View Full Version : Lance Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges
I'm not big into cycling, but IMO this sucks.
After more than a decade of outrunning accusations that he had doped during his celebrated cycling career, Lance Armstrong, one of the best known and most accomplished athletes in recent history, surrendered on Thursday, etching a dark mark on his legacy by ending his fight against charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs.
Armstrong, who won the Tour de France an unprecedented seven straight times, said on Thursday night that he would not continue to contest the charges levied against him by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which claimed that he doped and was one of the ringleaders of systematic doping on his Tour-winning teams.
He continued to deny ever doping, calling the antidoping agency’s case against him “an unconstitutional witch hunt” and saying the process it followed to deal with his matter was “one-sided and unfair.”
“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough,’ “ Armstrong said in a statement. “For me, that time is now.”
Armstrong, who turns 41 next month, said he would not contest the charges because it had taken too much of toll on his family and his work for his cancer foundation, saying he was “finished with this nonsense.”
Armstrong’s decision, according to the World Anti-Doping Code, means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 forward. It also means he will be barred for life from competing, coaching or having any official role with any Olympic sport or other sport that follows the World Anti-Doping Code.
“It’s a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes,” Travis Tygart, chief executive of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, said. “It’s yet another heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition.”
Like in many other high-profile doping cases — including that of the Olympic sprinter Marion Jones and other athletes involved in the sprawling Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative case, known as Balco — Tygart and the antidoping agency were basing their case not on a positive drug test but rather on other supporting evidence. Armstrong seized on that in his statement.
He said again and again that he had never tested positive — though he did test positive at the 1999 Tour for a corticosteroid, but produced a backdated doctor’s prescription for it.
Armstrong also said the case against him was flimsy without that physical evidence.
“Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims,” Armstrong said. “The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors.”
But even without a positive test, the antidoping agency appeared set to move forward with arbitration. It claimed to have more than 10 eyewitnesses who would testify that Armstrong used banned blood transfusions, the blood booster EPO, testosterone and other drugs to win the Tour. Some of Armstrong’s closest teammates, including George Hincapie — one of the most respected American riders — also were expected to testify against him.
The antidoping agency also said it had blood test results of Armstrong’s from 2009 and 2010 that were consistent with doping.
snip
Here's the rest of the story .....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share
You would think after 500 tests they would give up. Makes you think someone is making a name here. Don't blame Armstrong for not pursuing it, lost time and money fighting a government agency with limitless resources.
I'd have handed the medals back in disgust long before this.
You would think after 500 tests they would give up. Makes you think someone is making a name here. Don't blame Armstrong for not pursuing it, lost time and money fighting a government agency with limitless resources.
I agree 100%. Their plan all along was to harrass him into submission. If he doped, then so did Indurain and all the others. I don't recall them going after Indurain in such a fashion after his 5 wins. Probably doesn't help that Lance is from Texas.
bandycpa
08-24-2012, 06:47
13 years of having to respond to allegation after allegation. I, too, am surprised Lance didn't quit long ago.
But, from everything else we've seen about him competitively, that just isn't in his nature.
He's still the champ as far as I'm concerned.
You would think after 500 tests they would give up. Makes you think someone is making a name here. Don't blame Armstrong for not pursuing it, lost time and money fighting a government agency with limitless resources.
The USADA is no a government agency.
The folks who believed he doped will still believe he doped.
The folks who believed he didn't will believe him.
He passed all the tests he was given. Both during the season and when he was just eating supper somewhere during the off season. For those who don't know - the anti doping controls are a pain in the ass for the big name riders. The testers can show up any time, any place and demand a blood sample. Which is how they develop a riders blood passport so they can check if it's way off during a race.
Go into arbitration with the sour grapes folks who have an ax to grind? He basically flipped them the bird, said "F... You, do what you want" and plans to get on with his life - which is a lot better than the sour grapes crowd.
So a great athlete is being stripped his legendary achievements, without a single positive doping result?
Guymullins
08-24-2012, 08:51
I understand the French were hounding him for years. They were incensed an American was winning their race so consistently. They made his life a misery. When did the US authorities start hounding him?
I understand the French were hounding him for years. They were incensed an American was winning their race so consistently. They made his life a misery. When did the US authorities start hounding him?
When it became politically expedient.
From their website
USADA began operations Oct. 1, 2000. Its board consisted of nine members, five of whom came from outside the Olympic family and four of whom (two each) were elected by the Athlete Advisory Council (AAC) and National Governing Body (NGB) Council.
USADA was given full authority to execute a comprehensive national anti-doping program encompassing testing, adjudication, education, and research, and to develop programs, policies, and procedures in each of those areas.
In 2003 the Board further extended its independence by choosing to consider recommendations from the AAC and NGBs, but ultimately electing its own members. USADA is still an evolving organization, and its history is still being written.
Yikes...
And for some contrast as to why <source (http://www.chicagonow.com/pace-of-chicago/2012/08/its-all-over-for-armstrong-phelps-may-be-next-heres-why/)>:
Before you throw away your Postal jersey and Discovery bibs, here are a few facts from a very interesting article written by Tim Dockery from the web site Opposing Views.
A similar investigation led by the United States Department of Justice concluded in February, 2012. After almost two years of investigation, and millions of US tax dollars spent researching Armstrong’s past, the USDOJ decided there wasn’t enough evidence to continue the investigation.
Despite the officially sounding name, it turns out the “United States Anti-doping Agency is not a part of the federal government. Although it receives almost 70 percent of its funding from the federal grants, the USADA is a government program masquerading as a non-profit organization. This non-profit status allows it to investigate and prosecute athletes without affording them the constitutional and due process protections required of other federal agencies. This status also allows it to prosecute athletes with a lower burden of proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would have been required in the previous investigation by the USDOJ. Finally, it allows a situation where the same man, Mr. Travis T. Tygart (The CEO)is allowed to serve as Prosecutor, Jury and Judge in the investigation of Lance Armstrong.
Armstrong is being tried and more or less convicted by a federally funded “club.”
He had his day in “court” and nothing came out of it. For some reason, the USADA acting as a group of doping vigilantes, has stepped, lit the touches, thrown on their hoods and has come after Armstrong.
We just can't have success these days. If someone builds something, someone else has to take credit for it or steal it. If they can't do either, they take it away and leave a smoldering crater.
Whether or not he 'doped' (and countless random tests have proven as scientifically as possible that he didn't), I admire him and his achievements.
I believe the Anti-doping Agency has no authority to remove Armstrongs awards. The organizations which issued them will have to decide what, if any, action they will take.
FWIW, attached to this post is the ruling issued on 20 August 2012 by Judge Sam Sparks that, ah, er, sparked Mr. Armstrong's decision. Among the interesting observations in the ruling is Judge Sparks's point that Mr. Armstrong agreed to arbitration.
MOO, it is telling that Mr. Armstrong, facing the possibility of not winning in arbitration has decided to try his case in the court of public opinion.
The USADA does not have the authority to strip Lance Armstrong of anything. They can only recommend to the international governing body of cycling (I don't know who that is) strip him of his titles.
They have already said they are going to wait and see what the investigation brings out.
The majority of the "proof" is coming from eye witnesses that swear they have seen Lance use PED in the past. This is from cyclists that have been caught for doing the same thing Lance is accused of. I am under the assumption that these witnesses are getting some type of immunity for their testimony. After all Lance is the White Whale.
After passing over 500 drug tests, it comes down to what a group of proven cheaters say? That doesn't seem right. He is/has been the most drug tested man in all of sports, that's not an exaggeration, that is a fact.
So, I have to ask, is the reverse true? If I, for instance, fail over 500 drug tests can I have 10 people I use to know testify and swear that I didn't do it? If so, can I have 7 Tour de France titles?
Every sport has it's own governing body, cycling is no different. That governing body found him innocent. What/who give the US government the right to go forward with this investigation?
How much of OUR money has been spent on this and others like it? Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Marion Jones? The list goes on and on and will continue to do so.
If I am Lance Armstrong, I would wipe my ass with every single title, give them back, and then post it on YouTube.
Just my $0.02
sf
FWIW, attached to this post is the ruling issued on 20 August 2012 by Judge Sam Sparks that, ah, er, sparked Mr. Armstrong's decision. Among the interesting observations in the ruling is Judge Sparks's point that Mr. Armstrong agreed to arbitration.
MOO, it is telling that Mr. Armstrong, facing the possibility of not winning in arbitration has decided to try his case in the court of public opinion.
Sig, he has been fighting these accustation for years. He has continually come out on top, yet that hasn't been enough for some folks. I am of the same view as others here, I wonder what took him so long to say piss off? How much does one have to put into a defense, that no matter the outcome, he is going to be seen as a doper? How much money should he continue spending on unfounded accusations? Over 500 test and not one positive?
I agree, wipe his ass with the wins and hand them back. He will always be seen as one of the good guys, in my book anyway. His latest decision makes him more so.
Sig, he has been fighting these accustation for years. He has continually come out on top, yet that hasn't bee enough for some folks. I am of the same view as others here, I wonder what took him so long to say piss off? How much does one have to put into a defense, that no matter the outcome, he is going to be seen as a doper? How much money should he continue spending on unfounded accusations? Over 500 test and not one positive?MOO, there's something odd about the sequence of events.
He's fought the charges for all these years yet decides to stop fighting the charges when he's about to enter the final round of the contest (i.e. arbitration). If he was so convinced of the pointlessness of continuing, why did he press on until a court ruled he'd have to play by the rules he signed on to play by?:confused:
MOO, there's something odd about the sequence of events.
He's fought the charges for all these years yet decides to stop fighting the charges when he's about to enter the final round of the contest (i.e. arbitration). If he was so convinced of the pointlessness of continuing, why did he press on until a court ruled he'd have to play by the rules he signed on to play by?:confused:
Maybe he's so disgusted, given that after 500 tests there's been no evidence of doping, that he no longer GAS. I wouldn't.
MOO, there's something odd about the sequence of events.
He's fought the charges for all these years yet decides to stop fighting the charges when he's about to enter the final round of the contest (i.e. arbitration). If he was so convinced of the pointlessness of continuing, why did he press on until a court ruled he'd have to play by the rules he signed on to play by?:confused:
Who says this would be the final round? I bet he though after the DOJ dropped charges THAT would be the final round. Then these guys come out of the woodwork in June.
Once again, 500 test and no positives. What is this agency basing it's allegations on, other than the word of KNOWN dopers. Sorry it sounds like sour grapes to me.
MOO, there's something odd about the sequence of events.
He's fought the charges for all these years yet decides to stop fighting the charges when he's about to enter the final round of the contest (i.e. arbitration). If he was so convinced of the pointlessness of continuing, why did he press on until a court ruled he'd have to play by the rules he signed on to play by?:confused:
You have a good point Sigaba. I think there is substance to the question you are asking.
NOTE: What follows is PURELY content for a discussion of what'ifs and maybes.
That being said - Ill venture into the hypothetical here, there can be (from my narrow perspectives) only three possible reasons for him to quit now.
1 - He really is just sick of it and chooses not to spend another time or second playing this game.
2 - They do have evidence of him doping and he knows the hammer is coming down (This one is ridiculous, I agree!).
3 - He has everything to lose and nothing to gain from arbitration. The man already owns all the gold medals he could win. He is retired. What could he possibly be bargaining for? To keep what he already has? Whats the alternative, to give it back?
Ah - there's a fourth one, QP Dusty already mentioned it - Political motivations.
Maybe he's so disgusted, given that after 500 tests there's been no evidence of doping, that he no longer GAS. I wouldn't.In his complaint against Travis Tygart (attached to this post) Mr. Armstrong went beyond claiming that the proceedings have become an administrative mess, he specifically argued that his constitutional rights were being violated. To me, once someone crosses that threshold, I am going to pay particular attention to the level of follow through.
That is, it is one thing if a party to a dispute decides to walk away for strategic reasons (i.e. to go on with one's life) and it is entirely different when that person makes the issue one of civil liberties.
Who says this would be the final round? I bet he though after the DOJ dropped charges THAT would be the final round. Then these guys come out of the woodwork in June.
Once again, 500 test and no positives. What is this agency basing it's allegations on, other than the word of KNOWN dopers. Sorry it sounds like sour grapes to me.My understanding is that the final round would be the arbitration that Mr. Armstrong agreed to participate in and is now backing away from doing so.
The folks who believed he doped will still believe he doped.
The folks who believed he didn't will believe him.
He passed all the tests he was given. Both during the season and when he was just eating supper somewhere during the off season. For those who don't know - the anti doping controls are a pain in the ass for the big name riders. The testers can show up any time, any place and demand a blood sample. Which is how they develop a riders blood passport so they can check if it's way off during a race.
Go into arbitration with the sour grapes folks who have an ax to grind? He basically flipped them the bird, said "F... You, do what you want" and plans to get on with his life - which is a lot better than the sour grapes crowd.
I would like to hear his former friends testimony. Whats the motivation for them to come forward.
I would like to hear his former friends testimony. Whats the motivation for them to come forward.
I'll bet they got caught and are ratting out to get a lighter sentence.
twistedsquid
08-24-2012, 22:58
This is a carefully calculated move by a proven winner. The USADA now has to pass on evidence to the UCI (cycling's governing body). The UCI will determine whether to strip Lance of his titles (which i bet they wont). Lance's tact will marginalize the USADA and secure his legacy. Lance wins.
He was an incredible endurance athlete to overcome the obstacles of testicular, lung, and brain cancer…, considering the drugs utilized in his treatment were/are capable of causing pulmonary fibrosis - although less likely than bleomycin….
Drugs or not…., I will never forget “The Look.” What an incredible stage…:cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJErrp4eOw
Armstrong's got the right stuff.
Talk about craven, here is today's lead editorial by the Denver Post.
Whether or not the cancer survivor and seven-time Tour de France champ is proven to have been a cheater, he's shown he's a quitter. (http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_21393571/editorial-lance-armstrong-from-yellow-jersey-white-flag)
Wife came up with this thought; maybe Mr. Armstrong received another cancer diagnosis and decided to prioritize where to place his energy.
kawaishi
08-26-2012, 13:48
Wow, that's a harsh headline. I don't think that writer rates calling Lance a quitter until he beats cancer and wins 7 TdF's.
coloradokid
08-26-2012, 22:38
The USADA has no jurisdiction here. They have no power over a UCI event. Lance said it right.
"USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart."
Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping charges
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/26/why-lance-armstrong-stopped-fighting-the-doping-charges/
"In a brilliant comedy routine from the early 1980s, Eddie Murphy plays the role of a contemporary young African-American man bragging to his friends about how he would never have been a slave. He imagines a confrontation between himself and a slave master. When the slave master gives him an order, Murphy, with over-the-top bravado, tells his oppressor to go to hell (using much cruder language). But when a savage beating by the slave master’s thugs follows, a now-docile Murphy concedes that he would be happy to bale hay or do whatever his tormenters want him to do.
Murphy’s bit helps explain why Lance Armstrong decided to end his battle with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency last week................."
An opinion piece on the subject at hand.
Badger52
08-27-2012, 10:28
Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping chargesDamned good piece.
I have seen how the vectors of bureaucratic big-game hunting, international politics, sensitive testing mechanisms, the lust for degradation ceremonies, and competitive resentment can intersect to the detriment of what Tom Wolfe called the Great White Defendant.
"Mr. Armstrong, we see that you blew a 0.0 on the breathalyzer. You're free to go."
Couple months later, police knock on his door "Mr Armstrong, we have ten people who say they saw you drinking that night. So we're here to arrest you"
But Kafka would be proud.....Guilty on the say so of people who failed the very drug testing procedures that he did not. By, once again, an agency that does not find it necessary to present it's evidence.
Murderers get a better process and a safer hearing.
A proud day for jurisprudence last week.
Is he guilty?, it no longer matters....................
GratefulCitizen
08-27-2012, 17:26
This whole thing reminds me of the movie Rollerball (1975 version).
Buffalobob
08-27-2012, 18:28
I have always believed he cheated and that was the cause of his cancer. The fact that he recovered so quickly from the cancer was a good indication to me that he was not playing by the rules. Drug use by endurance athletes is much harder to detect than for strength athletes.
Being as he has decided to not go forward when his teammates are willing to testify against him leaves him the window of deniability, whereas if he went forward to the conclusion and lost then everything is gone.
TXGringo
08-27-2012, 21:43
I have always believed he cheated and that was the cause of his cancer. The fact that he recovered so quickly from the cancer was a good indication to me that he was not playing by the rules. Drug use by endurance athletes is much harder to detect than for strength athletes.
Being as he has decided to not go forward when his teammates are willing to testify against him leaves him the window of deniability, whereas if he went forward to the conclusion and lost then everything is gone.
So doping caused his cancer, then helped him recover from it? If so, what secret does he have to passing the tests? The same tests that have ousted many a cyclist...
With all due respect BB, Lance was stricken with cancer prior to his cycling career being one of relevance. He has admitted that it wasn't until he contracted, treated and recovered from cancer that he was able to shed the body-weight necessary to truly be a competitive cyclist. Prior to his recovery he was a thicker, more muscular individual that you normally don't see winning bike races.
When I enter into discussion about his wins or whether I think he's guilty or what have you, I always ask if people think it's relevant that he has about the lowest resting heart rate I've ever heard of (even for an athlete), or that he has one of the highest V02 max numbers I've seen and if by chance he might just simply be better.
And to echo what some others have posted, he has been tested 500 times over a decade, if he had been cheating should the test's not have detected an abnormality in at least a single instance over that same period? It would stand to reason that if the sanctioning bodies are so eager to eliminate him as a champion they would go to any lengths necessary to advance the testing and detection protocols in order to be able to do so, no? Let's be honest science has come a long way over that same period and other athletes are caught every day.
I do want to say that I have no skin in the game and am glad he's decided not to participate in the foolishness any longer. He's proven his point, won his races and is now doing good work for others, good for him. On a side note, I did read that the governing bodies are having a hard time giving the championships to other racers as all of the one's immediately behind Armstrong have been caught for using banned substances so it looks like 10th place will be the Tour winner. for 2000,,,,2001......
When I enter into discussion about his wins or whether I think he's guilty or what have you, I always ask if people think it's relevant that he has about the lowest resting heart rate I've ever heard of (even for an athlete), or that he has one of the highest V02 max numbers I've seen and if by chance he might just simply be better.
Back in the late 80's Mark Hodges and Andy Jacob's came to town to talk about USCF and the OTC. Hodges did something with the US Olympic Cycling Team and Jacobs was a sport shrink. During this day long meeting, Hodges excitedly told us about this Triathlete in Texas who had this amazing MaxV02, who IF they could pull away from Triathlons would be the most amazing cyclist the world had ever seen.
His name Lance Armstrong.
Now if I read correctly, if Armstrong had agreed to the arbitration he would only have lost 2 tour wins, leaving him with a total of 5....the same number as Spain's Miguel Indurain who won an unbelievable 5 consecutive tours.
And according to Wiki:
Indurain had a physiology superior to fellow athletes. His blood took seven litres of oxygen around his body per minute,[25] compared to 3–4 litres for an ordinary person and 5–6 litres for fellow riders. His cardiac output is 50 litres a minute; a fit amateur cyclist's is about 25 litres. Indurain's lung capacity was 7.8 litres,[2] compared to an average of 6 litres. His resting pulse was as low as 28 BPM,[2] compared to an average 60–72 bpm, which meant his heart would be less strained in the tough mountain stages.[14] His VO2 max was 88 ml/kg/min; in comparison, Lance Armstrong's was 83.8 ml/kg/min and Greg LeMond's was more than 92 ml/kg/min.[26]
He consulted the Italian professor, Francesco Conconi, from 1987 and his weight dropped from 85 to 78 kg under his guidance,[5][6] "changing himself into an all-round rider", said Philippe Brunel in L'Équipe.[2] He was 10 kg lighter than when he was a junior.[27]
So apparently 5 tour wins is the magic number for humanly possible, and anything over 5 means you have had your performance enhanced.
5 is the magic number only if you are an American. The world cycling community has been scrambling for years to do away from any real US presence in the big cycling races. Just wait, Tejay van Garderen will have the same issues in a few years. No one questioned the old riders as much, and it really wasn't until Lance started dominating everyone that the whole doping thing really took off. Hell, he was the Tiger Woods of the cycling world, no one in the US ever even really cared about the TDF until Lance really started kicking ass.
Leozinho
08-28-2012, 13:06
With all due respect BB, Lance was stricken with cancer prior to his cycling career being one of relevance. He has admitted that it wasn't until he contracted, treated and recovered from cancer that he was able to shed the body-weight necessary to truly be a competitive cyclist. Prior to his recovery he was a thicker, more muscular individual that you normally don't see winning bike races.
Not true. Armstrong won the road World Championship at age 21. He also won a couple of stages in the TdF and some of the biggest races in the U.S. He was a very good one-day rider. (Plenty of lesser riders were caught doping back then.)
When he lost muscle mass due to the cancer, he became a better climber (due to a more favorable strength to weight ratio that is more important in the mountains than the flats). You can't win the big tours (Giro, Vuelta, TdF) without being a good climber.
The notion that he wasn't good before the cancer is false. He just wasn't good in the type of races that the casual cycling fan cares about.
Not true. Armstrong won the road World Championship at age 21. He also won a couple of stages in the TdF and some of the biggest races in the U.S. He was a very good one-day rider. (Plenty of lesser riders were caught doping back then.)
When he lost muscle mass due to the cancer, he became a better climber (due to a more favorable strength to weight ratio that is more important in the mountains than the flats). You can't win the big tours (Giro, Vuelta, TdF) without being a good climber.
The notion that he wasn't good before the cancer is false. He just wasn't good in the type of races that the casual cycling fan cares about.
L, I should have been more specific as to what I see as "relevant". I have pretty high standards so while a World Championship is pretty impressive it's still not on my radar as impressive or legendary like say, 7 Tour victories. And you're spot on in regard to the casual cycling fan, which I admittedly am. I will say that after his first Tour post cancer I watched every year....
Buffalobob
08-28-2012, 14:49
I should have been more specific as to what I see as "relevant".
You posted up bullshit claiming it to be fact. You got called out for lying and had to admit it.
You posted up bullshit claiming it to be fact. You got called out for lying and had to admit it.
Ok, first off I take offense at the insinuation that I've been "posting BS and/or lying" so let's take it easy throwing stuff like that around.
What I posted was a summary of facts I picked up from reading Armstrong's book and some other misc. articles over the years pointing to accounts of his physiological advantages, accounts clearly supported by Paslode's post. I coupled that with what I, as a casual cycling fan find to be impressive or "relevant", which is not fact, but opinion and I stand by that opinion. Leozinho posted additional facts that he was able to contribute which lends itself to the conversation but still doesn't impact my opinion. A single UCI RWC does not a legend make......in one casual cycling fan's opinion.
It is interesting that as much as we are focusing on the individual who can win the TdF it is also a Team that wins it for the individual as much as it is the individual himself.
When Lance was on top the team's focus was on him. When Lance came out of retirement for his last ride - wished he'd have stayed retired - the team's focus was split for a while.
There was more than one good young rider who took one for the team this year.
twistedsquid
08-28-2012, 20:36
Lance was slaying the gods of triathalon at 14 when he turned pro.He never had a spike in performance. As a cyclist he was regarded as the hardest trainer with the most disciplined ethic. Cancer cut the weight and he climbed better. He transitioned from a one day rider to a stage racer. He is tactically brilliant and had expert handlers. He possesses superb physiological properties. And he probably doped. The anectodal evidence is overwhelming yet I hesistate to speak in absolutes. I have followed his case for many years and as a competetive cyclist have been inspired by his resolute determinations. But where is the proof and due process? This is the compelling issue in my view.
I had wondered if there was a statute of limitations as is established regarding medal awards of the Olympics, eight years.
Armstrong, who retired from cycling a year ago, announced late Thursday that he would not go through arbitration to fight USADA’s charges, declaring he would always be the true winner of the Tours from 1999 to 2005. USADA acknowledged that it took Armstrong’s decision as an admission of guilt, which is why the agency moved so quickly on Friday to penalize him, even changing its own rules to wipe away an eight-year statute of limitations. - prospectusnews.com/questions-remain-on-agency-s-power-to-strip-armstrong-titles-1.2888153#.UD3XgaO5LeI
If they had not changed the rule only his awards after August 2004 would have been at risk, if USADA has any legitimacy.
Stargazer
08-29-2012, 07:43
I am not going to stand in judgment of Lance Armstrong beyond the facts. I've read a couple of his books and closed the covers with feelings of respect for all he had accomplished despite life's adversities. He 'never quit' and persevered. That stands on it's own IMV.
I wear on my wrist "livestrong" and have since my SIL died of cancer 7 years ago at the age of 53. My son who was 16 at the time, bought all the family members one to remind us of what Karen fought for. Lance Armstrong lives that way.. it's more than a slogan to many of us.. it's a reminder to seize the day.
IMO, this has become a witch hunt at this point. Why such disdain for Lance.. if he has been tested 500 times and results show no abuse.. why not leave it at that? Who gains from bringing Lance Armstrong down? Maybe he doped, maybe he didn't... but many others who have been at the top of their sport do too. If tested and caught cheating, they have to answer to it.
On a sidenote.. one of my first jobs was working for an amateur sports organization. In my position, I got an inside look at the politics / power grabs in amateur sports. I lost all respect for the USOC, IOC and NGB's ... it's all about power -- money and being the top dog and not grassroot / amateur sports (this does not apply to the countless wonderful volunteers that DO believe in grassroot sports -- they are the heart and soul).
Lance Armstrong knows the truth -- he'll be the judge of his character. I understand the toll both emotionally and financially litigation can cause. Sometimes, you have to cut your losses, regroup and focus on the next mission...
@BB,
I am not jumping on the slam bob bandwagon but, he go cancer because of doping and then won and then cured his cancer?
I just wanted to say that out loud to see if it sounds as stupid to everyone else as is does me.
Please read my earlier post.
I don't give a rat's ass if he cheated or not!!!! He passed EVERY test. That's the proof. End of discussion.
Just because some known cheaters have come out to testify, in exchange for an lighter punishment, don't make it true.
Let's take the reverse situation:
I have NEVER been to France. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the I have never entered a cycling contest. Equate that to all of Lance's drug test.
I have 10 people I know 10 years ago willing to testify that I have won the Tour de France for the past 10 years. These people are not the most trustworthy individuals but, they are willing to testify non the less.
Since I am not contesting the testimony of these 10 individuals, I must have won those titles.
By that rational, do I get to lay claim to the title of the Tour de France for the past 10 years?
Of course I don't. That is crazy talk.
Everyone needs to pull their heads out of their asses and ask the really important question.
What the hell is the US government doing wasting the taxpayers money investigating this bull shit! Doesn't the cycling community have an INTERNATIONAL governing body that already found Lance innocent?
Again, I don't give a damn if he did it or not, I care about the good he did with it.
Just my $0.02
sf
http://www.xtri.com/features/detail/284-itemId.511714298.html
This article has a great perspective on why Lance Armstrong did the right thing it telling Tygart to shove it.
http://www.usada.org/uploads/990.pdf
Oh, and by the way, contained herein here is Mr. Tygart's $300,000+ salary disclosure. Hardly neutral and detached, since he has to make rain for the organization.
Comedian Bill Burr "they should just legalize steroids, ill watch robots in human skin hit home runs all day"
Don't shoot the messenger!
My Life With Lance Armstrong (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.html)
By: Mike Anderson
I was Lance’s personal assistant for two years, during the height of his racing career. Do I think he cheated? Yep. But my real problem is something that diehard fans seem unable to grasp: the vengeful tactics he uses against people who tell the truth about him, on and off the bike.
......I was Lance’s personal assistant for two years, during the height of his racing career. Do I think he cheated? Yep. .........
Personal Assistant to Lance - testified against him in court - bad blood between the two - and he "Thinks" not he "Knows".
And he's ticked about the way he was treated by Lance? Keep thinkin' Bubba.
Buffalobob
08-31-2012, 14:54
I don't give a rat's ass if he cheated or not!!!! He passed EVERY test. That's the proof. End of discussion.
A lot of people have no personal code of ethics to live by. It is all win or lose to them and winning is the only important thing. The concept of internalized personal ethical standards and retaining one's on self respect is not a concept they endorse. Their self respect is tied to the opinions of others as evidenced by trophies in a case. Their philosophy is that if you don't get caught you didn't cheat.
We're all focused on Lance, but we support the system that makes this possible.
If you will quit buying the products they endorse, quit buying those season tickets and prosecute those that employ these drug addicts it might all come to an end.
The Reaper
08-31-2012, 15:55
We're all focused on Lance, but we support the system that makes this possible.
If you will quit buying the products they endorse, quit buying those season tickets and prosecute those that employ these drug addicts it might all come to an end.
You mean like the US Postal Service?
TR
Their philosophy is that if you don't get caught you didn't cheat. (Sorry, I don't know how to do that cool quote thing)
@BB, I agree with you on the ethics issue.
In this case, who or what do you believe?
The over 500 tests that are the measuring stick by cycling's international governing body?
OR
People, who got caught cheating, getting a lighter punishment for their testimony. These people have been proven to have an ethics problem.
What is the motivation for them to tell all? Money, a lighter punishment, etc....
If no one is going to believe all those tests.......why have them? They are in place as a standard.
Just my $0.02 and no of this changes my 3 feet of world
You mean like the US Postal Service?
TR
Yes, but in USPS it is likely you could only limit you're use.
Buffalobob
08-31-2012, 17:54
n this case, who or what do you believe?
Thank you for agreeing on the ethics issue.
It probably all goes back to an early comment by Pete. Most of us made up our minds quite a few years ago and we are not going to suddenly change them.
Leozinho
08-31-2012, 18:11
IMO, this has become a witch hunt at this point. Why such disdain for Lance..
1. He is the greatest American cyclist in history. If he cheated, the he doesn't deserve that honor and it would be a shame if he's allowed to get away with it. And a lot of knowledgeable, unbiased people think he cheated. (Compare him to Barry Bonds. No one really cares if a journeyman AAA player takes steroids. But we don't want to see someone become the home run record holder through cheating.)
2. He's a jerk. (I don't think this explains why the anti-doping agencies are after him, but it does explain why some journalists and riders have come out against him.)
3. His charity is (likely) not what you think it is. It donates almost nothing to cancer research.
Personally, I'm more worried about police officers taking steroids and going werewolf on citizens.
@ BB,
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression about ethics. In my humble view, there is no ethics issue. You either have them or you don't.
sf
GratefulCitizen
09-01-2012, 18:51
Professional sports is an oxymoron.
They're not sports, they're businesses in the entertainment industry.
Buffalobob
09-02-2012, 05:50
I'm just guessing but I don't think this guy does steroids.
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/01/13611931-paul-ryan-says-he-misstated-marathon-claim?lite
Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan says he didn't run a marathon in less than three hours as he claimed in a nationally broadcast interview.
The candidate acknowledged Saturday he had misstated his marathon time by more than an hour.
He released a statement correcting the record after Runner's World magazine found evidence he had completed one marathon and finished in just over four hours.
Ryan told radio host Hugh Hewitt last month he had run a "two hour and fifty-something" marathon. That's a pace of less than 7 minutes per mile for the 26.2 mile course - extremely fast for recreational runners.
A marathon time of 4 hours and one minute is equivalent to a pace of 9:12 per mile. A marathon time of 3 hours is a pace of 6:52 per mile.
Stargazer
09-02-2012, 10:36
1. He is the greatest American cyclist in history. If he cheated, the he doesn't deserve that honor and it would be a shame if he's allowed to get away with it. And a lot of knowledgeable, unbiased people think he cheated. (Compare him to Barry Bonds. No one really cares if a journeyman AAA player takes steroids. But we don't want to see someone become the home run record holder through cheating.)
2. He's a jerk. (I don't think this explains why the anti-doping agencies are after him, but it does explain why some journalists and riders have come out against him.)
3. His charity is (likely) not what you think it is. It donates almost nothing to cancer research.
I am sure those are reasons for some, I just roll differently... I think to put that much energy into destroying someone.. that is very personal. For me, with respect to:
1. I agree if he is cheating, the record needs to be set straight. However, it is my understanding (I could be misinformed) that in over 500 drug tests, he has not been found doping. Individual hearsay isn't proof. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, just means it is hearsay at this point.
2, He does come across that way for sure. What I felt when during his fight for cancer he talks about how his first wife was by his side... blah blah.. and then divorces her... and in comes Sheryl Crow. I have a different word for that v. jerk. The world is filled with jerks.........
3. I read that about his charity before and have never given a penny. I am very select where I send my hard earned dollars. I mostly donate to funds set up for individuals and WWF. My reference to his "livestrong" was the symbolism... I started wearing the bracelet after the death of my SIL who died of cancer to remind me to seize the day. It was my friends who served that showed me how I waste today on a false hope of someday. They taught me the true meaning of what a good day is v. bad day. Lance Armstrong is no hero to me nor is any other professional althlete. But, I can admire their push through adversity and what they have endured and accomplished.
I don't know Lance Armstrong beyond the fact that he is a survivor and fierce competitor. Individuals of this intensity are bound to make enemies along the way.. For me to call him a cheater, requires proof of doping. I'd hold the same standard for a AAA baseball player.
South Paw
09-02-2012, 11:22
Lance was and continues to be one of my biggest heroes regardless of current events. For those of us here that feel the same, I found this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Z6xGu7oIQ
bandycpa
09-02-2012, 11:31
Professional sports is an oxymoron.
They're not sports, they're businesses in the entertainment industry.
The same can be said for Division I college football too. Watching the games this weekend, it amazed me at the amount of fanfare (and money) that was given to a sport that kids are supposedly playing in their spare time away from their studies.
We have gone from a society driven by achievement and adventure to one based on entertainment and social voyeurism. Why go for a hike in the woods when you can watch someone else on tv do it instead?
Bandy
Leozinho
09-02-2012, 13:55
I am sure those are reasons for some, I just roll differently... I think to put that much energy into destroying someone.. that is very personal. For me, with respect to:
1. I agree if he is cheating, the record needs to be set straight. However, it is my understanding (I could be misinformed) that in over 500 drug tests, he has not been found doping. Individual hearsay isn't proof. Doesn't mean he didn't do it, just means it is hearsay at this point.
I'm not interested in convincing you one way or another, but you keep mentioning these 500 drug tests.
Tyler Hamilton passed many drug tests before he finally got caught. Same with Floyd Landis and a bunch of Europeans you've never heard of. They didn't get caught the first time they doped. They had been doing it all along and finally slipped up and got caught. (In fact, if I'm not mistaken, Tyler Hamilton only got caught the first time because he mixed up blood transfusions and gave himself someone else's blood, rather than injecting his own stored blood.) He admits he was using EPO before he got caught for blood transfusion doping and never tested positive for EPO.
David Millar didn't fail a drug test. He only confessed to doping after police found used syringes and empty vials in his apartment.
Marion Jones never failed a drug test.
Frankie Andreu never tested positive nor was implicated otherwise in any drug scandal, but he now admits he used EPO.
The list goes on.
Furthermore, depending on how you look at it, Armstrong has failed drug tests. There was no EPO test before 2000. A blood sample taken from Armstrong in 1999 later tested positive for EPO. He supposedly failed a test in 2001 that was covered up, as well.
Moving past drug tests, how do you explain all of these former teammates now saying they doped alongside Armstrong?
According to reports, up to 12 former teammates were ready to testify against Armstrong, which is why I think Armstrong didn't contest the charge. He bows out now, and folks like you will still think he raced clean and was a victim of a "witchhunt." If 12 teammates (including Hincapie and Leipheimer) swore under oath that they took drugs with him, then you and all the others than know Armstrong more for his charity work than his racing would have to admit that he raced dirty.
My 2 cents.
..... If 12 teammates (including Hincapie and Leipheimer) swore under oath that they took drugs with him, then you and all the others than know Armstrong more for his charity work than his racing would have to admit that he raced dirty.................
How many titles are those 12 going to have to give up?
Stargazer
09-02-2012, 16:20
He bows out now, and folks like you will still think he raced clean and was a victim of a "witchhunt." If 12 teammates (including Hincapie and Leipheimer) swore under oath that they took drugs with him, then you and all the others than know Armstrong more for his charity work than his racing would have to admit that he raced dirty.
My 2 cents.
To clarify, I never stated he was 'clean' but rather I will not judge based on hearsay. Further, I'm not sure what I said that leads you to believe I know him for his 'charity work'.. because I don't. I read 2 of his books because of his fight against cancer and racing accomplishments. However, I do not follow cycling year round and by no means can speak to all the history behind the allegations. In the ten minutes I spent scanning articles triggered by the points you noted above, it didn't take long to find a couple of things.
1. Hamilton has a book to be released in September, "The Secret Race". I guess it's an inside look at all the doping within the TDF. Which leads me to...
2. In the end, maybe none of them deserve the title.
Leozinho
09-02-2012, 16:29
How many titles are those 12 going to have to give up?
How is this relevant? (Among those 12, there are plenty of wins that I suppose could be stripped if they admit to doping when they won.)
Or are you saying that Armstrong has more to lose and therefore more reason to lie about drug use?
Some of those 12 are still professional riders and reportedly would face suspension for their testimony. Perhaps you can give us a good reason why 12 riders (some active pros, some not, some already caught dirty, some not) would lie under oath in order to frame Armstrong and themselves be suspended? Why lie under oath knowing that Armstrong is going to launch his usual smear campaign as soon as you say anything against him?
.....Some of those 12 are still professional riders and reportedly would face suspension for their testimony. ..........?
Will they? They passed all their tests?? Well, most of them did.
Leozinho
09-02-2012, 16:42
To clarify, I never stated he was 'clean' but rather I will not judge based on hearsay. Further, I'm not sure what I said that leads you to believe I know him for his 'charity work'.. because I don't. I read 2 of his books because of his fight against cancer and racing accomplishments. However, I do not follow cycling year round and by no means can speak to all the history behind the allegations. In the ten minutes I spent scanning articles triggered by the points you noted above, it didn't take long to find a couple of things.
1. Hamilton has a book to be released in September, "The Secret Race". I guess it's an inside look at all the doping within the TDF. Which leads me to...
2. In the end, maybe none of them deserve the title.
I can't say why you support Armstrong (other than that you don't know much about Armstrong and doping in cycling), but many others strongly support Armstrong because of his charity work (and because he's a cancer survivor).
I guess you read It's Not About the Bike, coauthored by Sally Jenkins? Jenkins wrote that "nothing short of murder" would change her opinion of Armstrong. Fair enough. She doesn't care if he cheated because she respects him as a cancer survivor, a great rider and because he created a major cancer charity. That's the people I'm talking about when I say he can bow out now, blame it on a witchhunt, and they will still believe him. If his 12 former teammates testify under oath, then a lot of those will lose respect for him.
Leozinho
09-02-2012, 16:51
Will they? They passed all their tests?? Well, most of them did.
Certainly possible. In 2007 Marion Jones was stripped of her five Olympic medals from 2000 when she admitted to drug use. She never failed a drug test. Tyler Hamilton admitted in 2011 that he used drugs and surrendered his Olympic gold from 2004 (He tested positive at the Games but fought and had the test overruled on a technicality, you could say.)
Again, why would those 12 lie under oath to frame Armstrong? Including Hincapie, who Armstrong described as his best friend? It doesn't make sense.
Drug testing will only catch up with you.. one way or another
How Lance will hold onto most of his $125m fortune despite growing calls for refunds (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224024/Lance-Armstrong-How-Lance-hold-125m-fortune-despite-growing-calls-refunds.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
By Helen Pow
PUBLISHED: 11:11 EST, 27 October 2012 | UPDATED: 11:16 EST, 27 October 2012
Lance Armstrong may have to pay back more than $3 million in prize money but he is still a rich man and experts believe he'll stay that way, despite his spectacular fall from grace.
The embattled cyclist has an estimated net worth of $125 million, most of which has come from being the face of major brands including Nike and Anheuser-Busch.
A Dallas promotions company that paid Lance Armstrong more than $7 million in bonuses for winning the Tour de France is demanding he return the money, but most sponsors probably won't bother trying to make him pay for any reputational damage his drug-taking may have inflicted
I still believe that he is being used as a set up. So far, not one person has come forward with any viable evidence of him juicing. All I've read is "she said, he said" all because they knew him. And where is the actual test evidence? He's being used as a press scapegoat- he didn't act alone. Anyone can say anything these days. Until I see evidence, this entire situation is one fat lie perpetuated by the USADA. But WHY?? The USADA has a hard on for Armstrong and they're bucking to bring him down. Is Lance still an inspiration? He wanted to win, and he did. Role model for kids and young adults??
I dislike those who threw fuel on this fire, when enough people are gunning for you, you will get hit sooner or later... But gotta admit, few of us, did he make a new drug to help him win? Most will say yes he did. For me that’s the part, who helped him, who made the drugs, There are more people involved in this and Lance is getting it stuck to him. Granted he is the figure behind the magic, so why not just him. No one is going after the “drug dealer” or looking for the “supplier(s)”. Once again.. But WHY??
Yes back in the 70’s we had the USSR and the east Germans in the 80’s. Then we had China and Romania in the 90’s. Now we have the USA. Not the first time for the US. We have had it in before in the Olympics, so nothing new for the US International Sporting.
If Lance is giving in, giving back the Tour de France monet that they are demanding he return. Doing so in my mind is saying I did do it. Which I think he did have some make some new kind of steroids for him. I also think other people, Companies, etc riding on his coat tails were behind it all too.
twistedsquid
10-29-2012, 17:15
I watched this documentary Saturday night on CNN. You can Google it and catch it again. I was a huge Lance fan. The evidence is compelling and overwhelming.
I don't see where he's been busted, yet.
LongWire
10-29-2012, 18:48
Have any of you read the USADA evidence that they released in regards to this issue?
Do you think that the Fed case went away for lack of evidence, when they didn't even consult with the investigators before shutting it down?
He said, she said? Does testimony from 11 former team mates not account for anything?
I'm of the opinion that he was a royal prick, and that caught up with him. You can't run around acting like King George and not expect a revolution at some point.
As far as the USADA is concerned, they are trying to clean the sport up, and I for one welcome that whole heartedly. Maybe one day we can see the athletes compete against each at their true form or ability, not which one was more jacked and had more blood packed in!!
http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org
Have any of you read the USADA evidence that they released in regards to this issue?
Do you think that the Fed case went away for lack of evidence, when they didn't even consult with the investigators before shutting it down?
He said, she said? Does testimony from 11 former team mates not account for anything?
I'm of the opinion that he was a royal prick, and that caught up with him. You can't run around acting like King George and not expect a revolution at some point.
As far as the USADA is concerned, they are trying to clean the sport up, and I for one welcome that whole heartedly. Maybe one day we can see the athletes compete against each at their true form or ability, not which one was more jacked and had more blood packed in!!
Right, but when was he actually busted?
LongWire
10-29-2012, 18:56
Right, but when was he actually busted?
Read the report......
You do realize that they knew how to beat all of the tests, right?
Read the report......
This is the gist of that report, as far as I'm concerned:
'The attorney for Lance Armstrong says anti-doping authorities determined that the cyclist was guilty without any form of due process. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released its report on the allegations against Armstrong on Wednesday.
The more than 1,000-page dossier, which was prepared for the sport’s international governing body, portrays Armstrong as a serial cheater and a vengeful, venal human being. Having stripped Armstrong of his Tour de France titles and banished him from competitive cycling in August, USADA, through the report, now stands to erode Armstrong’s remaining appeal to the corporate sponsors that have supported him and the cancer foundation that bears his name.
For all of its heft, however, the document does not contain unassailable proof of a single positive drug test. And throughout years-old claims that his athletic triumphs were tainted has been the basis of Armstrong’s defense: that he has never failed a drug test.'
LongWire
10-29-2012, 19:18
There is enough testimony in there that attribute him with taking EPO, and cortisone throughout the 98 and 99 season, as well as flushing his system with saline. When he came out hot in the Tour de Suisse in 2001 he paid off the UCI.
And when you are ahead of the tests, how is it not cheating?
There is enough testimony in there that attribute him with taking EPO, and cortisone throughout the 98 and 99 season, as well as flushing his system with saline. When he came out hot in the Tour de Suisse in 2001 he paid off the UCI.
And when you are ahead of the tests, how is it not cheating?
I see your point, and I realize where there's that much smoke, there's gotta be a fire somewhere.
The "innocent until proven guilty" factor is still there for me, though.
LongWire
10-30-2012, 12:09
I see your point, and I realize where there's that much smoke, there's gotta be a fire somewhere.
The "innocent until proven guilty" factor is still there for me, though.
Problem being the way all of their contracts go as professionals, they agree to the arbitration process if stuff like this comes up. Kinda like UCMJ, agree to support and defend, yet get none of the process ourselves.
His PR campaign started a long time ago getting the message out, and most bought into it, myself included, in the hopes that all will overlook now. I no longer do, I've read way too much to say that he didn't. That's just the way it goes.
LongWire
10-30-2012, 12:15
Gonna be lazy here and post what I put up on Facebook a couple of weeks ago......
Okay these are my views as I see it. As many of you know, I was a Lance and Postal fan for many yrs, he's one of the reasons I became a roadie. I waited for and watched his performance for many years. I loved the romance of the tour, the epic performances, the narrative, and most of all seeing my hero/team win.
Hero's come in many shapes, sizes, and forms. Mine for the most part (especially now) wear green, or some other uniform that separates them from the general populace, that make significant sacrifices, so that the rest of our citizens can continue to enjoy their lifestyles and the freedoms that come from those sacrifices. I humbly Thank You all for your Sacrifices!!!
Over the years the rumors and allegations started surfacing. I believed the narrative, and subsequent add campaign, that I was fed, and defended "my guy" from cheating. How could he? I read his books. I supported his cause, surely they are just trying to bring him down. Haters!!!
There are many forms of lying. Lately I've been hearing a carefully worded script, that only addresses that "I've never been caught"…..Thats worlds different than, "I've never done it." And now, to paraphrase…."Let them do what they want, I know what I've accomplished, their opinion (and evidence) don't matter." There's an Army saying (tongue in cheek) that goes "if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying. And if you get caught you ain't trying hard enough." Its a funny sentiment and not to be taken seriously, but it does come out frequently. Along the same lines, I hear a lot of people saying that everyone in the peleton is doing it, so it was even. Was it? Some of the things that I've read lately and over the years have stated that Lance, used his stature to raise the bar for himself. That he also used his stardom to intimidate, coerce and bully those in and out of the peleton to keep quiet. Don't cross the Omertà.
I think that a lot of peoples take on doping is that he didn't earn those wins. Yes, the other contenders were most certainly doped as well during those yrs. The evidence is pointing to the fact that Lance had a better support system, and access to better result manipulating programs than the rest. So the real question in my mind becomes, was it a true test of his physical ability? Did he train hard? Of course he did. There is no doubt that he is a World Class Cyclist. If he's more doped than everyone else is it fair? Should we all turn a blind eye and say, "well since everyone else is cheating it's okay"? "He's done such good things for Cancer and his foundation." Yes, he has done some phenomenal things for cancer research and cancer survivors. I won't take that away from him. I also believe that he knew this day would come and is relying on that basis, so that he can continue with the narrative that he now gives. He was betting that his star was brighter than that, and people would see him as a great person despite the lies. I can't and won't go there. I'm more apt to believe the mountains of evidence that includes the bribes, payoffs and testimony of 11 (so far) of his former teammates, who all say that he was, and that they were coerced to, in order to be on the winning team. Some of those 11 had never been popped, and had no reason to get back at him (George).
I'm not an expert, I'm not hating. This is how I see it. Supposedly the peleton is clean now. I don't know?! I do know that their times have slowed down considerably. The investigations continue and more is being discovered about other riders. I do know that Omertà has been crossed, which is a huge step forward for the sport and gives me hope that Cycling and all sport can be Clean. Cheating for the sake of cheating to keep things even, isn't right regardless. After all what do we want to pass on to our kids? I'm not looking mine in the eye and saying that "if you find loopholes and cheat better than everyone else someday you too can be a champion!"…….No Way!!!!
I'll get off my soapbox……….
October 19 at 4:15pm · Like · 1
Leozinho
01-12-2013, 18:55
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_ARMSTRONG_DOPING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-12-08-04-38
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Lance Armstrong said he will answer questions "directly, honestly and candidly" during an interview with Oprah Winfrey next week. He will also apologize and make a limited confession to using performance-enhancing drugs, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.
Dozer523
01-12-2013, 19:32
Well I heard all he's gonna announce is that he'll be on Dancing with the Stars.
with Lindsay Lohan.
Well sad fact, but finially he comes clean.
Smokin Joe
01-12-2013, 23:00
He cracks now? Ugh, what a quitter!
What irritates me more-the fact that he cheated or that he's fessin' up on The Oprah Show? :munchin
What irritates me more-the fact that he cheated or that he's fessin' up on The Oprah Show? :munchin
The Oprah Show.
Low-T Syndrome from wearing those effin' bike shorts, spending hours on that fence rail of a bicycle seat, and undergoing all those treatments and surgeries for you know what. Just wait 'til Oprah's done with him and it's Dr Phil's turn before he shows up on The View... :rolleyes:
Richard
Low-T Syndrome from wearing those effin' bike shorts, spending hours on that fence rail of a bicycle seat, and undergoing all those treatments and surgeries for you know what. Just wait 'til Oprah's done with him and it's Dr Phil's turn before he shows up on The View... :rolleyes:
Richard
lol Funny, but probably right on the money. :D