Home

So the news story has hit over 50 comments. So I thought i'd bring this to the forums and see what people's opinion's are.

Here is a list of how the winners would look if Lance is struck from the records.

1999 Alex Zulle (after coming back from the Festina saga)
2000 Jan Ullrich (known doper but only d/q'd from 2005 onwards)
2001 Jan Ullrich
2002 Joseba Beloki (implicated in Puerto but cleared)
2003 Jan Ullrich
2004 Andreas Kloden (caught in 2006 tour)
2005 Ivan Basso (another one implicated in Puerto)

40 comments

Avatar
daloriana [13 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

No winners in this saga, the ONLY hope is that the peleton's current dopers see this as a deterrent. Other than that its difficult to see anything positive from this latest twist.

Surely the greater debate is why cycling catches/has so many dopers.

If cycling (as a sport) inflicts lots more suffering than all the other (relatively) clean sports, this would explain it to me. If not, then cycling is the ONLY sport being honest with itself.

The latter is some kind of positive too, I suppose.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9088 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Cyclist has a much tighter control system over testing and also the bio passports make it alot easier for riders to be caught.

It is also one of the few sports with is almost totally honest. We know there are footballers out there who take things all the time. Its been proved. But they never get anything done about it.

I'd like to think that 99% of the riders are now clean, but then again, there are still ways to dope that cannot be caught at the moment. Certain blood doping is undetectable. So its NEVER going to be a clean sport, but the majority are clean I think.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9088 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

The only other thing, IF he is proved to have been doping. I'd like to know how and what was used. Then see if that had any link to causing his cancer......  39

Avatar
NeilG83 [301 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I cannot decide whether it would be best just to put an asterix next to these years and move on, but I would like the highest placed clean rider get the recognition they deserve, but it is unlikely we will ever find out who that was.
Whilst the riders you have listed are tainted it does not mean that they were doping during those years. You cannot not DQ them just because they served a ban at some point. For example Contador would be a valid winner of this years Vuelta even though he has served a ban, similarly his pre 2010 results stand.
I'm sure that anyone who inherits Armstrong's titles will be investigated by the media, meaning that era of cycling will be in the news for a long time to come.

Avatar
dave atkinson [6247 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
daloriana wrote:

Surely the greater debate is why cycling catches/has so many dopers.

cycling has so many dopers because doping is an extremely effective way of cheating, much more so than in many other sports. and it has the most active anti-doping controls too, inadequate though they still may be

Avatar
djb123 [86 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
NeilG83 wrote:

I cannot decide whether it would be best just to put an asterix next to these years and move on

Surely this is the only real option. Taking 2003 for instance (first TDF I watched), to get away from proven dopers one would have to go back to 5th with Haimar Zubeldia. It would make a mockery of the whole race and become an exercise in "Who didn't get caught this year then"

Avatar
mattbibbings [81 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

The trouble here is we are talking about a transitional time period in the relationship between road cycling and doping. It is a fair sure bet that anyone that won a grand tour in the 90's was in some way implicated in drug-based cheating. It's pretty hard to argue otherwise. These days the Pro peloton is a place where a hell of a lot of guys have aired their sins and now ride as reformed characters (enter Millar.D). Pro cycling has gone a long way towards getting it's act together over drug use and it has been going through that process all the while Mr Armstrong has been ticking off tour wins.

On reflection, what we all witnessed in the late 80's and the 90's is what some people have long called for - that is to say a dirty, level playing field where everyone uses performance enhancing drugs. It's just that no one admitted it at the time. That said, if Armstrong did cheat, then he only beat other cheats. If we can accept that then we need to draw a line under the whole sorry episode and allow ourselves to think that the results would have been the same if everyone was clean.

Avatar
tommygarland [15 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

The fact that armstrong left it so long to get checked for cancer indicates that he might have been used to his body doing weird things after the amount of drugs he was putting into himself potentially?

Either way I think the best way to look at the results would be to do what happens with results from many years ago. They stand, but really it only shows who was the best doper not necessarily the best cyclist. Think it is important to bear that in mind, the greatest question is what validity can any race have if a whole team is doping and getting away with it till now? Who else was doping within the peleton and passing 'controls'? Im sure many others would use the argument that Armstrong is using that he never failed any controls at the time.

The best thing to do without a doubt is only to look to the future with increased controls, fewer cheats and more importantly a return to 'realistic' watts/kilo and VAM, for the pros at least!?

Avatar
Gkam84 [9088 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

So who as the authority to declare his TdF's results null?

USADA doesn't WADA might and ASO should have  39

Anyway. I'm claiming the 1999 result, because I was clean and only 15, I was the youngest winner and I'll set new records  19

Avatar
dave atkinson [6247 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

So who as the authority to declare his TdF's results null?

USADA doesn't

yes they do, under the world anti doping code. the uci is bound to honour their recommendation to remove the titles as the uci has signed the anti doping code

Avatar
Gkam84 [9088 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Ah right, thats how it worked. I though they only had the power over America.

I'm still the winner of 99  19

Avatar
Apres-mapk [12 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
SammyG [274 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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?).

Avatar
_Karlos_ [52 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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!

Avatar
zanf [857 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
dave_atkinson wrote:
daloriana wrote:

Surely the greater debate is why cycling catches/has so many dopers.

cycling has so many dopers because doping is an extremely effective way of cheating, much more so than in many other sports. and it has the most active anti-doping controls too, inadequate though they still may be

Tennis is known to have dopers but incredibly lax controls. It lends itelf more to steroids than EPO. Its a running joke that Raphael Nadir has reoccurring injuries and retires from tournaments to avoid controls.

Athletics has been riddled with doping for years. This interview with Angel Herida is an interesting insight to how they avoid positive test results.

And this is before even talking about American Football and the amount of 'juicing' that goes on there.

Avatar
didds [42 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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

confused...

Avatar
Gkam84 [9088 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I'm confused by it aswell. The UCI still seem to think they have the right to decide on this and are still waiting on the evidence.

From what I understand. The UCI will get the evidence when USADA finish with all the rest of the guys they are investigating?

Quote:

Armstrong says he is innocent and that only the sport's governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI), has the power to sanction him.

With the UCI giving the impression that it agrees with Armstrong, Usada is under pressure to provide more details of its case.
The BBC understands Usada would have done so already but for two reasons:
Armstrong was charged along with three doctors, a coach, and US Postal team manager Johan Bruyneel in June - and proceedings are continuing against three of them;
The agency has been concerned that its witnesses have to be protected from outside influence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Avatar
bashthebox [751 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
SideBurn [890 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Stumps [3354 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
bashthebox [751 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
Adey [86 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
SideBurn [890 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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...

Avatar
antonio [1126 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
bashthebox [751 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9088 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Yeah the evidence WILL come out, but not until the case is finished with because its not all about Armstrong, no matter how much he would like to spin it that way.

The blood test story has been doing the rounds for long enough, SOMEONE has kept it safe all these years, but has been receiving money via A foundation to keep it under wraps...... I think all with become apparent soon. But its something you post and its dark in colour  3 3

As for overwhelming wetness testimony.....doubt that. Its all caught dopers, "reformed" dopers and those who HAVE been caught but given a break to continue cycling as long as they testify  26

Avatar
SideBurn [890 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael [2457 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
SideBurn wrote:

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.

"Beyond reasonable doubt" - why? He's not up for murder.

The World Anti-Doping Code stipulates that the "standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

A document well worth reading by anyone with an opinion on the Armstrong case, by the way - after all, it's those rules that give USADA its authority here and set out the specific offences, sanctions, proceedings etc.

http://www.wada-ama.org/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping...

Avatar
SideBurn [890 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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".

Avatar
bashthebox [751 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

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.

Pages