Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Armstrong tests positive?

So, the UCI have thrown Armstrong under the bus. Does Lance repay the favour? I'm assuming he knows where a few skeletons are buried.
 
weltweit said:
I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg, I expect many sponsors had "clean" clauses.
Click to expand...

He didnt actually have a clean clause in contract with this one, and court case rested purely in fact he was official winner of Le Tour so was entitled to the cash. Now he has been stripped of titles they want money back. Interesting to see what approach others take. It is possible they could sue for many times what they have paid out, as I would have thought that one of the clauses would be not to do anything which would hurt their brand. It could be argued by a sponsore who had paid Lance $5m that the damage to their brand he has caused is worth $20m, oh how i'd like to see that happen!
 
1927 said:
He didnt actually have a clean clause in contract with this one, and court case rested purely in fact he was official winner of Le Tour so was entitled to the cash. Now he has been stripped of titles they want money back. Interesting to see what approach others take. It is possible they could sue for many times what they have paid out, as I would have thought that one of the clauses would be not to do anything which would hurt their brand. It could be argued by a sponsore who had paid Lance $5m that the damage to their brand he has caused is worth $20m, oh how i'd like to see that happen!
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see that happenning but I do not share your apparent glee at the prospect, I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.
 
weltweit said:
Yes, I can see that happenning but I do not share your apparent glee at the prospect, I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.
Click to expand...

But they werent all doing it. From what I've read the tour in 1999 was probably going to be cleaner than it had been for years and it was LA's presence that actually ensured that it was one of the most corrupt from a doping point of view, he wasnt a victim he was the instigator!
 
weltweit said:
Yes, I can see that happenning but I do not share your apparent glee at the prospect, I don't really bare Armstrong any ill will, as far as I am concerned they were all at it and could not have won without it.
Click to expand...
But Armstrong went so much further. Not only was he doping better than everyone else, he was clearly a huge corrupting influence on the whole game. Hence the vile treatment of the people trying to make a stand, such as Bassons and Vaughters, the denial of any wrongdoing (continued to this day), the huge bribes to the UCI. No, he deserves to go down as hard as possible.
 
A must-read by Robert Millar. If only he could take Pat's job. http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/robert-millar/the-bare-minimum

This Monday it was the UCI's turn to be stood in between the rock and the hard place. Ironically, in a dilemma not that different to the one faced by Tyler Hamilton and Co years ago, the UCI faced a decision which was going to be criticised whatever they did. So they did what they have been doing for too long now: they produced the bare minimum, they gave the political answers, dodged the hard questions and hid behind USADA's reasoning. Realistically, they had no choice but to accept the evidence put before them because any other challenge or inspection opened them up to even more criticism. And yet by doing the minimum those questions will still come. We still want the answers to the questions they don't want to hear.
The UCI can deny there was any link between the Armstrong donations and the suspicious test results and Pat McQuaid can try to place all the blame onto the riders for the blood doping and EPO abuse but everyone is beginning to see beyond that defence. The "It wasn't me it was them that did it" excuse has already been made famous by Virenque during the Festina affair and we all know how that one turned out .
1998 was the warning that the 50% limit chosen by the UCI two years earlier was an open invitation to dope to that level. The teams of the period, as teams had always done, expected the rules to be pushed and organised themselves as they thought fit. The UCI said it was 50% to protect riders’ health and just ignored the sudden emergence of the 75kg climbers. Festina were the unlucky ones as it could have been any of the teams – any one of them – and the bizarre strike of that year’s Tour just confirmed it. They weren't protesting that they were being cheated by Festina, they were protesting that their world had been found out.
At the last Tour de France I rode, a quick poll of my friends and colleagues in the peloton revealed that EPO was available to everyone regardless of the team budget or ambition. They weren't happy about it as the difference was no longer a question of how good an athlete you were, it was that plus how good your doctor was with the new drugs. The arrival of EPO and HGH meant the competition was as much about chemical warfare as it was about how fast you could race a bike. Of course those teams in at the very start of the substance abuse held a head start for the first few years, but eventually the lesser teams caught up and everyone could ride up a mountain at 30kmh with their mouths closed
Want to know who was juiced? That's easy – just ask to see their blood levels . Before EPO, the haematocrit norm would have been around 40-42%, gradually reducing as a grand tour went on. Then suddenly everyone's jumped to 50% or more and stayed there for weeks at a time. There hadn't been a step forward in human evolution, the only thing that had changed was the arrival of what Laurent Fignon called the new Super (French for high octane fuel) and those willing to supply and administer it.
So the riders found themselves in the situation of go to 50% and be a good professional or get blasted every day and at the end of the year it'll be bye-bye. When it's your dream job, you aren't yet mature enough to have a strong moral compass and are surrounded by an unhealthy environment there aren't many people who are going to stand up and shout that this is wrong. Add to that the ridicule that would be unleashed upon anyone who told the real truth and you have the perfect ingredients for the omertà. These are as much excuses as they are reasons. I doubt any of the riders placed in the 50% dilemma liked the idea of risking dying in their sleep, obliged to have one set of medication to see them through the racing day and then another set to get them through the night in case their blood got too thick or they were dehydrated. They didn't become bike riders for that reason.
After Festina, it was the supposedly the new era but the UCI limits were still the same and the problem moved even more into the shadows. The risk of longer bans or prison for the guilty didn't deter the preparers, it just made them smarter. Now we know what that meant: micro-dosing, blood transfusions and serious planning to avoid the testers.
Ask yourself would you have a blood transfusion outside of a hospital environment? No neither would I. I'd be scared even in a hospital given the stories of contamination but it seems some people thought this was acceptable to be competitive, to prove their point, to dominate. You have to have serious issues if you think blood doping is OK.
Cycling was bad enough when it was amphetamines and cortisones as the weapons to be deployed in times of desperation, and you were lucky to get out of that period with your self-respect and health intact, but organised preparation of whole teams with the collusion of doctors, coaches and management is criminal. It isn't cheating, it's playing with people’s lives.
What the UCI have done during the EPO era has been far from enough, they have let down a generation of fans, riders, sponsors and supporters. They and the people behind the 50% farce have been lucky that there weren't deaths. The UCI have been dragged forward by one scandal after another and now the social media generation has cried enough. It's no longer a carefully selected group of people asking if they think it was alright for Armstrong to be invited to respond to a dubious test result. It's all of us shouting: What ? And you took donations from him afterwards? And you thought that was OK? And maybe he asked how you reached those results and you thought he was being helpful? And it's still a 50% limit today despite the evidence that it isn't normal?
This mess is as much down to what the UCI hasn't done as much as it is the fault of all those who supplied, advised, facilitated and expected the use of EPO and blood doping.
Thankfully, the young riders of today have seen it's wrong and they dare talk about because they can they are allowed to talk about it and the old omertà can't stop it .
Now there's the opportunity to sort out the problems, to have the victims and the perpetrators come forward and give evidence. Punishments might be needed but they have to be appropriate. I thought six months was reasonable for those involved in the Armstrong/US Postal affair but the reaction from Lefevere to fire Leipheimer and the Sky threat of sacking everyone is only going to discourage what needs to heard.
There has been progress these last few years but much like the historic revolutions they have been led by those not willing to put up with the unacceptable and not by the institutions.
If the UCI wants to stay (in charge) then things are going to have to change and they could do well to start with the difficult questions.
Click to expand...
 
butchersapron said:
That's why he's not, why he's trying to establish what is just testimony. He's not talking about Armstrong.
Click to expand...

Thing is, this "its just testimony" business is crap.

If testimony was not admissable there wouldnt be a singel murderer in jail, after all how many murderers are convicted with actual film of the deadly deed?
 
1927 said:
Thing is, this "its just testimony" business is crap.

If testimony was not admissable there wouldnt be a singel murderer in jail, after all how many murderers are convicted with actual film of the deadly deed?
Click to expand...

That's one of my preferred arguments from the Lance-Bots. Invariably comes from total tossers as well.
 
1927 said:
Thing is, this "its just testimony" business is crap.

If testimony was not admissable there wouldnt be a singel murderer in jail, after all how many murderers are convicted with actual film of the deadly deed?
Click to expand...

It is, but I suppose sniping of this kind is all they can do without actually trying to challenge any of this evidence in a courtroom environment (be it the US courts, or CAS).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nigel Irritable
Top IAAF officials alleged to have extorted money from athletes to cover up doping positives
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
hash tag
hash tag
Lord Camomile
Tyson Gay and now Asafa Powell both test positive for banned drugs
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Barking_Mad
Barking_Mad
youngian
Frankie Dettori faces inquiry after 'positive test'
Replies
19
Views
3K
19sixtysix
19sixtysix
treefrog
Ostapchuk tests positive
Replies
20
Views
4K
gabi
G
twentythreedom
England Cricket 2014 (Test, ODI, T20)
45 46 47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
52K
butchersapron
B
Back
Top Bottom