Lance Armstrong Comeback: Tour Down Under

The rules set ought to be equal for all riders.

already get a similar exemption

Link

“It’s not a mandatory part of the anti-doping code. It’s a discretionary rule and a very difficult one to apply because often we don’t know when riders have decided to retire, or when they are coming back.”

There is a recent precedent. Mario Cipollini, the Italian, returned at the Tour of California this year for Rock Racing without giving six months’ notice. As Armstrong said: "We’re not asking for any exception, but they don’t always apply this rule

I guess we should have expected this.

4 days after nnouncing that Lance was coming to TDU, the organisers sent out emails to people that had already bought stage passes, and told them that the VIP stage access to the public at the start of the stages was no longer available. There reason was security, what a load of sh$%… I sent en email back saying if the TdF, Vuelta and Giro can offer VIP access then i couldn’t see why the TDU couldn’t.. and that it was all because Lance was now participating…. I received email back apologising but decision was made, can you belive that, no VIP access in Adelaide but every Major cycling event around the world could do it… I’m pissed, but I’m sure i will get access somehow..hehehe

I think it’s a bad PR move on Lance Armstrong’s part to have pushed for a bend in the rule. Does it change much in the scheme of things, as far as doping and testing, probably not, but it adds fuel to the fire of the claims that he gets and had been getting special um privileges from the UCI.

Is anyone aware of any time this rule has actually been applied? We know it didn’t apply to Cippo. Did it apply to Elliot? Alcalá?

From the get go, McQuaid was saying there was no problem, LA could ride TdU. Only after someone else had pointed out the problem did he start to contradict himself. The TdU organisers took him at his first word. They advertised that they’d landed LA. The UCI needs the TdU. Screwing over LA, just cause it might amuse a few of us, would not exactly help an event the UCI has been championing. In the end, the UCI made the only decision they could make. The correct one.

…Armstrong is canceling his comeback.
Seems like the new test detecting autotransfusion is messin’ his all plan up.
Keeping the door open, just in case the tests can be challenge in court, but “a definitive decision will be announced within weeks”.
Down the drain is all that money spent in electricity having those freezers running, for the last 2 years.

Mike Turtur (Tour Down Under race director):

"Everyone’s missing the point here. If he was serving a disciplinary penalty of six months or a doping penalty then there would be no argument. The rider would have to serve the six months regardless. All of the information required by the anti-doping program for the biological passport will be obtained by the UCI well before the Tour Down Under is staged. So what is the point of enforcing a 12-day period that’s going to achieve nothing? Everyone should congratulate the UCI on seeing it that way because it’s common sense. It always takes something like this … for something to be changed. We shouldn’t get away from the fact that Armstrong made a statement, right from the word go, that his prime reason for doing this is to raise the awareness of cancer, the fundraising opportunities and the treatment and all the things that go with it. Secondary was riding the bike. But he said, ‘I can get the message out there clearer and louder if I’m on the bike’."

Link

Both the French and German federations have criticized the decision of the UCI to “waive the rule” – I use quotes there, because in most cases this is how the story is presented. That is, the Armstrong is being given a special favor. A German article called Armstrong “more equal than others.”

Whether you agree with the decision or not, the UCI has unnecessarily opened itself up to criticism here. Armstrong is an intensely controversial figure in a way that Cipollini or Alcala never was. Fair or not, that’s reality. To ignore that, well, is a serious PR mis-step, in my view, especially as they linked the story to doping.

Really, the UCI could use some help with the spinning ;-)

Alas, they’re playing softball.

Q: Will you consider finishing in second or third a victory?

Second place and third place are not first place. Most people would view that as a defeat if you’ve stated you want to win. I’m not sure that I can win. But if we can be successful going around the world and talking about this issue, I’m willing to get second or third.

An astute piece of observation….

give Levi a ‘20K rule’ or whatever that was in the ToC when he crashed in the closing loops in the leaders jersey, they can give someone 7 days out of 6 months. And I like Levi.

I’m curious to see what Lance does this time around. Tell your local bike shops (in the US) you don’t want Lance back, see what they say.

Really everybody, it was a simple choice for them to make whether to allow Lance to ride downunder or not. People who propose being anal in this type of situation and following the letter of the law, well, I can only hope those people are never put in charge of making decisions like this one. No it wouldn’t have been the end of the world had some anal retard been left to make the decision to deny Lance a number in the TdU, but if that had happened it would have been mindbogglingly stupid and impossible to defend to me and dare I say the vast majority of the cycling community.

Armstrong says, if I understand right, that he is returning to cycling to raise awareness of cancer, raise global awareness of cancer, raise awareness of cancer on a global level, something like this.

Can someone please tell me what the f*** this means?

I don’t mean to be insensitive. But I’m exasperated by the formulation. What does it mean to raise awareness of cancer? Of the existence of cancer? Of the fact that cancer is bad? Of the fact that lots of people have it?

Frankly it really pisses me off – the phrase is so meaningless that it is to my mind very difficult to trust it on its own merit (i.e., it doesn’t have any).

I’m not insensitive to or ignorant of the issue – I have family members who have died of the disease – frankly I think everyone has family members who have died of the disease. But this is exactly my point – where is the need for increased awareness?

I could understand it if he was saying “I want to raise a bunch of money for cancer.” But I don’t think it’s splitting hairs to point out that he’s not saying this – from day 1 it’s been about “awareness.” So it makes me wonder what is really going on here. I’ll show my hand: I’m not a Lance-hater (though for various reasons I can’t really say I’m a fan), but the fact that he’s framing his comeback this way makes me all the more receptive to those who have viewed said comeback with deep cynicism.

Anyways if I’m out of line or full of sh*t on this matter please tell me, but also please tell me why. Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

who is sharing the chocolate cuz I have a serious craving right now?

lyne…do you not work girlfriend? posting during work hours…not fair!, not fair!!

wolverine….I need that soup receipe!!

albertina and gavia….I just need to hang with you chicas!!

…and of course I continue to bow to the crashdan alter!! you never disappoint!

okay, back to work for me….darn it!