# Levi



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

He's from my hometown, so I have always been a fan and kind of followed his career (along with Zabriski's for the same reason). All I can really say is that I hope he gets a chance to tell his side of the story at some point and that he finds a way to stay engaged in the sport he loves. Maybe he should look at what Hincapie is doing (clothing and a developmental team).

Leipheimer: ?People don't want to hear what I have to say, and I don't blame them? - VeloNews.com


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Nope. I don't want to hear a bit. Wouldn't mind never hearing from him again. Or Zabriskie. Or Hincapie. Or the whole lot of them. Wish they'd get Horner and Daneilson and whoever else is left soon enough to end the whole disgusting saga. 

At least he's conscientious of that, though.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

runabike said:


> Nope. I don't want to hear a bit. Wouldn't mind never hearing from him again. Or Zabriskie. Or Hincapie. Or the whole lot of them. Wish they'd get Horner and Daneilson and whoever else is left soon enough to end the whole disgusting saga.
> 
> At least he's conscientious of that, though.


To me, this is an understandable but unrealistic response. Do you feel the same way about Pantani, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Coppi? All have stacks of skeletons in their respective closets. All of them have nothing to add to cycling's history? We should expunge our collective memories of all of them? What do we do with the entire EPO era, forget about it? Let's be honest, Armstrong and Postal were hardly edge cases. It's probably safe to assume that very close to the entire peloton was using. If they don't deserve forgiveness ever and should be swept under a carpet, is that true of every race between 1988 and 2009? Should we forget about earlier stimulant-driven teams? What about countries like Italy and Spain that haven't yet had their "reasoned decision" moment? To broaden the question further, what about sports like elite soccer, tennis, football, distance running etc that refuse to get serious about doping prevention, are they equally "disgusting" or even worse than cycling? At least cycling seems to be making an effort, should we hate a sport that is trying to come into the light more than those that prefer to just not know?

I realize that these are not easy questions to answer. I can certainly see your perspective: these guys cheated, lied and ruined people's lives. They got caught and should pay the price. However, I don't think it's as easy as saying that these guys were uniquely cheating bastards who deserve to be strung up, clearly they were a symptom of bigger issues.


----------



## Rashadabd (Sep 17, 2011)

Hiro11 said:


> To me, this is an understandable but unrealistic response. Do you feel the same way about Pantani, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Coppi? All have stacks of skeletons in their respective closets. All of them have nothing to add to cycling's history? We should expunge our collective memories of all of them? What do we do with the entire EPO era, forget about it? Let's be honest, Armstrong and Postal were hardly edge cases. It's probably safe to assume that very close to the entire peloton was using. If they don't deserve forgiveness ever and should be swept under a carpet, is that true of every race between 1988 and 2009? Should we forget about earlier stimulant-driven teams? What about countries like Italy and Spain that haven't yet had their "reasoned decision" moment? To broaden the question further, what about sports like elite soccer, tennis, football, distance running etc that refuse to get serious about doping prevention, are they equally "disgusting" or even worse than cycling? At least cycling seems to be making an effort, should we hate a sport that is trying to come into the light more than those that prefer to just not know?
> 
> I realize that these are not easy questions to answer. I can certainly see your perspective: these guys cheated, lied and ruined people's lives. They got caught and should pay the price. However, I don't think it's as easy as saying that these guys were uniquely cheating bastards who deserve to be strung up, clearly they were a symptom of bigger issues.


^^^ This is where I am at as well now. I also understand's runabike's perspective, since i was there not long ago.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Hiro11 said:


> Do you feel the same way about Pantani, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Coppi?


you put Leipheimer between those? lol. 
Leipheimer was not very interesting when riding. a footnote at best now.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Hiro11 said:


> To me, this is an understandable but unrealistic response. Do you feel the same way about Pantani, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Coppi?.


Pantani? Absolutely. The others raced before my time and are more or less irrelevant with regards to the parts of procycling I follow so I don't give them a second's thought.

The past is the past and I don't dwell on it unless it comes to the present. That's what Hincapie and a few others are trying to do and that's where my contention lies as it seems does a lot of cycling fans. Like I said, at least Levi is conscientious of that. 

The rest of your paragraph doesn't really have much to do with the above.


----------



## packetloss (Jun 2, 2014)

runabike said:


> Pantani? Absolutely. The others raced before my time and are more or less irrelevant with regards to the parts of procycling I follow so I don't give them a second's thought.
> 
> The past is the past and I don't dwell on it unless it comes to the present. That's what Hincapie and a few others are trying to do and that's where my contention lies as it seems does a lot of cycling fans. Like I said, at least Levi is conscientious of that.
> 
> The rest of your paragraph doesn't really have much to do with the above.


Of course it does. Either you enjoy pro cycling and everything that comes along with it, or you don't. If you think any of these guys are 100% clean, then you are only deluding yourself. Personally, I can't see how anyone can be surprised or outraged by any of this.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

packetloss said:


> Of course it does. Either you enjoy pro cycling and everything that comes along with it, or you don't. If you think any of these guys are 100% clean, then you are only deluding yourself. Personally, I can't see how anyone can be surprised or outraged by any of this.


I'm outraged that you're not outraged. I'm so full of outrage that anyone who isn't outraged at what I'm outraged at becomes what I'm outraged at.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

"I'm vomiting with anger."


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

den bakker said:


> you put Leipheimer between those? lol.
> Leipheimer was not very interesting when riding. a footnote at best now.


No, I'm not placing Levi among these legends. I'm making the point that plenty of much more famous cyclists who are the current national or international heroes of cycling have muddy (at best) pasts when it comes to doping. Once we say we're "disgusted" about Levi and his cohort, I contend that it's a double standard to not say the same about these much bigger names. Where does it end?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Hiro11 said:


> I can certainly see your perspective: these guys cheated, lied and ruined people's lives.


It's ruining lives that gets me the most.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

packetloss said:


> Of course it does. Either you enjoy pro cycling and everything that comes along with it, or you don't. If you think any of these guys are 100% clean, then you are only deluding yourself. Personally, I can't see how anyone can be surprised or outraged by any of this.


No, it doesn't. 

And you certainly don't dictate what aspects I do enjoy. 

What are you going on about now? Deluding myself? Where did I say anything about doping now? You're the one deluding yourself if you think you're replying to things I'm actually writing.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

den bakker said:


> you put Leipheimer between those? lol.
> Leipheimer was not very interesting when riding. a footnote at best now.


And yet if Levi went back in time and won everything similiar to Eddy Merckx (during a time when doping was barely an afterthought) I'm sure his "uninteresting riding" would suddenly seem... spectacular!


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

This just seems like old news. Isn't it discussing events that happened 5 to 10 years ago, although some evidence may be slow to surface.

I would imagine that doping is more prevalent in individual power/endurance sports than the team sports like soccer, but as long as it is kept realistic, anti-doping should be applied across all sports. 

Did it say that some of the suspensions were half-year off-season suspensions??? That just seems light. Go for something like a 2 year suspension, and a lifetime suspension from the particular race where they were caught.

People will take the rules lightly if at worst they get a slap on the wrist, and they still keep millions in wages from the sponsors (which they may have thought they needed to dope to get).


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Cableguy said:


> And yet if Levi went back in time and won everything similiar to Eddy Merckx (during a time when doping was barely an afterthought) I'm sure his "uninteresting riding" would suddenly seem... spectacular!


cool story bro.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

> Leipheimer’s career ended after he was unceremoniously dropped by his Omega Pharma-Quick Step team — an action that USADA CEO Travis Tygart called “a classic omerta move.”


I have to agree with Tygart on this assessment. Nothing has changed. Kick out the busted like they are the plague, and continue on doping.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

One should also go after the team doctors and sports doctors through the AMA. Permanently take away their physicians license and prescription abilities and they'll take notice.

How many physicians will be willing to give up their careers to help athletes cheat? How much does the average sports doctor earn? I would imagine they aren't the ones making millions of dollars through deception.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

den bakker said:


> cool story bro.


Woah. Bro. Don't be like this. Tell me what's wrong bro.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

CliffordK said:


> One should also go after the team doctors and sports doctors through the AMA. Permanently take away their physicians license and prescription abilities and they'll take notice.
> 
> How many physicians will be willing to give up their careers to help athletes cheat? How much does the average sports doctor earn? I would imagine they aren't the ones making millions of dollars through deception.


You do realize that cycling extends beyond the US borders right? I doubt a Belgian or Italian doctor really cares what the AMA does. Hence the reason we have WADA (World Anti Doping Agency).


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

Mr. Scary said:


> You do realize that cycling extends beyond the US borders right? I doubt a Belgian or Italian doctor really cares what the AMA does. Hence the reason we have WADA (World Anti Doping Agency).


True, but how are the doctors punished? I can't say anything about Italian or French medical licensing, but if an American doctor acquired and administered the drugs that Lance Armstrong used, then the doctor should be liable for his actions, no matter where it occurred. 

There are certain drugs such as amphetamines and narcotics that doctors would loose their medical license if they distribute without cause.

What would be the effect as listing EPO, and various anabolic steroids as Class A drugs? Could whole blood and blood products also be regulated similarly?

Is there actually any recourse against the doctors? Apparently it is happening in at least a few cases, but decades into the doping and anti-doping battles, the prosecutions of physicians seems to be few and far between.

BBC News - Three doctors charged in Armstrong doping case
Doping doctor Eufemiano Fuentes' sentence shocks anti-drugs bodies | Sport | The Guardian


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

CliffordK said:


> One should also go after the team doctors and sports doctors through the AMA. Permanently take away their physicians license and prescription abilities and they'll take notice.
> 
> How many physicians will be willing to give up their careers to help athletes cheat? How much does the average sports doctor earn? I would imagine they aren't the ones making millions of dollars through deception.


I think going after the doctors in this country is the wrong approach.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

CliffordK said:


> True, but how are the doctors punished? I can't say anything about Italian or French medical licensing, but if an American doctor acquired and administered the drugs that Lance Armstrong used, then the doctor should be liable for his actions, no matter where it occurred.
> 
> There are certain drugs such as amphetamines and narcotics that doctors would loose their medical license if they distribute without cause.
> 
> ...


Again, you are applying US laws regarding pharmaceuticals to the rest of the world. One can buy EPO at a pharmacy in Mexico over the counter. WADA was created to apply a standard to fighting doping in sport. Sports that sign the WADA code are subject to follow their guidelines for punishment.


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

Mr. Scary said:


> Again, you are applying US laws regarding pharmaceuticals to the rest of the world. One can buy EPO at a pharmacy in Mexico over the counter. WADA was created to apply a standard to fighting doping in sport. Sports that sign the WADA code are subject to follow their guidelines for punishment.


Yes, as far as I can tell, WADA is all about the athletes. There is little if anything in it about consequences for doctors, nurses, therapists, and etc that are providing the drugs.

I could imagine an amateur athlete might try to acquire EPO or steroids on his own from Mexico. However, at least in the case of Lance Armstrong, and I presume many professional athletes, the drugs were being administered under the care of, and with the full knowledge of the team physician, as well as apparently also taking countermeasures such as administering saline to attempt to fool the doping tests. Even after being stripped of all of his medals, Armstrong had earned millions of dollars based on his lies. The sponsors may try to get some of that money back, but they also apparently made millions on the lies.

You can go after the athletes, but one would do better with a multi-pronged approach. Take out everybody in the chain. And, if Mexico wishes to participate in international sports, then they can use due diligence to cut off distribution of Mexican drugs. And, if they are American drugs in Mexico, then knock those out too.

Heck, if the money is coming from Nike, Trek, and major sponsors... add some consequences for them too.

The doping is happening because cheating is extremely lucrative for many people.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Hiro11 said:


> To me, this is an understandable but unrealistic response. Do you feel the same way about Pantani, Fignon, Hinault, Merckx, Anquetil, Indurain, Coppi? All have stacks of skeletons in their respective closets. All of them have nothing to add to cycling's history? We should expunge our collective memories of all of them? What do we do with the entire EPO era, forget about it? Let's be honest, Armstrong and Postal were hardly edge cases. It's probably safe to assume that very close to the entire peloton was using. If they don't deserve forgiveness ever and should be swept under a carpet, is that true of every race between 1988 and 2009? Should we forget about earlier stimulant-driven teams? What about countries like Italy and Spain that haven't yet had their "reasoned decision" moment? To broaden the question further, what about sports like elite soccer, tennis, football, distance running etc that refuse to get serious about doping prevention, are they equally "disgusting" or even worse than cycling? At least cycling seems to be making an effort, should we hate a sport that is trying to come into the light more than those that prefer to just not know?


I think it's too simplistic to lump in the likes of Merckx, Anquetil and Coppi with the events of the EPO era. You could argue there is causation, i.e. the attitudes towards PED's in the 60's and 70's didn't differ much from the attitudes later on, and 'omerta' and it's enforcement certainly didn't start with Armstrong. Still, the doping in the 'golden age' was nowhere near the horror show it became in the 90's. We didn't have riders dying in their beds from heart attacks, we didn't have Frankendoctors on the payroll. Merckx and Anquetil were ruthless bastids who wanted to win as much as Armstrong _but_ their doping was more about getting to the end of the race or to help on bad days, not to crush your opponents year after year with total chemically enhanced certainty. They had the natural talent to win. They were the best and would have won anyway, they weren't the best because of what was in their veins. Perhaps Indurain's wins mark the crossover between the old guard and the machine-like racing that EPO allowed. 
The disturbing thing about Merckx is that he introduced Lance to Ferrari, so what did he know back then? His son Axel was a doper too and is still involved in developing young riders. That makes me far angrier than anything Levi has to say.



> I realize that these are not easy questions to answer. I can certainly see your perspective: these guys cheated, lied and ruined people's lives. They got caught and should pay the price. However, I don't think it's as easy as saying that these guys were uniquely cheating bastards who deserve to be strung up, clearly they were a symptom of bigger issues.


One thing Paul Kimmage makes clear in his book, pro cycling is totally devoid of mercy for those who fall by the wayside and don't win. _How_ you win has never been a major worry for those holding the purse strings and administering the sport. Kimmage gave in and doped (minimally) because he needed the money and a contract extension. The riders get used, they are victims of the system that hasn't really changed much since the pro sport began. Even Armstrong and Leipheimmer are victims in that sense, they didn't have the talent to win clean and nobody really cared when they won dirty. The way the sport is set up is almost feudal, with the riders at the bottom hanging on for dear life. Fear, lies and greed have made the sport what it is today for better or for worse. The scary thing is, those other elite sports are probably still back at the 'Festina stage'.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

CliffordK said:


> I could imagine an amateur athlete might try to acquire EPO or steroids on his own from Mexico.


Yes, guys have been busted for this already. 

Which is infinitely more stupid considering bringing that back into the US constitutes trafficking.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

sir duke said:


> Merckx and Anquetil were ruthless bastids who wanted to win as much as Armstrong _but_ their doping was more about getting to the end of the race or to help on bad days, not to crush your opponents year after year with total chemically enhanced certainty. They had the natural talent to win. They were the best and would have won anyway, they weren't the best because of what was in their veins.


I agree Merckx and some of the other legends had more natural talent relative to the competition back then, and I also think there's more competition now... at least partly due to more prevalent doping. There may be riders with similiar natural talents as Merckx in the peleton now, who would have also dominiated back in the 1960s, but who can't win now because they either don't dope or don't respond as well as others to doping.


----------



## packetloss (Jun 2, 2014)

runabike said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> And you certainly don't dictate what aspects I do enjoy.
> 
> What are you going on about now? Deluding myself? Where did I say anything about doping now? You're the one deluding yourself if you think you're replying to things I'm actually writing.


Do you get off on all these obnoxious posts? It seems that whenever you reply to anyone and in any thread you have a hostile attitude.


In answer to your one actual question here is what you said about doping: Unless by disgusting saga you meant how they were treated and discarded as opposed to the doping involvement


runabike said:


> Nope. I don't want to hear a bit. Wouldn't mind never hearing from him again. Or Zabriskie. Or Hincapie. Or the whole lot of them. Wish they'd get Horner and Daneilson and whoever else is left soon enough to end the whole disgusting saga.
> 
> At least he's conscientious of that, though.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

sir duke said:


> I think it's too simplistic to lump in the likes of Merckx, Anquetil and Coppi with the events of the EPO era. You could argue there is causation, i.e. the attitudes towards PED's in the 60's and 70's didn't differ much from the attitudes later on, and 'omerta' and it's enforcement certainly didn't start with Armstrong. Still, the doping in the 'golden age' was nowhere near the horror show it became in the 90's. We didn't have riders dying in their beds from heart attacks, we didn't have Frankendoctors on the payroll. Merckx and Anquetil were ruthless bastids who wanted to win as much as Armstrong _but_ their doping was more about getting to the end of the race or to help on bad days, not to crush your opponents year after year with total chemically enhanced certainty.


This is the argument that Fignon tried to use: "yeah, we doped, but the guys that came after us were like totally worse". To me this is splitting hairs and disingenuous. The intent was exactly the same: to win. Please take a look at this:
Jacques Anquetil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
if you doubt the intent back in the 50s. They wanted to win as badly as Armstrong and like Armstrong were willing to do most anything. The only difference was in the efficacy of the science Armstrong had access to.

Also, I would refer you to Tom Simpson before you make claims about the increased dangerousness of the EPO era. I'm no apologist for the EPO doctors, but they were doctors. Ferrari and co made doping into much more of a science than the speed/steroid days and I'd argue that their inarguably meticulous methods were likely safer than old school snorting a shitload of coke or injecting a bunch of cortisone or amphetamines before a stage.

To reiterate my point, there's an absurd double standard going on here in regards to Armstrong. Lots of European champions with extremely suspicious pasts remain national heroes in Europe:

There's a stadium named after Merckx, the God of cycling and a guy who tested positive at least twice even in the loosey-goosey 70s. 

Hinault (to be fair, my personal favorite cyclist of all time), who would show up fat and out of shape every spring and then miraculously be ready for the Tour is on the podium of the Tour after every stage grinning for the camera. 

The key climb in the Giro is named after Coppi, a man who is quoted as saying "I never dope unless it's necessary, which is always" and proudly discussed speed with journalists. 

If you want to talk the "EPO era", there's countless other examples of a double standard. 

Big Mig has essentially disappeared from public and refuses to talk about this:
Report: Indurain and Banesto were Conconi clients | Cyclingnews.com His victories stand completely unchallenged.

Bjarne Riis, "Mr. 60%" himself, is a friggen team owner and his "you gotta be kidding me" '96 victory stands.

Pantani, who had a documented doping rap sheet longer than most anyone, is essentially a national treasure in Italy, his record stands without official blemish.

Valverde's still in the peloton despite never fessing up. 

Ullrich's '97 tour victory stands despite his repeated admissions of doing exactly what Armstrong did (seeing him point the finger at Armstrong is the height of comedy). 

Vino won a gold medal and is a team manager. 

These are the ones we know about and I think it's very safe to assume that they're the tip of the iceberg.

Only Armstrong and Landis (and very reluctantly Contador's) Tour victories have been stripped. Only Armstrong and Landis and anyone associated with them (like Levi) are given pariah status. Strangely, all these European guys are just fine. I dunno, stinks of double standard to me. That is my point.


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

I agree with Hiro.. and out of that double standard (probably because they are americans) except Contador... I say LA still has 7 yellow jerseys and I'll ride Levi's gran fondo with no issues.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Hiro11 said:


> This is the argument that Fignon tried to use: "yeah, we doped, but the guys that came after us were like totally worse". To me this is splitting hairs and disingenuous. The intent was exactly the same: to win. Please take a look at this:
> Jacques Anquetil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> if you doubt the intent back in the 50s. They wanted to win as badly as Armstrong and like Armstrong were willing to do most anything. The only difference was in the efficacy of the science Armstrong had access to.
> 
> ...


You forgot about Vino keeping his Vuelta, Basso keeping his 1st Giro title, and Valverde being allowed to start his suspension after winning the Vuelta. 

Of course, this is where the name calling usually begins....


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

As a racer, the only butt hurt people were the naïve ones. Anyone who knew the game knew those guys doped. I remember when Lance tested positive about 12-13 years ago. It was in the media for day or two, then gone. It really seemed shorter than that. Are you people that foolish? Didn't you wonder why the year after LA first retired, Ulrich and Co. were caught doping? Did you consider the possibility? I got a kick out of LA confessing, because all Lance posers got served. The issue was he got caught. Sounds cynical, but finally took t make people stop worshipping him. I don't like doping, but I do understand that we are talking about people. They do a job and got paid well to do it. They don't represent me; They represent their team. The only people that really benefit from fame are the fans. The celeb goes through so much crap to please the fan. The fan doesn't see it that way though. All of our legends doped and wherever there's competition, there is doping. I'm pretty sure it's in every sport. Sorry for any typos. This was done on my phone.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

terbennett said:


> As a racer, the only butt hurt people were the naïve ones. Anyone who knew the game knew those guys doped. I remember when Lance tested positive about 12-13 years ago. It was in the media for day or two, then gone. It really seemed shorter than that. Are you people that foolish? Didn't you wonder why the year after LA first retired, Ulrich and Co. were caught doping? Did you consider the possibility? I got a kick out of LA confessing, because all Lance posers got served. The issue was he got caught. Sounds cynical, but finally took t make people stop worshipping him. I don't like doping, but I do understand that we are talking about people. They do a job and got paid well to do it. They don't represent me; They represent their team. The only people that really benefit from fame are the fans. The celeb goes through so much crap to please the fan. The fan doesn't see it that way though. All of our legends doped and wherever there's competition, there is doping. I'm pretty sure it's in every sport. Sorry for any typos. This was done on my phone.


That's funny. I was unaware of the doping but never cared too much one way or the other. I was never emotionally vested because I never had high expectations.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

> This is the argument that Fignon tried to use: "yeah, we doped, but the guys that came after us were like totally worse".


..and was Fignon wrong? I clearly stated that Anquetil and Mercx were win at all costs guys. Anquetil went on the public record and admitted he took stimulants. I'm not seeking to whitewash them, hardly disingenuous.



> Also, I would refer you to Tom Simpson before you make claims about the increased dangerousness of the EPO era.


Ah, the Simpson tragedy. Simpson died on his bike pushing his body way beyond it's physical limits and because he was dehydrated at the top of Ventoux, how does that one tragedy compare with all the young riders found dead in their beds with clogged arteries? Simspson's death is a red herring, how many others died taking what he took? Was he the only one who doped on that stage? He died because of his own recklessness in carrying on when other cyclists would have stopped. He was worried about his cycling future and felt his career was on the slide, he was desperate for a win on Ventoux.



> I'm no apologist for the EPO doctors, but they were doctors. Ferrari and co made doping into much more of a science than the speed/steroid days and I'd argue that their inarguably meticulous methods were likely safer than old school snorting a shitload of coke or injecting a bunch of cortisone or amphetamines before a stage.


Nonsense. More riders were dying after EPO came on the scene. Is saying that EPO is no more dangerous than orange juice not disingenuous? Armstrong paid millions to Ferrari for his 'meticulousness'. Do you honestly think Ferrari or Fuentes gave a sh!t about athletes who couldn't afford their 'meticulousness' and misused EPO or didn't use clean blood? You seem to be saying that applying scientific methodology 'sanitises' the crimes. You also forget those riders who risked septicemia from unsupervised blood doping or use of needles. Safer? Sure. Ask Riccardo Riccò about the 'safer' era of doping.



> To reiterate my point, there's an absurd double standard going on here in regards to Armstrong. Lots of European champions with extremely suspicious pasts remain national heroes in Europe:
> 
> There's a stadium named after Merckx, the God of cycling and a guy who tested positive at least twice even in the loosey-goosey 70s.
> 
> ...


Yep, I'm familiar with all those example. None of that is disputable and I didn't try to deny doping, and therefore 'cheating' went on in that era. So what's your point here?



> Big Mig has essentially disappeared from public and refuses to talk about this:
> Report: Indurain and Banesto were Conconi clients | Cyclingnews.com His victories stand completely unchallenged.


Must we? As has been pointed out countless times in this forum by Doctor Falsetti, Indurain _did not_ sign the WADA code and thus cannot be sanctioned. He kept and is keeping the 'omerta'. 
Like I said if you'd read my post, the 'omerta' didn't start with Armstrong. I talked about 'causation', meaning the doping practices and attitudes of Mercx, Anquetil, Coppi et al _directly contributed_ to the environment that produced the EPO cheats, that is a _continuum_, I'm not arguing that cheating started with Indurain. 

Merckx was the best but he's not a deity. I pointed out his cosy relationship with Ferrari and the fact that he introduced him to Armstrong. Did you even read that? As I stated I'd like to know what _he knew_ about Ferrari and EPO. Kind of supports my point about the continuum doesn't it? So where do these double standards come in? And where have you proved that he doped to the extent that later riders did?

The fact that the likes of Valverde and Riis are still in the sport comes down to the pro cycling culture still at large today, something I acknowledged in my last paragraph. And yes, Merckx and Hinault are _not_ the ones arguing for root and branch changes. They are complicit and I said as much. You might think I apply double standards when comparing eras but you massively missed my point.


----------



## packetloss (Jun 2, 2014)

sir duke said:


> Must we? As has been pointed out countless times in this forum by Doctor Falsetti, Indurain did not sign the WADA code and thus cannot be sanctioned. He kept and is keeping the 'omerta'.
> Like I said if you'd read my post, the 'omerta' didn't start with Armstrong. I talked about 'causation', meaning the doping practices and attitudes of Mercx, Anquetil, Coppi et al directly contributed to the environment that produced the EPO cheats, that is a continuum, I'm not arguing that cheating started with Indurain.
> The fact that the likes of Valverde and Riis are still in the sport comes down to the pro cycling culture still at large today, something I acknowledged in my last paragraph. And yes, Merckx and Hinault are not the ones arguing for root and branch changes. They are complicit and I said as much. You might think I apply double standards when comparing eras but you massively missed my point.


WADA code or not, it's still a double standard.

Either they go after everyone and strip titles, or leave it alone and just put an asterisk next to their name.

Who ends up being the real winner anyway when the top 20 have all been involved in some way to doping?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

packetloss said:


> Do you get off on all these obnoxious posts? It seems that whenever you reply to anyone and in any thread you have a hostile attitude.
> 
> 
> In answer to your one actual question here is what you said about doping: Unless by disgusting saga you meant how they were treated and discarded as opposed to the doping involvement


No, my replies to people that reply to me with stupid quips and asinine comments (like telling me what I do or do not enjoy and that I'm deluding myself) might be "hostile", but generally my initial replies to a thread topic are not. 

And that does not deal with doping today, so again, where did I say anything about doping now? 

A big problem in this place is the inability of a few aggressive posters to actually read what's written. And then that leads to tangents like this...

If you don't like my posts, don't read them, don't _misread_ them, and don't respond to them. But doing the above and insulting me at the same time isn't likely to get you a response with unicorns shooting rainbows out their rears.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Hiro11 said:


> Also, I would refer you to Tom Simpson before you make claims about the increased dangerousness of the EPO era. I'm no apologist for the EPO doctors, but they were doctors. Ferrari and co made doping into much more of a science than the speed/steroid days and I'd argue that their inarguably meticulous methods were likely safer than old school snorting a shitload of coke or injecting a bunch of cortisone or amphetamines before a stage.


Hence Ferrari's infamous quote comparing epo to orange juice:

""EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice"."


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

.....


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Local Hero said:


> It's ruining lives that gets me the most.


Define "ruining lives".


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

davidka said:


> Define "ruining lives".


Do you have any idea what it is like to have a childhood fantasy of becoming a pro athlete and not being able to fulfill that fantasy, only to have to settle for a desk job?

Do you know what it is like to be doped to the gills as a pro athlete and then get a job as the director sportiff of a pro team?


----------



## CliffordK (Jun 6, 2014)

"Ruining Lives" is a complex.

Lining 11 heavy muscular guys up facing 11 more heavy muscular guys, and having them bash their heads together "ruins lives".
Putting 2 guys in a ring and have them punch each other in the head until one falls down and can't get up... "ruins lives".

NO DRUGS NEEDED.

In sports there is a choice of either allowing performance enhancing drugs, or not. Some drugs such as anabolic steroids have significant side-effects. EPO may not, although blood transfusions can lead to risk of acquiring chronic disease, and an artificially high hematocrit could be a stroke risk for some individuals.

So, I guess you get down to the harm done to those individuals who are playing by the rules. Those that didn't cut it to get a multi-million dollar sports contract.

Would your average accountant, or grocery clerk have gotten that multi-million contract if player X hadn't doped?

Drugs or not, we do need to look at all the High School athletes who are coming home with serious injuries in all sports. Perhaps we should put a little less emphasis on being #1, and more emphasis on safety (including drug safety).


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

CliffordK said:


> ....Drugs or not, we do need to look at all the High School athletes who are coming home with serious injuries in all sports. Perhaps we should put a little less emphasis on being #1, and more emphasis on safety (including drug safety).


Unfortunately, the nature of some people is "to win at all cost", and it is difficult/impossible to change that notion. As long as drugs are an option, they will be used as an advantage. Circumventing the rules will always be a part of any sport to gain advantage over others.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Do you have any idea what it is like to have a childhood fantasy of becoming a pro athlete and not being able to fulfill that fantasy, only to have to settle for a desk job?


God forbid anyone should be denied the chance to live out their childhood fantasy.

A "ruined life" is someone getting cancer or losing a child in a car accident, which has happened to people on this board. Someone who is pouting because they didn't get to ride a bicycle and get paid for it is pathetic.


----------



## thechriswebb (Nov 21, 2008)

These things are complicated. Of course, everyone has a right to their own opinion and how they enjoy the sport. 

My opinion happens to be: 

This is a complicated issue with multiple angles from which to view. There is most certainly a double standard. Absolutely. I will always feel like Levi got hosed a bit. Of the people who testified, he appeared to be the most thoughtful and open with information. He admitted to doping on other teams and was the only one who admitted to doping after 2006. He and his wife came under threats from Armstrong for testifying and Levi was the one rider who ended up losing his job from it all. Am I saying he shouldn't have and that he shouldn't have had his palmares stripped? Nope. I am just saying there was a double standard.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Local Hero said:


> Do you know what it is like to be doped to the gills as a pro athlete and then get a job as the director sportiff of a pro team?


I believe that's a prerequisite... at least to coach a winning team!


----------



## the_rouleur (May 3, 2014)

runabike said:


> *Nope. I don't want to hear a bit. Wouldn't mind never hearing from him again. Or Zabriskie. Or Hincapie. *Or the whole lot of them. Wish they'd get Horner and Daneilson and whoever else is left soon enough to end the whole disgusting saga.
> 
> At least he's conscientious of that, though.


Where do you stop though? I know you have said you stop at riders before your time but what about the guys still currently running teams? Riis, Vaughters, Andreu + others, what about riders who have done bans and now dominate cycling again (Contador), what about dirty dodgy riders who have slipped the net time and time again, won a grand tour and still earn dollars from cycling and tell us how good they are.

If you don't want to hear from any dopers then it's a massive cupboard to clean out (no argument from me btw). Based on all of that I would like to hear what Levi has to say and then forget about him.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

packetloss said:


> WADA code or not, it's still a double standard.
> 
> Either they go after everyone and strip titles, or leave it alone and just put an asterisk next to their name.


I'd love to see Indurain's wins put under scrutiny but in this thing called professional sport, we have to play by the rules, and the rules say you can't retrospectively punish someone for being a cheat based on rules he didn't break when winning. So, like it or not, Indurain doesn't get sanctioned. Doesn't make him any less of a cheat. 



We could, of course have the epithet 'Suspected Doper' affixed to any rider who wins anything and then you could come along on your trike and change it to 'Proven Doper' at the appropriate time. No need to cry 'double standards', plus we could all go and watch some other sport where there is no WADA jurisdiction to complicate things..


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Someone who is pouting because they didn't get to ride a bicycle and get paid for it is pathetic.


While I do believe the phase "ruined lives" is an over statement in most cases, the above sentence shows a massive shortfall in understanding. 

These are not folks that play a pick up sport on the weekends being denied a job in that sport. We are talking about people that worked most of their lives at a sport only to have things like Olympic berths and slots of teams taken up by those who cheated to get there, and normally they are not the ones pitching a fit BTW.


----------



## burgrat (Nov 18, 2005)

Levi has a new riding buddy?

Instagram


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

burgrat said:


> Levi has a new riding buddy?
> 
> Instagram


JRA with Levi, and still staring at his stem.


----------



## PaxRomana (Jan 16, 2012)

burgrat said:


> Levi has a new riding buddy?
> 
> Instagram


Levi and Froome. Frauds of a feather stick together.


----------



## waterloo (Nov 8, 2005)

If really him, some interesting comments from Levi over on Tilford's blog

Remorseful or Repugnant | Steve Tilford


----------



## Rokh On (Oct 30, 2011)

burgrat said:


> Levi has a new riding buddy?
> 
> Instagram


Something similar to Levi's instagram happened here in CO last summer. Froome stayed a few weeks after the Pro Cycling Challenge. You could have run into him and others from Sky anywhere from the front range to Aspen. Sky even did a ride in the Boulder area with local front range shops that sell Pinarello's. Much like Levi's comment, the speculation started that we may see more of him because they were looking for a house here.


----------

