Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

RobFowl · 20-05-2011 10:15AM

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/believetyler

DirkVoodoo · 20-05-2011 10:21AM

This will all make for a much better movie about Lance's life. I see Oscars in his future.

kenmc · 20-05-2011 10:24AM

kilns wrote: »

Throughout the years of him being tested has every tester that has tested Armstrong been that incompetent? I think not.

It easy to be cynical about him but he has never failed a test so the evidence is there for all to see.

There's a world of difference between "never failed a drugs test", and "never taken drugs".

I was never caught underage drinking.
I was never caught pulling a sickie to go snowboarding.
I was never caught driving witout an NCT or tax.
Doesn't mean that I never did any of the above.

kenmc · 20-05-2011 10:25AM

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

This will all make for a much better movie about Lance's life. I see Oscars in his future.

what, like this?

GT_TDI_150 · 20-05-2011 10:26AM

was EPO banned when they supposedly took it?

else this is like doing people for doing 100km/h on a road at the time the limit was 100km/h, after the speed limit is dropped to 80km/h?

Chips Lovell · 20-05-2011 10:27AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

was EPO banned when they supposedly took it?

yes

AstraMonti · 20-05-2011 10:37AM

chrisbonnie wrote: »

Straight up,

Who cares if he doped?

Everyone was doing it then, so if he was doing it, then it was still a level playing field, and he still won 7 tour titles!!!

Well I do because he is making millions and millions out of it. He has created an empire (livestrong) based on a cancer that was a result of doping (to be proved soon as it seems :pac: ). He has used each one of the people that believed in him for his benefit. If you are ok with it that's fine, but I am not.

GT_TDI_150 · 20-05-2011 10:43AM

i'm wearing my livestrong yellow thinghy, won't be taking it off either, the charity still does great work for cancer and cancer research.

iregk · 20-05-2011 10:48AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

i'm wearing my livestrong yellow thinghy, won't be taking it off either, the charity still does great work for cancer and cancer research.

According to a statement released by livestrong last summer 100% of the foundations money goes into promotion of the brand (standard charity practice) and cancer awareness. It doesn't go into research. They get a lot of money which they use to let people know cancer exists!

That said it also does great work in the support area for people who have been effected by cancer.

Chips Lovell · 20-05-2011 10:52AM

No offence, but what his charity does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether he doped or not.

GT_TDI_150 · 20-05-2011 10:55AM

el tonto wrote: »

No offence, but what his charity does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether he doped or not.

exactly, which is why I would continue to support the charity even if it was proven he doped

ROK ON · 20-05-2011 10:57AM

It is a testament to the power/charisma/personality of Armstrong that so many people care whether he doped or not. I would warrant that there are very very few sports people where it is such a polarizing issue. He is an amazing person.

I believe that he doped, but I am pretty sure that he beat a peleton full of dopers. In that regard, I dont see what the issue is.

My beef with LA is that to my mind he seems to be an odious self aggrandizing bully whose wealth seems to be slightly odd when one considers how much even the best pro-cyclists can earn from endorsements. I have deep suspicions about the Livstrong organisation. Needless to say, they cant be proven.

I dont care whether or not he doped - I simply assume that 99.99999999% of winning cyclists back then doped (the figure now I imagine to be slightly less).

The bigger issues are
(1) Was insurance fraud committed,
(2) Did the UCI or senior personnel within the UCI collude to cover up positive doping tests.
If the answer to 1 was yes, then LA could possibly go to jail,
If the answer to 2 is yes, then the sooner the UCI is dismantled the better for the sport of cycling.

As we have seen with banking crises etc, the concept of self regulation of any industry is a truly bizarre one that runs completely contrary to the human races natural inclination to bend the rules.
No sporting organisation should have any hand act or part in policing doping within that organistaion. We should know this by now.

joker77 · 20-05-2011 11:02AM

Pretty much sums up my thoughts ROK_ON

The bullying is my main problem with Armstrong, and the corruption within cycling's inner circle the deeper issue.

iregk · 20-05-2011 11:06AM

el tonto wrote: »

No offence, but what his charity does or doesn't do is irrelevant to whether he doped or not.

I agree. I'm just pointing out that a persons reasons for supporting a charity were erroneous.

RobFowl · 20-05-2011 11:06AM

IOC threatening to strip him of his Olympic gold now ....

Chips Lovell · 20-05-2011 11:07AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

exactly, which is why I would continue to support the charity even if it was proven he doped

I don't think anyone has suggested you shouldn't

ROK ON wrote: »

As we have seen with banking crises etc, the concept of self regulation of any industry is a truly bizarre one that runs completely contrary to the human races natural inclination to bend the rules.
No sporting organisation should have any hand act or part in policing doping within that organistaion. We should know this by now.

Nail on head here. My big concern is whether the sport is capable of reforming itself.

rockman15 · 20-05-2011 11:07AM

Im all in favour of no doping. Its inefficient, expensive and gains you no competitive advantage if everyone is doing it.

However Im fairly certain there is no need for Hamilton to go on national television and make this statement.

Firstly, I respect Hamilton, a lot. he gave years of self-sacrifice to LA and USPS and was a seriosuly f-ing good domestique. I think when he left for CSC he had aspirations that were beyond himself. Primarily because the USPS teams/derivatives of teams were better and had better tactics. As a result of this he didnt achieve the results he felt capable of and is extremely bitter about it.
In fact Basso, the rider he was supposed to have working for him, ended up coming through as the team leader. Hamiltons only great achievement with CSC was finishing up the TdF and stage win with a broken collar bone. Similarily with th Giro. OK fine he has olympic gold, but that is a different context. I really think he's just bitter.

Im disappointed in him. Theres supposed to be a comraderie with team mates and former team mates. He obviously has a chip on his shoulder about something else (excuse the pun!). either way, he has nothing to gain from going on tv, no reduced suspensions, nothing bar publicity.

Chips Lovell · 20-05-2011 11:09AM

rockman15 wrote: »

Im all in favour of no doping. Its inefficient, expensive and gains you no competitive advantage if everyone is doing it.

Red herring here. Doping will benefit some athletes more than others. Also, it provides an advantage to those willing to take bigger risks with their health than others. Some people may be mad enough to try win the Tour with blood that's thicker than gravy. Others aren't.

mcgratheoin · 20-05-2011 11:11AM

rockman15 wrote: »

Im disappointed in him. Theres supposed to be a comraderie with team mates and former team mates.

How is it possible to be disappointed in someone for saying that he saw team-mates taking drugs? Are you disappointed because you think he's lying or because he's spitting in the soup?

nitrogen · 20-05-2011 11:16AM

ROK ON wrote: »

I believe that he doped, but I am pretty sure that he beat a peleton full of dopers. In that regard, I dont see what the issue is.

I would agree with everything you said, apart from — if everyone doped, then what's the problem...

In a compelling interview with David Walsh on The Competitors radio show, they bring up the issue of how EPO is a greater advantage to bigger riders like Miguel Indurain, and this caused a lot of the smaller climbing specialists like a lot of Columbians to disappear overnight.

Diarmuid · 20-05-2011 11:18AM

rockman15 wrote: »

However Im fairly certain there is no need for Hamilton to go on national television and make this statement.

yeah, he should keep his mouth shut

rockman15 · 20-05-2011 11:23AM

Spitting in the soup = just being an arse for the sake of it? disappointed he would publicly treat a team mate like that. shows no respect for what was achieved. Equally if he "knows" they cheated to win he is entitled to tell everyone about it, I just dont think he should it. Its only self-damaging and makes him look petty and bitter.

On the statistical side of things; if "everyone" dopes it reduces the average benefit gained for the individual. Outlying individuals will of course benefit more than others. but im talking in generalisms here.

RobFowl · 20-05-2011 11:25AM

ROK ON · 20-05-2011 11:27AM

Another thing that gets to me is the assertion that he made the sport huge. Is this actually the case in terms of participation. Do we have figures on this at all. Or is it simply an assertion.

Am I mistaken that the amount of people involved in cycling (particularly Sportives, Eatpes etc) in Ireland, UK, Europe, North America has been rising for the past three years to record numbers. If my assertion is the case, then this fails to tally with the numbers that LA supposedly broought to the sport at the height of his powers. It seems to me that many people got back on the bike when LA ceased to be a factor in the business end of racing. Using my experience of 1 as a data set - I was very interested in the sport of cycling as a kid and teenager. I watched as much as I could (usually Gary Imlach on C4). I read everything that I could. I cycled a lot (but usualyy as an off season training aid for rugby). During the LA years I completely lost interest in cycling.

Inquitus · 20-05-2011 11:29AM

ROK ON wrote: »

Another thing that gets to me is the assertion that he made the sport huge. Is this actually the case in terms of participation. Do we have figures on this at all. Or is it simply an assertion.

Am I mistaken that the amount of people involved in cycling (particularly Sportives, Eatpes etc) in Ireland, UK, Europe, North America has been rising for the past three years to record numbers. If my assertion is the case, then this fails to tally with the numbers that LA supposedly broought to the sport at the height of his powers. It seems to me that many people got back on the bike when LA ceased to be a factor in the business end of racing. Using my experience of 1 as a data set - I was very interested in the sport of cycling as a kid and teenager. I watched as much as I could (usually Gary Imlach on C4). I read everything that I could. I cycled a lot (but usualyy as an off season training aid for rugby). During the LA years I completely lost interest in cycling.

I would concur with this, my interest in cycling definitely lulled during the LA years.

Lumen · 20-05-2011 11:39AM

rockman15 wrote: »

On the statistical side of things; if "everyone" dopes it reduces the average benefit gained for the individual. Outlying individuals will of course benefit more than others. but im talking in generalisms here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "statistical" and "average benefit gained for the individual" but the "level playing field" idea doesn't stack up from a scientific perspective. Doping affects different individuals to a very different degree.

Additionally, the effectiveness of a doping programme in a sport with anti-doping meaures is as much about the organisational aspects as the physiological ones, and those have nothing to do with individual talent.

And then there's the moral considerations about the inability of genuinely clean riders to compete, and the health effects, and...and....and.

It's wrong.

BostonB · 20-05-2011 11:44AM

For me at least. I'm not a follower of the sport in general. Theres something that doesn't sit right with the whole, doping > heath problems > charity loop. I'm not sure everything bad he may done, is balanced by the good he may have done.

With the exception of his dodgeball quotes...

Lance Armstrong: But I'm sure you have a good reason to quit. So what are you dying of that's keeping you from the finals?
Peter La Fleur: Right now it feels a little bit like... shame.
Lance Armstrong: Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't anything to regret for the rest of their life. Well good luck to you Peter. I'm sure this decision won't haunt you forever.

rockman15 · 20-05-2011 12:03PM

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "statistical" and "average benefit gained for the individual" but the "level playing field" idea doesn't stack up from a scientific perspective. Doping affects different individuals to a very different degree.

Additionally, the effectiveness of a doping programme in a sport with anti-doping meaures is as much about the organisational aspects as the physiological ones, and those have nothing to do with individual talent.

And then there's the moral considerations about the inability of genuinely clean riders to compete, and the health effects, and...and....and.

It's wrong.

you are missing my point. if you sanction a peleton to gear up as much as they wanted and ran a race, then made them do the same race again without the doping, the first doped race would end quicker. but you'll find the individual gaps on the GC would most likely stay the same. Im prepared to accept possible differences on the upper and lower ends of the GC but for your riders stuck in the middle theres no effect on their overall success. They just screw themselves over health wise, loose a lot of cash from their wallets and increase their chances of getting fired, loosing their license and publicly humilated and discredited.

Equally statistically speaking sports isnt the greatest universe to conduct this experiement but the general objective of what im trying to get across here is: you can only get ahead when you have a competitive advantage over all the other riders. If everyone discovers your secret advantage it no longer becomes an advantage, in fact its then a standard.

theres a phd in this stuff for someone.

Junior · 20-05-2011 12:04PM

el tonto wrote: »

You're right. I've heard that a few have given evidence against him. I was more thinking about them going public on what they said. It's more complicated for other guys. Landis and Hamilton had nothing left to lose. The others want to protect their palmares and reputations. But balancing that against the perception that they're part of a cover-up is becoming increasingly difficult. I suspect we might see a few retirements at the end of the season.

I reckon it might be too late for McQuaid to shift the blame on Verbruggen. I think he made a big mistake by immediately calling Landis a liar. He should have instead gone down the route of saying he was launching an internal investigation.

I don't think those that have given testimony will go public, but their testimony will be damning, some of them have a choice reputation or perjury.

McQuaid plainly needs to say he wasn't UCI President in 01 and has no knoweldge of a cover up, and needs to bring in outside investigators to throw light on the claims of this TdS positive.

RobFowl · 20-05-2011 12:07PM

rockman15 wrote: »

you are missing my point. if you sanction a peleton to gear up as much as they wanted and ran a race, then made them do the same race again without the doping, the first doped race would end quicker. but you'll find the individual gaps on the GC would most likely stay the same. Im prepared to accept possible differences on the upper and lower ends of the GC but for your riders stuck in the middle theres no effect.

Equally statistically speaking sports isnt the greatest universe to conduct this experiement but the general objective of what im trying to get across here is: you can only get ahead when you have a competitive advantage over all the other riders. If everyone discovers your secret advantage it no longer becomes an advantage, in fact its then a standard.

theres a phd in this stuff for someone.

Interesting points but unfortunately factually incorrect.
There has been lots of research on this and EPO especially makes you go faster but affects different people to different extents.
The obvious on being Bjarne Riis an average pro at best who dominated the tour as a direct result of doping.

Landis admits doping, points finger at LA - Please read Mod Warning post 1

Comments