Lance Armstrong again....

[Neil]

Have to say haven't followed much of this, beyond the headlines posted in here.

Reading his twitter posting (naturally) makes you inclined to side with him at least in what he's being accused of.

Problem for him, is that for many, he's the guy they love to hate.

What I would agree with him on, though, is that there should be no official sanction, or punishment, without some physical testing samples, or proof of breach of testing rules reported BITD.

 

[ringo]

Regardless of anything else...

He never failed a drugs test... he may have operated up to and over the accepted boundaries, but this was never proven...

Let it lie, I say, everyone knows Cycling was a pretty grubby sport in this period, hopefully it is in a better place now.

Is Formula One ringing it's hands retrospectively over Schumachers first title - hidden launch control programmes on his car (illegal), removal of safety features in refuelling rigs to boost fuel flow to the car (illegal), team ran by a bloke who was subsequently thrown out of the sport for cheating...


I think not...

Plus, presumably the Lance Armstrong foundation does a lot of good for a lot of people... why throw all that on the scrap heap?

 

[Neil]

Is Formula One ringing it's hands retrospectively over Schumachers first title - hidden launch control programmes on his car (illegal), removal of safety features in refuelling rigs to boost fuel flow to the car (illegal), team ran by a bloke who was subsequently thrown out of the sport for cheating...


I think not...

Nor was it back in the day. Whilst I think Adelaide 94 (and Jerez 97, and Monaco 06) were very low moments for Schumacher, Adelaide 94 wouldn't have been realised that way at the time...

Schumacher won the world championship in 94, not because of any technical infringements by the team with the car's software, fuelling rig, or plank - but because he was comprehensively the best driver / car package that year - and this is from somebody who at the latter part of that season wanted Hill to win it, and was outraged with Adelaide 94.

Despite all of that, I'm convinced the championship went to the best driver / car combination that year, although I find what he did at that corner in Adelaide, repugnant.

Plus, presumably the Lance Armstrong foundation does a lot of good for a lot of people... why throw all that on the scrap heap?

Not sure I'm following why it would be thrown on the scrap heap, though?

All the same, I agree with the thrust of what you're saying - if there's proper physical evidence, then maybe it's a case that has to be answered, but if all there is is compromised testimony, then they need to learn when to let it lie, because it does appear like a witch-hunt.

 

[ringo]

Not sure I'm following why it would be thrown on the scrap heap, though?

Well, in my local JJB sports there are a few rails of Live Stronger merchandise... can see that in the bargain bucket if this goes much further... Live stronger is a bad slogan for a drugs assisted athlete!

Also if Schumacher was the fastest car/driver package in 94, why did they feel the need to cheat?
:?

 

[retrocomeback]

The word of proven cheats with no tangible evidence, or that of a clean tested multi tour winner? I know who I believe! USADA are only dragging the sport they proclaim to protect back into the mud once again

 

[Neil]

Not sure I'm following why it would be thrown on the scrap heap, though?

Well, in my local JJB sports there are a few rails of Live Stronger merchandise... can see that in the bargain bucket if this goes much further... Live stronger is a bad slogan for a drugs assisted athlete!

Well maybe the merchandise may be devalued and reputation may suffer if Armstrong is continually pilloried - but all the same, it's a charity foundation, isn't it? As long as they have some means of gathering revenue, they should still be able to do good work.

Also if Schumacher was the fastest car/driver package in 94, why did they feel the need to cheat?
:?

I reckon most of the teams would do up to and a bit beyond as one of their main modus operandi, as and when they can.

All I'm saying is that none of the factors we know to be, well, dubious about the Benetton car in 94, look to have granted sufficient advantage for him to dominate in the way he did.

At least the fuel rig thing, I seem to recall there's some mitigation in there being some discussion with the FIA / Charlie, before the FIAsco (see what I did there?). Verstappen (it was Verstappen, wasn't it?) just getting a bit toasty, is, well, just a bit inconvenient...

Launch control, if it was used, would explain good starts... hmm... but not Schumacher completely out-driving Hill all year (except, curiously, when it really mattered, in the Adelaide race), such that even after being banned for 3 races, Schumacher was still ahead on points.

 

[ringo]

Realise we are heading off topic... but...

Schumacher out drove Hill at Suzuka then...?

Did you see his start from third on the grid in that years French Grand Prix... Williams locked out the front row (with a returning Mansell on Pole). Schumacher was between them and gone before the Williams had barely started moving!

Lets just agree he was a snidy cheat!

 

[Neil]

Realise we are heading off topic... but...

Schumacher out drove Hill at Suzuka then...?

No - Suzuka that year was the rain soaked race, broken up by red flag, with times on aggregate at the end?

If it's the race I'm thinking of, then no - Schumacher didn't out-drive Hill in that race, Hill drove brilliantly, if distant memory serves me. But then wasn't 94 the year when Schumacher did most of Monaco stuck in 5th, and was 2nd - or at least on the podium?

As a generalism, Schumacher did out-drive Hill, both in 94 and 95, clearly there might be the odd exception. Hill was much better in the race in Adelaide, than Schumacher, too - Schumacher largely cracked under the pressure - Hill was composed, smooth, and way faster than Schumacher.

Did you see his start from third on the grid in that years French Grand Prix... Williams locked out the front row (with a returning Mansell on Pole). Schumacher was between them and gone before the Williams had barely started moving!

Lets just agree he was a snidy cheat!

Thing is, though, we can question his championship that year - and in my mind, that corner in Adelaide is the most damning - but all the same, Schumacher completely out-drove Hill all through 94, and 95 - and in 95 the Benetton had the same engine as the Williams.

 

[rienster]

Back to being a bike forum: I think he did it.

But I'll add that so did at leats the next 10 guys behind him (but that doesn't make it ok).

 

[t-stoff]

I don't know if he did, but the thing is, if he is in fact the most tested athlete in history without positive confirmation, I think he should be left alone.

On the other hand I reckon that most of our past heroes did stuff that would be totally unacceptable today, methods, training, drugs, even the way they faced sport (team pressure included), so as everything in our life's, things change! Talking about F1, remember Enzo and his attitude?

Witch hunting is just trying to force today's pattern on past. I hate it.
You see that everywhere, Churchill's airbrushed cigar is an example.

We should focus on enforcing standards for today and future of the sport not changing history.