'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

ThisRegard

No

Flandria wrote: »

Didn't Del Moral have links to Barca as well?

Barcelona claimed he was never on the staff payroll. That implies to me that he just wasn't a full time employee and could have been used as a consultant.

Actually, just googled their response, they do indeed concede that they can't guarantee that he was never used in such a role by their medical staff or individual players.

Sounds like they're covering themselves as an entity in case something ever did come out and they can say well it wasn't actually us but rather elements of the medical staff or individual players that engaged his services.

elduggo

ThisRegard wrote: »

A team mate of his also tested positive but I don't have enough interest to remember who he was.

Edgar Davids

Dempsey

No

elduggo wrote: »

Edgar Davids

Fabio Cannavaro was caught on video with a needle in his arm the night before a game before too, he was injecting himself with neoton, a heart-strengthening drug that is not on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s list of banned substances though. Imagine what goes on when cameras arent looking!

Colonialboy

Yes, but he's still great

C3PO wrote: »

Funny how we all see things differently! My reading of this is that Arsenal FC have an internal testing system whereby they analyse their players urine on a weekly basis. This is in a sport where some posters on here claim that doping is rife! I'm not suggesting that football doesn't have an issue with doping but if cycling teams had taken a similar position in the past the sport might not be in the mess it's in now!

I think your missing the point ..... just how serious are they about it .
Arsenal seem to think it more important that you dont make any phone calls in the building (500 euro fine) ..than actually give urine samples 2 weeks running (only 200 euro)

so effectively you could miss all your urine tests for 1 month and be fined 400 euro
but make one phone call and be fined 500 euro
with an average salary of 50k per week .... its no much of a dis incentive now is it.

Cyling and doping at this stage is a great media story. They are getting loads of mileage out of it. Its a relatively easy target which wouldnt have much sway or lobbying power when it comes to politicians and the media. Other sports must be delighted to be able to sit back and watch cycling get dissected whilst the same microscopic focus on their sports has not been implemented.
Yes I know of all the examples of other sports stars getting caught in other sports.... but how many other sports stars were woken at 3 am the night before a Champions league final and asked to pee in testtube (not to be taken literally)

petethedrummer

No

Dempsey wrote: »

Fabio Cannavaro was caught on video with a needle in his arm the night before a game before too

There's a video of him on youtube receiving a transfusion.

mcgratheoin

No

Colonialboy wrote: »

I think your missing the point ..... just how serious are they about it .
Arsenal seem to think it more important that you dont make any phone calls in the building (500 euro fine) ..than actually give urine samples 2 weeks running (only 200 euro)

I would imagine that the focus of their urine sampling programme is nutrition, therefore it may not be accurate to equate not giving a urine sample to missing a drugs test (either internal or external).

Secondly, aren't fines at football clubs generally related to salary levels - an 18 year old youth player just breaking into the first squad would certainly be expected to pay less in fines than an established first team player on a six figure weekly wage. It'd be interesting to know who was fined for each of these offences.

**edit** just read article and realised that these are flat rate fines, although the fact that they are collected by a player suggests that they're not considered serious disciplinary issues at all.

couerdelion

Yes, but he's still great

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I would imagine that the focus of their urine sampling programme is nutrition, therefore it may not be accurate to equate not giving a urine sample to missing a drugs test (either internal or external).

Secondly, aren't fines at football clubs generally related to salary levels - an 18 year old youth player just breaking into the first squad would certainly be expected to pay less in fines than an established first team player on a six figure weekly wage. It'd be interesting to know who was fined for each of these offences.

**edit** just read article and realised that these are flat rate fines.

Or it could focus on recreational drugs. No indication that they are looking for banned substances ( and no indication that they aren't either!). Would a Urine test show up blood doping?

Fr D Maugire

No

Footballer's doping is hardly ground-breaking news guys or any other sport for that matter.

If people are only discovering that cycling is held to a different standard than other sports because of the Armstrong case, then they clearly haven't been following cycling for long or very closely.

Most of the scandals that have given the sport such a bad name over the last 15 years have not come from positive test's.

For example, the big scandal that kicked it all off in 1998, Festina came about as a result of police intervention and saw athlete's thrown in prison and treated as common criminals.

This is a short list of other subsequent affairs that have seen cyclist's investigated, banned or admitted to doping. Very few if any revolved around positive anti-doping tests. There are plenty more, less known cases as well.

The Giro Blitz raids of 2001
Cofidis investigation 2004
Oil for drugs 2004/5
Operation Puerto 2006
Rasmussen affair 2007
Telekom admissions 2007
Rabobank investigation 2012/13
Mantova Investigation 2012/13

Operation Puerto is the best example the of duplicity, there were over 100 athletes listed in the files found. The only athletes ever outed were cyclists despite the fact that there were lots of athletes from other sports involved.

For example Jan Ullrich more or less had his career ended because the press reckoned that the nick-name used in the Puerto files 'Hijo de Rudy' belonged to Ullrich. The German authorities acted, took a blood sample from Ullrich and matched it to the blood bag in Madrd. Bye bye Ullrich. All based on the press guessing nick-names!!!

The press reckoned the nick-name 'Birillo' was Ivan Basso because that was the name of Basso's dog!!! Basso was then harangued by the Italian press until he admitted that yes he was 'Birillo' in the files. Two year suspension, whole career tainted.

Lots of other cyclist's identified by nick-names were effectively banned or black-listed even though the Spanish authorities buried the entire case. No other non-cycling athletes were subjected to this form of justice even though
the man at the centre of the case Fuentes has hinted that if he talked, Spain would not be World Champions(football) which says it all really. The Puerto files will be making a comeback in 2013. Will be interesting to see if more than cyclists are identified this time but I don't hold out much hope.

Most cycling fans have grown accustomed to our sport being the proverbial punch-bag whilst other sport's skate by but we accept that drug-testing is not the only method of catching the cheats. It might give our sport a bad reputation but at least we are doing something.

That is also why there is so little sympathy for Armstrong. People from other sports look in a say, oh its not fair that Armstrong was busted the way he was because it is not the norm in their sport but actually it's quite standard in cycling to be busted due to an investigation or other non-conventional methods. Armstrong was not unique or singled out in that regard.

Our message is clear, catch the cheats, we don't care how just do it and let other sports do it their way and live in denial.

ThisRegard

No

Nobody has implied that it's ground breaking news, the issue is that the potential cover up and misdirection goes right up to governmental level, and the extent of those using drugs if names are ever made public.

At the moment the Spanish authorities have been happy to let cycling take all the blame considering there have been many investigations going on into it anyway. In Spain some of these drugs weren't illegal at the time, there's a reason why Feuntes is in court on public health charges, so the illegality in WADAs and national agencies eyes was basically sanctioned by the Spanish authorities at the time.

elduggo

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

The press reckoned the nick-name 'Birillo' was Ivan Basso because that was the name of Basso's dog!!! Basso was then harangued by the Italian press until he admitted that yes he was 'Birillo' in the files. Two year suspension, whole career tainted.

they never did find Birillo

RIP (I presume)

hinault

Colonialboy wrote: »

I think your missing the point ..... just how serious are they about it .
Arsenal seem to think it more important that you dont make any phone calls in the building (500 euro fine) ..than actually give urine samples 2 weeks running (only 200 euro)

so effectively you could miss all your urine tests for 1 month and be fined 400 euro
but make one phone call and be fined 500 euro
with an average salary of 50k per week .... its no much of a dis incentive now is it.

Cyling and doping at this stage is a great media story. They are getting loads of mileage out of it. Its a relatively easy target which wouldnt have much sway or lobbying power when it comes to politicians and the media. Other sports must be delighted to be able to sit back and watch cycling get dissected whilst the same microscopic focus on their sports has not been implemented.
Yes I know of all the examples of other sports stars getting caught in other sports.... but how many other sports stars were woken at 3 am the night before a Champions league final and asked to pee in testtube (not to be taken literally)

Fair points.
But making the point that all sports are dirty doesn't absolve cycling or any other sport for that matter.

Armstrong claimed that because he believed other riders were doping that this exonerated his doping.
It's a false premise.
Two wrongs never made a right.

The investigative authorities should be going after all doping throughout sport without fear or favour.

mcgratheoin

No

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Most cycling fans have grown accustomed to our sport being the proverbial punch-bag whilst other sport's skate by but we accept that drug-testing is not the only method of catching the cheats. It might give our sport a bad reputation but at least we are doing something.

I'm not sure that other sports skate by to be fair. I know you'll say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but there hasn't been much of a suggestion around other sports of the type of systematic doping that cycling had a problem with. (Hopefully the Fuentes evidence will be made available to WADA to see what the real story is though) Where Armstrong makes his estimate of 5 clean guys riding the tours he competed in, I'm not sure that there's another sport out there with that level of doping.

In terms of law enforcement officials identifying drug cheats, cycling is far from alone there - baseball and athletics have both been the beneficiaries of the BALCO investigation, and I'd suggest that athletics has at times in recent history been as much of a "punch-bag" as cycling.

You also need to recognise that within endurance sports, doping will have a much larger effect on performance and hence the outcome. Sports like cycling or cross-country skiing are examples where it is virtully impossible for a clean athlete to compete with a doped athlete, while the gains made by doping in other sports are less obvious and more marginal (but it's still cheating). This also means that the situation we had in cycling (dope or get out) is less likely to arise in other sports, with the consequence that a Kimmage, Bassons, Simeoni type figure is less likely to be forced out of the sport and spill the beans.


As an aside, I would imagine that the average football fan would be (not my opinion so don't have a go at me over it) roughly of the attitude that you can take as many drugs as you want, but you're still not going to be able to go past players like Messi, or read a game like Cannavaro, so therefore doping isn't a problem.

hinault

I think it's physiologically feasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes (rugby pitch for 80 minutes, GAA pitch for 70 minutes...........) without having to resort to using banned chemicals.

Cycling 3,500kms in 3 weeks at 40kms per hour throughout:o

Fr D Maugire

No

mcgratheoin wrote: »

I'm not sure that other sports skate by to be fair. I know you'll say that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but there hasn't been much of a suggestion around other sports of the type of systematic doping that cycling had a problem with. (Hopefully the Fuentes evidence will be made available to WADA to see what the real story is though) Where Armstrong makes his estimate of 5 clean guys riding the tours he competed in, I'm not sure that there's another sport out there with that level of doping.

In terms of law enforcement officials identifying drug cheats, cycling is far from alone there - baseball and athletics have both been the beneficiaries of the BALCO investigation, and I'd suggest that athletics has at times in recent history been as much of a "punch-bag" as cycling.

You also need to recognise that within endurance sports, doping will have a much larger effect on performance and hence the outcome. Sports like cycling or cross-country skiing are examples where it is virtully impossible for a clean athlete to compete with a doped athlete, while the gains made by doping in other sports are less obvious and more marginal (but it's still cheating). This also means that the situation we had in cycling (dope or get out) is less likely to arise in other sports, with the consequence that a Kimmage, Bassons, Simeoni type figure is less likely to be forced out of the sport and spill the beans.


As an aside, I would imagine that the average football fan would be (not my opinion so don't have a go at me over it) roughly of the attitude that you can take as many drugs as you want, but you're still not going to be able to go past players like Messi, or read a game like Cannavaro, so therefore doping isn't a problem.

Yeah but the only reason anyone discovered that there was systematic doping in cycling was due to the Festina affair which was run by the police, not the doping authorities. That one case changed the whole attitude of the French in particular and made doping a criminal offence in France. Suddenly cycling was surrounded in suspicion.

If Festina had never happened, there is a very good chance that cycling would have continued on it's merry way like other sport's.

Imagine if the cyclist's in Puerto had been treated the same way as other athlete's!! There would have been no fuss.

How do we know that there is less systematic doping in other sport's if they have not been exposed to the same level of scrutiny. I don't follow athletic's closely so other than BALCO how many time's have non doping authorities got involved in doping cases?? In cycling as I showed, it's a regular event.

You mentioned cross-country skiing, another sport I know little about but which is regarded as the first sport to introduce EPO. How many huge investigations have there been into that sport.

Do other sport's have journalists like Kimmage or Walsh, ironically both these guys report on other sports but don't seem to look at the doping angle. What about rugby which Walsh has reported on. Clean sport??

Don't think we should get into the endurance v skill level of certain sports, another thread perhaps. Indeed where we are going with this is more fit for the other thread.

petethedrummer

No

hinault wrote: »

I think it's physiologically feasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes (rugby pitch for 80 minutes, GAA pitch for 70 minutes...........) without having to resort to using banned chemicals.

It's physically possible to run 100m without drugs.

hinault

petethedrummer wrote: »

It's physically possible to run 100m without drugs.

What's your point?

We know that 100m in Soeul in 1988 was packed with dopers.
You reckon that the 100m times and performances are genuine :rolleyes:

My own guess is that the last non-PED enhanced 100 metres championship race was in the early 1980's.

Cycling 3,500kms at 40kms per hour throughout is, in my view, beyond the limits of non-drugged human physiology.

Cycling 3,500kms at 30-35kms per hour throughout is probably within the threshold of non-drugged human physiology.

Halloween Jack

hinault wrote: »

What's your point?

We know that 100m in Soeul in 1988 was packed with dopers.
You reckon that the 100m times and performances are genuine :rolleyes:

My own guess is that the last non-PED enhanced 100 metres championship race was in the early 1980's.

Cycling 3,500kms at 40kms per hour throughout is, in my view, beyond the limits of non-drugged human physiology.

Cycling 3,500kms at 30-35kms per hour throughout is probably within the threshold of non-drugged human physiology.

Dint angel hereida claim in an interview (I think it's linked in this thread somewhere) that the difference between running 10 secs and 9.7 or whatever they do now was the drugs? He also claimed that 100% of the competitors in the 100m final in Beijing were doped, and that the doping was so bad even the archers were taking stuff to steady their hands...

Cienciano

No

Colonialboy wrote: »

I think your missing the point ..... just how serious are they about it .
Arsenal seem to think it more important that you dont make any phone calls in the building (500 euro fine) ..than actually give urine samples 2 weeks running (only 200 euro)

so effectively you could miss all your urine tests for 1 month and be fined 400 euro
but make one phone call and be fined 500 euro
with an average salary of 50k per week .... its no much of a dis incentive now is it.

Cyling and doping at this stage is a great media story. They are getting loads of mileage out of it. Its a relatively easy target which wouldnt have much sway or lobbying power when it comes to politicians and the media. Other sports must be delighted to be able to sit back and watch cycling get dissected whilst the same microscopic focus on their sports has not been implemented.
Yes I know of all the examples of other sports stars getting caught in other sports.... but how many other sports stars were woken at 3 am the night before a Champions league final and asked to pee in testtube (not to be taken literally)

Think you're reading a bit much into club fines. Rio Ferdinand missed a test and was banned for 8 months. The urine test on the list you posted could be for recreational drugs, clubs keeping an eye on players.
Having said that, there's definitely drugs in football according to off the ball last night wenger once said that they're buying players with abnormally high blood levels. At least he spoke out about it!
Would love to see more about it come out, but most of the fans don't want to know, fifa and uefa definitely don't want to know, government authorities don't want to know if big clubs are involved and most journalists don't want to know because the fans aren't interested!

ThisRegard

No

hinault wrote: »

I think it's physiologically feasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes (rugby pitch for 80 minutes, GAA pitch for 70 minutes...........) without having to resort to using banned chemicals.

Very easily done in soccer I would say, it's not like they're constantly running for a full 90 minutes. Your average amateur club athlete would run for a longer duration than that several times a week. Rugby players, depending on your position, would probably exert most of their energy in tackles and all the physicality that comes with the game. GAA is a mixed bag, it's well known that club GAA players are the fastest athletes in the country.

petethedrummer

No

hinault wrote: »

What's your point?

My point was that your point seemed to play down the benefits or the need for drugs in field sports by juxtaposing your field sports example with your cycling example. Saying one was possible and another wasn't, perhaps I picked you up wrong.

I'd say there is an enormous benefit in field sports and that loads of players are on them. Maybe not all the time but at key moments in their seasons.

Average speed of a tour isn't that important. Lemond won at 38km/hr, The last 2 tours were 39.8km/hr. Doping only really shows in TTs and mountaineous stages. The rest of the time its not gonna effect the overall speed too much. Maybe 1 or 2km/hr but not 5 or 10. Of course that only means something if my examples were clean. Which I believe they pretty much were....or do I?...can't make my mind up.

petethedrummer

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

Very easily done in soccer I would say, it's not like they're constantly running for a full 90 minutes. Your average amateur club athlete would run for a longer duration than that several times a week.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Anyone could run around for 90 minutes at Wembley in the FA cup final, the problem is that you would be last to the ball every time, unless you were up against Tom Huddlestone. Most football players are physically trained within an inch of their lives for their specific positions. Doping would aid this and their recovery. I don't know what some club runner does of an evening has to do with Football.

DirkVoodoo

No

Anyone who has kicked a ball knows that, much like in cycling, it's not the average speed that kills you, it's the constant bursts of acceleration, the quick changes of direction, etc.

Running for 90 minutes? No, but try doing some pyramids or a bleep test for even a fraction of that and see how easy you find it...

ford2600

No

When players step up a level in field sports, the usual difference is less time on ball to assess situation and make right move/pass etc.
Ditto for when physicality goes up a notch or two.
PED in helping an athlete improve his overall condition to suit demands of a particular sport would give an advantage.
It won't make your passing more accurate, but it will help
you take hits, make space for yourself etc so that you can use your skill.

petethedrummer wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Anyone could run around for 90 minutes at Wembley in the FA cup final, the problem is that you would be last to the ball every time, unless you were up against Tom Huddlestone. Most football players are physically trained within an inch of their lives for their specific positions. Doping would aid this and their recovery. I don't know what some club runner does of an evening has to do with Football.

ThisRegard

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges.

Anyone could run around for 90 minutes at Wembley in the FA cup final, the problem is that you would be last to the ball every time, unless you were up against Tom Huddlestone. Most football players are physically trained within an inch of their lives for their specific positions. Doping would aid this and their recovery. I don't know what some club runner does of an evening has to do with Football.

My point is that it's very easy to run for a 90 minute period during a soccer game, I'm countering the point made that it's physiologically unfeasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes. A club runner running 90 minutes several times a week shows that it's nothing unusual or special. A massive amount of amateur players playing for 90 minutes every weekend after a feed of drink proves that even when not at your physical peak it can be done, even if they are ****e.

As you say the benefits of drugs would be in your recovery time between the burst of speed a player would be doing during this period and allow you to maintain a higher level of performance throughout the 90 minute period instead of fading away after an hour or so.

No, but try doing some pyramids or a bleep test for even a fraction of that and see how easy you find it

Used to do an hour twice a week, burpees and everything. As an amateur I could manage it, I would think someone who is paid to do nothing but play and train wouldn't find it too excessive.

petethedrummer

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

My point is that it's very easy to run for a 90 minute period during a soccer game

It is very difficult at the highest level and even at low levels if you are not specifically trained. If it wasn't why would anyone train? Why would players cramp? Why would some of them dope with nandrolone?

That said you could be lucky and be blessed with enough skill that would negate the need for running. e.g. C. Corkery, Jan Molby, Matt Le Tissier. but you can only have 1 of those on a team.

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm countering the point made that it's physiologically unfeasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes.

I don't think anyone said it was unfeasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes. But I am arguing that it is difficult to do and be effective at a decent level.

ThisRegard

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't think anyone said it was unfeasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes. But I am arguing that it is difficult to do and be effective at a decent level.

I'm an ass ! I read the below as "I don't think". I've been arguing with myself.

hinault wrote: »

I think it's physiologically feasible to run around a soccer pitch for 90 minutes (rugby pitch for 80 minutes, GAA pitch for 70 minutes...........) without having to resort to using banned chemicals.

Cycling 3,500kms in 3 weeks at 40kms per hour throughout:o

Enduro

No

ThisRegard wrote: »

it's well known that club GAA players are the fastest athletes in the country.

A little OT, but that's absolute rubbish. (Please tell me I've missed some obvious sarcasm there)

letape

No

deandean wrote: »

That's three times that has been posted on the thread now!

ThisRegard

No

Enduro wrote: »

A little OT, but that's absolute rubbish. (Please tell me I've missed some obvious sarcasm there)

It's on ongoing joke over in the Athletics forum, guys come on asking how much training they need to do to run a sub 4 minute mile by the end of the month as they do a bit of GAA training during the week so are fairly fit. That type of thing.

If you didn't spend your days running around the alps or courses in America to set all sorts of Irish records you'd have more time to waste on the ART forum and spot these threads

letape

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

Average speed of a tour isn't that important. Lemond won at 38km/hr, The last 2 tours were 39.8km/hr. Doping only really shows in TTs and mountaineous stages. The rest of the time its not gonna effect the overall speed too much. Maybe 1 or 2km/hr but not 5 or 10. Of course that only means something if my examples were clean. Which I believe they pretty much were....or do I?...can't make my mind up.

The average speed may be only slightly higher in 2011 and 2012 v 1989 - but there is a significant amount of additional climbing now and the route is a good bit longer. I can't remember where I read it recently (may have been seven dealdly sins) but over a period of 10 years when you compare average speeds, the amount of climbing and the increased distance, it equates to an increase in 10% more effort. I believe the 10 years being compared were the early 90s to the end of the 90s.