Argh! He was robbed.

It's odd that they don't reallocate places. I assume it's because they can't be sure about who was cheating or more to the point, who will be disclosed as a cheat down the track. You'd think that someone in Cadel's place may have grounds for a suit. He could go after (either or both) the UCI and Lance.

I guess the UCI will try to recover the prize money. To just say you're not the official winner any more but you can keep the prize is a bit lame.

If he wasn't on the gear "before", then he will be when the authorities in the US slam his coit in the slamer for Perjuring himself at previous hearings
Soon as the first group sues him into court trying to reclaim monies given, he is goneski big time.
No different to Marion Jones who copped six months for perjury when she hit the courts.
Straight out cheat, nothing more, nothing less.

longwinded said...
Personally think cycling has done itself a huge diservice in the way that this has been handled.
Lance pushed the boundaries for a competitive edge. He knew what the limitations at the time were and stayed under them. He did not fail a test AT THE TIME.
Cycling bodies would have been better off saying that no rider who failed a test at the time won a championship race and that all results stand, then go on to say that testing is now much more rigorous and that cycling is a clean sport. Much better than dragging the sport through the mud

I totally disagree. Drag it through the mud, stomp on it and then begin the task of rebuilding some degree of credibility. This is one of the penultimate examples of what is wrong with many sports/people/sporting cultures in these modern times. Win at all cost. If cycling as a sport survives then so be it. If no-one takes any interest/invests in cycling because it is represents a massive steaming pile of hypocrasy then what has been sown has been truly reaped. EDIT not really, that is harsh

longwinded said...
Personally think cycling has done itself a huge diservice in the way that this has been handled.
Lance pushed the boundaries for a competitive edge. He knew what the limitations at the time were and stayed under them. He did not fail a test AT THE TIME.
Cycling bodies would have been better off saying that no rider who failed a test at the time won a championship race and that all results stand, then go on to say that testing is now much more rigorous and that cycling is a clean sport. Much better than dragging the sport through the mud

The reality though is that the book on cheating is 2 foot thick whilst the book for catching cheats is 2 inches thick.....so if they said "who failed a test at the time won a championship race and that all results stand, then go on to say that testing is now much more rigorous and that cycling is a clean sport" then it would not really count in my eyes. I do not know the answers but all I hope for is a fair contest - so if everyone is drugging then maybe thats ok - still not sure. But if we think that this is not going on in other sports here in Australia then I think we are sadly mistaken. Sadly.

Is Cadel clean? Well I have always hoped so - but he has been very quiet this week - would have been a good-time to restate that he is I would have thought. If he hasn't maybe he is not as clean as we have been lead to believe....now I can not believe I just said that as I always thought he was as clean as a whistle....but I also thought that about Lance for a while. My view on professional sportspeople has taken a pounding across the board. Very sad about that.

Bit of a mess the whole thing really but it had to happen, anyone who has followed the sport closely over the years knew those were dark days back then. Not a year would go by on the tour when part thereof or a whole team would get thrown out for being busted with large quantities of pharma.

I also think Lance has been made somewhat of a scapegoat, made all the more sweet by his achievements, but the doping was so systemic back then that I hardly think you can lay blame of the entire situation solely on him, as some people have. Almost everyone who was a serious contender back then was playing the game, Lance and USP just played it better it seems. I think the UCI has a lot to answer for, they had to know about it, from a wider perspective, as there was simply that much of it going on for so long that it would have been impossible for them not too.

I think if the real truth came out and everyone who's guilty fessed up the fallout would be massive, we've already seen the VP and the head performance coach of Cycling Aus stand down this week, I bet if you shook the tree harder a significant number of the apples would fall out.

Probably the saddest thing of the whole thing is that Livestrong will be tarnished by this, which isn't a good thing and imo not deserved. Personally I think whether you hate Lance or not, what he has done with Livestrong has to be commended as raising over 500million for cancer patients/survivors is extraordinary. Some people claim false pretenses yada yada yada, the only thing they should be asking themselves is, does Livestrong help people immensely, has your donation been used for good; answer yes. It's also a charity which pays out about 82% of the donations it receives, which is almost unheard of (lookup someone like the RedCross or Oxfam for a laugh)...so it's not just some ego trip...it's a legitimately good cause.

longwinded said...
I am not a lawyer, nor am I over all the details of this topic except for what I have been fed by the media. But....

If the governing body of a sporting event makes a ruling that an athlete "shall not take performance enhancing substances" and then makes a ruling and ENFORCES that an arbitry figure of say 50mg/1000L is acceptable...Isn't that saying that any detection of that substance below that level is not performance enhancing?

Where is the statute of limitations?

Perhaps Pfizer could sue for lost advertising opportunities? Even without balls, Lance goes hard on the bike, and in the bedroom.

Some PEDs have an allowable threshold, caffeine for eg, others have zero allowance, clenbuterol eg. Testosterone and epo are naturally present in the bod so there is an acceptable limit. However taking testoserone or epo is illegal in any quantity. So if evidence points to the use of the PEDs the quantity detected in the blood doesn't matter at all. Even if you are below the acceptable threshold you are still guilty of taking PEDs. That's as I understand it.

Interesting article from Brad McGee.

www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html