Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by Garden Kitty, May 7, 2009.
According to the BBC, Wiggins has suggested that too:
Yeah, I saw that. In the article I read yesterday he said he'd focus on the Giro and see what happens in the tour which is a little less emphatic. It's logical because this is not a great route for Wiggo but I imagine it'll be difficult for the guy with #1 on his back to ride in support.
Meanwhile Contador is supporting Lance and US Postal? I know he road for Bruyneel for two of his tour titles but, if I were him, I'd be distancing myself like crazy rather than clinging to that sinking ship.
Bobby Julich makes his confession and is released from coaching on Team Sky
Reports that Vino paid off Kolobnev for his Liege win. Oh for the good old days of doping stories.
Bradley Wiggins now being reported as having suffered several cracked ribs after being knocked off his bike near his home.
Mark Cavendish and Peta Todd get engaged
And who knew that Mark used to be a ballroom dancer?
Okay, I definitely did not know that and that is hilarious. He'd be awfully short for a ballroom dancer now!
Katusha denied World Tour license in an unexpected snub from the UCI
Bradley Wiggins wins British Sports Personality of the Year award, and receives his award from Dutchess Kate.
Bradley Wiggins may reject Knighthood if offered it
There was a link in the article that Maofan7 posted that made me laugh - after winning SPOTY, Wiggins ends the night with a late night Big Mac at McDonalds
Wiggins and Brailsford to be awarded Knighthoods
Loved this Cyclingnews quote from Andy Schleck:
"one of the cleanest on the team" - Andy has such a way with words.
Report: Lance Armstrong to admit to doping on Oprah Winfrey show
If you look at his Twitter, it's obvious that he's setting up an admission - and I think I can guess how he'll present it, too. I guess I'll find out if I'm right soon enough
If this is true, it would define chutzpah.
Lance is rich enough that he should find something else to occupy his time other than competing triathlons. If he admits his guilt then he potentially opens himself to a host of lawsuits.
I wish he'd just go away.
I don't care how one views Lance Armstrong and his actions over the years, this is not the right way to react to his admission. The answer to dealing with doping, in cycling or in any other sport, is not to preemptively kick everyone out of the Olympics and punish people who have always played by the rules. No. This is not the same as stripping members of relay teams of medals when one member is found to have doped. It's a slap in the face to every cyclist who works hard to train and race clean.
There are dopers in many sports, and WADA and the IOC should focus on finding them, not on punishing clean athletes. Otherwise you might as well kick everyone out of the Olympics, except maybe the shooters and archers.
I actually agree with Dick Pound on this one. If the athletes are guilty then other athletes should not be punished I agree; but if the governing body of the sport is found guilty of covering up actions that go against the Olympic movement, then the sport itself must pay.
The Olympics relies on sports federations to create standards and qualifying systems and define the rules of their sport - and to uphold the values of the Olympic movement, including a commitment to clean competition. I don't think an organization that does not uphold that standard should be allowed to participate in the Olympics. Plus, how can a federation like that be trusted to run a fair competition? This is for the moment assuming that the cycling union is complicit of course.
It's a shame for the athletes, but I don't see any other way to ensure that the competition is fair in the future.
Does the UCI run the competition and the doping testing at the Olympics? I don't think that the latter, at least, falls to them. And if the IOC and WADA weren't able to catch cycling dopers at the Olympics, what does that say about the sophistication of the people involved? My impression is that cycling has tried harder than most sports to address doping issues; that so many cyclists have been caught is not necessarily because the sport is dirtier but because they are tested. Baseball players, after all, were for the most part not caught during the height of the steroid era - and it was still an Olympic sport even when what was happening was becoming obvious and even after the Mitchell Report. What was going on in baseball was no less egregious.
I am absolutely against what is essentially a form of collective punishment - and this is based on stuff that's probably happened in the past, not necessarily now. If you want to demand that the people involved are kicked out of the UCI, that's one thing. But to ban an entire sport - to keep people like Bradley Wiggins and Chris Hoy out of the Olympics - is going too far. And IMO, it's more damaging than anything dopers can do.
But then, I am probably in the minority as I believe that anti-doping is in many ways an important goal, but it isn't an end that justifies all means - obviously it's a view Dick Pound doesn't share.
Give Lance some credit. It took a lot of ball for him to come clean.
Seriously, I hope that they make good with all of those who had come forward before this. Those telling the truth, that were then sued and punished for it should have their reputations restored.
I hope that we read more editorials such as this one in Washington Post that take on the myth that because "everyone" was allegedly doping in that period, Lance was still the best. We don't know that "everyone" was doping, and even if they had been, it doesn't mean that Lance didn't have the superior doping. I don't imagine that Lance generously shared every single doping secret with his competition in order to make it a level playing field.
In other news, OPQS had their team presentation this week with a fun inter-squad series of races on the track. In the final race, Boonen just edged Cavendish to take the team championship. Today on twitter Cav threatened to head butt Tom next time. When asked by the press, Cav had more than a expletives and refused to otherwise comment.
Well it only took him one ball to face up to his fear where most men need two balls to do it.
I've been thinking about that, because I keep seeing negative reactions to this possibility. And I have to say, I don't get it. Of all the things that Armstrong did (in fact or allegedly), this is what bothers people? You'd think every other rider who admitted to doping did so to advance justice, fairness and the purity of sports.
Also, I find it difficult to credit that someone would make himself vulnerable to civil and possibly criminal proceedings in order to be able to do triathlons. How does that make sense? Surely Armstrong doesn't want to compete in triathlons badly enough to risk the legal ramifications his admissions will likely have?
I'm really curious to see how he'll spin it to Oprah, though, and what kind of questions she'll have for him.
And now, I want to hear about other riders. Garden Kitty, tell us more! Pics will be most welcome too
Perhaps if Lance wasn't so aggressive in the past in going after the people and the news that accused him of doping then maybe people would have more empathy for him.
It's not a matter of empathy - how did you get that from my post? My point is the opposite: that considering what Armstrong stands accused of and what he's likely to admit, the possibility that he's confessing to doping in the hope of being reinstated to compete in triathlons seems to me to be pretty low on the list of things to be outraged about. I think a lot of doping admissions are motivated by personal agendas, so he's hardly unique in that.
Anyway, I think there should be an Armstrong/doping thread that is separate from the general cycling thread.
I can believe it. He was a talented triathlete as a teenager before he decided to specialize in cycling. The guy is highly ambitious and possibly thinks that he has some unfinished business in triathlons. Maybe he thinks there could be some lucrative sponsorships there, considering that he's largely burned his bridges in the cycling world? The Ironman Masters gets decent attention, so Armstrong's age isn't much of a liability.
Of course, he is probably delusional, because I can't envision any segment of the athletic world wanting much to do with him, but stranger things have happened. Even Pete Rose has his own reality show now, complete with his Playmate wife who's 40 years younger than him.
I think so too. I was looking for one and finally found the discussion in this thread.
All I can say is - shame on Armstrong for lying for 10 years, suing those who were telling the truth, and for trying to get more attention now.
Anyone watching CNN? Outfront w/Erin Burnett is live and she's talking to the lawyer of the Insurance Company who had to pay Lance millions for winning three of those TdF and he said his Client/Pres or CEO of the Insurance Company watched the interview w/him and that Armstrong's got a couple of weeks to send them a check. If that doesn't come, then they're suing him for it.
And so it begins....
I'm just now watching a rerun of Oprah's interview. I thought she would be the wimpy, let-me-cry-with-you Oprah, but she's asking some tough questions.
There's nothing about Lance that makes him sympathetic. He comes across as a cold, shallow a-hole who simply got caught and had to finally admit his guilt.
I agree. She opened the interview asking him several questions point-blank. She's not throwing him softballs like Barbara Walters would.
While we're going down memory lane with Lance, for those of you who have access to the archives the following thread is rather interesting in hindsight:
Of course, I've never been one to say "I told you so".
I remember it well.
I will worship the ground Poths walks on, Bravo. Here I am reposting POTHS post from 2006 :
Yes, he turned out even worse than Engquist.
I think Armstrong's actions in covering up his doping and trying to keep his image positive were far worse than the original offense(s). I know many people view doping as the most awful thing possible, but for me, the lies and nasty allegations about other riders and people involved in the sport, ruining people both financially and professionally - that's the worst of it, as far as I'm concerned.
As for the interview, was any of it surprising in any way? I guess Oprah asked tougher questions than I'd expected, but Armstrong is playing it exactly as I thought he would. I wonder what's left for part 2, though.
Separate names with a comma.