Printable View
I don't have much of a doubt that Lance is dirty, but in cycling I don't see too many that are clean. I read an article by a former team of his (now a team major) and he was open about doping. There is so much that can come out in regards to doping (of one kind of another) that no sport is clean. I know it sounds bad, but I'm counting the days until the Jamaicans are outed en masse.
You're completely misrepresenting that article. Here it is;Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/op...pagewanted=all
The author is Jonathon Vaughters. Former pro cyclist and now head of Slipstream Sports, the people behind the Garmin Sharp team
How was I misrepresenting it? Vaughters admitted to doping, about the temptations and the extra 2% it gave. He came clean on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Roche up to 6th after flat stage ...... Uran could not cope or is saving energy for today stage ...... its a big finish today!
Roche down to 7th after losing time on yestarday stage and i cant see getting any higher. He just does not have the legs to stayed in it all the way to the top of a mountain with the big boys when the pressure comes on and the time trial will drop him back further, he do well to finish inside the top 10 eventually.
Because you missed the part about his current team being the forerunners in 'clean' cycling. Kimmage approved too. This isn't a former doper now in charge of a team so they're probably doping (Riis), its quite the oppositQuote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
Again Dodge, how did I misrepresent it? This is a person who admitted to doping in the past. Where is the misrepresentation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Vaughters and Garmin-Sharp are nothing but a force for good in cycling.
Lance doped. Anyone with any semblance of sense knew that already. Pure attempt at damage limitation by not contesting the charges. He should've just come clean years ago. Even if I don't buy the argument that everyone was doing it, so I was still the best*, lots would have and we'd have moved on years ago and he'd be free to compete in Ironman. I don't buy that at all, as drugs effect different people differently. Best analogy I've read is to see how the same amount of alcohol effects different people.
I'm a bit disappointed in the reaction of the current peleton tbh, but wouldn't be as harsh as some - would they ever say enough for some people?
Agreed on Garmin-Sharp, they are transparent and open about what they do-did but it will take the UCI enforcing their own rules to make everyone play by them. I'm having a difficulty in figuring if doping comes from team to cyclist or each cyclist brings his own madness. I can only speak from how certain coaches from certain countries bring their own regimen for players (eg tennis) and how training can be conducted. While Irish or German coaches will run a million miles from allowing players use illegal substances to train harder in the off-season, Portuguese and Spanish coaches I encountered promote it. So is it a cyclist or team-led revolution/evolution that's needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
One thing, listening to a number of discussions, reading articles etc on the whole doping in cycling debate is that the head of UCI seems to have been extremely naive, in denial or flat out lying with the drug problem in his sport. While I have time for McQuaid, surely he'd have to step down or go full steam ahead. Cycling isn't alone in this, boxing is as bad (especially at pro level) but with the top man in the sport having effectively refused to defend himself, and with evidence mounting on him. McQuaid needs to act now.
What do you mean seems to have been naive or in denial - you can cross those two out anyway - the UCI have flat out lied about drugs in cycling be it from covered up tests to admission of a problem at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
The only real way cycling is going to get a chance to emerge from this constant Fog of drugs and scandals is if the UCI is disbanded and a new organisation is formed to control cycling - similiar to the way the IASA had to disband and Swim Ireland had to form in its place. New people will be required etc but there is too much water under the bridge for the UCI to continue. If the UCI did its job right in 99 - Armstrong would have been thrown out there and then and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Not that there is any chance of that happening though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid
RAM - to prevent dahamsta having hassle from more litigious types, I wanted to leave options. I agree with your idea that the UCI needs to disband, it should have happened in 1998, 1999 was too late for them to hold any sort of high moral ground. I like cycling as a sport, it's a great spectacle and I still like watching it, though like athletics (especially sprinting) and swimming, I don't believe a thing that's on show, I'll give the benefit of the doubt but there are too many reasons to disbelieve.
Came across this today
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...s-and.html?m=1
Good link.. this podcast is very good as well: http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
I'd second that podcast - was coming on to post the link. One thing that's really come out in recent days, which I can't say I was particularly aware off that most of the others in 1999 weren't willing to take the risk, but then saw Armstrong... Jan Ullrich is particularly interesting, as well as 1999 when he supposedly tried to go clean, when he was going to comeback in 2007 he packed in when he started training for his comeback and saw things still hadn't changed (according to his mentor). Shows that even some of the stars were conflicted about it, which isn't how it's sometimes painted.
No, and Vaughters piece kinda backs that up too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
It might explain a lot of Ullrich's attitude "problems". Never seemed to fully commit to the lifestyle required, and it was put down to things like the pressure of fame, his East German upbringing etc. Could've been he just didn't like the non lifestyle things that he had to do to be competitive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/...anal-very-ugly
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor...Armstrong.html
I wonder if Armstrong has the courage to get back in the ring to disprove the evidence or make a tearful admission on tv and get on with things. I don't know how many people watched John Singleton's Marion Jones story, it was very funny in some ways as from the start he made it very clear (without admitting it) that he was a fan and his descriptions of her made it a little uncomfortable to follow. They never delved into the doping properly and it was all about the re-establishment of the heroine and how great she really is. Some sycophant could do the same for Lance.
Speaking of which:
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8...worth-honoring
Was that the ESPN 30/30 one? That was an astonishing whitewash, I can't believe someone could make a programme like that without realising how ridiculous it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spudulika
I used to think that LA was a doper but that his conscience was probably relatively clear because he was only doing what his peers did and that it was all just the way it was then. I'm now much more of the opinion that he was probably the worst of them, being at the heart of a thoroughly professional doping system and leading a culture of fear and omertà.
Does anyone know if David Walsh's book could now be published without risk of legal reprise?
Roche still holding 7th spot which is great for him .......and i think he could get ahead of Gesink but the Garmin lad behind him has to be watch!
The race at the front has been brilliant entertainment. It's hard to believe that Contador is clean but he's making it a great race.