I don't believe Lance Armstrong and I never will...

mtb-idle

BigMat wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter

Have Liggett and DDD ever been spotted in the same room together?!

"I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”

that's utter gargbage right there that is.

jzed

Don't know whether this has been posted elsewhere but link to an Australian documentary (panorama type) from earlier today.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 608613.htm

rjsterry

MTB-Idle wrote:

BigMat wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter

Have Liggett and DDD ever been spotted in the same room together?!

"I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”

that's utter gargbage right there that is.

Indeed. Couldn't work out whether the article had been really badly edited or Liggett was just semi-incoherent.

EKE_38BPM

7PM Radio 5 Live: Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth

rolf_f

MTB-Idle wrote:

"I had an email from an eminent scientist from the US yesterday. An SMS actually. It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person.”

that's utter gargbage right there that is.

I think the daftest thing he said was the line before:

Whatever way we look at it Lance has been good for the sport

Obviously, his legacy is complex and, in some ways, maybe overall he has been good for the sport (at least in as much as you might regard the interest in the sport that can be put down to Lance as having been a good thing in the long term - eg how many people did Armstrong inspire to cycle?) but to say that he has been good for the sport 'whatever way we look at it' is a bit bizarre.

PBo

rjsterry wrote:

PBo wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Is it federal though? I would say not, even if "tax payers dollars have been wasted on the witch hunt...". Prob no power to sub poena anyone.

There are suggestions that he may face perjury charges over statements made in court in Dallas 2005. I understand that SCA Promotions are looking to get their money ($7.5m) back.

But that would be federal. Bruynel's arbitration isn't, is it?

Hoopdriver

PBo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBo wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I thought he could be sub peonad (sp?) to testify. Federal case and all that.

Is it federal though? I would say not, even if "tax payers dollars have been wasted on the witch hunt...". Prob no power to sub poena anyone.

There are suggestions that he may face perjury charges over statements made in court in Dallas 2005. I understand that SCA Promotions are looking to get their money ($7.5m) back.

But that would be federal. Bruynel's arbitration isn't, is it?

Perjury isn't necessarily Federal. Could also be State.

jedster

DDD,

On Contador you said

People do this all the time, when Contador's test was revealed as positive everyone was so sure he cheated and that 'something he ate' was a weak excuse. Then more info came out that it wasn't enough to enhance performance and the dodgy meat argument became more plausible

Come on, it wasnt plausible enough to avoid a ban. If Contador thought that was unjust he could have sued and got it overturned. Plenty of atheletes have done that over the years.

Beyond that, I take it you have read the sports science stuff looking at Contador's performance on a couple of TdF climbs which put him squarely in the unfeasibly high sustained power output per kg category populated by the tour winners of Armstrong's era and just before? In contrast, analysis of Wiggins and co shows substantially lower and realistic levels - i.e., the tour has got slower.

Overall, I think you tie yourself up in knots in a totally ineffective (actually completely counter-productive) attempt to save face as the evidence makes your initial assertions look ever sillier.

DonDaddyD

So if Lance did not win any of the Tour de France competitions between 1999 - 2005, who did?

You can't give it to the guys who came second or third as they have long since been proven/and or admitted to have doped. Possibly even the guys who finished 4th - 10th were also on drugs.

And this really does beg the question, if they all had EPO or some form of performance enhancing substance/s in their system doesn't that level the playing field? It wasn't like Lance had an unfair advantage against Jan Ulrich, Vino, Basso, Kloden, Beloki, Rumsas, Zulle and Escartin.

Lance may have been a doped up rider, but he was riding against doped up riders.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

So if Lance did not win any of the Tour de France competitions between 1999 - 2005, who did?

You can't give it to the guys who came second or third as they have long since been proven/and or admitted to have doped. Possibly even the guys who finished 4th - 10th were also on drugs.

And this really does beg the question, if they all had EPO or some form of performance enhancing substance/s in their system doesn't that level the playing field? It wasn't like Lance had an unfair advantage against Jan Ulrich, Vino, Basso, Kloden, Beloki, Rumsas, Zulle and Escartin.

Lance may have been a doped up rider, but he was riding against doped up riders.

When you talk about a level playing field you miss a fundamental point.

The playing field was only level for those who chose to cheat.



As to who won? There are a couple of articles on this. I look them up and post.

Personally I'd leave them blank


What odds would I get on WIggins being declared winner of 2009???

tailwindhome

Jeez that was a quick merge....

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

So if Lance did not win any of the Tour de France competitions between 1999 - 2005, who did?

You can't give it to the guys who came second or third as they have long since been proven/and or admitted to have doped. Possibly even the guys who finished 4th - 10th were also on drugs.

And this really does beg the question, if they all had EPO or some form of performance enhancing substance/s in their system doesn't that level the playing field? It wasn't like Lance had an unfair advantage against Jan Ulrich, Vino, Basso, Kloden, Beloki, Rumsas, Zulle and Escartin.

Lance may have been a doped up rider, but he was riding against doped up riders.

I can't quite believe you're trotting this one out. :roll:

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

So if Lance did not win any of the Tour de France competitions between 1999 - 2005, who did?

You can't give it to the guys who came second or third as they have long since been proven/and or admitted to have doped. Possibly even the guys who finished 4th - 10th were also on drugs.

And this really does beg the question, if they all had EPO or some form of performance enhancing substance/s in their system doesn't that level the playing field? It wasn't like Lance had an unfair advantage against Jan Ulrich, Vino, Basso, Kloden, Beloki, Rumsas, Zulle and Escartin.

Lance may have been a doped up rider, but he was riding against doped up riders.

Just because the majority were cheating, doesn't make it right. Christian Prudhomme has said that ideally, he would like* there to be no winner for those years - i.e. the race was so marred by doping that as you suggest, it isn't possible to pick a winner
*oddly, it's not actually up to the TdF organisers.

rick_chasey

Rather like some people respond differently to IVF treatment, some people respond differently to doping.

So you make the defining quality a bike rider has not his natural endurance capacity, but his responsiveness to particular drugs.

DonDaddyD

Jedster,

I cannot categorically state why Contador chose not to sue and pursue his innocence. Perhaps because the ban was backdated so he only missed the Tour but got to ride in the Vuelta. Challenging that would have prolonged the process, so in his mind it may have been easier just to serve the ban.

Anyway....

I was just about to ask how fast did Armstrong and co ride up dem hills. And then I was going to ask where I can be pointed to, to compare that data with the riders of today (and the era before).

Look given the seemingly overwhelming evidence and Lance's continued silence it is likely that he did do the things he is accused of. (But that is what I've been saying all along).

---

Upon reflection I do think that the manner in which he is being outed and the public humiliation does achieve something as it makes an example of him and hopefully the young pro-riders and the semi-professional scene will clean up their act. However, for this to really be effective, cycling and the culture right through to the UCI needs to change.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Jeez that was a quick merge....

A heavy handed one I think.

tailwindhome

^

There's hope for you yet

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Jeez that was a quick merge....

A heavy handed one I think.

You should spend more time in Pro Race - you'd learn a lot.....(not just about doping and stuff)

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

I cannot categorically state why Contador chose not to sue and pursue his innocence. Perhaps because the ban was backdated so he only missed the Tour but got to ride in the Vuelta. Challenging that would have prolonged the process, so in his mind it may have been easier just to serve the ban.

Anyway....

I was just about to ask how fast did Armstrong and co ride up dem hills. And then I was going to ask where I can be pointed to, to compare that data with the riders of today (and the era before).

Look given the seemingly overwhelming evidence and Lance's continued silence it is likely that he did do the things he is accused of.

---

Upon reflection I do think that the manner in which he is being outed and the public humiliation does achieve something as it makes an example of him and hopefully the young pro-riders and the semi-professional scene will clean up their act. However, for this to really be effective, cycling and the culture right through to the UCI needs to change.

Can I just say, Contador is as guilty as Lance. No reasonable doubt. He might not end up getting so thoroughly busted as the Spanish doping authorities are, ahem, a little toothless. I kind of hope the Hog / Lance drag him down with them. But even if that never happens, they miraculously managed to pin a doping offence on him and its as clear as clear canbe that he's a career doper who owes pretty much all his success to the dodgy doctors. If this is subsequently proved to be true, can you promise not to create a thread like this one? Please?

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Jeez that was a quick merge....

A heavy handed one I think.

You should spend more time in Pro Race - you'd learn a lot.....(not just about doping and stuff)

'tis true. Well informed bunch, broadly speaking. Even get the odd ex-pro posting there.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Jeez that was a quick merge....

A heavy handed one I think.

You should spend more time in Pro Race - you'd learn a lot.....(not just about doping and stuff)

I was banned for daring to post in Pro-Road Race (and having a differing opinion...). And people think Lance was territorial and a bully.... ANYWAY. I keep an eye on it. Interesting post was about Cavendish being washed up as there are no real sprint focused teams so he is likely to play domestique more than he would like.

Also, its interesting that doping hasn't been aimed at the Sprinters, you'd have thought that they would need endurance/power enhancement more so than the GC guys.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

I was banned for daring to post in Pro-Road Race (and having a differing opinion...)..

I've 10,000 posts and never been banned










see what I did there....

DonDaddyD

BigMat wrote:

Can I just say, Contador is as guilty as Lance. No reasonable doubt. He might not end up getting so thoroughly busted as the Spanish doping authorities are, ahem, a little toothless. I kind of hope the Hog / Lance drag him down with them. But even if that never happens, they miraculously managed to pin a doping offence on him and its as clear as clear canbe that he's a career doper who owes pretty much all his success to the dodgy doctors. If this is subsequently proved to be true, can you promise not to create a thread like this one? Please?

If Contador is proven to be a Lance mk2 I'll be devastated and may give up watching pro-cycling altogether. There would be no point.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Can I just say, Contador is as guilty as Lance. No reasonable doubt. He might not end up getting so thoroughly busted as the Spanish doping authorities are, ahem, a little toothless. I kind of hope the Hog / Lance drag him down with them. But even if that never happens, they miraculously managed to pin a doping offence on him and its as clear as clear canbe that he's a career doper who owes pretty much all his success to the dodgy doctors. If this is subsequently proved to be true, can you promise not to create a thread like this one? Please?

If Contador is proven to be a Lance mk2 I'll be devastated and may give up watching pro-cycling altogether. There would be no point.

Hmmm

Contador was on the same team as Lance
Was with Bruyneel at Astana
Was with Riis at Saxobank
Has one ban under his belt already


Don't stake your interest in pro cycling on him being clean.




This is very naive I know, but IF cycling is cleaner than it was then I don't believe Contador needs to dope to win.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Can I just say, Contador is as guilty as Lance. No reasonable doubt. He might not end up getting so thoroughly busted as the Spanish doping authorities are, ahem, a little toothless. I kind of hope the Hog / Lance drag him down with them. But even if that never happens, they miraculously managed to pin a doping offence on him and its as clear as clear canbe that he's a career doper who owes pretty much all his success to the dodgy doctors. If this is subsequently proved to be true, can you promise not to create a thread like this one? Please?

If Contador is proven to be a Lance mk2 I'll be devastated and may give up watching pro-cycling altogether. There would be no point.

A little melodramatic, but yes, it is rather depressing. Still, things do seem to be moving in the right direction; albeit how far they have moved, and how far they have still to move is open to debate.

Some interesting titbits on road.cc: Joey Barton on the lessons for other sports, and Lance's lawyer almost getting tricked into agreeing to Lance taking a lie detector test.

DonDaddyD

It happened in athletics, the 100m sprint to be precise, there was a spate of guys - mostly Americans - getting caught for doping. It was getting ridiculous because you couldn't get behind one guy without fear of being duped by a doping cheat. Bolt comes along and blows the field apart but you get the feeling that if he is found to have cheated through performance enhancing drugs then what's the point.

I suppose in Cycling there is Geraint Thomas, I really like him. He is clean, isn't he?

jzed

DonDaddyD wrote:

, if they all had EPO or some form of performance enhancing substance/s in their system doesn't that level the playing field? It wasn't like Lance had an unfair advantage against Jan Ulrich, Vino, Basso, Kloden, Beloki, Rumsas, Zulle and Escartin.

1) Doping has different effects on different athletes. Hamilton claimed that he got little benefit from growth hormone so didn't really do it. Others will have got benefit. Also take an athlete with a natural haemocrit of 38 versus one with a natural level of 43, there was more scope for the performance of the former to gain a bigger enhancement.

2) Lance has a reported wealth north of $100m. He had a private jet which meant they could go to secluded "training locations", he paid Schumi over $1m. He had greater means than others and the ability to get a greater advantage. BAck to the USADA report, very early on "US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen"

EKE_38BPM

In the 'Lance' era, there were no winners, just lots of losers.
Such as the cyclists who felt forced to dope in order to compete, despite the health implications, because most of the rest of the peloton was doing it or were hounded out of the sport that they loved.
The cycling fans who think that the pros must be superhumans and attempt to emulate their power output on the way to work or when out riding with their mates at the weekend.
The people who started out as a mechanic or a masseuse for the top pro teams but end up driving across Europe transporting PEDs.
The wives and girlfriends who have to keep their mouths shut whilst at the same time watching their loved one injecting themselves, ducking the inspectors and using make-up to cover up bruises from the injection site.

Listening to Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth yesterday was a real eye-opener, even after reading USADA's "Reasoned Decision".

TheStone

DonDaddyD wrote:

If Contador is proven to be a Lance mk2 I'll be devastated and may give up watching pro-cycling altogether. There would be no point.

Why on earth would you think Contador is clean ???? He's already been banned ... by a country who never ban anyone.

waddlie

Regarding the "level playing field" issue, I can recommend the following article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/13/doping-cycling-level-playing-field-fallacy