Has Phil Liggett lost it?

_SiD_ wrote:Wonder what Phil

_SiD_ wrote:

Wonder what Phil will say now after reading the USADA report?

The twitter feed has dried up.

Pretty blunt statement from Leipheimer in WSJ today, including this:

“I came to see cycling for what it was: a sport where some team managers and doctors coordinated and facilitated the use of banned substances and methods by their riders. A sport where the athletes at the highest level—perhaps without exception—used banned substances.”

Or does Liggett know better?

Statements have been issued by Hincapie (http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/535106/hincapie-admits-to-doping-during-career.html) and VDV too (http://christianvdv.com/blog/christian-vande-velde-statement/).

drheaton wrote:What puzzles

drheaton wrote:

What puzzles me most is how come its taken so long to put together their ‘reasoned decision’. Surely they had to do most of the work to make the decision in the first place? Very odd. Almost seems like having made the decision they’re now trying to justify it.

Oh well, time will tell I guess. Best put October 15th in my diary.

drheaton

drheaton wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19737213

Sounds like we’ll need to wait another few weeks for answers on the Armstrong case.

Can’t stand the bloke, was
Can’t stand the bloke, was always an idiot, and an extremely tiresome commentator to have to listen to.

I avoid watching races where he and his equally inept colleague are commentating. Sky commentary is so much better imo ….

bashthebox wrote:Being

bashthebox wrote:

Being coerced into giving a certain version of events though? I’m really not sure there’s any need. Those pros and ex pros who have talked about the doping describe things which are almost beyond belief.

Like you said, they get into the habit of lying and they need a serious push to come clean, I doubt Vaughter, Leipheimer, Vande Valde, Zabriskie et al would have come clean without having a good reason, reduced bans or favourable treatment would have sweetened the deal enough for them to testify knowing they weren’t going to be punished too harshly.

I don’t know anything, and haven’t read anything about other cases where USADA might have tried to ‘persuad’ people to testify against Lance, I was just picking up on GKam’s comment above.

bashthebox wrote:

The pressure is on the riders from the very structure of the sport to do everything and anything in order to win…. quite apart from the health risks involved in steroids, HGH, EPO and all, there’s a staggering amount of failed blood transfusions too. Which is horrific.
Yes, they had the choice not to dope, but then they’d have been blown away by the dopers. You cheat, you at least have a chance of winning the race – and there’s always the possibility you wouldn’t get caught.

To change the sport, the ONLY way is to destroy the omerta, to get EVERYONE talking openly about it all, to see all the evidence from all sides. One almost wonders if the reason USADA are taking so long to release the evidence is because they want to bring down the staggeringly corrupt UCI at the same time.

Sorry about the Unicorn comment, I actually went back in to remove it before you post, been a long day and I got a bit carried away 🙁 Apologies.

The main issue here seems to be that you don’t see cycling today as having progressed from doping whereas I do. I see the peloton as a much cleaner place and with the likes of Sky and Garmin in there young pro’s can feel confident that they no longer have to dope to keep up. It wasn’t always like that, it probably wasn’t even like that 5 years ago, but I think things have vastly improved.

The omerta doesn’t really seem to exist any more (hopefully)and with the likes of Millar in there doping isn’t as taboo a subject as it once was so I don’t see what benefit there is to cycling in having prolonged account from every ex-pro about what they did, how they did it, where they got it from and who else was doing it.

This is where I think McQuaid missed a trick in not saying that the UCI could and should have done more. That would have drawn a line under the matter and hopefully allowed us all to move on.

bashthebox wrote:

Also, the Armstrong case that was thrown out of court was a fraud case. The evidence gathered by that case has now been used to get him for doping.

That was the Grand Jury case where they were trying to prove that he used government funds to dope (because US Postal was effectively a government team) but couldn’t get sufficient evidence to get a conviction, all they had was testimony but no hard evidence (financial records etc). That case was ditched and the evidence used to get him for doping where witness testimony is sufficient for a ‘conviction’. The court case that was thrown out was when Aramstrong was trying to block the ban and in that instance USADA was heavily criticised despite actually winning.

bashthebox wrote:You talk

bashthebox wrote:

You talk about the influence to speak out? It comes from their love of the sport, from a human’s basic need to be honest, and from the gathering momentum that comes from the omerta gradually being eroded away.

Llandis and Hamilton only ever came clean because they got caught and had no other option. If they hadn’t been forced into a corner they never would have confessed. That’s the truth of it, there was no altruistic motive involved, it was pure, selfish, self-preservation. Also, by coming clean, both have scored book deals and profitted yet more from their cheating. Love of cycling and their basic need for honesty didn’t stop them from vehemently denying their doping until they had no other option.

GKam is specifically talking about people being coerced into giving a certain version of events. Likewise he’s talking about current pro’s being offered deals in order to secure their testimony or being threatened with bans if they withold it.

I’m no lawyer but those kind of tactics sound borderline witness intimidation.

Again, I’m not defending Armstrong and I certainly think he’s probably guilty but I would quite like to read through the evidence and testimony before coming to a final judgement. The memories Armstrong gave me as a kid growing up watching him ride down grass verges and pick himself up off the tarmac after tangling with a hat before smashing Ulrich to pieces deserve to be shattered by hard evidence, not the promise that USADA has hard evidence in a draw in a filing room somewhere.

dullard wrote:

Now, this is USADA right, the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the competent anti-doping authority? This is what they do. And I’m sorry to break it to you, but their views are a little bit more relevant than yours.

Is that why the court that threw out Armstrong’s case also severly criticised USADA and their actions?

Dullard and Rumpo, are you jumping up and down so hard on this bandwagon because for so long you protested that Armstrong was innocent or will you try and claim you ‘always knew he was doped up’?

Gkam84 wrote:
Who are the

Gkam84 wrote:

Who are the witnesses? What deal are they getting? Why is it being chased now?
……

SO not only have they got witnesses to the drug use/dealing but now they also have witnesses who were “influenced” to keep quiet about it……

My guess is they have now been “influenced” to speak out about it.

SO MANY athletes who have doped and later professed their guilt have talked about the strain of living a lie, and of how much better it feels, psychologically, to tell the truth. And pretty much every one of those who have talked openly about it say how they don’t want others to have to make the same choices they felt they were forced into – and the only way that’s going to happen is to get everything out in the open, explain the pressures and the reasons for doping.

You talk about the influence to speak out? It comes from their love of the sport, from a human’s basic need to be honest, and from the gathering momentum that comes from the omerta gradually being eroded away.