PDA

View Full Version : OFFICIAL : Lance Armstrong banned for life of cycling and Tour de France wins GONE !


Martian Jeza
Jun 13th, 2012, 09:06 PM
http://tracking.si.com/2012/06/13/lance-armstrong-faces-new-charges-from-usada/?sct=hp_t2_a4&eref=sihp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lance-armstrong-faces-fresh-doping-charges-from-usada/2012/06/13/gJQAefnPaV_story.html

He's banned from Triathlons

Halardfan
Jun 13th, 2012, 09:51 PM
Not a surprise, there are figures across a range of sports who have long had similar clouds of suspicion around them, only when it's too late is the truth revealed.

Tennis Fool
Jun 13th, 2012, 10:27 PM
^ Well, if he's found guilty he could still be stripped of his 7 titles, although I think that would be catastrophic to the sport.

Wiggly
Jun 13th, 2012, 11:18 PM
^ Well, if he's found guilty he could still be stripped of his 7 titles, although I think that would be catastrophic to the sport.

Even if he's stripped of his 7 titles, the "new" winner will never get the feeling to stand on that podium on the Champs Élysées.

BTW, there's no way in hell any tennis superstar will ever fail a doping test. The sport would never recover. They know it.

Melange
Jun 14th, 2012, 02:01 AM
^lets consider who would get the titles instead. it would be riders like jan ullrich, who retired when he got banned; ullrich's teammate andreas kloden :oh:; beloki, implicated in operacion puerto and ivan basso, who did a two year ban for "thinking about using drugs".

:( noone in tennis has ever done drugs. nadal is totally clean

Melange
Jun 14th, 2012, 02:02 AM
^ Well, if he's found guilty he could still be stripped of his 7 titles, although I think that would be catastrophic to the sport.

if you think that then you dont understand the sport

Melange
Jun 14th, 2012, 02:48 AM
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7227/7369739150_50e3efde58_z.jpg

Bismarck.
Jun 14th, 2012, 09:30 AM
Of course he doped. But then, so does everyone in road cycling because the levels of endurance needed are so ridiculous, so it's a fairly even playing field. :shrug:

Shinjiro
Jun 14th, 2012, 09:58 AM
^ Well, if he's found guilty he could still be stripped of his 7 titles, although I think that would be catastrophic to the sport.This...x2

jrm
Jun 14th, 2012, 11:11 AM
people just don't want to believe he was involved with doping due to his cancer; you don't have to be an expert, just use common sense and some logic ... if everyone in his former team tested positive or confessed, he as a 'clean' rider is still better than all doped ones? No one is that blond :wavey:

WowWow
Jun 14th, 2012, 11:15 AM
^ Well, if he's found guilty he could still be stripped of his 7 titles, although I think that would be catastrophic to the sport.

I would think that doping is more catastrophic for the sport than stripping athletes of their titles.

Super Dave
Jun 14th, 2012, 01:09 PM
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7227/7369739150_50e3efde58_z.jpg

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/I%20see%20what%20you%20did%20there/grand/futurama-fry-I-see-what-you-did-there-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf3-200.gif

Mynarco
Jun 14th, 2012, 01:17 PM
Scandalous.

FORZA SARITA
Jun 14th, 2012, 05:51 PM
what's new?

Tennis Fool
Jun 29th, 2012, 09:47 PM
Formal charges have been brought. Quite a news day :eek:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/sport/armstrong-doping-allegations/index.html

Martian Jeza
Jun 29th, 2012, 10:37 PM
Indeed : now it's official : Lance Armstrong has been charged for doping and doping conspiracy.

SloKid
Jun 29th, 2012, 10:52 PM
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7227/7369739150_50e3efde58_z.jpg
"I C HEAT" - Intriguing.

pierce85
Jun 30th, 2012, 01:06 AM
Like Melange said is tennis clean? Hell no, Nadal is the prime example of a doper. His muscles,running like a wild rabbit,stamina is non-human, but officials in tennis know how to "protect" their sport...

swim4life227
Jun 30th, 2012, 04:11 AM
Steroids really wouldn't effect tennis as much. So much more goes into it than muscle mass and stamina. Especially on the women's side.

If this turns out to be true, than this eclipses Marion Jones as the biggest sports fraud.

joy division
Jun 30th, 2012, 06:36 AM
I`m wondering why there are still some people around who have doubts about doping in cycling.
Everybody does it more or less depending on grade of imprudence and courage of experimenting.
Without you simply have no chance. The teams and the drivers have an agreement to silence about it. All that is obvious and reasonable.

How lame would look an arrival at Alpe d`Huez, without all these drugs ?
The public wants to see peak performances and clean heroes. But you can`t have everything.
A lot of money is involved and the credibility in the sport is at stake.
Caught in this discussion in near future we will neither see real heroes who say no to doping, nor real mutants on bikes - which would at least be honest in some way.
Most likely the teams will dope on and keep their traps shut and the public will try hard to keep the illusion.
Doping in tennis is not as much a precondition to be successful as it is in cycling. No doubt it can be helpful in stamina for instance. You hardly can hear anything about it.
Is tennis such a clean sport ?

Halardfan
Jun 30th, 2012, 07:45 AM
I'm sure that drugs cheating is more prevelant in cycling than most others sports.

Yet we are naive if we think tennis is unaffected. Rather tennis is less stringent in tracking down the cheats. They put the image of the sport ahead of true integrity.

There should be universal, tough standards across every sport. No one can object to that, who has nothing to hide.

joy division
Jun 30th, 2012, 09:23 AM
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.de/

Chrissie-fan
Jun 30th, 2012, 10:34 AM
Taking PED without getting caught is part of the competition in cycling, but other sports as well. If they take away Armstrong's wins there's no guarantee that the number two guy who will get the wins was any cleaner than Armstrong was.

darrinbaker00
Jun 30th, 2012, 04:23 PM
By bring these charges against Lance Armstrong, aren't the good folks at USADA pretty much admitting they weren't smart enough to catch him? :shrug:

Tennis Fool
Jun 30th, 2012, 05:25 PM
^ Maybe it's not about "smart enough," but that they chose to look the other way, until this teammates were caught and the pressure began to mount.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 1st, 2012, 03:26 AM
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7227/7369739150_50e3efde58_z.jpg

:haha:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 1st, 2012, 03:28 AM
I wonder why the case even came up years later. It's like Lance upset the higher ups for something and now they're exposing hiim

Mynarco
Jul 1st, 2012, 11:45 AM
I feel bad for the runner-ups in these events, but wait...they might be dopers as well.

azinna
Jul 1st, 2012, 12:35 PM
The USADA filed charges against five other team doctors and trainers who are still active in cycling. So the case may end with a significant dent in doping, symbolic or real or both. Still, there better be something airtight against Lance. Otherwise this will come off as another unwanted circus, at taxpayer's expense.

.....

Halardfan
Aug 24th, 2012, 03:09 AM
Armstrong wont further contest the charges.

Says he is tired of it.

(Also guilty as hell.)

azinna
Aug 24th, 2012, 03:14 AM
A fighter not fighting is pretty damning indeed.

....

Martian Jeza
Aug 24th, 2012, 04:54 AM
It's confirmed by nearly all news here in Belgium and also in France : Lance Armstrong loses his 7 Tour de France wins and he's banned for life from Cycling !

http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1512/Cyclisme/article/detail/1490441/2012/08/24/Armstrong-va-perdre-ses-sept-titres-du-Tour-de-France.dhtml

http://www.eurosport.fr/cyclisme/tour-de-france/2012/armstrong-va-perdre-ses_sto3397367/story.shtml

French only, I know but Armstrong found guilty of doping and banned from Cycling for life : OFFICIAL at 99%

tennislover
Aug 24th, 2012, 05:20 AM
:eek: one of the biggest scandals in sport history....

Martian Jeza
Aug 24th, 2012, 05:28 AM
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/armstrong-wont-fight-anti-doping-agency-032114073.html another article :wavey:

Halardfan
Aug 24th, 2012, 05:51 AM
Great article condemning Armstrong from the Guardian site...

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/aug/24/how-lance-armstrong-strongarmed-cycling?cat=sport&type=article

Javi.
Aug 24th, 2012, 06:21 AM
Like Melange said is tennis clean? Hell no, Nadal is the prime example of a doper. His muscles,running like a wild rabbit,stamina is non-human, but officials in tennis know how to "protect" their sport...

Please, stop making shit about Nadal and come back to the topic. Nadal has never been accused or anything.

gentenaire
Aug 24th, 2012, 06:49 AM
It's ridiculous. Yes, he doped, but so did everyone else at the time. It was a level playing field and Armstrong was by far the best rider.

It's all to easy to judge. But these riders were faced with the dilemma of either taking drugs or giving up their dream of being a professional cyclists.

I'm convinced there's now far less doping going on than before, riders now are a lot cleaner than in the Armstrong era. But if they're going after Armstrong, they should go after everyone else too. Personally, I'd rather see clemency for everyone in that era and learn from that to move forward to a clean sport.

I like the article below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?_r=1

To be clear, running a 9.8 (or faster), winning the 100-meter breaststroke or winning the Tour de France are all very possible and have been done without doping. But it is also clear that winning isn’t possible if antidoping regulations aren’t enforced. If you just said no when the antidoping regulations weren’t enforced, then you were deciding to end your dream, because you could not be competitive. It’s the hard fact of doping. The answer is not to teach young athletes that giving up lifelong dreams is better than giving in to cheating. The answer is to never give them the option. The only way to eliminate this choice is to put our greatest efforts into antidoping enforcement.

Remix13
Aug 24th, 2012, 07:18 AM
This is the USADA decision but I think it's the UCI who has the final word to revoke his 7 Tours :confused:

Anyway if he loses the 7 titles, I wonder who would get back them as the likes of Ullrich, Basso, Beloki and co were all banned for doping...

A 7 year gap in the TDF hall of fame would be awkward too. I think it's too late to charge Armstrong, this is turning ridiculous.

Well the same could happen with Roland Garros :oh:

Halardfan
Aug 24th, 2012, 07:38 AM
It's ridiculous. Yes, he doped, but so did everyone else at the time. It was a level playing field and Armstrong was by far the best rider.

It's all to easy to judge. But these riders were faced with the dilemma of either taking drugs or giving up their dream of being a professional cyclists.

I'm convinced there's now far less doping going on than before, riders now are a lot cleaner than in the Armstrong era. But if they're going after Armstrong, they should go after everyone else too. Personally, I'd rather see clemency for everyone in that era and learn from that to move forward to a clean sport.

I like the article below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?_r=1

Do you think literally everyone was cheating when Armstrong was cheating?

If we show them all clemency what is the message to a current rider? We have to show current riders that cheating won't pay and that there are consequences should you cheat.

Beat
Aug 24th, 2012, 08:29 AM
It's all to easy to judge. But these riders were faced with the dilemma of either taking drugs or giving up their dream of being a professional cyclists.


by taking drugs, their dream was already tainted. so it wasn't really a dilemma.

Stevie_J
Aug 24th, 2012, 08:51 AM
Not a surprise, but I kinda wish he wasn't guilty

ranfurly
Aug 24th, 2012, 09:05 AM
I knew it!

I knew it all bloody long that doping bastard!!

Skin the bastard alive!!! perverting sports with his innoculations and popping behaviour!

Skin him alive and send him to the coffers!!!! that and his girl friend Ostapchuk!

Mynarco
Aug 24th, 2012, 10:11 AM
Cycling is just a dodgy sport. And I just cannot respect LA from now on.

jrm
Aug 24th, 2012, 10:39 AM
10 years (or more) too late; shows that cycling sport was covering up his doping to protect the sport (protect meaning getting the money)

Sammo
Aug 24th, 2012, 11:51 AM
He lost his 7 Tours?? :eek:

Martian Jeza
Aug 24th, 2012, 12:00 PM
He lost his 7 Tours?? :eek:

USADA wants that all the results of Lance Armstrong from the 1st of August 1998 'till the end of his career to be erased and also a lifetime ban from cycling.

NashaMasha
Aug 24th, 2012, 01:03 PM
the most weired thing that doped are almost all (in cycling definitely), but only some careers will be destroyed into pieces

Super Dave
Aug 24th, 2012, 01:11 PM
:rolleyes: :facepalm: Obviously guilty since he's giving up. If there were no proof, they couldn't strip him. Though it's not a shock, it's indescribable how bad this is.

Why compete if you're going to dope? It always comes back to bite you and you look like a supreme jackass in the end. Right, Mark McGwire?

Such a true shame.

FORZA SARITA
Aug 24th, 2012, 01:19 PM
why it took so long?:lol:

ElusiveChanteuse
Aug 24th, 2012, 01:24 PM
poor guy...if he indeed did it, then shame on him, if not, it would be a total disaster to someone who has spent basically his whole life dedicating to it and then his legacy and everything taken away by some people without any concrete proof.

Super Dave
Aug 24th, 2012, 01:51 PM
http://celebgossipcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/george-lopez-bye-bitch1.jpg?

mykarma
Aug 24th, 2012, 02:16 PM
why it took so long?:lol:
He's made millions so in the long run he's probably not sweating it.

cynicole
Aug 24th, 2012, 04:33 PM
I wish he would fight it...

...so we could see all the evidence and find out who those 10 former teammates are.

I don't care if they strip him of the titles or not. I just want to stop having to hear him go on about how awful it is that his evil, jealous haters are witch-hunting the most important thing to happen to the fight against cancer. The amount of self-importance he affixes to himself on that matter is what I find so absolutely vile about him.

And that, unfortunately, is probably the one thing that's never going to go away.

KournikovaFan91
Aug 24th, 2012, 04:59 PM
the most weired thing that doped are almost all (in cycling definitely), but only some careers will be destroyed into pieces

This. I mean if anyone seriously believes what these men do during the grand tours can be achieved without enhancement then they are deluding themselves.

Wigglytuff
Aug 24th, 2012, 07:02 PM
Of course he was doping. Expect Michael Phelps to be next. Yes you heard it here first.

Mynarco
Aug 24th, 2012, 08:42 PM
poor guy...if he indeed did it, then shame on him, if not, it would be a total disaster to someone who has spent basically his whole life dedicating to it and then his legacy and everything taken away by some people without any concrete proof.

without any concrete proof?

dybbuk
Aug 24th, 2012, 08:52 PM
This. I mean if anyone seriously believes what these men do during the grand tours can be achieved without enhancement then they are deluding themselves.

I've always thought that what they were doing is simply too difficult. I don't know that much about cycling, but did they always do as difficult of a tour as they do now? It just seems too much for me for someone to do all that day after day naturally. At least as well and as quickly as they all do it presently. I mean, hours and hours of cycling (sometimes up and around mountains) and they do it for at least two weeks don't they. I don't see how any human can do that and come back the next day and do it again.

saint2
Aug 24th, 2012, 08:58 PM
Sorry, but...wasn't he sentenced without clear evidence ? As far as Im concerned, he never tested positive. It was based ONLY on relations of witnessess.

BTW- cycling is exciting sport to do. I love riding my bike. BUT, its also boring to watch.

Tennis Fool
Aug 24th, 2012, 10:25 PM
Interesting to read on different boards how sympathetic people are. Their comments seem to fall in two basic categories:
1. He never failed a test. He only gave in because he was tired of the witch hunt.
2. If he doped, so what? Everyone else was, too.

It seems if you identify with Lance, and find him likeable, you are are more likely to give him a pass. If you can't identify with him, and hate his guts, you are more likely to want to see him go down in flames.

Martian Jeza
Aug 24th, 2012, 10:45 PM
BTW- cycling is exciting sport to do. I love riding my bike. BUT, its also boring to watch.

I don't ride it but I love watching it and if you think it's boring : you still can watch the landscapes ;)

Tennis Fool
Aug 24th, 2012, 11:24 PM
From the NYT:
Top Finishers of the Tour de France Tainted by Doping

Since 1998, more than a third of the top finishers of the Tour de France have admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs at some point in their careers or have been officially linked to doping. The grid below shows the original top-10 placements in each of the past 15 years. Riders pictured have either tested positive, admitted to doping or been sanctioned by an official cycling or antidoping agency. Cyclists whose sanctions were later overturned are not included.

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/240/picture2uuw.png

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/sports/top-finishers-of-the-tour-de-france-tainted-by-doping.html?ref=global-home&gwh=E8D82FE180588ACD2F02B73F1CE542B6

Tennis Fool
Aug 24th, 2012, 11:29 PM
Who won the tour in 2008?

hablo
Aug 24th, 2012, 11:34 PM
On TV5, they showed who would be the winners of TdeF now that LA has been stripped: they would have to go down to cyclists who finished 8 or 9th in some years... :tape:

That's how many in top 10 finishes have been touched/associated with doping.


Anyhow, cycling is doing its job unlike other sports in regards to doping. Too bad it's always too little too late. ;)

NashaMasha
Aug 24th, 2012, 11:42 PM
On TV5, they showed who would be the winners of TdeF now that LA has been stripped: they would have to go down to cyclists who finished 8 or 9th in some years... :tape:

That's how many in top 10 finishes have been touched/associated with doping.


Anyhow, cycling is doing its job unlike other sports in regards to doping. Too bad it's always too little too late. ;)
and this 8th or 9th who eventually will get the title will get for only one reason "they were less tested than those who origianlly won the title" Because all the winners are passing the doping tests and from 4th place tests are made selectively

It more like "catch me if you can" Those who are more precautious and manage to deceive WADA = clean ...

Tennis Fool
Aug 24th, 2012, 11:54 PM
Anyone read Lance's Twitter? Apparently donations were up 25% to his foundation yesterday.

cowsonice
Aug 25th, 2012, 12:55 AM
Some people say Lance is a scapegoat.

I think if he was, it was the worst move because now, cycling has ZERO credibility and marketing power.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 01:01 AM
Do you think literally everyone was cheating when Armstrong was cheating?

If we show them all clemency what is the message to a current rider? We have to show current riders that cheating won't pay and that there are consequences should you cheat.


gentenaire shows a little more understanding of the history of cycling than your zero understanding, but it does not stop you from having a go anyway. Its all as simple as that isnt it. Lets get rid of all drugs in cycling and everyone play fair, and the fans of the sport will still want to watch it. After that, you can tell pro wrestling that they cannot fake the results of their matches and from now on we should show the wrestlers that planning the winners is cheating.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 01:04 AM
I wish he would fight it...

...so we could see all the evidence and find out who those 10 former teammates are.

I don't care if they strip him of the titles or not. I just want to stop having to hear him go on about how awful it is that his evil, jealous haters are witch-hunting the most important thing to happen to the fight against cancer. The amount of self-importance he affixes to himself on that matter is what I find so absolutely vile about him.

And that, unfortunately, is probably the one thing that's never going to go away.

He does not have the best lawyers and doctors so that he can make such dumb moves. The only thing I dont understand is why he made a comeback after he had got away with it all. Must have been the ego factor.

He is supposed to have raised $500m for research so I give him credit that even though he has used it to help make him look good, theres not too many other ppl who are doing so much to get medical research into the media. His book might be filled with LIES but it does not change that its still an inspiring story from a medical aspect

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 01:12 AM
Some people say Lance is a scapegoat.

I think if he was, it was the worst move because now, cycling has ZERO credibility and marketing power.

You are only thinking about the American cycling market. Europeans hate Lance :)

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 01:25 AM
This is the USADA decision but I think it's the UCI who has the final word to revoke his 7 Tours :confused:

Anyway if he loses the 7 titles, I wonder who would get back them as the likes of Ullrich, Basso, Beloki and co were all banned for doping...

A 7 year gap in the TDF hall of fame would be awkward too. I think it's too late to charge Armstrong, this is turning ridiculous.

Well the same could happen with Roland Garros :oh:

Thats what they should do to the baseball hall of fame, but no that would acknowledge that the whole sport is the sham that it is

JN
Aug 25th, 2012, 01:46 AM
Some people say Lance is a scapegoat.

I think if he was, it was the worst move because now, cycling has ZERO credibility and marketing power.

No problem. They can start marketing it like the WWF!

Tennis Fool
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:03 AM
Europeans hate Lance :)
That's a gross generalization. I've been on others boards, with comments from those on the European continent and the feeling is still split.

BTW, why the :) after "hate Americans." Do you hate Americans?

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:12 AM
I hate Americans. Thats why I watch American football and read Lance's book :)

cynicole
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:30 AM
He is supposed to have raised $500m for research so I give him credit that even though he has used it to help make him look good, theres not too many other ppl who are doing so much to get medical research into the media. His book might be filled with LIES but it does not change that its still an inspiring story from a medical aspect

My huge problem is that nearly every single time he's released a statement to defend himself against doping charges, he cites his "cancer hero status" as a reason why he should be left alone or be untouchable. Sometimes he / his PR people phrase it to read like, "These shameless government people who are out to make a name for themselves or these French America-haters are damaging the fight against cancer that Lance Armstrong is leading."

That's what makes my stomach turn. A lot of my family members have been diagnosed with cancer over the years and quite a number of them have passed away due to it so maybe it strikes me a bit more sensitively. That and I remember people innocently foisting Livestrong wristbands upon my father during his last three months. My dad was a cycling fan and though not a fan of the man, he still liked watching Armstrong race. But the man was just tacky (making himself the patron saint of cancer), not to mention a bully, and my dad would rip off those Livestrong bands and throw them in the trash once the company left.

Halardfan
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:48 AM
gentenaire shows a little more understanding of the history of cycling than your zero understanding, but it does not stop you from having a go anyway. Its all as simple as that isnt it. Lets get rid of all drugs in cycling and everyone play fair, and the fans of the sport will still want to watch it. After that, you can tell pro wrestling that they cannot fake the results of their matches and from now on we should show the wrestlers that planning the winners is cheating.

Your personal attacks on me, no matter what the subject, are getting tiresome.

For the record, my reply to gentenaire was in no way intended to "have a go" and gentenaire is a poster I respect.

There is a difference between having a go and questioning a particular point of view with which I don't agree.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:51 AM
What makes him offensive to people also makes him useful for doing good. LeMond was a great cyclist, but noone really knows him, it was Armstrong's blind focus which caused cycling's profile to register in the American media. The stubborn single mindedness helped him to stay alive and regain his health, and now it helps him to create an awareness in the media for cancer. I just hopes he keeps working and achieving for Livestrong, apart from all the cycling issues.

ico4498
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:52 AM
I hate Americans. Thats why I watch American football and read Lance's book :)

really doesn't explain the prior smiley face, but whatever.

Tennis Fool
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:04 AM
He is supposed to have raised $500m for research
Cancer *awareness*, not research. None of that $$$ goes to research. It's all bs. Also the for-profit wing of the foundation, with funding from Nike, goes to line his pockets.

His book might be filled with LIES but it does not change that its still an inspiring story from a medical aspectWould you opinion change if it came out that doping caused his cancer? Not that it did, but there seems to be some suspicion that he was doping at the time.

moby
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:05 AM
Who won the tour in 2008?

Carlos Sastre, who has a reputation of being clean, or at least cleaner.

Actually I read that if you took out all the serious doping suspects, he would have 6 or 7 wins. Usually he finishes near the bottom of the Top 10.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:06 AM
Your personal attacks on me, no matter what the subject, are getting tiresome.

For the record, my reply to gentenaire was in no way intended to "have a go" and gentenaire is a poster I respect.

There is a difference between having a go and questioning a particular point of view with which I don't agree.

You make your broad statements for justice and fairness without seeming to understand the subject matter. You may find it tiresome to be requested to know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. gentenaire very obviously is a real fan of the sport, whereas you look like all the other casual observers whining about how corrupt the sport is. I will give just one example of what cycling means in Europe, when Italian cyclist Marco Pantani passed away, the streets were filled with people supporting him. This is the kind of person you would call a common cheat. Would you like to clean up boxing and American sports too?

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:10 AM
Carlos Sastre, who has a reputation of being clean, or at least cleaner.

Actually I read that if you took out all the serious doping suspects, he would have 6 or 7 wins. Usually he finishes near the bottom of the Top 10.

Not likely they will pass the titles onto the second placegetters, but if they did Jan Ullrich would suddenly clean up :drool:

Halardfan
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:12 AM
You make your broad statements for justice and fairness without seeming to understand the subject matter. You may find it tiresome to be requested to know what you are talking about before you open your mouth. gentenaire very obviously is a real fan of the sport, whereas you look like all the other casual observers whining about how corrupt the sport is. I will give just one example of what cycling means in Europe, when Italian cyclist Marco Pantani passed away, the streets were filled with people supporting him. This is the kind of person you would call a common cheat. Would you like to clean up boxing and American sports too?

It is much simpler than you make out. If a person is a cheat, their achievements should count for nothing. Otherwise what is the point?

Is cheating not obviously wrong?

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:28 AM
Cancer *awareness*, not research. None of that $$$ goes to research. It's all bs. Also the for-profit wing of the foundation, with funding from Nike, goes to line his pockets.

Would you opinion change if it came out that doping caused his cancer? Not that it did, but there seems to be some suspicion that he was doping at the time.

I know his charity work is open to all kinds of criticism, but even if most of it is worthless, he has still managed to get cancer awareness into the mass media, which is not an easy thing. Most celebrities who do charity work could be accused of profiting from it too.

I have read all kinds of things about him, including a rumour that having one testicle gave him a chemical advantage over the other riders. It cannot be ruled out that drugs might have caused his illness, although I have not heard of any other cyclists getting cancer from it, they usually have heart problems. He has often used the argument that he would never dream of using drugs because he would never want to risk his health. I accepted that for a long time until I realised that the only way he could dominate opponents who were known drug-users was if he was super-human. I apply the same logic to supposed sporting greats like Usain Bolt. Whatever Armstrong's drug story is, it does not change that the doctors gave him a 3% chance of surviving and he somehow managed to recover and become stronger than before, and it makes a great read.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:31 AM
It is much simpler than you make out. If a person is a cheat, their achievements should count for nothing. Otherwise what is the point?

Is cheating not obviously wrong?

How many sports do you want to clean up and how will you go about doing it? There are many rumours that tennis is far from clean and I find it a bit funny that drug cases are very rare for a sport where there is so much money to be made.

NashaMasha
Aug 25th, 2012, 03:57 AM
It is much simpler than you make out. If a person is a cheat, their achievements should count for nothing. Otherwise what is the point?

in reality those cheater who are caught - their achievements count for nothing , they are forgotten by their fans , their trophies and medals are revoked....

those cheaters who managed not to be caught are true stars , absolutely "clean" and get all the glory and money and their names with golden letters are written in the sport's hystory....

It looks like Al Capone, everyone was aware what a criminal he was but "no evidence = not a criminal"

Catching juiced sportsmen in cycling is more like a charade, it's a theater play to demonstrate the public the illusion of clean sport .

cynicole
Aug 25th, 2012, 04:09 AM
The stubborn single mindedness helped him to stay alive and regain his health, and now it helps him to create an awareness in the media for cancer. I just hopes he keeps working and achieving for Livestrong, apart from all the cycling issues.

There have been studies about the effects of positive mindset and effort when it comes to curing cancer. The most recent one I read (a few months ago) concluded that there was no correlation whatsoever.

I also wasn't aware that people or the media didn't know what cancer was before Lance Armstrong came around. Wow, think of all those people who wouldn't know anything about cancer without Lance! (Then again, I have a rough family history so my experience is different.)

Livestrong wouldn't be what it is today without the underlying fraud. This would be like if Goldman Sachs started charter schools for underprivileged children and then defended itself by saying, "Your accusations are undoing the good we've done for underprivileged children." Sure, all the other banks did things that were shady as f*ck, but GS did it better than the rest. Screw all those people who were actually trying to be honest or who naively had a code of ethics that wasn't based on getting top dollar (or, for some, just keeping their job). Those whistleblowers? Why, they were just bitter because they were fired, or jealous because they weren't getting the big bonuses.

LeMond was shunted to the sidelines once he started speaking out about doping. And it got worse once Lance became a TDF winner. But, poor him, he didn't survive cancer and have that storyline for Bristol Myers Squibb, Nike, and the UCI to capitalize on so he's not inspirational. His name also didn't rhyme with "France" so didn't make for such amusing copy or ads or make it seem like it was destiny. Oh, and "strong" is in there too. So many marketing possibilities!

With sport, either you really commit to being a clean sport, or you decide that, health-be-damned, anyone could take whatever dope they want and it's just understood that that's what you have to do. Spectators love watching doped up athletes (witness Sosa and McGwire after the baseball strike). I believe that the sporting authorities turned a blind eye or covered stuff up for the money so I kind of think it's sh!t when they go after the athletes as they do when there are so many complicit parties.

Whatevs. From all I've read, my opinion seems to be the opposite of what's out there. I don't care what happens to his titles because the vast majority of them doped. I do believe that the playing field wasn't exactly level, that certain people benefit from drugs in ways that others don't and that he had an advantage because his people were better at the doping game but BRAVO to him and Johan Bruyneel for that. But huge stupid facepalm to Armstrong for not completely retiring. I think this is a waste of taxpayer money. I think the UCI and other parties kept things quiet because the money was too good.

The only good? LA's story(TM) inspired cancer survivors to feel like they could still achieve things after cancer and all that increased interest in cycling in the USA.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 05:02 AM
Im not saying he is alive today just because of willpower. He covers this issue, among many cancer-related issues, in his book, saying that he knows fit, positive ppl who died fast while weak ppl survived, it can be quite random. His willpower did help him to get through the hard times and make a recovery, starting with his having read tons of books on cancer as soon as he got diagnosed so he would be well-informed. I cannot read his story without at least liking some aspects of his personality, and I will not diminish some of the work he has put into cancer awareness or research.

I agree that spectators love watching doped up athletes. Its been like that since the gladiators in Rome. The French crowds get a perverse enjoyment from watching the cyclists going up enormous climbs, knowing ofc that this performance cannot be done without drugs. Theres no other sport where they can get up close in the face of the athletes like that. Thats why the sport has a unique place in the culture.

USADA made the important remark that getting UCI to help in investigating Lance is like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

I also agree that he and US Postal (Wiggins's team is now being called UK Postal in acknowledgement of how effective their doping system is) had an advantage in having better doctors and escaping detection. His teammates only ran into problems once they left the setup, and in the end they were the key to exposing the whole system.

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2012, 06:48 AM
It is much simpler than you make out. If a person is a cheat, their achievements should count for nothing. Otherwise what is the point?

Is cheating not obviously wrong?

DId you read the NY times article I linked?

It's really not as simple as that. It wasn't cheating in other to become better than the others, it was cheating in order to be back on the same level as everyone else who was also cheating. It was the choice between cheating or giving up the sport altogether. It's a terrible choice to make.

I really like what Vaughters said, we must strive to get a decent anti doping policy in place so that riders never have to make that choice. I think we're getting there now. And it would really help if everyone from that era started speaking up and coming clean, it would help in the fight against doping. I think the witch hunt against Lance is over the top, but I wish he too would come clean as it would help the fight against doping. But I think coming clean for him now just isn't an option anymore because he's been fighting it for way too long.

There's also a very fine line between what is considered doping and what isn't. EPO raises your hematocrit levels. It creates the effect of spending time at high altitude. A lot of top athletes, like Phelps have special pressure chamber that recreate the same effect. Before the games, they live and sleep in there for a few days to get their hematocrit levels up. Different method to achieve the same result, except that EPO isn't allowed, whereas those chambers are.


And now it's time the other sports caught up too. You all know all top tennis players missed out of competition tests, right? Nadal, Federer, all missed tests. Just saying....

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2012, 06:58 AM
Livestrong wouldn't be what it is today without the underlying fraud.

You make it sound as if every average person can just become a tour the France winner by taking drugs. Those drugs make the difference between 99 and 100%, that's the difference between winning and ending in the top 10. But that other 99% is all through hard work and dedication. If you saw the way Lance won his tours, no one else was as prepared as him. He would ride the time trials several times over, would know exactly in where to change to what gear, would know every bend, how to take it. He didn't leave anything to chance.
I've seen Jan Ullrich make really stupid tactical mistakes, even Lance looked at him with a "what on earth are you doing, dumbo?!!" look. He too was on drugs, but he would party too much during the year and he was never as well prepared as Lance.
Lance didn't beat Ullrich by taking drugs, he beat Ullrich because he took a far more professional approach to winning.
Take away the drugs from every rider, Lance still would have won those tours.

Wiggins has now now the tour in a similar manner (but without the drugs, yes, I believe Wiggins is clean), Sky was just so much more professional than other teams. Those things make a difference too.

moby
Aug 25th, 2012, 07:07 AM
^Not everyone responds to drugs the same way. :shrug:

Not all drugs are equal. :shrug: Money can buy the best drug program.

Clay Death
Aug 25th, 2012, 07:19 AM
he is still the best in his day if most of the other greats were also doping.

he did what he had to. they were doping so he felt that he had to do that too in order to keep up. or perhaps he was afraid to die since he had come so close to it. and he doped to stay strong and to keep cancer at bay.

others did not have to deal with near certain death. he did and he escaped it with his relentless will.

its quite simple to me: they all dope and but one of them dominates. so he is still the best.


i dont give a damn if they take his titles away. we all saw his 7 tour wins. they cant erase that from my memory.

even more importantly, he has single handedly try to improve the human condition and done one hell of a job of it. name 1 athlete who as done as much as lance. just name one?


and he has inspired millions and millions. that cant be taken away either.

saint2
Aug 25th, 2012, 08:43 AM
Lets get some things clear- did he took drugs ? IMO he did. BUT:

1. If everyone takes drugs, and he is able to win, that means he is still the best, drugged or not.

2. 500 anti-doping tests, neither was positive. It means there is no evidence, and as long as there is no evidence there is no guilt.

3. Taking his trophies away from him based just on some witness relations is laughable.

gentenaire
Aug 25th, 2012, 08:54 AM
Lets get some things clear- did he took drugs ? IMO he did. BUT:


2. 500 anti-doping tests, neither was positive. It means there is no evidence, and as long as there is no evidence there is no guilt.



When they tested his B-samples in 2005 from the 1999 tour, EPO was found, and not a little bit. He was definitely taking EPO at the time. But in 1999, there was no test for EPO. And because the A-samples had already been used back in 1999, he couldn't be convicted for the positive EPO tests.

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 09:02 AM
Some people, including Floyd Landis, believe that Armstrong tested positive for EPO at the Tour of Switzerland in 2001 but that the UCI helped suppress the test result.

Mikey.
Aug 25th, 2012, 02:55 PM
I know his charity work is open to all kinds of criticism, but even if most of it is worthless, he has still managed to get cancer awareness into the mass media, which is not an easy thing. Most celebrities who do charity work could be accused of profiting from it too.

I have read all kinds of things about him, including a rumour that having one testicle gave him a chemical advantage over the other riders. It cannot be ruled out that drugs might have caused his illness, although I have not heard of any other cyclists getting cancer from it, they usually have heart problems. He has often used the argument that he would never dream of using drugs because he would never want to risk his health. I accepted that for a long time until I realised that the only way he could dominate opponents who were known drug-users was if he was super-human. I apply the same logic to supposed sporting greats like Usain Bolt. Whatever Armstrong's drug story is, it does not change that the doctors gave him a 3% chance of surviving and he somehow managed to recover and become stronger than before, and it makes a great read.

:spit: That is so hilarious. Where did you read that?

Melange
Aug 25th, 2012, 09:21 PM
I read it on a cycling forum, it seem that there was a rumour in the european media or among the other cycling teams that because he has one ball, he produces less of the hormones that cause the body to fatigue, or something like that.

Clay Death
Aug 25th, 2012, 10:27 PM
dont believe that nonsense Melange.

lot of people are out to get him so they will come up any nonsense they can think of.

Tennis Fool
Aug 25th, 2012, 11:39 PM
People on Twitter are saying Neil Armstrong died because they took his titles away :happy:

Halardfan
Aug 25th, 2012, 11:53 PM
Some suggest that he was merely doing what he had to do to keep up with everyone else. Yet surely one can equally argue the opposite...he was the guy winning doped up Tour de France after doped up tour de France. His competitors surely have a stronger case for saying, Armstrong was untouchable, Armstrong was doping, winning everything, is one of the most popular athletes in the world...they equally have to cheat to have a hope of getting near him. They also see his example, and it was hard to see any downside to cheating.

I believe strict doping standards should be enforced in all sport, with strict penalties in all sports. I hope all my favourite athletes are clean but whether I love them, like them, don't like them or hate them, I want drug cheats out of sport, as much as we can possibly achieve that.

If we forgive Armstrong, do we forgive all drugs cheats? Look at the famous 100m final that Ben Johnson won. Later evidence has indicated that plenty more than Johnson were doping in that event. He equally could say, he knew his rivals were cheating, knew he hadnt a hope of winning if ge didnt dope.

Do we absolve him and all those others? If we absolve Armstrong, the moral arguement against drugs cheats has to be weakened. Its hard to absolve him and then condemn the next drug cheat that comes along.

Lucemferre
Aug 26th, 2012, 12:08 AM
dont believe that nonsense Melange.

lot of people are out to get him so they will come up any nonsense they can think of.

This is probably what you'll say when somebody else gets caught.

Clay Death
Aug 26th, 2012, 12:43 AM
lance was a larger than life target. those out to get him got their way but lance still stands tall.

he won big in everything he ever did and everything he ever attempted and he even managed to escape death.

lance remains the biggest story in sports ever. they cant take that away from him.

gentenaire
Aug 26th, 2012, 08:50 AM
Some suggest that he was merely doing what he had to do to keep up with everyone else. Yet surely one can equally argue the opposite...he was the guy winning doped up Tour de France after doped up tour de France. His competitors surely have a stronger case for saying, Armstrong was untouchable, Armstrong was doping, winning everything, is one of the most popular athletes in the world...they equally have to cheat to have a hope of getting near him. They also see his example, and it was hard to see any downside to cheating.
.

You make some valid points.
There are now reports that Armstrong got notified of drugs testers beforehand (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls)
He had about 20 minutes to erase evidence, to dilute his blood, etc. Then there's that suspicious large amount of money Armstrong transferred to the anti doping agency. The case against him must have been very strong for him to decide not to fight it.

My favorite cycling blog, blazin saddles, suggests just annulling those 7 years. 7 years with no winner, just a 7 year void, so that you wouldn't have to declare those who were 2nd those years and who're not clean either as winners.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/

It's well worth a read.

Halardfan
Aug 26th, 2012, 09:32 AM
You make some valid points.
There are now reports that Armstrong got notified of drugs testers beforehand (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls)
He had about 20 minutes to erase evidence, to dilute his blood, etc. Then there's that suspicious large amount of money Armstrong transferred to the anti doping agency. The case against him must have been very strong for him to decide not to fight it.

My favorite cycling blog, blazin saddles, suggests just annulling those 7 years. 7 years with no winner, just a 7 year void, so that you wouldn't have to declare those who were 2nd those years and who're not clean either as winners.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/

It's well worth a read.

Interesting article, thanks. :)

I think, if the cheating was as widespread during the Armstrong years as has been suggested, then indeed there being no winner for those years is best...

The people I feel sorry for during the Armstrong years are those who stayed clean, stuck to their principles, maybe finished way down the field behind a legion of dopers, Armstrong at their head.

I have nothing against cycling per se. Indeed more broadly perhaps they merely eventually paid the price of a testing system that finally became more rigorous than many other sports.

If Sport A has a strict testing system and catches a lot of cheats, and Sport B has a weak testing system and catches few cheats, it's hard to make a fair comparisson of which sport is more doped up. A universal system would help but won't happen.

Melange
Aug 26th, 2012, 10:23 AM
You make some valid points.
There are now reports that Armstrong got notified of drugs testers beforehand (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrong-warned-before-all-doping-controls)
He had about 20 minutes to erase evidence, to dilute his blood, etc. Then there's that suspicious large amount of money Armstrong transferred to the anti doping agency. The case against him must have been very strong for him to decide not to fight it.

That was a "donation" to UCI the sport's "governing" body. The UCI president later said that maybe it was not such a good idea to be accepting a huge donation from one of the cyclists.


My favorite cycling blog, blazin saddles, suggests just annulling those 7 years. 7 years with no winner, just a 7 year void, so that you wouldn't have to declare those who were 2nd those years and who're not clean either as winners.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/

It's well worth a read.

That is obviously the most likely option. Its like baseball saying Barry Bonds is a steroid abuser so we will pass his HR record to McGwire, oh wait we cant because he is a steroid abuser, so we will pass his HR record to Sammy, oh wait...

Imagine if they passed all the titles to the 2nd place winners, overnight Jan Ullrich would become a legend of the sport :bigwave:

Melange
Aug 27th, 2012, 12:01 PM
Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA’s hypocrisy

Sally Jenkins, washingtonpost.com


First of all, Lance Armstrong is a good man. There’s nothing that I can learn about him short of murder that would alter my opinion on that. Second, I don’t know if he’s telling the truth when he insists he didn’t use performance-enhancing drugs in the Tour de France — never have known. I do know that he beat cancer fair and square, that he’s not the mastermind criminal the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency makes him out to be, and that the process of stripping him of his titles reeks.

A federal judge wrote last week, “USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.” You don’t say. Then when is a judge, or better yet Congress, going to do something about it?

Quite independently of Lance, with whom I wrote two books, for a long, long time I’ve had serious doubts about the motives, efficiency and wisdom of these “doping” investigations. In the Balco affair, all the wrong people were prosecuted. It’s the only so-called drug investigation in which the manufacturers and the distributors were given plea deals in order to throw the book at the users. What that told us was that it was big-game hunting, not justice. It was careerist investigators trying to put athletes’ antlers on their walls. Meanwhile, the Fourth Amendment became a muddy, stomped-on, kicked-aside doormat.

So forget Lance. I have so many problems with USADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) — which is supposed to be where athletes can appeal, only they never, ever win — that it’s hard to know where to begin. American athletes have lost 58 of 60 cases before the CAS. Would you want to go before that court?

Anyone who thinks an athlete has a fair shot in front of CAS should review the Alberto Contador case. Contador was found to have a minuscule, insignificant amount of clenbuterol in his urine during the 2010 Tour de France. After hearing 4,000 pages of testimony and debate, CAS acknowledged that the substance was too small to have been performance-enhancing and that its ingestion was almost certainly unintentional.

Therefore he was guilty. He received a two-year ban.

CAS’s rationale? “There is no reason to exonerate the athlete so the ban is two years,” one member of the panel said.

Would you want to go before that court?

The decision was so appalling that even the Tour runner-up, Andy Schleck of Luxembourg, couldn’t swallow it and refused to accept the title of winner. “There is no reason to be happy now,” Schleck said. “First of all, I felt bad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. . . . I battled with Contador in that race and I lost.”

The former prime minister of Spain, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, had openly declared his belief that Contador was innocent. When the CAS ruling came down, Zapatero expressed “bewilderment” and suggested it was so irrational it gave “sufficient reasons to open a debate about their fairness.”

The response of WADA President John Fahey? A rant in which he suggested that Contador was given a two-year ban instead of one because Zapatero had dared to open his mouth. Let me repeat: The president of WADA actually suggested publicly that an athlete’s penalty was made harsher because his prime minister had the nerve to challenge WADA’s authority.

Again, would you want to go before that court?

When are people going to grow sick enough of these astonishing overreaches and abuses to do something about it? As my friend Tommy Craggs has written for Deadspin, WADA and USADA have become “a gang of moralizing cranks . . . and it is beyond me why an organization that wants to ban caffeine again hasn’t yet gotten laughed out of polite conversation.”

You can put me down on that side of the argument. You can also put me down on the side of professional basketball player Diana Taurasi, who has called the international drug testing bureaucracy “one of the most unfair processes you can be put through,” and attorney Howard Jacobs, who makes his living going before CAS. He told USA Today, “A lot of times athletes are getting run over in the quest for clean sport.”

How does an agency that is supposed to regulate drug testing strip a guy of seven titles without a single positive drug test? Whether Armstrong is innocent or guilty, that question should give all of us pause. How is it that an American agency can decide to invalidate somebody’s results achieved in Europe, in a sport it doesn’t control? Better question, how is it that an American taxpayer-funded organization can participate in an adjudication system in which you get a two-year ban because “there is no reason to exonerate” you? At what point is such an organization shut down and defunded?

In his decision last week, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks declined to intervene in USADA’s case against Armstrong because to do so would “turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little.” But in the next breath Sparks expressed an opinion on certain matters he does know about. “The deficiency of USADA’s charging document is of serious constitutional concern,” he wrote. “Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA’s charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder.” Among other things, he was disturbed by USADA’s “apparent single-minded determination” to go after Armstrong and force him before CAS.

All of which I find far more worrisome than the question of whether he may have transfused his own blood in trying to climb a mountain on a bike. It wasn’t a judge’s job to intervene with USADA. But it most certainly would seem to be the job of Congress. The WADA-USADA system is simply incompatible with the U.S. legal system.



This appears to be a serious sports journalist :help:

cynicole
Aug 27th, 2012, 01:48 PM
You make it sound as if every average person can just become a tour the France winner by taking drugs.

If you got that impression, either you misread or I wasn't clear enough.

Or a bit from Column A and a bit from Column B.

wta_zuperfann
Aug 27th, 2012, 01:48 PM
Any word yet from UCI as to whether it will accede to the demand to take back Armstrong's TDF awards?

cynicole
Aug 27th, 2012, 01:50 PM
^Not everyone responds to drugs the same way. :shrug:

Not all drugs are equal. :shrug: Money can buy the best drug program.

Biologically. Two people can take the same exact drugs and have different physical reactions. That's all I'm saying.

Monica_Rules
Aug 27th, 2012, 02:03 PM
What's with all this support for Armstrong?

The biggest cheat and fraud in sporting history and some of you guys are defending him :lol:

I used to admire him for coming back from Cancer to win the tour again but now.... he's just a fraud

moby
Aug 27th, 2012, 02:18 PM
What's with all this support for Armstrong?

The biggest cheat and fraud in sporting history and some of you guys are defending him :lol:

I used to admire him for coming back from Cancer to win the tour again but now.... he's just a fraudIt's like a cult. Even when cult leaders are busted their followers continue to support them. It's a sort of psychological defense to resolve the cognitive dissonance.

Olórin
Aug 27th, 2012, 02:39 PM
But he's won it 7 times! Surely there needs to be evidence he doped in each of the years. I admit I am not clued up about doping or cycling but I was pretty astounded to hear this.

Anyway, isn't this basically meaningless unless the Tour de France itself annuls its titles. It would be like the ITF "annulling", say, Lindsay Davenport's Wimbledon title (random example) - well if her name is still inscribed on the trophy and in the Wimbledon clubhouse, we all saw her win, she held the trophy, nothing has really been changed.

Javi.
Aug 27th, 2012, 02:49 PM
I can't with people justifying cheating :facepalm:
He took drugs and he was caught. Deal with it.

saint2
Aug 27th, 2012, 03:31 PM
The biggest cheat and fraud in sporting history and some of you guys are defending him

Biggest. Cheat. In. History. ??? Are you guys all nuts ?

He took drugs and he was caught. Deal with it.

Except he wasn't caught.

Javi.
Aug 27th, 2012, 04:35 PM
Except he wasn't caught.

Yes, cheater was caught. They have blood samples from him with EPO from 1999. Not to mention so many people of his team accusing him. :wavey:

Melange
Aug 29th, 2012, 12:48 PM
The Lance Armstrong fallout - questions, denials and doping reactions

http://www.sportsscientists.com

Friday last week saw Lance Armstrong release a statement that effectively ended his fight against the USADA doping charges, and accept the stripping of his seven Tour de France titles. It was a significant day for the sport, if only because it forces a look back to the era of cycling that was so tainted by drugs that between 1996 and 2006, the sport has not had a single champion untainted by doping. The timeline reads: Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Armstrong, Landis, and here we sit, seven years later with a big asterisk next to the Tour!

The reaction to the USADA case, and Armstrong's statement, has however produced huge debate. I've refrained from comment here, but have been discussing it at length over on Facebook and Twitter for those interested in the day-to-day thoughts that come up.

But it's time to address a few of the common questions and positions, hence this post.

The polarized debate

The only thing one can say with certainty about Armstrong's decision is that he felt that he had no chance of winning an arbitration proceeding before the USADA. That is unquestionably true. The split happens because you can explain this in one of two ways. The first is that he felt he had no chance of winning because the court is rigged, the verdict already decided, and the process unconstitutional. A witch-hunt. This is of course what he has said, through his statement, and the PR campaign that was launched when the USADA case was first announced. In fact, it's the same message he has been throwing out for years, as Frankie Andreu pointed out with his reaction, saying it sounded like a "broken record".

The second explanation is that he had no chance of winning because the evidence that USADA had gathered was so convincing, so compelling that he could not explain it away. There would be no brazen denial in the face of perhaps a dozen team-mates all alleging the same thing, plus the testimony of experts and officials who explained how he'd done it. The blood values, possibly financial records, who knows what other evidence they had? Circumstantial perhaps, but there was a mountain of it. And make no mistake, Armstrong would have known what that evidence was - not specifically perhaps, but he'd know if the evidence existed, and would assume that those witnesses for USADA would have some pretty damning accounts, possibly backed with proof.

Your choice between those two options is largely a function of what you want to believe, or what you believed before the statement was even released. If you want to believe the Lance Armstrong story, you're going for the former - he was just tired.

Let me state, upfront, that I would opt for the second one, that Lance Armstrong doped, and that his decision not to fight the charges is a tactical decision aimed at trying to keep the lid on that evidence, because he knows it's not worth allowing into the public. For about 13 years, Lance Armstrong has fought the process, and now, for the first time, he faced evidence, and chose not to fight. I interpret his decision not to fight as an admission that he can't, not that he shouldn't, and I don't buy the unconstitutional criticism that he has so cleverly sewn into the discussion (as evidenced by how many are outraged at the USADA case).

The problem is, if you choose to believe Armstrong, that it's a witch-hunt, then you are also a conspiracy theorist, because the only way you can explain all the witnesses who are willing to testify is to say that they are part of a massive conspiracy against him. One that spans the Atlantic Ocean, includes former team-mates, journalists, doctors, administrators, soigneurs, strangers and mechanics. A few people are "easy" to dismiss - Landis and Hamilton are not credible, that's easy. But if USADA had ten more lined up, it becomes more and more difficult to dismiss.

The implication of Armstrong's decision not to fight the charges is that it denies a formal ruling on the matter, and also delays the emergence of the evidence. This was expressed by David Walsh as disappointment, and it was best captured in this excellent piece by Anna Zimmerman, who, by the way, also provided the best coverage of the legal wrangling prior the Armstrong's statement. She explains how the USADA cases was within its mandate, constitutional and not the 'witch-hunt' that people seem so willing to call it (with more than a nudge from clever PR people for Armstrong).

Two other pieces well worth reading on that particular question are Joe Lindsey's insights here, and this piece on FraudBytes, which I think address the question adequately. The Joe Lindsey piece on Boulder Report is excellent because it explains how the evidence may still emerge, and why it matters.

Oh and if you have a lot of time, then this is a must-read - it's a four-part rebuttal of the argument that the USADA case is so unconstitutional by someone called "Nerdlinger". Even if you just read Parts I to IV, it will take you through every claim and PR strategy that has been employed. Quite brilliant.

Let me now turn my attention to four of the common questions and retorts that seem to have arisen:

1. "Lance passed 500 tests. He must be innocent"

This is straight from the press release, because it's been Armstrong's most used retort to the doping question. Two things:

First, there is no way he was tested 500 times. DimSpace has compiled a record of all the possible tests Armstrong may have been subjected to, with over-estimates, and it comes to 236. So there's more than a little hype in that number that started at 400, then hit 500, and just like that fish your uncle caught on his summer vacation in 1997 grew in size with every story-telling, ended up around the 600 mark.

Nevertheless, 236 is an impressive number to pass, so how is it possible? Well, here's a list of names - Marion Jones, Tim Montgomery, Dwain Chambers, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich, Valverde. That's just six names of athletes who also doped for very long periods without failing a test. Some were caught eventually (Chambers & Montgomery) because a test was developed for a drug called THG based on a tip-off. It then emerged that Chambers had doped for years, with everything, avoiding detection. Ullrich went down because of good old-fashioned investigative work that discovered blood bags in a clinic. Marion Jones was never caught. The reality is that testing is limited, especially when it happens in-competition. That's why people say that if you fail a drug test in competition, you have failed an IQ test - it's so simple to manipulate the timing and dosage of your drug use so that you are not tested when you compete.

And remember, the effect of doping lasts long after the drug is gone. You can take EPO, get the benefit, and compete without the drug in the system. Micro-dosing allows you to take the drug very close to the event without it being detectable. In fact, you can dope 12 hours from your race, and as long as you get dosage right, you'll pass doping controls. The authorities have to be very lucky to test you while you have the drug in your body.

The point is, passing the drug controls is not really all that difficult.

Another point about Armstrong is that his Tour victories spanned a period where the two most common doping methods were not detectable. First, EPO was widely used without being detectable. Once a test was developed for EPO, the practice changed, almost overnight, to blood doping, which was also very difficult to detect. It was only with the introduction of the biological passport that it became possible, because they were looking for the effect of the drug rather than the drug itself. Armstrong did not compete under that kind of scrutiny - his era was one where doping control was almost 'quaint' by comparison.

It is no co-incidence that upon his return in 2009, when the biological passport was being used, his values were immediately picked up as borderline suspicious (by Morkeberg, if you fancy a google search). And, part of the USADA case is Armstrong's blood values which they say are indicative of doping - we are yet to see that evidence. But again, this is a sign of a changing anti-doping landscape, that now catches what 12 years ago was impossible to detect.

So, we should not be too surprised at the fact that he never failed a doping test. One that stuck, anyway - there is the pesky matter of that cortisone positive, and that inconvenient failed EPO test when research testing discovered that his samples were positive from the 1999 Tour (edit: I initially said 2001 - the 2001 samples were those alleged by Landis to have been covered up at the Tour of Switzerland. It was on 1999 that the research testing was done - thanks to those who picked up my mix-up). Here again, Armstrong escaped because doping control had not made the step up to where it is today - today, samples are kept for long periods so that any undetectable drugs can be detected in the future, when the test becomes available. Had this been the case for the Armstrong era, in 2001 specifically, this claim of "never failed a test" would never have existed. As it is, it's false because of those test failures, but the absence of a B-sample meant it did not stick.

And then there is also the allegation of bribes paid to cover up positive tests - if USADA has evidence in the form of testimony that can be backed up with records or documentation, then this more than answers the "500 test" myth - why beat the tests when you can pay to make them disappear?

Or why worry about beating them when you know when they're coming? The latest report suggests that sources within the French lab (AFLD) say that Armstrong was routinely informed of when the tests would happen, allowing him ample time to manipulate the sample. The "surprise" element of out-of-competition testing is 90% of their effectiveness, and so if this is the case, then you again get a clearer picture of why those 236 tests failed to discover anything.

Here again, the evidence and testimony will either be believed or dismissed as hearsay. Either way, the "never failed a test in 500" defense is irrelevant because it is a) exaggerated, b) shown up as meaningless by the anti-doping climate of the Armstrong era, c) possibly false anyway.

2. "This is futile. What is the point of doping controls if they don't catch anyone anyway?"

An extension of the above is the realization that Armstrong was tested many times without failing the convenient test that we have created as a requirement for a doping positive. People take that to mean that anti-doping is useless and irrelevant.

Not so, for a few reasons. First, as I explain above, the anti-doping landscape has evolved, and this is a paradigm shift people need to make. There was a time that we were looking for "smoking guns". That is, to convict an athlete of doping, we needed a blood or urine sample with the drug in it. It's the equivalent of needing to catch a thief on camera with his hand in the bank vault or cash register.

That was naive. Those days are long gone. The sophistication of doping has forced a rethink, and there has been a paradigm change which many people are sadly unaware of. The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced. Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught.

The advent of out-of-competition testing forced performances to drop almost overnight, and was the first illustration that doping control exists to deter doping as much as it does to catch it. Take note of that - doping control is there not only to catch dopers, but to deter them from doping in the first place.

If that is working, then you'll see two things. Fewer people will dope ("We can't get away with it"). And, those who do dope will dope less, with smaller doses ("We can still get away with it, but we have to be extra careful"). That is what brings the performance level down, and hopefully ensures that everyone has a realistic shot of competing without doping. I'd go so far as to say that the best we can hope for is that doping control is so tight and difficult to avoid, that doping is squeezed to the point where it makes no significant impact on performance. Even though it happens, it's ineffective. That would be good enough, in my opinion.

You see this most strikingly in women's athletics - prior to 1987, there were no out-of-competition tests. Once introduced, performances dropped instantly, and the current record books are dominated by those 1980s performances. The poor female sprinters and power athletes of the current era cannot get close to their event world records, and that's thanks to better anti-doping control today.

But this doesn't happen overnight. And in cycling, the 90s and 2000s were affected by a generation of "pharmacological fraud", because the deterrent value was not high enough. Cyclists doped with EPO and blood doping because they could do so with relative impunity - it wasn't totally unpoliced, but it was certainly not effective. As I explained above, the tests either did not exist, or were not frequent or powerful enough to catch dopers.

Then came the passport, and the paradigm shift that said "we will look for the effect of the drug, and not its presence". Now, all of a sudden, it became feasible to catch athletes without finding a banned substance in their body. Lance Armstrong's Tour wins did not have this obstacle to overcome - nobody did until 2007, and that's when the deterrent qualities of anti-doping became clear, as I explained in this post - when the EPO test was introduced, it "forced" a shift in behavior that saw blood doping take over as the method of choice. Then the biological passport squeezed doping down to the point that the Tour slowed down. It doesn't eradicate doping, but it changes the behavior, and that's what it must do.

This is so valuable because ultimately, the point of doping control is to protect those who do not wish to dope. Those individuals, like Christophe Bassons, who wish to compete without doping, are the purpose of doping control, and so we should not look at catching people as much as deterring them. Catching cheats is only part of it.

So to those who are saying that this current USADA-Armstrong case indicates the futility of the sport, I would ask that they recognize the bigger picture, and the history of doping control. We cannot simply give up because we are not yet 100% perfect. The biological passport is not perfect, and anyone who claims it is wrong. But it's a step by step process, that has to catch up on years of cheating. There was a time where the dopers were so far ahead that it was a mismatch. The cynics may say it still is, but improved sophistication has narrowed the gap, and that has to keep the momentum going.

The short summary in response to that question is this: "Let's legalize doping, make it a free for all, and see what happens". I don't want that, I don't know that many do, and so therefore, doping control has a crucial place as a deterrent, to protect the rights of those who do not wish to dope.

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.

4. It's 13 years too late, why does it matter now?

It matters now for a few reasons. In fact, it's absolutely crucial now.

First, remember that this was never solely a case against Lance Armstrong. Yes, he's the biggest name in the case, the media spotlight falls squarely on him, but there were other defendants in what was actually a "conspiracy to dope case". Johan Bruyneel is the next biggest name, but so too, we care about the doctors, like Michele Ferrari, who oversaw the doping conspiracy. Armstrong may have left the sport, at least as a competitor, but others are still there as doctors, managers, and if cycling is to move beyond its past, those people need to be removed from it.

Secondly, if you adopt the view that says "it's been 7 years, move on", then you are effectively saying to the current generation that "as long as you can get away with it for long enough, you can have it forever". And I appreciate that there is a statute of limitations, and it does seem ridiculous at some point to go back. But given the anti-doping landscape, even from a scientific perspective, if you know that drugs are used today that will only be detectable in ten years, fifteen years, you should recognize that such limitations should not apply.

Is it not a bit ridiculous to change the winner of a sport 12 years after the fact? Yes it is, but that's still better than never knowing, and never understanding who the true champion is. Valerie Adams was recently awarded the Olympic gold in the women's shot put after Nadzeya Ostapchuk failed a drug test. Adams was denied her gold medal ceremony. The woman in fourth was denied a ceremony at all. But today, they both know that they are the rightful gold and bronze medalists, respectively. Would you rather have a silver medal with a ceremony, or a gold medal even though your ceremony was denied? I believe that a hard line on doping (which is fraud, after all) should see that dopers are told "If you dope, then it doesn't matter how long it takes us to figure it out, when we do, you will be sanctioned".

Take a rider in 2012. If that cyclist knows with certainty that his samples will be stored for years, and if knows that his victories today will be questioned tomorrow based not only on new tests, but on "non-analytical positives" and the accounts of those who know his illegal actions and secrets, I'd like to think it's a pretty effective deterrent. For all the negative attitudes in the sport, and the bizarre dismissal of anti-doping authorities' attempts to clean up the sport, those within cycling have to change their behavior when they know that cheating today will be punished, even if "tomorrow" is years away.

A no-compromise attitude to doping is exactly the reason USADA launched the case, and did exactly what they were mandated to do. Aside from the fact that they were pursuing many people still active in the sport, they also represent an honest effort to clean up the sport.

And, on that note, the reaction from within cycling is very worrying. This is the best article I've seen written on it. It's a little difficult to read at first, because of the deliberate use of what I'll call "pirate spelling", but just give it a read and try not to let the spelling affect you (it will grow on your). It makes the point that those in cycling are arguing that Armstrong has little to do with the sport now, and that it should be left alone. That's not true - Armstrong is still involved, and his legacy pervades the sport, so it must be addressed. Turning blind eyes is, to repeat, what put us here to begin with. Sometimes you have to burn something right down to rebuild it. Another good piece is written by Gerard Vroomen, who also points out the current nature of those so called "ancient history" actions, and calls for an opinion, any opinion.

Such a sad reaction, given that this was cycling's latest great chance to say "We condemn dopers, and if Armstrong doped, then this is a great day for cycling". Go further - many of those in the sport KNOW that Armstrong doped, this is the ideal chance to say so, to add to the "image" of a sport that wants to clean itself up.

Yet, that opportunity was missed. We get deafening silence and "no comments", and I struggle to see what might keep a genuinely clean sport from celebrating the punishment of its greatest fraud. It is truly bizarre, and for all the hope that I have in the better testing, the media pressure, the sponsor pressure to clean up the sport, this kind of continued silence, the ongoing omerta, makes me very despondent.

And don't even mention the UCI, whose reaction to the USADA case has been nothing short of embarrassing. Whatever happens next, whether it is the slow emergence of the evidence in the USADA case (which I do want to see more of), or the arbitration of Bruyneel, I hope that more information emerges on how the UCI might have been complicit in the Armstrong era. Their bizarre, muddled response betrayed an organization at sea, and maybe their involvement in this will be exposed, making that the best possible result of the investigation.

Regardless, I don't see the issue going away. It may be over for Armstrong according to his statement, but with the possibility that SCA and the Sunday Times are looking at legal action, and the slow trickle of new information, I'm sure the mountain of testimonies will only grow.

Once again, that either means you're going to have an even bigger conspiracy against Armstrong to blame, or you'll have more proof than ever that it was, to quote Betsy Andreu, perhaps one of the very first whistleblowers in this case, "this wasarguably the biggest fraud in the history of sport. Bernie Madoff would be proud. Maybe even jealous"

Halardfan
Oct 11th, 2012, 09:53 AM
The USADA report today names Armstrong as a serial cheat who led "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".

Further it said that Armstrong's ambition to win title after title...

"...led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his team-mates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own".

"It was not enough that his team-mates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping programme outlined for them or be replaced."

"He was not just a part of the doping culture on his team, he enforced and re-enforced it. Armstrong's use of drugs was extensive and the doping programme on his team, designed in large part to benefit Armstrong, was massive and pervasive."

According to the BBC, the USADA's evidence includes...

"1,000 pages, including sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team and the doping activities of its members."

Seems definitive to me.

homogenius
Oct 11th, 2012, 10:52 AM
too bad he managed to delay it for so long cause the positive impact on cyclism would have been much stronger had the sanctions been effective sooner.

JN
Oct 11th, 2012, 01:06 PM
The USADA report today names Armstrong as a serial cheat who led "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen".

Further it said that Armstrong's ambition to win title after title...

"...led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his team-mates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own".

"It was not enough that his team-mates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping programme outlined for them or be replaced."

"He was not just a part of the doping culture on his team, he enforced and re-enforced it. Armstrong's use of drugs was extensive and the doping programme on his team, designed in large part to benefit Armstrong, was massive and pervasive."

According to the BBC, the USADA's evidence includes...

"1,000 pages, including sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team and the doping activities of its members."

Seems definitive to me.

Me too, but I was already convinced.

And for him to use his cancer as a sympathy crutch only adds even more to the disgust I feel for him. Liars and cheats are the worst.

Super Dave
Oct 11th, 2012, 01:08 PM
Go away, Lance, you disgusting scum.

saint2
Oct 11th, 2012, 01:11 PM
This is how media put a man into shit. No evidence, yet the man is sentenced.
Professional cycling officially became joke.

JN
Oct 11th, 2012, 01:58 PM
It's like a cult. Even when cult leaders are busted their followers continue to support them. It's a sort of psychological defense to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
This is how media put a man into shit. No evidence, yet the man is sentenced.
Professional cycling officially became joke.
Case in point.

saint2
Oct 11th, 2012, 02:17 PM
Case in point.


I just may hope you won't ever go to jail, just because "somebody seen you making crime".

McPie
Oct 11th, 2012, 02:35 PM
so you banned from cycling........



can you donate my your bike? :p

mc8114
Oct 11th, 2012, 04:00 PM
Sounds like Lance Armstrong went into a lot of trouble to win those 7 titles: doping, blood transfusions, getting pro doping team mates.

I'm really polarized about this. Do not know what to believe...

Super Dave
Oct 11th, 2012, 04:05 PM
Sounds like Lance Armstrong went into a lot of trouble to win those 7 titles: doping, blood transfusions, getting pro doping team mates.


I know; it's like, why bother competing? Some day the cheating is bound to bite you in the ass.

dybbuk
Oct 11th, 2012, 04:26 PM
I just may hope you won't ever go to jail, just because "somebody seen you making crime".

They were perfectly willing to take this further to a trial and expose all the evidence, but Armstrong didn't fight them so it WOULDN'T go to trial. Why would an innocent man not go to trial if they apparently don't have any evidence, like you seem to think? Maybe because they do have evidence and he didn't want it all being exposed to the public? This way at least he can have people like you who will always view him as a martyr.

saint2
Oct 11th, 2012, 04:32 PM
They were perfectly willing to take this further to a trial and expose all the evidence, but Armstrong didn't fight them so it WOULDN'T go to trial. Why would an innocent man not go to trial if they apparently don't have any evidence, like you seem to think? Maybe because they do have evidence and he didn't want it all being exposed to the public? This way at least he can have people like you who will always view him as a martyr.

I also wouldn't go to court against these morons. You have evidence ? SHOW IT.

dybbuk
Oct 11th, 2012, 04:34 PM
I also wouldn't go to court against these morons. You have evidence ? SHOW IT.

So basically you replied to nothing I said? I don't have evidence, I'm not part of the organization that investigated him. But said organization was GOING TO TAKE HIM TO COURT TO EXPOSE THE EVIDENCE AND HE REFUSED. Refusing to clear your name in court is such a normal course of action for an innocent man, I know. Your response to my post was just so completely inane I feel less intelligent for having responded to it.

saint2
Oct 11th, 2012, 07:24 PM
So basically you replied to nothing I said? I don't have evidence, I'm not part of the organization that investigated him. But said organization was GOING TO TAKE HIM TO COURT TO EXPOSE THE EVIDENCE AND HE REFUSED. Refusing to clear your name in court is such a normal course of action for an innocent man, I know. Your response to my post was just so completely inane I feel less intelligent for having responded to it.

Maybe its my bad english, maybe you just misunderstood.

I meant- if THEY have evidence, THEY should show it. Didn't want you to show evidence.

JN
Oct 11th, 2012, 07:30 PM
Maybe its my bad english, maybe you just misunderstood.

I meant- if THEY have evidence, THEY should show it. Didn't want you to show evidence.

That's what a court of law is for. Evidence is presented at trial, not before.

saint2
Oct 11th, 2012, 07:35 PM
That's what a court of law is for. Evidence is presented at trial, not before.



If witness relations are considered proof then, he'd be found guilty. And knowing how the courts works, it wouln't suprise me. There were many cases, when people were found guilty just based on witness relations, without any material evidence. They just found scapegoat. A PR stunt to show how federation "does not tolerate doping"...

BuTtErFrEnA
Oct 11th, 2012, 07:37 PM
If witness relations are considered proof then, he'd be found guilty. And knowing how the courts works, it wouln't suprise me. There were many cases, when people were found guilty just based on witness relations, without any material evidence.

clearly it's not the english that's your problem :lol: you're just dim


the accusers had evidence that they WANTED to take to court but Mr. Armstrong said NO he did NOT want to go to court :lol: how much more guilty can you get if you refuse to go to court where the evidence has to come forward or you'll win :happy:

saint2
Oct 11th, 2012, 07:42 PM
the accusers had evidence that they WANTED to take to court but Mr. Armstrong said NO he did NOT want to go to court how much more guilty can you get if you refuse to go to court where the evidence has to come forward or you'll win


WHAT evidence ? They may as well bring their witnesses and it will be their evidence. OH, BTW- if, as witnesses said, Armstrong tested positive in 1999, then whoever was the doctor who made that tests, should face charges and be fined too.

Patrick345
Oct 11th, 2012, 08:46 PM
Armstrong brought this all onto himself, because he is an arrogant criminal ****, who has a God complex. He came back years later after he had already successfully beaten and corrupted the system through intimidation, bribery, and what not. All his old competitors had long been busted and banned, but he just couldn´t walk away the fake saint. He had to come back and taunt the doping authorities during his comeback.

Melange
Oct 11th, 2012, 09:18 PM
They were perfectly willing to take this further to a trial and expose all the evidence, but Armstrong didn't fight them so it WOULDN'T go to trial. Why would an innocent man not go to trial if they apparently don't have any evidence, like you seem to think? Maybe because they do have evidence and he didn't want it all being exposed to the public? This way at least he can have people like you who will always view him as a martyr.

Not saying that this case is the same, but there have been some cases before where it appears that UCI have in some way rigged evidence against cyclists, for example Landis, Contador. So I dont think the process is entirely unbiased.

Patrick345
Oct 11th, 2012, 09:31 PM
Not saying that this case is the same, but there have been some cases before where it appears that UCI have in some way rigged evidence against cyclists, for example Landis, Contador. So I dont think the process is entirely unbiased.

Against? The UCI received donations from Lance Armstrong. That´s why they are so quiet through that whole shit. Based on the overwhelming evidence they should have stripped Armstrong already, but they are probably scared what Armstrong could reveal about them. Therefore I´m not even sure they´ll officially strip him of his Tour titles. :lol:

Melange
Oct 11th, 2012, 09:48 PM
Against? The UCI received donations from Lance Armstrong. That´s why they are so quiet through that whole shit. Based on the overwhelming evidence they should have stripped Armstrong already, but they are probably scared what Armstrong could reveal about them. Therefore I´m not even sure they´ll officially strip him of his Tour titles. :lol:

Im not trying to compare the details of Pharmstrong case with those of other cyclist cases because they are different, but ppl in here are saying that he should go through the process of proving his case, like as if the WADA/CAS system is totally sound.

The idea of taking titles off him is not that simple. You cant simply target one rider as a drug user and remove his titles, like as if the other winners were legit. Most ppl know that its practically impossible to win a TdF clean. So if they are going to take titles off a cyclist who never tested positive, are they going to apply the same tedious approach to other winners and extract "foolproof witness testimony" from all their teammates? Its like in baseball, how are they going to determine which players from the steroid era were clean enough to get into the hall of fame?

Patrick345
Oct 11th, 2012, 09:58 PM
Im not trying to compare the details of Pharmstrong case with those of other cyclist cases because they are different, but ppl in here are saying that he should go through the process of proving his case, like as if the WADA/CAS system is totally sound.

He already decided against that. Armstrong is a calculating person. If he thought he had any chance of winning, he would have gone through with it. Right now he´s in contain mode: Trying to stay out of jail, keep his Livestrong foundation out of the limelight and maybe keep his TdF titles, depending on how much dirt he has on the UCI.

Yes it will be a mess to find new winners, which is why people have suggested to just leave the titles vacant.

Melange
Oct 11th, 2012, 10:12 PM
Im not talking about finding new winners, that is obviously impossible, but where is this supposed to stop. Is it only out to get Lance or is it serious about looking at all the winners of that era, in which case they would have vacant titles for the whole era. How far would they go back, considering cycling has had high profile drug users for most of the time the sport has been around. The theory of taking titles off Lance only is patently ridiculous but so is WADA.

Melange
Oct 16th, 2012, 11:10 PM
2 hour presentation on 5 live
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd

young_gunner913
Oct 17th, 2012, 05:08 AM
Lance was always a douchebag. Glad to see it finally caught him in the ass.

nevetssllim
Oct 17th, 2012, 11:43 AM
I'm glad it's finally come out (as it was bound to because the rumours have been there for over a decade) but I don't like how it's called the most organised doping case in the history of sport. I think that was the GDR!

bulava
Oct 17th, 2012, 11:50 AM
:( noone in tennis has ever done drugs. nadal is totally clean
First, leave Nadal out of this. Coming to Tennis, here we go:

Tennis Has a Steroid Problem:
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.com

USADA’s Armstrong Report Paints Ugly Picture of Doctor with Tennis Connections (Luis Garcia del Moral worked with many tennis players):
http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2012/10/16/usadas-armstrong-report-paints-ugly-picture-of-doctor-with-tennis-connections/

Of course he doped. But then, so does everyone in road cycling because the levels of endurance needed are so ridiculous, so it's a fairly even playing field. :shrug:
Then everyone on this planet is a thief/cheat/so on. Is it so? :)

Cycling is just a dodgy sport
Road Cycling is simply awesome. I know little (fitness hobby) because I ride my Pinarello about 30 Km every morning (not in rains). IMO it's far better than Tennis because one needs courage and balls! I've been to Tennis events, but watching Grand Tours such as Le Tour or Giro is an incredible experience. It's truly a peoples sport. I'll go to Vuelta (never been there) along with my future wife...also I'm planning to promote and sponsor this sport in my nation.


I think if he was, it was the worst move because now, cycling has ZERO credibility and marketing power.
ZERO? Most stupid comment ever read.

Marketing Power? Le Tour de France is the most watched *annual* sporting event on this planet. More than 20 million people visit the tour. Beamed to 190 countries, with 3.5 billion people watching...

How the Tour makes money:
http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/sport/cycling/how_the_tour_makes_money_8BT3QKUHpO73VRR4RB2grK

Im not trying to compare the details of Pharmstrong case with those of other cyclist cases because they are different, but ppl in here are saying that he should go through the process of proving his case, like as if the WADA/CAS system is totally sound.

I questioned (wrote & tweeted) USADA motives for cherry picking and witch hunting. Example, take Carl Lewis case. Note that I've NO sympathy for Lance if HE REALLY doped from the LEGAL PoV, but evidence against him is mind blowing*:

Carl Lewis: Who cares I failed drug test?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/apr/24/athletics.duncanmackay

Now look at this Hypocrisy :eek:

Make doping a crime, says Lewis:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/athletics/7381115.stm

*Evidence against Armstrong shocked me**:

U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team Investigation
http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

**The quantity and quality of evidence was really mind blowing but I know it could be done due to my background and business domain.

Bottom line: One law for all Cheats, irrespective of any Sex. But NO witching hunting. Let USADA prove its motives...

Patrick345
Oct 17th, 2012, 12:18 PM
I'm glad it's finally come out (as it was bound to because the rumours have been there for over a decade) but I don't like how it's called the most organised doping case in the history of sport. I think that was the GDR!

I bet the doping in most other sports RIGHT NOW is just as well organised. Maybe the menace and criminal energy of Armstrong is on a different level, which ultimately made him #1, but I have a hard time to believe that endurance/coordination sports like football, basketball, tennis, swimming, cross-country skiing don´t have a massive doping problem and that includes all nations.

Martian Jeza
Oct 17th, 2012, 02:45 PM
Lance Armstrong has stepped down from Livestrong and Nike dumped him ! The end of a big fraud :wavey:

Mary Cherry.
Oct 17th, 2012, 02:53 PM
lol

MIl5RxhLZ5U

Olórin
Oct 17th, 2012, 06:14 PM
First, leave Nadal out of this. Coming to Tennis, here we go:

A couple of random websites linking one man to a couple of tennis players. Well done.

The 3.5 billion people watching the Tour de France is a nonsense and unverifiable statistic.

Lastly, cycling is not better than tennis, if based only the fact the most prolific tennis superstars get there on talent and hard work alone. We can't say the same about cycling no matter how much we'd like to. End.

Halardfan
Oct 17th, 2012, 10:31 PM
A couple of random websites linking one man to a couple of tennis players. Well done.

The 3.5 billion people watching the Tour de France is a nonsense and unverifiable statistic.

Lastly, cycling is not better than tennis, if based only the fact the most prolific tennis superstars get there on talent and hard work alone. We can't say the same about cycling no matter how much we'd like to. End.

The trouble is that the testing regimes vary from sport to sport and that Tennis seems to me less strict than some. It's a dilemma for administrators...step up testing and more people are likely to be caught, but this brings bad publicity.

The only way we could truly gauge how clean a sport is in comparisson to others, would be some kind of universal, stricter testing regime.

Even then, as the Armstrong case shows, it's possible for cheats to be way ahead of a testing process. As long as Armstrong followed his doping doctors instructions he had little chance of being caught.

bulava
Oct 18th, 2012, 11:52 AM
A couple of random websites linking one man to a couple of tennis players. Well done.

The 3.5 billion people watching the Tour de France is a nonsense and unverifiable statistic.

Lastly, cycling is not better than tennis, if based only the fact the most prolific tennis superstars get there on talent and hard work alone. We can't say the same about cycling no matter how much we'd like to. End.
1) Even if we take 1/2 of 3.5 billion, that's really huge. Fact is, the TdF is the world's largest annual sporting event. If one combines the stats for 4 years then it's far bigger than Olympics! None can contest that.

2) I don't know on what basis you were talking - Endurance Cycling (if not all events) is far better (to watch) and tougher than Tennis. I'm talking from the Scientific (business domain), human courage and spirit PoVs. You don't know anything about the Grand Tour cycling. Example:

http://sportingblogs.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/johnny-hoogerland-extracts-himself-from-the-barbed-wire-fence-he-landed-on-after-being-taken-out-by-a-french-television-car.jpg?w=600

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-110710-tour3-cannon.photoblog900.jpg

Even after that, Johnny Hoogerland rode the bike to complete that partcucular stage. Next day he didn't withdraw, rode again with 33 stitches :eek: That is what I admire - Never Give Up!

Richie's
Oct 18th, 2012, 06:28 PM
Great carrers should have great exits...

Martian Jeza
Oct 22nd, 2012, 11:12 AM
UCI Has confirmed : Lance Armstrong is banned for life and lost his Tour de France wins ! Chairman Pat McQuaid has confirmed today ! " Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling "

Sammo
Oct 22nd, 2012, 11:36 AM
Too bad

Bijoux0021
Oct 22nd, 2012, 12:36 PM
There's been also report that Armstrong may lose the Olympic bronze medal he won in the men's time trial in Sydney in 2000.

Super Dave
Oct 22nd, 2012, 12:54 PM
http://oi40.tinypic.com/kecexc.jpg

Olórin
Oct 22nd, 2012, 07:40 PM
If one combines the stats for 4 years then it's far bigger than Olympics! None can contest that.


You're plainly deluded. :lol: I've barely see any form of cycling on any major TV channels in any of the countries I have been to. And I have yet to see any reliable viewing figures to support your nonsense. Also I feel obliged to "defend" tennis. Cycling has less well-known stars than tennis, its public relevance as a sport is even lower, its reputation as a sport of champions is far less. Also, track cylcing, like golf, often misses that aspect of head to head competition which really defines iconic sports moments. Lance Armstrong was track cycling's only really cross-over star, who was known by everyone everywhere. Apparently he has no place in cycling any longer.

Today cycling was forced to castrate itself yet again. Tournaments like TDF are endurance tests, not sports. Hence why there has been a generation of doped up competitors. It's very sad and shocking to see these developments.

dybbuk
Oct 22nd, 2012, 08:00 PM
I have never met anyone in real life who watches the Tour de France regularly or cares about cycling. I also never see it on the news (besides Armstrong), and in the US it is shown on a small cable channel called Versus because no one else cares about it. There has also never been a famous cyclist in the US outside of Armstrong. If the biggest market in the world couldn't care less about it, then for it to be the biggest sporting event in the world that would mean entire countries in Europe, South America, etc. are obsessed with cycling. I seriously find it doubtful entire South American and Asian countries are in love with cycling.

95% of anyone I've ever seen that is really into cycling were European. It seems completely a niche sport outside of Europe.

Dani12
Oct 22nd, 2012, 09:30 PM
Wow I know so many people who watch the tour religiously here :lol: It's on basic free-to-air TV channel SBS here too.

cynicole
Oct 23rd, 2012, 02:00 AM
I have never met anyone in real life who watches the Tour de France regularly or cares about cycling. I also never see it on the news (besides Armstrong), and in the US it is shown on a small cable channel called Versus because no one else cares about it. There has also never been a famous cyclist in the US outside of Armstrong.

Greg Lemond was famous back in the day, firstly for being the first American to win the Tour de France. Secondly, for getting shot in a hunting accident, then coming back to professional cycling and winning the TdF again. Then he made one comment about Lance Armstrong working with Dr. Michele Ferrari and brought the whole wrath of Lance and company against him. Lance and co. slandered him and practically ran him out of the sport, rendering him a non-entity by characterizing him as a jealous lunatic. In fact, even Armstrong's lawyers and PR people have outrightly called Lemond a "Lance-hater." It became embarrassing for people to mention his name because he became an embarrassment to U.S. cycling due to his "Lance hating." (Of course, everything Lemond has said is true.)

So I disagree. The U.S. had a famous cyclist other than Lance Armstrong. His profile would probably be higher if Armstrong didn't put so much effort into ruining him.

I agree with your main point though: Americans in general don't really give a sh!t about professional road cycling. Canceling out the time I lived near the HQ of Specialized, I only met one American who was into road cycling.

Versus = NBC Universal Sports now (and was the Outdoor Life Network previously)

The only way to catch any of the cycling grand tours before cable got them was 1) during ABC's Wide World of Sports recap coverage and 2) if you happened to have a foreign channel like RAI in your lineup.

Remix13
Oct 23rd, 2012, 07:14 AM
I have never met anyone in real life who watches the Tour de France regularly or cares about cycling. I also never see it on the news (besides Armstrong), and in the US it is shown on a small cable channel called Versus because no one else cares about it. There has also never been a famous cyclist in the US outside of Armstrong. If the biggest market in the world couldn't care less about it, then for it to be the biggest sporting event in the world that would mean entire countries in Europe, South America, etc. are obsessed with cycling. I seriously find it doubtful entire South American and Asian countries are in love with cycling.

95% of anyone I've ever seen that is really into cycling were European. It seems completely a niche sport outside of Europe.

I don't know for the rest of Europe, but in France there are regularly cycling on public TV :

Of course the Tour de France during the whole July month, but also other French races like Paris-Roubaix, Paris-Tour, Paris-Nice (lol it's all about Paris), Le Dauphiné, the Grand Prix of Plouay, the French Championship and also some big classics like Tour of Flanders, Liege-Bastogne-Liege (Belgium), Amstel Gold race (Netherlands), The Tour of Lombardy (Italy) and finally the World Championship !

The other major races like Tour of Spain and Tour of Italy are on Eurosport, which is a big TV Channel in Europe.

Of course I watch nearly all of them because I'm a huge cycling geek (I even play cycling video games like "Cycling Manager" from French Studio Cyanide).

Concerning Armstrong, I used to like him because he was so impressive and ruthless on the bike :devil:

I remember the poor Jan Ullrich (doped too), he probably had lots of nightmares at this time :help:

Of course I never doubted the fact Armstrong was on EPO and other drugs... But the other cyclists too.

Leaving an empty palmares would be the best thing to do...

Beat
Oct 23rd, 2012, 07:19 AM
http://oi40.tinypic.com/kecexc.jpg

for the first time in, like, forever, i approve of the use of this gif.

chuvack
Oct 23rd, 2012, 02:39 PM
With Marion Jones caught a few years ago and Lance Armstrong finally exposed, guess which Nike-sponsored athlete is going to come under the anti-doping microscope next?

Here's a hint: it will be a very famous female athlete in an individual sport with weak doping oversight (i.e., key substances like EPO are not tested for) where the sport's governing body (just like the UCI in Armstrong's case) has every incentive to hide PED use by its top stars.

Let me know if you need any more hints.

JN
Oct 23rd, 2012, 03:01 PM
With Marion Jones caught a few years ago and Lance Armstrong finally exposed, guess which Nike-sponsored athlete is going to come under the anti-doping microscope next?

Here's a hint: it will be a very famous female athlete in an individual sport with weak doping oversight (i.e., key substances like EPO are not tested for) where the sport's governing body (just like the UCI in Armstrong's case) has every incentive to hide PED use by its top stars.

Let me know if you need any more hints.

But Mauresmo is retired. :shrug:

wayitis
Oct 23rd, 2012, 04:08 PM
With Marion Jones caught a few years ago and Lance Armstrong finally exposed, guess which Nike-sponsored athlete is going to come under the anti-doping microscope next?

Here's a hint: it will be a very famous female athlete in an individual sport with weak doping oversight (i.e., key substances like EPO are not tested for) where the sport's governing body (just like the UCI in Armstrong's case) has every incentive to hide PED use by its top stars.

Let me know if you need any more hints.

I do http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/thanksgiving/eat-corn.gif (http://www.sherv.net/corn-emoticon-1091.html)

fantic
Oct 23rd, 2012, 05:12 PM
When I came to Carlsbad to watch WTA, at the local restaurant it was televising TDF.

bulava
Oct 24th, 2012, 08:26 AM
You're plainly deluded. :lol: I've barely see any form of cycling on any major TV channels in any of the countries I have been to. And I have yet to see any reliable viewing figures to support your nonsense.
And you're fooling yourself, keep living in that paradise! :rolleyes:

Also I feel obliged to "defend" tennis. Cycling has less well-known stars than tennis, its public relevance as a sport is even lower, its reputation as a sport of champions is far less. Also, track cylcing, like golf, often misses that aspect of head to head competition which really defines iconic sports moments.
I don't have problem with Tennis and I love it too (that's why I upload Tennis files). But don't tell me it's 100% clean. Also I never talk about other sports lightly, and to me some sports are far bigger than Tennis. Mine is a matter of choice and giving respect unlike your narrow-minded choice.

BTW, comparing Cycling and Golf is blasphemy :eek: All this shows your knowledge. What public relevance? Go a Grand Tour to watch millions of people come out on roads. You don't know how people celebrate, never saw anything like that in ANY sport:

http://i46.tinypic.com/1428v43.jpg

Today cycling was forced to castrate itself yet again. Tournaments like TDF are endurance tests, not sports. Hence why there has been a generation of doped up competitors. It's very sad and shocking to see these developments.
Why castrate? Lance Armstrong is not the only Cyclist on this planet. Ever heard, Philipe Gilbert? Mark Cavendish? Peter Sagan? I ask because I don't see your ID nationality. Now, Cycling not a sport? :lol: FYI, Le Tour is NOT a tournament. It's a Grand Tour race (3 GTs per year just like 4 Slams in Tennis - but they aren't same!). If you are based in the UK, let me refresh you how Cycling catapulted UK to the 3rd place (highest ever haul) in the 2012 Olympics tally! Top 3 Sports in the Medals tally:

Cycling 8 2 2 12 :hearts:
Rowing 4 2 3 9
Athletics 4 1 1 6

Fête_des_fleurs
Oct 24th, 2012, 09:36 AM
Wow I know so many people who watch the tour religiously here :lol: It's on basic free-to-air TV channel SBS here too.

They show many, many...many hours of 'wheelrunning' on the public free-to-air television NOS in the Netherlands.
The Tour, Vuelta and 'the classics' like Gent-Wevelgem, Luik-Bastenaken-Luik, Paris-Roubaix (hell of the north), etc.

Lots of people also watch the Tour de France because of the beautiful scenery and don't give a crap about wheelrunning.

chuvack
Oct 24th, 2012, 12:59 PM
But Mauresmo is retired. :shrug:


It's bigger fish than Mauresmo.

cynicole
Oct 24th, 2012, 03:16 PM
I had suspected for a long time that Armstrong was doping and that he was a bully, but with all the stuff coming out now, between the USADA report and all the people speaking up, and the media no longer being cowards, it appears that Lance Armstrong is an even bigger asshole than I had imagined. I'm so disgusted, I never want to buy any product from any sponsor Armstrong and Livestrong have been affiliated with (...which will be hard since Nike Tailwinds are the most comfortable sneaker I've ever worn).

Bullying
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512

Using Livestrong for personal enrichment
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/wheel-dubious-lance-charity-raises-ethical-flags-article-1.1190810

A lot of these sponsors that are abandoning him aren't really rid of him. He owns shares in a lot of them so buying some Oakleys still enriches Armstrong.

Sammo
Oct 24th, 2012, 03:38 PM
I had suspected for a long time that Armstrong was doping and that he was a bully, but with all the stuff coming out now, between the USADA report and all the people speaking up, and the media no longer being cowards, it appears that Lance Armstrong is an even bigger asshole than I had imagined. I'm so disgusted, I never want to buy any product from any sponsor Armstrong and Livestrong have been affiliated with (...which will be hard since Nike Tailwinds are the most comfortable sneaker I've ever worn).

Bullying
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512

Using Livestrong for personal enrichment
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/wheel-dubious-lance-charity-raises-ethical-flags-article-1.1190810

A lot of these sponsors that are abandoning him aren't really rid of him. He owns shares in a lot of them so buying some Oakleys still enriches Armstrong.

Oh... then I second the Bye Bitch thing

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 24th, 2012, 07:24 PM
Taken from the livestrong.com website:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/97729-personality-traits-sociopath/

What Are the Personality Traits of a Sociopath?

"They do not care about the thoughts, wishes, rights or feelings of others"

"Sociopaths often show little remorse for their behaviors, blame others for their behavior, do not ask for forgiveness and provide shallow rationalization for having hurt someone. They lack empathy and tend to be cynical and coldhearted but at the same time have inflated self-esteem and are arrogant."

" deceit and manipulation are key aspects of a sociopath's personality. They often use deceit, con others or lie to gain power or personal profit."

"They do not follow the rules of society and often engage in activities that are grounds for arrest."

:unsure:

edificio
Oct 24th, 2012, 11:52 PM
This new move by the ICU to recoup Armstrong's winnings should be interesting.

Wigglytuff
Oct 25th, 2012, 02:07 AM
Ok now that UNO is out. I can't wait for that swimmer guy to get caught. He's a doper too, if you ask me.

Melange
Oct 25th, 2012, 06:45 AM
the sprinter guy is a doper too, if you ask me.

Melange
Oct 25th, 2012, 07:17 AM
Riders support Armstrong

By: Cycling News


Alberto Contador (Saxo Bank-Tinkoff Bank) has expressed his sympathy for Lance Armstrong, who has been banned for life and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for systematic doping offences.

Speaking at the presentation of the 2013 Tour de France route in Paris on Wednesday, Contador decried Armstrong’s treatment, claiming that there was “no new proof” against the American.

“In my opinion, at certain times, there has been a total lack of respect for Lance,” Contador said, according to the EFE news agency. “From my point of view, he was been humiliated and lynched. He has been destroyed. If cycling is popular in the United States, it’s thanks to him. If they know the Tour, it’s thanks to him.”

Armstrong’s life ban came about thanks to the work of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, who complied a 1,000-page dossier complete with witness testimony and documentary evidence that provided a damning account of the systematic doping system in place at the US Postal team (later Discovery Channel) managed by Johan Bruyneel.

Contador won his first Tour de France as a Discovery Channel rider in 2007 and repeated the feat two years later as a teammate of Armstrong at Astana. On each occasion, he was managed by Johan Bruyneel.

A number of former US Postal/Discovery Channel riders, including David Zabriskie, Christian Vande Velde, Tom Danielson and Michael Barry, were among the individuals to testify about the doping culture in place at the team.

“People talk about Lance but there is no new proof against him, nothing,” Contador said. “They’ve relied on testimony that dates from 2005. I respect the choice of every rider, but I would have preferred if they been a bit earlier.”

Contador took yellow to Paris for a third time in 2010 but was later stripped of his title after he returned a positive test for clenbuterol. On Wednesday, the Spaniard claimed that cycling cannot do much more to combat doping than it has done in recent years.

“There isn’t a lot to change today,” he said. “We have the maximum of controls and we have to give our whereabouts at all times. The measures in place now are the maximum that you can have.”

Asked for a message for the fans of the sport, Contador said: “I tell them to believe fully that you can win races and even the Tour without help.”

DeucesAreWild
Oct 25th, 2012, 11:14 AM
I had suspected for a long time that Armstrong was doping and that he was a bully, but with all the stuff coming out now, between the USADA report and all the people speaking up, and the media no longer being cowards, it appears that Lance Armstrong is an even bigger asshole than I had imagined. I'm so disgusted, I never want to buy any product from any sponsor Armstrong and Livestrong have been affiliated with (...which will be hard since Nike Tailwinds are the most comfortable sneaker I've ever worn).

Bullying
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/zone-lance-armstrong-bully-downfall-article-1.1188512

Using Livestrong for personal enrichment
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/wheel-dubious-lance-charity-raises-ethical-flags-article-1.1190810

A lot of these sponsors that are abandoning him aren't really rid of him. He owns shares in a lot of them so buying some Oakleys still enriches Armstrong.


Wow! Talk about pride going before the fall!

jrm
Oct 25th, 2012, 05:30 PM
it becomes interesting if Armstrong starts talking ... the whole doping/corruption/bribe cycle, watch out!

Julich admitted taking EPO back in 1998 when he finished 3rd

isn't interesting that all cyclists 'sympathies'with doped one, never heard any one going after them

Sammo
Oct 25th, 2012, 05:57 PM
Armstrong

http://heartsfordinner.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/igezix.gif?w=500

Nah that's way too formal

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m804n4sbep1r317bvo1_500.gif

LoveFifteen
Oct 25th, 2012, 06:15 PM
How nice of doping cheater Alberto Contador to sympathize with the poor witch-hunt victim Lance Armstrong! :rolleyes:

bulava
Oct 25th, 2012, 06:24 PM
How nice of doping cheater Alberto Contador to sympathize with the poor witch-hunt victim Lance Armstrong! :rolleyes:
I don't believe Contador is a fake without super talent. I know couple of instances of meat contamination. However, I'm proud of him for giving a tight slap on the face of WADA and others with his 2012 Vuelta victory. I'm sure he's going to deliver great results, can't wait for 2013 season because so many top guys (Wiggins, Rodriguez, Schleck, Cavendish, Sagan et al) will be there to compete for the best results in the GTs... :)

I wanted to share my bookmark just to educate the members:

Contaminated meat affected more than 100 players at Under-17 World Cup:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/18/fifa-clenbuterol-contaminated-meat

Anything can happen, anywhere. I know few cases where innocents were 'trapped' with fake drug smuggling (Narcotics) cases due to jealousy/rivalry etc. That doesn't mean they are drug pedlars. Problem is the Laws in many nations take too much time to clear the names, feel bad to see innocent suffer :o

PS: I don't support bad doings, especially which are very wrong in the sport or family (cheating on wives etc - Tiger Woods). But I don't believe USADA crap for laying hands only on Cycling. I get angry why they mess with Cycling, and media talks all bull $hit as if it's really a bad sport. Having said, I don't support Lance or anyone if they doped. Point is why only him :confused:

If USADA have real guys they should touch and probe Athletics and other sports too, especially past 'greats'. I'm sure cheats such as Carl Lewis won't get away! Also, why should I believe Usain Bolt is clean or say Michael Phelps :eek: Any one remembers how media from certain nations hounded a Chinese young swimming sensation, Ye Shiwen, without any proof? Then why not American sensation, Missy Franklin, from the same 2012 Olympics :tape:

bulava
Oct 25th, 2012, 06:48 PM
More education. This time, it's Tennis:

Over the past 7 years, 63 cases of doping: how to work the controls?

Let’s try to better understand some of the mechanisms behind the controls on athletes. Why the two Williams were never tested in 2010-2011? The case-Garcia del Moral - Errani. Stuart Miller: "enormous costs".

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Over-the-past-7-years--63-cases-of-doping-how-to-work-the-controls-articolo6313.html

LoveFifteen
Oct 25th, 2012, 07:03 PM
Alberto Contador is extremely talented. So is Lance Armstrong. They are both also dopers, as many pro cyclists are.

Melange
Oct 25th, 2012, 09:21 PM
it becomes interesting if Armstrong starts talking ... the whole doping/corruption/bribe cycle, watch out!

Julich admitted taking EPO back in 1998 when he finished 3rd

isn't interesting that all cyclists 'sympathies'with doped one, never heard any one going after them

Armstrong wont talk but Bruyneel has already promised to drag the UCI down with him. That one will be good.

McPie
Oct 26th, 2012, 02:54 AM
or maybe those doped drugs cause him a cancer :p

darrinbaker00
Oct 26th, 2012, 03:54 AM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Mr. Armstrong prescribed EPO as part of his cancer treatment? If so, then the question shouldn't be, "Did Lance use a banned substance?" The question should be, "When, if at all, did Lance STOP using a banned substance?" Also, if the International Cycling Union follows World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines, then athletes are allowed to fill out a Therapeutic Use Exemption form if they're using a banned substance for legitimate medical reasons (like chemotherapy). Why didn't Mr. Armstrong do that? :shrug:

Morning Morgan
Oct 26th, 2012, 04:36 AM
One of the key points is Armstrong doped before cancer, after he recovered from cancer, during his peak, during his second comeback, and during all Tour de France he participated including the seven that he won.

Deestruction
Oct 26th, 2012, 04:43 AM
this guy is a disgrace to all sports period.

i lost my respect for him years ago.

Melange
Oct 26th, 2012, 09:58 AM
If its true, which some people have said, that the drugs gave him cancer and he kept using them, that is taking ambition for sports success and willingness to use himself as a scientific experiment to extreme new heights.

Olórin
Oct 26th, 2012, 07:33 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Mr. Armstrong prescribed EPO as part of his cancer treatment? If so, then the question shouldn't be, "Did Lance use a banned substance?" The question should be, "When, if at all, did Lance STOP using a banned substance?" Also, if the International Cycling Union follows World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines, then athletes are allowed to fill out a Therapeutic Use Exemption form if they're using a banned substance for legitimate medical reasons (like chemotherapy). Why didn't Mr. Armstrong do that? :shrug:

Because there were no legitimate reasons that any doctor in good standing could sign off, obviously.

pov
Oct 26th, 2012, 07:42 PM
IMO he passed the tests and won - I'm good with that. He won the tours and they can't change that.

Halardfan
Oct 26th, 2012, 10:40 PM
IMO he passed the tests and won - I'm good with that. He won the tours and they can't change that.

They already have changed that. Armstrong=Zero tour wins. The evidence against him is so overwhelming.

cynicole
Oct 26th, 2012, 11:44 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Mr. Armstrong prescribed EPO as part of his cancer treatment? If so, then the question shouldn't be, "Did Lance use a banned substance?" The question should be, "When, if at all, did Lance STOP using a banned substance?" Also, if the International Cycling Union follows World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines, then athletes are allowed to fill out a Therapeutic Use Exemption form if they're using a banned substance for legitimate medical reasons (like chemotherapy). Why didn't Mr. Armstrong do that? :shrug:

Because outside of his cancer treatment he was still using EPO. A lot. And given that he was smuggling it over borders, keeping it in secret refrigerators or thermoses, maybe it's safe to say that no legitimate doctor would continually prescribe EPO to him.

As for the Therapeutic Use Exemption, Armstrong and co. already pulled that in 1999 with a post-dated prescription for a corticosteroid he tested positive for. They claimed it was for saddle sores.

jameshazza
Oct 26th, 2012, 11:59 PM
Cycling as an entire professional sport is a farce. Everyone is at it these days. He disgusts me as an athlete but it's hard to knock a man who's raised so many millions for cancer research.

cynicole
Oct 27th, 2012, 12:08 AM
He disgusts me as an athlete but it's hard to knock a man who's raised so many millions for cancer research.

Try reading about how he defrauded people, how far he was willing to go to ruin other people's lives, how some "charity rides" were run, and how some of the Livestrong money was used.

He actually doesn't disgust me so much as an athlete (because nearly all of them were doing it; he was just doing all of it better). He disgusts me with pretty much everything else that he is.

jameshazza
Oct 27th, 2012, 12:19 AM
Well to be fair I haven't read up on any of that so I'll take your word for it. Professional cycling as a 'sport' in general disgusts me tbh.

darrinbaker00
Oct 27th, 2012, 02:02 AM
Cycling as an entire professional sport is a farce. Everyone is at it these days. He disgusts me as an athlete but it's hard to knock a man who's raised so many millions for cancer research.

Would Lance have raised as much for cancer research if he were "Lance Armstrong, Seven-Time Top-10 Finisher of the Tour De France?" Of course not. Livestrong was built on Lance's celebrity, and that celebrity was built on a lie.

pov
Oct 27th, 2012, 03:57 PM
They already have changed that. Armstrong=Zero tour wins. The evidence against him is so overwhelming.
No. They haven't changed the fact that he won 7 times. Officialdom has said that they won't recognize those wins but that doesn't alter the facts. It's a race not a meritocracy. Whoever finishes in the least amount of time wins. Period. If they weren't thrown out during the race - too bad.

darrinbaker00
Oct 27th, 2012, 04:29 PM
No. They haven't changed the fact that he won 7 times. Officialdom has said that they won't recognize those wins but that doesn't alter the facts. It's a race not a meritocracy. Whoever finishes in the least amount of time wins. Period. If they weren't thrown out during the race - too bad.

How much Livestrong merchandise do you own?

Melly Flew Us
Oct 27th, 2012, 08:42 PM
such a strange passage of events.

the reason for the authorities for taking this action so many years later even though they must have had contemporary evidence is what is really worrying me - makes me wonder what is next?

moby
Oct 28th, 2012, 01:06 AM
No. They haven't changed the fact that he won 7 times. Officialdom has said that they won't recognize those wins but that doesn't alter the facts. It's a race not a meritocracy. Whoever finishes in the least amount of time wins. Period. If they weren't thrown out during the race - too bad.

So Marion Jones still has all her Olympic medals?

Meelis
Oct 28th, 2012, 06:45 AM
isn't interesting that all cyclists 'sympathies'with doped one, never heard any one going after them

German sprinter speaks out against doping

Argos-Shimano rider Marcel Kittel has made known his opinions regarding the Lance Armstrong doping case. Using social media network Twitter, the German sprinter spoke out against those who have been supportive of Armstrong despite the dossier published by the American Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) and the subsequent lifetime ban issued on the American by the UCI.

"I feel SICK when I read that Contador, Sanchez & Indurain still support Armstrong. How does someone want to be credible by saying that?!" Kittel tweeted, following recent pro-Armstrong comments made by the three Spaniards in the press.

"I mean, it makes it all worse. They should play their false game somewhere else. Or do they ride for money instead of joy?!" he continued to ask.

Unequivocal about his anti-doping stance, Kittel even answered a critical Tweet from another user, who suggested, "Don't you think it's better to shut your mouth. Cycling history always turns back 2 people like you." The German responded: "Not anymore! I'll risk it!"

chuvack
Nov 15th, 2012, 12:49 PM
Cycling as an entire professional sport is a farce.


Right. To hell with those dirty cyclists. Because after all, you're a fan of the cleanest sport on Earth - women's tennis. It's a sport so clean that the ITF employs a guy (named Stuart Miller) whose job for the last several years has been to make sure that the top womens tennis players don't have to face any blood tests out of competition. Because, we wouldn't want to inconvenience them, right? And after all, what advantages could possibly be gained from doping by a female tennis player? Women's tennis is a skill sport, not an endurance sport. Right?

chuvack
Nov 18th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Would Lance have raised as much for cancer research if he were "Lance Armstrong, Seven-Time Top-10 Finisher of the Tour De France?" Of course not. Livestrong was built on Lance's celebrity, and that celebrity was built on a lie.


Great point. Armstrong, though he technically has lost his Tour de France titles, will probably keep a good chunk of the $150-200 million that he earned from his fraudulently-obtained celebrity status. And that's a pretty powerful argument in favor of doping, i.e., even if you get caught and shamed publicly, you still end up better off than if you had never doped in the first place.

Pops Maellard
Feb 2nd, 2013, 09:59 PM
Radiohead's "Creep" as covered by Lance :p

CmgMUFzmDss

supergrunt
Feb 3rd, 2013, 01:21 AM
For some reason, I feel like this story didn't really get a lot of media coverage.