Reactions from the peloton

[ElChingon]

... However, at the sharp end of the peloton, amongst the big names and their key workers, doping was indeed close to universal and, for those who wanted a career, sometimes it came dangerously close to mandatory.

I don't see how anyone can read, for instance, Hamilton's book or the affidavits of people like Zabriskie and simply cast the whole thing as the bad moral choices of bad people. It was a systematic and institutional problem, not in the sense that there was no free will involved but the context is crucial. Putting the boot into those who cooperated with USADA and demanding longer bans is a bad idea. Cooperation is necessary, and therefore limiting sanctions for cooperators is necessary.

No, no freaking way. This continues down the path of anyone who does and continues to dope will get a way if they nark out the others even if they have benefited equally. Just look at this lame 6 months starting Sept 1 or 10 or so for some. They will all be back in Feb. of 2013! They can race MSR, Flanders, Roubaix and get this race le Tour just like they did in 2012, how is that a "cycling ban"? I just hope ASO puts them all on the ASO persona non grata list and any team attempting to start them at an ASO race gets all DQ-ed! Keeping hope ASO does the right thing like they did before the current bend over leaders.

 

[ToreBear]

That is true. Thanks for wording it so well.

Thanks for noticing!

 

[Benotti69]

Actually he did address the Contador issue briefly and, interestingly, did so in terms at the very least implying that he thinks Contador was legitimately popped:

"Obviously Contador has had his troubles and he paid the price for what he did over the last two years." (From Roche's TV appearance last night).

He didn't address it in his article, which i was referring too. He is also ignoring Contador's history of DS he rode for.

He claims Evans is clean! How he can deduce that when Evans got high placings prior to his win druing the years of doping (not that i believe cycling is clean now).

But Roche has said just enough to try and gain some credibility.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

You know the funny part. Hamilton (you know one of the d0uchebags you are referring to) actually agrees with you that the likes of Bassons were much braver then he is or ever was.

I'm sure Hamilton has no issue of me thinking of him as d*uche for cheating, he feels that himself. One doesn't ship back an Olympic medal lightly...

Simeoni, Bassons, and probably hundreds of unnamed riders who pulled out of the sport rather than dope are the unsung victims of Omerta and UCI complicity.

Hell, even JV is looking like some sort of Saint with huge b*lls at the moment. He didn't have to retire when he did, but made a tough choice at a hard time and actually spoke about it before anyone knew how far this sh*t-show was going to go.

San Jonathan de Cajones Grandes?

That's a joke, I still can't take too much of his PR at face value. The price of being punked year after year...

 

[Von Mises]

One of the things that strikes me about the USADA report is how open in the peloton doping was and how aware partners were. I find it hard to believe that he would not have been around or aware of what was going on.

Really?
I guess it depends how do you read USADA report. I got the feeling that sometimes it was more open, sometimes more covered. At the beginning (1999,2000) it was less open. Remember how Hamilton talked, that Johan always required that Livingston and Hamilton room together, so that Armstrong and Bruyneel can come and talk openly about doping.
2001-2004 seemed more open, though though youngsters and newcomers were held off a bit. And during later years 2005+ it became again more secret, more private thing.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

No, no freaking way. This continues down the path of anyone who does and continues to dope will get a way if they nark out the others even if they have benefited equally.

In other words, you have no interest in whether anyone cooperates with the authorities. Which means that you have no interest in whether riders explain how they doped, who doped them, who else was doped or what methods they use to the anti-doping authorities. Which means that you have no interest in actually stopping doping in the future or catching the ringleaders of the past.

Reduced sanctions are an absolutely necessary part of anti-doping strategy. WADA understands that, even if you don't.

As an aside, we aren't talking about people "who have benefited equally" here. We are talking about domestiques in a doping programme dedicated to serving the interests of Armstrong.

 

[ToreBear]

No, no freaking way. This continues down the path of anyone who does and continues to dope will get a way if they nark out the others even if they have benefited equally. Just look at this lame 6 months starting Sept 1 or 10 or so for some. They will all be back in Feb. of 2013! They can race MSR, Flanders, Roubaix and get this race le Tour just like they did in 2012, how is that a "cycling ban"? I just hope ASO puts them all on the ASO persona non grata list and any team attempting to start them at an ASO race gets all DQ-ed! Keeping hope ASO does the right thing like they did before the current bend over leaders.

In principle i agree that the 6 months seems a bit short, though I think it's important to remember the circumstances and what Lance an Johan are/were in the sport. This was not someone pointing at a romate to save themselves. This was pointing at the king of cycling.

 

[roundabout]

In other words, you have no interest in whether anyone cooperates with the authorities. Which means that you have no interest in whether riders explain how they doped, who doped them, who else was doped or what methods they use to the anti-doping authorities. Which means that you have no interest in actually stopping doping in the future or catching the ringleaders of the past.

Reduced sanctions are an absolutely necessary part of anti-doping strategy. WADA understands that, even if you don't.

As an aside, we aren't talking about people "who have benefited equally" here. We are talking about domestiques in a doping programme dedicated to serving the interests of Armstrong.

I would have agreed with you had the whistleblowers cooperated with authorities by themselves.

Did they do it by themselves or were they, uh, prompted?

They did the right thing, but ultimately I am not sure that a 75% reduction is justified.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

Really?
I guess it depends how do you read USADA report. I got the feeling that sometimes it was more open, sometimes more covered. At the beginning (1999,2000) it was less open. Remember how Hamilton talked, that Johan always required that Livingston and Hamilton room together, so that Armstrong and Bruyneel can come and talk openly about doping.
2001-2004 seemed more open, though though youngsters and newcomers were held off a bit. And during later years 2005+ it became again more secret, more private thing.

I was thinking about when the stuff that seems to draw on Betsy's evidence. It seems during that period to have been quite open and discussed among people. The meal at Nice (?)

Obviously, we don't know how much say Haven knew, or Landis's wife. Kristin seems to have been aware of what was going on.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

I would have agreed with you had the whistleblowers cooperated with authorities by themselves.

Did they do it by themselves or were they, uh, prompted?

They did the right thing, but ultimately I am not sure that a 75% reduction is justified.

The reduction isn't just available to guys who walk in off the street and confess with no prompting. That simply isn't likely to happen too often. It's primarily there to encourage people who have actually been caught red handed (through a test, through a cop raid, whatever) to tell the authorities who supplied them, who supervised them, who else was in on it. Those people really aren't doing so out of the goodness of their hearts, but WADA right feels it needs to be able to offer them a significant reduction.

Now these guys had the possibility of perjury charges hanging over their heads when they were questioned in front of a Grand Jury, and at least the credible threat of such charges again if they then changed their story. No doubt that concentrated minds. But there are other factors to take into account in at least some cases - the Garmin riders for instance are apparently subject to a team push for voluntary cooperation. And regardless of motivation, there is for USADA purposes a big difference between evidence given by people doing the absolute minimum to avoid perjury charges and evidence given by people who are actually trying to be helpful.

I'm willing to trust USADA's judgment on this. Even if one or two of the people getting six months look to me to be getting a very nice deal.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Just pulling a post from another thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Racelap View Post
6 months is not enough for these guys. It's more than the doping, it's the endless lies. USADA went too light on them for the sake of getting their testimony against Armstrong.


I partially agree. 2 years would've been better, and is certainly well deserved.

BUT if this case can result in a giant "sh*t-tsunami" that washes the earth of the corrupt UCI, and that is a huge IF, then I can live with the cheaters getting off lightly.

Sure, I don't like LA or how he handles himself, but if this can truly effect change that is long overdue... Well, then...

As things are going, I'm watching the tides and hoping for that storm...

 

[roundabout]

The reduction isn't just available to guys who walk in off the street and confess with no prompting. That simply isn't likely to happen too often. It's primarily there to encourage people who have actually been caught red handed (through a test, through a cop raid, whatever) to tell the authorities who supplied them, who supervised them, who else was in on it. Those people really aren't doing so out of the goodness of their hearts, but WADA right feels it needs to be able to offer them a significant reduction.

Now these guys had the possibility of perjury charges hanging over their heads when they were questioned in front of a Grand Jury, and at least the credible threat of such charges again if they then changed their story. No doubt that concentrated minds. But there are other factors to take into account in at least some cases - the Garmin riders for instance are apparently subject to a team push for voluntary cooperation. And regardless of motivation, there is for USADA purposes a big difference between evidence given by people doing the absolute minimum to avoid perjury charges and evidence given by people who are actually trying to be helpful.

I'm willing to trust USADA's judgment on this. Even if one or two of the people getting six months look to me to be getting a very nice deal.

Judgment?

It could be going after the biggest villain, or simple lack of funds, but it was a chance to clean the house. And now Leipheimer can tell his grandchildren how he was less than a minute away from winning 2 Grand Tours. Clean.

No, the authorities had them by the nuts, but apparently to get riders to talk in this position would require handing them inconsequential bans?

I don't buy it.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Judgment?

It could be going after the biggest villain, or simple lack of funds, but it was a chance to clean the house. And now Leipheimer can tell his grandchildren how he was less than a minute away from winning 2 Grand Tours. Clean.

No, the authorities had them by the nuts, but apparently to get riders to talk in this position would require handing them inconsequential bans?

I don't buy it.

I don't think that USADA really did have Leipheimer by the balls about what he did or didn't do much later in his career. He may not have been questioned about it in front of the Grand Jury in any detail about matters of very little relevance to the Federal investigation, and as a 39 year old, whether he gets to ride a final 3/4s of a season probably just isn't that big a deal to him.

The guys they did have "by the balls" in turns of sanctions are people like Zabriskie, who is still young enough to potentially still see a reasonable proportion of his career ahead. But I suspect that they did indeed get everything he had to give out of him.

It's worth noting as well that the redactions seem to indicate an ongoing anti-doping interest in quite a number of individuals arising from the evidence given in this case. There may well be a house cleaning still in the works.

 

[Lukenwolf]

I think a 6-month ban would have been ok, if applied starting at 1st of January 2013. Even if it brings about big change, it is still a huge slap in the face for those, who came clean without having their testies twisted.

Take Jaksche for example. When Fuentes was unconvered he didn't wait until he was backed up against the wall with someone grabbing the family jewels. He was the first of the lot to step forward and say "Bella, that was me."

What did he get? A reduced ban of one year for extensive collaboration with the German and Austrian authorities, which helped bringing down the Freiburg cartell.

Those who waited until there was no other way out (and earned a lot of monies for another 3,4 years) get half the ban and it is backdated, so it is basically covering the off-season. Technically it isn't even a ban at all.

 

[roundabout]

They stopped at 2007. They could have done more about Discovery in 2007, but they didn't.

And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any further actions.

 

[pelodee]

I find the Nicolas Roche article which was posted earlier troubling.

Compare and contrast his views on:

(1) Lance Armstrong's former team-mates who finally admitted to doping.

(2) Lance Armstrong who has never admitted to any doping, nor other nefarious things.

(3) Steve Houanard who has been provisionally suspended for EPO use.*

If he wrote an article purely about a rider or riders who finally admitted they doped ~10 years ago, say Bjarne Riis for example, I wouldn't have much of a problem if he espoused similar views.

In this article he has gunned down those who admitted and those awaiting the results of a B sample* while the gigantic f*cking elephant in the room is not even darted.

I am looking forward to Nicolas Roche's consistent views on Bjarne Riis forming his next article.

*I can't find any updates of this

 

[roundabout]

With Roche, I will always remember his dad wanting him to work with Hog or Riis to "become a better rider"

He can ride a billion columns, but his choice to step into a pile of dung was his own.

 

[pelodee]

Scott Mercier talks about the early days at US Postal and how the doping culture drove him away from the sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514

We go on about Bassons and rightly so but we forget about this guy who had the courage to not bow to the pressure of doping as well and as a result had to reluctantly walk away from the sport. A true hero to me.

This is Verbruggen's legacy. Hope your proud Hein.

Just reminded me of this programme coming up next Monday, 15 Oct, on BBC Radio 5 Live - Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth

Mark Chapman presents a special programme focusing on drugs in cycling through the Lance Armstrong era. Hear from one of Armstrong's former team mates, Tyler Hamilton, as well as interviews with D1ck Pound, the former head of WADA and Emma O'Reilly, Armstrong's former masseuse. Plus British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance enhancing drugs and Christophe Basson, a French cyclist who was driven out of the sport by Armstrong and other riders after he spoke out against drugs.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Some are. Many just don't comment either way, they're not politicians.

Yeah some riders act like d*cks. But to some on here riders are doping if they stay silent, or doping and playing the PR game if they say anything.

I have to wonder sometimes what exactly would satisfy people?

Wiggins is a c**t for saying it's irrefutable?

yeah. it's hilarious the people here whatever is said and done they will turn it around to say they are all f'n frauds and liars. whatever wiggins would've said. they all think he dopes. lol

 

[pastronef]

Oleg Tinkov

http://mobile.twitter.com/olegtinkov/status/256843060846157824?p=v

 

[pelodee]

Oleg Tinkov

http://mobile.twitter.com/olegtinkov/status/256843060846157824?p=v

He's obviously been drinking the vodka while crazily writing a book.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

He's obviously been drinking the vodka while crazily writing a book.

and still he's right

 

[cocteau_ireland]

Re roche: the guy has poor cycling judgment;training,diet,tactics. Needs a boss with strong personality,which riis has in spades[Aside-hated riis as a rider and watching him dancing his fat **** over alpine climbs was major reason i stopped following cycling for 15yrs, cause it was so evidently a joke]. Roche will never match a contador or valverde but he is on a level with the garmin boys, who are all still racing. He's got anger over fact these guys will be directly competing against him next year when they've all released statements to say they've doped for years.

 

[ElChingon]

In other words, you have no interest in whether anyone cooperates with the authorities. Which means that you have no interest in whether riders explain how they doped, who doped them, who else was doped or what methods they use to the anti-doping authorities. Which means that you have no interest in actually stopping doping in the future or catching the ringleaders of the past.

Reduced sanctions are an absolutely necessary part of anti-doping strategy. WADA understands that, even if you don't.

As an aside, we aren't talking about people "who have benefited equally" here. We are talking about domestiques in a doping programme dedicated to serving the interests of Armstrong.

How abut 6 months, only counting ProTour race days any days in between do not count. That would be much more fair. Banned during the off season is not a ban!

In principle i agree that the 6 months seems a bit short, though I think it's important to remember the circumstances and what Lance an Johan are/were in the sport. This was not someone pointing at a romate to save themselves. This was pointing at the king of cycling.

The circumstances is that they are dopers! Going along with a plot to dope is not a minor offense. A threat to lose their jobs too great? But to dope is not a problem. I see.

They all gained during their times as USPS/Disco dopers, no sobbing on a cold pillow is going to erase those images of them celebrating together back then is it? In any of those photo's back from the USPS/Disco days were those riders sad? Were they sitting in a corner hating life? NOPE! They were all having the time of their lives.

 

[PCutter]

Phil Gomes, Australian journalist from SBS, calls out Yates for talking complete bull***t


http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/philip-gomes/blog/126927/we-ve-been-here-before