Tour De France

[The Boofon]

The UCI ( International Cycling Union ) the sports governing body, are to make a statement later today, but the USADA presume they will recognize there decision and impose it.

 

 

Astonishing if they do.

 

The alleged evidence they have is from 2009 - 2010 which doesn't mean a jot with regards to anything that may or may not have happened in 1999 - 2005.

 

I doubt they'll strip his titles until they actually see either hard evidence of doping during a title win or a full admission.

 

He's passed every test he's ever sat during his wins. How could they possibly take his titles away with that being the case?

 

That's like us fielding an ineligible player in next season's Champion's League and getting the ECWC taken off us.

[Henry]

But why would the US doping agency conduct a witch hunt against the sports greatest cyclist, an American, without damming evidence.

 

This could open the floodgates for others to admit their guilt.

 

 

 

[The Boofon]

This could open the floodgates for others to admit their guilt.

 

 

Will the statement be streamed online?

 

I'll copy it if it is and burn it to CD.

[Henry]

Lance should give football a try, contact River Plate or Lochee United for a trial.

[E-P-K]

Lance should give football a try, contact River Plate or Lochee United for a trial.

 

Don't be so floody ridiculous, a team from Amsterdam or Rotterdam would be better suited, or Newcastle and the toonarmy...

[Dynamo]

It's certainly a watershed moment for cycling.

[Kilkito]

But why would the US doping agency conduct a witch hunt against the sports greatest cyclist, an American, without damming evidence.

 

Does seem very odd.

 

With regards to the "greatest Cyclist", I think that would be an interesting debate, and I'm not saying its wrong. I appreciate he won the Tour more than anyone else, but then, did he not only focus on the Tour and generally didn't do the Tours of Spain, Italy etc Guys like Eddy Merckx could also lay claim to being the best cyclist ever I would imagine.

 

I always appreciate the out and out climbers, the guys that can decide half way up the climb their going for it, and drop the leading group by 3-4 minutes, more than the all rounders like Armstrong, or Big Mig, I loved guys like Delgado, Pantani(I know he got caught cheating) Chiapucci. I know Lance was a good climber to, he just didn't excite me the way the out and out climbers can.

[E-P-K]

Does seem very odd.

 

With regards to the "greatest Cyclist", I think that would be an interesting debate, and I'm not saying its wrong. I appreciate he won the Tour more than anyone else, but then, did he not only focus on the Tour and generally didn't do the Tours of Spain, Italy etc Guys like Eddy Merckx could also lay claim to being the best cyclist ever I would imagine.

 

I always appreciate the out and out climbers, the guys that can decide half way up the climb their going for it, and drop the leading group by 3-4 minutes, more than the all rounders like Armstrong, or Big Mig, I loved guys like Delgado, Pantani(I know he got caught cheating) Chiapucci. I know Lance was a good climber to, he just didn't excite me the way the out and out climbers can.

 

I was actually expecting Boofon to be the first to question the greatest tag, I maybe should of said greatest American cyclist...

 

Eddie Merckx is probably the greatest, but was well before my time, I grew up watching Indurain and during that period he was untouchable, Cipollini was like Cavendish but with attitude and arrogance.

 

Pantani was brilliant, his climb up the Alp d'huez was epic, probably full of drugs, but hay-ho, he was a pirate who wore a bandana, and was a cheeky chap, so he is excused, plus he is dead.

[Kilkito]

I was actually expecting Boofon to be the first to question the greatest tag, I maybe should of said greatest American cyclist...

 

Eddie Merckx is probably the greatest, but was well before my time, I grew up watching Indurain and during that period he was untouchable, Cipollini was like Cavendish but with attitude and arrogance.

 

Pantani was brilliant, his climb up the Alp d'huez was epic, probably full of drugs, but hay-ho, he was a pirate who wore a bandana, and was a cheeky chap, so he is excused, plus he is dead.

 

Yeah, I grew up watching Indurain to, Delgado was in the same Banesto team. I think most "experts" regard Merckx as the best of all time, but like you, I never saw him. Pantani was a poor wee soul, theres a couple of really good books on him which I would thoroughly recommend.

[Monkey]

What I dont get is, if he passed 500-600 drug tests in his career why are they now saying between 2009-2010 they have samples that are consistent with doping. Surley this would have been brought up in the tests where they had actually found these consistencies.

 

If not, why not.

 

Something does not sit right.

 

The problem is that the "dopers" are so far ahead of the testers it's very unusual for many to be caught through the random tests, although obviously some do. ( The rubbish or reckless ones you might argue) The likes of Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis admit historical doping that was never caught and other athletes such as Marion Jones never failed tests despite using drugs

 

Historically, a lot of users have been caught through other evidence such as witnesses or even self confessions and given that a number of Armstrong's ex team mates have admitted drug use and appear to have been either prepared to testify or forced to, it looks like that's how they were looking to get Armstrong.

[looksgoodinred]

Done.

 

Armstrong clearly knew his legacy would be blemished by his decision. He said he has grown tired of defending himself in a seemingly never-ending fight against charges that he doped while piling up more Tour victories than anyone ever. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he passed as proof of his innocence during his extraordinary run of Tour titles from 1999 to 2005.

 

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now," Armstrong said Thursday night, hours before the deadline to enter arbitration. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch hunt."

 

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/cycling/story/2012/08/24/sp-usada-cycling-lance-armstrong.html

[Podge]

BBC link too:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375

[fatshaft]

http://cavalierfc.tumblr.com/post/30172302298/its-not-about-the-bike

[The Boofon]

All hail Wiggo . SPOTY in the bag.

[minijc]

So, that's it he was a cheat, to be honest i couldn't care about some bike race when this guy raised so much awareness on cancer, that outweighs any bad he has done.

[Bluto10]

So, that's it he was a cheat, to be honest i couldn't care about some bike race when this guy raised so much awareness on cancer, that outweighs any bad he has done.

 

in the grand scheme of things, i agree.

 

as for the cheating it may well be the most high profile case ever but certain sports are rife with this sort of stuff.

 

have to say, even when cheating, his record is unbelievable.

[fatshaft]

So, that's it he was a cheat, to be honest i couldn't care about some bike race when this guy raised so much awareness on cancer, that outweighs any bad he has done.

Tend to agree, I'd never heard of cancer till Armstrong started to highlight it.

[looksgoodinred]

it's not a surprise that he admitted to cheating. i guess i just wondered why he would bother admitting it publicly now. was it to salvage and shore up the Livestrong Foundation's reputation and any future fundraising? or was it get his ban revoked (which seems to be a popular opinion out there)? or both perhaps?

 

in any event, an interesting article in the New Yorker this morning, in response to Armstrong's interview with Oprah broadcast last night. it doesn't seem like much of an apologetic confession.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/01/lance-armstrongs-flawed-confession.html?mbid=nl_Daily%20(162)

 

Nor did Armstrong seem to grasp the real harm he

[chaos_defrost]

Tend to agree, I'd never heard of cancer till Armstrong started to highlight it.

 

[fatshaft]

And then:

I

[minijc]

Tend to agree, I'd never heard of cancer till Armstrong started to highlight it.

See that proves my point, without you might not know about how bad it is.

[fatshaft]

See that proves my point, without you might not know about how bad it is.

[minijc]

You said you hadn't heard of it until he brought up awareness, therefore he done a good thing, don't hate, just appreciate.

[fatshaft]

You said you hadn't heard of it until he brought up awareness, therefore he done a good thing, don't hate, just appreciate.

[minijc]

Thought as much you fucking pap

[fatshaft]

Thought as much you fucking pap

[tightbreeks]

this years tour looks interesting. younger schleck is back, he was like who's this when wiggins held is own in his first? tour.

 

maybe froome might have a go if its good for the team.

[E-P-K]

Loads of mountains, and less time trials this year, so going to be extremely difficult for Wiggins to retain, and of course Contador is also back.

[The Boofon]

it's not a surprise that he admitted to cheating. i guess i just wondered why he would bother admitting it publicly now. was it to salvage and shore up the Livestrong Foundation's reputation and any future fundraising? or was it get his ban revoked (which seems to be a popular opinion out there)? or both perhaps?

 

in any event, an interesting article in the New Yorker this morning, in response to Armstrong's interview with Oprah broadcast last night. it doesn't seem like much of an apologetic confession.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/01/lance-armstrongs-flawed-confession.html?mbid=nl_Daily%20(162)

 

Nor did Armstrong seem to grasp the real harm he

[fatshaft]

this years tour looks interesting. younger schleck is back, he was like who's this when wiggins held is own in his first? tour.

 

maybe froome might have a go if its good for the team.

 

 

Loads of mountains, and less time trials this year, so going to be extremely difficult for Wiggins to retain, and of course Contador is also back.

Be very surprised if Froome isn;t given the nod by SKY. Last years route was made for Wiggins, this year's isn't, but Froome could crush it. Cuntador winna win, young Schlek is the guy to beat.