I don't know all of them, but the ones that I do know are retired anyway (or in the very last stage of their career). Do you really believe that 26 sworn testimonies are lies, because someone's out on a witch hunt?

Come on. You believe that 6 independent samples all have been contaminated in exactly the same way, and - strangely - exactly in a way that show the use of EPO?

Huh? The UCI would have gladly kept this issue under the carpet, just like the positive test of Armstrong from 2005, which mysteriously coincided with his 100.000$ gift to the UCI. The UCI required this unrefutable, detailed, and - very important - public analysis of the USADA to actually do something.

That the UCI anti-doping regiment was incompetent and nearly useless, that I agree with. It's no surprise that the biggest success against doping (Festina 1998) was not the result of the UCI's anti-doping measures, but of the police finding drugs and apparel.

Is that before, or after, the East Germans, and Soviets? :P

I also want to mention the book L.A Confidentiel : les secrets de Lance Armstrong (Pierre Ballester & David Walsh) which was, on many points, the base of USASA/UCI investigations.

All I know from my experience combating fraud in the finance sector is this: the criminals are the ones that progress the field, not the protectors. It's a game of constant catch-up. It's too costly to anticipate what the criminal's next move will be (as there are infinite possibilities) and thus can only be a reactionary system. The focus is on how quickly a threat can be neutralised after the fact. Doping in sport seems to bear many similarities to this. Developers of these new undetectable drugs are very much pioneers and it's up to doping committees to reverse engineer all the work that's been done. This takes time.

In regard to your 'witch hunt' comment, I disagree. Not that these two events are of the same magnitude of severity, but noone seems to have a problem convicting murderers 20 years after the fact. Surely we agree that cheating + time ≠ innocent.

I was joking with a friend recently about how I should enter the Tour de France with no training, come in last and then wait 20 years for my 1st place medal :D

There is no more "witch hunt" than when they caught Richard Virenque. American or French cyclist, if there is the slightest suspicion on you, they will investigate and hunt you down if you are guilty.

And we shouldn't expect anything less.

Or we could take a lesson from Futurama. One of the characters noted that professional sport became a lot more interesting once doping became mandatory :D

I would say that it seems pretty likely he cheated at this point. In fairness to the guy, cheating was so rampant during those years that most of the top players have been caught since those days - it really does seem to have been "dope to win". This means Armstrong is in many ways no worse than his cohort cyclists, but the flip side is that he was also no better. I feel bad for the cyclists who had to quit the sport entirely because they wouldn't cheat and thus couldn't compete, but I do somewhat feel this is too little too late. If it hadn't been Armstrong who won, then the next few cyclists (Europeans too) who came in after him during those years have been found cheating. And who knows how many of the others after that simply were never caught.

USADA and UCI can't get those years back and while it will always be easier to circumvent rules than make them more effective, they really did lose control of the sport. All sports had massive amounts of cheating in those days, but cycling seems to have been the worst by far. Perhaps the true depth of it simply hasn't been uncovered in some other sports, but the regulatory agencies really look incompetent in the case of cycling.

I'm emphatically not saying that Armstrong should be let off the hook for what he did simply because of time or the age-old excuse that everyone else was doing it, but I think perspective should be kept about how rampant cheating was. Armstrong simply cheated better and smarter than the next few guys chasing him. That doesn't make him a hero, but nor is it fair to blame him for the culture of cheating that so completely permeated the sport. It's truly sad that there were cyclists whose careers never went anywhere because they wouldn't dope up.
:)

Sadly in cycling it almost was ... the number of top cyclists caught is very disheartening.

Armstrong's case sticks out because he was so well loved. People were proud of this freak of nature who cycled like a fiend and also survived cancer. He was a legend, a paragon of sporting excellence. I think he is receiving harsher treatment in the media as a result. Almost like a betrayal.

Or Jan Ullrich, who got caught as well. And who took his case up to the CAS and lost, which is a good thing.

Ironcally, Ullrich only lost his results from 2005 onwards. It's highly unlikely that he hasn't doped before, but - contrary to Armstrong - there is no known evidence linking him to doping before 2005. Which means that he could, theoretically, inherit the tour victories of 2000, 2001, and 2003, which would be ludicrous. Hopefully the UCI will decide to simply file the tours from 1999 to 2005 as "having no winner".

Yeah I totally understand.
I agree.

Bump for Armstrong's confession. Testosterone, growth hormones, EPO, blood transfusions. All of his Tour de France titles were the result of doping. Is anyone surprised?

Who....the fuck....cares?

This^


I dunno why this is so controversial, it's not like anybody actually watches cycling ...

What a dumbass, the French were right all along about Armstrong. I'm glad he got ratted out after all these years, it serves him right.