Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:iainf72 wrote:
I knew it was wishful thinking. These people will never take down the sport they earn huge money from. So easy to lie when you know nobody can prove otherwise.
Surely that's exactly why the Landis claims are so important, and why really do need to see something happen in this case? We know the testing is only ever going to catch the lazy, stupid or negligent (and I doubt there are many that have claimed LA is any of those things, nor Indurain for that matter ;-) ), if we want to see real progress we need to see omerta broken, which is what Floyd has done. That's why many of us are thinking in terms of long term gain, rather than trying to avoid the short term pain.
some signs of hope with the 1980s like ascent time at Alpe D'huez yesterday?...only one datapoint of course but I guess guys like Michelle Ferrari treat this measurement seriously0 -
I think all this "it will be the death of cycling" is really overstated. Cycling's had a lot of big drug scandals. Over the last few years teams were trying to do things differently and restore some faith. Think about the new sponsors which have come into the sport (HTC, Garmin and *spit* Sky *spit*) have done it on a "clean" platform. And 2 out of those 3 are American.
The impact in Europe won't be as significant because none of this stuff is new to them.
If Armstrong goes down his reputation will be in the toilet in the US, he'll probably pay a big fine but most of his personal wealth will remain. His foundation will probably disappear and he'll withdraw from public life. Some people might lose their jobs, but hey, Bernie Madoff caused people to lose their jobs and no ones saying he should've been given a pass because of it.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I think all this "it will be the death of cycling" is really overstated. Cycling's had a lot of big drug scandals. Over the last few years teams were trying to do things differently and restore some faith. Think about the new sponsors which have come into the sport (HTC, Garmin and *spit* Sky *spit*) have done it on a "clean" platform. And 2 out of those 3 are American.
Yes, cycling has had a lot of drug scandals, but never with a personality like Armstrong. My point was not that it could 'be the death' of cycling, but are we, as fans, open to the possibility of a cycling far removed from what we currently have - in terms of a sport with fans. Regarding SKY you need remember they did not choose cycling because SKY "likes cycling" but rather from all the extra benefits it can bring them as a brand. If it all goes "pete tong" for Armstrong then don't underestimate the fall out. It's business not sport.Mens agitat molem0 -
I read elsewhere LA is returning to USA after TDS finishes July 20th to complete his tour preparation. Seems mad to g through jet lag twice in 14 days pre TDF, so close to July 3rd, so one assumes he's compelled to answer some questions back there0
-
Dave_1 wrote:I read elsewhere LA is returning to USA after TDS finishes July 20th to complete his tour preparation. Seems mad to g through jet lag twice in 14 days pre TDF, so close to July 3rd, so one assumes he's compelled to answer some questions back there
June 20thThe most painful climb in Northern Ireland http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6776_124247198694_548863694_2335754_8016178_n.jpg0 -
bazbadger wrote:At best, cycling could emerge from this at a much reduced level. Some might say this is worth it to have a 'clean' sport again, maybe...
I don't suppose the feds are overly concerned with the future of professional cycling. I don't think they lost any sleep over the consequences to US track and field of the BALCO investigation.All this talk of 'evidence' and how it can get people busted is the wrong question. Perhaps we should be asking what are the consequences for the sport as a whole if this thing blows up - and - is this something we are prepared to accept?
whether this thing blows up or not now seems to be out of the hands of anyone in cycling. The UCI etc. had plenty of chances to deal with doping, now they have to deal with the consequences of the blind eye they have consistently turned....0 -
Dave_1 wrote:I read elsewhere LA is returning to USA after TDS finishes July 20th to complete his tour preparation. Seems mad to g through jet lag twice in 14 days pre TDF, so close to July 3rd, so one assumes he's compelled to answer some questions back there
You READ that he is retuning to complete his tour preperation.
You ASSUME it's because of some other reason?
Makes PERFECT sense to me. He's doing it to drive you crazy. I think it's working.
How is it that certain people are so "bothered" by everything he says and does.
Is there nothing else in your lives to be concerned about? Only LA???0 -
iainf72 wrote:
A shame, but he's hardly a key witness. He could corroborate a small part of Floyd's story, largely irrelevant to the main allegations. He was hardly in the inner circle at USPS so probably doesnt have much first hand knowledge of what Lance was up to there.0 -
Sorry, does re-tweeting a tweet from one of his team-mates mean he's excluded himself from the investigation?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
Dave_1 wrote:I read elsewhere LA is returning to USA after TDS finishes July 20th to complete his tour preparation. Seems mad to g through jet lag twice in 14 days pre TDF, so close to July 3rd, so one assumes he's compelled to answer some questions back there
He's just said on Twitter that he's staying in Europe til the TdF.
Time to spin the big wheel of speculation again I guess.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:Dave_1 wrote:I read elsewhere LA is returning to USA after TDS finishes July 20th to complete his tour preparation. Seems mad to g through jet lag twice in 14 days pre TDF, so close to July 3rd, so one assumes he's compelled to answer some questions back there
He's just said on Twitter that he's staying in Europe til the TdF.
Time to spin the big wheel of speculation again I guess.
that sounds right...the cyclingnews forum had it wrong then...its in clinic and that place is the Ok Corral of debating cycling...so explains it0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
some signs of hope with the 1980s like ascent time at Alpe D'huez yesterday?...only one datapoint of course but I guess guys like Michelle Ferrari treat this measurement seriously
Would be nice to think so, but isn't that a bit optimistic? Surely the quick times don't come in the dauphine anyway.... I think there may be evidence to suggest that the heyday of EPO is over, and that the gains available while still getting past the controls are marginal now, rather than enormous, but that's at least partly down to haemocrit measurements - no way "Mr 60%" could ride now.
Bazbadger - Armstrong isn't bigger than cycling, and as has been pointed out above, most of Europe couldn't give a flying f*** about him. If you think the sponsors who have been involved in cycling since, lets say Festina in 98, went in with their eyes closed to doping in the sport then I'm not sure what to say... They sponsor teams to get exposure to cycling fans, who know the sport isn't clean (yet). Who, apart from a few naive American teenagers, is going to turn off the cycling who didn't already turn off in 98? The core audience is still there, in Europe, and won't be in the least bit shocked if Armstrong goes down. The sponsors know that.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
some signs of hope with the 1980s like ascent time at Alpe D'huez yesterday?...only one datapoint of course but I guess guys like Michelle Ferrari treat this measurement seriously
Would be nice to think so, but isn't that a bit optimistic? Surely the quick times don't come in the dauphine anyway.... I think there may be evidence to suggest that the heyday of EPO is over, and that the gains available while still getting past the controls are marginal now, rather than enormous, but that's at least partly down to haemocrit measurements - no way "Mr 60%" could ride now.
Bazbadger - Armstrong isn't bigger than cycling, and as has been pointed out above, most of Europe couldn't give a flying f*** about him. If you think the sponsors who have been involved in cycling since, lets say Festina in 98, went in with their eyes closed to doping in the sport then I'm not sure what to say... They sponsor teams to get exposure to cycling fans, who know the sport isn't clean (yet). Who, apart from a few naive American teenagers, is going to turn off the cycling who didn't already turn off in 98? The core audience is still there, in Europe, and won't be in the least bit shocked if Armstrong goes down. The sponsors know that.
I read the first 6.5 km of the Alpe on at the weekend were ridden as 19.5kph by AC,JB compared to 1994-2004 times of 21.5-22kph...there was no headwind in the first 6.5km according to cyclismag.., as for distance to the bottom tiring riders out, the 2004 TDF MTT was ridden by the top two in similar time to 1994-2003 when they were in week two or three of TDF and had a 100 miles in the legs so doubt the distance and number of climbs pre Alpe had much impact at least when we compare the ascent times. cyclismag predict on the first 6.5km pace when there was no headwind that had the wind not got strong later on they'd still be over 40 minutes...so, all we have then is road condition/surface ...not enough to explain 6 minutes. Just wondering if Landis's tips offs or the biopassport are taking effect...0 -
The importance of Armstrong to cycling and the Tour is vastly overstated, even in reference to the USA. Armstrong might be a 'celebrity' in the US, but this doesn't mean that cycling has become a main-street sport there because of him. In fact even when he was 'winning' the Tour viewing figures in the USA were pitiful and, business being business, this is reflected in his true commercial worth to sponsors.bazbadger wrote:cycling has had a lot of drug scandals, but never with a personality like Armstrong... If it all goes "pete tong" for Armstrong then don't underestimate the fall out. It's business not sport.
To get some perspective, in 2005 in Germany an average of 2.7 million people watched each stage of the Tour, with this falling to 1.5 million in 2006 after Ullrich and co were prevented from starting. In France an average of 3.8 million viewers watched each stage in 2005, and this fell to 2.9 million in 2006.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/21/ ... s/tour.php
In comparison, over in the US only the cable TV outfit Versus (Formerly The Outdoor Life Network) carries live coverage of the Tour. Of course, even if a channel carries the Tour this doesn`t indicate how many people watch the racing and, as I said, even when Armstrong was `winning` the Tour OLN`s US viewing figures were pitiful. This is what USA Today had to say of OLN`s coverage of the Tour in 2002:
So what if the national TV audiences for the Tour de France, which starts Saturday, might be smaller than the crowds you'd find at a couple of good-sized malls?
...OLN, now in about 42 million U.S. TV households, will air two hours of daily live coverage, starting at 9:30 a.m. ET. The coverage will be repeated at least twice daily throughout the three-week race.
OLN, which drew an average of about 100,000 households for its live coverage last year also bought time on CBS to air three one-hour specials on consecutive Saturday's starting July 14
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/comment/ ... and-tv.htm
Fourty-two million households - approaching twice as many as there are in the whole of France, and just 100,000 tuning in to watch Armstrong 'rubbing the Gallic nose into the pavement again, always a trusty pleasure' as The Texas Monthly put it. (See http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-07-01/feature4.php ). Things don`t seem to have improved much since.
Tour de France ratings down so far on Versus
July 14, 2008
Versus network's coverage of the Tour is averaging 143,000 total viewers (people 2 years old or older) per airing, according to The Nielsen Co. That's the average across 35 live and taped telecasts between July 5th and 10th.
That number is down from the 171,000 average total viewers for 135 telecasts between July 2nd and 29th last year, Nielsen said.
Viewership of live Tour broadcast, which usually starts at 5:30 a.m. in these parts, is down from 343,000 in 2007 to 230,000 so far this year.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/playbooksand ... wn_so.html
Given the above figures, it is clear that the importance of Armstrong to the Tour and cycling in general, even in the USA, is just another part of 'The Armstrong myth', especially given the huge number of TV watchers in the USA compared to a country like France. Clearly, the Tour can do without the revenue derived from the pitiful number of Americans who watch the Tour, and it can do without Armstrong as well...0 -
Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm. The general public haven't a cllue about festina or operation puerto...say LA and you'll get nods of recognition anywhere in the world.. Some sponsors who would have come in will read the papers in the next few years and we won't know if they would or would not have come in, then sponsors leave naturally...less teams and jobs lost-not yours of course...which explains a lot!0
-
I guess this depends on what you mean by 'harm'. There might be some short-term fallout from Armstrong's exposure, but in the long term it could well turn out to be the most positive thing that has ever happened to cycling.Dave_1 wrote:Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm.
(It seems that what you would prefer is the continuation of the 'omerta' and keeping the general public in ignorance of the realities of the 'sport').0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm. The general public haven't a cllue about festina or operation puerto...say LA and you'll get nods of recognition anywhere in the world.. Some sponsors who would have come in will read the papers in the next few years and we won't know if they would or would not have come in, then sponsors leave naturally...less teams and jobs lost-not yours of course...which explains a lot!
The damage was done years ago though. Talk to any member of the general public and the overwhelming opinion is that "they're all at it". There won't be any surprise if LA goes down, it'll just be "oh, another one". On the positive side, there might well be an "any publicity is good publicity" effect and with my optimists hat on, an "at least they seem to be doing something about it" feeling.
We won't know until (if) it happens, but my feeling is that the damage it will cause has been overstated, that the potential long term gains are huge and that the spectre of allegations against LA, if not dealt with in a proper manner, will continue to corrode the sports integrity.
On the climb times theme - I think the main problem with the comparison between the times posted in the Dauphine and those in the TdF is one of competitiveness. I really enjoyed watching highlights of it the other night, nice tactical battle, but it didn't look like there was a huge quality field all giving it everything to win one of the most prestigious stages in the TdF.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm.
So, if Lance tested positive for something now, it should be brushed under the carpet?
Those who do want to brush it under the carpet are the people who wish to see the greed, corruption and the riders damaged health, continue!!
The LA issue aside in the Landis accusations, the UCI doesn't come out of this whole affair looking good. It looks complicit in shady dealings by trying to keep personal payments from current riders, hidden. Whatever happens, serious changes needs to be made to the organisation.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm.
So, if Lance tested positive for something now, it should be brushed under the carpet?
much as I like your take on many others aspect Iainf, on this one we'll have disagree. LA should be held to today's standards, complete equality in the dishing out of justice, not going back through a decade ago's fields full of epo users and picking out one rider, and conveniently avoiding others. Equality.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
Bazbadger - Armstrong isn't bigger than cycling, and as has been pointed out above, most of Europe couldn't give a flying f*** about him. If you think the sponsors who have been involved in cycling since, lets say Festina in 98, went in with their eyes closed to doping in the sport then I'm not sure what to say... They sponsor teams to get exposure to cycling fans, who know the sport isn't clean (yet). Who, apart from a few naive American teenagers, is going to turn off the cycling who didn't already turn off in 98? The core audience is still there, in Europe, and won't be in the least bit shocked if Armstrong goes down. The sponsors know that.
You're right Armstrong isn't "bigger than cycling". The point I am making is that this time it's different because for the first time we are not just talking about a cyclist, but a brand (and therefore money, lots of it). Since the introduction of the 'Armstrong brand' cycling has seen a big increase in awareness amongst people not normally interested. It doesn't neccassarily mean those people will become fans (BB thanks for the stats, but maybe my point was missed), but awareness about the sport of cycling goes up. Another example, look at what has happened in the UK since Bejing 2008. If you think sponsors just go for a sport because of the 'core audience' then think again.
Businesses don't invest in sport for the short term as they don't see a return. I doubt very much that 'the core audience' still being there will be very attractive to new businesses looking to invest in sport - and why choose a discredited one? Businesses want to be assured that the sport is on 'the up' with good prospects for increasing awareness and there are plenty of sports to choose from.
I think some just want Armstong out (rightly or wrongly) at any cost. I'm just not convinced that we have considered what 'any cost' might actually mean.Mens agitat molem0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
much as I like your take on many others aspect Iainf, on this one we'll have disagree. LA should be held to today's standards, complete equality in the dishing out of justice, not going back through a decade ago's fields full of epo users and picking out one rider, and conveniently avoiding others. Equality.
Basso - Banned for nearly 2 years
Ullrich - In disgrace
Pantani - RIP and done for doping
Rumsas - Done for doping
Heras - Done for doping
Hamilton - Done for doping
Valverde - Banned
Who's picking out one rider?
If Lance tested + now, would it not have the same effect you worry about with the older cases? If so, should it be covered up?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm.
So, if Lance tested positive for something now, it should be brushed under the carpet?
much as I like your take on many others aspect Iainf, on this one we'll have disagree. LA should be held to today's standards, complete equality in the dishing out of justice, not going back through a decade ago's fields full of epo users and picking out one rider, and conveniently avoiding others. Equality.
Just out of interest, Dave, I take it equality means you would have given Valverde a free pass?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
Who's picking out one rider?
If Lance tested + now, would it not have the same effect you worry about with the older cases? If so, should it be covered up?
The way I read it is Dave is for suspending the statute of limitations, in favour of the current passport/cleaner cycling perspective.
So, I would also assume a pos test now and he would favour LA banned and cycling left with the consequences of his actions."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
bazbadger wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
Bazbadger - Armstrong isn't bigger than cycling, and as has been pointed out above, most of Europe couldn't give a flying f*** about him. If you think the sponsors who have been involved in cycling since, lets say Festina in 98, went in with their eyes closed to doping in the sport then I'm not sure what to say... They sponsor teams to get exposure to cycling fans, who know the sport isn't clean (yet). Who, apart from a few naive American teenagers, is going to turn off the cycling who didn't already turn off in 98? The core audience is still there, in Europe, and won't be in the least bit shocked if Armstrong goes down. The sponsors know that.
You're right Armstrong isn't "bigger than cycling". The point I am making is that this time it's different because for the first time we are not just talking about a cyclist, but a brand (and therefore money, lots of it). Since the introduction of the 'Armstrong brand' cycling has seen a big increase in awareness amongst people not normally interested. It doesn't neccassarily mean those people will become fans (BB thanks for the stats, but maybe my point was missed), but awareness about the sport of cycling goes up. Another example, look at what has happened in the UK since Bejing 2008. If you think sponsors just go for a sport because of the 'core audience' then think again.
Businesses don't invest in sport for the short term as they don't see a return. I doubt very much that 'the core audience' still being there will be very attractive to new businesses looking to invest in sport - and why choose a discredited one? Businesses want to be assured that the sport is on 'the up' with good prospects for increasing awareness and there are plenty of sports to choose from.
I think some just want Armstong out (rightly or wrongly) at any cost. I'm just not convinced that we have considered what 'any cost' might actually mean.
I didn't write the underlined text above but it appears attributed to me. :?0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:Dave_1 wrote:iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Taking down cycling's only globally recognised name would do the sport harm.
So, if Lance tested positive for something now, it should be brushed under the carpet?
much as I like your take on many others aspect Iainf, on this one we'll have disagree. LA should be held to today's standards, complete equality in the dishing out of justice, not going back through a decade ago's fields full of epo users and picking out one rider, and conveniently avoiding others. Equality.
Just out of interest, Dave, I take it equality means you would have given Valverde a free pass?
Valv's career cuts through a dirtier and probably cleaner time in the sport. Armstrong and Indurain's careers-when their biggest wins were- are during the very worst decade of no real dope controls and their achievements dwarf the iainf prepd list of sanctioned riders's palmares. But I admit, you guys have a good point...where do we draw the line? I still think you guys should admit it is no quite fair that LA could get done when MI won't for using same dr and same gear-epo etc (allegation) 4 years apart. These two are special cases in that one miracle is untainted, the other shown a sham...not fair0 -
Whilst I agree with Dave that singling out individuals as uniquely evil is unhelpful, there exists already a statute of limitations under the WADA code does there not? It stands at 8 years.
The other viewpoint being that should actionable evidence (not scurrell and heresay) come to light for any athlete, it should be investigated by the proper authorities regardless of their place in the sport's history.
I think 8 years is a pretty reasonable timeframe however, resources are better directed at ensuring a cleaner sport now than a decade ago."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
