Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Bradley Wiggins’ comments about Lance Armstrong ‘not acceptable’ says head of UCI

“Wiggins is Wiggins” he adds (with perhaps just the faint suggestion of a Gallic shrug)

UCI president David Lappartient seems unconcerned that Sir Bradley Wiggins is “sick of being told how to feel.” The Frenchman says the 2012 Tour de France winner’s recent comments about Lance Armstrong are unacceptable.

Wiggins has included Armstrong in his new book, Icons, arguing that while he doesn’t condone the doping, he can’t change the fact that he found the Texan an inspiration when he won the world championship in 1993.

“When I was 13 and I was living in a council estate in London, he won the world title in Oslo and he was 21 years of age, and I was enthralled by it. I went out on my bike the next day and thought I was Lance Armstrong. Nobody can ever take that away from me, that feeling of freedom and going out on the bike and being inspired by him.”

Wiggins followed this up by making the eye-catching claim that Armstrong was ‘the perfect winner’ of the Tour de France – at least according to the definition of the race’s founder, Henri Desgrange, who envisaged the ideal Tour as being one in which only one rider finished.

The Independent reports that Lappartient is unimpressed, presenting Wiggins’ comments as ‘support’ for Armstrong.

“Bradley Wiggins is Bradley Wiggins. He always says some strange things. When I saw [his comments] I thought ‘unbelievable’. The guy who won the Tour de France, he has been Olympic champion, he has been world champion, and he’s supporting Lance Armstrong, who has been banned for life for cheating.

“So for me this isn’t acceptable to have some statement like this, specifically from a former winner of the Tour de France. I fully disagree with what he said, of course, because we know now that this [career] has been based on cheating. But Wiggins is Wiggins.”

Lappartient also reiterated his call to have the painkiller tramadol banned in competition – one of the issues that recently led the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC) to call for the resignation of World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) president, Sir Craig Reedie.

“I will not join the statements calling for Craig Reedie to resign,” he said. “From the discussions I had with him, I know he’s trying to do his best to lead the organisation but it’s not always easy. I don’t think asking him to step down is a solution. For me, I would like to give more power to the governing body, and the president. I’m calling for a stronger Wada.”

He added: “We promise that we will ban tramadol for health reasons. We hope that after this Wada will be able to put this on the list.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

33 comments

Avatar
DaSy | 5 years ago
3 likes

Val-Ver-Day blown away - what else do I have to say.

Avatar
davel replied to DaSy | 5 years ago
0 likes
DaSy wrote:

Val-Ver-Day blown away - what else do I have to say.

laugh

Avatar
andyp | 5 years ago
0 likes

'its easy now to call out Armstrong for what we know he is. However at the time, I can understand exactly how the heroics of a cancer survivor could motivate many a soul. '

It was relatively easy at the time to call out Armstrong for what we knew he was, to be fair. But I agree totally with the second sentence.

 

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
2 likes

@ Don Simon. Hey, you know what: for the circa USD 500m that LA has raised for cancer through Livestrong, I can forgive him.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
2 likes
Chris Hayes wrote:

@ Don Simon. Hey, you know what: for the circa USD 500m that LA has raised for cancer through Livestrong, I can forgive him.

I'm glad that he raised so much for cancer and raised awareness to the levels that he did with Livestrong.

I am also glad that you are able to forgive him.

I, on the other hand, find it abhorrent that he used cancer and cancer victims as a tool in his quest to cheat and defraud the cycling world and the much wider population.

@Jimmy Ray Will, Valverde was banned on a suspicion and nothing more, I do not know why he didn't appeal but suspect that it may have been linked to his age and to money available forcing a pragmatic decision to be made. He is rightly pissed off and likely to bang that drum of innocence at every opportunity.

It was discussed at length here in the summer and consensus was that unless you have evidence of foul play, the guy is innocent. Your accusation of "unrepentant doper" needs supporting evidence. He is an accused doper who has served a ban and never failed a test. He is innocent and should be free to ride without  this cloud hanging over him. For him to be unrepentant, he must have done the doping in the first place. Prove it, or wind the old neck in..

Can't be having one rule for one, can we?

Avatar
DaSy replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
6 likes
don simon wrote:

@Jimmy Ray Will, Valverde was banned on a suspicion and nothing more

That's not really the case. He was banned because blood bag 18 from the Operacion Puerto raid was found to be a DNA match to Valverde, and that this bag also contained traces of EPO. It's pretty compelling evidence.

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to DaSy | 5 years ago
0 likes
DaSy wrote:
don simon wrote:

@Jimmy Ray Will, Valverde was banned on a suspicion and nothing more

That's not really the case. He was banned because blood bag 18 from the Operacion Puerto raid was found to be a DNA match to Valverde, and that this bag also contained traces of EPO. It's pretty compelling evidence.

Except for the catalogue of fuck ups that render everything no more than suspicion.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like
don simon wrote:
DaSy wrote:
don simon wrote:

@Jimmy Ray Will, Valverde was banned on a suspicion and nothing more

That's not really the case. He was banned because blood bag 18 from the Operacion Puerto raid was found to be a DNA match to Valverde, and that this bag also contained traces of EPO. It's pretty compelling evidence.

Except for the catalogue of fuck ups that render everything no more than suspicion.

 

To be fair, I didn't say he was an unrepentant doper, that was someone else. 

However, I don't have to prove anything, as the sanction was made, which Valverde took without appeal. 

I think, and I say think, there was a point somewhere (again someone elses) about double standards, and I'd argue you are maybe guilty of this; you shouldn't really pick and choose which doping sanction you recognise. 

 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 5 years ago
0 likes
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
don simon wrote:
DaSy wrote:
don simon wrote:

@Jimmy Ray Will, Valverde was banned on a suspicion and nothing more

That's not really the case. He was banned because blood bag 18 from the Operacion Puerto raid was found to be a DNA match to Valverde, and that this bag also contained traces of EPO. It's pretty compelling evidence.

Except for the catalogue of fuck ups that render everything no more than suspicion.

 

To be fair, I didn't say he was an unrepentant doper, that was someone else. 

However, I don't have to prove anything, as the sanction was made, which Valverde took without appeal. 

I think, and I say think, there was a point somewhere (again someone elses) about double standards, and I'd argue you are maybe guilty of this; you shouldn't really pick and choose which doping sanction you recognise. 

 

Apologies, you're right it was Chris Hayes who called him unrepentant.

You'll have to point out where my double standards are. He was accused of doping or attempting to dope, it's not clear whether CONI ever had bag 18, there are allegedly traces of EPO in the bage which have never been seen in blood drawn from Valverde. Innocent until proven guilty, from what I have read, it's not proven, and that's always been my position, or the complete opposite....

Much like Contador, it was presumed and not proven, and the same as Froome, no one could prove his guilt either, he was obviously lucky to get away with no ban. But he is as guilty of cheating as Valverde in my eyes.

The other side is continuing to call him a doper. Prove it or put up.

Avatar
Chris Hayes replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
3 likes

 

Much like Contador, [...] and [...] Froome [ ..] he is as guilty of cheating as Valverde in my eyes.

[/quote]

I'm satisfied with Bag 18 to be honest: given that most of his generation of Spaniard seems to be at it.  But now you're equating TUE misuse with EPO use...

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
1 like
Chris Hayes]</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Much like Contador, [...] and [...]&nbsp;Froome&nbsp;[ ..]&nbsp;he is as guilty of cheating as Valverde in my eyes.</p>

<p>[quote

wrote:

I'm satisfied with Bag 18 to be honest: given that most of his generation of Spaniard seems to be at it.  But now you're equating TUE misuse with EPO use...

And there's the money shot. i think you'll have to pull out the old list of names on this one by way of evidence. Of course it's fine to have an opinion on it, it's just as I think that Team SKY are screwing the system and that Froome is a naughty, naughty boy.

Avatar
Chris Hayes replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
4 likes

Paxti Vila - Manuel Beltran - Moses Duenas - Hector Guerras - Isidro Vega - Luis GArcia del Moral - Jose Belda - Aketza Pena - Santiago Perez - Jesus Manzano (despite his name) - Jose Fabian - Aitor Gonzalez - Francesco Sanchez - Jenaro Lozano - Iban Mayo - Abraham Olano - Marcos Serrano - Alberto Contador - Roberto Herras -  Oscar Sevilla - Pedro Delgado - and one Alejandro Belmonte Valverde who received a two-year ban in 2010 AND Oscar Pereiro if you want to include salbutamol....AND even poor old Joseba Beloki paid Fuentes for something...but obviously not anything 'medical' ...  Valverde had DNA evidence taken from a blood sample in Italy whcih matched a random bag of blood found in a lab in Spain, labels and everything,,,guess whose? His defence was that the Italiian authorities had no jurisdiction in Spain and he was banned.  But the Spanish authorities decided not to open a case against him - because, of course, there's no history of doping in Spain. 

But my favourite of all was Oscar Freire...a superb classics rider who didn't dope. 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
0 likes
Chris Hayes wrote:

Paxti Vila - Manuel Beltran - Moses Duenas - Hector Guerras - Isidro Vega - Luis GArcia del Moral - Jose Belda - Aketza Pena - Santiago Perez - Jesus Manzano (despite his name) - Jose Fabian - Aitor Gonzalez - Francesco Sanchez - Jenaro Lozano - Iban Mayo - Abraham Olano - Marcos Serrano - Alberto Contador - Roberto Herras -  Oscar Sevilla - Pedro Delgado - and one Alejandro Belmonte Valverde who received a two-year ban in 2010 AND Oscar Pereiro if you want to include salbutamol....AND even poor old Joseba Beloki paid Fuentes for something...but obviously not anything 'medical' ...  Valverde had DNA evidence taken from a blood sample in Italy whcih matched a random bag of blood found in a lab in Spain, labels and everything,,,guess whose? His defence was that the Italiian authorities had no jurisdiction in Spain and he was banned.  But the Spanish authorities decided not to open a case against him - because, of course, there's no history of doping in Spain. 

But my favourite of all was Oscar Freire...a superb classics rider who didn't dope. 

Wow, 21! That a lot, out of how many?

Hardly most as you were bandying around earlier. Respect for not cutting and pasting the list though. There's at least two names on there who where suspended for suspicion of doping rather than proven doping, which are very, very different and two who were not found guilty of anything, but don't let that stop you sullying their names.  One whose name looks suspiciously invented. You've even pushed the generation line with some of those names, but hey! When you've got to bend the rules to support your claims, who am I to argue?

 

Avatar
davel replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
1 like
Chris Hayes wrote:

Paxti Vila - Manuel Beltran - Moses Duenas - Hector Guerras - Isidro Vega - Luis GArcia del Moral - Jose Belda - Aketza Pena - Santiago Perez - Jesus Manzano (despite his name) - Jose Fabian - Aitor Gonzalez - Francesco Sanchez - Jenaro Lozano - Iban Mayo - Abraham Olano - Marcos Serrano - Alberto Contador - Roberto Herras -  Oscar Sevilla - Pedro Delgado - and one Alejandro Belmonte Valverde who received a two-year ban in 2010 AND Oscar Pereiro if you want to include salbutamol....AND even poor old Joseba Beloki paid Fuentes for something...but obviously not anything 'medical' ...  Valverde had DNA evidence taken from a blood sample in Italy whcih matched a random bag of blood found in a lab in Spain, labels and everything,,,guess whose? His defence was that the Italiian authorities had no jurisdiction in Spain and he was banned.  But the Spanish authorities decided not to open a case against him - because, of course, there's no history of doping in Spain. 

But my favourite of all was Oscar Freire...a superb classics rider who didn't dope. 

I started sing-reading that like 'We didn't start the fire' by Billy Joel in my head. Didn't work. True story.

Avatar
DaSy replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
2 likes
don simon wrote:

He (Valverde) was accused of doping or attempting to dope, it's not clear whether CONI ever had bag 18, there are allegedly traces of EPO in the bage which have never been seen in blood drawn from Valverde.

I think the bags have always been in the control of the Spanish authourities, so I doubt CONI ever actually had them. Valverde asked for the DNA test of his blood taken by the Italians to be tested by a neutral lab, but that was refused. There was potentially less physical  evidence againt Armstrong than Valverde. A bust of Dr. Fuentes, a high level doping doctor, yeilded hundreds of bags of blood, plasma and documnentation. One of those bags was labeled Valv-Piti (in itself not a giant leap to Valverde (who owned a dog called Piti)). The blood was matched via DNA from a separate test taken years later. The bag also had EPO traces in it.

I agree that there are lots of loose ends, but there is at least a preponderence of evidence against him. I don't know why CONI wouldn't have agreed to test his blood in a neutral lab in a neutral country, that would have shut-down that argument. Also, his continued performance at a high level since then suggests he was either not doping effectively before, or still is doping (which I think unlikely, but who knows?); many others like Millar and Hamilton seemed to drop like stones after their suspensions.

Maybe his early days when with Kelme were dodgy (the period the date on the bag refers), who knows. Ultimately, CONI, CAS, UCI and WADA, who had direct access to the evidence, all agreed that he was at least storing blood with Fuentes, hence the ban. 

Avatar
DaSy replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
2 likes
don simon wrote:

 Except for the catalogue of fuck ups that render everything no more than suspicion.

There wasn't confusion over the evidence, that was pretty clear-cut. The confusion was over the jurisdiction of the various bodies trying to either dodge the whole issue in the case of the Spanish authourities, or those trying to make him accountable in the case of the Italians.

Avatar
andyp replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
2 likes
Chris Hayes wrote:

@ Don Simon. Hey, you know what: for the circa USD 500m that LA has raised for cancer through Livestrong, I can forgive him.

 

....'circa USD 500m that Livestrong has raised'. Quite how much LA raised, and quite what it's been used for, I can't determine from the sources accessible to me.

 

Avatar
Simon E | 5 years ago
1 like
BadgerBeaver wrote:

Not what I expect from the head of the governing body of my favourite sport. 

 

He is of course welcome to his opnion, but really I'd like to hear him say something about how crappy La Course is, and how this is an enduring embarrassment to our sport.

 

I'd like the press to pick up on this a bit more than some pointless spat between two self-promoting big-heads, regardless of how accomplished one of them is. 

Agree 100%.

La Course 2019 is an embarrassment. Clearly unacceptable.

Poor choice of words by DL to say it's "not acceptable". Bradley's not at school any more so he's not answerable to the blazers. A better word might be "unhelpful" but if he just rolled his eyes and let it go by then the teacup would not be rattled on its saucer by this tittle-tattle.

And does he not have far bigger things to worry about? He was going to fix the sport, now it seems he's merely emulating Pat McQuaid. But then we should have known that's what a small-town-mayor type career politician ( © D. Brailsford) is like.

Chris Hayes wrote:

I'm bored of the vilification of Lance Armstrong, and the closing down of the debate around the circumstances under which he raced.

Hmm sounds like you're just doing that. If you're bored then - to follow the advice of the ancient TV programme Why Don't You - just switch off and go and do something else instead.

An analogy for those of you still tuning in (and apologies if it is crap):

Many will consider that Donald Trump to be the worst POTUS in living memory, if not longer. Claiming that Lance was merely a doper amongst dopers is like arguing that Trump is no worse than the other presidents because all of them have made cock-ups and poor decisions during their time in office. As has been said before, it's not the doping that's the real issue with Lance. It's that he is a complete and utter  <insert your most offensive genitalia- or familial-bond- related insult here>.

Avatar
Canyon48 | 5 years ago
2 likes

I can't get what all this is about...

Lance Armstrong massively inspired me when I first started cycling (which was not long before the truth came out) - watching videos of le Tour in the early/mid 2000's amazed me and made me want to go cycling - and that I did.

Needless to say, I was rather unhappy when I learned the truth - and felt somewhat betrayed that one of my inspirations was, in fact, a fraud.

 

Meanwhile, the UCI seems to be doing EVERYTHING they can to ruin cycling, stop progression and damage cycling's reputation but still suck up to the "legends" of cycling - most of whom got caught doping...

Avatar
Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
1 like

I'm bored of the vilification of Lance Armstrong, and the closing down of the debate around the circumstances under which he raced. 

I seriously doubt that many Grand Tour or Classics winners raced clean between Indurain and Contador.  Add to this the fact that the current World Champion is an unrepentant drug-cheat underlines the double-standards at play here. 

It's clear from the race times posted these days that riders are 'cleaner', but there's a big difference between alleged TUE misuse and admitted EPO use. 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Chris Hayes | 5 years ago
3 likes
Chris Hayes wrote:

I'm bored of the vilification of Lance Armstrong, and the closing down of the debate around the circumstances under which he raced. 

I seriously doubt that many Grand Tour or Classics winners raced clean between Indurain and Contador.  Add to this the fact that the current World Champion is an unrepentant unproven drug-cheat underlines the double-standards at play here. 

It's clear from the race times posted these days that riders are 'cleaner', but there's a big difference between alleged TUE misuse and admitted EPO use. 

I'm bored of the blinkered view where Lance wasn't a bully who wrecked the lives of other people... Etc, etc.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
3 likes
don simon wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:

I'm bored of the vilification of Lance Armstrong, and the closing down of the debate around the circumstances under which he raced. 

I seriously doubt that many Grand Tour or Classics winners raced clean between Indurain and Contador.  Add to this the fact that the current World Champion is an unrepentant unproven drug-cheat underlines the double-standards at play here. 

It's clear from the race times posted these days that riders are 'cleaner', but there's a big difference between alleged TUE misuse and admitted EPO use. 

I'm bored of the blinkered view where Lance wasn't a bully who wrecked the lives of other people... Etc, etc.

 

Except Valverde was proven. His blood was in teh bag, as confirmed via DNA testing. He spent two years kicking his heels about not racing because of that confirmation.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and its easy now to call out Armstrong for what we know he is. However at the time, I can understand exactly how the heroics of a cancer survivor could motivate many a soul. Which I think is Wiggins real point hey?

As mentioned, Landis' ride was incredible to watch... and incredible in all aspects. Bless him. 

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to Jimmy Ray Will | 5 years ago
0 likes
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
don simon wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:

I'm bored of the vilification of Lance Armstrong, and the closing down of the debate around the circumstances under which he raced. 

I seriously doubt that many Grand Tour or Classics winners raced clean between Indurain and Contador.  Add to this the fact that the current World Champion is an unrepentant unproven drug-cheat underlines the double-standards at play here. 

It's clear from the race times posted these days that riders are 'cleaner', but there's a big difference between alleged TUE misuse and admitted EPO use. 

I'm bored of the blinkered view where Lance wasn't a bully who wrecked the lives of other people... Etc, etc.

 

Except Valverde was proven. His blood was in teh bag, as confirmed via DNA testing. He spent two years kicking his heels about not racing because of that confirmation.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and its easy now to call out Armstrong for what we know he is. However at the time, I can understand exactly how the heroics of a cancer survivor could motivate many a soul. Which I think is Wiggins real point hey?

As mentioned, Landis' ride was incredible to watch... and incredible in all aspects. Bless him. 

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/valverde-fights-back-over...
Concrete as a concrete thing made from a blend of aggregates bound together by a hydraulic binder. Come back when he's had a positive test and not guesswork.

Avatar
Jimmy Ray Will replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
2 likes
don simon wrote:
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
don simon wrote:
Chris Hayes wrote:

I'm bored of the vilification of Lance Armstrong, and the closing down of the debate around the circumstances under which he raced. 

I seriously doubt that many Grand Tour or Classics winners raced clean between Indurain and Contador.  Add to this the fact that the current World Champion is an unrepentant unproven drug-cheat underlines the double-standards at play here. 

It's clear from the race times posted these days that riders are 'cleaner', but there's a big difference between alleged TUE misuse and admitted EPO use. 

I'm bored of the blinkered view where Lance wasn't a bully who wrecked the lives of other people... Etc, etc.

 

Except Valverde was proven. His blood was in teh bag, as confirmed via DNA testing. He spent two years kicking his heels about not racing because of that confirmation.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and its easy now to call out Armstrong for what we know he is. However at the time, I can understand exactly how the heroics of a cancer survivor could motivate many a soul. Which I think is Wiggins real point hey?

As mentioned, Landis' ride was incredible to watch... and incredible in all aspects. Bless him. 

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/valverde-fights-back-over...
Concrete as a concrete thing made from a blend of aggregates bound together by a hydraulic binder. Come back when he's had a positive test and not guesswork.

Are we glossing over the suspension then... which, came after the linked article. 

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes
don simon wrote:

 

I'm bored of the blinkered view where Lance wasn't a bully who wrecked the lives of other people... Etc, etc.

Can't say I'm really that bothered if a realitively small amount of riders who couldn't dope as effeciently. Plenty of people have been directly responsible for wrecking more lives of people just going about their everyday business. A few guys spinning their legs for a living is hardly a big deal. 

Avatar
BadgerBeaver | 5 years ago
3 likes

Not what I expect from the head of the governing body of my favourite sport. 

 

He is of course welcome to his opnion, but really I'd like to hear him say something about how crappy La Course is, and how this is an enduring embarrassment to our sport.

 

I'd like the press to pick up on this a bit more than some pointless spat between two self-promoting big-heads, regardless of how accomplished one of them is. 

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
1 like

I too enjoyed Landis's drug fueled escape.  

Avatar
SoBinary | 5 years ago
4 likes

One of the most exciting days cycling I've watched was Floyd Landis on Mt Ventoux... an "unbelievable" performance that turned out to be "unbelievable" for a reason.  Nevertheless it sticks in my mind... saying that I enjoyed it does not mean I condone drug taking, does not mean I've taken drugs and does not make me more likely to do so.

When Armstrong got caught I felt he deserved the shitstorm he got, not just for the drug taking (which was rife in the peleton at the time) but for his behaviour in general to those who had challenged him.... but to hang the whole of sporting histories drug taking shame on one man is a bit of a joke.

... particularly when the sanction by WADA for a nation state organising massive state sponsored drug taking across 100's of athletes appears to be..... NADA.

for David Lappartient to equate use of TUE by Wiggins with systematic doping by Armstrong is so far off an adult or sane level of discourse that he should be ashamed - politics in sport is a disgrace. Thats why most professional sports people don't want to give their opinion on Arnstrong for fear of this sort of stupid comment when their conflicted views on Armstrong are twisted to seem like support for drug taking.

Avatar
handlebarcam | 5 years ago
2 likes
Quote:

Bradley Wiggins is “sick of being told how to feel.”

Translation: Listen to me, buy my book, but don't point out facts that contradict my opinions to me.

Wiggins has clearly joined the rich-people-whinging-about-being-oppressed-despite-constantly-being-provided-with-platforms-to-express-their-views demographic. Surely the invitation to appear on Question Time will soon be forthcoming.

Avatar
jova54 | 5 years ago
5 likes

Strange.

I'm equally unconcerned at what David Lappartient says.

David Lappartient is David Lappartient. He always says some strange things. When I saw [his comments] I thought ‘unbelievable’. 

I like Wiggins' attitude. it appears that everyone can have an opinion except him unless it matches theirs.

Pages

Latest Comments