This entry is now closed for comments.
To me, it is a similar story of financial regulators failed to regulate subprime and those bankers gone rook.
The people trying to defend LA or to pooh-pooh the report are like Creationists. No amount of evidence will ever be enough to shake their faith in Saint Lance.
the biggest cheat in the history of sport and he still denies it .he should be prosecuted and jailed. i'll never buy another sheryl crow record again.
Kerop, blaming USADA is er like shooting the messenger. He's guiltyget over it. More importantly to all those Tour De France cyclists who resisted the pressure to cheat and to those who succeeded without cheating. My petite chapeau is doffed, repeatedly, bon chance - wherever you are. As for the UCI, you owe them apology, you failed.
and one more thing:Since when Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis became ''self-confessed''? The minute the doping controllers became blind when they saw the ''glow'' of their blood samples?
USADA have to stand trial for:a) wasting public money without being able to catch 'serial cheater' Lance Armstrong despite 'widespread rumors' and 'substantial' evidenceb) lying to general public for whole 15 (or more) years that not a single drug cheat will get thru their netsc) blackmailing, bribing and generally intimidating other cyclists to submit false evidence
Greg Lemond. My hero. Trek should apologise.
Travis Tygart, what a legend ... the man who openly admits, and lets the world know in a 1000 page report, that the US anti-doping programme is years behind where it needs to be and has somehow created this deflection of blame and attention on to a sporting legend rather than focussing on where it needs to be - on him and Usada ... genius!
@ 370.Little_Old_Me Armstrong declined the chance to have his day in court. Don't try and spin the facts differently, that's lying. Which is what Armstrong has done for years, along with intimidation and bribery. If i were innocent i'd want my day in court. Check why the Fed case was dropped before you commence whining about that. Pressure from politicans played a large part.
It is clear from the stats, given that the average speed of riders in the TDF now and then (now being much slower), that something was amiss.There's a sense that this is personal, an unfounded vilification of a major talent. Not so, LA is just a statistic - if it wasn't him it would be somebody else. He willingly accepted the glory so he has to accept the disgrace.
How anyone can even think LA was a clean cyclist is beyond all credibility. This is an injustice to those who had to put up with his intimidatory tactics; the scorn and boycott of honest fellow professionals in cycling and journalism and the ultimate unfairness to cyclists who could not win because they were determined to keep good faith with their public who expect a level playing field.
I don't get is this. No one disputes that LA's team mates took perfomance enhancing substances. Further, it is accepted that the TDF is only ever won as a team effort. The victor relying on team mates to spur him on, shield them etc. during their weaker stages.Whichever way you look at it, some of LA's victories are tainted by drugs use even if, and it's a big if, he was clean.
David Walsh's books convinced me and I never had a single doubt after that. I never liked US Postal as they were too dominant to be anything other than very suspicious in their overwhelming control of the TdF while they participated there. AS a person I thought LA was abrasive, egotistical & arrogant. His cancer outfit should be thoroughly audited. Walsh is right about that too.
Firstly the accounts given by those saying they saw Armstrong dope is NOT hearsay. It is a witness testimony. It IS in its own right credible evidence for a case file.Secondly this IS NOT the only source of evidence in the reportWhat some are implying is that someone could murder a person, in front of 20 witnesses but as long as they hid the body the witnesses wvidence would not be enough
~373Your post at #332'... the only thing anyone seems to claim hthe Dr did was rigourous phsycial testing & analysis of the results......i.e. standard practice in pro sports.'The report does not say this so re-read your own posts and stop making accusations of lying when they are clearly shown on the forum.#Numpty
372.BeardyHow desperate you must be to claim I said that when I have said no such thing - so far from it that I have said several times it is proven he was involved in doping in some cases precedding this one........you sir are a liar......I did not say Dr F was never involved in drugs programmes....
#369 L-O-MYou're wilful blindness is evident in that you stated Dr F had not particpated in administering a drug programme. This is clearly incorrect when you read the report. The evidence of TH etc may be tainted but there is fartoo much to ignore. Hincapie had never been caught and only confessed his involvement when retired. Emma O'Reilly has nothing to gain.
If, as is claimed, doping was endemic in cycling since the beginning of time, why weren't USADA and the UCI aware of this in the Lance era? Surely, they couldn't both have been THAT dumb? Where is the empirical evidence against Lance, not just the circumstantial speculation and hearsay of ex-riders in their desperate, twilight years?
We're having some problems displaying the comments at the moment. Sorry. We're doing our best to fix it.
You must sign in to rate comments