The Saga that is Lance

Bicycle related chatter & discussion
User avatar
Philip
Posts: 531
Joined: 12 Feb 2012, 17:48
Location: Earlwood
Contact:

Postby Philip » 15 Oct 2012, 14:56

Continues tonight on 4 Corners, ABC 8.30.

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 16 Oct 2012, 05:09

As expected, the evidence is damning. However read today's Sydney Morning Herald article by one of the Drs interviewed last night. He points a finger at Cycling Australia too.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/spo ... 27mzr.html

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 16 Oct 2012, 06:34

Only the pope can provide the redemption needed by all involved.

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 16 Oct 2012, 08:46

Lol!! About the pope.

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 16 Oct 2012, 12:24

Image

Ironically, Eddy Merckx was probably the cleanest/drug free champion we'll ever see. Quite the opposite of Lance

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 16 Oct 2012, 12:27

marc2131 wrote:Ironically, Eddy Merckx was probably the cleanest/drug free champion we'll ever see. Quite the opposite of Lance

But how would one know for sure? PED started way early in the TdF history.

User avatar
Trouty
Posts: 1214
Joined: 09 May 2007, 13:23

Postby Trouty » 16 Oct 2012, 17:06

weiyun wrote:
marc2131 wrote:Ironically, Eddy Merckx was probably the cleanest/drug free champion we'll ever see. Quite the opposite of Lance

But how would one know for sure? PED started way early in the TdF history.


Don't forget Greg Lemond - who spoke against Lance, but was pressured by Lance and his sponsors to retract it otherwise risk his business. Lance had money, and the power to bully people, however, he couldn't have succeeded with this trail of deception alone. The governing bodies certainly have a lot to answer for including the UCI. Read Tyler Hamilton's book and especially one called "From Lance to Landers" which is more a scientific angle - and you will be amazed at what has gone on. I find it hard to believe that even the journo's/commentators like Phil Liggett didn't know what was going on in the nineties - and they have spent much air time proclaiming Lance as god. Lot's of people doped in that era, but only Lance still denies it, and claims he won 7 tours clean whilst every other rider in his team was admittedly on it. I should stop ranting....oooops

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 16 Oct 2012, 17:39

Trouty wrote:...I should stop ranting....oooops

I understand. It's cathartic under the circumstance. :wink:

rhys
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 13:00

Postby rhys » 16 Oct 2012, 18:33

marc2131 wrote:Image

Ironically, Eddy Merckx was probably the cleanest/drug free champion we'll ever see. Quite the opposite of Lance


Really? Come on man. Really?

User avatar
Toff
Posts: 1215
Joined: 20 Sep 2007, 14:34
Location: Stanmore

Postby Toff » 16 Oct 2012, 23:09

Pre Merckx, Jacques Anquetil used amphetamines. Post Merckx, Bernard Thevenet used steriods. Depending on the source, Merckx was caught using drugs on at least one occasion, and some sources say three occasions. The drug was amphetamines.

Since then Bjarne Riis has admitted to doping too, and Jan Ullright was caught, as well as all the others in recent history.

In a time before modern drug testing, when drugs were not frowned upon the way they are today, and riders used to visit wineries and have a tipple, mid stage, before getting back on their bikes to ride to the finish, it's hard to believe Merckx didn't take substances which would be deemed illegal these days. As many riders did, he also rode with beer in his bidon, and raced all year round, so other riders would benefit from the sign-on fees for races he appeared at. He was a legend, who always put the riders' interests first, and would never endorse anything which put his health (or any other rider's health) at risk, but setting that aside, performance enhancing drugs have always been part of pro cycling, and one would have to say that applied to the Merckx era too...

User avatar
Karzie
Posts: 709
Joined: 03 Nov 2008, 17:14

Postby Karzie » 17 Oct 2012, 09:14

It wasn't till the 1920's that some drugs were restricted (cocaine the drug of choice, but it's action was short-lived). Then in the 1930's, amphetamines were discovered and put a smile on all their faces. Jacques Anquetil, a five-time Tour champion who was very open about his drug use, is recorded as saying: "You would have to be an imbecile or a crook to imagine that a professional cyclist who races for 235 days a year can hold the pace without stimulants." Unfortunately, the fate of many of these heroes will never be known as many died in retirement of overdose, heart failure, depression, psychosis... The fate of that lovable egg-head Marco Pantani (I always remember him giving it everything up the mountain passes) is a case in point.

I'm sort of with the UCI over the use of radios. If they're going to enforce drug bans then maybe they should ban team radios too or the big races are going to be very ho hum.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 17 Oct 2012, 09:56

It's like politics. When one cares to blame a government or PM, it's also time to let the voters take some of the heat.

In cycling, spectators and fans want heroes, want spectacular up-hill attacks, along with sponsorship money and commercialisation of the whole sport, responsibility goes far wider than just UCI. It's a painful time from fans to riders, to sponsors, to the very top of sports administrators. Reset will be for everyone!

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 17 Oct 2012, 17:24

Toff wrote:In a time before modern drug testing, when drugs were not frowned upon the way they are today, and riders used to visit wineries and have a tipple, mid stage, before getting back on their bikes to ride to the finish, it's hard to believe Merckx didn't take substances which would be deemed illegal these days. As many riders did, he also rode with beer in his bidon, and raced all year round, so other riders would benefit from the sign-on fees for races he appeared at. He was a legend, who always put the riders' interests first, and would never endorse anything which put his health (or any other rider's health) at risk, but setting that aside, performance enhancing drugs have always been part of pro cycling, and one would have to say that applied to the Merckx era too...


I used the term 'cleanest' in my statement about Merckx, for a reason. I don't believe the issue of doping in cycling is a black and white issue. Believe there are huge 'grey' areas. People like Armstrong were grosteque and blatant in their use. The evidence to date paints this picture.

BTW, have a look at Greg Le Mond trying to bring up Armstrongs drug use without making direct accusations. I think this is from 2008.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryH650Br ... ata_player

AliG
Posts: 115
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 20:04

Postby AliG » 17 Oct 2012, 22:51


User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2568
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 18 Oct 2012, 07:00

@AliG - it's totally weird, given all the evidence that Liggett would still say "He has been the best athlete in the world and the drugs have not made him that much better, He’d have probably still have won on a level playing field and still been the champion" - FFS, that's just stupid.

User avatar
Karzie
Posts: 709
Joined: 03 Nov 2008, 17:14

Postby Karzie » 18 Oct 2012, 07:52

Phil is 70 something. That's a lot of history. Maybe all the drugs he took didn't make him that much faster either.

User avatar
jonboy
Posts: 353
Joined: 01 Sep 2011, 20:26
Location: Marrickville

Postby jonboy » 18 Oct 2012, 08:29

Stuart wrote:@AliG - it's totally weird, given all the evidence that Liggett would still say "He has been the best athlete in the world and the drugs have not made him that much better, He’d have probably still have won on a level playing field and still been the champion" - FFS, that's just stupid.


I always feel like an old codger on the odd occasion when I view webchat thingies. I had to look up FFS. I didn't know what it meant - I still can't decide from the options whether it means:

a. Facial feminization surgery;
b. Fringe Field Switching;
c. Fast File Flash File System (wouldn't that be FFFFS?)
d. Fee for service

J

User avatar
Nozzle
Posts: 510
Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 19:03
Location: Summer Hill, NSW

Postby Nozzle » 18 Oct 2012, 08:31

I always assume that it is a profanity when abbreviated. For F's Sake.

User avatar
jonboy
Posts: 353
Joined: 01 Sep 2011, 20:26
Location: Marrickville

Postby jonboy » 18 Oct 2012, 08:44

Thanks Noel, I also found another one - Fat Finger Syndrome. I think I like that one best.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 18 Oct 2012, 15:31

AliG wrote:I'm disappointed with Phil Liggett.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/despite ... -supporter


I like his anonymous appeal to authority "It said if Lance Armstrong had taken the drugs outlined by USADA he’d have been dead ten years ago. He’s an eminent scientist and a very intelligent man. I don’t know his name, the SMS came from a secondary person."

Yeah, because calling upon a quote that we can't verify is really going to sway people.

Plus, "He told me to his face that he didn’t and I had no reason not to believe it." Yeah, because Lance is going to tell you, and only you that he's been doping all these years. Lance has always denied that he's a drug cheat, he isn't going to break that silence for just you Phil.

I haven't read any of the evidence on hand, I've only come across stuff in the media and other sources. But if I apply the "beyond resonable doubt", then I think that Lance is well and truely in it. It would appear that he was a regular drug cheat, and he forced everyone else in his team to cheat as well.

The fact that "everyone was doing it" doesn't make it right, it's simply an appeal to popularity. There is a partially valid argument that people were "paid" for testimony against Lance, I use paid in quotes, as some riders were given a slap on the wrist in return for testifying against Lance.

Personally, I was always suspicous, he was winning but a lot of time every year, and when the also rans started showing positive results, it got interesting. I remember reading about Lemond who reckoned that he went into the Tour one year in the form of his life, and was being dropped by riders who he should have been able to outride. He put it down to them cheating. The same sort of thing was happening during the Lance years, he just dropped everyone, day after day. Look at riders like Cadel after he finishes some of the hard mountain top finishes, he is a wreck, yet Lance sometimes looked as fresh as a daisy day after day.

Some argue that persuing him is damaing to the sport, maybe it is, but on the other side, it shows to any current professional cyclist, that they are willing to pursue you even after you retire and prosecute you if they find that you cheated during your time racing.

That's just my thoughts.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 18 Oct 2012, 16:46

Good thoughts James!

User avatar
Karzie
Posts: 709
Joined: 03 Nov 2008, 17:14

Postby Karzie » 18 Oct 2012, 17:02

I read the whole report, and it's damning. Whoever wrote it did an amazing job, as it's totally cross-referenced with corroborating evidence from disparate sources over a long time-span. All first hand (unlike Phil's pathetic defence), suported by stat decs or court transcripts or blood test results and experts analysis and so on and on and on and on. You can totally see why Lance wouldn't want to have to defend himself in court - they'd make mincemeat (and the worst sort of headlines) of the best counsel. It's actually quite a readable document and I'd recommend it for a literary award. I was sorry that I came to the end of it. Not a very happy ending tho'! Read the report for yourself here!

Addit: If you don't read anything else, read the ADDENDUM – PART TWO: ANALYSIS REGARDING INDIANA
HOSPITAL ROOM INCIDENT that's the unhappy ending. Beautifully constructed and reasoned and damning to eternity.

You'll see from Hincapie's evidence here exactly the point when Armstrong is motivated to engage in doping and why. He did it the usual Armstrong way.

Russell_C
Posts: 10
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 20:42

Postby Russell_C » 18 Oct 2012, 20:57

I always thought that it would not matter if LA had doped. I thought that he would always be a champion. I finished reading the 200 page report yesterday and have completely changed my mind. The level of organization, money, team involvement, deceit and intimidation is incredible to read.

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 19 Oct 2012, 11:16

Merckx was totally clean, bathing etc that is.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 Oct 2012, 11:26

Dominos continues to fall. Stephen Hodge comes clean and resigns from CA.

At this rate, the only senior administrators/team managers left will be those few who didn't dope in a sea of dopers and those who can continue to hide the past.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/cyc ... 27ved.html

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 19 Oct 2012, 11:27

The fallout from this seems to be getting bigger

Cycling Australia Vice President, Stephen Hodge, has today resigned from the Board effective immediately.

In his resignation letter addressed to the Board and members Mr Hodge has revealed that during a stage of his career as a professional cyclist he took performance-enhancing drugs.


It almost seems that a lot of riders are suddenly getting things off their chest about doping. Matt White has also admitted.

Shall we open a book on who's next?

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 Oct 2012, 11:36

The question is no longer who doped, but who didn't dope in their professional career? Please step forward.

User avatar
Toff
Posts: 1215
Joined: 20 Sep 2007, 14:34
Location: Stanmore

Postby Toff » 19 Oct 2012, 11:49

Yes. I would like to confess to using drugs too.

Admittedly, not performance enhancing, but drugs nevertheless. Started taking them in the 90s, and have never really stopped...

Still take the banned substance, insulin every day of my life...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 Oct 2012, 11:57

Chris, you don't count. You may be a Colnago pro, but not an Euro Pro!

User avatar
Trouty
Posts: 1214
Joined: 09 May 2007, 13:23

Postby Trouty » 19 Oct 2012, 13:26

Toff wrote:Yes. I would like to confess to using drugs too.

Admittedly, not performance enhancing, but drugs nevertheless. Started taking them in the 90s, and have never really stopped...

Still take the banned substance, insulin every day of my life...



When you win 7 years in a row at RAW - I might consider putting in protest.

On a separate note, one of the other forms of doping in the day, for riders that didn't want to use the more serious forms like EPO, corticoides, but wanted to get through a race - was "Anal Caffiene Suppositories". They actually had to insert them during the race - some times whilst on the bike -TOTALLY GROSE.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 Oct 2012, 14:11

Trouty wrote:On a separate note, one of the other forms of doping in the day, for riders that didn't want to use the more serious forms like EPO, corticoides, but wanted to get through a race - was "Anal Caffiene Suppositories". They actually had to insert them during the race - some times whilst on the bike -TOTALLY GROSE.

There's nothing to stop them putting it in their mouth and still gain the effect. BUt I'd say Coke is better. :)

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 19 Oct 2012, 21:35

How on earth would one manage to 'supposit' one of them during a 250km race without a tv camera noticing? I can't imagine any of them wear drop-tails either...

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 19 Oct 2012, 21:47

There's no reason why they need to use the rectal route.

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 20 Oct 2012, 03:25

Today's Sydney Morning Herald article today. Some guy is claiming there is even doping in C grade races! Calling for testing. This all on the day I want to start racing (for the first time) at Heffron in the C grade :shock:

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/uph ... 27wqr.html

User avatar
fenn_paddler
Posts: 154
Joined: 28 Mar 2007, 08:30
Location: Petersham

Postby fenn_paddler » 20 Oct 2012, 06:39

So Frank wants testing of C grade at Heffron. I'm assuming he wants CA to stump up the cost (est at $1000 per test) of doing this.

CA are under enormous pressure to do more about doping. If they address this by tesing Heffron and maybe even RAW, we can look forward to greatly increased membership fees to cover it.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 20 Oct 2012, 08:47

They got the photo wrong. That is not Heffron.

User avatar
Toff
Posts: 1215
Joined: 20 Sep 2007, 14:34
Location: Stanmore

Postby Toff » 20 Oct 2012, 09:15

The photo is of Matt White & Graeme Brown. I'm pretty sure it was taken at the Cronulla International Grand Prix in 2007 when Matt rode in his last ever professional race before retiring. When I watched that race, it looked to me like Matt was given the win. Everyone else sat back and let him ride away for the last lap by himself. Even Graeme Brown eventually sat up to let him win, which is unusual for him. So drugs in cycling is not the only issue that the CA/UCI are up against...

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 20 Oct 2012, 09:43

I just skimmed the article (SMH - Doping in C Grade). My opinion

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

James

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 20 Oct 2012, 14:12

Thanks for posting the Report Karzie. I just finished reading it.

After having read it, I think that Lance is up to it in his neck and beyond. While each piece of testimony by itself is by no means damming, there is enough of it, and it's all internally consistent, and they are consistent with each other, and the people making the testimony had too much to lose by speaking out. There is way too much evidence against him, and as the report points out, it shows that not only did Lance dope, he pressured others to dope, and that he took systematic efforts to ensure that it remained secret.

I also heard that Rabobank has pulled it's team sponsorship because

"We are no longer convinced that the international professional world of cycling can make this a clean and fair sport,"


Having read the report, I feel that the UCI is also involved in the Lance cover up, they tried to stop the USDA from being able to investigate, and there is also evidence that USPS/Discovery/Astana knew when tests were coming, and there was the positive test at the Tour of Switzerland. I think that the UCI needs a shake up as well, and hopefully it will clean the sport up.

James

rhys
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 13:00

Postby rhys » 20 Oct 2012, 14:43

jimmy wrote:Look at riders like Cadel after he finishes some of the hard mountain top finishes, he is a wreck, yet Lance sometimes looked as fresh as a daisy day after day.


This is where my suspicions first started to get aroused. Watching Hell On Wheels and Overcoming you see him on top of a mountain finish, smiling as he sips water. Dead giveaway.
The same can be said for Wiggins. Face of stone day after day. Definitely on the gas.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 20 Oct 2012, 18:13

rhys wrote:The same can be said for Wiggins. Face of stone day after day. Definitely on the gas.

Innocent until proven otherwise. I have given LA the benefit of the doubt until this USADA report and don't regret it. I think it's a dangerous precedent to question an athlete just because it looked easy for him or her. There has to be evidence.

I further note there's another report on LA's public response to the latest... Nothing. Not mentioning a word!
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/arm ... 27y2f.html

Well, that thick skinned PR tactics has worked for Dubya Bush and may just also "work" for LA. We'll see.

rhys
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 13:00

Postby rhys » 20 Oct 2012, 20:09

An interesting article: http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/10/ground ... r-cycling/

Of note:
Image

Why is the plaster there?

The UCI passed a no needles policy in May of 2011 which stated the following (quote courtesy of cyclingnews.com article by Stephen Farrand):

The UCI Regulations now prohibit injections that have the aim of artificially improving performance or helping recovery. It means riders can no longer inject vitamins, sugars, enzymes, amino acids or antioxidants to aid recovery. It is hoped the ban will contribute to the eradication of doping by greatly reducing the use of injections in cycling.

Herein lies the problem. No one asked why Wiggins had a plaster, and the interesting fact is that Boulting, who conducted the interview, didn’t find the plaster on Wiggins arm as strange. According to sources within the Tour de France, there wasn’t any blood drawn for anti-doping purposes on that day. So why did Wiggins have a plaster on his arm? It couldn’t have been for medicinal purposes, as a Team Sky doctor supported and asserted the no needles policy as “fantastic” during an interview with Lionel Birnie that appeared in the August 2011 edition of Cyclesport Magazine.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 22 Oct 2012, 08:43

In relation to amateur athletes using banned substances, I heard a representative from the Australian Customs saying that they were regularly seizing deliveries of banned sporting products that were being mailed in. I can't find a printed source to back it up at the moment. So it would appear that Frank's comments may be justified.

However, I would like to point out that Customs would be seizing products that are destined for any one in Australia, and this wouldn't just be limited to cycling, in either case, it would appear that people at the amateur level in any sport may be willing to cheat to gain an edge. Personally, I don't see the point, I recognise that I can only be so good regardless of how much training I do. I also recognise that if I was to do specific training then that would also allow me to be a better rider. If I was to use a banned product and win anything (even Heffron C Grade), then I would feel dirty, I wouldn't feel that it is a victory because I was the strongest or smartest rider in the pack that day, it would simply be because I spent some money on something that would give me an edge.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 09:40

I agree the psychology of it is interesting. Like exam cheats, they don't necessarily have to be aimed at coming first. It's just a quick way to be there without putting in the effort. Some people are just like that and is a fact of life and society.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 10:32

rhys wrote:Why is the plaster there?

So many legitimate possibilities. Post dope control? Sports science physiological study? Legitimate therapy eg. Saline rehydration? I think it's unfair to penalise the athletes when there's no firmly established evidence.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 22 Oct 2012, 11:05

weiyun wrote:
rhys wrote:Why is the plaster there?

So many legitimate possibilities. Post dope control? Sports science physiological study? Legitimate therapy eg. Saline rehydration? I think it's unfair to penalise the athletes when there's no firmly established evidence.


Also, lets suppose for a second, that Wiggins was doping, and that the plaster was there because of that.

Given how carefully doping would have to be done these days, can you possibly imagine that they would be stupid enough to leave a sticking plaster on his arm?

Even in sport doping cases, you need to apply the innocent until proven guilty. As far as I'm concerned, this can be considered as evidence, if there is other evidence that indicates that Wiggins is doping. Until that evidence comes to light, I'm going to consider him clean.

As a side note, I was reading through an article on Wikipedia, and came across the fact that Cadel Evans has, in the past had association with Dr Michele Ferrari, given his (Ferrari's) infamacy with doping, is that sufficient to accuse Evans of doping? I don't think so, and I would put this sticking plaster in the same category.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 11:36

jimmy wrote:As a side note, I was reading through an article on Wikipedia, and came across the fact that Cadel Evans has, in the past had association with Dr Michele Ferrari, given his (Ferrari's) infamacy with doping, is that sufficient to accuse Evans of doping? I don't think so, and I would put this sticking plaster in the same category.

Talking about Cadel Evans. I thought it was odd when SMH came out with the following article over the weekend. I couldn't understand what Cadel had to handle. Maybe it's the media trying to stir something out of nothing.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/eva ... 27yjf.html

User avatar
Dougie
Posts: 755
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:39
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Dougie » 22 Oct 2012, 15:01

Jimmy, regarding customs seizing products coming into the Country. I read a couple SMH articles and I think there was a big Good Weekend article on Steriod Tourism very recently. It would appear from those articles that there was a very small sub culture of recreational bodybuilders whom wanted the physique but didnt wish to put the effort in to obtain it. hence those people would seek a drug assisted outcome.

If recreational drug users appear across society i dont think it would be a big leap to think there it may be present within our sport albeit in equally small amounts. there's no doubt there would be plenty of riders whom would love "the win". Of that group someone may think of obtaining an advantage with almost (or as it appears now, zero) no chance of being caught. Bragging rights are important to some people. CA would only have to test a couple of times to make the point.

We have all signed on to the drug testing program on the back of our licenses. Let CA make it real.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 22 Oct 2012, 15:12

Actually, drug tests are adminstered by ASADA (Australian Sports Anti Doping Authority), but I get your point. I know that there was a testing that was going to occur at Heffron one Tuesday night, apparently, most of A Grade did a runner. I'm not sure if that would classify them as having missed a doping control. That is hearsay, so I can't verify the story.

There is an article in the SMH about Landis cracking open the Code of Silence

''Lance Armstrong never came up,'' Messick said last week. ''But he did make a comment on the mafia. He said, 'When you're in the mafia and you get caught and go to jail, you keep your mouth shut, and the organisation takes care of your family. In cycling, you're expected to keep your mouth shut when you test positive, but you become an outcast. Everyone just turns their back on you."


Full Article

James

shrubb face
Posts: 1010
Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 01:43
Location: Marrickville

Postby shrubb face » 22 Oct 2012, 15:26

As an aside, I've been at Tuesday night Heffron when drug test have been done. I have a feeling there were only really there to test the likes of CJ Sutton rather than the rest of us.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 16:00

jimmy wrote:I know that there was a testing that was going to occur at Heffron one Tuesday night, apparently, most of A Grade did a runner.

Possible reasons,
1) They are all fear needles, like little boys and girls.
2) They object to reverse blood doping and fear they'll lose the next race for reduced Hb level.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 22 Oct 2012, 16:19

weiyun wrote:
jimmy wrote:I know that there was a testing that was going to occur at Heffron one Tuesday night, apparently, most of A Grade did a runner.

Possible reasons,
1) They are all fear needles, like little boys and girls.
2) They object to reverse blood doping and fear they'll lose the next race for reduced Hb level.


I was under the impression that the majority of drug tests were done via urine testing. The only reason that blood is drawn is for testing the hemocrit levels. But happy to be corrected.

James

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 16:31

True that urine is the primary sample for drug testing of most drugs, ones that are excreted and concentrated through the kidneys. However, blood is also often collected if one is looking for other factors eg. Hb and drugs not excreted through urine. All depends.
Last edited by weiyun on 22 Oct 2012, 21:39, edited 1 time in total.

shrubb face
Posts: 1010
Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 01:43
Location: Marrickville

Postby shrubb face » 22 Oct 2012, 21:17


User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 21:31

Cadel Evans is also on the defensive.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/evans-c ... ri-in-2000

This whole affair is a tsunami for the sport. No one is unaffected.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 22 Oct 2012, 21:38

So the TdF organizer has announced that there'll be no official winners for those 7 LA years. Ouch! But can understand their predicament.

timothy_clifford
Posts: 270
Joined: 13 Feb 2012, 19:04

Postby timothy_clifford » 23 Oct 2012, 06:35

weiyun wrote:So the TdF organizer has announced that there'll be no official winners for those 7 LA years. Ouch! But can understand their predicament.

Not sure if this has been posted, but it shows the Tours predicament quite well:

Image

The riders on a grey background have been linked with doping or other naughty activities. Take Lance out (and Frank Schlek) and the world gets ever darker.

User avatar
Simon Llewellyn
Posts: 1532
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 22:31
Location: Tempe Velodrome

Postby Simon Llewellyn » 23 Oct 2012, 08:40

I find these statistics interesting.

http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdfstats.html

Since 1994 the slowest average speed for the tour was won that year by non other than Alberto Contador. I know that they will come up with some scientific reason for why some years have been slower than others, such as the wind, less mountains, equipment etc. But I can help but notice that Wiggins win this year was faster than Armstrong's win in 2000, based on that statistic if they are no longer doping then doping can't have helped all that much. Even Cadel's win last year was faster than Armstrong's win in 2000.

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 23 Oct 2012, 08:44

Simon Llewellyn wrote:But I can help but notice that Wiggins win this year was faster than Armstrong's win in 2000, based on that statistic if they are no longer doping then doping can't have helped all that much. Even Cadel's win last year was faster than Armstrong's win in 2000.

It's those damned Zipps, deep dish wheels, scientifically proven speed weapon! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Philip
Posts: 531
Joined: 12 Feb 2012, 17:48
Location: Earlwood
Contact:

Postby Philip » 23 Oct 2012, 08:57

timothy_clifford wrote:
weiyun wrote:So the TdF organizer has announced that there'll be no official winners for those 7 LA years. Ouch! But can understand their predicament.

Not sure if this has been posted, but it shows the Tours predicament quite well:

Image

The riders on a grey background have been linked with doping or other naughty activities. Take Lance out (and Frank Schlek) and the world gets ever darker.


The second last one is a beauty, Cadel moves from 8th straight into the Yellow Jersey.

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 23 Oct 2012, 13:05

UIC erases Armstrongs' TdF wins, but now attacks the people who were brave and honest enough to expose the whole cesspool.
McQuaid calls whistleblowers 'scumbags'.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/lan ... 282nk.html

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 23 Oct 2012, 16:59

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/uci ... 281uc.html
interactive in the herald!! push a button to see the cheats over the last ten years :D

Johnj
Posts: 164
Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 19:03
Location: Croydon

Postby Johnj » 23 Oct 2012, 21:10

marc2131 wrote:UIC erases Armstrongs' TdF wins, but now attacks the people who were brave and honest enough to expose the whole cesspool.
McQuaid calls whistleblowers 'scumbags'.


McQuaid is part of the problem, still trying to insist that he was totally shocked about the news. Meanwhile he's been backing UCI-funded defamation cases against Paul Kimmage, Dick Pound, Floyd Landis, or anyone else who dared to point out that doping was a "big problem". The UCI wasn't just asleep at the wheel, they were doing their best to discredit anyone who wanted to see the team bus pointed in the right direction.

Australians involved at high level in the UCI, like Mike Turtur, Phill Bates, Graham Fredericks and Klaus Mueller have been as bad, or worse, than their European counterparts. As late as August 24 Phil Bates (who's on the UCI's Disciplinary Committee) was trumpeting Lance's innnocence and denigrating USADA. Bates now says he feels "cheated", well frankly I feel cheated that an Australian at this level was so willing to stick his head in the sand. I'd be inclined to laugh about the whole thing, if I wasn't a card-carrying member of the UCI, knowing that my money is helping to prop up this charade.

Perhaps most importantly, I'd like to know where to direct my complaints. Anyone got some email addresses that I can use?

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 24 Oct 2012, 09:25

I like Eleri's train of thought...

With men's cycling imploding, surely there is now an opportunity for women's cycling to get the support they so desperately need:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 42351.html

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 24 Oct 2012, 10:55

Imploding? I have never seen so much press on the sport!

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 24 Oct 2012, 11:00

(I have seen a few women on Facebook who have been ex Aussie champs on the world stage, commenting on the drugs in women's cycling too)

User avatar
JoTheBuilder
Posts: 1500
Joined: 19 Feb 2011, 15:32

Postby JoTheBuilder » 24 Oct 2012, 14:18

Never seen so much press: yes. Imploding: yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. The decision by Rabobank could easily have a domino effect and other sponsors may follow...

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 24 Oct 2012, 14:29

Think the only thing that is imploding is the relationship between the big sponsors and the top-end/sharks of the cycling sport world. Also the credibility of the peak bodies in question.
Other than that us sardines are fine.

Eleri
Posts: 1753
Joined: 31 Dec 2009, 08:43
Location: Erskineville

Postby Eleri » 24 Oct 2012, 15:14


User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 24 Oct 2012, 15:37

JoTheBuilder wrote:Never seen so much press: yes. Imploding: yes. The two are not mutually exclusive. The decision by Rabobank could easily have a domino effect and other sponsors may follow...

Well, they may not see it that way. Now the dirt has been turned, the new cycling will be trouble free for a while. The target audience is still there, the teams and riders are still there, the exposure will also be there. The best part for the sponsors is, the deals can now be negotiated down.

User avatar
jimmy
Posts: 988
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 10:15
Contact:

Postby jimmy » 25 Oct 2012, 06:39

weiyun wrote:Well, they may not see it that way. Now the dirt has been turned, the new cycling will be trouble free for a while. The target audience is still there, the teams and riders are still there, the exposure will also be there. The best part for the sponsors is, the deals can now be negotiated down.


I was thinking about this on the weekend after hearing about Rabobank pulling out. What I think is likely to happen is that the smaller sponsors will step in, but they won't be as willing to pay as much money, which means that riders will have to take a pay cut.

The sport will survive, it has been around too long and has too many loyal followers, but I agree that there needs to be a real shake up of the sport especially at the top level. The current UCI Administration may be better, but I think that they are still willing to turn a blind eye to issues like doping in the pursuit of promoting the sport. I did hear someone say, that when you have the one body responsible for policing the cheats and promoting the sport, you have a conflict of interest. The UCI needs to give up the responsibility for dealing with cheats, and only be responsible for dealing with promoting the sport. That would be a huge step towards fixing the sport.

James

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 25 Oct 2012, 08:02

jimmy wrote:The current UCI Administration may be better, but I think that they are still willing to turn a blind eye to issues like doping in the pursuit of promoting the sport. I did hear someone say, that when you have the one body responsible for policing the cheats and promoting the sport, you have a conflict of interest. The UCI needs to give up the responsibility for dealing with cheats, and only be responsible for dealing with promoting the sport. That would be a huge step towards fixing the sport.


Agreed. Jimmy you are right. Need to separate the drug testing body from UCI. Big conflict of interest.
Not sure if the UCI understand the situation. Might be necessary to tell them. Is it appropriate for the DHBC to have a stand on this? Do we have an official opinion on this? Does it serve our purposes?

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 25 Oct 2012, 09:52

Does any of the other sport codes have separate general administration and dope testing? Can see how that can be relevant but it'll likely add another layer of cost, which requires even more sponsorship/membership money to sustain. It's never easy.

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 25 Oct 2012, 17:20

marc2131 wrote:
jimmy wrote:The current UCI Administration may be better, but I think that they are still willing to turn a blind eye to issues like doping in the pursuit of promoting the sport. I did hear someone say, that when you have the one body responsible for policing the cheats and promoting the sport, you have a conflict of interest. The UCI needs to give up the responsibility for dealing with cheats, and only be responsible for dealing with promoting the sport. That would be a huge step towards fixing the sport.


Agreed. Jimmy you are right. Need to separate the drug testing body from UCI. Big conflict of interest.
Not sure if the UCI understand the situation. Might be necessary to tell them. Is it appropriate for the DHBC to have a stand on this? Do we have an official opinion on this? Does it serve our purposes?


I think I am sticking with the hipster community on this one

AliG
Posts: 115
Joined: 11 Jan 2011, 20:04

Postby AliG » 25 Oct 2012, 21:49

marc2131 wrote:
jimmy wrote:The current UCI Administration may be better, but I think that they are still willing to turn a blind eye to issues like doping in the pursuit of promoting the sport. I did hear someone say, that when you have the one body responsible for policing the cheats and promoting the sport, you have a conflict of interest. The UCI needs to give up the responsibility for dealing with cheats, and only be responsible for dealing with promoting the sport. That would be a huge step towards fixing the sport.


Agreed. Jimmy you are right. Need to separate the drug testing body from UCI. Big conflict of interest.
Not sure if the UCI understand the situation. Might be necessary to tell them. Is it appropriate for the DHBC to have a stand on this? Do we have an official opinion on this? Does it serve our purposes?


I hope the UCI is concerned by the number of people who have donated money to Paul Kimmage's defence fund. Not a good look when so many cyclists part with cash in opposition to the governing body. And the number that have donated seems to have shot up since Greg LeMond posted some fighting words on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/greglemond

Both he and the head of Skins have called McQuaid corrupt in the past few days. Kimmage is being sued for suggesting the same. If the UCI don't also sue the CEO of Skins and LeMond, it may just add to the feeling that UCI bided their time, then sued Kimmage as soon as he was made redundant and no longer had the legal backing of a big newspaper.

Anyway, not an official DHBC position, but if you feel strongly, donate to the legal fund. Even if the donation is small, the UCI may be concerned by the number of donors and may feel under pressure to stop insisting that none of their governance, policies etc need to change.
Alison

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 27 Oct 2012, 10:33


Eleri
Posts: 1753
Joined: 31 Dec 2009, 08:43
Location: Erskineville

Postby Eleri » 27 Oct 2012, 10:54

Overnight the UCI suspended (but did not drop) their action against Paul Kimmage. McQuaid and Verbruggen have also suspended their action.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODg0NQ&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=%2Ftemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI8%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuId%3DMTYzMDQ%26LangId%3D1

rhys
Posts: 540
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 13:00

Postby rhys » 28 Oct 2012, 21:02

Fantastic news. Now comes the headache of Kimmage having to return that money, Armstrong-style.

Perhaps a better problem to have than this man's:
Image

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 28 Oct 2012, 23:41

That man will just have to change the last word to something that's appropriate, a small cosmetic surgery issue.

timyone
Posts: 4380
Joined: 22 Nov 2006, 20:29

Postby timyone » 31 Oct 2012, 10:27


Eleri
Posts: 1753
Joined: 31 Dec 2009, 08:43
Location: Erskineville

Postby Eleri » 31 Oct 2012, 15:21

An interesting development - not really about Lance per se, but the whole thing

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/cycling/govt_to_investigate_cycling_australia_Vd8EvDhPdPUasfLbzvmLHP

User avatar
jbcow
Posts: 293
Joined: 12 May 2009, 07:18
Location: Redfern
Contact:

Postby jbcow » 31 Oct 2012, 16:39

Excellent, I think this is needed.

scully
Posts: 156
Joined: 07 Apr 2011, 18:22

Postby scully » 31 Oct 2012, 16:45


User avatar
Karzie
Posts: 709
Joined: 03 Nov 2008, 17:14

Postby Karzie » 31 Oct 2012, 17:01

Here we go. And why don't they have an enquiry into the use of drugs in weightlifting, hammer-throwing, waterpolo, running and flipping caber-tossing as well? There's plenty of low lying fruit there. And while they're at it, why not investigate state-sanctioned doping on Olympic teams since the 70's? Sure they will.

There's beginning to be an air of hysteria about the whole episode, while a lot of other sport administrators look on with a sigh of relief and a casual flung stone (to show that they're in total agreement) and quietly thank their god that it wasn't them. How ever did the US compete so successfully against those cheating communists for so long? Must have been their superior genes and heroic sport administrators! The foetid air of hypocritic calumny is choking me while the politicians seize the day and peck away at cycling until it bleeds.

User avatar
lindsay
Posts: 380
Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 15:29
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby lindsay » 31 Oct 2012, 18:38

The foetid air of hypocritic calumny is choking me while the politicians seize the day and peck away at cycling until it bleeds.


Karzie 4 PM... You got my vote.

User avatar
jbcow
Posts: 293
Joined: 12 May 2009, 07:18
Location: Redfern
Contact:

Postby jbcow » 01 Nov 2012, 08:24

Karzie - Fair points all. I don't agree with your central argument though. The 'other kids in the playground' did it is never an argument one can hide behind for long. The question is whether doping in sport is right or wrong. The answer is simply wrong.

So, let's see cycling scrubbed clean. Then we can be part of something that we are proud of rather than embarrased by. I look forward to the day when weightlifters, sprinters et al feel shame alongside cyclists at the olympics. Instead we have the likes of Alexander Vinokourov grabing cycling's first gold this year. Who cares about weighlifters on steroids? Forget 'em. Let's make cycling about the ride. Drugs should be for recreation of those so inclined.

User avatar
Karzie
Posts: 709
Joined: 03 Nov 2008, 17:14

Postby Karzie » 01 Nov 2012, 11:23

You misunderstand me perhaps, jbcow. I'm just saying there's legions more should be twisting in the gibbet and they never will. Also, that it's politicians requiring results who put people into positions of power where they foster doping and protect their star performers. If you don't recognise what the mechanisms of the corruption are, it makes it impossible to fix.

I've been watching cycling being made clean for the last thirty years and have become a bit cynical perhaps. There was a test developed and tested before the Sydney Olympics for EPO use, but not allowed to be used - because too many stars would get caught and the Olympics would totally lose credibility.

What other sports are being targeted? A whole chinese NATIONAL team got caught AT CUSTOMS bringing dope into australia very recently. We didn't see the same international media hysteria over that. Why not? How did that chinese woman swimmer get away with her result at London? Quite a young girl, she swam a freestyle lap faster than the fastest and strongest male. There was hardly a murmur.

Until these issues are addressed and rectified all the starry-eyed calls for cycling to be all about the ride will remain just that. There's a bigger picture.

User avatar
jbcow
Posts: 293
Joined: 12 May 2009, 07:18
Location: Redfern
Contact:

Postby jbcow » 01 Nov 2012, 12:10

Hi Karzie, I'm highly skilled at misunderstanding things. If only I was half as good on the bike!

I agree there is a bigger picture and as you say, direct and indirect signs that doping is still a big problem in many sports. Of course they should be dealt with. But I personally welcome all the attention on cycling.

It takes a long time to go through the list in the below link. To be fair, it starts in 1886!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling

The most recent entry is for a guy I've never head of being caught doping EPO on 21 September this year. He's 26 - old enough to have seen scandals unfold, to have seen many riders caught. This guy and riders like him tell me that the sport needs to change. That's why I welcome all the attention. So let the investigations come, let the media have a field day. Rather than resist it, we should ride it and steer it. Let cycling become the standard of clean sport.

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 02 Nov 2012, 12:10

Believe this is affecting everyone now. Not sure if it is long term (skeptical) but a move in the right direction.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympians-t ... 28o61.html

timothy_clifford
Posts: 270
Joined: 13 Feb 2012, 19:04

Postby timothy_clifford » 02 Nov 2012, 17:41

marc2131 wrote:Believe this is affecting everyone now. Not sure if it is long term (skeptical) but a move in the right direction.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympians-t ... 28o61.html


No - its a step it the wrong direction. Oh yes, yes, yes - we all know doping is bad, and we all want it stamped out of our respective sports. But for why this is a bad idea, read Wade's opinion on the matter.

TL;DR - Punishment drives more deceitful behaviour, why would anyone confess?

User avatar
Karzie
Posts: 709
Joined: 03 Nov 2008, 17:14

Postby Karzie » 03 Nov 2012, 00:17

It's more than that. e.g, some of Sky's admin staff are very 'close' to these issues. This sort of policy says 'if anyone says anything about what's been going on, they're sacked'. I reckon that the cyclists should be given amnesty for evidence, but not administrators. Have an official investigation run by an independant body and get the goods on everybody. Sack the UCI and put all the proven clean riders in the top positions and put a doping tester onto every team. Pay them good money and move them every 3 months.

User avatar
Dougie
Posts: 755
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:39
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Dougie » 03 Nov 2012, 08:26

here's the thing. prohibition has never worked in anything. incentivise fair play, which i don't have an answer for by the way.

Animal trainers know that they can get the outcome they are after rather than through punishment. no seal has ever learned to balance a ball on its nose by being nagged.

User avatar
Stuart
Posts: 2568
Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 10:43
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Stuart » 03 Nov 2012, 09:01

Kimmage’s quest for UCI accountability http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/kim ... untability

Kimmage is counter-suing the UCI - woo hoo. "As soon as the governing body announced that they were suspending their defamation against Kimmage the inevitable rumours of a counter-suit began to surface. A week later and the Rough Ride author has delivered: A 28-page document with 55 exhibits of evidence that will be presented to a Swiss judge who will in turn decide if Hein Verbruggen and McQuaid have a case to answer over counts of slander/defamation, denigration and "strong suspicions of fraud"."

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 07 Nov 2012, 11:16

What is with this coloured/red names tags on this forum ie. first Eleri and now Stuart.
Is there some sort hierarchy developing here? :wink:

User avatar
Dougie
Posts: 755
Joined: 11 Jan 2008, 16:39
Location: Dulwich Hill

Postby Dougie » 07 Nov 2012, 12:25

There are Coloured Name Tags??????

Could mine be Brown?

User avatar
marc2131
Posts: 1119
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 13:14
Location: Ashbury
Contact:

Postby marc2131 » 12 Nov 2012, 11:57

Lance just lying around?

http://www.mobli.com/media/show/id/22700756?referer=tw

Maybe I am a bit sensitive, but is that provocative or what?

Bill K CX
Posts: 101
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 20:46

Postby Bill K CX » 09 Jan 2013, 15:58

Step right up.....the show must go on....its interview time



http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/ne ... -interview

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

User avatar
weiyun
Posts: 4173
Joined: 17 Nov 2006, 22:32
Location: Birchgrove
Contact:

Postby weiyun » 09 Jan 2013, 17:39

Bill K CX wrote:Step right up.....the show must go on....its interview time...

Curious to see how good are LA's PR spinners!

GregPankhurst
Posts: 298
Joined: 29 Apr 2012, 17:57

Postby GregPankhurst » 09 Jan 2013, 18:45

Bill K CX wrote:Step right up.....the show must go on....its interview time


Choosing Oprah as your vehicle to tell your story screams wanting to try control the story to me.

My guess is we'll get one of three versions (I've ranked them in order of likelihood):

(1) A low level, veiled admission of some occasional drug use, set against a backdrop of "the Europeans were a filthy pack of cheats", "level playing field", "witch hunt" and "Did you hear I beat cancer"
(2) The middle finger to all and sundry - blanket denial
(3) The mea maxima culpa

Any other forecasts?

User avatar
Philip
Posts: 531
Joined: 12 Feb 2012, 17:48
Location: Earlwood
Contact:

Postby Philip » 09 Jan 2013, 18:52

If he doesn't jump on the couch at least once I'll be very disappointed.


Return to “Conversation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest