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

1…183184186188189…239

Comments

  • RoadPainter
    RoadPainter Posts: 375
    RichN95 wrote:
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    The team being personal use?
    My definition of trafficking and yours, seem to differ.
    I don't seek to demonetize him, merely forget about him.
    In that respect, I'd be prefer to get 2 or 3 years without him in the media, than
    a life ban and the media attention.
    The team is personal use, yes. There was no intent to supply to others. And the physical trafficing wasn't done by Armstrong personally it was done by the likes of Motoman and Emma O'Reilly on behalf of the team, not Armstrong along.

    I'd agree with you on the media stuff, but the media don't seem to be able to let go - especially many of those that blew smoke up his ar5e back in the day now trying erase the memory.

    As for the lowly domestique getting a four year ban - it won't be harsh he knows the rules and the risks. But if he gets a lifetime ban while others get a slap on the wrist?
    If anyone fesses up and helps reveal a ring, I support lesser punishments for them. Same as in price-fixing deals, which would extremely rarely be revealed otherwise.

    Armstrong could have told his story to USADA like the others did, but he chose to continue the lie and try to get away with it. He made a very bad decision.

    You normally talk a lot of sense Rich, but I don't understand where you're coming from here. Anything to break the omerta must be a good thing, surely?
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    The Others only told their story because they got busted.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    RoadPainter wrote:
    You normally talk a lot of sense Rich, but I don't understand where you're coming from here. Anything to break the omerta must be a good thing, surely?
    I'm not really coming from anywhere really. Ultimately, I don't give a toss what happens to him. I guess I see a feeding frenzy that I don't want to be a part of.

    I really don't see the difference, according to the rules and not anyone's personal sensibilities, that he did anything different to what Ullrich or Pantani or other 'heroes' did. He just did it better. USADA may claim it to be the most sophisticated doping ever, but Fuentes seems just the same, maybe better.

    Secondly, I agree with Armstrong's view that people have not been treated equally. Hincapie was alongside him every step of the way. He gets to walk off with his millions, his model wife, his hotel, his clothing line, his sportif and his reputation. Why? Because he wasn't good enough to win himself. Is that equitable?

    Armstrong became the great white whale and Tygart was Captain Ahab. And as a result Armstrong bore the sins of a whole generation of North American dopers so they could go free. And I don't think it was necessary. I don't think that's right. And neither does the only one of that generation who didn't seem to dope, Danny Pate.

    I guess ultimately that I don't care what Armstrong's ban is, although I think wanting to block a 40 something from marathons and triathlons is motivated mostly by spite, I just want his willing accomplices to share the blame.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    RichN95 wrote:
    ...Armstrong bore the sins of a whole generation of North American dopers so they could go free. And I don't think it was necessary. I don't think that's right. And neither does the only one of that generation who didn't seem to dope, Danny Pate.

    Aaargh… no.

    Could this be the birth of Armstrongianity?
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    rayjay wrote:
    Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.
    I'm more annoyed that he's now strutting around like he's Eliot Ness despite almost all the evidence he had being presented by David Walsh in 2005 and Vaughters speaking to about the same time. Someone needs to ask him why Armstrong was not investigated seven or eight years ago. But that doesn't fit the prevailing mood for 'proper journalism'.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Macaloon
    Macaloon Posts: 5,545
    Here writhes the martyred circus performer Lancelot Strongarm.

    Let it go, fellas.
    ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    ...Armstrong bore the sins of a whole generation of North American dopers so they could go free. And I don't think it was necessary. I don't think that's right. And neither does the only one of that generation who didn't seem to dope, Danny Pate.

    Aaargh… no.

    Could this be the birth of Armstrongianity?

    I was deliberately trying to create that allusion, somewhat mischievously. May be he is trying that route. It's not without merit.

    I'm an atheist though.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,317
    After 2000 more years, what'll the page count on this thread be?

    Whaddya reckon, Dennis?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    After 2000 more years, what'll the page count on this thread be?

    Whaddya reckon, Dennis?

    To get it last that long it's gonna take more conspiracy theories. The whole affair needs things like a grassy knoll, a disappearing bullet, a grainy 8mm film of it all, motorcades, stuff like that.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    After 2000 more years, what'll the page count on this thread be?

    Whaddya reckon, Dennis?

    double post - sorry
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    dennisn wrote:
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    After 2000 more years, what'll the page count on this thread be?

    Whaddya reckon, Dennis?

    To get it last that long it's gonna take more conspiracy theories. The whole affair needs things like a grassy knoll, a disappearing bullet, a grainy 8mm film of it all, motorcades, stuff like that.
    As a Yank Dennis, and an old one at that, what's your take on the Kennedy killing. There will be a lot of opinions about it in the next few days.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    RichN95 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    After 2000 more years, what'll the page count on this thread be?

    Whaddya reckon, Dennis?

    To get it last that long it's gonna take more conspiracy theories. The whole affair needs things like a grassy knoll, a disappearing bullet, a grainy 8mm film of it all, motorcades, stuff like that.
    As a Yank Dennis, and an old one at that, what's your take on the Kennedy killing. There will be a lot of opinions about it in the next few days.

    Oswald did it without help.

    While I love conspiracy theories I don't put any faith in any of the Kennedy ones.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    dennisn wrote:

    Oswald did it without help.

    While I love conspiracy theories I don't put any faith in any of the Kennedy ones.

    Can you confirm

    a) which of the people involved you've had a beer with
    b) were you there on the day

    Thanks
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • RoadPainter
    RoadPainter Posts: 375
    rayjay wrote:
    The Others only told their story because they got busted.
    Hincapie did and hadn't
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    rayjay wrote:
    Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.

    Having seen this sort of thing for a while now, I can't decide whether you are an apologist or, a good 'ol fashioned fanboy. Be nice to know.

    On the subject of the "Big 3", while their official sanctions varied, all 3 potentially never competed again and Pantani paid the ultimate price.
    I tend to think that had Armstrong been exposed under more normal circumstances and without the immovable media circus, his performances might be viewed in the same manner as the other two.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • LutherB
    LutherB Posts: 544
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.

    Having seen this sort of thing for a while now, I can't decide whether you are an apologist or, a good 'ol fashioned fanboy. Be nice to know.

    On the subject of the "Big 3", while their official sanctions varied, all 3 potentially never competed again and Pantani paid the ultimate price.
    I tend to think that had Armstrong been exposed under more normal circumstances and without the immovable media circus, his performances might be viewed in the same manner as the other two.

    And there's the rub - before the bust he was probably the most famous and richest cyclist ever and deserves the biggest fall because of it. If he was smart, proper criminal smart, he would have kept his mouth shut and not been too greedy, but he wasn't. I can't believe we as fans argue the toss about him; the only toss where he's concerned is the salad he should be tossing.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    dennisn wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    After 2000 more years, what'll the page count on this thread be?

    Whaddya reckon, Dennis?

    To get it last that long it's gonna take more conspiracy theories. The whole affair needs things like a grassy knoll, a disappearing bullet, a grainy 8mm film of it all, motorcades, stuff like that.
    As a Yank Dennis, and an old one at that, what's your take on the Kennedy killing. There will be a lot of opinions about it in the next few days.

    Oswald did it without help.

    While I love conspiracy theories I don't put any faith in any of the Kennedy ones.
    Same here.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    LutherB wrote:
    And there's the rub - before the bust he was probably the most famous and richest cyclist ever and deserves the biggest fall because of it. If he was smart, proper criminal smart, he would have kept his mouth shut and not been too greedy, but he wasn't. I can't believe we as fans argue the toss about him; the only toss where he's concerned is the salad he should be tossing.

    He wants the glory (and the money) - but IMHO, mostly the glory of being a "winner" ... unfortunately because of (all) the doping he's not a winner, he was just first.

    If everyone cheats is that ok? No - it's not - there are just no valid (or identifiably valid) competitors to win the race therefore the race is abandoned - as it's finished then we just simply Void the results. Lance will NEVER win the TDF - he doesn't deserve glory or the admiration of fans - nor does anyone else who cheats.

    Do I give a toss about LA? No ... not at all, but I'd be pretty miffed if he turned up for a race I was in (not that I race) because basically he's been proven to be a liar and a cheat and unrepentant - so who's to say he's not still cheating? Well sorry - I wouldn't want to race against that - even as an amateur - no, especially as an amateur as I would be racing for myself and I strongly believe in honour before glory.

    If LA wants to get in my goodbooks (why it would matter to him is his own choice) then he'd have to give up any notion of competitive sport, give a full and frank (but private) account to the UCI & USADA of what occurred during the dark times without any expectation of redemption or personal gain and somehow make a genuine public apology that we can believe and trust showing remorse for what part(s) he played.
    Of course, if he's not really bothered about getting in my goodbooks then he can just carry on his life quietly and I really won't give a stuff ... but all the time he's in the media he's like a lingering stale fart that is just unpleasant for everyone.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Slowbike wrote:
    LutherB wrote:
    And there's the rub - before the bust he was probably the most famous and richest cyclist ever and deserves the biggest fall because of it. If he was smart, proper criminal smart, he would have kept his mouth shut and not been too greedy, but he wasn't. I can't believe we as fans argue the toss about him; the only toss where he's concerned is the salad he should be tossing.

    Do I give a toss about LA? No ... not at all,

    If LA wants to get in my goodbooks (why it would matter to him is his own choice) then he'd have to give up any notion of competitive sport, give a full and frank (but private) account to the UCI & USADA of what occurred during the dark times without any expectation of redemption or personal gain and somehow make a genuine public apology that we can believe and trust showing remorse for what part(s) he played.
    Of course, if he's not really bothered about getting in my goodbooks then he can just carry on his life quietly and I really won't give a stuff ... but all the time he's in the media he's like a lingering stale fart that is just unpleasant for everyone.

    For some who doesn't "...give a toss..." you sure have a lot of demands for him. :?
  • slowbike
    slowbike Posts: 8,498
    dennisn wrote:

    For some who doesn't "...give a toss..." you sure have a lot of demands for him. :?
    Not really ... choice is fairly basic ...

    As I said - if he wants to be in my goodbooks then he has to do something along the lines of what I said ...

    Otherwise he can carry on with his life - preferably away from the media and I won't be bothered ...

    It only bothers me that he (with the help of the media) hangs around like a bad smell ...
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    RoadPainter wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    The Others only told their story because they got busted.
    Hincapie did and hadn't

    WRONG ...do ya read the news ,,,,do ya
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-for ... from-usada
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.

    Having seen this sort of thing for a while now, I can't decide whether you are an apologist or, a good 'ol fashioned fanboy. Be nice to know.

    I can confirm to you that I am , hang on , someone at door
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    iainf72 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    Oswald did it without help.

    While I love conspiracy theories I don't put any faith in any of the Kennedy ones.

    Can you confirm

    a) which of the people involved you've had a beer with
    b) were you there on the day

    Thanks

    I was there and all the people that I've had beers with(that were also there) are now dead. I constantly walk around looking over my shoulder these days. :wink:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Slowbike wrote:
    dennisn wrote:

    For some who doesn't "...give a toss..." you sure have a lot of demands for him. :?
    Not really ... choice is fairly basic ...

    It only bothers me that he (with the help of the media) hangs around like a bad smell ...

    C'mon now. you know the media loves that kind of thing. It sells a whole lot better than all that touchy, feel good, boring, stuff. :wink:
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,638
    RichN95 wrote:
    sherer wrote:
    the trouble is he doesn't want to do fun runs he wants to compete. He's already at an advange due to years of PED abuse so why should he be allowed to compete against people who have been clean for years
    And you think he's going to be competitive do you? He tried all that in 2006-2008 and wasn't any good. That's why he came back to cycling.
    His marathon time was 3hrs. People who do those sort of times are only interested in their own times, not whether they came 972nd or 973rd.

    I generally agree with your thoughts on the Lance in recent posts, but the 3hr marathon was his first effort. Second time out - better "prepared", no doubt - he did 2:36 or something close, on a par with Jalabert, Udo Bolts and Olana as the best marathon by an ex-pro cyclist.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    rayjay wrote:
    Im Just pi%%ed off that Tygart has alone ripped the sh%t out of cyclings history just to get one man to admit he doped.

    "Ripped the sh%t out of cycling's history"? Naa, just took some wins of someone who cheated to win.

    What's a shame is that more people don't "rip the sh%t out of cycling's history" exposing and discrediting every single doper that it is possible to. Throw it all against against the wall and start afresh with uncompromising bans dealt out to cheats.

    What's the worst that can happen, we get to watch a far smaller peloton of lesser known cyclists with real talent that don't accept cheating or will get banned for life if they are caught. If so, great. The re-commercialisation of it would at least be likely to be built upon something more honest and real.
  • nic_77
    nic_77 Posts: 929
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    I generally agree with your thoughts on the Lance in recent posts, but the 3hr marathon was his first effort. Second time out - better "prepared", no doubt - he did 2:36 or something close, on a par with Jalabert, Udo Bolts and Olana as the best marathon by an ex-pro cyclist.

    Not quite. Armstrong's best marathon is 2:46:43 (New York, 2007). Which given that he was 36 at the time equates to an age grading of 75% (for the non-runners, 70% is usually considered 'regional' class, 80% National class and 90% World class. 100% is world record). Decent - but it is his ability to combine that fast run with strong swim and world class bike leg makes him a serious prospect (certainly at age-group level) in Ironman and half-ironman events.
    Strava
    Race reports
    Bike Aero Data
  • RoadPainter
    RoadPainter Posts: 375
    rayjay wrote:
    RoadPainter wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    The Others only told their story because they got busted.
    Hincapie did and hadn't

    WRONG ...do ya read the news ,,,,do ya
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-for ... from-usada
    Yeah, exactly. Hincapie told his story before being busted!

    As your linked article says, Armstrong had the same opportunity.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    RoadPainter wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    RoadPainter wrote:
    rayjay wrote:
    The Others only told their story because they got busted.
    Hincapie did and hadn't

    WRONG ...do ya read the news ,,,,do ya
    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/six-for ... from-usada
    Yeah, exactly. Hincapie told his story before being busted!

    As your linked article says, Armstrong had the same opportunity.

    He only talked because he knew the s%%t was going to hit the fan along with the rest of the Garmin boys. :roll:
    You were lawyered and you are lawyered again :lol:

Categories