Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
FredClogs said:
smack said:
But one thing in recent years that went through my mind was Phil Liggett, right until the end defended Lance, saying he was clean, when I am sure he is very close to the heart of the sport as he has been it for so long, an would know everyone.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Phil Liggett, not anymore than anyone else in the sport anyway, there must have been dozens of people who knew and to be honest the journalists would have been the last to hear much other than the rumours and conjecture, which let's face it were pretty out there anyway, I knew . Phil Liggett was guilty of standing by the sport he loves and has earned a living from for 30 or 40 years, I doubt very much he was doing it for any nefarious gain.He can comment on how extraordinary a feat the performance is, he can use superlatives such as 'superhuman' but he cannot reasonably be expected to cast doubt on a riders legality.
groomi said:
He can comment on how extraordinary a feat the performance is, he can use superlatives such as 'superhuman' but he cannot reasonably be expected to cast doubt on a riders legality.
It's not that Liggett didn't speak out against LA or remain neutral, Liggett was one of LAs biggest supporters.Right up to and during the USADA investigation, he was often critical of USADA and was close personally to LA. He was also financially involved with LA.
groomi said:
FredClogs said:
smack said:
But one thing in recent years that went through my mind was Phil Liggett, right until the end defended Lance, saying he was clean, when I am sure he is very close to the heart of the sport as he has been it for so long, an would know everyone.
I wouldn't be too harsh on Phil Liggett, not anymore than anyone else in the sport anyway, there must have been dozens of people who knew and to be honest the journalists would have been the last to hear much other than the rumours and conjecture, which let's face it were pretty out there anyway, I knew . Phil Liggett was guilty of standing by the sport he loves and has earned a living from for 30 or 40 years, I doubt very much he was doing it for any nefarious gain.He can comment on how extraordinary a feat the performance is, he can use superlatives such as 'superhuman' but he cannot reasonably be expected to cast doubt on a riders legality.
What shocked me more how deep seeded the drugs where in the sport and how Lance continued to lie about it, and the lengths it took to cover up that lie.
Money breeds power and greed, and once people get a taste for that they will do literally anything to keep it.
As arm chair spectators we can afford to use our magic one eye and decide beyond doubt that someone is a drugs cheat after 5 seconds thought based on one incident.
But for someone who is (in the opinion of the casual observer) in the know to say it. On tele. Broadcast to millions of people? Are you mad? As said above, legal letters would be hitting their doormat before the end of the stage and they will find themselves in front of the beak, trying to explain how their evidence is based on deduction....which itself is based on an assumption that the others are dirty (you'll be receiving letters form THEIR lawyers next week).
But for someone who is (in the opinion of the casual observer) in the know to say it. On tele. Broadcast to millions of people? Are you mad? As said above, legal letters would be hitting their doormat before the end of the stage and they will find themselves in front of the beak, trying to explain how their evidence is based on deduction....which itself is based on an assumption that the others are dirty (you'll be receiving letters form THEIR lawyers next week).
el stovey said:
It's not that Liggett didn't speak out against LA or remain neutral, Liggett was one of LAs biggest supporters.
Right up to and during the USADA investigation, he was often critical of USADA and was close personally to LA. He was also financially involved with LA.
There was a rider who tested positive for a substance on the Tour that wasn't banned at the time but would be on the Monday after the Champs Elysee parade. Liggett was quite vicious in his attack on the UCI, ranting on about it for days, alling for sackings for incompetence.Right up to and during the USADA investigation, he was often critical of USADA and was close personally to LA. He was also financially involved with LA.
The rider was quite clearly taking drugs as the soon to be banned substance was a masking agent.
I can understand someone not wanting to delve too deeply but he went further than that. He should have made it clear what the substance was, why it was being banned and why the Tour organisers had fought to have its listing deferred until after the race allegedly.
There were suggestions that press passes could suffer if much was made of the findings.
From an outsider looking in and not knowing the full outcome, watching the films it seems that everyone was taking EPO to compete and try and win, and allegations show that maybe the UCI knew more than they let on and actually because of the money involved alot was brushed under the carpet including LA.
Has much changed in 2014? Are the tests there to really clean up the sport? What has changed in the governing organisations in the wake of allegations of corruption?
Or is it that while the money comes in the sport will continue to be clouded in scandal?
Has much changed in 2014? Are the tests there to really clean up the sport? What has changed in the governing organisations in the wake of allegations of corruption?
Or is it that while the money comes in the sport will continue to be clouded in scandal?
I think a few people need to cast their minds back or learn a bit of cycling history or just go back and read the beginning of this thread and pull their heads out their arses, it was perfectly clear to anyone with any interest in cycling that EPO use was endemic after the 1998 tour, Riise's full and frank disclosure after his positive sample in 1997 should have left no one in any doubt as to the culture of professional cycling, having a pop at Phil Ligget is akin to blaming Kate Adi for war in the middle east.
FredClogs said:
I think a few people need to cast their minds back or learn a bit of cycling history or just go back and read the beginning of this thread and pull their heads out their arses, it was perfectly clear to anyone with any interest in cycling that EPO use was endemic after the 1998 tour, Riise's full and frank disclosure after his positive sample in 1997 should have left no one in any doubt as to the culture of professional cycling, having a pop at Phil Ligget is akin to blaming Kate Adi for war in the middle east.
I'm not sure that Kate Adie fought for one side or the other. I don't think anyone is blaming Ligett for drugs taking, merely keeping quiet about it, or, what was worse in my mind, criticising the UCI when they tried to expose it. It is apparent now that everyone involved closely in the sport knew of the endemic nature of the drugs abuse - although that phrase limits the cheating as it went much further than merely taking a few pills - and were party to the cover-up. If memory serves, the person who exposed the use of the masking agent was either disciplined or sacked.
I can accept that Ligett would have lost his job if he had mouthed off as no one cared, but to criticise those who were, apparently, trying to do something and deliberately misrepresent the nature of the revelation, which at the time I believed he did, is a reason to criticise.
Either the cyclist had a near fatal kidney/liver disease that required that specific medication, which just happened to be a masking agent, or else, quite clearly, he was taking anabolic steroids. There was no call for the tirade against the testing.
I think my head is in the right place. It's Ligett's that was not at the time.
I know 5 lads who have ridden the tour since the 60's through to present day .British riders who went to the continent had a choice dope or come home ...most came home. The most successful rider of the 60's era Tom Simpson killed himself trying to keep up. Drugs have been part of the "continental" scene for decades and always seem to be able to keep one step ahead of the testing.
Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
In theory if you are lots of certain types of fruit or veg or nuts they could contain minerals which if taken as a tablet would be banned.
How about those who train at high altitude v those which cannot afford to do so - huge disadvantage etc etc.
Look at F1
Honda cheated with Button and the huge fuel tank which meant they were under weight most of the race cheating and the whole team knew about it, what about McLaren with the two brake pedal to help cornering have a huge advantage again cheating
Etc etc.
Who doesn't play fast and loose
How about those who train at high altitude v those which cannot afford to do so - huge disadvantage etc etc.
Look at F1
Honda cheated with Button and the huge fuel tank which meant they were under weight most of the race cheating and the whole team knew about it, what about McLaren with the two brake pedal to help cornering have a huge advantage again cheating
Etc etc.
Who doesn't play fast and loose
Welshbeef said:
, what about McLaren with the two brake pedal to help cornering have a huge advantage again cheating
Technical innovation (which has since made it to the road on the MP4-12C - in a form). It was not specifically outlawed and as such it was legal. It was subsequently outlawed after Ferrari had a paddy and then removed from the car. johnxjsc1985 said:
I know 5 lads who have ridden the tour since the 60's through to present day .British riders who went to the continent had a choice dope or come home ...most came home. The most successful rider of the 60's era Tom Simpson killed himself trying to keep up. Drugs have been part of the "continental" scene for decades and always seem to be able to keep one step ahead of the testing.
Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
It would appear that he was at a level which left the others far behind. Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
I have a lad who wanted to play his chosen sport at a high level. He had the talent to be a professional, indeed he was approached to be, but his worry was what he would be required to take. He was a personal trainer and used to be asked by clients for steroids and such. Yet my lad knew what these things do to your body so would not take them.
In the case of cycling, it seems that if you want to earn a living at it you have to take drugs. Otherwise you are left struggling at times. Even the poorly paid domestiques are required to perform at a high level day after day.
The design of the TdF is such that it almost demands that riders takes drugs.
On top of that we have the team leaders abusing their bodies and, from the revelations of the Armstrong affair and others, the regulators are, for whatever reason, unwilling to put a stop to it. The show, it seems, must go on regardless of the cost in health to the riders.
A few years ago cycling was the most unhealthy 'western' sport for professionals. Their long-term health problems - enlarged hearts and other bits of the body - shortened their lives and gave them crippling problems.
Armstrong, whose abuse of drugs made it a requirement for any challengers to follow suit, needs to be made an example of. I feel sorry in a way for Hamilton, despite his book making him appear an unattractive personality, as he was merely weak I think, although he obviously enjoyed the trappings of success. Armstrong was a leader in the abuse.
Fair enough, he could not have done it without the support of various medical assistants, and they seem to be the creative side, but what Armstrong did was turn long distance racing into a chemical competition.
This is not the same as moveable floors.
johnxjsc1985 said:
I know 5 lads who have ridden the tour since the 60's through to present day .British riders who went to the continent had a choice dope or come home ...most came home. The most successful rider of the 60's era Tom Simpson killed himself trying to keep up. Drugs have been part of the "continental" scene for decades and always seem to be able to keep one step ahead of the testing.
Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
It's not complicated in the slightest. Stop taking drugs and braking the rulesArmstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
Bedford Rascal said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
I know 5 lads who have ridden the tour since the 60's through to present day .British riders who went to the continent had a choice dope or come home ...most came home. The most successful rider of the 60's era Tom Simpson killed himself trying to keep up. Drugs have been part of the "continental" scene for decades and always seem to be able to keep one step ahead of the testing.
Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
Nut.Armstrong for me seems to be being lined up as a way of putting a line in the sand he seems a good fall guy for all the Ills of the sport.
I don't care too much for him but frying his nuts will not make riding the TDF any easier ,its a complicated problem isn't it.
BMWBen said:
He might be a total bellend, but taking the mick out of his cancer is a bit low imo. Doing so is insulting to anyone else in the same situation, not just him.
His words and actions insulted the millions of cancer sufferers he purported to support on a daily basis. He claimed he was racing clean and winning after surviving cancer and he was doing no such thing. The hope and inspiration he gave was hollow and based on a lie. He knew it and chose to perpetuate that lie at every opportunity because it gave him status, power and money.I have nothing but contempt for the man. I despise the way he systematically ruined the lives of others who either disagreed to follow his direction or those who openly fought against him and were ground out by continual legal actions and public defamation, which were funded by his wins which were a result of him cheating...
Winning at all costs is not winning when it costs you everything.
arfur sleep said:
BMWBen said:
He might be a total bellend, but taking the mick out of his cancer is a bit low imo. Doing so is insulting to anyone else in the same situation, not just him.
His words and actions insulted the millions of cancer sufferers he purported to support on a daily basis. He claimed he was racing clean and winning after surviving cancer and he was doing no such thing. The hope and inspiration he gave was hollow and based on a lie. He knew it and chose to perpetuate that lie at every opportunity because it gave him status, power and money.I have nothing but contempt for the man. I despise the way he systematically ruined the lives of others who either disagreed to follow his direction or those who openly fought against him and were ground out by continual legal actions and public defamation, which were funded by his wins which were a result of him cheating...
Winning at all costs is not winning when it costs you everything.
Do you think anyone who's had to have a testicle removed because of cancer will be thinking "Ha ha ha, lance armstrong only has one nut, isn't that f
king funny". Probably not, so probably not good taste.As is pointed out in 'The Armstong Lie' this is more a story about power (or rather its abuse) than doping in many ways. LA's abuse of the power he acquired was scandalous when you look at it objectively.
However, Christoph Bassons comments about Armstrong in this piece are worth reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycli...
It's very easy to vilify LA or (to paraphrase Dylan Moran) sit in our armchairs shouting instructions or abuse at elite athletes. clearly though, LA being caught hasn't delivered a clean peleton despite frantic jumping up and down of certain riders and teams to the contrary.
However, Christoph Bassons comments about Armstrong in this piece are worth reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycli...
It's very easy to vilify LA or (to paraphrase Dylan Moran) sit in our armchairs shouting instructions or abuse at elite athletes. clearly though, LA being caught hasn't delivered a clean peleton despite frantic jumping up and down of certain riders and teams to the contrary.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff