Armstrong charged with doping.

I find it illogical that we worry that someone gains an advantage from a drug but not from a massive investment of cash

You can see no difference from excellent training and excellent illegal drugs ?
I am not saying that you dont get an advantage from the former nd from money but you may as well call training cheating, on a par with taking EPO, if you go down that route.

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.

That wouldn’t produce a level playing field though.

You can see no difference from excellent training and excellent illegal drugs ?

That training is not open to everyone at that level. Why have we not seen a major tour winner from those African countries that have produced the best endurance runners the world has ever seen. It sure as hell isn’t because they are not physically capable it’s economic. You might just need a pair of shorts to run at the highest level but your not going to compete in a bike race without a serious investment of cash.

but you may as well call training cheating,

There was a time when many an amateur athlete would have looked down on specific training as at the very least the behaviour of a cad! 🙂

That wouldn’t produce a level playing field though.

That’s why I used the words so called, with an open market those who have the best controls in place to mask their drug use will lose their advantage.

I don’t like the idea of people using these drugs but I do know it will never go away and therefore you will never get a fair competition until it’s easier for everyone to have access.

Amateurs will emulate the pros – if you let the pros take drugs, the amateurs will too. And then when everyone is dying early or becoming infertile or suffering from ODs and the like..

if you let the pros take drugs, the amateurs will too

🙄 If there complete idiots, lets hope he doesn’t put his hand in a fire then.

Take one extremely well-trained and fairly talented clean athlete, then add the protocol de Lille (the Festina doping protocol) and you get 10-15% more power(and the athlete suffers less to produce that power). That was the result of an experiment by a French federation. Since then riders have got even faster.

Just my thoughts:
Road cycling is an incredibly dull sport, and it’s very dullness is also why cheating reaps such rewards, and is so common. It’s basically about spending several weeks in a state of constant exertion and agony, with a relatively tiny skill requirement. The only meaningful increases in performance are in the ability to burn more calories.

But I don’t think these people can be taking half of what they’re accused of cos if they were they’d be giant walking lumps of heart muscle covered in testicules by now.

Thanks for sharing 😀

The Lille trial revealed riders were taking more than they were accused of. To counter the undesireable side effects (death) of the doping products a further twenty or so drugs were being used.

RealMan – Member

Amateurs will emulate the pros – if you let the pros take drugs, the amateurs will too. And then when everyone is dying early or becoming infertile or suffering from ODs and the like..

But you think its bad for cycling to pursue Armstrong even if he is doping

But you think its bad for cycling to pursue Armstrong even if he is doping

Is? We’re talking about the past here. Not the present. If you want to go after him right now with respect to his triathlon performances, go nuts. Leave the history of cycling alone though, it’s had enough scandals already.

Realman it’s still like talking to a kid with his fingers in his ears.

This is about the future of cycling. Armstrong still has a great deal of influence over cycling, Bruyneel still works in cycling, and if guilty of these charges will probably still be using these methods with current and future riders.

I appreciate it’s not nice reading bad stuff about your heroes, but ignoring it won’t make it go away.

The whole point of this investigation is to look at an alleged conspiracy. That’s why it’s not just aimed at wonderboy, but at others who are still active in cycling. It also impacts on the people who are running the sport right now.

It’s not so much about the past, and rather more about the present.

Then go after Bruyneel.

If you think Lance is so evil that it’s worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don’t.

And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?

I think Lance is human, like everyone else, and if he cheated, then he deserves the same punishment as everyone else. USADA wouldn’t charge him without believing they have a strong case – and if Armstrong is innocent then he has nothing to fear, and will be glad to put this issue to bed once and for all.

therefore you will never get a fair competition until it’s easier for everyone to have access.

It still wouldn’t be a fair competition in that case, so what’s the point of bringing it up. A drugs free for all would be neither fair nor desirable for any number of other reasons.

I personally think “they” are using the “if you throw enough %^&* some will stick” method.

Bit sad really.

If you think Lance is so evil that it’s worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don’t.

I dont think he is evil nor do i think he so god damn awesome that if it proved he is a cheat all of cycling will grumble…is he so high up on the pedestal you cannot even see him?

I personally think “they” are using the “if you throw enough %^&* some will stick” method.

Bit lucky that they have found so much mud.

if you think Lance is so evil that it’s worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it.

It will be fantastic, hopefully all those people who started cycling because of him will give up and we will revert to the old days when cycling wasn’t fashionable, when men were men etc. Brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.

Realman, it’s hard to know where to start to address your naivety.

How old were you in 1995?

Steven Swart, a New Zealand rider said this in court;

In testimony in the case, Swart, a retired rider from New Zealand, said top riders on Motorola discussed EPO in 1995. He testified that Armstrong told teammates that there was “only one road to take” to be competitive. In a sworn deposition, Swart said the meaning of Armstrong’s comment was clear: “We needed to start a medical program of EPO.”

EPO, cortisone and testosterone were common in European cycling, Swart said in a telephone interview. He said using cortisone, a steroid, was regarded as “sucking on a candy stick.” Cyclists acquired the drugs from European pharmacies and took them in private, Swart said. “You basically became your own doctor,” he said.

He said signs of drug use were widespread at the 1994 and 1995 Tours, when there was no testing for EPO.

“Everyone was walking around with their own thermos, and you could hear the sound — tinkle, tinkle, tinkle — coming from the thermoses because they were filled with ice and vials of EPO,” Swart said. “You needed to keep the EPO cold, and every night at the hotel, the guys would be running around trying to find some ice to fill up their thermos.”

Now go and look at how careers develop in cycling, look at how Johan Bruyneel used to be a rider, and then continued on as a DS.

Cycling is all about history and tradition, and the big riders of yesterday are the team managers and influences on the riders of today.

Look at the BS written about how it was Armstrongs weight loss and spinning style which enabled him to win. Look at the farcical VO2 max ‘research’ which suggested he was winning because of physiology.

Look at the Science of Sport webpages and read about the magical watts per kilo that were being churned out in the EPO days.

Or stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and pretend.

Then go after Bruyneel.

If you think Lance is so evil that it’s worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don’t.

And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?

cycling will not take a massive knock when he get’s proven as a doper.
it didn’t when rassmusen, vino, basso, contador or landis and numerous others got caught.

lance getting caught will send a message to the pro’s that you can’t get away with it.

it’s actually a problem for the Tri world now as he’s no longer a cyclist but plenty of his cronies are still in the sport and should serve bans, it’s also a problem for tennis as one of the spanish doctors named in the USADA report has been ‘helping’ players on the pro-tour.

In a sworn deposition

I could swear that I’d never eaten meat just as easily. It would still be a lie.

Means nowt. It’s not even circumstantial evidence.

So Ashendens EPO tests? Circumstantial?

The tests were done on stored samples, and showed EPO. The lab didn’t know the samples were Armstrongs. A journalist managed to match the sample numbers with Armstrong.

Armstrongs own blood figures? Circumstantial?

The figures he put up on his website, ostensibly to show he was clean, that were subsequently removed when they came under scrutiny.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I think I would have to conclude that the likelyhood of duckness is high.

Crikey – none of that is anything but inference and circumstantial – none passes the standard for criminal proof for sure.

I agree with you about the duckness quotient – there is piles of other evidence as well – just none of it is the smoking gun needed as its clear he will not fess no matter how damming

one thing that is interesting he has stopped threatening to sue folk who call him a drug cheat – as to defend a libel claim you only have to show on balance of probabilities you were right or that you had reasonable grounds for saying it – and he knows that can be shown

It is not a criminal case it is a doping case, where the burden of proof is considerably lower – see attached On this basis there is a pretty high likelihood he will be banned and perhaps some results lost.

The statement by the USADA states the position very clearly and simply:

USADA only initiates matters supported by the evidence. We do not choose whether or not we do our job based on outside pressures, intimidation or for any reason other than the evidence. Our duty on behalf of clean athletes and those that value the integrity of sport is to fairly and thoroughly evaluate all the evidence available and when there is credible evidence of doping, take action under the established rules.

As in every USADA case, all named individuals are presumed innocent of the allegations unless and until proven otherwise through the established legal process. If a hearing is ultimately held then it is an independent panel of arbitrators, not USADA that determines whether or not these individuals have committed anti-doping rule violations as alleged.

That’s an unambiguous description of their responsibilities. It’s not spite, or a vendetta, or speculative, restrospective fishing. USADA are doing their job, and eventually we will see the outcome of the process.

Re the comments about “amateurs” using drugs; read the link I posted previously about Dan Staite, the non-professional English rider who was caught using EPO.

I’ve been racing for about 25 years now and I still love competitive cycling, but I lost interest in pro-cycling a long time ago because of the failure to take the drug problem seriously. Catching and sanctioning cheats, whoever they are, can only be good for the sport. I can make my own guesses about Armstrong, but I don’t have access to the evidence, so I’ll leave the investigation and prosecution to the experts, and await the outcome with interest.

Ta mefty

…and, regardless of the evidence, ignoring all the misdirection, the threats, the bluster, the arrogance, the whole sorry shitstorm leaves me saddened.

I understand Realman; because I was that guy, I never thought for a minute about drugs while I was watching Armstrong win that first Tour. I saw a brilliant young athlete who had defeated cancer come back and show the world how good he was.

I believed all the platitudes, read all the magazines, listened to Phil Liggett and wanted it all to be true.

Then I started riding with a few old professional guys who put me straight. Straight about the drugs they used, straight about the drugs the riders I was watching used.

I stopped watching the Tour for 3 or so years because I felt cheated, because I knew it was a circus.

I had a mate who went off to France to ride for a big club in the hope of turning pro; he told me what the top amateurs were using.

Shame, because it’s a great but essentially flawed sport.

I did the Tour of Flanders sportive and the day after I spoke with a few Belgian cycling fans who said that even on the sportive, the fastest guys would be doped up; no testing, see?

I could swear that I’d never eaten meat just as easily. It would still be a lie.

Means nowt. It’s not even circumstantial evidence.
One wonders why we bother with eye witness testimony at all in legal cases.
Witness:Yes I was there that was the person who did it

Judges: evidence dismissed it means nowt it is not even circumstantial

The issue is whether you believe what they say, as you note it may be a lie, but to claim it means nothing is simplistic.
There are now a lot of liars[ I agree some are not great witnesses as they are clearly liars – Landis for example] and one honest LA.

I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

Then go after Bruyneel.

If you think Lance is so evil that it’s worth cycling taking a massive knock just to strip him of a win or two, then go for it. But I don’t.

And do you really think that Lance is pushing current riders into taking drugs?

Realman – You think Lance was just a pawn in Bruyneel’s evil schemes? He was part owner, THE rider of the period and the person that ensured that people who spoke out against doping were ostracised from the rest of the community, to the point that they left cycling altogether in some circumstances.

The USADA charges are MASSIVELY important to cycling because they show that anyone involved will be chased down, even after the team has gone away and their livelihoods may well be put in jeopardy for the rest of their careers. I’m willing to bet that if they’re found guilty there may well be civil and criminal cases to follow.

To answer your last point, I think the fact we have a 7-time champ who avoided censure for doping but is widely accepted to have doped is a VERY bad example to the cycling community. It would suggest that all you need to do is be clever enough, pay the best doctors and be famous enough and you can duck everything. Hell, look at Contador. The rules were explicit but his own federation bypassed them and let him off before it was appealed and he got the ban almost two years after the fact.

I don’t understand why you think allowing him to get away with cheating is acceptable – if that is what he has done

I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well

Oh come off it.

And it seems likely that Hincapie is one of the witnesses and is likely to have doped too. So what I guess your viewpoint is is that Lance is too big to be made low no matter what he’s done. So you’re not denying he may have doped, just it’s too big a problem if he’s shown as a cheat.

RealMan – Member
I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

It’s almost as if your idea of honesty and integrity is different to everyone else’s.

The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped. Lots of people already believe he did, lots more suspect he did, and only a proportion of cycling fans are adamant that he didn’t. So it’s not really going to affect anyone apart from those who’s wellbeing relies on Armstrong being some sort of saintly superhero.

You’ll get your heart broken a lot more times before you die Realman, face up to the facts fella…

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences.

I give up.

The idea of a clean Lance is too important IMO to attempt to crush with so little thought as to the consequences. You might as well go after other riders like Voigt, Geraint, and Hincapie, among others, as well.

The world, not even the cycling world, is not going to come crashing down if it is proven that Armstrong doped.

If it had happened while he was in yellow, a few days off from Paris then yes it would.

You look at the fallout from the Festina affair, from Rasmussen being kicked off the Tour while in yellow, Landis and Contador. None of them are even a 10th as big as Armstrong.

Really difficult call – there’s the issue of how he became a multi-millionaire off the back of what is potentially one huge conspiracy balanced with the exposure and media coverage of the Tour that he generated (especially in America) but there’s also the balance that, if he did dope, if he was engaged in a big conspiracy with doctors, DS, the team, then he certainly wasn’t the only one. Festina, Astana (before Amstrong/Bruyneel), T-Mobile were rotten to the core, almost everyone was in on it – organised drug trafficking and taking, blood doping, the whole structure was rotten. So why go after a small select group? Why just target Bruyneel as DS when there’s a much more solid case against Bjarne Riis (who still works as a DS)?

Targeting the most famous cyclist of the modern era just smacks of some desperate publicity for the anti-doping agencies. I’m all for justice being done but the whole media circus around it and the lengthy drawn out denials, counter allegations, trials, hearings etc make the whole process a farce. Look at Contador – allowed to race in major Tours while under investigation and with a doping charge hanging over him before finally being convicted and having those victories taken away. It makes the whole process look woefully inadequate and incapable.

The whole road race scene is in chaos about this. Armstrong is ostracised, yet you can buy Pantani T shirts from Cycling Weekly. Where’s the consistency ?