YMCA

Since when is the USPS not allowed to advertise?
I'd say they sure got a huge bang for their buck.

zero85ZEN

Only a decade of doping?

How about a century plus?

Two decades of O2 vector doping that COMPLETELY skewed the results.

Shimagnolo

There was an article in one of the Denver papers a few years ago about USPS hiring a consulting firm to examine the sponsorship of the USPS team. The conclusion was that USPS got $110M worth of advertising out of it. Color me skeptical, since I have never considered cycling sponsorship when I'm shipping a package. I've never been able to find this article online.

Cog_wild

you missed a couple of my points there prelaw. I realize cycling is an Olympic sport, and Vino, a convicted doper pro cyclist, won Gold. Good for him, what a swansong, really it was a great move to cover that last attack and I know Phinney is still kicking himself. Anyway, point is that Hockey is an Olympic sport, but are there investigations into Hockey's "insidious drug ring" by the USADA? Soccer is an Olympic sport, Tennis, Swimming, Basketball, Judo, etc. How much effort has been made to test these athletes? well we don't hear about it and I would argue that in the public's eye, these are all clean sports. Jurisdictional lines get stretched and yes, I realize there is a good argument to investigate any Olympic sport (even if the majority of its athletes are competing in a professional league) anywhere at any time in order to protect the integrity of competition during the Olympics (which I would argue is the real intent based on the mission statement of the USADA.) The overall point is that bc of LA and all the people he ticked off and left behind in his quest to dominate the sport and amass wealth, cycling is now stained as playing host to the "biggest doping ring in the history of professional sports". Sorry, but that pisses me off. I don't believe that cycling is the only sport infected with extremely advanced ways and prohibited ways of maximizing human performance, far from it. Not to mention, with elaborate schemes for beating the tests.

As far as MLB goes, hell that is an American Institution. If I was a powerful and very rich businessman who owned a ball club, I'd have sicked my congressman on the big shot cheaters across the way too if they had an unfair advantage. It's a slippery slope bc you don't want to tarnish the image too much, but Cycling is fairer game. Most of the big races are in Europe anyway. Perhaps Lance made some enemies in Washington, or didn't do enough to keep powerful friends. I'm joking, sort of. Then there is the issue of the UCI's competency and positive test results that just went away.

whatever, all a bunch of drama, looking forward to riding this weekend. sorry, not a troll, still pissed that Cycling is getting all this negative attention and as I said, hopeful that Cycling might emerge as the one clean professional sport.

btw, you're confusing professional athlete with professional sport. professional Cycling is NOT an Olympic sport. Just Olympic cycling, Get it? Yes, professional cyclists do compete in the Olympic sport of cycling. whew, glad we hashed that out.

Bruzer

I have been reading about the Lance Armstrong news and all these cyclists who admitted doping and implicated Lance.

BEFORE the 2012 Tour de France a Dutch news organization broke a story that many cyclists (Levi L., George H., Dave Z., Johnathan V., etc) testified against Lance and would receive a shorter sentence. Now we know these people did testify against Lance. I presume this was at the same time that they admitted to doping themselves.

My question is: When exactly did these riders admit to doping? If it was BEFORE the 2012 Tour de France as the Dutch news organization claims. Why were they allowed to ride after admitting to doping? Why didn't their reduced sentence start at that time?

Does anyone have links to the original Dutch report or dates on testimony?

Bruzer

I hate to reply to my own thread but I was able to find some news articles after I posted. One report was dated July 5 2012.

https://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...ycling-figures

So now my question is: Why were these cyclists allowed to compete in the 2012 tour? Why or who suspended their sentences until AFTER the 2012 tour?

tuxbailey

https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-...mstrongs-tours

islandboy

I guess no one would care if the headlines read "UCI Doping Scandal". Still making money off his name.

jeffpoulin

Dropping the lawsuit against Kimmage is a good thing.

Homebrew01

Ibtm

himespau 

Prosecutors make all sorts of deals in exchange for testimony. It wouldn't be the first or the last time.

mprelaw

Because none of them gave their affidavits to USADA before this year's Tour. They had previosuly testified before a Federal grand jury, but the US Attorney's office did not give transcripts of their testimony to USADA. USADA was aware of the fact of their testimony, and probably had a rough idea of their admissions, but without the details. Remember that USADA was preparing for a full blown arbitration hearing, where they would have to offer in-person testimony. When Armstrong decided in late August not to proceed to arbitration they then had to assemble the affidavits. Most didn't give their affidavits until September and early October.

mprelaw

USADA has pages of athletes from every sport who have been disciplined for doping violations, or for non-compliance with doping controls. Just go their website.

Any professional athlete who wishes to compete in the Olympics must adhere to the WADA anti-doping code, and they are subject to investigation and discipline from WADA's American affiliate, USADA. Every North American professional sport has doping controls in place. Players are tested in that dynamic. There's nothing for USADA to "investigate". Any NHL or NBA player, as both leagues contribute heavily to Olympic rosters, is subject to USADA and can be suspended by USADA from international competition. The same applies to MLB and soccer players, who wish to compete in the Olympics or world championships, and I'm sure that FIFA has their own doping controls in place. Few if any NFL players compete in the Olympics. If an American pro is tested by his league, and tests positive for a banned substance, USADA can suspend him from any international competition for the appropriate period. Individual leagues discipline their players from in-league competition, and USADA can follow that up with a ban from international competition. In individual sports, there is no league umbrella to suspend. So USADA steps in there and bans people from individual events that are sanctioned by the governing bodies of those sports. In fact, a pro athlete who tests positive or is in non-compliance with his controls can also be suspended by USADA from an individual sport that he or she might wish to compete in.

Armstrong is not only banned from cycling. He's banned from any athletic event that is sanctioned by a governing body that is subject to WADA's anti-doping code. Including triathalons sanctioned by that sport's governing body, and most major running races.

bikerjp

I suspect it's far more likely that they simply made a deal. Tell us what you know and agree to testify and we will not release anything until after the end of the season and your suspension will only 6mos and off season. Or something to that effect.

bikepro

What got dropped off the web article -- they more importantly discussed what to do with the money that Lance returns. They seem to favor replacing the capeting in the front office and repainting the walls -- using the same off-white they'll be using to white-wash the entire Lance affair.

mprelaw

Armstrong was offered the same deal. 6 months suspension, and loss of results within the 8 year statute of limitations. He would have kept his 5 TdF wins from 1999-2003, as well as his bronze medal from 2000.

From what I gather, a 6 month suspension is usually what you get for a first violation.

You know, the guys who gave affidavits aren't getting off scot-free. They are all losing results from within the past 8 years. Leipheimer, especially, is losing some significant results and will likely have to repay all that prize money. Plus he's currently without a ride for next year.

Unfortunately, I don't think that anyone is in a position of declaring that Hincapie didn't start and finish the 8 TdFs he rode in during the last 8 years, so he gets to say he started and finished more than anyone else. Certainly no money involved---it's like the participation trophy you get in Little League.

Rowan

The UCI has told Armstrong to return the prizemoney:

https://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sp...-1226504328991

The UCI management committee said:

"The committee also called on Armstrong and all other 'affected' riders to return the prize money they had received.''

Shimagnolo

If LA returns the prize money, then will UCI return the $125K LA gave to them?

SamDaBikinMan

Regardless, Lance still won. He was the best doper AND fastest rider.

oldbobcat

I thought he was framed by Hillary Clinton.

1998 was a pivotal and ironic year. Most of us remember it for the Festina affair, which was supposed to bring about reforms in getting the dope out of professional cycling. It's also the year Lance Armstrong arrived at USPS, saw all the ad-hoc personal doping going on, and announced to the effect of, we're going to stop putzing around and do this thing right because I'm back to win.

To be fair, the other teams continued to ramp up their doping programs, too, but the program at USPS was just as significant and scandalous as Festina's.