Lance Armstrong formally charged with doping

[Vader]

As poster Burning Desire said on the previous page, the pro he knows reckons you cannot be in the top100 in a GT if you are on bread and water. Plus, the sprinters are the equivalent of GC men, but they are holding the red lantern at the back of the field. They need a different help, blood and oxygen vectors, not quite as important, still important, but need more strength gear. I would be surprised if GreenEdge is any different. Its what the sport takes to make it in Europe

I have no problem with this. It's just that UK Postal made it so blatantly obvious that they were cheating last year. That's what annoys me. If they can at least maintain an illusion of competition, then that's all I can realistically ask for. Once they take it over the top, then it's just plain obscene.

 

[blackcat]

-----
blackcat have you had dealings with Bates? What did you think of his interview with Wilko on Grandstand?

nah REH

he was the promoter of the Commonwealth Bank classic in the mid to late 90s. Think it might have finished about 2001. Ullrich rode it about 94.

 

[skipper kelly]

"The most critical evidence assembled by USADA and discussed in this Reasoned
Decision has come from Mr. Armstrong’s former teammates and former employees of the United
States Postal Service (“U.S. Postal Service” or “USPS”) and Discovery Channel cycling teams
who decided that it was the right thing to do for clean sport to come forward and provide
evidence to USADA regarding what they knew. As a consequence of a number of courageous
riders willingness to break the Code of Silence—the “omerta”"

Only up to page 4 so can anyone tell me if this is the tone of the entire report?

 

[blackcat]

"The most critical evidence assembled by USADA and discussed in this Reasoned
Decision has come from Mr. Armstrong’s former teammates and former employees of the United
States Postal Service (“U.S. Postal Service” or “USPS”) and Discovery Channel cycling teams
who decided that it was the right thing to do for clean sport to come forward and provide
evidence to USADA regarding what they knew. As a consequence of a number of courageous
riders willingness to break the Code of Silence—the “omerta”"

Only up to page 4 so can anyone tell me if this is the tone of the entire report?

weekend reading for me SK

by the Cliff notes on various web fora, it is just as damning.

But I think those riders who gave evidence, held much in reserve on their personal complicity. They never started in Europe. They started doping as amateurs and neo pros, across the other side of the Atlantic in America. Armstrong was not the soled cause and fault in their complicity. No. The sport compels doping. Not Armstrong

 

[phantom13]

because Race Radio posted the 200 page script only hours before. I assume that none of the Armstrong camp had time to read it when they could rehash the talking points that they put out for fanbois

I still have no idea what you are talking about (astroturfing?)... I have read the report and personally found it underwhelming. In any event i am sure he is guilty, of something, my problem (and this is a whole different kettle of fish) is stripping all of the titles, unless they can catagorically say that he took banned substance x on date y during the Tour De France z then they shouldn't take back his titles (this is an opinion only and certainly doesn't mean i think he is innocent and frankly i'm not going to argue this point because its an opinion on penalties for doping in general not just cycling) the point i am trying to make is that his followers and most people who only know of him from yellow rubber wristbands will need to see a dirty test or hear the man admit guilt himself before they will say he is a cheat. Like i said if the burden of proof sits with USADA in my opinion, they haven't proven it 100%. He is guilty but i don't know how guilty, maybe thats a testament to how much effort he put into doping and ensuring he didn't get caught.

"The most critical evidence assembled by USADA and discussed in this Reasoned
Decision has come from Mr. Armstrong’s former teammates and former employees of the United
States Postal Service (“U.S. Postal Service” or “USPS”) and Discovery Channel cycling teams
who decided that it was the right thing to do for clean sport to come forward and provide
evidence to USADA regarding what they knew. As a consequence of a number of courageous
riders willingness to break the Code of Silence—the “omerta”"

Only up to page 4 so can anyone tell me if this is the tone of the entire report?

I personally found the whole thing a bit righteous and emotive but it is worth reading.

 

[skipper kelly]

weekend reading for me SK

by the Cliff notes on various web fora, it is just as damning.

But I think those riders who gave evidence, held much in reserve on their personal complicity. They never started in Europe. They started doping as amateurs and neo pros, across the other side of the Atlantic in America. Armstrong was not the soled cause and fault in their complicity. No. The sport compels doping. Not Armstrong

Cheers cat. I kind of expected a report that let the evidence speak for itself rather than how courageous the other drug cheats are.

I personally found the whole thing a bit righteous and emotive but it is worth reading.

Cheers mate, I will plod on.

 

[bing181]

I kind of expected a report that let the evidence speak for itself rather than how courageous the other drug cheats are.

If only ...

USADA report says a lot about American and Americans, and is clearly for American consumption and playing to an American public - and funding bodies. A more serious, distanced, measured document would have had a lot more weight, the self-rightousness gets a bit hard to take.

Not to add, seriously lacking in what the judge who reviewed it referred to as "hard facts".

 

[Belnakor]

Having read the report... i'm not sure why suddenly people are like "oh Armstrong WAS guilty".. it was already clearly obvious. To me... the report details various techniques they had etc, but no real proof armstrong himself was doing it (though the race he withdrew from was pretty damning).

I don't know.. its obvious Armstrong was doping, but for mine, the report is not the "smoking gun" i expected it to be.

 

[blackcat]

when does eye-witness testimony become ho-hum circumstantial evidence?

When the tests dont work.

When the tests dont even pick up alot of what they take. When you can fly under the radar with microdosing EPO and using blood transfusions.

The definition of "smoking gun" needs to be redefined. And not in a Salem witch trial version.

The definition does not concern this case, it concerns the entire artifice of PED testing, and doping in sport. The tests dont work, the justification is flawed,misinformation abounds.

Armstrong is a cog in a system. nothing more. he doped, but pro sport is less about ideals, and more about performance, winning, and the business of entertainment.

In those terms, Armstrong should be seen as a success, a phenomenal success, and not a cheat. Doing nothing the Australians are not doing in the Europe peloton.

 

[Belnakor]

In those terms, Armstrong should be seen as a success, a phenomenal success, and not a cheat. Doing nothing the Australians are not doing in the Europe peloton.

To some extent.

It would appear their doping was considerably better than the other terms. Bit like Team Sky this year. But Armstrong undoubtedly was still the strongest perfomrer. Its not like there were other guys on the team doping less than him. If anything they would have been doing it more.

 

[catman 71]

Because many of the drugs Armstrong took are not illegal in general society. He has been busted for cheating - breaking the rules of the sport. No different to the Storm getting done for salary cap infringements. It's not illegal to pay people money for doing a job, but there are rules governing the sport as to how it is done.

No one is equating Armstrong or his doctors with the illegal drug trade. That would be like equating the Storm management with armed robbery. All the attention on Armstrong is because a) He's American b) He was incredibly successful and c) he built up a massive celebrity off-field personae. He's a movie star-level celeb.

To say 'Oh, the time has passed - let's ignore it' is to undermine the sport. Either a sport has rules (and they are by definition arbitrary and apply only to that sport). or you have no sport. International cycling is one of the world's largest sports. And PEDs are a massive issue in almost all sports.

I understand this.

My point is more the reaction of media and the general public to this.

There is far too much smugness and self-righteousness being thrown around by certain sections of the media. I have heard that Lance Armstrong is not always accomodating with the media, so now, many report his downfall with glee, because he didn't treat the media like they think he should have.

This is important because the media act like the moral police, and ask for any politician or sportsperson who steps out of line to be sacked. Yet I remember an American correspondant telling Neil Mithcell on 3AW, during the "Tiger Woods" scandal, that the US sports media knew about Tiger's many dalliances for years, but never reported it, because they were in awe of him. Once it came out, they apparently then huffed and puffed and condemned Tiger, feigning righteous indignation for his sins, even though they knew for years. So, it seems that the level that a sportsperson's shame is reported is based on how the media view that person.

The media then report to the public, and many of them, who don't take the time to question or research what they are being told, just accept blindly.

 

[ClashGurnseyRage]

TDU 2011

 

[Xtreme]

I hope Cadel only had a few weet bix when he won last year. I will be shattered if he is found to have doped.

 

[catman 71]

Because many of the drugs Armstrong took are not illegal in general society. He has been busted for cheating - breaking the rules of the sport. No different to the Storm getting done for salary cap infringements. It's not illegal to pay people money for doing a job, but there are rules governing the sport as to how it is done.

No one is equating Armstrong or his doctors with the illegal drug trade. That would be like equating the Storm management with armed robbery. All the attention on Armstrong is because a) He's American b) He was incredibly successful and c) he built up a massive celebrity off-field personae. He's a movie star-level celeb.

To say 'Oh, the time has passed - let's ignore it' is to undermine the sport. Either a sport has rules (and they are by definition arbitrary and apply only to that sport). or you have no sport. International cycling is one of the world's largest sports. And PEDs are a massive issue in almost all sports.

But drugs is much bigger than sport.

My point is that the reasons we criticize drugs in sport is because we want a fair contest. But I think the issue is much bigger than that.

We should be concerned about drug use in sport, and in society in general, because DRUGS CAN KILL YOU! That's the problem. I don't want sportspeople using drugs, because I want to see them perform for many years to come. I don't want to read about the passing of a famous name to a drug overdose.

It's not just about cheating. It's not just about being a role model. It's about these people's lives.

We should be just as concerned about drugs in sport, because we don't want wives living without their husband, children living without their fathers. That's the issue.

Why society should be consistent about this is that drugs don't discriminate. It can kill sportspeople, it can kill musicians (Jimi Hendrix, Michael Jackson, Jim Morrison, Whitney Houston etc), it can kill TV and movie stars (e.g. Heath Ledger, River Phoenix), it can kill even people who we have never heard of. Drugs don't discriminate based on wealth, fame, status. It can kill the most famous person, or the least-known person.

I am also interested in why the media and society are so quick to condemn famous drug users, yet the druggie in the street is treated with understanding, and helped. We mock Ben Cousins for going to rehab, yet we think it is great that Joe Average is helped out. Maybe the famous need help and understanding in fighting their drug problem too.

Maybe the media need to stop seeing this as a "us v them" issue (as in, the famous versus the rest of us), and they call out sportspeople's drug use, not to get them banned for life, but for them to get help to continue to leave a healthy and normal life. Everyone deserves that!

 

[KnobHead]

this is a fallacy. It is absurd to think cycling is trying to clean itself up. The system demands performance. Performance demands doping. Those in charge turn a blind eye, and in some cases endorse it. Like with Armstrong. That is why Armstrong CAN BE SEEN TO BE A VICTIM.

But not the first. Ullrich, Contador, Hamilton, Valverde, et al.

Compared to other sports like golf & soccer, and even AFL, cycling is trying to clean itself up. Hence, the Armstrong decision. Rasmussen, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, and names you've raised.

You raise the AFL and that 95% may be on performance drugs, yet no one has got done in the AFL for drug taking, apart from Charles.

Could cycling do more? Certainly, but it's ahead of a lot of other sports.

Don't buy that sportsmen who use performance enhancing drugs are victims. They have a choice. They may be in the unfortunate position that less talented sportsmen around them are using drugs & to compete at the top level they almost have to resort to drugs, but they have a choice. But the choice really isn't shall I take drugs or not, it's "do I want to compete at the top level?" once that choice is made then choosing is gone.

 

[Mick98]

Well well how predictable.

People on here trying to defend this cheat should take a long hard look at themselves.

 

[bing181]

Compared to other sports like golf & soccer, and even AFL, cycling is trying to clean itself up. Hence, the Armstrong decision. Rasmussen, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, and names you've raised.

Don't disagree with you, but hard in this scenario to justify prosecuting for events that happened 10-15 years ago. Penalising riders who are long since gone does little for what's happening now.

USADA's argument is "we're doing this for the good of cycling". Very noble of them. It's more a case of "for the good of USADA", and what better way to justify your existence than to go for the biggest fish in the pond ... and only the biggest fish in the pond.

The work that UCI has done over the last 5+ years, such as the biological passport, even if it was forced upon them by the cycling teams, and ASO etc. (who were losing sponsors, not to mention credibility and the $$$ that goes with it), is bearing fruit. You only have to look at the times they're riding these days. No-one is climbing Alpe d'Huez like Pantani did, or riding off the front day after day. Not to mention the comments by the likes of ex-users like David Miller, who can see the changes from within the peloton.

Well well how predictable.

People on here trying to defend this cheat should take a long hard look at themselves.

Ah, the High Moral Ground. Hope the air's not too thin up there.

 

[Mick98]

Ah, the High Moral Ground. Hope the air's not too thin up there.

Thick enough to wake up and smell the roses.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Compared to other sports like golf & soccer, and even AFL, cycling is trying to clean itself up. Hence, the Armstrong decision. Rasmussen, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, and names you've raised.

The USADA investigation has nothing to do with the UCI trying to clean up cycling. This is driven by the US senate and Food and Drug Administration investigating PED's starting off with baseball, Barry Bonds, Roger Clements, Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco and BALCO. Once Canseco admitted to taking drugs implicating the others I mentioned plus other baseballers and BALCO and then Marion Jones firing her coach Trevor Graham and Graham being pissed off and sending USADA a vial of "the clear" ie tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), the authorities both doping and government have gone into overdrive compared to the previous 30 years.

There was a crossover with ex Senator George Mitchell's inquiry into PEDs in baseball set up by MLB Commissioner Bud Selig. The subsequent Mitchell Report finished in December 2007 named 89 former and current players who were alleged to have been involved in doping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_named_in_the_Mitchell_Report

Plus US Postal Service was sponsored by a government corporation ie taxpayer monies were involved.

This is what has driven USADA's drive into doping in the USA. It has nothing to do with the governing body of cycling (UCI) desire to clean up the sport.

In 1999 France passed a law that made drug taking illegal. The French authorities wanted to protect one of the great publicity machines for their country the wonderfully photographed TDF. Its the best picture postcard publicity a country could get. That had nothing to do with the UCI clamping down on drugs. It's the reason why Armstrong moved his training base from France to Spain.

You raise the AFL and that 95% may be on performance drugs, yet no one has got done in the AFL for drug taking, apart from Charles.

HGH has been around for over 30 years. The first positive test was in February 2010 - a British rugby league player. Only 10 or 12 positives have been recorded in total. Why wouldn't you use HGH if you knew they didn't have a test for it. What about the next level growth hormone drug that is banned?

Insulin-like growth factor 1 ie IGF-1 has become a favoured growth hormone. It might have something to do that we now have 10 or so positive HGH drug tests since the first in February 2010. I don't think there has been a postive. Can you name a positive IGF-1 test?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin-like_growth_factor_1

There was no drug testing in the VFL in the 1970's and 1980's so how would people know what was taken. Taking PEDs is a covert activity. People aren't going to volunter that they were cheats and tarnish their records. Drug testing didn't get serious until about 1992/93 in the AFL.

There is plenty of pharmaceutical stuff, and banned doping methods, that have been around for years and the tests are only now able to detect stuff. And there is the next generation stuff that there are no tests for.

So if big dollars are involved why wouldn't there be the temptation not to take stuff that you would be unlucky to get caught with?? The $$$ always drive temptation.

Could cycling do more? Certainly, but it's ahead of a lot of other sports.

Yep and yeah it spends more time on doping than many other sports but thats because its one of the dirtiest. As I have said in the first few pages of this thread you gotta look at the $$$ and culture. Not many $$$ in rowing and its a blue blood sport and not many positives since the iron curtain came down.

Don't buy that sportsmen who use performance enhancing drugs are victims. They have a choice. They may be in the unfortunate position that less talented sportsmen around them are using drugs & to compete at the top level they almost have to resort to drugs, but they have a choice. But the choice really isn't shall I take drugs or not, it's "do I want to compete at the top level?" once that choice is made then choosing is gone.

The victims are those in a totalatarian states who are forced at a young age to take the stuff. But even at US colleges, kids from poor backgrounds get sports scholarships but are told to take stuff if they want to stay on the team and keep their scholarships. That choice isn't that easy to ignore if sports is the only way out of poverty.

 

[Burning Desire]

I notice Lance's Lawer keeps mentioning that Lance has never been tested positive , nor was Ben Cousins!

Any semi intelligent top sportsman using PED's would only be using them if they had confidence in having knowledge of beating drug testing otherwise they wouldn't last long in their chosen sport.
How often do you here of an athlete testing positive a week after they debut?

I have no issue with cyclists/athletes using PED's cos you still have to work hard & be the best to succeed.
The issue I have is when people like Lance deny it, when every other cyclist is on something are meant to believe that Lance is just a natural freak!

There is a huge miss conception in regards to PED's in society & sports.
For some reason, genetically ,some people are more proned to injuries than others, why shouldn't I be able to take steroids to assist in repair & recovery , if you are a professional sportsman/athlete , your performance determines your income & career.

Racing car drivers enhance & modify their motors to preform as fast as possible , why shouldn't we be able to do the same with our bodies?

Cyclist are actually a good example how they only use PED's that suits their sport, they realise that taking copious amounts of Testosterone which increases musclemass would be no advantage for an endurance sport, different story for sprinters, their quads are bigger than body builders!

Society is under the impression that PED's/Steriods will kill you, how often do you here of someone dropping dead from Steriod use?
In fact if used correctly they enhance your wellbeing & longjevity hence why a lot of Docs are on small doses of HGH & Testosterone.

The odd WWE wrestler & bodybuilder drops dead of heart problems but they are still usually over 50 years old & the levels they take are obstrinomical compared to a professional sportspman on Olympian.
Pro's are well monitored by Docs & take safe levels.

You"ll find the bigger issue in sport is prescribed drugs like sleeping tabs etc.... But you never here anything of them cos they are legal.

I believe PED's should be legal in sport but their should a legal amount one can take & if you exceed that limit then you face the consequences.
So every cyclist can use EPO for example but only x amount per week, there can be age limits to prevent 10 year olds starting on it.

Apparently African Americans are born with longer achillies heels enabling to run faster , so one could say they born with an advantage over me which if true is not my fault or there's.
I could call them a cheat?
Could go on with more of these examples but what I'm getting at is I should have the right to be able to be the best in my chosen profession whether it be a sportsman , builder, doctor, chef etc...
A construction company uses a crane to build a hi rise faster yet an athlete uses PED's to compete faster & he is frowned upon, one is called progress & the other cheating?

PED's are way more popular in sport than we realise, why?
Because they better your performance & enhance your chance to succeed=more money$$$$$$ & that's what it's all about!

Unless every1 athlete suddenly starts dropping dead from PED's abuse then I don't seeing it being a major issue like most think it is.
In 20 years time someone will be banned for not testing positive!!!

 

[Mick98]

Lol using Racing car drivers enhancing their engines and B grade WWE actors as an example just shows how you don't know what the hell you're talking about.Let's reinstate Ben Johnson's Olympic gold and Marion Jones as well while we're at it.

 

[mcgarnacle]

I notice Lance's Lawer keeps mentioning that Lance has never been tested positive , nor was Ben Cousins!

Please don't bring Cuz or the AFL into this, particularly when the AFL's policy on drugs is to keep it hush hush a greater part of the time.

Cousins can be compared to a tiny freckle on an arse obscured by a strand of hair in the wider realms of world sport.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Let's reinstate Ben Johnson's Olympic gold......while we're at it.

Lulz, not the best example to use.

 

[blackcat]

To some extent.

It would appear their doping was considerably better than the other terms. Bit like Team Sky this year. But Armstrong undoubtedly was still the strongest perfomrer. Its not like there were other guys on the team doping less than him. If anything they would have been doing it more.

right.

re: Sky this year however, their power profile(s)/numbers going up the HC ascents, was far less than USPS. It just looked like they rode the peloton off their wheels, as, they.... rode the peloton of their wheels infact!

But it was relative. The heads of state were slower. So it looked like Sky were doing something more egregious than the field, or at very least, same as USPS or Discovery. But they were not quite so blatant. Nearly. But not .... so .... quite .... as blatant.

Compared to other sports like golf & soccer, and even AFL, cycling is trying to clean itself up. Hence, the Armstrong decision. Rasmussen, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis, and names you've raised.

You raise the AFL and that 95% may be on performance drugs, yet no one has got done in the AFL for drug taking, apart from Charles.

Could cycling do more? Certainly, but it's ahead of a lot of other sports.

Don't buy that sportsmen who use performance enhancing drugs are victims. They have a choice. They may be in the unfortunate position that less talented sportsmen around them are using drugs & to compete at the top level they almost have to resort to drugs, but they have a choice. But the choice really isn't shall I take drugs or not, it's "do I want to compete at the top level?" once that choice is made then choosing is gone.

They are Type A personalities. And beyond their native psychology, the fans compel them to win. All that matters is the W. Sally Pearson anyone?

I notice Lance's Lawer keeps mentioning that Lance has never been tested positive , nor was Ben Cousins!

Any semi intelligent top sportsman using PED's would only be using them if they had confidence in having knowledge of beating drug testing otherwise they wouldn't last long in their chosen sport.
How often do you here of an athlete testing positive a week after they debut?

I have no issue with cyclists/athletes using PED's cos you still have to work hard & be the best to succeed.
The issue I have is when people like Lance deny it, when every other cyclist is on something are meant to believe that Lance is just a natural freak!

liked it all to here.

but more money, well, this is zero sum. Only get more money if you have to compete and win in a field who are on PEDs. No one on PEDs, still the same pool of money to go around.

HGH has been around for over 30 years. The first positive test was in February 2010 - a British rugby league player. Only 10 or 12 positives have been recorded in total. Why wouldn't you use HGH if you knew they didn't have a test for it. What about the next level growth hormone drug that is banned?

committed suicide RIP. http://articles.nydailynews.com/201...1_hgh-apparent-suicide-testing-minor-leaguers

the hgh test window is about 12 hours. If you get beyond that window, free skating. And easy to avoid testers for 12 hours. Girlfriend sleepover or Arizona hotel at 10pm.

I hope Cadel only had a few weet bix when he won last year. I will be shattered if he is found to have doped.

why would you be shattered. Look at the podium in the Tour over the last 15 years. Everyone has had an official sanction or been involkved in a bust or investigation. Wiggins and Evans are the only ones who have not been. And Sastre. But look where Sastre came out of.

And riders time spans as GC and GT tour threats, were traditionally 22-28 in the era before heavy duty pharmaceuticals. Why are riders now entering the annals in their mid 30s when their natural hormones should be receding precipitously, which would then deter recovery during 23 days of stage racing.

Gotta lose the moral prism, and forget transposing this "ethical" lens. I did it for so long. But these individual athletes, are not overtly immoral, or unethical, or lasck any values disposition. Separate the individual from the sport. What should Evans do? Is he entitled to compete, on similar terms?

Well well how predictable.

People on here trying to defend this cheat should take a long hard look at themselves.

Me?

I am offering the devil's advocate pov. I know some of those who have been on the end of Armstrong's vindictive streak. For that, he is a regrettable persona. The doping. Well, just one of an entire Europe peloton of cyclists. And they cant all be evil can they?

Or can they?

The work that UCI has done over the last 5+ years, such as the biological passport, even if it was forced upon them by the cycling teams, and ASO etc. (who were losing sponsors, not to mention credibility and the $$$ that goes with it), is bearing fruit. You only have to look at the times they're riding these days. No-one is climbing Alpe d'Huez like Pantani did, or riding off the front day after day. Not to mention the comments by the likes of ex-users like David Miller, who can see the changes from within the peloton.

is bearing fruit if you think it is bearing fruit.

Because it is only PR. If you think it is changing the sport for perpetuity, it aint. And never could. wrt that, it is not bearing fruit.

Cheers cat. I kind of expected a report that let the evidence speak for itself rather than how courageous the other drug cheats are.

was underwhelmed by the 200 page excerpy, because I knew of 95% that I had followed by some guy who gave consistent leaks from the investigation over the last year(s). The thing was not written for someone coming to the content like me, with prior knowledge.

And the way it was written, was bordering risible.

Facts on things like hematocrit increases at altitude were no correct also, and other science re: bio parameters were less scientific than rigorous. Disappointing, like they got anecdotal matter from internet.

All the riders took an easy out and painted themselves as victims wrt Armstrong, that he was the evil patriarch. That has an element of truth. But not the complete truth, and is base misinformation to assert that and for an anti drug body, to publish that, without sceptism.

The only two people, who can hold their head high, with respect to their ethics and truth in this matter, are Betsy Andreu and Christophe Bassons. And Betsy's wife Frankie can take a neutral stance. The rest, were all complicit. Not to the extent of Armstrong, but they should not be seen as the victims, and seen to embrace a new moral position. That is wrong, patently so. They are still doing the most expedient thing for themselves.

I personally found the whole thing a bit righteous and emotive but it is worth reading.

this is my reading too

 

[KnobHead]

is bearing fruit if you think it is bearing fruit.

Because it is only PR. If you think it is changing the sport for perpetuity, it aint. And never could. wrt that, it is not bearing fruit.

Hear what you're saying, but given it's a given that the world's greatest cycling event has involved cheating pretty much ever since it started (think it was one of the tours early last century that the winning rider cheated by cutting short the route, which then prompted the point system), there's always going to be people who try to cheat - the fact that people are being caught doesn't mean we're sitting in a desert where nothing is being done.

It's also a given that the doping doctors will always be trying to outsmart the anti-doping doctors. There's a lot of money floating around for people like Ferrari to get around the rules. Getting round the rules goes for many walks of life - the police are continually trying to stop drink driving, drug taking, speeding, but it still goes on and does that mean that the police are not genuine and should stop trying?

You've obviously had a closer association with cycling than most - remember you used to post a lot on the SBS forum during the TdF a few years back when that forum was up and running, always enjoyed reading your posts, but if people are living in the hope that cycling will one day become totally "clean" then that's very much a false dawn because there's a lot of money in cheating, isn't it? Based on that, some progress is definitely worthwhile.

Of the 13 TdF's since 1999, 8 (presuming Armstrong's titles stay disqualified) winners have been disqualifed. That's pretty big, that's more than a grape, it's an apple. You could almost add Rasmussen to that, because he was looking like a sure winner, so the apple is beginning to look like a pineapple.

With M White being named, just wondering how far this Armstrong document will spread its tentacles.

Really, there is no reason why Australian cyclists should be regarded as less suspicious than other nationalities in terms of doping. Doesn't mean they dope, but just cos' they're Aussie doesn't change anything. All competing at the same level