[zoombiee]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Does applying something like waxpol hard wax to crome parts of a bicycle (spokes,hub, etc) with help during monsoons?
In general, does it make sense to apply wax to a bicycle?

I havent heard of any one doing this so far. Spokes/Hub are generally not made of steel/iron and generally do not get rusted. Also, ridiing when it is raining is not so common. But technically, you could wax it.

[WindRide]

OT - "USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles"

USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles - Yahoo! Sports

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by WindRide

OT - "USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles"

USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour titles - Yahoo! Sports

They are doing this based on someone's comment that he was using drugs? (although a colleagues)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sp...7BB47F6F1DFB6C

Very Sad (adding the NY times article, looks like the whole process was not without doubt)

[WindRide]

If one reads how Michele Ferrari (Armstrong's team doctor) carried out his doping activities, doubts do arise as to how Armstrong managed to hold his own against a field of hyper-doped competitors.
Mr.Ferrari seems to have been a master at finding loopholes in doping tests.

[kumar2007]

Originally Posted by srishiva

They are doing this based on someone's comment that he was using drugs? (although a colleagues)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sp...7BB47F6F1DFB6C

Very Sad (adding the NY times article, looks like the whole process was not without doubt)

Nope, they did this based on his refusal to refute the allegations. He is very obviously guilty. There is no doubt about that.

This is in fact in many ways a very good thing for pro cycling. It tells the pros that they can be taken down no matter how big they are, if caught cheating.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by kumar2007

Nope, they did this based on his refusal to refute the allegations. He is very obviously guilty. There is no doubt about that.

Sorry, but how is he very obviously guilty? I read that he is one of the most tested competitors in cycling due to his consistency. He has also not been accused by any other body other than the USADA.

Apologies if this is going off topic

[kumar2007]

Because if he were innocent he would have fought the charges. He has a lot more to lose by fighting and losing. This way, lots of his fans will presume that he is innocent.

Edit: Actually support for Livestrong went up hugely after this was announced. Sympathy factor and all. Very smart dude Armstong is. Phenomenal cyclist but with very shady practices, including his 'charity' organization.

Testing is very controversial, and with knowledge, and money you can get away by knowing dosage and timings etc.

[kumar2007]

Just came across this

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/repo...strong-samples

[MileCruncher]

Guys, can we stick to cycling please!

And as regards to the cyclingnews article, please remember that the Europeans don't like Armstrong one bit. Top level pro cycling has always been dominated by the Europeans like starting from Eddie Merckx to the present gen Alberto Contador, Fabian Cancellara, Bradley Wiggins, Mark Cavendish et al. Armstrong through his consecutive 7 TDF titles wiped out a whole generation of cyclists who didn't get a chance at the top slot. Want to understand more about the animosity, check out http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/ and Rule#4 especially the picture of twatwaffle .

[WindRide]

Its impossible to win 7 tours in a row, against a field of juiced up competitors, without you being juiced up yourself. Why is everybody finding that logic so difficult to assimilate?!!!!

Like Carl Lewis, LA had the resources to avoid getting caught. He is an American after all guys, not a poor Canadian (read Ben Johnson) ;-)
But unlike King Carl, why LA is being thrown to the wolves now by his masters ....hmm.. beats me.

[kumar2007]

Originally Posted by MileCruncher

Guys, can we stick to cycling please!

And as regards to the cyclingnews article, please remember that the Europeans don't like Armstrong one bit. Top level pro cycling has always been dominated by the Europeans like starting from Eddie Merckx to the present gen Alberto Contador, Fabian Cancellara, Bradley Wiggins, Mark Cavendish et al. Armstrong through his consecutive 7 TDF titles wiped out a whole generation of cyclists who didn't get a chance at the top slot. Want to understand more about the animosity, check out http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/ and Rule#4 especially the picture of twatwaffle .

Lance is not about cycling?

The velominati is to be taken in a lighter vein, please.

Here is another extremely informative article, which should be a 'must read' before passing judgement on the USADA. It answers each issue point by point.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ughts-and.html

Funnily you say that Europeans don't like Armstrong one bit, but the UCI has not been in complete support of USADA.

The UCI could choose to appeal to the court of arbitration for sport in Switzerland against the Usada ruling, or to gain jurisdiction over the case.

But for now it has chosen to wait for Usada to provide a required communication explaining its actions before making further comment.

A statement read: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that Usada has brought against him.

"The UCI recognises that Usada is reported as saying that it will strip Mr Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

"Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, Wada and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

"Until such time as Usada delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."

Armstrong himself believes the Usada did not have the jurisdiction to bring charges against him, let alone hand down sanctions.

Above is from here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...-armstrong-uci

[zoombiee]

A large number of his own team mates have spoken up about his alleged doping. Floyd Landis retracted his statement for whatever reason and Tyler Hamilton has gone ahead and put it in his books. When Greg Le Mond tried to make noise, Trek promptly threatened to not market Le Mond bikes. There has to be fire, where there is so much smoke.
Also, Greg LeMond an American won TDF 3 times way before Armstrong did. Europeans never hated or complained against him.

[WindRide]

LA cheated, plain and simple. He cheated during the days the detection methods lagged behind doping methods.

There is only so much one can stretch the human body. Beyond that, medical "assistance" is required to keep pushing ahead. Steroids enables the athlete to train harder and recover faster.

Ofcourse the argument goes - if everybody is juiced at the starting grid, its level playing field. So ya, LA was the best of the dope junkies.

[kumar2007]

Originally Posted by WindRide

Ofcourse the argument goes - if everybody is juiced at the starting grid, its level playing field. So ya, LA was the best of the dope junkies.

Wrong. The below quote is from the link I posted above.

3. "If Lance doped, it doesn't matter - everyone else was doping too, so it was a level playing field"

This is another common defence, and it leads to all kinds of bizarre justifications of Armstrong's success and why he should be left alone. It's also frustratingly wrong, for three reasons.

First, remember that doping was illegal, which means that even though everyone may have been doing it, they were doing it with the pressure of a legal system on them. That means that some will have been brazen enough to try more than others. You are not seeing a level playing field because not every athlete is willing to risk as much given that there are penalties for cheating. And while the testing may have been grossly inadequate, as I explained above, it still forced athletes to take risks and spend more money to get away with doping. Therefore, the results of the race were strongly influenced by who was most successful at doing the illegal thing, who wanted to take the most risk, and who had the best systems to help them get away with the illegal action. That in turn is a function of money and power, but nowhere in this does being the best cyclist factor in. And yes, the playing field is never even, but when money, power and an appetite for illegal behavior affect results more than physiology and training, there's a problem.

Secondly, there is no doubt at all that drugs affect people differently. You and I may take two aspirin for a headache. Mine gets worse, you fall asleep 30 minutes later. Individual differences mean that you cannot assume, even if everyone dopes the same (which they don't - see previous point), that the race is equal.

And third, it's irrelevant anyway. I'm baffled by this pseudo-justification of Armstrong's doping because other guys were doping too. They should be viewed as parallel cases, that have cross-threads linking them (they're all in the same race, for example), but how does Ullrich's doping make Armstrong's or Basso's any less wrong? Surely the moral compass that is the foundation of all sport requires that everyone obey the rules that they have accepted in the first place?

If every single investment banker on Wall Street was dishonest and committing fraud, does that mean that none are in the wrong? Are Madoff and Stanford less guilty because fraud is widespread? If a student cheats on an exam to get into University, is that condoned as long as he's not the only one cheating?

Related to this is the idea that Armstrong's titles should be left alone because those who he beat have also been convicted of doping. As this graphic illustrates, the list of dopers in the Top 10 of the Tour de France is long, and if Armstrong is not the champion, who is? Ullrich, Zulle, Basso, Vinokourov, Rumsas are names on the podium with Armstrong. It would be laughable to take Armstrong's titles away and award them to a known doper.

But this is not a reason to do something. Perhaps the best action is to either leave the winner of those Tours blank, with the statement "No official winner due to doping controversies", or keep the names of the winners with a giant asterisk that acknowledges their place as champions of what was actually just a giant pharmacological experiment.

To defend Armstrong on this basis is symptomatic of the mindset that pushed cycling into this situation in the first place - cheating was condoned on the basis that it was a "necessary evil", "just to keep up". And believe me, I'm sympathetic to the plight of cyclists who face this decision. David Millar faced it. Jonathan Vaughters faced it, and both have written of the conflict they faced. Not everyone gives in. I dare say I'm grateful I didn't have to make such a decision, because I don't know that I would've resisted.

That confession out the way, my point is that we know others doped too. Many have been caught. To allow an athlete to get away with it for that reason is just not good enough. If there is a rule, then it must be enforced as many times as is necessary.

[WindRide]

^ True. My comment was made in jest so not to be taken seriously.

But i find USADA digging up old samples and re-testing them, as setting dangerous precedent. Now, Mr. Ben Johnson has every reason to stop saying "why only me?" and instead give a call to USADA and request them to dig out Carl's 1988 Seoul-origin pee pee sample and have it re-rested. The minor irritant being, the 1988 records would need to be re-written and the 100m Gold would have to be given to the fellow who came in sixth in that race. Every one who finished ahead of him were juiced to the brim, it seems.

But iam going seriously OT here.