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

xz · 20-05-2011 04:16PM

Diarmuid wrote: »

I think the next few years may prove you wrong.

No skin off my nose, to be honest, I believe that he is guilty,just happened to be one step ahead of everyone else that got caught out. It's a problem that has always, and probably always will be there. Doing a Grand Tour without "help" will always prove "fruitless" to some riders, that's just my opinion, just look who is currently wearing PINK, and what happened with him last year.................

petethedrummer · 20-05-2011 05:20PM

xz wrote: »

The point I would like to make about this, is Eff the witch hunt on LA, Guilty or Not, and we may never find the truth either way, just look at some of the names throughout the History of the sport that have been found out as "cheats", for want of a better word, and a lot of these, to this day are regarded as "Legends". How many Victories did these Legends win whilst souped up that they never found out about, at the end of the day, LA will go down as Legend in the sport on the back of his 7 TDF victories, whether we like it or not.

This is where there is a clear distinction in doping but not morals.

Pre-1991(ish) the cream still rose to the top. The riders winning were the best in the world. After 1993 it became too hard to tell who was naturally any good. Should Indurain have been able to dominate skinny climbers? Should Jan Ullrich be on the list of fastest ascents of Alp D'huez despite having legs like tree trunks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d%27Huez
Should armstrong be on it seeing as he couldn't climb for sheet in the mid-90s?

Yes, pre-1991 the same numbers of people probably cheated and would have taken EPO had it been available to them. But they didn't have it. So we still know who the greats were.

dave2pvd · 20-05-2011 05:27PM

First, it's great to see such a civilized pharmstrong discussion on the internet. How unusual.

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should look up his charity and find out exactly what it does... It does NOT fund cancer research, it funds cancer 'awareness'. BIG difference. You'd be better off giving your money to the Marie Keating foundation. But I suppose they don't have nice wristbands and catchy 'hope rides again' slogans.

Have to disagree with this. I am in no way a fan of the guy, but I do believe that when it comes to cancer, the concept of awareness is a huge contribution to higher survival rates. People don't get check-ups often enough. Whether it's women not getting annual pap-smears or older men (esp with family history) not not getting checked for prostate cancer. I live in the US. Here, people are not proactive enough in this regard. However, in Ireland, it's astonishing to me how few people routinely get checked. Whether at the doc's office or self-checking. I could go on and on on this subject (skin cancer, aversion to going to the doc, ignoring family history,...), but there's work to be done.

petethedrummer wrote: »

And on the subject of doping, the playing field would not be level if one athlete could afford to pay for an exclusive contract with the world's leading doping doctor. And have sufficient clout to have positive test suppressed or have a back dated TUE accepted as an explanation for a failed test. Or could move to Spain when OOC testing becomes more invasive in France. Or lead a team rich enough to have all the riders doped up to drive the peloton up mountains. These are all hypotheticals but if one man could have all that he'd probably win a few TDFs.

Exactly. Agreed 100% 'Doping' is not some homogeneous pill that simply ups the bell curve. Doping in cycling is more like aero packages in Formula 1. The team with the huge budget will win. (Unless they are Toyota).

JacksonHeightsOwn · 20-05-2011 05:50PM

is there any videos of the 60 minutes interview with Hamilton?

GT_TDI_150 · 20-05-2011 05:50PM

LOL @ the top 15 ascent up Alpde d'Heuz - compare it to the alleged doping list from earlier

1 37' 35" Marco Pantani 1997

Italy
2* 37' 36" Lance Armstrong 2004

United States
3 38' 00" Marco Pantani 1994

Italy
4 38' 01" Lance Armstrong 2001

United States
5 38' 04" Marco Pantani 1995

Italy
6 38' 23" Jan Ullrich 1997

Germany
7 38' 34" Floyd Landis 2006

United States
8 38' 35" Andreas Klöden 2006

Germany
9* 38' 37" Jan Ullrich 2004

Germany
10 39' 02" Richard Virenque 1997

France
11 39' 06" Iban Mayo 2003

Spain
12* 39' 17" Andreas Klöden 2004

Germany
13* 39' 21" Jose Azevedo 2004

Portugal
14 39' 28" Miguel Induráin 1995

Spain
15 39' 28" Alex Zülle 1995

Switzerland

Chips Lovell · 20-05-2011 06:02PM

chrisbonnie wrote: »

is there any videos of the 60 minutes interview with Hamilton?

It isn't being broadcast till Sunday

lescol · 20-05-2011 06:32PM

Snippet of the interview here:- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20064406-10391709.html?tag=cbsContent;cbsCarousel

rockman15 · 20-05-2011 07:07PM

hamilton surrenders gold. Confirmed

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/2011/0520/1224297453237.html

cerebus · 21-05-2011 12:03AM

There are reports out there this evening that the 60 Minutes segment to be broadcast on Sunday will also claim that Hincapie has told the feds that he saw Armstrong using PEDs.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/05/20/george.hincapie.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

Hail 2 Da Thief · 21-05-2011 12:05AM

Game over? Hincapie backs up floyd & Tyler!

Funkyzeit · 21-05-2011 12:15AM

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

Game over? Hincapie backs up floyd & Tyler!

Ah sure he's only a bitter ex-teammate :rolleyes:

Funny how McQuaid has suddenly gone silent - he was quick enough to jump on the Landis bashing...

lescol · 21-05-2011 12:23AM

Hincapie is a big fat liar, a failed cyclist at the end of his career trying to make his name prominent so that he can sell his line of clothing and chamios buttr!

When will Lance pour his heart out to the world?

hinault · 21-05-2011 02:35AM

Funkyzeit wrote: »

Ah sure he's only a bitter ex-teammate :rolleyes:

Funny how McQuaid has suddenly gone silent - he was quick enough to jump on the Landis bashing...

What's the betting that McQuaid will be forced to reapply for his old PE Teacher job in Greenhills Comprehensive after the smoke clears?:D:D

RobFowl · 21-05-2011 11:42AM

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/8514/60-minutes-says-George-Hincapie-admitted-to-using-EPO-alongside-Lance-Armstrong.aspx

According to the CBS show "60 Minutes", at least four of Lance Armstrong's former teammates, including his close friend George Hincapie, have told federal authorities that they have used banned substances. All three have said they saw Armstrong also used banned substances.

CBS reports that Hincapie testified that both himself and Armstrong supplied each other with EPO, a banned endurance boosting substance, and also admitted to using testosterone.
Armstrong's former teammates Frankie Andreu, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton have all pointed the finger at the Texan, but Andreu has been fingered by Armstrong as having sour grapes, and the other two suffer from credibility issues. Hincapie, however, is a highly respected rider and would be seen as a man with "something to lose" for coming forward. He also has not tested positive for EPO or testosterone, the main defense of Armstrong. Hincapie also represents the only rider that rode alongside Armstrong in each of his seven Tour de France victories.

Hincapie has declined to be interviewed, citing the ongoing federal investigation led by Jeff Novitsky, but used Twitter say that he hadn't spoken to "60 minutes" but he refused to confirm or deny there is truth to their claims.
"I can confirm to you I never spoke with "60 Minutes.", he Tweeted. "I have no idea where they got their information. As I've said in the past, I continue to be disappointed that people are talking about the past in cycling instead of the future. As for the substance of anything in the "60 Minutes" story, I cannot comment on anything relating to the ongoing investigation."
Armstrong continues to vigorously maintain his innocence.

Funkyzeit · 21-05-2011 12:31PM

Quality article....

http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/lance-armstrong-the-endgame-begins/

rubs · 21-05-2011 11:11PM

Hi all,

Sorry if this thread already exists but following all the talk today (Kelly and Harmon) does anybody know if this show will be televised on any satelite channels this side of the Atlantic?

Thanks;)

petethedrummer · 21-05-2011 11:55PM

dave2pvd wrote: »

Have to disagree with this. I am in no way a fan of the guy, but I do believe that when it comes to cancer, the concept of awareness is a huge contribution to higher survival rates. People don't get check-ups often enough. Whether it's women not getting annual pap-smears or older men (esp with family history) not not getting checked for prostate cancer. I live in the US. Here, people are not proactive enough in this regard. However, in Ireland, it's astonishing to me how few people routinely get checked. Whether at the doc's office or self-checking. I could go on and on on this subject (skin cancer, aversion to going to the doc, ignoring family history,...), but there's work to be done.

I've been looking for a way to succinctly give my opinion on Livestrong. Somebody else has gone and done it for me:

http://twitter.com/#!/Velocentric/statuses/72035315438727169

mgmt · 22-05-2011 12:46AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I've been looking for a way to succinctly give my opinion on Livestrong. Somebody else has gone and done it for me:

http://twitter.com/#!/Velocentric/statuses/72035315438727169

Well it is a cancer awareness charity. Not a cancer research charity.

Captain Havoc · 22-05-2011 01:02AM

mgmt wrote: »

Well it is a cancer awareness charity. Not a cancer research charity.

Yes, I find it completely normal that a charity would spend 30% more on legal fees than on charitable causes.

DuncanDoughnut · 22-05-2011 01:18AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

You should look up his charity and find out exactly what it does... It does NOT fund cancer research, it funds cancer 'awareness'. BIG difference. You'd be better off giving your money to the Marie Keating foundation. But I suppose they don't have nice wristbands and catchy 'hope rides again' slogans.

As someone already has mentioned, cancer awareness is a huge part of any campaign to combat cancer. But Livestrong primary aim is to provide support for people going through 'survivorship' or remission, which is an area that isn't greatly supported.

If Lance Armstrong did or did not take drugs, you can't attack the man for setting up a charity.

dave2pvd · 22-05-2011 02:10AM

petethedrummer wrote: »

I've been looking for a way to succinctly give my opinion on Livestrong. Somebody else has gone and done it for me:

http://twitter.com/#!/Velocentric/statuses/72035315438727169

Interesting - if true.

I've done a bit of research to rate charities in the past. My company has an annual budget for charitable giving. In 2006, we (I) audited all of the recipients we were donating to. Larger charitable orgs in the US are rated by Better Business Bureau, charitywatch.org and charitynavigator.org

According to charitywatch, in 2007: "LAF spent as much as $45 to raise each $100, exceeding AIP’s 35% recommended fundraising ceiling by a significant margin". Not good at all.

Yet, BBB notes that in 2008, LAF's performance was:

"Programs: 81%
Fund Raising: 12%
Administrative: 7%"

Which is very respectable.

I think what is happening here is that the likes of alex@velocentric is picking and choosing according to agenda. The LAF is incorporated in several states, so you could pick the worst performing chapter to bolster your case. To confuse the issue further, there is an LAF, Inc and an LAF.org. I think the Inc version is what pays to fly 'Shack/USPS (and their 'luggage') around the world to easily glide through customs/immigration. Whereas the LAF.org foundation actually does some good.

mgmt · 22-05-2011 07:19AM

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Yes, I find it completely normal that a charity would spend 30% more on legal fees than on charitable causes.

That statistic makes no sense. It says "salaries and legal fees". It could therefore be 99% salaries 1% legal fees. While I don't trust Lance at all, I don't trust twitter either.

Diarmuid · 22-05-2011 09:11AM

mgmt wrote: »

That statistic makes no sense. It says "salaries and legal fees". It could therefore be 99% salaries 1% legal fees. While I don't trust Lance at all, I don't trust twitter either.

Not to defend a twitter post from someone I don't know but it says:

In 2009 Livestrong spent $15,377,233 on legal fees & salaries vs $11,775,916 paid out to grants & programs.

I don't think the point was anything to do with legal fees per se. If it was 100% salaries and 0% legal fees, then it's still a damning statistic

ROK ON · 22-05-2011 09:24AM

The way this is developing I think LA needs to come out with the "you can't handle the truth defense"
Something a la, of course I doped, we all did. Only way to win and I wanted so badly to win etc etc. Then go on to say that he lied repeatedly to protect team mates, colleagues, he had an obligation to fans cancer survivors, the believers etc. GO on to ask just how many Grand Tour winners in past 100 years are truly clean - part of the sports fabric. One man can't change that blah blah blah.

Finally say that this was all suggested supported and understood by UCI.

If he came out with something like that, it may actually be close enough to the truth.

mgmt · 22-05-2011 09:55AM

Diarmuid wrote: »

I don't think the point was anything to do with legal fees per se. If it was 100% salaries and 0% legal fees, then it's still a damning statistic

I don't see why. Most charities employ professional people to carry out work. Otherwise the charity would be useless. I bet all the money in you local hospice charity goes on nurses salaries.

Bluefoam · 22-05-2011 10:18AM

If these allegations are true (if!?), I hope they make an example of him. There's nothing I hate more than a hypocrite.

GT_TDI_150 · 22-05-2011 10:31AM

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Yes, I find it completely normal that a charity would spend 30% more on legal fees than on charitable causes.

I read this as a sarcastic reply, so ...

how much of a €1 donation to Cope or Share or the like do you think gets to the end target?

if it wasnt meant as sarcasm then .... apologies

ednwireland · 22-05-2011 11:46AM

full page article in the main sunday times today followed by a full page in the sports section
(says nothing daid walsh hasnt said before, really apart from the hincapie evidence)

Diarmuid · 22-05-2011 12:11PM

mgmt wrote: »

I don't see why. Most charities employ professional people to carry out work. Otherwise the charity would be useless. I bet all the money in you local hospice charity goes on nurses salaries.

You need to re-read the original tweet as you are really are missing the point.

mgmt · 22-05-2011 12:22PM

Diarmuid wrote: »

You need to re-read the original tweet as you are really are missing the point.

Who wrote that tweet? Where did they get their sources? Why do you blindly accept it?

A/C's for Livestrong

Income Statement (FYE 12/2009)
Revenue
Primary Revenue $41,487,242
Other Revenue $282,759
Total Revenue $41,770,001

Expenses
Program Expenses $24,056,363
Administrative Expenses $1,391,528
Fundraising Expenses $3,450,865
Total Functional Expenses $28,898,756

Payments to Affiliates $0
Excess (or Deficit) for the year $12,871,245

Net Assets $41,967,204

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=6570

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

Comments