see ian thorpe during london and commentating for the beeb? and just flat out lying? the government covered up his lutenizing hormone positive. the he is with gennadi touretski when he comes back. guy needs to be taken down a few pegs, sexuality nothwithstanding.ultimobici said:The word that comes to mind is bigot.
Clean hands - those who seek equity, need to do equity. Or in other words, if you come to the courts in bad faith in that you knowingly did something against the sport's rules, the judge will tell you to **** off as you're not allowed to benefit or take advantage of your own mischievous acts.buckle said:If Lance's cancer could be traced to drug abuse, could he sue the UCI for covering up tests?
I don't know if I believe they didn't have some sort of knowledge of US bike/road racing. I mean you had LeMond/Phinney, the 7-11 team, the Coors Classic, movies like Breaking Away, American Flyers, etc. I'm not saying anything towards you, just that I don't believe they didn't know something about it. LeMond really carved out a niche at least somewhat for american bike racing. I think they saw Wonderboy, his success, and jumped on board w/o thinking, because the saw a money train.Perhaps it is a bit different for US sponsors as the US didnt have a real cycling history at that time but for Euro sponsors there are no excuses whatsoever. But, even then, when a 'naive' US corporate/government big shot chooses to go and sponsor a team in a sport rifled with doping one could do some better research and take the right decision: hands off this sport.
Yeah, wonder how that would unfold. The CEO of US Postal Service watching that 2000 Mont Ventoux stage where Armstrong made a mockery of convicted doper Pantani. What would that CEO be thinking at that time?86TDFWinner said:However, I do agree with you that if they didn't know about Wonderboy being on the sauce, then I find that extremely hard to believe. The sponsors dumping him almost in unison, was a tell tale sign IMO, they knew and didn't want to tarnish their brands anymore obviously.
Look, I dont like Armstrong, he is an arrogant mtf. He has done a lot of bad things but what I do know he didnt invent doping. He was very good at it, that thing is for sure. He played 'the game', didnt take prisoners.86TDFWinner said:Wonderboy's "Everyone else made me do it" routine is rich to say the least. He certainly wasn't saying this when he was cashing those large checks was he? nope. Cancer Jesus was acting as if he was totally innocent. He's becoming more and more delusional by the day.
That might have worked for the US tri - scene but the Euro pro - scene needed some other injections.Lance Armstrong entered the Olympic world around 1990, at age 19, after a transition from competing in the triathlon. Two of his teammates on the 1990 U.S. junior team, Greg Strock and Erich Kaiter, claimed in a suit against USA Cycling in 2000 that coaches administered steroids to them in 1990, damaging their immune systems and cutting short their careers, according to documents from the suit. Neither Strock nor Kaiter ever tested positive. The suit was settled in November 2006; USA Cycling paid each rider $250,000.
From 1990 to 2000, Armstrong was tested more than two dozen times by Catlin's UCLA lab, according to Catlin's estimate. In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results—specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios—for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong. In a letter dated June 4, 1999, Catlin responded that the lab couldn't recover a total of five of the cyclist's test results from 1990, 1992 and 1993, adding, "The likelihood that we will be able to recover these old files is low." The letter went on to detail the cyclist's testosterone-epitestosterone results from 1991 to 1998, with one missing season: 1997, the only year during that span in which Armstrong didn't compete. Three results stand out: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.
Yeah, wonder how that would unfold. The CEO of US Postal Service watching that 2000 Mont Ventoux stage where Armstrong made a mockery of convicted doper Pantani. What would that CEO be thinking at that time?
a: ''Hey, wasnt that little Italian guy disqualified from the Giro last year for having a too high hematocrit? He must have stopped doping otherwise Lancey boy wouldnt be able to match him''
b: "Hey, Lancey boy is sprinting up the Ventoux like he is Mario Andretti. Those training schedules of Chris Carmichael do work! Gotta get me some!''
c: ''What's that on tv? Why is that guy wearing a shirt that says US Postal Service?Oh, it is pro - cycling and we sponsor the ladd? He has had cancer? Wow. He got cured and now is the best cyclist in the world? Wow. Great. That is good advertising, I will give myself a big fat raise for sponsoring the ladd!''
Sponsors dont care.
They are out for one thing: exposure.
They make these great contracts where they state they will not tolerate doping in the team or otherwise they will pull the plug.
So, why didnt they pull the plug when Joachim got popped? Mondini? Del Moral and the masseur dumping products at the roadside?
Nike and Oakley obviously knew and know their athletes dope. USPS are not a sports product so they suspected and had it written into the contract86TDFWinner said:I disagree, I'll stand by what i said, the sponsors knew something. They can't be totally off the hook here, there wre questions about Wonderboy's doping as far back as what 99?
Like you said(and I did sorta), the sponsors don;t care, as they hitched their wagons to their gravy/money train in LA. They may not have known the ins and outs of doping, but to try to claim they were completely ignoarant to his doping, IMO is wrong.
He duped millions, no question.
Which is what I said kinda.......they hitched their gravy train to LA, despite at least some knowledge of the guy doping. Nike knew, as did Oakley, and true to form, they dumped him when it was the right time to try to save their image.
Yep, and with cancer Boy, they got it, and a whole lot more.
Because the guys you mentioned, probably weren't as big a name as our dear friend Wonderboy. Not sure, why did they all "suddenly" drop Cancer Boy when it was revealed he was a doper? To try to save face. Their proclaimed "we had no idea he doped" mantra was funny to say the least.
AGAIN, to say no sponsors knew of LA's doping IMO, is wrong. They ALL knew something, but as you said, they just didn't care.
Armstrong thought to use Oprah to rehabilatate his image. It backfired beautifully right in his face.TheBean said:In the story, we get to read what Vaughters said he heard Armstrong say several years prior to being caught and confessing.
That is hardly Armstrong blaming anyone.
It is more a case of a couple of team-mates discussing what stories they would use if and when they do get caught.
Armstrong did not use those excuses or point those fingers on Oprah or anywhere else.
Titled ‘The Armstrong Lie,’ the movie will appear during the Toronto International Film Festival, which begins on September 5th and runs for eleven days.
The promo for the film gives a broad outline of what the documentary will deal with.
“Academy Award-winning director Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side) masterfully explores the fall of the disgraced cycling champion following the 2009 Tour de France, making use of his extraordinary access to attain rare interviews with former teammates, alleged doping mastermind Dr. Michele Ferrari, and Armstrong himself,” it states.
Gibney began filming Armstrong in 2009 when the Texan returned, and followed him for four years. His footage will include his preparation for the 2009 and 2010 Tours, the races themselves and also the fallout afterwards.
The documentary was originally anticipated to be a positive, somewhat feel-good movie
Quotes are from hereHowever, over time and with Armstrong’s downfall, the tone has changed completely.
I doubt there will be much of that. It will be centred on Armstrong and his lying about doping, doubt much of AC at all will be in it. Remember the USA market will be where it will be aimed at.Beech Mtn said:
Benotti69 said:I doubt there will be much of that. It will be centred on Armstrong and his lying about doping, doubt much of AC at all will be in it. Remember the USA market will be where it will be aimed at.