'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

feargale

Russman wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment, but how far back do you go ? What does the world of cycling do if there'd be, I dunno, maybe the last 50/60 years (or whatever it is), with no official winners of the major races ?

Or just go back to the start of the EPO generation ? But why stop there ? Are we upset at the notion of cheating, or the performance boost from certain types of cheating ?

Old Roman legal maxim : Fiat justitia ad ruat caelum = Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Cienciano

No

Jawgap wrote: »

Stephen Roche among former Tour winners who say Lance Armstrong’s wins should still count



There's a certain logic to it, but I can't say I agree.

It's typical Roche. Instead of the logic that others should be punished, it's the opposite, no one should be.

Capt'n Midnight

No

ror_74 wrote: »

But the culture to win at all costs is sort of reprehensible yet we enjoy it in our growing economies and on our sports screens, until it arbitrarily does something we don't like, and then we turn on it.

wtf ? you bought into "Greed is good" and "it's OK to relax the financial regulations brought in after the last bust because this time it'll be different" cycle responsible for the boom/bust cycles ?

That sort of stuff doesn't benefit everyone. This recession has seen one of the biggest ever transfers of wealth to the super-rich. If you hare having trouble paying the bills just remember that stocks are at an all time high.

It's precisely this self entitled , get ahead regardless of the collateral damage that has damaged so many lives. The stats on excess deaths are there. Both for the economic crisis and those trying to keep up with Lance & co

Sacksian

Pat McQuaid is due to be on Pat Kenny/Newstalk this morning to talk about whether it's time to rehabilitate Lance Armstrong.

The preview was that PMcQ thinks that Lance Armstrong's TdeF wins should be reinstated, as it's likely that lots of other winners were doping.

To be fair, I would be happy enough if they reinstated any winners who had their titles taken from them; or at least anyone who didn't spend years systematically trying to end the careers of people who questioned whether or not their achievements were legitimate. Or everyone except Lance.

Why do people want him rehabilitated? Is it just because he has loads of dirt on everyone or is there a collective guilt that they're trying to deal with?

Raam

No

Any idea what time it might be on at?

Lusk_Doyle

What exactly is meant by "rehabilitating" in this sense?

RobFowl

No

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What exactly is meant by "rehabilitating" in this sense?

Pretending it never happened......

Raam

No

What ever Pat wants it to mean.

The Newstalk Player is ****e. Constantly stopping and rewinding itself.

check_six

PMQ with PK on NT in a couple of mins...

ThisRegard

No

You just beat me to it, he's on to discuss if Armstrong is being unfairly treated next. Should be interesting.

edit, FFS, Pat says he's on next, and next up is a discussion on Peaches Geldofs death.

Raam

No

With all these pauses and unrequested rewinds, I've heard everything on the PK show today three times now.

Raam

No

I have a feeling that Pat is just going to annoy me.

ThisRegard

No

I'm not sure what it is, but after an initial honeymoon period on Newstalk, he has become pretty irritating these days, he's lost a lot of impartiality that previously made his interviews good.

PMQ on now.

Raam

No

I mean McQuaid will annoy me, not Kenny.

check_six

PMQ: "I feel that my stance on doping was held against me in the recent UCI President election"

You're not wrong there!

Lusk_Doyle

Raam wrote: »

I mean McQuaid will annoy me, not Kenny.

Kenny Egan?

dastardly00

No

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Kenny Egan?

That's Kenneth Egan :pac:

allybhoy

No

Anyone able to give a synopsis of what was discussed? If I remember correctly, Kenny gave PMQ a decent grilling on Morning Ireland back when all this came to light, he was a lot better than i thought he would be.

RobFowl

No

check_six wrote: »

PMQ: "I feel that my stance on doping was held against me in the recent UCI President election"

You're not wrong there!

Pretty much the reason he was opposed all right !

check_six

PMQ said:

- All the riders were on EPO in the Tours LA won.
- EPO was undetectable at the time
- Cycling was the first sport to test for EPO
- Other dopers have kept their prizes
- It was a witch hunt by USADA on LA (just as well you didn't give them any help so, PMQ!)
- Other dopers are still riding today
- PMQ cleaned up the sport in the 8 years he was in charge
- The peleton is the cleanest it has ever been today

Think that's most of it...

check_six

There wasn't too much of a grilling going on. PMQ just sort of said his stuff and PK just guided him along.
PMQ didn't like the gap of seven years without a champion in the Tour de France. Also, I think he had a cut at ex-cyclists in the media who were dopers at one point.
I don't think there was anything new. PMQ didn't mention if he was living in Switzerland, Morocco, or Thailand at the moment.

RobFowl

No

There's is some thruth in all of that, unfortunately PMQ also blocked the investigations into LA. UCI under him challenged USADA repeatedly and tried to stop them investigating up until the reasoned decision was released.
Also tests which were not strong enough to stand up in court but which suggested strongly that LA was using EPO were covered up or at best not taken as seriously as they should have been.
Taking money off LA in the form of "donations" was simply unacceptable practice for the leader of the UCI in these circumstance and that alone was reason enough for him to go.
Corporate governance in the UCI needed (and needs still) to change, simply wasn't going to happen under Pat.

That said the bio-passport was a good tool introduced on his watch, and he was at least an improvement on his predecessor !!!

check_six

Yup, he is still happy to take full credit for anything positive, and will deny responsibility for anything negative: "A bigger boy did it, and then he ran away!"

Hermy

No

Sacksian wrote: »

...I would be happy enough if they reinstated any winners who had their titles taken from them...

If their titles were taken away because they doped then they are not winners.

Sacksian

Hermy wrote: »

If their titles were taken away because they doped then they are not winners.

Sorry, I should have been clearer that I wasn't being serious.

Just that, with all this pressure being manufactured (specifically, it would seem) for Lance's benefit, it could be mildly amusing if they decided to agree to the "rehabilitation" of everyone except Lance.

petethedrummer

No

I'm all on for Lance getting his titles back if Landis and Hamilton get theirs. But as usual, there's one rule for Armstrong and another for the rest.

"Another thing that annoys me is that Landis and Hamilton are being made out to be heroes. They are as far from heroes as night and day. They are not heroes, they are scumbags. All they have done is damage the sport." - Pat McQuaid

RobFowl

No

Forget Lance's titles, I'm starting a campaign to get Maurice Garin's disqualification overturned....

MPFG

No

I don't see why anyone who doped and was found guilty should get anything back

Isn't the rule ...dope ,guilty , lose whatever you won in the time you're found guilty of doping...or am i being simplistic

Of course there are others still in the sport who doped and were never found guilty of anything so have had no sanctions, while others have had limited sanctions

best way forward is to bring evidence against them if possible and sanction them too or else let it go

In real life if a man is found guilty of a crime he goes to prison ....no one argues that he should not go to prison just because there are other suspects in the community who are also guilty of similar crimes but have never been found guilty and thus are not punished???

I have no sympathy for Lance Armstrong.....He made a mint out of the sport , rode the whirlwind for as long s he could and then fell of the ledge.....

If you say he should his titles back ...what about all the riders who never had a career because they didn't dope while Lance ruled the ruse.....anyone want to give them their shot back

Quite frankly if there is evidence against others bring it forward or else lets try and put the past to bed .....

Russman

No

MPFG wrote: »

In real life if a man is found guilty of a crime he goes to prison ....no one argues that he should not go to prison just because there are other suspects in the community who are also guilty of similar crimes but have never been found guilty and thus are not punished???

That's true, but I think the problem is the scale. Back in the day, virtually the entire peloton was on something, it certainly wasn't one or two bad apples giving everyone a bad name.
LA may have been and may still be a monumental d1ck, but I can kind of see the logic in the argument that he's been treated "differently" to the others.

Raam

No

Russman wrote: »

That's true, but I think the problem is the scale. Back in the day, virtually the entire peloton was on something, it certainly wasn't one or two bad apples giving everyone a bad name.
LA may have been and may still be a monumental d1ck, but I can kind of see the logic in the argument that he's been treated "differently" to the others.

Can USADA sanction riders from another country? I don't know if they can. I know the Italian version banned Valverde. USADA banned a load of US riders in the fallout from all this. They got lesser bans because they cooperated. Lance did not cooperate.