The whole road race scene is in chaos about this.

they will be throwing selves off alpe d’huez once the reality hits home.
the shame will be unbearable.

They may give up riding as it will be a total shock to everyone….its not like we have had years to get our heads round this news

WHAT A SHOCK

ps Panatani was never found guilty either nor did he technically fail a drug test as they could not test for EPO at the time.

Landis is going to start a charity to support disillusioned lance fans.

RideJuiced™

Quote of the week has to go to Realman for this little gem

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

Pretty sure we’re being trolled here guys.. first all the classifieds “discussion” over refunds, now this.. no way is Realman actually a real man and actually exist. AICMFP.

I do worry what affect this would have on the Livestrong foundation if he was found guilty.

Also, I’m not sure I could watch THAT scene in Dodgeball ever again.

Yes what will we do if he does not promote cancer eh

It is a vanity project largely IMHO and does little of any real good/value. If it was a proper charity it would not be so intrinsically linked to his image

Pretty sure we’re being trolled here guys.. first all the classifieds “discussion” over refunds, now this.. no way is Realman actually a real man and actually exist. AICMFP.

he’s one of LA’s cronies they are all over the internet telling us how he killed cancer and is the most winningest tour cyclist of the road cycling world championships of france ever.

What they do

First, no one can be too big for the sport if the sport is to be sustainable. Professional cycling has existed for more than 100 years before he came on the scene and I am sure it can survive. The allegations are fundamental to sport, and whilst sports can survive without integrity, their value to society in my view is greatly diminished. It is alleged that he was effectively protected by the UCI presumably because of their commercial ambitions for cycling – but what is the point of those ambitions if it is not to develop a sport with integrity. I fear that it was for the personal aggrandisement of the individuals in the sporting bodies themselves rather than for the benefit of sport itself. It is about time these international sporting bodies were held to account and if this is an opportunity to do it – fantastic.

Second, whilst raising funds under a false premise will undoubtedly cause his charities issues, they can survive and indeed thrive if he comes clean and explains why he did it. He recovered and still achieved hugely on the basis that he thought was necessary. If he is big enough to come clean, he will still be capable of being highly regarded if handled well, he is still an extraordinary individual, albeit not so extraordinary that he is not flawed like the rest of us. If he truly believes in his cause, then this is what he will do if he is banned, I can’t imagine him doing before but one can live in hope.

The mans a ****

On the cahrities Just had a google around on his critics – even his critics cannot find any personal enrichment of his directly but there is no doubt he uses it to improve his image and has used the image created to make money in other areas.

I’m pretty sure the whole of the peleton is doping, so it sort of makes it fair in a way. Lance seemed so much better than all the others in his time so even if no one them were doping I still think he would have won.

TJ – I think your view on charity fund raising expressed earlier is a bit simplistic. Whilst I recognise the importance of keeping running costs low, what is better a charity that raises £1m with running costs of 50K, or one that decides to spend an additional 100K on marketing but raises £2 million in total as a result. The first has admin costs of 5% but only has raised £1 million, the second has 50% more in admin expenditure as a percentage but can do a lot more good. Simple measures of efficiency are not always best. I do however appreciate your concern about significant admin expenditure by some charities, including Armstrong’s.

the magical watts per kilo that were being churned out in the EPO days.

A good measure of wats per kilo is climb rate and that has never gone back down to pre EPO levels. I yhink you’ll find Cantador holds the record on a Tour de Swisse climb not long ago.

VAM for schleck and contador were notably lower in 2010 when the biological testing came in, edukator. not sure which tour de swisse you’re referring to. not this years and last year contador was struggling at the tour.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/doping

Lots to read.

VAM for schleck and contador were notably lower in 2010 when the biological testing came in, edukator. not sure which tour de swisse you’re referring to. not this years and last year contador was struggling at the tour.

I think he is referring to the verbier climb ,which is in switzerland ,in the tour in 2008.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/biological-passport-effective-fight-or.html

More specifics, and power outputs examined..

In Richard Moores’ book The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the Olympic 100m Final
he says only 2 out of the 8 runners in the final have not been brought down / disgraced by failed drugs tests.

BBC Radio Scotland Sportsnation
Interview with Richard Moore and others; discussing Armstrong, Millar etc.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxwg0

In Richard Moores’ book The Dirtiest Race in History: Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis and the Olympic 100m Final he says only 2 out of the 8 runners in the final have not been brought down / disgraced by failed drugs tests.

Same in the TdF, you look back at the winners from the last 20 years and the only two not implicated in any kind of doping is last years winner, Cadel Evans and Carlos Sastre who won in 2008.

a thought, Lance won the tours from 1999 – 2005 inclusive.

From reading the letter the only tests i see mentioned relate to 2009 and 2010? so aren’t relevant to his tour wins, there are witness statements that say that say he cheated, but they are just bitter old men who got caught and are kicking out trying to blame everyone else for their stupidity.

read it how you like, he probably cheated, but what does it prove? shall we just rip up the tour results for the last 100 years because most winners, in-fact a good proportion of all the riders were on something.

Italian investigators reported as tracing $465,000 payment from Armstrong to Ferrari in 2006

he probably cheated, but what does it prove? shall we just rip up the tour results for the last 100 years because most winners, in-fact a good proportion of all the riders were on something.

If we take this attitude we may as well give up on the TdF as a sporting event and just enjoy it as entertainment/spectacle.

If we take this attitude we may as well give up on the TdF as a sporting event and just enjoy it as entertainment/spectacle.

All i am saying is going after the past to me is pointless, at some point you have to say enough is enough. Where do you draw that line? I said far earlier in this thread that it is common knowledge that many racers that have admitted to doping long after the events.

67 1980 Joop Zoetemelk
68 1981 Bernard Hinault (3)
69 1982 Bernard Hinault (4)
70 1983 Laurent Fignon
71 1984 Laurent Fignon (2)
72 1985 Bernard Hinault (5)
73 1986 Greg LeMond
74 1987 Stephen Roche
75 1988 Pedro Delgado
76 1989 Greg LeMond (2)
77 1990 Greg LeMond (3)
78 1991 Miguel Indurain
79 1992 Miguel Indurain (2)
80 1993 Miguel Indurain (3)
81 1994 Miguel Indurain (4)
82 1995 Miguel Indurain (5)
83 1996 Bjarne Riis
84 1997 Jan Ullrich
85 1998 Marco Pantani
86 1999 Lance Armstrong
87 2000 Lance Armstrong (2)
88 2001 Lance Armstrong (3)
89 2002 Lance Armstrong (4)
90 2003 Lance Armstrong (5)
91 2004 Lance Armstrong (6)
92 2005 Lance Armstrong (7)
93 2006 Óscar Pereiro
94 2007 Alberto Contador
95 2008 Carlos Sastre
96 2009 Alberto Contador (2)
97 2010 Andy Schleck
98 2011 Cadel Evans

If you look at this list of tour winners and think how many have admitted they used drugs it changes a tad, and if you consider that this isn’t the list of tour winners who stood on the top step of the podium as it has already been amended.

From the excellent bikesnob nyc:

As someone who finds the subject [of Armstrong and doping] incredibly tedious, I react to these news stories like I do when I hear the Red Hot Chili Peppers have put out a new album–that is to say with a combination of total disinterest and utter disbelief that anybody is still paying attention. I also think it’s especially absurd that he’s now been banned from triathlon, a sport which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with cycling and more to do with getting changed.
Just let the guy dork out during his golden years. Seriously, they might as well ban him from backgammon.

If you’re so disinterested don’t post.

In that list of winners I draw a line between Lemond and Indurain. Before the line clean athletes had some hope of achieveing something in cycling, after that no hope.

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/8-things-on-lance-armstrong-from-other.html?m=1

Edukator – really? I don’t think there has been a clean winner ever.

Given that all the premier contenders in the TdF are probably doping at some point, i can’t help but find

86 1999 Lance Armstrong
87 2000 Lance Armstrong (2)
88 2001 Lance Armstrong (3)
89 2002 Lance Armstrong (4)
90 2003 Lance Armstrong (5)
91 2004 Lance Armstrong (6)
92 2005 Lance Armstrong (7)

pretty fekking amazing!!!!!!

I have no idea if there has ever been a clean Tour winner TJ, I think there were a handful of clean major race winners pre 91, I’ll risk quoting a couple: Charly Mottet and Giles Delion. Greg Lemond is perhaps your best bet for a clean Tour winner.

Fairy snuff

I don’t think there has been a clean winner ever.

This is the absolute point. The 3 week tours are barbaric circus events, not bike races.

Funny how we draw our own conclusions, I always (wanted) to believe Indurain was clean, but always thought it likely LeMond was drugged up to his eyeballs.

This is the absolute point. The 3 week tours are barbaric circus events, not bike races.

Surely the whole point of three week tours is endurance.

So if we are working on the assumption that the whole peleton was/is doping, including LA and all the other winners, doesn’t that mean that the winner is still the outstanding athelete amongst the peleton?

All things being equal, will the most talented still come out on top, dope or no dope?

Or will it be the biggest dope user?

Things have always been less than equal as far as the sporting authorities go. Some athletes benefit from complicity if their face fits while others are banned sans état d’âme. Brochard tested positive after his world championship win but an ante-dated medical certificate was accepted. His face fitted. Armstrongs face fitted after his cancer saga but doesn’t anymore.

Armstron also was allowed to use a post test medical certificate when caught with steroids in his urine