Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[thehog]

When I look at Walsh, I see a person being paid to say Armstrong was doped and evil. And being paid by the Times/Murdoch to say Sky are clean.

Based on the fact he has never clearly identified his obvious conflict of interest, one can't possibly trust anything he says.

He's basically a paid advertisement.

 

[Benotti69]

Did JV coin "The Clinic 12?"

JV is a member of the 'The Comic 1' ........

 

[Bluenote]

Well there are quite clearly a very large number of very influential people in the sport who while not outright saying that doping is gone with lance, possess opinions very close to that, while others actually do argue doping is gone since lance (plenty of riders and commentators say that lance was a different era but no one does it now)

Good post, interesting points.

I call the above omerta.

I agree that it is unfair to take omerta talking points and accuse posters of having those beliefs.

I haven't met a cycling fan who believes that doping ended with Armstrong. Or that all the ex-Posties stopped doping in 2006.

I do think riders, managers, etc... who spout this line are part of omerta. Maybe they / their team are doping. Maybe they know others are doping, but don't want to damage marketability of the sport.

So how do you clean up the sport, when guys high up turn a blind eye, or even perpetuate doping?

Certainly one way is 'truth and reconcilliation.' If enough riders roll on a manager or Doctor, get them banned. Cycling doesn't need the Brunyeels, the Feraris.

Another is to rewrite the WADA code, so former dopers can't be managers. I'm not sure of the specifics. Maybe something like first offense - 2 yr ban, 8 year ban from management. 2nd offense - 4 yr ban, lifetime ban from management. Involved in distributing or selling drugs - lifetime ban from management.

I'd certainly be interested to here how others think we can clean up the top of the sport. Thats more interesting to me then arguing if Betsy was on the grassy knoll...

 

[MarkvW]

Good post, interesting points.

I call the above omerta.

I agree that it is unfair to take omerta talking points and accuse posters of having those beliefs.

I haven't met a cycling fan who believes that doping ended with Armstrong. Or that all the ex-Posties stopped doping in 2006.

I do think riders, managers, etc... who spout this line are part of omerta. Maybe they / their team are doping. Maybe they know others are doping, but don't want to damage marketability of the sport.

So how do you clean up the sport, when guys high up turn a blind eye, or even perpetuate doping?

Certainly one way is 'truth and reconcilliation.' If enough riders roll on a manager or Doctor, get them banned. Cycling doesn't need the Brunyeels, the Feraris.

Another is to rewrite the WADA code, so former dopers can't be managers. I'm not sure of the specifics. Maybe something like first offense - 2 yr ban, 8 year ban from management. 2nd offense - 4 yr ban, lifetime ban from management. Involved in distributing or selling drugs - lifetime ban from management.

I'd certainly be interested to here how others think we can clean up the top of the sport. Thats more interesting to me then arguing if Betsy was on the grassy knoll...

Doctor bans mean nothing. If you're a good trainer with good dope, then the riders will find you and train with you. Ferrari proves that.

 

[Bluenote]

Doctor bans mean nothing. If you're a good trainer with good dope, then the riders will find you and train with you. Ferrari proves that.

Yes, but it does allow you to say 'riders caught working with a banned Doc are subject to a 2 year ban.' So there's less of this 'I went to Fuentes for vitamins' business.

 

[pmcg76]

Good post, interesting points.

I call the above omerta.

I agree that it is unfair to take omerta talking points and accuse posters of having those beliefs.

I haven't met a cycling fan who believes that doping ended with Armstrong. Or that all the ex-Posties stopped doping in 2006.

I do think riders, managers, etc... who spout this line are part of omerta. Maybe they / their team are doping. Maybe they know others are doping, but don't want to damage marketability of the sport.

So how do you clean up the sport, when guys high up turn a blind eye, or even perpetuate doping?

Certainly one way is 'truth and reconcilliation.' If enough riders roll on a manager or Doctor, get them banned. Cycling doesn't need the Brunyeels, the Feraris.

Another is to rewrite the WADA code, so former dopers can't be managers. I'm not sure of the specifics. Maybe something like first offense - 2 yr ban, 8 year ban from management. 2nd offense - 4 yr ban, lifetime ban from management. Involved in distributing or selling drugs - lifetime ban from management.

I'd certainly be interested to here how others think we can clean up the top of the sport. Thats more interesting to me then arguing if Betsy was on the grassy knoll...

Have said this before but what is the difference between a rider never caught for doping being a DS and a rider who was caught/confessed becoming a DS?
For example, is Andrei Tchmile more trustworthy/credible than say Bjarne Riis? Jean Paul Van Poppel more beleiveable than Rudi Kemna. Isn't it just another case of perception versus reality. You could end up with the worst pro-doping people in postions of power, so how would that help change the culture. Do you just disqualify anyone who has ever been a pro even if they might have been clean.

Some posters suggest that teams employ people from outside the pro world but this is more or less what Giant-Shimano have done but very few people believe they are clean.

I think a T & R with no bans to draw a line in the sand and no mercy for anyone beyond that with life bans being handed out for everyone. That still doesn't solve the problem as doping can continue as long as you don't get caught.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Another is to rewrite the WADA code, so former dopers can't be managers. I'm not sure of the specifics. Maybe something like first offense - 2 yr ban, 8 year ban from management. 2nd offense - 4 yr ban, lifetime ban from management. Involved in distributing or selling drugs - lifetime ban from management.

The federation could implement these rules without WADA. WADA is a standards body with no authority. There's nothing preventing any WADA signatory federation from having harsher penalties.

Well, except the sports administrators themselves...

 

[DirtyWorks]

When I look at Walsh, I see a person being paid to say Armstrong was doped and evil. And being paid by the Times/Murdoch to say Sky are clean.

Based on the fact he has never clearly identified his obvious conflict of interest, one can't possibly trust anything he says.

He's basically a paid advertisement.

Be careful with this label because it could very easily be used on a wide number of more mainstream sports journalists who printed Armstrong's garbage verbatim without any kind of responsible counterpoint. In exchange for selling the myth they got access.

That's another thing that hasn't changed. Sure, maybe the personality being covered has changed, but certainly not the way the sports journalism is done.

 

[poupou]

If Armstrong had just kept his mouth shut, and hadn't been an a**hole to EVERYONE, nothing in cycling would have changed...wait, nothing in cycling has changed much apparently...Pyrrhic victory in some ways, but a new a**hole has taken his place...though Froomedog isn't as abrasive, he's still the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard, not to mention his girlfriend flapping her gums all the time...I'm looking for a charming doper like Nibali I guess?

What has changed is that no one is too big too fall, and after a while you still can be taken down.

Of course, doping like crime ou roberry has not disappeared after the arrests of the Al Capones!

 

[Square-pedaller]

The federation could implement these rules without WADA. WADA is a standards body with no authority. There's nothing preventing any WADA signatory federation from having harsher penalties.

Actually there is. The British Olympic Committee had a policy that athletes who had a doping infraction could not represent GB at the Olympics. David Millar took this to CAS and got it quashed, because penalties that are higher than the WADA specified ones are not equitable.

 

[AcademyCC]

Lance was an amazing opportunity for the whole peloton to hide under a rock (which is exactly what happened) then proclaim a new era of clean cycling. Genius. I dont think its a free for all at the minute but clean cycling is a ****ing joke.

 

[mrhender]

'

Lance was an amazing opportunity for the whole peloton to hide under a rock (which is exactly what happened) then proclaim a new era of clean cycling. Genius. I dont think its a free for all at the minute but clean cycling is a ****ing joke.

I still remember all the "never again" after Festina in 98'

Funny thing is.. It just made doping and the bussiness of same more sophisticated... Anti-doping is actually working against it's purpose...

Sharpening the knives only took, and takes place in one camp....
We all know which one..

 

[themurph]

I'm upset too that Horner was a DNS, stupid Lampre for being part of the MPCC. Because there are a few limeys(they know who they are) who would've called out Grandpa Redneck whilst singing the praises for Alien Dawg.

I'm a limey and please dont paint us with the same brush, personally i can't stand Froome, but i actually like Horner, a really nice guy,still enthusiastic and does great post race analysis, also the missus thinks he's great. No I would never have called him out, but would love to see him give Froome a good kicking

 

[themurph]

Island Dwellers, limeys, really !!!!!!!!!!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Taking seriously the opinion of someone like Robbie Canuck - who maintains Contador is innocent, thinks professional sport is devoid of doping and claims its impossible for dopers to become successful athletes, is like taking seriously the opinion of someone who is standing in the middle of downtown with a cardboard box shouting that the rapture is going to happen at 3pm.

It is pretty obvious you don't read my posts or if you do you take them out of context and then deliberately lie about them and obfuscate my position on doping. Your hectoring is slimy low-life tactics.

1. I believe Contador was innocent in 2010 because the amount of Clen could not possibly have been a performance enhancing effect and there was no proof he doped any other way. The clen had no bearing at all on his winning the Tour. IMO doping infractions should be related to the performance enhancing effect and not some speculation based on strict liability. AC was only banned because of strict liability. Look at my thread on strict liability to understand my position. I recognize that the concept of evidence and proof in doping infractions are alien to your rather pedantic mind.

2. I have never-ever said professional sport is devoid of doping. This is a complete fabrication and a classic example of your hyperbole. What I have said is that professional sport does in fact have a huge doping problem (especially cycling) but every sport is different. Some are more doped than others, and your ignorance about some sports such as hockey (and hockey players) and basketball (and basketball players) is palpable.

3. I recognize that many athletes who dope are successful because of the dope. If they did not dope some of them might be successful in spite of the dope. I have always argued LA would have been middle of the pack without doping. I have also strenuously argued most good athletes, with skill, who do not dope are also very successful (Bolt, Durrant, Pereiro). In fact the best athletes don't have to dope. And I recognized some of the former best on their way down have doped to extend their careers (Bonds, Clemens). I have also argued that many athletes who do not dope, win for the many psychological factors that are a reality in sport totally unrelated to dope. You are too cynical to understand this.

4. I have also strenuously argued in many posts for tougher OOC testing and I have been very critical of dopers especially LA.

What really disturbs me about your prosaic comments is just plain lack of honesty and context. I have played several sports at a very high level. I have played with athletes who doped and most who have not. It is patently obvious you have not and don't know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to understanding the psychology and non-doping factors that go into the making of an athlete. You just don't get it.

I don't hide who I am in my profile. You on the other hand continue to be a snivelling anonymous weasel who will say anything your jaundiced, biased, cynical, prosaic and intellectually challenged mind can manufacture even when what you say is not true. Get a life! Mocking me may make you feel good in the moment, but deep down it is intellectually pathetic and just makes you look more stupid.

 

[gooner]

Saying the likes of Sayar, Pourseyedi, Grabovsky and JTL cases mean nothing is ridiculous especially as it highlights 3rd division teams out of the passport. That means nothing at all, only trophy names count. These teams ride against WT teams so it's an entirely worthwhile discussion. Referring to "masters dopers" and Vino/Riis when they are in management roles, in a dismissive way is absurd. To say it means little shows your ignorance and the level of welfare you have the sport.

I don't agree with Walsh on Contador or his pineapple juice, bitter Armstrong fans comments in relation to Sky/Froome. Even with this disagreement, I still respect his work and don't go around throwing vitriol abuse like you did elsewhere about him. I question his judgement on certain aspects with Sky but unlike you I acknowledge his work when he criticised the team heavily regarding JTL, Rogers, Leinders, Froome/TUE. The latter issue he didn't hold back on, even Kimmage who has fallen out with him referenced it in his Froome interview. Name one British/Irish journalist who has written more critical articles on Sky in the last year or two. I judge his work both ways and won't do it with one side of the argument and be intentionally dismissive of the other side as you do. You mention tweets as if to take no notice of what he said about the Vuelta last year and then mention one about him saying Contaor is clean. Should this only apply for your own arguments? Umm... Last time I checked twitter is a way of expressing an opinion. Plus Walsh's comment about Cancellara was in an interview last year. During the Tour he rightly was disappointed at the lack of doping questions thrown towards Saxo/Riis and Astana/Vino way. Why say that if you have the position of doping gone after Lance? Walsh has never once said this comment and you can strawman it all you like. Some might think the sport is significantly cleaner than 10 years ago, or just a bit cleaner or even it might be ad dirty as ever, that doesn't mean with the first two instances that doping has disappeared with Armstrong's downfall even though it maybe a differing opinion to others on the current status of the sport.

As for Wiggins, Brailsford and Smith, I have been following a variety of sports for 25 years and if there is one thing I learned a longtime ago, don't take every comment from a sportsperson at face value. Those 3 aren't some naive johnny come latelys to the sport. I'm certain they don't think doping has evaporated because Lance disappeared. This theme is on the accusation up thread of posters saying it. We can bring journalists into it too.

As for this "believer" comment thrown, I have been as vocal as anyone on doping docs in the sport and have said there is too much of a fixation of Leinders than the issue as a whole and pointed out doping docs at GreenEdge and Katusha as ones that should get more attention. I've called for Riis and Vino and their ilk to be out of the sport. The same applies to Brailsford if he's the next coming of those two. I've never hoped for a doper to be let off with a CAS case pending as you did about "The Great One" or say Vino's win was the best moment in Olympic history. As the question goes "What is it about these dopers you admire so much ? You then come in here on your high horse and have a go at me and Walsh for his hypocrisies and your own opinions have been seen through.

Now who said directly doping stopped with Lance?

 

[Race Radio]

1. I believe Contador was innocent in 2010 because the amount of Clen could not possibly have been a performance enhancing effect and there was no proof he doped any other way. The clen had no bearing at all on his winning the Tour. IMO doping infractions should be related to the performance enhancing effect and not some speculation based on strict liability. AC was only banned because of strict liability. Look at my thread on strict liability to understand my position. I recognize that the concept of evidence and proof in doping infractions are alien to your rather pedantic mind.

Not the thread for it but there is plenty of evidence that it came from a transfusion.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Not the thread for it but there is plenty of evidence that it came from a transfusion.

Even if it was from a transfusion, the concentration of clen in the actual tranfused blood. 300-500 cc, would still not have been above the original testing threshold capabilities, or of any ergogenic benefit. So.....his clen positive was upheld because they assumed it was from a transfusion? Should of just busted him for that instead.....

 

[DirtyWorks]

So.....his clen positive was upheld because they assumed it was from a transfusion? Should of just busted him for that instead.....

Clenbuterol is an easy sanction. There's no natural presence of the compound in the human body.

Wonderboy was on never tested positive version 1.0.1 where the federation never sanctions your positives and relentlessly defends your never tested positiveness despite the overwhelming facts of the matter.

Some would have us believe that minimal amounts of a foreign substance is forgivable. This is a golden opportunity to dope as the number of times one is tested barely lines up with a doping event. If it does, the athlete make stuff up to delay the test and it's never tested positive version 2.0. As it is, this is done within some limits. The absurd T/E ratio is a perfect example.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Clenbuterol is an easy sanction. There's no natural presence of the compound in the human body.

Wonderboy was on never tested positive version 1.0.1 where the federation never sanctions your positives and relentlessly defends your never tested positiveness despite the overwhelming facts of the matter.

Some would have us believe that minimal amounts of a foreign substance is forgivable. This is a golden opportunity to dope as the number of times one is tested barely lines up with a doping event. If it does, the athlete make stuff up to delay the test and it's never tested positive version 2.0. As it is, this is done within some limits. The absurd T/E ratio is a perfect example.

Fair enough. So Rogers and the Belgian get a hall pass from Beijing?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Fair enough. So Rogers and the Belgian get a hall pass from Beijing?

well.... I don't recall MR or the Belgian having the plasticizer issue and the likelihood of clen from tainted meat in China is a helluva lot higher than meat in Europe. Pure speculation but I think AC was gone after because he transfused.

I am perfectly happy to be wrong about that.

 

[Merckx index]

Even if it was from a transfusion, the concentration of clen in the actual tranfused blood. 300-500 cc, would still not have been above the original testing threshold capabilities, or of any ergogenic benefit. So.....his clen positive was upheld because they assumed it was from a transfusion? Should of just busted him for that instead.....

We’ve discussed this ad nauseum in the appropriate threads, but for the record, the amount of CB Contador tested for is quite consistent with a PE dose when he withdrew blood. Such a dose also could have been detected even with the minimum required sensitivity at the time. In fact, these points were actually used by the defense, which argued that Contador would have been smart enough to let his blood levels of CB decline before withdrawing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Fair enough. So Rogers and the Belgian get a hall pass from Beijing?

Yes. Cycling is not the only sport to not sanction for small amounts of clenbuterol. Depending on where the athlete was in the world, it is a practical thing to do. Contador wasn't eating meat in in China. No free pass.

There are plenty of holes in the anti-doping system, this is not one of them.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Not the thread for it but there is plenty of evidence that it came from a transfusion.

There is evidence a transfusion may have occurred. But AC was never charged with a doping infraction for a transfusion. If there had been sufficient evidence to prove such an infraction surely AEPSAD (RFEC) would have pursued one, the UCI and WADA would have included this allegation as a substantive violation of the anti-doping code in their appeal to the CAS. They did not.

The transfusion theory was advanced at the CAS hearing to show another possible means of how the clen entered AC's body other than tainted meat. The theory was rejected by CAS. The CAS panel states in paragraph 367

"367. After considering the positions of all the parties and the expert reports of Dr. Ashenden and Mr. Scott, the Panel comes to the conclusion that the Athlete’s blood parameters cannot establish a blood transfusion..."

So lets put this nonsense to bed.

 

[The Hitch]

Some things are best left unsaid, like that no comment section on euronews.

I have also strenuously argued most good athletes, with skill, who do not dope are also very successful (Bolt, Durrant, Pereiro).