And here comes one of the denials from an accusation levelled in Hamilton's book:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9524663/Drug-accusations-made-by-Tyler-Hamilton-labelled-absurd-by-former-US-Postal-director.html
glitchy thread bump
Glitchbump?
An admission or black and white proof.
Some people don't believe Armstrong walked on the moon. Do you believe or do you doubt without concrete proof?
mefty, I think that's Cheryl Crow
Lol, just had coffee on keyboard moment!
Gosh, a rider we'd all pretty much forgotten about chooses this particular moment to write a book about doping. What a coincidence!
*wonders why Lance is getting so much heat given that doping was so widespread, for so long, so widely denied by so many*
And why is Contador allowed to race? - he tested positive, recently, and I read somewhere that his ban period was adjusted so it was partly retrospective and so he didn't miss too many races. For goodness sake - what message does that send?
Some people don't believe Armstrong walked on the moon. Do you believe or do you doubt without concrete proof?
As if winning 7 Tours wasn't enough, he went to the moon as well?!
Or do you mean he was wired to the moon while winning 7 Tours?
😉
[yes, I know it's two different Armstrongs, it's not an irony fail...]
That is wierd - Contador.
Genuine LOL, I walked into that one 😆
*wonders why Lance is getting so much heat given that doping was so widespread, for so long, so widely denied by so many*
Because, IMO and as stated by USADA, he was part of a conspiracy that many would argue perpetuated doping in cycling and made it harder to get rid of the culture of it.
Contador was banned but had already been suspended/not raced for a period of time that was then take off the two year ban - a bit like being in remand.
Some people don't believe Armstrong walked on the moon. Do you believe or do you doubt withoout concrete proof?
and some people think he walks on water
wonders why Lance is getting so much heat given that doping was so widespread, for so long, so widely denied by so many*
Well they caught many of the others [ and LA but it was brushed under the carpet or he was allowed a back dated medical cert despite saying on his forms he was not taking any medication at the time of entry ]and he was the winer and highest profile rider of the time ...who do you think they should target instead then?
I imagine winners do get more suspicion of drug cheating than loosers...why would you find that odd?
crazy-legs - Member
And here comes one of the denials from an accusation levelled in Hamilton's book:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9524663/Drug-accusations-made-by-Tyler-Hamilton-labelled-absurd-by-former-US-Postal-director.html
Have a read of what JV has commented about that (since Weltz now works for JV...)
And Contador lost a yellow jersey - not like he got off scott free.
A yellow jersey AND a pink one.
And Contador lost a yellow jersey - not like he got off scott free.
Still sends the wrong message. As soon as Contador tested positive, he should have been suspended from all racing pending the outcome of the case. As it was, he went off, won the Tour, won the 2011 Giro then finally had a ban slapped on him that was backdated to when he tested. So in other words, he still got all the racing in with the added mess and bad publicity of stripping him of his wins.
The whole system needs reworking inside out. Proper procedures, less of the legal back and forths, absolutely no leaks whatsoever from the labs that seem to give data out to random journalists and a complete ban on convicted dopers working as team managers, doctors, etc.
And the UCI could probably do with a good clean as well - lift up all the carpets and clean out everything that was swept underneath them...
Lance, latest have we done it yet.
Yep. To death.
And the UCI could probably do with a good clean as well - lift up all the carpets and clean out everything that was swept underneath them...
Yep, which is why hopefully this whole 'Lance' thing is positive (pun intended 🙂 ) - just need some more detail to come out about UCI collusion to come out and they could well be forced to make changes - of course, it needs to be more than just window dressing but getting rid of Pat and Hein (from the IOC) would be a good start
crazy-legs - Member
"And Contador lost a yellow jersey - not like he got off scott free."
Still sends the wrong message. As soon as Contador tested positive, he should have been suspended from all racing pending the outcome of the case
And if he'd been found innocent he would have missed a season's racing and been punished for nothing.
A & B sample tested positive. Tough shit, you're positive.
Racing/competing while you're waiting the results of B is fair enough but once B is positive as well, you should be suspended while all the legal wrangles go on.
The number of cases when they're positive because of accidental contamination is few and far between compared to cases where they've deliberately doped.
"And if he'd been found innocent he would have missed a season's racing and been punished for nothing."
He could not be found innocent as there is no legal minimum for his drug of choice. Even if injested by accident then it's still illegal so a ban. Having the Spanish Prime Minister state on TV that there would be no banning for the cheating little twerp messed things up for the authorities a tad.
clubber - agree re UCI. I think the real reason this has rumbled on for so long is that it involves not only the cyclists but back up teams, doctors, labs, sponsors, governing bodies, organisers, governments - ie everyone. I imagine (and this is only my opinion) that there are quite a few highly-placed individuals who will be feeling very happy that the spotlight is on Lance and not them.
Mind you, I still say that these riders have got talent. It's not like you could pick someone out of the queue at Tesco, pop them on a bike, give them some drugs, and make a Tour winner.
The number of cases when they're positive because of accidental contamination is few and far between compared to cases where they've deliberately doped.
In fact, the only time the B-sample has not been positive too has been down to procedural issues as far as I remember (Hamilton got away with one I recall). So yes, if A&B are positive, suspension should be compulsory until the case is decided. Then you could say bans are from the date of the hearing, not the date of the test to ensure everyone wants to get it over quickly.
Mind you, I still say that these riders have got talent. It's not like you could pick someone out of the queue at Tesco, pop them on a bike, give them some drugs, and make a Tour winner.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that (though there is debate over how consistently people respond to doping - eg some riders are far better doped than an otherwise comparable rider is when also doping so it becomes a race over who's best at responding to doping).
if you test positive you test positive.
the reason is irrelevant you still get banned- look at thescotssih skier
All athletes are responsible for everything they have in them whatever the cause - strict liability
he was always getting banned everyone knew this but the Spanish would not accept it.
Mind you, I still say that these riders have got talent. It's not like you could pick someone out of the queue at Tesco, pop them on a bike, give them some drugs, and make a Tour winner
True but we can also never sya that any of the winners would have won without cheating
Hamilton was 97 th in the Vuleta when he rode it clean for example. Must have been many clean athlets above him and below the winner [ who also may have been clean for all I know].
That is the problem, it does not enhance your natural abilities it gives you unnatural abilities.
This is totally seperate but you've been caught as a cheat/etc - wouldn't the best thing to do would be to live a quiet life? Not stand up and bang a drum/gain attention/notoriety?
Says it all about the mindset of cheats in general, they feel they have been cheated themselves in someway/blame something else/someone else for why they chose to go down the original path.
crazy-legs - Member
A & B sample tested positive. Tough shit, you're positive.
Racing/competing while you're waiting the results of B is fair enough but once B is positive as well, you should be suspended while all the legal wrangles go on.The number of cases when they're positive because of accidental contamination is few and far between compared to cases where they've deliberately doped.
True, I didn't think of that.
mt - Member
He could not be found innocent as there is no legal minimum for his drug of choice.
Or that, disregard!
This is totally seperate but you've been caught as a cheat/etc - wouldn't the best thing to do would be to live a quiet life? Not stand up and bang a drum/gain attention/notoriety?Says it all about the mindset of cheats in general, they feel they have been cheated themselves in someway/blame something else/someone else for why they chose to go down the original path.
Again, it says something about the mindset and also explains the sudden urge of all his "close lieutenants" to come out and (allegedly) testify against him.
Did LA truly believe that he'd got away with everything so getting away with a bit more was a done deal? Does the criminals vanity lead them to try ever more outlandish /obvious crimes? Is everyone else suddenly suffering a crisis of conscience or are they jumping on a bandwagon.
As I've said before, no-one here knows the full truth (with the probable exception of LA). You've got two known dopers (Hamilton and Landis) who consistently lied and lied for years (and in Landis' case made several million out of that lying), are they suddenly now telling the truth, whole truth and nothing but...
I very much doubt it.
As has been comment above, the sad fact is that they a effing brilliant athletes then they go and cheat. It's a bit glib to say it's because of the money, there must be other reasons why those that seem to already be the best want to cheat to prove it.
hora - MemberThis is totally seperate but you've been caught as a cheat/etc - wouldn't the best thing to do would be to live a quiet life? Not stand up and bang a drum/gain attention/notoriety?
Says it all about the mindset of cheats in general, they feel they have been cheated themselves in someway/blame something else/someone else for why they chose to go down the original path.
...applies perfectly to Lance...
A cheats mindset. Then when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar the 'your eyes are lying' defence comes out before admission.
A normal person may be tempted but his/her values over-ride that temptation.
As has been comment above, the sad fact is that they a effing brilliant athletes then they go and cheat. It's a bit glib to say it's because of the money, there must be other reasons why those that seem to already be the best want to cheat to prove it.
You may be a great athlete but if you are having to compete against dopers then you have to dope to level the field...
Thats an excuse and not a valid reason.
If Lance hadn't had his comeback, it's likely that he'd have got away with it all I reckon. It's only now that he's (almost) officially a cheat that people are brave enough to say things.
Thats an excuse and not a valid reason.
principal is one thing, earning a living is another.
What is the point of him cycling if his results are always going to be mediocre compared to the dopers, nothwithstanding getting dropped from the team for having mediocre results/not doping.
Isn't tha tthe story in all these stories about doping, riders being under big pressure to dope.
Surely most would prefer not to dope and prove that they are better athletes unaided - notwithstanding all the health risks that doping might entail.
Then when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar the 'your eyes are lying' defence comes out before admission.
Bit like LA letter saying it was witchunt and so biased he coulod never prove his case? Ie they are just so after me what can I do but honestly i never did it - well he actually did not say he never did it he just mentioned the drug tests again- again as al notes applies to LA
You may be a great athlete but if you are having to compete against dopers then you have to dope to level the field
two issues in my mind
1. the will to win is so great that some will do anything to achieve this - I class LA as this type
2. You may be perfectly ordinary without the drugs and need to cheat to win- LA record pre comeback means I am not sure re this- could he have won clean against clean athletes I dont know and we never will.
You could have broken the omerta and spoken out and quit - some did this. Some raced on without cheating - cuddles for example
If that injection or that little pink pill is the difference between being good and world class, it's a difficult call. Am not condoneing doping in anyway, it really makes me fed up but I can see that at many levels the temptations and pressure from others could be overwhelming. There are some though that seem to have gone out of their way to be the best by whatever means.
Supose trying to think what you'd do in their situation is one way of looking at it. I probably (when young) would not have stood the test.
Which is exactly why the culture aspect is so important and actually once you get away from the headlines, that's what USADA have actually based their case on - a conspiracy of doping rather than it actually being specific to LA.
glitchy bump
If Lance hadn't had his comeback, it's likely that he'd have got away with it all I reckon. It's only now that he's (almost) officially a cheat....
There's no 'almost' about it. By not contesting the USADA charges against him, he is officially a cheat and has been ineligible for competition since 1998.
Some people may not accept it but the official position is that he's a cheat.
Glitchity bump?
Supose trying to think what you'd do in their situation is one way of looking at it. I probably (when young) would not have stood the test.
Completely agree, however there comes a point when you should just stand up and admit it.
Just been reading The Times and they have Hamilton as saying that "owning up could be the best thing that he (Armstrong) ever does".
LA is a symptom of the problem, a high profile one granted, but the skullduggery/corruption run to the core of the UCI, and unless that is addressed there is always going to be structueal problems at the heart of pro cycling-- the good thing is at last the boil seems to be getting Lanced !
very poor but funny
LA is a symptom of the problem, a high profile one granted, but the skullduggery/corruption run to the core of the UCI
Disagree with the first part, agree with the second. The sport was starting to clean itself up but by the looks of it US Postal ushered in a new and far more sophisticated era of doping. Coupled with LA's bullying of people who spoke out, he's actually as much of the problem as he is the symptom.
Coming back to the veracity of Hamilton's testimony / book....
Never trust a word of a lier and cheat.Common sense?!
Agreed, Hamilton is not the most reliable witness.
But the 'revelations' in his book (which I haven't read) seem to be consistent with the rest of the jigsaw
Previous liar / unreliable or not? - I'd say (and did quite a few pages ^^^) that the account in Hamilton's book has now got to be taken very seriously...
If the book differs significantly from his Grand Jury testimony he is likely to have the FBI on his case...
[i]"Without the authorisation of the United States Congress, the USADA has unilaterally changed the rules by which athletes who have never failed a test are prosecuted. [b]Additionally, USADA’s new, self-imposed rules do not provide athletes appropriate due process rights which all other Americans enjoy." [/b]
"The United States was founded under the fundamental premise that everyone has the due process right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
"To that end, we respectfully request that you call upon the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to develop appropriate constitutional protections and conduct a comprehensive review of USADA's operations and finances, with special attention to USADA's unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test."
[/i]
I was intrigued by these allegations from a group of senators in the States - is it a veiled attempt to question the legality of the USADA's actions? Or perhaps a case of LA having friends in high places...
