The UCI Cycling World Tour Thread

[ash_k]

The guy has just admitted it on Oprah, which is shown on television in a huge amount of countries around the world. How much more plain and simple does it have to get? Most of us could see the blatantly obvious facts for a while now, but surely this has to have satisfied even the biggest Armstrong homers, right?

Which blatant facts could you see exactly other than "Hearsay"/testimonies? One should require a "little" more physical proof before accusing someone of anything.
They are saying he has confessed on her show taped yesterday and to be aired on Thursday:
As they were all doing it, Lance was simply the best among them.
Everybody doped then (Greg Lemond, Miguel Indurain, everybody), Greg Lemond should confess too.

You're still pushing that bull up hill? I get that you're a big admirer of Armstrong, and given what he has accomplished and the money he has raised for cancer awareness, it's quite deserved. To keep defending him as an athlete though is just sad. "Hearsay"? If that's what you call over 30 witnesses testifying to the same story, then that's up to you I guess. To any SANE person, the evidence was right there in front of us. Still defending Armstrong is like claiming that Osama bin Laden never participated in terrorism at any stage in his life. I always enjoy reading the thoughts of unusually-wired people, and to be honest, the crap that you keep coming up with to defend him, and the way that you actually believe it, is fascinating to me. The guy has just admitted it on international tv and you're still looking for excuses.

As for your new excuse (everyone else was doing it, so Lance must have still been better)... really dude? Wake up and smell the roses. If everyone in your family were jumping off the Empire State Building, does that make it ok for you to do it?

You should review your failed attempt of making an analogy (jumping off a building vs doping? really dude??)
at the end that is all it was hearsay/testimonies, ZERO physical evidence:
Lance admitted some of testimonies were true and others were not.

Sorry to disappoint you but I am not a big admirer of Lance but so many greats got caught in that period (Pantani, Virenque, Contandor, Ulrich, etc..) which tells me that all were doping and Lance was simply the best among all of them and it is a fact, unless you are naive enough to think that Lance and his team were the only ones doping. (with the most ridiculous claim stating that Lance was forcing teammates to take drugs).

Even Legends such as Eddy Merckx, Jacques Anquetil doped (and we talking 50s and 70s).
Though all of Lance's titles have been stripped, if you are naive to think that he was the only doping at that time and it was not a level playing field than "all power to you"

[Whiteman]

Lance gave it up, but he didn't give it all up. Those who were directly affected by his lies said on CNN that he wasn't completely forthcoming ie/ his role as ringleader on the cycling team. He also downplayed the coverup, but it is truly one of the most sophisticated drug rings ever in any sport.

Now that the floodgates have opened, the 'why now' question looms. Statute of limitations has run out (lying in court) so that's out, although civil suits loom. Some say it's leverage to get leniency so he could compete in triathlons. If that's the case, then I hope they don't lower his ban. The guy seems like he's addicted to controlling the message or manipulating. He's back in the news in a big way, telling what he wants to tell, downplaying what he wants to minimize. More fessing and attention later, then...

Cardinal rule: never negotiate with an addict.

I'm still amazed at how many people knew for so long and yet for how long it took for the truth to even start leaking out.

Seriously, what an ****.

Yeah, quite disappointing.

I've only seen bits and pieces, but thought the bit about "cheating" was telling enough (where he explains that it says in the dictionary that cheating gives you an unfair advantage and that's not what he got - he only "leveled the playing field" - something I'm sure all the clean cyclists of that time agree with...)

[ash_k]

In this Lance story, I don't understand why frauds like Tyler Hamilton get to be on CNN; the same man got caught for doping twice in competitions (that Lance was not in )and only started talking when he was banned/caught..

I don't understand the overly dramatic act of Betsy Andreu on CNN so she is angry because of her husband didn't get that contract back then like she was hoping for.

CNN had Scott Mercier(Lance's ex teammates) on and he did say the PEDs were out there and it was everybody's choice to go for them or NOT. Nobody was forced!

Yes, Lance has confessed but there are NO ANGELS in all this; and again he was the best among all the cheaters (dont get it twisted all the favourites cheated, all of them!)

[G R E Y]

Ash you're shifting goal posts. First it was 'he didn't do it, it's all heresay', then it's 'everybody's doing it' when Lance admits (albeit not fully).

People have their agendas, to be sure, but you're ignoring LA's. He admits to everything, he has no leverage, no relevance, and gets relegated to the pages of history with no one wanting to hear from him again. That's the nightmare scenario for somebody like that.

You have to consider that people had been bought off when tests proved positive, or in general that you're picking some witness accounts to suit your narrative. I think people find your position offputting because you're so dismissive of evidence that goes against what you want to believe. At least look at both sides without lebelling someone as 'overly dramatic' or that 'nobody was forced' when it's clear that is not the case.

[G R E Y]

Lance gave it up, but he didn't give it all up. Those who were directly affected by his lies said on CNN that he wasn't completely forthcoming ie/ his role as ringleader on the cycling team. He also downplayed the coverup, but it is truly one of the most sophisticated drug rings ever in any sport.

Now that the floodgates have opened, the 'why now' question looms. Statute of limitations has run out (lying in court) so that's out, although civil suits loom. Some say it's leverage to get leniency so he could compete in triathlons. If that's the case, then I hope they don't lower his ban. The guy seems like he's addicted to controlling the message or manipulating. He's back in the news in a big way, telling what he wants to tell, downplaying what he wants to minimize. More fessing and attention later, then...

Cardinal rule: never negotiate with an addict.

I'm still amazed at how many people knew for so long and yet for how long it took for the truth to even start leaking out.

Seriously, what an ****.

Yeah, quite disappointing.

I've only seen bits and pieces, but thought the bit about "cheating" was telling enough (where he explains that it says in the dictionary that cheating gives you an unfair advantage and that's not what he got - he only "leveled the playing field" - something I'm sure all the clean cyclists of that time agree with...)

Yeah I have to see the whole interview as well, but your example (among others) does not bode well for his piecing together some semblance of credibility. People LOVE redemption stories, but if they whiff insincerity or self-serving confessions, it's over. Funny thing that LA still thinks he can pull it off. In your example he's justifying his actions while confessing. Can't have it both ways. Either he's too far gone and doesn't get it that the jig is up, or he's too arrogant and thinks he can get away with it. Amazing and pathetic either way.

And it DOES matter if someone juices, or if everyone juices. Just look at the fallout now.

[ash_k]

Ash you're shifting goal posts. First it was 'he didn't do it, it's all heresay', then it's 'everybody's doing it' when Lance admits (albeit not fully).

People have their agendas, to be sure, but you're ignoring LA's. He admits to everything, he has no leverage, no relevance, and gets relegated to the pages of history with no one wanting to hear from him again. That's the nightmare scenario for somebody like that.

You have to consider that people had been bought off when tests proved positive, or in general that you're picking some witness accounts to suit your narrative. I think people find your position offputting because you're so dismissive of evidence that goes against what you want to believe. At least look at both sides without lebelling someone as 'overly dramatic' or that 'nobody was forced' when it's clear that is not the case.

Grey, If you go back to my post in the first page..I wanted the story to come out of Lance and not hearsay/testimonies.

I read the testimonies, the claims and anyone or anybody can claim things until your provide physical evidence those are not enough to accuse anyone of doping or crimes

What were the physical evidence (pictures of 'Motoman")? though Lance confirmed "Motoman" existed in his confession.

Now that the truth is out there for everybody to know, it does not change the fact that everybody was doping (and all favourites were) and he was simply the best of all of them..

[TNBT]

Whether everyone else was doing it or not doesn't make it right. You keep saying "everyone else did it, so Lance was the best of them" and sure, that's true. Doesn't mean he won those races fairly. I really doubt that you'll find anyone who honestly believes that Armstrong was the ONLY one doing drugs and everyone else was a saint, but cheating to keep up with other cheaters is still cheating.

As for my analogy, it was quite apt; jumping off a building or doping in sports are both dumb things to do, so just because some others do it doesn't mean it's something you should do.

[Point forward]

Last week, a long investigation in Dutch cycling concluded that "95%" of all Dutch cyclists were doped. Among others, Michael Boogerd has publicly confessed.

Breaking news: Jan Ullrich has confessed being a doper, and being "regularly" at Fuentes.

Comment: cycling is about as credible as Bernie Madoff.

[Foye]

Last week, a long investigation in Dutch cycling concluded that "95%" of all Dutch cyclists were doped. Among others, Michael Boogerd has publicly confessed.

Breaking news: Jan Ullrich has confessed being a doper, and being "regularly" at Fuentes.

Comment: cycling is about as credible as Bernie Madoff.

What do you expect...TdF they are cycling 180+ km almost each day for 3 weeks in a row. It's no wonder they are all doped.

The tour needs to be either be extended to 4 or 5 weeks (with the same amount of stages) or you need to cut the kilometers WAY!!! down...if you ever want to have non-doped cyclers finishing it.

I bet there is not one guy in the whole peloton who isn't in some way cheating.
I know a guy who was a relatively good youth cycler a few years back (he was like 15-16 at that time).
He quit because he got wind that many of his opponents were cycling drugstores already.

It's not better in other sports, though. Especially not in soccer. Only that in soccer there is so much money involved that the FIFA/UEFA do everything to cover up on doping scandals.

[Whiteman]

What do you expect...TdF they are cycling 180+ km almost each day for 3 weeks in a row. It's no wonder they are all doped.

The tour needs to be either be extended to 4 or 5 weeks (with the same amount of stages) or you need to cut the kilometers WAY!!! down...if you ever want to have non-doped cyclers finishing it.

Cyclists had been finishing the TdF for decades without peds - since the early 1900's, when stages where much longer than they are now.
Cyclists, like all athletes, only take peds to get an advantage on their competition. That won't change if you make the race itself easier.

I bet there is not one guy in the whole peloton who isn't in some way cheating.
I know a guy who was a relatively good youth cycler a few years back (he was like 15-16 at that time).
He quit because he got wind that many of his opponents were cycling drugstores already.

I'm willing to bet that many, probably most cyclists in the TdF at this moment are clean. 10-15 years ago guys like Armstrong, Ullrich and Riis would put out 6.5-6.8 Watts per Kilogram body weight. Yesterday Froome managed 6.2 (considered by some experts the absolute limit without peds), and Contador was even below 6. Performances like you could see between say 1995 and 2007 just don't happen anymore.
Thomas Dekker (who got caught in 2007 or so but is racing again) even said everyone was going "laughably slow" compared to a few years ago.

Some athletes will cheat if they get the chance and I don't doubt some cyclists are still juicing (especially at lower levels, even youth), but the biological passport has definitely made the sport cleaner.

[Foye]

What do you expect...TdF they are cycling 180+ km almost each day for 3 weeks in a row. It's no wonder they are all doped.

The tour needs to be either be extended to 4 or 5 weeks (with the same amount of stages) or you need to cut the kilometers WAY!!! down...if you ever want to have non-doped cyclers finishing it.

Cyclists had been finishing the TdF for decades without peds - since the early 1900's, when stages where much longer than they are now.
Cyclists, like all athletes, only take peds to get an advantage on their competition. That won't change if you make the race itself easier.

I bet there is not one guy in the whole peloton who isn't in some way cheating.
I know a guy who was a relatively good youth cycler a few years back (he was like 15-16 at that time).
He quit because he got wind that many of his opponents were cycling drugstores already.

I'm willing to bet that many, probably most cyclists in the TdF at this moment are clean. 10-15 years ago guys like Armstrong, Ullrich and Riis would put out 6.5-6.8 Watts per Kilogram body weight. Yesterday Froome managed 6.2 (considered by some experts the absolute limit without peds), and Contador was even below 6. Performances like you could see between say 1995 and 2007 just don't happen anymore.
Thomas Dekker (who got caught in 2007 or so but is racing again) even said everyone was going "laughably slow" compared to a few years ago.

Some athletes will cheat if they get the chance and I don't doubt some cyclists are still juicing (especially at lower levels, even youth), but the biological passport has definitely made the sport cleaner.

Obiously, my post was hyperbole but what happened after 2007?
Contador won the tour twice --> proven doper.
Sastre used to ride for Bjarne Riis CSC team...you know the Bjarne Riis that was a drugstore and is suspect currently in doping investigations. When he won the Tour he wasn't on CSC but that doesn't mean he was clean.
Andy Schleck....brother is a proven doper....you can bet that the better one of the two brothers is a doper as well, then.
Cadel "I only met Doctore EPO Michele Ferrari once" Evans.

Doping or not...Armstrong and Ullrich were incredible cycling talents. I don't think you can conclude that just because todays top cyclers are driving slower that they are automatically clean.

If you want to be among the elite riders at the tour you need to cheat. Because if you don't do so, someone else will cheat himself in front of you.

[Whiteman]

Obiously, my post was hyperbole but what happened after 2007?
Contador won the tour twice --> proven doper.

They found a ridiculously small amount of clenbuterol in his blood - a banned substance for sure, but in an amount that wouldn't have helped his performance at all. I'm wary of the contaminated food/supplement excuse, but it's happened before with clenbuterol.

Sastre used to ride for Bjarne Riis CSC team...you know the Bjarne Riis that was a drugstore and is suspect currently in doping investigations. When he won the Tour he wasn't on CSC but that doesn't mean he was clean.
Andy Schleck....brother is a proven doper....you can bet that the better one of the two brothers is a doper as well, then.

His coach was a doper? His brother was a doper? That's a bit farfetched imo.

Sastre had some suspect performances (looking at W/kg) though, I don't know about Schleck.

Cadel "I only met Doctore EPO Michele Ferrari once" Evans.

Again, very circumstantial, and his performances have been pretty human (below 6W/kg).

On the one hand, false positives happen, and Sastre has not been linked to doping at all really. On the other hand absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - we've seen more than enough athletes get away with doping during their careers only to be found out afterwards.
And what bothers me about Spanish cyclists in particular is their reluctance to speak out strongly against doping and against cheaters who have been found out. A little too much empathy there...

I have my doubts about Sastre and Contador, not so much about Evans - mainly because his performances have not been exceptional, even when he won the Tour.

Doping or not...Armstrong and Ullrich were incredible cycling talents. I don't think you can conclude that just because todays top cyclers are driving slower that they are automatically clean.

Those two were just examples. Other known cheaters like Pantani and Laiseka also had some ridiculous performances that nobody nowadays even aproaches.

If you want to be among the elite riders at the tour you need to cheat. Because if you don't do so, someone else will cheat himself in front of you.

That would mean the entire top 5 (top 10?) is cheating, something I find hard to believe.
But to some extent it comes down to what we want to believe.

[Foye]

Guys like Jörg Jaksche and Michael Rasmussen have just recently testified against Riis and team CSC.

Jaksche specifically said there was the possibility to get performance-enhancing drugs at CSC and Riis knew of it.

There may be no evidence against Andy Schleck but I don't think it's far fatched to say he was using drugs at his absolute best. Knowing that his brother was also using drugs and the circumstances in his team.

Also Andy Schleck being furious about his brother getting thrown out of the current team after that positive doping test ain't really helping his case either.

Knowing whether Andy Schleck has doped in his past is like counting 1 and 1 together.

The peloton may be cleaner than in the recent past but you still ain't winning it without cheating...and you ain't making the top 5 without cheating either.


Regarding your Spain comments...you can't really trust any Spanish sports athlete right now.

Fuentes wanted to reveal blood samples (including those of several soccer players) but judges in his process confiscated those AND gave order to destroy them. It's just sad, really. They are doing everything to prevent enlightment. And the worst thing is that they can do it without any consequences.

Probably someone bought a few judges and said hey we need these blood samples to be gone.


Also in soccer FIFA and UEFA are doing everything to hide the doping topic because there is so much money involved.
That said, I don't really care about it since I don't think doping helps all that much in soccer.

[Whiteman]

Man you are cynical
Can't really blame you though, after all the cheating we've seen the last 25-30 years.

Still - and you may call me a homer for this - I honestly believe guys like Mollema and Ten Dam are clean. And that cycling as a whole is at least as clean as track & field, soccer, basketball or tennis.

[Point forward]

Just to prove how disgusted Germans are of the TDF: German riders now have won four stages (Kittel, Greipel, Kittel, Martin) and nobody gives a s***. This week, our sports headlines were written by Vettel, Lisicki and our beach volleyballers. Cyclists are as "popular" as the NSA, no wonder after generations of dopers like Altig, Thurau, Kappes, Ullrich, Zabel, Bölts, Aldag, Schumacher, Niermann, Sinkewitz etc. etc.

[Bobbcats]

I have very little faith that Froome is clean. To make the improvements from a mediocre talent a couple years ago to being both a dominant climber and top level TT is just too suspicious. I find it hard to trust the guys who can dominate climbing stages and time trials.

[Foye]

All time, only Armstrong has managed to climb the Mont Ventoux faster than Froome did yesterday. And that by only 2 seconds.

[Bobbcats]

All time, only Armstrong has managed to climb the Mont Ventoux faster than Froome did yesterday. And that by only 2 seconds.

The leadup to Ventoux was also a lot longer yesterday and the average for the whole stage was over 41kph.

Listening to Sky reasons "better training, better nutrition, we work so much harder than everyone etc." I feel like I'm in a time warp listening to US Postal. British cycling (run by same guy that manages Sky) went from practically nothing to dominant in TT's, sprints, track, and climbing in less than 5 years. They want us to believe that it's because everyone else stopped doping and they never were, so they're rising to the top. Meanwhile people are still getting caught doping. IMO they are micro-dosing better than everyone with Brailford's obsession with data or they have beaten the others to a good masking substance.

[Whiteman]

All time, only Armstrong has managed to climb the Mont Ventoux faster than Froome did yesterday. And that by only 2 seconds.

Where did you hear/read that?
The only record I have heard of (on Dutch and Belgian television) is held by Iban Mayo, and Froome was over 3 minutes slower. Froome's time is 23rd all time.

Also, I said that cycling nowadays is at least as clean as track and field - turns out that's a pretty low standard

[Foye]

All time, only Armstrong has managed to climb the Mont Ventoux faster than Froome did yesterday. And that by only 2 seconds.

Where did you hear/read that?
The only record I have heard of (on Dutch and Belgian television) is held by Iban Mayo, and Froome was over 3 minutes slower. Froome's time is 23rd all time.

Also, I said that cycling nowadays is at least as clean as track and field - turns out that's a pretty low standard

German sports website had it in an.article. I think it refered to the last 15 km and his time was at 48:35 iirc. Armstrong.48:33.