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

ddraver

sherer wrote:

I know a lot of these cases are now kicked off by the police for being doping offenses, which are now crimes, but how come the big sports never get looked at by the police ?

I was reading "The Secret Footballer" last night (a good read if you have a passing interest in the game) and he criticized the press investigations into football that never get close to the reality of the Professional Game and often focus on 1 or 2 bad agents. He also said that the BBC Panorama program into drugs was an investigation into a "non-issue"

Now clearly he is not the most reliable person to believe, but then he is someone who exists to blow the whistle on this sort of thing in football...

Tom Butcher

Plenty of cyclists have been telling us for years that doping is a small minority - so who knows what the truth is in football.

rob churchill

Tom Butcher wrote:

Plenty of cyclists have been telling us for years that doping is a small minority - so who knows what the truth is in football.

Well on the one hand, the rewards for getting anywhere near the top level in football are immense, so there's definitely incentive for young players to do whatever it takes to maximise their chances of getting a contract.

On the other hand: cycling, rowing, running etc are all sports that push the limits of human physiology to breaking point. There must be many athletes who find that they've gone as far as their bodies will go, and they're still not quite good enough - and then the temptation to use illicit means of performance enhancement ramps up. Now, when I look at pictures of some lardy premiership footballer like Shrek rolling out of a nightclub at 3 in the morning with a fag hanging out of the corner of his mouth, I don't find myself thinking; 'can such a peak of physical perfection truly have been achieved by legitimate means alone?'

sherer

we all know Puerto was linked to football and some of the doctors have also worked for football clubs. If doping cna give you an advantage then it will be used, plus with the extra money they may even know of some drugs that aren't used in cycling yet.

Juventus had a doping scandal in the 90s. Zidane has doped and we was one of the worlds best and Pep Guiardiolo used EPO during his career so it is out there.

nathancom

sherer wrote:

we all know Puerto was linked to football and some of the doctors have also worked for football clubs. If doping cna give you an advantage then it will be used, plus with the extra money they may even know of some drugs that aren't used in cycling yet.

Juventus had a doping scandal in the 90s. Zidane has doped and we was one of the worlds best and Pep Guiardiolo used EPO during his career so it is out there.

Is there good evidence of that at all, would be interested to read it, something beyond the possible De Moral links.

However, as said above, since football is a true team sport where the best express themselves as much through technique as athleticism, the impact of drugs is less profound than in other sports. I could well imagine testosterone patches used for recovery etc. but there is a lack of noise about drugs in football generally. You would expect there to be more if it was a widespread problem.

They should increase the bans for positive tests, 2 years hardly impinges on a sporting career. The risk to reward ratio for doping is far too heavily balanced towards reward currently.

It is also great when you see clean athletes actively protest against drugs cheats, like when Paula Radcliffe sat holding that banner against the Russian athlete. Athletes should take responsibility for the culture of their sports.

ddraver

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13114 ... sport.aspx

Liggett comes around...Blimey!

sherer

See these links, seems Juve got away with it as EPO etc wasn't on the WADA banned list for football at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 045525.stm

Linked in this section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _Lippi_era

http://www.goal.com/en/news/723/serie-a ... tus-doping

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... 4&cc=5739#

http://www.soccer24-7.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100004

Also spot the link between the below phrases

"I'm the most tested athlete in history and have passed over 500 drug tests"

"I've never failed a drug test"

"Football is a team sport and doping won't help"

bipedal

More details on the TdS and DL suspiscious tests:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13115 ... -2002.aspx

This part is bad for the UCI, how can they possibly justify asking for details of the test protocol on behalf of suspiscious riders???:

However the lab chief did reveal it was not the only suspicious test Armstrong gave. According to Saugy, the International Cycling Union told him about another test result in 2002.

“Armstrong had another suspect result during the 2002 Dauphine Libere. The politics of the UCI at that time, if there was such a result involving an important competitor, was to meet them and ask for an explanation,” claimed Saugy.

“That was their approach to prevention. The UCI said to me at the end of June 2002: 'we warned the rider for whom you had a suspect result in 2001, he gave another suspect return at another lab and he would like to know by which method it was tested'.

“The rider was Armstrong. It was then that I learned about it.”

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13115 ... z29vljD6ld

ddraver

I think there is some confusion here. Are nt there 3 dodgy tests?

*one for cortisone for which the postdated prescription was produced.
*one sample examined as part of the development of the test for EPO.
*A positive sample for EPO at the Tour de Suisse - which is the one that implicates the UCI as they must have covered it up.

Am I right....?

iainf72

ddraver wrote:

I think there is some confusion here. Are nt there 3 dodgy tests?

*one for cortisone for which the postdated prescription was produced.
*one sample examined as part of the development of the test for EPO.
*A positive sample for EPO at the Tour de Suisse - which is the one that implicates the UCI as they must have covered it up.

Am I right....?

Nearly. The TdS one was not positive. It was suspicious but didn't meet the threshold to be considered positive

bipedal

ddraver wrote:

I think there is some confusion here. Are nt there 3 dodgy tests?

*one for cortisone for which the postdated prescription was produced.
*one sample examined as part of the development of the test for EPO.
*A positive sample for EPO at the Tour de Suisse - which is the one that implicates the UCI as they must have covered it up.

Am I right....?

I think it's:

1x cortisone 1999 post-dated TUE
1x epo at Tour 1999 revealed by l'equipe
1x suspiscious for epo tour de suisse 2001
1x suspiscious for epo dauphine 2002

skylla

bipedal wrote:

ddraver wrote:

I think there is some confusion here. Are nt there 3 dodgy tests?

*one for cortisone for which the postdated prescription was produced.
*one sample examined as part of the development of the test for EPO.
*A positive sample for EPO at the Tour de Suisse - which is the one that implicates the UCI as they must have covered it up.

Am I right....?

I think it's:

1x cortisone 1999 post-dated TUE
1x epo at Tour 1999 revealed by l'equipe
1x suspiscious for epo tour de suisse 2001
1x suspiscious for epo dauphine 2002

Yes, the l'equipe samples where multiples as well, all taken during the tour (allegedly!). On top of this there's the suspicious blood values as well - from the comeback years (?) uncovered by USADA

sherer

According to Saugy the will ask you about it if you are important !! Surely all riders should be treated the same regardless of who they are.

Can't several suspicious add up to a non-analytical positive ?

Mikey23

Hmmm... Obviously I'm not important enough cos no one has spoken to me about the dodgy fig roll ....

thegibdog

sherer wrote:

"Football is a team sport and doping won't help"

Ha!

I've no idea about doping in football but it's plain to see that the pace of the game has increased a lot in recent years. The best teams seem to be the ones doing all the running, playing pass and move and pressing a lot when they don't have the ball.

Similarly in tennis players these days seem do a lot more running, are more powerful and matches last longer.

Richmond Racer

Mikey23 wrote:

Hmmm... Obviously I'm not important enough cos no one has spoken to me about the dodgy fig roll ....

Did you have a TUE for that?

mfin

bipedal wrote:

1x epo at Tour 1999 revealed by l'equipe

Thats 6 x epo at Tour 1999 revealed by l'equipe

13 urine samples positive in the testing, 6 of which were exposed as Armstrong's

Mikey23

Not my fault the fig roll was contaminated now, is it?

tarzan13

Any predictions for tomorrow? Here is mine:
- UCI to agree with USADA (else more questions will be raised)
- Hein to step down to save face UCI

I lost trust in UCI ages ago and suspect them of cover up. Although I would regret it, kicking cycling out of Olympics might be best option at this stage.

iainf72

tarzan13 wrote:

I lost trust in UCI ages ago and suspect them of cover up. Although I would regret it, kicking cycling out of Olympics might be best option at this stage.

I think being kicked out of the olympics would be a big deal for sports where the olympics is the biggest event.

But it's not for cycling on the road. By a very long way.

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

tarzan13 wrote:

I lost trust in UCI ages ago and suspect them of cover up. Although I would regret it, kicking cycling out of Olympics might be best option at this stage.

I think being kicked out of the olympics would be a big deal for sports where the olympics is the biggest event.

But it's not for cycling on the road. By a very long way.

Would cycling leave WADA if they got kicked out?

sherer

Mikey23 wrote:

Not my fault the fig roll was contaminated now, is it?

Strict liability rule i'm afraid. it's up to you to watch what you eat. next you'll be saying a friend brought it for you at a butchers in Spain

Richmond Racer

sherer wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

Not my fault the fig roll was contaminated now, is it?

Strict liability rule i'm afraid. it's up to you to watch what you eat. next you'll be saying a friend brought it for you at a butchers in Spain

That would be pig roll

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

tarzan13 wrote:

I lost trust in UCI ages ago and suspect them of cover up. Although I would regret it, kicking cycling out of Olympics might be best option at this stage.

I think being kicked out of the olympics would be a big deal for sports where the olympics is the biggest event.

But it's not for cycling on the road. By a very long way.

True but they wouldnt differentiate between road and track as both are governed by the UCI. Hell, even the paracycling is under them.

It would be a MASSIVE thing for the sport, absolutely huge. And actually Thompson's interview is fairly reasonable - he's aiming it totally at the UCI, rather than just a rant about dirty cheating cyclists.

ddraver

Richmond Racer wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

tarzan13 wrote:

I lost trust in UCI ages ago and suspect them of cover up. Although I would regret it, kicking cycling out of Olympics might be best option at this stage.

I think being kicked out of the olympics would be a big deal for sports where the olympics is the biggest event.

But it's not for cycling on the road. By a very long way.

True but they wouldnt differentiate between road and track as both are governed by the UCI. Hell, even the paracycling is under them.

It would be a MASSIVE thing for the sport, absolutely huge. And actually Thompson's interview is fairly reasonable - he's aiming it totally at the UCI, rather than just a rant about dirty cheating cyclists.

I think it would be big enough that even Pat and Hein or even the Russians (why do we suspect they re so bad anyway? Is it just general anti russian sentiment?) could nt just batten down the hatches and pretend it isnt happening

Lichtblick

I've just found this somewhat muddled piece about last night's gala in Austin, Texas.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

Critiques: whoever it is in that picture captioned Guests Arrive: Robin Williams and Norah Jones were among the guests who......., that is NOT Robin Williams.

"The silent auction included two Trek bicycles valued up to $12,000 - Trek was one of the companies that dropped Armstrong as a sponsor on Wednesday - and seven autographed yellow jerseys Armstrong wore on the podium during his Tour de France victories..."

But they do not tell us how much this auction raised

Gerry Goldstein, a criminal defense attorney and friend of Armstrong for several years, criticized USADA's investigation and sanctions of Armstrong. Drug testers never caught Armstrong when he was competing, Goldstein said.

Goldstein should read around more.

Kansas City Royals pitcher Jeremy Guthrie, who donated a pair of cleats to the silent auction, said he wants to continue supporting Livestrong.

WHO?

'Obviously, some things have a left a little scar, but people think it's still important to come out and support Livestrong,' Guthrie said.

A LITTLE SCAR? A what scar? A Little What? :shock: :shock: :shock:

'We're proud of our history and we're excited to celebrate. We've heard from so many grass-roots supporters, program partners, corporate partners and a lot of them are doubling down, saying they are going to come back even stronger in 2013,' Ulman said.


Yeah, right. OK. :roll:

Gazzetta67

Not holding my breath about the UCI's response tomo - They are shyteing it from Armstrong as he will see it as "If am going down then am taking Hein & Pat with me" . It will prob end up a whitewash and we will all be back to square one with the smug texan holding the moral high ground - well to him anyway.

LangerDan

Richmond Racer wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

tarzan13 wrote:

I lost trust in UCI ages ago and suspect them of cover up. Although I would regret it, kicking cycling out of Olympics might be best option at this stage.

I think being kicked out of the olympics would be a big deal for sports where the olympics is the biggest event.

But it's not for cycling on the road. By a very long way.

True but they wouldnt differentiate between road and track as both are governed by the UCI. Hell, even the paracycling is under them.

It would be a MASSIVE thing for the sport, absolutely huge. And actually Thompson's interview is fairly reasonable - he's aiming it totally at the UCI, rather than just a rant about dirty cheating cyclists.

Apart from the fact he's interviewed for the Daily Heil, what exactly is Thompsons relevance to the situation?

Its about as germane as Alexi Grewal criticising the IAAF.

mfin

LangerDan wrote:

Apart from the fact he's interviewed for the Daily Heil, what exactly is Thompsons relevance to the situation?

Well, he is one of the most incredible olympians of his generation. He dominated his sport just as LA supposedly dominated his, more sportsmen and women should speak out like this.

mfin

Anyone got an idea of what likely time tomorrow the UCI will announce anything??