• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Sport
The Pro Cycling Thread
<<
<
110 of 169
>>
>
Jaggs
11-10-2012
Originally Posted by swingaleg:
“my point though related to wether or not he would have won multiple TdF if everyone in the peloton was riding clean

I reckon he probably would because it's naive to think that other organisations were too stupid or too backward not to have doping regimes that were every bit as good as Armstrongs

and if the doping equalled out then he was still rider around with the best team tactics to win the Tour

that's what I think is the sadness.............that he would have won anyway if the sport was clean”

I'm not sure Armstrong would have won if the sport was clean. There have been very good junior riders who never made it as pro cyclists because they refused to dope. Graham Obree quit his road team because he refused to dope. We don't know how riders like that would have performed if the sport was clean so to just make an assumption that they were all at it so Armstrong would have won anyway is the wrong way to look at it in my opinion.
the_lostprophet
11-10-2012
Originally Posted by Jaggs:
“I'm not sure Armstrong would have won if the sport was clean. There have been very good junior riders who never made it as pro cyclists because they refused to dope. Graham Obree quit his road team because he refused to dope. We don't know how riders like that would have performed if the sport was clean so to just make an assumption that they were all at it so Armstrong would have won anyway is the wrong way to look at it in my opinion.”

I agree; there's no way of knowing how good Armstrong would have been without the doping. Conversely as you say, we don't know how many other potentially top riders just didn't make it due to not being willing to dope. I also don't know whether the other teams had as advanced a doping program as USPS - I would assume not else that would have come out in an investigation too and I don't think that's naive. I'm the last person to be naive about pro sport - I won't say what I think about pro tennis and doping as you'd all probably think I'm a conspiracy theorist!

It just seemed that Armstrong was the type of quite frankly terrifying personality who was able to control/dominate a team and essentially strong-arm others into doping as well as having access to some top expensive dodgy doctors. Without such a forceful personality as him on a team (whose star value grew as did his successes, hence leading to nobody wanting the truth to come out) it's unlikely that systemic doping on this scale could have continued for so long. It all just seemed like a perfect storm at USPS - everything came together in the right way for this to be able to happen.

Here's a good Guardian piece from today:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog...s-usada-detail

Quote:
“One of the more unsavoury episodes in the Usada report comes from Vande Velde, who relates how, after Armstrong's fourth Tour win in 2002, he was called to a meeting by Armstrong and reprimanded for not following Ferrari's doping programme assiduously enough. Vande Velde said in an affidavit that "the conversation left me with no question that I was in the doghouse and that the only way forward with Armstrong's team was to get fully on Dr Ferrari's doping program". Accordingly, he stepped up his EPO use – because "Lance called the shots on the team". Usada's language is uncompromising: noting that Armstrong's behaviour amounts to a specific violation of the anti-doping code for aiding and abetting illegal drug use, the report labels him an "enforcer for Dr Ferrari's doping plan".”

the_lostprophet
11-10-2012
Originally Posted by divingbboy:
“Not sure if you've read Hamilton's book, but Armstrong doesn't come out of it well. He comes across as an erratic, egotistical (yet strangely insecure) bully. FWIW, pretty much all the other USPS riders aside from Armstrong come out of it fairly well: generally, decent, humble, hardworking guys who did what they felt they had to do in the face of a lot of pressure from Armstrong and the team. Shit, Armstrong had the gall to report Hamilton for doping after Hamilton had left the team!! The brass balls on Armstrong!!”

I haven't read it yet but I will at some point. Yes I have read lots about him - doesn't seem a decent character at all. The more I read the less I can believe the cheek of the guy.

I think one of the most tragic aspects to this story is the fact that USPS rider David Zabriskie was cornered and pressured into doping by Bruyneel even though he got into cycling originally as a refuge from his father's drug addiction.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...briskie-doping

Quote:
“He was fearful of the health implications of using EPO, and he had a slew of questions: would he be able to have children? Would it cause any physical changes? Would he grow larger ears?

The questions continued. Bruyneel responded, "everyone is doing it". Bruyneel assured David that if EPO was dangerous no professional cyclists would be having kids. David was cornered.

He had embraced cycling to escape a life seared by drugs and now he felt that he could not say no and stay in his mentor's good graces. He looked to Barry for support but he did not find it. Barry's mind was made up.

Barry had decided to use EPO, and he reinforced Bruyneel's opinions that EPO use was required for success in the peloton.

The group retired to Barry's apartment where both David and Barry were injected with EPO by Dr Del Moral.

Thus began a new stage in David Zabriskie's cycling career – the doping stage. Cycling was no longer David's refuge from drugs. When he went back to his room that night he cried."”

Mandark
11-10-2012
Originally Posted by Chappers67:
“He's also playing the "I did what I had to do to win"/"Everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't we?" cards. He's getting largely positive reactions in America so he'll keep on going.

It's a masterstroke for the UCI too. While everyone focuses on Lance and his bullying etc. No one is questioning the UCI and their cover ups......”

His lawyer is playing the conspiracy card: you can't trust the authorities as they have their own secret agendas. That plays well in the US as well.
ozjohn
11-10-2012
Originally Posted by Mandark:
“His lawyer is playing the conspiracy card: you can't trust the authorities as they have their own secret agendas. That plays well in the US as well.”

Indeed. The echoes of athletics doping, Ben Johnson and East Germany are deafening today. The American media (and easily-led public) are very happy to cast aspersions on the rest of the world, but if it's a good ol' American (apple pie) hero either they must be clean or their discretions are acceptable because all those evil non-Americans must be cheating too
the_lostprophet
11-10-2012
I see Wiggo has spoken out about this now - he was on Sky news earlier.
batdude_uk1
12-10-2012
Seeing as Lance has been stripped of his 7 titles, does that mean that the people that finished second in those years, now move up into first place?
Lucidia2011
12-10-2012
LOL, they were just as bad
swingaleg
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Seeing as Lance has been stripped of his 7 titles, does that mean that the people that finished second in those years, now move up into first place?”

That is a bit of a problem as most of those guys have been banned at some point

How far down do you go.............the guy who finished 8th ?

I think they should just leave all the results as they are and put an asterisk for the record with a note 'L'Era de Dopage'........
batdude_uk1
12-10-2012
Should they just say then, that no-one win the races in those years?
Also will Lance have to pay back any of his winnings from those years that he got prize money, as if he didn't win any Tours (we can now say Bradley has won more than him! ), surely he shouldn't still benefit financially from them?
Also didn't the rest of the USPS team get some money from him winning?
Shpuld they pay back that money as well?

There are still lots of unanswered questions really.
John259
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Also will Lance have to pay back any of his winnings from those years”

There's also the possibility that sponsors might demand money back.
batdude_uk1
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by John259:
“There's also the possibility that sponsors might demand money back.”

Would the main sponsor of the team (United States Postal Service), be able to claim most of Lance's money, as they have over the years paid him a fortune (well in cyclying terms anyway)?

All those private jets, the money must have come from somewhere to be able to use them, same for all of those fancy houses that he has lived in.

Getting money by deciption I would call it, how and why Nike are standing by him, I just simply do no know or understand either.
Chappers67
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by Mandark:
“His lawyer is playing the conspiracy card: you can't trust the authorities as they have their own secret agendas. That plays well in the US as well.”

Thing about the UCI agenda (or at least that of Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid), is that it seems to be on Lance's side. They appear to have actively covered up positive tests by Armstrong, given him and his people tours of the testing facilities, accepted payments from Armstrong.

Yet all the coverage is "Lance did this...Lance did that...".

It would seem that there are questions to be answered by the authorities too....


For clarity - I'm not an LA fanboy, or seeking to be an apologist for him. Like many, I'm disappointed that he's turned out to be an utter zero, and angry that I fell for it...

I just think that there are more people behind this than just LA and whilst he gets all the scorn, they carry on scot free....
John259
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by Chappers67:
“I just think that there are more people behind this than just LA”

It's perhaps strange that the general media have hardly mentioned Johan Bruyneel, who must (presumably) have played a central role in this business. That could be because unlike Armstrong he's not a household name, but I wonder if there's any other reason.
batdude_uk1
12-10-2012
The doctors need to be also struck off, and have their titles of Dr removed from their names as well, as what they did wad unethical and surely against the hypcraties oath that they all have to take.
Any money they made from these practicies should also be re-paid in full as well.
Eater Sundae
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by John259:
“There's also the possibility that sponsors might demand money back.”

Some of the news feeds are also reminding us that Armstrong has previously been to court (and won) when a sponsor tried to withhold some bonus money from him when he won one of his TdFs, as his name was being tarnished by drugs allegations.

In this case he claimed, under oath, that he had not taken performance enhancing drugs. If he now admits drug taking (or even if he doesn't, but the authorities think he took them) that would leave him open to a charge of perjury, and the risk of a prison sentence. This could turn out similar to the Marion Jones situation.
Eater Sundae
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by John259:
“It's perhaps strange that the general media have hardly mentioned Johan Bruyneel, who must (presumably) have played a central role in this business. That could be because unlike Armstrong he's not a household name, but I wonder if there's any other reason.”

I haven't read the USADA report - does anyone know if a lot of USPS/Discovery riders have named him specifically as being part of the drugs culture? I see that in his Wikipedia entry, it only mentions Floyd Landis accusing him.
Eater Sundae
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by John259:
“It's perhaps strange that the general media have hardly mentioned Johan Bruyneel, who must (presumably) have played a central role in this business. That could be because unlike Armstrong he's not a household name, but I wonder if there's any other reason.”

Since my last post, I've read a few more sites, and now see that USADA are heavily in to him, hence he wasn't at this year's TdF. Yes, it doesn't look good for him.
Kierenj
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Would the main sponsor of the team (United States Postal Service), be able to claim most of Lance's money, as they have over the years paid him a fortune (well in cyclying terms anyway)?

All those private jets, the money must have come from somewhere to be able to use them, same for all of those fancy houses that he has lived in.

Getting money by deciption I would call it, how and why Nike are standing by him, I just simply do no know or understand either.”

Well they stuck by Tiger... besides... he was still the best cyclist/athlete as they were all on it.
Alli-F
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by John259:
“It's perhaps strange that the general media have hardly mentioned Johan Bruyneel, who must (presumably) have played a central role in this business. That could be because unlike Armstrong he's not a household name, but I wonder if there's any other reason.”



Haven't the others charged, bar Lance, decided to continue fighting the charges? Lance withdrew his appeal in the US courts to the USASA's evidence and gave up fighting so they could publish all the evidence they had to prosecute him with.

Bruyneel and the doctors charged are fighting the allegations so I'm expecting them to either withdraw or for them to appear before the authorities.

Lance, I believe, tactically withdrew so he could continue to deny, deny, deny because he had no chance of winning, but if you withdraw you can attempt to take the moral highground and still continue to claim its that evil USADA, they've got it in for me.
Eater Sundae
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by John259:
“It's perhaps strange that the general media have hardly mentioned Johan Bruyneel, who must (presumably) have played a central role in this business. That could be because unlike Armstrong he's not a household name, but I wonder if there's any other reason.”

He seems to be getting plenty of coverage in the Belgian press, so i reckon it's because he's just not so well known in other countries, whereas Armstrong is a household name everywhere.
Alli-F
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by Kierenj:
“Well they stuck by Tiger... besides... he was still the best cyclist/athlete as they were all on it.”



I hate that argument. No they weren't all on it, the guys towards the back of they peleton could have been clean and the ones who gave up like Christophe Bassons were clean but because of people like Lance Armstrong everyone believes the whole peleton were dirty and they weren't.

And now, the riders who weren't clean and rode with integrity and hated the idea of dopIng have been tarred with the same disgusting brush that they tried to avoid all along. I feel so sorry for them.
Kierenj
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by Alli-F:
“I hate that argument. No they weren't all on it, the guys towards the back of they peleton could have been clean and the ones who gave up like Christophe Bassons were clean but because of people like Lance Armstrong everyone believes the whole peleton were dirty and they weren't.

And now, the riders who weren't clean and rode with integrity and hated the idea of dopIng have been tarred with the same disgusting brush that they tried to avoid all along. I feel so sorry for them.”

dry your eyes... they knew the score when they got into it... it'd be like me entering a body building contest being all natural and complaining as they are all on drugs... things happen, it's the way the world spins.
batdude_uk1
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by Kierenj:
“Well they stuck by Tiger... besides... he was still the best cyclist/athlete as they were all on it.”

Tiger didn't cheat his way to the top of his sport did he?
What he did was cheating of a different kind.
No one knows how good Lance actually was, as he had been taking drugs for sooo long, that his actual ability has been hidden away.
He might have won tours without all of the drugs and transfusions etc, or he might not, at least with Tiger, you can say that all his wins were down to him, and not some doctor in a lab somewhere.
So to call him the best is false, as his true abilities are unknown.
Kierenj
12-10-2012
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Tiger didn't cheat his way to the top of his sport did he?
What he did was cheating of a different kind.
No one knows how good Lance actually was, as he had been taking drugs for sooo long, that his actual ability has been hidden away.
He might have won tours without all of the drugs and transfusions etc, or he might not, at least with Tiger, you can say that all his wins were down to him, and not some doctor in a lab somewhere.
So to call him the best is false, as his true abilities are unknown.”

fair point... what I should say is that his body was the most receptive to drugs and he was the one dedicated enough to put himself through it to win...
<<
<
110 of 169
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map