Evans has been linked to Dr. Ferrari. It’s disputable how much though. He claims it was just one training session and no drugs were discussed.
Nice. I note, from google, that most of the hits for cadel evans michele ferrari come from the last 12 hours. I suspect that the guy who wrote the blog might not have known about this.
I think the UCI just have to throw their hands up on this one. It’s going to be an utter waste of time trying to work out who should be the Tour champion - unless they’re going to symbolically give them all to the Laterne Rouge in each race…
This so wrong, it’s almost hilarious. First of all, cycling was never an elitist sport; quite the contrary in Europe it was (and is) very much a sport of the people. Most cyclists are from fairly poor backgrounds (or were in any case).
Nobody is benefitting from this. There is increasing pressure on the UCI and I wouldn’t be surprised if some more heads will roll. Some riders and team managers have already stepped down because of the report and Rabobank (who has been one of the biggest teams for 17 years) has announced the bank will quit the sport immediately. A lot of people are waiting in fear if any other teams will follow. Believe it or not, the US is a fairly insignificant market for professional cycling.
Armstrong is not made a scape goat, many others have already been caught. He is one of the riders who was most vocal in being clean and has harassed and sued people who (it now turns out) were telling the truth. Apparently he also ‘demanded’ that riders in his team would dope… that’s a bit more than just using yourself. Don’t forget that all Armstrong’s teams were built around him, with him as the ‘only’ reason the teams even started sponsoring the sport. There are/were very few cyclists with that kind of influence.
This is a list compiled by a Norwegian paper back in August:
Dopinglistene som beviser svindelen i sykkelsporten
Their criteria:
Red is caught for doping.
Yellow is strongly linked to doping.
Green is never having been directly suspected of doping
Carlos Sastre would have benefited the most.
I’m guessing you’re referring to a player who shares the same initials as Alan Alda, but he wasn’t *that *old when he won his last titles (29/30 US Open and French Open, 31-34 last three Australian Opens). His ‘rigourous conditioning programme’ to get back to the top flight is now in serious doubt.
Or am I completely off base?
Of the three bullets you’ve specified, on a messageboard dedicated to bringing the facts and cutting out the bullshit, all 3 of your bullets are opinions with only the first even remotely having the slightest link to reality. Your last 2 bullets are nothing more than op/ed pieces which confirm how blind your blind faith truly is.
It’s sad and it’s a dreadful shame, but The Beatles broke up. And Armstrong doped.
He not only doped, he forced his teammates (more than a few) to dope against their wishes to keep their jobs. And that’s morally bankrupt. And then he filed lawsuits around the world for 8 years in a dogged pursuit to muzzle all the people who knew. He deserves at the very least, to be sued. And then there was the lecture. Never forget the Champs Elysess lecture in 2005.
Just to be perfectly clear, the evidence against him is 100% hearsay then, yes?
Nope, you couldn’t be more wrong. It was a truckload testimony. Plus verified retrospective EPO positives which were never pursued by the UCI in 2005. That last bit is the high water mark of denial for so many people.
Hearsay is when you recount to a Magistrate what you heard somebody say to you. Testimony is when you state what you saw with your own eyes.
Perhaps 1.5% of the 1000 pages was actually hearsay. 98.5% of the USADA decision was genuine testimony, plus actual scientific evidence.
But you can go on believing what you want to believe if that makes you feel good.
No. His urine samples had EPO in them.
Only if by ‘hearsay’ you mean being on his team and being ordered to take part in a doping programme/delivering vials of EPO to him/financial records showing payments to Dr Ferrari/ retests of old Armstrong samples showing clear indications of EPO use and all the rest.
I couldn’t give a real toss either way. I have room in my schedule to care about exactly one sport, and cycling ain’t it.
I’m just trying to get a handle on the evidence.
Bah, beaten to the punch by all the others.
Oh and Boo Boo Foo I guess you’re too reticent/don’t want to go off topic to talk about a certain tennis player?
And this is what I mean. So his samples, collected during the time that EPO was illegal in cycling, tested positive for EPO? If so, then yeah, OK. I was just curious if the entire case were testimony, or if there were, you know, appropriate test results as well.
Testimony made under oath under penalty of perjury.
New analysis of his blood samples showing fluctuations in various characteristics stongly suggestive of doping. One expert calling the odds of this happening naturally a million to one against.
A Million pounds paid to a doctor who was basically the world expert on doping.
That’s a little more than hear’say.
Uh oh. But it’s not much more. Witnesses lie under penalty of perjury frequently. And “strongly suggestive”? WTF? Was there EPO or not? And connections to shady characters? So what? Look at our federal government.
You need to read this thread. There are plenty of people who have summarised. There’s a lot more to this than EPO, and if you are still at the level of understanding where you think “was there EPO or not?” is a pertinent question, you have reading to do.
You’re starting to sound like a true believer, discounting the mountains of evidence in the USADA reasoned decision on molehills of technicality.
You say you don’t give a shit, but you really should at least skim through the reasoned decision to make up your mind. Warning pdf.
…show me witnesses who have been proven to have lied under penalty of perjury and I will show you someone who has been convicted of perjury.
You sure have a lot of questions that could be cleaned up by reading the report. Why don’t you have a look? The evidence is pretty damming if you can inclined to do so: why rely on the words of internet messageboard posters?
You would do well to change your style then instead of leading with your chin.
Well, fucking hell. Big Mig comes out in support of Lance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-miguel-indurain-uci-evidence