[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

Apparently, there will be a 2 hr in depth special on R5 Live, Monday night.

Better late than never, Walsh has some pretty harsh words for the BBC in this article in the [url= http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/david-walsh-it-was-obvious-me-lance-armstrong-was-doping ]Press Gazette[/url]

Back to the affidavits then - if hincapie and the likes all admit to doping quite freely durin that 90s / 00s phase then surely the UCI and USADA should stop them riding in professional events with retrospective bans???

I like Hincapie but if he's saying he bought services to blood dope during tours and races then he along with the rest deserve to be hit with bans

They have been. Read the USADA appendices and you'll see the letters sent confirming their acceptance of 6-month bans plus retrospective removal of race results from the periods they admitted to doping. Given a lot are retired and I doubt anyone will sue them for the race winnings it may mean very little, but they've got what Lance got minus the lifetime ban part.

Agree, Brad could do the right thing....if you were anti dope, you should be celebrating today.

Mr[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/may/07/cycling ]our-athlete-has-ested-positive-so-the-test-was-wrong Brailsford.[/url]

They theoretically have to return their winnings if they wish to compete again according to the cyclingnews article dealing with Leipheimer

In addition to Leipheimer’s six-month ban he also accepts that in order for him to "regain eligibility" he must "repay all prize money" forfeited as a result of his anti-doping rule violations. Considering Leipheimer admitted to doping over a near eight-year duration, this amount could equate to a significant amount. Whether this obligation is fulfilled is yet to be seen.

Am I allowed to link a Twitpic page as you have removed the direct link to the photo I posted, moderators? I don't wish cause STW any trouble but think the photograph central to the debate we are having about the continued role of athletes that have tested positive in current cycling teams.

Am I allowed to link a Twitpic page as you have removed the direct link to the photo I posted, moderators?

I think you'll find it's the other site stopping it working because they are getting loads of traffic so I'd guess, fill your boots. Oh, get the one of the team sky car at the shop too 😉

Better late than never, Walsh has some pretty harsh words for the BBC in this article in the Press Gazette

Well Walsh backed an initial hunch and was proven right, so he's to be commended, but while I'd expect the Sunday Times to stick its neck out and challenge someone as litigious as Armstrong, I wouldn't expect the BBC to be anything other than small 'c' conservative when it comes to these kind of allegations.

Once the USADA findings and report turned up, which, TBH, was the first point at which there was something concrete and official to hang it on, the BBC joined in with the rest.

IMO this is where Wiggo needs to step up. As the current patron of the peleton he has tremedous power to condem Lance and change cycling for the better, His relctance to do this is frustrating and does call his integrity into question.

He has made his position clear in the past and to call his integrity into question because he has not commented yet is outrageous.

Also just seen the Dowsett 'interview' on BBC News - he really should've just kept his mouth shut.

+1

Jenson Button was interviewed on BBC news at lunchtime. He looked hesistant but at the end I thought his closing line was telling. Basically about current cycling and being clean (i.e it sounded to me like he was unsure).

Edukator - Member
Mrour-athlete-has-ested-positive-so-the-test-was-wrong Brailsford.

What's that got to do with anything?

WTF does Jenson bloody Button have to do with it all?

IMO this is where Wiggo needs to step up. As the current patron of the peleton he has tremedous power to condem Lance and change cycling for the better, His relctance to do this is frustrating and does call his integrity into question.

Sky/Brad still need other teams to work with them on tours. They cannot control an entire TdF on their own, especially if other teams are giving them grief every day.

Sadly, I suspect a hard stance might to go down well with other teams so despite it being a moral stance it might cost him wins.

Which is a shame.

IMO this is where Wiggo needs to step up. As the current patron of the peleton he has tremedous power to condem Lance and change cycling for the better, His relctance to do this is frustrating and does call his integrity into question.

Hmmm - everyone* is being very careful with what they say so I'd imagine until he's asked, he'll be wary of being dragged into the biggest doping scandal in the history of sport. Can't win - if he stays quiet he's effectively endorsing Lance, if he speaks out he risks alienating the team, the back-room staff, other riders, all of whom he has to count on if he wants to win the Tour or the Giro.

*well not quite everyone, Alex Dowsett clearly didn't get the memo saying "stfu" before he spoke.

Brailsford is in a tough position as well. He's already said he won't hire riders who have been convicted of doping and he's stuck to that. He obviously didn't know about Michael Barry but Barry was (or claims he was...) clean after 2006 and his use of PEDs has only just come out.

However it's impossible to staff a team with DS, doctors, masseurs etc who have never been involved with doping. The only thing you can do is make and enforce a culture of transparency, racing clean and drill the ethics and morals into everyone, not give it a chance to happen even if some people want it to. In that, I'd say he's been very successful. Regardless of Yates, Julich et al, Sky is as clean as they can be under the circumstances which just goes to show how all-pervasive doping was back then.

our-athlete-has-ested-positive-so-the-test-was-wrong Brailsford.

Rob Hayles got pinged for having a haematocrit over 50%. Given all of BC training appears to to be geared towards boosting haematocrit as much as you can legally, it is plausible he managed to break the value without doping.

Whether you choose to belive Brailsford or assume they are dirty doping cheats is then down to your outlook on the situation, but to call it evidence of doping is wrong.

Its certainly not evidence on the Armstrong level with failed tests for synthetic EPO covered up by the UCI, almost every team mate he ever had testifying against him, payments to known dodgy doctors etc.

My asusmption is if BC and Sky really are cheating there are enough people involved and the payday for a whistle blower would be huge enough that something would leak out if it were true, as it did for armstrong, an Emma O'Riley type or a discruntled athlete who didn't make the cut for the Olympics, someone would talk.

Of course if this evidence does start to emerge I will very quickly change my view.

Bump

bumpety bump

How many bumps does this trhead need

glitch bump

WTF does Jenson bloody Button have to do with it all?

He is also mates with Lance and has trained with him. Presumably a triathlon link.

How many bumps does this trhead need

Of course it's possible to staff a team with people who've never been involved with dope, Crazy-legs. I'll nominate Christophe Bassons for directeur sportif and my family doctor as team doctor.

The Hayles case was interesting because of the way British Cycling went out of its way to "prove" him innocent to the UCI. Once they had an EPO negative he was cleared. Now quite apart from the fact an EPO negative doesn't "prove" a rider hasn't being using EPO (detection thresholds, tolerances and dosing below the positive threshold) there are half a dozen other doping/blood doping methods that might result in a haematocrit over 50%. I never saw any mention of other possible explanations being considered or investigated in statements from British Cycling.

British Cycling went out of its way to "prove" him innocent to the UC

I believe it's all part of the "marginal gains" philosophy

Nothing to see here, move along

there are half a dozen other doping/blood doping methods that might result in a haematocrit over 50%

Yep and some legal reasons such as the one given by BC.

The point is that we don't know, what we do know is that we don't have team mates, doctors and maseurs etc queuing up to tell us that Rob Hayles is a dirty doping cheat.

Let's put this in historical context, pro cycling has been using drugs for about a century, not always illegal. EPO was not on the banned list when it was first used. Lance just came along and did it better than everyone else with a 'total war' approach. He was winning the game as it was already set out......I still find him an inspiring individual.

"[i]There is Anquetil's famous remark that you don't ride the Tour de France "on mineral water alone" and his tacit admission of the use of amphetamine, as in a story told by French journalist Pierre Chany. According to Chany, Anquetil and 1958 Giro d'Italia winner Ercole Baldini agreed not to use amphetamine for the Grand Prix de Forli one year, to see who would win on "just mineral water". They took the top two places, "but suffered like the damned to get an average speed that was a kilometre and a half slower than they would normally have ridden. 'Never again!' they told me as they got off their bikes," wrote Chany (quoted by Les Woodland in The Yellow Jersey Companion to the Tour de France).[/i]

Does anyone else feel a sense of relief that this looks like it is coming to and end at last?

@Fantombiker, that's an awful argument

And feel free to be inspired by a liar, a cheat, and a bully. It doesn't work for me however!

feel a sense of relief that this looks like it is coming to and end at last?

leffeboy - Member
Does anyone else feel a sense of relief that this looks like it is coming to and end at last?

I doubt it, it'll probably sink into the background again. I suspect there's years left in this.

The point is that we don't know, what we do know is that we don't have team mates, doctors and maseurs etc queuing up to tell us that Rob Hayles is a dirty doping cheat.

Hope I'm wrong though 😕

There might be years left in legal arguments but it feels like everyone now is convinced that he doped and that there is a stream of info. coming out about that period.

True, I was thinking more generally. About the required cultural and institutional changes that would be needed.

As far as Lancey being guilty, yes, this very much is a Polaroid of a fat kid sat in a pile of cake crumbs with cake in his mouth being handed to said fat kid who has just denied eating the cake.

Oh the fun to be had looking back at 'How the **** could he say that?' moments....

'How the **** could he say that?' moments....

The [url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-documents-reveal-details-of-dr-ferraris-doping-skills ]denials by Ferrari[/url] are becoming increasingly comical too!

Fantombiker - Member
Let's put this in historical context, pro cycling has been using drugs for about a century, not always illegal. EPO was not on the banned list when it was first used. Lance just came along and did it better than everyone else with a 'total war' approach. He was winning the game as it was already set out......I still find him an inspiring individual.

I could maybe just about agree if LA had done it in isolation - eg to himself alone. The problem is the way that he shaped his team and ultimately the sport to fit his vision (along with collusion from the UCI whether direct or indirect) - essentially giving keen, young riders a choice to either dope or quit the sport is not cool.

[i]He was winning the game as it was already set out......I still find him an inspiring individual.[/i]

I think you're very wrong. He was creating the game. And there were casualties along the way, people ostracised from teams and from the sport.

He was creating the game. And there were casualties along the way

Probably the most succinct reason why he, Johan and the doctors have been chased by the USADA

I still find him an inspiring individual.

So when do you plan to start taking EPO? Or are you already on it?

I don't think it is anywhere near over. You only need to look at contador for that. I suspect there will not be the full team doping as we have seen. But with Johan bruneel involved in radioshack and the shlecks with their various money payments its more than likely. F

Bradley Wiggin's interview:

Hmm USADA sounds a bit like Osama, maybe it's an evil plot by Al-Quaeda to crush the plucky all American hero and through that bring the infidel west to its knees. It's about as plausible as any of the other apologist views.

I don't think it is anywhere near over. You only need to look at contador for that. I suspect there will not be the full team doping as we have seen. But with Johan bruneel involved in radioshack and the shlecks with their various money payments its more than likely.

^^ This.
What's surprising isn't particularly Armstrong, it's the depth of involvement from everyone. The people who knew but turned a blind eye, unable to speak out because they'd be ostracised; the UCI who seem to have actively covered up tests if they were damaging to the sport; the commentators and pundits who were effectively "bought" to big up the Armstrong story (yes, Liggett and Sherwin, I do mean you).

While the ex dopers remain as Team Managers, DS etc and while the UCI continue to do the dual role of promoting cycling and trying to police it, things will stay the same.

Unrepentant dopers allowed back and winning the Olympics (Vinokourov) or allowed to keep racing while under investigation (Contador) and the history of silence and acceptance within the peloton.

But with Johan bruneel involved in radioshack and the shlecks with their various money payments its more than likely

Well, Frank is finally going to get what he deserves (I doubt the local doping agency can afford to let him get away with this one) but I don't think there's a doping ring at Radioshack given the current incarnation is one year old and the Schlecks HATE Johan so they're unlikely to get involve in something that requires them to trust him. Anyway, has anyone ever said that Andy has doped with any degree of evidence?

Good interview from Bradley though, good to see that the team pushed him out for a statement. Maybe Dave is starting to learn if they are going to talk the talk they also need to be at the front when it comes to condemning things.

Very interesting article from Inrng about where this will take the sport:

http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-case-future