Lance Retires! Is it time to absolve him of his sins?
- Thread starter lance_armstrong
- Start date
Perhaps. In professional cycling it is extremely rare to win 7 editions of any race. Apart from Armstrong I can only think of Merckx's 7 wins at Milan- San Remo and Kelly's 7 at Paris- Nice. Anyone know of any others??
Of course Merckx and Kelly also won lots of other races!! /img/vbsmilies/smilies/smile.gif
All you folks out there that are happy to jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence might want to read this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jonathan-vaughters/connecting-the-dots
do the following exercise in Youtube: select the 1998 or the 1997 or even 1996 tour and watch out the action in the mountains, keeping in mind all the information we posses today. So there you will be positive that all those guys are on EPO, it will change your perspective. It is difficult to say that the 1999 tour was any different, with Armstrong in action upfront.
Thanks for posting; this is a good piece. Big of Vaughters to admit his prejudice. The notion that "you know they all do it" is a classic used to deprive groups of their rights. Since we know everyone in the group must be guilty, no need to waste time collecting evidence......
you know, of course, this is the same j vaughters who has kept silent about the doping when he was in the peloton, right? he hasn't made what one would call a true accounting of what he witnessed during those years. and to be frank, how does turning in a doping ring equate to "i'm not doping"? maybe tondo wasn't satisfied with their price schedule.
Slovak, good points you've made. I was too quick to use this "revelation" by Vaughters to help confirm my view. Agree that turning in a teammate really proves nothing.
Back to Lance, I still believe he is entitled to the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty", and to me the fact that he passed all his hundreds of tests means he "met the standard". Proving he never took any substance which is now considered to be "doping" is really impossible, since we can't prove a negative. Seems to me we still need to clarify the question here. ....what does it mean when an athlete declares he never doped in his career? Is it a legal definition, or something stricter? What if the athlete held up a list of banned drugs and said I never took any of these?
Are all legal and prescription drugs included which an althlete might need to stay healthy and compete included, or just those on a banned list with a known effect? For example, if I take OTC psuedoephirine during spring allergy season to clear congestion and avoid sinus infections, but quit 24 hours before a local race, is that doping? I know I won't be tested, but should I feel guilty even though the effect on my performance was nil? If I win some prize money, should I "confess" and refuse the money? If there were a UCI-style drug test which would likely reveal a positive for stimulants, would that have changed my behavior? If so, then am I ethically guilty, since the test is all that kept me from "doping"?
What if I've been using ibuprofen or other OTC pain-reliever to enhance my ability to stay on the training schedule during the tough weeks? Those extra intervals weeks before the big event may have made a critical difference in my performance. If I win my club crit series, do I need to confess that I was using NSAIDs during training?
you are right on all counts. Certainly no absolution is ever possible without a confession. Armstrong is gone now, and the problem of doping still remains. Can cycling ever return to fair competition? The best we can hope for is that a few top riders from a few top teams will have access to similar science of performance enhancement / antidoping expertise.
Hey, just wanted to correct a few things on this thread. Quite a few people have said Lance never tested positive, that is incorrect. Lance has tested positive but has never been sanctioned which is not the same.
Lance tested positive for cortisone in 99 during the Tour but produced an TUE (Theraputic Use Exemption) form which the UCI accepted even though his medical handook did not include any such information in regards to TUEs and Lance stated at the Tour that he didnt have any TUEs. That is fact.
Lance's soigneur later said that the TUE was only produced after US Postal got wind that he tested positive and their team doctor Del Moral backdated the TUE.
Del Moral is the doctor who supplied Floyd Landis with his doping products during 05-06 according to Landis.
Doping in cycling is not about positive tests, its about joining the dots. If it were about positive tests then the likes of Ullrich, Basso, Valverde would not have been banned from the sport. Currently Ricardo Ricco is under the spotlight again because he wants to return to the sport, it seems highly unlikely as a doctor who recently treated Ricco for kidney failure has said that Ricco told him that he gave himself a blood transfusion. This is just a story but seems like it might put most teams of signing Ricco again, he had been signed up by Vacansoleil but when this story broke, they ditched Ricco. Is that proof of Ricco doping.
Ullrich was more or less booted from the sport becaue the name "Hijo de Rudy" appeared in the Funetes files, how is that proof of Ullrich doping but the majority of cycling fans have accepted that Ullrich is guitly as were Basso, Valverde even though their actual real names never appeared in the Fuentes Files.
Any cycling fan who believes positive tests are the only proof of doping are living in dreamworld. Most people who back Lance simply ignore all the things that happen to other riders, when it is Lance, its only rumours and innuendo but with other riders, its enough to get them banned from the sport. Hypocrisy.
Other's have said the UCI are guilty in protecting riders and this is totally true especially when it come's to the golden cow.
Lance tested positive for cortisone in 99 during the Tour but produced an TUE (Theraputic Use Exemption) form which the UCI accepted even though his medical handook did not include any such information in regards to TUEs and Lance stated at the Tour that he didnt have any TUEs. That is fact.
Lance's soigneur later said that the TUE was only produced after US Postal got wind that he tested positive and their team doctor Del Moral backdated the TUE.
Del Moral is the doctor who supplied Floyd Landis with his doping products during 05-06 according to Landis.
Doping in cycling is not about positive tests, its about joining the dots. If it were about positive tests then the likes of Ullrich, Basso, Valverde would not have been banned from the sport. Currently Ricardo Ricco is under the spotlight again because he wants to return to the sport, it seems highly unlikely as a doctor who recently treated Ricco for kidney failure has said that Ricco told him that he gave himself a blood transfusion. This is just a story but seems like it might put most teams of signing Ricco again, he had been signed up by Vacansoleil but when this story broke, they ditched Ricco. Is that proof of Ricco doping.
Ullrich was more or less booted from the sport becaue the name "Hijo de Rudy" appeared in the Funetes files, how is that proof of Ullrich doping but the majority of cycling fans have accepted that Ullrich is guitly as were Basso, Valverde even though their actual real names never appeared in the Fuentes Files.
Any cycling fan who believes positive tests are the only proof of doping are living in dreamworld. Most people who back Lance simply ignore all the things that happen to other riders, when it is Lance, its only rumours and innuendo but with other riders, its enough to get them banned from the sport. Hypocrisy.
Other's have said the UCI are guilty in protecting riders and this is totally true especially when it come's to the golden cow.
