Lance Armstrong

[Neil Young]

There was a dispute with an insurance company that Armstrong sued successfully to do with a policy that had to be paid out to him (I think) if he won the 2004 Tour, which of course he did (until recently). That's certainly a major issue for him.

I'm not sure about ordinary prize money. It's not like many of the top riders of the time were clean as you say.

[Lee]

Ah, thanks chaps.

What a mess.

[Neil Young]

USADA are suggesting that as a result of the legal case about the insurance, Armstrong perjured himself which lays him open to a serious criminal charge.

[RichC]

I see his lawyer has broached the subject of a lie detector test, I'd be quite happy to see hat happen with him + all those that have given evidence.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/armstrong-might-take-lie-detector-test-103817164.html

On the evidence front I do find it pretty disgusting that those that have given evidence have been given hugely reduced bans, IMO your guilty and there should be no leniency because you've blown the whistle on another cheat

[Neil Young]

It happens in criminal cases - I don't see why doping cases can't make the same distinction between those who deny it and don't co-operate and those who admit their guilt, express remorse and help the authorities. The information they give can help prevent future cases too.

I'm not sure about the levels of sanction in this case but I don't have a problem with the principle that those who co-operate are treated more leniently than those who don't.

[Liverpel]

Good article by Paul Kimmage today

Paul Kimmage: Truth comes dropping slow


It's taken a while for some but opinions on Lance Armstrong have altered greatly, writes Paul Kimmage

When it comes to the issue of doping and cycling, Sean Kelly has never been forward in looking backward. For 18 years now, since his last professional race, his attitude has always been easy to interpret: Don't ask me to condemn the sins of others.

Three months ago, in a lengthy interview with L'équipe during the most recent Tour de France, even those who know, and work with him closely, despaired when, despite a tidal wave of evidence, he expressed his continued belief in Lance Armstrong. But it was just Kelly being Kelly -- nothing if not consistent.

So it was astonishing to hear him break the habit of a lifetime last Thursday on Morning Ireland when he was rolled out behind Tyler Hamilton on the 8.35 sports bulletin. And even more astonishing that he had changed his tune on Lance: "Well, over the last number of months we were waiting for this and it was pretty much expected," he announced.

"But it's horrific what we're hearing over the last number of hours. Now we know that it was organised within the team . . . the doping with Lance Armstrong and with all the other team-mates. It was a time in cycling -- and we heard Hamilton saying -- they were all doing it, and it wasn't the only team I believe."

Exactly 40 seconds had passed since Kelly had seized the microphone and after this thorough dissection of the problem, it was time to announce the solution.

"Since we have our new president, Pat McQuaid, things have changed totally," he said. "I think in the last couple of years cycling has cleaned up a lot . . . they are catching all the big names, so that is the good thing we have taken from that."

Now, I don't wish to be unkind to Sean, but in the Concise Oxford Dictionary the word 'new' is defined as "made, introduced or discovered recently." McQuaid, a lifelong friend and supporter of Kelly's, has been president of the UCI -- cycling's world governing body -- since 2006. And I don't wish to be unkind to McQuaid, but the consensus on his six years at the helm is that the UCI has been absolutely hopeless.

But McQuaid is suing me, so don't take my word for it: take the USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) report on Armstrong and the affidavit of the former Austrian professional, Jorg Jaksche.

"Following my admissions to public authorities regarding my doping I spent hours talking with the UCI in 2007. I spoke to UCI lawyers, to Anne Gripper, who was then head of anti-doping for the UCI . . . I wanted to be fully transparent regarding my doping and the anti-doping rule violations of others and to fully explain the level of doping of which I was aware and that was taking place on Team Telekom, ONCE, CSC and Liberty Seguros during my time in professional cycling. However, the UCI showed zero interest in hearing the full story about doping on these teams and did not seek to follow up with me."

Jaksche's is one of 26 affidavits or witness statements in the USADA file; some are absolutely heart-breaking; a number raise serious questions about the role of the UCI. When Kelly was waxing lyrical about McQuaid on Morning Ireland, he did not address those questions. And he wasn't challenged by the presenter, Pauric Lodge. Had Lodge read any of the affidavits? Had Kelly? What exactly did he mean by "what we're hearing now?"

It was later that evening when Nicolas Roche took the baton on Prime Time and like Kelly, his godfather, he was keen to assure viewers that all the bad stuff was history. "Hopefully people will understand that this situation and this story -- that is on the way to be closed now -- is about something that happened ten years ago," he announced.

Unlike Kelly, he wasn't going to get an easy ride. Claire Byrne was at her sharpest. "But it's not so far back in our history," she contested. "Because Alberto Contador, the man whose team you have signed to ride with, was stripped of his very recent Tour de France."

"Obviously Contador had his troubles," Roche conceded, "and he paid the price for what he did. And obviously there is probably going to be some more stories in the future . . . what I'm saying is that this big one, this big chapter, is now closed. People have the answers to the questions they were asking and now let's move on to 2013 and hopefully continue the anti-doping fight that's in place now with the UCI."

Again, Byrne wasn't having it, and reminded Roche that the UCI overlords -- McQuaid, and his predecessor Hein Verbruggen -- had robustly defended Armstrong in the past. "Do you think that they need to leave the UCI?" she asked.

BLOWING WHISTLE ON LANCE NEARLY DESTROYED MY LIFE SECTION 1, PAGE 5

At this stage, Roche might have been wiser to declare an interest, something along the lines of: "Well, actually Claire that's a very good question but it's a difficult one for me to answer because my agent, Andrew McQuaid, is actually the UCI president's son. And he's not going to take kindly if I call his father a dope."

Instead, he blustered on. "Well, I don't know all the details of the story, as you know, there is so much going on in a professional career that if you start looking into every detail and every fight that there is around, I would never be able to concentrate fully on my own career, so I just follow what I read in the newspapers."

And, presumably, what he writes in his columns for the Irish Independent. On Friday, he was in flying form, lashing into the cheating Spaniard Ezequiel Mosquera, the cheating Frenchman Steve Houanard, and others. "It p*****s me off that eight or ten years later, after the winning the big prize money, buying the big houses and the flashy cars, they decide to come clean when they're cornered into it and then still blame somebody else. If you dope, don't blame anyone else. It's your choice. Admit it."

Curiously, he didn't refer to the Cancer Jesus. Nor were Bjarne Riis, his cheating manager, and Alberto Contador, his cheating team-mate, mentioned.

His fondness for Armstrong has long been a source of curiosity for me: Last November, I travelled to his home in Italy . . .

Q. In 2005, during your first season as a professional, Armstrong won his seventh Tour de France. A month later, L'équipe published their famous front page: 'Le Mensonge Armstrong'.

A. The big lie

Q. Yes, six of his frozen urine samples from his first Tour win had shown he had used EPO. What was your reaction?

A. My first reaction was that it was another piece on doping . . . the Armstrong case is a very complicated case.

Q. What's complicated about it?

A. Well, there seems to be proof coming from one and the other but none of the proof seems strong enough to confirm the doubts.

Q. Who has doubts?

A. Well the 'grand public' (general public).

Q. You think they have doubts?

A. I think so.

Q. You gave a radio interview to Newstalk recently and a number of people texted the show and they were curious at your defence of Armstrong.

A. Yeah.

Q. Are those people not the 'grand public'?

A. So you are saying that my idea is wrong about the grand public.

Q. I'm suggesting to you that really, you have no doubts. We both know the game. And everybody in the game knows what he was up to.

A. Yes, but there is not enough to say.

Q. What's enough? But wait, that's not the question. This is not my sport, it's your sport. And I want to know why you don't feel as angry about what happened to it as I do?

A. Yeah, but the thing about the Armstrong case is . . . Honestly I don't understand it. I wish it would be credible but on the other hand it seems that there is a lot of information out there against him and I am kind of in the middle. So even though there is a lot of evidence against him, you hope . . .

Q. Why do you hope?

A. Because he would go from being the greatest cyclist to the greatest gangster.

'The Greatest Gangster' would have made a good starting point for Friday's column but it was easier to put the boot into softer targets, and it's his duty now to preach a different gospel.

"To those young people, who are maybe thinking of taking up cycling as a sport, and to their parents who may be wary of letting them, my message is this -- it is possible to race and win professional races clean."

We've heard it many times before.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/paul-kimmage-truth-comes-dropping-slow-3258595.html

[Neil Young]

Good article. Thanks for posting that.

There's possibly a reason Sean Kelly doesn't feel comfortable laying into the doping culture of cycling.

EPO upped the game, raised it to a completely new level. But, despite the efforts of the cycling world in talking all about the cheating culture of "the Armstrong Era", doping didn't start in the 1990s.

I do think it's changing but there's a real problem having people like Riis in charge of teams. And while it was inevitable and necessary for Bruyneel to get the boot, it's disconcerting that his deputy remains in place - as a rider, Kim Andersen tested positive seven times in his career and, to quote William Fotheringham in the Guardian, was "one of the rare riders to earn a life ban in the days when it was virtually unheard of due to the leniency with which cheats were treated."

There's a long way to go yet. And the UCI is currently still part of the problem, not the solution.

[Fredo]

Good article. Thanks for posting that.

There's possibly a reason Sean Kelly doesn't feel comfortable laying into the doping culture of cycling.

EPO upped the game, raised it to a completely new level. But, despite the efforts of the cycling world in talking all about the cheating culture of "the Armstrong Era", doping didn't start in the 1990s.

Tom Simpson was a notorious (and very sad example) of someone who took drugs IIRC.

[Morten_nogamst_Pedersen]

Cycling may never been as "clean" as it is currently...

[Chazza]

Armstrong has stepped down as the chairman of Livestrong.

[Fredo]

Armstrong has stepped down as the chairman of Livestrong.

Interesting, but I think it had to happen irrelevant of his stance against the allegations. Matter of time before he loses sponsorships etc ...

[Assassin]

Armstrong loses Nike contract

Nike has terminated the contract of Lance Armstrong in the wake of the doping scandal that has engulfed him.

The move comes a week after the US Anti-Doping Agency released a lengthy report detailing allegations of widespread performance-enhancing drug use by Armstrong and his teams.

Armstrong had earlier confirmed he is stepping down as chairman of his Livestrong cancer-fighting charity, although Nike will continue to support the organisation.

"Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him," read an official statement from the leisurewear company.

"Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner. Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer."

[Pablo]

Alex Frost @alexwfrost
Teaching my son to ride his bike. Question: Should he go for blood transfusions, or just go straight for hormone therapy? @LanceArmstrong

[Gibbo]

Stripped of all tour de france titles, banned for life.

[Icon]

Didn't see any of this coming did we?