Armstrong era cycling

[paul]

Oh dear oh dear.
Someone tell me what to think.

The TdF's historic problems might not seem like a suitable topic for this forum, but I think I can argue that it is.
(...I just can't be bothered to defend the case. (Topical satire, LOL.))

Its not so much Armstrong himself, who seems like such a singular individual that I almost feel like normal rules don't apply,
as the fact that if they strip him of his titles, there is almost no one below him in the placings with an unimpeachable case to receive them.

In a way, it changes Wiggins from "just one of the winners - there is one every year" to the sport's Messiah figure - offering road cycling the chance to start again clean.

[boysen]

My guess is that if "authority" lifted the carpet with intent on other "well paid" sports similar stories would leak out.But slightly concerned at guilt being proved and sentence passed without "trial", or does what has transpired pass for "trial".

[jeremy1]

good riddance to a scumball who did not fight on because he was and is guilty as hell and his lawyers were never going to take on a dozen colleagues from the cycling world ready to give eveidence against him.
Hope the weirdos from the UCI strip him of his titles.

[sidelined]

My guess is that if "authority" lifted the carpet with intent on other "well paid" sports similar stories would leak out.But slightly concerned at guilt being proved and sentence passed without "trial", or does what has transpired pass for "trial".

Armstrong would never have backed down if he didn't know that the case against him was very strong. The American authorities are going to have to present their evidence to the UCI. Whether it will then be made public, I don't know. I think they should proceed with the case without Armstrong there, so we could all hear what the ten former team-mates who are prepared to testify against him have to say.

As to Paul's question about what to think: I would say it's been obvious for years that he was doping. The UCI could get involved in some kind of turf war with USADA, though, about who has the right to wipe out Armstrong's wins.

Some interesting thoughts are here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... d-williams

[fangio]

Ok, Armstrong was charged, there would be a trial, except he has chosen not to contest the charges. So no trial, but found guilty. That's the way it is with drugs tribunals, no contest = guilty verdict. HE chose not to have the trial.

As for the evidence, well they can't release it there are two others whoa re contestign their part fo it, so the eivdence has to stay within the process for the moment. The prosecuitor has said the evidence will released at teh correct time, which I imagine is after it has been presented in those cases. To release it now owudl prejudice the process for these two.

Graemem Obree speakign on 5live highlighted articles in the cycyling press alleging that substantial sums had been paid by some people to the UCI in the Armstrong days.

It is of course interesting to note that the UCI ran the anti-doping program for ccyling up to late 2004 when they were late signatories to the WADA code.