The shit seems to finally be hitting the fan for Lance. Will he manage to lawyer out of it again, or is this the end of the line for him and his reputation?
Personally, I find it hard to fault a guy for cheating in a sport where it's impossible to compete without cheating. When everyone breaks the law, the problem is with the law, not with the lawbreaker.
QuoteLance Armstrong case can move forward after review board says USADA can pursue doping charges
By Amy Shipley, Friday, June 29, 9:13 PM
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's independent anti-doping review board ruled there is sufficient evidence of doping violations for the agency to pursue charges against retired seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong and five former team members, according to a letter sent to the accused from USADA and a statement from the agency.
The case will proceed to a hearing in front of the American Arbitration Association, unless Armstrong or the other accused attempt to take the matter to federal court. In a statement, Robert D. Luskin, Armstrong's Washington-based attorney, said Armstrong would consider all of his legal options.
Armstrong has until July 9 to request the arbitration hearing, which would take place before November, the letter said.
USADA said in a June 12 charging letter to Armstrong that it would seek as much as a lifetime competition ban. Though Armstrong is retired from cycling, he recently has competed in Ironman triathlons and masters swimming. USADA alleges Armstrong, cycling coach Johan Bruyneel, Italian doctor Michele Ferrari and three team associates participated in a massive doping conspiracy for more than a decade.
Armstrong's attorneys had argued in written submissions to the review board that USADA did not have jurisdiction in the matter and had provided no evidence of any doping violations by Armstrong.
"There is not one shred of credible evidence to support USADA's charges and an unbroken record of more than 500 to 600 clean tests over more than a decade and a half to refute it," Luskin said in a statement Friday. "In its zeal to punish Lance, USADA has sacrificed the very principles of fair play that it was created to safeguard. It has compiled a disgraceful record of arrogance, secrecy, disregard for its own protocols, shabby science, and contempt for due process."
Said USADA in a statement: "All respondents will have the opportunity to exercise their right to a full public arbitration hearing, should they so choose, where all evidence would be presented, witness testimony would be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators would ultimately decide the outcome of the case."
One of the three review board members, Minneapolis attorney Clark Griffith, played down the board's role in examining evidence of doping, saying "evaluation is too strong of a word."
"We don't evaluate the evidence in terms of how the evidence would be evaluated in a trial," Griffith said by cellphone. "Don't overstate this. This is nobody saying anybody is guilty of anything. The people who do the heavy lifting are the arbitration panel, if it's ever empaneled."
Earlier in the day, Armstrong used his Twitter account to mock the choice of Griffith for the review board. In June, Griffith, 70, entered an Alford plea to charges of indecent exposure involving a 24-year-old woman, which meant he asserted his innocence while acknowledging that prosecutors had enough evidence to convict him. Griffith told The Washington Post he was not guilty and the charges were "set for dismissal."
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2012, 08:58:00 PM
The shit seems to finally be hitting the fan for Lance. Will he manage to lawyer out of it again, or is this the end of the line for him and his reputation?
Personally, I find it hard to fault a guy for cheating in a sport where it's impossible to compete without cheating. When everyone breaks the law, the problem is with the law, not with the lawbreaker.
QuoteLance Armstrong case can move forward after review board says USADA can pursue doping charges
By Amy Shipley, Friday, June 29, 9:13 PM
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's independent anti-doping review board ruled there is sufficient evidence of doping violations for the agency to pursue charges against retired seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong and five former team members, according to a letter sent to the accused from USADA and a statement from the agency.
...l."
I dispute that, care to offer any evidence that everyone is cheating ?
Quote from: mongers on June 29, 2012, 09:16:25 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 29, 2012, 08:58:00 PM
The shit seems to finally be hitting the fan for Lance. Will he manage to lawyer out of it again, or is this the end of the line for him and his reputation?
Personally, I find it hard to fault a guy for cheating in a sport where it's impossible to compete without cheating. When everyone breaks the law, the problem is with the law, not with the lawbreaker.
QuoteLance Armstrong case can move forward after review board says USADA can pursue doping charges
By Amy Shipley, Friday, June 29, 9:13 PM
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s independent anti-doping review board ruled there is sufficient evidence of doping violations for the agency to pursue charges against retired seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong and five former team members, according to a letter sent to the accused from USADA and a statement from the agency.
...l.”
I dispute that, care to offer any evidence that everyone is cheating ?
you're a bike guy, in the last 10 years how many people have had to give up their... uhm, trophy? for winning or placing? All i ever hear about bike racing is the doping scandal.
Quote from: mongers on June 29, 2012, 09:16:25 PM
I dispute that, care to offer any evidence that everyone is cheating ?
Well, that would be kinda hard, wouldn't it? The whole problem is because you can't catch the cheaters, unless they screw up or get unlucky. All you can do is apply common sense and make inferences.
I'm sorry, what is the jurisdictional basis for the USADA? Who are these guys? Are they fucking elected, or something?
For that matter, why should the state care if sporting contests are fair? Are these state enterprises?
If they are, why are my tax dollars going for circuses? Fuck that shit.
I thought your crazy libertarian leanings would prefer arbitration by private non-governmental actors.
Quote from: Scipio on June 29, 2012, 09:50:59 PM
I'm sorry, what is the jurisdictional basis for the USADA? Who are these guys? Are they fucking elected, or something?
For that matter, why should the state care if sporting contests are fair? Are these state enterprises?
If they are, why are my tax dollars going for circuses? Fuck that shit.
Its good for a few headlines??!
I bet if Mongers raced his lil' bike, he would cheat if he could afford it.
Unfortunately, he can't afford HGH, so the best he can do is some dried monkey's testicles and an orange juice squeezer.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2012, 10:00:43 PM
I thought your crazy libertarian leanings would prefer arbitration by private non-governmental actors.
Except it isn't. It has official standing from Congress and is partially funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 30, 2012, 10:05:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 29, 2012, 10:00:43 PM
I thought your crazy libertarian leanings would prefer arbitration by private non-governmental actors.
Except it isn't. It has official standing from Congress and is partially funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
It still isn't a government organization. It has recognized by Congress gets some funding, but that's not unlike many privatized entities that do work for the US government.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2012, 11:15:17 AM
It still isn't a government organization. It has recognized by Congress gets some funding, but that's not unlike many privatized entities that do work for the US government.
I believe his concern is that insuring fairness in cycling shouldn't be part of the government's job at all, directly or through proxies.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 30, 2012, 11:19:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2012, 11:15:17 AM
It still isn't a government organization. It has recognized by Congress gets some funding, but that's not unlike many privatized entities that do work for the US government.
I believe his concern is that insuring fairness in cycling shouldn't be part of the government's job at all, directly or through proxies.
Of course not, but Congress also insists on having hearing on steroids in baseball and the college football playoffs too.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2012, 11:15:17 AM
It still isn't a government organization. It has recognized by Congress gets some funding, but that's not unlike many privatized entities that do work for the US government.
Most privatized entities that get funding from the government are not recognized by Congress as official representatives of the United States with international organizations, and any that have such recognition are also government actors. An organization does not need to be part of the government to be a government actor.
It's starting to look as if all the Eurofags were right about Lance and all the pigdogs were wrong. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
It's starting to look as if all the Eurofags were right about Lance and all the pigdogs were wrong. :mellow:
Wait, you're saying cycling *is* interesting? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
It's starting to look as if all the Eurofags were right about Lance and all the pigdogs were wrong. :mellow:
I never had a doubt myself. The advantages of doping, and the lack of ability to catch it, are so huge that incentives are just impossible to resist. The problem is that if Armstrong's wins are stripped, then the wins would go to the highest finisher who hasn't yet been caught doping.
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2012, 12:12:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
It's starting to look as if all the Eurofags were right about Lance and all the pigdogs were wrong. :mellow:
I never had a doubt myself. The advantages of doping, and the lack of ability to catch it, are so huge that incentives are just impossible to resist. The problem is that if Armstrong's wins are stripped, then the wins would go to the highest finisher who hasn't yet been caught doping.
If Armstrong has his wins stripped, could he at least get a consolation prize for greatest doper ever? The guy somehow built a business empire from cycling of all things and dated an Olson twin. EPO has never been used more effectively.
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2012, 12:12:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
It's starting to look as if all the Eurofags were right about Lance and all the pigdogs were wrong. :mellow:
I never had a doubt myself. The advantages of doping, and the lack of ability to catch it, are so huge that incentives are just impossible to resist. The problem is that if Armstrong's wins are stripped, then the wins would go to the highest finisher who hasn't yet been caught doping.
:contract:
DG's just projecting. Doping is huge in the competitive actuary world. When he almost died from blueberries you don't think he talking about real fruit do you? That's street talk for number cruncher 'roids.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2012, 12:59:43 PM
DG's just projecting. Doping is huge in the competitive actuary world. When he almost died from blueberries you don't think he talking about real fruit do you? That's street talk for number cruncher 'roids.
:lol:
Quote from: Scipio on June 29, 2012, 09:50:59 PM
I'm sorry, what is the jurisdictional basis for the USADA? Who are these guys? Are they fucking elected, or something?
For that matter, why should the state care if sporting contests are fair? Are these state enterprises?
It's a AAA arbitration. The basis is presumably Armstrong's membership in sport's organizations (like USA Triathalon) that agree to use the USADA doping rules.
Quote from: DGuller on June 30, 2012, 12:12:00 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 30, 2012, 11:41:10 AM
It's starting to look as if all the Eurofags were right about Lance and all the pigdogs were wrong. :mellow:
I never had a doubt myself. The advantages of doping, and the lack of ability to catch it, are so huge that incentives are just impossible to resist. The problem is that if Armstrong's wins are stripped, then the wins would go to the highest finisher who hasn't yet been caught doping.
Of course. He's a cyclist, and there are no competitive cyclists who aren't doping.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 02, 2012, 12:29:09 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 29, 2012, 09:50:59 PM
I'm sorry, what is the jurisdictional basis for the USADA? Who are these guys? Are they fucking elected, or something?
For that matter, why should the state care if sporting contests are fair? Are these state enterprises?
It's a AAA arbitration. The basis is presumably Armstrong's membership in sport's organizations (like USA Triathalon) that agree to use the USADA doping rules.
Yeah, but why do they have subpoena power and shit? WTF?
Every time I hear about doping and cycling I remember something Miguel Indurain said in an interview back in the day. Asked what he wanted his kid to do, he answered: "anything but cycling".
Quote from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-hincapie-leipheimer-vande-velde-zabriskie-vaughters-give-evidence-against-armstrongReport: Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Vaughters give evidence against Armstrong
Four former teammates of Lance Armstrong will receive six month bans after they confessed to doping and testified against the seven-time Tour de France winner, according to De Telegraaf.
George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie are said to have given evidence in the USADA investigation which has charged Armstrong with doping. All four riders are currently taking part in the Tour de France, but in recent weeks, USA Cycling revealed they opted not to be considered for the Olympic Games.
Today's report, which is front-page news, also names Garmin-Sharp boss Jonathan Vaughters. It is not clear whether Vaughters too will face suspension.
"Miraculously, USADA has arranged for the suspensions to begin at the start at the end of the season so that they are able to race both the Tour de France and the Vuelta a Espana," the article states.
In mid June, USADA formally charged Armstrong with doping with the use of evidence gathered in the investigation into potential doping on the United States Postal Service (USPS) (1996-2004), Discovery Channel (2005-2007), Astana (2009) and RadioShack (2010) cycling teams. Johan Bruyneel, Dr. Pedro Celaye, Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari, and Mr. Pepe Marti are also accused of a variety of doping violations, from the administration of doping products, trafficking, assisting and abetting and covering up.
Within the 15-page letter detailing the charges, USADA pointed to 10 witnesses to the alleged conduct, made up of cyclists and cycling team employees, but until now their identities remained secret.
Seriously, does anyone care about it?
Armstrong won't fight USADA's charges in arbitration! :o Gripping lawyer fight over USADA's jurisdiction is to follow. :w00t:
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 05, 2012, 12:17:20 PM
Seriously, does anyone care about it?
I never cared.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 05, 2012, 12:17:20 PM
Seriously, does anyone care about it?
The Euros certainly will, since they just stripped him of all 7 Tour de France titles.
So, has anyone actually won a Tour de France title in the last 20 years?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 10:49:34 PM
So, has anyone actually won a Tour de France title in the last 20 years?
I'm sure the Brit cyclist who won this year still has his.
Had no idea this was happening, its a surprise to me. A lot of school text books will have to be rewritten considering how often he pops up in them as an inspirational figure!
Guess doping wasn't worth his left nut after all.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 23, 2012, 10:49:34 PM
So, has anyone actually won a Tour de France title in the last 20 years?
Yeah, but they all used doping too, difference is we didn't care 15 years ago.
Also, bah. Seems like a good move by Armstrong if he knew he'd be found guilty. This way he can claim to be above the witchhunting USADA and still continue as normal.
Quote from: Liep on August 24, 2012, 01:33:26 AM
Also, bah. Seems like a good move by Armstrong if he knew he'd be found guilty. This way he can claim to be above the witchhunting USADA and still continue as normal.
Looks like his plan has worked.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/congrats-usada-just-turned-lance-armstrong-present-day-045800845--spt.html
What a mess. And now what? We're going to have 7 new ceremonies in Paris?
Ullrich, who has just had all his results since 2005 wiped out because of doping, will now be a three-time Tour winner?
Kill this sport already.
That's how all doping agencies work, except maybe the Spanish, but I'm not sure that works at all.
Also, his plan only works in USA, in Europe he's done. We've been awaiting/expecting this. :P
I want some of this HGH stuff.
Quote from: Liep on August 24, 2012, 01:55:00 AM
That's how all doping agencies work, except maybe the Spanish, but I'm not sure that works at all.
Also, his plan only works in USA, in Europe he's done. We've been awaiting/expecting this. :P
Since he lives in America and his standing of living depends on his reputation there, that's all that really matters to him.
Quote from: Maladict on August 24, 2012, 01:51:31 AM
Ullrich, who has just had all his results since 2005 wiped out because of doping, will now be a three-time Tour winner?
:lol: Like he didn't dope before that. That would be ridiculous if he now is considered the winner.
EDIT: Actually, isn't he considered to be the tour winner of 1996 by the Tour organization because Riis admitted to doping?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 30, 2012, 11:19:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 30, 2012, 11:15:17 AM
It still isn't a government organization. It has recognized by Congress gets some funding, but that's not unlike many privatized entities that do work for the US government.
I believe his concern is that insuring fairness in cycling shouldn't be part of the government's job at all, directly or through proxies.
Why shouldn't it? The state prosecutes or penalises fraud in pretty much every aspect of commercial human interaction - why should professional sport be different?
Quote from: Zanza on August 24, 2012, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: Maladict on August 24, 2012, 01:51:31 AM
Ullrich, who has just had all his results since 2005 wiped out because of doping, will now be a three-time Tour winner?
:lol: Like he didn't dope before that. That would be ridiculous if he now is considered the winner.
In fact, all riders in second and third place behind Armstrong have been caught or implicated in doping scandals.
Quote from: Maladict on August 24, 2012, 05:41:53 AM
Quote from: Zanza on August 24, 2012, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: Maladict on August 24, 2012, 01:51:31 AM
Ullrich, who has just had all his results since 2005 wiped out because of doping, will now be a three-time Tour winner?
:lol: Like he didn't dope before that. That would be ridiculous if he now is considered the winner.
In fact, all riders in second and third place behind Armstrong have been caught or implicated in doping scandals.
It may be that the prize will actually go to mongers. :P
Quote from: Maladict on August 24, 2012, 05:41:53 AM
Quote from: Zanza on August 24, 2012, 05:35:45 AM
Quote from: Maladict on August 24, 2012, 01:51:31 AM
Ullrich, who has just had all his results since 2005 wiped out because of doping, will now be a three-time Tour winner?
:lol: Like he didn't dope before that. That would be ridiculous if he now is considered the winner.
In fact, all riders in second and third place behind Armstrong have been caught or implicated in doping scandals.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m5lh9lQ1LN1qdw1kro1_1280.jpg&hash=f430b089f901780ade4bbf75e57b8feb0e70c576)
:lol: That's worse than the GDR Olympic team.
Why bother with the Tour' dfrance thing then? Seems like it only enables druggies and their supporters.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 24, 2012, 06:50:42 AM
Why bother with the Tour' dfrance thing then? Seems like it only enables druggies and their supporters.
Three reasons: $, $ and $.
I think le Tour shouldn't take his titles away, that'll be a twist. But they will, they are still pissed off that a unsophisticated texan won their tour over good old frenchman.
The real
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 24, 2012, 07:10:48 AM
I think le Tour shouldn't take his titles away, that'll be a twist. But they will, they are still pissed off that a unsophisticated texan won their tour over good old frenchman.
The real heart of the matter. They've been after him for years for having the temerity to win over some French doppers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784
QuoteTour de France: Are drug-free cyclists slower?
By Wesley Stephenson
BBC News
Despite the odd positive drugs test, cycling is considered to be a much cleaner sport now, which is universally welcomed. But has that affected speeds in the Tour de France?
A Wiggins win in the Tour de France was a first for British cycling and widely celebrated as a triumph for "clean" racing, after a series of negative headlines.
Two incidents highlighted the issue during this year's race - Frank Schleck tested positive for diuretics and withdrew, maintaining his innocence, while Remy di Gregorio was suspended after police questioned him on suspicion of using banned substances.
Earlier this year, former Tour winner Alberto Contador had his 2010 title taken away and was banned for two years after testing positive for clenbuterol in that year's tour. In June, the US Anti-Doping Agency charged the retired seven-time winner Lance Armstrong with using performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong denies the allegations.
Add to this the admission by former winners Bjarne Riis, Floyd Landis and British cyclist David Millar that they took performance-enhancing drugs in the past and it is easy to be cynical about today's tour. Millar completed his ban in 2006 and is now an outspoken anti-doping campaigner who won one of the Tour de France stages in this year's race.
But if you look at the data from this year's Tour are there any signs it is cleaner than before?
The obvious place to look would be at the speeds of the riders over the years.
The climb up Alpe d'Huez is one of the toughest on the Tour. In the late 1990s it was being completed in around 38 minutes, three minutes quicker than last year.
The problem with this year is that there is no Alpe d'Huez climb. There is another problem too. A lot of things impact on speed, particularly the wind but also whether you are riding in someone's slipstream and the speed of the riders you are trying to beat.
Another measure which might make a better comparison, according to Dr Ross Tucker of the sports science institute at the University of Cape Town, is the power-to-weight ratio.
Dr Tucker says you can see a marked difference between today and the bad old days when there were no tests for blood doping or drugs such as EPO.
"In the late 1990s and early 2000s if you were going to be competitive and win the Tour de France you would have to be able to cycle between 6.4 and 6.7 watts per kilogram at the end of a day's stage.
"What we are seeing now, in the last three or four years, is that the speed of the front of the peloton [of] men like Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome and Vincenzo Nibali, is about 10% down compared to that generation and now the power output at the front is about 6W/kg."
He says that they should actually be getting faster, not slower, because of advances in technology and sports science.
He thinks that what we are seeing now is a human race as opposed to the pharmaceutical races we saw in the past.
"The physiological implications of riding 6.5W/kg are for me, as a physiologist, beyond belief. What they are doing now is physiologically plausible."
But not everyone agrees that the upper limits of power to weight ratio should raise suspicion. Dr Auriel Forrester is a sports scientist who works for SRM. They are the company that supply the data tracking equipment to most of the teams in the Tour de France. She is more interested in the variability of a rider's performance.
"We can plot the best power a rider can produce over one second, two seconds, five seconds, two, three, four hours and you will see a logarithmic decline in their power output."
She says that using this data you can build up a clear picture of a rider's power profile. You can then compare this to a power profile for a particular stage and see whether they are riding normally.
As you can imagine, this sort of data is closely guarded by the top riders but one, Nibali, has released data for his Stage 11, on Thursday 12 July. This is the ride from Albertville to La Toussuire, which includes three stiff climbs.
Dr Forrester says his data shows that he is riding consistently. His first two climbs are done at 320 and 322 watts and the final ride is 360 watts. This means on the final climb his power to weight ratio is 5.2W/kg. "Those figures are where you expect that rider to be."
She also says that - being privy to the secret data - if you compare Nibali to the other riders when they have been climbing, his figures are comparable.
"They're all ballpark, similar figures. None of those would stick out as spurious."
We do not have data for the same stage in the past but she hypothesises that we may have seen similar figures for the first two climbs but then you would have seen power outputs of 400W for the final hill.
It was this kind of effort which characterised the Tour de France in the 1990s and early 2000s that should have raised suspicion. It might be why some commentators say this tour was boring because the riding was more measured.
In the past, when riders have been doping they have had two things - a bit more in the tank at the end of the day and the ability to recover more quickly. This means that a rider who is doping can launch an attack on the first-placed rider without having to worry about recovering for the next stage. Today, riders have to pace themselves more carefully across the entire Tour.
Dr Tucker thinks that the anti-doping measures that are now in place are squeezing out the cheats but he is not convinced they have gone altogether.
"What is happening is there are probably fewer people doping, and those who are doping are doing it less severely."
physiologically it seems that drug use is down, so the drug testing seems to have worked. So it is quite possible that Bradley Wiggins is not a doper an Vinokurov won his gold medal clean. Normally I'd condemn the idea of having to prove a negative, but in cycling today it's up to prove that they are clean and can presumed dirty until proven clean.
I certainly cycle better when I'm drunk.
Quote from: Tyr on August 24, 2012, 07:57:00 AM
I certainly cycle better when I'm drunk.
Color me surprised you'd ride or drive drunk.
Tyr doesn't drive.
I thought this thread was about Neil Armstrong running out of luck defending the fake moon landings.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 24, 2012, 08:19:19 AM
Tyr doesn't drive.
I figured. He's too drunk to operate the things.
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 08:21:26 AM
I thought this thread was about Neil Armstrong running out of luck defending the fake moon landings.
:D
What makes me wonder is that drugs will help in lots of sports, probably as much as cycling (most track and field for instance). Why has the doping scandal been so much worse in cycling? Is it that they are the only sport to really go after drug cheats, or that such widespread doping was much worse in cycling for some reason?
My pet theory, without much knowledge of the sports, is that the primary driver is that cycling is just more vunerable to getting caught because almost alone among pure athletic sports it is a team sport. A team environment makes it easier to catch drug cheats versus if it is just me and my medical team.
My theory is that an initially lax enforcement created a doping culture where doping was required to be in contention, and once enforcement stepped up, pretty much everyone important was left on shaky ground.
Quote from: Siege on August 24, 2012, 08:21:26 AM
I thought this thread was about Neil Armstrong running out of luck defending the fake moon landings.
That old Paradox thread was the best ever.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 24, 2012, 08:26:42 AM
My pet theory, without much knowledge of the sports, is that the primary driver is that cycling is just more vunerable to getting caught because almost alone among pure athletic sports it is a team sport. A team environment makes it easier to catch drug cheats versus if it is just me and my medical team.
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/explainer/2012/06/lance_armstrong_charged_why_is_there_so_much_doping_in_professional_cycling_.html
QuoteRiding High
Why is there so much more doping in professional cycling than in other sports?
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has charged cyclist Lance Armstrong with doping, claiming that his blood samples from 2009 and 2010 indicated Erythropoietin use and/or blood transfusions. According to the New York Times, all but two of the Tour de France winners since 1995 have been involved in doping controversies. Why does doping seem to be so much more common in cycling than in other endurance sports?
Heightened scrutiny, among other things. Doping is depressingly prevalent in cycling, but it's not entirely clear that the situation is better in other endurance sports. In 2010, cyclists failed 1.19 percent of the doping tests administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Triathletes did only slightly better, failing 1.09 percent of their tests. It's difficult to compare those results to marathon runners, because the agency lumps their results in with other nonendurance track-and-field athletes like pole vaulters. (Overall, track-and-field athletes failed 0.78 percent of tests.) Taking all sports into account, the fail rate in cycling is rather middling. Athletes involved in weightlifting (2.42 percent), boxing (1.94 percent), and archery (1.47 percent) all failed at significantly higher rates than cyclists. (Archers, if you're wondering, take beta blockers to keep their hands steady under pressure.)
Part of the reason it seems like cyclists are always failing drug tests is that cyclists are always taking drug tests. Ever since the Festina affair revealed systematic doping at the 1998 Tour de France, top cyclists get tested dozens of time per year—far more than most other athletes. Doping scandals in cycling also receive more media attention than test failures in less popular sports because of the marquee names involved. For example, few Americans are aware of the doping crisis that has gripped cross-country skiing in recent years. The stakes are also higher in cycling than in other extreme endurance sports. The overall winner of the Tour de France takes home over $500,000, with the potential for millions more in sponsorships; a top cross-country skier might earn around $400,000 in a whole season.
While the statistics are equivocal, some observers believe that cycling's reputation as "the most consistently drug-soaked sport of the twentieth century" is well-deserved. There are several reasons that performance-enhancing drugs might be especially common in the sport. It is, indisputably, a uniquely grueling test of endurance. Unlike marathon runners or triathletes, cyclists compete nearly every day for weeks at a time. During that period, their red-blood-cell counts and testosterone levels drop. Doping can prevent that from happening, enabling racers to compete at a higher level in later stages of an event.
Cycling is also one of the few team endurance sports, which likely contributes to the doping culture. Team managers have allegedly pressured domestiques—lower-level riders who support the premier racer—to take performance-enhancing drugs for the good of the team.
The weight of history is another important factor. Since doping is such an obviously effective strategy, it has become an ingrained part of cycling culture. In the late 19th century, professional racers ate sugar cubes dipped in ether, or drank coffee spiked with extra caffeine, strychnine, nitroglycerine, or cocaine. By the middle of the 20th century, amphetamines were the drug of choice, before yielding to EPO and other methods of blood doping in the 1990s. Cycling legend Jacques Anquetil once said, "I dope myself. Everyone dopes himself. Those who claim they don't are liars. For 50 years bike racers have been taking stimulants."
It's worth noting that long-distance running has its own doping history. In the 40-kilometer race at the 1904 Olympics, trainers fed American winner Thomas Hicks strychnine and egg whites as he struggled through the final 10 miles. His finishing time was 3:28:53, a pace that wouldn't even qualify him to run the Boston Marathon as an amateur today.
Honestly, I'd stop fighting too. The dude has had like 500 drug tests, random and otherwise, all negative. Nobody can prove shit. Why should he put up with being hounded for the rest of his life? He's retired FFS.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 24, 2012, 12:07:12 PM
Honestly, I'd stop fighting too. The dude has had like 500 drug tests, random and otherwise, all negative. Nobody can prove shit. Why should he put up with being hounded for the rest of his life? He's retired FFS.
I hope they kept enough samples to show he doped when the analysis technology gets better.
Can you prove blood transfusion doping retrospectively?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 24, 2012, 07:21:21 AM
The real Quote from: Grey Fox on August 24, 2012, 07:10:48 AM
I think le Tour shouldn't take his titles away, that'll be a twist. But they will, they are still pissed off that a unsophisticated texan won their tour over good old frenchman.
The real heart of the matter. They've been after him for years for having the temerity to win over some French doppers.
What is it with you insecure Americans? Contador, Ullrich, Landis and a bunch of others had their records on the Tour taken away.
It has nothing to do with him being American. And who are you talking about when you say they? Might I remind you that's it's the USDA that announced its ruling today?
Cheaters don't get to keep their titles. It's no grand conspiracy or anti-americanism, it's common sense.
Landis and Ullrich tested positive. There is proof against those guys. Armstrong never did.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 24, 2012, 01:13:37 PM
It's no grand conspiracy or anti-americanism, it's common sense.
You French seem to try to conflate the two concepts.
Quote from: Zoupa on August 24, 2012, 01:13:37 PM
Might I remind you that's it's the USDA that announced its ruling today?
USDA is for making sure that the meat is not juiced with growth hormones above an acceptable level. I think you're thinking of USADA.
It just gets worse. Now I read that even his victory over cancer was drug assisted. :(
:lol:
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2012, 01:39:16 PM
It just gets worse. Now I read that even his victory over cancer was drug assisted. :(
Well, you won the thread.
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2012, 01:39:16 PM
It just gets worse. Now I read that even his victory over cancer was drug assisted. :(
:lmfao:
Quote from: Warspite on August 24, 2012, 01:39:16 PM
It just gets worse. Now I read that even his victory over cancer was drug assisted. :(
:lmfao:
If he's the best doper ever, that just proves he's an American champion.
The fact is that I don't give a flying fuck. I would like all athletes to juice, if they feel it's necessary, without consequence.
Fuck those slope headed neanderthals. If they want to kill themselves before fifty with performance enhancing drugs, while I kill myself with red meat, cheese, and booze, who the fuck cares?
Armstrong has stepped down as chairman of his cancer charity and Nike have dropped him.
He's showing some of that willpower he has in not admitting to this.
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2012, 01:21:05 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 24, 2012, 01:13:37 PM
Might I remind you that's it's the USDA that announced its ruling today?
USDA is for making sure that the meat is not juiced with growth hormones above an acceptable level. I think you're thinking of USADA.
USDA also administers the Food Stamps program.
Who knew that Armstrong cheated by doping himself with government cheese?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 17, 2012, 09:32:02 AM
Quote from: DGuller on August 24, 2012, 01:21:05 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on August 24, 2012, 01:13:37 PM
Might I remind you that's it's the USDA that announced its ruling today?
USDA is for making sure that the meat is not juiced with growth hormones above an acceptable level. I think you're thinking of USADA.
USDA also administers the Food Stamps program.
Who knew that Armstrong cheated by doping himself with government cheese?
Well, surely it has to be good for something ? :unsure:
And Armstrong has ruined cycling. Rabobank is pulling out as a sponsor, I doubt it'll be the last.
It's a shame it's crashing now that there's actually a change to see riders who's not doped.
The sport gets what it deserves. It made some questionable decisions the past decades, seems to have lacked customer focus.
What's the appeal in long distance races as a spectator sport? Have never gotten that, whether it's Tour De France, a marathon or NASCAR(put sport in quote marks for that one).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 07:45:29 AM
What's the appeal in long distance races as a spectator sport? Have never gotten that, whether it's Tour De France, a marathon or NASCAR(put sport in quote marks for that one).
What about the Amazing Race? :w00t:
I suspect there's many answers to that one as I don't enjoy watching marathons or NASCAR, but do love Tour de France. For TdF it's the history, the landscape, the challenge, the moments you know will enter the history and of course the race itself.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 07:45:29 AM
What's the appeal in long distance races as a spectator sport? Have never gotten that, whether it's Tour De France, a marathon or NASCAR(put sport in quote marks for that one).
:yeahright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NIHfsbrBpFU#t=78s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NIHfsbrBpFU#t=78s)
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 08:10:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 07:45:29 AM
What's the appeal in long distance races as a spectator sport? Have never gotten that, whether it's Tour De France, a marathon or NASCAR(put sport in quote marks for that one).
:yeahright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NIHfsbrBpFU#t=78s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NIHfsbrBpFU#t=78s)
Danica Patrick wrecks everybody.
Why sit and watch for hours when you can just watch the clip of the crash?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 08:16:53 AM
Why sit and watch for hours when you can just watch the clip of the crash?
Why watch a football game when you can just watch the replays of touchdowns? Here is my favorite one of the year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFm6o-qB6T4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFm6o-qB6T4) Multi-car pileups happen at least four times a year, but this was a unique stroke of genius.
Also caused by Danica Patrick. Just by being in the area.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 08:27:54 AM
Why watch a football game when you can just watch the replays of touchdowns?
Football has some variety. Racing is much simpler, and the only interesting bit is at the end. Which is why sprints are entertaining and marathons aren't.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 08:38:05 AM
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 08:27:54 AM
Why watch a football game when you can just watch the replays of touchdowns?
Football has some variety. Racing is much simpler, and the only interesting bit is at the end. Which is why sprints are entertaining and marathons aren't.
Probably true for NASCAR, but in other forms of racing, the whole race matters. From start to finish, everything that happens sets up the end of the race.
Quote from: DGuller on October 19, 2012, 08:27:54 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 19, 2012, 08:16:53 AM
Why sit and watch for hours when you can just watch the clip of the crash?
Why watch a football game when you can just watch the replays of touchdowns? Here is my favorite one of the year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFm6o-qB6T4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFm6o-qB6T4) Multi-car pileups happen at least four times a year, but this was a unique stroke of genius.
Wow, kind of amazing nobody was killed.
I enjoy watching a marathon because I do some distance running and so I find it interesting to watch people doing the same things I do, but on a completely different level.
I imagine I would find auto racing more interesting if the cars were like the ones we drove. Say the NASCAR field hits up a few Hertz locations and rents their Chevy Impalas, and then races the hell out of them on road courses.
Armstrong stripped of all titles.
They shouldn't replace him. Have blank years when noone won :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2012, 07:46:18 AM
They shouldn't replace him. Have blank years when noone won :(
There really isn't any other option, is there?
They'll remain blank if I understood UCI correctly.
EDIT: It was Prudhomme who stated that if UCI found Armstrong guilty there'd be no replacement winner.
They should stay blank, no sense in giving it to another random person, who was most assuredly doping too.
Interesting read:
Victims of Lance Armstrong's strong-arm tactics feel relief and vindication in the wake of U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report -
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512 (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512)
I still can't picture him publicly apologizing for all this.
I still don't care.
I still don't understand why doping is wrong while crazy bathing suits are A-Ok.
Quote from: Maladict on October 22, 2012, 10:01:32 AM
I still can't picture him publicly apologizing for all this.
He better not. Ever.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:04:39 AM
I still don't care.
I still don't understand why doping is wrong while crazy bathing suits are A-Ok.
Crazy bathing suits aren't A-Ok anymore, though.
I get where are you coming from, but given the potential health hazards of doping, and putting the onus on who has the best chemist instead of who trains harder is enough for me to draw the line.
(EDIT: First post!)
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:04:39 AM
I still don't care.
I still don't understand why doping is wrong while crazy bathing suits are A-Ok.
Crazy bathing suits aren't A-Ok anymore, though.
I get where are you coming from, but given the potential health hazards of doping, and putting the onus on who has the best chemist instead of who trains harder is enough for me to draw the line.
(EDIT: First post!)
They are still A-Ok, the London games were full of them. It's just that the Swimming governing body has decided to regulate their use instead of stocking it's head in the sands.
Fuck the health hazard, they are athletes, they chose this*. The onus hasn't been on training in decades. What's with all the specialists the athletes & teams hire.
Also, WTFAY?
*except the Chinese, of course.
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I get where are you coming from, but given the potential health hazards of doping, and putting the onus on who has the best chemist instead of who trains harder is enough for me to draw the line.
The issue I have is with the hypocrisy of those involved. The UCI is really sickened over this? :yeahright:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
They are still A-Ok, the London games were full of them. It's just that the Swimming governing body has decided to regulate their use instead of stocking it's head in the sands.
No they weren't. The compression suits were banned prior to the London Olympics.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:04:39 AM
I still don't care.
I still don't understand why doping is wrong while crazy bathing suits are A-Ok.
Crazy bathing suits aren't A-Ok anymore, though.
I get where are you coming from, but given the potential health hazards of doping, and putting the onus on who has the best chemist instead of who trains harder is enough for me to draw the line.
(EDIT: First post!)
They are still A-Ok, the London games were full of them. It's just that the Swimming governing body has decided to regulate their use instead of stocking it's head in the sands.
Fuck the health hazard, they are athletes, they chose this*. The onus hasn't been on training in decades. What's with all the specialists the athletes & teams hire.
Also, WTFAY?
*except the Chinese, of course.
I used to post in the EUOT waaaay ago, and remember a lot of the people on here (although most people won't remember me of course, I was rather small time). I went back there after a few years hiatus, and found it has been sort of neutered. I also have met Larchie in real life a few times and he brought me here.
Anyway, regarding the issue at hand, I don't think that athletes chose to potentially die of a heart attack when they are 50 just to be able to compete in their discipline. I see what you mean regarding specialists and training equipment as an accepted way of science meddling in sports but all those are ways to optimize the athletes' own capabilities, not create them.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
They are still A-Ok, the London games were full of them. It's just that the Swimming governing body has decided to regulate their use instead of stocking it's head in the sands.
Fuck the health hazard, they are athletes, they chose this*. The onus hasn't been on training in decades. What's with all the specialists the athletes & teams hire.
Also, WTFAY?
*except the Chinese, of course.
The problem is that athletes are so competitive that they're going to compete each other into the grave. Blood doping is a serious business, a number of cyclists died after pushing the limit too far.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 22, 2012, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
They are still A-Ok, the London games were full of them. It's just that the Swimming governing body has decided to regulate their use instead of stocking it's head in the sands.
No they weren't. The compression suits were banned prior to the London Olympics.
If not compression suite, They weren't wearing coton speedos out there.
I can pick a different item too, like the shoes of the track & fielders.
Quote from: garbon on October 22, 2012, 10:24:18 AM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:17:39 AM
I get where are you coming from, but given the potential health hazards of doping, and putting the onus on who has the best chemist instead of who trains harder is enough for me to draw the line.
The issue I have is with the hypocrisy of those involved. The UCI is really sickened over this? :yeahright:
Oh, you're right on that regard. I sort of wish Armstrong was man enough to admit to his cheating and then reveal all what we suspect about UCI (they surely were aware of such widespread corruption for years), but I don't think it will happen.
OMG! Celery-herring! :cool:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
If not compression suite, They weren't wearing coton speedos out there.
I can pick a different item too, like the shoes of the track & fielders.
The compression suits were the "new high tech things" that were blamed for all the records being broken. The whole thing about them was that they would compress/shape the bodies of the swimmers into an ideal shape, were buoyant, etc, and really just helped the swimmers out way more than they probably should. There's nothing "crazy" about what they're allowed to wear now though. They're just swim suits.
I don't know what either shoes or swim suits have to do with athletes getting all roided up or whatever though.
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:32:51 AM
I used to post in the EUOT waaaay ago, and remember a lot of the people on here (although most people won't remember me of course, I was rather small time). I went back there after a few years hiatus, and found it has been sort of neutered. I also have met Larchie in real life a few times and he brought me here.
I remember you. :hug:
Though to be honest, I don't actually remember anything
about you...
Are you Welsh by any chance?
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:35:22 AM
Oh, you're right on that regard. I sort of wish Armstrong was man enough to admit to his cheating and then reveal all what we suspect about UCI (they surely were aware of such widespread corruption for years), but I don't think it will happen.
Would he be credible?
Berkut and CDM used to steamroll me in the good days of "Old Europe" pre-Irak war, I used to be your usual left wing Euroweenie back then.
I'm Spanish. Lived in NYC for a few years though, so I have a smidgen of yank cred.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 22, 2012, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:35:22 AM
Oh, you're right on that regard. I sort of wish Armstrong was man enough to admit to his cheating and then reveal all what we suspect about UCI (they surely were aware of such widespread corruption for years), but I don't think it will happen.
Would he be credible?
I think he would; he would be confirming most people's suspicions, afterall. And I'm sure he could give enough details to make a credible picture of it.
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:42:39 PM
Berkut and CDM used to steamroll me in the good days of "Old Europe" pre-Irak war, I used to be your usual left wing Euroweenie back then.
I'm Spanish. Lived in NYC for a few years though, so I have a smidgen of yank cred.
If you are friends with Larch, then I'm sure you are good people.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 22, 2012, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:42:39 PM
Berkut and CDM used to steamroll me in the good days of "Old Europe" pre-Irak war, I used to be your usual left wing Euroweenie back then.
I'm Spanish. Lived in NYC for a few years though, so I have a smidgen of yank cred.
If you are friends with Larch, then I'm sure you are good people.
Well, it's pretty easy to be friend of Larchie.
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:45:30 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 22, 2012, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:35:22 AM
Oh, you're right on that regard. I sort of wish Armstrong was man enough to admit to his cheating and then reveal all what we suspect about UCI (they surely were aware of such widespread corruption for years), but I don't think it will happen.
Would he be credible?
I think he would; he would be confirming most people's suspicions, afterall. And I'm sure he could give enough details to make a credible picture of it.
I dunno. Jose Canseco came clean about drug use in baseball, and although everything that has been confirmed about his story has checked out, but he's viewed with suspicion.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 22, 2012, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
If not compression suite, They weren't wearing coton speedos out there.
I can pick a different item too, like the shoes of the track & fielders.
The compression suits were the "new high tech things" that were blamed for all the records being broken. The whole thing about them was that they would compress/shape the bodies of the swimmers into an ideal shape, were buoyant, etc, and really just helped the swimmers out way more than they probably should. There's nothing "crazy" about what they're allowed to wear now though. They're just swim suits.
I don't know what either shoes or swim suits have to do with athletes getting all roided up or whatever though.
More swimming records were broken since anyway right? I kinda liked the compression suits, they looked cool. :)
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:48:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 22, 2012, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:42:39 PM
Berkut and CDM used to steamroll me in the good days of "Old Europe" pre-Irak war, I used to be your usual left wing Euroweenie back then.
I'm Spanish. Lived in NYC for a few years though, so I have a smidgen of yank cred.
If you are friends with Larch, then I'm sure you are good people.
Well, it's pretty easy to be friend of Larchie.
True.
Welcome.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 22, 2012, 12:56:16 PM
More swimming records were broken since anyway right? I kinda liked the compression suits, they looked cool. :)
Yeah, they were breaking them in London without the cool suits. Not as many, but still.
I still don't get why there was all the whining about OMG ITS BASICALLY STEROIDS COVERING THEIR BODIES. Swimming at the Beijing games was pretty fucking awesome. Technology is part of sports. Speedo came up with a better way to make a swimsuit. Cool. Why not use it, or at least some of it, instead of forcing everyone to go back to the old ways of doing things because swimmers were doing "too well" while wearing them?
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 10:32:51 AM
I used to post in the EUOT waaaay ago, and remember a lot of the people on here (although most people won't remember me of course, I was rather small time). I went back there after a few years hiatus, and found it has been sort of neutered. I also have met Larchie in real life a few times and he brought me here.
Anyway, regarding the issue at hand, I don't think that athletes chose to potentially die of a heart attack when they are 50 just to be able to compete in their discipline. I see what you mean regarding specialists and training equipment as an accepted way of science meddling in sports but all those are ways to optimize the athletes' own capabilities, not create them.
Welcome. :)
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:48:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on October 22, 2012, 12:46:27 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 22, 2012, 12:42:39 PM
Berkut and CDM used to steamroll me in the good days of "Old Europe" pre-Irak war, I used to be your usual left wing Euroweenie back then.
I'm Spanish. Lived in NYC for a few years though, so I have a smidgen of yank cred.
If you are friends with Larch, then I'm sure you are good people.
Well, it's pretty easy to be friend of Larchie.
lies!!!
:lol:
As if simply saying 'you're no longer the winner' is enough to make it so. If people don't like doping in their sports, maybe competitive cycling isn't the sport for them.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on October 22, 2012, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:33:54 AM
If not compression suite, They weren't wearing coton speedos out there.
I can pick a different item too, like the shoes of the track & fielders.
The compression suits were the "new high tech things" that were blamed for all the records being broken. The whole thing about them was that they would compress/shape the bodies of the swimmers into an ideal shape, were buoyant, etc, and really just helped the swimmers out way more than they probably should. There's nothing "crazy" about what they're allowed to wear now though. They're just swim suits.
I don't know what either shoes or swim suits have to do with athletes getting all roided up or whatever though.
It's the samething. One is technological advancement that affects equipments, the other is a technological advancement that affects the body.
Same thing, the sport & performance is irrevocably affected. Yet one is good, the other is bad. I don't understand that.
The one affecting the body could be harmful for the individual :!:, it's pretty simple
L.
Wtf are you babbling about GF. The suits are illegal, doping is illegal. Only one here implying that one is allowed and one isn't is you.
The line gets really hazy to me when you start talking about contact sports like American football. Things like steroids and hgh are horrible things, but the anti-inflammatories and pain killers that these guys live on, and without which they would be unable to take the field most weeks are seen as not only fine, but courageous. I can't imagine that the steroids and hgh are that much worse for you than extended long term use of the anti-inflammatories and pain killers.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 02:00:16 PM
It's the samething. One is technological advancement that affects equipments, the other is a technological advancement that affects the body.
Same thing, the sport & performance is irrevocably affected. Yet one is good, the other is bad. I don't understand that.
How is that the same thing?
Next stop: bankruptcy.
Quote from: Cycling NewsLance Armstrong stands to lose another $7.5 million after being officially stripped of all of his competitive results dating back to August 1, 1998, on top of having to pay back some $3.9 million in prize money from the Tour de France. The BBC Sport reported today that SCA Promotions, which in 2006 settled out of court in a case to pay out bonuses to Armstrong for winning the 2004 Tour de France, is seeking to recoup those funds.
"We will make a formal demand for return of funds," said SCA Promotions attorney Jeffrey M. Tillotson. "If this is not successful, we will initiate formal legal proceedings against Mr Armstrong in five business days."
The company was one of several which insured Tailwind Sports, the owner of Armstrong's US Postal and Discovery Channel teams from having to pay out the $5 million bonus promised to him if he were to win the Tour de France for the sixth time in 2004.
When allegations of doping by Armstrong became public after the release of L.A. Confidentiel, the expose written by David Walsh and Pierre Ballester, SCA Promotions refused to pay the bonus.
Armstrong took the case to arbitration, where despite testimony from individuals such as Betsy and Frankie Andreu, supporting the assertions in the book that Armstrong doped, the two parties settled out of court, with SCA Promotions having to pay the bonus plus $2.5m in legal fees and interest because the wording of the contract held them to payment as long as Armstrong was the winner of the Tours.
Now that this is no longer the case, the company is seeking to reverse the outcome.
"This is not a happy day for my client, but he feels Lance Armstrong has brought this upon himself," said Tillotson.
Armstrong is going to find out what it feels like to be Burgundy in EU3 after losing their first big war.
Berkut? Yi? derspiess? Hello?
Where are you guys? Hello....?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 26, 2011, 04:32:19 PM
Hate is a pretty strong word dude. I wouldn't really care if he drove off a cliff tomorrow either.
I'm just gonna get a chuckle when they take his titles away. Because he was so dominant, because he's american? Not really, although he played that card alright. Mostly, folks will have a :nelson: moment because dude is an asshole.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 03:27:40 PM
Armstrong is going to find out what it feels like to be Burgundy in EU3 after losing their first big war.
He is going to be broke, powerless, and listening to the FALALALA song 1,000 times.
And how dare he be an asshole if he isn't French! Am I right zoupa?
There are worse songs to have on a loop.
Still, even the biggest Armstrong haters have to admit: if he weren't American, USADA wouldn't be going after him.
Uh......
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 22, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
Fuck the health hazard, they are athletes, they chose this*. The onus hasn't been on training in decades. What's with all the specialists the athletes & teams hire.
Also, WTFAY?
*except the Chinese, of course.
They still train, its just that the drugs make it easier for the training to render exeptional results. In a sport full of dopers he still won. I find it a bit ironic that all this is coming out now that the sport has little use for him.
Quote from: DGuller on October 22, 2012, 04:44:03 PM
Still, even the biggest Armstrong haters have to admit: if he weren't American, USADA wouldn't be going after him.
:lol:
Quote from: katmai on October 22, 2012, 04:41:28 PM
And how dare he be an asshole if he isn't French! Am I right zoupa?
I know. That stuff is tm'ed :P
DG: :lol:
So guys do you think I've now got a chance of a crack at the title ? :unsure:
I never gave two shits about cycling, Tour de France, or Lance Armstrong. What I will say is this, cycling is like baseball was but maybe even worse. For a generation or more it has been dominated by basically every single important athlete using as many different chemicals or doping techniques as possible. Sure, in 1995 they probably hadn't got as good at various types of doping as they were even 10 years later, but the truth is cycling as a doping sport. Period. Go look at professional body building tournaments, that's basically what cycling was. Not as visibly obvious, but they were just as dirty and just as doped up--virtually all competitors.
Baseball was very much the same way. So what do you do? You villify the guys that doped, maybe keep some of them out of the Hall of Fame (speaking baseball now.) But what we didn't go do in baseball was say "this record was never set by this person" or "these games now have no official winner or this series has no champion." Obviously the comparison to baseball isn't as apt to a sport with individual championships like cycling (and I recognize that.) For a lot of reasons it's easier to say no one won the 1998 Tour de France than it is to say the Yankees didn't win the 1996 World Series because they had roided athletes on their roster.
But there is a good reason nonetheless, just as applicable to cycling, that baseball didn't go back and do that. Baseball recognized this: "we admit our sport was fucked up and put in a system designed to at least make it only as fucked up as the other sports, and possibly less so with serious testing--but if we start invalidating results we basically have to say our entire sport was invalid and basically didn't exist for a generation." That is what's happening now with these vacated Tour titles. Yes, Armstrong's fall from grace is might. But what I'm taking away from it is "cycling is such a doped up, invalid sport that the biggest event in cycling basically didn't happen for almost a generation, this sport is irrelevant and pointless."
I think baseball's approach is better, and to the long term interests of the sport. There is a great deal of societal punishment being heaped on the baseball players that doped--especially the ones who still won't admit it despite everyone knowing they did it. Many of them are Hall of Famer caliber players that will never make it into the Hall during their lifetimes. But I don't know why you'd go back and vacate game results when everyone or at least a huge portion of every team was doping. Same way I feel about the Tour, if your choice is "say this cycling event essentially didn't happen for most of the last generation, or just get serious about preventing this stuff" it would seem better to me to not invalidate the whole thing.
Otto, I don't think baseball was ever a doping sport--but it did have a lot of doping. Even so, lots of guys didn't dope. I think there is a much better case to be made that in the case of a more purely athletic sport like cycling, there isn't a way to successfully compete with the best riders on sophisticated doping programs without doping.
I find it somewhat odd that baseball has had a major drug scandal but not football, when football players would seem to get much more of a benefit. I know that football has been drug testing for a while, but my understanding is that they don't take blood samples.
Trying to rewrite history is a European obsession.
Seems Penn St. has a lot less "wins" than it used to.
Quote from: alfred russel on October 22, 2012, 06:53:55 PM
Otto, I don't think baseball was ever a doping sport--but it did have a lot of doping. Even so, lots of guys didn't dope. I think there is a much better case to be made that in the case of a more purely athletic sport like cycling, there isn't a way to successfully compete with the best riders on sophisticated doping programs without doping.
I find it somewhat odd that baseball has had a major drug scandal but not football, when football players would seem to get much more of a benefit. I know that football has been drug testing for a while, but my understanding is that they don't take blood samples.
I would bet there are more (by percentage) "dopers" in the NFL than baseball, but the NFL always seems to get a pass on it. I have a 2 pronged theory: 1) They were the first pro league to institute a serious anti-PED policy, even though it may look a little weak now, and that gets them a lot of credit; 2) We just don't care. I want to watch NFL games to see freakish people do freakish things, steroids helps that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2012, 08:02:13 PM
Seems Penn St. has a lot less "wins" than it used to.
True. I suppose it's common amongst moral cowards like Europeans and the NCAA. Or maybe it's just lawyers in general.
The apology lance Armstrong will never give.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/sports/blog.html?b=sports.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/the-apology-lance-armstrong-will-never-give
Interesting column, sorry on phone can't paste whole thing. Worth trading tho.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 22, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
Berkut? Yi? derspiess? Hello?
Where are you guys? Hello....?
Sorry, still trying to come up with a way to reconcile my Lancologism with this. Nothing is really coming to mind.
I will get back to you later. Probably much, much later.
:nelson:
Quote from: Liep on October 22, 2012, 03:23:14 PM
Next stop: bankruptcy.
Some of these potential lawsuits have to have statute of limitations problems.
Martinus?
Quote from: Liep on October 22, 2012, 03:23:14 PM
Next stop: bankruptcy.
'Lance Armstrong is still a rich man, with
an estimated net worth of $125 million. Independent advisers and lawyers say he is likely to hold on to most of that wealth — though he may have to give up an estimated $3.9 million in prize money he won in the Tour and pay some hefty legal bills.'(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2FUntitled-1.png&hash=c8751ffe13043f2764a0e9fffef5529152d2d72d)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/your-money/lance-armstrong-wealth-likely-to-withstand-doping-charges.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/your-money/lance-armstrong-wealth-likely-to-withstand-doping-charges.html)
I wonder if he's in danger of facing criminal charges for serial perjury.
Blimey, first Bradley Wiggins, now GB Cycling head coach Shane Hutton has been knocked off his bike on the same day. Lance Armstrong on a 'roid rage rampage?
Interesting, but I still can't see him confessing the whole thing.
QuoteReport: Armstrong tried to donate $250,000 to anti-doping agency
By Steve Almasy and Lateef Mungin, CNN
January 9, 2013 -- Updated 0903 GMT (1703 HKT)
After conquering cancer and winning seven Tour de France titles, Lance Armstrong became an American icon. However, after years of doping allegations, which the cyclist steadfastly denied, the sport's governing body stripped him of his titles and banned him for life. After conquering cancer and winning seven Tour de France titles, Lance Armstrong became an American icon. However, after years of doping allegations, which the cyclist steadfastly denied, the sport's governing body stripped him of his titles and banned him for life.
(CNN) -- A Lance Armstrong representative tried to make a donation of about $250,000 to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency before the agency launched the investigation that led to the cyclist being stripped of his Tour de France titles, the chief of the USADA told ''60 Minutes Sports.''
"I was stunned," Travis Tygart, the head of the anti-doping agency told "60 Minutes Sports'' about the alleged 2004 offer. ''It was a clear conflict of interest for USADA. We had no hesitation in rejecting that offer.''
Armstrong or his representatives could not be reached for comment. Annie Skinner, a spokeswoman for the USADA, told CNN that Tygart's quotes, released by "60 Minutes Sports,'' were accurate.
The new accusation is another chapter in the twisting tale of Armstrong, a one-time hero to many who has now fallen in disgrace.
Armstrong will give his first television interview since being stripped of his Tour de France titles to Oprah Winfrey, her network announced Tuesday.
A news release from the Oprah Winfrey Network said the 90-minute "no-holds-barred" interview will air at 9 p.m. ET January 17 and will be simulcast on Oprah.com.
Winfrey will ask the cyclist to address the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's report, which said there was overwhelming evidence he was directly involved in a sophisticated doping program, the statement said.
The International Cycling Union, which choose not to appeal the USADA's lifetime ban, stripped Armstrong of his record seven Tour victories in October.
The World Anti-Doping Agency also agreed with the sanctions, which means Armstrong may not compete in sports governed by WADA code.
Before the ban, he was competing in Ironman triathlons and had won two of the five events he had entered. Since the ban he has entered two non-sanctioned events.
According to his Twitter feed, Armstrong has been biking, running and swimming in Hawaii. The Winfrey interview will take place at Armstrong's home in Austin, Texas.
The New York Times reported last week that Armstrong, 41, was contemplating publicly admitting he used illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Such an admission might lead toward Armstrong regaining his eligibility.
One of his attorneys denied Armstrong was in discussion with the two anti-doping agencies.
Dan Wuori, a writer at cycling publication Velo Magazine, said Armstrong may reveal a lot during the Oprah interview.
"I think what we are seeing here is the beginning of Lance's effort at redemption," Wuori said. "More and more continues to come out about Armstrong. This seems like an effort of Armstrong to get ahead of the story and control the narrative."
Armstrong has repeatedly and vehemently denied that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs as well as illegal blood transfusions during his cycling career.
Armstrong has been an icon for his cycling feats and celebrity, bringing more status to a sport wildly popular in some nations but lacking big-name recognition, big money and mass appeal in the United States.
He fought back from testicular cancer to win the Tour from 1999 to 2005. He raised millions via his Lance Armstrong Foundation to help cancer victims and survivors, an effort illustrated by trendy yellow "LiveSTRONG" wristbands that helped bring in the money.
But Armstrong has long been dogged by doping allegations, with compatriot Floyd Landis -- who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after failing a drug test -- making a series of claims in 2011.
Armstrong sued the USADA last year to stop its investigation of him, arguing it did not have the right to prosecute him. But after a federal judge dismissed the case, Armstrong said he would no longer participate in the investigation.
In October 2012, Armstrong was stripped of his titles and banned from cycling. Weeks later, he stepped down from the board of his foundation, Livestrong.
It is unclear whether Armstrong would face criminal prosecution for perjury should he confess. Armstrong was involved in several cases where he gave sworn testimony that he never used banned drugs.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 22, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
Berkut? Yi? derspiess? Hello?
Where are you guys? Hello....?
:mellow: Read the thread.
I don't see a reason for Armstrong to give up bullshitting now, unless he does have a conscience after all. He's too far gone with the lying, at this point he may as well just rely on people who are going to stay in denial as long as he gives any excuse to them.
He'll go on air, cry a little, blame cycling as a rotten sport, and generally still continue being an asshat.
Quote from: Liep on January 09, 2013, 09:04:05 AM
He'll go on air, cry a little, blame cycling as a rotten sport, and generally still continue being an asshat.
Quite possibly.
The interview's being streamed live. Should be interesting.
And Oprah makes more money selling advertising. I hope he does not go full media circus attention whore, he has done enough attention whoring already and very few people actually care anymore.
Quote from: Brazen on January 09, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
The interview's being streamed live. Should be interesting.
Link?
Quote from: Brazen on January 09, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
The interview's being streamed live.
Let me know if there's a pile up wreck at one of the turns.
I really couldn't give two shits in Italian racing colors about the whole Armstrong thing; it's an atrociously stupid and boring gay ass sport, and like Otto said, it's always been as doped up as any sport could possibly be for ages.
That being said: they can take away all his titles, but they can't take away the sheer total enjoyment of watching Europeans ball up their little antisemitic fists in fury as an American totally smoked their own doped asses in their own little fag sport for so many years, over and over again. That will always be priceless, and the delicious tears of faggy Europain can never be unshed.
Even our dopers are better than your dopers. So all of you Euros can suck on Lance's single testicle, because it's better than any two of yours.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
I really couldn't give two shits in Italian racing colors about the whole Armstrong thing; it's an atrociously stupid and boring gay ass sport, and like Otto said, it's always been as doped up as any sport could possibly be for ages.
That being said: they can take away all his titles, but they can't take away the sheer total enjoyment of watching Europeans ball up their little antisemitic fists in fury as an American totally smoked their own doped asses in their own little fag sport for so many years, over and over again. That will always be priceless, and the delicious tears of faggy Europain can never be unshed.
Even our dopers are better than your dopers. So all of you Euros can suck on Lance's single testicle, because it's better than any two of yours.
Projecting ?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
I really couldn't give two shits in Italian racing colors about the whole Armstrong thing; it's an atrociously stupid and boring gay ass sport, and like Otto said, it's always been as doped up as any sport could possibly be for ages.
That being said: they can take away all his titles, but they can't take away the sheer total enjoyment of watching Europeans ball up their little antisemitic fists in fury as an American totally smoked their own doped asses in their own little fag sport for so many years, over and over again. That will always be priceless, and the delicious tears of faggy Europain can never be unshed.
Even our dopers are better than your dopers. So all of you Euros can suck on Lance's single testicle, because it's better than any two of yours.
:)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
I really couldn't give two shits in Italian racing colors about the whole Armstrong thing; it's an atrociously stupid and boring gay ass sport, and like Otto said, it's always been as doped up as any sport could possibly be for ages.
That being said: they can take away all his titles, but they can't take away the sheer total enjoyment of watching Europeans ball up their little antisemitic fists in fury as an American totally smoked their own doped asses in their own little fag sport for so many years, over and over again. That will always be priceless, and the delicious tears of faggy Europain can never be unshed.
Even our dopers are better than your dopers. So all of you Euros can suck on Lance's single testicle, because it's better than any two of yours.
Sometimes you are right, and sometimes you are epically right on. This is the latter.
Quote from: garbon on January 09, 2013, 01:30:07 PM
:)
Apologies for the multiple "fag" references. Used for emphasis only.
Testify, Seedy!
Seedy wins the thread.
Quote from: lustindarkness on January 09, 2013, 01:48:42 PM
Seedy wins the thread.
He does have a good grasp of the essence of sport.
I agree with grumbles... Money, that shit was epic. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2013, 01:53:18 PM
I agree with grumbles... Money, that shit was epic. :lol:
So epic I posted it somewhere else. :cool:
While I agree it's a stupid sport and an even stupider tournament that boogles the mind to contemplate how popular it is, you can't go from "stupid euros, stop trying to take away from Armstrong by saying he dopes up, he passed all your test" to " haha our dopers beat your dopers". The whole thing on Armstrong for years was that he was a clean athlete kicking ass in a dirty sport. Plus you know, USA USA, and what not.
Quote from: Caliga on January 09, 2013, 01:53:18 PM
I agree with grumbles... Money, that shit was epic. :lol:
Well, once in a while, a topic gets me irked.
Quote from: HVC on January 09, 2013, 02:04:44 PM
While I agree it's a stupid sport and an even stupider tournament that boogles the mind to contemplate how popular it is, you can't go from "stupid euros, stop trying to take away from Armstrong by saying he dopes up, he passed all your test" to " haha our dopers beat your dopers". The whole thing on Armstrong for years was that he was a clean athlete kicking ass in a dirty sport. Plus you know, USA USA, and what not.
Meh, I think in that sport, there are dopers, and then there are dopers that don't get caught at the time.
As far as my Lance Love goes, I give Lance more credit for being able to cycle with one testicle without pulling to the left all the time than anything else. That shit went to his brain.
Doper or not, it takes balls to go through that bullshit, and compete at the level he did. Or in Lance's case, a mega ball.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 08:40:46 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 22, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
Berkut? Yi? derspiess? Hello?
Where are you guys? Hello....?
:mellow: Read the thread.
Just now read Zoup's post. Trying to figure out what I have to do with this thread, other than joining the chorus in praise of Seedy's post today.
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 03:52:16 PM
Just now read Zoup's post. Trying to figure out what I have to do with this thread, other than joining the chorus in praise of Seedy's post today.
I interpreted it to mean where are all the guys who used to talk smack about Armstrong and bust the balls of the Euros who accused him of doping without proof.
Whether that describes you or not I don't know. I know it described me, which is why I was all booyah in your face frogman for dishing out my mea culpa on page 1 of this thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 04:37:42 PM
Quote from: derspiess on January 09, 2013, 03:52:16 PM
Just now read Zoup's post. Trying to figure out what I have to do with this thread, other than joining the chorus in praise of Seedy's post today.
I interpreted it to mean where are all the guys who used to talk smack about Armstrong and bust the balls of the Euros who accused him of doping without proof.
Whether that describes you or not I don't know. I know it described me, which is why I was all booyah in your face frogman for dishing out my mea culpa on page 1 of this thread.
Yeah, but I sat that one out.
You guys all look sort of the same after a while.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 09, 2013, 05:15:49 PM
You guys all look sort of the same after a while.
That's racist!!!
Nice to see the Tour's organisers are 'honouring' the British successes of 2012, the 2014 Tour starts in Yorkshire and includes a stage in London:
http://www.letour.com/le-tour/2013/us/pre-race/news/ahc/yorkshire-2014-grand-depart-london-to-host-a-stage.html
Full details to be announced in a weeks time. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
Nice to see the Tour's organisers are 'honouring' the British successes of 2012, the 2014 Tour starts in Yorkshire and includes a stage in London:
http://www.letour.com/le-tour/2013/us/pre-race/news/ahc/yorkshire-2014-grand-depart-london-to-host-a-stage.html
Full details to be announced in a weeks time. :bowler:
Wouldn't all the riders sink on the way to France? Or are they making it a triathlon?
I'd like to see Clarkson from Top Gear powerslide through the riders in a Bugatti.
Quote from: DGuller on January 09, 2013, 05:55:36 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 09, 2013, 05:51:07 PM
Nice to see the Tour's organisers are 'honouring' the British successes of 2012, the 2014 Tour starts in Yorkshire and includes a stage in London:
http://www.letour.com/le-tour/2013/us/pre-race/news/ahc/yorkshire-2014-grand-depart-london-to-host-a-stage.html
Full details to be announced in a weeks time. :bowler:
Wouldn't all the riders sink on the way to France? Or are they making it a triathlon?
You demonstrate why the Russians and Ukrainians never became significant, effective naval powers. :bowler:
I think there is a way to Americanize the "sport" and reduce the incentive to dope at the same time.
The solution is to set all heats to run through mid-town Manhattan at rush hour. It would be the modern day equivalent of gladitorial blood sport.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 10, 2013, 12:30:14 PM
I think there is a way to Americanize the "sport" and reduce the incentive to dope at the same time.
The solution is to set all heats to run through mid-town Manhattan at rush hour. It would be the modern day equivalent of gladitorial blood sport.
Not convinced, really city/metropolis ridering is nowhere near as dangerous as people think; there's about 3-4 roads I wouldn't cycle on in central London, probably several dozen around here and in my local conurbation.
Having more aggressive drivers and less octogenarian and soccer mum drivers is an overall positive.
Seems the French authorities have gone another way and decided this years 100th anniversary tour is going to be an extended tourist advert for the best French landscape and tourist attractions.
Which isn't such a bad idea, given the state of European economies. :frog:
I don't know. NYC taxi drivers scare me shitless even when I'm in a car. To be on a bike around those lunatics who drive highly aggressively, and at the same time can't drive, sounds a little dicey.
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2013, 12:39:49 PM
Not convinced, really city/metropolis ridering is nowhere near as dangerous as people think; there's about 3-4 roads I wouldn't cycle on in central London, probably several dozen around here and in my local conurbation.
See Guller above, the places you are talking about are not crammed with NYC cabbies
A friend of mine got run over by a bus in Manhattan; he survived but they had to use the Jaws of Life to get him out and then staple his head back together.
My pop rode all over the city when he was a (much) younger man, and got hit by cabs at least a half-dozen times, plus getting "doored" countless times.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 10, 2013, 02:08:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 10, 2013, 12:39:49 PM
Not convinced, really city/metropolis ridering is nowhere near as dangerous as people think; there's about 3-4 roads I wouldn't cycle on in central London, probably several dozen around here and in my local conurbation.
See Guller above, the places you are talking about are not crammed with NYC cabbies
That's an explicit challenge; one day I shall come to NYC and cycle up the length of one of the avenues* and along a whole street. :D
*I may have got avenues and streets mixed up with which is N-S and which E-W.
edit:one of my little challenges for this year/2014 is to do the Arc de Triomphe 'roundabout' and a few of those knobbly avenues they have there. :bowler:
You probably said that right. Avenues are the long ones.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 10, 2013, 06:20:14 PM
My pop rode all over the city when he was a (much) younger man, and got hit by cabs at least a half-dozen times, plus getting "doored" countless times.
Yeah I can't understand biking in Manhattan. There are just too many distractions for drivers already (especially crazy cabs) that being on a fast bike is just asking for trouble.
Anyone watching Oprah?
How happy do you think Lance is about the Manti Te'o grease fire?
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2013, 09:12:07 PM
How happy do you think Lance is about the Manti Te'o grease fire?
About as happy as Boeing lithium ion batteries. All of them.
So how'd he do? He cry like a bitch and say he was sorry?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:13:51 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2013, 09:12:07 PM
How happy do you think Lance is about the Manti Te'o grease fire?
About as happy as Boeing lithium ion batteries. All of them.
You kidding? That attention whore is probably fuming. You don't go on Oprah hoping to keep things quiet. I mean most people had already gotten over it.
I'm sure Oprah's people have already reached out to T'eo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:47:31 PM
I'm sure Oprah's people have already reached out to T'eo.
coming out on Oprah. Every gay mans dream.
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:47:31 PM
I'm sure Oprah's people have already reached out to T'eo.
coming out on Oprah. Every gay mans dream.
I'm sure the Pittsburgh Steelers will take that into consideration when they draft him.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 17, 2013, 09:40:09 PM
So how'd he do? He cry like a bitch and say he was sorry?
I'm running about 30 minutes behind the live feed, but no tears yet. Outside of Armstrong's understandable reluctance to talk about other people, I have been somewhat impressed so far. Oprah isn't lobbing up softballs and Lance has been relatively forthcoming.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:47:31 PM
I'm sure Oprah's people have already reached out to T'eo.
coming out on Oprah. Every gay mans dream.
I'm sure the Pittsburgh Steelers will take that into consideration when they draft him.
claiming to nail an imaginary chick is unacceptable to them. Raping a real one is fine though.
People can hate on Oprah all they want, but softballs have never been her gig.
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2013, 09:52:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:51:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 17, 2013, 09:48:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:47:31 PM
I'm sure Oprah's people have already reached out to T'eo.
coming out on Oprah. Every gay mans dream.
I'm sure the Pittsburgh Steelers will take that into consideration when they draft him.
claiming to nail an imaginary chick is unacceptable to them. Raping a real one is fine though.
It's fine at Notre Dame too.
So what did he say ?
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
It's fine at Notre Dame too.
I'm trying to remember: did she report it to the police, or just the internet?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 09:57:36 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2013, 09:53:50 PM
It's fine at Notre Dame too.
I'm trying to remember: did she report it to the police, or just the internet?
Police, who didn't investigate for 15 days. Unfortunately she had been dead for 5 days by then.
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2013, 10:01:10 PM
Police, who didn't investigate for 15 days. Unfortunately she had been dead for 5 days by then.
Well, suicide can really fuck up an investigation.
True, so do Penn State style campus wide cover-ups.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/12/04/why-i-wont-be-cheering-for-old-notre-dame/
QuoteYet after Lizzy went to the police, a friend of the player's sent her a series of texts that frightened her as much as anything that had happened in the player's dorm room. "Don't do anything you would regret," one of them said. "Messing with Notre Dame football is a bad idea."
At the time of her death, 10 days after reporting the attack to campus police, who have jurisdiction for even the most serious crimes on school property, investigators still had not interviewed the accused. It took them five more days after she died to get around to that, though they investigated Lizzy herself quite thoroughly, even debriefing a former roommate at another school with whom she'd clashed.
Six months later — after the story had become national news — Notre Dame did convene a closed-door disciplinary hearing. The player testified that until he actually met with police, he hadn't even known why they wanted to speak to him — though his buddy who'd warned Lizzy not to mess with Notre Dame football had spoken to investigators 13 days earlier. He was found "not responsible," and never sat out a game.
Yeah, read that article a couple weeks ago.
Here, this one's got much more righteous indignation:
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:16:39 PM
Yeah, read that article a couple weeks ago.
Here, this one's got much more righteous indignation:
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/reported-sexual-assault-notre-dame-campus-leaves-more-questions-answers
Not to worry. No matter how many teenage girls they rape your beloved Fighting Irish are very unlikely to ever be punished for it.
Don't get saucy with me, Béarnaise.
Victims of campus sex crimes should never go to the campus police. Particularly at football factories.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2013, 10:27:17 PM
Don't get saucy with me, Béarnaise.
Victims of campus sex crimes should never go to the campus police. Particularly at football factories.
The campus police had jurisdiction. Do you really think the season-ticket holding South Bend officers are really going to go in and crack football player skulls or just hand it off?
So back to Lance and Oprah; I am still impressed how it has gone so far. I'll definitely be watching tomorrow.
Quote from: sbr on January 17, 2013, 10:29:42 PM
The campus police had jurisdiction. Do you really think the season-ticket holding South Bend officers are really going to go in and crack football player skulls or just hand it off?
The Indiana State Police certainly wouldn't give a royal rat fuck about jurisdiction.
And it ain't just football factories, either. I could tell you some stories about doctors and researchers at a certain medical university that got away with their share of shit. "We'll just deal with it administratively."
Higher education doesn't care about anything except their reputations, so let's not pretend it's relegated solely to the athletics department, mkay?
Holy crap! Turns out he did do it after all. :o
No tears? It was apparently possible to bet on whether he cried or not. Anyhoo, 7 boring years of TdF can't be undone, but I would've probably wasted my summers anyway.
I still don't get what he's trying to achieve. :huh:
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2013, 09:56:02 PM
So what did he say ?
Full transcript on the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21065539 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21065539)
Quote from: Maladict on January 18, 2013, 04:14:13 AM
I still don't get what he's trying to achieve. :huh:
I suspect he is trying to get some sponsors back. Most people are suckers for giving second chances and what better place to try to get that than in the Market Oprah caters to?
I heard one report that he only admitted to things for which that Statute of Limitations has already run - so probably a cold calculated attempt to rehabilitate his public persona without risk.
Yeah, my bullshit alarms were going off the entire time. It seems like he had a list of confessions his lawyers allowed him to make, and he stuck by it while trying to fake sincerity as much as he could.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 18, 2013, 01:22:10 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 18, 2013, 04:14:13 AM
I still don't get what he's trying to achieve. :huh:
I suspect he is trying to get some sponsors back. Most people are suckers for giving second chances and what better place to try to get that than in the Market Oprah caters to?
I heard one report that he only admitted to things for which that Statute of Limitations has already run - so probably a cold calculated attempt to rehabilitate his public persona without risk.
Even he convinces me that he is truly sorry and actually a decent guy, then why should anyone care about him? Unless he wants credit for winning bike races, he is just joe blow.
Quote from: Brazen on January 18, 2013, 06:10:20 AM
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2013, 09:56:02 PM
So what did he say ?
Full transcript on the Beeb.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21065539 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21065539)
:cheers:
I don't care that Lance cheated, he beat his opponents on a level playing field since they were all doped up as well.
What I do mind is how he vindictively went out of his way to destroy the lives and businesses of people who told the truth about him cheating. For that he's a grade A douche bag, and coming clean on the cheating issue doesn't change that.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 18, 2013, 02:17:54 PM
I don't care that Lance cheated, he beat his opponents on a level playing field since they were all doped up as well.
That's fair as far as it goes. But it ignores that Lance was leading the sport in doping. He was forcing his team members to dope and pushing it far more aggressively than any team (or team leader) had before. He wasn't on a level playing field and more than any other person was responsible for how widespread and intense the doping was at the sport during those seven years.
QuoteWhat I do mind is how he vindictively went out of his way to destroy the lives and businesses of people who told the truth about him cheating. For that he's a grade A douche bag, and coming clean on the cheating issue doesn't change that.
Agreed. He clarified today that he called one of his staff members crazy and a bitch, but he never called her fat. The most telling exchange to me is that he's not sure if he sued his masseuse or not, because I'm almost certain that the people he sued - and they were many - remember <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2013, 02:21:55 PM
Agreed. He clarified today that he called one of his staff members crazy and a bitch, but he never called her fat. The most telling exchange to me is that he's not sure if he sued his masseuse or not, because I'm almost certain that the people he sued - and they were many - remember <_<
Indeed, I found the interview rather self-serving, he's clearly a highly aggressive and manipulative person, that's what's 'wrong' with him and I don't see that changing.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2013, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2013, 02:21:55 PM
Agreed. He clarified today that he called one of his staff members crazy and a bitch, but he never called her fat. The most telling exchange to me is that he's not sure if he sued his masseuse or not, because I'm almost certain that the people he sued - and they were many - remember <_<
Indeed, I found the interview rather self-serving, he's clearly a highly aggressive and manipulative person, that's what's 'wrong' with him and I don't see that changing.
:yes:
Of course, that's how he managed to be on top for so long. You have to be a self-serving, highly aggressive person in order to achieve the status he achieved. The manipulation was just a bonus.
Doping is the least interesting thing about Armstrong.
Many people think he is trying to get reinstated by the anti-doping commission so he can do triathlons. The federation that runs the triathlons is a signatory to the same anti-doping commission so they won't let anyone who is in their bad graces in.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 18, 2013, 02:21:55 PM
That's fair as far as it goes. But it ignores that Lance was leading the sport in doping. He was forcing his team members to dope and pushing it far more aggressively than any team (or team leader) had before. He wasn't on a level playing field and more than any other person was responsible for how widespread and intense the doping was at the sport during those seven years.
Overegging the pudding Shelf?
A well rehearsed confession. He strikes me as a high functioning sociopath.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 19, 2013, 05:40:58 AM
A well rehearsed confession. He strikes me as a high functioning sociopath.
Ahhhyup. There's about as much remorse in there as a serial killer's.
"Are you sorry?"
"Sure."
I wouldn't go that far. I mean, he probably really doesn't think that he did anything wrong, but why would he when he was participating in a sport where the winner is decided by having the best drugs?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2013, 11:59:01 AM
The entire part I quoted.
Well it's all based on the USADA's report.
In fact forcing his more reluctant team-mates to dope is one of the allegations Armstrong hasn't confessed to yet. I wonder if the statute of limitations is different for that crime.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2013, 12:09:28 PM
Well it's all based on the USADA's report.
In fact forcing his more reluctant team-mates to dope is one of the allegations Armstrong hasn't confessed to yet. I wonder if the statute of limitations is different for that crime.
According to the USADA Armstrong "led the cycling world in doping?" How so? He wasn't the first to dope, and he wasn't using drugs that other cyclists weren't.
I've heard interviews with that rather attractive staff member that Armstrong told Oprah is not fat. She claims that team members who couldn't compete up to a required level were fired, and the only way to compete at that level was to dope. That's not exactly the same thing as saying Armstrong forced team members to dope.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 19, 2013, 12:15:08 PM
According to the USADA Armstrong "led the cycling world in doping?" How so? He wasn't the first to dope, and he wasn't using drugs that other cyclists weren't.
He was using drugs and procedures that other cyclists weren't. Armstrong's team, and especially Dr Ferari, were always pioneers - the USADA report is full of Lance going for new techniques. According to the USADA report Armstrong's team were doping on a scale that was 'more extensive' than any other recorded.
Edit: So the teams Lance led were using techniques and drugs before anyone else and in new, more intensive ways. The other teams were normally trying to catch up, so some of them later became more common.
It's worth noting as well that Armstrong's triumph starts immediately after the worst scandals hit cycling (the Festina scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festina_affair ). The 1999 Tour, Lance's first victory, was the 'Tour of Redemption' and he was heavily doping. But what's striking is that Lance came after doping almost destroyed the sport, and what he was doing was far more extensive and innovative than anything from those investigations.
QuoteI've heard interviews with that rather attractive staff member that Armstrong told Oprah is not fat. She claims that team members who couldn't compete up to a required level were fired, and the only way to compete at that level was to dope. That's not exactly the same thing as saying Armstrong forced team members to dope.
That's not how the USADA report phrase it. They say that in Armstrong's teams it was not enough to put in maximum effort, 'he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced'. There's numerous specific allegations that team members who were caught being non-compliant with the doping Armstrong required, or who complained about Ferari were told that complete compliance was necessary to ride on his team. And of course each team member was provided with their own doping program to follow.
Again doping was endemic within the sport (and I think Lance was probably doping during his comeback too) at that time but this wasn't about trying to create a 'level playing field' - they were all at it, doesn't actually work for Armstrong. His teams went way beyond that, he required doping regardless of ability - and checked on his doping team mates to make sure they were doping properly. The only way in his team was 'to get on the doping program fully'.
And all the while he threatened to destroy anyone who threatened to reveal the truth. If they did he'd sue them into penury. Then he'd use every opportunity to talk about 'miracles' :bleeding:
Kay.
But if it made him happy it can't have been that bad?
So I suppose the best thing to do is blind him with hot pokers.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
So I suppose the best thing to do is blind him with hot pokers.
More or less.
The USADA report suggests he was doped during his Tour comeback - which he denies (everything he's admitted so far falls lightly out of the statute of limitation). That should be investigated. If he's guilty of that he should be put in prison. Everyone he sued and destroyed should get a significant chunk of his money. And he shouldn't be allowed to participate in any sort of official sport, a game of tiddlywinks is too good for him.
He especially deserves it while he's refusing to name names.
People seem to be very upset with him now. It was known when he was winning those Tours that he was doped up to his eyeballs. But somehow then it was OK.
Heard a report last night saying he was gonna be on hook for close to $106million owed to various companies, the biggest amount was like $93 million to Floyd Landis?!?
A Dutch cyclist confessed yesterday, another one today.
The media wil hunt down the rest until they've all gone down.
Only one cyclist left here from the 90's that hasn't confessed yet, Rolf Sørensen. Also the most winning of any Danish cyclist.
It has led to the saying "Rolf er ren (Rolf is clean)" becoming strangely popular.. t-shirts are being printed, banners are made, etc.
Thank god this is over, we know that all the cyclists left are clean now.
Quote from: PDH on January 19, 2013, 08:00:55 PM
Thank god this is over, we know that all the cyclists left are clean now.
Well you and I are, just not on the outside?
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2013, 04:35:05 PM
Heard a report last night saying he was gonna be on hook for close to $106million owed to various companies, the biggest amount was like $93 million to Floyd Landis?!?
IIRC Landis' suit is about defrauding money from the US public, as it was during the time the team was sponsored by the US postal service, not a direct settlement between both of them.
Quote from: The Larch on January 19, 2013, 08:16:07 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2013, 04:35:05 PM
Heard a report last night saying he was gonna be on hook for close to $106million owed to various companies, the biggest amount was like $93 million to Floyd Landis?!?
IIRC Landis' suit is about defrauding money from the US public, as it was during the time the team was sponsored by the US postal service, not a direct settlement between both of them.
Yeah i heard it was amount he would receive under the federal Whistleblower laws or somesuch.
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2013, 08:17:57 PM
Quote from: The Larch on January 19, 2013, 08:16:07 PM
Quote from: katmai on January 19, 2013, 04:35:05 PM
Heard a report last night saying he was gonna be on hook for close to $106million owed to various companies, the biggest amount was like $93 million to Floyd Landis?!?
IIRC Landis' suit is about defrauding money from the US public, as it was during the time the team was sponsored by the US postal service, not a direct settlement between both of them.
Yeah i heard it was amount he would receive under the federal Whistleblower laws or somesuch.
Landis - I think that's the right name - is in the name of the US. The US recovers most of it, and Landis stands to get 10-30% of the ultimate recovery.
...that case is still under seal though.
Other organisations are now gathering to get some money back:
Quote
Lance Armstrong: US insurance firm ready to file $12m lawsuit
A Texan company plans to file a lawsuit next week to recoup $12m from disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong.
SCA Promotions insured bonuses paid to Armstrong when he claimed his fourth, fifth and sixth Tour de France wins.
The American has admitted using performance-enhancing drugs for all seven of his Tour de France wins.
"We will likely file that lawsuit as soon as next week unless we get a satisfactory response from Armstrong's camp," SCA lawyer Jeff Tillotson said.
The insurance policy was taken out by Tailwind Sports, owner of the US Postal team, to cover performance bonuses payable to Armstrong if he claimed his fourth, fifth and sixth Tour victories.
.....
Rest of item here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21102475 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21102475)
His former masseuse, whom he can't remember if he sued or not, reacts to his doping admission, short video here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2013/jan/18/lance-armstrong-masseuse-doping-video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/video/2013/jan/18/lance-armstrong-masseuse-doping-video)
Longer piece here, including this illuminating comment on the 'corrupting' influence on younger team riders:
Quote
'Lance is a little runt': Armstrong's bullied masseuse who was called 'alcoholic prostitute' rejects apology
By Sara Malm
Lance Armstrong's former masseuse and assistant has said his attempt at an apology is not enough.
Emma O'Reilly, who was sued by Armstrong after denouncing his use of performance enhancing drugs, added that he has not even started paying back for his wrongdoing.
She said a part of her wanted to 'drag him to Manchester' for an apology and called him a 'little runt'.
It was in last night's interview with Oprah Winfrey, where he finally came clean about his years of using performance enhancing drugs, that Lance Armstrong said he had bullied O'Reilly for telling the truth about his drug-taking.
Appearing on ITV Daybreak, Ms O'Reilly spoke of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Armstrong's team as they tried to discredit her.
'The polite version is that I was an alcoholic prostitute.'
Lance Armstrong said in the interview, broadcast on Thursday, that he had reached out to Ms O'Reilly and 'tried to make those amends on my own.'
Ms O'Reilly said she did have a missed a call from Armstrong on Sunday, and that he had sent a text saying: 'This is Lance, call me please, thanks.'
'I thought "This can't be Lance - please and thanks in one text",' adding that if Armstrong's apology is genuine, he will make another attempt to contact her.
She described being in two minds about Armstrong's attempt to make amends.
'One part of me thought "Oh, this is great" and the other part of me thought: "That little runt!" and I wanted clip him across the back of the head and drag him up to Manchester to apologise to the people close to me.'
She said sorry was 'not at all' enough after what he put her through, but that she would not be suing him back because she did not want to employ his tactics.
Ms O'Reilly was interviewed for a book, LA Confidential which was published in 2004, and explained that she was present when Armstrong and his team formulated a plan to excuse the cortizone in his system. In the end, they settled on having a doctor backdating a prescription that they said was to treat saddle sores.
Following the book's publication, and several articles referencing Ms O'Reilly's claims, Armstrong sued for libel.
When asked if he sued her, he glibly answered: 'To be honest Oprah, we sued so many people... I'm sure we did.'
When asked if she felt vindicated by Armstrong's fall from grace, Emma O'Reilly said: 'All of it has never felt like vindication - I can never think of another word to use, but I hate that word because it suggests almost that there was some vindictiveness.
'I had only ever spoken about it because I hated seeing what some of the riders were going through, because not all the riders were comfortable with cheating as Lance was.
'You could see when they went over to the dark side their personalities change, and I always felt it was an awful shame - these were young lads in the prime of their life having to make this awful decision, kind of living the dream, yet the dream is a nightmare.
'That was always why I had spoken out - it wasn't about Lance, it was about drugs and cycling.'
O'Reilly worked with Armstrong's US Postal Service team from 1996 to 2000 as he began to dominate the Tour de France.
......
Rest of article here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264398/Lance-little-runt-Armstrongs-bullied-masseuse-called-alcoholic-prostitute-rejects-apology.html?ito=feeds-newsxml (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264398/Lance-little-runt-Armstrongs-bullied-masseuse-called-alcoholic-prostitute-rejects-apology.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
For me the emboldened statement is why he shouldn't be allowed to compete again. Nor his carefully considered apologies be accepted.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 19, 2013, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2013, 03:35:57 PM
So I suppose the best thing to do is blind him with hot pokers.
More or less.
The USADA report suggests he was doped during his Tour comeback - which he denies (everything he's admitted so far falls lightly out of the statute of limitation). That should be investigated. If he's guilty of that he should be put in prison. Everyone he sued and destroyed should get a significant chunk of his money. And he shouldn't be allowed to participate in any sort of official sport, a game of tiddlywinks is too good for him.
He especially deserves it while he's refusing to name names.
I don't know jack about cycling, but it sounds to me like your argument here is that Armstrong is somehow worse than everyone else because he was better at it than they were.
I mean, if you are going to blatantly break the rules and cheat, it seems like it would be pretty stupid to cheat just enough to be as good at cheating as all the other cheaters, doesn't it?
If you are going to cheat, you might as well do it right and be best at that as well.
That's how we normally regard criminals. :unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2013, 01:55:03 AM
I don't know jack about cycling, but it sounds to me like your argument here is that Armstrong is somehow worse than everyone else because he was better at it than they were.
I mean, if you are going to blatantly break the rules and cheat, it seems like it would be pretty stupid to cheat just enough to be as good at cheating as all the other cheaters, doesn't it?
If you are going to cheat, you might as well do it right and be best at that as well.
Actually I think he's worse than everyone else because of how sanctimonious a cheat he was for those years and for the way he bullied and targeted people weaker than him.
But in response to 'everyone was at it', the answer is that Lance was significantly 'better' at cheating than anyone else.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 09, 2013, 01:21:04 PM
I really couldn't give two shits in Italian racing colors about the whole Armstrong thing; it's an atrociously stupid and boring gay ass sport, and like Otto said, it's always been as doped up as any sport could possibly be for ages.
That being said: they can take away all his titles, but they can't take away the sheer total enjoyment of watching Europeans ball up their little antisemitic fists in fury as an American totally smoked their own doped asses in their own little fag sport for so many years, over and over again. That will always be priceless, and the delicious tears of faggy Europain can never be unshed.
Even our dopers are better than your dopers. So all of you Euros can suck on Lance's single testicle, because it's better than any two of yours.
Worth quoting again. :)
I wonder what it's like to be a lawyer on Armstrong's team. You know your client is a cheat and a prick, and yet your job is to destroy people who try to say the same thing publicly by any technically legal means possible. I could never manage that level of "professionalism".
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 11:56:49 AM
I wonder what it's like to be a lawyer on Armstrong's team. You know your client is a cheat and a prick, and yet your job is to destroy people who try to say the same thing publicly by any technically legal means possible. I could never manage that level of "professionalism".
That's why you're an accountant and not a lawyer.
Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2013, 05:41:57 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 20, 2013, 01:55:03 AM
I don't know jack about cycling, but it sounds to me like your argument here is that Armstrong is somehow worse than everyone else because he was better at it than they were.
I mean, if you are going to blatantly break the rules and cheat, it seems like it would be pretty stupid to cheat just enough to be as good at cheating as all the other cheaters, doesn't it?
If you are going to cheat, you might as well do it right and be best at that as well.
Actually I think he's worse than everyone else because of how sanctimonious a cheat he was for those years and for the way he bullied and targeted people weaker than him.
But in response to 'everyone was at it', the answer is that Lance was significantly 'better' at cheating than anyone else.
Fair enough. He does come across as a rather giant douche.
An incredibly humungous douche.
He'd have made a fantastic venture capitalist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 12:02:10 PM
An incredibly humungous douche.
He'd have made a fantastic venture capitalist.
Yeah, he could be the poster-child of that attitude taken into other realms.
Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2013, 04:53:56 PM
A Dutch cyclist confessed yesterday, another one today.
The media wil hunt down the rest until they've all gone down.
Another one today. :lol:
Quote from: Maladict on January 20, 2013, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2013, 04:53:56 PM
A Dutch cyclist confessed yesterday, another one today.
The media wil hunt down the rest until they've all gone down.
Another one today. :lol:
Former or current competitor ?
Quote from: The Brain on January 20, 2013, 11:58:14 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 11:56:49 AM
I wonder what it's like to be a lawyer on Armstrong's team. You know your client is a cheat and a prick, and yet your job is to destroy people who try to say the same thing publicly by any technically legal means possible. I could never manage that level of "professionalism".
That's why you're an accountant and not a lawyer.
:mad:
It's not an insult, DG.
Just means you have a soul.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
It's not an insult, DG.
Just means you have a soul.
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
I know, bro. I know. :console:
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
It's not an insult, DG.
Just means you have a soul.
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
Hey, at least we can back up our numbers :P
Quote from: mongers on January 20, 2013, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 20, 2013, 12:28:59 PM
Quote from: Maladict on January 19, 2013, 04:53:56 PM
A Dutch cyclist confessed yesterday, another one today.
The media wil hunt down the rest until they've all gone down.
Another one today. :lol:
Former or current competitor ?
Two former, one current.
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
Hilario seems to be taking it in stride.
Quote from: HVC on January 20, 2013, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
It's not an insult, DG.
Just means you have a soul.
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
Hey, at least we can back up our numbers :P
So can we. It's called "judgment". :mad:
Actuary it's not that bad.
Quote from: HVC on January 20, 2013, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
It's not an insult, DG.
Just means you have a soul.
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
Hey, at least we can back up our numbers :P
Dguller could too, if he passed some more tests.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2013, 10:14:16 PM
Quote from: HVC on January 20, 2013, 01:40:51 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 20, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
It's not an insult, DG.
Just means you have a soul.
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
Hey, at least we can back up our numbers :P
Dguller could too, if he passed some more tests.
:mad:
Stolen from elsewhere:
"That Lance Armstrong is an exceptional athlete... when I was up to my eyeballs in drugs I couldn't even FIND my bicycle :) "
A library in Australia moved lance's book to the fiction section :lol:
Quote from: HVC on January 21, 2013, 09:56:25 AM
A library in Australia moved lance's book to the fiction section :lol:
:XD:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 20, 2013, 01:45:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 20, 2013, 01:34:52 PM
It is, however, an insult to call actuary an accountant. :mad:
Hilario seems to be taking it in stride.
I might be insulted, if I had any idea what an actuary does :lol:
Something to do with bones and entrails.
A local has been caught out by develpments:
Quote
I'm stuck with 10,000 Lance Armstrong DVDs to shift
A POOLE entrepreneur is looking for creative suggestions after becoming stuck with 10,000 DVDs featuring disgraced former US cyclist Lance Armstrong.
Karl Baxter of Wholesale Clearance UK at Willis Way bought the discs before the seven times Tour de France winner's name was fatally tarnished in a doping scandal.
Armstrong had persistently denied rumours that he had used performance-enhancing drugs, but last August decided not to challenge the decision of the US Anti-Doping Agency to strip him of all his competitive results since 1998 – including his record-breaking run of consecutive Tour de France victories. Last week he admitted, in a two hour interview with Oprah Winfrey, that he had indeed cheated his way to all seven Tour de France victories.
A rueful Karl said: "I bought the DVDs at a good price. The idea was to sell them in small job lots so traders could go on eBay, Amazon or car boot sales and sell them on.
"There was a slight amount of risk. There was suspicion but he wasn't admitting to it.
"I was hoping the problem would die down and I would be able to find a home for them. Now I don't think I would get a tenth of the money back."
....
Rest of item here:
http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/10174271.I_m_stuck_with_10_000_Lance_Armstrong_DVDs_to_shift/ (http://www.thisisdorset.net/news/tidnews/10174271.I_m_stuck_with_10_000_Lance_Armstrong_DVDs_to_shift/)
There's supposed to be some surprising/not so surprising news in the works about a Spanish Doctor who's been helping all sorts of athletes to dope.
See if I can find a link anywhere.
Quote from: mongers on January 24, 2013, 03:00:13 PM
There's supposed to be some surprising/not so surprising news in the works about a Spanish Doctor who's been helping all sorts of athletes to dope.
See if I can find a link anywhere.
Dr. Who?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 24, 2013, 06:03:49 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 24, 2013, 03:00:13 PM
There's supposed to be some surprising/not so surprising news in the works about a Spanish Doctor who's been helping all sorts of athletes to dope.
See if I can find a link anywhere.
Dr. Who?
Found the article I was reading last night:
Quote
Spain accused of a doping cover-up as doctor implicated in cycling's Operation Puerto scandal goes on trial
The Spanish government has been accused of suppressing evidence linking footballers and tennis stars to a notorious doctor who will go on trial in Madrid next week and has been described as a "one-man Wal-Mart" of doping.
By Nick Hoult
11:00PM GMT 21 Jan 2013
Detectives in Spain have been gathering evidence from all over Europe about Dr Eufemiano Fuentes since first raiding his offices in 2006. The investigation, known as "Operation Puerto", has revealed one of the most extensive drug rings in sports history.
When Fuentes finally appears in court next Monday charged with public health offences, it will mark the start of a trial expected to last two months and at which cycling's rampant culture of drug use will be exposed again, just days after Lance Armstrong's dramatic confession on US television to Oprah Winfrey.
But despite Fuentes freely admitting to working with professional footballers and tennis players as well as cyclists, the Spanish authorities have ruled that the case will only cover his involvement in cycling.
The failure to explore in court Fuentes's work outside cycling has infuriated the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and led to accusations of a cover-up to limit the impact on Spain's sporting reputation.
"We have been banging our heads against a brick wall to get access to the evidence that was gathered," Dave Howman, WADA's director general, said. "It is not only frustrating and disappointing but it also means that many athletes who might be dirty have been allowed to compete."
When police sifted through evidence at Fuentes's office they found fridges filled with bags of blood and labelled with code names such as Bella, Son of Ryan and Zapatero as well as extensive written records. Fifty-four cyclists were implicated in the doping ring and star names such as Tyler Hamilton, Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich were eventually suspended, but many others were cleared.
"We were always told that the patients this man was treating were across a number of sports so it was disappointing that cycling was the only sport isolated," Howman added.
.......
Rest of article here, including alligations about World Cup football:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9816922/Spain-accused-of-a-doping-cover-up-as-doctor-implicated-in-cyclings-Operation-Puerto-scandal-goes-on-trial.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9816922/Spain-accused-of-a-doping-cover-up-as-doctor-implicated-in-cyclings-Operation-Puerto-scandal-goes-on-trial.html)
Rasmussen to make a full confession today. Will anyone care?
Quote from: Maladict on January 31, 2013, 04:50:44 AM
Rasmussen to make a full confession today. Will anyone care?
Probably not, but Danish newspapers seem to think they have to care. This is already getting old, how many years after his retirement will it take for Wiggins to confess?
He's also supposed to rat on other riders to get his sentence reduced from 8 years of suspension to 2. Are there anyone left to rat on though? Maybe Rolf Sørensen, did they ride together on Rabobank at any point?
He admitted doping from 1998 all the way to 2010, uninterrupted. That's, I think, the latest date of an "okay, I did it" confession. Allegedly he also gave evidence against Nicky Sørensen who is still active.
Michael Boogerd confessed to using doping from 1997 up to retirement in 2007. He refuses to rat out his team mates, including the one major Dutch cyclist still at large, Erik Dekker. It probably won't take long, though, the media are hunting these guys down ferociously. I wouldn't be surprised if major athletes in other sports are starting to be exposed soon.
edit: fixed wrong year
Quote from: Maladict on March 08, 2013, 06:43:44 AM
Michael Boogerd confessed to using doping from 1997 up to retirement in 1997.
:huh:
Michael Rasmussen told a Dutch court that Menchov was using doping while they were riding together at Rabobank.
The last remaining clean Danish cycling great has admitted to the use of doping. Rolf Sørensen was not clean. :weep:
http://politiken.dk/sport/cykling/ECE1924892/her-er-rolf-soerensens-pressemeddelelse/
This bugs me more than it ought to. Of course I knew, everybody did, it was a long lasting joke that he was the only one left. But there wasn't really any good reason for him to come clean, sort of speak. He was the last vestige of the untainted 90's cycling heroes.
You should've kept quiet, Rolf. :(
Quote from: Liep on March 18, 2013, 02:40:34 PM
This bugs me more than it ought to. Of course I knew, everybody did, it was a long lasting joke that he was the only one left. But there wasn't really any good reason for him to come clean, sort of speak. He was the last vestige of the untainted 90's cycling heroes.
You should've kept quiet, Rolf. :(
Maybe you guys aught to think about professionalising those neat cargo bike races you have over there ? :cool:
This looks good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOBOzDw3f8M
QuoteLance Armstrong is a criminal who should go to jail, that's what Greg LeMond believes.
The three-time Tour de France winner has never pulled any punches when talking about Armstrong, and a Monday interview on CNN was no exception.
LeMond told Anderson Cooper that Armstrong would have been "top 30 at best" without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs, would not have been capable of a top-5 finish let along winning the Tour de France seven times.
"Absolutely," LeMond said when asked if Armstrong perpetrated the greatest fraud in sports history. "... I know his physical capabilities. He's a top 30 at best. I mean, at best. No matter what. If he was clean and everybody else was clean, he's a top 30 at best. He's not capable of winning the Tour. He's not capable of the top 5."
LeMond, the first American to win the Tour de France and the only one who's still credited with winning cycling's biggest event, has long taken offense to cyclists taking short cuts to win a race he won fair and square. He was among the first high-profile figures in the cycling world to question Armstrong, calling him out way back in 2001 when Armstrong had won three straight tours.
"If Lance is clean, it's the greatest comeback in the history of sports," LeMond said, "if he isn't, it would be the greatest fraud."
Some called sour grapes on LeMond.
But LeMond contends that it was never just about Armstrong, but rather racing clean.
"It wasn't Armstrong," LeMond told Cooper. "If it was a Belgian and I knew this it would have been – I would have had the same opinion."
He went on to say that Armstrong used his story of cancer survival and manipulated the cancer community.
"He used the money, he used the [Livestrong] Foundation to not only cover for him but to destroy people."
This is where LeMond gets animated. It's not just that Armstrong (for a time) supplanted him as the "best American cyclist," but that he tried to "bully" people along the way.
LeMond claims that Armstrong once offered a teammate $300,000 to say LeMond used PEDs. There are other tales of Armstrong's bully tactics. Former teammate Tyler Hamilton says Armstrong once told him he was "going to make [his] life a living hell both in the courtroom and out of the courtroom." Armstrong called Emma O'Reilly, a masseuse for the Postal Service team, a "whore" and sued her for libel after she blew the whistle on him in 2003. And he called Betsy Andreu, wife of former Postal rider Frankie Andreu, "crazy" and "a bitch" when she told the truth.
"He's a bully, he's a thug to me, and I'm the one who wouldn't put up with it," LeMond said Monday.
When asked by Cooper what he thinks should happen now to Armstrong, LeMond replied, "This is not a sporting infraction. This is criminal."
"You think he should go to jail?" Cooper asked.
"I do, yeah," LeMond replied.
Quote from: katmai on October 22, 2013, 05:14:30 PM
QuoteLance Armstrong is a criminal who should go to jail, that's what Greg LeMond believes.
The three-time Tour de France winner has never pulled any punches when talking about Armstrong, and a Monday interview on CNN was no exception.
LeMond told Anderson Cooper that Armstrong would have been "top 30 at best" without the aid of performance-enhancing drugs, would not have been capable of a top-5 finish let along winning the Tour de France seven times.
I don't agree with him, clearly Armstrong was a talent, I think without the drugs he would have stood an moderate chance of winning a Tour de France.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 22, 2013, 04:44:27 PM
This looks good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOBOzDw3f8M
Interesting, didn't know about that.
If done well, it promises to be the sporting world's Frost-Nixon interview.
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2013, 05:38:40 PM
I don't agree with him, clearly Armstrong was a talent, I think without the drugs he would have stood an moderate chance of winning a Tour de France.
Nah, he'd have lost to his opponents who were juicing.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 22, 2013, 06:57:47 PM
Quote from: mongers on October 22, 2013, 05:38:40 PM
I don't agree with him, clearly Armstrong was a talent, I think without the drugs he would have stood an moderate chance of winning a Tour de France.
Nah, he'd have lost to his opponents who were juicing.
Lemond was hypothesizing nobody juicing. Of course, everyone was...