For what is worth I think they should drop it the whole thing. Even if he did they never caught him at it so they were too slow; same goes for Contador's ban really.
I genuinely think that if he hasn't been caught they should drop it. Its embarrassing. I also think the same with Contador caught red handed fair enough, caught retrospectively who gives a proverbial.
No, because...
Surley the issue is whether they have cheated not whether they avoided tests.
No, this is not the (only) issue here.
If LA has cheated / failed tests, then there is a whole other, non-sporting world of criminal investigation that should be opened up to scrutiny.
This extends to a whole bigger arena than competition and sporting excellence...
... funding, sponsorship, reputation, charitable foundation, paying off officials - if such a thing happened
So this bloke Lance is a well known doper (according known druggies), does a bit for charity, is a serial litigant who was once rumoured to have ridden a bicycle in France.
No matter how careful you are- [s]competing[/s] doping for years you'll one day show a trace. Its a matter of timing/luck.
FTFY
and see [s]clean[/s] boring racing.
Well some have laid that accusation against this year's TdF. I could go on, but you must be trolling...
IronMan - Member
I can't believe Lance is doing Realman.
😆
So if they could somehow break out all the old samples and test them, would they then have to do the same for the 'promoted' to 1st place riders?
same for the 'promoted' to 1st place riders
That would be very depressing wouldn't it. Credibility of the whole sport 🙁
How is the credibility if the sport actually harmed by catching cheats
Only those who dont really follow it dont realise that period was nothing more than sustained drug cheating by a large proportion of those competing
You can make a credible case for arguing there has always been drug cheats from gin shots to amphetamines to catching buses since the start
See it's at this point Hora that you start contradicting yourself-why would it be depressing? You claim to want to wait and see over LA yet you seem to have made your mind up about the rest of the peloton.
Anyone got a timescale for this to play out over?
LA has to decide whether or not to contest USADA by tomorrow...
You can make a credible case for arguing there has always been drug cheats from gin shots to amphetamines to catching buses since the start....
Interviewer: ‘When do you take drugs?’
Fausto Coppi: ‘Whenever it is necessary.’
Interviewer: ‘And when is it necessary?’
Fausto Coppi: ‘Almost always.’
There are obviously loads of soping stories/quotes from history but I like the refreshing honesty of that one from Coppi, one of the true greats.
I believe Coppi raced in an era when taking drugs, " La bomba " didn't contravene the rules. I may be wrong.
Is this STILL running?
I'm not reading all that - did he or didn't he?
See it's at this point Hora that you start contradicting yourself-why would it be depressing? You claim to want to wait and see over LA yet you seem to have made your mind up about the rest of the peloton.
Well it'd just be what most of public/riders are starting to think. FFS- for all these accusers etc to come out and be caught/tainted is ridiculous.
on the failing drug tests story this is very interesting, long but worth reading:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
I believe Coppi raced in an era when taking drugs, " La bomba " didn't contravene the rules. I may be wrong.
I believe they contravened the rules but weren't tested for.
Either way, they were certainly different times.
I'm not reading all that - did he or didn't he?
Well, apologies for the late thread resurrection, it has taken a few sittings to thoroughly read through the Ashenden interview linked above ^^^
I must say that is probably the best piece I have read about doping / anti doping in sport. Totally measured, very balanced and based on the man's considered interpretation of the available facts.
I started out as someone who admired Lance Armstrong's achievements, but was not a fan (that period of road racing didn't capture my imagination in the way the early 90s did). However, my opinion now is that the man is not only very likely a cheat, but also a fraud, bully and thoroughly unpleasant example of what is wrong, not only in sport, but in many walks of life where successful "look at me" types squash the ambition of others who also have the ability, dedication and desire to be successful.
The only area I disagree with Ashenden is the one about criminalisation of drug cheats. If there is no money involved, ie just sporting prestige, then I'd be inclined to agree. However, with the multi million sponsorship, media, and reputational industry riding on the back of sporting succes, anyone who gets chemical support to reach the top must surely be regarded as a fraudster and common criminal?
I'm constantly amazed that no one else who read the first LALA book noticed that LALA is a bully. I was a huge fan of LALA from the early 90s until I read that book in the late 90s (notwithstanding the cancer which I would t wish on anyone) but not since then. All the other stuff coming out now just seems to complete the opinion that I formed about the man 12/13 years ago.
Having a good read through this it doesn't seem biased/etc but it does raise a few questions on the agencies approach and motives
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/22/sport/lance-armstrong-usada-cycling/index.html
hora - have you read the Ashenden interview in it's entirety?
I'd be interested in your honest opinions - not whether LA doped or not, but of Ashenden's piece, how it comes across to a fan of LA.
To me it did not come across as vindictive or pursueing any kind of personal vendetta - just came across as an open discussion of the available evidence
I posted up a day or two ago that he has an abrasive character.
His character/ability to make friends and alienate people has nothing to do with 'has he failed a drugs test in the past decade does it.
I posted up a day or two ago that he has an abrasive character.His character/ability to make friends and alienate people has nothing to do with 'has he failed a drugs test in the past decade does it.
Agreed. Very interested in your views on how Ashenden presents his views though? Does Ashenden come across to you as a "stirrer" / trouble maker, or does his article seem thoughtful and considered?
As for saying LA ia abrasive no one GAS what he is like just whether he cheated.
As for your link it is no where near as interesting as the one you are refusing to read
The only point there of note was that they USADA offered immunity to folk or testimony, except LA. However it is not that silly to target the biggest fish though is it ? Better to go after the Mafia Don rather than his lackies?
If they had no evidence on the little fish they would not have needed to sing
read the link above it is what finally convinced me re LA - why wont he have his stored samples tested if he is clean as we have a test for EPO - what possible reason can you give for that refusal?
the problem with the article linked Hora linked, albeit quite good, is thatthere are alot of inaccuracies and misleading facts in it.
The first the 500 drug tests - He never did that many tests - the number of tests he did is public record and if anyone wants look it up - if you dont its approx 240 tests - less than half what he claims, in a 20 year timescale.
As for clean tests:
Alleged Positives:
•In 2005 L’Equipe reported that Lance Amstrong’s tests from the 1999 Tour were retroactively tested and that 6 samples from the ’99 Tour tested positive for EPO
•In 2011 it was reported that in 2009 US Cycling requested reports on tests conducted on Armstrong between ’93 and ’96. Five of these tests could not be recovered, but three showed abnormally-high levels of testosterone. Sports Illustrated reported “a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.”
•Lance tested positive for Cortisone during the ’99 Tour, however a backdated TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) notice was provided.
The Jeff Novistsky investigation they refer to was halted on the day that they were about to charge LA and others. Why - no one has actually explained that - Novitsky's boss literally called him told him to close the investigation, no explanation no arguments. To this day no explanation of why the case was closed has been forthcoming, and novitsky and his team are still in the dark.
''While these types of repeated, tired and baseless accusations against Lance have been proven false in the past, '' - Lance has never actually been accused legally before - the last court case which he won actually had nothing to do with drugs, it was to do with the wording of his contract (re the payment of his bonus for winning the tours) - the contract stated we will pay you $xxmillion for winning the tour - there was no clause in there saying if you cheat we wont pay you. In theory LA could have stood up in court and said yep I took epo to help me win every title, buttheres nothing in the contract about how I win and he would still have won that case.
Unfortunately a lot of what we hear about allegations about LA come straight from his 'team' who spin it all in his favour, this case is the calssic example - a witchunt, a conspiracy against one person - no it never was it was charges against 5 people always was, its just the one with the most to lose has made it look like its a personal vendetta against himself, and he also has the biggest pockets to do that.
Im not a Lance hater, but I am someone that loves cycling. I actually had Cancer myself 97/98 and took a lot from the fact that heres someone whos been through what Ive been through and is still doing well on an a bike - do I feel cheated, no I actually feel sorry for the guy because Ive always believed that cheats never prosper, and unfortunately it looks like a house of cards could come tumbling down.
what's your post going to be hora when he finally gets what's due? are you preparing your Edinburgh defence?
not read all the tail end of this thread but have we done Vaughters admission yet?
I think certain points are being missed here as to why Armstrong should go down for the good of the sport.
In 1998 The Festina scandal happened. Teams got caught with their pants down in a doping sense. People went to jail, riders were banned, the sport got a huge amount of bad media and the French police and courts took a hard line on drug use in cycling. After Festina there was a turn around in the peleton a lot of them wanted to go cleaner (not clean). At the time there was no test for EPO, but the teams realised that the proverbial would hit the fan big time if they were caught bringing controlled substances across borders again (especially into/out of France. EPO was a controlled substance and apparently the majority of the Peleton started to think it might not be worth the risk.
Roll in a brash American who felt he had to make it at all costs. He had friends on the inside in the UCI (Armstrong and Verbruggen are business partners! Conflict of interests?)He managed to convince his team that EPO was the only way to go and then came up with a full programme for those who wanted to make the tour team. Those who didn't want to play ball ended up going elsewhere (Vaughters, Andreau). Suddenly there is a team dominating a somewhat cleaner peleton. Everyone see's what Postal is doing and suddenly the pressure is back on all the other teams to keep up or ride in the wake of postal. Armstrong forced the sport back a decade in terms of Anti-doping. He stuck his finger up at clean sport and made a joke of riders who wanted to try and do it clean. He needs to be made an example of and hopefully his going down implicates the corruption in the UCI which allowed all this to happen. The sport needs a new beginning without corruption and with a clear set of rules that everyone agrees on.
BTW... This will go down like a lead brick on this forum... but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky. Postal revisited?
Why stop at accussing Sky? Why not the GB track team?
I'm glad you lot don't work as judges, JP's or Magistrates...
hora - we're equally glad you don't. Any chance of answering my question from way back about what those 5 named riders have to benefit from by implicating themselves while they implicate Lance? I mean other than ensuring they don't get done for perverting justice by lying under oath.
Hora can you read the article if you wish to criticise people's judgement- I read the one you linked to
Personally i think you have and cannot refute anything in it so you take the ignorance defence and wont even comment on it.
BTW... This will go down like a lead brick on this forum... but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky. Postal revisited?
I say they're just ****ing ****ers. I cannot be doing with people like that.
It justifies their own bone-idleness because they can't ever imagine applying themselves to do anything in their lives.
It's easy for them to sit under a pseudonym on Twitter and write that sort of shit, rather than get off their arses in their own lives and apply themselves and work hard at something and achieve something. And that's ultimately it. ****s.
APPLAUSE
Yes I think the tour is relatively clean theses days and they just work hard with some exceptionally talented riders
I'm glad you lot don't work as judges, JP's or Magistrates...
Why is that? Presumably you are commenting on the strength of the evidence?
For a (UK) criminal prosecution the "beyond reasonable doubt" test may not be likely to be satisfied by what is in the public domain. Scientific evidence rarely meets this test (IMO), as it generally comprises some "facts" that then require expert witness "interpretation".
On the other hand, where do you think that same evidence stands regarding a civil case - a "balance of probabilities" test of 51:49??
[img] 
[/img]
Well done guys. You've brought down a Caribou
but there is a certain amount of Deja Vu these days with Sky.
No different, really.
If Wiggins gets exposed as a doper then he will deserve to have his reputation and achievements tarnished - and like LA / USPS doubly so for talking the talk on racing clean.
Interesting that Ashenden's comments suggest that the 99 TdF peloton might have been largely "clean"
So hora you are admitting you have not read the article but you are going to continue to mock
Brilliant 🙄
JY - It's a long article, took me best part of a day to go through it all.
I'm sure that hora is working his way through it 😉
hora - I'm not in any way mocking here - I really would like to know whether you think Ashenden is out of line or whether you think he makes a level headed argument. From a fan's perspective, do you think he is being reasonable? I can accept that you may want to qualify comments with words such as "unsubstantiated" etc.
but the teams realised that the proverbial would hit the fan big time if they were caught bringing controlled substances across borders again...
And I bet that, of all the teams, US postal would know the best way to transport stuff across borders, cutting through customs red-tape, etc.
Ashenden - again I don't want to see analysis or opinion. I want to see bloody facts, either tests presented, caught and done by a professional body. So I will WAIT.
atlaz - Member
hora - we're equally glad you don't. Any chance of answering my question from way back about what those 5 named riders have to benefit from by implicating themselves while they implicate Lance? I mean other than ensuring they don't get done for perverting justice by lying under oath.
1. Not getting done themselves.
2. Money for interviews and tv on "why I grassed on Lance".
3. To be able to carry on in the (any) sport in some capacity.
4. Self justification.
Any or all of these would do. Not saying they are lying though but given the justice system in the US, an admission of guilt with a guarantee of short sentence is much better than bankruptcy and a long jail term.
Ashenden - again I don't want to see analysis or opinion. I want to see bloody facts, either tests presented, caught and done by a professional body. So I will WAIT.
Sorry, but you realise this is a joke don't you? In the last 20 years the majority of dopers have been caught by police intervention rather than tests. There are so many ways to fool the tests and the dopers are almost always one step ahead. A clean test does not mean the athlete does not dope... as is evidenced by the retrospectively positive tests from Armstrong for the 1999 tour.
Basso, Ulrich, Virenque, Miller, didn't get done for positive tests, they got done by police intervention. They all managed to fool the tests. (Well Ulrich did test positive for partying too much, but I'm talking about performance enhancements)
Lance has had a suspicious analytical finding (EPO, Tour de Suisse 2001) before WADA got their act together (apparently couldn't happen now) and managed to buy his way out of it. Again being business partners with the guy running the sport will always help.
hora - have you read the interview?
I am a scientist. My day job involves managing a team that collects samples for laboratory analysis. We then interpret the results, using our scientific knowledge and professional opinion.
If you want FACT, as in a completely unequivocal, black and white, yes he did / no he didn't, then you will be disappointed. No scientific data / expert witness evidence works that way.
Laboratory data will provide concentrations of various chemicals - in this case we are talking about synthetic EPO, but it could be anything. On one level, that concentration is a "fact", but what it means is reliant on the interpretation provided by an expert witness.
You will see the same in any criminal trial where forensic evidence is used.
Ashenden - again I don't want to see analysis or opinion. I want to see bloody facts, either tests presented, caught and done by a professional body. So I will WAIT
Dr. Michael Ashenden began his career as an exercise physiologist with the Australian Institute of Sport. After assisting in the development of an EPO test for the Sydney Olympic Games, he left the AIS to focus on battling blood doping. In 2005, Dr. Ashenden was among of group of scientists who questioned the validity of a physiological study on Lance Armstrong, a dispute that led him to serve as an expert witness in an arbitration case involving Armstrong and a bonus payment for winning the Tour. Dr. Ashenden kindly agreed to speak with us and shed some new light on that controversy. He also helped us analyze the 6 positives from Armstrong's '99 Tour samples with a level of detail never before made public.
Oh deary me - so you did not read i - there is science and everything in there about tests done by a professional body and what they mean. they even give the results
if you wont accept this then you wont accept anything beyond saying he never failed a drug test[he has] - even though they could not test it at the time and subsequent tests when they could he failed
