Jump to content

Pro cycling: General Chat


leviramsey

Recommended Posts

Well in the end it wasn’t the French who bought down Lance, but the American authorities, and that at the beginning of that was the FBI investigation, that was even mire far reaching. As soon as Hamilton and Landis came forward you knew what was going to happen. Did you really believe that Frankie and Betsy Andreu were lying under oath all those years ago? He needs to be bought to book, because he was part of a large scale doping operation, that involved the governing body of cycling. The UCI needs to be radically reformed, and we need to know for sure that Vebruggen and McQuaid (who have opposed all of this btw) are exposed for the charlatans they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to follow the Cyclingnews forums during the Tour, but there's far too much going on there that you can barely follow it. Re. Froome and Wiggins, I meant that's the first person who's not a hiding behind a twitter/forum name (like me ;-)) who's made an open accusation against current riders, and has specifically named those two riders. I'm surprised there's been no reaction to it.

My point about the current riders' reaction the Lance affair is that most of them are saying why can't we just leave it - it's history, when it's quite clearly anything but history when McQuaid is still in charge, Bruyneel is still managing one of the top teams etc etc. It's seems that the UCI decided that they wanted Lance to be their big star and did everything (and are still doing so) to ensure that this was the case, so he was protected at all times when other dopers were allowed to fall. Clean riders didn't even register on the radar. The UCI were essentially deciding that Armstrong would win. Maybe Ullrich's success would have meant Nike walking away, or the American TV market. They were all dopers but Armstrong was the cash cow.

How can any current rider say this should all be forgotten about and is history, when there is now an opportunity to bring people to account and change the sport properly is beyond me, other than to assume that nothing has changed since Armstrong ruled the peloton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could anyone give me a brief summary on what makes it so likely that Armstrong is guilty?

I'm having a debate on another forum and they're insisting that there's no proof and Armstrong being stripped of his titles is completely outrageous.

But I'm assuming there is some sort of proof otherwise he'd have kept fighting against it?

I don't really feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to keep up the debate at the moment.

They're also saying that Armstrong already went to Court and won, but that they've stripped his titles anyway. That can't be true can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could anyone give me a brief summary on what makes it so likely that Armstrong is guilty?

I'm having a debate on another forum and they're insisting that there's no proof and Armstrong being stripped of his titles is completely outrageous.

But I'm assuming there is some sort of proof otherwise he'd have kept fighting against it?

I don't really feel knowledgeable enough about the subject to keep up the debate at the moment.

They're also saying that Armstrong already went to Court and won, but that they've stripped his titles anyway. That can't be true can it?

The closest thing to a "smoking gun" are the urine tests from the 99 tour.

Back in 99 drug testers didn't have a test for EPO so riders never fail it as such. The drug boosts red blood cells and was often given to recovering cancer patents, Lance and his doctor would have been well familiar with it.

For the Sydney Olympics the anti doping organisation developed a reliable test for it and decided to use some samples from the 99 tour as a sort of 'field test' for their new methods. The samples were numbered but they didn't know which sample was for which rider.

The agency found 13 samples had failed, 6 from the same rider, but as they were using it as a practice test on B samples rather than an official sanctioned anti-doping test on A + B samples they didn't pursue any case.

Years later in 2005 a French journalist from L'Equipe got a tip off about these failed tests from the 99 tour. He went to the UCI and asked them for the names that corresponded to the failed tests. The rider that had 6 failed samples was Lance Armstrong. The pattern in his urine was consistent with him injecting EPO every 3rd or 4th day of the tour over the 3 weeks with the biggest hit being on the prologue on the first day.

It seems pretty conclusive that he was doping during that tour and his teammates have now come out confirming that the team were using EPO systematically during that race. Armstrong says it was not an official test so it doesn't count, plus the French are out to get him and his teammates are all lying.

A second case is when his urine sample in 99 showed up traces of steroid use during the official anti doping testing of the time. According to his team masseuse, Armstrong and his team were panicking about how they would explain the failed test. Apparently the plan they came up with was to get the team doctor to write a prescription for a skin cream that contained steroids and back date it to before the tour.

The story now reads that he put on skin cream for saddle sores and his doctor miss prescribed it not realising it contained steroids. Armstrong says his former masseuse was lying about a conspiracy.

There is a 3rd suspicious case following the Tour of Switzerland in 2001. There were rumours and allegations that Armstrong had failed a test during that race. No test results came to light but the UCI did reveal that Armstrong had paid them $100,000 at that time, $88k of it they spent on some new testing equipment apparently and $12k just went unaccounted for altogether. This remains the only time the UCI has ever taken money from a cyclist still participating in one of its events.

Fast forward to the present day and the American anti doping agency have lined up 10 witnesses, former teammates etc to testify against him saying that they had seen Armstrong doping throughout his career and apparently they also have failed samples from 2009 and 2010 to back up the claims.

You still get his fans going on about “never failing a test” but Scottish cyclist David Miller never failed a test either, he was caught with the drugs in his possession and admitted he’d been doping throughout his career. Marion Jones also doped her whole career and never failed any test. It is quite easy apparently to get your blood thinned enough to pass a test after a race. Back in the Armstrong days the cyclists were allowed time alone with their team doctors after races before they had to be called up to be tested.

When you look back and realise that all the top riders from the Armstrong years have 1 by 1 been found guilty of doping, including all his teammates, it seams preposterous that he was the only clean rider and was still beating all of them.

There is still an open case against Armstrong's manager Bruyneel so hopefully all the evidence will come out as that case progresses and this can be put to bed once and for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few court cases involving Armstrong (libels, sponsorship etc).

There was a Federal investigation which looked at allegations of defrauding of the government, drug trafficking, money laundering and conspiracy involving Armstrong and other top cyclists but that was dropped without charges being levied. This is probably the case he is referring to.

Shortly after the case was dropped by the Federal prosecutors, The USADA started their own proceedings explaining: “Unlike the U.S. Attorney, Usada’s job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws. Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation.” This is a bit like the FA investigating Terry after the court had found him 'Not Guilty' (although there was never a judgment made on Armstrong). Ultimately these are the proceedings that have led to Armstrong being found guilty of doping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cracking performance from Cummings today in La Vuelta.

Spot on ! I have been lucky enough to meet Steve at a wedding; really unassuming geezer - but sadly a scouser. Chatted to me even though I am a nobody in cycling terms.

PS Why do the Spanish pronounce 'V' as 'B' - why don't they just call it the 'Buelta' :)

PPS I think it means ' round trip' or summat similar .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great ride by Cummings.

The Vuelta has been gripping this year. I love seeing the leaders sprint it out for the time bonuses on the uphill finishes.

Wish they reintroduced it back to le Tour - would love to see Cav in yellow for a few days (a la Cipollini)

3 mountain stages to come in the next 3 days. Contador looks good for the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having a debate on another forum and they're insisting that there's no proof and Armstrong being stripped of his titles is completely outrageous.

Sorry to be late this. I would send anyone to listen to this

A very interesting and balanced podcast on Armstrong. It goes through the whole story, and the multiple connections with people involved in PED. If anyone could listen to this and totally dismiss that Armstrong was involved in drugs, then I think they are naïve...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having a debate on another forum and they're insisting that there's no proof and Armstrong being stripped of his titles is completely outrageous.

Sorry to be late this. I would send anyone to listen to this

A very interesting and balanced podcast on Armstrong. It goes through the whole story, and the multiple connections with people involved in PED. If anyone could listen to this and totally dismiss that Armstrong was involved in drugs, then I think they are naïve...

Thanks Paulo. I'll give it a listen later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-postal-backers-could-be-under-investigation

Now apparently it was Lance's backers that were the main donators to Floyd's legal costs. It kind of undermines Lance trying to discredit both Floyd and Tyler when he's trying to fund their respective defenses. Really is the story that keeps on giving.

I reckon Bjarne Riis is panicking at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just read an article (OK it was in The Daily Mail !) about this book and the claims of liberal and extensive use of EPO. I may be wrong but I thought EPO came in a 'blister pack' ; the sort of thing you see hanging up by the side of a hospital bed. I don't think you could just take it an hour before a race in an hotel room.

I could be wrong about this (as I am with many things so wife tells me ); for ages I thought that strong steroids (Nandrolone etc) had to be injected. However, when I worked in a prison the prisoners put me right as there were tablets (HGH) that they called 'Nap 50's' which promoted muscle growth. I found out that they were so toxic that you were really taking a chance using them.

If found guilty, it will be a terrible blow to cycling and his sponsors.

On a more cheerful note; anyone going to watch the Tour of Britain ? It goues through the Stoke- Stafford- Rugeley area and over Cannock Chase. Some big hitters riding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â