qft.

The whole coverup of his positive test is worse news for cycling than the fact that everybody was doping. Since nobody cares about cycling, it's just a side story.

No superstar has been busted for PEDs in the NBA or the NFL. Is that just because the tests suck or have they covered one up, too?

The UCI coverup is indeed the biggest thing to emerge from this.

Basso lost 2 years even though he never failed a dope test.
Petacchi lost a bunch of wins for A test result which would not be a positive now.
Rasmussen was pulled from a Tour for lying about his location.

Now, I agree that all these decisions were correct but if you are one of these guys, how do you feel today knowing that you lost your job b/c of strong circumstantial evidence but the guy who was actually busted for doping was helped escape by the same body that busted you?

I suggest everyone read Landis's interview with Kimmage published a few months ago - all the recent developments seem to be backing up what he wrote. The rot doesn't start with the riders - it starts with UCI and this could be the smoking gun that brings them down.

McQuaid is a f**king embarrassment and needs to go. Now.

Is Armstrong's signature on that "prenup"?

If not, it means nothing.

Ever notice the ones who get busted in the NFL always seem to be sleeping with the commisioner's daughter or getting involved in gunfights or high-speed car chases?

And in the NBA it's the guys who have to go to Europe to play because they've worn out their welcome in the USA?

I particularly love how NFL players who've been lifting their entire life manage to gain 10-15lb of muscle in one off-season. Sure that's natural...

Oh, and Inner Ring on the money here:
https://inrng.com/?p=3267#more-3267

Careful Dude, your flouting Papal infallibility here. The repercussions could be dangerous, nay, even eternal.

In mystery stories they used to say "cherchez la femme". In this case it is better to follow the $'s.

Eki says he never saw Lance dope. He's now the 2004 Gold Medalist in the time trial. Then Eki didn't dope.

Everyone move along.

You're covering a lot of ground here.

While I am no lawyer, I did pass the bar the other day. I'll stop there tomorrow.

For the sake of discussion....how about...winning at cycling is predicated on the lie that is can be done cleanly. Lets say everybody knows that....including public and riders. So the riders cheat and try to hide it in an effort to win and be famous. That is the contest or the game. Maybe the competition that Lance won is he was the most successful cheater in the history of the sport where the other guys weren't as good at cheating. The guys that lost at cheating are now saying that the guy who everybody thinks doesn't cheat, does. What do they have to lose now their lives have been ruined as mentioned previously?

Another view of this debacle at the end of the day...maybe the public good of livestrong is more important than if cyclists cheat. So bringing down Lance which may bring down the good that livestrong does may not be worth the tradeoff. As to Lance's rational. We all know he is ruthless. You can't go into the backyard of Europe and dominate their coveted cycling event without being that way. The guy is the ultimate competitor and surviver. He has another fight on his hands and if anybody has a chance of winning, its him. Of course he uses his shield of livestrong to protect his image. Another famous superstar that has fallen precipitously from grace comes to mind reading this thread.
Tiger Woods. The ruthless guys as the top...suppose there are exceptions but they are truly the exceptions are flawed in their single focus to dominate. If there is a sham it is Tiger Woods....the exact opposite of his carefully crafted apple pie image. Since he has transformed himself from a skinny kid that could play good golf to a half back and now doesn't play as well with his broken down body, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't dope either...same doctor that has been caught doping other atheletes.

To play at that level, to be a Grand tour team leader, you have to be totally self centered and ruthless. Absolutely. You surround yourself with people that fully understand and do not question this. This is the most demanding sport in the endurance category. No question.

Note that there was never any question who was in charge of Postal or Disco. Ever. Not true on many other teams...and this was the case in other Grand Tour events as well for this team.

The last sentence in your first paragraph was the best.

The rules dont say "dont dope unless you are an established philanthropist" - they say dont dope, period. If you are trying to clean up the sport, you need to make it clear no one is above the rules. If people think it isnt worth dragging St Lance through the mud, then ALL dopers need to have their sentences rescinded and wins restored. The standards should apply evenly to everyone. Period.

Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Like I said earlier, do you exempt someone from doping b/c he only inspired a few thousand people, not a few million? How about a few hundred? How about 10? What if he was merely very nice to his neighbors? What's the cut-off? Who decides it?

I know this - the other cyclists who lost their career, livelihood and a chance to participate in the sport they love b/c of a prevalent doping culture DESERVE that even the sport's titans be judged by the same standards. Period.

As for Livestrong - here's my personal take on it. I am not a big Lance fan, but I am not a hater either. However, Lance's PR machine and ghost-writers have made Lance out to be some sort of an ultimate "mind over matter" type of hero - using those TdF wins as proof of his willpower. If he has doped, then it turns out that while he is still a TdF winner who won on a level playing field, his achievements are relatively more mundane than anything else: heck, in a few more years, Contador will likely have more GT wins than any other rider.

I dunno about you, but if I am going to look up to someone and use them as inspiration, I'd rather it be someone I can admire. A person who lies about his achievements in order to build himself up as someone to be admired doesnt fit the bill. YMMV.

But this neither here nor there - we all will parse this differently. The point is, subjective feelings of the fans should NOT affect how rules are interpreted.

Like Uncle Pcad, I'm no lawyer, but logically it would follow that when a representative of an organization enters into an agreement, it would cover the entire team. If any one team member abstained, well, you know what's going on there.

Just don't park your Cervelo outside or I will put in my van and then come in have a drink with you.
If somebody asks who took it, we can blame Landis even though he is a nice guy and we know where he ended up.

Talent gives a child only a leg-up on their initial training/competition it does NOT make a pro by any means. You do not have to give up any dream of being a pro by NOT taking drugs. Becoming pro, is some talent, a LOT of dedicated TRAINING and even more LUCK.

PERIOD. Caffeine and Sugar are both drugs but because BIG POPPA says, "These drugs are okay" you find that okay too? Last time I checked, popping a pill was exactly what the feds want Americans to do; hell they are even supporting the US Pharm industry, what is wrong with that?

Rather the point is, there are two standards not one. Perhaps in your ideal world there should be only one grade. Context and money changes things. Ted Kennedy comes to mind. Few can leave the scene of a crime with a young women drowning because of your mistake of being drunk and behind the wheel and then have a career in congress. Did Ted Kennedy go to his grave knowing he killed that women and left her to save his political skin? Of course. He should have gone to prison for what he did. It is done all the time and doping is dominant in sports and superstars do get a pass. Will talent, influence, money and yes contribution always get a free pass? More times than not. Because at the end of the day, guilt is generally considered with context and not absolutes.

Not to break your carefully created illusion of frivolity, you are usually quite sensible when you do get serious. This is the first time I've read something something that is so completely illogical and unreasoned.

Hmm.. not sure why, but I thought you were an IP lawyer when you werent busy being Pope.

And so what?

There is a big difference between saying "sometimes, the rich and famous get free" and saying "Lance *should* get special treatment b/c he is rich and famous".

RW....have you seen Lance's picture on the front of May's issue of Bicycling?
He literally looks like the devil...I kid you not. If you get a chance, have a look...just needs two horns.

I am not saying Lance should get a free pass. I am saying he likely will. Will see.

the two are not comparable. the NFL is a money printing machine. people want to see bigger, faster, stronger, ect.... and no ONE cares who it is accomplished. no one. later.

Ah ok, I misunderstood. Well, he's certainly gotten away due to his influence so far, but I think that run is about to end now.

Your earthly velo Fred rantings are of little concern to His BF Holiness.

Bite me my son.