Below is an open letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil Liggett, in response to Liggett’s appearance on Ballz Visual Radio on August 27.
August 31, 2012
Phil Liggett, MBE
Dear Phil,
I found the interview you gave Ballz Visual Radio on 27 August 2012 to be an appalling commentary on disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong’s decision to accept the charges brought against him by USADA.
You repeatedly posed the question “Why is USADA doing this?” Not once but numerous times, as if it were some elusive mystery. The answer is simple – you could have seen this if you had read USADA’s charging letter. USADA did this because they had obtained evidence that Armstrong had used prohibited substances, had been in possession of prohibited substances, had trafficked drugs including EPO and testosterone, and had administered such drugs to others. USADA also have evidence that Armstrong assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted and covered up those antidoping rule violations.
In fact the evidence didn’t end there. USADA also discovered evidence that Johann Bruyneel (I’m sure you recognise that name, he manages the RadioShack team you spoke of during this year’s Tour de France) possessed and trafficked drugs, as well as assisted one or more anti-doping rule violations. Actually the evidence spread wider, and also implicated Pedro Celaya who is the RadioShack team doctor. Also Luis del Moral (a sports doctor working in Spain at present) and Pepi Marti who has been a team trainer associated with Armstrong’s teams for the past decade or so. And let’s not forget Michele Ferrari, who currently provides training information to cyclists. I think you’ll recognise his name?
Can you see a common thread yet, Phil? Can you see that each and every one of those individuals played a current role in sport in 2012? Isn’t that what you’d want our antidoping agencies to be doing – revealing and removing drug cheats from sport?
You failed to mention that Armstrong was still competing as a triathlete in 2012 (I know that you recognise the term ‘triathlon’ because its a sport you have commentated for in the past). But to answer your question, USADA is not doing this just because of Lance Armstrong. Instead, its about a conspiracy. You can find that word often in USADA’s charging letter. A conspiracy that has infested cycling for over a decade. A conspiracy whose filthy tentacles still strangle sport today. A conspiracy that needs to be excised like a cancerous growth.
Which brings me to another point. You said during the interview that you’ve seen people fight back and beat cancer “because of the way that Armstrong delivers his words”. You intimate that without Armstrong’s words they would have perished. Shame on you, Phil. That is a despicable, wretched suggestion which infers that those poor souls who do succumb to cancer somehow lacked the will to fight it. I am appalled that you could be so ignorant and heartless.
However that was not the only realm in which you displayed ignorance. You questioned USADA’s authority to act as if it was still a live question. If you are still a little foggy I would urge you re-read the decision of Judge Sam Sparks, who Armstrong asked to clarify that point. Question asked, question answered.
I also found it disconcerting that you did not know the correct name of WADA (World Anti Doping Agency, not the “World Anti Drugs Agency” as you referred to them). They have a wonderful website Phil, where you could brush up on the World Anti Doping Code under whose rules the conspirators were charged. Look carefully at Article 2.2. It describes how the ‘Use of a Prohibited Substance’ can be established by any reliable means, including witness statements. Witness statements such as those evidently given by around ten of Armstrong’s team mates and team members.
Let me just clarify a legal point for you, Phil. When you confided to the interviewer that your chum from Colorado had told you that he had been offered money to say that Armstrong doped, that is called ‘hearsay’. Its called hearsay because you didn’t hear or see what happened, your friend did. Courts don’t like hearsay evidence Phil – in fact even a newbie defense lawyer would have hearsay booted out of court in an instant. In contrast, USADA pointed out that their evidence was derived from eyewitness statements containing firsthand knowledge of the conduct. That kind of evidence is legally robust and has indeed, as you colloquially put it, been used to “hang a man for murder”. Armstrong chose not to oppose that eyewitness evidence, and I’m darned sure he could have gotten a half decent lawyer to sift out the hearsay from the eyewitness evidence…
Interestingly, Armstrong suggests that his teammates know who won those seven Tours. Well, if they could remember that, wouldn’t they also be coherent enough to know what they had seen firsthand during those races? Don’t you think the mental image of the race leader with a plastic tube hanging out of his arm and a bag of blood hanging above his head from a picture hook on the hotel room wall would stick in your memory?
Your muddled interpretation of out of competition testing being a foolproof method to catch cheats is so flimsy and threadbare as to hardly warrant comment. But the same line is being spun so relentlessly by Armstrong sympathizers that I feel compelled to address it. I also worry that you will be skeptical of what I say, so here is what I propose. At the end of your interview, you got a plug in for an upcoming conference that you will attend with your fellow Briton, professional road cyclist David Millar whom you referred to as “one of the biggest bike riders we’ve currently got” in cycling. While you’re having a tea break, ask him two questions. “Did you ever use EPO?”. “Did you ever get caught during out of competition tests?”. Just in case you don’t get a chance to chat with David, the answers are “Yes” and “No”. You’d have to believe in the tooth fairy to suggest it is not possible for a professional road cyclist to use EPO without being caught.
Phil I work full-time as an antidoping researcher. I specialize in the field of blood doping, so a lot of my time has been spent trying to find a test that can detect when athletes use blood transfusion. I’ve been half successful – we can now catch athletes if they transfuse someone else’s blood. However, during Armstrong’s era there was no test able to catch them if they gamed the system by reinfusing their own blood (‘autologous transfusion’). At the risk of stating the obvious, Armstrong could have bloated himself with a bag of stored blood every day of the week, and been tested 300 times per day, and he would still have been negative.
Which brings me to yet another point, Phil. You breathlessly proclaimed that Armstrong had passed more than 500 tests and was negative each time. I’ve worked in antidoping for a decade, but I’m not aware of anything that we can find in a urine sample that shows us that an athlete was in possession of a prohibited substance. I don’t know of any marker that indicates whether or not an athlete trafficked drugs. Similarly, I can assure you that labs cannot detect when an athlete has encouraged a teammate to take drugs. All of those are antidoping offenses under the WADA Code (review Article 2.2 if you need a refresher). They are also the essence of what Armstrong and his conspirators were charged with. Not to labor the point, but where does your 500-test-defense fit into that picture?
Phil I was shocked that you think that all that matters is that Armstrong “brought a lot of kids and a lot of adults into the sport”. Is that truly what you believe? Popularize the sport at all costs? A hallway pass for cheats, provided that they sell copy and attract the fans? Your statement does a grave disservice to your place in the British Cycling Hall of Fame.
You also made much of what you called a “minefield” concerning who the stripped results should be awarded to. You seemed to infer that unless we can sort that rot out, we should do nothing. Really? Don’t uproot a conspiracy of half a dozen individuals still infesting our sport today, simply because you can’t make up your mind who should win the races they fraudulently snatched from clean athletes? Beside your point being completely irrelevant, based on the knowledge you have demonstrated about how the antidoping system works, I think you’ve disqualified yourself from offering an opinion on that one!
Finally, you asked what happened to the statute of limitations of eight years. Well, if you have a look at USADA’s charge letter they explained that one too. First, USADA had substantial evidence of doping within the past eight years. Second, evidence from outside eight years can be used to corroborate more recent evidence. And if you continue reading that paragraph, you’ll also satisfy yourself that results outside the limitation can be disqualified where there was false statements or fraudulent concealment. Cue “conspiracy”, Phil.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Ashenden, PhD
Andy,
Well, finally! It appears as though others are catching on. As I’ve mentioned before, a viewer can clearly witness the ‘bribe’ on the uncut footage.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-15/australian-legend-witnessed-armstrong-bribe/4312558
BTW, Can you ask Tom Officer what John’s connection with John Dupont is /was? I’m still scratching my head on that one.
I’m wondering how bringing up Jared’s name every time doping comes up is letting him off the hook. He served his time. He’s entitled to race again (and now he’s stopped as he’s gone back to school). Yes. he did promise an explanation, and no explanation was offered, presumably because the only good explanation was the truth and the truth kinda sucks. But I’m not sure what you want Dan or Andy, or anyone in the local scene to do. You could ask Mr. I why he let a guy who got caught back on the team, but again he’s under no obligation to do anything about it or even consider your feelings on the subject.
Phil has totally, 100% sold out in a repugnant and disgusting way. Thank god someone is calling him out–he’s making things up as he goes along.
for an intelligent, level-headed response to what can only be called sheer bias. Too bad Lance didn’t get HIV…He could have saved millions (not)
Little bit o’ argy bargy there!
I’m so tired of listening to phil’s drivel on tv. This interview was the last straw and someone with credibility called him out. bravo.
he sold out a long long time before that interview
thank you Michael Ashenden for writing and thank you to nyvelocity for having a website to post it on.
too bad that phil, like the others who bray armstrong’s spin ad nauseum, will never actually confront those who challenge their statements.
There’s people out there in the uk doing everything they can to increase participation in British cycling and then Phil comes along and makes us Brits look even more fucking stupid.
When is he going to stop flying in the Livestrong jet and start talking sense or is it too late now?
The very year after the Festina affair, i heard Liggett say that the action in the tour (1999) was evidence that the sport had finally cleaned up.
Thanks Michael. Well said.
su-fucking-perb, thankyou!
Exellent read, Andy. Expect this to be all over the internet withing hours.
To be absolutely clear I just posted it so I can’t take credit.
This is also good:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2012/8/30/3280127/fisking-phil-liggett#comments
Great stuff once again, nyvelocity. Thank you so much.
A big thanks to you as well, Mr. Ashenden, for again penning a great piece, and saying exactly what needs to be said.
As for you, Mr. Liggett: It’s time to retire.
watching TV cycling coverage on mute if phil and paul are doing the voiceover. Cant take any more of their Omerta crap. They are just as guilty as LA et al in my opinion.
A bit heavy on the sarcasm, but heavier on the core facts. Phil is a well liked character in the sport but clearly soft on #drugstrong
if it weren’t so pathetic. Phil needs to ride off to the old cyclist home.
i think ‘swish’.
Totally awesome.
Bravo. A superb response to a shameful interview.
It’s sad to see Liggett put a final nail in the coffin as he has provided us with some memorable commentary over the years – pre Armstrong era.
I think he has too much vested interest in Pharmstrong to out him now. It’s hard to believe a man around the sport as much as Liggett would not have known that he was up to the eyeballs.
Time to ride off into the sunset Phil with your pal Lance. And please for goodness sake take that other whore Sherwen with you.
Brilliant work Dr Ashenden.
I’ll be glad when (if) the networks listen and get rid of this goat.
If by “goat” you mean Greatest Of All Time, you might be right…
Nah…
But maybe
Guilty Of Absolute Tosh
or
Guileless Orator of Armstrong Tale
Let’s hope it’s times up for all the race announcing Wonderboy defenders. Cycling’s TV producers should hire presenters more truthful and frankie.
Phil,
That was so abhorrent an interview that it made me sick. Made me realize that you’ve sold out your integrity and are just another Pharmstrong bitch. It’s not hard to understand – sell commercial spots on TV, hype the Lance fraud for all it’s commercial glory, maybe get some speaking gigs with Lance along the way, funnel more money and deserts through business ventures and a gold mine in South Africa with Paul Sherwin, just get rich off the thing, then keep lying about it in the hopes that the gravy train comes back around. Seriously, fuck you, Phil, you spineless asshole!
This “blog” is the Fox News of cycling forums. Still haven’t seen “evidence”…
Like Phil said, all I have to do is gather up witnesses and prove a case by hearsay…cha-Ching!
Just like I am sure you haven’t seen your dick when you pee, but is it still there?
It looks like you didn’t read the letter well enough to understand the difference between hearsay and evidence. Ashenden explains the difference very well. And the way I see it, the Armstrong apologists are using arguments that are more like Fox News–lots of bluster and canned talking points, but no actual argument.
Everyone defending Armstrong is screaming for evidence. Armstrong could have had the evidence. Instead, he chose to rely on his usual tactics of delay and obfuscation. But it will come out. Tyler Hamilton’s book just got a preview release, and I’m sure there will be more to come, especially if Bruyneel maintains his request for arbitration.
Wow! Gгeat usefսl office stamp fօr Confidential Mail, Confidential letter
Îœax. text plate size: 5/16″ X 1 1/2″
Ink Color: Red
Clean É‘nd precise Imprints
Lоng-Lasted Ink cartridge.
Easy, Ïœast, Unlimited refill.
Elegant аnd comfortable handle design.
Óore tÒºan 10,000 timеs used guaranteed.
mу website – JYP PA1040 Rectangle Stock Pre-Inked Rubber Stamp With Confidential
When one cannot make an argument on just facts and data, but has to resort to personal attacks as you have, I just stopped reading and blew everyone you tried to say off.
you clearly wouldn’t know a “fact” if it bit you in the ass.
This guy just blue everyone here!
http://i.qkme.me/3539b0.jpg
Enjoyed the letter immensely I am sickened by Phil’s comments I believe I will have to watch tour de France on mute if he is announcing
He needs to be put out to pasture !!!
I am sure Armstrong as room for him in his ranch !!!!
Enjoyed the letter immensely I am sickened by Phil’s comments I believe I will have to watch tour de France on mute if he is announcing
He needs to be put out to pasture !!!
I am sure Armstrong as room for him in his ranch !!!!
I started to read your story but you were just being to much of a butt so I stopped. Be cool when you respond and it makes you seem more intelligent.
Nice professional and childish reply Ashenden. Makes me think that you and Tygart are in bed together. A couple of tough guys with your words. You made your claims….now show your cards. Where is the evidence. We all want to see it. Who are the 10 supposed witnesses? Like Phil put it…I can get ten guys to say you are a pedophile, and are first hand witnesses as well, withhold their names, and bring it into the public eye. You, looking the way you and Tygart both do, might have a difficult time to prove otherwise. Where is the proof you would probably ask? No need to say more. this is how you and USADA have acted. Show your shit that you supposedly have…..!
hahahhahahahah… you stupid fool, I hope you are still wearing your live(w)rong wrist-band. do you even ride a bike? you probably are a fat 250 pound fat ass? keep donating to the cheater’s foundation – he’ll need it to pay back SCA
mr ashenden, can i get your assistance in drafting a letter to my boss outlining my grievances, please?
BTW…Great interview with Phil. He said it like it is. This whole thing stinks of conspiracy and vendetta. It is a good thing that someone goes on the attack of USADA. It hurt coming from Phil and that is why Ashended acted so defensively. This whole thing is not over by a long shot. Show your evidence!!! You have so much of it right? Why is it taking you so long to bring it out and show to the UCI, Armstrong and WADA which you are instructed to do now. If you have it, show it! Total liars! Pathetic!
…conspiracy and vendetta?
Do you really believe that? …seriously?
… no, really, seriously?
i look forward to when that USADA evidence comes out. is the lance army going to turn on hincapie? on science?
the lance army believe in intelligent design. that is, lance is so perfect he must and awesome that he could only be the mold of the lord himself.
Brilliant letter. The Liggett interview had been making me kind of sick all day, thinking that some people believe what he says and therefore there is more bull out there.
When I read truth like this letter, I felt like I could breathe again.
Thank you.
I’m going to suggest that whoever gives Phil & Paul their gig commentating on the Tour, finds someone else for 2013.
Their commentary this year was like listening to two old blokes in the Alzheimer’s home – calling people by their dad’s names, talking about 2012 like it was still 1986 and not one single insightful snippet over the whole 3 weeks.
And now this rabid nonsense defending the mighty Lance. Phil you have corrupted yourself beyond even the norms of the bloated parasites that got cycling into this mess. Go now and don’t look back. We won’t miss you.
Regardless of whether Lance doped or not, i like Phil a whole lot more than I like Michael. How condenscending can you get. Michael is a turd.
So what if there was a conspiracy? Team LA was competing on a level playing field since every team was doing the same. Asshenden has his own reputation & professional field to save if USADA was unable to make a stand. If USADA wants to make change, they need to go no further than the local crit or road race to catch the cheats. Yo, NYVelo look in your own yard for the latest doper. Every local, weeknight World Championship ride has a handful of juiced riders who are laughing at USADA & USCF. USADA can do more good traveling local & test CAT5 thru the local Pros and put some fear in the riders. The UCI will test and take care of the international cheats, USADA needsto focus on the domestic athletes, that’s where my tax dollars were intended to be used.
Kevin Livingston is the one guy we haven’t heard from during this whole mess. A close friend to Lance when he battled cancer, and a trusted lieutenant duting the first few TdF wins. Then, jumps ship to Telekom, which at the time was Postals biggest rival in the TdF (due to Ullrich’s presence there). Kevin floundered for a few years at Telekom and then retired without fanfare. That whole course of events tells me something happened between Kevin and Lance that got him dismissed from Postal, only to find himself riding for Lances biggest TdF threat at Telekom. My guess….Kevin was told to “get on the program” or find another employer.
Kevin was great as a domestic pro, but his results as a Euro pro were nothing to speak of, as his biggest accomplishments were as a domestique for Lance. I truly believe he was a clean rider who realized natural ability could only take you so far, and wasn’t willing to cross the line to find more success in Europe. At least the course of events lead someone to think that way.
Whatever the case may be, we need to Kevin Livingston to speak up. I’m sure he has plenty he could say.
Well Livingston wont say a thing, he rents Lance’s basement to run his training centre, and through medallist gets to organise Livestrong Challenge rides. He is LA all the way
Dim
Anyone know to whom we should address complaint letters to get Liggett removed as a commentator from MSN/Universal Sports?
He’s become a Lance apologist and the time has come for him to be be replaced with fresher commentators who want to help move cycling beyond doping.
It comes September 5. Tyler’s book
I’m thinking Tyler’s book will be much like Landis’ book.
Sorry, I’ve never heard of Michael Ashendon but I’ve heard of Phil Liggett. I guess Ashendon just hasn’t had an impact on cycling but I’m sure his family is proud that he finally got his name on the internet.
@To ride forever–if you don’t know who Michael Ashenden is then you don’t have a leg to stand on in this discussion.
I am surprised you are so willing to show your ignorance in public. I am sure your family is proud that you are on the internet too!
you’re kidding, right?
If it’s really true, or if you’re at all interested, do a Google search on ‘Michael Ashenden’. You may learn something about his credentials, experience in anti-doping, and for a bit of a highlight, his rationale for leaving his most recent position. Let us know what you find.
You only know Phil? Sounds like a personal problem. Go ride your Trek.
You only know Phil? Sounds like a personal problem. Go ride your Trek.
Well written, just completely neglected to note the ‘User’ USADA in the case set again Mr. Armstong will not need the results of tests designed by your ilk, just saying.
All the little babies still sucking it hard
Personally know of a doctor that ejected Lance in Hawaii…..Small island
i’d like to see the evidence as it relates to phil liggett’s objectivity in this case. doh! he has numerous business interests with armstrong?! that means “conflict on interests”. rrrrrrrrg!
Strongly worded reply to an interview I haven’t seen, but really, isn’t this all pretty straightforward stuff. It’s the USADAs mandate to investigate and prosecute people who use PEDs within sporting activities which subscribe to the WADA code. Given that a few athletes came forward to USADA with what appears to be highly detailed allegations, USADA would have been negligent not to investigate. The charges this June represent USADAs conclusions about the veracity of evidence collected during their investigation.
I’m curious about what evidence exists, and whether it’s reliable. I expect that much of this will become public domain and its veracity will be considered after cross-examination. My guess is that we’ll find out the the evidence overwhelming supports the charges, but an informed viewpoint won’t come before details become public domain.
To assert that this is a all a big conspiracy, that’s really quite laughable. Do people really believe that… really?
I vote 1 Ashendon for UCI president, and clean the “bloody” sport up.
I second that motion.
PL was clearly off the rails; whether he believed his list of talking points before he rattled them off doesn’t matter.
If his years of “journalism” haven’t yet taught him to do basic research into both sides of an issue before talking, it’s too late to learn that fundamental skill now. He needs to go away on permanent vacation with Pat McQuaid and the whole UCI test crew.
The accusations against LA, et al. was laid out in an open letter.
This is the post of the year right here. I can just hear Liggett or Sherwin screaming it on air during a Tour broadcast.
“Well, Paul that church there was built in 1745 by the natives of Brunei who helped Jan Ullrich cross the Caspian Sea on a whale’s back but now he’s bobbing and weaving on the tarmac like a drunken sailor in Glasgow back in 1971 when Lance was dating my sister who is flying up the slopes of Ventoux like a simian with his posterior aflame, Paul, this is like when Sean Kelly tore the legs off Eddy Merckx but now we have a word from Bob Roll on Road Kill I.D. and the echelon is in the ditches! Is it me or is this tiny little booth at the finish line closing in on me? It seems awfully hot in here but not as hot for the boys on the road in Oman where the camels race down the final 250 meters its going to be close its Virenque! Virenque has won the stage to Paris!”
Micheal:
It is difficult to take a supposed professional seriously who uses such deprecating language in correspondence. I would expect such language from the typical poster, but am utterly surprised to see someone I previously looked to for scientific and unbiased opinion write in such a manner. It places your prior work and intent in question.
This particular statement is especially concerning from a self-proclaimed, full-time doping researcher.
“At the risk of stating the obvious, Armstrong could have bloated himself with a bag of stored blood every day of the week, and been tested 300 times per day, and he would still have been negative.”
This is blatantly false. If anyone transfused a unit of whole blood or PRBC’s every day of the week, it would be incredibly obvious by the most basic lab work that a transfusion took place. I can only hope that you mean that it would have been negative for EPO; but, then, I question your integrity in
misleading the general public that it would not be obvious if someone was using autologous blood doping that blatantly.
It is very concerning that someone I previously believed to be unbiased, write such a poor response regarding a grave issue that you have been intimately involved in attempting to address. I sincerely hope that this was a brief lapse of sanity, and you publicly acknowledge such.
Regards,
Jeff Shilt, M.D.
I have detected you observations about Michael Ashenden for a long time. No serious scientist expresses ideas with such exaggeration, anger, and an envious self-centered point of view. He always proclaims that he knows who cheats, but all scientists miss it. After picturing most Cyclists as low-life cheats, he places himself above all. To me he is nothing but a corporate-no ethics-climber.
Best,
Emil Awad, PhD
I too was stunned at the coarse and sarcastic diatribe. On the level of a teenage rant over having to stay in trheir room on a Saturday night.. Or a trash mouth brawl in a bar..
Phil and Paul called a bike race much like someone would call a horse or dog race. Since the days of 7-11 team, Phil continuously commited a number of errors. I usually turn off the audio and turn on some music to enjoy the race. One would think he would perform some homework before a broadcast. What kind of homework? What riders are in the race, their background, and how there season is going, would be a start. The last day Chick Hearn called his last basketball game, he still practiced commentary.
Only thing MA could have added, is Phil’s motivation. Can you say business partnership (Phil, LA, and Paul), their gold business in Africa. By the way Paul runs the business.
Thank you MA!
Ps:USADA, why is Carmichael not named??? He knows everything. His coach, the holder of his numbers.
Save your ammo Michael. Phil is a soft target. We need your sniper skills for the hard targets to come.
Phil has a vested interest like so many journalists. No integrity . Sold out years ago. Always takes the soft option like the cheats themselves . Talks about those who have cheated as though they are heros. What a tool he is. He is not the voice of cycling to me. In fact outside of this drugs issue he is forgetful and makes many mistakes with names and past performances etc. Time to head off and retire Phil.
Carmichael is a fluffer. He’s just there to look good and never designed plans or participated in Lance’s “preparation.”
I appreciate the insight from an anti-doping expert. I don’t appreciate the expert’s attitude; the dude is a condescending, self-righteous asshole.
Thank god SBS TV in Australia is fazing out mad old incontinent uncle Phil for the slightly more coherent Tan Man. Bravo
Ashenden’s points are important rebuttals to Liggett’s nonsense but the tone of the letter is completely unecessary and unprofessional. The facts speak for themselves – they don’t need to be accompanied by the bile.
Liggett is also a soft target. He is clearly underinformed and his best years as a commentator are behind him. Unfortunately he has a very large voice in the cycling (and non-cycling) world so, in substance, this rebuttal is an important one. He isn’t the devil but you do need to question his motives for the position he is taking.
What we all really need is for the evidence of the 10 witnesses that we keep hearing about to be leaked. Once that is all laid bare, the arguments of Liggett, Merckx, Indurain and the army of Armstrong apologists may encounter a headwind that is too strong to ride against.
Is Ashenden’s intoning Liggett is a co-conspirator with Lance because of his business interests with Lance? Is Ashenden aping Paul Kimmage who in very poor taste likened cancer survivor Lance to what he believes is cycling’s disease personified when he talks of excising a malignancy from the sport? If so this loaded language does needlessly bring Lance’s positive work on cancer awareness and prevention and people’s real suffering into a debate that is unrelated and with it’s own history, nuance and meaning. The issue is how doping effects cycling. There seem to be so many so called professional men in positions of power who get extremely personal and vitriolic about Lance.
Paul Kimmage, who doped as a Pro cyclist and made money doing it, later cashed in again from his expose about drugs in the sport and continues to relish in his minor role in the evolution of how doping is viewed in the sport. But he Dick Pound, Travis Tygart and the rest don’t look at the evolution of doping in cycling – starting as what riders and their doctors alike believed were healthy ways to survive the Tour- medicines to help you get over the alps, and only later becoming sophisticated and concealed methods to gain advantage. There is not a discussion about the importance of Olympic victories in Real Politik and how that demands victory at all costs when one was up against an uneven playing field – for example the Eastern Blok of the 1980’s when blood doping first took hold in cycling (and was copied by all the other athletic disciplines.) There is no realistic discussion of how to create an even playing field for sea level endurance athletes up against say Columbians. I suppose the Mr. Ashendens and Mr. Pounds want to see all the world’s athletes buy a condo in Tibet.
Not only is there a pitiful lack of any balanced understanding of the history of doping in cycling and how that pervades the attitudes within the peloton amongst many Lance attackers- but there seems to be no measure given to his personal accomplishments. Raised by a single mother in a Texas trailer, he excelled in triathlons and was INVITED by Chris Carmichael to the Olympic Training Center. Everyone knows Eddy B. taught Carmichael and the gang to ways of blood doping and cycling steroids, the story of Chris Strock, etc. As a 17 year old Lance was undoubtedly complicit in doping- he probably used steroids on his own in high school to excel to get noticed to begin with, like so many high school football players were starting to do at the time- but how could Lance not fall headlong into the Program that was, and is, developmental, olympic and Pro cycling?
Head hunters like Novitsky, Pound, Kimmage, Tygart seem to have one thing in common- a very black and white perspective- but they have not got a clue about what is really important- on so many different levels!
Wow, the tables have turned on this one – USADA and its supporters have claimed that Armstrong and Co. forced witnesses to keep quite with threats and intimidation for years.
now Phil Ligget questions the evidence USADA claims to have. the reaction from Ashenden is one of the following. see if you can guess what it is before reading his letter.
a. not react
b. say something professional (or adult like in general)
c. do something wild like maybe provide some detailed account of what the evidence they claim they have is.
d. claim that anyone who questions USADA is a senile fool who doesn’t understand the law or rules of evidence or anything and should be removed from the british cycling hall of fame.
here’s the awesome part for any litigator cyclist type:
Ashenden goes though this generally vague discussion of what hearsay is in an attempt to make fun of/discredit Ligget. Asheden is a scientist. Not a trial attorney. Guess what, he’s no better at talking about the rules of evidence that I am talking about blood value analysis.
Ligget states in his interview that someone he knows said USADA contacted him and offered him money to testify against Armstrong. Asheden attacks Ligget claiming that such a statement is hearsay and any attorney would be able to keep it out of court so thus it has no authority.
Doctor, every ounce of the alleged basis you have to ban Armstrong is hearsay. Google FRE 801 if you have a minute, or call my office. I’ll happily explain it to you so you can correctly rant. For the record, I want you to catch the cheaters, but you should do it without acting like an idiot or ranting uncontrollably.
USADA’s “evidence” is hearsay because it relies on statements made by people other than Travis Tyrgart, who is the person making the accusations by signing the charge letter.
Travis doesn’t have personal knowledge of the facts that he alleges, he too relies solely on the statements of others. Until there’s some actual testimony from people with actual personal knowledge of the situations at hand, all the crap you’re saying is your evidence is hearsay. Doesn’t mean its not true, it just means you’ve got to go get the person with the personal knowledge to say it.
Don’t berate Phil because he relies on other people’s statements. othre people’s statements are also the only think you’ve got to hang your hat on.
Phil is entiled to his opinion and your insane reaction does nothing to help your cause. People have a right to be skeptical of any government agency that tries to take property from someone. This skepticism is critical to the success of our system.
Get used to it, and be sure that when the population is skeptical, its critical that you present your arguments in a way that is legal, legitimate and convincing. Lashing out fails to meet all of those categories.
Continue to fight the good fight. But maybe get a PR person in the meantime.
Fail, I’m afraid. Because Travis’ “hearsay” is actually sworn Grand Jury testimony by those first hand witnesses.
Someday, RaceRadio will learn to spell “Quiet” properly -Bb
😉
Jeez Dr Jeffy… Maybe he lost it when FLigget opened his ill informed pie hole…Without a doubt Ashendon is intimately tuned into this case (exponentially more than you or FLigget) I will cut him all the slack he needs in this case…. Certainly Fligget was under the influence of alcohol during his Skype call…but no excuse for being a total f%*k up… Being the talented MD you are, the more pressing matter would be extracting FLigget’s head out of his ass…
Who is Jeff Shilt, M.D.?
What does a pediatric orthopod know about doping in sports?
Growing up in England I listened to Phil’s commentary as a kid and even met him a few times at Philly, Lancaster and other races. I always respected his love of cycling and passion he had for it, that was until now.
Now, well he looks like a right twat, really any one in my books who tries to defend Lance, in the light of him being busted for doing drugs, I have lost all respect for. Not to mention a few other people like the Merckx family who have stuck up for LA (again business interests).
The UCI is an embarrassment to the sport i love so much, how is doping going to be cleared up with the people who run it at the top.
I have to commend Michael Ashenden and the USADA, for having the balls to go after the Lance and all the people involved in the systematic doping. Hopefully the sport will be cleaner for it.
Also thanks to NYVelocity for being one of the few English speaking cycling news sites that will print stuff how it is.
I wonder how Trek feel now, having shafted Greg Lemond with his bikes because of Lances rift with him?
I think some are giving Phil a little too much credit here.
I mean come on, have you heard his commentary over the last few years? he has completely lost it. it is like watching an elderly uncle slowly lose it. i am pretty sure he does not even know what year it is and ever so often he sees the word Lance and sees something he can cling too. something he remembers from that dim cloud that is his memory.
that lance is a lovely boy he really is. anyway where’s my soup. i am sure i ordered soup. any way it was 1917 and i was in belgium….
Firstly, I love Phil. Apart from the fact that he seems like such a genuinely nice man, he has been such an integral part of cycling broadcasting for so long that all my memories of watching Tours are interwoven with the dialogue of Phil and Paul. I have even got my teenager to the point where we can play ‘Phil and Paul Catch Phrase Bingo’ together while we watch cycling. However, this year more than any prior year, Phil seemed to be losing his touch. I believe he kept calling riders the wrong names, saying things that were factually incorrect, etc. etc. We found ourselves shaking our heads and shouting corrections at the TV. It seemed that Paul sat quietly by, not wanting to openly contradict Phil, and only intervening when absolutely necessary to set something straight. We mumbled amongst ourselves that maybe ‘this should be Phil’s last year’ of coverage.
Now, I have 3 elderly parents/parents-in-law who have suffered dementia and Alzheimer’s. I am in no way saying that this is what I see in Phil’s future. However, from personal experience, I have noticed my elderly family members (especially the British ones), retreating to these ‘let bygones be bygones’, ‘don’t rock the boat’, ‘live and let live’, loose lips sink ships’ , stances. Not openly re-hashing ‘unsavory things that have happened in the past’ is de rigeur for Phil’s generation. This includes all manner of things like concentration camps, priests molesting, teenage pregnancies, and family ne’er-do-wells. My elders also like to retreat (albeit very vocally and adamantly!!!) to defensive positions that don’t require them to process information logically, read and understand lengthy documents, or understand scientific analysis.
So maybe, maybe, if there’s any defense of Phil’s position on this specific subject, it could be possible that his processing is becoming impaired, and that he is a typical British man of his generation. Maybe it’s time to go easy on him and pursue other more robust antagonists!
I am confused now. i thought lance was being done for doping but according to comments 10 guys are going to testify he was a pedo.
wow wait till phil finds out about that. red faces all round
Emile Awad, you’re saying that a respected scientist calling into doubt a high profile money making athlete, backed by Nike and countless other corporations, is a corporate-no ethics-climber? Did you actually work through the logic of that claim before you made it?
Not just the rehashed stuff we’ve all heard. While USADA has the legal status to bring the case that does not mean the process is fair or protects the rights of athletes. When will cyclists realize they are chatel for the race promoters. If there was a union contract maybe at least one rep from riders would be apart of an arbitration. At this point USADA pres is prosecuted, judge, & jury. People calling for Armstrong’s head don’t care if he appealed or not. Either way they got what they wanted… Just like USADA. They “know” he’s guilty.
Oh and yeah Phil should have stayed silent but all the mouth foaming personal cr*p is just hot air blowing through a hollow space.
“If there was a union contract maybe at least one rep from riders would be apart of an arbitration.”
If Armstrong had gone to arbitration, the panel would have been made up as follows:
One member appointed by USADA, one member appointed by Armstrong or his representatives and one member appointed by mutual agreement of the other two.
Only Armstrong chose not to go to arbitration, didn’t he?
Niels Clamp: “While USADA has the legal status to bring the case that does not mean the process is fair or protects the rights of athletes. When will cyclists realize they are chatel for the race promoters. If there was a union contract maybe at least one rep from riders would be apart of an arbitration.”
….. ALL of the above is complete BS!
The Federal Judge who dismissed Lance case disagrees with you… here what he had to say:
“With respect to Armstrong’s due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit,â€
“Alternatively, even if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong’s remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation’s courts.â€
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/more-sports/judge-dismisses-lance-armstrongs-case-against-usada/article4489758/
——-
Niels Clamp: “At this point USADA pres is prosecuted, judge, & jury.”
completely false… in an arbitration 1 Arbitor is chosen by Armstrong, one by USADA and the 3rd is agreed on by those two.. how is that not fair?
I did respect Michael… but this is just unnecessary condescending drivel. Everyone who bothered to listen knows he’s biased towards Armstrong, to personally have a go at such an easy target just wasn’t necessary. And the way he did it was like a school yard bully. Shame on YOU Michael Ashenden!
reading through this is like the scene in “take the money and run” when virgil starkwell is put in the box with an insurance salesman. or worse, watching clint eastwood degrade himself this evening
Wow. Why do some people ignore the truth. Lance us like David Koresh in Waco. Wear your Nikes and wait for Phil and Paul to bring the spaceship to Austin.
Lance is a cheater, bully and a liar. Delusional in fact.
Keep up the good work!
Good letter Michael, USADA and you have obviously got a lot of evidence so when are you going to name the other Riders involved?
Picking on an easy target? How about going after the “voice of cycling” in the US who is clearly telling lies in a desperate attempt at defending the biggest fraud in sporting history.
Michael Ashenden should be commended for his worthy letter.
And please keep going with your work. Liggett and his colleague Sherwin have been apologists for Armstrong, Contador, Basso et al for too long. Their no comment attitude to doping (no doubt driven by their connections to USP, Livestrong etc) has led to a startling lack of debate or critical thinking on their part. I want my grandchildren to admire a sport in which all that separates competitors is talent. While organisations like USADA and individuals like you continue their work they stand a chance.
“This is the time trial. The race against the truth”
Phil Liggett. 2003 Vuelta
Now I know what he meant.
So Michael, have you seen the USADA evidence or are your statements about its contents based on your speculation as to what those witness statements contain? I personally am reserving judgement until the promised publishing of the evidence as I don’t know what is in it. I would have thought that you as a dispassionate evidence based PhD would have too but it seems you have a personal agenda here.
And that last paragraph on the Statute of Limitations. I know what USADA say in their letter but could you point me to where in the WADA code you are so keen on quoting it says that. To me Article 17 seems very clear and simple. The limit is 8 years with no if or buts. Perhaps you can point me to where in the WADA Code it authorises the abandonment of Article 17 in the circumstances USADA cite.
But I enjoyed the polemic which is what your letter was.
I couldnt even continue reading this! Who is this guy????
Shame on USADA for this whole fiasco, shame on the Americans for turning against their greatest athlete!
I will not look back over those 7 years of Tour de Frances (which i bet most people complaining about him, never even watched!!) and think it was all for nothing.
Every one of those 7 tours was amazing – I was there on a few.
I would much rather look forward to a new era of cycling then continue to dig up the past!
What next, checking Hinault, Fignon, Merkx, Vireniqe etc etc etc etc
Remember USADA was incorporated in 2000 and Tygart became its CEO in 2002. If they are so good at their job why did they let Armstrong keep racing and win 7 tdf’s for all those years before they took action?
Chapeau. Dr Ashenden
On ligget etal
enough is enough
you have had a great ride
time to retire
and let the new generation onto the job
So sick of Liggetts errors in commentary. And of judgement
Chapeau. Dr Ashenden
On ligget etal
enough is enough
you have had a great ride
time to retire
and let the new generation onto the job
So sick of Liggetts errors in commentary. And of judgement
Phil Ligget – please retire now .. as a Brit I dont wish to be associated with your comments /cosying up to that other cheat Millar . Thank you MA for your great response – in the end we all want to see USADA bring down the UCI when the truth finally comes out … but of course omerta is so much easier .
Fuck that dirty cheat armstrong. He made milliosn on the back of being a cheating drug taking cunt. They should send him to guantanamo and waterboard him back to the fucking stoneage
I’m disappointed in the whole debacle, however, I would just like to point out one thing, you say:
“You said during the interview that you’ve seen people fight back and beat cancer “because of the way that Armstrong delivers his wordsâ€. You intimate that without Armstrong’s words they would have perished. Shame on you, Phil. That is a despicable, wretched suggestion which infers that those poor souls who do succumb to cancer somehow lacked the will to fight it. I am appalled that you could be so ignorant and heartless.”
I had cancer, I had it pretty bad, and reading “It’s Not About the Bike” gave me an extra will to fight the disease. I’m not saying I wouldn’t have done it without it, but reading it made me realise I could fight and win. If he could do it why couldn’t I? It was an inspirational story. That’s why I’m torn. I still look up to Armstrong for coming back from cancer, and in my feelings about the whole subject I place that in a separate camp. So, Michael, it’s neither fair for you or Phil to make claims about how LA’s story inspired cancer sufferers.
Armstrong had testicular cancer. Cancer in any form sucks, but if you’re going to get one, testicular cancer is highly curable. It spread. That sucks. It also makes it more serious. It spread to his brain and lungs. That sucks. But it was still testicular cancer that spread and as such it was still curable. As opposed to say having lung cancer that spread to the brain. There are millions of people fighting more serious forms of cancer that are way more inspirational than Armstrong. Like the guy who posted just below this.
Armstrong had a form of testicular cancer with an extremely poor prognosis (choriocarcinoma) with a very high death rate. Moreover, it was advanced (stage III). That’s just to correct Eratica’s statement (and yes, I do work in cancer research).
That said, Ashenden’s points are still totally correct. Moreover, let’s stop being so naive. Armstrong fought cancer thanks to modern medicine. It’s not as if he just said there, and his choriocarcinoma left just because he wanted it to go. Regardless of all this, I think using his cancer remission, and foundation as arguments against the stacked evidence for an extensive use of drugs, and trafficking is just appalling. Far worse than the actual cheating. It’s simply disrespectful to those fighting cancer now.
is this guy independently wealthy, who has the time to parse this shit so finely
Nope.. his job is anti-doping… he was one of the guys who’s job it was to look at the blood values in biological passports and determine if they are suspicious and warrant sanction.. that is until the UCI tried to muzzle him and he quit…
If I remember well he was actually fired by the UCI (not 100% sure though). I guess the reason invoked was that they shouldn’t keep a guy with a strong sense of ethics, and a backbone. Good job Dr. Ashenden. Here is the time to keep the hornet’s nest and get rid of all these cheats (UCI included)
What Phil said is true. It was not USADA, nor any other US Federal agency who approached several people related in the matter ever since 2010. It was someone ABOVE all those, an agency that is a bit more global, and more used to these dirty ways.
Oh can you spell: INTERPOL?
No worries, The Truth will come out. Of course, everything will be smothered by the powers that be. Can you charge and go against Interpol? Of course not.
I love that Phil referred to USADA as “A Neferious Drugs Agency”
I’d never want to hang out with Ashenden. Everything I ever read from the guy seems like he lives to be a buzzkill for EVERYTHING.
That mate is hearsay! I object. Good letter Mike A, Phil Ligget has seemed to have driven off the road.
i know nothing about the science of cancer but i’ve always wondered why no one ever asked if lance gave it to himself with all of the drugs he took
Well, Paul that church there was built in 1745 by the natives of Brunei who helped Jan Ullrich cross the Caspian Sea on a whale’s back but now he’s bobbing and weaving on the tarmac like a drunken sailor in Glasgow back in 1971 when Lance was dating my sister who is flying up the slopes of Ventoux like a simian with his posterior aflame, Paul, this is like when Sean Kelly tore the legs off Eddy Merckx but now we have a word from Bob Roll on Road Kill I.D. and the echelon is in the ditches! Is it me or is this tiny little booth at the finish line closing in on me? It seems awfully hot in here but not as hot for the boys on the road in Oman where the camels race down the final 250 meters its going to be close its Virenque! Virenque has won the stage to Paris!
He quit as a member of the expert panel that reviews athletes’ biological passports, because they changed the contract for members: The change requires confidentiality for 8 years. Ashenden couldn’t live with that kind of gag order–it’s just more omerta–so he quit.
UCI needs a total clean out and revamp.
I suspect they worked and still work hand in glove with the king rats.
Even now UCI leadership have personal litigation against Kimmage (not the publisher, just personal) and are opposing USADA.
Thank you Mr.Ashenden for an honest response.
I would not dare to take any credit away from LA with regards to his fight with cancer or for the hope given to the victims of this dreadful disease.
However, this does not excuse him from the charges brought against him as Phil has attempted to do. Yes, LA was an incredible athlete and a great champion of that era riddled with substance abuse, I feel had everyone ridden clean then LA would have won a Tour or two regardless. Yet the conspiracy and deceit that existed is morally wrong. It is also wrong to defend his actions taken in order to win, he cheated!
Having competed during that era myself in Europe, I witnessed a very dirty and dishonest sport where Amateurs sold their souls in order to win races. Like it or not PED’s were having a trickle down effect in the sport and endangering the lives of many young athletes.
So I ask you this, is this the kind of future we want for our children?
While what Michael is saying needs to be heard, I do not appreciate the mean spirited tone of his writing. Like everything political today, the message is being lost in the divisive and partisan method in which it is being delivered. Grace and dignity would serve Michael well and it is a shame he does not demonstrate this.
A angry man with an ax to grind and rent to pay. The parasites just keep on sucking.
Whoa! What happened to Mike? Did Phil sleep with his wife, or something?
I get his point, and regardless of whatever side one chooses to take, his opinion is worth knowing about. But what a way to throw manure to a journalist. I am not a Phil fan, but I respect his career and his knowledge, and even if I accept that he has always sounded like a Lance fan, I think Mike’s letter has a lot of hate between the lines.
Anyway, it was a good read and it gives a lot of food for thought, even if I do not believe all the unproven “facts” that Mike mentions. He sounds as blind and passionate as Lance’s most fervent supporters.
…Jay, you’re spinning like crazy…and not the cranks! Dizzy much? What you choose to call a rant is one of the more thoughtfully incisive, sensible rebuttals to the Lance fan-boy spin machine that I’ve read. By someone who is obviously familiar with not only the particulars of the case, but the science behind it. And I did not sense hate at all, simply incredulous disgust at Phil’s shocking inability to even approach any unbiased journalistic standard. He certainly sounds anything but blind.
You should read the outside magazine article about all that is wrong with USADA.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html?page=all
They are an agency run amok and that unfortunately dilutes their credibility. They need to act more transparently if they want to be believed by everyone. They now see just as much a bully as Lance is.
Phil makes a living from cycling, so it is in his best interest that the sport look believable and stay popular with the masses. So he will say what he believes will keep him employed.
Giving Lance’s TdF titles to others is just a farce since most of the other guys were doping just as he was. He, and his doctors, were just better at it and not getting caught.
The real question is whether this will help clean up the sport. I’m not sure it will do that. What this does do, and it is good, is that we now know that all those folks accusing LA of doping are not the liars LA made them out to be.
I love that the USADA wasn’t nefarious when it was chasing, but had not yet convicted, those “drug cheats” FL and TH.
I’m glad that MA took the time to pick apart PL’s smoke screen of propaganda. Gullible people, probably those people who along with PL don’t know how to pronounce names that end in vowels, might believe what he is spewing.
Funny how Asheden condemns Phil for relying on hearsay, when the the entire case against Armstrong relies on hearsay. Why doesn’t USADA come down hard on the current riders who have admitted taking drugs? How does it help the sport?
The difference between eyewitness statements and hearsay was pointed out in this very article. You honestly can’t be this stupid.
what’s REALLY funny is the lancebots still not understanding the definition of hearsay. pro or against, i don’t particularly care and find the whole drama about as intriguing as an episode of real housewives (which is to say not at all, and andy cohen you are the devil). but learn what constitutes hearsay and how sworn testimony in a court of law does not qualify as hearsay PLEASE. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Heresay
What are we all really talking about here? Is this all really about cyclists or testing? Cutting through the noise it is clear that this whole case is about the Tour de France – its management and the relationship between the ASO and UCI. WADA and USADA either didn’t know or just became aware of how the race is run and they don’t like it. Fine, influence that issue another way. The Tour, like all sporting events, is first a foremost a revenue machine and nobody knows how to penetrate a market and increase viewer/circulation like ASO. Over the last couple of decades they have been able to dwarf the other tours and that competition is all but finished – or so it seems. There multiyear winners all have similar stories – single parents, tragedy from health or injury, etc. The Tour has gone from being a French race, to a European race to a worldwide phenomenon. And for cycling, the best way to achieve that size (which directly translates into advertising revenue for ASO) is by having winners from key media markets. Fine, that is the deal struck by a lucky few who proved the ability to achieve a mutually beneficial goal. Why hurt those who played the game? That won’t benefit our future the way you think it will. Rather, there are races in the US and elsewhere in the world that are more of a level playing field. Show the ASO, that for all intents and purposes, rigging a race to control for the unknown and meet revenue expectation and perceived viewer demand doesn’t always make for a great race. The 2003 tour, which had the elements ASO isn’t able to control, was by far the most exciting. The 2007 tour, which I don’t think was planned for Contador and clearly not planned for Rasmussen, was even more exciting. Let’s leave the history just where it is as it is not these characters that will best help change cycling’s future. We should also be weary of perfectly talented riders who had the ability to win but weren’t on ASO’s list that year – as their grievance, though just, will not help the broader issue. We should also be weary of showing too much of the internal mechanisms in this sport and others, you are actually telling kids and viewers “you have to dope to win – so if you want to win, learn how to dope.â€
Grow the fuck up.
Phil’s interview was insane (as is Phil), and Michael’s letter is, if anything, worse. Phil lobs a softball like that and the good doctor responds with heavy sarcasm and sounds like a 15-year-old. What a great opportunity wasted by a totally unprofessional rant.
Like everyone else, I hope the evidence is posted for all to see. Until then, your attack on Phil’s “hearsay” is to say, in effect, “Travis says he has 10 former teammates who testified.” Until we see it, how is that not hearsay on your part? Even if you’ve seen the testimony (you don’t say whether you have or not, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have), you telling us what you heard is still just that, hearsay.
Way too personal an attack, and not worthy of your stature, Dr. Ashenden.
Eastwood > Liggett
Ashenden’s letter sounds like a 15 year old girl who rants on Facebook after having gotten dumped by her boyfriend.
Phil was actually “right on” for his comments.
He’s asking why is USADA doing this because it’s not apparant even with the charging letter.
In the recent ruling against Armstrong from the Austin court, the judge even questioned the nature of the techniques that USADA uses as lacking due process.
I applaud Armstong for taking this stance. Just because Travis Tygart and USADA says something doesn’t make it so.
I only hope that the UCI responds appropriately, which is counter to what Ashenden wants to have happen.
There has been no “credible” proof brought forward that would hold up in a US Court of Law. This evidence is simply not strong enough to support the weight of the USADA case.
I for one would like to see the USADA board remove Mr. Tygart as a way to save their credibility. No different then the argument brought by Mr. Ashenden against the UCI.
petition to remove phil liggett from british cycling hall of fame.
info@britishcycling.org.uk
A fantastic rebuttal by Ashenden.
Liggert’s interview is all part of the Armstrong misinformation campaign.
Michael OConnor; Judge Sparks did more than question USADAs processes. Two quotes from his judgement:
“USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives”
i.e. exactly the point Phil Liggett was raising.
And on the issue of whether Armstrong would receive the allegations and evidence against him in sufficient time before any hearing took place to prepare his defence following assurances from USADA that he would despite their earlier stance:
“If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this Court’s attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result.”
What L.A. Oop posted at 1.56pm is pure magic. I could read that kind of stuff all day. For some reason Virenque winning the stage into Paris seems like such a wonderfully crazy and appropriate climax to the whole thing.
And I find MA’s letter totally hysterical, unprofessional and unpleasant btw. I am no LA fanboy, far from it, but the tone of the thing is all wrong. Let’s keep things professional!
Bjarne Riis says, “I really have no opinion on this matter.”
MA has totally failed Letter Writing 101.
Wow. That was impressive. I do believe Ashenden just b*tch slapped Liggett. And Liggett has no response. Can’t wait to hear all the details of USADA’s evidence. Hopefully that will shut sanctimonious Liggett right up.
How fast is Liggett supposed to respond and why?
Julien Dropout wins for the correct answer when he posted this (below):
“Phil makes a living from cycling, so it is in his best interest that the sport look believable and stay popular with the masses. So he will say what he believes will keep him employed.”
Jeffrey Schilt is a real doctor:
http://saintalphonsus.netreturns.biz/Providers/Detail.aspx?ProviderId=ab6923d8-4cc6-403c-8f14-93e376b601e0
But why is he posting here? He’s from Boise, Idaho!
Josh, It’s “Hearsay”, not heresay. most of us have figured out the difference between hearsay and evidence. Those that haven’t are idots.
Morans keep asking who the 10 witnesses are. it’s pretty easy to figure out who 8 of them are. With Hincapie and Vaughters ready to testify (credible evidence, not hearsay) against Armstrong, does it really matter who the other few witnesses are?
Michael,
Great article. I’m sure Phil is not as ignorant as you believe him to be. I know him personally and suspect he is only afraid of what Lance can do – and has done to me. He bullies and threatens people personally. People are afraid of him for some reason. I, however, am not. And I think now everyone in the world knows this. 🙂
sorry? i spelled it properly, though the link seems to be screwed which is not my fault. but heresy (sans a) actually could work well, too. also, to review, proper spelling of other words on this site include:
1. doosh
2. idot
3. moran
4. break (when talking about a piece of equipment that stops/slows your bike)
5. brake (when talking about a group of people trying to get away from a…
6. peleton/pelaton (either will work)
all standard grammatical errors (your/you’re, there/their/they’re, etc) also are accepted. thanks for playing!
LOL..best thing ive read on this site. +1
a lawyer
sarcasm drip drip…
At the onset, let me state that I have strongly believed for the last eight or nine years that Lance Armstrong was a doper. I like Phil, but I don’t buy these conspiracy theories for a minute.
I am very concerned with the piling on or due process concerns of this case. The first offense for a doping offense is currently a two year suspension. Why is LA being banned for life? The statute of limitations in these doping cases is eight years, why is the USADA going back 13 years? In the past, TDF Titles were taken away when a rider failed a drug test in the tour. Why is LA being treated differently ? Bjorn Riis and other have admitted TDF doping, and have not lost their titles. Moreover, the cycling “grape vine” is saying that the other former Postal Service Riders are going to be given “sweet heart” six months suspensions that start in the late Fall 2012 and end in the Spring 2013. In other words, the suspensions will not impact their cycling schedules much. Why aren’t they receiving two year suspensions ?
In other words, some people do not like LA so we really going to pile it on ? Before I retired, I dealt with arbitrators/third parties on a regular basis. My gut tells me that when the UCI challenges the USADA Actions, the arbitrators are going to tear the USADA Case to shreds on due process and disparate treatment grounds. The arbitrators may throw out the whole case. In the end, LA could be the only man left standing. USADA needs to fix their case before it goes forward.
Regarding the 10 witnesses, the following must be noted. These individuals were called before the California Grand Jury to testify on this matter. If they gave false testimony, they could be tried for perjury and sent to prison. If they invoked their Fifth Amendment Constitutional Right against self incrimination, the Federal Prosecutor would have granted them immunity from prosecution and forced them to testify. The criminal charges never resulted in a prosecution. These ten witnesses will in all likelihood be called before an arbitration panel when UCI challenges the USADA Action. Do they have to testify before an arbitration panel ? It depends. If any of the witnesses are no longer involved directly as a professional cyclist or managing a professional cycling team, they can tell the arbitrators to take a hike. They can’t be compelled to testify. If they are still directly involved in professional cycling, they could face sanctions for not testifying. Those not still involved in cycling could dramatically change their grand jury testimony when they testify before the arbitration panel. If they are still riders or team managers this is more problematic.
Now that the ten witnesses are no longer subject to a criminal prosecution for doping or perjury, some seem to be moving back towards LA. I see that George Hincapie has made some pro-Armstrong Statements lately. Jonathan Vaughters is not a brave man, and he will testify, but try not to antagonize LA much. Some of the others like Tyler Hamilton have big credibility problems.
Those who cross LA can have their cajones cut off. On the other hand, LA is an incredibly generous individual who takes care of and is very loyal to his friends. Those cyclists and team managers in the last week who have said negative things about LA are fools. The smart people are keeping their mouths shut. Jens Ullrich for example has issued a statement saying he won’t accept any TDF Titles if offered to him. Negative fall out in the US towards LA has been minor so far. As I have said before, at the end of the day, LA may be the last man left standing. He is no fool and he has great lawyers. Why do the dirty work when the UCI will do it for you.
Hey? Maybe you can answer this Clement….I’ve always wondered how it was that Floyd Landis perjured himself on the stand to try and save his TDF title : “no, i did not take drugs”..and then wrote a book confessing that he did…and never got charged with perjury. Is it because he lost the court case so they KNOW he perjured himself?? Now he’s the star witness in the LA saga because he’s such an expert! So why is his testimony gold for the USADA when he is such an unreliable witness?
“LA is an incredibly generous individual who takes care of and is very loyal to his friends.” ????
Please read this account from a former friend.
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html?page=11
This guy has been complaining about LA for years. He even sued LA. He is a malcontent.
> What has been the impact on LA since he announced last week that he would not fight the doping charges ?
A big increase in donations to Livestrong
And this Has what to do with doping?
Ftw
!Gggggggg
Nice letter, Michael Ashenden, but poorly worded and with the tone of a jilted ex-wife. If you’re gonna attempt to attack a sad lump like Phil, I recommend you at least pursue it with some skill. Or ask for help. You don’t come off much better than Phil did in his mindless rant.
Everything this guy said is BS!
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Evoker
Hack cheat. Regards
C’mon Le Blaireau,
you’d write a letter sounding frustrated if you had to listen to the spouting tripe that is coming out of the mouths of some of these sporting journalists (and public) too. I’m a lay hack, and since day one I had a better comprehension of the case the PhilLig has shown in the last month or two.
Furtherer, Ligget has always been a one eyed, (tightly shut), idoliser of these athletes. Review 2006 highlights and tell me he is even open-minded about dopers, when Op Puerto caused the banning of umpteen riders from the TDF.
That was a great moment in the sport and I love how Italian and Spanish Judges with a grudge, or idea, can prosecute (& persecute) a case with the full support of the constabulary. If that case had never been, we’d be celebrating Jan Ulrich’s third win (2006 & 2007) instead of realising that Lance ground known cheats into the ground for 7 years. He truly is superhuman, and all that after having third cat Testicular Cancer (Lungs, Brain, Liver).
Sorry to put all this in your lovely lap, but it frustrates me near as much as Michael to hear from people who cant accept a truism.
Cheats exist. They only admit guilt when caught or on their death bed. People come clean for guilt not money and hence the evidence of witnesses is acceptable and trite and display the extent of the case against Johan, Michelle, Pipi and Lance.
I’d question all those other winners of bike races, our hero’s, about the extent of their efforts to cheat us of our affections. I hope not…
Ashenden to Foundation
What has been the impact on LA since he announced last week that he would not fight the doping charges ? LA now has 50,000 new Twitter Followers. There is no doubt that the man is a doper, but he is like the Eveready Bunny, he keeps on going?
Next on deck as dopers are ? Bradley Wiggins, Chris Froome
Consider the following from Cycling News referring to this year’s TDF:
“Work together with Antoine Vayer [LeMond columnist], the performance specialist, helped show the implausibility of the power generated in watts on the climbs. Moreover, it is interesting to note that the UCI has banned the publication of such real-time statistics in 2012. And we can understand why when you see that the power production by [Bradley] Wiggins and [Chris] Froome (first and second of the Tour) is comparable to the turbulent times of the late 1990s and early 2000s.”
That is one tough-love letter.
Liggett is obviously in deep denial and he may honestly be confused. Phil Liggett is one of the greatest cycling commentators. He’s been on the mic for decades. But, all good things come to an end. He’s had a good run.
As I watched Rodriguez blast past Contador on the latest crippling Vuelta mountain stage, instead of applauding his phenomenal mental and physical strength, my thoughts were distracted by the question ” Oh for Christs sake – don’t say he’s doping as well” .
That’s the reality now – after the steady drip of doping news, I can’t believe in magical performances anymore.
We desperately need the leaders of cycling (and Liggett was one of those) to stand up and be counted against doping or to basically bugger off out of the sport.
Instead we get an uneducated ramble from him where he quite obviously hasn’t even bothered to check his facts. He’s going to look even more ridiculous once Hamilton’s book hits the stands.
Lance eats a mean creme brulee.
It’s disconcerting at times to see the huge amount of LA apologists and fanboys (unless what we see on message boards is predominantly his paid interns pecking away). I find myself baffled why there isn’t a near 100% consensus on this guy as a doper and as an all around a$$hole.
But then I look at this country, which I do love. Nearly 70% of the country is overweight or obese, 50% of marriages end in divorce, huge personal debt, 50% of our citizens don’t vote in the presidential election, 2/3 of our citizens don’t vote for our Congressmen, 25% of our kids don’t graduate from high school (in many communities over 70% don’t), etc. etc. So when I look at those statistics, maybe the LA apologists are also the ones that are dragging down this country.
So to Michael Ashenden, Travis Tygart, and all those supporting a strong anti-doping effort, press on! You may be in the minority, but there’s a reason they call it a straight and narrow road. You’re on it, and keep going down it. Good job!
Thanks for the epic response to my post. Despite the fact that the post ONLY addressed MA’s tone and not the content of the post, you felt it necessary to reiterate your stance that “cheats exist”, along with a bunch of other pointless items from your agenda.
We here at NYV appreciate your incisive candor, wit and verve. Keep it up!
Armstrong has been paying PA to go to his cancer events and promotions for years, so there is a definite conflict of interest there. I sort of thought that PA had the smarts to keep his mouth shut. Anyway, he is getting old and his commentaries show that, he often makes mistakes. Maybe time to retire with LA Phil.
Andy Shen, the condescending, disrespectful addressing of Phil Liggett was (or should be) shameful to you. WADA, you’ve heard of them, right? Bruyneel, you know, the team director? These kind of statements to one of the greatest cycling commentators we have ever known only makes you look sound like an arrogant idiot. Your view is obviously different from Phil’s, but if you want him to re-examine the facts, just present them, TRUTH always speaks for itself. Anything man might ADD is always questionable. And lets be honest, the FACTS have not been presented YET, only statements of WHAT they SAY they have. Yes, I feel they probably have re-tested Armstrong’s samples and come up with something, but A) We have not been presented this yet and B) If Lance past the tests during his years of competition, then that is tough cookies. He met all the requirements! Can you mortgage lender come back ten years later and take your house because they have better ways of checking your history and you really didn’t qualify?? Just go forward people.
A: I didn’t write that, Michael Ashenden did (look carefully). B: I disagree with you.
You can tell the letter is good by the number of Armstrong shills it brought here in their quest to eradicate truth.
Keep all the commentary coming…. You can’t get such interesting and humorous chatter anywhere. I’d pay for this entertainment, but I won’t. I used to enjoy being a political spectator, but now, thanks to LA and USADA and all the charactors involved, I’ll watch this for awhile and wait for the movie to come out.
And, I think UCI/LA/Johan & Company are gonna get pinched.
Hey LA its not too late. Ive gotten worts off with more evidance
So heres my number baby…..call me
http://www.cyclingfans.com/node/6489
Phil Liggett makes money on pro cycling. He certainly has a conflict of interest. I also believe that he has a pure and genuine child-like love of the sport just like myself and so many others. No other sport has proven to be more rewarding and beautiful and heartbreaking to me than what i have found in cycling as both a fan and participant. PL and I seem to be in the same boat in that way, powerless to change the broken system and eager to defend our heroes for the simple fact that we don’t want them to be frauds. I have never been the biggest fan of Lance, but he’s the only cyclist the hicks in my town know by name so I still don’t want it to be true. Jens Voigt Army forever.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-usada-in-possession-of-positive-armstrong-samples
at this point usada may be in possession of lance’s other nut.
The tone of this letter is smug, disrespectful and narcissistic. Enjoying your time in the spotlight Michael Ashenden, PhD?? Why don’t you guys go after other sports like Tennis and Football? Oh, that’s right, there’s enough money surrounding them to pad them from agencies like yours.
You guys just can’t handle the fact that maybe people like me believe the ‘real’ story will never be made public because you DO pay for testimony. So maybe your case is as tainted as the cyclists you pursue. If it wasn’t cash, it most certainly was protection. So does protecting someone like Landis who has purjured himself on the stand become justifiable for the bigger and more famous scalp?
So when someone like Liggitt queries your agenda, you let fly. Whatever. I don’t actually believe Lance’s innocence 100%. But I do know that you will never prove it by buying and paying people to speak to give evidence.
Why don’t they go after tennis or football? Well both of those are largely skill sports, so whilst participants will benefit from doping, they won’t to nearly the same extent a cyclist will, as it is after all almost a pure test of aerobic capacity. I don’t know if you are referring to football as in soccer or NFL either; if you are referring to NFL, that isn’t a signatory to the WADA code, so there is no jurisdiction there.
As for the second part of your post, you provide no evidence that any witnesses have been bought, beyond offering immunity – which is commonplace in all investigations in exchange for cooperation. However, there isn’t much incentive to cooperate if you are innocent, is there? And no, Liggett’s second hand comments about hearing people were paid off to testify is the definition of hearsay, so that is not a valid argument. I would also note that Ashenden is not employed by USADA, so this investigation isn’t his responsibility. He is, however, a well renowned doping expert, and is as such well placed to comment on the matter.
It’s sad to see an icon like Phil Liggett get involved in something like this. Its obvious Phil is biased by his business dealings with Lance. He’s going to loose a lot of credibility if he doesn’t pull out now.
Thank you for writing and pointing out this is about cleaning up this sport. While some of you will never see the podium on your $5000 bikes there are Many Many riders that did try and Will Try to chase the cycling dream. It would be sad to think the only chance they have is to become corrupt and risk thier lives.
If you follow this sport you “Know” many young riders have dropped dead from strange Heart issues (Doping). I wounder if they would have had a better chance fighting cancer thanks to Lances hero work in that field.
I can’t believe there are still Armstrong supporters out there – especially here of all places, where I would venture to say only knowledgeable racers come. The evidence is overwhelming. Anyone who’s done even light research on the internet can see that. I have to laugh at all the guys saying “it’s just hearsay, put forth evidence or back off.” Pish posh. His ’99 samples tested positive. His 2003 TdSuisee samples tested positive (2004?). USADA says they have further positive tests in their possession, and I can’t wait for them to release the details behind all this so all the LA Fanboys can finally STFU once and for all.
…the epitome of friendship in expressing support for his friend & business partner armstrong, liggett has succeeded in nothing more than making himself look like a sad old fool & a sellout…
…once an icon & the voice of cycling in the english speaking world, liggett just pissed away his credibility & his legacy in order to stand in support of fraud…fraud in the sport he obviously loves…
…for years, he had a way of being supportive of armstrong yet remaining somewhat neutral but that day just ended…
…phil liggett used to bring a sense of ‘joy of cycling’ to his race broadcasts…that is now incredibly tainted…
…with sadness in my heart, love, bgw…
Choose your tyranny – LA fanboys or LA haters. Both are equally repellant
you can get a racing bike for only 5K?
The funny thing is most people chasing the dream rode what ever is free. Spending 4-6 hours a day riding in the 80’s or 90’s left little time to work. I had shimano as a sponsor for a few years. They wanted me to have 105 breaks on the bike. I had a set of Dura Ace and put them on. Got the evil eye! and a set of 105’s put back on.
Then all I have to do is race guys willing to dope.
I once had a teammate tape crystals to his body. He could not afford Drugs that worked. True story!
LA was willing to buy into what the coaches told him and ran with it.
Go back and Interview the LA Olympic and US National team riders. Find out if they were offered a choice.
Getting Lance gets the Coaches, Staff and Dr’s. Lance was just a very talented rider who was smart enough to use the people that planned on using him.
USADA plans to end that!
I think 2:26 was talking about wheels. I hope so.
Michael Ashenden is to be commended for attempting the impossible: convincing the believers in Saint Lance that their hero is a fraud is about as difficult as convincing fundamentalist christians that it’s not actually logical to believe that someone is God just because he says he is.
So you get a range of stupid responses: “we haven’t heard the evidence yet” (well no, because Lance’s choice not to go to arbitration has ensured that! Why?…); “how can you trust drug cheats to testify truthfully?” (how can you trust Lance — who HAS tested positive due to some rare slip-ups –to testify truthfully?); and “we don’t like Michael Ashenden’s tone” (what, find a bit of surgically-crafted polemic too much to handle, do we?). Flailing in the dark, looking for anything to support a culture of denial.
Get over it: God is dead.
My heart goes out to Ashendon, Klimmage, USADA, WADA and the rare few who are genuinely trying to catch the drug cheats and give clean riders a better chance to succeed. Phil’s comments are a digrace and i truly hope we can get rid of this corrupt muel forever. Shame on you Phil, you are an utter disgrace to the integrity of fair play in cycling. The sooner you are out of the sport, the better.
Google-image Travis Tygart and see how powerful the pro-Lance, ad-hominem attacks are.
Who cares?! Amen to 9:15. There is a whole lot of racing going on both locally and at the pro level. F all this nonsense.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/lance-armstrong-doping-cancer-questions
I have been saying this for well over a decade now. My urologist friends (I’m a pphysician as well) always found his cancer story a bit bizarre.
The guy was doping long before 1996, and had a relatively unusual cancer as a result.
What would the fanboys say if this turns out to be true ?
Biggest fraud and a-hole in history IMHO.
What is so unusual about testicular cancer? Trust me, you do not have to dope to get testicular cancer you idiot!
If you truly are a physician then you would not be stating that he got his cancer as a result of doping! If you can say this without a doubt then you should have a prolific role in the Oncology field.
Let me guess, you are probably a Pediatrist?
If anyone needs kudos it is USADA,they finally put a collar around the biggest cheater in the history of cycling. As Tyler said, Lance was the system. People like Phil Liggett are blinded more by their personal interest and friendship to Lance are are quite content burying their heads in sand and turn a blind eye to real evidence. Lance is a crook as big as they come and and Phil is a disgrace to the human race
Spot on 9:15. The fawning fan boys and selectively sanctimonious moralizers are indeed equally pathetic
How is it selectively sanctimonious? The Pinedas, Bunde, Blanco, Lisban, David Anthony, Foundation, Mengoni, and the Armstrong/Bruyneel team. All dopers suck. It’s not the same as running a red light on my bike or cheating on my taxes. If you think that’s being “selective” then you suck too.
hopefully the Three Amigos (Phil, Paul and Bob) all get a copy of this. Like the UCI, they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Time for a complete housecleaning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXsOR5O5hb0
T/E ratio 9.0:1.
Just wondering when the USADA is actually going to release the evidence on Lance?
Rest assured that Lance and his lawyers saw the evidence and realised it was overwhelming. choosing not to go to arbitration was the least worst option for Armstrong to take. Bruyneel is going to arbitration, so that evidence also applies to him. Nevertheless, USADA have already said that they will be releasing the evidence in due course. Apparently USADA has re tested some of Lance’s old samples and they have come up as positive. They have plenty of positives.
When speaking about being selective, you’ve managed to select the innocent.
1. There was only one Pineda, not more.
2. You mentioned teams that had a rider test positive, but then accused the rest of them.
Whatever point you intended to make was lost on your inaccuracy and unfairness.
Where can I donate to the Floyd Unfairness Fund?
Boycott Trek. Boycott Phil. Boycott Livestrong. Boycott Nike.
Some of you question how many positives USADA has. As someone else mentioned these are new positives. That means they went back and tested some of his old samples with new tests that weren’t available when they were originally tested. I’m sure LA’s lawyers were object and then bring in to question how the samples were stored and how they kept track of them all these years.
One think I have noticed is that many of the “old timers” will be more tolerant of riders doping than some of the more recent fans and riders. You need to understand their point of view before you go criticizing them. Much like other sports cycling is a business. The many controlling the business is the man with the money. They are the ones pushing the riders to perform better. They are the ones putting pressure on the riders to dope. Now all of a sudden when things change those very owners who control the business are now the ones trying to put all the blame on the riders when the reality is that they had just as much fault as the rider. Right now all the blame falls to riders who were just basically doing what management told them to do. That is why people like Phil, Hinault and Merckx are all sympathetic to the riders position. They all know how the system works because they have seen it all first hand. They are now all part of the system and they want the system cleaned up in a way that is fair to all participants. That means that management needs to share in the blame.
Change needs to come not just at the rider level but also at the management level. So it is good that managers and doctors are also being banned from the sport. But team owners also need to share the blame. As we all know the UCI is also pretty corrupt and it too needs to be cleaned up.
When that happens, then we might be fairly certain that the champions we admire really earned the accolades they received from the fans.
Useless!
1. Armstrong battle – far from over
2. Much of the “evidence” gathered by USADA is going to be torn to shreds by Lance’s lawyers.
3. Lance follows the “Golden Rule”. – He who has the gold, makes the rules. Lance’s wealthy allies may come popping out of the woodwork as time goes on.
This is going to be a fun battle to watch! I’m rooting for both sides to lose.
Right, only one Pineda got caught.
Blanco raced for both Mengoni and Foundation so both teams have had two dopers on them. Probably more.
Try again.
So I’ll say it again.
The Pinedas, Bunde, Blanco, Lisban, David Anthony, Foundation, Mengoni, and the Armstrong/Bruyneel team. All dopers suck.
“The accusers of the innocent suck”….so you’re saying that you KNOW Lance is innocent, so how dare anyone accuse him?
Sorry, but you can’t base any legal process on the principal that it’s only proper to accuse someone if he’s already known to be guilty. Lots of innocent people are accused and prove their innocence in court. Lance’s lawyers presumably saw the evidence and advised him it would be better not to try to prove his innocence in court — so are they too ‘accusing’ the innocent?
Let’s try and keep the discussion above the level of a kids’ playground spat. And it will not have escaped the notice of anyone who’s read the whole string of comments that the childish reactions are overwhelmingly from Lance’s supporters.
…and the accusers of the innocent also suck.
where’s David Anthony when you need him?
Everyone who has profited from their associations with LA have stated they support him.
Now the US senators are getting involved. Lets not forget the 100 grand LA gave to Planned parenthood (Barbara Boxers) pet charity just before the AB made it all go away in Feb. Funny Barbara is back (Im not suprised).
Looks like Bribes and manipulations at the highest level of government and so called justice.
Having been on the start line with LA from 93 – 96. Its not differcult to see he was doping and cheating back then. Remember when he rode away (from the rest of us)with Andre M from LA Sherriffs to win Thrift drug. Andre later testing Positive.
Thanks Michael for responding to PL. Time to wake up Phil and then go away, far far away out of the sport.
I wasn’t referring to Lance. I was referring to No Dope’s blanket accusation of those who were/are clean.
To bring you up to speed, No Dope and I were in a brief discussion in which he accused some based on their associations. He wrote that dopers suck. I wrote that the accusers of the innocent suck. You see? No Lance.
Barbara Boxer is Lance’s grandma.
Let me rephrase this in a way that I doubt you will find more acceptable.
imo, amateur teams that have had more than one doper on the team (I mentioned the two teams in earlier posts; BH/Comedy Central is OK so far) have a problem in that it appears they don’t care who races for them and how they get their results.
Again, just my opinion. But others seem to share it. You obviously ride for Foundation. That’s too bad.
Check out this exchange from his Strava profile (Lance is subscribed under the pseudonym “Juan Pelota” (aka One Ball)
Monty Hobratschk: about your thumbnail icon Lance, they DID come and take it , how do you like them apples!!
Juan Pelota: haha senor monty – todo bien. no worries. – just keepin on livin strong. onward.
Monty Hobratschk: Yeah, you took your ball and went home because you didn’t like the evidence of truth that has been built. Quitter.
Another Subscriber: – you seriously talking to Juan Pelota about balls?
Juan Pelota: senor monte, si, it’s been terrible. i can barely get out of bed in the mornings. i’m so depressed — it’s killing me. chill hermano, todo bien.
Alberto Blanco was popped years after he was on either Mengoni or Foundation. So that really only leaves each team with one positive rider each.
But if that’s not how you’d like to judge teams, then consider that CRCA/Empire/AXA/Stan’s had two team riders (Lisban and Chodroff) who were later busted. So where does that team fit in with your judgement?
And since Foundation, Empire/AXA, and BH are all CRCA teams, how does your judgement deal with the CRCA as a club?
People lie and cheat. It’s difficult to know how far someone will go until it’s too far. Therefore it’s difficult for a team to know if a rider will cheat. It’s the same for BH, Mengoni, Foundation, and any other team that has a cheater among their clean riders. And I think that the DA bust shows that it can happen to any team.
you wrote,
“amateur teams that have had more than one doper on the team … have a problem in that it appears they don’t care who races for them and how they get their results.”
I think it’s more of a sign of poor choices, rather than overlooking ethics. I think there are definitely teams that are (and were– like UPMC with Joe Papp) dirty as a group. But it seems unfair to assume the other teams are like that as well.
You can’t blame CRCA and hold them accountable. They take anyone who pays the membership fee.
You got me with Chodroff. OK, CRCA/Empire are dopers too.
But I like your revisionist history with Blanco. He came back from Tour of South China, (where he was busted for doping) and raced at least one Spring Series race in Foundation kit. It’s no longer on the USACycling website since all results after Tour of South China were expunged, but his last few races before he was caught were as a member of Foundation.
Tennis, football, baseball and other sports put on a credible front that they are combatting drug use. Cycling has jokers like John Eustice. Nuff said.
Did you just suggest cyclists would benefit MORE from PED’s than football players?
Uh, no. Football is a skill sport, but also (depending on position) is certainly not skill only and very much a physical power/strength sport.
Ashenden is either a liar or an idiot, or both. He mis-states the facts so as do give slanted view of the USADA charges against armstrong.
>>Why don’t they go after tennis or football?
Because the governing bodies (NFL, FIFA, MBL, NBA, etc) know where their bread is buttered. Giving fans what they want – spectacle.
What’s wrong with the major media? Time, CNN and ESPN all went to John Eustice and aired his pro doping gibberish. Why isn’t anyone calling Andy Shen who played a major role in helping to get the truth to come out.
I do not need science to tell me that Lance Armstrong doped.
I do not need 10 witnesses to tell me that Lance Armstrong doped.
All I need to know is the fact that not one person who has worked with him is willing to testify on his behalf.
No one who worked with Lance Armstrong – not a single domestique, soigneur, masseuse, doctor, personal assisant – is willing to come forward and say, “I worked for this man for years and to the best of my knowledge, he never doped.”
Not one person.
Leads me to 3 possible conclusions:
(1) Lance is innocent, but such a tremendous asshole, that people are not willing to tell the truth if it would benefit him.
(2) Lance is guilty and people are simply not willing to lie to benefit him.
(3) Lance is guilty AND he is such a tremendous asshole, so no one would even consider lying to benefit him.
Given what he did to Emma O’Reilly, Christophe Bassons and Betsy Andreu, it’s really not that hard to imagine that he’s a tremendous asshole – and that he doped. (3) is the answer.
not true at all jonathon vaughters said that, as did horner.
At this point John Eustice is a bigger danger to the future of cycling than Lance. He’s making the case that the anti-doping fight needs to be dismantled and that USADA and WADA are the bad guys. Listen to his ESPN interview – http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8299383 and read the ridiculous Time magazine op-ed.
Besides it being the right thing to do, without cleaning up the sport there will be no sport. It’s already too hard to get sponsors.
Covering up doping and making like it doesn’t exist which has always been Eustice’s modus operandi will only bring the sport further disgrace.
The doping at Univest is a case in point. Pulla’s crime was getting caught. It was embarrassing to Eustice and he was scared shit Univest would find out and bail. After being unable to stop the positive from coming out, he tried to make like it never happened. He tried to blackout all info even going as far as screaming at Dan and Andy to remove incriminating pictures of Pulla. He didn’t change the results for 4 years. Since Pulla fucked up his race, John wasn’t so forgiving. At Harlem in 2008 he let in Hamilton and a bunch of other dopers but banned Pulla.
If only there was no USADA there would have been no problem.
If that’s what you think then boycott his races. That’s the only way to drive him out of the sport and that’s what I’ll be doing.
She blinded me with science!
This just in: No surprise, apparently Eustice is a creationist and a birther.
For the past 5 years, I’ve loved racing the Skinscraper despite the crashes. Eustice has been effective at turning it into a great spectacle (sometimes at the expense of the actual racing and often at the expense of safety), but I have no interest in filling his pockets any longer. In the future, I won’t be racing at Harlem or at any other event that benefits Eustice until he changes his story or is no longer involved with the event.
Its such as you read my thoughts! You seem to know so much approximately this, like you wrote the ebook in it or something.
I think that yoou just can do with a few p.c.
to drive tthe message home a little bit, but other than that, that is magnificent
blog. An excellent read. I’ll definitely be back.
my web page – philips remstar pro c-flex+ – inuneko.bloggplatsen.se –
I’m interested what others think. People like Tilford, Jacques-Maynes, Myerson, Gavia, Bonnie Ford, Joe Lindsay, etc… JDE is another that has lost it and needs to go away. The Lance effect is bigger than we thought.
The issue for Eustice – he’s not pro-doping, he’s pro bad headlines coming from positive tests.
Very, very big difference to a promoter.
So that makes it ok for him to actively lie to protect dopers? Doping hurts all promoters, they just don’t run to the media to disseminate BS.
Eustice isn’t pro or anti doping, he’s all about lining his own pockets, whatever it takes. If being anti doping was more profitable that’s what he’ll be tomorrow.
I’m pro premature baldness.
The ladies love the smooth dome.
To support anti-doping teams should boycott Eustice’s Bucks County Classic this Sat. It will be interesting to see what the local teams, Champion, Mengoni, Stan’s and Foundation do as well as Myerson’s team.
Champion was volunteering to donate money for testing locally but will they support a guy who wants to do away with USADA?
So where’s the list of riders and teams attending Buck’s County?
Thank you for any other wonderful article. Where else may just anybody
get that type of information in such an ideal method of writing?
I’ve a presentation subsequent week, and I am on the search
for such info.
Look into my blog post – subway surfers hack
bunch of Stalinists here!
“we want names!”
it’s a fucking bike race…
If you want a boycott of John’s races, then you also have to want a boycott of Charlie’s races too, no?
Great quote from Selena Roberts –
“Each day that passes allows time for Armstrong’s D.C. operatives, such as Mark Fabiani — a former White House special counsel — to do what they do best: create cloud cover for their client. They swift-boat the truth by injecting doubt into facts, by turning those who come clean (Tyler Hamilton, Landis) into dirty little traitors and by turning the messenger (USADA) into a carrier pigeon of revenge.”
Full article – http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/38243308
Is Eustice the media point man of this operation or auditioning for the position.
How do Charlie and John relate to one another as regards having an understanding of the issue of doping in pro road cycling and making a national cry for sweeping it under the rug?
Here’s Charlie defending Armstrong against Landis in 2010 in national media.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/armstrong-s-former-racing-teams-under-investigation/
Oops that was Eustice again not Charlie.
have truly gone off the deep end. You want testing, and boycotts,etc…I’m sure you will still buy products that have been or are endorsed by la. and, oh yeah, where is that DA update? You guys are all nuts. Ride your damn bikes.
I heard JE won’t be running it next year.
I think this iss among the most importantt info for me. And i am glad reading your article.
But should remark on few generral things,
The site style is great, the articles is really excellent : D.
Good job, cheers
my blog post: symptoms of heartworm in cats
When you consider that Ligget thinks the Clean Bottle is a genius idea you realize just how out of it he really is.
Betsy’s voice is reminiscent of Sarah Palin
John was a national champ some years ago and trying to make few bucks working as a race promoter and a TV commentator (must be few since cycling races don’t get broadcasted much in America anyway) and an advocate for secret scientific testing for human performance enhancement medicine for the privileged, elite riders. What is his view on doping for the underprivileged pro riders? Only pack folders dope. Elite riders do scientific test….
Charlie I always has his heart in NYC and the local racing scene. A vice president of Champion System and sponsoring a pro UCI continental team racing all over the world.
I don’t suck up to people, whatever status they have. I like and hate someone based on what they do and how they see the world. Hey, as long John E isn’t organizing the Harlem Crit, I would come and do my part.
There is no honor among thieves, or those that divide and share in their spoils (or such at their teats). At least WWF doesn’t pretend to be anything more than it is. Don’t dope to race amateur – keep something real here.
WWF pretended until they were forced to do otherwise.
…and cycling has arrived there now too, no?
I want to know why Andy and Dan remove postings about TRUE information about EUSTICE, but want the truth about Lance revealed. Seems like hypocrisy and a double-standard.
John Eustice’s father recommended that the USPS have a cycling team, when John’s father was a retired strategic planner doing consulting for USPS.
Furthermore, John, Robin, et al. ‘fix’ races ALL THE TIME! Phil and Paul area also part of the charade. I can’t believe I use to admire these people at one point in my life. But, don’t take my word for it, Eustice explains it on this Web site, just go there and look for it and read it in black and white in his own words.
And, in 1993, go look at the UNCUT footage and you will see what looks like Lance Armstrong making a deal with the Coors Light Coach. See the rider ‘cozy up’ to the Coors Light team car and negotiate in the middle of the race. Who was / is on Coors Light team that helps Lance across the line? Could it be Roberto Gaggioli? Could Roberto Gaggioli be the cyclist John ‘unleashed on the United States’ (his own words…but check it out before Andy and Dan delete the article…hurry! hurry! do it now!) Why hasn’t Lloyds of London gone back to determine if maybe they got played. Seems like it to me. And, oh wait, there’s more…isn’t that how he runs his own races today. Only now Roberto is the coach! LOL!
Check out Velo Marking and T.E.A.M INC. owned by Robin Morton and John Eustice. Why do / did they have 2 corporoations? Anyone?! They get hired by the promotors to get the teams from Europe, while at the same time, enter their own teams in the races in which they are hired to procure teams and then, lo and behold, unbelieveable odds against unbelieveable odds, over and over, and time and time again, their teams WIN!!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
But, I’m sure Andy and Dan will delete this message due to their allegience to NYC.
Phil Liggett, Paul Sherwen, Pat McQuaid, ASO are all part of the problem and so is Eustice, Morton, Casale (may he RIP) and all of them! They continually do everything to people that Lance Armstrong accuses people of doing to him…discredit, crazy, vendetta, etc., etc., etc.
The people have no morals, ethics, shame or class.
Isn’t JOhn the same ring leader one who helped Floyd with his
FFF? And those journals, papers that hired him for his expert opinion…really?! Let’s hire Ted Bundy to defend and protect, I mean tell us about, the Son of Sam. I’ll never be reading those publications again. Hiring John is completely irresponsible journalism. It’s the equivalent of allowing Sarah Palin to run for office…a national tragedy and an international embarrassment. So, lets ask John about promoting or administering virtues, moral or religious beliefs and principles of others when he doesn’t actually posses any of these himself and is consistently guilty of violating. John is a master at duplicity as people who comment on this Web site obviously seem to know, so I’m not stating anything new. Machievelli is John’s hero. I guess his father forgot to tell him that people with a conscience don’t necessarily think Machievelli is ‘good.’
But, the USADA, et al have a conspiracy, vendetta, grudge, they’re jealous…COULD IT BE THAT LANCE, et al are USING PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION?!
The issue isn’t about Lance Armstrong, blood doping or even the sport of cycling, it’s about fraud, extortion, deceit, lies, ruining the lives of honest people to support and subsidize your own interests and gains vis a vis those same lies and deceit.
Geez, settle down. If I remember correctly, and if you’re the same person, we deleted that one comment because it discusses his personal life.
Personal life eh? It’s gotta be something about swinger parties in a a hot tub full of tapioca pudding.
If you are doing a parody of a mentally unstable guy who makes me nervous then ‘chapeau’ – you have writing talent.
If you are not doing a parody of a mentally unstable guy then please seek professional help.
Man that was a rant of rants.
Wait, hang on a second, let me check my give-a-shit-o-meter about all of that….
…the answer just came back. It is, “Reply hazy, try again.”
Awesome rant Rinaldo! We need more of you around here!
How can you hire Ted Bundy? He’s dead.
Al Bundy is available for consulting on an as-needed basis.
Charlie I keeps a different Bundy(e) on retainer.
Like most of us humans, I have doubts some of the posters here are human, JE makes mistakes. What he is doing now is turning into a top notch promoter of the sport. He does not condone doping, but having lived the life of a pro he knows how the system works. Blame does not belong entirely with the riders. There are a few folks who control the sport and they are just as responsible for the doping mess we have now as the riders are. One thing to do is just kill the sport and start all over again and hope it can get to the same level again. But that is really now going to be good for anyone. It is better to try to expand the sport and have controls in place to keep the sport clean going forward. He is trying to work with the current system in the best way he can. At least he is trying to do what he thinks is right to make the sport better. Sitting at a keyboard in your parents basement complaining about JE is not helping the sport in any way.
one week bitch about rich racers with too much disposable income and then the next week the issue is that the NYC cycling scene is heavy on dweeby basement dwellers.
Mathieu is right – “There are a few folks who control the sport and they are just as responsible for the doping mess we have now as the riders are.”
But these people have names and one of them, the one who is most publicly trying to undo the new doping controls, is John Eustice.
How do you get from JE’s “it was ok because LA was advancing science” to your “He does not condone doping…”?
How do you say “There are a few folks who control the sport and they are just as responsible for the doping mess we have now as the riders are.” and not understand that JE’s statements and actions are a part of precisely what you’re describing?
What do you mean by “just kill the sport”? How does that work? Do you define ditching the UCI as killing the sport? Do you really think people will no longer race bicycles without the UCI, USAC, etc? (What will we move onto next then? Camels? Can I join your camel racing team next year?)
How is JE “trying to work with the current system in the best way he can”? By inventing ridiculous “scientific research” excuses for dopers?
And how is “Sitting at a keyboard in your parents basement complaining about JE” any worse than JE sitting at a keyboard in his parents basement complaining about USADA?
I’m not in my parent’s basement. Now what?
Eustice would still be living in the basement if not for his wife.
McQuaid added that, barring any major unforeseen problem, “the UCI does not intend to appeal” the USADA sanctions to the Court of Arbitration for Sport “but we need verification” of wrongdoing.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iTkrJRyddmln9yfHLpsxPjLOoaJg?docId=CNG.b6539412b70bb1de12669e29eada1cc4.7e1
man, those arabs are pissed about usada’s imperiousness
…speaking of “imperiousness”, i’d always hated race broadcasts with john eustices’ in the booth due his extremely imperious manner…
…even his enthusiasm for the sport didn’t countermand his broadcast work & i hated listening to him…
…then i meet & have a nice conversation with him at interbike whilst he’s shilling de rosa’s & i’m thinking – “eustice seems like a pretty straight up guy after all – maybe i rushed to judgement”…
…now, i’m waiting to see if & how eustices stance plays out…there’s a line to be drawn between accepting what “was” in the past & accepting that kinda behavior going forward…
…living in a van, down by the river, love, bgw…
Look forward and never forget what you saw. Armstrong deserves a knuckle sandwich, he wrecked and ruined my favorite sport nearly singlehandedly, and Ligget is a dammed dangerous fool. How Sherwan puts up with him is one of the wonders of life, Sherwan’s smiles can’t get any more tight lipped, not possible.
i ttally agree with you,totally
Ironically, Armstrong has taught a whole new generation of riders how to deal with the press and the public when it comes to doping: take the offense, aggressively lash out with a bit of smugness, condescension, imperiousness, impudence and sarcasm. Wiggins is his best student.
We (non-racers) don’t understand – you have to dope to ride.
Armstrong wasn’t alone.
Everyone who looked the other way, jumped on the doping bandwagon, did PR instead of journalism, and those who shouted down any who questioned the miracles are just as responsible for ruining your favorite sport. They deserve a good part of your knuckle sandwich as well.
Even with Armstrong long gone, what has changed?
Are the results any less suspicious?
And are those bone-idlers who question the results any better received?
…they might “all” be guilty of doping but nobody & i mean nobody treated people like armstrong…
…the code of omerta may have been used by most, whether simply to remain silent or in conjunction w/ denial but armstrong’s tactic of denigrating, belittling & threatening those who would dare speak out goes beyond even the questionable morality of the “dope squad”…
…lance reminds me of that kid in school who would scowl in your face as he threatened you but could turn, smile nicely & deny everything when questioned by the teacher…
…living on paniagua, love, bgw…
How one ‘treats others’ makes no difference in deciding on criminal guilt. That’s ridiculous. This isn’t a popularity contest. He’s a dick. Whatever. Go have a beer with Frank or Andy, whatever
If “treating others” includes witness intimidation, then yes it does make a difference.
Eustice’s comments about the future of the sport are the big problem, not that he thinks Lance was a ruthless savage deserving champion.
“whoever controls the samples controls the sport.” what could he mean by that?
…Put anything larger than your elbow in your ear, and please don’t ride on the BQE…
http://gothamist.com/2012/09/18/photo_man_spotted_biking_on_the_bqe.php
Dan, Andy and Alex,
For a few years you guys have had a fun, interesting and relevant website. It is unfortunate to see how it has devolved into it’s present state of mudslinging irrelevance. While I respect some of your earlier work regarding the doping issues in cycling, it has become clear to me that you are no longer objective or balanced in your presentation of the issues.
Cycling and it’s history of epic battles between men, whether in the old motorpacing events, six days, classics or the grand tours, is what has enthralled so many of us over the years. Sure the doping has always been there, anyone who has lived and enjoyed the sport knows that. Cycling was born in poverty in Europe and has been and still is a way out for the toughest riders and unfortunately doping provides a means to do that. I am as against doping as the next guy and would love to see the sport cleaned up. A long time ago, I made my living racing in Europe for a few years and I ultimately left the sport because of the doping. It was a tough lesson for a 20 something kid, but I’ve never lost my love for cycling and it’s intrinsic beauty.
What’s happening now with the current dialogue (or lack thereof) among your viewers is juvenile and mean spirited at best. As middle to upper class Americans (let’s face it, that’s your NYVelo crowd), I think you need to show some appreciation for the sport and it’s history, instead of trying to rip it apart.
John Eustice is a good friend of mine and while I don’t agree with everything he wrote in his piece, I do understand the point he was trying to make, that there is a fundamental difference when dealing with pro cycling compared to what your viewers do on the weekends. He is a class guy and has done more for the sport and local riders than anyone else. He doesn’t deserve the scorn and abuse being thrown his way by you or others.
It’s a shame because you guys have the potential with your audience and smarts to be part of the solution.
Tom
…mr schmalz furthers my point of intimidation, particularly when it goes beyond simple bullying to becoming an act that bears investigation…
…BUT…
…”This isn’t a popularity contest.” – i beg to differ…
…lance armstrong has maintained a stringent popularity contest that was predicated on his “amazing” results in the sport of cycling & thus the public persona he’s been able to foster, in turn facilitates not just his foundation but importantly for him, the lifestyle that he enjoys…
…armstrong stopped being simply an athlete years ago…he’s a celebrity synonymous with a cause & despite the knowledge the cycling community now bears regarding his methods, the man is still extremely popular in the eyes of the general public…
…basically, the longer he drags this out, the more he retains his popular status of “lance armstrong, cancer survivor & comforter of the cancer community”…people don’t care otherwise…
…the psychological aspect of his motivation & “need” to always be in control means nothing to the general public…
…they tire of the accusations, the things they don’t understand about pro cycling…it’s a lifestyle with intangibles that mean nothing to them…
…lance armstrong is “a result” & that’s what the public buys & cares about…& that is the image that he fosters even now…
…once a believer, with love, bgw…
“it has become clear to me that you are no longer objective or balanced in your presentation of the issues.”
I have no interest in ‘balance’ if I think the counterargument consists of lies. Besides, people are smart enough to surf the web and find their own counterarguments. At least we don’t hide our bias.
“Cycling was born in poverty in Europe and has been and still is a way out for the toughest riders and unfortunately doping provides a means to do that.”
If the sport was clean then talented poor riders would still rise to the top.
“I think you need to show some appreciation for the sport and it’s history, instead of trying to rip it apart.”
We do love the sport, just not the bad parts.
“A long time ago, I made my living racing in Europe for a few years and I ultimately left the sport because of the doping. ”
So then why further attitudes that excuse doping?
“I do understand the point he was trying to make, that there is a fundamental difference when dealing with pro cycling compared to what your viewers do on the weekends.”
I reread that article and nowhere does he compare pros to weekend warriors. As best as I can tell his point is more along the lines of “Lance didn’t blood dope he flooded his system with EPO by getting hot and even if he did doping is no different than finding an edge with nutrition, recovery, and aerodynamics so USADA should reconsider its mission of catching dopers.”
Cycling in NYC was born of credit cards, no girlfriend, no life, and a firmly held belief that deep section wheels really matter.
So riddle me this. At what age or level is it ok to dope? Does one need to go to Europe first? Is it ok for the domestic pros trying to get to Europe? Or the cat 1s who spend their weekends racing against the doped up domestic pros? When the euro pros like Danielson come home and race domestically are they clean, or are they by virtue of the fact that they get paid to race get ‘a head start’ by racing against a cleaner field? What about the 2s who might be good enough to be 1s if they weren’t racing against 1s who were doped up to race against the domestic pros who are doped up to try and get to Europe…
uh. Tough to follow. I guess it’s like professional finance guys making their own rules… Need to know the secret handshake to be in the club, but once you’re in anything goes and no one can admit they’re wrong.
Schmalz is right, witness intimidation is something to talk about, being a general prick is not (which is what you are talking about bgw). And, again, his popularity has fuckall to do with anything
the rest of your arguments make no sense. Dragging it out does nothing to help him or his “celebrity status,” and, if it did, than wouldn’t he keep fighting? No amount of ellipses makes your arguments valid…which…is…usually…w..h…y…people….use them…..so people can fill in the blanks.
(annoying…isn’t…it….)
is kinda like…
Tom,
How is this “no longer objective or balanced in your presentation of the issues”?
John Eustice gets to present his opinion. So do you. Armstrong’s PR people have posted here. If Armstrong himself wants to post here, I’m sure Andy and Dan won’t object.
You said “John Eustice is a good friend of mine”.
Are you sure you’re being objective here?
You also wrote “He is a class guy and has done more for the sport and local riders than anyone else. He doesn’t deserve the scorn and abuse being thrown his way by you or others.”
The problem is that now he is supporting doping. He no longer has “class”.
Tom, I’ve raced against you many times and respect your abilities on the road. But if your grandkids decide to become bike racers, will you really support them if they decide to dope to get to that level?
…if my use of ellipti, (made up word) is annoying to you, that’s your issue, ya ???…
…question: what particular issue would keep lance armstrong from refusing to admit to doping when a great number of his former teammates clearly state that they not only did themselves but were present when he did & their testimony is backed by research that suggests no one could hit the “power numbers” of the era unless enhancement was being utilized ???…
…if you believe he didn’t dope, that’s a separate issue…
…answer: because he doesn’t want to affect the world wide popularity of his foundation by admitting to being something less than the public image he’s cultivated…
…question: can you give me a better answer ???…
…with bated breath, love, bgw…
to commenting on bsnyc, bgw. buh-bye
you don’t live in nyc and you don’t race. why are you even on this site?
…(1)- “you don’t live in nyc…”…correct – i live in nor-cal which is approximately 2,582 from nyc, as the crow flies…if you have a crow you wish to utilize to corroborate my figure, his mileage may vary…
…(2)- “…and you don’t race…”…correct – i did however w/ a friend, put together a riding & racing club named velo club tamalpais back in the early ’70’s which became a power in nor-cal racing in it’s day…
…my personal racing exploits from those days were few & far between & quite honestly, i was just never that fast…at least not top cat1 fast…
…i don’t “age category” race now that i’m in my 60’s due to concern of a major hereditary medical condition…i do not allow that to affect my enjoyment of riding on either the road or the dirt but i was told racing is a no-no…
…(3)- “…why are you even on this site?…” – if you’ve followed this site yourself with any interest whatsoever, that’s not even a valid question…
…andy shen & dan schmalz have consistently featured the most comprehensive, in-depth & informative interviews in the sport over the years, whether they be simple historical bio’s of early racers or contemporary, hard-edged technical pieces relative to what happening in the sport right now & that is something i find great value in…
…i also delight in their irreverent & humorous approach to the whole ‘biz’ of cycling whether it be the industry side of which i once worked in or the convoluted pro circuit…
…& sometimes, i wear my “red hook crit” hat that was given to me by a cycling bud who rides out a’ brooklyn…
…so, there ya go, ugh []…i believe you left some of my questions lying on the table…
…tapped out, with love,bgw…
Tom,
Aren’t you ‘good friends’ with Jonathan Boyer as well? Isn’t he a convicted pedophile? If you knew John at all, or if you were unbiased, you would not be defending John, or Jonathan Boyer. When, and where, does one draw the line? Do you think it’s okay to ‘fix’ races as John so elegantly and eloquently explained and admitted to us in an article on this site? Do you think it’s okay to coerce, bully, disparage and deceive people? So much for your pseudo-highbrow commentary. What are you hiding? Evidently, you look up to and respect that sort of behavior. I, on the otherhand, do not. Do you think it’s okay for a racer to have a contract with a promotor / manager / sponsor and decide to disregard that sponsorship / contract and make deals in the peleton with others (who are also under contract), to win money by other means? Is this what you describe as a ‘class’ act? From John’s own words, it doesn’t sound as though he sacrificed anything. In fact, it sounds as though he made a financial killing by committing fraud, by his own admission. The point of this commentary is to note that the fraud is not just among the cyclist, who are used as the scapegoats and distractions from the root cause of the problem. Since the root cause won’t be addressed the same people will continue to perpetuate this sort of behaviour and conduct. The point of this commentary is to address a more systemic, more corrupt issue among the top people ‘running’ the sport. Lance will not talk because they will all end up having to disembowel one another, in the end, if he does talk. They all have blackmail on one another and will all have to take each other down together, because, my guess is, if one of them goes down, they’re all going down.
Many, many, many people who love the sport have been adversely affected by the lack of integrity and ethics of these people.
Your comments indicate that you have chosed to buy into delusions and denial, about yourself and others.
It’s obvious to me that ‘Mr. Wallace’ Selling X-mas Trees knows more about John from their one sentence than you, Tom Officer, know from your entire commentary. It’s true, John is a ‘user.’ Most likely, he would be living in his parents basement if he wasn’t subsidized by his (a) wife.
Andy, When I started out in business, someone told me that they never do business with someone who cheats on their spouse. Nothing personal. Like it or not, those are facts!
I, like many, were drawn to the TDF because of Lance Armstrong’s performances. But as evidence mounted, it became more and more evident he had used banned substances and procedures throughout his career. But there was still Phil Liggett- the voice of reason, the man who could give some perspective and help the neophyte understand the intricacies of the sport. Now, it would appear he has chosen to be nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Armstrong PR machine spewing the talking points and buzz words as instructed- aiding in the continued destruction of the sport he seemed to love. I doubt I will ever watch cycling again. Not because of the recent revelations in the USADA report, because at this point they came as no great shock. But rather, because I have no one left to trust. When Phil Liggett sides with the cheaters and does their bidding, I fear there may be no salvation for the sport.
Instead of being so worried about Lance (which I’m not debating yes or no), shouldn’t we be more concerned with the doping at our level? If we are so morally repulsed by Lance, then how do we allow or forgive the cyclists in the NYC scene that have doped?
If we are going villify Lance, then fine, but shouldn’t we also villify the locals who have made the NYC Parks Races tougher and unfair? The Lisban Quintero’s, the Jared Bunde’s, etc.
Jared Bunde promised up an explanation in a letter, but we never heard a word from him – we just let him off the hook or so it seems. Why don’t we ask for answers from the locals who have doped – those who have “stolen” from us the Category Riders (as opposed to the Pros)?
Shen, Schmalz, were is the pressure to get Jared Bunde to write his “explanation” and the letter he promised to tell us why he doped?
If we are all so outraged at doping, we should look at our own peleton and make the dopers in our ranks answer the tough questions.
Instead of asking us why don’t you walk up to Jared and ask him?
Wouldn’t you be accountable for following up as journalists if you post a statement from him stating an explanation will follow? Or does local doping hit too close to home and you’d rather avoid it?
First of all, journalists everywhere just cringed at you calling us journalists. And I never posted anything about Jared or a forthcoming statement.
What does Jared from Subway have to do with cycling?
Eat fresh!
Phill has got it right you bunch of sanctimonious idiots. At the time they were all on it, and the legal issues of limitations and credibility of witnesses is a valid concern.
He has not sold out he is looking at the whole issue as a reasonable man. He has not condoned LA’s actions, he raises issues that I would like to know the answer to. Show me an elite cyclist of this era who was not on it! And even if they were clean you would not be able to prove it.
You narrow minded people are all the same, you want one person to blame for a massive issue. Sorry this goes deep, alot deeper than LA.
LA was certainly not the only cheater but he won the biggest as a cheater and so when the consequences come he paid dearly. Sucks to be him. Yeah except for those millions he got as a cheater, that doesn’t suck so much, I’m sure.
One shame is never knowing how a clean Armstrong would have done because except presumably for his early career we have no evidence and because cheating made the playing field so lumpy.
For more information, visit our Personal Injury Website.
Only a great lawyer can get you the compensation that you deserve.
Your injury lawyer can help you recover compensation not just for
the injuries and discomfort, but in addition for all of the financial deficits that incurred as a result of your injury.
My web site DARRRYL ISAACS