UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Parker » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:45 pm

Sydguy wrote:The LA thing will be closer to over when he goes to gaol for perjury, he will lose his $ and have to write a come clean book and appear on Oprah. That will be LA over, whilst he still has millions to his name people will see that cheaters prosper.

The UCI is a joke, cycling ca not move anywhere with those clowns at the top. A rival governing body should open up sign riders on and get things done properly.

UCI is making BNSW look like an excellent organisation! :S I sincerely hope they sort UCI out, I would be loathe to sign up to Cycling Australia again next year which is basically a vote for the UCI and poor governance.

JM

Oprah isn't in production any more. She left her show after 25 years.
Parker
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

by BNA » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:03 pm

BNA
 

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Parker » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:03 pm

toolonglegs wrote:... and now they are coming after the money... 10 million US so far :shock: .

He has investments in the Tira Gold Mine (Uganda), I'm sure he'll be fine
Parker
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Parker » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:06 pm

I hadn't seen this before until I went looking for the name of the Gold Mine that Lance had shares in.

Known Business connections of Lance Armstrong http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBus ... ionsV2.pdf

EDIT: Check out the EPO connection :)
EDIT 2: Betcha everyone new this but me.
Parker
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby greyhoundtom » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:32 pm

Parker wrote:I hadn't seen this before until I went looking for the name of the Gold Mine that Lance had shares in.

Known Business connections of Lance Armstrong http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBus ... ionsV2.pdf

EDIT: Check out the EPO connection :)
EDIT 2: Betcha everyone new this but me.

Bugger...........he has been a busy boy hasn't he :shock: ............it would take me a month to make sense of that graph, and then I would have to print it out full size. :(
User avatar
greyhoundtom
 
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
Location: Narre Warren, Victoria

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby jonbays » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:11 pm

Sack McQuaid too the whole UCI needs generational change to clean the old dead tarnished wood out.

Tom died in 67 and the UCI still have problems with doping!
User avatar
jonbays
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:14 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:26 pm

jonbays wrote:Sack McQuaid too the whole UCI needs generational change to clean the old dead tarnished wood out.

It won't happen. It's exceptionally difficult to make such changes in organisations like the UCI.

http://inrng.com/2012/09/how-to-replace-pat-mcquaid/
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby AUbicycles » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:41 pm

Don't know the facts but I understand from previous discussions here that as the USADA is not a criminal court so there would be no perjury or jail. Happy for other views on this.

On returning winnings, it would be easy to say that the money was spent - and even just get tricky financially so there is no money to give back.
2015 BNA Cycling Kit Now Available for Pre-Order
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby norbs » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:50 pm

AUbicycles wrote:Don't know the facts but I understand from previous discussions here that as the USADA is not a criminal court so there would be no perjury or jail. Happy for other views on this.

On returning winnings, it would be easy to say that the money was spent - and even just get tricky financially so there is no money to give back.



Armstrong didn't appear before the USADA panel, he appeared under oath with regards the SCA dispute. He said, under oath, that he had never taken PEDs. If he confessed now, they could go him for perjury.
User avatar
norbs
 
Posts: 2314
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:20 am
Location: Shoalhaven. NSW

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby exadios » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:55 pm

norbs wrote:
AUbicycles wrote:Don't know the facts but I understand from previous discussions here that as the USADA is not a criminal court so there would be no perjury or jail. Happy for other views on this.

On returning winnings, it would be easy to say that the money was spent - and even just get tricky financially so there is no money to give back.



Armstrong didn't appear before the USADA panel, he appeared under oath with regards the SCA dispute. He said, under oath, that he had never taken PEDs. If he confessed now, they could go him for perjury.


There is a possibility that he may be indicted for perjury even if he does not confess.
User avatar
exadios
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 1:07 am
Location: Melville, WA

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby ColinOldnCranky » Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:57 pm

AUbicycles wrote:Don't know the facts but I understand from previous discussions here that as the USADA is not a criminal court so there would be no perjury or jail. Happy for other views on this.

On returning winnings, it would be easy to say that the money was spent - and even just get tricky financially so there is no money to give back.

It was dealt with in the Four Corners program a couple of weeks ago so you can google that and listen or read the transcript.

It is possible to perjure yourself outside of the walls of a court.

Armstrong gave a deposition under oath in the offices of an insurance underwriter that was seeking to void a requirement to pay him some millions for achieving three Tour titles in a row. It is apparently the only time that he has been in the position of being under oath.

It does look like a real possibility and the underwriters certainly seem to be looking for it's pound of flesh. Watch this space.
Unchain yourself-Ride a unicycle
Image
User avatar
ColinOldnCranky
 
Posts: 4937
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:58 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby DavidS » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:48 pm

Parker wrote:I hadn't seen this before until I went looking for the name of the Gold Mine that Lance had shares in.

Known Business connections of Lance Armstrong http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBus ... ionsV2.pdf

EDIT: Check out the EPO connection :)
EDIT 2: Betcha everyone new this but me.


Had a quick look at that. What struck me was Amgen, a manufacturer of EPO. The same Amgen as in Amgen Tour of California. The fact that the UCI can allow an EPO manufacturer to sponsor a cycling tour is very revealing.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:36 pm

DavidS wrote:
Parker wrote:I hadn't seen this before until I went looking for the name of the Gold Mine that Lance had shares in.

Known Business connections of Lance Armstrong http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBus ... ionsV2.pdf

EDIT: Check out the EPO connection :)
EDIT 2: Betcha everyone new this but me.


Had a quick look at that. What struck me was Amgen, a manufacturer of EPO. The same Amgen as in Amgen Tour of California. The fact that the UCI can allow an EPO manufacturer to sponsor a cycling tour is very revealing.

DS

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/amgens- ... th-cycling
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Parker » Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:45 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
DavidS wrote:
Parker wrote:I hadn't seen this before until I went looking for the name of the Gold Mine that Lance had shares in.

Known Business connections of Lance Armstrong http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBus ... ionsV2.pdf

EDIT: Check out the EPO connection :)
EDIT 2: Betcha everyone new this but me.


Had a quick look at that. What struck me was Amgen, a manufacturer of EPO. The same Amgen as in Amgen Tour of California. The fact that the UCI can allow an EPO manufacturer to sponsor a cycling tour is very revealing.

DS

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/amgens- ... th-cycling

I was thinking more that if you manufacture EPO that you might have the first advantage and the equipment to figure out how to mask or hide it, I don't care who sponsors cycling, but that would be a strong explanation as to why he never tested positive if you ask me. But you didn't ask me. So. Meh!
Parker
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Oct 24, 2012 6:06 am

Parker wrote:I was thinking more that if you manufacture EPO that you might have the first advantage and the equipment to figure out how to mask or hide it, I don't care who sponsors cycling, but that would be a strong explanation as to why he never tested positive if you ask me. But you didn't ask me. So. Meh!

That's exactly what Amgen did. Indeed it was the manufacturers that pointed out that there was a problem in the first place. They then worked with WADA on detection methods, which caught some users out as the detection method wasn't announced. Eventually rider's doctors worked out how to avoid detection again.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Oxford » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:03 am

so anyone who rode for the Davitamon team is under a cloud too then?
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.
User avatar
Oxford
 
Posts: 5480
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby clackers » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:58 am

Addictr3 wrote:the UCI will try to wiggle its way out of this one, which will only make it look and sound like they knew all along, which I personally think someone in the UCI would of known.. people talk etc.


And did you read what McQuaid said?

The UCI has little money and would continue to welcome donations from the cyclists it's supposed to discipline! :shock:
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby clackers » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:03 am

JustJames wrote:
Well, two of each that is. One for me, and one for my absorbed twin.


LOL.

Hamilton's "vanishing twin" defence was fantastic. It was of course his lawyer's idea, but dumb athletes obviously can just nod their heads vigorously in strategy meetings. :smile:
User avatar
clackers
 
Posts: 2007
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 10:48 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby AUbicycles » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:10 am

On the perjury, as I understand this (and thanks for the links, I have watched the 4 Corners report) Lance is safe until he does anything which implied he has lied. So a technicality really.

Here is a small writeup from Bike Europe looking at the impact of Lancegate on the demise of the UCI and bike sales.

Not a very strong article but essentially says that the UCI will wield less power as a result.
2015 BNA Cycling Kit Now Available for Pre-Order
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9413
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby sogood » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:30 am

DavidS wrote:Had a quick look at that. What struck me was Amgen, a manufacturer of EPO. The same Amgen as in Amgen Tour of California. The fact that the UCI can allow an EPO manufacturer to sponsor a cycling tour is very revealing.

Amgen is a US$67B biopharmaceutical company with products far and wide in the health sector. One may see irony through the EPO link but bear in mind that EPO is a legitimate pharmacological agent that has been a virtual God send to millions of patients suffering from intractable anaemia, from patients with cancer to those with kidney failure. In absence of clear evidence of corporate association, it's mob mentality to tarnish the good names of Amgen and EPO.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby sogood » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:36 am

Parker wrote:I was thinking more that if you manufacture EPO that you might have the first advantage and the equipment to figure out how to mask or hide it, I don't care who sponsors cycling, but that would be a strong explanation as to why he never tested positive if you ask me. But you didn't ask me. So. Meh!

That's what you may think.

EPO like pretty much all pharmacological agents is well known in the academic and clinical field. Structure and pharmacological characteristics are heavily researched by both private and academic research institutions. There are conferences on just this one agent (like many others) where research knowledge is shared. Any one with associated expertise will be able to work out the ins and outs of how to administer it "safely" after a bit of reading. The information is out there. What's much harder is conclusive detection as researchers with health objectives don't waste their tight research dollar and time on that. So it's certainly wrong to conclude that Amgen is the only entity that knows the "secrets" of the agent. Fact is, Amgen manufactured EPO for legitimate medical needs and have saved millions, they don't make their money selling to the cycling peloton. As for sponsoring with cycling, well, it could be as simple as being a health sector company seeing cycling as the up and coming health recreation sport.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Parker » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:44 am

sogood wrote:
Parker wrote:I was thinking more that if you manufacture EPO that you might have the first advantage and the equipment to figure out how to mask or hide it, I don't care who sponsors cycling, but that would be a strong explanation as to why he never tested positive if you ask me. But you didn't ask me. So. Meh!

That's what you may think.

EPO like pretty much all pharmacological agents is well known in the academic and clinical field. Structure and pharmacological characteristics are heavily researched by both private and academic research institutions. There are conferences on just this one agent (like many others) where research knowledge is shared. Any one with associated expertise will be able to work out the ins and outs of how to administer it "safely" after a bit of reading. The information is out there. What's much harder is conclusive detection as researchers with health objectives don't waste their tight research dollar and time on that. So it's certainly wrong to conclude that Amgen is the only entity that knows the "secrets" of the agent. Fact is, Amgen manufactured EPO for legitimate medical needs and have saved millions, they don't make their money selling to the cycling peloton. As for sponsoring with cycling, well, it could be as simple as being a health sector company seeing cycling as the up and coming health recreation sport.

It was my understanding that Amgen sponsored the tour because many of their employees were riders and they're located in an area that has lots of cyclist. Fair enough.

I understand what you're saying about the conferences and sharing of the research, but, aren't all pharmacutical (sp?) companies bad? They don't exactly have a good reputation and appear to be all about the money. I agree that they don't make money selling to the peloton, mens teams come and go as quickly as women's teams the women just feel more hard done by because they have nothing to begin with.

Isn't it fair to assume that there is something dodgy going on? Or that there could be something dodgy that happened in the past?
Parker
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:55 am

Parker wrote:I understand what you're saying about the conferences and sharing of the research, but, aren't all pharmacutical (sp?) companies bad? They don't exactly have a good reputation and appear to be all about the money.

Big Pharma are no worse or better than most large industries. And yes, all companies are about the money, that's what companies are for - to provide a return to their shareholders.

Big Pharma do have much tighter regulatory environment within which they operate than many other industries.

Parker wrote:Isn't it fair to assume that there is something dodgy going on? Or that there could be something dodgy that happened in the past?

Not really, at least not in terms of big pharma and cycling.
User avatar
Alex Simmons/RST
Expert
 
Posts: 3489
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 3:51 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby Parker » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:04 pm

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:
Parker wrote:I understand what you're saying about the conferences and sharing of the research, but, aren't all pharmacutical (sp?) companies bad? They don't exactly have a good reputation and appear to be all about the money.

Big Pharma are no worse or better than most large industries. And yes, all companies are about the money, that's what companies are for - to provide a return to their shareholders.

Big Pharma do have much tighter regulatory environment within which they operate than many other industries.

Parker wrote:Isn't it fair to assume that there is something dodgy going on? Or that there could be something dodgy that happened in the past?

Not really, at least not in terms of big pharma and cycling.

But we know that pharmacutical companies have unjust morals when it comes to the inhabitants of third world contries so why would the developed first world be viewed as anything different?
Parker
 
Posts: 1494
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby sogood » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:19 pm

Parker wrote:...Isn't it fair to assume that there is something dodgy going on? Or that there could be something dodgy that happened in the past?

Why do you think all pharmaceutical companies are bad? It's fashionable to be critical of them because of govt health cost burden and their profit. Fact is, it's a very very heavily regulated industry, very long product lead time and very high return risks. In terms of ethics, it's a heck of a lot better than many others in our business community.

Lynch mob assume with the barest unsubstantiated information while civil people believe in innocent until proven otherwise. Fact is, EPO has been a wonder agent that has saved the lives of millions. In the big picture, illegal use of EPO by various branches of sports pale in insignificance to all its benefits to mankind.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: UCI strips Armstrong of 7 TDF wins and bans him for life

Postby sogood » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:25 pm

Parker wrote:But we know that pharmacutical companies have unjust morals when it comes to the inhabitants of third world contries so why would the developed first world be viewed as anything different?

That's only if one narrowly follows the govt, NGO and media spins, ones that have vested interests. The developed world are so aloof these days that it knows little of what's it really like for developing countries. The narrow view and expectations of many citizens in developing countries are unrealistically applying standards of their own onto others. Any unethical activities by the multi-nationals are but a reflection of these behaviours. Fact is, pharmaceutical companies have benefited both developed and developing countries. Then shxt happens, as would any where on the planet.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17082
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baalzamon, flashpixx, Google Feedfetcher, jules21, Ross, Yahoo [Bot]



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers