The "we are still using doping" Cycling-thread!

[Londoner]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234

I still don't believe that he was doping, but what do I know. Everything has just gone up shite creek.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234

I still don't believe that he was doping, but what do I know. Everything has just gone up shite creek.

This whole story just seems suspicious and weird to me.

[Ferrarist]

With Armstrong losing his victories, this makes Jan Ullrich a multi-time Tour de France winner.

However, I find it highly hypocritical, how "we" hunt down athletes who use doping. The athletes can do with their bodies what they want, and that includes doping. Besides, we, as a sporing audience, we want too see new records and top achievements. We were all cheering for Usain Bolt, although we knew deep inside that he could only push his body so far with the use of certain substances. So we either should legalize doping, or we should tone down our expectations. Either way, the sporting audience should stop to act hypocritical with regards to doping.

[Wallio]

As I mentioned in the American Sports thread, the USADA has admittex Armstrong never failed a test. So what's the bathplugging point of drug tests anymore?

[DemocalypseNow]

Usually I'm all for shoving dopers faces into the dirt, but this does seem wrong. What gets me is that in Armstrong vs USADA, the UCI have backed the rider and not the doping agency. I am very dubious about Armstrong and doping - having been a Cofidis rider, I have my doubts. But, this is making the whole argument he doped lose credibility. I can draw parallels between this and Calcioscommesse in Italy - with pretty much zero evidence, they banned Antonio Conte for 10 months for "failing to inform authorities of sporting fraud". Yet the only "proof" was the word of one player who had been convicted of sporting fraud. Every other Siena player replicated Conte's story and not Carobbio's. The way they have gone about it has looked like a vendetta against Conte, much like USADA is obsessed with nailing Armstrong to the wall even if they can't find a shred of evidence to back his claims.

Even after all of this, I am still completely 50/50 as to whether he juiced or not.

[DanielPT]

I, on the other hand, am still convinced that he doped. First, he dealt with staff like Michele Ferrari, one shady doctor who famously said EPO was like orange juice, harmless, being promptly fired by his team at the time. Later he was even convicted for sporting fraud but was acquainted of his charges due to the lack of facts. Second he had in his team several riders who were later convicted for doping or tested positive, namely, Frankie Andreu, David Clinger, Tyler Hamilton, Roberto Heras, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer (before turning pro), Gianpaolo Mondini, Kirk O'Bee, Ivan Basso, Manuel Beltran, Benoit Joachim (was later cleared on a technicality) and Volodymyr Bileka. Third, Armstrong was also cleared on a technicality from his 1999 EPO doping allegations. Apparently UCI defended the rider saying that there was no way to prove that the samples weren't tampered with... I say that one could be saying that from pretty much all samples, not just those in that case. Fourth, it seems that there are now many people saying that they either saw or knew about doping in the team. Fifth, many of his rivals (taken from the top-10 GC of Armstrong's victorious years) were convicted or tested positive, namely, Alex Zulle, Richard Virenque, Jan Ullrich, Christophe Moreau, Oscar Sevilla, Raimondas Rumšas, Alexandre Vinokourov, Iban Mayo and Michael Rasmussen. Finally, I personally find rather odd that most of the riders for US Postal/Discovery hit the form of their careers in those exact teams failing to replicated such form in any other moment. This is most true for those who hauled Armstrong up any mountain day after day and them when they left the team to pursue their own success, failed. Quite badly in some cases... Of course these a far from being evidences and you can make them what you want. I just think there is too much smoke for absence of fire.

[Warren Hughes]

I don't know a massive amount about the jurisdiction of cycling, and I can't say I ever followed the Tour even remotely closely during the Armstrong domination years, but all I have to say is this. If you were accused of something, and it was a serious accusation which would have huge ramifications if it were proved correct, but you knew you were being wrongly accused, how could you ever stop fighting that accusation? Surely no-one, in any walk of life, can choose not to fight the charges against them while still maintaining their innocence of those charges. So their has to be some smoke to this fire, in my view.

[Salamander]

I don't know a massive amount about the jurisdiction of cycling, and I can't say I ever followed the Tour even remotely closely during the Armstrong domination years, but all I have to say is this. If you were accused of something, and it was a serious accusation which would have huge ramifications if it were proved correct, but you knew you were being wrongly accused, how could you ever stop fighting that accusation? Surely no-one, in any walk of life, can choose not to fight the charges against them while still maintaining their innocence of those charges. So their has to be some smoke to this fire, in my view.

In the same vein though, the USADA keeps claiming they have evidence, but they haven't actually said what that evidence is (unless they have and I missed, in which case ignore the rest of this), which raises questions as to its validity and its existence. The burden of proof is on the USADA to prove Armstrong was doping, and they haven't done that. There are a few alarms going off, yes, but that shouldn't excuse them from providing the evidence that he did use doping, if it's as conclusive as they make it out to be.

The big question then, for me at least, is what does the USADA get out of proving Armstrong did use doping? Is it as simple as, 'Hey, we busted Lance Armstrong! We're the best anti-doping agency evarrrrr!' Because that's what it seems like to me.

[pasta_maldonado]

Exscuse me for asking a stupid question here but, how can a US authority (the US anti-doping thingy) affect results of an event that was hosted in France and out of their control? Surely it would be up to the Frewnch cycling authority or the World cycling Authority/Governing body/whatever to disqualify Armstrong?

[QuickYoda41]

Exscuse me for asking a stupid question here but, how can a US authority (the US anti-doping thingy) affect results of an event that was hosted in France and out of their control? Surely it would be up to the Frewnch cycling authority or the World cycling Authority/Governing body/whatever to disqualify Armstrong?

Actually, they can't disqualify him. That's what Armstrong's legal team and the UCI say. However, the USADA don't want to give their proofs (whatever they are) to the UCI, as they think the international cycling body would back up their biggest star no matter what the proofs say.

In my opinion, the whole issue is ridiculous. Why bring this up now, 7 years after Lance's last victory? I don't think it was even possible to delete results beyond 8 years, when the majority of his wins happened. Why are they talking about lifetime ban, as this would be Armstrong's first doping case? (Not that this would make much of a difference in his case.) Why is it good to disqualify Armstrong and give his victories to Zulle, Ullrich, Basso, all having had doping issues? Not to mention that everyone is using substances in cycling anyway... And it goes on and on...

All in all, Armstrong will be 7-times Tour-winner for ever.

[Wallio]

In the last 24 hours the Livestrong foundation has raised $78,000. An ESPN poll showed 81% of Americans support Lance. The people have spoken. USADA has once again stated they "don't need" to release their evidence. Lance for his part is running in a (mountain) bike race. Newsman made a good point, they can ban him if they want, but no promoter in America will actually stop him from running.

[Salamander]

In the last 24 hours the Livestrong foundation has raised $78,000. An ESPN poll showed 81% of Americans support Lance. The people have spoken. USADA has once again stated they "don't need" to release their evidence. Lance for his part is running in a (mountain) bike race. Newsman made a good point, they can ban him if they want, but no promoter in America will actually stop him from running.

So basically they're making themselves look like jerks for nothing. What's the point?

[mario]

I don't know a massive amount about the jurisdiction of cycling, and I can't say I ever followed the Tour even remotely closely during the Armstrong domination years, but all I have to say is this. If you were accused of something, and it was a serious accusation which would have huge ramifications if it were proved correct, but you knew you were being wrongly accused, how could you ever stop fighting that accusation? Surely no-one, in any walk of life, can choose not to fight the charges against them while still maintaining their innocence of those charges. So their has to be some smoke to this fire, in my view.

In the same vein though, the USADA keeps claiming they have evidence, but they haven't actually said what that evidence is (unless they have and I missed, in which case ignore the rest of this), which raises questions as to its validity and its existence. The burden of proof is on the USADA to prove Armstrong was doping, and they haven't done that. There are a few alarms going off, yes, but that shouldn't excuse them from providing the evidence that he did use doping, if it's as conclusive as they make it out to be.

The big question then, for me at least, is what does the USADA get out of proving Armstrong did use doping? Is it as simple as, 'Hey, we busted Lance Armstrong! We're the best anti-doping agency evarrrrr!' Because that's what it seems like to me.

Whilst I would normally stay out of an issue like this (since this is not normally something that I would be involved in), I would presume that the reason for the USADA's position is symbolic rather than practical - that they want to reinforce the idea that nobody, regardless of how influential or successful they may have been, can avoid paying the price for their misdeeds. It is their way of saying that nobody is immune to questioning and that they are aiming to find ways of exposing those who cheat, even if it takes them decades to do so - at the very least, that is a line that is being promoted in the press (especially the French press, which seems to be taking a grim satisfaction in seeing Armstrong bowing to the USADA).

After all, a number of the riders in question have since retired and would gain little from Armstrong having his tour results annulled, and as others have said before, having a title awarded to you in this manner more than a decade after the event is something of a pyrrhic victory. It is, ultimately, being used more as a platform for the authorities to spread the message that they want to deal with the legacy of doping that has tainted the sport, even if it will only go a limited way to righting any wrongs that they say have happened in the past.

[Salamander]

I don't know a massive amount about the jurisdiction of cycling, and I can't say I ever followed the Tour even remotely closely during the Armstrong domination years, but all I have to say is this. If you were accused of something, and it was a serious accusation which would have huge ramifications if it were proved correct, but you knew you were being wrongly accused, how could you ever stop fighting that accusation? Surely no-one, in any walk of life, can choose not to fight the charges against them while still maintaining their innocence of those charges. So their has to be some smoke to this fire, in my view.

In the same vein though, the USADA keeps claiming they have evidence, but they haven't actually said what that evidence is (unless they have and I missed, in which case ignore the rest of this), which raises questions as to its validity and its existence. The burden of proof is on the USADA to prove Armstrong was doping, and they haven't done that. There are a few alarms going off, yes, but that shouldn't excuse them from providing the evidence that he did use doping, if it's as conclusive as they make it out to be.

The big question then, for me at least, is what does the USADA get out of proving Armstrong did use doping? Is it as simple as, 'Hey, we busted Lance Armstrong! We're the best anti-doping agency evarrrrr!' Because that's what it seems like to me.

Whilst I would normally stay out of an issue like this (since this is not normally something that I would be involved in), I would presume that the reason for the USADA's position is symbolic rather than practical - that they want to reinforce the idea that nobody, regardless of how influential or successful they may have been, can avoid paying the price for their misdeeds. It is their way of saying that nobody is immune to questioning and that they are aiming to find ways of exposing those who cheat, even if it takes them decades to do so - at the very least, that is a line that is being promoted in the press (especially the French press, which seems to be taking a grim satisfaction in seeing Armstrong bowing to the USADA).

After all, a number of the riders in question have since retired and would gain little from Armstrong having his tour results annulled, and as others have said before, having a title awarded to you in this manner more than a decade after the event is something of a pyrrhic victory. It is, ultimately, being used more as a platform for the authorities to spread the message that they want to deal with the legacy of doping that has tainted the sport, even if it will only go a limited way to righting any wrongs that they say have happened in the past.

But they're the US Anti-Doping Agency. They should want to do that in the first place, otherwise what's the point of their existence? Though I suppose I do see your point; maybe, by busting Lance Armstrong, evidence or no evidence, they hope to create a chilling effect. The thing I'm worried about though is them not showing their evidence - no matter what their reasons, that is not the correct way to go about things.

[Shadaza]

Not sure if it should go in this thread or the gaming one, but I just got Pro Cycling Manager and I really am enjoying it. Can't see myself going through a career mode but tackling the tour de France is rather fun. It also has an editor (not quite to the level of Football manager!) that allows for some extra fun.

My all Asia team is 16th of 22 and half way through the Tour de France, though my best riders are only just in the top 100!

[QuickYoda41]

Is there a option ti give your riders extra juice?

[Wallio]

No, but if your team wins too many in a row, it just decides you juiced no matter what, and bans you without proof.....

[Shadaza]

Ha ha, well I can say my life long ambition of matching Lance Armstrongs Tour de France Wins seems to be nearly complete .

I am half tempted to run a sign up over at the PMMF but I am not sure if it would be allowed, what with their not being any engines involved!

[Salamander]

Ha ha, well I can say my life long ambition of matching Lance Armstrongs Tour de France Wins seems to be nearly complete .

I am half tempted to run a sign up over at the PMMF but I am not sure if it would be allowed, what with their not being any engines involved!

You could gauge interest for it here; I know that I, for one, might be interested.

[mario]

I don't know a massive amount about the jurisdiction of cycling, and I can't say I ever followed the Tour even remotely closely during the Armstrong domination years, but all I have to say is this. If you were accused of something, and it was a serious accusation which would have huge ramifications if it were proved correct, but you knew you were being wrongly accused, how could you ever stop fighting that accusation? Surely no-one, in any walk of life, can choose not to fight the charges against them while still maintaining their innocence of those charges. So their has to be some smoke to this fire, in my view.

In the same vein though, the USADA keeps claiming they have evidence, but they haven't actually said what that evidence is (unless they have and I missed, in which case ignore the rest of this), which raises questions as to its validity and its existence. The burden of proof is on the USADA to prove Armstrong was doping, and they haven't done that. There are a few alarms going off, yes, but that shouldn't excuse them from providing the evidence that he did use doping, if it's as conclusive as they make it out to be.

The big question then, for me at least, is what does the USADA get out of proving Armstrong did use doping? Is it as simple as, 'Hey, we busted Lance Armstrong! We're the best anti-doping agency evarrrrr!' Because that's what it seems like to me.

Whilst I would normally stay out of an issue like this (since this is not normally something that I would be involved in), I would presume that the reason for the USADA's position is symbolic rather than practical - that they want to reinforce the idea that nobody, regardless of how influential or successful they may have been, can avoid paying the price for their misdeeds. It is their way of saying that nobody is immune to questioning and that they are aiming to find ways of exposing those who cheat, even if it takes them decades to do so - at the very least, that is a line that is being promoted in the press (especially the French press, which seems to be taking a grim satisfaction in seeing Armstrong bowing to the USADA).

After all, a number of the riders in question have since retired and would gain little from Armstrong having his tour results annulled, and as others have said before, having a title awarded to you in this manner more than a decade after the event is something of a pyrrhic victory. It is, ultimately, being used more as a platform for the authorities to spread the message that they want to deal with the legacy of doping that has tainted the sport, even if it will only go a limited way to righting any wrongs that they say have happened in the past.

But they're the US Anti-Doping Agency. They should want to do that in the first place, otherwise what's the point of their existence? Though I suppose I do see your point; maybe, by busting Lance Armstrong, evidence or no evidence, they hope to create a chilling effect. The thing I'm worried about though is them not showing their evidence - no matter what their reasons, that is not the correct way to go about things.

Their intention does seem to be that they aim to shock anybody who might consider doping away from such actions and demonstrate that they are prepared to take on anybody regardless of their reputation. It is as much about the psychological and symbolic effect as it is about demonstrating their capabilities to catch cheats, although the way that this is unfolding does leave room for some unfortunate fallout.
Added to that, the high profile way that they are handling this case also seems to be their way of trying to pressurise the UCI into revoking Armstrong's titles (the USADA cannot revoke his titles themselves, and a few within that organisation have briefed the press, off the record, that they believe that the UCI would refuse all evidence and back Armstrong, even if he is guilty of doping, because to accept the USADA's ruling would call into question the competence of the UCI to catch drug cheats).

As to the question of publishing the information, it may be that Armstrong's decision not to contest the charges means it is never fully published - a process that could have been damaging to both sides, since the testimonies of both parties would have been subject to intense scrutiny. What could have been an awkward question would be what they have actually found traces of in their test samples, because that could call the efficacy of their tests into question - the letter they sent to Armstrong claims that they have evidence from blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010 that are consistent with doping, although they do not appear to have actually said what those signs might be or what they think he might have been using to trigger the alarm. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/2 ... 3N20120825

[FMecha]

[mode: heel - pro USADA ]

Is it jus me, or is it true that Lance bribed ICU/UCI? I heard Lance donated $100K to ICU/UCI for a drug-test machine but UCI denied it was a bribe.

[DanielPT]

As to the question of publishing the information, it may be that Armstrong's decision not to contest the charges means it is never fully published - a process that could have been damaging to both sides, since the testimonies of both parties would have been subject to intense scrutiny. What could have been an awkward question would be what they have actually found traces of in their test samples, because that could call the efficacy of their tests into question - the letter they sent to Armstrong claims that they have evidence from blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010 that are consistent with doping, although they do not appear to have actually said what those signs might be or what they think he might have been using to trigger the alarm. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/2 ... 3N20120825

They did published their case. 1000 pages! And, according to reports as I've not read it, it is absolutely astonishing. And crushing... I cannot decide if I am happy for Lance to be caught, because it shows that cycling has become serious about doping or sad because one of its biggest icons has been shattered rending a whole decade (or more) of cycling void.


EDIT: forgot the sad there in the middle.

[DemocalypseNow]

I'm not happy about it per se, but I suppose it's like getting closure on a train-wreck relationship. Everything is now in absolutes, the doubts and myths can be dispelled, we all know the truth now. Hopefully that entire chapter of the sport being tainted will be a lesson for the future. Now that the US Postal generation is getting to retirement age, the ultra-doping group of riders will have retired and will no longer be pressuring new up-and-coming riders to dope. This is exactly I feel what happened with David Millar for example - he was at Cofidis as a young rider, at a team that, like USPS, pressured all of its riders to dope to compete.

I do wonder if he started the Livestrong foundation purely out of guilt. That perhaps he did it to eliminate all his inner demons about doping so convincingly and deceiving every single one of his hordes of fans. While the cause it funded was a noble one, I do wonder if its existence is tainted by this revelation. I will think twice before wearing a Livestrong band ever again.

[Myrvold]

My problem with this, is that it looks like there are so many more that have been doing this, that doesn't get caught.

[FMecha]

I was bored so I decided to search Kostas' posts in ForzaInter forums and found this:

He (Armstrong) bribed the UCI to cover it up for him, there were transactions of $100,000 from Armstrong to UCI's accounts listed as "donations". He had inside info, this was the most advanced doping operation the world has ever seen. People sort of "knew", but they couldn't uncover the evidence to back it up until later.

As for 2007 - Astana was run by former USPS Directeur Sportif, Johan Bruyneel. And Cofidis was a team with a long history of doping, it's no surprise they were both busted doping that year.

So Kostas, do you have a similar point of view with me, that is, when I posted a pro-USADA post back in August, above?

[Wallio]

I find it funny how this "evidence" is from other convicted dopers who get off by ratting. The UCI also admits that Lance still never officially failed a test, but that the "syste was broken". So you admit that your whole crummy sport is a corrupt joke, but decide to crucify the man who is the ONLY reason anyone over here has ever heard of cycling, but allow 15-20 others who are just as guilty to face no consecquences whatsoever. To prove what exactly? That the stereotype is true and everybody dopes in cycling?

[Shadaza]

I was bored so I decided to search Kostas' posts in ForzaInter forums and found this:

He (Armstrong) bribed the UCI to cover it up for him, there were transactions of $100,000 from Armstrong to UCI's accounts listed as "donations". He had inside info, this was the most advanced doping operation the world has ever seen. People sort of "knew", but they couldn't uncover the evidence to back it up until later.

As for 2007 - Astana was run by former USPS Directeur Sportif, Johan Bruyneel. And Cofidis was a team with a long history of doping, it's no surprise they were both busted doping that year.

So Kostas, do you have a similar point of view with me, that is, when I posted a pro-USADA post back in August, above?

If you value your life do not mess with FMecha, he will find you!

But seriously, I feel the whole witch hunt (even if it is clearly true) is not doing the sport any good in the short term, but in the long term it is showing a firm stance on drug cheats that will hopefully prevent affairs like this happening again (or at least on such a big scale).

[Aerospeed]

Can I win the Tour de France? I don't dope

[Shadaza]

Can I win the Tour de France? I don't dope

You have won the tour as many times as Lance Armstrong, you can tick that off your life goals

[Londoner]

I was bored so I decided to search Kostas' posts in ForzaInter forums and found this

Because you know, that isn't in the least bit creepy at all.

I'm conflicted with all the Armstrong business. I'm torn between staying in denial, or accepting that he was a cheating scumbag who deserved to have his Tour record erased from the books.

[DOSBoot]

It still doesn't make sence to me why they have to let someone who may, or may not have doped like Armstrong, get nailed to the wall so much, when there are others who are confirmed of doing it, but walk away with a slap on the wrist? Trying to erase the results only furtur shows how hypocritical the desision is on the whole situation. We know people have doped in the Tour, and it still goes on. Even if Armstrong doped, which I'm still not 100% convinced at, it just means he still beat the others who were doping as well. 7 times in a row. He won those tours in my book, and always will be. As said before, they either need to legalize doping, or just erase the resluts to the others who may or may not have been known to doing it. Don't use one iduvisual as an example, use it for everyone equally. Because it does not solve the problem!

[Warren Hughes]

How can people not be convinced of Armstrong's guilt? How is this whole affair being spun in America to make him look like the victim? Some of the stuff I've heard in the wake of this report, the stuff with Christophe Basson and Filippo Simeoni, is equally as shocking and unpleasant as the doping itself. Those 7 tours deserve to have no winner (as do a great number of others, I have to admit).

[Aerospeed]

Can I win the Tour de France? I don't dope

You have won the tour as many times as Lance Armstrong, you can tick that off your life goals

[Wallio]

How can people not be convinced of Armstrong's guilt? How is this whole affair being spun in America to make him look like the victim? Some of the stuff I've heard in the wake of this report, the stuff with Christophe Basson and Filippo Simeoni, is equally as shocking and unpleasant as the doping itself. Those 7 tours deserve to have no winner (as do a great number of others, I have to admit).

There's several reasons. First off he never failed a drug test. Pretty big red flag there. Second, The "evidence" wouldn't convict anyone of anything in this country. All of the star witnesses doped, at least one has been convicted of perjury, and two others never mention Armstrong by name. Real damning evidence there. Plus its so far-fetched. His whole team, numerous Tour de France and UCI officials and several competitors all knew and said nothing? And going by this report Lance had what basically amounts to a mobile bloodbank traveling with the team, again, with UCI's underhanded blessing? If it was a book, no one would believe it. I mean baseball over here is unbelievably dirty (something like 60%-65% of all players in the from 94-the early 2000s doped) but this makes Barry Bonds look clean.

Over here the main thing, isn't the whole innocent versus guilt argument. People in America forgive. Another baseball example, look at Ryan Braun. He was last year's NL MVP and was caught dead to rights doping. He didn't even fight being guilty, but rather fought a techincallity and won. Less than 10 months later, no one cares anymore. The main thing over here is why the witch hunt. Is cycling a sport so desparate for attention, they are willingly to freely admit, everyone doped and they allowed it (via "corrupt judges") soley to hammer the greatest champion of their sport? Can they afford the PR? Holding up a list of names of dopers, then doing nothing about them soley for a witch hunt. And to prove what? How sad a joke cycling is? People are still giving Livestrong money, and as I said a few months back, no racing promoter in America will stop Lance from running. So what did the UCI really accomplish? They lost any merge foothold they ever had in America (which admittedly they probably don't care about) and proved that while yes any of the last 20 or so Tours were dirty, but only they don't matter because we got Lance. Uhhhhhh ok?

[Warren Hughes]

How can people not be convinced of Armstrong's guilt? How is this whole affair being spun in America to make him look like the victim? Some of the stuff I've heard in the wake of this report, the stuff with Christophe Basson and Filippo Simeoni, is equally as shocking and unpleasant as the doping itself. Those 7 tours deserve to have no winner (as do a great number of others, I have to admit).

There's several reasons. First off he never failed a drug test. Pretty big red flag there. Second, The "evidence" wouldn't convict anyone of anything in this country. All of the star witnesses doped, at least one has been convicted of perjury, and two others never mention Armstrong by name. Real damning evidence there. Plus its so far-fetched. His whole team, numerous Tour de France and UCI officials and several competitors all knew and said nothing? And going by this report Lance had what basically amounts to a mobile bloodbank traveling with the team, again, with UCI's underhanded blessing? If it was a book, no one would believe it. I mean baseball over here is unbelievably dirty (something like 60%-65% of all players in the from 94-the early 2000s doped) but this makes Barry Bonds look clean.

Over here the main thing, isn't the whole innocent versus guilt argument. People in America forgive. Another baseball example, look at Ryan Braun. He was last year's NL MVP and was caught dead to rights doping. He didn't even fight being guilty, but rather fought a techincallity and won. Less than 10 months later, no one cares anymore. The main thing over here is why the witch hunt. Is cycling a sport so desparate for attention, they are willingly to freely admit, everyone doped and they allowed it (via "corrupt judges") soley to hammer the greatest champion of their sport? Can they afford the PR? Holding up a list of names of dopers, then doing nothing about them soley for a witch hunt. And to prove what? How sad a joke cycling is? People are still giving Livestrong money, and as I said a few months back, no racing promoter in America will stop Lance from running. So what did the UCI really accomplish? They lost any merge foothold they ever had in America (which admittedly they probably don't care about) and proved that while yes any of the last 20 or so Tours were dirty, but only they don't matter because we got Lance. Uhhhhhh ok?

I have to take issue with the idea that it's far-fetched. The reason no competitors said anything was because they were all doing it too - there was a code of silence that no-one could break or else the whole thing would come crashing down around them. Christophe Basson was effectively bullied out of the peloton for suggesting that the Festina affair might not have seen the end of doping in cycling. According to him, Lance Armstrong was one of the main orchestrators of that. The UCI's involvement has yet to come out in full, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they were complicit in the code of silence - after all, consider what they stood to lose if everything came out. The man whose opinion I'd trust on this is David Millar - he admitted doping because he couldn't live with himself, and since his ban has made a successful comeback and is heavily involved in campaigning against doping.

Your final point makes no sense to me. "What did the UCI really accomplish?" Well, they exposed a cheat and achieved sporting justice. OK, they may not have exposed them all yet, but surely it's better that they work hard at outing one fraud (and an extremely high profile one at that) than perpetuating this legend that's been built on a lie?

Lance Armstrong has been found guilty of playing an active part the most sophisticated organised doping programme ever uncovered in sport. His record seven Tour de France titles that he dedicated his life to have been taken away from him. Yet he is not fighting the charges because he is tired of fighting. In your words - uhhhhhh ok?

[Wallio]

Seriously though what did they accomplish? If Lance is dirty, show me a failed drug test. Ok everyone was in on it, including us (UCI) fair enough (again see baseball) but we're only going to ban one man, and then stop but everything's all better now. So the UCI has accomplished one thing, they banned Lance Armstrong. Thats it. The sport is no cleaner now than it was (you banned a long retired rider whoo boy) but they're acting as if everything is fixed. I don't get it.

They clearly singled out one person among dozens just to have a fall guy (admittedly one who may very well be guilty). The UCI has stated how the last 15-20 years worth of records were tainted, but only Lance and Floyd Landis, (that I know of) were banned. My question is this, if so many other people were involved, punish them, then claim Mission Accomplished.

Of course what you, me, or the UCI thinks is irrevelant, since Livestrong has raised just under $2,000,000 since Lance "stopped fighting". If people keep giving, I'm sure he won't give a bathplug what they all think.

[Warren Hughes]

Nobody can claim the fight is over just because Armstrong's been found guilty. The UCI may be saying it is, but I'm not sure I would trust them any further than I could throw Max Mosley. But progress has been made, and massive progress at that - Bradley Wiggins has won the Tour clean, and that in itself is something that was impossible to do 10 years ago.

The Livestrong argument is irrelevant - it's a cancer charity, not a Lance Armstrong benefit fund.

[Wallio]

The UCI may be saying it is, but I'm not sure I would trust them any further than I could throw Max Mosley.

I lol'd at that mate.

[FMecha]

The maniac Lance faces criminal case in Spain.

I confess every time I see a news regarding to the maniac Armstrong, I want to throw something like Zyla did.

[Aerospeed]

The maniac Lance faces criminal case in Spain.

I confess every time I see a news regarding to the maniac Armstrong, I want to throw something like Zyla did.

So much, that the thread should be renamed the 'Lance Armstrong Doping Thread'