Given he didn’t seem that pissed off about Riis beating him doped up to the eyeballs, you’d have to wonder whether big Mig is doing that whole honour amongst thieves thing.

Really though, I wonder if pro cyclists really understand that coming out in support of Lance is hardly making the public and sponsors think that the rest of them are clean. Clearly the teams do which was why Sky obviously jumped all over Dowsett after his stupid comment.

Can someone please tell Indurain that fans would really like Omerta to be over now? Thanks

When cyclists who were never picked up in a dope test start saying that the only evidence that they’d ever accept is having been caught by a dope test, you wonder if they’re worried about something.

It’s time time now to rehabilitate Lance back to his true position as the worlds bestest ever bike race winner. You all know that he is a winner and we should respect that and support him in his charitable works.

I think it shows the extent of the divide in cycling where it does seem that some riders /teams and now managers thought and think anything goes as long as you win and you dont get caught
It is quite worrying IMHO and suggests route and branch may be the only way to sort this out.

“Omerta” …ha!…bunch of drama queens

So now that I have not been flamed as a Lance lover, you all must agree that Mr Armstrong’s reputation is about to be reinstated as a cycling God and giver of life. As such can I interest you in a bargain? I have a container full of yellow bands with Livewrong imprinted, now I know that they normally went out at a £1 but you could be ahead of the curve at 50p a band. At that price I could see some of you on ebay making a killing once Lances book comes out. Remember those bands will be much higher in value now as every roadie (with a trek) has now thrown theirs away.

Remember Love Lance and get your orders in early.

Indurain supports him

Clearly I was wrong about him being clean then.

not too fussed by Indurain, it was Delgado for me.

*puts fingers in ears and la la la’s*

I’ll take that as a no then. You’ll all be sorry when he becomes US President.

mt I for one want to hear so much more about your love lance 😉

I’d not call it love so much as trying to be in first when he is seen as misunderstood and really a true all American winner. For once it would be good to be ahead of the curve, a bit like all those people who knew Lance was a cheat years ago and were never taken in by him, theres loads of them on this thread. : :-): In fact I’m surprised that some of them have not been sued by LA or are actually working for WADA. I was also trying to make a silly comment about the lack of yellow bands around.

Edit smiley not working! Please don’t attack.

“Omerta” …ha!…bunch of drama queens

You know it’s been peloton slang for many years, right?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/opinion-michael-ashenden-on-omerta-101
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/interview-cycling-omerta-broken-says-hamilton-222352101–spt.html
http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleALD.jsp?id=1202574851052&USADA_Lawyers_Speak_Out_About_Armstrong_Probe_Pro_Cyclings_Omert&slreturn=20120923123651
etc etc

Edit smiley not working! Please don’t attack.

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK[/u]

*reaches for pitch fork and flaming torch

I remember Ferrari once saying something along the lines of “if I’m the devil how do you qualify Indurain’s doctor?”

This website has a well-researched and comprehensive answer to it’s own question:

http://www.didlancearmstrongdope.com/

Indurain’s comments are valid, for years the rules were/are that to be convicted of doping an athlete had to fail both the A & B samples provided….this hasn’t happened in Lance’s case and yet his conviction stands on the basis of testimonies and a retro tested single sample….I can understand Indurain becoming twitchy abound the moving of the goal posts.

Anti doping authorities should either convict according to the two positive tests of the same sample they themselves stipulate or they shouldn’t convict at all and instead improve their testing regime.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping….not sure that sits comfortably to be honest.

for years the rules were/are that to be convicted of doping an athlete had to fail both the A & B samples provided.

Source and reference

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping….not sure that sits comfortably to be honest.

Enough people is called overwhelming evidence
For me having Hincappie testify puts it beyond doubt
I would read his testimony if I were you he still think LA is awesome.
As for not comfortable there will be millions of worldwide prosecutions based largely on eyewitness testimony.
If 25 people were in a bank and they all say the same person would you be more comfortable if we just let them go?
FWIW LA samples exist and if LA allows it they can be retro tested for EPO as test now exists. He refuses to allow this and where it was done it tested positive.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping….not sure that sits comfortably to be honest

Have you heard any evidence that shows Lance didn’t dope? There are lots of people with very detailed and independently corroborated eye witness testimony proving that he did. Don’t you think that if it was all a big lie, a massive conspiracy to take down the biggest name in cycling, there would be someone able to give some evidence that shows it.

Not one single person has come forward. Not one shred of evidence that the 26 people are lying. Not one bit of doubt. I’m sure if any doubt did exist Lance wouldn’t have been able to be convicted but it really is true.

Contrast this with Greg Lemond when Armstrong promised to find 10 people to testify he doped as revenge for Lemond criticising Lance. Not one person came forward.

He refuses to allow this and where it was done it tested positive.

Technically, it didn’t. OK, it did but because it can’t be backed up, it’s called an Adverse Analytical Finding rather than a postive. Happens where the sample has been stored incorrectly, there’s no B sample to back it up, procedure hasn’t been followed, all sorts of reasons. It’s fairly heavily weighted in the athletes favour (similar to the way a drink drive test is weighted in the driver’s favour).

However, the adverse analytical findings, combined with the testimonies and the evidence stack up to more than enough proof. I was always one of the “innocent until proven guilty” voices on here with regards to LA and I’ve got plenty of experience in anti-doping – the protocols, procedures and testing – but sorry, this is more than enough evidence to convict on.

OK, it did but because it can’t be backed up, it’s called an Adverse Analytical Finding rather than a postive. Happens where the sample has been stored incorrectly, there’s no B sample to back it up, procedure hasn’t been followed, all sorts of reasons.

Is it not the lack of a B sample because that is what will be tested- ie the A was tested and the B is still stored.
I am sure there is enough stored that the odds of however many test positive being tainted/chance is astronomical

I can also think of no reason why a clean rider would object.
You are right though it tested positive but it is not enough to convict.

jfletch….i’m not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i’m uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured.

I work in the forensic environment and part of that is taking blood for drink drive offenses….if there is a single procedural error during the blood test it becomes invalid and the accused gets off…..even if the blood sample is swimming with alcohol….rules are rules so to speak.

With the Armstrong case rules seem to have been made up as USADA went along…..it just doesnt feel right to me.

jfletch….i’m not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i’m uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured.

And that is what, I believe, Indurain is saying too.

rules seem to have been made up as USADA went along

Are you LA lawyer?

criticising this and the procedure is just part of the LA spin IMHO
We have people complaining he always passed a test, people complaining the procedure was just made up [ even though he never failed a test] by them even though the official sports bodies recognise it and its judgement even the UCI and LA sponsors,PHIL LIGETT and a federal judge ruled it to be legitimate and LA signed up to it [ granted he had to to compete].

You will need to be specific here about what rules were broken as I am not sure what you actual point is.
I would like you to explain why litigious lover LA did not once more rip them apart in the courts if it was all so shoddy.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping….

It has been possible to convict people of doping offences without direct evidence of doping for years now, and not just in cycling (see the athletics Balco case, for example). Armstrong has been skewered by a whole raft of witness statements, circumstantial evidence, financial transactions and biological data, I believe.
I have not seen anyone presenting actual evidence that due process has not been followed correctly by USADA. It appears that you may not be able to say the same about Armstrong…

But the point is, he wasn’t banned just for doping. He was banned for being instrumental in a doping conspiracy. You can’t test for that.

Just as a note to the eyewitness testimony thing;

At least 80,000 prosecutions in this country every year rely largely on eyewitness testimony.

This is for the US. The main flaw seems to be through miss identifying the guilty party.

Although the flaws in witness testimony become something of a moot point when there are 26 of them.

i’m not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i’m uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured.

…
With the Armstrong case rules seem to have been made up as USADA went along…..it just doesnt feel right to me.

You’ve been listening to the briefings from Team Armstrong too much, in my opinion.

USADA set out in great detail

– their justification for results management authority
– their justification for denial of Statue of Limitation
– their reasonings for the UCI having a conflict of interest in this case

In each case they set out case law/history, relevant licensing/doping codes, etc.

So, if Armstrong has been wiped from the Tour records and they’re going to start coming after the money as well….

Why don’t the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?
From 98
Pantani
Ullrich
Meier
Di Grande

99
Zülle
Dufaux

2000
Moreau
Heras
Virenque (I mean, FFS, if anyone…)
Mancebo

2001
Gonzalez
Sevilla

2002
Rumsas
Leipheimer

2003
Vinokourov
Hamilton
Basso (Sort of)

2004
Klöden
Pereiro

2005
Rasmussen
Landis

2006
Debatable!

2007
Contador (FFS, he’s still racing!)
Valverde
Popovych
Astarloza

2008
Kohl
Vande Velde
Schleck
Valjavec

20011
Danielson

See? The problem here is that while Lance is clearly guilty, so are so many other riders. Why are the “authorities” not also stripping them of their finishing positions, seeking recompense for their race earnings etc?

The UCI is a farce.

Why don’t the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?

In the UCI’s case, because they’re incompetent and worse.

But a bunch of s**t is about to hit the fan with the Ferrari case in Italy.

Virenque – what an absolute gobs*%te

Nike dropped lance Armstrong but didn’t drop Tiger Woods. So I guess in America it’s ok to cheat on your wife but not on your bike.

Ha ha, just tweeted by Chris Rock

Why don’t the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?
From 98
Pantani

I don’t think they can go after him unless they have a good medium

Irrelevant, Junky. 🙂 If he doped, his title should be removed. A precedent has been set.

So…Strip the title from Anquetil, Aimar, Merckx, Thévenet, Zoetemelk, Fignon, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis and Contador.

If we take the legal precedent of (rightly) stripping Armstrong of titles, then the above must follow.

Also, if we take the above, Contador must never be allowed to race again. He tested positive.

Nike dropped lance Armstrong but didn’t drop Tiger Woods. So I guess in America it’s ok to cheat on your wife but not on your bike.

A friend was in the US over the summer and a survey of US public opinion held that Woods was worse than Armstrong. That said it was before the USADA report.

Dont disagree if someone wants to but I think a truth and reconciliation makes more sense and ridding the sport of the cheaters who are still in teams.

i think having given Bertie a lifetime ban would have got the attention of the cheats tbh
Something draconian needs to be done to rid the sports of the cheats

iirc Ashenden thought his biological passport showed signs of systematic doping but WADA?? would not consider it

i think having given Bertie a lifetime ban would have got the attention of the cheats tbh

Agreed.

There needs to be a massive stamping on it. Not waiting until someone is retired, past it, etc.

Bertie doped. That’s a shame, as I loved watching his dancing climbing style. But, he doped. That’s a fact. If the UCI et al really cared, they’d have slapped him with a lifetime ban, as you suggest.

From now on, I’d like to see this in the pro peloton. Get caught doping? Lifetime ban. AND repay any earnings/winnings earned in your career to date.

In fact, I’d like to see that in all sports.

Otherwise, why not set up a clean sport, and a doped sport. For example, the “wrestling” on American TV. They can take whatever the blinking flip they like for all I care. But, real sport? No. Keep it clean, thanks.

jfletch….i’m not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i’m uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured

But the procedure has been followed to the letter. The WADA code clearly allows for other evidence, not just positive tests, to be used to convict. In fact it is widely recognised by WADA and national agencies that non analytical evidence is at the forefront of the fight against drugs in sport as although testing is important it is likely the cheats will always be one step ahead.

If Lance had opted for arbitration he could have called his own witnesses, presented his own evidence etc. he chose not to. Instead he issued a press release which you seem to have swallowed.

Irrelevant, Junky. If he doped, his title should be removed. A precedent has been set.

The issue here is that although it is common knowledge these people doped, they were not banned for the period of the results. So in the same way as LA still has his rainbow jersey because it was before 1998 when the USADA ban starts, Pantani can keep his yellow.

And this is he way it should be because if the anti doping agencies don’t stick to the letter of the rules they will lose credibility.

Now I’m no STW legal expert, but I think that handing out lifetime bans is pretty tricky to due, due to restriction of trade law isn’t it? I was surprised that lala was given one tbh. Didn’t Renault F1 boss Flavio Briatore have his lifetime ban reduced for crashgate?