Lance Armstrong charges

I can't take anything Wiggins says seriously - are we honestly supposed to believe that he didn't know about Armstrong's doping before the USADA ruling? Sadly, that also means that when he says he's clean and all that crap about his son, I can't take that seriously either.
 
R.P.L said:
I can't take anything Wiggins says seriously - are we honestly supposed to believe that he didn't know about Armstrong's doping before the USADA ruling? Sadly, that also means that when he says he's clean and all that crap about his son, I can't take that seriously either.
Click to expand...

Why would he have known about it before the USADA ruling? How many people knew before then? Sure, plenty of people suspected, but how many actually knew?
 
Given the statistics (90% of the riders over the last 15 odd years), who finished on the podium in the Tour have been implicated in a doping scandal, I can't see how/why cheating is all of a sudden a thing of the past.

The opposing argument is that it is now much more difficult to cheat.

Wiggins' meteoric rise up the rankings though, is quite incredible.

I think each cycling fan has to make up his own mind, as there is no absolute proof on whether the top riders of today are cheating. Until they are busted, we have to assume that they are clean...and that includes the vastly improved, Wiggins. For the time being at least, he is the best overall cyclist in the World, having won the TDF and the Olympic Gold Medal Time Trial.

On the subject of LA. There are mutterings that LA in 2009 was doping.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21195249

And there is also a court case coming, which involves a doctor being found with a large stash of blood, which allegedly belong to athletes of all disciplines (including cycling).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21227052

Think what you want, but there is strong evidence to suggest that cheating in sport is rife.
 
sunama said:
we have to assume that they are clean...and that includes the vastly improved, Wiggins.
Click to expand...

Vastly improved on what? :confused:

He's been one of the best time trialists for over 10 years and has consistently put in good performances in the TdF since he retired from track and switched focus to road racing (with the obvious exception of crashing out one year).
 
I hope for Lance's sake, he hasn't lied about not doping in the last 2 years of his career, just so he saves himself from perjury.

If he comes out in 2 years and admits that he did in fact cheat then, he may as well do it with a troll mask on.

That said, if he did that then any slither of a reputation he's gained back from the Oprah interview will be rinsed down the toilet. Lie once, fine.. but don't come back and say "oh and btw, that interview.. I LIED TROLOLOLOLOL"
 
oli collett said:
Jonathan Vaughters tweeted some interesting stuff regarding Wiggo - Apparently he idolised him in 2009 so it seems odd for him to say that it was obvious he was doping :confused:
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is what I meant in my post previous to the one you quoted. Wiggins was saying in 2009 about how everyone in cycling has benefited from Armstrong (can't find the article with the quote at the moment). That only makes sense in one of two scenarios - either Wiggins didn't know that Armstrong was doping (pretty much impossible in my opinion as I said), or he was willing to ignore it for whatever reason. In the latter scenario (which, again, is the only possibility IMO), it makes his outrage at the ruling and confession completely false.
 
Or he was in denial, so to speak, and didn't want to believe what he was hearing... He wouldn't have been anything close to the only one.
 
Wiggins should have been more sceptical about Armstrong but hindsight is 20/20. Having said that, I think Wiggins is clean. His upbringing on the track and in the British setup distanced him from the temptations that other neo-pros would have faced on the continent. His rise up the road cycling ranks coincides with firstly placing a greater focus on the road and secondly with dropping his track weight. He's also ridden for two of the most outspoken anti-doping teams in the peloton, though I think Sky have still let people down badly with the way they have handled the fall out from the Armstrong case. Sacking people was not the way to improve things and will only encourage people to keep quiet.

His blip in the 2010 Tour can be put down to a number of things- that he became a marked rider, that he hadn't prepared as well as he could and that Sky were a bit of a mess at the time. Since then, he's ridden as well as he could but he hasn't done anything as outlandish as some of Armstrong's superhero performances, like at Sestriere in 1999. Wiggins was very fortunate to have so few strong climbers in the peloton last year, I lost count of how many strong climbers crashed out either just prior to or during the Tour (Gesink, Hesjedal, Andy Schleck off the top of my head). The mountain stages will be very different with a few more of the climbing GC contenders around, particularly Contador.
 
One More Solo said:
He's also ridden for two of the most outspoken anti-doping teams in the peloton
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but on balance, it's only fair to point out that he was also on the Linda McCartney racing team which was investigated by the UK Anti-Doping Agency and Cofidis in 2007 when they pulled out of the TdF due to riders failing drugs tests (Wiggins was not one of the ones who failed a test though).

One More Solo said:
His blip in the 2010 Tour can be put down to a number of things- that he became a marked rider, that he hadn't prepared as well as he could and that Sky were a bit of a mess at the time.
Click to expand...
Yep, Team Sky's first racing season was 2010. They entered the TdF with a much more rounded team which didnt have as many strong climbing domestiques as they had for 2012. This is more due to the fact that they just didnt have the riders they needed, rather than poor choices by the management.
 
From what I recall, he never actually rode a race for the Linda McCartney team as they lost their funding very shortly after he joined. The Cofidis thing is a bit sketchy but I guess you have to resist the temptation to condemn people by association.

I must say that I keep Sky at arm's length. I'm delighted for Wiggo but there is something about the team that still doesn't quite sit right with me. Part of that was the presence of Sean Yates whose comments on doping have been less than helpful and claims to have never seen anything untoward while he was DS at Discovery. He was also in charge at Linda McCartney and (at best) turned a blind eye to what was going on there. He also failed a test while racing himself which is no mean feat given how poor the testing was.

I've no doubt Sky like all pro teams will employ some fairly "grey" methods in the name of marginal gains but I'd appreciate a lot more transparency from them to back up their anti-doping stance.
 
Doping Amnesty? That's what Lance has said the sport needs or no one will come forward. Bias and personal views aside he makes some interesting points:

“As much as I’m in the eye of the storm, this is not about one man, one team, one director. This is about cycling and to be frank it’s about ALL endurance sports. Publicly lynching one man and his team will not solve this problem.”
Click to expand...

The UCI is currently at loggerheads with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and USADA over the creation of a truth and reconciliation commission and in particular an amnesty for drug cheats.

Armstrong claimed that he suggested setting up a commission to UCI president Pat McQuaid “many months ago” but the idea was rejected out of hand. The Texan also called the Irishman “pathetic” and claimed he was protecting himself.

Without an amnesty “no one will show up,” Armstrong added, claiming that no generation of professional riders was exempt from doping, but WADA should be in charge of the process and “the UCI has no place at the table.”

Asked about an alternative, he said: “Cycling will never die it will just simmer. Zero growth. Sponsors leaving, races cancelled — this we are seeing.

“This current state of chaos and petty ********, *** for tat, etc., will just ensure that cycling goes flat or negative for a decade-plus, which is a real shame for the current crop of young pros the sport has.”
Click to expand...

Article was in cyclingnews I can't link it as it contains strong language but Google: "Cyclingnews lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview" should bring it up.

Also Michael Rasmussen, ex Rabobank has just admitted to 12 years of doping.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/michael-rasmussen-confesses-to-12-years-of-doping
 
Last edited:
uniQ said:
Doping Amnesty? That's what Lance has said the sport needs or no one will come forward. Bias and personal views aside he makes some interesting points:





Article was in cyclingnews I can't link it as it contains strong language but Google: "Cyclingnews lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview" should bring it up.

Also Michael Rasmussen, ex Rabobank has just admitted to 12 years of doping.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/michael-rasmussen-confesses-to-12-years-of-doping
Click to expand...

This makes me ******* sick. LA is trying to paint himself as the saviour of cycling. Lance, you typify all that is wrong with cycling. You are a ******* scum bag, and if it were up to me you will rot in non-cycling hell for ever. No repreive for you. No Triathalons for you. You DO deserve the death penalty.
 
I do agree with what LA is saying.
In order to get an idea of the true scale of doping, they need to interview riders, giving them amnesty for anything that is mentioned during the interview. What's done is done. In order to improve testing and anti doping regimes, the authorities need to find out how riders of today and yesteryear are cheating.

With regards to Rasmussen, here is the bbc article. He was doping for just as long as LA, but he just wasn't as good.

IMO, pretty much all the top riders were at "it" and LA just happened to be the best of all the cheaters. For me, he remains the best cyclist during his years of dominance.

This one's for Hincapie: I am interested to know why you are directing so much vitriol towards LA? Other riders were also doping - so what makes LA so much worse?
 
sunama said:
IMO, pretty much all the top riders were at "it" and LA just happened to be the best of all the cheaters. For me, he remains the best cyclist during his years of dominance.
Click to expand...

My personal belief is that no-one has ever won the Tour de France clean.

The more research I do, the more true I believe that to be.

This one's for Hincapie: I am interested to know why you are directing so much vitriol towards LA? Other riders were also doping - so what makes LA so much worse?
Click to expand...

Because of his arrogance. Because of his lies. Because of the careers and reputations he has destroyed. Because of the dreams he has shattered with his lies and deceit.

Do I need to go on?
 
One More Solo said:
Part of that was the presence of Sean Yates whose comments on doping have been less than helpful and claims to have never seen anything untoward while he was DS at Discovery.
Click to expand...

Yates did say that he saw nothing untoward while working with LA.
TBH, this would be my response if I were in his position. I would never dob-in a friend/team-mate. Never have. Never will. Also consider that USP were paying his wages. I dont believe in biting off the hand that feeds me.

Being a snitch just doesn't sit well with me, unless the offence is extremely serious, eg murder, rape, etc.

Cheating in sport, in the grand scheme of things, is minor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom