PDA

View Full Version : Lance Armstrong and the US postal team and doping



skuthorp
10-10-2012, 03:26 PM
Seems that it may be considered the biggest sporting doping scandal ever.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/10/lance-armstrong-usada-cycling-doping-scandal?newsfeed=true

John Meachen
10-10-2012, 04:09 PM
One particular journalist has been on this trail for a while and has made himself very unpopular http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/paul-kimmage-sued-cycling-governing-body-they-want-try-shut-me .Maybe if he gets his day in court the saga will reach a conclusion.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-10-2012, 04:15 PM
"Don't mention the Tour"

Paul Pless
10-10-2012, 04:18 PM
Seems that it may be considered the biggest sporting doping scandal ever.Only because MLB handled doping with a wink and a smile for so long. . .

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 04:22 PM
Read the USADA document regarding Armstrong and decide for yourself: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/!invesitgations%20and%20enterprise%20docs/armstrong-reasoned-decision.pdf

skuthorp
10-10-2012, 04:38 PM
It would be a sad day if this is even 1/4 true. Basically that would mean that there hasn't been a result for say, 15 years at least that can be relied upon.

Gerarddm
10-10-2012, 04:55 PM
From the article I read elsewhere, appears damning for Armstrong. Reminds me of the whole Marion Jones thing, where she was innocent, innocent, innocent until suddenly she wasn't.

George Jung
10-10-2012, 05:30 PM
I've read quite a bit on this, including this latest 'indictment'. Nothing there that would hold up in a court of law - but the USADA doesn't have to play by those rules. I don't think we've heard the last of this, and have to wonder if Tygart has overstepped his bounds enough to end up sued for defamation. A nice outcome, IMO, is if there was sufficient blowback resulting in the USADA losing it's taxpayer financing, and being disbanded or replaced by an agency with checks and balances.

Phillip Allen
10-10-2012, 05:57 PM
I don't have much respect for professional sports (in general)

Tom Montgomery
10-10-2012, 06:20 PM
A journalist who has been covering this story all along stated today on ESPN that the evidence revealed in the USADA report is damning and that anyone who now defends Armstrong is just being willfully ignorant.

Just saying....

George Jung
10-10-2012, 07:59 PM
Wow. A journalist said that? Damning evidence, he says? If he says it, it must be true.... no way he could have a bias, is there? That's enough for me! (and you, of course)

PeterSibley
10-10-2012, 08:01 PM
Just sayin' journalists tend to collect a lot of evidence and hang it out to be seen, sports organisations don't do that . They manage bad news with a deep hole in the ground or a shredder.

George Jung
10-10-2012, 08:12 PM
Do all journalists agree?

Waddie
10-10-2012, 08:20 PM
When the money and fame are so large questionable practices will be part of the equation. I wish they would just develop a safe "dope". Besides, even training methods/equipment/diet/etc., are built to give an edge. There is nothing egalitarian about professional sports.

regards,
Waddie

Shang
10-10-2012, 08:33 PM
Say it aint so, Joe...

PeterSibley
10-10-2012, 08:36 PM
What we need is a Full Tilt Drug Olympics , no restrictions , no nanny state regulation. If the market provides go for it ! I'm sure our conservative "the market rules" readers will agree 100%. :d

B_B
10-10-2012, 09:18 PM
Wow. A journalist said that? Damning evidence, he says? If he says it, it must be true.... no way he could have a bias, is there? That's enough for me! (and you, of course)
Hmm, George you're raging again. Bad day at work? ;)
I thought Nebraska was supposed to be the salve...

George Jung
10-10-2012, 09:37 PM
If you consider that 'raging', perhaps you should seek a kinder/gentler forum, 'BB'... I'd suggest one on knitting.

Shang
10-10-2012, 09:54 PM
What we need is a Full Tilt Drug Olympics , no restrictions , no nanny state regulation. If the market provides go for it ! I'm sure our conservative "the market rules" readers will agree 100%. :d

Yes! Clubs! War hammers! Groin-kicks! Frame-throwers! Let's not pussy foot around! Full-Drug Olympics!

Olympic champion Mohalid Aliee

htom
10-10-2012, 10:47 PM
Yawn. I thought we had stopped hanging witches in this country.

George Jung
10-10-2012, 10:48 PM
Hmmm.... the NYTimes is missing few opportunities to profit ... er.... promote the truth! in this still evolving story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sports/cycling/lance-armstrongs-1999-tour-de-france-triumph-takes-a-dark-turn.html?hp&_r=0


It's like reading a really bad detective story. What I can't help but notice (raging, really) is - lots of conjecture; not much fact. Reminds me of the Amanda Knox show... er... trial, as well. Seems there were a lot here who just knew she was guilty, too.

So what is it about these cases that makes so many, so desperate, to believe what they're being spoonfed? Presumably no one has a dog in this fight, just as they didn't in the Knox case. But they wanted - desperately, it seemed - to believe their guilt. Regardless the outcome, it doesn't affect any of us. Funny how difficult it is to look at this objectively.

B_B
10-10-2012, 11:37 PM
Yeah, those 11 team-mates saying they got EPO and/or steroids from him, saw him take it, had him him administer it to them - all liars.

That masseuse who traveled through the night to deliver a bottle of pills to him, to have him say "now you know enough to bring me down" - liar too.

Everyone lies but Lance - either Lance took banned substances and knew it, or Lance is such a f@#$ng a$$hat everyone who's ever worked with him hates his guts. Either way, time to for him to dial it back.

mikefrommontana
10-10-2012, 11:57 PM
Or all these other folks are perjuring themselves to avoid getting smacked by the USADA themselves. Since there is no prosecutorial oversight, there's nobody to call out the USADA if it starts painting outside the lines.

Funny that only the USADA has found all this "evidence", and it took them so long to do so.... something smells I say.

B_B
10-11-2012, 12:32 AM
Or all these other folks are perjuring themselves to avoid getting smacked by the USADA themselves. Since there is no prosecutorial oversight, there's nobody to call out the USADA if it starts painting outside the lines.

Funny that only the USADA has found all this "evidence", and it took them so long to do so.... something smells I say.
Wrong again - they've been sanctioned.

One had never been caught doping and wasn't being investigated and had retired, yet, in support of Tyler Hamilton, testified. He'll now get sanctioned and his reputation is tattered, for what if not the truth (or to shiv ol' Lance - again, what type of man riles that many folks up agin' him?).

And, again, there are tests available now which weren't available ten years ago...the samples, however, are.

And I'm sure Lance's positive test for cortesteroid (sp?) doesn't faze y'all either...he was using it as a saddle sore cream, but didn't have saddle sores.

doorstop
10-11-2012, 12:37 AM
surprise, surprise, surprise.......

purri
10-11-2012, 01:23 AM
Actually the TDF reminds me of a recent film "The 300" or somesuch. Inasmuch it's full of overblown pec performers with nothing to lose.

Boston
10-11-2012, 01:34 AM
I have two distinctly opposing views of this issue. One is that they were all doping, every last one of them. So how is it that ole Lance didn't win, because he was doping when the entire field was also doping. On the other hand there is a mind set among cyclists. I lived in the mountains above Boulder for years while in college, having dealt with them day in day out, I can attest to the fact that cyclists are about the most belligerent group I've ever met. Who invented zig zagging your bike in front of traffic and calling it a sport anyway. The whole lot of them can )(*^&%*&%_)+)(^)(*&%&% They're an impossible bunch and I'm not surprised at all to see the amount of back stabbing going on among them. Boulder is a big cycling hot spot and lots of them come into town specifically to train at altitude and on the hills, the hatred they engender among the populous is incredible. I lived up Left hand canyon and there were times when I did 15 miles home at 3 or 4 mph a significant portion of the way because some "teem" wouldn't get out of the way or pull over to let traffic pass on the narrow mountain roads. Aside from the doping scandal they should be banned from "practicing" on the roads.

cheers
B

seanz
10-11-2012, 03:17 AM
I have one view. "Roadies Suck"
:D

devout
10-11-2012, 03:25 AM
So Lance insists he is the only member of US Postal that did not dope? Hmm.

keyhavenpotterer
10-11-2012, 03:40 AM
Drug taking has been endemic in pro cycling. They were all taking it, until quite recently when its gone the other way and now are mostly clean.

Cyclists like Boardman and others couldn't keep up on the Tour, as they weren't prepared to take drugs to do so. The fastest cyclist was probably the fastest cyclist, all being drug assisted. The trouble with increasing your red cell count for example is it can thicken your blood and cause heart failure down the line. The problem isn't just deception to the public and other riders, its also a safety issue.

The organisers, ex racers, were on drugs too, that's made turning the page more difficult. As has the reward or not of professional sport, where the winning matters, and bills have to be paid. If all the pack are on drugs, if your not, you were at the back of the field litterally. They had to be on drugs not to win, but just to keep up and be in the field.

I believe things have changed. It agrrieves me to see Armstrong and others test positive, when you know at crucial race points in the past races up hills, other riders have 'broken' physically and emotionally uphill, when they were clean, against the other rider who was doping for an advantage in strength or recovery ability. Race results would have been quite different and the race itself, quite different. You see few ex winners of the Tour on TV as they were on drugs and knew it, they can't justify it now the tide has changed. It also steals future tour winners of rightful acclaim if a cloak of suspicion hangs over the result due to the past.

Pretty sure Wiggins and the Sky team is clean. Probably the first clean winner for many decades. It means the other riders know its winable clean and will not be pressured into taking drugs as easily. I personally feel and see a change in the riders physically also in the last few years. They are thinner and generally look more like fit normal people and less super human which it turns out they were. I think there has been an axis shift in the past 2 years. There should be lifetime bans though, not just 1-2 years if positive like Tour winner Contador recently received for taking Clenbuterol: a drug that reduces fat, increases muscle and opens airways.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2012, 04:00 AM
Drug taking has been endemic in pro cycling. They were all taking it, until quite recently when its gone the other way and now are mostly clean.

Cyclists like Boardman and others couldn't keep up on the Tour, as they weren't prepared to take drugs to do so. The fastest cyclist was probably the fastest cyclist, all being drug assisted. The trouble with increasing your red cell count for example is it can thicken your blood and cause heart failure down the line. The problem isn't just deception to the public and other riders, its also a safety issue.

The organisers, ex racers, were on drugs too, that's made turning the page more difficult. As has the reward or not of professional sport, where the winning matters, and bills have to be paid. If all the pack are on drugs, if your not, you were at the back of the field litterally. They had to be on drugs not to win, but just to keep up and be in the field.

I believe things have changed. It agrrieves me to see Armstrong and others test positive, when you know at crucial race points in the past races up hills, other riders have 'broken' physically and emotionally uphill, when they were clean, against the other rider who was doping for an advantage in strength or recovery ability. Race results would have been quite different and the race itself, quite different. You see few ex winners of the Tour on TV as they were on drugs and knew it, they can't justify it now the tide has changed. It also steals future tour winners of rightful acclaim if a cloak of suspicion hangs over the result due to the past.

Pretty sure Wiggins and the Sky team is clean. Probably the first clean winner for many decades. It means the other riders know its winable clean and will not be pressured into taking drugs as easily. I personally feel and see a change in the riders physically also in the last few years. They are thinner and generally look more like fit normal people and less super human which it turns out they were. I think there has been an axis shift in the past 2 years. There should be lifetime bans though, not just 1-2 years if positive like Tour winner Contador recently received for taking Clenbuterol: a drug that reduces fat, increases muscle and opens airways.

I could not put it better. I do sympathise with Americans who feel that a sporting hero is being dragged down, but the sport of road racing has been riddled with drugs since the early 50's at least - Poulidor was I think the first Tour rider to be tested and was sent to Coventry by the peleton for agreeing to be tested.

I think the Sky team that won this year are clean, simply because they are in effect also the British Olympic team, and the BOA until a court case just before the Summer Games this year imposed an automatic lifetime ban on anyone who tested positive; the consequences of a positive test on any member of that team would be devastating.

Boston
10-11-2012, 04:46 AM
Sounds like a complete soap opera, the biggest test of character isn't how fast or strong a cyclist is, but if they show sufficient respect to use the bike lanes and not cause an accident that deprives people of there loved ones.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2012, 04:57 AM
There is really no doubt that cycling does not make a better person of you. Indeed I do find that competitive cyclists (and I was rather a lowly specimen of the type, long, ,long ago) are more aggressive than most people.

PeterSibley
10-11-2012, 05:28 AM
Sounds like a complete soap opera, the biggest test of character isn't how fast or strong a cyclist is, but if they show sufficient respect to use the bike lanes and not cause an accident that deprives people of there loved ones.

and the biggest test for a motorist is whether he /she can restrain themselves from overtaking dangerously and display a little patience.

LeeG
10-11-2012, 05:44 AM
Sounds like a complete soap opera, the biggest test of character isn't how fast or strong a cyclist is, but if they show sufficient respect to use the bike lanes and not cause an accident that deprives people of there loved ones.

Bike lanes?

George Jung
10-11-2012, 08:08 AM
From what I've read - the old samples now being re-tested, of Armstrongs, are not felt to be reliable- though it wasn't clear 'why'. It's also why the US govt's 2 year investigation was dropped - not sufficient evidence. The USADA isn't rquired to adhere to such stringent rules; and the folks coming forward to testify against Armstrong all received much-reduced penalties. There's a marked incentive for them to 'play ball'.

Sorry for those who feel 'otherwise'. I don't see the burden of proof being met. And I suspect we'll see the worm turn - just not today.

Joe (SoCal)
10-11-2012, 10:30 AM
For me Tyler Hamiltons and George Hincappi's admission has changed my view of Lance's credibility. I've seen the 60 min Hamilton interview and it's pretty damning and honest account of life in that level.

As most of you know I was a competitive cat 1 cyclist, i raced with Greg Lemond and even did NY crits with Hincappi, and an avid defender of Armstrong. The fact is cycling is a BRUTAL sport and the drugs we are talking about are in most cases drugs to help you recover and regrow from the beating you put yourself through in competitive pro cycling.

It should be known that since the advent of the sport it was the sport to get out of the getto or the farm and make something of yourself. It was equivalent to american boxing culture in Europe, beat yourself up physically to make a little money and move from your squalid life back home. Drugs, drinking hell smoking and bad behavior were part of the sport. Riders in the early days of the tour would ride without support at times getting beaten up by fans and continue. Riders would ride miles with broken femurs, ribs etc. These were hard men. That culture of SUFFERING is built into the sport. As for drugs look up Tom Simpson. Simpson was Britain's first men's road race World Champion (a feat matched only by Mark Cavendish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cavendish) in 2011), and won three monument classics, Paris-Nice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Nice) and two Vuelta a Espaņa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuelta_a_Espa%C3%B1a) stages. He infamously died of exhaustion on the slopes of Mont Ventoux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Ventoux) during the 13th stage of the 1967 Tour de France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson#cite_note-1) The post mortem examination found that he had taken amphetamine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine) and alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage), a diuretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diuretic) combination which proved fatal when combined with the heat, the hard climb of the Ventoux and a stomach complaint.
Im sad that my hero road dirty but I'm not overly suprized

TomF
10-11-2012, 11:01 AM
I'm sorry that elite athletes are forced to lie about what it takes to win at those levels, in one sport or another. If winning is the "only thing," which it pretty much is in that eschelon, it's not only about your genetics or your training regime or your heart or your mental toughness. Though it is about that. It's about the willingness to find and use every bloody 0.5% edge you can possibly find, to scrape past your competitors.

It must be quite soul destroying to make all those sacrifices, and then have to lie about what else you have to do to win. The long-term mental and emotional effects must be huge.

And we, the sport-consuming public, need to acknowledge our bit in this. We demand new world records as often as possible, though the human body hasn't changed overly much. Only some of that procession of new records can be met by smarter training, better nutrition, more dedication etc. - only some of that can be met by identifying and shunting genetic anomaly athletes into the right sports. We're not so much smarter than previous generations, eh?

So we get what we ask for, and despise the athletes for giving it to us. And put the athletes in a situation where they'll have to despise themselves.

Ian McColgin
10-11-2012, 11:06 AM
Having read the USADA's full (1000 pages) report I am profoundly underwhelmed. As the take care to point out from the start (p 15) the "standard of proof" amounts to a feeling and there is absolutely no physical evidence.

As Joe has pointed out, cycling was never a genteel sport. Many of these guys are not just admirably tough. They are also egotistical, arrogant and obnoxious. And the drug rules/tolorance/enforcement culture kept changing. So it's perfectly possible that Armstrong took something that was or should have been or could have been or might have been wrong or banned or forbidden or not related to his regular legitimate medical treatment. But the USADA admits from jump they have no, never had any, physical evidence.

I rather agree with Armstrong that given how the USADA reached its condemnation, given that the evidence came down to their belief that the absence of evidence was proof of guilt, there was not much point in further argument.

End of story for me.

Boston
10-11-2012, 11:07 AM
Bike lanes?

Boulder county, much of the state for that matter spent hundreds of millions putting in bike paths and lanes. The law requires that a cyclist use them if one is available. Never happens, I had one cyclist actually tell me that the bike lanes have rocks and debris in them and the auto lanes are nice and clean because the cars go fast enough to blow them clear. So he prefers the car lanes. In the small town I lived in up the canyon, we lost about one motorist a year to cyclists in the road. Millions spent trying to accommodate those people and they couldn't care less about anyone but themselves. Its truly an incredible mind set. They ride this thing they call four square, in which they ride two abreast with two in front and two behind, four people total, all proudly wearing there dayglow underwear, they make it a point to take up the whole road and block the traffic. Its resulted in multiple deaths over the years.

Once you have to live with there belligerent riding habits and see the consequences it wakes you up real fast to the realities of the "sport"

I'm not surprised that once one was caught doping, they all were, its a rare group that is as selfish and difficult to reason with as the cyclists

Alexi Greywall lived in George town, another small mountain town up above Boulder. Not sure if he's still there or not but he had an A frame just on the edge of town. Reviled by one and all, except that is the small contingent or worshipers he seemed to drag around with him. He was one of the louder proponents of riding in the canyons and eventually was run over. He lived, others have not.

There was another who rode down the middle of Nelson road everyday about 10:30 am. I had a ranch down there and had to deal with that one on an almost daily basis. That one got run over as well. Not sure if she lived or died, but its her own damn fault either way, the residents were just thrilled she was gone. I never saw her again.

Friends wife was about the most cautious driver ever, over cautious actually, always five or so under the limit, I didn't much like following her up the canyons either. She died when she swerved to miss a cyclist in the road coming around a corner in the center of the road.

I could go on and on about the injuries and damages caused by cyclists all over the road in complete disregard to the safety of the people just trying to say drive the kids to school or trying to get to work. Its a tragedy that will surely some day be illegal, probably just after some senators wife or kids loose there lives to a cyclist in the road.

There is an unspoken rule of thumb in the canyon, hit the guy that caused the accident, don't swerve and take out someones wife and kids coming up the other lane. Its saved many a lives and puts the injury where its deserved. I've seen several of those as well. Fortunately the police seem to realize the reality of the situation and prosecution is rare. The situation is untenable and eventually the lives and safety of the community must prevail.

I could be moving back to Boulder in the next year or two, lets hope things have improved a bit by then. A good start would be if they were required to be registered, licensed and insured, so they can pay for the accidents they cause.

The cyclists were nightmare to have to deal with, the worst part of my Boulder experience. I am not surprised in any way at all that once the ball got rolling they all turned on each other in a blur of back stabbing that has yet to all shake out. Kinda serves them right, the whole "sport" needs a serious reevaluation.

Hwyl
10-11-2012, 11:16 AM
What are we going to do with all those yellow rubber bracelets?

beernd
10-11-2012, 11:45 AM
So Lance insists he is the only member of US Postal that did not dope? Hmm.

No he is the only cyclist ever that has completed the Tour de France on a breakfast of cereals and a banana or two.
What we need is a bunch of cycling journalists trying to do even one single etappe of the Tour de France without dope that would be an eye opener.

Get real everybody, doping in the top sports world is as old as the invention of dope.
It has been going on all the time. Remember the book by Ernest Hemingway, about his years in Paris, how he went to the race track to check out the doped horses?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2012, 12:16 PM
For me Tyler Hamiltons and George Hincappi's admission has changed my view of Lance's credibility. I've seen the 60 min Hamilton interview and it's pretty damning and honest account of life in that level.

As most of you know I was a competitive cat 1 cyclist, i raced with Greg Lemond and even did NY crits with Hincappi, and an avid defender of Armstrong. The fact is cycling is a BRUTAL sport and the drugs we are talking about are in most cases drugs to help you recover and regrow from the beating you put yourself through in competitive pro cycling.

It should be known that since the advent of the sport it was the sport to get out of the getto or the farm and make something of yourself. It was equivalent to american boxing culture in Europe, beat yourself up physically to make a little money and move from your squalid life back home. Drugs, drinking hell smoking and bad behavior were part of the sport. Riders in the early days of the tour would ride without support at times getting beaten up by fans and continue. Riders would ride miles with broken femurs, ribs etc. These were hard men. That culture of SUFFERING is built into the sport. As for drugs look up Tom Simpson. Simpson was Britain's first men's road race World Champion (a feat matched only by Mark Cavendish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cavendish) in 2011), and won three monument classics, Paris-Nice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris-Nice) and two Vuelta a Espaņa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuelta_a_Espa%C3%B1a) stages. He infamously died of exhaustion on the slopes of Mont Ventoux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Ventoux) during the 13th stage of the 1967 Tour de France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Simpson#cite_note-1) The post mortem examination found that he had taken amphetamine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphetamine) and alcohol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage), a diuretic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diuretic) combination which proved fatal when combined with the heat, the hard climb of the Ventoux and a stomach complaint.
Im sad that my hero road dirty but I'm not overly suprized

Very good post, Joe.

As I said earlier, I think this year's Tour was clean at the top level, but it was probably the first one for many, many years. If you consider that Armstrong, like Mercxx, was competing and winning against others who were doping, you can still respect his achievements for what they were.

switters
10-11-2012, 01:15 PM
Boulder county, much of the state for that matter spent hundreds of millions putting in bike paths and lanes. The law requires that a cyclist use them if one is available. Never happens, I had one cyclist actually tell me that the bike lanes have rocks and debris in them and the auto lanes are nice and clean because the cars go fast enough to blow them clear. So he prefers the car lanes. In the small town I lived in up the canyon, we lost about one motorist a year to cyclists in the road. Millions spent trying to accommodate those people and they couldn't care less about anyone but themselves. Its truly an incredible mind set. They ride this thing they call four square, in which they ride two abreast with two in front and two behind, four people total, all proudly wearing there dayglow underwear, they make it a point to take up the whole road and block the traffic. Its resulted in multiple deaths over the years.

Once you have to live with there belligerent riding habits and see the consequences it wakes you up real fast to the realities of the "sport"

I'm not surprised that once one was caught doping, they all were, its a rare group that is as selfish and difficult to reason with as the cyclists

Alexi Greywall lived in George town, another small mountain town up above Boulder. Not sure if he's still there or not but he had an A frame just on the edge of town. Reviled by one and all, except that is the small contingent or worshipers he seemed to drag around with him. He was one of the louder proponents of riding in the canyons and eventually was run over. He lived, others have not.

There was another who rode down the middle of Nelson road everyday about 10:30 am. I had a ranch down there and had to deal with that one on an almost daily basis. That one got run over as well. Not sure if she lived or died, but its her own damn fault either way, the residents were just thrilled she was gone. I never saw her again.

Friends wife was about the most cautious driver ever, over cautious actually, always five or so under the limit, I didn't much like following her up the canyons either. She died when she swerved to miss a cyclist in the road coming around a corner in the center of the road.

I could go on and on about the injuries and damages caused by cyclists all over the road in complete disregard to the safety of the people just trying to say drive the kids to school or trying to get to work. Its a tragedy that will surely some day be illegal, probably just after some senators wife or kids loose there lives to a cyclist in the road.

There is an unspoken rule of thumb in the canyon, hit the guy that caused the accident, don't swerve and take out someones wife and kids coming up the other lane. Its saved many a lives and puts the injury where its deserved. I've seen several of those as well. Fortunately the police seem to realize the reality of the situation and prosecution is rare. The situation is untenable and eventually the lives and safety of the community must prevail.

I could be moving back to Boulder in the next year or two, lets hope things have improved a bit by then. A good start would be if they were required to be registered, licensed and insured, so they can pay for the accidents they cause.

The cyclists were nightmare to have to deal with, the worst part of my Boulder experience. I am not surprised in any way at all that once the ball got rolling they all turned on each other in a blur of back stabbing that has yet to all shake out. Kinda serves them right, the whole "sport" needs a serious reevaluation.

Nice rant, my opinion is that you are using a mighty big big brush when you talk about cyclists. I ride to work every day, on a route with a bike path I might add, and stopping at lights and signs. It is unbelievable the stupid crap I see cagers doing every week, running stop signs, speeding, using bike lanes as turn lanes or even better, parking. And guess what, they are licensed and registered. They have been known to hit bicyclists, which usually does not work out well for the person on the bike. I will grant you that the clubs in full kit can be annoying, but - they have a right to the road, and after several years of complaints in Larimer county the clubs are getting better at keeping themselves from riding in big bunches that stretch to the middle of the road as well as using routes that have a minimum of auto traffic.

Share the road, I am.

And more on topic, I feel a little let down about Lance. And naive. I've never raced, and never followed the TDF until Lance came along, but I was cheering for him at the time.

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 01:17 PM
And more on topic, I feel a little let down about Lance. And naive. I've never raced, and never followed the TDF until Lance came along, but I was cheering for him at the time.

I feel the same exact way.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 02:10 PM
For me Tyler Hamiltons and George Hincappi's admission has changed my view of Lance's credibility. I've seen the 60 min Hamilton interview and it's pretty damning and honest account of life in that level.

+1.

Eleven of Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service teammates not only testified against Armstrong to the USADA... they also admitted to doping themselves.

So Lance was the ONLY U.S. Postal Service team member who did not dope? So all of his teammates are either lying opportunists or scared kittens lying to avoid prosecution themselves? To believe that defies credibility.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 02:12 PM
FWIW: I STILL admire Greg Lemond.

B_B
10-11-2012, 02:20 PM
What are we going to do with all those yellow rubber bracelets?
This is why he's so adamant. He's long past racing; I suppose if he'd come clean we could assume the posture (correctly) that he was a doped cyclist racing against other doped cyclists and thereby accept his wins (and all others from that era) as 'fair'.

But his agenda has always been larger than cycling (for good or evil) and it is for this legacy that he fights on.

I can't say I blame him either.

Paul Pless
10-11-2012, 02:23 PM
Any relationship between his cancer and alleged drug use?

like this guy. . .

http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2002/175/4672_1025013690.jpg

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 02:29 PM
Any relationship between his cancer and alleged drug use?

like this guy. . .

http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2002/175/4672_1025013690.jpg
I think that is a fair question. I don't know the answer. But it would be interesting if oncologists were to weigh in with their opinions.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 02:32 PM
I am with the opinion of others that Wiggins and the Sky team were clean.

I do not accept the argument that doping cannot be stopped.

skuthorp
10-11-2012, 02:35 PM
The UCI(?), the cycling authority, says it will 'consider' the 200 summary of evidence. They, of course, have a vested interest in not finding against Armstrong and 20 years of the TDF and professional cycling in general. It remains to be seen whether anyone wants to go near a court with this stuff even though the evidence for drugs in the sport in general is undeniable. I'd like to think that it isn't true but on balance it probably is.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2012, 02:36 PM
Wiggins' comments:

"It's pretty damning stuff. It is pretty jaw-dropping the amount of people who have testified against him.
"It is certainly not a one-sided hatchet job, it is pretty damning. I am shocked at the scale of the evidence. I have been involved in pro cycling for a long time and I realise what it takes to train and win the Tour de France.


"I'm not surprised by it...I had a good idea what is going on."

Asked if he had sympathy for Armstrong he replied:

"Not really. My main concern is that I am standing here as the winner of the Tour de France after a summer where we have won how many Olympic gold medals? I've lost count...

"We are the ones picking these pieces up. For me it is about moving forward and not looking back any more to what happened 10, 15 years ago.
"It always is [frustrating answering questions about drugs cheats]. It is not something which sits easily. Everyone knows where we stand on that, it is about looking forward.
"We are one of the most successful sports for catching people. I don't think that is relevant to what we are doing today. What we are doing today is setting the example for our sport."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9602947/Bradley-Wiggins-admits-shock-at-Lance-Armstrong-doping-dossier.html

Phillip Allen
10-11-2012, 04:12 PM
follow the money... pro sports is about as honest as pro wresteling

George Jung
10-11-2012, 05:03 PM
Having read the USADA's full (1000 pages) report I am profoundly underwhelmed. As the take care to point out from the start (p 15) the "standard of proof" amounts to a feeling and there is absolutely no physical evidence.

As Joe has pointed out, cycling was never a genteel sport. Many of these guys are not just admirably tough. They are also egotistical, arrogant and obnoxious. And the drug rules/tolorance/enforcement culture kept changing. So it's perfectly possible that Armstrong took something that was or should have been or could have been or might have been wrong or banned or forbidden or not related to his regular legitimate medical treatment. But the USADA admits from jump they have no, never had any, physical evidence.

I rather agree with Armstrong that given how the USADA reached its condemnation, given that the evidence came down to their belief that the absence of evidence was proof of guilt, there was not much point in further argument.

End of story for me.


Agree with you 100%; that's it, in a nutshell.

John Meachen
10-11-2012, 05:50 PM
Agree with you 100%; that's it, in a nutshell.

Knowing very little about the American legal system I have to ask why he is avoiding legal action if he is innocent,wouldn't the potential damages be astronomical?It looks a lot like a strategic move by the USADA to give him the choice of remaining silent and tacitly admitting guilt or facing a court with considerable penalties for perjury if any of the participants are lying.
It would have been inspirational if a cancer survivor could have built a stellar career by hard work alone.

George Jung
10-11-2012, 06:04 PM
What court/penalties are you alluding to? The USADA is a prosecutor/judge/jury, rolled all into one - and their findings are not subject to review. Unaware of them being able to fine an athlete, however. AFA - why avoid legal action? I'm not sure he is - will simply have to see how this plays out.

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 06:08 PM
Every single member of the U.S. Postal Service team doped except for Lance Armstrong.

Correct George?

Or is it that every single member of the U.S. Postal Service team is lying for one reason or another except for Lance Armstrong?

Don't hold your breath waiting for Armstrong to take legal action to restore his reputation. My guess is he will do so at about the same time Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds do so.
m

John Meachen
10-11-2012, 06:15 PM
What court/penalties are you alluding to? The USADA is a prosecutor/judge/jury, rolled all into one - and their findings are not subject to review. Unaware of them being able to fine an athlete, however. AFA - why avoid legal action? I'm not sure he is - will simply have to see how this plays out.
To expand a little,if Armstrong felt that he had been unfairly accused and penalised,couldn't he sue the USADA for a colossal sum for the damage to his reputation?I read the first sixty pages of the report and have to wonder what innocent explanation there could be for paying a doctor $200,000 dollars given the range of special knowledge the doctor in question was known to bring to his clients.

Boston
10-11-2012, 06:19 PM
Thanks Switter, you might find it interesting that I also used to ride my bike to work when I lived down in town. But the option of riding the canyons is just so egregious to so many that I left off riding to work and back when I was up the hill. And yes, I also was adamant about using the creak path out to Arapahoe rd bike path, I used to work at a company specialized in solar applications, just off Arapahoe. Deal is its possible to be a responsible rider, its just that about 80~90% of the riders out there aren't. The college kids are a whole other story, they tend to be at least not deliberately in the way, actually trying to get somewhere, I have a lot of mercy for there plight. College is grueling to say the least. But show me a cyclist in a day glow tutu and there's about a 90% chance he's not in the bike lane and just dying for a chance to "claim some road".

The issue is huge in the mountain communities and people are dying because of the cycling lobby's success. Eventually, given how completely untenable the situation really is ( you have to live it to really understand ) there's no way that eventually logic and safety won't prevail. I guess the question becomes ; how many people have to lose there lives before the laws catch up to the realities.

Cheers and best of luck
not real interested in the cycling soap opera
Just though it needed to be said that these same cyclists generally "practice/train" in the most dangerous, selfish and thoughtless manor possible, small wonder they turn on each other so easily. Sounds like not one of them stood up to the pressure to squeal on there team mate. Seems like we might be able to add the term fair weather friends to the long list of others that accurately define the type. Rant it may be, but loose a friend or two to some idiot riding the canyon and then maybe you'll better understand my frustration with the situation.

Cheers
B

George Jung
10-11-2012, 06:30 PM
It's unclear (to me) what, if any, legal options Armstrong has in that regard. Perhaps we'll hear in the coming days. But I suspect much will depend on how the other organizations react to this move by the USADA. The CIC has been pretty closed-mouth about their take on this.

Boston - lots of truth in your last post.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2012, 06:41 PM
On a balance of probabilities...

.... is it likely than anyone could win the Tour de France seven times without doping?

.... is it likely that the ten other members of his team would all admit to doping, thereby damaging their own reputations, just to bring down an American hero? Why would they do that?

.... If eleven men are party to some information, ten men say one thing, and one man says the opposite, who do we usually believe?

.... why hire, a great expense, a team doctor known for his skills in the area of doping?

.... if Armstrong is innocent, he will sue.

B_B
10-11-2012, 06:51 PM
.... is it likely than anyone could win the Tour de France seven times without doping?
....
The more correct question is "is it likely than anyone could win the Tour de France seven times without doping while everyone else is?"

George Jung
10-11-2012, 06:51 PM
Notable in your post - very logical, but not one bit of proof. The 'positive old samples' reportedly weren't handled 'correctly', without specifying how, exactly. The US Govt pursued Armstrong for two years, at great expense - and couldn't proceed - not enough evidence. The USADA doesn't have to meet that standard, and can convict simply on suspicion. AFA 'why have (armstrongs) 'friends' turned on him?' Open to conjecture. Maybe they're not friends; maybe Armstrong is an A-hole. Maybe the prospect of 'getting off light' if they testified for the ADA was enough to 'convince' them. Lots of maybe's, what-ifs. No proof.

Does that mean anything to you?

Tom Montgomery
10-11-2012, 06:59 PM
AFA 'why have (armstrongs) 'friends' turned on him?' Open to conjecture. Maybe they're not friends; maybe Armstrong is an A-hole. Maybe the prospect of 'getting off light' if they testified for the ADA was enough to 'convince' them. Lots of maybe's, what-ifs. No proof.

Does that mean anything to you?Sure it does.

A LOT of people have been convicted for crimes based on circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony.

How does any U.S. Postal Service team member "get off light" by admitting to doping? Doesn't that result in their banishment from future athletic competition just like Lance Armstrong?

Or are you referring to the penalties regarding perjury? If they tell the truth they should have nothing to fear. What incentive would they have to claim they have doped if it is not true?

AFAIK no one is facing criminal charges. If so they should all consider themselves lucky.
M

B_B
10-11-2012, 07:02 PM
Notable in your post - very logical, but not one bit of proof. The 'positive old samples' reportedly weren't handled 'correctly', without specifying how, exactly. The US Govt pursued Armstrong for two years, at great expense - and couldn't proceed - not enough evidence. The USADA doesn't have to meet that standard, and can convict simply on suspicion. AFA 'why have (armstrongs) 'friends' turned on him?' Open to conjecture. Maybe they're not friends; maybe Armstrong is an A-hole. Maybe the prospect of 'getting off light' if they testified for the ADA was enough to 'convince' them. Lots of maybe's, what-ifs. No proof.

Does that mean anything to you?
Not enough evidence for a criminal proceeding is different than enough evidence for a civil one.

Even in a criminal case one does not need 'physical proof' to establish guilt.

Eleven teammates testifying that Armstrong gave them dope, administered dope on them, asked them to bring him dope, and used dope with them, is not 'suspicion', it's proof.

Why does that not mean anything to you? (personal experience with administrations run amok certainly cause me to lend some sympathy to Armstrong, but not enough to blind me to reality).

B_B
10-11-2012, 07:09 PM
...How does any U.S. Postal Service team member "get off light" by admitting to doping? ...
FWIW there are several people involved to whom USADA means nothing - USADA has zero jurisdiction outside the US and US athletes.

The idea that USADA could threaten the non-Americans on the team or sweeten the deal for them (especially those who've retired and aren't competitive anymore) to a point they'd ruin their reputations by coming forward to testify FALSELY against Armstrong is patently ridiculous. Absurd beyond belief.

pipefitter
10-11-2012, 07:40 PM
I agree with Boston about the cyclists in Boulder. I used to live there as well as Longmont for a spell. It's as if they are daring you to infringe on their sport and they are indeed ***holes for the most part.

We had a roommate that was a wannabe cyclist. All the trendy garb trying to look like a pro with the geeky spandex etc. He would always go out for his workout during rush hour. I used to ask him why and he would not have an answer other than that's when he felt like it. I knew why though. It's because that was the busiest time that the most people would get to see him in all his geekiness with his posing as one of the so called elites and he could get the negative attention he seemed to crave. He also used to marvel at his calf muscles a lot in front of the mirror in his room as well.

I never really had an opinion of cyclists or cared one way or the other, figuring that they represented one less car on the road, less pollution etc until I lived in Boulder.

epoxyboy
10-12-2012, 04:10 AM
I have one view. "Roadies Suck"
:D
Ouch! I have a roadie and an MTB, and love them both. But I have to admit that there seem to be more @@sholes on road bikes. I prefer training on my own, because it just turns into a big testosterone fuelled pi$$ing contest if you get into a bunch. And as a driver, their road manners suck.

Pete

seanz
10-12-2012, 04:22 AM
Pete, I used to ride mountain bikes "way back when" and that was just a commonly used expression.....probably not based in fact at all.
:D

I think that roadies hated MTB riders for raising the issue "Aren't bikes supposed to be fun?".
;)

epoxyboy
10-12-2012, 04:43 AM
Pete, I used to ride mountain bikes "way back when" and that was just a commonly used expression.....probably not based in fact at all.
:D

I think that roadies hated MTB riders for raising the issue "Aren't bikes supposed to be fun?".
;)
MTB riders who pass you while you're busting your hump climbing Dyers Pass almost always say hi. Roadies almost never do. But having done the Grape Ride three times now, and the inaugural Ride the Rakaia in borderline hypothermic nasty conditions, I have to say that the support from other riders (99% roadies) was outstanding. But for a fun ride, MTB wins hands down. Except when dislocating AC joints. Which I have since crash tested successfully.:d

Pete

seanz
10-12-2012, 04:50 AM
Good to hear you healed up successfully.
:)

While we're on the subject of "sports-medicine"....those drugs that the Tour cyclists take, they don't get in there by accident, they are professionally administered. A while back perfectly fit and healthy young men were dying in their sleep because of EPO that was given to them by team doctors.
There seems to be a code of silence around the involvement of team staff in the drug cheating......or is that just a reflection of the media concentration on the sports 'stars'?

beernd
10-12-2012, 03:07 PM
The more correct question is "is it likely than anyone could win the Tour de France seven times without doping while everyone else is?"

Now that is spot on.
I have googled the story of a British cyclist in the Tour the France in the 1970's ( I know this is as vague as it can get).
Anyway he fell of his bike, people helped him on his feet again and the guy started pedaling again and then dropped again. This time he was dead.

Even the holier than thou Dutch Rabo team are starting to confess, in as far as they say everybody should get clean.
Drugs and the cyclist sport, in the 1970's (again there was a Flamish comedian who did a great act on it.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-12-2012, 05:18 PM
Now that is spot on.
I have googled the story of a British cyclist in the Tour the France in the 1970's ( I know this is as vague as it can get).
Anyway he fell of his bike, people helped him on his feet again and the guy started pedaling again and then dropped again. This time he was dead.



Tom Simpson. The best British cyclist until Wiggins. World road race champion, 1965. Died on the Tour, 1967, aged 30. The spot where he died on Mount Ventoux is a place of pilgrimage for British cyclists.

Vince Brennan
10-12-2012, 09:07 PM
I think that, (one supposes) like many, I felt some sympathy for Armstrong, battling his way thru the cancer and continuing to strive to be the best despite what would (IMO) have rendered me mostly immobile.

I supposed (as I had been told) that the "trace" amounts of his anti-cancer drugs had been the trigger for any indicators of doping drugs.

And, I must admit, the TYPE of cancer he had increased whatever tendency I had for sympathy for him.

But...


I have discovered one thing in my life: It may have had a short-term purpose (or been a short-term enjoyment[and it were!])when you put it in the Ol' Bod (after all, we were NEVER gonna die...) but Brother, the Piper is standing outside the door and his foot is tapping as he awaits his payment.

There's a reason Howie Long has that perennially worried expression on his face. I shouldn't at all be surprised to hear of his retirement form broadcasting due to "health reasons" in the near future, and I only hope his son isn't being as foolish as his father HAD to have been to develop that Bod.

Lyle Alzado was one of those totally amazing players who was almo...no, he WAS "superhuman" in his abilities. Given our present knowledge of the use of "those drugs" while he played, is it any wonder he could do what he did? What about Romanowski, probably the most feared player of his day (and for good reason)?

We are teetering on the apex of this story and the downslope is NOT gonna be pretty.



Not for Lance, not for a LOT of athletes.



(Damn sure I'm not looking forward to it...)