Will it never end?
Will it never end?
1999 Waterford RSE-11, 1995 Waterford 1200, 1989 Specialized Rockhopper Comp
1989 Raleigh Technium, 1989 Schwinn Traveler, 1986 Specialized Rockhopper
1984 Specialized Stumpjumper, 1986 Specialized Stumpjumper and just way too many projects to list.
It's been a slow news week I guess.
I see hills.... Bring them on!!!
Stay calm and bring a towel.
It's amazing the length people will go to discredit Lance. I'm baffled with Americans who don't rally behind Lance. I can see the french and the other Euros but not America.
Its fox i mean realy what do you expect from a network owned at least in part by michale isner (disney owner) The guys a money grubing pig. Lance and lance bashing =s big money.
Nova,Originally Posted by nova
How do you explain that it is Fox that doing the witch hunt? They are just reporting the fact that IOC president called for another investigation. How does that turn around and mean that FOX is Lance bashing? (I am not a fan of any news channel, as they all have some spin.) BUT it looks to be just the facts in this article, unless you have proof that anything they printed is false. Every part of that article is either a reprint of facts or quotes from officials associated with IOC, WADA, and UCI.
You are entitled to your opinion but I am wondering what you are basing it on.
No, people here will never ever quit talking about Armstrong. The guy's retired. Time to move on.Originally Posted by cs1
Paris Tours is tomorrow.
i may have overreacted
Allegations were made that: 1) Lance used EPO to win the Tour in 1999 and 2) that the urine samples confirmed this. However, there were a lot of practices that were questionable, at best, on the part of the accusers. If Lance is innocent, he and all of his supporters should be welcoming these investigations with open arms. These inquiries could be just as likely to show faulty work by the lab, and allow Lance to put this latest round of allegations behind him, rather than letting them linger and cast shadows.
The rider in my avatar is David Etxebarria, not me.
i very much doubt it will ever go away. i say theres alot off jealous people out there, that just cant/wont except they where beaten by a better person. Or those that can earn alot off money for trying to discredit people.
The English press are great at it, anything to cause trouble. Plus on another note it gets people talking about the sport, just maybe not for the right reason.
The best thing LA can do is ignore this. He has fought these allegations for a long time and is more than likely weary from it all. He should press on with his life and "drink more beer" as he said to OLN after he won #7.
This was not a Fox witch hunt--they were just reprinting an AP story. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to mock Fox "News," so we don't need to make things up.
Rogge has been on Armstrong's side in the test controversy, so it would be interesting to hear more about why he is suggesting this. My guess is that he thinks WADA and UCI will come to different conclusions and he wants an investigation he can control. But that's just rank speculation, subject to change without notice.
- sorry to post somewhat offtopic, but a few points:Originally Posted by nova
- IIRC, Eisner was associated w/Disney and through corporate holdings, ABC Network, not FOX, which is a Rupert Murdoch entity...
- if you own any indexed stock mutual funds, you may be a shareholder of FOX (and/or ABC), etc.
- the money 'grubbing' seems to currently be carried on by L'Equipe , a sports rag, not FOX News...
If you read this, I think what you will find is that the IOC's interest is in why there are issues between UCI and WADA. It just happens to be Lance. Rogge clearly makes several statement here about Lance's presumed innocence. Plus the IOC has no jurisdiction over Lance in the Tour.Originally Posted by cs1
Last edited by roadwarrior; 10-09-05 at 06:00 AM.
I AM IN THE BIKE BUSINESS!!!
In the Bike Business, I am!!!
Thank you...Originally Posted by Laggard
I AM IN THE BIKE BUSINESS!!!
In the Bike Business, I am!!!
What I don't understand is what authority Rogge has in all of this. As I see it, he has none. What could be gained by his putting his foot in the pile of doggy-doo that came out of WADA? I understand that he would want assurance that WADA is capable of getting drug tests right, but the Tour De France isn't the Olympics.
In search of what to search for.
If Armstrong is innocent, surely he should welcome all these enquiries that will clear his name? All there is now is the report from l'Equipe.
Hope not. I'd hate to think that the governing bodies of sport will stop investigating doping and charges of doping.Will it never end?
Yeah, maybe someday they'll start testing samples that aren't 6 years old.Originally Posted by EURO
I'd like to see retrospective testing, wouldn't you? It would be awesome to take titles off people who have cheated in the past. That would really stop people cheating now, wouldn't it? The fear that even if there isn't a test now, there might be in the future?Yeah, maybe someday they'll start testing samples that aren't 6 years old.
Anyway, you need to re-read the account of what happened. They were testing to see if the new EPO test worked, and they used the (anonymous) samples from the 1999 tour for the tests. It was l'Equipe, NOT WADA or the UCI or the OIC that linked the samples to Armstrong and others.
So you think L'Equipe had the paperwork to link the two together? PLEASE! Are you reading the same articles that the rest of the world is reading? Yeah those samples were from the 99 Tour but there is no way that L'Equipe was wrong and/or mislead anyone, right? Just ask Dr. Steffen about his interview.Originally Posted by EURO
"...my intentions in participating in the L'Equipe interview were not to impugn anyone's character. I understood the purpose of the interview to be a discussion of the great strides being made by anti-doping agencies around the globe and the opportunity to improve testing for banned substances. As a Board Certified Emergency Room and Sports Medicine physician, I feel it is my duty to help USADA, WADA, and the UCI when I see a potential problem with testing protocols or methods. Unfortunately, the L'Equipe article overshadowed these issues and focused, instead, on my comments relating to specific athletes."
Dr. Steffen quote from Velonews.com
L'Equipe is all about ruining American cycling. Open your eyes! Get your head out of the clouds. This isn't just about Lance.
This about American cycling.
My thoughts, rant over.
Sorry, I don't understand your post. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my statement -
?It was l'Equipe, NOT WADA or the UCI or the OIC that linked the samples to Armstrong and others.
But someone at the lab, WADA, or UCI improperly leaked the information that made the link possible (the code to Armstrong's test). I forget, in all of these allegations and cross-allegations, did we ever find out for sure who made that leak?Originally Posted by EURO
That's old news. Did Jessica and Nick split up? How about that Lindsey Lohan car crash. And what did Britney auction off this week.
Now that's news.........
Nope, but it looks like the investigation from the UCI will set out to determine exactly that.I forget, in all of these allegations and cross-allegations, did we ever find out for sure who made that leak?
Who cares anyway? In all kinds of historical controversies, the guy who leaked the info was biased (Deep Throat?) - all that matters is the truth comes out.
It does matter in that it shows 1) what needs to be done to increase security; 2) whether the lab also had access to the information, in which case the test would not have been anonymous.Originally Posted by EURO
A third investigation by the IOC would be useless. If the UCI and WADA come to different results, nothing will "conclusively" resolve the differences. The third study would just be a waste of even more time and money. It shows some arrogance on Rogge's part that he thinks the third study would resolve anything.
The sad thing about this whole affair is that cycling needs doping control that is both fair and effective. Unfortunately, the testing of Armstrong's 1999 samples was neither.
I agree - for me, the fairest doping control is retrospective. If we could retrospectively test Armstrong’s A and B samples from 1999 the whole affair would be settled.Unfortunately, the testing of Armstrong's 1999 samples was neither.