Discovery disbands

[Tim Lamkin]

What a great idea rolleyes - all the sponsors should pull out of cycling so the healing can begin. By healing you mean pro cycling disappearing? It only exists because of sponsors. Races are about publicity for sponsors. Disco left because other teams weren't as proficient at doping and at managing to avoid doping controls. Only a fool would believe that the winningest team in recent Tour history hadn't used doping of any kind to attain that title. Lots of other teams were not so proficient at doping as Disco/USPS and we are where we are. What if things had worked out differently this year and Basso had ridden the Giro in Disco colours, and then had his DNA matched to the Birillo bags in Madrid? Would that not have been a Disco doping case? Brunyeel and Armstrong might be a lot of things to a lot of people but neither of them are stupid. The know their game inside out and they would have known exactly what they were getting into with Basso, exactly what he had been doing to get his results and exactly what he would need to do to get future good results.

Why do people on this forum take sides - my team's clean, your team's not? Your team's gone now so will you still support pro cycling? Or just watch and pray every day that a T Mobile/CSC rider tests positive? Cycling might be in a mess but better that than to have some shiny surface upon a cesspool of illegally-gained results, cycling at ridiculously high speeds, pros dying because of doping, the spineless UCI rubbing its hands with glee as omerta rules and the fans act like brainless morons, failing to question the legitimacy of obviously mainipulated performances.

Exactly…no money no dope no reason for dope…then get it back together, begin sponsorship by companies that give you a kit to wear...grow it from there.

 

[Klodifan]

Have you tried looking at it from the other point of view? You know the one where companies don't want anything to do with cycling because the media portrays cycling as this horrible dirty sport while brushing the transgressions of other sports under the rug? Where is that list of non-cyclists involved in OP? Where are those articles that commend cycling for putting in a better effort then any other sport out there in the fight against doping? It's pretty easy to pick a side and never bother to look at the other side. Don't you think?

You're point is well taken. And I agree with lot of what you said. However, it is not that tailwind did not find a new sponsor. It is that they ended talks with prospective sponsors. This is a critical distinction that some have missed by stating how cycling is in such crisis that a successful team like disco couldn't find a sponsor. Cycling is the whipping boy for the media. Absolutely. You'd think the most successful team in recent years at the biggest race in the world would step up and take a leadership role in order to reform the situation. The vacuum speaks volumes.

 

[??? 3/4 ? 1/4]

You're point is well taken. And I agree with lot of what you said. However, it is not that tailwind did not find a new sponsor. It is that they ended talks with prospective sponsors. This is a critical distinction that some have missed by stating how cycling is in such crisis that a successful team like disco couldn't find a sponsor. Cycling is the whipping boy for the media. Absolutely. You'd think the most successful team in recent years at the biggest race in the world would step up and take a leadership role in order to reform the situation. The vacuum speaks volumes.

It does speak volumes...but in which way? Is it that Disco was the worst doping team in the pro peloton as people like you say or that they feel that the current climate is not good to be bringing in new sponsors and they are sick of the BS slung at them.

 

[earth_dweller]

As I said before, imo, this has nothing to do with finding a sponsor or not, or even the mess the sport is in right now as far as protecting a sponsor's investment.

This has to do with protecting Armstrong's clean name (in the eyes of most Americans). There is no way, if Tailwind stayed in the sport, that they would stay unscathed by doping infractions. I think that Tailwind finally saw that with Contador who they thought was protected by the UCI, but is still under serious pressure from third-parties.

This way, Armstrong goes out a winner, blames the other parties for the mess - and of course they had nothing to do with it - works with his foundation for a few years and re-emerges as the governor of Texas.

Simple.

 

[cyclingheroes]

Governor of Texas? I am dissapointed, I thought he would become the next (well maybe not the next...) president. He would be re-elected 7 times

Ok I guess I've had enough beer for tonight...

As I said before, imo, this has nothing to do with finding a sponsor or not, or even the mess the sport is in right now.

This has to do with protecting Armstrong's clean name (in the eyes of most Americans). There is no way, if Tailwind stayed in the sport, that they would stay unscathed by doping infractions. I think that Tailwind finally saw that with Contador who they thought was protected by the UCI, but is still under serious pressure from third-parties.

This way, Armstrong goes out a winner, blames the other parties for the mess - and of course they had nothing to do with it - works with his foundation for a few years and re-emerges as the governor of Texas.

Simple.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

First of all...You must deal with reality. Disco did not have any actual drug positives while racing. Just allegations. The records show them to be the dominant team in the GT's the last 9 years with the least amount of actual doping charges. LA won 7 TDF's and was attacked all the time . History will show him to be the greatest cyclist ever in the TDF. That's reality, not just what a few individuals on a forum think.

Stop. Please stop perpetuating the myth that USPS/Discovery never had a positive drug test. What about Benoit Joachim? Please tell me why you Disco people ignore Benoit Joachim's positive test.

What about Armstrong's six EPO positives in the 1999 Tour?

Please stop the myth that Discovery didn't have any failed doping tests (as if passing a doping control is proof of non-doping).

I am disappointed by Armstrong pulling out in this way. If he really did have sponsors lined up he should have hooked them up with Vaughters. Instead he has turned his back on the sport that made him rich and famous. By the way, I don't think he really had any serious offers and this claim is just more Armstrong spin. Who would invest that kind of money into cycling now?

Good riddens. I hope he goes away forever. Surviving cancer and winning bike races does not make you a good person. This guy is a creep.

 

[Doctor.House]

Wolf is a LAF doping apologist. Lance played him like a fiddle. He own $300 Nike sneakers.

USPO had many doping positives:

Lance 1999 (corticosteroids)
Benoit Joachim 2000 (Deca Durabolin)
Lance again 2000 (insulin, cow blood, 160 used syringes, IV equipment)
Pavel Padrnos, 2004 exemption from San Remo Giro doping inquiry
Michele Ferrari, 2004 illegal pharmacy conviction
Frankie Andreu, EPO confession
Wold lives in a bubble. His reality is a Nike commercial.

LAF motto reads: LIVE WRONG!

 

[earth_dweller]

But you know what the worst part of this news is?

We'll now be subjected to review of the 'best team in the world' in all english cycling mags. The inhumanity!!!

 

[wolfix]

What about Armstrong's six EPO positives in the 1999 Tour?

He was never charged with them by the UCI. So you are wrong. There were no EPO positives by the UCI in the 1999 TDF.You need to distinguish facts from the anti-Disco circle jerk on this forum.If you can show me where he tested positive in the 1999 TDF by the UCI, I will apologize. But until then , I consider you to be doing nothing but doing a spin of your liking.

Who would invest that kind of money into cycling now?

T-M just did , CSC just re-upped, and Slipstream..... Do I need to continue?

 

[fbircher]

........

His goals are far more important then racing in what is actually a fraud sport...European cycling. It is the joke of the sporting world and has been since the 1970's.

And the Euro's have made it that way.

........ ]

Don't you know - cycling is only a European sport if you're denigrating the Tour of California. When it is revealed that 108 cyclists in the pro peleton are doper/clients of SINGLE European doctor (the vast majority of them European cyclists), then the European identity of professional cycling is conveniently overlooked. Professional cycling is replete doping and most of the people on this forum recognize that fact. The focus on one team as the embodiment of "doping evil" is not only immature - it's intellectually dishonest.

 

[jsull14]

What about Armstrong's six EPO positives in the 1999 Tour?

I wish people would stop bringing this one up. It's laughable for two reasons:

1. Lance won seven Tours, not just in 1999. And his best performances were in 04, 05
2. You are saying that 1999 urine tested in 2004 sounds legit? The mere fact that they have someone's **** sitting around on a shelf for that long should get that lab shut down.

Sorry Frigo & House, you are wrong again...
Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

The 132-page report said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity and there was no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

I read the Vrijman report. Did you?

Why is it important that he won 7 times and his best were 04 and 05? Does this show he wasn't doping? I don't follow the logic.

I wish people would stop bringing this one up. It's laughable for two reasons:

1. Lance won seven Tours, not just in 1999. And his best performances were in 04, 05
2. You are saying that 1999 urine tested in 2004 sounds legit? The mere fact that they have someone's **** sitting around on a shelf for that long should get that lab shut down.

Sorry Frigo & House, you are wrong again...
Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

The 132-page report said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity and there was no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances.

 

[Bro Deal]

1. Lance won seven Tours, not just in 1999. And his best performances were in 04, 05

So you would have us believe that he stopped doping after 1999? That's laughable. The UCI study on blood parameters shows a switch from EPO to blood transfusions in the latter part of Armstrong's career, so doping methods changed and we can assume the perofrmance benefits also changed.

2. You are saying that 1999 urine tested in 2004 sounds legit? The mere fact that they have someone's **** sitting around on a shelf for that long should get that lab shut down.

They were frozen.

Sorry Frigo & House, you are wrong again...
Vrijman said Wednesday his report "exonerates Lance Armstrong completely with respect to alleged use of doping in the 1999 Tour de France."

Vrijman is a lawyer who defends dopers, and if you had read the report you would know that Vrijman's definition of exoneration is that the athlete cannot be sanctioned. This was never a question. Without an A sample Armstrong could never be punished. The real question is why EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. Vrijman did not address this.

The 132-page report said no proper records were kept of the samples, there had been no "chain of custody" guaranteeing their integrity and there was no way of knowing whether the samples had been "spiked" with banned substances.

LNDD published its results in the peer reviewed publication Nature. Where did the UCI publish the results of its whitewash report? Maybe Scumbag Shysters Daily?

Vrijman clearly shows his bias by claiming that the samples might have been spiked. He presents zero evidence whatsoever to back up the allegation. Armstrong might have been anally probed by aliens. There's no evidence that he was, but should we assume that it might have happened? Even worse is that he has no explanation for how such a act might have been committed. The lab did not know which sample belonged to which athlete. It was more than a year later that l'Equipe was able to link the samples to Armstrong, and that required information released by the UCI with Armstrong's permission. The ridiculous claims of spiking fails the means, motive, and opportunity test. There was no opportunity because there was no knowledge of which samples to spike.

Armstrong had the opportunity to have the samples DNA tested to show they were not his. He refused. Again Vrijman fails to present any evidence that the samples were not Armstrong's or that any error caused the EPO positives.

The Vrijman report is a complete joke. It was nothing but an attempt by the UCI to sweep doping under the rug and attack WADA at the same time.

 

[jsull14]

Why is it important that he won 7 times and his best were 04 and 05? Does this show he wasn't doping? I don't follow the logic.

Umm, yes. It means he was not doping. That is the point. Sorry if I went too fast for you.

 

[jsull14]

So you would have us believe that he stopped doping after 1999? That's laughable. The UCI study on blood parameters shows a switch from EPO to blood transfusions in the latter part of Armstrong's career, so doping methods changed and we can assume the perofrmance benefits also changed.


They were frozen.


[/i] Vrijman is a lawyer who defends dopers, and if you had read the report you would know that Vrijman's definition of exoneration is that the athlete cannot be sanctioned. This was never a question. Without an A sample Armstrong could never be punished. The real question is why EPO was found in Armstrong's urine. Vrijman did not address this.


LNDD published its results in the peer reviewed publication Nature. Where did the UCI publish the results of its whitewash report? Maybe Scumbag Shysters Daily?

Vrijman clearly shows his bias by claiming that the samples might have been spiked. He presents zero evidence whatsoever to back up the allegation. Armstrong might have been anally probed by aliens. There's no evidence that he was, but should we assume that it might have happened? Even worse is that he has no explanation for how such a act might have been committed. The lab did not know which sample belonged to which athlete. It was more than a year later that l'Equipe was able to link the samples to Armstrong, and that required information released by the UCI with Armstrong's permission. The ridiculous claims of spiking fails the means, motive, and opportunity test. There was no opportunity because there was no knowledge of which samples to spike.

Armstrong had the opportunity to have the samples DNA tested to show they were not his. He refused. Again Vrijman fails to present any evidence that the samples were not Armstrong's or that any error caused the EPO positives.

The Vrijman report is a complete joke. It was nothing but an attempt by the UCI to sweep doping under the rug and attack WADA at the same time.

A first year law student could destroy 90 percent of what you just said. You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to see a conspiracy here. All of a sudden after Lance was winning 3,4,5 tours amidst heavy animosity with the French they test five year old urine and get a trace of EPO. Who believes this nonsense.

 

[Bro Deal]

A first year law student could destroy 90 percent of what you just said. You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to see a conspiracy here. All of a sudden after Lance was winning 3,4,5 tours amidst heavy animosity with the French they test five year old urine and get a trace of EPO. Who believes this nonsense.

Those of us with a brain who know the facts--unlike those who think the urine was just sitting on a shelf.

 

[Jono L]

Instead he has turned his back on the sport that made him rich and famous..

And you would blame him when every ******** with no girlfirend and an internet connection comes on line to pay him out?

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

A first year law student could destroy 90 percent of what you just said. You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to see a conspiracy here. All of a sudden after Lance was winning 3,4,5 tours amidst heavy animosity with the French they test five year old urine and get a trace of EPO. Who believes this nonsense.

Again, did you read the Vrijman report? It is only a fair question since you are claiming that it exonerates Armstrong with regard to his six EPO positives from 1999. If you call me wrong because of the report, it would only be fair if you read it. So, did you read it?

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

Umm, yes. It means he was not doping. That is the point. Sorry if I went too fast for you.

Its not how fast you went. I just think you missed a few logic steps in your conclusion. Please explain your position. I am really interested. If it makes sense, I will reconsider my position.

 

[Frigo's Luggage]

And you would blame him when every ******** with no girlfirend and an internet connection comes on line to pay him out?

I assume that you are calling me a ********. If so, why do you think I am a ********? Is it because I disagree with you?