JGR Posted October 23, 2012 Share Good counterpoints, but at the moment those other things you mention isn't illegal. The way you're argument is going is to only study someones body and genes and defer from that who is the best without cycling one mile.It was not meant as an arguement but just a side thought to the suggestion he would have been a mid pack rider and that a level playing field is not possible. During his time there was a limit of 50 on the hemo so there was a limit to which one could increase there perforamce - whether that was 10% for one and 15% for another I dont know. Im mean to that extend the argus isnt level either - if you start at 9am and have to deal with other riders and more wind - surely the guys in A batch had it easier? I think doping is doping and we shouldnt speculate and say he won because he had the best drugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 23, 2012 Share Eddy you raise good points but they can also be applied else where. It is hardly a level playing field when teams can afford better trainers, more training camps, altitutde traing ect so the element of having more money to spend on preperation does not stop at the drugs. Much like formula one - do you think Shumi would have won 7 if he stayed with Benetton? Bigger teams have more money for other advancements other than drugs so the field will never be leve. Fully agreed, but this discussion is one about doping in sport, particularly as it pertained to Lance Armstrong. I saw a model developed before the olympics that correlated money invested by counties in Olympic sports with medal tallies. There are outliers (caribbean sprinters, a zimbabwean swimmer, etc) but the correlation was quite marked. The british olympic team targeted sports where they could "buy" medals and invested heavily in them. Yip, track cycling was one of those and the results were clear to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGR Posted October 23, 2012 Share Fully agreed, but this discussion is one about doping in sport, particularly as it pertained to Lance Armstrong. I saw a model developed before the olympics that correlated money invested by counties in Olympic sports with medal tallies. There are outliers (caribbean sprinters, a zimbabwean swimmer, etc) but the correlation was quite marked. The british olympic team targeted sports where they could "buy" medals and invested heavily in them. Yip, track cycling was one of those and the results were clear to all.I realise it pertained to dope but was pointing out that other methods be it legal are also related to the money one can 'invest'. Great point on the Olympics - I have a mate staying in OZ and he said there was a lot of disapointment there but most attributed it to the budget which was aparently greatly reduced from previous olympics. The Zimbabwean swimmer probably lives and trains in the states - I also saw an interesting documentry on why the sprinters come from there. Edited October 23, 2012 by JGR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted October 23, 2012 Share It was not meant as an arguement but just a side thought to the suggestion he would have been a mid pack rider and that a level playing field is not possible. During his time there was a limit of 50 on the hemo so there was a limit to which one could increase there perforamce - whether that was 10% for one and 15% for another I dont know. Yeah cool, I know what you mean. Im mean to that extend the argus isnt level either - if you start at 9am and have to deal with other riders and more wind - surely the guys in A batch had it easier? I think doping is doping and we shouldnt speculate and say he won because he had the best drugs That's on the day. You probably have to factor in all the hours and sacrifices made to actually get that A starting time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer 83 Posted October 23, 2012 Share The World according to Lance - http://www.abc.net.a.../11/3608613.htm Very interesting! I enjoyed Joerg Jaksche's description, "its like having a dead body in your basement, its stinks a little bit after a while and its going to come up more and more and more, and one day the police is going to find it.." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGR Posted October 23, 2012 Share Yeah cool, I know what you mean. That's on the day. You probably have to factor in all the hours and sacrifices made to actually get that A starting time!When you factor that in you will also have to consider I might be a desk jockey doing 10 hrs a day (the truth) and you might own your own business and cycle when you feel like (the dream). I might be the better athlete but due to time contraints I would never beat you (very hypothetical) Once again money can also play a part in getting you to an A seeding as well. I know its getting a little far fetched but to say his dope was the best and that we he beat the other dopers would just not be accurate. imho . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaco-fiets Posted October 23, 2012 Share This entire Armstrong affair has just made me hate Contador even more. Can't say that it changed how i feel about Lance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoLefty!! Posted October 23, 2012 Share Very interesting! I enjoyed Joerg Jaksche's description, "its like having a dead body in your basement, its stinks a little bit after a while and its going to come up more and more and more, and one day the police is going to find it.." The insurance company investigation plays a very prominent role...Knowing insurance companies, they don't want to pay out for anything, especially if they have a bad contract (words of the Lawyer).So if they had to pay out for TDF victories #4,#5,^ and #7 that a pretty handy sum of money they stand to lose,..............or gain back. Especially if you can claim it back with interest against a personality whose "brand value" was at a high at the time. Seems like darn good investment to pay it ouit, allow it to gain interest and then get it back and pay the witnesses who helped you get it back... Ah but I've been riding behind buses too much again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted October 23, 2012 Share Another interesting post by Ross Tucker and Jonathan Dugas. One point, Lance probably broke a rule, but not a law by doping. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/uci-uphold-usada-findings-surprised.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/cJKs+(The+Science+of+Sport)&m=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andydude Posted October 23, 2012 Share When you factor that in you will also have to consider I might be a desk jockey doing 10 hrs a day (the truth) and you might own your own business and cycle when you feel like (the dream). I might be the better athlete but due to time contraints I would never beat you (very hypothetical) Once again money can also play a part in getting you to an A seeding as well. I know its getting a little far fetched but to say his dope was the best and that we he beat the other dopers would just not be accurate. imho . I do understand your point! There's so many factors involved, some quantifiable, others not. Some inside, some outside. I actually forgot what your point was? Sorry! Although not accounting for everything, if he had better dope and used it better you can't deny that it did give him some advantage to someone with less effective dope and not using it correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted October 23, 2012 Share . Edited October 23, 2012 by eddy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squier Posted October 24, 2012 Share Not much is being said about possible perjury charges. I'd assume that is why it's not possible for him to confess as then he will be subject to the penalty of perjury. IMO that is currently his biggest risk as he testified under oath during the SCA hearing that he never used any PEDs. If they can prove that he lied, which has pretty much been done, he could be in really hot water. Perjury can, and usually does, lead to jail time. I find it strange that the media has not made a big hoohaa about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickc Posted October 24, 2012 Share Not much is being said about possible perjury charges. I'd assume that is why it's not possible for him to confess as then he will be subject to the penalty of perjury. IMO that is currently his biggest risk as he testified under oath during the SCA hearing that he never used any PEDs. If they can prove that he lied, which has pretty much been done, he could be in really hot water. Perjury can, and usually does, lead to jail time. I find it strange that the media has not made a big hoohaa about it. Is there not some form of statute of limitations on this - I read this somewhere - maybe thats why not a big thing being made of it at the moment. Not to sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted October 24, 2012 Share The insurance company investigation plays a very prominent role...Knowing insurance companies, they don't want to pay out for anything, especially if they have a bad contract (words of the Lawyer).So if they had to pay out for TDF victories #4,#5,^ and #7 that a pretty handy sum of money they stand to lose,..............or gain back. Especially if you can claim it back with interest against a personality whose "brand value" was at a high at the time. Seems like darn good investment to pay it ouit, allow it to gain interest and then get it back and pay the witnesses who helped you get it back... Ah but I've been riding behind buses too much again Yeah maybe if they were a sponsor, but been a sports insurer they were only on risk and had no way to capitalise on his name so I dont think SCA promotions benefited from his popularity, if anything, because they withheld payments and had to be dragged to court I think they suffered just the opposite from the LA PR machine. .........but I do think they will be the first to institute proceedings to recover their money, they have vigorously defended their right and willingness to do so since they lost the case initially,......... and as they have the ball in their park now I recon they will be holding onto it tightly for the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted October 24, 2012 Share nickc, yeah, I also read somewhere that the statute varies in the US, but it's mostly about three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garfield2010 Posted October 24, 2012 Share On a different matter..........so how do we fix this? Can't they plant some sort of chip into the tour riders body for the four weeks monitoring blood volumes and "dead" redcells? When transfusing there is always a number of dead cells... Or each team leader needs an permanent escort from a doping agency. A guy that basically follows him around everywhere... almost like a bodyguard....? Or they need to test every bloody riders Hematocrit level for everysingle day of the TDF..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now