O, Danny Boy
Comments
-
My memory isn't what it once was but wasn't Armstrong also offered a reduced ban if he confessed? The major difference between him and the Garmin boys was that he chose to turn the deal down, no?0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:I have no love for the likes of Danielson, but...just to be clear, the Garmin crew were not sub-poena'd. They were not threatened with prison if they didn't talk. Nor was Barry (to cite another example). The guys who were called in by Novitsky - different story. But the ones who weren't, and who talked to USADA once they'd taken up the case when Novitsky had the case closed down against his will....they were not sub-poena'd. Tygart had nothing like the legal power that Novitsky had, to force people to talk. The most he could do was to contact someone and 'invite' them to come in to talk to USADA. They were able to refuse (as Barry did at first, and then changed his mind in Aug '12 and contacted them to say he'd provide a witness statement after all. Sure, if a false statement is found to been provided, that witness would be in trouble - but the thing is that they were not coerced to talk in the first place.
Just setting the record straight a bit
My mistake, thanks."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:mike6 wrote:rayjay wrote:ddraver wrote:Riss admitted it, Armstrong did not
Someone would pay Vino to ride again but no one would pay Rasmussen (Well Christina Watches would but no one important let them in their races)
Of course Armstrong admitted it , did you see Oprah. Both won tours doped. The same offence. Both had team mates doping. Both did the same offence to win a tour.
Perhaps maybe the clean riders could take a stand and refuse to race with a rider like Vino or Di Luca before he was banned.
They, the clean riders are quick to make comments after a rider is busted when the know full well what riders even team mates are doping. They are all to scared to put the head on the line ?
If the riders want a clean sport maybe it's time they did something. if peloton is clean then maybe they should tackle the problem from within.
Instead we have all these sporting bodies that say they want a clean sport etc but are more concerned about the profits they make and the money in their pockets.
Quite agree. If teams refused to sign ex dopers (sure I heard that somewhere before) and the clean riders refused to compete against known dopers, the problem would eventually recede. I believe there were a couple of endurance athletes who refused to compete against a known doper in Athletics, but I cant remember the event.
There again there are still too many riders that remember the Omerta era and cant seem to escape its grasp.
So tell us how the effect of a couple of endurance athletes refusing to compete against a known doper, had and has had on endurance sports?
You are so black and white. Solutions seem to appear very simple to you. Life is not like that. If riders refused to compete, they would be in breach and they would be at risk of having their employment terminated - and be pretty unattractive to other teams from that point on. Riders are not unionised. This isn't back to the days of "Right, everybody out!"
The riders are paid to ride their bikes. For the most part, they just want to be allowed to get on with their job.
Apologies, I seem to have rattled your cage. I did not say things were black and white, I merely put forward an idea, not so off the wall when the Pro teams had an agreement, not that long ago, that they would not sign up ex dopers. The fact there agreement did not stand up is another matter.
Also I did not say a couple of endurance athletes protesting had any effect, I was merely stating a precedent. Lighten up. So you are saying that if Pro Tour teams refused to sign ex dopers it would have no effect?
With regards to black and white and right and wrong, politicians and business leaders are fond of telling us "Oh, Its not as simple as that", when very often it is.0 -
The problem being, such an agreement would be utterly unenforcable by law and probably illegal under employment law.
In practical terms, its folly to expect all 20 WT teams to pass up on the opportunity to sign a rider of the calibre of Contador on his return from a ban."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
^this
mike, you said 'if clean riders refused...'
And that it is simply not going to happen. And why it's a 'simple' solution that is totally unworkable.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:I have no love for the likes of Danielson, but...just to be clear, the Garmin crew were not sub-poena'd. They were not threatened with prison if they didn't talk. Nor was Barry (to cite another example). The guys who were called in by Novitsky - different story. But the ones who weren't, and who talked to USADA once they'd taken up the case when Novitsky had the case closed down against his will....they were not sub-poena'd. Tygart had nothing like the legal power that Novitsky had, to force people to talk. The most he could do was to contact someone and 'invite' them to come in to talk to USADA. They were able to refuse (as Barry did at first, and then changed his mind in Aug '12 and contacted them to say he'd provide a witness statement after all. Sure, if a false statement is found to been provided, that witness would be in trouble - but the thing is that they were not coerced to talk in the first place.
Just setting the record straight a bit
But their employment contracts contained a clause which essentially said, "if you are contacted by a national anti-doping agency then you must co-operate with them fully". Which is a lesser threat than jail time, but equally compelling for people with financial dependents.0 -
mike6 wrote:I believe there were a couple of endurance athletes who refused to compete against a known doper in Athletics, but I cant remember the event.
That would be Paula Radcliffe and Hayley Tullet:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... andal.html
0 -
The Garmin crew et al only played ball once Hincapie and a few others burst theirs ...
They were busted exactly the same way as LA ... Testimony of others ... They just got offered a very attractive deal to go make the nails for LA's coffin as that was the prize Tygart was after ...
Don't think for one minute they would have walked in that door if they didn't have to ... They had nearly 10 years to think about it and didn't ...0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:The issue with Rassmussen wasn't that he was never allowed to ride again, it was that his comeuppance played out in front of the biggest audience in the sport resulting in him being unofficially blacklisted by ASO. That meant any team who decided to take a punt on him was basically signing away any ambition they had to ride Paris Nice, Paris-Roubiax and the Tour, amongst others. Same issue with Landis.
Lesson is, if you're going to get got, don't do it whilst leading the biggest bike race in the world at the sharp end.
As to Garmin, confessing to 5 year old transgressions when put under the threat of prison time for perjury is not the same as getting caught in a test. What is the incentive for anyone to cooperate with the authroities if their career gets destroyed over something that, did they nt confess, would probably never come to light?
Armstrong never got caught in a test when he was riding. should he have just got an off season ban for confessing?
Is it not the same offence. All these riders doped.
Is it not that the whole issue is such a mess that the UCI are out of their depth and were a part of the problem in the first place by denying or avoiding the issue that doping was going on in such a big way.
Like most things they catch up with you, in the end your left with a big mess for initially turning a blind eye to keep your pockets filled.
If you add up the wins and money earned of every single one of those Garmin riders who, whilst we shouldn't forget were compelled to confess on pain of prison, willignly cooperated with USADA, they won't ammount to half the career Armstrong had. And he was caught in his own lie, confessing only when he had something to gain from it.
Can you honestly not see the difference between one of the sports modern greats who ran the Tour like his own personal fifedom for the better part of a decade and Dave Zabriskie?
Of course. But if 2 people both shoot someone Should one receive a lesser penalty because he had not made as much money. I understand your view but their should be clarity.
DZ is not some innocent guy who had no idea what was going on. He could have spoken out before like many riders could have.
Its only when threatened with serious consequences does anyone talk.
What's wrong with the clean riders setting up a union against doping riders. The UCI could back them. They would have no reason not to.
Team mangers talk about how doping is on the decline well let's see them back up and defend the clean riders and stop signing ex doped riders.
If there is no way back into the peloton for doped riders perhaps riders will stop doping.
what do you think?0 -
r0bh wrote:mike6 wrote:I believe there were a couple of endurance athletes who refused to compete against a known doper in Athletics, but I cant remember the event.
That would be Paula Radcliffe and Hayley Tullet:
]
That was the 2001 World Champs in Edmonton, when the Russian World No.1. at 5000m Olga Yegorova was allowed to compete despite having failed a Urine EPO test earlier that year - no blood test was taken so she got off on a technicality. She was eventually done in '08 prior to Beijing after a nice few years doing very well.
In a dark irony Tullet went on to finish 3rd in the 2003 World Champs 1500m, the winner of that race was Tomashova, also caught and banned in '08 in the same 'swoop' that did for Yegorova, and second was Süreyya Ayhan of Turkey, who's been done twice. Arguably Tullet missed out on being World Champ and associated rewards.
Track & Field still has huge issues (Kenyans knocking out 2.04 marathons all over the place), at least Cycling acknowledges there is a problem and is trying to get it's house in some sort of order - albeit there will be a long and awkward period of adjustment whilst the 'old guard' are still competing or involved in team management.0 -
^ athletics has huge issues, with sanction notices appearing regularly, with Russian and Turkish athletes in particular topping the list
Back to cycling, the UCI passed this ruling back in Jul 2011:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/06/ ... ons_1790000 -
Crankbrother wrote:The Garmin crew et al only played ball once Hincapie and a few others burst theirs ...
They were busted exactly the same way as LA ... Testimony of others ... They just got offered a very attractive deal to go make the nails for LA's coffin as that was the prize Tygart was after ...
Don't think for one minute they would have walked in that door if they didn't have to ... They had nearly 10 years to think about it and didn't ...
No doubt they were very fortunate that circumstances worked in their favour,
but that's the beauty of getting the right incentive.
I suspect that certain folks view their conditional confessions as an indicator
that they are not quite the reformed characters, as accepted by the media?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:The issue with Rassmussen wasn't that he was never allowed to ride again, it was that his comeuppance played out in front of the biggest audience in the sport resulting in him being unofficially blacklisted by ASO. That meant any team who decided to take a punt on him was basically signing away any ambition they had to ride Paris Nice, Paris-Roubiax and the Tour, amongst others. Same issue with Landis.
Lesson is, if you're going to get got, don't do it whilst leading the biggest bike race in the world at the sharp end.
As to Garmin, confessing to 5 year old transgressions when put under the threat of prison time for perjury is not the same as getting caught in a test. What is the incentive for anyone to cooperate with the authroities if their career gets destroyed over something that, did they nt confess, would probably never come to light?
Armstrong never got caught in a test when he was riding. should he have just got an off season ban for confessing?
Is it not the same offence. All these riders doped.
Is it not that the whole issue is such a mess that the UCI are out of their depth and were a part of the problem in the first place by denying or avoiding the issue that doping was going on in such a big way.
Like most things they catch up with you, in the end your left with a big mess for initially turning a blind eye to keep your pockets filled.
If you add up the wins and money earned of every single one of those Garmin riders who, whilst we shouldn't forget were compelled to confess on pain of prison, willignly cooperated with USADA, they won't ammount to half the career Armstrong had. And he was caught in his own lie, confessing only when he had something to gain from it.
Can you honestly not see the difference between one of the sports modern greats who ran the Tour like his own personal fifedom for the better part of a decade and Dave Zabriskie?
Of course. But if 2 people both shoot someone Should one receive a lesser penalty because he had not made as much money. I understand your view but their should be clarity.
DZ is not some innocent guy who had no idea what was going on. He could have spoken out before like many riders could have.
Its only when threatened with serious consequences does anyone talk.
What's wrong with the clean riders setting up a union against doping riders. The UCI could back them. They would have no reason not to.
Team mangers talk about how doping is on the decline well let's see them back up and defend the clean riders and stop signing ex doped riders.
If there is no way back into the peloton for doped riders perhaps riders will stop doping.
what do you think?
Look at it this way, in your early 20s you get offered your dream job and turn out to be not as good at it as you could reasonably expect to be. Then your boss and his boss sit you down and explain that the reason is that everybody ahead of you in your profession has been taking X shortcut, against the rules for years and that you have 3 choices: You can either knuckle under and accept it but not participate and you'll be fired for not performing when your contract is up, you can kick against it and be fired sooner or you can go along with it, participate and ge to work on better projects and make more money... what would you do?
It's impossible to read Zabriskie's testimony and not view him as a victim."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
---0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:^this
mike, you said 'if clean riders refused...'
And that it is simply not going to happen. And why it's a 'simple' solution that is totally unworkable.
Quite, I said "If", not this is what they should do. Who said any agreement between the teams had to be framed in law?
You are also suggesting that If a team like, oh, say Sky for example, had a policy of not signing riders with a known doping history they would be infringing employment law? They must be in big trouble then. If not there is nothing to stop other teams doing the same thing. Simple, you bet.
0 -
mike6 wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:^this
mike, you said 'if clean riders refused...'
And that it is simply not going to happen. And why it's a 'simple' solution that is totally unworkable.
Quite, I said "If", not this is what they should do. Who said any agreement between the teams had to be framed in law?
You are also suggesting that If a team like, oh, say Sky for example, had a policy of not signing riders with a known doping history they would be infringing employment law? They must be in big trouble then. If not there is nothing to stop other teams doing the same thing. Simple, you bet.
My argument was that a cartel amongst all the teams to adopt that policy would be unworkabl in law, if they all adopted it indvidually with no sanction against any teams that decided they'd rather not play ball or broke ranks to sign a returning rider, then great.
There once was an agreement as such you speak off, it lasted until Ivan Basso returned to racing following the initial fallout from Puerto."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
DZ is not a 'victim' ... He had options, chose the one that was best for him and set about creating a career based on false performances ...
Now if, when he left CSC (as we are led to believe that was also a team with issues), he had sat down with Vaughters (and Doug Ellis) and an agreement was made that he had to come clean to ride on that team and once he had served his ban he would be welcome on the team, then maybe then he could claim that he was abused by the system ... But DZ and Vaughters let him ride out the final years of his career, influencing races and garnering money from their sponsors ... The plan only changed when there was no other option, same as LA ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:DZ is not a 'victim' ... He had options, chose the one that was best for him and set about creating a career based on false performances ...
Easier said than done though isn't it?
Somebody offers ou a pill that makes you better at your job at a time when you're making sod all and clinging to your tiny 2 year fixed contract, what would you do?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Crankbrother wrote:DZ is not a 'victim' ... He had options, chose the one that was best for him and set about creating a career based on false performances ...
Now if, when he left CSC (as we are led to believe that was also a team with issues), he had sat down with Vaughters (and Doug Ellis) and an agreement was made that he had to come clean to ride on that team and once he had served his ban he would be welcome on the team, then maybe then he could claim that he was abused by the system ... But DZ and Vaughters let him ride out the final years of his career CLEAN, influencing races and garnering money from their sponsors ... The plan only changed when there was no other option, same as LA ...
An important amendment“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
So do you apply this theory to LA who lost it all through illness and had to do what he had to do to compete with Telekom, ONCE, Mercatone Uno, CSC?
It's all just cheating to get ahead and manipulating the truth to hold on to what you've got ...
Not really justifiable is it?0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Crankbrother wrote:DZ is not a 'victim' ... He had options, chose the one that was best for him and set about creating a career based on false performances ...
Now if, when he left CSC (as we are led to believe that was also a team with issues), he had sat down with Vaughters (and Doug Ellis) and an agreement was made that he had to come clean to ride on that team and once he had served his ban he would be welcome on the team, then maybe then he could claim that he was abused by the system ... But DZ and Vaughters let him ride out the final years of his career CLEAN, influencing races and garnering money from their sponsors ... The plan only changed when there was no other option, same as LA ...
An important amendment
Still got to do the time, at the time though ... means nothing without it ...
Look at AC, won another GT in the meantime ... Sure his name is no longer on the trophy but tell that to the rider denied an actual win and the sponsor who lost out financially while Saxo got their advertising dollar ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:So do you apply this theory to LA who lost it all through illness and had to do what he had to do to compete with Telekom, ONCE, Mercatone Uno, CSC?
It's all just cheating to get ahead and manipulating the truth to hold on to what you've got ...
Not really justifiable is it?
Initially yes, Armstrong probabl got in on the ground floor of the EPO era, along with the likes of Di Luca. However, I think once you move into a position of responsibility as a team leader and start building your team on the foundation of cutting edge, sustained doping and efectively blackmailing young teammates into abusing their bodies for your continued glory (I'd count Di Luca in this too), you've probably crossed a line."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Crankbrother wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Crankbrother wrote:DZ is not a 'victim' ... He had options, chose the one that was best for him and set about creating a career based on false performances ...
Now if, when he left CSC (as we are led to believe that was also a team with issues), he had sat down with Vaughters (and Doug Ellis) and an agreement was made that he had to come clean to ride on that team and once he had served his ban he would be welcome on the team, then maybe then he could claim that he was abused by the system ... But DZ and Vaughters let him ride out the final years of his career CLEAN, influencing races and garnering money from their sponsors ... The plan only changed when there was no other option, same as LA ...
An important amendment
Still got to do the time, at the time though ... means nothing without it ...
Look at AC, won another GT in the meantime ... Sure his name is no longer on the trophy but tell that to the rider denied an actual win and the sponsor who lost out financially while Saxo got their advertising dollar ...
Depends whether or not punishing wrongdoing is more important than finding a pragmatic solution.
The idea of a rider deciding to stop doping, admitting their wrongdoing and serving a 2 year ban before being allowed to come back is good in theory and may appeal to a natural sense of justice - but in the real world isn't going to happen.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Armstrong built his team to win the tour.
He knew the other teams were all doping and that was what was needed to win.
If DZ had gone to another team he would still have faced the same situation if he wanted to race at that level.
I doubt he was that green.
It his a shame that riders have to dope to compete but drugs etc have always been part of cycling it could not have come as that big of a shock.
Nichole Cooke was confronted with similar situation. She opened the teams fridge and threw all the bags of blood out.
You do have a choice and it is a tough one but it still is a choice.0 -
rayjay wrote:Armstrong built his team to win the tour.
He knew the other teams were all doping and that was what was needed to win.
If DZ had gone to another team he would still have faced the same situation if he wanted to race at that level.
I doubt he was that green.
It his a shame that riders have to dope to compete but drugs etc have always been part of cycling it could not have come as that big of a shock.
Nichole Cooke was confronted with similar situation. She opened the teams fridge and threw all the bags of blood out.
You do have a choice and it is a tough one but it still is a choice.
Nicole Cook was in the unique position of being the best female cyclist of the last 20 years.
The argument I'm making is if you've made that choice, you've probably made it on the basis that everybody is doing it and you've grown up with that through your pro career. DZ's testimony tells us that USPS was the first time he'd been based in Europe, it was certainly his first pro contract. Suddenly a Tour Winner and your DS are telling you it's EPO and bloodbags or back to Utah and making $15,000 on the domestic circuit."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:Armstrong built his team to win the tour.
He knew the other teams were all doping and that was what was needed to win.
If DZ had gone to another team he would still have faced the same situation if he wanted to race at that level.
I doubt he was that green.
It his a shame that riders have to dope to compete but drugs etc have always been part of cycling it could not have come as that big of a shock.
Nichole Cooke was confronted with similar situation. She opened the teams fridge and threw all the bags of blood out.
You do have a choice and it is a tough one but it still is a choice.
Nicole Cook was in the unique position of being the best female cyclist of the last 20 years.
The argument I'm making is if you've made that choice, you've probably made it on the basis that everybody is doing it and you've grown up with that through your pro career. DZ's testimony tells us that USPS was the first time he'd been based in Europe, it was certainly his first pro contract. Suddenly a Tour Winner and your DS are telling you it's EPO and bloodbags or back to Utah and making $15,000 on the domestic circuit.
I understand, that's why I said it's a shame riders have to dope.
It must have been awful for a lot of athletes who get put into such a position.
If he was such anti drugs then perhaps knowing that riders were doping he could have tried to make a stand perhaps have a chat with a some of the anti lance journalists of the time.
He still chose to dope and that is quite a big step if it's going against you beliefs.
I understand your points.
Being put under that kind of pressure, to have to put your dreams on hold or extinguish them is not a good choice to have to make.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:rayjay wrote:Armstrong built his team to win the tour.
He knew the other teams were all doping and that was what was needed to win.
If DZ had gone to another team he would still have faced the same situation if he wanted to race at that level.
I doubt he was that green.
It his a shame that riders have to dope to compete but drugs etc have always been part of cycling it could not have come as that big of a shock.
Nichole Cooke was confronted with similar situation. She opened the teams fridge and threw all the bags of blood out.
You do have a choice and it is a tough one but it still is a choice.
Nicole Cook was in the unique position of being the best female cyclist of the last 20 years.
The argument I'm making is if you've made that choice, you've probably made it on the basis that everybody is doing it and you've grown up with that through your pro career. DZ's testimony tells us that USPS was the first time he'd been based in Europe, it was certainly his first pro contract. Suddenly a Tour Winner and your DS are telling you it's EPO and bloodbags or back to Utah and making $15,000 on the domestic circuit.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
The argument I'm making is if you've made that choice, you've probably made it on the basis that everybody is doing it and you've grown up with that through your pro career. DZ's testimony tells us that USPS was the first time he'd been based in Europe, it was certainly his first pro contract. Suddenly a Tour Winner and your DS are telling you it's EPO and bloodbags or back to Utah and making $15,000 on the domestic circuit.
So the choice is ... Take the DZ shortcut ... or be Chris Horner?
You'll notice in that example how the rider who made the wrong decision's actions have gone on to have a negative impact on the other ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:
The argument I'm making is if you've made that choice, you've probably made it on the basis that everybody is doing it and you've grown up with that through your pro career. DZ's testimony tells us that USPS was the first time he'd been based in Europe, it was certainly his first pro contract. Suddenly a Tour Winner and your DS are telling you it's EPO and bloodbags or back to Utah and making $15,000 on the domestic circuit.
So the choice is ... Take the DZ shortcut ... or be Chris Horner?
You'll notice in that example how the rider who made the wrong decision's actions have gone on to have a negative impact on the other ...
Exactly, there's no winners!"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
