|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Lance Armstrong and the consequences
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Two quotes from Tukai's link give pause for thought. Firstly re the re-opening of a criminal investigation (as opposed to the civil case)
quote:
"If I were a betting man I would say they are absolutely, positively not going to re-open the investigation," said Professor Jordan Kobritz, chair of the Sports Management Department at SUNY Cortland.
Kobritz said that any criminal prosecution would be tough to prove to a jury and would cost millions of dollars.
Secondly, this more general observation
quote:
"If anyone still believes he was not doping, then they believe in Santa Claus." Professor Jordan Kobritz
I'd suggest those paradoxical quotes give pause for thought about the burden of proof in criminal cases. There are, quite properly, very high standards to be observed over the precise nature of charges and what evidence is admissible. Depriving people of their liberty requires very high standards. Burden of proof and benefit of doubt allow a lot of wriggle room.
Re-opening the civil case seems much more likely, if for no other reason than the chances of a "without prejudice" out of court settlement must have been greatly increased. Hard to believe Armstrong's lawyers would advise a fight in court with SCA Promotions now. Particularly if the UCI stay mum on the USADA report.
Depriving people of their money is subject to rather different considerations than depriving them of their liberty. That's hardly a surprise.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder if Grits and orfeo have seen the significance of this extract from the start of the report.
quote:
Pursuant to Article 8.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (the “Code”), after a sanction is announced because the sanctioned party has failed to challenge the charges against the party, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management authority shall submit to the entities with appeal rights a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
In short, the document now published is necessary precisely because Lance Armstrong did not challenge the charges.
I must have missed the part where it says "publish it loudly on the internet". In fact, I missed where it had the word publish at all.
Hahaha! So if the evidence isn't published, the cry goes up "this is a witch hunt, there's no evidence" and if it is, the complaint is "how dare you publish this evidence, you're not following proper procedures." Brilliant!
Barney's already pointed out that contrary to the claims of Armstrong fanbois, USADA are following due process to the letter. And everyone is surely aware that doping cases follow different rules from the norm in criminal cases, most obviously because strict liability is applied.
But it's technically true that Armstrong is yet to be officially found guilty (or more accurately, that his guilty verdict still has to be ratified by the UCI). Still, the evidence is clearly sufficiently damning for RSNT to sack Johan Bruyneel, even though he denies the charges, is due for an arbitration hearing, and wasn't even the subject of the published "reasoned decision". I have no idea how anyone who's been paying attention can claim that Armstrong's anything other than guilty as sin (and as charged).
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
The other would be a civil case in which a sponsor wants some of their money back (they tried to withhold it originally on grounds of suspicion of doping but Lance successfully sued them on grounds that he was not a doper !), so the case would rest on his 'obtaining money by false pretences'
The SCA Promotions case you refer to was not actually decided in LA's favour because he in any way defended himself against allegations that he cheated.
It was decided on a technicality, in that the terms of the contract only specified that Armstrong had to have won the Tours to be awarded the bonuses ($5 million, IIRC). It was not considered an issue how he won the Tours, only that he was officially recognised to have won them.
Not surprisingly, now that he is being stripped of his wins SCA are pretty keen to get their money back.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
The fallout is starting to take effect in Australia. Former US Postal rider Matt White has admitted doping. He has stood down from his roles with the Green Edge team, where he is sporting director, and with Cycling Australia, where he is a national selector.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Hahaha! So if the evidence isn't published, the cry goes up "this is a witch hunt, there's no evidence" and if it is, the complaint is "how dare you publish this evidence, you're not following proper procedures." Brilliant!
No. If the evidence isn't aired in the appropriate forum, then there's a complaint from me. I don't recall EVER saying "there's no evidence". Nor were the claims of witch hunt from Armstrong, as far as I'm aware, based on "there's no evidence". It was based on saying that the evidence was of questionable credibility.
As for the business about criminal versus civil burdens of proof that people have raised: that is absolutely correct, but completely beside the point. All you do is replace the words "prosecutor" and "defendant" with "plaintiff" and "defendant". In a civil case the same basic principle of testing evidence applies. The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
What happens when the defendant says "I'm done here"?
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I mean, I still try to support our national tenet that says a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. It's like a crime with no body -- I don't believe there will ever be definitive proof of his guilt, no matter what is said now.
Here's the body (pdf file) -- the sworn statements of more than two dozen witnesses outweigh Armstrong's denials and silence?
Still, by many standards -- legal and otherwise -- that does not substantiate actual proof.
Out of interest, how you do explain the sworn eyewitness statements by 7 former teammates and by 26 witnesses in total, the corroborating scientific evidence and the $1 million in payments to the banned doping doctor?
Y'all are moving on a lot of emotion. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
What happens when the defendant says "I'm done here"?
Good question. Depends on the system, but it's still the judge who decides whether the plaintiff has made a convincing case. Not the plaintiff.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koshatnik:
The fallout is starting to take effect in Australia. Former US Postal rider Matt White has admitted doping. He has stood down from his roles with the Green Edge team, where he is sporting director, and with Cycling Australia, where he is a national selector.
Clear evidence that the thing is a frame-up. No Australian would ever do Bad Things In Sport™. Only Russians and Nasty People do that. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
... The case is not closed when the plaintiff says "here you go, here's all my evidence".
What happens when the defendant says "I'm done here"?
Good question. Depends on the system, but it's still the judge who decides whether the plaintiff has made a convincing case. Not the plaintiff.
The USADA has limited powers and the various international bodies (the entities as the report puts it) need to be satisfied about the fairness of the reasoned decision before ratifying it, or giving further effect to it.
In that sense, they are "judging" the "prosecution".
orfeo, I think you are crying "not fair" re USADA because their processes do not meet the strict tests of conviction in criminal cases. I think the SUNY professor I quoted above would agree with you. If the evidence in the USADA report did, incontrovertibly, meet those standards, then the US criminal prosecutors would be able to use it to re-open the question of Armstrong's criminality. His call is "very unlikely to do that" and I think he's probably right for the reasons he gave.
But that is also beside the point. Using the agreed and proper framework of its own quasi-judicial processes, the USADA report is overwhelmingly persuasive that
a) Lance Armstrong not only broke doping rules
but also
b) used his power and influence to put a lot of pressure on team-mates to do the same - to help him out.
To quote the good Professor, not seeing that is a a bit like giving the benefit of the doubt to the existence of Santa Claus.
You may not like the process, orfeo, but it's hard to disagree with the professor over its persuasiveness. Or in my view its propriety within USADA rules of operation.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Y'all are moving on a lot of emotion. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
For most if not all of those years Armstrong was the team's #1 rider. He was the one with the greatest chance of winning races and the rest of the riders in the team were there to give him the best possible chance of winning. that's the way it is with road races like the Tour de France.
In addition to assisting the lead rider on the road, they did so off the road too.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The USADA has limited powers and the various international bodies (the entities as the report puts it) need to be satisfied about the fairness of the reasoned decision before ratifying it, or giving further effect to it.
In that sense, they are "judging" the "prosecution".
Exactly. So until the ratification and futher effect happens, the process is still in progress. The USADA doesn't control the Tour de France, for instance.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For most if not all of those years Armstrong was the team's #1 rider. He was the one with the greatest chance of winning races and the rest of the riders in the team were there to give him the best possible chance of winning. that's the way it is with road races like the Tour de France.
In addition to assisting the lead rider on the road, they did so off the road too.
On top of this, if the Belgian press is to be believed* (see my link on the previous page) is that it wasn't Armstrong but team mnager Johan Bruyneel who was the brains behind hiding Armstrong and others doping.
British press does not seem interested in Bruyneel, after all it is Armstrong whose name is on the record books as US champion, world champion and seven times Tour de France winner. If the investigators would go after Bruyneel there is more chance IMO of establishing the truth about Armstrong.
*phrase to stay on the right side of the libel laws.
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The USADA has limited powers and the various international bodies (the entities as the report puts it) need to be satisfied about the fairness of the reasoned decision before ratifying it, or giving further effect to it.
In that sense, they are "judging" the "prosecution".
Exactly. So until the ratification and futher effect happens, the process is still in progress. The USADA doesn't control the Tour de France, for instance.
Sure, that's common ground. The fact that a very large number of us are personally persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt has no part to play in this outworking. We're not part of the judging process.
I accept your point that media behaviour does seem to set aside these ratification processes. But then it often does. "Provisional until ratified" doesn't sell papers or advertising.
WADA, UCI, IOC will take seriously their responsibilities to both the sport and those suspended by the USADA processes. The published reasoned decision leaves them no option. However embarrassing it may be to some.
The reasoned decision is also an Aunt Sally from their POV. It will stand unless someone finds good reasons to discredit it. I'm sure USADA are only too keenly aware of that.
Won't be long now.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
boofhead
Shipmate
# 4478
|
Posted
GRITS. Read the evidence summary - USADA's evidence against Armstrong
There were positive tests, one during the tour in 1999 where Armstrong was popped for cortisone. They made up a medical exemption after he was popped to cover up. (Emma O'Reilly) .
He was popped for EPO during the 2001 Tour de Suisse and paid off the UCI to make it go away.
Then a journalist from L'Equippe got hold of some retroactive tests from the 1999 tour from the AFLD where they were trialling a new test for EPO. He then got hold of some information from the UCI tying riders' names to their samples and was able to work out that Armstrong , using the new test was positive at least 6 times during the 1999 tour
Going along with that, 5 of his 8 team mates from the 1999 tour have testified that they were using banned drugs and they saw Armstrong using banned drugs.
And finally read the testimony of Betsy Andreu and David Zabriskie and weep for what he did to them and put them through. And if you are feeling unfulfilled, go and read this thread on the Cyclingnews Forum .Livestrong is a sham used to fund Armstrong's lifestyle.
Posts: 111 | From: Sydney | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
Others have covered 'never tested positive'. He did, at least eight times that we know of.
Neither was he the only one who cheated and didn't get caught. George Hincapie never tested positive. Dave Zabriskie never tested positive. Christian Vande Velde never tested positive. Tom Danielson, Jonathan Vaughters, Michael Barry. Their sworn confessions are all available here.
And these are only examples from the current USADA case. Going back a few years we have Bjarne Riis, Jan Ullrich, Alex Zulle. They all raced in Armstrong's era, never tripped the wire and later admitted doping. I could go on, but it's a long list.
[ 14. October 2012, 08:57: Message edited by: koshatnik ]
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
///I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
There is a persistent myth developing that Lance is the only one here without a positive drug test, or facing punishment.
This is not true.
A few people who have said they were doping and have been given bans were not caught.
Hincapie for one.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
Despite Armstrong saying he is ignoring all of this, he clearly isn't. He still has lawyers releasing statements and trying to control the public reaction. PR is all Armstrong cares about now. There was no way on earth he was going to end up under oath.
Livestrong, I predict will be next on the radar. Now there is some serious interest in Armstrong and it's fashionable to give him a (deserved) kicking it wouldn't surprise me if lots of journalists are doing some digging into the organisation.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
Tonight's Four Corners program on Australian TV interviewed a number of the true heroes in the Armstrong case. They include Betsy Andreu, who told the truth in court in 2005 and copped years of subsequent abuse. Michael Ashendon, the Australian doctor who helped develop the test for EPO. And former Armstrong masseuse Emma O'Reilly, who bravely told her story to Sunday Times journo David Walsh in 2004 and was vilified by LA as an alcoholic prostitute.
It's online here and gives a decent sense of how deep the rabbit hole goes. Not sure if video will play for those across ditches/ponds.
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
It'll play here in the UK. Interesting that it features a few bits from Phil Liggett....
quote:
PHIL LIGGETT: I, look, I admit I've, I've been very proud to commentate on Armstrong over these, over these years because I've seen a man and I've seen how he's battled the elements and I've seen how he's come forward, and I'm very sad. What do I think? Everybody else did it, so I find it very difficult not to think that Lance did it
Also interesting the the Armstrong team are now keen on lie detector tests
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Without disputing that Livestrong has done some good work, it seems that its contribution to actual cancer research is ... well, tricky to pin down.
[ 15. October 2012, 14:04: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubifex Maximus
Shipmate
# 4874
|
Posted
The BBC Radio 5 programme "Peddlers, Cycling's dirty truth" is available on i-player here It's two hours long and pretty detailed.
--------------------
Sit down, Oh sit down, sit down next to me.
Posts: 400 | From: Manchester | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Armstrong has stepped down from Livestrong.
As to Grits' constant refrain that he 'never tested positive' - you have been told a number of times on this thread that he has. You are ignoring it.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A sign of the pressure on UCI.
And another sign.
Personally, I'm happy for the UCI to take the full 21 days and come out with something considered, rather than get prompted into something hasty.
I should think the UCI lawyers' offices are pretty busy places at present.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
Y'all are moving on a lot of emotion. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that Armstrong is innocent, merely pointing out that in all those years of drug testing, he was the only one who didn't get caught? Bribery and tomfoolery aside, it's still hard to imagine. One positive test would go a long way.
Okay. Tested positive for EPO in his 1999 urine samples. EPO testing on urine samples was not a technique that came into effect until 2001 - so he wasn't caught at the time. (This is the problem - the doctors were a step ahead of the regulators until the Biological Passport).
You want a second? He tested positive for steroids - and claimed that it matched a cream he used for saddle sores. Anyone want to guess why he used that cream?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
The UCI have ratified the USADA decision
quote:
UCI president Pat McQuaid said: "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. He deserves to be forgotten."
McQuaid added Armstrong had been stripped of all results since 1 August, 1998 and banned for life.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Here is a link to the UCI statement.
It's an interesting read, defensive in places, containing some criticism of the USADA statement, ratifying it's decisions, leaving open the question of whether Armstrong or WADA will call in the CAS. So far as WADA is concerned, the response seems to me to be suggesting that an appeal by them to CAS re statute of limitation would be in WADA interests and consistent with WADA responsibilities. "We're not going to appeal, maybe you should?" seems to me to be the thrust of that part of the response.
Essentially, the UCI has acquiesced in the decision, with some qualifications and reservations, but not sufficient to justify an apppeal.
It's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
The list of TdF winners is showing 'vacated' for the years 1999 to 2005. Are they going to award these to other riders or leave it blank?
As Cadel Evans* is the only rider to have been on the podium in those years who has not been linked to drug taking at some point in his career I think it is better left unawarded.
*At least so far.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is a link to the UCI statement.
It's an interesting read, defensive in places, containing some criticism of the USADA statement, ratifying it's decisions, leaving open the question of whether Armstrong or WADA will call in the CAS. So far as WADA is concerned, the response seems to me to be suggesting that an appeal by them to CAS re statute of limitation would be in WADA interests and consistent with WADA responsibilities. "We're not going to appeal, maybe you should?" seems to me to be the thrust of that part of the response.
Essentially, the UCI has acquiesced in the decision, with some qualifications and reservations, but not sufficient to justify an apppeal.
It's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Very interesting indeed. I doubt the media will pick up all the subtleties in here. It pretty much says "we end up agreeing with the outcome but your process left a lot to be desired".
And you know what? I'm okay with that. Because as much as anything it tells me that the UCI looked at this case with a critical eye, and came to the conclusion that the procedural defects weren't enough to void the outcome.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
The saddest thing is that I'm afraid this is going to backfire on the sport as a whole. I mean, do I really even care about it anymore, since it seems impossible to determine if anyone is riding "unaided"? I'll be suspicious of every win from now on, and that just kind of ruins it for me. Watching the Tour de France was always a highlight of my summer; now, I just think it will be hard to appreciate any of it.
I guess they felt they had to pursue it to this end, but they may have just put the last nail in the coffin for the future of competitive cycling.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The irony is that if they were ALL doing it, if they had all STOPPED doing it then Armstrong might have won anyway.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The thing I don't understand - how did he feel when he won - knowing it was all a cheat? His celebrations looked so genuine.
Where did his sense of satisfaction come, knowing full well he'd not done it off his own merit or ability?
Two very similar stories - Savile and Armstrong. Both cheats in different ways and both built up huge charities in order to give them legitimacy.
Fallen idols.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
I guess they felt they had to pursue it to this end, but they may have just put the last nail in the coffin for the future of competitive cycling.
You'd rather not know the truth??
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
From the stories coming out, it's not true that all cyclists at the time were doing it. Several cyclists didn't make the top grade and top groups because they refused to get involved in drugs, although they were doing well enough to get selected.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
The saddest thing is that I'm afraid this is going to backfire on the sport as a whole. I mean, do I really even care about it anymore, since it seems impossible to determine if anyone is riding "unaided"? I'll be suspicious of every win from now on, and that just kind of ruins it for me. Watching the Tour de France was always a highlight of my summer; now, I just think it will be hard to appreciate any of it.
I guess they felt they had to pursue it to this end, but they may have just put the last nail in the coffin for the future of competitive cycling.
There's a big indicator that it's cleaner these days as they are riding slower. I would be amazed if it doesn't go on still but I am happier that someone riding clean could do it. This article is quite good on the more technical side.
What I wonder about is other sports. If Armstrong and co could run such a programme for so long without getting caught I'd be very surprised if there weren't similar issues waiting to come out (or not, some things could well stay hidden forever).
[ 23. October 2012, 08:44: Message edited by: quantpole ]
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
From the stories coming out, it's not true that all cyclists at the time were doing it. Several cyclists didn't make the top grade and top groups because they refused to get involved in drugs, although they were doing well enough to get selected.
True. I was thinking primarily of the top of the tree, and it is indeed emerging that some people basically shot their own career down by refusing to join in.
Boogie, this arguably goes to your question as well: he could celebrate and be happy if he thought his big rivals were on a level playing field with him.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
koshatnik
Shipmate
# 11938
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The irony is that if they were ALL doing it, if they had all STOPPED doing it then Armstrong might have won anyway.
For the thousandth time, they were not all doing it. Neither were those who were doing it, doing it equally. Armstrong's was a highly sophisticated doping program. He paid for exclusive access to the best doctors.
Since Armstrong doped for his entire professional career, we have no way of knowing whether there is any truth to your suggestion. But there is nothing to suggest that it is so. His physiology is, compared to other top cyclists, nothing exceptional. He responded well to blood manipulation. He was a bully and a remorseless cheat. He has, thank God, been exposed and the sport is better for it.
[X-post]
[ 23. October 2012, 09:02: Message edited by: koshatnik ]
Posts: 467 | From: top of the pops to drawing the dole | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the sport is already in recovery. For many of us these findings, although worse than we believed, were to be expected. I'm not complacent about collateral damage but cycling will get over it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
