Levi Leipheimer busted for doping.
Comments
-
If levi gets busted for doping in this century, it's worth talking about. Otherwise, it's old news.
Or shall we start new threads now rehashing every doping offence from the past?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:That's the problem, many people only seem to be interested in doping, or willing to accept that riders dope, when they come from 'Mafia European nations'. When it comes to the likes of Leipheimer, people are quite happy to ignore the fact that they are almost certainly just as guilty, even if they do have better PR teams, doping management systems, friends in high places in the UCI and so on.
What a load of nonsense. Seriously, what an absolute pile of gash. We're talking about real cases that are ongoing. Here and now. It's got sod all to do with the fact they're from Italy. It's a real live case, we're talking about it.
There are 2 people obsessed with a single country on this forum and it's you and Dennis.
You really need to get some perspective.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Fair enough, as far as it goes. But the fact that there are 'ongoing' cases does not mean we should ignore what has gone on in the past. Do people refuse to read about the history of bike racing because there are results to read about from this week's events? Of course not!iainf72 wrote:We're talking about real cases that are ongoing. Here and now.0 -
When they only come to light in the present, yes!Pokerface wrote:I shall we start new threads now rehashing every doping offence from the past?0 -
iainf72 wrote:BikingBernie wrote:That's the problem, many people only seem to be interested in doping, or willing to accept that riders dope, when they come from 'Mafia European nations'. When it comes to the likes of Leipheimer, people are quite happy to ignore the fact that they are almost certainly just as guilty, even if they do have better PR teams, doping management systems, friends in high places in the UCI and so on.
What a load of nonsense. Seriously, what an absolute pile of gash. We're talking about real cases that are ongoing. Here and now. It's got sod all to do with the fact they're from Italy. It's a real live case, we're talking about it.
There are 2 people obsessed with a single country on this forum and it's you and Dennis.
You really need to get some perspective.
Wait a minute. I'm not obsessed with any country. I support all those guys. Good and bad.
When did any country come into this? I think you're wrong about me, in that respect. To me countries are simply politics and politics bore me to tears. I think everyone deserves a second chance no matter who they are. Well, within reason of course.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
When they only come to light in the present, yes!Pokerface wrote:I shall we start new threads now rehashing every doping offence from the past?
How has it just come to light? He was disqualified, sanctioned and US cycling issued a press release at the time. I knew about it so it can't have been buried very well.
Joe Papp is bringing it up now because he's a chancer who re-invents himself according to what's best for Joe Papp. First a cheating cyclist, then a drug dealer, now an anti-doping crusader trying to keep himself out of prison. (He was preaching his anti-doping stuff while still dealing).
Ephedrine is found in many medicines and is a pretty rubbish performance enhancer compared with what was undetectable in 1996. There weren't internet drug databases to check back then, so it might have been deliberate cheating or may have been an amateur's mistake.
A 14 year old story about a minor drug. Big deal. If this had been, say, Carlos Sastre, you wouldn't have cared less, but it's not. It involved one of those evil Americans who is close to your own personal Moby Dick.Twitter: @RichN950 -
a stimulant that acts as a mild decongestant with varying side effects...wow lock the yank cunt up
a cup or 2 of strong coffee would offer near the same energy boosting results and wear off just as quicklyCrafted in Italy apparantly0 -
BB lots of folk snared 2day by bio passport. Some optimism ?0
-
If it had been Carlos Sastre and I had brought it up, I am sure many people would have been very 'interested', rather than suggesting that I shut the Cavendish up...RichN95 wrote:If this had been, say, Carlos Sastre, you wouldn't have cared less...0 -
Point is, if a rider has such a 'dopers head' that, even as an amateur, they will use a banned product even if the performance-enhancing benefits are minor, they are surely going to find doping methods like Epo and "800 ml of packed cells" autologous blood doping irresistible when they turn pro and not only is the racing so much harder, doping is widely regarded as being simply a part of the job.acidstrato wrote:a stimulant that acts as a mild decongestant with varying side effects...wow lock the yank **** up0 -
Only some, given that certain rider's blood profile data can look as dodgy as hell and the UCI instead of busting them or even investigating further will go out of their way to protect them.Dave_1 wrote:BB lots of folk snared 2day by bio passport. Some optimism ?
Still, what else are to we expect when McQuaid has made it clear that, in his view, it is riders from 'Mafia European nations' that are at the heart of the doping problem, and 'Anglo Saxon' riders who dope are effectively victims, drawn into doping against their will. :roll:0 -
I’ve been sitting on the fence on the whole “Radio Shack are evil / no there not, there good!” debate but this is the smoking gun that has made my mind up!
Thanks for that!0 -
acidstrato wrote:a stimulant that acts as a mild decongestant with varying side effects...wow lock the yank **** up
a cup or 2 of strong coffee would offer near the same energy boosting results and wear off just as quickly
Coffee doesn't boost energy, neither does ephedra.
Ephedra is a stimulant that also helps breathing and is the drug of choice for short efforts such as time trials and criteriums. It is also used to make crystal meth which is why it is also illegal to possess in several countries.
Even if it only gives a slight improvement in performance, why should 1 rider have that advantage over the rest of the field?
Fact is, Levi cheated, got busted and did the time and now it appears that people don't want that particular piece of history around so are trying to erase it.
All Joe Papp is doing is highlighting Taylor Phinneys hypocrisy.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Only some, given that certain rider's blood profile data can look as dodgy as hell and the UCI instead of busting them or even investigating further will go out of their way to protect them.Dave_1 wrote:BB lots of folk snared 2day by bio passport. Some optimism ?
Please cite your PROOF for this statement. And not something from last century.
I want to see PROOF that the UCI are protecting certain riders TODAY. (And I don't care about Armstrong - don't even bother bringing that in to this - totally irrelevant)0 -
By that I take it you mean you don't want to discuss the way the UCI commissioned that hatchet job on LNDD when Armstrong’s 'positives' for Epo in the 1999 Tour came to light, the reputed half a million Dollar 'bung' that he gave to the UCI in return, the way the UCI accepted a retrospective TUE from him when he tested positive for steroids and so on?Pokerface wrote:I want to see PROOF that the UCI are protecting certain riders TODAY. (And I don't care about Armstrong - don't even bother bringing that in to this - totally irrelevant)
Fair enough, of more interest are his blood values from last year’s Tour and the failure of the UCI to follow them up.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interview ... tic-speaks
0 -
BikingBernie wrote:Fair enough, of more interest are his blood values from last year’s Tour and the failure of the UCI to follow them up.
I'm sure Michael Ashenden et al have access to a lot more blood data for Lance than this. And they'd have it in a scientifically valid context of not knowing who it belongs to. Also, there was no agreement on this data being problematic - I think a fairly renowned haematologist said it wasn't really that strange.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I see you are unable to read or follow simple instructions. I am not interested in your obsession with Armstrong.
Please provide valid PROOF that the UCI are protecting riders. ANY other rider. Win me over.0 -
ANY other rider.Pokerface wrote:Please provide valid PROOF that the UCI are protecting riders. ANY other rider. Win me over.
There lies the rub, Armstrong may well be the only one who has the UCI in his pocket, or at the very least the UCI believe that protecting their reputation, come what may, is 'good for the sport'.0 -
Your obsession with Armstrong makes anything you say on the matter invalid in my opinion. You have blinders on when it comes that rider, and come across as well, a lunatic.
You stated the UCI are protecting top rider(S) – so I want to see this proof. If you had simply stated that the UCI are protecting Armstrong and Armstrong only - I would have just denounced this statements as more of your obsessed ramblings and moved on.
But now you've made a bold statement and I want to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a ring of protection going on for these top riders being led by the UCI.0 -
The UCI are allowing Valverde to race if that helps???0
-
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:The UCI are allowing Valverde to race if that helps???
That is a very complicated jurisdictional and legal issue. They don't want him racing and are not protecting him. And basically have acknowledged he is less than clean.
His time will come once the lawyers get done slowing the process down.0 -
OT, but methinks BB needs cheering up a wee bit.
Credit to 'pomtarr' for posting in Cake Stop his great find on YT of an Italian film of yore. It cheered me up no end.
Here's Coppi smokin' a 'go faster' substance ( ? ...tobacco :? My Italian is pidgin at best, so don't really know what the big deal is with Toto -other than p**sing off the peloton- but Coppi's moment is at the end of the clip) Doping Al Giro d'Italia : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqNjyNvG ... re=related"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:The UCI are allowing Valverde to race if that helps???
I think pokerface's position is not unreasonable..
even if as many think there is favoritism between certain riders and the UCI or race organizers, how fully developed and tight such arrangements are is not clear..or homogeneous in how it it presents itself..
if corruption is taking place (there is plenty of smoke) how much more or less are those guilty protected by false leads assertions and allegations?
if you rant endlessly about stuff you are bound to say something unprovable or plain WRONG that can be seized on..
A guy who takes up a crusade like aurillo needs to adopt a very disciplined approach in how he conducts himself because his head is way above the parapet..
plus it is pretty tiresome
Armstrong is a piece of work... that ain't news"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
It is not me who is wearing 'blinders' when it comes to Armstrong. :roll:Pokerface wrote:Your obsession with Armstrong makes anything you say on the matter invalid in my opinion. You have blinders on when it comes that rider..
QED methinks...Pokerface wrote:If you had simply stated that the UCI are protecting Armstrong and Armstrong only - I would have just denounced this statements as more of your obsessed ramblings and moved on.0 -
Source?iainf72 wrote:
...I think a fairly renowned haematologist said it wasn't really that strange.BikingBernie wrote:Fair enough, of more interest are his blood values from last year’s Tour and the failure of the UCI to follow them up.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
It is not me who is wearing 'blinders' when it comes to Armstrong. :roll:Pokerface wrote:Your obsession with Armstrong makes anything you say on the matter invalid in my opinion. You have blinders on when it comes that rider..
QED methinks...Pokerface wrote:If you had simply stated that the UCI are protecting Armstrong and Armstrong only - I would have just denounced this statements as more of your obsessed ramblings and moved on.
Right - so basically you're refusing to answer my questions.
And proving to the whole forum you are full of cr@p. Put up or shut up as the saying goes. You seem to have LOADS of proof on the Armstrong issue (and I'm with you on this one). Now I want to see your proof on all these other riders the UCI is protecting.
Or are you just a one-trick pony?0 -
Actually, I said certain rider's as I didn't want the thread to turn into another one discussing Armstrong's cosy relationship with the UCI.Pokerface wrote:[Right - so basically you're refusing to answer my questions.
Still, there is always someone who is determine to do just that, eh? :roll:0 -
BikingBernie wrote:the reputed half a million Dollar 'bung' that he gave to the UCI in return
Source?
And I'm asking not because I trust Armstrong in any way, shape or form, but because I like to see you held to the same standards you require of others on the forum when posting statements.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Actually, I said certain rider's as I didn't want the thread to turn into another one discussing Armstrong's cosy relationship with the UCI.Pokerface wrote:[Right - so basically you're refusing to answer my questions.
Still, there is always someone who is determine to do just that, eh? :roll:
So let me get this straight.
What you are saying is that the UCI protects Armstrong and Armstrong alone? Or are you saying the UCI protects other riders?0 -
stagehopper wrote:
Source?BikingBernie wrote:the reputed half a million Dollar 'bung' that he gave to the UCI in return
How many would you like?
Here is one, reported by no less than Jeremy Whittle.
The Sunday Herald
October 12, 2008.
Jeremy Whittle
Rules Bent for Texan.
The feeling that Armstrong, whose success in road cycling opened the door to the hugely lucrative American market, has always been accorded special treatment by the UCI, dates back a decade. During his first Tour victory in 1999, when traces of corticoids were reported to have been found in his samples, the UCI unearthed a medical certificate after the event, showing he was permitted to use the substance.
Towards the end of his career, Armstrong made a donation to the UCI coffers, believed to be in the region of dollars 500,000, claiming that it was to "combat doping". But former UCI committee member Sylvia Schenk said that it was "not clear what it was used for. It seemed to be a secret". A UCI spokesperson was yesterday unavailable for comment.
That cosy relationship appears to have been resumed and the decision to waive the six-month rule in Armstrong's favour has been widely condemned.
"It's started again, Armstrong has the UCI under his thumb, " a team manager was quoted as saying.
Also...
Schenk, Verbruggen's fiercest critic, claimed Armstrong was receiving special treatment from the UCI. "Since 1998 the UCI has done a lot to combat doping but everything is different where Armstrong is concerned," said Schenk. Schenk is also concerned that Armstrong made a personal donation to the UCI to help fight doping. The gift coincided with the publication of the controversial book LA Confidential by the Sunday Times journalist David Walsh that linked Armstrong with using performance enhancing drugs without uncovering conclusive evidence. "There is obviously a strong relationship with Armstrong," Schenk said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2005/se ... ng.cycling0
