Also puzzled as to how the US authorities can strip him of his titles. This has been a one man vendetta for years and it finally ground LA down. That's my view on it. Might be proved wrong but really hope not.
USADA are affiliated to WADA and all the various anti-doping agreements in sport so they have jurisdiction over US based sportsmen/women and teams that are affiliated to USADA and/other sports organisations like the UCI. The UCI should in theory follow any decision they make. However that's tricky - as Rothko points out most of the cyclists who finished second, third etc to Armstrong either doped or were implicated in doping so promoting them would be laughable.
Bjarne Riis, who won the TdeF in 1996 later admitted to using EPO and should have had his title stripped. However that would have meant giving it to Jan Ullrich (his team-mate at the time) and he was caught in the same investigation that discovered that Riis was doping. So the UCI allowed Riis to keep his title but put an asterix next to his name detailing that he later admitted using EPO to win.
Riis was known in cycling as "Mr 60%" as that was the level of red blood cells that he was supposed to have as a result of EPO use.
So, do you think Le Monde, Indurain etc all used illegal substances? Has to be a real possibility given the cycling set up back then. But can't remember them being harassed to the extent Armstrong is/was.
Points noted Colin, maybe it's because the man has become a symbol of winning, guts and a fighter, beating the odds, that no one really wants to believe that he's a cheat. That would be a massive bubble that's burst. But the vendetta has been ongoing for a long time, started by the French after winning the TDF. Regarding Landis, is he not up for trial regarding fraud?
This is exactly the reason. He was still the best of his era by a long stretch.
Landis was the most obvious cheat in the history of the tour the year he won it. He didn't even need a positive test! He nearly died in the sadle one day in the mountains and the next he was rocket propelled and won by a street.
Lots of good (albeit diametrically opposed!) comments on here that, unfortunately, are all equally valid.
The fact is, other than Armstrong himself, due to the events of last week, no one will ever know the truth. An entire era has been repeatedly sullied, and the best that cycling can do is to turn the page on that time, the practices that were apparently commonplace, and the governing body's complicity in them, and enact some anti-doping procedures with teeth that will be ruthlessly enforced based upon science, rather than upon hints, rumours and innuendo.
He still had to cycle round France, which is one hell of journey and beat loads of others to do it for six years in a row. and it not as if hes being accused of using a motorbike.
BFR Vaughter's isn't clean he was in US Postal! I know he doped, and he's talked about it in veiled terms quite a few times; that's why I said they PEP'ed. When he left US Postal it's intimated that it was because of the pervasive doping culture. Kimmage did an excellent piece following Garmin on the 2008 or the 2009 tour. Whilst at Credit Agricole he tried to race clean, and did ruminate on having to stop because of a serious reaction to a bee sting and not being able to take steroids: Something Lance and a few others shut the gate on with the late Doctor's note excuse.
At that time he wanted to race different, but still supported the abusers of PEPs in the Peloton in the everyone's doing it philosophy. He constantly refused to answer questions on Lance, and the dark side of US Postal to Lance haters. Sure that may be a lot to do with how Lance and McQuaid respond to people telling the truth, but you can not say he has been grinding his axe for ten years. His transition has been pragmatic for a long time, whilst messianic in the team he's created. Very few riders come out of the 90's with credit, even fewer did something about it and created an environment where riders weren't forced to abuse themselves morally and physically. Bjarne Ris and Team CSCs incarnations is something quite different.
Vaughters was an exceptional bike rider, who climbed super fast. Maybe his bad luck hid that he couldn't go from stage racing to grand tours, who knows? He did something about what he thought was wrong, something few others did within top UCI events.
Landis is up on trial for wire fraud. As far as I can ascertain it's because he took monies via the net from individuals to support his not-guilty case with UCI and CAS. Hence he took it fraudulently. I think this is the first criminal case he faces.
Lemond and Hinault are generally believed to have ridden clean in the 80's. So the story goes is that a cyclist could go clean before the highly expensive and scientific cheating of human growth hormones and blood doping, that came through in the late 80's and was perfected by the Italians in the 90's: though many did not go clean. Indurain, nobody really points the finger. Nice guy! His team wasn't implicated in sophisticated EPO abuse, but Pedro Delgado was it's team leader and he tested positive: albeit a drug not banned by the UCI but banned by the IOC. Indurain steadily improved, and retired when he was beaten by what everyone in the peloton saw as an average rider EPO'ed more than everyone else - Bjarne Ris.
In 96 with Ris's win it is considered that every contender for a top 3 GC placing had to take the human growth hormone EPO. Charlie Mottet was the last top rider in the 90's that everyone says was drug free, and he retired in 1994, take of that what you will. When I started watching cycling again in the early noughties he was still dismissed by the same commentators we have now, for not being able to ride in the final week of the tour. Even I knew why he couldn't, but these commentators made no attempt to praise a superb rider for his stance.
Possible yes but I don't think he would have been chased for so long about this if that was an explanation Len.
The fact that he has in a way pleaded "no contest" to the charges means that a lot of the evidence will never be made public - this will at least reduce any damage to his reputation I guess.
He still had to cycle round France, which is one hell of journey and beat loads of others to do it for six years in a row. and it not as if hes being accused of using a motorbike.
I know I'll probably get shouted at here but it seems to me that this sport has more than it's fair share of cheats but what I can't get my head around is that "theoretically" the top riders are tested all the time so how comes they don't get caught? is it not reported? are there back handers? You soemtimes think (ducks head and waits fro barrage) that they may as well let the lot of them take what they want and have a Chemically induced tour
I know I'll probably get shouted at here but it seems to me that this sport has more than it's fair share of cheats but what I can't get my head around is that "theoretically" the top riders are tested all the time so how comes they don't get caught? is it not reported? are there back handers? You soemtimes think (ducks head and waits fro barrage) that they may as well let the lot of them take what they want and have a Chemically induced tour
Erm ... have you been tested for drugs ? you should be writing odd stuff like that )
Nope but it seems to me (with the honourable exception of the Wiggins win this year) that all you hear about in this sport is the issues around drug testing and who and who hasn't been found out seems like a problem that has never been resolved.
Nope but it seems to me (with the honourable exception of the Wiggins win this year) that all you hear about in this sport is the issues around drug testing and who and who hasn't been found out seems like a problem that has never been resolved.
I think that the sport has cleaned up its act and the drug takers are very much in the minority now. The years LA won were from 1999 - 2006 so yes this is within the last 7 years, but huge strides have been made to change the mentality of the riders
Instead of "why shouldn't I dope" .. a lot now think "why should I"
It's never going to be completely clean but I think the riders themselves know who cheats and who doesn't .. there is just a wall of silence.
Any time previously that a rider came out and said anything negative about doping they would be persecuted themselves. Stories of Armstrong putting pressure on other teams not pick certain riders spring to mind (in Millar's book he mentions that LA approached Mario Cipollini asking him not to select a rider who LA had fallen out with)
More famous is Simeoni's argument with Lance Armstrong. Simeoni was treated by doctor Michele Ferrari, who was also Armstrong's doctor. Simeoni testified in court that he began doping in 1993, that Dr. Ferrari had prescribed him doping products such as EPO and Human Growth Hormone in 1996 and 1997, and that Ferrari also gave him instructions on how to use these products.[3] In 2001 and 2002 Simeoni was suspended for several months for doping use. Armstrong reportedly called Simeoni a "liar" in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde in July 2003. Simeoni lodged a charge of defamation against Armstrong and demanded €100,000. Simeoni announced that he would give any money awarded to him to charity. On the 18th stage of the 2004 edition of the Tour de France, Simeoni gapped up to a breakaway of six riders that posed no threat to Armstrong's leading position. Nevertheless, Armstrong followed Simeoni, which prompted Armstrong's rival T-Mobile Team to try to catch the breakaway. This would not only catch Armstrong but also eliminate the stage winning chances of the six riders in the original breakaway. The six riders implored Armstrong to drop back to the peloton, but Armstrong would not go unless Simeoni went with him and the two riders dropped back to the peloton.[4] When Simeoni dropped back, he was abused by other riders, including Andrea Peron, Filippo Pozzato and Giuseppe Guerini. In a later interview, he told of how Daniele Nardello also abused him, calling him "a disgrace".[5] Afterwards, Armstrong made a "zip-the-lips" gesture but later said that Simeoni "did not deserve" to win a stage. Two days later was the final stage, which is usually a slow stage in which the Tour winner (in 2004 it was Armstrong) already celebrates his victory. But in this stage Simeoni continuously attacked, to take revenge for what Armstrong did three days before, but was reeled in every time by Armstrong's team.[6] Simeoni was again insulted and spat at by other riders after this. Because Simeoni was a prosecution witness in legal proceedings against Ferrari at the time of Armstrong's move against him in the 2004 Tour, Italian authorities threatened to bring charges of witness intimidation against Armstrong. In March 2005 Armstrong was interviewed by the authorities, apparently without resolution. Armstrong had been indicted by Italian authorities in December 2005 and ordered to stand trial for defaming Simeoni on March 7, 2006. In April 2006, the defamation charges were dropped.[7]
I'm not a doctor but it is my understanding that cancer drugs have some pretty powerful stuff in them eg steroids.
Could it simply be that his (perhaps ongoing) cancer treatment is the reason for "inconsistencies" in any of his dope tests?
No Len, he was tested when out of remission. He did use the reasoning that when Frankie Andreu said he had admitted to doping to his doctor's, that Andreu may have been mistaken about his EPO use after surgery which was prescribed to up red blood cells: Just as Fish was after his wound. But this was out of competition and anecdotal.
Dave it's such a complex issue, one that football has not bothered getting it's mind around. Only Italy periodically uncovers systemic abuse in football, and I don't think they've managed to with regarding of drugs since the 80's and Juve et al: The Nandrolone cases were taken on an individual basis if memory serves me. It comes down to a governing body not wishing to enforce it, tv and sponsorship money wanting the big show, and with regards to cycling a historic acceptance of doping.
People get away with it through various means. Using the new thing or variant that is not testable, microdosing so it doesn't go above benchmarks, in times past the UCI telling cyclists that a new test is about to arrive, reporting your whereabouts but making yourself unavailable - Landis said he had a motorbike solely so he could drive off the premises without be recognised if the testers came -, and the trusted doctor's note.
Nowadays when a new variant comes on the market such as CERA EPO, the producer, which was Roche in this case, works with WADA to configure a test even before it is approved in major markets. Autologous blood doping, which is doping your own blood, can not be definitively detected, but at least when they do the UCI won't be informed to inform the cyclists. Having said this in the opaque world of football testing it is doubtful if they even test for homolgous transfusion - foreign blood doping - let alone when or what EPO they test. Seen as football is the most lucrative sport in Europe, and to my knowledge no player has tested positive for EPO, you'd have to guess they implemented it well after every major sport had moved to blood doping and don't bother with up to date testing.
So, do you think Le Monde, Indurain etc all used illegal substances? Has to be a real possibility given the cycling set up back then. But can't remember them being harassed to the extent Armstrong is/was.
The consensus is that Le Mond was clean but Indurain doped, at least he was an asthma sufferer and
I know I'll probably get shouted at here but it seems to me that this sport has more than it's fair share of cheats but what I can't get my head around is that "theoretically" the top riders are tested all the time so how comes they don't get caught? is it not reported? are there back handers? You soemtimes think (ducks head and waits fro barrage) that they may as well let the lot of them take what they want and have a Chemically induced tour
They use masking agents - if you remember Shane Warne getting banned for a year a few years back, that was for using a specific diuretic which he claimed he was using to help him shed a few pounds before a photo shoot. That particular drug is banned because while it does act as a diuretic it also as a side effect masks some steroids.
With EPO it boosts the red blood cell count and the test is over 50% and you are assumed to have taken it.
BFR Vaughter's isn't clean he was in US Postal! I know he doped, and he's talked about it in veiled terms quite a few times; that's why I said they PEP'ed.
The point is that Vaughters was quite happy to play the wronged man for quite a while when Kimmage and others were using him to get at Armstrong. As far as I know his admission about steroid use was very recent but why didn't he fess up to steroid use when Kimmage was using his name and story?
I suspect that there's some bad blood between Vaughters and Armstrong, did the latter engineer his departure from US Postal? Or a case of Armstrong hating someone for jumping ship from his team?
I'm glad he's at Garmin and leading a clean team, but as a reliable witness with no axe to grind? I'm not so sure. He saw an opportunity to get back at Armstrong and took it and fair enough, but he'd have had more credibility if he admitted his drug use then rather than now.
Cycling needs a truth and reconciliation committee.
Not really Vaughters constantly evaded questions, how he answered them meant everyone knew he took PED's. From memory he barely talked about US Postal, Kimmage used more from Vande Velde and Zabriskie from that article: and most of that was off the record and only mentioned very obliquely. Let's face it anyone setting up a team in 2003 would keep Armstrong on side as he and Zebruggen could quite easily not give you entry to one of the major Tours, killing you before you get started.
He left US Postal, and they weren't that worried as his bad luck and injuries meant he often couldn't contribute in the mountains. If there were bad blood, it would be coming out in the press. When Kevin Livingston left, a best friend of LA, it was all over the papers on their very public falling out. LA controlled the contracts, Vaughters signed for a team whose manager was a committed anit-doper. Lance found his stance laughable, that's the only thing I've ever read about the move. In the SCA Promotions case he would not testify against Lance, and dismissed his text messages with excuses and mis-interpretations. One name to admitting his drug use, and it explains everything a sane person would do, Christopher Bassons. You don't talk about drugs in the peloton even if you're clean
Right bad blood... So we have Tyler Hamilton and Landis.. bad blood... then JV in the middle with maybe Zabriskie... the non-bad blood is Hincapie, Vande Velde and Leipheimer. Two out of three friends and trusted allies. This bad blood argument is as thin as a guy's blood after a Non EPO tour. What is it ten or eleven riders who've come out after the fact? BFR you're not taking the reality of the sport in 1996-2006, as to what it is now.
Oh dear...it's all coming out now, just listening to the head of the drugs testing agency on the Tour De France (during Lance Armstrongs era) he sounded absolutely gutted....they also said that only 1 tour winner has not been implicated during the era concerned and that the drug testing people may have been in cahoots with the drug takers...a very sad day for proffesional cycling.....and the arrogance of Armstrong....unbelievable.
Oh dear...it's all coming out now, just listening to the head of the drugs testing agency on the Tour De France (during Lance Armstrongs era) he sounded absolutely gutted....they also said that only 1 tour winner has not been implicated during the era concerned and that the drug testing people may have been in cahoots with the drug takers...a very sad day for proffesional cycling.....and the arrogance of Armstrong....unbelievable.
Looking at the news last night it is now clear that Armstrong was a cheat and a bully what I find sad about the whole things is that he did overcome cancer when he had virtually no chance of survival and became a beacon for other sufferers, a friend of mine had kidney cancer and part of his recovery was inspired by reading Armstongs story and that is nothing to do with cycling but will inevitably now be forgotton due to these revalations.
I still think there is more to life than winning Seve during his illness said prophetically that "It's not those things that you win that are important it's the things you overcome that count" it's a pity Armstrong didn't realise that.
So will Landis now appeal his defamation case against UCI? He was found guilty of defaming UCI for saying they covered up for Armstrong, with all this new evidence, does he have a chance of getting that guilty verdict overturned?
Nike have literally just brought out a new Livestrong clothing range out.
Will be interesting to see Oakley's reaction as Lance got loads of riders deals with them plus the Livestrong brand had their own range.
Mark Cavendish is sponsored by both companies, just so happens he's in Africa at the moment with the 'Right to Play' charity.
How lucky....
It's sickening how LA used the Cancer charity as a shield, in a similar manner to Jimmy Saville with his charity work.....made them nigh on untouchable.
Comments
USADA are affiliated to WADA and all the various anti-doping agreements in sport so they have jurisdiction over US based sportsmen/women and teams that are affiliated to USADA and/other sports organisations like the UCI. The UCI should in theory follow any decision they make. However that's tricky - as Rothko points out most of the cyclists who finished second, third etc to Armstrong either doped or were implicated in doping so promoting them would be laughable.
Bjarne Riis, who won the TdeF in 1996 later admitted to using EPO and should have had his title stripped. However that would have meant giving it to Jan Ullrich (his team-mate at the time) and he was caught in the same investigation that discovered that Riis was doping. So the UCI allowed Riis to keep his title but put an asterix next to his name detailing that he later admitted using EPO to win.
Riis was known in cycling as "Mr 60%" as that was the level of red blood cells that he was supposed to have as a result of EPO use.
Does the pope shit in the woods.
Landis was the most obvious cheat in the history of the tour the year he won it. He didn't even need a positive test! He nearly died in the sadle one day in the mountains and the next he was rocket propelled and won by a street.
The fact is, other than Armstrong himself, due to the events of last week, no one will ever know the truth. An entire era has been repeatedly sullied, and the best that cycling can do is to turn the page on that time, the practices that were apparently commonplace, and the governing body's complicity in them, and enact some anti-doping procedures with teeth that will be ruthlessly enforced based upon science, rather than upon hints, rumours and innuendo.
and it not as if hes being accused of using a motorbike.
At that time he wanted to race different, but still supported the abusers of PEPs in the Peloton in the everyone's doing it philosophy. He constantly refused to answer questions on Lance, and the dark side of US Postal to Lance haters. Sure that may be a lot to do with how Lance and McQuaid respond to people telling the truth, but you can not say he has been grinding his axe for ten years. His transition has been pragmatic for a long time, whilst messianic in the team he's created. Very few riders come out of the 90's with credit, even fewer did something about it and created an environment where riders weren't forced to abuse themselves morally and physically. Bjarne Ris and Team CSCs incarnations is something quite different.
Vaughters was an exceptional bike rider, who climbed super fast. Maybe his bad luck hid that he couldn't go from stage racing to grand tours, who knows? He did something about what he thought was wrong, something few others did within top UCI events.
Landis is up on trial for wire fraud. As far as I can ascertain it's because he took monies via the net from individuals to support his not-guilty case with UCI and CAS. Hence he took it fraudulently. I think this is the first criminal case he faces.
Lemond and Hinault are generally believed to have ridden clean in the 80's. So the story goes is that a cyclist could go clean before the highly expensive and scientific cheating of human growth hormones and blood doping, that came through in the late 80's and was perfected by the Italians in the 90's: though many did not go clean. Indurain, nobody really points the finger. Nice guy! His team wasn't implicated in sophisticated EPO abuse, but Pedro Delgado was it's team leader and he tested positive: albeit a drug not banned by the UCI but banned by the IOC. Indurain steadily improved, and retired when he was beaten by what everyone in the peloton saw as an average rider EPO'ed more than everyone else - Bjarne Ris.
In 96 with Ris's win it is considered that every contender for a top 3 GC placing had to take the human growth hormone EPO. Charlie Mottet was the last top rider in the 90's that everyone says was drug free, and he retired in 1994, take of that what you will. When I started watching cycling again in the early noughties he was still dismissed by the same commentators we have now, for not being able to ride in the final week of the tour. Even I knew why he couldn't, but these commentators made no attempt to praise a superb rider for his stance.
Could it simply be that his (perhaps ongoing) cancer treatment is the reason for "inconsistencies" in any of his dope tests?
The fact that he has in a way pleaded "no contest" to the charges means that a lot of the evidence will never be made public - this will at least reduce any damage to his reputation I guess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/26/lance-armstrong-doping-whistleblowers
you should be writing odd stuff like that
Instead of "why shouldn't I dope" .. a lot now think "why should I"
It's never going to be completely clean but I think the riders themselves know who cheats and who doesn't .. there is just a wall of silence.
Any time previously that a rider came out and said anything negative about doping they would be persecuted themselves. Stories of Armstrong putting pressure on other teams not pick certain riders spring to mind (in Millar's book he mentions that LA approached Mario Cipollini asking him not to select a rider who LA had fallen out with)
or simply bullying tactics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni
Feud with Lance Armstrong
More famous is Simeoni's argument with Lance Armstrong. Simeoni was treated by doctor Michele Ferrari, who was also Armstrong's doctor. Simeoni testified in court that he began doping in 1993, that Dr. Ferrari had prescribed him doping products such as EPO and Human Growth Hormone in 1996 and 1997, and that Ferrari also gave him instructions on how to use these products.[3] In 2001 and 2002 Simeoni was suspended for several months for doping use. Armstrong reportedly called Simeoni a "liar" in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde in July 2003. Simeoni lodged a charge of defamation against Armstrong and demanded €100,000. Simeoni announced that he would give any money awarded to him to charity.
On the 18th stage of the 2004 edition of the Tour de France, Simeoni gapped up to a breakaway of six riders that posed no threat to Armstrong's leading position. Nevertheless, Armstrong followed Simeoni, which prompted Armstrong's rival T-Mobile Team to try to catch the breakaway. This would not only catch Armstrong but also eliminate the stage winning chances of the six riders in the original breakaway. The six riders implored Armstrong to drop back to the peloton, but Armstrong would not go unless Simeoni went with him and the two riders dropped back to the peloton.[4] When Simeoni dropped back, he was abused by other riders, including Andrea Peron, Filippo Pozzato and Giuseppe Guerini. In a later interview, he told of how Daniele Nardello also abused him, calling him "a disgrace".[5] Afterwards, Armstrong made a "zip-the-lips" gesture but later said that Simeoni "did not deserve" to win a stage. Two days later was the final stage, which is usually a slow stage in which the Tour winner (in 2004 it was Armstrong) already celebrates his victory. But in this stage Simeoni continuously attacked, to take revenge for what Armstrong did three days before, but was reeled in every time by Armstrong's team.[6] Simeoni was again insulted and spat at by other riders after this.
Because Simeoni was a prosecution witness in legal proceedings against Ferrari at the time of Armstrong's move against him in the 2004 Tour, Italian authorities threatened to bring charges of witness intimidation against Armstrong. In March 2005 Armstrong was interviewed by the authorities, apparently without resolution. Armstrong had been indicted by Italian authorities in December 2005 and ordered to stand trial for defaming Simeoni on March 7, 2006. In April 2006, the defamation charges were dropped.[7]
LA is a bully and a liar .. and a cheat
Karma's a bitch !!
Dave it's such a complex issue, one that football has not bothered getting it's mind around. Only Italy periodically uncovers systemic abuse in football, and I don't think they've managed to with regarding of drugs since the 80's and Juve et al: The Nandrolone cases were taken on an individual basis if memory serves me. It comes down to a governing body not wishing to enforce it, tv and sponsorship money wanting the big show, and with regards to cycling a historic acceptance of doping.
People get away with it through various means. Using the new thing or variant that is not testable, microdosing so it doesn't go above benchmarks, in times past the UCI telling cyclists that a new test is about to arrive, reporting your whereabouts but making yourself unavailable - Landis said he had a motorbike solely so he could drive off the premises without be recognised if the testers came -, and the trusted doctor's note.
Nowadays when a new variant comes on the market such as CERA EPO, the producer, which was Roche in this case, works with WADA to configure a test even before it is approved in major markets. Autologous blood doping, which is doping your own blood, can not be definitively detected, but at least when they do the UCI won't be informed to inform the cyclists. Having said this in the opaque world of football testing it is doubtful if they even test for homolgous transfusion - foreign blood doping - let alone when or what EPO they test. Seen as football is the most lucrative sport in Europe, and to my knowledge no player has tested positive for EPO, you'd have to guess they implemented it well after every major sport had moved to blood doping and don't bother with up to date testing.
With EPO it boosts the red blood cell count and the test is over 50% and you are assumed to have taken it.
The point is that Vaughters was quite happy to play the wronged man for quite a while when Kimmage and others were using him to get at Armstrong. As far as I know his admission about steroid use was very recent but why didn't he fess up to steroid use when Kimmage was using his name and story?
I suspect that there's some bad blood between Vaughters and Armstrong, did the latter engineer his departure from US Postal? Or a case of Armstrong hating someone for jumping ship from his team?
I'm glad he's at Garmin and leading a clean team, but as a reliable witness with no axe to grind? I'm not so sure. He saw an opportunity to get back at Armstrong and took it and fair enough, but he'd have had more credibility if he admitted his drug use then rather than now.
Cycling needs a truth and reconciliation committee.
He left US Postal, and they weren't that worried as his bad luck and injuries meant he often couldn't contribute in the mountains. If there were bad blood, it would be coming out in the press. When Kevin Livingston left, a best friend of LA, it was all over the papers on their very public falling out. LA controlled the contracts, Vaughters signed for a team whose manager was a committed anit-doper. Lance found his stance laughable, that's the only thing I've ever read about the move. In the SCA Promotions case he would not testify against Lance, and dismissed his text messages with excuses and mis-interpretations. One name to admitting his drug use, and it explains everything a sane person would do, Christopher Bassons. You don't talk about drugs in the peloton even if you're clean
Right bad blood... So we have Tyler Hamilton and Landis.. bad blood... then JV in the middle with maybe Zabriskie... the non-bad blood is Hincapie, Vande Velde and Leipheimer. Two out of three friends and trusted allies. This bad blood argument is as thin as a guy's blood after a Non EPO tour. What is it ten or eleven riders who've come out after the fact? BFR you're not taking the reality of the sport in 1996-2006, as to what it is now.
If he has truly grassed LA up there maybe am end to 'omertà'.
May as well chuck my Livestrong jersey in the bin at the same time.
I still think there is more to life than winning Seve during his illness said prophetically that "It's not those things that you win that are important it's the things you overcome that count" it's a pity Armstrong didn't realise that.
Will be interesting to see Oakley's reaction as Lance got loads of riders deals with them plus the Livestrong brand had their own range.
Mark Cavendish is sponsored by both companies, just so happens he's in Africa at the moment with the 'Right to Play' charity.
How lucky....
It's sickening how LA used the Cancer charity as a shield, in a similar manner to Jimmy Saville with his charity work.....made them nigh on untouchable.