Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:
I think we can agree that Indurain didn't win seven times.Dave_1 wrote:Face the facts. The feds wanted to try to prove public money was used for doping and they could not prove that. 1 court recognised the 7 TDFs wins could not be disproven and the USADA says it could be proven. Armstrong is a drug cheat but he won the TDF 7 times or you are saying Indurain did not win 7 times as well as they both used Epoh
sorry, 7 grand tours. Anyways, what's your opinion re Indurain? Fence sitting reply
? 0 -
That's pure Joe McCarthy BS. Denounce or be denounced yourself.Rick Chasey wrote:
The problem many commentators are having is coming to term with the idea that most people, including riders themselves don't really care. This offends them greatly. They have spent countless man hours bashing their keywords in opposition to Armstrong and now they expect a pay off. But rather than getting gratful thanks for freeing them from Armstrong's tyranny they are getting 'Meh'. Cyclists don't care what happens to him, they just want it finished once and for all. And this angers the commentators.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Dave_1 wrote:Face the facts. The feds wanted to try to prove public money was used for doping and they could not prove that. 1 court recognised the 7 TDFs wins could not be disproven and the USADA says it could be proven.
By saying '1 court recognised the 7 TDFs wins could not be disproven' do you mean the Federal case? If that is what you mean, that's not really true (it could be, but its an assumption as it was NOT the point of the case) that doping part was never going to be part of the case at all if the the public money part wasn't proven along with it.
To put it another way , IF the Federal case did along the way prove the doping, but NOT the misuse of funds, the case would have been dropped anyway, solely as it was about the funds.
USADA wanted to know about what they found out about the doping part of it along the way, as that's their responsibility and duty to look into.
(this is my quick wording of it)0 -
mfin wrote:step-hent wrote:perhaps I'm just too prepared to accept that the doping cheats will never all be caught and its not worth killing the sport to do it.
Why do you think doing all this is killing the sport?? In what sense??
Ive yet to see a single race affected by this case.
If there has been any effect, I cant see it being reported on. (have you?)
The only effect I can see at the moment is some more polarisation on opinions about LA, and that's about it.
You're right, I'm overstating the effect. But my impression (just from talking to friends and colleagues who, a few weeks back, were excited about cycling because of the positive coverage and now are asking why it is still unable to control the doping issues) is that it does affect the credibility of current riders, in the eyes of the general public, even though those riders have nothing to do with Armstrong. That can't be good for the sport. It doesn't seem that the benefits of prosecuting old crimes (still crimes, but old now) outweigh that detriment, especially when the cost of doing so could have been poured into combating current doping more effectively.
@Bompington - again, you're right, a time limit it doesn't have to apply. But its an established principle of well functioning legal systems that limitation periods apply to all except the most horrible of crimes, because of the evidential difficulties in investigating events from many years past, to give certainty to the public governed by the system and to make sure that the system focuses on current issues rather than constantly looking decades behind at great cost. So Roulston's idea is nothing new - its just the statute of limitations and equivalent doctrines in other jurisdictions. If you put doping into the category of the most serious crimes, then fair enough. Otherwise, it should just be treated like everything else and a limit should apply.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Face the facts. The feds wanted to try to prove public money was used for doping and they could not prove that. 1 court recognised the 7 TDFs wins could not be disproven and the USADA says it could be proven. Armstrong is a drug cheat but he won the TDF 7 times or you are saying Indurain did not win 7 times as well as they both used Epoh
Here's some help with the facts:-
- The Feds were looking into defrauding of the government, drug trafficking, money laundering and conspiracy. Not doping, as that's not a criminal matter in the US.
- USADA looked into anti-doping rule violations, as per their remit, bringing a case against 6 people including LA.
- LA did win those 7 TDFs. However, he's since been found to have committed anti-doping rule violations. Furthermore, those violations were of a severity ("multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administrations of a prohibited substance or method") that permit the lifetime banning of him plus the disqualification from all competitive results from August 1998. Hence, he'll be forfeiting those 7 TDF wins.
Those are the facts.0 -
Personally I am of the opinion that there should not be a time limit at all...
RE indurain, Lemond, and all the other ones (incl Merckx) - they may not be clean either but until proven we have to assume they were.0 -
It's an alleged *conspiracy to dope, deal and cover up* against multiple people of which LA is only one. Many, if not all of those people are still active at the highest levels of the sport and are very influential, therefore effecting the day to day culture and operation of pro cycling right now. (correct me if i am wrong but) this same conspiracy was alleged to be active back to the time the titles are being stripped from which aggravates the alleged (admitted by LA by not contesting) offenses.
Regardless, I'm not sure why people are arguing about time limits given that (as far as I am aware) LA and the other players *signed up and agreed to these rules* and to everything being acted upon by USADA.tarzan13 wrote:RE indurain, Lemond, and all the other ones (incl Merckx) - they may not be clean either but until proven we have to assume they were.
Yup that is exactly right and why shouldn't we welcome further cases against other athletes back in the past. You want a clean sport or not? You have to accept there will always be doping and a lot of doping may well be undetectable at the time.0 -
tarzan13 wrote:RE indurain, Lemond, and all the other ones (incl Merckx) - they may not be clean either but until proven we have to assume they were.
Whoa now. On this forum LA was pronounced guilty of many, many things. Generally even before anyone actually charged him with anything. So your statement about the
others being clean until proven otherwise won't hold much water here. I agree, but I'm most likely one of very few.0 -
step-hent wrote:But my impression (just from talking to friends and colleagues who, a few weeks back, were excited about cycling because of the positive coverage and now are asking why it is still unable to control the doping issues) is that it does affect the credibility of current riders, in the eyes of the general public, even though those riders have nothing to do with Armstrong. That can't be good for the sport.
Totally agree that this is the case and (without disrespecting your friends and colleagues, because many of mine are similar) I think this is symptomatic of a lot of the Daily Mail -type excitability and lazy approach to properly researching a subject before having a strong opinion on it, that a lot of people seem to express with worrying ease.0 -
Assigning a time period as a line in the sand to prosecution is completely arbitrary. If there is available evidence and the public interest to expense ratio is high enough then authorities should definitely prosecute. I think in the case of LA, the guy is a massive celebrity in the US and makes a lot of his money off his TDF success, and most importantly has had a massive role in driving the doping culture in cycling for ~a decade.
Furthermore (!).... I think USADA have acted well within their remit. They are charged with upholding anti-doping and fair play within all WADA affiliated sports in the USA. [It would be a lot easier to brush it under the covers because LA is an American hero.]
I know it's a smokescreen (Liggett seemed to champion) but I can't understand the view of "it was a long time ago... no-one's interested". They are. If (names drawn at random) Steve Redgrave, Daley Thompson, Tanni-Gray etc. were driving a culture of, and participants to, doping in their respective sports for example - and with the bullying tactics that LA has seemingly indulged in - the UK public would want to know and titles should be stripped (or asterisked) accordingly.0 -
Millar nailing his colours to the anti Ligget mast... and some funny stuff on Vaughters Twitter about it too"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Millar nailing his colours to the anti Ligget mast... and some funny stuff on Vaughters Twitter about it too
inrng in blatant pisstake of Vaughters as well Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Hi guys.
This is my first post so dont be too hard on me.
Just wanted to add my opinion on the Lance debate. FWIW, I have been visiting these boards for over a year now (thanks for the tip on Evans at 25/1 for last years TDF by the way - you know who you are) but havent posted. Anyway, I digress, back to the point:
I used to follow cycling in the 80s but lost interest. For years i didnt follow it at all to the point where the only cyclists i could name were Chris Boardman and Lance Armstrong. Armstrong was that guy who survived cancer (not beat, you dont beat cancer) and won the tour de france. All the time. My interest in cycling continued to wane, time passed, Armstrong retired and my bike got rusty.
Then i heard on the news that Lance Armstrong, the cyclist who defied the odds to survive cancer and won seven TDF (not to mention his appearance in Dodgeball) was making a comeback. This happened around the time a family member passed away from Cancer and, somehow, struck a chord. Cancer may have beat my loved one but it cant beat everyone, here was the proof. I watched the tour religiously in 09 in support of LA. When the crosswinds caused a split in the peloton I was shouting at the tele as AC got gapped. As Armstrong got dropped in the mountains I shouted 'go on Lance' as he paced himself back up to the Contador/Wiggins/Nibali(? - my memory isnt what it was) group. I watched in despair as Bertie rode away from the peloton in the Pyrenees. After three weeks third place, after such a long absence, was an incredible achievement. I met Ellen MacArthur (she of round the world yacht fame) in work one day and we had a chat about various things, including how well LA had done. I went out and bought a bike. A Livestrong crash hat. A copy of 'Its not about the bike'. I found him to be an inspiration. Yet something nagged at me. How could a good one day rider suddenly turn into one of the greatest three week riders of all time?
And then I heard about the Floyd letter. And i started reading up about Lance Armstrong. About the failed test in 1999. And how a backdated doctors note was produced. And I read about the EPO claims, and about the 2005 tests and the statements that it was completely ridiculous to say the samples could have been corrupted. And how these samples could be tested again independently to settle it once and for all but LA wouldnt agree to it. And I read about Pantani, and Ulrich, and about Bassons, Simeoni, and Betsy Andreu, and Greg LeMonde. And I read what David Millar had to say about Lance and doping and the Omerta. And I read what Jan Ulrich said :
'If you cant add one plus one together then I cant help you.'
Well Im not great at maths but i can add one plus one.
And the only possible answer to this one plus one is that Lance Armstrong is a nasty piece of work, a liar and a cheat.When a true genius appears in this world, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift0 -
Welcome aboard, reallyarunner.
I think your story is similar to that of many cycling fans. Ullrich is right, if the signs out there aren't enough for some people, then nothing ever will be. That some people won't even entertain the notion of Armstrong as doper is frankly a little scary.0 -
One of things that's most interesting about the whole Lance thing is just how little many people actually know - I'm referring here to his supporters.
It's not that they cant add 1 and 1, it's just that they've never bothered to even find out if there are numbers to add together.
It offers incredibe, and alarming, insight into how people think. Now try replaying it in the context of .e.g the Global Warming "debate" and you see just how frightening it is.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:One of things that's most interesting about the whole Lance thing is just how little many people actually know - I'm referring here to his supporters.
It's not that they cant add 1 and 1, it's just that they've never bothered to even find out if there are numbers to add together.
It offers incredibe, and alarming, insight into how people think. Now try replaying it in the context of .e.g the Global Warming "debate" and you see just how frightening it is.
Conversely, you could say that both sides (in LA, and in GW) have a voracious appetite for lapping up *exactly* what they want to hear. If you have a look at a more US-centric board you'll find a lot more sympathy for LA from those who believe what's essentially the Liggett line, and a lot less of the angry mob mentality that you see (eg) here.0 -
This is what I've been thinking.
During US Postal's existance, which riders gave +ve tests, leading to a ban.
I'm struggling to think of any.
Now, how many after they left USP did the same?
Landis, Hamilton....others?
I find it hard to believe, that they were riding on pure water when with USP & suddenly started on the hard stuff after they left.
Something stinks.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/road-biking/My-Life-With-Lance-Armstrong.htmlMy Life With Lance Armstrong
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.0 -
Given that Armstrong won 7 TDFs and rode in others where he was tested the French Anti Doping Agency have been asked why he never tested positive (he must have been tested over 100 times in France, probably more). The current claim is that he was warned 20 minutes before a tester arrived giving him the chance to take a "potion" that would mask EPO in his blood and to change his urine. There is a claim that Nicolas Sarkozy was involved in warming Armstrong.
I don't know if any of this is possible or if it is just the doping agency looking for excuses for their lack of success.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
There are lots of theories floating about, but a "potion" that masks EPO and changes urine in just 20 mins, and is still unknown to the authorities after all these years, is stretching the imagination a bit too far.davidof wrote:Given that Armstrong won 7 TDFs and rode in others where he was tested the French Anti Doping Agency have been asked why he never tested positive (he must have been tested over 100 times in France, probably more). The current claim is that he was warned 20 minutes before a tester arrived giving him the chance to take a "potion" that would mask EPO in his blood and to change his urine. There is a claim that Nicolas Sarkozy was involved in warming Armstrong.
I don't know if any of this is possible or if it is just the doping agency looking for excuses for their lack of success.0 -
Tested 63 times by the French according to this
http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
I also think people get too focused on the EPO side of things. Blood doping by transfusing extra blood of you own has been around for good while now with no way of detecting it whatsoever. Only now are we getting Plasticizer tests coming round the corner to detect particles from the blood bags construction itself (which will undoubtedly change), and interpretive testing through the Passports.
If you wanted to get away with transfusing blood, you could get away with it definitely, no question, in the years covering his wins. The passport has now meant tinkering with epo micro-doses but not for performance enhancement, for making the passport values look reasonable whereas without doing it they would stand out like a sore thumb. The case might also have this sore thumb, wait and see.
I think the truly scary thing is the UCI fighting the decision to back LA and Co. up ...if they don't, then this can all settle a bit, if they do, its a mess, and even if CAS get it sorted the mess will be more at UCIs feet than USADA's.
USADA have been doing their job. The UCI haven't.0 -
DNQ wrote:
There are lots of theories floating about, but a "potion" that masks EPO and changes urine in just 20 mins, and is still unknown to the authorities after all these years, is stretching the imagination a bit too far.davidof wrote:Given that Armstrong won 7 TDFs and rode in others where he was tested the French Anti Doping Agency have been asked why he never tested positive (he must have been tested over 100 times in France, probably more). The current claim is that he was warned 20 minutes before a tester arrived giving him the chance to take a "potion" that would mask EPO in his blood and to change his urine. There is a claim that Nicolas Sarkozy was involved in warming Armstrong.
I don't know if any of this is possible or if it is just the doping agency looking for excuses for their lack of success.
I don't know about this, but Im not guessing a masking agent is taken in these time windows. Its more to do with saline etc...??
Will be good to read more and more about the techniques used, this is the kind of stuff Floyd has apparently provided great detail on for one.
We can guess away though on techniques, but it wouldnt be much use.
Anyone got any good links on masking techniques and getting round tests????tyler hamilton - "The tests are easy to beat," he writes. "We're way, way ahead of the tests. They've got their doctors, and we've got ours, and ours are better. Better paid, for sure. Besides, the UCI doesn't want to catch certain guys anyway. Why would they? It'd cost them money."
Hamilton confirms the use of a powder termed "polvo", likely protease, an enzyme tucked under the fingernail and introduced into the stream of urine to beat the EPO test. He states several times that Riis helped him refine his transfusion schedule, and that doctors and soigneurs on CSC aided in defeating doping controls by being on "standby" with intravenous saline to water down haematocrit if doping controllers showed up, and doctors on Phonak helped with transfusions.0 -
I watched the video Armstrong released yesterday from Montreal. He looks different..the voice, the eyes, I would say he's feeling the strain. I read Outside Magazine today and Coyle makes a similar observation in the final paragraph about yesterday's Lance video. Wonder if Lance will ever decide to confess? The thing is, he would be forgiven if he did..look at the lack of impact on his foundation there's been by USADA's sanction
http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/outdo ... ssage.html0 -
Well Livestrong might be reeling in the cash right now, but that's based on lots of people who still believe the myth donating out of a sense of allegiance to Armstrong. It's only because they've bought the "massive injustice" line. Don't think that will last long if he fesses up. Best case scenario for him there would be if he could carry on spinning the "everyone else was doing it so I didn't cheat anyone", but once people stop believing him he'll have trouble playing down the bully and liar aspect. "He lied before, where's his credibility?"...Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
No tA Doctor wrote:...........stop believing him he'll have trouble playing down the bully and liar aspect. "He lied before, where's his credibility?"...
How does he NOT have credibility because he's lied before and people like Landis and Hamilton have credibility simply because they have confessed? Doesn't lying at ANY time by ANYONE cause a loss of credibility? I don't follow how simply confessing to something takes you from zero to hero.0 -
dennisn wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:...........stop believing him he'll have trouble playing down the bully and liar aspect. "He lied before, where's his credibility?"...
How does he NOT have credibility because he's lied before and people like Landis and Hamilton have credibility simply because they have confessed? Doesn't lying at ANY time by ANYONE cause a loss of credibility? I don't follow how simply confessing to something takes you from zero to hero.
Theyve all been liars, two of those have come clean about it. One of them has not.
To lie and then eventually confess is far more credible than continuing to lie. He doesnt care about the sport, and he doesn't care about anyone who has to or chooses to inject sh1t into their bodies.
The extent of his lies goes further than the others, and his bullying, p1ssing about with peoples lives and wellbeing is quite frankly disgusting.
If he comes clean, he can start on a road to making up for this.
I suggest you actually read up on the doping and what it entails, you'll have lots more to read on this in the coming weeks, but do us a favour, read it, and comment on it with the information you read in mind.
Seems you'd apologise argumentally for any wrongdoer, cos you don't seem to read up much on it. I suppose you could find Hitler or Himmler weren't any worse than a lot of people if you chose to not read up a thing on what they did but then level we should look at them the same as everyone else.
Do some reading. A lot of people have gone through a lot in doping, and it f**ks them up. If LA wants to appear noble, why doesn't he do something about it?? Its not like he cant just sit down, write it all down over a few weeks, then completely fess up.0 -
dennisn wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:...........stop believing him he'll have trouble playing down the bully and liar aspect. "He lied before, where's his credibility?"...
How does he NOT have credibility because he's lied before and people like Landis and Hamilton have credibility simply because they have confessed? Doesn't lying at ANY time by ANYONE cause a loss of credibility? I don't follow how simply confessing to something takes you from zero to hero.
I'm paraphrasing his own targeting of Landis and Hamilton. It's Lance's line coming back to bite him if he does come clean. He's drummed it into his followers so hard they probably actually believe it. His followers might be able to forgive him for doping by playing the "level playing field" card. But once they've managed to swallow that fact, will they be able to trust him about the bullying and nastiness? By his own criteria they shouldn't.
I don't think a confession makes someone a hero, but it makes them worth listening to.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:No tA Doctor wrote:...........stop believing him he'll have trouble playing down the bully and liar aspect. "He lied before, where's his credibility?"...
How does he NOT have credibility because he's lied before and people like Landis and Hamilton have credibility simply because they have confessed? Doesn't lying at ANY time by ANYONE cause a loss of credibility? I don't follow how simply confessing to something takes you from zero to hero.
Theyve all been liars, two of those have come clean about it. One of them has not.
To lie and then eventually confess is far more credible than continuing to lie. He doesnt care about the sport, and he doesn't care about anyone who has to or chooses to inject sh1t into their bodies.
The extent of his lies goes further than the others, and his bullying, p1ssing about with peoples lives and wellbeing is quite frankly disgusting.
If he comes clean, he can start on a road to making up for this.
I suggest you actually read up on the doping and what it entails, you'll have lots more to read on this in the coming weeks, but do us a favour, read it, and comment on it with the information you read in mind.
Seems you'd apologise argumentally for any wrongdoer, cos you don't seem to read up much on it. I suppose you could find Hitler or Himmler weren't any worse than a lot of people if you chose to not read up a thing on what they did but then level we should look at them the same as everyone else.
Do some reading. A lot of people have gone through a lot in doping, and it f**ks them up. If LA wants to appear noble, why doesn't he do something about it?? Its not like he cant just sit down, write it all down over a few weeks, then completely fess up.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were the one who assigned credibity ratings to people. :roll:0
