'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

ThisRegard

No

But to have an opinion, in the face of all the facts and history of this, that it's just a giant conspiracy against Lance and that those who testified againsts him only done so because of some dodgy incentive from the USADA, is just a bit against the grain these days.

corny

No

Just heard Alex Dowsett and Steve Cummings on Sky Sports news. If anyone gets a chance watch it.:(

Dowsett thinks 'he's a legend', and the doping 'doesn't matter'. Cummings thinks that his charity basically means we should forgive him.

I know people think this is the beginning of a new dawn but these people are broken behind repair. Nothing will change bar the evolution of disguise.

ThisRegard

No

corny wrote: »

I know people think this is the beginning of a new dawn but these people are broken behind repair. Nothing will change bar the evolution of disguise.

Yip, when you have two current members of the pro peleton coming out with statements like that after USADAs report you have to despair.

Hermy

No

martingriff wrote: »

I am not disbutting that however if you would like to read the resst of my post as to why I was thinking it. It would be good

I've reread your post and I'm still drawing the same conclusion that you believe USADA had a vendetta against Armstrong which is complete and utter nonsense. The fact is that USADA pursued a case against Armstrong because Lance Armstrong repeatedly doped, lied, cheated and bullied his way to the podium of the Tour de France

wpd

No

http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Screen-Shot-2012-10-11-at-08.46.29.png


The winner is???

paddy no 11

No

corny wrote: »

Just heard Alex Dowsett and Steve Cummings on Sky Sports news. If anyone gets a chance watch it.:(

Dowsett thinks 'he's a legend', and the doping 'doesn't matter'. Cummings thinks that his charity basically means we should forgive him.

I know people think this is the beginning of a new dawn but these people are broken behind repair. Nothing will change bar the evolution of disguise.

Thats depressing, Kimmage needs to topple the UCI. The trial in switzerland cant come quick enough to save cycling.


Where would cycling be without him and Walsh?

petethedrummer

No

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Where would cycling be without him and Walsh?

Hulk Hogan might have won the tour de france.

Chips Lovell

No

At the moment the story is all about the evidence and the other team mates who've made admissions, but the story is going to move on from there.

1. The next step is the UCI, who've now got 21 days to decide what, if anything, they're going to do about this. It's too big to ignore and too credible to contest I think, but as yet they've shown no sign of wanting to clean house.
   
2. There are numerous redacted names in the affidavits, e.g Rider 1, Rider 2 etc. I'm assuming these are non-US riders who don't fall under USADA jurisdiction. What is to be done about these people? Are their names and testimony related to them going to be forwarded to relevant national associations?
   
3. There has to be blowback for other people named in the documents or linked to those named. For example, Bjarne Riis has some interesting times ahead. Four people have testified here they were doping on CSC. He can't be let ignore it. Similarly Contador was involved for a long time with Bruyneel and Pepe Marti was his personal trainer. He's also going to be asked a lot of hard questions.
   
4. Numerous riders on other teams have been named as Ferrari clients, particularly in Bertagnolli and Bileka's affidavits. They and their teams need to be questioned.
   
5. Dave Brailsford needs to rethink his policies. He said he was shocked that Barry lied to him but he needed to be very naive to think that if he hired riders above a certain age, none would have doping histories. That's unrealistic and furthermore makes him look foolish.
   
6. While I believe most of the statements given in the past 24 hours, one guy I believe has been less than honest, specifically with regard to when he knocked it on the head. He said it was six years ago. I suspect it was shorter than that. Boards rule prohibit me from naming that person. But if we're going to be honest now, we might as well tell the full story. Also Barry owes us all an explanation as to why he issued a denial about Landis's allegations.

oflahero

No

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Thats depressing, Kimmage needs to topple the UCI. The trial in switzerland cant come quick enough to save cycling.

I'll eat my too-short socks if UCI vs Kimmage makes it within an ass's roar of the courtroom steps now.

ThisRegard

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

There are numerous redacted names in the affidavits, e.g Rider 1, Rider 2 etc. I'm assuming these are non-US riders who don't fall under USADA jurisdiction. What is to be done about these people? Are their names and testimony related to them going to be forwarded to relevant national associations?

I can't find it now but weren't some of the names redacted because of either ongoing, or the potential for future, cases ?

edit: Does this statement cover it ?

In the witness affidavits provided in Appendix A names of individuals who have not yet been
charged with doping have been redacted. USADA’s investigation into doping in cycling
continues and evidence of doping obtained by USADA and involving individuals who have not
already been charged will be handled in accordance with the rules.

hardCopy

No

banchang wrote: »

iregk wrote: »

You know what sickens me in all of this Lance thing going back through the years and still today. The use of cancer. As Paul Kimmage siad, he doesn't have a patent on cancer. Now I'm on record a number of times in this forum outlining my feelings on LA, to me he is the biggest fraud that sport has ever seen. But it's the use of cancer that really gets to me.

Ok he suffered with it and yes he survived and regardless of who he is and what he did I will always be happy that he did that. I have friends and family who have gone through the same faith and it's one of my worst experiences in life to see a friend and a family member going through chemotherapy. So I've been directly touched by the disease and love to hear of stories of anyone who has survived it. What really annoys me is anytime anyone says anything remotely negative about him both him and his supporters, some on this forum, roll out the cancer defense straight away. Using it nonchalantly as if it absolves the man of anything and offers him the up most virtue.

Lance is it true you took drugs?
You must love cancer, I beat that desease man!

Seriously can those defending him on here, and I've no problem with that each is entitled to their own opinion, but just please leave the cancer out of it. Yes we know about it, we know what he went through but trying to defend the man for what he did based on playing the cancer card is sick, pathetic and down right shameful both on your part and his part.

There I've said my peace and will stay out of the remainder of this discussion.

Those defending him don't in general make that argument, but rather advocate that whatever about cycling cheating, the Livestrong Foundation has raised more than USD470m, providing financial resources 550+ organizations that conduct cancer survivorship research or offer services to people affected by cancer, & 81c of every dollar raised has gone directly to support programs and services for survivors.

Can't stand drug cheating & he was rightly exposed, but this particular 'cancer card' is undeniably positive.

It's quite deniable and there are huge questions over the foundation. They don't fund research, lance has personally profited from the sale of foundation assets and the foundation sent a lobbyist to Washington to undermine USADA.

The foundation seems to exist primarily to benefit Lance Armstrong.

Macy0161

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Dave Brailsford needs to rethink his policies. He said he was shocked that Barry lied to him but he needed to be very naive to think that if he hired riders above a certain age, none would have doping histories. That's unrealistic and furthermore makes him look foolish.

The policy of nobody convicted was always stupid as it was always about appearances rather than reality, but the more comments come from the Sky camp, the more suss they look. I was surprised to hear Richard Moore on 5live last night be so confident in sky tbh. He was good when he had the chance to questions Armstrongs lawyer though.

Flandria

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

1. Numerous riders on other teams have been named as Ferrari clients, particularly in Bertagnolli and Bileka's affidavits. They and their teams need to be questioned.

Good point, the Bertagnoll affadavit is particularly damning for some - Chicci, Gasparotto, Kreuziger, Bole, Spilak, and, naturally, Vino (Fuentes and Ferrari??). Also worth noting that Ferrari was ahead of the plasticizer test and insisted on glass or polypropylene bags, he also speculated the the lab spiked Contador's clenbuterol sample. 'Schumi' really was a Formula 1 dirtbag wasn't he?

petethedrummer

No

househero wrote: »

You are right Alfa, sport should be clean, I am often beat by known users. Do I have a problem with that? No,

If you were over it you wouldn't bring it up it. The past is the past. They won and you lost. Time to move on. You have zero evidence. These guys were better than you and you blame your loss on doping. I'm sorry you don't believe.

morana

No

what future can the sport have if Dowsett and Cummings are basically pro-doping.

the sport is lost

Lusk Doyle

No

Who are these 7 additional people who have voted "No" since yesterday?!?

corny

No

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

At the moment the story is all about the evidence and the other team mates who've made admissions, but the story is going to move on from there.

1. The next step is the UCI, who've now got 21 days to decide what, if anything, they're going to do about this. It's too big to ignore and too credible to contest I think, but as yet they've shown no sign of wanting to clean house.
   
2. There are numerous redacted names in the affidavits, e.g Rider 1, Rider 2 etc. I'm assuming these are non-US riders who don't fall under USADA jurisdiction. What is to be done about these people? Are their names and testimony related to them going to be forwarded to relevant national associations?
   
3. There has to be blowback for other people named in the documents or linked to those named. For example, Bjarne Riis has some interesting times ahead. Four people have testified here they were doping on CSC. He can't be let ignore it. Similarly Contador was involved for a long time with Bruyneel and Pepe Marti was his personal trainer. He's also going to be asked a lot of hard questions.
   
4. Numerous riders on other teams have been named as Ferrari clients, particularly in Bertagnolli and Bileka's affidavits. They and their teams need to be questioned.
   
5. Dave Brailsford needs to rethink his policies. He said he was shocked that Barry lied to him but he needed to be very naive to think that if he hired riders above a certain age, none would have doping histories. That's unrealistic and furthermore makes him look foolish.
   
6. While I believe most of the statements given in the past 24 hours, one guy I believe has been less than honest, specifically with regard to when he knocked it on the head. He said it was six years ago. I suspect it was shorter than that. Boards rule prohibit me from naming that person. But if we're going to be honest now, we might as well tell the full story. Also Barry owes us all an explanation as to why he issued a denial about Landis's allegations.

Can you tell us why? He can stay unnamed though.;)

martingriff

No

Hermy wrote: »

I've reread your post and I'm still drawing the same conclusion that you believe USADA had a vendetta against Armstrong which is complete and utter nonsense. The fact is that USADA pursued a case against Armstrong because Lance Armstrong repeatedly doped, lied, cheated and bullied his way to the podium of the Tour de France

Vandetta was a strong word and I should have changed it. My question if you reread it again is about the ones who they interviewed I was wondering were they getting immunity or what. I have nothing against USADA and pursuing Lance Armstong. What I would have had a problem with was if the USADA had been going all out for Lance Armstrong and not charging the rest.

It has been answered for me that they are getting a reduced ban plus all titles and money away from them which I think is good. Again my use of Vandetta was wrong I never meant it like that

Raam

No

corny wrote: »

Can you tell us why? He can stay unnamed though.;)

Bottle!

Readers of Toto will figure it out quick enough.

Lusk Doyle

No

Raam wrote: »

Bottle!

Readers of Toto will figure it out quick enough.

Paul Weller is a cyclist?!?

Raam

No

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Paul Weller is a cyclist?!?

No.

Lusk Doyle

No

Raam wrote: »

No.

Oh. Ok. ...er, thanks :rolleyes:

petethedrummer

No

We need to go back and look at who started all this off. Floyd Landis with Tyler Hamilton quickly jumping on board. These guys are proven liars. Proven POWERFUL liars. If i had a red ball in my hand Landis would point at it and say it was blue because he can't not lie. I bet if he said it was red, the molecular structure of the plastic would change until it wasn't red anymore. That's how much of a liar he is. Nothing he says could possibly be true.

See this is what has happened. 2 very powerful liars have some how, telekinesis perhaps, altered the synapses in the other 9 riders' brains so they are now all lying too. They implanted all the same stories in each one of their brains so they could all be corroborated if ever individually interrogated by a government agency (or two). Armstrong's brain has withstood tremondously strong treatments in the past and is therefore immune to their lies. He is the only one telling the truth now.

martingriff

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

We need to go back and look at who started all this off. Floyd Landis with Tyler Hamilton quickly jumping on board. These guys are proven liars. Proven POWERFUL liars. If i had a red ball in my hand Landis would point at it and say it was blue because he can't not lie. I bet if he said it was red, the molecular structure of the plastic would change until it wasn't red anymore. That's how much of a liar he is. Nothing he says could possibly be true.

See this is what has happened. 2 very powerful liars have some how, telekinesis perhaps, altered the synapses in the other 9 riders' brains so they are now all lying too. They implanted all the same stories in each one of their brains so they could all be corroborated if ever individually interrogated by a government agency (or two). Armstrong's brain has withstood tremondously strong treatments in the past and is therefore immune to their lies. He is the only one telling the truth now.

Written with a straight face

paddy no 11

No

oflahero wrote: »

I'll eat my too-short socks if UCI vs Kimmage makes it within an ass's roar of the courtroom steps now.

Be interesting to see how it plays out either way.

leftism

No

Flandria wrote: »

Also worth noting that Ferrari was ahead of the plasticizer test and insisted on glass or polypropylene bags, he also speculated the the lab spiked Contador's clenbuterol sample. 'Schumi' really was a Formula 1 dirtbag wasn't he?

Back in 2008, while on training camp in Austria, I spoke to a former pro-athlete (non-cyclist) who had a contact number of a WADA lab technician in Budapest. He actually showed me the guys number. For the low low price of $20,000 per year, that guy (and i'm assuming others) would provide up to date information on which drugs were not currently testable and which new tests were just coming online. I'm not the least bit surprised Ferrari was ahead of the plasticizer test...

ednwireland

morana wrote: »

what future can the sport have if Dowsett and Cummings are basically pro-doping.

the sport is lost

+1 cant beleive that attitude

Lusk Doyle

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

We need to go back and look at who started all this off. Floyd Landis with Tyler Hamilton quickly jumping on board. These guys are proven liars. Proven POWERFUL liars. If i had a red ball in my hand Landis would point at it and say it was blue because he can't not lie. I bet if he said it was red, the molecular structure of the plastic would change until it wasn't red anymore. That's how much of a liar he is. Nothing he says could possibly be true.

See this is what has happened. 2 very powerful liars have some how, telekinesis perhaps, altered the synapses in the other 9 riders' brains so they are now all lying too. They implanted all the same stories in each one of their brains so they could all be corroborated if ever individually interrogated by a government agency (or two). Armstrong's brain has withstood tremondously strong treatments in the past and is therefore immune to their lies. He is the only one telling the truth now.

damoz

No

oflahero wrote: »

I'll eat my too-short socks if UCI vs Kimmage makes it within an ass's roar of the courtroom steps now.

will i get a refund so ?

i would be willing to have my donation fund some more freelance investigative journalism by PK

retalivity

back to best quotes...

Yet, as explained below, Hincapie has testified that he was aware of Armstrong’s use of
EPO and blood transfusions.49 He reports that Armstrong even provided EPO to Hincapie for
Hincapie’s own use.50 Hincapie explains how he, like Armstrong, was a client of the doping
doctor Michele Ferrari who incorporated EPO and blood doping into Hincapie’s training
program.51 And, Hincapie admits that he participated in the USPS/Discovery Channel blood
doping program.

...Quickly followed by a quote from Lance's book itself:

“There have been times when I’ve practically lived out of the same suitcase with
George Hincapie. In cycling we’re on the side of a mountain for weeks, in small
hotel rooms, sharing every ache, and pain, and meal. You get to know everything
about each other, including things you’d rather not.”52

Nail, coffin, etc...