Crapola!!!....P.E.D's in Cycling

[MichaelB]

At the end of the day, until they come up with something that is irrefutable (i.e. hard evidence), it's all going to be a matter of he said she siad and be a bit circumstantial.

Meh, too many other things in life to worry about rather than Lance and the others

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Meh, too many other things in life to worry about rather than Lance and the others

When you have clients trying to make it on a world stage, everything that cleans up the act of cycling is a good thing, so what's important depends on your perspective.

I want them to keep digging, us all to see the negative consequences of doping and to help root out its scourge. I think of all those who tried and "failed" to make it because they held better values than the dopers and those that aid/abet them.

[JV911]

In one of the comments at the end it said "once he started the lie he was stuck in it."

He's built his life, carreer, the Foundation, everything on the premise that he's clean

If he's not, he'll never admit it. even if he goes to jail.

[Chuck]

he'll never admit it. even if he goes to jail.

I tend to agree, I don't think he'll roll over even under threat of jail time. He'll become a martyr to the believers, I think he'd like that.

[toolonglegs]

At the end of the day, until they come up with something that is irrefutable (i.e. hard evidence), it's all going to be a matter of he said she siad and be a bit circumstantial.

Meh, too many other things in life to worry about rather than Lance and the others

The hard evidence is there....money to Dr Ferrari is for one thing only (a good doping program).

Yup,better things to worry about in life,I for one haven't watched any Giro this May...doper in the lead,supposedly ex doper in 2nd ...yah.

[toolonglegs]

he'll never admit it. even if he goes to jail.

I tend to agree, I don't think he'll roll over even under threat of jail time. He'll become a martyr to the believers, I think he'd like that.

Landis wil get 25% of any money the government get back from this investigation... .

[Chuck]

I for one haven't watched any Giro this May...doper in the lead,supposedly ex doper in 2nd ...yah.

Situation normal

You going to watch the Tour ? It's likely to be repeated

[toolonglegs]

I for one haven't watched any Giro this May...doper in the lead,supposedly ex doper in 2nd ...yah.

Situation normal

You going to watch the Tour ? It's likely to be repeated

I will probably go and see a couple of stages of Le Tour ...mainly because my little kids love it,but at the moment I am not too fussed.

[AUbicycles]

i have no idea who this guy is and havent had a chance to read the whole thing so i'll have to get back to you but one point that popped out was:
"The laboratory absolutely had no way of knowing athlete identity from the sample they're given. They have a number on them, but that's never linked to an athlete's name...investigative journalist, Damien Ressiot from l'Equipe..."

This is only a partial quote, if you read on it saids that LA gave permission and hence the sample could be identified.

--

Yes, a person innocent until proven guilty.... enough suspicion for tremendous discussion and this to be one of the biggest news items in cycling.

I would embrace official judgement that LA has always raced cleanly because I know that a negative verdict will, yet again, be a smack in the face of cycling credibility - sponsors will drop out, potential sponsors will think twice and many cycling fans will feel cheated, the charity will loose credibility... not good for the sport.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I would embrace official judgement that LA has always raced cleanly because I know that a negative verdict will, yet again, be a smack in the face of cycling credibility - sponsors will drop out, potential sponsors will think twice and many cycling fans will feel cheated, the charity will loose credibility... not good for the sport.

Disagree. It's precisely this sort of consequence that cycling needs. Think of it like chemotherapy. Kill it before it kills you. There will be collateral damage.

[AUbicycles]

I know what you mean Alex - but will this then be a turning point to put the Anti Doping agencies / controls a step ahead of the athletes?

[roller]

I would embrace official judgement that LA has always raced cleanly because I know that a negative verdict will, yet again, be a smack in the face of cycling credibility - sponsors will drop out, potential sponsors will think twice and many cycling fans will feel cheated, the charity will loose credibility... not good for the sport.

Disagree. It's precisely this sort of consequence that cycling needs. Think of it like chemotherapy. Kill it before it kills you. There will be collateral damage.

i quite agree alex. granted maybe it might not be the best thing for the business of cycling, but for the sport it will be great.

[jules21]

I know what you mean Alex - but will this then be a turning point to put the Anti Doping agencies / controls a step ahead of the athletes?

if the UCI is found to be involved in covering up incidences of detected doping by riders whose brand value is 'too big to fail', then i hope you're right. in fact, there would be no choice but to do what i once saw proposed - to "burn pro cycling down and build it up again from the ground".

but "to put the Anti Doping agencies / controls a step ahead of the athletes" - i don't think that's feasible. my understanding is that the tests just aren't good enough. for all its foibles, pro cycling has the most sophisticated anti doping testing regime of any sport, bar none. yet it's obvious that they can be easily defeated, with the assistance of a clever doctor. that problem can't be overcome by strong will alone.

[twizzle]

but "to put the Anti Doping agencies / controls a step ahead of the athletes" - i don't think that's feasible. my understanding is that the tests just aren't good enough. for all its foibles, pro cycling has the most sophisticated anti doping testing regime of any sport, bar none. yet it's obvious that they can be easily defeated, with the assistance of a clever doctor. that problem can't be overcome by strong will alone.

According to an interview with the guy who came up with the EPO test, the researchers have a good relationship with the pro's and are kept in the loop of what is going on. The difficulty for them is coming up with a tests that are bullet-proof and ensure that everyone is on the same level playing field.

[jules21]

i've also read through some of the articles - including the one by the aussie guy who helped develop the EPO test and explained why armstrong was almost certainly a doper. from what i understand, it's a lot like policing. the cops know who committed most unsolved crimes, but can't obtain the evidence needed to secure a conviction in a court. the fact that riders are not being convicted of doping is not an indication that they are clean. i believe that's why the blood passport was introduced - to look past mere presence of banned substances and start tracking blood parameters that are known to be influenced by them. yet i think they've only secured one sorry conviction to date based on blood passport evidence - pellizotti.

[norbs]

i've also read through some of the articles - including the one by the aussie guy who helped develop the EPO test and explained why armstrong was almost certainly a doper. from what i understand, it's a lot like policing. the cops know who committed most unsolved crimes, but can't obtain the evidence needed to secure a conviction in a court. the fact that riders are not being convicted of doping is not an indication that they are clean. i believe that's why the blood passport was introduced - to look past mere presence of banned substances and start tracking blood parameters that are known to be influenced by them. yet i think they've only secured one sorry conviction to date based on blood passport evidence - pellizotti.

Could be a sign it is working.

[jules21]

Could be a sign it is working.

i'd like to think that, but perusing the UCI's own list of suspicious passports, one doesn't get that impression.

[drubie]

Could be a sign it is working.

i'd like to think that, but perusing the UCI's own list of suspicious passports, one doesn't get that impression.

It's a bit hard to know what to think (especially given the accusation that the UCI are complicit in covering up positive test results).

Put me in the "in denial" camp for Armstrong - I don't want it to be true but it's getting harder to believe him. If the US investigation uncovers misuse of federal funds for illegal activity (which I think is largely the focus, not cleaning up cycling) then the UCI will get a free pass. You can bet they'll be hoping that the federal investigation finds something that'll take the heat off the UCI.

But I don't want it to be true.

[jules21]

If the US investigation uncovers misuse of federal funds for illegal activity (which I think is largely the focus, not cleaning up cycling) then the UCI will get a free pass.

i'm not so sure. the grand jury that is investigating armstrong has supreme powers, particularly to compel sworn testimony, for which lying can get you a long time in the clink. i'd say they will have a close look at the accusations made against the UCI. it will be interesting to see who testifies on that - presumably their power to summon foreigners is limited, but it will be interesting to see who decides to exercise that right and declines to testify..

you might already be well aware, but this is not a show trial - grand juries get results. if armstrong or the UCI have something to hide, he will be missing sleep right now.

[drubie]

you might already be well aware, but this is not a show trial - grand juries get results. if armstrong or the UCI have something to hide, he will be missing sleep right now.

http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/03/02/armstrong-retires-still-fighting-drug-accusations/

Results, maybe. I don't think they'll give much of a hoot about the UCI allegations of cover up except as an incidental part of the story.

[Aushiker]

you might already be well aware, but this is not a show trial - grand juries get results. if armstrong or the UCI have something to hide, he will be missing sleep right now.

It is not a trial at all; period. Grand Juries are only there to determine if they believe an indictment should be issued; that is if the case should precede to trial. Then there has to be a proper trial. What you are describing sounds like what is known as a runaway jury.

The equivalent here in Australia is a committal procedure. I don't think any state allows for grand juries any more.

Andrew

[Mulger bill]

I know what you mean Alex - but will this then be a turning point to put the Anti Doping agencies / controls a step ahead of the athletes?

if the UCI is found to be involved in covering up incidences of detected doping by riders whose brand value is 'too big to fail', then i hope you're right. in fact, there would be no choice but to do what i once saw proposed - to "burn pro cycling down and build it up again from the ground".

I'd like to think LA is clean but I sense a disturbance in the force If he isn't and the UCI are complicit then this WILL be necessary. All pro cyclists and most amateur racers will wear the fanned excrement of media driven "public" opinion. It will take years for the sport to recover.

[toolonglegs]

Disturbance in the force .
It might not be a trial...but prison can await those who lie.
BALCO anyone.

[JV911]

Back-pedalling begins as peloton of evidence closes in on Armstrong

26th May, 2011

Such is their passion, cycling enthusiasts can betray the zealotry of a cult. Their robes are made of colourful Lycra, disrespectful motorists are despised heathens and Lance Armstrong is their high priest.

Armstrong was no false idol. If you were so hard-hearted not to be inspired by the cancer survivor's record seven Tour de France victories, surely the $US400 million his foundation has raised for medical research placed him on the highest altar. The baffling slogan - Livestrong - etched on a piece of yellow rubber has changed thousands of lives.

Accordingly, as sportsman and humanitarian, Armstrong inspires slavish devotion. But as a US investigation probes allegations of doping by the US Postal Service team, it is difficult to tell whether his staunch supporters still believe the great rider did not cheat; or whether they simply do not want to believe.

Advertisement: Story continues below Once, it was the vague, unsubstantiated allegations against Armstrong that seemed cruel and unjust. Now, in the face of mounting evidence, it is the shrill, sometimes illogical attempts to defend him that smack of desperation. Some examples.

Armstrong's accusers are liars with an axe to grind.

In the case of self-confessed drug cheats Tyler Hamilton, who accused Armstrong of drug use on the US 60 Minutes program, and the disgraced Floyd Landis, perhaps so. But like other former teammates, they are not merely telling their stories to the media but providing testimony to a grand jury. They need only ask Marion Jones the consequence of lying.

Another of Armstrong's former wingmen, the respected clean-skin George Hincapie, is reported to have given damning evidence to the investigation. It will be much harder to assassinate the character of a former teammate who had not previously tested positive if he implicates Armstrong. So the appearance now is of the once close-knit and secretive US Postal Service team coming apart under the threat of criminal prosecution.

''500 drug controls worldwide … never failed a test. I rest my case.''

That tweet is the bedrock of Armstrong's defence. But, given allegations that his team made a positive test during the 2001 Tour de Suisse ''go away'', it is in dispute.

The International Cycling Union has denied both the cover-up and claims large donations by Armstrong to the governing body had tarnished testing protocols. However, often it has been outside bodies such as the French police that have uncovered cycling's greatest scandals. In matters of drug testing, the UCI does not have the unqualified trust and respect of the sporting world. So the question now asked by the once cheerleading US media: Did cycling have too much invested in Armstrong's success to expose him as a cheat?

Armstrong is the victim of a witch hunt.

No, he is merely one of the highest-profile suspects in a belated attempt by the US government to clean up a deeply rooted culture of illegal drug use by athletes in domestic and international sports. The BALCO scandal demonstrated how the private enterprise version of drug cheating was almost as systematic as the old state-backed Eastern European steroid abuse and far more sophisticated.

Jeff Novitzy, the Californian prosecutor who investigated BALCO, would no doubt like to add Armstrong to a collection of high-profile scalps that include baseballer Barry Bonds and Jones to demonstrate the government is serious about prosecuting drug cheats. Armstrong's lawyers counter that millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted on a ''vanity prosecution''. Time will tell if this is an exercise in obfuscation or a proclamation of innocence.

Everyone else did it.

''So what if Armstrong cheated?'' his remaining supporters in the US media are asking. If so, he simply put himself on a level playing field given 41 of the 70 riders who finished in the top-10 during his seven Tour victories have subsequently tested positive. And, having parlayed his fame into hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer donations, surely the greater good has been served.

Given such outstanding public service, would it matter that Armstrong's personal story was built on a lie? We seem close to finding the answer.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/bac ... z1NPO0pu9m

[roller]

New Ashenden Interview: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashende ... llegations