'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

MPFG

No

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-truth-comes-dropping-slow-3258595.html


I wrote earlier on that Kelly and Nico jumped into this ...when other pro ridrs have kept their counsel ...not least the Spanish

Well it obviously doesn't pay to speak

As for believing in Armstrong, neither Kelly nor Roche were the only two but lets castigate them especially as neither rode between 1998 and 2006

recedite

No

Maybe a new career beckons for Lance;endorsing "nutritional supplements"

The only thing worse than a selfish jerk causing a 15 cycle pileup 200 meters from the finish line is being passed by a half dozen cyclists at the end of the race because you were sucking air so badly that your legs turn to rubber and you end up coasting across the line while other guys power on like they’re Lance Armstrong.

Although this one is probably just using his name unofficially :pac:

GT_TDI_150

No

But other than one failed test, which validly contested with a prescription for the cream used, he hasnt failed a dope test in his career.

All ive read in the 200pager is 'conststant with doping', that in no way means he was doping...all those that testified only did so when they got caught doping or their careers were over anyway. Bitter sick people that couldnt stand to see LA be a legend.

And dont get me started on the reputational damage to a man who had the will power to beat cancer and create an organisation as brilliant as LiveStrong ....


OK, I CANT KEEP THAT **** UP


What he and JB did to cycling is disguisting, the way LA has put people who went against him on the margin and in many cases bullied them is despicable!!!

I hate it makes us doubt every performance under the sun, even clean winners are under a cloud.

I hate myself for believing his 'since the cancer i create less lactose' line from his books... Even if it wasnt for very long, he wud have been some man to out perform people that were already under strong suspicion Tour after Tour.


Ps: what do sky need to do to reverse any damage done to the clean team
Image by some people being implicated in the 200pager

recedite

No

Didn't Kelly have a great quote back in the day, concerning ham sandwiches and the TDF?

ThisRegard

No

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I hate it makes us doubt every performance under the sun, even clean winners are under a cloud

That's the biggie for me. I still enjoy watching the grand tours but I doubt every single big ride, bar maybe those where the rider is dangling in front of the broom wagon in the following days stage.

corny

No

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

But other than one failed test, which validly contested with a prescription for the cream used, he hasnt failed a dope test in his career.

All ive read in the 200pager is 'conststant with doping', that in no way means he was doping...all those that testified only did so when they got caught doping or their careers were over anyway. Bitter sick people that couldnt stand to see LA be a legend.

And dont get me started on the reputational damage to a man who had the will power to beat cancer and create an organisation as brilliant as LiveStrong ....


OK, I CANT KEEP THAT **** UP

Brilliant. My hand was trembling over the reply button after the first line.:D

A P

No

There's an interesting 15 minute interview with Vaughters in this link http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/can-a-race-among-doped-cyclists-be-fair-one-former-armstrong-teammate-says-no/

GT_TDI_150

No

corny wrote: »

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

But other than one failed test, which validly contested with a prescription for the cream used, he hasnt failed a dope test in his career.

All ive read in the 200pager is 'conststant with doping', that in no way means he was doping...all those that testified only did so when they got caught doping or their careers were over anyway. Bitter sick people that couldnt stand to see LA be a legend.

And dont get me started on the reputational damage to a man who had the will power to beat cancer and create an organisation as brilliant as LiveStrong ....


OK, I CANT KEEP THAT **** UP

Brilliant. My hand was trembling over the reply button after the first line.:D

mission accomplished!

MPFG

No

Ah yes Vaughters....he is on the side of the redeemed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42um4KoRNCI&feature=youtu.be

Surinam

No

MPFG wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-truth-comes-dropping-slow-3258595.html

Another excellent piece from Paul Kimmage, the tough questions need to be asked of people like Nico. I also like that he mentioned the great performance of Claire Byrne in that Prime Time interview - she actually did her research before asking the questions!

Mikey b

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgnQuZJc9O0

Rock n roll and cycling don't mix well...but i was bored & the Mrs was watchin X Factor..nuff said..ha!:-)

seve65

No

For me, I read his first book years ago, and was inspired by it. The fact that he continued to take drugs after his recovery was just part of what he saw as the way cycling worked. Totally wrong of course.

BUT, for me, the thing that really gets me is the bullying he seems to deploy.

The UCI dont seem interested in supporting the sport of cycling and the masses that participate, but only the image of top level cycling, therefore the continual everything is rosy in the garden argument is the de-facto corporate position. A small symmetry with Armstrongs bullying tactics there.

The cyclists dont p**s in there own soup argument is an interesting one, as it is a position in life in general that the majority of the population might employ ? I was watching a documentary about Nazi Germany recently and it was suggesting recent archive Gestapo documents suggest the population at large may have been more complicit than simply brain washed from the top down.

So lets applaud the Betsy Andreus, Emma O'Reillys, Bassons et al, and even Kimmage and Walsh if they would only lighten up a bit

GT_TDI_150

No

Typical attitude from a yank presenter : "sure who in sport doesnt dope"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-06e9ZXBLa4&sns=em

What hope have we got if this is what the believe?!

Capt'n Midnight

No

BQQ wrote: »

Have to LOL at Lance's lawyer.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2012/1014/341611-lawyer-lance-armstrong-may-take-lie-detector-test/

Basically says all the witnesses should take lie-detector tests.
Then he's asked if Lance will take one.

"We might do that, you never know." "I don't know if we would or we wouldn't. We might."

:pac::pac:

He has nothing to loose.

And since lie detectors aren't accurate and depend on human interpretation he might get lucky. Or he might use an 'independent' consultant.

Especially since someone focused and trained has a better chance of beating one. If you can lie with conviction you are most of the way there.

MPFG

No

seve65 wrote: »

........................... and even Kimmage and Walsh if they would only lighten up a bit

Yea...there is a fine line between righteousness and self-righteousness

hardCopy

No

There's been a few bits about the UCI's dope testing that have been really shocking, firstly the fact that riders were allowed one hour unsupervised after an event, add in the fact that when testers visited the team hotel they arrived in branded cars wearing official jackets. It's madness.

I know a former IRB (rugby) dope tester. The testers used to pick a player from each team at random and meet those players at the sideline at fulltime, the players were then kept separate from their team and staff and supervised in a designated room until they peed. That was back in 1998.

The idea that testing protocols were stricter in rugby at that time than cycling, a sport with such a history of drug abuse is bizarre. It looks more like willful negligence than incompetence.

RobFowl

No

hardCopy wrote: »

There's been a few bits about the UCI's dope testing that have been really shocking, firstly the fact that riders were allowed one hour unsupervised after an event, add in the fact that when testers visited the team hotel they arrived in branded cars wearing official jackets. It's madness.

I know a former IRB (rugby) dope tester. The testers used to pick a player from each team at random and meet those players at the sideline at fulltime, the players were then kept separate from their team and staff and supervised in a designated room until they peed. That was back in 1998.

The idea that testing protocols were stricter in rugby at that time than cycling, a sport with such a history of drug abuse is bizarre. It looks more like willful negligence than incompetence.

As long as I've been involved once a person is selected for testing they are not left unpupervised. Also Rugby has no out of competition testing other than some at organised training sessions..

wonderfullife

No

The logic that he had 600 team-mates and only 11 came forward means he is clean is laughable. One can have 600 friends on facebook - how many of those would ya tell your innermost, dark secrets? A handful. Bottom line the people who had to be in-the-know were his key assets on the mountain stages - Hincapie, Landis, Hamilton etc. You don't get to cheat successfully by telling every tom, dick and harry everything.

wonderfullife

No

Also not sure if it has been mentioned but the Sunday Times have their lawyers on the case about suing Armstrong over their libel payout to him in 2004

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/13/sport/armstrong-doping-sunday-times/index.html

hardCopy

No

RobFowl wrote: »

hardCopy wrote: »

There's been a few bits about the UCI's dope testing that have been really shocking, firstly the fact that riders were allowed one hour unsupervised after an event, add in the fact that when testers visited the team hotel they arrived in branded cars wearing official jackets. It's madness.

I know a former IRB (rugby) dope tester. The testers used to pick a player from each team at random and meet those players at the sideline at fulltime, the players were then kept separate from their team and staff and supervised in a designated room until they peed. That was back in 1998.

The idea that testing protocols were stricter in rugby at that time than cycling, a sport with such a history of drug abuse is bizarre. It looks more like willful negligence than incompetence.

As long as I've been involved once a person is selected for testing they are not left unpupervised. Also Rugby has no out of competition testing other than some at organised training sessions..

I don't think rugby is the gold standard by any means and that was back in 98, just after it went professional. My point was that cycling should be at least as strict at a bare minimum.

I've never raced in a CI event, the comment about riders being left unsupervised came from my favorite anti-doping expert, Dick Pound.


http://www.telraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9608064/International-Cycling-Union-turned-blind-eye-to-Lance-Armstrong-says-former-World-Anti-Doping-Agency-chief.html

leftism

No

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Typical attitude from a yank presenter : "sure who in sport doesnt dope"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-06e9ZXBLa4&sns=em

What hope have we got if this is what the believe?!

This is largely the US attitude to drug taking in sport. The average US sports fan (in the Midwest anyway) is so hungry for success from their local High School or College team that a mentality of "win at all cost" prevails. Every high school has 2 or 3 full-time paid coaches. University athletics programmes are multi-million dollar industries. I was at a college football game yesterday (Purdue University vs. Wisconsin). Their stadium holds 70,000 fans in it and there were probably another 70,000 tailgating outside. The head coach is on a $4million a year contract! His job depends on a bunch of student athletes winning more games each season than they lose. He really doesn't care how they win, and neither do the fans.

This has resulted in a level of public acceptance that i have not seen in any other society. Since moving out here, i've been shocked at how steroids are publicly advertised on the radio, tv and in nutritional stores. Guys going to the university gym are openly discussing what they are taking, who is supervising their programme, how much are they spending on gear etc.

There is literally no hope of ever convincing the majority of Americans that what Lance did was wrong....

dastardly00

No

hardCopy wrote: »

I don't think rugby is the gold standard by any means and that was back in 98, just after it went professional. My point was that cycling should be at least as strict at a bare minimum.

I've never raced in a CI event, the comment about riders being left unsupervised came from my favorite anti-doping expert, Dick Pound.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9608064/International-Cycling-Union-turned-blind-eye-to-Lance-Armstrong-says-former-World-Anti-Doping-Agency-chief.html

your link was broken, should be working now

Cienciano

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Also not sure if it has been mentioned but the Sunday Times have their lawyers on the case about suing Armstrong over their libel payout to him in 2004

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/13/sport/armstrong-doping-sunday-times/index.html

This is the story that keeps on giving

transylman

No

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/14/lance-armstrong-lie-detector-usada

Lance's lawyer thinks those making accusations need to take lie detector tests (but Lance doesn't because it would make no difference)

buffalo

No

An interesting footnote from this article on CyclingNews: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-armstrong-created-a-doping-culture-at-us-postal

Danielson testified to using EPO and blood transfusions ... only beginning to get scared of doping in 2007 when the program shifted to blood doping. ... By all accounts, Armstrong never carried such concerns.

Why was he so confident? It could be tied to a statement by Vaughters in his under-oath testimony: "I had a conversation with Lance in which he told me that the UCI should have detected a high level of HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin, a doping product and naturally occurring hormone indicative of testicular cancer in males) in his doping controls when he had cancer, and failed to do so.

So basically, the drug testing was **** a while before USPS started evading it. But is there a possibility that LA resents the UCI for not alerting him of high HCG, and maybe catching his cancer earlier? Anyone know the timeline on this?

Lumen

Reading this creates the sort of "no, wait, it wasn't quite like that" feeling that Jesus would have reading accounts of his life in the Bible...

EVANESCENT RIDERS: L.E. ‘JUAN’ GUNDERSON
http://www.velominati.com/evanescent-riders/evanescent-riders-l-e-juan-gunderson/

brandon_flowers

No

buffalo wrote: »

An interesting footnote from this article on CyclingNews: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-armstrong-created-a-doping-culture-at-us-postal



So basically, the drug testing was **** a while before USPS started evading it. But is there a possibility that LA resents the UCI for not alerting him of high HCG, and maybe catching his cancer earlier? Anyone know the timeline on this?

That is conspriracism journalism I would think, basically trying to find something that is not there. Armstrong has been in bed with the UCI for years so I doubt he resents them, especially seeing as he donated so much money to improve blood testing.

Imagine donating your money for cancer "research" for it to be actually spent on blood doping test machines. And even then it was only to cover up Armstrong's cheating. What a pr1ck.

Glad I never bought one of those yellow bands that every Tom, Dick and Harry bought. At one time there seemed to be more of them around than bicycles.

mcgratheoin

No

buffalo wrote: »

So basically, the drug testing was **** a while before USPS started evading it. But is there a possibility that LA resents the UCI for not alerting him of high HCG, and maybe catching his cancer earlier? Anyone know the timeline on this?

The rough timeline is that his right testicle was swollen since the winter of 1995-1996, but he didn't see an oncologist until October 96. Paul Sherwen said in January 1997...

Paul Sherwen wrote:

For a very long time, Lance Armstrong felt a shooting pain that did not worry him overmuch. We even made him a special cushion

In Le Monde (Jan 1997), Lance questioned what his hCG results were at the Swiss Grand Prix in August 1996, however he never followed up on this enquiry.

Lance Armstrong wrote:

I know that hCG was looked for in antidoping controls. I would like to know what my level was at the time of the control .'lf it’s true that the ICU keeps all the results, it should be possible to know where my cancer was at that time

Anne-Laure Masson, who was then the medical coordinator of ICU (Jan 1997).

I’m perplexed because if the level of hCG was also high, Lance Armstrong should have tested positive, in principle. For now. it’s inexplicable.

The key questions here are
(a) was there an elevated hCG level in his samples, and if so, why was it not flagged by the UCI? Was it assumed to be doping and just swept under the table?
(b) did LA and his team know that his hCG was elevated, yet find nothing strange in the fact that he had a swollen testicle and a high HCG count?
(c) why was LA extremely serene about the fact that the UCI should have alerted him to his cancer 6 months earlier than when he was finally diagnosed.

MPFG

No

Possible names for autobiograpies for Zabriski, Daneilson, CVV, Hincapie, Barry, & Vaughters et al

"We might as well dope"
" We were young and F***wits"
"Born to take EPO"
"Lance Armstrongs Way : EPO, Blood Doping, Bullying, Lies & Intimidation"
"Sex Lies & More Lies"
"Tomorrow we dope"
"Half man , half EPO"

"Wide eyed and legless - inside the tour de france "

---

no name change there!

morana

No

hardCopy wrote: »

There's been a few bits about the UCI's dope testing that have been really shocking, firstly the fact that riders were allowed one hour unsupervised after an event, add in the fact that when testers visited the team hotel they arrived in branded cars wearing official jackets. It's madness.

I know a former IRB (rugby) dope tester. The testers used to pick a player from each team at random and meet those players at the sideline at fulltime, the players were then kept separate from their team and staff and supervised in a designated room until they peed. That was back in 1998.

The idea that testing protocols were stricter in rugby at that time than cycling, a sport with such a history of drug abuse is bizarre. It looks more like willful negligence than incompetence.

No to divert the thread but dont you find it worrying that in rugby where bulk and strength seem to be fundamentals for success that only a handful have been caught. A lad in england, a kenyan in one of the world cups, our lad for salbutamol. Maybe there is stacks of others but we just havent heard of them.