# Contador



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

I was kind of shocked that there isn't a current thread about AC considering the circumstances. Based on how he looked earlier, the off day seemed to do him some good. Also, at this point does anyone really think that CAS is going to take any action against him? It's almost as if everyone has forgotten what happened last year. There has hardly been any mention of AC's case in the coverage, and its not like he deserves the innocent until proven guilty treatment.....he was proven guilty with A sample, and the B sample confirmed it. If it had been any other rider last year, they'd be watching the Tour this year from their couch.


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

BAi9302010 said:


> I was kind of shocked that there isn't a current thread about AC considering the circumstances. Based on how he looked earlier, the off day seemed to do him some good. Also, at this point does anyone really think that CAS is going to take any action against him? It's almost as if everyone has forgotten what happened last year. There has hardly been any mention of AC's case in the coverage, and its not like he deserves the innocent until proven guilty treatment.....he was proven guilty with A sample, and the B sample confirmed it. If it had been any other rider last year, they'd be watching the Tour this year from their couch.


AC will be all jacked for these next 2 big stages


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

I have really mixed feelings watching him. It is too bad there is a cloud over him and we have to seriously question whether he is clean. Because he continues to earn my respect, despite my suspicions, due to his competitiveness. He makes races exciting. The grand tours are almost boring watching most of these guys just watching each other the whole race.


----------



## heathb (Nov 1, 2008)

It's nice to know that Contador is mortal without his PEDs.


----------



## peabody (Oct 17, 2005)

heathb said:


> It's nice to know that Contador is mortal without his PEDs.


Schlek got the good stuff


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

peabody said:


> Schlek got the good stuff


word !


----------



## cyclesport45 (Dec 10, 2007)

How is this Tour's average speed shaping up, compared to recent Tours?


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

You know... IMO it seems to me like this is really a cleaner tour than we've had in years.... Contador doesn't seem to have the "go juice" anymore, like several others... and it seems all of them are suffering more than I've ever noticed, having bad and good days.... even Andy S. blew at the very end... he was barely able to hang on and lost a huge chunk of time in the last 1k... finally we are seeing humans again, at least a little more human.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

cyclesport45 said:


> How is this Tour's average speed shaping up, compared to recent Tours?


Today was 21.5 mph with 3 HC climbs. 15ish Km's before the 3rd climb was into a head wind.

You be the judge................................................. Just a reminder, today was stage 18.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

pedalruns said:


> You know... IMO it seems to me like this is really a cleaner tour than we've had in years.... Contador doesn't seem to have the "go juice" anymore, like several others... and it seems all of them are suffering more than I've ever noticed, having bad and good days.... even Andy S. blew at the very end... he was barely able to hang on and lost a huge chunk of time in the last 1k... finally we are seeing humans again, at least a little more human.


Agree with you. We've gone from the Mr. 60% era to what is probably now the "doping lite" era. 
As for Contador, two things worked against him in this year's TdF. 
1) The brutal Giro he went through in the month of May
2) The CAS delays which forced him to go through number (1) above

I do not believe he is holding back so as not to arouse suspicions as some have speculated. He just doesn't have the legs. Besides most of his attacks have come at shorter climbs. In the high mountains he is nowhere near his Giro form.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

Once again it's interesting how the attitude/mindset is so different when it comes to Contador compared to other riders in this forum.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

nedbraden said:


> Once again it's interesting how the attitude/mindset is so different when it comes to Contador compared to other riders in this forum.


He failed both his A and B samples from last year. Any other rider from any other country and he would have already been stripped of the Tour win and banned for two years. 

That said, I don't think he is, by and large, any different than the rest of them. But he was caught, and he's gotten off scott free so far.


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

pedalruns said:


> You know... IMO it seems to me like this is really a cleaner tour than we've had in years.... Contador doesn't seem to have the "go juice" anymore, like several others... and it seems all of them are suffering more than I've ever noticed, having bad and good days.... even Andy S. blew at the very end... he was barely able to hang on and lost a huge chunk of time in the last 1k... finally we are seeing humans again, at least a little more human.


The gaps are also very close between all of the big leaders. No rider was ever able to just shell the peloton like years past. Obviously a lot has to do with recovery from the Giro, but Contador from a year or two ago probably would've been able to hold the attack he put in today on Alpe d'Huez. It was rather ironic that he got dropped by a French rider instead. Hopefully a sign of a cleaner race.


----------



## Don Duende (Sep 13, 2007)

He definitely cracked on Stage 18 and the next day on Stage 19 he looked juiced. But it was too late to make up all that time. Without doping, I wonder how many Grand Tours he would have won? The CAS should award the 2010 TdF to Andy Schleck in retrospect. It seems deserving to be stripped when a rider is caught doping. The Spanish Federation is notoriously lenient on disciplining Spanish pro cyclists.


----------



## masfish1967 (Mar 3, 2010)

I hope justice is served for Contador, but more disgusting to me is the appearant "preparation" of the French riders from Europecar and I suspect the sample given by the winner today will not even make it to the lab.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

masfish1967 said:


> I hope justice is served for Contador, but more disgusting to me is the appearant "preparation" of the French riders from Europecar and I suspect the sample given by the winner today will not even make it to the lab.


Funny you mention this.....I heard during the broadcast today that TV was allowed to ride down the mountain yesterday with the L'Equipe press car after the stage. AS was held up though....

Hmmm.....


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> Funny you mention this.....I heard during the broadcast today that TV was allowed to ride down the mountain yesterday with the L'Equipe press car after the stage. AS was held up though....
> 
> Hmmm.....


You do know they test the jersey wearers, not the guys who just gave up the jersey.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

SilasCL said:


> You do know they test the jersey wearers, not the guys who just gave up the jersey.


The comment was made about the day before TV lost the jersey.
And you know Silas that they test random riders too, not just the jersey's......


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

DMFT said:


> The comment was made about the day before TV lost the jersey.
> And you know Silas that they test random riders too, not just the jersey's......


Ah, I misinterpreted that, my bad.

Sure they test randoms, but someone not being selected for a random test would be a pretty thin basis for a conspiracy theory. But it's irrelevant, as we were talking about different days.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

*Conspiracy?*



SilasCL said:


> Ah, I misinterpreted that, my bad.
> 
> Sure they test randoms, but someone not being selected for a random test would be a pretty thin basis for a conspiracy theory. But it's irrelevant, as we were talking about different days.



- What I have a BIGGER problem with Silas is NOBODY in this forum has an issue with TV NOT being tested directly after the stage, being allowed into a newspaper car and driven some time down a mountain. What "if" that was mmmmm, say Lance??? 
There would be thread after thread about it from the usual suspects..........

Let's call an ace an ace & a spade, a spade.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

TV couldn't be a doper...Not him, he's "too nice" Landis couldn't be...he was raised a Quaker...Tyler Hamilton couldn't be a doper...he likes dogs..Now Armstrong? He's an arrogant Texan...everybody knows they are full of themselves...He hadda be a doper.

They caught Contador. Don't forget he also had that plasticizer in there. But they let him go...so far. 

Me, after all that has been happening with Pro Cycling and after watching some of the guys I race against as an amateur Masters racer make incredible 2 and 3 MINUTE improvements, in a new season, while suddenly looking like weight lifters in springtime......I'll just have to believe that every winning bike racer dopes it up....

If I were wealthy enough to consult an "age doctor' and wanted to win races badly enough to dope up at whatever the personal health risk, I'd need to juice up my own self in order to race on the same level as the guys who win more...

I just limit my bike racing now. I race against myself. I race against gravity, wind, the clock.. What is the point in racing when you can not help but assume that at least some significant portion of the field, or at least the front runners of the field, is likely on some form of performance enhancing substance? Or ...you have no reason to believe that people in your race are all clean?..


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Gnarly 928 said:


> They caught Contador. Don't forget he also had that plasticizer in there.


So do you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> - What I have a BIGGER problem with Silas is NOBODY in this forum has an issue with TV NOT being tested directly after the stage, being allowed into a newspaper car and driven some time down a mountain. What "if" that was mmmmm, say Lance???
> There would be thread after thread about it from the usual suspects..........
> 
> Let's call an ace an ace & a spade, a spade.
> ...


Do you have a link to support your claim that Tom V was not tested after the stage? 

It is very common for the Yellow jersey winner to ride in a ASO/l'Equipe vehicle after a stage, in fact it is part of being a jersey wearer. Part of the deal after each stage is the Yellow jersey is interviewed in a temporary studio by French 2 Television for their L'après-Tour show. In 2004 Armstrong said he would come on, as long as they provided him transportation to his hotel via Helicopter after the interview. It was a smart deal, French TV had Armstrong on almost every day (He speaks French surprisingly well) and Armstrong often would beat his team back to the hotel, all for a 5 minute interview. 

Since then this has become a tradition. Riders actually lobby to be in the studio for the interviews on the mountain stages as they know they can be at their hotel an hour or more prior to their teammates. There is zero space on the top of the Galbier so it is likely the testing and studio were down the other side of the Mountain in Valliore.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have a link to support your claim that Tom V was not tested after the stage?
> 
> It is very common for the Yellow jersey winner to ride in a ASO/l'Equipe vehicle after a stage, in fact it is part of being a jersey wearer. Part of the deal after each stage is the Yellow jersey is interviewed in a temporary studio by French 2 Television for their L'après-Tour show. In 2004 Armstrong said he would come on, as long as they provided him transportation to his hotel via Helicopter after the interview. It was a smart deal, French TV had Armstrong on almost every day (He speaks French surprisingly well) and Armstrong often would beat his team back to the hotel, all for a 5 minute interview.
> 
> Since then this has become a tradition. Riders actually lobby to be in the studio for the interviews on the mountain stages as they know they can be at their hotel an hour or more prior to their teammates. There is zero space on the top of the Galbier so it is likely the testing and studio were down the other side of the Mountain in Valliore.



- You should re-read what I wrote before posting "Dr.". I have always heard/read articles stating the opposite somewhat... The Jersey and random others are chaparoned to medical post-stage, then the podium and a buncha media after. 

Of course you have all the facts though and they're generally formed around Lance as usual. In fact, contrary to your statement that Lance beat his team back to the hotel (i'm not saying it's "never" happened either, just doubt it highly), I've seen interviews w/Lance and OTHER riders stating the winning of a stage equals a very late night for the rider due to all of the various media that they are interviewed by and they often eat late without their team.....

You are correct about one thing though......There's not much room atop the Galibier.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> - You should re-read what I wrote before posting "Dr.". I have always heard/read articles stating the opposite somewhat... The Jersey and random others are chaparoned to medical post-stage, then the podium and a buncha media after.
> 
> Of course you have all the facts though and they're generally formed around Lance as usual. In fact, contrary to your statement that Lance beat his team back to the hotel (i'm not saying it's "never" happened either, just doubt it highly), I've seen interviews w/Lance and OTHER riders stating the winning of a stage equals a very late night for the rider due to all of the various media that they are interviewed by and they often eat late without their team.....
> 
> You are correct about one thing though......There's not much room atop the Galibier.


You who brought Lance into the discussion, not I. 

Have you ever seen a UCI chaperon? Just a guy in a vest. He hangs out with the rider after the stage until he gets a sample. Sometimes this can take over an hour or more. It may come as a surprise to you but it sometimes can be hard to take a piss after 5 hours in the mountains. 

I'll ask again, do you have a link to support your claim TV was not tested after the stage, or did you just invent this?


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

masfish1967 said:


> I hope justice is served for Contador, but more disgusting to me is the appearant "preparation" of the French riders from Europecar and I suspect the sample given by the winner today will not even make it to the lab.


Can you explain what this "preparation" is, please?


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You who brought Lance into the discussion, not I.
> 
> Have you ever seen a UCI chaperon? Just a guy in a vest. He hangs out with the rider after the stage until he gets a sample. Sometimes this can take over an hour or more. It may come as a surprise to you but it sometimes can be hard to take a piss after 5 hours in the mountains.
> 
> I'll ask again, do you have a link to support your claim TV was not tested after the stage, or did you just invent this?



***For the 2nd time "Dr." RE-READ post #20 and tell me "where" I said TV was not tested.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> ***For the 2nd time "Dr." RE-READ post #20 and tell me "where" I said TV was not tested.


 Here



DMFT said:


> - What I have a BIGGER problem with Silas is NOBODY in this forum has an issue with TV NOT being tested directly after the stage


You are unfamiliar with the what is the actual process for Post stage testing so I spelled it out for you. The rider needs to stay within visual site of the chaperon while he goes through interviews, gets his jersey, and transfers to the testing RV. 

Of course these rules do not apply to everyone. During the 2009 Tour the UCI gave Brunyeel's Astana team preferential treatment in testing. The 10 page report gave multiple examples of Astana being given preferential treatment, including making this UCI chaperon wait outside the team bus for 45 minutes










That chaperon looks in pretty good shape....that is because he is a former Belgium Pro who consistently had Astana duty.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Here
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Here" is all you have to say "Dr." Did you NOT see the word "directly" in your "here" quote of my sentence???

- Reading comprehension skills are soooo lost on kids these days I tell ya......

So, TV taking a ride DIRECTLY after a stage, down a mountain in a newspaper car is NOT "preferential" treatment "Dr." ????? 

Can't wait for your reply. :wink:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

DMFT said:


> "Here" is all you have to say "Dr." Did you NOT see the word "directly" in your "here" quote of my sentence???
> 
> - Reading comprehension skills are soooo lost on kids these days I tell ya......
> 
> ...


You have to understand, he has a deep seeded burning hatred for anything and everything LA. For someone he doesn't know, he sure has a wicked vendetta against him, and all roads of doping lead back to him somehow. 

We've seen it time and time again.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> You have to understand, he has a deep seeded burning hatred for anything and everything LA. For someone he doesn't know, he sure has a wicked vendetta against him, and all roads of doping lead back to him somehow.
> 
> We've seen it time and time again.


Post, not poster.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> "Here" is all you have to say "Dr." Did you NOT see the word "directly" in your "here" quote of my sentence???
> 
> - Reading comprehension skills are soooo lost on kids these days I tell ya......
> 
> ...


It appears you did not read my reply. If you did you would know that it is not preferential treatment. 

In case you missed it, here it is



> It is very common for the Yellow jersey winner to ride in a ASO/l'Equipe vehicle after a stage, in fact it is part of being a jersey wearer. Part of the deal after each stage is the Yellow jersey is interviewed in a temporary studio by French 2 Television for their L'après-Tour show. In 2004 Armstrong said he would come on, as long as they provided him transportation to his hotel via Helicopter after the interview. It was a smart deal, French TV had Armstrong on almost every day (He speaks French surprisingly well) and Armstrong often would beat his team back to the hotel, all for a 5 minute interview.
> 
> Since then this has become a tradition. Riders actually lobby to be in the studio for the interviews on the mountain stages as they know they can be at their hotel an hour or more prior to their teammates. There is zero space on the top of the Galbier so it is likely the testing and studio were down the other side of the Mountain in Valliore.


The simple fact is to expect a rider to give a sample immediately after a 5 hour mountain stage is absurd. Luckily the UCI recognizes this and assigns a chaperon to be with the rider until the sample is given. Preferential treatment arises if Voeckler was out of the chaperons eyesight......did that happen? 

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Doctor Falsies said:


> If you have anymore questions feel free to ask.


Do you even own a bicycle?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wipeout said:


> Do you even own a bicycle?


Many, and I ride them a lot. 

Garminconnect tells me I have ridden over 5k miles so far this year....how about yourself? 

Count: 179 Activities 
Distance: 5,234.39 mi 
Time: 351:42:55 h:m:s 
Elevation Gain: 201,013 ft 

Certainly interested in talking about my riding and my bikes but what does that have to do with my post?


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

It means I think you are a troll.

Count:	120 Activities
Distance:	4,961.01 mi
Time:	285:51:24 h:m:s
Elevation Gain:	238,307 ft


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

wipeout said:


> It means I think you are a troll.


I have posted some rather detailed information about post stage testing. It is something I am familiar with as I have seen it first hand multiple times. What part of it do you feel is incorrect?.....or do you just call anyone you disagree with a troll as it is easier then discussing what they have written?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderator's Note*

Enough of the personal stuff- stick to the point please. If you don't like a poster, simply add them to your ignore list (its easy to do). Otherwise infractions and posting vacations will be issued.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Many, and I ride them a lot.
> 
> Garminconnect tells me I have ridden over 5k miles so far this year....how about yourself?
> 
> ...


To use your favorite thing to post "post, not poster."



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Here
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You seem to be struggling to get the fact that he said TV was not tested "directly after the stage" and not that he was not tested at all. Did you misread his post or are you ignoring what he actually said in order to continue down your usual route?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

nedbraden said:


> To use your favorite thing to post "post, not poster."
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be struggling to get the fact that he said TV was not tested "directly after the stage" and not that he was not tested at all. Did you misread his post or are you ignoring what he actually said in order to continue down your usual route?


You may want to actually read what was written.

Did you miss the part were he asked if I rode a bike? (the reason for my response) Did you ignore where I wrote in detail the process for post stage chaperons and testing? Why it was absurd to expect that immediately after a stage that a rider would have the time or ability to produce a sample.....which is why the UCI assigns chaperons. 

Perhaps I misunderstood your questions, were you being sarcastic or did you just not read what was written?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

It's nice to see that Contador was apparently scared into less blood manipulation and doping during the Tour as compared to the Giro. Although it hasn't happened soon enough, his day of reckoning is coming.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you ignore where I wrote in detail the process for post stage chaperons and testing? Why it was absurd to expect that immediately after a stage that a rider would have the time or ability to produce a sample.....which is why the UCI assigns chaperons.


It seems some people are confusing "directly" with "immediately."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> It seems some people are confusing "directly" with "immediately."


No confusion on my part. If you read what I wrote you would know that there is little room on the top of the Galiber. The likelihood that the testing RV was there is super low. 

regardless of semantics so far nobody has provided anything to support their claim that TV was not tested directly, immediately or anytime after the stage.....it appears it was an assumption based on nothing.

It is common for testing to not happen directly, immediately, whatever after the stage but after the jersey presentations.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Back on the Contador topic. I hear that WAD/UCI may focus on transfusions, including witness testimony. 

I can't see how AC will exit the CAS process with anything less then a year off.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

asgelle said:


> It seems some people are confusing "directly" with "immediately."



What does this "confusion" amount to?

What do you propose the protocol should be?

Do you believe AC was able to escape detection for doping because he wasn't tested directly or immediately following stages or that riders such as TV were subject to different protocols than other prior or subsequent Yellow jersey winners?

I'm a novice here and very confused by these distinctions being made, but am disturbed at the possibility presented here that protocols may have been altered for TV as he is French, and that there are vendettas against former champs like Contador and Lance Armstrong.

Thanks


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> You have to understand, he has a deep seeded burning hatred for anything and everything LA. For someone he doesn't know, he sure has a wicked vendetta against him, and all roads of doping lead back to him somehow.
> 
> We've seen it time and time again.


I've been seeing a lot of accusations pointed at Lance by what seem to be reputable news outlets.

I understand that the French may be jealous of his success in their race, but what explains SI and 60 minutes?

Forgetting what posters here are saying, do you think Lance will ever be charged with any kind of cheating?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> I've been seeing a lot of accusations pointed at Lance by what seem to be reputable news outlets.
> 
> I understand that the French may be jealous of his success in their race, but what explains SI and 60 minutes?
> 
> Forgetting what posters here are saying, do you think Lance will ever be charged with any kind of cheating?


I personally don't care if he cheated or not, but to answer your direct question, no I don't believe he'll be charged with "cheating" in cycling. He'll probably be charged with a few other things, but I doubt anything in the record books will change as a result of the investigation, and I really don't think anything in cycling itself will change as a result of the investigation.

You can only improve the future by looking to the future and preventing doping/cheating, which is where most of the efforts are now being focused. Changing the record books will do nothing to clean up the sport, other than to satisfy a few people with burning vendettas.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> I personally don't care if he cheated or not, but to answer your direct question, no I don't believe he'll be charged with "cheating" in cycling. He'll probably be charged with a few other things, but I doubt anything in the record books will change as a result of the investigation, and I really don't think anything in cycling itself will change as a result of the investigation.
> 
> You can only improve the future by looking to the future and preventing doping/cheating, which is where most of the efforts are now being focused. Changing the record books will do nothing to clean up the sport, other than to satisfy a few people with burning vendettas.


So we should ignore the past completely? Really? Is there a cut off date for this ignoring to start? Should we ignore the UCI's actions or just Lance's? Is this a blanket ignoring of reality that covers all people, teams, and timeframes or just Lance? If a witness comes forward to say he saw Contador transfuse last year should we ignore this too?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> I personally don't care if he cheated or not, but to answer your direct question, no I don't believe he'll be charged with "cheating" in cycling. He'll probably be charged with a few other things, but I doubt anything in the record books will change as a result of the investigation, and I really don't think anything in cycling itself will change as a result of the investigation.
> 
> You can only improve the future by looking to the future and preventing doping/cheating, which is where most of the efforts are now being focused. Changing the record books will do nothing to clean up the sport, other than to satisfy a few people with burning vendettas.


 Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. 
George Santayana 

Your philosophy would seem to be at odds with this famous statement.

I noticed that both Mark McGwire and George Hincapie share your sentiments, but in their cases it would seem to be very self serving.

Might I ask, do you have any personal interest in the outcome of Contador's appeals or any other cyclist under investigation?

Are you saying that the only people who want to know the truth about cycling have "burning vendettas?"

I see a lot of people who have been accused in these matters and their defenders, habitually use recriminations to try to discredit the accusers.

I don't understand why they just can't address the facts and leave out the personal attacks.

I have even seen the lawyer, Gatorback, attacked personally when he was only offering his professional opinion on the evidence.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> I personally don't care if he cheated or not, but to answer your direct question, no I don't believe he'll be charged with "cheating" in cycling. He'll probably be charged with a few other things, but I doubt anything in the record books will change as a result of the investigation, and I really don't think anything in cycling itself will change as a result of the investigation.
> 
> You can only improve the future by looking to the future and preventing doping/cheating, which is where most of the efforts are now being focused. Changing the record books will do nothing to clean up the sport, other than to satisfy a few people with burning vendettas.


BTW, I noticed on another thread you were very offended by the immorality of counterfeit Chinese carbon frames.

It seems to be a little inconsistent with your apathy about doping cheats.

If you could clear this up, I'd be interested.

Thanks


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> BTW, I noticed on another thread you were very offended by the immorality of counterfeit Chinese carbon frames.
> 
> It seems to be a little inconsistent with your apathy about doping cheats.
> 
> ...


I don't care for doping cheats. Contador was caught, he needs to be punished. Ricco was caught, he was (and needs to be further) punished. Mosquera was caught, he needs to be punished. Armstrong was most certainly dirty, and he is most certainly an a-hole. I'm sure he's guilty as hell for tax evasion, fraud, etc etc, and I'm sure all of his victories were won on EPO or some other program. My question now is what do we gain by erasing his name from the '99 tour or proving he cheated. We all know he did, and proving it won't change the future of cycling. I'd much prefer that people spend their time trying to cut down on doping cheats among the young riders that are moving through the junior teams than spending time picking apart a 10 year old tour victory that is essentially meaningless in today's cycling world.


As to your second question: Just because I don't go around raging about drug cheats doesn't mean I invite them over for tea and cookies.

People are going to cheat, which is unquestionably wrong. I don't care for cheaters, the same way I don't care for counterfeiters (or their supporters.) Both groups have some moral fault to them, without a doubt. I tend to be much more vocal about the counterfeiters that target joe-sixpack than I am about the doping docs that target top level pros. Frankly, as for the pros, eff 'em if they want to put their health at risk...it doesn't affect me. Some guy overseas selling a counterfeit frame does put me at risk as a consumer, and that pisses me off.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
> George Santayana
> 
> Your philosophy would seem to be at odds with this famous statement.
> ...


The past is known already. I've already said that Armstrong was dirty plenty of times. What more are you going to learn from the Novtizky crusade? 

The past is obviously known or we wouldn't have controls like the Biological Passport in place to combat doping in the peloton. So again, what more are you going to learn from Novitzky's crusade?

I have no personal interest in any of the CAS appeals other than seeing Contador punished for what he was found to have done. Being a young'un, Contador is a prime example of what happens if you get busted, and should be treated as such.

The only people with "burning vendettas" are those who spend ALL their free time on these boards doing nothing but hanging on every word of the LA escapade. There's interest and there's obsession. It takes a special kind of person to do nearly all their posting in the doping forum, discussing basically one case.

Now, why personal attacks from LA defenders? I don't know. I'm sure some of LA's defenders believe he's clean. I'm sure some of them suspect he's dirty and just want to keep his legacy intact. I personally get sick of people who are completely obsessed with the whole case, as I believe it won't have any bearing on the state of doping in cycling today. It's similar to the disdain I have for the fools who sat glued to the Casey Anthony trial, as if it were a life changing verdict...

LA will be found guilty or not, and life will go on. So what?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> I don't care for doping cheats. Contador was caught, he needs to be punished. Ricco was caught, he was (and needs to be further) punished. Mosquera was caught, he needs to be punished. Armstrong was most certainly dirty, and he is most certainly an a-hole. I'm sure he's guilty as hell for tax evasion, fraud, etc etc, and I'm sure all of his victories were won on EPO or some other program. My question now is what do we gain by erasing his name from the '99 tour or proving he cheated. We all know he did, and proving it won't change the future of cycling. I'd much prefer that people spend their time trying to cut down on doping cheats among the young riders that are moving through the junior teams than spending time picking apart a 10 year old tour victory that is essentially meaningless in today's cycling world.
> 
> 
> As to your second question: Just because I don't go around raging about drug cheats doesn't mean I invite them over for tea and cookies.
> ...


I do not see anyone talking about erasing his 99 Tour win as a possibility. Should we ignore that Chris Carmicheal doped the U23 national team when he was a coach because it was in the past? Is it ok to let him work with kids now because that all happened in the past? Is it OK to let guys like Brunyeel and Och work with young riders.....cause all that stuff they did was in the past, right?

I do see that Armstrong was working with Ferrari last year. Transfusion kits were found in 09. If there are witnesses and DNA evidence of doping 09 does he get a pass for this because it happened in the past? Do we give Davide Rebellin get his Olympic medal back or does this "In the past" stuff only apply to Armstrong?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> The past is known already. I've already said that Armstrong was dirty plenty of times. What more are you going to learn from the Novtizky crusade?
> 
> The past is obviously known or we wouldn't have controls like the Biological Passport in place to combat doping in the peloton. So again, what more are you going to learn from Novitzky's crusade?
> 
> ...


Obviously the general public has no idea of what Novitsky was up to until the MSM promulgated this news. If it was so widely known, why was Lance demanding an apology from 60 Minutes?

I've heard that Lance may have used proceeds from his charity to finance his personal traveling expenses. This is unethical and illegal behavior if proven.

I really don't understand why anyone would cast aspersions on interest in something like the Casey Anthony trial or interest in the Lance Armstrong investigation.

If people are interested in these issues isn't that their business? Why should they be subject to labeling and name calling?

I've seen people here speak soberly about the issues and I've seen others talk about the obsession of certain posters and ask posters if they own a bike. I can't understand what that has to do with the matter of doping in cycling. Just sayin.

BTW, I'm very interested in this subject. Do I have to limit my posts here or have to worry about becoming a "special kind of person?"

I take it that you don't think this special kind of person is a good thing?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I do not see anyone talking about erasing his 99 Tour win as a possibility. Should we ignore that Chris Carmicheal doped the U23 national team when he was a coach because it was in the past? Is it ok to let him work with kids now because that all happened in the past? Is it OK to let guys like Brunyeel and Och work with young riders.....cause all that stuff they did was in the past, right?
> 
> I do see that Armstrong was working with Ferrari last year. Transfusion kits were found in 09. If there are witnesses and DNA evidence of doping 09 does he get a pass for this because it happened in the past? Do we give Davide Rebellin get his Olympic medal back or does this "In the past" stuff only apply to Armstrong?


What good does it do when he's retired?

What good does it do when he didn't win anything to take away from him? 

Those are the questions you don't have an answer for and only want to "nail him" because you want to "nail him." About all you're going to do is ban him for 2 years (and who cares, he knows he can't win and won't be back anyway) so what's the point of wasting resources on it?

As for Carmichael, Och, etc: that's what the testing system is for. Even if you remove them from the sport, do you think that will stop people from trying to cheat?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Obviously the general public has no idea of what Novitsky was up to until the MSM promulgated this news. If it was so widely known, why was Lance demanding an apology from 60 Minutes?
> 
> I've heard that Lance may have used proceeds from his charity to finance his personal traveling expenses. This is unethical and illegal behavior if proven.
> 
> ...


Lance asked for an apology from 60 Minutes as a legal strategy, which didn't work. And what does personal travel have to do with his doping?

Why cast aspersions? Because both trials are nothing more than an idiotic media circus. People who become obsessed with these trials are no different than people sitting down to watch soap operas every afternoon at 3. 

Where did I ask if someone owned a bike? I simply pointed out that there are certain posters here who have an unhealthy obsession with sitting around, wringing their hands and praying for Armstrong to be found guilty, or otherwise toppled. Reading some of the obsession, you'd think LA was Hitler reincarnated...

Edited to include your post edit:
I'll say this: I think zealots of any kind are a bad thing, whether they are anti-doping zealots, religious zealots, globalization zealots, left wing zealots, etc etc. Everything in balance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> What good does it do when he's retired?
> 
> What good does it do when he didn't win anything to take away from him?
> 
> ...


So retirement means we ignore everything? We should only sanction winners, not guys that make the podium? Wow. 

You clearly think sanctioning riders, DS', and managers does nothing to influence others to avoid doping. If you talked to any Pro they would say that fear of getting caught is their #1 deterrent. 

Doping is not the sole measure of a person, there are many in the sport who are able to change with the times......but removing chronic offenders/enablers like Bruyneel, Och, Anderson, Gianetti, etc is an important step.

Zealot = anyone who disagrees with you. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> I don't care for doping cheats. Contador was caught, he needs to be punished. Ricco was caught, he was (and needs to be further) punished. Mosquera was caught, he needs to be punished. Armstrong was most certainly dirty, and he is most certainly an a-hole. I'm sure he's guilty as hell for tax evasion, fraud, etc etc, and I'm sure all of his victories were won on EPO or some other program. My question now is what do we gain by erasing his name from the '99 tour or proving he cheated. We all know he did, and proving it won't change the future of cycling. I'd much prefer that people spend their time trying to cut down on doping cheats among the young riders that are moving through the junior teams than spending time picking apart a 10 year old tour victory that is essentially meaningless in today's cycling world.
> 
> 
> As to your second question: Just because I don't go around raging about drug cheats doesn't mean I invite them over for tea and cookies.
> ...


Lance is one of the highest paid salesmen in the world. Surely Anheuser Busch, Nike and others don't acknowledge his possible fraud.

Rightly or wrongly, celebrity endorsers are role models. What does it say that those who are alleged fraudsters are allowed to reap the spoils of that crime?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So retirement means we ignore everything? We should only sanction winners, not guys that make the podium? Wow.
> 
> You clearly think sanctioning riders, DS', and managers does nothing to influence others to avoid doping. If you talked to any Pro they would say that fear of getting caught is their #1 deterrent.
> 
> ...


You're 100% correct: the biggest deterrent of doping is being caught. That's what doping controls do. So spend more time improving the quality of doping controls, detecting cheats and quit spending resources going after people who really don't matter any more (LA.) Gianetti, Bruyneel, Och etc will be neutered by the system: if they dope their riders, the riders will be caught, and then banned. So what's the point of doping riders only to have them banned? 

It all comes back to testing and improving the testing, NOT chasing down the old guard who have retired and gone away. Armstrong's fall, while making you giggly and warm and fuzzy inside, will not stop people from cheating. Expecting that it will is naive.

And FYI:


> zeal·ot   [zel-uht]
> noun
> 1.
> a person who shows zeal.
> ...


Nowhere does it say they have to disagree with me.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Lance is one of the highest paid salesmen in the world. Surely Anheuser Busch, Nike and others don't acknowledge his possible fraud.
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, celebrity endorsers are role models. What does it say that those who are alleged fraudsters are allowed to reap the spoils of that crime?


What about celebs who get drunk and smash up cars? NFL stars that drive over people, kill them and spend a year in jail? Celebs who get busted with coke/heroin/etc etc and get a slap on the wrist?

What does it say that they are allowed to receive endorsements for products despite their legal/moral troubles?

Fraud and cheating is rampant in the world, from sports to Wall Street to government to stealing from the bodega on the corner. Why are people not enraged by the rest of it, but they ARE enraged about LA?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> You're 100% correct: the biggest deterrent of doping is being caught. That's what doping controls do. So spend more time improving the quality of doping controls, detecting cheats and quit spending resources going after people who really don't matter any more (LA.) Gianetti, Bruyneel, Och etc will be neutered by the system: if they dope their riders, the riders will be caught, and then banned. So what's the point of doping riders only to have them banned?
> 
> It all comes back to testing and improving the testing, NOT chasing down the old guard who have retired and gone away. Armstrong's fall, while making you giggly and warm and fuzzy inside, will not stop people from cheating. Expecting that it will is naive.
> 
> ...


It is myopic to think that testing riders is the only way to stop doping. Guys like Gianetti, Bruyneel, Och, have influenced hundreds of riders over the years. Limiting or stopping their influence on another generation of riders would be a huge benefit. 

Pretending that a high profile sanction of Armstrong, Contador, or any other top rider does nothing to stop riders from doping is naive at best. The CERA retro testing had a huge impact, as would a validated plasticzer test. 

All indication is the investigation of Armstrong is part of a much larger investigation into the global distribution and sale of PED's. There were multiple raids of teams and riders this spring, most which were linked with Ferrari. Some like to pretend this is all about Armstrong because he is their guy but it is so far beyond just one rider. For me I would much rather see Verburggen in jail then Armstrong. 

For me a zealot is a person who relentlessly defends a cause with increasingly irrational positions, even though they know it is incorrect


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> What about celebs who get drunk and smash up cars? NFL stars that drive over people, kill them and spend a year in jail? Celebs who get busted with coke/heroin/etc etc and get a slap on the wrist?
> 
> What does it say that they are allowed to receive endorsements for products despite their legal/moral troubles?
> 
> Fraud and cheating is rampant in the world, from sports to Wall Street to government to stealing from the bodega on the corner. Why are people not enraged by the rest of it, but they ARE enraged about LA?


Who says that people aren't enraged by the things you mention? This is a cycling forum though and we are discussing the "heads of state" of the peloton as Paul would say.

BTW, I followed your links and went to your blog and noticed that you say you write for livestrong on occasion.

The Daily Grind Cycling Journal

_He holds a BS in Exercise and Sport Science from Ithaca College and a Doctorate of Chiropractic from New York Chiropractic College. He is in private practice, specializing in sports chiropractic and has been published on Livestrong.com and eHow, lending his expertise in sports, nutrition and physiology._


That in concert with your strong opinions about the "obsessions" and "vendettas" of some posters here is a conflict of interest, no?

In private practice, you market your services to put you in the best light?

oh, hey, nice bikes btw:thumbsup:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> What about celebs who get drunk and smash up cars? NFL stars that drive over people, kill them and spend a year in jail? Celebs who get busted with coke/heroin/etc etc and get a slap on the wrist?
> 
> What does it say that they are allowed to receive endorsements for products despite their legal/moral troubles?
> 
> Fraud and cheating is rampant in the world, from sports to Wall Street to government to stealing from the bodega on the corner. Why are people not enraged by the rest of it, but they ARE enraged about LA?


This is a cycling doping forum, you should not be surprised if you come here and find people talking about the doping of top riders. If you went on a celebrity, NFL, or wall Street forum you will find plenty of people to discuss the topics you mention. 

With the exception of a few people who like to hurl insults at those who question their favorite riders I find few here who would qualify for the "Enraged" label.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Who says that people aren't enraged by the things you mention? This is a cycling forum though and we are discussing the "heads of state" of the peloton as Paul would say.
> 
> BTW, I followed your links and went to your blog and noticed that you say you write for livestrong on occasion.
> 
> ...



How would it be a conflict of interest? I think the guy is guilty and is a moral scumbag, but I have no issue being paid for my work. Are you suggesting that I am forgiving him because I collect a few bucks on the side from his for profit site?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> How would it be a conflict of interest? I think the guy is guilty and is a moral scumbag, but I have no issue being paid for my work. Are you suggesting that I am forgiving him because I collect a few bucks on the side from his for profit site?


You're right, it does seem kind of odd that you're making money from his site and calling him an "a hole" and "scumbag" here.

My financial partnerships with people I called such names didn't last too long.

It does seem to be a kind of mixed message to people who may read your blog who also may not be aware of the allegations against Lance.

You're promoting your contributions to livestrong.com (which people may confuse with the charity) while you acknowledge that Lance may have "achieved" his great success by being less than honest.

You wouldn't promote yourself as a chiropracter with a link to Marion Jones or Jose Canseco, would you?

I also see you have a livestrong bracelet adorning your twitter account.

Twitter


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It is myopic to think that testing riders is the only way to stop doping. Guys like Gianetti, Bruyneel, Och, have influenced hundreds of riders over the years. Limiting or stopping their influence on another generation of riders would be a huge benefit.
> 
> Pretending that a high profile sanction of Armstrong, Contador, or any other top rider does nothing to stop riders from doping is naive at best. The CERA retro testing had a huge impact, as would a validated plasticzer test.
> 
> ...


A high profile sanction of Contador WOULD be a huge victory in anti-doping, because he is still racing and winning. A high profile sanction of Armstrong would be as effective as sanctioning Ullrich, which is pretty ineffective. 

I stated that testing was the biggest way to stop doping, not the only way. You can talk about Gianetti, Och, et al until the cows come home, but the reality of it is that with increased testing, there will be decreased doping, irrespective of who the managers are. If you really want to get to them, increase testing on athletes that are on Saxo Bank, Radioshack, BMC, etc etc and base it on the reputation of the manager. Eventually, riders will either not sign with them or not take chances with their careers. What needs to happen is the riders need to push back against management that tells them to get on a program, and when the threat of being caught is real enough, that will happen.

Again, the future does not lie in correcting mistakes in the past. That doesn't mean we don't know of those mistakes or ignore them, it means we acknowledge them and apply them to the future. I guess the way I see it is that it doesn't matter who is getting busted for it, it's just that they are getting busted and the system is doing it's job. I don't care if it's Li, Colom, Ricco, Contador, Mosquera, Dekker, Pfannberger, etc. If you bust them and put an end to their racing, you set an example that doping will not be tolerated. If you go after them once retired, what good will it do you?


I'm just curious how you feel about guys like Basso and Millar who have been busted and returned to the peloton, outspoken on clean racing? Do people change or do they just lie at every turn?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> You're right, it does seem kind of odd that you're making money from his site and calling him an "a hole" and "scumbag" here.
> 
> My financial partnerships with people I called such names didn't last too long.
> 
> ...


Why wouldn't you? Just because they did something naughty does not mean that every person in their life was also a slimeball. I guess the gentleman who was previously the chiro for the NY Giants is a scumbag for working with Plaxico Burress? 

And your analogy falls flat in that I have no financial partnership with Lance Armstrong. If the editorial staff doesn't like what I write, it doesn't get published, simple as that. You're falsely implying that I have to support the head of an organization if I draw a paycheque from it, and that's incorrect. I know quite a few members of the US military who dislike and disagree with the president but still draw a paycheque from the military. Are they all hypocrites as well? 

I also know quite a few "corporate drones" as they call themselves who still collect their paycheque while complaining how awful the management is...I guess they're all hypocrites too?

Edited:

Yes, I do have a yellow stripe on my twitter account. Does that mean that I have to love and respect LA? 

You have a large problem seeing the world in black and white: either hate everything associated with a person or love it. The world doesn't work that way. I appreciate the support and information that the foundation provided when I had friends and family who suffered with cancer, and I respect that specifically. Whether he drowns baskets of puppies has nothing to do with my opinion of the information and services they offer.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Why wouldn't you? Just because they did something naughty does not mean that every person in their life was also a slimeball. I guess the gentleman who was previously the chiro for the NY Giants is a scumbag for working with Plaxico Burress?
> 
> And your analogy falls flat in that I have no financial partnership with Lance Armstrong. If the editorial staff doesn't like what I write, it doesn't get published, simple as that. You're falsely implying that I have to support the head of an organization if I draw a paycheque from it, and that's incorrect. I know quite a few members of the US military who dislike and disagree with the president but still draw a paycheque from the military. Are they all hypocrites as well?
> 
> I also know quite a few "corporate drones" as they call themselves who still collect their paycheque while complaining how awful the management is...I guess they're all hypocrites too?


I know that I made statements. One of those was that if livestrong knew you were saying the things you're saying about Lance, they might not regard your writing the same way.

I'm also not implying that you have to support anyone.

Disagreeing with someone is a little different than doing what say, McChrystal and his staff did, you'd agree? Your military friends aren't going to call Obama names and then give their name and rank for attribution, are they? I'd bet they might face court martial if they did.

You are apparently supporting livestrong on your blog and on twitter, while you are calling the head of the organization names here.

How do people show support? Wearing a livestrong band may be one way, no?

I just don't understand why you are calling posters here names because they are saying that certain people are dopers and then are providing the facts that back up their case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> A high profile sanction of Contador WOULD be a huge victory in anti-doping, because he is still racing and winning. A high profile sanction of Armstrong would be as effective as sanctioning Ullrich, which is pretty ineffective.
> 
> I stated that testing was the biggest way to stop doping, not the only way. You can talk about Gianetti, Och, et al until the cows come home, but the reality of it is that with increased testing, there will be decreased doping, irrespective of who the managers are. If you really want to get to them, increase testing on athletes that are on Saxo Bank, Radioshack, BMC, etc etc and base it on the reputation of the manager. Eventually, riders will either not sign with them or not take chances with their careers. What needs to happen is the riders need to push back against management that tells them to get on a program, and when the threat of being caught is real enough, that will happen.
> 
> ...


Armstrong raced his bike this year. He owns a Pro Tour team, it is wishful thinking to pretend it would have no effect. The unraveling of the network that supplied the team doping program for years would also be huge

You get a young rider, a neo-Pro, on a team and he is give the "Take the shot or you do not start tomorrow" talk of the "Don't worry, they can't test for it" line from a DS who has had huge success in the sport what do you think he is going to do? The riders bare far too big a burden while the enablers have little skin in the game. 

It appears you missed, or ignored, the part where I wrote that doping is far from the only measure of a person. There are plenty of former dopers, Aldag, Vaughters, Pieper, Holm, who have contributed greatly to changing the sport for the good. As long as you have DS's like Bruyneel, Anderson, LeLange and owners like Armstrong, Riis, Gianetti, and Rihs in the sport you will always have issues....no matter how many riders you bust.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Alberto Contador says he may quit cycling if banned for doping

Contador says he might retire if he is sanction.....darn, now his sanction will have no effect on the sport. As we all know retired riders and stuff that happened in the past means nothing. :thumbsup:


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong raced his bike this year. He owns a Pro Tour team, it is wishful thinking to pretend it would have no effect. The unraveling of the network that supplied the team doping program for years would also be huge
> 
> You get a young rider, a neo-Pro, on a team and he is give the "Take the shot or you do not start tomorrow" talk of the "Don't worry, they can't test for it" line from a DS who has had huge success in the sport what do you think he is going to do? The riders bare far too big a burden while the enablers have little skin in the game.
> 
> It appears you missed, or ignored, the part where I wrote that doping is far from the only measure of a person. There are plenty of former dopers, Aldag, Vaughters, Pieper, Holm, who have contributed greatly to changing the sport for the good. As long as you have DS's like Bruyneel, Anderson, LeLange and owners like Armstrong, Riis, Gianetti, and Rihs in the sport you will always have issues....no matter how many riders you bust.


And that is the Neo-Pro's decision to say yes or no. He knows the risk, and if he folds to that risk am I supposed to feel sorry for him? That's like asking me to feel sorry for the guy who is told to fudge the books at the office or get fired, and then get's caught for money laundering. 

Unless I'm mistaken, the UCI is trying to prevent former dopers from holding team management positions? Do you believe this will cut down on riders doping? 

I think the problem really lies more with human nature and the will to do anything to win than with a couple directors orders. You will always have cheaters, no matter how many riders OR directors you bust. The only way to stop people from cheating is to increase the effectiveness of testing until the detection percentage is extremely high or to make every offense a "one and done" situation (or both.)


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Alberto Contador says he may quit cycling if banned for doping
> 
> Contador says he might retire if he is sanction.....darn, now his sanction will have no effect on the sport. As we all know retired riders and stuff that happened in the past means nothing. :thumbsup:


You're knowingly missing the point.

If he's banned or he quits, he is no longer a part of the sport, and is removed from the sport at the pinnacle of his success. That sends a message that not even the best in the group are safe.

Going after a retiree sitting in an easy chair watching the Tour on TV really doesn't give the peloton much pause.

But you can twist your thinking any way you want, that's up to you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> You're knowingly missing the point.
> 
> If he's banned or he quits, he is no longer a part of the sport, and is removed from the sport at the pinnacle of his success. *That sends a message that not even the best in the group are safe.*
> 
> ...


It appears you missed your own point. you can twist your thinking any way you want, that's up to you. 

Armstrong was supposed to race Colorado this year but retired suddenly a few months ago.....surely the investigation (or a non-analytical positive) had nothing to do with it, he just wanted some easy chair time


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> And that is the Neo-Pro's decision to say yes or no. He knows the risk, and if he folds to that risk am I supposed to feel sorry for him? That's like asking me to feel sorry for the guy who is told to fudge the books at the office or get fired, and then get's caught for money laundering.
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, the UCI is trying to prevent former dopers from holding team management positions? Do you believe this will cut down on riders doping?
> 
> I think the problem really lies more with human nature and the will to do anything to win than with a couple directors orders. You will always have cheaters, no matter how many riders OR directors you bust. The only way to stop people from cheating is to increase the effectiveness of testing until the detection percentage is extremely high or to make every offense a "one and done" situation (or both.)


As has been demonstrated repeatedly. The corrupt UCI is incapable of policing cycling. The only proven effective method to stop cheating is for outside LE agencies to step in.

Why do you focus on only part of the problem and give everyone else a free pass?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> And that is the Neo-Pro's decision to say yes or no. He knows the risk, and if he folds to that risk am I supposed to feel sorry for him? That's like asking me to feel sorry for the guy who is told to fudge the books at the office or get fired, and then get's caught for money laundering.
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, the UCI is trying to prevent former dopers from holding team management positions? Do you believe this will cut down on riders doping?
> 
> I think the problem really lies more with human nature and the will to do anything to win than with a couple directors orders. You will always have cheaters, no matter how many riders OR directors you bust. The only way to stop people from cheating is to increase the effectiveness of testing until the detection percentage is extremely high or to make every offense a "one and done" situation (or both.)


Not asking you to feel sorry, asking you to understand that riders are not the only element in the sport that fuels doping. 

Don't hold your breath on the UCI banning managers, that was just an attempt to get JV and Johann to stop hassling them.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Novitzky's crusade*



robdamanii said:


> I don't care for doping cheats. Contador was caught, he needs to be punished. Ricco was caught, he was (and needs to be further) punished. Mosquera was caught, he needs to be punished. Armstrong was most certainly dirty, and he is most certainly an a-hole. * I'm sure he's guilty as hell for tax evasion, fraud, etc etc, and I'm sure all of his victories were won on EPO or some *other program. My question now is what do we gain by erasing his name from the '99 tour or proving he cheated. We all know he did, and proving it won't change the future of cycling. I'd much prefer that people spend their time trying to cut down on doping cheats among the young riders that are moving through the junior teams than spending time picking apart a 10 year old tour victory that is essentially meaningless in today's cycling world.
> 
> 
> As to your second question: Just because I don't go around raging about drug cheats doesn't mean I invite them over for tea and cookies.
> ...


the investigation may be able to recover some of Lance's ill gotten fortune, no? When someone is selling themselves as a super hero and then evading taxes, this doesn't affect you?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It appears you missed your own point. you can twist your thinking any way you want, that's up to you.
> 
> Armstrong was supposed to race Colorado this year but retired suddenly a few months ago.....surely the investigation (or a non-analytical positive) had nothing to do with it, he just wanted some easy chair time


Missed the twisted point that you believe bringing down Armstrong and Bruyneel will clean up cycling? Armstrong is far from the pinnacle of his career right now, unlike Alberto. The effect of banning Alberto today is far greater than Armstrong. Ban LA and Alberto in 2004, and Armstrong's sanction would have a far greater effect on the sport. You can claim otherwise all you want, but the simple fact remains that most of the peloton isn't going to care one way or another if LA gets a "post retirement ban" since he's no longer racing but they certainly will take notice if AC gets banned for the next two years.

As for the UCI being unable to handle doping (or anything really,) I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I don't believe that it's a good use of governmental resources to prosecute doping cyclists (not to mention the issue of governmental favoritism, as is the case with AC.) 

And finally, I realize there are outside influences that affect rider's decisions to dope. I do not believe removing the outside influences will cut down drug use in the peloton significantly, because ultimately, it is the rider's decision to say yes or no, not the director or doctor. If people want to be successful without artificial help, then they should be seeking out teams that share that philosophy. If they have the will to dope, then a director or doctor will simply provide the way. Eliminating some of the ways will not reduce the will.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> the investigation may be able to recover some of Lance's ill gotten fortune, no? When someone is selling themselves as a super hero and then evading taxes, this doesn't affect you?


I frankly don't care if they sell themselves as a super hero, since I stopped believing in them when I was 12. I'm a little more concerned and affected by companies and multi-billionaires evading tax bills that are equal to or greater than the complete value of Armstrong's fortune.

If only Novitzky would spend his efforts rooting out the corruption on Wall Street...to think what could have been.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Missed the twisted point that you believe bringing down Armstrong and Bruyneel will clean up cycling? Armstrong is far from the pinnacle of his career right now, unlike Alberto. The effect of banning Alberto today is far greater than Armstrong. Ban LA and Alberto in 2004, and Armstrong's sanction would have a far greater effect on the sport. You can claim otherwise all you want, but the simple fact remains that most of the peloton isn't going to care one way or another if LA gets a "post retirement ban" since he's no longer racing but they certainly will take notice if AC gets banned for the next two years.
> 
> As for the UCI being unable to handle doping (or anything really,) I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I don't believe that it's a good use of governmental resources to prosecute doping cyclists (not to mention the issue of governmental favoritism, as is the case with AC.)
> 
> And finally, I realize there are outside influences that affect rider's decisions to dope. I do not believe removing the outside influences will cut down drug use in the peloton significantly, because ultimately, it is the rider's decision to say yes or no, not the director or doctor. If people want to be successful without artificial help, then they should be seeking out teams that share that philosophy. If they have the will to dope, then a director or doctor will simply provide the way. Eliminating some of the ways will not reduce the will.


You apparently spend no time with the "Peloton" I spend a large part of my time in Europe and know many riders, staff, journalist and sponsor reps. Because I am American the first thing they ask about is what is up with the Armstrong case. Of course you would call them zealots but the fact is Armstrong and Bruyneel are still huge names in the sport. You are welcome to pretend it will not be big....but that is far from true. 

FYI, Novitzky works for the FDA, he has nothing to do with investigating Wall Street. He is also no in charge of the case, Doug Miller is. Jeff is only one of multiple investigators from the FBI, IRS, and other agencies investigating Lance and his buddies.......yeah, yeah, we know they are all just zealots on a witch hunt wasting taxpayer money


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You apparently spend no time with the "Peloton" I spend a large part of my time in Europe and know many riders, staff, journalist and sponsor reps. Because I am American the first thing they ask about is what is up with the Armstrong case. Of course you would call them zealots but the fact is Armstrong and Bruyneel are still huge names in the sport. You are welcome to pretend it will not be big....but that is far from true.
> 
> FYI, Novitzky works for the FDA, he has nothing to do with investigating Wall Street. He is also no in charge of the case, Doug Miller is. Jeff is only one of multiple investigators from the FBI, IRS, and other agencies investigating Lance and his buddies.......yeah, yeah, we know they are all just zealots on a witch hunt wasting taxpayer money


We'll just have to see if doping disappears once LA and Bruyneel are out of the sport. 

And I know Novitzky is FDA. But for the money spent, they damn well better recoup more than the costs of the investigation, otherwise it's just another example of government waste. Similar to paying $5000 for a toilet seat...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> We'll just have to see if doping disappears once LA and Bruyneel are out of the sport.
> 
> And I know Novitzky is FDA. But for the money spent, they damn well better recoup more than the costs of the investigation, otherwise it's just another example of government waste. Similar to paying $5000 for a toilet seat...


Who is saying doping is going to disappear? It would certainly send a message that nobody is above the sport but people will still cheat. 

How large does the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does this exception from investigation apply to all rich and famous people or just Lance?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Who is saying doping is going to disappear? It would certainly send a message that nobody is above the sport but people will still cheat.
> 
> How large does the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? Does this exception from investigation apply to all rich and famous people or just Lance?


Apparently most ultra rich are above the law already. Doesn't make it right, just makes it how it is.

As I stated before: the minute amount of money that may be recovered holds no candle to the people and corporations who evade taxes in the billions of dollars. 

Forgive me if I feel our government should be responsible and focusing its attention elsewhere...


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Apparently most ultra rich are above the law already. Doesn't make it right, just makes it how it is.
> 
> As I stated before: the minute amount of money that may be recovered holds no candle to the people and corporations who evade taxes in the billions of dollars.
> 
> Forgive me if I feel our government should be responsible and focusing its attention elsewhere...


According to you, it's how it is.

Novitsky is changing that. It seems to be that according to you, if alleged criminals make it difficult to detect and prosecute their crime, it shouldn't be prosecuted???

The cost of detection and prosecution would be a lot less, if the criminals didn't work so hard to cover up their crimes.

Then when zealous people are needed to arrest the wave of fraud, you criticize the rigorous way the authorities do their jobs?

Fans who are deceived have no right to demand honesty from their "heroes?"

Although atheletes aren't heroes of mine, someone is paying them a boatload of cash for their status.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> According to you, it's how it is.
> 
> Novitsky is changing that. It seems to be that according to you, if alleged criminals make it difficult to detect and prosecute their crime, it shouldn't be prosecuted???
> 
> ...


Fans who think their "heros" are infallible are stupid. Everyone has faults, some run incredibly deep.

I'm saying the cost of detection and prosecution are only justified if the return on investment is good. If Novitzky wastes a million dollars overall, he'd better be taking in 10 million in fines and settlements. If not, he's wasting a fair amount of tax dollars that could be going to investigate people or corporations who aren't paying their billions in taxes.

The bottom line is when the country is as f**ked up as it is, this investigation should be the last thing people are focused on. But because people call LA a "hero" or a "villain" it's become a soap opera of stupid.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Fans who think their "heros" are infallible are stupid. Everyone has faults, some run incredibly deep.
> 
> I'm saying the cost of detection and prosecution are only justified if the return on investment is good. If Novitzky wastes a million dollars overall, he'd better be taking in 10 million in fines and settlements. If not, he's wasting a fair amount of tax dollars that could be going to investigate people or corporations who aren't paying their billions in taxes.
> 
> The bottom line is when the country is as f**ked up as it is, this investigation should be the last thing people are focused on. But because people call LA a "hero" or a "villain" it's become a soap opera of stupid.


Law enforcement determines which cases they are going to investigate by ROI? As Doctor Falsetti pointed out, Novitzky isn't even leading this investigation and the FDA is only one of many agencies in the US and abroad involved.

Gatorback seemed to be an expert in some of these things and I don't recall him saying that your prioritization of criminal investigations is the way things are done in the real world. He actually seemed dismissive of many of these ideas you are now advancing.

Whether you think LA is a "hero" or not, many people do hold him in high regard and he's paid accordingly as a salesman.

At the same time you do tout your position as a livestrong.com contributor hoping for some positive marketing/PR spin?

BTW, for someone who is critical of the "Zealots" who are prosecuting LA, you spend an awful lot of time here in your zealous defense of the idea that the whole thing doesn't matter.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Apparently most ultra rich are above the law already. Doesn't make it right, just makes it how it is.
> 
> As I stated before: the minute amount of money that may be recovered holds no candle to the people and corporations who evade taxes in the billions of dollars.
> 
> Forgive me if I feel our government should be responsible and focusing its attention elsewhere...


I'll ask again, how large does the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? If the only measurement of the validity of an investigation the $$$ recovered then the vast majority of crimes would be ignored. 

Most people with even a passing knowledge of the law understand that ROI is seldom the primary motivator behind prosecution of a crime.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> BTW, for someone who is critical of the "Zealots" who are prosecuting LA, you spend an awful lot of time here in your zealous defense of the idea that the whole thing doesn't matter.


Yet how many posts do you have outside doping? 

That's what I thought.

The whole LA "lied and cheated" schtick is old and tired. There's plenty of evidence that he's cheated, plenty that he's lied. It's not up to the government to determine his viability to sponsors, but it's up to the sponsor themselves, or the fans who idolize him. The grand jury is supposedly investigating issues related to US Postal (a government organization, last time I checked) and my point is they had damn well better make something of it, otherwise there's going to be a big question mark as to the validity of the investigation.

You're arguing the point that he should be prosecuted. I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, only in practice. There's nothing to be gained by cycling from a federal prosecution, and there's little to be gained (except reimbursement of mis-managed funds) materially by the US government. The bottom line is I fail to see what there is to gain by the whole investigation, other than personal glory or confirmation of cheating that we already know took place, or that corruption in cycling and governing bodies was/is rampant. If you really need proof that to sleep at night, then I can't change your opinion. I personally think the resources involved could certainly be better spent elsewhere.

That, and since it's supposed to be a grand jury matter, everyone ought to simply shut up about it and let the grand jury do it's job, instead of plugging their sob story on every media outlet that will listen. It was tiring with OJ, tiring with Casey Anthony, and tiring with LA. But people love drama, and that's what sells papers, magazines and drives TV ratings, so I guess we just have to live with it.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I'll ask again, how large does the crime have to be for it to be OK to investigate? If the only measurement of the validity of an investigation the $$$ recovered then the vast majority of crimes would be ignored.
> 
> Most people with even a passing knowledge of the law understand that ROI is seldom the primary motivator behind prosecution of a crime.


Gee, I never once figured that ROI wasn't a primary reason to prosecute something. Thanks for the info, professor. 

You can prosecute a crime without wasting tax dollars. Having the FBI, the FDA, etc etc working on this is a waste of manpower and money, and you know it. You'll refuse to admit it, of course, but that doesn't change anything except in your own little world. For the amount of time, money and press spent on this case, you would think they were trying to put together a case on a serial killer. Last I checked, nobody was dead and LA wasn't a public menace or "armed and extremely dangerous."


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Reading back through this thread and I realized something. Yet again it's happened....EVERY thread in doping devolves into LA garbage.... propagated by a certain few who just can't resist a chance to repeat the same old tired arguments over and over again.

Enough. 

Contador will be banned, his '10 Tour title will be gone, and he'll return in a year, a shadow of his former self. Too bad he was allowed to race the Giro and Tour, but it's now up to CAS to determine if he truly wins the Giro and keeps his Tour placing.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Yet how many posts do you have outside doping?
> 
> That's what I thought.
> 
> ...


I'm not the one who said it's unimportant, YOU ARE.

How do you measure Justice? You're the one who keeps putting a monetary value on it. 

You've made your point ad nauseum that you think it's a waste of time to go after LA and no wonder, you have some kind of vested interest in him. You punctuated that point by tossing insults the way of people who want to discuss doping, which is what this forum is about.

I didn't bring up Lance and neither did Falsetti. That was done by one of the name callers who said LA couldn't get away with what they mistakenly thought TV got away with.

Now that it's apparently accepted wisdom that LA doped there are all other kinds of excuses for not uncovering his cheating.

Were you one of the people in the past who was arguing LA was clean as a whistle?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

DMFT said:


> - What I have a BIGGER problem with Silas is NOBODY in this forum has an issue with TV NOT being tested directly after the stage, being allowed into a newspaper car and driven some time down a mountain. What "if" that was mmmmm, say *Lance*???
> There would be thread after thread about it from the usual suspects..........
> 
> Let's call an ace an ace & a spade, a spade.
> ...





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have a link to support your claim that Tom V was not tested after the stage?
> 
> It is very common for the Yellow jersey winner to ride in a ASO/l'Equipe vehicle after a stage, in fact it is part of being a jersey wearer. Part of the deal after each stage is the Yellow jersey is interviewed in a temporary studio by French 2 Television for their L'après-Tour show. In *2004 Armstrong* said he would come on, as long as they provided him transportation to his hotel via Helicopter after the interview. It was a smart deal, French TV had Armstrong on almost every day (He speaks French surprisingly well) and Armstrong often would beat his team back to the hotel, all for a 5 minute interview.
> 
> Since then this has become a tradition. Riders actually lobby to be in the studio for the interviews on the mountain stages as they know they can be at their hotel an hour or more prior to their teammates. There is zero space on the top of the Galbier so it is likely the testing and studio were down the other side of the Mountain in Valliore.





DMFT said:


> - You should re-read what I wrote before posting "Dr.". I have always heard/read articles stating the opposite somewhat... The Jersey and random others are chaparoned to medical post-stage, then the podium and a buncha media after.
> 
> Of course you have all the facts though and they're generally formed around Lance as usual. In fact, contrary to your statement that *Lance* beat his team back to the hotel (i'm not saying it's "never" happened either, just doubt it highly), I've seen interviews w/Lance and OTHER riders stating the winning of a stage equals a very late night for the rider due to all of the various media that they are interviewed by and they often eat late without their team.....
> 
> You are correct about one thing though......There's not much room atop the Galibier.





robdamanii said:


> Reading back through this thread and I realized something. Yet again it's happened....EVERY thread in doping devolves into* LA *garbage.... propagated by a certain few who just can't resist a chance to repeat the same old tired arguments over and over again.
> 
> Enough.
> 
> Contador will be banned, his '10 Tour title will be gone, and he'll return in a year, a shadow of his former self. Too bad he was allowed to race the Giro and Tour, but it's now up to CAS to determine if he truly wins the Giro and keeps his Tour placing.


Your anger is misplaced.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> Your anger is misplaced.


Not really. I'm as guilty as you and everyone else who takes Falsetti's troll bait in every doping thread out there.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

robdamanii said:


> Not really. I'm as guilty as you and everyone else who takes Falsetti's troll bait in every doping thread out there.


He's talking about doping in cycling. Why the insults?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Chris-X said:


> He's talking about doping in cycling. Why the insults?


You sound like his wife.

Every thread he appears in devolved in some way into LA discussion. I expect he logs in, searched for "lance" and lets fly.

I'm done feeding you trolls.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Not really. I'm as guilty as you and everyone else who takes Falsetti's troll bait in every doping thread out there.


Yeah, we get it. Anyone who does not agree with you is a troll and a zealot. 

Got it:thumbsup:


----------

