This is the access page for an archive of forum entries. The forum iteslf is no longer available for new content. New social based chat is available on the club Facebook group.
That is a very interesting comment, Ady. It is 'gob-smacking' to see Nike and Oakley sticking by their man, and this huge PR campaign being launched by Lance's business connections and charity campaigners to win the media war. It is turning into a kind of presidential campaign.
Also, 'André Birotte Jr., the United States attorney for the Central District of California, announced in February that he had closed an investigation into Armstrong. He gave no reason for ending the inquiry.' This was done so suddenly, that no one who had taken part in the lengthy investigation, including chief investigator Jeff Novitzky, knew about it until the rug was pulled from under their feet in a rushed press release....
Two of the most prominent cycling and Tour de France commentators in Britain are known friends with Lance Armstrong, and have all three have invested in Paul Sherwen's gold-mine in Africa. This may explain how it has affected their judgement in covering the Lance Armstrong story so subjectively, that they have been apologists of him rather than investigative journalists.
http://theelementsofguile.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-problem-of-media-in-professional-cycling/
Michael Calvin says in The Independent: 'They must live with their consciences. The most poignant case involves British TV commentator Phil Liggett. Many feel he compromised himself earlier this year with a bizarre pro-Armstrong, anti-Usada rant on South African radio, which quickly went viral.' (See link above).
Several people were disappointed to hear Paul Sherwen defend Lance Armstrong and to protest his innocence at the Weaver Valley CC dinner in February 2012. It jarred with me and others to have a former club member choose this relaxed and convivial moment to put on record his support for Lance Armstrong. Paul Sherwen worked for the Motorola Team as their PR man where he would have known LA well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sherwen
Also, Team Sky have a problem with their 'zero-tolerance to drugs' policy. As well as Michael Barry, the name of Sean Yates has come up in the scandal. He been linked by Tyler Hamilton to 'Motoman' (or allegedly Philippe Maire). Tyler says this friend of Sean Yates' used to follow the Tour on a moped carrying EPO. (Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle: 'The Secret Race') Also, Sean Yates, knew Lance Armstrong as far back as 1991 , when he rode with Lance Armstrong for Motorola. In June 2007, Yates was manager of Team Discovery, and in 2008 he went on to manage riders on the Astana cycling team, before joining Sky. His appointment for Team Sky looked suspect from the start.
Have a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q03sc8Aoyk0&feature=youtu.be
http://road.cc/content/news/69032-et-tu-phil-liggett-starts-doubt-lance-armstrongs-innocence
I would like to hear what Paul Sherwen has to say now about the situation, but he seems to have gone quiet for once....
From an article by Laura Wieslo, entitled 'The Lance Armstrong fairness fallacy' at:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/the-lance-armstrong-fairness-fallacy
"Until we have a day that pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical sales reps, pharmacists, doctors, veterinarians and gynaecologists have a real fear criminal prosecution for facilitating athletes abusing doping products, we will have difficulty achieving clean sport."
There's a lot of money to be made here, hence the wider concerns about how to bring effective measures, including prosecution, to the door of drug companies, sponsors, global companies etc. How do you sell it to companies who are, after all, there to make money from supply, from sponsorship, and the massive global media coverage that cycling now enjoys?
Nike (who have a well publicized history of less-than-ethical methods of production, etc), continue to sponsor LA. No publicity is bad publicity for such organsiations...
Hi Ady,
You need to read this article published today in the i paper about how Nike money, all $500,000 of it, found it's way into Hein Verbruggen's Swiss bank account to pay for Lance Armstrong failing a dope control. This information has been in the public domain since 2006.
Nike are not looking good....
The whole sorry saga has been unravelling for years - talking of Nike and their ethics the following Lemond feature is worth reading
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kathy-lemonds-sca-deposition-details-revealed
interestingly 1994 mentioned is when Yates was riding with Armstrong for Motorola and I recall years ago the 2 roomed together and Armstrong valued all the help he got from Yates - wonder how far that went?
Not mentioned in earlier forum posts, that Yates spent time at CSC-Tiscali working with a certain Mr Riis before Armstrong invited him to go to Discovery. Now he may have been at a number of teams and not known what was going on - if that was the case you could say he happened to be in the wrong place at a number of times??
Sean may have a tricky time explaining himself now Sky are going for a "reveal all" stance - I just hope he is as innocent and shocked as he claims.
And talking of Sky - Alex Dowsett needs to engage his brain before opening his mouth!
I remember reading Paul Kimmage's book when it was first published and recall being shocked and angry at what went on - I have just re-read the book and am amazed how tame it seems compared to the Festina/Pantani/Armstrong issues.
Sad that in all eras there are those who choose to cheat and sad that cycling is trying but always gets the flak while other sports seem to ignore the problems.
Sure this will run and run.
No doubt about it running on.
Breaking news is that LA has just stepped down as chairman of his own Livestrong charity.
Nike have told him to jog on now!!!!
Yes, most of the information has been in the public domain since 2006. My eyes were opened when Floyd Landis, LAs former wing-man won the Tour de France in 2006, and then got busted for drugs. He then started talking, but he was dismissed as a cheat and a liar whose testimony was not trustworthy. Why has it taken another 6 years for Greg LeMond, Betsy and Frankie Andreu and a host of others to be taken seriously? World cycling has to thank Jeff Novitsky and Travis Tyggart for their legal investigations, and Paul Kimmage, David Walsh, and Pierre Ballester as the only investigative journalists who risked everything to act as whistleblowers. Most of the pro cyclists, cycling management, and the cycling media are still not commenting on any of this. They are all acting surprised and shocked, and they are saying the minimum about LA. As far as I am concerned, the problems continue in the attitudes of professional cycling, especially in Luxembourg, Italy and Spain. The Omerta is alive and well. No real change will take place without a drastic re-organisation of the UCI. David Millar for President....?
Well David Millar warmed to the idea on the recent radio 5 Live programme - he would certainly speak his mind.
Whenever doping surfaces, and it does regularly, I recall being in the Isle of Man in the mid sixties and a group of us went for an end of week meal - in that group was Les West and I think the topic of drugs in cycling surfaced - I remember Les responding to a question as to whether he could make it on the continent - his reply has stayed with me, the gist of which was "I know what goes on and I want to live long enough to see my grandchildren". As history shows he stayed in the domestic scene but was denied the amateur world title when a rider doped up took the title, and then submitted a sample from someone else to get round the recently introduced dope controls.
The really awful thing about drugs in sport is the number of Les Wests who were at the top of their game and denied victories by cheats, and the number who just walked away from the sport because of what they saw.
Here's one to stir up the thread a bit haha!
Not that I'm saying that this conspiracy goes far beyond LA and USPS, or that the USADA stands to make a small fortune out of a successful criminal case against LA given that it would stand as a federal crime, but has there been any physical proof yet or is this whole mess still being driven by heresay and media frenzy?
It just seems to me that "he cheated and here is the physical proof" has been replaced with "he cheated cos this guy said so" and that has never stood up in court.
Yet again, I am not saying he didn't cheat, and I am guessing that nearly everyone back then did, but if you take emotion and opinion out of it, the whole case does stink a bit...
I don't think that stirs it up much more. The case has been executed in a highly questionable way. As an example, if this were 'tried' in a British Court, then the testimony of someone who has a book deal and stands to profit from this would probably not be admitted, or at the very least, the book would have been withheld from publication until the witness evidence was heard.
Agreed, no physical evidence has yet been brought forward, not considered, although at this juncture, the defence might reasonably suggest that said evidence may not be untampered with (by accident whilst being re-tested for example). This is so big and new, that there is no legal precedent set to refer to...
..discuss.
He's a cheat they all were!!!!!! Standing down as chairman of LiveStrong was an omision of guilt as much as anything.
Watch this space for a certain SKY DS. Questions will be being asked at SKY HQ at the moment.
I know that you are struggling to come to terms with this, Kris. However, the genie is too far out of the bottle to put the cork back in, so to speak. Anyone who tries to defend the indefensible now, will end up looking a fool in the weeks and months to come. Sorry!
Well said Dave!
Yes, I reckon Sean Yates will quit Sky soon too!
