Cycling Union Ignored Doping and Protected Lance Armstrong, Commission Finds

[Omaha Steve]

Source: NY Times

By IAN AUSTEN

For years, cycling’s top officials turned a blind eye to doping, operating in deference primarily to one rider — Lance Armstrong — according to a reform commission that spent the past year excavating the sport’s doping problems.

The three-member commission issued a scathing indictment of the sport’s officials Sunday, laying much of the blame on a governing body that, it said, had interests that ran counter to any genuine efforts to expose doping. The 227-page report detailed how Mr. Armstrong’s extraordinary influence had not only compelled officials to ignore drug use but had also enabled his lawyer to secretly write and edit the report of an earlier investigation into Mr. Armstrong’s doping practices.

The panel was appointed by the main target of its criticism, the International Cycling Union, commonly known as U.C.I., in January 2014 as part of an effort by its newly elected president to rebuild the sport after revelations of the sophisticated doping program of Armstrong and his team. In October 2012, the United States Anti-Doping Agency exposed Armstrong’s years of cheating in devastating breadth and detail.

“For a long time, the main focus of U.C.I. leadership was on the growth of the sport worldwide, and its priority was to protect the sport’s reputation; doping was perceived as a threat to this,” the report said, adding that “the emphasis of U.C.I.’s antidoping policy was, therefore, to give the impression that U.C.I. was tough on doping rather than actually being good at antidoping.”

FULL story at link.



Lance Armstrong, right, with Hein Verbruggen of the International Cycling Union in 2005. Credit Franck Fife/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/sports/cycling/cycling-union-ignored-doping-and-protected-lance-armstrong-commission-finds.html?_r=0

[wilt the stilt]

1. I'm Shocked

doping has been around a long time and anyone who thinks Lance was the only one is truly naive.

[peacebird]

2. But Lance elevated doping inthe team to extremes....

[wilt the stilt]

3. no he didn't

this is a sport that built a monument to Tommy Smith who died from taking amphetamines in 1967.

[peacebird]

4. Right, like speed is the equivilent of the drugs Lance was taking? LOL!

[wilt the stilt]

6. it was what was available at the time

If you think about it is exactly the same. It was the best drug you could find in 1967. All the baseball players took it also. They were called greenies. He was trying to gain an edge as all of the athletes were. What is different? please explain.

[RufusTFirefly]

7. The difference is the level of sophistication and deceit that Armstrong employed...

... in order to cheat. He wasn't simply violating the rules. He had developed a calculated, deeply fraudulent strategy to conceal these violations.

[wilt the stilt]

9. and what.makes you think all the people

who were taking drugs earlier weren't concealing in exactly the same way. Explain to me how Pantini or Urich were any different. You do know who Pantini is don't you?

You are speculating he was different than anyone else but it is pure speculation.

[smiley]

8. Lance Armstrong seemed to be a bully...

when it came to his doping. Watch the movie "Stop at Nothing". I always gave Armstrong the benefit of doubt, but after watching that movie, you can see that he elevated doping to a whole new level.

[wilt the stilt]

10. I think he was a bully

but doping has been in cycling for years and everyone was doing it. No different than steroids in baseball or football. If you were a real cyclist you would know this. I have been riding since the seventies.

[smiley]

15. never claimed I was a real cyclist

And I think that is beside the point.

Armstrong took it to new levels of coercion against his teammates and with greater deceit to the public and with a whole lot more money involved.

No one is claiming he's the first ever to dope.

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Armstrong was the hen that laid the golden eggs for them

“It reminds me of that old joke- you know, a guy walks into a psychiatrist's office and says, 'Hey doc, my brother's crazy! He thinks he's a chicken.' Then the doc says, 'Why don't you turn him in?' Then the guy says, 'I would but I need the eggs.'" -- Woody Allen

They knew he was doping. But they needed the eggs.

[SoapBox]

11. Protecting a doping athlete?

Baseball? Football?

Not to mention protecting misc. assorted creeps that are police, fire, etc. as the list goes on and on.

THAT is an aspect that infuriates me about these unions.

[uhnope]

12. Armstrong will go down in history as one of the greats

the great con artists, charlatans, and manipulative assholes

[peacebird]

16. Exactly.

[Joe Johns]

13. Rakin' in the dough

Priority 1

[the_sly_pig]

14. How many eyes were turned blind?

No doubt Lance made millions. He's also the only one to have his wins vacated. Miguel Indurain, Bjarne Riis, Jan Ullrich and Marco Pantani (RIP) also were dopers in my mind. Lance's team mates were also doping. The entire pelaton was doping. When Greg Lemond complained about doping back in the late 80's he was made a pariah.

To say the the UCI only focused to protect Lance is complete BS. They acted to protect the sport that made great strides in popularity especially in the United States. I defended Lance until the bitter end. He disappointed me greatly. But to say his team mates didn't benefit from his celebrity is flat out wrong. Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, George Hincapie were all along for the 'ride'. Hincapie even came darn close to winning Paris-Roubaix in that era.

This finding is all about the money. Nothing more.

[mpcamb]

17. It would be interesting to have a longevity study on pro bikers...

I'm thinking of the sad outcomes of East German women athletes of the 70s and 80s.

I have an idea that, like other studies that shed light on ugly issues, you'd have some difficulty getting funded.