Popovych to testify in Armstrong probe

Junior · 04-11-2010 9:35am

ROK ON wrote: »

The extent of the success of the cheating fails in comparison to the cheating.

However if he doped. I understand why he did it. He did it for the same reason as Merckx.

True if your intent is to cheat and win, if you don't win you still cheat, I agree there, but my earlier point stands about Mercxx et al, I think they were more than likely doping in to survive or help recovery. Yes it was in the back of the mind what I am taking can make me win, but I don't think they took it to the extremes of the mob boss who wanted it all, the coke, the wife, the women and the money.

This is the other thing about Armstrong which singles him out from the other champions that have doped, as he called one of his books, it's not about the bike, once he started winning his Livestrong products took off, he became a bigger story than just winning a bike race, in the reverse question is Lance to big to fall, could Lance afford to lose the TdF once he started winning ?

Not only was it about the winning it became a self fuelled prophecy, he had won, he had to keep winning, he had to keep ahead of the testing, he had to refine methods, he became bigger, the testing became better, he had to keep winning etc.

Also you factor in stuff like the massive insurance payment he got for winning and it becomes a bigger story than some cyclist taking some drugs to win a race or to survive in the hardest cycle race.

Lumen · 04-11-2010 10:06am

Velonation - Barredo says cycling is cleaner than ever

Has this been posted? Not sure.

Putting cynicism aside it's nice to read something positive for a change, and to see riders being sanctioned for entertaining punch-ups rather than drug taking.

RobFowl · 04-11-2010 12:41pm

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-denies-witnessing-doping

Yaroslav Popovych was questioned in front of a grand jury for 90 minutes on Wednesday but denied having witnessed doping during his years as a teammate of Lance Armstrong, his lawyer Ken Miller, told the New York Daily News.

Well that was a waste of everyone's time :rolleyes:

Lumen · 04-11-2010 12:50pm

RobFowl wrote: »

his lawyer Ken Miller

His lawyer you say?

Ken Miller seems to be quite a common name around those parts.

Russman · 04-11-2010 1:12pm

Confused....this may seem rambling, apologies in advance.
Its hard to know which side to take really, in this case. While I'm totally against doping, I can see the validity in the question of whether its a waste of time going after Lance at this stage. Is it not just giving him more publicity instead of just letting him slip away into the past and into cycling's dark chapter of the 90's & early 00's ? I dunno.... I'm in the guilty as sin camp too BTW.

I don't buy the "intent" argument though, it kind of invalidates the rationale for drug testing IMO. How do you test for what someone wanted to do ? Surely you can only convict for what they actually took as opposed to what they intended to take ? Obviously Basso might disagree though !!:)

If they do get Lance, who gets his TDF wins ? Almost everyone else in the top 10 or 20 (or even 50) was on the juice too back then. Far better to go after the current crop of riders - cycling might be cleaner but I reckon its still far from clean. There have been too many positive tests in the last 12-18 months, especially from the Spanish riders, for anyone to believe its clean.

There's also the point that you cannot be seen to let doping go unpunished and that in itself is a good enough reason to go after him (if they can). Do the cycling authorities have to disregard his cancer work and treat him like any other, is that even possible ?

Still a little undecided about it all...........but I think on balance you have to go after him and set an example - within the scope of due process and the facts as they emerge of course, and not turning it into a witch hunt.

TinyExplosions · 04-11-2010 5:33pm

ROK ON wrote: »

@Junior. I hadn't considered that point (the introduction of organised doping).
However where I was coming from using a marital analogy. If I head out for a night with then intention of having sex with a woman other than my wife. Then regardless of whether I succeed in getting a hand job, blowjob, no job or even having all night passion with the redhaired lady in Madmen. I have intended to cheat on my wife. The extent of the success of the cheating fails in comparison to the cheating.

Ah, but to continue that analogy, it would be like you going all out with the Red Head from Madmen, and then getting up on your high horse and proclaiming that anyone who dares mention the possibility of your infidelity is a nasty piece of work, and bully them or sue them into submission just to cover your own ass, while at the same time encouraging all your mates to go out and get it on with previously mentioned Redhead at hotels that were paid for by the government, all the while proclaiming your greatness, and saying how you wish that more people could believe in you.

I think it's important the truth comes out for the aforementioned Mafia Boss analogy, there was an opportunity to clean the sport up after Festina, but instead we had Lance come along and continue the same old practices

dave2pvd · 04-11-2010 9:49pm

Russman wrote: »

Confused....this may seem rambling, apologies in advance.
Its hard to know which side to take really, in this case. While I'm totally against doping, I can see the validity in the question of whether its a waste of time going after Lance at this stage. Is it not just giving him more publicity instead of just letting him slip away into the past and into cycling's dark chapter of the 90's & early 00's ? I dunno.... I'm in the guilty as sin camp too BTW.

I don't buy the "intent" argument though, it kind of invalidates the rationale for drug testing IMO. How do you test for what someone wanted to do ? Surely you can only convict for what they actually took as opposed to what they intended to take ? Obviously Basso might disagree though !!:)

If they do get Lance, who gets his TDF wins ? Almost everyone else in the top 10 or 20 (or even 50) was on the juice too back then. Far better to go after the current crop of riders - cycling might be cleaner but I reckon its still far from clean. There have been too many positive tests in the last 12-18 months, especially from the Spanish riders, for anyone to believe its clean.

There's also the point that you cannot be seen to let doping go unpunished and that in itself is a good enough reason to go after him (if they can). Do the cycling authorities have to disregard his cancer work and treat him like any other, is that even possible ?

Still a little undecided about it all...........but I think on balance you have to go after him and set an example - within the scope of due process and the facts as they emerge of course, and not turning it into a witch hunt.

Russman, this is not about the cycling authorities going after Lance. What is happening is the US government is going after Tailwind Sports (Armstrong's co, allegedly) because it believes it misused $30.6M worth of sponsorship money. Using drugs was not part of the deal, apparently. Although, few people know exactly what the nature of the complaint is, as it's under seal still. To complicate the matter further for you: Floyd Landis started this whole thing by blowing a whistle

mgmt · 04-11-2010 11:32pm

dave2pvd wrote: »

Russman, this is not about the cycling authorities going after Lance. What is happening is the US government is going after Tailwind Sports (Armstrong's co, allegedly) because it believes it misused $30.6M worth of sponsorship money. Using drugs was not part of the deal, apparently. Although, few people know exactly what the nature of the complaint is, as it's under seal still. To complicate the matter further for you: Floyd Landis started this whole thing by blowing a whistle

I still enjoy watching dopers though.