'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Captain Havoc

wonderfullife wrote: »

They clearly told him: "look, confess '95-'05, no perjury charges, 09/10 deny, say sorry, try look sorry, name no names, we'll take a hit of $30 million ish, then sort out that outlay with a book and film. it'll be cool"

Try get his life ban reduced to eight years and back dated to 2005/ 2006.

martingriff

No

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Try get his life ban reduced to eight years and back dated to 2005/ 2006.

Would never happen. Reduced is a very tiny possibility (I rather bet that clare will win the munster championship). To get it back dated noot a chance

Cienciano

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Incidentally, i do understand Wiggo, Hoy & Cav's reactions on a human level.

Wiggo best year of his life - TdF, Olympics, Sports Personality of Year - faced with question after question on Lance, the fall-out where people will suspect everyone etc. If he's clean, which we have to assume, then that's a massive buzz-kill. Even take a pub quiz, i've often been at quizzes and some team gets 24 out of 25 right and immediately think "i-phone". Which is what others would think if our team won.....i suppose it shouldn't matter but it does lessen the sense of achievement if people have suspicions.

On a wider sporting level, i can't understand it so well. The more people say it's in the past, different generation etc means the suspicion grows. Addressing the issues publically and professionally, being courteous, polite and (again) professional is the only way the sport moves forward. Cav telling a journo to fcuk off might be how he feels but he's a professional sportsman. I keep thinking back to the amount of times Roger Federer was asked over the years by British media "will andy murray win a grand slam?". In his head he may well have thought the same as Cav ("jesus H christ for the 9 millionth time, yes probably), instead he remained professional, answered with a smile.

That's what cycling needs right now. Professionals to be professional.

That's also more reason he should be condeming lance rather than the journalists that helped expose him. They'ves done well from cycling, so as you said, they should be professional. The media promotes your sport, so you have to play along.
Footballers are asked the same questions week in week out, but they have a list of 10 stock answers that will work in any situation. Sort of like Father Jack.

Diarmuid

No

I watched Little Town Big Circus last night. It's an RTE documentary about the Tour arriving in Enniscorthy in 98. What I found quite topical were the interviews with McQuaid and Roche about drugs in the peleton. Bear in mind this was just days before the whole Festina affair exploded.

Jump to 17:20 for Stephen Roche's interview. It seems pro cyclists taking EPO is akin to some accountant asking his doc for something to keep him awake to get the books done.

27:50 The drug tester for the stage. "They would be crazy to take drugs"

28:45 is the interview with McQuaid. "Leading the way in drug testing" "The only sport that test for EPO and blood doping"

Depressing. The same old faces with the same old quotes.

letape

No

Interesting viewing:

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2013/01/20/lance-armstrong-lies-to-oprah-winfrey/

kenmc

No

Meanwhile, over in Manly....

Fr D Maugire

No

More comments about the Lance situation.

Anne Gripper, former head of UCI anti-doping who revealed the Armstrong donation and left the UCI because of the conflict of interest has the most relevant comment.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13753/Armstrong-reactions-Triathletes-and-Gripper-dont-want-his-return-Hammond-speaks.aspx

T-K-O

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

If you can find one single thing I have made up about the Armstrong case, go ahead and point it out, anywhere.

What I don't get is people trying to claim Armstrong was just another doper who is somehow being singled out whilst everyone else gets off. Now that is making stuff up.

My bad for disliking a fraud, bully and all-round nasty piece of work. I should have nothing but admiration for such a guy.

I didn't say you made stuff up about Armstrong but when someone says he was genuine about his kids or that an extra effort was put in to catch Lance (you said that yourself after attacking my posts where I said the same thing)

Your response to any such notion is very Lance esque.

To clarify my stance and avoid going round in circles. The authorities were totally correct in stepping up their efforts to catch him.

Fr D Maugire

No

T-K-O wrote: »

I didn't say you made stuff up about Armstrong but when someone says he was genuine about his kids or that an extra effort was put in to catch Lance (you said that yourself after attacking my posts where I said the same thing)

Your response to any such notion is very Lance esque.

To clarify my stance and avoid going round in circles. The authorities were totally correct in stepping up their efforts to catch him.

You seem to consider anything outside of a dope test as stepping up efforts to catch cheats. I have no problem with that process as we know the test's don't work and in particular a case like Arsmtrong when he was clearly protected by authorities.

However what I have pointed out numerous times now is that this stepping up in effort to catch cheats is not exclusive to Armstrong. I would consider being thrown in jail, having a full body search and being interrogated like a criminal as much more extreme but cyclist's have had to endure such circumstances in the past.

Being suspended due to a non-testing inquiry is not unusual in cycling. It might be in other sports but not cycling. My point has always been to refute this notion that Armstrong has been the only cyclist/athlete to be sanctioned or investigated without having a positive test.

Without Floyd Landis making his allegations to USADA, the Armstrong case would not have even started. When an athlete makes very strong allegations of doping to the anti-doping authorities, what course of action should be taken in your opinion?

petethedrummer

No

Something is not right in this sentence from Pat McQuaid.

“It was disturbing to watch him describe a litany of offences including among others doping throughout his career, leading a team that doped, bullying, consistently lying to everyone and producing a backdated medical prescription to justify a test result.”
http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/mcquaid-armstrong-interview-was-disturbing-but-hes-confirmed-we-didnt-help-him/

The UCI accepted that back dated TUE.

MPFG

No

Diarmuid wrote: »

Jump to 17:20 for Stephen Roche's interview. It seems pro cyclists taking EPO is akin to some accountant asking his doc for something to keep him awake to get the books done.

I wish the government would do something about drugs in accountancy..I always wondered why most have such dull personalaties...must be because they are stoned
I never understand my accountant...ditto

MPFG

No

Cienciano wrote: »

Footballers are asked the same questions week in week out, but they have a list of 10 stock answers that will work in any situation. Sort of like Father Jack.

I get only 4 ?
Feck
Arse
Girls
Drink

maximoose

No

MPFG wrote: »

I get only 4 ?
Feck
Arse
Girls
Drink

Yes
That would be an ecumenical matter

Capt'n Midnight

No

MPFG wrote: »

I get only 4 ?
Feck
Arse
Girls
Drink

I'm sooooo, sooooo, soooo sorry

leftism

No

As for former triple world champion Craig Alexander, he wants a lifetime ban introduced. “We need to draw a line in the sand and say 'no'. This is a great time to take stock and put new rules in place for zero tolerance."

Current Hawaii Ironman world champion Pete Jacobs believes that he would be a bad influence, and also that he would still have an advantage even if he stopped taking banned substances. “We are all done with the cheating and lies,” he told News Limited.

Compare those comments to the quotes from top pro-cyclists...

I'll probably get stick here for saying it, but fair play to the triathletes! The top guys appear to have the absolute right attitude towards doping. And even if they don't, at least they're saying the right things! It makes a big difference what message your top guys put out. Unfortunately, the current top cyclists are recycling the same old half-hearted statements.

I think that is one of the big stumbling blocks preventing the public from believing in cycling again. The athletes themselves are not being proactive. Where are all the riders coming out and vilifying Armstrong? Why aren't the UCI calling HIM a scumbag? Cavendish and Wiggins can moan all they like, but neither are saying the right things... Call for lifetime bans! Attack the dopers! Stop complaining about the lack of faith from the fans! And definitely stop criticising the journalists that risked their careers trying to uncover this!

Its sad that the two strongest comments i've seen this week have come from pro-triathletes. As for the cyclists, they're sticking to the same old ostrich tactics...

Halloween Jack

leftism wrote: »

Interesting numbers there... For an elite athlete like Basso to be jumping +/- 5 mL.kg-1.min-1 over the course of their career is slightly unusual. In a 10 year career, my VO2max fluctuated by about +/- 2mL.kg-1.min-1 (68 to 72). Working in the lab now, i've been repeatedly tested the same guys for 4 years and i've never seen a 10mL jump in VO2max, especially when you are already a fully developed elite athlete. A significant loss of fat mass might shift the relative VO2max score, but we know thats not the case with Basso.

Sounds interesting, what kind of work do you do, if you don't mind me asking?

el tel

No

If you knew someone cheated in an exam, and they knew you cheated in the exam too, you'd probably be inclined to say nothing for obvious reasons. Only those beyond reproach would have the nerve to grass up or to speak out and they'd probably leave that until retirement.

leftism

No

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Sounds interesting, what kind of work do you do, if you don't mind me asking?

Exercise Physiologist. Used to work in the Human Performance Lab in Trinity but i took up a position in the States about 6 months ago.

dave_o_brien

No

leftism wrote: »

Compare those comments to the quotes from top pro-cyclists...

I'll probably get stick here for saying it, but fair play to the triathletes! The top guys appear to have the absolute right attitude towards doping. And even if they don't, at least they're saying the right things! It makes a big difference what message your top guys put out. Unfortunately, the current top cyclists are recycling the same old half-hearted statements.

I think that is one of the big stumbling blocks preventing the public from believing in cycling again. The athletes themselves are not being proactive. Where are all the riders coming out and vilifying Armstrong? Why aren't the UCI calling HIM a scumbag? Cavendish and Wiggins can moan all they like, but neither are saying the right things... Call for lifetime bans! Attack the dopers! Stop complaining about the lack of faith from the fans! And definitely stop criticising the journalists that risked their careers trying to uncover this!

Its sad that the two strongest comments i've seen this week have come from pro-triathletes. As for the cyclists, they're sticking to the same old ostrich tactics...

While I agree with you, you have to have a certain amount of understanding for some of their frustration. Essentially, they are being assumed to be guilty by virtue of being involved in the same sport.

The introduction of the bio passport and the whereabouts rules are huge steps forward. How they are used, and how stringently the UCI implement tests based on their findings is pen to debate, but they are inherently good measures. If we didn't have them, there would still be people wandering around saying, "I can't believe LA doped, but at least he finished 3rd in 09 clean". Instead, anyone with half a brain can say, no, 1/1,000,000 chance he didn't.

But the constant harranguing of professionals for comments on the Armstrong case must be frustrating. Most are going to try to be professional enough to say that what he did was a disgrace, but things have changed now. Why would this surprise people? They are UCI registered pros; denouncing the powers that be could potentially be a silly move for their career. Also, things have changed; work may need to be done still, but things seem to be progressing.

If each one of us were to be constantly pestered because of the illegal action of a former member of our professions, and asked to admonish him, it would get tiresome. For example, if you and every second other person they met were to constantly harass every doctor you met about the unnecessary pelvic op's undertaken back in the 80's by a psychotic doctor upon innocent mothers, I'm sure you'd get the odd outburst of anger from current doctors saying "It wasn't me. Things have changed."

I'm not saying the pro's are right to have an outburst, or to not state unequivocally that Armstrong is a scumbag with no place in public life in general, never mind sport, all I'm saying is that I think it's wrong to assume they're complicit with LA by virtue of not airing their grievances in a public manner. The only thing that would be unforgivable would be if they said something along the lines of "Give him a chance, sure he's good for the sport". Anyone who says something that stupid should be lynched.

leftism

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

You'd know better than me if those numbers are dodgy or not but they are there for viewing. Sure sign up yourself and have a look. It's interesting to see a professional's data, even if I only vaguely understand it.

Definitely interesting! I applaud Basso for sticking the numbers up. Do you know if he posted his power at threshold in Watts.kg-1??? Regarding his VO2max data, I'm not sure on the timeline but a jump from 72 to 82 is substantial and for someone that is already world class, it would certainly raise an eyebrow or two. Having said that, i've no idea what testing equipment they were using or how stringent their calibrations were. Some older metabolic carts have less precision, and can be temperamental if they're moved about and not calibrated often. My test data were recorded from the same lab, by the operator, using the same equipment over the course of 10 years. I have absolute faith in my numbers.

I cannot comment on Basso's numbers other than to say that if the data were collected in a reliable and reproducible manner, then a +10 mL jump in VO2max is unusual. Not impossible but unusual. Its all about context... A recreational rider trains hard for 2 years; their VO2max jumps from 54 to 64 mL.kg-1.min-1 and they're now riding A2 or A1. There is nothing unusual about that! If a world class cyclist blows a 72, then i'd be a little surprised by a 10mL increase. In an elite athlete, i'm expecting to see little or no change in VO2max, but a substantial increase in power at aerobic threshold over the course of their career.

Example: This is a sample of my own test data over a 4 year window (note: this is not cycling data). The curves are blood lactate profiles which are used to determine power at aerobic/anaerobic threshold.



If memory serves, my VO2max in 2002 was 72mL.kg-1.min-1. In 2006 it was 69mL.kg-1.min-1. Close enough that the difference was more or less within the measurement error of the equipment. Essentially my VO2max never changed (or changed very little). But my power at threshold increased 40W. That equated to a 13 second improvement in a race that's less than 4mins long. In a sport where power:weight ratio is king, VO2max is just a nice number to quote at the bar after the race... Don't get me wrong, it'll separate the donkeys from the stallions, but when it comes to the Cheltenham Gold Cup and everyone is a thoroughbred, power at threshold will determine who wins.

I've read several cycling biographies over the last 2 years where the number 6.7 keeps cropping up. Michele Ferrari was fixated with 6.7W.kg-1. If you could push 6.7W.kg-1, you could win the Tour. Its interesting that at no point was he even slightly concerned about their VO2max. He (rightly) assumed that it'd be high. The fact that cyclists like Basso are happy to quote their VO2max, also speaks volumes about how little value they place in it. But ask about their power at threshold, and they'll probably keep that card much closer to their chest!

leftism

No

dave_o_brien wrote: »

The introduction of the bio passport and the whereabouts rules are huge steps forward. How they are used, and how stringently the UCI implement tests based on their findings is pen to debate, but they are inherently good measures. If we didn't have them, there would still be people wandering around saying, "I can't believe LA doped, but at least he finished 3rd in 09 clean". Instead, anyone with half a brain can say, no, 1/1,000,000 chance he didn't.

Almost word for word, Andy Shleck used that line in an interview 2 days ago! Now how can anyone have faith in the sport of cycling when one of the world's top riders comes out with that garbage? He might as well come out and openly trash the blood passport system! USADA and WADA have both stated that Lance's 09 blood values are entirely consistent with manipulation. And Mandy comes out with this???

He should have said "I can't believe LA doped and i don't believe that he was clean in 2009. Bradley Wiggins should rightly be given the podium spot for that year."

A quote like that would renew a lot of peoples faith in the sport. But instead, he rolls out the same pile of garbage we've heard before. So 4 years down the line, when the statute of limitations runs out and Lance finally admits that he doped in 09, Andy will be shocked again??? Give me a break!

Andy's comment and comments from riders like him are damaging the sport! The crazy thing is that it is counterproductive for their careers. If they actually cared about their profession, they would be slamming this guy with everything in their power. But they're not!

So the public is left wondering why that is the case....

kumate_champ07

have any body language experts analysed the full interview yet?

I wonder if this will all fizzle out and the UCI continues on as normal, sure the bio passport makes a big difference but the same attitudes still seem to be present. was hoping like everyone else here for full disclosure

ThisRegard

No

Geert Leinders now to be investigated by the Belgium authorities on suspicion of helping riders to dope.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-belgian-federation-to-investigate-dr-leinders?ns_campaign=news&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

happytramp

No

In his defense...... At least he never called her fat.

WhatNowForUs?

No

leftism wrote: »

Almost word for word, Andy Shleck used that line in an interview 2 days ago! Now how can anyone have faith in the sport of cycling when one of the world's top riders comes out with that garbage? He might as well come out and openly trash the blood passport system! USADA and WADA have both stated that Lance's 09 blood values are entirely consistent with manipulation. And Mandy comes out with this???

He should have said "I can't believe LA doped and i don't believe that he was clean in 2009. Bradley Wiggins should rightly be given the podium spot for that year."

A quote like that would renew a lot of peoples faith in the sport. But instead, he rolls out the same pile of garbage we've heard before. So 4 years down the line, when the statute of limitations runs out and Lance finally admits that he doped in 09, Andy will be shocked again??? Give me a break!

Andy's comment and comments from riders like him are damaging the sport! The crazy thing is that it is counterproductive for their careers. If they actually cared about their profession, they would be slamming this guy with everything in their power. But they're not!

So the public is left wondering why that is the case....

Could what Andy Shleck said, have been sarcastical. Im saying to myself that line in a few different tones and one of them is coming out sacastically.

Seweryn

Feckin Liar...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SUKZD6eqgo

happytramp

No

Hmmm, just thinking. Is it possible that Lance was called in by the UCI in 2001 and warned that his numbers were looking a little odd (not an official fail but getting close, the same thing happened to Hamilton) and then bragged to the rest of the gang that he'd failed a test but made it go away? Seems like the kind of thing he might do to appear more powerful. Just a thought.

hardCopy

No

I've got zero faith in any pro who doesn't come out spitting abuse at Armstrong.

If they're frustrated at the repetitive questions, get over it. Rightly or wrongly, cycling is perceived to be dirty to the core, they've had their whole professional lives to adjust to the constant suspicion.

furiousox

No

So has Phil Liggett quit yet?

Leroy42

Why would Phil Liggett quit? I know he was a fan boy, but apart from a handful of people, most people accepted the whole LA situation (not saying they didn't suspect). Just look at how many turned up at the Park, should all of those, myself included, be barred from ever speaking again.

Yes many people had doubts but did that stop this forum being the busiest during the Tour?

It is easy to be wise after the event, but even the rules of this forum helped to keep the LA myth going as people were not allowed to accuse him of doping, rightly.

Yes we all see Walsh and Kimmage as the heroes, now, but honestly how many felt that Walsh was stuck on a rut and wouldn't let it go? I know there was some, but the majority were happy to at least ignore the situation if not accept it.

Even look at the discussion on here about McQuaid and the UCI. We had plenty of people argueing about AGM, EGM etc etc, but few who actually stood up and demanded that our sport be changed from the top down.

Many have complained about the pros, but how many on here are willing to give up their racing for a year or two to show CI that they want change.

Liggett was way OTT, and I am sure that professionally he is ruined. His credibility is shot, the career he built for himself pretty much lays in tatters (I know he can just retire). Buts lets not forget he didn't actually do the doping, he just allowed himself, be it for monetary gain, a sense of wanted to believe or whatever, he just allowed himself to be one of the voices cheering LA on.

I'm not saying I was wise, or stood up, but lets focus on who the real villan(s) of the piece are.