I want the facts without destroying the sport

[Moose McKnuckles]

All these BPC sock puppets are getting a bit tiresome.

Though it does give some indication of the lengths to which mindless fanboyism can go.

 

[PosterBill]

Ok moral majority, it's easy enough to tear down all others positions in a imperfect situation. So what is the clear concise path to deal with doping and former dopers. I assume everyone here would agree that all cheaters should be purged from the books even if it's not possible with the statute of limitations. What I see on this board is a lot of people that allow their own personal opinion of someone to influence how they prosecute, people practicing favoritism and double standards. I can also see that opposing opinions will turn to "fanboy" paranoia really quickly, don't be that kind of place on either side.

 

[Orvieto]

Why do you guys hate Armstrong? I'll tell you why. You hated when he blew the field away in such a utterly ridiculous fashion on Sestriere. You hate him because his personality was so in your face. You hate the guy because he made a mockery of the sport with such a blatant arrogance.

Would you have hated Armstrong if he had raced like....hmmm...a certain spanish champion Miguel Indurain? Had Armstrong put time into his rivals during time trials and just stayed in the group during the difficult climbs then I seriously doubt that he would be going through this right now. Had he endured a more Indurain humility then I doubt he would be going through this.

Is there any other conclusion you can draw from such a blatant double standard?

PosterBill,
I'll take you at face value, rather than as a troll, because your perplexity seems genuine. You even have some of the phrases right "mockery of the sport", "blatant double standard."

The double standard is that Armstrong has gotten away with it while so many others have been sanctioned. Ulrich, Contador, Landis, Valverde, Basso. You may have also noticed that the USADA case names several other people: Bruyneel, Ferrari, Del Moral etc. It only seems to you that Armstrong is being singled out because you are an Armstrong fan. The reality is that he's not singled out. He's one of many, but the one who has successfully used his various avenues of influence to so far avoid sanctioning.

You imply that you dislike double standards, so try this thought experiment: Many grand tour contenders of the last decade have been investigated and sanctioned for performance enhancing drugs, but there is one multiple grand tour winner that has escaped sanctioning, say his name is Gianni Bracciaferro to remove any bias you have. Now several of Gianni's former team mates come forward to say that Gianni doped, that he encouraged team mates to dope and that he influenced the sport's governing body to cover up positive tests. Wouldn't it be a double standard not to pursue these claims? Wouldn't it be wrong to single out Gianni for special treatment and say that he alone should be immune from questioning?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ok moral majority, it's easy enough to tear down all others positions in a imperfect situation. So what is the clear concise path to deal with doping and former dopers. I assume everyone here would agree that all cheaters should be purged from the books even if it's not possible with the statute of limitations. What I see on this board is a lot of people that allow their own personal opinion of someone to influence how they prosecute, people practicing favoritism and double standards. I can also see that opposing opinions will turn to "fanboy" paranoia really quickly, don't be that kind of place on either side.

Simple, the clear and concise path is to go after all who cheat. The way to prioritize that with regard to available funds and so on, is clearly to go after the biggest cheats first.

Say? PosterBill, don't I know you from somewhere?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ok moral majority, it's easy enough to tear down all others positions in a imperfect situation. So what is the clear concise path to deal with doping and former dopers. I assume everyone here would agree that all cheaters should be purged from the books even if it's not possible with the statute of limitations. What I see on this board is a lot of people that allow their own personal opinion of someone to influence how they prosecute, people practicing favoritism and double standards. I can also see that opposing opinions will turn to "fanboy" paranoia really quickly, don't be that kind of place on either side.

This case is about Armstrong. Try to keep up. If and when the USADA has a case against another person who cheated, I will root for them to successfully deal with that too.

Also note, none of us are prosecuting anyone. This is an internet forum on the tubes of the interwebs. What we do here is proffer opinions on various topics that interest us. If one is not inclined to focus on a specific topic (you seem to have zeroed on one that wets your whistle), then one can find another thread or forum that is better suited to the topics that interest them. Some people are up in arms about reproduction Kewpie dolls and talk day on end about it. This big revelation about Armstrong came out last week (not sure if you'd heard about it or not), so people are discussing it. That is what this thread is about: How to get the facts of what happened without destroying cycling. Me personally, I don't believe the truth ever destroys anything. Your results may vary. But don't come here and post solely in threads about Armstrong and then get your panties in a wad because people here are discussing Armstrong.

One other request: Come up with something original because your shtick is played playa'.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ok moral majority, it's easy enough to tear down all others positions in a imperfect situation. So what is the clear concise path to deal with doping and former dopers. I assume everyone here would agree that all cheaters should be purged from the books even if it's not possible with the statute of limitations. What I see on this board is a lot of people that allow their own personal opinion of someone to influence how they prosecute, people practicing favoritism and double standards. I can also see that opposing opinions will turn to "fanboy" paranoia really quickly, don't be that kind of place on either side.

One other suggestion for you. Internet forums on the tubes of the interwebs allow one to start their own topic. Think back to when you were a kid, and all the other kids were playing baseball and you didn't like the way they were playing. You were free to go start your own baseball game and yell "Hey everybody, I started my own baseball game over here by myself but you guys can come play in my baseball game here if you want because I have a baseball game too!" See how that works out here! Hey, everyone might come to your thread and you will then be the kewl kid on the block. Then again, there is a danger that one will take one of those dramatic hits to the ego that happen. One that says to the kid "why don't they like me?" But hey, life's a gamble.

Toodles!

 

[Hugh Januss]

One other suggestion for you. Internet forums on the tubes of the interwebs allow one to start their own topic. Think back to when you were a kid, and all the other kids were playing baseball and you didn't like the way they were playing. You were free to go start your own baseball game and yell "Hey everybody, I started my own baseball game over here by myself but you guys can come play in my baseball game here if you want because I have a baseball game too!" See how that works out here! Hey, everyone might come to your thread and you will then be the kewl kid on the block. Then again, there is a danger that one will take one of those dramatic hits to the ego that happen. One that says to the kid "why don't they like me?" But hey, life's a gamble.

Toodles!

Uhm, actually he started this winner of a thread right here.

 

[PosterBill]

Again, why stress the personal opinion of the rider? I cannot stand LA. I watched in complete awe when LA blew up the 99 tour and then I quickly became skeptical. The evidence is overwhelmingly against lance armstrong..it's all there. To me, the nail is in coffin. For the general public it won't be much longer to follow. It appears to me that this will not be a roger clemons or barry bonds type case. You have 10 witnesses...it's more of a Jerry Sandusky case.

The reason why I am framing it with an american perspective is because it's an US investigation. Just a FYI for those that want to turn this into global politics mess.

There are countless number of dopers that got away with it. The 6-7 guys you named are the tip of the iceberg. I readily admit that. Those guys took the risk and the downside of getting caught. The double standard applies when we decide we want backass justice by picking and choosing the winners and losers based on popularity or worse..If you want to be consistent then we have to go after everyone involved since EPO. It just strikes me as odd that you guys aren't beating the bushes to get Indurain involved. I won't be shedding tears for LA or any other cheat that gets singled out...but that don't make it fair IMHO

 

[usedtobefast]

"Without destroying the sport" ??

I have heard that a lot lately, and it is a bogus claim.
The sport will always continue - but it has massive credibility problems. Ask fans of other sports how they view cycling and it will usually be that it is a drug fueled sport.

The reason cycling has this credibility issue is because it has ignored history and continued on in the same vein (pun intended).
You want what's best for cycling as a sport? Then you do what should have been done after Festina, or after Puerto, or after Rasmussen, or after Landis......
Proper independent controls, and no favorite riders for the UCI to fawn over.

it will not change, either way. you know it,i know it. how many of the top guys in the last 10 years have been sanctioned? when money changes hands, people look for an edge. it is genetic. at the highest levels of anything any edge can be worth it for some folks. not for me, but others with more talent, who can benefit from the latest technology, they are going to push the rules. and so it goes. i think most sports realize this is happening and try to "address" the problem with some kind of anti doping program but they just use it as a PR campaign. to many people get busted, Jane Fan just goes to another sport. that is an economic reality they don't want to consider.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Again, why stress the personal opinion of the rider? I cannot stand LA. I watched in complete awe when LA blew up the 99 tour and then I quickly became skeptical. The evidence is overwhelmingly against lance armstrong..it's all there. To me, the nail is in coffin. For the general public it won't be much longer to follow. It appears to me that this will not be a roger clemons or barry bonds type case. You have 10 witnesses...it's more of a Jerry Sandusky case.

The reason why I am framing it with an american perspective is because it's an US investigation. Just a FYI for those that want to turn this into global politics mess.

There are countless number of dopers that got away with it. The 6-7 guys you named are the tip of the iceberg. I readily admit that. Those guys took the risk and the downside of getting caught. The double standard applies when we decide we want backass justice by picking and choosing the winners and losers based on popularity or worse..If you want to be consistent then we have to go after everyone involved since EPO. It just strikes me as odd that you guys aren't beating the bushes to get Indurain involved. I won't be shedding tears for LA or any other cheat that gets singled out...but that don't make it fair IMHO

Just so I have this right......
You would like Indurain sanctioned although he retired in 1995 which is outside the SOL and you have nothing to suggest he doped?
But Armstrong should be let off ... That's fairness in your opinion? Ok.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Uhm, actually he started this winner of a thread right here.

Then he was way off topic.

 

[rata de sentina]

And another thing: everyone is talking about the Armstrong/Bruyneel/USPS-affaire. But in Italy there's a bomb ticking that has ninety names waiting to burst out.

Yea, in recent years CONI has morphed from being soft on doping to being absolute demons. They make USADA look like pussies.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Again, why stress the personal opinion of the rider? I cannot stand LA. I watched in complete awe when LA blew up the 99 tour and then I quickly became skeptical. The evidence is overwhelmingly against lance armstrong..it's all there. To me, the nail is in coffin. For the general public it won't be much longer to follow. It appears to me that this will not be a roger clemons or barry bonds type case. You have 10 witnesses...it's more of a Jerry Sandusky case.

The reason why I am framing it with an american perspective is because it's an US investigation. Just a FYI for those that want to turn this into global politics mess.

There are countless number of dopers that got away with it. The 6-7 guys you named are the tip of the iceberg. I readily admit that. Those guys took the risk and the downside of getting caught. The double standard applies when we decide we want backass justice by picking and choosing the winners and losers based on popularity or worse..If you want to be consistent then we have to go after everyone involved since EPO. It just strikes me as odd that you guys aren't beating the bushes to get Indurain involved. I won't be shedding tears for LA or any other cheat that gets singled out...but that don't make it fair IMHO

"Fair?" Seriously?

They went after Armstrong because they had the evidence. They went after him because of the revelations from people who rode with him. When Landis dropped his bomb, they said they were interested in looking into the truth of what he said. Turns out what he said had some serious legs I think.

But you can thank Armstrong and his ego for setting himself up. "What am I on" TV commercials are bound to catch the attention of people when it turns out that you were on EPO, HGH, Test, and various other things that enhance performance and NOT just busting your a$$ on your bike 6 hours a day. He created an empire based on a lie. Why people like you are surprised that he is being targeted is a mystery to me. It's like you didn't live in the last 15 years and woke up and asked why they were trying to single out this fella' named Armstrong who seems like such a nice boy.

 

[rata de sentina]

problem is they're both against the rules

The current issue in America is based on witness testimony rather than adverse analytical findings. There is no reason the same method could not be used to go after cyclists from much furthe back so why not use it?

Why not expose professional cycling for what it is, was, and always has been?

There are numerous reasons not withstanding the practicalities.

Firstly there is the issue of currency, current charges do not go back a long way because they are talking about a continuim of behaviour until quite recently. Also many of the accused are still active and influential. They need to be rooted out.

Secondly, there is the issue of the extremity of the cheating. Not just individual doping but systematic, medically monitered, team wide doping including coercion and intimidation. The level of organisation is an issue. Conspiricies are always considered worse than individual crimes.

Thirdly, there is the extent of the effect upon athletic results. The doping methods of this era had significant effect upon athletic performance whereas in previous eras this was unlikely to be the case. Additionally they are much harder to detect with laboratory testing and therefore require "police" type investigations.

Finally, there is principle. Nearly everyone significant from that era has been exposed or admitted fault which is an important step in moving forward. There is one group who are a notable exception.