Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
mfin wrote:rayjay wrote:Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.
"Ripped the sh%t out of cycling's history"? Naa, just took some wins of someone who cheated to win.
What's a shame is that more people don't "rip the sh%t out of cycling's history" exposing and discrediting every single doper that it is possible to. Throw it all against against the wall and start afresh with uncompromising bans dealt out to cheats.
What's the worst that can happen, we get to watch a far smaller peloton of lesser known cyclists with real talent that don't accept cheating or will get banned for life if they are caught. If so, great. The re-commercialisation of it would at least be likely to be built upon something more honest and real.
That's quite an angry response. I think you will find that Lance, Jan and co are a bunch of very talented cyclists and athletes. If you think that its all down to doping then why don't you dope get on your bike climb over 4 cols and see how long it takes you, what an absurd statement. Yeah lets start afresh and when the next rider gets busted we can start afresh again.0 -
The amount of time it takes to cover 4 cols with or without doping is completely irrelevant, as doing so with doping whilst in competition is cheating, and it is not 'sport'. Also, winners like LA would not have won a single tour without doping and without riding with the addition of doped team mates. I'm not reserving this attitude for Lance, I think the same of anyone in cycling that is cheating by doping.
My general point is cycling has not been turned upside down enough. In fact it has hardly at all "had it's history ripped the sh%t out of" by the Lance stuff. But, I believe it could benefit by being torn down a lot more, banning more and all dopers for long periods or life ...then similar extremely stringent penalties put in place for going forward. It's only my opinion.0 -
mfin wrote:The amount of time it takes to cover 4 cols with or without doping is completely irrelevant, as doing so with doping whilst in competition is cheating, and it is not 'sport'. Also, winners like LA would not have won a single tour without doping and without riding with the addition of doped team mates. I'm not reserving this attitude for Lance, I think the same of anyone in cycling that is cheating by doping.
My general point is cycling has not been turned upside down enough. In fact it has hardly at all "had it's history ripped the sh%t out of" by the Lance stuff. But, I believe it could benefit by being torn down a lot more, banning more and all dopers for long periods or life ...then similar extremely stringent penalties put in place for going forward. It's only my opinion.
I totally understand what your saying. I understand that perhaps the fear of never being allowed to ride again if you got caught will cause athletes to think about what they are doing. On a personal not doping athletes ,cyclist's etc have never caused me to feel let down. Individual's who compete at this level are really driven and as in cycling they will resort to illegal methods and so starts the catch 22. Nothing has worked to stop athletes taking PEDs, it's just a shame that we have to use fear. You points are very valid. The only thing I would say is that the rules have to be the same for everyone The LA case has showed what a mess the UCI have made and the playing field in terms of bans, etc is not even. I would be curious to know if other posters feel extreme measures are the answer.0 -
I'm not sure where you're going here.rayjay wrote:RoadPainter wrote:
Yeah, exactly. Hincapie told his story before being busted!rayjay wrote:RoadPainter wrote:
Hincapie did and hadn'trayjay wrote:The Others only told their story because they got busted.
WRONG ...do ya read the news ,,,,do ya
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-for ... from-usada
As your linked article says, Armstrong had the same opportunity.
He only talked because he knew the s%%t was going to hit the fan along with the rest of the Garmin boys. :roll:
You were lawyered and you are lawyered again
You're arguing that Armstrong got treated unfairly compared to the riders who talked. Armstrong had the same opportunity to talk, but refused. So how can he be treated the same?
If the Garmins and Hincapie hadn't talked, there'd probably have been no case against anyone.0 -
rayjay wrote:mfin wrote:The amount of time it takes to cover 4 cols with or without doping is completely irrelevant, as doing so with doping whilst in competition is cheating, and it is not 'sport'. Also, winners like LA would not have won a single tour without doping and without riding with the addition of doped team mates. I'm not reserving this attitude for Lance, I think the same of anyone in cycling that is cheating by doping.
My general point is cycling has not been turned upside down enough. In fact it has hardly at all "had it's history ripped the sh%t out of" by the Lance stuff. But, I believe it could benefit by being torn down a lot more, banning more and all dopers for long periods or life ...then similar extremely stringent penalties put in place for going forward. It's only my opinion.
I totally understand what your saying. I understand that perhaps the fear of never being allowed to ride again if you got caught will cause athletes to think about what they are doing. On a personal not doping athletes ,cyclist's etc have never caused me to feel let down. Individual's who compete at this level are really driven and as in cycling they will resort to illegal methods and so starts the catch 22. Nothing has worked to stop athletes taking PEDs, it's just a shame that we have to use fear. You points are very valid. The only thing I would say is that the rules have to be the same for everyone The LA case has showed what a mess the UCI have made and the playing field in terms of bans, etc is not even. I would be curious to know if other posters feel extreme measures are the answer.
I never said anyone caused me to feel "let down", that's projected shite, I only try to say what I think is sport/not sport0 -
I totally understand what your saying. I understand that perhaps the fear of never being allowed to ride again if you got caught will cause athletes to think about what they are doing. On a personal not doping athletes ,cyclist's etc have never caused me to feel let down. Individual's who compete at this level are really driven and as in cycling they will resort to illegal methods and so starts the catch 22. Nothing has worked to stop athletes taking PEDs, it's just a shame that we have to use fear. You points are very valid. The only thing I would say is that the rules have to be the same for everyone The LA case has showed what a mess the UCI have made and the playing field in terms of bans, etc is not even. I would be curious to know if other posters feel extreme measures are the answer.[/quote]
I never said anyone caused me to feel "let down", that's projected shite, I only try to say what I think is sport/not sport[/quote]
and I never said you did, take a breath re read the post "On a personal" that' means my opinion not yours.
Let them all dope I don't give a f%%k, I'm off to eat a swan pie and smoke some rhino dust. :roll:0 -
Define "Drugs" that they were all on.rayjay wrote:deejay wrote:You miss the point that he couldn't win a GT with his Natural Ability. Just not good enough. OK.
You don't know how long the other teams or riders were doping. What we do know is that Postal were not in the same league when it came to doping as some of the other teams. The witness accounts bear this out. Armstrong was a world champion. You miss the point, tell me one of his GC rivals who was riding clean on natural ability. Infact tell me a rider who could have won at that time on natural ability?
The introduction of EPO where Grupetto riders and their abilities are suddenly and by Magic turned into GT winners.
We know Conconi had the biggest affect to the Pro Peloton with his trials of Italian riders and Argentin, Moser in particular.
That Argentin in his later years was able to manage and captain a cycle team that out performed all others.
That Riis left the Argentin Set Up to join the East German Steroid muscle men and introduce the Conconi juice. ?
That the reigning Olympic road race champion "muscle man" joined "Panasonic" and was able to convert from amateur to the Pro peloton with ease and winning ways. (if you don't believe that then look how quickly muscle turned to fat on his retirement)
That he too saw the improvements to his former countrymen and adversaries and made the switch to join them at the Team Deutsche Telekom shite.
That team came from nowhere in 1996 to place 1st & 2nd in TDF and take the Green Jersey for 6 years and a second GT win in 1997.
This team had the most to gain by the Festina scandal in 1998 but the beautiful thing was the cold rain and the little gutsy Italian could nonchalantly stop to put a rain coat on and then go on to win.
That we have to wait till this year to have Zabel admit that he (and them) Lied for 18 years about the EPO drugs they took throughout their careers. :evil:
1999 and Armstrong has joined Michele Ferrari and is using the Magical EPO Juice to fill his long needed ambition to finally become famous.
So that much we do know but your right we don't know what drugs they used earlier but it wasn't the Magical Superior Conconi mixture of EPO which itself was improved with blood transfusions.
The man with the Foundation of Doctors did that.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
I'm sorry to have to do this but, I wholehearted agree with you.mfin wrote:The amount of time it takes to cover 4 cols with or without doping is completely irrelevant, as doing so with doping whilst in competition is cheating, and it is not 'sport'. Also, winners like LA would not have won a single tour without doping and without riding with the addition of doped team mates. I'm not reserving this attitude for Lance, I think the same of anyone in cycling that is cheating by doping.
My general point is cycling has not been turned upside down enough. In fact it has hardly at all "had it's history ripped the sh%t out of" by the Lance stuff. But, I believe it could benefit by being torn down a lot more, banning more and all dopers for long periods or life ...then similar extremely stringent penalties put in place for going forward. It's only my opinion.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
RoadPainter wrote:I'm not sure where you're going here.
You're arguing that Armstrong got treated unfairly compared to the riders who talked. Armstrong had the same opportunity to talk, but refused. So how can he be treated the same?
If the Garmins and Hincapie hadn't talked, there'd probably have been no case against anyone.
Your original and wrong point Is that Hincapie never got busted and talked of his own accord.
You are completely wrong on both those points ....Simple
The only reason any of them talked was because they got busted.....Simple
I'm sure if Tygart had gone up to Armstrong and banned him for 6 months in the off season he would have taken it.
Okee dokee then0 -
rayjay wrote:I'm sure if Tygart had gone up to Armstrong and banned him for 6 months in the off season he would have taken it.
Okee dokee then
I very much doubt that he would have taken it as it would have meant admitting guilt.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
deejay wrote:
Define "Drugs" that they were all on.rayjay wrote:deejay wrote:You miss the point that he couldn't win a GT with his Natural Ability. Just not good enough. OK.
You don't know how long the other teams or riders were doping. What we do know is that Postal were not in the same league when it came to doping as some of the other teams. The witness accounts bear this out. Armstrong was a world champion. You miss the point, tell me one of his GC rivals who was riding clean on natural ability. Infact tell me a rider who could have won at that time on natural ability?
The introduction of EPO where Grupetto riders and their abilities are suddenly and by Magic turned into GT winners.
We know Conconi had the biggest affect to the Pro Peloton with his trials of Italian riders and Argentin, Moser in particular.
That Argentin in his later years was able to manage and captain a cycle team that out performed all others.
That Riis left the Argentin Set Up to join the East German Steroid muscle men and introduce the Conconi juice. ?
That the reigning Olympic road race champion "muscle man" joined "Panasonic" and was able to convert from amateur to the Pro peloton with ease and winning ways. (if you don't believe that then look how quickly muscle turned to fat on his retirement)
That he too saw the improvements to his former countrymen and adversaries and made the switch to join them at the Team Deutsche Telekom shite.
That team came from nowhere in 1996 to place 1st & 2nd in TDF and take the Green Jersey for 6 years and a second GT win in 1997.
This team had the most to gain by the Festina scandal in 1998 but the beautiful thing was the cold rain and the little gutsy Italian could nonchalantly stop to put a rain coat on and then go on to win.
That we have to wait till this year to have Zabel admit that he (and them) Lied for 18 years about the EPO drugs they took throughout their careers. :evil:
1999 and Armstrong has joined Michele Ferrari and is using the Magical EPO Juice to fill his long needed ambition to finally become famous.
So that much we do know but your right we don't know what drugs they used earlier but it wasn't the Magical Superior Conconi mixture of EPO which itself was improved with blood transfusions.
The man with the Foundation of Doctors did that.
Im not sure exactly what you are trying to say . I Don't think tour winners such as Ulrich, Armstrong ,
Contador would be classed as Grupetto riders. Conconi and Ferrari were testing PEDs on themselves. If it had that much of an effect they would not have needed Moser to break the hour record they could have broken it themselves. PEDs can make you a better rider but they will not make you a champion if you have ordinary ability.
When Conconi and Ferrari experimented with EPO etc it was quite Legal and with the good will of the Italian government.
Muscle cannot turn into fat. Its impossible.
They are completely different types of cells and it is impossible for one cell to turn into the other. Muscle cells can never turn into fat cells and fat cells cannot change into muscle cells. It is not possible.0 -
I'm absolutely not an LA fanboy, in fact I hate his bullying...but
From the facts that I have read and pieced together it appears that pre 93 it was pretty much about amphetamines, caffeine and other smaller drugs. Then along came EPO and Conconi and Ferrari etc. The first users of EPO were not Armstrong and his team, it was others and it became apparent that to be able to compete they had to do it too.
Armstrong won his titles at a time that everyone was doping, albeit he had the money and the standing to do whatever he needed to, and as team leader he also had an advantage over Tyler & Co too.
Once he was in to all the heavy doping there was absolutely no way he could admit anything so he fought the incessant allegations in the only way he knew how, and with the Omerta being held up by all those in the peloton with one or two minor exceptions who were quickly ostracised.
I'm not sure I agree that LA wouldn't have won The Tour if the whole peloton had been clean. I'm yet to read a single article about him from any other rider who suggests that he wasn't a top, top rider.
The people who need to be hold their heads in shame are the UCI for letting all this happen so that they could expand the sponsorship and wealth of cycling by way of a miracle story. IMO there were a huge number of cyclists, soigners, DSs etc who would much rather have not had to do it, but had no choice.
LA has been made a scapegoat, and to be honest it takes two to tango. I'd be extremely surprised if any WT races were won by non-dopers during this whole period, maybe the odd one-day race but stage races, not a chance.0 -
What's that sound? I think its the first sound of Lance throwing Verbruggen under the bus...
(Soz - health warning -it's the Daily Hate. Blame Emma O'Reilly)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... eilly.html0 -
rayjay wrote:RoadPainter wrote:I'm not sure where you're going here.
You're arguing that Armstrong got treated unfairly compared to the riders who talked. Armstrong had the same opportunity to talk, but refused. So how can he be treated the same?
If the Garmins and Hincapie hadn't talked, there'd probably have been no case against anyone.
Your original and wrong point Is that Hincapie never got busted and talked of his own accord.
You are completely wrong on both those points ....Simple
The only reason any of them talked was because they got busted.....Simple
I'm sure if Tygart had gone up to Armstrong and banned him for 6 months in the off season he would have taken it.
Okee dokee then
Hincapie did not get busted before he talked. The Garmin riders didn't get busted before they talked. How are you insisting that any of them did?
Who knows what ban Armstrong would have got if he, like the others, had talked when given the opportunity. We'll never know, because he chose to stay silent and refused to engage with the investigation - quite smugly, as I recall.0 -
RoadPainter wrote:rayjay wrote:RoadPainter wrote:I'm not sure where you're going here.
You're arguing that Armstrong got treated unfairly compared to the riders who talked. Armstrong had the same opportunity to talk, but refused. So how can he be treated the same?
If the Garmins and Hincapie hadn't talked, there'd probably have been no case against anyone.
Your original and wrong point Is that Hincapie never got busted and talked of his own accord.
You are completely wrong on both those points ....Simple
The only reason any of them talked was because they got busted.....Simple
I'm sure if Tygart had gone up to Armstrong and banned him for 6 months in the off season he would have taken it.
Okee dokee then
Hincapie did not get busted before he talked. The Garmin riders didn't get busted before they talked. How are you insisting that any of them did?
Who knows what ban Armstrong would have got if he, like the others, had talked when given the opportunity. We'll never know, because he chose to stay silent and refused to engage with the investigation - quite smugly, as I recall.
Those members of the US Postal team who agreed to confess all to USADA had been offered six-month bans in return. Armstrong, serving a life ban, has been told the best he can hope for is a reduction
So you really believe that Hincapie and co talked because they felt it was time and for the good of the sport :roll: It had nothing to do with the fact that they knew the sh%t was hitting the fan and if they talked they would get reduced bans and can carry on racing if they wished :roll:
We know what deal Tygart would have offered Armstrong :roll:0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:What's that sound? I think its the first sound of Lance throwing Verbruggen under the bus...
(Soz - health warning -it's the Daily Hate. Blame Emma O'Reilly)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... eilly.html
Surprised this has nt generated more comment - although I s'pose it's not actually that surprising...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Emma is being very honest. Lance is being honest. I would like to have been at the dinner they had.
I'm sure some will read it and ignore some quite important points. Interesting what Emma says about the Armstrong threats and what Armstrong says. Emma seemed right up to speed with the PED testing as well,mmmm.
As for Verbruggen ,he's going down town. Who knows if there is more to come and not just from the Postal camp.
You can see why the UCI would make Armstrong's test go away. How many more times have they done this?
I am not just talking about Armstrong. What about after he quit what about now. Things are only just starting to change at the UCI who knows what's been going on. Personally I look back at some of the riders busted and the way they have been busted i.e Contador for example. No one can say for sure that he took EPO etc. It was not a definitive bust for EPO or PED'S. Same as Chickens bust. He never got busted for taking PED's. I have always thought these are just token gestures just to let the rest of the world know we are clamping down on cheats but as they are some of the top riders we will make sure that they ride again. We don't want to see the money train leave the station.
I can see a massive sh%t storm coming the UCI's way.0 -
It would appear to me that at the time, the only ones unwilling to dope were those who really weren't going to win, with or without, it.. it would also appear that the UCI presided over this, and were prepared to regard the situation as a level playing field, to the extent, they were willing to cover up anything that may have tarnished the "image" of pro cycling ..... who said that, internet forum people ?0
-
Pre 98 LA was never going to win a Grand Tour he was too big a rider to get over the climbs that was why he was better at one day races. I think he found a magic formula with Ferrari post cancer that enabled him to drop the weight and turn himself into a GT winner with the aid of PEDs. I also think the cancer helped him to focus more and but more discipline into his cycling.
Chiapucchi was a rider who went from nowhere to GT contender with the aid of PEDs so yes the EPO generation did turn also rans into contenders0 -
If you look at his weight pre and post they are pretty similar despite what the man said himself and what has been widely reported.0
-
rayjay wrote:rockmount wrote:It would appear to me that at the time, the only ones unwilling to dope were those who really weren't going to win, with or without, it.
Spot on IMO. We have not heard any clean riders ever say they thought they could have won the tour if they had doped.
No-one will ever know. The only one I would put my house on is Bradders since 93.0 -
rayjay wrote:
Im not sure exactly what you are trying to say .
Try and answer it instead of trolling around other riders in a bid to justify your point that the Texan was hard done by.deejay wrote:Define "Drugs" that they were all on. ?
Next question to ask is - Were you out there in the early 90's to watch and listen to the "Grupetto's" of that time.
Well Bjarne Riis and Armstrong did certainly qualify as catching the Bus up the mountain because I spotted Armstrong (the one known to be big headed) but who the hell was Riis to be noticed.
Only when they won a transitional TDF stage were they noticed.
Ullrich (40 next month) is East German and in 1993 in Norway he won the Amateur World Championship aged 19 (the day before Armstrong's World's) and said "I win races with my sprint".
He was the youngest to win that title since Eddy Merckx and 3 years later 1996 was 2nd in TDF with sudden endurance strength :roll: :roll:
I question Ullrich's performance because a year earlier 1995 aged 21 he had to abandon his first GT at the Vuelta on stage 12 where he was little more than a "Grupetto".
Is that plain enough for you to understand why I say they they couldn't win a GT without some very New Drugs and yes the same drug became common when that Scheisshaufen Team Deutsche Telekom had such an impact with them.joelsim wrote:From the facts that I have read and pieced together it appears that pre 93 it was pretty much about amphetamines, caffeine and other smaller drugs. Then along came EPO and Conconi and Ferrari etc. The first users of EPO were not Armstrong and his team, it was others and it became apparent that to be able to compete they had to do it too.Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
Joelsim wrote:rayjay wrote:rockmount wrote:It would appear to me that at the time, the only ones unwilling to dope were those who really weren't going to win, with or without, it.
Spot on IMO. We have not heard any clean riders ever say they thought they could have won the tour if they had doped.
No-one will ever know. The only one I would put my house on is Bradders since 93.
I think Mr Boardman might disagree with you there. Chris refused to dope and even had to retire early because of an illness curable by taking testosterone. He was prescribed this by at least two doctors but, not surprisingly, the UCI refused to allow this as medication. So he suffered a little longer , then retired.
I would refute any claim that Boardman was a no hoper and that is why he did not do PEDs.0 -
mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:rayjay wrote:rockmount wrote:It would appear to me that at the time, the only ones unwilling to dope were those who really weren't going to win, with or without, it.
Spot on IMO. We have not heard any clean riders ever say they thought they could have won the tour if they had doped.
No-one will ever know. The only one I would put my house on is Bradders since 93.
I think Mr Boardman might disagree with you there. Chris refused to dope and even had to retire early because of an illness curable by taking testosterone. He was prescribed this by at least two doctors but, not surprisingly, the UCI refused to allow this as medication. So he suffered a little longer , then retired.
I would refute any claim that Boardman was a no hoper and that is why he did not do PEDs.
Boardman is a big "what if" in terms of doping. Who knows what he could have done as a GT rider if he'd turned to the darkside.0 -
No, we don't. Because Armstrong chose not to.rayjay wrote:Those members of the US Postal team who agreed to confess all to USADA had been offered six-month bans in return. Armstrong, serving a life ban, has been told the best he can hope for is a reduction
So you really believe that Hincapie and co talked because they felt it was time and for the good of the sport :roll: It had nothing to do with the fact that they knew the sh%t was hitting the fan and if they talked they would get reduced bans and can carry on racing if they wished :roll:
We know what deal Tygart would have offered Armstrong :roll:
By your logic, criminals should be able to get jail sentences reduced when they change plea to guilty AFTER the trial :roll:
You get a reduced penalty if you give the evidence that proves the case, thus guaranteeing a conviction. You don't get a reduction for giving evidence AFTER being found guilty! Do you still fail to see a difference?0 -
deejay wrote:rayjay wrote:
Im not sure exactly what you are trying to say .
Try and answer it instead of trolling around other riders in a bid to justify your point that the Texan was hard done by.deejay wrote:Define "Drugs" that they were all on. ?
Next question to ask is - Were you out there in the early 90's to watch and listen to the "Grupetto's" of that time.
Well Bjarne Riis and Armstrong did certainly qualify as catching the Bus up the mountain because I spotted Armstrong (the one known to be big headed) but who the hell was Riis to be noticed.
Only when they won a transitional TDF stage were they noticed.
Ullrich (40 next month) is East German and in 1993 in Norway he won the Amateur World Championship aged 19 (the day before Armstrong's World's) and said "I win races with my sprint".
He was the youngest to win that title since Eddy Merckx and 3 years later 1996 was 2nd in TDF with sudden endurance strength :roll: :roll:
I question Ullrich's performance because a year earlier 1995 aged 21 he had to abandon his first GT at the Vuelta on stage 12 where he was little more than a "Grupetto".
Is that plain enough for you to understand why I say they they couldn't win a GT without some very New Drugs and yes the same drug became common when that Scheisshaufen Team Deutsche Telekom had such an impact with them.joelsim wrote:From the facts that I have read and pieced together it appears that pre 93 it was pretty much about amphetamines, caffeine and other smaller drugs. Then along came EPO and Conconi and Ferrari etc. The first users of EPO were not Armstrong and his team, it was others and it became apparent that to be able to compete they had to do it too.
Would you like me to tell you the exact dose they were taking. :roll: I don't need a chronology lesson on PEDs in cycling thanks. Riders at 19 years old are certainly young enough to develop into a GC contender. Look at Mr Wiggins, he ain't no youngster. You have your opinion but IMO Ulrich, Armstrong etc are talented riders and for you to throw them in there with an ordinary rider IMO shows your lack of insight. For you to think drugs makes you the best is naive. Why is it that we have the same names on the podium. We know that whole teams were doping so if there was more talented riders I did not see them up on the podium. You know the ones who are as good as Armstrong, Ulrich, Basso ,Vino ,Contador , Evans? etc. If these riders didn't take EPO who would have won then?
If you look at one of my previous posts I'm well aware of Conconi and Ferrari. One rider dopes and gets to keep his tour win another dopes and does not. That's not a level field.
One rider dopes and gets a 6 month ban another gets banned for years. That's not a level field.
I don't hand out longer sentences because I don't like the persona of someone. Its very shallow IMO
Roadpainter Your initial point was that Hincapie never got busted for PED'S ,,,He did
You said he talked out of free will as he never got busted.... He knew he was getting busted so he had no choice but to talk other wise things would have been a lot worse for him.
Simple :roll:0 -
rayjay, more facts for you to ignore:
From Usada reasoned decision, Armstrong was charged with:
(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO,
blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood
transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers
and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices),
testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.
(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone,
and/or cortisone.
(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule
violations.
(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a
sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and
cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard
sanction.
Yes, that's more than the riders who confessed, gave evidence and got much lighter bans.
You might want to read P146-153 of the reasoned decision. They talk about his perjury & intimidation. These could be used as evidence that Tygart gave a longer ban because he didn't like Lance's persona
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf0 -
mike6 wrote:Joelsim wrote:rayjay wrote:rockmount wrote:It would appear to me that at the time, the only ones unwilling to dope were those who really weren't going to win, with or without, it.
Spot on IMO. We have not heard any clean riders ever say they thought they could have won the tour if they had doped.
No-one will ever know. The only one I would put my house on is Bradders since 93.
I think Mr Boardman might disagree with you there. Chris refused to dope and even had to retire early because of an illness curable by taking testosterone. He was prescribed this by at least two doctors but, not surprisingly, the UCI refused to allow this as medication. So he suffered a little longer , then retired.
I would refute any claim that Boardman was a no hoper and that is why he did not do PEDs.
The pint was about winning The Tour, not a stage/prologue or whatever. Boardman was extremely talented but it's pretty much taken for granted that he could never compete a GT against a peloton full of dopers.
As I said, I'm no LA fanboy, but even doped up, against a whole peloton who were doing the same (obviously some to a lesser degree), those very same people who had bloodbags with Ufe, who were paying Ferrari, who had Soigneurs who were dolling it out like jelly babies, LA still came out on top 7 times in a row.
Bully that he was/is, he shouldn't be made the scapegoat when everyone else has pretty much had a smacked wrist in comparison.0 -
Joelsim wrote:rayjay wrote:rockmount wrote:It would appear to me that at the time, the only ones unwilling to dope were those who really weren't going to win, with or without, it.
Spot on IMO. We have not heard any clean riders ever say they thought they could have won the tour if they had doped.
No-one will ever know. The only one I would put my house on is Bradders since 93.
I'm always surprised when folks are so sure about Wiggins ... He has been on 3 teams with a plethora of doping sanctions to their name ... I guess Brad may have been at home watching TV with Chris Horner when everything was going down ...0
