Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

Biggins

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

good read by Kimmage himself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/26/cycling-clean-up

"Since Tommy Simpson's death in 1967, 86% of Tour de France winners have been tarnished or implicated by doping"

86% :eek:

Thats mad! :eek:

martingriff

Show Time wrote: »

He is the same as Michelle Smith now in the eyes of the world.

She got to keep her medals though didn't she

Chips Lovell

martingriff wrote: »

She got to keep her medals though didn't she

Smith kept her medals because they only found evidence relating to 1998 (sample tampering). No evidence was discovered relating to 1996.

In the case of Armstrong. USADA said it found evidence of doping from 1998 to 2006.

martingriff

Lets hope we get to see all the stuff they have on Armstrong when there investigations are finished. Have they decided now who can really strip Armstrong of his medals or can the US do it. Does not seem to me as I would think only the organisations who give you medals can take them off you.

However I say the UCI (may have this wrong) will have no other options if the evidence is so stacked up

Colmustard

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

good read by Kimmage himself

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/26/cycling-clean-up

"Since Tommy Simpson's death in 1967, 86% of Tour de France winners have been tarnished or implicated by doping"

Great article and as I posted earlier Paul Kimmage is one of the greatest sports journalists at work today.

Colmustard

Aidric wrote: »

Agreed. He is an outstanding journalist and has written some brilliant features over the years.

For anyone interested he was giving his reaction on Off The Ball last night. 28 mins in to part 1.

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenbacks/popup

Thanks for that listening to it now.

Edit :eek: the Friday show of off the ball, its incredible well worth a listen to.

It appears the cycling government bodies has questions to answer, I wonder will Kimmage start going after them.:eek::eek:

Wibbs

Colmustard wrote: »

It appears the cycling government bodies has questions to answer,

Oh they most certainly do if the allegations of blind eyes being turned, heads up information when testing was about to be carried out and even bribes changing hands to quash positive tests. The sport seems to be in a serious internal crisis, from the governing body, down through sponsors(whose money and need for results drives much of this), through team leaders and doctors and finally the riders themselves. T'is mad Ted.

86% :eek:

Thats mad! :eek:

It is indeed B man. Mad indeed. Pre 67 they were at it too. Jacques anquetil an utter monster on a bike was very open about it. As was Coppi another champion the generation before him. People used to actually line the roads of Italy to watch Coppi train, never mind race.

The diff really came with the advent of stuff like EPO and blood boosting(which wasn't illegal at first IIRC). Previously the cyclists took uppers to stay upright on the bike because of the hideous demands on the body(which killed the aforementioned British pro when his heart blew up on a climb). Very very few sports come close to a pro racing season in sheer bodily hell. They gave the advantage of well keeping the guy awake and in the saddle, but didn't boost performance per se. They didn't change the actual physiology of the rider. EPO etc do. Look at the speeds the Tours started to hit. There were daft excuses like training and the bikes. Yes training will make a big diff, but not that big and as for the bikes? Some of the top pro steel bikes back in the 80's and 90's were only a couple of pounds heavier than the legal limit for the lightest carbon yokes and in any case that lightness really only comes into play on climbs and even there it's in terms of seconds not half an hour.

The drugs can make huge diffs in power output when mixed with steriods and human growth hormone. I read an interesting article(dunno if it's online) by a guy in the US, a club rider, who did the odd race, a weekend warrior in his late 30's. The kinda chap you see of a certain age swanning around in lycra on 8 grands worth of testicle destroying carbon fibre NASA reject every weekend. Fair play too, better than growing a gut in the pub like far too many...

Annnnyhooo this bloke got a doc legally(in his state I presume) to micro dose him with EPO, HGH and a couple of other tweaks. He drew the line at drawing his own blood and storing it for later mind you. The upshot was that he noticed he had more in the legs. He didn't get nearly as tired. His training could go on for longer and he wouldn't feel like the living dead the next day. His performance got better and he started going off with the real heavy duty guys training for races. He could hang onto younger non tweaked guys who previously may as well have been on motorbikes. He saw definite and measurable gains and he wasn't dosing that high or as precisely as the real deals do.

He also noted he had a constant headache from the EPO. IIRC the testosterone made him a bit bleh and bloated. He also noted how quickly his wallet was emptying, this stuff aint cheap. Even so he reckoned if money was no object the HGH was great stuff for older guys. Skin and hair looked better, he just felt "younger" and he was a fit man to start with.

So the usual idea you hear is let them all do it. Two probs with that. 1) some of this shít is dangerous, even deadly and given the choice between winning and second place people will push and push and push and people will ad have died. 2) and a biggie, this stuff works well with some and not so great with others. They improve, but don't see the sometimes huge gains of other guys on the same gear and there's no real way to tell how someone will react. So you could juice a guy already who's say 20th in the peloton and he might gain enough to hit 15th, whereas a guy who's languishing in the low 30's could end up number 10. No supposed level playing field.

Chips Lovell

Wibbs wrote: »

I read an interesting article(dunno if it's online)

Here it is.

Hande hoche!

Very interesting article, thanks for the Link lads.

Wibbs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Here it is.

Thanks for the link VK and for making me feel a little better about my memory and all I've taken is Arthur Guinness and Nicotine hormones.

Wibbs

TBH I could see myself taking HGH if it was cheap and easy to get. At least to keep the levels of youth going for longer. Hormone replacement therapy. It can make a big diff for the ladies so that and testosterone for the chaps might not be a bridge too far. On the test front, I found out in my 20's that I had higher than normal levels of same. It defo didn't build muscle or strength in my case. In fact my doc who told me of the results prefaced the disclosure with a hearty laugh and "you'll never effin believe this". The prick Naw he's a good bloke, but I could see the reasons for a snigger. That said I've noticeably fewer wrinkles than my peers and middle aged spread never hit, so it might be doing something. Outside of athletes being the equivalent of alco drunks on this stuff, I'd be interested to see what their extreme experiences and results may have on the rest of us who might benefit from the equivalent glass of vino a day. Something good for all of us might come out of it if full disclosure happened.

Chips Lovell

The downside to taking testosterone is hair loss though.

Bullseye1

It's very disappointing when we discover that our so-called sports heros are really cheats. But cycling has had plenty of those along with Olympians. Nothing really surprises me anymore.

Wibbs

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The downside to taking testosterone is hair loss though.

And man bewbs and smaller wedding tackle and liver damage, all depending on dosage. And the risk of depression when coming off it in a cycle(non bikey;)).

The hairloss aspect is entirely down to the individual man's(and indeed some women's) response to testosterone. Even Indian eunuchs with the genetic propensity to balding can show this even though their primary source of testosterone is removed. The notion that balding men have more testosterone is a major fallacy. It just means some of their hair follicles are genetically more sensitive to testosterone and it's metabolites. It also seems it's a lifestyle thing too. I read research that seemed to show that receding hairlines were genetic, but balding crowns and overall thinning was more lifestyle related.

That said those kinda issues are reported in the high doses athletes and bodybuilders and the like take. The majority of people taking these compounds are really gunning the levels. Small amount is good, therefore a huge amount must be better kinda thing. Like alcos. A low dose tailored to the individual person(not just blokes) would be a whole other ballpark. Like in the pro cyclist realm, different people will react in different ways, so it would have to be tailored to the person. IN that situation I could see some real benefits for many.

EDIT didn't Robbie Williams recently find out he had low testosterone and he had a lack of libido and lack of oomph in his life in general because of it? Cue supplement and he was back on track. Again it has to be looked at at an individual level. EG when I got those results of being well on the high side in my 20's I was at the time actually quite "meh" on the libido front, so there's likely some element of placebo going on too.

Colmustard

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Here it is.

A great article, its a pity it is only an article, I would have liked to see a kind off Morgan Spurlock documentary, a person documenting his experience on the programme while presenting the negative implications as well.

Jimoslimos

Wibbs wrote: »

EDIT didn't Robbie Williams recently find out he had low testosterone and he had a lack of libido and lack of oomph in his life in general because of it? Cue supplement and he was back on track. Again it has to be looked at at an individual level. EG when I got those results of being well on the high side in my 20's I was at the time actually quite "meh" on the libido front, so there's likely some element of placebo going on too.

I suspect Robbie's lack of libido might be more to do with burning the candle at both ends rather than hypogonadism. At worst probably 'low-normal' rather than anything clinically significant.

Testosterone itself will only tell you part of the whole story, which is why clinicians will call for a panel of tests. It's possible to have normal or high levels of total testosterone but elevated SHBG will result in lower free or bioavailable fractions. Even so, free testosterone can only be reliably determined by a small number of reference labs, most hospitals will just calculate from the SHBG/Total T ratio.

On the subject of HGH, I wonder if people regard Messi's achievements as slightly tainted since as a young boy he was given it to treat growth problems. Now no doubt he is a supremely talented footballer and no amount of doping can account for his skills. You also couldn't argue that it gave him much of an height advantage (though that said he did score a headed goal in the CL final a few years back AFAIR)......but the slight niggle I have with it is that it was funded by a professional football club with an obvious financial incentive for him develop physically. Messi may well have been a genuine case of growth hormone deficiency which did require medical intervention but IMO it sets a dangerous precedent.

summer breezer

Lance Armstrong is a really good person who has done so much for Cancer, so he has to be respected for that at least.

HobbyMan

summer breezer wrote: »

Lance Armstrong is a really good person who has done so much for Cancer, so he has to be respected for that at least.

Plus in the late 80's he was able to keep up on the bike with the likes of Mark Allen and Mike Pigg whom were the top triathletes of the day. So basically he has doses of talent since he was only around 17 at the time.

I am so disappointed that he won't be competing in Kona ( again ) !!

hardCopy

summer breezer wrote: »

Lance Armstrong is a really good person who has done so much for Cancer, so he has to be respected for that at least.

Lance has benefited hugely from Livestrong, in a horribly cynical way. Both directly, in terms of payments to him and in terms of protecting him from criticism.

I don't have to respect him for anything.

hardCopy

HobbyMan wrote: »

summer breezer wrote: »

Lance Armstrong is a really good person who has done so much for Cancer, so he has to be respected for that at least.

Plus in the late 80's he was able to keep up on the bike with the likes of Mark Allen and Mike Pigg whom were the top triathletes of the day. So basically he has doses of talent since he was only around 17 at the time.

I am so disappointed that he won't be competing in Kona ( again ) !!

He had plenty of doses alright

opinion guy

hardCopy wrote: »

Lance has benefited hugely from Livestrong, in a horribly cynical way. Both directly, in terms of payments to him and in terms of protecting him from criticism.

I don't have to respect him for anything.

Do you have details on payments to him ?

hardCopy

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you have details on payments to him ?

I do as it happens.

I was reluctant to post this article earlier as I feel it muddies the waters. Criticism of Armstrong and criticism of Livestrong should be two separate topics, but people keep bringing it up.

IN ONE CASE, ARMSTRONG himself stood to profit from the sale of a major Livestrong asset: its name. Most people are unaware that there are two Livestrong websites. Livestrong.org is the site for the nonprofit Lance Armstrong Foundation, while Livestrong.com is a somewhat similar-looking page that features the same Livestrong logo and design but is actually a for-profit content farm owned by Demand Media.

In 2008, the foundation licensed the Livestrong brand name to Demand, the online media company behind eHow and Cracked.com, among other properties. Livestrong.com was positioned as a “health, fitness, and wellness community,” offering an online calorie counter, exercise and yoga videos, and articles about such topics as “What Are the Signs and Symptoms of Rejecting Belly Button Rings?”

As compensation for the use of its name, the foundation received about 183,000 shares of stock, which it sold for $3.1 million when the company went public in January 2011. Armstrong also received 156,000 shares of his own as part of a spokesperson agreement. (His agents, Bill Stapleton and Bart Knaggs, also received shares.) After the deal was criticized in the media, Armstrong donated his initial sale proceeds—roughly $1.2 million—to the foundation and said he planned to donate the rest, too.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

Guill

Eleven of Lance Armstrong's former teammates testified against
him in the US Anti-Doping Agency's investigation of the cyclist, it has been
revealed.


The agency said the evidence had exposed "the most sophisticated,
professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen".

Seems like lance had a good operation going. It'll be very interesting to see how he got away with it for so,long.
Link

I just love the whole way this is being spun and reported. I don't believe for a second that Armstrong orchestrated everything for his whole team, smacks of pinning everything on a scapegoat to me.

By far my favorite thing though is when they describe the operation as being amazingly "sophisticated". They just had a lad on a motorbike follow them around with some drugs. :pac: I mean if Armstrong of all people could get away with that what does it say about the rest?

The_Kew_Tour

Deleted User wrote: »

I just love the whole way this is being spun and reported. I don't believe for a second that Armstrong orchestrated everything for his whole team, smacks of pinning everything on a scapegoat to me.

By far my favorite thing though is when they describe the operation as being amazingly "sophisticated". They just had a lad on a motorbike follow them around with some drugs. :pac: I mean if Armstrong of all people could get away with that what does it say about the rest?

What????

Either he was one of greatest cheats of all time or you saying its witch hunt?

opinion guy

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

What????

Either he was one of greatest cheats of all time or you saying its witch hunt?

Its possible he was merely a regular cheat and it's still a witch hunt.

Seems a bit incredulous for him to be the Kingpin, no ?

hardCopy

opinion guy wrote: »

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

What????

Either he was one of greatest cheats of all time or you saying its witch hunt?

Its possible he was merely a regular cheat and it's still a witch hunt.

Seems a bit incredulous for him to be the Kingpin, no ?

No, you would expect the kingpin to be at the top.

I can't believe people are still defending this dirty, cheating, lying, amoral prick.

opinion guy

hardCopy wrote: »

No, you would expect the kingpin to be at the top.

I can't believe people are still defending this dirty, cheating, lying, amoral prick.

I'm not defending him. I'm just finding it hard to believe that someone who spent hours and hours every day on a bike and doesn't have a medical education would have the time and knowledge to mastermind, by himself, the most "sophisticated doping program in recent sports history" for an entire team of cyclists

That is simply not credible to me (edit:.....well lets say difficult to find credible)

ThisRegard

opinion guy wrote: »

I'm not defending him. I'm just finding it hard to believe that someone who spent hours and hours every day on a bike and doesn't have a medical education would have the time and knowledge to mastermind, by himself, the most "sophisticated doping program in recent sports history" for an entire team of cyclists

That is simply not credible to me

You really need to read up on this. It's in black and white in yesterdays report. Before that it was well known that he worked alongside one of the most foremost doctors in EPO use, Michele Ferrari, for years, and the two of them worked on the various doping programs they used. Armstrong was the driving force behind this.

opinion guy

ThisRegard wrote: »

You really need to read up on this

No I don't.
Honestly internet randomer, what makes you think I am compelled to do as you order? I do have other things to be doing

taidghbaby

opinion guy wrote: »

hardCopy wrote: »

No, you would expect the kingpin to be at the top.

I can't believe people are still defending this dirty, cheating, lying, amoral prick.

I'm not defending him. I'm just finding it hard to believe that someone who spent hours and hours every day on a bike and doesn't have a medical education would have the time and knowledge to mastermind, by himself, the most "sophisticated doping program in recent sports history" for an entire team of cyclists

That is simply not credible to me (edit:.....well lets say difficult to find credible)

Yeah but he wouldn't have to have any medical knowledge! If he was a good organiser/leader he could simply bring in the people he needed to run the programme!! Good management skills really!

ThisRegard

opinion guy wrote: »

No I don't.
Honestly internet randomer, what makes you think I am compelled to do as you order? I do have other things to be doing

Because it'll stop you making silly posts like the one you did and save you looking stupid to all the other internet randomers.

opinion guy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because it'll stop you making silly posts like the one you did and save you looking stupid to all the other internet randomers.

Some of us aren't here to impress you and your randomer gang (if you must know I'm mainly here for procrastination )

Logical Fallacy

ThisRegard wrote: »

You really need to read up on this. It's in black and white in yesterdays report. Before that it was well known that he worked alongside one of the most foremost doctors in EPO use, Michele Ferrari, for years, and the two of them worked on the various doping programs they used. Armstrong was the driving force behind this.

lol, do you really think that?

Armstrong and his success was the product, as such he is now the target. How many other members of the US Postal Team have been stripped of titles and wins? None, because despite being guilty of exactly the same thing as Armstrong they all offered him up to save their hides.

Typical cheater behaviour.

summerskin

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, do you really think that?

Armstrong and his success was the product, as such he is now the target. How many other members of the US Postal Team have been stripped of titles and wins? None, because despite being guilty of exactly the same thing as Armstrong they all offered him up to save their hides.

Typical cheater behaviour.

Most of the US Postal team were only there to help Armstrong win, that's the way cycling teams work.

Do you ignore the sample hen provided from 1999 that tested positive for EPO after the fact?

he was a cheat, and pretty much every cycling fan knew it.

ThisRegard

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How many other members of the US Postal Team have been stripped of titles and wins? None, because despite being guilty of exactly the same thing as Armstrong they all offered him up to save their hides.

Typical cheater behaviour.

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/us-postal-tour-de-france-squads-1999-2006/

Logical Fallacy

summerskin wrote: »

Most of the US Postal team were only there to help Armstrong win, that's the way cycling teams work.

Do you ignore the sample hen provided from 1999 that tested positive for EPO after the fact?

he was a cheat, and pretty much every cycling fan knew it.

I'm not saying he wasn't a cheat, you are doing some hard work with the mental acrobatics on that one.

It's cycling, everyone cheats lol.

hardCopy

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

lol, do you really think that?

Armstrong and his success was the product, as such he is now the target. How many other members of the US Postal Team have been stripped of titles and wins? None, because despite being guilty of exactly the same thing as Armstrong they all offered him up to save their hides.

Typical cheater behaviour.

They didn't save their hides though, those still racing will be banned and those retired will have their records stripped. Levi Leipheimer has had all of his results from '99 to '07 stripped.

aloyisious

As each organization has to decide for itself what to do about findings against professional cyclists, I'm waiting to see what decision the UCI will come to on the Armstrong debacle. The court case taken in Switzerland by the UCI against Paul Kimmage about the alleged cover-up of an Armstrong positive drug test result is troubling.

Paul reported in the papers he work's for on the testimonies of two of Armstrong's former team mates. The UCI hasn't taken a case against the papers. Paul has been a thorn in the side of the cycling authorities for over two decades now, so maybe it's just performance as usual from them. When his "hard ride" book was published in Ireland, he was criticized for it by some of his fellow Irish cyclists because it mentioned drug abuse within the professional cycling world. They thought it was wrong to blow the whistle openly about the abuse, that it should have been kept "in-house". The proof has been truly revealed in the eating.

hardCopy

aloyisious wrote: »

As each organization has to decide for itself what to do about findings against professional cyclists, I'm waiting to see what decision the UCI will come to on the Armstrong debacle. The court case taken in Switzerland by the UCI against Paul Kimmage about the alleged cover-up of an Armstrong positive drug test result is troubling.

Paul reported in the papers he work's for on the testimonies of two of Armstrong's former team mates. The UCI hasn't taken a case against the papers. Paul has been a thorn in the side of the cycling authorities for over two decades now, so maybe it's just performance as usual from them. When his "hard ride" book was published in Ireland, he was criticized for it by some of his fellow Irish cyclists because it mentioned drug abuse within the professional cycling world. They thought it was wrong to blow the whistle openly about the abuse, that it should have been kept "in-house". The proof has been truly revealed in the eating.

The other Irish cyclists fell out with him because they themselves doped. Kelly has already come out this week in support of McQuaid.

aloyisious

hardCopy wrote: »

The other Irish cyclists fell out with him because they themselves doped. Kelly has already come out this week in support of McQuaid.

I'd heard Sean Kelly talking on radio about the matter, hadn't realised he'd aligned himself with Pat. I remember the original hoohah here about Paul's book and Sean had sounded non-committal then about it, compared to the other big-name FIC cyclists of the time, who didn't like it one little bit and made that plain.

That might have been due to the "hints" from other European countries about Stephen Roche and how he managed appear out of the mist on La Plagne, along with how he won the TDF, the Giro and the World championship all in one year.

aloyisious

There was an article in yesterday's Irish Times on this woman's involvement with lance's team and Irish Customs. This address is on an article in today's Sunday Indo'......

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/blowing-whistle-on-lance-nearly-destroyed-my-life-3258556.html

aloyisious

From today's Irish Examiner and Irish Times:


UCI to respond to Armstrong doping report on Monday
Friday, October 19, 2012 - 04:23 PM

International Cycling Union president Pat McQuaid will on Monday reveal the world governing body’s response to the United States Anti-doping Agency’s scathing Lance Armstrong report.

Armstrong refused to cooperate with USADA, who last week published a 1000-page report which concluded the Texan and his United States Postal Service team ran “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen”.

In accordance with the World Anti-doping Code, the UCI had 21 days to respond, until October 31, but now McQuaid will address the issue in Geneva, Switzerland on Monday.

“UCI President Mr Pat McQuaid will inform on the UCI position concerning the USADA decision on the Armstrong case,” said a UCI statement to announce the media conference.

.....................................................................................................................

Rabobank pulls out of cycling

Bert Bruggink, chief financial officer of Rabobank, addresses a news conference in Utrecht announcing that the bank would stop sponsoring professional cycling teams at the end of this year. Photograph: Robin van Lonkhuijsen/Reuters
Cycling: Dutch lender Rabobank has ended its 17-year sponsorship of professional cycling, saying it had lost faith in the sport's leaders to clean up following the Lance Armstrong doping scandal.

Rabobank is the biggest backer of Dutch professional cycling, with total sponsorship worth €15 million a year in a nation with as many bikes as people.

Its decision shows the damage being done to cycling after the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) said seven times Tour de France winner Armstrong took part in and organised a sophisticated doping scheme on his way to success.

“We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport. We are not confident that this will change for the better in the foreseeable future,” said Rabobank board member Bert Bruggink in a statement.

“The Usada report was the final straw,” he added later in a press conference televised live in the Netherlands.

“The international sport of cycling is not only sick, the sickness goes up to the highest levels,” he said.

Sportswear company Nike and brewer Anheuser-Busch

dropped their sponsorship of Armstrong this week, and the sport must show it can tackle doping effectively to prevent more of its backers from quitting.

The International Cycling Union (UCI), the sport’s governing body, has yet to rule on the Usada’s report into Armstrong and has been criticised for dragging its feet.

“Despite inevitable and sometimes painful consequences, the UCI reaffirms its commitment to the fight against doping and full transparency about potential anti-doping rule violations,” the Paris-based UCI said on Friday.

Armstrong, a 41-year-old cancer survivor, has always denied taking banned substances but has decided not to challenge the Usada charges.

American rider Levi Leipheimer, who rode for Rabobank between 2002 and 2004, was sacked this week by the Quick-Step Cycling Team after admitting to the Usada investigation that he took banned substances.

Leipheimer, 38, was one of 11 former team-mates to testify against Armstrong.

Another sponsor, SKINS, which is a partner of the Rabobank team, said on Thursday it would reconsider its association with the sport if its UCI governing body failed to act on doping.

Its Chief Executive Jaimie Fuller warned the commercial fall-out could be worse than the damage suffered by a doping scandal centred on the Festina team that hit the Tour de France in 1998.

Cycling has attracted a new generation of sponsors in recent years who stress their commitment to clean competition.

The sport increasingly appeals to affluent fortysomethings who want to stay active for longer

earning it the nickname “the new golf” and boosting its commercial appeal.

British team Sky said this week it would sack team members unless they signed a document saying they had never doped. Sky rider Bradley Wiggins this year became the first Briton to win the Tour.

The Rabobank cycling team, which has taken part in every single Tour de France since 1984, said in a statement it regretted but understood the bank's decision.

“We’ve been cycling for 17 years now with the name Rabobank proudly on our shirts, and it hurts that going forward we’ll have to do without that name,” it said.

Its top riders are Dutchman Robert Gesink, this year’s Tour of California winner, and Spaniard Luis Leon Sanchez, winner of four Tour de France stages.