'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

leftism

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

Because he promised us he would.... Apart from the vindication of Emma O'Reilly, the possibility of getting Liggott to quit may be the biggest positive to come out of the whole Armstrong confession!

dermur

No

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

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.

I believe he said something along the lines of "I raced clean and he finished behind me (and Contador) so I believe he was clean too".

A this stage I'm seriously thinking of switching over to a more credible sport like WWF...

Hermy

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

...but honestly how many felt that Walsh was stuck on a rut and wouldn't let it go?...

I can honestly say that I've never felt that Walsh (or Kimmage) was stuck in a rut.
To me the people stuck in a rut are those within pro cycling who tolerate and perpetuate the doping culture that's been a part of the sport for too long.

surripere

furiousox wrote: »

So has Phil Liggett quit yet?

Nope...he on later tonight, tour down under sky sports 1

petethedrummer

No

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

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.

NO.

petethedrummer

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

You should never be allowed commentate on cycling.

petethedrummer

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

Leinders? No way. This has come out of the blue. OMG. Someone tell David Brailsford.

petethedrummer

No

leftism wrote: »

But ask about their power at threshold, and they'll probably keep that card much closer to their chest!

Is that a Power V time to exhaustion test?? there are a few of those. look just register. its easier than me relaying the information to you. it's free.:)

leftism

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

look just register. its easier than me relaying the information to you. it's free.:)

SOLD!

dave_o_brien

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....

I'm not saying their response is right. I think that anybody with a brain knows that lance is incapable of honesty, and that to believe anything other than that he has no place in pro sport is naive at best, downright dangerous would be my opinion. For Andy to say what he did makes me so angry, ignorant idiot that he is.

I only have two points to make.

The first is that for the moment at least, the pros operate within the uci. Their anger can only be aired in public so loudly before they'll be told be management and sponsors to keep it down. Being asked about it time and again must get frustrating.

And then simply being asked about anything repeatedly would get frustrating. When they then get frustrated, why does that surprise people?

Once again, I'm not apologizing on their behalf- it's past of the reality of their job, they should deal with it. Their response should be phrased to reflect a disgust with what happened. But when they get annoyed with the repeated questioning, i understand, if find it a tad childish.

ThisRegard

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

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.

The results of the poll on this thread alone disproves your point.

martingriff

No

poolboy wrote: »

To late for kimmage on that front I'm afraid

After hearing the interviews and reading pieces of there pieces in the papers this week I have to agree with you. Walsh does not seem to mind in himself he only wwants does he interviewed to get vindicated. Kimmage has a chip I think from been shouted by Armstrong (do see it to a point) but if that irritates him then been a journalist is not the best job

Diarmuid

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

The results of the poll on this thread alone disproves your point.

Also the results from a poll from 4 years ago!

mcgratheoin

No

martingriff wrote: »

After hearing the interviews and reading pieces of there pieces in the papers this week I have to agree with you. Walsh does not seem to mind in himself he only wwants does he interviewed to get vindicated. Kimmage has a chip I think from been shouted by Armstrong (do see it to a point) but if that irritates him then been a journalist is not the best job

Just in context, while David Walsh is a journalist first and foremost, Paul Kimmage was denied the chance of a pro-cycling career by doped riders in the peleton. It is completely understandable that he would have more of an emotional involvement in the subject, especially given the abuse he has received from parts of the cycling community over the last 20 years.


As an aside - who came out with this gem recently?

I was the single most tested rider on the planet

lennymc

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

As an aside - who came out with this gem recently?

cav, wasnt it?

Leroy42

The poll from 4 years shows nothing but apathy. 103 responses, and not even 50% said he was a druggy. Compare that to the poll on this thread, which was started around the time of the USADA report when even LA had given up the pretence.

Suddenly everybody knew it all along. All you can take from the poll 4 years ago was that less than 50% believed he was druggy and should get lost, while 30% were undecided for exactly the same reasons that people every where were.

The results of this poll only serve to prove what a great job USADA did in totally exposing the lie. That coupled with Hamiltons book really left little doubt.

mcgratheoin

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

not even 50% said he was a druggy.

And they all got hit with a boards.ie doping speculation ban!

wonderfullife

No

Anybody else notice the surprising lack of the C-word in both interviews? Almost as if his lawyers advised against its use. He kept reaching for words like disease and diagnosis and illness, as opposed to the C-word which, in the past, was his main line of attack.

The part about the "Truth and Reconciliation" process, i DO believe he would be first in the door. If the UCI or any independent body offer cyclists an amnesty to come forward, then bingo Lance can spill every bean possible with few repercussions. If he does that now, there are repercussions galore.

mcgratheoin

No

lennymc wrote: »

cav, wasnt it?

Yeah, dumbest thing I've heard him come out with by far. I think it shows the lack of understanding within the peleton of why the public are angry and why these issues and questions keep getting raised with them. To come out with a line that is identical to one of Lance's cornerstones of defence is incredibly naive.

lennymc

No

i dunno mcgratheoin, if you just look at that sentence on its own, then I would agree with you, it was a stupid thing to say. I think if you take it the context he meant it, (he was winning or placing in lots of races, and if you win or place you get tested) it doesnt sound as bad. The full interview can be found here if anyone wants to read it.

On a race the top three riders will be chaperoned the moment they cross the line, even when on the podium, until they have given a urine sample. That is standard.
It means if you’re winning a lot you’re day is made a lot longer after each stage because you have to comply to their rules. They don’t let you out of their sight.
One year I was doing so well I was the single most tested rider on the planet.

mcgratheoin

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

The part about the "Truth and Reconciliation" process, i DO believe he would be first in the door. If the UCI or any independent body offer cyclists an amnesty to come forward, then bingo Lance can spill every bean possible with few repercussions. If he does that now, there are repercussions galore.

I'm not sure that anyone except USADA/WADA would be able to offer Lance an amnesty. As I understand it, the amnesty deal would be something like -
"you will not be sanctioned for any possible offences that you may reveal to the panel during the course of your evidence"
I don't think that would extend to currently banned athletes having their bans overturned or reduced, merely for confirming what has already been proven. His only way out of a lifetime ban is to bring enough to the table with WADA that they are willing to cut a deal.

mcgratheoin

No

lennymc wrote: »

i dunno mcgratheoin, if you just look at that sentence on its own, then I would agree with you, it was a stupid thing to say. I think if you take it the context he meant it, (he was winning or placing in lots of races, and if you win or place you get tested) it doesnt sound as bad. The full interview can be found here if anyone wants to read it.

Yeah, I know that broadly speaking he's making a valid point, however what he doesn't seem to grasp is that for quite a number of years (anyone know how many) the winners and placers have been tested after each race. The nub of the issue is that we had a generation of cyclists who were able to beat drug tests with impunity and the current generation of cyclists are telling us that there's more testing now so it must be cleaner. There is nothing being said now by these cyclists that wasn't said by Armstrong, Ullrich, Vino, Pantani et al in the aftermath of the Festina affair. What Cav and Wiggins need to understand is that cycling fans have done this dance a dozen times already. We don't trust the riders, we don't trust the DS's, we don't trust the testing and we most certainly don't trust the UCI. If the riders want the repetitive questions to go away, then they need to begin rebuilding that trust.

I'm not sure exactly what they can do to regain that trust, but here's what doesn't help;

• Ambiguity over past dopers - Big Mig and Bertie, I'm looking at you
• Pretending to believe that Armstrong was clean in 09-10 (I'll give Cav credit here for saying he doesn't believe him)
• Telling us all the problems were in the 90s when the 2012 tour was the first in decades without a proven doper on the podium in Paris
• Telling us that the team is anti-doping and then employing a very very dodgy doctor
• attacking any journalists who ask questions about what is currently the biggest story in cycling

ThisRegard

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Anybody else notice the surprising lack of the C-word in both interviews? Almost as if his lawyers advised against its use. He kept reaching for words like disease and diagnosis and illness, as opposed to the C-word which, in the past, was his main line of attack.

I picked up on that myself during the first interview, I don't think he ever said cancer, just the disease.

Betsy Andreu was on off the Ball Last night, can be heard on their playback page, http://media.newstalk.ie/archive Her interview is spread over part 1 and 2, starts around 45/46 minutes in part 1.

lennymc

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Anybody else notice the surprising lack of the C-word in both interviews?

The one that rhymes with runt?
Im sure most people watching were thinking it.

Diarmuid

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Anybody else notice the surprising lack of the C-word in both interviews? Almost as if his lawyers advised against its use. He kept reaching for words like disease and diagnosis and illness, as opposed to the C-word which, in the past, was his main line of attack.

yeah I noticed that too. He seemed to call it the "disease" a lot.

MPFG

No

Article on drugs in other sports

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9816922/Spain-accused-of-a-doping-cover-up-as-doctor-implicated-in-cyclings-Operation-Puerto-scandal-goes-on-trial.html

wonderfullife

No

One thing i think is crystal clear through the interviews: Lance firmly believes in his own mind he legitimately won those tours. The twitpic of the 7 jerseys, which he brushed off as a "jerk move", is a fair representation of how he feels. How he thinks. Probably a F-them they were all at it, i did it best.

I'm not so sure where he plucked the 5 out of 200 figure for clean riders though. Would it be having too much faith in cycling to question that number? i'd like to think, even with rampant doping, the figure would be closer to 50 out of 200 clean during the 2001-2005 era.

AIR-AUSSIE

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

One thing i think is crystal clear through the interviews: Lance firmly believes in his own mind he legitimately won those tours. The twitpic of the 7 jerseys, which he brushed off as a "jerk move", is a fair representation of how he feels. How he thinks. Probably a F-them they were all at it, i did it best.

I'm not so sure where he plucked the 5 out of 200 figure for clean riders though. Would it be having too much faith in cycling to question that number? i'd like to think, even with rampant doping, the figure would be closer to 50 out of 200 clean during the 2001-2005 era.

His strava profile would agree:


http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/armstrong-still-the-tour-champion-or-so-he-says-on-social-media_270725

corny

No

MPFG wrote: »

Article on drugs in other sports

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9816922/Spain-accused-of-a-doping-cover-up-as-doctor-implicated-in-cyclings-Operation-Puerto-scandal-goes-on-trial.html

What was it Fuentes said? 'If i talk Spain wouldn't be World Champions'.

Tragic they're only going after the cyclists but the footballers have deeper pockets i suppose.

Halloween Jack

MPFG wrote: »

Article on drugs in other sports

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9816922/Spain-accused-of-a-doping-cover-up-as-doctor-implicated-in-cyclings-Operation-Puerto-scandal-goes-on-trial.html

Anybody with an interest in doping in general would do well to check out:

http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com

It suggest other governing/sanctioning bodies are following the uci's lead....

Depressing stuff, I can't trust anything I see now.....