You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The samples were provided blind. The link to Armstrong for the dodgy sample was made later (and not by UCI).
More perplexing for me in the various posts on this and other forums is: Who are these Lance Armstrong [b]fans[/b] or perhaps where are they?
I don't see any people on here...
I'm trying to work out who won each of those seven tours, by discounting all the cheats and frauds. I think it might have been me.
😀
Did the UCI provide the samples for the tests in the Ashenden interview?
I can't remember, but if they did it would dampen the UCI/Armstrong conspiracy theory part a bit. That or someone really screwed up in choosing TdF 2009 as the test of the test.
Did you read it?
It was the 1999 TdF and they chose that one as it was before the test was available and it was likely the EPO was used by some athletes due to previous confesions.
The UCI provided anonymous samples for the scientific study analysing the effectiveness of the test.
Someone leaked the list of names linked with sample codes to the French papers. The french paper was the one that linked Ashenden's data to Lance.
More perplexing for me in the various posts on this and other forums is: Who are these Lance Armstrong fans or perhaps where are they?I don't see any people on here...
I'll put my hand up, the books were an inspiration. I wanted him to win and he p*ssed off the french. Knighthood material over here.
Going after Merckx and Coppi next! lol
Brave mike, brave stuff indeed
So in some tours, is it now the guy who crossed the line 4th who is the winner?
Right now, some dude is laying on his couch. "hey, I just won the tour de france not bad, eh?"
So in some tours, is it now the guy who crossed the line 4th who is the winner?
In some tours it was probably the fella with the blackboard on the yellow bike
More perplexing for me in the various posts on this and other forums is: Who are these Lance Armstrong fans or perhaps where are they?I don't see any people on here...
He won 7 tours having survived cancer. Most people would struggle to complete a tour, many would struggle with a single mountain stage. Doesn't make the drugs right, but that still remains a huge achievement.
Right now, some dude is laying on his couch. "hey, I just won the tour de france not bad, eh?"
...but I hope my doping regime won't ever be picked up on.
Even if he did dope. He would have done it, putting chemicals into his body after surviving cancer that had spread throughout his body. I doubt that- why do that, having been through what he did. To ride a bicycle- it wouldn't make sense. Even if he did it unclean- he did it against ALL his competitors who were on something. He beat them. He dominated as well.
Cycling is an unclean, chemical sport - he beat all comers in a smackhead sport.
Thats looking at it in a cynical bitter way. However I don't know how else to see it.
I used to be a big fan of LA, thought what he did was inspirational, and in some ways it still is,(and if you do a history check of me on Bikeradar youll find me vehemontly defending him) but when you go chasing riders down and start bullying them, and when you effectively end riders and other people's careers in cycling then theres a reason...
What turned it for me (other than the above) was when he divorced his wife he made her sign a legally binding contract saying she was not alowed to talk about any aspect of what she saw in relation to LA and cycling... Basically a gagging order... Why would he do that if there was nothing to hide..?!
A question was asked, I answered. The internet opinion has little to do with drugs more with personality and fashion. In fact the opinion in here bears very little impact on the case or the facts. The case is flawed & the defence is flawed, who wins?
As I said above those who "grassed" under massive pressure have got away with it. the USADA have gone for their man and sort of cornered his lawyer.
Still no day in court.
I would suspect that in a court of law this case would struggle. So many objections (from both sides). Only the lawyers win.
Guess that is where sport is now.
Anyone getting vitriolic over this has missed the point nobody won. Sport Lost
[quote=riderideride ]So in some tours, is it now the guy who crossed the line 4th who is the winner?
8th apparently....
Well whatever else this thread is: it's certainly interesting as a psychological case study of certain individuals being in denial
but when you go chasing riders down and start bullying them, and when you effectively end riders and other people's careers in cycling then theres a reason...What turned it for me (other than the above) was when he divorced his wife he made her sign a legally binding contract saying she was not alowed to talk about any aspect of what she saw in relation to LA and cycling... Basically a gagging order... Why would he do that if there was nothing to hide..?!
So do we put these negative character traits above the fact that his foundation has raised over $500 million for cancer? Buys him a lot of grace in my book.
Someone leaked the list of names linked with sample codes to the French papers. The french paper was the one that linked Ashenden's data to Lance.
It wasn't leaked, when the samples were taken they were given identifying numbers, the lab was given the samples with the numbers but not the information linking the numbers to the riders.
Later a French newspaper asked the uci for the testing data from Lance, lance himself agreed for this information to be released, because there was seemingly nothing in there but passed tests. But the newspaper was able to link the sample numbers with the failed tests.
But the newspaper was able to link the sample numbers with the failed tests.
A FRENCH newspaper? Some of them are well known for their hatred of him aren't they.
[i]Anyone getting vitriolic over this has missed the point nobody won. Sport Lost[/i]
Good post.
A friend of mine, a life long cyclist and who has raced. Pointed out to me recently, that whether LA doped or not. He has raised a lot of funds for charity and research.
I have to admit, I know naff all about LA's Charidy work.
So do we put these negative character traits above the fact that his foundation has raised over $500 million for cancer? Buys him a lot of grace in my book.
Yes the world isn't black and white, but raising money for charity doesn't change the reality of his doping.
Im not a hater, but if you do something wrong be prepared to pay the price
Im a cancer survivor, I said yesterday I drew an awful lot of strnght and inspiration from what happened, but at the end of the day he cheated (as did many others) and thats not acceptable.
Mike got it right up there - Its a sad day for Cycling, and it could get even worse if the UCI start being idiots too...
A FRENCH newspaper? Some of them are well known for their hatred of him aren't they.
No, that's just what he likes to claim to divert attention from his doping to them.
Anyone else just sad about this.
The Armstrong era coincided with me not being very interested in cycling. I used to love the TDF in the Eighties but only really got interested when I started to cycle a lot myself and that coincided with Landis winning so I'm not a classic "fanboy".
However, I read the books around that time and you would have to have a heart of stone not to be inspired by them. I still believe the anecdotes of how much harder he trained, and regardless whatever else he was doing he would have had to to beat all of his doped competition.
Anyway I've nailed my colours to the mast as a "trusting, believe the best of people" type so if anyone needs my bank details to get their family money out of Nigeria, drop me a line.
[b]hora[/b] - Member[i]Even[/i] if he did dope.
[i]Even[/i] if he did it unclean.
Hora - he doped - accept it.
Yes the world isn't black and white, but raising money for charity doesn't change the reality of his doping.
I never suggested it did. If you look at what I quoted and posted, it was in response to comments about his character.
I don't care if he doped or not. They all did it, probably still do.
There's a fair chance that in 5 years when the tests catch up with the drugs we'll find some of todays winners being banned. You never really find out who's won what. It's like the sport that keeps giving. 😀
Just sayin…
1999
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO)
3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04)
4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2000
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO)
2001
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Andrei Kivilev
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2002
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping)
4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2003
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping)
5. Haimar Zubeldia
2004
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08)
3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2005
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
You seem to have missed the "implicated in" and "name in" bits off lance's name, I take it there just wasn't enough room.
So in basically the past 13 years of the tour the only two credible/worthy* winners are Cuddles and Wiggo?
*as yet and I hope never do blood dope
[edit] ^^ post by colinmac really paints a picture doesnt it 🙁
So in basically the past 13 years of the tour the only two [s]credible/worthy*[/s] winnders [i]who havn't been caught[/i] are Cuddles and Wiggo?
I'd wager a beer this will roll on and on. 👿
*as yet and I hope never do blood dope
The not knowing is the exciting bit.
Cheats will always prosper. We have set up sport that winning is everything and some will do all they can to achieve. Goes back to dopers in the Olympics. Ban them all for life. They know the risks before administration, naive apologies & & arguments for rehabilitation are excuses to allow the drugs to prosper in sport
Cheats are cheats
Anyone want to buy this? I've never watched it cos the TdF is so boring and full of cheats.
[img] 
[/img]
One of the earlier posts linked to the Gaurdian blog...
This bit applies to all, whether they be rider from the LA era, or Wiggins / Evans / Frome / Nibali etc...
The most important lesson of the Lance Armstrong story, though, is the hardest to prepare for and guard against: our own gullibility and willing complicity. What is astounding and disturbing is that one man – a dominant personality as well as a dominant athlete – was able to enforce his will, isolate, bully and silence his doubters and critics, and win the world's top cycling event year after year and make people believe in him, despite there being, apparently, dozens of witnesses to its utter phoniness. Too many people had too much invested in the Lance Armstrong story, and the power of persuasion followed the money.The moral of the story is that if a cyclist looks too good to be true, then he probably is. But if a cyclist looks too good to be true and has an entourage of lawyers, press flaks, doctors and bodyguards, then he definitely is.
At the moment, Wiggo for example, still shows the sort of humility that suggests his words and actions are consistent...
The moral of the story is that if a cyclist looks too good to be true, then he probably is.
Oh dear. Some of our lot could be in trouble.
Oh dear. Some of our lot could be in trouble.
Hmmmm we looked at the Oz model then invested way more money and way time ontop of this.
Saying that - some of the races just look too easy and bar hoy none of them look particularly athletic/strong.
Official Statement http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012
Lance Armstong's Statement of August 23, 2012
AUSTIN, Texas - August 23rd, 2012 - There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.
I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.
If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and – once and for all – put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?
From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges. The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA’s own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations. At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.
The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.
USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.
Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I'm looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.
That Laura Trott looks like she's out of her face on something - ridiculously cheery!
Did you read it?It was the 1999 TdF and they chose that one as it was before the test was available and it was likely the EPO was used by some athletes due to previous confesions.
The UCI provided anonymous samples for the scientific study analysing the effectiveness of the test.
Someone leaked the list of names linked with sample codes to the French papers. The french paper was the one that linked Ashenden's data to Lance.
Yes I did thanks but don't remember it verbatim. I'm not being an apologist as you appear to think, just that if I were trying to cover up any collusion I'd make damn sure I never sent the samples from Armstrong - it'd be lost or damaged in transit along with a couple of 'dither fish' others.
So do we put these negative character traits above the fact that his foundation has raised over $500 million for cancer? Buys him a lot of grace in my book.
Isn't this a bit of a myth as well though.
[url= http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html ]link[/url]
Basically not much if any of that $500 million has gone on research, and an awful lot has gone on paying for personal appearences from the man himself.
From tiwtter, trying to lighten the mood a little:
A French paper stated today they found 3 substances banned under French Law in Lance Armstrong's hotel room. Deodorant, toothpaste, and soap
That Laura Trott looks like she's out of her face on something - ridiculously cheery!
Love eggs?
wow that statement is amazing - ignoring most of the facts, spinning it off again as a personal wicthhunt and again stating the USADA have no authority - despite the courts stating they do...
Incredible..
hora - Member"That Laura Trott looks like she's out of her face on something - ridiculously cheery!"
Love eggs?
Double U Tee Eff
Love eggs?
Is that what they call those funny shaped chainrings?
wow, this is going to get very messy...
Whilst UCI remain silent, WADA has waded in
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375 ]WADA boss man[/url]
Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France titles should be "obliterated" following his decision not to contest the doping charges against him.World Anti-Doping Agency chief John Fahey says Armstrong's refusal to fight on means the allegations have "substance".
Fahey said: "He had the right to rip up those charges but elected not to.
"Therefore the only interpretation in these circumstances is that there was [b][u]substance[/u][/b] in those charges."
Fahey added: "My understanding is that when the evidence is based upon a career that included seven Tour de France wins, then all of that becomes obliterated."
ETA - I wonder if he had rehearsed the "substance" pun
I can imagine the UCI are having a few strong discussions regarding this with Pat disagreeing with everyone else!
[i]
Love eggs?
Is that what they call those funny shaped chainrings?[/i]
Wiggins is a big fan of them I hear 🙂
[i]At the moment, Wiggo for example, still shows the sort of humility that suggests his words and actions are consistent... [/i]
I really hope so, for the sake of British Cycling at least, but then we've always got Froome to fall back on if not 😉
Isn't this a bit of a myth as well though.link
Basically not much if any of that $500 million has gone on research, and an awful lot has gone on paying for personal appearences from the man himself.
Sorry, do you have another link please (from someone without a massive hate on LA?)
How long before we get a decent documentary on all this latest stuff? There was a good one on Ben Johnson &co on before the Olympics.
Personally I would rather have seen this settled properly with all the evidence being heard in a "proper" court - although it would seem the USADA is far from perfection itself. This way still leaves questions and will mean the thing is not put to bed once and for all.
I didn't get all the way through that interview but I got the impression the samples found to indicate EPO were from 1999 before the EPO test was developed. When was the EPO test first used and how did he pass that if he failed in 1999?
FWIW I think his statement is very well written and does make some good arguements. Still I can't see someone that driven giving up something that he dedicated his life too.
Sometimes you just get tired.
Sometimes, no matter how slippery you have proved to be in the past, you just get caught.
i've just been out on my road bike,an some young kid just called me a Druggy 😀 !!
I didn't get all the way through that interview but I got the impression the samples found to indicate EPO were from 1999 before the EPO test was developed. When was the EPO test first used and how did he pass that if he failed in 1999?
[i]The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical
[/i]
Wada statement
So do we put these negative character traits above the fact that his foundation has raised over $500 million for cancer? Buys him a lot of grace in my book.
So - raised lots of money for charity means he *didn't* dope? Or just that he did dope but it's OK?
I don't understand...
Thoughts? Am I reading this wrong, UCI is saying it acknowledges the USADA in this matter and awaits its decision before the UCI comments?
Does this mean the UCI may just sit on the fence?
In other words Lance's legacy is ****ed isn't it.
[b]hora[/b] - MemberThe Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical
Wada statement
Hora - do you know what the Vrijman report was?
That was the one that recommended that Armstrong should be cleared of any suspicion surrounding the retrospective testing of his blood samples from the 1999 Tour de France, where were claimed by L'Equipe to have contained EPO. It denounced the manner in which the doping laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry carried out its research, as well as questioning the ethics of World Anti-Doping Agency chairman, Dick Pound.
WADA statement on Vrijman here:
Nobody disputes that the positive EPO results from the '99 TdF were not found as part of routine testing, nor were they analysed by the same method as used subsequently in routine testing. The question is whether the tests (a) had scientific validity and (b) showed EPO use by LA in '99. It is my belief that (a) and (b) are true.
Nearly - UCI is certainly wiating for the USADA reasoning and does not dispute that USADA has claimed juridiction. That is not quite the same thing as UCI acknowledging that USADA does have jurisdiction.Thoughts? Am I reading this wrong, UCI is saying it acknowledges the USADA in this matter and awaits its decision before the UCI comments?
They may:Does this mean the UCI may just sit on the fence?
~ sit on the fence
~ accept USADA's findings and carry out the stripping of LA's titles
~ refute USADA's reasoning and/or authority and leave LA's TdF wins in place
In other words Lance's legacy is **** isn't it.
Yes (whatever UCI do)
Interesting statement from LA and given the system in the US perhaps all he could doo. Guilty or not there is something not quite right in my view about the way USADA have gone about their business. Special treatment for grassing up the LA seems unjust. If they are guilty like LA then they must be out of the sport. Get Vaughters out of Garmin Slipstream and anyone else involved out of sport.
Landis is particularly dispicable given the way he used information about Lemond.
Special treatment for grassing up the LA seems unjust. If they are guilty like LA then they must be out of the sport.
This I do agree with. It sends out a mixed message for the up and coming/future riders. Theres always a 'chance' you could immunity from prosecution with doping if you turn witness.
It is unfamilar for us Brits, but I thought plea bargaining was common in the US?
(in criminal cases anyway)
That chart on page 8 is depressingly interesting but I suspect something that many of us really knew was true. Still I love watching bike racing and I'm not going to stop. Having done a little like many on here, those that are good put themselves though a lot of pain, are brave, and really are brilliant athletes and I'll not let the cheats change my appreciation of what is at times fantastic (as long are they are clean). Am not deluding myself that there are not cheats out there. Speaking of Cheats hows the Vuelta doing.
colinmac's chart is interesting, but for the wrong reasons.
I need a bit more info than "Named In..." or "Implicted In..."
"Busted..." is clear enough, but just rumoured to be up to something by some chump is not official in my book.
USADA actions remind me of McCarthy-ism. The Septics must be proud of that fine tradition.
rkk01 - Member
It is unfamilar for us Brits, but I thought plea bargaining was common in the US?(in criminal cases anyway
It is used in criminal cases but does not seem right some how. If you have evidence then charge and hopefully convict. If not then it should not be right to scare people into admissions with threats. This is what it amounts to in some cases. It is used by the US on people over here to try and stop them contest extradition.
Lance was the best of the dopers.
Where would he have finished if he was clean? Still with the wins? Anyway you look at it he was a superb rider and I'm not going to let it spoil my enjoyment of cycling by wondering who in the current crop is or isn't doping now.
I'll bet the UCI go with usada's suggestion. Since LA isn't contesting, the UCI's complicity won't be exposed so this suits them just fine.
If you have evidence then charge and hopefully convict. If not then it should not be right to scare people into admissions with threats.
Is there [b][i]any[/i][/b] suggestion anywhere that anyone who went on the record in this case was "scared into admissions with threats"?
I am prepared to believe that people were given inducements.
ScottChegg - Member
USADA actions remind me of McCarthy-ism. The Septics must be proud of that fine tradition.
What do you think McCarthyism means?
What do you think McCarthyism means?
Something to do with playing "Hey Jude" at the end of a lengthy public spectacle to signify the end?
Just because I've got an infected cut on my finger, I don't know why Scott wants to drag me into the debate.
Is not losing your job a threat or an inducement? Who else among the witnesses are still working in cycle sport.
So in basically the past 13 years of the tour the only two credible/worthy* winners are Cuddles and Wiggo?
and Sastre.
Its official. Lance Armstrong never won the Tour de France.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375
[i]and Sastre[/i]
Oops, forgot about Carlos.
And just seen the news...
Bye Lance
Thanks...
... for the memories
USADA now have a full statement
[url=[url= http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012 ][/url]]USADA Statement[/url]
What do you think McCarthyism means?
Well, since you can't be arsed to look it up, I've Wikipoodia'd it for you.
Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person's patriotism, [b]making poorly supported accusations[/b], using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism.
McCarthyism can also be synonymous with the term witch-hunt, both referring to mass hysteria and moral panic
making poorly supported accusations
So, do we really think, that in the most litiginous country in the world...
...that an organisation would start proceedings against a famous, well connected, vociferous individual, known for immediately resorting to legal action...
... without making sure that their case stacked up first...