|
Aug 2012
11:27am, 24 Aug 2012
1,379 posts
|
JaneyM
I'm with Chrisull - I was at two of the tours where Armstrong was cycling (one he won and the other was his last one) and you know what - he was awesome to watch - pro-cycling is an amazing sport to watch and lets face it for many years we have known it has been riddled with drug taking but as many people above have said "they were all at it" so hopefully Wiggins and his like can change that (please let Wiggo be truly clean and not just another hope we have) for the future. That's all I've got to say. Still happy to say I unashamedly shouted "dance lance dance" and "allez allez allez lance" at the side of a corn field in France with great glee 
|
|
Aug 2012
11:39am, 24 Aug 2012
2,816 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
a chemist
|
|
Aug 2012
11:47am, 24 Aug 2012
19,644 posts
|
swittle
By extension, should drug cheats, actual or suspected, be removed from, say, all athletics records on a similar principle? When the women's 4 x 100m world record fell at the Olympics in London, commentators could scarcely disguise their glee, that the GDR record had gone. In doing so, they accused & condemned a whole nation without any evidence that implicated *every* E. German competitor.
|
|
Aug 2012
11:48am, 24 Aug 2012
7,779 posts
|
Keefy Beefy
This all seems rather sad and not a little crazy.
|
|
Aug 2012
11:51am, 24 Aug 2012
1,288 posts
|
auburnette
If there are testable samples still floating around (as I presume there must be) I don't see what there is to be lost by asking them to be retested, if you haven't in fact taken drugs. I doubt any agency would go so far as to manipulate the results, especially given the high degree of scrutiny. Giving up just seems suspicious.
|
|
Aug 2012
11:56am, 24 Aug 2012
887 posts
|
The Teaboy
Swirrle. There was documented evidence of the systematic doping that regime engaged in. What was more scandalous was that the governing bodies refused to act retrospectively on it.
|
|
Aug 2012
12:03pm, 24 Aug 2012
1,472 posts
|
P.E...
In all honesty I don't know what to think...
BUT I would have thought Lance would have fought this, unless he knows there is evidence that means he can't win. Now I get the idea that the courts could be biased etc. but part of me is nagging that he must know he can't win - and for that there must be some form way that he can be charged. I mean they did throw out Armstrongs counter claim. But if he has passed the tests in front of him?!?!
As for testing previous samples I think thats been mentioned - they tried it and SCA & Tailwind went to court over it over the bonus for winning six TDF's and that was settled in Lance's favour
|
|
Aug 2012
12:04pm, 24 Aug 2012
1,473 posts
|
P.E...
Oh and I didn't win them as I would have failed the drug tests!
|
|
Aug 2012
12:10pm, 24 Aug 2012
1,289 posts
|
auburnette
I don't know that the SCA thing is quite the same point - I don't know the details but I think that's likely to have turned more on what their contract/terms of bonus payable with him said, rather than the results of the test itself. And it was settled out of court anyway, no finding of fact in such cases.
|
|
Aug 2012
12:14pm, 24 Aug 2012
1,290 posts
|
auburnette
Yeah - the SCA thing:
"The arbitration case stemmed from a business dispute between Armstrong and SCA Promotions Inc. -- a Dallas company that had offered to pay a bonus to the racer if he won the Tour in 2004, which he did. The company resisted making the payment after allegations of doping surfaced that summer."
Point being that if there was no 'anti doping' clause in the contract, they could not withhold payment even if he did dope, so unsurprising that it ended up in a settlement. I don't know that it actually says anything about his innocence or otherwise, but if there are testable samples still in existence, I don't know why Armstrong/the agency can't go to arbitration and agree on independent re-testing by a lab they're both happy with.
|
