[blackshoe]

I wonder what would have happened if, back in the day, Lance had said something like "I can win this, but I can't win it without doing what every other competitor is doing — doping. So either I cheat like everyone else, or I don't play. I choose not to play."

He probably would have been crucified.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 14:04, said:

I wonder what would have happened if, back in the day, Lance had said something like "I can win this, but I can't win it without doing what every other competitor is doing — doping. So either I cheat like everyone else, or I don't play. I choose not to play."

He probably would have been crucified.

This is more or less what one of the French guys said, and the rest of the peloton crucified him.

[blackshoe]

Q.E.D.

[Aberlour10]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-24, 16:18, said:

This is more or less what one of the French guys said, and the rest of the peloton crucified him.

This "closed society" behaves simply like a mobsters. And the organizers of the next (100th) edition of Tour de Cheaters push the doping by planning extra hard stages in Alpes and Pyrenees next year. For ex >>>the climb to Alp d'Huez is not enough, this time it must be reached twice at one stage! This makes the decision to stay clean or not much much easier. I watched this poor show not for a minute this year, and for sure wil not do it next summer.

[Cyberyeti]

Aberlour10, on 2012-October-24, 17:03, said:

This "closed society" behaves simply like a mobsters. And the organizers of the next (100th) edition of Tour de Cheaters push the doping by planning extra hard stages in Alpes and Pyrenees next year. For ex >>>the climb to Alp d'Huez is not enough, this time it must be reached twice at one stage! This makes the decision to stay clean or not much much easier. I watched this poor show not for a minute this year, and for sure wil not do it next summer.

I always thought they should go DOWN Alpe d'Huez, not sure what drugs would be best for that, but probably not the ones you'd want to go up it

TBF the climbs are being done much slower now than they were in the Armstrong era, so they may be getting somewhere.

[Zelandakh]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-24, 16:18, said:

This is more or less what one of the French guys said, and the rest of the peloton crucified him.

These days the peloton does not have to crucify the whistleblowers, the UCI* does it for them.

* International Cycling Union, the body supposedly responsible for making sure the sport is fair.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-25, 06:27, said:

These days the peloton does not have to crucify the whistleblowers, the UCI* does it for them.

* International Cycling Union, the body supposedly responsible for making sure the sport is fair.

It was entirely fair, they were pretty much all on drugs

[jjbrr]

I guess we've known this for a while but it's apparently hitting the news now

Quote

AUSTIN (AP) – A Texas company is closer to forcing Lance Armstrong to return about $12 million in bonuses he was paid for winning the Tour de France while secretly using performance-enhancing drugs.

In a key ruling against Armstrong, a Texas arbitration panel said Wednesday it would consider Dallas-based SCA Promotions’ appeal to recover its money. The company tried to prove Armstrong used steroids and other drugs and doping methods back in 2005, but ultimately agreed to pay him in a 2006 settlement.

link

[jjbrr]

lalldonn, on 2012-August-27, 14:45, said:

I don't even understand what arguments there are to let him use those prosthetic devices while competing. All I have heard amounts to some version of "he didn't come close to winning a medal anyway so why would we be so heartless as to stop him from competing?" Well what about the next time the same situation comes up and does win a medal? I would feel completely screwed if I were the person who lost out on a medal due to him competing. I see that argument above with "Good grief people, the guy has no legs. No freaking legs!! And this isn't a Monty Python skit! He competed against the best athletes in the world who have freaking legs, and advanced from a preliminary to a semifinal, where he finished last. The dude is awesome." of which the only subjective portion with which I agree is that he is awesome.

also lol

[jjbrr]

bump

[helene_t]

jjbr, when you necro such an old thread you really must include a cat picture.

[jjbrr]

helene_t, on 2015-February-16, 10:46, said:

jjbr, when you necro such an old thread you really must include a cat picture.

[hrothgar]

jjbrr, on 2015-February-16, 11:18, said:

I, for one, am glad that the thread is back from the dead.
Its interesting to know how this is turning out.

Anyone know whether Armstrong's perjury exposes him to criminal charges?

[cherdano]

As much as I am in favour of Armstrong losing every court battle he is involved in - he certainly deserves it...

Anyone negotiating payments to a Tour de France winner in 2002 would either have to

• assume that the winner will likely have doped, or
  
• be incredibly naive.

Somehow, I am not willing to assume 2. about Bob Hamman. If you assume 1., it's a double shot (either others are better at doping than Lance, or he gets caught and we can recoup our payments).

I mean, in no other sport did the competitors complain so much more about the doping controls and a sport that's unfairly targeted, instead of complaining about their competitors who had been caught in doping tests...

[kenberg]

Doesn't it come to this?

Unless we can say that they are all dopers so all prize money is withheld, we punish the doper we catch and we don't punish the doper we don't catch. There are more than a few sports, and other activities as well that do not involve sports, that need to clean up their act if they expect to continue to enjoy public support. I hope that they do.

[Trinidad]

cherdano, on 2015-February-16, 16:49, said:

Anyone negotiating payments to a Tour de France winner in 2002 would either have to

• assume that the winner will likely have doped, or
  
• be incredibly naive.

That is how we look back on 2002 from 2015. However, that is not the way we looked at the situation in 2002.

Back then, doping rules were considered very strict and advanced. We had just had the affaire with Richard Virenque and the Festina team, and, as a result, many actions had been taken to prevent wide spread use of performance enhancing drugs. You could be tested any place, any where, any time. At the race, during practice, over Christmas. The public did not have a clue that doping use was or could be as wide spread as it was. In fact, the general idea was that cycling was, at last, reasonably clean. As an example, Jan Ullrich was suspended in 2002 for use of the party drug ecstacy. The general idea was that Ullrich had been an idiot for taking it when he should have known that it was on the doping list and that he would be caught.

Anybody who would have said that cycling was completely clean would indeed have been considered naive. But a claim that everybody who meant something in cycling would be doped (in hindsight a fairly accurate description of the situation) would have been considered extremely cynical.

Rik

[billw55]

I any case, I am happy to see Armstrong's favorite weapons - lawsuits and lawyers - now working against him. So many times, he aggressively attacked anyone who suggested he doped. So this outcome is quite fitting, I think.

[cherdano]

Trinidad, on 2015-February-16, 22:24, said:

That is how we look back on 2002 from 2015. However, that is not the way we looked at the situation in 2002.

Back then, doping rules were considered very strict and advanced. We had just had the affaire with Richard Virenque and the Festina team, and, as a result, many actions had been taken to prevent wide spread use of performance enhancing drugs. You could be tested any place, any where, any time. At the race, during practice, over Christmas. The public did not have a clue that doping use was or could be as wide spread as it was. In fact, the general idea was that cycling was, at last, reasonably clean. As an example, Jan Ullrich was suspended in 2002 for use of the party drug ecstacy. The general idea was that Ullrich had been an idiot for taking it when he should have known that it was on the doping list and that he would be caught.

Anybody who would have said that cycling was completely clean would indeed have been considered naive. But a claim that everybody who meant something in cycling would be doped (in hindsight a fairly accurate description of the situation) would have been considered extremely cynical.

Maybe we were reading different media back then. The media I read did not fail to point out that no testing (back then) would be able to detect blood doping - other than the ridiculous haemoglobin testing, where riders were taken out of the competition for their safety if their value was too high, i.e. if the tuning of their blood doping hadn't worked out.
See for yourself at
https://www.google.c...=cycling+doping
E.g. http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/1789625.stm

So it was clear cyclists could get away with it if they were smart about it. And the large number of scandals in the previous years made it clear that cyclists would cheat if they thought they could get away with it.

[PassedOut]

Lance Armstrong Loses $10 Million Arbitration Ruling

Quote

“Perjury must never be profitable,” the majority wrote in the new decision. “Tailwind Sports Corp. and Lance Armstrong have justly earned wide public condemnation. That is an inadequate deterrent. Deception demands real, meaningful sanctions.”

Bob Hamman, SCA’s president and founder, praised the ruling.

“It is hard to describe how much harm Lance Armstrong’s web of lies caused SCA, but this is a good first start toward repairing that damage,” Hamman said.

Armstrong argued his original settlement could not be overturned under state law. The arbitration majority said the $10 million was a penalty for Armstrong’s lying and efforts to intimidate or coerce witnesses in the previous case.

[Aberlour10]

A short necro trip to the year 1921 showing how EPO worked in those times.

These doped dudes did not think about the lawyers and about 10 000 000 pics with G. Washington.