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

Jenson Button was interviewed on BBC news at lunchtime. He looked hesistant but at the end I thought his closing line was telling. Basically about current cycling and being clean (i.e it sounded to me like he was unsure).

Edukator - Member
Mrour-athlete-has-ested-positive-so-the-test-was-wrong Brailsford.

What's that got to do with anything?

WTF does Jenson bloody Button have to do with it all?

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.

Sky/Brad still need other teams to work with them on tours. They cannot control an entire TdF on their own, especially if other teams are giving them grief every day.

Sadly, I suspect a hard stance might to go down well with other teams so despite it being a moral stance it might cost him wins.

Which is a shame.

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.

Hmmm - everyone* is being very careful with what they say so I'd imagine until he's asked, he'll be wary of being dragged into the biggest doping scandal in the history of sport. Can't win - if he stays quiet he's effectively endorsing Lance, if he speaks out he risks alienating the team, the back-room staff, other riders, all of whom he has to count on if he wants to win the Tour or the Giro.

*well not quite everyone, Alex Dowsett clearly didn't get the memo saying "stfu" before he spoke.

Brailsford is in a tough position as well. He's already said he won't hire riders who have been convicted of doping and he's stuck to that. He obviously didn't know about Michael Barry but Barry was (or claims he was...) clean after 2006 and his use of PEDs has only just come out.

However it's impossible to staff a team with DS, doctors, masseurs etc who have never been involved with doping. The only thing you can do is make and enforce a culture of transparency, racing clean and drill the ethics and morals into everyone, not give it a chance to happen even if some people want it to. In that, I'd say he's been very successful. Regardless of Yates, Julich et al, Sky is as clean as they can be under the circumstances which just goes to show how all-pervasive doping was back then.

our-athlete-has-ested-positive-so-the-test-was-wrong Brailsford.

Rob Hayles got pinged for having a haematocrit over 50%. Given all of BC training appears to to be geared towards boosting haematocrit as much as you can legally, it is plausible he managed to break the value without doping.

Whether you choose to belive Brailsford or assume they are dirty doping cheats is then down to your outlook on the situation, but to call it evidence of doping is wrong.

Its certainly not evidence on the Armstrong level with failed tests for synthetic EPO covered up by the UCI, almost every team mate he ever had testifying against him, payments to known dodgy doctors etc.

My asusmption is if BC and Sky really are cheating there are enough people involved and the payday for a whistle blower would be huge enough that something would leak out if it were true, as it did for armstrong, an Emma O'Riley type or a discruntled athlete who didn't make the cut for the Olympics, someone would talk.

Of course if this evidence does start to emerge I will very quickly change my view.

Bump

bumpety bump

How many bumps does this trhead need

glitch bump

WTF does Jenson bloody Button have to do with it all?

He is also mates with Lance and has trained with him. Presumably a triathlon link.

How many bumps does this trhead need

Of course it's possible to staff a team with people who've never been involved with dope, Crazy-legs. I'll nominate Christophe Bassons for directeur sportif and my family doctor as team doctor.

The Hayles case was interesting because of the way British Cycling went out of its way to "prove" him innocent to the UCI. Once they had an EPO negative he was cleared. Now quite apart from the fact an EPO negative doesn't "prove" a rider hasn't being using EPO (detection thresholds, tolerances and dosing below the positive threshold) there are half a dozen other doping/blood doping methods that might result in a haematocrit over 50%. I never saw any mention of other possible explanations being considered or investigated in statements from British Cycling.

British Cycling went out of its way to "prove" him innocent to the UC

I believe it's all part of the "marginal gains" philosophy

Nothing to see here, move along

there are half a dozen other doping/blood doping methods that might result in a haematocrit over 50%

Yep and some legal reasons such as the one given by BC.

The point is that we don't know, what we do know is that we don't have team mates, doctors and maseurs etc queuing up to tell us that Rob Hayles is a dirty doping cheat.

Let's put this in historical context, pro cycling has been using drugs for about a century, not always illegal. EPO was not on the banned list when it was first used. Lance just came along and did it better than everyone else with a 'total war' approach. He was winning the game as it was already set out......I still find him an inspiring individual.

"[i]There is Anquetil's famous remark that you don't ride the Tour de France "on mineral water alone" and his tacit admission of the use of amphetamine, as in a story told by French journalist Pierre Chany. According to Chany, Anquetil and 1958 Giro d'Italia winner Ercole Baldini agreed not to use amphetamine for the Grand Prix de Forli one year, to see who would win on "just mineral water". They took the top two places, "but suffered like the damned to get an average speed that was a kilometre and a half slower than they would normally have ridden. 'Never again!' they told me as they got off their bikes," wrote Chany (quoted by Les Woodland in The Yellow Jersey Companion to the Tour de France).[/i]

Does anyone else feel a sense of relief that this looks like it is coming to and end at last?

@Fantombiker, that's an awful argument

And feel free to be inspired by a liar, a cheat, and a bully. It doesn't work for me however!

feel a sense of relief that this looks like it is coming to and end at last?

leffeboy - Member
Does anyone else feel a sense of relief that this looks like it is coming to and end at last?

I doubt it, it'll probably sink into the background again. I suspect there's years left in this.

The point is that we don't know, what we do know is that we don't have team mates, doctors and maseurs etc queuing up to tell us that Rob Hayles is a dirty doping cheat.

Hope I'm wrong though 😕

There might be years left in legal arguments but it feels like everyone now is convinced that he doped and that there is a stream of info. coming out about that period.

True, I was thinking more generally. About the required cultural and institutional changes that would be needed.

As far as Lancey being guilty, yes, this very much is a Polaroid of a fat kid sat in a pile of cake crumbs with cake in his mouth being handed to said fat kid who has just denied eating the cake.

Oh the fun to be had looking back at 'How the **** could he say that?' moments....

'How the **** could he say that?' moments....

The [url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-documents-reveal-details-of-dr-ferraris-doping-skills ]denials by Ferrari[/url] are becoming increasingly comical too!

Fantombiker - Member
Let's put this in historical context, pro cycling has been using drugs for about a century, not always illegal. EPO was not on the banned list when it was first used. Lance just came along and did it better than everyone else with a 'total war' approach. He was winning the game as it was already set out......I still find him an inspiring individual.

I could maybe just about agree if LA had done it in isolation - eg to himself alone. The problem is the way that he shaped his team and ultimately the sport to fit his vision (along with collusion from the UCI whether direct or indirect) - essentially giving keen, young riders a choice to either dope or quit the sport is not cool.

[i]He was winning the game as it was already set out......I still find him an inspiring individual.[/i]

I think you're very wrong. He was creating the game. And there were casualties along the way, people ostracised from teams and from the sport.

He was creating the game. And there were casualties along the way

Probably the most succinct reason why he, Johan and the doctors have been chased by the USADA

I still find him an inspiring individual.

So when do you plan to start taking EPO? Or are you already on it?

I don't think it is anywhere near over. You only need to look at contador for that. I suspect there will not be the full team doping as we have seen. But with Johan bruneel involved in radioshack and the shlecks with their various money payments its more than likely. F

Bradley Wiggin's interview:

Hmm USADA sounds a bit like Osama, maybe it's an evil plot by Al-Quaeda to crush the plucky all American hero and through that bring the infidel west to its knees. It's about as plausible as any of the other apologist views.

I don't think it is anywhere near over. You only need to look at contador for that. I suspect there will not be the full team doping as we have seen. But with Johan bruneel involved in radioshack and the shlecks with their various money payments its more than likely.

^^ This.
What's surprising isn't particularly Armstrong, it's the depth of involvement from everyone. The people who knew but turned a blind eye, unable to speak out because they'd be ostracised; the UCI who seem to have actively covered up tests if they were damaging to the sport; the commentators and pundits who were effectively "bought" to big up the Armstrong story (yes, Liggett and Sherwin, I do mean you).

While the ex dopers remain as Team Managers, DS etc and while the UCI continue to do the dual role of promoting cycling and trying to police it, things will stay the same.

Unrepentant dopers allowed back and winning the Olympics (Vinokourov) or allowed to keep racing while under investigation (Contador) and the history of silence and acceptance within the peloton.

But with Johan bruneel involved in radioshack and the shlecks with their various money payments its more than likely

Well, Frank is finally going to get what he deserves (I doubt the local doping agency can afford to let him get away with this one) but I don't think there's a doping ring at Radioshack given the current incarnation is one year old and the Schlecks HATE Johan so they're unlikely to get involve in something that requires them to trust him. Anyway, has anyone ever said that Andy has doped with any degree of evidence?

Good interview from Bradley though, good to see that the team pushed him out for a statement. Maybe Dave is starting to learn if they are going to talk the talk they also need to be at the front when it comes to condemning things.

Very interesting article from Inrng about where this will take the sport:

http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-case-future

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9602544/Lance-Armstrong-could-face-perjury-charges-following-USADA-allegations.html

The Times today makes interesting reading as well. Huge feature in the Sport supplement about the case and the potential fallout.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9602544/Lance-Armstrong-could-face-perjury-charges-following-USADA-allegations.html

So in no way can he come clean. Even if he wanted to he'd be ruined and ****ed.

crazy-legs - Member
The Times today makes interesting reading as well. Huge feature in the Sport supplement about the case and the potential fallout.

The Times, to be fair. Have a grudge, which they may even take to court.

@Hora, I doubt he'll ever come clean unless he is stood in front of a Judge. He has nothing to gain from it.

So in no way can he come clean. Even if he wanted to he'd be ruined and ****.

so do you still think he's innocent and didn't dope?
just wonderin like.

Glitch bump

and again

is this just some way of keeping the post count high or something STW?

double post

[quote=Hora]So in no way can he come clean

I think he should come clean and take the consequences. After a lifetime of lying and attacking people for telling the truth he deserves every single thing that comes his way. He's going to be sued left right and centre anyway so may as well get it all off his chest. But I doubt he will.

no way on this earth will he admit it.
I doubt there are many alive who believe him, including his inner circle

I suspect he will do time f he does though never mind the financial and personal implications

Wont happen IMHO.

I think he should come clean and take the consequences

His only real way to proceed is to wait it out and see what happens. There is a very real posibility that all the people who would have a legal claim to his money won't try to get it as the it would cost them more than they are owed to get it.

But if he comes out now and admits everything he will be a poor little inmate.

I'd like to see it but if I were him there is no way I'd be admitting anything.

I'd like to see it but if I were him there is no way I'd be admitting anything.

He's painted himself into a corner from which he can't get out.
Starngely though, trek and Nike (although keeping fairly tight lipped about the whole thing) are standing by him.
But then Trek owe him everything; they were already pretty big but he (or at least the Trek/Livestrong/Armstrong/TdF marketing) turned them into a multi-billion $ global bike company.

Mr Bruyneel's days look numbered - some interesting allegations about the Frank Schleck case.

http://road.cc/content/news/68856-updated-fabian-cancellara-i-dont-know-if-i-can-work-johan-bruyneel-again-lequipe

😯

Anyone else follow LA on Twitter? he's just put out a tweet saying
"happy birthday @lukearmstrong! #13"

I'm really tempted to tweet back something about
"what a birthday present you've given him - he's just found out his Dad is a doper, a cheat and a liar"

Any other suggestions? 😉

I think he should come clean and take the consequences

He may as well just hand himself into the local jail.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705

Possibly a perjury trial in the offing?
Also, the footnote at the bottom about a programme on BBC Radio 5 Live Sport on Monday at 7pm which sounds like it could be worth a listen...

If he's been a sensible bunny he'll have some money off shore and off limits to those who want to see him destitute and jailed.

I for one like his style, while the cycling community whips itself into a froth about things, he appears to not give a hoot...I'm sure the reality is somewhat different but maybe he does feel above it all, he's retired now so why concern himself with such frivolities?

I'm sure if it looks like his personal fortune is under threat then he'll come out fighting but for the moment he's playing it cool, I like the man even more.

Bye bye Johan!
http://www.wort.lu/en/view/radioshack-nissan-trek-separating-from-manager-bruyneel-50780057e4b0069dd6579285

Thats some serious bandwagon jumping by Schleck.

So is camp Armstrong just in lockdown then? "Say nothing, say nothing, they'll all go away eventually"...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/matt-white-steps-down-from-orica-greenedge-after-doping-confession

Yes Lance, it'll all go away

So is camp Armstrong just in lockdown then? "Say nothing, say nothing, they'll all go away eventually"...

The few tweets that LA has put out have all been about LiveStrong and he posted something about his son Luke being 13. Each tweet has met with a load of responses varying from "we still believe you" to "you're a cheating scumbag" although there were a few witty replies in there too. One of them, in response to his tweet saying he was hanging out with friends, said "I'm surprised you can see your friends, hidden behind the elephant in the room"

🙂

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/betsy-andreu-no-longer-a-voice-in-the-wilderness

Here's a lady with rather more testicular fortitude than many involved in the whole sorry mess.

I'm thinking of you, George Hincapie...

That Betsy Andreu link is quite shocking, how any of Lance's fans can read stuff like that and still think him a hero is beyond me. There's having a ruthless competitive streak and then there's being a massive ****, I just the hope the tide has finally turned and the man is now seen for what he really is by the general public as well as cycling fans.

Somebody has already posted that link on Lanceys facebook page

Red Kite Prayer has a good post about the fallout from the USADA case. Interestingly he slams journalists including himself for being cowards and not speaking out loudly enough about doping in general. Also admitted that Velonews stopped hanging out with Walsh at the TdF because of pressure from Postal.

Likewise, now you've got Millar calling for Verbruggen to stand down and for McQuaid to distance himself publicly from that era.

Seems like the change is actually coming now

There is a program on 4 corners (australian current affairs/investigative journalism show) tonight, should be interesting

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19941030 ]Lance's lawyer wants lie detector tests[/url]

"Of those, 11 came forward. Many others would and have refuted many of the allegations. Other than Tyler Hamilton, Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis and Jonathan Vaughters I'm not calling anyone a liar - but I am calling those four liars."

So if the other 7 aren't liars, then surely it's all true as little that those four say is different or materially significant to what the others have said.

They know that there is no mechanism for lie detector tests being taken. They have had the opportunity to challenge the evidence through due process, and turned it down. Now they just want to sit on the sidelines making silly comments and hiding behind livestrong.

atlaz - Member
Lance's lawyer wants lie detector tests

Yes, but did you hear how quickly he terminated the interview when Richardson asked if he'd be prepared to have Lance take a lie detector test?

Also, Hora looked like a broken man yesterday - it's tough when you find out your heroes are only human too, let alone a cheating, lying, bullying drug user! 😀

It's all smoke & mirrors seeing as lie detectors are bullshit anyway.

Faaaarrrrr Too many pages on this now.... So I'll chip in too.
The one point that stood out for me from Betsy Andreu's interview above is this:

“This argument coming out that ‘I had to dope to compete’ should be clarified. ‘You had to dope to compete on Lance's team’. You had to dope to make a very comfortable salary. You didn't have to dope to merely finish the race. In the end, Frankie's career as a pro cyclist was over for refusing not just to dope but dope a la Ferrari.”

I think it points to the myth that in order to be a "Winner" one has to be a bully and willing to push others into a position where they will compromise their own integrity as being false.

In a lot of peoples eyes a Winner is someone who manages to win by working within the rules, moreover I personally don't believe a winner also need s to be a bully, a good motivator yes, commited and willing to go to that bit further than the next guy in order to to succeed? yes, but being a Bully is not the only route to sucess IMO...

The other thing is that this was a Team effort Not just LaLa... LaLa's Yellow Jerseys were their prime focus and hence he was central to that culture, but clean or doped it takes a Team to deliver those wins and the Team(s) that assisted him (Both riders and Support) are equally implicated, some may have been less willing than others, and those who have subsiquently stayed quiet were more than likely made aware of the consequences of following their conscience...

I'm not saying LaLa isn't a nasty piece of work, but I think the environment/culture/Money of USPS probably contributed a fair bit to his decissions and behaviour to be slightly more of a shit bag.

They know that there is no mechanism for lie detector tests being taken. They have had the opportunity to challenge the evidence through due process, and turned it down. Now they just want to sit on the sidelines making silly comments and hiding behind livestrong

5 Live tonight @ 7 pm Peddelers [ nice title] is on this

“This argument coming out that ‘I had to dope to compete’ should be clarified. ‘You had to dope to compete on Lance's team’. You had to dope to make a very comfortable salary. You didn't have to dope to merely finish the race. In the end, Frankie's career as a pro cyclist was over for refusing not just to dope but dope a la Ferrari.”

That quote from Betsy Andreu is right on the mark. Actually, further than that really as Frankie doped just refused to go to the lengths the others did. Kimmage quit rather than dope, Scott Mercier (who was on Postal) did the same and I'm sure there are loads of others who put their dreams to one side rather than break a personal ethical limit.

Re the lie detector thing, more at

[url= http://road.cc/content/news/68966-lance-armstrong-lawyer-caught-out-lie-detector%E2%80%A6-question ]road.cc[/url]

“Some of those eyewitnesses claim to have seen Lance Armstrong have blood transfusions.

“If those witnesses were to take a lie detector test, what would those lie detector tests show?”

Herman laughed. Perhaps that’s why, despite four decades’ courtroom experience, he didn’t hear the noise of the trap being cocked.

“I wish I knew,” he replied. “I don’t know. How would I know that?”

The interviewer pressed on. “Would it prove that Lance Armstrong didn’t do that?’

Herman responded, “Well I suppose a lie detector test, properly administered, I’m a proponent of that frankly, just personally. So I wouldn’t challenge the results of a lie detector test with good equipment, properly administered…”

The trap had been primed, and now it sprang shut.

“You know what the answer is, then – sit Lance Armstrong down and put him on the lie detector test and see how he does?”

The question seemed to catch Herman unawares.

“Well, we might do that, you never know. I don’t know if we would or we wouldn’t. We might, so…”

Suddenly, the tone of his voice changed, becoming more urgent as he made his excuses and terminated the call.

“Anyway, it’s been very nice talking to you…”

It’s impossible to tell whether someone else was sitting in the same room as him making ‘cut!’ gestures, but the idea is inescapable.

“Er, actually it hasn’t been all that nice,” Herman added. “But I’m just kidding. I need to run now.”

Ha!

Does Bruyneel still have to defend himself in court now? Or can he just 'fess up? Presumably he can't just decide to not contend the facts against him (a la Armstrong). Just wondering if resignation from RadioShack, despite being inevitable, positions him to just cough up.

Presumably all the 'little' people Armstrong stamped on can't take him to court (sadly) unless they can do a class action, but assuming that large Insurance agency involved in that previous court case for non-payment of bonuses must be licking its lips awaiting payback?

My guess is SCA and The Times will want their money back at least as the former probably ponied up 7-8M dollars in the payment and the fees and The Times has been hammering Armstrong for some time.

Johan will probably go to arbitration but will almost certainly lose and from what I gather there is other unreleased evidence in relation to him (witness statements etc) which will enhance the case. What I wonder though is whether he can hold shares in RSNT if he's banned for life from the sport.

that large Insurance agency involved in that previous court case for non-payment of bonuses must be licking its lips awaiting payback?

I don't think they can touch him on the bonuses, there was no contractual get out clause in case he had cheated. He may however have perjured himself in that trial, which would be a separate criminal matter.

Over the past few days I've been flicking through the various appendices & supporting info attached to theUSADA 'reasoned decision' (sad, I know) and whilst a lot of is from statements of others & circumstantial it corroborates the detail in Hamilton's book.

If I'm honest, I had always hoped the rumours were just that however, it is clear that not only were they true but most were actually understated.

My big question now is why was the Federal case dropped? There's more than enough evidence to put USPS on trial for the original "misuse of public funds" charge yet nobody (as far as I have seen) has been able to provide a sound case for this being dismissed.

glitch?

One more for glitching?

I don't think they can touch him on the bonuses, there was no contractual get out clause in case he had cheated. He may however have perjured himself in that trial, which would be a separate criminal matter.

With SCA, there was a contractual get-out which said if he was cheating they didn't have to pay the insured bonus sum. This was the whole bone of the court case they had with Lance/Tailwind

My big question now is why was the Federal case dropped? There's more than enough evidence to put USPS on trial for the original "misuse of public funds" charge yet nobody (as far as I have seen) has been able to provide a sound case for this being dismissed.

Theory is that the Obama administration didn't want to be heading towards an election year prosecuting an "American hero" so the new US Attorney (appointed by the Obama administration) dropped it all. They never said there was no evidence nor wrongdoing, just they were dropping it.