[Closed] Tyler Hamilton dobs Amrstrong in it!

d'know what though... I think that I believe Hamilton too..

I refuse to believe that in this day and age an adult gentleman would be childish enough to lie about someone's past purely out of spite..

if there was gain involved maybe.. or is this the mentality of high level sportsmen..?

if there was gain involved maybe.

1. Write Book.
2. Make up salacious story.
3. Profit.

[img] [/img]

aah.. my mistake.. I forgot to factor in the 'celebrity obsessed slavering muggy public' factor..

I just can't believe Armstrong was that good without taking drugs while others were.

His sanctimoney winds me right up to, as one might expect.

I refuse to believe that in this day and age an adult gentleman would be childish enough to lie about someone's past purely to create interest in a just released book to raise much needed income..

I have, as they say, fixed that for you.

Is this the same guy who claimed on his dog's life that his naturally unobtainable blood measurements was caused by an unborn and previously undetected twin before he (they) were born and then realised "This is proper pissed, I better confess to doping like a junkie"? Yes, I do believe it is.

My position on it all is, I don't know if he (Armstrong) did or not and I'm bored of the whole endless thing. For that reason, I'm out.

I just can't believe Armstrong was that good without taking drugs while others were.

Thing is, every now and again there is an athlete who blows everyone out the water.

Usain Bolt for example or Pete Sampras in his prime.

Would this book have ever got a mention without Armstrong's name in it, probably not............
Edit:nice chart 😀

There is a huge list of riders who have ridden with LA who subsequently were found to be on the juice.....
If he was, or wasn't, still amazing to achieve what he did

"You don't ride the Tour de France on mineral water alone," Jacques Anquetil 5x winner

I think it's pretty well accepted that cycling has a history of doping at the high levels for over 40 years. It's only recently that the use of certain performance enhancers/compensators have been outlawed.

I think drug use should be stamped out in cycling, but I can't condemn competitive individuals who did it to stay in the game 10 years ago.

Like it or not, Armstrong is a strong ambassador for cycling - I hope it stays that way. Although I don't doubt he (they all) took drugs

Armstrong has never failed a drug test.

Only problem with that statement, apart from the fact that many, many other athletes who have subsequently admitted doping were never caught is that Armstrong has tested positive for synthetic EPO. His 1999 TdF samples were retested in 2005. 6 samples contained synthetic EPO. Luckily for him WADA rules state that historic samples cannot be used in any prosecution.

Another point for all the pro Armstrong camp. many of his team mates were doping when in Armstrongs team. doping in pro sport isn't some two bit operation, its a very precise science, one that one man cannot undertake on his own, so whether or not he was doping, Armstrong would have known his team mates were, and that the team was helping them, so for someone so antidoping, why didn't he do anything? He was the biggest name in the sport, he could of easily blown the whistle but he didn't.

Oh yeah, for someone so clean, his treatment of Filippo Simeoni was nice wasn't it?

They all do it at the front end of grand tours and procycling. Always have always will its part and parcel of the sport, just except it and enjoy the spectacle. Unfortuately Armstrong has made to many enemies along the way and now the knives are out. Hay ho

Armstrongs denials are very cleverly worded. Never failed a test, never used illegal substances - well in 1999 there was no test for EPO and I am not sure it was on the banned list.

There is so much evidence if no proof that Armstrong used performance enhancing substances and as for "never failed a test" - many folk have not even those now known to be systematically doping. Sports Doctors in the US have always been one step ahead.

he will get his comeuppance one day.

I would just like to add that I am no Lance Armstrong apologist, just one of lifes optimists who [i]hopes[/i] he did it clean.

he never failed a test, it's not his fault science couldn't catch him is it?

Why don't you hope Hamilton is doing it for the right reasons?

Lets say hypothetically that Armstrong was guilty and got caught absolutely bang to rights, say video evidence emerged of a transfusion or something equally conclusive.

What damage would that do to professional cycling? and would the sport be better or worse for it?

What damage would that do to professional cycling? and would the sport be better or worse for it?

See this is the problem. Maybe not quite so much now but back in his heyday, if LA had been conclusively proven to have doped, it would have ripped the sport of professional cycling to pieces. Properly blown it out the water. It would have been the Festina affair x 10.

They all do it at the front end of grand tours and procycling.

That's not quite true. I'd bet an awful lot on the fact that Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas are clean as is David Millar (taking into account his past indiscretions). Chris Boardman was clean throughout his entire career.

There's a lot more to this than just finding Armstrong guilty and it's a real shame that it actually masks what certainly used to be a big problem in cycling (much less so nowadays) - everyone is so keen to find Lance guilty that they're ignoring the bigger picture.

From an interview with Fausto Copi in the 1940's when asked if he had ever used drugs?
"When they are necessary"
"And when is that?"
"Almost always"

I have mixed feelings. there is something about Armstrong that makes him impossible to like and big names are easy targets. Also I really don't think that he was as superior as the results make out. Like Cav with his sprinting, he was very good, one of the best in fact but a good team and tactics helped a lot as well.
On the other and as a good proportion of the other good riders were up to no good and lots of people have done the same as Tyler, maybe theres has been something naughty,

paul kimage all over again - bitterness

i believe the term is innocent until proven guilty - wether he did or didnt - there hasnt been enough proof to say one way or another so until then - im going to stay with he didnt do anything that other folk didnt do ......

I'd bet an awful lot on the fact that Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas are clean as is David Millar (taking into account his past indiscretions). Chris Boardman was clean throughout his entire career.

I' agree with that, but lets be honest, the brits aren't the problem are they?

what damage would that do to professional cycling? and would the sport be better or worse for it?

There would be a big fallout in the US, and probably the UK. the heartland of cycling, ie france spain and italy will be unaffected I'd have thought

I don't think Lance getting caught would damage cycling too muc, just him.

im going to stay with he didnt do anything that other folk didnt do ......

Given that loads of them dope, I don't see your point.

Armstrongs denials are very cleverly worded. Never failed a test, never used illegal substances - well in 1999 there was no test for EPO and I am not sure it was on the banned list.

This. I don't think he's ever denied using performance-enhancing drugs.

I have just read on another thread that Armstrong was the victim of some kind of terrorist doping [i]grenade[/i]!!

Could this be possible..?
An Al Qeada EPO dirty bomb..?
It sounds as plausible to me as any of the other stuff..

I'd bet an awful lot on the fact that Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas are clean as is David Millar (taking into account his past indiscretions). Chris Boardman was clean throughout his entire career

are you confidence of their cleanliness [i]because[/i] they're Brits (Queensbury rules dontchaknow) or because of something a little more concrete and less patriotic?

In the 'Armstrong' years how many contenders DIDN'T dope...

I don't doubt for a moment that he doped.

FWIW, he has explicitly said that he's never used banned products/doped. I remember because before that he hadn't explictly said so.

are you confidence of their cleanliness because they're Brits (Queensbury rules dontchaknow) or because of something a little more concrete and less patriotic?

Something a lot more concrete. The fact that they're all Brits is co-incidental. I could just as well have said Fabian Cancellara.

stoner, I think its got a lot to do with their track background, and Dave Brailsfords influence

So more and more of Armstrongs rivals are admitting to using drugs yet they still got whipped by him for years. Must of been duff EPO they were given.

Or perhaps everyone else was told they were getting pumped full of EPO when in fact the drugs they got were to slow them down and Armstrong was in fact clean.

I still find it hard to believe he was clean throughout his career.

If Armstrong could be proven to have doped, which if he did, is unlikely with the lawyers he's surrounded with and the time that's passed, it wouldn't make a lot of difference to cycling in general, just to him. Pro road cycling's a dirty sport to a lot of the public anyway.

And compared to what he's done with his cancer charity, and done for the hopes of so many cancer sufferers, the TDF matters little. I'd be more concerned about 'proof' of doping affecting that than the sport of cycling really.

I also think, clean or not, he relied heavily on his team, more so than most, a team who pretty much all doped and i expect he knew that. so he's not won fair and square anyway. i'm not sure who the last 'fair' winner was, Lemond? were aero bars fair back then? 🙂 etc etc

I suppose we have to remember that Lance didn't dominate the sport, just the TDF, adn IIRC he only did a few other races.

There must be a rider(s) who had similar total success over the same period?

Lemond has it in for Lance re. drugs IIRC, it must have been even more rife in those days though.

Only problem with that statement, apart from the fact that many, many other athletes who have subsequently admitted doping were never caught is that Armstrong has tested positive for synthetic EPO. His 1999 TdF samples were retested in 2005. 6 samples contained synthetic EPO. Luckily for him WADA rules state that historic samples cannot be used in any prosecution.

sounds fairly damning was this widely reported, do we have a source for this?

I don't doup it but if thats been accepted as fact then the Tyler thing is old news

And compared to what he's done with his cancer charity, and done for the hopes of so many cancer sufferers, the TDF matters little. I'd be more concerned about 'proof' of doping affecting that than the sport of cycling really.

I guess this raises the question: do you let LA off the fact he 'may' have doped, but acknowledge all the positive work he's done during and since his reign at the top of the peleton? Or do you hound him 'just in case' he was guilty of doping while he whipping everyone else?

I'd bet an awful lot on the fact that Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas are clean as is David Millar (taking into account his past indiscretions)

Would Wiggins be one of the best clean riders of recent years then?

ampthill, theres a proper paper on the web, I can't find it, but it was widely reported in 2005.

no idea re proof it is possible that Amrstrong was so good his team needed drugs to keep up with him and support him and he was clean.Possibly he was so good and awesome he was able to crush a number of rivals who were all drug cheats.
It is possible he was also a drug cheat who never got caught like others, who have admitted this since they retired.
The only thing I am certain of , in this story, is that Tyler is not a reliable witness. Known liar with a book out at the minute so his motives are at best questionable.

British cycling whilst having a squeeky clean image over here is looked upon with some level of suspicion outside our shores. For example look at the recent UCI leak which put Wiggins at the same level of suspicion as Condador, Vino etc!! Doping is so ingrained within the sport at the top level its considered the norm if you want to succeed. The gains that new forms of EPO and Blood doping etc allow make it impossible for a clean rider to compete. Science always wins and is one step ahead of the controls...

What he says may or may not be true, but how are you supposed to trust the word of someone who can look you in the eye and say "I didn't dope" without batting an eyelid. Both Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis are practiced and accomplished liars, so why assume these latest stories are any more plausible than the last load of bull they spouted. They tended to be portrayed as the clean cut, straight up guys - especially Landis with his Mennonite background, but subsequent events have proven these portrayals to be rather naive. Given all that, I'm prepared to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt that he may be an obnoxious, driven, incredibly focused individual, who kept the right side of the doping regulations throughout most, if not all, of his career. The fact that he came back in 2009 and finished 3rd behind two much younger athletes who have both already been circumstantially linked to doping, despite it being generally acknowledged that whatever he might have been up to in the past, he probably rode clean in 2009.

There's clearly a lot of circumstantial evidence and personal anecdote that suggests Lance was doping, but I'm not convinced by the 'dominance' arguments - apart from his Tour wins, the rest of his palmares is pretty unremarkable for a top flight cyclist, and certainly nowhere near the level of someone like Eddie Merckx. A lot of Eddie's contemporaries have been done for doping, but there's never been anything like the sustained campaign to question his dominance across a far wider spectrum of racing.

Even his dominance of the Tour needs to be more nuanced, as some of Lance's Tour wins appeared to be down to poor tactics amongst his opponents. I think it was 2005 when everyone was predicting T Mobile would rip him a new one, and they ended up fannying about between Ullrich and Vinokourov in the mountains, and supporting Eric Zabel in the points competition. The contrast between them and the single minded focus of USPS was pretty marked. Watching that Tour, I was left with the impression that it was more a case of T Mobile losing it than USPS winning.

There's a bit of a catch 22 situation here isn't there?

If you got caught doping then you are autmatically a liar and not to be trusted.

If you doped and didn't get caught you will have a vested interest in not blowing the whistle on other cheats.

If you are genuinely clean then you were less likely to be exposed to evidence of other people doping.

That's not quite true. I'd bet an awful lot on the fact that Bradley Wiggins and Geraint Thomas are clean as is David Millar (taking into account his past indiscretions). Chris Boardman was clean throughout his entire career.

Except, UCI's list of doping suspicions for the 2010 TdF that was released last week puts Geraint Thomas at a 6/10.

Those in categories six and above (6-10) showed “overwhelming” evidence of some kind of doping, due to “recurring anomalies”, “enormous variations” in parameters, and even the “identification of doping products or methods”, according to L’Equipe.

That's as much evidence (disregarding testimony from washed-up doping liars) as has ever been levelled at Lance.

Tyler got a vested interest publicity wise...and the unborn twin thing means I wouldn't trust him especially with a book to flog

Armstrong built a team soley dedicated to one outcome...him winning one race...I think that's achievable for a clean rider...look at what Wiggo did and I think most of us trust him...same for Boardman...however do these results stand if they were built on the efforts of dopers? (does the fact all/most other teams were the same level this playing field)

What about Cav...he seems in a different league to other sprinters in the TDF...any sceptics about that success?

There's a bit of a catch 22 situation here isn't there?

If you got caught doping then you are autmatically a liar and not to be trusted.

If you doped and didn't get caught you will have a vested interest in not blowing the whistle on other cheats.

If you are genuinely clean then you were less likely to be exposed to evidence of other people doping.

Burn the witch! 😀

Geraint Thomas had his spleen removed. He's going to have “recurring anomalies” and “enormous variations” in his tests because of it.

Geraint Thomas had his spleen removed

Mmmh - maybe removal of organs should count as some form of doping, after all it seems to have worked for Armstrong 😆

Mmmh - maybe removal of organs should count as some form of doping, after all it seems to have worked for Armstrong

It must save a few grams.

Geraint Thomas had his spleen removed. He's going to have “recurring anomalies” and “enormous variations” in his tests because of it.

Do you not think that maybe the UCI know about that, and took it into account? Obviously i don't know either way, but balance of probabilities would suggest they do.

Jamie - Member

Mmmh - maybe removal of organs should count as some form of doping, after all it seems to have worked for Armstrong

It must save a few grams.

Better saddle clearance?

A sure that there was an article some time ago in France (Forget which paper) which intimated that Armstrong's cancer and subsequent treatment was "deliberate" and he'd done it to improve his performance. 😕

However, it's often said that you should judge a man by the company he keeps. There are a LOT of people around Armstrong who are tainted. As said on the earlier page, does that mean that he was so awesome that everyone else had to dope to keep up with him? Or is it a case of smoke/fire etc?

Its a possibility Armstrongs cancer was caused by doping - and the treatment he had for it included EPO and steroids ( fully declared) in a combination that is very unusual for cancer treatment.

or everyone round him doped to keep him in contention for the win ....

Do you not think that maybe the UCI know about that, and took it into account? Obviously i don't know either way, but balance of probabilities would suggest they do.

This is the UCi we're talking about here. Balance of probabilities would suggest that they picked the names out of a hat and assigned random numbers based on the number of birds visible from the office window. 🙂

In all seriousness, i really don't think Thomas is a doper his performances are just too credible. That list did throw up some oddities though. I can't be bothered to look it up but I seem to remember that Millar got a few points against his name and surely given his stance and history he must be the cleanest rider going.

Hamilton lost the plot a while ago with the twins facade. He's far from a reliable witness.

As for Lance, I want to believe him, but I'm still not 100%. What I struggle with, if he was a cheat how does he sleep at night knowing that he's conning the Livestrong / LA Foundation and all the people that idolise him? If he is a cheat, then he's one dark mutha. I can't believe someone could be that dark.

and the treatment he had for it included EPO and steroids ( fully declared) in a combination that is very unusual for cancer treatment

As if on cue, Lance's latest tweet:

20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.

20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case.

He never actually denies taking drugs, he always just says he's never failed a test.

But then again neither did David Millar or Marion Jones.

What I struggle with, if he was a cheat how does he sleep at night

Never underestimate the power of denial.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

...or good sleeping pills.

If you're going to dose, you might as well be consistent.

Never underestimate the power of denial.

"Everyone else was doing it so I wasn't cheating by also doing it"

along with

"people outside the pro sport don't understand it"

allows for athletes to dope and not question that it's cheating.

cha****ng you make a good point and think the crucial one is highlighted perfectly by finbar:

testimony from washed-up doping liars

If someone's been caught doping, then they are automatically untrustworthy? They are the ones who will have seen others doping, but we can never trust them?

Sorry but that's too black and white/naive for me - I suspect the majority of pros are doping, not the other way round.

Anyway why isn't Lance instgating libel and slander proceedings?

May I suggest those who havn't, read 'In Search of Robert Millar: Unravelling the Mystery Surrounding Britain's Most Successful Tour De France Cyclist' do so. It has a thought provoking 'take' on cycling/drug taking...things have become tangental since those days with respect 'simple' tissue repair and 'performance enhancement', but an interesting read nonetheless and one can understand how the 'spectre' has evolved.

Out of all the cycling books I've read; the LA's series and others that include this and the one where the entire book is just one race (can never remember the name) then the latter two are about the best...for me, with Robert Millar topping out. Insidentally, he was years ahead of the game with respect to diet...yet, pooh-poohed by his 'steak-muncing' euro-peers.

"The Race" 😛

This is the UCi we're talking about here. Balance of probabilities would suggest that they picked the names out of a hat and assigned random numbers based on the number of birds visible from the office window.

Touche 😆

If someone's been caught doping, then they are automatically untrustworthy? They are the ones who will have seen others doping, but we can never trust them?

Sorry but that's too black and white/naive for me

Wiggins went from a near podium finish one year to a bit of a disaster the next - perhaps he got wind of the UCI's suspicions and stopped doping? Seems to be about as much evidence against him as there is against Armstrong.

Mogrim - there is loads of evidence against Armstronmg - sworn statements, retrospective blood tests, many of his co riders arenow known to have doped etc etc

JY I agree but that's not how it's usually presented.

IMO it's more likely that Lance doped than Hamilton is lying.

sworn statements

many of his co riders arenow known to have doped

evidence not proof CFH

Here we go again... TJ, like it or not Armstrong is [b]innocent[/b] until proven otherwise. There's circumstantial evidence, finger pointing (usually from those with an agenda of their own) but nothing concrete at all. In any court of law as it stands, he is innocent.

You may [b]think[/b] he's guilty, you're perfectly entitled to your own opinion but don't go spouting it off as though it's fact.

As I said before, this crusade to prove Armstrong guilty is doing far more damage to the sport that a concerted campaign to get rid of doping full stop and to catch the "lesser" riders.

Crazylegs - I said evidence not proof. You admit there is evidence so why attack me?

And despite what you say a lot of the evidence is pretty strong.

the evidence is inconclusive [you can put a credible case fwd for either position] but at this time he has not been found guilty so he has to be assumed to be innocent..his return certainly showed he was a phenomenal athlete and the winner may have cheated.
I am not sure but nothing a lieing cheat says will convince me one way or the other

We are so obsessed in our fully black vs fully white western mentalities that as soon as some measure of discredit falls on one party then that party can no longer be right in any way shape or form. And that's just nuts. Tyler Hamilton was a doper, and has been caught - that doesn't mean [i]everything[/i] he says is a lie!

So anyway, never mind Armstrong, is Tyler's book any good? 😉

Setting aside the doping, which personally I am certain that all the winning riders have been part of, he did of course race on in the Tour 2003 with a broken collarbone - and won a stage in that condition. Hard.

that doesn't mean everything he says is a lie

i neither no nor care about LA really but if it is so implausable for someont to be better than the others for so long then surely Nico and anne caroline were off their chops on something for most of their careers?

[img] [/img]

Why can't you just leave Lance Armstrong alone

My issue with all this - is it is much much harder to prove that you are clean.

I personally think that a cleaner cycling is slowly getting there, but it will never be erradicated.

Lance is a good well known target and that is why people go after him - but deep down I don't think he is the mastermind behind all cycle doping which some parties are makign him out to be.

As for who is clean - well people liek certain riders and think that thier own personal heros are good and the others bad. Be it the British riders like Bradly & Geraint - who a lot on the continent think are'nt that squeeky, to the older generations like Greg LeMond even (He who shouts loudest often are ones having something to hide).

I hope they do find real evidence (not hearsay) that a cheater has cheated - which is where the UCI must get thier house in order.

The same must also happen in other sports - athletics is well tested, but look at tennis , football, rugby etc - the federations there are still too keen to cover up issues and point the finger at cyclign (just like Greg Lemond does to Lance in my eyes).

IMO it's more likely that Lance doped than Hamilton is lying

yep, spot on cynic-al