'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

joker77 wrote: »

Have to stop reading this thread.

Too many fúcking blind idiots still trotting out the same old tired lines, based on the spin from Cancer Jesus.

kenmc wrote: »

The amount of fanboys still supporting him, on various comments associated with the news on all sorts of different sites is mindboggling. Worse than Apple fanboys they are. Talk about blinkered. I reckon if he started up a religion he'd be bigger than that Pope dude.
Mindboggling really.

I'd say the reason people still support Lance Armstrong is they've read his books which by all accounts are well-written and have become emotionally invested in his undoubtedly inspirational story of personal achievement. It's psychologically difficult for people to break with a previously held narrative that they had a strong emotional attachment to.


Back in 1998, I was excited to watch star of the Tour de France start in Dublin. However, I became more cynical after the police later caught the Festina team doping. With the fast times and consistently strong day-to-day power outputs of the leading riders, I strongly suspected that doping was still an issue throughout the succeeding years.

In my opinion, for the years Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France, the results would best be annulled as doping was endemic among the leaders in those years. It'd be next to impossible to work your way down the list of winners to find a conclusively clean rider. It's probably best to simply leave those years without a winner, full stop.

I heard Paul Kimmage and Jeremy Whittle (author of Bad Blood) on the Pat Kenny radio show this morning. They certainly wasn't gloating and I don't think they were particularly optimistic that the UCI would fundamentally change their approach. Paul Kimmage recalled being in Paris in October 1998 while they were dealing with the aftermath of the Festina debacle and McQuaid was proclaiming the start of a new era of clean cycling. Kimmage reckoned there was a widespread sentiment that the UCI was taking the issue seriously and that now cyclists could compete on a level playing field. However, the fact that Lance Armstrong won the very next year and also tested positve for a banned steroid (cortisone IIRC), sent a signal to all the other pros that doping would be tolerated (in a make sure you're not caught or seen to be doping way). The UCI's decision to excuse Armstrong's test result, set the tone for the next decade or so and the potential window of opportunity for clean cycling was lost.

I'm personally even more cynical about the chances of cleaning up professional cycling. There was a lot of money to be made from pro cycling by having a celebrity such as Lance Armstrong attract the attention of the huge North American sports market. Under capitalism, such economic pressures will always in exist in every professional sport - whether one likes it or not.

Amateurs, as the name suggests, generally get into a sport for the love of it but as they rise through the ranks they face increasing pressures if they want to continue to win. It becomes as much about the resources available to the sportsperson (quality of trainer, equipment, pharmacological assistance that isn't yet banned or flagged by current testing methods, etc.) and not simply their personal attributes such as good genes and the determination that drives them to put in the thousands of hours of training.

No sport is free of doping but endurance sports such as cycling rely more on strength and stamina than pure skill. Sports such as boxing and soccer have a significant component of dexterity and agility which aren't as effectively enhanced through doping. It appears that most cyclists at the professional level have had to face the choice of taking EPO simply to be able to compete at the same level as their peers.

Given the history of doping in cycling throughout the last century (it is by no means a recent issue), I'd almost say that doping should be accepted as part and parcel of the profession but I still find it hard to let go of the romantic notion of the individual with personal drive and determination struggling against the odds to win. FWIW, Graeme Obree (the Flying Scotsman) is my favourite cyclist.

raftni wrote: »

2. And why if these blood tests from 2009,2010 are deemed positive, why were they not deemed positive back in 2009, 2010 when they were taken?

I don't for a second think he's innocent, but that's one thing that confusing me too.

Why are people annoyed at Paul Kimmage? because he was right?
I loved the description of him as a crap cyclist, RAS winner,6th in the amateur worlds, Pro tour level rider, Olympian, multiple grand tours.

if that's crap, what the hell is a Cat2 rider?

Why are people so annoyed at Kimmage and walsh who campaigned and wrote against the tide to promote cleaner sport? they never profitted like Ligget and Sherwin, never travelled in the private jet.

Cycling is cleaner and better because of a few people that actually like cycling as a sport.

I'm curious when are the UCI going to say anything, Pat is being quiet thus far and they will have to say something and soon I would think. As mentioned, this is not over yet and the UCI may take over where Lance has left off in trying to clear him.

www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/rteradiowebpage.html#rii=9%3A3375251%3A0%3A%3A&type=radio

Irish Times calls it a "watching brief":

The International Cycling Union (UCI) have issued a cautious response to the US Anti-Doping Agency’s (USADA) intention to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and hand the American a lifetime ban.

The UCI press release is:

Press Release: UCI's statement on Lance Armstrong's decision

24.08.2012

The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.

UCI Press Services

(I'm assuming that as it's a press release it's okay to post it in full.)

EPO gave such massive benefits that noone who was not using it could compete with the known dopers there like Pantani.

http://www.sabotagetimes.com/football-sport/its-definitely-not-about-the-bike-lance-armstrong-tyler-hamilton-and-the-fresh-doping-claims/

Good well researched article