Lance folds on drug charges

2456711

Comments

  • BIWF He doesn't implicate Lance but he doesn't exactly scream he's clean either does he. It's certainly and interesting read, but I haven't quite finished it yet.

    The problem is we will never know what really goes on but as with all sport we need to Pro Cycling to be clean sport.

    If that means times and speeds go down and races have to be made less tough then I'm fine with that, but in reality I think many people wouldn't be.

    There again if you can boost your bodies ability in ways that aren't listed as prohibited drugs use, should you be peanlised for it? The moral question is should you do it in the first place.

    But then where do you draw the line as training and eating the right diet are ways of boosting your bodies ability.

     

     

  • I guess going back and doing this puts the fear of god into the current generation of riders ? Sure you can beat the checks NOW - but if we find out - we will strip the titles off you ?

    IW - Millar wouldnt implicate Lance - why would he ? He'd get his ass sued off him, and likely get hounded out of the peleton. Lance wasnt keen on Bassons and Simeoni who spoke out on doping. They left the sport soon after. 

    JB - microdosing is the way to do it. Small amounts. And you can rehydrate yourself pretty quickly to to cheat tests. Why did riders have personal blood centrifuges back in the day ? Most people got busted buying the stuff or transporting it. Only idiots actually tested positive.  

  • Perhaps it should be said that if it's administered by a needle it's banned?

    That would kill off rehydrating via IV drip too though.

    Yes I'm a total noob to all this

  • Noob point well proven there Cougie!

    Hmm Medical need though that's rather vague isn't it. Maybe they need to look at the team Dr's thing instead, but then they'd use private Dr's. Or if you could only use UCI mandated Dr's you still get the odd corrupt UCI approved Dr.

    I give up! Just need to some how set a moral compass in all the riders, maybe all these very clever specialist Dr's could start working on that!

    Mind you it's sort of two things isn't it.

    If Lance tested clean by the race rules at the time then surely that should stand. Then figure out how to get the riders to always be clean in today's races.

  • cougie wrote (see)

    I guess going back and doing this puts the fear of god into the current generation of riders ? Sure you can beat the checks NOW - but if we find out - we will strip the titles off you ?

    Find out what, exactly? That people you routinely beat are pointing a finger? It's double jeopardy as far as I'm concerned. I'm a fan of process. If we can prove the guilt of an athlete using the process then great. If we can't and they are doping, then we need to improve the process. If we don't know for certain but cannot prove their guilt, we cannot change the process.

  • Find out that they were doping - but passed the tests as the drugs they were using werent being tested for at that time ? 

    He had 6 positives from the 1999 test.  Its just that they didnt come to light until 2005 when tests had improved. 

  • AliBear30 wrote (see)

    If Lance tested clean by the race rules at the time then surely that should stand. Then figure out how to get the riders to always be clean in today's races.

    But that legitimises any behaviour that can be concealed at the time. I believe it's standard practice now to freeze samples so that they can be tested in the future when testing methods improve. Surely this combined with retrospective action increases the deterrent?

  • I don't see how, if LA doesn't contest the charges at this stage, that CAS could be involved.  Surely it's like any other judicial process where if (without good reason) you don't participate at first instance, you won't be allowed to appeal?

  • If I was paying attention correctly this morning (it was early), USADA has no authority to strip LA of his TdF title, that lies within the remit of UCI- it's that battle (if it starts) which could find its way to CAS.

  • But surely if the reason the title is taken away is because of findings by USADA that LA doped, LA couldn't complain that UCI had adopted the USADA findings because he hadn't taken the chance he had to challenge the evidence relied on by USADA?

  • Sorry, I'm not making it very clear- my understanding is it would be UCI opposing USADA at the CAS over who had the ability to strip LA of the title- the gentleman in question would not be involved in the proceedings. 

    Edit: to hopefully fix the grammar

  • Shame, wonder will it affect the "charity" side of Lance with Livestrong.....will they edit him out of Dodgeball as well.

  • http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-wont-fight-usada-charges

    Article gives some of the arguments about who has the rights to do what.

  • Stripping Armstrong of TDF titles is just a load of cac. What's the point apart from sticking one on a guy who's happened to make millions of dollars riding a bike. You may as well say history never happened. 

    I've had an idea! lets get a picture of someone burning a copy of Armstrongs book 'its not about the bike'.  In the words of Hugh Porter, "Lance Armstrong is on fire!!!".

  • As has already been said elsewhere, if Lance is stripped of his wins I would like to see the titles unassigned which offers a strong statement while affording (perhaps) a modicum of closure for the time period of the two speed peleton.

  • from the UCI:

    "The UCI will now await the “reasoned decision” which the USADA must issue as the next step in its anti-doping case against Lance Armstrong. Only then will the international federation have a further comment on the case, it said.

    In a statement issued Friday afternoon, the UCI said that it noted Armstrong's decision not to go to arbitration, and also that USADA is reported to have said it will strip Armstrong of his results since 1998 and give him a lifetime ban.

    The UCI cited the World Anti Doping Code article which “states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.”

    It went on to say that it “expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code."

    so if the UCI don't like what USADA says - and bearing in mind that UCI were to an extent backing LA in his case against them - then expect the CAS to come into play.

    it ain't over yet

  • So onwards to CAS?

    Should be nicely cleared up circa 2023.....

  • 2ps on this :

    - I think it's silly to trust LA's former teammates as base for accusation.

    - Barne Rijs admitted doping in 1996 and he is still declared the winner.

    - Is Jan Ulrih, who is at least "not very clean" going to be declared winner of 3 tours?

    Ref. I heard that Cavendish and Wiggins, the Sky team trained in the Teide mountain in the canaries where no bio-passport test can be taken. Not saying they are not clean but they could do something naughty if the wanted.

  • Interesting interview this evening on Radio 4 with the former Doping Chief of TdF.  He stated that only UCI can 'strip' him.  Pretty much poo pooed everything that USADA have said and done.  

    Going to turn into a big battle between USADA and UCI from the sounds of it ...

  • I've come to the conclusion that if they throw out all those that partook of the substances they would have to give the titles to the bloke driving the Autobus image

  • Jose - why do you say that about the canaries ?
  • I'm not sure of the full extent of what his cancer battle did to his body, but I used to wonder given Lance's battle with Testicular cancer if he had to take snythetic Testosterone just to be "male ", a guy I work with has to, which happens if someone cant produce his own anymore. I find it strange that this never gets mentioned, and if he does have to then how would they distinguish between what would be legal or illegal.

  • That wouldn't be allowed. Boardman had a similar problem - but you can't take artificial testosterone even if your natural levels are low. Boardman retired - partly because of that.
  • And so it starts again

    The UCI have expressed concerned that they still haven't seem the papers, the USADA say they are still "gathering evidence"

    How can they strip Lance of his title when they are still "gathering evidence"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763

     

  • USADA can't strip him of his medals, can they?

  • No they can't - the uci has to based on the evidence from USADA.
  • The Silent Assassin wrote (see)

    And so it starts again

    The UCI have expressed concerned that they still haven't seem the papers, the USADA say they are still "gathering evidence" How can they strip Lance of his title when they are still "gathering evidence" http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763  

    I was just thinking the other day that no evidence was suddenly produced after Lance stopped contesting.  Funny that......  The whole thing is a shambles. The longer they take to produce this 'evidence' the less likely it seems that there is anything concrete

  • I don' t know what to think but if cheating is gaining an unfair advantage over fellow competitors via whatever means and consensus seems to be that doping was rife in professional cycling at the time then even if he did dope he wasn't getting an unfair advantage at the time - not saying its right just he was competing on an even playing field. 

Sign In or Register to comment.