Jon Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Given that virtually EVERYBODY was doping, I'd let the results stand. I still admire anybody who can do what Armstrong did on what was in effect a level playing field. That really isn't the correct attitude to take Mike. I think you'd need to look at all the reports on what Armo was up to, first of all. Not EVERYONE was at it, although an awful lot were. It was not a level playing field, even if many others were also doping. The Armo doping 'team' was on a different level altogether. In fact, if he should be awarded anything, it's for the best, most covert and sustanined doping system, in any team, thw rodl over. He has also STILL not admitted to it, even though 'most/all' of the others who've been caught have done so, or have come forward 'voluntarily'. I'd imagine he's going to be ruined financially if he does admit it, due to being sued to high heaven. He'll get sued to high heaven anyway, as the evidence is there. To 'admire' a drug cheat who (probably) only achieved his success due to being better at doping than others, and who, despite being found quilty of doping still continues to deny it, and who bullied others into doping so he would have a better chance of winning races, seems quite twisted to me. How clean is Wiggins? Unknown, although the 'fact' that the power outputs of the riders (and winners) of this years TDF were way down on those of the Armo years (there are articles on this somewhere) would suggest that he's either not doping, or not doing it to anywhere near the same extent as Team Armo. I'm inclined to believe he's clean, but who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'm inclined to believe he's clean, but who knows. That's the great shame, cycling as a whole is tainted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 That's the great shame, cycling as a whole is tainted. I think if people knew the reality of most professional sports, then they would be amazed by how much use of illegal substances there is. What if the Operacion Puerto had actually named the other athletes Fuetes had worked with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Miguel Indurain has said "Armstrong is innocent"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Miguel Indurain has said “like Lance I never failed a test, therefore I did not take drugs like him” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 24, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted October 24, 2012 The only other sport which has kind of had this level of drug revelations come out is baseball. Several players have come forward in recent years to suggest that drug use is rampant in baseball. David Wells stated that "25 to 40 percent of all Major Leaguers are juiced". Jose Canseco stated on 60 Minutes and in his tell-all book Juiced that as many as 80% of players used steroids, and that he credited steroid use for his entire career. Ken Caminiti revealed that he won the 1996 National League MVP award while on steroids. In February 2009, after reports emerged alleging that Alex Rodriguez tested positive for steroids in 2003, a year in which he was American League MVP, he admitted to having used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) between 2001 and 2003. Mark McGwire, dogged by allegations of PED use for years, admitted in January 2010 that he had used steroids and human growth hormone off and on for over a decade, including in 1998 when he set the single-season home run record. List of players named in the Mitchell Report I would be shocked if any given Premier League game didn't have at least two players on the pitch at any given time who weren't on some sort of performance-enhancing drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Pat McQuaid (if he can be believed) has said that cyclists make up only one quarter of the athletes that were identified in Operacion Puerto. Given the money that Fuentes was charging you could only have paid for his services if you were a top level professional athlete. The cyclists who were interviewed about Fuentes reportedly said they saw La Liga footballers in the offices when they were there. L'equipe reported that there was Barcelona and Real players identified within the investigation but it's always been denied by the Spanish. Rafa Nadal has also been heavily linked. You would imagine the Spanish authorities would be absolutely desperate to ensure a doping scandal involving Barca, Real, or even Nadal didn't come out. Something like that would dwarf the Armstrong scandal. But you have to ask the question what other athletes could afford to spend the money Ullrich, Hamilton, Basso etc. could spend to make up the other three quarters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It's pretty safe to say that there were dopers playing in the 2010, 2006 and 1998 World Cup finals (a certain French player who is notorious for visiting a Swiss blood doping clinic and the players yet to be named in Operacion Puerto). That's only scratching the surface. Tennis players are only tested a handful of times a year for EPO - a drug with a very short 'glow time'. It would be easy to dope in tennis and get away with it. I don't agree with everything Cavendish says here but he's right when he says that other sports brush the matter under the carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I would be shocked if any given Premier League game didn't have at least two players on the pitch at any given time who weren't on some sort of performance-enhancing drug. I thought this Levi. The reason so much scrutiny is put on cycling is because performance increase is tangible. You look at times and power outputs etc. In football, a lot of it is down to technique and skill, as much as physical performance. If cyclists were doping and getting away with it, then why not everyone else? There is a lot of money in sport, and if the cyclists were willing to take the risks then I don't see why other sportsmen were/are not also taking the same risks. Rio Ferdinand springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 It's pretty safe to say that there were dopers playing in the 2010, 2006 and 1998 World Cup finals (a certain French player who is notorious for visiting a Swiss blood doping clinic and the players yet to be named in Operacion Puerto). That's only scratching the surface. Tennis players are only tested a handful of times a year for EPO - a drug with a very short 'glow time'. It would be easy to dope in tennis and get away with it. I don't agree with everything Cavendish says here but he's right when he says that other sports brush the matter under the carpet. I really like Cavendish the way he speaks about doping - he speaks with the natural anger and exasperation that you would expect of someone who's being cheated. Valverde, Samuel Sanchez, Schleck etc show that the the problems are still deep rooted in the peloton the way the have reacted. There still seems to be a culture of hatred towards the guys that have confessed to doping, and a total acceptance of those that have been caught and tired to maintain their innocence. It makes it pretty hard to banish everything to the past and draw a line under it when that still goes on. A good example is Levi Leipheimer being sacked by Omega Pharma Lotto. There's no way on this earth they can only have found out about Levi when the USADA report came out, but when the world's media are focused on them they hang Leipheimer out to dry. Am a bit gutted that Cavendish has gone there - there's no way those guys represent a clean future for cycling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I thought this Levi. The reason so much scrutiny is put on cycling is because performance increase is tangible. You look at times and power outputs etc. In football, a lot of it is down to technique and skill, as much as physical performance. If cyclists were doping and getting away with it, then why not everyone else? There is a lot of money in sport, and if the cyclists were willing to take the risks then I don't see why other sportsmen were/are not also taking the same risks. Rio Ferdinand springs to mind. Indeed. The whole ferdinand affair stunk of someone trying to avoid an immediate test, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I would be shocked if any given Premier League game didn't have at least two players on the pitch at any given time who weren't on some sort of performance-enhancing drug. I would be shocked if its as little as two. Doping is in every sport. Many sports like football, tennis (where I think players are tested once per year on a known date) just turn a blind eye to it. Just look at the swimming world records set at the last olympics, suddenly these swimmers can swim faster than they could when they were wearing full body shark skin suits? Do they even test for HGH in the NFL? Look at the reported recommended use of HGH by Jamcian sprinting trainers. Usain bolt is 6ft 5in. I wonder what height he'd be if he never took any supplements? 5ft 8in? Sport = Doping. You want to win, hire a top doctor/sport scientist. Hopefully someday other sports will be found out like cycling has been but I doubt it as its bad for business... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I was talking to a friend yesterday and the opinion he had was would you want your child to become a full time sportsman with the choices they have to make. And the reality is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I was talking to a friend yesterday and the opinion he had was would you want your child to become a full time sportsman with the choices they have to make. And the reality is no. i.e. Sacrifice long term health for a potential short term gain? Just get your child down to a sports scientist who can test his genetics/muscle density/hemoctric levels/etc. and he'll be able to tell you if your son/daughter has body it takes to succeed in sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Wiggins says Armstrong is like Santa Claus, people believed in him and then you grow up and realise it was all lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I can't get my head around a clean Wiggins finishing just 30 seconds behind a doped Armstrong over three weeks in the 2009 Tour. Especially when Matt White was the DS shouting instructions from the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 You might want to look at quite alot of that top ten... the Schleck’s, Contador, etc. You might want to conclude that Wiggins put in time on both the team time trial and the ITT, and also that Armstrong was but a shadow of the rider he was, but that doping on that tour, allowed him to beat the much younger Wiggins. I am pretty sure that Wiggins wattage on that tour was pretty low compared to Armstrong at its height. You might conclude that Wiggins doped on that tour, moved to Sky and then failed miserably the next year when he didn’t. But I think we should try and clear up the Armstrong mess first before we try and conclude who is doping now. Mind you Alberto Contador seems to have tested positive for stupidity today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Reacho Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 You might want to look at quite alot of that top ten... the Schleck’s, Contador, etc. You might want to conclude that Wiggins put in time on both the team time trial and the ITT, and also that Armstrong was but a shadow of the rider he was, but that doping on that tour, allowed him to beat the much younger Wiggins. I am pretty sure that Wiggins wattage on that tour was pretty low compared to Armstrong at its height. You might conclude that Wiggins doped on that tour, moved to Sky and then failed miserably the next year when he didn’t. But I think we should try and clear up the Armstrong mess first before we try and conclude who is doping now. Mind you Alberto Contador seems to have tested positive for stupidity today... That sounds right to me but makes you wonder what happened between the 2010 Tour when Sky were useless, and then 2011-12 when they became utterly dominant. I think the comments from Contador today show that the Armstrong mess is absolutely part of today's peloton - likewise Valverde, Sanchez etc. Nico Roche is the same - they all are furious about the people who confess and tell all, whereas if you get caught and deny deny deny you're fine. Roche is supposed to be one of the clean guys, has signed up to Bikepure etc etc, but then signs for Riis to be Contador's right hand man, and bitches about the Garmin guys confessing against Lance. Despite the big PR drive I don't think anything has changed one bit in cycling - why would it? It's just as easy to get away with it now as it was five years ago. Why would Riis or Bruyneel or any of the other DS's change their ways? No one did after Festina or OP - perhaps one or two of the french teams and they simply haven't been able to compete since then. The USADA report proved that the biological passport means nothing as when it flagged up LA's suspicious values in '09 and '10 they did nothing about it, so there's nothing to stop a rider transfusing his own blood today. As long as they can get away with it they will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Nicolas Roche is like his father, not the brightest star in the universe. But here’s what gets me about the Roche family; Roche senior failed a drug test in the early 90s; might have been EPO. He totally ripped into Kimmage over Rough Ride, even though Roche isn’t even a vague target iirc. Nicolas Roche’s agent is Pat McQuaid’s son. Talk about dodgy.... Things have changed in cycling, in that people are listening a bit more. Five years ago Greg Lemond was seen as a crazed and bitter ex-champion. Now people are waking up and listening. Five years ago Kimmage would have been left out to dry, now he’s got over $70000 donated to fight his case. Sure alot of idiots exist in the sport, particularly in Spain (maybe Walsh’s next book could be called from Pedro to Miguel to Alberto), but its better. Anyway next year’s TdF course looks an absolute stormer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Buy Barry’s kit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts