Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
    Results 51 to 75 of 356

    Thread: Lance stripped of all TDF titles/lifetime ban

    1. 08-27-2012 11:11 AM #51
      As I understand it the USADA didnt have a dirty test/sample on LA, but had several witness (10 or more) that said we saw and or helped LA dope. Again, as I understand it was solely based on eye witness accounts not any testing data. LA could have certainly beat the claims but quit because he couldnt beat the public relations nightmare of opening up the doping can of worms. Am I hot or cold so far?

      So can the USADA ask that you be stripped on banned based soley on eye witness statements?
      I use the example of being hauled into court because someone said I sold crack. Even if 20 people said I sold crack, you couldnt convict me based on that. Should I believe that LA has been shown much more than the media is aware of? Is there evidence the LA just doesnt want the public to see and if that is the case, why doesnt the USADA just release it regardless of if LA fights or not?

      I am asking these questions because I am trying to figure out the real reason LA quit the fight? He has been in the fight so long it was very odd to me that something this round made him cave in. Thoughts?
      Last edited by Mr Roo; 08-27-2012 at 11:13 AM.

    2. Member rlsib16's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 30th, 2002
      Location
      NY state of mind
      Posts
      17,661
      Vehicles
      saloon/specialized
      08-27-2012 11:22 AM #52
      Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
      His entire team testifying against him isn't enough evidence for you? You do know other athletes have been able to beat drug testing their entire career only to later admit to doping right?
      names?

    3. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 13th, 2009
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      910
      Vehicles
      2007 2.0T, 6MT, shadow blue Passat wagon
      08-27-2012 11:25 AM #53
      Quote Originally Posted by Mr Roo View Post
      Should I believe that LA has been shown much more than the media is aware of? Is there evidence the LA just doesnt want the public to see and if that is the case, why doesnt the USADA just release it regardless of if LA fights or not?
      I think this ^^ is key.

      LA had everything to gain by fighting the USADA IF he was 100% clean. He could shut the door on ALL allegations and once and for all put this behind him and let the record stand that he is the winningest TdF rider in history.

      BUT

      LA had everything to lose by fighting the USADA if he was DIRTY because then all the lies, decit, drugs, masking agents, doping methodologies, bribes and whatever else negative that 'could' have happened, WOULD be exposed, and both he and his foundation would collapse and be forever shamed. Millions would hate both him and his foundation.

      AFAIK, the way any WADA-allied organization works, they don't make their investigation evidence public if they get the ruling they want, ie., if they make an allegation based on evidence they have and the athlete doesn't contend it in tribunal, they won't make said evidence public in case they need to use it in the future.

      By saying it's time to give up 'defending' himself and that he's tired of it, is, IMO his public relations and lawyer teams mitigating damage by leaving it all to speculation. By not going to tribunal, the USADA won't release their evidence that proves what they believe and LA keeps face among his believers because the proof isn't public.
      Last edited by JohnEcanuck; 08-27-2012 at 11:31 AM.

    4. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 13th, 2009
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      910
      Vehicles
      2007 2.0T, 6MT, shadow blue Passat wagon
      08-27-2012 11:26 AM #54
      Quote Originally Posted by rlsib16 View Post
      names?
      Marion Jones for one.

    5. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 11:57 AM #55
      Quote Originally Posted by JohnEcanuck View Post

      Now the "innocent until proven guilty" that so many people hang their hats on does not apply everywhere in this world. If you test positive for a performance enhancing drug, you are guilty unless you can prove that the test is false (through the second sample test), that the testing protocol was violated, or that the doping was inadvertent (this last one does not apply to testing in an event, only out of competition testing).

      You can also be found guilty of an offence if you fail to provide a sample, or are not available at the alotted time for testing out of competition. Most here probably don't realize this, but as a high performance athlete you must submit a schedule of where you are going to be before, during and after training to your national anti-doping agency, so they can show up unannounced for testing. If you miss a certain number of these things, you are guilty of an offence.

      In any case when found guilty, it's up to you to prove your innocence. That's the way this works.

      I think we're all saying the same thing here. When you are found guilty (misreporting for out of season testing etc, which is very common knowledge that these tests are done, banned substance such as Contador / Frandy etc) you are guilty because these are the rules. Whether it's that there can be zero levels of X drug or whatever, you are guilty of having broken that rule.

      What I don't like it someone being found guilty based on FLOYD LANDIS' statements. I mean c'mon, literally THIS WEEK he was ordered to repay the charity money that he raised under complete and utter false pretenses and lies (or else he goes to jail for up to 20 years).

      If the USADA will publish the results they found, we'll believe it. Not that he took drugs, anyone could believe that, but that he has been found guilty under the same rules that apply to everyone else.

      I have two main points of pain with all of this:

      Statute of limitations. If dopers can have their results taken away for any point of their life, then no one will ever admit to doping in the past. We might as well tear up every record ever. Football, baseball, cycling, olympics, everything.

      USADA's actual reach. The same news outlets report in one story "all seven victories taken away!" and then in another "the UCI will have to decide what to do about the seven victories and if to strip them". This is a continuation and prime example of the joke that is anti-doping. How can we forget the Spanish and Contador? He's guilty. Oh, no he's not. Ok, we can't decide, WADA please help. Oh you won't? We have to decide? Ok, not guilty. Back to you guys.


      edit: "up to you to prove your innocence"

      With LA specifically, I think this is a major point too. How can he prove his innocence when (for arguments sake) all the known drug tests are negative, and everything was passed as okay? When it's down to witnesses, a decade after the fact, when the science states otherwise, that sure doesn't seem like it would stand up in a trial of peers. Even if people don't understand cycling, stating that X level cannot > 0.10 and his level was 0.11 is clear. Saying that he was when all the levels were 0.09 isn't.

      When USADA show the data we'll all shut up. Maybe that's why LA quit, so it wouldn't be, but the whole thing sucks.
      Last edited by the brit; 08-27-2012 at 12:02 PM.
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    6. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 12:09 PM #56
      Quote Originally Posted by Mr Roo View Post
      As I understand it the USADA didnt have a dirty test/sample on LA, but had several witness (10 or more) that said we saw and or helped LA dope. Again, as I understand it was solely based on eye witness accounts not any testing data. LA could have certainly beat the claims but quit because he couldnt beat the public relations nightmare of opening up the doping can of worms. Am I hot or cold so far?

      So can the USADA ask that you be stripped on banned based soley on eye witness statements?
      I use the example of being hauled into court because someone said I sold crack. Even if 20 people said I sold crack, you couldnt convict me based on that. Should I believe that LA has been shown much more than the media is aware of? Is there evidence the LA just doesnt want the public to see and if that is the case, why doesnt the USADA just release it regardless of if LA fights or not?

      I am asking these questions because I am trying to figure out the real reason LA quit the fight? He has been in the fight so long it was very odd to me that something this round made him cave in. Thoughts?
      I think you're pretty spot on with everything.

      If he did dope, and passed the 500-or-whatever tests, then the whole testing has to be ripped up and thrown away. That in my mind is the USADA saying to the WADA, UCI, and every laboratory that you all failed, and everyone could be doping. Pretty big stuff, because I can't work out another option (except the allegations of corruption etc to spoil tests, but over than many tests etc, it would be a worldwide problem with every lab involved).

      Quote Originally Posted by Eddy
      What more can he do? All of the controls that he has done – over 500 since 2000 – have come back negative. Either the controls don’t serve any purpose or Armstrong was legit. The whole case is based on witnesses, it’s deeply unjust.
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    7. 08-27-2012 12:45 PM #57
      "Very few are saying he's innocent. Many are saying that he's never had a positive test, and that the system itself is very flawed.

      And yes, he trained harder, and it's been proven that he's a genetic freak, in that his body produces less lactic acid at threshold. Put all that together, and you have a dominant force...

      You can't make a racehorse out of a donkey. If you think that some schmoe, let's say...YOU, could get off the couch, whack a bunch of CERA, EPO, or HgH into your veins, and just go win the Tour, then your are as deluded as those you rail against.


      And Lance hasn't been stripped of anything as of now. The USADA can suggest that he be stripped to the UCI, but they must present their findings before the UCI. In all honestly, the UCI could tell the USADA to GFY, and Lance stays 7-time Tour winner. "


      But he did have positive tests. He tested positive for steroids and EPO in 99. He had 6 separate samples test positive for EPO in 99. Where does this never tested positive nonsense come from?

      LA is no genetic freak, maybe a lying freak...

      Making a racehorse out of a donkey is exactly what PEDs like EPO have done. Just look at Riis, Mr. 60%. Look at Lances early TDF results and his old interviews where he states he doesn't have what it takes to be a TDF GC contender. Once he started working with Dr. Ferrari he became a racehorse, beforehand he was just a good rider, but no GC winner. Compare his pre-cancer, pre-Ferrari results to the post-cancer, Ferrari results. I would say thats pretty much the definition of donkey to racehorse.

      People need to be realistic here. You can't win the premier endurance in the world 7 times in a row over other known dopers by margins of 6 and 7 minutes and not be doping. His entire team was doping and he was King of the team. It's about time he got what's coming to him.

    8. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 01:05 PM #58
      Quote Originally Posted by moonstation 2000 View Post
      But he did have positive tests. He tested positive for steroids and EPO in 99. He had 6 separate samples test positive for EPO in 99. Where does this never tested positive nonsense come from?
      Really? He tested positive in 1999? Can you please share your source?

      Or.. Some samples that were taken in 1999 were tested then and passed with those rules. They later were not allowed to be used for actual anti-doping testing due to not following normal proceedures (A and B independently checked, chain-of-command, etc), and the results were released by a newspaper.

      I'm not a huge LA fan, but what you are stating is NOT the full truth, and was not enough to convict then, nor should it be now.
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    9. Member
      Join Date
      Jun 19th, 2002
      Location
      CLT NC
      Posts
      6,324
      Vehicles
      2 Audis, 2 Hondas, 1 BMW
      08-27-2012 01:15 PM #59
      Quote Originally Posted by Hawk View Post
      Do you personally believe Lance is clean? What's your gut tell you?
      I personally believe Lance doped.

      My gut tells me his 7 titles are still mighty impressive, because my gut tells me everyone else podium-worthy in those 7 tours doped too.

    10. Member A1an's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Lutz, FL
      Posts
      2,843
      Vehicles
      Bought not built.
      08-27-2012 01:37 PM #60
      I want to believe he did not dope based off of all the prior testing, but giving up the fight makes me think otherwise.

    11. Member
      Join Date
      Jun 19th, 2002
      Location
      CLT NC
      Posts
      6,324
      Vehicles
      2 Audis, 2 Hondas, 1 BMW
      08-27-2012 01:42 PM #61
      Quote Originally Posted by A1an View Post
      I want to believe he did not dope based off of all the prior testing, but giving up the fight makes me think otherwise.
      Why would anyone want to fight a taxpayer-funded entity of unlimited lawyers and a personal vendetta?? He did the right thing. He was not going to win this fight regardless of whether he doped or not, the USADA found him guilty without formal charges or a trial. That's not justice, that's a witch hunt.

    12. 08-27-2012 01:43 PM #62
      Quote Originally Posted by the brit View Post
      Really? He tested positive in 1999? Can you please share your source?

      Or.. Some samples that were taken in 1999 were tested then and passed with those rules. They later were not allowed to be used for actual anti-doping testing due to not following normal proceedures (A and B independently checked, chain-of-command, etc), and the results were released by a newspaper.

      I'm not a huge LA fan, but what you are stating is NOT the full truth, and was not enough to convict then, nor should it be now.

      There was no EPO test in 99 because it didn't exist yet. The samples were taken in 99, and tested in 2005 and found to contain EPO. The results were leaked by a newspaper that managed to link the sample #'s with the riders names. What part of this means that he didn't cheat by taking EPO to win the 99 tour?

      Btw, LA refused to clear himself by having the samples retested for EPO. Maybe you need to check your sources...

      Also, he showed traces of steroids in the 99 tour, but was let off when he managed to come up with a TUE after the fact.

      You may not want to face the facts, but what i have written above is only the tip of the iceberg with regards to LA. Whether you like him or not, you can't really believe he's clean can you?

    13. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 13th, 2009
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      910
      Vehicles
      2007 2.0T, 6MT, shadow blue Passat wagon
      08-27-2012 01:52 PM #63
      Quote Originally Posted by the brit View Post
      I think you're pretty spot on with everything.

      If he did dope, and passed the 500-or-whatever tests, then the whole testing has to be ripped up and thrown away. That in my mind is the USADA saying to the WADA, UCI, and every laboratory that you all failed, and everyone could be doping. Pretty big stuff, because I can't work out another option (except the allegations of corruption etc to spoil tests, but over than many tests etc, it would be a worldwide problem with every lab involved).
      No, because testing is only one part of the investigative process. Eye witness accounts weigh heavily on doping cases. Plus, back when LA was being tested repeatedly, the testers and labs didn't have the technology to find EPO. Now they do. And with pockets as deep as LA and his backers... don't you think he'd be using designer drugs that probably won't be discovered by the likes of WADA for a few more years yet?

      The USADA isn't saying the rest of the testers and organizations failed in their due diligence... as I understand it, they're saying they now have the technology to analyze samples, combined with eye witness testimony to make a strong enough case that LA should be invited to answer this evidence. He declined. As I said above, if he was clean he had everything to gain if he knucked down to 'fight like hell'. If he wasn't clean, he had everything to lose.

      This turn of events leaves enough strength for the USADA to make a ruling and strip him of his titles, yet due to the lack of PUBLIC evidence, the fanboys can rejoice in worshipping their demi-god due to the public ambiguity of the situation.

    14. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 01:53 PM #64
      Quote Originally Posted by moonstation 2000 View Post
      There was no EPO test in 99 because it didn't exist yet. The samples were taken in 99, and tested in 2005 and found to contain EPO. The results were leaked by a newspaper that managed to link the sample #'s with the riders names. What part of this means that he didn't cheat by taking EPO to win the 99 tour?
      I'm not saying he didn't cheat. I'm saying they didn't find him guilty then. Am I incorrect?

      "managed to link" doesn't sound very scientific nor to have much legal weight to it. Am I incorrect with that too?

      Btw, LA refused to clear himself by having the samples retested for EPO. Maybe you need to check your sources...
      What sources?

      Also, he showed traces of steroids in the 99 tour, but was let off when he managed to come up with a TUE after the fact.
      I agree suspicious, but where were the charges then? Why is a different body able to review this case 13 years later?

      You may not want to face the facts, but what i have written above is only the tip of the iceberg with regards to LA. Whether you like him or not, you can't really believe he's clean can you?
      I don't believe he's clean, but I do not believe that you are citing enough evidence to find someone guilty. It's the same stories over and over again. Show me something new, other than verbal testimony.
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    15. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 02:03 PM #65
      Quote Originally Posted by JohnEcanuck View Post
      This turn of events leaves enough strength for the USADA to make a ruling and strip him of his titles, yet due to the lack of PUBLIC evidence, the fanboys can rejoice in worshipping their demi-god due to the public ambiguity of the situation.
      Can they? And why would they have offered him to apply the statute of limiations if he coordinated with them? I honestly don't understand why that statute would suddenly be valid or not.

      I do think Lance et al had the ability to buy the worlds most advanced drugs, hell, I still think that about any highly paid pro-athlete (Frandy, Contador etc), but to stay ahead of all the testing for 7+ years almost flawlessly?

      And then, the seven year thing. If it's all based on witnesses, they have someone, or multiple people, for specific doping in every year? What about the other races? Every single thing he did is gone, just completely? What if he had doped for the TdF, but not for the Dauphine in the first year? They're just able to say 'you raced for USPS, you did it"? I just have so many questions about, well, everything about this.


      And now the haters can rejoice in condemning their anti-christ due to the systematic ambiguity of the situation.
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    16. 08-27-2012 03:17 PM #66
      Quote Originally Posted by the brit View Post
      I'm not saying he didn't cheat. I'm saying they didn't find him guilty then. Am I incorrect?

      There was no test for EPO in 99, therefore they could not sanction him for EPO. Why is not being found guilty based on technicalities more important than the fact that he cheated (doped) to win, when, after all, that is what we are talking about? This is obviously evidence of him cheating, no?

      "managed to link" doesn't sound very scientific nor to have much legal weight to it. Am I incorrect with that too?

      Even LA didn't dispute that the samples were his, so no you are not correct.

      What sources?

      Wherever you get your opinons

      I agree suspicious, but where were the charges then? Why is a different body able to review this case 13 years later?

      As I said above he couldn't be charged in 99 because there was no test for EPO. Why not review it? Jerry Sandusky molested children going back past 99, should he not get in trouble because it happened so long ago?


      I don't believe he's clean, but I do not believe that you are citing enough evidence to find someone guilty. It's the same stories over and over again. Show me something new, other than verbal testimony.
      If you don't believe he's clean then where's the argument? What do you need, a picture of him shooting up something with me next to him holding todays newspaper and holding a bagel?

    17. Member A1an's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Lutz, FL
      Posts
      2,843
      Vehicles
      Bought not built.
      08-27-2012 03:21 PM #67
      Quote Originally Posted by tbvvw View Post
      Why would anyone want to fight a taxpayer-funded entity of unlimited lawyers and a personal vendetta?? He did the right thing. He was not going to win this fight regardless of whether he doped or not, the USADA found him guilty without formal charges or a trial. That's not justice, that's a witch hunt.
      Everyone has their own opinion on the matter. Mine is I find it odd that he tenaciously fights all these years then just gives up...not only giving up the fight but possibly giving up his reputation, titles, etc that he has busted his ass earning.

      Given his track record as a fighter this single action to give up makes me question his legitimacy as a clean athlete. Guys like this that spend their lives fighting don't typically just roll over and give up (particularly when faced with an opponent who seems to be on a witch hunt). That is very odd move.

    18. 08-27-2012 03:41 PM #68
      Sorry for the bolded in the above post, should have changed color instead.

      Btw, if we both think he doped then our only difference is evidence against him, right?

      Just off the top of my head I have

      1) Obvious Donkey to racehorse transformation
      2) Exclusive contract with Dr. Ferrari
      3) EPO positives from 1999
      4) Steroids from 99
      5) So many teammates found to be dopers (Landis, Heras, Hamilton etc)
      6) Beating other known dopers by huge margins in the biggest race of the year
      7) Expensive donations to UCI
      8) Obvious problems with anyone who spoke ill of dopers, ie Bassons

      This is on top of all the first hand accounts of people who came out to say he doped in the past. Now we have 10 former teammates and friends giving sworn testimony to USADA. I don't know what they said but they obviously implicated LA or this thread wouldn't exist.

      I think thats more than a lot of other cyclists..

    19. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 03:45 PM #69
      Quote Originally Posted by moonstation 2000 View Post

      If you don't believe he's clean then where's the argument? What do you need, a picture of him shooting up something with me next to him holding todays newspaper and holding a bagel?
      This is not about me believing he's clean.

      I need to believe in a fair justice system, and I do not believe that these proceedings are doing anything to better cycling nor it's image.

      I need to believe that the doping controls are working, not failing and then relying on non-scientific methods to cover their shortfalls.

      I need to know who won the TdF. Who's been awarded the races. Will that person be subjected to the same new and improved doping controls. Maybe wait 5 or 6 years with an open invite for anyone to come forwards to say they saw them doping first? Someone's got to win, right? Aha! I've got it! The Lantern Rouge will win each year - every rider before him will claim to have seen the rider above them doping! In fact, screw it, we're not involving science anymore. Can you guys testify to say that you saw me win the race, and that there was a coverup by the French media and the UCI to have my name removed from the entires??

      I want to believe that things are getting better, when this seems more of a shambles than anything else in at least a few years. It's just like Contador all over again. I keep hoping for a resolution and get nothing. This isn't a resolution. At this point, so many years later, I doubt there can be one.

      The main thing I do know is that I don't know. I guess you obviously do know that he doped. The UCI, WADA, the press, et al, do not seem to know 100%. That's why I'm arguing here. For every argument for, there's one against. Now we're told he cheated for every year, but we're not allowed to know how. That stinks.

      You can't even tell me if he's really lost his tour titles or not, nor what happens to the other palmares.
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    20. 08-27-2012 03:48 PM #70
      Quote Originally Posted by A1an View Post
      Everyone has their own opinion on the matter. Mine is I find it odd that he tenaciously fights all these years then just gives up...not only giving up the fight but possibly giving up his reputation, titles, etc that he has busted his ass earning.

      Given his track record as a fighter this single action to give up makes me question his legitimacy as a clean athlete. Guys like this that spend their lives fighting don't typically just roll over and give up (particularly when faced with an opponent who seems to be on a witch hunt). That is very odd move.
      Agreed, he's only backing down to avoid everything coming out in a trial. Giving up 7 tdf to save whats left of his reputation.

    21. Member
      Join Date
      Jun 19th, 2002
      Location
      CLT NC
      Posts
      6,324
      Vehicles
      2 Audis, 2 Hondas, 1 BMW
      08-27-2012 03:53 PM #71
      Quote Originally Posted by A1an View Post
      Guys like this that spend their lives fighting don't typically just roll over and give up (particularly when faced with an opponent who seems to be on a witch hunt). That is very odd move.
      You don't think he got legal counsel on that decision? And sometimes you get to an age, esp when married and 5 kids where you just have to say, "I'm gonna keep my savings account intact and spend my time playing with my kids instead of putting on a suit and spending weeks on end in a courtroom." I get it...esp since he's not an active pro rider anymore.

    22. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 13th, 2009
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      910
      Vehicles
      2007 2.0T, 6MT, shadow blue Passat wagon
      08-27-2012 04:02 PM #72
      Quote Originally Posted by A1an View Post
      Everyone has their own opinion on the matter. Mine is I find it odd that he tenaciously fights all these years then just gives up...not only giving up the fight but possibly giving up his reputation, titles, etc that he has busted his ass earning.

      Given his track record as a fighter this single action to give up makes me question his legitimacy as a clean athlete. Guys like this that spend their lives fighting don't typically just roll over and give up (particularly when faced with an opponent who seems to be on a witch hunt). That is very odd move.
      ^^ This!

      His 'Fight like hell' messages and tweets and now he just gives up?

      That's damage control, folks.

    23. Member
      Join Date
      Feb 13th, 2009
      Location
      Ontario
      Posts
      910
      Vehicles
      2007 2.0T, 6MT, shadow blue Passat wagon
      08-27-2012 04:05 PM #73
      Quote Originally Posted by tbvvw View Post
      You don't think he got legal counsel on that decision? And sometimes you get to an age, esp when married and 5 kids where you just have to say, "I'm gonna keep my savings account intact and spend my time playing with my kids instead of putting on a suit and spending weeks on end in a courtroom." I get it...esp since he's not an active pro rider anymore.
      If you think he'd use his own funds to pay lawyers, you're kidding yourself. Most lawyers would take a high profile case like this as pro bono work because the publicity means instant lawyer-celebrity status which = more money (and maybe even a dancing with the stars spot). And if he didn't get pro bono work, his foundation would fund it (or one of his many sponsors trying to protect their investment in the brand).

      His court time would be VERY limited too.

      Don't kid yourself.

    24. Moderator the brit's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 23rd, 2003
      Location
      Pottstown, PA
      Posts
      21,656
      Vehicles
      VW Fox 16v
      08-27-2012 04:05 PM #74
      I agree with this post more than any of your others You are correct that it's the evidence (along with timing etc) for me that still sways it. I don't care if he did or didn't dope (well, i hope no cyclist dopes).

      Quote Originally Posted by moonstation 2000 View Post
      Sorry for the bolded in the above post, should have changed color instead.

      Btw, if we both think he doped then our only difference is evidence against him, right?

      Just off the top of my head I have

      1) Obvious Donkey to racehorse transformation Warcry of the LA fans: He also beat massive odds by beating that cancer. Strange things happen.
      2) Exclusive contract with Dr. Ferrari Others got away with it too
      3) EPO positives from 1999 Tainted results, they screwed themselves, not admissible
      4) Steroids from 99
      5) So many teammates found to be dopers (Landis, Heras, Hamilton etc) and many not. Hincapie, Jens etc
      6) Beating other known dopers by huge margins in the biggest race of the year people that know they are better don't need to dope, people who think they will lose do
      7) Expensive donations to UCI Super super terribly suspicious. Oh, argument? Err.. get rid of the UCI too at the same time. Why didn't they go after them too?
      8) Obvious problems with anyone who spoke ill of dopers, ie Bassons. seems like everyone hated Christophe. While I think that's a shame, he did also write a gossip column about a small community..

      This is on top of all the first hand accounts of people who came out to say he doped in the past. Now we have 10 former teammates and friends giving sworn testimony to USADA. I don't know what they said but they obviously implicated LA or this thread wouldn't exist.I agree.. but... why not make it public?
      | œ Orchid Euro Importation œ |

      Currently driving or working on too many cars...
      | '93 Fox 16v - PVW | '99 Greenland Polo Diesel | '89 Rallye Golf | '83 Golf GTi RHD | '75 Swallowtail |
      | '82 Caddy 1.9D | '85 VW LT Car Transporter | Mk2 Jetta Limo | '90 Jetta 8V | '96 VW LT35D | '03 SpintLT35 | '02 GTI 337 | '03 GTI 20v |
      | '09 Aprilia RS125 | '81 Kawasaki AR80 | '59 NSU Quickly | '64 Honda Cub C65 + '65 C105 | Trek Emonda SLR9 | Trek Crockett 9 |

    25. 08-27-2012 04:10 PM #75
      Quote Originally Posted by the brit View Post
      This is not about me believing he's clean.

      I need to believe in a fair justice system, and I do not believe that these proceedings are doing anything to better cycling nor it's image.

      I need to believe that the doping controls are working, not failing and then relying on non-scientific methods to cover their shortfalls.

      I need to know who won the TdF. Who's been awarded the races. Will that person be subjected to the same new and improved doping controls. Maybe wait 5 or 6 years with an open invite for anyone to come forwards to say they saw them doping first? Someone's got to win, right? Aha! I've got it! The Lantern Rouge will win each year - every rider before him will claim to have seen the rider above them doping! In fact, screw it, we're not involving science anymore. Can you guys testify to say that you saw me win the race, and that there was a coverup by the French media and the UCI to have my name removed from the entires??

      I want to believe that things are getting better, when this seems more of a shambles than anything else in at least a few years. It's just like Contador all over again. I keep hoping for a resolution and get nothing. This isn't a resolution. At this point, so many years later, I doubt there can be one.

      The main thing I do know is that I don't know. I guess you obviously do know that he doped. The UCI, WADA, the press, et al, do not seem to know 100%. That's why I'm arguing here. For every argument for, there's one against. Now we're told he cheated for every year, but we're not allowed to know how. That stinks.

      You can't even tell me if he's really lost his tour titles or not, nor what happens to the other palmares.
      Fair enough, I agree with you. But that's why it's so important to get some justice for LA, he was bigger than the sport and operated above the law for too long. After Festina in 98, it seemed cycling would get cleaner but LA brought the EPO 90's into the 2000's. He had the whole team doping and we had the USPS "train" powering up mountains shedding climbers off the back.

      It would be great to get the drugs out of the sport. After all I can't tell if they are riding 32mph doped or 26mph clean when I'm watching on tv, so I don't need to see these doped performances.

      But the sad truth is that they all (or most) still dope to compete at the highest level because the controls aren't good enough and most of the time they can beat the tests. I think that all results from the advent of EPO 92? 93? 94? through today are a lost cause. We can take away the 7tdf wins (which I personally don't care about) and move the rest of the finishers up one place and it won't have any more meaning than if it stands the way it is today.

      Cycling gets a bad image because of all the drugs, but cycling tests more than other sports and sanctions are harsher (compare to football (either one)) which is a good thing. Personally I don't really have too much hope that athletes will compete clean, which is very unfortunate, but the busting of LA and his teammates and the knowledge of how they beat the controls can only help make things better IF the people in charge use the information to improve things.

    Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •