Yes, I was aware of that, but long after he's dead, he'll still be the guy that most people associate with MDA.

Danny Thomas has been dead for a long time, and many people still know him as the spokesman for St. Jude's Children's Hospital.

Not to keep this going forever, but Danny founded St. Judes's hospital.

That sounds a little too circular.

I don't think many people are taking any pleasure from Armstrong's un-masking, most cyclists will feel only sadness and/or anger at what he has done to their sport.

Where do his apologists go now that UCI has ratified his ban and stripped him of titles?

Lance is not apologizing and neither am I... Lance was not doing anything different than any of his accusers or competitors. He crossed the finish lines first -- not because he had any unfair advantage, but because he was simply better and more determined. Meanwhile, the USADA has used Gestapo tactics and defamation rather than evidence to codemn him.

I think the one that needs investigation and banning from the sport is the USADA -- not Lance.

I cant agree that the USADA is the major problem here. To what Gestapo tactics are you referring? Also, if the report is correct, then the USADA is not guilty of defamation, but has been telling the truth. You could question the persistance of the USADA, but, if the doping regime of US Postal and Discovery was that sophisticated, then, it would take time to find the cheating.

My position on LA was always, "I hope he didnt dope, but would not be surprised if it is proved that he did." Especially with the testimony of Hincapie, I dont think there is much room for doubt.

Just a guess, but I'm betting you haven't read the USADA report, nor any of the books by the journalists or competitors who were there when it all went down, nor any of the investigative articles. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs. Instead, go tell the guys who left the sport, or were relegated to being pack fodder due to their unwillingness to lie and cheat, or who were chased from the sport by Armstrong's bullying, that it was a level playing field.

Interesting to note that Lance's lawyers pretty much appear to have given up on contesting the doping "allegations." There is far too much evidence to try to deny that. Instead, they're going after technicalities, leading with the statute of limitations. I think USADA pretty well has that one down pat; Tygart is quite a thorough guy. And besides, let's accept for a moment the proposition that the statute of limitations holds, and that any evidence prior to 2007 or 2008 is inadmissable. It's still pretty clear in the public's mind that LA doped to win his Tours, and I sincerely doubt that he'd get back his sponsors. But I'm thinking it just might get him off the VERY serious perjury charges he'll be up against should he decide to come clean.

I think the far more interesting case is the corruption within the UCI. We need some forensic accountants looking into the small matter of this $500,000 transfer between Nike and Hein Verbruggen, and the separate $25K and $100K payments made by LA to the UCI, which McQuaid is trying desperately to downplay. (Does he take us for fools?)

Luis

Even the small-fry journalists were targets of Armstrong and Brunyeel, just by association with the more in-depth journos on the tour. Australian journaist Rupert Guinness who covered many TdFs, was subject to this behaviour and was blacklisted by Armstrong twice over his career.

By calling out Armstrong, at least USADA, the UCI and ASO have sent a message that there is a risk of even the biggest in the sport being caught and punished no matter how much power and influence that competitor seems to wield.

That hopefully will get down to the junior ranks which will supply the riders of the next decade. And they are the people we should be concerned about -- the juniors -- rather than some arrogant bully who is now branded the sport's greatest all-time cheat

...

Yeah, I broadly agree with this, though frankly I don't give the UCI any credit. And the governing bodies of many other sports are worse, they simply choose to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

As for the juniors, the most depressing feature of the current scene, for me, is that doping appears to be increasingly widespread even in the amateur ranks, where virtually no money is at stake and many of the riders concerned have no prospect of advancing to the pros.

I think the UCI had not other choice, whether it wanted to come out with the decision it made today or not.

I found this article last night (but published on 27 August 2012) that caused me some alarm. A member of the UCI arbitration tribunal saying USADA had no legal right to strip Armstrong of his titles. Surely that person should not have said a single, solitary word on the matter because of the position in the sports arbitration system that he holds. That, for me, indicates that there is more rot in the UCI's core than might appear on the surface:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spor...-1226458458001

But whenever there is a trophy at the end (figuratively or actually) and bragging rights, people will do what they can to win. They can be their own Armstrong, Contador, Vinokourov or whomever in their own corner of the world.

And if they are too lazy to do the work, they'll take the next-best option. After all, despite signing the membership form to get their licence that contains drug-testing provisions, no-one tests at that level. Ever.

Incidentally, that's why I like randonneuring. You can go as fast as you like, but in the end you only get the same kudos as the bloke who finishes last and within the time limit.

You're missing something in your assessment of the culture if you think those doping are "too lazy to do the work". Lance worked as hard as the other guys, and if you could ferret out those doping in the amateur ranks, I'd bet you would find the same thing. The desire to win at all costs drives them not only to PEDs, but to other sacrifices in the quest for the podium. They devote the time and energy, and then look to PEDs to push them to the top of the ranks. Not everyone is genetically equivalent in their potential to succeed in cycling. EPO, while it didn't level the playing field, certainly changed the list of who had a chance to win. Given equal training, those near the top with a naturally high hematocrit level can't boost their performance as much as someone near the top with a lower natural hematocrit level.

There is occasional testing in the amateur ranks. A guy was caught using EPO at the NY Gran Fondo in the last year, and a local racer I know was awarded the US 30+ Masters RR championship last year when the only guy who beat him (by inches) tested positive. But it's way too expensive to try and enforce the rules in amateur cycling. Those of us racing just have to accept the fact that some of guys winning may very well be using PEDs. But there are a host of ways to lose: that's just one of them.

Yep. Some PEDs work mainly because they allow the athlete to recover quicker, and therefore train harder than they otherwise could.

I'm sorry if I offended your sensibilities on this, but you may have well illustrated my point in your second paragraph about the local racer you know was beaten by inches by a guy who doped.

You see, one of you (or even several) up in the 50+ training subforum got upset not so long ago when it was suggested that doping may well be something that even exists within your own ranks.

It's now at the point where the general public who was so mesmerised by Armstrong's exploits are now so disillusioned with the outcome that they look at any cyclist -- road racer, track rider, commuter! -- and think "doper". I can see people hanging out truck windows and instead of shouting "Lance!" like they used to, or "Cadel" as they have to me in Australia, now shouting "Doper!", and with a large degree of spite attached.

What has happened impacts on cycling right the way down the community. Make no mistake about it.

I tell you what, why don't you and all the other racers around the world go on strike for a weekend? Announce that all bike racing is suspended in protest at what Armstrong has done, what the UCI has done, and what the GT pelotons have done over the decades.

Use the social media, a very powerful force, to spread that message and co-ordinate the strike.

Then maybe the community will see that cycling is serious about cleaning up its act, and the grassroots level is prepared to make at least some token effort to do something about it.

I should also clarify what I meant about lazy. There are people who have little to no clue about using PEDs, but see people up the line using them and succeeding. Despite their ignorance, they see their use as a short-cut to winning, and will go ahead and use them in place of training.

People far outside of cycling have all kinds of opinions about how we choose to spend our time, how we dress, and so forth. As long as they don't try to run me down on the road, I couldn't care less what they think. But nobody I know inside the cycling world thinks that somebody could compete at any level (from the pro peleton down to cat 4) by taking drugs in the absence of training. C'mon, just try getting off the couch and onto a bike and hitting, even say, 23 MPH for an hour without months to years of training. EPO won't do that for you. No way.

Furthermore, I think ATR has it right - the whole culture of road cycling is to crank out the miles, do the climbs, and repeat. The drugs give highly motivated racers an edge, but it's not any kind of short-cut.

Not a bad idea. I was thinking 'nobody would care', but perhaps they would.

Possibly, and possibly to deflect attention away from their own mainstream sports. If pro football, baseball, basketball, and hockey in North America, or pro soccer internationally, were subject to the same degree of drug testing as pro cycling, we might be seeing LA as some small fry. In North America, at any rate, with a very few big-name exceptions, owners and fans just want to turn a blind eye. Even when the perps are found, it usually just ends there, as if they are exceptions. But when steroids are used at the high school level, and easily obtainable at most gyms, you have to start wondering about the pro's. What does their "level playing field" look like, with all the big bucks at stake?

As for O2 vector doping, what about cross-country skiing? Distance running? Maybe cycling is just the tip of the iceberg. If a method can be used to evade detection in highly-tested cycling, then it should be pretty darned easy to evade detection in any other relatively low-test sport.

I don't think cycling should get all the blame. I think that if anyone accuses cyclists of being "dirty," we should fire back by questioning the amount of testing done in THEIR sport.

Luis

Of course O2 vector doping is used in those sports. The guy who put blood doping on the map was the Finnish distance runner Lasse Viren, who came out of nowhere on the international scene to win double golds in the 5000 and 10000 meters in the 1972 and 1976 Olympics. He never admitted it, but it's been widely suspected that he did it. It wasn't even banned in international competition until 1986. If you think that guys are running 2:03 marathons clean, think again. There is certainly testing in the Olympics and in the IAAF worlds, but do the major road races routinely test runners? And is there out of event testing during training? Cross country skiing is totally under the radar in the US, but I'm sure that there have been many positive test results since EPO testing came along in 2000.

What Luis said about character!

Jeff, still fat

I remember how disgusted I was when Dodger player Manny Ramirez tested positive for doping, and how upset I was when I learned several other Dodgers were involved in both distributing and using drugs.

On the other hand, I knew Armstrong was doping, just as I knew Ullrich, Merckx, Coppi, etc., were doping. I think I give him more credit for not cracking, or finking on other rider, than those who kept their licenses at the price of rating out Armstrong.