Armstrong tests positive?

[Frumious B.]

Things are getting worse for LA every day. Everybody seems to be accepting that Tyler's book is truthful. It seems there was no level playing field because Lance restricted access to the latest doping techniques - he wanted his teammates to help him, but not beat him. And when Tyler went to Phonak and won something he was summoned by the UCI to a meeting to be told that he was being watched. Hard to believe this wasn't Lance calling Hein and asking him to scare Tyler into riding clean.

So if they had all been clean, who would have won all those Tours? Would LA have been number one? Or just one of the top ten? Or just one of the top 40 or 50? How much do we know about his physiology when he's clean?

Given that LA didn't want his teammates to have the best PEDs you have to conclude that he didn't believe he was the best athlete. Perhaps he decided he was entitled to better PEDs than the rest, because he needed to overcome the damage that cancer treatment had done to him. I've had similar treatment, so I can empathise to some extent. He hadn't been to college, he really needed his comeback to be successful, so he used Ferrari to give him what he thought of as a fair chance.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

So if they had all been clean, who would have won all those Tours? Would LA have been number one? Or just one of the top ten? Or just one of the top 40 or 50? How much do we know about his physiology when he's clean?

It's not clear when we ever saw a clean Armstrong as a pro racer, so it's difficult to establish a base line. See here the Andreu's claims. Whether he was clean or just more amateurishly dirty before he was diagnosed with cancer, either way, he only finished one Tour and that was in 36th. He did however show considerable ability as a one day racer. He's actually a slightly more ambiguous case than, say, Riis or Indurain, because they had extended careers both sides of the line where EPO hit the peloton circa 1990, and in both cases were useless in the 80s.

The basic problem is that we don't know who was doping (although we know that a preponderance of those doing very well were doing so), we don't know what sort of responders they were, we don't know how good their programmes were, and we don't know what they were capable of without the hot sauce. So to a large extent, we are all pulling guesses out of our arses. My own guess is that Armstrong would have turned into a top tier one day racer and might have managed to graze the top 10 at a Grand Tour or two, but that's really not based on very much.

 

[The Boy]

Indurain did finish 17 in '88 and 10th in '89. Not five times in a row good, but good enough performance for a domestique to suggest he might have some sort of a future. Then again, he would probably have been on some sort of program given what came next. Riis was bobbins though.

Then you have the stories about Bassons being able to rip the arse out of Virenque on the climbs in winter.

edit: speaking of Festina, I love this video for two reason. 1, you see a rider setting out on a TT without so much as a helmet, never mind any other aero geekery, and 2, I always have to remind myself that the riders in the helicopter shot are going uphill rather than down. Ignore the guff at the start.

 

[Fez909]

UCI considering an amnesty. I can't make my mind up if this is a good or bad thing. I'm tending towards bad.

 

[The Boy]

Good, possibly. As long as anyone found to be lying is punished in the usual way. Although it's probably just their way to avoid striking Lance's TdF wins off the books.

By the way, not sure if I posted this earlier in the thread, but this is what the UCI had to say when explaining taking the Ullrich case to CAS

“There are two main reasons,” said UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani to VeloNation. “First of all, because we can’t accept that just because you say ‘I am retiring’ that we don’t do anything against you. Maybe in the future you could then say you will come back [to racing]…if you are not been sanctioned by UCI you could , and we don’t want that.

“Secondly, and more generally, we can’t from a legal point of view create a precedent. In the future we could have the same situation appearing with another rider who says ‘listen, why are you suing me – you didn’t do the same with Ullrich two or three years ago?’ So we were obliged to do it.”

​

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/9538/UCI-explains-CAS-action-against-Jan-Ullrich.aspx#ixzz25oO0R3T8​

​

​

But the Armstrong business was all a very, very long time ago.​

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Indurain did finish 17 in '88 and 10th in '89. Not five times in a row good, but good enough performance for a domestique to suggest he might have some sort of a future.

You are a year out! His 10th was from 1990, which is quite possibly the most important year in cycling history. Before 1990, he entered 11 Grand Tours, failed to finish 6, and managed the following placings: 84, 92, 97, 47, 17. This is by miles and miles and miles the worst early career record of any Tour de France winner in history to that point.

I agree that he showed enough that he had a future as a bike rider. He won a couple of important week long races in the late 80s, which is more than most riders manage in a career. But he'd never shown anything to suggest that he was remotely capable of winning a Tour de France.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

UCI considering an amnesty. I can't make my mind up if this is a good or bad thing. I'm tending towards bad.

In theory, a good idea. But in practice, my first thought is "what's the UCI's real agenda here?".

 

[The Boy]

You are a year out!

Just checked, and you're right. In which case I withdraw my argument.

 

[The Boy]

In theory, a good idea. But in practice, my first thought is "what's the UCI's real agenda here?".

Finding any way to let Armstrong keep his titles. It's now so transparent it hurts (see comments re: Ullrich and the difference in attitude).

 

[The Boy]

And of course, the thing about a truth and reconciliation process is that it only works if people are willing to tell the truth. I don't the Lance has quite reached that point yet...

 

[Nigel Irritable]

The UCI have also announced that they want USADA to give the them their files on Vande Velde, Danielson and Zabriskie after Vaughters discussed their early career doping on the Cycling News forums. It's hard not to interpret this zealousness as something that could have a chilling effect on riders cooperating with USADA.

I wonder are the UCI going to try to disrupt any reduced suspensions deals USADA may have made. Of course, it seems that doping by all but one of the above mentioned guys (and possibly him too) would be outside the statute of limitations anyway, so there may not be reduced suspensions at all because nobody can touch them in the first place.

Welcome to the world of professional cycling, where the powers that be are more interested in going after riders who cooperate with anti-doping authorities:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci...ce=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

 

[The Boy]

That's worrying news. Although on the plus side they do seem to be getting increasingly desperate.

 

[Ted Striker]

In theory, a good idea. But in practice, my first thought is "what's the UCI's real agenda here?".

Yup.

For the record, can someone post (or link) to a summary of the case against Armstrong?

 

[The Boy]

USADA notice letter:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464954262704154.html

Lot of blanks to be filled in there though.

 

[Ted Striker]

ta

 

[The Boy]

If you want to start filling in the blanks for yourself and looking at some of the background etc then this thread would be a good place to start. Do bear in mind that some of the posters on there can tend towards the conspiranoid.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.?t=18396

 

[Frumious B.]

I think McQuaid's amnesty bollocks is a last ditch panicky attempt to save his job by appearing to be part of the solution. There are too many stories saying he's finished, e.g. this www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling All he cares about is clinging on. He's just been appointed to the IOC panel to choose the city for the 2020 Olympics http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/8344056/britain-craig-reedie-lead-ioc-panel-2020-bids He wouldn't want to jeopardise a juicy number like that

I doubt McQuaid sees the amnesty as a way of saving Armstrong's titles. I reckon McQuaid is calculating that team managers and sponsors probably won't let it happen, and that even if it does Lance won't participate. He can't admit he's been lying, it's too late. The loss of credibility would be too damaging to Livestrong and his sponsors and his future career and his ego. I think he's determined to go to his grave with the witch-hunt angle. He doesn't envisage a smoking gun: Hein won't confess to a coverup, the Indiana hospital doctors won't suddenly start backing Nancy, the doctor who backdated the saddle sore prescription won't come forward. If USADA produces old test results Lance will just say they're not positives because there's no B sample, the French lab can't be trusted, it's all a conspiracy etc. There'll never be anything that he can't deny.

Ted, have a read of David Walsh's latest article - a great account of the story so far, and joins the dots between the criminal investigation and the USADA one. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/7552391/Drug-cheat-claims-are-well-founded

 

[1927]

Good, possibly. As long as anyone found to be lying is punished in the usual way.

That isnt really the idea of an amnesty tho is it? Surely by definition there will be no punishments, outside of stripping of titles!

 

[The Boy]

That isnt really the idea of an amnesty tho is it? Surely by definition there will be no punishments, outside of stripping of titles!

Not for anyone willing to come forward and tell the truth, no. I was suggesting that in the event of an amnesty, truth and reconciation process, or whatever else is suggested was that anyone who didn't get involved but had a large body of evidence against them would still face investigation and sanction. ie, it wouldn't work if it was just a way to have everybody bar Armstrong and a couple of others come forward and confess.

 

[1927]

Not for anyone willing to come forward and tell the truth, no. I was suggesting that in the event of an amnesty, truth and reconciation process, or whatever else is suggested was that anyone who didn't get involved but had a large body of evidence against them would still face investigation and sanction. ie, it wouldn't work if it was just a way to have everybody bar Armstrong and a couple of others come forward and confess.

I get where you are coming from now. Thing is, if every single member of the peloton from 1999-2005 came forward and said LA was a doper, he would still trot out the fact that he never failed a test and his fund raising to denounce them as liars.

How many people do we need to come out and call him a doper. 10, 20, 50, when do we say enough, he's a doper?

 

[The Boy]

when do we say enough, he's a doper?

About ten days ago...

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

I think McQuaid's amnesty bollocks is a last ditch panicky attempt to save his job by appearing to be part of the solution. There are too many stories saying he's finished, e.g. this www.cyclingnews.com/news/schenk-doubts-mcquaid-has-the-credibility-to-clean-up-cycling All he cares about is clinging on. He's just been appointed to the IOC panel to choose the city for the 2020 Olympics http://espn.go.com/olympics/story/_/id/8344056/britain-craig-reedie-lead-ioc-panel-2020-bids He wouldn't want to jeopardise a juicy number like that

Its amazing that we're still referencing this story for McQuaid in terms of loss of career. If the LA/Pat/Hein cosy club is for real he could be facing criminal charges.

 

[rover07]

 

[The Boy]

Its amazing that we're still referencing this story for McQuaid in terms of loss of career. If the LA/Pat/Hein cosy club is for real he could be facing criminal charges.

While this is entirely true, it's taken over a decade to nail Armstrong - and even that isn't a done deal yet. Gotta be realistic, and I'd just be happy to be shot of the fuckers.

 

[1927]

Cheater wins race......and?

 

[Jazzz]

Lancelovers are just conspiraloons. Talking to them is futile. They usually know nothing about cycling anyway, so who cares what they think?

I think this whole sorry thing is a very good example of a conspiracy - it seems the entire sport knew about doping, from doctors to cyclists to their assistants to the governing bodies which are still trying to cover up their dirty business. So you might wish to reevaluate your pejorative.

 

[The Boy]

I think this whole sorry thing is a very good example of a conspiracy - it seems the entire sport knew about doping, from doctors to cyclists to their assistants to the governing bodies which are still trying to cover up their dirty business. So you might wish to reevaluate your pejorative.

You've missed the point, I think.

 

[Frumious B.]

I think this whole sorry thing is a very good example of a conspiracy - it seems the entire sport knew about doping, from doctors to cyclists to their assistants to the governing bodies which are still trying to cover up their dirty business. So you might wish to reevaluate your pejorative.

Yes, people were conspiring to cheat. The conspiraloons are the ones who think Lance was the only Tour winner who didn't cheat.

 

[The Boy]

And that he (Lance) is the victim of a conspiracy. That's why they're conspiraloon - they see a conspiracy when their isn't one. Much like lizard people, holographic planes, and suns with solid iron cores etc.

 

[Jazzz]

The point is that there was a massive conspiracy.