# Armstrong tests positive?



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

The French press have been gunning for him for years but i think this is the first really damaging blow they've managed to land. If L'Equipe is correct Armstrong was using EPO as far back as 1999. The tests are unofficial though and so he cannot be disciplined, though the police can taken independent action.

"L'Equipe, whose parent company organises the Tour, alleged that he had taken the banned blood-boosting drug erythropoietin (EPO). It published results of tests done recently on urine samples that had been taken originally in 1999 when Armstrong won his first Tour de France. A test was not available for EPO until 2000. L'Equipe claimed that traces of EPO were found in six of 15 urine samples provided by Armstrong.

[...]

The director of the Tour de France, Jean Marie Leblanc, told the French radio station RTL he felt let down by Armstrong and said L'Equipe's report seemed "very complete, very professional, very meticulous" and that it "appears credible"."

Here


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)




----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 24, 2005)

who knows? 

i find it hard to believe a word in the papers these days, especially those with a known agenda.


----------



## tommers (Aug 24, 2005)

really hope it isn't true...

there does seem to be some possibility that it isn't.  L'Equipe have "obtained documents" to prove that the code on the sample matches armstrong.  the samples have been kept in certain conditions to "avoid a possible false positive result"... for six years....

he has never tested positive during the next six years.

my money is on it being a case of wishful thinking on l'equipe's part.

hopefully, anyway....


----------



## g force (Aug 24, 2005)

It's just L'Equipe shit stirring again   They can stand the fact he's won the event so many times and have a vendetta against him. Doubly so because of what happened to Virenque...the french were pretty shamed by that.

And he didn't test postiive in any of the last 6 so i'm doubting this TBH, while at the same time hoping it isn't true   at self.


----------



## aylee (Aug 24, 2005)

With French libel laws, they'd better be sure that they got this one right.


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

i knew it...... fucken Bush lovin texan !


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> i knew it...... fucken Bush lovin texan !


Excuse me?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> i knew it...... fucken Bush lovin texan !


 He didn't support the war though.


----------



## souljacker (Aug 24, 2005)

Surely, if there wasn't a test for EPO in '99, it couldn't be a banned substance? Therefore, when the test comes in, he stops using it, so he hasn't broken the rules?

If it was a banned substance but there was no test for it, I bet you could go back to all the other competitors samples and you'd find they were all doing the same. And he still won!


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Excuse me?



hes a good friend of Bush jr. only last night was he filmed riding with the president and his entourage.....showing your support bush is supporting the war....


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> hes a good friend of Bush jr. only last night was he filmed riding with the president and his entourage.....showing your support bush is supporting the war....


So if a top sportsman is invited to meet the Head of State, and does so, that makes them a supporter of their policies _even if they've already said they're opposed to those policies?_

Really?


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

I surely wouldn’t go fishing with Mussolini with all the media around.... Looks great for the media spin doctors.... u underestimate the power of pictures


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

In fact, if you'd been a top sportsman in fascist Italy and Mussolini had invited you fishing, you'd have gone fishing.


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> In fact, if you'd been a top sportsman in fascist Italy and Mussolini had invited you fishing, you'd have gone fishing.



your point is that armstrong is a staunch republican ???? my point is that anyone with any sense and morales wouldnt show support for a war criminal (BUSH)


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

anyway im not discussing politics on here anymore.... i admired the guy for fighting back and winning all those races, tho not if it looks like he is a drugs cheat.... and even worse a republican


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm not sure you have anything so coherent as a "point".


----------



## g force (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm more annoyed by his support of MOR dullster Sheryl Crow


----------



## Mogden (Aug 24, 2005)

I can't believe they're still trying to get Armstrong tarred with the EPO brush

A quote from LA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/4175650.stm

"The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself."

It's shocking. Why must he have to prove his innocence time and time again.


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I'm not sure you have anything so coherent as a "point".



Whats so hard about it ??? Read the words...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> Whats so hard about it ??? Read the words...


I think it's the way it doesn't follow on from any reply made to you.


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> I think it's the way it doesn't follow on from any reply made to you.



there are plenty of sports people out there that arent stupid enough to ride or participate in public with a war criminal.... in italy you would have either been shot for not participating or been in the resistance..... in the US well you could tell george to fuck off with his media PR campaign


----------



## the B (Aug 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> He didn't support the war though.



He was against the war, supports gun control, is pro-choice, describes himself as 'left of centre' and plans to run against the republican candidates for governor of Texas...


----------



## the B (Aug 24, 2005)

g force said:
			
		

> I'm more annoyed by his support of MOR dullster Sheryl Crow



Quite!


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> He was against the war, supports gun control, is pro-choice, describes himself as 'left of centre' and plans to run against the republican candidates for governor of Texas...



yet he is quite happy to be involved in PR campaigns for a Republican President that is anti choice, war mongering, no gun control , and is far right NEo Con   

So he is a dipshit then???


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> yet he is quite happy to be involved in PR campaigns for a Republican President that is anti choice, war mongering, no gun control , and is far right NEo Con
> 
> So he is a dipshit then???



Good luck to him if he is all this ... and does run against the republicans in texas...he would have a good chance of winning .....


----------



## the B (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> yet he is quite happy to be involved in PR campaigns for a Republican President that is anti choice, war mongering, no gun control , and is far right NEo Con
> 
> So he is a dipshit then???



Source it please. There may well be some circumstances surrounding it anyway. Going for mainstream politics is in some way about comprimise - and when it comes down it - I have a funny feeling Armstrong will go for 'winning' ahead of the 'softer' non-core values.

I know in sport his line is so heavily anti-drugs, he just wouldn't - and it'd be so terrible if he has been on drugs. It would destroy a legend and hope for thousands if not millions.


----------



## energy (Aug 24, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> He was against the war, supports gun control, is pro-choice, describes himself as 'left of centre' and plans to run against the republican candidates for governor of Texas...




Not only that, he is a declared francophile, speaks French like a native, spends a considerable amount of time there (the tour aside), and is very well liked in France.


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

the B said:
			
		

> Source it please. There may well be some circumstances surrounding it anyway. Going for mainstream politics is in some way about comprimise - and when it comes down it - I have a funny feeling Armstrong will go for 'winning' ahead of the 'softer' non-core values.
> 
> I know in sport his line is so heavily anti-drugs, he just wouldn't - and it'd be so terrible if he has been on drugs. It would destroy a legend and hope for thousands if not millions.



Lets hope he wasnt using drugs tho i dont think if he was the truth would ever some out...these days many are untraceable or can be masked.... will try and find a source for what i saw last night - bush and Armstrong  riding along side by side whilst a pack of riders were behind..... if he is progressive and not a republican he is sending a poor message out


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

energy said:
			
		

> Not only that, he is a declared francophile, speaks French like a native, spends a considerable amount of time there (the tour aside), and is very well liked in France.



look i wasnt aware that he claims to be left ... or may well be.... tho the above statement means fuck all.... the french state can be just as bad as the US state if it suits thier interests.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> Lets hope he wasnt using drugs tho i dont think if he was the truth would ever some out...these days many are untraceable or can be masked.... will try and find a source for what i saw last night - bush and Armstrong  riding along side by side whilst a pack of riders were behind..... if he is progressive and not a republican he is sending a poor message out


 Mountain biking, yes, it happened or is about to happen.


----------



## denialworks4me (Aug 24, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Mountain biking, yes, it happened or is about to happen.



it happened


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 24, 2005)

It is my understanding that he used the opportunity of riding with Bush to hit him up for more funding for cancer research.  Personally, I wouldn't endanger my saftey riding with Bush (with how bad he rides), but Armstrong thought the cancer funding was important.


----------



## peppery (Aug 24, 2005)

Was he such a great rider though? Apart from the tour what has he really won? You look at Eddy Merckx who won the tour and the giro five times, and held the mile record. Armstrongs done none of that.


----------



## the B (Aug 24, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> Was he such a great rider though? Apart from the tour what has he really won? You look at Eddy Merckx who won the tour and the giro five times, and held the mile record. Armstrongs done none of that.



Come to do it after suffering near death from cancer?

Doing it many times over?

Thing is it's not about sporting achievements... for me and others it is about his sportsmanship. The determination, come back... it's a story!


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

He's won the Tour a record number of times, so yes he is such a great rider. I don't like him any the more - but neither my dislike of him nor any purported political failings on his part detract from the greatness. 

Only the drugs allegations, if true, would do that.


----------



## flimsier (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> He's won the Tour a record number of times, so yes he is such a great rider. I don't like him any the more - but neither my dislike of him nor any purported political failings on his part detract from the greatness.
> 
> Only the drugs allegations, if true, would do that.



I agree 100%.

No doubt that should make you change your view!


----------



## peppery (Aug 24, 2005)

There's no doubt that he's a great rider but does he deserve to be lauded in the same way as Merckx or Indurain? Greg Lemond nearly died in a shooting accident but came back and won the tour, he may have won even more than 3 if it wasn't for that. Armstrong was the greatest tour champion but thats it really.


----------



## energy (Aug 24, 2005)

peppery said:
			
		

> There's no doubt that he's a great rider but does he deserve to be lauded in the same way as Merckx or Indurain? Greg Lemond nearly died in a shooting accident but came back and won the tour, he may have won even more than 3 if it wasn't for that. Armstrong was the greatest tour champion but thats it really.




That's not very generous. What is the difference between surviving cancer or a shooting? Both are extremely traumatic, life changing experiences.


----------



## Kameron (Aug 24, 2005)

souljacker said:
			
		

> Surely, if there wasn't a test for EPO in '99, it couldn't be a banned substance? Therefore, when the test comes in, he stops using it, so he hasn't broken the rules?
> 
> If it was a banned substance but there was no test for it, I bet you could go back to all the other competitors samples and you'd find they were all doing the same. And he still won!


Not everyone is just out for everything they can get some people play by the rules. Just cause you can fuck the system doesn't mean you should you have to have some kind of rational for it. In this case you are just cheating.

This could well be L'Equipe shit stirring though, test done by people with unpublished agendas are worse than no test at all.


----------



## shandy (Aug 24, 2005)

Armstrong is a legend.  Although I'd qualify that by saying you can't compare him to cyclists like Mercx, who raced every week of the season.

If he's taken drugs I'd be disappointed, if only for his banging on about being clean (albeit under provocation) so much.

I like his mention in 'Every Second Counts' of a phone call from David Millar (pre his testing positive) sometime in deep mid-winter where he can hear that Millar is in a bar and getting pissed and he says to LA "You better not be on your bike". Lance answers that he is just in the midle of a 5 hour training ride, to which Millar responds "you bastard!".   

Could he just have done it all through hard work? I fuckin hope so.


----------



## wire thing (Aug 24, 2005)

who cares?

He's retired.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2005)

denialworks4me said:
			
		

> hes a good friend of Bush jr. only last night was he filmed riding with the president and his entourage.....showing your support bush is supporting the war....



He's also raised thirty million for cancer research with the sale of his bracelets.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2005)

g force said:
			
		

> I'm more annoyed by his support of MOR dullster Sheryl Crow



It's not 'support of': he's shagging her.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2005)

Now that *would* be a thread derailment, if one were to ask: "Would *you* shag Sheryl Crow?"


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's not 'support of': he's shagging her.



Aye, but maybe she gets on top.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 24, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> He's also raised thirty million for cancer research with the sale of his bracelets.




55 million at last count.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> He's won the Tour a record number of times, so yes he is such a great rider. I don't like him any the more - but neither my dislike of him nor any purported political failings on his part detract from the greatness.
> 
> Only the drugs allegations, if true, would do that.



I wonder: just how reliable is a bottle of six-year-old whizz?

Were they saving it for the vintage or something?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> Aye, but maybe she gets on top.



Then the 'support' is her knees and quads, innit?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 24, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I wonder: just how reliable is a bottle of six-year-old whizz?
> 
> Were they saving it for the vintage or something?



I've wondered the same thing.  

I know a nice recipe for homemade bleach.  You pee into a bucket and leave it for three months to ferment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2005)

I don't think Lance is a really likeable, people-person, but he's a great rider, and the comeback from cancer story is the stuff that sport is built on.


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Then the 'support' is her knees and quads, innit?



Well, that would be one scenario.....


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Aug 24, 2005)

past caring said:
			
		

> Well, that would be one scenario.....



I wonder if EPO is truely a "performance enhancing" drug?


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2005)

It would fucking need to be....


----------



## Flashman (Aug 24, 2005)

For the purists he's not up there with the real greats, as he's never done the classics, but he is a legendary modern rider.

FWIW a lot of riders have used one thing or another over the years, from brandy to speed, it's nothing new, and if I had to ride up mountains for a living I would use them too; it is the hardest sport in the world and they've been taking whatever they can get since day one.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2010)

Lance Armstrong accused of doping by former team-mate Floyd Landis



> Lance Armstrong has been accused of using performance-boosting drugs in a series of detailed emails sent by his former team-mate, Floyd Landis. Landis – stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after failing a dope test – sent emails to cycling officials and sponsors finally admitting the offence, according to today's Wall Street Journal.
> 
> Despite repeated allegations, Armstrong has always denied doping and has never tested positive or been sanctioned by the cycling authorities. Pat McQuaid, the head of cycling's governing body UCI, questioned Landis's credibility. McQuaid said Landis is "seeking revenge" and holds a "grudge" against Armstrong and others.



Landis interview



> Nearly four years after he began waging a costly, draining, and ultimately losing battle to discredit his positive test for synthetic testosterone at the 2006 Tour de France, Floyd Landis told ESPN.com on Wednesday that he used performance-enhancing drugs for most of his career as a professional road cyclist, including the race whose title he briefly held.
> 
> 
> In a lengthy telephone interview from California, Landis detailed extensive, consistent use of the red blood cell booster erythropoietin (commonly known as EPO), testosterone, human growth hormone and frequent blood transfusions, along with female hormones and a one-time experiment with insulin, during the years he rode for the U.S. Postal Service and Switzerland-based Phonak teams.



WSJ emails article



> Floyd Landis, the American cyclist whose 2006 Tour De France victory was nullified after a positive doping test, has sent a series of emails to cycling officials and sponsors admitting to, and detailing, his systematic use of performance enhancing drugs during his career. The emails also claim that other riders and cycling officials allegedly participated in doping, including seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.


----------



## gabi (May 20, 2010)

What team does Armstrong play for then?

Another superb example of the unwanted and unrequited forum split working well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 20, 2010)

I'm not a fan of the split (it's killing non-football discussion by removing passing football posters who generally are well up on others sports as well) but this particular problem is easily resolved by moving the thread.


----------



## gabi (May 20, 2010)

Yes, and im sure it will be.

Still don't understand the need for the split but I guess it's final.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (May 20, 2010)

The USA cycling federation and UCI have sat on this information for 3 weeks. What were they doing?  Investigating or wondering how to spin / bury the story.

Pat McQuaid - the buffoon  - has already nailed his colours to Armstrong mast. Obviously he's decided thats prefferable to actually investigating...and why should you investigate their biggest cash cow?  It'd be like turkeys voting for xmas. Wouldn't it be great if bodies that controlled sports were divorced from the money angle...

As someone interested in this - and other - sports one day being clean (we can dream) I'm excited by any evidence that nails Armstrong and Brunyeel, two of the most corrupt and dishonest frauds in world sport.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 20, 2010)

I can't remember who said it, but one cyclist has been quoted as saying something along the lines of: 'do you seriously expect us to do this without taking drugs?' Are any of the top cyclists clean, do you think?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (May 20, 2010)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I can't remember who said it, but one cyclist has been quoted as saying something along the lines of: 'do you seriously expect us to do this without taking drugs?' Are any of the top cyclists clean, do you think?



Yes, they are - probably more now than any time in the last 20 years. The Garmin, HTC and Sky teams are generally considered to be clean (add the French teams Bbox and Cofidis to this). On the flipside of this Astana, Saxo Bank, Radioshack, Rabobank and FuJi-Servetto are supposed to be as bent as fuck with organised doping programs (allegedly!).

It was Jaques Antiquile who made that quote in the 60's; when asked if he did drugs he said 'of course! Do you think this is possible on bread and evian?'..but that was the speed era, blood doping is alltogether more sinister, dangerous and performance enhancing.


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 20, 2010)

It would be nice if it was finally shown that he's a doper. Would be nice if loads more ex-riders did exposés.


----------



## bendeus (May 21, 2010)

ChrisFilter said:


> It would be nice if it was finally shown that he's a doper. Would be nice if loads more ex-riders did exposés.



Nice in the sense of seeing a Titan come crashing down, or nice for the good of the sport?


----------



## butchersapron (May 21, 2010)

Both i should think.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 21, 2010)

bad day for lance all round eh...







i must admit, i would give the claims of landis more credibility, if he hadn't already shown himself to be such a big fat liar.


----------



## The Boy (May 21, 2010)

Quite a clever move on Landis' part.  What should be a story that reads 'proven drug cheat admits he is a drug cheat' now becomes 'long suspected drug cheat is possibly a drug cheat'.


----------



## ChrisFilter (May 21, 2010)

bendeus said:


> Nice in the sense of seeing a Titan come crashing down, or nice for the good of the sport?



The latter. With a bit of schadenfreude for the former.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (May 21, 2010)

There are folk over on Bikeradar who think he staged his crash today to get the fuck out of the public eye..think thats stretching it a bit but funny how someone in the radiioshack car decided to film the whole thing on their phone...

http://www.steephill.tv/players/bicyclingmag/?title=ATOC-Lance-Armstrong-crashes-ou


----------



## Cloud (Jun 9, 2010)

They all dope imo

With Armstrong, I'm sure they did something more in that brain surgery. Oops being paranoid again but having cancer and doing what he did, jeez, it's inspiration I'd hate to see destroyed.


----------



## Jazzz (Jun 22, 2010)

Armstrong comes across to me as a ruthless character, who was most certainly doped, like the rest of them at the time, but unlike the others still vehemently denies it.


----------



## Jazzz (Jun 22, 2010)

thread bumped from five years ago?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jun 22, 2010)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> The USA cycling federation and UCI have sat on this information for 3 weeks. What were they doing?  Investigating or wondering how to spin / bury the story.
> .



I'm not sure they did sit on it, I saw reports about this on a German channel either last week or the week before. Maybe its just the UK press being a bit slow on the uptake (strange as it is considering that it's a "scandal" type story)


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jun 22, 2010)

You mean a week before the 20th of May (When I made that post)?

As far as LA goes, such is the hype that surrounds him we get to know everything about him within the hour.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 26, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/01/lance_armstrong_an_icon_under.html

Armstrong starting to sweat?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 26, 2011)

The Boy said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/mattslater/2011/01/lance_armstrong_an_icon_under.html
> 
> Armstrong starting to sweat?


 
It's coming up to make or break time for him. Either he will be indicted and tried in the next few months or he never will be.

I am no fan of Armstrong, but as an aside it's worth noting that the Grand Jury system is a bizarre one which for many intents and purposes destroys the right to silence. It gives the state the right to compel testimony from people before any charges have been laid against anyone, and while you can avail of a limited form of the right to silence (ie announce that you won't answer the question because it would incriminate you), if you are offered immunity yourself you can't refuse to give information against someone else. And you are speaking under oath, which turns the law of perjury into a prosecutor's dream.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Investigation closed.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Investigation closed.


 
Beat me to it, ya bugger!

Is it wrong for me to be a little disappointed by the news?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

I am. Whether i should....don't know...


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 6, 2012)

Ha ha Contador.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 6, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Ha ha Contador.


 
While it's good to see, it really shouldn't have taken this long.  Also gutted to Offredo getting pinged for three whereabouts violations.


----------



## agricola (Feb 6, 2012)

A Schleck has won a Tour of France!


----------



## The Boy (Feb 6, 2012)

Rolland get's a top ten at Le Tour.   Gadret gets a podium at il Giro.  Jerome Coppel wins Vuelta a Murcia.

Good day for the French.


----------



## twistedAM (Feb 7, 2012)

Did anyone bet on Schleck? Still got the receipt?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 10, 2012)

Is anyone interested in an Armstrong-watch thread? Things seem to be building to a head. Lots of his US fans have changed their minds about him. I'm getting excited at the prospect of a meltdown, perhaps with Lance throwing McQuaid and Bruyneel under the bus. The stakes are so high...the IOC has talked about dropping cycling if the UCI doesn't clean up the sport...and McQuaid has come out with such stupid remarks lately that he is looking as guilty as Arsewrong.


----------



## Random (Aug 10, 2012)

This'll ruin the end of Dodgeball


----------



## The Boy (Aug 10, 2012)

Random said:


> This'll ruin the end of Dodgeball


 
Nah, the best thing about that cameo is Armstrong giving it the big 'hard work and dedication' bollocks when we all know he was doped to the gills.

Oh, and sort of related news:  IOC stripping Hamilton of his Gold medal (which he returned to USOC voluntarily some time ago anyway)>  This means that the untainted Gold medal winner is...Ekimov.  Bobby Jullich silver and Mick Rogers Bronze.  Actually, if you look at the top ten in that race it makes for hilarious reading.


----------



## 14teeth (Aug 10, 2012)

I love cheryl crow


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 20, 2012)

Lance lost his case against USADA today. He now has three days to either accept being stripped of all his Tour wins or go to an arbitration at which we would hear Hincapie, his room-mate and bff, tell all under oath. George is allegedly such a gent that he cannot tell a lie. I can't wait!

Plus Tyler Hamilton will dish the dirt in a book to be published on Lance's birthday.

Surely Lance will have to cave soon and make some sort of admission blaming his estranged father or Hein Verbruggen or Tyler's dog.

I wish I knew enough to get all the references in this http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2012/toto-turns-260.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 20, 2012)

Has anyone at ASO confirmed that he will be strippd of his tours?  Surely it's them zho get to decide, no?  I've just been assuming it was part of the Armstrong spin.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 20, 2012)

I don't understand how that works. No idea at all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 20, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Has anyone at ASO confirmed that he will be strippd of his tours? Surely it's them zho get to decide, no? I've just been assuming it was part of the Armstrong spin.


 
I think that the doping agencies can strip results as well as suspend riders. They stripped Contador of a year and a bit's worth of wins and I certainly don't remember them having to go around to every race organiser to arrange that.

Apparently, the accused can opt for private arbitration by the way, so we may not have the joy of watching every big name American cyclist of his generation testify.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 20, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I think that the doping agencies can strip results as well as suspend riders. They stripped Contador of a year and a bit's worth of wins and I certainly don't remember them having to go around to every race organiser to arrange that.
> 
> Apparently, the accused can opt for private arbitration by the way, so we may not have the joy of watching every big name American cyclist of his generation testify.


 
Fair enough.  I thought it was the UCI who did the stripping of titles.  But thinking about it organisers are probably signed up to the WADA rules in the same way as UCI _et al._


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 20, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Fair enough. I thought it was the UCI who did the stripping of titles.


 
I could be wrong, I'm just going by my slightly fuzzy memories of Contador's case.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 21, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I could be wrong, I'm just going by my slightly fuzzy memories of Contador's case.


 
Nah, I think you're right.  As you say, they won't have arrnged stripping all of Bertie's titles individully.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 21, 2012)

I read something a bit different on a US forum: "USADA can decide whatever they want but ASO decides if he gets to keep his Tour titles. Riis confessed, had his pulled then had it returned." 

Whatever...it's all a bit academic at the moment.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 23, 2012)

Yet another tough day at the office for McQuaid  www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation 

I'm reading the unedited transcript of a long Landis-Kimmage interview. Fascinating stuff - I don't see how Landis could have made it up, especially when he's face to face with Kimmage. http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Somebody has to make a film about all this. It could be like The Insider x 10.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

Armstrong has announced that he won't take the USADA case to arbitration. This means he isn't contesting the charges, and life time ban and the stripping of some or all of his Tour wins will almost inevitably follow.

It's not clear yet whether Bruyneel or the other accused have opted for arbitration. And there are lots other issues still to be settled. Armstrong's lawyers have indicated that they may return to the courts if (when) USADA actually sanctions him. There's also the fate of the various USADA witnesses, many of whom have likely admitted to doping offences. And there's also the UCI which, as usual, can be expected to meddle.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-23/Armstrong-doping-charges/57258616/1


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

And USADA have just said that they will indeed ban him for life and strip his Tour wins.


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 24, 2012)

Wouldn't UCI have that decision? or TDF itself? French federation? not USADA though, surely?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

twentythreedom said:


> Wouldn't UCI have that decision? or TDF itself? French federation? not USADA though, surely?


 
Tygart is being quoted as saying that USADA have the authority and will do it. I'm still not clear on the exact mechanism of how the removal of wins takes place. It may be that some other organisation does it but only as a formality, or it may be that USADA and some other body will get down to some serious bickering. It will be interesting to see the responses of the UCI and ASO.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

Shane Stokes has an interview with Travis Tygart up on Velonation:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24RAAqdjl​ 
The key parts:
*VN:* It was said before that the likely sanctions would be a lifetime ban and the loss of seven Tour titles – will that be the case?

*TT:* Yes…the charges were not contested, so what automatically goes into place will be a lifetime ban from any participation from any sport which recognises the WADA Code and disqualification from all results, including ant Tour de France victories, any other victories and placings beginning August 1st 1998 to the present.

*VN:* Armstrong’s lawyers have said in a letter to USADA that USADA can’t impose these sanctions, and have threatened legal action if they go through. Do you have any concerns about that?

*TT: *No, they have already taken legal action and the federal judge told them we do have authority and our process is the process where those complaints can be made. It is kind of funny that they walking away from a process, but are threatening to attempt to go back to somewhere else to fight. It is a little ironic but, no…it means nothing.​*VN:* There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

*TT:* Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

*VN:* So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?

*TT:* No, no.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Shame that they didn't contest.  A public trial with all the evidence out in the open would have ended it once and for all.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Aug 24, 2012)

Would be a very odd state of affairs for the historical tour results if Armstrong's wins really are removed; in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the GC runner up was Jan Ulrich, who'd then apparently take those wins, giving him 4 in total putting him amongst the best tour performers. The only problem is he too was banned for doping retrospectively, but only his later results were revoked. It wouldn't seem very equitable if that was allowed to happen.


----------



## tommers (Aug 24, 2012)

What a mess.  Really bad for cycling and just sad really.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Shame that they didn't contest. A public trial with all the evidence out in the open would have ended it once and for all.


 
My boss here (who's into all that (cycling, not drugs)) thinks it's a brilliant move.

In short (his theory is/was) that the Lance vs USADA case would be based on here-say and testaments of known dopers. However, if they strip him of any titles etc, he can then sue the shit out of them for damage to character/reputation/loss of earnings, of which would need to be proven in a proper court with a higher basis on hard evidence.

(not sure if this is obvious or much discussed already).

To me it smacks of their testing (through his career) being worthless if they couldn't catch him at the time.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> My boss here (who's into all that (cycling, not drugs)) thinks it's a brilliant move.
> 
> In short (his theory is/was) that the Lance vs USADA case would be based on here-say and testaments of known dopers. However, if they strip him of any titles etc, he can then sue the shit out of them for damage to character/reputation/loss of earnings, of which would need to be proven in a proper court with a higher basis on hard evidence.
> 
> ...


 
Don't see how he could sue.  He has been given the chance to respond but has chosen not to.  He knew the consequences when doing so.  That these things will happen is entirely his choice.

The reason he isn't contesting is so that he and his swivel-eyed sycophants can pretend that he hasn't been found guilty.

As for the testing, there are *always* ways around that.  Always have been, always will be.  The only function it really serves is to stop their being a free-for-all and to catch out those that are careless.  Things are obviously better nowadays with the Biological Passport, but by no means perfect.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

ExtraRefined said:


> Would be a very odd state of affairs for the historical tour results if Armstrong's wins really are removed; in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the GC runner up was Jan Ulrich, who'd then apparently take those wins, giving him 4 in total putting him amongst the best tour performers. The only problem is he too was banned for doping retrospectively, but only his later results were revoked. It wouldn't seem very equitable if that was allowed to happen.


 
Is there still anybody that takes anything seriously from about 1992 to 2007-ish?  The record books only really serve to show how far and badly the sport had fallen as a result of people not asking awkward questions so long as the money kept rolling in.


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Don't see how he could sue. He has been given the chance to respond but has chosen not to. He knew the consequences when doing so. That these things will happen is entirely his choice.
> 
> The reason he isn't contesting is so that he and his swivel-eyed sycophants can pretend that he hasn't been found guilty.
> 
> As for the testing, there are *always* ways around that. Always have been, always will be. The only function it really serves is to stop their being a free-for-all and to catch out those that are careless. Things are obviously better nowadays with the Biological Passport, but by no means perfect.


 
You can sue for (unfounded/unproven) damage to reputation (which this is, in theory)


----------



## tommers (Aug 24, 2012)

http://gu.com/p/3ax2n


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2012)

I dont think it is 100% certain that UCI will strip him of his tour victories, altho someone has already edited wiki!

When Riis admitted doping in 2007 he didnt lose his 1996 victory, well atleast the UCi still consider him the winner! coulkd get very messy indeed, we may have to look who came 3rd on the years won it to find an untainted winner!


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Ted Striker said:


> You can sue for (unfounded/unproven) damage to reputation (which this is, in theory)


 
Is it?  They've presented an outline of the evidence and asked him if he wants to defend the charges or accept them.  By not defending himself against the charges he is accepting both the charges and the punishment. 

Or is this the bit where somebody gently explains to me the reasons why I could never be smart enough to be a lawyer?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

1927 said:


> I dont think it is 100% certain that UCI will strip him of his tour victories, altho someone has already edited wiki!
> 
> When Riis admitted doping in 2007 he didnt lose his 1996 victory, well atleast the UCi still consider him the winner! coulkd get very messy indeed, we may have to look who came 3rd on the years won it to find an untainted winner!


 
That was outside of statute of limitation. USADA are taking the line that it was a single conspiracy ranging from 1998 to 2010 which brings the Tour victories back withing the SOL.

edit:  something along those lines anyways.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Is it? They've presented an outline of the evidence and asked him if he wants to defend the charges or accept them. By not defending himself against the charges he is accepting both the charges and the punishment.
> 
> Or is this the bit where somebody gently explains to me the reasons why I could never be smart enough to be a lawyer?


 
I think Ted is saying the he should have let it go to court as he would be able to dsicredit the witnesses who are themsleves mostly dopers and a lot of evidence would be hears say. That is the basis he is saying he could sue beacuse the evidence would be merely tittle tattle from dopers.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

Matt Seaton has it right today i think:



> Yet even a dope cheat still needs to be a master tactician to win the Tour de France: if Armstrong decided to quit the fight it was because this was the least worst option remaining to him. This pre-emptive retreat allows him to avoid the formal process of prosecution and conviction, and the humiliation that would have gone along with that. Perhaps his Livestrong foundation, and what remains of his tarnished brand, can thus survive in some netherworld of unreason.


Thought about ringing my brother as we've argued bitterly over this for a decade plus. Don't feel like 'gloating' though. It's not that sort of thing.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 24, 2012)

Who's next ?
Are these USA samples that were retested ?
Are decades of TDF samples available for retesting ?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

Started this thread exactly 7 years ago today.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Is there still anybody that takes anything seriously from about 1992 to 2007-ish? The record books only really serve to show how far and badly the sport had fallen as a result of people not asking awkward questions so long as the money kept rolling in.


 
At the time we were all taking it seriously - thats the point, its like you just wipe 15 years of competition off the books. Fucking great period to be a clean rider eh?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2012)

Good article on Landis, Armstrong, doping and blood transfusions. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article


----------



## twistedAM (Aug 24, 2012)

Right let's go after Indurain (not that the Spanish would ever do anything about it) and wipe all the drug machines off the record books.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Right let's go after Indurain (not that the Spanish would ever do anything about it) and wipe all the drug machines off the record books.


 
Would you find anyone willing to testify against him though?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

1927 said:


> I think Ted is saying the he should have let it go to court as he would be able to dsicredit the witnesses who are themsleves mostly dopers and a lot of evidence would be hears say. That is the basis he is saying he could sue beacuse the evidence would be merely tittle tattle from dopers.


 
Ah, my bad.  I thought he was suggesting he sue against the punishment that will be handed out.


----------



## twistedAM (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Would you find anyone willing to testify against him though?


 
Was near enough an all-Spanish team wasn't it? So, highly unlikely from a  country where giving growth hormones to children is acceptable (ref: Lionel Messi)


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Yeah.  Plus he was quite popular amongst the peloton.  I get the impression that Lance had so many willing to testify against him because he was a bit of a cunt, but that could just be me.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

So what happens with Bruyneel then?


----------



## twistedAM (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Yeah. Plus he was quite popular amongst the peloton. I get the impression that Lance had so many willing to testify against him because he was a bit of a cunt, but that could just be me.


 
I guess Indurain left a lot down to the road captain and kept his mouth shut, whereas Armstrong wanted to be team leader, road captain, team owen and George Bush's buddy. Sometimes megalomania isn't that good an idea.
It was also a different era; everyone was pilled up.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2012)

Worth reading Armstrong's comments 

http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstrongs-statement-of-august-23-2012


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

I like the laughing into the darkness wallpaper.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

I see he's still peddling the 'tainted doper' line.  A bit odd given that he is now, essentially, a tainted doper.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Interview with Kimmage and Whittle discussing today's news.  Of particular interest is the assertion that the peloton was, by and large, looking to clean up after Festina.  Until Armstrong came along and monstered them.

http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#!rii=9:3375251:0::


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

I´m not a fan of Lance Armstrong or have an opinion on his innocence. But what is beyond dispute USADA is not acting constitutionally. Unless you, like the judge who ruled otherwise, regard the right to silence, presumption of innocence, a fair trial and due process trivial things. In which you have my sympathy, particularly if you're ever put in a situation where you may have needed such protections.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

So not beyond dispute then.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

If you think the constitution is a dead letter, then yeah.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

But you say that something is beyond dispute. Then mention that it has been ruled to be quite the opposite. By a judge.

So not beyond dispute.

Edit:  And it is probably worth pointing out that this wasn't a criminal case.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 24, 2012)




----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> I´m not a fan of Lance Armstrong or have an opinion on his innocence. But what is beyond dispute USADA is not acting constitutionally. Unless you, like the judge who ruled otherwise, regard the right to silence, presumption of innocence, a fair trial and due process trivial things. In which you have my sympathy, particularly if you're ever put in a situation where you may have needed such protections.


 
Almost everything I've read about this today echoes your sentiment.  The USADA are out of line, due process has not been followed, it's a witch-hunt, he's the most tested athlete ever and has never failed a test, etc., etc..

Is it just the disappointment that someone so "inspiring" to others has turned out to be dirty which is causing the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence?

The right to silence could be applied here and he would have still been found to have doped because of the evidence against him.  However, he has refused to even contest the charges.  That's an admission of guilt in anybody's book.  He has refused the chance of "due process" and accepted the ban.  That he's being painted as the victim here shows his PR skills are at least as good as his cycling...Is he on reputation enhancing drugs?


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Its beyond dispute. Quibble all you want. Id rather contrast the semi literate statement of the District Judge to the lucid, and unambiguous text of the fifth, sixth and fourteen ammendments (not to mention the Bill of Rights)

I prefer the rule of law to the rule of power. What about you?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Its beyond dispute. Quibble all you want. Id rather contrast the semi literate statement of the District Judge to the lucid, and unambiguous text of the fifth, sixth and fourteen ammendments (not to mention the Bill of Rights)
> 
> I prefer the rule of law to the rule of power. What about you?


 
No it isn't.  It was ruled not to be. 

And it wouldn't have been a criminal trial.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Its beyond dispute. Quibble all you want. Id rather contrast the semi literate statement of the District Judge to the lucid, and unambiguous text of the fifth, sixth and fourteen ammendments (not to mention the Bill of Rights)
> 
> I prefer the rule of law to the rule of power. What about you?


 
The rule of law says don't take EPO when competing in the Tour of France. Lance Armstrong did. You support him. Explain?


----------



## Belushi (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Its beyond dispute. Quibble all you want. Id rather contrast the semi literate statement of the District Judge to the lucid, and unambiguous text of the fifth, sixth and fourteen ammendments (not to mention the Bill of Rights)
> 
> I prefer the rule of law to the rule of power. What about you?


 
I'd rather take the opinion of a judge than yet another of the legion of constitutional experts that inhabit the internet.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Almost everything I've read about this today echoes your sentiment. The USADA are out of line, due process has not been followed, it's a witch-hunt, he's the most tested athlete ever and has never failed a test, etc., etc..
> 
> Is it just the disappointment that someone so "inspiring" to others has turned out to be dirty which is causing the denial in the face of overwhelming evidence?
> 
> The right to silence could be applied here and he would have still been found to have doped because of the evidence against him. However, he has refused to even contest the charges. That's an admission of guilt in anybody's book. He has refused the chance of "due process" and accepted the ban. That he's being painted as the victim here shows his PR skills are at least as good as his cycling...Is he on reputation enhancing drugs?


 
Not in my book. And not according to the constitution of the United States. I dont care about the his cycling skills or his athletic skills. I care about the rule of law, and objective, physical evidence above heresy.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Not in my book. And not according to the constitution of the United States. I dont care about the his cycling skills or his athletic skills. I care about the rule of law, and objective, physical evidence above heresy.


Hearsay. Not heresy. Heresy is cool. Hearsay less so. (and ripcord were better).


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Not in my book. And not according to the constitution of the United States. I dont care about the his cycling skills or his athletic skills. I care about the rule of law, and objective, physical evidence above heresy.


 
I'm sure you didn't mean heresy 

So, what exactly are you arguing here? That Lance Armstrong is clean? That he's dirty but is being unfairly treated? That the anti-doping bodies have no legitimacy? It's not clear.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> The rule of law says don't take EPO when competing in the Tour of France. Lance Armstrong did. You support him. Explain?


 
You forgot to type ´I allege´. I dont support him. Its not an issue of personality. Its an issue of principle.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> You forgot to type ´I allege´. I dont support him. Its not an issue of personality. Its an issue of principle.


 
I don't allege.  It's fact.  It's been proven and he's effectively admitted it.

What principle are you arguing against/for?  It's not clear.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Belushi said:


> I'd rather take the opinion of a judge than yet another of the legion of constitutional experts that inhabit the internet.


 
Fine. Worship the rule of power. You dont have to be an éxpert´to know the presumption of innocence is being trampled on here.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I don't allege. It's fact. It's been proven and he's effectively admitted it.
> 
> What principle are you arguing against/for? It's not clear.


 
No, its a matter of opinion. Your opinion. Nothing has been proven. . His decision not to defend himself any longer is certainly not an admission of anything, except perhaps of wanting to spend his life doing things other than continually fight an ongoing and increasingly meaningless battle against people who have no regard for the rule of law and prefer HEARSAY to objective, physical proof..


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Fine. Worship the rule of power. You dont have to be an éxpert´to know the presumption of innocence is being trampled on here.


 
I don't think you know what has actually happened in this case from your replies.  Presumption of innocence is when you go to a trial.  Armstrong has refused the chance to defend himself.  Seeing as you keep comparing this to a criminal proceedings, how's about this scenario:  Anders Brevik is presumed innocent until found to have broken the law.  He takes advantage of the right to silence and refuses to answer any claims made against him.  In your world, he should be free??


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

I don't dismiss what you say LA. Can you list/summarise the unconstitutional things?


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> No, its a matter of opinion. Your opinion. Nothing has been proven. . His decision not to defend himself any longer is certainly not an admission of anything, except perhaps of wanting to spend his life doing things other than continually fight an ongoing and increasingly meaningless battle against people who have no regard for the rule of law and prefer HEARSAY to objective, physical proof..


 
Read this for some solid evidence that he doped, along with the 10+ witnesses who were going to testify against him.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> I don't think you know what has actually happened in this case from your replies. Presumption of innocence is when you go to a trial. Armstrong has refused the chance to defend himself. Seeing as you keep comparing this to a criminal proceedings, how's about this scenario: Anders Brevik is presumed innocent until found to have broken the law. He takes advantage of the right to silence and refuses to answer any claims made against him. In your world, he should be free??


 
You dont understand the presumption of innocence if you think its restricted to trials and criminal proceedings. I'm not defending Armstrong (I personally SUSPECT he has taken PES´s, but thats not the point), I am condemning a process which exists outside the law and can strip a person of their livelihood and achievments based on speculation and a presumption of guilt . I don't really care whether Armstrong was guilty or not. What I do care about is justice and given what I think about the US justice system im not sure I could be bothered if I were in his posiition. And the simple fact is: refusing to take part in a process does _not _determine guilt. This is actually more embarrassing for cycling then when champions have actually test positive and are stripped of titles.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Read this for some solid evidence that he doped, along with the 10+ witnesses who were going to testify against him.


 
Just flicked through that again and wondering something:  one of the previous attempts to get him for doping mentioned in the article was the company that would pay him a bonus for each TdF he won.  Now that he looks likely to lose those TdF wins, could they claim the money back?  Could be nasty...


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> You dont understand the presumption of innocence if you think its restricted to trials and criminal proceedings. I'm not defending Armstrong (I personally SUSPECT he has taken PES´s, but thats not the point), I am condemning a process which exists outside the law and can strip a person of their livelihood and achievments based on speculation and a presumption of guilt . I don't really care whether Armstrong was guilty or not. What I do care about is justice and given what I think about the US justice system im not sure I could be bothered if I were in his posiition. And the simple fact is: refusing to take part in a process does _not _determine guilt. This is actually more embarrassing for cycling then when champions have actually test positive and are stripped of titles.


 
There are lots of processes which exist outside of the law that can reduce a person's income, status or reputation such as being demoted or sacked at work. I don't think cycling, or indeed this ruling, is a special case here.

edit: Just seen the "based on speculation and a presumption of guilt" bit.  He was not presumed guilty.  He was charged with doping offenses and asked to defend the charges.  Refusal to defend = accepting the charge.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

They're all within the law btw - all lawful.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Not in my book. And not according to the constitution of the United States. I dont care about the his cycling skills or his athletic skills. I care about the rule of law, and objective, physical evidence above heresy.


 
But it isn't a criminal case.  They don't have to establish that he broke the law, but that he broke the governing rules of the sport he chose to compete in.   Rules he agreed to be held by when entered the sport.

You're not one his interns are you?


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Like I said, I have no idea or even care that much whether or not Armstrong is innocent or guilty. But the current outcome seems both a travesty of prcoedural fairness and a denial of the presumption of innocence.
It was particularly shocking to me, and I think shameful, for the head of the world anti doping authority, John Fahey, to claim that Armstrongs decision not to contest the charge was such that "he effectively has admitted to the charges" and that "There's no other interpretation" to the question "that Lance Armstrong is essentially pleading guilty by his decision not to contest the charges?"
That is clearly false. There are plenty of other interpretatations of varying degrees of plausibility - but we don't, or ought not, to convict on suspicion, however much you dislike someone.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

It starts with the presumption of innocence.  USADA present the charges and outline, evidence that they will present and the punishment they will look to apply should he be found guilty by an independent panel - the makeup of which he would have a say in.

He was then given the option to contest or accept the charges.  He chose the latter. Because it was a witch hunt, naturally.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Like I said, I have no idea or even care that much whether or not Armstrong is innocent or guilty. But the current outcome seems both a travesty of prcoedural fairness and a denial of the presumption of innocence.
> It was particularly shocking to me, and I think shameful, for the head of the world anti doping authority, John Fahey, to claim that Armstrongs decision not to contest the charge was such that "he effectively has admitted to the charges" and that "There's no other interpretation" to the question "that Lance Armstrong is essentially pleading guilty by his decision not to contest the charges?"
> That is clearly false. There are plenty of other interpretatations of varying degrees of plausibility - but we don't, or ought not, to convict on suspicion, however much you dislike someone.


 
But by refusing to take part in the process, he has made it impossible to convict him on anything but suspicion.  If he rejected the charges, then he would have been convicted on evidence.  This is Armstrong's doing, and it's the best outcome for him as he gets this kind of sympathy vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Like I said, I have no idea or even care that much whether or not Armstrong is innocent or guilty. But the current outcome seems both a travesty of prcoedural fairness and a denial of the presumption of innocence.
> It was particularly shocking to me, and I think shameful, for the head of the world anti doping authority, John Fahey, to claim that Armstrongs decision not to contest the charge was such that "he effectively has admitted to the charges" and that "There's no other interpretation" to the question "that Lance Armstrong is essentially pleading guilty by his decision not to contest the charges?"
> That is clearly false. There are plenty of other interpretatations of varying degrees of plausibility - but we don't, or ought not, to convict on suspicion, however much you dislike someone.


What's the most plausible? I think the one offered by fahey (RIP) is.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They're all within the law btw - all lawful.


 
True, I got that mixed up then.  Cheers


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

[/quote]


The Boy said:


> But it isn't a criminal case. They don't have to establish that he broke the law, but that he broke the governing rules of the sport he chose to compete in. Rules he agreed to be held by when entered the sport.
> 
> You're not one his interns are you?


 
No, it is alleged he broke the rules. Why assert something as fact when it isnt? From what I have read the evidence (none of which has been properly scrutinised) against Armstrong is both strong (lots of teammates ready to talk) and weak (at the time of relevant tests, he always came out clean).


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

And he can claim that he has never been found guilty of anything (except he has).  In the same way that he claims he hasn't tested positive (he has), despite being The Most Tested Athlete in the World (he isn't).


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What's the most plausible? I think the one offered by fahey (RIP) is.


 
Id rather not make such decisions on plausibility. Nor should you, if you are wise.

We all face issues of proof and justice in our day to day lives.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> No, it is alleged he broke the rules. Why assert something as fact when it isnt? From what I have read the evidence (none of which has been properly scrutinised) against Armstrong is both strong (lots of teammates ready to talk) and weak (at the time of relevant tests, he always came out clean).


 
It was alleged. And he has chosen not to challenge the allegations. And the evidence is far from weak - much is in the public domain already.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Id rather not make such decisions on plausibility. Nor should you, if you are wise.


Why not?


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

Here's the link again which shows how he has failed tests for EPO.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Here's the link again which shows how he has failed tests for EPO.


 
I've lost count of how many times I've posted that on a middle-class dominated (specialist interest) forum I also post on.  Judging by the fact that we have the same argument every time there are developments in this case, I doubt they have read it.  I'm still hearing the 'never tested positive' and 'it was everyone else's fault really' lines today.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

Oh FFS. How come this thread has been hijacked by a redundant debate about the US constitution? There are plenty of better things to talk about - e.g. what this means for all the people whose lives Armstrong tried to wreck - Simeoni, the Andreus, Emma O'Reilly, Greg Lemond, Floyd Landis etc. For anyone who's not up to speed on the vast amount of evidence against Armstrong, how about some reading? You need to set aside a whole week. Here's a good place to start. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years

Nike has come out with a statement supporting Lance. I wonder how his other sponsors will react. Could/would any of them sue him? It seems that USADA's evidence against him - i.e. the testimonies of the 10 riders who say they saw him doping and/or were encouraged to dope by him - Tygart says all of that will come out despite his refusal to have a tribunal. So today is just the beginning of the public destruction of his reputation. America being the way it is, won't we have a ton of lawsuits flowing from this?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

*Lance Armstrong's '99 samples test positive*
*AS: *So out of the 87 usable samples that they gathered, they got 13 positives and 6 of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.
*MA: *Depending on which criteria you applied. Yes, six of them failed the definitive criteria. There were another two samples in fact where the EPO was visually there in the gel. You could see it was there, but for one reason or another, the percentage isoforms weren't calculated, or had to be re-analyzed, or it was a little bit too faint to get a definitive result. Yes, there were six samples with EPO in it, and there were another two samples where it was pretty plain to a trained observer that there was synthetic EPO in those as well.
*AS: *You were able to analyze the results, correct?

...*MA: *There was only two conceivable ways that synthetic EPO could've gotten into those samples. One, is that Lance Armstrong used EPO during the '99 Tour, and we've since found out that there were teammates from US Postal in that '99 Tour that have since admitted using EPO while riding for US Postal in that Tour.
The other way it could've got in the urine was if, as Lance Armstrong seems to believe, the laboratory spiked those samples. Now, that's an extraordinary claim, and there's never ever been any evidence the laboratory has ever spiked an athlete's sample, even during the Cold War, where you would've thought there was a real political motive to frame an athlete from a different country. There's never been any suggestion that it happened.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Plus the insurance case mentioned above. There was about $5M riding on that iirc.

edit: in response to Frumious


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Here's the link again which shows how he has failed tests for EPO.


 
Swap ´shows´for speculates and youd be about right.

As this comment below explains_´As a scientist myself (PhD in a molecular biological discipline, unlike Dr. Ashendon), I took a look at the supposedly confirmatory "articles" and data cited. I've gotta say they were pretty disappointing: a "letter to the editor" with 3 references indluding the author's own, and one figure - certainly not the stuff on which firm scientific conclusions are normally (or validly) based; and an internal WADA SOP that gives no realistic representation of the variability in the kinds of protein gels used for EPO detection. Please just show us Lance's unethically acquired data, if they're so sure it's "unequivocal"! I assure you, there are legions of scientists out here eager to evaluate it objectively.´_


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Swap ´shows´for speculates and youd be about right.
> 
> As this comment below explains_´As a scientist myself (PhD in a molecular biological discipline, unlike Dr. Ashendon), I took a look at the supposedly confirmatory "articles" and data cited. I've gotta say they were pretty disappointing: a "letter to the editor" with 3 references indluding the author's own, and one figure - certainly not the stuff on which firm scientific conclusions are normally (or validly) based; and an internal WADA SOP that gives no realistic representation of the variability in the kinds of protein gels used for EPO detection. Please just show us Lance's unethically acquired data, if they're so sure it's "unequivocal"! I assure you, there are legions of scientists out here eager to evaluate it objectively.´_


This person did not look at the data that Michael Ashenden did.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Ah. So you're a swivel-eyed lunatic.

I had such hopes for us.

Edit:  ffs, this was in response to LA.


----------



## leftistangel (Aug 24, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Oh FFS. How come this thread has been hijacked by a redundant debate about the US constitution? There are plenty of better things to talk about - e.g. what this means for all the people whose lives Armstrong tried to wreck - Simeoni, the Andreus, Emma O'Reilly, Greg Lemond, Floyd Landis etc. For anyone who's not up to speed on the vast amount of evidence against Armstrong, how about some reading? You need to set aside a whole week. Here's a good place to start. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/index-of-lance-armstrong-doping-allegations-over-the-years
> 
> Nike has come out with a statement supporting Lance. I wonder how his other sponsors will react. Could/would any of them sue him? It seems that USADA's evidence against him - i.e. the testimonies of the 10 riders who say they saw him doping and/or were encouraged to dope by him - Tygart says all of that will come out despite his refusal to have a tribunal. So today is just the beginning of the public destruction of his reputation. America being the way it is, won't we have a ton of lawsuits flowing from this?


 
Speculate and gossip away. Regulations and law have to be transparent and fair, that is my argument... not whether Armstrong is ultimately guilty or not, which we may never KNOW.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> You dont understand the presumption of innocence if you think its restricted to trials and criminal proceedings. I'm not defending Armstrong (I personally SUSPECT he has taken PES´s, but thats not the point), I am condemning a process which exists outside the law and can strip a person of their livelihood and achievments based on speculation and a presumption of guilt . I don't really care whether Armstrong was guilty or not. What I do care about is justice and given what I think about the US justice system im not sure I could be bothered if I were in his posiition. And the simple fact is: refusing to take part in a process does _not _determine guilt.


 
You simply don't understand the process in question.

1) If you really want to think about this in terms of a criminal prosecution, what Armstrong has done in this case is the equivalent of entering a "no contest" plea in a US Court. If you do that, regardless of how many pompous statements you issue about how you aren't taking part in the trial because you are so damn sick of it all, the Court will then find you guilty and move on to sentencing.

2) But it isn't actually some form of criminal prosecution in the first place. Armstrong is subject to an arbitration process when it comes to doping issues because he signed up to this particular disputes resolution process when he took out a licence to compete in officially sanctioned events in a WADA-code affiliate sport. This was entirely voluntary on his part. You or I are not subject to any similar process, because we have not signed up to it. Armstrong did sign up to it.

3) Arbitration as a method of disputes resolution has been challenged in the US courts not once or twice, but on hundreds, perhaps even thousands of occasions. Armstrong's challenge was nothing new and the process he was facing was not particularly unusual. The US courts, at every level, have held over and over again that arbitration is a fully acceptable, indeed important to the point of being crucial to the functioning of the legal system, method of dispute resolution. When you talk about the "unconstitutionality" of this process being "beyond dispute", you have it exactly the other way around. There is a mountain of jurisprudence on the issue in the UA and it all points the other way. In fact its so unanimous that Armstrong's court case bordered on being crank behaviour. In Armstrong's case, he is entitled to an arbitration hearing in front of neutral arbitrators and, should he not like the outcome, he's entitled to an appeal to the entirely separate Court of Arbitration for Sports in Switzerland. Armstrong has chosen not to exercise those rights.

4) On the absence of physical/scientific evidence, USADA does in fact have such evidence, most importantly Armstrong's blood values during his comeback. But that in and of itself is a misunderstanding of how legal systems work. USADA has lined up more than ten former team mates, most of whom were never caught themselves and some of whom are themselves beyond the statute of limitations and so have little or nothing to fear, plus former team workers to give evidence against Armstrong. In a criminal trial (to go back to your faulty analogy) that would be absolutely overwhelming evidence, leaving the accused in an extremely difficult situation. Witness evidence is the bread and butter of the court system. Its what most issues are decided on.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Speculate and gossip away. Regulations and law have to be transparent and fair, that is my argument... not whether Armstrong is ultimately guilty or not, which we may never KNOW.


Which parts of the USADA investigation are unconstitutional?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

leftistangel said:


> Speculate and gossip away. Regulations and law have to be transparent and fair, that is my argument... not whether Armstrong is ultimately guilty or not, which we may never KNOW.


 
The process concerned is transparent. It exists under the publicly available and easily understood WADA and USADA codes. And it only effects people who voluntarily sign up to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You simply don't understand the process in question.
> 
> 1) If you really want to think about this in terms of a criminal prosecution, what Armstrong has done in this case is the equivalent of entering a "no contest" plea in a US Court. If you do that, regardless of how many pompous statements you issue about how you aren't taking part in the trial because you are so damn sick of it all, the Court will then find you guilty and move on to sentencing.
> 
> ...


That should do it.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

But Nige, it's a WITCH HUNT!!!!!eleven


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

If the USADA procedures are so unconstitutional Lance could have taken the case to the CAS and then the Swiss supreme court.  Maybe they are unconstitutional - but so is Lance's long history of intimidation of witnesses. I reckon he deserves as much protection from the constitution as the imates of Guantanamo Bay have received.

I vote to put leftistangel on ignore and encourage him/her to go and post about some other legal cul de sac. There are so many to choose from that I don't see why he/she needs to bugger up a cycling thread.


----------



## tommers (Aug 24, 2012)

I don't think it's buggered anything up.  It's made stuff a little bit clearer for me...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> But Nige, it's a WITCH HUNT!!!!!eleven


 
I don't actually blame someone who doesn't follow cycling, doesn't follow doping issues in sport and doesn't have a breeze about the legal issues involved for holding views like those expressed by leftistangel on this thread. As long as they are willing to change those views in discussion.

The fact is that so far Armstrong's people have been able to use his wealth, celebrity and pre-existing public image as a hero to shape the public understanding of this process, and they've been able to do it without USADA being able to answer back because of the protections he and the rest of those facing USADA charges enjoy. That period is likely to come to an end, but undoing the Armstrong PR campaign will take some time.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The fact is that so far Armstrong's people have been able to use his wealth, celebrity and pre-existing public image as a hero to shape the public understanding of this process, and they've been able to do it without USADA being able to answer back because of the protections he and the rest of those facing USADA charges enjoy. That period is likely to come to an end, but undoing the Armstrong PR campaign will take some time.



Will presumably have to wait until Bruyneel decides what he wants to do.  Until then I assume time Lance can continue his spin.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

Lots of people are saying that this is a bad day for cycling. But it might be a great day if it results in taking doping issues out of the hands of the UCI and giving them to WADA and the national doping organisations. USADA and Tygart deserve a lot of credit for how they've handled this. And NADA's had a good week, opening an investigation into Kloden et al. 

Another positive is that Bruyneel's days as a DS have to be numbered now. I can't see him having a role in pro cycling next year.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Will presumably have to wait until Bruyneel decides what he wants to do. Until then I assume time Lance can continue his spin.


 
That's my understanding of Tygart's comment to Shane Stokes anyway: That they can reveal the strength of their evidence, but not until all of the alleged conspirators have their cases dealt with.

I don't think that Bruyneel will actually proceed to arbitration in the end. He's too close to Armstrong to go so directly counter to Armstrong's strategy. But he can certainly keep USADA from answering Armstrong back for a while.

It's also possible that Celaya will take it to arbitration. That would be funniest outcome, but like Del Moral and Ferrari, I don't really see why he would bother.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Another positive is that Bruyneel's days as a DS have to be numbered now. I can't see him having a role in pro cycling next year.


 
Next year? If he doesn't take it to arbitration he'll be fucked before the end of the Vuelta.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

Quite! A couple of weeks ago he said he'd go to arbitration, and I'm assuming he'll keep saying that if only to delay things so he can finish the Vuelta.  Perhaps he'll switch to Lance's position when the race ends.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 24, 2012)

So is Bruyneel at La Vuelta?  I had assumed he would skip it same as le Tour.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 24, 2012)

If the UCI had a fit and proper person test there would hardly be any DS's eligible. Mind you the premier league found 
Thaksin Shinawatra fit and proper enough to own a prem FC. I wonder who you'd have to be to be actually noted as unfit and unproper. Charlie Manson? Joseph Mengele? Harold Shipman? I wonder what Phil and Paul are going to erase Johan from their SIM cards or will they all remain girls together?


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

Lance is an investor in Paul's gold mine. Nothing will change.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Lance is an investor in Paul's gold mine. Nothing will change.


Just to make sure people popping in get this - THIS IS REAL


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 24, 2012)

http://www.uci.ch

Conspicuous silence from McQuaid and cronies, not even 'there is a statement pending'. This itself is a story in its own right. Verbruggen and McQuaid presided over the dirtiest 20 years in any professional sport and took millions of dollars selling a bent product. On the outside thats fraud.  If I were ASO I'd seize this opportunity as the perfect time to form a breakaway league of races...


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 24, 2012)

'This is my body, and I can do whatever I want to it.'...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

_shut up veins_


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

An old quote from Verbruggen - "Je mange un plat de spaghetti le matin du marathon, mais n'est-ce pas là que commence le dopage ?"   Not quite sure of the best translation, but maybe  "If I eat a plate of spaghetti before a marathon - isn't that the beginning of doping?"


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 24, 2012)

It would have been fucking great if Obree had ridden into the twat instead of missing him by a few inches.


----------



## twistedAM (Aug 24, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> I wonder what Phil and Paul are going to erase Johan from their SIM cards or will they all remain girls together?


 
Liggett has certainly been on some kind of dope for years.
Am finding watching Vuelta refreshing without his inane comments.

Venom aside, he is part of the establishment with his feet nicely under the table. No other reason how he could have lasted so long.

Sherwen's gold mine partly explains his acceptance.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

Liggett said he would quit if Lance was found to have doped. I hope he takes this as his cue. The Vuelta coverage is so much better with whoever they are. Rendell? Some Scottish bloke? And Hammond is much better than Boardman. Maybe next year we'll have clean racing AND bearable commentary!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 24, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Liggett said he would quit if Lance was found to have doped. I hope he takes this as his cue. The Vuelta coverage is so much better with whoever they are. Rendell? Some Scottish bloke? And Hammond is much better than Boardman. Maybe next year we'll have clean racing AND bearable commentary!


 
Oh please God, let Liggett quit.

The stand ins are better, but I still find Harmon and Kelly to be the best pairing of English language commentators. Harmon is a relatively entertaining professional babbler, while Kelly knows his stuff. But that's an issue of personal taste, people can reasonably prefer different teams as long as they aren't Phil and Paul!


----------



## 1927 (Aug 24, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Plus the insurance case mentioned above. There was about $5M riding on that iirc.
> 
> edit: in response to Frumious


 
Far more than that, $5m was the bonus for the last of his wins, it had been incerasing by $1m a year, all the other were paid out. |So I think we are talking about 1+2+3+4+7 , $17m. the last bonus of $5m was actually $7m in the end with interest and legal charges, It wasnt about doping in the end, and even LA own lawyers didnt use an anti-doping stance. All they contended in the endwas that the contract said if LA wins, he gets paid, not of he wins clean! So to use tha fact that LA won this case as proof he has proved he was clean is a red herring.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Sherwen's gold mine partly explains his acceptance.


 
Interesting, didnt know that, Google is lovely sometimes


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2012)

Gary Imlach on LA

http://audioboo.fm/boos/932360-gary-imlach-on-lance-armstrong-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 24, 2012)

Bruyneel's blog said:
			
		

> Today, I’m disappointed for Lance and for cycling in general that things have reached a stage where Lance feels that he has had enough and is no longer willing to participate in USADA’s campaign against him.  Lance has never withdrawn from a fair fight in his life so his decision today underlines what an unjust process this has been.
> 
> I hope that it will soon be determined that the case that USADA initiated against me should never have gotten as far as it has. Due to the sensitive nature of legal proceedings, I have been advised that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.


 
Looks like he'll use the unfair argument to walk away, too, I reckon.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 24, 2012)

Nice summary and Q&A here:

http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-quits/#more-10570


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> Nice summary and Q&A here:
> 
> http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-quits/#more-10570


That v good on first look. Ta.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 24, 2012)

USADA says Lance has to forfeit his winnings - that's quite a bit of money, which he would have shared with his team. I wonder if he'll ask Landis, Hamilton and Andreu to return their take?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2012)

> "I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair," he said, alleging that from the start the probe had been "about punishing me at all costs." Leaders of the antismoking and anti-cancer causes that Armstrong champions through his foundation rallied to his side.
> 
> "Reducing suffering and death from cancer is a moral imperative, and the Lance Armstrong Foundation's contribution is sorely needed," said John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society.


----------



## where to (Aug 25, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Lance is an investor in Paul's gold mine. Nothing will change.


 
what a cunt.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 25, 2012)

I've been reading everything I can get my hands on but there's one thing I don't get - why has Hincapie spilled the beans to USADA? That seems to be the biggest reason why Lance has caved. We know that Hincapie had to give sworn statements to the Federal investigators - he had no choice, he was subpoenaed.  But the feds dropped the case, so how come Hincapie has talked to USADA?  Does USADA have the right to be copied on Hincapie's statements? I can't see why Hincapie would talk to USADA voluntarily. He wouldn't want to rat on Lance.  If USADA accused him of doping he'd just accept a 2 year ban - he's retiring anyway. Even a lifetime ban would be OK as his retirement plan seems to be running his clothing company, not being a DS.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 25, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I've been reading everything I can get my hands on but there's one thing I don't get - why has Hincapie spilled the beans to USADA? That seems to be the biggest reason why Lance has caved. We know that Hincapie had to give sworn statements to the Federal investigators - he had no choice, he was subpoenaed. But the feds dropped the case, so how come Hincapie has talked to USADA? Does USADA have the right to be copied on Hincapie's statements? I can't see why Hincapie would talk to USADA voluntarily. He wouldn't want to rat on Lance. If USADA accused him of doping he'd just accept a 2 year ban - he's retiring anyway. Even a lifetime ban would be OK as his retirement plan seems to be running his clothing company, not being a DS.


 
I've seen it suggested that the feds shared info with USADA, but that sounds like it would be legally dodgy.  Perhaps you need to look at more personal/psychological reasons - once he's spilled all it may be hard to go back to lying, perhaps he's been riding clean for a while and wants to protect his legacy.  Is it even definite that he was one of the witnesses?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 26, 2012)

The reactions from the peloton have been... interesting. Quite a few pro-Armstrong statements. The only clearly anti-Armstrong ones I've seen have been from Gustav Larrson and Jimmy Engoulvent. From most, a deafening silence.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 26, 2012)

They can't talk because there are so many current DeeEsses who are shitting themselves about being named in the upcoming arbitrations.  If USADA have pushed it this far with Lance and Bruyneel, why wouldn't they go for the other doper-managers?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 26, 2012)

Still nothing from the UCI - the BBC report they have demanded evidence from USADA to ratify the ban but there is nothing on their website. There was also nothing when Armstrong 'donated' $100k to the UCI for 'development' a few years back, I suppose if we want transparent governance we should look elsewhere.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Aug 27, 2012)

Armstrong forgets to dope his blood - gets beaten by a 16 year old. 

Lulz.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 27, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Still nothing from the UCI


 
Yep, the most interesting silence of all.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 27, 2012)

Wolveryeti said:


> Armstrong forgets to dope his blood - gets beaten by a 16 year old.
> 
> Lulz.


 
This made me google the kid who beat him. It turns out he's a US age group mountain bike champion. He's also one of their best junior cross country skiers. And he's sponsored by a parkour clothes company because that's his main sport, as shown by the spinning back flip he did off the podium at the US mountain bike nationals. That's vaguely freakish athleticism.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 27, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The reactions from the peloton have been... interesting. Quite a few pro-Armstrong statements. The only clearly anti-Armstrong ones I've seen have been from Gustav Larrson and Jimmy Engoulvent. From most, a deafening silence.


 

Think we can add Pavel Tinkov to the list of good guys:




			
				Pavel Tinkov said:
			
		

> Lance Armstrong will be stripped 7 TdF titles? Bad for cycling, but FAIR. If I'd WADA/UCI I would not give these titles to anyone,dark times


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 27, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This made me google the kid who beat him. It turns out he's a US age group mountain bike champion. He's also one of their best junior cross country skiers. And he's sponsored by a parkour clothes company because that's his main sport, as shown by the spinning back flip he did off the podium at the US mountain bike nationals. That's vaguely freakish athleticism.



Are you suggesting he's dirty?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 27, 2012)

Add Roche to the The List of Good Guys:




			
				Nico Roche said:
			
		

> _'m no expert but there seems to be more and more stuff coming out now, from former team-mates' confessions to accusations of the UCI taking cheques and covering up stuff for years. Maybe I'm being naive but I really hope thats not true._
> 
> _Hopefully the commitment USADA have shown in chasing the sports biggest star and eventually bringing him down will discourage riders of my generation from even contemplating doping and I hope they will continue to chase the people I am racing against now._
> 
> _If the outcome discourages others from doping, its a good thing._


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Aug 27, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Add Roche to the The List of Good Guys:


 
Glad to see that from him. Not quite as unambiguous as the very blunt statement from Larsson, but much better than the general silence and much, much better than the absolute gobshitery there's been out of  quite a few of them. Including riders I like.


----------



## Frumious B. (Aug 27, 2012)

His Dad won't be pleased. He's been anti-Kimmage for ever.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 27, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Glad to see that from him. Not quite as unambiguous as the very blunt statement from Larsson, but much better than the general silence and much, much better than the absolute gobshitery there's been out of quite a few of them. Including riders I like.


 
Not as unambiguous, no.  But it makes it very clear where he stands without leaving himself open to attack from the - as it turns out - many who are still standing by Lance.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 27, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> His Dad won't be pleased. He's been anti-Kimmage for ever.



I get the impression that they aren't all that close anyway.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2012)

As always, a thorough analysis from Science of Sport:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html


----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 28, 2012)

buy it now?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2012)

Some wag has been editing wikipedia...


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 28, 2012)

The reaction from the cyclists has been on the whole crap and either smacks of saving sponsors face by talking about "how this is in the past" or alludes to the fact they are still as dirty as fuck. Either way the general condemnation has been completely lacking.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 28, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Add Roche to the The List of Good Guys:


 
I heard him on Radio 5 and he was less than damning about it, said it was "bad for the sport".


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 28, 2012)

500 tests eh?


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2012)

Yeah.  That's one of the more irritating myths surrounding him.  That and the 'never tested positive'.  And the 'most tested athlete in the world' line.  And the one about it all being ten years ago.  And the one about everyone being on the sauce. And the one about the previous myth meaning that it was an even playing field.  And the one about him curing cancer.

To name a few, anyway.


----------



## The Boy (Aug 28, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> The reaction from the cyclists has been on the whole crap and either smacks of saving sponsors face by talking about "how this is in the past" or alludes to the fact they are still as dirty as fuck. Either way the general condemnation has been completely lacking.


 
I'd agree with this, btw.  Disappointing.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Aug 28, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> The reaction from the cyclists has been on the whole crap and either smacks of saving sponsors face by talking about "how this is in the past" or alludes to the fact they are still as dirty as fuck. Either way the general condemnation has been completely lacking.


 
Perhaps they still fear the long reach of Armstrong's legal team. A few years ago he tried to buy ASO. He is still a powerful figure well connected as Simeoni will testify. When you can draw Obama and Merckx as public defenders of your line there's no doubt you are you're part of the club. Those that speak against him aren't and never will be.  I agree its shit but I'm well used to being torn between following a sport I love knowing that for the most part its been a joke for 2 generations of pro rider careers. I'm more annoyed at myself being part of a general populace of fans who provide the oxygen of attention to this sham circus.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 29, 2012)

One of the things that gives me the creeps is the way LA uses WE all the time. Says things like "its HIS word against OURS", its a form of intimidation imho, always pointing out that he has the back up, the lawyers, the team and probably the UCI behind him. Youd ont just take on LA, you take on the machine!


----------



## The Boy (Aug 29, 2012)

The other frightening thing is that he appears to have had enough suction with Sarkozy upon his return in 2009 to lobby for the removal of the then head of AFLD Patrice Clerc_._

If true, the particularly galling aspect of that is that there was a clear stepchange in anti-doping in the post-Armstrong years* which seemed to revert back to the same old upon his return.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2012)

Tyler Hamilton and a lot of his team mates speaking out

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo.../Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html?page=all


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

French TV is saying that USADA will publish test results in mid September. Apparently they tested some old samples and they are all positive. Anyone speak French? http://sport.francetv.fr/stade2/?page=reportage&id_article=183355


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

Can't get that video to work atm, but the same person who mentioned that Sheryl Crow had spoken to the Feds before that news broke also mentioned something about test data from 2004 and 2005 so I imagine that may be right as well.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

The supreme idiot McQuaid has done yet another U turn. Looks like he's getting ready to endorse USADA http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-uci-not-afraid-to-sanction-lance-armstrong

And we might get Sheryl Crow's detailed testimony v soon. If that happens the US press will go bananas. I don't see how Lance can carry on with his denials.  Even though he clearly has a personality disorder.

No doubt the phone line between Hein and Lance is red hot. Some sort of explosion must be coming...will the UCI have to confess to the coverups? I don't see how they can avoid it.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

If the UCI confesses to covering up positives then surely that will see the IOC run out of patience?  Expect to see new variants of Beach Volleyball in the Olympics if that happens.

Perhaps we'll see some token changes at the top?  Kind of like the 'the sport is definitely clean this time' promises we've had constantly for the past ten years? Or maybe they'll sanction Armstrong, claim it's under duress and still lobbying on his behalf?

Would love to see Lance try and pull his Cancer Jesus shtick with Crow though


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

Cyclingnews has the French TV story now http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-in-possession-of-positive-armstrong-samples


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 2, 2012)

Thank you fb.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

I'm sure the IOC doesn't really want to drop cycling.  They'll find some way to go forward, probably get rid of McQuaid and Verbruggen, give the UCI's anti-doping responsibilities to WADA, give a top job to Michael Ashenden. What a mess. I think the ructions will go on all winter. Whoever takes over will have to do something major about ending the omerta. God knows what. I don't see how you could do it without banning a whole load of the dodgier DeeEsses. But how could they do that without sponsors going and teams folding?  The fallout will be Puerto x 10.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

Get Clerc (?) back in charge of AFLD too.

Interesting to note from that article that USADA are planning on making their report public on the same day as sending it to UCI.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

Enigmatic tweet from Sherwen: "Old African proverb: When the elephants fight only the grass get hurt". I suppose that's just his way of saying that exposing Armstrong is bad for the sport.

Did everyone see Liggett's shite video the other day? http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-responds-to-liggetts-claims-of-bribery-in-armstrong-case I don't see how he and Sherwen can stay in the sport next season.

The above cyclingnews story mentioned that Liggett had financial connections with Armstrong. Then Liggett tweeted that he didn't and told them to retract it - which they did. He also tweeted that he hadn't seen or spoken to Armstrong for 15 mths...then someone dug up a cancer charity event in Canada 11 months ago where Liggett and Armstrong had shared a platform. Liggett would have been paid a bundle for that, and no doubt Lance arranged it. 

The arrogance of all these crooks is beyond belief.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

Lance is an investor in Sherwen's gold mine.  Wouldn't be too far a stretch to imagine that Liggett is too, or at least was.  I also so that thing about the pic.  Made me giggle.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

New article from David Walsh. I imagine it's behind the Sunday Times paywall, but someone has put the text here: http://freetexthost.com/g35tjktvau

And Lance has just splurted an extra enigmatic tweet: "Finally? Seriously?"  That's it. Wtf??


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

Well, I've just gone back to that CN article because I could have sworn they used the line "finally tested positive" but it reads "ultimately tested positive" so I must have imagined it.

Though thinking about it, they could have changed it.  Always the chance something got lost in translation.

Or I imagined it.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

In fact, the article says posted at 2036 and updated 2143 so that may be it.

edit:  by 'that' I mean a mistranslation of _finalement _or similar.


----------



## tommers (Sep 2, 2012)

So is USADA saying those samples had already been tested and positive results not declared?  If not then why hadn't they been tested?  If so, then wow, shit and all that stuff.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

From a discussion on another board




			
				posh wanker hiding behind the fully deployed cancer shield said:
			
		

> seems in 04 USADA had 3 blood tests and in 05 5 blood tests so perhaps it will be a re-test of these.


 
So it sounds like these are old USADA samples.  Which makes on wonder why they didn't test positive at the time.  More sensitive equipment maybe?


----------



## rover07 (Sep 2, 2012)

The Boy said:


> From a discussion on another board
> 
> 
> 
> So it sounds like these are old USADA samples.  Which makes on wonder why they didn't test positive at the time.  More sensitive equipment maybe?



So he still hasn't been tested positive for doping. Is this all on the back of some disgruntled team mates?

It's about time the whole thing was dropped.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 2, 2012)

rover07 said:


> So he still hasn't been tested positive for doping. Is this all on the back of some disgruntled team mates?
> 
> It's about time the whole thing was dropped.


 
You forgot the cancer shield, Rover.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2012)

The French TV story is on youtube


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 3, 2012)

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...rong-retests-also-that-ex-wife-testified.aspx

The most surprising thing to me is the claim that Kristen Armstrong provided some kind of evidence to USADA. From a purely cynical point of view, it seems to me that Armstrong going down would jeopardise her livelihood.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 3, 2012)

rover07 said:


> So he still hasn't been tested positive for doping. Is this all on the back of some disgruntled team mates?
> 
> It's about time the whole thing was dropped.


 
Thats a very ignoarnt comment from someone who doesnt know enough about the situation imho. LA always rolls out the, I am the most tested athlete in history and have been tested over 500 times without failing a test. All 3 parts of that statement are untrue.

What is true tho, if you care to read up on the subject, is that of all the big names that have been stripped of titles, banned and labelled as dopers very very few of them ever failed tests.

Most have been caught as the result if testimony from team mates, doctors or personally, the never failed a test is LA bullshit at its best. He did fail by the way, but the ICU had noi wish to label the biggest man in the sport a cheat, and he convenientky provided the ICU with a cheque for $125k.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 3, 2012)

1927 said:


> He did fail by the way, but the ICU had noi wish to label the biggest man in the sport a cheat, and he convenientky provided the ICU with a cheque for $125k.


 
We should probably point out that the cheque for $125k was a contribution towards the fight against doping.   The way you've written it it just looks like he was paying bribes to the UCI.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 3, 2012)

He was.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> He was.


 
Note to self:  sarcasm really, really doesn't come across when you write it.

Butch, I probably should have used some sort of smiley...


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 3, 2012)

I did wonder, but i jumped the wrong way!


----------



## The Boy (Sep 3, 2012)

No harm done, and it's not the first time a sarcastic comment of mine has been taken literally this weekend.  Must be the posting style.

Was really just a silly attempt at showing that the Lance myth is a castle built on sand.  If sand were made of bullshit.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 3, 2012)

Very interesting read http://www.outsideonline.com/templates/Outside_Print_Template?content=167790055


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 3, 2012)

Give all his victories to greg lemond.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 3, 2012)

this is a great thread.

i had a look at Armstrong's facebook page this morning. a heck of a lot of people just blindly supporting him still. it's bordering on cult stuff.

how much more proof do people want?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Give all his victories to greg lemond.


 
Give some to Bassons.  Make up for the likes of Armstrong pushing him out of the sport.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 3, 2012)

Dan U said:


> this is a great thread.
> 
> i had a look at Armstrong's facebook page this morning. a heck of a lot of people just blindly supporting him still. it's bordering on cult stuff.
> 
> how much more proof do people want?


 
It's fucking depressing, isn't it? I'm arguing the toss over on another forum and a few of the posters keep bringing out every Lance myth and spin imaginable.  You can point out in no uncertain terms that they are wrong, they slink off and come back a few days later spouting the same shite.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 3, 2012)

Lancelovers are just conspiraloons. Talking to them is futile. They usually know nothing about cycling anyway, so who cares what they think?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 4, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Lancelovers are just conspiraloons. Talking to them is futile. They usually know nothing about cycling anyway, so who cares what they think?


 
That's what I always thought, but these guys I'm arguing with are long time fans of the sport and not particularly conspiranoid in any other thread, but they seem happy to turn themselves inside out to find reasons not to sanction Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 5, 2012)

Tyler Hamilton's book is out today in the US. As expected its a damning expose of US postal and Dopsetrong...

mini review here:-

http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/category/books-and-dvd/product/review-the-secret-race-46544



> it may be hard to enjoy watching the sport after getting through this book, because every stand-out performance, every heroic breakaway, every amazing ride will trigger a little doubt in your mind. After all of the blatant, bare-faced lies told by an affable rider like Hamilton, it will be difficult to trust any rider's claims of racing clean.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 5, 2012)

On Fat Pat's birthday as well, I believe.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 6, 2012)

Snippets from Hamilton's promotional tv appearance:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...ance-armstrong/The-Unlevel-Playing-Field.html



> remember, after my suspension ended in 2007, I rode for Tinkoff Credit Systems. One day, right in front of the whole team, the subject of doping came up. I remember [team owner Oleg Tinkoff] said, “I don’t care what you guys do, just don’t get caught.” That was my first experience, coming back after two-and-a-half years of not racing.


 
That would be the same Tinkoff as in Saxo Bank-Tinkoff Bank, payroller of Bjane Riis, Contador and from next year Nicholas Roche.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 7, 2012)

Things are getting worse for LA every day. Everybody seems to be accepting that Tyler's book is truthful. It seems there was no level playing field because Lance restricted access to the latest doping techniques - he wanted his teammates to help him, but not beat him. And when Tyler went to Phonak and won something he was summoned by the UCI to a meeting to be told that he was being watched. Hard to believe this wasn't Lance calling Hein and asking him to scare Tyler into riding clean. 

So if they had all been clean, who would have won all those Tours? Would LA have been number one? Or just one of the top ten? Or just one of the top 40 or 50? How much do we know about his physiology when he's clean?

Given that LA didn't want his teammates to have the best PEDs you have to conclude that he didn't believe he was the best athlete. Perhaps he decided he was entitled to better PEDs than the rest, because he needed to overcome the damage that cancer treatment had done to him. I've had similar treatment, so I can empathise to some extent.  He hadn't been to college, he really needed his comeback to be successful, so he used Ferrari to give him what he thought of as a fair chance.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 7, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> So if they had all been clean, who would have won all those Tours? Would LA have been number one? Or just one of the top ten? Or just one of the top 40 or 50? How much do we know about his physiology when he's clean?


 
It's not clear when we ever saw a clean Armstrong as a pro racer, so it's difficult to establish a base line. See here the Andreu's claims. Whether he was clean or just more amateurishly dirty before he was diagnosed with cancer, either way, he only finished one Tour and that was in 36th. He did however show considerable ability as a one day racer. He's actually a slightly more ambiguous case than, say, Riis or Indurain, because they had extended careers both sides of the line where EPO hit the peloton circa 1990, and in both cases were useless in the 80s.

The basic problem is that we don't know who was doping (although we know that a preponderance of those doing very well were doing so), we don't know what sort of responders they were, we don't know how good their programmes were, and we don't know what they were capable of without the hot sauce. So to a large extent, we are all pulling guesses out of our arses. My own guess is that Armstrong would have turned into a top tier one day racer and might have managed to graze the top 10 at a Grand Tour or two, but that's really not based on very much.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2012)

Indurain did finish 17 in '88 and 10th in '89. Not five times in a row good, but good enough performance for a domestique to suggest he might have some sort of a future. Then again, he would probably have been on some sort of program given what came next. Riis was bobbins though.

Then you have the stories about Bassons being able to rip the arse out of Virenque on the climbs in winter.

edit:  speaking of Festina, I love this video for two reason.  1, you see a rider setting out on a TT without so much as a helmet, never mind any other aero geekery, and 2, I always have to remind myself that the riders in the helicopter shot are going uphill rather than down.  Ignore the guff at the start.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 7, 2012)

UCI considering an amnesty.  I can't make my mind up if this is a good or bad thing.  I'm tending towards bad.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2012)

Good, possibly. As long as anyone found to be lying is punished in the usual way. Although it's probably just their way to avoid striking Lance's TdF wins off the books.

By the way, not sure if I posted this earlier in the thread, but this is what the UCI had to say when explaining taking the Ullrich case to CAS




			
				UCI said:
			
		

> “There are two main reasons,” said UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani to VeloNation. “First of all, because we can’t accept that just because you say ‘I am retiring’ that we don’t do anything against you. Maybe in the future you could then say you will come back [to racing]…if you are not been sanctioned by UCI you could , and we don’t want that.
> 
> “Secondly, and more generally, we can’t from a legal point of view create a precedent. In the future we could have the same situation appearing with another rider who says ‘listen, why are you suing me – you didn’t do the same with Ullrich two or three years ago?’ So we were obliged to do it.”
> ​Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/9538/UCI-explains-CAS-action-against-Jan-Ullrich.aspx#ixzz25oO0R3T8​​


​ 
But the Armstrong business was all a very, very long time ago.​


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 7, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Indurain did finish 17 in '88 and 10th in '89. Not five times in a row good, but good enough performance for a domestique to suggest he might have some sort of a future.


 
You are  a year out! His 10th was from 1990, which is quite possibly the most important year in cycling history. Before 1990, he entered 11 Grand Tours, failed to finish 6, and managed the following placings: 84, 92, 97, 47, 17. This is by miles and miles and miles the worst early career record of any Tour de France winner in history to that point.

I agree that he showed enough that he had a future as a bike rider. He won a couple of important week long races in the late 80s, which is more than most riders manage in a career. But he'd never shown anything to suggest that he was remotely capable of winning a Tour de France.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 7, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> UCI considering an amnesty. I can't make my mind up if this is a good or bad thing. I'm tending towards bad.


 
In theory, a good idea. But in practice, my first thought is "what's the UCI's real agenda here?".


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> You are a year out!


 
Just checked, and you're right.  In which case I withdraw my argument.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In theory, a good idea. But in practice, my first thought is "what's the UCI's real agenda here?".


 
Finding any way to let Armstrong keep his titles.  It's now so transparent it hurts (see comments re: Ullrich and the difference in attitude).


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2012)

And of course, the thing about a truth and reconciliation process is that it only works if people are willing to tell the truth.  I don't the Lance has quite reached that point yet...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 7, 2012)

The UCI have also announced that they want USADA to give the them their files on Vande Velde, Danielson and Zabriskie after Vaughters discussed their early career doping on the Cycling News forums. It's hard not to interpret this zealousness as something that could have a chilling effect on riders cooperating with USADA.

I wonder are the UCI going to try to disrupt any reduced suspensions deals USADA may have made. Of course, it seems that doping by all but one of the above mentioned guys (and possibly him too) would be outside the statute of limitations anyway, so there may not be reduced suspensions at all because nobody can touch them in the first place.

Welcome to the world of professional cycling, where the powers that be are more interested in going after riders who cooperate with anti-doping authorities:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci...ce=cyclingnews&amp;ns_linkname=0&amp;ns_fee=0


----------



## The Boy (Sep 7, 2012)

That's worrying news.  Although on the plus side they do seem to be getting increasingly desperate.


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> In theory, a good idea. But in practice, my first thought is "what's the UCI's real agenda here?".


Yup.

For the record, can someone post (or link) to a summary of the case against Armstrong?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 8, 2012)

USADA notice letter:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464954262704154.html

Lot of blanks to be filled in there though.


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 8, 2012)

ta


----------



## The Boy (Sep 8, 2012)

If you want to start filling in the blanks for yourself and looking at some of the background etc then  this thread would be a good place to start. Do bear in mind that some of the posters on there can tend towards the conspiranoid.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.?t=18396


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 8, 2012)

I think McQuaid's amnesty bollocks is a last ditch panicky attempt to save his job by appearing to be part of the solution. There are too many stories saying he's finished, e.g. this www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling All he cares about is clinging on. He's just been appointed to the IOC panel to choose the city for the 2020 Olympics http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/8344056/britain-craig-reedie-lead-ioc-panel-2020-bids He wouldn't want to jeopardise a juicy number like that

I doubt McQuaid sees the amnesty as a way of saving Armstrong's titles. I reckon McQuaid is calculating that team managers and sponsors probably won't let it happen, and that even if it does Lance won't participate. He can't admit he's been lying, it's too late. The loss of credibility would be too damaging to Livestrong and his sponsors and his future career and his ego. I think he's determined to go to his grave with the witch-hunt angle. He doesn't envisage a smoking gun: Hein won't confess to a coverup, the Indiana hospital doctors won't suddenly start backing Nancy, the doctor who backdated the saddle sore prescription won't come forward. If USADA produces old test results Lance will just say they're not positives because there's no B sample, the French lab can't be trusted, it's all a conspiracy etc. There'll never be anything that he can't deny.

Ted, have a read of David Walsh's latest article - a great account of the story so far, and joins the dots between the criminal investigation and the USADA one. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/7552391/Drug-cheat-claims-are-well-founded


----------



## 1927 (Sep 8, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Good, possibly. As long as anyone found to be lying is punished in the usual way.


 
That isnt really the idea of an amnesty tho is it? Surely by definition there will be no punishments, outside of stripping of titles!


----------



## The Boy (Sep 8, 2012)

1927 said:


> That isnt really the idea of an amnesty tho is it? Surely by definition there will be no punishments, outside of stripping of titles!


 
Not for anyone willing to come forward and tell the truth, no.  I was suggesting that in the event of an amnesty, truth and reconciation process, or whatever else is suggested was that anyone who didn't get involved but had a large body of evidence against them would still face investigation and sanction.  ie, it wouldn't work if it was just a way to have everybody bar Armstrong  and a couple of others come forward and confess.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 8, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Not for anyone willing to come forward and tell the truth, no. I was suggesting that in the event of an amnesty, truth and reconciation process, or whatever else is suggested was that anyone who didn't get involved but had a large body of evidence against them would still face investigation and sanction. ie, it wouldn't work if it was just a way to have everybody bar Armstrong and a couple of others come forward and confess.


 
I get where you are coming from now. Thing is, if every single member of the peloton from 1999-2005 came forward and said LA was a doper, he would still trot out the fact that he never failed a test and his fund raising to denounce them as liars.

How many people do we need to come out and call him a doper. 10, 20, 50, when do we say enough, he's a doper?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 8, 2012)

1927 said:


> when do we say enough, he's a doper?


 

About ten days ago...


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 8, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I think McQuaid's amnesty bollocks is a last ditch panicky attempt to save his job by appearing to be part of the solution. There are too many stories saying he's finished, e.g. this www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling All he cares about is clinging on. He's just been appointed to the IOC panel to choose the city for the 2020 Olympics http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/8344056/britain-craig-reedie-lead-ioc-panel-2020-bids He wouldn't want to jeopardise a juicy number like that


 
Its amazing that we're still referencing this story for McQuaid in terms of loss of career. If the LA/Pat/Hein cosy club is for real he could be facing criminal charges.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 8, 2012)




----------



## The Boy (Sep 8, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Its amazing that we're still referencing this story for McQuaid in terms of loss of career. If the LA/Pat/Hein cosy club is for real he could be facing criminal charges.


 
While this is entirely true, it's taken over a decade to nail Armstrong - and even that isn't a done deal yet.  Gotta be realistic, and I'd just be happy to be shot of the fuckers.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 8, 2012)

rover07 said:


>




Cheater wins race......and?


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Lancelovers are just conspiraloons. Talking to them is futile. They usually know nothing about cycling anyway, so who cares what they think?


I think this whole sorry thing is a very good example of a conspiracy - it seems the entire sport knew about doping, from doctors to cyclists to their assistants to the governing bodies which are still trying to cover up their dirty business. So you might wish to reevaluate your pejorative.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I think this whole sorry thing is a very good example of a conspiracy - it seems the entire sport knew about doping, from doctors to cyclists to their assistants to the governing bodies which are still trying to cover up their dirty business. So you might wish to reevaluate your pejorative.


 
You've missed the point, I think.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I think this whole sorry thing is a very good example of a conspiracy - it seems the entire sport knew about doping, from doctors to cyclists to their assistants to the governing bodies which are still trying to cover up their dirty business. So you might wish to reevaluate your pejorative.


Yes, people were conspiring to cheat. The conspiraloons are the ones who think Lance was the only Tour winner who didn't cheat.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 9, 2012)

And that he (Lance) is the victim of a conspiracy.  That's why they're conspiraloon - they see a conspiracy when their isn't one.  Much like lizard people, holographic planes, and suns with solid iron cores etc.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

The point is that there *was* a massive conspiracy.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The point is that there *was* a massive conspiracy.


 
Oh do fuck off.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The point is that there *was* a massive conspiracy.


 
One that LA was at the centre of and  which was illegal.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> The point is that there *was* a massive conspiracy.


 
Again, you seem to be wildly missing the point that Frumious was making.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Again, you seem to be wildly missing the point that Frumious was making.


I'm not defending 'lancelovers'. I am defending 'conspiracy theorists'. Because for years there was a conspiracy which was true across the whole industry. I don't like this term 'conspiraloons', which was the the point of my post. It implies that all conspiracy theories are not true. The truth of things is that conspiracy theories damn well can be true. When they are accepted, they are no longer seen as 'conspiracy theories' at all. That is all my point was.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2012)

You don't even know which side are the conspiracy freaks.


----------



## Belushi (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I don't like this term 'conspiraloons', which was the the point of my post. It implies that all conspiracy theories are not true.


 
No, it just implies that to some people everythings a blooody conspiracy.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You don't even know which side are the conspiracy freaks.


If you are asking whether I believe Armstrong doped or not - you could look at post #71 on this thread which I made in 2010 which was fairly unequivocal - or there are other posts still on the server going back before that concerning both Lance Armstrong and my confidence in the UCI in the 2009 Tour de France thread.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> If you are asking whether I believe Armstrong doped or not - you could look at post #71 on this thread which I made in 2010 which was fairly unequivocal - or there are other posts still on the server going back before that concerning both Lance Armstrong and my confidence in the UCI in the 2009 Tour de France thread.


I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask you anything.  Your posts at #71 is a disgrace and on the same level as the pro-lancer loons. Take this approach elsewhere after this - i'm not interested.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> I'm not defending 'lancelovers'. I am defending 'conspiracy theorists'. Because for years there was a conspiracy which was true across the whole industry. I don't like this term 'conspiraloons', which was the the point of my post. It implies that all conspiracy theories are not true. The truth of things is that conspiracy theories damn well can be true. When they are accepted, they are no longer seen as 'conspiracy theories' at all. That is all my point was.


 
I think you are missing the point. Conspiraloons think everything is a conspiracy, in the case of LA and cycling at the pro level there was a very real conspiracy in the real and legal sense of the word. The case against LA is not a conspiracy, just because the LA lovers think it is it doesnt make it true.

To summarise, LA was involved in a real conspiracy to hide the fact that parts of the peloton were on drugs. the attempts to bring the truth out into the open is not a conspiracy. Hope that clears things up.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask you anything. Your posts at #71 is a disgrace and on the same level as the pro-lancer loons. Take this approach elsewhere after this - i'm not interested.


eh? my post from 2010 was:

_"Armstrong comes across to me as a ruthless character, who was most certainly doped, like the rest of them at the time, but unlike the others still vehemently denies it."_

If you consider that a 'disgrace' I think there is no shame in being disgraceful in your book.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

1927 said:


> I think you are missing the point. Conspiraloons think everything is a conspiracy, in the case of LA and cycling at the pro level there was a very real conspiracy in the real and legal sense of the word. The case against LA is not a conspiracy, just because the LA lovers think it is it doesnt make it true.
> 
> To summarise, LA was involved in a real conspiracy to hide the fact that parts of the peloton were on drugs. the attempts to bring the truth out into the open is not a conspiracy. Hope that clears things up.


So 'conspiraloon' is a term used to describe someone who believes a conspiracy theory which isn't true, whereas those who believe a conspiracy theory which IS true are not 'conspiraloons'?


----------



## 1927 (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> So 'conspiraloon' is a term used to describe someone who believes a conspiracy theory which isn't true, whereas those who believe a conspiracy theory which IS true are not 'conspiraloons'?


 
I think you have it in one there!


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

1927 said:


> I think you have it in one there!


So while a conspiracy is succeeding, those who rumble it are considered 'conspiraloons' by those who it deceives. Later on, should they be proved correct, they are no longer 'conspiraloons'.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 9, 2012)

Shall we all agree to ignore it?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> So while a conspiracy is succeeding, those who rumble it are considered 'conspiraloons' by those who it deceives. Later on, should they be proved correct, they are no longer 'conspiraloons'.


 
They aren't rumbling it you fucking arse. Think all the fluoride in the tap water is rotting you brain, you cock.

Before posting again please, please, please go back and read FrumiousB's post again.  Then, once you have actually understood the point he was making, think about what you are trying to say.

Either that or just start a thread about holographic fluoride in alien chemtrails or some shite.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Shall we all agree to ignore it?


 
Please God.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 9, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> So while a conspiracy is succeeding, those who rumble it are considered 'conspiraloons' by those who it deceives. Later on, should they be proved correct, they are no longer 'conspiraloons'.


 
No.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Shall we all agree to ignore it?


 
Yes


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 9, 2012)

The Boy said:


> They aren't rumbling it you fucking arse. Think all the fluoride in the tap water is rotting you brain, you cock.
> 
> Before posting again please, please, please go back and read FrumiousB's post again. Then, once you have actually understood the point he was making, think about what you are trying to say.
> 
> Either that or just start a thread about holographic fluoride in alien chemtrails or some shite.


Oh for crying out loud, do you really think I do not understand the point in FrumiousB's post? Is it you lot who completely fail to understand my point, which is that 'conspiracy theories' are derided until they may be proved correct, in which case everyone forgets that they were 'conspiracy theory', and thus deriding people simply because they may believe a conspiracy theory is in itself quite silly, and this is proved by (now proved) massive conspiracy which included the top of the UCI downwards, which would certainly have been called 'conspiracy theory' years ago.

Anyway I am leaving this too as it was only ever intended to be a side point


----------



## The Boy (Sep 9, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Shall we all agree to ignore it?


 
Didn't see this until I posted.  I should probably have heeded the advice.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 9, 2012)

It was known that doping was rife in cycling at the time, it never really was a "theory".


----------



## 1927 (Sep 10, 2012)

Jazzz said:


> Oh for crying out loud, do you really think I do not understand the point in FrumiousB's post? Is it you lot who completely fail to understand my point, which is that 'conspiracy theories' are derided until they may be proved correct, in which case everyone forgets that they were 'conspiracy theory', and thus deriding people simply because they may believe a conspiracy theory is in itself quite silly, and this is proved by (now proved) massive conspiracy which included the top of the UCI downwards, which would certainly have been called 'conspiracy theory' years ago.
> 
> Anyway I am leaving this too as it was only ever intended to be a side point


 

I think you are missing the point again. Doping in cycling was a conspiracy, which is different to there being a conspiracy theory.

eta. sorry Sleater got there before me!


----------



## Dan U (Sep 11, 2012)

so on the strength of this thread (and a new found interest in cycling generally) I have ordered 'The Secret Race' from Amazon.

Does anyone know if you can get the David Walsh book in the UK? (I may be being a bit shit at the internet, only found it in french or from the US). is it still banned in the UK?


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 11, 2012)

Yes. Our libel laws tend to favour the complainant


----------



## Dan U (Sep 11, 2012)

arse. hope that gets overturned now


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 13, 2012)

I doubt they'll publish it here because it's a bit out of date. Walsh is probably working on a new book which will have all the good bits from his French book in it.

In the meantime there's tons to read. Floyd gave an interesting interview http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38243308 and Betsy did a live video chat thing the other day. The audio recording is here, well worth a listen. http://www.tourchats.com/podcasts/2012/TourChats_44.mp3 She talks about her opposition to doping, how she could tell Frankie was using EPO when she saw him at Sestriere on the TV and then flew over to give him a bollocking. Frankie was chided by Lance for not doing the other PEDs and refusing to see Ferrari. Then he was frozen out and denied his Tour bonus.

Betsy's the hero of this entire story - Frankie is lucky to have her. She says she and Frankie have done a lot behind the scenes and she'll talk about it one day. I've been desperate to get the Betsy Andreu Appreciation Society cap http://velocitynation.com/content/features/2011/baas-cap-kickstarter. They sold out ages ago but the NY Velocity guys seem to be coming round to the idea of ordering another batch.

Betsy also points to a few old articles which were rare examples of journalists asking the right questions, http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full/ and http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2010/flashback-99-tom-goldman-and-npr and http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/24/sports/sp-armstrong24 The SF Weekly one fingers the uber-villain who started it all, Thomas Weisel.

Seems like we can expect Weisel and many other villains to be exposed in the coming months.  We might find out how political pressure was used to get the FDA to drop their investigation (almost causing Novitzky's resignation). Another juicy titbit is that Armstrong's backers were amongst the donors to the Floyd Fairness Fund http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/sep/01/commentary-curious-intersection-lance-and-landis/?page=2


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 13, 2012)

sleaterkinney said:


> It was known that doping was rife in cycling at the time, it never really was a "theory".


The cyclists, no. But for the UCI, the authority itself, to be corrupted all the way to the top, yes.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 13, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I doubt they'll publish it here because it's a bit out of date. Walsh is probably working on a new book which will have all the good bits from his French book in it.
> 
> In the meantime there's tons to read. Floyd gave an interesting interview http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38243308 and Betsy did a live video chat thing the other day. The audio recording is here, well worth a listen. http://www.tourchats.com/podcasts/2012/TourChats_44.mp3 She talks about her opposition to doping, how she could tell Frankie was using EPO when she saw him at Sestriere on the TV and then flew over to give him a bollocking. Frankie was chided by Lance for not doing the other PEDs and refusing to see Ferrari. Then he was frozen out and denied his Tour bonus.
> 
> ...


 
Lot of reading tomorrow while my front room is made watertight, cheers.  Would probably agreed with you on Betsy, though.

I'm ignoring the hologram of Jazzz.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 14, 2012)

If you have any questions after you've read all that, perhaps you could fill in the blanks by giving Lance a ring. He's just tweeted his phone number to half the world


----------



## The Boy (Sep 14, 2012)

What.
The.
Fuck.

Has he finally lost the plot?


----------



## Dan U (Sep 14, 2012)

it's not even his number it seems.

weirdness

http://deadspin.com/5943151/?utm_ca...source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

eta - thanks for those links Frumious B


----------



## The Boy (Sep 20, 2012)

So it seems that Verbruggen and Fat Pat have followed through with their threats to sue Kimmage. 

Wasn't sure if this should be in the other thread, but it seems germane to the discussion here.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-receives-uci-subpoena


----------



## The Boy (Sep 20, 2012)

Paul Kimmage defence fund has been set up:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/paul-kimmage-defense-fund


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 26, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Paul Kimmage defence fund has been set up:
> 
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/paul-kimmage-defense-fund


 
The fund is doing much better than I expected. Its now over $35,000. Good news. Hein and Pat may have made a serious miscalculation here.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 26, 2012)

I can't wait for this to develop. Will we have forensic accountants scrutinising the receipt for Lance's donation and the Sysmex machine? Could this really rid us of the gruesome twosome forever?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 26, 2012)

Does anyone know if Hein and Pat get to dip into UCI funds for this, btw?  I guess there is also the chance that [conspiranoid] they'll get some of that Livestrong Dollar [/conspiranoid].


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 26, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I can't wait for this to develop. Will we have forensic accountants scrutinising the receipt for Lance's donation and the Sysmex machine? Could this really rid us of the gruesome twosome forever?


 
My guess is that if such a thing looks likely to happen, they will drop their case. These cases are premised on the notion that the people they single out are unlikely to be in a position to defend themselves in Switzerland.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 27, 2012)

Is there any chance that Kimmage might be able in some way to use this case to get some of the anti Armstrong testimony into the public domain? I would have thought that a lot of his defence would be the evidence collected by USADA, would they cooperate with him, indeed, could be subpoena them? If any of this was possible the whole thing could be blown sky high and might have the reverse effect than that intended and reveal the truth abiut LA.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 27, 2012)

Pretty sure the USADA case will be made public by the time the case comes round anyway - publishing on 15th October apparently.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 27, 2012)




----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 29, 2012)

KImmage has tweeted "found a real pitbull of a lawyer to go after those two fuckers." (Meant to be a private msg to Walsh but he broadcast it to all.)  Anyway, if Hein drops the case there has been talk of a counter-suit from Kimmage. His defence fund is at $43,000. I don't suppose that goes very far in Switzerland, but still.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Sep 30, 2012)

The Kimmage defense fund is now at just under $45k.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 30, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Pretty sure the USADA case will be made public by the time the case comes round anyway - publishing on 15th October apparently.


 
Which makes the timing of this decision to sue Kimmage all the more weird. its as if they knew the LA stuff was coming out and that Kimmage would come out with a "i told u so story", but by suing him they have effectively shut him up as he will be restricted on what he can say with a case due in court. there is also the possibility that they hoped to smear him enough before the LA stuff came out that no one would touch him.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 30, 2012)

I'm not sure I would look for logic in the decision. Hein is just a very arrogant, stupid, angry old man. Just one train wreck after another. This farce could well be his come-uppance.


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 30, 2012)

Whoa, hold the phone. Shit hitting fan alert.  From http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-ex-wife-involved-in-doping-scheme?ns_campaign=news&amp;ns_mchannel=rss&amp;ns_source=cyclingnews&amp;ns_linkname=0&amp;ns_fee=0



> Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, is said to have not only known about but also participated in his doping practices, helping to refrigerate EPO and distribute drugs to US riders at the 1998 World Championships, according to a report with alleged details from the USADA's “reasoned decision” on its lifetime ban for Armstrong.
> 
> The report also claims that George Hincapie said that he lied to US Customers officials about EPO in his luggage. Armstrong has always denied doping but decided not to fight USADA's charges.
> In August USADA  issued a lifetime ban against Armstrong after he declined to go to arbitration. The US agency's next step is to submit its “reasoned decision” on the matter to the UCI and WADA, which is expected to happen within the next two weeks.
> ...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 7, 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gabrovski-given-two-years-for-epo-use

Gabrovski, who won the Tour of Turkey, has been suspended for two years after testing positive for EPO.  I'm posting the link in here rather than the Bicycle racing thread since, as anyone who saw the MTF stage that Gabrovski won can attest to, it was one of the most suspect performances of the year.  The initial attack in particular was Pantani-esque - even down to the motorbike outriders having to hit the gas to get out of his way.

Tbh, it reminded me of how it felt back in the olden days seeing USPS ripping it up  on the mountains.  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc.  Doesn't add anything to the discussion, just thinking aloud really.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 8, 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-armstrong-may-have-been-blood-doping-at-2009-tour-de-france

No idea why this is being reported on now, but Ashenden reckons Armstrong's blood values in 2009 indicate blood doping during the race.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 8, 2012)

http://storify.com/UCI_Overlord/pau...fy-pingback&awesm=sfy.co_oAEY&utm_source=t.co

Kimmage getting stuck into Brailsford a little bit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 10, 2012)

The USADA report has been sent to the UCI. Over a thousand pages of it. Apparently there will be a 200 page "summary" made public in the very near future, possibly today.

In the meantime, Tygart (USADA's head honcho) has given a statement which, amongst other things says that there were 26 witnesses, 15 of them riders, 11 of them former team mates. The team mates have been named as:

Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.

Apparently the still active riders are copping six month bans. Which would have them back for most of next season. And they may also be backdated to September, which would effectively allow them all of the important races next season. The active riders technically include Barry, Danielson, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde and Zabriskie, but Barry and Hincapie have already announced their retirements.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...UCI-and-WADA-over-1000-pages-of-evidence.aspx


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 10, 2012)

In other news, journeyman French pro Steve Hounard got popped for EPO. He had no results and Ag2r hadn't renewed his contract. That one has all the signs of desperation, someone looking for a ride for next year, doing a bit of DIY doping without the money or medical supervision to avoid getting caught. I suspect that he won't make it back to the pro ranks: French teams won't touch him and he has done nothing in his career to justify getting a ride ahead of a young rider with no positives to his name.

Also, Sky have announced that after they won't be renewing the contract of Dr Leinders. They will not however say what their investigation found.


----------



## where to (Oct 10, 2012)

5live lead on this this evening for a while. One of those moments when they stop the ifs and buts and second opinions. He is now guilty was the message. 

What will he say now.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 10, 2012)

Here's the public document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

All 200 pages of it. There's some seriously fucked up shit in there.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 10, 2012)

wow, there is a lot in that. he is fucked now surely.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 10, 2012)

page 144 has reference to the 2001 tour de suisse hushed positive urine sample - not enough in this summary to back Kimmage, lets see what gets thrown up in the full version.

Theres a lot of names off the christmas card list in one go...


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 10, 2012)

The Tour de Suisse UCI cover-up story is holding more and more water.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...trong-doping-case-findings-revealed-live.html Kimmage's lawyer must be pretty confident now? Goodbye Pat and Hein? It could really happen!

Even Fox News is taking the testimonies seriously http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sp...e-armstrong-teammates-testify-in-doping-case/  Suck it up, fan bois!


----------



## Dan U (Oct 10, 2012)

his facebook still has nutters comparing it to the fake moon landings and blowing up the WTC to steal afghani opium (i.e all a big set up) or just plain supportive, but much much less than normal, lots of people weighing in to him.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 10, 2012)

Christ, just back from a double shift and up in the morning for another.  Best get the kettle on...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 10, 2012)

Was that a dig at the Feds in the intro, or am I reading something that isn't there?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 10, 2012)

It's Not About The Bike - It's About The EPO, The Growth Hormones, The Blood Transfusions, The Analgesics, The Diuretics...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 10, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> It's Not About The Bike - It's About The EPO, The Growth Hormones, The Blood Transfusions, The Analgesics, The Diuretics...


 
...and the lying and bullying and hectoring and corruption.


----------



## Manter (Oct 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Here's the public document:
> 
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision
> 
> All 200 pages of it. There's some seriously fucked up shit in there.


Bloody hell.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 11, 2012)

I almost feel sorry for the man now. But no, he totally had it coming.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2012)

The USADA site has various witness affidavits too.
http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

Some fascinating stuff there. Reading the affidavits one after the other really shows how intricately and strongly the stories of the various riders and other witnesses reinforce each other. Also, there are a lot of names redacted.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 11, 2012)

I found the perjury/intimidation section pretty interesting.
Pages 146-153
The guy really thought he was some swinging dick politician of the peleton.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2012)

In the affidavits of Bileka and Leipheimer there are some interesting lists of riders they met on Ferrari's training camps.


----------



## tommers (Oct 11, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> The USADA site has various witness affidavits too.
> http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
> 
> Some fascinating stuff there. Reading the affidavits one after the other really shows how intricately and strongly the stories of the various riders and other witnesses reinforce each other. Also, there are a lot of names redacted.


 
Are there English translations anywhere? Or am I being stupid as normal?

edit:  I'm being stupid, ignore me.


----------



## tommers (Oct 11, 2012)

Wow. It's all there isn't it?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

That's an astonishing summary of evidence!  I'd never paid too close attention, assuming he had probably done it but aware that someone's reputation can be smeared very easily.  But this is one of the most comprehensive pieces of character-assassination I've ever read.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 11, 2012)

It is.  In a way, though, Armstrong's lawyers were right when they said it was the same tired old stories.  We've known just about all of this for years and years, yet nothing was ever done until now.

And still there are posters on another forum trying to twist this any which way they can to defend Armstrong.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 11, 2012)

The Boy said:


> It is. In a way, though, Armstrong's lawyers were right when they said it was the same tired old stories. We've known just about all of this for years and years, yet nothing was ever done until now.
> 
> And still there are posters on another forum trying to twist this any which way they can to defend Armstrong.


My father-in-law is a cycling nut, who used to tour Europe in the 50s and 60s as part of an amateur team.  He's always been willing to twist any story in favour of Armstrong.  A lot of cycling fans see Armstrong as a demi-god, because he transcended their niche sport and became one of the most recognisable sports people in the world.  But surely at this point they have to give it up?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 11, 2012)

kabbes said:


> A lot of cycling fans see Armstrong as a demi-god, because he transcended their niche sport and became one of the most recognisable sports people in the world. But surely at this point they have to give it up?


 
I was reading this last night thinking exactly the same thing. Depressingly, it seems not to be the case.

edit:  And it seems that his sponsors are sticking by him...


----------



## yardbird (Oct 11, 2012)

Sorry I've not checked the thread fully. 
Has Sheryl Crow had anything to say?
She must know details.


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

Sean Yates has apparently been on 5live saying he had no idea !!


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 11, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Has Sheryl Crow had anything to say?
> She must know details.


 
I and I've got a feeling - she aint the only one.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 11, 2012)

How many cancer lives have YOU saved?
How many £100m's have YOU raised for cancer research?

seems to be the current line of idiocy/defence on his facebook page.

ignoring of course that his organisation doesn't appear to do or fund any research - something i must admit i didn't realise till recently.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 11, 2012)

where to said:


> Sean Yates has apparently been on 5live saying he had no idea !!


 
No surprised by that...Dowsett and Cummings have said some stupid things too:-

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


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 11, 2012)

kabbes said:


> My father-in-law is a cycling nut, who used to tour Europe in the 50s and 60s as part of an amateur team. He's always been willing to twist any story in favour of Armstrong. A lot of cycling fans see Armstrong as a demi-god, *because he transcended their niche sport and became one of the most recognisable sports people in the world*. But surely at this point they have to give it up?


 
Ask him who Greg Lemond was. People have short memories when it suits them.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 11, 2012)

Dan U said:


> How many cancer lives have YOU saved?
> How many £100m's have YOU raised for cancer research?
> 
> seems to be the current line of idiocy/defence on his facebook page.
> ...


 
That's kind of like the line Jimmy Savile supporters took for years.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 11, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> That's kind of like the line Jimmy Savile supporters took for years.


 
innit just.


----------



## tommers (Oct 11, 2012)

I started to write something kind of defending him a bit, but fuck it.  Couldn't do it.


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:
			
		

> No surprised by that...Dowsett and Cummings have said some stupid things too:-
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165



Cummings sounds like a right simpleton. Embarrassing.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 11, 2012)

*devils wotistname*

currently they are just accusations though. nothing has actually been proven in a court.. beyond all reasonable doubt.

the cheating cunt has yet to be actually convicted

/devilsthingy


----------



## trashpony (Oct 11, 2012)

God the description of his apartment on Radio 4 at the moment makes it sound like something out of True Blood


----------



## tommers (Oct 11, 2012)

He's been convicted under the rules he signed up to be governed by.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 11, 2012)

Pingu said:


> *devils wotistname*
> 
> currently they are just accusations though. nothing has actually been proven in a court.. beyond all reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...


 
Well its more than that. USADA is the judge and jury, they ahve considered the evidence and convicted LA in his absence as he refuses to defend himself. LA's lawyers coming out and saying its a one sided account is farciacl, its one sided because LA refused to defned himself.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 11, 2012)

ahh i was unaware of this. mainly cos i dont actually give a toss but also cos i rely on skim reading the bbc website for all my opinions on sport


----------



## where to (Oct 11, 2012)

Hillsborough, savile, Armstrong,.MPs expenses. Always 'we are shocked to learn'. No you weren't.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 11, 2012)

Dan U said:


> innit just.


 
And while Savile had his cronies, Armstrong sucked up to the Bush Republicans.
I know they're two very different crimes but the masking agents are the same.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 11, 2012)

I think you're right to some extent where to - we fans got the sport we deserved; but there always was a wide spectrum from those that didn't believe what they saw to those that don't think sticking needles in your arm every day constitutes cheating. Ultimately it didn't matter though, especially to the Lance Armstrong brand. A product was served up, we ate it and even if we didn't eat the main course we were at the table. And I think those willing to overlook doping just so the spell wasn't broken were in the vast majority.

My missus was watching Newsnight last night and asked 'why doesn't he just do a Jimmy Swaggart?'. I think thats a good call and possibly his next move - an emotional repentance will buy back more public respect than he ever could sticking with the Omerta.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 11, 2012)

His next move will be dependent upon how his 'charities'  are doing. If they do badly following this, he'll be on Oprah saying how hard he had it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2012)

Barking_Mad said:


> His next move will be dependent upon how his 'charities' are doing. If they do badly following this, he'll be on Oprah saying how hard he had it.


 
There are also potential legal consequences to bear in mind. Without those he'd go full Swaggart. But I doubt if his lawyers will be keen on that until and unless they're very sure that he isn't going to walk himself into a reopened FDA case, a new case from the Department of Justice or perjury charges.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> No surprised by that...Dowsett and Cummings have said some stupid things too:-
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165


 
Christ, the most generous interpretation I can put on those comments is that they are both thick as pigshit. Samuel Sanchez was even worse than those two, not far off Ricco's sentiments. Wiggins actually said something sensible rather than repeating his very Armstrong friendly previous comments. Kristoff and Nordhaug also made some pretty reasonable comments. Most riders, of course, prefer silence.

I see that the name of the Rabobank Doctor Leipheimer says doped him was redacted.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> Are there English translations anywhere? Or am I being stupid as normal?
> 
> edit: I'm being stupid, ignore me.


 
The Italian language ones are actually amongst the most interesting, giving long lists of pros at Ferrari's training camps and also including chatter between Ferrari and a client about a whole bunch of other riders and what they might or might not be up to. Someone has translated this stuff over on the cycling news forums.

Perhaps the most fascinating bit of all is that Ferrari as of 2010 thought that standard EPO was for suicidal fools. He also advised his riders that hGH was bullshit.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 11, 2012)

Are any of the details a surprise? I'm surprised - and stunned - that so much detail has been confessed by so many. But it was always pretty certain that the whole team would have had to be on the juice, otherwise they couldn't have worked so consistently together to control races. And we all knew that the logistics of so many secret injections and transfusions in the middle of stage races would have to be like a military operation. We've all heard about refrigerated motorcycle panniers etc. And it was always apparent that Bruyneel and Armstrong were the ruthless bastards who ruled the others.  So I'm not sure why people are saying they're shocked.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 11, 2012)

Nike are still sponsoring Armstrong and his charity. Their statement really played up the latter.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 11, 2012)

tommers said:


> He's been convicted under the rules he signed up to be governed by.


 
Something that should be repeated at every available opportunity.  The man has been found guilty.  End of story.

Although I'm growing tired of telling this to people on another board for the nth time.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 11, 2012)

I'm seeing Armstrong as more and more of an entrepreneur - he enters the sport in the early 90s and sees the final stages of transition from the old era to the EPO era - he then sees the outrageous potential of the drug and the possibilities when using the best doping doctor - realising a power vacuum, blind eyes and an ultimately corrupt governing body and knowing there is no detection test he embarks on acquiring the rights to the best pharmacology and develops (with the best dirty DS out there) a strategy for gaining and maintaining a stranglehold in every sense on the sport. In parallel to this he manipulates his life threatening illness/recovery and self mythologises a brand around himself, explaining away his dominance as being based on inner strength, diligence, integrity and hard work.  His rewards - both financial and from fan worship entrench his power and warn off challengers, intimidating and ridiculing all dissenters.

Its just business to him. After reading a lot of the mini report I have to respect his brass neck, canny moves and ruthlessness.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 11, 2012)

I've always thought of him more as a cult leader.  I guess entrepreneur works too though.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 12, 2012)

Dan U said:


> How many cancer lives have YOU saved?
> How many £100m's have YOU raised for cancer research?
> 
> seems to be the current line of idiocy/defence on his facebook page.
> ...


Doing 'lots' for charity can cover up a multitude of sins.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 12, 2012)

So can we add Samu to 'the list'?  I'm quite sad about that.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 12, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Nike are still sponsoring Armstrong and his charity. Their statement really played up the latter.


"Just Do It".......but dont get caught.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 12, 2012)

Could be looking at a perjury rap as well by the looks, $4.5M is no trifling amount.

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


----------



## 1927 (Oct 12, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Could be looking at a perjury rap as well by the looks, $4.5M is no trifling amount.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705


 
$4.7m was only the last payment, he was pid for 3 years before that too, with interest chargesa dns tuff it is easy to see the toatl he has to repay being in excess of $20m


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 12, 2012)

So out of court plea bargain to $10M and whats left of his rep remains...he's got the funds for that. They could even insist on the $20M and he could cope with that too. Don't think we'll ever see him in the dock.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 12, 2012)

The Hog has been fired by RSNT. And that's even before he's gone to arbitration.

edit:  actually he may only be suspended.  Seems some on twatter jumped the gun on that one.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 12, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> So out of court plea bargain to $10M and whats left of his rep remains...he's got the funds for that. They could even insist on the $20M and he could cope with that too. Don't think we'll ever see him in the dock.


 
The compensation is well within his means, however, he lied to a federal investigation that may take a bit more to make go away> Marion Jones did jail time for lying in excatly thye same circumstances iirc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2012)

Nicolas Roche has an interesting column about all of this:

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...ne-else-its-your-choice-admit-it-3257272.html


----------



## where to (Oct 12, 2012)

Where are liggett and Sherwin?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm beginning to think that Nico Roche's columns may be ghost written.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 12, 2012)

Has my collection of Lance pin badges gone down in value? Or up? Prices seem surprisingly firm today. http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=lance+armstrong+pins

They were bought for their fascinatingly nauseous kitsch value, but I think now's the time to start wearing them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2012)

The Boy said:


> I'm beginning to think that Nico Roche's columns may be ghost written.


 
As I understand it, they are effectively "in conversation with" columns. He talks with a journalist on the phone, then the journalist cleans things up and inserts a structure.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2012)

where to said:


> Where are liggett and Sherwin?


 
Hiding down an African mine.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 12, 2012)

Simeoni speaks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-armstrong-and-past-still-haunt-me
Fascinating. He's very direct, very honest. That incident is what stopped me being a Lance fan.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Simeoni speaks: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/simeoni-armstrong-and-past-still-haunt-me
> Fascinating. He's very direct, very honest. That incident is what stopped me being a Lance fan.


How weird, i just literally - and i do mean literally - just finished talking to geri about this and was going to bring that incident up. One reporter said he finished the stage drenched in the peleton's spit.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 12, 2012)

> There was a song David Zabriskie used to sing on the team bus, one that used to make Bruyneel laugh. It went to the tune of Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze": "EPO all in my veins/ Lately things just don't seem the same/Actin' funny, but I don't know why/ 'Scuse me while I pass this guy."


 
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-drug-tests-lies-and-liquid-gold-8207881.html


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2012)

Why have you posted this?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2012)

It seems that USADA have finally won the media war. There's pretty much nobody left in the media running with the "he didn't do it" line.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 12, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems that USADA have finally won the media war. There's pretty much nobody left in the media running with the "he didn't do it" line.


Plenty running with _they all did it, why pick on him._ You're right though, it's turned, it's done.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 12, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Plenty running with _they all did it, why pick on him._ You're right though, it's turned, it's done.


 
Yes, "they all did it, why pick on him" still has a strong following, but that sort of last stand doesn't do Armstrong any favours ultimately in terms of public adulation. "The rest were as bad as him" necessarily implies "he was as bad as the rest", which might be more generous than anyone here would be, but isn't the sort of thing you can maintain a heroic public profile based on.

The ASO have also played it right by saying that they'll keep his stripped wins vacant. That helps make sure that the conversation is about how terrible the whole period was rather than squeals about the ridiculousness of other dopers being awarded his wins.

He's going to be remembered as a punch line.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2012)

I have seen a fair few people insisting that Lance was still the best given that everyone was on the same stuff. Not media, but folk on BBs, FB etc. The fact that that line of argument isn't even accurate seems to be irrelevant. Good to see that the whole tone around the peloton *appears* to be changing too.

Incidentally, the Bertagnolli case is going to cause a few riders to answer some hard questions - notably Kreuziger, who iirc was already under scrutiny.

edit:  I take it everybody saw Wiggins insisting that he had never raced against Lance at the TdF the other day?  Obviously been partying hard since he called it a day for the season .


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2012)

The Boy said:


> I have seen a fair few people insisting that Lance was still the best given that everyone was on the same stuff. Not media, but folk on BBs, FB etc. The fact that that line of argument isn't even accurate seems to be irrelevant. Good to see that the whole tone around the peloton *appears* to be changing too.


 
Yes, that's still there and will be for a while. But in the greater scheme of things it represents a last stand. The public opinion war has been won.




			
				The Boy said:
			
		

> Incidentally, the Bertagnolli case is going to cause a few riders to answer some hard questions - notably Kreuziger, who iirc was already under scrutiny.


 
It won't do their reputations any good, but I think that being seen at a Ferrari training camp or similar , particularly in the period before Ferrari's first life ban, probably isn't going to be enough to nail anyone by itself.




			
				The Boy said:
			
		

> edit: I take it everybody saw Wiggins insisting that he had never raced against Lance at the TdF the other day? Obviously been partying hard since he called it a day for the season .


 
That was just weird. So weird in fact that I can't imagine it was a deliberate lie. I think he just had a moment of idiocy and managed to forget what was at the time the biggest moment of his career. To be fair to Wiggins, and as you know I'm by no means a fan, his main comments about this were pretty good. He blotted his copybook by proclaiming his love for Armstrong previously, but as compared to some of the other big names who have spoken up (I'm looking at you Samu) he's been a beacon of good sense in the last few days.

On another note, Vaughters comments over on the cycling news forums about Wiggins are fascinating.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That was just weird. So weird in fact that I can't imagine it was a deliberate lie. I think he just had a moment of idiocy and managed to forget what was at the time the biggest moment of his career. To be fair to Wiggins, and as you know I'm by no means a fan, his main comments about this were pretty good. He blotted his copybook by proclaiming his love for Armstrong previously, but as compared to some of the other big names who have spoken up (I'm looking at you Samu) he's been a beacon of good sense in the last few days.


 
Agreed, although I'm fairly sure much of it was prepared by his PR - nowhere near enough 'fucks' and 'cunts' to be his own work .  Also agreed on Samu. 

Anyway, I suppose the big question now is:  who's next?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Anyway, I suppose the big question now is: who's next?


 
I suspect that there are people who either told the Grand Jury some lies or told the truth there and then refused to cooperate with USADA. Those people might be in trouble, either with the law or with UDADA.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 13, 2012)

Also, fair play to Cancellara who spoke out in a much more blunt way than I would have expected, putting the boot into his own boss Bruyneel.


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 13, 2012)

Dowsett anyone. Did he wriggle after he was pulled up?


----------



## tommers (Oct 13, 2012)

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-fair-one-former-armstrong-teammate-says-no/


----------



## 1927 (Oct 13, 2012)

What the "he did so was everyone else" lobby seem to be missing is that there is a clear message coming through from the evidence that if it hadnt been for Lance then maybe the rest of them might not have been doing it, atleast not to the same degree. In 1999 there was a chance for the peloton to go clean in the wake of the scandals, but Lance's return scuppered that plan and if anything his presence ensured that doping would continue and increase.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/lance-armstrong-sunday-times_n_1962965.html

Sunday Times might sue Armstrong...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2012)

Matt White has left Orica-Greenedge too.  Props to him though for remembering to include clean cyclists when listing those he was apologising to.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Vaughters comments over on the cycling news forums about Wiggins are fascinating.


 
Care to paste some chunks?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 13, 2012)

This it the question for guests wanting to use the search function:


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> This it the question for guests wanting to use the search function:


 
What site is that from?

Edit: Cycling news. Put a smile on my face.  Edit again:  Although if you type 'no' it says you gave the wrong answer


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 13, 2012)

Spartacus' views are admirable:



> Cancellara said that he has not read the 202 pages of theUSADA Reasoned Decisionbut is aware of the contents. "I hear that in 200 pages Bruyneel’s name appears 129 times. I want to know what happened. But I don’t know what the future brings. Neither for Bruyneel or for the team. I do not know how owner Flavio Becca will react. He hasn’t experienced any problems with his team in the last two years. He’s lost money, not won and now has a bad image. Every normal businessman would throw in the towel, but I do not think Becca will.”
> “Lance was apparently a systematic doper. He doped on a scale that cycling has never seen before. He has really destroyed a lot. I hope that Armstrong is the last of the Mohicans, that he’s the last of the Ullrich, Basso, Landis, Heras generation. If you drive too fast, you pay the penalty. Lance must now live with the consequences of what he did. Today riders are again paying the price for what went wrong six or seven years ago. That's not fair. *Lance has ensured that the early years of my career were wasted years. Now I understand how US Postal was able to put eight or nine riders in the front on a mountain stage and drop all the others*."


 
But unless this has been mistranslated, Prudhomme is being an utter cunt. He actually says the UCI have been "pioneers" in anti-doping. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tour-de-france-director-against-reassigning-armstrongs-victories What planet is he on? After the Pro Tour row surely there's no love lost between ASO and UCI. Why can't Prudhomme show a little leadership and join the movement to throw Hein under the bus? The shrivelled old turd is finished anyway.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 13, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Also, fair play to Cancellara who spoke out in a much more blunt way than I would have expected, putting the boot into his  *former* boss Bruyneel.


 
Edited for you


----------



## The Boy (Oct 13, 2012)

Looks like the Daily Mail are going after Sky's staff and riders with 'history'.

Not sure what to make of Canc.  On one hand good on him for speaking so unequivocally - and not just naming Armstrong.  On the other, there is still the feigned shock that we have seen from so many.  I know Lance had something of a reputation, and it is only now that the magic spell he had over the sport seems to have fallen, but still.

That Proudhomme comment seems strange, too.  Reads as if he's out to defend the sport of cycling from the usual taint, then throws in an attaboy for the UCI.  Perhaps trying to make sure the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bathwater?  Pretty sure ASO were against the breakaway league idea floating about a while back.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 14, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Looks like the Daily Mail are going after Sky's staff and riders with 'history'.


 


> A prominent insider with intimate knowledge of the doping era has also told The Mail on Sunday that a fourth person from Team Sky - a current senior employee - has opted to 'live a lie' in regards to his doping past.​​


 
Hmmm...the senior employee who saw Lance do nothing?


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 14, 2012)

I don't trust Brailsford. Should we give him the benefit of the doubt? All of this "shock" at the extent of the US Postal doping...I'm not buying it.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 14, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Care to paste some chunks?


 
The short version is that he thinks Wiggins is a stubborn prick, but he doesn't see any wild improvement in his 2012 form over the ability he showed in testing with Garmin. His basic line is that he doesn't like Wiggins but thinks he's clean.




			
				Vaughters said:
			
		

> While I admire Brad as an athlete, I can tell you he was a nightmare to work with and certainly did not listen to much advice I gave him...beyond "wow, brad, most of your power produced in a 4 minute pursuit is via aerobic metabolism...that's unique...You could be a stage racer"
> 
> And that's where Brad and I stopped.






			
				Vaughters again said:
			
		

> The Dr. Leinders thing is disturbing, for sure. Not knowing him, I can't comment on his current attitude towards things. I don't know.
> 
> 2009? Wiggo did not dope. You can say I'm wrong, but I'll stick with my statement on this, that I've made over and over...
> 
> ...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 14, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Hmmm...the senior employee who saw Lance do nothing?


 
Would be the obvious suspect.


----------



## where to (Oct 14, 2012)

sherwen has commented, not exactly equivocal :

https://twitter.com/PaulSherwen

responses are a good laugh: *https://twitter.com/paulsherwen/status/257095582152286209*

i had a look at who lance armstrong follows on twitter ( 350 odd folk ).  not that many are cyclists or ex-cyclists. almost all of them though: frank and andy schleck, zubeldia, vasseur, basso, ekimov, kloden, mark rensha, horner, quinziato, robbie hunter etc have said nothing on the Armstrong drugs scandal since it broke this week. it makes me wonder if he is systematically unfollowing those who denounce him.

the one caveat is Hincapie, who he is also still following, along with paul sherwen.

he also follows this guy, worth a look: https://twitter.com/CensoredCyclist


----------



## where to (Oct 14, 2012)

Sherwen retweeted this:



> Now, if ever, is the time to be open and find a cure. If people being outed means they lose jobs, the omerta continues


 
maybe thinking of himself?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 14, 2012)

Phil and Paul are dicks.   No mercy should be given to them.  Anglo voices of cycling or not.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 15, 2012)

Couldn't believe my brother-in-law's attitude at the weekend. He'll pretty much engage in any doublethink to avoid seeing his hero knocked off his pedestal.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 15, 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter

Phil Liggett seems to have lost the plot completely.


----------



## petee (Oct 15, 2012)

fyyi, statement from michael barry in the NYT
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/...o-a-clean-sport-must-continue.html?ref=sports


----------



## where to (Oct 15, 2012)

The Boy said:
			
		

> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter
> 
> Phil Liggett seems to have lost the plot completely.



Mental.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 16, 2012)

The Australian media seems to be going in hard on their own boys, surprisingly enough. Firstly Matt White, one of the big nobs at both Cycing Australia and Orica-Greenedge had to admit to his doping past (he was named in an affidavit) and resign. Now Michael Rogers is getting it in the papers because he was named as an attendee at some of Michele Ferrari's training camps in a couple of affidavits.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 16, 2012)

Do you think Robbie was clean? He says he was. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f-doping-scandal/story-e6frg6nf-1226495730987 He's still one of my heroes.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 16, 2012)

The Boy said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter
> 
> Phil Liggett seems to have lost the plot completely.


 


> In August, Liggett also stated that he would retire if Armstrong had been proven as a drug cheat. The UCI has to either ratify or appeal USADA’s case but Liggett said that his future had already been decided by future contracts.


 
Just go now you fucken boring tool.

That article was incredible. He hasn't even bothered to read the USADA report and he's quoting a text from an unknown source. I've hated that wanker since 1987.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 16, 2012)

Not listened to it yet, but saw this on twitter this morning and d/led

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/5lspecials



> Mark Chapman lifts the lid on the secret world of drug abuse in cycling. With contributions from former Tour de France cyclists Tyler Hamilton, Matt De Canio, Christophe Basson. Lance Armstrong's former soigner Emma O'Reilly tells us about an abuse that was rife inside his US Postal Service Team during their period of dominance. British cyclist David Millar also outlines how the present and future of the sport are a different proposition.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 16, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> That article was incredible. He hasn't even bothered to read the USADA report and he's quoting a text from an unknown source. I've hated that wanker since 1987.


 
that was the bit i chuckled at/was depressed by

a 'scientist' says on a text forwarded to you 

it's like posting a chain letter on facebook ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

The Boy said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter
> 
> Phil Liggett seems to have lost the plot completely.


Wow. Didn't think my respect for him could possibly drop any lower. Implicit complicity.


----------



## tommers (Oct 16, 2012)

He sounds very confused.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 16, 2012)

Wow - Nike paying half a million dollars to Hein to cover up a positive? I never heard that one. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/nike-left-footprint-lance-scandal-article-1.1184431 That's got to be jail time for somebody. But I doubt they can prove it.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 16, 2012)

It was only a matter of time!lol


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Wow - Nike paying half a million dollars to Hein to cover up a positive? I never heard that one. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/nike-left-footprint-lance-scandal-article-1.1184431 That's got to be jail time for somebody. But I doubt they can prove it.


Well, i guess they might be stupid enough to have left trails in bank accounts - without that, or at least other people backing it, it wil probably go down. Need to know what KL based her claim on. It might just well be nothing.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 16, 2012)

tommers said:


> He sounds very confused.


 
He sounds like an old man whose woke up to find his girlfriend gone and house repossessed. His world has been swept away from him but he hasn't smelt the coffee. Let's hope ITV junk him and his cronies.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 16, 2012)

He promised to quit if Armstrong was guilty, now he's saying he can't quit because he signed contracts until 2016 or something. FFS, he needs to go now, not just because of LA  but because he's become a shit commentator. It's sad because he was much loved in the '80s. But someone needs to start a petition to get him sacked.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 16, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> He promised to quit if Armstrong was guilty, now he's saying he can't quit because he signed contracts until 2016 or something. FFS, he needs to go now, not just because of LA but because he's become a shit commentator. It's sad because he was much loved in the '80s. But someone needs to start a petition to get him sacked.


 
He was always shite at reading a race. Even Duffield, while waxing on about the goats cheese and snails he had the night before - had more nouse about what was going on. Same goes for Kelly vs Sherwen.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 16, 2012)

Has Boardman been quoted on this yet?


----------



## Dan U (Oct 16, 2012)

Levi Leipheimer sacked according to Twitter


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> He was always shite at reading a race. Even Duffield, while waxing on about the goats cheese and snails he had the night before - had more nouse about what was going on. Same goes for Kelly vs Sherwen.


I think kelly always despised sherwen - the refusal to get close. Not that Sean was clean, i mean the race intelligence.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 16, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I think kelly always despised sherwen -_* the refusal to get close*_. Not that Sean was clean, i mean the race intelligence.


 
Sorry, what do you mean by that phrase?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 16, 2012)

To think that he was someone who knew about cycling, about someone who was like sean.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 16, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Levi Leipheimer sacked according to Twitter


 

http://news.yahoo.com/leipheimer-sacked-quick-step-doping-admission-182553784--spt.html

You cant condone what he's done, but ironic taht those who have been brave enough, however late, to expose LA are the ones that are gonna suffer, when the man himself will still have his millions of $ and his millions of adoring misguided fans!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 16, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Levi Leipheimer sacked according to Twitter



I'm no fan of Leipheimer, but I have great difficulty taking this shit seriously from teams, whether it's OPQS sacking Levi or Sky telling us that they are shocked, shocked I tell you that Barry was ever on the hot sauce. If team bosses in pro cycling couldn't work out that there may be possible doping issues in the past of people who rode for Armstrong, then they are too stupid to be allowed to use scissors unsupervised.

The same goes for Greenedge (and Cycling Australia) with White.

It's just PR driven shit. I have more respect for Garmin's stance when it comes to ex dopers as they don't pretend that everyone on the team is a newly hatched cleaner era pod person, and then have to express shock and confusion when they discover otherwise. Unless you are running something like an U23 team, you simply can't pull together an entire pro operation with no "pasts".


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 16, 2012)

Brilliantly incisive piece by Laura Weislo. One nugget from it: Lance earned $125m from cycling. http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-lance-armstrong-fairness-fallacy


----------



## The Boy (Oct 16, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Levi Leipheimer sacked according to Twitter


 
Strange, given that particular team's management/history/medical staff.  The cynic in me suspects he's being punished for breaking _omerta._


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 16, 2012)

I tend to think its more headline driven than that. Just like Sky's daft announcement that they are going to go around demanding admissions from their riders... And then sacking them if they do fess up. I think that's mostly intended to make it look as if they are doing something. But in practice if it has any effect at all it would be to strengthen omertà.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 16, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I tend to think its more headline driven than that. Just like Sky's daft announcement that they are going to go around demanding admissions from their riders... And then sacking them if they do fess up. I think that's mostly intended to make it look as if they are doing something. But in practice if it has any effect at all it would be to strengthen omertà.


 
With any other team I would agree with you*. But Patrice Lefevre?  Really wouldn't surprise me.

* And the Sky thing is particularly silly.  As you (I think) pointed out, honesty, openness and transparency are more important than PR.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 17, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Levi Leipheimer sacked according to Twitter


 
_Let Levi Ride_


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olymp...estrong-cancer-foundation-122330602--oly.html

Armstrong steps down from Livestrong and Nike end relationship!!!!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Ball is now rolling i think.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 17, 2012)

1927 said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olymp...estrong-cancer-foundation-122330602--oly.html
> 
> Armstrong steps down from Livestrong and Nike end relationship!!!!


 
Nike - killing the $500k story floating around?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Ball is now rolling i think.


 
Truly fucking hope so, but I doubt it.  I reckon the UCI will put out a generic bullshit response that they find the USADA case one sided and flawed, and nitpick over the tiniest discrepancy as claimed proof that it's inaccurate.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

Do we think, or does anyone think that in the end Lance will come clean ( no pun intended)? Whats the odds he confesses all in a book for which he receives a multi million $ advance, or is it now too risky for him to even contemplate owning up?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Truly fucking hope so, but I doubt it. I reckon the UCI will put out a generic bullshit response that they find the USADA case one sided and flawed, and nitpick over the tiniest discrepancy as claimed proof that it's inaccurate.


Quite possibly, but i was really talking more about the flaking off of his prominent public supporters.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

1927 said:


> Do we think, or does anyone think that in the end Lance will come clean ( no pun intended)? Whats the odds he confesses all in a book for which he receives a multi million $ advance, or is it now too risky for him to even contemplate owning up?


I was trying to envisage scenarios how this could come about last night and i could only imagine some sort of christian bollocks type thing (maybe someone already suggested that on here, can't recall right now).


----------



## Dan U (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I was trying to envisage scenarios how this could come about last night and i could only imagine some sort of christian bollocks type thing (maybe someone already suggested that on here, can't recall right now).


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 17, 2012)

Yee haa! Come on SCA and the Sunday Times and everyone else he's stiffed, round up your lawyers and fleece the fucker!

This is a great day. Now we can have our sport back.

All together now, "Ding dong, the witch is dead...."


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I was trying to envisage scenarios how this could come about last night and i could only imagine some sort of christian bollocks type thing (maybe someone already suggested that on here, can't recall right now).


 
"I was forced into it by sponsors.  I didn't come clean because they threatened reprisals against me and the charities I was responsible for.  Even now they threaten to withdraw funding from Livestrong and other institutions I'm involved with if I name names"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

Lemon Eddy said:


> "I was forced into it by sponsors. I didn't come clean because they threatened reprisals against me and the charities I was responsible for. Even now they threaten to withdraw funding from Livestrong and other institutions I'm involved with if I name names"


He would be very stupid if he tried that line - and he's not stupid. He's very very clever. Can't see him being daft enough to try that one.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 17, 2012)

Got to be honest, I don't see it as less likely than a christian play.

The likelihood is that he'll just continue to deny everything.  Even now I know plenty of cyclists who think he's been victimised/persecuted/framed.   I think he'll just stick to blaming a conspiracy that are out to get him.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

In your suggestion he would have to produce evidence that he was threatened - that the sponsors had talked to him and pressured him.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

The boil is Lanced!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2012)

The boil _is_ lance.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

Lance the boil!


----------



## peterkro (Oct 17, 2012)

Boil Lance.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 17, 2012)

His apparently strongly held and relatively widely known atheist views somewhat stack the deck against an "I have sinned but I beg the Lord to forgive me" response, even in the absence of the legal problems a confession would open up. Unless he went so far as to present it as an actual conversion to Christianity.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 17, 2012)

Although he's an atheist he's done a great job of depicting himself as the Saviour who sacrifices himself in the battle to protect us from cancer. Check his homepage for a picture of him suffering on his cross. I can't put it in the thread because it makes me a bit queasy  http://lancearmstrong.com/photos/superfrog-triathlon-2012


----------



## The Boy (Oct 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I was trying to envisage scenarios how this could come about last night and i could only imagine some sort of christian bollocks type thing (maybe someone already suggested that on here, can't recall right now).


 
The only scenario I have thought of has been missed. Basically, sometime after retiring he could have come clean.  Spun it as his coming back to cycling being a result of wanting to set up the cancer charity, and thinking that winning the Tour was the only way to get the attention of 'the people'.  And the only way to do that as being on drugs - everyone was doing it remember?  Paint himself as one of the victim's basically.

No chance he can do that now.  The USADA report clearly states how much of a bastard he was, and outs him as the driving force behind the program.

Perhaps the conversion to Christianity and a career in the Tea Party?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 17, 2012)

Lemon Eddy said:


> "I was forced into it by sponsors. I didn't come clean because they threatened reprisals against me and the charities I was responsible for. Even now they threaten to withdraw funding from Livestrong and other institutions I'm involved with if I name names"


 
No way he could do that.  Sponsors wouldn't think twice about suing if he tried that.  And every time he goes near a courtroom, more shit will come out about him.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 17, 2012)

Looks like Trek have gone too.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Looks like Trek have gone too.


 
Along with FRS and Anheuser Busch.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/10/17/lance-armstrong-sopnsors-beer-trek-michelob/


----------



## The Boy (Oct 17, 2012)

So who does that leave?  Oakley?


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

The Boy said:


> So who does that leave? Oakley?


and radio Shack, but they are saying that they have no current campaigns with him even tho he he is under contract.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 17, 2012)

http://www.wgrz.com/usatoday/sports...likely-finished-as-endorser?usatref=sportsmod


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 18, 2012)

I just emailed Trek to tell them what I think of them.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 18, 2012)

I suppose we may as well assume from Yates' attitude that he was juiced when he wore the yellow jersey in '94? Another memory down the toilet.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 18, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> I suppose we may as well assume from Yates' attitude that he was juiced when he wore the yellow jersey in '94? Another memory down the toilet.


 
Was there ever any doubt?  Think I've always had Yates on the list.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 18, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Perhaps the conversion to Christianity and a career in the Tea Party?


 

To make that plausible he'd also have to be caught soliciting sex in men's toilets, and thieving money from one of his charities.


----------



## tommers (Oct 18, 2012)

I like Brailsford, and I think he's honest, but this pledge business is utterly pointless.  And it's been done before.  And it didn't work then.


----------



## where to (Oct 18, 2012)

Brailsford is a con man management wank. This latest play is so stupid that I can only conclude either he is truly thick, or he is at it.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 18, 2012)

Lemon Eddy said:


> To make that plausible he'd also have to be caught soliciting sex in men's toilets, and thieving money from one of his charities.


 
Just the soliciting left to do then! (allegedly)


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 18, 2012)

where to said:


> This latest play is so stupid that I can only conclude either he is truly thick, or he is at it.


 
It's pretty bloody stupid, that's for sure.  "I promise to tell the truth, therefore you know I am not lying" level of glaring tautology.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 18, 2012)

The particularly ridiculous thing about the claims of shock coming from Sky riders/management and this latest wheeze, is that the whole Sky shtick was a clean team.  Why make that such a central tenet of the team's identity if they didn't know what had gone before?  As much as I don't trust Vaughters as much as some, his approach/philosophy is far more honest. I mean, asking 'Big' Mick Rogers to sign a piece of paper saying he has never doped?  And Yates has a positive test, ffs.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 18, 2012)

Hein Verbruggen accuses two journalists of making up fictitious comments attributed to him.  Der Telegraaf publishes the SMS messages in which he made the comments. Kimmage, presumably, smiles again.

Unless my Dutch is as bad as I think it is.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wielersport/13091363/__SMS-verkeer_met_Verbruggen__.html


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 18, 2012)

I'd forgotten about this - Greg saying his VO2 max is 95 and Armstrong's 82. So if nobody had doped in Lance's Tours, could he have won them? Do we know enough of his rivals' numbers? If he couldn't have won a clean Tour, that would be a handy comeback to the fuckwits who say it was a level playing field.

Here's the quote:


> According to Mrs LeMond, Armstrong said: "There's no way you could have won your Tour de Frances without EPO." And Greg got very angry and said, "Listen, I won my - I was third in 1984, I was second in 1985, I won in 1986. This type of drug did not exist. The difference between you and me is that I have a 95 VO2 max and you have an 82, and you're - you don't - basically you don't know what you're talking about."


 
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kathy-lemonds-sca-deposition-details-revealed


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2012)

Walsh has posted the HV texts that never were:




> In the text Hein wrote:"The only thing I can say is there are many many stories and suspicions but there is no trace of EVIDENCE." His caps
> 
> That text concluded: "LA was never found positive, neither by USADA and anyone aware of testing procedures knows you can't make a deal."
> ​


​​​


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 18, 2012)

IANAL, but if the many allegations against Lance can be proven in a US court he's risking convictions for perjury, witness intimidation, fraud, bribery, coercing people to take dangerous drugs, probably some money laundering, a bit of tax evasion and no doubt a couple of others. That's lots of jail time. With all the financial irregularities around team salaries, huge quantities of PEDs being paid for, Ferrari's bills, donations to the UCI and Hein and so on, I reckon it's inevitable that one of the many other guilty parties, e.g. Ochowicz, Weisel, Stapleton, Bruyneel (to name just a few) will cop a plea and provide documentary evidence, financial transactions, emails and so on. This will trigger more plea bargain attempts from others. And Lance will have no option but a plea bargain or jail.  I reckon he's discussing that with Herman right now. If there' are going to be several people wanting to cop a plea, only the first one can get a good deal. I think Lance will go for it, soon. That's my prediction.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 18, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Boil Lance.



Boils on his lance!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Rabobank pulling out full stop. 



> Rabobank will end its sponsorship of both the men’s and the women’s professional cycling teams per 31 December 2012. Rabobank will continue its ties with amateur cycling as a sponsor, including the youth training and the cyclocross team.
> 
> 
> Rabobank has come to this decision following publication of the report from the American doping authority USADA last week. This report speaks volumes. Bert Bruggink, member of the Managing Board: “It is with pain in our heart, but for the bank this is an inevitable decision. We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future.”


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 19, 2012)

Wow, that is a big exit. As big as ZDF in Germany refusing to show the TdF in the wake of the Telekom confessions. Rabobank sponsor the Dutch national team at road/MTB/track too.

Its this kind of pressure that has the most influence in cycling and IMHO its this kind of action that is the only action that can shift McQuaid and Verbruggen quickly (how are they still there?!?), corporate sponsors figure on their fatcat radars in a way fans, riders' health or morality do not.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

And note the statement basically says they have no faith whatsoever in either the ability to effect or desire for change.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 19, 2012)

They are honouring the contract financially though - the team will be financed for next year but bear 'white label' sponsorship...they just want their name disconnected with cycling.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 19, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Its this kind of pressure that has the most influence in cycling and IMHO its this kind of action that is the only action that can shift McQuaid and Verbruggen quickly (how are they still there?!?), corporate sponsors figure on their fatcat radars in a way fans, riders' health or morality do not.


Very true. Do sponsors have their own association?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 19, 2012)

But...but...but..Lance did so much for the sport!!

Just remembered there is the Barredo investigation too.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 19, 2012)

The Boy said:


> But...but...but..Lance did so much for the sport!!


It's a tricky question. I wonder how much of sport has been tarnished with either drug-taking, or match-fixing, and maybe we don't actually want to know exactly.


----------



## bendeus (Oct 19, 2012)

Had an interesting discussion yesterday. Which is the most corrupt governing body in sport. UCI is an obvious one, but then we started ruminating on FIFA, the WBA, WBO and various boxing 'governing' bodies. Does the UCI trump them all in the eyes of this august thread population?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 19, 2012)

No. The UCI are shit beyond belief, but the boxing organisations are on a different level entirely.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 19, 2012)

Yes, i'd agree with that.


----------



## bendeus (Oct 20, 2012)

In the sense that the boxing organisations freely channel mob money? Was the UCI not another figleaf for organised crime insomuch as by the law USPS was an organised criminal operation and the UCI freely colluded in its perpetuation?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 20, 2012)

No really, it's a different level of madness. Not just in the sense that boxing involves a whole bunch of proper "horse's head in your bed" gangsters. But also in the structural sense that the various boxing governing bodies are essentially rival businesses competing to be useful to promoters.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 20, 2012)

Bassons pinged? Sounds like pay back to me.

To expand:  "Christophe Bassons, was riding the French MTB Marathon Champs and abandoned, then drove home. He was picked for a post-race control and didn't know."

Suspended for a year by French authorities.  The same authorities who overturned Turgot's suspension for three missed test violations. 

Looks like Lance still has friends /tinfoil hat.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 20, 2012)

Whodathunkit!


----------



## 1927 (Oct 21, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/lance-armstrongs-worst-week-ever-now-includes-bribery-182832456.html

Oh dear Lance!


----------



## The Boy (Oct 21, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...0801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ITO=1490

Anyone any idea of which Sky rider/staffer being referred to in that article?  Can't be Yates, because the accusee insists they never tested positive.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 21, 2012)

The Boy said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...0801/Team-Sky-braced-departures.html?ITO=1490
> 
> Anyone any idea of which Sky rider/staffer being referred to in that article? Can't be Yates, because the accusee insists they never tested positive.


 
Mick Rodgers? Reckons his involvement with Ferrari was for 'training plans', that most worn of old chestnuts and non defence to boot. He must be top of the list? And how can DB still have Yatesy on the staff and keep a straight face.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 21, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Mick Rodgers? Reckons his involvement with Ferrari was for 'training plans', that most worn of old chestnuts and non defence to boot. He must be top of the list? And how can DB still have Yatesy on the staff and keep a straight face.


 
Rogers has already been named so they wouldn't be so coy about him, would they?  Was thinking it might be Julich or someone?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 21, 2012)

1927 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/lance-armstrongs-worst-week-ever-now-includes-bribery-182832456.html
> 
> Oh dear Lance!


 
Bribery like this is/was pretty common though though - and been going on for decades and is accepted in the sport. I've seen a famous pic of Tom Simpson being 'outsprinted' by Rudi Altig in a classics finale....if you look closely at the pic Simpson is braking. The history of the sport is littered with brokered deals, Robert Millar lost certain victory in the '85 Vuelta cos his DS wouldn't bribe Delgado and the SEAT team.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 21, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Very true. Do sponsors have their own association?


 
Not to my knowledge but now would be the time to form one - you kind of need a properly organised UCI for it to make any sense though, and we've not seen that in a generation.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 21, 2012)

This made me larf - Livestrong donors wanting their money back, on CNN. Finally the fucker is starting to get the kicking he deserves in the mainstream US press. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/19/us/lance-armstrong/index.html




> For years, Connie and Daniel Roddy did all they could to support Livestrong, raising tens of thousands of dollars for the cancer charity founded by cyclist Lance Armstrong.​"It all started when Lance's first book came out," Connie Roddy said, referring to the 2001 publication of "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," which details Armstrong's bout with testicular cancer. "I read it cover to cover. I was just so taken by who he said he was."​The Roddys, who live in Santa Monica, California, say they initially gave $50,000 to the foundation. In 2003, Connie Roddy said, she helped organize an event for the foundation at a health club that raised an additional $150,000.​Now they want their money back.​"I feel we were really fooled. We were really hoodwinked," she said.​


 
​​


> criticism poured in from some of the charity's donors.​Former Livestrong donor Michael Birdsong of Salt Lake City is among them. "The charity was established and publicized and got their funds based on a fraud," he said.​Birdsong said he was attracted to the organization after his wife -- an avid cyclist -- was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998, about the time Armstrong won his first Tour de France title.​"She found his story very inspiring," he said. "Before we read his book, she would work all day, go to radiation treatments and go riding because that made her feel good."​In 2007, the couple "became part of the public face of the foundation," said Birdsong, a software engineer. "I was one of the people who would answer questions from people to raise money."​Though he had long been aware of Armstrong's alleged drug use, he said he didn't believe it. "I was a huge Armstrong fan from 1999 to the time he retired; I would defend him from anyone."​But, as his involvement with Livestrong grew, "I started to ask what are they doing with all this money they are raising?"​The foundation's IRS filing last year reported more than $100 million in net assets or fund balances.​The organization spent $2.1 million in compensation to its seven highest-paid officers and three employees, according to the IRS form. No member of the board, whose members include CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta, was compensated, it said.​Now, Birdsong said, he feels disillusioned. "The whole thing is founded on a lie. The guy cheated, and he forced other people to cheat. I would like my money back. We donated under false pretenses."​


​


----------



## agricola (Oct 21, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> They are honouring the contract financially though - the team will be financed for next year but bear 'white label' sponsorship...they just want their name disconnected with cycling.


 
Which is probably the most damning statement of all.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 22, 2012)

agricola said:


> Which is probably the most damning statement of all.


 
Yes, but it seems there are others out there waiting to take up the spot:-

Giant may take up Rabobank slot



> "The important thing for us now is to build a team that satisfies the UCI, so we can apply for a license,"


 
Surely the important thing now is for the UCI to satisfy Giant it can run the sport? I kind of despair at this kind of news, it just keeps a dead cat bouncing. Maybe its up to the fans now - if you love this sport then do it a favour and watch something else for a year.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 22, 2012)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-banned-Olympics-Lance-Armstrong-scandal.html

Daley Thompson calling for cycling to be kicked out of the Olympics.  It's been close to happening before, iirc, so wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 22, 2012)

Oh, and I think the UCI press conference should be starting around now.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 22, 2012)

Armstrong is wiped from all results


----------



## The Boy (Oct 22, 2012)

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling"






			
				Fat Pat said:
			
		

> It wisnae me


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 22, 2012)

And for once there's been no preemptive rebuttal from Herman. 

Lance's bio still says he won 7 Tours. Mind you, it also says he's doing Ironmans. How on earth will he rewrite his own history now?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 22, 2012)

> On what he called a "landmark day for cycling", the Irishman, who became president of UCI in 2006, said he would not be resigning.


 
Incredible.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 22, 2012)

All of this must add some impetus to Floyd's qui tam case. Anyone know how that's looking?


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 22, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Incredible.


 
Still sueing Kimmage too.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 22, 2012)

So, the UCI have thrown Armstrong under the bus.  Does Lance repay the favour? I'm assuming he knows where a few skeletons are buried.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 22, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617


Guess he can afford it, but how many more will make claims against his fortune?


----------



## 1927 (Oct 22, 2012)

Jamie Staff making an idiot of himself!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20027832


----------



## weltweit (Oct 22, 2012)

1927 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617
> Guess he can afford it, but how many more will make claims against his fortune?


I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg, I expect many sponsors had "clean" clauses.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 22, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg, I expect many sponsors had "clean" clauses.


 
He didnt actually have a clean clause in contract with this one, and court case rested purely in fact he was official winner of Le Tour so was entitled to the cash. Now he has been stripped of titles they want money back. Interesting to see what approach others take. It is possible they could sue for many times what they have paid out, as I would have thought that one of the clauses would be not to do anything which would hurt their brand. It could be argued by a sponsore who had paid Lance $5m that the damage to their brand he has caused is worth $20m, oh how i'd like to see that happen!


----------



## 1927 (Oct 22, 2012)

The Boy said:


> So, the UCI have thrown Armstrong under the bus. Does Lance repay the favour? I'm assuming he knows where a few skeletons are buried.


 

But to tell where the graves are he'd have to admit to doping.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 22, 2012)

1927 said:


> He didnt actually have a clean clause in contract with this one, and court case rested purely in fact he was official winner of Le Tour so was entitled to the cash. Now he has been stripped of titles they want money back. Interesting to see what approach others take. It is possible they could sue for many times what they have paid out, as I would have thought that one of the clauses would be not to do anything which would hurt their brand. It could be argued by a sponsore who had paid Lance $5m that the damage to their brand he has caused is worth $20m, oh how i'd like to see that happen!


Yes, I can see that happenning but I do not share your apparent glee at the prospect, I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 22, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I can see that happenning but I do not share your apparent glee at the prospect, I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.


 
But they werent all doing it. From what I've read the tour in 1999 was probably going to be cleaner than it had been for years and it was LA's presence that actually ensured that it was one of the most corrupt from a doping point of view, he wasnt a victim he was the instigator!


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 22, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I can see that happenning but I do not share your apparent glee at the prospect, I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.


But Armstrong went so much further. Not only was he doping better than everyone else, he was clearly a huge corrupting influence on the whole game. Hence the vile treatment of the people trying to make a stand, such as Bassons and Vaughters, the denial of any wrongdoing (continued to this day), the huge bribes to the UCI. No, he deserves to go down as hard as possible.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 23, 2012)

weltweit said:


> , I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.


 
  You need to catch up on your reading. Please don't drag the thread back into prehistory.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 23, 2012)

Armstrong has removed all references to his Tour wins from his twitter profile.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2012)

yardbird said:


> Armstrong has removed all references to his Tour wins from his twitter profile.


 
Hasnt changed his bio on his website tho.
http://lancearmstrong.com/bio


----------



## yardbird (Oct 23, 2012)

1927 said:


> Hasnt changed his bio on his website tho.
> http://lancearmstrong.com/bio


He's a bit slow and has some catching up to do.
I expect everything will get edited soonish.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 23, 2012)

Is there no end to McQuaid's fuckwittery? He's saying that writing a confessional book about your own doping is good, but only if you don't promote it. If you mention the book after it's published, you're just trying to destroy the sport for your own commercial gain http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-landis-and-hamilton-are-far-from-heroes  I think this might be what opens my wallet for the Kimmage defence fund.  Not that I'm exactly flush.


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 23, 2012)

*george chesterton* ‏@*geochesterton*
While working on Armstrong story I typed in error 'US Anti-Doing Agency'. I have now set that body up and am the honorary president for life


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 23, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Is there no end to McQuaid's fuckwittery?


 
No.  Next question?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

Miguel Indurain still believes in Lance Armstrong's innocence

Uh-huh.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Miguel Indurain still believes in Lance Armstrong's innocence
> 
> Uh-huh.


 
Bradley's hero. Jeez, I despise that man.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 23, 2012)

A must-read by Robert Millar. If only he could take Pat's job. http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum



> This Monday it was the UCI's turn to be stood in between the rock and the hard place. Ironically, in a dilemma not that different to the one faced by Tyler Hamilton and Co years ago, the UCI faced a decision which was going to be criticised whatever they did. So they did what they have been doing for too long now: they produced the bare minimum, they gave the political answers, dodged the hard questions and hid behind USADA's reasoning. Realistically, they had no choice but to accept the evidence put before them because any other challenge or inspection opened them up to even more criticism. And yet by doing the minimum those questions will still come. We still want the answers to the questions they don't want to hear.
> The UCI can deny there was any link between the Armstrong donations and the suspicious test results and Pat McQuaid can try to place all the blame onto the riders for the blood doping and EPO abuse but everyone is beginning to see beyond that defence. The "It wasn't me it was them that did it" excuse has already been made famous by Virenque during the Festina affair and we all know how that one turned out .
> 1998 was the warning that the 50% limit chosen by the UCI two years earlier was an open invitation to dope to that level. The teams of the period, as teams had always done, expected the rules to be pushed and organised themselves as they thought fit. The UCI said it was 50% to protect riders’ health and just ignored the sudden emergence of the 75kg climbers. Festina were the unlucky ones as it could have been any of the teams – any one of them – and the bizarre strike of that year’s Tour just confirmed it. They weren't protesting that they were being cheated by Festina, they were protesting that their world had been found out.
> At the last Tour de France I rode, a quick poll of my friends and colleagues in the peloton revealed that EPO was available to everyone regardless of the team budget or ambition. They weren't happy about it as the difference was no longer a question of how good an athlete you were, it was that plus how good your doctor was with the new drugs. The arrival of EPO and HGH meant the competition was as much about chemical warfare as it was about how fast you could race a bike. Of course those teams in at the very start of the substance abuse held a head start for the first few years, but eventually the lesser teams caught up and everyone could ride up a mountain at 30kmh with their mouths closed
> ...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Miguel Indurain still believes in Lance Armstrong's innocence
> 
> Uh-huh.


 
I'm sure I saw an interview somewhere where Big Mig kinda, sorta, mibbes alluded to him doping.  Reading that article makes me think I imagined it.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Miguel Indurain still believes in Lance Armstrong's innocence
> 
> Uh-huh.


 
Another hero bites the dust.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 23, 2012)

you'd think Indurain would keep his head down, considering how unlikely it is that he was clean...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

That's why he's not, why he's trying to establish what is just testimony. He's not talking about Armstrong.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's why he's not, why he's trying to establish what is just testimony. He's not talking about Armstrong.


 
Thing is, this "its just testimony" business is crap.

If testimony was not admissable there wouldnt be a singel murderer in jail, after all how many murderers are convicted with actual film of the deadly deed?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

Hence my point about him seeking to establish that it alone is shaky in this case.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Hence my point about him seeking to establish that it alone is shaky in this case.


 
I agree.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 23, 2012)

1927 said:


> Thing is, this "its just testimony" business is crap.
> 
> If testimony was not admissable there wouldnt be a singel murderer in jail, after all how many murderers are convicted with actual film of the deadly deed?


 
That's one of my preferred arguments from the Lance-Bots.  Invariably comes from total tossers as well.


----------



## agricola (Oct 23, 2012)

1927 said:


> Thing is, this "its just testimony" business is crap.
> 
> If testimony was not admissable there wouldnt be a singel murderer in jail, after all how many murderers are convicted with actual film of the deadly deed?


 
It is, but I suppose sniping of this kind is all they can do without actually trying to challenge any of this evidence in a courtroom environment (be it the US courts, or CAS).


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Miguel Indurain still believes in Lance Armstrong's innocence
> 
> Uh-huh.


 
And Samuel Sanchez too.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/samuel-sanchez-criticises-armstrong-ban

Don't have any respect for pro cyclists - they have none for us.


----------



## agricola (Oct 23, 2012)

Also have they determined who has won the confiscated Tours yet?  Bassons should really get the 1999 one, if only as a protest against what went on.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 23, 2012)

agricola said:


> Also have they determined who has won the confiscated Tours yet? Bassons should really get the 1999 one, if only as a protest against what went on.


Nobody gets anything.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 23, 2012)

agricola said:


> Also have they determined who has won the confiscated Tours yet? Bassons should really get the 1999 one, if only as a protest against what went on.


_an era without winners doesn't deserve winners or something_


----------



## 1927 (Oct 23, 2012)

agricola said:


> It is, but I suppose sniping of this kind is all they can do without actually trying to challenge any of this evidence in a courtroom environment (be it the US courts, or CAS).


 
The sad thing is that evrytime someone comes out and defends him someone else implicates themselves!


----------



## The Boy (Oct 24, 2012)

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2...-plus-de-virage-armstrong-a-l-alpe-d-huez.php

Mayor of Alpe D'Huez wants The Cheat's name removed from two hairpins on the mountain.


----------



## tommers (Oct 24, 2012)

Unbelievable.

http://gu.com/p/3bb77


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

For those not clicking the link above:



> In Geneva, McQuaid said the UCI recognised the Usada ruling and that Lance Armstrong now "had no place in cycling". But in a document published later the same day on the UCI's website, and personally signed by McQuaid, he delivered a different message. The UCI's "Decision" document accepts Usada's sanction against Armstrong, but calls its evidence and methods into question, and raises grounds for a possible appeal – either by Armstrong himself, or by the World Anti-Doping Agency – against the report's conclusions.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 24, 2012)

I can't see how McQuaid can cling on to his job. What's the mechanism for unseating him? Do clubs have any say?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 24, 2012)

National Federations, I would assume?  No idea though, tbh.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 24, 2012)

National reps would need to call an extraordinary meeting and table a motion of no confidence - and start a re-election process ie a full frontal attack on him. Or wait for re-election and just not vote for him. Of the two scenarios the latter is by far the more likely, just like FIFA these are political animals, they wont risk breaking cover, going for the king and missing.

Of course there is always the third way - they will re-elect him. Thats crazy to us but possible if there is an absence of a challenger. As the comments from both McQuaid and a lot of the riders on the LA issue prove these guys are just on a different planet, what might seem morally indefensible to us seems normal to them. McQuaids comments and moves are the actions of man who just can't see the problem the rest of us see.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 24, 2012)

There should be some external authority to put them into the moral equivalent of receivership or something.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 24, 2012)

Oh yeah - the fourth way would be McQuaid can't take the accumulating heat and quits...he has withstood a heck of a lot and not budged, personally I think we are stuck with the stupid old cunt for a while yet.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 24, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There should be some external authority to put them into the moral equivalent of receivership or something.


 
The IOC (that most august and morally superior unit) can kill the UCI stone dead = by removing cycling from the next olympics.

A decent boycott by the fans could kill McQuaid dead - but that would need cycling fans to have the good sense to remove themselves from consumption - they(we) are not prepared to do this it seems; indeed the fans as I keep saying like a stuck record and both the problem and solution here.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 24, 2012)

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/02/the-lance-witch-hunt/
Obiviously got a thing for cheating cunts,she even married one


----------



## 1927 (Oct 24, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/02/the-lance-witch-hunt/
> Obiviously got a thing for cheating cunts,she even married one


 
I'm not as fast as Usain Bolt, so does she mean I can use a  taxi to catch him?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 25, 2012)

Gingerman said:


> http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/02/the-lance-witch-hunt/
> Obiviously got a thing for cheating cunts,she even married one


 
To be fair to Ms Amiel, you can understand why she has a deep seated issue with people facing punishment for cheating.

Actually, fuck that.  Fuck sarcasm, or humour, or mocking.  She doesn't deserve such a gentle response.  She sees nothing wrong with ambitious parents doping their children so they get better grades.  What sort of misappropriation of carbon could seriously make such a statement?


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 25, 2012)

Check out Lemond's Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/greglemond?fref=ts - he's just told Pat and Hein to get out of cycling!


----------



## 1927 (Oct 25, 2012)

http://news.yahoo.com/contador-says-armstrong-being-humiliated-lynched-142836543--spt.html

Contador the latest to lose the plot!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Check out Lemond's Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/greglemond?fref=ts - he's just told Pat and Hein to get out of cycling!


 Bloody hell, don't hold back Greg!

For people not on facebook the text is also here.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 25, 2012)

Lemond:


> "If people really want to clean the sport of cycling up all you have to do is put your money where your mouth is. Don't buy a USA Cycling license. Give up racing for a year, just long enough to put the UCI and USA cycling out of business. We can then start from scratch and let the real lovers in cycling direct where and how the sport of cycling will go,"


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

I've retwatted that Lemond letter and stuck it on Facebook.

Legend.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 25, 2012)

1927 said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/contador-says-armstrong-being-humiliated-lynched-142836543--spt.html
> 
> Contador the latest to lose the plot!


 
Has any Spanish rider, past or present, come out and criticised Armstrong? That country needs WADA to take control of the national body and take a long hard look at cycling, football and tennis.

Meanwhile, Greg has a new follower on Facebook.


----------



## 1927 (Oct 25, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Has any Spanish rider, past or present, come out and criticised Armstrong? That country needs WADA to take control of the national body and take a long hard look at cycling, football and tennis.
> 
> Meanwhile, Greg has a new follower on Facebook.


 
I think he's got more than one, i think he's pulled atleast 3 new followers from this thread in the last hour!


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 25, 2012)

1927 said:


> I think he's got more than one, i think he's pulled atleast 3 new followers from this thread in the last hour!


 
Yep, a mate of mine just joined as well and I've a handful of other cycling buddies on there who will too. 

Also, someone has been sharp on wiki



> in 1986 LeMond became the first non-European cyclist and remains the only American to win the Tour de France.


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_LeMond


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Has any Spanish rider, past or present, come out and criticised Armstrong? That country needs WADA to take control of the national body and take a long hard look at cycling, football and tennis.


 
http://www.elperiodicodearagon.com/...paje-era-pan-nuestro-de-cada-dia-_800575.html

Unless I'm losing something as a result of google translate and having awful Spanish, that guy is more on the money than just about anyone else from the peloton past or present.

Agree with the general thrust of your post though.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Oh, and Kimmage defence fund is just shy of 75k!


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 25, 2012)

Is it possible he could go balls to the wall and use the money to set up a rival to the UCI? What's to stop all the national federations refusing to recognise the UCI and joining a breakaway outfit?  The other day the AIGCP said there should be a new independent anti-doping committee, effectively taking dope control responsibilities away from the UCI.  A breakaway international fed would have plenty of time to sort out IOC membership before the next Olympics.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 25, 2012)

The BC rep to the UCI is Brian Cookson. On another forum he was questioned on what pressure he could bear to bring about Change; his response was to link to a load of UCI web pages that detailed (painfully) why they took no action for years, how they are doing all they can, blah blah blah. Brian Cookson aint getting off the gravy train for you or me, small fry like you and I need to realise this. I pay £35 a year for a BC memberhsip and race licence...not next year.

UCI rival is all very well but ASO blanched at the idea and ASO are probably the only group with the clout and finance to form a breakaway. The ensuing bunfight with the UCI wouldn't be sorted out before Rio - if olympics is what matters. I think a lot of the ordinary joes and joelles at the UCI are probably decent folk, its just the board that need to be taken out...aint gonna happen though.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> What's to stop all the national federations refusing to recognise the UCI and joining a breakaway outfit?


 
The short answer:  ASO.  It's kind of analogous to GT racing and Le Mans, I guess.  The Tour is the one race that anyone who doesn't know anything about cycling still knows about. If you want to form a breakaway, then you need the tour.  As Sig says, they didn't bite last time it was raised.  They do seem the mercenary types though, so if it was in their financial interests to break with the UCI then they will.  It's just that they don't see it that way, and I would probably agree with them.  I'm sure there is the making of a decent governing body somewhere within the UCI - just a matter of trying to get it sorted. 

Fuck knows how that last bit gets done, but tactics like Sig's cancelling of his/her BC membership has to be a part of it.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 25, 2012)

Vaughters and the AIGCP must have a plan. And I bet they're pretty tight with Kimmage and can't take another year with Pat. Does ASO kowtow to AIGCP? The Rabobank thing must strengthen AIGCP's case a fair bit...Prudhomme has to have a rethink, surely.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 25, 2012)

The Rabobank impact is greatly lessened by the Giant announcement that they would jump in their grave 'if they could satisfy the UCI'. Massive, rich Eurobank replaced by even more massive Global bike brand and worlds 2nd largest bike manufactuer.

Saps queueing up to sponsor it, saps subscribing to watch it, saps bankrolling national federations with membership fees, we're all a bunch of fucking saps!


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 25, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Saps queueing up to sponsor it, saps subscribing to watch it, saps bankrolling national federations with membership fees, we're all a bunch of fucking saps!


 
Could be worse. We could watch more football; far as i know no cycling team has ever administered growth hormones to children.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Could be worse. We could watch more football; far as i know no cycling team has ever administered growth hormones to children.


 
Wasn't Lance doping as a fifteen year old?*

*alledgedly etc etc.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 25, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Could be worse. We could watch more football; far as i know no cycling team has ever administered growth hormones to children.


 
as far as you know...


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 25, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Wasn't Lance doping as a fifteen year old?*
> 
> *alledgedly etc etc.


 
Rico was taking EPO as a junior...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Rico was taking EPO as a junior...


 
I'm also reminded of a female cyclist admitting to EPO use from age 16. Fucked if I can remember her name but think she was Canadian.

edit: will try and use my hungover google-fu.

Edit: Geneviève Jeanson.  Admitted using EPO more or mess continuously from age 16.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

Marcel Kittel on twitter:

"I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?! "

And then goes on to say:

"I mean, it makes it all worse. They should play their false game somewhere else. Or do they ride for money instead of joy?! "

https://twitter.com/marcelkittel/status/261435018256216064

Stop holding back, Marcel. Tell us what you really think. Is this the first time that a prominent current pro has directly had a pop at other prominent current pros over these sort of dubious comments?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Marcel Kittel on twitter:
> 
> "I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?! "
> 
> ...


 
Fuck.  I saw the second part tweeted and didn't quite understand.  _Chapeau _to him.  His being German presumably plays a part.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 25, 2012)

In which other sports can doping have the 'two speed' effect where you just can't compete at the top level if you're in the clean minority? Or is that a stupid question? I suppose pretty much every sport permits a huge endurance advantage from doping, and a fair few offer a muscle development advantage as well. Maybe it's easier to ask which sports allow clean competitors to do well. Shooting? Darts? Curling?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> In which other sports can doping have the 'two speed' effect where you just can't compete at the top level if you're in the clean minority? Or is that a stupid question? I suppose pretty much every sport permits a huge endurance advantage from doping, and a fair few offer a muscle development advantage as well. Maybe it's easier to ask which sports allow clean competitors to do well. Shooting? Darts? Curling?


 
Beta blockers are common in shooting, I believe...


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Anyway, twatters saying that Bobby Jullich has left Sky.

Putting that in here, since I imagine it's related to their nonsense pledge.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> In which other sports can doping have the 'two speed' effect where you just can't compete at the top level if you're in the clean minority? Or is that a stupid question? I suppose pretty much every sport permits a huge endurance advantage from doping, and a fair few offer a muscle development advantage as well. Maybe it's easier to ask which sports allow clean competitors to do well. Shooting? Darts? Curling?


 
You'll have a huge advantage in any sport where speed, strength, endurance or recovery matters. And that's before you get into more esoteric things like beta blockers (as The Boy mentioned).


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Fuck. I saw the second part tweeted and didn't quite understand. _Chapeau _to him. His being German presumably plays a part.


 
Yeah, it's pretty strongly worded.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Anyway, twatters saying that Bobby Jullich has left Sky.
> 
> Putting that in here, since I imagine it's related to their nonsense pledge.


 


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession


----------



## 1927 (Oct 25, 2012)

The Boy said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/exclusive-bobby-julich-doping-confession


 
If that is the truth the whole truth and nothing but, then the guy has my respect.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 25, 2012)

That's enough contrition to get him a job with JV, don't you think?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

in his admission, when talking about his time at CSC




			
				Bobby Julich said:
			
		

> This organisation gave me two things that no illegal substance could ever truly provide. It gave me back my self-respect and my self-confidence. That was all that I needed to perform at the highest level. This was my personal experience.


 
Colour me unconvinced, Bobby.

edit: a move to Saxo on the cards?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

I wonder if Kittel will get any blow back from that? There will be a number of peloton bigwigs not best pleased with him, and I doubt if his team will be overjoyed about it either.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I wonder if Kittel will get any blow back from that? There will be a number of peloton bigwigs not best pleased with him, and I doubt if his team will be overjoyed about it either.


 
Maybe, but Argos are one of the 'clean' teams are they not?  I actually can't remember now.

Anyway, the Kimmage Defence Fund is just shy of 80k now.  Really seems to have taken off this last day or two...


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Maybe, but Argos are one of the 'clean' teams are they not? I actually can't remember now.
> 
> Anyway, the Kimmage Defence Fund is just shy of 80k now. Really seems to have taken off this last day or two...


 
Is that because of the LeMond piece I wonder? Or it could be the media attention it's been receiving over the last few days in Ireland.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 25, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Is that because of the LeMond piece I wonder? Or it could be the media attention it's been receiving over the last few days in Ireland.


 
I'd be tempted to say the LeMond piece.  Kimmage is pretty well known in Europe, perhaps less so in the US?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 25, 2012)

Straight from the "you couldn't make this shit up" drawer, let me present to you the 2013 Cycling World Championships official mascot:







Yes, that's Pinocchio, in a cycling jersey.
http://www.toscana2013.it/?page=12

The accompanying text, when fed through Google translate, gives us the following description of his attitude: "Attention is fixed on the horizon, expressing an optimistic attitude, projected into the future. The expression of the face is smiling, happy, positive, and at the same time almost amazed."


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 26, 2012)

^ 
Jeez. Next year? Krusty the Klown?


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 26, 2012)

Totally inappropriate of course.

The legs are too spindly


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 26, 2012)

Just been randomly directed to a feature about LA's house :-



http://www.architecturaldigest.com/celebrity-homes/2008/lance-armstrong-home-slideshow#slide=2


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

I like  the wooden ceiling, but the cushions are unpleasant and the pink upholstery on those chairs is a bit much.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2012)

Looks very un-cosy.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

It's a "games/media" room apparently. The really filthy ugly room is this one:





I can't make out the titles of any of the coffee table books, except for the first word of one in the games room picture. I hope the full name is "tropical diseases".


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2012)

kabbes said:


> Looks very un-cosy.


That's the games room where he cheats on whatever console he has with his boys.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Looked through the slide show.  Don't like the style; very corporate feel to it.  Reminds me of one of those posh 'retirement villages' they have in American films.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

Fez909 said:


> Looked through the slide show. Don't like the style; very corporate feel to it. Reminds me of one of those posh 'retirement villages' they have in American films.


 
That's exactly it. Extremely expensive interior design for people with lots of money and very conservative taste. Each individual item of furnishing will cost a fortune. It's not tasteless in a gaudy display of wealth kind of way, but in a very corporately bland sort of way. I'd be astonished if Armstrong had any significant input into the interior design, not because I have any particular idea of his tastes, but because it's so impersonal.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 26, 2012)

Two big bits of news today, even bigger than Lance Armstrong having an ugly living room:

1) The UCI management committee has decided not to reallocate Armstrong's Tour wins. This is what the ASO has already said they wanted.

2) Slipped in alongside this, the UCI have "suspended" their court action against Kimmage, pending the report of an "external commission" they are setting up to look into the UCI's own role in the Armstrong affair. Meanwhile, the Kimmage defense fund is now over $83k and still rising quickly. To me, this looks like they've bottled it. I know that from Kimmage's point of view this is good news, but I suspect that many cycling fans were looking forward to seeing him use the money to bring his planned jumbo jet full of witnesses to an open Court in Switzerland and to seeing Hein and Pat being cross examined.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-management-committee-will-not-reallocate-armstrongs-tours


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 26, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Two big bits of news today, even bigger than Lance Armstrong having an ugly living room:


 
​


----------



## The Boy (Oct 26, 2012)

The Tours were never going to be reallocated once ASO said they wanted them left vacant.  Would be stupid even by UCI standards to go pissing them off at this moment in time.

As to the court case, Kimmage tweeted earlier:

"on my signal, unleash hell."

followed by:

"Hope to deliver that message very soon"

Also from twitter (so take with a generous portion of salt):

"UCI Hon President Hein Verbruggen survived attempt by some Management Cttee members to force him to step down at meeting today, BBC learns". 

And:

"A small number of countries tried to persuade President McQuaid to force Verbruggen to resign but the effort didn't garner enough support"

Would be interested to know which countries/committee members were involved.  Interesting times etc.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 27, 2012)

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Manifeste-pour-le-cyclisme/322528

La Gazzetta dello Sport, The Times, Le Soir, Het Nieuwsblad and L'Equipe have published an open letter to the UCI with 8 proposed reforms for the sport of cycling.

- UCI to recognise it's roll in the Armstrong case and apologise.
- The creation, under the responsibility of the WADA, of a neutral and independent commission to investigate the role and responsibility of the ICU in the Armstrong case and the fight against doping in general to report errors, abuses and possible complicity.
- That the organization and responsibilty of controls on the biggest races is handed to WADA and national anti-doping agencies.
- Holding an investigation into the general state of cycling before the start of the 2013 season to set a new organization and new rules.
- That the suspension penalties applicable in doping cases are more severe and teams pledge not to sign athletes suspended for more than six months for a further two years.
- The restoration of the gentleman's agreement which provides that a rider who is under investigation for doping is automatically suspended for by team.
- A greater involvement and accountability of named team sponsors.
- Reform of the World Tour, its points system and licensing, as it maintains a closed system. We also propose that the licenses are no longer issued to the managers, but the sponsors.

Translated from lequipe.fr so apologies if they read badly.

Don't agree with every point but it's an interesting development.  Of particular note, given where editorial control is often found to reside, is the involvement of The Times and L'Equipe.


----------



## twistedAM (Oct 27, 2012)

Fine but MacQuaid and his lackey have to go first. I prefer LeMond's approach.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 27, 2012)

Greg le Monde in 2009. Very worthwhile watch.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 27, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Fine but MacQuaid and his lackey have to go first. I prefer LeMond's approach.


 
I dare say that this increases the pressure.  I may be going all tin-foil hat, but The Times publishing the letter presumably has the OK from British Cycling, and I would be surprised if ASO weren't aware that L'Equipe were planning on publishing either.  Don't know about the others, but Het sponsor a heck of a lot of bike races in Belgium.  I'm sure they even have (had?) a race named after it.

Like I said, tin foil hat probably.  But it looks a little bit like the pressure is building on Hein and Pat.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 27, 2012)

Oh, and I guess the Sky cull probably still belongs in this thread? Yates and Steven de Jongh are apparently Julich out.

Edit:  No riders though.  Which means Mick 'Freiburg' Rogers has never doped.  Ever.


----------



## Jazzz (Oct 27, 2012)

They should ask him to give back the yellow jerseys as well as the money.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2012)

Yates gone then. As pretty much had to happen.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 28, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yates gone then. As pretty much had to happen.


 
Yes, I was an assistant DS at the team that perpetrated the most sophisticated and organised doping programme in sport and I never seen nuffink guv. My abiding memory of Yatesy is him attempting to drive at 40mph in his discovery channel skoda through the narrow gates at Herne Hill track while me and a a mate were trying to sell tickets (it was Good Friday). My mate jumped in front of him and motioned him to stop. He wound down his window, furrowed his brow and nonchalantly said 'Sean Yates' _like don't you fucking know who I am_?. Mate then quipped, 'yeah, I know who you are mate, I just wanted to stop you driving like a cunt.'


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 28, 2012)

The Boy said:


> but Het sponsor a heck of a lot of bike races in Belgium. I'm sure they even have (had?) a race named after it.


 
Yeah, the season opener (if you discount all these mickey mouse tour down under type 'Pat' races) - formerly 'Het Volk.'


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 28, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Yeah, the season opener (if you discount all these mickey mouse tour down under type 'Pat' races) - formerly 'Het Volk.'


 
I know what you mean, but that's a bit too traditionalist a stance for me. Cycling fans in their respective regions do actually care about the Tour Down Under and San Luis. It's a good thing to have top pros racing in places like Australia and Argentina and the early season is the best time to have them. They're basically warm up races, but there's a place for that. I'm not going to defend most of the other astroturf "globalisation" races though, the ones where nobody gives a shit locally at all. Which is most of them.

I think it's fucking stupid to have the TDU as a World Tour race though. The main thing all of the other actually worthwhile races outside Europe have in common is that they combine European based pros with all of the halfway decent domestic teams. WT status means you can't do that.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 28, 2012)

Sky are really bringing a lot of unnecessary heat on themselves with the way they are handling the Armstrong fall out. This Yates thing, with him going but both sides denying that he's admitted anything is just bizarre.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 29, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's a good thing to have top pros racing in places like Australia and Argentina and the early season is the best time to have them.


 
Off topic but is it really? No pros want to ride TDU if they can help it, if it weren't for the three line whip of the points on offer nobody would bother. It smacks of the same greed that makes Blatter give Quatar the WC so players can thrash about in 45 degree heat. 'Racing' in the desert in January means nothing and the only winners are Pat and his brother.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 29, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Yeah, the season opener (if you discount all these mickey mouse tour down under type 'Pat' races) - formerly 'Het Volk.'


 
Yeah, wasn't sure which way round the names went.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 29, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Off topic but is it really? No pros want to ride TDU if they can help it, if it weren't for the three line whip of the points on offer nobody would bother. It smacks of the same greed that makes Blatter give Quatar the WC so players can thrash about in 45 degree heat. 'Racing' in the desert in January means nothing and the only winners are Pat and his brother.


 
Not sure about that.  Obviously, if there weren't WT points on offer the riders would go where there were some, but TDU seems a pretty popular season opener with the riders.  Easy parcours, pretty easy racing and nice weather.  What's not to like when compared to Northern Europe in winter/spring? 

Stick it anywhere else on the calendar and it would be a joke, mind.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 29, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Obviously, if there weren't WT points on offer the riders would go where there were some


 
There used to be none ie no race - its an artificial inducement. March to October is long enough for a season and condensing the prizes mean you get more high quality riders riding more events and less GT specialism. If you want good weather go to Girona/Seville but you gain nothing in terms of training by riding in searing heat in January. Its bullshit racing..but hey keep lapping it up as it keeps Pat in a job.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 29, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> There used to be none ie no race - its an artificial inducement. .


 
I'm aware of this.  Doesn't change the fact that there is an easy-going, well supported race that the riders *appear* to enjoy as a season opener/warm-up.  And in what way am I lapping it up?  I've never watched the TDU, and only ever had the ToQ on in the background when I've been unable to find anything worthwhile on the radio.  All I was doing was disagreeing with your assertion that "no pros want to ride the TDU".  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not*, but it doesn't mean that I'm giving my personal seal of approval to Fat Pat.

As for having the season run from March-October you may well have a point, but you're never going to undo the GT (or any other) specialism in the sport, imo.

Now, this really is getting us wildly off-topic - perhaps we should take it to the generic Bike Racing thread?


*I appreciate it's terribly unfashionable on BBs, but I'm happy to be convinced that I'm wrong.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 29, 2012)

And at the risk of being on-topic(ish), are SKY now saying Yates has left for reasons other than having a doping past?


----------



## tommers (Oct 29, 2012)

It's just a happy co-incidence.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 29, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Doesn't change the fact that there is an easy-going, well supported race that the riders *appear* to enjoy as a season opener/warm-up.


 
Well I said its a mickey mouse race and you seem to be agreeing with me here - easy going and enjoyable never makes for great racing. Ask the same pros if they found Het Volk(Nieuwsblad) or Ghent Wevelgem easy and enjoyable. Comfortable pros don't make it anything other than a televised training ride and about as relevant as a post tour evening crit.

I would also dispute the riders find it anything other than an obligation and there is usually little interest from Euro centric sponsored teams pushing their brands in Australia at a time of year when nobody has any money. Indeed logistically its a PITA as you need to hire team cars, have long flights etc. There is no reason to be there other than the UCI trying to push 'product' at a dead time of the year - in a way thats relevant to a thread where the issue of Pat McQuaids judgement and probity is in question.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 29, 2012)

tommers said:


> It's just a happy co-incidence.


 
http://inrng.com/2012/10/sean-yates-sky-versus-others/

Apparently so.  This was always going to happen though, wasn't it?  Could you imagine what would have happened had Cav been about to finalise his move to OPQS just after Sky announced they were going to carry out this exercise?


----------



## The Boy (Oct 29, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Well I said its a mickey mouse race and *you seem to be agreeing with me here* - easy going and enjoyable never makes for great racing.


 
Of course I am, I thought that was quite clear tbh.  I do however disagree that the riders hate it as much as you make out - which was where this started.  Whether it makes for great racing is something of a moot point - this year's Giro struggled to do that at times. 

And I still don't see the relevance to this thread* so it's best we just move on - was only a minor point anyway.

Had we been talking about the corruption and massive conflict of interest that surrounds the Tour of Beijing on the other hand


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 29, 2012)

The Boy said:


> I do however disagree that the riders hate it as much as you make out - which was where this started.


 
I never said the riders 'hate' the TDU. I said they might want to avoid it - if they had the chance. Thats goes for DS's too. I never realised this would be a controversial view worthy of such pedantic examination.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 29, 2012)

doppellpost


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 29, 2012)

You can't begrudge the Aussies having a home race when their racers have made such an entertaining * contribution to the sport.


*Not Cuddles, obviously.


----------



## yardbird (Oct 29, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Sky are really bringing a lot of unnecessary heat on themselves with the way they are handling the Armstrong fall out. This Yates thing, with him going but both sides denying that he's admitted anything is just bizarre.


I just heard on R5 that two more have left aaahhh just hearing again 
Stephen Dejon (sp) is one


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 29, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> *Not Cuddles, obviously.


 
I don't understand how anyone who threatened to cut off a journalist's head if they stepped on his dog could be described as not bringing entertainment to the sport.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 29, 2012)

yardbird said:


> I just heard on R5 that two more have left aaahhh just hearing again
> Stephen Dejon (sp) is one


 
Steven de Jongh. He was a decent classics rider in the 90s and was on TVM, one of the really rocket fueled teams.

It's nuts letting this drag on day after day. If Sky really had to do this purge, why on Earth didn't they announce all of the resignations at once? This just puts "Sky" and "dopers" in the press over and over, even though it's all concerning stuff that happened years before Sky even formed. And, what happens when someone who hasn't resigned now has a dodgy past revealed down the road, after Sky are supposed to have dealt with all this? That will just make them look even worse.


----------



## Frumious B. (Oct 30, 2012)

Have spent hours and hours catching up on all this shit. I had 50 tabs open for ages. Can I sue Lance and Hein and Johan for my lost time? Anyway, here are my highlights:

- The must-see Australian programme, “The World According to Lance”. Also broadcast by CNN the other day. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm

- A psychiatrist analyses Lance http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/23/will-lance-armstrong-ever-fess-up-and-face-truth/

- Michael Ashenden publishes his own 12 page analysis of the inconsistent statements made about Lance's donations to the UCI. He states pretty clearly that if there were a rigorous investigation of these inconsistencies the UCI's own paper trail would almost certainly prove that Verbruggen was bribed after Lance produced a suspicious result at the 2001 Tour de Suisse and the 2005 l'Equipe revelations that Lance used EPO in 1999. http://www.siab.org.au/58dgETdx002ag/ArmstrongTriangle.pdf

- Fantastic piece by Brad McGee about racing clean against USPS and being chucked in a cell during the Festina affair. http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycl...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

- Fabulous Betsy interview http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...him-win-says-whistle-blower-Betsy-Andreu.html

- More gems from Betsy and Frankie http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...etsy-and-frankie-andreu-talk-armstrong_262536

- Dunno whether this is a myth, but Raleigh are to build a “Kimmage” model so Paul and his legal team can ride them to court, whereupon Pat “will shit himself”. http://www.atwistedspoke.com/raleigh-to-introduce-kimmage-road-bike/

- Freire reminds us he always rode clean and says the dope testers should be sacked http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freire-says-impossible-to-claim-that-cycling-is-clean

- And remember that cycling is now the cleanest sport of all! http://www.tnr.com/article/109212/cyclings-secret-it-may-be-the-worlds-cleanest-sport#

If you feel dirty after all that, cleanse yourself with some wonderful Greg Lemond. This is part one:
http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/the-greatest-tour-of-all-by-greg-lemond-22419/ Plus there are 5 more links at the bottom of the page.

And as a Brucie Bonus, an uplifting interview with Obree, prefaced by a bit of Laurie Anderson's magic single http://ec.libsyn.com/p/a/2/d/a2df34...1ce3dae902ea1d01cd8631d2c1582da0&c_id=3086396 

Finish by listening to the complete tune:  

I must have heard it every day for three years in the student union building at Manchester Uni. Happy days....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2012)

Cheers for this, was dreading having to do a personal  round up myself at some point this week. Saved me the bother, appreciated.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 30, 2012)

*British Cycling head questions UCI credibility*

://www.cyclingnews.com/news/british-cycling-head-questions-uci-credibility


Doesn't mince his words either.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Oct 30, 2012)

I am glad Cookson has u-turned and is admitting there is a crisis. I think the Sky tail was wagging the dog when he wrote that statement. Some of the northern Euro reps sense weakness it seems, Pat is probably relying on some support from the new money countries to get him through this.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2012)

Orica GreenEdge now look like they are limbering up for a Sky style Great Purge:
http://m.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/team-talks-on-doping-20121030-28hox.html


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Oct 31, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> - Dunno whether this is a myth, but Raleigh are to build a “Kimmage” model so Paul and his legal team can ride them to court, whereupon Pat “will shit himself”. http://www.atwistedspoke.com/raleigh-to-introduce-kimmage-road-bike/


 
Considering they describe Raleigh as an irish company, and call the spokesperson Nigel Fakely, it's a joke.


----------



## Ponyutd (Oct 31, 2012)

Can it get any worse for Armstrong?..........http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/l...ake-wearing-a-jimll-fix-it-badge-8269068.html


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 1, 2012)

http://rouleurmagazine.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/give-them-enough-rope/

The Guardian's Matt Seaton has a good piece on the UCI/Kimmage saga in Rouleur. Not much in it that people here won't already know, but it's a very useful summary.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 1, 2012)

Ha ha ha ha! Kimmage is now suing Verbruggen and McQuaid!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...g-Verbruggen-and-McQuaid-in-Swiss-courts.aspx


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2012)

I knew this would be a great day. LOVELY.

Hound, hound hound them down.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2012)

Key:



> Kimmage has also informed the Swiss criminal authorities of strong suspicions he has that Verbruggen ‘granted, directly or indirectly, the essential assistance which allowed Lance Armstrong to gain significant sums of money in and out of competition while he was doped.’


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 1, 2012)

Those boys really did pick the wrong unemployed journalist to make an example of.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 1, 2012)

Had a funny feeling this would happen.  Funny as fuck .


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 1, 2012)

Lemond is still stirring it on facebook. His latest post was to share this page:

https://www.facebook.com/mcquaidmustgo


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 2, 2012)

The McQuaids and the Kimmages are both cycling dynasties in Ireland with 'history'; this is well worth a read if you want a window on a younger Pat McQuaids ruthlessness in his organisation of a scab tour of South Africa in 1975. From this he rose to be UCI president and member of the IOC...despite the fact that he has a lifetime ban from Olympic competition.

Watch the Kimmage fund go even higher now that he's going after these rat fuckers.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 2, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> The McQuaids and the Kimmages are both cycling dynasties in Ireland with 'history'; this is well worth a read if you want a window on a younger Pat McQuaids ruthlessness in his organisation of a scab tour of South Africa in 1975. From this he rose to be UCI president and member of the IOC...despite the fact that he has a lifetime ban from Olympic competition.
> 
> Watch the Kimmage fund go even higher now that he's going after these rat fuckers.


 
And despite that he still got to give out the medals at the Olympics...the cunt probably had a semi on when he was patronising Lizzie Armitstead when giving here the silver medal. 
The sports industry makes the music industry seem communist.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 2, 2012)

This is genuinely the funniest moment I can remember in following professional cycling.

There have been objectively more important things I've given money to over the years, but none that are more enjoyable.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 2, 2012)

It would be truly historic if this works - the fans taking their sport back from the Dark Side. (I think of Hein as Emperor Palpatine. Pat wants to be Darth Vader but he's so stupid he never got promoted above stormtrooper.)

As Tyler said, there needs to be an uprising. It's like the Arab Spring or the Orange Revolution. But in the land of cycle sport. It needs a name.


----------



## tommers (Nov 2, 2012)

Velorution.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 2, 2012)

WADA's boss is less than pleased about the "zero tolerance" stuff at the moment. Not unreasonably, he suggests that it would be more effective to be telling people who doped ten or fifteen years ago to cooperate with anti-doping authorities if they want to keep their jobs rather than sacking them for owning up.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ance-just-leads-to-Omerta-all-over-again.aspx


----------



## The Boy (Nov 2, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> WADA's boss is less than pleased about the "zero tolerance" stuff at the moment. Not unreasonably, he suggests that it would be more effective to be telling people who doped ten or fifteen years ago to cooperate with anti-doping authorities if they want to keep their jobs rather than sacking them for owning up.
> 
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ance-just-leads-to-Omerta-all-over-again.aspx


 
And he would be right, imo.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 2, 2012)

The Boy said:


> And he would be right, imo.


 
Yeah SKY would have been better going on the attack on MacQuaid instead of this display.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 2, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Yeah SKY would have been better going on the attack on MacQuaid instead of this display.


 
It would have been better for the sport, but probably not better for Sky, who are, to be fair, in something of an awkward situation.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 2, 2012)

An interesting piece looking at some of the consequences of Bruyneel pressing ahead with his arbitration hearing. It's possible that this could allow USADA to sub poena Armstrong and force him to give evidence under oath.

Bruyneel had an incentive to string this process out when he was still drawing a hefty pay cheque from RSNT. Now that he isn't, you have to suspect that he may pull out soon.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...subpoena-witnesses-including-armstrong_263566


----------



## The Boy (Nov 3, 2012)

Was just wondering about Buryneel's case earlier today.  Case could be heard  by the end of the year?  Between that and the Kimmage case we'll have plenty to amuse ourselves with until the new season.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 3, 2012)

He's waiting to get a fat payoff from Weisel et al. It's just a shakedown.


----------



## 1927 (Nov 3, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> It would be truly historic if this works - the fans taking their sport back from the Dark Side. (I think of Hein as Emperor Palpatine. Pat wants to be Darth Vader but he's so stupid he never got promoted above stormtrooper.)
> 
> As Tyler said, there needs to be an uprising. It's like the Arab Spring or the Orange Revolution. But in the land of cycle sport. It needs a name.


 
Yeah, its about time people SPOKE up!lol


----------



## 1927 (Nov 3, 2012)

Am i the only person who actually gets excited when there's a new post on this thread? Its almost better than the Le Tour thread in the summer.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 3, 2012)

I am so captivated by the downfall of Lance, Bruyneel, Hein and Pat that when it's all over and we just have racing to talk about I'll be bored and have to follow whichever sport gets eviscerated next. Not that people in other sports really seem to give a fuck.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 4, 2012)

And now, Skins, a sponsor of numerous teams and national federations, has announced that it's planning to sue the UCI and is looking for $2 million:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...m-against-UCI-for-two-million-US-dollars.aspx

Speaking of other sports and whether they give a fuck, WADA has disclosed that there's no blood testing in Kenya, home to a large percentage of the world's top distance runners and also a favoured training location for foreign athletes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...big-training-centre-for-distance-runners.html


----------



## tommers (Nov 4, 2012)

Hmmm... Kenya you say...


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 4, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> And now, Skins, a sponsor of numerous teams and national federations, has announced that it's planning to sue the UCI and is looking for $2 million:
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...m-against-UCI-for-two-million-US-dollars.aspx
> l


 
Same attorney as Kimmage and suing them personally rather than the UCI...a double tap from the Kimmage camp. How many blows like this can McQuaid and Verbruggen take before they fold?


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 4, 2012)

tommers said:


> Hmmm... Kenya you say...


 


> Urine tests that are taken in Kenya are sent to Bloemfontein, South Africa, for analysis.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2012)

Interview with Obree over the weekend following Kimmage mentioning him and othes in his couter-sue that reveals his 12 hour professional career was down to his refusal to dope (this was 95). Proper cycling hero.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Nov 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interview with Obree over the weekend following Kimmage mentioning him and othes in his couter-sue that reveals his 12 hour professional career was down to his refusal to dope (this was 95). Proper cycling hero.


 
Obree's case is a perfect rebuttal argument to every fuckwit who's ever argued doping should be accepted because everyone did it.  No they fucking didn't, and some paid a big price for their integrity.

For sheer ironic laughs, you also have to hark back to Verbruggen's claims back in the 90s that Obree was damaging the integrity of the sport through seeking mechanical advantage.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interview with Obree over the weekend following Kimmage mentioning him and othes in his couter-sue that reveals his 12 hour professional career was down to his refusal to dope (this was 95). Proper cycling hero.


 
1995 Eh? The year Indurain won yet another tour. Love to see that fuck eradicated from the record books too.
Actually I'd love a journalist to ask Brad Wiggins if Indurain is still his hero.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 5, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Interview with Obree over the weekend following Kimmage mentioning him and othes in his couter-sue that reveals his 12 hour professional career was down to his refusal to dope (this was 95). Proper cycling hero.


Thank you for the link. I think it's the single best article I've ever read. It's made me a bit tearful because Obree tried to hang himself and would have died had he not been cut down by a passer by who found him dangling, unconscious. If he had died, I believe Verbruggen would have been more to blame than Obree's mental health problems. I haven't given to Kimmage's fund yet - I'm a bit strapped. Now I'm thinking I'd rather sponsor Obree. But maybe he has enough? I can't see any kind of request for financial help on his site.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 5, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> Thank you for the link. I think it's the single best article I've ever read. It's made me a bit tearful because Obree tried to hang himself and would have died had he not been cut down by a passer by who found him dangling, unconscious. If he had died, I believe Verbruggen would have been more to blame than Obree's mental health problems.


 
That was one of three attempts by Obree to top himself (poisoning by acetylene gas and an OD on sleeping pills were the other two)...not like I enjoy making excuses for Verbruggen but Obree had a history of mental illness running back to his childhood.

The Scotsman interview is very kind on Robert Millar by not mentioning him - Obree's book documents Millar being sent to have a little chat with Obree and attempt to extract £2K for 'medical backup'. Obree told him he has a filled in E111 NHS form so there was no need . Seeing as any self respecting team at the time would give you EPO for free (or at least charge you out of you salary as you went) it kind of looks like Millar was not only trying to get Obree to take EPO but also scamming him into the bargain. The Alan Peiper book 'A Peiper's tale' recounts Millar being a tightwad in the extreme, even carrying a pair of industrial bolt croppers in his boot so he could bust out of airport car parks and avoid autoroute tolls, so its plausible. Millar was the bloke that got me into cycling as a kid.

Oh and Le groupment were shockingly bad so what goes around comes around - they ended the season with many riders only getting partially paid and their paymaster being investigated and jailed by the French tax agency. Their results were totally shit too, nothing of any kind between the end of the classics and the Vuelta. See here.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2012)

The "Amatore!" anecdote is grimly hilarious. You can almost see the Italian's hand gestures.

And yes, Obree was robbed of his chance of a professional career on the road. I mean, even the likes of Mercier or Bassons got a few years out of it before they were forced out.

Good point on Le Groupement, by the way Sigmund. There's a certain poetic justice to them sucking balls.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 5, 2012)

So Millar doped?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2012)

Vaughters taking advantage of the situation to press for the removal of anti-doping efforts from the UCI's control. It is, of course, bleeding obvious that it's a bad idea in principle, even leaving aside cycling's history, to have the same body be responsible for promoting a sport and for dope testing. Positive tests undermine the promotion of a sport, so there's an inbuilt conflict of interest:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ms-fund-their-own-wada-managed-program_263968


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2012)

Back with other sports for a moment, this RTE report mentions in passing a remarkable statistic. The UCI carried out at least 3,314 out of competition blood tests in 2011. The International Tennis Federation carried out 21.

Yes, you read that correctly. Not 2,100. Not 21 per athlete. 21 across the professional sport.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/tennis/2012...-increased-blood-testing/?utm_source=NewsWhip


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 5, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Back with other sports for a moment, this RTE report mentions in passing a remarkable statistic. The UCI carried out at least 3,314 out of competition blood tests in 2011. The International Tennis Federation carried out 21.
> 
> Yes, you read that correctly. Not 2,100. Not 21 per athlete. 21 across the professional sport.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/sport/tennis/2012...-increased-blood-testing/?utm_source=NewsWhip


 
Tennis + Spain =


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 5, 2012)

Frumious B. said:


> So Millar doped?


 
Well in the period 1991-1995 even a rider of his considerable calibre would probably have had to cave in to drain the last drops from his career in an arms race. His rival Lucho Hererra famously commented in the early 90s that there were 85kg sprinters with fat arses tearing him to bits on the climbs. If you'd witnessed Herrera's earlier career you'd realise just what a feat that must have been, he was a pure climber that made Pantani look pedestrian. It was a time of crazy performances, if you were still in the game by 1995 then I'm sure EPO was everywhere, still no test for it and Verbruggen's 50% 'health rule' wasn't in place for another two years. Not excusing Millar's actions but we all know santa doesn't exist now, we shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 5, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Back with other sports for a moment, this RTE report mentions in passing a remarkable statistic. The UCI carried out at least 3,314 out of competition blood tests in 2011. The International Tennis Federation carried out 21.
> 
> Yes, you read that correctly. Not 2,100. Not 21 per athlete. 21 across the professional sport.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/sport/tennis/2012...-increased-blood-testing/?utm_source=NewsWhip


 
given the schedule that the top players play too, it really wouldn't be a big surprise to find corners being cut (to be charitable...)

even the top guys campaign at some point each year for less tournaments and more breaks, it must take its toll/have big pressure to recover quickly.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 5, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Back with other sports for a moment, this RTE report mentions in passing a remarkable statistic. The UCI carried out at least 3,314 out of competition blood tests in 2011. The International Tennis Federation carried out 21.
> 
> Yes, you read that correctly. Not 2,100. Not 21 per athlete. 21 across the professional sport.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/sport/tennis/2012...-increased-blood-testing/?utm_source=NewsWhip


 
And the current scandal surrounding Errani is to do with her rising from mediocre journeywoman to world number 7 after she started working with Dr. Luis Garcia ​del Moral...who we all know from the Lance case, amongst others.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 5, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> His rival Lucho Hererra famously commented in the early 90s that there were 85kg sprinters with fat arses tearing him to bits on the climbs. If you'd witnessed Herrera's earlier career you'd realise just what a feat that must have been, he was a pure climber that made Pantani look pedestrian. It was a time of crazy performances, if you were still in the game by 1995 then I'm sure EPO was everywhere


 
The Herrera quote sums up, in one simple sentence, everything that was wrong about that era and why the 'if everyone was at it then it was a level playing field' argument is null and void. 




			
				Lucho Herrera said:
			
		

> When I saw riders with fat arses climbing cols like aeroplanes, I understood what was happening




(From wiki so may be innacurate quote)


----------



## The Boy (Nov 5, 2012)

Does AMGEN facing legal difficulties belong on this thread, btw?

I vote yes, so have a link:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud--epo-makers-feud


----------



## The Boy (Nov 5, 2012)

Oh, and Riis could be next...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-under-pressure-after-further-hamilton-revelations

Well, not next as such.  But it would be nice if he had to just fuck off.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 6, 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud

The above is a fascinating insight into the history of EPO, where it came from, and how it was sold and distributed.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 6, 2012)

.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 6, 2012)

The Boy said:


> .


 
This is what happens when I post at half two in the morning. I managed not to see your post of the exact same link two posts above!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 6, 2012)

A very minor domestique from the old USPS days just got popped in South Africa:
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-11-06-top-sa-cyclist-david-george-bust-for-doping

Standard EPO as well, so probably not someone on the doping cutting edge.


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 6, 2012)

Chris Froome said he has never taken illegal drugs. And here is a picture of him and wife to prove it.


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 6, 2012)

Wiggins tweets ""… if it were confirmed that he was doping in 2009–10, then he can get f***ed, completely." Wiggo on Armstronghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/bradley-wiggins-memoir-doped-lose …"


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 6, 2012)

Ponyutd said:


> Wiggins tweets ""… if it were confirmed that he was doping in 2009–10, then he can get f***ed, completely." Wiggo on Armstronghttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/bradley-wiggins-memoir-doped-lose…"


Wasn't a tweet but he adds:



> I've won more Tours de France than he has.


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 6, 2012)

Quite right. The tweet that wasn't.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 6, 2012)

I wish people would ease up on Wiggins. He's been under such enormous pressure since the beginning of the Tour. Now he's got to disavow all the people he idolized, who inspired him to make the sport his way of life. He's a clever guy, he reads, I'm sure he'll get around to speaking out against Indurain in time. He should be allowed to do it at his own pace. Anyone who suspects him of doping will take the opposite view, but I'm convinced he's clean because I don't see anything suspicious about his performances. People who cast doubt on his improvements don't take his weight loss and his training into account, or the fact that the parcours suited him so perfectly and that his team was so strong that he had so little work to do on many stages that he complained of being "undertrained".


----------



## The Boy (Nov 6, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> This is what happens when I post at half two in the morning. I managed not to see your post of the exact same link two posts above!


 
Although strangely the link I posted no longer works but the one you did does.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 6, 2012)

Ang Scarponi susppended after admitting tests with Ferari.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 7, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/armstrongs-fraud-paralleled-epo-makers-feud
> 
> The above is a fascinating insight into the history of EPO, where it came from, and how it was sold and distributed.


 
This now make me doubt Roche's tour win in '87. Thats 3 years after clinical trials began and Roche was working with Conconi, the then daddy of 'human performance extension' studies. The miraculous post la Plagne recovery could be explained away by a testosterone injection or maybe something else...thats the problem with this shit, you can doubt every extrodianry perforance. Conconi was on the cutting edge, could he have got a clinical trial licence and been practising with EPO from the mid 80s?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 7, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> This now make me doubt Roche's tour win in '87. Thats 3 years after clinical trials began and Roche was working with Conconi, the then daddy of 'human performance extension' studies. The miraculous post la Plagne recovery could be explained away by a testosterone injection or maybe something else...thats the problem with this shit, you can doubt every extrodianry perforance. Conconi was on the cutting edge, could he have got a clinical trial licence and been practising with EPO from the mid 80s?


 
Hang on, the claims that Roche worked with Conconi are about his second period with the Carrera team, in 92 and 93. I've never heard any suggestion that he was working with Conconi five or six years previously. Am I missing something here?

We still have no evidence of EPO in the professional peloton prior to 1990. Nobody has ever mentioned its existence in any admission or doping memoir, even people who have talked about everything else. 1987 is also much too early for the timeline of drastic performance changes in the sport: If someone had managed to dominate that season through the use of a new wonder drug there would have been the scramble to get on it in 88 that we actually saw in 91. There is absolutely no way that I can see for LeMond to win the Tour two and three years after EPO starts being used amongst the top contenders.

I don't really find the idea that EPO arrives for one rider in 87, he kicks everyone's arse for a year, and then both he and everyone else forget about its existence for three or four years very credible. The same goes for any great performances in any race in 86, 87, 88. To ascribe them to EPO, you'd have to believe that some rider temporarily got hold of the drug and then, despite its demonstrable effects forgot it existed for a few years. And so did his doctor and his team. 89, well we don't have any evidence for anyone who was anyone actually using it, but it doesn't face the same inherent credibility problem.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 7, 2012)

The point at which Conconi started work with Carrera seems blurred. He was the man before Ferrari arrived on the scene. I'm not saying Roche was on a big programme a la Dopestrong amd therefore kicking everybody's arse - he clearly wasn't (though he was able to beat Delgado, a superior climber and confirmed PED user in one of the most vicious tours since WW2). My question is more was some kind of blood doping used to aid Roche's post La Plagne recovery?(rhetorical Q) or was it something else...or was it Roche's natural bouncebackability? Roche's final TT was fucking strong but you could argue he was trying to win the tdf. Were the 'sports doctors' dipping their toes in the water in this period..

BTW - Roche rode the final 4km of La Plagne in 52/16 - he's open about this, in fact he kind of boasts about it. Thats 85 gear inches - about what a middling club rider would ride in a velodrome. Pretty fucking high, esp for the end of such a hard stage. That never bothered me until Chiapucci rode up ditchling beacon in '94 in the the same gear.


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 7, 2012)

I've always assumed Roche was juiced just because he's always been so touchy about the subject. Plus I was there when he overhauled Delgado at La Plagne and it was hard to take in...if you'd told me he'd used the cloud cover to hitch a ride in the team car I probably would have believed you.


----------



## 1927 (Nov 7, 2012)

South Park just started!


----------



## The Boy (Nov 7, 2012)

I seem to remember reading speculation that CERA was doing the rounds before they had finished the clinical trials.  Really wouldn't surprise me if EPO was available to the right people but, as Nige points out, there is no documentary evidence/testimony.  

Ultimately, doping doctors are traffiking are they not?  Not that great a leap of the imagination that they would stoop to bribery to get their hands on new products so that they can conduct their own trials and be the main man when the drug is readily available.  All tinfoil hat territory, but what the hell.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 8, 2012)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> The point at which Conconi started work with Carrera seems blurred. He was the man before Ferrari arrived on the scene.


 



			
				Sigmund Fraud said:
			
		

> My question is more was some kind of blood doping used to aid Roche's post La Plagne recovery?


 
It's not that it's in theory technologically impossible for someone to have been using EPO in 1987, it's just that we have no reason to think that they were, even given the plethora of confessions we've seen. Nobody has ever mentioned EPO prior to 1990. And the massive spike in performance levels that took place in 1990/1991 would be very hard to explain if EPO had been used at the top end of the game three years earlier. Roche, Delgado and Lemond, the three guys who won the Tour between 86 and 90, simply weren't putting up superhuman performances. And it's EPO or transfusions that give superhuman performance.

As for autologous blood doping, Conconi advocated for carefully  controlled use (in situations like the hour record) but argued that it was a terrible idea in a stage race because even if you avoided killing someone you'd probably hurt them more than help them given the limits of blood storage technology of the time. I'd certainly reconsider all of this if credible testimony to the contrary appeared, but at the moment it still seems overwhelmingly likely that EPO arrived in 1990 and 1991.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 8, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It's not that it's in theory technologically impossible for someone to have been using EPO in 1987, it's just that we have no reason to think that they were, even given the plethora of confessions we've seen. Nobody has ever mentioned EPO prior to 1990. And the massive spike in performance levels that took place in 1990/1991 would be very hard to explain if EPO had been used at the top end of the game three years earlier. Roche, Delgado and Lemond, the three guys who won the Tour between 86 and 90, simply weren't putting up superhuman performances. And it's EPO or transfusions that give superhuman performance.
> 
> As for autologous blood doping, Conconi advocated for carefully controlled use (in situations like the hour record) but argued that it was a terrible idea in a stage race because even if you avoided killing someone you'd probably hurt them more than help them given the limits of blood storage technology of the time. I'd certainly reconsider all of this if credible testimony to the contrary appeared, but at the moment it still seems overwhelmingly likely that EPO arrived in 1990 and 1991.


 
From Dopey Mig's wiki page:



> In 1991, Greg LeMond was favourite for the Tour. Indurain was a fine time trialist but considered too large to be a good climber.[15] LeMond led the race until the 12th stage. On the 13th he broke down on the Tourmalet,[16] and lost more than seven minutes to Indurain, who became the leader and stayed leader to the end.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 8, 2012)

1927 said:


> South Park just started!


 
It didn't take them long to turn that one out. Was quite funny in places: STANDstrong


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 8, 2012)

Here's David Walsh's last Sunday Times story, but outside the paywall http://www.scribd.com/doc/112091831/Lance-The-Lies-and-Me


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2012)

Lotto know which way the wind is blowing, and have just joined the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC), the group of anti-doping teams. MPCC membership entails signing up to stricter rules about signing people coming back from suspension and also on things like the use of therapeutic use exemptions. The MPCC has generally been seen as Garmin plus the French teams, but nowadays it includes Argos, Netapp, the new Swiss outfit Iam, and now Lotto.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-wants-to-be-part-of-new-way-of-thinking.aspx

It's worth noting that MPCC membership probably doesn't do you any favours with the UCI, but that is counterbalanced by it putting you in the ASO's good books. Prudhomme has been pretty strong in his praise.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2012)

One of Ireland's best sports journalists gives McQuaid a very thorough shoeing:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...uaid-still-blaming-everyone-else-3276782.html


----------



## The Boy (Nov 9, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Lotto know which way the wind is blowing, and have just joined the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC), the group of anti-doping teams. MPCC membership entails signing up to stricter rules about signing people coming back from suspension and also on things like the use of therapeutic use exemptions. The MPCC has generally been seen as Garmin plus the French teams, but nowadays it includes Argos, Netapp, the new Swiss outfit Iam, and now Lotto.
> 
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-wants-to-be-part-of-new-way-of-thinking.aspx
> 
> It's worth noting that MPCC membership probably doesn't do you any favours with the UCI, but that is counterbalanced by it putting you in the ASO's good books. Prudhomme has been pretty strong in his praise.


 
Interesting news.  Lotto had a _soigneur _caught bringing EPO to the TdF a couple of years back didn't they (back when Evans was still riding for them)?  And that was where Ibarguren called home last season too iirc.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2012)

That Lotto don't have a squeaky clean past is why this is interesting. There are a lot of teams out there which weren't founded with some kind of inbuilt opposition to doping but which probably don't have an Armstrong like commitment to cheating as a point of principle either. They way they move can tell us something about the general state of play.

By the way, does anyone know why Sky aren't signed up to the MPCC? I'd have thought it was an obvious thing for a team with their stated policies to do.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 9, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> That Lotto don't have a squeaky clean past is why this is interesting. There are a lot of teams out there which weren't founded with some kind of inbuilt opposition to doping but which probably don't have an Armstrong like commitment to cheating as a point of principle either. They way they move can tell us something about the general state of play.
> 
> By the way, does anyone know why Sky aren't signed up to the MPCC? I'd have thought it was an obvious thing for a team with their stated policies to do.


 
That's why I was raising their history.  For what it's worth I imagine any dirt they had was along the lines of the Rabobank policy of turning a blind eye to what the riders were up, although I doubt they were complaining when Gilbert was ripping it up in the Ardennes. 

No idea about SKY not being in MPCC.  Probably 'cos they're so clean they don't have to be or somesuch.


----------



## twistedAM (Nov 9, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> One of Ireland's best sports journalists gives McQuaid a very thorough shoeing:
> http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...uaid-still-blaming-everyone-else-3276782.html


 
Has anyone in the Irish media tried to defend the fucker?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 9, 2012)

twistedAM said:


> Has anyone in the Irish media tried to defend the fucker?


 
There's a terrible article on Sticky Bottle suggesting that Kimmage and McQuaid should sort things out over a pint, but in general, no.

The most popular sports radio programme has Kimmage on regularly and keeps inviting McQuaid on and then using his inevitable refusals to put the boot in. You have Sweeney in the Sunday Independent (who wrote the article above), Shane Stokes writes a lot of the cycling coverage in the Irish Times. And Kimmage and Walsh are highly respected. Plus journalists instinctively take against people who like to sue journalists rather than publications (unless, like a certain Irish media mogul, they are too powerful to cross).

It's funny really, how prominent Irish people are in this row, given how few Irish riders there are. I'm not entirely sure why the most outspoken anglophone journalists who cover cycling seem to be mostly Irish.


----------



## Dan U (Nov 12, 2012)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...our-de-France-winners-jerseys-on-Twitter.html

and the inevitable spoof


----------



## Dan U (Nov 12, 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arm...&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0



> Lance Armstrong has now totally separated himself from Livestrong, the cancer charity he founded in 1997. He is said to have done so to protect the organization from the fall-out from his lifetime ban for doping.
> After the USADA released its “reasoned decision” outlining why it had issued a lifetime ban against Armstrong and stripped him of his seven Tour de France titles, he resigned as chairman of the group, but remained on the board of directors. He has now given up that position as well.
> “Lance decided to resign from the board of the foundation to spare it any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding his cycling career,” Livestrong spokeswoman Katherine McLane told the _Bloomberg _news agency.  His resignation was effective November 4.
> The doping case against Armstrong is said to have affected the charity, which claims to “find new ways to raise awareness, increase outreach and facilitate collaboration in an effort to improve the cancer experience.” It is no longer listed in the top 400 charities in the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s list.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2012)

To spare it - what a hero.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 12, 2012)

So he was handed a pre-written resignation letter and offered this as his 'out'?


----------



## Frumious B. (Nov 12, 2012)

Benoit Joachim regrets not doping more when he was at USPS. He makes some pretty good points.




> “I had a chance to meet (Ferrari) and I could have worked with him. Unfortunately, and I say unfortunately, I did not do it for a variety of reasons. The first was economic, the second was related to my health, and the third, I was afraid of testing positive,” Joachim told_La Quotidien_. “It is a big regret.
> If I think of what I could have done during my career working with Ferrari,” he continued. “It would have been a big boost and I could have made more money and learned a lot. If you look at all the races people won working with him. They had a longer career than me, they are healthy, and now they admit they have doped, but everyone forgives them. They take a six-month ban in the winter and are free to race next season. If we compare that to what’s happening to Armstrong, it’s disproportionate.”
> Joachim, who says he chose not to dope during his career, went on to admit he was just being honest about his views of Ferrari, who continues to work with top cyclists despite being banned to having contact with Italian athletes since 2002.
> “If you look at the riders who worked with Ferrari, many won big races for 15 years and made a lot of money, and now they sit uncomfortable for a week or two. That’s nothing compared to a 15-year career,” he said. “I am just being honest. I will not be a hypocrite … only a few got caught and I could have done a lot more in my career.”
> ...


 
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...grets-not-working-with-michele-ferrari_264528


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 15, 2012)

Three more, smaller, teams join the MPCC. They are Bardiani-CSF (the renamed Colnago), La Pomme and Big Mat - Auber. Relatively small fish, but it seems that there's a certain momentum there now.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/thr...&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0


----------



## The Boy (Nov 15, 2012)

Weren't Big Mat involved in a doping scandal last year?

edit:  Was an ex-team doctor that got collared.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 16, 2012)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/anti-doping-denmark-considers-investigatory-unit

Is Riis slowly being edged out of the door?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 23, 2012)

CONI are looking to give Scarponi and Visconti three month bans for "consulting with prohibited persons". Pozzato copped a ban for the same thing a while back.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ni-visconti-over-ferrari-consultations_265770

The bans are obviously much shorter than actual doping bans, but this is the sort of thing that actually could make life difficult for the most prominent doctors.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 23, 2012)

And the Italians ban another doctor for life:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-doctor-filippo-manelli-gets-life-ban


----------



## The Boy (Dec 4, 2012)

That Change Cycling Now conference ting has called for McQuaid to be replaced by Lemond. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/change-cycling-now-calls-for-lemond-to-replace-mcquaid

In other news, apparently members of MPCC are to be given priority when deciding wildcard entries for races next year.  Which has lead to teams which otherwise have no stains on their reputations, such as Astana, queuing up to join


----------



## The Boy (Dec 4, 2012)

And Lemond is up for it

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lemond-to-run-for-uci-presidency

The first line of that article is particularly amusing


----------



## The Boy (Dec 10, 2012)

Full article is behind a pay wall, but it seems UKAD has opened an ivestigation into Linda Macartney.  The team, likes.  Not the former Mrs Beatle.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 10, 2012)

The Boy said:


> Full article is behind a pay wall, but it seems UKAD has opened an ivestigation into Linda Macartney. The team, likes. Not the former Mrs Beatle.


 
That could get very messy. Aren't they going to have statute of limitations problems though?


----------



## The Boy (Dec 10, 2012)

Fuck knows.  The whole thing seems very odd.  Especially since the allegations don't appear to suggest a team-administered doping programme.


----------



## The Boy (Dec 23, 2012)

Seems Nissan have 'done a Rabobank' and withdrawn their name as co-sponsor while honouring their financial commitment to RadioShak.


----------



## 1927 (Dec 23, 2012)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/12/23/uk-cycling-armstrong-idUKBRE8BM09M20121223

Sunday Times to sue Lance now!


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Dec 24, 2012)

It seems that the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling) is now achieving a critical mass. All of the main race organisers have now agreed to give MPCC member teams priority when it comes to wild card invitations, and national cycling federations are looking to affiliate:

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...le-cycling-may-complicate-mcquaid-nomination/

Essentially it now looks like ProConti teams have little choice but to affiliate, which involves accepting some stronger anti-doping rules. If the race organisers give an advantage to MPCC teams, non-member teams are basically screwed if they aren't World Tour.


----------



## The Boy (Dec 30, 2012)

Nigel Irritable said:


> It seems that the MPCC (Movement for Credible Cycling) is now achieving a critical mass. All of the main race organisers have now agreed to give MPCC member teams priority when it comes to wild card invitations, and national cycling federations are looking to affiliate:
> 
> http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...le-cycling-may-complicate-mcquaid-nomination/
> 
> Essentially it now looks like ProConti teams have little choice but to affiliate, which involves accepting some stronger anti-doping rules. If the race organisers give an advantage to MPCC teams, non-member teams are basically screwed if they aren't World Tour.


 
Indeed.  Even Astana have suspended Kashechkin for refusing to sign a new Code of Conduct to try and make their application to the MPCC a bit more credible.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 5, 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/s...g-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?_r=0


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 6, 2013)

According to one of the articles Armstrong is worried about the possible perjury charge if he confesses and would want an assurance of that not happening. Fuck that! Let him face the perjury charge. Let him face one anyway whether he confesses or not.


----------



## spring-peeper (Jan 6, 2013)

Is it so terrible idea to just leave him alone?


----------



## 1927 (Jan 6, 2013)

spring-peeper said:


> Is it so terrible idea to just leave him alone?


 

Why? he was happy to make millions by beiang cheat, ruined the lives of many people, very nearly destroyed a sport to the point that any achivement is now viewed with suspicion, started a charity that isnt quite what it seems and basically lived a lie for 15 years,

I hope he is hounded for the rest oif his life and ends up in poverty.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2013)

Pretty strong series of reasons why this admission is unlikely here. In Brief: 1) bankruptcy 2) Jail.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty strong series of reasons why this admission is unlikely here. In Brief: 1) bankruptcy 2) Jail.


 
I love the arrogance of the cunt tho. If i admit to doping, for which I've been banned for life,will you lift my life ban?

Fuck him.

the guy is going to be sued within an inch of his pitiful, denial ridden life and I hope to be able to enjoy every since single second of it!


----------



## 1927 (Jan 6, 2013)

The fact that this story has even come out seems like he's floating the idea to see if anyone will agree to give him immunity, but sirely the fact that he is floating the idea is an admission.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 8, 2013)

Just in case anybody thought there was any way back for Armstrong, Travis Tygart has claimed that he (Armstrong) offered a $250k 'donation' to USADA. 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-alleged-donation-to-usada


----------



## 1927 (Jan 8, 2013)

The Boy said:


> Just in case anybody thought there was any way back for Armstrong, Travis Tygart has claimed that he (Armstrong) offered a $250k 'donation' to USADA.
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-alleged-donation-to-usada


 
This does him no favours, as not only does it confirm he's a cheating twat, it proves he's a cheap cheating twat. A couple of million $$$ would have been more in order considering what he had to lose by them pushing their investiagtion.lol


----------



## yardbird (Jan 9, 2013)

Lance baby is going to be on Oprah next week - own up time?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20954810


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 9, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Lance baby is going to be on Oprah next week - own up time?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20954810


 
No. It will be a sad story explaining how he fell from grace but how he is really sorry. 

A Psychopath's Tale.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 9, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Lance baby is going to be on Oprah next week - own up time?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20954810


I don't know if he's going to own up or not.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 9, 2013)

An hour and a half with Oprah then I think it's hands up/damage limitation.
In fact, I bet yer!


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 9, 2013)

> A media release on Oprah.com said that "Armstrong will address the alleged doping scandal, years of accusations of cheating, and charges of lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout his storied cycling career."


 
Note that its still 'alleged' - he may decide to front it out some more, or partially admit to involvement but point fingers elsewhere. He will probably cry and mention 'God' a lot if he does decide to admit. He may even have a lawyer in his ear telling him what to say (just like the old days when Johan told him when to ride his bike).

I am totally prepared to be unsatisfied by this.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 9, 2013)

shame it isn't Paul Kimmage or David Walsh interviewing.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 9, 2013)

It has to be Oprah, doesn't it?  He's such an attention whore.  I used to think that his personality disorder was psychopathy, now I'm thinking that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is more likely.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Pretty strong series of reasons why this admission is unlikely here. In Brief: 1) bankruptcy 2) Jail.


 
As it stands he's already facing bankruptcy, he's been publicly shamed, and there's no end in sight.  As long as he denies it, he can't redeem himself to the media.  If he did confess now, take the jail time and go the bankruptcy route, in a few years he'll be out and can release his tear stained apologetic revised biography, and play the "I did wrong but the following factors/people/companies pushed me into it" card.

Otherwise, what's he going to do?  As you yourself said, he's not stupid.  He knows that his reputation is completely screwed, and he'll be lucky to get an invite to any form of sporting contest worth a damn.  His income streams have all been shut down, and there's a good few lawsuits he's likely to loose whether he admits it or not.  If you accept he's not an idiot, then really he must know that continued denials will just prolong the shitstorm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

He can fight the bankruptcies and the cases that are driving them and not admit a damn thing, thus giving himself a better (better not definite) _chance_ of staying out of jail than if he publicly admitted to repeated persistent perjury. And staying out of jail seems to me to be the key thing he is after here. That would be him using his intelligence and strategic know-how to play the percentages to be in the best possible position to achieve his least worst option. Of course, i may well have what he estimates is his least worst option wrong.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 9, 2013)

One possibility is that he will tell Oprah that everybody else was doping (but they still couldn't beat me), all the dopers are getting lighter punishments and book deals by accusing him, it's all so unfair, this is all very hard on my kids, but "I can't comment on my own case for legal reasons." That would help him reclaim a bit of his hero status and pave the way for a plea bargain to keep him out of jail. But I don't think an admission on Oprah would help - if you want a successful plea bargain, surely you have to confess to the prosecutor first, not the media? The main reason for going on Oprah is to feed his ego.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> And staying out of jail seems to me to be the key thing he is after here.


 
I agree. Armstrong won't do a day in jail - he is too rich in a country where rich people can always plea bargain their way out of a cell.

I'm also sceptical he can be bankrupted. If he settled all visible pending claims he would still be worth truckloads. Nike, Oakley, Trek and Busch aven't asked for any endorsement money back, they've just shut the door on him. He may enter a voluntary agreement if he's cooked his books correctly and file for bankrupcy, but anyone expecting him to lose everything will be dissappointed I think. Is Donald Trump poor?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He can fight the bankruptcies and the cases that are driving them and not admit a damn thing, thus giving himself a better (better not definite) _chance_ of staying out of jail than if he publicly admitted to repeated persistent perjury. And staying out of jail seems to me to be the key thing he is after here.


 
Thing is, it's looking increasingly likely that he is going to jail regardless.  There's already pressure to reopen the previous misuse of federal funds suit (because of the US Postal sponsorship).  It's hard to see how that can be swept under the carpet.  That would bring in the Attorney General, and thus bring the embarrassment to the door of the White House - a federal prosecution of a former sporting hero still very popular in some states.

So I could easily see a lot of minion negotiation going on just now, with lots of people keen to bring this to as neat an end as possible.  Armstrong confesses, goes bankrupt, pleads guilty at Dallas prosecution for state perjury in the SCA, rather than federal.  That's a shorter minimum sentence of 2 years, served in a soft venue.  He could be out in a 2 year, having found god, ready to release his come clean novel, etc.   Hell, for bonus points all proceeds go to his new not for profit.  In 5 years he's a wealthy man playing the redeemed sinner role.

Whereas if he keeps fighting it, it goes on for ever.  His income reduced to a trickle, legal bills mounting, constant threat of incarceration, and no end in sight.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Thing is, it's looking increasingly likely that he is going to jail regardless. There's already pressure to reopen the previous misuse of federal funds suit (because of the US Postal sponsorship). It's hard to see how that can be swept under the carpet. That would bring in the Attorney General, and thus bring the embarrassment to the door of the White House - a federal prosecution of a former sporting hero still very popular in some states.
> 
> So I could easily see a lot of minion negotiation going on just now, with lots of people keen to bring this to as neat an end as possible. Armstrong confesses, goes bankrupt, pleads guilty at Dallas prosecution for state perjury in the SCA, rather than federal. That's a shorter minimum sentence of 2 years, served in a soft venue. He could be out in a 2 year, having found god, ready to release his come clean novel, etc. Hell, for bonus points all proceeds go to his new not for profit. In 5 years he's a wealthy man playing the redeemed sinner role.
> 
> Whereas if he keeps fighting it, it goes on for ever. His income reduced to a trickle, legal bills mounting, constant threat of incarceration, and no end in sight.


If it comes to a situation where he is trapped into doing that in order to make those short term losses for longer term gain then i have no doubt he would go for it along the lines that you suggest. I don't think that he thinks he is there yet - and frankly, looking at the options, i would agree with him. Legal point question- would coughing for state perjury mean you would not/could not be done at federal level?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Legal point question- would coughing for state perjury mean you would not/could not be done at federal level?


 
Nope, he could be done for each.  If he's coughed for one though he could make an argument of double jeopardy by saying that his denials were all part of the same offence, for which he's already been convicted.  A guilty plea would also seriously reduce the likelihood of anyone else looking to prosecute, mainly because the media will view it as a played out story.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Nope, he could be done for each. If he's coughed for one though he could make an argument of double jeopardy by saying that his denials were all part of the same offence, for which he's already been convicted. A guilty plea would also seriously reduce the likelihood of anyone else looking to prosecute, mainly because the media will view it as a played out story.


Cheers.

I think his strategy has one aim - do not got to prison, even posh prison. If you're coming from the perspective that he accepts some time is inevitable then the path you've outlined would make sense. I think that he's fighting tooth and nail to never go there though.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If it comes to a situation where he is trapped into doing that in order to make those short term losses for longer term gain then i have no doubt he would go for it along the lines that you suggest. I don't think that he thinks he is there yet - and frankly, looking at the options, i would agree with him.


 
I tend to agree with you (and Sigmund) on this. I obviously don't know what legal advice he's getting and I haven't seen his accounts, but from afar it seems to me that he's not in such a desperate situation, either financially or in terms of criminal charges, that he'd risk the consequences of a confession. As Sigmund points out, his reported wealth is much, much greater than the cash he's likely to be liable for should he lose (or more likely settle) all of the known outstanding legal cases.

The only thing that's giving me pause is the 90 minutes on Oprah thing, coming as it does after a week of rumours. It seems ill advised to put himself back in the spotlight right now just to protest his innocence.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 10, 2013)

So this explains the reports that he is about to confess. To create a buzz! Will he or won't he?

The question I would have liked to have asked Lance a while back is, "did you have a level playing field?" probably a bit late for that one now.


----------



## Manter (Jan 10, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> One possibility is that he will tell Oprah that everybody else was doping (but they still couldn't beat me), all the dopers are getting lighter punishments and book deals by accusing him, it's all so unfair, this is all very hard on my kids, but "I can't comment on my own case for legal reasons." That would help him reclaim a bit of his hero status and pave the way for a plea bargain to keep him out of jail. But I don't think an admission on Oprah would help - if you want a successful plea bargain, surely you have to confess to the prosecutor first, not the media? The main reason for going on Oprah is to feed his ego.


And keep playing the American public. They are still largely on his side, apparently


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 10, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2013/jan/09/ten-questions-oprah-wilfrey-lance-armstrong



> Looking back, how badly did the death of your dog when you were seven years old affect you? Looking at this picture of your dog can you feel the tears welling up, the anger coming out? Can you feel the tears for your dog? Would you like to reach out and pat the dog? Pat the dog, Lance. Cry. Cry and pat the dog.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 10, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> So this explains the reports that he is about to confess. To create a buzz! Will he or won't he?
> 
> The question I would have liked to have asked Lance a while back is, "did you have a level playing field?" probably a bit late for that one now.


 
The third option in the 'will he, won't he' is that he just wants to be stared at, prodded but ultimately noticed by the american public. Out of the limelight isn't somewhere he's been for 15 years. Armstrong is still a recognisable brand and maybe in a perverse kind of way he sees there as being no such thing as bad publicity.  

On the question of level playing field, why would you ask Armstrong? He is a liar after all. Regardless it was Vaughters who said the USPS doctor at the time did blood analysis at the start of the training camp (ie before dopage) and Vandevelde had the best physiology on the team. Landis and Hamilton have corroborated that Armstrong monopolised Ferrari's services at key times paying him not to treat other cyclists. Of course it was never a level playing field, Armstrong was a very good punchy, 1 day rider pre cancer but he weren't no Lemond. His monopolisation of the best blood dopage allied to blitzkreig team marshalling from Brunyeel was a winning combo, and he had the brass neck to make full use of the opportunity provided by weak covernance from the UCI. He was a brilliant opportunist.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 10, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I tend to agree with you (and Sigmund) on this.


 
Its a strange news day all round.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 11, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Armstrong is still a recognisable brand and maybe in a perverse kind of way he sees there as being no such thing as bad publicity.


 
That is completely true, and the most likely outcome.  A quick "well I can't say too much because of ongoing legal actions, but I'm the victim of massive persecution" and then a heartwarming section where Oprah asks him if it's true about the kitten shelter he funds.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Armstrong was a very good punchy, 1 day rider pre cancer but he weren't no Lemond.


That's revealing. From Ben Johnson to Tim Montgomery to Michelle Smith to Marion Jones, it's the tell-tale sign. You don't go from being pretty good through your teens and early 20s to become a world-beater in your late 20s/early 30s. I can believe that someone like Michael Johnson was clean partly because he was the best for his age right from his earliest years. So we can place Armstrong pretty accurately by judging his early career. Without doping, he'd have been a decent rider, nothing more. Not a yellow jersey contender.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 11, 2013)

It should also be added that Armstrong was probably doping when he was a decent, punchy, one-day rider.  Not EPO, but doping nonethless.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 11, 2013)

Will Greg LeMond be invited to the chat?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 12, 2013)

The US papers are reporting that the Oprah interview really is a confession.


----------



## badseed (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm hoping for a flat-out steely eyed denial.
Just for the lols


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 12, 2013)

@DavidWalshST said:
			
		

> Oprah Winfrey is trying to get up to speed on LA. Her producer Jenna Kostelnik has spoken with Kathy LeMond, Betsy Andreu and yours truly.


 Interesting..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2013)

badseed said:


> I'm hoping for a flat-out steely eyed denial.
> Just for the lols


Amazingly, some bookies were offering evens for him doing this a couple of days ago. I think events will have changed those odds by now, but it was a hell of a good bet at the time. I could never think of any reason why he'd go on Oprah other than to confess.

Maybe those odds were a reflection of the number of Armstrong supporters still in denial who were willing to bet that he would deny everything because he really is not guilty?


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 12, 2013)

http://www.oddschecker.com/cycling/specials/lance-armstrong/oprah-specials

Coral are offering 7/2 against him confessing. The confession is heavily odds on.

Lots of other bets!


----------



## baffled (Jan 13, 2013)

https://twitter.com/lioneljbirnie/status/290156457746395137/photo/1

The Sunday Times have placed, in the Chicago Tribune, an open letter to Oprah Winfrey detailing  10 questions David Walsh would like Armstrong to answer.


----------



## agricola (Jan 14, 2013)

Nicole Cooke speaks.

She is not wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2013)

She ain't, good on you Nicky, and thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2013)

> When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him a tissue, spare a thought for all of those genuine people who walked away with no reward – just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a 1,000 Lances


 
Nail on head, and why I sincerely hope that Armstrong ends up losing all his money.


----------



## bendeus (Jan 15, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nail on head, and why I sincerely hope that Armstrong ends up losing all his money.



Yeah. Impassioned stuff from Cooke. Spot on, IMO.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 15, 2013)

CBS News is saying he may return some money to US Postal. And the US govt may join Floyd's whistleblower suit. http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...ment-recommends-joining-armstrong-suit_271482
Maybe we're finally getting to crunch time.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 15, 2013)

Reports are that he has admitted to doping in his interview.  I honestly don't care anymore.  Yesterday's man.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

I still care.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 15, 2013)

Don't get me wrong, I still care about the sort of stuff that Frumious posted a couple of posts back.  I just no longer care about what he has to say in a stage managed interview with Oprah.


----------



## tommers (Jan 15, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288

First story on the beeb.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2013)

tommers said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288
> 
> First story on the beeb.


Yeah, that sounds likely - 'just another one of the boys' defence against the charges that he organised it.

So he's still lying his head off...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

What a rotter. So, _yes i took drugs, i wasn't the kingpin though_ - that defence would surely require him to point the finger at the kingpin if it is to stand up.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What a rotter. So, _yes i took drugs, i wasn't the kingpin though_ - that defence would surely require him to point the finger at the kingpin if it is to stand up.


 
The article does imply that is what he's planning:



> Admitting doping might be a first step into trying to mitigate his lifetime ban from competition. He is also said to be planning to testify against powerful individuals in the world of cycling - though not other cyclists - he will claim knew about or facilitated the doping, sources said.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Jesus, what a slimeball. Anyone holding anything back on him, _now_ is the time to set it free...


----------



## The Boy (Jan 15, 2013)

Time up for Pat and Hein?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 15, 2013)

The Boy said:


> Time up for Pat and Hein?


 
My main hope for this "confession" is that he's going to drag those bastards into the mud with him.


----------



## twistedAM (Jan 15, 2013)

It's going to be a massive PR jobbie. Oprah on the news saying it was so honest and heartfelt they couldn't work out how to edit it, so it will now be a two-parter.
In real language, Armstrong wouldn't let his carefully written and legally checked script be cut. And, Oprah makes more money.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 15, 2013)

The main part of interest over the next while (not just the interview) is who he takes down with him. There are likely to be quite a few legal cases flying around.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 16, 2013)

Cripes, just watched Oprah's promo clip. Sounds like she's really embarrassed by whatever it is that is in the interview and is trying to cover herself and play down expectations.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 16, 2013)

Chortle:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/u-s...&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0




> CBS News reports that Armstrong has offered to pay the U.S Government more than $5 million dollars and also cooperate as a witness in the investigation. The channel claims that its sources say that the government in turn rejected "both offers as inadequate."...
> 
> ...The US Postal Service contract in 2001 was renewed to the tune of $32 million, according to documents available in the US Anti-Doping Agency’s reasoned decision. The total settlement to the government could, by law, be two to three times that amount.


----------



## badseed (Jan 16, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> The article does imply that is what he's planning:
> 
> Admitting doping might be a first step into trying to mitigate his lifetime ban from competition. He is also said to be planning to testify against powerful individuals in the world of cycling - though not other cyclists - he will claim knew about or facilitated the doping, sources said.


 
I suspect a deal has been done to name and stand against the higher-ups who enabled him.
Also, regarding the perjury, there is a 5 year statute of limitations so he doesn't need to worry about that.

As other people have said it's going to be a "Aw shucks, one of the boys" defence.


----------



## tommers (Jan 16, 2013)

He wouldn't be doing it if he didn't think it was going to help him in some way.  Nobody's forced him, he has other options available than a full on interview with Oprah.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 16, 2013)

He still wants some sort of comeback, both as a triathlete and as a tragic American hero, more sinned against than sinning, still commanding huge appearance fees and sponsorship deals. And he might well bring it off. Just being on Oprah is a big win. A huge chunk of the US public just don't give a damn about drugs in sport. And it's possible he's running short of money. From the WSJ: "It is unclear what kind of financial effect his problems are having on Mr. Armstrong, whose net worth has been estimated to exceed $100 million. Last fall, he took out a $1.85 million line of credit, secured by his home in central Austin, which is valued at more than $3 million, public records indicate."


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 16, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> He still wants some sort of comeback, both as a triathlete and as a tragic American hero, more sinned against than sinning, still commanding huge appearance fees and sponsorship deals.


 
I find it very hard to believe that he will ever bag a big bit of sponsorship again, or indeed command a big appearance fee. He is also not performing at the very top level in triathlon so any money there would rightly go to the top performers who after all have had a clean career. In fact this whole business of wanting to get bans overturned to race Triathlon is baloney (a comparison would be Wiggins seeking to get a ban overturned so he could race national class cyclocross), theres very little money in that sport and his presence would more than likely drive sponsors away, not increase the pot. Its all about the ego once again, being stubborn and digging his own stupid groove.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2013)

After-dinner speech circuit. Some people command extraordinary fees for those things, and the kind of arses who pay the 1000s of $s to sit at those things will lap up his tales of ruthless success and downfall. They'll think of him as someone with leadership qualities, or something.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 16, 2013)

He was boasting not long ago about proving that he was the world's fittest forty year old or something. Maybe he'll find some veterans event at which he can be a world champion. The ego demands that he be the best at _something._ Apart from masterminding the biggest ever sporting fraud.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 16, 2013)

Is there any way to watch the Oprah interview in the UK?


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 16, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Is there any way to watch the Oprah interview in the UK?


Possibly here http://www.cyclingfans.com/oprahs-lance-armstrong-interview-live

Or maybe here http://www.oprah.com/own-oprahs-next-chapter/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 17, 2013)

'From 2001 to 2004, Thomas Weisel Partners managed some of the personal assets for Verbruggen, then head of the UCI.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 17, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> 'From 2001 to 2004, Thomas Weisel Partners managed some of the personal assets for Verbruggen, then head of the UCI.'
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323783704578246001221628488.html


 
If you were a conspiracy theorist that story would send you wild. Its a great piece of journalism that, at first glance it is all about investment banking but the corporate tie-ups mentioned in the third to last para are fascinating; Weisel links Verbruggen, Armstrong and Amgen!


----------



## The Boy (Jan 17, 2013)

Stripped of Olympic Bronze.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2013)

_Loser_


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 17, 2013)

Ia anyone staying up until 3 am to watch the show?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Ia anyone staying up until 3 am to watch the show?


 
I've got some beers in.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

yeah count me in, waited so long for this day I'm not missing it now!


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

The Boy said:


> Stripped of Olympic Bronze.


 
Its been a good day. I have now drawn level with Lance on the Olympic medal winning front, having matched his Le Tour win total some months ago!


----------



## Ted Striker (Jan 18, 2013)

Starts at 2, right? On Oprah.com?


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> Starts at 2, right? On Oprah.com?


 
yeah


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

Its also on Discovery. He has admitted every question about doping thus far, all seven Tours were doped in, used EPO, blood doping, everything.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

might as well end there, total admission! thanks lance. I can go to bed happy now. I wont tho!


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

here comes the nuance....


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

So he only doped until 2005, then?


----------



## yardbird (Jan 18, 2013)

Says he didn't in 09 and 10.
I don't believe that.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

agricola said:


> So he only doped until 2005, then?


 
Whats that statement they read you when ya get arrested?   it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. He can hardly expect us now toe accept his version having lied for 15 years!


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

yardbird said:


> Says he didn't in 09 and 10.
> I don't believe that.


 
They are the only results that are still live in terms of statute of limitations, coincidence?


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Trying to get us to believe he didnt bully team mates is stretching credibility....oh he's now admitted it!


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

"_I care a lot about Christian, he is a good guy_". 

What scum Armstrong is.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Here comes the single parent stuff,,,,violins ready!


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

To be fair to Oprah i am actually quite impressed with her questioning up til now!


----------



## yardbird (Jan 18, 2013)

......when I was diagnosed......
Oh do just fuck off.
Turd.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

yardbird said:


> ......when I was diagnosed......
> Oh do just fuck off.
> Turd.


 
Oprah has moved him on pretty quickly mind and not let him control the interview with the cancer stuff.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

Well done Oprah for pointing out that he doped before the cancer. But blaming the cancer for turninghim into a bully? Jesus wept...that's pathetic.


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

1927 said:


> To be fair to Oprah i am actually quite impressed with her questioning up til now!


 
I agree, though she is helped by many of Armstrong's answers being laughable.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 18, 2013)

I forgot to time how long it would take before the

mother

word


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

how can he claim that he didnt expect the rest of the team to dope. withot the whole team doping he would not have won.

Now he says that Ferrari is a good man, fuck you Lance. You are not repenting and coming clean you cunt!


----------



## yardbird (Jan 18, 2013)

Underneath you can tell he's sooo wound up - almost expect him suddenly to go into American Psycho mode.


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

Its alright, he just wanted to win.  Interview over!


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

By claiming he didn't dope after 2005 he's just trying to get the start of his ban backdated. Lying cunt.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

OW has done her research, that clip of his speech winning 7th title really knocked him back, you could see it in his face, she isnt making it comfortable for him.


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

The look on Oprah's face is priceless.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

agricola said:


> The look on Oprah's face is priceless.


 
I think she is actually shocked by some of the stuff he is coming out with. she is far more impressive than I expected her to be. she might actually be making him look more stupid than if a hard hitter like Kimmage had been in there.


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

"I am not a fan of UCI" has been said at least four or five times now.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

"We" sued these people....yeah, blame your lawyers, shithead.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

as has been suggested on bbc twitter I suspect Lance has a personality disorder of some sort, no excuses, but the guy is fucked up. there are even inconsistencies in this statement, he says that he gave money to UCI when he was retired, and yet a minute eralier he said that the timing was not great because it was at same time as the swiss test!!!!!! 4 years earlier. he's still lying.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> "We" sued these people....yeah, blame your lawyers, shithead.


 
he knows dam well who he sued and who he didnt, cunt!


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

agricola said:


> "I am not a fan of UCI" has been said at least four or five times now.


 
and yet he gave them money when they asked!


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

By implication the Betsy Andrieu thing DID take place, even tho he wont answer it, the fact that he says they have been hurt and cannot reconcile. If they were not telling the truth they wouldnt have been hurt!


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

It's been obvious for a while that he's got a personality disorder. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him, as if he has a mental illness? I suppose so. Being angry is too tiring.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> It's been obvious for a while that he's got a personality disorder. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him, as if he has a mental illness? I suppose so. Being angry is too tiring.


 
Its obvioulsy a borderline  or narcistic dosorder, classic signs of projection onto others of his flaws etc. wait for the portrayal of him as the victim..that is the clincher!


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

1927 said:


> wait for the portrayal of him as the victim..that is the clincher!


 
Didnt have to wait long.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

So why wouldn't he admit that Betsy was right about the hospital thing? I don't understand.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So why wouldn't he admit that Betsy was right about the hospital thing? I don't understand.


 
Its the one thing that proves he has ALWAYS doped as it was when he had cancer, maybe thats the reason.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So why wouldn't he admit that Betsy was right about the hospital thing? I don't understand.


Had there been something between them possibly?
Called her a whore, said she was fat - makes you wonder.
A one night stand gone nasty?
Just a thought that there's more to the hospital visit.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jan 18, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> So why wouldn't he admit that Betsy was right about the hospital thing? I don't understand.


 
There's a suggestion on Twitter that more than one person gave Lance's version of events under oath and that an admission might land a bunch of people with legal difficulties, including Armstrong himself.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

badseed said:


> I suspect a deal has been done to name and stand against the higher-ups who enabled him.
> Also, regarding the perjury, there is a 5 year statute of limitations so he doesn't need to worry about that.
> 
> As other people have said it's going to be a "Aw shucks, one of the boys" defence.


Regarding the statute of limitations thing, apparently all that's needed to get around this is a new federal charge of  conspiracy and he's back to square one. And on top of that, courts often rule that the clock only starts from when the crime was 'discoverable'. (Not see the interview yet, so apols if this was covered in it and ensuusing discussion)


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not see the interview yet


 
You didn't miss much.  Entirely predictable damage limitation exercise admitting to the very minimum that was already widely known and proven, backed with the ridiculous claim that he didn't dope after 2005...honest...yes he denied doping before, but this time he really means it.

Impressively, the prick managed to add to the sheer contempt I feel for him.


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 18, 2013)

http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-01-14/lance-armstrong-apology/

Very well said Djokovic.


----------



## Hollis (Jan 18, 2013)

Where is it possible to watch the thing?


----------



## trampie (Jan 18, 2013)

Britains greatest ever cyclist Nicole Cooke speaks on Armstrong and her observations are clear and straight to the point what she thinks about him.


----------



## agricola (Jan 18, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> There's a suggestion on Twitter that more than one person gave Lance's version of events under oath and that an admission might land a bunch of people with legal difficulties, including Armstrong himself.


 
I suppose that would all depend on whether they can claim that was what Armstrong told them, and that they had no reason to disbelieve it.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 18, 2013)

Hollis said:


> Where is it possible to watch the thing?




or tonight on Discovery at 8PM


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2013)

Ponyutd said:


> http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-01-14/lance-armstrong-apology/
> 
> Very well said Djokovic.


 
This thing might be backfiring badly. I sooooo hope it does.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Anyone with any knowledge of the sort of 'gives' that trained people pick up on? Because his confessions seem to be lies. Every tick is there.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 18, 2013)

Not scientific but a murder cop told me liars look down when they lie, and big liars look down and to the right when telling a big lie - hence the term 'downright liar'.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Btw, for those unable to do vid at work transcript here (you _need_ to see him though)

edit: now looking, only partial


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

It might have been _essential to dope to win the tour_, but it's not essential that _you_ win the tour. (sorry, watching vid and getting annoyed, will try and collate responses into one post later).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

I know we all know and that but)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Not scientific but a murder cop told me liars look down when they lie, and big liars look down and to the right when telling a big lie - hence the term 'downright liar'.


That is a myth, according to this study.

It seems to be based on the misconceived notion that the right side of the brain is the creative side. Truth is that both left and right sides of the brain are creative.

Also, that article suggests that its origins are in NLP. In other words, it's bollocks.


I would think that looking down is mostly to do with shame. But if Armstrong isn't ashamed of his lies, he won't do that. And he was probably practising looking sincere beforehand anyway. He's a well-practised liar, after all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

"because they asked me to"?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Body language expert scrutinises Lance Armstrong interview footage



> Lance Armstrong may have finally come clean, but his body language during his tell-all interview told a different story, experts said.
> 
> While the disgraced cyclist confessed his use of performance-enhancing drugs up until 2005, his gestures suggest he may not be as contrite as he claims.


 
Edit The expert sounds a dick


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm highly skeptical of a lot of that. This, for instance:



> "It was quite obvious from the start that he wasn't going to be that forthcoming as he sat with his right leg crossed over the top of his left leg," he said.
> "This is known as the figure four block, as it created an immediate barrier between him and Oprah."


 
Really? She's sat cross-legged and he's mirroring that, but with the 'man's' way of sitting. When I was in the States and sitting with my legs crossed as Oprah's were, I was told that it was a 'European' thing to do and that US men didn't do that as it was effeminate. Armstrong's a Republican supporter from Texas. He's a macho man, so that's how he crosses his legs. That's all.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

He doesn't mirror her at all. Look at it ffs.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That is a myth, according to this study.


 
Like I said, its not scientific...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm highly skeptical of a lot of that. This, for instance:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? She's sat cross-legged and he's mirroring that, but with the 'man's' way of sitting. When I was in the States and sitting with my legs crossed as Oprah's were, I was told that it was a 'European' thing to do and that US men didn't do that as it was effeminate. Armstrong's a Republican supporter from Texas. He's a macho man, so that's how he crosses his legs. That's all.


So free from using any known gives. He's from texas.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

thief said:
			
		

> That's very difficult to influence


 
How do you know? What are you comparing it to? So you tried? Who is easy to influence?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> So free from using any known gives. He's from texas.


Yes. That's what I said.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes. That's what I said.


You said a give was shit as he's from texas. I laughed at that nonsense.


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 18, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Not scientific but a murder cop told me liars look down when they lie, and big liars look down and to the right when telling a big lie - hence the term 'downright liar'.


Not my area of interest, but IMU a couple of fairly big studies have found that (with a very small handful of notable exceptions) police are no better at identifying liars than the general population (which also has a very small handful of notable exceptions).

However, police officers are _a_ _lot more confident _than the general public about just how good they are.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jan 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> You didn't miss much. Entirely predictable damage limitation exercise admitting to the very minimum that was already widely known and proven, backed with the ridiculous claim that he didn't dope after 2005...honest...yes he denied doping before, but this time he really means it.
> 
> Impressively, the prick managed to add to the sheer contempt I feel for him.


 
Yeah. It didn't help him a bit.  It looked to me like he figured if he was going down, he'd take a few people with him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

mrs quoad said:


> Not my area of interest, but IMU a couple of fairly big studies have found that (with a very small handful of notable exceptions) police are no better at identifying liars than the general population (which also has a very small handful of notable exceptions).
> 
> However, police officers are _a_ _lot more confident _than the general public about just how good they are.


What are the true identifiers of a liar?


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone with any knowledge of the sort of 'gives' that trained people pick up on? Because his confessions seem to be lies. Every tick is there.


 
The short story is that tells vary so much from culture to culture, yet alone from individual to individual, that they're not reliable short of studying an individual and working out their personal patterns.  For instance, there's a number of studies showing that something as ubiquitous as smiling varies from country to country.  LBJ is correct by the way - Texans do tend to have body tells that seem aggressive/confident by other standards.  I work with people from Austin/Houston/Dallas who joke about the classes they had to attend to tone down their habits before they were sent to work in other countries.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What are the true identifiers of a liar?


 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ng-why-the-truth-really-can-hurt-2018293.html



> "This is what makes it so easy for people to be successful in their lies," says Robert Feldman, Professor of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts. "Some people are good liars and some are bad, but they all use different signals. Unless you have known them for a long time, it's very difficult to tell if they are lying."


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

So the answer is, compare footage of where we know he is telling the truth to footage where he is known to be lying, and apply the result to footage where we cannot be sure.

His eyes darted left briefly before he answered the first question truthfully. There was a point later on where his eyes were darting back and forth as he answered (a common tell). I cannot remember if it was a known lie or a probable lie (too busy shouting at the screen thanks to the education I've received via this thread). Lots of stuff in there but I wasn't taking notes.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

C4News has an excellent story tonight. Well worth watching later online. They had Walsh saying that the admission of the fake cortisone prescription is key, because it proves a cover up.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 18, 2013)

ymu said:


> So the answer is, compare footage of where we know he is telling the truth


 
Good luck finding that.  Not sure if that's ever happened.

Just to complicate things, if he's got narcissistic tendencies then he will tend to behave the same whether he's lying or telling the truth, because in his little worldview what he feels should be true is his truth.  You'll all have met the sort: able to look you in the eye, swear on their mams life, and convincingly claim that they were in the SAS, etc.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)

Betsy isnt happy,


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Watch her 'tells'.  That comrades, is the difference.


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Good luck finding that. Not sure if that's ever happened.
> 
> Just to complicate things, if he's got narcissistic tendencies then he will tend to behave the same whether he's lying or telling the truth, because in his little worldview what he feels should be true is his truth. You'll all have met the sort: able to look you in the eye, swear on their mams life, and convincingly claim that they were in the SAS, etc.


He's been interviewed about things other than doping and the Oprah interview footage contains examples where he is known to be telling the truth and examples where he is known to be lying. He might well be giving off tells that he normally wouldn't because he was having to tell the truth where he normally wouldn't, but still lie where he (thought he) could get away with it.

Psychopathic/narcissistic personality types might not react the same way as 'normal' people, but they still have to put some effort into it. They tend to think they're cleverer than they are, and that everyone else is stupid - and that's what often trips them up.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 18, 2013)

Hopefully the lying, bullying cunt will be penniless and destitute in a few years.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

My favourite tweet from last night: "I'm impressed with Oprah. Apparently knows a lot more about cycling than @*PhilLiggett*."


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Hopefully the lying, bullying cunt will be penniless and destitute in a few years.


Galloway/swp/laurie penny/etc thread -->


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Body language expert scrutinises Lance Armstrong interview footage


 
"After Lance Armstrong confesses to living at the top of a pyramid of lies for nearly 20 years, experts detect lies."


----------



## baldrick (Jan 18, 2013)

Indeed. Why scrutinise the interview? We know he's a liar. Looking for a moment of truth from him is like panning for gold in a streaming pile of shit. He's only admitting to stuff that's all in the reasoned decision and proven anyway. Have we heard anything new from this interview? No.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 18, 2013)

If you still have any appetite for more material about this sicko, this piece is worth a read http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...erview-oprah-winfrey-doping-typical-spectacle


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> "After Lance Armstrong confesses to living at the top of a pyramid of lies for nearly 20 years, experts detect lies."


You can spot the lies and then use pounce on them when he says that they are truth. It's usfeul to to know how someone lies, it's useful for people like betsy andreu. Otherwise, what you here for?


----------



## ymu (Jan 18, 2013)

baldrick said:


> Indeed. Why scrutinise the interview? We know he's a liar. Looking for a moment of truth from him is like panning for gold in a streaming pile of shit. He's only admitting to stuff that's all in the reasoned decision and proven anyway. Have we heard anything new from this interview? No.


Because he's still lying to try and limit the damage, and is using this interview to try and salvage his reputation with the public and his fans (regardless of what the rest of cycling thinks). Exposing the secondary lies will damage him a great deal and I hope there's plenty of people working on it.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 18, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You can spot the lies and then use pounce on them when he says that they are truth ... Otherwise, what you here for?


 
Have you been using "performance-enhancing substances?"

I don't remember any of this "tell" stuff coming up during the many years when Lance Armstrong was winning things and lying to the world.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 18, 2013)




----------



## 1927 (Jan 18, 2013)




----------



## Jazzz (Jan 18, 2013)

Yossarian said:


> I don't remember any of this "tell" stuff coming up during the many years when Lance Armstrong was winning things and lying to the world.


It took a vast amount of investigation for someone to call Armstrong a liar and successfully hold off his legal attacks. It's a bit easier now.


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 19, 2013)

"Lance Armstrong admits to cheating at a sport most don't care about to help raise $500M for a cure that most do care about?

Forgiven"

I've got a mate who was on the tour when this was going on and it was the norm. One tale that always sticks in my head was some Italian team had got hold of some ped that whatever it was lowered the heart rate that much they'd be woken up all through the night to sprint up and down the corridor of the hotel to stop them carking it in the night. Rife . Meh


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Bollocks. Creating and perpetuating a drugs arms race amongst athletes harms those whose desire to compete at the top level and know they cannot without doing the same. It's immensely damaging, and not just to the tiny numbers that reach the top, but to every ambitious teenager who gets involved with an ambitious and unethical coach. You've already given one example of a life-threatening drug. EPO is now known to be lethal for some of the patient groups it is licensed for (Amgen didn't bother looking at survival in the licensing trials); in an athlete with already normal red blood cells, it is far, far more dangerous. Blood transfusions are all sorts of risky.

Doing good work for charity does not excuse putting hundreds of thousands of lives at risk, and pegging a corrupt career to charity work is a cunt's trick. "Don't take me down or the charity gets it." Same bullshit that Savile pulled.

From Frumious B's link above:



> One of the cornerstones of Armstrong's creation story was the image of him post-cancer treatment, healed and sent back into the world by his oncologist, Dr. Craig Nichols, with instructions to honor something called "the obligation of the cured."
> 
> Whenever I had a chance to ask him about doping allegations -- and I never did an interview of any length without asking, although obviously it didn't get me very far -- I'd bring that up.
> 
> ...


Cancer charities are very successful at raising money; they don't need corrupt sports people to help them.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

I'm assuming Part 2 is 2am again? I just checked oprah.com and it says



> The Exclusive Interview Continues
> 
> Tonight at 9/8c


 
What the fuck does 9/8c mean? 9pm EST and 8pm Central? Does the West Coast not get a look in? 

Miss Caphat


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Cancer charities are very successful at raising money; they don't need corrupt sports people to help them.


Helps to turn the screw. The cancer charities are as rotten to the core as Lance was. Their primary purpose is not to cure cancer, it is to make sure that the true causes of cancer and cures are never looked at.


----------



## baldrick (Jan 19, 2013)

DRINK? said:
			
		

> "Lance Armstrong admits to cheating at a sport most don't care about to help raise $500M for a cure that most do care about?
> 
> Forgiven"
> 
> I've got a mate who was on the tour when this was going on and it was the norm. One tale that always sticks in my head was some Italian team had got hold of some ped that whatever it was lowered the heart rate that much they'd be woken up all through the night to sprint up and down the corridor of the hotel to stop them carking it in the night. Rife . Meh


What ymu said.

But also it's not up to whoever wrote that idiotic phrase to forgive. The people he cheated while pretending to be one of the good guys, maybe.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Helps to turn the screw. The cancer charities are as rotten to the core as Lance was. Their primary purpose is not to cure cancer, it is to make sure that the true causes of cancer and cures are never looked at.


Oh fuck off with your paranoid nonsense. I have a lot of issues with various cancer charities, but they fund public sector research and the public sector has zero interest in making and keeping people ill; it costs the NHS a fucking fortune. The lack of research into prevention is down to the transfer of functions which can only sensibly be done by the public sector to the private sector where conflicts of interest abound. If you want better medical research, campaign for higher taxes to pay for it.

Cancer is getting more common because modern lifestyles and modern medicine have been so successful at keeping people alive long enough to develop it. The higher the proportion of deaths from cancer, the healthier the population and the better the health service. And this is one of the reasons I get pissed off with cancer charities. _One in three dying of cancer! Give us yer money._ Another reason I get pissed off with them is that some cancers are easier to sell than others - loads of publicity for breast cancer (primarily a disease of middle class women), fuck all for lung cancer (primarily a disease of working-class men, and increasingly working-class women). Another is that they push worthless shite like screening for prostate cancer when we already know that screening probably isn't beneficial for breast or cervical cancer, let alone for a disease which only kills a tiny proportion of the men who get it and where the treatment is likely to be more harmful than the disease.

And breathe.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm assuming Part 2 is 2am again? I just checked oprah.com and it says
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
9pm eastern, 8 pm central, and I have no idea how they do it beyond that point. I have always wondered that too. Sometimes they say something "central and mountain" which would be the next time zone over but I don't think that includes California. I would imagine if something airs at a prime time hour, they manage to show it at a normal time over there (west coast) too.


----------



## agricola (Jan 19, 2013)

_"I got a death penalty, and they got (six months)"_


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Cancer is getting more common because modern lifestyles and modern medicine have been so successful at keeping people alive long enough to develop it.


Nah mate. On a thread a while back, I was utterly ridiculed - UTTERLY - for suggesting that cancer was essentially a civilisation disease. Of course it was a vaccination thread.

I was proved right.

I'd say more about all the studies that are not likely to funded anytime soon (the public sector is corrupted too), but let's have that on another thread.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

For body language fans ... On the crossed legs/mirroring thing, he crossed his legs knee over knee when talking about the picture of the seven jerseys he tweeted out just after the ban. Less defiant, more embarrassed?


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Nah mate. On a thread a while back, I was utterly ridiculed - UTTERLY - for suggesting that cancer was essentially a civilisation disease. Of course it was a vaccination thread.
> 
> I was proved right.
> 
> I'd say more about all the studies that are not likely to funded anytime soon (the public sector is corrupted too), but let's have that on another thread.


I'll deal with you later. And on the appropriate thread.


----------



## agricola (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> For body language fans ... On the crossed legs/mirroring thing, he crossed his legs knee over knee when talking about the picture of the seven jerseys he tweeted out just after the ban. Less defiant, more embarrassed?


 
Given the tone of the last piece, he was probably just concealing a cut onion.


----------



## agricola (Jan 19, 2013)

Well that second half of the interview was rubbish.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> Nah mate. On a thread a while back, I was utterly ridiculed - UTTERLY - for suggesting that cancer was essentially a civilisation disease. Of course it was a vaccination thread.
> 
> I was proved right.
> 
> I'd say more about all the studies that are not likely to funded anytime soon (the public sector is corrupted too), but let's have that on another thread.


Oh for fuck's sake. Carcinogens cause cancer! Duh.

This is why age-adjusted incidence rates of cancer are higher in developing countries than they are in the rich world. We've exported most of our carcinogenic industries. More people die of cancer in the rich world because fewer people die younger of anything else.

Not worth another thread unless you want to labour your embarrassingly naive point.


----------



## badseed (Jan 19, 2013)

Please take it ouside...


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 19, 2013)

DRINK? said:


> "Lance Armstrong admits to cheating at a sport most don't care about to help raise $500M for a cure that most do care about?
> 
> Forgiven"
> 
> I've got a mate who was on the tour when this was going on and it was the norm. One tale that always sticks in my head was some Italian team had got hold of some ped that whatever it was lowered the heart rate that much they'd be woken up all through the night to sprint up and down the corridor of the hotel to stop them carking it in the night. Rife . Meh


 
Well your 'mate' (I'm sure he really exists, of course he does ) would probably have told you the said drug that thickens blood during periods of inactivity and causes arrest is EPO - the very same drug LA's 'achievements' were built on. It was the norm but its use wasn't restricted to 'some Italian team' (thats a neat phrase BTW that ramps up the credibility of everything else you wrote no end), a lot of teams were using it - including LA.  Some weren't though - which dismantles the 'level playing field' argument.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 19, 2013)

<edited double post>


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> Oh for fuck's sake. Carcinogens cause cancer! Duh.


If you are now indeed agreeing with me, another thread may not be necessary.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 19, 2013)

DRINK? said:


> I've got a mate who was on the tour when this was going on and it was the norm. One tale that always sticks in my head was some Italian team had got hold of some ped that whatever it was lowered the heart rate that much they'd be woken up all through the night to sprint up and down the corridor of the hotel to stop them carking it in the night. Rife . Meh


 
This is probaly the form of apologism for Armstrong and his ilk that annoys me most: "they were all at it, so why shouldn't he"

It's a tautology.  It's ok for me to cheat, because the contest is full of cheats, as you can see from my cheating.  It's also blatantly untrue.  Look at Graeme Obree, Christophe Bassons, Nicolas Aubier, Gilles Delion and all the others whose career was railroaded because they would not cheat.  Worst of all though, it locks a sport in an unbreakable cycle of cheating.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 19, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> If you are now indeed agreeing with me, another thread may not be necessary.


 
Would you please not derail this with unrelated topics.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Jazzz said:


> If you are now indeed agreeing with me, another thread may not be necessary.


Start the thread stating your thesis. I'll join when I've had some sleep.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 19, 2013)

Couple of points.

Firstly, LA was doping before he ever had cancer so to use that as some sort of excuse is bollocks.

Secondly the idea that he should be excused for all his cancer work is ridiculous. Jimmy Savile anybody?

Thirdly, take sometime and do some reading about the whole Livestrong thing. anybody who believes that it has anything to do with a cure for cancer or research or helping victims is in for a very big whiff of coffee fumes. If it is now open field day on LA then I think the charity thing may well come under the spotlight now, and from what I have read if you dont already thinl LA is a cunt, you very soon will do.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

I think he's dug his hole an awful lot deeper. This will work on some people, but not when the lies he retold are exposed. And I'm certain they will be.


----------



## Corax (Jan 19, 2013)

Sorry, not been following the thread, just wanted somewhere to express my exasperation at this dominating the news atm.  I really don't give a flying fuck about pedalling.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 19, 2013)

Corax said:


> Sorry, not been following the thread, just wanted somewhere to express my exasperation at this dominating the news atm. I really don't give a flying fuck about pedalling.


Unbelievably, his cynical behaviour has trickled down to be used as a stick to beat utility cyclists with - undoes the Wiggo effect.


----------



## Corax (Jan 19, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> Unbelievably, his cynical behaviour has trickled down to be used as a stick to beat utility cyclists with - undoes the Wiggo effect.


Seriously?  

I find that hard to believe.  It's like connecting Maradona with Dave who plays centre-back for the Pig'n'Whistle Sunday team.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 19, 2013)

Corax said:


> Sorry, not been following the thread, just wanted somewhere to express my exasperation at this dominating the news atm. I really don't give a flying fuck about pedalling.


 
you seem to give enough of a fuck to post about it. There's lots of things I dont give a fuck about, but to go posting about them all seems a rather poor waste of my time.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Corax said:


> Seriously?
> 
> I find that hard to believe. It's like connecting Maradona with Dave who plays centre-back for the Pig'n'Whistle Sunday team.


 
And Muslims are behind the horseburgers, according to the EDL.

Bigots are bigots. Logic doesn't come into it.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 19, 2013)

1927 said:


> Thirdly, take sometime and do some reading about the whole Livestrong thing. anybody who believes that it has anything to do with a cure for cancer or research or helping victims is in for a very big whiff of coffee fumes. If it is now open field day on LA then I think the charity thing may well come under the spotlight now, and from what I have read if you dont already thinl LA is a cunt, you very soon will do.


Hold on, it's not that black and white. Livestrong is not all bad. OK, they've spent too much money on advertising and PR, and the $320k salary for their CEO doesn't seem right to me. But they do some good. The famous Outside article had a good go at ripping them to shreds http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...rong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all but it still had to concede that they do some worthwhile stuff. You really should read it all before you make up mind.

The truth is it's very hard to measure the value of any cancer charity. Livestrong has raised half a billion dollars in 14 years. Cancer Research raised about that much last year. But each new drug costs $1bn+ to develop. So no charity is ever going to cure cancer. The best they can do is point the drug companies in the right direction. Livestrong doesn't spend money on research, but it helps patients here and now by helping underinsured Americans to get treatment or to bank sperm or whatever. It's not of any relevance to us in the UK, they're really just plugging the odd hole in the disastrous US healthcare system. And one of their chief beneficiaries has been Lance - I'm sure he wouldn't have got nearly as much sponsorship had it not been for Livestrong's existence. If he had an honest bone in his body he'd have donated at least half his Nike money. But that's America for you.


----------



## Corax (Jan 19, 2013)

1927 said:


> you seem to give enough of a fuck to post about it. There's lots of things I dont give a fuck about, but to go posting about them all seems a rather poor waste of my time.


Sorry, did I accidentally post my first sentence in invisible?


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

Corax said:


> Sorry, did I accidentally post my first sentence in invisible?


Did you not look at how long this thread has been running and how much work people have put into getting information onto it? If you want a bitch, start a new thread or use the lonely posts thread.


----------



## Corax (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Did you not look at how long this thread has been running and how much work people have put into getting information onto it? If you want a bitch, start a new thread or use the lonely posts thread.


No, and...

No.


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 19, 2013)

Armstrong embarrassed, not truly sorry - Kathy Lemond, Sports Illustrated

One of the comments is making the point that Armstrong is clearly a sociopath. The diagnosis looks dead on. You can't expect sociopaths to show genuine remorse - it's not in their emotional range. Ultimately they care only of themselves. They can fake anything but their eyes which are always cold. Armstrong regrets getting found out, that's all.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 19, 2013)

Maybe a load of pop-psychology, but an interesting read about his body language and use of words: http://drlillianglassbodylanguageblog.wordpress.com/tag/lance-armstrong/


----------



## agricola (Jan 19, 2013)

Kimmage writes in the Guardian:



> In the autumn of 1993, Greg LeMond and his wife, Kathy, were sitting at home in the suburbs of Minneapolis, when they received a visit from Linda Mooneyham, the three-times Tour de France winner has recalled. Her 21-year-old son, Lance Armstrong, had just become the world champion and she had travelled from her home in Texas for advice.
> "What does he do now?" she asked. "What does he do with his money?"
> "Well, let him find an agent – a good one with an attorney," LeMond replied. "And one word of advice – just be his mom."
> They sat on the porch for a while and then moved inside to the kitchen. Linda had something else on her mind: "How do I make him less of an asshole. He doesn't care about anyone."
> "Well," LeMond replied. "I can't help you there."


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Did you not look at how long this thread has been running and how much work people have put into getting information onto it? If you want a bitch, start a new thread or use the lonely posts thread.


 
Work? Posting on a thread on urban? You're joking.


----------



## ymu (Jan 19, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Work? Posting on a thread on urban? You're joking.


Nope. You can use the site in whatever braindead fashion you like, but some choose to do some legwork and share it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 19, 2013)

ymu said:


> Nope. You can use the site in whatever braindead fashion you like, but some choose to do some legwork and share it.


 
Legwork? Googling you mean. What a joker.


----------



## baldrick (Jan 20, 2013)

agricola said:


> Kimmage writes in the Guardian:


I've got a lot of respect for Paul Kimmage and god knows he deserves this moment of schadenfreude but that's just a bit...unnecessary. It's a bit 'your mum...' no need to stoop to his level. His mum is probably devastated. It's nothing to do with her.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 20, 2013)

baldrick said:


> I've got a lot of respect for Paul Kimmage and god knows he deserves this moment of schadenfreude but that's just a bit...unnecessary. It's a bit 'your mum...' no need to stoop to his level. His mum is probably devastated. It's nothing to do with her.


 
Fuck him, there is nothing anyone can say about LA that is below the belt. The man is a grade A first class cunt and deserves everything coming his way. His mom obviously realised she had bred a cunt a long time ago. he has been held up as a great product of a single parent family for a lomng time, may be now the truth is known he can be held up as an example of why kids need a father figiure in their lives.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 20, 2013)

Would have liked OW to ask him does he feel he has anything to answer for the fact that there have been numerous deaths of young ridersover the last 15 years. Riders who were convinced by LA's performances that success meant doping, who were bullied by their teams into doping and who ended up dead. This is the atmosphere within the sport that LA created, he wasnt a result of the regime, he is responsible to a great deal for creating it and he has the deaths of these young riders on his hands. Not that he will give a flying fuck.


----------



## Errol's son (Jan 20, 2013)

https://twitter.com/LouiseRedvers/status/260990889764208640/photo/1


----------



## agricola (Jan 20, 2013)

1927 said:


> Would have liked OW to ask him does he feel he has anything to answer for the fact that there have been numerous deaths of young ridersover the last 15 years. Riders who were convinced by LA's performances that success meant doping, who were bullied by their teams into doping and who ended up dead. This is the atmosphere within the sport that LA created, he wasnt a result of the regime, he is responsible to a great deal for creating it and he has the deaths of these young riders on his hands. Not that he will give a flying fuck.


 
The opportunity she really missed IMHO was to call him on his claim that he didnt consider what he did as cheating, to name names of who else he was suggesting were doping.  I dont for a moment think that Armstrong would tell the truth, but at least it would have forced him to either back up his contention with names (and thus leave himself open to legal action of the kind he did to others), or back down.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 20, 2013)

ymu said:


> Nope. You can use the site in whatever braindead fashion you like, but some choose to do some legwork and share it.





goldenecitrone said:


> Legwork? Googling you mean. What a joker.


 
To be fair a lot of the links posted on here have not been a result of simple googling. They have been found by following a trail form one article to another. Simply googling Lance Armstrong will give you millions of hits, on here people have posted those that they thought were more useful, those with a deeper understanding of the case rather than the fodder fed to the masses.


----------



## ymu (Jan 20, 2013)

1927 said:


> Fuck him, there is nothing anyone can say about LA that is below the belt. The man is a grade A first class cunt and deserves everything coming his way. His mom obviously realised she had bred a cunt a long time ago. he has been held up as a great product of a single parent family for a lomng time, may be now the truth is known he can be held up as an example of why kids need a father figiure in their lives.


Let's blame the single mums?


----------



## 1927 (Jan 20, 2013)

ymu said:


> Let's blame the single mums?


 
I'm not biting.lol

But sure you can see the irony!


----------



## ymu (Jan 20, 2013)

Of course I can. Not the point you were making, just the way you made it.


----------



## ymu (Jan 20, 2013)




----------



## The Boy (Jan 20, 2013)

I'm having that


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 20, 2013)

ymu said:


> Let's blame the single mums?


Whether it is indeed the case that children are best off with two parents, or not, it is surely better that they have one parent instead of zero.


----------



## yardbird (Jan 21, 2013)

he he
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 22, 2013)

JJ Abrams is making a film on his life.  Isn't it a bit silly to make a film when the story is still emerging?  I suppose anything new to come out now will be Armstrong's PR rather new truths, so maybe they can go ahead with it.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 22, 2013)

A previous project - with Jake Gyllenhaall cast as LA was mysteriously shelved and never spoken of again in 2009. Gyllenhaal went to the TdF, they had a few IMAX cameras on motorbikes and he was pictured in USPS costume. Gyllenhaal is a keen cyclist and amongst other things had the piss ripped out of him on NYC bike snob for wearing Rapha and having a back wheel with a dinner plate spoke saver at the same time.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 22, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2013)

Lance Armstrong's Oprah PR disaster: polls show confessing is for losers



> The first public polling on Lance seems to show that all his support is gone. After the Oprah interview aired, only 21% of Americans polled thought that he could now restore his reputation. This scientific poll conducted with Tampa Bay area residents by SurveyUSA demonstrated no gender, race, or real age gap. Polls done in the Portland and San Diego metropolitan areas produced the same findings.
> 
> Lance's confession succeeded in alienating everybody. Only 17% in the SurveyUSA survey thought that Lance was being completely honest with Oprah. Those who thought he was a liar beforehand continue to think so now. Those who defended Lance for years, like ESPN's Rick Reilly, now just feel they were duped. This is the political equivalent of having your own base turn against you.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 22, 2013)

That's the best thing I've read in a long time.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 22, 2013)

I think it's safe to conclude that Oprah must have happened without the approval of Lance's lawyer or PR adviser. So his hubris has got the better of him. About time.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 23, 2013)

UCI warned Armstrong and others when their blood levels were looking suspicious. Handy for calibrating the amount of drugs you can take, I imagine. The doctors must've loved that feedback.


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 23, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> A previous project - with Jake Gyllenhaall cast as LA was mysteriously shelved and never spoken of again in 2009. Gyllenhaal went to the TdF, they had a few IMAX cameras on motorbikes and he was pictured in USPS costume. Gyllenhaal is a keen cyclist and amongst other things had the piss ripped out of him on NYC bike snob for wearing Rapha and having a back wheel with a dinner plate spoke saver at the same time.


 
Isn't the problem there that he and Armstrong are friends.  So now that the film would have to paint him in a bad light, he had no choice but to pull out?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 23, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> Isn't the problem there that he and Armstrong are friends. So now that the film would have to paint him in a bad light, he had no choice but to pull out?


 
No, I think the problem is Sony pictures, having invested a few million dollars but about to invest maybe 30 million more heard the rumours, investigated and found them to have substance. If Gyllenhaal had pulled it would simply been a matter of recasting, instead the project was erased from history.


----------



## 1927 (Jan 23, 2013)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/21/lance-armstrong-movie_n_2520023.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


----------



## RaverDrew (Jan 23, 2013)

I just watched that Lance Armstrong interview. 

He told so many lies, that I'm beginning to doubt he ever landed on the moon at all.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 24, 2013)

RaverDrew said:


> I'm beginning to doubt he ever landed on the moon at all.


 
This is further evidence of the witch hunt being conducted against Lance.  I remind you that Lance has never tested positive for not going to the moon.  It is pure jealousy at his outstanding success as a space cadet that has led to this vendetta against him.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 24, 2013)

McQuaid gives up an IOC gravy train job.

Has all the hallmarks of a minister resigning to 'spend more time with my family.'  I think he was pushed, possibly as there were rumblings of cycling being dropped from the olympics. More to come?


----------



## mrs quoad (Jan 24, 2013)

I've just been reading (well, wiki-ing) up a bit on the history of doping in cycling.



> The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.[19]


 
Goodness me


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 24, 2013)




----------



## agricola (Jan 28, 2013)

UCI have got rid of their Independent Commission, according to SSN:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ed-after-receiving-no-documents-from-UCI.html

edit:  proper link added, or at least the first i could find:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013...review-commission_272944?utm_medium=whats-hot


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2013)

Jesus. I really can't think of much else to add.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 28, 2013)

Puerto hearing started today, although Fuentes wont be speaking till tomorrow.  Dunno if much will come of it all though.


----------



## agricola (Jan 29, 2013)

Oh dear.


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 29, 2013)

Here's an excellent telling of the whole story in the London Review of Books, of all places. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n22/david-runciman/everybody-gets-popped  I particularly like the bit that says Lance would have been a no hoper if the racing had been clean - a good riposte to all the fucking idiots like Liggett who still rate him as a great sportsman.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2013)

The LRB is always a great serious read, shouldn't be surprised at it.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jan 29, 2013)

agricola said:


> Oh dear.


 
McQuaids corruption is beyond parody. He is a man surreptitiously smearing a turd thats rolled down his leg into a carpet with his foot...in a crowded room.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 29, 2013)

“Wada is dismayed by the press release issued by UCI yesterday, both in terms of its content and its deceit,” Wada president John Fahey wrote in a statement. “Instead of any continuing professional dialogue with Wada’s president, UCI has publicly announced by way of a press statement that Wada has agreed to work with it on some form of truth and reconciliation,” the statement said.
“This is not only wrong in content and process, but again deceitful. The fact is that Wada was awaiting a reply to the correspondence when the UCI release was delivered.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-for-truth-and-reconciliation-commission.html


----------



## The Boy (Jan 29, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> “Wada is dismayed by the press release issued by UCI yesterday, both in terms of its content and its deceit,” Wada president John Fahey wrote in a statement. “Instead of any continuing professional dialogue with Wada’s president, UCI has publicly announced by way of a press statement that Wada has agreed to work with it on some form of truth and reconciliation,” the statement said.
> “This is not only wrong in content and process, but again deceitful. The fact is that Wada was awaiting a reply to the correspondence when the UCI release was delivered.”
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-for-truth-and-reconciliation-commission.html


 
UCI have responded by publishing an email from Fahey to McQuaid.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-responds-to-wada-criticism-by-publishing-letters


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 30, 2013)

FFS. It's time for the IOC to knock heads together and threaten to dump cycling from the Olympics. And while they're at it, change the colour of the yellow jersey, it's tainted forever. We need a fresh start.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 30, 2013)

Id go for a nice pale blue or mauve :-P


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 30, 2013)

Armstrong has a go at Pathetic Pat.

"Pat is just in constant CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode. Pathetic."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...onal-Cycling-Union-president-Pat-McQuaid.html


tosser:
"From hopping on trains a 100 years ago to EPO now. No generation was exempt or 'clean'. Not [Eddy] Merckx, not [Bernard] Hinault, not [Greg] LeMond, not [Fausto] Coppi, not [Felice] Gimondi, not [Miguel] Indurain, not [Jacques] Anquetil, not [Gino] Bartali, and not mine."


----------



## Frumious B. (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm starting to worry about the T&RC idea. Armstrong reckons that if all the guilty confess, and go unpunished as part of the deal, he will be able to get his punishment rescinded. And maybe he's right. Is there an official line on what happens to punishments doled out before the commission starts?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2013)

Reading these latest interviews - he is ted bundy reborn. Total sociopath/psychopath.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 30, 2013)

Big brother Schleck gets a one year ban, backdated to the date of the positive.  Should have been double.  Just because.


----------



## The Boy (Jan 31, 2013)

Michael Rasmussen to admit in a press conference to doping from 1998-2010.  Apparently been working with Danish anti-doping authorities too.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 31, 2013)




----------



## Fez909 (Jan 31, 2013)

Extradite Armstrong to face perjury charges? Why not...


----------



## The Boy (Feb 2, 2013)

Looks like it might be the end of the road for Lulu Sanchez too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2013)

Let it shine


----------



## Frumious B. (Feb 4, 2013)

Apparently the Sunday Times had an article by Brailsford and Wiggins yesterday - Kimmage was praising it on Twitter. Anyone know where it can be read outside the paywall?


----------



## Ponyutd (Feb 5, 2013)

it was only a matter of time. The Notting Hill Book exchange has shelved Lance Armstrong — My Comeback: Up Close and Personal in its fiction section.


----------



## ymu (Feb 5, 2013)

Prolly 'cos they read the thread.


----------



## Ponyutd (Feb 5, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/armstrong-not-prosecuted-doping-us-official-190719107--sector.html
Not being prosecuted at all


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2013)

No?
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18...ion-witness-tampering-and-intimidation-2013-2


----------



## Ponyutd (Feb 6, 2013)

Maybe then....lying brat.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 8, 2013)

So ASO are talking about bringing AFLD in to organise testing from Paris-Nice onwards.  Will get a link when I can be bothered.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 10, 2013)

Cipollini has been named by Italian press as a regular Fuentes client.  Cancellara has also been mentioned here and there, although seems to be largely as a result of internet gossip.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 13, 2013)

His comeback is under suspicion too

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-at-loggerheads-over-Texans-test-results.aspx


----------



## tommers (Feb 13, 2013)

The Boy said:


> Cancellara has also been mentioned here and there, although seems to be largely as a result of internet gossip.


 
Anti-like.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 13, 2013)

tommers said:


> Anti-like.


----------



## tommers (Feb 13, 2013)

The Boy said:


>


 
There's no "dislike" button.  Maybe I should have put "dislike".  That would have made more sense.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 13, 2013)

tommers said:


> There's no "dislike" button. Maybe I should have put "dislike". That would have made more sense.


 
Fair enough.  I'm a bit hungover and thought you were disapproving of my spreading of internet tittle-tattle.  Spartacus seems a strange one though, as we know he tried to turn himself into a GC rider and failed.  Seems a bit odd if he was on the juice all this time, but nothing will surprise me these days.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Feb 14, 2013)

There have been rumours about chinny going back as far as his time with Fassa Bortolo. I've been castigated here for adding or alluding to them so let me just say one thing; whenever we've seen something in the last twenty years that wasn't possible, thats because it wasn't possible. A sub 39 minutes climb of Alpe d'Huez isn't possible. Cancellara's 2010 Roubaix victory isn't possible. The impossible can only be achieved by cheating - be that drugs or buying off other riders.

Actually maybe thats the next chapter in _cyclings' shame_ - the expose of dodgy deals done in the peloton.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> There have been rumours about chinny going back as far as his time with Fassa Bortolo. I've been castigated here for adding or alluding to them so let me just say one thing; whenever we've seen something in the last twenty years that wasn't possible, thats because it wasn't possible. A sub 39 minutes climb of Alpe d'Huez isn't possible. Cancellara's 2010 Roubaix victory isn't possible. The impossible can only be achieved by cheating - be that drugs or buying off other riders.
> 
> Actually maybe thats the next chapter in _cyclings' shame_ - the expose of dodgy deals done in the peloton.


 
Think you're being generous limiting yourslef to the last twenty years, tbh.

Agreed on the last point. Although I was surprised how, when Vino was accused last year of buying wins, the disapproving voices appeared to outnumber those claiming it was all a part of the sport's (ig)noble history.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Feb 14, 2013)

Only saying 20 years to correspond with the EPO era. Of course there was doping before that..but it never turned a donkey into black bess.


----------



## Frumious B. (Feb 14, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> the expose of dodgy deals done in the peloton.


 
Gordon Bennett, that would take centuries. I'm OK with the deals. Years ago I persuaded myself that the brown envelopes were just romantic Continental whimsy. They're not really any different to the understandings made within a team.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Feb 14, 2013)

I know - but the media has a whetted appetite - they were salivating yesterday on R5 at the news that football drug testing is a joke...and everybody loves a match fixing story.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Only saying 20 years to correspond with the EPO era. Of course there was doping before that..but it never turned a donkey into black bess.


 
Yeah, I got the timeframe.  Was just wondering if we aren't letting the generation before that off a little lightly.  Moser used transfusions for his Hour Record* for example, so there *are* instances of too-good-to-be-true performances of the sort you highlighted**.  Nothing as silly as Laurent Jalabert winning a GT/KOM, granted 

*Though the practice wasn't banned at the time.

**Thinking about it, has there ever been any suggestion of transfusion being used in the classics around this time?  I've never seen it mentioned, but given that the practice was known about and used by Moser as well as (iirc) the Bayern team of the late 70s I would be surprised if nobody had at least thought about it.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Oh, and IOC have confirmed that they WON'T be handing Lance's medal to Olano.


----------



## Frumious B. (Feb 14, 2013)

Gordon Bennett, check out Manzano's testimony at the Fuentes trial...Kelme were on something intended to cure anaemia in dogs..
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manzano-delivers-shocking-evidence-at-puerto-trial


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Feb 14, 2013)

Unaware of Bayern doing transfusions in the 70s . Moser's transfusions were a 'marginal gain' at the time. I'm willing to accept there were impossible performances witnessed in the 80s and further back but they were infrequent. And Moser pulling out the hour record isn't really unexpected is it? (thought Moser winning the Giro was...chiefly down to the organisers flattening the parcours and a certain helicopter pilot providing 'wind assist') Jean Paul Van Poppel or Luis Herrera would have been though.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Feb 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Gordon Bennett, check out Manzano's testimony at the Fuentes trial...Kelme were on something intended to cure anaemia in dogs..
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manzano-delivers-shocking-evidence-at-puerto-trial


 
That is pretty shocking even by the standards of the day.


----------



## Frumious B. (Feb 14, 2013)

Tbf to Armstrong, I think we have to concede that Spanish teams were never exactly trailing behind in the arms race. I bet some of them matched his enthusiasm for doping even just after the Festina bust.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Unaware of Bayern doing transfusions in the 70s . Moser's transfusions were a 'marginal gain' at the time. I'm willing to accept there were impossible performances witnessed in the 80s and further back but they were infrequent. And Moser pulling out the hour record isn't really unexpected is it? (thought Moser winning the Giro was...chiefly down to the organisers flattening the parcours and a certain helicopter pilot providing 'wind assist') Jean Paul Van Poppel or Luis Herrera would have been though.


 
I can't actually find my source for the Bayern thing so I would take that with a shovel full of salt until I can.  Agreed that unbelievable performances were rarer prior to EPO, and wasn't suggesting that you were wrong to focus on that era so much as musing that some out-of-this-world performances probably get overlooked as a result of what happened from 1990 onward.

On the Moser thing, I don't doubt he would have taken the HR , but would it have stood for a decade and needed a troubled genius with a new perspective on aerodynamics to beat it had he not been transfusing?  And I'm not suggesting we condemn him either - the practice wasn't banned.  But then, according to the WADA website, EPO was banned in "the early 1990s" which presumably means Indurain can get a pass for the first couple of Tours.  Or something.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Gordon Bennett, check out Manzano's testimony at the Fuentes trial...Kelme were on something intended to cure anaemia in dogs..
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manzano-delivers-shocking-evidence-at-puerto-trial


 
I knew I was meaning to post something important on this thread yesterday .  Damned hangovers...

The interesting thing about his testimony (apart from the obvious stuff) is that it truly puts paid to the idea that doping doctors are somehow protecting the health of their riders.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Feb 14, 2013)

The Boy said:


> On the Moser thing, I don't doubt he would have taken the HR , but would it have stood for a decade and needed a troubled genius with a new perspective on aerodynamics to beat it had he not been transfusing?


 
There was muttering that the Moser record was there to be broken. Considering all the human and mechanical improvements made since 1972 - allied to the fact that Merckx's record was at the end of a season in which he won Giro, TdF, San Remo, Lombardia, Flech Wallone and Liege as well (!) and he must have been fucked....Moser's record isn't that incredible. Roche was going to have a go in '88 but there was definitely declining interest in the hour record amongst pros until Obree and Boardman reignited it.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 14, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> There was muttering that the Moser record was there to be broken. Considering all the human and mechanical improvements made since 1972 - allied to the fact that Merckx's record was at the end of a season in which he won Giro, TdF, San Remo, Lombardia, Flech Wallone and Liege as well (!) and he must have been fucked....Moser's record isn't that incredible. Roche was going to have a go in '88 but there was definitely declining interest in the hour record amongst pros until Obree and Boardman reignited it.


 
True.  And come to think of it he beat his own record using Obree's design didn't he?  By which point he would have been well passed his prime.  

Anyway, the real racing will start soon enough.


----------



## Frumious B. (Feb 22, 2013)

It's game time! The feds have joined Floyd's whistleblower suit http://www.scribd.com/doc/126820630/Tailwind-Govt-Notice


----------



## sleaterkinney (Feb 28, 2013)

Dunno if it's been posted already but this is a transcript of Kimmage's interview with Landis from a while back, it's a good read

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011...aul-kimmages-interview-of-floyd-landis_158328


----------



## The Boy (Feb 28, 2013)

AFLD will be doing additional testing at the Tour this year.  Can we call that progress?


----------



## The Boy (Mar 13, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Unaware of Bayern doing transfusions in the 70s .


 
Just stumbled upon this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/a-history-on-the-use-of-blood-transfusions-in-cycling

Refers to Beckenbauer only, and the method sounds like quackery rather than sophisticated blood doping. Not sure where I originally saw reference, but reckon it's safe to file under 'probably bullshit'.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 16, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...-Lance-Armstrong-produced-four-positives.html



> A leaked internal UCI memo now shows that Armstrong, who went on to win seven Tours before later being stripped of his titles, produced four positive tests on July 4, 14, 15 and 21, according to Belgian newspaper_Het_ _Nieuwsblad._


----------



## The Boy (May 1, 2013)

Fuentes gets suspended sentence.  Blood bags to be destroyed. 

Not surprising, but fucking shameful none the less.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2013)

What happened to the Kimmage money? 

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...questions-about-the-Kimmage-defence-fund.aspx


----------



## The Boy (May 8, 2013)

There was a twitter storm about that. Tbh, I couldn't be bothered with said twitter storm though I've still not seen a clear explanation of what is happening.


----------



## ymu (May 9, 2013)

> “I was notified after walking out of the studio that Lesli had concerns about the money, where it was and what it was used for,” Kimmage told VeloNation this week, referring to the Cyclismas editor Lesli Cohen and the defence fund which was set up for him last autumn.
> 
> In short, it appeared that the money had been moved from the Pay Pal account linked to the ChipIn.com page for the fund without the knowledge of Cohen nor NYVelocity’s Andy Shen, who had also helped promote the fund. Cyclismas co-founder Aaron Brown had control of the account, and a concerned Kimmage wanted to know what was going on.
> 
> ...


One person had the authority to shift money around? That should never happen. What were they thinking?


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 12, 2013)

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-see-mcquaid-seek-swiss-support-29260078.html





> IN the face of mounting speculation that Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) president Pat McQuaid will not receive enough votes from Ireland's cycling clubs to secure a nomination to run for a third term, the Dubliner may now seek the backing of the Swiss federation.
> 
> An emergency general meeting of Cycling Ireland – called after a campaign to overturn the association board's original endorsement of McQuaid's re-election bid – is now just over a month away and those opposed to the nomination are cautiously optimistic it will be overturned by the clubs.
> And speculation is mounting that McQuaid will instead seek the Swissnomination for a third term.
> ...


----------



## The Boy (May 17, 2013)

Kreuziger the latest to admit to consulting Dr Ferrari for "training plans". 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...er-admits-working-with-banned-dr-ferrari.html


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jun 3, 2013)

Cookson to stand against McQuaid!

that would be the same blind, deaf and dumb British Cycling figurehead thats spent the last decade picking fence splinters outta his arse.

Got to be seen as an anti-corruption candidate....or another arm to the Sky axis.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 3, 2013)

I don't trust Cookson, but I can't honestly say why. Probably the fence-sitting you mention.  He just doesn't seem to stand for anything.  Can't be worse than the incumbent though, can he?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jun 4, 2013)

As a two up decision its a bit like being shown a magnum 44 and a sawn off shotgun before being asked which you'd like to be shot in the knees with.


----------



## The Boy (Jun 25, 2013)

In this week's shocking news, Laurent Jalabert's samples from 1998 have tested positive for EPO.  Colour me amazed.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 28, 2013)

Lance Armstrong reckons it's impossible to win the Tour without doping.

Hasn't he effectively just called Wiggins, Evans, Schleck a cheat there?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 28, 2013)

Everyone, not just them.


----------



## The Boy (Jul 23, 2013)

French Senate report on doping is being published tomorrow, where they will be naming the positives from the 1998 tour as tested in 2004.  L'equipe have already published 5 names with no real surprises.  Any predictions for names that might pop up tomorrow?  I'm going for O'grady and Cippo.


----------



## The Boy (Jul 24, 2013)

Cipo is a yes, O'Grady a maybe. Not many surprising names on the list really. Would be good if they would also publish a list of the riders who's samples returned no adverse results though.

*Positive:*

Andrea Tafi, Erik Zabel, Bo Hamburger (twice), Laurent Jalabert, Marcos Serrano, Jens Heppner, Jeroen Blijlevens, Nicola Minali, Mario Cipollini, Fabio Sacchi, Eddy Mazzoleni, Jacky Durand, Abraham Olano, Laurent Desbiens, Marco Pantani, Manuel Beltran, Jan Ullrich (twice), Kevin Livingston (twice)

*Suspicious: *Ermanno Brignoli, Alain Turicchia, Pascal Chanteur, Frederic Moncassin, Bobby Julich, Roland Meier, Giuseppe Calcaterra, Stefano Zanini, Eddy Mazzoleni, Stephane Barthe, Stuart O'Grady, Axel Merckx


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jul 24, 2013)

The Boy said:


> Eddy Mazzoleni,


 

Busted for blood doping whilst at Astana too.

Dissapointed Cipollini was on there, toxteth too.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 25, 2013)

Stuart O'Grady admits taking EPO before 1998 tour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/stuart-ogrady-admits-doping-tourdefrance


----------



## The Boy (Jul 25, 2013)

Olano had the cheek to insist he was innocent.  Now gone as Technical Director of the Vuelta.


----------



## The Boy (Jul 25, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Stuart O'Grady admits taking EPO before 1998 tour.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jul/24/stuart-ogrady-admits-doping-tourdefrance


 
Using the Erik Zabel "only did it once" excuse, I see.  All those years at CSC he was riding _paniagua_, natch.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Jul 25, 2013)

Yes its ridiculous that you'd go to the trouble of taking EPO but not bother with consulting a doctor or indeed risking self medicating.  O'Grady must be deft with a needle to have self administered. Its total bollocks to say that nobody helped me and the team never knew.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Jul 26, 2013)

I suppose that with a lot of these retired (or abruptly retiring) guys, they don't see the point in denying the bleeding obvious, particularly when someone has pointed the finger or some old test result has come up "suspicious" or whatever. But at the same time they have a certain honour amongst thieves thing going on where they don't want to be the guy who ratted out his old friends and accomplices. Particularly when they have nothing to gain by naming names anyway as they hardly give a shit if they get a reduced suspension. So you end up with these embarrassing half confessions of a bit of one off, independent, doping that nobody else knew about. Which just make everyone involved look ridiculous.

On a less altruistic note, there's also in some cases a desire to avoid having big wins stripped.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 31, 2013)

Interesting breakdown of the Senate report, worth the read.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2013/07/missing-the-point/


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 2, 2013)

Dunno where to post this, but I have to register my bafflement that Gareth Bale is still wearing a Livestrong wristband. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/02/gareth-bale-passes-medical-real-madrid


----------



## Manter (Sep 3, 2013)

Frumious B. said:


> Dunno where to post this, but I have to register my bafflement that Gareth Bale is still wearing a Livestrong wristband. http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/02/gareth-bale-passes-medical-real-madrid


hmmm.  yes, that's quite odd


----------



## Frumious B. (Sep 3, 2013)

He does have the 'lights on, nobody home' look. Maybe he just hasn't heard.


----------



## Silva (Sep 7, 2013)

Or maybe it's just a yellow wristband for something completely unrelated to Armstrong. Although I'd probably steer clear of wearing yellow silicon wrist bands for the time being.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 9, 2013)




----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm so glad I didn't start watching cycling until he was almost out of the picture..


----------



## The Boy (Sep 10, 2013)

Surely no way back for Pat now, is there?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-and-verbruggen-accused-of-corruption-in-report-summary


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 10, 2013)

If that series of allegations are proven, it's surely jail time?


----------



## The Boy (Sep 10, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If that series of allegations are proven, it's surely jail time?



If proven, yeah.

edit:  Isn't Verbruggen still an IOC committee member?  Probably get bumped from that too if the allegations prove to be correct.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 10, 2013)

It was reported on the radio earlier that verbruggen is telling people that if he gets kicked out then cycling's Olympic status will be threatened. 

Naked, desperate stuff.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2013)

I'm astonished that anyone ever believed that Armstrong *wasn't* taking drugs.  I mean FFS people, how gullible can you be? 


"I went to the moon!"

Yes, I'm _sure_ you did Neil.


----------



## The Boy (Sep 11, 2013)

Verbruggen loses his cushy IOC position...

http://www.3wiresports.com/2013/09/10/bach-wins-the-presidency/


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 23, 2013)

A well timed broadside at McQuaid from Vaughters. We could be just days away from the end of Pats cocktail hour expense account gravy train - the vote is this week. I'm staggered at the amount of fucking committees these self serving bureaucratic twats have dreamt up to keep them well fed and well oiled. Cookson is less Che Guevara and more Tony Blair...but at least he isn't Pat.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> Armstrong has a go at Pathetic Pat.
> 
> "Pat is just in constant CYA (Cover Your Ass) mode. Pathetic."
> 
> ...


How dare he mention Bartali in the same breath as he defends himself:



> Bartali, who was a courier for the resistance, came to play an important role in the rescue of Jews within the framework of the network initiated by Dalla Costa and Rabbi Nathan Cassuto. Bartali, who was known to cover large distances with his bicycle for training purposes, transferred forged documents that were hidden in the handlebar and seat of his bicycle from one place to another. His activity spanned over a wide area. He also distributed forged documents that were produced by the Assisi network, another rescue operation initiated by Church people in that town. When Bartali was stopped and searched, he specifically asked that his bicycle not be touched since the different parts were very carefully calibrated to achieve maximum speed.



Gino Bartali Righteous Among the Nations


----------



## agricola (Sep 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How dare he mention Bartali in the same breath as he defends himself



I really wonder if its possible for Armstrong to stoop even lower than that.


----------



## Corax (Sep 25, 2013)

Corax said:


> I'm astonished that anyone ever believed that Armstrong *wasn't* taking drugs.  I mean FFS people, how gullible can you be?
> 
> 
> "I went to the moon!"
> ...


As the thread's been bumped - Why did this not get a bazillion likes?  It was *well* funny you cunts.  

I'm fucking wasted on you people.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 26, 2013)

Corax said:


> As the thread's been bumped - Why did this not get a bazillion likes?  It was *well* funny you cunts.
> 
> I'm fucking wasted on you people.



The key to comedy is not to wait after the punchline for the audience to laugh, Makes you look desperate and therefore vulnerable. A comedy audience wants you to project savvy, not weakness.

It wasn't that funny btw


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How dare he mention Bartali in the same breath as he defends himself:
> 
> 
> 
> Gino Bartali Righteous Among the Nations



That was a carefully put together list designed to piss off as many folk as possbile. If he's said Coppi nobody would really have minded but as you point out Bartali holds a special place in Italian cycling folklore. As does Gimondi who build a rep as a gentleman pro who in any other era would have been a much bigger name..but instead dealt with being pasted by Merckx every weekend with much dignity.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Sep 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How dare he mention Bartali in the same breath as he defends himself:



Your hypocrisy is breath taking.  From your own quote:

"When Bartali was stopped and searched, he specifically asked that his bicycle not be touched since the different parts were very carefully calibrated to achieve maximum speed."

Deliberately misleading the authorities and trying to cheat random checks on riders, just like Lance did.  Arguing that it's ok when Bartali does it just reveals your hate driven prejudice against Lance, who's clearly the real victim here.


----------



## Corax (Sep 26, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> The key to comedy is not to wait after the punchline for the audience to laugh, Makes you look desperate and therefore vulnerable. A comedy audience wants you to project savvy, not weakness.


Oh dear, you actually took me seriously didn't you?  Bless.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Sep 26, 2013)

Oh yes, of course you were joking...er LOL totes.


----------



## Corax (Sep 26, 2013)

VP said it best.

Proudest moment of my life that.   

Yeah okay, my life sucks.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2013)

Looks the UCI are going to postpone the vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 20, 2013)

Oddly hostile Kimmage interview of Alex Gibney about his LA film(s) here. Seems clear PK think he is a mug and was prepared to be a shill.

edit: here the longer irish IOS interview.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 30, 2013)

So Rasmussen's book is out  now/soon.  Talks about doping, Riis, CSC etc.  Nothing new really except:

http://translate.google.com/transla...sen-jeg-oplaerte-giro-vinder-i-doping&act=url

tl;dr - Rasmussen claims to have helped Hesjedal dope for the 2003 worlds and 2004 Olympics.


----------



## The Boy (Oct 30, 2013)

Hesjedal the latest to admit to doping.  IN this case back in 2003/2004.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hesjedal-admits-to-doping-says-evidence-was-given-to-usada


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Oct 31, 2013)

USADA have confirmed that Hesjedal had already confessed to them and named names at the beginning of the year. It will be interesting when we get the full story - he rode for Bruyneel for one season, but it was after Hesjedal says he quit. If we are charitable about this, a refusal to get back on the hot sauce might explain why he didn't last there.

Vaughters says that's the last of the Garmin riders with a doping past. Which means that all of their core experienced riders, the guys who were already pros when they signed for the early Slipstream and who stayed for the rest of their careers, were indeed former dopers. I suppose that they were always semi-open about that.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 3, 2013)

Rasmussen chat

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Artikler/2013/11/03/204402.htm


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 4, 2013)

Rasmussen says entire 2007 Rabobank team doped.....

Team doctor was a certain Geert Leinders.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 4, 2013)

Tbf, the only remotely surprising name in that squad is Weening. And he isn't particularly surprising when you think about it for more than a second.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 4, 2013)

They are all retired other than Dekker (caught and confessed already) and Weening, right?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 4, 2013)

I am surprised at Friere tbh. He is suing by the looks.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 4, 2013)

Nigel Irritable said:


> They are all retired other than Dekker (caught and confessed already) and Weening, right?


Think so, yeah.  And as someone on another board points out, Weening will have signed a statement saying he didn't dope.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 4, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> I am surprised at Friere tbh. He is suing by the looks.


Really? I always assumed that his riding for the teams that he did in the era that he did would put him quite high up the list.

Then again it looks like Rasmussen has withdrawn his comments re: Freire and Flecha.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 4, 2013)

The Boy said:


> Really? I always assumed that his riding for the teams that he did in the era that he did would put him quite high up the list.
> .


 
Sprinters always stood the best chance of being straight. Plus Friere has never been one of the gang, he was always an outsider and viewed (in a friendly way) as a bit of an oddball.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2013)

(


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 5, 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview-part-1

The man himself speaks.


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 11, 2013)

Armstrong to tell all with 100% transparency at any hearing/inquiry.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24893598


----------



## hash tag (Nov 11, 2013)

I have just read that. Sounds like he is still on massive damage limitation exercise and is still appealing
for the sympathy vote. Well, you know what, you still don't get my sympathy nor my support, you were 
a liar (not just in the press but in the courts as well) a bully (you finished peoples careers, clean riders 
and journalists) and a cheat. Pay compensation for all the harm and damage done, give the medals back,
show some genuine remorse and then we might just start to forget it, well maybe not. Move on and 
go away.


----------



## Silva (Nov 11, 2013)

He can shove his apologies up his own ass, and if it's full, ask his groupies if they have room to spare.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 12, 2013)

Thats one of the problems with Armstrong. no apology. I'm sorry it is costing me money, i am sorry i got caught..
never I am sorry that I did it, that I lied, cheated, bullied, committed perjury.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2013)

every time i see this thread i think this should have been the title of one of those old empire books - 'with lawrence in arabia', 'daisy flies the atlantic', 'armstrong tests postive'


----------



## The Boy (Nov 12, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Sprinters always stood the best chance of being straight.



Is this really the case though?  I mean I've always thought that, and figured Abdou was just an anomoly (not sure Jaja counts). But thinking about some of the guys who have been outed of late would suggest that sprinters aren't any less likely to give into temptation than others. And I can certainly see the benefits for a sprinter of getting through the mountains in better nick than the competition.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 13, 2013)

Of a sprinter, a climber, a tester... I would always put my money on the sprinter standing the best chance of being clean. Yes he can benefit massively from doped team mates and yes if he can get over the mountains in better nick...just that for a sprinter the tour is over by week three anyway, most of the big sprint stages are in the first 10. Of course there have been doped sprinters but its the one discipline where you even stood a chance of avoiding EPO and still factoring.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Of a sprinter, a climber, a tester... I would always put my money on the sprinter standing the best chance of being clean. Yes he can benefit massively from doped team mates and yes if he can get over the mountains in better nick...just that for a sprinter the tour is over by week three anyway, most of the big sprint stages are in the first 10. Of course there have been doped sprinters but its the one discipline where you even stood a chance of avoiding EPO and still factoring.


How many not doping now?


----------



## hash tag (Nov 13, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Sprinters always stood the best chance of being straight. Plus Friere has never been one of the gang, he was always an outsider and viewed (in a friendly way) as a bit of an oddball.



Of the great sprinters, if any was clean it was Cipo. He always did what he did at Le Tour and as so as the going got tough
he got going. He always maintained it was too much like hard work going up the hills and decided to go and top up his
tan instead. Hardly the attitde of a doper.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 13, 2013)

Or, precisely the attitude of a doper concerned only with 3 weeks of the year.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 13, 2013)

Cipo never did the hree weeks, just one maybe two.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 13, 2013)

And still doped. Which was kind my thinking earlier. If someone who didn't even bother trying to get over the mountains was on the hot sauce, then what chance the others?


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Nov 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How many not doping now?



I - like you - have no idea.

Do people think Greipel, Cavendish and Kittel are doping?


----------



## The Boy (Nov 14, 2013)

In other news, CONI have asked for a two year ban for Ballan.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Nov 15, 2013)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Of course there have been doped sprinters but its the one discipline where you even stood a chance of avoiding EPO and still factoring.



True enough, but its also the discipline in which pre oxygen vector doping methods give the biggest benefits, eg steroids.


----------



## The Boy (Nov 18, 2013)

Armstrong claims Verrbruggen covered up a positive test in 99. Personally I'm shocked and amazed at the allegations

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24988781


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

Just came across this whilst doing other stuff: Pat McQuaid sanction busting in apartheid South Africa under a false name.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

Anyone watched the Armstrong Lies yet? Available in the usual places


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

Got it downloaded, trying to fit it in sometime this week.


----------



## 1927 (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Anyone watched the Armstrong Lies yet? Available in the usual places


whats happened now?


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

1927 said:


> whats happened now?



It's a documentary by a guy who previously made a 'comeback' doc about Armstrong 

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1638364/

Like butchers I've got it waiting to watch.


----------



## Jenny teengirl (Mar 6, 2014)

Why care about blaming someone years later, when he always made it through the doping tests. Yes, there were doping tests back in circa 1999-2005, and it's the doping tests results who counts - based on standards how it was back in those days - not what doping tests of today can show us.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2014)

What?


----------



## Dan U (Mar 6, 2014)

Ez Lance.


----------



## The Boy (Mar 6, 2014)

Is this Firky or Ninj?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Mar 24, 2014)

Dave Zabriskie has resurfaced post retirement to drop the USA Cycling top brass in the shit. He told Juliet Macur that he told the head of USAC, Steve Johnson, in both 2004 and 2006 that the whole US Postal team was doping (himself included) and was completely ignored.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/what-did-usa-cycling-know-of-doping-before-armstrong-investigation


----------



## The Boy (Mar 25, 2014)

If true, then that is pretty fucking shocking.  In the sense that heads should roll, not in the sense that I'm shocked.  After all, we know he and his allies had bought the UCI so USA cycling would be pretty small fry I guess.


----------



## JTG (Mar 25, 2014)

Jenny teengirl said:


> Why care about blaming someone years later, when he always made it through the doping tests. Yes, there were doping tests back in circa 1999-2005, and it's the doping tests results who counts - based on standards how it was back in those days - not what doping tests of today can show us.


Similarly, I don't think murderers etc should be convicted years later when DNA testing etc can link them to crimes they got away with before. Definitely.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 10, 2014)

Armstrong names names.  Bruyneel next?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-names-names-under-oath


----------



## The Boy (Apr 22, 2014)

Bruyneel cops a ten year ban, backdated to 2012.  Still moaning about hypocrisy.  Any chance of him naming names?


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 22, 2014)

The Boy said:


> Bruyneel cops a ten year ban, backdated to 2012.  Still moaning about hypocrisy.  Any chance of him naming names?



The issue is still what if anything he has to gain from naming names. I can't see that he has any reason to talk about anyone bar perhaps those who have already been banned or confessed.

If he had sometching on Garmin he might be tempted out of sheer vindictiveness I suppose.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Apr 22, 2014)

Whatever Liestrong and Bruyneel's penalties they still get off lightly on what is essentially a rap for defrauding uncle sam via USPS sponsorship.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 22, 2014)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Whatever Liestrong and Bruyneel's penalties they still get off lightly on what is essentially a rap for defrauding uncle sam via USPS sponsorship.



I thought the qui tam case is still on?


----------



## The Boy (Apr 22, 2014)

Questions for Bertie and Riis too.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Apr 22, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> I thought the qui tam case is still on?



It technically still is and the charge dates put it inside statute of limitations...but there seems a cooling off. Bruyneel might get indicted but I doubt Armstrong will ever see a court.

You see what these fuckers do? First we all have to become blood doping experts and now we all need to get up to speed on US federal law.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 22, 2014)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> You see what these fuckers do? First we all have to become blood doping experts and now we all need to get up to speed on US federal law.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 22, 2014)

Speaking of getting up to speed, I'm certainly not an expert in US law, but as I understand it, the qui tam suit is a civil claim of fraud rather than a criminal one. So it won't involve indicting anyone. It's about extracting money from them.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 23, 2014)

Someone on the cyclingnews forums dug up this guy as a contender for the biggest out of nowhere transformation of a mid pack rider to a GC winner:

Melcior Mauri. 
Grand Tour record: 98, 130, 92, 71, 78, 1.
He had won almost nothing before suddenly taking the 1991 Vuelta for ONCE. A couple of months later another sudden improver, Indurain, took the Tour for the team.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Apr 23, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Speaking of getting up to speed, I'm certainly not an expert in US law, but as I understand it, the qui tam suit is a civil claim of fraud rather than a criminal one. So it won't involve indicting anyone. It's about extracting money from them.



Fair enough Nigel, you know more than I.


----------



## Sigmund Fraud (Apr 23, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Melcior Mauri.
> Grand Tour record: 98, 130, 92, 71, 78, 1.
> He had won almost nothing before suddenly taking the 1991 Vuelta for ONCE. A couple of months later another sudden improver, Indurain, took the Tour for the team.



Indurain rode for Banesto.


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Apr 23, 2014)

Sigmund Fraud said:


> Indurain rode for Banesto.



Ah crap.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 24, 2014)

Nigel Irritable said:


> Melcior Mauri.
> Grand Tour record: 98, 130, 92, 71, 78, 1.



That's even better than 83,34,DSQ,2,2,4,1


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 6, 2014)

Bump.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b048wq0z

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-armstrong-liethe-armstrong-lie
2 docus on the cheating git, tonight on BBC4 and tomorrow night on Ch4


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2014)

The Storyville docu on BBC4 last night   re-emphasised just what sort of a bully and a coward Armstrong actually is,the sheer psychopathic nature of the cunt was breathtaking....


----------



## yardbird (Jul 7, 2014)

I got into the tour when I got Eurosport and remember the amazing results.
Never liked him but then the ones that I liked all turned out to be cheats as well.
I'm watching the Stortyville docu at the moment.
Extraordinary.
Sheryl Crow sussed the bastard (finally).


----------



## 1927 (Jul 7, 2014)

Thought the doc on BBC last night was excellent. I knew he was a slime all, but the depths to which he was prepared to lie and deceive and ruin anyone who stood in his way were incredible. A thoroughly horrible human being, and yet thee are still those who hero worship him!


----------



## hash tag (Aug 5, 2014)

I know this is a slightly sideways post but I got fed up eading about all the dopers confessions Etc. The last was Hamilton's Secret Race. So I got a copy of Bassons " A Clean Break", goodness he hates Virenque. I remember Virenque maintaining he had nothing to do with the Festina affair.
What a smug bastard he is! I saw him swanning around in Carcassonne a week or two back; my how I could have had words with him!


----------



## hash tag (Oct 23, 2014)

I wasted an hour and a half last night watching a bbb4 programme about this. They showed nothing that wasnt inthe lie. Unless i missed something, i failed to see the point after all this time.


----------



## The Boy (Feb 16, 2015)

Loses SCA case.  $10M lighter.

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/02/a...to-pay-ten-million-dollars-to-sca-promotions/


----------



## hash tag (Feb 16, 2015)

Just caught that on news; gutted. Gutted they didnt take him for every last dime instead of a mere 10mil.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2015)

every time i see this thread i think this should have been the title of one of those old empire books - 'with lawrence in arabia', 'daisy flies the atlantic', 'armstrong tests postive'


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2015)

How much he got left? How clever was he with it? 


> Armstrong acknowledged during his hearing that he had been untruthful in the past but, according to the same arbitrators, he had expressed no remorse for his wrongful conduct.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 16, 2015)

I see he's also been charged for crashing his car in Aspen and allowing his GF to claim she was driving - but apparently she gets away with her part in it ....
I hope this creature ends up in a trailer pissing in a bottle.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/feb/03/lance-armstrong-let-partner-take-blame-for-car-accident


----------



## Nigel Irritable (Feb 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> How much he got left? How clever was he with it?



Unless he's been very silly, 10 million is nothing to him.


----------



## maomao (Feb 16, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> I hope this creature ends up in a trailer pissing in a bottle.


It would be the first time it was his own piss in the bottle.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 17, 2015)

The Boy said:


> Loses SCA case.  $10M lighter.
> 
> http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/02/a...to-pay-ten-million-dollars-to-sca-promotions/



Lance has told them to get fucked and he's not going to pay. He's got some ball on him, I'll give him that.


----------



## David Clapson (Aug 6, 2015)

Seems like Floyd's revenge plan is gathering steam. It's time for me to dig out my Betsy Andreu Appreciation Society hat:



> The US federal government wants to see Lance Armstrong’s medical records from his treatments for cancer, specifically whether his doctors knew back in 1996 that he was using performance-enhancing drugs.
> 
> Court records show that government lawyers subpoenaed the Indiana University School of Medicine on 30 July to provide records of Armstrong’s treatments and donations he later made to the school. The demand came in the government’s lawsuit to recover millions of dollars in sponsorship money the US Postal Service paid to Armstrong’s teams from 1998-2004. *Penalties could approach $100m*.
> 
> ...



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...strong-medical-records-in-sponsorship-lawsuit


----------



## hash tag (Aug 6, 2015)

Is it only me that can't take any of his countless words of remorse at all seriously?


----------



## hash tag (May 23, 2020)

He really doesn't change. No sign of repentance or remorse or personal acceptance of guilt. Nice fella.








						In a new documentary, Lance Armstrong shows plenty of rage but little regret
					

ESPN’s new film on the cyclist is a compelling study in the corruption of the male athletic ego




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 23, 2020)

Reading this thread from page one is hilarious


----------



## 1927 (May 23, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Reading this thread from page one is hilarious


I’m gonna do that now you’ve suggested it! I still respect him for some things, but not as cyclist! I know people personally who have been inspired by his book as a cancer survivor. I just wish he’d completed the tour clean, as a cancer survivor, because that is an amazing feat in itself. He didn’t need to take drugs to win it for the story to exist. Unfortunately the real story has been lost because of the other stuff.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (May 23, 2020)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Reading this thread from page one is hilarious


Yeah, a few more reputations have taken a hit since then...like pretty much all of British cycling. No sign of repentance or remorse there either ...


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2020)

I can't respect him for anything. Just caught this and it didn't help
The Program: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000by0g via @bbciplayer


----------

