What????? for the greater good if he is guilty - and I am sure he is - then the truth needs to out.to say its the greater good to allow a cheat to get away with it?
One of the biggest obstacles to dealing with drugs in cycling is not the riders, but the attitude of the fans. It's very difficult to see cycling really cleaning itself up when people are still prepared to overlook alleged cheating and "move on" because it's "just entertainment" or "everyone's at it".
I'm sorry, but this is puerile nonsense.'Bad for cycling?
How about being bad for cyclists that the most influential cyclist in the world was as bad a drug cheat as the rest?You can 'choose' to believe what ever you want, but as the evidence stacks up you will end up with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
Lance is a massive inspiration - he is one of the best and most successful athletes the world has ever seen, up there with Ali, Usain, Federer (or Nadal), Peat, Jordan, Merckx, Phelps, Woods, and so on.
When you think of pro cycling, you think of Lance. What he did was amazing, and he dominates the history of modern pro cycling.
If you want the history of modern pro cycling to be dominated by cheating, then charging him with drug abuse is a good way of doing that.
If you want to drag up old stuff, which will just give people the view that cyclist are all druggies again, then charge Lance.
Let's pretend he's innocent for a second - now what happens?
Well cycling had an epic hero who battled cancer then stormed to 7 TdF wins in a row, all whilst clean. Cycling, people with cancer, and just people in general, have this awe inspiring figure to look up to. Not only did he do this, but he raised cancer awareness massively, and is staying active, in mountain biking first, and now he's gone back to triathlons.
If he's guilty, but not charged?
Well cycling had an epic hero who battled cancer then stormed to 7 TdF wins in a row, all whilst clean. Cycling, people with cancer, and just people in general, have this awe inspiring figure to look up to. Not only did he do this, but he raised cancer awareness massively, and is staying active, in mountain biking first, and now he's gone back to triathlons.
Also, some guy gets away with cheating.
If he's guilty, and charged?
Well cycling had another 7 years of cheating added to it's history. Cycling, people with cancer, and just people in general, are suddenly lost when their hero is suddenly tarnished as a cheat and a fraud. Not only did he do this, but he keeps cheating, in mountain biking first, and now he's gone back to triathlons.
Also, some guy on some internet forum gets to say I told you so.
You can have justice, and destroy cycling. Or you can let it go, and do the good thing. Yeah, one guy who may possibly be guilty may go free. And that's not great. But it's better then the alternative. What we should be doing is looking to make sure that we don't have cheaters right now, and in the future. Let's leave the past behind.
If you go blindly searching for "justice", just be aware of what you might find. Careful what you wish for and all that.
Also, he could be innocent. Remember, you gotta dance like Lance man, spinners are winners.
I struggle with long sentences
if I, as an amateur cyclist, wanted to take performance enhancing drugs, could I?
if so, what could I take, ignoring the risk of heart attacks, death, etc.
Ignoring the risks?
Stimulants like cocaine and amphetamines will increase your speed / power on the day - at a cost when you come down and at great risk to your cardivascular system
Opiates will increase your tolerance to pain and the amphet will stop you getting too relaxed
Steriods make it easier to increase lean muscle mass and to train harder.
No point in grandstanding - either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up
I'm glad you clarified that TJ as frankly I found your previous posts a bit disappointing from someone who tends to at least give the benefit of the doubt.
'Not Proven'? That isn't a potential outcome outside Scotland (AFAIK), and I don't think even if it were it's a good enough result .. the debate will plough on regardless of any outcome anyway.
RealMan: nail/head. Brilliantly said.
You can have justice, and destroy cycling
complete rubbish. 🙄
LA convicted of cheating will upset a few yanks. most of europe will have a chuckle (particularly the french but not the spaniards) and cycling will move on and cleaner peloton will work it's way round the roads of europe in what should be a great summer of road cycling.
i didn't see football "destroyed" in italy after the match fixing neither did cricket implode after the cronje or ****stan match fixing.
RealMan - really? What a load of toss...
Presumably you also think that the Leveson Inquiry is also "in the past" so just leave it...?
Don't bother investigating people like Wade, Coulson, Murdochs. it doesn't matter that they (allegedly) committed criminal activity then (allegedly) conspired to cover it up? All a waste of money?
Are you saying that because someone is high profile that they are exempt from normal legal process - or just because they are a sports "star" that you happen to like???
RM, with your history, I'm not surprised you're justifying potential cheating.
Are you saying that because someone is high profile that they are exempt from normal legal process - or just because they are a sports "star" that you happen to like???
I thought he was saying that reality can be quite complex, but I could be mistaken.
Presumably you also think that the Leveson Inquiry is also "in the past" so just leave it...?Don't bother investigating people like Wade, Coulson, Murdochs. it doesn't matter that they (allegedly) committed criminal activity then (allegedly) conspired to cover it up? All a waste of money?
I don't know what any of that stuff is, so can't really comment.
Are you saying that because someone is high profile that they are exempt from normal legal process - or just because they are a sports "star" that you happen to like???
No, I'm just saying that he is a figure head of cycling, whether you like it or not. Finding him guilty is something that cannot be undone, so you best be sure it's the right thing to do before doing it.
i didn't see football "destroyed" in italy after the match fixing neither did cricket implode after the cronje or ****stan match fixing.
I don't really know what any of that is either, but it sounds like a completely different affair.
Imagine you knew, with 100% certainty, that he was innocent - how wonderful would that be?
How awesome would that make this video?
I rode Alpe-d'Huez the other day. I was thinking of Lance at the top. I whacked it in the big ring like he did, and smashed it to pieces. He helped me there. My belief in him helped me.
It's a belief I choose. Yes, I may be blinkered, but ignorance can be bliss. If I knew with 100% certainty that he cheated, I could accept that. But I would be deeply saddened by it.
I thought he was saying that reality can be quite complex, but I could be mistaken.
Thanks 🙂
but he raised cancer awareness massively
Yeah, I never knew about cancer before Lance Armstrong. In what way does 'raising cancer awareness' actually help anyone exactly?
What we should be doing is looking to make sure that we don't have cheaters right now, and in the future. Let's leave the past behind.
And the best way of doing that would be to show that no matter how successful/powerful you are, you won't get away with cheating. It seems like you think the most important thing in this whole affair is for you to be able to maintain your hero worship fantasies.
Realman, Lance has feet of clay, as so many other great heros do, and it hurts when you find this out.
[i]When you think of pro cycling, you think of Lance. What he did was amazing, and he dominates the history of modern pro cycling.[/i]
No.
When younger people think of pro cycling, they think of Lance. Largely due to his Tour victories and the ease with which they convert into once a year column inches. Some of us, who you see fit to slag off as bitter old men can see where and how he fits in, and how much of his success is attributable to performance enhancing drugs.
[i]If you want the history of modern pro cycling to be dominated by cheating, then charging him with drug abuse is a good way of doing that.[/i]
It's already dominated by cheating! Do you live in a cave? Go here and look at all the names;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
[i]Well cycling had another 7 years of cheating added to it's history. Cycling, people with cancer, and just people in general, are suddenly lost when their hero is suddenly tarnished as a cheat and a fraud. Not only did he do this, but he keeps cheating, in mountain biking first, and now he's gone back to triathlons.[/i]
Yes, actually. Do you want us to pretend everything is ok? Do you want your son to be a good cyclist then find out when he gets to turn pro that the option is dope or go home?
[i]Let's leave the past behind.[/i]
But he's the most influential 'epic hero' of modern times; should we pretend?
Johan Bruyneel is the DS of one of the biggest teams racing; should we pretend?
Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid run cycling from the very top; should we pretend?
[i]Remember, you gotta dance like Lance man, spinners are winners.[/i]
As are those who seem to have taken EPO, Blood transfusions, HGH, Testosterone, Corticosteroids and so on.
Ignoring it will not make it go away, or make it all better, and if you think it will, you're part of the problem.
Go and do some research;
Kimmage
Betsy Andreu
Emma O'Reilly
Michael Ashenden
Christophe Bassons
Fillipo Simeoni
Floyd Landis
Tyler Hamilton
George Hincapie
Read 'Bad Blood' by Jeremy Whittle
Read LA Confidentiel
Educate yourself about the sport you love, it's tough when you realise it's not all as it seems, but it is part of following cycling.
I thought he was saying that reality can be quite complex, but I could be mistaken
Complex, yes. But overall, don't bother, it's in the past, why tear it all down ???
There are plenty of other areas of criminality where enquiries remain open long after the alleged events.
You do know about Father Christmas?
No.
When younger people think of pro cycling, they think of Lance. Largely due to his Tour victories and the ease with which they convert into once a year column inches. Some of us, who you see fit to slag off as bitter old men can see where and how he fits in, and how much of his success is attributable to performance enhancing drugs.
I don't think I've slagged anyone off here, but sorry if it seemed that way.
Although have you not realised that the younger people are the future of cycling - not the old men? Do we want a bunch of old men to be proved right, and the younger people to see cycling as a drug affair, where everyone cheats?
Do you want us to pretend everything is ok? Do you want your son to be a good cyclist then find out when he gets to turn pro that the option is dope or go home?
Yes, I do want to pretend. It's the better thing to do. And I've already said that we should be looking at the present and the future, so unless my son is considering competing in the past, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
As are those who seem to have taken EPO, Blood transfusions, HGH, Testosterone, Corticosteroids and so on.
Sorry, but I love this - are you saying people who spin a higher gear take drugs? LOL.
You're telling me to do research - why? I'm happy with my belief - why would I want to change it? If someone told you they were religious, would you tell them to study quantum mechanics?
I'm happy with my [b]belief[/b] - why would I want to change it?
Oh dear, the religious parallels are clear
If someone told you they were religious, would you tell them to study quantum mechanics?
No, I wouldn't waste the breath
Really, "belief" is for fairy stories, isn't it?
Realman is making absolutely no sense here whatsoever.
"Yes, I do want to pretend. It's the better thing to do." So burying your head in the sand and ignoring it is the best thing to do, rather than looking for the truth?
"we should be looking at the present and the future" Bruyneel is a present (and future) Directeur Sportif. If he's guilty of these charges then it's likely he's still doing the same things, but with a future crop of riders. The sport will never improve unless we get rid of the old guard.
All people are saying is look at the facts rather than bury your head in the ground. If once you've looked at the various testimonies and evidence, then you still feel the same way then so be it.
But to state "You're telling me to do research - why? I'm happy with my belief - why would I want to change it?" you're sounding like a kid sticking his fingers in his ears refusing to hear stuff he doesn't like.
For RealMan
Lance Armstrong:
[img] 
[/img]
😉
It's a logical decision. It makes me happy. I guess I'm more of an optimist then others.
Besides, innocent until proven guilty. At the moment he is, technically, innocent. So it's technically a fact, I think.
Until he's proven guilty, I'm going to enjoy having him as a hero of cycling and life. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit in with your cynicism. Spin it to win it.
realman: [s]have you refunded jimmy yet?[/s] you are talking crap! For the reasons espoused above. LA is not bigger than cycling.
So burying your head in the sand and ignoring it is the best thing to do, rather than looking for the truth?
If the truth hurts more then it helps, maybe, yeah.
And if a 2 year federal investigation couldn't find your version of the truth, I don't think I'm going to either.
RealMan - when I think of the Tour I think of drug cheats - they need to clean up the sport.
When I think of Father Christmas I think of my parents lying to me so I was blissfully ignorant of the truth everyone else was aware of.
Its so rationally obvious it makes me feel daft for believing it in the first place no I look back.
A 2 year investigation was dropped due to lack of evidence of fraud. They weren't interested in doping, only the money side of it - they were looking to prove Armstrong had defrauded the US Government. By all accounts they had a very strong case, but it was dropped to one man's decision, against the investigating team's wishes, just hours before Armstrong was set to be served.
Regarding the federal investigation. That was specifically looking into whether federal (tax payers) money (i.e. US Postal money) was being used to buy and trade drugs. Whether didn't find proof of it, or they were told to stop by a higher authority (which there are many hints of) is open to debate.
Either way, it wasn't specifically about whether he doped or not. That's why they've passed on all the evidence to USADA.
(edit: I see I was beaten to it)
RealMan - when I think of the Tour I think of drug cheats - they need to clean up the sport.
I was 7 when Lance first won, so when I think of the tour I think of Lance. The only real cheat for me has been Contador. And he was rightly stripped and banned.
If the truth hurts more then it helps, maybe, yeah.
I don't think this childish denial of reality is a great way of dealing with life tbh.
Contador. And he was [b]rightly[/b] stripped and banned.
So why a different rationale for Armstrong?
From what I've heard / read (and I don't really follow road cycling) the evidence against Contador was relatively thin???
RealMan - MemberI was 7 when Lance first won, so when I think of the tour I think of Lance.
...explaining the immaturity behind your viewpoint.
From what I've heard / read (and I don't really follow road cycling) the evidence against Contador was relatively thin???
Was enough for the authorities involved. If you want to believe what you hear from some cyclist on a club run and what you read from a wikipedia page, go for it.
I don't think this childish denial of reality is a great way of dealing with life tbh.
What does anyone have to gain from him being found guilty?
Either the testing shows it or it doesn't.Personal testimony is worth what someone is getting out of it, either reduction or absolution for their crimes or something for seeing the rest fall.
Brilliant so if I do a bank job and they have no evidence then the 20 witnesses who saw me [ I forgot my mask ] counts for nothing then?
I would imagine LA cheated more than Contador and I was more disappointed in bertie than LA - it was all cheats then at least now some [ I would like to think the majorty] are clean.
What does anyone have to gain from him being found guilty?
The truth mainly.
Was enough for the authorities involved. If you want to believe what you hear from some cyclist on a club run and what you read from a wikipedia page, go for it.
I tend to use [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ ]bbc.co.uk/news/[/url] for news info - works quite well...
My point was, is the "evidence" presented in that USADA document not of a comparable standard to that presented against Contador?
What does anyone have to gain from him being found guilty?
Like I already said, the strong message that no matter how rich/powerful/successful you are, you are not above the law. Pretty strong discouragement to any future athletes tempted to cheat.
But I guess your fanboy dreams are more important.
I was 7 when Lance first won, so when I think of the tour I think of Lance. The only real cheat for me has been Contador. And he was rightly stripped and banned.
The only real cheat? You don't appear to follow the sport that you claim to love so much very closely:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling <
If you don't think Armstrong cheated then read [url= http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden ]this[/url] interview, it's long so I'll summarise it...
As said by Michael Ashenden who near enough invented the test for EPO and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17586597 ]until recently[/url] worked as a independent reviewer of blood passports."So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."
So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?
The truth mainly.
Do we want the truth though? Can cycling handle the truth?
RealMan, for sport to work as a sport it has to be cheat free. Now, in the future and in the past.
For the benefit of the participants, spectators, sponsors and admirers. Its a role model from the top to the bottom. Not just in sport but in life in general.
Thats a gain for everyone.
You just seem to deny rationality because it spoils your blinkered view of the sport and worship of your cycling god.
Sod what you can handle - grow up and discover the truth at all cost.
Things dont imporve otherwise
Can cycling handle the truth?
The vast majority don't ride a bike because of Armstrongs wins.
If he's found guilty, it will be a sad day for cycling.
But I feel it's futile to carry on discussing this, so let's just agree to disagree. You can see him as an inspiring hero, you see him as a drug cheat. I know which one feels better for me.
The vast majority don't ride a bike because of Armstrongs wins.
I actually reckon there was a time when I would've quit road cycling if he had been found guilty at that point. Not now, but before. You guys may not see that as a loss though.. 😉
So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?
A damning indictment if true BUT it needs to be proved in a court of law, NOT STW..
Do we want the truth though? Can cycling handle the truth?
Everyone else can it would seem.
A damning indictment if true BUT it needs to be proved in a court of law, NOT STW..
It doesn't need to be proved in a court of law for most sensible people to think it's probably true. Do you reckon OJ Simpson killed his wife?
it needs to be proved in a court of law
Part of the reason he quit the blood passport review panel was because he's been blocked from speaking about cases and giving evidence (including Contador and Armstrong) in court.
Read [url= http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden ]here[/url] for the proof he had about Contodor doping that he wasn't allowed to mention in court.
You can be guilty of something without it being proved in court.
If he's found guilty, it will be a sad day for cycling.
Now this is the first thing you've said that I've agreed with. Although I imagine we'd disagree as to where the blame for that sadness originates.
It doesn't need to be proved in a court of law for most sensible people to think it's probably true.
You can say that, its a fair comment. On the other hand I like to give people the benefit of the doubt till proven otherwise & thats REGARDLESS of who they are & what they are alleged to have done. Hence why I will defend LA's innocence till proven otherwise.
I think thats the way we would all want it if we were if a similar situation no?
For the record Ill say I think he probably doped..its endemic in pro-cycling sadly & the majority of those that he did beat have at some time been caught..yet he still managed to beat them. That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.
I would like to believe hes the latter.
edit: Oj? I would say a catalogue of errors led to him getting off, not one isolated action. From what I know of it, its very complex..
For the record Ill say I think he probably doped..its endemic in pro-cycling sadly & the majority of those that he did beat have at some time been caught..yet he still managed to beat them. That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.I would like to believe hes the latter.
+1, all of that.
I cannot believe some of the stuff that RealMan is saying. Not many people who cycle got into it because of Lance and the ones that did are collectively some of the worst humans on Earth.
+1, all of that.
So you think he probably cheated, but you don't think it's fair for him to get punished because you love him too much. 😕
That means either he was on better drugs or he wast just plain fickin awesome.I would like to believe hes the latter.
Probably some combination of the two.
So if the top blood doping expert thinks he cheated based on seeing the blood work, what more proof do you need?
Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion? That Ashenden interview's been around for 3yrs and is regurgitated approx 3-4 weeks before the start of the TdF.
I for one would love to see Armstrong talking plainly about it, rather than in riddles. But at the end of the day, the federal case was dropped and this looks 'small claims court' in comparison.
it needs to be proved in a court of law
The fact that it hasn't been proven in court of law doesn't mean he didn't dope, it just means he was (relatively) good at it
Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion?
[i]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.[/i]
So 6 failed tests is opinion?
who near enough invented the test for EPO
Well, if I were looking to publicise my invention, I'd pick a high-profile candidate and sling some shite that can neither be proved or "un"proved too. 🙂
So 6 failed tests is opinion?
Well the "failures" weren't enough to convince the federal investigation. And this evidence/ supposition/ opinion (call it what you want) has been around for a while now, once more resurrected conveniently before a major race. Its getting a bit boring.
I think the point is this is the first time that they have 10 witnesses ready to step forward, many of whom are credible and nothing to gain, such as George Hincapie, all of whom will testify that they saw Armstrong dope.
Up until now it's been always been a case of a single person vs Armstrong, most of whom, rightly or wrongly, he's managed to silence due to his wealth/power/legal team.
As stated before, the original Jeff Novitzky investigation was about fraud, not merely doping. This new investigation is as a result of what the original investigation uncovered from a doping perspective.
buffalo bill - those tests were only intended as research. You cannot convict on retrospective testing nor should you be able to - the chain of documentation and the age of the specimens is not right for this apart from the fact it was not against the rules to have EPO in your urine at that time
New(ish) on the BBC site
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18441436 ]link[/url]
Might help to alleviate some of RealMan's anguish
"The public will hopefully understand soon that because of professional doping, support systems like the organised doping in the former East Germany - the organised doping in case of Balco, the organised doping in certain Tour de France teams, the athletes that dope are not only cheaters, but are also victims of professional systems that, for the sake of profit, corrupt sports.
tj - but they have charged him against epo use, have they not?
RealMan, for sport to work as a sport it has to be cheat free. Now, in the future and in the past.
Sadly however very few sports are cheat free. In fact you'll see less cheating in 3 weeks of the Tour than you'll see in a 90 minute football match with all the diving, fouling, spitting, play acting and that sort of rubbish that goes on.
And rugby (much as I love it almost as much as I do cycling) has plenty of dodgy stuff going at every ruck, maul or scrum.
That doesn't justify taking drugs in cycling, but it does annoy me when it's condemned by people who turn a blind eye to cheats in their own sports.
Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.
tj - but they have charged him against epo use, have they not?
But not just (if at all?) on the basis of the tests to which TJ refers.
Some proof, perhaps, rather than an opinion?
Do you need to actually see the blood samples yourself?
it was not against the rules to have EPO in your urine at that time
So your saying LA wasn't doping then, just using chemicals that weren't banned?
Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.
ROFLMAO.
Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.
Haha.. needs a bump. So he assembled an incredibly strong team, allowed them to take drugs to become even stronger, decided against doping himself but was still head and shoulders above them (and all of his doping rivals) in terms of performance?!
Kenny - read the ashenden interview. I have no doubt Armstrong doped
Im quite amazed at the level of loyalty LA has clearly instilled in some of the previous posters. Im also shocked how this means you can believe the most unlikey if not impossible.
Its almost as if Lance was a religion rather than just a bloke that rode a bike.
Oh, and for what it's worth I don't believe for a minute Armstrong doped. However he may well have turned a blind eye to others doing it, in order to get a strong team around him.
Haha.. needs a bump. So he assembled an incredibly strong team, allowed them to take drugs to become even stronger, decided against doping himself but was still head and shoulders above them (and all of his doping rivals) in terms of performance?!
THIS
There is not doubt LA was the premier cyclist of his generation and , to some degree, head and shoulders above the others. It really is incredible to believe he did all this against other superb athletes who were cheating...perhaps they only cheated so they could wheel such LA 🙄
I started off thinking he was clean but the evidence is pretty damning these days ...FFS they were all cheating, even his own team.
Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?If he is it'll be a sad but fair day. Otherwise park the venom.
This, 100%.
He has been charged - there is a clue in the thread title.
So you think he probably cheated, but you don't think it's fair for him to get punished because you love him too much
Don't think I ever said that. Fair would be him getting punished, if he was guilty. Big if. Good for cycling is letting it be.
The fact that it hasn't been proven in court of law doesn't mean he didn't dope, it just means he was (relatively) good at it
I like this - if you're found guilty, then you're guilty. If you're found innocent, then you're smart and guilty.
Why is it good for cycling to allow a cheat to get away with it?
@ realman
yeah, sounds familiar doesnt it?
'throwe the witche in the well, if it be drowned then it be innocent, but if it floats, then burn it'
my 2p, theres a lot of noise being made about LA doping, personally i reckon he probably did, along with most of the pro peloton.
i would prefer to think he was just frickin awesome, but i doubt it tbh.
but if he doped, and most of the others did too, that still makes him the best of the time.
might he still have won anyway if none of them were doping?
theres (potentially) a big difference between something happening and something being proved in a court of law, so something which isnt proven could still be a fact.
but if he doped, and most of the others did too, that still makes him the best of the time
Not necessarily, he may simply has been able to avail himself of the best doping or his body may have reacted to doping better than anyone else's. That is the fundamental problem with doping, it robs us of the ability to judge who would have been the best within the rules.
fair point . . .
Here's how I see it ...
I reckon based on what we know now (and suspected at the time) of the endemic doping in that era of cycling then I would be amazed if LA hadn't doped at all (whether this was full on EPO, blood transfusions, 'prescribed' borderline meds etc is irrelevant)
However; it appears that they are going to attempt to persue this without an actual failed test and merely on witness testimony - which has far bigger ramifications: where does it stop if we start going on witness testimony ? We can't find Lance guilty and strip him of all his titles retrospectively without then applying that bar to all cyclists who raced in that era.
Lance is on a lose lose situation (and has been for a long time) - even if he is cleared; this (and other) investigations/accusations will forever be a taint on his career.
If he is found guilty of doping offences then WADA/UCI must surely retrospectively chase down other riders implicated in past doping situations / who've come clean about what they did or this will look very much like the witchhunt LA claims it to be.
I think the problem is that for most normal folk outside of their world it's difficult to comprehend. Doping=cheating, cheating=bad - it's nice and black and white. But inside the murky world of road bike racing the real "rules" they were actually playing to were a bit different to the ones that were being printed in the official rule book for us plebs to read. First rule of fight club and all that..... It was just so systemic that in the bubble of a world that they were living in it was just normal. If doping was such a bad thing to do, how could they possibly find 10 past riders with witness statements to seeing LA dope - it would be something you would be doing hidden away away from even your team mates prying eyes.
Let's face it, it was just totally systemic with everyone at the top doing it because they had always done it and stopping would have lost them the edge that kept them in work and most of the those that were young and starting out and wanting to make it doing it because the were either told it was just what happens or saw it as the only way to make it to the top. Terrible situation but not of an individuals making. The public got to witness superhuman performances and loved it making the sponsors love it too. Everyone turned a blind eye as everyone felt like it was doing them a favour.
It's a shame in a way they did not just come out en mass as a great big group of hundreds of pros and confess to it. That way you could just delete all race records for that era if you felt suitably moved or live with the fact that that's the way the game was played, keep the race results and move on. Going after individuals for what was a much bigger problem just seems to be personalising a much bigger issue.
The great thing is I genuinely believe a new generation of riders is out there, brought up in a different environment, with a different attitude. I don't believe charging or not charging LA will have the slightest effect now on how Wiggins, Cavendish and their ilk play the modern game - to them its history.
However; it appears that they are going to attempt to persue this without an actual failed test and merely on witness testimony - which has far bigger ramifications: where does it stop if we start going on witness testimony ?
It isn't starting with Armstrong, Miller never failed a test and neither did any of the riders banned as a result of Operation Puerto - Basso, Valverde etc. In fact, in recent years I think the majority of banned riders have not been banned as a result of failed tests.
despite what he says Armstrong has not faced charges realting to this before..
The first court case reagarding the payment of his winning bonus was solely to sort out the wording of the contract - the people paying were trying to say why should we pay when he could have cheated, LA's team argued and won, that the contract stated the bonus would be paid, end of, it doesnt stipulate anything about not payig if he cheated, which of course they won.
The second case (the jeff novitsky federal case) was solely to decide whether or not any federal/government money was used in the purchase of drugs. For some reason, still unbeknown to the investigators, was stopped just hours before LA was due to be served papers to appear. This gave the consipracist theorists plenty of ammo regards to LA pulling big strings to get it shelved.
The latest investigation is not solely aimed at LA (so can't really be classified as a witch hunt), it's aimed at the 'ringleaders' involved in supplying trafficking and implementing drug use, incl bruynell, ferrari, and others still involved in the pro peleton today, and also relates to incidents as late as 2009 (the 'clean comeback' year). As I understand it though this is not a criminal investigation, the worst that could happen as a direct result of this is that LA loses his tour titles (whcih is pretty pointless!) and those found guilty will lose the ability to compete or be involved in pro cycling. If the case is then taken up by other law enforcement agencies will depend Im assuming on the outcome of this.
I used to be a fan of LA, and used to defend the usual accusations but then when you look at his treatment of ex tem members, the Jesus & simeonni (sp??) incidents something is just not right, he appears to go out of his way to bully people to stop information coming out.
Regards to the UCI, if this does blow up they will be seen to be complicit in the cover up too... hiding failed positives, accepting bribes (donations?!)...
@mefty - Ok; maybe I should have clarified this a bit more - but surely this will be the first case based primarily on witness testimony from other riders
Millar was found to be in possession of used vials of EPO; the Operation Puerto scandal was about riders with proven links to the lab where physical evidence was found.
proven links
Sufficiently proven in the eyes and according to the burden of proof (which I understand are completely different to those in a court of law)required by the sporting bodies. I don't see this being a special case - the precise nature of the evidence is not important, it is its' quality that matters.
he may simply has been able to avail himself of the best [s]doping[/s] [b]training[/b] or his body may have reacted to [s]doping[/s] [b]training[/b] better than anyone else's
I don't know whether or not he doped but I just put this forward as I find it illogical that we worry that someone gains an advantage from a drug but not from a massive investment of cash which can secure you the best trainers and nutritionists, the best team-mates and the best team management. It also leaves some riders able to purely focus on only the events they want to win with no need to chase prize money in other races.
If you can't catch everyone who is using doping and we know you can't then you can only come to one logical conclusion if you want a so called level playing field and that is to allow athletes to use whatever methods they see fit to achieve results. Yes you'll have athletes dying and being permanently damaged but that is the only possible way to have a competition in which you can be certain no one has cheated.
[url= http://www.cyclisme-dopage.com/portraits/armstrong.htm ]Plus facheux encore, il est contrôlé positif aux corticoïdes lors du Tour de France.[/url]
Those who believe Armstrong when he says he's never tested positive have obviously forgotten he tested positive for cortsone on the 99 Tour but was let off by the UCI against their own rules when he provided an ante-dated medical certificate. He has benefitted from the complicity of the sporting authorities who found his cancer "miracle" story was good for the sport's image.