Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
Don1 said:
Welshbeef said:
But USADA and what appears to be many posters here think that's fair game for a long ban when its utterly irrelevant and for Mr Judge to sort.
Personally my take is his attitude deserves the punishment, rather than the crime.The lifetime ban is pretty useless anyway as he is past it but in giving it to him its amplified his face time in the news exactly the opposite that was wanted. And as I've said before just because he is the last person to come clean he gets life the rest 3-6months. What if he put his hands up seconds before another would that last person have for life?
What about the fact he joined a sport rife with drugs when he was a young adult?
Why isn't anyone taking the team owners to court and the governing body for taking the sport into disrepute? They allowed LA and all the others to behave that way and yes the buck stops with the owners. Why isn't anyone talking about this the amount of money the teams won in prize money needs to be returned and then big fines applied.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that you cant give the likes of Vino and Contador lifetime bans now, I'm all for life time bans but you cant impose them on people who have been caught, served their time and are now back riding. Its like trying someone for the same crime twice, cant be done in legal circumstances and you can only ban someone in accordance with the rules at the time. I dont think the likes of Millar et al are trying to worm their way out of anything, they cheated, they were caught, they were banned, they came back as they were entitled to do so. I think that annoys you all the most but you cant retrospectively ban them for longer/life when the crime at that time only warranted a two year ban.
If you are caught cheating post 01/01/2014 then I agree that a lifetime ban is the only way to go but you honestly cant try to impose 2013 ideologies and outrage on incidents that happened nearly two decades ago.
If you are caught cheating post 01/01/2014 then I agree that a lifetime ban is the only way to go but you honestly cant try to impose 2013 ideologies and outrage on incidents that happened nearly two decades ago.
A (now stripped) multiple time winner of the blu(e)- ribbon event the sport has to offer as a scapegoat, and crucified for it? The multi-millionaire who won more millions lying to courts and taking people and companies to court to continue the lie?
Gee, I don't know. Why would he be the big target for everyone?
(Incidentally, I don't disagree with you at all about the teams. I'd take it further.... I'd like to see the I would like to see them disband the UCI, and start again. Blood passports on open access sites for all to see.)
Gee, I don't know. Why would he be the big target for everyone?
(Incidentally, I don't disagree with you at all about the teams. I'd take it further.... I'd like to see the I would like to see them disband the UCI, and start again. Blood passports on open access sites for all to see.)
A lifetime ban for Di Luca: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-banned-for... - a new precedent?
Don1 said:
Blood passports on open access sites for all to see.)
Would encourage and perpetuate interpretation of data by people who don't know how to interpret data and herald a new golden age of people on Internet forums suffixing sentences with 'not normal', like it's somehow case closed. The fambase would tear itself apart from the inside out
pablo said:
I think the point I'm trying to make is that you cant give the likes of Vino and Contador lifetime bans now, I'm all for life time bans but you cant impose them on people who have been caught, served their time and are now back riding. Its like trying someone for the same crime twice, cant be done in legal circumstances and you can only ban someone in accordance with the rules at the time. I dont think the likes of Millar et al are trying to worm their way out of anything, they cheated, they were caught, they were banned, they came back as they were entitled to do so. I think that annoys you all the most but you cant retrospectively ban them for longer/life when the crime at that time only warranted a two year ban.
If you are caught cheating post 01/01/2014 then I agree that a lifetime ban is the only way to go but you honestly cant try to impose 2013 ideologies and outrage on incidents that happened nearly two decades ago.
Totally agree that retrospective rules should not be changed, but oh they did for the Olympics with truly a truly ironic outcome! If you are caught cheating post 01/01/2014 then I agree that a lifetime ban is the only way to go but you honestly cant try to impose 2013 ideologies and outrage on incidents that happened nearly two decades ago.
Jacobyte said:
A lifetime ban for Di Luca: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/di-luca-banned-for... - a new precedent?
Three strikes and you're out. Good riddance. 
Can all the books dopers have written be pulled from sale ? Am seeing a lot of x dopers cycling selling books in WHSmiths and Waterstones at the moment.
LA books too however clearly at the time no one knew he was a doper so bought in good faith but now to purchase these from cheats is vile.
Anyone boycotting the US Postal team for their huge lie and cheating.
LA books too however clearly at the time no one knew he was a doper so bought in good faith but now to purchase these from cheats is vile.
Anyone boycotting the US Postal team for their huge lie and cheating.
My main sport is not cycling but one that lends itself to drug abuse. When my lad's team was promoted he was told there would be 'irregular' drugs testing and that he would have to make himself available during a 'window'. He stayed with the team a further three years and was never tested.
One of the lads he was with at under 19 county level and above went on to greater things and didn't play a match for a long period, perhaps 18 mnths, ostensibly for the team that had him under contract to look after its investment during a vulnerable period. He arrived at his first professional match considerably bulkier than when we last saw him.
I accept that the training regime would have put muscle on him but one has one's doubts. My lad is a dedicated physical fitness enthusiast and works at a well-know gymnasium and a much slimmer built lad of 17 now outweighs him considerably. And for both it is solid muscle. We've seen him play at a top level matches and I've seen similar veins at my lad's gym.
I accept that there is no suggestion that the lad takes drugs but, on the questionable premise that he and his other, equally massive, team mates do, then the pressure goes right down the sport. If the first level top team players use illegal enhancements then those in level 2 will have to as they are all ambitious. So it goes down to level 4 at least.
I have no doubt that most of those i the professional high level game who took illegal drugs when young no longer do so but the advantages of the abuse stays with the player all the way through. It is easier to maintain bulk that put it one.
Not only that but those who don't want to take drugs, or are physically too slight, end up playing at a level which is lower than their ability could take them.
So everyone who takes drugs to enhance their body will have an unfair advantage, even after their 2-year (or whatever) ban. Further, and my main point, is that those who take drugs pollute the sport down to certainly semi-professional level and arguably below that.
I know it is their job but if they take drugs then it is a lifetime ban from the sport.
The defence of LA and other drugs takers, and apologists on here, that they did it because others did it doesn't work for burglars so I see no reason it should work for them.
I've seen my lad's team doctor with a syringe in his hand at half time. I'm relieved he left that team and dropped down two divisions. Now one, after a very successful last season.
I've got no sympathy for LA nor for other drugs abusers.
One of the lads he was with at under 19 county level and above went on to greater things and didn't play a match for a long period, perhaps 18 mnths, ostensibly for the team that had him under contract to look after its investment during a vulnerable period. He arrived at his first professional match considerably bulkier than when we last saw him.
I accept that the training regime would have put muscle on him but one has one's doubts. My lad is a dedicated physical fitness enthusiast and works at a well-know gymnasium and a much slimmer built lad of 17 now outweighs him considerably. And for both it is solid muscle. We've seen him play at a top level matches and I've seen similar veins at my lad's gym.
I accept that there is no suggestion that the lad takes drugs but, on the questionable premise that he and his other, equally massive, team mates do, then the pressure goes right down the sport. If the first level top team players use illegal enhancements then those in level 2 will have to as they are all ambitious. So it goes down to level 4 at least.
I have no doubt that most of those i the professional high level game who took illegal drugs when young no longer do so but the advantages of the abuse stays with the player all the way through. It is easier to maintain bulk that put it one.
Not only that but those who don't want to take drugs, or are physically too slight, end up playing at a level which is lower than their ability could take them.
So everyone who takes drugs to enhance their body will have an unfair advantage, even after their 2-year (or whatever) ban. Further, and my main point, is that those who take drugs pollute the sport down to certainly semi-professional level and arguably below that.
I know it is their job but if they take drugs then it is a lifetime ban from the sport.
The defence of LA and other drugs takers, and apologists on here, that they did it because others did it doesn't work for burglars so I see no reason it should work for them.
I've seen my lad's team doctor with a syringe in his hand at half time. I'm relieved he left that team and dropped down two divisions. Now one, after a very successful last season.
I've got no sympathy for LA nor for other drugs abusers.
I think Rugby accepts it has an issue with use of steroids within the sport, hopefully they can catch and deter further use by rigorous testing and firm punishments. Eventually I hope cycling will be acknowledged as at least trying to do something about the problem and not just burying its head in the sand and pretending there isn't an issue like other sports, interestingly, the IRB has its latest drug test figures on its website. It states: "The IRB carried out 1,542 tests both in and out of competition in 2012, across all IRB tournaments and events, including the HSBC Sevens World Series, Rugby World Cup 2015 qualifiers, men's and women's Tests and Age Grade Rugby.
UCI in and out of competition tests in 2011 was 13475
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?Me...
The more you test, the more you catch?!?!
UCI in and out of competition tests in 2011 was 13475
http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI1/layout.asp?Me...
The more you test, the more you catch?!?!
But steroids is a board brush - what about skin creams they not allowed or are they?
What about a Rugby player who has Ulcerative colitis like one of the England first team does - part of his medication is 6-9 tablets every day. So he will get a boost from that but are we saying someone with such an illness cannot compete? If so that's pretty low.
What about a Rugby player who has Ulcerative colitis like one of the England first team does - part of his medication is 6-9 tablets every day. So he will get a boost from that but are we saying someone with such an illness cannot compete? If so that's pretty low.
Welshbeef said:
But steroids is a board brush - what about skin creams they not allowed or are they?
What about a Rugby player who has Ulcerative colitis like one of the England first team does - part of his medication is 6-9 tablets every day. So he will get a boost from that but are we saying someone with such an illness cannot compete? If so that's pretty low.
I have UC and have had long periods of my life taking steroids (such as pred) and my understanding was that they were catabolic, i.e. the opposite of anabolic and would show up on a drugs test but effectively do the opposite of anabolic steroids and also have some nasty side effects. Interestingly, I never had trouble bulking up at the gym, while I was on them BUT I didn't start breaking any bones until I had to take them and they are known for reducing bone density... So, in reality, anyone on steroids for UC is probably at a serious disadvantage compared to someone who is clean, especially in a contact sport.What about a Rugby player who has Ulcerative colitis like one of the England first team does - part of his medication is 6-9 tablets every day. So he will get a boost from that but are we saying someone with such an illness cannot compete? If so that's pretty low.
I refuse to even take them nowadays. There are alternatives, though I was never offered them in the UK and do still have intra-muscular injections if I am very ill.
Anyway, bit off topic but that's my two penny's worth. As a side bar, I was very ill through my later teens and still managed to be bigger/ faster than my peers, despite the pred, but ended up with a stress fracture in my spine from training, so that put an end to my sporting aspirations!
dom9 said:
I have UC and have had long periods of my life taking steroids (such as pred) and my understanding was that they were catabolic, i.e. the opposite of anabolic and would show up on a drugs test but effectively do the opposite of anabolic steroids and also have some nasty side effects. Interestingly, I never had trouble bulking up at the gym, while I was on them BUT I didn't start breaking any bones until I had to take them and they are known for reducing bone density... So, in reality, anyone on steroids for UC is probably at a serious disadvantage compared to someone who is clean, especially in a contact sport.
I refuse to even take them nowadays. There are alternatives, though I was never offered them in the UK and do still have intra-muscular injections if I am very ill.
Anyway, bit off topic but that's my two penny's worth. As a side bar, I was very ill through my later teens and still managed to be bigger/ faster than my peers, despite the pred, but ended up with a stress fracture in my spine from training, so that put an end to my sporting aspirations!
I didn't fully appreciate the difference just took it at face value "roids" its a horribly illness when it flares up huge stomach cramps you really do need the toilet to hand and those episodes can last weeks to months before going as quickly as they came. I refuse to even take them nowadays. There are alternatives, though I was never offered them in the UK and do still have intra-muscular injections if I am very ill.
Anyway, bit off topic but that's my two penny's worth. As a side bar, I was very ill through my later teens and still managed to be bigger/ faster than my peers, despite the pred, but ended up with a stress fracture in my spine from training, so that put an end to my sporting aspirations!
Welshbeef said:
I didn't fully appreciate the difference just took it at face value "roids" its a horribly illness when it flares up huge stomach cramps you really do need the toilet to hand and those episodes can last weeks to months before going as quickly as they came.
Yes, not nice at all... I've had to go to A&E on two Christmases and be ambulanced out of my best friend's wedding (where I was best man) in the past 3/4 years, sadly it seems to run in my family and I got it the worst, though the last year or so has been pretty good... Touch wood! My Dad reckons he has got better with age, strangely, so I am looking forward to that, though I am no spring chicken at 35 in March, which will mean I've had it 20 years already!Honestly, getting a bit fat while you're on the 'roids isn't the end of the world and as long as you manage your blood sugar etc, you're fine. I think the bone density thing just happened to affect me more than it would the average person because of the amount of impact training I was doing (mainly plyometrics), so I wouldn't relish being a pro-athlete and trying to manage it all!
Welshbeef said:
But steroids is a board brush - what about skin creams they not allowed or are they?
its not hard, will the skin cream offer a beneficial incerase in performance and are they on a banned list? this is why i have very little sympathy with Asafa Powell, its up to the athletes to know what is and isnt on the banned substances list. If something is on the list but is a medical requirement for a condition you have, then the Governing Bodies have processes you need to follow to get an exemption or source an alternative, claiming ignorance, assuming someone else is checking for you etc is not enough these days given the banned substance lists for the sport is published and available for everyone.Sure its tough if there is no alternative to a banned substance but you cant relax the rules to let Johnny Bloggs compete using a banned sunstance even if its just a skin cream otherwise it makes a farce of the "get caught and you're banned for life" stance in this new clean era of sport that we are all championing.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff