With all due respect, that is a load of bollocks. I think it is very disrespectful to dismiss cancer awareness and support, LiveStrong has meant a lot for many millions, and will continue to do so.
Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping offences - Washington Post
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
With all due respect, that is a load of bollocks. I think it is very disrespectful to dismiss cancer awareness and support, LiveStrong has meant a lot for many millions, and will continue to do so.
senorgregster
Last Newbie Standing
Threatening others to keep up with the doping regime, with drugs that are potentially fatal? That is worse than doping. He could have got someone else killed with that.
Name me someone else who doped for over a decade, bullied his teammates into following the same doping regime, bullied his peers who spoke out against doping in sport, threatened legal action for positive tests or doping, dodged tests, covered up positive tests, and was finally caught.
This is what I mean by systemic - no cyclist has done anything close.
The rules are applied consistently. Lance is the exception - because he dodged tests and covered up positive ones.
USADA and WADA codes state that Contador should have been banned for 2 years as a first offence, and that was backdated to the time of his offence. He was stripped of all his titles from then onwards, too. He's now served his ban and is free to compete.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/feb/06/alberto-contador-ban-tour-cycling
Personally, I don't believe first offences should carry life bans, although there should be a serious punishment nevertheless.
Are you suggesting there is substantial evidence that, say, Bradley Wiggins doped? I'd like to see that.
Not all Tour de France winners have been convicted of doping. In the absence of such convictions, you should presume them innocent until proven guilty.
Nobody is making an example out of Armstrong. It's simply that his offences are so much more severe than a blood bag and needle that his punishment needs to be upped in a similar fashion.
I'm not denying in any way what he did or that he was perhaps the worst of all time. But the sport is so dirty that repeat offenders are littered throughout. They have to be to compete. Just looking at the link you provided. That's great that all those cyclists saw the error of their ways and decided to become clean. Yeah right. And that list of cyclists that only cheated once - Zabriske, Hinncapie, leiphiemer, Barry, Danielson and vande velde... I get a sense these guys cheated more than once. 6 months is a joke. Again, for repeat offenders like Lance string them all up, don't single one out. Or just make it legal to kill yourself with these doping methods.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
I'm not denying in any way what he did or that he was perhaps the worst of all time. But the sport is so dirty that repeat offenders are littered throughout. They have to be to compete. Just looking at the link you provided. That's great that all those cyclists saw the error of their ways and decided to become clean. Yeah right. And that list of cyclists that only cheated once - Zabriske, Hinncapie, leiphiemer, Barry, Danielson and vande velde... I get a sense these guys cheated more than once. 6 months is a joke. Again, for repeat offenders like Lance string them all up, don't single one out. Or just make it legal to kill yourself with these doping methods.
Top post!! Indeed, Lance Armstrong merited his ban, but you are right about repeat offenders. I get the impression that regardless of the fact that they were both cheats, x42bn6 seems to think that Mercxx was a better rider. This probably had something to do with the fact that he might have taken some form of PED. Remember, the difference between Merccx and Armstrong was that he took part the Tour D'Italie which meant he had to cycle another 3,500-4,000kms more per season than Armstrong. Secondly, Merkcx got caught not once but twice in two different tours. There is no way of justifying why it is ok for one and not for the other when they were just as bad as one another. As Jacques Anquentil once stated when he did the the Bordeaux-Paris "only a fool would imagine it possible to win the Bordeaux-Paris on water."
x42bn6
Full Member
Multiple offences aren't always life-banned under WADA's code (there is a table on page 66): http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf#page=18I'm not denying in any way what he did or that he was perhaps the worst of all time. But the sport is so dirty that repeat offenders are littered throughout. They have to be to compete. Just looking at the link you provided. That's great that all those cyclists saw the error of their ways and decided to become clean. Yeah right. And that list of cyclists that only cheated once - Zabriske, Hinncapie, leiphiemer, Barry, Danielson and vande velde... I get a sense these guys cheated more than once. 6 months is a joke. Again, for repeat offenders like Lance string them all up, don't single one out. Or just make it legal to kill yourself with these doping methods.
6 months is likely the result of mitigating circumstances from being bullied into doping by Lance, as well as cutting a deal with USADA/federal agencies in exchange for providing evidence to take Lance down. If you go to the USADA sanctions list, you will see cyclists (and other athletes) getting the standard 1-4 year bans.
Lance Armstrong has been alleged to have doped for over a whole decade, as well as bullying others into taking it and avoiding/hiding tests. He wasn't caught - because he covered up positive tests. You don't even need to be caught - look at Marion Jones, who was never caught.Secondly, Merkcx got caught not once but twice in two different tours. There is no way of justifying why it is ok for one and not for the other when they were just as bad as one another. As Jacques Anquentil once stated when he did the the Bordeaux-Paris "only a fool would imagine it possible to win the Bordeaux-Paris on water."
Sure, drug testing is now more sophisticated than ever, and Merckx is perhaps lucky he was in an era where there was less scrutiny for doping - but for heaven's sake, Lance was a million miles worse than Merckx when it comes to actual offences.
----
Let me spell this out for you:
Merckx:
Doped a few times
Armstrong:
Doped for over a decade
Dodged tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
Covered up positive tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
Bullied his team into following the same doping regimen
Threatened his peers who spoke out against doping in cycling
Threatened critics with legal action
Committed perjury (he is only getting away with this because of the statute of limitations)
Sure, the sport is dirty, but Lance is on a whole new level of dirty. Nobody can be punished as harshly as Lance was - because nobody has come close to what he did.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
Multiple offences aren't always life-banned under WADA's code (there is a table on page 66): http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf#page=18
6 months is likely the result of mitigating circumstances from being bullied into doping by Lance, as well as cutting a deal with USADA/federal agencies in exchange for providing evidence to take Lance down. If you go to the USADA sanctions list, you will see cyclists (and other athletes) getting the standard 1-4 year bans.
Lance Armstrong has been alleged to have doped for over a whole decade, as well as bullying others into taking it and avoiding/hiding tests. He wasn't caught - because he covered up positive tests. You don't even need to be caught - look at Marion Jones, who was never caught.
Sure, drug testing is now more sophisticated than ever, and Merckx is perhaps lucky he was in an era where there was less scrutiny for doping - but for heaven's sake, Lance was a million miles worse than Merckx when it comes to actual offences.
----
Let me spell this out for you:
Merckx:
Doped a few times
Armstrong:
Doped for over a decade
Dodged tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
Covered up positive tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
Bullied his team into following the same doping regimen
Threatened his peers who spoke out against doping in cycling
Threatened critics with legal action
Committed perjury (he is only getting away with this because of the statute of limitations)
Sure, the sport is dirty, but Lance is on a whole new level of dirty. Nobody can be punished as harshly as Lance was - because nobody has come close to what he did.
Your agenda against Armstrong is incredible. Nobody likes a cheat, no matter who they are i.e. Ferdinand, Contador, Marion Jones, Ben Johnson et al. How on earth do you know that others haven't dodged tests? How do you know he bullied his team mates? Did they say this so that they can have lighter sentences? Another thing, anyone who can win numerous Giro D'Italia and TDFs in the same year has to be doing PEDs, no matter who they are and to be honest, Merckx did it and the fact that a Français spoke openly about it meant it was rife. Armstrong only lost his titles due to having his samples re-tested and rightly so and not because of those listed in bold. Let us face it, how do you know that Merckx didn't dodge tests? Do you think it is possible that Merckx covered up his positive tests too? Your hatred for Armstrong and your adulation for Merckx knows no bounds. They were as bad as one another.
x42bn6
Full Member
Your agenda against Armstrong is incredible. Nobody likes a cheat, no matter who they are i.e. Ferdinand, Contador, Marion Jones, Ben Johnson et al. How on earth do you know that others haven't dodged tests?
Innocent until proven guilty
Two wrongs don't make a right
I don't have an agenda against Lance. It is simply that the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
How do you know he bullied his team mates? Did they say this so that they can have lighter sentences?
The USADA investigation that caused his downfall had multiple testimonies from various former teammates that were consistent. Some of these riders were still active - which meant they had things to lose.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512
Did he bully people? Yes. Read the testimonies. Or just Google for the summaries. You can start with Betsy Andreu.
Another thing, anyone who can win numerous Giro D'Italia and TDFs in the same year has to be doing PEDs
Where's the evidence for that?
no matter who they are and to be honest, Merckx did it and the fact that a Français spoke openly about it meant it was rife. Armstrong only lost his titles due to having his samples re-tested and rightly so and not because of those listed in bold.
The first, second and fourth bold points arguably fall under the tampering criteria (2.5 under the WADA link I provided above). The third one no.
Some of his drug samples were destroyed and tampered with - how can you retest those?
Let us face it, how do you know that Merckx didn't dodge tests? Do you think it is possible that Merckx covered up his positive tests too?
I can't prove a negative. I'm presuming he's innocent (in terms of covering up tests and a Lance-level conspiracy) until proven guilty.
Of course, we will probably never know the extent of the doping in the 60s, say - but I cannot stress this enough - innocent until proven guilty.
I don't idolise Merckx, I just think he was better. Even if you assume both of them were clean throughout their careers, Merckx's record is superior. The evidence suggests Lance doped way, way, way, way more than Merckx, which in my books stains his inferior record worse than Merckx's stained record. Therefore I think Merckx was better. It's not rocket science.Your hatred for Armstrong and your adulation for Merckx knows no bounds. They were as bad as one another.
There were four other unbolded bullet points in an above quote - so why do you continue to bleat they are as bad as each other? The evidence is standing in your face.
x42bn6
Full Member
Oh, the only reason why Merckx is in this thread is because Nucks thought Lance was the greatest of all time. I personally don't follow cycling that much but a lot of people considered Merckx to be better than Armstrong, prior to these doping relevations (and so do I). I don't idolise Merckx - far from it - but the idea that he committed offences on Lance's level is preposterous, and the idea that he is on par with Lance is lacking in grounding too (but less preposterous, of course).
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
Some good news in the making. The UCI are going to take away the Tour De France victory from Marco Pantani in 1998. Perhaps they should continue to delve deeper into this and analyse those of Miguel Indurain too.
senorgregster
Last Newbie Standing
X42bn6, you are using level of doping in your comparison again. Armstrong used what was available at the time and so did Merckx. If merckx was clean it would be a different story. We'll never know what others have done because the investigation will never go deep enough. Again, I believe the reason is the tour don't want the investigation to go deep.
On your earlier post. Only 6 months because they were bullied? There was me thinking they were grown men and professional athletes. They cheated for many years. Probably a decade too. 6 months is a joke. They've all been heating for years and get slaps on the wrist.
On your earlier post. Only 6 months because they were bullied? There was me thinking they were grown men and professional athletes. They cheated for many years. Probably a decade too. 6 months is a joke. They've all been heating for years and get slaps on the wrist.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
X42bn6, you are using level of doping in your comparison again. Armstrong used what was available at the time and so did Merckx. If merckx was clean it would be a different story. We'll never know what others have done because the investigation will never go deep enough. Again, I believe the reason is the tour don't want the investigation to go deep.
On your earlier post. Only 6 months because they were bullied? There was me thinking they were grown men and professional athletes. They cheated for many years. Probably a decade too. 6 months is a joke. They've all been heating for years and get slaps on the wrist.
Indeed!! Merckx was very good at hiding it just as Armstrong. Here is another statistic for you. Eddy Merckx had rode 49 km in one hour at high altitude in Mexico City. 28 years later, Chris Boardman attempted to beat the record and only beat it by 10 metres. Suffice to say, Boardmans attempts were all at sea level which begs the question, what did Merckx take to give him such an incredible time, especially for the time.
x42bn6
Full Member
X42bn6, you are using level of doping in your comparison again. Armstrong used what was available at the time and so did Merckx. If merckx was clean it would be a different story. We'll never know what others have done because the investigation will never go deep enough. Again, I believe the reason is the tour don't want the investigation to go deep.
I simply don't see a reason why we should presume Merckx as guilty as Armstrong in the absence of any evidence. It's pretty dangerous to assume he doped on the same levels because he was successful.
On your earlier post. Only 6 months because they were bullied? There was me thinking they were grown men and professional athletes. They cheated for many years. Probably a decade too. 6 months is a joke. They've all been heating for years and get slaps on the wrist.
I wouldn't dismiss bullying that easily. Most athletes, unless they are in the top bracket, don't earn much money. As we saw with Simeoni, once Lance ostracised him during the race, he was ostracised from the peleton as a whole and his professional career never recovered. Lance was a very powerful person behind the scenes. The likes of Greg LeMond and Betsy Andreu were heavily smeared for their stances. In fact, it took a lot for the USADA to get them talking to begin with - Lance could have destroyed their careers far more than getting caught could have.
Maybe it is unfair to cut a deal in exchange for bringing down cycling's biggest ever bully and cheat. The fact that the punishment is so lenient, to me, is a testament to how serious the offences were that Lance committed.
Mexico City is pretty special because it's at a relative sweet spot in terms of altitude. Look at the 1968 Olympics, held in Mexico City. The air resistance is lower at that altitude, which more than compensates for the lack of oxygen for short-term distances (and yes, 50km is short in terms of cycling stages). There obviously is a limit to this - nobody is going to set records at La Paz, for example.Indeed!! Merckx was very good at hiding it just as Armstrong. Here is another statistic for you. Eddy Merckx had rode 49 km in one hour at high altitude in Mexico City. 28 years later, Chris Boardman attempted to beat the record and only beat it by 10 metres. Suffice to say, Boardmans attempts were all at sea level which begs the question, what did Merckx take to give him such an incredible time, especially for the time.
Also, didn't Boardman set that record after he'd retired? If he was in his prime, as a time trial specialist, he could easily have smashed it.
Also, didn't Boardman set that record after he'd retired? If he was in his prime, as a time trial specialist, he could easily have smashed it.
Where's the evidence for that?
x42bn6
Full Member
He barely made the record after he'd retired. It's not inconceivable he'd break it even further if he'd done it with the same level of preparation in his prime.Where's the evidence for that?
These hour records have to be specifically-prepared for, after all. He did a documentary on it, in fact (Google it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
Few people use bikes in Merckx's era any more - there's more interest in breaking different hour records.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
He barely made the record after he'd retired. It's not inconceivable he'd break it even further if he'd done it with the same level of preparation in his prime.
These hour records have to be specifically-prepared for, after all. He did a documentary on it, in fact (Google it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
Few people use bikes in Merckx's era any more - there's more interest in breaking different hour records.
How old do you have to be, to actually be in your prime? When Boardman beat it the first time, he was only 24 years old, compared to Merckxs 27. Secondly, let us add to that the fact that he won two full tours and six classics in that same season. How can someone, who had probably cycled over 8,500 km in one season, including the Liege-Bastogne-Liege (which apparently demands superior stamina to win) actually set a record that stood for nearly 13 years? It is simply not on unless he is superhuman.
x42bn6
Full Member
Boardman's best human effort (column (b)) has been unbeaten for 16 records - surely he was doping, too?How old do you have to be, to actually be in your prime? When Boardman beat it the first time, he was only 24 years old, compared to Merckxs 27. Secondly, let us add to that the fact that he won two full tours and six classics in that same season. How can someone, who had probably cycled over 8,500 km in one season, including the Liege-Bastogne-Liege (which apparently demands superior stamina to win) actually set a record that stood for nearly 13 years? It is simply not on unless he is superhuman.
Well, there's no evidence to suggest that. It's simply that the hour record is a fairly niche record that requires very specific preparation for (Merckx clearly didn't just pick Mexico City for the fun of it, after all - he wouldn't have picked it without reason). However, cycling equipment was moving on - you can see a trend in the table on the link I've posted towards more advanced equipment. This would require cyclists to work with two very different sets of equipment. So I don't think it's terribly unusual for the record to have stood so long - less people care about setting records on older, unfamiliar equipment (I mean, do you see today's F1 drivers trying to set records on cars in Senna's era?).
Would he have had enough rest? Well, it's about a month between the Giro d'Italia and the Tour de France, and Merckx had 3 months between the end of the Tour de France and the hour record. I think that is sufficient rest.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
Boardman's best human effort (column (b)) has been unbeaten for 16 records - surely he was doping, too?
Well, there's no evidence to suggest that. It's simply that the hour record is a fairly niche record that requires very specific preparation for (Merckx clearly didn't just pick Mexico City for the fun of it, after all - he wouldn't have picked it without reason). However, cycling equipment was moving on - you can see a trend in the table on the link I've posted towards more advanced equipment. This would require cyclists to work with two very different sets of equipment. So I don't think it's terribly unusual for the record to have stood so long - less people care about setting records on older, unfamiliar equipment (I mean, do you see today's F1 drivers trying to set records on cars in Senna's era?).
Would he have had enough rest? Well, it's about a month between the Giro d'Italia and the Tour de France, and Merckx had 3 months between the end of the Tour de France and the hour record. I think that is sufficient rest.
We are not talking about best human efforts though. We are talking about the official UCI hour record. Chris Boardman rode 49.411 km in one hour, compared to 49.431 km. Boardmans record was done in 2000, when he was 31 years of age. Since 1972, technology has got better, cyclists are much more fitter than ever, they have strict training regimes to tackles such obstacles as the Tour De France, the Vuelta or even the Giro, I just find it hard to believe that with better fitness could only beat Merckx by 10 metres or so. At the end of the day, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Armstrong deserves to be criticised from everyone that he has cheated over his career, including myself. I just find it hypocritical that some are highly critical of one, yet are willing to praise others i.e. Merckx (even when they have been tested positive, not once but twice or perhaps more.) Armstrong was a cheat, Merckx was a cheat, Ullrich admitted to it, Contador blamed it on contaminated beef I believe (the same stunt that was used in the 1960s by the Belgian team), Laurent Fignon too, the list is endless. We do not have a right to just single out one for punishment for cheating in the Tour De France. It is as silly as saying that one man is ok because he only killed one person, however, the other man who killed a dozen is a deserves to rot in jail or be executed, when they are as bad as one another.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
We are not talking about best human efforts though. We are talking about the official UCI hour record. Chris Boardman rode 49.411 km in one hour, compared to 49.431 km. Boardmans record was done in 2000, when he was 31 years of age. Since 1972, technology has got better, cyclists are much more fitter than ever, they have strict training regimes to tackles such obstacles as the Tour De France, the Vuelta or even the Giro, I just find it hard to believe that with better fitness could only beat Merckx by 10 metres or so. At the end of the day, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Armstrong deserves to be criticised from everyone that he has cheated over his career, including myself. I just find it hypocritical that some are highly critical of one, yet are willing to praise others i.e. Merckx (even when they have been tested positive, not once but twice or perhaps more.) Armstrong was a cheat, Merckx was a cheat, Ullrich admitted to it, Contador blamed it on contaminated beef I believe (the same stunt that was used in the 1960s by the Belgian team), Laurent Fignon too, the list is endless. We do not have a right to just single out one for punishment for cheating in the Tour De France. It is as silly as saying that one man is ok because he only killed one person, however, the other man who killed a dozen is a deserves to rot in jail or be executed, when they are as bad as one another.
Have a good one x42bn6.
x42bn6
Full Member
We are not talking about best human efforts though. We are talking about the official UCI hour record.
The same logic applies - said record lasted 13 years, and the best human effort record lasted 16 years. Are you accusing Boardman of doping, too? Heck, any human record that lasts around 15 years - must they be doping too?
Chris Boardman rode 49.411 km in one hour, compared to 49.431 km. Boardmans record was done in 2000, when he was 31 years of age. Since 1972, technology has got better, cyclists are much more fitter than ever, they have strict training regimes to tackles such obstacles as the Tour De France, the Vuelta or even the Giro, I just find it hard to believe that with better fitness could only beat Merckx by 10 metres or so.
- Merckx was a better cyclist - one of the best of all time
- Merckx had the benefit of less air resistance
Both of these would count for something.
You quoted this. I'll even put some numbers in:We do not have a right to just single out one for punishment for cheating in the Tour De France. It is as silly as saying that one man is ok because he only killed one person, however, the other man who killed a dozen is a deserves to rot in jail or be executed, when they are as bad as one another.
Merckx:
1) Doped a few times
Armstrong:
1) Doped for over a decade
2) Dodged tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
3) Covered up positive tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
4) Bullied his team into following the same doping regimen
5) Threatened his peers who spoke out against doping in cycling
6) Threatened critics with legal action
7) Committed perjury (he is only getting away with this because of the statute of limitations)
That's 6 things worse than Merckx, 6 things worse than Contador and 6 things worse than Ullrich. Please stop saying they are as bad as each other. Lance Armstrong is light years worse than any of them. Lance is the only one with a 202-page dossier being accused of a sophisticated doping conspiracy. He's not being singled out. He's simply being punished relative to his offences.
Seriously. Just read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...ey-excerpts-from-the-USADA-doping-report.html
As for comparing doping to killing someone - first, say, mass murder is much more severe than murder, so let's not even say they are as bad as each other. Second, nobody is saying Merckx's doping is "OK", but it is clear that his ridiculous dominance over the sport outweighs it in terms of his record vs. Lance (hence why he is widely considered the best of all time). Lance only dominated the Tour de France - Merckx dominated... nearly everything.
Jimy_Hills_Chin
Desperately wants to be ITK
What do the cycling loving Caftards think about Chris Froome? I remember reading Bradley Wiggins commenting a little while that he has made remarkable improvements recently. Apparently he put in an amazing performance yesterday which led to him being asked about doping:
"Can you assure us that what you did was totally natural?" Froome was asked.
"100%," he replied. "Eyebrows are going to be raised and questions are going to be asked about our performances. But there is absolutely no way I would be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed. The questions should be asked of people who were winning races five to10 years ago when we know doping was more prevalent.
"For me it is a bit of a personal mission to show that the sport has changed. I certainly know the results I am getting won't be stripped 20-30 years down the line. Rest assured that is not going to happen."
What does he mean about the sport changing in order for him to get those results?
"Can you assure us that what you did was totally natural?" Froome was asked.
"100%," he replied. "Eyebrows are going to be raised and questions are going to be asked about our performances. But there is absolutely no way I would be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed. The questions should be asked of people who were winning races five to10 years ago when we know doping was more prevalent.
"For me it is a bit of a personal mission to show that the sport has changed. I certainly know the results I am getting won't be stripped 20-30 years down the line. Rest assured that is not going to happen."
What does he mean about the sport changing in order for him to get those results?
x42bn6
Full Member
If the sport hadn't changed => The scenarios being: Doping is now being more aggressively pursued and bullies like Lance are thrown out of the competitionWhat do the cycling loving Caftards think about Chris Froome? I remember reading Bradley Wiggins commenting a little while that he has made remarkable improvements recently. Apparently he put in an amazing performance yesterday which led to him being asked about doping:
"Can you assure us that what you did was totally natural?" Froome was asked.
"100%," he replied. "Eyebrows are going to be raised and questions are going to be asked about our performances. But there is absolutely no way I would be able to get these results if the sport hadn't changed. The questions should be asked of people who were winning races five to10 years ago when we know doping was more prevalent.
"For me it is a bit of a personal mission to show that the sport has changed. I certainly know the results I am getting won't be stripped 20-30 years down the line. Rest assured that is not going to happen."
What does he mean about the sport changing in order for him to get those results?
Of course, it's nowhere near as good as it should be - you can take a look at the toothlessness of the UCI for that.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
Even the late, great Jacques Anquetil stated that he cheated in the big races, and he never hid the fact either. Anquetil once stated:
« Je me dope parce que tout le monde se dope [...]. Bien souvent, je me suis fait des piqûres et si, maintenant, on veut m'accuser de me doper, ce n'est pas bien difficile, il suffit de regarder mes fesses et mes cuisses, ce sont de véritables écumoires. » http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Écumoire
I doped up because everyone did it [...]. Very often, I gave myself injections and if, now, they want to accuse me of doping myself, it is not difficult, all they have to do is look at my buttocks and my thighs, they are like a skimmers.
x42bn6
Full Member
But did he:Even the late, great Jacques Anquetil stated that he cheated in the big races, and he never hid the fact either. Anquetil once stated:
1) Doped for over a decade
2) Dodged tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
3) Covered up positive tests (and got away with it - an open question on how he did it)
4) Bullied his team into following the same doping regimen
5) Threatened his peers who spoke out against doping in cycling
6) Threatened critics with legal action
7) Committed perjury (he is only getting away with this because of the statute of limitations)
"Everyone else was doing it" is a terrible defence of Lance, especially when it is flat-out wrong.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
Of course Merckx was a great rider. Just a shame the Tour De France organisers don't take his tours away for what is blatant doping (he has been caught twice.) I guess what you are trying to say is a bit like what we say about our Ashley Young; he may cheat at times, but he is our cheat, which of course makes all the difference. I despise all form of cheating in sport. The only honest riders are those who seldom win anything but do the donkey work for those who are juiced.
kouroux
45k posts to finally achieve this tagline
If the sport hadn't changed => The scenarios being: Doping is now being more aggressively pursued and bullies like Lance are thrown out of the competition
Of course, it's nowhere near as good as it should be - you can take a look at the toothlessness of the UCI for that.
Are you sure about your interpretation ? I read it as "the sport has gotten so advanced from a technological POV that we (riders) have tremendously improved our performances". I could be totally wrong tbh.
Of course Merckx was a great rider. Just a shame the Tour De France organisers don't take his tours away for what is blatant doping (he has been caught twice.) I guess what you are trying to say is a bit like what we say about our Ashley Young; he may cheat at times, but he is our cheat, which of course makes all the difference. I despise all form of cheating in sport. The only honest riders are those who seldom win anything but do the donkey work for those who are juiced.
Well, then you'll have to strip pretty much every former winner of his titles I'm afraid. What they took in the 50s-80s has little to do with doping as we know it now as I explained in the other thread. Most of these products they used back then are now even removed from the doping list alltogether. It had little effect.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
Well, then you'll have to strip pretty much every former winner of his titles I'm afraid. What they took in the 50s-80s has little to do with doping as we know it now as I explained in the other thread. Most of these products they used back then are now even removed from the doping list alltogether. It had little effect.
Do you realise that the original rulebook was basically torn up in the 1930s and they were allowed to do whatever they want as long as it didn't involve the officials? This is a fact too. Do you think it is possible to ride 17 hours straight as they did in the old days? Do you know where the French expression "lanterne rouge", comes from? Let us just say that it is to signify the very last rider, and it was dark when they started off, and it was dark when they finished. Secondly, a legendary rider who won the TDF 5 times admitted to it at the time, yet he wasn't stripped of his titles. In any case, it doesn't matter now, it is a "cleaner sport", now so hopefully we should be seeing someone actually win when they are clean.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/10/news/armstrong-and-tygart-answers-may-vary_305858
Interesting article for whoever has an interest.
Interesting article for whoever has an interest.
Nucks
RT History Department
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2007
- Messages
- 4,462
You can't compare the two era's in terms of scrutiny.
Guy said Merckx only doped twice? That's a bit of a silly statement. So in his entire career he doped only twice and coincidentally got caught both times? Almost certainly Eddie, and all of his rivals doped most of their careers as top competitors.
The level of scrutiny now is so much higher. Since the late 70's and 80's the scrutiny has been ramping up similar to Moore's Law. Tests passed a decade past can be recalled and retested with new technology. Scandal after scandal has created a go to story for the media to blow up.
Lance cheated, but you know what? So has pretty much every other champion before him going back to the races inception. If only we had urine samples from 1920, or cameras on motor cycles back then.
We'd see guys doing lines of coke on the side of the road, I'd bet everything I had you'd see that ;p
I'm just pragmatic about it.
Guy said Merckx only doped twice? That's a bit of a silly statement. So in his entire career he doped only twice and coincidentally got caught both times? Almost certainly Eddie, and all of his rivals doped most of their careers as top competitors.
The level of scrutiny now is so much higher. Since the late 70's and 80's the scrutiny has been ramping up similar to Moore's Law. Tests passed a decade past can be recalled and retested with new technology. Scandal after scandal has created a go to story for the media to blow up.
Lance cheated, but you know what? So has pretty much every other champion before him going back to the races inception. If only we had urine samples from 1920, or cameras on motor cycles back then.
We'd see guys doing lines of coke on the side of the road, I'd bet everything I had you'd see that ;p
I'm just pragmatic about it.
You can't compare the two era's in terms of scrutiny.
Guy said Merckx only doped twice? That's a bit of a silly statement. So in his entire career he doped only twice and coincidentally got caught both times? Almost certainly Eddie, and all of his rivals doped most of their careers as top competitors.
The level of scrutiny now is so much higher. Since the late 70's and 80's the scrutiny has been ramping up similar to Moore's Law. Tests passed a decade past can be recalled and retested with new technology. Scandal after scandal has created a go to story for the media to blow up.
Lance cheated, but you know what? So has pretty much every other champion before him going back to the races inception. If only we had urine samples from 1920, or cameras on motor cycles back then.
We'd see guys doing lines of coke on the side of the road, I'd bet everything I had you'd see that ;p
I'm just pragmatic about it.
You are, of course, right.
Proud_Lyon
Banned Cnut
There is soon a Lance interview on the BBC World Service podcast.
I hope that Lance spills his guts, since he nothing else to lose. It wouldn't surprise me that some of the top hierarchy of the TDF weren't involved.
I hope that Lance spills his guts, since he nothing else to lose. It wouldn't surprise me that some of the top hierarchy of the TDF weren't involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24893598
Here's the highlights.
He's not going to spill his guts in a simple interview, if it happens it's going to be before a commission, preferably which can grant him some sort of deal.
You can't compare the two era's in terms of scrutiny.
Guy said Merckx only doped twice? That's a bit of a silly statement. So in his entire career he doped only twice and coincidentally got caught both times? Almost certainly Eddie, and all of his rivals doped most of their careers as top competitors.
The level of scrutiny now is so much higher. Since the late 70's and 80's the scrutiny has been ramping up similar to Moore's Law. Tests passed a decade past can be recalled and retested with new technology. Scandal after scandal has created a go to story for the media to blow up.
Lance cheated, but you know what? So has pretty much every other champion before him going back to the races inception. If only we had urine samples from 1920, or cameras on motor cycles back then.
We'd see guys doing lines of coke on the side of the road, I'd bet everything I had you'd see that ;p
I'm just pragmatic about it.
Those so-called positive cases of Merckx were a joke though. One was a cough sirup which he got from his team doctor, one was a product that wasn't even on the official doping list and for the third one, he was exhonorated afterwards.
That said, I have no doubt Merckx took just as much as his competitors. But the stuff they took in those days (amfetamines at most) didn't really make you a much better rider though. The effect was minimal and didn't do much more than make you a bit more numb for the pain. EPO is completely uncomparable. With EPO you can really change a donkey into a racehorse.
But in essence you're right of course. They was doping in all era's, and they were using the means that were at their disposal. Also Anquetil for example (pre-Merckx) has simply admitted to taking doping. The same for Rik Van Looy, who explained everything in detail in one of his books.
fishfingers15
Contributes to username and tagline changes
Merckx wasn't a bully either.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ot...-UCI-helped-cheat-way-Tour-France-titles.html
Lance was in Florida this weekend and met with Emma O'Reilly, he also came with a few other interesting comments.
Lance was in Florida this weekend and met with Emma O'Reilly, he also came with a few other interesting comments.
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...lified-life-espn-magazine&ex_cid=sportscenter
Interesting interview with Lance.
Interesting interview with Lance.
peterstorey
Still not banned
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 37,291
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...lified-life-espn-magazine&ex_cid=sportscenter
Interesting interview with Lance.
Really? Without reading it I'd guess it's just more self-pitying/self-justifying/self-deluding crap.
Really? Without reading it I'd guess it's just more self-pitying/self-justifying/self-deluding crap.
Give it a read.
http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance...lified-life-espn-magazine&ex_cid=sportscenter
Interesting interview with Lance.
Cheers for posting that - was v interesting.
Nothing self-pitying/justifying/deluding - he is under no illusions about what he has done and the people he has let down.
Share: