Re: Cycling : Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:52 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

So, for the guys obviously into cycling on here, the results of the investigation seem pretty damning. Lance Armstrong always had allegations thrown at him, particularly in the French press. In a sport as physically demanding as that, it would be incredibly difficult to be as dominant as he was. Well now we, pretty categorically, know why. All those years he stood up and protested his innocence when he knew he was a cheat. It makes his whole persona seem so false, the whole Livestrong thing seems sullied by it now.

And the sport itself? Has it recovered from the doping scandal? According to the summary of the report read on the news, 20 of the 21 cyclists on the podium in the Tour de France from 1999-2005 were on doping programmes. That's a pretty shocking stat and suggests doping was incredibly widespread. Is it still? Or has it improved now, and is that a factor in Britain's rise in the sport?

I think it has unquestionably improved now. Sky are very vocal in their anti-doping stance and so are Garmin, amongst others. I suppose you could say that so was Armstrong, but I genuinely believe the culture has changed.

I was one of those with my head in the sand about Armstrong, for some reason I thought it possible that he was innocent, but there's absolutely no doubt that he was involved now. He had the chance to redeem a semblance of credibility by co-operating with the investigations, like his former teammates have, but he refused, and that about sums him up I'm afraid.

There's every chance that if every rider in the peloton back then were clean, that he would still have been the strongest, but sadly we'll never know. It was impossible to compete without doping.

All in all I think this is actually a good day for cycling in the long term. Plenty are now following the example of David Millar and admitting past misdemeanours, and hopefully, as in the case of Millar, will be pro-active in ensuring that the sport stays as clean as possible. Riders are no longer afraid to speak out against doping, and the dopers are now in the minority, not the majority, as it previously was. That riders, such as Millar, Cavendish and Wiggins are consistently competing, winning races and placing highly suggests that cycling is as clean as it has ever been and the new wave of cycling fans that the sport has acquired over the summer can have some faith in it.

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:05 am  

I knew about doping in cycling as far back as the mid 80s when I first started following pro races, the organisers/UCI certainly weren't bothered about it then despite all that had gone before (cyclists taking stimulants/doping goes back at least to the early 20th Century)
That Armstrong was beating quite convincingly other dopers just underlined how effective his doping was compared to others.

Shame we can't retrospectively remove dopers records/achievements from other sports such as athletics..

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:02 am  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

That Armstrong was beating quite convincingly other dopers just underlined how effective his doping was compared to others.

Without getting all scientific, it does have more effect on some than others. Plus, we'll never know if Armstrong was the strongest athlete without the doping.

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:07 am  

The defence from his lawyer on SSN is quality.

[John_D]

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:07 am  

Saddened! wrote:

So, for the guys obviously into cycling on here, the results of the investigation seem pretty damning. Lance Armstrong always had allegations thrown at him, particularly in the French press. In a sport as physically demanding as that, it would be incredibly difficult to be as dominant as he was. Well now we, pretty categorically, know why. All those years he stood up and protested his innocence when he knew he was a cheat. It makes his whole persona seem so false, the whole Livestrong thing seems sullied by it now.

We know why it's taken USADA so long to publish: 1000 pages!
It's the testimony from George Hincapie that's most damning. Where Landis and Hamilton could almost be laughed off after their own denials were found to be the rubbish that they were, Hincapie was Armstrong's lieutenant, a loyal, unswerving servant to the cause.

Saddened! wrote:

And the sport itself? Has it recovered from the doping scandal? According to the summary of the report read on the news, 20 of the 21 cyclists on the podium in the Tour de France from 1999-2005 were on doping programmes. That's a pretty shocking stat and suggests doping was incredibly widespread. Is it still? Or has it improved now, and is that a factor in Britain's rise in the sport?

Testing is better now than ever so I believe it's harder to cheat and get away with it. There's a growing culture of openness lead by Slipstream and later taken up by Sky. The times for stages over routes that are well known are down on the peaks around the late '90s/early 2000s which has to mean something.
Has it recovered? Possibly not. You talk to people about the grand tours and you'll still hear "they're all on drugs anyway" come back. I think the successes British riders have had is beginning to change that as people are less willing to believe ill of their own, but there's a hell of a long way to go.
As for the rise in British success - that's a very interesting question. It may be a factor, but the way the whole thing has become a professional operation from talent identification through to the training of the elite is more important. It used to be so haphazard that anyone British even getting close to success was a happy accident, an anomaly. Now it's expected because of the processes that have been put in place.

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:52 am  

This morning I watched the video where Armstrong verbally attacked Paul Kimmage in the press conference before the Tour of California.

Two weeks ago I read 'The Secret Race' and felt anger deep down towards the way that Armstrong chased down that attack in the Tdf (can't remember the name of the rider) who had the audacity to talk about struggling being a clean rider in a dirty peloton. The imaginary zip he ran across his mouth when he overtook him said it all.

I'm currently reading 'Lance to Landis' and you just can't hide the fact that Lance Armstrong is a product of the system he was introduced into. US Cycling were doping - he came into the system and knew nothing else. Add into this the fact that he is an arrogant man (Texan) and we have the nasty kind of bile we've seen from him over the years.

I've still to read the whole USADA report (I intend to) but I've seen a few snippets from it. He appears to have threatened/bullied just about every one of the witnesses (and wives).

I had already made my decision about Lance Armstrong. I'd say the last few weeks I've gone from having sympathy for him (he knew no other way), to pity (deep down he probably wants to come clean) to utter hatred (I want to see the man publicly humiliated).

Going back to my first point - why did Armstrong lay into Paul Kimmage? He said that Lance was 'the cancer in the sport'. I don't know if I'd have put it that strongly but he was definitely one of the symptoms.

The Future

Cycling is cleaner now than it has ever been. This is the hope I hold on to. Mind you, I remember this being said after Festina before Lance arrived back and re started the arms race.

What has to happen for me is a period of truth and reconciliation. All riders who have doped should come forward and admit to their sins. If they do then they should be subject to the same 6 month bans.

Anyone who does not come forward and admit their past or gets popped for doping from the start of next year should receive a life ban. That stands for staff members on teams too (are you listening Sean Yates?).

As for the UCI - it needs stripping down and re starting again. I want Uncle Pat out, Hein Verbruggen gone. The 28 people (out of 32) in the congress who voted against a 'truth and reconciliation' period gone for good.

I don't want a UCI that tests someone’s sample and then checks to see who it is before reporting it to WADA and the rider. I don't want a UCI who accepts 'bribes' from Lance Armstrong. I don't want a UCI that has quiet words with Alberto Contador saying 'it will all be alright - don't worry'. I don't want a UCI who chooses to take Floyd Landis to court while pushing USADA to produce the Armstrong evidence far more quickly.

[John_D]

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:10 am  

Haggis Fax wrote:

Going back to my first point - why did Armstrong lay into Paul Kimmage? He said that Lance was 'the cancer in the sport'. I don't know if I'd have put it that strongly but he was definitely one of the symptoms.

Probably because Kimmage was the only person pursuing him and the problem of widespread doping in the sport. Also, using the term 'cancer' in relation to Armstrong was always going to get his back up - I reckon Kimmage used it deliberately in order to crack Armstrong open a little bit, force a little bit of that personality to leak out, but that's purely my speculation.

Haggis Fax wrote:

As for the UCI - it needs stripping down and re starting again. I want Uncle Pat out, Hein Verbruggen gone. The 28 people (out of 32) in the congress who voted against a 'truth and reconciliation' period gone for good.

I don't want a UCI that tests someone’s sample and then checks to see who it is before reporting it to WADA and the rider. I don't want a UCI who accepts 'bribes' from Lance Armstrong. I don't want a UCI that has quiet words with Alberto Contador saying 'it will all be alright - don't worry'. I don't want a UCI who chooses to take Floyd Landis to court while pushing USADA to produce the Armstrong evidence far more quickly.

I don't want a UCI that is suing Kimmage personally for things he's written. If there is a problem, you sue the publishers, not the author. It smacks of vindictiveness and bullying.
A truth commission is the only way to draw a line under this. If the sport is ever to shed the image completely, it has to happen.

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:26 am  

John_D wrote:

I don't want a UCI that is suing Kimmage personally for things he's written. If there is a problem, you sue the publishers, not the author. It smacks of vindictiveness and bullying.
A truth commission is the only way to draw a line under this. If the sport is ever to shed the image completely, it has to happen.

Agreed around Paul Kimmage. I'd already donated to his fighting fund but I'm going back to give some more. This is our opportunity for change.

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:35 am  

Cycling truly is currently one of the most fascinating sports for all the wrong reasons.

[John_D]

Re: Cycling : Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:17 am  

Haggis Fax wrote:

Two weeks ago I read 'The Secret Race' and felt anger deep down towards the way that Armstrong chased down that attack in the Tdf (can't remember the name of the rider) who had the audacity to talk about struggling being a clean rider in a dirty peloton. The imaginary zip he ran across his mouth when he overtook him said it all.

Christophe Bassons?