That would put Miguel Indurain back to having the record for most consecutive (5) TdF wins, and tied for the most total TdF wins. I liked Miguel Indurain. I never liked Lance Armstrong. Do you think Miguel Indurain might have partaken of EPO, among other things? His rise to dominance seems to coincide with what Greg Lemond (and maybe Laurent Fignon?) has hinted at as being the beginning of the EPO era in grand tour cycling.J-Nice wrote:He wasn't counting on the investigation going all the way back to 1998 and the possibility of losing ALL SEVEN Tours.
Moderator: Moderator Team
- Posts: 5428
- Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
- Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
Cielo by Chris King Cross Racer
1. Where there's smoke there's fire - and there's been alot of smoke on this
2. If you throw enough shit at the wall somethings bound to stick - The French, UCI, Landis, US Att. now USADA
In the end of the day do I care if he doped, no, they all did. Does that exonerate him or make it right if he did, no but we need a little more than he said she said and this looks like he might have done it we need solid proof!
What does get my goose is there talking about team wide doping consperacies on 4 teams with some personal staying on board through different teams it's around 80-100 different individuals. Yet there charging 5 and only one of which is a rider mind you a couple have already been caught but not while serving on a team with LA from what I recall corret me if I'm wrong. Now bring in the 10 key witnesses that still leaves a reasonable amount of people with probably 30+ different riders, where are the rest of the riders, team mates, wives, girlfriends, and the hussy you had on tour that wants to make a quick buck from a tabloid that where involved and around it if this if it was so big? Where is their testimony? Where are their letters? This may or may not be a witch hunt but it seems like the full course of justice wasn't followed if they can only get 5!
If they find evidence and take the 7 Tours from him, who are they going to award them to when delving into the also-rans, a lot of them have been tarnished in their own doping scandals.
Eventually all Tour titles will be rolled down to Jens Voigt.
Love this chart that was posted on the Pro Cycling thread.
Past tour winners during the Armstrong years. Not 100% accurate but close.
I liken this to Formula 1, you build a car within the regulations, you do everything you can to tweak the design and to maximise what’s permitted within the laws, if you’re faster it’s because you’ve got better design. If you strap on a turbo then you break the rules and are a “cheat”.
Unfortunately Lance’s era of cycling there was no notion of acting within the “spirit of the law” (and not v sophisiticated testing), Lance has however proven on a number of occasions to act within the “letter of the law”
Also could we get a governing body that can make a decision; I hate having 30 identically bureaucratic organizations deciding weather or not some guy did anything wrong or not and then fighting over conflicting results and opinions. Its sickening!
Oh and I would like a new BMC Aero bike thrown in with all that; just ship it to my apartment cycling gods
I once had someone take an online test for me. I passed. Did I not cheat because no one caught me? Nope, I still cheated there was just a very easy way to mask the fact that I did it. The difference comes later in admitting guilt.
KWalker wrote:You can still cheat and not fail a test or lose. All a test does is try to catch the cheats.
And that is why there are thresholds for the tests. If substance A has a threshold of 1,000 parts per whatever and the test comes back as 900 parts per whatever, the athlete has not doped. Lance has still yet to have a positive test come back (please spare me the conspiracy theories of how there was a test sample and how x,y and z happened to stop it from being brought to light).
HammerTime2 wrote:That would put Miguel Indurain back to having the record for most consecutive (5) TdF wins, and tied for the most total TdF wins. I liked Miguel Indurain. I never liked Lance Armstrong. Do you think Miguel Indurain might have partaken of EPO, among other things? His rise to dominance seems to coincide with what Greg Lemond (and maybe Laurent Fignon?) has hinted at as being the beginning of the EPO era in grand tour cycling.J-Nice wrote:He wasn't counting on the investigation going all the way back to 1998 and the possibility of losing ALL SEVEN Tours.
Indurain probably was. Let's face it, you can have all the natural talent in the world but you'll never be able to beat someone doped to the gills, especially in an era where most of the riders who were taking EPO were probably going way over the 50% threshold that was put in place a couple of years after Indurain retired.
But Indurain didn't pop out of nowhere as a grand Tour contender with ridiculous forays in the mountains like Claudio Chiappucci did. Indurain at least had a pedigree at the Tour D'Lavenir, rode as a domestique for Pedro Delgado and slowly climbed up the TdF general classification until he won his first Tour.
J, doping and using of PEDs is well known within cycling. Back to its early years. Up to its middle years. And even to its current years. To think otherwise is naive and asinine. The problem is that cycling itself keeps claiming that it is clean and that doping is not rampant amongst its riders. Who cares.
A teammate accusing LA of doping after being caught themself doesn't prove anything to me - just as most criminals lose credibility after being caught red-handed and try to bring down accomplices.
I believe these agencies who keep pursuing LA are no different than posters who "know" who is quilty - the difference is authority.
Bottom line: people will believe what they want.
The problem with athletes/fans/participants of any sport who constantly cry foul about another is that they bring the sport down as a whole.
stax wrote:Mr.Gib wrote:A few points:
It has to do with seeing justice done and not leaving our sport with the impression that you can get away with cheating. "Convicting" Armstrong is essential if cycling is ever to be perceived as clean.
As to the lack of fairness - Armstrong being singled out, sometimes resources (not just money, but manpower and time) dictate that you just go after the most important and most symbolic target.
So does this give the impression that you can get away with cheating if you are not too succesful and not too outspoken?
No, on the contrary it shows that you cannot be successful if you dope because if you rise to the top (the intention of doping) you will attract the attention of the authorities. It is simply not possible to take on all the "little fish". This is the way the justice system works and it provides the most powerful deterrent. Only corrupt societies punish the little guy while avoiding taking on the powerful.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.