A thought that has occurred to me after reading about this .. Who will they now declare the winners of the TDF during the years LA won it?
Did I read that 21 out of the 25 podium finishers during that time, are convicted/implicated dopers?! 😯

Well grum. I have been faced with that choice albeit on behalf of my kids (so at the starting point of the ladder/slippery slope) and made the correct choice. We all agreed to step away (talked to people at the forefront of US College tennis, an eye-opener!)

“Pressure” may “explain” but doesn’t “condone” drug taking/cheating. IMO that is a a cop-out, albeit a very real one that many people face in their lives. So a banker who is faced with the option of doing a dodgy deal because others do it and his career depends on it – what should he do? Would you condone doing the dodgy deal? I was almost sacked at work in the 1980s for not agreeing to lie in a piece of work. Still made the correct choice.

It reminds me of the kindergarden cliche, “but Miss, Johnny told me to do it…” Doesn’t hold for little kids, why should it hold for a pro cyclist?

Pie-monster – accept that it is muddy (hence my first post) but simplifying things down to the core issue – personal responsibility – helps clarify the mud IMO 😉

Who will they now declare the winners of the TDF during the years LA won it?

I think the indication is nobody will be classed as the winner. The record will say Lance won it on the road but was disqualified.

Well grum. I have been faced with that choice albeit on behalf of my kids (so at the starting point of the ladder/slippery slope) and made the correct choice. We all agreed to step away (talked to people at the forefront of US College tennis, an eye-opener!)

“Pressure” may “explain” but doesn’t “condone” drug taking/cheating. IMO that is a a cop-out, albeit a very real one that many people face in their lives. So a banker who is faced with the option of doing a dodgy deal because others do it and his career depends on it – what should he do? Would you condone doing the dodgy deal? I was almost sacked at work in the 1980s for not agreeing to lie in a piece of work. Still made the correct choice.

I basically agree but as you say I think the situation would be a bit different if you were already way down the path of dedicating your life to a sport, and in a sport where the culture of doping was so totally prevalent.

I’m not saying it excuses it, but I’m not sure we can hand-on-heart say we wouldn’t have done the same in a similar scenario.

Well grum. I have been faced with that choice albeit on behalf of my kids (so at the starting point of the ladder/slippery slope) and made the correct choice. We all agreed to step away (talked to people at the forefront of US College tennis, an eye-opener!)

Which is quite a different scenario to someone from a poorer background with overambitious parents, who have pressured sporting success at the cost of academia on a child throughout their lives. The choice is not the same for everyone, even though it may appear so on the surface.

Grum, its interesting how Tyler describes a sense of almost “elation” at being invited into the EPO club. A sign that he had made it into Lance’s inner circle/upper echelon’s of the sport. When you read of how their doping was linked to specific instances of reeling-in break-aways in TDF mountain stages and then you see current riders doing exactly the same, its hard not to wonder…….and that is a very sad state!

Making “choices” is often very difficult especially with the corrupting powers of money and status surrounding you. Look at all those expense-fiddling MPs!

MSP – I agree hence the distinction between explaining and condoning. But does “background” determine legality?

When you read of how their doping was linked to specific instances of reeling-in break-aways in TDF mountain stages and then you see current riders doing exactly the same, its hard not to wonder…….and that is a very sad state!

This very issue bugged me throughout the Vuelta this year. I kept telling myself that Bertie wouldn’t be so stupid having just come back from his ban however, some performances were super-human.

It bugged me more in the TdF, I want to believe sky are clean, but if it came out they weren’t it would be a disappointment rather than a surprise.

Ooh look, it’s even made the Daily Mash! :_)

Armstrong taking mushrooms

But does “background” determine legality?

No, and through properly enforced testing and legislation, it will hopefully be a choice that cannot be forced or coerced onto anybody regardless of background.

Lets hope so!

When you understand what the blood doping/EPO/all the other garbage was aimed at doing you can understand a bit of what Team Sky and GB cycling are trying to do.

In effect the end goals are the same, to boost the blood values, recover more quickly and train harder.

Altitude training, sleeping in altitude tents, diets aimed at boosting certain natural hormones, memory foam matresses, anal attention to detail etc. All these things are aimed at gaining the same advantage that you can get by popping a pill or injecting something.

I suppose it is down to your personal outlook on life whether you view these things are a team doing everything it legally can to win or you see it as one big scheme designed to mask and provide plausible deniability to doping.

I choose to remain non cynical.

I do this becuase of the mass of evidence that says these performaces are plausible. Lower Watts per KG than in the EPO era. Less explosive and sustained attacks on the climbs. No evidence to support blood doping other than sucess etc.

But one thing is for sure is that if Team Sky and BC are cheating it won’t stay hidden for ever. The one parallel with USPS that is true is that they are winning convincingly and with the comes a lot of people trying to knock you down. With USPS and Lance they found doping, look at what L’Equipe were able to publish back then for example, the ammount of evidence USADA have been able to gather etc. With Sky they haven’t found anything yet but if it exists it will come out.

E.g. imagine if a british newspaper had a chance to bring down another Murdoch empire, they would leap at the chance.

MSP – Member
It bugged me more in the TdF, I want to believe sky are clean, but if it came out they weren’t it would be a disappointment rather than a surprise.

+1

Kimmage’s twitter feed makes me feel more uncomfortable every day.

glitchety bump

Glitch hunt

and again

Reading some of the supporting documents, Lance really does come across like an arse to his so called friends. Of course, being a dick doesn’t make him guilty but certainly the doping witness do 🙂

On the side of Team Sky, given Michael Barry has retired (can’t be unrelated to this) I wonder if they’re going to move Sean Yates aside given his riding with Lance, time working for Discovery after riding and his photos with motoman (in Team Sky kit no less). I know it’s hard to avoid working with dopers or people involved in doping in cycling but when Sky set themselves out as whiter than white (rather than Garmin who are happy to hire reformed characters), it’s odd they haven;t done much about their doctor and Yates.

Surely the Winner of all those TdFs’ involving the great americano– must be the Lantern Rouge- proof of unaffordability/desire to dope.

Where is Hora today?

Interesting and probably more honest than most, article from velonews in 2008 by Alexi Grewal which goes some way to explaining the mindset.

Kimmage’s twitter feed makes me feel more uncomfortable every day.

I know it’s hard to avoid working with dopers or people involved in doping in cycling but when Sky set themselves out as whiter than white (rather than Garmin who are happy to hire reformed characters), it’s odd they haven;t done much about their doctor and Yates.

Team Sky certainly have their issues but that doesn’t mean they are all a bunch of dirty doping cheats. Kimmage doesn’t have eveidence of them doping, just issues with the way they claim to be anti doping. Kimmage has a point.

They have backed themselves into a corner with their “won’t hire people connected to doping” stance. To their credit they have fired the ex rabobank doc but they have an issue with Yates. Clearly a top class DS but may have been dodgy in the past.

Brailsford recently said that openness was they key. He is right but he hasn’t acted on it. They need to either change their policy to a more pragmatic approach as per Garmin or get busy with the P45s.

But Brailsford seems reluctant, he appears to want to be a great team, beyond suspicion, but not an anti-doping advocate. My view is that you can’t be one without the other and him and Brad need to come out, break the omerta and condem the dopers. I think Brailsfords reluctance to do this may be becuase he fears the recriminations of this stance from the UCI and the peleton and they need those parties on their side to win the TDF.

This is one reason why the UCI need to fall.

To their credit they have fired the ex rabobank doc

Their spokesperson made it clear he was not fired but they’d chosen not to renew the contract. No details of the investigation released either. Not too transparent.

Clearly a top class DS but may have been dodgy in the past

I’m not sure “may” is the right term, more like “almost certainly”.

In any case I agree that Team Sky have two choices. Say they embrace reformed characters or fire some people. Certainly, they should be issuing a press release about Michael Barry as again, it’s hardly in keeping with their mantra and no comment makes it look like they knew something or had something to hide.

I don’t believe for an instant that Brailsford is running a new version of US Postal with an organised doping ring, but the public statements are not aligned with what they deliver.

But Brailsford seems reluctant, he appears to want to be a great team, beyond suspicion, but not an anti-doping advocate. My view is that you can’t be one without the other and him and Brad need to come out, break the omerta and condem the dopers. I think Brailsfords reluctance to do this may be becuase he fears the recriminations of this stance from the UCI and the peleton and they need those parties on their side to win the TDF.

He’s got enough trouble inside Sky without taking on Lance’s remaining buddies in the peleton.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

Dowsett should probably have shut his mouth on that issue. When I read it the first time I wondered how much of an arse kicking he must have got from Brailsford for coming out in support of someone that I’d imagine the majority of pro cycling knows to be a doper (clearly at the very least, one prominent Team Sky rider).

Also, the quotes attributed to him read like he had them rewritten by certain forum members 🙂

Surely the Winner of all those TdFs’ involving the great americano– must be the Lantern Rouge- proof of unaffordability/desire to dope.

now that would be truly brilliant 🙂

Oh FFS ‘yeah but he did a lot for charideeeee!’ doesn’t matter one iota.

I think Sky’s position is understandable, commercially it is better not to be discussing doping all the time and fundamentally it is a commercial business not a moral crusade. Therefore Sky would prefer to avoid the doping issue for these reasons. There is of course a cost to this because there will be doubters if you aren’t a vociferous anti-doper, but I guess they have weighed up the pros and cons and come out where they are.

Personally I would prefer them to take a leadership position but I can understand why they might choose not to.

EDIT: Brailsford has said Barry lied to him and he is disappointed that he did.

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

Sod them all, genuinely no sympathies for the ‘we have to dope to be competitive’ plea – work harder and if your hardest isn’t good enough then tough titties

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19906657

Also just seen the Dowsett ‘interview’ on BBC News – he really should’ve just kept his mouth shut.

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

I don’t believe for an instant that Brailsford is running a new version of US Postal with an organised doping ring, but the public statements are not aligned with what they deliver.

I agree wholeheartedly.

For people to continue to belive in Skys stance as a clean team they need to change and become more open. IMO it is their “no association with doping” stance that has them backed into a corner.

As for Dowsett I understand why he said what he did. The blokes team gave him his start in the pro peleton, he feels some loyalty and as an insider he will be all too aware that everyone was on it back then. This allows him to maintain his “pro lance” stance. He would be well advised to revise this view.

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.

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 Press Gazette

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.

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

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.

Maybe he has enough ‘integrity’ to avoid the press feeding frenzy!

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