Did I selectively quote - or the original article??? I didn't bother quoting what has already been placed on this thread...
piemonster - that Times online piece is very good. Puts the strident denials in context. LA has squandered the chance of a sympathetic reception because of his agressive stance
rkk01 - Member
Did I selectively quote - or the original article??? I didn't bother quoting what has already been placed on this thread...
The article, he quoted the judge's issues with USADA but didn't mention that was also critical of Pharmstrong and the UCI.
Fair enough.
I have taken the opinion that most journos still seem to be very cautious about reporting on this - the Beeb especially, have been very "conservative"* shall we say. LA's reputation for aggressive legal action obviously still has some weight.
* - Or alternatively, you could venture the opinion that the mainstream media dont want to cover this in a balanced way. few seem to be willing to delve into the detail of the previous (publically availbale) concerns about LA
On the subject of denial...
For f&*ks sake, walk away, walk way away.....
Interesting to see Ned Boulting distance himself from this last night, on Twitter he stated that he disagrees with Liggett
I listeded to the Liggett interview. At around 12 minutes he seems to suggest that he has met cancer survivors who have beaten their illness as a direct result of listening to LA's inspiring speeches!
Time to call it a day Phil.
Phil Ligget sucks ***** in hell (possibly)
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-responds-to-liggetts-claims-of-bribery-in-armstrong-case ]USADA responds to Liggett[/url]
Interesting that Liggett is seen as having enough 'clout' to warrant a response from USADA, even if it's only a one-liner. I may be wrong but isn't this the first time they've commented on comments?
Paul Sherwin and I believe Phil Liggett are both business partners and very good friends of LA, but still its galling to listen to what he's trying to say..
higgo - Member
USADA responds to LiggettInteresting that Liggett is seen as having enough 'clout' to warrant a response from USADA, even if it's only a one-liner. I may be wrong but isn't this the first time they've commented on comments?
I think it's because in the US Liggett is 'the voice of cycling' so maybe seen as quite influential?
According to the commentator, who has business interests with Armstrong
Hmmmmm
[url= http://mg.co.za/article/2012-08-31-00-lance-armstrongs-loss-is-win-for-clean-cycling ]another excellent, measured piece...[/url]
again, nicely summarises LA's achievements, and downfall...
... tellingly, another commentator who write's LA's sporting "obituary" with sympathy - As part of a generation of dopers, it's not the doping that has actually brought him down, it's the aggressive denials and pursuit of others that have left him looking ridiculous
[i]its about a conspiracy[/i]
Jeez, they ain't helping themselves. Oooh, a conspiracy!
If Liggett's lying (and I'm not saying he is or isn't) why don't they sue his arse?
Time to call it a day Phil.
+1 for that, he was also pretty useless in the Tour commentary this year.
Cards on the table here - I'm a massive Lance fanboi (almost as much as Hora) but there is no way I can now defend or think he was clean. Hopefully all the evidence comes out in the open to end it once and for all.
If anyone has not seen it, Jens has posted power outputs on a recent stage victory in the states [url= http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/analysis/power-analysis-jens-voigts-winning-power-file-stage-4-of-the-usa-pro-challenge_235832 ]linkage here[/url] make sure you read the comments 🙂
its about a conspiracyJeez, they ain't helping themselves. Oooh, a conspiracy!
What else do you want to call it? If he was just doping on his own - no conspiracy. Being part of a team system who are all doping and covering it up (and making millions doing it), as well as bullying/intimidating others to keep quiet about it - conspiracy.
Despite claiming to be so bored of this thread you still keep cropping up with LA fanboy posts fairly often. 😆
If Liggett's lying (and I'm not saying he is or isn't) why don't they sue his arse?
Pretty obviously bollocks all this hearsay about mysterious figures with unlimited bundles of cash trying to bring down LA (coming from someone with business interests with LA, hmmmm). Is this guy Liggett mentions willing to go on record I wonder?
Who are these mysterious figures trying to bring down LA and where do they get the money from? The USADA probably won't bother suing as it's patently absurd. Also, by your own argument - if LA is innocent why doesn't he sue the USADA or contest the case?
Just nicked this (below) from the Road cc news page. Is this the same FFC that had there sprinter (Bauge?) ban back dated so he could ride the Olympics, then still wanted him to keep the world title he won during his back dated ban? Yes I know his just missed tests and was not actually positive but you can get kicked out of the tour de france for that. You can even lose your TdF titles without a legal positive test also. The hypocracy is amusing now.
"The Fédération Française de Cyclisme (FFC) has said that it views Lance Armstrong's decision not to take the doping charges laid against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to arbitration as tantamount to a confession by the 40-year-old that he doped. It also says that the seven Tour de France titles Armstrong won between 1999 and 2005 should not be reassigned, and expressed the hope that the Texan repay some €2.95 million in prize money won in France.
The FFC's views are contained in a press release published today on its website in response to USADA's announcement last Friday that it had banned Armstrong from sport for life and disqualified him from all results obtained since 1 August 1998. That followed Armstrong's anouncemet late on Thursday that he was not seeking arbitration.
In its statement, the FFC said it had been closely following developments, that it "applauds the perseverance of USADA," and that "the refusal of Lance Armstrong not to contest USADA's accusations sounds as a recognition of his guilt with regard to the breaches of anti-doping regulations held against him dating back to 1998."
It went on: "This decision closes the 'black book' of a sombre period for interational cycling. It also demonstrates that the biggest athletes are not sheltered, even with a delay, from sporting sanctions related to breaches linked to the fight against doping.
"The [FFC] welcomes this very strong message sent to the cheats, one full of hope for the vast majority of riders who practise their sport cleanly."
Regarding the potential reassignment of the Tour de France titles won by Armstrong, the FFC said that it "wishes that the places left vacant subsequent to the disqualification of Armstrong should not be reassigned, thereby leaving the palmares of the Tour de France clean for seven years and avoiding any arguments regarding the credibility of potential winners."
It added that it hoped for the restitution by Armstrong of €2.95 million in prize money won at the Tour de France and other races, and that the money to be used to develop cycling at youth level and for anti-doping initiatives."
The voice of dopey roadies and trackies maybe but definitely not the voice of cycling. Liggett opposed the entry of MTB (a popular form of cycling if ever there was one) and BMX into the Olympics.
Because it was rambling nonsense with no specifics?If Liggett's lying (and I'm not saying he is or isn't) why don't they sue his arse?
Is this the same FFC that had there sprinter (Bauge?) ban back dated so he could ride the Olympics, then still wanted him to keep the world title he won during his back dated ban? Yes I know his just missed tests and was not actually positive but you can get kicked out of the tour de france for that. You can even lose your TdF titles without a legal positive test also. The hypocracy is amusing now.
Hypocrisy maybe - they certainly didn't come out of the Bauge affair looking good. But what exactly do you want them to say now?
[i]Liggett opposed the entry of MTB[/i]
I believe his "opposition" was just a comment in an interview.
[i]you still keep cropping up with LA fanboy posts fairly often. [/i]
Yeah? Quote me on one.
Yeah? Quote me on one.
Here you go 🙄
DezB - Member
He's still pretty damn awesome though: Out of all the cheats, he (allegedly) cheated much better than all the others and got away with it for the longest. Go Armstrong!
aracer - Member
I'd expect them to say "we are hyocritical losers who would rather accuse others than figure out how to win legally ourselves". I do live in cloud cuckoo land though.
Seriously after all the steps taken by the French to stop doping after the 1998 I expected things had improved there but it seems not. Can't totally blame the FFC for that though. Apprently some folk are using really round wheels.
TBF, Dezb's "input" (which is not insubstantial) on this thread isn't much more than saying how crap it is 🙄
.
[i]TBF, Dezb's "input" (which is not insubstantial) on this thread isn't much more than saying how crap it is[/i]
He speaketh the truth. S'what boredom does. I keep coming back expecting new revelations, but there's never any so I'll leave ya all to it.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990 ]USADA to publish evidence...[/url]
The bulk of that evidence is testimony from at least a dozen of his former team-mates and associates, [b]but it is not, as has been reported, evidence gathered during the federal investigation[/b] into allegations of systematic doping at the US Postal Service cycling team.
This looks like a different twist...
Usada has not had access, despite requests, to the evidence the Food and Drug Administration investigators gathered, and has built its own case.
Ooo this should get us to 1000. It's definately a witchunt then.
Stunning open letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil Liggett:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/filthy-business-indeed
rkk01 - MemberUsada has not had access, despite requests, to the evidence the Food and Drug Administration investigators gathered, and has built its own case.
Ooh, that's a twist isn't it. Wonder if they've got anything extra, to make up for the loss? Or if it all ends up coming down to making a weaker case, but relying on the lower burden of proof? (or, I guess option c is the "federal case dropped because of corruption" allegation, which I'd like to see more of too)
Stunning open letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil Liggett:http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2012/filthy-business-indeed
That is a great letter
Feel a bit sorry for Liggett after reading that, it was like watching him go 10 rounds with Tyson. Absolutely destroyed.
Brilliant letter!
I think the letter could have been better written with more precision and less bile. Othewise people might.....
Feel a bit sorry for Liggett after reading that
No argument with the content of the letter, just the style.
I think the letter could have been better written with more precision and less bile.
Yep. What a cock. Maybe he should stick to doctoring and leave the speaking to others?
Just to clarify, I didn't actually feel sorry for him and quite enjoyed the leter. Maybe Liggett should stick to commentating (badly) and leave the analysis of doping controls to others?
Well, actually Liggett was commentating (possibly badly) and was actually asked for his opinion, unlike Ashenden.
Ashenden has now lost his credability with that diatribe. He could have written it better and reinforced his postion the the arguments about the case, wonder if he was pissed. No wonder LA and the supporters can claim witchunt.
Yep. What a cock. Maybe he should stick to doctoring and leave the speaking to others?
He actually usually writes very well, he's obviously just tearing his hair out (OK he was already bald...) at the crap Liggett was spewing and ranted back in a STW forum-style manner which whilst entertaining I agree doesn't really make him come across in the best light
Thought his letter was ok
Phil you are talking out your rear
love Ashenden
he was not wrong and phil was
Hmmmmmm. Nah, I don't think he loses credibility. There's no lack of diatribes from the pro- side, so a bit of furious wrath from the other side hardly changes the tone. I think it'll put people off, and it's not particularily readable, but then there's no lack of more reasoned discussion to complement it.
I think the letter could have been better written with more precision and less bile. Othewise people might.....
Given the crass stupidity and hypocrisy of Ligett's comments I thought he was pretty restrained TBH.
A little off topic but can anyone explain how Riis is still allowed to have any involvement in the sport of cycling, let alone manage a professional cycling team? Latest [url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-i-do-not-know-fuentes ]allegation comes from Hamilton[/url].
+1 JY & Northwind
A mate of mine summed it up nicely with "weird how he uses 'Phil' to mean 'dickhead'"
A little off topic but can anyone explain how Riis is still allowed to have any involvement in the sport of cycling, let alone manage a professional cycling team?
It's why it's taking so many years to clean up cycling. A very high percentage of riders go into things like team management, coaching, commentary etc when they retire so they keep everything covered up nicely. They doped, they know how it was done, they introduced the younger riders (the ones who are still racing) to doping, those practices get a bit more refined then when they retire they've got their cushy little commentary number or a role as DS but if they speak out, suddenly all the sponsorship comes crashing down, the team fragments, the younger riders who looked up to these guys suddenly have their career ended - so they don't speak out.
That's part of the reason that a lot of the cycling press never questioned LA's results cos he'd simply deny them interviews and photos - this at a time when interviews with LA sold magazines and photos and got hits on websites. Hence everything published about him was always about how great he was...
The UCI is supposed to be introducing some sort of rule that prevents anyone with a doping conviction from working within the sport but that hasn't happened (yet).
Ashenden's reply (or more tellingly, the comments underneath it) show just how divided it is. The issue is no longer about LA doping. It's about different sides in a war sniping at each other, pot shots about who's got the biggest axe to grind, who knows "the truth", counterclaims to the other sides claims. What a total mess.
A mate of mine summed it up nicely with "weird how he uses 'Phil' to mean 'dickhead'"
ha ha, 🙂
Crawling up towards the 900 mark...
This is very interesting... Shows all the links LA has/had with cycling in general - some of this came as news to me as well but it shows how small and incestuous the world of cycling is and how LA was able to control the peloton and the media and even the governing bodies.
This isn't restricted to LA, this kind of stuff still goes on today but the flow chart surprised me. Full version available as a pdf download [url= http://www.cyclismas.com/ ]here[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
