Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
I certainly am. For example one which mentions somewhere that LA is by no means their only, and probably not their biggest, target - which puts a very different slant on things. This article carries a lot of the "it's all a witch-hunt against LA" message, which would appear to be precisely the PR tactic he's using.greasedscotsman wrote:But that's all that's happened, so it is a good summary of what's happened so far, isn't it? I think your looking for a different article.0 -
bompington wrote:This article carries a lot of the "it's all a witch-hunt against LA" message, which would appear to be precisely the PR tactic he's using.
No it doesn't! Are you reading the same article? OK, like Armstrong, I give up... :roll:0 -
There you go, you wouldn't have given up if you thought you had any chance of winning would you? ;-)greasedscotsman wrote:bompington wrote:This article carries a lot of the "it's all a witch-hunt against LA" message, which would appear to be precisely the PR tactic he's using.
No it doesn't! Are you reading the same article? OK, like Armstrong, I give up... :roll:0 -
"Nobody needs to cry for me, I'm going to be great," Greasedscotsman said.
"I have five great kids and a wonderful lady in my life. My [charitable] foundation is unaffected by all the noise out there.
"I think people understand that we've got a lot of stuff to do going forward. That's what I'm focused on and I think people are supportive of that."0 -
DNQ wrote:Will.C wrote:Not sure if this has been covered else where but anyone catch Hayden Roulstons blog?
"i feel there needs to a massive change. If wada and the uci dont catch the cheats within a certain timeframe, then it should be done and dusted.. because whats just happened now makes our sport have no credibility whatsoever. my thoughts are if the cheats arent caught after 6 months, then its done and dusted.. turn a page, and stop worrying about ‘what ifs’. if not, then the next dude is gonna do it and will get away with it because everyone is so caught up with something that ‘could’ have happened years ago… sometimes i reckon its better to cut your losses.."
Whether you're for or against LA, that's a pretty poor attitude is it not? And plenty of other pros on twitter patting his back for speaking up!!! Madness
Source: http://haydenroulston.co.nz/vuelta-update-thoughts/
Not unlike the Statute of Limitations, in fact?
Just like the SOL, except a lot shorter. Personally, I think Roulston's principle is sound - there is a limit to what you can do about doping at a given time (simply a practical and scientific limit on testing and detecting capability). There is a very limited deterrent value in stripping people of wins years later, and a big reputational detriment in doing so - it just kills the credibility of riders now, for something someone was doing many years ago. So his conclusion is that the detriments outweigh the benefits - and therefore you should put a legal time limit on it which reflects this.
I also think his time limit is too short. Make it one year. That way, you're never going back further than the last edition of a race. If you havent got them by then, move on, you missed your chance. Focus all that energy on making it cleaner in the present.
I can see why others feel differently, especially those who have suffered at the hands of the dopers when they were riding clean. But it just seems so futile to be dragging up old history with very little gain for anyone.
[Footnote: I'm no big Armstrong supporter - it seems pretty clear he was doping as much as any of his rivals and I'm not saying that is ok, or that I dont care if riders dope. I want to watch a sport which I can believe is clean, but I just can't see the value in the current proceedings].0 -
Dragging up old history for very litle gain?? How many times do people have to explain again: this is not Armstrong as a rider per se, this is Armstrong as a major instigator and participant in conspiracy, trafficking of doping products, administering to other riders, supply of doping products, coercion and everything else.
READ THE CHARGING LETTER FROM THE USADA because I can only deduce that you have not done so, and instead have just read the stuff being trotted out by Armstrong, his lawyers and his army of apologists.
Furthermore, you might want to get an understanding of how long it takes for the profiles to be built up for the biological passport process.0 -
And when a test is developed for a previously undetectable drug? I would argue that half the point of the system is that athletes know that they are never safe - old samples could come back to haunt them for ever.step-hent wrote:Make it one year.0 -
The value in the current proceedings is in catching up with the others involved in the doping conspiracy. Does going after dopers for a years after the event provide a deterrent? Probably not for the athletes. Having said that, I think Armstrong shouldn't be allowed to keep the wins, I don't think having no one to give the victories to is a valid reason for letting one of the biggest dopers of all time keep their victories, especially if he refuses to play along with cleaning the sport up.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
-
A minor point, but there are willing recipients for Armstrongs "wins", who have not been banned for the periods in question. The problem is that some/most of them are thought of as dopers, or have been found to have been doping during another period. Ullrich stands to get 3 TdF wins, but he is currently banned for 2 years.Jez mon wrote:The value in the current proceedings is in catching up with the others involved in the doping conspiracy. Does going after dopers for a years after the event provide a deterrent? Probably not for the athletes. Having said that, I think Armstrong shouldn't be allowed to keep the wins, I don't think having no one to give the victories to is a valid reason for letting one of the biggest dopers of all time keep their victories, especially if he refuses to play along with cleaning the sport up.0 -
A question about keeping samples for years. i don't know if blood samples have an A and a B sample like urine, but it they do, there is still only max 4 samples per test: urine A and B, Blood A and B.
Sample A is tested at the time, if anything suspicious in in there, sample B can be tested. I think this is correct. yes?
Well if sample A (blood or urine or both) is out of the picture with nothing found. When and how can sample B be tested when new tests come out? For example, 1999 sample A is negative at test. it is tested 2012 for EPO (or sumpink). This B sample cannot be tested again in 2015 for something new.
I know that athletes get tested several times a year and maybe several times during a tour, but that sample, where they may have taken something that could possibly show up in future, is no longer able to be tested. is this correct?--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
I think, depending on the test, there is some blood / urine left over, so you can test it again.0
-
TheBigBean wrote:I think, depending on the test, there is some blood / urine left over, so you can test it again.
There would be, but, its been opened by then.
What would be good is if the samples are taken and poured into say 4 bottles, A, B, C and D ...that allows for negative tests to still allow a B at a later date to be tested positive and backed up with a C, and if negative, even a C with a D if new tests are performed some time down the line. (and more samples would be available for developing the tests).
Im not saying 'test test test' as standard, Im saying, if kept, we could have things like this happen. 1999 EPO positives, in 6 of Armstrongs B samples, could have been verified with C samples without any argument.
Of course, its a matter of storage. But, at the time of taking samples, it is simply a matter of dividing the sample between 4 bottles and sealing them rather than 2.
I also think all riders should not be allowed to race unless they provide DNA samples and/or consent to DNA profiling (if needed in any investigation), so if stored blood turns up in a doping case, they know who's blood it is.0 -
It's all about moving the risk/reward boundary more toward risk and - you would hope - putting people off risking it. Retroactive testing would move this boundary for sure as would your DNA suggestion. It then comes down to cost and political willpower.0
-
skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:It's all about moving the risk/reward boundary more toward risk and - you would hope - putting people off risking it. Retroactive testing would move this boundary for sure as would your DNA suggestion. It then comes down to cost and political willpower.
Yep.
Fund the sample storage, split into 4 not 2 and store, thats the first thing. Everything else could remain the same for now apart from that, but with agreement these samples can be stored longer for the purpose of more testing, this could be set about. I doubt anything like this will happen very soon though!!
DNA profiling seems ludicrous that they don't make it a requirement, well, maybe not the profiling of every rider and its enormous costs, but the consent to be profiled from a sample given for that purpose (at time of consent) at any point needed. If you don't consent, you can't race. I think it daft this kind of thing isn't in place with the amount of transfusion doping that goes on.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Dragging up old history for very litle gain?? How many times do people have to explain again: this is not Armstrong as a rider per se, this is Armstrong as a major instigator and participant in conspiracy, trafficking of doping products, administering to other riders, supply of doping products, coercion and everything else.
READ THE CHARGING LETTER FROM THE USADA because I can only deduce that you have not done so, and instead have just read the stuff being trotted out by Armstrong, his lawyers and his army of apologists.
Furthermore, you might want to get an understanding of how long it takes for the profiles to be built up for the biological passport process.
I've read the charging letter - no need to shout. And I'm no Armstrong apologist - I dont think he has a right to complain about being caught for cheating. I guess we just disagree on our definition of gain, and the likelihood of threats of future testing and enforcement changing behaviour. Riders who dope, and those who persuade/help them, are trying to succeed now. They aren't thinking of what's going to happen 20 years down the line, if some test gets developed for the undetectable thing they are taking, they're doing it knowing they can get away with it for now and that's as far as it goes. So why waste time on going backwards? We can't change those races, we can't undope those riders or give the ones supposedly co-erced into doping a clean career. All we can do is try to stop it happening now.
To the extent that the Armstrong/Bruyneel et al charges genuinely relate to what's going on now in the peloton, it makes sense to pursue it. But it doesn't, for me, make any sense pursuing them for old offences with no real relevance in the sport today.
Its clear that most people disagree with that, so fair enough, I can see that's why the ADAs would take that view too. It just doesn't make sense to me to waste limited resources on old news.0 -
step-hent wrote:But it doesn't, for me, make any sense pursuing them for old offences with no real relevance in the sport today.
What about those neo-pros that because they wanted to 'ride clean' they weren't able to make the 'grade' and therefore effectively denied a career? Also, because they weren't super-responders to EPO and relied on pure talent they weren't getting an 11% performance-advantage? To say that this case isn't relevant to the sport today when those involved at at the highest level of administration, team management and looking after the welfare of riders just doesn't make sense.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0 -
Tour De France 1999/2000/2001/2002/2003/2004/2005 The Winner was *.
There will need to be an explanation for future generations to show, no matter how high and mighty you become.
The Sport is bigger than an individuals ego and his Greed.
Just want the same to happen to McQuid.
Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Monty Dog wrote:step-hent wrote:But it doesn't, for me, make any sense pursuing them for old offences with no real relevance in the sport today.
What about those neo-pros that because they wanted to 'ride clean' they weren't able to make the 'grade' and therefore effectively denied a career? Also, because they weren't super-responders to EPO and relied on pure talent they weren't getting an 11% performance-advantage? To say that this case isn't relevant to the sport today when those involved at at the highest level of administration, team management and looking after the welfare of riders just doesn't make sense.
But this doesn't help those neo-pros who didnt make it. They are out of the sport, long gone.
As for the current management of the sport, is there any evidence that this is still going on? If there is, the authorities should go for them based on that. Monitor the current practices as thoroughly as science and technology and the limits of practicality will allow. But spending time on legal disputes relating to stuff that happened 10+ years ago doesnt help with that. Whatever Armstrong, Bruyneel, McQuaid and the rest did between 1999 and 2005, it doesn't change what is going on in cycling now. It just makes the general public think that everyone is still at it, when the general consensus within the sport is that they are actually managing to drive out the doping practices.0 -
Frank Schleck's positive under the team management of the Hog seems to have escaped your attention?Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
Picked up a second hand bike last week.
Oh.
Anyone have a red pen I can borrow?0 -
Monty Dog wrote:step-hent wrote:But it doesn't, for me, make any sense pursuing them for old offences with no real relevance in the sport today.
To say that this case isn't relevant to the sport today when those involved at at the highest level of administration, team management and looking after the welfare of riders just doesn't make sense.
Now wait a minute. You're going to tell me that team administration and management are supposed to look after the welfare of their athletes. As near as I can tell they are only there to insure that the team is ready for next weeks race or game, not their welfare. It's all about winning, not caring for the athletes. If someone gets injured, beyond repair, then they are simply gone and the next piece of meat is brought in.
If someone cheats, and gets caught, they are gone until they are done with whatever punishment was dished out by whomever. Administration and management want winners, period. Not sure where you got the idea that their job was to wet nurse
a bunch of pro athletes. They don't care much how you do it. They want results.0 -
Trek, Nike, Oakley are on my boycott list
And that Bontrager shyte ought to be too.
I'm sticking to that excellent quality well fitting Aldi/Lidl apparel. VFM - can't beat it.0 -
accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/0 -
So, now we've got most of the naive of the supporters a little more educated if not un-converted and/or yet to move out of cloud cuckoo land, (
) is it a week tomorrow (Thurs 6th Sept) that USADA pass a bit of info to the UCI which the UCI felt such a need to request?? 0 -
ReesA wrote:accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/
That makes for some kind of reading... it almost seems a bit like its leading somewhere too, like subtle Scientology stuff does sometimes.
...is Lance Armstrong a total cult?0 -
from the Livestrong link.............Step 5: If you still have trouble in accepting responsibility for yourself, return to Step 1 and begin again.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... z24yjJw6gP
Jeeze I hope Pharmstrong doesn't read that page.....................he could be stuck in that loop for quite a while.............0 -
It strikes me that higher management rarely read the blurb beforehand, which their own companies then send out, although I'm mainly thinking of the poor English grammar and spelling some company publications contain.ReesA wrote:accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/
In this case, LA obviously didn't look at the content either.0 -
mfin wrote:ReesA wrote:accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/
That makes for some kind of reading... it almost seems a bit like its leading somewhere too, like subtle Scientology stuff does sometimes.
...is Lance Armstrong a total cult?
He's actually two cults. One with the people who almost, or do, worship him and one with the people who believe he's the cause of all ills. Sounds like you're in the latter "total cult". Either way it's full of people who, for whatever reason, can't break
away from the idea of idols and demons.0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:ReesA wrote:accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/
That makes for some kind of reading... it almost seems a bit like its leading somewhere too, like subtle Scientology stuff does sometimes.
...is Lance Armstrong a total cult?
He's actually two cults. One with the people who almost, or do, worship him and one with the people who believe he's the cause of all ills. Sounds like you're in the latter "total cult". Either way it's full of people who, for whatever reason, can't break
away from the idea of idols and demons.
You think he's two cults? Not heard of that. I suppose we can agree he's the biggest cult in cycling though if nothing else.0
