Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

Richmond Racer

ShinyHelmut wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

anyone know if the biological passport's adopted in Ironman-land?

Nope, they only fairly recently introduced out of competition testing. I think it would be relatively easy to stay ahead of the testers in triathlon (althought here have been a couple of notable scalps taken) but away from Hawaii the rewards are small.

Hmmm...I've just remembered last year that a few peeps on Twitter posted that for a comp he'd either won or come 2nd last spring(?), the top 3 hadnt been tested after they finished. Someone actually tweeted Chrissie Wellington just for info to ask her about the usual policy in tri's

shinyhelmut

There were rumours last year after his 70.3 race in Panama that the testing was handled differently from usual, I don't remember the details.

meggiedude

Dave_1 wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Personally, I've always felt that Armstrong has more than enough money to settle the doping lawsuits, but I'm intrigued to read that he has mortgaged his house. It might just be for liquidity reasons, but interesting nonetheless.

Low rate of borrowing money in USA might have made that more attractive than selling current investment?

Maybe, Can't imagine he's down to his last $3M yet. I'm sure this is just him shuffling assetts round to protect himself longer term.
One things for sure, he's had plenty of time to take advice and make a call on what steps to take.
Whatever you might think about him he's a sharp cookie and will have made damn sure that he won't be declared bankrupt from this. Or worst case, even if thats likely, he will have moved some assetts into other family members names and/or overseas.

TheStone

I think the triathlon thing is irrelevant.

His lawyers/advisers have sat for a few weeks and worked out the best strategy for him. The charges will probably get dropped. He'll pay back the lawsuits with costs/interests, but he'll probably make way more than that with book/movie deals.

Then he'll kick whoever he can to make himself look like a victim, or at the very least just a small part of a much bigger evil european conspiracy. Then he'll cry a bit.

The Americans love that sh1t.

He could end up in a better position than if non of this had happened.

Richmond Racer

ShinyHelmut wrote:

If he were to win Hawaii ironman the prize is a mere $120000. That would probably cover his legal fees for a week or two.

I'm conflicted, on the one hand I want him to go away and not blight my sport, on the other hand I would be really interested to see what he's capable of over 140.6 miles against the best in Kona.

Being able to compete again as a tri-tard aint about the prize money - its about trying to restore at least some of his marketability

r0bh

RichN95 wrote:

In any of his many, many self-congratulatory interviews has he explained why USADA took so long to investigate Armstrong when almost all of their evidence was published by David Walsh and/or disclosed by Vaughters eight years ago?

Vaughters 8 years ago, "No evidence of EPO" during Vaughters time at Postal: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

tailwindhome

Page 200

I rock!

Richmond Racer

r0bh wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

In any of his many, many self-congratulatory interviews has he explained why USADA took so long to investigate Armstrong when almost all of their evidence was published by David Walsh and/or disclosed by Vaughters eight years ago?

Vaughters 8 years ago, "No evidence of EPO" during Vaughters time at Postal: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

*sucks in breath*

That interview had passed me by. You know, the born-again evangelist JV had not fecking need to trot out with all that crap, even if cornered for comments. As well as the b*lls defending Lance, there's this nugget: "But this year was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.'

But JV, you created a team specifically to be run along clean lines - yet according to what you claimed at the time, most were already clean?

:roll: :roll:

RichN95.

r0bh wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

In any of his many, many self-congratulatory interviews has he explained why USADA took so long to investigate Armstrong when almost all of their evidence was published by David Walsh and/or disclosed by Vaughters eight years ago?

Vaughters 8 years ago, "No evidence of EPO" during Vaughters time at Postal: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

David Walsh will tell you that Vaughters told him everything (off the record) back in 2004 and that he also told the authorities everything about the same time.

ddraver

WADA can't do anything about it until Vaughters was prepared to admit/testify it openly though...

(which is the answer to your earlier questions about Tygart)

dish_dash

Very interesting interview with Vaughters. And he was already managing a team in 2005... He has changed his story!

Re-read Whittle's Bad Blood over the weekend. While Festina is often cited as a key moment against doping, I wonder if 2006-08 was the more relevant period. Lance 'retired' in 2005 and the bulk of the USADA interviewed riders claimed to have stopped in 2006. Wonder if Lance gone, combined with Fuentes and the shambles of the 06 and 07 tours allowed for former US-Postal riders to take a firmer line against doping... or they are all still lying in some way or form...

LangerDan

RichN95 wrote:

r0bh wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

In any of his many, many self-congratulatory interviews has he explained why USADA took so long to investigate Armstrong when almost all of their evidence was published by David Walsh and/or disclosed by Vaughters eight years ago?

Vaughters 8 years ago, "No evidence of EPO" during Vaughters time at Postal: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

David Walsh will tell you that Vaughters told him everything (off the record) back in 2004 and that he also told the authorities everything about the same time.

Statue of limitations?

Richmond Racer

dish_dash wrote:

Very interesting interview with Vaughters. And he was already managing a team in 2005... He has changed his story!

Re-read Whittle's Bad Blood over the weekend. While Festina is often cited as a key moment against doping, I wonder if 2006-08 was the more relevant period. Lance 'retired' in 2005 and the bulk of the USADA interviewed riders claimed to have stopped in 2006. Wonder if Lance gone, combined with Fuentes and the shambles of the 06 and 07 tours allowed for former US-Postal riders to take a firmer line against doping... or they are all still lying in some way or form...

Puerto - 06 - another watershed

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

WADA can't do anything about it until Vaughters was prepared to admit/testify it openly though...

(which is the answer to your earlier questions about Tygart)

There were plenty of people who were willing to go on the record and did so to Walsh. Yet there was no investigation at all. The Garmin riders have been willing to testify since they joined that team. Five years. But no-one asked.

disgruntledgoat

Richmond Racer wrote:

r0bh wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

In any of his many, many self-congratulatory interviews has he explained why USADA took so long to investigate Armstrong when almost all of their evidence was published by David Walsh and/or disclosed by Vaughters eight years ago?

Vaughters 8 years ago, "No evidence of EPO" during Vaughters time at Postal: http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/no- ... -at-postal

*sucks in breath*

That interview had passed me by. You know, the born-again evangelist JV had not ******* need to trot out with all that crap, even if cornered for comments. As well as the b*lls defending Lance, there's this nugget: "But this year was probably the cleanest Tour since the early '90s. It (doping) has decreased enormously since the '95-'96 period." Now, Vaughters estimated about "80-85 percent" of the field is clean.'

But JV, you created a team specifically to be run along clean lines - yet according to what you claimed at the time, most were already clean?

:roll: :roll:

I think that one was pointed out to him on twitter a while back he basically said he wasn't proud of it, but thought if he started calling people out his youth team, as it was then, would find their life a lot more difficult than they already were.

ddraver

RichN95 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

WADA can't do anything about it until Vaughters was prepared to admit/testify it openly though...

(which is the answer to your earlier questions about Tygart)

There were plenty of people who were willing to go on the record and did so Walsh. Yet there was no investigation at all. The Garmin riders have been willing to testify since they joined that team. Five years. But no-one asked.

Frankly Rich, telling Walsh some stories is irrelevant to WADA

Riders started going properly on the record (as in saying stuff that could lead to a prosecution) when the Federal Govt came a-knocking, they had no qualms about ignoring WADA/USADA. Even Vaughters timed his real confession (not his wishy washy semi-autobiographical but not actually me hints until he knew he would totally get away with it.

r0bh

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I think that one was pointed out to him on twitter a while back he basically said he wasn't proud of it, but thought if he started calling people out his youth team, as it was then, would find their life a lot more difficult than they already were.

And in fairness he apologized to me this morning when I raised it again:

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/291116560288989184

I just think it's worth bearing in mind that Vaughters is perhaps not the shining white knight of anti-doping that some people think he is.

thomthom

He's definitely not perfect but he's the best we got at the moment.

Richmond Racer

r0bh wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

I think that one was pointed out to him on twitter a while back he basically said he wasn't proud of it, but thought if he started calling people out his youth team, as it was then, would find their life a lot more difficult than they already were.

And in fairness he apologized to me this morning when I raised it again:

https://twitter.com/Vaughters/status/291116560288989184

I just think it's worth bearing in mind that Vaughters is perhaps not the shining white knight of anti-doping that some people think he is.

JV is most definitely a 50 Shades of Grey knight. That's true.

Gazzetta67

One name ive not heard mentioned in all of this is Jim Ochowicz "Lance has earned every penny of his wealth" ????? oh and another Chris Carmichael. what happens to them.

disgruntledgoat

Strange thing about cycling fans is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still expect there to be goodies and baddies.

Richmond Racer

spose many of us like simple basic black and white, dont we

but yeah, life's not like that

dennisn

FocusZing wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

If anything positive is to come out of this as it seems the clever guys think he can get away with this, it would be that Armstrong uses his knowledge, experience and contacts to bring needed change into pro cycling, not a few new Grand Prix races but a ground shift in doping control and sporting direction, the UCI.

Thinking about this, he is probably the best person on the planet to change the UCI. That would be at least one good thing he could do and he owes cycling more than he owes any US Govt Dept

)


No! Why should people who cheated and lied get a position of power, it's sickening.

Give the job to a someone he identifys as being clean throughout their career.

Well, in the first case, what about politicians? Sickening or not?

As for the latter, if LA is cheat and a liar I don't understand why you would trust him to identify anyone as clean?

frenchfighter

Oprah: 'he didn't come clean in the manner I thought he would'

dennisn

Gazzetta67 wrote:

One name ive not heard mentioned in all of this is Jim Ochowicz "Lance has earned every penny of his wealth" ????? oh and another Chris Carmichael. what happens to them.

Nothing, without proof. Guilt by association doesn't count.

Nick Fitt

frenchfighter wrote:

Oprah: 'he didn't come clean in the manner I thought he would'

is that rude?

Richmond Racer

dennisn wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

Nick Fitt wrote:

If anything positive is to come out of this as it seems the clever guys think he can get away with this, it would be that Armstrong uses his knowledge, experience and contacts to bring needed change into pro cycling, not a few new Grand Prix races but a ground shift in doping control and sporting direction, the UCI.

Thinking about this, he is probably the best person on the planet to change the UCI. That would be at least one good thing he could do and he owes cycling more than he owes any US Govt Dept

)


No! Why should people who cheated and lied get a position of power, it's sickening.

Give the job to a someone he identifys as being clean throughout their career.

Well, in the first case, what about politicians? Sickening or not?

As for the latter, if LA is cheat and a liar I don't understand why you would trust him to identify anyone as clean?

This isnt a forum for discussion politicians, bankers etc - plenty of other forums for you to go to for that, dennis.

We discuss cyclists and cycling here, and there is no testament or law that how a poster feels about something or someone has to be measured in the context of other arenas.

As for liar and cheat, same is true of the other 25 or so witness to USADA. I would fully expect that if he names people, just as happened with the other witnesses statements will be cross-corroborated, or at the very least an investigation initiated.

meggiedude

@ Richmond Racer.
m8 its really not worth feeding the troll.
Save yourself the effort.

Richmond Racer

I know, I know...

Needing a coffee now

iainf72

He'll testify against officials and money men, but not other athletes.

And he admitted to doping before cancer.