Nice people thread part 7 - a thread in its prime

Generali

wageslave wrote: »

It DIDN'T MATTER to her career at the time

Maybe the problem was that it mattered a lot to her career.

It's very hard: you can't just chuck around accusations like that.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

Quiet day at work today so I read the USADA's report in its entirety. What a depressing read.

It's hard to say whether the worst bit is his team director pushing young team members to take drugs, Armstrong threatening people giving evidence about drugs in cycling including at least once while on the road or apparent, implied collusion with the UCI to keep a positive test quiet.

You follow these things much more closely than me - is there any way this could not be true now? The weight and detail of the evidence would seem conclusive but then the counter argument is how could something that big involving so many people have been kept quiet for so long?

silvercar

michaels wrote: »

You follow these things much more closely than me - is there any way this could not be true now? The weight and detail of the evidence would seem conclusive but then the counter argument is how could something that big involving so many people have been kept quiet for so long?

Armstrong or Savile? Or both?

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

And of course the guy might be completely blameless/harmless but at some point been the subject of malicious gossip (may be spurned someone's drunken advances, messy relationship breakup or whatever) and now everyone 'knows' that there is something wrong with him...

Without wanting to sound like a case for Jerry Kyle, (these things are mot the preserve of the 'underclasses' )am close to a situation where someone's nephew is also their brother. The grandmother/mother was very well respected, as was the family. Nothing was ever, has ever been done.

When these things are close to you, even if you don't act, you trust your hackles rising, because the consequences otherwise could be terrible.

Of course, developing paranoia is not helpful, but if in a group of people i don't like one, I try not to feel guilt over it, but to trust myself. E.g. Recently I felt uncomfortable about some one, and digging seems to suggest that person is either deluded, a liar or acting illegally over a couple of things. I am glad I trusted my instinct...I made initial enquiries as to how 'serious' the law breaking was and I was asked to provide evidence because it is, if it is proven to be so, taken reasonably seriously, and I am ashamed to admit I did not get round to it.

So now, while the misaction is nothing like the same sort of crime, I feel some guilt.

lostinrates

Think I have sorted lights for the new study. Nice people will hate them, they are super kitch. .

Generali

michaels wrote: »

You follow these things much more closely than me - is there any way this could not be true now? The weight and detail of the evidence would seem conclusive but then the counter argument is how could something that big involving so many people have been kept quiet for so long?

If you read Breaking the Chain by Will Voet or Rough Ride by Paul Kimmage then you'll see systematic doping being kept secret right up until the point that it isn't. This really is no different to that.

There are 5 clinchers for me that, when taken together, remove all 'reasonable doubt' from my mind:

1. LA has tested positive for EPO just not in a way that satisfies the testers as it was only a single sample rather than a pair that were tested.
2. At least one person has experienced a significant personal loss as a result of speaking out.
3. He admitted it (apparently)
4. Sheer weight of evidence: 15 cyclists, 12 members of his team and his soigneur (normally translated as masseur but in reality much more than that) all testified against him.
5. The association with Dr Michele 'Schumi' Ferrari (Viva will get their joke even if nobody else does!) and the lies about it. There is a clear trail of payments to the good Doctor which continue after his prosecution for doping, something about which LA lied under oath.

Most damning of all has always been how much better he was than his peers, even those that we know for an absolute fact were doping. Pantani was an amazing rider and higher than a hippy at Woodstock but LA ended up having to give him a stage by braking hard on the line! Ullrich was going to be the next Merkx and was also doping, and LA blew him away.

The sort of power performances he was putting in were impossible: in the USADA's papers it has him producing almost 500w of power on a 9% climb (that's about Alpe D'Huez or Mont Ventoux). At my peak, and I'm not a bad amateur climber, I'd put in about 280-300w. Wiggins, who is a brilliant rider, manages about 440-450w.

I have conflicting feelings about all this: he was a doper in an era of dopers. La Bomba was one of the greats and his nickname came from Italian street slang for amphetamines! Merkx was scathing about drug use but tested positive twice, including being disqualified from his Giro (Tour of Italy) victory. Tom Simpson, probably my cycling hero, died 1km from the top of Mont Ventoux from a combination of amphetamines and Cognac (he drank at least half a bottle on the way up the mountain).

LA was certainly one of the great cyclists and he wouldn't have won without the dope, I'm sure about that. If everyone had been clean would he still have won? I can't say. Chris Boardman reckons that attitude can get you to the podium but only nature can give you the Yellow Jersey. Dope, I guess, is nature's short cut after all LA was taking EPO, cortisone and testosterone which occur naturally and blood doping (taking blood out of his body and returning it later).

I'll never forget watching LA win his record-breaking 6th win in 2004 on my way home from climbing Mont Ventoux, my first big Alpine climb and then taking my 3 month old son and Mrs Generali to watch him win his 7th in 2005, having taken the TGV on a whim and at Mrs Generali's urging on the Sunday morning. He inspired me, in part, to take my cycling much further than I would have and I suspect he is in large part responsible for the rise of cycling in the English speaking world.

I don't really care that he doped TBH, it's the lies and the destruction of others that p1ss me off. As Coppi said when asked how often he took drugs as a pro cyclist, "I take them as often as is necessary". When asked how often was necessary he replied, "All the time".

JanCee

morag1202 wrote: »

I did not know Savile but I did talk to him a couple of times in the 80's because he was close friends with the grandfather of a friend of my DD. I also saw him around on several occasions both at the LGI and in local small restaurants where he went (dressed normally) with male friends of his own age who had no connection with show biz. I do know that he did a lot more for local charities, schools and Old Folks homes than ever got reported.

He struck me as rather shy, with women in particular, unless he was in full "Jimmy Savile the Star" mode. Guilty? No idea. But if he was I think it would have been more taking advantage of what he thought was on offer than deliberate misuse of his celebrity.

There are reports filtering through that he abused children on hospital wards both in Leeds and at Stoke Mandeville. I think that is a blatant misuse of celebrity by a very devious man.

chewmylegoff

Generali wrote: »

The sort of power performances he was putting in were impossible: in the USADA's papers it has him producing almost 500w of power on a 9% climb (that's about Alpe D'Huez or Mont Ventoux). At my peak, and I'm not a bad amateur climber, I'd put in about 280-300w. Wiggins, who is a brilliant rider, manages about 440-450w.

i can develop 500W, for about 8 seconds...

Generali

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i can develop 500W, for about 8 seconds...

Well that's about 0.002% of the TdF sorted. If you have a chat with Mr Brailsford, or Mr Ferrari, they can work out how to cope with the other 99.998%

purch

Generali wrote: »

Ullrich was going to be the next Merkx and was also doping, and LA blew him away.

I remember at least a couple of stages, where LA looked around at Ullrich who was on his wheel, and then just rode away from him as if he was standing still.

Armstrong was/is an amazing sportsman.

Maybe he wasn't a force of nature, but a force of science, but he nevertheless was never beaten and never accepted that he could be, even when a rival got away from him on a steep climb he always found a way to claw him back, and that WILL never to lose was part of his character and soul, not due to chemical help.