Lance Armstrong

[Quillan]

Concerning the Tour de France. How can an American agency strip him of his Tour de France wins? Surely they should be sending their findings to the TdF committee or whatever and it would be for them to determine if he should be stripped? I personally am not really into this sport so I am a bit uncertain how it works re drugs etc. but it does seem to me that what happens in the TdF has nothing to do with America, could somebody explain?

[Théière]

Unlike the "world series" which is just a rounders match for americans, the world anti doping agency represents sport world wide so they (the american anti doping agency) make an allegation and produce the file which will pass to the relevant party (the international cycling union) who will take action.

[Quillan]

That I can understand but on the news today they clearly stated that it was the American anti doping agency that was going to strip him which I would not have thought right. Is this simply bad reporting?

[sid]

You're right Quillan, that's how it has been reported and that's the correct way. The USADA has now forwarded its findings and supporting evidence to the UCI which is the world governing body and the UCI will have to decide whether to uphold the decision or not.

I can see why you think the TdF organisers should be the ones to decide about TdF wins, but in effect they only promote races which are governed by UCI legislation.

Think of it more in terms of say, football, where the UK FA could ban a footballer from international competition without asking the International bodies UEFA and FIFA.

On the subject of Armstrong the cyclist, I've tried for years to believe in him; after all, superior performers do come along from time to time, but I've had this doubt all along, particularly after his cancer treatment, that the medication he takes for genuine illness could be masking the enhancing drugs. This latest revelation says that not only did he take stuff, but that he insisted that his team did too! I'm horrified. And what about those guys who came second in the TdF,  no big celebrations and prize presentations for them now that they're the proper winners!

EDIT Just reading today's reports and there are lots of legal experts challenging the right of USADA to do this. I suppose you'd expect the legal guys to look for arguments, it is after all how they earn their living. Danger, Shark alert! 

[Quillan]

I think I am getting there now.

So the UCI will decide if they agree with the findings of the USADA and if they do will contact the TdF who will then strip him of his wins. The USADA as implied in the news cannot in its self strip him.

I agree, it is bad enough to loose but then to discover you did because the winner cheated is terrible. Perhaps the TdF organisers should arrange a big 'do' to present the real winners with their medals and have it on telly so they can get there moment of glory.

[sid]

Q, I've been reading all about this today and I'm not sure about what I said earlier now, but I think I'm on the right lines.

It's turning into a right scandal, eh? Systematic cheating. It doesn't help when a current member of the SKY team says that he thinks it doesn't matter, Lance is still a legend! Why not just wait and see what the official outcome is before making a prat of yourslef with outrageous comments. There will be thousand, if not millions, of cycling fans like myself who are saddened by the revelations; upset for those who have been cheated out of their placings, and then annoyed by someone who says it doesn't matter. If it is all true then LA only became a "legend" by unfair means and deserves to be stripped of his titles. Talk of the charity work he did doesn't wash with me if it's all based on a lie.

Very sad day AGAIN for the sport, just when we thought it was getting cleaned up.  

Interestingly my French builder, who is a keen follower of cycling, told me aboutArmstrong's doping after the 2005 win. I put it down to French envy that one of their own hadn't won again. This summer I got talking to a French spectator at our annual cycle race in the village; we discussed the SKY success. He said there were rumours that the SKY team had special motors hidden their frames! [:-))] 

You see why I don't always take these things seriously at the time! [;-)] 

[Quillan]

Well Sid to be honest I don't have any feelings about cycling or LA come to that. It is not a sport I participate in nor have an interest in etc. I raised the subject because of the statement on the TV about an American drug testing agency finding him guilty of drug abuse and then (it implied) that they, said agency, would strip him of his medals and winning place in the TdF. Initially I thought what a bloody cheek, it is up to the TdF to do this and that this agency has no say in the matter. Now as I understand it they will report to the world body who will then rule and pass its findings on to the TdF who may well then strip him of his win and medals. The fact that it is cycling is, as I said, of no personal interest to me, it could be football, tennis, F1 etc.

Having said that I do not agree with drugs being used in sport, whatever sport, and that those found guilty of such an offence should be banned for life. I believe some runner got his (or her) lifetime ban overturned for using drugs and they ran in the recent Olympics which I think is not on, a life ban is a life ban. It belittles sport for the honest people who win because of their training and natural ability.

[PaulT]

But doesn't the US rule the World and what they say goes - if not someone needs to tell them.

Interesting the claim that he dropped out of one race because he was tipped off that they were waiting at his hotel to carry out a blood test.

As for the rider for the Sky team my thoughts where he should be kicked out - or perhaps there was a reason for his response.

The other option is to say 'use whatever drugs you want' then there is a level playing field.

Paul

[sid]

[quote user="PaulT"]

But doesn't the US rule the World and what they say goes - if not someone needs to tell them.

Interesting the claim that he dropped out of one race because he was tipped off that they were waiting at his hotel to carry out a blood test.

As for the rider for the Sky team my thoughts where he should be kicked out - or perhaps there was a reason for his response.

The other option is to say 'use whatever drugs you want' then there is a level playing field.

Paul

[/quote]

I'm assuming that you made this last remark tongue-in-cheek? If not, the reasons for banning the open use of performance enhancing drugs are obvious; A. You get false performances and unfair competition, and B. You tempt everyone to take potentially life threatening substances, particularly when the financial prizes are huge. These reasons apply in every sport. 

[Théière]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Having said that I do not agree with drugs being used in sport, whatever sport, and that those found guilty of such an offence should be banned for life. I believe some runner got his (or her) lifetime ban overturned for using drugs and they ran in the recent Olympics which I think is not on, a life ban is a life ban. It belittles sport for the honest people who win because of their training and natural ability.

[/quote]

Ok in theory, but it is really easy to take a banned substance without realising it. The athletes have to live very austere lives avoiding many of the things we take for granted so transgressions can happen and also forgetting to make or to turn up to a drug test, whilst it may sound easy enough, could with a busy schedule get missed so not as black and white.

Better to have two events for drug takers and non, that way we can see how far/fast athletes can perform when enhanced and also get to read their obituaries shortly afterwards.

[Lou]

[quote user="Quillan"]

I think I am getting there now.

So the UCI will decide if they agree with the findings of the USADA and if they do will contact the TdF who will then strip him of his wins. The USADA as implied in the news cannot in its self strip him.

I agree, it is bad enough to loose but then to discover you did because the winner cheated is terrible. Perhaps the TdF organisers should arrange a big 'do' to present the real winners with their medals and have it on telly so they can get there moment of glory.

[/quote]

One of the problems presented by stripping Armstrong of his wins is that some (many?) of those who came second to him were also doping at that time and/or have been found doping since - eg Ulrich.

I think they will just strip Armstrong and not "officially" award the wins.

Lou

[Théière]

I believe the little guy at the back was clean [:D]

[Hoddy]

Be careful with that Thiere. I once referred to it as "Le Tour de la Pharmacie" and my neighbour was decidedly unamused.

Hoddy

[PaulT]

[quote user="sid"][quote user="PaulT"]

But doesn't the US rule the World and what they say goes - if not someone needs to tell them.

Interesting the claim that he dropped out of one race because he was tipped off that they were waiting at his hotel to carry out a blood test.

As for the rider for the Sky team my thoughts where he should be kicked out - or perhaps there was a reason for his response.

The other option is to say 'use whatever drugs you want' then there is a level playing field.

Paul

[/quote]

I'm assuming that you made this last remark tongue-in-cheek? If not, the reasons for banning the open use of performance enhancing drugs are obvious; A. You get false performances and unfair competition, and B. You tempt everyone to take potentially life threatening substances, particularly when the financial prizes are huge. These reasons apply in every sport. 

[/quote]

Not 100% tongue in cheek......

It seems that with the amount to be made from sport nowadays that some are seeking ways of improving their performance - and are aided by specialists in how to avoid detection or the forulation of drugs that are hard to detect. It is therefore a struggle in which detection lags the drug taking so there are the winners who may then be stripped of titles either soon after or as in LAs case.

All the time one person takes drugs all the rest are disadvantaged.

Then we get the case of Chambers who is given a life ban by the UK and then told they cannot do that so he is included in the Olympic squad so any deterrent is watered down.

There is also the emphasis on records being broken, i.e. the Olympics and see how many World and Olympic records can be broken.

So, in this years TdF how many riders were taking drugs? The comment about awarding LAs wins to the chap at the back could possibly have a ring of sense.

Paul

[Quillan]

There was a bit on C4 news last night. They talked about performance, looking at the average speed of the winner over the total course which was down by about three or four kph. They also looked at the times for hill/mountain assents which was down quite a bit. It was implied that the reason for this was that this year people were not taking drugs and that this was the proof. Of course how real this proof is, is anyone's guess.

They interviewed that English chap who won this year about who should get the 'win' and he said that some thought you would have to go back five riders but he thought you might have to go back even further so really there is no point. Whilst I understand the logic I can understand that some riders might be extremely upset but what can you do. Whatever the sport it is a bit of a disappointment when these things happen.

The 'medical' chap said that the advance in technology was making it more and more difficult to take drugs and cheat but then surely the same technology advances would be made in evading detection as well?

[andyh4]

[quote user="Quillan"]

but then surely the same technology advances would be made in evading detection as well?

[/quote]

 

I am no expert Q but the answer to this question is no.

 

There will be a finite number of chemicals that you can use to provide the enhancing effects you require.  Eventually it should be possible to detect the abnormal use of all of them.

 

In may respectsantibiotics you could consider it as analogous to antibiotics and bug resistence.

Antibiotics are the drugs you take to have an effect and the resistence is the equivalent to detection systems (in this case detection systems within the bug).

 

Whether in sport we are at the penicillin or the superbug end of the scale I do not know.

[Quillan]

Whilst going through the International newspapers online today to read 'readers comments' about the EU getting the Nobel Prize (another subject) I came across this.

http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2012/10/13/97001-20121013FILWWW00292-armstrong-plainte-du-sunday-times.php

I just wondered if he sued any other newspapers at the time and will they be looking to get their money back.

[Wilko]

One of the interesting scenarios re all this doping is the complicity of UCI in all this, has as been alleged by Landis and more importantly by Paul Kimmage, ex pro cyclist and respected journalist. Like Landis he is being sued by McQuaid and Verbruggen who are the big chiefs in UCI, the latter being in charge when LA was winning the TdF 7 times. Landis didn't defend their court action so of course lost. Kimmage is defending in December of this year and finance for his defence has been raised from many small donors via a blog on L'Equipe.

For those of you with a Monty Python sense of humour take a look at the link below and read the Swiss judge's summing up on the Landis farce, it's incredible.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/tag/paul-kimmage/

It would appear that cycling is rotten and corrupt from the very top downwards.

I look forward to Kimmage's defence in December.

[YCCMB]

Funnily enough, I was listening to something on the radio the other day in which Liberace's name was raised. Seemingly (I am probably a bit too young to remember) he was accused by the Daily Mirror donkey's years ago of being gay, and took them to court and won damages. I can't remember the figure but I think they said £4K (and mentioned that this would equate to a significant sum today)

Subsequently, when he died (of an AIDS-related illness, it was said), the Mirror apparently printed a headline saying "How about a refund?". It was never revealed whether they pursued this with a claim on his estate.

[brianagain]

For anyone interested in this (fastmoving) saga, this Australian documentary provides a pretty good summing up of the whole sorry story.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm

[Alex H]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/lance-armstrong-stripped-of-medals-banned-from-cycling_n_1999965.html

"Former Armstrong team mates at his U.S. Postal and Discovery Channel

outfits, where he won his seven straight Tour titles from 1999 to 2005,

testified against him and were given reduced bans by the American

authorities." [8-)][8-)][8-)]

[Quillan]

It is a very sad day for sport and for cycling in particular.

I thought the quote from McQuaid was interesting "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling, he deserves to be forgotten.". I personally disagree, he should be remembered as the man that almost destroyed the sport and as an example as to what will happen if you cheat.

Another thing I thought interesting was what the committee will do on Friday when they meet to decide who will get the yellow jerseys now. One suggestion apparently would be the 'runners up', I guess they mean those that came second. How do they then get round the fact that this will mean handing the jersey (in some cases) to the likes of Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso who have subsequently been implicated in one or more of the various doping scandals over the years? I think they should leave the 'places' as they are and put something like "Won by the cheat Lance Armstrong (stripped of win in 2012)" or similar.

I seem to remember a few years ago when there was another doping scandal, probably Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso, the TdF went, they said, to great lengths to clean up the sport, well obviously they didn't do enough.

Early on last week I read that Wiggins has been sorting his money away offshore to save on tax. Whilst we complain about bankers etc doing the same thing I feel that his action is not in the best interests of the sport either but then I guess he is doing nothing different to Jockeys, footballers and F1 drivers.

The final thing is what do you say to the other poor riders who have never cheated in their lives, it must be terrible for them to see their sport almost destroyed. If it were me I would be both upset and very angry.

[sid]

[quote user="Quillan"]

Edited quote

It is a very sad day for sport and for cycling in particular.

The final thing is what do you say to the other poor riders who have never cheated in their lives, it must be terrible for them to see their sport almost destroyed. If it were me I would be both upset and very angry.

[/quote]

 

This is why I was so upset; I competed as an amateur in the 70's and 80's and have always followed the Tour, often riding the big climbs whilst on holiday.

I can't see that the yellow jersey will be awarded to the next-placed rider; no consolation for them other than knowing that they lost to a cheat. I was under the impression the winner will be left blank with the other placings standing.

Very sad, particularly as Armstrong had done some great work with his Livestrong charity.

[Quillan]

Seems to be all over the papers again today but he has allegedly admitted he cheated on the Oprah Winfrey show in the US. I use the word allegedly because it depends on which paper you read put here are two version I came across quickly this morning.

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/armstrong-in-oprah-dope-confession

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/lance-armstrong-oprah-winfrey-drugs

[Mr Ceour de Lion II]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20946301

Cooke said: "When Lance cries on Oprah later this week and she passes him the tissue, spare a thought for all those genuine people who walked away with no rewards - just shattered dreams. Each one of them is worth a thousand Lances."

No doubt he poured his heart out to Oprah, and somehow turned it round to make it out like he's the victim. Piers Morgan should have interviewed him.