nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

my friend

Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges

“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” Armstrong said in a statement.

“The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html

Lance's decision means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 on.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Chartsengrafs

furiousox wrote: »

And so it goes on......and on......

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/535238/the-ferrari-system-uncovered.html

Vladimir...say it ain't so!

How do we go about banning a Mod operating under a thinly disguised pseudonym?

kerash

Oh dear...

Flandria

kerash wrote: »

Oh dear...

Crazy, just crazy

Cienciano

drogdub wrote: »

A new low.
http://t.co/qVJKKZsI

I hope stuff like that gets a lot of press coverage to show what a scumbag he is.

hardCopy

petethedrummer wrote: »

To do this story justice it would have to be a high end drama series, like The Wire or The Sopranos. I don't think you could condense it into 2 hours. There are too many subplots.

Surely it belongs on True Movies with all the amateur dramatics and ridiculous plot lines.

Guybrush T

kerash wrote: »

Oh dear...

That's like rain on your wedding day:)

petethedrummer

kerash wrote: »

Oh dear...

For Sale
All my bikes.

It's been nice knowing you all on the cycling forum.

BryanL

He always tested positive for being a "Jerk"

http://sport.irishexaminer.com/post/2009/08/24/Hes-a-jerk-I-dont-know-why-anyone-would-root-for-him.aspx

Flandria

Nike excel themselves with, er, cycling jerseys in blood bags - you really couldn't make it up!

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/dm/nike_new_clubs_sponsorship_colorado_blood?size=_original

leftism

Flandria wrote: »

Crazy, just crazy

This is absolute BS! What the heck are they doing putting up a list of riders to be tested at the end of a race? The controllers are supposed to meet you in person, present their identification and hand you the official notice of a test. From that point on they cannot leave your sight.

Its hardly Bassons fault that he abandoned a MTB race in his own country, and decided to get in the car and drive home! He notified the race officials that he abandoned. What more do they expect?

I'm all for strict anti-doping controls but this is ridiculous!

At the very worst, this error should be counted as a whereabouts violation but definitely not a failed test! If he was not officially notified of the test, then i don't see how he could be sanctioned...

Raam

leftism wrote: »

This is absolute BS! What the heck are they doing putting up a list of riders to be tested at the end of a race? The controllers are supposed to meet you in person, present their identification and hand you the official notice of a test. From that point on they cannot leave your sight.

Its hardly Bassons fault that he abandoned a MTB race in his own country, and decided to get in the car and drive home! He notified the race officials that he abandoned. What more do they expect?

I'm all for strict anti-doping controls but this is ridiculous!

At the very worst, this error should be counted as a whereabouts violation but definitely not a failed test! If he was not officially notified of the test, then i don't see how he could be sanctioned...

It's not a whereabouts violation though. Missing a test like that is considered a fail. he got a reduced ban as is.

leftism

Raam wrote: »

It's not a whereabouts violation though. Missing a test like that is considered a fail. he got a reduced ban as is.

Yeah but he wasn't officially informed of the test.

Raam

leftism wrote: »

Yeah but he wasn't officially informed of the test.

Here's one opinion piece on it: http://inrng.com/2012/10/christophe-bassons-given-one-year-doping-ban/

Who is the onus on here? Is it the rider/team or is it on the testers? Methinks it's the riders/team duty to find out if they have been randomly selected. I haven't read the rules.

leftism

Raam wrote: »

Here's one opinion piece on it: http://inrng.com/2012/10/christophe-bassons-given-one-year-doping-ban/

Who is the onus on here? Is it the rider/team or is it on the testers? Methinks it's the riders/team duty to find out if they have been randomly selected. I haven't read the rules.

From my experience, the onus has always been on the testers to appropriately inform the athlete that they are conducting a test. Unless there were clear instructions from the race organisers that all riders must present themselves to the finish to be subject to a random doping control, then i fail to see how Bassons has done anything wrong here...

I've tested plenty of times both out of competition and in competition, and the onus has always been on the testers to clearly inform both the athlete and team manager of a test.

leftism

The whole testing procedure doesn't work if the athlete is responsible for finding out when they test. The whole point is that its supposed to be unannounced. They're not supposed to phone you. They're supposed to meet you in person. If they can't find you, they're supposed to track you down until they do. The other key part is that the moment the test is announced, the doping controller becomes your shadow. They cannot leave your sight until you provide a urine or blood sample.

So these lads stick up a list at the finish? Athlete spots his name, pops off to the bus to take his masking agents or whatever, then presents himself at doping control for the test... Doesn't make sense

Raam

leftism wrote: »

From my experience, the onus has always been on the testers to appropriately inform the athlete that they are conducting a test. Unless there were clear instructions from the race organisers that all riders must present themselves to the finish to be subject to a random doping control, then i fail to see how Bassons has done anything wrong here...

I've tested plenty of times both out of competition and in competition, and the onus has always been on the testers to clearly inform both the athlete and team manager of a test.

Is there an explicit rule as to who's duty it is? Of course, we don't know what, if any instructions were given.

hardCopy

leftism wrote: »

The whole testing procedure doesn't work if the athlete is responsible for finding out when they test. The whole point is that its supposed to be unannounced. They're not supposed to phone you. They're supposed to meet you in person. If they can't find you, they're supposed to track you down until they do. The other key part is that the moment the test is announced, the doping controller becomes your shadow. They cannot leave your sight until you provide a urine or blood sample.

So these lads stick up a list at the finish? Athlete spots his name, pops off to the bus to take his masking agents or whatever, then presents himself at doping control for the test... Doesn't make sense

This is what Dick Pound was criticizing. The athlete has an hour to play hide and seek before it's considered a fail.

Would it not be easier to force every rider to present themselves and sign in at the finish line where they can be paired up with a tester if they've been selected?

Spindle

BryanL wrote: »

He always tested positive for being a "Jerk"

http://sport.irishexaminer.com/post/2009/08/24/Hes-a-jerk-I-dont-know-why-anyone-would-root-for-him.aspx

The comments are great under the article, I wonder how many of them are still defending him.

Raam

leftism wrote: »

The whole testing procedure doesn't work if the athlete is responsible for finding out when they test. The whole point is that its supposed to be unannounced. They're not supposed to phone you. They're supposed to meet you in person. If they can't find you, they're supposed to track you down until they do. The other key part is that the moment the test is announced, the doping controller becomes your shadow. They cannot leave your sight until you provide a urine or blood sample.

So these lads stick up a list at the finish? Athlete spots his name, pops off to the bus to take his masking agents or whatever, then presents himself at doping control for the test... Doesn't make sense

Does he have to make himself available within reason? I dunno the exact circumstances but driving straight home doesn't sound like he did. Without phoning you, how do they track you down if you have driven away?

What would be better than sticking a list up? This isn't being argumentative, BTW.

Beasty

leftism wrote: »

Its hardly Bassons fault that he abandoned a MTB race in his own country, and decided to get in the car and drive home!

He clearly acknowledges it is:

I recognise that it was an error not to wait until the end of the race to see if my name appeared on the list of riders who were to be controlled

If he's not arguing about it I think we can probably assume it's pretty much in accordance with the rules

leftism

hardCopy wrote: »

This is what Dick Pound was criticizing. The athlete has an hour to play hide and seek before it's considered a fail.

This does not happen under a WADA sanctioned test... It should never happen under any doping test

TheBlaaMan

From Kelvin Dekker (15 y/o) via twitter
A5mKbS3CIAEYVgp.png:large

Its getting a fair bit of a buzz going on Twitter, anyway!

Raam

I found this...

from here: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

Notification of Riders
177. Any Rider including any Rider who has abandoned the Race, shall be aware that he may have been
selected to undergo Testing after the Race and is responsible for ensuring personally whether he is
required to appear for Sample collection as specified in the following paragraph.
Should a Rider not have been notified by a chaperone within ten minutes after he crossed the finish
line, the Rider shall locate and proceed to the place where the list of the Riders required to appear
for Sample Collection is displayed or to the doping control station. The absence of notification by a
chaperone shall not excuse the Rider for not reporting in time to the doping control station.
The Rider who has abandoned the race shall proceed immediately to the doping control station. The
absence of notification by a chaperone shall not excuse the Rider for not reporting in time to the
doping control station.
(text modified on 1.10.11; 1.02.12).

leftism

Raam wrote: »

Does he have to make himself available within reason? I dunno the exact circumstances but driving straight home doesn't sound like he did. Without phoning you, how do they track you down if you have driven away?

What would be better than sticking a list up? This isn't being argumentative, BTW.

Based on Bassons response (cheers for pointing that out Beasty), i'm assuming all riders were under instruction to present themselves at the finish for potential doping control. If that's the case then he only has himself to blame.

But in-competition tests are usually conducted like so; Athlete finishes the race, doping controller IMMEDIATELY presents themselves with identification and official notice of test. The tester then chaperones the athlete to the testing area where they provide a sample and fill in the paperwork. If the athlete wants to get changed, take a shower or eat something, thats fine, but the tester follows you everywhere (and i mean EVERYWHERE. They are your shadow until you provide a sample). In the case where an athlete doesn't finish, tester should (i'm assuming) check the athlete's whereabouts forms and go to the designated location where they are supposed to be sleeping. Test would then become an out of competition test, but same procedures remain in place. If the athlete is not there, then they should get a whereabouts violation.

I'm not familiar with UCI or other federations testing procedures, but i've tested for over 10 years under the ISC for out of competition and i've tested at several international events and the procedures are virtually identical. Having said that, some of the reports emerging about the UCI testing procedures in the 90's and 00's has left me with doubts as to their effectiveness...

leftism

"The Rider who has abandoned the race shall proceed immediately to the doping control station. The absence of notification by a chaperone shall not excuse the Rider for not reporting in time to the doping control station."

Looks like he only has himself to blame so! Stupid and costly mistake if it was indeed a mistake and not something more sinister like deliberate test evasion...

Eamonnator

In the past, I managed Irish Mountainbike Teams at World Cups and World Championships. Before every race, there would be a meeting for managers, riders' reps., commissaires, race organisers and dope control.
We would be told, that there would be drug control. We would be informed, that the list of riders to be tested would be posted in a specific place, usually, past the finish line, in the funnell, where riders would have to pass, having completed the race. The list was always posted in a prominent position.
We (riders and managers) were aware of the procedure. Everybody knew, where the list would be posted.
I always made a point of checking the list, as soon as it was posted, to see, if any of my riders had been called.
It was always made clear to us, that while a chaperone would be at the finish to escort the rider to dope control, it was absolutely the rider's obligation to present himself, if called.

leftism

Have to say, it is troubling to see the UCI not distinguishing between an official notification by a chaperone, and simply posting a list at the finish. There is a BIG difference between a chaperone officially informing an athlete of a test and an athlete (or team manager) simply reading a list and presenting themselves to doping control.

The key difference being prior knowledge.

The whole anti-doping test procedure is based on the athlete having no prior knowledge of when or where the test will be conducted. Giving the athlete (or team manager) prior knowledge seriously reduces the validity of the test, IMHO.

Eamonnator

I should have said, that the list of riders to be tested would not be posted until the race had started. Therefore there would be no prior knowledge.

Cienciano

Just read this, Greg is a legend:

An ex-Livestrong board member explained how an entire meeting was devoted to figuring out how to “screw LeMond”

leftism

Eamonnator wrote: »

I should have said, that the list of riders to be tested would not be posted until the race had started. Therefore there would be no prior knowledge.

Yeah i assumed thats what you meant.

But it doesn't really change the fact that that there is prior knowledge and the chance to prepare. Hypothetically, the team manager could be ready with whatever masking procedure is required to get their rider to pass the test... Providing prior knowledge to the team manager is just as bad as providing it to the rider.