It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
UCI dont seem to be an independent party in this. They seem to have a foot quite firmly in one lucrative camp.Latest news looks like UCI positioning themselves in a PR war.
maddy, don't think they were all doing it , at least 5% would have been clean and pretty angry at the back of the peleton, the problem is it is a team sport and you keep your head down even if you are clean just to have a job as a pro
Maddy - part of the problem is that even if the entire peloton dopes, it DOESN'T make it a level playing field. Different physiologies respond differently to different "flavors" of doping, so some people can get more of a benefit. For example, if you can boost "Measureable outcome x" (be that PCV, power output, whatever you want to measure that results in you being stronger/faster) by 5%, then the higher your starting values for X, the higher the level of "boosted-X". If you naturally have a pretty low PCV/ Hct, you can take more EPO/blood and end up with a bigger improvement, that someone who has an already high PCV, therefore ending up with a bigger gain. In addition, it comes down to who is willing to go furthest into the danger zone - if drug Y's effect increases in direct proportion to the amount you take, along with the risky side effects, Athlete A might be willing to take more risks (by taking more drug) than Athlete B, who is a bit more wary.If you said "Previously illegal substances e, f, and g are now allowed, but only up to z kg/bwt cos after that there is a high risk of death", you'd get people taking z+1 kg/bwt, because that would give them a tiny potential advantage.
So the playing field, even if "everyone dopes", is far from even.
Ultra cougie wrote (see)
And if we did that it just sends the message to riders that it's ok to dope so long as we don't catch you at the time ?
... the alternative message being, IF you are clean we can still persecute you for eternity until we get the result we want.
A pound to a penny it tips you into the "he is guilty as sin camp"! Well worth a read. It changed my perspective as I hadn't realised the lengths they went to mid tour.
I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp but the evidence now coming to light - proven or unproven - is making me dount the reality more and more. it's a little bit like the "is Jimmy Saville a kiddy fiddler?" tale that's now breaking - there were lots of comments around that he was when he was alive, but nothing was ever proven, but it seems his death is now opening people's minds and mouths (and maybe filling their wallets).
as they say - the truth will always out
I've just read the Tyler Hamilton book and found it very interesting. It suggests that EPO doping was rife and if you didn't dope there was no chance of getting near the podium as all the major contenders were doping. Mr Armstrong comes across as a vindictive bully - if he didn't like you, you were out, and your career with it. It also implies that LA had the UCi in his pocket.
the EPO and testosterone doping i could kind of understand, but the blood doping made me want to heave .
Will that be 1 BB or 2 sir?
fat buddha wrote (see)
I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp
I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp
He did test positive though - twice. Once for corticosteroids in 1999 (wiggled out of that one with a backdated 'script for saddle sore cream) and again in 2001, for EPO (although this was never followed up, as the positive was part of a research project to develop a test for EPO, and was conducted on stored blood).
Merckx, Indurain, Riis, Ulrich etc aren't being stripped of titles won while doping, as they undoubtedly were.
I don't think there's any question of saying that it's OK to dope - if the evidence is produced Lance will be forever labelled a doper whether he technically holds his titles or not.
As an aside the BBC carried an article on testing of a new blood booster:
flyaway wrote (see)
fat buddha wrote (see) I'm with you max - I was always in the "he's never tested positive" camp
yep - am aware of them but what I meant is that he didn't test positive in a way that led to a ban. the EPO one was chased to death by l'Equipe but they had no convincing scientific evidence due to the methodology so it never went anywhere.
all dopers try to use get outs - LA seems to be no different here. but the rules have tightened up which leaves less wriggle room now - "it was in my meat", "it was a product bought overseas" etc - i.e. ignorance of the presence of a drug is no longer a defence.
Tyler Hamilton's book suggests it was very easy to dope and get away with it - had he had a more reliable doctor that didn't mix up blood bags he probably wouldn't have been caught either.
Whilst testing positive and then buying off the governing body (I think it was 2x $125,000 payments from LA to the UCI) does in fact mean he didn't test positive in a way that led to a ban, I hardly think that qualifies someone to use the I've never tested positive defence and expect people with even half a brain to believe it. McQuaid and before him Verbruggen are more culpable that anyone in this mess. Just shocking to see him handing out medals at the Olympic cycling (notwithstanding the fact he actually has an Olympic ban in place for take Sean Kelly (I think) to SA back in the 70s). Thoroughly repugnant individual that needs to go before any progress can ever be made.BTW the level playing field is nonesense too. The bigger the star (or the more sociopathic the personality) the better the 'treatment' they receive from the team doctor. Ergo Lance and Bertie get more blood bags than Johnny La Domestique. He once told the truth inadvertantly it seems - indeed it's not about the bike.
And don't get me started on how Jamacia produces half a dozen of the best sprinters in the world (including one winning by jaw droppingly big margins) from a talent pool the size of Chipping Sodbury when they're going up against the Yanks and there less than virtuous afletic past - Jones, Lewis, Gatlin etc. The training methods on that island must be pretty damn special to produce that many people to run that much faster than a huge country with a (recent) history of doped athletes. Now WTF is in them chicken nuggets?As you were.
I didn't say that I agreed with the way that LA wriggled out of the ban my crustacean friend - it was a comment. and the "buying off" of the UCI is again something that is unproven. despite the lingering doubts, complicity, nasty smells, hearsay evidence etc there are no definitive facts. LA and UCI say one thing, others say something else
I'm not defending LA here - I've come around to the opinion that the guy as a lying shit - but nobody has yet to prove one way or another (or at least provide the evidence of proof as the UCI still await the USADA evidence) of absolute guilt in this whole tawdry affair. it's all supposition so far.
hmm - chicken nuggets.....
The way you go on you'd think he was Welsh ;o)As you may have gathered I am a little passionate on this and get really agitated by people taking what LA says and holding it up as gospel without questioning and/or researching it - not accusing you of that Big Guy. He has tested positive and he hasn't been tested nearly as many times as his PR machine says he has and there are an awful lot of people (Andreu, O'Reilly, Anderson etc.) with nothing to gain who are painting a consistent picture. As they don't exist in the peloton their income is directly influenced by omerta. I guess they are all part of the huge conspiracy to bring down Lance (headed up by Walsh and Kimmage) and probably faked the moon landings before bumping off the people's princess. I don't think USADA finding him guilty (cos he folded after seeing what they had on him I'll grant you) is supposition. I think USADA are due to give the case files to the UCI very soon and they have also said (I think) they will be going public (even if Bruyneel doesn't make them) so the UCI won't be able to bury the evidence under a bland 'we agree' statement.It's all a load of nuggets I'm tellin' ya!As U-sada* were.
On a highly unrelated note wasn't Sada the first person ever evicted from Big Brother?
On a (mildly) related note, I love the fact that Landis is now legally prevented from saying that the UCI, amongst other things, are "terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi" or similar allegations of that kind.
Yep, that just about covers it.
I theeenk they may be a tad different to Gadaffi. Theyve not got an honour guard of attractive women have they ? And live in tents ?
Oh and the whole hiding in a pipe thing. Although I wouldnt rule them having to resort to that when the Lance fans storm their offices with pitchforks and blazing torches.
I was reading that Landis thing earlier after Dr Hutch tweeted it - I guffawed when it mentioned "full of shit".
it's got a touch of the schoolyard and sticks and stones about it eh?......
The different responses to drugs how is that different to different responses to training techniques we are all different - some can never make it but even those that have the potential one size doesn't fit all. Regardless of how much benefit someone may or may not get from it they are equal idiots for doing it.
I am not defending the drug taking really just the witch hunt when it seem apparent that the majority of the higher placing riders were doping as well at the time. It isn't going to change anything now when others caught at different times to winning events have kept their titles.
Can any of us say that the sport really is clean now - the drug testing will always be a step behind what is being developed and used
I thought the buying off of the UCI was a load of crock. The results are sent to the UCI and the IOC simultaneously - unless he bought off the IOC as well.
I don't care whether he doped or not really. However it has gone on for so long with no real evidence it is starting to annoy me.
The guy who tested the positive said that the evidence was inconclusive and he wouldn't go to court with it. IT needed another sample but there were issues with it.
If they have evidence then present it. If not then either drop it or get the evidence. Other than that it does seem like they are just a bunch of whingers on witch hunt.
Maddy - thats the entire point of sport, isnt it? People are different, some are more "talented" (have better genes or whatever) and combined with a bit of skill/ intelligence/ luck/ gucci kit (depending on the sport in question) more often that not, that person wins. Your point was that if everyone is allowed to dope, the playing field is leveled, and winning is dependant only on tactics/ luck/ having the best wheels. Which it wouldnt be.
Wow. Am amazed that so many people still believe and trust in the 'legend' of Lance. One of the reasons the 'man who never quits' quit his fight, was in an attempt to ensure that the actual real evidence that has been systematically gathered by USADA, stays in a file and is not exposed to any judicial process.
The point of his action was to be able to maintain a high-ground where he could accuse USADA of conducting a witch-hunt against him, rather than having to argue about real evidence from drugs tests, team managers and team mate's affidavits.
The fact that Lance has lied, bullied, cheated and misled people for years is the real scandal here and we will look back on this case in a few years time and shake our heads. No one likes to lose a hero, or a legend to make us aspire to. But it's much worse to have been subjected to an organised conspiracy to fool us all.
He is not a nice guy. He deserves what is surely coming to him. Perhaps this sounds harsh and opinionated but i didn't feel like this a couple of months ago. I was quite a fan. But I started reading a lot of background info, scholarly articles, journalists reports, team mate's testimony etc. Helped by the UCI, he was able to fob off testers, get early warnings, have dodgy results buried, lost or contaminated, while he threatened or buried junior team members who wouldn't play along.
Why did Lance pay $100.000 to the UCI in 2005? Doesn't that seem a bit weird to anyone?
I was in the 'oh well they probably all did it' camp, why rake up old stuff etc etc then I read David Millers book and thought it was obvious he was careful not to say anything about Lance - which made me wonder, but thought it was mainly about him rather than the other riders - v good read BTW.
Then read Tyler Hamilton's book...... Blimey! Even if he is bitter, angry, testifying to save himself - whatever - it's pretty strong stuff. I have only been been following the sport relatively recently - If I were a die hard fan - Hamilton's book would have made me furious.
Can't even bring myself to even go on the Live Strong website now. Everything LA has touched is now tainted in my mind.
It shows how far this brings all sport into disrepute that I (along with others obviously) raise an eyebrow at folks like Bolt. Which is a real shame.