Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
0
-
rayjay wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-against-a-truth-and-reconciliation-commission
Good words from Cav IMO
Good, if we are talking about tennis.
The rest not so good, unless one retains a bit of a "thing" for Armstrong.
Not exactly the Ricco treatment.
Anyhow, part 4 of Lance's version of the truth:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lan ... iew-part-4"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:rayjay wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-against-a-truth-and-reconciliation-commission
Good words from Cav IMO
Good, if we are talking about tennis.
The rest not so good, unless one retains a bit of a "thing" for Armstrong.
Not exactly the Ricco treatment.
Ricco is a case all on his own. I mean even his pregnant wife got busted. Ricco is lucky to be alive.0 -
rayjay wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:rayjay wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-against-a-truth-and-reconciliation-commission
Good words from Cav IMO
Good, if we are talking about tennis.
The rest not so good, unless one retains a bit of a "thing" for Armstrong.
Not exactly the Ricco treatment.
Ricco is a case all on his own. I mean even his pregnant wife got busted. Ricco is lucky to be alive.
Seeing that Cav ripped into Ricco before any of that was known, it's irrelevant.
Besides, there's more than a slim chance that Lance was in the same boat, through doping."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
bockers wrote:Crankbrother wrote:European (French) revisionism ...
Both Greg and Miguel must feel relieved that the powers that be couldn't afford to keep the freezer runninf during those warm summer months ...
There has never been any suggestion that Lemon doped. He is widely regarded as the last clean (as in epo and transfusions) tour rider. So not sure why you wnat to cast aspersions at him now?
Greg is 'clean' because he says so? Given the high propensity of liars/deniers in the peleton and the situation where he competed with and beat self confessed dopers I'm not drinking his brand of kool aid ...
Greg didn't like that his spotlight faded once he was no longer the only US TdF winner ... I'm guessing the speaking/appearance fees were starting to dry up ... Same with his bikes, his name no longer had the cachet it did so Trek stopped promoting a dwindling brand to concentrate on marketing the now rather than the past ...
He also felt the need to involve himself in Floyd's business ... the man likes the spotlight, same as Vaughters, same as LA ...0 -
-
Crankbrother wrote:bockers wrote:Crankbrother wrote:European (French) revisionism ...
Both Greg and Miguel must feel relieved that the powers that be couldn't afford to keep the freezer runninf during those warm summer months ...
There has never been any suggestion that Lemon doped. He is widely regarded as the last clean (as in epo and transfusions) tour rider. So not sure why you wnat to cast aspersions at him now?
Greg is 'clean' because he says so? Given the high propensity of liars/deniers in the peloton and the situation where he competed with and beat self confessed dopers I'm not drinking his brand of kool aid ...
Greg didn't like that his spotlight faded once he was no longer the only US TdF winner ... I'm guessing the speaking/appearance fees were starting to dry up ... Same with his bikes, his name no longer had the cachet it did so Trek stopped promoting a dwindling brand to concentrate on marketing the now rather than the past ...
He also felt the need to involve himself in Floyd's business ... the man likes the spotlight, same as Vaughters, same as LA ...
You really are a true contrarian. Aren't you?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Crankbrother wrote:bockers wrote:Crankbrother wrote:European (French) revisionism ...
Both Greg and Miguel must feel relieved that the powers that be couldn't afford to keep the freezer runninf during those warm summer months ...
There has never been any suggestion that Lemon doped. He is widely regarded as the last clean (as in epo and transfusions) tour rider. So not sure why you wnat to cast aspersions at him now?
Greg is 'clean' because he says so? Given the high propensity of liars/deniers in the peloton and the situation where he competed with and beat self confessed dopers I'm not drinking his brand of kool aid ...
Greg didn't like that his spotlight faded once he was no longer the only US TdF winner ... I'm guessing the speaking/appearance fees were starting to dry up ... Same with his bikes, his name no longer had the cachet it did so Trek stopped promoting a dwindling brand to concentrate on marketing the now rather than the past ...
He also felt the need to involve himself in Floyd's business ... the man likes the spotlight, same as Vaughters, same as LA ...
You really are a true contrarian. Aren't you?
Most people are popular for the wrong reasons ... so I dislike them for the right ones ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:TailWindHome wrote:Crankbrother wrote:bockers wrote:Crankbrother wrote:European (French) revisionism ...
Both Greg and Miguel must feel relieved that the powers that be couldn't afford to keep the freezer runninf during those warm summer months ...
There has never been any suggestion that Lemon doped. He is widely regarded as the last clean (as in epo and transfusions) tour rider. So not sure why you wnat to cast aspersions at him now?
Greg is 'clean' because he says so? Given the high propensity of liars/deniers in the peloton and the situation where he competed with and beat self confessed dopers I'm not drinking his brand of kool aid ...
Greg didn't like that his spotlight faded once he was no longer the only US TdF winner ... I'm guessing the speaking/appearance fees were starting to dry up ... Same with his bikes, his name no longer had the cachet it did so Trek stopped promoting a dwindling brand to concentrate on marketing the now rather than the past ...
He also felt the need to involve himself in Floyd's business ... the man likes the spotlight, same as Vaughters, same as LA ...
You really are a true contrarian. Aren't you?
Most people are popular for the wrong reasons ... so I dislike them for the right ones ...
Never let the matter that EPO was not about when Lemond won his first tours or the fact that given the number of confessing pros and books there has never been any smoke surrounding him. I would say you are a troll but some of them are quite clever.0 -
Oh no, the 'troll' card ... how about considering alternative opinion rather than making snide remarks about my intellect?0
-
Crankbrother wrote:bockers wrote:Crankbrother wrote:European (French) revisionism ...
Both Greg and Miguel must feel relieved that the powers that be couldn't afford to keep the freezer runninf during those warm summer months ...
There has never been any suggestion that Lemon doped. He is widely regarded as the last clean (as in epo and transfusions) tour rider. So not sure why you wnat to cast aspersions at him now?
Greg is 'clean' because he says so? Given the high propensity of liars/deniers in the peloton and the situation where he competed with and beat self confessed dopers I'm not drinking his brand of kool aid ...
Greg didn't like that his spotlight faded once he was no longer the only US TdF winner ... I'm guessing the speaking/appearance fees were starting to dry up ... Same with his bikes, his name no longer had the cachet it did so Trek stopped promoting a dwindling brand to concentrate on marketing the now rather than the past ...
He also felt the need to involve himself in Floyd's business ... the man likes the spotlight, same as Vaughters, same as LA ...
Thanks for enlightening me, there was me previously believing all the Armstrong/Trek/Lemond tales.
"kool aid"? Pls don't bring Americanisms on here, in addition to your filthy pro-Armstrong leanings!0 -
'filthy' ... ha, brilliant ...0
-
I never said you were a troll.Crankbrother wrote:Oh no, the 'troll' card ... how about considering alternative opinion rather than making snide remarks about my intellect?0 -
Argentin was winning a lot in 1982, 1983. No EPO then and blood transfusion not banned. Argentin, Roche, Indurain, Bugno, Romigner, they were all good without blood doping0
-
Blazing Saddles wrote:rayjay wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-against-a-truth-and-reconciliation-commission
Good words from Cav IMO
Good, if we are talking about tennis.
The rest not so good, unless one retains a bit of a "thing" for Armstrong.
Not exactly the Ricco treatment.
Anyhow, part 4 of Lance's version of the truth:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lan ... iew-part-4
I can understand Cav in a way Armstrong was a GC winner from the immediate generation before why should he, by which I mean Cav, waste time and energy on him when he is concerned with the here and now? However, I wonder if he would be a little more animated if instead of Armstrong the issue surrounded Hushovd and a couple of the green jerseys he won against Cav?0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:rayjay wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cavendish-against-a-truth-and-reconciliation-commission
Good words from Cav IMO
Good, if we are talking about tennis.
The rest not so good, unless one retains a bit of a "thing" for Armstrong.
Not exactly the Ricco treatment.
Anyhow, part 4 of Lance's version of the truth:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lan ... iew-part-4
I can understand Cav in a way Armstrong was a GC winner from the immediate generation before why should he, by which I mean Cav, waste time and energy on him when he is concerned with the here and now? However, I wonder if he would be a little more animated if instead of Armstrong the issue surrounded Hushovd and a couple of the green jerseys he won against Cav?
Well Cav has simpletonified it for himself, I think he would have been in a set with Wayne Rooney at school.0 -
Having read all 4 parts: I think on the whole he's being pretty honest. For me, the most obvious flaw in his reasoning is that he doesn't see why it was so important to expose his cheating and that other riders needed an incentive to dish the dirt.Blazing Saddles wrote:
Anyhow, part 4 of Lance's version of the truth:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/lan ... iew-part-4
The other riders were bit part players whilst he was the guy who dominated a sport through doping and was a figurehead in driving omerta. From an anti doping perspective, it was essential to bring him to book in a way busting a domestique isn't.
Having said all that. I think he's a hideous character but he didn't create the problem. He's not evil and I don't hate him. He's a flawed man, aren't we all? (Apart from the women).0 -
Bringing Armstrong to account was clearly important, especially as some of those around him in his ascendency were still operating within professional cycling. However it does make for some uneasy compromises whereby still active cyclists, some heavily involved in doping, were able to negotiate 6 month off-season bans in order to take down a retired cyclist messing about in local events.0
-
I don't think bringing LA or anyone down as done cycling any favours. All it has done is confirm to the casual sports fan what they thought anyway and what cycling fans already knew. Armstrong and co happened years ago. Riders have doped since and will keep taking PEDs to win. When you look at the performances of Froome, Quintana and co, can you really believe they are clean just because we caught Armstrong and Co and some new shining light has come over cycling. No riders have owned up to doping unless they have been caught. That is a fact.
I don't see the brave new world happening. All I see is a lot of good PR work.0 -
To a certain degree, we all see what we want to see. Some far more than others. Your failure to see any changes in cycling is an extreme example of that.rayjay wrote:I don't think bringing LA or anyone down as done cycling any favours. All it has done is confirm to the casual sports fan what they thought anyway and what cycling fans already knew. Armstrong and co happened years ago. Riders have doped since and will keep taking PEDs to win. When you look at the performances of Froome, Quintana and co, can you really believe they are clean just because we caught Armstrong and Co and some new shining light has come over cycling. No riders have owned up to doping unless they have been caught. That is a fact.
I don't see the brave new world happening. All I see is a lot of good PR work.
Compare the riders response to the Festina affair to people openly criticising doping in the modern era. It has changed.
In what way are Froomes and Quintanas rides proof or evidence of doping? You do realise that even if the sport were 100% clean (which I'm not suggesting it is) that some riders would go quicker than others!? Heck one of them would even be the quickest of all. And unto that rider would be bestowed a revered honour. And that honour shall be from here on in referred to as winner.0 -
rayjay wrote:When you look at the performances of Froome, Quintana and co, can you really believe they are clean just because we caught Armstrong and Co and some new shining light has come over cycling..
Because a previous generation doped it doesn't mean the current generation are also guilty.
People need to remember that someone has to be the first rider to win 'clean' then someone has to be the second.
There is no evidence to suggest that any of the last 3 winners are doping.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
rayjay wrote:I don't think bringing LA or anyone down as done cycling any favours. All it has done is confirm to the casual sports fan what they thought anyway and what cycling fans already knew. Armstrong and co happened years ago. Riders have doped since and will keep taking PEDs to win. When you look at the performances of Froome, Quintana and co, can you really believe they are clean just because we caught Armstrong and Co and some new shining light has come over cycling. No riders have owned up to doping unless they have been caught. That is a fact.
I don't see the brave new world happening. All I see is a lot of good PR work.
Better to try (cleaning up) and fail, than not to have tried at all.
You seem to be advocating that all the sport's PR efforts would be better placed covering up high profile cases, in order to make sport more palatable to the masses.
In which case I suggest you share the same philosophy as Hein Verbruggen.
The depraved old world: not something many aspire to, these days."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I am not advocating that cycling covers anything up. Just that things are handled better. But I also understand that it is very difficult as cycling and drugs have always gone hand in hand. Other sports just get away with it.
I mean Zidane got busted for PEDs. When have you ever heard a football commentator call Zidane a drugs cheat?
Most of his team were busted for EPO. http://www.4dfoot.com/2013/02/09/doping ... -evidence/
I don't understand how so many of you think that since LA got busted the sport is now all of a sudden clean or cleaner. Athletes don't ,won't admit to taking PED's and the current climate makes it even better to get away with it. Sure the testers are getting better but if you believe that those taking PED'S have been standing still waiting to be caught then I think your misguided. Development go's both ways and if you know what the dopers know then the testers would know it as well. Its a game of catch up for the testers.
IMO cycling is trying to put on a brave face right now. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I think we still have a lot of PED's and doping going on in cycling and nothing I have seen in last years 3 big tours convinces me of anything different. I love Cycling and I love watching cycling and I am happy to take it for what it is. IMO Tygart has put a big fu%%ing cloud over cycling just to satisfy his ego. I mean how can he turn round to Armstrong and say if you confess to this we will let you keep some of your tour wins even though he knew Armstrong doped in those tours. Tygart was happy for LA to keep some of his tour wins even though he knew he doped? Hypocritical Bulls%%%
As long as he catches his fish and his ego is satisfied.
Someone should have gone up to Armstrong,Ulrich and co and said we know you doped lets talk about this in a way that the casual sports fans can understand that doping was the norm, it's part of it's history. Lets be brave and not make bad guys out of anyone but explain that this has been the way cycling has developed and lets see if we can move forward to make cycling clean.Try and take the stigma away make cycling to be at the forefront of cleaning up sport. Instead cycling is tainted and has a huge cloud of PED's hanging over it. We should have confronted the issue not just one man. IMO a big chance was missed.0 -
rayjay wrote:I mean how can he turn round to Armstrong and say if you confess to this we will let you keep some of your tour wins even though he knew Armstrong doped in those tours. Tygart was happy for LA to keep some of his tour wins even though he knew he doped? Hypocritical Bulls%%%
Well, no, it's not.
If Armstrong had confessed, then the statute of limitations would've kicked in and he could not have been punished for some of his years of doping. It's called "the rules". I doubt he was happy about it but he was following the WADA code.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Rayjay that link on doping in football is amazing. Certainly the best ive read. Will circulate that to a few football fans.Contador is the Greatest0
-
iainf72 wrote:rayjay wrote:I mean how can he turn round to Armstrong and say if you confess to this we will let you keep some of your tour wins even though he knew Armstrong doped in those tours. Tygart was happy for LA to keep some of his tour wins even though he knew he doped? Hypocritical Bulls%%%
Well, no, it's not.
If Armstrong had confessed, then the statute of limitations would've kicked in and he could not have been punished for some of his years of doping. It's called "the rules". I doubt he was happy about it but he was following the WADA code.
So if you doped outside the statute that's alright then ,,, it's bulls%%%. Its a stupid rule that has served no purpose except for letting doped riders get off while other ones get bans. Did Ryder confess out of free will? No, he knew the sh%% was about to hit the fan. Hypocritical Bulls%%% IMO0 -
rayjay wrote:So if you doped outside the statute that's alright then ,,, it's bulls%%%. Its a stupid rule that has served no purpose except for letting doped riders get off while other ones get bans. Did Ryder confess out of free will? No, he knew the sh%% was about to hit the fan. Hypocritical Bulls%%% IMO
No one is saying it's alright
That's how the law works“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
The one thing that has puzzled me about this is why Armstrong, with all his lawyers, hasn't appealled to CAS. He wouldn't get away with it, obviously, but I reckon he would have a good chance of getting the results outside the statute of limitations back (which might help with other law suits) and his ban reduced (which he clearly is desperate for)Twitter: @RichN950
-
His most important objective presently is to protect his livelihood and rebuild his income generating potential. Starting legal proceedings to reclaim victories he admits were obtained through doping wouldn't sit well with the public. Also another drain on funds that he probably doesn't need/ can't afford.RichN95 wrote:The one thing that has puzzled me about this is why Armstrong, with all his lawyers, hasn't appealled to CAS. He wouldn't get away with it, obviously, but I reckon he would have a good chance of getting the results outside the statute of limitations back (which might help with other law suits) and his ban reduced (which he clearly is desperate for)
I reckon he's making all the right noises about being prepared to talk to Wada / uci as he sees this as his mechanism to get his competition ban reduced at no financial cost and also a positive step from an image perspective.0
