USADA report leaked
Discussion
More here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716
Do the fanboys still think he's innocent ???
Do the fanboys still think he's innocent ???
amnesia182 said:
More here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716
Do the fanboys still think he's innocent ???
probably, but not everyone who wanted a little more proof than a testimony from Floyd Landis is a "fanboy"....Do the fanboys still think he's innocent ???
Don't get the sympathy everyone is feeling for Hincapie. Yeah, he seems like a nice guy, but how does that make him any better than the rest? And his affidavit and press release are awful. As someone tweeted earlier his idea of doping "early in my career" accounts for 12 of his 18 seasons of racing...more than a lot of peoples' entire racing lives.
clearly everyone is against armstrong, even those who are still racing and have everything to lose by admitting doping just made it all up as there is no way wonderful lance doped.....is about the only defence left it seems,
Lawyers saying its a hatchet job against him, i cant quite see how on earth it can be viewed as anything else, its almost like saying 1+2 does not equal 3.
On another note garmin are in an interesting position, note how many of those named are contracted to or recently contracted to them, not the best pr in the world! (yes i know they are likely all clean now) but joe public sees oooo a doper bad, as opposed to seeing anyone whos about 35+ and in pro cycling as having likely doped and not been caught yet.
Lawyers saying its a hatchet job against him, i cant quite see how on earth it can be viewed as anything else, its almost like saying 1+2 does not equal 3.
On another note garmin are in an interesting position, note how many of those named are contracted to or recently contracted to them, not the best pr in the world! (yes i know they are likely all clean now) but joe public sees oooo a doper bad, as opposed to seeing anyone whos about 35+ and in pro cycling as having likely doped and not been caught yet.
el stovey said:
So what amazes me is that lots of people still think "I never tested positive" is a valid defence. I'm a behavioural scientist. In my field there's currently a huge hoohah because someone has come up with a statistical technique that can determine whether you falsified data. A bunch of big papers getting withdrawn, a number of big profs resigning. It's nice to have the literature cleaned of all these findings that nobody can replicate, but do I think that it'll stop research fraud going forward? No chance - people know how the tests work and will amend their fraud accordingly. It'll take a much more holistic approach, and I suspect some of it will be subjective.
Some of you guys must work in regulation in other fields. I've sat in conferences where profs have given keynote addresses, and had grumblings all around because "their experiments always get the right result". Is there some way to harness that without ending up with a witch trial?
Edited by DrMekon on Thursday 11th October 10:11
Juffled said:
clearly everyone is against armstrong, even those who are still racing and have everything to lose by admitting doping just made it all up as there is no way wonderful lance doped.....is about the only defence left it seems,
Lawyers saying its a hatchet job against him, i cant quite see how on earth it can be viewed as anything else, its almost like saying 1+2 does not equal 3.
On another note garmin are in an interesting position, note how many of those named are contracted to or recently contracted to them, not the best pr in the world! (yes i know they are likely all clean now) but joe public sees oooo a doper bad, as opposed to seeing anyone whos about 35+ and in pro cycling as having likely doped and not been caught yet.
Garmin did take on Dave Millar even though they knew his doping past. Although they obviously didn't know Vande Velde et al were doping previously too! In his book, Millar refers to wanting to ride for Dave Brailsford and him refusing because of his doping past, might be an interesting conversation Brailsford has with Michael Barry now!!Lawyers saying its a hatchet job against him, i cant quite see how on earth it can be viewed as anything else, its almost like saying 1+2 does not equal 3.
On another note garmin are in an interesting position, note how many of those named are contracted to or recently contracted to them, not the best pr in the world! (yes i know they are likely all clean now) but joe public sees oooo a doper bad, as opposed to seeing anyone whos about 35+ and in pro cycling as having likely doped and not been caught yet.
Just think overall it's sad for cycling, an icon who built the sport up to previously unparalleled heights could be responsible for killing off a new wave of interest!
tombine said:
Garmin did take on Dave Millar even though they knew his doping past. Although they obviously didn't know Vande Velde et al were doping previously too!
If you read Vaughters' affidavit (http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JV+Vaughters+Jonathan+Affidavit.pdf) you'll see that he knew all about Vande Velde's doping, though maybe not that he was still at it as late as 2007.Uriel said:
tombine said:
Garmin did take on Dave Millar even though they knew his doping past. Although they obviously didn't know Vande Velde et al were doping previously too!
If you read Vaughters' affidavit (http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/JV+Vaughters+Jonathan+Affidavit.pdf) you'll see that he knew all about Vande Velde's doping, though maybe not that he was still at it as late as 2007.Edited by tombine on Thursday 11th October 11:49
http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/
Vaughters' probably makes the best reading. Zabriskie's story is pretty sad though when pieced together form all the stuff in the investigation.
Vaughters' probably makes the best reading. Zabriskie's story is pretty sad though when pieced together form all the stuff in the investigation.
DrMekon said:
Some of you guys must work in regulation in other fields. I've sat in conferences where profs have given keynote addresses, and had grumblings all around because "their experiments always get the right result". Is there some way to harness that without ending up with a witch trial?
Testing will probably always be reactive and one step behind doping. The regulatory body, the UCI was accepting large donations from Armstrong, that's clearly not right.I think you simply have to make the consequences serious enough to make cheating appear no longer worth it. Cheats have to know that they can be caught years after the event also. To me USADA going after Armstrong has helped put other would be cheats off.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff