Lance Armstrong Charged

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Yeah, but that is a different thing, isn't it? They are a government entity, who are therefore much more liable to go around trying to make moral points.

[ursus arctos]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Yes and no.

Their calculus is different, but they were nonetheless a significant sponsor. I would also think that there are other contractual counterparties from his later career that will be evaluating claims, as they didn't get the benefits that the earlier sponsors did. For smaller entities, they could actually expose themselves to shareholder litigation if they fail to pursue reasonable claims to recover funds.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Small beer, surely? As long as Nike and Trek in particular hold off, enough of his fortune* ought to be secure for him to remain rich.

* - wherever it is squirreled away.

I strongly doubt those who want to see him penniless on the basis that he has never earned a legitimate dime in his life will get any satisfaction.

[ursus arctos]

Lance Armstrong Charged

It all depends what he's done with the money.

Athletes who have earned more than Armstrong ever did have ended up with nothing.

It's also worth noting that it can be easier to enforce an arbitration award in another jurisdiction than it is to enforce a US court judgement.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Oh, many have done, for sure. But Armstrong's personality type seems very different from your Bernie Kosars.
Quite a lot has been made about Armstrong's avarice, it is often postulated as his primary emotional driver. As such I find it hard to imagine him investing in things because a 'friend' says they have a good idea but just need some cash behind, or simply handing it to family members, which are common reasons for sporting fortunes to evaporate.
Another way they do so is the Sportsperson is simply a somewhat out-of-control personality type always seeking a rush. That is rather different from the sociopath that popular diagnosis has Armstrong pegged as.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

ursus arctos wrote: Janik, we are on the same page with regard to the UCI's unwillingness to dig deeper (or at the very least empower a real "truth and reconciliation" process) being shameful.

The one they did empower appears to have thrown the entire organisation under the bus. I doubt Cookson is too worried about the former regime being given such a public kicking, but by saying doping remains a very serious problem to this day might cause him issues. Because, well, he owes a certain amount to Sky and British Cycling in general. If the current era really is thoroughly dirty, they would be doing remarkably to be winning in it whilst clean.

Linky to the full report.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

The Commission understands that in an effort to seek the same performance enhancing benefit without violating the rules, riders may also be using a homeopathic pill that could potentially increase their testosterone levels.

You what?

Never ask lawyers to explain science.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

1.2.1. What is meant by “being clean”?
There is no “one size fits all” definition from within the sport of what clean means. The generally accepted understanding of being clean is that an athlete does not take products that are on the WADA Prohibited List. Some riders will take substances on the List but , having not been caught, consider themselves clean. Some will take substances that are on the List but are not yet detectable, and therefore believe that they are clean. Some riders stop doping before a big event and therefore consider themselves to be riding clean. All definitions have been described by riders and other stakeholders. The Commission heard that some riders also experiment with performance - enhancing substances and practices that are not yet on a banned list.
There is a considerable amount of spin around what being clean means to riders and teams. It can be used today in the same way that the phrase, “I have never tested positive” was sometimes used in the past to suggest that a doping rider had never doped. For the public, the presumption that a rider is clean has been eroded by the scandals over the years.
The Commission notes that despite the statements from riders and teams today that they are clean, the Commission was informed that hardly any riders in the peloton today are willing to allow their samples to be used anonymously for research purposes into developing new methods of drug detection. A box on doping control forms today can be ticked to enable such testing. The Commission was told that over 95% of the time, it is not ticked.

So they have learned from the Armstrong/l'Equipe thing.
And time for bed.

[longeared]

Lance Armstrong Charged

I'm glad they've produced this report, but it still feels like a missed opportunity overall. We've not learnt a great deal new about the past (other than McQuaid being a puppet of Verbruggen, which most have long suspected) but we're not learning much about the present. The only current rider in the list of individuals who testified is Froome, though it is eminently possible others did so and chose to maintain their anonymity (which is understandable if they fear repercussions from being seen to have blown the whistle on current practices)

So other than that they've interviewed a number of ex-riders, who it surely suits to say the peloton is dirty. Armstrong, in particular, could use such a fact in his ongoing campaign to have his ban reduced. Clearly there are still issues, there are riders doping (micro-dosing has been talked about for years), there are TUE abuses, there are individuals in the sport who should be removed because of their past. But it doesn't seem to me that there is any factual basis in the report to say "90% of riders are still doping".

All in all, we've not really achieved anything in terms of fresh revelations, yet it still gives sensationalist reactionaries like the Mail or Dan Roan a chance to give the sport a good kicking anyway.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

longeared wrote: But it doesn't seem to me that there is any factual basis in the report to say "90% of riders are still doping".

Likewise, having read some of the report, including the relevant section, that is pure hyperbole from the BBC. That is one person's unverified opinion, not backed up by anything else. Cherry picking at its worst.

There is an awful lot of iffy stuff, though. The entry I quote above about some considering clean = not been caught is hard to ignore. The TUEs and number of asthmatics in the peloton is such a glaring problem as well. There are good reasons to think there should be more asthmatics amongst professional sportsman than the general population, however counter-intuitive that statement may seem. But even with that, the amount is just wild.

[Toro Toro]

Lance Armstrong Charged

David Millar's response is very good:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/11458165/Cycling-doping-report-I-do-not-recognise-this-almost-tabloidesque-account.html

[anton pulisov]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Former doper claims peloton is clean.

[Toro Toro]

Lance Armstrong Charged

That is a technically more-or-less accurate summary, yes.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Toro, how would you chose to summarise Nicole Cooke's response to the report?

To pick out a key part:-
I have shared with authorities, many years ago, and several times since, my first-hand information about a member of staff who told me they were supplying another rider. That person still works in the sport; I don’t think anything has ever been done to target them or the riders who work with that person. The anti-doping authorities need to recruit staff who are far more determined. Currently the crooks are out there stealing, time and time again.

The whereabouts system can be easily fooled and is not fit for purpose. It is pleasing to see that the CIRC report identifies that riders are also circumventing the blood passport.

[Toro Toro]

Lance Armstrong Charged

One of the things the report makes clear is how different the situations in the men's and women's pelotons are. So I'd question how far we can extrapolate from Cooke's experiences to the current state of men's racing.

She also repeats the irritating thing of regarding Kimmage as vindicated by the report over the defamation claims, when in fact it found there was no evidence at all that a test had been surpressed, or that Armstrong had bribed anyone, which were the key allegations.

She's dead right about the TUEs, mind you.

[Borracho]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Toro Toro wrote: technically more-or-less

Oh boy.

[Toro Toro]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Well, he doesn't claim the peloton is clean, he claims it's cleaner than the report alleges. So in that respect, bryan's claim is strictly false, but it would be nit-picking to dwell on it. So; "more-or-less" true. You have a problem with that?

And it's strictly correct to call Millar an ex-doper; but it ignores the near-decade of honesty and campaigning for a cleaner sport which followed. So; technically true. You've a problem with that?

Since you haven't engaged with a single thing a single person has said to you on this or the rugby/doping thread, I don't expect a straight answer.

[Janik]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Interesting take of the temperature of the peleton [medical analogies and cycling, possibly not a great combination!]. Answer - steaming.

I'm intrigued by Brian Cookson's comments in there. He nearly, but doesn't quite, tell current riders that they have brought this report on themselves.

[Borracho]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Toro, by any chance were you educated by Jesuit priests?

[Toro Toro]

Lance Armstrong Charged

No answer to either question, no engagement with points made. Just as predicted.

Also, no. I'd ask what of it, but I don't want to let you pretend answering that is engaging.

[anton pulisov]

Lance Armstrong Charged

Feds get the all clear to sue the cycling pants off of Lance Armstrong.

Lance Armstrong must really regret the day he pissed off Floyd Landis.

[ursus arctos]

Lance Armstrong Charged

The issue for US Postal is proving damages, which isn't going to be easy.

I expect the parties to settle before trial

[Janik]

Never doubt ursus. Definitely don't bet against him.