I think it has unquestionably improved now. Sky are very vocal in their anti-doping stance and so are Garmin, amongst others. I suppose you could say that so was Armstrong, but I genuinely believe the culture has changed.

I was one of those with my head in the sand about Armstrong, for some reason I thought it possible that he was innocent, but there's absolutely no doubt that he was involved now. He had the chance to redeem a semblance of credibility by co-operating with the investigations, like his former teammates have, but he refused, and that about sums him up I'm afraid.

There's every chance that if every rider in the peloton back then were clean, that he would still have been the strongest, but sadly we'll never know. It was impossible to compete without doping.

All in all I think this is actually a good day for cycling in the long term. Plenty are now following the example of David Millar and admitting past misdemeanours, and hopefully, as in the case of Millar, will be pro-active in ensuring that the sport stays as clean as possible. Riders are no longer afraid to speak out against doping, and the dopers are now in the minority, not the majority, as it previously was. That riders, such as Millar, Cavendish and Wiggins are consistently competing, winning races and placing highly suggests that cycling is as clean as it has ever been and the new wave of cycling fans that the sport has acquired over the summer can have some faith in it.

I knew about doping in cycling as far back as the mid 80s when I first started following pro races, the organisers/UCI certainly weren't bothered about it then despite all that had gone before (cyclists taking stimulants/doping goes back at least to the early 20th Century)
That Armstrong was beating quite convincingly other dopers just underlined how effective his doping was compared to others.

Shame we can't retrospectively remove dopers records/achievements from other sports such as athletics..

Without getting all scientific, it does have more effect on some than others. Plus, we'll never know if Armstrong was the strongest athlete without the doping.

The defence from his lawyer on SSN is quality.

We know why it's taken USADA so long to publish: 1000 pages!
It's the testimony from George Hincapie that's most damning. Where Landis and Hamilton could almost be laughed off after their own denials were found to be the rubbish that they were, Hincapie was Armstrong's lieutenant, a loyal, unswerving servant to the cause.


Testing is better now than ever so I believe it's harder to cheat and get away with it. There's a growing culture of openness lead by Slipstream and later taken up by Sky. The times for stages over routes that are well known are down on the peaks around the late '90s/early 2000s which has to mean something.
Has it recovered? Possibly not. You talk to people about the grand tours and you'll still hear "they're all on drugs anyway" come back. I think the successes British riders have had is beginning to change that as people are less willing to believe ill of their own, but there's a hell of a long way to go.
As for the rise in British success - that's a very interesting question. It may be a factor, but the way the whole thing has become a professional operation from talent identification through to the training of the elite is more important. It used to be so haphazard that anyone British even getting close to success was a happy accident, an anomaly. Now it's expected because of the processes that have been put in place.

This morning I watched the video where Armstrong verbally attacked Paul Kimmage in the press conference before the Tour of California.

Two weeks ago I read 'The Secret Race' and felt anger deep down towards the way that Armstrong chased down that attack in the Tdf (can't remember the name of the rider) who had the audacity to talk about struggling being a clean rider in a dirty peloton. The imaginary zip he ran across his mouth when he overtook him said it all.

I'm currently reading 'Lance to Landis' and you just can't hide the fact that Lance Armstrong is a product of the system he was introduced into. US Cycling were doping - he came into the system and knew nothing else. Add into this the fact that he is an arrogant man (Texan) and we have the nasty kind of bile we've seen from him over the years.

I've still to read the whole USADA report (I intend to) but I've seen a few snippets from it. He appears to have threatened/bullied just about every one of the witnesses (and wives).

I had already made my decision about Lance Armstrong. I'd say the last few weeks I've gone from having sympathy for him (he knew no other way), to pity (deep down he probably wants to come clean) to utter hatred (I want to see the man publicly humiliated).

Going back to my first point - why did Armstrong lay into Paul Kimmage? He said that Lance was 'the cancer in the sport'. I don't know if I'd have put it that strongly but he was definitely one of the symptoms.

The Future

Cycling is cleaner now than it has ever been. This is the hope I hold on to. Mind you, I remember this being said after Festina before Lance arrived back and re started the arms race.

What has to happen for me is a period of truth and reconciliation. All riders who have doped should come forward and admit to their sins. If they do then they should be subject to the same 6 month bans.

Anyone who does not come forward and admit their past or gets popped for doping from the start of next year should receive a life ban. That stands for staff members on teams too (are you listening Sean Yates?).

As for the UCI - it needs stripping down and re starting again. I want Uncle Pat out, Hein Verbruggen gone. The 28 people (out of 32) in the congress who voted against a 'truth and reconciliation' period gone for good.

I don't want a UCI that tests someone’s sample and then checks to see who it is before reporting it to WADA and the rider. I don't want a UCI who accepts 'bribes' from Lance Armstrong. I don't want a UCI that has quiet words with Alberto Contador saying 'it will all be alright - don't worry'. I don't want a UCI who chooses to take Floyd Landis to court while pushing USADA to produce the Armstrong evidence far more quickly.

Probably because Kimmage was the only person pursuing him and the problem of widespread doping in the sport. Also, using the term 'cancer' in relation to Armstrong was always going to get his back up - I reckon Kimmage used it deliberately in order to crack Armstrong open a little bit, force a little bit of that personality to leak out, but that's purely my speculation.


I don't want a UCI that is suing Kimmage personally for things he's written. If there is a problem, you sue the publishers, not the author. It smacks of vindictiveness and bullying.
A truth commission is the only way to draw a line under this. If the sport is ever to shed the image completely, it has to happen.

Agreed around Paul Kimmage. I'd already donated to his fighting fund but I'm going back to give some more. This is our opportunity for change.

Cycling truly is currently one of the most fascinating sports for all the wrong reasons.

Christophe Bassons?

That's the chap. He was on the Festina team in 1998. His popped team mates made a point of stating he was clean.

Bassons wrote an article for a newspaper stating how the peloton were surprised by Armstrong since his return.

The more I think of Armstrong and his behaviour the more I want the man ruined.

The first two posts on this thread are quite interesting. (Not having a go, Stu.)

Found this an excellent article... www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... acked.html Will Fotheringham mentions Bassons: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... heat-bully and he is also included here -> www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... al-service

Found this an excellent article... www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/others ... acked.html Will Fotheringham mentions Bassons: www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... heat-bully and he is also included here -> www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... al-service

While Prudhomme prefers marking 1999-2005 as not having a winner - possibly sensibly - here's an [url=http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/really-won-tours-lance-153516263.htmlinteresting exercise[/url in examining who really won those Tours.

I don't know where I am with cycling right now. Let me summarise where I was a few months ago.

I've loved the sport for a long time. Fell out of love with it in the mid 90's and the Lance Armstrong years because of the doping that was going on. I fell back in love with it when I bought a road bike again 6 years ago and I'm once again a fully fledged cycling nut. I believed that cycling was a lot cleaner than it had ever been and that the authorities were doing as much as they can to stop cheating......

Where am I now?

The USADA evidence backs up my thoughts and feelings towards the decade where I gave up on cycling. Doping programmes organised by teams where they were pretty much 'all at it'.

But these people who doped are still involved in our sport. Some are still racing. What I'm most scared about though is the young cyclists coming into a system where the DS's, Team Managers and Soigneurs have doped in their past. Some of them have been honest and come clean. Some of them have been honest and not accepted any fault. Some of them still deny the fact they doped even when they were caught. Some of them got lucky and have not been caught.......yet.

But all of them are in charge of young riders desperate to make it into the big time. Some of them will be lucky enough to sign for Garmin and have Vaughters. Some of them will be unlucky to sign for Saxo/Astana etc etc. I've lost all respect for Riis who claimed to have come clean in his book but it is now clear he only told us half truths.

Even Sky have not come out of this smelling or roses. Sean Yates must go, the Leinders affair showed how impossible it is to be a 100% no doping history team.

I fear that we are believing the riders too much who are claiming to be clean now. I'm disgusted by how few of them have come out and said 'The USADA stuff is all in the past, nothing to do with me' instead of saying 'We must drive doping out of this sport'.

I'm disgusted by the UCI who police and promote our sport and appear to have made judgements based on someones star rating as to whether they get popped for a positive.

Where do I want to be?

I want to believe that we have a sport that is clean. I'm not too daft to know that it will never be 100% clean. There will always be someone prepared to cheat and I believe other sports have just as much to hide (in some cases a hell of a lot more - including rugby league).

I need the current crop to spit on the memory of cyclists of the past. They were all at it in once way or another but the last few decades have been particularly dirty. Instead they insist on paying homage to the past champions and that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. To me it sounds like the chat of someone who knows that they themselves are taking undetectable 'advantages'.

Cycling needs root and branch reform. My preferred option would be life bans for anyone caught/admitting/being complicit in doping. That includes riding, managing, massaging, bike mechanics, bus/car drivers, helpers, UCI officials, UCI Presidents etc etc. EVERYONE!

However I fear that will be impossible.

Perhaps I just need to start hearing the majority of the peloton talking down the achievements of the riders of the past. Perhaps I just need to see some strong management from the UCI and maybe them admitting to their mistakes and corruption. Perhaps I need to see Teams not appointing unrepentent dopers into Team Manager positions.

Perhaps I'm about to fall out of love with cycling again. Perhaps I'm just getting caught up in the media frenzy and questionning too much?

But if I'm questionning where I am right now then I'm sure other far more important people than me are. The sponsors must be asking questions about whether they have been lied to. We could see a big downturn in cycling after a few years of it being on the rise.

Just on my employer's TV sports news channel that Armstrong has stepped down as chairman of Livestrong.

And now Nike have withdrawn his sponsorship contract

The saddest thing about all this is that Armstrong is never likely to have the bottle to come clean. Thankfully though it has got past the point where him and his lawyers can bully people into submission, and finally he's being backed into a corner.

I've gone from a position of supporting him not too long back, to wanting to see his world fall apart. Let's hope all the organisations he fraudulently sued and claimed bonuses from can take him through the courts and give him a taste of his own "medicine".

Big test for Sky with Rogers named as a client of the omnipresent Dr Ferrari and Sean Yates's association with Armstrong. Beginning to think their 'zero-tolerance' policy is less productive than Garmin's one of openness

[url=http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/tuning-into-radio-millarMillar[/url

Cav gone to OPQS

On the cards really given Sky's real targets.
Did Cav have to buy himself out or did they pay the compensation for him, haven't checked the news yet?

Rabobank: gone

Seems to have been released free.

Re Rabobank. With Leontien.nl going as well, that's the two strongest womens teams no longer in the peloton.