Armstrong saga

And we also know from testimonies of people like Millar and Vaughters that doping wasn't just another bit of preparation, it was the incredibly difficult choice you had to make if you wanted to compete with riders like LA who were untouchable.

Basically, people like LA ruined the chance of other talented but clean riders having a winning career, and forced other riders who wanted to be clean down the doping path.

I am not thinking that Lance was singled out for special treatment; I am more concerned about a lack of special treatment! Possibly someone in authority (still in authority) did not want their 'Prize bull' (or 'Cash cow') tainted with Clenbu... Whoops! (sorry) ....the title "Cheat!!". As these stories suggest.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9501...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9499...

Maybe so, but I've thought for a while that the difference is in the perception - we view doping as being 'off limits', but those guys - particularly during the 90s-early 00s - viewed it as just another part of the sport; you ride a light bike, you train hard, eat/sleep right and ensure the right 'preparation'. Dope controls were just another distraction on their time, with press conferences, sponsor gigs, interviews etc, where they wheel out a performing monkey who says what others want to hear, regardless of the truth.

Unfairly singled out my fucking arse. He was the one who, in the wake of Festina, took doping to a whole new level. He the most more money, had the best doctors, and beat the system hardest out of all of the dopers.

Doping doesn't make a level playing field, no matter how many times you hear it said. That's just bollocks. Before the Cancer/massive scientific doping, LA was a mediocre to good cyclist.

Armstrong case - I'm torn.

I loved watching him ride. If the main contenders were all doped or if they were all clean, I think Armtrong would still have won 7 Tour titles.

In the Times' serialisation if Hamilton's book, Hamilton says: "He was incapable of being paasive, because he was haunted by what others might be doing. This was the same force that drove him to test equipment in the wind tunnel, to be finicky about diet, to be ruthless about training".

The implication being that others were doping, so he would also have to dope. Hamilton lumps the doping 'preparation' together with the other areas of prepartion (training, planing, strategy) and calls it "Lance's Golden Rule", which he says was "Whatever you do those other f***ers are doing more."

If you listen to Armstrong respond to doping questions in the past he answers with a dodge - things like 'never failed a test'; 'most tested athlete'; 'never broke the rules'. This tells me that if he was doping (and I think that when it finally comes out, the evidence will be damning), then he firmly believed that at the time he was merely playing by the unwritten rules of the peloton, where top GC riders on the Tour were expected to dope - so much so that even non-dopers observed the omerta. If this is the case, then I can understand why he would refuse to admit to cheating.

So, on the one hand I feel he is being unfairly singled out. He didn't win those titles because he (allegedly) doped - I really believe that a clean Lance would still have won in a clean peloton.

On the other hand -

The point that I was trying to make with the case of John Christie and Timothy Evans was that many people gave evidence against Evans and consequently he was hung for murder. The irony was that one of the people who gave evidence was Christie; a serial killer and the real murderer. So, no, history records that 10 witnesses to murder does not always equal justice.

Time hasn't allowed me to read this all in depth so apologies if I have missed something.

Also I should add that the evidence is looking bad for LA too.

BUT, it does seem that he was in a no win situation, in that when he said he would fight the claim it was said he must be guilty! Then he said he'd block it - ah! he must be guilty! Then he goes 'ok I will not fight it anymore' and guess what, he must be guilty!

Having 10 witnesses to a murder would constitute a pretty closed case, no? Having 10 witnesses to doping is the same. These witnesses, for the most part, won't have failed drugs tests. So by the same logic, why would they *need* to testify? 10 witnesses to a crime IS beyond reasonable doubt.

Noted Simon; a poor choice of words from me! I meant, "reasonable given the circumstances". I would agree with what WADA say ie "more than a balance of probabilities but less than beyond reasonable doubt".

I have a number of 'gripes' against Lance; seeing him 'done' for doping would be the icing on the cake for me. But I want to see it done properly; beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise we will have conspiracy theories floating around; instead of the "grassy knoll" (jfk) it will be the "empty syringe". I wonder whether Lance would rather give up his titles than have intimate scrutiny of exactly who did what. Possibly because of potential criminal charges following? But maybe I am too suspicious/cynical.

Sideburn, the evidence is coming. The case isn't solely about Armstrong, it'll have to go through due legal process for all the others too before everything comes to light.
It's hardly secret evidence - I'm not going to dignify your quote marks - it's mainly overwhelming witness testimony by the sounds of it.

Incidentally, anyone heard the rumours on the grapevine this evening? Apparently a positive blood test has been dug up for Armstrong. All will be revealed tomorrow, say the tweets.

I think McQuaid is in for an uncomfortable time, in the comic he says they,UCI, are not afraid to sanction.

Bashthebox; what evidence? I have followed this closely, all I have seen is the USADA; claiming to have 'overwhelming' and 'secret' evidence. Did we not invade Iraq on 'overwhelming' and 'secret' evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Google "September dossier" and remember that Dr David Kelly killed himself when he found what "they" had done with "his" evidence. But to date these weapons have proved mighty elusive... Keep an open mind...

I personally find the whole saga/episode very sad
Having read Lance's book and (hopefully) beaten the dreaded 'C' myself i found his book very inspiring
I dunno - perhaps i /we feel 'cheated' for believing so strongly in the guy
Sad

Sideburn: He's guilty. USADA had so much evidence there was no way he could fight them. He ran away from the case because it was the only possible way to save just a tiny bit of face.

Lance, the brand, is going to lose millions now. His charity will be badly affected in the long term. If he was innocent, he'd have fought the case all the way.

And Stumpy, it has nothing to do with ego. Lance isn't the only one involved here. It's also about Brunyeel, Pedro Celaya, Pepe Marti, Michele Ferrari and Luis Garcia del Moral. All of these people are still involved in the sport. There's apparently evidence that points to Armstrong doping during his comeback - that's 2009 to 2011, not exactly in the distant past.
We want a clean sport. So we must demand that those who have cheated come clean, or face the consequences. Otherwise, how the fuck does anyone learn?

Personally i couldn't give a stuff if he is innocent or guilty because the whole episode has dragged a sport / pastime i love through the dirt just to please one mans ego and cast doubts over a number of riders.

I hope it all ends soon and we can get on with watching 99% + clean riders.

Bashthebox; you seem very sure that Lance is guilty. I am no fan of Lance; reading his book gave me an insight into his dark mind that I did not like. But indulge me; look up the case of John Christie and Timothy Evans. Yes I am being over dramatic but this is an excellent case of an innocent person (Evans) being convicted because he was so obviously guilty that people failed to do their jobs properly. One of the people allowed to testify against Evans was Christie himself.... Keep an open mind.

It's such a complex and thorny issue. The debate will rage for a long time I think.

A big cornerstone of it for me is this: The assertion that if everyone dopes, then it's a level playing field. It's wheeled out by those Lance supporters who aren't naive enough to think he didn't dope, but still can't let go of his legend.
Doping doesn't create a level playing field, at all, and there are again many sides to this.
- Not everyone reacts to drugs in the same way. An aspirin for me might get rid of my headache, but you might still be in agony after half a packet. In the same way, if any of you lot were like me in my wilder days, you'll know that an E can keep one person going for 12 hours of constant dancing whilst another will be passed out in the corner within a couple of hours. Although that might be something to do with whatever else that person ingested, which brings me neatly on to...
- Not everyone has the same access to chemists, doctors and drugs. Because they don't come cheap, do they? With constant medical supervision, you can manipulate your blood levels such that you never fail a test. Micro dosing will mean your urine never returns a positive result. Armstrong's blood tests are apparently a consistently high plateau, not showing the peaks and troughs that are supposedly indicative of a doper... but this instead suggests that Armstrong was doping all the fucking time. That means he could train harder, for longer, every day of every week. Remember that rubbish Bond film with Begbie, who had a bullet in his brain so he couldn't feel any pain? And then Pierce Brosnan killed him with a giant golden phallus? It's just like that.
What was I talking about again?
- Armstrong was massive for the sport. MASSIVE. He opened up the hugely lucrative US market to the UCI in a big way. TV money, sponsorship, etc. If he failed his drugs tests, if he was ever stupid enough to allow himself to fail one (and as we know from various chemists talking openly about it, Victor Conte being the notable voice) it's only the dumb and the really dumb who get caught. But if ever he was to fail, the UCI would have been out by millions of dollars.
- Armstrong is a dick. A litigious, nasty, bullying dick. Who also happened to beat cancer and inspire millions, bringing hope to many and helping raise money to help other cancer sufferers. Which he may well have done to boost PR image and hence raise more sponsorship money, but fuck it. He's done good too.

Black and white it isn't, but USADA is right to chase him, and more importantly those still working in the sport, and bring them down. The irony that doping is the cancer eating away at sport surely isn't lost on anyone.

If the UCI "has" to follow USADA... then why haven#t they?

confused...

I think we should just let it lie, just about every winner until a few years ago probably doped.

Let's just look forward, leave Armstrong alone and move on. It's positive that the sport has cleaned up in the last couple of years, mostly.

There was some expert on R4 this morning saying that power outputs of riders were down in the last couple of years, and that they are struggling on mountains that they used to fly up.You don't need me to tell you why!

I would be very nervous.

I also think that the blood passport may have some pro's in a cycle of they are damned if they stop cheating and only risk being caught by continuing doping (F Schleck perhaps?).

After reading all this about Lance ,should any other rider who has won a major tour be nervous?
What do you think?