The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[Red Light]

Im sorry. What gaps are these of which you speak?

The gaps which would exist if USADA were, hypothetically, to edit out from their evidence files the bits that UCI has strongly contested. See post #40

 

[lukesdad]

Any Improvement on the horizon ?.... Nah thought not !

 

[rich p]

I see this thread is already gone down the road of the other with provocative, trolling (yes, Norm) and deliberately controversial posting. Good sense and good moderation seems to be sadly missing. That's my lot - cheers.

 

[Red Light]

I'm curious as to why you think its trolling to discuss scenarios around the obvious conflict between USADA and UCI and what will happen when USADA release their evidence file to UCI. It would seem you just want to get anything that is not "the sun shines out of USADAs back-side" banned so only views you agree with can be posted.

 

[Noodley]

OK here is my view....Red Light and Cunobelin should be banned from these threads.

 

[Russell Allen]

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah USADA Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah UCI Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ARMSTRONG Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah WADA Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ... Guilty as charged

its all been said before

 

[Red Light]

OK here is my view....Red Light and Cunobelin should be banned from these threads.

And your rationale for coming to that conclusion? Is it that neither of us will be brow-beaten into condemning Armstrong without seeing the USADA evidence and only people who believe that he is the spawn of Satan should be allowed to post? This really has got into, to use Lance's phrase, a witch hunt with people baying for Phil Liggett's blood because he dared to speak in favour of Lance and now suggestions the two of us be banned for the crime of not assuming his guilt before the USADA evidence has been released and reviewed.

I really don't understand why otherwise largely sensible posters in other parts of the forum suddenly become so repressive when Armstrong is mentioned.

 

[Noodley]

And your rationale for coming to that conclusion?

Because you are not actually contributing or acknowledging what has happened.

 

[Red Light]

Because you are not actually contributing or acknowledging what has happened.

What has happened that I should acknowledge?

 

[Russell Allen]

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that there is a 99.9999% certainty that LA was on "the Juice" when he won those titles. There is no doubt that most of the other top finishers were too, and LA beat them on a level-ish playing field. There is also no doubt that he was a fantastic athlete. What rankles with most people is the denial in the face of the evidence and the denial of any chance to the clean cyclists. The whole of the sport was pretty dirty from the riders right through to the governing body back then. I don't have anything personal against LA but he is like a figurehead/totem for a very dark period in pro cycling. I don't feel the required changes to the sport can really come about till LA and the UCI etc etc are honest about what went on. I don't even think LA should lose his titles, who would you give them to ?????, we should just flag the whole period as the "doping era" and put it behind us. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Russell

 

[yello]

More likely could be LA going to CAS..

Can he do that? (Sorry, I'm out of touch now!) By deciding not to contest, he effectively accepted the USADA decision. I don't think he can appeal a decision he's deemed to have accepted. I think only UCI, and perhaps USADA, can appeal.

I think UCI have 3 options; ratify the USADA decision, appeal it to CAS, or simply ignore it. I doubt they'll appeal it - that could be suicide for them if the evidence of cover-up is there. I don't think they'll ignore it as that'd risk WADA and/or IOC penalties. As I've said before, I think UCI are between a rock and a hard place. I reckon they'll ratify the decision because it's their least damaging option.

I think (and I'm not certain here) USADA can appeal to CAS if UCI decide, on having gone through a formal process and reviewed USADA's reasoned decision, not to ratify the decision. I think it a moot point though since I doubt it'd happen.

 

[just jim]

And your rationale for coming to that conclusion? Is it that neither of us will be brow-beaten into condemning Armstrong without seeing the USADA evidence and only people who believe that he is the spawn of Satan should be allowed to post? This really has got into, to use Lance's phrase, a witch hunt with people baying for Phil Liggett's blood because he dared to speak in favour of Lance and now suggestions the two of us be banned for the crime of not assuming his guilt before the USADA evidence has been released and reviewed.

I really don't understand why otherwise largely sensible posters in other parts of the forum suddenly become so repressive when Armstrong is mentioned.

I think a lot of the sensationalist language is coming from you. Shame really.

 

[Red Light]

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that there is a 99.9999% certainty that LA was on "the Juice" when he won those titles. There is no doubt that most of the other top finishers were too, and LA beat them on a level-ish playing field. There is also no doubt that he was a fantastic athlete. What rankles with most people is the denial in the face of the evidence and the denial of any chance to the clean cyclists. The whole of the sport was pretty dirty from the riders right through to the governing body back then. I don't have anything personal against LA but he is like a figurehead/totem for a very dark period in pro cycling. I don't feel the required changes to the sport can really come about till LA and the UCI etc etc are honest about what went on. I don't even think LA should lose his titles, who would you give them to ?????, we should just flag the whole period as the "doping era" and put it behind us.

Russell

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would consider there is a high probability that whoever won those titles was on the juice because everyone else behind them in at least the top five (bar a couple so far not proven) were on the juice and if you believe Tyler Hamilton most of the peleton were on the juice. But as Hamilton also says he also trained harder, paid more attention to the technical details of the equipment and the science of training and probably post cancer had a much higher pain tolerance and there were two in the top five over those seven years who have not been alleged to have doped, so there is a margin for doubt which I would put nearer 10% than 0.0001%. So I agree with you there and about the titles etc but.......and here is the difference between me (and I think CB) and those who are baying for our blood on here.......I want to see the new evidence USADA have before I decide whether he is provenly guilty given its now not going to be tested in a hearing.

Three weeks ago Armstrong was not guilty. Today he has been declared guilty for no-contest by USADA. But the governing body of the sport, UCI, have disputed that pending seeing the evidence file and the Judge who reviewed the case expressed severe doubts over the motives and procedures of USADA. In those circumstance I want to see the evidence and hear the UCI view on it (they definitely contest vigorously some of the crucial evidence that is alleged to be in it and that is in Hamilton's latest book).

Whatever the outcome I watched those races through the 90s and 00s and thoroughly enjoyed them and still do and whether they doped or not will not change that enjoyment. Why? Well I enjoy the psychological side of the sport. The side we saw between Wiggins/Froome and Evans and Nibali on the climbs this year of challenging and probing each other looking for the psychological advantage that they are going to break you before they break themselves. And there is little doubt in my mind that without Froome, Wiggins would have broken under Nibali's challenges in the mountains this year. Does the fact that Wiggins had the advantage of Froome and the others didn't have a Froome equivalent in those battles diminish his win? No it doesn't. Armstrong was a master at the psychology and the Ulrich stare, although he has denied it, was one of the pinnacles of a psychological challenge at a critical moment that broke the competition. And although he didn't win that poker playing battle was back there when her returned to the TdeF although by then he didn't quite have the hand to play anymore. Cavendish uses it to great effect too - you know and they know he is going to win it even before the sprint has started unless they get lucky - as do the track cyclists in that long slow build up to the final sprint. And whatever the drugs did to the physical side of winning, they didn't change that mental battle between the top masters of their sport. Those who don't pick up on that side of the sport found this year boring but I found it fascinating especially wait and anticipation of the lead up to the mountain stages where you knew it would all happen.

 

[Red Light]

I think a lot of the sensationalist language is coming from you. Shame really.

Like calling people trolls isn't sensationalist? But you are entitled to your opinion and I probably did over-egg it. But the facts remain that a number of people on here called for Phil Liggett to lose his job for his comments in support of LA and are calling for me to be banned for trolling for wanting to see the new USADA evidence on which the recent decision has been made before coming to a conclusion on LAs guilt (as do UCI). And some are suggesting that holding views in contentious helmet threads that are in line with the policies of the CTC and ECF is evidence of my systemic trolling to support a ban.

 

[asterix]

The 'level playing field' argument is specious.

Is it really a good thing in a sport when aspiring champions are confronted with the necessity of doping in order to compete with the best?

If Armstrong doped then he is a crook. Simple.