Views: 11742

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

I don't doubt the cleanliness of the rest of the peloton during the period of Lance's dominance - indeed that just makes Armstrong's protestations all the more unbelievable


That's one of my points - it was a level playing field, or level enough as far as I am concerned.

Every winner has an edge of some kind, mental- determination or tactics, training camps, superior equipment (Q-rings Cadel? ), compression attire, nose strips, ciggies to open the lungs before climbs, even inherent genetics, lung capacity, or tactical help like "team orders" etc etc.

Man vs man doesn't cut it for cycling in the grand tours.

So long as it's level enough it's good enough as far as I'm concerned.

For sure if he is currently failing the current doping laws he should be pinged for it, but good grief when are they going to stop digging into 2005 results and beyond? What next? Exhume all the other cycling greats? 

It wasn't a level playing field. Some people were doping more than others, some people were on much more sophisticated and coordinated programs. Regardless, the rules were clear. If it becomes clear that someone broke the rules, why should that be ignored just because it is a few years down the track?

Half of Armstrong's rivals got swept up in Operation Puerto and were punished for their cheating. Why should Armstrong be allowed to get away with it when others did not?

I don't doubt the cleanliness of the rest of the peloton

Hang on. You mean you do doubt the cleanliness of the rest of the peloton, don't you??

I always lose track of the arguments about doping because of all the different names and the "he said this" and "someone else denied it" and "he did that" and "someone else denied it" details and "this happened at such-and-such a time and place" and "something else happened at some other time and place" ... I don't need any more confusion. I am not simply being pedantic, I am just trying to keep it straight in my mind. Unsuccessfully, I must say, most of the time.

Oops, yes, I don't dount it UNcleanliness ;)

"The dopers will always be ahead of the testers, so there is good reason for old samples to be stored and tested as techniques for testing progress."


I think we need to think further ahead.

Some things might not turn up in blood samples.

Perhaps we should keep tissue samples, lock down all equipment used after each race and record / monitor all team activities,  conversation and track everyones bank account balances too.

I guess USADA has authority on a US competitor, noting what David wrote too.

Agree, mostly 'tis a competition of the best doping. But it is nice to enjoy the spectacle of the prize changing hands now and again.

The "no drug tests have come back as positive" line doesn't wash. Why?

For starters, because there were failed drug tests. One that was covered up with an illegal back-dated Theraputic Use Exemption (corticosteriods, 1999). The retesting of Armstrong's 1999 tour samples also showed EPO use (read this: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden). There is also the one that forms part of the USADA charge that was covered up and that USADA have investigated (EPO, 2001). Samples being consistent with blood manipulation means that the USADA has Armstrong's biological passport samples and that they show evidence of blood doping. Why didn't the UCI do anything about it? The UCI is a corrupt organisation and the people running (Verbruggen, McQuaid) have been and are part of the problem, not the solution.

Secondly, even if all of those failed tests did not exist, it has become overwhelmingly apparent that the drug testing is a fairly useless method of catching drug cheats in sports. The biggest atheletes to have been revealed as cheats didn't fail tests. Marion Jones didn't, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds didn't, Ivan Basso, Jan Ulrich, Alejandro Valverde, David Millar didn't - all were arrested through police operations. Why? Because the cheats are always ahead of the testers and the people that fail drugs tests are those that make mistakes or are using outdated methods. When the testing is simply not capable of uncovering doping, passing the tests is irrelevant.

The USPS Conspiracy section doesn't reflect a lack of evidence of drug use. It is actually based on the testimony of at least 10 cyclists who gave evidence the USADA who were part of the conspiracy. If there was no evidence of drug use, USADA could not and would not act. The only reason they are acting, and in fact are obliged to act, is because there is such evidence.

Indeed, this circus has gone on long enough. At least we can agree on something. I don't really understand how anyone can be so willingly blind to the evidence of Armstrong's cheating, though.

David, Armstrong is a sociopathic liar. He used banned substances and methods, EPO and blood doping. The evidence of that is clear and has been apparent for quite some time. He will go down as one of the greatest hypocrites of our time.

He speaks very highly of you, Rob :-/

Well, what further proof do you need that he can't be trusted?

He will go down as one of the greatest hypocrites of our time.

Come now Rob, it's a sporting event, and yoinks ago.

It's not as if he ran someone off the road and got his legal mates to cover up for him.*

(or rather he hasn't admitted / there are no accomplices who ratted out on him for that either )

Anyway, he pre-dates my interest in cycling, I'll be happy when this circus finally comes to an end - whatever the results are. 


© 2020   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service