'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Glass Prison 1214

No

i dont understand how anyone can come out and say that, he is surely lying and he isnt achieving anything at this stage except make people think he is a lier

el tel

No

Do you ever get the feeling that the problems or issues will never be rectified? If anything, the whole episode shows that no matter how big a ****er you are, redemption is never far away.

All those successful guys on the local scene who are better than the rest of us by simply being fitter and training harder have gone even further up in my estimation. That's where the real cycling is at. THough I still wish I didn't have to be affiliated with an organisatin that is affiliated to the UCI to ride my bike competetively :mad:

thebouldwhacker

Yes, but he's still great

Yea, just watched the interview.
What he said was cycling was dirty. Back in the day the chances are most if the pro's were doping but now they are not but there will always be one or two who will try it.
He did not make his point well but from what I saw he was saying cycling is worth fighting for and it will be as clean as possible in the future.

Tobyglen

No

Wibbs wrote: »

Very much this. Me being of an older generation I got into pro cycling in the early 80's watching Kelly and Roche et al in the pre EPO days.

Taking Kelly as an example. Probably one of the finest all rounders the sport has seen. He could sprint, time trial and dominate one day classics, even win the odd grand tour(Spanish IIRC). He got close enough early on in the Tour de france, but wasn't quite the right sort to win it, not up against the grand tour specialists of the day anyway. He could hang on in the climbs, but couldn't dominate them, often making up time by being fcuking insane in the membrane on descents. You'd defo see him suffer going uphill when compared to say Roche or Fignon.

If back then we'd seen Sean get into a tough climb and power away from the Columbian specialists of the time like he was on the flats without getting out of the saddle, our collective jaws would have dropped and questions would have been asked. Loudly. Yet Armstrong, a similarly built classics type rider(with undoped a third of the talent of a Kelly) did just that kinda thing and was usually collectively praised for it. It would be like watching one of the near anorexic climbing specialists beat the best sprinters in the world in a flat stage bunch finish. Would not compute.

I have to say for me LA wasn't the only one in those days who raised eyebrows, including riders who've so far not been implicated, but as per the rules of the forum... Again IMHO I squint at the non naturally built for climbing riders who "out of the blue" started to dominate. That's where the extra in the blood counts. Doping suits the more well built bigger classic rider to get up those hils. It wouldn't do nearly as much for climbing specialists in TT's and sprints etc. Now you do very rarely pre EPO days all rounders like Merckx, but he was such a genetic outlier and again this was obvious from the very first time he tightened his toe straps. Greg LeMond another one. IMHO the only American to have actually won the Tour De France and a good man and sporting hero with it.

Superb post. Thanks

drogdub

No

Having seen and heard a fair few interviews with Nicholas i think sometimes he fails to express himself correctly in English. He was asked is cycling a clean sport and he said its cleaner but there will always cheats in cycling as in all sports and there are cheats in every walk of life. I think thats what he meant rather than what he actually said about everyone cheats. On this I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The answer on his Da was weak, but its a tough question to answer, no matter how relevant.

Captain Havoc

I think one or two of you are looking for something out of that Nico Roche interview that isn't there. Armstrong was seven years ago, Contador served his suspension, there still a few more to be caught out, he doesn't know about Pat McQuaid, cycling is cleaner, everyone cheats somewhere: soccer, leaving cert exams, fake ID etc.... his dad was never tested positive others were just saying things. The player cut out after that on me.

thebouldwhacker

Yes, but he's still great

That was pretty much it.
Fair play for coming out like that. Any pro raising his head up at the moment is a target and could hurt their future, crazy times I tell ya!

12 sprocket

I seen the interview With Nicolas Roche and it was quite clear that what was meant was that there are some cheats in all walks of life, not that everyone cheats.

English is not his first language, so loosen up a bit and give him credit for having the courage to be interviewed at a very difficult time the honest and fair professional cyclists.

THe same boardsies that are taking umbrage and attacking Nicolas are probably the same ones who are complaining about the pros staying silent.

you can't win with some people!

GT_TDI_150

No

Wibbs wrote: »

Very much this. Me being of an older generation I got into pro cycling in the early 80's watching Kelly and Roche et al in the pre EPO days.

Taking Kelly as an example. Probably one of the finest all rounders the sport has seen. He could sprint, time trial and dominate one day classics, even win the odd grand tour(Spanish IIRC). He got close enough early on in the Tour de france, but wasn't quite the right sort to win it, not up against the grand tour specialists of the day anyway. He could hang on in the climbs, but couldn't dominate them, often making up time by being fcuking insane in the membrane on descents. You'd defo see him suffer going uphill when compared to say Roche or Fignon.

If back then we'd seen Sean get into a tough climb and power away from the Columbian specialists of the time like he was on the flats without getting out of the saddle, our collective jaws would have dropped and questions would have been asked. Loudly. Yet Armstrong, a similarly built classics type rider(with undoped a third of the talent of a Kelly) did just that kinda thing and was usually collectively praised for it. It would be like watching one of the near anorexic climbing specialists beat the best sprinters in the world in a flat stage bunch finish. Would not compute.

I have to say for me LA wasn't the only one in those days who raised eyebrows, including riders who've so far not been implicated, but as per the rules of the forum... Again IMHO I squint at the non naturally built for climbing riders who "out of the blue" started to dominate. That's where the extra in the blood counts. Doping suits the more well built bigger classic rider to get up those hils. It wouldn't do nearly as much for climbing specialists in TT's and sprints etc. Now you do very rarely pre EPO days all rounders like Merckx, but he was such a genetic outlier and again this was obvious from the very first time he tightened his toe straps. Greg LeMond another one. IMHO the only American to have actually won the Tour De France and a good man and sporting hero with it.

You are aware that there have been incconsistencies with one or two of Eddy's test right?!? Hate pointing it out as a belgian as he's probably our biggest legend but he was far from clean.

dave_o_brien

No

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think one or two of you are looking for something out of that Nico Roche interview that isn't there. Armstrong was seven years ago, Contador served his suspension, there still a few more to be caught out, he doesn't know about Pat McQuaid, cycling is cleaner, everyone cheats somewhere: soccer, leaving cert exams, fake ID etc.... his dad was never tested positive others were just saying things. The player cut out after that on me.

Wait a minute, are you saying Nico cheated on his Leaving Cert exams?

I'm never having another idol...

RobFowl

No

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

You are aware that there have been incconsistencies with one or two of Eddy's test right?!? Hate pointing it out as a belgian as he's probably our biggest legend but he was far from clean.

By inconsistancies youo mean failures !!
He lost 1 giro because of a failed dope test and was never a fan of drug testing. that said drug testing was only introduced routinely in 1968 after Tommy Simpsons death in the 67 tour.

And there's the real risk highlighted, doping can kill as Simpson and multiple other cyclists found out. EPO and related drugs stimulate over production over red blood cells in the bone marow, I fully expect a large number of the dopers from the 90's and 00's to get premature and unexpected cancers as a result.......

Wibbs

No

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

You are aware that there have been incconsistencies with one or two of Eddy's test right?!? Hate pointing it out as a belgian as he's probably our biggest legend but he was far from clean.

Oh most definitely, but like outlined before, the doping then didn't give next nor near the advantages of the later drugs/techniques. Indeed they could cause disadvantages in the case of amphetamine use, up to and including death as was the case with Tom Simpson. IE if Eddy had never taken anything but an aspirin he could/would have still won the majority of his races and a clean rider of similar talent could have competed with him. If Lance and his team (and other "winners" of the time) had only taken aspirin the chances are very high he'd not have won one Tour de France, never mind seven and a clean rider would be coming in last. That's the difference. The other aspect is that back then it wasn't nearly so organised and team backed.

That said I personally don't doubt that if EPO had been around pre 1990 all the way back to Eddy's day and before that he and others in the peloton would have taken it. Drugs and pro cycling have been bedfellows since the very start of the sport. As the prsiding judge in the doping case against Richard Virenque said "These are not racers, they are pedalling test-tubes" Jacques Anquetil like Merckx another animal on a bike was very honest about it back in the 60's when he said "You would have to be an imbecile or a crook to imagine that a professional cyclist who races for 235 days a year can hold the pace without stimulants". He was about the first to publicly break the sports omerta on the subject. Got some amount of static for it, but Jacques was one of those outspoken guys who just don't give a toss and fair play. Jesús Manzano another who stuck his head up and kicked of the Operation Puerto investigation said "They said that I was a rotten apple, but I now believe that the whole tree is rotten. When you train a lot your haematocrit goes down, so how is it possible for someone to go to the Dauphiné or the Giro with a level of 52%? How do they get it up to this level? EPO. But it’s the UCI’s fault. Because they could sort this out very easily."

Do I believe the pro peloton is still doping? Yep, but at a much lower, less obvious taking the piss(no pun) level and at a level where a genuinely clean rider can win, especially win one day races and classics. Of the longer tours I'm not so sure TBH.

greenmat

No

Roches interview was extremely poor, he looked very uneasy and uncomfortable. Very difficult for him to answer question about his dad but overall he has come down in my estimation along with most of the Pro's. He should stick to the writing, or ghost writing I mean.

ednwireland

greenmat wrote: »

Roches interview was extremely poor, he looked very uneasy and uncomfortable. Very difficult for him to answer question about his dad but overall he has come down in my estimation along with most of the Pro's. He should stick to the writing, or ghost writing I mean.

to be honest he should never have agreed to a skype interview it never looks good he would have been far better with a phone interview i think, guess rte wouldnt have stumped up for a link to a local tv studio either

brandon_flowers

No

I was trying to find definitive links on the internet to a reference in USADA's report to LA's failed test at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001.

Does anyone know if the report makes specific reference to this other than the riders testimonies?

I wonder were his charity donations doubled these past few days! I doubt it.

talkabout

No

greenmat wrote: »

Roches interview was extremely poor, he looked very uneasy and uncomfortable. Very difficult for him to answer question about his dad but overall he has come down in my estimation along with most of the Pro's. He should stick to the writing, or ghost writing I mean.

It was a Skype connection and any interview I have seen through Skype makes the person appear fidgety, probably due to the connection. Also, he is a cyclist not a TV personality, so what if he appeared nervous or fidgety. I think he did well. He answered the questions and I feel it was a bit unfair to ask him about his father. I also feel he is right that cheating happens in all walks of life and in every sport, a certain type of person will take that risk no matter what the consequences. He has gone up in my estimate for doing a TV interview when plenty of cyclist’s wouldn’t and many have kept a low profile probably hoping the current mainstream media interest blows over.

Harrybelafonte

Lumen

Oh dear.

Lance Armstrong could face perjury charges for doping lies in court
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/lance-armstrong-could-face-perjury-charges-for-doping-lies-in-court-3257406.html

Also in today's Indo is a big diary piece from Nico. There's just enough dodgy grammar to make it his own, a quality piece of ghostwriting if ever I've read one.

In all seriousness, the words in this article are worth reading.

Chips Lovell

No

Lumen wrote: »

Also in today's Indo is a big diary piece from Nico. There's just enough dodgy grammar to make it his own, a quality piece of ghostwriting if ever I've read one.

In all seriousness, the words in this article are worth reading.

Just read it. Doesn't appear to be online yet for some reason. A far better piece than his performance on Prime Time last night.

morana

No

Lumen wrote: »

Oh dear.

Lance Armstrong could face perjury charges for doping lies in court
http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/lance-armstrong-could-face-perjury-charges-for-doping-lies-in-court-3257406.html

Also in today's Indo is a big diary piece from Nico. There's just enough dodgy grammar to make it his own, a quality piece of ghostwriting if ever I've read one.

In all seriousness, the words in this article are worth reading.

yeah its good. He should have done that last night

2 Wheels Good

No

From BBC Online: BBC Radio 5 live Sport will look at the Lance Armstrong saga in a special programme on Monday at 19:00 BST. "Peddlers: Cycling's Dirty Truth" includes interviews with Armstrong's former team-mate Tyler Hamilton, former Wada head Dick Pound, and British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Cape Clear

el tel wrote: »

Do you ever get the feeling that the problems or issues will never be rectified? If anything, the whole episode shows that no matter how big a ****er you are, redemption is never far away.

All those successful guys on the local scene who are better than the rest of us by simply being fitter and training harder have gone even further up in my estimation. That's where the real cycling is at. THough I still wish I didn't have to be affiliated with an organisatin that is affiliated to the UCI to ride my bike competetively :mad:

Correct! You have to take your hat off to them.After the past few days guys like this go up in my estimation. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056763689

hardCopy

No

2 Wheels Good wrote: »

From BBC Online: BBC Radio 5 live Sport will look at the Lance Armstrong saga in a special programme on Monday at 19:00 BST. "Peddlers: Cycling's Dirty Truth" includes interviews with Armstrong's former team-mate Tyler Hamilton, former Wada head Dick Pound, and British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Hehehe

steve9859

Reading the papers today, including the detail of what Armstrong said under oath, and the chances of a perjury case against him, I'm starting to think that there's a chance that he could find himself in serious trouble. Marion Jones got 6 months in jail, and she admitted her guilt and her false claims under oath. If Lance is charged, he faces a dilemma....come clean and minimise jail time, or maintain the 'I never failed a drugs test' defence, contest a perjury suit, and potentially face some really serious jail time.

It still is probably a long shot, and I suspect the case will die down if the UCI does the right thing, strips him of his titles and consigns the whole thing to the past. But it's no longer as long a shot as it would have seemed this time last week!

Bollbill

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.

Got a link to this ?

Undercover Elephant

steve9859 wrote: »

Reading the papers today, including the detail of what Armstrong said under oath, and the chances of a perjury case against him, I'm starting to think that there's a chance that he could find himself in serious trouble. Marion Jones got 6 months in jail, and she admitted her guilt and her false claims under oath. If Lance is charged, he faces a dilemma....come clean and minimise jail time, or maintain the 'I never failed a drugs test' defence, contest a perjury suit, and potentially face some really serious jail time.

It still is probably a long shot, and I suspect the case will die down if the UCI does the right thing, strips him of his titles and consigns the whole thing to the past. But it's no longer as long a shot as it would have seemed this time last week!

I doubt it will happen. If the federal prosecutor thinks he doesn't have enough evidence to get a conviction for doping-related offences (read: convince ten members of a US jury to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"), then he doesn't have enough evidence to prove Armstrong was lying about it. It's basically the same stuff.

el tel

No

Perhaps the UCI need to start working on a race handicapping system.

Doping will be legal, but clean riders will get a 2 hour head start.

corny

No

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I doubt it will happen. If the federal prosecutor thinks he doesn't have enough evidence to get a conviction for doping-related offences (read: convince ten members of a US jury to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"), then he doesn't have enough evidence to prove Armstrong was lying about it. It's basically the same stuff.

Has Nowitzky ever come out and said that though?

My understanding of it is that he was told to end his investigation from higher up.

Cape Clear

How much cash has Lance got anyone care to guess?

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/articles/lance-defeated-by-patricks-hill

Morrisseeee

No

Bollbill wrote: »

Got a link to this ?

link