# Has Hincapie ever been questioned....



## dasho (Apr 8, 2002)

about the accusations against Lance?

I have no opinion of the charges - it amazes me that Lance had over 500 tests for dope and was never caught - hard to believe 

On the other hand, many of his teammates have come out and said Lance did in fact dope but George, who it seems is honest, hasn't said more than he thinks these accusations hurt cycling.K

I'm just curious if he has been cornered about all this and if not, why?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

dasho said:


> about the accusations against Lance?
> 
> I have no opinion of the charges - it amazes me that Lance had over 500 tests for dope and was never caught - hard to believe


What is hard to believe is the number 500. That's just another Armstrong lie.

Armstrong is not even the most tested cyclist in the U.S. with the last name of Armstrong. Kristen Armstrong has been tested more times than him.

Take eighty or so tests in the TdF, the infrequent OOC testing that was done prior to the bio passport, the OOC tests in America, and the real number is probably about 150.

According to 60 Minutes, Hincapie confessed to the feds and implicated Armstrong in trafficking. All his statements to the press after that show aired have been of the looking forward, don't want to concentrate on the past, just here doing my job type of comment.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm starting to think Lance counts each test separately. As in, if one sample was tested for a dozen substances, well, that's a dozen test in his mind. If that sample is retested, then that's 24 tests done on one blood draw.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

dasho said:


> about the accusations against Lance?
> 
> I have no opinion of the charges - it amazes me that Lance had over 500 tests for dope and was never caught - hard to believe
> 
> ...


George volunteered to talk with both the Feds and USADA

Lets not pretend Lance never doped. it started early with Chris Carmicheal and Cortisone. It is no surprise that Armstrong, Ernie Lachuga, Greg Strock, and Erich Kaiter all came down with illness strongly linked to Cortisone use. Strock and Kaiter eventually reached a financial settlement with Carmicheal
and won their lawsuit with USAC

Strock Speaks

Six years later, Strock case comes to court

During the 90's Armstrong had multiple adverse testosterone ratios,
which were ignored by USA cycling

"a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1
from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have
a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was
considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio
was lowered to 4.0-to-1."

Sports Illustrated*reports*new information on Lance Armstrong - More Sports - SI.com

Anyone who knows about cancer knows that Lance's Hcg levels would have been elevated, but never showed up in any UCI tests. Wonder why?

In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright. Thanks UCI :thumbsup:

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis. Floyd was 11:1 and well in excess of the 4:1 threshold level

Of course there are also the 1999 samples that tested positive for EPO
Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events

Then there was the positive for EPO a the 2001 Tour de Swiss that was ignored up by the UCI in exchange for a nice "Donation"

USADA said that Armstrong blood showed clear signs of manipulation. This during the same period the UCI ignore 5 Biopassport positives

Anti-Doping Officials Step Up Cycling Oversight - WSJ.com

Lastly he has not passed "500 Tests" This was an invention by his media team. You can go on the USDA website and see that he was tested 29 times in the last 12 years and add this to the 83 times he was tested in France and it comes nowhere close to 500 test.

After decades of doping it is good to seen that someone is finally doing something


----------



## dasho (Apr 8, 2002)

If George talked with both the Feds and USADA, what did he tell them?

Shouldn't he be suspect also since it seems that most, if not all, of his team admitted to doping?


----------



## Imaking20 (Mar 2, 2012)

trailrunner68 said:


> What is hard to believe is the number 500. That's just another Armstrong lie.
> 
> Armstrong is not even the most tested cyclist in the U.S. with the last name of Armstrong. Kristen Armstrong has been tested more times than him.
> 
> ...


It freaking blows my mind how people can speak with such certainty as you do here - were YOU physically present for any of this?

What's your proof 500 is a lie?

What's your proof that Kristen is/was tested more?

Only 80 tests in all of the TdF combined for Lance? Really? And if that took place over the course of a 3 week race and he was subject to testing 52 weeks out of the year - do you see how that could add up? Afterall, the suspicion of Lance isn't new.

George also denies making those comments to 60 minutes. Weird.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> During the 90's Armstrong had multiple adverse testosterone ratios,
> which were ignored by USA cycling
> 
> "a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1
> ...


And it's sickening to see how intensely people are focused on the past. It's also nearly impossible to elevate respect for a thing when people are constantly bad-mouthing it's participants. Like attracts like.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Imaking20 said:


> It freaking blows my mind how people can speak with such certainty as you do here - were YOU physically present for any of this?
> 
> What's your proof 500 is a lie?


Because it is a lie, an outrageous one that grossly exaggerates the number of times he was tested. Where is your proof that the number is 500 other than Armstrong, a known liar, keeps saying it? 



Imaking20 said:


> What's your proof that Kristen is/was tested more?


You can look up the stats on the USADA website. You don't have to believe me. Go do it yourself.



Imaking20 said:


> Only 80 tests in all of the TdF combined for Lance? Really? And if that took place over the course of a 3 week race and he was subject to testing 52 weeks out of the year - do you see how that could add up? Afterall, the suspicion of Lance isn't new.


This is the number of times Armstrong was tested for his first six TdF "wins":

1999: 15 urine teste
2000 : 12 urine tests
2001 : 10 urine tests
2002 : 9 urine tests
2003 : 9 urine tests
2004 : 8 urine tests. 1 blood test.

That adds up to a whopping 64 tests in six Tours. There was very very little OOC testing in the 1999 - 2005 time frame. It is fair to estimate that his total TdF tests are about 80. Add in tests from other races and OOC tests, and the total will be around 150. Certainly it is less than 200. 

Armstrong's story that he is the most tested athlete ever, or even most tested cyclist, is a crock. He never raced enough to be tested the most. A rider like Zabel was tested much more than Armstrong. Zabel had more than 200 career wins.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Imaking20 said:


> And it's sickening to see how intensely people are focused on the past. It's also nearly impossible to elevate respect for a thing when people are constantly bad-mouthing it's participants. Like attracts like.


Got anything substantive? You know, something other than attacking posters whose opinions you do not want to accept.

The way forward is exposing the past so the same mistakes are not made. Riders like Hesjedal, assuming he won the Giro clean, should not have their accomplishments tarnished by being lumped in with those of cheaters like Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

dasho said:


> If George talked with both the Feds and USADA, what did he tell them?
> 
> Shouldn't he be suspect also since it seems that most, if not all, of his team admitted to doping?


I hoping that in the arbitration process we'll get to hear all about it.

Of course Hincapie doped too.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Imaking20 said:


> And it's sickening to see how intensely people are focused on the past. It's also nearly impossible to elevate respect for a thing when people are constantly bad-mouthing it's participants. Like attracts like.


Past? Did you read the USADA letter? 

Bruyneel, Armstrong, Celya, Del Moral, Ferrari, and Marti are all currently actively employed in professional sport. Most think that removing this toxic element from the sport is a good thing


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Imaking20 said:


> George also denies making those comments to 60 minutes. Weird.
> 
> And it's sickening to see how intensely people are focused on the past.


60 Minutes never claimed that George spoke to them. George knows that 60 Minutes isn't claiming they spoke to him.

60 Minutes reported that George had spoken to investigators. What do you think about George's deceptiveness when speaking to the media?

Sickening? Really? How are you going to feel when the full extent of this whole thing comes out? Because it will be worse than you can imagine.


----------



## RRRoubaix (Aug 27, 2008)

Chris-X said:


> ...Sickening? Really? How are you going to feel when the full extent of this whole thing comes out? Because it will be worse than you can imagine.


That's exactly what I'm worried about- how this is going to negatively impact cycling.


(Maybe Lance can take down the UCI with him as he falls?)


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

RRRoubaix said:


> That's exactly what I'm worried about- how this is going to negatively impact cycling.
> 
> 
> (Maybe Lance can take down the UCI with him as he falls?)


If the UCI goes down then that will be a good thing. That would improve the sport dramatically.

I don't think it will hurt cycling that much. Armstrong is part of a dark era that current pros and management want to move beyond. Speaking truthfully about the past while explaining how the environment has improved will help. As it is now, they have to tout the improvements while being vague and sometimes outright dishonest about what happened before. This causes a credibility problem. It is hard to believe someone's statements about a clean Hesjedal GT win while knowing that they have made outrageous statements defending Armstrong.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Your opinion is this is not going to hurt cycling.

TOF has no 1st, 2ed, 3rd GC for 7 yrs. Well respected manager is kicked out of the sport, (he seems to get sponsors to support him, maybe DF can help with what the other team managers think of him), doctors and staff of major team are kicked out, largest market (USA) outside of China for cycling losing its past hero (LA) todays heros (GH, CVV, LL, TD, possible CH) casting speculation on future heros (Dugen, Phinney, TVG, Farrar or any other upcoming US rider successes) two of the largest bike companies in the world injecting sponsor $ into all the teams associated with this case, one of which said to have supplied bikes unknowingly sold by the team to fund illegal program, all deeds done to win races for sponsor $$$ keeping cycling alive (didn't the Tour of Gila almost go under until LA decided to have SRAM support it).
As Seth Myers would say on weekend update.... REALLY


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

SicBith said:


> TOF has no 1st, 2ed, 3rd GC for 7 yrs.


Pure speculation at this point. Chances are, if convicted of doping, may have an asterisk put next to his name, like Bjarne Riis in 1996.
May only end up loosing 2004 or 2005. Very costly for him.



SicBith said:


> Well respected manager is kicked out of the sport, (he seems to get sponsors to support him,


Are we talking about Johan? Well respected? By whom?
As for the sponsors, when tailwind sports folded, it was Kazakh oil money that asked him to join. That was Vino's team. Nothing to do with JB. We all saw how he treated the number one stage racer at the time, when Lance decided to come back. Then it was Lance, the business man who brought in Radio Shack. Doubt it had much to do with Johan.



SicBith said:


> maybe DF can help with what the other team managers think of him), doctors and staff of major team are kicked out, largest market (USA) outside of China for cycling losing its past hero (LA) todays heros (GH, CVV, LL, TD, possible CH) casting speculation on future heros (Dugen, Phinney, TVG, Farrar or any other upcoming US rider successes) two of the largest bike companies in the world injecting sponsor $ into all the teams associated with this case, one of which said to have supplied bikes unknowingly sold by the team to fund illegal program, all deeds done to win races for sponsor $$$ keeping cycling alive (didn't the Tour of Gila almost go under until LA decided to have SRAM support it).


You unfortunately seem to have very little faith in cycling if you think that Lance's and Johan's downfall will put an end to the sport in the US. That is making a couple of characters bigger than the sport itself.
It seems that Jonathan Vaughters doesn't have a problem with sponsors, despite not being as successful as Johan used to be.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Your opinion is this is not going to hurt cycling.
> 
> TOF has no 1st, 2ed, 3rd GC for 7 yrs. Well respected manager is kicked out of the sport, (he seems to get sponsors to support him, maybe DF can help with what the other team managers think of him), doctors and staff of major team are kicked out, largest market (USA) outside of China for cycling losing its past hero (LA) todays heros (GH, CVV, LL, TD, possible CH) casting speculation on future heros (Dugen, Phinney, TVG, Farrar or any other upcoming US rider successes) two of the largest bike companies in the world injecting sponsor $ into all the teams associated with this case, one of which said to have supplied bikes unknowingly sold by the team to fund illegal program, all deeds done to win races for sponsor $$$ keeping cycling alive (didn't the Tour of Gila almost go under until LA decided to have SRAM support it).
> As Seth Myers would say on weekend update.... REALLY


Bruyneel is not respected, he has always been considered a weirdo. The sport will not miss him or his doctor buddies. 

Even the casual fan knows Lance is a doper. It will surprise some Lance fans but cycling fans will shrug their shoulders and look forward as Lance and his buddies sink rapidly into irrelevance.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

SicBith said:


> one of which said to have supplied bikes unknowingly sold by the team to fund illegal program,


Kinda funny how one of the charges Trek leveled at LeMond was that he was selling bikes from Trek and undercutting dealers.

Trek did know that their team bikes were being sold on ebay well before the LeMond/Trek lawsuit because Floyd brought it up. He's a Pro and he can't get a new bike!:lol:

Trek made a big marketing choice. They may pay a price for it. Will the Madone be renamed when Armstrong loses his 7 titles? Maybe they'll go back to the 5200 to the 7000 something for their flagship race bikes? I'll bet they're thinking about that right now.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Your opinion is this is not going to hurt cycling.
> 
> TOF has no 1st, 2ed, 3rd GC for 7 yrs. Well respected manager is kicked out of the sport, (he seems to get sponsors to support him, maybe DF can help with what the other team managers think of him), doctors and staff of major team are kicked out, largest market (USA) outside of China for cycling losing its past hero (LA) todays heros (GH, CVV, LL, TD, possible CH) casting speculation on future heros (Dugen, Phinney, TVG, Farrar or any other upcoming US rider successes) two of the largest bike companies in the world injecting sponsor $ into all the teams associated with this case, one of which said to have supplied bikes unknowingly sold by the team to fund illegal program, all deeds done to win races for sponsor $$$ keeping cycling alive (didn't the Tour of Gila almost go under until LA decided to have SRAM support it).
> As Seth Myers would say on weekend update.... REALLY


Yeah, really. Cycling in the U.S. is a recreational sport for middle aged yuppies who want confirmation that they still have it. They don't race. USA Cycling's membership numbers are about 70,000. Take out the mountain bikers and the guys who race once or twice a season, and there are like 30,000 active racers. There is a bit of casual watching of the Tour de France by the recreational crowd, but none of those guys will stop cycling because Lancey-Poo finally pays for cheating. The average American cyclist has no clue who Timmy Duggan is.

Trek and Specialized won't stop sponsoring pro bike racing. Being part of the World Tour props up the huge gross margins the big companies charge on their frames. Without it they are little different than a toolbag who slaps a snazzy brand name on cheap Asian carbon frames and sell them for a markup. They have to sponsor pro cycling or their high end marketshare will be taken by companies that do.

I don't really care if a "respected" team manager who ran a doping program is kicked to the curb. I also don't care if the doctors and staff who helped him are left unemployed. That is a good thing. In fact that is the best result that could happen from taking Armstrong down.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> Yeah, really. Cycling in the U.S. is a recreational sport for middle aged yuppies who want confirmation that they still have it. They don't race. USA Cycling's membership numbers are about 70,000. Take out the mountain bikers and the guys who race once or twice a season, and there are like 30,000 active racers. There is a bit of casual watching of the Tour de France by the recreational crowd, but none of those guys will stop cycling because Lancey-Poo finally pays for cheating. The average American cyclist has no clue who Timmy Duggan is.
> 
> Trek and Specialized won't stop sponsoring pro bike racing. Being part of the World Tour props up the huge gross margins the big companies charge on their frames. Without it they are little different than a toolbag who slaps a snazzy brand name on cheap Asian carbon frames and sell them for a markup. They have to sponsor pro cycling or their high end marketshare will be taken by companies that do.
> 
> I don't really care if a "respected" team manager who ran a doping program is kicked to the curb. I also don't care if the doctors and staff who helped him are left unemployed. That is a good thing. In fact that is the best result that could happen from taking Armstrong down.


By the sounds of it DF claims Johan's rep is not as repsected as I assumed a guy with his record would be. As I said I defer to DF on that. 
Your numbers are sounding like Lance's, fabricated to suit your arugument. I would bet 70% of Boulder know who Timmy Duggen is. I would also suspect 85% of bike shop employees know who Timmy Duggen is, if you're a Cannodale dealer 100% of your shop know who Timmy Duggen is. If he blows up the Pro Cycling Challenge 60% of CO. will know him. As this case blows up over the next month you'll see news media shows comparing LA to our new group of racers and even more will know the future of USA cycling. Some will be a little more educated on doping in cycling, some will jump to the conclusion that everyone dopes in cycling. 
I don't race, never have and most likely never will, so to assume every bike rider who is not registered with USA Cycling is ignorant of the culture of cycling and its promising riders is naive at best.
I'll break down the action sports industry as simple as I can for you. Product sales drive marketing, R&D, sponsorship and keep the lights on at the office. When those $ fall so does everything else. Simple as that. Those huge margins they have on their high end frames are not what you think they are. They make their money selling accessories just like most bike shops do. (if you want to be a Trek or S dealer you must buy a certain % of your order in accessories) Both Trek and S have dirt sales which can subsidize road when those sales lag and vice versa this is fortunate for them as road sales in the US might slip a little bit. I don't recall saying T or S would stop sponsoring racing, but they might adjust their levels of sponsorship dollars to keep their budgets inline. 
Unlike the tag line of any marketing is good marketing, none of this USADA case will be good marketing for cycling. There will be a retraction on sponsorship dollars as companies look at the current economic environment and where their limited marketing $ will be spent. I for one would be surprise if Radio Shack continues to sponsor a team.

A case this big and far reaching will not be good for cycling.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Your numbers are sounding like Lance's, fabricated to suit your arugument. I would bet 70% of Boulder know who Timmy Duggen is. I would also suspect 85% of bike shop employees know who Timmy Duggen is, if you're a Cannodale dealer 100% of your shop know who Timmy Duggen is. If he blows up the Pro Cycling Challenge 60% of CO. will know him.


He is so well known that you don't even know how to spell his name. 

Who cares what a few shop rats or people in Boulder know. The wide market is cyclist who ride for fun and do a few centuries a year, maybe even just one century. Armstrong going down has zero significance to them. They won't stop riding. They won't stop buying bikes.



SicBith said:


> I'll break down the action sports industry as simple as I can for you. Product sales drive marketing, R&D, sponsorship and keep the lights on at the office. When those $ fall so does everything else. Simple as that. Those huge margins they have on their high end frames are not what you think they are. They make their money selling accessories just like most bike shops do. (if you want to be a Trek or S dealer you must buy a certain % of your order in accessories) Both Trek and S have dirt sales which can subsidize road when those sales lag and vice versa this is fortunate for them as road sales in the US might slip a little bit. I don't recall saying T or S would stop sponsoring racing, but they might adjust their levels of sponsorship dollars to keep their budgets inline.


Again. Zero relevance for Armstrong getting caught. With no-name carbon and other cheap Asian imports lapping at their heels, the big companies have to continue to spend on sponsorship to separate themselves from the low cost utilitarian versions of their products.

The sport--and you in your own words in previous posts--has moved on to the "it's all in the past" phase of excuses. Everyone in pro cycling is singing the tune that cycling has cleaned up. Being able to honestly talk about the Armstrong drug era will help when talking about changes that have been made in the last few years. In the long run, Armstrong being held responsible for his cheating will help the sport. It will help the sport's credibility. It will help the companies that use the sport for marketing purposes.



SicBith said:


> I for one would be surprise if Radio Shack continues to sponsor a team.


Radio Shack had no business sponsering a European cycling team in the first place. The company was not pleased to be sponsoring a Luxembourg team. Bruyneel screwed them. The sponsorship contract runs out at the end of this year. They are gone.


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Yeah, really. Cycling in the U.S. is a recreational sport for middle aged yuppies who want confirmation that they still have it. They don't race. USA Cycling's membership numbers are about 70,000


I suppose that's one rather odd way of looking at it. Another way would be they are people who enjoy getting outdoors, getting some exercise, and having fun riding their bikes. Then there are all the people who do centuries, charity rides, etc. I guess if they don't race it doesn't count.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

darwinosx said:


> I suppose that's one rather odd way of looking at it. Another way would be they are people who enjoy getting outdoors, getting some exercise, and having fun riding their bikes. Then there are all the people who do centuries, charity rides, etc. I guess if they don't race it doesn't count.


I am being snarky for sure, but of those who ride for the reasons you list, how many will stop because Armstrong is sanctioned? Is anyone who rides for fitness going to think, "Gosh. Armstrong was a fraud. I think I'll stop cycling, become a couch potato, and get fat."? Will anyone stop doing centuries because Armstrong is stripped of a few titles? Will it affect their bike purchases? Will it affect the amount of fun they have riding?


----------



## darwinosx (Oct 12, 2010)

A lot of people credit Armstrong with the boom in road cycling. I don't know how true that is since at 52 I've seen 2 or 3 cycling booms already. At this point I kinda doubt it will affect much. I just hope all those people who have taken up cycling in the last 5 or 10 years stick with it.


----------



## Mulowe (Jul 17, 2003)

Lance inspired many to revisit old passions for the sport, awaken lost motivation and lift hope thorough courage against disease. The industry clearly benefited and numerous company at all ends of the spectrum grew. All of that is undeniable. 
However, now if he is proven to have defrauded the sport and cheated to achieve his success it will be his loss and for many a very sad but just outcome. 
Over his career it appears he has destroyed many for his own gain.
Based on his current actions it seems he will not "MAN up" and own his personal failures and attempt to correct what wrong was done. 
I am not naive and I also know it could never repair the damage done.
Instead he seems to be unwilling to shoulder any responsibility.
Lies and more lies.
This is his moment of truth and he is acting like Bernie Madoff.
That to me is unforgivable.
This is the ultimate proof of his complete lack of integrity at any level.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> He is so well known that you don't even know how to spell his name.
> 
> Who cares what a few shop rats or people in Boulder know. The wide market is cyclist who ride for fun and do a few centuries a year, maybe even just one century. Armstrong going down has zero significance to them. They won't stop riding. They won't stop buying bikes.
> 
> ...


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

SicBith said:


> trailrunner68 said:
> 
> 
> > He is so well known that you don't even know how to spell his name.
> ...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> I am being snarky for sure, but of those who ride for the reasons you list, how many will stop because Armstrong is sanctioned? Is anyone who rides for fitness going to think, "Gosh. Armstrong was a fraud. I think I'll stop cycling, become a couch potato, and get fat."? Will anyone stop doing centuries because Armstrong is stripped of a few titles? Will it affect their bike purchases? Will it affect the amount of fun they have riding?


Exactly. The sport has moved on. Lance loved to scare people in the industry into thinking that if he goes down they all go down with him. Now we realize he is taking this fall by himself and the sport better off without him.


----------



## ECXkid04 (Jul 21, 2004)

do you guys sit in front of your computers all day? pathetic.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

ECXkid04 said:


> do you guys sit in front of your computers all day? pathetic.


Actually I do. I'm a DBA and it's my job. Why is that pathetic?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> SicBith said:
> 
> 
> > Way to make it personal. Thanx.
> ...


----------



## bikerecker (Oct 11, 2009)

I think USADA will be hard pressed to follow through with their sanctions. Lance has shown the willingness and ability to recruit legal resources to fight off any and every challenge. He will come up with unprecedented firepower to challenge USADA's claims, beyond the CAS, once the case(s) end up with them. The process will be excruciating. We should not assume an outcome. 
Given an Armstrong loss, the sport worldwide will contract. It already is, based on anecdote. I had lunch with Germans yesterday, youngish professionals who consider themselves sportsmen. They all agreed that cycling is too rife with doping, and dismiss any interest in the Tour as a result. While still following soccer and F1. In the US, the very obvious Lance-effect will recede, and our sport will shrink. A lot of people who make their livings selling road cycling gear and coaching aspiring racers will lose their livelihoods. Personally, I don't really care. The sport was tiny when I started, and I can live with a regression in its popularity. I was not drawn into the sport because of any single rider, but because I saw it as a subculture that I would fit into, a group of weirdos who wore strange clothing and liked to suffer. Not a bunch of Michelob drinking yuppies.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

bikerecker said:


> I think USADA will be hard pressed to follow through with their sanctions. Lance has shown the willingness and ability to recruit legal resources to fight off any and every challenge. He will come up with unprecedented firepower to challenge USADA's claims, beyond the CAS, once the case(s) end up with them. The process will be excruciating. We should not assume an outcome.


I think a problem he will have that some processes have to run to conclusion before he can challenge them in regular courts. When the USADA arbitration process delivers a verdict, the decison will include the reasoning and evidence. Maybe he could challenge the decision in federal court or somewhere, but the damage will have been done.


----------



## bikerecker (Oct 11, 2009)

trailrunner68 said:


> I think a problem he will have that some processes have to run to conclusion before he can challenge them in regular courts. When the USADA arbitration process delivers a verdict, the decison will include the reasoning and evidence. Maybe he could challenge the decision in federal court or somewhere, but the damage will have been done.


Think of a worst case. His major titles expunged from the records, and banned from triathlon for life. That is all USADA/WADA can do.

His vast fortune will probably not be depleted in the legal battles (so he might have to sell the Gulfstream, but the guy is seriously loaded). He will spin the story so most of his believers are not swayed, since the arguments, and probably the hard evidence, will be the same as he's always successfully defended against. As a result, the LAF and livestrong organizations will probably continue. His standing as a celebrity will further erode, but he's already second-rate if not third-. I just don't see this outcome as a calamity for him. For cycling, more time in the glare of the doping spotlight will have a similar gradually diminishing effect. Unless one of the new up-and-comers galvanizes the country, bringing the hope of a clean champion. Like Lance did back in 1999...


----------



## erol/frost (May 30, 2004)

Imaking20 said:


> It freaking blows my mind how people can speak with such certainty as you do here - were YOU physically present for any of this?
> 
> What's your proof 500 is a lie?
> 
> ...



Yeah, boo hiss for trying to catch a bunch of cheaters. Just because they robbed the bank ten years ago we should let it go, it happened in the past right?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...-but-reliable-witness.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share



> Instead of testifying before the grand jury, Hincapie cooperated with the inquiry and gave sworn statements.
> 
> He then provided evidence about the systematic doping on Armstrong’s teams to the antidoping agency, which last month charged Armstrong with doping and playing a key role in the doping scheme.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Armstrong should not have ordered his team to chase Hincapie's break and deny him the yellow jersey. It was a d!ck move.

Even worse was people trying to blame Slipstream.


----------

