I’ve become entangled in the Vaughters vs Millar debate. You know, as in Vaughters sat on his doping demons whilst hypocritically setting up a “clean team”. Which ironically gave Dave Millar a ride, too. Dave, the guy who sat on his demons for a shorter period of time and is thus “right” or “better” or perhaps a saint, even. OK, not a saint, but he’s definitely, apparently, a better man than Vaughters, who – as I said – sat on it and only confessed when pushed into it. One has honour intact, the other is to be despised. Well that’s social media at work, and even understandable in a sense. But life is never that simple, is it?
In many ways we truly have to “walk a mile in their shoes” before we can see inside their personal situations. Yes, on the face of it their stories are not dissimilar. But let’s look deeper. I’ll contract it somewhat as you can read the gory details with a quick search, anyway, or simply follow the links I provide at the end.
- Both Millar and Vaughters have confessed to doping, publicly and very clearly. Both have demonstrated remorse, regret and a strong belief to set things right
- Both felt pressured to perform, both by their own competitiveness and by external arguments that they needed to “keep up”
- Vaughters, by his own admission buried his guilt yet turned it into a positive force as well, exorcising his demons in building a “clean team”. He even hired Millar and other reformed dopers
- Millar had the higher profile as World Road TT champ but Vaughters was no slouch, either. He had wins, big wins, both at US national and international level. Neither was just a domestique
- Vaughters, with a lower profile as initially a junior member of USPS and later as one of several good lead riders at Credit Agricole dodged most of the mud throughout his career
- Millar was not so lucky in being in the media hot seat as a World Champion TTer, prologue rider and an Anglo member of a French team under intense doping speculation and police scrutiny
- Neither rider tested positive to doping of any sort in their careers (that I am aware of, anyway!)
- Both confessed publicly after being interviewed by the authorities
- However the timing and situation of their confessions is very different
- Millar has stated that he felt violated and humiliated as he was removed by French police from a public restaurant, searched and relieved of his possessions before being questioned and his apartment turned-over. He was locked in prsion cell. He was at that time an active professional bike racer
- Millar rode for Cofidis, a team under the pressure of media speculation, accusations and police investigations
- Vaughters, however, did not face such scrutiny during his riding career. He has claimed publically that his first pro team was built on clean riding and they were smashed. His second, the USPS team, was spectacularly successful. And whilst speculation existed around that team and its leader, and has grown since, he wasn’t considered a key element, nor publicly humiliated in the way Millar suffered. Indeed Vaughters left USPS and joined a team generally considered “clean”, Credit Agricole. Whilst there Vaughters famously suffered verbal abuse from an unnamed “famous rider” for he and his team refusing to take cortisone (a banned substance) for a wasp sting (as reported in this interview by Anthony Tan of Cyclingnews)
- Vaughters was subsequently interviewed by the US FDA much later, in his own country, with other former USPS team members. He was no longer an active bike racer, rather he was an experienced and well-respected team manager
- Millar denied his doping actions at first, only later confessing
- Vaughters is believed to have cooperated with the US FDA investigators when questioned and whilst we do not yet know exactly what was said, he has subsequently confessed to doping in his recent NYT article
- Millar sat on his demons for a shorter period of time, but he came under pressure almost immediately without the benefit of team and peer support. His team was collapsing under pressure, and he was an Anglo Scot in a French team. He denied, then he confessed. His testimony was initally personal and incriminated just himself, however he subsequently, in media interviews, questioned the team and its staff in supporting doping practices. He served out his suspension and returned to racing
- Vaughters sat on his demons for years, ended his career without doping drama and created a new “clean” career as a team owner and manager. In this he stands accused of long-running hypocrisy but it’s worth noting that unlike Millar he was not a world champ, nor a foreign rider in a French team under intense attack; although his later riding career with Credit Agricole must have given him some pause for thought. In contrast also Vaughters was a US rider on a US-team, and a champion team at that, with a champion rider as “the boss” – one Lance Armstrong. The team was close-knit and tight behind their leader, with any suspicion or allegation firmly denied and stamped out. Dissent was met with fierce rebuttal (check out Frankie Andreu‘s allegations for example)
- So whilst Millar met intense pressure early on and met it with little peer support, Vaughters faced no such immediate pressure to confess. Rather he (allegedly, I hasten to add) faced pressure to stay mute as a party to alleged conspiracy. A conspiracy of such size – allegedly - that it involves literally millions of dollars and multiple Tour de France wins. Only when the FDA investigators gave him the opportunity to tell all as part of a larger investigation, importantly under oath, did he apparently (as we don’t know yet what he testified) come clean
- So where Millar was put in a position to confess – or deny – relatively early, Vaughters had no such opportunity. Indeed his early confession would most likely have met the same robust public derision as met all of the others (such as Andreu, Landis and Hamilton) who have made public allegations about the alleged USPS team conspiracy.
To my mind whilst both men have much in common as dopers, racers and confessors, each had to live their own lives their own way. We cannot therefore say that Millar did the “right thing” and Vaughters the “wrong”, as the detail of their situations were quite different. Millar denied more vehemently, yet confessed anyway. But he was on his own, a Maltese-born Scottish Anglo world champion in a French team. Vaughters faced little such challenge during his racing career but probably felt massive ongoing peer pressure to stand strong with both the old team and the old boss. We can’t underestimate the power of any tightly-drilled team to keep a lid on the dirty washing. Yes, it took an investigation to get his apparent confession, but he wasn’t banged up in a French prison cell either. He now had the opportunity – like others in similar positions – to calmly air the dirt that he had sadly lived with. Allegedly and apparently, I stress, as we still don’t know what transpired in that FDA case, nor the explicit detail of the other apparent evidence collected by USADA against the alleged USPS “conspirators”.
So there, in a nutshell, is it. Well, that’s never “it”, is it? We don’t really know the ins and outs of what really transpired in these people’s lives. We are just going by public knowledge and a bit of guesswork, coupled with speculation and gossip. What did they really feel, what did they actually think? We just don’t know.
Want to read more?
Dopage du Jour
So why write and publish this piece now? It could just be his time. Or, more speculatively he wants to clear the air before bigger news hits the press. He has hinted at it in the past, and written pieces that have touched upon the issue. And he has been as steadfastly anti-doping as he has been refreshingly open to “reformed” dopers. He has given people a second chance. And now, in part, we know why.
David Millar – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They humiliated me and were critiquing my lifestyle, using a classic good cop, bad cop thing. It was psychological warfare. The bad cop literally hated me. He was saying: ‘You’re not a good person – we know that.’ He said: ‘You take three paces and I will bring you down like you’re resisting arrest.’ It was deliberate. I felt completely violated.”
Report: Hincapie Tells FDA Armstrong Took PEDs | Cyclingnews.com
The news agency AP has reported that George Hincapie (BMC) has informed the FDA that he witnessed Lance Armstrong using performance enhancing drugs. The claims come as part of an investigative report by 60 Minutes which also broke the news of Tyler Hamilton’s confession for doping and several similar allegations against Lance Armstrong. Armstrong has denied all accusations levelled against him by Hamilton. Hincapie rode in the US Postal colours from 1997 to 2004 with Armstrong, and was a teammate of Armstrong in each of his seven Tour de France victories.
Hamilton Says He Saw Armstrong Use EPO | Cyclingnews.com
Tyler Hamilton, a former teammate of Lance Armstrong has claimed that the seven time Tour de France winner used performance enhancing drugs, including EPO and testosterone during several of his Tour wins.
Hamilton Says He Saw Armstrong Use EPO | Cyclingnews.com
Another former Armstrong teammate, also a witness in the federal investigation, is Frankie Andreu. He tells “60 minutes” he took banned substances because lesser riders he believed were doping passed him by. “Training alone wasn’t doing it and I think that’s how…many of the other riders during that era felt, I mean, you kind of didn’t have a choice,” said Andreu.
Frankie Andreu – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2006, Andreu and his wife Betsy testified that Lance Armstrong told cancer doctors in their presence in 1996 he had doped with EPO (Erythropoietin), growth hormone and steroids. The Andreus’ testimony was intended to remain sealed in court documents and is among thousands of pages of documents related to litigation between Armstrong and a Texas-based company that was attempting to withhold a $5-million bonus. Armstrong swore under oath it didn’t happen. Frankie Andreu never offered information to media sources on the topic until court documents were released. He then stood by his testimony when giving interviews.
Frankie Andreu – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Andreu was fired as Team Director for the Toyota-United Pro Cycling Team on July 25, 2006. Although the team owner, Sean Tucker, refused to give a reason for the firing, it coincided with the controversy surrounding Andreu at the time.[7] Andreu has stated that he had everything to lose, including his job, by standing by his testimony, but felt that he should not be forced to deny his version of events.[8]
Jonathan Vaughters: The Sleek Geek | Cyclingnews.com
Some 15 years later, on the eve of the 2008 Tour de France, his first outing at the race as general manager of what was then Team Garmin-Chipotle, considered by many to be the staunchest anti-doping crew on the block, he told Paul Kimmage from the London Sunday Times: “He [Nunes] was out to conquer doping… Well, I don’t think ’96 was a really great time to do that.
“My teammates thought it was absolutely ludicrous that we didn’t dope on this team. We got made fun of, quite frankly, by some of the other riders. Mentally, the saving grace for me was that I still had nothing better to do with my life. I was the infinite optimist. ‘I’m going to improve. Things will get better. They will soon develop a test for EPO’.”
He would have to wait; it wasn’t until the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney that a urine test to detect EPO became available
Jonathan Vaughters: The Sleek Geek | Cyclingnews.com
his win atop the Ventoux in ’99 was extraordinary – “massive”, he says. “I felt okay. I wasn’t ecstatic,” he demurred. “Well, for sure, it was the best form of my life as a bike rider, but I wasn’t… I was just sort of… I will leave it at this; I wasn’t overly pleased with that victory. It was interesting to me. It answered a lot of questions. But it wasn’t the most ecstatic moment of my life by any means.”
Jonathan Vaughters: The Sleek Geek | Cyclingnews.com
an incident with an unnamed though “famous rider” the morning following his decision to abandon: “Poor Jonathan and his stupid little team,” the rider spat. “What the f*** are you like? If you were on my team this would have been taken care of, but now you are not going to finish the Tour de France because of a wasp sting.”
Said Vaughters: “I thought, ‘F***! Here I am, on this team that is really trying to stick by the books and this guy is making fun of us for playing by the rules’. My heart just left me after that. It just made me sad, just irrevocably sad. I raced [the following year] in 2002 but that was the moment that effectively ended my career. Phew! I was done. I didn’t want to race any more. It just didn’t seem to matter to me after that.”)
I know what Armstrong means, or I think I do, anyway. I imagine he feels persecuted and singled out in all of this, although there are actually a number of people facing the USADA on this one, not just him. He’s not really alone. But he is, I would agree, the biggest “scalp” on the line.
But he also feels (according to his twitter posts) that the witnesses, having done a deal, only give the evidence expected. And let’s face it, witnesses do deals when they can, where allowed by law. I don’t know if there’s any truth to the general allegations against the supposed conspirators, or even to this specific report of a deal for evidence. In some jurisdictions the threat of perjury is enough to extract the truth and whatever follows, follows. Applied justice for implicated witnesses may or may not appear lenient compared to others independently found guilty of similar offences. In other jurisdictions the bargaining is more overt. But it is what it is – a deal to extract the truth. If they are under oath and lie then they are perjuring themselves and may – indeed should – face further charges. So why lie? Just because you are offered leniency doesn’t mean that you then make up a story that fits what the accusers want, does it?
So the argument that you get the evidence you ask for is both true, in that you focus on the witnesses and evidence that you need to prove a case, and false in that you typically won’t get witnesses perjuring themselves just for the sake of it – at least not to the extent where they fabricate critical facts. So why dig a deeper hole than the one you are already in? The pay-off would have to be much larger – perhaps an outright bribe – and there’s simply no apparent evidence for that. Unless they are facing unknown torture or persecution, I guess. Possible, but.. a long-shot, surely? But, like God and Santa Claus, the untested and unprovable always remains a possibility.
So what could Armstrong mean? That he truly believes that any evidence obtained under a leniency deal is invalidated? Or that they have indeed been ‘bribed’ (or placed under some considerable duress) in order to in perjure themselves and prove a false case against him? Are his enemies that powerful and motivated? Why? What do they stand to gain? Up to now his apparent ‘enemies’ have been press reporters, forum posters and bloggers – plus the occasional fellow rider. Whilst the dirt-digging and mud-slinging may indeed have no basis in truth, these are not the sort of people who can force witnesses to testify falsely. Perhaps he sees greater forces behind this? The USADA, perhaps WADA and certainly some of the US Federal Justice system would appear possibilities. But why would they bother to target him, firstly, and secondly to pervert the course of justice by manufacturing evidence? What is driving this “vendetta”?
It used to be enough that he was an American, and a Texan to boot. That alone seemed to make him a target for at least some of the French press. (Although much of his press has been favourable, in fact.) That he appeared ruthless, without mercy and more than a touch arrogant only added to the appeal of the chase. Perhaps, to extend this theory, he simply won too many Tours. Would doing the ‘honourable’ thing and stopping at 5 have prevented this vendetta of sorts? But again, even given that some people may indeed be ‘out to get him’, why USADA? Why now? And why go so far as to strike deals that allegedly only tell USADA what they want to hear? What’s the payoff here? Who’s pulling the strings?
Mind you, no-one went after the other 5-time winners, at least not like this. Because Belgians, Frenchmen and Spaniards are allowed to win, irrespective? Maybe. Well at least one of them did get pinged on one occasion and paid a price of sorts, but not on this scale. And Indurain, like Armstrong, won 5 on the trot. But testing wasn’t as thorough then, I suppose, nor the anti-doping focus so fierce. (And blogging was unheard of, too.) Mind you, Greg LeMond was American and won 3 times. Yet he hasn’t attracted the sort of negative attention Armstrong has received. Indeed LeMond has expressed his own contrary views on Armstrong. Perhaps he is part of the vendetta, too.
Maybe that really is the case. Perhaps they really are out to get him. Perhaps he’s rubbed a few people up the wrong way. Seems like a lot for effort, though, and for what? If the allegations are proven false then USADA look wilful, malevolent and, well, incompetent. And Armstrong insists he’s clean, so maybe they are. But if the evidence is fairly presented and justice is served against him, they still lose. That Pro-cycling looks out of control, a sham, won’t bother them. But that drug testing is thus proven to be a failure (unless they really do have some iron-clad blood value irregularities we haven’t seen) seems a bit contrary to the USADA’s mission. And US athletes will be looked at as cheats forever more. So why do it? The argument will no doubt come out and it’s going to be interesting indeed!
Of course alternatively Armstrong may actually be in the wrong. We don’t know but many give him at least the benefit of the doubt for now. Sure, it looks bad. It has done for years. But what we “know” is only hearsay and often purely circumstantial. He may feel singled out because he is Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor, winner of 7 Tours de France and a hero to many, and his profile is much higher than any other winner of Le Tour, at least outside of Europe. His reach has extended way beyond cycling, unlike most succesful cyclists. Indeed so much of what he has done in creating and promoting the Livestrong foundation is indeed honourable and worthy. To be targeted for his benevolence and inspirational cancer-fighting drive would be, frankly, ludicrous. He’s done demonstrably good and noble work in that respect.
But if that good work is built on a deceit, then let’s be honest: we need to know. It would be major sporting fraud, on a scale unlike any we have seen before. To ignore it would be unfair to all of the clean athletes who were relegated to lesser placings during Armstrong’s career. Indeed many such riders would have paid hefty prices in shortened careers and lost income. How do we pay them back? Which is not to say that others didn’t commit the same deceit, of course, indeed they did. Some got away with it, for certain, but many have been caught and paid the price. So to ignore another (hypothetical) cheat on the basis that he has gone good, charitable work since is, alas, unfair even to the other cheaters. Either legalise performance enhancing drugs or make them pay. The choice is ours.
Let’s hope the legal process is open, fair and just.
Lance Armstrong (lancearmstrong) on Twitter
Lance Armstrong @lancearmstrong
This isn’t about @usantidoping wanting to clean up cycling – rather it’s just plain ol’ selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta.
Lance Armstrong (lancearmstrong) on Twitter
Lance Armstrong @lancearmstrong
So let me get this straight…come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear…
Lance Armstrong (lancearmstrong) on Twitter
Lance Armstrong @lancearmstrong
…in exchange for immunity, anonymity, and the opportunity to continue to race the biggest event in cycling..
Whilst we are still guessing about the hard evidence that USADA may have on Armstrong, we do know a lot about some of the allegations that have been made – and generally dismissed – in the past. One of these allegations implicates not just Armstrong but a whole army of people, including the governing body, the UCI. Now let me stress it’s just hearsay, really, but the story goes that Armstrong did fail a test, or at least return a result that was “questionable”, in 2001. And that subsequently, either through mishandling or something much more corrupt, all questions were dropped. The fingers are naturally pointed at the rider but also at those who decided to bury the case, if indeed the case ever existed. Unless the USADA has firm evidence of the conspiracy then it’s a non-starter anyway, as well as being somewhat time-expired. So do they have evidence, or indeed something completely different, and perhaps more recent to pursue?
USADA Case Against Armstrong Could Damage UCI, Ashenden Says | Cyclingnews.com
Ashenden’s concern does not relate to the alleged use of banned substances such as EPO or human growth hormone, but an alleged cover up of a doping control at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.
Armstrong took part in the race and, according to USADA, several witnesses have given testimony that Armstrong told them that a positive test had been covered up. Two former teammates, Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton, have both gone on record to substantiate the claims.
USADA’s letter of notification also includes reference to their own interview with the Lausanne lab director, Dr Martial Saugy, who conducted the tests in 2001. Saugy told USADA that Armstrong’s samples were indicative of EPO use. In May 2011 Saugy admitted to attending a meeting with former US Postal sports director Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong to discuss details of the early EPO test method.
“For me the thing that has the most far-reaching consequence is that several witnesses said that Armstrong talked about having a test result covered up,” Ashenden told Cyclingnews.
“That has enormous implications. If the evidence supports that charge it’s likely to descend cycling, which is already fending off a fair bit of criticism, into chaos. It’s hard to understate the ramifications. If Armstrong believed that he had a test that was covered up then that story doesn’t just end with him being sanctioned or not because other people must have been complicit with Armstrong.”
Bassons and Simeoni, 2 peope with a negative view of Lance Armstrong’s personality and, uh, life choices. Bitter? Probably. Informed? Well… shall we say Armstrong denies all – and at this stage that’s all we truly know, other than our personal feelings on the man. We can be sure that there’s a lot riding on this. Reputations to be lost, past race results overturned, personal fortunes lost and team sponsorships destroyed at the very least. Doping is but one aspect of sporting fraud.
Bassons And Simeoni Say Armstrong Probe Is Overdue | Cyclingnews.com
Bassons said that USADA’s action was “important” but also long overdue. “It’s a shame now that it’s coming 15 years after it all happened. It’s a shame because the evidence was there for years. I knew all along what was happening, so this doesn’t change anything for me. I don’t need fifteen pages of documents to tell me what I knew already,” Bassons told Cyclingnews.
Simeoni had similarly mixed feelings. The Italian said the possibility of Armstrong being condemned for doping left him “cold”. Simeoni also “can’t understand why suddenly now they’re investigating him, when for years he was allowed to do whatever he wanted.”
Yes, Schleck is out with a broken pelvis, and that’s a shame – even if he hasn’t actually shown good form of late anyway. But the big news is about… Lance Armstrong.
When a 7-time winner of Le Tour is named and shamed like this it must mean something. Either it’s simply the latest shot in a wide-ranging vendetta – nay, global conspiracy – against Armstrong, or it’s umm, a real doping charge with sufficient evidence to back it up? Now beating cancer yet winning Le Tour 7 times is a story in itself, but then falling in total dishonour would be just staggering. Will he get off? Will he lose the case? Will the case actually get off the ground? Do we care anymore?
Oh, yes, he denies everything by the way. And his loyal lieutenant Hincapie announced his retirement the other day, too, in an unrelated story.
The movie rights will be in hot demand. Expect another book – or 5.
Armstrong Charged With Doping By USADA | Cyclingnews.com
Lance Armstrong has been formally charged with doping by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) according to the Washington Post. The seven-time Tour de France winner has been banned from competition effective immediately, including triathlons which he has been racing since he retired from pro road cycling in 2011.
Armstrong Charged With Doping By USADA | Cyclingnews.com
“I have never doped, and, unlike many of my accusers, I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance, passed more than 500 drug tests and never failed one. That USADA ignores this fundamental distinction and charges me instead of the admitted dopers says far more about USADA, its lack of fairness and this vendetta than it does about my guilt or innocence.”
Missouri fan on team plane in federal drug probe
Hincapie retires — Five-time Olympian and Tour de France veteran George Hincapie will retire from cycling after the 2012 season. Hincapie, 38, is expected to ride his 17th Tour de France later this month, breaking the record he had shared with Dutch rider Joop Zoetemelk for the most Tour starts in history. (AP)
Contador has just lost a lot. A whole lot. Yes, he’s back soon, real soon, but what he has foregone (by choice, error of judgement or otherwise) would be more than enough to make a stellar pro cycling career. Just to ride a Tour de France is a career high, to win it is astounding. And that – and almost 2 years of excellent results, including a Giro win – has just evaporated in an instant. It will hurt.
It’s not that it’s cut and dried, he may well have been innocent, naive and unaware in his drug taking. In all likelihood it was a contaminated food supplement that contained the analobolic agent. It happens. But it was detected, it was there. The Clenbuterol was in his blood – one way or another. And on the basis of consistency (he’s hardly the first) he has to get 2 years off. Yes, others have also been let off or had the peroid reduced, but circumstances were clearly and utterly different. When single, isolated cases of Clenbuterol detection have arisen then the athlete concerned has (AFAIK) received 2 years off. So it’s a win for consistency and fairness, in that sense.
But then again, he may indeed have taken it unknowingly. There is no evidence for deliberate ingestion as a performance-enhancing agent, just a detection and an infringement. We are talking about a trace only, not a large neon sign saying “drugs on board”. Perhaps a plasticiser test may have helped clear the air, but as it stands the personal fairness of this decision is really only known to Contador himself. And if he truly didn’t know then he’d be gutted. Or worse.
But he’s not the first such case, after all. And others less well known have arguably suffered even more. There’s also a certain irony in his old team captain getting let off the hook (for perfectly valid reasons) in the same week.
CAS Sanction Contador With Two Year Ban In Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com
The Court of Arbitration for Sport has handed Alberto Contador a two year sanction for his positive test for clenbuterol at the 2010 Tour de France. After a long-running saga, CAS announced on Monday that it had upheld the UCI and WADA’s joint appeal against the Spanish Cycling Federation’s (RFEC) decision not to suspend Contador.
CAS Sanction Contador With Two Year Ban In Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com
Contador’s positive test dates from July 21, 2010, although the case was not made public until September 30 of that year. In February 2011, the RFEC officially cleared Contador, accepting his explanation that the traces of clenbuterol in his sample had been caused by consuming contaminated meat.
UCI Confirms CAS Decision To Ban Contador | Cyclingnews.com
The UCI had appealed the Spanish cycling federation’s decision to acquit Contador, and the CAS has now upheld the UCI’s view.
“However, the UCI has not derived a sense of satisfaction from the CAS ruling, but rather welcomes the news as the end of a long-running affair that has been extremely painful for cycling,” the organization said in a press release issued Monday midday.
Without wanting to enter into the details of the ruling, UCI President Pat McQuaid said: “This is a sad day for our sport. Some may think of it as a victory, but that is not at all the case. There are no winners when it comes to the issue of doping: every case, irrespective of its characteristics, is always a case too many.”
Pereiro Furious Over Contador’s CAS Ban | Cyclingnews.com
“Two years of sanctions to Alberto Contador and the judgement says that the doping is not proven,” he tweeted. “Then? Sons of a ….”
In another tweet, he referred to Alejandro Valverde, who just came off a two-year ban. “We have two Spaniards sanctioned, without the UCI or CAS proving it. Shame on you (…) Do you know what I think? He is innocent, I know him. Hopefully he will go through with this to the end and then we will see who we pay for and who does their job like shit.”
Pereiro Furious Over Contador’s CAS Ban | Cyclingnews.com
What really is rotten in cycling are the leaders who become millionaires with our sweat and effort. And they wait two years for this and don’t have the balls to say anything at the time? You will see the dust of Mr. McQuaid and company.”
Andy Schleck Reacts To Contador’s Doping Ban | Cyclingnews.com
“There is no reason to be happy now”, Schleck said in a RadioShack-Nissan press release
“First of all I feel sad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. This is just a very sad day for cycling. The only positive news is that there is a verdict after 566 days of uncertainty. We can finally move on.”
Spanish Champions Spring To Contador’s Defence | Cyclingnews.com
Floyd Landis was at the same time talking to Australian anti-doping expert Michael Ashenden about his own positive test for testosterone at the 2006 Tour.
“I doped with EPO and blood transfusions,” Landis told Ashenden. “But the strange thing is that at no time during that Tour did I take testosterone, which was the substance that condemned me. Before the Tour I did take it, and that must surely have been how it got into my system because it was in one of the blood bags I used. It wouldn’t surprise me if Contador’s clenbuterol hadn’t followed the same path.
Scarponi Responds To Contador Verdict | Cyclingnews.com
While Gadret insisted that he had no problem with Contador’s participation in the Giro at the time, he conceded that in hindsight, the Spaniard’s presence in Italy had completely altered the way in which the other overall contenders approached the race.
“The important point is that without Contador, it wouldn’t have been the same race. He was so far ahead of everyone else,” Gadret said. “Behind, there was a small nucleus of riders who were very close to each other. The Giro wouldn’t have been skewed and it would have been very interesting.”
Gadret also pointed out that while Contador’s ban is officially two years, in practice, he will only be out of action for a shade over six months. “If I’m calculating right, it’s finished in the month of August,” he said. “He’ll come back and win the Vuelta. That’s going to pass very quickly, It’s only six months off the bike for him.”
Dope: Contador banned, stripped of Tour de France title
The CAS panel imposed the ban in a several-times delayed case and after a three-day hearing of all parties in November.
There was no conclusive evidence that Contador’s test was the result of contaminated meat.
“Unlike certain other countries, notably outside Europe, Spain is not known to have a contamination problem with clenbuterol in meat.
Furthermore, no other cases of athletes having tested positive to clenbuterol allegedly in connection with the consumption of Spanish meat are known.
If nothing else Contador will have plenty of motivation and fresh legs come August 5, 2012.
And on the subject of Alberto’s old team captain and later adversary, Phil Liggett has a strong opinion…
Liggett On Armstrong: The Whole Investigation Was A Waste Of Money | Cyclingnews.com
“He told me in a private situation, when I wasn’t working as a journalist. I was sat in the bedroom some years ago, and I asked him point blank, ‘look Lance, the way I talked you up on television, I would have to back off and resign if you one day went positive’. And he looked at me and he said ‘man I’ve seen death in the face and I don’t take drugs.’ And that’s all he said. I have no reason to disbelieve him.”
“But I’ve been with him on his private jet when he’s been reading stuff on Cyclingnews and he’s gone, ‘god damn it look at what they’re saying about me again’ and he just passes his computer over to his friends.”
It looks like Lance Armstrong can breathe a sigh of relief as the criminal investigation into the supposed sporting fraud appears to have ended. But there remains the small matter of performance enhancement and the reported sworn statements of interested parties. Like Hamilton and Landis, amongst several others. Whilst these remain unproven accusations they also remain out there, waiting for resolution. Lance may refute these accusations but that alone doesn’t make them vanish. The story will no doubt linger for some time yet.
Lance Armstrong Inquiry Concludes With No Charges Filed | Cyclingnews.com
The Associated Press has reported today that the nearly two-year long federal investigation into allegations of doping by Lance Armstrong has come to a conclusion without any charges being filed.
A press release from United States Attorney Andre Birotte Jr. stated his office “is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong.”
Legal experts say Armstrong investigation winding up
n a “60 Minutes” television interview that aired Sunday, former Armstrong teammate Tyler Hamilton said he told a grand jury that he and Armstrong participated in well-orchestrated doping regimens to boost their performance on cycling’s biggest stage. Hamilton said Armstrong used the blood-boosting hormone erythropeietin to prepare for his third Tour win in 2001, and that Armstrong told him the international cycling body helped cover up a positive test at a warm-up event in Switzerland.
“We have progressed way beyond the rumor stage,” said Laurie Levenson, a Los Angeles-based criminal law professor for Loyola University. “They are actively engaged in the grand jury stage, most likely with their eye toward an indictment. They are at the wrapping up stage rather than the beginning stage.”
Prosecutors close Armstrong inquiry, no charges
“This is great news,” Armstrong attorney Mark Fabiani said in a statement. “Lance is pleased that the United States Attorney made the right decision, and he is more determined than ever to devote his time and energy to Livestrong and to the causes that have defined his career.”
The probe, anchored in Los Angeles where a grand jury was presented evidence by federal prosecutors and heard testimony from Armstrong’s former teammates and associates, began with a separate investigation of Rock Racing, a cycling team owned by fashion entrepreneur Michael Ball.
U.S. Attorney André Birotte Jr. announced in a press release that his office “is closing an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by Lance Armstrong.”
Filed under Armstrong, doping by Rob.
I can understand Armstrong’s position – he has a lot a stake and only one small (annulled) doping violation to his name (for topical cortisol, if memory serves) – yet here he is getting all “awkward” with a doubly-busted-for doping ex-team-mate who has gone public with a bit of a lively story. Be the yarn true or not, why bother talking with the guy? Let alone getting awkward about it. Was he just stilted in his conversation, or was there a bit more aggro there?
SBS: Cycling Central : Awkward encounter for Armstrong and Hamilton
Tyler Hamilton, who recently went public with his claim that Lance Armstrong doped, had an awkward encounter with the seven-time Tour de France champion at a Colorado restaurant at the weekend, US media reports.
ESPN.com reports Hamilton was unnerved enough by the incident to inform his lawyers, who told the sports website they had formally notified US authorities of what they consider “aggressive contact” initiated by Armstrong.
A lot rests on George Hincapie’s testimony, doesn’t it? Especially since Hamilton, like Landis, has now admitted what he saw and did.
It’s not really news, but it’s like the stars aligning. Almost a year ago there were reports circulating in the WSJ about who the FDA would be interested in and what they may say about Lance Armstrong. Well what they have (reportedly!) said as testimony to the FDA’s Grand Jury hearings is finally coming out… and it’s not exactly positive (pun intended, sorry) about Mr Armstrong. If it’s as reported, anyway (have I said that enough?).
Bear in mind that this investigation carries enormous legal weight and anyone holding back the truth deliberately would potentially face a serious legal consequence. So what they have admitted, if reported accurately, carries more than a little impact. That anyone would lie at this stage would seem unlikely, especially when – like Landis and Hamilton – you have already been caught with PEDs in your blood and suffered major consequences. It’s easy to imagine that they wouldn’t want a jail sentence on top of what they have endured already. It’s time to just own up. What else can be lost?
However the counter argument is ‘how can we trust these guys?’. To which I would refer again to my previous para.
And as for Hincapie, well only blind loyalty would stand in the way of him simply telling the truth to a Grand Jury. His credibility is surely intact so far, so why lie now?
Bicycling.com reported on the WSJ article with particular reference to Hamilton, Landis and Hincapie last year…
Hincapie and Hamilton Could Change Armstrong Investigation | Boulder Report | Bicycling.com
Salacious details aside, the most important part of last week’s story was very lightly remarked – that three other former members of Armstrong’s U.S. Postal Service team told the Journal they witnessed doping on the team and one said he had participated. Those riders were not named by the Journal, but it’s evident that the Journal did not print Landis’ allegations without verifying at least some of them with other sources.
Now, the Journal reports that investigators are looking to speak with other riders. That’s not a shock, but what is significant about it is two of the riders (there are undoubtedly others) the Journal says are being targeted: Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie.
An August 2010 report…
Armstrong hires Clinton media expert Fabiani, Hincapie appoints legal team
Armstrong denied the charges and said that Landis had a credibility problem after previously lying about his own doping use. However investigators have been seeking statements from other former US Postal Service riders and employees, and several un-named riders have been reported as having already been in talks with Novitzky. At least one individual is thought to have backed up Landis’ claims.
And more recently…
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
Since August a grand jury has been meeting in Los Angeles to hear testimony by associates and confidants of Armstrong’s. Those subpoenaed or interviewed include Armstrong’s former teammates Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie and Kevin Livingston; Mike Anderson, who once worked as Armstrong’s bike mechanic and assistant; and Oakley sunglasses marketing representative Stephanie McIlvain. Another former teammate of Armstrong’s, Floyd Landis, who won the 2006 Tour de France but was stripped of the title because of a positive drug test, also gave information to investigators.
So please, what did Hincapie say?
The “old lies” may well be old but they are getting aired to a wider and deeper audience than ever before. Armstrong has always denied these claims, and he has been deified instead for his achievements as a cancer-survivor, fund-raiser and athlete. But as he nears his 2nd retirement he has become something of a big, slower-moving target. Just as he draws praise for his positive impact on the Tour Down Under, so he comes under fire by the “old liars”. It’s feeling a bit like open season at the moment, especially with fellow Tour-winner, former teammate and adversary Alberto Contador facing his own inquisition.
The truth is out there, but will it ever be known? Or trusted?
Lance Armstrong faces tough ride – ex mechanic | Stuff.co.nz
A Wellington bike shop owner whose testimony could help bring down Lance Armstrong believes the seven-times Tour de France champion is in danger of becoming a permanent “symbol for decades of corruption”.
Filed under Armstrong by Rob.
It’s “a Hemoglobin-based Oxygen Carrier (HBOC), part of a class of drugs that is engineered to carry oxygen” and it was discontinued in 2008. But there is speculation that a deal was done and stocks kept for future use. By athletes, not blood-loss trauma patients. Read the links for more. Remember, this is speculation and allegation only and completely subject to denial by the parties named!
The Science of Sport: The drug of 2011? HemAssist and Armstrong
HemAssist: A drug you’ll never use, but you’ll be hearing more about
Talking Points | Boulder Report
The most damaging allegation in the SI piece is that in the late 1990s, Armstrong gained access to an investigational drug called HemAssist. That drug, an experimental hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier, was in clinical trials during the time frame SI identifies.
HBOCs, as they’re known, are essentially blood substitutes devised for use in trauma medicine. They’re recombinantly engineered, stabilized hemoglobin molecules that replace the oxygen-transport capabilities of normal human blood, at least for a short time.
This ain’t no court of law, but the way we are heading someone is (again) going to land in one. In summary, Sports Illustrated has today published an extensive article based on their own investigation into the drug-abuse claims made by Floyd Landis and others against the USPS professional cycling team, including one Lance Armstrong. Yesterday Floyd stepped aside and said that cycling should fix its own problems from here; today he’s back, angered in a way by the SI article. Meanwhile Lance denies all accusations.
It’s a long but fascinating read and by no means does it cover every accusation ever laid at Lance’s door. It doesn’t represent a legal case against Armstrong but it does summarise many of the claims made over the years and adds some more recent quotes from the people concerned. As I said, Armstrong denies all and we have to take him at his word. But it’s quite stunning to read all of this in SI, which has previously named LA their “sportsman of the year”. I have pulled some quotes from the SI article, below.
But what of Floyd’s gun control analogy? In Floyd’s view the “bad guys” (in the US) already have guns (read drugs) therefore we should just let everyone have them and ‘control’ it? However Australia for example has enforced tougher gun control since 1996, amid howls of protest from shooters, yet seems to have settled into a more peaceable, lower-risk state (although even that is disputed, some studies suggesting that as criminal or suicidal firearm use declined alternatives increased). However disputed, gun control has popular support, at least in Australia. I suspect that the general public also sees drug control in sport as a ‘fairness’ issue and that drug control remains a popularly supported action.
Arguments of fairness aside, legalising drugs in sport would possibly necessitate as much – or more – testing and thus cost at least as much as the current state, if cost concerns us. If you are to monitor the safe use of performance enhancing drugs (PED) then testing remains likely. And costly. Or do you legalise it and monitor overuse by PED-related illness, injury or death rates?
Alcohol is a dangerous yet generally legal – but somewhat controlled – drug in wide community use, and alcohol-related health and social issues are manifold as well as obvious. Do we accept legalised alcohol use as a “success” and model PED use in the same way, allowing for extreme users to suffer the consequences?
And cigarette smoking remains legal yet somewhat controlled by taxes, availability and marketing for health (and societal cost) reasons. Is that a good model for PED use? Would it work as well?
It’s a difficult moral and ethical question with no single “correct” answer; nor is it as easy to solve as simply giving up.
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
Around 8 p.m. on Nov. 11, 2010, Italian police and customs officials acting at the behest of agents of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pulled over Yaroslav Popovych as he drove on a roundabout in Quarrata, a quaint Tuscan village of stucco facades and colorful shutters between Pistoia and Florence. The officials had been looking for Popovych, one of Lance Armstrong’s Radio Shack teammates, to execute a search warrant. Italian authorities say the Ukrainian cyclist was startled but cooperative. He led them through olive groves to his house beside a cemetery. There the officials found drug-testing documents, medical supplies and performance-enhancing drugs. They also found e-mails and texts that, they say, establish that as recently as 2009 Armstrong’s team had links to controversial Italian physician Michele Ferrari, with whom the Texan had said he cut ties in 2004.
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
Lance Armstrong entered the Olympic world around 1990, at age 19, after a transition from competing in the triathlon. Two of his teammates on the 1990 U.S. junior team, Greg Strock and Erich Kaiter, claimed in a suit against USA Cycling in 2000 that coaches administered steroids to them in 1990, damaging their immune systems and cutting short their careers, according to documents from the suit. Neither Strock nor Kaiter ever tested positive. The suit was settled in November 2006; USA Cycling paid each rider $250,000.
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
In May 1999, USA Cycling sent a formal request to Catlin for past test results—specifically, testosterone-epitestosterone ratios—for a cyclist identified only by his drug-testing code numbers. A source with knowledge of the request says that the cyclist was Lance Armstrong. In a letter dated June 4, 1999, Catlin responded that the lab couldn’t recover a total of five of the cyclist’s test results from 1990, 1992 and 1993, adding, “The likelihood that we will be able to recover these old files is low.” The letter went on to detail the cyclist’s testosterone-epitestosterone results from 1991 to 1998, with one missing season: 1997, the only year during that span in which Armstrong didn’t compete. Three results stand out: a 9.0-to-1 ratio from a sample collected on June 23, 1993; a 7.6-to-1 from July 7, 1994; and a 6.5-to-1 from June 4, 1996. Most people have a ratio of 1-to-1. Prior to 2005, any ratio above 6.0-to-1 was considered abnormally high and evidence of doping; in 2005 that ratio was lowered to 4.0-to-1.
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
During an interview with SI last week, Catlin was read his 1999 letter. He said that because he tested by code and not by name, he has “no clue which sample belonged to Lance,” but he admits the data are disturbing. He explains that one failed confirmation would be a “once-in-a-blue-moon” occurrence. As for the three high T/E ratio results detailed in the letter, he says, “that’s very strange.” When Catlin’s letter was read to Breidbach recently, he too expressed concern, saying, “Wow, that should not happen. If you find a nine and can’t confirm, then something is very wrong with your screening test.”
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
According to Betsy Andreu’s statement, Armstrong was asked, “Have you ever done any performance-enhancing drugs?” By Andreu’s account, Armstrong said yes and then listed them: EPO, growth hormone, cortisone, steroids and testosterone.
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
Swart says that on a recovery ride after a race in Italy that March, Armstrong, disappointed with the team’s result, had suggested that riders start taking EPO, which was banned by the IOC in 1990. “He was the instigator,” Swart says. “It was his words that pushed us toward doing it. It was his advice, his discussions.”
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
Mike Anderson says he felt a dull sadness as he stared at the little white cardboard box in Armstrong’s bathroom cabinet. His eyes focused on the word ANDRO written on the label. Anderson tried to rationalize it. Maybe it was leftover cancer medication, but this was 2004, long after Armstrong’s disease had been defeated, and there was no prescription attached.
AS THE CYCLIST AND CANCER CRUSADER FACES – 01.24.11 – SI Vault
The agents looked through the bag and found syringes and drugs with labels written in Spanish. As Landis recounts, Armstrong then asked a member of the contingent to talk to the agents and persuade them that the drugs were vitamins and that the syringes were for vitamin injections. Says Landis, “The agents looked at us sideways but let us through.”
A Summary Of The Sports Illustrated Lance Armstrong Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
Swart says he took EPO but admits he never saw Armstrong or another teammate from the Motorola team take the drug. However he claims that during internal blood testing on July 17, 1995, “Lance was at 54 or 56 (blood haematocrit percentage).” In 2001 the UCI introduced a limit of 50%, while an average male value is around 43%.
Armstrong’s spokesman Mark Fabiani told Cyclingnews, “The story is filled with old news, recycling the same old tired lies from the same old tired liars”.
A spokesman from Sports Illustrated told Cyclingnews, “We stand by the reporting in the story.”
Floyd Landis Calls For Legalised Doping | Cyclingnews.com
However Landis’s beliefs that doping should be legalised come on the back of his retirement. He told Cyclingnews:
“In the US we have these gun laws where half the country thinks we should have them and half don’t, but the fact of the matter is that the bad guys have guns and you can’t get them back from the bad guys. It’s nice to live in a pretend world where you can start over, where you say you’re not going to have guns, well that’s wonderful and good luck with that and go to church on Sundays and enjoy yourself, but the fact of the matter is that there are guns and the bad guys have them and trying to keep others from having them isn’t going to accomplish anything,” he said, using guns as an analogy for doping in sport.
Rightly or wrongly, now Landis looks just like the money-seeker Armstrong alleges. OTOH what other options does he have?
Landis Files Whistle-blower Lawsuit | Cyclingnews.com
Both Landis and the U.S. Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit when approached by the Wall Street Journal, while a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service stated: “Since this matter is under review by the Department of Justice, the Postal Service will have nothing to say until this review is completed.”
Meanwhile, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, a spokesman for former U.S. Postal Service rider Lance Armstrong was critical of Landis’ lawsuit. “What remains a mystery is why the government would devote a penny of the taxpayer’s money to help Floyd Landis,” he said. “This news that Floyd Landis is in this for the money confirms everything we all knew about Landis.”
Armstrong’s spokesman also confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that Armstrong’s lawyers had recently met with federal prosecutors from Novitzsky’s investigation in Los Angeles.
Landis files ‘whistle-blower’ lawsuit – VeloNews
Floyd Landis, former teammate of Lance Armstrong, has filed a federal “whistle-blower” lawsuit, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper reported that Landis filed a suit under the U.S. federal False Claims Act, which allows Americans to sue on behalf of the government alleging the government has been defrauded.
According to the Journal, the lawsuit is currently sealed so its exact contents are not known.
But in the article posted on its website the newspaper noted that Landis and Armstrong were teammates on the squad sponsored by the US Postal Service, an independent government whose funds are considered to be public.
Rightly or wrongly, now Landis looks just like the money-seeker Armstrong alleges. OTOH what other options does he have?
Landis Files Whistle-blower Lawsuit | Cyclingnews.com
Both Landis and the U.S. Justice Department declined to comment on the lawsuit when approached by the Wall Street Journal, while a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service stated: “Since this matter is under review by the Department of Justice, the Postal Service will have nothing to say until this review is completed.”
Meanwhile, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, a spokesman for former U.S. Postal Service rider Lance Armstrong was critical of Landis’ lawsuit. “What remains a mystery is why the government would devote a penny of the taxpayer’s money to help Floyd Landis,” he said. “This news that Floyd Landis is in this for the money confirms everything we all knew about Landis.”
Armstrong’s spokesman also confirmed to the Wall Street Journal that Armstrong’s lawyers had recently met with federal prosecutors from Novitzsky’s investigation in Los Angeles.
Landis files ‘whistle-blower’ lawsuit – VeloNews
Floyd Landis, former teammate of Lance Armstrong, has filed a federal “whistle-blower” lawsuit, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
Citing anonymous sources, the newspaper reported that Landis filed a suit under the U.S. federal False Claims Act, which allows Americans to sue on behalf of the government alleging the government has been defrauded.
According to the Journal, the lawsuit is currently sealed so its exact contents are not known.
But in the article posted on its website the newspaper noted that Landis and Armstrong were teammates on the squad sponsored by the US Postal Service, an independent government whose funds are considered to be public.
Not seeing something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, just that you didn’t see it. OTOH having been in the team and known Armstrong very well for many years, Pat Jonker’s view holds some weight, too. Will the truth ever be told? And will we believe it anyway?
Jonker Speaks Out In Defence Of Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com
Former US Postal Service rider Patrick Jonker has come out strongly in defence of his former leader Lance Armstrong. Speaking with FoxSports.com.au, the Australian claimed that he had never seen any evidence to suggest that Armstrong had doped.
“I didn’t see anything. If I was subpoenaed to go to court and put my hand on the Bible, I’d go,” Jonker said. “This is not a game, it’s very serious.”
Not seeing something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, just that you didn’t see it. OTOH having been in the team and known Armstrong very well for many years, Pat Jonker’s view holds some weight, too. Will the truth ever be told? And will we believe it anyway?
Jonker Speaks Out In Defence Of Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com
Former US Postal Service rider Patrick Jonker has come out strongly in defence of his former leader Lance Armstrong. Speaking with FoxSports.com.au, the Australian claimed that he had never seen any evidence to suggest that Armstrong had doped.
“I didn’t see anything. If I was subpoenaed to go to court and put my hand on the Bible, I’d go,” Jonker said. “This is not a game, it’s very serious.”
FloydGate is getting interesting – or more interesting. Armstrong’s lawyer is now – seemingly – suggesting that testimony under oath may be recanted due to ‘sweetheart deals’ – presumably he means bribery. That’s a big statement and a very strong suggestion by Mr Daly. Over-reaction, misunderstanding or threat? Take your pick. Not that he’s prone to overstatement at all.
Armstrong Lawyer Condemns “un-American” Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
“We understand that riders may be being offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,” Daly said. “The power of the federal government is being abused to pursue dated and discredited allegations, and that’s flat-out wrong, unethical, un-American, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Dopage du Jour
A former US Postal Service team rider has spoken to federal investigators regarding doping practices in the squad, according to the New York Times. The unnamed rider admitted his own performance-enhancing drug use and alleged that systematic doping had taken place in the American squad when questioned by Jeff Novitzky’s investigative team.
Dopage du Jour
I have no firm view on Mr Armstrong’s involvement in doping practices but I will take issue with his attorney: “He’s gifted physically in ways that are very unique…”. OK, so what “gifts” are these? It’s a lame comment to make since (a) we are all unique, that’s how human genetics works unless he’s a clone or an absolutely identical twin – and even then there are differences. And (b) if he has these gifts then let’s see ‘em – prove it. if we can prove he has natural physical gifts of a higher order than any other tour rider then we have an explanation for 7 consecutive Tour wins and can layoff the search for ‘extraterrestrial’ gifts. Otherwise it’s lame.
Filed under Armstrong, Landis by Rob.
FloydGate is getting interesting – or more interesting. Armstrong’s lawyer is now – seemingly – suggesting that testimony under oath may be recanted due to ‘sweetheart deals’ – presumably he means bribery. That’s a big statement and a very strong suggestion by Mr Daly. Over-reaction, misunderstanding or threat? Take your pick. Not that he’s prone to overstatement at all.
Armstrong Lawyer Condemns “un-American” Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
“We understand that riders may be being offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,” Daly said. “The power of the federal government is being abused to pursue dated and discredited allegations, and that’s flat-out wrong, unethical, un-American, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Dopage du Jour
A former US Postal Service team rider has spoken to federal investigators regarding doping practices in the squad, according to the New York Times. The unnamed rider admitted his own performance-enhancing drug use and alleged that systematic doping had taken place in the American squad when questioned by Jeff Novitzky’s investigative team.
Dopage du Jour
I have no firm view on Mr Armstrong’s involvement in doping practices but I will take issue with his attorney: “He’s gifted physically in ways that are very unique…”. OK, so what “gifts” are these? It’s a lame comment to make since (a) we are all unique, that’s how human genetics works unless he’s a clone or an absolutely identical twin – and even then there are differences. And (b) if he has these gifts then let’s see ‘em – prove it. if we can prove he has natural physical gifts of a higher order than any other tour rider then we have an explanation for 7 consecutive Tour wins and can layoff the search for ‘extraterrestrial’ gifts. Otherwise it’s lame.
Filed under Armstrong, Landis by Rob.
I wasn’t there so I don’t know – but I have an opinion on the question of “fairness”. And it’s a saga that goes on and on, regrettably, without a solution. And isn’t that the way everything works these days? The tiniest detail gets pounced upon and sides are taken, black or white. If it sticks and goes viral it snowballs out of all proportion but no agreement is reached or solution offered.
Andy Schleck‘s so-called “mechanical” when he somehow “lost his chain” (when in fact it appeared to jam on his cogs, as if he’d stuffed up a gearchange) is one example, and Stage 2 into Spa is another one. And now in post-race analysis Scott Sunderland appears to be putting his (possibly biased, being an ex member of what was the CSC team) views into Thor Hushovd‘s mouth. As well as putting Contador in his place for not waiting for Andy when his chain jammed. But what exactly is “fair”? Is it so black and white?
Now on the day into Spa it appeared (on TV and in post-race interviews, anyway) that Thor Hushovd wasn’t very pleased about the bullying tactics used by Cancellara and the Saxo Bank team to annul the slippery stage. So to say that Thor wouldn’t have wanted to win like that is certainly going a bit far. If Thor has changed his mind, great – let him say that himself.
Now in principle we probably agree that gaining time by leveraging other riders’ misfortune is not how we would like to win a race. But it assumes several things:
- Firstly that only the lucky got through unscathed, which is debatable. Wet, narrow descent with or without a crashed motorbike says “keep clear of other riders, slow down, pick your line” to me
- Secondly, a corollary to the first, that skill was not involved. Again, bike handling and the ability to pick your line is paramount
- Thirdly, that all teams played the conditions the same and were equally affected, which is not true. There was a breakaway and a chase group plus a larger group, all playing out different tactics. There are safer ways to play dangerous situations and some teams did better than others by design
- Fourthly, that an independent referee is available to assess the conditions and make an informed but unpressured and one-step-removed decision on conditions and actions to address. Which is debatable. The race referee was certainly there but his decision was visibly informed by Cancellara, who had an obvious (and conflicted) role in firstly waiting for the Schlecks and secondly in coercing other riders from other teams into a go-slow agreement.
Now the other side to the argument is that an unusually large proportion of riders were affected and that several riders reported conditions where “everyone” went down and that even cars couldn’t stay on the road. In which case you’d think that the stage should be annulled there and then, rather than let one rider win and take yellow whilst effectively penalising anyone else who’d recovered or avoided the drama.
It’s not as if it hasn’t happened before. There was for example Le Tour in 1999 when an unusually large proportion of the field went down and lost 6 minutes or more – effectively ending the race for the overall there and then. But Armstrong isn’t likely to hand back that Tour win because he didn’t wait for Zulle, is he? Indeed his team and others actively exploited the situation. Riders are down, big fall – let’s stomp on the gas!
There’s always another side, another way to view things. In 1999 you had to get to the front. It wasn’t just luck. The same applies in 2010, or perhaps should have applied.
You could say that we must learn for these things, and so we should. But one thing to learn from 2010 is that it isn’t appropriate for race officials to appear to do a deal with the yellow jersey where obvious conflicts of interest exist. There must be a better, fairer way to deal with such situations. It isn’t necessarily easy but leaving it ‘as it is’ is inappropriate.
Oh, and jamming your chain is just one of those things that can happen when you make ham-fisted changes on the highly-tuned engineering kludges we call bicycle drivetrains.
Where The Tour Was Won | Cyclingnews.com
Sunderland: “I think the same logic should be applied to the green jersey competition. Thor Hushovd missed out on a lot of points that day but I don’t think he would have wanted to win that way.”
1999 Tour de France – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 1999 edition of Tour de France had two bizarre moments. The first was on stage 2 when a 25 rider pile-up occurred at Passage du Gois. Passage du Gois is a two mile causeway which depending on the tide can be under water. The second bizarre incident was on stage 10, one kilometre from the summit of L’Alpe d’Huez. Leading Italian rider Giuseppe Guerini was confronted by a spectator holding a camera in the middle of the road. Guerini hit the spectator but recovered and went on to win the stage.
The Tour de France At A Glance – 1999
Frankie Andreu: The main difficulty in this completely flat stage was a four-kilometer causeway that crossed a huge river. It’s passable during the day with low tide and flooded during high tide. You can imagine that the causeway would be a little slick and wet by the time we arrived.
The race was calm till the first bonus sprint of the day at kilometer 30. After that the attacks started and the battle for good position for the causeway was already starting. It was still 50 kilometers till we arrived there. To make matters worse it was windy and I’m sure every team told their riders to be first into the causeway.
The battle was furious trying to keep Lance in good position to get across this causeway safely. Looking back it was a good thing we did. After the entrance to this four-kilometer causeway there was a huge crash. Guys went down everywhere. You could see riders trying to brake, but they hit the ground instantaneously. Going across the causeway was very, very scary. It was wet, slippery and windy. It felt like a risk to even turn your wheel to change directions. I was scared to ride on the edge of the road because it was too slick.
Coming out of the causeway the group had split – partially because we went fast and partly because of the huge crash. There was a front group of about 40 and immediately ONCE started riding. It took us a few kilometers to figure out why. We didn’t know there was a crash at the time and in the rear group there were a few favorites.
Right away Johan told us to go to the front and help ONCE. The reason was that in the second group were Gotti, Belli, Zülle, Boogerd, Robin, and some other favorites in the overall.
In the second group Banesto started to chase immediately. They came within 30 seconds of catching us, but we were in time-trial mode in the first group with about ten guys. It became an 80-kilometer team time trial, trying to increase the gap between the second group and us. We had five ONCE riders, two Casino, two Cofidis, and Christian and I riding full tilt all the way to the finish. We put over six minutes on the guys behind. Lance lost the jersey today to Kirsipu, who won every bonus sprint, but Lance did manage to eliminate some very strong riders for the classement.
In the race today the Spanish guys had a new nickname for Jonathon Vaughters. They called him “El Gato”, the cat. He got the name after he flew into a crash yesterday and went flying. Somehow he landed on his feet; he didn’t get a scratch on his body. The bad news is that today Jonathon lost his nickname. He was one of the unlucky ones to get caught in the crash on the causeway.
1999- The Clean Tour – RideStrong
So the Tour had an undeniably “clean” winner, though his (Armstrong’s) domination was not the unnatural performance that certain sections of the French press tried to accuse him of. Take away the stage over the Passage de Gois, and his lead over Zülle is a rather more mundane-looking 1½ minutes. And the Tour threw up several other imponderables. There were no French stage winners for the first time since 1926. The transition stages saw breaks of minor riders gain huge leads each day, with the big stars seemingly content to have four days off. Yet for all the drug-free culture, the average speed was over 40kmh for the first time ever. Even allowing for the easier route this year (and arguably it was in fact a harder route than some of those in the seventies and eighties), one is left with questions. If a drug-free peloton could ride so fast, what was the point of taking EPO in the past? And if EPO does have an effect, was 1999 really a drug-free peloton?
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Dangerous course or dangerous force?
It’s been a long time since I’ve witnessed this much carnage at the Tour de France.
The last occasion I can recall such circumstances was 11 years ago, at the 1999 Tour.
What was thought to be a relatively innocuous second stage quickly turned into a massacre, when on the Passage du Gois, a two-mile long causeway that depending on tidal conditions can be submerged in water, a 25 rider pile-up eventuated that split the field to itty bitty pieces and left Lance Armstrong’s most noted adversary, Swiss rider Alex Zülle, behind in a frantic chase that never regained contact.
Zülle along with Jan Ullrich were arguably the only two riders to really challenge the Texan during his Tour reign, and Armstrong’s 7’37” winning advantage did not really tell the full story.
I’m not saying Zülle would have beaten Armstrong in the first of his seven straight wins, but had he not crashed, the race would without doubt have played out very differently.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Dangerous course or dangerous force?
But read this from cycling legend Eddy Merckx, who told Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf after Stage 1: “It’s part of the job. Especially in the beginning of a Grand Tour, you can not blame the organisation. It is the riders themselves who [must] bear the blame. If you do not want to brake and if you are not afraid to go for an opponent who is faster, then do not be afraid of crashing.”
In the end Monday, the Schleck brothers were saved by an entente cordiale initiated by the erstwhile maillot jaune of Fabian Cancellara, who relinquished his golden fleece to perhaps the most popular guy in France right now, Sylvain Chavanel.
Where The Tour Was Won | Cyclingnews.com
Scott Sunderland: “Contador pulled on the yellow jersey in Luchon but when he heard the crowd whistle and boo him, I’m sure he realised he’d unfairly taken advantage of Andy’s mechanical problem.”
‘I know the race was ‘on’, that everything was decided in split seconds and the other riders attacked too, but Contador was the first to go clear and kept going all the way to the finish thanks to a special ‘friendship’ with Samuel Sanchez, who guided him down the descent.”
I think he should have at least of asked the other riders to wait. I know these guys are competing against each other but there must always be room for some sportsmanship in cycling. The riders share the same road and face the same difficulties. Alberto is a special champion but missed an opportunity to show he has a special sense of fair play.”
I wasn’t there so I don’t know – but I have an opinion on the question of “fairness”. And it’s a saga that goes on and on, regrettably, without a solution. And isn’t that the way everything works these days? The tiniest detail gets pounced upon and sides are taken, black or white. If it sticks and goes viral it snowballs out of all proportion but no agreement is reached or solution offered.
Andy Schleck‘s so-called “mechanical” when he somehow “lost his chain” (when in fact it appeared to jam on his cogs, as if he’d stuffed up a gearchange) is one example, and Stage 2 into Spa is another one. And now in post-race analysis Scott Sunderland appears to be putting his (possibly biased, being an ex member of what was the CSC team) views into Thor Hushovd‘s mouth. As well as putting Contador in his place for not waiting for Andy when his chain jammed. But what exactly is “fair”? Is it so black and white?
Now on the day into Spa it appeared (on TV and in post-race interviews, anyway) that Thor Hushovd wasn’t very pleased about the bullying tactics used by Cancellara and the Saxo Bank team to annul the slippery stage. So to say that Thor wouldn’t have wanted to win like that is certainly going a bit far. If Thor has changed his mind, great – let him say that himself.
Now in principle we probably agree that gaining time by leveraging other riders’ misfortune is not how we would like to win a race. But it assumes several things:
- Firstly that only the lucky got through unscathed, which is debatable. Wet, narrow descent with or without a crashed motorbike says “keep clear of other riders, slow down, pick your line” to me
- Secondly, a corollary to the first, that skill was not involved. Again, bike handling and the ability to pick your line is paramount
- Thirdly, that all teams played the conditions the same and were equally affected, which is not true. There was a breakaway and a chase group plus a larger group, all playing out different tactics. There are safer ways to play dangerous situations and some teams did better than others by design
- Fourthly, that an independent referee is available to assess the conditions and make an informed but unpressured and one-step-removed decision on conditions and actions to address. Which is debatable. The race referee was certainly there but his decision was visibly informed by Cancellara, who had an obvious (and conflicted) role in firstly waiting for the Schlecks and secondly in coercing other riders from other teams into a go-slow agreement.
Now the other side to the argument is that an unusually large proportion of riders were affected and that several riders reported conditions where “everyone” went down and that even cars couldn’t stay on the road. In which case you’d think that the stage should be annulled there and then, rather than let one rider win and take yellow whilst effectively penalising anyone else who’d recovered or avoided the drama.
It’s not as if it hasn’t happened before. There was for example Le Tour in 1999 when an unusually large proportion of the field went down and lost 6 minutes or more – effectively ending the race for the overall there and then. But Armstrong isn’t likely to hand back that Tour win because he didn’t wait for Zulle, is he? Indeed his team and others actively exploited the situation. Riders are down, big fall – let’s stomp on the gas!
There’s always another side, another way to view things. In 1999 you had to get to the front. It wasn’t just luck. The same applies in 2010, or perhaps should have applied.
You could say that we must learn for these things, and so we should. But one thing to learn from 2010 is that it isn’t appropriate for race officials to appear to do a deal with the yellow jersey where obvious conflicts of interest exist. There must be a better, fairer way to deal with such situations. It isn’t necessarily easy but leaving it ‘as it is’ is inappropriate.
Oh, and jamming your chain is just one of those things that can happen when you make ham-fisted changes on the highly-tuned engineering kludges we call bicycle drivetrains.
Where The Tour Was Won | Cyclingnews.com
Sunderland: “I think the same logic should be applied to the green jersey competition. Thor Hushovd missed out on a lot of points that day but I don’t think he would have wanted to win that way.”
1999 Tour de France – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 1999 edition of Tour de France had two bizarre moments. The first was on stage 2 when a 25 rider pile-up occurred at Passage du Gois. Passage du Gois is a two mile causeway which depending on the tide can be under water. The second bizarre incident was on stage 10, one kilometre from the summit of L’Alpe d’Huez. Leading Italian rider Giuseppe Guerini was confronted by a spectator holding a camera in the middle of the road. Guerini hit the spectator but recovered and went on to win the stage.
The Tour de France At A Glance – 1999
Frankie Andreu: The main difficulty in this completely flat stage was a four-kilometer causeway that crossed a huge river. It’s passable during the day with low tide and flooded during high tide. You can imagine that the causeway would be a little slick and wet by the time we arrived.
The race was calm till the first bonus sprint of the day at kilometer 30. After that the attacks started and the battle for good position for the causeway was already starting. It was still 50 kilometers till we arrived there. To make matters worse it was windy and I’m sure every team told their riders to be first into the causeway.
The battle was furious trying to keep Lance in good position to get across this causeway safely. Looking back it was a good thing we did. After the entrance to this four-kilometer causeway there was a huge crash. Guys went down everywhere. You could see riders trying to brake, but they hit the ground instantaneously. Going across the causeway was very, very scary. It was wet, slippery and windy. It felt like a risk to even turn your wheel to change directions. I was scared to ride on the edge of the road because it was too slick.
Coming out of the causeway the group had split – partially because we went fast and partly because of the huge crash. There was a front group of about 40 and immediately ONCE started riding. It took us a few kilometers to figure out why. We didn’t know there was a crash at the time and in the rear group there were a few favorites.
Right away Johan told us to go to the front and help ONCE. The reason was that in the second group were Gotti, Belli, Zülle, Boogerd, Robin, and some other favorites in the overall.
In the second group Banesto started to chase immediately. They came within 30 seconds of catching us, but we were in time-trial mode in the first group with about ten guys. It became an 80-kilometer team time trial, trying to increase the gap between the second group and us. We had five ONCE riders, two Casino, two Cofidis, and Christian and I riding full tilt all the way to the finish. We put over six minutes on the guys behind. Lance lost the jersey today to Kirsipu, who won every bonus sprint, but Lance did manage to eliminate some very strong riders for the classement.
In the race today the Spanish guys had a new nickname for Jonathon Vaughters. They called him “El Gato”, the cat. He got the name after he flew into a crash yesterday and went flying. Somehow he landed on his feet; he didn’t get a scratch on his body. The bad news is that today Jonathon lost his nickname. He was one of the unlucky ones to get caught in the crash on the causeway.
1999- The Clean Tour – RideStrong
So the Tour had an undeniably “clean” winner, though his (Armstrong’s) domination was not the unnatural performance that certain sections of the French press tried to accuse him of. Take away the stage over the Passage de Gois, and his lead over Zülle is a rather more mundane-looking 1½ minutes. And the Tour threw up several other imponderables. There were no French stage winners for the first time since 1926. The transition stages saw breaks of minor riders gain huge leads each day, with the big stars seemingly content to have four days off. Yet for all the drug-free culture, the average speed was over 40kmh for the first time ever. Even allowing for the easier route this year (and arguably it was in fact a harder route than some of those in the seventies and eighties), one is left with questions. If a drug-free peloton could ride so fast, what was the point of taking EPO in the past? And if EPO does have an effect, was 1999 really a drug-free peloton?
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Dangerous course or dangerous force?
It’s been a long time since I’ve witnessed this much carnage at the Tour de France.
The last occasion I can recall such circumstances was 11 years ago, at the 1999 Tour.
What was thought to be a relatively innocuous second stage quickly turned into a massacre, when on the Passage du Gois, a two-mile long causeway that depending on tidal conditions can be submerged in water, a 25 rider pile-up eventuated that split the field to itty bitty pieces and left Lance Armstrong’s most noted adversary, Swiss rider Alex Zülle, behind in a frantic chase that never regained contact.
Zülle along with Jan Ullrich were arguably the only two riders to really challenge the Texan during his Tour reign, and Armstrong’s 7’37” winning advantage did not really tell the full story.
I’m not saying Zülle would have beaten Armstrong in the first of his seven straight wins, but had he not crashed, the race would without doubt have played out very differently.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Dangerous course or dangerous force?
But read this from cycling legend Eddy Merckx, who told Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf after Stage 1: “It’s part of the job. Especially in the beginning of a Grand Tour, you can not blame the organisation. It is the riders themselves who [must] bear the blame. If you do not want to brake and if you are not afraid to go for an opponent who is faster, then do not be afraid of crashing.”
In the end Monday, the Schleck brothers were saved by an entente cordiale initiated by the erstwhile maillot jaune of Fabian Cancellara, who relinquished his golden fleece to perhaps the most popular guy in France right now, Sylvain Chavanel.
Where The Tour Was Won | Cyclingnews.com
Scott Sunderland: “Contador pulled on the yellow jersey in Luchon but when he heard the crowd whistle and boo him, I’m sure he realised he’d unfairly taken advantage of Andy’s mechanical problem.”
‘I know the race was ‘on’, that everything was decided in split seconds and the other riders attacked too, but Contador was the first to go clear and kept going all the way to the finish thanks to a special ‘friendship’ with Samuel Sanchez, who guided him down the descent.”
I think he should have at least of asked the other riders to wait. I know these guys are competing against each other but there must always be room for some sportsmanship in cycling. The riders share the same road and face the same difficulties. Alberto is a special champion but missed an opportunity to show he has a special sense of fair play.”
Well believe what you will because no-one’s owning up yet – aside from Floyd Landis (if you can believe him, I mean).
Greg LeMond said a few things that he clearly believes are true, things he has stated before. He has never come to terms with other, lesser riders suddenly out-riding him and simply believes they were juiced. Which is probably a well regarded and highly shared opinion, true or not. As well he distrusts Dr Ferrari and points to him as a bad influence. However Dr Ferrari replies that he was cleared in a court of law and refutes these allegations. If a rider wants to cheat they should go elsewhere, he says.
Plus, Bruyneel has made a comment about the accusation made by Landis that US Postal team bikes were sold for drug money. He admits they were sold but definitely not for dope. So that’s cleared that up then, eh?
Bravo To The New Generation | Cyclingnews.com
LeMond: When I made my now often repeated statement about Lance Armstrong and his long term relationship with Dr. Ferrari in 2001, I tried to keep it as short and to the point as possible. I was very disappointed to learn that he was a patient of Dr. Ferrari. Long before this relationship was revealed by David Walsh in 2001 I had made comments about the entrance of specialists like Dr. Ferrari and others into the sport of cycling. I was hearing stories back as early as 1993 about Dr. Ferrari and his client list of pro cyclists.
It was said that Dr. Ferrari was getting around 15-20% of a riders salary for preparing their doping programs. Because of this information we often joked that Dr. Ferrari was the best paid rider in the peloton.
Open Letter From Dr. Michele Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com
- I have never coached more than twenty professional cyclists at the same time. In recent years, less than half of that.
- It is not true that the athletes paid for my services with a percentage of their salary: it is a false legend, originated from the so-called “Dossier Donati”.
Open Letter From Dr. Michele Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com
It is probably from this dossier that Greg Lemond drew the “rumours” and quotes the numerous “it was saids” in his letter.
But what Greg does not know, or pretends not to know, is that one of such “confidants” actually clearly mentions his name and that of his doctor in relation to doping events.
- It is absolutely false that cyclists contacted me for doping programs: some came to me at first with such request, but never came back twice.
Bruyneel Acknowledges That Discovery Bikes Were Sold On EBay | Cyclingnews.com
Johan Bruyneel has confirmed that one of his past teams sold bikes, but said it was after Discovery Channel had ended its sponsorship in 2007, and that he had “no idea” where the money had gone.
Floyd Landis had claimed recently that the US Postal team sold bikes to help fund the team’s doping programme. He said that some 60 bikes were not accounted for, and that they had been sold for cash.
“What Floyd is saying is that 60 bikes were missing,” Bruyneel said to the AP. “I have absolutely no idea where he got that from.”
Well believe what you will because no-one’s owning up yet – aside from Floyd Landis (if you can believe him, I mean).
Greg LeMond said a few things that he clearly believes are true, things he has stated before. He has never come to terms with other, lesser riders suddenly out-riding him and simply believes they were juiced. Which is probably a well regarded and highly shared opinion, true or not. As well he distrusts Dr Ferrari and points to him as a bad influence. However Dr Ferrari replies that he was cleared in a court of law and refutes these allegations. If a rider wants to cheat they should go elsewhere, he says.
Plus, Bruyneel has made a comment about the accusation made by Landis that US Postal team bikes were sold for drug money. He admits they were sold but definitely not for dope. So that’s cleared that up then, eh?
Bravo To The New Generation | Cyclingnews.com
LeMond: When I made my now often repeated statement about Lance Armstrong and his long term relationship with Dr. Ferrari in 2001, I tried to keep it as short and to the point as possible. I was very disappointed to learn that he was a patient of Dr. Ferrari. Long before this relationship was revealed by David Walsh in 2001 I had made comments about the entrance of specialists like Dr. Ferrari and others into the sport of cycling. I was hearing stories back as early as 1993 about Dr. Ferrari and his client list of pro cyclists.
It was said that Dr. Ferrari was getting around 15-20% of a riders salary for preparing their doping programs. Because of this information we often joked that Dr. Ferrari was the best paid rider in the peloton.
Open Letter From Dr. Michele Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com
- I have never coached more than twenty professional cyclists at the same time. In recent years, less than half of that.
- It is not true that the athletes paid for my services with a percentage of their salary: it is a false legend, originated from the so-called “Dossier Donati”.
Open Letter From Dr. Michele Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com
It is probably from this dossier that Greg Lemond drew the “rumours” and quotes the numerous “it was saids” in his letter.
But what Greg does not know, or pretends not to know, is that one of such “confidants” actually clearly mentions his name and that of his doctor in relation to doping events.
- It is absolutely false that cyclists contacted me for doping programs: some came to me at first with such request, but never came back twice.
Bruyneel Acknowledges That Discovery Bikes Were Sold On EBay | Cyclingnews.com
Johan Bruyneel has confirmed that one of his past teams sold bikes, but said it was after Discovery Channel had ended its sponsorship in 2007, and that he had “no idea” where the money had gone.
Floyd Landis had claimed recently that the US Postal team sold bikes to help fund the team’s doping programme. He said that some 60 bikes were not accounted for, and that they had been sold for cash.
“What Floyd is saying is that 60 bikes were missing,” Bruyneel said to the AP. “I have absolutely no idea where he got that from.”
I have no firm view on Mr Armstrong‘s involvement in doping practices but I will take issue with his attorney: “He’s gifted physically in ways that are very unique…”. OK, so what “gifts” are these? It’s a lame comment to make since (a) we are all unique, that’s how human genetics works unless he’s a clone or an absolutely identical twin – and even then there are differences. And (b) if he has these gifts then let’s see ‘em – prove it. if we can prove he has natural physical gifts of a higher order than any other tour rider then we have an explanation for 7 consecutive Tour wins and can layoff the search for ‘extraterrestrial’ gifts. Otherwise it’s lame.
Of course likely as not he’s only as physically gifted as the next elite-level highly trained 3 week stage racer. But he may well have exploited organisational, team or mental “gifts” better than the next guy. Otherwise, it’s lame.
Floyd Landis Nightline Interview – ABC News
“Well, it depends on what your definition of fraud is,” Landis said. “I mean it — look — if he didn’t win the Tour, someone else that was doped would have won the Tour. In every single one of those Tours.”
An attorney for Armstrong, Tim Herman, adamantly denied Landis’ allegations against Armstrong. He went on to say that Armstrong has undergone around 300 separate competition drug tests and never tested positive.
“I know [Armstrong] to be an athlete that comes along once every couple of generations,” Herman said. “He is extremely focused. He’s gifted physically in ways that are very unique and he is disciplined, dedicated. He’s the hardest working athlete I’ve ever been around. But he’s also extremely devoted and committed to his cancer work. …
“Landis is a confessed perjurer and he is a liar, and I think, as Lance said … when you taste milk to see if it’s sour, you take a first taste and you don’t have to drink the whole carton to know it’s all sour.”
I have no firm view on Mr Armstrong‘s involvement in doping practices but I will take issue with his attorney: “He’s gifted physically in ways that are very unique…”. OK, so what “gifts” are these? It’s a lame comment to make since (a) we are all unique, that’s how human genetics works unless he’s a clone or an absolutely identical twin – and even then there are differences. And (b) if he has these gifts then let’s see ‘em – prove it. if we can prove he has natural physical gifts of a higher order than any other tour rider then we have an explanation for 7 consecutive Tour wins and can layoff the search for ‘extraterrestrial’ gifts. Otherwise it’s lame.
Of course likely as not he’s only as physically gifted as the next elite-level highly trained 3 week stage racer. But he may well have exploited organisational, team or mental “gifts” better than the next guy. Otherwise, it’s lame.
Floyd Landis Nightline Interview – ABC News
“Well, it depends on what your definition of fraud is,” Landis said. “I mean it — look — if he didn’t win the Tour, someone else that was doped would have won the Tour. In every single one of those Tours.”
An attorney for Armstrong, Tim Herman, adamantly denied Landis’ allegations against Armstrong. He went on to say that Armstrong has undergone around 300 separate competition drug tests and never tested positive.
“I know [Armstrong] to be an athlete that comes along once every couple of generations,” Herman said. “He is extremely focused. He’s gifted physically in ways that are very unique and he is disciplined, dedicated. He’s the hardest working athlete I’ve ever been around. But he’s also extremely devoted and committed to his cancer work. …
“Landis is a confessed perjurer and he is a liar, and I think, as Lance said … when you taste milk to see if it’s sour, you take a first taste and you don’t have to drink the whole carton to know it’s all sour.”
Le Tour – any Grand Tour, in fact – is a beautiful thing to watch, and this one is no exception. It has had the scenery, the colour and spectacle; the bare, stripped humanity of pain, suffering and glory; as well as the day to day grind and the tactical to ing-and-fro ing that makes long stage racing so engrossing. You can keep your World Cup football, thanks: as wonderful as that round ball game may be it still boils down to short games of skill played by 2 opposing teams on flat pitches; whereas a 3-week bike race is a far longer journey made by individuals and teams over almost insurmountable obstacles, both literally and figuratively, where they all end together, covered in glory.
Anyway, it’s also boiled down to a battle between 2 riders for top dog status, and that’s what we expected anyway. So no real surprises there. And if Contador wins overall in Paris we still won’t be surprised. Sure there have been other surprises along the way, and lots of colourful detail to savour. So it remains compelling, whilst perhaps not being the best example of a Tour de France to date. But it is the one we have.
Armstrong: I Wish I Was Younger, Faster | Cyclingnews.com
Did the RadioShack team leader have any regrets this year? “I wish that I was younger, faster. I’ve had my time and I’ve got a long history with the Tour de France. I’ve had lots of good moments, got lots of good memories, I’ve also had some good luck, so I can’t complain and I won’t complain.”
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
By the time Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador reached the final three kilometers of Stage 17 – and this goes for all the riders behind them as well – there wasn’t much else for them to do but maintain as high a steady pace as they could. At the intensity they were holding, and at that altitude, you only have the potential for one or two big accelerations, and pulling the trigger on those efforts could just as easy backfire on you and push you over your limit. So don’t mistake what you saw in the closing kilometers of the Tourmalet today for a passive ride to the summit; it becomes increasingly difficult for racers who spend very little time competing at elevations above 5,000 feet to launch searing attacks on the upper slopes of the high mountains.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
As the gradient kicked in, Boasson Hagen was the first to be jettisoned from the leaders, Burghardt and Kolobnev pushed on leaving the others floundering in their wake. Meanwhile Saxo were setting up the play for Andy Schleck. Cancellara, followed by Chris Sorensen and then Fuglsang layed down a blistering pace sending many riders out the back; Basso and Evans the most notable, later to be followed backwards by Vinokourov!
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
All the pressure was on the young Luxembourger, he had to lead Contador, Schleck needs time in hand for the time trial, but with only 5 kilometres to the line he was running out of road to make his move. The gap between the Schleck/Contador tandem and the hopefuls was creeping over 1 minute.
Nico Roche was yo-yoing just behind the chasers, showing how just how fast the climb was being ridden (and how good he is!). Schleck wanted Contador to come to the front, but that was not going to happen and then at 3.8 K’s Contador shoots past, but Schleck counters and rides up to his shoulder.
Looks were exchanged between the two that would have killed lesser mortals.
Through the mist and the mad crowd the two battle on, as they come to the 1 kilometre flag and the barriers to give them a clear road to the line. 500 metres and Schleck is still on the front as both struggle towards the finish. Out of the darkness Contador comes next to Schleck, but he crosses the line half a wheel behind the young rider.
Le Tour – any Grand Tour, in fact – is a beautiful thing to watch, and this one is no exception. It has had the scenery, the colour and spectacle; the bare, stripped humanity of pain, suffering and glory; as well as the day to day grind and the tactical to ing-and-fro ing that makes long stage racing so engrossing. You can keep your World Cup football, thanks: as wonderful as that round ball game may be it still boils down to short games of skill played by 2 opposing teams on flat pitches; whereas a 3-week bike race is a far longer journey made by individuals and teams over almost insurmountable obstacles, both literally and figuratively, where they all end together, covered in glory.
Anyway, it’s also boiled down to a battle between 2 riders for top dog status, and that’s what we expected anyway. So no real surprises there. And if Contador wins overall in Paris we still won’t be surprised. Sure there have been other surprises along the way, and lots of colourful detail to savour. So it remains compelling, whilst perhaps not being the best example of a Tour de France to date. But it is the one we have.
Armstrong: I Wish I Was Younger, Faster | Cyclingnews.com
Did the RadioShack team leader have any regrets this year? “I wish that I was younger, faster. I’ve had my time and I’ve got a long history with the Tour de France. I’ve had lots of good moments, got lots of good memories, I’ve also had some good luck, so I can’t complain and I won’t complain.”
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
By the time Andy Schleck and Alberto Contador reached the final three kilometers of Stage 17 – and this goes for all the riders behind them as well – there wasn’t much else for them to do but maintain as high a steady pace as they could. At the intensity they were holding, and at that altitude, you only have the potential for one or two big accelerations, and pulling the trigger on those efforts could just as easy backfire on you and push you over your limit. So don’t mistake what you saw in the closing kilometers of the Tourmalet today for a passive ride to the summit; it becomes increasingly difficult for racers who spend very little time competing at elevations above 5,000 feet to launch searing attacks on the upper slopes of the high mountains.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
As the gradient kicked in, Boasson Hagen was the first to be jettisoned from the leaders, Burghardt and Kolobnev pushed on leaving the others floundering in their wake. Meanwhile Saxo were setting up the play for Andy Schleck. Cancellara, followed by Chris Sorensen and then Fuglsang layed down a blistering pace sending many riders out the back; Basso and Evans the most notable, later to be followed backwards by Vinokourov!
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
All the pressure was on the young Luxembourger, he had to lead Contador, Schleck needs time in hand for the time trial, but with only 5 kilometres to the line he was running out of road to make his move. The gap between the Schleck/Contador tandem and the hopefuls was creeping over 1 minute.
Nico Roche was yo-yoing just behind the chasers, showing how just how fast the climb was being ridden (and how good he is!). Schleck wanted Contador to come to the front, but that was not going to happen and then at 3.8 K’s Contador shoots past, but Schleck counters and rides up to his shoulder.
Looks were exchanged between the two that would have killed lesser mortals.
Through the mist and the mad crowd the two battle on, as they come to the 1 kilometre flag and the barriers to give them a clear road to the line. 500 metres and Schleck is still on the front as both struggle towards the finish. Out of the darkness Contador comes next to Schleck, but he crosses the line half a wheel behind the young rider.
OK, good to see Armstrong have a go – but all it really did was show us even more clearly that whatever advantage he had in the past he doesn’t have right now. He looks and rides just like old, attacking and almost unbeatable Armstrong but everyone just follows him now – before attacking him.
Somehow a more sluggish Lance (it’s all relative – he’s a rocket compared to most of us) looks wrong, just as it looked like Barredo had drunk too much red cordial during the stage. He kept attacking and getting caught, like it was some sort of sure-fire plan to soften them all up. And yes, it definitely softened a few legs, including his own. It may have softened his brain, too, when he finally got away with a long, long way to go. “Oh sure, I can hold all of ‘em off.” Armstrong, Horner, Cunego, Casar, Fedrigo, Moreau – bunch of no-names really. He managed to fool the “expert” TV commentators, too, who proclaimed “they won’t catch him now” just when his pursuers got serious and started, umm, catching him. Which they duly did. Gosh, caught at 1km to go, who would’ve thought?
Oh well, at least it was interesting viewing, unlike the laughing bunch of happy campers in the peleton behind. You know that when Hushovd is still there despite some big, big climbs – nothing much was happening in the GC bunch. Oh sure it was tough enough to hurt. But Hushovd was probably the most interesting to happen outside of the frantic first hour and the quality breakaway. Moreau clearly profited, too. Scenery’s nice too.
And as for Schleck‘s “fury” at Alberto‘s “mistake”, well that’s all in the past. Gosh, can’t remember the Badger being so forgiving in his day.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Fedrigo makes it six for France
The Luxemburger, who rides for Saxo Bank, is still eight seconds behind Spain’s two-time champion ahead of the race’s second and final rest day and two days before the final day of climbing to the summit of the Tourmalet on stage 17.
A day after they fell out because Contador attacked as Schleck tried to fix his mechanical setback, the pair had shaken hands and made up.
But Schleck warned: “It’s the last week of the Tour and I’m sure that we’ll be battling a lot on the (Col du) Tourmalet,” he said. “The Tour is not over.”
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Fedrigo makes it six for France
FDJ rider Casar, who had shown his finishing skills on a similar profile to win Stage 9, had lost ground with the frontrunners on the race’s fourth categorised climb, the Col de l’Aubisque.
But after he made up his gap of 1min 35sec on the descent, Barredo, perhaps sensing the danger, went off on his own only to be caught, agonisingly, with one kilometre to race.
Armstrong, who had been resting his legs for most of the last few kilometres, made a brief bid for the stage win in the final 500 metres.
However, Fedrigo dropped down a cog or two and maintained his power to surge up the inside of the barriers to beat Casar into second place at the finish line.
Casar said: “I spent a lot of energy just trying to catch the breakaway, but in the sprint I knew Pierrick would be very fast.”
Armstrong’s team manager at RadioShack, Johan Bruyneel, said Armstrong had told him he was tired with around 15km to race.
Contador And Schleck Make Up On French TV | Cyclingnews.com
GH (referring to the video that Contador posted on Youtube in the evening after stage 15): Alberto, is it true that you apologised to Andy?
AC: Yes. I didn’t need to. But we’ve got a very strong friendship and it was for that reason that I wanted to apologise yesterday evening.
AS: I realise that after what happened at Spa the race could already have been over for me. That day the peloton waited for me. Yesterday the situation wasn’t the same, and I realised that I shouldn’t fret about it too much.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
It was flashes of the Lance of old, but one thing had changed, this time his attacks were answered – first by a very strong Carlos Barredo (QS) – this time using his legs and not his fists to do the talking, and then by Bbox’s Pierrick Fedrigo who also looked very strong. It was an exciting stage – but not because of the gc – this one played out much like a transition day with the breakaway providing all the action.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
Days like Stage 16 are included because of how they fit into the big picture of a three-week Grand Tour. If you wanted to make every stage of the race decisive, you could easily create a course so brutal that it would be inhumane. As it is, in this third week of the 2010 Tour de France we have four mountain stages in the Pyrenees, two of which have summit finishes (14 and 17), one which had a descent straight to the finish (15), and today’s. Stage 16 included two Category 1 climbs and two Beyond Category climbs, so even though the race ended with 60 kilometers of gradual descending roads to the finish, it was bound to be a very hard day in the saddle. And that was its biggest contribution to the race.
OK, good to see Armstrong have a go – but all it really did was show us even more clearly that whatever advantage he had in the past he doesn’t have right now. He looks and rides just like old, attacking and almost unbeatable Armstrong but everyone just follows him now – before attacking him.
Somehow a more sluggish Lance (it’s all relative – he’s a rocket compared to most of us) looks wrong, just as it looked like Barredo had drunk too much red cordial during the stage. He kept attacking and getting caught, like it was some sort of sure-fire plan to soften them all up. And yes, it definitely softened a few legs, including his own. It may have softened his brain, too, when he finally got away with a long, long way to go. “Oh sure, I can hold all of ‘em off.” Armstrong, Horner, Cunego, Casar, Fedrigo, Moreau – bunch of no-names really. He managed to fool the “expert” TV commentators, too, who proclaimed “they won’t catch him now” just when his pursuers got serious and started, umm, catching him. Which they duly did. Gosh, caught at 1km to go, who would’ve thought?
Oh well, at least it was interesting viewing, unlike the laughing bunch of happy campers in the peleton behind. You know that when Hushovd is still there despite some big, big climbs – nothing much was happening in the GC bunch. Oh sure it was tough enough to hurt. But Hushovd was probably the most interesting to happen outside of the frantic first hour and the quality breakaway. Moreau clearly profited, too. Scenery’s nice too.
And as for Schleck‘s “fury” at Alberto‘s “mistake”, well that’s all in the past. Gosh, can’t remember the Badger being so forgiving in his day.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Fedrigo makes it six for France
The Luxemburger, who rides for Saxo Bank, is still eight seconds behind Spain’s two-time champion ahead of the race’s second and final rest day and two days before the final day of climbing to the summit of the Tourmalet on stage 17.
A day after they fell out because Contador attacked as Schleck tried to fix his mechanical setback, the pair had shaken hands and made up.
But Schleck warned: “It’s the last week of the Tour and I’m sure that we’ll be battling a lot on the (Col du) Tourmalet,” he said. “The Tour is not over.”
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Fedrigo makes it six for France
FDJ rider Casar, who had shown his finishing skills on a similar profile to win Stage 9, had lost ground with the frontrunners on the race’s fourth categorised climb, the Col de l’Aubisque.
But after he made up his gap of 1min 35sec on the descent, Barredo, perhaps sensing the danger, went off on his own only to be caught, agonisingly, with one kilometre to race.
Armstrong, who had been resting his legs for most of the last few kilometres, made a brief bid for the stage win in the final 500 metres.
However, Fedrigo dropped down a cog or two and maintained his power to surge up the inside of the barriers to beat Casar into second place at the finish line.
Casar said: “I spent a lot of energy just trying to catch the breakaway, but in the sprint I knew Pierrick would be very fast.”
Armstrong’s team manager at RadioShack, Johan Bruyneel, said Armstrong had told him he was tired with around 15km to race.
Contador And Schleck Make Up On French TV | Cyclingnews.com
GH (referring to the video that Contador posted on Youtube in the evening after stage 15): Alberto, is it true that you apologised to Andy?
AC: Yes. I didn’t need to. But we’ve got a very strong friendship and it was for that reason that I wanted to apologise yesterday evening.
AS: I realise that after what happened at Spa the race could already have been over for me. That day the peloton waited for me. Yesterday the situation wasn’t the same, and I realised that I shouldn’t fret about it too much.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
It was flashes of the Lance of old, but one thing had changed, this time his attacks were answered – first by a very strong Carlos Barredo (QS) – this time using his legs and not his fists to do the talking, and then by Bbox’s Pierrick Fedrigo who also looked very strong. It was an exciting stage – but not because of the gc – this one played out much like a transition day with the breakaway providing all the action.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
Days like Stage 16 are included because of how they fit into the big picture of a three-week Grand Tour. If you wanted to make every stage of the race decisive, you could easily create a course so brutal that it would be inhumane. As it is, in this third week of the 2010 Tour de France we have four mountain stages in the Pyrenees, two of which have summit finishes (14 and 17), one which had a descent straight to the finish (15), and today’s. Stage 16 included two Category 1 climbs and two Beyond Category climbs, so even though the race ended with 60 kilometers of gradual descending roads to the finish, it was bound to be a very hard day in the saddle. And that was its biggest contribution to the race.
I’m not sure I’d call it crucial evidence but it’s surprising that Lance has forgotten even a 10 – perhaps 11.5% investment in Tailwind Sports. It’s probably chickenfeed, especially 5 years on. But to forget it? Or try to hide it? Why? Of course the let-out clause here is that the transaction may have been delayed until 2007, so what Lance thought had happened by 2005 actually only completed a couple of years later, if it completed at all. There’s some doubt here.
What may matter more down the line is if corroborated evidence comes to light that Tailwind was coordinating the alleged institutionalised doping within the US Postal team. At which point – a point we are nowhere near by the way – Lance may be seen as sharing in the profits of an illicit activity and thus in some way sharing responsibility beyond that of a mere bike-riding employee. As I say, that’s a long bow to draw and there’s no evidence of institutionalised doping at US Postal other than the statements by Landis and speculation by others. All smoke, no fire at this stage.
Cycling Bloggers Scour Armstrong’s 2005 Testimony – The Lede Blog – NYTimes.com
In Mr. Armstrong’s answers to questions in the deposition from Jeff Tillotson, a lawyer representing the firm that initially withheld the bonus, he said he was not sure how much of the company he owned, but added that his agent, Bill Stapleton, would know.
Q. Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports is?
A. I’m an athlete on the team.
Q. Do you have any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports?
A. A small one.
Q. When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?
A. Perhaps 10 percent.
Q. Do you know when you acquired that ownership interest?
A. No. I don’t remember.
Q. Would it have been in 2005, or before that?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Do you have any — is there — do you have any recollection as to when it would have been? ’02? ’03? ’04?
A. Before today.
Q. OK. Would it have been before 2001?
A. Probably not, but I’m not a hundred percent sure.
Q. Who would know the answer to that question as to when you acquired an ownership interest in Tailwind?
A. Bill Stapleton.
On Wednesday afternoon, Bonnie D. Ford of ESPN reported:
In a separate deposition taken in September 2005, Stapleton, also questioned by Tillotson, said Armstrong was among “10 or 15″ owners of Tailwind. Stapleton said he thought the cyclist controlled 11.5 percent of the company.
Cycling Bloggers Scour Armstrong’s 2005 Testimony – The Lede Blog – NYTimes.com
Asked by Mr. Tillotson, “Did Mr. Armstrong acquire his ownership interest in Tailwind prior to the 2004 Tour de France”? Mr. Stapleton said, “I don’t think he did. Our contract with the — with the — with Tailwind and Lance’s involvement, it was certainly intended by the summer of 2004. I don’t think it was executed.”
In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Armstrong’s personal lawyer, Tim Herman, said that the confusion was caused by the fact that the company that owned the team, Tailwind, had decided to give Mr. Armstrong stock in 2004 but did not actually do so until 2007.
Filed under Armstrong, Landis by Rob.
I’m not sure I’d call it crucial evidence but it’s surprising that Lance has forgotten even a 10 – perhaps 11.5% investment in Tailwind Sports. It’s probably chickenfeed, especially 5 years on. But to forget it? Or try to hide it? Why? Of course the let-out clause here is that the transaction may have been delayed until 2007, so what Lance thought had happened by 2005 actually only completed a couple of years later, if it completed at all. There’s some doubt here.
What may matter more down the line is if corroborated evidence comes to light that Tailwind was coordinating the alleged institutionalised doping within the US Postal team. At which point – a point we are nowhere near by the way – Lance may be seen as sharing in the profits of an illicit activity and thus in some way sharing responsibility beyond that of a mere bike-riding employee. As I say, that’s a long bow to draw and there’s no evidence of institutionalised doping at US Postal other than the statements by Landis and speculation by others. All smoke, no fire at this stage.
Cycling Bloggers Scour Armstrong’s 2005 Testimony – The Lede Blog – NYTimes.com
In Mr. Armstrong’s answers to questions in the deposition from Jeff Tillotson, a lawyer representing the firm that initially withheld the bonus, he said he was not sure how much of the company he owned, but added that his agent, Bill Stapleton, would know.
Q. Can you tell us what your relationship, first, your business relationship with Tailwind Sports is?
A. I’m an athlete on the team.
Q. Do you have any ownership interest in Tailwind Sports?
A. A small one.
Q. When you say a small one, can you give me an approximate percentage as to what that would be, if you know?
A. Perhaps 10 percent.
Q. Do you know when you acquired that ownership interest?
A. No. I don’t remember.
Q. Would it have been in 2005, or before that?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Do you have any — is there — do you have any recollection as to when it would have been? ’02? ’03? ’04?
A. Before today.
Q. OK. Would it have been before 2001?
A. Probably not, but I’m not a hundred percent sure.
Q. Who would know the answer to that question as to when you acquired an ownership interest in Tailwind?
A. Bill Stapleton.
On Wednesday afternoon, Bonnie D. Ford of ESPN reported:
In a separate deposition taken in September 2005, Stapleton, also questioned by Tillotson, said Armstrong was among “10 or 15″ owners of Tailwind. Stapleton said he thought the cyclist controlled 11.5 percent of the company.
Cycling Bloggers Scour Armstrong’s 2005 Testimony – The Lede Blog – NYTimes.com
Asked by Mr. Tillotson, “Did Mr. Armstrong acquire his ownership interest in Tailwind prior to the 2004 Tour de France”? Mr. Stapleton said, “I don’t think he did. Our contract with the — with the — with Tailwind and Lance’s involvement, it was certainly intended by the summer of 2004. I don’t think it was executed.”
In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Armstrong’s personal lawyer, Tim Herman, said that the confusion was caused by the fact that the company that owned the team, Tailwind, had decided to give Mr. Armstrong stock in 2004 but did not actually do so until 2007.
Filed under Armstrong, Landis by Rob.
Some varied views on what happened…
First up is Bob Roll commenting on Lance in particular – and it’s a fair and balanced view overall. A reporter (Frankie Andreu, apparently) and the co-host put a pro-Lance spin on it though, the reporting theme being “bad luck x 3″ for Lance. But when you clip a pedal in a corner that’s miss-applied skill, timing and judgement as much as “luck”, isn’t it? (And I say that as someone who has come off the bike whilst leading a race… by clipping a pedal. You should know better but sometimes it just happens. It hurts, too.)
Interesting that Andy Schleck thought the peleton should have waited for Armstrong – which admittedly sometimes happens and perhaps should always happen when the GC leaders are affected by such incidents – but as the bunch was so large with so many teams in with a chance it wasn’t really an enforceable option. Perhaps he could have gone to the front and called a truce, a la Fabian on the stage into Spa? Not that team Astana was likely to agree – they were keen to gain time on the ‘old man’.
Interesting also that Lance rolled a tyre in the pedal-clipping incident. You’d get a fine and a few weeks ‘rest’ for that sin in these parts.
Lance Update – Stage 8 – Versus
From the 2010 Tour de France – Stage 8
Interview with Cadel Evans – Post Stage 8 – Versus
From the 2010 Tour de France – Post Stage 8
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Evans bounces back to take yellow
“I don’t know if everyone saw my fall after 6 km. I thought then that the Tour might be over,” said Evans, who had to ride most of the 2008 edition hampered by injuries after a crash early in the race.
“I had to get treatment from the doctor.”
As Chavanel is not a specialist climber the Frenchman knew he would give up the race lead, but it was not until late on the 14km climb to Avoriaz that Evans was assured of the yellow jersey.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Evans bounces back to take yellow
Despite Evans’ scrapes from his crash, seven-time champion Lance Armstrong came off far worse, the American crashing before the climb to Ramaz and losing nearly 12 minutes to finish more than 13 minutes behind Evans.
While Schleck suggested the peloton owed it to the American to wait, Evans was less generous in his assessment.
He remembers only too well the times rivals did not wait for him: “To have a crash in a mountain stage of a Tour can be really difficult.
“Today I crashed but two years ago when I crashed in the Tour I had one of hardest days of my career on the stage to Hautacam, with all the bruising and pain.
“That day, I got dropped with (sprinter) Julian Dean on the first climb and was fighting for yellow at the end of day.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Sastre happy to move up
While another challenger, Andy Schleck, attacked in the final kilometre to win the stage, and Evans took the yellow jersey, Sastre moved up 14 places to 12th overall at 2min 40sec behind the Australian.
“I am satisfied with today’s stage. I was with the leaders of the race and I didn’t lose time to any important riders in this Tour de France,” said the Spaniard.
“It was a very hard stage. The first nine days of the Tour were not easy for anyone. I am happy that all the problems we had at the beginning of the race are behind us.
“Now everything is good. I am feeling better every day and can be optimistic for the coming days. I am very satisfied.
Evans secures yellow jersey – TourDeFrance – Sportal Australia
Evans (BMC Racing) finished in a group 10 seconds behind to become the first world champion to take the Tour race leader’s yellow jersey since Greg LeMond in 1990 but Armstrong saw his dreams of winning another title fall into oblivion.
“My Tour’s finished,” said seven-time champion Armstrong, who finished third in his comeback year in 2009.
“But I’ll hang in there and enjoy my final Tour.”
“I’m not going to complain. This is just a bad day.”
“It went from bad to worse.”
Some varied views on what happened…
First up is Bob Roll commenting on Lance in particular – and it’s a fair and balanced view overall. A reporter (Frankie Andreu, apparently) and the co-host put a pro-Lance spin on it though, the reporting theme being “bad luck x 3″ for Lance. But when you clip a pedal in a corner that’s miss-applied skill, timing and judgement as much as “luck”, isn’t it? (And I say that as someone who has come off the bike whilst leading a race… by clipping a pedal. You should know better but sometimes it just happens. It hurts, too.)
Interesting that Andy Schleck thought the peleton should have waited for Armstrong – which admittedly sometimes happens and perhaps should always happen when the GC leaders are affected by such incidents – but as the bunch was so large with so many teams in with a chance it wasn’t really an enforceable option. Perhaps he could have gone to the front and called a truce, a la Fabian on the stage into Spa? Not that team Astana was likely to agree – they were keen to gain time on the ‘old man’.
Interesting also that Lance rolled a tyre in the pedal-clipping incident. You’d get a fine and a few weeks ‘rest’ for that sin in these parts.
Lance Update – Stage 8 – Versus
From the 2010 Tour de France – Stage 8
Interview with Cadel Evans – Post Stage 8 – Versus
From the 2010 Tour de France – Post Stage 8
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Evans bounces back to take yellow
“I don’t know if everyone saw my fall after 6 km. I thought then that the Tour might be over,” said Evans, who had to ride most of the 2008 edition hampered by injuries after a crash early in the race.
“I had to get treatment from the doctor.”
As Chavanel is not a specialist climber the Frenchman knew he would give up the race lead, but it was not until late on the 14km climb to Avoriaz that Evans was assured of the yellow jersey.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Evans bounces back to take yellow
Despite Evans’ scrapes from his crash, seven-time champion Lance Armstrong came off far worse, the American crashing before the climb to Ramaz and losing nearly 12 minutes to finish more than 13 minutes behind Evans.
While Schleck suggested the peloton owed it to the American to wait, Evans was less generous in his assessment.
He remembers only too well the times rivals did not wait for him: “To have a crash in a mountain stage of a Tour can be really difficult.
“Today I crashed but two years ago when I crashed in the Tour I had one of hardest days of my career on the stage to Hautacam, with all the bruising and pain.
“That day, I got dropped with (sprinter) Julian Dean on the first climb and was fighting for yellow at the end of day.
SBS: Tour de France 2010: Sastre happy to move up
While another challenger, Andy Schleck, attacked in the final kilometre to win the stage, and Evans took the yellow jersey, Sastre moved up 14 places to 12th overall at 2min 40sec behind the Australian.
“I am satisfied with today’s stage. I was with the leaders of the race and I didn’t lose time to any important riders in this Tour de France,” said the Spaniard.
“It was a very hard stage. The first nine days of the Tour were not easy for anyone. I am happy that all the problems we had at the beginning of the race are behind us.
“Now everything is good. I am feeling better every day and can be optimistic for the coming days. I am very satisfied.
Evans secures yellow jersey – TourDeFrance – Sportal Australia
Evans (BMC Racing) finished in a group 10 seconds behind to become the first world champion to take the Tour race leader’s yellow jersey since Greg LeMond in 1990 but Armstrong saw his dreams of winning another title fall into oblivion.
“My Tour’s finished,” said seven-time champion Armstrong, who finished third in his comeback year in 2009.
“But I’ll hang in there and enjoy my final Tour.”
“I’m not going to complain. This is just a bad day.”
“It went from bad to worse.”
What would you say about Paris in 2 weeks time, all things being equal from here? Schleck 1st, followed by Contador and Evans? Too early to be sure about Contador? Thinking that Evans will bleed time on key stages but gain it back on the long TT? Concerned about someone else falling, or a joker in the GC pack, perhaps 1 or even 2 minutes back, biding their time?
It feels more like the ’80s again. At least in the warm, fuzzy glow of hindsight, anyway. I mean before it got a bit too predictable, with the strongest TT rider (usually someone called Indurain or, later, Armstrong) claiming the overall win in Paris. Again. And again. Usually achieved more by ‘best average performance’ than by bold and exciting moves, too. Yes, OK, there were some classic attacking performances in the past 25 years or so, but how many tours were won more by grinding obsessives rather than mercurial pirates? (Let’s leave the pharmaceuticals out of it for the moment and just consider the drama.)
Whether the peleton has become “cleaner” or not is debatable, but we are – arguably – seeing more variation and a greater degree of suspense over the whole 3 weeks. (Yes, it is just week one but you know what I mean.) Whilst we may recognise Contador as king we also harbour doubts – we see a chink in the armour. And can Schleck keep it up? Is Sastre planning a big attack later in the tour? Will Evans keep close enough in the mountains to win it back in the TT? What of Menchov, Rogers and Basso? We can see a competition every day.
And there are so many possibilities. Whilst we can write Armstrong off overall he may well turn super-domestique for Leipheimer. Sastre and Menchov may save it all up for week 3. Evans and Basso may limit their losses. Wiggins may strike back. Even more likely, though, is that Contador may have just had his ‘one bad day’ and will come back fighting.
It’s all possible, rather than predictable.
Tour De France: Stage 8, Route Maps & Results | Cyclingnews.com
“I’ve got to get my head around the position that I’m in now,” said Schleck, with a rest day ahead of him tomorrow. “There are still a lot of very hard days, but I am pretty relaxed for the moment. I’ve done my thing, and I hope I can do a great race and I hope I don’t have a bad day.”
Ten seconds behind, the group was led in by another of the day’s aggressors, Robert Gesink (Rabobank), with Roman Kreuziger (Liquigas) fourth and Contador fifth. Sixth, though, was the day’s other big winner, Cadel Evans (BMC), who survived an early fall to claim the yellow jersey.
Evans now leads the general classification ahead of Schleck by 20 seconds, with Contador up to third, 1:01 behind the Australian.
Many will expect the overall winner to come from this trio, meaning, inevitably, that one of the day’s big stories was the end of Armstrong’s challenge – indeed, the definitive end of the Armstrong era.
Schleck Gives Warning Of Things To Come | Cyclingnews.com
“I really felt good. My legs were turning well, and the team was great. On the last climb I had no problem. I thought about attacking earlier but I have a plan for this Tour and I’m going to stick to it. Pressure motivates me. I’m here for a goal, to win in Paris, but if I can win a stage, I’ll take it,” he said at the finish.
Vinokourov Fills Domestique’s Shoes | Cyclingnews.com
Vinokourov didn’t expect Armstrong to disappear so quickly from the top positions of the classification. “I think he suffered in the heat,” said the Astana star. “He also crashed quite a bit as well. Now he’s out of contention for sure. We’ll see – day after day – how we can get rid of our other adversaries.”
Saxo Bank’s Andy Schleck, who won the day’s stage, isn’t a major concern for Vinokourov. “He hasn’t taken much time on Alberto, I’m not worried,” he said.
Evans Gives BMC Its First Yellow Jersey | Cyclingnews.com
Evans played a somewhat cagey game, aware that his team will shoulder the responsibility of controlling the race before the Pyrenees start. “We’ll wait for stages after tomorrow, but I’m happy it’s a rest day. We’ll think about it and come up with plan but the Pyrenees are very hard, Andy (Schleck) is going well, (Alberto) Contador and Astana (are) really strong, so we’ll have to see and decide how to approach the mountains.”
Wiggins Limits Damage In Tour De France Test | Cyclingnews.com
“I felt pretty good most of the day, especially on the second climb. It was just on the last one that I was overcooked and there came a point when I had to back off so I wouldn’t completely blow. It was a damage limitation exercise,” he said at the finish.
Armstrong’s Tour Challenge Collapses | Cyclingnews.com
“I clipped a pedal [in the roundabout -ed.] and next thing I knew I was rolling on the ground at 65 kilometres per hour,” Armstrong explained after the stage. “I didn’t make it back on until la Ramaz and I was pegged.”
His jersey torn, Armstrong was slow to remount but made contact before the critical climb of Col de la Ramaz. However Sky and Saxo Bank set a strong pace, and it proved too much as the American slipped back from the leaders. At first he was assisted by Chris Horner but later Janez Brajkovic took over, as Levi Leipheimer and Andreas Klöden stayed with the leaders.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
Back in 1996, the cycling world wondered whether Miguel Indurain could become the first cyclist to win the Tour de France six times. He had dominated the race for five consecutive years by steamrolling the competition in the time trials and riding steadily in the mountains. But 1996 he struggled, and on Stage 7 he was suddenly unhitched from the lead group in the mountains. The calm demeanor and steady pedaling action were gone and Big Mig was in trouble. He lost more than 4 minutes that day, and by the time the race reached Paris, Indurain finished what would be his final Tour de France in 11th place, more than 14 minutes behind winner Bjarne Riis.
Filed under Armstrong, Cadel Evans, Carlos Sastre, Contador, Ivan Basso, Le Tour, Le Tour de France, Menchov, Rogers, Schleck, TdF by Rob.
What would you say about Paris in 2 weeks time, all things being equal from here? Schleck 1st, followed by Contador and Evans? Too early to be sure about Contador? Thinking that Evans will bleed time on key stages but gain it back on the long TT? Concerned about someone else falling, or a joker in the GC pack, perhaps 1 or even 2 minutes back, biding their time?
It feels more like the ’80s again. At least in the warm, fuzzy glow of hindsight, anyway. I mean before it got a bit too predictable, with the strongest TT rider (usually someone called Indurain or, later, Armstrong) claiming the overall win in Paris. Again. And again. Usually achieved more by ‘best average performance’ than by bold and exciting moves, too. Yes, OK, there were some classic attacking performances in the past 25 years or so, but how many tours were won more by grinding obsessives rather than mercurial pirates? (Let’s leave the pharmaceuticals out of it for the moment and just consider the drama.)
Whether the peleton has become “cleaner” or not is debatable, but we are – arguably – seeing more variation and a greater degree of suspense over the whole 3 weeks. (Yes, it is just week one but you know what I mean.) Whilst we may recognise Contador as king we also harbour doubts – we see a chink in the armour. And can Schleck keep it up? Is Sastre planning a big attack later in the tour? Will Evans keep close enough in the mountains to win it back in the TT? What of Menchov, Rogers and Basso? We can see a competition every day.
And there are so many possibilities. Whilst we can write Armstrong off overall he may well turn super-domestique for Leipheimer. Sastre and Menchov may save it all up for week 3. Evans and Basso may limit their losses. Wiggins may strike back. Even more likely, though, is that Contador may have just had his ‘one bad day’ and will come back fighting.
It’s all possible, rather than predictable.
Tour De France: Stage 8, Route Maps & Results | Cyclingnews.com
“I’ve got to get my head around the position that I’m in now,” said Schleck, with a rest day ahead of him tomorrow. “There are still a lot of very hard days, but I am pretty relaxed for the moment. I’ve done my thing, and I hope I can do a great race and I hope I don’t have a bad day.”
Ten seconds behind, the group was led in by another of the day’s aggressors, Robert Gesink (Rabobank), with Roman Kreuziger (Liquigas) fourth and Contador fifth. Sixth, though, was the day’s other big winner, Cadel Evans (BMC), who survived an early fall to claim the yellow jersey.
Evans now leads the general classification ahead of Schleck by 20 seconds, with Contador up to third, 1:01 behind the Australian.
Many will expect the overall winner to come from this trio, meaning, inevitably, that one of the day’s big stories was the end of Armstrong’s challenge – indeed, the definitive end of the Armstrong era.
Schleck Gives Warning Of Things To Come | Cyclingnews.com
“I really felt good. My legs were turning well, and the team was great. On the last climb I had no problem. I thought about attacking earlier but I have a plan for this Tour and I’m going to stick to it. Pressure motivates me. I’m here for a goal, to win in Paris, but if I can win a stage, I’ll take it,” he said at the finish.
Vinokourov Fills Domestique’s Shoes | Cyclingnews.com
Vinokourov didn’t expect Armstrong to disappear so quickly from the top positions of the classification. “I think he suffered in the heat,” said the Astana star. “He also crashed quite a bit as well. Now he’s out of contention for sure. We’ll see – day after day – how we can get rid of our other adversaries.”
Saxo Bank’s Andy Schleck, who won the day’s stage, isn’t a major concern for Vinokourov. “He hasn’t taken much time on Alberto, I’m not worried,” he said.
Evans Gives BMC Its First Yellow Jersey | Cyclingnews.com
Evans played a somewhat cagey game, aware that his team will shoulder the responsibility of controlling the race before the Pyrenees start. “We’ll wait for stages after tomorrow, but I’m happy it’s a rest day. We’ll think about it and come up with plan but the Pyrenees are very hard, Andy (Schleck) is going well, (Alberto) Contador and Astana (are) really strong, so we’ll have to see and decide how to approach the mountains.”
Wiggins Limits Damage In Tour De France Test | Cyclingnews.com
“I felt pretty good most of the day, especially on the second climb. It was just on the last one that I was overcooked and there came a point when I had to back off so I wouldn’t completely blow. It was a damage limitation exercise,” he said at the finish.
Armstrong’s Tour Challenge Collapses | Cyclingnews.com
“I clipped a pedal [in the roundabout -ed.] and next thing I knew I was rolling on the ground at 65 kilometres per hour,” Armstrong explained after the stage. “I didn’t make it back on until la Ramaz and I was pegged.”
His jersey torn, Armstrong was slow to remount but made contact before the critical climb of Col de la Ramaz. However Sky and Saxo Bank set a strong pace, and it proved too much as the American slipped back from the leaders. At first he was assisted by Chris Horner but later Janez Brajkovic took over, as Levi Leipheimer and Andreas Klöden stayed with the leaders.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
Back in 1996, the cycling world wondered whether Miguel Indurain could become the first cyclist to win the Tour de France six times. He had dominated the race for five consecutive years by steamrolling the competition in the time trials and riding steadily in the mountains. But 1996 he struggled, and on Stage 7 he was suddenly unhitched from the lead group in the mountains. The calm demeanor and steady pedaling action were gone and Big Mig was in trouble. He lost more than 4 minutes that day, and by the time the race reached Paris, Indurain finished what would be his final Tour de France in 11th place, more than 14 minutes behind winner Bjarne Riis.
Filed under Armstrong, Cadel Evans, Carlos Sastre, Contador, Ivan Basso, Le Tour, Le Tour de France, Menchov, Rogers, Schleck, TdF by Rob.
No so surprisingly Sylvain Chavanel had something to prove after that slightly hollow win a few days ago. And equally fittingly the main agitator for that earlier non-race – Cancellara – was spat out he back.
For the rest it was a bit of a sorting out, a prelude for tougher days ahead, but told us nothing really. We expected Cancellara and Saxo Bank to rest up, there was no need to defend the yellow on Stage 7 – but every reason to prepare to launch Andy Schleck in the mountains to come. Evans equally didn’t want yellow just yet. And the domestiques of the GC leaders had a quiet day in expectation of the real battle to come in Stage 8.
A small surprise was Kloden‘s failure to match the GC leaders, but he hasn’t lived up to expectations for some years, has he? He will be back – rehydrated – and up to the task of helping launch Armstrong‘s attack. It’s just up to the others to match Armstrong, to keep him in check and leverage any opportunity that subsequently comes along. Basso and Sastre will also want to join in, even if it’s too early in the tour to commit everything they, like Armstrong, will be keen to reduce the gap to everyone else.
Contador will also look to gain time on Schleck and Evans if that chance comes up. He may well launch Vino as a distraction… with Vino up the road Contador and Astana will hope to draw out the real GC favorites. It will put Menchov, Rogers and Wiggins to the test as well.
And then there could be the odd surprise… Hesjedal? Roche? Van Den Broeck?
Tour De France: Stage 7, Route Maps & Results | Cyclingnews.com
Sylvain Chavanel (Quick Step) won his second stage of this year’s Tour de France at Station des Rousses on Saturday, and completed another double, taking over the yellow jersey, just as he also did in Spa at the end of stage 2.
Unlike in Spa, however, the history books will show no asterisk against Chavanel’s name after this victory – which, again, he achieved alone.
Tour De France: Stage 7, Route Maps & Results | Cyclingnews.com
But while the Croix de la Serra acted as the launchpad to Chavanel’s victory, and effectively ended Fabian Cancellara’s (Saxo Bank) spell in yellow, it told us very little about the climbing form of Alberto Contador (Astana), Andy Schleck (Saxo Bank), Lance Armstrong (RadioShack) or Bradley Wiggins (Team Sky), with last year’s top four all present, correct and looking comfortable.
Armstrong Keeps His Cool Despite Heat, Saddle Sore | Cyclingnews.com
“I suffered,” said Armstrong. “I think about everybody did. It was so incredibly hard. It was just the heat. Everybody really paid. Everybody would say it was much harder than we’d think because of the temperature. If you get a little behind on hydration and nutrition – that’s what happened to Klödi (Andreas Klöden) – the man with the hammer comes and you’re done.”
Leipheimer Keeps An Eye On Vinokourov | Cyclingnews.com
Levi Leipheimer’s task during stage 7 of the Tour de France was to mark Alexander Vinokourov (Astana). The RadioShack rider, who finished alongside Vinokourov in the lead group of GC contenders, said that the Astana rider was too dangerous to escape without company from someone on Lance Armstrong’s Radioshack squad.
Van Den Broeck Ready For Battle In The Alps | Cyclingnews.com
“Today went well,” he told Cyclingnews as he warmed down on the team bus. “It was an easy day with no problems but tomorrow will be all out war.”
Van Den Broeck Ready For Battle In The Alps | Cyclingnews.com
In Matthew Lloyd, Van Den Broeck has a strong mountain domestique and the Australian is sure that his teammate can make a serious impression on the race over the coming two weeks. “Today we made sure Jurgen was fresh all day, especially when the speed was relatively high.”
Roche Passes First Mountain Test | Cyclingnews.com
“I passed the test but I’m exhausted,” Roche told Cyclingnews as he ground to a halt after the finish line.
After downing a bottle of water, the 26-year-old looked up and gave his impression on day that saw all the yellow jersey contenders finish together.
“I was feeling good but I guess there was a big group at the finish. It just proves that it’s going to be pretty tough to stay with these guys,” Roche told Cyclingnews.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
when BBox Telecom missed the breakaway today, their team manager sent them to the front to chase. That brought the breakaway close enough to the peloton for French National Champion Thomas Voeckler to attack for a possible stage win.
- By Chris Carmichael -
Not to be outdone by his countryman, Sylvain Chavanel (winner of Stage 2) set off in pursuit. Chavanel had a great ride and won the stage, and took the yellow jersey for the second time in this year’s race, but the Battle of the Frenchmen – along with the heat – also made the stage much more difficult than many riders had anticipated.
PezCycling News – What’s Cool In Pro Cycling
If the lead group of yellow jersey contenders is all together at the bottom of the final climb, I fully expect Alberto Contador to attack on the final climb of Stage 8. Right now there are too many riders who are close to him on the overall classification and he’ll take the opportunity to ‘thin the herd’. The big question is how well the others will respond. Cadel Evans is better than he was in 2009, and so is Lance Armstrong. Andy Schleck was the only man capable of accelerating with Contador last year, but his pre-Tour preparation wasn’t as perfect as in 2009. And what of the dark horse in the periphery, Ivan Basso. He’s looking to make up some serious time in the overall race for yellow, and the mountains are where he overcame a big deficit to win the Giro d’Italia earlier this year.
Robbie McEwen (mcewenrobbie) on Twitter
@bdlancaster i was swearing at you for going so quick but thanks mate. expected bigger time cut. was too delerious to work it out
really had to battle thru tday, world of hurt as they say, but made it. v sorry 4 my team+roommate StijnVdb, outside time limit.
Cadel’s Diary | Cadel Evans 2009-2010 – The Official Site of Cadel Evans – World Champion 2009, Tour de France runner-up in 2007,2008.
Why is it the roads always melt in Europe? More hot-mix less blue-metal?…feels like riding on underinflated tyres. So much so, that the GC teams did not want to lay it on the line today. Allowing break away specialist Chavanel to win the stage and reclaim the yellow jersey. It’s been a great start to the Tour for Quick-Step so far, they were not in the greatest moods with the omission if Tom Boonen. Carlos Barredo gave them all a moral boost yesterday, you have all seen the post stage ‘fight’ on YouTube? Our dinner table was entertained…. How he got away with only 400CHF in fines mystifies me.
Filed under Armstrong, Cadel Evans, Cancellara, Carlos Sastre, Contador, Ivan Basso, Le Tour, Le Tour de France, Menchov, Rogers, Schleck, TdF by Rob.
|
|
