Lance, latest have we done it yet.

From tiwtter, trying to lighten the mood a little:
A French paper stated today they found 3 substances banned under French Law in Lance Armstrong’s hotel room. Deodorant, toothpaste, and soap

That Laura Trott looks like she’s out of her face on something – ridiculously cheery!

Love eggs?

wow that statement is amazing – ignoring most of the facts, spinning it off again as a personal wicthhunt and again stating the USADA have no authority – despite the courts stating they do…

Incredible..

hora – Member

“That Laura Trott looks like she’s out of her face on something – ridiculously cheery!”

Love eggs?

Double U Tee Eff

Love eggs?

Is that what they call those funny shaped chainrings?

wow, this is going to get very messy…

Whilst UCI remain silent, WADA has waded in
WADA boss man

Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France titles should be “obliterated” following his decision not to contest the doping charges against him.

World Anti-Doping Agency chief John Fahey says Armstrong’s refusal to fight on means the allegations have “substance”.

Fahey said: “He had the right to rip up those charges but elected not to.

“Therefore the only interpretation in these circumstances is that there was substance in those charges.”

Fahey added: “My understanding is that when the evidence is based upon a career that included seven Tour de France wins, then all of that becomes obliterated.”

ETA – I wonder if he had rehearsed the “substance” pun

I can imagine the UCI are having a few strong discussions regarding this with Pat disagreeing with everyone else!

Love eggs?

Is that what they call those funny shaped chainrings?

Wiggins is a big fan of them I hear 🙂

At the moment, Wiggo for example, still shows the sort of humility that suggests his words and actions are consistent…

I really hope so, for the sake of British Cycling at least, but then we’ve always got Froome to fall back on if not 😉

Isn’t this a bit of a myth as well though.

link

Basically not much if any of that $500 million has gone on research, and an awful lot has gone on paying for personal appearences from the man himself.

Sorry, do you have another link please (from someone without a massive hate on LA?)

How long before we get a decent documentary on all this latest stuff? There was a good one on Ben Johnson &co on before the Olympics.

Personally I would rather have seen this settled properly with all the evidence being heard in a “proper” court – although it would seem the USADA is far from perfection itself. This way still leaves questions and will mean the thing is not put to bed once and for all.

I didn’t get all the way through that interview but I got the impression the samples found to indicate EPO were from 1999 before the EPO test was developed. When was the EPO test first used and how did he pass that if he failed in 1999?

FWIW I think his statement is very well written and does make some good arguements. Still I can’t see someone that driven giving up something that he dedicated his life too.

Sometimes you just get tired.

Sometimes, no matter how slippery you have proved to be in the past, you just get caught.

i’ve just been out on my road bike,an some young kid just called me a Druggy 😀 !!

I didn’t get all the way through that interview but I got the impression the samples found to indicate EPO were from 1999 before the EPO test was developed. When was the EPO test first used and how did he pass that if he failed in 1999?

The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical

Wada statement

So do we put these negative character traits above the fact that his foundation has raised over $500 million for cancer? Buys him a lot of grace in my book.

So – raised lots of money for charity means he *didn’t* dope? Or just that he did dope but it’s OK?

I don’t understand…

UCI:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails.asp?source=SiteSearch&id=ODYzOA&MenuId=MTI1ODA&CharValList=&CharTextList=&CharFromList=&CharToList=&txtSiteSearch=lance+armstrong&LangId=1

Thoughts? Am I reading this wrong, UCI is saying it acknowledges the USADA in this matter and awaits its decision before the UCI comments?

Does this mean the UCI may just sit on the fence?

In other words Lance’s legacy is **** isn’t it.

hora – Member

The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical

Wada statement

Hora – do you know what the Vrijman report was?

That was the one that recommended that Armstrong should be cleared of any suspicion surrounding the retrospective testing of his blood samples from the 1999 Tour de France, where were claimed by L’Equipe to have contained EPO. It denounced the manner in which the doping laboratory in Châtenay-Malabry carried out its research, as well as questioning the ethics of World Anti-Doping Agency chairman, Dick Pound.

WADA statement on Vrijman here: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

Nobody disputes that the positive EPO results from the ’99 TdF were not found as part of routine testing, nor were they analysed by the same method as used subsequently in routine testing. The question is whether the tests (a) had scientific validity and (b) showed EPO use by LA in ’99. It is my belief that (a) and (b) are true.

Thoughts? Am I reading this wrong, UCI is saying it acknowledges the USADA in this matter and awaits its decision before the UCI comments?

Nearly – UCI is certainly wiating for the USADA reasoning and does not dispute that USADA has claimed juridiction. That is not quite the same thing as UCI acknowledging that USADA does have jurisdiction.

Does this mean the UCI may just sit on the fence?

They may:
~ sit on the fence
~ accept USADA’s findings and carry out the stripping of LA’s titles
~ refute USADA’s reasoning and/or authority and leave LA’s TdF wins in place

In other words Lance’s legacy is **** isn’t it.

Yes (whatever UCI do)

Interesting statement from LA and given the system in the US perhaps all he could doo. Guilty or not there is something not quite right in my view about the way USADA have gone about their business. Special treatment for grassing up the LA seems unjust. If they are guilty like LA then they must be out of the sport. Get Vaughters out of Garmin Slipstream and anyone else involved out of sport.
Landis is particularly dispicable given the way he used information about Lemond.

Special treatment for grassing up the LA seems unjust. If they are guilty like LA then they must be out of the sport.

This I do agree with. It sends out a mixed message for the up and coming/future riders. Theres always a ‘chance’ you could immunity from prosecution with doping if you turn witness.

It is unfamilar for us Brits, but I thought plea bargaining was common in the US?

(in criminal cases anyway)

That chart on page 8 is depressingly interesting but I suspect something that many of us really knew was true. Still I love watching bike racing and I’m not going to stop. Having done a little like many on here, those that are good put themselves though a lot of pain, are brave, and really are brilliant athletes and I’ll not let the cheats change my appreciation of what is at times fantastic (as long are they are clean). Am not deluding myself that there are not cheats out there. Speaking of Cheats hows the Vuelta doing.

colinmac’s chart is interesting, but for the wrong reasons.

I need a bit more info than “Named In…” or “Implicted In…”

“Busted…” is clear enough, but just rumoured to be up to something by some chump is not official in my book.

USADA actions remind me of McCarthy-ism. The Septics must be proud of that fine tradition.

rkk01 – Member
It is unfamilar for us Brits, but I thought plea bargaining was common in the US?

(in criminal cases anyway

It is used in criminal cases but does not seem right some how. If you have evidence then charge and hopefully convict. If not then it should not be right to scare people into admissions with threats. This is what it amounts to in some cases. It is used by the US on people over here to try and stop them contest extradition.

Lance was the best of the dopers.
Where would he have finished if he was clean? Still with the wins? Anyway you look at it he was a superb rider and I’m not going to let it spoil my enjoyment of cycling by wondering who in the current crop is or isn’t doping now.

I’ll bet the UCI go with usada’s suggestion. Since LA isn’t contesting, the UCI’s complicity won’t be exposed so this suits them just fine.

If you have evidence then charge and hopefully convict. If not then it should not be right to scare people into admissions with threats.

Is there any suggestion anywhere that anyone who went on the record in this case was “scared into admissions with threats”?

I am prepared to believe that people were given inducements.

ScottChegg – Member
USADA actions remind me of McCarthy-ism. The Septics must be proud of that fine tradition.

What do you think McCarthyism means?

What do you think McCarthyism means?

Something to do with playing “Hey Jude” at the end of a lengthy public spectacle to signify the end?

Just because I’ve got an infected cut on my finger, I don’t know why Scott wants to drag me into the debate.

Is not losing your job a threat or an inducement? Who else among the witnesses are still working in cycle sport.

So in basically the past 13 years of the tour the only two credible/worthy* winners are Cuddles and Wiggo?

and Sastre.

Its official. Lance Armstrong never won the Tour de France.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375

and Sastre

Oops, forgot about Carlos.

And just seen the news…

Bye Lance

Thanks…

… for the memories

USADA now have a full statement

]USADA Statement[/url]

What do you think McCarthyism means?

Well, since you can’t be arsed to look it up, I’ve Wikipoodia’d it for you.

Since the time of McCarthy, the word McCarthyism has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of practices: aggressively questioning a person’s patriotism, making poorly supported accusations, using accusations of disloyalty to pressure a person to adhere to conformist politics or to discredit an opponent, subverting civil rights in the name of national security, and the use of demagoguery are all often referred to as McCarthyism.
McCarthyism can also be synonymous with the term witch-hunt, both referring to mass hysteria and moral panic

making poorly supported accusations

So, do we really think, that in the most litiginous country in the world…

…that an organisation would start proceedings against a famous, well connected, vociferous individual, known for immediately resorting to legal action…

… without making sure that their case stacked up first…