Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:50 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:23 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
sylus wrote:
Just slightly off track

if everyone at the top is accepted to have been on drugs or and performance enhancing techniques..then surely they would have all been on a level playing field and on that field lance was still the best cyclist there?


no, because the scale of drug taking can vary from rider to rider, team to team. At the end of the day, that's why drugs are banned. I believe there has been an argument for a doped tour, and a clean tour in the past, but the doping can vary wildly, and peoples physiology reacts differently, so it wouldn't ever be level


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:53 pm 
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
Gold Trader / MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:23 am
Posts: 15608
Have to say it looks pretty cut and dry, hope he comes clean in the same vein as miller and we can finally move on from this mess.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:32 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 1:10 am
Posts: 4473
Location: Bristol
Here's a scarey thought. If doping was as widespread as they claim then the true winner of the 2002 Tour de France was Legrandfromage....chapeau me old China!






I'll get me coat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:05 am 
Retro Guru

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:50 pm
Posts: 946
Location: Over there -->
The results for the EPO 2005 testing of the 1999 Tour samples is published in the USADA report (and in "the Secret Race").

96 samples tested. 15 identified as Armstrong's 14 of those positive for EPO. The one negative dated after Hamilton has said that Mr Moto was sent home 'cos his little glass vials were no longer needed.

Of the non-Armstrong samples, 8.5% positive for EPO (or anything else), so the "everybody was at it" defence appears to be blown out of the water.

There are records of two positive tests from Armstrong - Cortisone in 1999 (covered by an illegal, retrospective prescription, despite the claimed cream not being on Armstrong's declared medical use list before the test), and an EPO positive at the Tour of Switzerland. There goes the "never tested positive" defence as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:31 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:04 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Completely in the dark, thanks to me good mate Terry....
al wrote:
Just watched the 6 o'clock news, Alex Dowsett (Team Sky) should be ashamed of himself.

He said and I quote.... ''I don't think it really matters, he's still a legend in the sport'' ''The guy came back from cancer to win the Tour de France'' ''So I think It's not really Important''


Dowsett really didn't think his words through, did he? And speaking of Sky, Brailsford's determination to show that a team can achieve things without resorting to doping, as well as his views on the type of rider the squad should be hiring, seem to have been undermined a tad thanks to Michael Barry's pre-Sky activities*. :(

David

*To be fair, the alarm bells re. the whole Michael Barry/drugs issue should have sounded round about the time of that coke/dead body in swimming pool episode. Or am I thinking of someone else? ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:25 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:13 pm
Posts: 8184
Location: Tredavoe, Cornwall
David B wrote:
al wrote:
Just watched the 6 o'clock news, Alex Dowsett (Team Sky) should be ashamed of himself.

He said and I quote.... ''I don't think it really matters, he's still a legend in the sport'' ''The guy came back from cancer to win the Tour de France'' ''So I think It's not really Important''


Dowsett really didn't think his words through, did he? And speaking of Sky, Brailsford's determination to show that a team can achieve things without resorting to doping, as well as his views on the type of rider the squad should be hiring, seem to have been undermined a tad thanks to Michael Barry's pre-Sky activities*. :(

David

*To be fair, the alarm bells re. the whole Michael Barry/drugs issue should have sounded round about the time of that coke/dead body in swimming pool episode. Or am I thinking of someone else? ;)


Dowsett didn't think his words through? He and anyone else with the remotest idea about cycling has had at least ten years to think of something to say. :lol:

He obviously thinks that cheating millions of Dollars out of people and bringing his sport down to the level of a sgaggy drug dealer is something to be proud of....... We live in a f****d up world!



al.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:21 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
It may have just got really bad for him. Perjury now being brought up from a court case a while back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:28 pm 
Retro Guru

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:41 am
Posts: 638
David B wrote:
And speaking of Sky, Brailsford's determination to show that a team can achieve things without resorting to doping, as well as his views on the type of rider the squad should be hiring, seem to have been undermined a tad thanks to Michael Barry's pre-Sky activities*. :(


Add in Yates being a DS at Discovery and Roger's name also cropping up in one of the testimonies they're going to be tainted by association.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:54 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
grahame wrote:
Of the non-Armstrong samples, 8.5% positive for EPO (or anything else), so the "everybody was at it" defence appears to be blown out of the water.


Actually this wasn't used by Lance's defence BUT...was used by the witness's aiding the usda prosecution by giving statements against Lance

grahame wrote:
There are records of two positive tests from Armstrong - Cortisone in 1999 (covered by an illegal, retrospective prescription, despite the claimed cream not being on Armstrong's declared medical use list before the test), and an EPO positive at the Tour of Switzerland. There goes the "never tested positive" defence as well.


And yet again these were tests that never led to a positive award of a penalty. As in all sports tests somethings will show as positive to be seen later as a non positive. Lances unique position is around his cancer, treatment and meds to ensure a non return of that cancer. Not having a athlete in that situation before in professional cycling undoubtedly gave the testing body many firsts and not all of them would have been correct

Something that keeps coming back to those who use this 1999 test as a"definite proof" that he was a drug cheat..this was 1999, lance didn't retire till feb 2011 and during that whole time the governing bodies never felt they had enough to to ban him or convict him of any offence..why was that?

why did they wait till he retired and no longer professionally raced to start this up again? In truth the USDA have always hated the fact that Lance was successfull in his field in a way the usda have never been sucessfull in theirs

The simplest of facts are that Lance was never convicted or banned due to any of the tests he provided during his entire professional career, the usda have never been able to prove any different and the uci were happy to allow Lance to continue to race until Lance himself retired and the only people being held up as icons by the usda to try and convict Lance..are mostly self confessed drug cheats

The usda are the driving force for 2 reasons and two reasons only

they have hated Lance from day 1 and even to the point of trying to get him after he has retired they still want to stick it to him

secondly..The usda themselves have shown themselves to be inadequate as a testing body both by science and by public relations, so bad in fact that they have painted thereselves into a corner and are trying to cover up there embarrasment by bullying, blustering,piss and wind tactics on a retired champion

He had retired..nothing more to damage the sport from Lance and the usda could have fine tuned it's own house to make sure what they have suggested, never happens again..much of this could have been without damaging the sport and still obtained a far cleaner sport

The usda won't let this drop no matter what the further damage to the sport is and that is probably more questionable than anything Lance ever did


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:07 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner / RB Rider
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:45 pm
Posts: 10945
Location: kent
sylus wrote:
grahame wrote:
Of the non-Armstrong samples, 8.5% positive for EPO (or anything else), so the "everybody was at it" defence appears to be blown out of the water.


Actually this wasn't used by Lance's defence BUT...was used by the witness's aiding the usda prosecution by giving statements against Lance

grahame wrote:
There are records of two positive tests from Armstrong - Cortisone in 1999 (covered by an illegal, retrospective prescription, despite the claimed cream not being on Armstrong's declared medical use list before the test), and an EPO positive at the Tour of Switzerland. There goes the "never tested positive" defence as well.


And yet again these were tests that never led to a positive award of a penalty. As in all sports tests somethings will show as positive to be seen later as a non positive. Lances unique position is around his cancer, treatment and meds to ensure a non return of that cancer. Not having a athlete in that situation before in professional cycling undoubtedly gave the testing body many firsts and not all of them would have been correct

Something that keeps coming back to those who use this 1999 test as a"definite proof" that he was a drug cheat..this was 1999, lance didn't retire till feb 2011 and during that whole time the governing bodies never felt they had enough to to ban him or convict him of any offence..why was that?

why did they wait till he retired and no longer professionally raced to start this up again? In truth the USDA have always hated the fact that Lance was successfull in his field in a way the usda have never been sucessfull in theirs

The simplest of facts are that Lance was never convicted or banned due to any of the tests he provided during his entire professional career, the usda have never been able to prove any different and the uci were happy to allow Lance to continue to race until Lance himself retired and the only people being held up as icons by the usda to try and convict Lance..are mostly self confessed drug cheats

The usda are the driving force for 2 reasons and two reasons only

they have hated Lance from day 1 and even to the point of trying to get him after he has retired they still want to stick it to him

secondly..The usda themselves have shown themselves to be inadequate as a testing body both by science and by public relations, so bad in fact that they have painted thereselves into a corner and are trying to cover up there embarrasment by bullying, blustering,piss and wind tactics on a retired champion

He had retired..nothing more to damage the sport from Lance and the usda could have fine tuned it's own house to make sure what they have suggested, never happens again..much of this could have been without damaging the sport and still obtained a far cleaner sport

The usda won't let this drop no matter what the further damage to the sport is and that is probably more questionable than anything Lance ever did


you must be joking ?

Lance is the bully . he paid money to get off the hook after a positive test in switzerland in 2001 .
the 1999 positive test are 100 % lance , and nothing to do with his cancer treatment .
he got a backdated medical note from a doc for a saddle sore .

I only read a few pages of the usada evidence , but there can be no doubt on lance being guilty . the details are just staggering .


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ferrus and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group