Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
So have WADA accepted USADA findings and as such do they endorse the removal of the titles?
Will this be something LA maintains he never did until his grave?
So if LA failed tests - who was covering it up? ulrich was a past winner and they didn't cover that up. is the suggestion that because LA donated £100k to UCI that was reason enough to sit on failed tests?
suggesting that the man is bigger than the sport and needed protecting when so many other "top 10" cyclists WERE exposed makes no sense - I'm not looking for
s of light but believing the testimony of dopers against other dopers isn't as strong as some ppl might believe it to be imho.
I'm really hoping that the USADA releases the evidence in whole so conjecture and subjection can be set aside and cast iron evidence presented so we can see the truth.
is this a case of the bigger the lie the more people will believe it? if so I have been guilty in the past.
this will not move on unless we see the evidence
Will this be something LA maintains he never did until his grave?
So if LA failed tests - who was covering it up? ulrich was a past winner and they didn't cover that up. is the suggestion that because LA donated £100k to UCI that was reason enough to sit on failed tests?
suggesting that the man is bigger than the sport and needed protecting when so many other "top 10" cyclists WERE exposed makes no sense - I'm not looking for
s of light but believing the testimony of dopers against other dopers isn't as strong as some ppl might believe it to be imho.I'm really hoping that the USADA releases the evidence in whole so conjecture and subjection can be set aside and cast iron evidence presented so we can see the truth.
is this a case of the bigger the lie the more people will believe it? if so I have been guilty in the past.
this will not move on unless we see the evidence
Bedazzled said:
Lost_BMW said:
...Linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_...
Didn't know Blake had already been 'implicated', following the link it says he was suspended for three months after admitting it, but as you say it was a substance resembling a banned substance (whatever that means). Just curious, do you think his times this season are genuine?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yohan_Blake
"Prior to the 2009 World Championships, Blake (along with Marvin Anderson and Sheri-Ann Brooks) tested positive for the stimulant 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine. A disciplinary panel organised by the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) cleared him of a doping infraction on the grounds that the drug was not on the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list. However, JADCO appealed their own panel's ruling, stating that the athlete should be disciplined as the drug was similar in structure to the banned substance tuaminoheptane. As the panel would resolve the issue after the World Championships, the Jamaica Amateur Athletic Association took the precaution of withdrawing Blake from the relay race. The appeals tribunal decided that a ban would be appropriate, and Blake and the three other sprinters each received a three month ban from competition."
DJRC said:
Im going to sound stupid here but htf can something be chemically similar to something else but be something different but be interpreted as the same as something else but not be that thing. Oh and one of them be banned and the other not.
I can only guess that it was done as a precautionary measure to ensure the rest of the relay team didn't lose out and to ensure the were sending a message out to be very very careful about what medicines are used.However I suspect that either both of us are stupid or we're missing a lot of the background info.
As far as Blake goes, I think that's somewhat missing the point. That's talking about a guy who's run a time over two tenths faster than some of the most rampantly cheating athletes in history, and trying to claim it's clean. That sort of 'gain' is frankly ludicrous. Justin Gatlin is now running faster than he ever did whilst doping. Now either the drugs are terrible (in which case why is anybody bothering to take them?), or they're still on them and further proof that testing is miles behind. I know where my money lies, and it's on science and history.
I don't particularly want to get into a conversation on individuals though, I do that enough elsewhere, and I think it can be counter-productive and distracting to greater issues, like the UCI. But there's enough red flags around Sky to pose significant questions about what they're doing.
IroningMan said:
Put down Kimmage and form your own views.
They are, I don't recall having read Kimmage recently.DJRC said:
Now then, if however you were to propose a suggestion of individual riders prospering to an unlikely degree within the overall team operation, then I would agree that you possibly have a position to explore. To cast a blanket aspersion over the whole operation though opens the scope to a much greater extent for which you need much greater evidence.
For the record, teams tend to dope within smaller subgroups, not in groups of 25+. USPS didn't have everyone doping, just those who made the tour team. I'm not remotely suggesting Cavendish is doping. Wiggins I find to be a contradictory hypocrite whose silence on Armstrong is now bemusing considering how vociferous he's been in the past.I don't particularly want to get into a conversation on individuals though, I do that enough elsewhere, and I think it can be counter-productive and distracting to greater issues, like the UCI. But there's enough red flags around Sky to pose significant questions about what they're doing.
as I said, I'm content to believe that Blake, Wiggo et al just train harder becuase they are not doping compared to the guys who were doping and thus didnt train as hard. I just think its really sad that any demonstration of sporting excellence now is automatically assumed to be a result of doping. If and when they are ever caught or confess, I'm sure everyone will take the moral high ground and insist that they knew all along but people are simply throwing mud at every athlete who achieves something in the vain hope that one day, it sticks and they are proved right.
pablo said:
I'm sure everyone will take the moral high ground and insist that they knew all along but people are simply throwing mud at every athlete who achieves something in the vain hope that one day, it sticks and they are proved right.
yep, the same with many who are doing that with regards to LA.As you say, they are 'stories' about LA and it's become increasingly fashionable to join this band wagon, especially since this years TdF with Wiggins winning. Lots of speculation but that's all it still is and could be applied to any top rider who has won any of the big tournaments including Wiggins and even Frome.
It is a bit more than speculation about LA though. Books have been written (and legally cleared) court cases have been opened and settled out of court, a test was failed and cleared up with a TUE, and former colleagues (however dubious you may claim they are) have spoken out and said what they claimed to see/hear.
It got to the point for those with a healthy degree of skepticism where there was enough smoke to call it a fire.
With Sky it is absolutely right that we should still have that skeptical analysis, but as yet nobody has any claims that are more than pure speculation/hypotheticals.
It got to the point for those with a healthy degree of skepticism where there was enough smoke to call it a fire.
With Sky it is absolutely right that we should still have that skeptical analysis, but as yet nobody has any claims that are more than pure speculation/hypotheticals.
aspender said:
It got to the point for those with a healthy degree of skepticism where there was enough smoke to call it a fire.
but it's not fire how ever it is manipulated. I'm surprised at how so many are gullible and believe what they read on the internet and allow this to blur their sense of reality.
Silver993tt said:
but it's not fire how ever it is manipulated. I'm surprised at how so many are gullible and believe what they read on the internet and allow this to blur their sense of reality.
The same can be said for anyone who repeated the '500 tests and never positive' and various other false mantra. It gets to the point where a series of witnesses and first-hand accounts becomes overwhelming evidence.Bedazzled said:
I don't think anyone's saying they "knew all along" with LA, but as more stories emerge most people are aghast at what he's done, the impact it has on the credibility of the sport, and what it means for our memories of past 'victories'. We'd all like the evidence to be public, but LA has deliberately tried to prevent that by refusing to defend himself and that pretty much says it all.
With Blake it's different as we're just speculating, although his history as a junior now muddies the water a bit, imho. It's a shame people don't believe it when they see a remarkable performance, but personally I don't think his times are credible. He's been consistently running 9.7-9.8 race after race while others can only run 9.9 once or twice a season. At that level I think the best in the world should all be within a few hundredths of each other.
Mmmm... could be because, along with Bolt, he is the current 'best'; better genetically and physically than the others, combined with a huge appetite for training, and desire and working in a system where the country regards athletics as top priority so is focussed on this sport = participation, practise and top notch coaches from the get go.With Blake it's different as we're just speculating, although his history as a junior now muddies the water a bit, imho. It's a shame people don't believe it when they see a remarkable performance, but personally I don't think his times are credible. He's been consistently running 9.7-9.8 race after race while others can only run 9.9 once or twice a season. At that level I think the best in the world should all be within a few hundredths of each other.
But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating.
Lost_BMW said:
But as CavalierFC says he's quicker than other cheats and had some unbanned nasal spray left over in his system 3 years back, so he must be cheating.
From my very brief research (on wikipedia) it seems that it's also used as a recreational drug (although neither banned nor illegal). So maybe that's why they were suspended, more as a code of conduct thing.Silver993tt said:
As you say, they are 'stories' about LA and it's become increasingly fashionable to join this band wagon, especially since this years TdF with Wiggins winning. Lots of speculation but that's all it still is and could be applied to any top rider who has won any of the big tournaments including Wiggins and even Frome.
Not at all. It's not fashion or a band wagon.These stories about LA have been around for many years and are widespread and based on past reports from riders reports of a failed test, lost test results/donations to the UCI and now testimonies from ex team mates who say they were involved with doping and saw him doping too. His doctor has been banned and his DS about to be banned, his team mates have testified against him. It's nothing to do with fashion. Armstrong has been linked to doping in this way for many many years, I can't think of any other athlete who has been plagued by rumours and reports from other athletes like this.
Armstrong has vindictively chased anyone suggesting he's a cheat, journalists, riders, bloggers, team members have all kept largely quiet due to fear of the power and influence Armstrong holds in the corrupt world of cycling. He's not one of the good guys he's an amazing athlete but a pretty nasty piece of work when you look at how he tried to rubbish the careers of many that have spoke up against him. Now that he's finally fallen, more people involved feel it's safe/viable to break the omerta of doping in cycling and are now speaking up about it. We'll now see more ex team mates/mechanics/doctors etc speaking up about Armstrong and his involvement in doping. This is just the beginning. There won't ever be a positive test result but many other convicted and confessed dopers "never failed a test" either.
Armstrong is a drug cheat, there's absolutely no suggestion or evidence of any sort that Wiggins and Froome have been doping at all. Anyone who really believes LA hasn't been doping must be living in some kind of Disney land.
Hopefully this will be a watershed moment that will properly clean up cycling the UCI and the corrosive web of doping and corruption that infects it all. Cycling needs ALL of it to come out, it will be good for procycling, it's not a bad thing. I think in the future cycling will be viewed in the pre and post Armstrong era. Where all the results before now will be viewed with suspicion and all the results from now on will hopefully be viewed with less suspicion.
Simmonds is a teenage still and has been said by the swimmers, your teen years are the ones where you bring your times down by large amounts. With the Paras they are also starting from quite a low base, elite performance wise, so as it gets more professional I would expect WRs to fall on a consistent basis and with some quite large gaps at times.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff