A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote:... Why should there be a statute of limitations on proving someone was dirty? ...
Because in the end it comes down to legalities, and limitations are a solid part of the legal system in all civilized nations. (as far as I know)
You know, I thought so too, but I brought this up in London with a well-known British ATFS guy and he said that most crimes in Britain have no statue of limitations. Who knew?
There's no statute of limitations in the U.S. for murder.
jazzcyclist wrote:The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.
There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?
Bingo! It's the selective enforcement of rules that bothers me and infuriates folks like Conor Dary. If there was a history of these agencies going on COMPREHENSIVE witchhunts of athletes from a variety of sports from all over the world, long after they've retired, the Amrstrong takedown wouldn't bother me at all, but the cherrypicking discredits USADA and WADA IMO.
Bambam, I really appreciate your posts, because I know you will always come with the facts. I hope you enjoyed your trip to London, and hopefully I'll see you at all future summer Olympics.
bambam wrote: Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.
Imagine that? Could it be that David Stern said he would't let NBA players go to the Olympics if they had to be subjected to random, unannounced testing?
jazzcyclist wrote:The one positive I can see for this precedent of convicting dopers based on sworn testimony and circumstantial evidence is that it opens the door for WADA to go in and wipe the East German and Chinese records off the books in women's track and field once and for all.
There's a lot more evidence against the East Germans based on the Stasi files that have been released. But the IOC has specifically said they will not go after them, citing statute of limitations. Now the interesting thing there is what was pointed out elsewhere, that Armstrong should be outside of the statute of limitations (8 years) except for his 2005 tour. But WADA and the drug gods have come up with an out stating that they can go back farther if there is evidence of conspiracy or fraud. Well, when the hell is there not when it comes to doping? And if you can do that, why is the East German situation exempt - wasn't that conspiracy and fraud and systematic doping?
Bingo! It's the selective enforcement of rules that bothers me and infuriates folks like Conor Dary. If there was a history of these agencies going on COMPREHENSIVE witchhunts of athletes from a variety of sports from all over the world, long after they've retired, the Amrstrong takedown wouldn't bother me at all, but the cherrypicking discredits USADA and WADA IMO.
Bambam, I really appreciate your posts, because I know you will always come with the facts. I hope you enjoyed your trip to London, and hopefully I'll see you at all future summer Olympics.
bambam wrote: Basketball is the same thing but in some way the NBA gets away without random, unannounced testing.
Imagine that? Could it be that David Stern said he would't let NBA players go to the Olympics if they had to be subjected to random, unannounced testing?
What?, the IOC and the drug people play favorites? Impossible!!!
Twenty-three California state senators are asking the state's two U.S. senators to request a congressional review of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency in the wake of the Lance Armstrong sanctions.
The letter, sent Tuesday, is addressed to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) and U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D). It notes that USADA receives a "majority of its funding from taxpayer dollars through the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the White House."
"We respectfully request that you call upon (that office) and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to develop appropriate constitutional protections and conduct a comprehensive review of USADA's operations and finances, with special attention to USADA's unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test," the letter states.
So there was never any attention for USADA to go after the "good guys" (eg. Lance Armstrong) who dope, only the "bad guys" (eg. Barry Bonds). What a freakin' joke! The IOC has already given a pass to the NBA and the East Germans from the 70's and 80's, and now these politicians want to give a pass to Armstrong because of his popularity. I don't agree with USADA involving itself in the UCI's business but Armstrong's popularity should have nothing to do with it.
Answer: IOC is controlled by the illuminati Now, how far will they go? Jacques Rogge, the president of the IOC, coordinated the physical attack to Ekatherini Thanou and Kostas Kenteris (the first white to become world's best in a sprint event, in the age of global athletics), hours before the opening of the Olympics in Athens 2004. No wonder that the IOC is working overtime to push forward the doping conspiracy (1), one of the most important illuminati hoaxes, serving many key agendas.
Illuminati Israel agenda for dummies The 2 basic facts: -one of the illuminati end times agendas is the destruction of Israel. - the most important weapon of the illuminati used to achieve this agenda is the government of Israel, a bunch of traitors on the illuminati payroll.
Tyler Hamilton went on the Today Show to promote his book. He says he would have taken his secrets to his grave if he had never been called before the Grand Jury and forced to testify.
It could be the last chance to see the fastest man ever and forever, before the illuminati stage the next and third act out of six. http://www.diamondleague.com/ Six acts Lance Armstrong accused 29 June 2012 - stripped of his Tour de France titles 24 August 2012 Usain Bolt accused ? - stripped of his Olympics and World titles ? "Hussein Obama II" accused ? - stripped of his 44th presidential title ?
MattMarriott wrote:Today at 7 PM GMT Usain Bolt at 100 m of Brussels Van Damme meeting. Censored by global illuminati media as all other appearances except for the Olympics http://www.sportlive.co.za/moresport/at ... n-brussels It could be the last chance to see the fastest man ever and forever, before the illuminati stage the next and third act out of six. http://www.diamondleague.com/ Six acts Lance Armstrong accused 29 June 2012 - stripped of his Tour de France titles 24 August 2012 Usain Bolt accused ? - stripped of his Olympics and World titles ? "Hussein Obama II" accused ? - stripped of his 44th presidential title ?
First of all, Brussels is tomorrow, not today. Second, the Illuminati did not strip Lance of anything. He doped and got caught. Third, if Bolt were indeed a doper and were stripped of his titles, it would indeed be the End of Days . . . but not for the world, just Track & Field.
Conor Dary wrote:He never really got caught, like say Contador, who by the way is leading the Vuelta. Such a nice system.
Maybe technically, but that is arguable given the alleged cover up with the Tour de Suisse test. Evidently, rumors have it also that USADA has obtained blood samples from the past that have been retested and have tested positive and this information is going to be released sometime in the near future.
Also have heard that Hamilton's book is going to turn heads. Not so much Lance as the sport and its culture in general.
Conor Dary wrote:He never really got caught, like say Contador, who by the way is leading the Vuelta. Such a nice system.
rumors have it also that USADA has obtained blood samples from the past that have been retested and have tested positive and this information is going to be released sometime in the near future.
Well, they say sunshine is the best disinfectant, and thanks to former cyclists who are trying to clear their conscience and/or sell books, the sport of cycling is getting as much sun as Texas on a clear August day. First, World Champion and 3-time Paris-Roubaix winner Johan Museeuw:
"I am the first to admit it openly, and perhaps many people will blame me that I break the silence, but it must be: virtually everyone took doping at that time,” he told the Gazet van Antwerpen.
"We must break with the hypocrisy. The only way to come out of that murderous spiral is to break the silence, the silence that continues to haunt us.”
Everyone must confess to their part, he said. “If we do not then the borrowing into the past will continue. Only a collective mea culpa is the way to the future.”
Doping was a fact of life at that period, he said. “In the 80s and 90s everyone knew what each other was doing but never said a word about doping. Using doping was something everyone did. Eventually it became a part of your lifestyle."
And then former Armstrong teammate and current Garmin-Sharp D.S. Jonathan Vaughters unloads on the cyclingnews.com message board by outing current riders on his own team who have never flunked a drug test:
Writing openly in the Cyclingnews forum, Vaughters further said that Tom Danielson, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie had doped in the past, bluntly discussed personalities on the team and discussed his standards for hiring riders, all the while relating virtually all of it to doping.
"CVV, Zabriskie, Danielson, while all clearly have a past, and from an ethical standpoint are no different from JJ, there is a very pragmatic difference," wrote Vaughters. "That difference is performance based. Basically, I knew from what my time at USPS, how "inside" or not those riders were. Based on this, I knew their transgressions, while ethically the same as JJ's, were much less in terms of enhancing performance. Therefore, I knew they could perform close to their enhanced level, clean."
I find Vaughters comments riveting and I think it will cause a lot of reverberations in the world of cycling. Is it good or bad for cycling that so many cyclists and former cyclists are washing their dirty laundry out in public?
jazzcyclist wrote: Is it good or bad for cycling that so many cyclists and former cyclists are washing their dirty laundry out in public?
Truly wonderful. A circular firing squad for the sport. But no real evidence, just more, hey I saw them do it!...
For me, if you take personalities out of the equation, you’re left with pee in a cup and blood in a syringe. Armstrong never failed a drug test. He was tested in competition, out of competition. He was tested at the Olympics, at the Tour de France, at dozens if not hundreds of other events. And he never failed a test. We know this because if he had, Travis T. Tygart, the head of USADA, would have personally delivered the results to every home in America, like a grim little Santa Claus.
Instead, Tygart gathered a group of people who swear they saw Armstrong doping. There has been no trial, no due process, but in the minds of many, that testimony outweighs the results of hundreds of drug tests.
jazzcyclist wrote: Is it good or bad for cycling that so many cyclists and former cyclists are washing their dirty laundry out in public?
Truly wonderful. A circular firing squad for the sport. But no real evidence, just more, hey I saw them do it!...
Did you read my whole post? Vaughters and Museeuw, who were never popped during their careers are saying, "This is what I did and this is what my riders have done". They're not sayiing "I saw him do this", and neither of them is pointing the finger at Armstrong. Do you think Museeuw's idea of a "collective mea culpa" of the entire peleton would be a good idea in the long run? Should the peleton end the "omerta"?
jazzcyclist wrote: Did you read my whole post? Vaughters and Museeuw, who were never popped during their careers are saying, "This is what I did and this is what my riders have done". They're not sayiing "I saw him do this", and neither of them is pointing the finger at Armstrong. Do you think Museeuw's idea of a "collective mea culpa" of the entire peleton would be a good idea in the long run? Should the peleton end the "omerta"?
These cyclists are saying that it was relatively easy to beat the doping tests so a passed doping test doesn't mean a whole lot other to those that are naive in the general population. They had sophisticated doping regimes and those in high places that helped them beat the system. So given that, how much credibility does the doping system now have.
USADA has stated in a nutshell that a primary reason for going after Armstrong is because of the vast resources he was using to beat the system and that doing so will help undermine the ability of others to do the same in the future.
Given all the fallout now happening with confessions galore, maybe they are right about this. Only time will tell.
One thing in Hamilton's book was a comment that many believed there was a level playing if all riders were doping, and maybe to some extent that is true. However, he mentioned that doctors told him that is not necessarily the case because athletes bodies respond to the "chemical infusion" differently and that certain athletes have a better result and advantage where others bodies do not respond as well.
odelltrclan wrote:These cyclists are saying that it was relatively easy to beat the doping tests so a passed doping test doesn't mean a whole lot other to those that are naive in the general population. They had sophisticated doping regimes and those in high places that helped them beat the system. So given that, how much credibility does the doping system now have.
I think one way to guage how clean the sport is is by comparing the cyclists times up the traditional climbs to prior years' times. Last year's climbs in the Tour were the slowest in over a decade.
odelltrclan wrote: One thing in Hamilton's book was a comment that many believed there was a level playing if all riders were doping, and maybe to some extent that is true. However, he mentioned that doctors told him that is not necessarily the case because athletes bodies respond to the "chemical infusion" differently and that certain athletes have a better result and advantage where others bodies do not respond as well.
That sure is convenient on Hamilton's part. Nameless doctors, without any evidence, who claim that some benefit and others don't. We sure can believe Hamilton....
As for the USADA they also claim that they are a non-governmental agency, which is funny since they get most of their money from the US government.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think one way to guage how clean the sport is is by comparing the cyclists times up the traditional climbs to prior years' times. Last year's climbs in the Tour were the slowest in over a decade.
I don't know for sure if this is true or not because I did not watch much of the tour this year but someone on the Cycling News message boards I believe mentioned that they stopped broadcasting power output because Wiggins and Froome were constantly hitting levels from days under suspicion.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think one way to guage how clean the sport is is by comparing the cyclists times up the traditional climbs to prior years' times. Last year's climbs in the Tour were the slowest in over a decade.
I don't know for sure if this is true or not because I did not watch much of the tour this year but someone on the Cycling News message boards I believe mentioned that they stopped broadcasting power output because Wiggins and Froome were constantly hitting levels from days under suspicion.
Someone from a message board? Solid evidence there....
odelltrclan wrote:However, he mentioned that doctors told him that is not necessarily the case because athletes bodies respond to the "chemical infusion" differently and that certain athletes have a better result and advantage where others bodies do not respond as well.
That sure is convenient on Hamilton's part. Nameless doctors, without any evidence, who claim that some benefit and others don't. We sure can believe Hamilton....
I don't see what's so controversial about this. I believe pego and/or bambam have said the same thing about athletes bodies responding differently to PED's. This seems pretty elemental to me.
odelltrclan wrote:However, he mentioned that doctors told him that is not necessarily the case because athletes bodies respond to the "chemical infusion" differently and that certain athletes have a better result and advantage where others bodies do not respond as well.
That sure is convenient on Hamilton's part. Nameless doctors, without any evidence, who claim that some benefit and others don't. We sure can believe Hamilton....
I don't see what's so controversial about this. I believe pego and/or bambam have said the same thing about athletes bodies responding differently to PED's. This seems pretty elemental to me.
jazzcyclist wrote: I don't see what's so controversial about this. I believe pego and/or bambam have said the same thing about athletes bodies responding differently to PED's. This seems pretty elemental to me.
Obviously people are going to react to anything differently. When a Sherpa, who had climbed Everest 10 times, died in an avalanche, a doctor on NPR said the guy had a hematocrit of 70! So obviously EPO would not help him much.
But what is Hamilton's point? That drugs didn't help him? Who do they help?
jazzcyclist wrote: I don't see what's so controversial about this. I believe pego and/or bambam have said the same thing about athletes bodies responding differently to PED's. This seems pretty elemental to me.
Obviously people are going to react to anything differently. When a Sherpa, who had climbed Everest 10 times, died in an avalanche, a doctor on NPR said the guy had a hematocrit of 70! So obviously EPO would not help him much.
But what is Hamilton's point? That drugs didn't help him? Who do they help?
I think his point was that the peleton rationalization, that they were riding on a level playing since everybody was doping, isn't necessarily true. The difference in response doesn't have to be that great for it to matter in a 4000K bike race. For example if one rider's VO2 Max increases by 10% from taking EPO and another rider's VO2 Max increases by 11% from the same dosage, you're talking significant time gains over three weeks and 90 hours of riding.
jazzcyclist wrote: I think his point was that the peleton rationalization, that they were riding on a level playing since everybody was doping, isn't necessarily true. The difference in response doesn't have to be that great for it to matter in a 4000K bike race. For example if one rider's VO2 Max increases by 10% from taking EPO and another rider's VO2 Max increases by 11% from the same dosage, you're talking significant time gains over three weeks and 90 hours of riding.
jazzcyclist wrote: I think his point was that the peleton rationalization, that they were riding on a level playing since everybody was doping, isn't necessarily true. The difference in response doesn't have to be that great for it to matter in a 4000K bike race. For example if one rider's VO2 Max increases by 10% from taking EPO and another rider's VO2 Max increases by 11% from the same dosage, you're talking significant time gains over three weeks and 90 hours of riding.
Okay, so what?
I realize this is a sore subject for you, but no one is forcing to read this thread.
Conor Dary wrote:But what is Hamilton's point? That drugs didn't help him?
Irrelevant. Did he dope? Case closed. Next case.
What is your point? The issue of the book is doping in cycling, not Lance Armstrong, not Tyler Hamilton, but the culture of the sport. Of course the drugs helped him. He has admitted that. The point, as Jazz mentioned, is the rationalization by cyclists and general public of the "so what" they were all doing it. So they created their own level playing field, when that is NOT true. Since different athletes respond differently to drugs the king of the doping era would not necessarily be king if they were all clean. Taking it a step further, people say, well, if they were all clean, Armstrong would be champion still, when there is a very good chance that is not true.
Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.
odelltrclan wrote:Taking it a step further, people say, well, if they were all clean, Armstrong would be champion still, when there is a very good chance that is not true.
Look at how many tours it took Armstrong to even finish one. Then you look at a guy like LeMond who finished 3rd in his first tour, 2nd in his second where he believes he could have won if not a domestique for Hinault before winning in his third year. When you see things like that you wonder how much of Armstrong's success was talent.
But remember that according to Frankie Andreu's testimony, Armstrong was doping even in his pre-cancer years when he was just a Tour also ran. And I wouldn't make too much of him abandoning the Tour when he was young since Indurain did the same thing when he was young. Also, he returned from cancer 20 pounds lighter than before and that makes a big difference in the mountains. I doubt that the difference is so dramatic that it would turn a journeyman into a Grand Tour winner.
Just look at baseball, back in the 80's before steroids became prevalent, Barry Bonds was winning MVP's and Roger Clemens was winning Cy Young awards.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist wrote:I think one way to guage how clean the sport is is by comparing the cyclists times up the traditional climbs to prior years' times. Last year's climbs in the Tour were the slowest in over a decade.
I don't know for sure if this is true or not because I did not watch much of the tour this year but someone on the Cycling News message boards I believe mentioned that they stopped broadcasting power output because Wiggins and Froome were constantly hitting levels from days under suspicion.
Someone from a message board? Solid evidence there....
Evidence for what? I was just making a comment that someone had concerning the TV stopping mid race in showing wattage generated by the riders. Those people were just curious. This is not meant to be evidence of anything. Someone is searching for something to be touchy about!
Evidence for what? I was just making a comment that someone had concerning the TV stopping mid race in showing wattage generated by the riders. Those people were just curious. This is not meant to be evidence of anything. Someone is searching for something to be touchy about!
Nothing touchy, but who really cares about gossip from another message board. It is just a lot of hot air.
