Who Read It?

[e-RICHIE]

any comments on the selena roberts commentary in
sunday's ny times sports section? register online
to read it today.
e-RICHIE

[djg]

The part I liked best about the column was something she really could have developed much further--the speculation as to how far afield the doping repercussions might spread in terms of standard sports marketing issues, contracting, etc. The image management point (protecting the brand) may not be new, but it's significant throughout professional sports.

As for the matter that kicks off the debate: well, it's hard to argue contracts without seeing the contracts but the insurance company's "requests" sound like a bit of a stretch. Holding on to 5 mil. for even an extra month is really worth something and I'm not sure there's much more to their requests than that.

[e-RICHIE]

i was sobered by it.
i'm so used to this kind of inspection from within the
cycling press, internet forums, and in chats with racer
pals. but reading these jabs from a beat reporter from
the ny knicks made me feel like now the rest of the world
finally has caught on to the dirty little secret of pro cycling's
drug culture.

[Johny]

...the rest of the world
finally has caught on to the dirty little secret of pro cycling's
drug culture.

However, most of them would rather believe that Lance is clean because he "lives strong".

[Big Dan]

Adding to what Johny wrote about Lance, I heard some comments on ESPN about the different treatment people give Lance and Mr. Bonds. They said that if Barry had survived cancer or another serious illness nobody would question his achievements. I'm really not a fan of either one of them. For some people questioning LA is like a sin. :no:

Livestrong.. $$

[va rider]

e-Richie -

Maybe I missed it, but I did not see any of your posts on the Tyler positive tests?

a $.05 for your thoughts....

[e-RICHIE]

read the thread called "Bam".
i had about 10 posts there.
this one sums it up:
http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=45141&postcount=73

[BigMac]

I am continually amazed by the spineless banter with which people denegrate professional athletes w/o ANY repercussions. The Tyler Hamilton testing results is further example of media and internet chat forums twisting facts into serving some odd need to further condemn the good standing of others. What EXACTLY does Tyler testing positive have to do with Lance using drugs..or Barry Bonds or anyone else for that matter? What it SHOULD indicate is that Tyler possibly used drugs...THAT IS IT! I do say possibly because I subscribe to a presumption of innocence and thus until lab results are confirmed by independent testing and/or Tyler admits such guilt, i will personally consider his results as conditional.

It matters not what the end result of Tyler's test results are, it has absolutely nothing to do with Lance and any implications by others I would hope would be responded to by Lance with some legal action. I am sorry if this sounds overly litigious, I am not an attorney and am generally disgsuted by most civil defamation actions but these accusations are an exception.

E-Richie: To put this into terms that may hit a little closer to your home, is it not safe to say that much of the allure of your product is the fact that you are a 1-man custom frame shop? Yes, you've been practicing your craft for 25+ years, produce lovely detailed lugged steel frames with tried and true racing geometries but same can be said of at least a dozen builders i can think of, Serotta among them. Most however have employed at least one other shop hand to perform various tasks during the construction process, thus your specific craft is at least reasonably unique, true? Now what if somebody published an article in the local ragsheet/kitty litter liner stating that Sachs frames were in fact produced in Taiwan...actual location does not matter, the point being that the 1-man Connecticut shop novelty were reneiged. What actions would you take. Would you support the "freedom of expession rights" of some web-forum yahoos calling you a fraud? Would you sit idly by while local ragsheet editor publishes such items? Would you merely respond with a letter to editor proclaiming your innocence? I do not know you personally thus I will not assume to know what your actions would be, if it were me however I would hire the nastiest attorney I could find and file a defamation suit so fast, the ink will not have had time to dry on the original published article.

Back to the facts at hand. Tyler Hamilton has apparently tested positive for blood-doping. Lance Armstrong has NEVER tested positive for any performance enhancing drugs or blood doping. Barry Bonds has NEVER tested positive for any performance enhancing drugs or blood doping. Some jealous ex-teamates and in most cases fellow competitors w/o any direct connection to either have made claims as to their respective usage of drugs, but drug testing results have not supported their claims or perhaps proven these witnesses as liars. Those are the facts..not innuendo or rumor.

Ride on! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[e-RICHIE]

BigMac-issimo...

i have no reason to dwell on your example.
if it were published - eh? if it was part of forum
chat online - uh?
make it real, and we'll see.

you are right - tyler was the only athlete cited
that tested positive. the other names in the article
are/were under suspicion. i thought the writer
was writing for an award committee, not an
intelligent sports fan.

[Big Dan]

Lance patrol reporting to the scene.... :no:
Forgive please....sorry that I ever questioned the patron of the peloton..

Livestrong brother

[e-RICHIE]

okay -
here's a first on this forum:
i'm in the middle of a bigmac - bigdan sandwich.

hold the pickles, hold the lettuce...

e-RICHIE

[BigMac]

BigDan:

This has nothing to do with your so-called "Lance Patrol". This is all about integrity. How much guts does it take to stand on the sidelines, on some webforum no-less, and lob grenades that tarnish the reputation of a person or persons? None what so ever. Yes, I will support truth, the presumption of innocence and the integrity of sport no matter the face you place upon it. If you wish to support baseless persecution of individuals or of sport...well that's on you, good luck sleeping at night, just don't hold up that mirror too close, you may not like the image reflected back at your conscience.

Ride on! :banana: :banana: :banana:

[Big Dan]

Thanks for the advice Mac...the thing is that I believe in questioning everything...Why , How , When and Where.... :D

[M_A_Martin]

Your RIGHT.

Absolutely. Kick Lance out of the sport. After all...nobody can go faster than ME without using drugs!

That would mean everybody on this board but Pete and maybe Mavic1010. Hand over your bikes to Sandy at the door. You don't get to ride anymore.

(Actually, I think both Pete and Mavic1010 are sandbagging and just not passing me so they don't come under suspicison!)

(And for those of you who can't figure it out. I'm joking. Although I do agree with innocent until proven guilty. Plenty of people who actually compete with Tyler and Lance to keep the pressure on for testing. What's it to you anyhow? I hope you're complaining somewhere else about the literacy problem in our schools, or people living below the poverty level in our own country. Worrying about whether some guy you'll never race against is a druggie is a bit of a waste of time in my opinion.)

[Russ]

In the article it says:

"For now, only an insurance company is using innuendo as a reason to hold back a bonus payment. In the future, what's to stop corporations from sending their own versions of claims adjusters to investigate the integrity of their well-paid endorsers?"

Isn't this one of the reasons sports doping is now a crime in Europe? I guess they know something we don't (or we don't want to hear) on this side of the Atlantic.

[Big Dan]

Just refer to posting #5...the house of cards is coming down soon.. :D

[slowgoing]

So Barry Bonds is clean, huh? I think his BALCO association and the people that have already gone down as a result of BALCO allow us to speculate about what he has or hasn't been doing without impugning our own integrity.

I, for one, don't think we have to wait for a conviction before we can discuss the evidence or reasonable inferences that flow from it. Sure, Tyler's test results may not directly implicate Lance, but they sure suggest a level of doping at the upper levels of cycling that is deeper than many had previously believed. That's the real big picture story.

[Lost Weekend]

I don't mean to ruffle any feathers yet, since I'm new to this great biking community but..... remember the O.J case and how those bumbling fools in the lab really screwed up the blood specimens. And that was with a mans life on the line........

[M_A_Martin]

So Big Dan,
Since you're right, Leave your bike at the door.


I was only joking about kicking Lance out of the sport.

Ginger

According to the blood test in question, Tyler kept his gold medal. Sure they made the excuse that they messed up the blood storage...but c'mon. If the test is that delicate that a storage mode can mess it up, how accurate is it really. (ie: if a storage mode can create a false negative, then perhaps a something undiscovered can cause a false positive).

I think they're all innocent unless 1. They test positive multiple times with a proven test. 2. They admit it 3. Are busted in process or with the items necessary to perform the doping. ("I'm holding it for a friend" only works with 4 year olds...)

[Andreu]

The BBC in the UK had absolutley no interest in cycling for a long time but in the last two years has reported very negatively about cycling and its association with drugs. At first it really p**sed me off because it was as if no other sport was affected. And yes it was sobering...because the BBC really is one of the "loudest and important voices" of the people in the British Isles....and if they are interested then this is not a private party anymore. Now when people I know (non-cyclists) get around to talking about hobbies and the like this topic (drugs in cycling), depressingly, creeps up very quickly.
A :bike:

[christian]

Yes, I will support truth, the presumption of innocence and the integrity of sport no matter the face you place upon it.

Alas, BigMac, the problem is, with the evident history of doping in cycling, any person who follows the sport is fairly bound to realize that at least a significant plurality of the peloton are likely doping.

As it stands, there is no integrity in the sport, and the more the media call that out, and shame the UCI into improving controls, the better off we are.

And I say that as a genuine fan of cyclesport.

- Christian

[William]

When you get into the elite levels of almost any sport, the differences in athletic abilities are very small. In cycling you have specialties, and the guys that can do well across the board have the advantage overall in stage races like the tour. Again, among the elite “all-arounders”, differences in athletic abilities are small. These guys have come close to reaching their athletic potential in the sport. How does one bridge that small gap between themselves and the guys who seems to have that extra aerobic/anaerobic chromosome? For many, the temptation to use a little something “extra” to bridge the gap is overwhelming. The “extras” don’t give you superhuman power, they give you a little extra endurance, or quicker recovery times that allow them to bridge that small gap.

What’s the point William you say?

It boils down to two prospects. We know there are some athletes doping. People seem to fall into two camps on this:

1.) There are athletes who are at their genetic pinnacle of the sport and ride clean. The dopers are the ones who fall just short mentally and/or genetically and are trying to bridge the gap by artificial means (individually or team sanctioned).

2.) They are all dopers. Like a barrel full of crabs, they all dope to climb over each other to get to the top.

I’m living in camp one. I think there are people who are clean in the sport, the dopers are the ones that can’t quite get there mentally, physically, or both and decide to cheat (or the team does) to make up for it.

I’m with Big Mac on this one. Until testing is confirmed, and/or an athlete admits to doping (Millar) or is caught red handed, I’ll reserve judgement and keep my mouth shut on individual or particular athletes.

FWIW,

William :)

[Andreu]

William,
Caring Heart says 1
Cynical logical Head says 2
Either way I am now philosophical about the whole sorry saga and don´t lose any sleep over it.
As for the pointing figures....the top guys get paid enough to live with a few has-beens / wannabes etc etc. writing on Forums or newspapers. If Armstrong is guilty what are they going to do take away his yellow shirts? He would still be a dollar millionaire many times over and be able to sell his infamous story to the press and earn even more money.
A :beer:

[Big Dan]

Guys my original point, before I was personally blasted, was that it seems people get more passionate about defending Lance than other sports figures. That's why I brought up Barry Bonds , but could have used Marion Jones or any other athlete who's performance has been questioned. In reality guilty or not it won't affect how I feel about riding.. :)

[Dekonick]

Hmm - living in the DC area made me think of this little gem...



"G*D Damn B*tch set me up!" (mayor M. Barry on tape as he was being handcuffed after a drug raid. And yes - he was set up - but he DID smoke crack - and HE WAS RE_ELECTED!!!!!)

:D

[chrisroph]

There appears to exist serious uncertainty as to the accuracy of the test which concluded that Tyler may have received a homologous blood transfusion. I for one am willing to wait for the full inquiry process to run its course before concluding that Tyler is guilty. I have spent enough time in labs in college and reviewing lab results in my profession to endorse a new and unproven test as gospel. Sure, some athletes are motivated to cheat because success means $$$ and adulation. But the creator of the new test is also motivated by the very same factors. Lets give Tyler a chance to challenge the findings and subject the test to the scrutiny deserves.

[djg]

a specific allegation that Lance either is or is probably guilty of doping (or is actually suspected by the columnist of doping). There is a suggestion that Lance could have done more to avoid the apperance of impropriety and the statement that the allegations keep surfacing, but that's really as far as she goes. And despite the comments on Hamilton, I don't really read the article to suggest that doping is primarily a cycling problem or a problem suffered by cycling to some special extent (although there's nothing especially flattering about cycling in the column either). Lance is a very prominent figure in the US and I guess I wasn't surprised to see somebody make use of the insurance story as a vivid lever for reviving one of the "hot topics" of this summer's olympics (when the fuss wasn't about Tyler Hamilton, but about Greek runners, Marion Jones, etc.). Easy work for the journalist: take two bits of news--the insurance issue and the Hamilton testing issue--put the really famous guy first, and do a little off-the-cuff speculation (in the guise of ... what ... a thought piece?) without actually doing much leg work or accusing the famous guy of anything much in particular.