|
Yeah he was a Puerto guy but they actually proved some of the blood being stored was his I think Sutherland takes the stage, but TVG cracked badly at the end there. Leipheimer takes yellow, think Vande Velde is now second, with TVG probably third e: and like an hour later I notice I posted this in the wrong cycling thread  my bad
Allyn fucked around with this message at Aug 25, 2012 around 23:07 |
| # ? Aug 25, 2012 21:29 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 12:08 |
|
|
Femur posted:What do you think people like Ullrich feel when they lose to Lance? Do you think they curse him for being cheaters, while justifying their own actions, or are they just jealous they can't get the good stuff like Lance? Or is cheating so accepted that it doesn't even enter the consciousnesses as a rage against? When there wasn't a test for EPO and they just had the 50% hemocrit standard, basically what that translated to was "you better show up on the line with 49% hemocrit".
|
| # ? Aug 26, 2012 02:12 |
|
|
I meant do they get angry that he had better stuff, or do they think it's even because they're all cheaters
|
| # ? Aug 26, 2012 03:29 |
|
|
Femur posted:I meant do they get angry that he had better stuff, or do they think it's even because they're all cheaters At various times people have had better equipment and won races so I think it's all a wash.
|
| # ? Aug 26, 2012 05:21 |
|
|
Sorry for effectively bringing this back from the dead, but the USADA is releasing a full report about the case today, which will be over 1000 pages long and includes testimony from 11 former teammates.
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 17:12 |
|
|
Haha 26 people testified under oath, including 11 former teammates. "The six active former teammates, Levi Leipheimer (Omega Pharma-QuickStep), Christian Vande Velde (Garmin-Sharp), David Zabriskie (Garmin-Sharp), Tom Danielson (Garmin-Sharp), Michael Barry (Sky) and George Hincapie (BMC) have subsequently been suspended."
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 17:26 |
|
|
quote:(AP) -- The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency says 11 of Lance Armstrong's former teammates testified against him in its investigation of the cyclist, revealing "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...l#ixzz28v0YaJDQ
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 17:32 |
|
|
The report appears to be up now: http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 18:52 |
|
|
Holy poo poo, there's a whole section in here dedicated to calling out the UCI for trying to cover for Lance after the USADA made its accusation.quote:Further, UCI is conflicted out of any role in results management in this case because it has publicly prejudged the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. In 2010 when Mr. Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article UCI President McQuaid responded before undertaking any investigation whatsoever, contending that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.” Rather than investigate the allegations, instead the UCI sued Mr. Landis. Similarly, when Tyler Hamilton publicly explained his knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s doping in a 60 Minutes interview nationally telecast in the United States and reported around the world in May, 2011, the UCI’s Honorary President and current UCI Management Committee Member, Hein Verbruggen, stated: maxallen fucked around with this message at Oct 10, 2012 around 19:36 |
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 19:31 |
|
|
This is from p38 where it gets full-on crazy. "i. EPO use at the Tour de France Though it apparently took its toll on the staff, the EPO delivery program also worked relatively well. For the first two weeks of the Tour, Armstrong, Hamilton and Livingston “used EPO every third or fourth day.” Pepe or Dr. del Moral would bring the EPO to the riders either in their camper or hotel room. The EPO was already loaded in syringes upon delivery and the riders “would inject quickly and then put the syringes in a bag or Coke can and Dr. delMoral would get the syringe out of the camper as quickly as possible.” In this way, Tyler Hamilton observed Lance Armstrong using EPO during the 1999 Tour de France. Moreover, while Armstrong, Hamilton and Livingston did not go out of their way to tell people what they were doing, their EPO use was clearly not a very well kept secret on the team"
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 23:42 |
|
|
Some fun stuff from Vaughters' affidavit and exhibit A. Seriously, if you just read the affidavits, the testimony is so incredibly damning. It's just not as funny as these      Nice, casual transition, dude
|
| # ? Oct 10, 2012 23:52 |
|
|
Who is the heroin addict bit referring to?
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 00:13 |
|
|
please respond posted:Who is the heroin addict bit referring to? Dr. Prentice-Steffen
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 00:43 |
|
|
20 of the 21 podium finishers during Armstrong's 7 titles have now been linked to doping. The sad thing is: here's a sport that's actually trying to do something about doping, but people act as if only cycling has this sort of problem. "What a dirty, dirty sport! Time to watch more clean football."
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 05:51 |
|
|
Jack's Flow posted:20 of the 21 podium finishers during Armstrong's 7 titles have now been linked to doping.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 06:35 |
|
|
Jack's Flow posted:20 of the 21 podium finishers during Armstrong's 7 titles have now been linked to doping. The USADA and WADA seem to be trying, but at the same time the UCI has been actively trying to shield Lance so being as how the ADA's are third parties to sports and the UCI is in charge of the sport of cycling, I'm not sure how well it can be argued that the sport is trying to clean itself up.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 06:42 |
|
|
maxallen posted:I'm not sure how well it can be argued that the sport is trying to clean itself up. I hate having to repeat this every thread, but I'll sum it up real quick: Performances are no longer superhuman.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 08:22 |
|
|
LordPants posted:I hate having to repeat this every thread, but I'll sum it up real quick: Performances are no longer superhuman. No, I agree the sport is (mostly) cleaned up, but it seems like that's been more the WADA's doing than the UCI. In any case, the UCI's behavior towards this situation has pretty obviously not been above board.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 08:43 |
|
|
Nothing ruins the experience of a sporting event more than watching a fantastic performance and then having it overturned because of some failed drug test or some stupid technicality. Personally, I think if anything should be banned, it's drug tests and technicalities. They ruin sports! Always loved SNL's sketch about the All Drug Olympics: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l...lympics/1198068
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 12:16 |
|
|
The UCI doesn't want to admit their American cashcow and his run was a sham
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 13:35 |
|
|
This is going to leave Armstrong penniless and since he's destroyed every friendship he ever had, its going to be glorious.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 19:38 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:This is going to leave Armstrong penniless and since he's destroyed every friendship he ever had, its going to be glorious. How so? What is this going to cost Lance besides maybe some extra fees for lawyers and PR?
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 20:06 |
|
|
Based on Lance completely ignoring this on twitter and the "No comment" response from his lawyer, I think he's sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" right now.
Andy Dufresne fucked around with this message at Oct 11, 2012 around 20:27 |
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 20:17 |
|
|
xie posted:How so? What is this going to cost Lance besides maybe some extra fees for lawyers and PR? You think a guy with his ego is putting money in the bank? He's leveraged to the hilt and it's all going to come crashing down around him. I have absolutely nothing to base this on, just my gut feeling that Lance really believed he would never be caught and he would simply get richer into infinity.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 20:19 |
|
|
xie posted:How so? What is this going to cost Lance besides maybe some extra fees for lawyers and PR? You think a guy with his lifestyle will be able to maintain it without the acres of sponsorships he's now lost? Not to mention what the future could hold with previous sponsors trying to claw back any money they paid to him while he was 'cheating'.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 20:46 |
|
|
Lance came back in 2009 because he was rumored to be going broke. He has spent a lot of Livestrong dollars fighting this case, and having them lobby congressmen trying to run interference on the USDA. The best thing to happen would be his sham "awareness" charity going bust.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 21:17 |
|
|
But how will we be aware of cancer (okay that was a cheap shot I know and they do something useful but it gets lost in their own trumpeting of Lance)
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 21:26 |
|
|
serious gaylord posted:You think a guy with his lifestyle will be able to maintain it without the acres of sponsorships he's now lost? There is absolutely zero chance any sponsor would be succesful if they tried to "claw back" any endoresment money. They paid Armstrong for a service, he provided that service, and the companies benefited from it thru increased sales of their products. No customer of those companies will be able to return those products that were bought 5 or 10 years ago because now Armstrong is a cheat. He'll lose future endorsement deals, and some sponsors will drop him like they did Tiger, but there's no way he'll have to repay a single penny from deals he's already been paid on.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 23:01 |
|
|
The B_36 posted:There is absolutely zero chance any sponsor would be succesful if they tried to "claw back" any endoresment money. They paid Armstrong for a service, he provided that service, and the companies benefited from it thru increased sales of their products. No customer of those companies will be able to return those products that were bought 5 or 10 years ago because now Armstrong is a cheat. SCA promotions has already sued Lance once to try and recover a $5 million bonus. They lost the case then but the newly released evidence along with Lance's refusal to contest USADA's charges could bring this case back to court. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ng-options.aspx
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 23:19 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:SCA promotions has already sued Lance once to try and recover a $5 million bonus. They lost the case then but the newly released evidence along with Lance's refusal to contest USADA's charges could bring this case back to court. From that article, SCA Promotions is an insurance company that issued a policy that was paid for by Armstrongs team owner to pay out $5 million if he won a certain amount of Tours. That is not an endorsement deal, and they lost anyway. Its not at all relevant to endoresment deals. Any company that would attempt to clawback sponsorship money paid to an athlete years after the fact would never be able to sign another athlete again, it would be a PR nightmare for them.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 23:39 |
|
|
According to the decision, Nike had a contract with a payback clause if Lance was ever found to have tested positive. Not sure how ironclad that is vs. a mountain of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think if I was Nike I'd test it.
|
| # ? Oct 11, 2012 23:44 |
|
|
maxallen posted:According to the decision, Nike had a contract with a payback clause if Lance was ever found to have tested positive. Not sure how ironclad that is vs. a mountain of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think if I was Nike I'd test it. I didnt know about any clause like that, but I think Nike would have to seriously consider if they'd want to use it or not anyway. For a company whose entire marketing strategy is signing high profile athletes to endorse their products, they'd have to consider the fallout from enacting that clause. How many other athletes would now think twice about signing an endorsement deal with a company that might take their money back if they make a mistake later on (or if they're currently making mistakes that the media doesnt know about yet)? Additionally, Armstrong does have alot of support still, particularly and inherently among the people who bought Nike products because of his endorsement of them. Its not like they would be trying to get back money they lost - they've almost certainly made multiple times more money off Armstrong than he made from them. I think they just leave it alone, and maybe just drop him frlm future deals.
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 02:52 |
|
|
The B_36 posted:From that article, SCA Promotions is an insurance company that issued a policy that was paid for by Armstrongs team owner to pay out $5 million if he won a certain amount of Tours. That is not an endorsement deal, and they lost anyway. Its not at all relevant to endoresment deals. That bonus is still a sponsorship regardless of whether it's the sponsor paying it or an insurance agency they hired to pay it. The insurance agency suing to recover it is a perfect example of the thing you're claiming could never happen actually happening.
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 02:54 |
|
|
The B_36 posted:How many other athletes would now think twice about signing an endorsement deal with a company that might take their money back if they make a mistake later on (or if they're currently making mistakes that the media doesnt know about yet)? Personally I would hope that athletes would think twice about taking drugs if it were possible for sponsors to come after them following a positive test for drugs.
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 03:12 |
|
|
Doc Holliday posted:Personally I would hope that athletes would think twice about taking drugs if it were possible for sponsors to come after them following a positive test for drugs. This world would own
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 03:15 |
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:That bonus is still a sponsorship regardless of whether it's the sponsor paying it or an insurance agency they hired to pay it. The insurance agency suing to recover it is a perfect example of the thing you're claiming could never happen actually happening. Its not an example at all of what you're talking about. First, the policy was paid for by Armstrongs USPS Postal Service team owner, not a sponsor. If it's anything, it's salary. Secondly, he was sued by the insurance company and that makes a big difference - an insurance company that holds the policy is very specifically not a sponsor of Lance Armstrong. They were disputing whether the conditions of the policy were met - the courts found at the time that they were. There's a big difference between "incentive" and "sponsorship" or "endorsement deal". For an incentive, you are paid money to accomplish a task (win the Tour). An endorsement deal is when a company pays you money to attach your name and reputation to a product. Armstrong will now almost certainly have to pay that money back if he is officially stripped of his Tour titles, the same as he'll have to pay back his prize money. The conditions to earn that incentive are no longer true. It has nothing to do with paying back ABC Clothing Company endorsement money, unless they have some clause like Nike does. Doc Holliday posted:Personally I would hope that athletes would think twice about taking drugs if it were possible for sponsors to come after them following a positive test for drugs. Yeah, good luck with that. The B_36 fucked around with this message at Oct 12, 2012 around 04:03 |
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 03:17 |
|
|
The B_36 posted:Armstrong will now almost certainly have to pay that money back if he is officially stripped of his Tour titles, the same as he'll have to pay back his prize money. The conditions to earn that incentive are no longer true. It has nothing to do with paying back ABC Clothing Company endorsement money, unless they have some clause like Nike does. Does he have the money to pay back those though?
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 08:37 |
|
|
Dudley posted:Does he have the money to pay back those though? Probably not
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 10:00 |
|
|
The B_36 posted:Yeah, good luck with that. Not trying to sound naive about the whole situation but the prospect of facing financial ruin for having tested positive or being found in possession would be a fairly large deterrent. If someone still wanted to cheat with that hanging over their head then so be it. It's clear that the current drug testing regime still doesn't work and the WADA relies on testimony from others to pursue individuals at the top of their respective sport. In some ways it is important that sponsors go after Armstrong to send the message loud and clear to other competitors that this sort of stuff won't be tolerated. If the authorities can finally catch up with him, then no one who is taking the chance can consider themselves safe.
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 10:27 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 12:08 |
|
|
BBC Sport posted:Bradley Wiggings shocked by Usada report
|
| # ? Oct 12, 2012 10:44 |
|
