USADA files doping charges against Lance

1…4950525455…77

Comments

  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    sherer wrote:
    interesting that the claim says that WTC the governing body of triathlons have agreed to pay LA to compete and also give money to his charity. Surely this must be one of the first times a governing body pays the athlete to compete. No wonder they don't do any drug tests at the events any more
    Big names getting paid to compete is quite common.

    ps:they do drug test
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Lance and Johan have a 30 day extension.

    Shame. I want this to end.
    _
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Lance and Johan have a 30 day extension.

    Shame. I want this to end.

    where did you hear that ? Surely they've had as much time as they need already, can't see what an extra 20 days will do
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    https://twitter.com/suzhalliburton/stat ... 0863304705
    _
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    Armstrong won this year's Hawaii Ironman (June). That's not exactly a competition for slouches. (Having read Chrissie Wellington's book about triathlons.)

    I'd be interested in reading any comments about that (sorry if I've missed any).
  • Rundfahrt
    Rundfahrt Posts: 551
    Lichtblick wrote:
    Armstrong won this year's Hawaii Ironman (June). That's not exactly a competition for slouches. (Having read Chrissie Wellington's book about triathlons.)

    I'd be interested in reading any comments about that (sorry if I've missed any).

    He won Hawaii 70.3, not the Ironman World Championship in Hawaii, that is in October.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Lance and Johan have a 30 day extension.

    Shame. I want this to end.

    I'm quite glad it's delayed until after the Tour and Olympics (or maybe they're trying to 'bury bad news' during the Olympics)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    USADA...FAIL

    seems like any legit U.S. pro can still work with these guys. They should ban Batman and Spiderman too.

    USADA chief Tygart said Tuesday: “Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition.”

    “From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Dunno

    Ask Ivan Basso's sister. Or Pippo who's facing a ban for working with Ferrari.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Matchstick Man
    Matchstick Man Posts: 565
    cycling5280 wrote:
    USADA...FAIL

    seems like any legit U.S. pro can still work with these guys. They should ban Batman and Spiderman too.

    USADA chief Tygart said Tuesday: “Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition.”

    “From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-h ... quaid-says
    The United States Anti-Doping Agency “has the right to sanction Johan Bruyneel worldwide,” UCI president Pat McQuaid has acknowledged.

    I think Pat needs to get his story straight tbh. If they can ban Bruyneel, they can ban dodgy doctors who were employed on Tailwind owned teams
  • Rundfahrt
    Rundfahrt Posts: 551
    Matchstick Man wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    USADA...FAIL

    seems like any legit U.S. pro can still work with these guys. They should ban Batman and Spiderman too.

    USADA chief Tygart said Tuesday: “Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition.”

    “From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-h ... quaid-says
    The United States Anti-Doping Agency “has the right to sanction Johan Bruyneel worldwide,” UCI president Pat McQuaid has acknowledged.

    I think Pat needs to get his story straight tbh. If they can ban Bruyneel, they can ban dodgy doctors who were employed on Tailwind owned teams

    I believe that to be a DS and a Team Manager you have to have a UCI license of some sort.
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    Matchstick Man wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    USADA...FAIL

    seems like any legit U.S. pro can still work with these guys. They should ban Batman and Spiderman too.

    USADA chief Tygart said Tuesday: “Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition.”

    “From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-h ... quaid-says
    The United States Anti-Doping Agency “has the right to sanction Johan Bruyneel worldwide,” UCI president Pat McQuaid has acknowledged.

    I think Pat needs to get his story straight tbh. If they can ban Bruyneel, they can ban dodgy doctors who were employed on Tailwind owned teams

    It seems pretty straightforward. How can you ban doctors if they don't hold a UCI license to begin with?
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Bruyneel doesn't have additional time, only Lance.

    Which means the Hog has til Saturday
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned but it doesn't look like USADA could take action against say Michael Barry for having Ferrari as a consultant. Next thing they'll start banning stuff that's not on the WADA banned list.
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    iainf72 wrote:
    Bruyneel doesn't have additional time, only Lance.

    Which means the Hog has til Saturday

    So how does that work? Bruyneel will get the USADA boot and be banned from the sport but must it be confirmed, reviewed and approved by UCI?? Looks like Kim Anderson is getting a promotion.
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,431
    iainf72 wrote:
    Bruyneel doesn't have additional time, only Lance

    Who'll talk first...or has that ship sailed?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    cycling5280 wrote:
    Matchstick Man wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    USADA...FAIL

    seems like any legit U.S. pro can still work with these guys. They should ban Batman and Spiderman too.

    USADA chief Tygart said Tuesday: “Permanently banning these individuals from sport is a powerful statement that protects the current and next generation of athletes from their influence, and preserves the integrity of future competition.”

    “From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-h ... quaid-says
    The United States Anti-Doping Agency “has the right to sanction Johan Bruyneel worldwide,” UCI president Pat McQuaid has acknowledged.

    I think Pat needs to get his story straight tbh. If they can ban Bruyneel, they can ban dodgy doctors who were employed on Tailwind owned teams

    It seems pretty straightforward. How can you ban doctors if they don't hold a UCI license to begin with?

    The USADA statement the other day stated,
    A Lifetime period of Ineligibility as described in the Code prevents these individuals from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory.

    So with that in mind does it matter that they don't hold a UCI licence?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    cycling5280 wrote:
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned but it doesn't look like USADA could take action against say Michael Barry for having Ferrari as a consultant. Next thing they'll start banning stuff that's not on the WADA banned list.

    Actually you can. That's what's happening in Italy. And with the wada code it means other counties must honour the ban (see valv.piti)
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    iainf72 wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned but it doesn't look like USADA could take action against say Michael Barry for having Ferrari as a consultant. Next thing they'll start banning stuff that's not on the WADA banned list.

    Actually you can. That's what's happening in Italy. And with the wada code it means other counties must honour the ban (see valv.piti)


    Well that sucks for Michael Barry and the UK Postal team. :lol:
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    cycling5280 wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned but it doesn't look like USADA could take action against say Michael Barry for having Ferrari as a consultant. Next thing they'll start banning stuff that's not on the WADA banned list.

    Actually you can. That's what's happening in Italy. And with the wada code it means other counties must honour the ban (see valv.piti)


    Well that sucks for Michael Barry and the UK Postal team. :lol:

    Don't think Barry is linked to ferrari.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • cycling5280
    cycling5280 Posts: 279
    iainf72 wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    cycling5280 wrote:
    I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned but it doesn't look like USADA could take action against say Michael Barry for having Ferrari as a consultant. Next thing they'll start banning stuff that's not on the WADA banned list.

    Actually you can. That's what's happening in Italy. And with the wada code it means other counties must honour the ban (see valv.piti)


    Well that sucks for Michael Barry and the UK Postal team. :lol:

    Don't think Barry is linked to ferrari.

    I was joking.

    Did he ever admit his doping when on Postal? I believe Floyd called him out.
    http://www.1kmtogo.blogspot.com
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    iainf72 wrote:

    Don't think Barry is linked to ferrari.

    I once saw a Ferrari in Barry.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • DNQ
    DNQ Posts: 45
    RichN95 wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:

    Don't think Barry is linked to ferrari.

    I once saw a Ferrari in Barry.
    That's pushing credibility a bit far!

    I don't think you need a licence to be banned!
    Jan Ullrich was banned for 2 years in August 2011, even though he had retired 5 years earlier.
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    edited July 2012
    Why does McQuaid always come out and defend Armstrong more than any other rider...Yet he disses Landis,Hamilton etc etc. And did his brother darrach McQuaid not get driven around last years tour of california in the team carof Radioshack ??? am i reading too much into this 8)
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    Well you re banned from having a licence, and you need a licence to race....

    But again this is nt specific to cycling, the USADA ban will cover all sports that sign up to the WADA code I presume, the UCI is irrelevant.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • DNQ
    DNQ Posts: 45
    ddraver wrote:
    Well you re banned from having a licence, and you need a licence to race....

    But again this is nt specific to cycling, the USADA ban will cover all sports that sign up to the WADA code I presume, the UCI is irrelevant.

    Do you mean irrelevant in this particular case, or is it a more general observation? :D
  • derbygrimpeur
    derbygrimpeur Posts: 822
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Bruyneel doesn't have additional time, only Lance

    Who'll talk first...or has that ship sailed?

    I was wondering that, what if Bruyneel spills the beans? Probably unlikely to happen, but LA would be screwed then. I would assume they're both in communication to get their stories straight anyway.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    Velocast suggested that the banning of the docs PROVES that there was an imbedded culture of doping in USPS/Disco during the Lance years. Not sure I totally follow that...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    Don't know if someone else has already posted this (sorry if they have)... but a link assessing McQuaid's comments

    http://inrng.com/2012/07/uci-president-wrong/
    It all seems rather odd. You’d expect the UCI to be horrified to learn that there was a systematic doping programme in a top-level cycling team. You’d expect it to be working hard so those who have accepted their role in this corruption are distanced from cycling. Yet President McQuaid appears not to know his own rulebook and rather disinterested, saying it’s merely for the Americans.

    Note this is not UCI-bashing. We all make mistakes but when a president of a sports governing body appears not to know the rules it does not look too pro. A strong UCI is one where the staff are fluent in the rules. The USADA case is highly significant and more than ever the president needs be well-briefed on this matter rather than blundering.

    The main thing is that actions speak louder than words and the UCI quickly reviews the USADA verdict and works to ensure the trio are banned from going near any cyclist on the planet.

    And the link to Wada's angle, as linked at the bottom of the above article

    http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-statement-on-mutual-recognition/

    This video of McQuaid being interviewed (to get the above in context even if it only displays his general attitude to it) doesn't seem to play without a few refreshes on my machine, but others may be able to watch it easily (try a refresh if it stops, then click back on the timeline where it stopped, keeping your eye on the time, if that helps anyone with problems running it). ...when he lists who they are working with for a clean sport, at first he never mentions WADA, which Id think would be one of the first to mention??
    http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_sportnieuws/MG_wielrennen/1.1363787?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it#
  • DNQ
    DNQ Posts: 45
    This video of McQuaid being interviewed (to get the above in context even if it only displays his general attitude to it) doesn't seem to play without a few refreshes on my machine

    You can't blame McQuaid for that !

Categories