# Lance Armstrong being stripped of titles...



## King Arthur

*L.A. gives up*

Armstrong won't fight USADA charges - Cycling- NBC Sports


----------



## kmak

Crushing. Our hero has not clothes. Or something like that...

I'm really bummed.


----------



## Skimmy

The statement is on his webpage: Lance Armstrong


----------



## godot

Ibtm.


----------



## Andy69

*envy is a terrible thing*

the envious finally got to Lance.

Lance Armstrong stripped of Tour de France titles after ending defense - Sporting News


----------



## locustfist

Sounds like they're jumping the gun as he hasn't been stripped of anything. It's up to the UCI and USA Cycling to decide if USADA's case means anything

I don't care if he doped or not but if he is stripped based on this case it sets a horrible precedent. This would basically say that drug tests don't mean anything.


----------



## Love Commander

The USADA can EAD.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

IBTMx2 LOL

Doping is a serious problem, I admit, but there comes a point where it's just tiresome hearing about Lance this and Lance that. I couldn't care less what he or the UCI or WADA or whoever do or think anymore.

When the issue is resolved finally, with no appeal possible, then maybe it will be newsworthy. But for now it's just Chinese Water Torture, drip drip drip


----------



## 151

The thing is, at least among the general public, Lance Armstrong is bigger than cycling. Definately bigger than the USADA.

AS long has he supports his claims he has the larger audience and the USADA will have to fight a never ending PR battle to strip those titles from him in the eyes of the public.


----------



## pro from dover

just another lying, cheating american who wants to play by his own rules and to hell with everyone else.


----------



## aliensporebomb

Prediiction: they try stripping him of the titles, he sues. 

I've read a bit of scuttlebutt all over the internet cycling forums about this tonight and the believers who are dissappointed are black with anger and the ones who always believed he doped are cackling with glee and really it's just a little depressing overall.

I think I'm going to go on a bike ride tomorrow.


----------



## spade2you

Even McQuaid said that the USADA didn't have jurisdiction over the UCI.


----------



## Creakyknees

this ain't over.


----------



## Zen Cyclery

Looks like Lance has finally lost. 

USADA says it will ban Lance Armstrong, strip 7 Tour titles

Thoughts?


----------



## Waxbytes

The Inquisition used to dig up the dead and put them on trial for heresy.


----------



## drc

The streets of Reno are so much more safe now that this outlaw has been brought to 'justice'.
I suppose a plea bargain is out of the question?


----------



## memphis

They still haven't proven anything - Lance has just decided to stop fighting it. 

His legal bills must be astronomical.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

Digging up the dead is a good analogy.

There are problems far more immediate and urgent. Other than a few bike forum guys nobody cares about LA or the Tour.

Do you want the DEA chasing LA over a stupid bike race ten years ago or do you want them going after jerks selling E and vitamin K to you kids at school right now? 
Law enforcement has limited resources, use them where they are needed most. 
Fighting gangbangers and shutting down meth labs right now or chasing a racer 98% of the population have forgotten. 
It's one or the other.
Which is it?


----------



## colorider7

Expected. Unfortunate. Time for cycling to move on. Go TJ! Go Tommy D! Time for new (hopefully clean) heros! Good riding. Colorider.


----------



## FindTheRiver

What an absolute circle jerk/cluster f*** of a vindictive witch hunt. Nice work, fellas.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

drc said:


> The streets of Reno are so much more safe now that this outlaw has been brought to 'justice'.


Yeah, there's crack, meth, ecstacy for sale at every 7-Eleven parking lot, people getting murdered over meth lab ripoffs, houses catching fire from badly wired grow ops, but let's send the Feds after some bike racer cause the world's biggest problem is determining the outcome of a race ten years ago.

Never mind Lance's legal bills, how much taxpayer money has been spent? How many hours of court time, law enforcement time?


----------



## banosser

..and everybody else in those Tours were clean.. 

...and what do we burn besides witches..??


----------



## jrswenberger

Never had one before but I might go out and but a dozen Livestrong bracelets. What a fia$co!


----------



## OldChipper

banosser said:


> ..and everybody else in those Tours were clean..
> 
> ...and what do we burn besides witches..??


MORE witches!!!!


----------



## pulser955

This still has relevance. Its not just digging up the dead. Lance is part owner of Radio shack team, he still is involved with the U23 team. JB still runs a pro tour team. The UCI is still involved with a cover up. This has much larger implications for the sport then 7 yellow jerseys. This is about bringing to light what really goes on behind the scenes in pro cycling. And is has nothing to do with the DEA or law enforcement not looking for drug dealers on the street. This is the USADA's job. This is what they were created to do.


----------



## Cinelli 82220

The Mods and Admin are going to have a heckuva time rolling all these threads into one blob. 

Won't be long before every sub forum has a Lance thread.


----------



## Pin2Win

I'm not saying LA did it or not....but do you think you could do it 7 years in a row doped or not? Pretty amazing feat if you ask me.

Sad thing is this is going to impact the whole Livestrong organization that helps people who really need it.


----------



## Peter_Klim

I don't get it? 

Where is the proof that he doped?
Why is USADA suscpicious?


----------



## jacksdad

So....LA is....a duck?


----------



## cda 455

.....


----------



## JasonLopez

Pin2Win said:


> I'm not saying LA did it or not....but do you think you could do it 7 years in a row doped or not? Pretty amazing feat if you ask me.
> 
> Sad thing is this is going to impact the whole Livestrong organization that helps people who really need it.


It is an amazing feat. The answer to the "magic" is that the UCI was in on it, most likely paid off.


----------



## SystemShock

*Lance Throws In The Towel...*

Can't say I didn't see it coming.

Lance Armstrong gives up fight against USADA charges [update] - latimes.com
.


----------



## cda 455

.....


----------



## Jett

Pin2Win said:


> I'm not saying LA did it or not....but do you think you could do it 7 years in a row doped or not? Pretty amazing feat if you ask me.
> 
> Sad thing is this is going to impact the whole Livestrong organization that helps people who really need it.


Given that almost everyone in that era doped, the playing field was pretty leveled.


----------



## philippec

Sad but fitting denouement for years of cheating. If not prepared to get burned, do not play with fire... looks like Armstrong has finally accepted that he will not get away for years of EPO micro-dosing, blood transfusions, etc. Having most of his ex-teammates detailing these practices must have been the writing on the wall. It is too bad that he seems to have decided for an unspoken admission of doping (being stripped of his TDF wins is huge and not something a rider like Armstrong would likely accept out of "fatigue"). He could have helped many generations of young athletes grapple with the temptation to dope. Having followed and, at least at the beginning, admired Armstrong since before 1993, let me just say you were a great athlete but allowed hubris to take you down a road that ultimately took you down. You weren´ t alone in cheating but you certainly were the one most blinded by that transient glory. Sad.


----------



## mobilesleepy

Lance martyred himself.
Had the cards stacked against him, plays the sympathy card. 
And it worked. Now go give your money to another poor persecuted person, like Sarah Palin.


----------



## qatarbhoy

> _This still has relevance. Its not just digging up the dead. Lance is part owner of Radio shack team, he still is involved with the U23 team. JB still runs a pro tour team. The UCI is still involved with a cover up. This has much larger implications for the sport then 7 yellow jerseys. This is about bringing to light what really goes on behind the scenes in pro cycling. And is has nothing to do with the DEA or law enforcement not looking for drug dealers on the street. This is the USADA's job. This is what they were created to do. _


^^^^^^^^Indeed.

Lance's statements have been increasingly weaselly; this latest one is the worst. They are carefully crafted to avoid lying but also avoid telling anything like the "whole truth" - IMO - which means no catharsis, no healing, no moving on, no clarity, either for LA or for cycling. He's not admitting guilt, just "finished with this nonsense". I agree that with numerous witnesses lining up to testify against him, he and his lawyers have seen the end coming and done this to try to avoid losing everything.

If Armstrong's charity work has value, it won't rely on his reputation to sustain it.


----------



## Majuranji

I still wanted him to be innocent, even if he is his name will be forever tainted


----------



## DrRoebuck

This was his only real play. No trial with all testimony going public (unless Johan fights it), he's not *really* competing anymore so who cares about a lifetime ban, and he's made his millions and "won" his races so who cares about the titles. 

And all that prob would have happened if he fought them. This way he keeps the absolutely damning testimony under wraps. Again, unless it comes out in Johan's arbitration.


----------



## mobilesleepy

qatarbhoy said:


> ^^^^^^^^Indeed.
> 
> Lance's statements have been increasingly weaselly; this latest one is the worst. They are carefully crafted to avoid lying but also avoid telling anything like the "whole truth" - IMO - which means no catharsis, no healing, no moving on, no clarity, either for LA or for cycling. He's not admitting guilt, just "finished with this nonsense". I agree that with numerous witnesses lining up to testify against him, he and his lawyers have seen the end coming and done this to try to avoid losing everything.
> 
> If Armstrong's charity work has value, it won't rely on his reputation to sustain it.


He's gotta win.
Somehow.


----------



## sir duke

I can't bring myself to envy someone who has spent the greater part of his sporting career living a lie. I just can't dream that big. Not that I think this whole sorry charade has yet run it's course. This doesn't change anything very much.


----------



## Rolando

Lance doped and won first place. The next 100 guys down the standings also doped. Lance still won the race. 

By focusing narrowly on bringing Lance down the USADA and UCI give the false impression that Lance had an unfair advantage and therefore was not the true winner.

Show me who won the races then. Ullrich?......Basso?.....Pantani?....errr......

Congratulations to the idiots that wasted time on this pointless exercise. They have proven nothing. We only know the they were unable to enforce their own doping rules which made it necessary for the whole peloton to dope. Way to go idiots. You feel better now?


----------



## Bullvine

His work for folks with cancer far out-weighs all else in my book. If I bump into Lance I will call him champion shake his hand & buy him a beer.


----------



## SystemShock

DrRoebuck said:


> This was his only real play. No trial with all testimony going public (unless Johan fights it), he's not *really* competing anymore so who cares about a lifetime ban, and he's made his millions and "won" his races so who cares about the titles.
> 
> And all that prob would have happened if he fought them. This way he keeps the absolutely damning testimony under wraps. Again, unless it comes out in Johan's arbitration.


I think you probably nailed it.
.


----------



## DIRT BOY

Who cares at this point. He won the races, PERIOD. This is a witch hunt and this Tyler is out to make a name for himself. Waste of tax payers money, times, etc.

Yes, most likely he is guilty. But this is OLD news and there is a good chance the UCI and WADA tell the USADA to go _ _ _ _ off and won't strip him of the titles.


----------



## ldotmurray

No matter how it pans out I'm still a LA fan. Doping or no doping. He put in the work.che lost a ball for Pete's sake. 10 yellow armbands.


----------



## the_dude

Bullvine said:


> His work for folks with cancer far out-weighs all else in my book. If I bump into Lance I will call him champion shake his hand & buy him a beer.


my sentiments exactly.


----------



## qatarbhoy

> _Who cares at this point. We won the races, PERIOD. _


Were you on the Discovery or the Postal team or both?

I can assure you a lot of people do still care, and rightly so IMO, even if everyone else was doping (and LA's latest statement seems to hint that he was only competing on a level playing field as everyone else was doping too).


----------



## tellico climber

pro from dover said:


> just another lying, cheating american who wants to play by his own rules and to hell with everyone else.


Thanks for one of the all time dumbest comments ever posted here. Oh, the evil Americans, please, just be quite.


----------



## qatarbhoy

Rolando said:


> Lance doped and won first place. The next 100 guys down the standings also doped. Lance still won the race.
> 
> By focusing narrowly on bringing Lance down the USADA and UCI give the false impression that Lance had an unfair advantage and therefore was not the true winner.
> 
> Show me who won the races then. Ullrich?......Basso?.....Pantani?....errr......
> 
> Congratulations to the idiots that wasted time on this pointless exercise. They have proven nothing. We only know the they were unable to enforce their own doping rules which made it necessary for the whole peloton to dope. Way to go idiots. You feel better now?


I might agree with you, if LA came clean and said as much: "Yes, I doped; everyone did." Instead, he maintains that he has never doped, yet beat plenty of known dopers seven years running. That stretches credulity.


----------



## murbike

qatarbhoy said:


> I might agree with you, if LA came clean and said as much: "Yes, I doped; everyone did." Instead, he maintains that he has never doped, yet beat plenty of known dopers seven years running. That stretches credulity.


I agree.
The problem I have with this whole 'controversy' is that he claims he never doped, yet he crushed everyone else in the peloton, many of whom have acknowledged that doping was prevalent, and where the other champions have not only been caught, but have admitted that they doped.


----------



## asciibaron

Lance who?


----------



## seeborough

memphis said:


> His legal bills must be astronomical.


Not nearly as much as the millions he made cheating more intelligently than the rest of them.


----------



## trailrunner68

DIRT BOY said:


> Who cares at this point. We won the races, PERIOD. This is a witch hunt and this Tyler is out to make a name for himself. Waste of tax payers money, times, etc.
> 
> Yes, most likely he is guilty. But this is OLD news and there is a good chance the UCI and WADA tell the USADA to go _ _ _ _ off and won't strip him of the titles.


What do you mean likely guilty? He is guilty. Later today he will have all results from 1998 onward stripped and be banned for life. 

Even so, this slimeball still does not have the stones--stone in his case--to sack up and tell the truth. He continues to lie and lie and lie.


----------



## seeborough

Peter_Klim said:


> I don't get it?
> 
> Where is the proof that he doped?
> Why is USADA suscpicious?


The USADA is after him because, after owning Greece and Spain, the Germans are now looking to get their greedy paws on four more TdF titles. 

Well, either that or a mountain of evidence unearthed in a doping investigation warranted some sort of action by an anti-doping organization.

Damned Germans...


----------



## DIRT BOY

qatarbhoy said:


> Were you on the Discovery or the Postal team or both?
> 
> I can assure you a lot of people do still care, and rightly so IMO, even if everyone else was doping (and LA's latest statement seems to hint that he was only competing on a level playing field as everyone else was doping too).


LOL, I fixed that typo.

No one in racing cares or TRULY will accpet the Yellow jersey and accolades that come with it. They all cheated and they all got beat, period!!

Again, this was years ago and its a witch hunt. Unless the USDA goes after EVERY US rider and strips EVERY US rider. This guy wants to make a name for himself and that's it.


----------



## thechriswebb

Europeans don't lie nor do they cheat. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Kestreljr

Jett said:


> Given that almost everyone in that era doped, the playing field was pretty leveled.


I don't believe that is so. It seems that with Lance's deep pockets, he could stay two steps ahead of the doping police, and one step ahead of most if not all of his competition. That is my problem with doping - not everyone is doping the same way with the same advantage. It takes a lot of money to do the "good stuff" and keep it hidden from the public eye and off the books.


----------



## DIRT BOY

trailrunner68 said:


> What do you mean likely guilty? He is guilty. Later today he will have all results from 1998 onward stripped and be banned for life.
> 
> Even so, this slimeball still does not have the stones--stone in his case--to sack up and tell the truth. He continues to lie and lie and lie.


yes, likley. As he never had a test at the time show up positie. yes, there is a possible positve on an old sample. But that was an old sample pre-real testing. Again, they are not 100% positive on that result.

But, yes. I think he did dope and at some point should come clean.


----------



## ExChefinMA

Having not followed LA’s career beyond knowing that he won the TdF multiple times over the years, I can say that I am sorry to hear the outcome of this.

However, I will say that with all of the sports figures out there today there needs to be a higher standard. These are people that our children idolize and admire, are these the role models we want? People who will cheat to gain an advantage? People who seem to care more about money then the love of the sport they are participating in? it’s a shame, I would much rather my daughter look for role models outside of sports, maybe find someone who sets a standard of excellence and achieves it by hard work not cheating.

I will stop now before the powers that be determine I am a rabble rouser and kick me out.


----------



## bigrider

It just brings up the whole hard truth about pro cycling for the past 20 years. You can't be honest and win at the same time. It has put every athlete in a tough spot. I feel the leadership of the sport of cycling has left the cyclists with no viable option other than:

Cheat and compete
Honesty and mediocrity


----------



## Rolando

RE: Why doesn't he just come out and tell the truth?


That's because Lance is "old school" or "Omerta" or whatever. He honors the code. He used to enforce the code. He was the Boss. This is the culture and tradition of pro cycling that allows people to make a good living racing bikes. You don't just let go of all that. 

Again, if Lance didn't win those races, who did?


----------



## trailrunner68

He was tired of being tired, so he gave up.

I guess FRS does not work as well as advertised.


----------



## austincrx

Does anyone even care anymore?!? I could care less, it was 6+ years ago!!!!! Can't they just drop it?!? No matter the outcome, it won't change anything.


----------



## Kestreljr

Love it or not, this is the biggest story in cycling in at least 25 years and its moved to the doping forum. 

Maybe that is where it belongs, but it seems odd. Like if a major newspaper only ran the election outcome for the president in the back of a politics section and not on the front page.


----------



## trek7100

I'm sorry to chime in here with a question I should probably know. I don't understand the whole principle of 'testing', aren't riders tested before/after each Tour? Did he only test positive once and they're striping all his titles?


----------



## SystemShock




----------



## cda 455

bigrider said:


> It just brings up the whole hard truth about pro cycling for the past 20 years. You can't be honest and win at the same time. It has put every athlete in a tough spot. I feel the leadership of the sport of cycling has left the cyclists with no viable option other than:
> 
> Cheat and compete
> Honesty and mediocrity



The last 20 years  ???



More like the last 45+ years.


----------



## Icetech

I personally think the best way to handle doping/steroids in any sport is to totally make ANY drug legal.. it levels the playfield. And i would prefer to see drugged up super athletes doing insane things.

P.S. I really don't understand why people get upset over things like this.. LA will have his millions.. will live his life just fine, and none of this will change your life in anyway at all. Shrug and move on


----------



## xjbaylor

Rolando said:


> RE: Why doesn't he just come out and tell the truth?
> 
> 
> That's because Lance is "old school" or "Omerta" or whatever. He honors the code. He used to enforce the code. He was the Boss. This is the culture and tradition of pro cycling that allows people to make a good living racing bikes. You don't just let go of all that.
> 
> Again, if Lance didn't win those races, who did?


Using terms like "enforcing the code" is simply a justification to lie, it is NOT honorable. The tradition of cycling does not need doping, what the best athletes in the world can do will always be amazing to the average Joe. Hopefully as doping is controlled (to whatever degree that is possible) people who don't need to cheat and lie will be able to make a good living racing bikes. The way it is now the only ones that can make a good living are those who cheat. Those who compete honestly are the ones suffering. That may sound like an equitable honorable system to you, but not to me.


----------



## Oxtox

prosecute all the criminal and unethical activities that occur daily in Congress and Wall Street and then I'll give a crap about what happens in some bike races.


----------



## Rolando

xjbaylor said:


> Using terms like "enforcing the code" is simply a justification to lie, it is NOT honorable. The tradition of cycling does not need doping, what the best athletes in the world can do will always be amazing to the average Joe. Hopefully as doping is controlled (to whatever degree that is possible) people who don't need to cheat and lie will be able to make a good living racing bikes. The way it is now the only ones that can make a good living are those who cheat. Those who compete honestly are the ones suffering. That may sound like an equitable honorable system to you, but not to me.


The rules that were implemented could not be enforced. This resulted in the necessity of doping within the peloton.

As someone said earlier, "Cheat and compete / Honesty = mediocrity"

Don't just take it from me. Here's a nice article by Jonathan Vaughters that sheds more light on the situation: Vaughters Admits To Doping During Career | Cyclingnews.com

From the Article:
"The choice to kiss your childhood dream goodbye or live with a dishonest heart is horrid and tearing. I’ve been there, and I know. I chose to lie over killing my dream. I chose to dope."


----------



## azpeterb

cda 455 said:


> The last 20 years  ???
> 
> 
> 
> More like the last 45+ years.


True dat. Pro cyclists have been using PED's in some form or another for decades. Even the greatest of all time, Merckx, got busted once. It's just a part of the sport, sadly....like steroids in bodybuilding.


----------



## Blackbeerthepirate

I'm so glad this is finally over and there will be no more doping in pro cycling.

After an exhaustive investigation, they have found non doping TDF participants to award the vacated wins to. The medals will be split between a Team Radio Shack support car driver and two massage therapists.


----------



## Ejdo

austincrx said:


> Does anyone even care anymore?!? I could care less, it was 6+ years ago!!!!! Can't they just drop it?!? No matter the outcome, it won't change anything.


Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## 67caddy

Armstrong has a little more to lose than the others. If I recall one of his contract bonus terms was that he would get an additional $5 million if he won his fifth Tour. Stipulation was that the win had to be "clean". I think I recall there he actually had to go to court to get complete payment. If he admits to guilt, I would imagine they could come after him for the $5mil, plus some. Without the actual admission of guilt, trying to get the $5mil back would be more difficult.


----------



## toddre

As a cancer survivor, he's still a hero to millions of people...
That being said, does this make my Lance Armstrong lunch box more valuable?


----------



## tarwheel2

This is why I have quit following professional cycling. I swore it off after Floyd Landis cheated in the TDF and lost the title -- or was he framed? Who knows. The whole scene is fraught with confusion. It is appears that a lot if not most of the top pro cyclists dope, so at least the playing field is somewhat even. However, perhaps some of them don't cheat. I don't know and have quit caring, but the races seem meaningless to me because you never know if they best cyclist won or the best doper.


----------



## Christine

Did they actually come up with tangible proof?? That's all that really annoys me.

At least Lance has a legacy beyond the d-bag celebrity lifestyle and the titles.


----------



## champamoore

WTF? I understand the USADA wants his titles stripped, but it was my understanding that decisions regarding his Tour victories are in the hands of those who run the events, not Mr Tygart's organization.

The lack of clarity in reporting may be due to the lack of clarity during this incredibly convoluted case, where the USADA expresses its wishes rather than its possible sanctions. Can someone please clarify this for me? Some of the media seems to be presenting less than the accurate or complete story here.


----------



## unclefuzzy_ss

I could really give a fvck less anymore. I've been completely desensitized to the doping thing. So are the seven tours now just completely invalidated? I think its more important that he continue his work with cancer and put this behind him. Bullvine said it right in my mind.


----------



## loubnc

So, let me get this straight. By that chart, the new standings (throwing out all the tainted riders listed in gray) for the Lance years:

Escartin - 2 wins
Kivilev - 1 win
Azevedo - 2 wins
Zubeldia - 1 win
Evans - 1 win

2010 podium: Andy, Wiggo, Nibali


----------



## xjbaylor

Rolando said:


> The rules that were implemented could not be enforced. This resulted in the *necessity* of doping within the peloton.


Individuals ALWAYS have a choice whether to cheat or lie. It isn't as if this was the only way these guys could put bread on the table. They were not doping for any noble reason, it was for pride, glory, etc. They had a choice, and they chose to cheat. I don't care that all of them did it, each one had a choice to make, and each chose to go against the spirit of competition. To say that they were forced to do so is, again, simply a justification for breaking rules.

The standards you are applying are the same that allow things like hazing to get completely out of hand. "Everyone was doing it, I had to do it to fit in (compete.)" Each man could have chosen to stop chasing that dream rather than toss aside their own convictions but they did not. They chose to justify their actions knowing that they could always look back and say, "I wanted to be clean, but _they_ forced my hand." Just another example of the lack of personal responsibility that is so prevalent worldwide today.

My grandfather voluntarily gave up his dream and worked in a refinery for his whole career because he saw it as his responsibility to support his wife. His dream was simply to own a jewelry store and repair watches, but he didn't want to risk his ability to provide for her by giving up a surefire job that paid well. That type of personal ethics is rare in our time, and events like this are evidence of that fact.


----------



## qatarbhoy

> _I personally think the best way to handle doping/steroids in any sport is to totally make ANY drug legal.. it levels the playfield. And i would prefer to see drugged up super athletes doing insane things._


Like dying young _(see doped-up sportspeople, passim)_? They might even televise it for you.


----------



## qatarbhoy

If no-one took part cleanly, then no-one wins. Simple. I wouldn't mind if LA is stripped of his titles and the title goes to no-one.

As for Vaughters et al, they could have chosen to be honest. I'm pretty sure "succeed by doping" isn't anyone's childhood dream and they've collectively helped ruin the sport as a result of chasing the dream, I mean the lie (and $$$).


----------



## atpjunkie

*if you take inventory*

of every rider who shared the podium with Lance they were all busted for doping
even Zulle (Lance's first TdF) was in the Festina affair


----------



## azpeterb

atpjunkie said:


> of every rider who shared the podium with Lance they were all busted for doping
> even Zulle (Lance's first TdF) was in the Festina affair


That's amazing. But don't forget about 2009 when Lance finished 3rd (techincally that's "sharing the podium")....Andy Schleck placed 2nd and I don't believe he's been busted......YET!


----------



## atpjunkie

*so now we can have 7 blank spaces for the TdF*

because he shared the podium with dopers as well

not a Lance Fanboi at all. But to strip any and titles for having doping allegations leaves us with very little of the peloton


----------



## sir duke

jrswenberger said:


> Never had one before but I might go out and but a dozen Livestrong bracelets. What a fia$co!


Only 5 of them will mean anything...


----------



## David Loving

It's just a bicycle race. The LA haters are the same; the fans are the same. Doesn't the UCI and the tour have something to say about who's on the podium? Why not watch the Vuelta?


----------



## JChasse

I was a Lance fan a long time ago, and was was/is a special athelete. But sorry guys, prosecuting cheaters isn't in any way a witch hunt". And if LA was innoncent, he wouldn't be quitting. 

The clean riders, not matter how few, get screwed when this crap goes unpunished.


----------



## 2cflyr

Bullvine said:


> His work for folks with cancer far out-weighs all else in my book. If I bump into Lance I will call him champion shake his hand & buy him a beer.


exactly my feelings.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

WADA through their american branch, USADA , carries the antidoping actions.

When it finds there is a doping ofense and hence titles and results should be striped it requests the olympic discipline governing body ( in this case UCI or their american branch USA Cycling ) to carry the actions.

Lance can whine and threaten and say he is no concerned by this all he wants, but ultimately, he simply signed to the WADA code when he took a racing license, so he is ruled by WADA and USADA and simply has to abide.

As the UCI ( or its current leaders ) have a dog in this fight probably this will carry longer, If the UCI refuses to carry the actions, WADA can take the case to the CAS.

Just like other cases have been ( Petachi, Valverde, Contador etc ) 


Same situation as


----------



## sir duke

qatarbhoy said:


> If no-one took part cleanly, then no-one wins. Simple. I wouldn't mind if LA is stripped of his titles and the title goes to no-one.
> 
> As for Vaughters et al, they could have chosen to be honest. I'm pretty sure "succeed by doping" isn't anyone's childhood dream and they've collectively helped ruin the sport as a result of chasing the dream, I mean the lie (and $$$).


^^^^Yup.

Leave the records blank. No-one won those Tours. Lance's legacy: a big void, the result of lies built on other lies, complicit silence, intimidation, unbridled ego and greed. No dream here, move on please. I'd like to see the people who paid him the huge win bonuses sue him for the money he cheated them out of and then hand it over to charity. Maybe a cancer charity...


----------



## champamoore

jacksdad said:


> So....LA is....a duck?


Apple? lol


----------



## Roarau

Thanks for making America look good once again Lance.

Probably one of the "purist" athletes from the states, now foiled.

Next up, Mr. Phelps.


----------



## Creakyknees

Let's talk about the difference between "cheating" and "getting caught" for a moment.

It's "cheating" to draft behind your team car. It's "cheating" to take a turbo-bottle handup. In the NFL, it's "cheating" to hold a lineman... or grab a facemask... or gut-punch under the pile...etc.

We know these things happen in every sport, in just about every game / match / race.

So are we going to retroactively DQ every athlete who's ever competed?


----------



## champamoore

trailrunner68 said:


> What do you mean likely guilty? He is guilty. Later today he will have all results from 1998 onward stripped and be banned for life.


This keeps being stated, but where does USADA get the power to strip people of titles granted by other organizations? 

I don't see why it is an automatic assumption that the UCI and WADA will follow the USADA's hopes. God knows I hope that they don't award the titles to _anyone_, considering the chemical enhancement that was so rampant in that era, particularly amongst the top of the field.


----------



## adimiro

JChasse said:


> But sorry guys, prosecuting cheaters isn't in any way a witch hunt". And if LA was innoncent, he wouldn't be quitting.


Does anyone really doubt that If Lance proceeded to arbitration, it would have been nothing less than the most scrutinized, monitored, reviewed case (probably) ever???!?!?!?!? 

This claim hecouldn't get a fair trial is just another excuse.

There is only one reason, he did not arbitrate, there was no way for him to defend against irrefutable evidence against him.


----------



## Love Commander

If they're all cheating, is it still cheating?


----------



## MaddSkillz

He's throwing in the towel because he knows he would be crucified if it went to trial. Someone like Hincapie sitting on the stand admitting that Lance did dope would shatter the illusion once and for all.

This is simply Lance trying to slide into some form of obscurity and saving face as well as he can without forcing the issue into a court room.


----------



## sir duke

Creakyknees said:


> Let's talk about the difference between "cheating" and "getting caught" for a moment.
> 
> It's "cheating" to draft behind your team car. It's "cheating" to take a turbo-bottle handup. In the NFL, it's "cheating" to hold a lineman... or grab a facemask... or gut-punch under the pile...etc.
> 
> We know these things happen in every sport, in just about every game / match / race.
> 
> So are we going to retroactively DQ every athlete who's ever competed?


Yeah, let's put all the jaywalkers in jail and throw away the keys.
I love a nice bit of 'reductio ad absurdum' on a Friday night (local time).


----------



## Creakyknees

sir duke said:


> Yeah, let's put all the jaywalkers in jail and throw away the keys.
> I love a nice bit of 'reductio ad absurdum' on a Friday night (local time).


um... your'e the one who said:



sir duke said:


> Leave the records blank. No-one won those Tours.


So, where are you drawing the line? Is it "caught" or "suspected"?


----------



## JC650

[No message]


----------



## Dwayne Barry

JChasse said:


> I was a Lance fan a long time ago, and was was/is a special athelete. But sorry guys, prosecuting cheaters isn't in any way a witch hunt". And if LA was innoncent, he wouldn't be quitting.
> 
> The clean riders, not matter how few, get screwed when this crap goes unpunished.


I also always thought the premiss of a witch hunt is that there weren't really witches? It seems irrefutable that Armstrong was indeed a witch, which does make it a witch hunt but not in the sense that "witch hunt" is typically used


----------



## slamy

MaddSkillz said:


> He's throwing in the towel because he knows he would be crucified if it went to trial. Someone like Hincapie sitting on the stand admitting that Lance did dope would shatter the illusion once and for all.
> 
> This is simply Lance trying to slide into some form of obscurity and saving face as well as he can without forcing the issue into a court room.


Yep, funny how he just quit. Having so many team mates up there admitting they doped with him would just make him look like a big liar. Now he can pretend that he is taking the high road in this witch hunt. They all cheated, we all know that.


----------



## sir duke

Creakyknees said:


> um... your'e the one who said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, where are you drawing the line? Is it "caught" or "suspected"?


I suspect he's been caught. It's not a line, it's a circle.


----------



## Marc

champamoore said:


> This keeps being stated, but where does USADA get the power to strip people of titles granted by other organizations?
> 
> I don't see why it is an automatic assumption that the UCI and WADA will follow the USADA's hopes. God knows I hope that they don't award the titles to _anyone_, considering the chemical enhancement that was so rampant in that era, particularly amongst the top of the field.


The automatic assumption is on the parts of crap journalists who know nothing about cycling all recycling the same blatantly uninformed headline.


----------



## j__h

pro from dover said:


> just another lying, cheating american who wants to play by his own rules and to hell with everyone else.


Yup those darn cheating American cyclist,I mean just in the last year, these American have had issues with doping

Amateur Cyclist Alexandre Dougnier, wait...he's not American, he's French
Well there's Alberto Contador a two year sanction for his positive test, well crap he's not American either, he's Spanish
Then there Denis Galimzyanov of Team Katusha, wait he's not American either, he's Russian
Well hell, by George, Remy di Gregorio got arrested and suspended, he has to be American, nope, he's French..
Should I continue with the sarcasm?


For some reason, seems cheating is a universal past time in the sport with no regard to nationality or borders, but hey keep that myopic world view if you'd like


----------



## champamoore

Blackbeerthepirate said:


> After an exhaustive investigation, they have found non doping TDF participants to award the vacated wins to. The medals will be split between a Team Radio Shack support car driver and two massage therapists.


LOTI! Awesome!

Rep point earned, sir!


----------



## Fireform

Eventually, like anyone else who has ever been willing to do anything for more adulation, Lance will grow weary of being out of the spotlight and forgotten, and he will pen a tell-all book in which he admits his doping, reveals enough detail to convince the gullible that he did it only under the most extreme duress, and paint himself as a misunderstood martyr who is just trying to do something to help an unworthy sport and an unworthier public.


----------



## pretender

Dwayne Barry said:


> I also always thought the premiss of a witch hunt is that there weren't really witches? It seems irrefutable that Armstrong was indeed a witch, which does make it a witch hunt but not in the sense that "witch hunt" is typically used


Calling it a witch hunt dishonors the many innocent people who were executed in Salem.


----------



## David Loving

Lance has done far more good than bad. I didn't see a grown man walking into an ambush. What if one does not care? So what? Let Bonds into the Hall; let Pete Rose in, too. It's bad to dope, but that was the era. So what? It'll keep the doping forum entertained. The wins catapulted LA into the biggest cancer fundraiser in the country. Does anyone see the UCI and the Tour following this lead-out. I do not, but I have been wrong before. I think this is a dead end.


----------



## aliensporebomb

*Yes!*



Cinelli 82220 said:


> Yeah, there's crack, meth, ecstacy for sale at every 7-Eleven parking lot, people getting murdered over meth lab ripoffs, houses catching fire from badly wired grow ops, but let's send the Feds after some bike racer cause the world's biggest problem is determining the outcome of a race ten years ago.
> 
> Never mind Lance's legal bills, how much taxpayer money has been spent? How many hours of court time, law enforcement time?


Exactly! You hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Sylint

azpeterb said:


> That's amazing. But don't forget about 2009 when Lance finished 3rd (techincally that's "sharing the podium")....Andy Schleck placed 2nd and I don't believe he's been busted......YET!


he just hasn't been "poisoned" like Frank yet.


----------



## RCMTB

I just can't understand how he never tested positive, yet all these people say they've seen him dope? Ok, so maybe there are ways to pass the tests, but shouldn't he have failed atleast once? Honestly, I'm hoping in the end that the truth comes out whether or not he gets stripped of his titles.


----------



## Zombie John

RCMTB said:


> I just can't understand how he never tested positive, yet all these people say they've seen him dope? Ok, so maybe there are ways to pass the tests, but shouldn't he have failed atleast once? Honestly, I'm hoping in the end that the truth comes out whether or not he gets stripped of his titles.


When cheating = winning, you get pretty creative. Look at Smokey Yunick in NASCAR, their governing body confiscated his car, investigated it, called him and said, "We found nine violations in you car."

Even though the gas tank had been taken out, Smokey got in the car and said, "Well, you might as well make it ten!" He started the car and drove off using the fuel he'd stored in the chasis.

And when creativity doesn't work, money does.


----------



## trailrunner68

Dwayne Barry said:


> I also always thought the premiss of a witch hunt is that there weren't really witches? It seems irrefutable that Armstrong was indeed a witch, which does make it a witch hunt but not in the sense that "witch hunt" is typically used


It is the same things as people who use the word "hearsay" when they obviously have no clue what it means. These are absolute morons who use words and terms they do not know the meaning of.


----------



## ronbo613

OK, the USADA says Armstrong has taken PEDs his entire career even though he never returned a positive test. Fair enough.
That means drug tests taken by athletes today are worthless, a negative drug test means nothing. The drug cops will get around to you some years from now when they feel the need, using admitted dopers who are bummed because they got caught and you didn't, to testify against you. Of course, cheaters don't lie so the their testimony is good as gold. If you admit doping, you may get an off season suspension, but not lose any titles or money, testify against the guy you did dope with, he loses everything. Besides, you may get one of Armstrong's titles. Seems fair to me.
What's the point of drug testing anyway?

Watch sponsors leave bicycle racing in droves.....


----------



## RCMTB

Ok, so there would be a line of people to testify that said they saw him do it, but not one positive doping test to back up their claims. 

What would be your verdict?


----------



## nate

RCMTB said:


> I just can't understand how he never tested positive, yet all these people say they've seen him dope? Ok, so maybe there are ways to pass the tests, but shouldn't he have failed atleast once? Honestly, I'm hoping in the end that the truth comes out whether or not he gets stripped of his titles.


He did test positive during the 1999 Tour.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

RCMTB said:


> I just can't understand how he never tested positive, yet all these people say they've seen him dope? Ok, so maybe there are ways to pass the tests, but shouldn't he have failed atleast once? Honestly, I'm hoping in the end that the truth comes out whether or not he gets stripped of his titles.


Leaving aside that he did test positive (cortisone in '99) which would have earned him 2 years on the sidelines if it wasn't at a time when the UCI did all they could to not suspend someone dumb enough to test positive...

It's actually pretty easy to see why he and a host of other never tested positive despite probably near continuous doping.

1) Use substances for which there is no test; HgH, EPO up until 2001 (or 2?), blood doping.

2) Use substances that only remain in the system for a short amount of time; EPO, testosterone, corticosteroids, so the window in which they could be detected is short.

Number 2 was greatly aided by the fact that out of competition was relatively infrequent and not really all that much of a surprise and could be avoided.


----------



## OneGear

RCMTB said:


> Ok, so there would be a line of people to testify that said they saw him do it, but not one positive doping test to back up their claims.
> 
> What would be your verdict?


If this were a murder trial, what would be YOUR verdict?

You may want to delete your post after this.


----------



## ktc

If the USADA gets Armstrong's seven victories stripped and given to the runner up, they must then investigate the runners up as hard as they did LA, or everything LA said about the USADA is true.


----------



## RCMTB

Dwayne Barry said:


> Leaving aside that he did test positive (cortisone in '99) which would have earned him 2 years on the sidelines if it wasn't at a time when the UCI did all they could to not suspend someone dumb enough to test positive...
> 
> It's actually pretty easy to see why he and a host of other never tested positive despite probably near continuous doping.
> 
> 1) Use substances for which there is no test; HgH, EPO up until 2001 (or 2?), blood doping.
> 
> 2) Use substances that only remain in the system for a short amount of time; EPO, testosterone, corticosteroids, so the window in which they could be detected is short.
> 
> Number 2 was greatly aided by the fact that out of competition was relatively infrequent and not really all that much of a surprise and could be avoided.


Cortisone is a banned substance? Regardless, that is a weak finding. So if they could never test for HgH, EPO, etc, then most likely everyone was doping in some form, right? I see it now. The UCI isn't going to strip LA of his titles. There are no real grounds too. If anything you'll be awarding his titles to someone else that was doping and the whole vicious 'witch hunt' will continue.


----------



## TerminatorX91

I think it all matters about as much as a TV soap opera.


----------



## RCMTB

OneGear said:


> If this were a murder trial, what would be YOUR verdict?
> 
> You may want to delete your post after this.


Ok, so what would be your *judgement*? Is that better?


----------



## PhatTalc

ktc said:


> If the USADA gets Armstrong's seven victories stripped and given to the runner up, they must then investigate the runners up as hard as they did LA, or everything LA said about the USADA is true.


Yeah, like Ivan Basso and Jan Ulrich got away with it! they must pay!


----------



## nate

Here is a pretty interesting interview with USADA CEO Travis Tygart regarding the case.

USADA’s Tygart comments on decision to strip Armstrong of Tour de France titles | The Dan Patrick Show | Official Home


----------



## OneGear

ktc said:


> If the USADA gets Armstrong's seven victories stripped and given to the runner up, they must then investigate the runners up as hard as they did LA, or everything LA said about the USADA is true.


Except USADA has no jurisdiction over any of the other runner-ups...


----------



## ronbo613

> Ok, so there would be a line of people to testify that said they saw him do it, but not one positive doping test to back up their claims.
> 
> What would be your verdict?


People lie, or at least have the ability to lie(just like the USADA says Armstrong has been doing for his entire career), drug tests are supposed to be scientific evidence that drugs are present in a person's body. Can a witness's testimony be influenced by a "plea" deal? 

Concrete evidence based on science or testimony that may or may not be true? What _should_ carry more weight in a decision? If drug testing isn't catching cheaters, why test at all? Just send out questionnaires to other athletes and ask them who they think is cheating. Be a lot cheaper.


----------



## civdic

I'd bet his last nut that Armstrong didn't have anything to do with "giving up". The board of directors of the Livestrong Foundation told him to do it. Way to much to loose.


----------



## CheapTrek

ronbo613 said:


> OK, the USADA says Armstrong has taken PEDs his entire career even though he never returned a positive test. Fair enough.
> That means drug tests taken by athletes today are worthless, a negative drug test means nothing. The drug cops will get around to you some years from now when they feel the need, using admitted dopers who are bummed because they got caught and you didn't, to testify against you. Of course, cheaters don't lie so the their testimony is good as gold. If you admit doping, you may get an off season suspension, but not lose any titles or money, testify against the guy you did dope with, he loses everything. Besides, you may get one of Armstrong's titles. Seems fair to me.
> What's the point of drug testing anyway?
> 
> Watch sponsors leave bicycle racing in droves.....


^^^This is by far the best summary of the situation I have read so far.

Rep your way.


----------



## qatarbhoy

> _That means drug tests taken by athletes today are worthless, a negative drug test means nothing. The drug cops will get around to you some years from now when they feel the need, using admitted dopers who are bummed because they got caught and you didn't, to testify against you. Of course, cheaters don't lie so the their testimony is good as gold._


The Olympic dope tests are kept stored for 8 years on the assumption that they will improve testing procedures and be able to find PEDs that they currently cannot detect. So yeah, it's widely accepted that dopers can and will be found out and stripped of their titles/medals/records if discovered years later.

As for eye witness testimony, in this case apparently involving 10 or more professional cyclists, murderers have been convicted on flimsier evidence. IIRC there are allegations of failed tests being covered up as well, in addition to the 1999 cortisone test. In any case it is wholly plausible that LA and his doctor(s) were well ahead of the dope testers.



> _His work for folks with cancer far out-weighs all else in my book. If I bump into Lance I will call him champion shake his hand & buy him a beer._


Is it _really _not possible to separate Lance the cyclist from Lance the philanthropist? It's easy! "He was a cheat and liar but he did a lot to help cancer sufferers." Another example: "Bill Gates can't dress himself or get a decent haircut and I loathe Microsoft with a passion, but he is a very generous man." Or, "My dog has terrible breath but his floppy ears are adorable." Having floppy ears doesn't make my dog's breath smell any more fragrant, let me assure you.


----------



## MaddSkillz

ronbo613 said:


> People lie, or at least have the ability to lie(just like the USADA says Armstrong has been doing for his entire career), drug tests are supposed to be scientific evidence that drugs are present in a person's body. Can a witness's testimony be influenced by a "plea" deal?
> 
> Concrete evidence based on science or testimony that may or may not be true? What _should_ carry more weight in a decision? If drug testing isn't catching cheaters, why test at all? Just send out questionnaires to other athletes and ask them who they think is cheating. Be a lot cheaper.


You're right if that's all they had was questionable drug tests... Unfortunately, it's not. Eye-witness testimony which is evidence in a court of law... Payments to a doctor who is banned from the sport for life for assisting dopers. Money given to the organization in place to govern them, a man winning 7 times clean in an era where most of the peloton is doped to the gills...

All these things by themselves may not mean much.. But when combined, the picture painted is not one without suspicion. 


I mean, sweet 7 pound 6 oz baby Jesus! Do we really even _need_ a positive drug test?


----------



## Kestreljr

As of now, tdf.com still has him listed as the winner. It will be interesting to see what they do with these pages in the future. For what its worth, they have Floyd's name in red, with Oscar receiving first.


----------



## terzo rene

I agree with Creaky, this isn't over yet. If the UCI is left out of the USADA report I think they will probably go along and throw LA under the bus, otherwise the UCI will join LA in trying to get the decision moved to the UCI and then it will vanish in a cloud of dust and controversy.

The new winner in all doping cases should be an asterisk. As the years roll along and people confess or publish their memoirs, the 1990-2010 standings would eventually look like this:
1 *
2 *
3 *
4 *
...

People can continue to believe what they want and publish unofficial result lists with all the original names. I will naturally continue to believe Pantani won the 1999 Giro.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

ktc said:


> If the USADA gets Armstrong's seven victories stripped and given to the runner up, they must then investigate the runners up as hard as they did LA, or everything LA said about the USADA is true.


What evidence do they have those guys were doping?

Do you understand they did not go out to get Armstrong but rather someone brought evidence of his doping to them?


----------



## thatsmybush

RCMTB said:


> Ok, so what would be your *judgement*? Is that better?



Well if I were a juror at a murder trial, I would ask them to produce a body. Telling me someone is dead and that you saw a guy do it, but can't prove the guy is dead and there isn't any physical evidence that he did it? Tough road and not many DAs go to trial with those problems.

//what the fark am I doing out of PO?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

RCMTB said:


> Cortisone is a banned substance? Regardless, that is a weak finding. So if they could never test for HgH, EPO, etc, then most likely everyone was doping in some form, right? I see it now. The UCI isn't going to strip LA of his titles. There are no real grounds too. If anything you'll be awarding his titles to someone else that was doping and the whole vicious 'witch hunt' will continue.


USADA's job isn't to find a clean winner of the Tour, it's to punish caught dopers so clean athletes have a chance to compete without doping.

And yes cortisone is a doping product. Taken in large doses it shifts fuel substrate from glycogen to protein/fats. You have a limited supply of gyclogen and essentially unlimited fat/protein. Glycogen depletion can clearly be a limiting factor in the finale of a race so anything that can spare it would be beneficial.

You can argue about marijuana or something similar being a silly drug to ban but there's a very good reason to ban corticosteroids.


----------



## badge118

I think the point is though, other than getting lance what did this do? Is ASO supposed to award the jersey to the next doper in line? yes they got a bad guy but in getting one bad guy they have turned what many see as the greatest race (for me it is the Giro), into a god damn farse. The only way the ASO can maintain credibility at this point is to use their "for the god of the race" rule and not award it to anyone and turn 1999 through 2007 into an * decade.


----------



## Mr. Scary

MaddSkillz said:


> I mean, sweet 7 pound 6 oz baby Jesus! Do we really even _need_ a positive drug test?


The best line I've seen on this all day! :thumbsup:


----------



## qatarbhoy

> _ yes they got a bad guy but in getting one bad guy they have turned what many see as the greatest race (for me it is the Giro), into a god damn farse. _


The race has long been a farce because they haven't been catching _enough_ bad guys.

I remain optimistic that Wiggo is the dawn of a new era... :thumbsup:


----------



## Chef Tony

terzo rene said:


> The new winner in all doping cases should be an asterisk. As the years roll along and people confess or publish their memoirs, the 1990-2010 standings would eventually look like this:
> 1 *
> 2 *
> 3 *
> 4 *


Yep, already they'll have to go pretty far down the list:

TdF finishers- (implicated riders in* bold*)

2000
1)	*Armstrong*
2)	*Ullrich*
3)	*Beloki*
4)	Chrisophe Moreau
5)	*Roberto Heras*

2001
1)	*Armstrong*
2)	*Ullrich*
3)	*Beloki*
4)	Andrei Kivalev
5)	*Igor Gonzalez*

2002
1)	*Armstrong*
2)	*Beloki*
3)	Raimondos Rumsas
4)	Santiago Botero
5)	*Igor Gonzalez*

2003
1)	*Armstrong*
2)	*Ullrich*
3)	*Vinokourov*
4)	*Hamilton*
5)	Zubeldia

2004
1)	*Armstrong*
2)	Kloden
3)	*Basso*
4)	*Ullrich*
5)	Asevedo

I probably missed somebody there too....


----------



## rhauft

*Complete and total bullshit*


----------



## godot

2002 - probably want to highlight Rumsas.......



Chef Tony said:


> Yep, already they'll have to go pretty far down the list:
> 
> TdF finishers- (implicated riders in* bold*)
> 
> 2000
> 1)	*Armstrong*
> 2)	*Ullrich*
> 3)	*Beloki*
> 4)	Chrisophe Moreau
> 5)	*Roberto Heras*
> 
> 2001
> 1)	*Armstrong*
> 2)	*Ullrich*
> 3)	*Beloki*
> 4)	Andrei Kivalev
> 5)	*Igor Gonzalez*
> 
> 2002
> 1)	*Armstrong*
> 2)	*Beloki*
> 3)	*Raimondos Rumsas*
> 4)	Santiago Botero
> 5)	*Igor Gonzalez*
> 
> 2003
> 1)	*Armstrong*
> 2)	*Ullrich*
> 3)	*Vinokourov*
> 4)	*Hamilton*
> 5)	Zubeldia
> 
> 2004
> 1)	*Armstrong*
> 2)	Kloden
> 3)	*Basso*
> 4)	*Ullrich*
> 5)	Asevedo
> 
> I probably missed somebody there too....


----------



## nate

badge118 said:


> I think the point is though, other than getting lance what did this do? Is ASO supposed to award the jersey to the next doper in line? yes they got a bad guy but in getting one bad guy they have turned what many see as the greatest race (for me it is the Giro), into a god damn farse. The only way the ASO can maintain credibility at this point is to use their "for the god of the race" rule and not award it to anyone and turn 1999 through 2007 into an * decade.


There are five other people that were charged in this case. Is getting doping doctors out of the sport forever bad? How about a team director that has been part of team-wide doping programs? How Armstrong himself, who I assume has a piece of Capital Sports & Entertainment and thus has a stake in a U23 team? Seems like getting them out of the sport will do something in the here and now, not just wipe away old records.


----------



## SystemShock

pro from dover said:


> just another lying, cheating american who wants to play by his own rules and to hell with everyone else.


Why don't you go look up how many cyclists from other nations besides the US that have been caught doping?

Hint: It's quite a lot.

Even for a troll post, this is shoddy work. 
.


----------



## SFTifoso

I REALLY hope the UCI gives the middle finger to the USADA and does nothing. Everyone doped during that time. They need to focus on doping now and in the future, not ancient history.

I hope whoever was behind this witch hunt at the USADA feels it's worth it to make a name for themselves at the price of others.


----------



## DrRoebuck

David Loving said:


> It's just a bicycle race. The LA haters are the same; the fans are the same. Doesn't the UCI and the tour have something to say about who's on the podium? Why not watch the Vuelta?


Why do people insist on dividing the world into haters and fanbois?

It's tiring, simple-minded and ****ing annoying.

Does it make the world easier for you to comprehend, lumping everyone into convenient categories? Are you fifteen-****ing-years-old?

Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket.

I have mixed feelings about Lance. In no way am I either a fan or a hater.

But he's a doper and a cheat, and he deserves what he's getting.


----------



## Big-foot

SFTifoso said:


> They need to focus on doping now and in the future, not ancient history.


Do you mean wayyyy back like when Johan Bruyneel headed up one of the biggest teams in the sport? :idea:Way back then?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SFTifoso said:


> I REALLY hope the UCI gives the middle finger to the USADA and does nothing. Everyone doped during that time. *They need to focus on doping now and in the future, not ancient history.*
> 
> I hope whoever was behind this witch hunt at the USADA feels it's worth it to make a name for themselves at the price of others.


Agreed. It is great that they focused on that fact that Armstrong used EPO and transfusions in 2009 and 2010. You know that Bruyneel and Armstrong run a junior team right? Brunyeel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, and Celya are all working in the sport. 

This IS about now and the future


----------



## SFTifoso

Big-foot said:


> Do you mean wayyyy back like when Johan Bruyneel headed up one of the biggest teams in the sport? :idea:Way back then?


I was referring to Lance's TDF winning career as ancient history.


----------



## SFTifoso

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Agreed. It is great that they focused on that fact that Armstrong used EPO and transfusions in 2009 and 2010. You know that Bruyneel and Armstrong run a junior team right? Brunyeel, Marti, Ferrari, del Moral, and Celya are all working in the sport.
> 
> This IS about now and the future


Then let's ban anybody who had anything to do with sport in the last 30 or 40 years. If no one dope during th LA years he still would've dusted them all. He was the best bicycle rider during that time, and deserves to keep his titles.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SFTifoso said:


> Then let's ban anybody who had anything to do with sport in the last 30 or 40 years. If no one dope during th LA years he still would've dusted them all. He was the best bicycle rider during that time, and deserves to keep his titles.


Nope. Before Armstrong started working with Dr. Ferrari Armstrong could not even finish the Tour, let alone win it. 

He was a pharmacological invention


----------



## il sogno

DrRoebuck said:


> This was his only real play. No trial with all testimony going public (unless Johan fights it), he's not *really* competing anymore so who cares about a lifetime ban, and he's made his millions and "won" his races so who cares about the titles.
> 
> And all that prob would have happened if he fought them. This way he keeps the absolutely damning testimony under wraps. Again, unless it comes out in Johan's arbitration.


It's possible that Hincapie or Levi or Dave Z or JV etc... might still fight it. They are all still being pursued by USADA. I heard it on NPR. It must be true.


----------



## respro

Any of the USADA witnesses not confirmed dopers trying to cut a deal?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

il sogno said:


> It's possible that Hincapie or Levi or Dave Z or JV etc... might still fight it. They are all still being pursued by USADA. I heard it on NPR. It must be true.


JV is in the clear as his actions were outside the SOL. This could also be true for some of the others (No Levi and George) The WADA code allows for reduction/elimination of sanctions for cooperation.

I would not expect an announcement until after Bruyneel, Marti, and Celya finish, or abandon,their arbitration


----------



## atpjunkie

*well*



azpeterb said:


> That's amazing. But don't forget about 2009 when Lance finished 3rd (techincally that's "sharing the podium")....Andy Schleck placed 2nd and I don't believe he's been busted......YET!


Lance wasn't busted either. No failed tests, just allegations and testimony

there's been plenty of talk about the Schlecks

my point being if you discredit a career over 1 season (and in Lance's case, 1 season of allegations)
(author note: I am NOT saying he didn't dope)
then clearly we'd have to toss out every career if they had an actual bust
so we toss
1999 Zulle and Escartin
2000/2001 Ullrich and Beloki
2002 Rumsas
2003 Vino (and toss his gold medal while we're at it)
2004 Basso and Kloden
2005 Basso (Ullrich was DQ'd officially from this race)

we can strike Zabel's record # of Green Jerseys

we can strike Virenque's KOM record

Contador's GT Wins

I mean we wind up with nothing


----------



## atpjunkie

*sorry Krauts*



seeborough said:


> The USADA is after him because, after owning Greece and Spain, the Germans are now looking to get their greedy paws on four more TdF titles.
> 
> Well, either that or a mountain of evidence unearthed in a doping investigation warranted some sort of action by an anti-doping organization.
> 
> Damned Germans...


if they pull LA's victories over 'allegations' then they'd have to pull Jan's win and podiums for actually getting caught


----------



## atpjunkie

*Escartin*



loubnc said:


> So, let me get this straight. By that chart, the new standings (throwing out all the tainted riders listed in gray) for the Lance years:
> 
> Escartin - 2 wins
> Kivilev - 1 win
> Azevedo - 2 wins
> Zubeldia - 1 win
> Evans - 1 win
> 
> 2010 podium: Andy, Wiggo, Nibali


was in the whole Kelme on to operation Puerto thing


----------



## edscueth

Most probably don't see it my way but I look at doping in a different way. Part of sports is cheating and its not a question of if it happens but a question of who is caught. To me, if one isn't caught during competition, well then they took a chance and won. Like or dislike Lance, his 7 tour wins were years ago - its time to move along and if he doped or not is a mute point!


----------



## ronbo613

> I mean, sweet 7 pound 6 oz baby Jesus! Do we really even need a positive drug test?


Why test at all? Positive, negative; all meaningless.
How will Travis Tygart earn his $1.2 million taxpayer funded salary next year? Instead of making sure Olympic athletes were drug free, he was busy chasing a retired bike rider who they claim was doping more than ten years ago. The future would look brighter when looking forward, not back.
Armstrong may have been a doper, but this whole process reeks of vendetta and yet another government agency, pseudo agency, group, whatever the USADA is, gone wild.
Lance is going to have people for him and against him, that's pretty much always going to be the case. Tygart may have gotten his personal victory, but may have damaged the sport of bicycle racing beyond repair.
Is Armstrong the big loser here? I think not.


----------



## qatarbhoy

Tygart is not the person to have damaged cycling. The dopers are. If we "end up with nothing", we end up with nothing - but that's all that dopers deserve. Cycling may well need to start afresh. In fact, most of us already see the grand tour podiums and imagine asterisks next to every name.



edscueth said:


> Most probably don't see it my way but I look at doping in a different way. Part of sports is cheating and its not a question of if it happens but a question of who is caught. To me, if one isn't caught during competition, well then they took a chance and won. Like or dislike Lance, his 7 tour wins were years ago - its time to move along and if he doped or not is a mute point!


I hope most people don't see it your way, because this attitude could wreck every sport known to man. Even the Paralympics are caught up in it.

Also: it's a *moot* point.


----------



## FlandersFields

qatarbhoy said:


> I might agree with you, if LA came clean and said as much: "Yes, I doped; everyone did." Instead, he maintains that he has never doped, yet beat plenty of known dopers seven years running. That stretches credulity.


This, and all the rest is bollocks. If this was a murder case, with all this evidence he'd been locked up for many years. Or shot.


----------



## bigwaves

How can he be the take away his titles when he never failed a drug test?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

bigwaves said:


> How can he be the take away his titles when he never failed a drug test?


He failed multiple tests. Part of USADA's case is that the UCI was corrupt and covered up these tests, something most in the sport have known for years


----------



## dombey19

Has anyone wondered about Miguel Indurain? He never finished on the podium, then he won five straight Tours, dusting everyone soundly---including Riis, who may or may not have been doping then. In his sixth year Indurain mysteriously tanked, finished 11th, and rode off into the sunset. How do we know he was squeaky clean?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance gave up because the case against him was overwhelming

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/s...ve-to-wipe-out-armstrongs-titles.html?_r=1&hp



> “At the end of the day, a lot of people knew the truth, but they were silenced by the internal pressure from the team to keep everything secret,” Tygart said, adding, *“This is the most witnesses we’ve ever had in any case come forward.”*


----------



## kiwisimon

ronbo613 said:


> Why test at all? Positive, negative; all meaningless.
> How will *Travis Tygart * earn his $1.2 million taxpayer funded salary next year?
> Armstrong may have been a doper, but this whole process reeks of vendetta and yet another government agency, pseudo agency, group, whatever the USADA is, gone wild.
> Lance is going to have people for him and against him, that's pretty much always going to be the case. * Tygart * may have gotten his personal victory, but may have damaged the sport of bicycle racing beyond repair.
> Is Armstrong the big loser here? I think not.


Don't shoot the waiter just cause the message is distasteful, blame the dude that cooked it.LA.
Cycling is the cleanest pro sport going.


----------



## robdamanii

Why do people keep calling this a vendetta by Tygart?

Didn't he assist Armstrong in the SCA hearings back in '06?


----------



## Rip Van Cycle

ktc said:


> If the USADA gets Armstrong's seven victories stripped and given to the runner up, they must then investigate the runners up as hard as they did LA...


s'about as likely as the next hump-backed cover-girl...

Naturally, USADA will assert "we discharged _our_ responsibility; now it's up to the national agencies of other countries to be as vigilant as we are."

... and I expect that (to use a modified baseball term) those entities will give that one The Big _Olé_.

Still, we have to keep in mind that not every such agency is headed by someone who draws a millionaire salary, nor has access to a multi-million dollar budget. So... it's understandable that their focus will, of necessity, differ- on account of their lesser resources.


----------



## Cpk

Rolando said:


> Lance doped and won first place. The next 100 guys down the standings also doped. Lance still won the race.
> 
> By focusing narrowly on bringing Lance down the USADA and UCI give the false impression that Lance had an unfair advantage and therefore was not the true winner.
> 
> Show me who won the races then. Ullrich?......Basso?.....Pantani?....errr......
> 
> Congratulations to the idiots that wasted time on this pointless exercise. They have proven nothing. We only know the they were unable to enforce their own doping rules which made it necessary for the whole peloton to dope. Way to go idiots. You feel better now?


My thoughts exactly, so he won on a playing field that was leveled. It is hard to find racers in that era that didn't dope. And if you think GL didn't you're (not Rolando, but general you) are a fool. Merckx doped, Hinault doped, Ullrich doped and no these guys have been vilified like Lance, why, because he was the most successful. Travis is a short-sited A-Face. 

I think it is very telling that the pro's comments I've read on this are basically how this is crap and how great a cyclist he was. Even Contador who certianly has no love for Lance made like comments. 

This has done zero to help clean up the sport now and changed nothing of importence because if his titles go who's going to be the winner from those years rider finishing 23rd?


----------



## Dwayne Barry

dombey19 said:


> Has anyone wondered about Miguel Indurain? He never finished on the podium, then he won five straight Tours, dusting everyone soundly---including Riis, who may or may not have been doping then. In his sixth year Indurain mysteriously tanked, finished 11th, and rode off into the sunset. How do we know he was squeaky clean?


He wasn't. He was Conconi's "special project", probably benefited from getting access to EPO earlier than some. We also know Banesto had organized team doping at the time.

I don't think anyone seriously doubts Indurain played the game as well.


----------



## robdamanii

Cpk said:


> My thoughts exactly, so he won on a playing field that was leveled. It is hard to find racers in that era that didn't dope. And if you think GL didn't you're (not Rolando, but general you) are a fool. Merckx doped, Hinault doped, Ullrich doped and no these guys have been vilified like Lance, why, because he was the most successful. Travis is a short-sited A-Face.
> 
> I think it is very telling that the pro's comments I've read on this are basically how this is crap and how great a cyclist he was. Even Contador who certianly has no love for Lance made like comments.
> 
> This has done zero to help clean up the sport now and changed nothing of importence because if his titles go who's going to be the winner from those years rider finishing 23rd?


Except not everyone reacts the same to the same doping programs. While one person may gain 3% increase in performance, someone else may gain 5% from the same program.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

robdamanii said:


> Except not everyone reacts the same to the same doping programs. While one person may gain 3% increase in performance, someone else may gain 5% from the same program.


It also seems like not everyone was willing to do blood doping.


----------



## SkiRacer55

*That's a good point...*



Cinelli 82220 said:


> Yeah, there's crack, meth, ecstacy for sale at every 7-Eleven parking lot, people getting murdered over meth lab ripoffs, houses catching fire from badly wired grow ops, but let's send the Feds after some bike racer cause the world's biggest problem is determining the outcome of a race ten years ago.
> 
> Never mind Lance's legal bills, how much taxpayer money has been spent? How many hours of court time, law enforcement time?


I dunno if Lance doped or not, but it begins to look like he did. If he didn't, he's being persecuted, if he did, I'd respect him a lot more if he came out and admitted it...it took Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis a long time, but they finally said "Yeah, I doped." Lance has a lot to lose, potentially, if he admits he doped...money, his titles, and so forth. But if he did, I'd still respect him a lot more if he owned up to it. 

The second part of this is that it *appears* that the UCI might be unlikely to strip him of his Tour titles or otherwise sanction him. Why would that be? Well, first, the UCI would be admitting that they were either complicit in allowing him to cheat his way to victory or that they weren't astute enough to catch him. Second, as many others have mentioned, the UCI strips Lance of his titles, and gives the titles to...whom? Lots of dopers left in the field for the years Lance won the TDF. Third, to a large extent, doping or not, to hand titles to anyone but Lance kind of makes a mockery of the TDF. Instead of an epic 7 time champion, you now have a collection of mere mortals who "won" the TDF.

But the issue of the USADA and what it's doing and not doing is problematic. I agree that we have bigger drug problems in this country than PEDs in any sport. One aspect that bothers me is that we have the UCI and the WADA. I'm not saying they do a great job of policing bike racing, but that's their charter. The U. S., however, is famous for being the world's policeman, so evidently we have to have the USADA on top of (or possibly even in conflict with) the UCI and WADA. Our government is deeply in debt, and there's a bunch of programs that aren't being funded properly, and you can take your pick of your favorites on that one...so do we really _need _a USADA? And what is Travis Tygart's real agenda? His reward for bringing down Lance is likely going to be a lot of money in a subsequent career in the private sector...or a better government position...U. S. Attorney General, anyone?


----------



## robdamanii

SkiRacer55 said:


> I dunno if Lance doped or not, but it begins to look like he did. If he didn't, he's being persecuted, if he did, I'd respect him a lot more if he came out and admitted it...it took Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis a long time, but they finally said "Yeah, I doped." Lance has a lot to lose, potentially, if he admits he doped...money, his titles, and so forth. But if he did, I'd still respect him a lot more if he owned up to it.
> 
> The second part of this is that it *appears* that the UCI might be unlikely to strip him of his Tour titles or otherwise sanction him. Why would that be? Well, first, the UCI would be admitting that they were either complicit in allowing him to cheat his way to victory or that they weren't astute enough to catch him. Second, as many others have mentioned, the UCI strips Lance of his titles, and gives the titles to...whom? Lots of dopers left in the field for the years Lance won the TDF. Third, to a large extent, doping or not, to hand titles to anyone but Lance kind of makes a mockery of the TDF. Instead of an epic 7 time champion, you now have a collection of mere mortals who "won" the TDF.
> 
> But the issue of the USADA and what it's doing and not doing is problematic. I agree that we have bigger drug problems in this country than PEDs in any sport. One aspect that bothers me is that we have the UCI and the WADA. I'm not saying they do a great job of policing bike racing, but that's their charter. The U. S., however, is famous for being the world's policeman, so evidently we have to have the USADA on top of (or possibly even in conflict with) the UCI and WADA. Our government is deeply in debt, and there's a bunch of programs that aren't being funded properly, and you can take your pick of your favorites on that one...so do we really _need _a USADA? And what is Travis Tygart's real agenda? His reward for bringing down Lance is likely going to be a lot of money in a subsequent career in the private sector...or a better government position...U. S. Attorney General, anyone?



We have USADA, France has AFLD, Australia has ASADA, Russia has RUSADA, Spain has AEA, Italy has CONI...

Why are we any different?


----------



## Chris-X

Rolando said:


> The rules that were implemented could not be enforced. This resulted in the necessity of doping within the peloton.
> 
> As someone said earlier, "Cheat and compete / Honesty = mediocrity"
> 
> Don't just take it from me. Here's a nice article by Jonathan Vaughters that sheds more light on the situation: Vaughters Admits To Doping During Career | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> From the Article:
> "*The choice to kiss your childhood dream goodbye or live with a dishonest heart is horrid and tearing. I’ve been there, and I know. I chose to lie over killing my dream. I chose to dope*."


I hope that JV now realizes that lying *KILLS ALL DREAMS.* The moment you lie you are a dead man walking.

The only saving grace is that it's never too late to tell the truth. Maybe LA will come back to life someday.

I hope for his sake he does.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

FraudBytes: Lance Armstrong Investigation: Is USADA the Bad Guy?

I am surprised anyone buys the BS lance is shoveling


----------



## Handbrake

Yeah great link. The thoughts of a couple of accountants are exactly what I want to read when it comes to doping in cycling. His thoughts on Contador show how far over his head he is. 

But your cherry picking for agreement is not ground breaking.


----------



## David Loving

Tygart's USADA has not proven anything. Lance's refusal to arbitrate is not an admission of their allegations' truth.


----------



## cda 455

Handbrake said:


> Yeah great link. The thoughts of a couple of accountants are exactly what I want to read when it comes to doping in cycling. His thoughts on Contador show how far over his head he is.
> 
> But your cherry picking for agreement is not ground breaking.


Lighten up with the attitude, Francis.


Your snide comment regarding accountants fail to mention the type of accounting the professor does and teaches (Dr. Mark Zimbelman teaches classes on auditing and fraud examination and focuses his research on auditors' detection of financial statement fraud).

Very disingenuous on your part.


----------



## qatarbhoy

David Loving said:


> Tygart's USADA has not proven anything. Lance's refusal to arbitrate is not an admission of their allegations' truth.


That response is what Lance is counting on. 

If it were my reputation and my entire career on the line, then I would fight to the bitter end. It's not as if Lance is short of cash, like many other defendants who spend their last penny to save their names or to ensure the truth is heard.


----------



## Fireform

Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.


----------



## godot

David Loving said:


> Tygart's USADA has not proven anything. Lance's refusal to arbitrate is not an admission of their allegations' truth.


"WADA CHIEF JOHN FAHEY said on Friday that Lance Armstrong’s decision not to fight drug charges would be seen as an admission of guilt and he was disappointed the American would not face a tribunal."


----------



## il sogno

Doctor Falsetti said:


> JV is in the clear as his actions were outside the SOL. This could also be true for some of the others (No Levi and George) The WADA code allows for reduction/elimination of sanctions for cooperation.
> 
> I would not expect an announcement until after Bruyneel, Marti, and Celya finish, or abandon,their arbitration


Oh man... wouldn't it be something if Bruyneel demanded an arbitration hearing and had all the stuff Lance has been wanting to hide come out there!.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

il sogno said:


> Oh man... wouldn't it be something if Bruyneel demanded an arbitration hearing and had all the stuff Lance has been wanting to hide come out there!.


It is all coming out. USADA can release what ever they want


----------



## champamoore

FlandersFields said:


> This, and all the rest is bollocks. If this was a murder case, with all this evidence he'd been locked up for many years. Or shot.


Um, no he wouldn't. If this case was presented in a court of law, he would be found not guilty. Proving doping conclusively is very difficult. Just look at the other previous cases in court against known dopers. The presumption of innocence would have carried the weight to LA.

That is why he feels it so unfair that they refused to go the legal route, and instead insisted on bringing him into proceedings where that gift of presumed innocence is non-existent.

I am not arguing for his innocence here, in the heart of things. I am just saying it was no slam dunk against him, or he would have been found guilty _in court._


----------



## Dwayne Barry

champamoore said:


> I am not arguing for his innocence here, in the heart of things. I am just saying it was no slam dunk against him, or he would have been found guilty _in court._


How can he have been found guilty in court when he plead the equivalent of guilty/no contest?

He had every right to have the "court" decide and opted not to.


----------



## qatarbhoy

_ If this case was presented in a court of law, he would be found not guilty. Proving doping conclusively is very difficult._

Several dopers have been banned without analytical evidence. Basso for one.

Eye witness testimony is often effective in court.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

champamoore said:


> Um, no he wouldn't. If this case was presented in a court of law, he would be found not guilty. Proving doping conclusively is very difficult. Just look at the other previous cases in court against known dopers. The presumption of innocence would have carried the weight to LA.
> 
> That is why he feels it so unfair that they refused to go the legal route, and instead insisted on bringing him into proceedings where that gift of presumed innocence is non-existent.
> 
> I am not arguing for his innocence here, in the heart of things. I am just saying it was no slam dunk against him, or he would have been found guilty _in court._


Um.... they have over a dozen witnesses, Wacky blood values, covered up positives. 

You really should read up on this. The case is decide by independent arbitrators that are agreed upon by Armstrong and USADA. The evidence is overwhelming, that is why Lance gave up


----------



## jorgy

qatarbhoy said:


> _ If this case was presented in a court of law, he would be found not guilty. Proving doping conclusively is very difficult._
> 
> Several dopers have been banned without analytical evidence. Basso for one.
> 
> Eye witness testimony is often effective in court.


But there was _*physical evidence*_ -- Basso's alleged blood in a bag -- in Basso's case. Plus, he confessed.


----------



## DrRoebuck

jorgy said:


> But there was _*physical evidence*_ -- Basso's blood in a bag -- in Basso's case.


Wouldn't be proof in and of itself. Because who knows what he planned to do with it.


----------



## Fireform

It's interesting how many people in the general public are reacting to this as if the USADA told them there was no Santa Claus. Really, really emotional acceptance of the Lance-as-martyr scenario.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

jorgy said:


> But there was _*physical evidence*_ -- Basso's blood in a bag -- in Basso's case.


Almost as bad as exogenous EPO in your urine.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

jorgy said:


> But there was _*physical evidence*_ -- Basso's blood in a bag -- in Basso's case.


Physical Evidence
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

Don't forget the wacky blood values from 2009-10, especially when coupled with a witness saying the transfused on that date


----------



## cda 455

On a lighter note  :


----------



## curtdawg6

*Guess I shouldn't be surprised*



Fireform said:


> It's interesting how many people in the general public are reacting to this as if the USADA told them there was no Santa Claus. Really, really emotional acceptance of the Lance-as-martyr scenario.


Spot on observation. I have been floored in watching friend after friend of mine that I thought would drop him like a hot rock jump to his defense and swallow the cancer/martyr play hook, line, sinker.


----------



## David Loving

curtdawg6 said:


> Spot on observation. I have been floored in watching friend after friend of mine that I thought would drop him like a hot rock jump to his defense and swallow the cancer/martyr play hook, line, sinker.


That will be the common reaction. USADA has not proven a thing.


----------



## godot

David Loving said:


> That will be the common reaction. USADA has not proven a thing.


"WADA CHIEF JOHN FAHEY said on Friday that Lance Armstrong’s decision not to fight drug charges would be seen as an admission of guilt and he was disappointed the American would not face a tribunal."


----------



## adimiro

curtdawg6 said:


> Spot on observation. I have been floored in watching friend after friend of mine that I thought would drop him like a hot rock jump to his defense and swallow the cancer/martyr play hook, line, sinker.


Lance has been accused of many things....but never of being stupid or not knowing how to spin his brand.

For now, he has played a good move to save some face, but like the fall of the Roman Empire, the Lance myth and lies will slowly unravel over time. Interesting times ahead.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> Tygart's USADA has not proven anything. Lance's refusal to arbitrate is not an admission of their allegations' truth.


Just wait, over the next 10 days you will know more then you ever wanted to know about lance's doping


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Just wait, over the next 10 days you will know more then you ever wanted to know about lance's doping


I think if the LA soap opera ended when he decided not to fight arbitration, LA's reputation probably would have stayed mostly intact.


But as you commented; When the details come out and people get more insider info on LA's activity, I think that reputation will crumble fast. Especially if something like,_ 'He was doping while his children were sleeping in the next room' _kind of stuff were to come out.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cda 455 said:


> I think if the LA soap opera ended when he decided not to fight arbitration, LA's reputation probably would have stayed mostly intact.
> 
> 
> But as you commented; When the details come out and people get more insider info on LA's activity, I think that reputation will crumble fast. Especially if something like,_ 'He was doping while his children were sleeping in the next room' _kind of stuff were to come out.


Funny you should say that.....there is a nice "Drugs in the baby carriage" story but I doubt it will make it out until the next Fed case


----------



## jms

*Plausible Deniability*

Plausible Deniability:
Plausible deniability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Makes for a really thin shield.


----------



## PinarelloGirl

You are right. Interesting times are ahead.

Losing the titles is the least of LA's concerns. At every step of the way he had the opportunity to do the right thing but he didn't. He is now recognized for the fraud he is. The foundation will survive but his legacy is forever tarnished however I believe the worst of the situation is that LA continues to set a poor example to his 5 children. Their father is a liar and a cheat who is willing to do anything to win. A man of poor judgement and character. I feel most sorry for LA's children. It makes me wonder how his girlfriend can remain in a relationship with a cheater like that.


----------



## SFTifoso

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope. Before Armstrong started working with Dr. Ferrari Armstrong could not even finish the Tour, let alone win it.
> 
> He was a pharmacological invention


Really, you think drugs can give that much of an edge? I've been around sports all my life and I've seen the effects drugs have on people. I don't think the drugs gave him that much of an edge if any, especially when 90% of the peloton was on the same drugs.

I just finished watching the the 2nd to last stage of the USPCC, and I know for a fact that those crowds wouldn't be half, or even a quarter as big, had it not been for this man. Like him or hate him (I know you do), he has done more for his sport than any other individual athlete has done for their respective sport, in this country anyways.


----------



## OnTheRivet

I've followed the Lance thing pretty in depth for a long time, I like to think I'm unbiased. The one thing I take away from this is, if even half of what I know about him at this point is true he is a seriously calculating sinister SOB, It's no wonder he was(is) considering politics.


----------



## qatarbhoy

> _Like him or hate him (I know you do), he has done more for his sport than any other individual athlete has done for their respective sport, in this country anyways. _


And all of that and more will now unravel. 

It looks like Greg LeMond was right all along: respect due. From Wikipedia on LeMond - note the irony of Armstrong's threat to LeMond:



> [LeMond:]"When Lance won the prologue to the 1999 Tour I was close to tears, but when I heard he was working with Michele Ferrari I was devastated. In the light of Lance's relationship with Ferrari, I just don't want to comment on this year's Tour. This is not sour grapes. I'm disappointed in Lance, that's all it is."
> 
> A month later, LeMond issued an apology for this comment, calling Armstrong "a great champion and I do not believe, in any way, that he has ever used any performance-enhancing substances. I believe his performances are the result of the same hard work, dedication and focus that were mine 10 years ago."
> 
> LeMond spoke out again three years later, after additional Tour de France wins by Armstrong. "If Armstrong's clean, it's the greatest comeback. And if he's not, then it's the greatest fraud." He also described the fallout of his 2001 statement, alleging that Armstrong had threatened to defame him, and that his business interests had also been threatened:
> 
> "[Armstrong] basically said 'I could find 10 people that will say you took EPO'... The week after, I got multiple people that were on Lance ... Lance's camp, basically saying 'you better be quiet,' and I was quiet for three years. I have a business ... I have bikes that are sold ... and I was told that my sales might not be doing too well if ... just the publicity, the negative publicity."
> 
> The same month, LeMond also stated to French newspaper Le Monde: "Lance is ready to do anything to keep his secret. I don't know how he can continue to convince everybody of his innocence."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SFTifoso said:


> Really, you think drugs can give that much of an edge? I've been around sports all my life and I've seen the effects drugs have on people. I don't think the drugs gave him that much of an edge if any, especially when 90% of the peloton was on the same drugs.
> 
> I just finished watching the the 2nd to last stage of the USPCC, and I know for a fact that those crowds wouldn't be half, or even a quarter as big, had it not been for this man. Like him or hate him (I know you do), he has done more for his sport than any other individual athlete has done for their respective sport, in this country anyways.


Thanks for admitting that you do not know anything about doping. Blood vector doping completely changed the game. Not only because it can give a full time Pro a 15% increase in output but also because it effects each rider completely differently. The era was marked by victories by riders who responded best to dope, not who were great champions. 

Here is Vaughters input on how it effects everyone differently



> But for EPO, the person who’s at 36, whether there’s a 50 percent limit or not is irrelevant because the biggest improvement is in the low end, that thin blood range. That person, when they’re out training every day, their body is starved for oxygen and becomes extremely efficient at pulling oxygen from not very much hemoglobin. So you dump a big amount of red cells in that person who’s already very efficient and whoa! Are they going to go fast. Conversely you take a person at 47 and do the same thing. And let’s go to 60, say the limit isn’t 50 but that the limit is that you don’t stroke out and die. That person is not going to experience anywhere close to the difference. So people say, ‘Yeah, but that’s equalizing it out.’ But imagine the guys at 36 and 47 have exactly the same VO2 at threshold and they are neck-and-neck competitors their whole life, and one chooses to dope and the other says, ‘Well then I’ll dope too.’ Then one guy is going to go a lot faster and the other guy will go a little faster. And so you have guys that train the same, are very disciplined athletes and physiologically the same but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour, then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by who’s the best, some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be compatible with the drug, or to having 50 things in him.


Here is the effects 



> Because at that point in time, you could increase your hematocrit say, from 39 to 60. That represents a 40-percent increase in red blood cell carrying mass. That’s not a 50-percent increase in oxygen carrying capacity. It can be 1:1 in the 40s and then it goes to half that and then two, so it’s not a linear relationship. But let’s imagine it’s 20-percent improvement, back in ‘the 60s’ as we call them (named for the hematocrit some riders were reaching). A 20-percent power gain! Good climbers in the peloton produced 5.5 and 6 watts per kilogram at threshold. That’s the same as today. The guy at 5.5—the worst climber of this group—takes EPO and goes up 20 percent—he’s now at 6.3, 6.4 watts per kilo. So he’s leapfrogged the most talented climber. And the guy at six goes to seven, and all of a sudden the mediocre climber’s at 6.25 and the good one’s at 7, well, where’s the guy who was at 5.5 who didn’t use EPO? Who’s actually a damn talented athlete. He’s in the grupetto. So when the gains are that huge, all of a sudden marginal gains become irrelevant.


Paying off the UCI, conning a gullible, uniformed public. Lance created thousands of lance fans, who deserted the sport as soon as he left.


----------



## Marc

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance created thousands of lance fans, who deserted the sport as soon as he left.


He did? That is news to me.

Like him or hate him, his efforts (doped or not) did a great deal to get the mainstream USA to care about cycling. His wins on Trek bikes also made all frame manufacturers go carbon fiber crazy.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Marc said:


> He did? That is news to me.
> 
> Like him or hate him, his efforts (doped or not) did a great deal to get the mainstream USA to care about cycling. His wins on Trek bikes also made all frame manufacturers go carbon fiber crazy.


Haha, Carbon fiber was around long before Lance won on them. Carbon frames are big because they are cheap and easy to make, not because of lance 

Viewership dropped 49% from 2005 to 2006. He created Lance fans, not cycling fans. 

His toxic influence on the sport was always an issue. When High Road was searching for a new sponsor Armstrong's doping issues where brought up in every meeting

It is hard to pretend that paying off the UCI did not damage the sport. in 2007 the IOC almost toss cycling out of the Olympics because it's governance was so corrupt. They are close to that again as they try to disrupt the Armstrong case. 

The sport is moving on. It will learn from the mess he helped make.


----------



## Marc

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Haha, Carbon fiber was around long before Lance won on them. Carbon frames are big because they are cheap and easy to make, not because of lance
> 
> Viewership dropped 49% from 2005 to 2006. He created Lance fans, not cycling fans.
> 
> His toxic influence on the sport was always an issue. When High Road was searching for a new sponsor Armstrong's doping issues where brought up in every meeting
> 
> It is hard to pretend that paying off the UCI did not damage the sport. in 2007 the IOC almost toss cycling out of the Olympics because it's governance was so corrupt. They are close to that again as they try to disrupt the Armstrong case.
> 
> The sport is moving on. It will learn from the mess he helped make.


Sure CF was around, of course it was. But it wasn't what everyone was making and racing professionally til he came around and made Trek into a name everyone knows and loves. The days of every popping out El Cheapo frames and marking them up didn't come to be til after Armstrong was on the scene. People like Kestrel were still in the US popping out monocoque frames.

Source for your 50% drop in viewership numbers please. All I know is that after Armstrong came on the scene TV stations in the USA have gone to an effort to carry cycling, where no one cared before. Viewership comes and goes, but the availability of coverage in the USA and elsewhere has skyrocketed.

Was Armstrong a cheat? Most probably. Is and was he a jerk who probably abused a corrupt system? Definitely. But pretending he and his Trek/US-Postal sponsored team had nothing to do with where cycling went in the last decade is foolish IMHO.


----------



## sir duke

DrRoebuck said:


> Why do people insist on dividing the world into haters and fanbois?
> 
> It's tiring, simple-minded and ****ing annoying.
> 
> Does it make the world easier for you to comprehend, lumping everyone into convenient categories? Are you fifteen-****ing-years-old?
> 
> Jesus H. Christ in a chicken basket.
> 
> I have mixed feelings about Lance. In no way am I either a fan or a hater.
> 
> But he's a doper and a cheat, and he deserves what he's getting.


Hear, hear. You just tested positive for a sense of proportion. Go hang your head in shame.:thumbsup:


----------



## cda 455

You know; The points/arguments people keep bringing up: "Lance did more for this sport..." or "Lance increased cycling interest in America..." or "People came out of the woodwork to see Lance race...", are all valid points. But those same people forgot that Lance created his legacy shrouded by a lie. It was based on him cheating and lying about it. Does the end justify the means??? I say, "No." He built his legacy on a foundation of lies. And it breaks my heart because I was a big LA fan too (The little basturd).


----------



## Chris-X

*Thanks*



cda 455 said:


> You know; The points/arguments people keep bringing up: "Lance did more for this sport..." or "Lance increased cycling interest in America..." or "People came out of the woodwork to see Lance race...", are all valid points. But those same people forgot that *Lance created his legacy shrouded by a lie*. It was based on him cheating and lying about it. Does the end justify the means??? I say, "No." He built his legacy on a foundation of lies. And it breaks my heart because I was a big LA fan too (The little basturd).


for the honesty.:thumbsup:


----------



## C6Rider

*and one more*



cda 455 said:


> You know; The points/arguments people keep bringing up: "Lance did more for this sport..." or "Lance increased cycling interest in America..." or "People came out of the woodwork to see Lance race...", are all valid points. But those same people forgot that Lance created his legacy shrouded by a lie. It was based on him cheating and lying about it. Does the end justify the means??? I say, "No." He built his legacy on a foundation of lies. And it breaks my heart because I was a big LA fan too (The little basturd).


:thumbsup:


----------



## Dwayne Barry

cda 455 said:


> You know; The points/arguments people keep bringing up: "Lance did more for this sport..." or "Lance increased cycling interest in America..." or "People came out of the woodwork to see Lance race...", are all valid points. But those same people forgot that Lance created his legacy shrouded by a lie. It was based on him cheating and lying about it. Does the end justify the means??? I say, "No." He built his legacy on a foundation of lies. And it breaks my heart because I was a big LA fan too (The little basturd).


It really doesn't bother me in the least that Armstrong doped, it's just funny to see all the folks who for years wouldn't admit he doped now that it is obvious he did, twisting themselves inside out to complain about the "process" that's revealed and will increasingly do so that he was a doper. Not to mention the whole issue of taking his titles (which is irrelevant to whether he doped or not).

It's almost like they can't accept that their delusion has been shattered.


----------



## cda 455

Dwayne Barry said:


> It really doesn't bother me in the least that Armstrong doped, it's just funny to see all the folks who for years wouldn't admit he doped now that it is obvious he did, twisting themselves inside out to complain about the "process" that's revealed and will increasingly do so that he was a doper. Not to mention the whole issue of taking his titles (which is irrelevant to whether he doped or not).
> 
> It's almost like they can't accept that their delusion has been shattered.


In a small way I was one of them. 


Since there were no 'real' hard evidence early on. It was when the non hard evidence continued to grow and grow and when I became a member here two years ago reading Doc F's poasts including links he provided, logic and reasoning started overruling feelings (The little basturd).

What's interesting is the fact that, what probably convinced me the little basturd was lying,_ was his actions outside of the court room_. The character assassinations, harassment of certain people, etc raised a huge red flag for me. When you know you're innocent of allegations/accusations, you don't act that way. When you know you're innocent you would actually help provide names, dates, pictures, diagrams, records of every doctor you've seen during your entire cycling career (Even the Dr. for your hemorrhoidectomy!), and even encourage witness's to come forward. Because you have nothing to hide. Period.






LA=The little basturd


----------



## Scott D

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...2080853.column


----------



## cda 455

Scott D said:


> http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...2080853.column



Link not working.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Marc said:


> Sure CF was around, of course it was. But it wasn't what everyone was making and racing professionally til he came around and made Trek into a name everyone knows and loves. The days of every popping out El Cheapo frames and marking them up didn't come to be til after Armstrong was on the scene. People like Kestrel were still in the US popping out monocoque frames.
> 
> Source for your 50% drop in viewership numbers please. All I know is that after Armstrong came on the scene TV stations in the USA have gone to an effort to carry cycling, where no one cared before. Viewership comes and goes, but the availability of coverage in the USA and elsewhere has skyrocketed.


Funny, Kestrel was founded by a couple Trek guys when Trek ignored their monocoque process......a decade before Armstrong won the Tour. the first few years of Armstrong's wins Trek made crap bikes. Armstrong had to race on rebadged frames and wheels from other suppliers. 

Regardless. Lance's main impact has been to build Lance fans, not cycling fans. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/sports/othersports/07sandomir.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=login



> viewership of OLN's live Tour coverage has tumbled 49 percent to 207,544 people. Combined viewership of the live show and its daily repeats has plunged by 47 percent to 749,472.


he did little to grow real cycling fans. Many of his fans moved on to the next cool thing when he left. Viewership of the Classics was always weak, few realize there was anything but the Tou

OLN signed their deal to cover the Tour de France in the US in 1998, before Lance ever won a Tour. The deal included live daily coverage. We would have had the coverage with or without him

He did do a great job of educating the general public of the sports doping problem and driving sponsors away


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Dwayne Barry said:


> It really doesn't bother me in the least that Armstrong doped, it's just funny to see all the folks who for years wouldn't admit he doped now that it is obvious he did, twisting themselves inside out to complain about the "process" that's revealed and will increasingly do so that he was a doper. Not to mention the whole issue of taking his titles (which is irrelevant to whether he doped or not).
> 
> It's almost like they can't accept that their delusion has been shattered.


This:thumbsup:

I find it very distubing that there are large groups of people who are willing to suspend rational thought when it comes to Lance. It is an embarrassment to the sport. Makes it look like nothing more then a bunch of clueless groupies. 

If it wasn't for this legion of loyal followers, and the $$ they bring, this issue would have been addressed a decade ago. Instead it is left to fester and grow


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Funny, Kestrel was founded by a couple Trek guys when Trek ignored their monocoque process......a decade before Armstrong won the Tour. the first few years of Armstrong's wins Trek made crap bikes. Armstrong had to race on rebadged frames and wheels from other suppliers.


Ah! That explains the rebadged/relabeled frames!


When I first saw said bikes I asked my friend, "Does that frame look like a...", he finished the sentence, "Litespeed" (IIRC). But he didn't know why LA was using it. I guessed that LA wanted that frame specifically but was under contract and had to get Trek's permission. I didn't think it was because Trek was making crap-frames.


----------



## Scott D

Pasted link again. This should work.

Hiltzik: Anti-doping authorities don't play fair against athletes - latimes.com


----------



## cda 455

Scott D said:


> Pasted link again. This should work.
> 
> Hiltzik: Anti-doping authorities don't play fair against athletes - latimes.com



Yep, it works.

Thanks for the link!


----------



## robdamanii

Interestingly, I'm perfectly ok with this turn of events.

I had most of my issues with the federal case (doping issues should be handled by the national ADA or WADA, not the feds since we don't have any federal laws against sport doping like France or Italy) as a waste of money.

USADA is doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing, and I'm perfectly happy to see that.


----------



## champamoore

The USADA's proceedings have very little in common with the legal system. That's all I'm saying. There's apparently plenty of evidence to "convict" him where there is no presumption of innocence. 

But if they had had so much conclusive evidence, they should have gone the legal route and validated their position by overcoming that presumption of innocence. the fact that they did not makes me think it was not so conclusive, after all. 

Again, I don't have much doubt as to his guilt, and am not defending Mr Armstrong, nor his tactics in (and out of) competition. Just pointing out the distinctions in the system.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

champamoore said:


> The USADA's proceedings have very little in common with the legal system. That's all I'm saying. There's apparently plenty of evidence to "convict" him where there is no presumption of innocence.
> 
> But if they had had so much conclusive evidence, they should have gone the legal route and validated their position by overcoming that presumption of innocence. the fact that they did not makes me think it was not so conclusive, after all.
> 
> Again, I don't have much doubt as to his guilt, and am not defending Mr Armstrong, nor his tactics in (and out of) competition. Just pointing out the distinctions in the system.


Is there any sort of means by which USADA could have gone the "legal route"?


----------



## adimiro

Dwayne Barry said:


> Is there any sort of means by which USADA could have gone the "legal route"?


Thanks for pointing out the obvious facts...it is getting so tiresome to read comments from the brainwashed Lance defenders who righteously comment without any background knowledge of facts, allegations and procedures as they pertain to this case.


----------



## robdamanii

champamoore said:


> The USADA's proceedings have very little in common with the legal system. That's all I'm saying. There's apparently plenty of evidence to "convict" him where there is no presumption of innocence.
> 
> But if they had had so much conclusive evidence, they should have gone the legal route and validated their position by overcoming that presumption of innocence. the fact that they did not makes me think it was not so conclusive, after all.
> 
> Again, I don't have much doubt as to his guilt, and am not defending Mr Armstrong, nor his tactics in (and out of) competition. Just pointing out the distinctions in the system.


The USADA process IS the "legal" route. He violated their charter. They ban him. Legal.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance Armstrong doping Tour de France

Armstrong could have kept 2 of his titles if had had talked


----------



## adimiro

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong doping Tour de France
> 
> Armstrong could have kept 2 of his titles if had had talked



I read it as he would have only had 2 titles stripped (2004, 2005)....and kept 5 of 7.


----------



## 88 rex

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance Armstrong doping Tour de France
> 
> Armstrong could have kept 2 of his titles if had had talked


He actually says he "might" have been able to keep his titles. It's a really odd interview by Tygart.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

adimiro said:


> I read it as he would have only had 2 titles stripped (2004, 2005)....and kept 5 of 7.


Agreed. What a mistake. He should have jumped on it. 

Ultimately getting Marti, Ferrari, McQuad, Verbruggen, Bruyneel, del Moral, and Celya out of the sport is more important then Lance.


----------



## 88 rex

adimiro said:


> I read it as he would have only had 2 titles stripped (2004, 2005)....and kept 5 of 7.


The whole interview is weird. Tygart says LA can still come forward and admit everything and they will reduce his sentence. Something seems wrong about that.


----------



## 80turbota

Unfortunatly I am still a believer. Sorry guys, I know my credibility just dropped a few notches. Let me ask this. they only hold samples for what 10 years right? Then by my count they can only go back to 2002 right? I still don't see how they can ask for all 7 of his titles.
As for positive tests, the cortizone got a pass from a doctor.The perscription was accepted by the people in charge. No matter how you look at it you have to just let that one go. The one positive test that i have read about (I really wish I could find that article again.) claimed it was a false positive. B sample came back negative for drugs from a different lab. I am having problems believing that there was some kind of coverup. I don't know about any other positive tests. I am not trying to make any excuses. I am not trying to stir the pot here. I am sorry but I only see the guy being an A##. Thats the worst thing I see about all this.


----------



## cda 455

80turbota said:


> Unfortunatly I am still a believer. Sorry guys, I know my credibility just dropped a few notches. Let me ask this. they only hold samples for what 10 years right? Then by my count they can only go back to 2002 right? I still don't see how they can ask for all 7 of his titles.
> As for positive tests, the cortizone got a pass from a doctor.The perscription was accepted by the people in charge. No matter how you look at it you have to just let that one go. The one positive test that i have read about (I really wish I could find that article again.) claimed it was a false positive. B sample came back negative for drugs from a different lab. I am having problems believing that there was some kind of coverup. I don't know about any other positive tests. I am not trying to make any excuses. I am not trying to stir the pot here. I am sorry but I only see the guy being an A##. Thats the worst thing I see about all this.



You're in The Doping Forum.

Start reading.


----------



## RCMTB

The USDA can't strip him of his tdf titles so I don't know what the press or Tygart are thinking. It's up to the tdf to determine if he should be stripped of his titles. Seeing as it was an era where doping was prevalent most likely the titles will stay intact. What gets me is that he tested positive once for cortisone which I don't think is a PED. I mean cortisone shots are used by pro and non-pro athletes for recovery. Anyhow, I don't know if LA is clean or not, but to only get caught once with a drug that is not really a PED is a pretty good track record. Will be interesting to see how this story plays out and see who else on his teams were doping.


----------



## ultimobici

RCMTB said:


> The USDA can't strip him of his tdf titles so I don't know what the press or Tygart are thinking. It's up to the tdf to determine if he should be stripped of his titles. Seeing as it was an era where doping was prevalent most likely the titles will stay intact. What gets me is that he tested positive once for cortisone which I don't think is a PED. I mean cortisone shots are used by pro and non-pro athletes for recovery. Anyhow, I don't know if LA is clean or not, but to only get caught once with a drug that is not really a PED is a pretty good track record. Will be interesting to see how this story plays out and see who else on his teams were doping.


Cortisone has been banned for nigh on 3 decades. It is an anti-inflammatory and is covered in the WADA code. He only got away with it due to an illegally backdated prescription being accepted.
WADA Banned list of performance enhancing drugs in sport


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

RCMTB said:


> The USDA can't strip him of his tdf titles so I don't know what the press or Tygart are thinking. It's up to the tdf to determine if he should be stripped of his titles. Seeing as it was an era where doping was prevalent most likely the titles will stay intact. What gets me is that he tested positive once for cortisone which I don't think is a PED. I mean cortisone shots are used by pro and non-pro athletes for recovery. Anyhow, I don't know if LA is clean or not, but to only get caught once with a drug that is not really a PED is a pretty good track record. Will be interesting to see how this story plays out and see who else on his teams were doping.


yes, USADA can strip him

Armstrong tested positive for Testosterone 2 times in the 90's. EPO in 2001 and of course in 1999

Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


----------



## Kestreljr

80turbota said:


> Unfortunatly I am still a believer. Sorry guys, I know my credibility just dropped a few notches. Let me ask this. they only hold samples for what 10 years right? Then by my count they can only go back to 2002 right? I still don't see how they can ask for all 7 of his titles.
> As for positive tests, the cortizone got a pass from a doctor.The perscription was accepted by the people in charge. No matter how you look at it you have to just let that one go.


To your above post, I think you are right. By the letter of the law, Lance has never been caught. 

However, Let's say you put an illegal radar jammer on your Porsche and a fly by a cop every morning on your way to work at 100mph. The cop never catches you speeding. You passed his test. That doesn't mean you weren't speeding and therefore breaking the law. 

If the cop then decides that your method of radar jamming is a threat to future others safety and he decides to interview your passenger to get the real story. The passenger tells your trick, and you then get caught and held accountable for your illegal activity. 

Now some of you might say that the cops should only use the radar to catch people, but in the spirit of the law, your speeding was wrong. 

I am not sure if USADA followed procedures correctly, and that *is **important*. But I do feel like the end result was fair.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Kestreljr said:


> To your above post, I think you are right. By the letter of the law, Lance has never been caught.


Exactly, he has also been caught with exogenous EPO in his urine. Sure he couldn't be sanctioned because there is a protocol that must be followed for a failed dope test, but just because that protocol wasn't followed it doesn't make the EPO magically disappear.

Kind of like evidence being thrown out due to an illegal search by a cop. Legally it can't be used in a trial but that doesn't mean a sensible person aware of what was found can't use it to determine whether the person in question did what they are accused of doing.


----------



## fontarin

88 rex said:


> The whole interview is weird. Tygart says LA can still come forward and admit everything and they will reduce his sentence. Something seems wrong about that.


I think they probably would like to get the bigger fish - like Hein and McQuaid. They probably don't have enough without Lance for those guys.


----------



## thechriswebb

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope. Before Armstrong started working with Dr. Ferrari Armstrong could not even finish the Tour, let alone win it.
> 
> He was a pharmacological invention


Having nothing whatsoever to do with the guilt of Armstrong here, I feel obliged to acknowledge that when the EPO era started, Greg Lemond could not keep up with the peloton himself. 

The entire field was a pharmocological invention.


----------



## thechriswebb

This is a mess. As I stated in another thread, it bothered me when perhaps the most popular rider in the peloton (Jens) spectacularly won his first race in two years and in the news it was buried underneath all of this Lance crap. I'm over it. It would have been better for everyone to hear Jens' message after his win than a dozen different articles about how Lance is fooked. He said something to the effect of "I can go home and enjoy my win and rest easy because I know that if they freeze my sample for 100 years and then pull it out to test with new methods, they aren't going to find anything because there isn't anything in it.". He also said that he thought it important for there to be somebody from the dark era still around to be able to say something like that. With all of the ambiguous crap that riders usually say about "never testing positive" and stuff like that, young athletes probably have more to gain from somebody coming out and boldly stating the payoff of being able to win and not have to spend the rest of one's life looking over their shoulder. I wish that statement had been the top headline instead of this other mess. 

If Lance's wins are purged from the record, somebody needs to just put a big red X over the EPO era and not try to declare any "winners.". Removing Armstrong and replacing him with Basso, Ulrich, or any of those others would be a farce (as the whole era was something of a farce anyway).


----------



## DIRT BOY

Dwayne Barry said:


> Exactly, he has also been caught with exogenous EPO in his urine. Sure he couldn't be sanctioned because there is a protocol that must be followed for a failed dope test, but just because that protocol wasn't followed it doesn't make the EPO magically disappear.
> 
> Kind of like evidence being thrown out due to an illegal search by a cop. Legally it can't be used in a trial but that doesn't mean a sensible person aware of what was found can't use it to determine whether the person in question did what they are accused of doing.


Correct Dwayne and that's all that SHOULD matter and hence why, his titles should stand. Now you want to ban him, fine. But unless ASO strips the titles, he basically will keep his "titles."

Like you said, if the evidence is thrown out, so is the case if no other HARD evidence exists.
The USADA is only convicting on he said/she said and heresy. Now, when they release the actual hard evidence, that we can finally come to the correct and right decision.

But this whole idea of back dating testing, going past statues of limitations, etc is scary.


----------



## roddjbrown

I think there's a hell of a lot of people still fighting this Lance corner. People who weren't at all bothered when others were convicted under non-analytical positives... It's almost like they think there should be an exception for Lance.

Let me spell this out. Lance chose this. We have no hard evidence yet because Lance accepted guilt, under the terms he agreed to when he signed up to the code. 

There's far too many people who have gone from "Lance never doped", through "the witch hunt", past "everyone else was" , then "well he should keep the titles because we don't know who else to give them to", finally settling on "he does great stuff for cancer and he boosted cycling in the US."

We get it, you don't think he doped. But why on earth, if you're sure about that, do you feel the need to post in A DOPING FORUM.


----------



## ldotmurray

This article sheds light on this situation. Who does the seven titles go to?


----------



## jneilt

I just watched the Dan Patrick Interview of TT.

While I am no fan-boy of LA, I have came away with the following "proofs" that according to TT of systemic doping:

1. They have 2 positive tests for Corticosteroids, in 2009.
2. They have verbal evidence of blood doping.
3. They think he took EPO, but admit that testing for small amounts of it is difficult.

As a result, I will get off of flonase, I would hate to actually do well in my age group while doping.

I think this is sad, did he dope-I think so, but it is sad that in our legal system circumstantial evidence and subjective opinion are considered proof.

This is about as jacked up as Roger Clements.


----------



## Addict07

roddjbrown said:


> I think there's a hell of a lot of people still fighting this Lance corner. People who weren't at all bothered when others were convicted under non-analytical positives... It's almost like they think there should be an exception for Lance.
> 
> Let me spell this out. Lance chose this. We have no hard evidence yet because Lance accepted guilt, under the terms he agreed to when he signed up to the code.
> 
> There's far too many people who have gone from "Lance never doped", through "the witch hunt", past "everyone else was" , then "well he should keep the titles because we don't know who else to give them to", finally settling on "he does great stuff for cancer and he boosted cycling in the US."
> 
> We get it, you don't think he doped. But why on earth, if you're sure about that, do you feel the need to post in A DOPING FORUM.


Denial, anger, bargaining...with depression and acceptance still to come.


----------



## JasonB176

ldotmurray said:


> This article sheds light on this situation. Who does the seven titles go to?


I agreed with the poster earlier who suggested they go to no one.


----------



## zero85ZEN

jneilt said:


> I just watched the Dan Patrick Interview of TT.
> 
> While I am no fan-boy of LA, I have came away with the following "proofs" that according to TT of systemic doping:
> 
> 1. They have 2 positive tests for Corticosteroids, in 2009.
> 2. They have verbal evidence of blood doping.
> 3. They think he took EPO, but admit that testing for small amounts of it is difficult.
> 
> As a result, I will get off of flonase, I would hate to actually do well in my age group while doping.
> 
> I think this is sad, did he dope-I think so, but it is sad that in our legal system circumstantial evidence and subjective opinion are considered proof.
> 
> This is about as jacked up as Roger Clements.


The sanctions brought by USADA have nothing to do with our legal system. They are the governing body in charge of fighting doping in the US. Lance signed a binding agreement to abide by the rules of USADA when he took out his pro racing license. 

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

thechriswebb said:


> This is a mess. As I stated in another thread, it bothered me when perhaps the most popular rider in the peloton (Jens) spectacularly won his first race in two years and in the news it was buried underneath all of this Lance crap.


I don't want to piss on your parade but some facts about Jens

1. Worked for Riis on a doper's team (CSC)
2. Worked with the schleckettes that are also dopers ( one of them now caught )
3. Working for Bruyneel on a doper's team (RadioShack) where he feels so happy he signed for one more year.

Mmmm :idea:


----------



## Fireform

Oh come on. You do too want to piss on his parade.


----------



## ronderman

DIRT BOY said:


> Correct Dwayne and that's all that SHOULD matter and hence why, his titles should stand. Now you want to ban him, fine. But unless ASO strips the titles, he basically will keep his "titles."
> 
> Like you said, if the evidence is thrown out, so is the case if no other HARD evidence exists.
> The USADA is only convicting on he said/she said and heresy. Now, when they release the actual hard evidence, that we can finally come to the correct and right decision.
> 
> But this whole idea of back dating testing, going past statues of limitations, etc is scary.


Incorrect there boy of dirt - if the evidence is thrown out, you can still supply direct witness testimony - which is what's going on here.

I swear to crêpes, people, what, exactly are you defending here? The guy doped - he got caught - homeboy got away with it seven times and then came back and will rue the day. He's busted. Move on. It's like trying to argue that Clinton didn't have an intern suck him - sure Ken Star was an idiot, but that didn't change the fact that Clinton put his goo on her blue gap dress. :idea:


----------



## Chris-X

*Only heresy?*



DIRT BOY said:


> Correct Dwayne and that's all that SHOULD matter and hence why, his titles should stand. Now you want to ban him, fine. But unless ASO strips the titles, he basically will keep his "titles."
> 
> Like you said, if the evidence is thrown out, so is the case if no other HARD evidence exists.
> The USADA is *only* convicting on he said/she said and *heresy*. Now, when they release the actual hard evidence, that we can finally come to the correct and right decision.
> 
> But this whole idea of back dating testing, going past statues of limitations, etc is scary.


Then he should get burned at the stake!:idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics


----------



## nate

The Science of Sport has a pretty interesting piece. More opinion than science, but it does a good job addressing a lot of the questions of those defending Armstrong.

The Science of Sport: The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories


----------



## thechriswebb

Salsa_Lover said:


> I don't want to piss on your parade but some facts about Jens
> 
> 1.
> 
> Mmmm :idea:


Oh come on. That was a blatant attempt to piss on my parade.


----------



## orange_julius

Salsa_Lover said:


> I don't want to piss on your parade but some facts about Jens
> 
> 1. Worked for Riis on a doper's team (CSC)
> 2. Worked with the schleckettes that are also dopers ( one of them now caught )
> 3. Working for Bruyneel on a doper's team (RadioShack) where he feels so happy he signed for one more year.
> 
> Mmmm :idea:


I think he mistook "most popular rider with english-speaking fandom" for "most popular rider in the peloton". They are not necessarily the same. Voigt is amusing to listen to, but I'm tired of his apologist take on the Schleck brothers and other dopers. 

I believe in Frank Schleck, insists team-mate Jens Voigt | News | Tour de France 2012 | ITV


----------



## flying

For goodness sakes...

I have been in this sport for 30 years.
Do the winners dope? Duh...
Have they always doped? Ask Anquetil
Will they continue to dope? Yes

Every year they say the dope is gone.
Every year the tour goes just as fast.
Every year new records set in TT & mountains.

Come on.....

Do I like or take drugs? No
But I am not so naive to think you can ask folks for a show
of 21 days & 3500KM AND expect it at a blistering pace & not expect drugs.


----------



## roddjbrown

flying said:


> For goodness sakes...
> 
> I have been in this sport for 30 years.
> Do the winners dope? Duh...
> Have they always doped? Ask Anquetil
> Will they continue to dope? Yes
> 
> Every year they say the dope is gone.
> Every year the tour goes just as fast.
> Every year new records set in TT & mountains.
> 
> Come on.....
> 
> Do I like or take drugs? No
> But I am not so naive to think you can ask folks for a show
> of 21 days & 3500KM AND expect it at a blistering pace & not expect drugs.


? What records were set this year?


----------



## Zombie John

nate said:


> The Science of Sport has a pretty interesting piece. More opinion than science, but it does a good job addressing a lot of the questions of those defending Armstrong.
> 
> The Science of Sport: The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories


Pretty much sums up everything I feel about the whole thing.


----------



## Zombie John

flying said:


> For goodness sakes...
> 
> I have been in this sport for 30 years.
> Do the winners dope? Duh...
> Have they always doped? Ask Anquetil
> Will they continue to dope? Yes
> 
> Every year they say the dope is gone.
> Every year the tour goes just as fast.
> Every year new records set in TT & mountains.
> 
> Come on.....
> 
> Do I like or take drugs? No
> But I am not so naive to think you can ask folks for a show
> of 21 days & 3500KM AND expect it at a blistering pace & not expect drugs.


And this is the mentality that's gotten us to where we are today.


----------



## flying

Zombie John said:


> And this is the mentality that's gotten us to where we are today.


I would hardly say pointing out the obvious is somehow the mentality that got us here.

Instead it is those who have their heads firmly stuck in the sand...or elsewhere that like to think it is somehow different because they said so.

As I said I have been around awhile & I also said I do not like or take & let me add I do not condone drugs.
But for me to claim it is somehow been miraculously cleaned up & no longer exists all the while the average speeds of tours stay the same as they ever were?

No it is not a mentality it is clear sight.


----------



## Zombie John

flying said:


> ...to claim it is somehow been miraculously cleaned up & no longer exists all the while the average speeds of tours stay the same as they ever were?


This was said somewhere?

I'm having a really hard time trying to figure out just what your point is and its relevance.


----------



## badge118

Zombie John said:


> And this is the mentality that's gotten us to where we are today.


To an extent it is true though. We want to see suffering. We want stages that prompt the riders to say "Assassins" in reference to the organizers as they did when the first mountain stage was introduced in the Tour. It is naive to expect that such courses when combined with the insane wage difference (39k US is the league minimum for a Pro Tour team for goodness sakes Conti and Pro Conti teams are even lower. I couldn't afford my mortgage on that and I just have a townhouse) you are all but asking for athletes to find an edge of some sort.

Now does it justify it? No. That said just testing is not going to solve the problem. There basically needs to be a comprehensive reform of the sport. Teams have to be made less reliant on sponsorship dollars (thank you RCS on Giro TV revenue sharing), minimum salaries and total salary caps needs to be put in place. Do this and the uncertainty riders have will be greatly reduced and it is in part this uncertainty that contributes to the problem.

Then we stop and look at the results. If this still hasn't proven effective then races need to do what the Giro did for this year an make a more "humane" course. You will never eliminate doping but just testing and punishing though will accomplish little, since all the issues that make doping appear to be a viable option still exist.


----------



## roddjbrown

flying said:


> I would hardly say pointing out the obvious is somehow the mentality that got us here.
> 
> Instead it is those who have their heads firmly stuck in the sand...or elsewhere that like to think it is somehow different because they said so.
> 
> As I said I have been around awhile & I also said I do not like or take & let me add I do not condone drugs.
> But for me to claim it is somehow been miraculously cleaned up & no longer exists all the while the average speeds of tours stay the same as they ever were?
> 
> No it is not a mentality it is clear sight.


I'm still interested to hear which records were broken this year and see the evidence supporting the same average speeds. We know watts/kg are down so I'd be interested to read some facts


----------



## badge118

roddjbrown said:


> I'm still interested to hear which records were broken this year and see the evidence supporting the same average speeds. We know watts/kg are down so I'd be interested to read some facts


On average yes but according to cycling UK themselves last year Wiggo pushed 6.57 watts per Kilo. This is well in the "they were doping at the time range." http://cyclinginfo.co.uk/blog/5341/training/british-procycling-training-tips/ 

Interestingly enough this year I can't find anything about Wiggo but you can still get an estimate. In Paris Nice Danny Pate finished over 2 minutes down on Wiggo in the TT. According to training peaks he produced 5.7 watts per kilo, so again to make up that difference in performance over such a short TT (just under 10 k) what watts was Wiggo pushing.

I really would not try to use the Watts per kilo argument because that is one based on numbers you can make say anything. In this case that good riders are racing clean but "great" riders are not.


----------



## swierszcz

I am not Lance Armstrong fan, actualy like cycling more now when he is not around.
Taking into account the cycling scene in the 1990s, I would be surprised if Armstrong was clean, but this is becoming a secondary issue here.
USADA has every right to expose Armstrong as a doper if they have a clear evidence. Where they went too far is stripping Lance of his TDF victories before they presened any evidence. Because now it’s time to show us the goods. If everything they have are few depositions in exchange for leniency, they will look like malicious idiots in the court of public opinion. And Lance Armstrong will win again.


----------



## Big-foot

swierszcz said:


> Where they went too far is stripping Lance of his TDF victories before they presened any evidence. Because now it’s time to show us the goods. If everything they have are few depositions in exchange for leniency, they will look like malicious idiots in the court of public opinion. And Lance Armstrong will win again.


USADA has 5 days to "Publicly Report" the disposition of the case from the date the arbitration hearing is waived by the athlete. (See Protocols, Rule 16; but cf., WADA Rule 14.2.2 which provides for a 21 day reporting period). In any event, the USADA has decided to go with a shorter and more stringent time frame for itself to report disposition than that allowed by the Code. 

LA waived the hearing last Thursday, and USADA publicly reported the disposition on Friday with a letter published on the USADA website. The dispo letter was also sent on Friday to the UCI, WADA, IOC, etc. So expect the USADA reasoned decision on Thursday.


----------



## Tschai

jneilt said:


> but it is sad that in our legal system circumstantial evidence and subjective opinion are considered proof.
> 
> This is about as jacked up as Roger Clements.


What is it with you people? First, this is not the legal system. It is USADA, a governing body with rules and terms that Lance and every other US racer signed on to. Does this need to be spelled out? You take a job and are provided with an employee handbook. Break one of the rules and you get fired. This has nothing to do with the legal system.

Second, there is a mountain of hard and real evidence against Lance. Not subjective opinion. Among many other things, there are perhaps a dozen team-mates all alleging the exact same thing. These are eye witnesses to the doping. Not hearsay. Not opinion. Eyewitness testimony. I saw Lance dope. Hearsay is entirely something else than eye witness testimony. 

Enough with the witch-hunt crap. If you are going to criticize the process, please have a general understanding of how things work.


----------



## flying

roddjbrown said:


> I'm still interested to hear which records were broken this year and see the evidence supporting the same average speeds. We know watts/kg are down so I'd be interested to read some facts


Here you go...
Try clicking the first result.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Tour+De+France+average+speeds+over+the+years
You know folks get the wrong idea.....
Again I am not advocating doping.
I am pointing out the obvious
Average speeds....length of race
yes small deviations over the years for weather

I did not mean minutia & to tell the truth this years tour was so boring
I do not know if any record per stage was broken. I do know average speed was
the same outrageous range as the last 30 years
Cant be bothered to look either.

Everyone can think what they want....The facts are the average speeds are consistent & have not shown any reduction under supposedly cleaned up peloton.
Between 1980 & 1981 the new class of drugs came on the scene
Before that drugs? Yes as always but they were just stimulants & stimulants had
repercussions. In those days every top rider had a *bad* day. It was payback.
Back when they flopped back on the seat & blew up..BAD...on a stage

Todays drugs are better & not just used as stimulants but as training aids. Allowing faster recovery & higher training loads which begets results.
It is what it is whether I like it or not.

Someday can it all be clean? Maybe
Is it clean now or recent years?
If it was you would see a reduction of avg speed.
If not then what was the benefit of the drugs?

Yes I can hear it now....But..but...but
They have better bikes, better training , better foods
Come now....


----------



## badge118

swierszcz said:


> I am not Lance Armstrong fan, actualy like cycling more now when he is not around.
> Taking into account the cycling scene in the 1990s, I would be surprised if Armstrong was clean, but this is becoming a secondary issue here.
> USADA has every right to expose Armstrong as a doper if they have a clear evidence. Where they went too far is stripping Lance of his TDF victories before they presened any evidence. Because now it&#146;s time to show us the goods. If everything they have are few depositions in exchange for leniency, they will look like malicious idiots in the court of public opinion. And Lance Armstrong will win again.


The problem is the system says "if you do not ask for an AAA hearing you will be punished." This is known going in so LA knew that this would happen. Now regardless of how you look at it, rigged system of guilty SOB, Armstrong decided he would LOSE. 

Now we might see most of it in October. Since the case is a conspiracy case and JB asked for a hearing we will see. Also technically the UCI is actually the body that applies the ban and have yet to do so. The UCI could technically say "we refuse to recognize this penalty as we do not believe the USADA had jurisdiction." The USADA would then appeal to CAS, likely with WADA support. Or the UCI could say "we are only going to strip back to the SOL because we believe the conspiracy case was fos." Again likely appeal to CAS.

Until the UCI speaks this is far from over because the UCI and not the USADA is the one that controls the record books. I have my pop corn ready, hope I didn't waste time making it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> The problem is the system says "if you do not ask for an AAA hearing you will be punished." This is known going in so LA knew that this would happen. Now regardless of how you look at it, rigged system of guilty SOB, Armstrong decided he would LOSE.
> 
> Now we might see most of it in October. Since the case is a conspiracy case and JB asked for a hearing we will see. Also technically the UCI is actually the body that applies the ban and have yet to do so. The UCI could technically say "we refuse to recognize this penalty as we do not believe the USADA had jurisdiction." The USADA would then appeal to CAS, likely with WADA support. Or the UCI could say "we are only going to strip back to the SOL because we believe the conspiracy case was fos." Again likely appeal to CAS.
> 
> Until the UCI speaks this is far from over because the UCI and not the USADA is the one that controls the record books. I have my pop corn ready, hope I didn't waste time making it.


UCI can fight it, but they will lose. It will just delay the inevitable


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> UCI can fight it, but they will lose. It will just delay the inevitable


I make no claims to win or lose, only to entertainment.


----------



## badge118

On a side note for those who thought all those sponsors would drop him, sue him etc. At least the moment survey says....

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11674751/1/nike-backs-lance-armstrong-amid-doping-scandal.html

On the biggest sponsor he has.


----------



## roddjbrown

flying said:


> I did not mean minutia & to tell the truth this years tour was so boring
> I do not know if any record per stage was broken.


Oh ok, so by "minutia" you meant that you would make a clear statement of fact that was actually based on nothing at all as you couldn't be bothered to check and turns out to be incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.

For what it's worth, the link you've sent shows speeds are slightly down on average this year in a tour with a higher than average amount of TT distance (where average speeds are obviously higher). 

Just FYI I do not think the peloton is clean, far from it, but I'm astonished people still like to claim that it's as bad as in the LA era, despite evidence pointing to the contrary.


----------



## badge118

I think the point he was trying to make is that if you look at the times and distance then calculate the % difference, simple using the time to complete neither proves or disproves the contention of the sport being measurably cleaner. Same with watts per kilo as I demonstrated.


----------



## Kestreljr

Nevermind - not worth it...


----------



## flying

roddjbrown said:


> Oh ok, so by "minutia" you meant that you would make a clear statement of fact that was actually based on nothing at all as you couldn't be bothered to check and turns out to be incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> For what it's worth, the link you've sent shows speeds are slightly down on average this year in a tour with a higher than average amount of TT distance (where average speeds are obviously higher).
> 
> Just FYI I do not think the peloton is clean, far from it, but I'm astonished people still like to claim that it's as bad as in the LA era, despite evidence pointing to the contrary.


Not at all........
The minutia I meant was breaking it down to an exact record change this year.
more in answer to your question....


> I'm still interested to hear which records were broken this year and see the evidence supporting the same average speeds. We know watts/kg are down so I'd be interested to read some facts


I assumed you were talking about watts/kg etc & I meant to speak to the larger picture.
I was speaking more along the lines of what Badge118 correctly pointed out in the post after your most recent post.

The fact that you mentioned what you did about the avg speed of this year being slightly down shows you still miss the bigger obvious picture.

Look at the spreads between total times, average times to complete the tour since drugs went to the next level in 80-81. Now look at them & see 30+ years & the variance.
And you somehow think it is not exactly the same as the LA era? Look at the avg speeds of the previous years & those that came after.....hmmm

Makes you wonder why anyone ever took drugs eh? I mean the spread is virtually zip.
Most times less than a half a mile an hour...in this supposedly cleaner new peloton...After 21 days & 3500+km?


----------



## roddjbrown

flying said:


> Not at all........
> The minutia I meant was breaking it down to an exact record change this year.
> more in answer to your question....


Precisely - which is what your original post said. That the records were beaten every year. So you chose that level of detail, which is why I requested further details but then it turned out that you weren't aware of any.

I will be honest, I haven't seen anything about the average spread of the riders speed but since you've apparently looked at it I'd be interested to do some analysis on it. I couldn't tell from your original link whether that was the average speed of one rider or the entire peloton so further data would be gratefully received.


----------



## roddjbrown

badge118 said:


> I think the point he was trying to make is that if you look at the times and distance then calculate the % difference, simple using the time to complete neither proves or disproves the contention of the sport being measurably cleaner. Same with watts per kilo as I demonstrated.


Did anyone use that as a measure of the sport being cleaner? He was using that as a measure of the sport still being just as dirty. 

Taking the peloton as a whole is completely counterintuitive anyway from a statistical perspective. You compare the fastest riders, not the peloton as a whole. The following link includes some relevant and interesting analysis from this year's tour though not on every rider. 

The Science of Sport: The Tour in the mountains: Analysis & discussion


----------



## badge118

roddjbrown said:


> Did anyone use that as a measure of the sport being cleaner? He was using that as a measure of the sport still being just as dirty.
> 
> Taking the peloton as a whole is completely counterintuitive anyway from a statistical perspective. You compare the fastest riders, not the peloton as a whole. The following link includes some relevant and interesting analysis from this year's tour though not on every rider.
> 
> You invited it below. The same average speeds do still exist from a statistical point of view and there are more than a few indicators that at the top end the watts per kilo are little changed. We can speculate as to why but there it is.
> 
> 
> 
> roddjbrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still interested to hear which records were broken this year and see the evidence supporting the same average speeds. We know watts/kg are down so I'd be interested to read some facts
Click to expand...


----------



## roddjbrown

badge118 said:


> You invited it below. The same average speeds do still exist from a statistical point of view and there are more than a few indicators that at the top end the watts per kilo are little changed. We can speculate as to why but there it is.


Er, what? I asked him for further information on that as he had used it as a basis for the peloton being as dirty as previously. So what you're saying is, I invited it by asking it for further data to support his hypothesis...right...


----------



## Fireform

Peloton speeds don't tell you much. Individual speeds up the big climbs are much slower than they were 8-10 years ago.


----------



## roddjbrown

Fireform said:


> Peloton speeds don't tell you much. Individual speeds up the big climbs are much slower than they were 8-10 years ago.


Preciesly, if an average speed includes the first to the last rider it doesn't tell you anything at all historically as there were bound to be clean riders then and now. It's an irrelevance.


----------



## badge118

roddjbrown said:


> Er, what? I asked him for further information on that as he had used it as a basis for the peloton being as dirty as previously. So what you're saying is, I invited it by asking it for further data to support his hypothesis...right...


And he posted a list of average speeds of all TdFs since the first one and when you look at the times, distance, etc. The differences in time are statistically insignificant.

Example. 2004 tdf distance 3391.1, avg speed 40.553
2012 distance 3488, avg spd 39.83. A whopping 1.7% decrease. This can be explained as either statistically insignificant, a result of doping adapting to new detection methods etc. It is especially startling when you look at the much greater variations in the pre-EPO era.


----------



## roddjbrown

badge118 said:


> And he posted a list of average speeds of all TdFs since the first one and when you look at the times, distance, etc. The differences in time are statistically insignificant.
> 
> Example. 2004 tdf distance 3391.1, avg speed 40.553
> 2012 distance 3488, avg spd 39.83. A whopping 1.7% decrease. This can be explained as either statistically insignificant, a result of doping adapting to new detection methods etc. It is especially startling when you look at the much greater variations in the pre-EPO era.


Precisely. So let me spell this out:

1) He believes that the peloton is as dirty as the Lance era
2) He supported this by using average speed being the same and records being broken
3) I questioned the records being broken and asked for further information on average speed
4) He had no examples of records being broken as he wasn't into that level of detail. He sent a link of some vague average speeds
5) I pointed out that they tell us nothing. NOT as evidence that the peloton is cleaner
6) I provided a link from real life scientists showing how power outputs are down as more valid evidence to support my own thoughts

From THAT you drew that I think the peloton is clean because the average speeds are slightly lower than average?! I think I'm wasting my time :mad2:


----------



## den bakker

badge118 said:


> And he posted a list of average speeds of all TdFs since the first one and when you look at the times, distance, etc. The differences in time are statistically insignificant.
> 
> Example. 2004 tdf distance 3391.1, avg speed 40.553
> 2012 distance 3488, avg spd 39.83. A whopping 1.7% decrease. This can be explained as either statistically insignificant, a result of doping adapting to new detection methods etc. It is especially startling when you look at the much greater variations in the pre-EPO era.


hah it's much worse, one of the time trials the winner only average of 22. something km/h. Just see how doped up they are today. 
in other words, average speed is not worth very much in general and just taking two years and comparing them is rather useless.


----------



## orange_julius

roddjbrown said:


> Preciesly, if an average speed includes the first to the last rider it doesn't tell you anything at all historically as there were bound to be clean riders then and now. It's an irrelevance.


In road racing, winning is a matter of going faster than others, not just flat out. For this reason it is better to look at ITT times. 

The Watt/Kg number can be useful only if it's applied in the right context, for example in the final climb of an important stage where the leaders are trying to put time into each other. Even then, there could be variations depending on how the early part of the stage was played. Was there a team that drilled a high pace to the entire peloton, was everybody just waiting on each other? 

Anyway, I think the most promising is ITT times of the same stages, except that there will be variations due to wind speed, etc. Remember when Ruben Plaza rode the fastest ever ITT in the Vuelta in 2005? It was helped by wind. Or maybe also by Fuentes, given he was nailed in Puerto. Oy vey. 
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/road/2005/vuelta05/?id=results/vuelta0520


----------



## badge118

den bakker said:


> hah it's much worse, one of the time trials the winner only average of 22. something km/h. Just see how doped up they are today.
> in other words, average speed is not worth very much in general and just taking two years and comparing them is rather useless.


Use the link provided earlier. The same difference is pretty much solid from 1999 to this year. I picked those 2 simply due to the fact the distances were similar. Or you can keep your head in the sand.


----------



## badge118

roddjbrown said:


> Precisely. So let me spell this out:
> 
> 1) He believes that the peloton is as dirty as the Lance era
> 2) He supported this by using average speed being the same and records being broken
> 3) I questioned the records being broken and asked for further information on average speed
> 4) He had no examples of records being broken as he wasn't into that level of detail. He sent a link of some vague average speeds
> 5) I pointed out that they tell us nothing. NOT as evidence that the peloton is cleaner
> 6) I provided a link from real life scientists showing how power outputs are down as more valid evidence to support my own thoughts
> 
> From THAT you drew that I think the peloton is clean because the average speeds are slightly lower than average?! I think I'm wasting my time :mad2:


You did not just demand that he show records being broken. The wording of your post also indicated you wanted proof via average speeds and watts. If all three of these were not what you request please in future better express yourself or you are indeed correct about wasting your time and mine as well for that matter. Good day sir.


----------



## roddjbrown

badge118 said:


> You did not just demand that he show records being broken. The wording of your post also indicated you wanted proof via average speeds and watts. If all three of these were not what you request please in future better express yourself or you are indeed correct about wasting your time and mine as well for that matter. Good day sir.


Ok hang on, I never asked for support of Watts, I provided it. Perhaps check your facts. 

Secondly I've only just realise that despite all the hundreds of variables you actually think that average speed proves the peloton is just as dirty! Yep, you're wasting my time. Just to be clear, I never said it wasn't. I just believe that those facts provide nothing of any relevance and wanted further details. However in the interest of reasoned debate, let's try this.

Can you tell me how average speed is calculated? Is it the first rider across the line? Is it the mean speed per rider? It is the mean time between the first and last rider over the finishing line per stage? That at least reduces some variables depending ont he outcome and enables possible statistical comparison.


----------



## spade2you

badge118 said:


> You did not just demand that he show records being broken. The wording of your post also indicated you wanted proof via average speeds and watts. If all three of these were not what you request please in future better express yourself or you are indeed correct about wasting your time and mine as well for that matter. Good day sir.


Wattages and average speeds aren't always the same thing. My fastest ITT was on an out-and-back TT course. By some miracle, I had a tailwind in both directions. I only wish I knew this in advance. I underpaced myself a tad on the way out expecting to fight a headwind on the way back. Nonetheless, I still posted my fastest time on that course about 10w lower than normal.


----------



## den bakker

badge118 said:


> Use the link provided earlier. The same difference is pretty much solid from 1999 to this year. I picked those 2 simply due to the fact the distances were similar. Or you can keep your head in the sand.


feel free to look at my earlier posts about sky this year. that does not change the fact your metric is not useful.


----------



## roddjbrown

Bringing it back on topic slightly, is the UCI in any way obliged to strip these titles? I'm interested to hear what people who know a lot more about it than I think. 

I'm wondering if LA will care either way about the titles going as it looks like the general public will still to consider him the true winner persecuted by a media-hungry USADA and those pesky Europeans. 

Equally, even if LA isn't pulling any strings to hold onto them, will the UCI want to strip them as it's an admission at the very least of having not had control over the doping situation (obviously everyone on this forum knows they had no control anyway) and at the worst appears that they were compliant in the covering up of test fails.


----------



## foto

roddjbrown said:


> Bringing it back on topic slightly, is the UCI in any way obliged to strip these titles? I'm interested to hear what people who know a lot more about it than I think.


Yes. The UCI and all license holders, including those affiliated like USAC professional and amateur riders, are signatories to the WADA code.

If the UCI doesn't feel like dealing with the WADA anymore, it can stop, be excluded from the olympics, dose the crap out of its riders, and and cycling can become even less relevant than it already is.


----------



## OnTheRivet

Fireform said:


> Peloton speeds don't tell you much. Individual speeds up the big climbs are much slower than they were 8-10 years ago.


Actually Wiggins and Froomes VAM values were in the 1990's doping range this year.


----------



## foto

OnTheRivet said:


> Actually Wiggins and Froomes VAM values were in the 1990's doping range this year.


VAM for the peloton or the stage winners?


----------



## Addict07

foto said:


> Yes. The UCI and all license holders, including those affiliated like USAC professional and amateur riders, are signatories to the WADA code.
> 
> If the UCI doesn't feel like dealing with the WADA anymore, it can stop, be excluded from the olympics, dose the crap out of its riders, and and cycling can become even less relevant than it already is.


This will be very interesting to watch...is the UCI going to continue flipping the proverbial bird to everyone not supporting the status quo, or are they willing to turn the page and move forward to make their product relevant again someday?


----------



## flying

roddjbrown said:


> I will be honest, I haven't seen anything about the average spread of the riders speed but since you've apparently looked at it I'd be interested to do some analysis on it. I couldn't tell from your original link whether that was the average speed of one rider or the entire peloton so further data would be gratefully received.


When you see stats on tours completion it is always the total avg speed given.
Meaning the avg speed of the whole tour combined. 
( Based on Winning Time To Complete)
At the end of tour they take the total distance in km divided by the hours to complete.
Which gives the avg speed 

So looking at that list
Tour de France Statistics
You can see how close all the times were. You can also see the jump to new drugs around 80-81
You can even compare distance if you want a closer look.
although the spread total is ridiculously close overall when taken as a whole.
Still you can narrow it by say comparing this year 
2012 @ 3488km completed at an avg speed of 39.83 km/hr

To say 
2001 @ 3446km completed at an avg speed of 40.02 km/hr

Less than half a km/hr 0.41 difference?
No difference at all really.


----------



## flying

roddjbrown said:


> Precisely. So let me spell this out:
> 
> 1) He believes that the peloton is as dirty as the Lance era
> 2) He supported this by using average speed being the same and records being broken
> 3) I questioned the records being broken and asked for further information on average speed
> 4) He had no examples of records being broken as he wasn't into that level of detail. He sent a link of some vague average speeds



sheesh.........what I said was I did not have a record broken for this years tour as in 2012.
I also said it was a boring tour. Of course records have been broken many years as the years go by. Alps etc. TT's

But you want me to look them all up for you now?
Puleeze.

Again you need to understand something about avg speeds given.
How do they get that?
They get that by taking the winners time & dividing it by the total distance
I do not think too many record keepers are interested in avg time of last place eh?

Bottom line we all have opinions.
Mine are based on watching over 3 decades of tours.
I know what it looks like & I have seen no changes in this supposed cleaner peloton.

No big deal & to tell you the truth for the most part it is cycling I love not celebrities & whether or not they are juiced.
This is basically professional life or death financially for many of these riders who know nothing else trade wise.
If XX drug is banned & tested for....Then someone will proved XG enhancement that is not tested for nor is it banned.
Think back if you were riding then to Pedro Delgado ...some of the best battles I have ever seen in a tour between him & Roche ....Well Pedro tested + for probenicide
Everyone knew it was a masking drug & it was in fact banned on the Olympic list but not the tour....so....


----------



## roddjbrown

flying said:


> Again you need to understand something about avg speeds given.
> How do they get that?
> They get that by taking the winners time & dividing it by the total distance
> I do not think too many record keepers are interested in avg time of last place


Thank you for clarifying, so let me explain this. Under your system only the winner is taken. 

Therefore, say this year, you are comparing the winner with previous tours. If the entire peloton was doped previously and just Wiggins was this year your measurement would show the same speeds. It provides no evidence on the peloton as a whole because it's one rider. 

My work here is done


----------



## flying

roddjbrown said:


> Thank you for clarifying, so let me explain this. Under your system only the winner is taken.
> 
> Therefore, say this year, you are comparing the winner with previous tours. If the entire peloton was doped previously and just Wiggins was this year your measurement would show the same speeds. It provides no evidence on the peloton as a whole because it's one rider.
> 
> My work here is done



Not sure how long you have actually followed the tour as you keep asking silly questions.
But hey just in case your sincere let me clue you in a little...

Yes the tour time is of course based on the winning time. Yes that is divided by distance to give an average.
Yet you do not seem to understand how the tour works at all.
You do know of such rules as cut off times etc?
you do know they do not leave the lights on waiting for the last rider each day yes?
There is a formula for each stage based on type/category of stage etc...
Riders must finish within a set percentage of the winner of that stages time if they want to continue to Paris

So yes the times given while based on the winning time is still a fair representation of the peloton that remains at the end of the tour. As they all had to finish before the cut off of each stage just to make it to Paris.

As for your work being done? I would say you have yet to start.

But I would say I am done here thanks


----------



## fontarin

Average speed of the entire Tour probably isn't a good indication of 'clean-ness' of the peloton. You'd think they'd be faster now than in 2001 with all the improvements made to bikes. Also, routes can differ. You really have to look at VAM on the climbs, and translate that to w/kg. That's where you start seeing the pretty large difference between rides in the past and riders now (at least before this year's Tour, I haven't done any research on it).

Edit: Here's a good article on the climbs this year:
The tour de France in the mountains: analysis and discussion | Sport | guardian.co.uk


----------



## qatarbhoy

As an aside
(Putting the ass to the side)
Is anyone else
finding certain cryptic comments
written (as if 
by the young E.E. Cummings, or an overly wordy 
Basho)
somewhat
irrita-
ting?

(My work here is
Done)


----------



## roddjbrown

flying said:


> Not sure how long you have actually followed the tour as you keep asking silly questions.
> But hey just in case your sincere let me clue you in a little...
> 
> Yes the tour time is of course based on the winning time. Yes that is divided by distance to give an average.
> Yet you do not seem to understand how the tour works at all.
> You do know of such rules as cut off times etc?
> you do know they do not leave the lights on waiting for the last rider each day yes?
> There is a formula for each stage based on type/category of stage etc...
> Riders must finish within a set percentage of the winner of that stages time if they want to continue to Paris
> 
> So yes the times given while based on the winning time is still a fair representation of the peloton that remains at the end of the tour. As they all had to finish before the cut off of each stage just to make it to Paris.
> 
> As for your work being done? I would say you have yet to start.
> 
> But I would say I am done here thanks


Fair enough, if you want to continue to believe that average winner speed is a valid metric for doping throughout the peloton, despite several people on here telling you otherwise and the fact no scientific review of the peloton has used it...you go right on


----------



## Cpk

qatarbhoy said:


> As an aside
> (Putting the ass to the side)
> Is anyone else
> finding certain cryptic comments
> written (as if
> by the young E.E. Cummings, or an overly wordy
> Basho)
> somewhat
> irrita-
> ting?
> 
> (My work here is
> Done)


Just this ^^^^ one


----------



## trailrunner68

flying said:


> Bottom line we all have opinions.
> Mine are based on watching over 3 decades of tours.
> I know what it looks like & I have seen no changes in this supposed cleaner peloton.


You need to get with the program. The sport is obviously clean because the riders are a bit slower than Pantani and Armstrong were when they were flying up hills with hematocrits of 60%. Slower I tell you! That proves the peloton is clean.


----------



## badge118

trailrunner68 said:


> You need to get with the program. The sport is obviously clean because the riders are a bit slower than Pantani and Armstrong were when they were flying up hills with hematocrits of 60%. Slower I tell you! That proves the peloton is clean.


Assuming sarcasm


----------



## Aindreas

qatarbhoy said:


> As an aside
> (Putting the ass to the side)
> Is anyone else
> finding certain cryptic comments
> written (as if
> by the young E.E. Cummings, or an overly wordy
> Basho)
> somewhat
> irrita-
> ting?
> 
> (My work here is
> Done)


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to qatarbhoy again."


----------



## robdamanii

Aindreas said:


> "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to qatarbhoy again."


Got him for you...


----------

