Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Lance Armstrong

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234
Just don't know what to think now was a hero of mine growing up after surviving testicular cancer to win 7 tour de Frances on the bounce and would be a killer blow to his fans and him if he was stripped of his 7 tour de France titles.
«134

Comments

  • And after 43 years, people are still saying those pictures of him on the moon were doctored......................................
  • I am gutted by this news. They have been on his case for so long. Anyone would get tired of the same accusations over and over, when you have undergone more drug tests than anyone other sportsman in the history of sport. The tactics are very shady- offering 'incentives' to competitors to come forward to testify against him. There is no concrete evidence of any wrong-doing, but there must come a point when you can't take it all anymore (legal costs/ emotional impact etc). They have been out to get him and it looks like they have got what they wanted.
  • The sport is absolutely riddled with drugs allegedly. How many cyclists have tested positive over the years?
  • Lance hasn't tested positive. All allegations.
  • So if/when Armstrong is stripped of his titles, this is the sorry mess of trying to work out the winner.

    1999
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO)
    3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04)
    4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO)
    5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    2000
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO)
    5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO)
    2001
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    4. Andrei Kivilev
    5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    2002
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping)
    4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    2003
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
    4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping)
    5. Haimar Zubeldia
    2004
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08)
    3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
    4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    2005
    1. Lance Armstrong
    2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
    3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
    5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
  • So, he was the only "clean" rider in the top 5 every year was he?

    Right- o
  • cafc_joe said:

    Lance hasn't tested positive. All allegations.

    Well then I guess the allegations must have some truth, otherwise why not contest them?
  • Hamer Zubeldia wins the lot !!!
  • edited August 2012
    He's not clean - never has been - so he should lose all of his TDF titles.
    I couldn't care less who they give it to instead as long as they remove it from him.

    Anyone who knows their cycling has been expecting this for years

    He has always said I've never given a positive sample
    ... Instead of I've never taken performance enhancing drugs
    - a hug difference

    Read some of the books about it and you'll soon see that this was no secret - would recommend "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle, and David Millars autobiography.
  • Greenie said:

    cafc_joe said:

    Lance hasn't tested positive. All allegations.

    Well then I guess the allegations must have some truth, otherwise why not contest them?
    He has contested them for the last 10-15 years, again and again and again. I don't personally know why he wouldn't continue to contest them, but there must be an emotional/ financial breaking point?

    DickVanDykesDiscoDog- I respect your opinion as you sound like you know what you are talking about on this, but if he wasn't clean, then can you offer some hard evidence that no one else has been able to present (other than hearsay and libellous accusations).
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2012
    I posted the link to this article in the thread about the Chinese swimmer suggesting that the USA was perhaps not in the best place to accuse others. But I've put it up here as well as it was about Armstrong and USADA's letter together with a link to the actual letter so that you can make your own judgements.
    velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/usada-letter-paints-dark-picture-of-armstrong-era_223925
    online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
  • This paragraph from an article on the Guardian website sums it up for me
    The most important lesson of the Lance Armstrong story, though, is the hardest to prepare for and guard against: our own gullibility and willing complicity. What is astounding and disturbing is that one man – a dominant personality as well as a dominant athlete – was able to enforce his will, isolate, bully and silence his doubters and critics, and win the world's top cycling event year after year and make people believe in him, despite there being, apparently, dozens of witnesses to its utter phoniness. Too many people had too much invested in the Lance Armstrong story, and the power of persuasion followed the money.

  • lol the guy is not facing up to charges,wrongun
  • I bet Paul Kimmage will be smoking a large cigar and downing a very large brandy tonight.

    Google him.
  • I don't know much about cycling, but it seems to be sport riddled with these sorts of problems. After spending the summer lauding out own cyclists, is there any chance any of the might have been naughty ?
  • se9addick said:

    I don't know much about cycling, but it seems to be sport riddled with these sorts of problems. After spending the summer lauding out own cyclists, is there any chance any of the might have been naughty ?

    David Millar has previously been banned

  • must admit a lot of people were "inspired" by his book ....i found it a bit irritating/ very egocentric ...on the balance of matters i suspect he s guilty ,just that he didnt get caught at the time

    did he make more money from"the book" than he did his cycling ?
  • He did fail a drugs test once, but his explanation of steroid cream for a rash was accepted.

    It was also always common knowledge that before the main cycling season every year he visited his 'friend' for a 2 week holiday. His 'friend' just happened to have the nickname in the cycling of Dr drugs.
    Also hard to believe that every member of the postal team has been done and admitted drug taking but their main bloke wasn't.

    Fantastic natural cyclist who was still better than most, but still a cheat.
  • I bet Paul Kimmage will be smoking a large cigar and downing a very large brandy tonight.

    Google him.

    This 100% !!!

  • edited August 2012
    cafc_joe said:

    Greenie said:

    cafc_joe said:

    Lance hasn't tested positive. All allegations.

    Well then I guess the allegations must have some truth, otherwise why not contest them?
    He has contested them for the last 10-15 years, again and again and again. I don't personally know why he wouldn't continue to contest them, but there must be an emotional/ financial breaking point?

    DickVanDykesDiscoDog- I respect your opinion as you sound like you know what you are talking about on this, but if he wasn't clean, then can you offer some hard evidence that no one else has been able to present (other than hearsay and libellous accusations).
    The evidence is a blood sample taken years ago when he was still competing - but as the technology has moved on the cyclings testers decided to test it - and it contained banned drugs. LAs argument is that the sample was tampered with etc but I just don't see that an innocent person would suddenly just give up protesting their innocence - makes no sense.

    The books go into far too much detail that I could ever capture in a post so if you want to find out why I hold this opinion then a quick search online along with Paul Kimmages opinions should explain my thinking - though no I have no proof - just the opinions of cyclings experts.

    I think a lot of ppl were very happy to look the other way on this as a result of him raising in excess of I think $500M via his charity.

    A great fundraiser yes but still a cheat

    If a person is accuse of a crime and does not mount a defense case then they are by default guilty aren't they .... So no libellous comments whatsoever.

    I'm not glad he's been caught just disappointed that it's taken this long and that people who dont know that much about the sport will assume that drugs are rife in cycling - they are not, due to the work of drug free team ethics of teams like Garmin and Sky, plus the campaigning of ex-dopers like David Millar.
    It used to be rife but the sport has cleaned up its act with a few exceptions recently (Contador and Schleck etc).
  • Sponsored links:


  • Anyone who watched International Cycling in the Armstrong era and didn't think 90% of the peleton was juiced, was naive. All of the teams had structured programmes. It was only the UCI waking up and introducing blood tests that changed the picture, brought about by a few deaths caused by blood thickening (Paul Hagadooren died in his sleep in his 20's).
    Graeme Obree also blew it open, when he packed his bags on his first day at a French team Le Groupment, and headed home, not wishing to participate in the teams drug programme.
    As Rothko says, how far do you go in re-writing history? The results either stand or the whole race is void. Don't forget, even Eddy Merckx - the greatest of all time - was done for drugs.

    The peleton seems to be about 75% clean at present. Brailsford has created a magnificent programme, allowing GB riders to dominate, which I believe is clean. The rest of Europe has come back to us because they have been forced into riding clean. I feel sorry for the British riders who weren't able to compete on level terms in the Armstrong era. The British based ANC team got blown away in their attempt to compete in the TDF in the 80's.

    The French press are still bitter that Festina and in particular Golden Boy Richard Vireque, were the first to be caught. They have set out to prove everyone was at it, not just their boys, so much so that they can't help themselves pointing the finger at anyone who improves. I was pleased to see Bradley slap them down when they tried to stain his performance. Unfortunately it will never go away, we have previous drugs cheats still winning races. Vinokourov winning the Gold in London & Contador challenging for the Vuela - not a good advert for the sport.
  • Tutt-Tutt said:

    Anyone who watched International Cycling in the Armstrong era and didn't think 90% of the peleton was juiced, was naive. All of the teams had structured programmes. It was only the UCI waking up and introducing blood tests that changed the picture, brought about by a few deaths caused by blood thickening (Paul Hagadooren died in his sleep in his 20's).
    Graeme Obree also blew it open, when he packed his bags on his first day at a French team Le Groupment, and headed home, not wishing to participate in the teams drug programme.
    As Rothko says, how far do you go in re-writing history? The results either stand or the whole race is void. Don't forget, even Eddy Merckx - the greatest of all time - was done for drugs.

    The peleton seems to be about 75% clean at present. Brailsford has created a magnificent programme, allowing GB riders to dominate, which I believe is clean. The rest of Europe has come back to us because they have been forced into riding clean. I feel sorry for the British riders who weren't able to compete on level terms in the Armstrong era. The British based ANC team got blown away in their attempt to compete in the TDF in the 80's.

    The French press are still bitter that Festina and in particular Golden Boy Richard Vireque, were the first to be caught. They have set out to prove everyone was at it, not just their boys, so much so that they can't help themselves pointing the finger at anyone who improves. I was pleased to see Bradley slap them down when they tried to stain his performance. Unfortunately it will never go away, we have previous drugs cheats still winning races. Vinokourov winning the Gold in London & Contador challenging for the Vuela - not a good advert for the sport.

    Yep the French love Virenque, the Spanish love Contador, the Italians loved Pantani until he died.
    A lot of ppl thought Millar should not have been allowed to compete at London 2012 - so it appears that maybe we in the UK manage not to be blinkered by winning by cheating which isn't a bad thing really.

    France, Italy and especially Spain are happy to forgive if it means that the forgiven rider wins again - clean or otherwise.
  • edited August 2012
    This is so sad and such a bad day for cycling. Its such a large section of the sports history that will be disrupted and I'm just gutted and speechless. I'd like to believe he's not guilty but the fact is he's probably guilty not which devastates me.
  • I know nothing about cycling, but I know that we all tend to be a little more outraged when a cheat beats one of our own opposed to finding out that someone 'on our team' has been a little naughty.
  • He's smashed Sheryl Crow.

    That makes him alright by me.
  • So, was he taking drugs or just pedaling?................................................
  • I might be wrong but didn't he leave his wife who had stuck by him through his cancer treatment within a couple of months of being given the all clear. Twat of the highest order in that case
  • I don't think that anyone is trying to make the case that Lance Armstrong is a "nice" person, any more than Michael Jordan is a "nice" person. He's a competitor in the truest sense of the word, and I'm increasingly convinced that to be as successful as he has been in a physical endeavour as challenging as the Tour, you have to have a drive that can't simply be turned on and off like a light switch.

    It's easy to point out how dirty cycling was in the 1990s and 2000s, and previously. It's an easy leap to say that "they were all dirty, he must have been", and *perhaps* an accurate one. That said, from a strictly procedural point of view, the USADA's relentless pursuit of Armstrong is troubling. I'll cut to the chase and people can read the excerpts below if they wish. The one thing that I am convinced of in this case is that there are no white hats between the USADA and Armstrong.

    Remember the finding of the judge who threw out Armstrong's challenge of the jurisdiction of the USADA, even while ultimately ruling in its favour:

    “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“.

    He went on:

    Almost predicting there will be more legal battles in different venues, Sparks found "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA' s apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."

    "Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum," Sparks said.

    "The issue is further complicated by USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's proceeding — a wrinkle which does not change the court's legal analysis, but only confirms that these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this court."

    Sparks had no desire to intervene in the fight between cycling and drug-testing authorities in a case that cites offences going back 14 years.

    "As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal — the regulation and promotion of cycling," Sparks said.

    "However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts."
  • Also how does the USADA have the authority to strip away all his title's? Surely that's up to the UCI and whoever runs the TDF?
  • Whether they go the whole hog and strip him of the titles or not the damage has already done permanently to his reputation.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!