Lance folds on drug charges

21 to 40 of 318 messages
24/08/2012 at 10:23

So was this years tour Brads second win?

cougie    pirate
24/08/2012 at 10:43

Everyone knows that the cheats are ahead of the drug testers. Its always been that way. 

The evidence against Lance is overwhelming, and now he's wriggled out of having it all proven against him. 

As to re allocating his wins - well most of the podium people have been busted anyway. Lets see who would get it....

1999 - er lets call that invalid

2000 - oh bum

2001 - damn this is hard

2002 - Sastre in 10th ?

2003 - Sastre in 9th takes it.

2004 - Sastre gets his 3rd win

2005 - Cadel Evans !

 

24/08/2012 at 10:52
So if someone comes out of the woodwork to discredit Eddie Merckx should we erase him from cycling history. We all know cycling has been riddled with drugs for years. I'm all for tightening up future testing and stopping cheats but raking through tours from decades ago is doing no-one any favours. If Lance beat the tests of the day then that should be the end of it.
24/08/2012 at 11:08

Unless you had physical proof would you want to implicate Lance?  What interests me is if he cheated, how, when so many ohers were caught.  Not impossible.  But how?

24/08/2012 at 11:11

DB - I'm a triathlon race ref not a cycling one.  I'm only responsible for enforcing the rules in the "field of play" and have nothing to do with enforecement of any drug testing that takes place outside this area.

"The evidence against Lance is overwhelming, and now he's wriggled out of having it all proven against him. "  but equally he's not getting his day(s) in court to prove the allegations are (possibly) false.    none of the evidence is from drug tests so I can't agree the evidence is overwhelming - only the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and that isn't necessarily proof.

24/08/2012 at 11:12

I really have a hard time with understanding the fervor to get lance and find him guilty and also the total lack of understanding that everytime he goes through this it still doesn't clear his name as far as everyone is concerend.  how many times do people have to cleared before they are actually cleared.

If it was you in that position being blamed for something you didn't do but were continually being prosecuted for it and people with zero evidence cited comments from other people with zero evidance as evidence, what would you do?

That article is purely based on the writers opinions, and adds nothing to the argument.

Wheter or not Lance is guity or not and I couldn't really care one way or another, you should however at least care about how another human is being treated under these circumstances.

24/08/2012 at 11:13

BIWF He doesn't implicate Lance but he doesn't exactly scream he's clean either does he. It's certainly and interesting read, but I haven't quite finished it yet.

The problem is we will never know what really goes on but as with all sport we need to Pro Cycling to be clean sport.

If that means times and speeds go down and races have to be made less tough then I'm fine with that, but in reality I think many people wouldn't be.

There again if you can boost your bodies ability in ways that aren't listed as prohibited drugs use, should you be peanlised for it? The moral question is should you do it in the first place.

But then where do you draw the line as training and eating the right diet are ways of boosting your bodies ability.

 

 

Edited: 24/08/2012 at 11:15
cougie    pirate
24/08/2012 at 11:15

I guess going back and doing this puts the fear of god into the current generation of riders ? Sure you can beat the checks NOW - but if we find out - we will strip the titles off you ?

IW - Millar wouldnt implicate Lance - why would he ? He'd get his ass sued off him, and likely get hounded out of the peleton. Lance wasnt keen on Bassons and Simeoni who spoke out on doping. They left the sport soon after. 

JB - microdosing is the way to do it. Small amounts. And you can rehydrate yourself pretty quickly to to cheat tests. Why did riders have personal blood centrifuges back in the day ? Most people got busted buying the stuff or transporting it. Only idiots actually tested positive.  

24/08/2012 at 11:18

Perhaps it should be said that if it's administered by a needle it's banned?

That would kill off rehydrating via IV drip too though.

Yes I'm a total noob to all this

Edited: 24/08/2012 at 11:18
cougie    pirate
24/08/2012 at 11:20

They've thought of that already :

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy

 

 

24/08/2012 at 11:30

Noob point well proven there Cougie!

Hmm Medical need though that's rather vague isn't it. Maybe they need to look at the team Dr's thing instead, but then they'd use private Dr's. Or if you could only use UCI mandated Dr's you still get the odd corrupt UCI approved Dr.

I give up! Just need to some how set a moral compass in all the riders, maybe all these very clever specialist Dr's could start working on that!

Mind you it's sort of two things isn't it.

If Lance tested clean by the race rules at the time then surely that should stand. Then figure out how to get the riders to always be clean in today's races.

TheEngineer    pirate
24/08/2012 at 11:38
cougie wrote (see)

I guess going back and doing this puts the fear of god into the current generation of riders ? Sure you can beat the checks NOW - but if we find out - we will strip the titles off you ?

Find out what, exactly? That people you routinely beat are pointing a finger? It's double jeopardy as far as I'm concerned. I'm a fan of process. If we can prove the guilt of an athlete using the process then great. If we can't and they are doping, then we need to improve the process. If we don't know for certain but cannot prove their guilt, we cannot change the process.

cougie    pirate
24/08/2012 at 11:41

Find out that they were doping - but passed the tests as the drugs they were using werent being tested for at that time ? 

He had 6 positives from the 1999 test.  Its just that they didnt come to light until 2005 when tests had improved. 

cougie    pirate
24/08/2012 at 11:44
24/08/2012 at 11:45
AliBear30 wrote (see)

If Lance tested clean by the race rules at the time then surely that should stand. Then figure out how to get the riders to always be clean in today's races.

But that legitimises any behaviour that can be concealed at the time. I believe it's standard practice now to freeze samples so that they can be tested in the future when testing methods improve. Surely this combined with retrospective action increases the deterrent?

24/08/2012 at 15:46

I don't see how, if LA doesn't contest the charges at this stage, that CAS could be involved.  Surely it's like any other judicial process where if (without good reason) you don't participate at first instance, you won't be allowed to appeal?

24/08/2012 at 16:25

If I was paying attention correctly this morning (it was early), USADA has no authority to strip LA of his TdF title, that lies within the remit of UCI- it's that battle (if it starts) which could find its way to CAS.

24/08/2012 at 16:28

But surely if the reason the title is taken away is because of findings by USADA that LA doped, LA couldn't complain that UCI had adopted the USADA findings because he hadn't taken the chance he had to challenge the evidence relied on by USADA?

24/08/2012 at 16:31

Sorry, I'm not making it very clear- my understanding is it would be UCI opposing USADA at the CAS over who had the ability to strip LA of the title- the gentleman in question would not be involved in the proceedings. 

Edit: to hopefully fix the grammar

Edited: 24/08/2012 at 16:35
24/08/2012 at 16:54

Shame, wonder will it affect the "charity" side of Lance with Livestrong.....will they edit him out of Dodgeball as well.

21 to 40 of 318 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums