'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Eamonnator

No

No, the manager wouldn't know either, until the list was posted.

leftism

No

How soon after the start is that list posted?

Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely curious as to how the system works and you sound like you've had a good bit of international experience as a team manager.

leftism

No

Just playing devil's advocate, but hypothetically even if the list is posted 10 or 15 mins prior to the end of the race, thats enough time for a team manager to prepare a rider.

Rider finishes the race. No chaperone appears. Manager informs rider he's been called for a test. Or in a road race, team radio could inform riders if they're to be tested. Rider now has time to prepare for test by taking a masking agent or a saline drip or whatever.

My point is that prior knowledge, no matter how small buys the rider time to prepare for the test and is totally unacceptable. Only an anti-doping official should inform the rider that they've been called to test and once informed, they cannot be left unsupervised.

Thats the bit i don't get about this list approach. By posting a list, the UCI are actually doing both themselves and the riders a great disservice. They are creating a situation (like with Bassons) where the suspicion of prior knowledge is possible.

Scenario 1: List is posted and riders are responsible to find out if they're to be tested. Bassons abandons the race and drives home. It is possible he knew that he was going to be tested and did a runner...

Scenario 2: No list is posted. Only the anti-doping officials know which riders they are testing. Bassons abandons race and drives home. With no list, there could not have been prior knowledge. Anti-doping can chalk it down to bad luck, test him out of competition or test him at the next race. This is a better system for both the testers and the riders.

Eamonnator

No

leftism wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate, but hypothetically even if the list is posted 10 or 15 mins prior to the end of the race, thats enough time for a team manager to prepare a rider.

Rider finishes the race. No chaperone appears. Manager informs rider he's been called for a test. Or in a road race, team radio could inform riders if they're to be tested. Rider now has time to prepare for test by taking a masking agent or a saline drip or whatever.

My point is that prior knowledge, no matter how small buys the rider time to prepare for the test and is totally unacceptable. Only an anti-doping official should inform the rider that they've been called to test and once informed, they cannot be left unsupervised.

Thats the bit i don't get about this list approach. By posting a list, the UCI are actually doing both themselves and the riders a great disservice. They are creating a situation (like with Bassons) where the suspicion of prior knowledge is possible.

Scenario 1: List is posted and riders are responsible to find out if they're to be tested. Bassons abandons the race and drives home. It is possible he knew that he was going to be tested and did a runner...

Scenario 2: No list is posted. Only the anti-doping officials know which riders they are testing. Bassons abandons race and drives home. With no list, there could not have been prior knowledge. Anti-doping can chalk it down to bad luck, test him out of competition or test him at the next race. This is a better system for both the testers and the riders.

Oh, the sweet innocence of my middle age.
In a Down hill Race, the list for each category is posted, just after that category starts their race. As DH is a time trial, there could be 2 hours before the last rider finisfes his run, so the last rider(fastest seed) could know long before his race, that he was going to be tested. Of course, on the other hand, if he was in the 1st 3, he would know, that he was going to be tested anyway.But a guy, who knew, he wasn't good enough to place, could take the chance, charge up, then before his run, find out, if he was on random list to be tested. If he was, he could feign an injury and avoid test.
In World Cup races, top ten is a really good result. So, the system is not perfect.
Perhaps your 2nd scenario is the answer.

furiousox

No

Cienciano wrote: »

Just read this, Greg is a legend:

Quote:
An ex-Livestrong board member explained how an entire meeting was devoted to figuring out how to “screw LeMond”

Where's that quote taken from, link?

MPFG

No

FYI - in case you have missed these

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/cyclismas-cycling-news-network-episode-16/

http://english.gazzetta.it/More_sports/17-10-2012/the-ferrari-system-swiss-bank-accounts-fake-contracts-912946609743.shtml

wonderfullife

No

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cycling/cycling-commentator-phil-liggett-says-lance-armstrong-made-a-fool-out-of-him/story-fnanprbk-1226500195180

fat bloke

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cycling/cycling-commentator-phil-liggett-says-lance-armstrong-made-a-fool-out-of-him/story-fnanprbk-1226500195180

Fair play to Liggett for that. Can't have been an easy admission, personally or publicly.


As an aside. This Ferrari investigation I think should be on a separate thread. It's too big a story for my brain at the moment while I'm still struggling to digest the whole Lancestrong debacle. The enormity of both is diluted by having both discussed on the one thread.

brandon_flowers

No

You would have to feel for him, he was in so deep with L.A. that I think he knew Lance could destroy him if he changed his tune. Remember the man is nearly 70 so he is going to be stubborn in his ways more so than the rest of us.

All in all though Lance has very little support left from anywhere other than blind supporters who will not be able to help him out of this in any way.

funnights74

No

Ligget took long enough to see the light, but fair dues to him he has admitted he too was fooled by the Armstrong propaganda machine so Armstrong is becoming more and more isolated.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the 2 press conferences tomorrow, if the UCI continues to stick to their view that all of those "clean" tests means lance is innocent and the rest of the USADA evidence has no merit with them then what little credibility they have left as a governing body is gone and it may be time for a new World structure of some type to be set up, just to save the professional sport.
As regards the Armstrong statement, he is in complete denial, he must know that the game is up but i don't expect anything but the usual from that side of the Atlantic.

paddy no 11

No

Fair play to ligett for getting it right in the end - not easy to admit you've been duped and used by such a reprehensible individual.


UCI have to condemn him tommorrow, end of.

Zascar

No

Brilliant to see Liggett coming out with that - there really is no more denying it any more. Can't wait to see what happens with this. What do you actually think will happen to Lance? He won't go to Jail will he? Public appology perhaps? Poor guy.... Kinda feel sorry for him........ Not.

bad2dabone

No

aye fair play to liggett. He deceived a lot of people did Lance. I'd say he'll just keep quiet and wont make any admissions, i can only hope he faces court and jail time for perjury and fraud.

corny

No

Fair play to Liggett my arse. Have people forgotten his impassioned 'defence' of Armstrong less than a month ago? Its only a case of he saw which way the wind was blowing imo. Its safe for him to denounce Armstrong now but if the majority were still buying the charade he'd still be peddling it.

I don't for one second believe he didn't know Armstrong was at it; i can't believe he didn't know.

el tel

No

Screw Liggett. He might be the last rat of the sinking ship, but he's still a rat.

Liggett wrote:

"I am like everybody else. I had no idea such an in-depth drug scheme was taking place."

No Phil, you are not like everybody else. Everybody else knew the score. All you had to do was pick up a book or two, or read the papers or speak to some journalists. He rode on the pig's back to hell and wants to get off before the gates are shut behind him. Well he can go **** himself. The sycophant made some outrageous claims in defence of LA on the way and also said he'd give up commentating if LA was found to be a cheat. Well, if he wasn't a **** he'd do just that, regardless of whatever contracts he has in place to 2016. His judgement has been shown to be seriously flawed at every turn and he perpeutated the Lance myth. Fundamentally, how the **** could he never figure that a clean rider could not possibly ride up those hills and TTs year after year and destroy every juiced-up skeleton like he was on a motorbike? The dumb ****er needs put out to pasture.

fat bloke

No

corny wrote: »

Fair play to Liggett my arse. Have people forgotten his impassioned 'defence' of Armstrong less than a month ago? Its only a case of he saw which way the wind was blowing imo. Its safe for him to denounce Armstrong now but if the majority were still buying the charade he'd still be peddling it.

I don't for one second believe he didn't know Armstrong was at it; i can't believe he didn't know.

To me it indicates the power of the Armstrong persona. I only read one of his books and I felt overawed & intimidated. I can't imagine what it would be like to spend time in his company as a "friend". Who else can or coukd engender such blind loyalty and adulation? -Adolf Hitler.... Roy Keane, Jesus Christ..... Bertie Aherne.

Seriously though, Liggett is only one of thousands, if not millions of people who were duped, so I can certainly believe him and compliment his forthrightness now.

To be honest, if Armstrong came out tomorrow and admitted all, with any degree of sincerity and regret, my response would be the same: -fair play. It's late, it's overdue, but fair play all the same.

I don't mean wipe his slate clean, he (lance) is by all accounts a horrible fcuker and the closest thing we have to a real life Bond villain, but y'know... What did that other guy say once about forgiveness...?

morana

No

One of my fellow board members has told me that there is an article in SBP. Is it available online?

corny

No

fat bloke wrote: »

To me it indicates the power of the Armstrong persona. I only read one of his books and I felt overawed & intimidated. I can't imagine what it would be like to spend time in his company as a "friend". Who else can or coukd engender such blind loyalty and adulation? -Adolf Hitler.... Roy Keane, Jesus Christ..... Bertie Aherne.

Seriously though, Liggett is only one of thousands, if not millions of people who were duped, so I can certainly believe him and compliment his forthrightness now.

To be honest, if Armstrong came out tomorrow and admitted all, with any degree of sincerity and regret, my response would be the same: -fair play. It's late, it's overdue, but fair play all the same.

I don't mean wipe his slate clean, he (lance) is by all accounts a horrible fcuker and the closest thing we have to a real life Bond villain, but y'know... What did that other guy say once about forgiveness...?

USADA's case was clear enough to the layperson long before the actual release of the reasoned decision. For a man who lives cycling it wouldn't be possible not to know or at least suspect Armstrong was guilty. Yet a month ago we had him go on the offensive against USADA with all the usual Lance propaganda thrown in.

I have zero respect for this man or his opinion on the matter. He'll say anything to serve his own interests. He's clearly demonstrated as much.

h2005

No

Liggett saying he didn`t know is about as truthful as Armstrong saying he didn`t dope.

Beasty

No

morana wrote: »

One of my fellow board members has told me that there is an article in SBP. Is it available online?

Only if you pay for it (and I just have!!)

It's an article by some dodgy* journalist about some dodgy* Doctor calling on a dodgy* head of a global cycling organisation to step down

(*no more than one of these "dodgy"s is likely to be accurate;))

Beasty

No

Actually, to be fair to those of you who may not be familiar with the individuals involved, the headline is:

"Cycling Ireland medical officer calls on UCI's McQuaid to resign"

The Cycling Ireland medical officer is proposing to table a motion of no confidence in McQuaid at the forthcoming CI AGM.

McQuaid is up for re-election in 2013, and requires CI's nomination and the AGM motion is also expected to express a lack of support for his re-election.

Dermot Illogical

No

Beasty wrote: »

"Cycling Ireland medical officer calls on UCI's McQuaid to resign"

The Cycling Ireland medical officer is proposing to table a motion of no confidence in McQuaid at the forthcoming CI AGM.

I like the sound of this medical officer.

2 Wheels Good

No

Kimmage in todays Sunday Indo
Big reveal of Cancer Jesus

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

Actually, to be fair to those of you who may not be familiar with the individuals involved, the headline is:

"Cycling Ireland medical officer calls on UCI's McQuaid to resign"

The Cycling Ireland medical officer is proposing to table a motion of no confidence in McQuaid at the forthcoming CI AGM.

McQuaid is up for re-election in 2013, and requires CI's nomination and the AGM motion is also expected to express a lack of support for his re-election.

Is it not too late for a motion.Closed 15 days ago???

petethedrummer

No

brandon_flowers wrote: »

Remember the man is nearly 70 so he is going to be stubborn in his ways more so than the rest of us.

Armstrong started riding in Europe in 1992. Phil has had 20 years to find all this out.

Zyzz

No

Think Im ready to go..

downwiththatsor

No

Did a 63 mile ride over Ballaghbeama yesterday with my brother in law and met a guy in his 50's coming downhill against us in a livestrong top, would have loved to have stopped him and asked him why he was wearing it
Cant wait to see what the Uci have to say tomorrow

Beasty

No

wav1 wrote: »

Is it not too late for a motion.Closed 15 days ago???

No - delegates may move motions from the floor. I am led to believe this motion will be put forward in the name of the individual involved and not his club (although his club does need to appoint him as a delegate)

Dowee

No

downwiththatsor wrote: »

Did a 63 mile ride over Ballaghbeama yesterday with my brother in law and met a guy in his 50's coming downhill against us in a livestrong top, would have loved to have stopped him and asked him why he was wearing it
Cant wait to see what the Uci have to say tomorrow

People are expected to throw away perfectly usable cycling gear now just because of the misdeeds of the former chairman?

downwiththatsor

No

Dowee wrote: »

People are expected to throw perfectly usable cycling gear now just because of misdeeds of the former chairman?

He could have turned it inside out or worn something over it;)