Both Contador and Armstrong have doped.
Bertie has tried to cover his up and gotten caught
Armstrong has paid to cover his up and bet upon his reputation. So far he's won
Anyone, ANYONE who believes that either of them raced clean is utterly naive.
Bike Forum
Contador suspended 2 years
-
Posted 3 months ago #
-
My main problem with Lance is he seems like a bit of a ****
From what I've seen of him I'd agree with that, but I guess nice guys don't have what it takes to win the TdF 7 times. It's a bike race, not a personality competition.Posted 3 months ago # -
It is beginning to look like doping is no longer through the teams and the doctors, but now being done on an individual level by the athletes.
..... maybe, but just punishing the individual doesn't seem to stop them from risking it, mind you, half the directors have a suspect history.Posted 3 months ago # -
but I guess nice guys don't have what it takes to win the TdF 7 times.
That is unfortunately becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, it seems that all young athletes are now being taught to be ruthless bastards, but there has been enough nice guys who have won to show that it doesn't have to be that way.
Posted 3 months ago # -
By making the punishment so harsh it'll surely put folk off? no?
as said above, life time bans for the rider and the team boss.
Posted 3 months ago # -
life time bans for the rider and the team boss.
What if the team boss is innocent?
Posted 3 months ago # -
Anyone who thinks that LA didn't use EPO because he didn't test positive are only kidding themselves, a reliable test for EPO is a fairly recent thing, at the turn of the century when LA was cleaning up at the TdF it was common for dopers to get away with it, you only need to look at all those that have retired and since confessed, indeed David Millar never failed a test for EPO and was only banned after confessing.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I'm glad Contador was caught, although saddened at the same time because of the negative publicity for pro cycling.
It won't detract from my viewing of the tour or any other cycling. But for the Daily Mail reading majority it will be jumped on at a time when cycling seems to be on a wave of popularity which is a shame.
For me, doping is like F1 where teams use things outside the rule book to improve performance. There's a grey area where something could or could not be allowed. Teams exploit this to improve results, until its outlawed and they are subsequently fined/banned. On the flip side, some use substances that are known to be outlawed, which is clearly cheating. Having read Millars biography, it seems that a lot of 'fluid' replacement stuff goes on after the race which is allowed. Surely if you want to do it clean, all forms of 'replenishment' should be banned too? But where does it stop - should all performance enhancing products (energy drinks, bars, gels, IV's to re-hydrate) be on the list?
I don't think a blanket 'lifetime' ban can be slapped on everything. At the same time, I think more action should be taken against team managers, especially those with one or more banned riders on their teams.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Maybe this year Wiggins can show that you can be nice and still win?
Or will his negative drug tests and lack of a murder conviction prove that he's doped-up axe-wielding serial killer?
Posted 3 months ago # -
Internet neds shit on a mans real achievements. Nice.
Yes of course in 2003 he could only use chemicals to aid his recovery from this fall on Luz Ardiden huh?
Posted 3 months ago # -
I think if it can be proven that an athlete has intentionally doped (so the onus is on the prosecution), they should be eligible for lifetime bans. If there's a positive test but reasonable doubt, then I think the current system can work. These are people who've worked their entire life for it and I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say that you will be excluded from your chosen profession for ever if you go and do this and we prove it. Perhaps the payoff won't seem like an adequate risk for a young cyclist who knows that at 21 his entire future could be over whereas now, a couple of years can be recovered.
Does anyone know if it's possible to ban from ALL sports for life? I assume that'd need major federations to agree. That way it'd stop the sport switching you occasionally see.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I believe all IV's have now been banned in cycling, you are not allowed to use an IV to rehydrate.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Atlaz - on the face of it, I agree. However, I don't think its as cleanly cut as you make out. A lot of the 'up and coming' riders are mentored by more senior members in the team. These are young impressionable lads who have dedicated their lives to being a pro cyclist, probably living away from home for the first time. If your director is saying that you should be using certain products or you'll be dropped from a 'difficult to get' contract you can see why some of them turn to it. Especially when contract renewals are performance based and everyone else is on the gear!
I think a banning of team managers/directors with a history of doping would make more sense. Rjis should have been kicked out long ago..
Posted 3 months ago # -
I've always said if its proven that a Sportsman has doped for competitive gain and hes convicted then he/she should be banned for life and stripped of all professional time results and titles etc.
That way you'd stop alot of the fringes from trying it- infact you'd stop all but those who are the most desperate/at the end of their career having won not much before.
What annoys me is a cheater coming out as holy/self-imposed redemption crap. Thinking he/she can talk from a position of 'knowing' on the subject.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Thinking he/she can talk from a position of 'knowing' on the subject.
But thats exactly what David Millar has done, and he's done more for anti doping thatn any other rider in the peloton.
Posted 3 months ago # -
i put to you all, if you do something at work that runs you the risk of being cought and sacked, would you do it? - i'd say some of you do this and or knows someone who does, ahem, bend the rules, but... if you were cought, sackd and then not able to work in that field again! would you risk it?
so, ban them for life. it is simple, no doubt in my mind.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Its not that black and white though is it Hora.
To me there's a difference between a top 3 senior rider doping to win, and a young naive pro who doesn't know any better.
If doping is endemic within a team, and they have espoirs racing professionally for the first time who are encouraged to dope or be kicked out, who is at fault? Without an influx new riders the sport would fizzle out and become dull to watch. It's these young riders that should be monitored and coached so that they don't think the only route is doping. More team Sky's in other words
Posted 3 months ago # -
but... if you were cought, sackd and then not able to work in that field again! would you risk it?
Not that simple, otherwise countries with death-penalties would be murder free.
Plus it's not just a case of the consequences of being caught, you have to add the probability of getting caught and the rewards of not being caught to get a feel of the risks involved.
Posted 3 months ago # -
flange unless your a bit dim even a 16/17yr old up and coming rider will know that taking a substance/offered an injection is bad.
Like I said conviction. If a team doctor is administering the drug unbeknown then there can be argued reasonable doubt against a ban.
However a blanket/no budge-stance would stop almost all attempts over night. I bet it still goes on, I bet theres synthetics etc not picked up, noted or checked yet...
Posted 3 months ago # -
There is no such thing as a "young naive pro who does not know any better" you know its wrong. you simply have to as its all over the sport so your exposure to doping as the wrong route to take surely must be 50ft high with flashing lights on!
ignorance is not an excuse
Posted 3 months ago # -
Contador got caught. Now getting punished, fair enough. Done.
As for the governing bodies covering up for Armstrong I just don't buy it. Most of these governing bodies are European, the first chance they got to discredit an American taking TdF wins it'd be taken.
The conspiricy theories and constant we haven't found anything but are still going to keep looking until we do, approach are a bit strange. How many times can they test the same samples and go over the same ground to find proof they didn't last time through.
I'm pretty sure if EPO was so hard to trace 12 years ago the playing field would have been pretty level for all the top riders rather than the notion that one pro had dedicated enough time and resource to developing new ways to cheat that kept ahead of all the testers.
I'm not certain that he didn't cheat but do think he was an outstanding sportsman who has been tested a hell of a lot without getting convicted of anything.
Why bother with testers anyway - TJ seems to have all the evidence to hand and know who was guilty, how they did it and every other detail possible!!
Posted 3 months ago # -
Steve - its all info in the public domain. read the link about Armstrong and the retrospective testing
Posted 3 months ago # -
As for the governing bodies covering up for Armstrong I just don't buy it. Most of these governing bodies are European, the first chance they got to discredit an American taking TdF wins it'd be taken.
Didn't he also say (and repeated) that the French authorities don't like him? Has done for years which meant he moved/left back to Texas?
If its ever proven that he won his 7 tours with dope then I'll be very upset. The bloke is great, whether you are a fan or not. Single-minded ruthlessness on and off the bike.
Posted 3 months ago # -
If the tests for EPO were unsophisticated in LA's days, then chances are the whole peloton was up to no good. He caned the lot of them. He was also on death's door and riddled with cancer. My hat is off to the guy. His worst crime...Sheryl Crow.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Tehre was no test for EPO when armstrong was winning.
Posted 3 months ago # -
I'm not certain that he didn't cheat but do think he was an outstanding sportsman who has been tested a hell of a lot without getting convicted of anything.
What do you think of Marion Jones?
Posted 3 months ago # -
I do agree that you should lose any results if you show to have doped - as to lifetime ban, is it better having a David Miller back in cycling clean and very anti doping or not ?
Surely he would be an excellent mentor to have ?I also agree that LA was too good, especially as everyone else around at the time has been busted, but he has never failed a test so the presumption has to be one of innocence, if he fails one - even retrospectively - then take away all his titles and give them to the next "clean" rider.
Could be a very interesting exercise from his early wins ......Posted 3 months ago # -
Also not sure many other sports would have the balls to chase the winner of their biggest title for drugs - seems very odd the results from Operation Puerto in other sports have never come to light.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Tehre was no test for EPO when armstrong was winning.
They had a haemocrit test. Which measured the constitution of riders blood levels. ie. they tried not to dope too much.
You only have to look at the ascent time of Alp D'huez to know there was something fishy going on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez#Ascent_timesthe whole peloton was up to no good
I think that's a given.
In those days - the rider with the best response to EPO treatment won the day.Posted 3 months ago # -
The conspiricy theories and constant we haven't found anything but are still going to keep looking until we do, approach are a bit strange. How many times can they test the same samples and go over the same ground to find proof they didn't last time through.
Except as TJ says, they have found evidence, the only problem is it's old so cannot be used as proof. Read David Walsh's book "From Lance to Landis".
The other thing is to look at LA's rivals at the time. Ullrich, Virenque, Millar, Riise, Pantani, Basso, Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Vinokourov, Valverde, De Luca etc, etc. They were all doping but couldn't beat LA. Is there any chance at all that a clean LA could beat all these other guys who were doping. No.
Posted 3 months ago # -
There was no test for EPO when armstrong was winning.
The UCI began using a urine test for EPO in 2001.
Armstrong won the Tour in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005.Posted 3 months ago # -
Posted 3 months ago # -
If the tests for EPO were unsophisticated in LA's days, then chances are the whole peloton was up to no good. He caned the lot of them.
I think this is a key point. It seems unlikely that if Armstrong was doping, that he was alone. In that sense the playing field was level.
Posted 3 months ago # -
The other thing is to look at LA's rivals at the time. Ullrich, Virenque, Millar, Riise, Pantani, Basso, Landis, Hamilton, Heras, Vinokourov, Valverde, De Luca etc, etc. They were all doping but couldn't beat LA. Is there any chance at all that a clean LA could beat all these other guys who were doping. No.
Surely that makes him the best if he beat all comers on a level playing field.
We all forget though that this man went through hell on earth, Cancer & Chemo changed his bodyshape from stocky/slightly thick set to lean and more slender. You can also question the pain hes body went through, his naturally high air/lung capacity and the fact a cancer survivor said he'd never take any chemical in his body again after Chemo.
After all winning a bike race isn't the same as beating Cancer. From what I can gather Cancer makes people think about living not about cheating.
Posted 3 months ago # -
The difference is with Marion Jones, she was deeply entrenched in the BALCO affair.
I think that if LA had been naughty that it would have come out. Plenty of doc's that would surely spill the beans on supplying for a decent payday.
Plus, he has rather a long way to fall should it be true. Is it really worth trying to live the lie rather than tell the truth.
Posted 3 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
