Armstrong charged and banned

[smutchin]

Agree that it looked better after such an attack, but he still took 30 seconds in no time and he may have just bonked. Dopers still bonk. And Frank still paid Dr Fuentes 7000 odd Euros.

If a doping rider bonks on a climb like that, he isn't doing it right.

And he's on a team managed by Bruyneel - which was the point of my post really.

Indeed, and it's a fair point. No smoking gun though.

d.

 

[Hont]

but if you were him and genuinely innocent, wouldn't it grate on you after a while with all the accusation?

And if he were Jesus reincarnate I'm sure there would be an explanation for all this. Unfortunately neither "if" applies.

 

[smutchin]

Really? Cadel Evans was one of the least popular members of the peloton, even amongst many Aussies, untils quite recently. His petulant behaviour towards reporters, his 'funny' voice, his cultured off-duty interests, and even rumours about his sexuality, meant that he's never endeared himself to the average (and by average, I mean thick as a brick) male sports fan.

Yebbut cycling generally doesn't appeal to the average male sports fan - I work in an office full of BLOKES who are hardly aware of the existence of any sport that doesn't involve two teams of 11 men chasing a pig's bladder round a field.*

The thing that really turned me into a fan of Evans was stage 7 of the Giro in 2010. I admit that I felt lukewarm towards him before then.

d.

*exaggerated pastiche for comic effect - I actually quite like football.

 

[dellzeqq]

Its because its a very "real and brutal" sport that riders in the past needed "help" to survive and earn a living when medical support of the correct kind did not exist.
Its easy to glamorize the past, but If Armstrong is guilty, it will be like comparing defrauding millions from a hospital to fiddling your expenses.

and this, of course,. is both the problem and the joy. Yours is a perfectly respectable point of view. I'm in the 'really don't give a stuff about doping' brigade. Most cycling fans, and all of the sponsors want cycling to be 'clean'. Most of the peloton would grab any advantage they can get away with. In that (un)happy mix lies the (non)future of professional cycling. The finances will always be marginal - who are Berry Floors when they're at home, anyway.

Personally I don't mind cycling being on the margins - I'm much more concerned about people riding to work or to school. But, for the avid fan, somebody like RichP who hopes for a better brighter day it must be very frustrating to see Lance take the mickey for so long and get away with it.

 

[roadrash]

doped or not doped ...cheat or not cheat ,these are questions that you or I will never know the answer to.
we can all form our own oppinions of any rider,but thats all they are ,
i think its the same with all sports today .. they arent sports any more ... they are more like a buisiness ...too much money involved , too much pressure to get the sponsors name in the public eye ,unfortunately i cant see it ever changing

 

[Smokin Joe]

Apologies if this has been posted as I haven't read the whole thread, but it makes a very interesting read -

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[mangaman]

For those of you with an interest in this case and to see its relevance to current pro racing and some of those still involved - yes, you Bruyneel, I suggest you have a look through this...

.... http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

It's incendiary stuff.

It certainly is - possesion, using, intent to supply, a whole culture over a number of years and teams.

I'm guessing this is not in the run of the mill 2 year ban territory?

 

[Noodley]

Noodley.

Welsh nobber.

 

[yello]

It certainly is - possesion, using, intent to supply, a whole culture over a number of years and teams.

Pretty much the scope of the federal investigation. So I think we can assume there was a great deal of information exchange.

I'm guessing this is not in the run of the mill 2 year ban territory?

USADAs powers in terms of punishment are limited. They cannot press criminal charges for instance. They can ban Armstrong from further competition and strip awards but that's pretty much it.

The real damage Armstrong will suffer is in the public eye and obviously financial as sponsors disassociate themselves and other bodies sue for various contractually related reasons.

 

[rich p]

It certainly is - possesion, using, intent to supply, a whole culture over a number of years and teams.

I'm guessing this is not in the run of the mill 2 year ban territory?

There's some speculation (of course there is!!!), that the criminal case would have to be re-opened if the doping thing were proved. I don't know if that's true though, being only a barrack-room lawyer.

 

[Alun]

There's some speculation (of course there is!!!), that the criminal case would have to be re-opened if the doping thing were proved. I don't know if that's true though, being only a barrack-room lawyer.

Like you I don't know, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence here that wasn't available to the federal enquiry, so the grounds to reopen it must surely be limited.

 

[Alun]

I don't care ( as much ) about all the other cheats getting away with it.
And I don't care ( so much ) about the old days when riders took stuff to survive and get a contract.
Its because its a very "real and brutal" sport that riders in the past needed "help" to survive and earn a living when medical support of the correct kind did not exist..

Looks like you almost condone drugs cheats, as long as they're not called Armstrong.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Like you I don't know, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence here that wasn't available to the federal enquiry, so the grounds to reopen it must surely be limited.

Well, the way it was closed did prompt some eyebrow-raising, not least from USADA, which is why they made damn sure to request all the evidence straight away.

 

[Alun]

Well, the way it was closed did prompt some eyebrow-raising, not least from USADA, which is why they made damn sure to request all the evidence straight away.

True, but perhaps different levels of evidence are required for a federal investigation as opposed to a USADA one.

 

[kevin_cambs_uk]

If (and that's a massive if) the 7 tours were taken away, it poses a bit of a problem. Some years (e.g., 2003, Ulrich 2nd, Vino 3rd) how far down the food chain would we have to go to find a credible winner? The 1999 victory probably could not got to Zülle (2nd), but to Escartin (3rd) for example.

The sport would be in trouble. However, that's assuming anything actually comes of it...

Thats a great point to make, if he is found guilty then where the hell does the buck stop ....