Lance Armstrong - about time too!

[jamo]

He keeps on repeating this mantra as you have. It isn't true. He had a chance to defend himself. He didn't. He preferred to lose his reputation and be known forever more as a cheat whilst hiding behind his charity, rather than defend himself. Does that make sense? Do you know how long the list of charges against him is? Do you seriously think that USDA had no evidence? One of the USDAs charges was trafficking.

(Isn't it USADA? It would be impressive if the United States Department of Agriculture had a problem with Armstrong too. ;-))

[Shorty]

(Isn't it USADA? It would be impressive if the United States Department of Agriculture had a problem with Armstrong too. ;-))

It wouldn't surprise me!:-)

[Leftygolfer]

Originally Posted by Shorty

He is not the most dominant athlete in the history of his sport. Why comment on a sport when you know nothing about it?

And... another person who parrots Armstrong's use of the term "witch hunt".

It is not a witch hunt, it is the bringing to justice of a person who apparently systematically and cynically attempted to avoid responsibility - and who has now refused to have his case go to arbitration. Why would an innocent person do that? I think we all know, actually.

And they are not going  to award the 7 titles to other riders like Jan Ulrich who also doped.

Who didn't dope?  Modern times, who is a more dominant cyclist?  Sorry I don't know the sport well.  My bad, didn't know we had to be experts on something to comment.   And shorty, you have some of the nastiest post ever.  You must be a real peach to be around.  You don't have to insult people.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Leftygolfer

who is a more dominant cyclist?  Sorry I don't know the sport well.

Most people would have Armstrong in their top 10, but he is certainly behind the likes of Merckx, Hinault, Anquetil and Coppi and most probably behind Kelly and Indurain.

ARmstrong was not an all round cyclist. He was not a classics  (one day) rider despite a couple of good results and never featured at the Giro or Vuelta. He focused on one race, the Tour, where the greats before him rode everything.

[zeg]

I don't give a damn about cycling, and I really don't care one way or the other whether Armstrong doped.

However, as was said upthread a bit, he had nothing to gain from continuing his "defense." The best possible outcome is that he's cleared... AGAIN... and the people who already believed he was guilty go on believing he's guilty. Like he said, he knows that (or whether) he won those Tours, so if he doesn't need the prize money, then I completely sympathize with and respect dropping the fight and flipping a giant bird at the USADA.

Good for them. Glad they're cleaning up those old wins. From where I'm sitting, they've just shown that there's no reason to bother watching cycling because the whole sport is made up of cheaters. Good job guys.

But, well, I guess I should just shut up and listen to Shorty, because he alone knows the Real Truth. Why do any of the rest of us bother posting when he can just tell us what we need to know?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by zeg

But, well, I guess I should just shut up and listen to Shorty, because he alone knows the Real Truth. Why do any of the rest of us bother posting when he can just tell us what we need to know?

??????????????????????

So....you are thinking that poor old Lance is innocent and has just given up any hope of not being persecuted?

The overwhelming universal opinion is that this was damage control and he knew that if he chose to defend the charges he'd come out looking worse than he already does.

Not quite sure why you're taking aim at me.

[darkhunter139]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Cycling is a magnificent, beautiful team sport, the intricacies of it being only really obvious to theiose who follow the sport keenly.

A non golfer would not be too interested in watching Tiger line up a 7 foot bogey putt on tye 70th hole  of a major without having a context in which to locate what he is seeing.

Armstrong's particular case is that his persistent claims of never having tested positive (hello Marion Jones) are known to be untrue and there is a conga line of ex team mates and coaches and doctors who were ready to implicate themselves further or face more penalties themselves.

It is his arrogance and denial that have finally undone him. At least the others accepted their medicine (no pun intended) and had a degre of credibility restored. Not Lance, he's above it all, and now he's got the rest of his life to live with his shameful legacy.

Look up Christophe Bassons if you want a true glimpse into the true character of Lance Armstrong.

I know (yes, personally ) a person who finished 6 Tour de Frances and you wouldn't even raise the subject with him, but the idea of Lance or virtually anyone else being clean up until the about 5 years ago  is a joke. Bassons excepted.

He raised millions of a dollars for cancer research, I'd wouldn't call that a shameful legacy whether he doped or not.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by darkhunter139

He raised millions of a dollars for cancer research, I'd wouldn't call that a shameful legacy whether he doped or not.

His raising millions for cancer research is not what is being debated here.

But for some reason it makes some people think it's OK for him to be a drug cheat but noone else.

[DarkPrince]

I follow it (cycling) casually and my dad has been following it doggedly since he was in college since it's the only athletic activity that his knees have allowed him to do since he f'd them up in college.  My dad can be a cynical man but he still had a lot of faith in the sport (Hell, the bike I got handed down was an exact replica of the '99 USPS Tour de France Trek Madone bike to which he had the matching helmet, socks, jersey, shorts...etc) He's been a pharmacist longer than I've been alive and generally has a good understanding of the chemistry involved with many of the chemicals used in doping and the practices.  We got into the discussion the other day about Lance's "giving up" and we both just came to the conclusion that the amount of evidence is just too much for him to fight.  No I don't have proof or numbers or anything, but over the past 14 years it's been quietly known that Armstrong is one of the most manipulative and intimidating figures in his sport (as someone had made mention of his likeability factor being zero). We boiled it down to two things. He's either A: Totally innocent and being completely screwed (very hard to believe if you have ever followed this story more than the once in a while it pops up in the paper) or B: We just witnessed one of the greatest media manipulations in sports.  The man is one of the most media savvy people ever, he's always known how to make a headline or turn things to his advantage.

This latest release as someone else said leaves it up to us to decide whether he's innocent or not and it makes a really good play to our emotions. He essentially plays the martyr card and just says woe is me, I'm tired of fighting, leave me be I don't care anymore.  But this is almost a slap in the face for people who have used him as an influence or example of someone who never gave up. He came back from cancer he wasn't supposed to survive, never gave up. He got back on his bike and worked his ass off, never gave up. Won the Tour de France, never gave up, won 7 Tours, never gave up and retired at the top of the world. In the last 6 years I've noticed more and more rumblings of former team members or doctors getting coming under investigation, Landis confesses and outs Armstrong on national TV and is then dismissed as seeking revenge  because the radio shack team denied him a spot on their roster. He also implicated at least 2 other members (Leipheimer, and Zabriske) and the team leader Johan Bruyneel. Tyler Hamilton and George Hincapie have also joined Landis and said they would testify to large doping regimes present during the USPS' domination of the Tour from 98-05. You also have the issue of Lance's '99  urine samples testing positive for EPO, he in turn mounted a legal move to dismiss the claims and successfully "discredited" the testing agency. He argued the samples ahd been improperly handled and that they shouldn't have even known they were "his" samples to begin with since they are only given batch numbers and from what stage/date they were taken during that tour. Ironically, the same lab he discredited is also the the same lab that definitively prooved that Landis doped and their assertions held up in court.

The other side of the coin is that 12+ people are willing to perjure themselves in front of a grand jury and their government just to prove that one guy who made himself into an American hero by nearly dying, coming back from cancer and winning one of the 3 largest cycling events (Tours of France, Italia and Spain) 7 times, raising millions of dollars for cancer research, cheated.

Of the road/track, what he has done is highly commendable and yes should be looked at under a different lens, but IF what they are alleging is true, he's one of the biggest frauds in history  :/

-On another note, yes it's extremely hard to not come to the conclusion that all of them cheat.  It has been shown numerous times that PED or even recreational drug culture is always YEARS ahead of any form of definitive testing.  The common practice in recent years that caused the out of competition testing was to use the substances in the months leading UP TO the race to slowly build up your hematocrit levels (amount of red blood cells. More cells=more endurance), and to create larger stronger muscles through testosterone and HGH regimes. This in small amounts made sure that your tests never spiked too high and set off any alarms like Landis 11:1 Testosterone to Epitestosterone levels (as a comparison, 4:1 is when the alarm goes off) during the 17th stage of the TDF. For the longest time EPO was virtually impossible to test for and is still almost impossible to 100% prove guilt without having to face some form of doubt in the testing process.

[DarkPrince]

Forgot something that might be minor or major, but if I remember right the reason that this is a governmental inquiry is because the team was sponsored by a government organization. The United States Postal Service gave them sponsorship money which it is alleged they used to procure illegal drugs for their team. I think the argument (at least a few years ago) was that it was misappropriation of government funds that allows them to investigate instead of a private one?

[michaeljames92]

Originally Posted by x129

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#2005_Tour_de_France .   Go down the top 10 lists and see how many of the names have zero links to doping. 2005 is pretty epic in that everyone in the top 10 is sketchy. Of the 2 innocent guys, one was coached by Ferrari (i.e. who has had a zillion clients admit to doping) and the other tested positive and was then acquited.

Does that mean Cadel Evans wins Le Tour in 2005? lol.

[Chas]

DarkPrince,

On the whole I agree with your longer post above, except that I cannot conclude with any certainty that ALL professional cyclists are using PEDs.  There are major personal and professional risks involved for one thing, and you need some fairly sophisticated backing to keep under the radar.  Do ALL pro cyclists have that level of technical backing, of the sort apparently available to USPS?  Even if they do, are they ALL willing to contribute to the degradation of the sport in this way?  I don't think that the answer is clearly yes.  I am not quite that cynical, yet.

Obviously, the trick is to use a PED for a period of time to boost your hematocrit or gain some other advantage, and then get off for long enough that when tested the values are in the acceptable range.  Or to use a drug that is not accurately detected by current methods.  Or some combination of the two.  I'm not clear about the various forms of engineered epo that are currently available and how accurate current assays are - I hope the tests are better now than they used to be.

IMO Lance has effectively admitted his guilt by his recent action, there is no other reasonable interpretation.  His strategy is now very clear, and it will work with many of his ardent followers, his corporate sponsors apparently, and with his enablers in the cancer community.  All of the evidence against him should now be made available to the public, including sworn statements by those giving witness against him - or has this already been done?  We should be able to review the data ourselves and draw our own conclusions.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by darkhunter139

He raised millions of a dollars for cancer research, I'd wouldn't call that a shameful legacy whether he doped or not.

Raising millions of dollars on the basis of a massive and chronic fraud, if that is indeed the case, is a most shameful legacy.

You don't get any kind of a pass because you've raised a lot of money for a noble cause.  Or else pharmaceutical companies working to develop anticancer drugs should be allowed to break any laws that they wish, not pay taxes that are due, etc etc - why?, because it's all justified by their work on developing novel anticancer agents.  I have worked for such companies and I say, most definitely they should get no such special break.  On the contrary, watch them most closely and hold them accountable if there's evidence of corruption.

It's a ridiculous argument for his "legacy" imo, and I suspect that Armstrong is going to be hearing from people like me if he actually had the b**s to use it openly as a defense against the current allegations.  I don't think he's that foolish but I'm not making any assumptions.  But yes, he will continue to cover himself with the cloak of his cancer fighting work - good luck to him with that.

[darkhunter139]

Raising millions of dollars on the basis of massive and chronic fraud, if that is indeed the case, is a shameful legacy indeed.   You don't get any kind of a pass because you've raised a lot of money for a noble cause.  Or else pharmaceutical companies working to develop anticancer drugs should be allowed to break any laws that they wish, not pay taxes that are due, etc etc - why?, because it's all justified by their work on developing novel anticancer agents.  I have worked for such companies and I say, most definitely they should get no such special break.  On the contrary, watch them most closely and hold them accountable if there's evidence of corruption. It's a ridiculous argument imho, and I suspect that Armstrong is going to be hearing from people like me if he actually had the b**s to use it openly.  I don't think he's that foolish but I'm not making any assumptions.  But yes, he will continue to cover himself with the cloak of his cancer fighting work - good luck to him with that.

Did I say that should give him a pass to break laws? If they can prove him guilty in court he should face the penalties but I honestly can care less if they ever prove it or not. If he used performance enhancing drugs who cares? So did most of his competitors.

[Mr. Desmond]

On a lighter note, it seems everyone cheated, and LA was simply the best of them. It's not as if he did not have talent.

Apparently, one either cheated or they lost.

I remember reading the stories at the time - the accusations of cheating, remember being shocked at Landis cheating - I guess if I was more interested and had taken more of an interest, I would not have been surprised.

I just think it's odd to wait 7-13 years to strip someone of their title based on witness testimony from that long ago. If the authorities can't find their man through testing or witnesses within 2 years, let it be.

[x129]

It is about 2 years.  Lance is in trouble for his actions in 2009-2011.  Personally I think it sucks when the record books have know cheaters in them. Look at the track and field ones for examples of this. No one comes close to running the times the iron curtain runners used to do in the 400/800m. Did talent regress or did the fact you can't dope to the gills anymore slow down the racers?

And yes pretty much all the winners cheated. There were probably some clean guys in the race but it is likely they were stuck in 30 place because they place integrity above winning.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

On a lighter note, it seems everyone cheated, and LA was simply the best of them. It's not as if he did not have talent.

Apparently, one either cheated or they lost.

I remember reading the stories at the time - the accusations of cheating, remember being shocked at Landis cheating - I guess if I was more interested and had taken more of an interest, I would not have been surprised.

I just think it's odd to wait 7-13 years to strip someone of their title based on witness testimony from that long ago. If the authorities can't find their man through testing or witnesses within 2 years, let it be.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by darkhunter139

Did I say that should give him a pass to break laws? If they can prove him guilty in court he should face the penalties but I honestly can care less if they ever prove it or not. If he used performance enhancing drugs who cares? So did most of his competitors.

In my opinion, that would be the attitude of those who care little about the true sport of cycling.  You admit that you don't care whether or not professional cyclists use performance-enhancing drugs.  That tells me all I need to know.

Since he has chosen not to face his many accusers, including some who are very close to him and know whereof they speak, he will be judged by history as just another doper when it comes to cycling.   One of a long line, it is true.  But also one who has made a personal fortune as a result - not something to be admired imho.

[DarkPrince]

Originally Posted by Chas

DarkPrince,

On the whole I agree with your longer post above, except that I cannot conclude with any certainty that ALL professional cyclists are using PEDs.  There are major personal and professional risks involved for one thing, and you need some fairly sophisticated backing to keep under the radar.  Do ALL pro cyclists have that level of technical backing, of the sort apparently available to USPS?  Even if they do, are they ALL willing to contribute to the degradation of the sport in this way?  I don't think that the answer is clearly yes.  I am not quite that cynical, yet.

I'm not really saying all of them cheat, but it just seems to be that the higher you rank in the sport of cycling, the higher the likelihood that you are cheating in some way or another. Believe it or not, Football (soccer), and Cycling are the two LARGEST sports worldwide if you don't include us idiot americans, 3rd is usually basketball, so there is a TON of money in it. Many of the teams are sponsored by companies far larger than USPS, T-Mobile has teams, Radio Shack had a team, HTC, Rabobank, Garmin, Cervelo, Shimano, and other companies have teams with large amounts of corporate backing (and if you look at any jersey there are at least 10 different sponsors on them). As others have said, there are likely many people who absolutely refuse to use any form of PED and have remained steadfast in their convictions. Such people are likely the support riders that just help keep pace during the race within the peleton or in the breakaway groups, but you will likely never see one at the top of the leader board at any given time for an extended period of time. They may be individual stage winners but I think it would be very highly unlikely that the overall individual winner wasn't somehow using.  Another problem you may have is that standing your gound may cause you to lose your job. Many of these teams expect results and if you are the odd ball out in that you are not using but others are, I would imagine it couldn't be too hard to engineer getting them off the team in favor of someone on board. I would imagine it wouldn't be hard as they likely might not trust you since you aren't on board with it, but on the other hand if you came out and said something to the press, they could easily turn and accuse you of being in on it too and once that stigma is on you, it never goes away. Again I DO believe there are many clean riders, but they will almost always be overshadowed by the dirty ones.

As much as many would knock cycling for being simple or "easy" compared to say the "grueling" sport of american football, any endurance athlete (Marathon, Cycling, Triathlon, etc...) is pushed to their physical limits no matter the training. My dad recently did a 600k ride in 40 hours to try and qualify for some nationwide competition. They left at 5:30AM, didn't get home until 4AM the next day, he took a shower, changed, ate a quick carb rich meal, took an hour nap, and then set out to finish the rest. I don't think he touched his bike for 2 to 3 days after that just out of exhaustion (he's 56 and can still do this stuff...he's nuts lol). Those pro guys are riding shorter distances than that but at MUCH faster pace (25-30mph). He said anyone who thinks it's easy to do that should get on your bike and try to ride even 1/4 of a mile at that speed, you wouldn't likely make it 1/8th at that pace. What riders use the things for is to drastically reduce recovery times.  They are doing over 100 miles a day with a few breaks for over 3 weeks, being able to recover quickly is a tremendous advantage over the field.

My dad said one of the latest ways to legally get the benefits of EPO without actually using it is for athletes to train at lower altitudes and then purchase or build a hyperbaric chamber and sleep in that to replicate living in a higher altitude climate. This causes your body to create more red blood cells while consequently thickening your blood (the major MAJOR danger of using it) but your body becomes far more efficient with oxygen at regular altitudes when it "thinks" it's been at higher altitudes where the air is thinner. It's similar to having to rest and acclimate at different altitudes on Everest to make sure you don't die of altitude sickness.

Lastly, another tiny detail I omitted from my first post, the USADA stripped Armstrong of his titles, but USADA only has jurisdiction within the United States. The UCI is the governing body of cycling and they have requested to see the evidence that USADA has that prompted their decision. I would guess that UCI would likely follow suit but that doesn't mean they will. I liken it to say America stripping Merion Jones of her gold medal but the IOC does not...that would look very odd if that were the way it had happened.  Either way the evidence will likely never see the light of day, neither will the testimonies (whether for or against), but this is likely not over and won't be for a very long time.