'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

buffalo

No

One more Spaniard and previous doper: Valverde voices support for Lance Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-voices-support-for-lance-armstrong

The Movistar Spaniard believes in the sporting merit of Armstrong's Tour de France victories.

"The Tours were won with his legs, his body and let no one believe that he did not suffer for his success," Valverde told Marca.

Lusk Doyle

No

I'm never watching another pro race again. This is too depressing if that is the attitude amongst the pros. It makes a farce of the sport and shows a complete absence of respect and sense of responsibilty and is nothing short of thievery.

happytramp

No

buffalo wrote: »

One more Spaniard and previous doper: Valverde voices support for Lance Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-voices-support-for-lance-armstrong

I know, I was just reading that and I thought for the first time.... this is it, what's the point. The riders don't want a cleaner sport, the teams don't want a cleaner sport, why bother. The first time in this whole thing that I've actually felt, why do I even care any more.

Clanket

Yes, but he's still great

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20051664

Cavendish says Armstrong should confess. I wouldn't hold my breath Mark

hardCopy

No

buffalo wrote: »

One more Spaniard and previous doper: Valverde voices support for Lance Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-voices-support-for-lance-armstrong

He presumably believes in the merit of his own dirty wins too, hardly surprising.

Junior

Clanket wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20051664

Cavendish says Armstrong should confess. I wouldn't hold my breath Mark

Cavendish says Armstrong should confess, then signs for Quickstep, the team that has more questions about it than answers..

Chips Lovell

No

Eddy Merckx says he's stunned:

“I'm sick, exclusively for my sport,” the 67 year old said, according to Le Soir. “I met Lance many times, he never spoke to me about doping, doctors or other things.”

But the report notes that Ferrari said it was Merckx who'd introduced him to Ferrari.

mcgratheoin

No

MPFG wrote: »

Meanwhile back at the ranch ......For all those who think this is about wining cycling races

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/39997062/

good article, my favourite bit is the link to Lance's quote

"I believe in the importance of organizations like the U.S. and World Anti- Doping Agencies."

Oryx

No

I honestly hope the attitude shown by the other pros contributes to strangling and killing the sport. Because if it is this tainted, it deserves to die.

Mycroft H

No

Good post on the culture of doping within professional cycling well back into the fifties

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/30/doping-then-and-now.html

Wibbs

No

MrCreosote wrote: »

Disappointing from a rider who never had a whiff of doping scandal, apart from a salbutamol positive and dominating the sport for years when EPO use was rampant and undetectable.

Indeed... As I've said before my personal yardstick when judging tour winners especially multiple wins guys is how did they fare on their first or second tours as pros(and usually really standing apart as amateurs). In the pre EPO days it was a rule that even as newbies the ones who go onto multiple grand tour wins show well in their first. Look at Greg Lemond. Comes fourth in his first tour barely in his twenties. Hinault another high finisher in his first tour. Merckx another(actually I think he won his first? after showing serious promise in his first giro as a pro). If you have the interest have an oul look at all the top grand tour winners pre EPO and this is a rule set in stone. Look at our own Stephen Roche. He turns pro and pretty quickly establishes himself as a contender for grand tours by winning the Tour of Corsica against guys like Hinault. Basically the top guys don't come from nowhere, or even the mid field.

Fats forward to circa 1990 and EPO. This seems to change... Mid field riders, with the odd one day win with a following wind start to show at the high end. Must be the lighter alloy and carbon frames, indexed shifting probably helped, better diets and all that... Ahem... Obviously no pointing fingers from me, but have a look yourselves...

petethedrummer

No

Some light reading from USADA

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

"Appendices and Supporting Materials" Section.

Got it from here - http://www.sportsscientists.com/

crumliniano

No

My first thoughts on reading that Sanchez, Indurain and Valverde have backed Armstrong hardened my sense that Spain is the current spiritual home of doping. Del Moral, Fuentes, Contador and now this.

On reading their comments though they do address one thing that I have felt a bit confused about since the USADA case was announced - the fact that the case is based solely on testimony and not on direct (laboratory) evidence. Before I get a torrent of abuse let me state that i am not defending LA, I'm glad he was caught and I think justice is being done. From the point of view of current riders though - is it clear what the rules are? Is this the first case where neither failed tests, biological passport anomalies or other lab based results (eg. Valverdes DNA link to Puerto) have been used? It is probably right that the armoury of anti-doping now includes this type of approach (as John Fahey of WADA said yesterday).

To answer my own question "is it clear what the rules are?" - the answer is obviously "don't dope". My point is that the application of policing it seems confusing at best. Apart from the methods, the breadth of agencies responsible doesn't seem to me to be the most efficient way of dealing with it.

UCI, WADA and the national agencies and federations all run testing programmes (as far as I understand). The national federations are responsible for initial rulings (I think) but these don't always have the same objectives (compare Spanish Federation in Contador case with UASDA in LA case) and the UCI can then appeal these decisions to CAS. [Please correct me someone if I have this arseways]. Surely a single global agency with responsibiulity for testing AND wider investigations would be more efficient and might also reduce the liklihood of farcical situations like the Contador case where he rides through the first 18 months of his eventual two year ban.

Listening to Pat McQuaid on Pat Kenny yesterday I certainly got the impression that he does not see the UCI as having responsibility for policing in the sense of investigations that are wider than merely administering tests and acting on specific results. He even said he would be happy to hand anti-doping responsibility over to another organisation.

I'm not sure who would have the power to instigate such change - the IOC, WADA, the UCI? - but it seems to me that this might form part of a wider solution. What think ye?

ugsparky

No

Lumen wrote: »

Wikipedia says:

... this has been going around in my head since I became aware of all of the doping/EPO stuff (bearing in mind that whilst I was very much into the bike and TdF from mid eighties to early 90's, I didn't pay particular attention to pro cycling until getting back on my bike a few years back - in fact since reading this cycling forum - I missed out on a lot regretfully) - but ... the question I'm almost afraid to ask is ... was everyone at it to some degree ?

Taking an Ibuprofen for a back pain before I go out isn't doping is it ? I'm not a pro cyclist. But if I was and it helped my performance then I'm doping right ? - especially if I know it's a banned drug. However if I'm taking something that isn't banned (yet) and it improves my performance is it still not doping? So when someone says "I didn't dope" - does he/she really mean "I haven't used banned substances to gain unfair advantage ?

It's a bit disheartening when you read of other TdF winners and other pro's not condemning the use of drugs in their sport ...

petethedrummer

No

crumliniano wrote: »

He even said he would be happy to hand anti-doping responsibility over to another organisation.

Not the AFLD though.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/06/25/afld-beats-uci-o-0/

I get the feeling that the UCI could start a fight in an empty room.

Cienciano

No

happytramp wrote: »

I know, I was just reading that and I thought for the first time.... this is it, what's the point. The riders don't want a cleaner sport, the teams don't want a cleaner sport, why bother. The first time in this whole thing that I've actually felt, why do I even care any more.

You forgot "the governing body" in the list of people who don't seem to want a cleaner sport.

crumliniano

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/06/25/afld-beats-uci-o-0/.

Great article, thanks - re-enforces what I was saying about the the melee of enforcement agencies being confusing. To counter my own argument for a single enforcement agency though, I suppose it is less likely that all of the agencies involved will be corrupt or have compromised agendas.

Kav0777

No

crumliniano wrote: »

On reading their comments though they do address one thing that I have felt a bit confused about since the USADA case was announced - the fact that the case is based solely on testimony and not on direct (laboratory) evidence.

Thats not strictly true, Section V of the USADA report (pages 139-145), entitled "Scientific Evidence that corroborated Lance Armstrongs Doping Violations", which deals with the retrospective testing of the 1999 tour samples in 2004 which was carried out by a french anti-doping labratory for research purposes and showed the presence of EPO, a review of Lance Armstrong's Tour de France blood tests for 2009 & 2010 which show blood values that had less than one in a million chance of occurring naturally, and a review of the suspicious tests taken 2001 Tour of Switzerland.

The scientific evidence was used by the USADA to corroborate the witness statments rather than provide stand alone evidence, but it was still used rather than relying soley on testimony.

Finnrocco

No

ugsparky wrote: »

... this has been going around in my head since I became aware of all of the doping/EPO stuff (bearing in mind that whilst I was very much into the bike and TdF from mid eighties to early 90's, I didn't pay particular attention to pro cycling until getting back on my bike a few years back - in fact since reading this cycling forum - I missed out on a lot regretfully) - but ... the question I'm almost afraid to ask is ... was everyone at it to some degree ?

Taking an Ibuprofen for a back pain before I go out isn't doping is it ? I'm not a pro cyclist. But if I was and it helped my performance then I'm doping right ? - especially if I know it's a banned drug. However if I'm taking something that isn't banned (yet) and it improves my performance is it still not doping? So when someone says "I didn't dope" - does he/she really mean "I haven't used banned substances to gain unfair advantage ?

It's a bit disheartening when you read of other TdF winners and other pro's not condemning the use of drugs in their sport ...

If something is banned, don't do it.

If its not banned, do it if you want (unless its dangerous to your health).

If you are unsure if it's banned or not, err on the side of caution.

Taking an aspirin for a sore back is ok in my book.

What about the no needles policy - say a lad crashes and needs stitches - how is he going to get the anaesthetic? Unless you can take it orally?

Or do what a rider did in the Ras and get 9 stitches without anaesthetic !

letape

No

buffalo wrote: »

One more Spaniard and previous doper: Valverde voices support for Lance Armstrong

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-voices-support-for-lance-armstrong

It is an absolute joke. I had no time for Valverde anyway so this is no surprise to me. I would be interested in hearing Joaquim Rodriguez's view as he is one of the Spanish riders at that level against which there haven't been questions raised, to my knowledge.

Flandria

No

Crankpunk interviews Shane Stokes

http://crankpunk.com/2012/10/23/334/

ugsparky

No

Finnrocco wrote: »

If something is banned, don't do it.

If its not banned, do it if you want (unless its dangerous to your health).

If you are unsure if it's banned or not, err on the side of caution.

Taking an aspirin for a sore back is ok in my book.

What about the no needles policy - say a lad crashes and needs stitches - how is he going to get the anaesthetic? Unless you can take it orally?

Or do what a rider did in the Ras and get 9 stitches without anaesthetic !

... Stitches without anaesthetic isn't too bad ... try getting your tongue stitched after removing the bits of broken teeth ... no gumshields when I went to school ... err what I was tring to ask without being too obvious was EVERYONE doping - not just the French, Italians, Germans, Americans, Dutch, Belgians ...

buffalo

No

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/contador-says-armstrong-being-humiliated-and-lynched-3271680.html

Another Spaniard and known doper... and I thought this story was meant to be humorous.

ednwireland

Finnrocco wrote: »

What about the no needles policy - say a lad crashes and needs stitches - how is he going to get the anaesthetic? Unless you can take it orally?

I always thought it was generally accepted that if your in a hospital (or been treated by an ambulance crew) they can inject. i always understood the no needles policy was from a teams doctor's points of view, so no saline, no vitamins, no blood transfusions, no cortisone, no epo etc etc. anyway thats what i understood by a no needles policy

RobFowl

No

Sammy Sanchez, Valverde and Indurain launched a new anti drugs anthem today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFJdUJg4wOk

Chips Lovell

No

Meanwhile Wiggo channels petethedrummer:

"It is a shame that cycling is being dragged through this again really, not a shame that he has been caught – when you get older you start to realise Father Christmas doesn't exist and it is the same with Lance.

Undercover Elephant

Contador said the current testing was regime was adequate as a means of preventing illegal doping, Contador said.

It's hard to know where to begin with this, isn't it? (Apart from the sub-editing fail in the Indo, which is a given, Contador said.)

Waitsian

No

Flandria wrote: »

Crankpunk interviews Shane Stokes

http://crankpunk.com/2012/10/23/334/

That's a great interview. Stokes pulls no punches and makes some very good points.

Why were Gripper and Ashenden silenced? Why did Armstrong come back when he did? Was it to silence the Peloton? Was he afraid even then of the revelations?

I like Shane's comments in regard to the sponsors.

"They’re washing their hands of him now but it looks like the rats leaving the sinking ship, but these rats have waited until they are absolutely sure the ship is sinking before they leave. They drained every last drop that they could before they suddenly develop morals over behavior that for so long they just turned a blind eye to."

Finnrocco

No

ednwireland wrote: »

I always thought it was generally accepted that if your in a hospital (or been treated by an ambulance crew) they can inject. i always understood the no needles policy was from a teams doctor's points of view, so no saline, no vitamins, no blood transfusions, no cortisone, no epo etc etc. anyway thats what i understood by a no needles policy

That make sense, I just got a flu jab so thankfully I didn't breach the protocol.

hardCopy

No

mod9maple wrote: »

That's a great interview. Stokes pulls no punches and makes some very good points.

Why were Gripper and Ashenden silenced? Why did Armstrong come back when he did? Was it to silence the Peloton? Was he afraid even then of the revelations?

I like Shane's comments in regard to the sponsors.

"They’re washing their hands of him now but it looks like the rats leaving the sinking ship, but these rats have waited until they are absolutely sure the ship is sinking before they leave. They drained every last drop that they could before they suddenly develop morals over behavior that for so long they just turned a blind eye to."

Even after jumping ship the rats are still hedging their bets by hanging in with Livestrong. They could have switched to any of dozens of charities or at least insist that Lance remove himself from Livestrong completely instead of stepping down from a position he only took up two years ago.