Lance folds on drug charges

141 to 160 of 322 messages
11/10/2012 at 11:34
11/10/2012 at 11:36

and Brailsford's comments on Barry's time with Team Sky

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/brailsford-stunned-by-usada-disclosures

 

Dubai Dave    pirate
11/10/2012 at 11:40

And now the accusations that Lance was doping whilst doing Tri begin see 220Triathlon. Given all of the above its seems probable as Leopards don't change their spots.

11/10/2012 at 11:51
Iron Muffin    pirate
11/10/2012 at 13:43

Good comment and debate, I feel informed withoout even catching the news. I went to the TdF finish when he got the record number of wins. It was strange, only American fans were impressed, anyone French or a general cycling fan was ambivalanet about him

Do you think if he came clean (no pun inteneded) and told the truth he could be forgiven?

The Silent Assassin    pirate
11/10/2012 at 13:46

No he wouldn't be forgiven, he has for to long said he didn't dope, when he has all along

 

11/10/2012 at 13:55

I don't think he'd be forgiven by the majority, but would be by many no doubt.

It's his conscience that is now the key point for him - perhaps he will take the deathbed option but don't bet on it. 

Iron Muffin    pirate
11/10/2012 at 14:02

SA, I agree that the lie has become too big. Maybe a few years back he could have been honest and the outcome would have been different. Look at David Millar, impressive and courageous.

I do wonder how the American public will be reacting to their hero being humiliated. There will be a view that everyone did it and look at his cancer charity work etc...

11/10/2012 at 14:03

For me its not so much that he doped. I knew that already really. Its that he caused a generation of cyclists to dope, he ran a team based on them all doping. If you didnt get juiced you got sacked. If you dissed him or his Dr you got sued. Or spat on , or both.  If "good friends" said the wrong thing they got the same.

LA is a bully and a thoroughly nasty piece of work as far as I can ascertain. He was perfect to get into bed with Mcquaid and Verbruggen, both bottom feeders who think it is far more important to line their own pockets than look after the sport they have been entrusted with.  How they can continue to sue Kimmage is beyond me . They spend a lot of time suing people who are trying to clear up the sport and very little chasing the alledged cheats.

The whole UCI thing is a joke. They are supposed to be looking after OUR sport.

11/10/2012 at 14:12

@fat buddha - how do you feel about the Livestrong charity ? Do you think LA honestly cares about cancer sufferers or do you think it's just a way for him to coin it in ? Should Livestrong be treated seperately to LA the cyclist and should we let him carry on with the charity bearing in mind it does actualy raise a lot of money for cancer treatment etc ?

11/10/2012 at 14:18

The UCI are in a compromised position having a conflict of itnerest. On one hand, they are there to promotoe the interests of the sport, raise it's visibility, inctrease the amount of money coming in via sponsorship etc. So that side of the org is very interested in having alegendary success story and in some ways, organises itself to promote the legend because the legend is good for the sport. So they can be persuaded to lose a drugs sample that would diminsh the legend (positive EPO test in 2001 Tour of Switzerland), or accept a crap excuse (Costicortizone positive test in 1999 attributed to a back-dated prescription from the team doctor for a saddle-sore rash).

The other side of the UCI is supposed to organise the fair competition, to run an anti-doping campaign. This they seem to have done in a half-hearted way, ensuring that their first objective of not compromising the myth is kept. So yes Armstrong was tested about 250 times and apart from a few hiccups, was never found to be positive. But he was frequently forewarned of upcoming tests so was able to take saline infusions to make the drugs in his system more dilute and therefore within accepted limits, and even dropped out of races suddenly so as not to be tested.

The UCI smoothed the way. How we can have LA judged and NOT find the UCI to be complicit in the doping-ring, I simply do not know. They need to start again, begin a new era, make a break with the old, clear away the damaged goods. Usually these things happen when the money dries up. So I would suggest that the demand for clean cycling should start at the doors of the sponsors who keep pumping money towards the old regime, legitimising their positions.

Nike to boycott LA perhaps?

11/10/2012 at 14:43

The great thing about being a latecomer to cycling is that your heroes are all from now, hopefully a cleaner period in the sport. The reaction in America will be split. Jingoistic nationalists people will say that everyone was at it and so it was a level playing field and that Lance has done so much selfless (!) work for charity he should be forgiven go-go-USA USA USA! People who love cycling already knew he was on drugs.

For me the surprising thing has been the 'bullying others in to taking it' side of things... I wonder how much of that is true vs. all the other riders getting together and treating Armstrong as a scape goat.

11/10/2012 at 14:43

"Nike to boycott LA perhaps?"   - not if you read the link below (which I posted on the previous page)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/nike-show-continued-support-for-armstrong-after-usada-report

carterusm - in my view, the charity is now tainted.   I'm sure that LA believes in helping cancer sufferers but at the same time he has benefitted from it personally both financially (through endorsements) and personally (PR) which I am also sure was at the back of his mind when it was set up.  one thing you can say about big stars of any type - sport, film, business etc - is that they rarely do charitable things if they don't enhance their stardom    there are very few who do it for the right reasons and those that do are often the mega-rich (Gates, Buffet, Rockefeller, Carnegie etc) who are unlikely to worry about enhancing their images.

curiously, after USADA stripped him of his 7 TdF titles, donations went UP. 

I would think that the Livestrong trustees, of who LA is one, should take a long hard look at whether they should divorce the charity from the man but it's going to be tough as LA is Livestrong in all but name.   

personally, I've chucked what Livestrong bands I had lying around - I have other charities I feel more comfy with now

flyaway    pirate
11/10/2012 at 15:08

I very much dislike the way Lance used/uses Cancer as a shield to deflect personal criticism. Questions about doping were often answered with personal accusations that the questioner somehow wants to destroy research/funding/charitable support for cancer. I dont think LA actually cares all that much about the average Joe on the street with cancer, otherwise, but I think the organisation, and the legitimacy of Fighting Cancer gave him a convenient smokescreen.

The way he responds to allegations by making personal attacks on those who bring them reminds me of the Scientology "Fair Game" policy ("Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack" - LRH)

Sadly, the world of cancer charities is big business. There may be charities who simply cant afford to walk away from Livestrong, because of the ensuing funding shortfall.

11/10/2012 at 15:10

Maybe Armstrong will swing his PR machine into action and bring out a follow up book to 'Its Not About the Bike', with sub title, 'its about the drugs'. Will it sell? of course it will. 1000's.

11/10/2012 at 15:17

" were often answered with personal accusations that the questioner somehow wants to destroy research/funding/charitable support for cancer."

bit of a resonance there with another high profile celeb in the news - Saville - who (allegedly) used to say to any of the press who threatened to expose his predatory habits "print that and Stoke Mandeville loses it's funding".  that was enough to get them to back off as nobody wanted to see a charity suffer a big lack of funding and Saville did raise shitloads for them

Edited: 11/10/2012 at 15:18
flyaway    pirate
11/10/2012 at 15:18

I also think, at the risk of being unpopular, that British Cycling needs to step up. Brailsford was told in 2010 that Landis had implicated Barry - Brailsford said he was aware of the accusations, but nothing ever happened. I dont think its really good enough just to allow the poor chap to fall on his sword, whilst continuing to tout the line that BC is a clean operation. I think now we need that to be supported.

11/10/2012 at 15:19

This article about where the money from Livestrong goes is well worth a read:

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

11/10/2012 at 15:21
flyaway wrote (see)

I also think, at the risk of being unpopular, that British Cycling needs to step up. Brailsford was told in 2010 that Landis had implicated Barry - Brailsford said he was aware of the accusations, but nothing ever happened. I dont think its really good enough just to allow the poor chap to fall on his sword, whilst continuing to tout the line that BC is a clean operation. I think now we need that to be supported.

What should Brailsford have done? He asked Barry if he took drugs. Barry lied. Should Brailsford have barred him based on 'suspicion'?

11/10/2012 at 15:23

fa - I suspect Brailsford was caught in a dilemma of who to believe.  either Landis a a convicted doper and at the time, an uncreditable source who was seemingly losing his senses and talking gaga; or Barry who simply lied to him.

 

141 to 160 of 322 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