Tripleshot Cycling

Sounding of the Armstrong pop culture death knell:

CBS 60 Minutes expose on the Novitzky investigation, an interview with Hamilton and.. new allegations from George ('no chain') Hincapie.
Tonight, Sunday, May 22 at 7pm EST.

Preview:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162- ... ncol;lst;4

'Never a failed test' is the most laughable defence. Britain's ace time trialist David Millar had never failed a test when he was suspended for EPO use. French investigators spotted empty syringes of Eprex on the window sill of his apartment!

Watched 60 minutes this evening with Tyler Hamilton - interesting info on the failed test in Switzerland in 2001. The UCI received it's donation and covered it up. The lab confirmed it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilto ... 60-minutes

CBS 60 Minutes interview
Part 1: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... contentAux
Part 2: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... contentAux

Seeing the tens of thousands of fans crowding the mountaintop finish of stage 14 of the Giro is heartening and telling. People will continue to watch, as they have following Anquetil's admissions ('only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water') and Rolling Stone's LA Olympics blood boosting expose. This is a hell of a compelling and beautiful sport, and has remained so through more than a hundred years of drug use in the peleton: from alcohol and amphetamines to steroids to blood doping to EPO slush funds to 'pot belge' to HGH to whatever they come up with next..

What I think is so galling in this are the Armstrong camp's strong-arm tactics: his litigiousness and bullying; the understandable - when the doping is so systemic and there are livelihoods and investments on the line - code of silence that is so pervasive (and seems to infect the UCI and many journalists e.g. http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews.php?id=9469); and the painful ostracism that results when riders are bold (foolish?) enough to come forward. Witness Kimmage, the Andreus, LeMond, Simeoni, Jesus Manzano, Joe Papp, etc, etc.

The crux of the matter - Armstrong was too big too fail.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/m ... &eref=sihp

Some extra videos from 60 Minutes that don't appear to have been part of the broadcast, but add to the story:

Who is Tyler Hamilton?

Scott Pelley [60 Minutes journalist] on reporting the Lance Armstrong story

Extra: Starving for the sport

Extra: Tackling the Tour de France

Extra: Armstrong was an "eye opener" [more from Frankie A.]

And finally for those with a little time on their hands - Armstrong's failed tests from the 90's, including the six positive tests for EPO from the 1999 Tour de France.


http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... l-ashenden

Ramsey A wrote:CBS 60 Minutes interview
Part 1: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... contentAux
Part 2: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id= ... contentAux

Seeing the tens of thousands of fans crowding the mountaintop finish of stage 14 of the Giro is heartening and telling. People will continue to watch, as they have following Anquetil's admissions ('only a fool would imagine it was possible to ride Bordeaux–Paris on just water') and Rolling Stone's LA Olympics blood boosting expose. This is a hell of a compelling and beautiful sport, and has remained so through more than a hundred years of drug use in the peleton: from alcohol and amphetamines to steroids to blood doping to EPO slush funds to 'pot belge' to HGH to whatever they come up with next..

What I think is so galling in this are the Armstrong camp's strong-arm tactics: his litigiousness and bullying; the understandable - when the doping is so systemic and there are livelihoods and investments on the line - code of silence that is so pervasive (and seems to infect the UCI and many journalists e.g. http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews.php?id=9469); and the painful ostracism that results when riders are bold (foolish?) enough to come forward. Witness Kimmage, the Andreus, LeMond, Simeoni, Jesus Manzano, Joe Papp, etc, etc.

+1 that article from Canadian cyclist is painfully inaccurate, read now.

"why did L'Equipe choose to reveal only the Armstrong results?"

d'oh. It's because that's the only doping form the journalists got with a name and number on it...(from the UCI, with Armstrong's permission), which told them who the positives from the research report were, as they were only numbered.

the most serious problem that I have with this situation is that Armstrong has no ability to defend himself against these charges. None. The way this type of testing is done is very controlled, so as to remove the possibility of tampering with the results. The athlete chosen for testing (always the stage winner, the overall race leader and a number of randoms at the Tour) provides the sample under the direct scrutiny of doping officials (and direct means that they literally watch the athlete pee in a bottle).

Shows how poor the understanding of anti-doping was. The tour de france didn't have chaperones stay with riders after stages until 2007. They had an hour to manipulate their urine: catheters, soap on fingers to destroy metabolites, dilution by IV, etc. Even when they started with chaperones, riders were caught on video riding their bikes across fields to escape chaperones in orange vests, and half a dozen were caught.

leftcoaster wrote:And finally for those with a little time on their hands - Armstrong's failed tests from the 90's, including the six positive tests for EPO from the 1999 Tour de France.

http://velocitynation.com/content/inter ... l-ashenden

Very Interesting indeed. Definitive, in my mind I might even say. I particulalry liked Ashenden's views on the role of measured sanctions as opposed to extremes.

I think it's a symptom of our anti doping efforts' frustration at not being able to identify who the athletes are who are doping and when they're doping.

And the response to that frustration is, well, when we do catch them, by hell you better believe we're going to punish them. There's people arguing at the moment it should be a lifetime ban the first time you're caught. I think that's a symptom of that frustration, "Gee we only catch one every x number of years, and we gotta make an example of him." I just think we're getting a little bit hysterical, and perhaps we're losing that perspective of what we're trying to do and how we're trying to do it.

R

wait just a minute here, are you guys implying that Lance cheated??

jeremy wrote:wait just a minute here, are you guys implying that Lance cheated??

Only the people who hate. The jealous ones. Those who don't believe. I believe - I still believe I'm going to wear my USPS skinsuit and Livestrong bracelet to the first group ride after Wonderboy is indicted.

Most of the talk is about 1999. He won the tour six times after that. Just sayin. My faith is being eroded daily, but some basic questions remain - every one of those tests (for arguments sake, let's say from 2000 onward) was covered up, lost, revised, or somehow ignored? Really? But, I also have to say that listening to Livingston you realize that even if Lance was clean (ya, I know, I'm the only one left who even contemplates that), the pressure he placed on the rest of the team to succeed at all costs, makes him as guilty as any drug dealer.

JT

JohnT wrote:Most of the talk is about 1999

Not so much now. The talk over the past 48 hours has been the positive EPO test from the 2001 Tour de Suisse and the positive EPO test from the 2002 Dauphine Libere.

Plus payments to Ferrari in 2009 and 2010. A leopard can't change it's spots.

John, the anti-doping system in cycling was pathetic until very recently, and may still have the loopholes of the UCI deliberately not testing high risk riders, as the WADA independent report from the last tour pointed out.

There were no chaperones until 2007, even when other sports like athletics had chaperones since the 80's. (I was one for Ben Johnson in the mid 80's at the Ottawa indoor meet from when he crossed the line until he peed. Ah, my brush with fame! ) That meant you could leisurely go to your bus, with darkened windows, and do what ever necessary to prepare for your 'test'. Joe Pap testified about putting detergent on your finger to pee over to destroy metabolites in your sample, catherization with clean urine, and IV's to dilute blood to below 50% hct. Even if you didn't have a plan b of payments to the UCI. Then there's the shower strategy, the double dressed in the same clothes for no notice tests strategy, the motorcycle in the garage strategy, etc.

That he didn't win in 2009 and 2010 is probably the best indication that the effect of doping is being reduced now. But Clentador suggests that the UCI still has a way to go.