Lance Armstrong ends fight against doping charges

[Mellotron]

Wooooow tiger, slow down Mr bi-polar

They are working hard to get to the point where drugs in cycling is no longer endemic.
That's not to say there aren't riders still trying to break the rules.

Luckily they are finding it harder to do.

Look, I know NOTHING about cycling, but decided to jump in two footed with a dangerously generalised view. I am now massively backtracking.

Please let me continue with my insanely judgmental thoughts.

 

[Stat Brother]

Look, I know NOTHING about cycling, but decided to jump in two footed with a dangerously generalised view. I am now massively backtracking.

Please let me continue with my insanely judgmental thoughts.

It's the NSC way.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

How far back, once you are passed Armstrong, do you have to go back to find a rider whom has never produced a failed test at one point in their career?

 

[Mellotron]

How far back, once you are passed Armstrong, do you have to go back to find a rider whom has never produced a failed test at one point in their career?

Maybe the issue is that the tests are too hard.

 

[martyn20]

Lance Armstrong: News International may contest libel settlement terms

Sunday Times publisher explores possibility of reviewing 2006 deal now cyclist has dropped challenge to US doping charges

The Sunday Times is exploring whether it can review the terms of its costly 2006 libel settlement with Lance Armstrong after the cyclist dropped his challenge to anti-doping charges being brought against him in the US.

Armstrong sued the publisher of the Sunday Times and two of its journalists in 2004 over an investigation that questioned his repeated denials that he had taken performance-enhancing drugs.

The seven-time Tour de France winner reached an out of court settlement with Times Newspapers Limited in July 2006 over the article, which previewed a book on Armstrong titled LA Confidential by the then Sunday Times chief sports writer, David Walsh.

A spokeswoman for News International, the parent company of Times Newspapers, confirmed on Tuesday that it was now exploring whether it could review the terms of the settlement.

Details of the terms – including whether there was a payout for damages – have never been made public.

The legal move comes after Armstrong revealed on Friday that he would not fight doping charges brought by the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada).

On Friday, Usada announced that it had stripped Armstrong of each of his competitive titles from August 1998, including his seven Tour de France wins.

Despite giving up the fight against the charges, Armstrong has maintained his innocence and on Saturday complained about what he described as a witch-hunt.

"Nobody needs to cry for me. I'm going to be great," Armstrong said after competing in a 36-mile mountain bike race in Aspen, Colorado, at the weekend. "I have five great kids and a wonderful lady in my life. My foundation is unaffected by all the noise out there.

"I think people understand that we've got a lot of stuff to do going forward. That's what I'm focused on and I think people are supportive of that. It's great to be out here."

Lance Armstrong: News International may contest libel settlement terms | Media | guardian.co.uk

This will be just the start

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Maybe the issue is that the tests are too hard.

Quite possibly. Jan Ulrich failed tests previously, but hasn't he been awarded three tour wins?

I don't think people should be allowed to compete once they fail a test. That should include all sports.

 

[Stat Brother]

How far back, once you are passed Armstrong, do you have to go back to find a rider whom has never produced a failed test at one point in their career?

Better to look the other way.
The last 2 tours are clean, plus this years Giro.

Before and during Lance's generation was very much the 'high water mark' in terms of drugs in cycling.

 

[Triggaaar]

How far back, once you are passed Armstrong, do you have to go back to find a rider whom has never produced a failed test at one point in their career?

But Armstrong has failed a test. Possibly more than one. It's fairer just to assume that all winners around that time were doping, and move on. I've have an asterisk by all the results.

 

[Seagull58]

To suggest he's innocent yet knows he will lose the case is madness. He knows he'll lose it because he's guilty. It's a serious accusation, other riders wouldn't be queuing up to testify just because he's been arrogant etc (maybe one, but not loads).

Er, what success did BJ ever achieve without doping? Certainly nothing remarkable.

Thats exactly what I said; he was a good athlete (not a great one) who achieved remarkable success (100m world record twice and Olympic 100m winner, all subsequently taken away) through doping.

 

[Triggaaar]

Thats exactly what I said; he was a good athlete (not a great one) who achieved remarkable success (100m world record twice and Olympic 100m winner, all subsequently taken away) through doping.

Ah, my mistake, I misread your post.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't think people should be allowed to compete once they fail a test. That should include all sports.

While I agree with you on principle, it's a bit like having the death penalty. What about when the odd innocent person fails a test? What if someone spikes their food, thus saying goodbye to them as a competitor? Blood passports are a good way forward, and making people pay for past mistakes, no matter how long ago.

 

[Stat Brother]

How far back, once you are passed Armstrong, do you have to go back to find a rider whom has never produced a failed test at one point in their career?

Sorry BoF, I had a 'moment' when I first read this.
Stolen from [MENTION=16720]Indurain's Lungs[/MENTION]' post on 'geeks', this is probably the answer you're after:-

Winners of Armstrong's tours if you exclude everyone associated with or guilty of doping (from l'equipe)

Les vainqueurs "propres" de l'époque Armstrong
1999: Daniele Nardello (7e du Tour).

2000: Daniele Nardello (10e du Tour).

2001: Andreï Kivilev (4e du Tour).

2002: Carlos Sastre (10e du Tour).

2003: Haimar Zubeldia (5e du Tour).

2004: Carlos Sastre (8e du Tour).

2005: Cadel Evans (8e du Tour).

 

[Triggaaar]

Sorry BoF, I had a 'moment' when I first read this.
Stolen from [MENTION=16720]Indurain's Lungs[/MENTION]' post on 'geeks', this is probably the answer you're after:-

Winners of Armstrong's tours if you exclude everyone associated with or guilty of doping (from l'equipe)

Les vainqueurs "propres" de l'époque Armstrong
1999: Daniele Nardello (7e du Tour).

2000: Daniele Nardello (10e du Tour).

2001: Andreï Kivilev (4e du Tour).

2002: Carlos Sastre (10e du Tour).

2003: Haimar Zubeldia (5e du Tour).

2004: Carlos Sastre (8e du Tour).

2005: Cadel Evans (8e du Tour).

That's my kinda list. How come Wiki still shows Lance as ever winning anything? Come on people, get on with the updates already.

 

[Stat Brother]

That's my kinda list. How come Wiki still shows Lance as ever winning anything? Come on people, get on with the updates already.

It still has to go through the UCI.
The politics are still a long way from over.

 

[Stat Brother]

For those wanting to know more about Lance, and how/why he got to this point.
Here is a very good chronological account of Lance & drugs:-

velocast cc - Velocast & Race Radio

This is by no means by favourite cycling podcast, but I'm still more than happy to say the fellas do a top job, in explaining Lance's time-line.

In the interest of balance I should point you in the direction of this:-

Phil Liggett Interview on Lances Deal

Balance is a strange word to use, after listening to that.
The two side by side doesn't portray Phil in the best of lights.

 

[lost in london]

The French cycling authorities have come out today and stated that Lance's results should be left blank and that he pays back his prize money.

 

[Woodchip]

The French cycling authorities have come out today and stated that Lance's results should be left blank and that he pays back his prize money.

Last I read was that the UCI wanted to see ALL evidence that USADA had before it even considers what to do with Lance. Considering all testing at the TdF would be carried out by UCI then USADA has no legislative rights over whether Lance has 7TdFs or not.

 

[Stat Brother]

Last I read was that the UCI wanted to see ALL evidence that USADA had before it even considers what to do with Lance. Considering all testing at the TdF would be carried out by UCI then USADA has no legislative rights over whether Lance has 7TdFs or not.

But USADA has a responsibility to World Anti Doping Agency.
(Hold onto your heads, for this bit peeps)

If the UCI don't uphold the USADA decision WADA will remove it's 'cover' for cycling.
Cycling will no longer to able to compete in the Olympics.

 

[Woodchip]

But USADA has a responsibility to World Anti Doping Agency.
(Hold onto your heads, for this bit peeps)

If the UCI don't uphold the USADA decision WADA will remove it's 'cover' for cycling.
Cycling will no longer to able to compete in the Olympics.

So that would mean an admittance by UCI that there testing wasn't up to scratch. I can't see Pat McQuaid doing that. This still has a long way to run before it is done and dusted and will probably end up with a court case involving USADA, WADA, UCI and IOC.

 

[itszamora]

There's also the allegations (key word) that LA gave quite a lot of money to the UCI not long after he failed a test, which then subsequently and mysteriously never became public. I've a feeling that if/when Armstrong goes down, certain elements within the UCI are terrified they will too, and therefore will fight tooth and nail to protect him in order to save their own skins.