A A A A
Doping
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22nd August 2012   #901
knightlancer
 
knightlancer's Avatar
Best doping excuse ever:

http://www.bigpondsport.com/runner-b...7/default.aspx
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #902
T-V
http://www.bicycling.com/print/67431

More from JV
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #903
T-V
Make time to read that, because it is bloody brilliant.
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #904
smiffdonor
 
smiff's Avatar
i have read most of it before somewhere...
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #905
Balkidonor
 
Balki's Avatar
Interesting read
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #906
T-V
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiff View Post
i have read most of it before somewhere...
I think it is a recent interview (since his NYT op-ed a few weeks back). Or you mean it is deja vu, as just repeating what most already know?
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #907
adoubletap
 
adoubletap's Avatar
^That is the full interview transcript that was basis of Bicycling article earlier in the week
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #908
adoubletap
 
adoubletap's Avatar
And the German anti-doping body has asked for files on Kloden and others re. blood doping
  quote   reply
Old 23rd August 2012   #909
smiffdonor
 
smiff's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-V View Post
I think it is a recent interview (since his NYT op-ed a few weeks back). Or you mean it is deja vu, as just repeating what most already know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by adoubletap View Post
^That is the full interview transcript that was basis of Bicycling article earlier in the week
that's it
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #911
ewanmac
 
ewanmac's Avatar
This makes me confused, and if I understand correctly, angry.

I've been pretty agnostic about LA, I find it hard not to be inspired and captivated by his charisma and achievements (assuming he is clean), and although I don't know all of the details I've never thought that any of the pieces of evidence against him were conclusive on their own. However there is no smoke without fire and the weight of the combined accusations are hard to ignore.

Now in this latest twist have I got things strait? USADA say Lance doped, Lance says he didn't. USADA amass a portfolio of evidence which looks at the decades of evidence as an entire package and includes statements from a large number of LA's former team mates. Rather than fight the charges, LA fights to stop the case being heard. On losing this appeal LA falls in mock martyrdom on his sword and says "I maintain I did not dope but I have been worn down by an unfair and unjust campaign against me. Rather than hear my name further besmirched in court I will reluctantly accept any punishment although I will not accept either the legitimacy of the court or the implication of guilt" [my words]. To me if you are innocent then fight... let the evidence be heard and then present your own stronger evidence to the contrary - after all if you are innocent you must have evidence of the fact, no?? This twisting and turning allows LA and his followers to continue to protest his innocence while absolving them of the necessity to present any evidence to support their claim.

To me these appear like the actions of a guilty man trying to deflect and wriggle out of accusations. The actions of a pernicious snake.

PLEASE! Fuck off out of the sport(s) I love, you malicious C*NT.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #912
_dan_
 
_dan_'s Avatar
The result would be the same for him either way - he knows he'd lose all his titles, and be 'banned'. The only difference is this way he can hide behind the fact that he was never tried and that he won't have to his dirty laundry aired in public.

There will always be a pocket of hardcore supporters (idiots) who believe he's been wronged as it stands, but the fact that he won't have the facts and figures of how, when and why he doped trawled through will probably mean he won't be vilified by the press and the public to the same extent. Or, crucially, over a long period of time.

It's sad really, for the sport that there is now a huge seven year question mark over the sports calendar fulcrum and also for those (few) riders who were racing clean at the time - I think it was hippy who tweeted this morning that the 5 riders who finished above Cadel in the 2005 Tour have all been sanctioned for doping, that must be incredibly difficult for him to deal with. At least he got to win it once, clean.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #913
Oliver Schickdonor
 
Oliver Schick's Avatar
Elvis lives.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #914
markrjohnson
 
markrjohnson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Schick View Post
Elvis lives.
And takes EPO
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #915
Stonehedgedonor
 
Stonehedge's Avatar
Anybody know where I can buy some of this dope that makes you faster and stronger that everybody is banging on about?
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #916
dstdonor
 
dst's Avatar
www.viagra.com
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #917
hippy
 
hippy's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehedge View Post
Anybody know where I can buy some of this dope that makes you faster and stronger that everybody is banging on about?
http://www.livestrong.org/
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #918
Stonehedgedonor
 
Stonehedge's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dst View Post
Viagra might become banned soon.

There is some evidence that it might improve cardio performance at altitude.

I used to take it when mountaineering over 4000m to counter the effects of altitude sickness (I get it bad). It helps blood vessels in your lungs to expand as well as the expected area... There is also some evidence that it slows the onset of frost bite and reduces symptoms of Reynauds Syndrome.

Back to doping...some studies have found cyclists who take viagra when riding at altitude. The debate as to whether it should be banned is ongoing.

Boners in lycra. This is never going to be a good thing.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #919
über_grüber
 
über_grüber's Avatar
Wouldn't worry about the boners -with all the steroids they've taken it should be about the same as trying to hide an uncooked grain of rice. Bruyneel is such a massive prick that no-one will look past him anyway.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #920
HatBearddonor
 
HatBeard's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehedge View Post
I used to take it when mountaineering over 4000m to counter the effects of altitude sickness (I get it bad). It helps blood vessels in your lungs to expand as well as the expected area... There is also some evidence that it slows the onset of frost bite and reduces symptoms of Reynauds Syndrome.
and if you get trapped on the mountain (a la that film alive) and have to eat each other there's more meat to go round.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #921
Stonehedgedonor
 
Stonehedge's Avatar
There are few more disturbing experiences than bunking with 30 drunk and tumescent german mountaineers in the Hornli Hut. I can tell you that for free.
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #922
HatBearddonor
 
HatBeard's Avatar
you do have a purty mouth
  quote   reply
Old 24th August 2012   #923
mdcc_testerdonor
 
mdcc_tester's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonehedge View Post
Boners in lycra. This is never going to be a good thing.
ftfy
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #924
kerley
I think the testing bodies should just have to accept that their testing at the time was not good enough and leave it at that.
Why concentrate on Armstrong, why not concentrate on every single cyclist and why just go back 10 or so years, let's see if we can get any evidence against the great of the 60's, 70' and 80's as there were most probably some suspect activities or is that too far back (who would decide) and is it not as sensationalist.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #925
adoubletap
 
adoubletap's Avatar
There is no test for blood transfusions genius.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #926
über_grüber
 
über_grüber's Avatar
Fuckit. i think we should just let Rupert Murdoch and Rebecca Brooks alone too. And Pol Pot. And Bin Laden, that was extreme, wasn't it? I mean-if you're going to shoot a man in the head at least do it within 3 weeks of issuing a warrant-it's just harassment otherwise. What do we even have jails and laws for? Pointless. Let's just say, fuckit, if you weren't caught at the time, even if you've spent a shitload of time and cash escaping from your sins, here you go-handshake, manhug and a no hard feelings. Well done-you did it, you managed to get away with it. Have some more cash. And some more fame, yes, you deserve it. Tell you what-because you might give some other cunt some false hope here's a few book deals and a carte blanche to model yourself after jesus to better camouflage your dishonesty. No, really i mean it, it's fine-you've earned it chief-have a good time.

And if you ever feel hollow or down and need a little lift kerley will be there to cup your single remaining testicle, look you tenderly in the eyes and whisper 'You're the greatest dope test winner who ever lived, Lance' before kissing you gently on the lips and tossing you off wearing silk gloves.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #927
kerley
The fact he has made money related to winning/fame is totally irrelevant to failures of any testing.
Oh, you missed Hitler from your list, unless that was deliberate and very telling.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #928
kerley
Quote:
Originally Posted by adoubletap View Post
There is no test for blood transfusions genius.
didn't realise that is the only thing that hadn't been picked up.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #929
über_grüber
 
über_grüber's Avatar
If a test doesn't exist, and the cheat in question is paying the foremost blood specialist millions (plus a percentage of earnings) to help him bypass the test that do exist, then the point is that it's not just a question of catching cheats through testing.

There was a video released by l'equipe of a US Postal worker dumping blood transfusion kits and medical waste near the team hotel, but that wasn't enough to ban anyone.

Positive for steroids.... backdated medical prescription. Positive A sample for EPO... get the B sample disqualified so you can't be banned. Team mates or other riders might squeal... freeze them out of the sport, chase them down in the breaks and threaten them with legal action.

None of this relevant to the issue in question?
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #930
kerley
Yes that is good now thanks and said like that I agree. Not sure the previous rant was necessary but guessing you now feel better for it :-)
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #931
Oliver Schickdonor
 
Oliver Schick's Avatar
You're all just people sitting around on Internet forums, saying the things people on Internet forums say.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #932
über_grüber
 
über_grüber's Avatar
I thought the slik gloves would have enlivened the scenario a little but alas Oliver is not sensitive to their gentle caresses...
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #933
mikec
 
mikec's Avatar
I'm a bit confused by all this.
How can an agency which is not the world governing body of cycling strip him of his titles if he has yet to actually be found guilty?
Is he guilty, has he been found guilty? I just don't get it :$
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #934
mdcc_testerdonor
 
mdcc_tester's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by adoubletap View Post
There is no test for blood transfusions genius.
Yes there is. Blood that has been in the fridge for a month isn't the same as fresh, even if it was yours to start with, and those subtle changes are detectable. There is no WADA accredited test for autologous transfusion yet, but they are working on it. The test for homologous transfusion has been available to the anti-doping authorities for over a decade.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #935
mdcc_testerdonor
 
mdcc_tester's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec View Post
How can an agency which is not the world governing body of cycling strip him of his titles if he has yet to actually be found guilty?
The governing body (UCI) delegated anti-doping to WADA, who delegated it to national anti-doping agencies including USADA. Therefore, UCI either have to recognise any sanction applied by USADA or challenge it through the designated arbitration court, CAS

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec View Post
Is he guilty, has he been found guilty?
He was charged with doping violations by USADA, and pleaded "
Nolo_contendere
"; that means they can apply sanctions as though he had been found guilty. In a sports governance context, that essentially means the same as "he is guilty", although LA must be hoping that it doesn't establish his doping as a settled fact if any civil claims follow.
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #936
Oliver Schickdonor
 
Oliver Schick's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec View Post
I'm a bit confused by all this.
How can an agency which is not the world governing body of cycling strip him of his titles if he has yet to actually be found guilty?
Is he guilty, has he been found guilty? I just don't get it :$
From the Inner Ring article:

Quote:
Can he be stripped of his titles?
Yes. USADA is an agency working under the World Anti-Doping Agency rules. If an athlete waives their right to a hearing then here is 8.3 of the WADA Code:
Waiver of Hearing
The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. Where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the Persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
In short waiving the hearing means USADA can reach a “reasoned decision” based on the evidence at its disposal. If USADA rules there is a doping offence, imposes a lifetime ban and says he should be stripped of his wins then this applies worldwide. It is then for the UCI, as cycling’s governing body, to await the decision and issue the formal notice stripping Armstrong of his wins which it must do to comply with the WADA Code. All prize monies must be repaid too.
http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armst...ts/#more-10570
  quote   reply
Old 25th August 2012   #937
Oliver Schickdonor
 
Oliver Schick's Avatar
"All prize monies must be repaid too."

Wowzers.
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #939
knightlancer
 
knightlancer's Avatar
We're through the looking glass now, people.
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #940
mr lunch
 
mr lunch's Avatar
^ 'kin 'ell! Is winning worth all that?
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #941
saddle
shocking
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #942
mikec
 
mikec's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcc_tester View Post
The governing body (UCI) delegated anti-doping to WADA, who delegated it to national anti-doping agencies including USADA. Therefore, UCI either have to recognise any sanction applied by USADA or challenge it through the designated arbitration court, CAS


He was charged with doping violations by USADA, and pleaded "nolo contendere"; that means they can apply sanctions as though he had been found guilty. In a sports governance context, that essentially means the same as "he is guilty", although LA must be hoping that it doesn't establish his doping as a settled fact if any civil claims follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliver Schick View Post
Thanks for the info
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #943
mdcc_testerdonor
 
mdcc_tester's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlancer View Post
We're through the looking glass now, people.
Boosting has been around for ages. I'm not even sure that it's cheating, any more than any kind of training is.

Training = apply abnormal stress to the body, use physiological response to improve performance.
Boosting = apply abnormal stress to the body, use physiological response to improve performance.
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #944
tenderoni
 
tenderoni's Avatar
Black = colour.
White = colour.

Doesn't mean they are the same thing though.
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #945
mdcc_testerdonor
 
mdcc_tester's Avatar
But they are similar enough that there may be circumstances where it is meaningless to draw a distinction, black and white have the same hue and saturation, so we have to be concerned with lightness to separate them. When you look at boosting and training, you will find similarities and differences; the question is, are the differences things which should be a matter of sporting rules, or are we just making aesthetic judgements based on squeamishness?
  quote   reply
Old 26th August 2012   #946
tenderoni
 
tenderoni's Avatar
I agree. My point was just that, if you describe them abstractly enough, you can make almost any two things appear the same. With boosting, I guess many people would distinguish it from other methods because the 'abnormal stress' involved is so unconventional. They would probably argue that it is in some way more harmful to damage your toe by hitting it with a hammer than, e.g., to damage your muscles by lifting weights.
  quote   reply
Old 27th August 2012   #947
miro_odonor
 
miro_o's Avatar
http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfre...e&type=article

Short opinion piece by Kimmage.
  quote   reply
Old 27th August 2012   #948
BGAdonor
 
BGA's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdcc_tester View Post
Boosting has been around for ages. I'm not even sure that it's cheating, any more than any kind of training is.

Training = apply abnormal stress to the body, use physiological response to improve performance.
Boosting = apply abnormal stress to the body, use physiological response to improve performance.
I don't have a problem with boosting. It's obviously not for the faint hearted and sometimes distasteful to the Paralympic-consuming public, but go ahead.
  quote   reply
Old 28th August 2012   #949
T-V
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19386735

Has this been posted already?

Quote:
there's a new generation, so to see it dragged through the dirt again, for something which may or may not have taken place a decade ago, is extremely annoying.
Oh please.
  quote   reply
Old 28th August 2012   #950
miro_odonor
 
miro_o's Avatar
He could have chosen not to comment if he had that little to contribute. Calling this shake-up 'annoying' doesn't show much vision. How does he think a corrupt, doper-assisting UCI will serve his generation?

He's sensational on the bike and I'm really looking forward to seing him back on the road with Sky but my opinion of Geraint took a hit when I realised he shares Lance's fondness of wristbands.
  quote   reply


« Welcome | Strava »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://www.lfgss.com/thread42429.html


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Offered: Room in Dalston - Short Term Hauska Components, clothing and miscellany 0 17th February 2010 22:40
Financial times doping list clintsmoker General 40 26th March 2009 00:13
Glow in the dark paint and effects SOAR Bikes & Bits 19 9th March 2009 10:48

All times are GMT. The time now is 00:40.
Creative Commons License, BY-SA v2.0
no new posts