Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[Eugene Oppelt]

 

 

Do you think that broke against Lance's head?

 

Bwaahaha!!

[Eugene Oppelt]

Seems as if companies ask for greater indemnity to protect their brand.

 

Sky's management is asking riders to sign the dotted line confirming that they've never been involved in doping.

 

Vaughters believes ex dopers can be welcomed into teams and contribute to the future.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Puncheur

[Shebeen]

Rubiera added that by its very nature professional cycling is not a healthy sport. “Don’t let the UCI tell me that they are concerned about our health when we have to ride in 45-degree [Celsius] temperatures up the Tourmalet after riding 220km the day before and with another 200km to follow the day after. That’s not healthy,” he said.

Well they could just ride slower? it's a missile race, and the routes get easier as the dope gets better.

[GoLefty!!]

Some interesting points raised by former US Postal rider Jose Ruberia

Not necessarliy the ones about not seeing LA doping but the other bits about the UCI not caring for the health of riders...and also about Ferrari being the best coach there is

 

http://www.cyclingne...-armstrong-dope

 

"Speaking specifically about doping, Rubiera said, “I never saw him dope. The regulations are evolving and you have to judge events in each era according to their context. I think that you have to look to the future and also judge the sporting quality of a person like Armstrong.”

 

Rubiera did have some words of criticism, but they were directed not at his former team leader but at those who have confessed to past misdemeanours. “They are acting out of personal interest. They recognise that they have done something and by collaborating they are able to reduce the penalty they receive.

“They are trying to pay for what they have done with a six-month suspension when others have had to have a two-year ban. If they are so sorry about what they have done and want to save cycling, they ought to give the money they’ve earned to the grassroots of the sport,” said the Spaniard.

 

Rubiera added that by its very nature professional cycling is not a healthy sport. “Don’t let the UCI tell me that they are concerned about our health when we have to ride in 45-degree [Celsius] temperatures up the Tourmalet after riding 220km the day before and with another 200km to follow the day after. That’s not healthy,” he said.

 

Rubiera acknowledged that he had been advised by Michele Ferrari in the past, and has no reason to hide the fact. “He was and is the best coach. Training with him had its price. I worked with him for two years and learned a lot about training and diet, but I decided to leave him because it seemed very expensive,” said Rubiera.

 

 

Thats another perspective on the matter. Its clear that Ferrari had different products for different people and I'm not talking about PED's.

His products were trining and diet plans, customised for each client based on their blood group and composition. He would advise on how to maximise on oxygen absorption into the blood, etc the natural way.

But then its clear he also had products that included the use of PED's to take recovery performance and athletic ability up another notch.

 

It is not logical to think that the formula Rider+Ferrari = PED based performance improvement program since no coach on the planet offers a single product. They have an entry level product that gets you in the door and happy and then they start the upsell. All coaches I've worked with operated this way although none offered chemical enhancement.

There are many formulae here;

 

Ferrari + Rider = trainging programme

Ferrari + Rider = Training programme and diet plan

Ferrari + Rider = training programme + diet plan + blood oxygenation

Ferrari + Rider = Training programme + diet plan + blood oxygenation + PED's

 

and probably a few more products on offer to those willing to pay.

 

Someone earlier in the thread posted that he thought perhaps Armstrong was not doping but that his team mates had too in order to execute the team strategy. He was shot down and called names for this but I think its a valid argument but its does NOT absolve Armstrong of blame if he knew about this strategy and was party to it.

It is also valid what Ferrari is saying that the doping programme was used by those American riders based in Verona (?). These are all valid counter arguments that have not been tested as yet and I for one believe that these arguments need to be given the airtime they deserve irrespective of how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

 

I am hoping that the UCI takes these arguments as well as the USADA report seriously and launches a full scale investigation into the matter. Not the half arsed investigations they have used in the past to make it seem like they're doing their work, but a proper investigation into the whole affair using independent investigators. Sure its going to cost but we could easily face not having a TDF for the next few years thanks to sponsors cowering in the hills. If Radioshack, Sky(and its multi billion GBP Profit margin), Omega, Pharma Lotto, AGSR, La Mondiale, Euskatel, Euskadi, Garmin, Sharp, etc etc etc , are serious about the pledges they made to cycling, then they have a vested interest in getting to the truth, the absolute truth and nothing but the truth.

If there is indeed a vendetta playing out (unlikely but possible) then the UCI and sponsors cannot allow a few a'holes to drag the sport down into the sewer. That Landis decided to take people down with himself is obvious, he had no way out and decided to try and become the hero in the sordid tale.That Hamilton is benefiting is obvious but he is much more obsequious than the others. There is more were this fire started.

 

each of those affidavits needs to scrutinised and tested properly because there is a lot at stake in this matter. This is much bigger than Armstrong now, its become a direct attack on the credibility of competitive bicycle racing.

I hope this is what the UCI announces on Monday..."we have taken the report as presented by the USADA seriously and will launch a full investigation into events surrounding this matter. All parties involved will be immune from criminal prosecution in exchange for co-operation with the relevant authorities blah blah blah. Upon conclusion of this investigation the UCI will take a decision to uphold the recommended actions."

 

lets do the lie detectors, lets do the hearing thing but lets do in public. These folk know more than they're telling. Complete openness and transparency is the only way I see the UCI coming out of the process looking credible If they fold and allow the USADA report to stand on its own without counter arguments, the precedent for prosecution by media will stand and finger point will become a viable way to remove the competition. Once the dust settles and the crowd stops baying for blood, the cycling community will ask more questions. Especially when the next scandal breaks, and the next and the next.

[DJR]

..........

This is much bigger than Armstrong now, its become a direct attack on the credibility of competitive bicycle racing.

..........

 

True, and exactly the reason why this angry boil needs to be opened and drained urgently and thoroughly!

[javadude]

Thats another perspective on the matter. Its clear that Ferrari had different products for different people and I'm not talking about PED's.

 

Yip, and anyone can be a client through his website, http://www.53x12.com

Edited October 20, 2012 by javadude

[GoLefty!!]

and reading through his comments on the USADA report, you realise there are holes in that report that probably will result in it not standing up in court.If Hincapie and Landis affidavits do not link up, yet Landis alludes that it does then one or both are lying. Hence this report needs to be examined and scrutinised very carefully

 

it seems to me that maybe there is another more sinister agenda in the background.........

Edited October 20, 2012 by GoLefty!!

[jcza]

Until such time as there is a major overhaul at the UCI I fear it will just be more of the same. The punishment for dopers must also be increased, the current 6 months to 2 years (retrospectively in some cases) is not a deterrent.

[jcza]

Rumour: Mcquaid expected to confirm life ban & announce stripping of titles at news conference tomorrow.

 

Source: Reuters

[GoLefty!!]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/21/us-cycling-doping-armstrong-idUSBRE89K00L20121021

[HappyMartin]

Now that we face this reality it gives me the creeps quite honestly. It is hard not to feel some sympathy for LA.

 

I have a gut feeling that fat Pat will do as Reuters are predicting. Sadly I believe the UCI will do this not out of any integrity but in order to protect and divert attention from themselves.

 

What ever you think of LA it is very sad

[jcza]

Johnny Schleck urges his sons to quit pro cycling - http://www1.skysports.com/cycling/news/15264/8184762/

[Joe Low]

Rumour: Mcquaid expected to confirm life ban & announce stripping of titles at news conference tomorrow.

 

Source: Reuters

UCI are disbanding? - sounds good!

 

 

 

[Eugene Oppelt]

Rumour: Mcquaid expected to confirm life ban & announce stripping of titles at news conference tomorrow.

 

Source: Reuters

 

Hmmm... Gonna be a watershed moment for the sport.

[GoLefty!!]

Think about it. If Armstong paid off the UCI do you think they're going to ratify the findings of the report....

 

If he didn't then they may ratify it, however that would lend credibility to Armstrong's view that Hamilton is lying, If Hamilton is lying then it stands to reason that the other USPS riders are lying as well since the affidavits all share common information.

[SwissVan]

Yip, and anyone can be a client through his website, http://www.53x12.com

 

Yep, back in 2004 when i was still kind of serious about training i subscribed to 53x12.com and found the training programs very interesting (and hard!!!).

 

Another interesting comment kind of in LA's favour which undoubtly the trolls wont mention...

Courtesy of cyclingnewdotcom

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-2001-sample-was-suspect-but-not-positive-says-head-of-lausanne-lab

 

 

"Lance Armstrong provided a suspicious doping control at the 2001 Tour de Suisse but did not test positive for EPO, according to Martial Saugy, the director of the Lausanne laboratory which carried out the tests.

Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton both testified to the US Anti-Doping Agency that Armstrong had told them that he had tested positive in Switzerland in 2001 but that the UCI had covered up the result. The UCI has denied any such collusion.

Speaking to AFP, Saugy said that Armstrong did not test positive for EPO but his sample was one of the three from the race to be flagged as “suspect." As an "important competitor," Armstrong was called before the UCI to provide an explanation. Armstrong returned another such suspect sample at the Dauphiné Liberé in 2002, which was analysed by a different laboratory.

“There was no positive test on the Tour of Switzerland in 2001,” Saugy told AFP. “Armstrong had another suspect result during the 2002 Dauphiné Liberé. The politics of the UCI at that time, if there was such a result involving an important competitor, was to meet them and ask for an explanation. That was their approach to prevention.”

Saugy said that it was only in 2002 that he realised that Armstrong had been among the riders who had returned a suspect sample at the Tour de Suisse.

“The UCI said to me at the end of June 2002: 'we warned the rider for whom you had a suspect result in 2001, he gave another suspect return at another lab and he would like to know by which method it was tested,'” Saugy said. "The rider was Armstrong. It was then that I learned about it."

Saugy also noted that while Armstrong’s sample from the 2001 Tour de Suisse was suspicious, from a legal standpoint, it would be difficult for USADA to consider it as a positive test.

“There's no way today that this could be defended as a positive result, it's impossible," he said. "Since 2003, procedures oblige taking into account the risks of a false-positive which could verify that urine had not been affected by the physiology of the cyclist or degraded by bacteria.

"This was not done at the time and the urine no longer exists because the rules did not require keeping it."