Lance Armstrong/WTH???

I think Armstrong quit fighting the case because the witness accounts against him are just too damning this time. And the rumors about the UCI warning Armstrong before the dope tests are too serious to ignore.

Look at the top-5 riders in those 7 years Armstrong won the Tour. Out of those 35 riders, only 2 have never been busted by for doping and thats Andrei Kivilev (number 4 in 2001) and Haimar Zubeldia (number fem in 2003). Everybody else who made the top 5 in those years did the juice and were caught.

The sad fact remains, that if you want to be competitive in elite cycling, then you gotta do the juice. Everybody else is.
 
Dopers. We are seeing Olympic medalists being stripped of medals earned in years past. Dopers.

Armstrong had a choice to make. He could plea not guilty, guilty or no contest. He chose no contest.
 
Most of the champions of the Tour have been dopers (caught or admitted), even the greats like Merckx.

The possible exceptions being Hinault and LeMond. Sastre also never tested positive

I can understand Lance not wanting to go to arbitration, as 95% of the cases go against the athlete.

They have plenty of witnesses against him, I heard Hincapie was one of them.

I believe he is guilty

A frozen sample from early in his career, was positive for epo as part of a later research project. It was accidentally "leaked" to the press. Epo test was not in existence at the time of the sample and while he could not be charged, it shows he was using PEDs early on .

The Federal Case against him was about fraud and not doping per se and was a tough case to prove, hence it was dropped

I doubt they will remove all his victories as only the UCI and the tour can do that. WADA / USADA and UCI do not see eye to eye on many things.

Lance will be banned from cycling and apparently ironman as well. He could have been pretty competitive even at his age. He started as a triathlete and won big as a teenager
 
Also, if he does contest it and have a hearing, all the dirty laundry will be aired publicly. I hope that they don't give his "win" to the runner-up, because that would just be the next best cheater, if, cycling is as dirty as it seems to be.
 
This sums up my thoughts exactly. Well said.


Did he dope? I sure don't know. I think he probably did. Do I think doping has a place in sports? Nope.

Do I think that this should be pursued against Armstrong, now, after all these years? Not at all.
 
On the surface, that would seem to point to guilt but, the way our justice system is built, it is insufficient (to say the least). In no way am I pleading innocence for Lance; I would imagine he is guilty of something after winning so incredibly often in one of the dirtiest sports around. My point here is that even if the 4 friends have lots of details of how it all happenend, isn't it possible that they are guilty, and have merely inserted his name in the scheme? Just asking....

Think of it this way - Lance has been indicted for a class 1 misdemeanor(you pick the charge). If it goes to trial, based on known evidence, conviction is likely. Conviction brings fines, possible jail time(minimal), and the increased negative publicity associated with a very public, messy trial. So... Lance avoids the trial, pleads NOLO, and salvages whats left of his reputation. The offended private entities seek and receive restitution.
 
Last edited:
Dopers have no place in professional sports. Or more properly said, they should not have a place in professional sports.
 
Think of it this way - Lance has been indicted for a class 1 misdemeanor(you pick the charge). If it goes to trial, based on known evidence, conviction is likely. Conviction brings fines, possible jail time(minimal), and the increased negative publicity associated with a very public, messy trial. So... Lance avoids the trial, pleads NOLO, and salvages whats left of his reputation. The offended private entities seek and receive restitution.

Great points, and I agree, procedurally, I guess. But if we are looking at a crime that could have much more impact on someone in his position (we will call it a felony to continue the analogy), could 3 or 4 witnesses supercede lots of "DNA" tests (poor analogy here, but he did pass hundreds of tests)? Is testimony from (admittedly) criminal persons now justification for 'guilty' verdicts? I see your points, and many of them are valid but I guess what I have an issue with is the presumption of guilt with a positive test, but an array of negative tests meaning nothing! Not sure of the logic here....
 
For those who care, here is an interesting read from Armstrong's former personal assistant. It contains F bombs, so it may not be suitable for the workplace, etc. I don't know who is credible as between Lance and his entourage, if anyone, but I think its interesting nonetheless.

link.
 
For those who care, here is an interesting read from Armstrong's former personal assistant. It contains F bombs, so it may not be suitable for the workplace, etc. I don't know who is credible as between Lance and his entourage, if anyone, but I think its interesting nonetheless.

link.

That is an interesting read........

I am doing my best to stay neutral on the matter of whether he doped or not but every time I read an article on this topic it just seems to add more weight to Armstrong being guilty of cheating. With so much money and ego involved I am not really surprised, rather I am disappointed.
 
Look at the top-5 riders in those 7 years Armstrong won the Tour. Out of those 35 riders, only 2 have never been busted by for doping and thats Andrei Kivilev (number 4 in 2001) and Haimar Zubeldia (number fem in 2003). Everybody else who made the top 5 in those years did the juice and were caught.

The sad fact remains, that if you want to be competitive in elite cycling, then you gotta do the juice. Everybody else is.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say, to hear there's cheating going on in sports. Oh my virgin ears. :D

Looks like Lance pissed off someone important at some point.

All the hysteria aside, I'm impressed that in a sport loaded with doped competition, Armstrong won the Tour seven years in a row against other equally juiced riders. You can strip the titles, but it's hard to pretend it never happened.
 
I am reading the argument that it's OK since he didn't test positive.

I don't agree because he is cheating all the "clean" athletes out there who are trying to compete fairly.

Um ... ARE there any "clean" athletes out there who are not using any drugs at all and yet are competing at a world-class level in bicycle stage racing (or American football, or power lifting, probably at least a few other sports that I'm not as familiar with)? My impression is there aren't. If there is one finding him will be like searching for a needle in a haystack....

I don't have a good solution. The current system rewards those who are best at gaming the drug tests, which isn't great, but if there weren't any limits that would reward the athletes willing to risk the highest dosages of everything that's available, and they would be dying like mayflies.... :(
 
Um ... ARE there any "clean" athletes out there who are not using any drugs at all and yet are competing at a world-class level in bicycle stage racing (or American football, or power lifting, probably at least a few other sports that I'm not as familiar with)? My impression is there aren't. If there is one finding him will be like searching for a needle in a haystack....

I don't have a good solution. The current system rewards those who are best at gaming the drug tests, which isn't great, but if there weren't any limits that would reward the athletes willing to risk the highest dosages of everything that's available, and they would be dying like mayflies.... :(

If it is necessary to clean house of the whole lot of them, so be it. I hate corruption in sports like I hate corruption in governments and the business community. It may not be possible to get rid of everyone when the stakes & $ is so high, but at least the world can remove them one at a time where possible.

That article that powernoodle posted is a good one, where his former assistant pretty-much confirms the doping. What most people do not realize about Lance is that he isn't a "hero" at all, he really is not anything like a "good guy" like his public image portrays. Lance Armstrong is and has always been a low-down, dirty, petty and despicable person. He has always used his fame and power in the cycling world to hold-back people from testifying the truth about him.

He destroyed America's first and real cycling legend, Greg LeMond, 3-time winner of the Tour De France. Greg did it the clean and legit way and Lance had to destroy him for his stance against his doping. I've always known this, but way too many Lance "apologists" out there who would rather disbelieve historical fact.

Now that Lance is no longer a force in cycling, the truth will come out more and more. He can't threaten to destroy (or actually destroy) everyone who has always known about his abuses.
 
Accroding to usatoday, Armstrong plans to admit to doping himself on a Oprah show to be aired on Jan 17. I dont know if the source is credible, but i suspect usatoday believes it to be true, or else they wouldnt have brought the story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2013/01/11/lance-armstrong-oprah-interview/1828311/

Lance Armstrong plans to make an admission about doping in an interview with Oprah Winfrey scheduled to tape Monday at his home in Austin, Texas, a person with knowledge of the situation said.

In the interview, which is scheduled to air Thursday on the Oprah Winfrey Network, the famed cyclist plans to admit to doping throughout his career but probably will not get into great detail about specific cases and events, the person said. The person spoke to USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to speak publicly about it.

Armstrong, 41, has strenuously denied doping for years, often attacking his accusers as liars and arming himself with high-priced attorneys to fight charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions to gain an edge throughout his cycling career. But things changed for him after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency released a massive amount of evidence that showed otherwise in October. Since then, his sponsors dropped him and Armstrong was forced to step down from Livestrong, the cancer-fighting charity he founded.

Armstrong's planned admission carries with it the risk of being sued or held liable by those who believe he defrauded them by lying about his performance and use of drugs. He also could face criminal prosecution, though that seems unlikely. For example, Armstrong testified under oath in 2005 that he never used such drugs, but he is not likely to face criminal charges for perjury the testimony is beyond the statute of limitations.

After keeping a low profile since October, Armstrong has various possible motives to confess. A big one is his ongoing concern that the controversy might start hurting Livestrong. Another is the icy reception he's received in the media and public in the face of overwhelming evidence that he not only lied for years to deny his involvement in doping, but attacked other cyclists who cooperated with anti-doping officials.

His admission will not bring him back to competition any time soon. Having been banned for life and stripped of his seven titles in the Tour de France, Armstrong would have to provide substantial assistance to doping officials before he could have his eligibility reinstated. If he provided new information about cheating in the sport, he could have his ban reduced to no less than eight years, according to the World Anti-Doping Agency code. It's also possible that WADA and USADA could reach an agreement to reduce the ban further depending on his information and cooperation.

An investigation currently is underway in Europe to explore Armstrong's relationship with the International Cycling Union (UCI), and how UCI might have enabled or aided Armstrong's doping ring. If Armstrong provided assistance to that investigation, it likely would be considered in reducing his ban.

An attorney for Armstrong didn't immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
 
As Shunsui says, essentially every potential Tour winner during those years was on something, and that was common if not universal practice for a long time before.
As I recall, one particularly bad race was called in the French press "Le Tour de Pharmacie".....

One of the old 5-time Tour champions was known to have said, "Le Tour is not won on mineral water."

So we have a sport that is enormously popular, involves huge amounts of money, and has been suffused with drugs for a very long time.... Is it surprising that teams have been complicit in this activity? We have had reports of team cars being stopped by police ferrying the "goodies" to the next stopping point...
Marco Pantani committed suicide after being busted some years ago....
Riders have died on the course due to overdose.... There was a report of two riders nearly suffering heart attacks back in the early days of EPO use as the dosing had not been sorted yet...
This is in no way excusing Armstrong... Who can say why he so adamantly kept lying when most of the other world-class riders bowed their heads, took their suspensions, and came back in a couple of years.
Money? Committment to his cancer organization? Who knows.
It's a sorry business and I don't see it going away any time soon.
 
Lance is the MAN! All athletes are dopers and so are most of people in one way or another. If you were to take the average male and give him all the stuff Lance took there is no way they could ever achieve the level of fitness and endurance he possessed. One hell of a man and a great human as far as I am concerned.
 
Lance is the MAN! All athletes are dopers and so are most of people in one way or another. If you were to take the average male and give him all the stuff Lance took there is no way they could ever achieve the level of fitness and endurance he possessed. One hell of a man and a great human as far as I am concerned.

He is a liar, a cheater, and a destroyer of lives. The number of journalists, fellow cyclists, and even true sportsmen and gentlemen like Greg LeMond (first and only American to win the tour) whom he had threatened and ruined financially through the major companies and publications that sponsored him will never be known. He used his celebrity and "hero" status to crush anyone who dared to question his cleanness. But make no mistake, the entire time he was a liar, a cheater, and a destroyer of lives.

Yes, he was a phenomenal athlete with or without drugs. But no, he is not "the MAN!" or "one hell of a man and a great human."

EDIT: Actually, Greg LeMond said it best: "I just think he's not a good person and that's all I can say. I mean, he's a facade, if you knew the real Lance Armstrong that I know. I think he fronts himself as a guy who is loving and caring. From my experience, he's not a nice guy and I've had some very difficult periods with him. And I don't believe he'll finish up having any friends in cycling."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top