Monday 6 February 2012

Lance Armstrong: Case Closed

So, after two years, the investigation into Lance Armstrong has been dropped.

Oh good.

Now, in case you have lost sight of this one, here's a reminder.  Floyd Landis had his Tour de France victory taken off him in 2006 after banned substances were found in his samples. For four years, he brayed that he was innocent, until in 2010 he suddenly did a complete turn-around, admitted he'd used PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs) for most of his career, and pointed the finger at Lance Armstrong saying "He done it, too!"

Lance Armstrong denied it: well, he would, wouldn't he? However, he also pointed out that he had been tested hundreds of times, and had never ONCE been found with banned substances in his blood/urine. He further pointed out that he was possibly the most-frequently-tested cyclist on the planet, and of course as we all know (Contador) yellow jersey holders and winners in general are always tested very heavily, simply because they are winners.

Landis would not let this rest, even after Armstrong was repeatedly investigated for doping, and never found guilty: Landis got the US government involved. He pushed them into starting an investigation on the basis that Armstrong's team, US Postal, was sponsored by the government, therefore if Armstrong was claiming that all these big wins were done cleanly, but were actually accomplished using PEDs, then he had been defrauding the government of the sponsorship money, and this was bad. He hadn't managed to "get" Armstrong on drugs charges, so he tried to "get" him on criminal charges.

There was even a story that the UCI had hidden a positive doping result, on the grounds that Armstrong donated a lot of money to them.

The US Attorney's office therefore started the two-year investigation that also involved the FBI, the US Postal Service, and both the civil and criminal divisions of the Department of Justice. Way to go, Landis: waste a whole ton of public money on your personal vendetta, why don'tcha?

So, what are my personal thoughts on this? I don't particularly like Armstrong: I used to cheer for him when I first started following pro-cycling,  but then, everyone did. As I became more interested in cycling, I realised that there was a huge Anti-Armstrong group, and I didn't quite understand why: it became clear that it was mostly the jealousy that any major star gets. These days, I don't like Contador on pretty much the same grounds: when he's in it, and on form, the race is boring, boring, boring: ladies and gentlemen, may I present Exhibit A, the Giro last year, the last half of which was boring, boring, boring. And the Contador fans are now screaming at me "Yeah, bet if it were your boy winning, winning, winning, you would be singing a different tune" and of course, yes, I would. It must have been pretty hard to be a cyclist during those years when Lance won the Tour every year. Rather like being a skater during the Torville and Dean years. You know that no matter what you do, you will only ever be second best to them/him. That's life.

So, I'm not that bothered about Mr Armstrong per se, (although I have read "It's not about the bike" and another of his books, they are quite, quite incredible) but I am hugely relieved that the case has now been closed.

OK, just one moment of sympathy for Mr Armstrong - poor Lance, once again the case is closed, but it's just "closed",  he's not "declared innocent".  It's like a final spiteful dig, that they can't find him guilty, but won't actually say the word "innocent".  Still, he will be used to that, it's happened before.

And the good news is, Cycling can now move on.

The UCI have openly stated "What happened in the past happened in the past. We prefer looking into the future."

Well done, UCI, let's forget about it and move on. It's a bit annoying that WADA are now demanding that the paperwork be handed over to them, in case they can find any doping-related info that might be relevant to their witch-hunt.  They say, with some truth, that the US Attorney were looking for evidence of criminal mis-deeds, ie fraud, not specifically for evidence of doping. But, duh, the point of the case was that if there had been doping, it would have been fraudulent to say "we won without doping" so the tiniest evidence of doping would have been exactly what they were looking for.

Come on WADA, drop it: save those funds for catching today's dopers.

31 comments:

  1. I'm glad that the Armstrong case had finally come to a close!
    On another matter, Conti has received the two year ban and therefore been stripped of the 2010 Tdf as well as last years Giro...
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-sanction-contador-with-two-year-ban-in-clenbuterol-case
    Sure you have probably already heard, but just in case!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lookie, lookie!
    http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/sport/2012/feb/06/alberto-contador-ban-tour-cycling

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK - this has become a hot button issue for me over the weekend. I need to say, the Lance case is not over. It's not done. We won't be moving on because it will now be turned over to the doping folks for their investigation. They just let the US citizens who pay taxes foot the bill for part one of this drama.
    The investigation in the US was about criminal charges, not doping. In the US it is not a criminal charge for the athlete to dope. Period. However, if doping is involved - there are always illegal financial activities that go along with that. In the US - Al Capone (gangster of olden days who killed many and was totally corrupt) was never arrested until the Internal Revenue Service nailed him. Caught on tax issues rather than countless murders. That's apparently how we roll here. Sigh.
    So - the criminal case was dropped. Pure politics. LA knows the right people in the right places.
    However - with USADA and WADA - the fat lady has not sung yet. And - there is at least 1 Civil lawsuit (via Floyd) that is scheduled to begin in the spring.
    Phil Liggett posted on twitter - now it's over, we can move forward.
    Sorry - NO - it's not over. One piece of it was whitewashed. That's all. The US investigation had little to do with actual doping as much as the means to make that possible. And again - when the investigators hear 30 minutes before an announcement that the case has been dropped - and the investigators actually have testimonies scheduled for the future weeks...someone paid someone - BIG TIME. It is - after all, an election year here in the torn up USA. We are nearly in a place of civil war here. We have congressmen, senators and presidents past and potentially future - to fry and disgracing a popular cancer fighting cyclist is considered a potential issue that is easily side-stepped with a phone call. And - apparently it was.
    So...I am disgusted with the politico system in the US. Lance is a 1%'er. They seem to be the only one's winning here these days.
    Bottom line - as I see it?
    It is far from over.
    End o' rant.
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, 1 more thing.
    As I was settling into bed last night it struck me....
    OH! Lance never doped! Never! But the whole team had to in order to keep up with him, give him training competition etc.
    Oh - I get it. It was never Lance - just his own team who couldn't catch him!
    Much clearer now! Ha, ha, ha.
    I do give some weight to the fact that LA has a unique body. Bigger lungs, bigger heart, longer thighs. And - frankly - I've worked with many cancer patients - and those who make it - tap into something that "normal" people just don't ever access. He was an exceptional rider. But I still believe they all, for the most part, doped back then.....
    I remain curious if the piper will be paid.....
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  5. and...regarding Contador decision.
    Wasn't our boy graceful?
    Gosh - he's matured.
    BE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To clarify - I meant OGL as the graceful one....
      BE

      Delete
  6. Both WADA and the USADA are wanting the files from the investigation. While the fact that there will never be any criminal charges has been established, I'm certain (sadly) that we are a long way from hearing the last of this. - Kat

    ReplyDelete
  7. *hitting the refresh button* Must hit F5 before publishing comment because BE is going to say exactly what I am typing - only more eloquently!

    I wish that I could completely let go of the shadow in the back of my mind that the one person who was right beside Armstrong all those years is the same person managing, guiding and mentoring our team today.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just to take responsibility for my comments ... I was the one who posted the "hitting the refresh button" comment. Wish that I had caught that mistake earlier. - Kat

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am still on fire to some degree I guess.....
    And let us not forget our Frankie's trials with this subject as well:
    "Doping allegations

    On 25 July 2008, one day prior to a decisive penultimate stage of the Tour de France 2008, the German daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung alleged a contact between Schleck and the infamous Spanish doctor Eufemiano Fuentes in December 2005. Authorities stated that no evidence had been obtained that would support such a claim.[7] The allegations in connection with Schleck followed a series of strong performances of the rider who wore the yellow jersey over several days and whose father's car had been the subject of a detailed search by French customs authorities during the Tour.
    Prior to the 2008 UCI Road World Championships in Varese, Italy, on 26 September 2008, the Süddeutsche Zeitung published a further article on the connections between Schleck and Fuentes after claiming to have seen evidence on a bank transfer of €7000 from Schleck to a Swiss bank account linked to Fuentes. The existence of the evidence was revealed by German police and subsequently confirmed by Luxembourg prosecutors.[8]
    Following Schleck's public admittance of such payment on 3 October 2008, Bjarne Riis and Team CSC Saxo Bank decided to temporarily suspend Schleck from any further races until the outcome of the doping allegations towards Schleck would be fully clarified.[9] Schleck was cleared from all allegations by the doping authorities of Luxembourg at the beginning of December."

    7,000 for training????????????
    Let's not be naive. But let's hope it scared the whole family enough that they'll be strong and refuse for the rest of their careers. Riis is an admitted doper....

    It was just how it was. Seriously. Now - there is better technology for the user's before the labs can even test for it. If Contador's sample had been sent to the "regular" lab - the traces of chenbuteral would not have been found at all. Of course those plasticiser bits were problematic as they indicate (strongly) blood doping taking place....

    To say it's the past and doesn't matter today is like saying Hitler didn't kill anyone (other than himself) and it shouldn't matter....and I doubt any of us would agree to that statement. Yet - he didn't. Other's did it for him....but HE was behind all of it and bears the ultimate responsibility. Yes? No?

    Revising history is wrong in my book. I remember getting to college and learning I'd been taught lies and total bullshit in high school. And...I was angry about that. History is there to learn from and grow from and when we revise it - we don't get the lessons to learn from it and make a better future.

    And Lance uses semantics brilliantly. You can be standing there with a knife in your side, bloody and raw and he can explain that the knife and blood everywhere came from cutting meat in the kitchen - legally.....and you just fell into it.

    So, as I cast dispursions on any dopers in cycling...I just pray that I will never have to eat my words to my own son that the Schleck boy's WON'T use PEDS. That would be a very sad day - and frankly, it's just as likely as anything else.

    Ah..............OK - I think I'm done. I hope so. I'm more tired of me in this state than any of you probably.
    Sorry for my ranting and raving. Integrity and honesty are things I'm passionate about - probably because by 60 I've been screwed enough times by those without it who do have money and power and I resent it when they seem to "win" at the expense of anyone else.

    BE

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.roadcycling.com/articles/The-New-Reality---Races-are-won-on-the-roads-and-in-the-court-rooms_004719.shtml

    BE

    ReplyDelete
  11. BE, having your perspective of the sport through a parent's eyes is an important balance to have available to us so thanks for sharing!

    Also appreciated your comment about the (hopefully) lesson learned from Frank's experience. I actually saw a tweet this morning calling for a retesting of his results from 2008.

    Kat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh shitte!!!!! I hope that doesn't happen...ulp...
      And thanks! I appreciate the perspective my son's experience have given me. And we fought about what was "truth" and I was so, so reluctant. It's taken years for me to see...wow, he was totally right!
      BE

      Delete
  12. sad days, I have to say. What I think about the Armstrong case: he is the past. Past, that we can argue about, but I even can't imagine what was the real story, what happened behind the scene. Well, i'm too young, I didn't see Armstrong in his best days, and I know only what's written, but don't know, which infos are the most real.
    And shortly about Contador: I think it was a wrong decision, in a wrong time, with wrong future consequences. Because he is still the biggest champion of nowadays, regarding his palmares, and those races where he has been disqualified, remain the same races. He was the one wearing the maglia rosa or the maillot jaune. It's just not a solution to change the past.
    And our boy, Andy will get a TdF title, he will be the winner in the books, etc. - but I wonder if there would be any word about how he earned it (the whole story with the fights, the ups-and-downs, and of course the chain-gate :) ).
    Strange to have all these feelings what I have concerning these news.
    They can change the results, but They can't rewrite the story of more than a year, while Conti was racing, and no one can deny that he was always a main character.
    Oh, that's not that short as I wanted...
    ...and I can't stop thinking about why the timing of the two case is so close to each other.
    Now, i have to stop before killing my keyboard and my brain.
    Narce

    ReplyDelete
  13. And on the lighter side....
    Levi sent this to Andy today...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTzumULk3UM&feature=youtu.be

    When I was watching it I couldn't help but think - this is just insane! How do we expect rational behavior from something that is just so crazy? And make people so friggin nutty?
    Maybe we shouldn't?
    Maybe we should just enjoy the show and know that none of it makes sense or is "right", watch, and move on....??
    That's my story and I'm stickin to it!
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  14. Interesting article - although kinda biased - it brings up some good points.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/9065201/Andy-Schleck-expresses-sadness-for-Alberto-Contador-as-he-prepares-to-be-crowned-2010-Tour-de-France-winner.html

    *****************another topic************
    In full disclosure I felt I should mention that I met Lance for the first time when he was 19 (1990) and maybe 1 yr into cycling after triathalon fame. Cancer wasn't until 1996 - so this was "pre-everything" - including Big wins in cycling. Something which really didn't become consistent until after cancer, actually. I "observed" him back then when he was just a kid and frankly was not impressed and later that day my son and I "had a chat". Now - it's typical for a 19 yr old athlete to be cocky and arrogant - especially when they are doing well (right Taylor Phinney? - whom I adore by the way). But I actually said to my then 15 yr old...your Mamma didn't raise you to behave that way or treat people that way and if this sport you want to be in promotes that kind of behavior - we've got a problem....
    Then I met LeMond. Quality human being and the rest is history.
    So...I cop to being biased.
    And yet - I do really respect the benefits people have gained by their connection with the good, good work in support for cancer survivors that Livestrong.org provides. I've worked in health care, alternative health care, physical therapy for athletes, cancer patient support and education...the whole 9 yards. I will always appreciate what LA has done in that realm. The irony is that he'd never have been able to do it unless he was "incredible"...so he was - whatever it took. And - he was! Do the ends justify the means? I dunno.
    I guess I'm sharing this to qualify myself as more than an armchair quarterback. Sorry.
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi Narce: oh yes, this is why Andy has been saying "I don't want to win like this" ever since the day. For ever more, his TdF "win" will be followed by a reference to Contador. People won't remember all those epic details, just the fact that really he came second.

    I am still staggered that Conti was stripped of all those titles. I can barely imagine the administrative headache it has caused, let alone the anguish to Conti and every single rider who now moves up one place, gets some extra prize money, gets additional UCI points etc. The only reason to rejoice in that decision is that at least Conti has now been treated equally with other riders, rather than being let off because he has powerful support. I believe that is what the CAS case was all about - "it's not about the drugs" - although it is interesting that CAS didn't agree with the tainted meat theory, didn't even bother with the homologous blood doping theory, but went with Contaminated Food Supplement.

    Side issue: how many Food Supplements are there, and how many are the cyclists guzzling? (Quantity,and variety) Seems to me it's time for a manufacturer to get "in" with the UCI and produce verified "clean" supplements. Or possibly it's time that teams learned to check out the latest dodgy calves'-intestines supplements before allowing their athletes to use them?

    As for re-writing history, I'm not actually saying "it's the past and it doesn't matter", (nor am I comparing Armstrong to Hitler, by the way - it's only a sport) I am saying "it's the past, it happened, it's too late for reparation, move on." All those athletes who "missed" their chance, like your son, BE - of course I am very sorry for them, but chances are "missed" all day every day, for many reasons. There does come a point when you have to accept that horrible argument about "the greater good".

    I am not at all sure that Armstrong doped: I am pretty sure that Armstrong took every avenue that was available to him: I am quite convinced that Armstrong is not a particularly "nice" person, and he does say this himself in his own books: but I do not think there is any point in pursuing a witch-hunt at this late stage. People like BE's son won't get compensation for missing out on a career as a pro-cyclist. It certainly won't help cycling now. And it would cast a stain over a cancer foundation that is doing good.

    Lessons can be learned from history, even if it's been re-written: in fact, the very style of re-writing can provide valuable lessons in itself.

    Cycling has moved on, and although I personally deplore the Conti verdict as being a) unhelpful to the cause of cycling and b) shamefully delayed, at least it has made that point that even having friends in high places does not get you "off". And I doubt that anyone will try the tainted meat defence again.

    I sincerely hope that food supplement manufacturers up and down the world are being frantically contacted for confirmation of contents, and that team managers are having serious talks with all athletes about not trying anything, ANYTHING, without their permission.

    BE, we can all see that you feel strongly about this, but there's reallly no need to drag up Frankie's unfortunate Fuertes incident: he has always been open about admitting his stupidity in going outside of Bjarne's sphere for training help: and that report that you quoted fails to mention that Frankie paid for it from his own bank account, name of Schleck, Frank. It was completely open and above board, whereas if he had been doing anything dodgy, he would not have used his own personal bank account for it. It didn't really take the might of the German police investigatory department to read the name on the cheque, did it?

    (Ooh, see what a loyal little mother tiger I am!)

    Coug

    ReplyDelete
  16. I really enjoyed reading your post Coug, and all the comments as well. Quite a relief after reading so many nasty comments on other sites.

    I too have mixed feelings about Contador's case. What stands out for me is that he tested positive and did not come up with a reason good enough. I never bought the steak story (teams spend enourmous amounts of money on bringing their own cooks and food, and then the Astana cook prepared him a steak that a friend brought from Spain, transported in the back of a car in a chilly bin? And that only 2 days before the Queen's stage with Contador only leading by 8 seconds? No one would have risked him getting a food poisoning I'd think.).

    Maybe he did ingest it by mistake, maybe he did something very wrong, I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not a doping expert.

    So when Contador and his team failed to prove his innocence, I think there was no other option for the CAS then stick to the rules.
    But all in all I think none of the outcomes would have been the right one: If Contador was cleared, it would always be a suspicious victory. If Contador was declared guilty, it would be damage to the sport and none of the runner-ups would be happy with their sudden victories.

    What bothers me most is the enourmous amount of time it took, and all parties involved are to blame for that.

    I really feel sorry for Andy on this (and for Scarponi and the others too). He had already lost that Tour in a painful way with his chain popping off (which was of course not the only reason, as he also did a not-so-good prologue), and now he "wins" it in a painful way as well. He might have won on paper now, but he had to miss out on the party part: hoisting the trophy, having the Lux anthem played, riding down the Champs Elysées in the yellow jersey on a yellow bike, etc. And he'll never get that moment back, at least not for the '10 TdF. I think his statement showed class and that he's a real champion.

    Inge

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you Inge, for commenting: I'm glad to be part of a blog community that can discuss these matters moderately sensibly, and with insight.

    We are sooo much more than a bunch of fangirls!

    Isn't that coming over very clearly now - more and more people are agreeing that the real issue is the time it took to get this decision made official.

    You are quite right, there was no "good" or "right" outcome from this trial: I think most of us realised that, at some point. As I've said, the only good thing you can say is that having friends in high places will not get you "off" from this sort of charge.

    Oh, poor Andypants! He's been an absolute rock all through it - remember back when it first happened, and he said "I believe Contador to be innocent". I was one of the many people who freely advised him not to stand too close to Contador in case any mud might stick to him, and he did do the right thing (in my opinion) by downplaying his former friendship with Conti. But he never ranted on about it, he said as little about it as he possibly could, and what little he has said has always been along the lines of "if he says he is innocent, I believe him."

    He has been proved right, but I doubt he will ever be as friendly with Conti as he used to be. Well, who knows, maybe he will? I think that Conti is going to need every friend he has: although I get the feeling, from the cycling press, that almost everyone in the peloton is annoyed on his behalf at the dismaying delay in the announcement.

    Thankfully, the CAS result has cleared Conti of taking Clenbuterol deliberately, and has cleared him of any allegations of blood doping as well. It seems to me - bearing in mind that I have not read the original CAS statement - that Conti has been found guilty of having minute traces of the stuff, which was ingested accidentally , probably as part of a food supplement.

    Big sigh of relief. And his 2-year ban only has another 6 months to run. Roll on next year.

    Meanwhile, we will have to endure a period of shuffling of money and points, and no doubt every Schleck interview for the next few months will either start or end with "So, Andy, how do you feel about being promoted to winner..."

    Coug

    ReplyDelete
  18. Coug,
    Was this post on twitter in reference to me?
    "Do I really want to be followed by what appears to be a rabid conspiracy-theory american? Answer: No!"

    And I see you have "removed" me?

    That hurts my feelings. I thought I could express things safely here. Sorry to have intruded.
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  19. No! No! Elle, not you! It was some goon called AMSPRINGDOTORG who didn't make many posts, but re-tweeted anything with the word conspiracy in it.

    Not you! Come back! Come back!

    I've re-followed you, and can only apologise for that, I tidied up my "lists" recently and lost nearly everyone, my fault for being inept.

    You keep on expressing things!

    Coug

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks Coug! You and this site mean a lot to me. BE

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, we are much more than just fangirls! :) You're right, Andy really has been a rock through it all. He could have dragged Contador through the mud and say "first he attacked when I had a mechanical problem and then he tests positive!", but he didn't, and that shows he's not only a great athlete, but also a good person.

    I also think it is not right to strip Contador off the results of 2011. He did race, he was clean and he had a great influence on every race he was in. He won the Giro in a magnificent way, and he deserves that win. He didn't do anything wrong there.
    While vacationing in Lux a few weeks ago, I went to see the "The Road Uphill" movie (it was very impressive!) and it was very obvious to me that LT was far more scared of Contador than they were of Evans. I'm not saying that Andy would have won the Tour if Contador hadn't been in it (to me Evans seemed the strongest one anyway), but it could have been very different.

    In my opinion, stripping Contador off the 2011 results is not only unfair to him, it's also unfair to the others that raced against him that year.

    Inge

    ReplyDelete
  22. Inge, you're totally right, it's unfair with all the cyclists in those races (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/new-winners-emerge-from-contadors-suspension - this is the list of the new podiums. I sadly noticed the name of Xavi Tondo...).
    I have to admit that last months, I slowly began to lose my fangirl-love for Andy, but he gained it back with his comment on this case :) but I'm not too enthusiastic about his interviews in the next months (like you said, Coug) - always the same question, he should already be tired of this subject.
    Narce

    ReplyDelete
  23. Narce- I've experienced the loss of fangirl-love for Andy too. And did an ah-ha, yeah that's it - when I read his comments after the AC decision. But I would have loved to see a video of that interview and I've not found one.
    I noticed a shift after he "fell in love" - but much more so when the team shift happened. I'm noting that the focus is now as high on him (press wise) and that's probably good for him - and I note as well that he's growing up. Why do we think people are "adults" at 21. It takes until 30 at least, I think. He doesn't have the ..ah...puppy energy (?) that he had in 2010. That's fine - I'm not complaining or saying it's "off" or anything. He's just growing up in a fish bowl. I've just noticed it. So I resonated with your comment.
    BE aka Verbose /:^)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I meant focus is NOT as high....
    Proof read Ellie, proof read before clicking!
    Dang!
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  25. Firstly, I really enjoyed reading everyone's comments on this post. Especially yours, BE, because I think you bring a unique viewpoint to the whole matter.

    I'm not going to comment on the Armstrong case. I haven't kept up with it and so I feel I don't have anything to contribute there. As far as Contador - I was quite upset when the verdict was given. If you'd asked me how I felt a year and a half ago, hands down I would have said I was glad he was found guilty, even though Andy has always said he did't want to be declared the winner of the 2010 TDF in this way. Now? Soooo not happy. Very sad! And also slightly concerned about any impacts this may have on Saxo Bank now.

    I cannot believe how ridiculously long this whole affair has taken! And I'm kinda still hung up on the fact they have not been able to prove HOW the clenbuterol got into Alberto's system. But. Rules are clear and I think I remember you writing about them once before, Coug. Bottom line - the substance was present in his body. And an athlete is responsible for all substances entering their body. The how or why gets left by the roadside. That said, I now tend to believe that he didn't purposely take it. I saw him "close-up" when I was in Denmark last year. His demeanour and character impressed me more than I thought it would. He cared about people and he was so sweet to fans and his teammates. Something in my head cannot reconcile that that person would knowingly have taken a banned substance. I know I could easily be wrong, but I hope not.

    I also don't necessarily agree with him being stripped of the 2011 Giro title. No doubt he was tested almost daily throughout that entire race and not one positive test. And he was CLEARLY the better rider!

    I admit that I too have become more cynical regarding Andy. But I felt like his statement about Contador showed that that boy we all loved is still in there.

    Leelu

    ReplyDelete
  26. BE, here's a video of Andy talking to the press yesterday: http://nos.nl/video/338277-schleck-over-tour-2010-en-contador.html

    Inge

    ReplyDelete
  27. Inge - thanks, but it says video removed. I appreciate the thought though!

    Much to my own shock - I'm feeling it for AC as well. Especially after reading the CAS document.
    CAS seems to really be on a roll now - so perhaps we should buckle up because who know's who will be next?
    BE

    ReplyDelete
  28. "We need more like him, not spiteful whistle-blowers like Landis."


    You sound like you follow cycling so I'm surprised you don't seem to know that the governing bodies want cyclists who have been caught to whistle-blow on users and distributors. Landis didn't just name Armstrong as a doper, he gave a couple dozen names, both riders and non-riders. I have no love for Landis, but if he was truthful in who he named then he was doing what he's supposed to do.

    Further on the subject, as I'm sure you know it isn't just Landis who has claimed Armstrong doped. The list is pretty long at this point. The evidence against him, both circumstantial and eyewitness, is pretty overwhelming. And you're right that he never says he didn't do these things, just that he's never failed a test although that claim isn't really accurate either.

    Finally, this case might not be closed and probably shouldn't be. Reports after the decision came down are that everyone involved save for the lead attorney wanted indictments, and some were supposedly even written up. One source said there was "overwhelming" evidence of a "slew" of crimes committed. People were "shocked" and furious that Birotte decided on his own to drop the case, and it's rather suspicious that he did so on the Friday before the Super Bowl and with no reason given.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sometime ago dearest OGL spoke about Contador's case. He said the outcome is either black or white. I think and thought that was not a very smart saying. To me there's almost allways GRAY. In life, in sport, in doping, in food, in intentions, in words etc.
    In fact OGL must agree with that on a subconscious level, because the clothes he wears favour a grayish undertone very often or are just gray.
    I don't understand why so many are upset with JB and like BR so much. I just don't understand.

    Barbara(q) -who's also feeling bad because dear Coug unfollowed her on twitter-.

    ReplyDelete