[Closed] Lance Armstrong - is the media missing the point?

sky dont have the biggest budget but they are near the top FWIW

The question that remains is - wht happens to the next person down the doping food chain? Do the authorities go after them, or do they sit back and bask in the glory of taking out the top man?

Bask in the glory? Interesting choice of language. They just did their job and they did it well. I dount think think of theoputcome as glory merely what the evidence shows.
What other Americans should they be after?

lazybike - Member
like sky?

keeping this at noddy level, who won the Giro and the Vuelta this year, Sky?

who won the Giro and the Vuelta this year, Sky?

They wern't trying to win the Giro, and there too clean to win the vuelta. Noddy level?....whats that mean?

I reckon getting the wages back could be tricky as the team were deeply in on the whole doping thing too.

What I do think is that everyone who was sued by LA and made to pay out / had to settle out of court should be given their money back plus interest / damages.

so its not really like F1, where a single team dominates and leads each race from beginning to end?

or are you trying to compare this years TdF (as opposed to pro-cycling) to a F1 season

What chance Wiggo as BBC sports personality of the year now 🙁

No, I'm comparing races dominated by doped up teams to single team domination in F1. It's not a one-to-one comparison and I don't want to be bogged down in semantics. I'm not saying the TdF encapsulates professional cycling.

The point was about how interesting racing will be if it's ever clean. My contention is that it'd be much more interesting watching a uniformly clean field. No 1-2-3s in classics, no groups of 3 or 4 riders from a single team dominating mountain stages, with their domestiques happily dropping specialist climbers.

The media missing the point!!!
Thats what they do. To assume that there is any interest is daft. The media exist to make money. They will "print" what ever sells.
The cycling media is no better than any other and indeed most of the so called damage to cyling is done by them.
Finally I doubt that any mainstream , non cyling reader gives a toss anyway. To assume other wise is self centred.

hearsay

this again? 🙄

You mean sworn witness testimony, admissible in court under penalty of perjury if found to have lied? I regularly give evidence in court and the difference is more than merely semantic.

 

The point was about how interesting racing will be if it's ever clean. My contention is that it'd be much more interesting watching a uniformly clean field. No 1-2-3s in classics, no groups of 3 or 4 riders from a single team dominating mountain stages, with their domestiques happily dropping specialist climbers.

I like to think that this years TDF was the cleanest ever...but racing wise, it wasn't the most exciting.

all you have to do to make racing exciting again is bin the race radioes - stop races being won by a guy in a car..

Tacks and no gentlemans code is my oprferred route 😈

all you have to do to make racing exciting again is bin the race radioes - stop races being won by a guy in a car..

or bin the bikes, make em all drive... 🙂 closed roads team car racing..I'd watch that!

I know I have missed something as this is getting a touch boring and I can't keep up with all the junk on the web. Can anyone point me to where I can see proof of Armstrongs doping?
Not witness's but actual proof. Ie a chemical test that shows that there is something where it shouldn't be.

No. I could point you to a failed cortizone test in 1999, and evidence of a covered up test in 2001, but there is no test-based "smoking gun".

But I can point you to a large number of witnesses who have testified as to how the team systematically beat those tests.

Would you always want DNA evidence if someone robbed a bank, or would 20-or-so eyewitnesses, who saw the robber doing it, suffice?

EDIT: And I could point you to a reknowned anti-doping doctor who says the chances of his 2009/10 blood value range being normal is less than a million to one.

Lance Armstrong - is the media missing the point?

UK needs a "sporting fraud" law, jail time is the one thing that really scares everyone involved in doping. The bans mean little. A lot of the American riders seemed scared that if the perjured themselves they would be doing jail time.

cycling needs a purge/ truth and reconciliation process, it should stop moaning about losing sponsors and create a clean sport with a long term future

other sports will have their day in the spotlight, somebody will start asking questions about women tennis players who serve faster than the men, football players openly popping sleeping pills and cafeine etc etc

Not witness's but actual proof. Ie a chemical test that shows that there is something where it shouldn't be.

absence of "proof" isn't proof of absence

Can anyone point me to where I can see proof of Armstrongs doping?

you'll have to wait for his book...

My point is that over the years many people have apparently lied. And this has now stopped? All[i] those who have testified are now telling the truth? No one has clipped onto the bandwagon to cover their wn arse?
Yeah right.
It amuses me that so many people who were Armstrong fans have now truned so vicious without knowing what has happened. I included every single member of the genreal public througout the world here. Armstrong is the only only who 100% knows. The rest is not fact.
Not defending the bloke, I was anti him the day he won his 2nd tour but am pissed off with the bull spouted.

Forget the above, who was the cyclist who reckoned that an element of doping came from the easing of races? The argument being that if a race was easy enough for many riders to have a chance then they would do things that enhanced that chance but if it was out of the question for all but one or two then most riders wouldn't bother.
No idea if it would work in practice but it wouldn't half make the racing better to watch rather than the processions we get today.

Have you read the USADA reasoned decision document?

I like Lance, his book (Not about the Bike) was inspirational to me when I had Cancer and whatever crap has been said since hasn't changed that.

No .Its too long and boring. I want 1 paragraph

Not witness's but actual proof. Ie a chemical test that shows that there is something where it shouldn't be.

AGAIN? 🙄

Years of CSI has distorted peoples' reasoning and perception of evidence (this is a genuine issue with juries).

I am due to give evidence in a crown court case. There is no forensic evidence implicating the suspect. This is neither unusual nor significant. I will be giving evidence as a WITNESS. The courts consider this type of evidence sufficiently strong to be able to make a decision to convict.

If you can only be convinced by a drugs test, google "Armstrong, cortisone, 1999". Clue; he failed it.

And pop along to a court sometime, hearings are usually open to the public and you may get an idea of what [i]actually[/i] constitutes evidence.

I can see proof of Armstrongs doping?
Not witness's but actual proof. Ie a chemical test that shows that there is something where it shouldn't be.

He could release his B samples ass we can now test for EPO but he has refused
When some were done for research purposes thand tested positive they were traced back to LA - again he could hav released his B samples but he chose not to
the technology exists but it reqyuires LA to allow it to be used
Many athletes - Marion Jones and cyclsist Ulrcih, Panatani, Millar never failed tests. as we all knowe they could not test for what they used I am not sure what your point is

[i] those who have testified are now telling the truth? No one has clipped onto the bandwagon to cover their wn arse?

I refer you to your pown point about poroof - why would they lie they never failed any tests?

Yeah right.

Yes everyone is lieing but LA that seems reasonable 😕

It amuses me that so many people who were Armstrong fans have now truned so vicious without knowing what has happened.

They tuiurned for no reason then all just aion a whim or becaus ethe evidence presented was so overwhelming no one could actually rationally defend it

I included every single member of the genreal public througout the world here.

Aye you are not over reacting there Its is the entire worlds fault

Armstrong is the only only who 100% knows. The rest is not fact.

He is not other know as well because they saw it happen - you can choose to ignore this and say that only an admission makes its true but that is setting the bara little high and we would not convict many folk using that measure

I think the fundamental flaw (and I'm not the first one to suggest this) is that you have one body (The UCI) simultaniously responsible for promoting and policing the sport of cycling.

LaLa got himself into the position of being the ultimate poster boy for the sport of cycling, 7 tour wins, cancer suvivor, arguably one of the most compelling sporting stories of the last 20 years (Had it not been built on Doping).

If the UCI had carried out their role as enforcers of anti-doping rules to the letter properly investigated and stripped LaLa of their own accord would have damaged the reputation sport they also have to promote (but at least have demonstrated the UCIs integrity).

I'm under very little doubt that the odd blind eye was turned here and there (maybe a sample or two misslayed or contaminated) until the Lance myth proliferated and the UCI were stuck with now having to tow the line themselves...

If Moving forwards and learning some lessons rather than just apportioning blame is the name of the game (and I'm not sure it is) then you could argue that the UCI needs to give up one or other of it's current roles; either they cease policing or give up promotion, My vote would be to give responsibility for enforcing anti-doping measures to a separate body; one that is not invested in the image or success of the sport, then the UCI can concerntrate on promoting a clean, independantly regulated sport.

All IMO of course...

I'm not sure LA's demise would have recieved this level of attention or blow by blow reporting had he not had such a high level of success, the higher you go the bigger the fall, if he'd had 2 or maybe 3 tour wins then perhaps there would not have been the same interest...

Ultimately this all damages cycling, it's inevitable now, and it's means time to clean house IMo, get all the issues of the past out there and known, and then draw a line, learn the lessons, make the consequences of future doping harsh and clear to all competitors and make sure enforcement is blind to the "Standing" of any competitor...

So when the TdF organisers come knocking at the door of LA for their (prize) money back will LA be sending the boys around to the rest of his Postal Team to get their percentage of the winnings back that was shared out? Maybe a little payback perhaps?

yes he will probably sue them for it after all they helped him cheat too- he may actually given it is him 😯

Kjærgaard is now doing a press conference, and basically admitting that when he got to USPS he no longer had to sort out his own doping logistics, because the team had it covered. But of course he never failed a test, so he must be telling fibs.

cookeaa; Nail. Head.