'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Ole Rodrigo

No

It's pretty uncanny actually, from the photo at least.

Lumen

Looks a bit chunky. Should have got Christian Bale.

petethedrummer

No

Lumen wrote: »

Looks a bit chunky. Should have got Christian Bale.

Bale also has the same warm personality.

check_six

ThisRegard wrote: »

That's a pretty good likeness in fairness.

ror_74 wrote: »

It's pretty uncanny actually, from the photo at least.

Don't get too carried away, let's reserve judgement until we see those black socks. Could be a key part of the characterisation, I feel!

aloyisious

No

Breaking news on the RTE Drive-time news programme about the Pat V Brian affair. It's reporting that almost immediately after the vote, a private detective agency entered the UCI offices with Brian's permission and seized Pat's UCI laptop. It is "supposed" the seizure is proof Brian is serious about an investigation into the UCI and cyclists drug use.

Beasty

No

It was in the FT yesterday, and reported in CyclingNews

It wasn't just Pat's laptop - they were looking to secure the whole UCI computer network to give investigators chance to review everything given allegations in the Plant dossier

Good corporate governance in my view

furiousox

No

aloyisious wrote: »

Breaking news on the RTE Drive-time news programme about the Pat V Brian affair.../QUOTE]

Kenny vs Dobson??

happytramp

No

Ingoldsby vs O'Driscoll?

aloyisious

No

happytramp wrote: »

Ingoldsby vs O'Driscoll?

Pensman V Warrior?

aloyisious

No

furiousox wrote: »

aloyisious wrote: »

Breaking news on the RTE Drive-time news programme about the Pat V Brian affair.../QUOTE]

Kenny vs Dobson??

Debate or interview?

petethedrummer

No

Salmon or Beef?

Raam

No

Cheryl or that Olsen one?

Dermot Illogical

No

Taking the backup tapes (as mentioned in that article) is a good sign. The laptop is obvious, but analysing the tapes is at a whole different level and suggests that significant resources are being used.
Of course that's assuming it's not theatrics.

Beasty wrote: »

It was in the FT yesterday, and reported in CyclingNews

It wasn't just Pat's laptop - they were looking to secure the whole UCI computer network to give investigators chance to review everything given allegations in the Plant dossier

Good corporate governance in my view

Russman

No

Surely if there had ever been anything iffy going on (alleged covered up positives, bribes etc etc) they wouldn't have kept official records of it though......?
I would have thought anything like that would, out of necessity, have been a wink wink, nudge nudge type of arrangement. Phone records maybe ?

RobFowl

No

Russman wrote: »

Surely if there had ever been anything iffy going on (alleged covered up positives, bribes etc etc) they wouldn't have kept official records of it though......?
I would have thought anything like that would, out of necessity, have been a wink wink, nudge nudge type of arrangement. Phone records maybe ?

Things like the paper trail for the LA "donations" should be recorded and be transparent in the records. The absence of some things are as important as the presence of others.....

Beasty

No

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Taking the backup tapes (as mentioned in that article) is a good sign. The laptop is obvious, but analysing the tapes is at a whole different level and suggests that significant resources are being used.
Of course that's assuming it's not theatrics.

To be clear, Kroll know what they are doing!

Having said that, we obviously have seen some allegations based on the claims relating to the Plant dossier. However there would appear to be no public evidence of wrongdoing.

The thing I like about Cookson's approach is it was decisive, but any investigation is being kept confidential at this stage. I am sure they will be fully transparent if and when they have something definitive to report one way or the other, but it looks like the investigation is being done in the "correct" manner

dogsears

No

Lawks!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24724501

dastardly00

No

Cyclingnews Editor Daniel Benson has had a face-to-face interview with Armstong. Cyclingnews is publishing the complete interview over four days.

Part 1
Part 2

Again I don’t know what others did or didn’t do, and I don’t want to get into the details, but at some point cycling switched from low-octane to high-octane. I don’t know who had made that switch to high-octane first. In Motorola, we had not in 1993. It’s well documented that we did make that switch in 1995, but in the years before, we were low-octane [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.] That worked okay in 1993 but it did not work okay in 1994. In that winter between '93 and '94, there was a tectonic shift.

Ryath

buffalo

No

dastardly00 wrote: »

Part 2

Nice to see a shout-out to the Irish in part two:

LA: This isn’t Michelle Smith. She was in a pool with more or less clean athletes. This was truly a targeted mission but that’s okay, that was his ticket. So was he being honest, and right on certain aspects? Yes. Was I no different from everyone else? I think we’re starting to see that.

I like how he taints everyone and everything - Smith was competing against not clean athletes, but "more or less clean". Walsh "would have done anything ". He's still trying to shift the blame.

dastardly00

No

Part 3 of the interview.

Was I singled out? Yes. Was there collateral damage with other guys? Yes. Again, it’s all my fault. Of course I’m the guy they went after. Of course. It wouldn’t make any sense to go after anyone else. I get that. All I’m saying is that the initial claim from USADA that they're trying to make a comprehensive claim to clean up cycling isn’t true. I wish it was. They were going after one person, which is also fine but say it and call everyone in at the same time, within the same 48 hours. I was getting antagonising tweets from the UCI Overlord about what Travis was planning. How is it that the UCI Overlord knows what Travis is doing and I don’t? It all fed through Jonathan [Vaughters]. That’s not a comprehensive way to clean up the sport.

dave2pvd

No

dastardly00 wrote: »

Part 3 of the interview.

I don't doubt for a moment that he was singled out. What better way to blow the whole culture up than take out LA? Yes, destroying LA versus the 6 months slap on the wrist the others got is completely disproportionate.

Tough sh1t, Lance - unfortunately for you, the end justifies the means.

petethedrummer

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

I don't doubt for a moment that he was singled out.

He is the only rider who refused to cooperate with USADA. He singled himself out.

Macy0161

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

I don't doubt for a moment that he was singled out. What better way to blow the whole culture up than take out LA? Yes, destroying LA versus the 6 months slap on the wrist the others got is completely disproportionate.

Tough sh1t, Lance - unfortunately for you, the end justifies the means.

He could've plea bargained at any stage, even to the degree that he would probably have kept some Tours. It was his choice not to cooperate.

Morrisseeee

No

Lance's biggest problem was that he got too gready, I mean............7 tours..............back-to-back !! If he had let someone else win 2 of those, I'm guessing he would never have been found out !!

In part 1 he does make an interesting comment on the differences between cycling & other sports, there's definitely some truth in it.

Well listen, the biggest difference between cycling, football and tennis is the players’ union, an athletes’ union. We have no voice, no unity. There are guys all over the place. Those sports, major league sports, they’re not letting that happen and the owners wouldn’t allow it to happen. Whereas we’ve just been living in the Wild West. The riders have no rights, ASO continues to make millions, the teams don’t own anything. The only thing a team owns is its current contract, and when that’s up you’re ****ing done. You might have a couple of buses and a truck. There’s no equity and value. It’s a ****ed up business model.

This is also interesting, and I'm sure a certain Mr Roche will be delighted to see it !!

He [Hein] should have known before because high-octane existed in the late '80s and not just in cycling

Slo_Rida

dave2pvd wrote: »

What better way to blow the whole culture up than take out LA?

Couldn't disagree more. Investing so much in destroying LA did very little to help in the cause of changing cycling. Do you think riders in the last 12 months have been saying "Sh!t Lance just got investigated I'll put down this needle"?
Cooksons reign in UCI may change the culture but crushing Lance....that just satisfied all the people who were pissed off at him.
People are getting 'punishment for LA' mixed up with 'chaniging a doping culture'.

petethedrummer

No

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Investing so much in destroying LA

I can't be having this big conspiracy against Lance hypothesis....

The UCI did not invest anything in destroying Lance.
No cycling publications invested anything in destroying Lance.
99(ish)% of cycling journalists invested nothing in destroying Lance.
A very small number of journalists invested time and energy in destroying Lance.
A few former work colleagues of Lance told the truth in court and in interviews.
USADA interviewed ALL american riders on USPS/Disco after years of ignoring the obvious.
Some people on internet forums stated the obvious for a few years.

petethedrummer

No

Morrisseeee wrote: »

In part 1 he does make an interesting comment on the differences between cycling & other sports, there's definitely some truth in it.

I wonder when Lance was creaming millions of dollars from the sport was he trying to set up a cyclists' union or improve it if one exists?

dave2pvd

No

I don't think we'll ever know what was going through Tygart's mind when he started taking statements from riders. Any opinions we offer on the 'singled out' issue are just that - opinions. Opinions based on a certain amount of conjecture.

The truth of what happened lies somewhere between what Armstrong says and what Tygart says. Closer to Tygart's word, no doubt.

Slo_Rida wrote: »

Couldn't disagree more. Investing so much in destroying LA did very little to help in the cause of changing cycling. Do you think riders in the last 12 months have been saying "Sh!t Lance just got investigated I'll put down this needle"?

Perhaps I overstated my point. However, taking down the LA machine is a big score for the good guys. Remember, he was untouchable. He enforced omerta. He could destroy careers. It's a shame it took so long.

For a while at least, the overt doping that was going on has been stopped in its tracks. It's not gone - but I'll bet the scale is nothing like it was before.

It still gives me pause when I see teams with riders that have no bad days. And old guys that can suddenly win Grand Tours. And experts pointing out that haemocrit levels are not supposed to rise like that...

Morrisseeee

No

I agree Pete, but I guess it wasn't up to him to create one, but given his power he could have, but then he would have wanted to lead it, and that wouldn't have went well (me thinks).

But the point stands, cycling is different than other sports and nothing is being done to 'out' other sports.............why ?

/note: no need to elaborate too much on this last point as it would be off-topic, & I think there are other threads anyway