Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
The UCI were pretty clear that the testing of LA was done externally and he did indeed never fail. It does mention the cortisoid incident. It may be LA was just showing off about how big he was...0
-
LangerDan wrote:fidbod wrote:samiam wrote:frenchfighter wrote:I wish they would ask the UCI about paras 102-108 in Tyler's affidavit:
http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Ha ... idavit.pdf
Jeeeeesus. How did I miss this? Utterly insane.
Read it but didn't really process it the first time I went through the docs.
Something I rather suspect we will never get an answer to - unless Lance has a damascene conversion to the truth.
I think there's a danger of reading too much into this
1) "Tyler said that Floyd said that Lance said..." isn't really anything you could reliably hang someone with.
2) If LA was that powerful, surely he'd have got Hamilton done for doping rather than just a "blood looks odd, we're watching you, sonny"
3) Hamilton by his own admission was in his new squad, prepping for a shot at the TdF title. Its not as if his blood profile wouldn't be all over the place.
It may just be coincidence.
A lot of the evidence in this case has been dismissed as "hearsay", but isn't as it is direct testimony. However, the stuff referred to above is "hearsay", as in "I heard Landis say that Lance said..." This would not be strong enough even in an arbitration hearing.0 -
mfin wrote:
Yes I saw those quotes on Cyclingnews. If Pat was a credible candidate for president of an international sporting governing body with any integrity and professionalism whatsoever he shouldn't be making comments like that at all. Clearly Landis and Hamilton have him rattled but he just comes across as though his mental age when it comes to forming a coherent argument is still in the playground. I can almost hear him saying he doesn't like them because they smell of wee.
I mean this: "They are not heroes, they are scumbags. All they have done is damage the sport."
You have to admire the man's chutzpah, or is it idiocy?
This: "He eventually lost that, he lost his money and unfortunately he lost his marriage I think as well."
Say what you like about Hamilton but that is really petty and ultimately irrelevant.
And this: "Then he writes a book and again, what's he trying to do? Make money on it. The book comes out just two weeks before the USADA report comes out and he's on the trail now giving interviews and making money. What good is that guy doing the sport?"
Well a) Pat doesn't understand how publishing works and b) the 'what good is that guy doing the sport?' shows a massive inability to read a situation, the public's mood and such a stunning lack of self-awareness that the words pot and kettle don't even cover it. As I said you can think what you like about Hamilton and what he did in the past but his book, IMO, is not damaging the sport, it is 'lancing' a wound (sorry) and yes it hurts for now but it can only be good in the long-term. In actuality what Hamilton's book does is damage Pat and Hein. So either Pat is clearly a moron with a lack of self-awareness the size of Texas or he thinks he, like Lance, is cycling.
And finally: "He’s on a personal mission to make money for himself."
Well what is 'Global Cycling Promotion' Pat?
But on a positive note good to see Sammy Dumoulin call out the UCI's conflict of interest.Correlation is not causation.0 -
How do you erase a rider from the record books? The UCI are not the only people that provide lists of results for races. There are probably thousands of race results posted on both official and personal sites that will always have Armstrong as the winner of these tours. The name of Armstrong cannot be erased from the web either. It will always be there. How can you even replace LA with "no winner", there was a winner, regardless of the circumstances. How can you erase anyone or anything from history, unfortunately what's done is done. No easy answer I know.0
-
How hard is it for people to understand that, if someone wins any sporting event and is then disqualified, they didn't win? It's hardly the first time it's happened. It may be highly unusual to be disqualified from so many races at once, or after such a long time, but that doesn't change the principle.davecooper wrote:How do you erase a rider from the record books? The UCI are not the only people that provide lists of results for races. There are probably thousands of race results posted on both official and personal sites that will always have Armstrong as the winner of these tours. The name of Armstrong cannot be erased from the web either. It will always be there. How can you even replace LA with "no winner", there was a winner, regardless of the circumstances. How can you erase anyone or anything from history, unfortunately what's done is done. No easy answer I know.
Lance Armstrong is not the winner of the 1999-2005 TdF, and, judging by the twitter biog, even he recognises it!0 -
Does anyone else here think Kimmage is going to struggle to win that libel case? We may think the UCI are complicit and corrupt, but to win his case he will have to prove it - and I'm not sure that Landis's statement of what Lancey said to him re the 01 test, would be enough anyway.
There's this out there the Swiss lab director last year:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/sw ... story.html
So we now know that his test results were 'suspicious' - but that's a very different thing from a positive.0 -
davecooper wrote:How do you erase a rider from the record books? The UCI are not the only people that provide lists of results for races. There are probably thousands of race results posted on both official and personal sites that will always have Armstrong as the winner of these tours. The name of Armstrong cannot be erased from the web either. It will always be there. How can you even replace LA with "no winner", there was a winner, regardless of the circumstances. How can you erase anyone or anything from history, unfortunately what's done is done. No easy answer I know.
No one is trying to erase 'him' from the history books. In fact that would be a dangerous thing to do because then we might forget that period of the sport and we risk making those mistakes again. Instead what is being done is a form of historical revisionism where events that were thought to be 'known' are placed under scrutiny and with new knowledge understood differently. It is like the Hillsborough inquiry for want of a better example, yes what is done is done but to understand why and how it was done is a process only just beginning.
And what bompington said.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Interesting point that the ASO TDF history for 2010 shows Andy Schleck as the winner but they show the 1996 winner as Bjarne Riis and 2006 the winner as Oscar Pereiro with Landis being "declasse."davecooper wrote:The name of Armstrong cannot be erased from the web either. It will always be there. How can you even replace LA with "no winner", there was a winner, regardless of the circumstances. How can you erase anyone or anything from history, unfortunately what's done is done. No easy answer I know.
They must be working hard for a solution but where ever you go the Video's, DVD's and photo's will always show the Cheats as the winners. :roll:Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
deejay wrote:
Interesting point that the ASO TDF history for 2010 shows Andy Schleck as the winner but they show the 1996 winner as Bjarne Riis and 2006 the winner as Oscar Pereiro with Landis being "declasse."davecooper wrote:The name of Armstrong cannot be erased from the web either. It will always be there. How can you even replace LA with "no winner", there was a winner, regardless of the circumstances. How can you erase anyone or anything from history, unfortunately what's done is done. No easy answer I know.
They must be working hard for a solution but where ever you go the Video's, DVD's and photo's will always show the Cheats as the winners. :roll:
Scumbag slimeball Riis coughed up after SOL time limit had run out which is why he keeps his ill-gotten title0 -
I dont think LA should be stripped of his titles any more than you can go back in history and take titles from any other rider and there are plenty of them, what about the team competitions?
LA didnt do any of this on his own, riders, team docs, sponsors and the uci all are complicit in his guilt - until or unless the UCi are replaced with a credible new organisation, then LA should keep his titles as a reminder to the "authorities" that this sort of thing should never happen again.0 -
jonomc4 wrote:not sure if this has been posted before but graphic of who won the TDF clean recently.
The Blazing Saddles blog (http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/really-won-tours-lance-153516263.html) proposed alternative winners of the Pharmstrong tours based on the writer's view of who might reasonably be assumed to have doped. The winners and their official positions were:
1999, 2000 Daniele Nardello (7th, 10th) - and also likely the highest clean finisher (7th) in the '98 Tour won by Il Pirata
2001 Andrei Kivilev (4th)
2002, 2004 Carlos Sastre (10th, 7th)
2003 Haimar Zubeldia (5th)
2005 Cadel Evans (8th)
What a sad state of affairs.0 -
Not sure it's been posted but rider 19 (?) Steffen Kjaergaard has confessed.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:Not sure it's been posted but rider 19 (?) Steffen Kjaergaard has confessed.
Norwegian Cycling Federation must be pleased about that... :?0 -
Above The Cows wrote:mfin wrote:
Yes I saw those quotes on Cyclingnews. If Pat was a credible candidate for president of an international sporting governing body with any integrity and professionalism whatsoever he shouldn't be making comments like that at all. Clearly Landis and Hamilton have him rattled but he just comes across as though his mental age when it comes to forming a coherent argument is still in the playground. I can almost hear him saying he doesn't like them because they smell of wee.
I mean this: "They are not heroes, they are scumbags. All they have done is damage the sport."
You have to admire the man's chutzpah, or is it idiocy?
This: "He eventually lost that, he lost his money and unfortunately he lost his marriage I think as well."
Say what you like about Hamilton but that is really petty and ultimately irrelevant.
And this: "Then he writes a book and again, what's he trying to do? Make money on it. The book comes out just two weeks before the USADA report comes out and he's on the trail now giving interviews and making money. What good is that guy doing the sport?"
Well a) Pat doesn't understand how publishing works and b) the 'what good is that guy doing the sport?' shows a massive inability to read a situation, the public's mood and such a stunning lack of self-awareness that the words pot and kettle don't even cover it. As I said you can think what you like about Hamilton and what he did in the past but his book, IMO, is not damaging the sport, it is 'lancing' a wound (sorry) and yes it hurts for now but it can only be good in the long-term. In actuality what Hamilton's book does is damage Pat and Hein. So either Pat is clearly a moron with a lack of self-awareness the size of Texas or he thinks he, like Lance, is cycling.
And finally: "He’s on a personal mission to make money for himself."
Well what is 'Global Cycling Promotion' Pat?
But on a positive note good to see Sammy Dumoulin call out the UCI's conflict of interest.
That is a great post.
Pat is an idiot, and he's making comments based on his emotions and stating them as fact. Casual observers get to do that but he is answerable for his comments, well, he should be, and it is incredible to me that someone so unprofessional is effectively head of any sport. He has a responsibility to cycling and cycling is its fans and its competitors, he shows skewed and questionable responsibility towards those parties time and time again.
He should keep his opinions to himself and deal with the facts. That's what anyone professional with integrity would do in his position.
Can anyone imagine the scale of heckling he would have got on appearing at the Worlds and the Olympics ceremonies if they were about to happen now and weren't a few weeks ago, particularly at the Worlds, being rammed with cycling fans.
What he doesn't seem to realise is that through his actions and words Im pretty sure he's lost all respect from any well-read cycling fan, and what he should be doing is looking at those words and actions and starting to do something about them, if he did, we'd begin to think better of him.0 -
mfin wrote:
That is a great post.
Pat is an idiot, and he's making comments based on his emotions and stating them as fact. Casual observers get to do that but he is answerable for his comments, well, he should be, and it is incredible to me that someone so unprofessional is effectively head of any sport. He has a responsibility to cycling and cycling is its fans and its competitors, he shows skewed and questionable responsibility towards those parties time and time again.
He should keep his opinions to himself and deal with the facts. That's what anyone professional with integrity would do in his position.
Can anyone imagine the scale of heckling he would have got on appearing at the Worlds and the Olympics ceremonies if they were about to happen now and weren't a few weeks ago, particularly at the Worlds, being rammed with cycling fans.
What he doesn't seem to realise is that through his actions and words Im pretty sure he's lost all respect from any well-read cycling fan, and what he should be doing is looking at those words and actions and starting to do something about them, if he did, we'd begin to think better of him.
The thing that makes me so angry is that he is effectively saying that breaking omertà is bad for the sport. And Pat also has the nerve or is it stupidity to say "Landis started it." No Pat this is much bigger than Landis and Landis didn't start it. Landis blew the whistle on a period in cycling that started with the rise of EPO and whether you like that or not it existed under your watch. You can't blame it all on Floyd, Tyler or even Hein.
Anyway have a listen to this: http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A3420764%3A0%3A%3A I can't summarise it all now as I really should be doing some work but it is hilarious
shocking :shock: and sad 
in equal measure. All I can say is someone really needs to take the spade off Pat soon as he just keeps digging. Correlation is not causation.0 -
mamba80 wrote:I dont think LA should be stripped of his titles any more than you can go back in history and take titles from any other rider and there are plenty of them, what about the team competitions?
LA didnt do any of this on his own, riders, team docs, sponsors and the uci all are complicit in his guilt - until or unless the UCi are replaced with a credible new organisation, then LA should keep his titles as a reminder to the "authorities" that this sort of thing should never happen again.
Excuse me while I add the word 'fatuous' to my sig.I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rte ... %3A0%3A%3A
At about 26 mins into this McQuaid says that Lance did not test positive for cortisone at the 1999 TdF :? He says there was 'no positive test'.
Ummm if he didn't test positive then why was there a back-dated prescription at all? McQuaid is now actually changing events. What was up for debate previously was whether the positive for cortisone was the result of illegal use or a medically sanctioned cream. McQuaid now claims that there was no positive at all. :shock:
And I really must get some work done. Damn you Pat.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Above The Cows wrote:http://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9:3420764:0::
At about 26 mins into this McQuaid says that Lance did not test positive for cortisone at the 1999 TdF :? He says there was 'no positive test'.
Ummm if he didn't test positive then why was there a back-dated prescription at all? McQuaid is now actually changing events. What was up for debate previously was whether the positive for cortisone was the result of illegal use or a medically sanctioned cream. McQuaid now claims that there was no positive at all. :shock:
And I really must get some work done. Damn you Pat.
He's not changing events. As I remember it, and looking up the original story, there was a small amount but it did not meet the positive threshold. And not slightly under, a long way under.
Why they did a TUE is probably down to media managementFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
But what they DID have is numerous tests which did show things up, and still they were saying he didn't dope, not 'we had quite a few tests pointing to suspicious behavior but instead of acknowledging the suspicions we denied he was doping and we didn't listen to anything much else or really investigate the bloke properly, whereas USADA have done a brilliant job'.0
-
iainf72 wrote:He's not changing events. As I remember it, and looking up the original story, there was a small amount but it did not meet the positive threshold. And not slightly under, a long way under.
Why they did a TUE is probably down to media management
I read somewhere recently that cortisone was one of the things that was known about and ignored - most teams used it and they would get TUEs for the main riders so they could use it with impunity. They wouldn't get one for every rider as that would be suspect and investigated but as long as they didn't go over the top a blind eye was turned.I'm left handed, if that matters.0 -
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/indurain-on-armstrong-i-believe-in-his-innocence_262338
Oh Miguel...."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
0
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:
Jesus F*cking wept, what have they been feeding these morons?0 -
Be fair, Mig was never noted for being the brightest"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:
Well, what exactly were you expecting? Miguel gets whole glasshouse / stone-throwing conundrum. If he publicly accepts that tests were flawed and influence could be paid for, he's on the slippery slope himself.
Even the Badger's response has been more along the lines of "Fcuk him - its his own problem" rather than condemnation.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:
Jesus F*cking wept, what have they been feeding these morons?
The Spanish sure are coming out in support of Armstrong arent they :roll:
The Badger - I wont hear a word against
0 -
LangerDan wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:
Well, what exactly were you expecting? Miguel gets whole glasshouse / stone-throwing conundrum. If he publicly accepts that tests were flawed and influence could be paid for, he's on the slippery slope himself.
Even the Badger's response has been more along the lines of "Fcuk him - its his own problem" rather than condemnation.
I loved Hinault's response, beautiful."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
I have this vision of the Badger as UCI President...its a wonderfully surreal and somewhat physically violent vision...0
-
Seriously these riders should read the documents before opening their mouth. If they have read evena fraction and still hold these views then I am happy they made a living out of cycling as with brains like that they wont be able to support themselves in the real world or work.Contador is the Greatest0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:
Jesus F*cking wept, what have they been feeding these morons?
The Spanish sure are coming out in support of Armstrong arent they :roll:
The Badger - I wont hear a word against
Amazing analysis of the case from Injurebrain :roll:
What's Hinault said??0
