Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

1…78101213…239

Comments

  • frenchfighter
    frenchfighter Posts: 30,642
    This thread needs some photos

    blogger-image-1531194924.jpg
    Contador is the Greatest
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    For Armstrong, notoriety can become a replacement for adulation, as it means people are at least not ignoring him, insignificance being what he secretly dreads. :)

    If true then it would seem that everyone on this forum was and is playing right into his hands. Hmmmmmmmmm
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    frenchfighter wrote:
    This thread needs some photos

    blogger-image-1531194924.jpg


    This thread needs some graphs :D
  • emadden
    emadden Posts: 2,431
    If the UCI decide to take this to the CAS (which they probably have legal right to do), instead of confirming and rowing in behind USADA, then it goes without saying that UCI should be dissolved - or if the UCI continues, we need a new cycling body... The UCI is a complete shambles with levels of corruption on a par with those at the IOC and FIFA.

    As for the evidence coming out... lets not forget the case against Bruyneel is still going to arbitration and I suspect that the evidence that was to be used against Armstrong is probably the same (i.e. statements etc) that would have been used for the other defendants... Lets see.
    **************************************************
    www.dotcycling.com
    ***************************************************
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Another view???

    "Let's face it, who among us wouldn't take a pill or potion that would make us better at our job? Goodness knows, we abuse substances for just about everything in our personal lives; why not in our professional lives as well? Writer, artists, composers, and other practitioners of the lonely arts have historically relied on a trio of little helpers; booze, coffee, and cigarettes. They're not illegal, but the first one, used in quantity, can certainly kill you. And the last one, if the anti smoking lobby is to be believed, can kill not just you but those around you as well."

    Graydon Carter
    Editor - Vanity Fair
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Quickie question.

    Seems as though everyone is asking about the evidence. I thought everyone knew what the evidence was, so why ask or wait for it to come out? It would appear that most of you have gotten your wish of a disgraced LA and before that, as I've just said, you all KNOW the evidence. What's to wait for???? Game over??? Right??? :wink:
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    dennisn wrote:
    Another view???

    "Let's face it, who among us wouldn't take a pill or potion that would make us better at our job? Goodness knows, we abuse substances for just about everything in our personal lives; why not in our professional lives as well? Writer, artists, composers, and other practitioners of the lonely arts have historically relied on a trio of little helpers; booze, coffee, and cigarettes. They're not illegal, but the first one, used in quantity, can certainly kill you. And the last one, if the anti smoking lobby is to be believed, can kill not just you but those around you as well."

    Graydon Carter
    Editor - Vanity Fair

    Dear Graydon,

    Stop single-handedly dumbing down the internet.

    Regards,

    Me
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Luckao wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Another view???

    "Let's face it, who among us wouldn't take a pill or potion that would make us better at our job? Goodness knows, we abuse substances for just about everything in our personal lives; why not in our professional lives as well? Writer, artists, composers, and other practitioners of the lonely arts have historically relied on a trio of little helpers; booze, coffee, and cigarettes. They're not illegal, but the first one, used in quantity, can certainly kill you. And the last one, if the anti smoking lobby is to be believed, can kill not just you but those around you as well."

    Graydon Carter
    Editor - Vanity Fair

    Dear Graydon,
    Stop single-handedly dumbing down the internet.
    Regards,
    Me

    I'm not so sure that he hasn't said something worthwhile. After all "....who among us wouldn't..."?? You? Me? Us? Them? We all would and most likely do "..take a pill or potion...".
  • ReesA
    ReesA Posts: 62
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm not so sure that he hasn't said something worthwhile. After all "....who among us wouldn't..."?? You? Me? Us? Them? We all would and most likely do "..take a pill or potion...".

    there always will be apologists for any behaviour. it's up to others to confront them, call them out and show them for what they are.
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    ReesA wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm not so sure that he hasn't said something worthwhile. After all "....who among us wouldn't..."?? You? Me? Us? Them? We all would and most likely do "..take a pill or potion...".

    there always will be apologists for any behaviour. it's up to others to confront them, call them out and show them for what they are.

    Bingo. He's an apologist. Why formulate a coherent rebuttal for somebody who doesn't get it? Really, you're only insulting yourself if you address people who won't accept rational arguments. Graydon espouses generic arguments that demonstrate a tenuous understanding of the subject.
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    Sky news reporting that McQuaid,Verbruggen & Bruyneel are inside the Ecuador embassy in London 8)
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Luckao wrote:
    ReesA wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    I'm not so sure that he hasn't said something worthwhile. After all "....who among us wouldn't..."?? You? Me? Us? Them? We all would and most likely do "..take a pill or potion...".

    there always will be apologists for any behaviour. it's up to others to confront them, call them out and show them for what they are.

    Bingo. He's an apologist. Why formulate a coherent rebuttal for somebody who doesn't get it? Really, you're only insulting yourself if you address people who won't accept rational arguments. Graydon espouses generic arguments that demonstrate a tenuous understanding of the subject.

    I guess that's the difference between you and I. I don't see any apology at all. It's strictly a question, and a good one, to me. "...who among us...."? Who hasn't taken and or abused some pill or potion, just strictly for fun and entertainment, let alone for
    improving your personal and work life. No one I know of.
  • Le Commentateur
    Le Commentateur Posts: 4,099
    Gazzetta67 wrote:
    Sky news reporting that McQuaid,Verbruggen & Bruyneel are inside the Ecuador embassy in London 8)
    I wonder if Bruyneel's real motive for moving to London was not so much his daughter's education as stated, but the opportunity to take out injunctions should one be needed, possibly to protect his family from harassment and keep them insulated from the fallout.
    Un uomo solo al commando
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    dennisn wrote:
    It's strictly a question.

    No it isn't. It's a paragraph of conjecture that's preceded by a simplistic assumption about human nature. If it's "strictly a question," just ask the question. Don't make a supposition that demonstrates inherent bias.

    Also, 'apologist' doesn't mean what you think it means. It's about defending a stance, not actually apologising.
  • andrewjoseph
    andrewjoseph Posts: 2,165
    If I have a drink, I'm not cheating anyone who doesn't drink out of their winnings.
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    Luckao wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    It's strictly a question.

    No it isn't. It's a paragraph of conjecture that's preceded by a simplistic assumption about human nature. If it's "strictly a question," just ask the question. Don't make a supposition that demonstrates inherent bias.

    Also, 'apologist' doesn't mean what you think it means. It's about defending a stance, not actually apologising.

    Sorry, I may have agreed with Dennisn about the above. Recently looking at the Olympics in 360 BC; cheating was vilafied and sanctioned but it kept on happening. Well, kept on happening for the next 2,072 years.
    There's a saying that there's Nothing new under the sun. Cheating has happened before and it'll keep on happening for as long as we're around for. If we think this is going to be a "new age" then sorry. If we find a way to stop cheating then new ways of cheating will emerge, I think it's called progress or even human nature. Bad guys win. Hmmm...??

    Sorry about that.

    Confession-I was a crap bike rider and used Iron Tablets to boost my Iron. Made me a little quicker but too much Iron is dangerous so I asked the Pharmacist for advice. My inhaler use must have been over the top also. Bad guys lose also. :(
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    jerry3571 wrote:
    Sorry, I may have agreed with Dennisn about the above. Recently looking at the Olympics in 360 BC; cheating was vilafied and sanctioned but it kept on happening. Well, kept on happening for the next 2,072 years.
    There's a saying that there's Nothing new under the sun. Cheating has happened before and it'll keep on happening for as long as we're around for. If we think this is going to be a "new age" then sorry. If we find a way to stop cheating then new ways of cheating will emerge, I think it's called progress or even human nature. Bad guys win. Hmmm...??

    Does that unequivocally verify his supposition? Nobody has postulated that sports rules are inviolable; athletes regularly push boundaries and subsequently suffer the consequences. It's nigh on impossible to eradicate cheating. What's occurred here, though, is a presumptive generalization that tacitly excuses Armstrong's actions. The logic that your misdeeds are mitigated because you're anything but a lone perpetrator isn't realistically applicable to the world we live in.
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Oh, snap!

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12726 ... tests.aspx
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    Didn't they also used to get quite pally with doping control. Come on, buddy, have a cup of coffee. The test? No, forget it. I've already passed over 500.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Luckao wrote:
    jerry3571 wrote:
    Sorry, I may have agreed with Dennisn about the above. Recently looking at the Olympics in 360 BC; cheating was vilafied and sanctioned but it kept on happening. Well, kept on happening for the next 2,072 years.
    There's a saying that there's Nothing new under the sun. Cheating has happened before and it'll keep on happening for as long as we're around for. If we think this is going to be a "new age" then sorry. If we find a way to stop cheating then new ways of cheating will emerge, I think it's called progress or even human nature. Bad guys win. Hmmm...??

    Does that unequivocally verify his supposition? Nobody has postulated that sports rules are inviolable; athletes regularly push boundaries and subsequently suffer the consequences. It's nigh on impossible to eradicate cheating. What's occurred here, though, is a presumptive generalization that tacitly excuses Armstrong's actions. The logic that your misdeeds are mitigated because you're anything but a lone perpetrator isn't realistically applicable to the world we live in.

    Let me clarify one thing. The Vanity Fair article that I quoted from was about banking and politics. Not LA. It had zero to do with cycling. I just thought that what he said was pretty much on the mark in general.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,750
    So many threads & posts .... dunno if this thread from the world of athletics has been referenced, but there's one post that caught my eye here: http://www.tracktalk.net/showpost.php?s ... ostcount=8 - could have been written with the LA débâcle in mind.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Luckao wrote:
    Didn't they also used to get quite pally with doping control. Come on, buddy, have a cup of coffee. The test? No, forget it. I've already passed over 500.

    Well, I sure wouldn't bet that anyone who had passed 500 tests would fail #501.

    I'm thinking that this whole affair says more about the pathetic state of these very big money agencies set up to catch cheaters than it does about the cheaters themselves.
    All that money(a lot of it most likely yours) and so few results. Just goes to show how poorly run these agencies are. And in any case these labs don't want to end doping in sports they want to catch just enough people to protect their high paying jobs. Now that's sort of a conspiracy theory but I believe it's a good one.
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    dennisn wrote:
    Luckao wrote:
    Didn't they also used to get quite pally with doping control. Come on, buddy, have a cup of coffee. The test? No, forget it. I've already passed over 500.

    Well, I sure wouldn't bet that anyone who had passed 500 tests would fail #501.

    I'm thinking that this whole affair says more about the pathetic state of these very big money agencies set up to catch cheaters than it does about the cheaters themselves.
    All that money(a lot of it most likely yours) and so few results. Just goes to show how poorly run these agencies are. And in any case these labs don't want to end doping in sports they want to catch just enough people to protect their high paying jobs. Now that's sort of a conspiracy theory but I believe it's a good one.

    Dennis, I think it shows how inventive each new generation of drug is in avoiding detection. The agencies are constantly relying on some sort of mistake or break to obtain the information necessary to create the new generation of drug detection.

    To put it in perspective take all of the most high profile athletes in all sports who eventually tested positive for drugs and compare it to the amoint of times throughout their careers that they tested negative but have now confessed to drug taking through those negatives (Marion Jones and Holy Dave for examples) quite scary really. I think the reality is, despite the propaganda, drug testing is still lagging behind the drugs.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Yellow Peril wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Luckao wrote:
    Didn't they also used to get quite pally with doping control. Come on, buddy, have a cup of coffee. The test? No, forget it. I've already passed over 500.

    Well, I sure wouldn't bet that anyone who had passed 500 tests would fail #501.

    I'm thinking that this whole affair says more about the pathetic state of these very big money agencies set up to catch cheaters than it does about the cheaters themselves.
    All that money(a lot of it most likely yours) and so few results. Just goes to show how poorly run these agencies are. And in any case these labs don't want to end doping in sports they want to catch just enough people to protect their high paying jobs. Now that's sort of a conspiracy theory but I believe it's a good one.


    I think the reality is, despite the propaganda, drug testing is still lagging behind the drugs.

    Couldn't agree more. That's why there are cheats. Testing and detection have and probably always will lag behind cheats in every walk of life and or sport.
  • jerry3571
    jerry3571 Posts: 1,532
    To be honest this is where the merry go round will go on and on. New cheaters will come to replace the old and the old ones will come back after 6 months ban (AC). There's no end in sight. This hightened anti doping programme came about after EPO was killing riders in their beds. Now the Hemocrit test has sorted this problem, to some degree, then where does it leave us? There now seems no end game, just more positive dope tests.

    As for LA, he's washed up and the only unanswered question is about his Team's collusion with the UCI on being given a free run at the Tour without any questions being asked. That could kick the legs from the UCI if that one gets out.

    Bit tired and befuddled now....zzzz.... :s

    Jerry
    “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”- Albert Einstein

    "You can't ride the Tour de France on mineral water."
    -Jacques Anquetil
  • itisaboutthebike
    itisaboutthebike Posts: 1,120
    And in any case these labs don't want to end doping in sports they want to catch just enough people to protect their high paying jobs. Now that's sort of a conspiracy theory but I believe it's a good one.

    Mmmmm.......... the UCI's pathetic 'biological passport'. Serving up a few small fry as a smokescreen that they're doing something.

    If it was only as good as Ariel biological ! (mind you that didn't get the mold out of out of our trailer tent sheets today)
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    How much is Lance now still worth? How much cash and property does he have? And how much can SCA and The Sunday Times take off him? And how many of his sponsors will now sue him? Will he stay a millionaire or be ruined by accepting this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • ReesA
    ReesA Posts: 62
    Dave_1 wrote:
    How much is Lance now still worth? How much cash and property does he have? And how much can SCA and The Sunday Times take off him? And how many of his sponsors will now sue him? Will he stay a millionaire or be ruined by accepting this?

    Very complex question that I think will take time to become clearer as the other cases proceed and as other evidence and material starts coming out. Now he has accepted the USADA charges the risk of litigation is low/gone so perhaps a load of material will surface a la the French drugs testing stuff of yesterday.

    I read this yesterday after someone linked it in the Guardian blog. Interesting read and gives some idea of the $$$ floating about the complexity of a number of issues -- but I warn you your mind will be scarred by having to look at the gay porn image of LA half naked every single page.... god knows why they chose that image!

    http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=1

    One other thing (which I am sure the longer term members of br forums have seen) is that I found a link to the actual letter sent from the USADA to the accused. (was also linked in the Guardian blog)

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464954262704154.html#articleTabs%3Ddocument
  • hommelbier
    hommelbier Posts: 1,556
    The old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity seems to be borne out here - seems perverse to me though.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-24/lance-armstrong-livestrong-response/57309064/1

    "A Livestrong spokesperson said last Saturday the foundation received four gifts totaling $350. So far on the Friday and Saturday since the sanctions were announced, the charity has received 1,461 donations for a total of $148,950"
  • rdt
    rdt Posts: 869
    hommelbier wrote:
    The old adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity seems to be borne out here - seems perverse to me though.

    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-24/lance-armstrong-livestrong-response/57309064/1

    "A Livestrong spokesperson said last Saturday the foundation received four gifts totaling $350. So far on the Friday and Saturday since the sanctions were announced, the charity has received 1,461 donations for a total of $148,950"


    Those jets just drink fuel.

Categories