Tour chaos

[Richard (Apples)]

Lance Armstrong Wins Preliminary Ruling in British Libel Case
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France champion, won a preliminary ruling supporting his libel claim against a U.K. newspaper over a story alleging he had used performance-enhancing drugs.

The High Court in London today ruled that a reader of the article in the Sunday Times would have thought it meant that Armstrong had actually taken drugs. Armstrong is suing the newspaper over its 2004 review of ``LA Confidential, The Secrets of Lance Armstrong,'' a book by two European sports journalists.

``I always said that the article falsely alleged that I was guilty of doping,'' Armstrong said in a statement released by his lawyers. ``The article was based on untrue allegations, which are without substance.''

Armstrong, has repeatedly denied taking blood boosters such as EPO or any other performance-enhancing drugs. He was cleared last month by independent investigators of taking of banned substances at his first Tour victory in 1999.

Last week, Armstrong denied allegations published in France's Le Monde newspaper that he once admitted taking drugs to a doctor treating him for testicular cancer in 1996.

[Richard (Apples)]

At the start of the 1967 Tour de France, Simpson was optimistic that he could make an impact on the event. After the first week he was sixth overall, but a stomach bug began to affect his form, and he lost vital time in a stage including the Col du Galibier. In Marseille, at the start of stage 13 on Thursday 13 July, he was still suffering the effects as the race headed into Provence on a blisteringly hot day, and was seen to consume brandy during the early parts of the stage. In those years, tour organisers limited each rider to only four bottles (bidons) of water, circa 2 litres - the effects of dehydration then being poorly understood. During races, riders often raided roadside bars and cafes for drinks, and filled their bottles from fountains.

On the day's main climb, Mont Ventoux, Simpson broke away early, but was soon passed by the eventual stage winner, Julio Jiminez, and four others. About two kilometres from the summit, Simpson began to zig-zag erratically across the road, eventually falling against an embankment. While his team car helpers wanted him to retire from the race, Simpson insisted on being put back on his cycle and he continued for another 500m or so before again beginning to falter; he toppled unconscious into the arms of his helpers, still gripping his handlebars. Despite mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and the administration of oxygen, plus a helicopter airlift to a nearby hospital, Simpson died. Two tubes of amphetamines and a further empty tube were found in the rear pocket of his racing jersey.

On the next day, the other riders were reluctant to continue racing so soon after Simpson's death and asked the organisers for a postponement. In the end, they agreed to ride but with the condition that they would allow a British rider to win the stage. This honour went to Barry Hoban.

[Andrew G]

I find the whole thing rather sad. I know there will always be cheats but I like to believe in the stars of sport. If all of this is true then it seems half the pro tour peleton is blood doping which begs the question why bother, if nobody does it you are still at the same status quo. How come it took so long to spot this "clinic" if all these athletes were forever in and out of the doors?

I do think cycling tries to keep its house in order compared to other sports. If the same random stop, search, question, test tactic were used in other sports how many more athletes would be found to be doped?

As per earlier Chelsea comment - how does this differ from blood doping? Looks like it on an organised basis to me yet it just gets ignored as its not to do with a minority sport and might upset too many rich people!

Looking at it from a legal perspective none of these cyclists have been proved guilty of any offence yet. Surely in the new Armstrong/USA/sueing world there is the potential for a lot of "loss on earning" and "defamation" cases to bounce round the courts if they can not be proved guilty. After all what evidence does a bag with a label on it constitute? I am not defending, merely trying to play devils advocate.

[Will]

[quote="marco"]even though he is a liar and a cheat who tried to discredit a team mate who was telling the truth and who cost BC a small fortune?

[Alan M]

All of this is played at the individual competitor level when it is my belief that the sponsors have a cynical point of view which amounts to turning a blind eye when it suits them to summary dismissal without trial as soon as riders are implicated. Its all to do with the sums of money invested in sponsorhip and and the need to win linked to corporate ambition. The nature of the system makes it certain that at competitor level people will cheat and what is more it is implicitly excpected of them. I see no liklihood that it will change because the problem is systemic not individual.

[Elliot M]

I agree Alan. What I'm not sure about is why sponsors still want to get involved at all in cycling rather than sports that have a cleaner image. I guess the answer must be that it still offers good value exposure. It seems however to be a great reputational risk, and I wonder how long big globals like T-Mobile will continue to want to associate with the sport.

[Grahame]

T-Mobile have just signed up to sponsor the team until the end of 2008, on condition of a strict testing regime being implemented within the team.

I think several other sports are going to get embroiled in the Fuentes investigation. Not that that excuses the cycling world in any way...

[Jon H]

I have always been puzzled about how companies get a return on their investment from sponsorship. I can see how equipment sponsors get a return - for example Trek must have sold a hell of a lot of bikes on the back of Lance's success. But does the Discovery channel get more viewers? Or does Quick-Step sell more flooring?

[Jon H]

Whilst on the subject of advertising, a few months ago I discovered that many moons ago my dad worked for the same advertising agency as none other than David Duffield.

[David Lombari]

They don't appear to have anyone good enough at the moment to take up the challenge for GC though. There is one guy called Remy Di Gregario who's 19 and had a good Dauphine but he's a long way off being up to it.

Christophe Moreau may be able to put in a challenge but he's a perrenial under-achiever.

Can't think of any others.

[Will]

very cheeky

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/ ... 3/IMG_0900

(careful if someone is looking over your shoulder - it's some girls' bottoms!)

[David Lombari]

And Levi is?

[David Lombari]

True. Looks it though!

[Toks]

Stage 13: Oh dear, I thought the Disco boys would at least put up a bit of a fight, Popo is 6mins 25 back and Big George is over 20mins behind on the GC. I'm happy for Floyd though - at last a real personality has the yellow jumper on!...