How has Lance kept everyone quiet for this long?

[alberto.legstrong]

Has Lance kept everyone quiet for this long? Or do SOME people choose to be quiet as long as the system is working for them in one form or another. At one point in time someone might experience fear. But as time marches on, hindsight sheds light on things and the fear of something starts to dwindle and you can claim some ownership of a situation regardless of the pressure from other people.

This whole thing reminds me of smoking pot. It's illegal, but a lot of people still do it. You hang with people who do/did it, you know people who do/did it, but you don't say anything. Until you get caught, or you have to pass a lie detector for a clearance, or something along those lines. Then you start pointing the finger. Mom, that's not my bong! It's Charlie's. Or, officer, I don't know how that marijuana got in my car. It's not mine! Omerta is all over the place.

I worked as a software engineer for years and we would shoot for a bug free product but there were always bugs and we had to deliver or ship at some point. So what does everyone do, keep their mouths shut! Until a problem comes up and people notice. Then you kick into damage control mode. Until that point though, there is money on the line and everyone does the same ol' song and dance as the bucks roll in. If someone steps out of line or speaks up, you dismiss it, point out previous and current successes. Point out the steps taken to rectify past mistakes. Anything but address the current problem - but addressing the current problem is going on in some form or another. Hell, you might just cheat and introduce more bugs just to cover up the current publicly known bug! Anyways, I'm just rambling....

You're not rambling at all. What they are engaged in is something that occurs throughout society. And who has any stake in stopping it? The fans? Sort of, but not really. And what clout do they have? They keep coming back, so there's your answer. Your software customer? They knew danm well if they rejected your software they would get just as buggy software from the next sw company. Or they'd get nothing waiting for perfection that never comes. And they couldn't afford to do that.

Again, Who has an interest in clean racing? Some guy who got dropped from his squad for not doping and could be the next Greg Lemond? What leverage does he have? None. Zilch. All of the power is in the hands of those who benefit from doping.

The cops know pot is illegal, but given their priorities, they aren't going to waste resources on some yokel with a 1/4 oz.

 

[Oldman]

You're not rambling at all. What they are engaged in is something that occurs throughout society. And who has any stake in stopping it? The fans? Sort of, but not really. And what clout do they have? They keep coming back, so there's your answer. Your software customer? They knew danm well if they rejected your software they would get just as buggy software from the next sw company. Or they'd get nothing waiting for perfection that never comes. And they couldn't afford to do that.

Again, Who has an interest in clean racing? Some guy who got dropped from his squad for not doping and could be the next Greg Lemond? What leverage does he have? None. Zilch. All of the power is in the hands of those who benefit from doping.

The cops know pot is illegal, but given their priorities, they aren't going to waste resources on some yokel with a 1/4 oz.

That's what makes this disclosure and Federal intervention so tasty for journalists. They can keep the story alive almost without taking a stance because it is hot news. They and everyone else will dig for new angles, resurrect old rumors and keep the pressure on until something surfaces. LA's "tenacity" is no match for the hyenas of the media. Unfortunately for LA he's been feeding them well for so long they are big and hungry. They're also tired of the diet of bullsh*t he's been dishing out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You're not rambling at all. What they are engaged in is something that occurs throughout society. And who has any stake in stopping it? The fans? Sort of, but not really. And what clout do they have? They keep coming back, so there's your answer. Your software customer? They knew danm well if they rejected your software they would get just as buggy software from the next sw company. Or they'd get nothing waiting for perfection that never comes. And they couldn't afford to do that.

Again, Who has an interest in clean racing? Some guy who got dropped from his squad for not doping and could be the next Greg Lemond? What leverage does he have? None. Zilch. All of the power is in the hands of those who benefit from doping.

The cops know pot is illegal, but given their priorities, they aren't going to waste resources on some yokel with a 1/4 oz.

I think yourself and 'Hmmmm' have pretty much nailed it as to how this all came about. 'It' was never planned, just a series of events to contain an unpleasant outcome.

It is my opinion that this kicked off at the 99 TdF when the positive came through - the UCI & the Tour had 'marketed' that Tour as the Tour of Redemption'.

Having LA in yellow was a marketing dream - until he pops up positive.
Someone from the UCI at the Tour gave LA a headsup. But the positive was never public until the story appeared in Le Monde.
Facing a disaster - as this was the same year that Pantani got dumped from the Giro- someone in authority said get the TUE and alls fine.

Later - as a thank you (or knowing Hein, an unsubtle suggestion) a 'donation' was made which set the precedent for the remaining years.

 

[BikeCentric]

You're not rambling at all. What they are engaged in is something that occurs throughout society. And who has any stake in stopping it? The fans? Sort of, but not really. And what clout do they have? They keep coming back, so there's your answer. Your software customer? They knew danm well if they rejected your software they would get just as buggy software from the next sw company. Or they'd get nothing waiting for perfection that never comes. And they couldn't afford to do that.

Again, Who has an interest in clean racing? Some guy who got dropped from his squad for not doping and could be the next Greg Lemond? What leverage does he have? None. Zilch. All of the power is in the hands of those who benefit from doping.

The cops know pot is illegal, but given their priorities, they aren't going to waste resources on some yokel with a 1/4 oz.

Basically all of the riders have a vested interest in eliminating doping. The drugs cost them a lot of money and put their health at risk. The only problem is that it's a form of prisoner's dilemma for them as most of them think that their competition is doping, they know it works, and they can't leave that advantage on the table to their competition. It's like willingly showing up to a hilly race on an old steel bike when everyone else is on carbon bikes that weigh 5 pounds less. They can't give advantages like that away.

So anyway, if a real anti-doping system was put in place that they could trust I do think the majority of pro racers would be happy to get off the dope.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I suspect that in 1999 they didn't think that they would still be answering questions about that Tour 11 years later.

The Uniballer was a cash cow for the UCI unlike any other, and while they might have been willing to ping the likes of Pantani or even Ullrich, there was never anyway two people as money obsessed as Hein and Pat were ever going to shoot the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[ludwig]

Usually we dismiss people who speak of aliens at area 51 or faked moon landings by using the logic that it would be impossible for those claims to be true because someone the cover up would have been impossible to contain.

so... if as many people are involved as believed by some members here, someone would have indeed talked by now. if lance is doping, and of course that's likely because they are almost all surely doping, then it is done on the down low. it can't possibly be the systematic team run doping programs that are posited here. someone would have talked long ago and disgruntled ex employees of every team would be dropping bombs about programs every season.

There are indeed sufficient whistle blowers and scandals to meet your criteria every season. It's just downplayed by the media.

Besides, of course the doping is done on the DL. But it's not like team staff aren't complicit. They know what is going on, even if they might not know the exact dosing details.

 

[VeloCity]

How has LA been able to keep everyone involved silenced for this long? Is he that much of a force that he can intimidate for silence. Or maybe he has something on everyone and that has always been his tactic. Notice how guys leave his team and get busted shortly there after? Does his influence go to the very top? UCI is bought?

In addition to what other posters have responded with, it's not like the Armstrong/USPS situation is really all that unique - T-Mob had a team doping program involving hundreds of riders and team personnel that went largely undetected for the better part of about 15 years and that only came to light because of d'Hont. Riis doped to win the '96 Tour and that only became known in '07, 11 years later. Same with Ullrich. Saiz was running a team doping program at ONCE/LS for a decade or more before getting caught. And those are only the ones that we now know about - there's little doubt that other teams have been running doping programs for years, maybe decades that are still mostly unknown (Banesto/Caisse as a probable, for eg), and that other well-known riders have been doping for years or decades without it ever coming to light.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Basically all of the riders have a vested interest in eliminating doping. The drugs cost them a lot of money and put their health at risk. The only problem is that it's a form of prisoner's dilemma for them as most of them think that their competition is doping, they know it works, and they can't leave that advantage on the table to their competition. It's like willingly showing up to a hilly race on an old steel bike when everyone else is on carbon bikes that weigh 5 pounds less. They can't give advantages like that away.

So anyway, if a real anti-doping system was put in place that they could trust I do think the majority of pro racers would be happy to get off the dope.

I have a vested interest in laying off ice cream. but it's in the freezer and if I don't get some before my wife and son, then there might not be any left. health be damned.

There is not much momentum for clean racing. Guess we just disagree. Certainly not by the authorities when they can sell the right to ride dirty with no fear of a positive for the rider/team. Again, why leave cash on the table? the powers that be can't see (or truly commit to) the benefits of clean racing.

 

[BikeCentric]

I have a vested interest in laying off ice cream. but it's in the freezer and if I don't get some before my wife and son, then there might not be any left. health be damned.

There is not much momentum for clean racing. Guess we just disagree. Certainly not by the authorities when they can sell the right to ride dirty with no fear of a positive for the rider/team. Again, why leave cash on the table? the powers that be can't see (or truly commit to) the benefits of clean racing.

No I agree with you, the power of the system (UCI, team directors, race organizers, etc.) does trump whatever small desire there is on the part of some riders to race clean.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

No I agree with you, the power of the system (UCI, team directors, race organizers, etc.) does trump whatever small desire there is on the part of some riders to race clean.

Okey doke, I skimmed too quickly. Plus I was waiting for the microwave to get done heating the hot fudge.

 

[stephens]

I guess you have not been paying attention to the people who did talk and say that it was widespread in the last 10 years. I won't do your heavy lifting, but these things are easily searched on Google.

None of those people dropped a "bomb." I'm not talking about suspicions or I heard Lance say something or his numbers look unbelievable or any of that stuff. Did any of those people come out and say, "on such and such a day I saw with my own eyes, Lance Armstrong transporting, storing and/or using banned substances?" That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Assuming the riders all had stories similar to Floyd's, I can see several reasons some riders might keep quiet right now.

Levi apparently tested positive in 1996 and was stripped of his US Amateur Criterium Championship. If he comes forward now, it's a 2nd offense, 8 year or lifetime ban. (Unless he somehow gets leniency.)

George and his brother Rich run a company that makes cycling clothing. Rich has put a ton of work into this over the last few years. They were apparently having a great year of growth, with the increased exposure from BMC wearing Hincapie products. Now suppose if George were to corroborate Floyd's accusations, what would happen to his company? Would he be blackballed from the sport? Would the company go under? His factory employs several members of his extended family (cousins, etc) - he has to be feeling worried about doing anything that could throw a bunch of people (especially friends and relatives) out of work. Even if George were to confess to something and be granted leniency on any doping charges, there's no way to say what would happen to his clothing company - no one could guarantee him that his business wouldn't take a big hit.

 

[Anonymous]

None of those people dropped a "bomb." I'm not talking about suspicions or I heard Lance say something or his numbers look unbelievable or any of that stuff. Did any of those people come out and say, "on such and such a day I saw with my own eyes, Lance Armstrong transporting, storing and/or using banned substances?" That's what I'm talking about.

You didn't say anything about a "bomb." You said that nobody had ever come forward. You don't know what you are talking about. That is not my problem, that is your problem. If you want to sound like you know what you are talking about, I would suggest doing some research. It might make you begin to question these things more, so maybe just stay ignorant and blissful.

 

[Digger]

None of those people dropped a "bomb." I'm not talking about suspicions or I heard Lance say something or his numbers look unbelievable or any of that stuff. Did any of those people come out and say, "on such and such a day I saw with my own eyes, Lance Armstrong transporting, storing and/or using banned substances?" That's what I'm talking about.

Emma O'Reilly.

 

[BikeCentric]

None of those people dropped a "bomb." I'm not talking about suspicions or I heard Lance say something or his numbers look unbelievable or any of that stuff. Did any of those people come out and say, "on such and such a day I saw with my own eyes, Lance Armstrong transporting, storing and/or using banned substances?" That's what I'm talking about.

Mike Anderson said "on such and such day I found banned steroids in LA's apartment." Emma O'Reilly said "on such and such day I put cover-up on LA's arm to cover needle track-marks and can confirm that he fabricated a post-dated TUE for his '99 Tour Cortisone positive." Frankie Andreu said "Lance pushed me to use EPO in the '99 Tour."

There has been a steady drum-beat of accusations aimed at Lance over the years; just because you are new to the sport and don't know what happenned in the past doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[Anonymous]

Emma O'Reilly.

Don't help him. It is better to let the student discover the truth themselves than it is to feed them. If he wants to know the truth (there are other people to add to the list), he can find it himself.

 

[Jonathan]

You didn't say anything about a "bomb." You said that nobody had ever come forward.

That debating trick is called "moving the goalposts".

 

[Digger]

To the OP, and the original question, he certainly has not kept everyone quiet. In fact, as cycling and Omerta goes, an inordinate amount of people have spoken about his doping and the doping with USP. BUT, the fans have taken his excuses as the truth - i.e. that they ALL have axes to grind, are jealous and are out to make money. All these people with similar stories about doping, all corroborate each other, have gained nothing by speaking out - YET the fans believe the one guy who gains millions by denying everything. At what point do even his most loyal fans say to themselves 'you know what, maybe they all can't be lying and or wrong'.

 

[FastMatt]

Maybe....

Armstrong's treatment was tailored to help him to return to racing. IU's preeminence in treating testicular cancer results from its pioneering use of cisplatin, a highly toxic derivative of platinum, in combination with two other antitumor drugs. One of those, beleomycin, can damage the lungs. In deference to Armstrong's career, his doctors opted to substitute another drug, ifosphamide, that would be gentler on his lungs, but the treatment involved a therapeutic trade-off: Ifosphamide was known to be toxic to the kidneys and bone marrow.

It was after the third round of chemotherapy that Armstrong reached his lowest point. He was fatigued, dizzy, nauseous, vomiting. He lost all his hair. His hematocrit, the percentage of total blood volume comprising mature red blood cells, fell to less than 25 (46 is normal), an alarming drop for any patient but one that had special implications for Armstrong. Cycling has been ravaged in recent years by racers attempting to boost their hematocrit and thus their ability to deliver oxygen to their muscles by taking the red-cell-enhancing drug EPO.

Numerous riders known to be taking EPO have died of stroke or cardiac arrest, their blood having become so thick that their hearts simply could no longer pump. Armstrong's oncologists gave him Epogen, a brand of EPO, to raise his hematocrit, knowing that this use of EPO, which is banned by the Union Cycliste Internationale and the International Olympic Committee, might raise suspicions if and when he returned to racing, though Armstrong himself had no qualms. "If anything, I've got a manhole cover attached to me," he says, dismissing the notion that his using Epogen might give him an unfair edge. "A year of chemo and platinum is hardly a boost." (It was perhaps unsurprising that Epogen's manufacturer, Amgen, was among the sponsors at the oncology meeting at the Four Seasons, along with nine other drug companies.)

Taken from this article on page 4

http://outside.away.com/magazine/0498/9804lance.html

 

[stephens]

Mike Anderson said "on such and such day I found banned steroids in LA's apartment." Emma O'Reilly said "on such and such day I put cover-up on LA's arm to cover needle track-marks and can confirm that he fabricated a post-dated TUE for his '99 Tour Cortisone positive." Frankie Andreu said "Lance pushed me to use EPO in the '99 Tour."

There has been a steady drum-beat of accusations aimed at Lance over the years; just because you are new to the sport and don't know what happenned in the past doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm not new to the sport. I began following pro cycling, at least the tour de france anyway, when Fignon and the Badger were kind of trading back and forth, before Lemond won. Let's see, I was in high school then so what was that? The early 80s. I wish I still had that Bianchi I had then!

I guess I just haven't followed doping allegations as much as you all. I tend to want to just go on pass/fail basis of the testing protocols. That's why if it can be proven that Lance did bribe his way out of a positive test (and not the cortisone case - something real like epo), it would indeed be something extraordinary. I don't doubt he doped. They all did/do. But the bottom line to me is: you fail a test, you serve the penalty, otherwise let's not gossip. I don't spend my time paying much attention to he said she said allegations of doping that was never caught by those supposedly in charge of catching it. But for me to continue to think this way requires integrity in the anti-doping organizations and that's what really needs to be looked into here.