDIT: Brailsford has said Barry lied to him and he is disappointed that he did.

[img] ?key=720540&Expires=1349957055&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=bx-qBNkKbQ31m5TB049WRpacDK7pTBpSl89t2UlmRDHiebRiXLBddL5meUbzdohMsCV3c6BFeoBPNy7y4vmYj21aRtn8NDhXATxPb6WWNdCYbvKhoHVXeyOzdUl4Gi4bB1ug-vCZxFRna8qiMbfPkR6C7taV-blIQBcu0H8Tbe0_[/img]

Back to the affidavits then - if hincapie and the likes all admit to doping quite freely durin that 90s / 00s phase then surely the UCI and USADA should stop them riding in professional events with retrospective bans???

I like Hincapie but if he's saying he bought services to blood dope during tours and races then he along with the rest deserve to be hit with bans

Sod them all, genuinely no sympathies for the 'we have to dope to be competitive' plea - work harder and if your hardest isn't good enough then tough titties

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19906657 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19906657[/url]

Also just seen the Dowsett 'interview' on BBC News - he really should've just kept his mouth shut.

Apparently, there will be a 2 hr in depth special on R5 Live, Monday night.

I don't believe for an instant that Brailsford is running a new version of US Postal with an organised doping ring, but the public statements are not aligned with what they deliver.

I agree wholeheartedly.

For people to continue to belive in Skys stance as a clean team they need to change and become more open. IMO it is their "no association with doping" stance that has them backed into a corner.

As for Dowsett I understand why he said what he did. The blokes team gave him his start in the pro peleton, he feels some loyalty and as an insider he will be all too aware that everyone was on it back then. This allows him to maintain his "pro lance" stance. He would be well advised to revise this view.

IMO this is where Wiggo needs to step up. As the current patron of the peleton he has tremedous power to condem Lance and change cycling for the better, His relctance to do this is frustrating and does call his integrity into question.

Apparently, there will be a 2 hr in depth special on R5 Live, Monday night.

Better late than never, Walsh has some pretty harsh words for the BBC in this article in the [url= http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping ]Press Gazette[/url]

Back to the affidavits then - if hincapie and the likes all admit to doping quite freely durin that 90s / 00s phase then surely the UCI and USADA should stop them riding in professional events with retrospective bans???

I like Hincapie but if he's saying he bought services to blood dope during tours and races then he along with the rest deserve to be hit with bans

They have been. Read the USADA appendices and you'll see the letters sent confirming their acceptance of 6-month bans plus retrospective removal of race results from the periods they admitted to doping. Given a lot are retired and I doubt anyone will sue them for the race winnings it may mean very little, but they've got what Lance got minus the lifetime ban part.

Agree, Brad could do the right thing....if you were anti dope, you should be celebrating today.

Mr[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/may/07/cycling ]our-athlete-has-ested-positive-so-the-test-was-wrong Brailsford.[/url]

They theoretically have to return their winnings if they wish to compete again according to the cyclingnews article dealing with Leipheimer

In addition to Leipheimer’s six-month ban he also accepts that in order for him to "regain eligibility" he must "repay all prize money" forfeited as a result of his anti-doping rule violations. Considering Leipheimer admitted to doping over a near eight-year duration, this amount could equate to a significant amount. Whether this obligation is fulfilled is yet to be seen.

Am I allowed to link a Twitpic page as you have removed the direct link to the photo I posted, moderators? I don't wish cause STW any trouble but think the photograph central to the debate we are having about the continued role of athletes that have tested positive in current cycling teams.

Am I allowed to link a Twitpic page as you have removed the direct link to the photo I posted, moderators?

I think you'll find it's the other site stopping it working because they are getting loads of traffic so I'd guess, fill your boots. Oh, get the one of the team sky car at the shop too 😉

Better late than never, Walsh has some pretty harsh words for the BBC in this article in the Press Gazette

Well Walsh backed an initial hunch and was proven right, so he's to be commended, but while I'd expect the Sunday Times to stick its neck out and challenge someone as litigious as Armstrong, I wouldn't expect the BBC to be anything other than small 'c' conservative when it comes to these kind of allegations.

Once the USADA findings and report turned up, which, TBH, was the first point at which there was something concrete and official to hang it on, the BBC joined in with the rest.

IMO this is where Wiggo needs to step up. As the current patron of the peleton he has tremedous power to condem Lance and change cycling for the better, His relctance to do this is frustrating and does call his integrity into question.

He has made his position clear in the past and to call his integrity into question because he has not commented yet is outrageous.

Also just seen the Dowsett 'interview' on BBC News - he really should've just kept his mouth shut.

+1