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

No_Ta_Doctor

Well he gets this bit right:

"Lance Armstrong has his own agenda and that is certainly his own personal interest, whether it is that he wants his sanctions to be reduced or whether he wants money. Usually, with Lance, there is always an interest in money."

Of course, a man so motivated by money gave you an absolutely huuuuuge donation, Hein. Did you perhaps stop to think about that?

deejay

No tA Doctor wrote:

Of course, a man so motivated by money gave you an absolutely huuuuuge donation, Hein. Did you perhaps stop to think about that?

I keep wondering about when we might hear about "Follow the Money".
Where did it go as we have seen some evidence that money was paid but only hearsay about it's destination. :?:

deejay

I think this is relevant to Armstrewth and I cannot understand it wasn't picked up last night.
(Can't find a Bruyneel thread)
Former US Postal riders testifying at Bruyneel arbitration
By: Daniel Benson Published: December 17, 18:45,

London hearings get underway behind closed doors
Despite a concerted effort from USADA and others involved to keep the arbitration hearing of Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya and Jose “Pepe” Marti under wraps, Cyclingnews understands that the London-based case began on Monday and has seen a number of key witnesses give evidence. All three men are facing lifetime bans as a result of USADA's Reasoned Decision. The London event is set to be fought over jurisdiction rights, since none of the individuals are from the USA.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/former- ... rbitration

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

I keep wondering about when we might hear about "Follow the Money".

You usually hear it after people have watched The Wire.

briantrumpet

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

I keep wondering about when we might hear about "Follow the Money".

You usually hear it after people have watched The Wire.

Most definite.

deejay

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

I keep wondering about when we might hear about "Follow the Money".

You usually hear it after people have watched The Wire.

I had been on that 73 bus a year or so earlier and got off when I saw a bus stop opposite but the delay waiting became uncomfortable in that area.
The "Wire" explained why. :!: Whoops

RichN95.

deejay wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

deejay wrote:

I keep wondering about when we might hear about "Follow the Money".

You usually hear it after people have watched The Wire.

I had been on that 73 bus a year or so earlier and got off when I saw a bus stop opposite but the delay waiting became uncomfortable in that area.
The "Wire" explained why. :!: Whoops

The phrase 'follow the money' comes from The Wire.

Full quote: "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f-ck it's gonna take you".

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

The phrase 'follow the money' comes from The Wire.

Full quote: "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f-ck it's gonna take you".

I thought "follow the money" was from All The President's Men....

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The phrase 'follow the money' comes from The Wire.

Full quote: "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f-ck it's gonna take you".

I thought "follow the money" was from All The President's Men....

Maybe. But I guess more people have watched The Wire recently than ATPM.
People should be quoting Breaking Bad or House of Cards now anyway.

briantrumpet

Someone with more time than me might have fun rewriting the Armstrong saga using just quotes from The Wire with names changed. Every episode had stand-out quotes, many of them strong enough to make you blush. Maybe this quote was known to the folks going for Armstrong:

"You do what you feel. You wanna pull Avon in on half a case, you go ahead. You wanna put my shit in the street, feel free. But the Eastern had a lot of stories - mine ain't the only one. A lot of people came through that district. If you were gonna do me, I'd already be done. But there ain't nothin' you fear more than a bad headline, is there? You'd rather live in shit than let the world see you work a shovel. You can order warrants, and I'll serve 'em. But as long as I have days left on those dead wires, this case goes on."

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The phrase 'follow the money' comes from The Wire.

Full quote: "You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the f-ck it's gonna take you".

I thought "follow the money" was from All The President's Men....

Maybe. But I guess more people have watched The Wire recently than ATPM.
People should be quote Breaking Bad or House of Cards now anyway.

Never watched it.

ETA - Maybe I should get caught up..

Bob Woodward: The story is dry. All we've got are pieces. We can't seem to figure out what the puzzle is supposed to look like. John Mitchell resigns as the head of CREEP, and says that he wants to spend more time with his family. I mean, it sounds like bullshit, we don't exactly believe that...

Deep Throat: No, heh, but it's touching. Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

Bob Woodward: Hunt's come in from the cold. Supposedly he's got a lawyer with $25,000 in a brown paper bag.

Deep Throat: Follow the money.

Bob Woodward: What do you mean? Where?

Deep Throat: Oh, I can't tell you that.

Bob Woodward: But you could tell me that.

Deep Throat: No, I have to do this my way. You tell me what you know, and I'll confirm. I'll keep you in the right direction if I can, but that's all. Just... follow the money

deejay

jerry3571 wrote:

I think I am thinking that Indurain was the first generation where EPO was a being ramped up. Chiappucci too suddenly went from also ran to Tour contender in a very short time when Indurain won his first Tour. I "think" Indurain was in on it big style but alas so many others too. As for the Giro and Vuelta it was said Indurain never did well in cold weather so the Tour was the main objective.

No can't accept that because Indurain made steady progress through his career to win the TDF.
If Indurain was on EPO then Lemond must have been "First generation" also.
Where did either rider go Twiddling away on a mountain climb. ???
Not a very good clip but try this after 4 mins.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAjj5137yKM a year before Mig won TDF.

jerry3571 wrote:

Should we get back to LA?? Think we've digressed.

Why not. I only responded to some Innuendo.

deejay

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I thought "follow the money" was from All The President's Men....

Maybe. But I guess more people have watched The Wire recently than ATPM.
People should be quoting Breaking Bad or House of Cards now anyway.

I thought the wire was on BBC2 about 3 years ago.
It seems I saw it in 2009 and didn't know it was still going. :oops:

frenchfighter

disgruntledgoat

Dylan Casey really made the most of his talents didn't he?

RichN95.

I like it that Tom Boonen was getting paid about the same as I was in 2002.

disgruntledgoat

By contrast Clinger's $15,000 would barely cover his face tattoo budget.

Bo Duke

Just read David Walsh's book '7 Deadly Sins' and can't understand why this thread went past 2 pages. Yes others doped but the specific focus is whether LA doped and his subsequent behavior in trying to avoid exposure and the money he 'made' at the expense of clean riders during notably, 7x TdF years. Guilty as charged, Lance, expect to give every penny back or risk going to jail, its called fraud.

wallace_and_gromit

Bo Duke wrote:

Yes others doped ... money ... 'made' at the expense of clean riders...

All dopers make money at the expense of clean riders though, even if it's just "survival" doping to secure a UCI minimum contract at the expense of someone who has to then get a proper job on civvy street. The fact that he's a kn*bhead and made a shedload more money than other dopers aren't factors that USADA and WADA can take into account, though.

The fraud and witness intimidation aspects are criminal issues and will be dealt with as such, one imagines. USADA used Lance's efforts to conceal detection to justify lifting the Statute of Limitations so they could remove all his TdF titles, though if simply trying to avoid detection justifies lifting the SoL then this could apply to all dopers surely.

Bo Duke

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

if simply trying to avoid detection justifies lifting the SoL then this could apply to all dopers surely.

If it was that easy then why have SoL? It has o be on a case by case basis and LA's actions must be considered suitably serious to warrant it.

The UCI's involvement needs to be addressed as it ran to tacit agreement to cover up doping for many years.

Richmond Racer

Bo Duke wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

if simply trying to avoid detection justifies lifting the SoL then this could apply to all dopers surely.

If it was that easy then why have SoL? It has o be on a case by case basis and LA's actions must be considered suitably serious to warrant it.

The UCI's involvement needs to be addressed as it ran to tacit agreement to cover up doping for many years.

According to an article publuished overnight in the Mail (from the same journo who Emma O'Reilly took with her to meet Lance a few weeks ago)...'a UCI source' has said that the information obtained when Cookson sent in Kroll to nab all the data off the UCI computers in Aigle 'contains potential dynamite'

*cue overblown dramatic music*

I. Cant. Bring. Myself. To. Post. The Link

EDIT: thanks to Andy for pointing out glaring typo

wallace_and_gromit

Bo Duke wrote:

If it was that easy then why have SoL? It has o be on a case by case basis and LA's actions must be considered suitably serious to warrant it.

I think there's an element in Lance's case relating to USADA throwing the book, suspecting that he wouldn't go to court to have any part of his penalty deemed unduly harsh. Lifting the SoL for him and a life rather than 8 year ban might be unduly harsh (I think they are given what is dished out to other dopers, not in an absolute sense) but it would need a court to determine this. From Lance's perspective, going to court and being put under oath were too high a price to pay for keeping his results prior to 2003 (or whenever the SoL would have kicked in.)

Other busted athletes are not so restricted and could go to court if they felt they'd been dealt a rough hand. Indeed, though WADA's ban for a standard first offence is 2-4 years, anything more than 2 years has long been held by the courts to be unduly harsh, which is why the 2 year ban is the standard. (It will be intertesting to see what happens when the WADA minimum changes to 4 years - I assume WADA has taken legal advice that this is no longer likely to be considered unduly harsh. The original cases relating to 2 years vs 4 years were in the early 90s, and views on the seriousness of doping have changed since then, so the original reasoning presumably no longer applies.)

andy_wrx

Emma O'Reilly

You won't post link but admit to reading The Mail online...?

Richmond Racer

andy_wrx wrote:

Emma O'Reilly

You won't post link but admit to reading The Mail online...?

Couldnt. Help. Myself

But am trying to save the rest of you from yourselves

No_Ta_Doctor

Richmond Racer wrote:

andy_wrx wrote:

Emma O'Reilly

You won't post link but admit to reading The Mail online...?

Couldnt. Help. Myself

But am trying to save the rest of you from yourselves

I add The Heil to my blocked sites list, so I can't even accidentally read it online. I'd have to copy paste the link into a different browser.

joelsim

Looking forward to some potential dynamite. The only way it is going to work is an amnesty for riders as the UCI allowed it to happen, it was in the culture and the sheer number of riders doing it meant you couldn't not do it and have a career. Needs to be a total line drawn under everything, and the new 4 year ban brought in for future cases. If everyone is doing something you are gaining no advantage. LA should be treated the same as others. And no I find him abhorrent, I'm no fanboi of his. He didn't start it, but yes I agree he pushed it along nicely.

rayjay

Joelsim wrote:

Looking forward to some potential dynamite. The only way it is going to work is an amnesty for riders as the UCI allowed it to happen, it was in the culture and the sheer number of riders doing it meant you couldn't not do it and have a career. Needs to be a total line drawn under everything, and the new 4 year ban brought in for future cases. If everyone is doing something you are gaining no advantage. LA should be treated the same as others. And no I find him abhorrent, I'm no fanboi of his. He didn't start it, but yes I agree he pushed it along nicely.

Have to disagree. Armstrong only doped because everyone else was doping. He did not push it along anymore than Ulrich Vino etc.

If for instance Armstrong had got an injury in 2001 do you think the other riders would have stopped doping?

It's just the fact that he won 7 tours that he has become the forefront for the anti doping brigade, when in fact Postal's doping regime was almost comical compared to other teams.

We now know that virtually all the riders from Armstong's time doped.

What we need to know is how much doping is still going on and what should be done. Busting some rider from some years ago won't do a thing and quite a few of them are still riding or running teams.

It's impossible to stop doping/PEDs use.

Riders are still doping and there is no way they will own up to doping.

Unless a sure fire way to detect illegal drugs is found then it's pointless.

I Think the nearest way you would get closer to a clean sport is a life ban first time your caught.

Then you have everything to lose.

If you have half a brain you will not get caught and you could ride for years maybe your whole sporting life without getting caught and enjoying the rewards.

Some young athlete who's in his mid twenty's getting results, earning some nice rewards then gets busted banned for 2 years and starts racing again. Was it worth the risk ? ask him while he parks is Ferrari outside his house and gets ready for a new season of racing , He/she maybe even spent the banned years doping and taking PED's and comes back into racing even stronger.

littledove44

rayjay wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Looking forward to some potential dynamite. The only way it is going to work is an amnesty for riders as the UCI allowed it to happen, it was in the culture and the sheer number of riders doing it meant you couldn't not do it and have a career. Needs to be a total line drawn under everything, and the new 4 year ban brought in for future cases. If everyone is doing something you are gaining no advantage. LA should be treated the same as others. And no I find him abhorrent, I'm no fanboi of his. He didn't start it, but yes I agree he pushed it along nicely.

Have to disagree. Armstrong only doped because everyone else was doping. He did not push it along anymore than Ulrich Vino etc.

If for instance Armstrong had got an injury in 2001 do you think the other riders would have stopped doping?

It's just the fact that he won 7 tours that he has become the forefront for the anti doping brigade, when in fact Postal's doping regime was almost comical compared to other teams.

We now know that virtually all the riders from Armstong's time doped.

What we need to know is how much doping is still going on and what should be done. Busting some rider from some years ago won't do a thing and quite a few of them are still riding or running teams.

It's impossible to stop doping/PEDs use.

Riders are still doping and there is no way they will own up to doping.

Unless a sure fire way to detect illegal drugs is found then it's pointless.

I Think the nearest way you would get closer to a clean sport is a life ban first time your caught.

Then you have everything to lose.

If you have half a brain you will not get caught and you could ride for years maybe your whole sporting life without getting caught and enjoying the rewards.

Some young athlete who's in his mid twenty's getting results, earning some nice rewards then gets busted banned for 2 years and starts racing again. Was it worth the risk ? ask him while he parks is Ferrari outside his house and gets ready for a new season of racing , He/she maybe even spent the banned years doping and taking PED's and comes back into racing even stronger.

What he said.

mididoctors

RichN95 wrote:

I like it that Tom Boonen was getting paid about the same as I was in 2002.

I made more than that one year as a cycle courier

joelsim

That's exactly what I'm saying. An amnesty for past offences and a total own-up and start again. Get to the root of the problem.

I also agree that doping will always happen, but it needs to be minimised as much as possible.

In my view current testing procedures can be got around very easily indeed, which is why my view is that doping is still rife, albeit at a much lower level and effectiveness that it was 10 years ago.

I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.