Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Vaughters confirms Garmin's USPS old boy's doping past:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vaughte ... -at-garmin"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
From the iceberg himself...............0 -
Not a wet lettuce in sight I mite add..................0
-
I can understand with a little warning how they could cheat the tests but what about the end of day tests? Plenty of USPS guys one stages and obviously lance was in yellow a lot so was tested.
I've heard about enzymes under the fingernail so they could stick that in their urine stream but I don't get how they wouldn't have high haematocrits. Clearly there's no time or the opportunity to infuse saline. Did they just rely on micro dosing and making sure they would never be above 50?
Maybe that's why the domestiques were often happy to cruise in and lose 5 minutes after being on the front all day. Less chance of being tested?I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
k-dog wrote:I can understand with a little warning how they could cheat the tests but what about the end of day tests? Plenty of USPS guys one stages and obviously lance was in yellow a lot so was tested.
I've heard about enzymes under the fingernail so they could stick that in their urine stream but I don't get how they wouldn't have high haematocrits. Clearly there's no time or the opportunity to infuse saline. Did they just rely on micro dosing and making sure they would never be above 50?
Maybe that's why the domestiques were often happy to cruise in and lose 5 minutes after being on the front all day. Less chance of being tested?
I've quote in one of the other LA threads about this - my quote being to simply re-broadcast some of the content from the TH book. In essence, doping control stops at 2200hrs. Tyler is adamant that 2201hrs is an incredibly busy time in the world of pro cycling. You pop a microdose of EPO direct into the vein and by the morning - give or take - roughly speaking - you are good to go. This is how they did at US Postal.0 -
I'm pretty sure they couldn't turn up before 6.00 am, so you basically had 8 hours to get the shit into you and have it disappear. After stage controls would not be a problem.tremayne wrote:k-dog wrote:I can understand with a little warning how they could cheat the tests but what about the end of day tests? Plenty of USPS guys one stages and obviously lance was in yellow a lot so was tested.
I've heard about enzymes under the fingernail so they could stick that in their urine stream but I don't get how they wouldn't have high haematocrits. Clearly there's no time or the opportunity to infuse saline. Did they just rely on micro dosing and making sure they would never be above 50?
Maybe that's why the domestiques were often happy to cruise in and lose 5 minutes after being on the front all day. Less chance of being tested?
I've quote in one of the other LA threads about this - my quote being to simply re-broadcast some of the content from the TH book. In essence, doping control stops at 2200hrs. Tyler is adamant that 2201hrs is an incredibly busy time in the world of pro cycling. You pop a microdose of EPO direct into the vein and by the morning - give or take - roughly speaking - you are good to go. This is how they did at US Postal.0 -
0
-
0
-
Neither are they cow-towing to the USADA witch hunt ...
Every single rider should face a ban ... Anything else is a joke ...
Ps. No defenece of LA but the whole mess needs to be a whole mess ...0 -
Pardon?0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:
Gawd, he's looking worse for wear in acc. pic. Seriously, must be the sleepless nights; for months...0 -
Hmm, this sets a worrying precedent:
McQuaid also asked the USADA to provide the UCI with three Garmin-Barracuda riders' files after their own team manager Jonathan Vaughters hinted this month that they had doped earlier in their careers.
"We need to see if Jonathan Vaughter's accusations have any substance so we can see if we take action against these riders," said McQuaid.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... 1Z201209070 -
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-lance-armstrong-uci-penalties-20120907,0,2689259.story"It does seem slightly unusual," McQuaid told Associated Press reporters of the delay in receiving USADA's file. "Our only thoughts on it would be that maybe they didn't have a full file or they don't have a full file. ... We are assuming they do have a full file because they have already announced a life ban on Lance Armstrong."
What a c0ck mcquaid is, thats a stupid opinion and speculation, why can't he keep his mouth shut at least until he has the information.McQuaid also said Friday that he will propose amnesty for riders and team members who confess to doping offenses.
"I think there's room for it and I think the UCI could do well to" introduce it, McQuaid told the AP reporters. "It's a subject I will bring up myself at the management committee of the UCI and it's something which we would look into possibly doing."
One problem would be dealing with anti-doping organizations.
"It would need to be examined as to how it could be introduced, what would be the parameters of it, what would be the framework in which it's worked, what would be the results afterwards," McQuaid said. "We have to work in the world anti-doping rules and sanctions."
Lets hope he sticks by the bit he's said in bold there.0 -
Quick translation of fat Pat for you:
We'll challenge the USADA ruling if it's nasty to us.
They're so keen to continue the witch-hunt they made their ruling before they'd even put their case file together.
If there's any truth and reconciliation process then it's going to be us that runs it, on our terms, so we can manage the information flow and make sure it doesn't go too far. But we probably won't run one anyway, we'll just say WADA won't let us. Or we'll run one that's so watered down it's useless and blame WADA for it.
We'll make sure anyone that opened their mouth about doping remembers why they should have kept it shut, whether it's riders that testified to the USADA or riders mentioned in a forum by their DS.
We're not interested in the case files of any rider that got named in a book, no matter how well researched, unless they also opened their mouths.
We aren't going to look into whether the UCI helped LA get off a positive. Tyler Hamilton isn't credible. We like our credibility.
In short: Business as usual.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Quick translation of fat Pat for you:
We'll challenge the USADA ruling if it's nasty to us.
They're so keen to continue the witch-hunt they made their ruling before they'd even put their case file together.
If there's any truth and reconciliation process then it's going to be us that runs it, on our terms, so we can manage the information flow and make sure it doesn't go too far. But we probably won't run one anyway, we'll just say WADA won't let us. Or we'll run one that's so watered down it's useless and blame WADA for it.
We'll make sure anyone that opened their mouth about doping remembers why they should have kept it shut, whether it's riders that testified to the USADA or riders mentioned in a forum by their DS.
We're not interested in the case files of any rider that got named in a book, no matter how well researched, unless they also opened their mouths.
We aren't going to look into whether the UCI helped LA get off a positive. Tyler Hamilton isn't credible. We like our credibility.
In short: Business as usual.
Exactly!Kev
Summer Bike: Colnago C60
Winter Bike: Vitus Alios
MTB: 1997 GT Karakorum0 -
skylla wrote:Hmm, this sets a worrying precedent:
McQuaid also asked the USADA to provide the UCI with three Garmin-Barracuda riders' files after their own team manager Jonathan Vaughters hinted this month that they had doped earlier in their careers.
"We need to see if Jonathan Vaughter's accusations have any substance so we can see if we take action against these riders," said McQuaid.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/ ... 1Z20120907
Presumably the riders' doping was outside of the statute of limitations? If not JV is on thin ice a bit. If so, the UCI are silly.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:Quick translation of fat Pat for you:
We'll challenge the USADA ruling if it's nasty to us.
They're so keen to continue the witch-hunt they made their ruling before they'd even put their case file together.
If there's any truth and reconciliation process then it's going to be us that runs it, on our terms, so we can manage the information flow and make sure it doesn't go too far. But we probably won't run one anyway, we'll just say WADA won't let us. Or we'll run one that's so watered down it's useless and blame WADA for it.
We'll make sure anyone that opened their mouth about doping remembers why they should have kept it shut, whether it's riders that testified to the USADA or riders mentioned in a forum by their DS.
We're not interested in the case files of any rider that got named in a book, no matter how well researched, unless they also opened their mouths.
We aren't going to look into whether the UCI helped LA get off a positive. Tyler Hamilton isn't credible. We like our credibility.
In short: Business as usual.
Absolutely. Dead on. Disgusting isn't it. ...there was another link to the Reuters release which if read quickly people might think "fair enough, UCI implied they might get in the way but they're not going to" and these few quotes show it doesn't mean that at all....
....in fact, what he's saying is pretty much the opposite of what you'd get from the Reuters title "UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid".
He should comment when he can comment on the file, commenting about the file he has not seen and putting a load of spin on why he's not received it yet IS disgusting, it implies that it looks bad on USADA. Thanks for trying to undermine USADA/WADA Mr McQuaid, you f*****g j**k.
McQuaid has to go.0 -
WHY haven't USADA released the file?mfin wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:Quick translation of fat Pat for you:
We'll challenge the USADA ruling if it's nasty to us.
They're so keen to continue the witch-hunt they made their ruling before they'd even put their case file together.
If there's any truth and reconciliation process then it's going to be us that runs it, on our terms, so we can manage the information flow and make sure it doesn't go too far. But we probably won't run one anyway, we'll just say WADA won't let us. Or we'll run one that's so watered down it's useless and blame WADA for it.
We'll make sure anyone that opened their mouth about doping remembers why they should have kept it shut, whether it's riders that testified to the USADA or riders mentioned in a forum by their DS.
We're not interested in the case files of any rider that got named in a book, no matter how well researched, unless they also opened their mouths.
We aren't going to look into whether the UCI helped LA get off a positive. Tyler Hamilton isn't credible. We like our credibility.
In short: Business as usual.
Absolutely. Dead on. Disgusting isn't it. ...there was another link to the Reuters release which if read quickly people might think "fair enough, UCI implied they might get in the way but they're not going to" and these few quotes show it doesn't mean that at all....
....in fact, what he's saying is pretty much the opposite of what you'd get from the Reuters title "UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid".
He should comment when he can comment on the file, commenting about the file he has not seen and putting a load of spin on why he's not received it yet IS disgusting, it implies that it looks bad on USADA. Thanks for trying to undermine USADA/WADA Mr McQuaid, you f*****g j**k.
McQuaid has to go.
I thought that they were holding it back until after the Bruyneel hearing, but they're not according to the French media.0 -
They won't release everything they have, if that's what's meant bu UCI saying 'the file'. They'll release a detailed report on why they've banned him. The evidence can't all be put out there because of pending Arbitrations.
My guess is that when the UCI get the report, they might say 'this is not the file'. I dunno.
The time its taking to get this report to the UCI I would assume is not 'delayed' by anything, probably just the time it takes to construct a report which explains why the conclusion has been reached but without naming all names etc.
The UCI can make a right mess of this. Id prefer it if USADA had said 'well, you can have the report and evidence AFTER the other Arbitrations'. BUT... I don't think the UCI have the need to have the full evidence in the slightest, their job is to adhere to WADA rules and rulings, not to look at them, decide whether they like them, and then decide whether to act. They should have already stripped LA on the USADA verdict/instruction alone. The UCI is up its own ass.0 -
Not sure if this has been posted yet: http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/09/the-gruen-planet-on-lance-armstrong/
A vid with a panel of marketers debating the issue from a different direction.0 -
Yep. The allegations against the UCI in the Hamilton book are persuasive but fall short of compelling. It is the actions and statements of those at the top of the UCI that make the allegations compelling.No tA Doctor wrote:Quick translation of fat Pat for you:
We'll challenge the USADA ruling if it's nasty to us.
They're so keen to continue the witch-hunt they made their ruling before they'd even put their case file together.
If there's any truth and reconciliation process then it's going to be us that runs it, on our terms, so we can manage the information flow and make sure it doesn't go too far. But we probably won't run one anyway, we'll just say WADA won't let us. Or we'll run one that's so watered down it's useless and blame WADA for it.
We'll make sure anyone that opened their mouth about doping remembers why they should have kept it shut, whether it's riders that testified to the USADA or riders mentioned in a forum by their DS.
We're not interested in the case files of any rider that got named in a book, no matter how well researched, unless they also opened their mouths.
We aren't going to look into whether the UCI helped LA get off a positive. Tyler Hamilton isn't credible. We like our credibility.
In short: Business as usual.0 -
Anyone noticed Pat McQ has been using a number for Lance's tests?
It's not 500.
It's not even half of that.
215.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Anyone noticed Pat McQ has been using a number for Lance's tests?
It's not 500.
It's not even half of that.
215.
Now here's a question I want answering. Why are people so hung up on the fact that 500 is not true? I doubt he counted them.
If you asked me how many matches I've played for Cardiff Hockey, I would have a guess, but I wouldn't be confident of getting it right to the nearest 50.
It's just one of those numbers people throw out there. 'I've cycled up that hill hundreds of times' - is that true or is it just 126 times?
Why are people suddenly getting very literal?Twitter: @RichN950 -
I guess it's because Armstrong made such a big deal about it. But the actual number is irrelevant. Especially when you realise just how easy it was to avoid being found positive.RichN95 wrote:iainf72 wrote:Anyone noticed Pat McQ has been using a number for Lance's tests?
It's not 500.
It's not even half of that.
215.
Now here's a question I want answering. Why are people so hung up on the fact that 500 is not true? I doubt he counted them.
If you asked me how many matches I've played for Cardiff Hockey, I would have a guess, but I wouldn't be confident of getting it right to the nearest 50.
It's just one of those numbers people throw out there. 'I've cycled up that hill hundreds of times' - is that true or is it just 126 times?
Why are people suddenly getting very literal?0 -
I think its because it gets reported as if it's true. And his lawyers include it in legal documents.
Plays into that Most Test Athlete horse crap he's so fond of spewing out too.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Well given he did actually use it in his deposition against USADA I think it's probably fairly important. I have no idea whether submitting a deposition with inaccurate figures in it counts as perjury.
It's also useful in debates with people that don't believe LA could possibly lie to them, about anything. Here he is, giving out a number, not an "I dunno, a few hundred?" and he hasn't got it right.
I think he started quoting the 500 when "most tested athlete in history" burnt all it's matches defending Marion Jones.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
RichN95 wrote:iainf72 wrote:Anyone noticed Pat McQ has been using a number for Lance's tests?
It's not 500.
It's not even half of that.
215.
Now here's a question I want answering. Why are people so hung up on the fact that 500 is not true? I doubt he counted them.
If you asked me how many matches I've played for Cardiff Hockey, I would have a guess, but I wouldn't be confident of getting it right to the nearest 50.
It's just one of those numbers people throw out there. 'I've cycled up that hill hundreds of times' - is that true or is it just 126 times?
Why are people suddenly getting very literal?
Mmmm, maybe because Armstrong never qualified his number as guesswork?
As a piece of guesswork, it truly sucks; not even in the ball park.
He has used his crap guesswork for so long as his mantra to counter the doping claims.
He wanted his crap guesswork to be quoted as fact by the press, so that gullible fans would
see his crap guesswork and assume he couldn't possibly have doped as a result.
Now it's all about the truth, not crap guesswork."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Maybe he was including the tests that Bruyneel gave him.0
