Summary Reactions Armstrong Ban

[FoxxyBrown1111]

A section from Nicolas Roches' Irish Independent column on Saturday last.

"I'm no expert but there seems to be more and more stuff coming out now, from former team-mates' confessions to accusations of the UCI taking cheques and covering up stuff for years. Maybe I'm being naive but I really hope thats not true.

Hopefully the commitment USADA have shown in chasing the sports biggest star and eventually bringing him down will discourage riders of my generation from even contemplating doping and I hope they will continue to chase the people I am racing against now.

If the outcome discourages others from doping, its a good thing."

I have to give kudos to Roche, this is what I would have expected from most pros. No need to put the boot into Armstrong but at least recognise the process and the the possible plus side of this investigation and the hope that anti-doping authorities will continue to be vigilant in their war against the cheats.

I really want to lose my temper and shout about nit-minds and behaviour. I am trying to control it. POST THE LINK. That is worth saying again.

POST THE LINK.

I went to the Independent and reviewed Roche's columns, that I could find, and I could NOT find the words you say he said. This means Nick Roche DID NOT SAY THOSE THINGS.

Post a link.

OK, since no link, i took him off the list...

 

[Smera1]

What a fluff piece. He's supposed to be a journalist?

No,

according to his resumé, he is a HUMORIST. Nuff said.

Rick Reilly - "Finalist 2011 Thurber Prize for Humor"

 

[HL2037]

Michael Sandstød (CSC 02-03) joins the hall of shame:

http://www.sporten.dk/cykling/hamilton-er-en-forsmaaet-loegner

Jeg synes, Hamilton er en forsmået løgner

(I think that Hamilton is a scorned liar)

Lance Armstrong er den mest testede mand i cykelsporten. Han har aldrig afleveret positive prøver, og så er det en mand som Tyler Hamilton, der fælder ham med sine beskyldninger. Jeg synes, cykelsporten har et gevaldigt problem, hvis den begynder at stole mere på utroværdige ryttere end på sit eget dopingsystem

(Lance Armstrong is the most tested man i cycling. He has never delivered positive samples, and then he is brought down by the accusations of a man like Tyler Hamilton. I think cycling has an enormous problem if it begins to trust untrustworthy liars more than its own doping system)

 

[hrotha]

Uh-oh, someone's taking preemptive action against being mentioned in Hamilton's book?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

All those little lousy liars bend over for the biggest liar of them all. I wish/hope JV would read this thread alone, or someone tells him to do. And then i´d like to see a reaction by him... Clean cycling now?

 

[pastronef]

http://www.twitter.com/DanielBenson‏

I think I'll spend my day off in bed after a feature that took me two days to write was torpedoed by omerta.


Daniel, can you tell us more about it?

 

[the big ring]

http://www.twitter.com/DanielBenson‏

I think I'll spend my day off in bed after a feature that took me two days to write was torpedoed by omerta.


Daniel, can you tell us more about it?

https://twitter.com/dnlbenson is a better link

 

[Von Mises]

Well, this is not a reaction to this ban, but Rein Taaramäe has in the past couple of times said that he thinks Armstrong is doper. Like in this interview from last year, where he answers directly: "Yes, I think Armstrong doped."
http://sport.postimees.ee/466030/taaramae-jah-ma-arvan-et-armstrong-tarvitas-dopingut/

 

[cineteq]

There you go:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

http://www.twitter.com/DanielBenson‏

I think I'll spend my day off in bed after a feature that took me two days to write was torpedoed by omerta.


Daniel, can you tell us more about it?

 

[hrotha]

There you go:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

I wonder how much he had to edit out of that piece for it to be published.

 

[cineteq]

I wonder how much he had to edit out of that piece for it to be published.

Right, it needs way more substance.

 

[hrotha]

Right, it needs way more substance.

I asked him on Twitter and he said there weren't any major changes, just one or two quotes replaced by others, but it sounds odd after his previous tweet.

 

[the big ring]

Meanwhile a cyclist I thought considerably intelligent is claiming Phil has "inside knowledge" of the "star chamber" at USADA.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

A USADA decision can be appealed to CAS, whose decision can then be appealed to the Swiss courts. How is that anything like a star chamber.

 

[compete_clean]

Is there a place where procyclists can go anonymously to post their true opinions on the Armstrong USADA sanctions and evidence?

Is wikileaks the place? I would be interested to hear what they really think.

 

[danjo007]

There you go:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

do the reporters not get it?

they all did it!

 

[pmcg76]

I really want to lose my temper and shout about nit-minds and behaviour. I am trying to control it. POST THE LINK. That is worth saying again.

POST THE LINK.

I went to the Independent and reviewed Roche's columns, that I could find, and I could NOT find the words you say he said. This means Nick Roche DID NOT SAY THOSE THINGS.

Post a link.

There is no link, that was lifted from the physical copy of the Irish Independent last Saturday of which there is no corresponding record on their website. Why that is I dont know, there is nothing over the weekend on the website from Roche at all or the previous weekend for that matter. I am not a reader of the Independent, I just happened across it at work on Sunday.

 

[hiero2]

There is no link, that was lifted from the physical copy of the Irish Independent last Saturday of which there is no corresponding record on their website. Why that is I dont know, there is nothing over the weekend on the website from Roche at all or the previous weekend for that matter. I am not a reader of the Independent, I just happened across it at work on Sunday.

Thank you. If there is no link, list your source, so that others can go and find it. It may not seem important, but without a source, the quotes here are just somebody bs'ing as far as we know.

I appreciate that you responded and listed your source. Thanks.

 

[hiero2]

Right, it needs way more substance.

I think it is an excellent piece. And outstanding journalism.

He addresses the omerta question head on: " . . .David Walsh added weight to Kimmage’s beliefs. How many grand tour winners have come out and given their opinion on Armstrong?" . . .

He addresses the silence of the riders head on, and gets some good answers as to why the silence exists:

“On my team, Argos-Shimano, I’m encouraged to speak out,” says Koen de Kort. “They tell us to be honest against doping and we’re allowed to say that if riders are positive they should be banned. Maybe our team is a bit different from other teams.

“But talking about Armstrong, he was one of the greats of the sport but now this has come out and I think it’s hard for all of us. My team haven’t said I can’t talk about it but maybe riders are scared but I don’t know.

“While it’s happened in the past but my career is now and I’m riding now. I’d like to support clean riding and while what happened to him happened a long time ago it’s not good for the sport. On the other hand it’s important that this doesn’t happen again. Now we should be looking at sanction riders harder, maybe even for life.”

And

Vaughters says: “It depends who you’re talking to but of course there certainly is respect. At the end of the day, Armstrong was a talented athlete. While what USADA is doing now is certainly necessary, his group of peers from the Tour de France at the time, myself included…. Look of course I’ve admitted to doping but nowhere in my mind do I feel that I would have been a better bike rider if I’d doped more. There was no amount of doping that was going to get me to win a Tour so for that generation of athletes there’s certainly going to be people that hold a certain amount of respect for him.”

Jan Ullrich, who also doped during his career, feels the same. Escartin too, and almost an entire generation that followed or were pushed down the same path of doping.

Coincidently, David Millar, who works alongside WADA and has been vocal about his support for anti-doping, was asked to comment when the news broke regarding Armstrong. He refused to speak about the matter with Cyclingnews, later tweeting that he would pen his thoughts on Armstrong after USADA had made their evidence public.

And why innocent riders might view the press as hostile and remain silent:

television commentator Gary Imlach. . . (said)

"At the other end, I think there are ordinary riders who, like most people, just want a quiet life and to get on with the people they have to work with every day, so from that point of view you can sympathise to some extent with people not wanting to put their heads above the parapet.

"And I think from inside cycling they often perceive media coverage of doping as a sort of hostile act instead of something aimed at helping the sport so they develop a bit of a bunker mentality about it. So even perfectly clean riders who are above all suspicion are on the defensive the moment the subject is raised. And who knows whether that’s because they’re weak or afraid, or because they simply want to concentrate on riding their bikes without having to deal with unpleasant and uncomfortable issues.

More substance? This is the best piece I have seen yet to address the situation post-USADA/LA decision. Kimmage and Walsh were good, this was better. Benson gets into why we have the thundering silence. I especially like the Vaughters quote, as I think this is why a lot of the riders are responding the way they are. In spite of the fact that he cheated and doped, LA was still one of the greatest cyclists of that generation. And, he was still a huge factor in making cycling more popular and more widely known. I've never particularly cared for the man's character, and that opinion went downhill when it became more obvious he cheated. But that does not change history. It seems that many of the other riders recognize that. They like earning enough to live better than a peon, and Lance was part of helping the sport grow financially.

Chapeau to Benson.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-united-states-of-omerta

 

[hiero2]

Is there a place where procyclists can go anonymously to post their true opinions on the Armstrong USADA sanctions and evidence?

Is wikileaks the place? I would be interested to hear what they really think.

Imo Assange is an idiot, a jerk, and a complete doofus. AFAIC, 99% of what wikileaks has leaked has been absolutely worthless, and has done more to hurt the cause of transparency than help it. HOWEVER, having said that, there are times I wished it DID work, and this is one of them.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Right, it needs way more substance.

The publication has to walk a fine line between being factual and not burning the industry he reports on. Overall, Mr. Benson is doing an excellent job.

Other rags won't do this. Here's an example of a publication that has John Wilcockson STILL omitting the simple fact Wonderboy was doped from the start at USA Cycling and then building towards an entirely false conclusion from there. http://pelotonmagazine.com/Wilcockson/content/21/1799/Wilcockson-The-Armstrong-Case

Peloton Magazine definitely supports the doping with another sorry attempt to salvage the myth.

 

[Cloxxki]

Is there a place where procyclists can go anonymously to post their true opinions on the Armstrong USADA sanctions and evidence?

Is wikileaks the place? I would be interested to hear what they really think.

dopingleaks@gmail.com

I created it, but seek to no be solely responsible for reading/redacting.
Ideally, I want a list of people I trust, and who are trusted by them, to be forwarded emails as they come in, before I get the change to withhold it.
It's as low-tech as can be, but the first email has reached me.
People interested to be forwarded leaks, come to me.

Something more structured may be down the line (note there are multiple dopingleaks domains claimed).
If I or my leak buddies get a leak, we'll get it out there if it sounds interesting. Who knows, someone involved else may hear it, and be able to add details. Until someone is ready to come out and put their name to it.
It'll be mostly unverified claims, so easily dismissable as "made up". That's the risk op anonymous leaking. But better than remaining silent, especially if the leak's content goes well beyond "I witnessed Rider X shoot up from behind a wall via a mirror and acted I didn't notice". Dates, specifics, circumstances, people seem in proximity, odd coincidences, odd behavior, etc. Any Postal rider could write a great leak, and no-one within postal would know who it was. Especially as the people receiving the leak will re-write it to take out any writing style specifics of the anonymous person not meant to be noticed.

 

[hiero2]

The publication has to walk a fine line between being factual and not burning the industry he reports on. Overall, Mr. Benson is doing an excellent job.

Other rags won't do this. Here's an example of a publication that has John Wilcockson STILL omitting the simple fact Wonderboy was doped from the start at USA Cycling and then building towards an entirely false conclusion from there. http://pelotonmagazine.com/Wilcockson/content/21/1799/Wilcockson-The-Armstrong-Case

Peloton Magazine definitely supports the doping with another sorry attempt to salvage the myth.

Disagree, with qualifications.

I have really come to dislike Wilcockson since LA made his comeback tour, and this was because I was extremely disappointed in what I believe is his lack of objectivity - while at the same time he was claiming objectivity. However, I have to come to his defense here. He did not reach a false conclusion. He does conclude with an opinion that I do not hold. Namely that LA would still have won 7 times on a clean field. I don't believe he would have.

At least Wilcockson does not fight the doping charges. It looks to me like he is more in the "everybody did it" camp. And, he does reveal an essential bits of dialogue with LA, circa '94-95, that validate what other sources have indicated. Apparently, in '94 the American Motorola squad was still riding (relatively) clean. And, in '95 that changed. But LA chose a different direction than Hampsten.

I would also not come to the conclusion The Peloton supports the doping. I don't think that conclusion can be supported based on this column.

 

[hiero2]

OK, since no link, i took him off the list...

I've put a message to the Irish Independent to verify that this did appear in that Saturday print edition. We will see what they respond with. I've asked for a copy of the article.

 

[Racelap]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8310275/armstrong-worth-honoring

Sigh. Just terrible press.




He has no freaking clue what he's talking about at all. This is about as pathetic as journalism gets. I'm very disappointed that this makes the front of ESPN, not the facts. I feel bad for Bonnie Ford.

Rick Reilly is awful. He's a sycophantic jock sniffer.

 

[Benotti69]

Disagree, with qualifications.

I have really come to dislike Wilcockson since LA made his comeback tour, and this was because I was extremely disappointed in what I believe is his lack of objectivity - while at the same time he was claiming objectivity. However, I have to come to his defense here. He did not reach a false conclusion. He does conclude with an opinion that I do not hold. Namely that LA would still have won 7 times on a clean field. I don't believe he would have.

At least Wilcockson does not fight the doping charges. It looks to me like he is more in the "everybody did it" camp. And, he does reveal an essential bits of dialogue with LA, circa '94-95, that validate what other sources have indicated. Apparently, in '94 the American Motorola squad was still riding (relatively) clean. And, in '95 that changed. But LA chose a different direction than Hampsten.

I would also not come to the conclusion The Peloton supports the doping. I don't think that conclusion can be supported based on this column.

The acceptance that is ok to dope and win because everyone is doing it is so wrong.

By not being outspoken against doping is a form of support. It allows people to continue to do wrong. Turning a blind eye to the wrong is what enables it.