Lance Armstrong vs. USADA
Discussion
As i said before, LA had the opportunity on many occasions to 'fess up and tell all. That would most likely have resulted in a ban more in line with the likes of riders like David Millar perhaps. However he chose not to do that but to keep the pressure on whistleblowers and sue people left right and centre. With his PED use on top of that a lifetime ban is the only way forward for him, it would be farcical if it were reversed.
There seem to be a few on here with a real animosity toward David Millar. He was caught, banned and lost everything (materially) in the process, personally I think he paid a reasonable price for his transgressions.
Realistically lifetimes bans are the only way to go to have any real impact in the future though (for all sports).
As for cycling books by ex-dopers? difficult one, but I have to confess I've read DM's and Tyler Hamilton's books, and very interesting they were too (for different reasons). What I find most interesting about them, is that this current window we are getting into cyclings darker recesses is also a look at what is going on across the board in all professional sports. It would be naive in the extreme to think otherwise.
There seem to be a few on here with a real animosity toward David Millar. He was caught, banned and lost everything (materially) in the process, personally I think he paid a reasonable price for his transgressions.
Realistically lifetimes bans are the only way to go to have any real impact in the future though (for all sports).
As for cycling books by ex-dopers? difficult one, but I have to confess I've read DM's and Tyler Hamilton's books, and very interesting they were too (for different reasons). What I find most interesting about them, is that this current window we are getting into cyclings darker recesses is also a look at what is going on across the board in all professional sports. It would be naive in the extreme to think otherwise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycli...
So they've selected the panel and Lance says he'll appear.
So they've selected the panel and Lance says he'll appear.
Lance talks a lot but he still has nothing to say. We all knew this months if not years ago, Ferrari supplied them, O'Reilly helped cover it up, Maire did the couriering...
USA Today said:
Armstrong has not paid or offered to pay someone to keep his or others' doping a secret," he stated. "However, Armstrong has, on occasion, provided benefits or made contributions to many people and institutions, some of whom may have been aware of, or suspected Armstrong's use of performance-enhancing drugs and banned methods. Armstrong never provided any such benefits or contributions with the intent for it to be a payoff to keep doping a secret."
Going back and reading the first few pages of this thread makes for amusing/interesting reading, I for one, was still sceptical back then that they would find anything despite the long standing rumours and the state of the sport in the late 90s/00s....Given this is all part of a legal case it's probably a reasonable assumption that he's saying what he needs to say, and no more. Hardly the "full and frank confession" we all hope will one day come (I guess that'll be through a book or another way that LA feels he can maximise his income though).
If he told me over and over again that he's clean to my face I'd believe him. People trust other people and are also good at lying to themselves (ie to ignore other evidence).
Sportsmen to seemingly superhuman things every day, we're presented with video footage of them constantly. If they don't to superhuman things we chastise them and boo them off the team.
It's only blindingly obvious with the benefit of hindsight.
I'm not defending him, just trying to add some perspective to the observation.
Sportsmen to seemingly superhuman things every day, we're presented with video footage of them constantly. If they don't to superhuman things we chastise them and boo them off the team.
It's only blindingly obvious with the benefit of hindsight.
I'm not defending him, just trying to add some perspective to the observation.
I'm sorry but it really, really was blindingly obvious.
I was living in Texas (so he was a hero) in 2003 and 2004 and we had many, many conversations where I was 100% sure he was doping and, of course, all the Yanks were 100% sure he wasn't and there were some huge arguments/ falling outs over it, which seems very childish but they can be very 'head strong' down here.
It was nice to move back here in 2012 (and still be here now) and actually have someone call me to say "you were right".
People achieve (what most people consider) to be superhuman feats everyday but what made LA's rise so amazing was the fact that he came back from cancer, which absolutely ravaged his body, to beat other superhumans who were caught doping. That had never been done (to my knowledge) at that level of competition and has never been done since. He was utterly unique and raised on a plateau for it!
Do I think he could have 'rebuilt' his body perfectly for cycling due to the cancer to give him that edge over the others - sure. But was it blindingly obvious that that wouldn't be enough to beat the guys who were known to be doping? I am sorry but yes.
Guys come back from injury and operation all the time but rarely is there such a step change to their performance. If you have ever trained at the highest level and competed at the highest level, regardless of sport, you could tell there was something not right about any of it. Yes, hindsight is a beautiful thing and those of us who believed we 'knew' could have been proven to be total muppets but we weren't.
Is there another analogue in the sports world? Guys like Bolt seem suspicious, in my view, but I don't discuss that as his ability seems more explainable than LA's. Having said that, look at the great sprinters who have been caught, especially later in their careers when they had enough money to not need to worry so much about performance. Yes, these guys have that mindset of 'have to win' but why start doing drugs when you're well off peak if you weren't doing them before?
Anyway, this has been covered at length in this thread but it's an issue quite close to my heart when I have had guys shouting at me in my office because he's clean and it was unconstitutional (seriously) to go after him like that! No one has mentioned it since.
I was living in Texas (so he was a hero) in 2003 and 2004 and we had many, many conversations where I was 100% sure he was doping and, of course, all the Yanks were 100% sure he wasn't and there were some huge arguments/ falling outs over it, which seems very childish but they can be very 'head strong' down here.
It was nice to move back here in 2012 (and still be here now) and actually have someone call me to say "you were right".
People achieve (what most people consider) to be superhuman feats everyday but what made LA's rise so amazing was the fact that he came back from cancer, which absolutely ravaged his body, to beat other superhumans who were caught doping. That had never been done (to my knowledge) at that level of competition and has never been done since. He was utterly unique and raised on a plateau for it!
Do I think he could have 'rebuilt' his body perfectly for cycling due to the cancer to give him that edge over the others - sure. But was it blindingly obvious that that wouldn't be enough to beat the guys who were known to be doping? I am sorry but yes.
Guys come back from injury and operation all the time but rarely is there such a step change to their performance. If you have ever trained at the highest level and competed at the highest level, regardless of sport, you could tell there was something not right about any of it. Yes, hindsight is a beautiful thing and those of us who believed we 'knew' could have been proven to be total muppets but we weren't.
Is there another analogue in the sports world? Guys like Bolt seem suspicious, in my view, but I don't discuss that as his ability seems more explainable than LA's. Having said that, look at the great sprinters who have been caught, especially later in their careers when they had enough money to not need to worry so much about performance. Yes, these guys have that mindset of 'have to win' but why start doing drugs when you're well off peak if you weren't doing them before?
Anyway, this has been covered at length in this thread but it's an issue quite close to my heart when I have had guys shouting at me in my office because he's clean and it was unconstitutional (seriously) to go after him like that! No one has mentioned it since.
dom9 said:
I'm sorry but it really, really was blindingly obvious.
I was living in Texas (so he was a hero) in 2003 and 2004 and we had many, many conversations where I was 100% sure he was doping and, of course, all the Yanks were 100% sure he wasn't and there were some huge arguments/ falling outs over it, which seems very childish but they can be very 'head strong' down here.
It was nice to move back here in 2012 (and still be here now) and actually have someone call me to say "you were right".
People achieve (what most people consider) to be superhuman feats everyday but what made LA's rise so amazing was the fact that he came back from cancer, which absolutely ravaged his body, to beat other superhumans who were caught doping. That had never been done (to my knowledge) at that level of competition and has never been done since. He was utterly unique and raised on a plateau for it!
Do I think he could have 'rebuilt' his body perfectly for cycling due to the cancer to give him that edge over the others - sureBut was it blindingly obvious that that wouldn't be enough to beat the guys who were known to be doping? I am sorry but yes.
Guys come back from injury and operation all the time but rarely is there such a step change to their performance. If you have ever trained at the highest level and competed at the highest level, regardless of sport, you could tell there was something not right about any of it. Yes, hindsight is a beautiful thing and those of us who believed we 'knew' could have been proven to be total muppets but we weren't.
Is there another analogue in the sports world? Guys like Bolt seem suspicious, in my view, but I don't discuss that as his ability seems more explainable than LA's. Having said that, look at the great sprinters who have been caught, especially later in their careers when they had enough money to not need to worry so much about performance. Yes, these guys have that mindset of 'have to win' but why start doing drugs when you're well off peak if you weren't doing them before?
Anyway, this has been covered at length in this thread but it's an issue quite close to my heart when I have had guys shouting at me in my office because he's clean and it was unconstitutional (seriously) to go after him like that! No one has mentioned it since.
It wasn't blindingly obvious or he would have been caught earlier. It was suspicious to a few cycling anoraks, but to joe public - who weren't aware of how rife it was back then generally - he was just better. And key to that myth were the stories spinning his level of preparation; watching videos of each stage over and over, and obsessively weighing every gram of food he ate, etc. I was living in Texas (so he was a hero) in 2003 and 2004 and we had many, many conversations where I was 100% sure he was doping and, of course, all the Yanks were 100% sure he wasn't and there were some huge arguments/ falling outs over it, which seems very childish but they can be very 'head strong' down here.
It was nice to move back here in 2012 (and still be here now) and actually have someone call me to say "you were right".
People achieve (what most people consider) to be superhuman feats everyday but what made LA's rise so amazing was the fact that he came back from cancer, which absolutely ravaged his body, to beat other superhumans who were caught doping. That had never been done (to my knowledge) at that level of competition and has never been done since. He was utterly unique and raised on a plateau for it!
Do I think he could have 'rebuilt' his body perfectly for cycling due to the cancer to give him that edge over the others - sureBut was it blindingly obvious that that wouldn't be enough to beat the guys who were known to be doping? I am sorry but yes.
Guys come back from injury and operation all the time but rarely is there such a step change to their performance. If you have ever trained at the highest level and competed at the highest level, regardless of sport, you could tell there was something not right about any of it. Yes, hindsight is a beautiful thing and those of us who believed we 'knew' could have been proven to be total muppets but we weren't.
Is there another analogue in the sports world? Guys like Bolt seem suspicious, in my view, but I don't discuss that as his ability seems more explainable than LA's. Having said that, look at the great sprinters who have been caught, especially later in their careers when they had enough money to not need to worry so much about performance. Yes, these guys have that mindset of 'have to win' but why start doing drugs when you're well off peak if you weren't doing them before?
Anyway, this has been covered at length in this thread but it's an issue quite close to my heart when I have had guys shouting at me in my office because he's clean and it was unconstitutional (seriously) to go after him like that! No one has mentioned it since.
rhinochopig said:
It wasn't blindingly obvious or he would have been caught earlier. It was suspicious to a few cycling anoraks, but to joe public - who weren't aware of how rife it was back then generally - he was just better. And key to that myth were the stories spinning his level of preparation; watching videos of each stage over and over, and obsessively weighing every gram of food he ate, etc.
But do the other riders not do that? I know some do and assume that is most if not all the top riders do. Suspicions have been surrounding LA since he came back from Cancer, if not before. I dare say ALL riders, team staff and officials 'knew', even if they didn't vocalise it, though they probably couldn't prove it (without huge support from guys who needed to keep their noses clean) as they knew their guys were doing the same. Look at the suspicious drug test results, faked prescription etc. You think no one ever mentioned what they saw?In fact, thinking of all the guys who were doping - it would be interesting to know what they thought but I guess they couldn't raise any alarms! Imagine jacking yourself full of drugs and still being comprehensively beaten by a guy who was just back from cancer. These guys and their teams knew what the drugs would do and that you needed them to perform at that level.
Then there was all the people he bullied to keep quiet; threatened and ruined their careers etc.
The only way to be caught was clearly more than one positive drugs test - the whispers (or even shouts) were not enough but people DID know.
Any 'Joe Public' who was extolling the virtues of LA and supporting the fact he was clean, without knowing about/ understanding the abundance of drugs in the sport or what it takes to put in those performances doesn't have an informed opinion and should have probably kept quiet rather than defend this nasty, deceptive piece of work. They can be a fan and buy his crap but when it came to the drugs and how vehemently I watched these people defend him - they look like utter idiots. I am sure I had it a lot 'worse' in his native state.
At the end of the day - it was proven so those of us who did say it was blindingly obvious were right, suggesting everyone else was ill informed. These people were blinded by the media, the Nike show and the miracle... He will never, truly have to answer for that and that's the bit I don't like. He made many, many, many 'Joe Public' look very silly indeed. Just look back at some of the early posts on this thread.
dom9 said:
rhinochopig said:
It wasn't blindingly obvious or he would have been caught earlier. It was suspicious to a few cycling anoraks, but to joe public - who weren't aware of how rife it was back then generally - he was just better. And key to that myth were the stories spinning his level of preparation; watching videos of each stage over and over, and obsessively weighing every gram of food he ate, etc.
But do the other riders not do that? I know some do and assume that is most if not all the top riders do. Suspicions have been surrounding LA since he came back from Cancer, if not before. I dare say ALL riders, team staff and officials 'knew', even if they didn't vocalise it, though they probably couldn't prove it (without huge support from guys who needed to keep their noses clean) as they knew their guys were doing the same. Look at the suspicious drug test results, faked prescription etc. You think no one ever mentioned what they saw?In fact, thinking of all the guys who were doping - it would be interesting to know what they thought but I guess they couldn't raise any alarms! Imagine jacking yourself full of drugs and still being comprehensively beaten by a guy who was just back from cancer. These guys and their teams knew what the drugs would do and that you needed them to perform at that level.
Then there was all the people he bullied to keep quiet; threatened and ruined their careers etc.
The only way to be caught was clearly more than one positive drugs test - the whispers (or even shouts) were not enough but people DID know.
Any 'Joe Public' who was extolling the virtues of LA and supporting the fact he was clean, without knowing about/ understanding the abundance of drugs in the sport or what it takes to put in those performances doesn't have an informed opinion and should have probably kept quiet rather than defend this nasty, deceptive piece of work. They can be a fan and buy his crap but when it came to the drugs and how vehemently I watched these people defend him - they look like utter idiots. I am sure I had it a lot 'worse' in his native state.
At the end of the day - it was proven so those of us who did say it was blindingly obvious were right, suggesting everyone else was ill informed. These people were blinded by the media, the Nike show and the miracle... He will never, truly have to answer for that and that's the bit I don't like. He made many, many, many 'Joe Public' look very silly indeed. Just look back at some of the early posts on this thread.
However, the reason I argue it wasn't blindingly obvious was because joe public were fed a very very professionally spun story about just how much more he did in preparation than the other riders. It was also made very clear that he always recruited the best team, and the best coaches, etc. It had an air of believability about it; especially the lie about why he would be stupid to dope given he'd almost died of cancer. And at the end of the day, people like to have hope that cheaters never prosper and that even against those odds someone can come out on top - this especially true in the US psyche. And if it had been true it would have been an epic story of triumph over adversity.
The big factor though is that most people don't give a flying fig about professional cycling so have no concept about credible and incredible performance stats. And such domination has been achieved before in the early days of cycling.
It's a real shame that you were so lambasted for voicing your - correct - opinion at the time, but I think you need to cut them a little slack for wanting to believe in such a wonderful - albeit bulls
t - story.Looking back it was obvious. When we heard of other riders using drugs and LA was beating them, I should have guessed. I can't think why I didn't. I just shut my mind to the possibilities. He said he wasn't taking drugs. Even as the depths of the corrupt nature of the sport was revealed it didn't even occur to me that he was the leader there as well as on the road.
It was, though, bloody obvious. I was a fan.
It was, though, bloody obvious. I was a fan.
rhinochopig said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending him - not in any way. I think what he did was despicable; not that he cheated - as they were all it - but they way he went about it.
However, the reason I argue it wasn't blindingly obvious was because joe public were fed a very very professionally spun story about just how much more he did in preparation than the other riders. It was also made very clear that he always recruited the best team, and the best coaches, etc. It had an air of believability about it; especially the lie about why he would be stupid to dope given he'd almost died of cancer. And at the end of the day, people like to have hope that cheaters never prosper and that even against those odds someone can come out on top - this especially true in the US psyche. And if it had been true it would have been an epic story of triumph over adversity.
The big factor though is that most people don't give a flying fig about professional cycling so have no concept about credible and incredible performance stats. And such domination has been achieved before in the early days of cycling.
It's a real shame that you were so lambasted for voicing your - correct - opinion at the time, but I think you need to cut them a little slack for wanting to believe in such a wonderful - albeit bullst - story.
More pish.However, the reason I argue it wasn't blindingly obvious was because joe public were fed a very very professionally spun story about just how much more he did in preparation than the other riders. It was also made very clear that he always recruited the best team, and the best coaches, etc. It had an air of believability about it; especially the lie about why he would be stupid to dope given he'd almost died of cancer. And at the end of the day, people like to have hope that cheaters never prosper and that even against those odds someone can come out on top - this especially true in the US psyche. And if it had been true it would have been an epic story of triumph over adversity.
The big factor though is that most people don't give a flying fig about professional cycling so have no concept about credible and incredible performance stats. And such domination has been achieved before in the early days of cycling.
It's a real shame that you were so lambasted for voicing your - correct - opinion at the time, but I think you need to cut them a little slack for wanting to believe in such a wonderful - albeit bulls
t - story.Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff