Your life sounds very provincial, how very nice for you
The eleven USADA ex team mates against Lance Armstrong.
You have to WIN 7 TdF's in a row BEFORE you can be STRIPPED of 7 TdF's in a row.
Berzin, are still mad because Lance put 7 minutes into Berzin in the 1996 Liege-Bastogne-Liege? Those results were not stripped. BTW, did you ever notice Berzin pedaled like Elaine Benes danced?
Polish, I'd like to see evidence that LA could win even one Tour if the peleton was uniformly clean at that time. LA never showed he had what it took to be a GT classification rider before his cancer. If the "program" never existed, LA might have won, what two or three stages over the rest of his career and maybe 15 classics?
The years surrounding LA's wins were years where OK riders who were GREAT DOPERS were being idolized on pedestals. Now I will grant that the doping regimes led to permanent physical changes in the bodies of those GREAT DOPERS and they became true physical specimens. Also that it appears that certain riders can benefit better both short and long term from those routines than others. That LA was probably highly unusual in how much he benefited.
So, Most Awesome Doper? I'd agree. But to me the Tour is a little bigger than that. Seven years with an empty podium step is OK by me.
@ibex I would use Catholi and Urbane instead of provincial to be more acurate. Please also remember I also did not make a narrow viewed comment or resonse.
@79pmooney 'the most natural talented athlete I have met' was Hamiltons description of LA. Your pre and post cancer comment is erroneous as his definition pre was via tri's etc and after via cycling and his muscle mass etc was of a different definition.
Ben, can you name any rider besides Lance who could win 7 in a row in a clean peleton?
Do you think Jan could have won in 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003?
It takes so much MORE than doping to win the TdF 1/2/3/4/5/6/7 in a row. So much more. Name any rider who had/did so much more?
And that just scratches the surface of winning 7 in a row.
Will never happen again. Never.
In your Face 7 in a Row. In hindsight, that was Lance's problem. He has admitted to that. Too successful. But seriously, do you think as Lance lies layin' around he cares? Doubt it - I bet he is focused on the future not the past.
The future. Future Lawsuits. Future Biz Deals. Future ways to piss off the haters.
I'm not saying for a second that any other rider could have pulled off 7 wins. Never did.
Also Polish, it seems you have been/are calling me a hater. I don't hate anybody. Even people who lie, cheat and are willing to do dirt to those who not long before appeared as best friends. I find those people sad to look at but I do not hate them.
Getting back to reality here, for the sake of Berzin, check out Lance in this video. If he Lance HIM were the most organized sycronized, sophisticated doper on the planet, doping since age 15 as a star triathelete, why did he not win the 94 Amstel Gold? I like the commentators comments about the race too. What a great race, and great to see Lance riding his heart out.
Lance was an aggressive Classics rider, pre cancer.
But a classics rider is VERY different from a GC rider of a 3 week tour. Tom Boonen is a great classics rider but he wouldn't win the Tour in a million years. Imagining a top tri athlete (14 hour events) becoming a great classics rider (6 hour events) is quite easy for me. But I don't see that translating to 100 hours over 3 weeks with 6 or 7 of those days being in the high Alps and Pyrenees.
I never said he was doping from age 15. I don't know where that came from. We do know, from LA's own mouth that he used a pile of stuff before his cancer.
Ben, in no way was I calling you a hater. Sorry anyway.
It is just that minimizing what Lance accomplished is so bogus. And maximizing the doping part is bogus too.
Imagine if the whole peleton were clean - except Alberto. Could he win 7 in a row? I would argue NO. I would bet on NO. He would fall, get pushed, get sick, have a mechanical, mental breakdown blah blah blah. But I would bet he would not win 7 in a row even if doped in a clean peleton. Even if it were scripted he would not make it. Unless there were retakes. "Cut Cut. Alberto baby...bang bang like you really mean it this time. Ok, action...."
Ben, do you think Tom Boonen doped to the gills could win the TdF?
Could he win it 7 times in a row?
Assuming you say "no", why could Lance and why not Boonen?
Polish, Lance passed 500+ tests and there is no evidence of doping at all, just hearsay evidence. If we even speculate about him doping it weakens our case. Siempre Fie!
Top triathletes are not participating in 14 hour events.
I'm not talking about winning the Tour doped to the gills. I'm talking clean, and I don't think Boonen could do it once. I doubt LA could either.
pa, I don't follow tris. Aren't the Iron Man events close to 14 hours? If they are not that shorter, that just strengthens my point.
Now the ToC looms. Leipheimer does not have a team. Any chance of 2.0 Hincapie comebacker, with Levi as a GC fave, and good old Garmin boys Vandvelde, Tommy D.. Dave Z., 2.0Frankie, maybe Chechu, and 2.0 Eki, doin an inagural ride, with Lance, sitting on his 3.o blue train?
Of course Johann 2.0 as DS, with Dirk Demol. Team redemption
No sanction, will Rick be picked up by an Euro team for next season?
They don't mention which college Rick went to coach. Ft. Lewis. And who was one of his young discoveries at Ft. Lewis? Young Tommy D.
Wait, I thought the Statutes of Limitation did not apply to those involved with that Most Heinous Doping Conspiracy? But Rick gets his name hidden and no sanction as far as we can tell.
The USADA SmearJob WitchHunt was so pathetic. Pitiful. Not going to say "told you so" though. WADA joke that keeps on giving.
No, the Statute of Limitations is only void if they lied about it during the period when the statute was in effect. The precedent was USADA v Hellebuyck.All opinions expressed are unofficial, and probably wrong.
Why did Rick talk? He had nothing to gain. He had to know there was no penalty, nothing to bargin for, no strips, no sanction. I guess, like Tyler, 'He had to lift a great weight off his shoulders.' Classic.
Didn't Rick Crawford work with Lance back in the day?It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
At this point, one can only speculate how the major tours podiums would have looked if it was a clean sport, there is no way to evaluate how different riders "might" have done clean. From my perspective as a cycling fan, this is my greatest disappointment...that in an era of admittidly VERY talented riders, we can never know who would have prevaled if clean. The whole era to me is a question mark in that respect. I do appreciate the physical efforts of all of them in a tremendously hard sport, doped or not, but I can no longer put any of them on a pedestal. I am pragmatic enough to understand the "why" of it, and I don't hate anyone for it, but if you take the risks (doping) you must accept the possibility and ramifications of getting caught."To be free and to live a free life - that is the most beautiful thing there is."
This jersey was more 'applicable' than anyone knew.......
Yes KR, Crawford worked with a young Lance. Young and impressionable probably. Lance could have used a good mentor like Lemond back then. (BTW, I was a BIG fan of LeMond back in the 80s-90s, gosh - which US Cycling fan wasn't? But not a fan of 2012 drunken facebook ranting Greg)
But back to Crawford. Crawford from USADA home state Of Colorado. Crawford who does not fit into the "USPS Doping Conspiracy" SmearJob narrative.
Why was Crawford hidden on the USADA Report? Why were Spanish and Belgians and Italians given LifeTime Bans - but Crawford still coaching kids in Colorado? USADA home State of Colorado - coaching kids still.
Why did Crawford get a Sweet Deal?
And, as Flicker asks - why is this coming out now?
My guess is that Bruyneel is about to blow holes in the USADA "Conspiracy" Myth. Crawford is coming clean now because it became apparent the news was going to become public soon. My guess.
Who told Crawford to talk about this in public I wonder
@sidebyside your statement is factually incorrect.
WADA Rules have NO allowance for +8 years and any application to be agreed under the Rules require CAS/SSS application.
USADA application against LA was based in US Law (not stated as which basis however) and under WADA Rules 'home law' is in fact not applicable.
WADA have now basically failed to pass the judgement to CAS for ruling outside their won rules and new cases can therefore find their defence in 'home law' as defined by USADA own submission and WADA endorsement.
You simply cannot exclude a defendant from one set of rules you wish to apply yourself and 2009 seen WADA remove all home laws in favour of WADA Rule (which I understand due to to International limitations) but now throew all that in the bin!
WADA have now determined their own rules are open to interpretation which makes all futures case very interesting esp JB & Co.
You must log in to post.