Lance comeback

Discussion about professional racing
User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 11 Oct 2012 15:10

I used to take a very similar line to Neil's view on the public trial of Armstrong. I wished and would still prefer to see a criminal trial whereby evidence is presented for a jury's verdict. Any conviction within a court would be beyond all reasonable doubt in English legal parlence.

Initially, I was on-the-fence with regard to Armstrong's guilt and innocence. However, as more evidence has emerged coupled with Armstrong's own decision not to contest accusations, my view modified to 'guilty not proven' and then to 'guilt in all probability'. Having heard the accusations and scanned some of the report, it is with all probability that Armstrong was a cheat, a liar and instrumental to organised drug ring of doping cyclists.

Armstrong may never face the US criminal courts but there is a still a chance that he may face prosecution abroad. The report indicates drug taking an organised scale whilst Armstrong was on French soil. Without a doubt, the French Police will have been following the case carefully and could easily instruct an Investigating Magistrate to pursue Armstrong. For anyone that has read David Millar's account of the French Police, they will not be reticent on the matter. So watch this space.

As for Armstrong not being a Godfather, possibly not. He is no hanging wall-flower either. His reputation, power and force of personality could easily buckle other pro-cyclists. Equally, some pro-cyclists may seek to blame Armstrong for strong arming them into drug taking as an excuse.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 11 Oct 2012 15:30

Neil Compton wrote:How can a witness statement be one of the most compelling forms of evidence when it could just be a lie.

Jesus i'd hate to appear in court knowing i could go down just because someone said i did something.
Well, Neil, that's the way it is. Read a few criminal trial reports. Lots of people get sent down mainly/entirely on witness evidence -- sometimes the evidence of a single witness. And the witnesses against Armstrong are queuing up round the block. And there's a whole load of other evidence as well.
Neil Compton wrote:He is made out to be some kind of mafioso figure that controlled everything that went on. Threatening people that didn't comply. He was a cyclist for christ sake not the Godfather.
Why should a cyclist be any less capable of being a bully than anyone else? Just read the press reports down the years, Neil. The riders who say they were intimidated by him in the peloton, the journalist who says that Armstrong called him to 'ask after the health of his children', the female soigneur who apparently told what she knew and suddenly found that stories were circulating about her doing sexual favours for the riders, the ex team-mate whom he accosted and apparently threatened in a restaurant. Those are just off the top of my head -- things I've read down the years. One possibility is that an awful lot of unconnected people who knew Armstrong in unrelated situations are lying. You can believe that, or you can believe that one person is a liar and a bully.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 11 Oct 2012 16:38

I have to take what i read in newspapers with a pinch of salt as it's well known that they can be economical with the truth. People who are in the limelight and who are successful usually make some enemies over the course of their career.

But ok if i am to believe what i've been reading he is Guilty.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 12 Oct 2012 00:08

Assuming all this is true, I'm unsure of whom I think the least - Armstrong for orchestration and bullying (as well as doping) or those who have waited until now to spill the beans, in some cases not until after they themselves have been caught doping.
Eat cake before you're hungry

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 12 Oct 2012 08:35

Just been on Radio4, Armstrong may go to jail as his testimonies are different, the US government are looking into it.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Oct 2012 10:31

Philip Whiteman wrote:...and now for the UCI's complicity.
Hein Verbruggen to Algemeen Dagblad, 24/5/11:
Ik herhaal het nog maar eens: Lance Armstrong heeft nooit doping gebruikt. Nooit, nooit, nooit. En dat zeg ik niet omdat ik zogenaamd een vriend van hem zou zijn, want dat is helemaal niet zo. Ik zeg het, omdat ik er zeker van ben.
= "I'll say it again: Lance Armstrong has never doped. Never, never, never. And I don't say that because I'm his friend; that's not the case at all. I say it because I'm sure it's true."

Image
George wrote:There have also been some good pieces on Cyclingnews.com and on the Cycling Weekly site, but I don't have the time to go looking for them just now.
I have since come across this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/ind ... -the-years

.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Oct 2012 10:40

I think it's fair to say that Verbruggen was at the very least injudicious in the strength of his defence of Armstrong. If everything at the UCI was completely whiter than white, the best he could truthfully have said in Armstrong's defence was "We have never seen a shred of evidence that Lance Armstrong has ever doped."

The president doth protest too much, methinks.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 12 Oct 2012 10:42

Ed Moss wrote:Just been on Radio4, Armstrong may go to jail as his testimonies are different, the US government are looking into it.
If not the US, Lance better steer clear of visiting the EU should the French decide to issue a warrant or exercise extradition powers.

The following article was noted by Laurence on his Facebook Page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19912623
George wrote:
Philip Whiteman wrote:...and now for the UCI's complicity.
Hein Verbruggen to Algemeen Dagblad, 24/5/11:
Ik herhaal het nog maar eens: Lance Armstrong heeft nooit doping gebruikt. Nooit, nooit, nooit. En dat zeg ik niet omdat ik zogenaamd een vriend van hem zou zijn, want dat is helemaal niet zo. Ik zeg het, omdat ik er zeker van ben.
= "I'll say it again: Lance Armstrong has never doped. Never, never, never. And I don't say that because I'm his friend; that's not the case at all. I say it because I'm sure it's true."
It is this level of scandal that sinks not just the perpetuator but also those complicit in those events. In many ways, I feel that the UCI's involvement is significantly worse than Armstrong himself. It is they who are responsible for upholding standards in the sport. They are not constituted to support institutionalised cheating, vested interest in commercial activity or protectionism of criminal activity, so the next few months will be very interesting indeed. There is very little future for the UCI in its current form with its reputation so irretrievably damaged beyond repair. One possible outcome may be its closure and replacement with a new governing body unless McQuaid is regarded as sufficiently distant from the organisation's unacceptable historic behaviour. Fancifully one could imagine the UCI's replacement being led by Brailsford rather than the usual blazeriety.

One suggestion circulating around is the UCI's replacement by another cycling governing body, the Audax Club Parisien.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Oct 2012 11:43

We do have to be a little bit careful, here, Phil. I for one have never read/heard anything that I would describe as evidence of the UCI's complicity. There is no such evidence in the USADA report, as far as I'm aware ... just a sort of frosty undertone, which perhaps hints at the private views of the authors.

Such hints, plus other things I've read and my own intuitive mistrust of both Verbruggen and McQuaid make me say to myself "Hmmm ... I wonder ..." At this stage, I wouldn't want to put it any more strongly than that. However, ten years ago, I wouldn't have expressed my suspicions about Armstrong any more strongly than that.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 12 Oct 2012 12:27

I see Phil Liggett thinks along the same lines as i do and i notice Landis lost his case against the UCI. Will be interesting to see what the UCI decide to do. I for one hope they won't just take the word of riders who cut a deal.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Oct 2012 13:02

Neil Compton wrote:I see Phil Liggett thinks along the same lines as i do and i notice Landis lost his case against the UCI. Will be interesting to see what the UCI decide to do. I for one hope they won't just take the word of riders who cut a deal.
Neil, your faith and loyalty are admirable. But I fear the object of them is undeserving.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 12 Oct 2012 13:34

Volley Number One.

David Millar has fired a salvo at the UCI for complicity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... esign.html

mike mac
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 May 2010 22:16
Real Name:

Post by mike mac » 12 Oct 2012 14:51

Neil Compton wrote:I see Phil Liggett thinks along the same lines as i do and i notice Landis lost his case against the UCI. Will be interesting to see what the UCI decide to do. I for one hope they won't just take the word of riders who cut a deal.
You and Mr Liggett must be the only two people left in the world with the same view Neil. Mr Armstrong will always cling to the " never tested positive" argument. If I'd got as much as him to lose I think I would too.

With so much evidence and so many witness statements its hard to see how any right minded individual could possibly think for a single moment that he might still be innocent!

It's worth pointing out that Armstrong gave up the fight to defend himself so that he could cling on to the " never tested positive " argument. Indeed, if he had taken the case to arbitration it would give USADA the right to re-test his samples. Something Armstrong is desperate to avoid.

I think its time to accept that although he gave us some great moments and inspired millions around the world, he cheated.

And whilst we are here. As Nike have stood by him, it's time to stop buying Nike. I never liked the way they were profiting from their involvement in a supposed cancer charity anyway.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 12 Oct 2012 16:21

"You and Mr Liggett must be the only two people left in the world with the same view Neil. Mr Armstrong will always cling to the " never tested positive" argument. If I'd got as much as him to lose I think I would too."

Not from what i've been reading Mike. There are a lot of people who jump on the guilty bandwagon of course because a report comes out with statements from riders and other people saying he doped and think it must all be true. On my way to work today i saw a flying pig.

I would rather be wrong about him being innocent than wrong about him being guilty. I'm just keeping an open mind and i've been reading a lot of comments from people who like me are not going to take for granted what some people have said when it's clearly benefited them and a deal struck which stinks of corruption just as much as anything else.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

mike mac
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 May 2010 22:16
Real Name:

Post by mike mac » 12 Oct 2012 17:21

ok, putting 26 eye witness statements to one side. Lets just assume they are all liars.

What is your explanation for the £1m (bank statements proving the payments are enclosed in the USADA report) paid to Dr Farrari during a time when Armstrong has been on record as saying he never worked with him?

Saracen
Posts: 18
Joined: 07 Aug 2009 16:02
Real Name:
Location: Where I want to be

Post by Saracen » 12 Oct 2012 17:22

Image

The evidence surrounding his guilt is pretty overwhelming and conclusive now.

No biggie I suppose as it’s always been a dirty sport. Image
2007 Cycle from Birmingham to Bilbao
2008 Cycle to Dubrovnik and back
2009 Cycle Around the Baltic
2010 Cycle from Tariffa to Nordkapp
2011 Cycle Land’s End to John O’Groats and back to Land’s End
2012 Cycle to Istanbul and back

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 12 Oct 2012 17:25

After reading Tylers book Roger probably wasn't one of the "chosen ones" as he wasn't there to help him win the TDF. He served no purpose to help Lance, Roger was there for the classics.

Tyler was part of the inner circle, then thrown out after he beat Lance's time in a test, run by that nice team doctor, sorry drug supplier.

It's looking like Lance may be up for Perjury, which will end in a jail term if found guilty.

This was when I started to question him, 2000, easily beating Pantani...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

mike mac
Posts: 80
Joined: 30 May 2010 22:16
Real Name:

Post by mike mac » 12 Oct 2012 17:39

Hammond was on the team in 2005-2006. All of the former team mates say they were clean from 2006 onwards. So that leaves 2005. Did Hammond actually race with LA in 2005? If not then he's not likely to have been offered PED's. I believe Hammond and therefore why would USADA want his testimony? LA isn't accused of murder. Their isn't a judicial system or a grand jury here. Although had LA decided to fight the charges instead of accept them then he might well have called on Hammond to testify.

laurence_cooley
Posts: 1006
Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
Real Name:
Location: Harborne

Post by laurence_cooley » 12 Oct 2012 20:58

Neil Compton wrote:I see Phil Liggett thinks along the same lines as i do and i notice Landis lost his case against the UCI. Will be interesting to see what the UCI decide to do. I for one hope they won't just take the word of riders who cut a deal.
He was pretty vocal in his support of Armstrong, but Phil Liggett has been strangely quiet since USADA released their evidence!

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Oct 2012 21:24

Someone once told me a story that makes me wonder about the impartiality of some commentators on matters of doping. But without evidence it's probably libellous, so I shan't repeat it in this forum!

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 12 Oct 2012 21:52

"The payment that the Italian authorities have reportedly uncovered was made in 2006.

This payment followed Lance Armstrong's winning a court case with one of his sponsors which awarded him $7.5 million in bonus, penalties, and interest. The speculation is that a portion of this bonus was owed to Ferrari and that the payment was related to that.

(If that's true, it is still possible that the professional relationship between Dr. Ferrari and Armstrong ended in 2004, as the spokesman said. The payment could merely have followed later. This makes sense given that Armstrong retired from racing in 2005.)"

The payment isn't new news. If it was hush money to keep Dr Ferrari quiet it does not make sense because if Dr Ferrari was threatening to spill the beans on Armstrong he would have been screwing himself in the process.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 12 Oct 2012 23:34

Neil Compton wrote:The speculation is that a portion of this bonus was owed to Ferrari and that the payment was related to that.
Why would Lance owe his doctor a percentage of his of his earnings? If the money was fees for legitimate services rendered before Ferrari's ban, why didn't Lance pay him earlier? (Was he hard up?) And why pay him via an obscure front company based in Switzerland?
Neil Compton wrote:If it was hush money to keep Dr Ferrari quiet it does not make sense because if Dr Ferrari was threatening to spill the beans on Armstrong he would have been screwing himself in the process.
I'm not aware of anyone suggesting it was hush money, Neil. My understanding is that USADA are suggesting that the money was for services rendered by Ferrari after the date that no one was supposed to be using his services.

And, Neil, while I accept that we can't know whether any witness is telling the truth, I'd like to know: does this bloke give the impression of being a liar, and what motive do you think he has for lying? :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514

And also the stuff being attributed to Hamilton: it's so detailed, so extensive, he'd need an extraordinary imagination to dream it all up, and a brain line Marvin's to provide so many 'facts' without half of them being immediately disprovable. I accept Steve's point about the morality of the confessions we are now hearing, but morality and veracity are two different things.

I'm going to try and refrain from further engagements with you on this subject, though, Neil, because while I respect your sincerity and loyalty, I do feel that this is a bit like discussing God with a Jehovah's Witness.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 13 Oct 2012 09:25

I too tend to be sceptical about dossiers of 'evidence' such as this, especially when scanning them I see things that are portrayed as convincing evidence which I do not find at all convincing and conclusions don't seem to be written from an entirely impartial point of view. A bit like the dodgy dossier that was released a number of years ago justifying attacks on Iraq or Libya, I can't recall which, including aerial photos of 'nuclear weapons facilities' which turned out to be nothing of the sort. I looked at these and thought "looks like a grainy picture of a warehouse roof to me, I bet there are plenty that look like that near Birmingham, they're just not in a 'secret' desert location".

I treat the testimony of proven cheats who continued to deny it for some time after it was proved with a similar disdain. They may have nothing left to lose and are now finally telling the truth but I can't help instinctively discounting whatever they say because it has no meaning to me. I think perhaps this dossier may include testimony from other more reliable witnesses though, I'm not sure, I haven't read it properly. The most convincing evidence I spotted on my quick scan were the payments to 'Dr' Ferrari - in my mind any proven links with him are condemning.

I'm saddened that the sport of cycling has to keep beating itself up in this way - does the non-cycling public draw a distinction between what happened a number of years ago and the achievements of our current heroes or are they tarnished by association with the same sport? It's such a shame that all this has to come out just when cycling is enjoying a resurgence of interest both as a spectator sport and a leisure time activity.

It's a shame that, if doping was so prevalent up to a particular date in the past and so many people within the sport knew it, the governing body didn't offer an amnesty along the lines of "everybody who doped prior to 20XX or knows of doping before or after to that date can come clean, we won't rewrite the history books and, if you're truthful, you'll be immune from any action taken by those those named". I'm sure Armstrong would have continued to deny it even under those circumstances but it might have outed all this at a much earlier stage. Failure to take such an initiative years ago is what I blame the UCI most for and why I think that body has to be replaced.

Despite my scepticism at some of the 'evidence' I think a good part of this is probably true but I wonder how Armstrong thought the bully boy tactics would work forever - I suppose because the sport sadly has a long history of sweeping unpleasant stuff under the carpet even if it is now doing more than any other sport to become clean.
Eat cake before you're hungry

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 13 Oct 2012 10:00

Well i am an atheist George and i have had similar conversations with a Christian that i work with so i know exactly what you mean. All i am saying is that things are not always as clear cut as they appear. I am not privy to whats gone on. All i see as an outsider is whats reported in the press, so and so did this, so and so said that. It is dangerous to just believe what someone has said without questioning it or to believe what is said in the press or what is put in a document as Steve has pointed out.

There have been many miscarriages of justice over the years where someone has been found guilty of a crime only to find at a later date that they didn't actually do it. That's basically all i am trying to say.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 14 Oct 2012 13:40

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... sfeed=true

Sad thing is, he stills believes he didn't dope.

rdleaper
Posts: 259
Joined: 25 Jun 2011 01:29
Real Name: Richard Leaper
Location: King's Heath

Post by rdleaper » 14 Oct 2012 16:00

You know I was thinking the other day, what if I had got into cycling at an earlier age? (What-ifs aren't the most productive thing ever but I'll allow myself the odd indulgence.) Well, if by sheer hard work and a fair bit of luck I'd got to the point of being good enough to join the professional ranks (fanciful for me but hey it's just an example), I'd have been faced in the early 2000s with having to take drugs to compete at the highest level, and left to choose that or compete at a lower level, whether I was as good as the best riders or not.
In all likelihood I'd have given up on the sport and probably not been cycling since. As it is I might be doing this for another 40 years or so (albeit not at the level as in my fanciful hypothesis above), and I'll probably enjoy it more.
Mind you, I don't really think drug taking was only at the top level, it's just that US Postal had the finances, organisation etc. to make such a sophisticated* operation go undetected (well allegedly not entirely, but anyway) for such a long time. I wonder how far it has/had trickled down?
*Well maybe coke cans and gardeners on motorbikes wasn't exactly sophisticated, but it would seem to have been effective!

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 14 Oct 2012 16:17

Ed Moss wrote:Sad thing is, he stills believes he didn't dope.
Who still believes - the lawyer? I don't think he does. My impression has always been that lawyers like him don't really care about guilt or innocence; they perceive their function as being to try and get the client off and, if they fail in that, to mitigate the consequences. I suppose that, the way our (and the US) legal system works, a defence lawyer has to think like that. But, on an emotional level, I find it hard to empathise with them. I imagine that if I was asked to defend (for the sake of argument) a paedophile, and my personal opinion was that he was guilty, I would find it very hard to go go into court and argue that he was innocent. What if the prosecution lawyer isn't as good as you? How do you feel when your client walks free, maybe to abuse someone else's children? Anyone who doesn't feel bad about doing that is someone I'd rather not know.

Les Ladbury
Posts: 100
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 17:52
Real Name:

Post by Les Ladbury » 14 Oct 2012 18:58

Can someone explain to me what gives an American organisation the right to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 TdeF wins?

As far as I am aware all rights to the tour belong to the French.

A simple question.
Les

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 14 Oct 2012 19:41

Les Ladbury wrote:Can someone explain to me what gives an American organisation the right to strip Lance Armstrong of his 7 TdeF wins?.
Such a decision by a national authority needs to be upheld by UCI who have 21 days under the WADA code to respond or appeal to CAS. The accusations of UCI complicity will no doubt make that decision even less straightforward than it might have been.
Eat cake before you're hungry

Les Ladbury
Posts: 100
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 17:52
Real Name:

Post by Les Ladbury » 15 Oct 2012 07:45

Steve,

So the way I understand it, at the moment they do not have the authority to disqualify Armstrong beacause, for whatever reason, the findings have not been ratified.
Les

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 15 Oct 2012 08:25

Should be an awkward few days for the UCI as a lot of people think they were in on it as well http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pound-u ... out-doping

Roll on the UCI v Paul Kimmage in court.

I've donated to his defence fund http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/paul-kimm ... ches-58000 lets hope he can call the UCI as witnesses.

User avatar
Philip Whiteman
Posts: 1851
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
Real Name:
Location: Drayton, Worcestershire

Post by Philip Whiteman » 15 Oct 2012 09:04

Ed Moss wrote:Should be an awkward few days for the UCI as a lot of people think they were in on it as well http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pound-u ... out-doping

Roll on the UCI v Paul Kimmage in court.

I've donated to his defence fund http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/paul-kimm ... ches-58000 lets hope he can call the UCI as witnesses.
All this sounds vaguely familiar to the BBC and Savile. They find it easier to to turn their heads the other way and pretend that a problem did not exist.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 15 Oct 2012 11:56

I retain an open mind as to whether the UCI was actively complicit (i.e. knew hard facts and suppressed them). However, like Pound, I find it hard to believe that people in high positions within the organisation weren't at least aware of the potential for abuse. When you hear what Hamilton says about how easy it was to avoid detection, you have to say that (unless he's making it all up) any insider with half a brain and a real commitment to stamping out doping should have been able to see that the system was unlikely to be an effective means of prevention. If so, the kindest interpretation is that the UCI was incompetent. Between complicity and incompetence is a large grey area, characterised by people being aware of shortcomings in the testing system, having non-specific suspicions of abuse, but believing that, while the public was being entertained and the sponsors were happy, it was better not to rock the boat.

My hunch -- and it's no more than a hunch -- is that most people within the UCI were somewhere in that grey area. However, it wouldn't surprise me if we were to learn in due course that a handful of individuals in key positions were actively complicit. In that context, I regard the UCI's denials of any wrongdoing by others or shortcomings in the system as suspiciously definite, their relations with organisations with a strong anti-doping ethos as suspiciously frosty and their determination to silence Kimmage as suspiciously fierce. Also, I've always wondered why it was that Lance's team-mates tended to get caught doping after they left his team.

Les Ladbury
Posts: 100
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 17:52
Real Name:

Post by Les Ladbury » 15 Oct 2012 19:40

I'll ask again.

By what right can an American organisation disqualify the 7 times winner of the TdeF.

By what authority do that operate. It's simple question.

Title to the TdeF is owned by Amaury Sport Organisation and they are resposible for organising the Tour as well as other stage races and classics. I believe that they are involved in other sports that cycling. In turn ASO is owned by Entrprendre Pour Apprendre which is French. Note the words America, American and USA don't seem to be very conspicuous.

ASO promote the TdeF under the auspices of the UCI.

So as it stands surely Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France 7 times until the UCI or ASO decided otherwise, which they as yet haven't.
Les

User avatar
Grogz
Posts: 294
Joined: 08 May 2010 15:40
Real Name:
Location: Shirley

Post by Grogz » 15 Oct 2012 19:54

Les Ladbury wrote:I'll ask again.

By what right can an American organisation disqualify the 7 times winner of the TdeF.

By what authority do that operate. It's simple question.

Title to the TdeF is owned by Amaury Sport Organisation and they are resposible for organising the Tour as well as other stage races and classics. I believe that they are involved in other sports that cycling. In turn ASO is owned by Entrprendre Pour Apprendre which is French. Note the words America, American and USA don't seem to be very conspicuous.

ASO promote the TdeF under the auspices of the UCI.

So as it stands surely Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France 7 times until the UCI or ASO decided otherwise, which they as yet haven't.
Isn't it to do with cycling, through the UCI, being affiliated to the International Olympic organisation, a condition of which is signing up to and being subject to WADA code, regulations and penalties. WADA delegates powers to their country affiliates like USADA. So US athletes are subject to USADA oversight.

The UCI could reject the USADA penalties in contravention of the agreement they signed, but would risk cycling sports being thrown out of the Olympics.

rdleaper
Posts: 259
Joined: 25 Jun 2011 01:29
Real Name: Richard Leaper
Location: King's Heath

Post by rdleaper » 15 Oct 2012 20:50

Grogz wrote:
Les Ladbury wrote:I'll ask again.

By what right can an American organisation disqualify the 7 times winner of the TdeF.

By what authority do that operate. It's simple question.

Title to the TdeF is owned by Amaury Sport Organisation and they are resposible for organising the Tour as well as other stage races and classics. I believe that they are involved in other sports that cycling. In turn ASO is owned by Entrprendre Pour Apprendre which is French. Note the words America, American and USA don't seem to be very conspicuous.

ASO promote the TdeF under the auspices of the UCI.

So as it stands surely Lance Armstrong has won the Tour de France 7 times until the UCI or ASO decided otherwise, which they as yet haven't.
Isn't it to do with cycling, through the UCI, being affiliated to the International Olympic organisation, a condition of which is signing up to and being subject to WADA code, regulations and penalties. WADA delegates powers to their country affiliates like USADA. So US athletes are subject to USADA oversight.

The UCI could reject the USADA penalties in contravention of the agreement they signed, but would risk cycling sports being thrown out of the Olympics.
Agreed - tennis players, for instance, may be banned by the ITF (like here) but have their ATP results/prize money taken away as a result (a bit different to cycling but similar point). I think athletes would have Diamond League results similarly expunged by their national committee.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 15 Oct 2012 21:43

Les, all the parties involved accept that the rules allow USADA to do it.

And, as far as I and many others are concerned, it's a bloody good job they can, because it needs doing.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 15 Oct 2012 21:47

George wrote:Les, all the parties involved accept that the rules allow USADA to do it.
Apart maybe for Armstrong and his legal team
Eat cake before you're hungry

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 15 Oct 2012 21:59

CakeStop wrote:
George wrote:Les, all the parties involved accept that the rules allow USADA to do it.
Apart maybe for Armstrong and his legal team
They argued that in court and lost. I'm therefore assuming that they accept it too.

User avatar
CakeStop
Posts: 1239
Joined: 17 Nov 2006 21:57
Real Name: Steve Smith
Location: Birmingham

Post by CakeStop » 15 Oct 2012 22:48

Armstrong's lawyers were still arguing on 10th October that USADA doesn't have jurisdiction.
Eat cake before you're hungry

Jane Herrin
Posts: 55
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 14:41
Real Name:

Post by Jane Herrin » 15 Oct 2012 23:05

According to Christian Prudhomme (quoted in The Guardian 13 Oct) ASO do not have the authority to strip Armstrong of his TDF titles: that rests with the UCI. He would like to see Armstrong's name removed from the records and no winner shown for those seven years.
The characters at the heart of the UCI must find themselves in a very uncomfortable position indeed!

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 15 Oct 2012 23:23

CakeStop wrote:Armstrong's lawyers were still arguing on 10th October that USADA doesn't have jurisdiction.
You're right, insofar as one of his people said that to the press again a few days ago, but in a legal sense they have accepted it, insofar as the ruling went against them some weeks ago and they didn't contest it further in law.

Anyway, when I said "all the parties", I was actually referring (admittedly not very clearly) to all the official bodies. In my eyes, Armstrong's lawyers took on the role of comedy side-show long ago.

User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 15 Oct 2012 23:41

George wrote: Also, I've always wondered why it was that Lance's team-mates tended to get caught doping after they left his team.
Rather naively I'd assumed it was because Heras et al were careless but, increasingly, I think we ain't seen anything yet.

I've also donated to the Kimmage defence fund.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 15 Oct 2012 23:59

Me too.

User avatar
Ed Moss
Posts: 474
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 23:51
Real Name: Ed Moss
Contact:

Post by Ed Moss » 16 Oct 2012 07:18

Because Lance ran the most sophisticated doping scheme of all the teams, they had drivers/hotel rooms/disposal down to perfection.
When Tyler left, he had to do most of it himself.

Also, the UCI could have been involved.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 09:06

Between Peaks wrote:Rather naively I'd assumed it was because Heras et al were careless but, increasingly, I think we ain't seen anything yet.
I'm only guessing, but I think Landis probably got careless. The conspiracy theory doesn't seem to stand up in his case, because Armstrong had retired; and Landis was in a desperate situation and therefore inclined to take risks. Where the others are concerned, I'm less sure.

Les Ladbury
Posts: 100
Joined: 29 Nov 2006 17:52
Real Name:

Post by Les Ladbury » 16 Oct 2012 09:22

Jane Herrin wrote:According to Christian Prudhomme (quoted in The Guardian 13 Oct) ASO do not have the authority to strip Armstrong of his TDF titles: that rests with the UCI. He would like to see Armstrong's name removed from the records and no winner shown for those seven years.
The characters at the heart of the UCI must find themselves in a very uncomfortable position indeed!
Jane, I do hope that you do not mind me quoting you but I feel that your comments confirm what I have said.
As of today the UCI have not taken any action against LA so therefore LA has not been stripped of his 7 TdeF wins.

Now to his "cheating" 200/300/500 drug tests.

With the rumours which have been flying around for years, with all of the people who must have about this in many different parts of the world, not just the BBC, the question must be asked why didn't anyone sell the story to the media. I'm sure News Corp would have paid big bucks for such a story. I say again many parts of the world. If such a story had been presented to the Murdochs what would they have done.

It didn't happen, why. Did Armstrong buy them all off or did he threaten them.
Les

User avatar
Between Peaks
Posts: 71
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
Real Name:
Location: Bournville

Post by Between Peaks » 16 Oct 2012 10:48

Les Ladbury wrote:
Jane Herrin wrote:According to Christian Prudhomme (quoted in The Guardian 13 Oct) ASO do not have the authority to strip Armstrong of his TDF titles: that rests with the UCI. He would like to see Armstrong's name removed from the records and no winner shown for those seven years.
The characters at the heart of the UCI must find themselves in a very uncomfortable position indeed!
Jane, I do hope that you do not mind me quoting you but I feel that your comments confirm what I have said.
As of today the UCI have not taken any action against LA so therefore LA has not been stripped of his 7 TdeF wins.

Now to his "cheating" 200/300/500 drug tests.

With the rumours which have been flying around for years, with all of the people who must have about this in many different parts of the world, not just the BBC, the question must be asked why didn't anyone sell the story to the media. I'm sure News Corp would have paid big bucks for such a story. I say again many parts of the world. If such a story had been presented to the Murdochs what would they have done.

It didn't happen, why. Did Armstrong buy them all off or did he threaten them.
There would be no need to 'cheat' hundreds of tests. Most of the time they were one step ahead of the testers - the only time you'd need to cover something up would be on the very rare occasions that you got careless, got the dosing regime wrong etc.

User avatar
George
Posts: 1805
Joined: 18 Nov 2006 10:21
Real Name: George Barker
Location: Worcestershire

Post by George » 16 Oct 2012 12:36

Les:

1) For much of Armstrong's career, there were no tests for most of the things he is accused of taking/doing (e.g. blood transfusions). So passing the tests is in many cases irrelevant.
2) It is very clear from the testimony of various confessed dopers and testing experts that the system was very easy to get round: one simply had to avoid getting tested when one was 'glowing' (by laughably straightforward means such as pretending not to be at home).
3) You are correct to say that Armstrong hasn't yet been stripped of his Tour wins, because only the UCI can do that. However, the UCI is obliged to implement USADA's decision within a certain period, unless it believes that the decision was not arrived at correctly. So most people assume that the outcome is inevitable.

User avatar
Neil Compton
Posts: 257
Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
Real Name:
Location: Northfield

Post by Neil Compton » 16 Oct 2012 12:44

"2) It is very clear from the testimony of various confessed dopers and testing experts that the system was very easy to get round: one simply had to avoid getting tested when one was 'glowing' (by laughably straightforward means such as pretending not to be at home)."

And yet riders did get caught. If the system was as easy to get around as they make out they wouldn't have got caught would they. Cycling has had a bad rep for years because of drugs and thats because riders keep getting caught.

Post Reply