Jan Ullrich now winner of three tour de france races

[cnighbor1]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ullrich-proud-second-places-tour-135735764--spt.html
Note other 2nd place finishers to Lance Armstrong are now winners of tour de france
what a mess A few now winners were involved in doping
UGH
Charles

[1centaur]

Whatever the record books say, and I would not be surprised if ASO said one thing and USADA said another, with UCI an unknown, the results in those years will be meaningless. Fans will decide to whom they want to assign the victories, with Lance and "nobody" being the top two picks, I predict.

There may be coffee stop arguments for years to come, but that will reflect the personalities of the arguers (letter of the law vs. emotional truth, e.g.) more than the status of the records.

If I were writing the record books, I'd say what the original order of finish was, and then write a footnote about the doping revelations that followed. I'd do the same for Floyd and Contador as well. Trying to tell people who shoulda/woulda/coulda won major sporting events ex-post is just not worth the effort.

[Tony T]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ullrich-proud-second-places-tour-135735764--spt.html
Note other 2nd place finishers to Lance Armstrong are now winners of tour de france
what a mess A few now winners were involved in doping
UGH
Charles

:eek: That would be a validation that this entire process was a farce.
I doubt that Ullirich will receive yellow, there should just be no winner from 1999-2006.
If it does happen, then cycling will not only be called the dirtiest sport (other's commentary, not mine), and the silliest (men in lycra riding bikes. (again, not my opinion)), but the sport with the worst sanctioning authorities, one where a winner who has said he didn't dope will be replaced by one who confessed that he has.

[Steelman]

When Bernard Khol manned up and confessed to doping, his podium place and King of Mountains jersey were taken away and left vacant.

I suspect that there will now be no official Tour winner in the years tainted by that arrogant, obnoxious, Livestronger.

Remember when he chased down and humiliated a rider who had the guts to rat out Dr. Ferrari?

[Tony T]

Remember when he chased down and humiliated a rider who had the guts to rat out Dr. Ferrari?

Yeah, that was awesome! :)

[Steelman]

Yeah, that was awesome! :)

Awesome if you were in favor of the status quo.
To me it reeks of gangsterism.

There will be some short term pain in the near term, while fanboys ween off of their Livestrong bracelets, but things will look better in the morning.

[Tony T]

Joke :):):):):):):):):):)

[Lewis Moon]

Joke :):):):):):):):):):)
Don'tcha just hate it when you have to do that?

If they give it to Jan, I think they should begin investigating him. Let's see how deep into the peleton we can go. (place obligatory smiley here)

[slidey]

The fact that Lance has been banned from the sport with all the doped up glory stripped off him is enough validation for this process...kudos to USADA.

And, like it or not...every professional sport has disgraceful athletes who let their ambitions/impatience get the better of them and they take to doping. Unfortunately, it makes complete logical sense to me that someone has touted cycling as the dirtiest sport - the grand tours are the hardest feats of super-human sporting achievement, after all.

:eek: That would be a validation that this entire process was a farce.
I doubt that Ullirich will receive yellow, there should just be no winner from 1999-2006.
If it does happen, then cycling will not only be called the dirtiest sport (other's commentary, not mine), and the silliest (men in lycra riding bikes. (again, not my opinion)), but the sport with the worst sanctioning authorities, one where a winner who has said he didn't dope will be replaced by one who confessed that he has.

[Futchgator]

What is the likelihood that anyone in the top 10 during the "doping years" wasn't juiced? Hell, even the top 25?

[Chance]

What is the likelihood that anyone in the top 10 during the "doping years" wasn't juiced? Hell, even the top 25?

What is the likelihood anyone cares anymore? The real problem is that most of us think this kind of behavior has been going on for next to ever, so we accept cheating as part of the race. And how does anyone reverse that? How far back would we have to go before we can say the winner was clean with 100 percent certainty?

[Chance]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ullrich-proud-second-places-tour-135735764--spt.html
Note other 2nd place finishers to Lance Armstrong are now winners of tour de france
what a mess A few now winners were involved in doping
UGH
Charles

Brought this very subject up a while back when stating that hounding Lance was not right unless they were also going to investigate others to same level. Otherwise you'd be passing the title from one cheat to another. The entire process of going after him after a decade or so is so stupid it's beyond words. No doubt in my mind that this effort will do more damage to cycling long-term than good. In my opinion they should place their efforts in enforcing rules from here on (or very recent past) but not create the nightmare they are doing by default.

This doesn't mean that Lance isn't probably guilty, just that going after him wasn't very smart in my opinion. Very little good will come from it.

[67-59]

If they take the wins away from Lance, they should subject any proposed "substitute" to the same degree of scrutiny he's undergone. That pretty much would involve endlessly (over a period of years) interrogating any rider he has ever ridden with or against, any soigneur, trainer or partner with whom he's ever worked, and any friend or neighbor with whom he's hung out, to see if they can come up with anyone who will say he once saw him take a pill or inject a "substance" - in which case, they'd move on to the next candidate.

Otherwise, any substitute will be a joke.

[Rueda Tropical]

None of the Tour results since the advent of EPO mean much. During the Lance years they were all juiced to the gills. Since then most if not all were likely juiced, just at lower doses. The results should just be vacated. Ullrich does not want the titles (or the attention they will bring).

The point of the investigation is not to determine who won (to late for that) it's to break up an ongoing doping operation and sanction the participants and prevent them from further corrupting sport.

Things won't get better until the UCI management goes the way of Lance, Bruyneel and Ferrari:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls

"Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s."

[Grant McLean]

If they take the wins away from Lance, they should subject any proposed "substitute" to the same degree of scrutiny he's undergone. That pretty much would involve endlessly (over a period of years) interrogating any rider he has ever ridden with or against, any soigneur, trainer or partner with whom he's ever worked, and any friend or neighbor with whom he's hung out, to see if they can come up with anyone who will say he once saw him take a pill or inject a "substance" - in which case, they'd move on to the next candidate.

Otherwise, any substitute will be a joke.

The German federation already retroactively went back six years,
to ban Ullrich. The evidence found in Operation Puerto, accusations
of doping in 2005 weren't stripped until 2011, 4 years after he was retired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operación_Puerto_doping_case#Teams

[Grant McLean]

None of the Tour results since the advent of EPO mean much.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls

We seem to have a very similar take on the situation... i like your
contributions to the discussion so far.

One thing I haven't seen in the coverage and discussion in the last 48 hrs
is a reminder that there was no EPO test deployed at races until 2001.

If i've got this straight (an I think that I have....) it's pretty hard to fail a
drug test for something they aren't testing you for.

-g

[Dekonick]

When Bernard Khol manned up and confessed to doping, his podium place and King of Mountains jersey were taken away and left vacant.

I suspect that there will now be no official Tour winner in the years tainted by that arrogant, obnoxious, Livestronger.

Remember when he chased down and humiliated a rider who had the guts to rat out Dr. Ferrari?

One of the big reasons (many others...) I dislike LA.

[bikinchris]

Awesome if you were in favor of the status quo.
To me it reeks of gangsterism.

There will be some short term pain in the near term, while fanboys ween off of their Livestrong bracelets, but things will look better in the morning.

Fanboys? Lance is both a racer and a cancer survivor who helps people live through and survive cancer. even when the patient doesn't survive themselves.

Maybe we who wear a yellow bracelet are fanboys, but my Livestrong bracelet honors my deceased father. Why don't you say those words to my face? You might be able to get a nice bridge out of it...

[jpw]

Wanted. One very big asterisk.

[Fixed]

Pro cycling has lost all of its credibility most everyone things they all dope .
I am so bad I think most pros in any sport and most world class amateurs take some kind of performance or recreational drugs .
Cheers IMHO :)

[bart998]

Whatever the record books say, and I would not be surprised if ASO said one thing and USADA said another, with UCI an unknown, the results in those years will be meaningless. Fans will decide to whom they want to assign the victories, with Lance and "nobody" being the top two picks, I predict.

There may be coffee stop arguments for years to come, but that will reflect the personalities of the arguers (letter of the law vs. emotional truth, e.g.) more than the status of the records.

If I were writing the record books, I'd say what the original order of finish was, and then write a footnote about the doping revelations that followed. I'd do the same for Floyd and Contador as well. Trying to tell people who shoulda/woulda/coulda won major sporting events ex-post is just not worth the effort.

Until the UCI accepts the USADA findings his TdF winnings stand. The UCI is already on record as opposing the USADA investigation because they are conducting their own.

[Grant McLean]

Until the UCI accepts the USADA findings his TdF winnings stand. The UCI is already on record as opposing the USADA investigation because they are conducting their own.

Take it another step, the UCI has no choice.

The WADA code rules all. That's why it was a big deal that WADA
supported the USADA actions. Refusing to move forward would
end the UCI's legal standing with the IOC:

"in order to be recognized by the IOC, an International Federation must adopt and implement the World Anti-Doping Code (Rules 26 and 44)."

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

Anti-Doping Rules are part of the competition rules, i.e. sports rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. Riders and other Persons accept these rules as a condition of participation and shall be bound by them. The rules and procedures provided for by these Anti-Doping Rules are sport- specific and intended to apply autonomously and not by reference to existing law or statutes. They are based upon the World Anti-Doping Code which represents the consensus of a broad spectrum of sports organizations and anti-doping organizations around the world with an interest in fair sport."

[palincss]

What is the likelihood that anyone in the top 10 during the "doping years" wasn't juiced? Hell, even the top 25?

This is why you must award 1st place to the riders who finished last. It's not only logical (since they're the least likely to have been doping) but also biblical.

[CunegoFan]

Until the UCI accepts the USADA findings his TdF winnings stand. The UCI is already on record as opposing the USADA investigation because they are conducting their own.

They have a funny way of conducting it. During the federal investigation the UCI was telling riders to not cooperate, threatening some.

[Tony T]

The fact that Lance has been banned from the sport with all the doped up glory stripped off him is enough validation for this process...kudos to USADA.

Not sure if that means that you think that Jan should be awarded the yellow (which is what this topic is about).

Do you?

[Tony T]

None of the Tour results since the advent of EPO mean much. During the Lance years they were all juiced to the gills. Since then most if not all were likely juiced, just at lower doses. The results should just be vacated. Ullrich does not want the titles (or the attention they will bring).

You believe that Armstrong doped, but that all/most of the other pro's 'juiced' to a lesser extent than LA? Based on what? That he won?

They should just redact the entire 1999-2006 season.
(and btw, doping in cycling pre-dates the "Lance Years")

[Rueda Tropical]

You believe that Armstrong doped, but that all/most of the other pro's 'juiced' to a lesser extent than LA? Based on what? That he won?

They should just redact the entire 1999-2006 season.
(and btw, doping in cycling pre-dates the "Lance Years")

I never suggested that. They were all doing as much doping as they could. That does not mean that that PEDs have the same effect on all riders. Far from it. No one will ever know who the best GT rider was but we absolutely know whose physiology was best suited to EPO and who had the strongest and most effective doping infrastructure and Doctors. But they don't have a jersey for either of those 'achievements'.

Maybe they can give the gold to Dr. Ferrari.

[cnighbor1]

Case is based 2009 and 2010 EPO tests for Lance. and wasn't that his comeback years?So what if he hadn't comeback? Would all these never have happened?
charles

[Rueda Tropical]

If he had not come back and he had bought off Floyd when he was down and out he'd be the King of Kona right now. Livestrong tri suits all over every Ironman competition and everyone gushing about how after he conquered the Tour he was doing the same with Tri at 40.

[Grant McLean]

Case is based 2009 and 2010 EPO tests for Lance. and wasn't that his comeback years?So what if he hadn't comeback? Would all these never have happened?
charles

Yeah, I think Lance wouldn't be in this situation if not for the comeback.

-g

[beungood]

Awesome if you were in favor of the status quo.
To me it reeks of gangsterism.

There will be some short term pain in the near term, while fanboys ween off of their Livestrong bracelets, but things will look better in the morning.

" Snitches get stitches "

[Tony T]

I never suggested that. They were all doing as much doping as they could. .

Sorry, mis-read, I see now that you said that post LA, juicing to a lesser extent.

[Tony T]

If he had not come back and he had bought off Floyd when he was down and out he'd be the King of Kona right now. Livestrong tri suits all over every Ironman competition and everyone gushing about how after he conquered the Tour he was doing the same with Tri at 40.

That's a fair assessment, but after reading the news about Floyd's own trouble with the Fed's, I think it goes deeper, possibly snitching was the only way for Floyd to avoid jail. When did Landis send his emails to the press?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20120824/floyd-landis-investigation/index.html?section=si_latest
"I think it's safe to say Mr. Landis has known about these proceedings for months, if not over a year. Mr. Landis has always been extremely cooperative," Halpern told U.S. Magistrate Judge Jan Adler.
The FBI-led probe into whether he had fraudulently solicited donations for his legal defense began in 2010, according to prosecutors. He spent more than $2 million, much of it raised through his Floyd Fairness Fund in a failed effort to avoid a competition ban from USADA.

[Rueda Tropical]

That's a fair assessment, but after reading the news about Floyd's own trouble with the Fed's, I think it goes deeper, possibly snitching was the only way for Floyd to avoid jail. When did Landis send his emails to the press?

Maybe, but Floyd was at the end of his rope, depressed and maybe not all that mentally stable. A potential ticking time bomb who had inside knowledge of Armstrong's operation. It would have cost peanuts to set him up with some gig on a team and some financial security. A lot less then what he paid his high-zoot lawyers, the UCI and Dr. Ferrari.

It seems incredibly careless to have the discipline and organization to go to go to the lengths you have to go to to avoid getting caught when you are under a microscope and then leave this big fat loose end hanging out there.

[Tony T]

Maybe, but Floyd was at the end of his rope, depressed and maybe not all that mentally stable. A potential ticking time bomb who had inside knowledge of Armstrong's operation. It would have cost peanuts to set him up with some gig on a team and some financial security.

But a job/money would have meant nothing if he were behind bars (is there a cycling team in Club Fed?).

We'll never know, but he may have traded his inside knowledge of Armstrong's operation to avoid jail for wire fraud (20 years in prison if convicted).

[G-Reg]

Take it another step, the UCI has no choice.

The WADA code rules all. That's why it was a big deal that WADA
supported the USADA actions. Refusing to move forward would
end the UCI's legal standing with the IOC:

"in order to be recognized by the IOC, an International Federation must adopt and implement the World Anti-Doping Code (Rules 26 and 44)."

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

Anti-Doping Rules are part of the competition rules, i.e. sports rules governing the conditions under which sport is played. Riders and other Persons accept these rules as a condition of participation and shall be bound by them. The rules and procedures provided for by these Anti-Doping Rules are sport- specific and intended to apply autonomously and not by reference to existing law or statutes. They are based upon the World Anti-Doping Code which represents the consensus of a broad spectrum of sports organizations and anti-doping organizations around the world with an interest in fair sport."

Ultimately (after some arbitration?) the UCI will have to honor the USADA's ban and stripping of win's for Lance. That seems pretty clear.

However, is the UCI also bound to accept the deals that USADA cut with the snitches? Once they review the evidence and read all the admissions that were given under the USADA's promise of leniency, can they still ban those riders for life and strip them of any victories?

[Fixed]

If he had not come back and he had bought off Floyd when he was down and out he'd be the King of Kona right now. Livestrong tri suits all over every Ironman competition and everyone gushing about how after he conquered the Tour he was doing the same with Tri at 40.

I would have loved that fairy tale happy ever after ending .
Cheers :)

[Rueda Tropical]

Ultimately (after some arbitration?) the UCI will have to honor the USADA's ban and stripping of win's for Lance. That seems pretty clear.

However, is the UCI also bound to accept the deals that USADA cut with the snitches? Once they review the evidence and read all the admissions that were given under the USADA's promise of leniency, can they still ban those riders for life and strip them of any victories?

McQuaid is in a bind. It seems the charges implicate the UCI in covering up a positive test and ignoring suspicious Bio Passport values. He failed to get control of the investigation so he could bury it and WADA has publicly stated that the UCI must implement and enforce the adjudications of the USADA. I would think the only other option is an appeal to CAS which will just put a bigger soplight on the evidence and UCI corruption.

Failing to comply would mean cycling would be kicked out of the Olympics. Without the annual revenue the UCI gets from the Olympics it's toast. Some IOC members were already making comments about the doping problem in cycling and whether cycling could continue as an Olympic sport. The IOC is as crooked as the UCI but they expect there fellow crooks to keep there houses in order and keep the public image clean.

The International Tennis Federation announced that it recognises and respects the lifetime ban imposed on Dr Luis Garcia del Moral by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for various Anti-Doping Rule Violations. Dr. del Moral had high profile tennis clients. The UCI has far as I know has yet to act on del Moral or Ferrari.

I think the length of sanctions for the other cyclists in the case is pretty far down on the UCI's list of priorities. It might have been useful had it prevented their cooperation but to late now.

[oldpotatoe]

Don'tcha just hate it when you have to do that?

If they give it to Jan, I think they should begin investigating him. Let's see how deep into the peleton we can go. (place obligatory smiley here)

pelOton, please

[Lewis Moon]

pelOton, please

http://www.welt.de/sport/article108803765/Jan-Ullrich-lehnt-nachtraegliche-Titel-ab.html

Jan doesn't want the titles

[93legendti]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/sports/indurain-lance-armstrong-should-keep-7-tour-de-france-titles-calls-usadas-case-strange/2012/08/25/2d91441c-eebe-11e1-b624-99dee49d8d67_story.html


Indurain: Lance Armstrong should keep 7 Tour de France titles, calls USADA’s case ‘strange’
By Associated Press, *Published: AUGUST 25, 10:07 AM ET

MADRID — Former champion Miguel Indurain says Lance Armstrong should keep his seven Tour de France titles until drug charges are proven by a single authority recognized by everyone in the sport.

Five-time Tour winner Indurain says “until an organization recognized by all decides to the contrary, the Tour victories are his.”

Indurain, who won five straight Tours from 1991-95, says there are too many national and international bodies with differing interests in the fight against doping.

Indurain also calls the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s case against Armstrong “strange,” claiming its pursuit of the American was “without scruples.”

The Spanish cyclist, writing in Saturday’s Marca newspaper, says he isn’t surprised Armstrong chose not to contest charges from USADA.

[Rueda Tropical]

"Frankly, I don't give a damn," Hinault told Ouest France newspaper. "It's his problem, not mine. This problem should have been settled 10 or 15 years ago."

The who won question is pointless -its like trying to guess who would have been the top 10 riders if there was no EPO in the 90's. We will never know. It's about doping enforcement, not getting a do over of a race already run.

Post Festina there was an opportunity to do the right thing. Right out of the gate the UCI arranged to allow for a pass when Armstrong tested positive. It's the UCI not Armstrong that is responsible for the state cycling is in. If the UCI was doing its job Armstrong would have gotten the boot on his first TdF win. I imagine the UCI didn't want a TdF winner taken down after the Festina fiasco. The peloton got the message and it was all down hill from there.

[67-59]

Pretty funny. Ulrich doesn't want the titles, Indurain says Lance should keep them, Hinault says they shouldn't be deciding this 10-15 years after the fact...yet a bunch of wannabes on a cycling message board think they know better.

Maybe we should just listen to Ulrich, Indurain and Hinault. They know more about the sport than everyone on this board combined.

[Grant McLean]

Post Festina there was an opportunity to do the right thing. Right out of the gate the UCI arranged to allow for a pass when Armstrong tested positive. It's the UCI not Armstrong that is responsible for the state cycling is in. If the UCI was doing its job Armstrong would have gotten the boot on his first TdF win. I imagine the UCI didn't want a TdF winner taken down after the Festina fiasco. The peloton got the message and it was all down hill from there.

Emma O'Reilly can now be considered 'patient zero' in the outbreak of the truth about Armstrong.

Her story sadly was largely ignored. Not sure how many people really do know that Lance's 1999 positive test
was a real doping infraction, and the team cover up was a mockery of therapeutic exemption.
500 clean tests? Yeah right!

-g

[firerescuefin]

Pretty funny. Ulrich doesn't want the titles, Indurain says Lance should keep them, Hinault says they shouldn't be deciding this 10-15 years after the fact...yet a bunch of wannabes on a cycling message board think they know better.

Maybe we should just listen to Ulrich, Indurain and Hinault. They know more about the sport than everyone on this board combined.

2 guys on the juice...one saying another guy on the juice shouldn't have titles stripped...the other sheepishly wanting to walk away. Another disgusted with the entire process. Thanks for putting me in my place.

[67-59]

2 guys on the juice...one saying another guy on the juice shouldn't have titles stripped...the other sheepishly wanting to walk away. Another disgusted with the entire process. Thanks for putting me in my place.

Bear in mind that the current process is largely due to Floyd, and other guys who've admitted to being on the juice as well. They all have perfect credibility.

Funny how you know which cheaters to take seriously....

[93legendti]

"...As for O'Reilly, her allegations also seem at least once removed from being proof. Walsh says in the book that she told him she had never personally administered doping products at Postal, nor had she seen Armstrong take any known banned substances. And, the book goes on to say, she never inquired about the nature of the pills she drove across the Spanish-French border in 1999.

It's also a fact that Walsh has said in the past that he did not pay Emma O'Reilly, when he actually did. Walsh recently admitted in an interview with Outside that he had paid O'Reilly for her story, despite assuring VeloNews in June 2004 that he had not. His explanation for telling this falsehood is that "I felt at the time if I'd said yes, she would have been absolutely screwed."

Walsh claims that two months after O'Reilly completed the unpaid interview with him in early July 2003, she called to protest that the book would be a success based largely on her interview, while her only reward would be Armstrong's wrath. (Walsh says he's made around $55,000 from the book.) According to Walsh, he told Ballester about the situation and then paid O'Reilly approximately $8,850 on September 19, 2003..."

Outside Magazine, December 2012

[firerescuefin]

Bear in mind that the current process is largely due to Floyd, and other guys who've admitted to being on the juice as well. They all have perfect credibility.

Funny how you know which cheaters to take seriously....

Actually it was you that wanted to hang your hats on them (see your previous post). I just pointed out the obvious.You won't find one post of mine that mentions Floyd or any other guy other than Andreau.

[67-59]

Actually it was you that wanted to hang your hats on them (see your previous post). I just pointed out the obvious.You won't find one post of mine that mentions Floyd or any other guy other than Andreau.

Not hanging my hat on them. Just suggesting that we may want to listen to them too....

[Tony T]

"...As for O'Reilly, her allegations also seem at least once removed from being proof...
Outside Magazine, December 2012

I'm half expecting someone to say that Outside Magazine was paid off by Armstrong ;)

Well, at least the USADA has their other credible witnesses :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

I'm half expecting someone to say that Outside Magazine was paid off by Armstrong ;)

Well, at least the USADA has their other credible witnesses :rolleyes:

She has admitted again that she was paid for her story:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o’reilly-responds-to-strickland’s-“endgame”/


Years ago I gave an interview to David Walsh, in which I told him the truth of what I had seen and experienced in my years in cycling. Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David...

[Tony T]

I thought journalists had more integrity than that (not that Walsh paid her, but that he lied about it. But Walsh "came clean", so I guess it's ok then :rolleyes:)

[93legendti]

They should:

That argument makes media ethicists cringe. Exchanging money for information, they say, leads to questions about whether the source is being truthful or embellishing for the sake of more cash.
"The standard line is news organizations don't pay for information," says Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "The public perceives that the information is tainted by financial motives.... They will discount the value of the information."
Steele, who conducts ethics seminars for journalists, says those in the profession who argue there is a place for paying sources are in the minority. Supermarket tabloids have been getting exclusives with cash for years. That doesn't mean the rest of the media should simply fall into line and abandon the high ground, he says.
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=461

[Grant McLean]

She has admitted again that she was paid for her story:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o’reilly-responds-to-strickland’s-“endgame”/


Years ago I gave an interview to David Walsh, in which I told him the truth of what I had seen and experienced in my years in cycling. Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David...

"The sky is blue." I can't wait for your proof against that one.

-g

[rounder]

Pro cycling has lost all of its credibility most everyone things they all dope .
I am so bad I think most pros in any sport and most world class amateurs take some kind of performance or recreational drugs .
Cheers IMHO :)

I am with you. I was extremely bummed to find out that Mark McGuire took drugs to hit so many of his home runs. But figured that at least the guys in the TDF were mere mortals who knocked themselves out daily the hard way...with a few exceptions. Those thoughts are gone forever.

In order to be competive at the world level. i sort of understand the pressures to do whatever it takes to win. But, as a fan, i feel like i am being jerked around. I do not blame it on cyxling. I get the feeling that it goes on with all sports at the highrst level.

[bluesea]

Wouldn't it be cool if they digitally removed LA from the TdF videos, and then Phil and Paul could re-commentate for the new results?

[firerescuefin]

“Armstrong had a temper and he clashed with a lot of people. I didn’t leave him on very good terms myself because at the Tour he had behaved like a real patron,” Savoldelli said. “He was a braggart and it doesn’t surprise me that somebody wants to make him pay. He created a lot of enmity, sometimes without reason: he and Bruyneel felt they were invincible."

While Armstrong’s decision not to contest the USADA charges constitutes an implicit admission of guilt, Savoldelli does not envisage that his erstwhile leader will ever make a full and frank confession.

“I’d rule that out. He isn’t naïve and now he has taken the decision that suited him best. But he’ll go on fighting.”
*

[G-Reg]

“Armstrong had a temper and he clashed with a lot of people. I didn’t leave him on very good terms myself because at the Tour he had behaved like a real patron,” Savoldelli said. “He was a braggart and it doesn’t surprise me that somebody wants to make him pay. He created a lot of enmity, sometimes without reason: he and Bruyneel felt they were invincible."

While Armstrong’s decision not to contest the USADA charges constitutes an implicit admission of guilt, Savoldelli does not envisage that his erstwhile leader will ever make a full and frank confession.

“I’d rule that out. He isn’t naïve and now he has taken the decision that suited him best. But he’ll go on fighting.”
*

Wow pretty damning

[Fixed]

I enjoyed watching the falcon race one great descender
He rode with flair and class
Cheers IMHO :)

[Rueda Tropical]

The stories told by various people over the years have now been corroborated by Armstrong's teammates including his most trusted lieutenants and the pros closest to him. There is a reason Armstrong did not want to have to refute the evidence in a hearing. He can't. I doubt the UCI wants to have the evidence aired at a CAS hearing either, especially the bits about there role in a cover up.

A guy who never quits. Who hunts down anyone who slights him in the least -is not going to throw in the towel when he could have faced his accusers and refuted the evidence against him- and he had the option to have it in a public hearing. He could have kicked their lying asses in public.

He could have... if they were lying.

[jerome]

Who mind ? if not the elderly people.
My grand mother is too living in the past.
Lance won ...
Livestrong is still acting against cancer...

and cycling is a game, life is a game, illness is real, riding a bike outside is real, copping with natural elements by yourself on a bike is real.

The business of cycling is another invention made by greedy people with low imagination ... if not they will have find out that Armstrong is more than a cyclist that the hope he carries for ill people is much more important the a Tour tittle.
All those bureaucrats will kill this world they very dangerous after all.

[Bob Loblaw]

What would you do, pray tell, if the USADA bribed/blackmailed a bunch of your former teammates to testify against you? Not all of them would, surely, but enough would, especially if you were a jackass to them while you were racing together.

I am not saying Lance is innocent. I think he was doped to the gills. But so was everyone else, and if WADA and USADA are going to take it this far with Lance, then in the interest of fairness, Ullrich should be next. Then Zulle. Then Pantani. Indurain. Lemond. Beloki. Botero. Leipheimer. Hincapie. Delgado. Hinault. Fignon. Let's go to the mat with every guy who finished in the top 20 during the EPO era and discredit them and destroy their reputation and finally have a big ceremony where they hand the victory for Stage 2 of the 2002 Dauphine to an unknown French domestique who had a four year career and is now selling insurance or used cars.

Sure sounds like a waste of time to me. But for some reason people sure love to see them stick it to Armstrong.

BL

A guy who never quits. Who hunts down anyone who slights him in the least -is not going to throw in the towel when he could have faced his accusers and refuted the evidence against him- and he had the option to have it in a public hearing. He could have kicked their lying asses in public.

He could have... if they were lying.

[Rueda Tropical]

What would you do, pray tell, if the USADA bribed/blackmailed a bunch of your former teammates to testify against you? Not all of them would, surely, but enough would, especially if you were a jackass to them while you were racing together.

I am not saying Lance is innocent. I think he was doped to the gills. But so was everyone else, and if WADA and USADA are going to take it this far with Lance, then in the interest of fairness, Ullrich should be next. Then Zulle. Then Pantani. Indurain. Lemond. Beloki. Botero. Leipheimer. Hincapie. Delgado. Hinault. Fignon. Let's go to the mat with every guy who finished in the top 20 during the EPO era and discredit them and destroy their reputation and finally have a big ceremony where they hand the victory for Stage 2 of the 2002 Dauphine to an unknown French domestique who had a four year career and is now selling insurance or used cars.

Sure sounds like a waste of time to me. But for some reason people sure love to see them stick it to Armstrong.

BL

The blackmail angle is really not credible. When they went before the grand jury, lying would have lost them immunity and subjected them to perjury charges. The prosecutors would have had to have all the witnesses coordinate their lies so they did not conflict. Risking the prosecutors careers and jail time themselves. All to get Lance?

Same goes for the USADA. Hincapie and company were going to be exposed one way or the other. They had already testified under oath to the Feds. A reduced sanction at the end of their careers was enough to get them all to cooperate in fabricating a story that would stand up to separate interviews, depositions, books, etc.,

What Lance won't do is sit next to Hincapie in a hearing and say what he just said about us being together on such and such a date and getting transfusions is a lie. He wants to stick with vague non-specific protests about the most tested athlete, a witch hunt, suspect motives or suggestions of coercion rather then addressing the factual accuracy of any specific evidence.

Ullrich has already been busted and sanctioned as have just about all Lance's contemporaries. This investigation is not really about Armstrong or who won a race that was corrupted by rampant doping. It's about an ongoing doping system protected by the UCI and enabled by doctors, managers and staff. All those parties are named and some are already sanctioned. Lance could have been a cooperating witness. He was the only one of his teammates who declined to cooperate.

[PQJ]

It's about an ongoing doping system protected by the UCI and enabled by doctors, managers and staff. All those parties are named and some are already sanctioned. Lance could have been a cooperating witness. He was the only one of his teammates who declined to cooperate.

There was an article on cyclingnews.com this past weekend alleging that Armstrong received advance warning of when he was going to be tested. So he could "prepare" and whatnot. I'm surprised not to have seen any discussion of this on these boards. If true, it lends more credence to the bastardization of the entire process and the primacy of money, power and influence (nothing new, I know). Not to mention why Armstrong "only" failed 3 tests.

Level playing field? More like he who has the gold makes the rules.

[Tony T]

Same article says that based on 'the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome' that 'riders are still showing suspicious signs'

I guess that we'll know if Wiggo really won in 2025

:eek:

[Rueda Tropical]

Same article says that based on 'the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome' that 'riders are still showing suspicious signs'

I guess that we'll know if Wiggo really won in 2025

:eek:

If the current management of the UCI stays in charge that might be an optimistic assesment.

[Grant McLean]

She has admitted again that she was paid for her story:

http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o’reilly-responds-to-strickland’s-“endgame”/


Years ago I gave an interview to David Walsh, in which I told him the truth of what I had seen and experienced in my years in cycling. Incidentally, I got paid a small sum of money for all the time I put into helping David...

Emma O'Reilly was telling the truth.

It really is sad that the same amount of effort to impugn her credibility
and cast dispersions on her motives wasn't given to checking into the
truth of what she was saying.

How many of these cases do we have go through before we stop being
dismissive?

The proper balance between skepticism and investigation was not applied
to Emma's case. Like so many cases, the benefit is given to people with power,
who are so easily given pass while those like Emma are victimized.

-g

[weiwentg]

What would you do, pray tell, if the USADA bribed/blackmailed a bunch of your former teammates to testify against you? Not all of them would, surely, but enough would, especially if you were a jackass to them while you were racing together.

I am not saying Lance is innocent. I think he was doped to the gills. But so was everyone else, and if WADA and USADA are going to take it this far with Lance, then in the interest of fairness, Ullrich should be next. Then Zulle. Then Pantani. Indurain. Lemond. Beloki. Botero. Leipheimer. Hincapie. Delgado. Hinault. Fignon. Let's go to the mat with every guy who finished in the top 20 during the EPO era and discredit them and destroy their reputation and finally have a big ceremony where they hand the victory for Stage 2 of the 2002 Dauphine to an unknown French domestique who had a four year career and is now selling insurance or used cars.

Sure sounds like a waste of time to me. But for some reason people sure love to see them stick it to Armstrong.

BL

OK, if Armstrong was innocent and USADA somehow managed to blackmail all his teammates, and then somehow on the stand they managed to get them to keep the story straight, then OK, he would be screwed unfairly. how likely do you think this is, though? it's a very long story, and people's memories aren't perfect. there would be inconsistencies. Armstrong's fancy legal team would have torn them all apart.

and then, you effectively imply that his teammates were blackmailed into testifying in para 1, and then you say in para 2 that OK, he was doped to the gills ... not seeing any logical connection.

does it suck that we aren't exposing Ullrich and Indurain et al to the same level of scrutiny, yes. but it sounds to me like you would rather things be swept under the rug. I say no, let's hear it. if it tarnishes cycling's image, then more the better. the pros deserve it. the real sport is the amateur athletes anyway.

[rain dogs]

:eek: That would be a validation that this entire process was a farce.
I doubt that Ullirich will receive yellow, there should just be no winner from 1999-2006.
If it does happen, then cycling will not only be called the dirtiest sport (other's commentary, not mine), and the silliest (men in lycra riding bikes. (again, not my opinion)), but the sport with the worst sanctioning authorities, one where a winner who has said he didn't dope will be replaced by one who confessed that he has.

Tony,

I understand many of your statements to be in the order of "Lance never tested positive therefore he is innocent by the rules irrespective of the damning non-analytical positive evidence against him, all 1000 pages"

I could be wrong with the subtleties in my interpretation.

However, I'm fairly certain that if you apply the argument you've used FOR Lance to Ullrich, by your logic, he should be the winner. He never tested positive and there is no proof of his cheating during those Tours. He was linked to Puerto, but by the rules he should be, and was suspended for two years, after the fact for violations on or around 2006. But not 2000, 2001 and 2003. He, in theory, was clean then.

Why would your Pro-Lance argument not apply to Ullrich, when by that logic, Jan is "cleaner" than Lance?

I understand this is a mess, and I don't personally think exactly this, but I'm curious about you (or other firm defenders of Lance)... who has been very, very persistent in your defence of Armstrong.

Edit: Maybe Carlos Sastre is in fact a 4, 5, 6 or 7 time winner himself?

[cnighbor1]

Has I neither had a beer, smoked or did drugs while watching the tour on TV during those years and all the riders in the tour did that leaves only me has the clean. Therefore I am the winner of all 7 tours
Yes
Charles

[PQJ]

Edit: Maybe Carlos Sastre is in fact a 4, 5, 6 or 7 time winner himself?

It's an interesting question. There was a time when I thought just maybe Sastre is/was clean. But then you look at his various associations in the peloton and it has to be impossible, right?

And then there's Cuddles. He's either a doper like the rest, or the only clean Tour winner of the era. I guess we will never know, and that's a shame imo.

[rain dogs]

It's an interesting question. There was a time when I thought just maybe Sastre is/was clean. But then you look at his various associations in the peloton and it has to be impossible, right?


Sastre, Evans.... maybe others... who knows? I don't know if it's that important either. However, speculating based on association is just a can of worms. It's totally possible he was clean as white sheets. It's possible he wasn't as well.

[bicycletricycle]

i knew he could do it

[bart998]

I say the winner is Lance with an asterisk...

None of them were clean and so it was a fair competition, but should be excluded from any records.

[Rueda Tropical]

I say the winner is Lance with an asterisk...

None of them were clean and so it was a fair competition, but should be excluded from any records.

It was in no way fair as without doping there might have been a completely different cast of characters on the podium. It's not as simple as the same guys just faster times.

If the most talented guy has a naturally high hematocrit level he's consigned to the back of the pack by guys who wouldn't be able to shine his shoes in a clean competition.

Ferrari was head and shoulders better then any doping doctor -if anything he should get the yellow jersey as if he was working for Ullrich instead of Lance it could have been a very different outcome. Then add to that protection by the UCI for the chosen one and not others allows some guys to get closer to the edge while others have to be more conservative with the rocket fuel.

The races were rigged and so where meaningless as athletic competitions.

[don compton]

OK, if Armstrong was innocent and USADA somehow managed to blackmail all his teammates, and then somehow on the stand they managed to get them to keep the story straight, then OK, he would be screwed unfairly. how likely do you think this is, though? it's a very long story, and people's memories aren't perfect. there would be inconsistencies. Armstrong's fancy legal team would have torn them all apart.

and then, you effectively imply that his teammates were blackmailed into testifying in para 1, and then you say in para 2 that OK, he was doped to the gills ... not seeing any logical connection.

does it suck that we aren't exposing Ullrich and Indurain et al to the same level of scrutiny, yes. but it sounds to me like you would rather things be swept under the rug. I say no, let's hear it. if it tarnishes cycling's image, then more the better. the pros deserve it. the real sport is the amateur athletes anyway.
Maybe cycling is different from other sports, but cheating is rampant in all other amateur sports and as the league level declines, cheating increases. To think not is very naive. i.e. handicaps in bowling and golf, softball and basketball ringers and so on.

[old iron rider]

If they take the wins away from Lance, they should subject any proposed "substitute" to the same degree of scrutiny he's undergone. That pretty much would involve endlessly (over a period of years) interrogating any rider he has ever ridden with or against, any soigneur, trainer or partner with whom he's ever worked, and any friend or neighbor with whom he's hung out, to see if they can come up with anyone who will say he once saw him take a pill or inject a "substance" - in which case, they'd move on to the next candidate.

Otherwise, any substitute will be a joke.

Agreed, and where will it end? And now that there is no more doping in the pelothon,{??:eek:??}, this can all come to a happy ending.

Right?............................................ ........................{not}

[Seott-e]

Who mind ? if not the elderly people.
My grand mother is too living in the past.
Lance won ...
Livestrong is still acting against cancer...

and cycling is a game, life is a game, illness is real, riding a bike outside is real, copping with natural elements by yourself on a bike is real.

The business of cycling is another invention made by greedy people with low imagination ... if not they will have find out that Armstrong is more than a cyclist that the hope he carries for ill people is much more important the a Tour tittle.
All those bureaucrats will kill this world they very dangerous after all.

I agree, and still to this day he has never failed a doping control. USADA has not introduced any new evidence to prove his guilt otherwise. So, what are we convicting Lance for ??? There is no smoking gun and no body on the ground. The Tour & the UCI did not find Lance guilty of anything. USADA has nothing new, very interesting……

[firerescuefin]

I agree, and still to this day he has never failed a doping control. USADA has not introduced any new evidence to prove his guilt otherwise. So, what are we convicting Lance for ??? There is no smoking gun and no body on the ground. The Tour & the UCI did not find Lance guilty of anything. USADA has nothing new, very interesting……

Keep running with that

[hairytorus]

They're all doping. Let's just get over it. Why is this a problem?

[CunegoFan]

Ullrich went off the dope for two or three years after Festina?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/12/lance-armstrong-jan-ullrich-doping?CMP=twt_gu

In another article Pevange says he is shocked by how Postal was able to use EPO all the time. Presumably he means that Ullrich would use it in the the run-up to the Tour but was not using it year around like the Postal guys.

[Seott-e]

They're all doping. Let's just get over it. Why is this a problem?

Exactly, what’s the surprise and why are some feeling so cheated. He beat them at there own game. Hell yes the doping has been going on for a very long time, even Eddy Merckx said they weren’t doing the day after day stages one just water, and that’s back in the 70’s. USADA steps up and is going to put an end to it once and for all, yea right ! To me it feels like after all the non failed doping controls and blessing from the UCI & the Tour, it’s kind of like we are eating one of our own to me. Sorry, I smell a rat with USADA…..

[BigDaddySmooth]

Pretty funny. Ulrich doesn't want the titles, Indurain says Lance should keep them, Hinault says they shouldn't be deciding this 10-15 years after the fact...yet a bunch of wannabes on a cycling message board think they know better.

Maybe we should just listen to Ulrich, Indurain and Hinault. They know more about the sport than everyone on this board combined.

Let's get Lemonds's opinion...


What separates this case from anything else is the systematic team approach to doping that went on over a long period of time to simply help one person win. I was suspicious in '99 but convinced in '00 when he easily rode away from Pantani on Hautacam.

[rain dogs]

He beat them at there own game.

"Did we have a choice? After the Festina scandal in 1998, we had stopped everything at [team] Telekom. No substances, no preparation, nothing," Pevenage, who was implicated in the Operación Puerto blood-doping scandal that broke in 2006, told L'Equipe.

"We worked like this until 2001, believing that our rivals were doing the same. But Armstrong and US Postal made us wonder. We were seeing that nothing was true with them. We were seeing that Armstrong had become superhuman," the Belgian said.

The point is.... when you're the team winning...leading, you cannot use the excuse "everyone else is doing it." Doing what? Losing? They were cheating because of USPS cheating the most. USPS didn't invent doping, but they perfected cheating.

You're not keeping up with the Joneses if you are the Joneses.:confused:

Armstrong is not the victim here. I'm not saying anyone necessarily is a victim, but I can certainly say that Armstrong and USPS are not.

[rwsaunders]

Let's get Lemonds's opinion...


What separates this case from anything else is the systematic team approach to doping that went on over a long period of time to simply help one person win. I was suspicious in '99 but convinced in '00 when he easily rode away from Pantani on Hautacam.

Helping one person win not only benefited LA's ego and net worth, but a whole helluva lot of others folks generated some serious cash flow as well. When guys like Tyler Hamilton are mainstreaming it in Aspen, you know there's a lot to go around. A real den of thieves for sure.

[dancinkozmo]

Has I neither had a beer, smoked or did drugs while watching the tour on TV during those years and all the riders in the tour did that leaves only me has the clean. Therefore I am the winner of all 7 tours
Yes
Charles

Thats good enough for me....the endorsements should start rolling in any time now !!
You realize of course someone is going to have to go over your urine samples with a fine tooth comb to verify your claims...
I nominate forum favourite "tony t" ....