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

1…160161163165166…239

Comments

  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Well, what a great idea, MPCC

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-to ... -armstrong

    As Bonnie Ford tweeted last night re this ''stones continue to be thrown in the glasshouse that is cycling'

    How about MPCC do some introspection and look around at their composition, at its own leading lights, many of the current teams signed up to MPCC, their people and THEIR pasts - before going after Armstrong in an absolutely ludicrous fashion, and in the process turning him into a bit of a martyr?

    Oh and announcing that they might take this step on the same day that they admitted to their illustrious set-up yesterday, that they voted to give provisional membership to the following:

    Androni Venezuela, Astana, Katusha, Blanco, Lampre Merida and Vacansoleil DCM


    FFS.
  • micron
    micron Posts: 1,843
    Poor MPCC nobody would have taken a blind bit of notice of this if it'd still be a few French teams and vaughters - from a little joke to a big one. But with ASO recognising MPCC as the go to for wild card picks they've become the very thing they hated
  • feltkuota
    feltkuota Posts: 333
    frenchfighter wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    If LA has dirt on Contador from his time at Astana (which he surely does), that'd be a big enough bone for Tygart.

    You know, I thought about this and came to the conclusion that he hasn't got anything. Because if he had he would have surely used it, even if insinuation. He has a lot to hate Contador for - he tried to fight him and lost badly.


    As far as I am aware LA has said nothing about any other rider (yet). That may mean he has nothing, he is an incredibly honourable man who chooses not to name names, has chosen not to name names until it suits him or will name names when forced to by a court of law/USADA/WADA. I suspect the last two on that list would be my pick.
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    dennisn wrote:
    I constantly asked people on this forum to prove it. None of YOU ever did. You all simply recycled the work of other people into claims of your own. In the end none of you(myself included) was witness to any of these evil doings. Yet still you claimed to know all about it. And that's why I kept asking you to prove it. :roll:
    Lance Armstrong Sestriere Climb 1999 - YouTube
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ze0Vljiyhw
    With my eyes I saw something odd (for me that is) the day before when he won the "Metz" Time Trial by beating well known TT men like Zulle, Olano (in world champions jersey) Moreau and the the proof came in the video above.
    This video is where he did the impossible and like a Bjarne Riis went on to win a TDF.
    "What your kidding me that's bollox" I said when I saw the above on TV and have become a bigot with this opinion ever since that time and I've been told many times that I'm OTT about Riis and armstrong.

    So dennis, what more proof did you need as it was plain to see in 1999.
    I offer this solution that you (like millions of States people) had only heard of him because of the publicity about a sportsman with Cancer and I offer the following for my reasoning.
    In June 2002 while following the Tour de Suisse I was on a paddle steamer on Lake Lucern when a crowd of USA tourists came aboard and heard me order a beer. Questions followed, had I been to USA ?, yup once to meadowlands and NYC, What was I doing here without my wife ?
    Well have you heard of lance armstrong and a voice says yes, he's the guy that got over cancer. Well my No 1 sport is what sport he does, cycle racing. Oh didn't know he was a bicycle racer !. Well I'm here following the Swiss race and my wife won't come with me.
    I had had the same reaction the previous winter in USA sports bars (even hooters) after the texan had won 3 TDF's.

    So dennis instead of whinging that we can only regenerate other people's work when we have struggled to educate you about a fellow States person's "Fraud" (how dare we cast suspicions) that it needed a journo like Biking Bernie to sift and collate any info he could so that nobody would forget.
    Even now it is only affidavits from witnesses and their work (as you call it) with the USADA that has finally nailed him.
    Thanks to the USADA that it was them to give a verdict and not a European agency so that should help your country men but this forum will linger on until the scumbag is forced to own up.

    We still have the "Bull" that he never tested positive without any mention of money being passed and that splendid TUE he has which stops the full testing program.

    DJ, over and out.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Oh deejay....'hooters'....you've just made your own confession there... :wink:
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    feltkuota wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    If LA has dirt on Contador from his time at Astana (which he surely does), that'd be a big enough bone for Tygart.

    You know, I thought about this and came to the conclusion that he hasn't got anything. Because if he had he would have surely used it, even if insinuation. He has a lot to hate Contador for - he tried to fight him and lost badly.


    As far as I am aware LA has said nothing about any other rider (yet). That may mean he has nothing, he is an incredibly honourable man who chooses not to name names, has chosen not to name names until it suits him or will name names when forced to by a court of law/USADA/WADA. I suspect the last two on that list would be my pick.

    Yep, on the face of it Frenchie makes a good point but considering LA only recently confessed himself I suspect that if he can provide evidence regarding others it will be in a way that

    a) causes them maximum damage (especially if they have crossed him)
    b) benefits him e.g. "I'll hand you evidence on some current top flight pros if you reduce my ban to x years" .

    Whether he has such information on Bertie who knows, I suspect if Bertie was doping whilst on the same team he would have been making his own arrangements.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    A lot of talk about whether LA will implicate this or that person or will say this about that. So what's the impression of his being credible? If he was not credible in the past, how is it that he's credible now? It's not unheard of to try and save your own skin by blaming others. The truth???? If we ever hear it, may surprise you.
  • feltkuota
    feltkuota Posts: 333
    dennisn wrote:
    A lot of talk about whether LA will implicate this or that person or will say this about that. So what's the impression of his being credible? If he was not credible in the past, how is it that he's credible now? It's not unheard of to try and save your own skin by blaming others. The truth???? If we ever hear it, may surprise you.

    Don't know if he was not credible in the past but he has certainly been discredited now. Whether he names others or not I suspect is up to him and whatever process there may to get him to so do. In relation to Contador, does the word of one confessed doper (LA) against another doper mean anything? I don't know but I would suspect there will be a whole lot of people wanting to hear what he has to say, credible or not. How credible are Hamilton, Landis, Miller etc? For others to make their own opinion.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    feltkuota wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    A lot of talk about whether LA will implicate this or that person or will say this about that. So what's the impression of his being credible? If he was not credible in the past, how is it that he's credible now? It's not unheard of to try and save your own skin by blaming others. The truth???? If we ever hear it, may surprise you.

    Don't know if he was not credible in the past but he has certainly been discredited now. Whether he names others or not I suspect is up to him and whatever process there may to get him to so do. In relation to Contador, does the word of one confessed doper (LA) against another doper mean anything? I don't know but I would suspect there will be a whole lot of people wanting to hear what he has to say, credible or not. How credible are Hamilton, Landis, Miller etc? For others to make their own opinion.

    Sort of asks the question of whether or not it's a good idea for all those individuals involved to be sure that they themselves are deemed somewhat not credible. It's all about survival now and maybe credibility will take a back seat for now. If there are NO really credible witnesses(i.e. racers testifying against other racers) then the possibility that ALL will "go free"(so to speak) starts to become a reality.

    Only a reminder that courts, juries, and investigative bodies tend to not look favorably on possible tainted or slanted testimony. If all the people(pro racers, managers, etc.) testifying are not all that credible, then what have you got? If it was me out there in the middle of all this I would want to be not so credible, so that if and when I did say something that it wold look more like sour grapes than factual evidence, and hope that the others who might say a word against me were just as unreliable as myself. Racers win, though they may be a bit less credible they are still in the game.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Aren't you going to reply deejay, dennis?
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Oh deejay....'hooters'....you've just made your own confession there... :wink:
    That's usually the first Landmark I google before I stop in a city.
    It is, as you must know ;- Look but do not touch and a great atmosphere to have a pitcher of Beer and watch some sports.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    ThomThom wrote:
    Aren't you going to reply deejay, dennis?
    But fer christ's sake don't talk about "Flags" like Dave1 had to resort to.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • deejay
    deejay Posts: 3,138
    Hasn't it gone quiet on this thread and the same as the "Armstrong..which came first thread?" where nobody has taken issue with it, since 2 February.
    So it must mean the fanboys are running out of steam. choo choo here is a bit more that is only regurgitating past work that dennis loves so much.
    Michael Ashenden@Velonews wrote:
    “McQuaid seeks to dodge responsibility for the Armstrong scandal, but he cannot. McQuaid has admitted that he pursued Armstrong and demanded a hundred thousand dollars from him even though [former UCI president Hein] Verbruggen has since acknowledged that the UCI realized that Armstrong had been using drugs. Not once it would seem, but on three separate occasions that have so far come to the surface (cortisone 1999, EPO 2001 Tour de Suisse, EPO 2002 Dauphiné). McQuaid’s refusal to step down after such a grimy act speaks equal volumes about his integrity and the UCI’s credibility,” he said.
    Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 1972
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Am sure Lance must be glad Cipollini has been popped finally.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    Hmmm.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-rel ... ing-claims

    Let's see what Ashenden has to say about this. He is not backward in coming forward when it comes to the press...
    Contador is the Greatest
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    as I said to someone at work earlier. If you have been doping for over 10 years then although you may stop you body as already been elevated to a high than natural level. The effects and extra muscle etc he got from HGH etc would still be there so he still got the benefit of doping even if he was clean
  • Bakunin
    Bakunin Posts: 868
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Hmmm.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-rel ... ing-claims

    Let's see what Ashenden has to say about this. He is not backward in coming forward when it comes to the press...

    Although I think people on this forum are a little tough on Kimmage vis-a-vis Sky (but nationalism is very powerful), Ashenden seems to be a straight out disaster.

    Apart from his seemingly unethical discussion of Contador's blood during steak-gate, he just loves the sound of his own voice.

    To what extent can we take him seriously? It is true that the people who want to clean the sport must have some credibility. Does Ashenden deserve to be taken seriously?

    I think RichN95 had him pegged correctly.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,656
    Bakunin wrote:
    frenchfighter wrote:
    Hmmm.

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-rel ... ing-claims

    Let's see what Ashenden has to say about this. He is not backward in coming forward when it comes to the press...

    Although I think people on this forum are a little tough on Kimmage vis-a-vis Sky (but nationalism is very powerful), Ashenden seems to be a straight out disaster.

    Apart from his seemingly unethical discussion of Contador's blood during steak-gate, he just loves the sound of his own voice.

    To what extent can we take him seriously? It is true that the people who want to clean the sport must have some credibility. Does Ashenden deserve to be taken seriously?

    I think RichN95 had him pegged correctly.

    This one's going very weird.

    Ashenden claims LA doped in the TdF and that he never saw LA's blood data.
    UCI say "oh yes you did, you just didn't know it", but it was during/before the Giro, which isn't what Ashenden was talking about.

    They certainly have a point about Ashenden's claims to know whose blood data he's seen and whose he hasn't though.

    I have to say, I've not been all that impressed with Ashenden recently, e.g. his cryptic quotes about some "new age" teams doping, without anything provided to back it up.

    I really dislike having to rely on arguments from authority, but I'll never be a haematologist, so I have to accept expert opinion. The problem is, that requires a genuine and trustworthy expert, and it's hard to see who that is at the moment.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    I've said before what I think of Ashenden so I wont repeat the whole shooting match, but basically IMO he's a media darling who desperately wants a post in a very high position of power, and has been on a non-stop Michael Ashenden Self-Promotion Tour for months now.
  • fidgetyphil
    fidgetyphil Posts: 80
    Apparently its 10,000 to 1 against Lance being the next Pope.
    http://sports.coral.co.uk/bet_coral?act ... _554b_2066

    I'm sure that tells up something about the human condition but I'm not too sure what.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    fidgetyphil wrote:
    Apparently its 10,000 to 1 against Lance being the next Pope.
    http://sports.coral.co.uk/bet_coral?act ... _554b_2066

    I'm sure that tells up something about the human condition but I'm not too sure what.
    Paddy Power are offering 666/1 for Richard Dawkins to be Pope - which I thought was a quality joke.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Well..Who would've thought...

    UCI citing incomplete information to discredit Ashenden
    http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... den_274528
  • bockers
    bockers Posts: 146
    Lance has been quite quiet of late and that does not suit him. He wants attention and to be centre stage, hence using Oprah as his confessional stage.

    So what is the betting he starts blabbing names sometime soon, under the auspices of making a cleaner sport for the next generation? I just don't think he ready to fade into the background and his case is being somewhat overshadowed by the Fuetes trial and others. Lance whats to be the best at what he does, so as he is currently playing the bad boy doper he will want to be the best at that.

    Just a hunch, maybe he is waiting to see what Bruyneal (sp?) coughs up!
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,728
    ThomThom wrote:
    Well..Who would've thought...

    UCI citing incomplete information to discredit Ashenden
    http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... den_274528


    It may be boringly narrated and 12 minutes long, but the video in this piece certainly explains how the UCI are again blowing smoke.
    Plus, it uses that lovely graph/chart; essential to all go LA speculation and debunk:

    http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/02/no-dop ... g-in-2009/
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Well..Who would've thought...

    UCI citing incomplete information to discredit Ashenden
    http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... den_274528


    It may be boringly narrated and 12 minutes long, but the video in this piece certainly explains how the UCI are again blowing smoke.
    Plus, it uses that lovely graph/chart; essential to all go LA speculation and debunk:

    http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/02/no-dop ... g-in-2009/
    But the UCI aren't defending Armstrong, they're defending themselves against Ashenden's suggestion that no-one, and specifically himself, looked at Armstrong's bio passport (thereby hinting at some sort of corruption). It turns out he did (and how would he know if had or hadn't seen an anonymous sample anyway?

    The previous Velonews article is basically disputing an arguement which doesn't actually exist.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    It seems at the Walsh / Kimmage rallys for the faithful last night, they said that Steve "Inner Chimp" Peters evaluated Armstrong as a psychopath when watching him on Oprah

    Which is helpful.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    iainf72 wrote:
    It seems at the Walsh / Kimmage rallys for the faithful last night, they said that Steve "Inner Chimp" Peters evaluated Armstrong as a psychopath when watching him on Oprah

    Which is helpful.


    :) Off to Rampton then....
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    RichN95 wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    ThomThom wrote:
    Well..Who would've thought...

    UCI citing incomplete information to discredit Ashenden
    http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/02/ ... den_274528


    It may be boringly narrated and 12 minutes long, but the video in this piece certainly explains how the UCI are again blowing smoke.
    Plus, it uses that lovely graph/chart; essential to all go LA speculation and debunk:

    http://www.cyclismas.com/2013/02/no-dop ... g-in-2009/
    But the UCI aren't defending Armstrong, they're defending themselves against Ashenden's suggestion that no-one, and specifically himself, looked at Armstrong's bio passport (thereby hinting at some sort of corruption). It turns out he did (and how would he know if had or hadn't seen an anonymous sample anyway?

    The previous Velonews article is basically disputing an arguement which doesn't actually exist.


    ^This. What we have going on, and which is far from helpful, is certain sections of the media leaping to Ashenden's defence because he's one of the most vocal oppos for the UCI - but without thinking through the actual argument.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    So Ashenden has called LAs blood normal when he did not know whose it was then said + once knew name of bb? Fahey already says LA wont admit USADA's 2009-10 allegation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Dave_1 wrote:
    So Ashenden has called LAs blood normal when he did not know whose it was then said + once knew name of bb? Fahey already says LA wont admit USADA's 2009-10 allegation

    The giro blood. Not the Tour De France.

Categories