No - all it proves is that the testing programme was flawed and that some riders or some teams were more organised in exploiting those flaws than others.Neil Compton wrote:"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.
Lance comeback
Neil, how many tests did Hincapie fail? None. How many tests did Vaughters fail? None. How many tests did Millar fail? None. How many tests did Basso fail? None. The list goes on and on. Even the ones who did fail tests now tell us that they'd been at it for years before they got caught.Neil Compton wrote:And yet riders did get caught.
Not failing a test means very little at all.
And you've got to wonder: if you are presiding over a system that's designed to catch people, and when you do catch someone, they say "I've been doing this for years", what do you do? What is the obvious response that would surely occur to anyone who wanted to make their system work? Surely, it's to ask those people how they got away with it for so long (or otherwise try to find out how they did so) and adjust your system to make it less likely that someone else can do the same?
You really have to wonder why the UCI apparently didn't do the first thing that would occur to most of us.
You really have to wonder why the UCI apparently didn't do the first thing that would occur to most of us.
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
"A former team-mate of Lance Armstrong claims the disgraced cyclist should not be singled out for criticism despite the damning findings of the United States Anti-Doping Agency.
Armstrong was said to have orchestrated "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen" in the USADA report which provided the written reasons behind their decision to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles and to ban him from the sport for life.
But Australian Patrick Jonker, who rode for Armstrong's US Postal team in 2000, believes such was the problem with drugs in cycling at the time to focus solely on one rider is not right.
He told Radio Five Live: "Reading the report, I don't think Lance could have acted as the sole power behind this.
"I believe you must have had the knowledge of a doctor to enforce this.
"To crucify Lance and only Lance would be unfair, they need to crucify the sport during that era."
Although drug-taking was seemingly rife during the early part of the last decade, Jonker, who insisted he had never taken performance-enhancing substances himself, denied everyone at US Postal was involved.
"During that period, I was definitely aware that there were athletes using performance-enhancing drugs but I don't believe it was to the extent that USADA are coming out with," he added.
"The USADA were saying that in the Dauphine race three weeks before the Tour de France that there was a blanket use of performance-enhancing drugs in that particular race by the team and I was in the team with Tyler and Lance.
"The USADA pointing the finger at pretty much everyone is unfair.
"Me, myself, I am pretty sure the majority of the team were not taking drugs.
"In cycling then there was a problem but it was not a blanket."
Armstrong was accused of intimidating team-mates into taking banned substances to boost his own chances of success.
But Jonker said he was never approached by the Texan.
"He never had the conversation with me," he said
"I wasn't a big player in the game, I was a worker, lower down the ladder, often in the B team."
The world cycling union (UCI) has been criticised for not uncovering the depth of Armstrong's cheating earlier but Jonker believes the UCI was, in fact, ahead of the game in its determination to root out those not abiding by the rules.
He added: "The technology was not available to absolutely guarantee 100 per cent proof of the non-use of performance-enhancing drugs but the cycling union did the best they possibly could.
"To say the UCI is corrupt is difficult as there are many other sporting organisations in the world that don't have blood-testing at all, not even today.
"The UCI were very brave to introduce what they did but it has all imploded."
Armstrong was said to have orchestrated "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen" in the USADA report which provided the written reasons behind their decision to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles and to ban him from the sport for life.
But Australian Patrick Jonker, who rode for Armstrong's US Postal team in 2000, believes such was the problem with drugs in cycling at the time to focus solely on one rider is not right.
He told Radio Five Live: "Reading the report, I don't think Lance could have acted as the sole power behind this.
"I believe you must have had the knowledge of a doctor to enforce this.
"To crucify Lance and only Lance would be unfair, they need to crucify the sport during that era."
Although drug-taking was seemingly rife during the early part of the last decade, Jonker, who insisted he had never taken performance-enhancing substances himself, denied everyone at US Postal was involved.
"During that period, I was definitely aware that there were athletes using performance-enhancing drugs but I don't believe it was to the extent that USADA are coming out with," he added.
"The USADA were saying that in the Dauphine race three weeks before the Tour de France that there was a blanket use of performance-enhancing drugs in that particular race by the team and I was in the team with Tyler and Lance.
"The USADA pointing the finger at pretty much everyone is unfair.
"Me, myself, I am pretty sure the majority of the team were not taking drugs.
"In cycling then there was a problem but it was not a blanket."
Armstrong was accused of intimidating team-mates into taking banned substances to boost his own chances of success.
But Jonker said he was never approached by the Texan.
"He never had the conversation with me," he said
"I wasn't a big player in the game, I was a worker, lower down the ladder, often in the B team."
The world cycling union (UCI) has been criticised for not uncovering the depth of Armstrong's cheating earlier but Jonker believes the UCI was, in fact, ahead of the game in its determination to root out those not abiding by the rules.
He added: "The technology was not available to absolutely guarantee 100 per cent proof of the non-use of performance-enhancing drugs but the cycling union did the best they possibly could.
"To say the UCI is corrupt is difficult as there are many other sporting organisations in the world that don't have blood-testing at all, not even today.
"The UCI were very brave to introduce what they did but it has all imploded."
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that quotation, Neil. Most of what Jonker says is perfectly reasonable, but I don't see what bearing it has on earlier postings in this thread. No one here has suggested that Armstrong acted alone or that his team was any worse than various others. My interpretation of the USADA material is that his team was simply better at pretty well everything, including doping.
I for one would like to see him treated in the same way as any other convicted doper. However, I do take greater satisfaction in his downfall than in the downfall of your average doper. And that's because of countless stories like this, which I've read over the years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... g-clean-up
I for one would like to see him treated in the same way as any other convicted doper. However, I do take greater satisfaction in his downfall than in the downfall of your average doper. And that's because of countless stories like this, which I've read over the years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... g-clean-up
- Between Peaks
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
- Real Name:
- Location: Bournville
As I was saying . . . .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.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report- ... g-positive
- Between Peaks
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
- Real Name:
- Location: Bournville
This looks like it's possibly going beyond doping, fraud, coverups, US postal wanting there money back, Sunday Times counter suing to name a few.George wrote:I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with that quotation, Neil. Most of what Jonker says is perfectly reasonable, but I don't see what bearing it has on earlier postings in this thread. No one here has suggested that Armstrong acted alone or that his team was any worse than various others. My interpretation of the USADA material is that his team was simply better at pretty well everything, including doping.
I for one would like to see him treated in the same way as any other convicted doper. However, I do take greater satisfaction in his downfall than in the downfall of your average doper. And that's because of countless stories like this, which I've read over the years:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... g-clean-up
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
Interesting.
There are certainly stories circulating suggesting that he could face criminal charges, but I've yet to hear anyone in any official role back that up. Obviously if strong evidence of fraud or perjury or any such thing emerges, one would hope that charges are brought.Ed Moss wrote:This looks like it's possibly going beyond doping
So not quite everyone on the team was doping. I'm afraid that falls some way short of discrediting the USADA report, Neil.Neil Compton wrote:Indeed Neil but i was interested in his comments about the Dauphine race and if he is telling the truth it shows the USADA are not accurate in what they are saying.
- Between Peaks
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
- Real Name:
- Location: Bournville
Sorry, I'm afraid his statement isn't worth much.Neil Compton wrote:Indeed Neil but i was interested in his comments about the Dauphine race and if he is telling the truth it shows the USADA are not accurate in what they are saying.
He was aware of doping within the team (but said/did nothing) but doesn't think it was as widespread as USADA state. Setting aside the questionable morality of continuing to work for an organisation you know to be involved in illegal activities, even if Jonker is telling what he perceives to be the truth it does not mean it is the truth - it is merely his perception of how things were, nothing more.
George - thanks for the tip-off on facebook to the radio 5 live programme last night. It was most interesting and the interviewees all sounded genuine - the tremor in Hamilton's voice when he recalled an encounter with Armstrong by which he felt intimidated was noticeable.
Eat cake before you're hungry
You're welcome, Steve. Even though the facts reported by R5 were pretty much what I'd already read, I felt that the documentary gave a real insight into the personalities. It's easy for us as observers to label the various protagonists 'goodies' or 'baddies', whereas in fact they're all complex people operating in complex situations. I found myself saying to the radio "Why didn't you do this; why didn't you say that?" and yet not being at all sure that I would have behaved any better in their shoes.
I would certainly recommend that anyone who missed it pays a visit to iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... rty_Truth/
I would certainly recommend that anyone who missed it pays a visit to iPlayer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... rty_Truth/
Well he has just quit as chairman of the Livestrong foundation but will continue to be an active supporter
And Nike have kicked him to the curb
http://nikeinc.com/press-release/news/n ... -armstrong
And Nike have kicked him to the curb
http://nikeinc.com/press-release/news/n ... -armstrong
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
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
- John Sanderson
- Posts: 114
- Joined: 27 Nov 2006 21:35
- Real Name:
- Location: Colchester, Essex
You do wonder sometimes why people go on denying things when pretty much the whole world has stopped believing them. One (theoretical) explanation, of course, that pretty much the whole world has got it wrong. Another is that the person is delusional (I'm sure that's sometimes what is going on with people accused of more serious crimes than LA). Another is that the whole truth is even more damaging than what we already know.
-
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
- Real Name:
- Location: Harborne
Here's a TV documentary that was shown in Australia a few days ago, similar to the 5 Live programme: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/ ... 08613.htm/.
Damn Shame about Rabobank. There is no way they have pulled out over the USADA report, that's just a smoke screen. It's so strange they stood by the dirty dopers of the past (Dekker, Rasmusen etc) but now the sport is undoubtedly cleaner they decide to pull out!!
Millar is right, they choose to run away from a problem they where part of/helped create/turned a blind eye to and leave a younger generation of clean riders on the scrap heap. Typical bloody bank! Bas***ds.
Millar is right, they choose to run away from a problem they where part of/helped create/turned a blind eye to and leave a younger generation of clean riders on the scrap heap. Typical bloody bank! Bas***ds.
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
UCI are not going to drop the Kimmage case, citing that it is a straight foward deformation case against the UCI commissioners. On the one hand they have the right to defend their reputation; on the other hand, it will only continue to drag the UCI's reputation through the dirt. McQuade appears to have progressed the UCI, so why he continues with this case is a contrary action.
Worse than that, given what's been going on lately and the fact it's an investigative journalist they're suing, surely there's a risk the opposite could be proven in the courts? That's what happened to Bruce Grobbelaar when he sued a newspaper following match-fixing allegations. Having said that, if Kimmage has any further evidence of UCI wrong-doing he may already have published it?Philip Whiteman wrote:UCI are not going to drop the Kimmage case, citing that it is a straight foward deformation case against the UCI commissioners. On the one hand they have the right to defend their reputation; on the other hand, it will only continue to drag the UCI's reputation through the dirt. McQuade appears to have progressed the UCI, so why he continues with this case is a contrary action.
I hope no other sponsors follow Rabobank's lead.
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
- Between Peaks
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
- Real Name:
- Location: Bournville
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
A message from Lance posted in The New Yorker - to be believed or disbelieved.....
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/s ... lance.html
I think it is called satire.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/s ... lance.html
I think it is called satire.
Well they are demanding that he pays back his tour winnings now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20038998
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20038998
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
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
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
That will be interesting when taking into considering the tradition of the winner distributing his winnings to fellow riders. To be sure, his 'mates' will not be willing to refund Lance. So Lance will have to repay out of his other earnings. What is the betting that he declares himself as a bankrupt whilst living of his funds banked offshore?Animal wrote:Well they are demanding that he pays back his tour winnings now
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20038998
The only real difference is the way they did it. From a moral perspective they both had a choice, and chose to cheat; it's just that the systematic approach of Lance Armstrong dragged many others into it and proved more successful. Tommy Simpson's drug taking led to his death whereas Lance's led to 7 TdF titles (albeit temporarily) so you could say he was better at it - not that that deserves credit.Philip Whiteman wrote:"Unlike Lance Armstrong, Tommy Simpson was a product and victim of an era when a drug taking culture was accepted and commonplace amongst cycling professionals". Critically discuss.
With lack of knowledge or care regarding the risks, anyone could have been a casualty of a drug-taking culture in either era. Two very different eras in terms of medical knowledge, but which sadly had widespread drug-taking in common.
Ah, the irony! Little did we all know (not just Chris)...Ringo wrote:agreed, the 2003 tour was the best i've ever seen. it's not lance's fault that he was so much better then everyone else.Neil Compton wrote:Lance boring. ! No way, not compared to some of the riders in recent tours. Just curious to who you think were exciting riders during lance's reign and recently.?
- Philip Whiteman
- Posts: 2046
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 16:17
- Real Name:
- Location: Drayton, Worcestershire
Despite many of the anti-Armstrong views posted on this website, it is interesting to read the views of individuals that have come to his defence:
Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Indurain http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066
Jamie Staff http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20027832
As I have said before and shall say again, I would wish to see Armstrong tried in a court of law to either prove the position beyond all unreasonable doubt or not. Until that is done, there will continue to exist an air of doubt and discursive space for those that question the legitimacy and reliability of the report's findings.
For the record, I am personally satisfied with the USADA & WADA findings and believe Armstrong to be a cad and neerdowell.
Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Indurain http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066
Jamie Staff http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20027832
As I have said before and shall say again, I would wish to see Armstrong tried in a court of law to either prove the position beyond all unreasonable doubt or not. Until that is done, there will continue to exist an air of doubt and discursive space for those that question the legitimacy and reliability of the report's findings.
For the record, I am personally satisfied with the USADA & WADA findings and believe Armstrong to be a cad and neerdowell.
- Between Peaks
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 20 Nov 2006 16:41
- Real Name:
- Location: Bournville
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
Neil H: thanks for the intervention. I do hope that everyone adding to this thread can continue to show a bit of respect for the other contributors, including those they disagree with.
Neil C: Armstrong was undoubtedly the best of the drugged-up stage race riders of his era.
However, there are two things we'll never know:
1. Was he the best on account of his natural talent and determination, or because his doping doctors were better, or because his body happened to respond more positively to the dope than most riders' bodies?
2. Were there riders with as much natural talent and determination (or more), who walked away from the sport at an early age because of the doping, or who never reached the top because they refused to dope?
I expect that similar questions could be asked about quite a few champions of the past. In that particular respect, we shouldn't single Armstrong out. But, if we don't want the same questions to be asked about the champions of the future, we need the people who cling to the old values exposed and removed from the sport.
There was a time when I admired Armstrong as a rider, but I never liked him as a man, and the more I hear about him, the more confirmed I am in that opinion.
Neil C: Armstrong was undoubtedly the best of the drugged-up stage race riders of his era.
However, there are two things we'll never know:
1. Was he the best on account of his natural talent and determination, or because his doping doctors were better, or because his body happened to respond more positively to the dope than most riders' bodies?
2. Were there riders with as much natural talent and determination (or more), who walked away from the sport at an early age because of the doping, or who never reached the top because they refused to dope?
I expect that similar questions could be asked about quite a few champions of the past. In that particular respect, we shouldn't single Armstrong out. But, if we don't want the same questions to be asked about the champions of the future, we need the people who cling to the old values exposed and removed from the sport.
There was a time when I admired Armstrong as a rider, but I never liked him as a man, and the more I hear about him, the more confirmed I am in that opinion.
Whatever the truth, it's refreshing to see a bit of balance at this point. Even if Armstrong is guilty as charged, maybe he was at least a shrewd judge of character.Philip Whiteman wrote:Despite many of the anti-Armstrong views posted on this website, it is interesting to read the views of individuals that have come to his defence:
Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
Eat cake before you're hungry
- Neil Compton
- Posts: 256
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006 15:39
- Real Name:
- Location: Northfield
Yes it is a great story, shame he cheated his way to doing it. What we were watching was the result of cheating and having a doping program which was ahead of the rest of the riders.
Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results. Wouldn't have been such a great comeback without the hep of the Mr Ferrari.
Hammond wasn't really any use to Armstrong so no wonder he wasn't asked to join in..
A refreshing comment from Cav, agree his silence is damaging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20051664
Without Drugs, no way would have he beaten Basso, Pantani, Ullrich, Heras, Hamilton, etc etc, probably top 20 at best, going on his pre 1999 grand stage results. Wouldn't have been such a great comeback without the hep of the Mr Ferrari.
Hammond wasn't really any use to Armstrong so no wonder he wasn't asked to join in..
A refreshing comment from Cav, agree his silence is damaging.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20051664
Goodness! Are you still in the 'if' camp, Steve? I don't doubt that he is a shrewd judge of character and has many other positive traits. Everyone seems to say, for example, that he could be very loyal and supportive towards his friends and allies. He also clearly has tremendous courage and was regarded as super-determined even by top pro cyclists, amongst whom determination isn't in short supply. I'm sure many other things can be said in his defence.CakeStop wrote:Whatever the truth, it's refreshing to see a bit of balance at this point. Even if Armstrong is guilty as charged, maybe he was at least a shrewd judge of character.Philip Whiteman wrote:Despite many of the anti-Armstrong views posted on this website, it is interesting to read the views of individuals that have come to his defence:
Roger Hammond http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19910165
However, my grandmother was fond of saying, "We all have the vices of our virtues." In other words, there is no positive personality trait that doesn't have a down side; no virtue that, in certain circumstances, isn't a vice. I believe that the same exceptional determination which made Armstrong a natural winner and won him countless admirers also drove him to deceive his fans and ruthlessly step on those who got in his way. Whether you like him or not depends, I suppose, on whether you choose to place more emphasis on the up side of his determination or the down side.
Although such matters fascinate me, whether Armstrong is 'nice' or not is essentially irrelevant to the central points. Those are:
a) He cheated.
b) The future health of cycle sport depends on cheats being exposed and excluded.
c) The whole saga highlights profound structural inadequacies in the sport's administration.
-
- Posts: 1119
- Joined: 31 Dec 2011 13:48
- Real Name:
- Location: Harborne