Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

Undercover Elephant

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "statistical" and "average benefit gained for the individual" but the "level playing field" idea doesn't stack up from a scientific perspective. Doping affects different individuals to a very different degree.

Additionally, the effectiveness of a doping programme in a sport with anti-doping meaures is as much about the organisational aspects as the physiological ones, and those have nothing to do with individual talent.

And then there's the moral considerations about the inability of genuinely clean riders to compete, and the health effects, and...and....and.

It's wrong.

All this is absolutely true.

And yet, I remember watching Richard Virenque on his day-long breakaway to Morzine in 2003. I had done the previous day's stage (Nevers to Lyon) that morning and was knackered - and I was in a car. It was extraordinary to watch. It was magnificent. And I couldn't have cared less whether he had been taking every banned substance on the planet. Neither could most of the crowd.

So I can't work out whether, deep down, I want to take the moral highground and support the fine Athenian idea of the emergence of talent combined with effort. Or just to see someone cycling really really fast.

RobFowl

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

All this is absolutely true.

And yet, I remember watching Richard Virenque on his day-long breakaway to Morzine in 2003. I had done the previous day's stage (Nevers to Lyon) that morning and was knackered - and I was in a car. It was extraordinary to watch. It was magnificent. And I couldn't have cared less whether he had been taking every banned substance on the planet. Neither could most of the crowd.

So I can't work out whether, deep down, I want to take the moral highground and support the fine Athenian idea of the emergence of talent combined with effort. Or just to see someone cycling really really fast.

I care deeply.
Too many of may memories of cycling are now in my view worthless.
VIrenque's performances to me are like those of Hulk Hogan. Entertaining but meaningless and not true sport.

xz

"I picked my head up during an interval and saw an enormous ostrich zigzagging in the road. I swung wide to get by - and just as I did he started chasing me. These guys can motor. I had to sprint to drop him." -- Tyler Hamilton

Clear admission of drug taking

xz

found an "incomplete" list of doping cases dating back to 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling, some interesting cases listed

RobFowl

xz wrote: »

found an "incomplete" list of doping cases dating back to 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling, some interesting cases listed

Love this quote .....
1930

The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.[20]

Hail 2 Da Thief

xz wrote: »

found an "incomplete" list of doping cases dating back to 1886 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling, some interesting cases listed

Kelly was positive after Paris–Brussels in 1984 and that came as a surprise because he used the urine of a mechanic. But the mechanic was using banned substances himself because he had to work long hours at night and needed the lift to stay awake.

HaHa, never knew that! What a bizzare way to get busted!

xz

RobFowl wrote: »

Love this quote .....
1930

The acceptance of drug-taking in the Tour de France was so complete by 1930 that the rule book, distributed by Henri Desgrange, reminded riders that drugs would not be provided by the organisers.[20]

That one got me laughing too

xz

The point I would like to make about this, is Eff the witch hunt on LA, Guilty or Not, and we may never find the truth either way, just look at some of the names throughout the History of the sport that have been found out as "cheats", for want of a better word, and a lot of these, to this day are regarded as "Legends". How many Victories did these Legends win whilst souped up that they never found out about, at the end of the day, LA will go down as Legend in the sport on the back of his 7 TDF victories, whether we like it or not.

GT_TDI_150

there is doubt about all the greats! all seem to have an excuse, wrong inhaler, samples lost, samples handled incorrectly, ... B samples defrosted incorrectly ...

1969

• Eddy Merckx of Belgium tested positive for the stimulant Reactivan at Savona during the 1969 Giro d'Italia, after leading the race through 16 stages. Merckx was found positive at doping control and expelled from the Giro. Merckx steadfastly denied the charges. The controversy began to swirl when his test results were not handled in the ordinary manner. The positive doping control was released to the press before all parties (Merckx and team officials) involved were notified.[47]

Diarmuid

xz wrote: »

LA will go down as Legend in the sport on the back of his 7 TDF victories, whether we like it or not.

I think the next few years may prove you wrong.

xz

Diarmuid wrote: »

I think the next few years may prove you wrong.

No skin off my nose, to be honest, I believe that he is guilty,just happened to be one step ahead of everyone else that got caught out. It's a problem that has always, and probably always will be there. Doing a Grand Tour without "help" will always prove "fruitless" to some riders, that's just my opinion, just look who is currently wearing PINK, and what happened with him last year.................

petethedrummer

xz wrote: »

The point I would like to make about this, is Eff the witch hunt on LA, Guilty or Not, and we may never find the truth either way, just look at some of the names throughout the History of the sport that have been found out as "cheats", for want of a better word, and a lot of these, to this day are regarded as "Legends". How many Victories did these Legends win whilst souped up that they never found out about, at the end of the day, LA will go down as Legend in the sport on the back of his 7 TDF victories, whether we like it or not.

This is where there is a clear distinction in doping but not morals.

Pre-1991(ish) the cream still rose to the top. The riders winning were the best in the world. After 1993 it became too hard to tell who was naturally any good. Should Indurain have been able to dominate skinny climbers? Should Jan Ullrich be on the list of fastest ascents of Alp D'huez despite having legs like tree trunks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez
Should armstrong be on it seeing as he couldn't climb for sheet in the mid-90s?

Yes, pre-1991 the same numbers of people probably cheated and would have taken EPO had it been available to them. But they didn't have it. So we still know who the greats were.

dave2pvd

First, it's great to see such a civilized pharmstrong discussion on the internet. How unusual.

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should look up his charity and find out exactly what it does... It does NOT fund cancer research, it funds cancer 'awareness'. BIG difference. You'd be better off giving your money to the Marie Keating foundation. But I suppose they don't have nice wristbands and catchy 'hope rides again' slogans.

Have to disagree with this. I am in no way a fan of the guy, but I do believe that when it comes to cancer, the concept of awareness is a huge contribution to higher survival rates. People don't get check-ups often enough. Whether it's women not getting annual pap-smears or older men (esp with family history) not not getting checked for prostate cancer. I live in the US. Here, people are not proactive enough in this regard. However, in Ireland, it's astonishing to me how few people routinely get checked. Whether at the doc's office or self-checking. I could go on and on on this subject (skin cancer, aversion to going to the doc, ignoring family history,...), but there's work to be done.

petethedrummer wrote: »

And on the subject of doping, the playing field would not be level if one athlete could afford to pay for an exclusive contract with the world's leading doping doctor. And have sufficient clout to have positive test suppressed or have a back dated TUE accepted as an explanation for a failed test. Or could move to Spain when OOC testing becomes more invasive in France. Or lead a team rich enough to have all the riders doped up to drive the peloton up mountains. These are all hypotheticals but if one man could have all that he'd probably win a few TDFs.

Exactly. Agreed 100% 'Doping' is not some homogeneous pill that simply ups the bell curve. Doping in cycling is more like aero packages in Formula 1. The team with the huge budget will win. (Unless they are Toyota).

JacksonHeightsOwn

is there any videos of the 60 minutes interview with Hamilton?

GT_TDI_150

LOL @ the top 15 ascent up Alpde d'Heuz - compare it to the alleged doping list from earlier





1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997 Italy
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004 United States
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994 Italy
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001 United States
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995 Italy
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997 Germany
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006 United States
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006 Germany
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004 Germany
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997 France
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003 Spain
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004 Germany
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004 Portugal
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995 Spain
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995 Switzerland

Chips Lovell

chrisbonnie wrote: »

is there any videos of the 60 minutes interview with Hamilton?

It isn't being broadcast till Sunday

lescol

Snippet of the interview here:- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

rockman15

hamilton surrenders gold. Confirmed

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/2011/0520/1224297453237.html

cerebus

There are reports out there this evening that the 60 Minutes segment to be broadcast on Sunday will also claim that Hincapie has told the feds that he saw Armstrong using PEDs.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/05/20/george.hincapie.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

Hail 2 Da Thief

Game over? Hincapie backs up floyd & Tyler!

Funkyzeit

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

Game over? Hincapie backs up floyd & Tyler!

Ah sure he's only a bitter ex-teammate :rolleyes:

Funny how McQuaid has suddenly gone silent - he was quick enough to jump on the Landis bashing...

lescol

Hincapie is a big fat liar, a failed cyclist at the end of his career trying to make his name prominent so that he can sell his line of clothing and chamios buttr!

When will Lance pour his heart out to the world?

hinault

Funkyzeit wrote: »

Ah sure he's only a bitter ex-teammate :rolleyes:

Funny how McQuaid has suddenly gone silent - he was quick enough to jump on the Landis bashing...

What's the betting that McQuaid will be forced to reapply for his old PE Teacher job in Greenhills Comprehensive after the smoke clears?:D:D

RobFowl

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8514/60-minutes-says-George-Hincapie-admitted-to-using-EPO-alongside-Lance-Armstrong.aspx

According to the CBS show "60 Minutes", at least four of Lance Armstrong's former teammates, including his close friend George Hincapie, have told federal authorities that they have used banned substances. All three have said they saw Armstrong also used banned substances.

CBS reports that Hincapie testified that both himself and Armstrong supplied each other with EPO, a banned endurance boosting substance, and also admitted to using testosterone.
Armstrong's former teammates Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton have all pointed the finger at the Texan, but Andreu has been fingered by Armstrong as having sour grapes, and the other two suffer from credibility issues. Hincapie, however, is a highly respected rider and would be seen as a man with "something to lose" for coming forward. He also has not tested positive for EPO or testosterone, the main defense of Armstrong. Hincapie also represents the only rider that rode alongside Armstrong in each of his seven Tour de France victories.

Hincapie has declined to be interviewed, citing the ongoing federal investigation led by Jeff Novitsky, but used Twitter say that he hadn't spoken to "60 minutes" but he refused to confirm or deny there is truth to their claims.
"I can confirm to you I never spoke with "60 Minutes.", he Tweeted. "I have no idea where they got their information. As I've said in the past, I continue to be disappointed that people are talking about the past in cycling instead of the future. As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."
Armstrong continues to vigorously maintain his innocence.

Funkyzeit

Quality article....


http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/lance-armstrong-the-endgame-begins/

rubs

Hi all,

Sorry if this thread already exists but following all the talk today (Kelly and Harmon) does anybody know if this show will be televised on any satelite channels this side of the Atlantic?

Thanks;)

petethedrummer

dave2pvd wrote: »

Have to disagree with this. I am in no way a fan of the guy, but I do believe that when it comes to cancer, the concept of awareness is a huge contribution to higher survival rates. People don't get check-ups often enough. Whether it's women not getting annual pap-smears or older men (esp with family history) not not getting checked for prostate cancer. I live in the US. Here, people are not proactive enough in this regard. However, in Ireland, it's astonishing to me how few people routinely get checked. Whether at the doc's office or self-checking. I could go on and on on this subject (skin cancer, aversion to going to the doc, ignoring family history,...), but there's work to be done.

I've been looking for a way to succinctly give my opinion on Livestrong. Somebody else has gone and done it for me:

http://twitter.com/#!/Velocentric/statuses/72035315438727169

mgmt

petethedrummer wrote: »

I've been looking for a way to succinctly give my opinion on Livestrong. Somebody else has gone and done it for me:

http://twitter.com/#!/Velocentric/statuses/72035315438727169

Well it is a cancer awareness charity. Not a cancer research charity.

Captain Havoc

mgmt wrote: »

Well it is a cancer awareness charity. Not a cancer research charity.

Yes, I find it completely normal that a charity would spend 30% more on legal fees than on charitable causes.

DuncanDoughnut

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should look up his charity and find out exactly what it does... It does NOT fund cancer research, it funds cancer 'awareness'. BIG difference. You'd be better off giving your money to the Marie Keating foundation. But I suppose they don't have nice wristbands and catchy 'hope rides again' slogans.

As someone already has mentioned, cancer awareness is a huge part of any campaign to combat cancer. But Livestrong primary aim is to provide support for people going through 'survivorship' or remission, which is an area that isn't greatly supported.

If Lance Armstrong did or did not take drugs, you can't attack the man for setting up a charity.

dave2pvd

petethedrummer wrote: »

I've been looking for a way to succinctly give my opinion on Livestrong. Somebody else has gone and done it for me:

http://twitter.com/#!/Velocentric/statuses/72035315438727169

Interesting - if true.

I've done a bit of research to rate charities in the past. My company has an annual budget for charitable giving. In 2006, we (I) audited all of the recipients we were donating to. Larger charitable orgs in the US are rated by Better Business Bureau, charitywatch.org and charitynavigator.org

According to charitywatch, in 2007: "LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin". Not good at all.

Yet, BBB notes that in 2008, LAF's performance was:

"Programs: 81%
Fund Raising: 12%
Administrative: 7%"

Which is very respectable.

I think what is happening here is that the likes of alex@velocentric is picking and choosing according to agenda. The LAF is incorporated in several states, so you could pick the worst performing chapter to bolster your case. To confuse the issue further, there is an LAF, Inc and an LAF.org. I think the Inc version is what pays to fly 'Shack/USPS (and their 'luggage') around the world to easily glide through customs/immigration. Whereas the LAF.org foundation actually does some good.

mgmt

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Yes, I find it completely normal that a charity would spend 30% more on legal fees than on charitable causes.

That statistic makes no sense. It says "salaries and legal fees". It could therefore be 99% salaries 1% legal fees. While I don't trust Lance at all, I don't trust twitter either.

Diarmuid

mgmt wrote: »

That statistic makes no sense. It says "salaries and legal fees". It could therefore be 99% salaries 1% legal fees. While I don't trust Lance at all, I don't trust twitter either.

Not to defend a twitter post from someone I don't know but it says:

In 2009 Livestrong spent $15,377,233 on legal fees & salaries vs $11,775,916 paid out to grants & programs.

I don't think the point was anything to do with legal fees per se. If it was 100% salaries and 0% legal fees, then it's still a damning statistic

ROK ON

The way this is developing I think LA needs to come out with the "you can't handle the truth defense"
Something a la, of course I doped, we all did. Only way to win and I wanted so badly to win etc etc. Then go on to say that he lied repeatedly to protect team mates, colleagues, he had an obligation to fans cancer survivors, the believers etc. GO on to ask just how many Grand Tour winners in past 100 years are truly clean - part of the sports fabric. One man can't change that blah blah blah.

Finally say that this was all suggested supported and understood by UCI.

If he came out with something like that, it may actually be close enough to the truth.

mgmt

Diarmuid wrote: »

I don't think the point was anything to do with legal fees per se. If it was 100% salaries and 0% legal fees, then it's still a damning statistic

I don't see why. Most charities employ professional people to carry out work. Otherwise the charity would be useless. I bet all the money in you local hospice charity goes on nurses salaries.

Bluefoam

If these allegations are true (if!?), I hope they make an example of him. There's nothing I hate more than a hypocrite.

GT_TDI_150

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Yes, I find it completely normal that a charity would spend 30% more on legal fees than on charitable causes.

I read this as a sarcastic reply, so ...

how much of a €1 donation to Cope or Share or the like do you think gets to the end target?


if it wasnt meant as sarcasm then .... apologies

ednwireland

full page article in the main sunday times today followed by a full page in the sports section
(says nothing daid walsh hasnt said before, really apart from the hincapie evidence)

Diarmuid

mgmt wrote: »

I don't see why. Most charities employ professional people to carry out work. Otherwise the charity would be useless. I bet all the money in you local hospice charity goes on nurses salaries.

You need to re-read the original tweet as you are really are missing the point.

mgmt

Diarmuid wrote: »

You need to re-read the original tweet as you are really are missing the point.

Who wrote that tweet? Where did they get their sources? Why do you blindly accept it?

A/C's for Livestrong

Income Statement (FYE 12/2009)
Revenue
Primary Revenue $41,487,242
Other Revenue $282,759
Total Revenue $41,770,001

Expenses
Program Expenses $24,056,363
Administrative Expenses $1,391,528
Fundraising Expenses $3,450,865
Total Functional Expenses $28,898,756

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $12,871,245

Net Assets $41,967,204

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

Bluefoam

The internet never lies!

mgmt

Ok here is the 2008 and 2009 Financial Accounts.

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/LAF_CONSOLIDATEDFINANCIALSTMTS2008AND2007

http://www.livestrong.org/pdfs/4-0/2008-2009combinedauditreport

The Legal fees is actually "Legal and Professional Fees".

Captain Havoc

mgmt wrote: »

That statistic makes no sense. It says "salaries and legal fees". It could therefore be 99% salaries 1% legal fees. While I don't trust Lance at all, I don't trust twitter either.

I was tired and left out salaries when I meant to leave out legal fees. I think that tweet was trying to be sensationalist.

rockman15

Just to clarify:

On the audits I've been on for charities and NPO's the wages/salaries and legal fees will vary heavily.

For example within the Professional Services area of the audit you could include surveyors fees on site quality or estate agents fees which may be used for land or buildings acquisitions. In the US I know for a fact that these reports do not come cheap. In a collateral position lawyers/solicitors etc would be employed for property or capital acquisitions as is required in globally applied standards. Perhaps in the context these purchases include care centres or some such.

While accept the LAF Inc and LAF.org are different organisations with different objectives, I wish people would be less scepticle of their activities. I think its bad taste that people would undermine the aims of a charity. Whatever LA might do on or off his bike is open to scpeticism, we should be slow to apply the judgement to people who volunteer and work full time for the foundation. As far as I know LA has very little to do with the operations of the charity, but in fact spends his time on the strategic ideas and national lobbying for cancer awareness.

DonVincenzo

Anyone know any website that you can view the interview with Hamilton?


Linky to CBS promo text
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/08/60minutes/main13502.shtml?tag=hdr;cnav

onimpulse

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minutes/

CBS post the full episodes here after broadcast...

dave2pvd

Channel surfing between 60 minutes and Versus' ATOC coverage right now. Have to say, the Hamilton interview is far more compelling. He's interviewing very well. Comes across very candid, overall. Surprisingly extensive interview for a 'minority' sport.

I wonder if LA was hoping that yesterday really was the end of the world?

hinault

Tyler Hamilton CBS interviews

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7366946n&tag=contentMain;contentAux

biomed32

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/2011/05/tyler-hamilton-60-minutes-interview/

DeadMan1

wow ... more squeaky-bum time for the UCI to follow