Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Also posted this in the Sky thread
last nights R5 follow up to last week's Peddlars - the Dirty Truth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _25_10_12/0 -
Boardman making a lot of sense as always.Richmond Racer wrote:
Banning teams for rider infractions is a superb idea.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:and for any idiots who say 'hell, let them all just dope'...this should be compulsory reading
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39997062/
Read the comments!0 -
Daz555 wrote:
Boardman making a lot of sense as always.Richmond Racer wrote:
Banning teams for rider infractions is a superb idea.
Hasn't that been done before? Wiggins was part of the Cofidis team that was "withdrawn" from the Tour in 2007 because of Cristian Moreni positive test.0 -
If you banned teams for rider infractions, doesn't that suggest teams should take doping internal and get the best doctors. The risk is increased if riders DIY, so better to put a programme in place ala USPS or ONCE.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
there is that risk but it comes down to the testing - if riders know when its coming / likely they can prepare if its totally random then there's the risks. And if you risk losing your sponsor for the sake of one rider you're going to be damn surenone of your team are dirty. It may even lead to more stringent team selections, are you going to want someone on your team that could effectively get you sacked??
But at the end of the day its all pie in the sky as if the guys in charge are ignoring test results or data (ala ashendon's claims), covering up positives (ala LA) or just generally burying their heads in the sand its all pointless..
As someone pointed out (possibly on here) how is it that what appears to be half the cycling population knew USPS was dirty but the people in charge had no clue?dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
The risk to the livelihood of the team would be huge. It would definitely deter most of them from directly doping and consequently increase the pressure on the riders not to dope. Sure it probably wouldn't have been enough to stop USPS but then UCI is complicit in that scandal even according to the most generous reading of its actions.iainf72 wrote:If you banned teams for rider infractions, doesn't that suggest teams should take doping internal and get the best doctors. The risk is increased if riders DIY, so better to put a programme in place ala USPS or ONCE.
Chris Boardman was obviously reading the UCI recommendations thread on this forum...0 -
all good stuff from Chris Boardman but if sponsors pull out innocent people lose their jobs. Tough some idealists might say but those people often have families to support and whilst there are several different routes to employment there are rights that cannot be ignored.
If someone was providing services via a third party business they would be daft to sign a contract that says it can be thrown away in the event something totally out of their control happens.
Even if people were prepared and desperate enough to work under those conditions, it doesnt provide a realistic base for stability either for the Sponsors or the teams to invest and commit properly which in itself would have negative connotations for the sport.
There doesn't seem to be a silver bullet, but one thing is for sure, there is no credible leadership, an awful lot of politics, huge egos, staggering incompetence and a big problem that needs to be worked through. Its potentially a poison chalice for whoever takes it on.
Good luck :shock:0 -
Nick Fitt wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Nick Fitt wrote:I think this is going to get silly now. Come on Sean, lets hear it? Everyone knows it or are you the only one who has no knowledge and never did the big D even after reportedly failing a test?
Alright, alright. I'm sure there'll be enough P45s flying around to keep you happy
Thats my point, its going to get silly... Sky is known as a clean team, if it starts to sack all of its experienced staff, and most of the other retired cycklists probably have touched the dark side to a greater or lesser degree than current youngsters, who is going to DS at Sky? Surely they have not thought this through. If Sean Yates goes, which he must, name his replacement?
If he does not go, Sky are as bad as all the rest. Its silly.
Well given Boardman's comments, the fact that Sky have lost the man who was creditted with developing the TT riding at the team and Boardman's enthusiasm and knowledge of the technical side of the sport I'm surprised he has never been given a role on the team. Has he had a difference of opinion with the people at BC in the past? It was really the Boardman / Keen period that helped bring about the rise in British cycling in the first place.0 -
Pross wrote:Well given Boardman's comments, the fact that Sky have lost the man who was creditted with developing the TT riding at the team and Boardman's enthusiasm and knowledge of the technical side of the sport I'm surprised he has never been given a role on the team. Has he had a difference of opinion with the people at BC in the past? It was really the Boardman / Keen period that helped bring about the rise in British cycling in the first place.
Hasn't he said before that he has been trying to pull out of these types of roles for a while (years)?Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
Coach H wrote:Pross wrote:Well given Boardman's comments, the fact that Sky have lost the man who was creditted with developing the TT riding at the team and Boardman's enthusiasm and knowledge of the technical side of the sport I'm surprised he has never been given a role on the team. Has he had a difference of opinion with the people at BC in the past? It was really the Boardman / Keen period that helped bring about the rise in British cycling in the first place.
Hasn't he said before that he has been trying to pull out of these types of roles for a while (years)?Coach H wrote:Pross wrote:Well given Boardman's comments, the fact that Sky have lost the man who was creditted with developing the TT riding at the team and Boardman's enthusiasm and knowledge of the technical side of the sport I'm surprised he has never been given a role on the team. Has he had a difference of opinion with the people at BC in the past? It was really the Boardman / Keen period that helped bring about the rise in British cycling in the first place.
Hasn't he said before that he has been trying to pull out of these types of roles for a while (years)?
Yeah - he just wanted to see the GB team through to the London Olys, and then stepped down as the Head of the Secret Squirrel club. No issue of falling out - just felt that he'd done his bit, wanted to do more meeja commentary, and be able to watch a race without stressing about issues with equipment etc. Given that he's been taking a more vocal role in issues such as safer roads for cyclists etc, wouldnt be a surprise if he also wanted to free up more time to do that type of lobbying, especially with the platform his profile gives it.0 -
Contador is the Greatest0
-
HEADLINE
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-man ... ongs-tours
UCI WILL ESTABLISH AN EXTERNAL COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THEIR ROLE IN THE ARMSTRONG AFFAIR
Bu**er me, but it looks like all this shouting may have achieved something!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
and suspend the kimmage case..dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
Are the UCI finally doing something positive? At first glance it appears so. I guess they've finally decided that this won't go away if they just stay with their heads in the sand.FCN3: Titanium Qoroz.0
-
An independent investigation is a start but is meaningless if they fail to act on the recommendations. If the investigation concludes that HV and possibly PM were complicit in protecting Armstrong and should go would the pair just walk away?0
-
I've been waiting all afternoon for this (yes I do have a job.......) and how low-key the response here!
Unless I've missed it, no-one has commented on "...UCI management committee will not reallocate Armstrong's Tours"
GOOD!
So.........what about the money? Wasn't that discussed at this meeting? Repayment of prize monies? :?:0 -
Lichtblick wrote:I've been waiting all afternoon for this (yes I do have a job.......) and how low-key the response here!
Unless I've missed it, no-one has commented on "...UCI management committee will not reallocate Armstrong's Tours"
GOOD!
So.........what about the money? Wasn't that discussed at this meeting? Repayment of prize monies? :?:
They want the prize money to be returned - and not just from Lancey, but all the other miscreants0 -
''all affected riders'' does that mean Ulrich and co too or just those mentioned in the USADA report I wonder??dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
bigdawg wrote:''all affected riders'' does that mean Ulrich and co too or just those mentioned in the USADA report I wonder??
I'm interpreting it as all the race results annulled as per the USADA report for Lancey, Big George, CVV, Bottle, Danielson etc0 -
Hi RR, where does it say that in the cycling news link?
I'm more than ready to believe you, but
since it's usual for TdF winner to share prize money with team, how are they going to get any back from so many different people, over a seven year period, starting with 1999?
If anyone had paid/given you $000s 13 years ago, how likely are you to (a) have it available now, and (b) hand it back?
:?:0 -
(I must say that Wiki works fast. I just checked TdF 1999 to make sure I had the year right, and it says "No Winner")
:shock:0 -
So is Hein's goose cooked?0
-
UCI Press release:
Press release: UCI takes decisive action in wake of Lance Armstrong affair
Date:
26.10.2012
Description: The Management Committee of the International Cycling Union (UCI), meeting in Geneva today, decided a number of critical measures in the wake of the USADA ‘Reasoned Decision’ on Lance Armstrong. The Committee acknowledged that decisive action was needed in response to the report.
With respect to Lance Armstrong and the implications of the USADA sanctions which it endorsed on Monday 22 October, the Management Committee decided not to award victories to any other rider or upgrade other placings in any of the affected events.
The Committee decided to apply this ruling from now on to any competitive sporting results disqualified due to doping for the period from 1998 to 2005, without prejudice to the statute of limitation. The Committee also called on Armstrong and all other affected riders to return the prize money they had received.
The UCI Management Committee acknowledged that a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period – but while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places.
Second, while the Management Committee expressed confidence that enormous strides had been made in the fight against doping since 2005, in order to ensure that UCI and cycling could move forward with the confidence of all parties, the governing body also decided to establish a fully independent external Commission to look into the various allegations made about UCI relating to the Armstrong affair.
The Committee agreed that part of the independent Commission’s remit would be to find ways to ensure that persons caught for doping were no longer able to take part in the sport, including as part of an entourage.
In the week of 5 November 2012, therefore, the Management Committee will announce which independent sports body will nominate the members of the Commission and, with the UCI Management Committee, agree appropriate terms of reference.
Following this, individual members of the independent Commission will be appointed as soon as possible with a view to their report and recommendations being published no later than 1 June 2013.
Finally, while continuing strongly to maintain the merits of UCI’s case, the Committee decided to seek to suspend the UCI legal action against journalist Paul Kimmage, pending the findings of the independent Commission. UCI President Pat McQuaid and Honorary President Hein Verbruggen who are individual parties to the case will similarly seek to put their cases on hold.
UCI President Pat McQuaid said: “As I said on Monday, UCI is determined to turn around this painful episode in the history of our sport. We will take whatever actions are deemed necessary by the independent Commission and we will put cycling back on track.
“Today, cycling is a completely different sport from what it was in the period 1998-2005. Riders are now subject to the most innovative and effective anti-doping procedures and regulations in sport. Nevertheless, we have listened to the world’s reaction to the Lance Armstrong affair and have taken these additional decisive steps in response to the grave concerns raised.”
UCI Communications Service0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:and for any idiots who say 'hell, let them all just dope'...this should be compulsory reading
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39997062/
Pretty bleeding hearts stuff. These people POSSIBLY died because they did foolish things with their bodies. Now that really is a sad state of affairs but I don't buy into the idea that somehow the rest of us are supposed to feel guility about someone elses stupidity. It's a if we are supposed to put their names on some sort of memorial somewhere. It's as if the writter wants us to believe that if you cheat and use drugs then you're the scum of the earth, but if you die using drugs then you are some sort of hero.0 -
Lichtblick wrote:Hi RR, where does it say that in the cycling news link?
I'm more than ready to believe you, but
since it's usual for TdF winner to share prize money with team, how are they going to get any back from so many different people, over a seven year period, starting with 1999?
If anyone had paid/given you $000s 13 years ago, how likely are you to (a) have it available now, and (b) hand it back?
:?:
Here you is
The Committee decided to apply this ruling from now on to any competitive sporting results disqualified due to doping for the period from 1998 to 2005, without prejudice to the statute of limitation. The Committee also called on Armstrong and all other affected riders to return the prize money they had received.
The prize money is awarded to the winner as an individual, not to the team. The practice is for it to be shared amongst the team. What the rider does with it is really immaterial - that's the rider's look-out - with the money being demanded back of him as an individual (though the thought of Lance asking George, Vaughters, Tyler etc to give back their cuts to him, is very funny
) 0 -
he wont he'll just get his solicitors to do it...
''without prejudice to the statute of limitation'' that doesnt really tie in with P McQuaid wrote on monday - the official reply from the UCI not the verbal bull he came out with... Wonder if there's any way of finding out who was actually at this meeting and who's not very happy with Patdont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
bigdawg wrote:he wont he'll just get his solicitors to do it...
''without prejudice to the statute of limitation'' that doesnt really tie in with P McQuaid wrote on monday - the official reply from the UCI not the verbal bull he came out with... Wonder if there's any way of finding out who was actually at this meeting and who's not very happy with Pat
I would have thought the full management committee at the very least, plus legal counsel
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/la ... c&LangId=10 -
Hm, I'm not wildly convinced by the UCI establishing a fully independent committee to look at the UCI so that the UCI Management Committee can take action on the results. Sounds like the independent committee will say all looks good now carry on, oh and no dopers can return to the sport or work for s cycling team (except maybe Garmin)"
...no comments/implications about any upcoming change at the UCI, just an independent vote of confidence in their future plans0
