'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Hermy

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

...Track, BMX and MTB...

Forgot about them.:o

Leroy42

@ lennymc - I don't know, I certainly don't have any evidence, but I think it is fairly widespread that in some sports, particularly the eastern bloc countries, carried out systematic and state run 'doping' programs. There are also issues around the IOC itself (not doping obviously but corruption etc).

That is not really my point though, it was just my first thought about it. While of course the Olympics is not held as high as the grand tours for Pro road, it certainly is held highly for track etc, so if the IOC did rule at cycling (which if UCI is implicated would seem fairly correct) I would hope that that at least would force the UCI to change, because if what is coming out about WADA ad USADA not partaking in the 'independent commission' of the UCI is true then I would not be too positive about the UCI making the changes itself without something like this to force it.

Maybe this would force the other areas of cycling, track, MTB etc to force change themselves or just leave the UCI to look after Pro.

gerardduff

No

buffalo wrote: »

Over at YLYL:

And just to further differentiate, WiggIns never used rugs, he just had stupid side burns.

funnights74

funnights74 wrote: »

Just saw this, a list of the clean and unclean of recent times, even a few of the "clean" should have question marks next to them. Also on Sky via Reuters reporting that a senior IOC Member has said that cycling could be dumped from the Olympics because of the Armstrong case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21024288

Heh, I love libel and slander laws. :pac: The one I saw, could've been about 2 years ago now, had depth on it, showing how there were years when like 8 of the top 10 had been done for doping since and I remember not long after that one of the few who hadn't then was done. Hilarious stuff tbh.
Anyway should be a laugh if Armstrong decides to take as many people with him as possible.

AlreadyHome

No

To be fair, Wiggins doesn't seem to be the only one who's irritated at the noise being made about dopers. Lizzie Armitstead - Nicole Cook's British rival for the past few seasons - has been critical of Cook's parting shot at the supposed doping fraternity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21036935

petethedrummer

No

ignore

buffalo

No

AlreadyHome wrote: »

To be fair, Wiggins doesn't seem to be the only one who's irritated at the noise being made about dopers. Lizzie Armitstead - Nicole Cook's British rival for the past few seasons - has been critical of Cook's parting shot at the supposed doping fraternity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21036935

Another fan of sweeping it under the carpet. Also, just because you and your boyfriend are clean, does not make all of cycling the world over clean. Argh, such ignorance annoys me.

petethedrummer

No

buffalo wrote: »

Another fan of sweeping it under the carpet. Also, just because you and your boyfriend are clean, does not make all of cycling the world over clean. Argh, such ignorance annoys me.

Look, doping stopped in 2006. How will it take to get that into your skull?

AlreadyHome

No

buffalo wrote: »

Another fan of sweeping it under the carpet. Also, just because you and your boyfriend are clean, does not make all of cycling the world over clean. Argh, such ignorance annoys me.

In a way I can understand it: if you're a younger generation cyclist and/or have been racing clean your whole career - it must be a relief to see that you have the ability to win clean. If you then have a lot of cyclists who are well towards the end of their career, who have made their money and have nothing to lose start mouthing off about widespread doping and scaring off sponsors, you might well fear for your future job prospects.

I think it's great that some riders speak out about it, but for a female cyclist in a notoriously under-funded sport, I can understand her frustration.

petethedrummer

No

When the sh!t starts being flung between the UCI and Armstrong it will probably become acceptable for the pros to have a go at Armstrong.
Until then stick to new era, Ricco bad, Landis nutter, journalists bitter.

mcgratheoin

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think it is fairly widespread that in some sports, particularly the eastern bloc countries, carried out systematic and state run 'doping' programs. There are also issues around the IOC itself (not doping obviously but corruption etc).

Very true, but you're not really comparing like for like. If the IAAF (as an example) had acted in the way that the UCI are alleged to have acted, then I'm sure that there would definitely have been question marks over their participation in the Olympics.

As I see it, there have always been allegations of institutional and administrative corruption in governing bodies, be it IOC, IAAF, FIFA etc.. Given the IOC's history, this has never been grounds for removing sports from the Olympics. In addition, there have always been sophisticated (for their time) doping programmes, either privately or state funded. The key issue with the UCI is that they are alleged to have circumvented their own rules and accepted bribes to cover up the doping programme of one team/athlete and to have followed the direction of that team/athlete in deciding which of the many doped athletes to target and obtain a positive test from.

A similar hypothetical situation in athletics would be if Marion Jones had donated money to the IAAF - ostensibly for the fight against doping - and had used the influence this bought her, and the influence of her high media profile, to attack anybody who suggested she had taken drugs, and simultaneously suggest names of competitors to the IAAF as people who should be aggressively tested.

The key difference between the UCI and other sports is that amongst corruption allegations leveled at other adminstrative bodies, there is no suggestion that they are amenable to altering the results of races or events. (The various boxing controversies are about the nearest I can think of). This means that the IOC can say that despite whatever internal shenanigans may or may not occur, the results of the Olympic competitions will not be affected by a governing body showing favour to one athlete or team.

Leroy42

@ mcgratheoin - wouldn't disagree with any of that. If it is true about the UCI (and as yet it is all unproven speculation) then I can't see how a body like the IOC could accept them into the Olympics. If they did help LA and others then they have no right to be in charge of the sport and hopefully something like the threat to remove cycling from Olympics will force the other forms of cycling (track, BMX, MTB) to push for real change.

buffalo

No

AlreadyHome wrote: »

In a way I can understand it: if you're a younger generation cyclist and/or have been racing clean your whole career - it must be a relief to see that you have the ability to win clean. If you then have a lot of cyclists who are well towards the end of their career, who have made their money and have nothing to lose start mouthing off about widespread doping and scaring off sponsors, you might well fear for your future job prospects.

I think it's great that some riders speak out about it, but for a female cyclist in a notoriously under-funded sport, I can understand her frustration.

It's understandable to an extent, but by not "mouthing off", you're contributing to the omertá, and therefore implicitly accepting doping as okay.

Raam

No

buffalo wrote: »

It's understandable to an extent, but by not "mouthing off", you're contributing to the omertá, and therefore implicitly accepting doping as okay.

Eh, no you're not.

buffalo

No

Raam wrote: »

Eh, no you're not.

So all those pro-cyclists who never made a stand, they were all anti-doping?

Raam

No

buffalo wrote: »

So all those pro-cyclists who never made a stand, they were all anti-doping?

No idea. Your original statement is too sweeping.

buffalo

No

Raam wrote: »

No idea. Your original statement is too sweeping.

It's not as clear-cut as "if you're not against it, you're with it". But if someone is not saying it's bad, then they must think it's okay at the least, if not actually thinking it's good.

Or I suppose they may have their fingers in their ears going "la-la-la, everything's okay now, let's all stop acknowledging this ever happened or might ever happen again".

MPFG

No

Love this Jon Stewart piece on Armstrong

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/celebrities/video-jon-stewart-slams-lance-armstrong-and-himself

el tel

No

Wiggins that he thinks he's clever, but he's not.

He should keep schtum about Kimmage. After all, if it wasn't for people like Kimmage the doping might still be as bad as it was and guys like him wouldn't get a look in.

Kav0777

No

Verbruggen is speaking out again. He doesn't "understand the whole fuss at all". It's fantastic stuff. Particularly the "..the problem is in the test itself. Well, I'm not responsible" line.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-denies-responsibility-for-cyclings-problems

ThisRegard

No

el tel wrote: »

Wiggins that he thinks he's clever, but he's not.

He should keep schtum about Kimmage. After all, if it wasn't for people like Kimmage the doping might still be as bad as it was and guys like him wouldn't get a look in.

Check out Kimmages twitter, he has reacted to what Wiggins had said along the lines of what I had in my post.

MPFG

No

buffalo wrote: »

So all those pro-cyclists who never made a stand, they were all anti-doping?

But it does not follow that just because you are not vociferous
about anti-doping you are some how in support as the Twitter and Internet experts seem to imply

I hve never publiclly or privately declared my opposition to Nick Clegg bt it doesn'tmean I support him,...

Maybe cyclist just wnat to cycle and get on with the sport they love rather than constantly be attacked for what they don't say.....its a hard enough job anyway

buffalo

No

MPFG wrote: »

I hve never publiclly or privately declared my opposition to Nick Clegg bt it doesn'tmean I support him,...

You're not an English politician though, as far as I'm aware. If you were, and you never declared your opposition to him on any issue, then it presumably means you think he's okay.

dutopia

No

How can this be an opinion? It's science, he was proven to have doped.

MPFG

No

el tel wrote: »

Wiggins that he thinks he's clever, but he's not.

He should keep schtum about Kimmage. After all, if it wasn't for people like Kimmage the doping might still be as bad as it was and guys like him wouldn't get a look in.

Totally disagree ...he is entitled to his opinion......
And as for Kimmage saying on Twitter

"Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success:" is totally insulting as Wiggins is no where near Armstrong in any respects

And USADA uncovered Armstrong doping .....

Chuchill was the only one speaking against Hitler in 1930s UK...Eventually he was proved right but it didn't mean that Chuchill wasn't interested in maintianing the empire at all costs and rallied so against Hitler because of the consequences to the British Empire...

Max_Charger

No

Plastik wrote: »

Un-be-lievable quote for Wiggans to come out with. Absolutely bewildering. I didn't have much grá for Wiggans all along but watching the 'Year in Yellow' documentary changed my opinion of him somewhat and I warmed. But holy fúck, what a thing to come out with.

Click, find the Off the ball programme, Jan 15, part one, 11m40secs http://media.newstalk.ie/archive

I'd imagine Wiggins said that in reaction to what Kimmage said 2 weeks ago about being "unconvinced by Sky and Wiggins". He was hardly going to come out with a sunshine and daffodils comment for him after saying that.

petethedrummer

No

Wise old Phil Liggett knew all along...

"Ten years ago I asked Lance in his hotel room if he took drugs and he told me to my face 'I have been on my death bed and I'm not going back. The answer's no'," Liggett told Melbourne's Radio Sport National.

"But when a guy wins so consistently the suspicion is always there … that perhaps they are going away and preparing in ways that we don't know about."
http://www.sportal.com.au/other-sports-news-display/liggett-details-armstrong-doubts-217868

he was just joking when he said this...

But I’ve no reason not to support Armstrong. I don’t know. He told me to his face that he didn’t and I had no reason not to believe it. Don’t forget, on television we don’t actually mix with the riders. I call the pictures as I see them.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite-usadas-evidence-liggett-remains-armstrongs-supporter

And this video was just a performance art piece and didn't represent his actual opinion: http://youtu.be/VJz4kwm9mXc

RobFowl

No

MPFG wrote: »

Totally disagree ...he is entitled to his opinion......
And as for Kimmage saying on Twitter

"Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success:" is totally insulting as Wiggins is no where near Armstrong in any respects

And USADA uncovered Armstrong doping .....

Chuchill was the only one speaking against Hitler in 1930s UK...Eventually he was proved right but it didn't mean that Chuchill wasn't interested in maintianing the empire at all costs and rallied so against Hitler because of the consequences to the British Empire...

TBH am tending to side with Wiggins on this one. The relentless negativity from Kimmage and Walsh particularly is soul destroying...

(Not as bad as the doping though.....)

RobFowl

No

Max_Charger wrote: »

I'd imagine Wiggins said that in reaction to what Kimmage said 2 weeks ago about being "unconvinced by Sky and Wiggins". He was hardly going to come out with a sunshine and daffodils comment for him after saying that.

Yeah if Kimmage accused Wiggins and his team of doping just after winning the TDF(clean in most peoples book). He has publicly stated that Wiggins win ahs question marks and doubts. He also knows Wiggins has in the past refused PK access to the Sky team for the duration of the 2010 or 11 tour due to his abrasive style.
Seems now if you don't dance to the tune then you're out as far as PK goes (sounds suspiciously like the PR strategy of a past TDF winner (ex-winner )

Lusk Doyle

No

buffalo wrote: »

You're not an English politician though, as far as I'm aware. If you were, and you never declared your opposition to him on any issue, then it presumably means you think he's okay.

That is such a horsesh1t leap of logic. I'm sorry to have to come out and say this Buffalo, but you are wrong.