The Beacon Message Board

The following article is NOT direct evidence of the guilt of Armstrong or anyone else. But it is interesting, and it is relevant in two respects:
a) It sheds some light on the 'plausibility' of some of the top performances of the 90s/00s, and of the recent performances of Froome and others.
b) The subtext is that many (most?) 'insiders' take it for granted that doping was commonplace amongst top riders 10 years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784

It was on R4 news this morning (suppose it's on all the news though) - the suggestion was that the UCI would take the decision to CAS? And that USADA don't have any authority to strip him of his TdF victories? Not sure how correct that is...

I must say that, for me, the 'everyone else was on the sauce but Lance still kicked their asses - so how can he have been clean' argument is more and more convincing as time goes on. I'd like to believe it's not the case, but am finding it more difficult...

Whatever happens he will still be the winner in my eyes until he either admits he cheated or some real evidence comes to light.

If he was doping like everyone else was supposed to be then it was a level playing field and he still kicked their asses so he was still the better rider.

Neil, "Whatever happens he will still be the winner in my eyes until he either admits he cheated or some real evidence comes to light. "

Fair enough, I liked Pantani for his racing but not for his drugs. Armstrong will never admit to doping. He's never denied it either, just continued with the line of defence of having never failed a drugs test. But he wouldn't as he'd "donated" an anti-doping machine to the UCI and allegedly got the UCI heirachy in his back pocket.

"If he was doping like everyone else was supposed to be then it was a level playing field and he still kicked their asses so he was still the better rider."

That's a real head in the sand view that modern clean pro cycling is trying to boot out of the sport. Most of the podium of the era of Armstrong's Tours have either been sanctioned or implicated. Therefore, he didn't "kick their asses" just had better doctors and/or drugs. In the time he was racing he never honoured the sport or monuments of cycling so IMO cycling is better off without him.

I said 'IF he doped'. I still believe at this stage that he won fair and square. It dosn't matter what i say anyway because you will always find some reason for him being a cheat. He had better doctors/drugs.... being an example.

These doctors/drugs must have turned him into a superhuman. I guess all the training he did and his physiological condition had nothing to do with it.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that pro cyclists were doping well before the war. Doping wasn't even against the rules until the mid 60s. And, for a long time after that, a lot of stories suggest that the controls were pretty easy to circumvent and that people in positions of authority often turned a blind eye.

With such an ingrained culture, my impression is that there was no really concerted effort to stamp out doping in bike racing until about 20 yeas ago, and it's only in the last 10 years that the anti-dopers have started to get the upper hand.

Why is any of that significant? Because it influences how I judge the top names of bygone eras. I'm pretty darn sure that many of the top names of yesteryear doped, and I wouldn't be much surprised to read evidence against or confessions from any Tour winner before Evans. (Although I like to think that maybe Hinault and LeMond were clean, even though I now accept that my hero of that era, Fignon, wasn't.) But I don't therefore condemn them to the waste bin of history and say they were worthless. Far from it. Anquetil, Simpson, Pantani, Armstrong and loads of others whom I strongly suspect of doping were all extraordinary people. They still had to do all the stuff that clean cyclists do, and they still had to show the courage and determination that we admired at the time. But they lived and operated in a world where doping was the norm; they could choose between joining in or getting out. Any of us who think we'd have done differently in their shoes is either kidding ourselves or guided by a sense of morality that few possess.

However, I see no incongruity between continuing to admire dopers from the past and believing that the old culture of doping has no place in the modern world. Upcoming riders shouldn't have to choose between joining in and getting out. It shouldn't be necessary to rely on a pharmacist to give you that extra 5% on top of the extraordinary ability you were born with and that you built up by dedication and effort. And there should be a level playing field that can't be tilted by anyone willing to flout the rules.

Charging a high-profile retired rider doesn't clean up the past, but it sends a very clear message about what we want the future to be.

Great post George and I agree with you. I still think though that even in the years gone by when doping was at it's height there must have been some riders that opted not to and road on talent alone. It just becomes so easy to tar everyone with the same brush. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part but i can't be damning a rider when i don't actually know for sure that they did anything wrong. Not everyone is guilty by association.

Personally speaking, I would tie these druggies by the feet to a rope linked to the back of milk float and then drive at full speed.

That and people that take short cuts on club runs disgust me, along with people that eat with their mouths open, don't use apostrophes or smoke cigarettes on mountain summits. I blame the European Union and Roy Jenkins.

Alternatively, Armstrong could be stripped of his yellow jersey. The UCI should then refuse to find a substitute and record a blank against the yellow jersey winner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19325756

Clean sport is threatened from yet another direction other than doping!

See above

Also I have read that some French authority considers that the immaculate
design and use of sophisticated materials for modern British track cycles has now reached a point that it constitutes unfair advantage in International competition.

Seems we may have to look at other areas regarding 'unfair advantage cheating'. Not just suspected dope in a rider's body.

Perhaps 'Standardised specification' cycles for all competitors, much like the rules used for Formula Car Racing

Philip Whiteman wrote:Personally speaking, I would tie these druggies by the feet to a rope linked to the back of milk float and then drive at full speed.

That and people that take short cuts on club runs disgust me, along with people that eat with their mouths open, don't use apostrophes or smoke cigarettes on mountain summits. I blame the European Union and Roy Jenkins.

Alternatively, Armstrong could be stripped of his yellow jersey. The UCI should then refuse to find a substitute and record a blank against the yellow jersey winner.

That is, if the UCI don't get entangled in the whole affair.
Best news ever, goodbye to all the lies...

On a side note, as of today, I've won more races than Lance

Ed Moss wrote:On a side note, as of today, I've won more races than Lance

I haven't - yet

I think the whole thing's pretty unsatisfactory all round.
If Lance Armstrong was clean (which, on the balance of probability, I don't think he was), an innocent man has been wrongly stripped of his titles, and of being the most successful TdF rider ever.
If he did dope, then without the case proceeding, we won't see proof of his cheating proven in court.
Either way it's one big grey area, which doesn't really give the closure the sport would be better for IMO.
Regarding his innocence/guilt, I think the fact that he won 7 titles when many of those he beat were dope(r)s, along with some scientific evidence regarding power output etc., makes it unlikely he was clean. However I would not like to call him a drugs cheat unless/until this is legally proven. Back to the whole "beyond reasonable doubt" tenet of law which it seems we won't see put to the test

I'm not fussed either way with Lance. Not a fan, not a hater.

But what is clear is this:

Lance was given the opportunity to defend the accusations that he doped through the court of arbitration. HE has decided not to and in doing so has accepted the charges and punishment that go with it.

Now if that was me and I was innocent then I'd have gone to arbitration and hit it with everything a had.

The fact he hasn't means he thinks he can't win which means there is substance in the evidence against him.

Or

There is something very murky hiding in the evidence that he is desperate to keep out of the public eye.

Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever. That surrender, even the smallest act of giving up, stays with me. So when I feel like quitting, I ask myself, which would I rather live with?

Well it looks like Lance Armstrong would rather live with quitting.

It's surprising that one possessing such a strong will and determination could ever give up in the face of perceived persecution.

Oh well - this will rumble on for some time.

Probably the facts that he doped.

In a way Lance has sort of won, as he can continue to say it's been a witch hunt, and that he "Never tested positive in over 500 tests"*

*©wonderboyPR In reality it's around 2-300

Lance Armstrong has denied ever taking drugs but has admitted to pedalling.

Animal wrote:Lance Armstrong has denied ever taking drugs but has admitted to pedalling.

Oh dear.

Anyway it'll be interesting to see what evidence USADA present to UCI and whether the ban gets upheld; it's certainly not the end of this story.

How exactly is it not good for cycling???

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... -de-france

Ed Moss wrote:How exactly is it not good for cycling???

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins ... -de-france

My 24/8 post is one argument; the fact that doping is making the headlines rather than sporting action is another. Though elaboration on Wiggo's part would have helped.

Seems to me that if it's ok to strip Armstrong of his victories on the basis of rumour and heresay, then by the same ctriteria all past TDF winners should also have their titles removed. What's good for the goose....

There's many an innocent man been forced to accept guilt simply because he didn't have the resources to defend himself against the legal system. Fortune he may have by some standards, but that won't last long if it is used on defence after defence. The pocket is not bottomless and I don't imagine Armstrong qualifies for legal aid.

Guy Sixteen-O-Five wrote:on the basis of rumour and heresay

!!!!!

Guy Sixteen-O-Five wrote:forced to accept guilt simply because he didn't have the resources to defend himself against the legal system

!!!!!!

Had it gone to court there were several ex teams members who were going to testify, under oath that he was on the pop.

If you want more evidence, here he is, beating Panatani, on training alone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

Lance by throwing in the towel, can say for the rest of his days it was a witch hunt and that he never tested positive etc etc

Some of Tyler Hamilton's autobiography is in the Times today. I managed to read a short excerpt, which suggested that it was (is?) Easy to beat drug testing. I'm tempted to buy the book.

Ordered mine last week.

If it's all lies, wonder why hasn't Lance sued...

"!!!!!"

C'mon George, you're not usually a man of such few words.

I see that the embittered, unreliable Museeuw and Vaughters have been adding a little momentum to the rumours:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... point.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... l_cyclist/

Just got his book, should be an interesting read

Ed Moss wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0 ... l_cyclist/

Just got his book, should be an interesting read

Ed,
Don't believe everything you read. I once read in a book that the moon was made of cheese and lived in the bottom of a well.

I'm in the Camargue at the moment at Les Recontres Arle Photographie.

The work of http://www.brigittebauer.fr looks interesting.

Book has a few interesting observations, Tyler says he didn't fail a doping test for years, even though he was doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tygart- ... estigation

30x worse, wonder how the Nike PR machine will get round this one?

Here you go Ed, if you need more reading material.....

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Re ... cision.pdf

Just rumours, Steve. Hincapie has it in for his old pal.

Not sure where to start

"Same old tired lies"

...and now for the UCI's complicity.

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

"Complicity"!?

Are you making outrageous, unsubstantiated accusations against that liza ... nice man Pat McQuaid!? Or against that fine upstanding Dutchman Verbruggen!?

Shame on th ... er, on you, Phil!

Grogz wrote:Some of Tyler Hamilton's autobiography is in the Times today. I managed to read a short excerpt, which suggested that it was (is?) Easy to beat drug testing. I'm tempted to buy the book.

No, Greg, don't do it! I appreciate that there is a very strong temptation to find out how to beat the drug tests, but a win in the West Midlands CX League really isn't worth selling your soul for.

I am not going to read the 1,000 word report, but once can ascertain from media reports that UCI the do not come out of the saga smelling of roses. In fact pungent manure would be a better description. It appears the officials were tipping off the riders before inspections. Furthermore, the UCI were insufficiently proactive in many instances and instead, turned their cheeks the other way. Fortunately, they the UCI appear to have moved on since then although whether is by willing conviction or not is a matter to be debated.

Incidentally, has the been any decision on Lance's former yellow jersey status? He was obviously stripped but there was some debate on whether the UCI would contest WADA's ruling and whether or not the jersey could be handed down to another (clean?) rider. Some suggested that named winner during those terrible years should be registered as a blank.

Personally speaking, I blame soft liberals, Guardian readers, the Financial Services Authority, the European Courts and Alex Salmond. What will all this scandal do to house prices, that is the principle question posed by The Daily Express. I also have a problem with high blood pressure and anger management.

This article about sums it up.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/24/l ... -innocent/

George wrote:

Grogz wrote:Some of Tyler Hamilton's autobiography is in the Times today. I managed to read a short excerpt, which suggested that it was (is?) Easy to beat drug testing. I'm tempted to buy the book.

No, Greg, don't do it! I appreciate that there is a very strong temptation to find out how to beat the drug tests, but a win in the West Midlands CX League really isn't worth selling your soul for.

Whilst I am sure that Greg is not attempting to cheat the system, don't be too certain about the lengths other local cyclists will go in order to win amateur races. A local GP informs me that she has treated local amateur riders taking sports enhancing drugs to improve their competitive chances. For obvious reasons, she did not say whom.

Philip Whiteman wrote:A local GP informs me that she has treated local amateur riders taking sports enhancing drugs to improve their competitive chances. For obvious reasons, she did not say whom.

I had a steriod injection in my shoulder yesterday morning, should I now be banned from the next Newport session?

AlanW wrote:

Philip Whiteman wrote:A local GP informs me that she has treated local amateur riders taking sports enhancing drugs to improve their competitive chances. For obvious reasons, she did not say whom.

I had a steriod injection in my shoulder yesterday morning, should I now be banned from the next Newport session?

YES.

Neil Compton wrote:This article about sums it up.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/24/l ... -innocent/

I think that the arguments made in this type of article have been overtaken by events.

The USADA's case rests entirely on hearsay – witnesses claiming to have seen Armstrong doping before races, even though incredibly extensive medical testing found no conclusive evidence. Armstrong alleges that corrupt testimony from these riders was obtained with special deals from the USADA. It's a classic example of a witch hunt, in which the target must be guilty, even though science says he is innocent, because several other people insist upon his guilt.

A quick skim of the USADA dossier clearly shows that the case is build on more than hearsay - there are e-mails and the small matter of $1 million worth of payments to Michele Ferrari, made at a time when Armstrong claimed not to have been working with him. There are also rather more than "several other people" insisting on his guilt.

Neil Compton wrote:This article about sums it up.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/24/l ... -innocent/

Oh, Neil, come on!

A thousand pages of evidence against him; 26 sworn affidavits from witnesses; countless team-mates and rivals who tested positive and/or admitted to doping (yet couldn't beat him); close friends who admit to doping with him and say it was easy to cheat the system. It is just a joke to suggest he was "proven innocent". The concept doesn't even exist in law.

As I said before, I firmly believe that the riders of that generation were in a no-win situation, insofar as they dedicated themselves to reaching the top and then discovered that you could only do so by doping. So they either accepted defeat or did what all the rest were doing. For that reason, I'm unwilling to condemn them out of hand in a moral sense. But it's just sticking your head in the sand to suggest that they didn't do it. With the exception of Armstrong, it's hard to find anyone from that generation who even denies it any more.

There may well be a vendetta against Armstrong, insofar as he made a lot of enemies and a lot of people would like to see him taken down a peg or two and are therefore eager to spill the beans. But to suggest that all these people -- including lots who have been his long-time his allies and/or have no axe to grind -- are making up all these stories up just defies common sense.

Like almost everyone else, I haven't read the 1000-page dossier. But I've scanned it, and I think a much more balanced summary can be found on the BBC website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716 (plus linked items)

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.

laurence_cooley wrote:The USADA's case rests entirely on hearsay – witnesses claiming to have seen Armstrong doping before races.

Laurence, I'm glad you quoted that line, because when I read that, I found it hard to suppress my annoyance enough to continue reading the article. It illustrates the crass stupidity of the author: he doesn't even understand what hearsay is. A witness statement is NOT hearsay; a witness statement is one of the most compelling forms of evidence in law. Hearsay is "Well, so-and-so told me over dinner that he doped."

British cyclist Alex Dowsett believes Lance Armstrong remains "a legend of the sport" despite the doping accusations against the American, according to a BBC News article. Based upon this logic we could suggest that Savile is "a legend of philanthropy". Neither are acceptable and I suspect that Brailsford may have words with Dowsett on his rather chosen comment.

The view expressed by Dowsett: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165

The view expressed by Brailsford: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19906847

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.

George wrote:As I said before, I firmly believe that the riders of that generation were in a no-win situation, insofar as they dedicated themselves to reaching the top and then discovered that you could only do so by doping. So they either accepted defeat or did what all the rest were doing. For that reason, I'm unwilling to condemn them out of hand in a moral sense. But it's just sticking your head in the sand to suggest that they didn't do it. With the exception of Armstrong, it's hard to find anyone from that generation who even denies it any more.

His other problem is that while others can get away with arguing that doping was the only way that they could compete in a corrupt sport, for Armstrong it's different as the dossier clearly demonstrates that he was at the forefront in terms of professional cycling getting to this point in the first place. Others were clearly doping because they saw it as the only way they could win, which doesn't make it acceptable but which is clearly of a different order of magnitude to Armstrong, who it now seems was practically forcing his team mates to dope themselves.

All this apparently started before he won any of his seven tours. He sure had some clout for a rider that hadn't won the tour at that point. 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.