'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/us-postal-tour-de-france-squads-1999-2006/

Where are they now, the US Postal riders from 1999-2005, it's a good read, some good bits such as

Pavel Padrnos 2002, 2003, 2005: Was arrested in the 2001 San Remo doping raids and immediately identified as a suitable rider for US Postal.

and

Victor Hugo Peña 2001, 2002: The Mr. Teflon of cycling. Has succesfully ridden for four of the dodgiest teams in the sport, US Postal, Phonak, Unibet, and Rock Racing, all the while hanging out with his best friend Santiago Botero and never once tested positive. Peña was mentioned briefly in the USADA report on 10th October as having worked with Michele Ferrari. Outside contender for new head of the UCI

ThisRegard wrote: »

Sean Kelly was just on Morning Ireland and seems to think McQuaid is doing a great job in the fight against doing since he became president.

I particularly dislike Sean's assertion that the dark days of cycling were a finite period of time in the distant past when the fact is that there has always been a dark cloud hanging over the sport of professional cycling and sadly that cloud persists today, as it did throughout Sean's seventeen years as a professional - a career which saw him fail two doping tests and also featured the unexplained sudden departure of his PDM team from the 1991 Tour de France – and a career which bridged the gap between the great Eddy Merckx who failed doping tests on three occassions, and the now not-so-great Lance Armstrong who was a systematic doper.

Morrisseeee

There's only Juan Pelota :pac:

/looks like he eventually might have to shut his acc down................bummer !:rolleyes:

petethedrummer

wpd wrote: »

how can you commend the uci when they are alleged to be part of the cover up

Easily...... with a graph.

You can't argue with a graph.

Walsh is coming up now on radio 1.

Morrisseeee

From Leipheimer's quote linked previously:

I could have come forward sooner. But would that have accomplished anything—other than to end my career? One rider coming forward and telling his story in the face of cycling's code of silence would not have fixed a problem that was institutional.

When Usada came to me and described a solution—where my admission could be part of a bigger plan that would make the positive changes we've seen in recent years permanent—I said "I need to be involved."

I think this sums it up quite well, ie. it took a mammoth operation from the USADA to reveal the truth, with ZERO help from the UCI :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Wibbs

Oliver_Ahern wrote: »

I hate to say I knew from the beginning, but I did. Being a tour de france fanatic, when I saw Lance win the prologue in '99 I was as surprised as everyone else, especially by his indifferent reaction to winning the opening stage of the biggest bike race in the world. It was when he blitzed everyone up sestriere in the first alpine stage a week later that I knew for certain he was doped to the eyeballs, just as he obviously was in the vuelta the year before. Big guys dont just lose a few pounds and fly up mountains like that, it goes against nature. Let's not even mention the big guy in question had only raced for 1 1/2 yrs after recovering from cancer. Plus you could see it in his eyes.

Very much this. Me being of an older generation I got into pro cycling in the early 80's watching Kelly and Roche et al in the pre EPO days.

Taking Kelly as an example. Probably one of the finest all rounders the sport has seen. He could sprint, time trial and dominate one day classics, even win the odd grand tour(Spanish IIRC). He got close enough early on in the Tour de france, but wasn't quite the right sort to win it, not up against the grand tour specialists of the day anyway. He could hang on in the climbs, but couldn't dominate them, often making up time by being fcuking insane in the membrane on descents. You'd defo see him suffer going uphill when compared to say Roche or Fignon.

If back then we'd seen Sean get into a tough climb and power away from the Columbian specialists of the time like he was on the flats without getting out of the saddle, our collective jaws would have dropped and questions would have been asked. Loudly. Yet Armstrong, a similarly built classics type rider(with undoped a third of the talent of a Kelly) did just that kinda thing and was usually collectively praised for it. It would be like watching one of the near anorexic climbing specialists beat the best sprinters in the world in a flat stage bunch finish. Would not compute.

I have to say for me LA wasn't the only one in those days who raised eyebrows, including riders who've so far not been implicated, but as per the rules of the forum... Again IMHO I squint at the non naturally built for climbing riders who "out of the blue" started to dominate. That's where the extra in the blood counts. Doping suits the more well built bigger classic rider to get up those hils. It wouldn't do nearly as much for climbing specialists in TT's and sprints etc. Now you do very rarely pre EPO days all rounders like Merckx, but he was such a genetic outlier and again this was obvious from the very first time he tightened his toe straps. Greg LeMond another one. IMHO the only American to have actually won the Tour De France and a good man and sporting hero with it.

Inquitus

petethedrummer wrote: »

Easily...... with a graph.

You can't argue with a graph.

Can't tell if graph joke or serious.....

Bov

I don't think he can win against this organisation. My question is, what did those people - his team mates et al - who have testified, gain from their confessions? I just wonder how much their 'pay offs' were.
If they take back the prize money wont his charities suffer?

My only problem with this Lance Armstrong doping (I think he probably did) is that the US Anti doping had such a prusuit to get Armstrong they would have done anything. I mean what is going to happen to all these guys who are testifying against Armstong. Will they lose all there money or titles (if they got any) It just seams that they would grant anything to anyone just to get to Armstong. I know sometimes you have to make deals with others to get the big fish (and here I have my doubts he was the biggest fish) but they seam to be goingover and beyound this time. Maybe I am wrong but this is from what I have just read which I will admit is limited.

Wibbs

Hermy wrote: »

I particularly dislike Sean's assertion that the dark days of cycling were a finite period of time in the distant past when the fact is that there has always been a dark cloud hanging over the sport of professional cycling and sadly that cloud persists today, as it did throughout Sean's seventeen years as a professional - a career which saw him fail two doping tests and also featured the unexplained sudden departure of his PDM team from the 1991 Tour de France – and a career which bridged the gap between the great Eddy Merckx who failed doping tests on three occassions, and the now not-so-great Lance Armstrong who was a systematic doper.

Aye but what they were taking then while dodgy was lightyears behind what the blood doping did. A squeaky clean rider could compete and win against that stuff back then. That stuff wouldn't make you better in climbs or sprints or time trials. It either kept you awake(speed), killed pain(codiene) or helped speed up recovery from injury(non anabolic steroids like cortisone). Unusually among athletes pro cyclists are allowed iron and vitamin injections because of the toll the sport puts on the body*. I'll be honest and say I'd personally allow codiene and cortisone under an independent doctors supervision. None of that stuff is gonna turn a domestique into a champion, or turn a half decent classics rider into a seven time TdF winner.

*reading Tyler Hamiltons book on this score was interesting. He noted that the pro cyclist at the peak of his(and I presume her) form is a near weakling off the bike. They're half starved to get their weight down, hate walking and really hate stairs. Hinault used to be carried up stairs after races. Hamilton's ex wife was peed off with him on numerous occasions because he wouldn't, near couldn't go for a stroll with her. He'd be in bits after a relatively short walk. Mad eh.

Lumen

Bov wrote: »

If they take back the prize money wont his charities suffer?

I'm intrigued by the thinking behind this question. Are you suggesting that Lance uses his charities as some sort of slush fund?

Chips Lovell

martingriff wrote: »

I mean what is going to happen to all these guys who are testifying against Armstong. Will they lose all there money or titles (if they got any)

They've all gotten reduced sentences (six months) for cooperation. They've been stripped of their results for the period they've admitted to doping.

Bov wrote: »

If they take back the prize money wont his charities suffer?

Won't somebody please think of the children charidees ? I think the vast majority of people in the world are aware of the existence of cancer so we might be ok if Livestrong looses a bit of cash.

But the implication that there was some sort of pay off for testimonys is something straight from the Lance defence handbook.

martingriff wrote: »

My only problem with this Lance Armstrong doping (I think he probably did) is that the US Anti doping had such a vendetta to get Armstrong they would have done anything. I mean what is going to happen to all these guys who are testifying against Armstong. Will they lose all there money or titles (if they got any) It just seams that they would grant anything to anyone just to get to Armstong. I know sometimes you have to make deals with others to get the big fish (and here I have my doubts he was the biggest fish) but they seam to be goingover and beyound this time. Maybe I am wrong but this is from what I have just read which I will admit is limited.

You still only "think he probably did" ?!? The rest is ridiculous.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Walsh is coming up now on radio 1.

Pity the phone line was so bad.:(

wpd

If you want to believe that graph go ahead.

Looks like McQuaid was really on the ball when Armstrong came back!!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/13026/Ashenden-I-dont-know-whether-Armstrongs-passport-file-was-ever-sent-to-any-of-us-experts.aspx

Yeah, I was willing Pat not to say they'll have to cut it short. He wasn't impressed with Pats half hearted attempt to imply McQuaid hadn't anything to do with Armstrongs time.

It will be also interesting to see if the feds persue a civil case against him on the basis that they obtained money from a state organistion but have now been proven, by the USADA, to have gone against the various terms and conditions of this sponsorship.

wpd

From memory Lance was paid huge bonuses for tour wins by an insurance company SCA.
I think they even challanged some of these pay outs on basis he used drugs?

Is there any news of SCA sueing Armstrong for these bonus payouts on foot of USADA ruling??

On another note great to see Ekimov, another USPS rider take over as DS of Katusha!
A real sign that things have changed and UCI/McQuaid have this under control. NOT!!!!!

petethedrummer

wpd wrote: »

If you want to believe that graph go ahead.

I'm only yanking your chain. McQuaid has only 2 options, admit complicity or plead ignorance to the point of incompetence.

Wibbs wrote: »

Aye but what they were taking then while dodgy was lightyears behind what the blood doping did. A squeaky clean rider could compete and win against that stuff back then. That stuff wouldn't make you better in climbs or sprints or time trials. It either kept you awake(speed), killed pain(codiene) or helped speed up recovery from injury(non anabolic steroids like cortisone). Unusually among athletes pro cyclists are allowed iron and vitamin injections because of the toll the sport puts on the body*. I'll be honest and say I'd personally allow codiene and cortisone under an independent doctors supervision. None of that stuff is gonna turn a domestique into a champion, or turn a half decent classics rider into a seven time TdF winner

That point has been made to me before and I fully understand the difference between EPO and blood doping and the various less sophisticated and less effective drugs that came before them.
But nevertheless the dark days of cycling began well before the arrival of EPO in the professional peloton and they're not gone yet. Meanwhile Sean has repeatedly claimed that it was centred around the time of Armstrong's dominance of the Tour.

martingriff wrote: »

My only problem with this Lance Armstrong doping (I think he probably did) is that the US Anti doping had such a vendetta to get Armstrong they would have done anything.

There's no vendetta. USADA are just doing their job which is to ensure to the best of their ability that sport is clean and that cheats don't prosper.

wpd wrote: »

From memory Lance was paid huge bonuses for tour wins by an insurance company SCA.
I think they even challanged some of these pay outs on basis he used drugs?

Is there any news of SCA sueing Armstrong for these bonus payouts on foot of USADA ruling??

They tried to withhold payments they insured, Armtstrong initiated court proceedings and I think it was settled outisde of court, not doubt in his favour. If I was in SCA I'd definitely be thinking about reclaiming the money back.

edit, apparently it was settled out of court with "SCA paying Armstrong and Tailwind Sports $7.5 million, to cover the $5-million bonus plus interest and lawyers' fees"

banchang

iregk wrote: »

You know what sickens me in all of this Lance thing going back through the years and still today. The use of cancer. As Paul Kimmage siad, he doesn't have a patent on cancer. Now I'm on record a number of times in this forum outlining my feelings on LA, to me he is the biggest fraud that sport has ever seen. But it's the use of cancer that really gets to me.

Ok he suffered with it and yes he survived and regardless of who he is and what he did I will always be happy that he did that. I have friends and family who have gone through the same faith and it's one of my worst experiences in life to see a friend and a family member going through chemotherapy. So I've been directly touched by the disease and love to hear of stories of anyone who has survived it. What really annoys me is anytime anyone says anything remotely negative about him both him and his supporters, some on this forum, roll out the cancer defense straight away. Using it nonchalantly as if it absolves the man of anything and offers him the up most virtue.

Lance is it true you took drugs?
You must love cancer, I beat that desease man!

Seriously can those defending him on here, and I've no problem with that each is entitled to their own opinion, but just please leave the cancer out of it. Yes we know about it, we know what he went through but trying to defend the man for what he did based on playing the cancer card is sick, pathetic and down right shameful both on your part and his part.

There I've said my peace and will stay out of the remainder of this discussion.

Those defending him don't in general make that argument, but rather advocate that whatever about cycling cheating, the Livestrong Foundation has raised more than USD470m, providing financial resources 550+ organizations that conduct cancer survivorship research or offer services to people affected by cancer, & 81c of every dollar raised has gone directly to support programs and services for survivors.

Can't stand drug cheating & he was rightly exposed, but this particular 'cancer card' is undeniably positive.

Hermy wrote: »

There's no vendetta. USADA are just doing their job which is to ensure to the best of their ability that sport is clean and that cheats don't prosper.

I don't dispute that however if you would like to read the resst of my post as to why I was thinking it. It would be good

Edit: Question been answered about other guys so now all good and I agree vandetta was too stong of a word

ThisRegard wrote: »

Won't somebody please think of the children charidees ? I think the vast majority of people in the world are aware of the existence of cancer so we might be ok if Livestrong looses a bit of cash.

But the implication that there was some sort of pay off for testimonys is something straight from the Lance defence handbook.

You still only "think he probably did" ?!? The rest is ridiculous.

No i do think he did it. Why is the rest ridiculous. Its just my opinion

Edit: Question has been answered to I am fine now