i agree.moosterbounce wrote:I think he should be allowed to compete after serving a ban
he should be allowed to compete after he completes his lifetime ban.
Postby roller » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:41 pm
i agree.moosterbounce wrote:I think he should be allowed to compete after serving a ban
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:41 pm
You have it all wrong. David Millar and him are completely different. Firstly Lance is not remorseful at all, all he regrets is getting caught, he would go out there and do it again if he knew he would not be caught. He even said if it wasnt for his comeback they wouldnt be sitting there. Meaning he would not of came out if it wasnt for him being caught. Millar I believe is actually sorry that he took the drugs, not just that he was caught.moosterbounce wrote:I think he should be allowed to compete after serving a ban, but I'd like to see something like "if you actually win the ny marathon, then you won't be recognized as the winner". Seriously...he's getting on so I doubt he'd trouble the serious race contenders, maybe the age groupers, so put a "can't win" in place. Stopping someone run a marathon etc - which tend to be personal goals at this age - just because it's sanctioned is stupid. Everyone loves David miller now don't they? Both denied it until caught, just one was more verbal in their denials and took longer to get caught.
Ban him from team races for life so he can't help someone win.
I'd still go to see him compete at anything and would welcome riding with him. I'd take the opportunity for a chat though and ask a few questions. At the end of the day, you could shove as many performance I handing doo-dads in me and I'd still be mediocre at best!!
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:45 pm
So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK. All that money should of went to legitimate people. IMO it is the same as stealing, if someone was to rob a bank or anywhere of similar amounts of money they would be spending a lot of time behind bars. Then there is also the perjury and witness tampering. He should also get done for harassment.toolonglegs wrote:Whats short?... short to me is 6 months like all the others got.
2-4 years would be fine by me... and lifetime ban on appearance fees.
Being someone who lives to compete a lifetime ban is a bit much... it's only sport, you get a lot less for much more serious crimes.
Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:52 pm
Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?vander wrote:So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK...
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby toolonglegs » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:55 pm
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:13 pm
It shouldnt all dopers should receive a similar punishment (much tougher than it currently is) except for the kingpins such as Lance.sogood wrote:Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?vander wrote:So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK...
Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:30 pm
Is he? The peloton doping problem is much larger than what Lance was involved in. The only difference is he was far far more commercially and competitively successful than others. Tall poppy he is, Kingpin I am not sure. And when did rules differentiate kingpins to pawns?vander wrote:except for the kingpins such as Lance...
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby skull » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:41 pm
I wouldn't say he was only an average rider pre-cancer. You don't become a World Champion just being average.vander wrote:I believe it was only post cancer even when he was an average cyclist and not a GT contender.
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:46 pm
Pawns pay over a million dollars to their doping doctors? Pawns force others to take drugs if they want to stay in the team. Pawns dont get opportunities to sit down with the UCI and people like Saugy to talk about the tests (and presumably how not to get almost caught again). Pawns dont make 100s of millions of dollars. Look back at 1999 when everyone was scared post festina affair, of the backdated tests they did almost all the positives in the peleton were Lance's. He played a lot bigger role than he is acting like at the moment. Dont fall for his lies again people.sogood wrote:Is he? The peloton doping problem is much larger than what Lance was involved in. The only difference is he was far far more commercially and competitively successful than others. Tall poppy he is, Kingpin I am not sure. And when did rules differentiate kingpins to pawns?vander wrote:except for the kingpins such as Lance...
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:48 pm
I meant pre-cancer he was average as a stage racer. Although that WC win was a surprise he showed a bit of promise in 1 day races but he was far from someone likely to be a world champ.skull wrote:I wouldn't say he was only an average rider pre-cancer. You don't become a World Champion just being average.vander wrote:I believe it was only post cancer even when he was an average cyclist and not a GT contender.
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:57 pm
No, but the WADA code on sanctions is pretty clear and given the sum of all that he was shown to have engaged in, it would have been 8 years minimum if he had cooperated fully with the investigation, and a lifetime ban otherwise.sogood wrote:Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?vander wrote:So him eaning over 100million dollars because of his cheating and fraudulent behavior yet that is all OK...
Postby Alex Simmons/RST » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:00 pm
There is no doubt that he had plenty of natural talent and a strong work ethic (you need both) but let's not forget that Lance was doping from the age of 18 (at least).skull wrote:I wouldn't say he was only an average rider pre-cancer. You don't become a World Champion just being average.vander wrote:I believe it was only post cancer even when he was an average cyclist and not a GT contender.
Postby foo on patrol » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:01 pm
So you're saying they didn't have the choice to say no, give me a break. You have a brain and and if you choose to be weak and lilly livered don't tell me you were forced, to use drugs because that is as weak as <language>. If they/you (not aimed at you) had an ounce of human dignity and the balls to stand up for yourself, then you would have set them up and got the hard proof of what they were doing.vander wrote:Pawns force others to take drugs if they want to stay in the team.
Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:03 pm
It's a bit naive to excuse LA to be lacking the spark. EPO nor no amount of dope can compensate that much. In any case, most of his competitors were also on a similar soup mix.vander wrote:I meant pre-cancer he was average as a stage racer. Although that WC win was a surprise he showed a bit of promise in 1 day races but he was far from someone likely to be a world champ.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:05 pm
No, but the WADA code on sanctions is pretty clear and given the sum of all that he was shown to have engaged in, it would have been 8 years minimum if he had cooperated fully with the investigation, and a lifetime ban otherwise.[/quote]Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Is there a clause in the official rule book that states the punishment will be different if life earning exceeds $100M?
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:09 pm
Here's a question for a pro coach. What do you think allowed LA and his team to win 7 TdF titles when his fellow competitors of the time were all largely on a similar soup?Alex Simmons/RST wrote:There is no doubt that he had plenty of natural talent and a strong work ethic (you need both) but let's not forget that Lance was doping from the age of 18 (at least).
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby Mulger bill » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:15 pm
Sounds almost like insider knowledge Somehow, I don't think the various directeurs sportif would be listing their doping programmes in their annual reports.sogood wrote:Here's a question for a pro coach. What do you think allowed LA and his team to win 7 TdF titles when his fellow competitors of the time were all largely on a similar soup?
Postby foo on patrol » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:17 pm
Postby AUbicycles » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:17 pm
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:31 pm
Unfortunately Foo plenty of people that said no and tried to stand up for the right thing were kicked out of the sport not being picked up by any team. That is how Omerta works. There are plenty of stories like that coming out. Additionally if you are not on it you will never even get into the sport as you wont get the necessary results.foo on patrol wrote:So you're saying they didn't have the choice to say no, give me a break. You have a brain and and if you choose to be weak and lilly livered don't tell me you were forced, to use drugs because that is as weak as p**s. If they/you (not aimed at you) had an ounce of human dignity and the balls to stand up for yourself, then you would have set them up and got the hard proof of what they were doing.vander wrote:Pawns force others to take drugs if they want to stay in the team.
Foo
Postby vander » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:34 pm
Apparently it was his low hematocrit of 38. When being able to dope up to 50 (as you could back then) it is a big advantage going from 38 to 50 as opposed to going from 48 to 50. I also believe it was his win at all costs attitude. With his attitude I can see him saying this guy is taking x amount of y I am going to take 2 times that and I will smash him. He said he would of done anything to win I believe that extended to risking his life with the amount of drugs he was taking.sogood wrote:Here's a question for a pro coach. What do you think allowed LA and his team to win 7 TdF titles when his fellow competitors of the time were all largely on a similar soup?Alex Simmons/RST wrote:There is no doubt that he had plenty of natural talent and a strong work ethic (you need both) but let's not forget that Lance was doping from the age of 18 (at least).
Postby sogood » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:35 pm
That's still a speculation at this stage and yet to come out if true. That would take the case to another level, one beyond plain doping.foo on patrol wrote:Tough one Sogood, corruption of some sort or a very good understanding of how the tests where conducted.
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
Postby lump_a_charcoal » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:36 pm
Postby foo on patrol » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:47 pm
Jeez that's drawing a long bow Lumpy!lump_a_charcoal wrote:I don't want to seem too cynical, but I'm starting to suspect that Lance Armstrong may even have used drugs to win his battle against cancer.
Postby TomBikes » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:48 pm
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.