Questions for Lance haters

AntLockyer

calvjones wrote:

post-dated TUEs anyone?

Which according to some sources doesn't exist either.

Meds1962

Kleber wrote: Very fair. But where do you draw the line on evidence? Must it be, say, court admissable evidence? Or do we include other aspects, for example is paying Dr Ferrari to be your preparatore a form of evidence?

It would have to be court admissible, using your example - Dr Ferrari in person under oath and not someone's opinion about what Dr Ferrari may or may not have provided.

If I was a pro racer, never tested positive over a long career, I think the benefit of the doubt is the least I'd hope to get from my critics.

finchy

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

we should give them the benefit of the doubt unless there is other evidence to suggest otherwise.

so name a rider for whom there is no evidence to suggest otherwise? I think you'd be going back to before the invention of the bicycle...

Mottet, Boardman, Tafi, Bassons, Gilbert, Wiggins..... all known for their anti-doping stance a long time before it became fashionable.

finchy

Kléber wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think the point still stands though, that given all of Ullrich's negatives, as well as Basso's, and for years Vino's, it's difficult to say that a cyclist MUST be clean because of no positive tests. Rather, we should give them the benefit of the doubt unless there is other evidence to suggest otherwise.

Very fair. But where do you draw the line on evidence? Must it be, say, court admissable evidence? Or do we include other aspects, for example is paying Dr Ferrari to be your preparatore a form of evidence?

Hmmmm, well I hate to sound vague but it really does depend on the individual circumstances.

I think that there was a (little-known) Belgian cyclist who, a couple of years ago, was caught out by his text messages to a doping doctor. They were discussing when to take injections. That's the sort of evidence that I'd use against a cyclist.

micron

The Balco investigation changed the standards for proof - several athletes were disciplined on evidence very similar to the Fuentes bloodbags i.e. no positive test but plenty of circumstantial evidence like documents, doping plans etc.

moray_gub

johnfinch wrote:

Kléber wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think the point still stands though, that given all of Ullrich's negatives, as well as Basso's, and for years Vino's, it's difficult to say that a cyclist MUST be clean because of no positive tests. Rather, we should give them the benefit of the doubt unless there is other evidence to suggest otherwise.

Very fair. But where do you draw the line on evidence? Must it be, say, court admissable evidence? Or do we include other aspects, for example is paying Dr Ferrari to be your preparatore a form of evidence?

Hmmmm, well I hate to sound vague but it really does depend on the individual circumstances.

I think that there was a (little-known) Belgian cyclist who, a couple of years ago, was caught out by his text messages to a doping doctor. They were discussing when to take injections. That's the sort of evidence that I'd use against a cyclist.

Be interested to know if you would you be prepared to lose your own job based on such evidence ?

MG

moray_gub

micron wrote:

The Balco investigation changed the standards for proof - several athletes were disciplined on evidence very similar to the Fuentes bloodbags i.e. no positive test but plenty of circumstantial evidence like documents, doping plans etc.

Balco ? there is a mess if everv there was one an investigative and legal nightmare.

MG

don key

Meds1962 wrote:

1. I'd rate the 7 straight wins below the 5 each of Anquetil, Merckx and Hinault because Lance's career post cancer was too focused on a single event whereas the others have far superior palmares. The Cannibal is the greatest tour rider IMO; Coppi & Bartali unfortunately are just speculation, Coppi was by all accounts'fragile'.

2. There are no positive tests so he wasn't doping. We are talking about 7 years worth of testing in and out of competition for a whole squad, the odds against that must be astronomical. I hope we don't see the day when hearsay and backstabbing are good enough to convict people.

3. No doubt he's pretty special; the tour wins were off the back of the best squad but the same thing happened last year. The fact is that he more than held his own against all opposition even when his team mates had dropped back, no one was strong enough to really test him even on the last tour he won. Ulrich, Kloden and Vinokourov - 3 team leaders working together weren't good enough.

4. A bit anti Pantani because he was banned for blood abnormalities; even Mercx was excluded from a Tour because of a doping allegation but nobody is casting doubt on him (certainly not me); Anquetil was quite open about it and even forfeited the hour record because he disagreed with being tested. Coppi is on record admitting he doped "when necessary" how often was that? "almost always". People don't speak badly of Tom Simpson who sadly died because of doping. What dope was available between the 30's and 90's is obviously very different but they took what was available at the time. It's in the past now, so is 1999 to 2005.

Regarding answer two:

Hearsay and backstabbing have turned him, in fable, into an all conquering hero.


When he is caught just sit back and watch the most elaborate denial in history.

The only thing his body language indicates regarding innocence is his innocence with regard to telling the truth.

finchy

Moray Gub wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Kléber wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I think the point still stands though, that given all of Ullrich's negatives, as well as Basso's, and for years Vino's, it's difficult to say that a cyclist MUST be clean because of no positive tests. Rather, we should give them the benefit of the doubt unless there is other evidence to suggest otherwise.

Very fair. But where do you draw the line on evidence? Must it be, say, court admissable evidence? Or do we include other aspects, for example is paying Dr Ferrari to be your preparatore a form of evidence?

Hmmmm, well I hate to sound vague but it really does depend on the individual circumstances.

I think that there was a (little-known) Belgian cyclist who, a couple of years ago, was caught out by his text messages to a doping doctor. They were discussing when to take injections. That's the sort of evidence that I'd use against a cyclist.

Be interested to know if you would you be prepared to lose your own job based on such evidence ?

MG

That's why I say that it depends on the individual circumstances. Obviously sometimes there will be very flimsy evidence against a rider (e.g Alberto Contador's alleged involvement with Fuentes), at other times it is more concrete.

With regards to the cyclist that I mentioned above (if anybody does know his name/the exact circumstances, please feel free to add it here...), if I were caught sending e-mails/text messages about how I had been stealing from my colleagues at work (which is effectively the case with doping), then yes, I would expect to lose my job, and possibly be prosecuted as well.

Gazzaputt

I like Lance I love the way he will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. Look at most top sportsman and you will find the selfish for their own means to win.

At stopping at nothing did he dope? Well he never tested positive but nor did others who were caught later in their careers. I believe he pushed it to the limits set by the UCI but who didn't?

I think his cancer and treatment changed his physique the enabled him to become the rider he was. Before cancer he was still a very good rider, you don't win a world championship being midfield. Also he was shit on from a great height by Cofodis who left him for dead. This gave him the determination to prove them wrong.

Yes he is the greatest TDF rider 7 wins no-one else can match.

If he comes top 5 this year you have to applaud him for it. 3 years out and 37 it would be no mean feat.

My last 2 points are if he were Italian, French or even British therer would not be so much Lance hating.

Also a point I have made before. If a friend, club collogue or just someone you knew returned from beating cancer the way he did and returned to a normal life you'd applaud them for it. Lance's normal was bike racing. He returned and won when by rights he should have died. I for one have the greatest respect for him as a cancer survivor firstly and a bike rider second.

singlespeedexplosif

My last 2 points are if he were Italian, French or even British therer would not be so much Lance hating.

see Virenque for a counter to that one

finchy

Gazzaputt wrote:

My last 2 points are if he were Italian, French or even British therer would not be so much Lance hating.

I don't think that it's an anti-American thing. Greg Lemond remains a popular rider, and so was Landis until his positive.

blazing_saddles

Gazzaputt wrote:

My last 2 points are if he were Italian, French or even British therer would not be so much Lance hating.

Correct, although that actually says a lot more about the perceived fanboys, than the haters. Takes two to tango and one half of the dance team would mostly be absent.

edhornby

Gazzaputt wrote:

My last 2 points are if he were Italian, French or even British therer would not be so much Lance hating.

ER... Ricco, who loves him ? answer: no-one

Kléber

No one likes Virenque, he's a joke in France. As for British, Millar got caught but does his best to be a changed rider today, rather than deny, deny, deny.

rapid_uphill

edhornby wrote:

ER... Ricco, who loves him ? answer: no-one

is this gay cycling chat or what? "i love this cyclist but not that one"
this thread really sucks, i wish it would die quickly FFS.
in the end nobody will win so just let it go.

cougie

Kléber wrote:

No one likes Virenque, he's a joke in France. As for British, Millar got caught but does his best to be a changed rider today, rather than deny, deny, deny.

Is Virenque a joke in France ? Isnt he a commentator on cycling for one of the networks ?

Belokki

1. NO!... To me he's clean until proven guilty 8) ... you can speculate all you want, but he would not be the same in my eyes :?

2. NOPE!....never got cought...those tours were great...it was about cycling and rivalries...not tabloids and gossips full of the riders dirties... these days its all a out the reporters...

3. I already admited that he's special...people don't like him cuz he has a strong caracter and doesn't let himself get pushed around... he proved himself being clean by not being + in any test...there's your answer

4. Er no... But they proved that Eddy has doped, still they don't consider him a cheat but the greatest ever( mostly by people who didn't even see him ride...) To me Lance is the best, I did not see the others race( saw pantani and who... :shock: ...giving Ulle 9+ minutes in his prime is out of this world( DOPE)...even Lance could only give him 2 at max) so I can't judge them... I'm still you and I only saw the races from Indurain- onwards

aurelio_-_banned

cougie wrote:

Kléber wrote:

No one likes Virenque, he's a joke in France. As for British, Millar got caught but does his best to be a changed rider today, rather than deny, deny, deny.

Is Virenque a joke in France ? Isnt he a commentator on cycling for one of the networks ?

He may appear on TV but just look at some of that national jokes that do the same in the UK!

A couple of years ago Virenque was voted the second least admirable person in France, second only to the right-wing politician Le Pen. His garbled phrase about doping without knowledge of his own free will has become a popular idiom in France meaning hypocritical denial. The following is also typical of how he is portrayed on French TV...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMaa9Ui8JS4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUGs1M0HKgk

notanotherhill

ok admittedly i skipped a few replies to this thread butfor my tuppenworth i cant stand the guy mainly because of his attitude

The man had/has no respect for those around him except for those that serve his purpose. in relation to his comeback look at it this way. If he falls flat on his face his excuse is that hes 3 years out of the game. If he succeds then he will use it as vindication that he was clean all along. Personally i think he will return clean, so if hes so self rightous all of a sudden let the french retrospectively test his samples

tubularglue

dave_1

even Sastre agrees LA has got the media talking cycling more..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /feb03news

richard wants a baum

Oh the media might be talking about cycling but only in the context of Lance Armstrongs Comeback ive noticed no increase in Tom Boonen articles or Cervelo Test Teams good form at the ToQ.

blazing_saddles

Dave_1 wrote:

even Sastre agrees LA has got the media talking cycling more..

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id= ... /feb03news

Hardly what I'd call a glowing reference.
"It is his decision," he said. "It is good for the media because the media is talking about cycling because of him. But nothing more."

richard wants a baum wrote:

Oh the media might be talking about cycling but only in the context of Lance Armstrongs Comeback ive noticed no increase in Tom Boonen articles or Cervelo Test Teams good form at the ToQ.

Yes, exactly the point some of us have been trying to make, throughout the closed season.
In fact, for many, the season will open and close, in coordination with the guy competing and speaking. Rather like a gigantic, collective mouth.

The fact is, you get fewer articles of importance, due to all the space he takes up.

I'd have no problem with this comeback if, he said little, the media said less and he just rode a bike.

micron

+1 Blaze and Richard. If Armstrong's comeback throws a spotlight on cycling, it's only because that's the sport he competes in - the entire media focus is on personality - and doping - rather than the sport. The French season opener was on Sunday - has the supposed increased media attention on cycling led to articles about that race? No, didn't think so.

And that's the problem with narrowing the focus - if there's less and less attention to anything in the sport besides Armstrong, where's the impetus for sponsors to put their money up front and keep all those races that don't get reported going? Where's the comeback for them? Might as well put your thousands/millions straight in Armstrong's pocket and get some short term glory.

But what happens when he's gone again? Exactly what happened last time - a very small minority of fans stay with the sport, the majority turn their attentions to the next miracle/human interest story. The long term benefit to the sport is minimal and arguably, in the UK, Hoy and co. have had far more impact on changing attitudes to cycling for the better than ever Armstrong has.

moray_gub

micron wrote:

+1

But what happens when he's gone again? Exactly what happened last time - a very small minority of fans stay with the sport, the majority turn their attentions to the next miracle/human interest story. The long term benefit to the sport is minimal and arguably, in the UK, Hoy and co. have had far more impact on changing attitudes to cycling for the better than ever Armstrong has.

I never noticed any drop off in cycling interest when he went the last time in fact i think the oposite was true and it will be the same this time when he goes he goes and cyling will move on like it has done for donkeys years. You are ovestating the effect of his comeback.


MG

Meds1962

So is the 'problem' down to Lance or to the media? Sure there's been his own publicity machine and the Livestrong aspect, but would there have been less media interest if it was say Bernard Hinault coming back in the late 80's? It sells copy whether it's Procycling, Cycling Weekly or the Daily Mirror and ultimately they are all about making money whether it's written for joe public or serious enthusiasts.
The Sunday Times which has Walsh and Kimmage writing regularly for it described him as the greatest cyclist ever in a full page spread a few weeks ago. Somehow I don't think Lance spoke to either of them to get a bit of good publicity!

Martin Van Nostrand

Moray Gub wrote:

I never noticed any drop off in cycling interest when he went the last time in fact i think the oposite was true and it will be the same this time when he goes he goes and cyling will move on like it has done for donkeys years. You are ovestating the effect of his comeback.

Any US bike shop will describe the "Lance effect" in bike sales. And yes, Trek sales dived after he retired.

Americans buy whatever they see on TV.

Martin Van Nostrand

Meds1962 wrote:

So is the 'problem' down to Lance or to the media? Sure there's been his own publicity machine and the Livestrong aspect, but would there have been less media interest if it was say Bernard Hinault coming back in the late 80's? It sells copy whether it's Procycling, Cycling Weekly or the Daily Mirror and ultimately they are all about making money whether it's written for joe public or serious enthusiasts.

Yes, but it's disingenuous. As soon as Lance leaves again, the US fans will leave. Lance could be the 'hook' to get someone into pro cycling as a sport, but when the media does such a lame job of describing the rest of the peloton, one can conclude it's all about one guy. Those who live by the sword, die by it, etc.

don key

rapid_uphill wrote:

edhornby wrote:

ER... Ricco, who loves him ? answer: no-one

is this gay cycling chat or what? "i love this cyclist but not that one"
this thread really sucks, i wish it would die quickly FFS.
in the end nobody will win so just let it go.

Personally I'm not a Lance dater as he JivesWrong.