Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:In fairness smidsy/AtC, it's done a ver good job of keeping the LA stuff/dennisn out of the rest of the forum. If only rayjay and Crank were so obliging about the rest of the doping chat...
Err, this would be a thread about doping and a past TdF champion so relating other winners to the situation is par for the course (and Wiggins was brought into this by someone else) ...
As for other threads, it's only when folks derail the topic with vitriol based on conjecture and double standards I question those standards (eg. Horner's win) ...
So I'll continue as I was and if I'm not part of the cosy club then fine by me ... I want discussion, not jingoistic backslapping or xenophobic rumour mongering ...
edit: Also f*ck off and stop stirring up others against me ...0 -
Crankbrother wrote:ddraver wrote:In fairness smidsy/AtC, it's done a ver good job of keeping the LA stuff/dennisn out of the rest of the forum. If only rayjay and Crank were so obliging about the rest of the doping chat...
Err, this would be a thread about doping and a past TdF champion so relating other winners to the situation is par for the course (and Wiggins was brought into this by someone else) ...
As for other threads, it's only when folks derail the topic with vitriol based on conjecture and double standards I question those standards (eg. Horner's win) ...
So I'll continue as I was and if I'm not part of the cosy club then fine by me ... I want discussion, not jingoistic backslapping or xenophobic rumour mongering ...
edit: Also f*ck off and stop stirring up others against me ...
Infamy, infamy, they've all have it in for me.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
In fairness then what is the difference between dennison and rayjay. :?:ddraver wrote:In fairness smidsy/AtC, it's done a ver good job of keeping the LA stuff/dennisn out of the rest of the forum. If only rayjay and Crank were so obliging about the rest of the doping chat...
Sorry Cranky but you can't have that one.Crankbrother wrote:Err, this would be a thread about doping and a past TdF champion so relating other winners to the situation is par for the course (and Wiggins was brought into this by someone else) ...
It has been decided that the OP to this thread is just a cheating lying fraud and certainly not a champion of the TDF.
A World champion, maybe.
Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
The record books show no-one beat him those 7 years ... (BIG ) 0
-
What Books ??Crankbrother wrote:The record books show no-one beat him those 7 years ... (BIG )
This is Wiki
1996 Denmark Bjarne Riis[A] Team Telekom 3,765 km (2,339 mi) 95h 57' 16" + 1' 41" 2
1997 Germany Jan Ullrich# Team Telekom 3,950 km (2,450 mi) 100h 30' 35" + 9' 09" 2
1998 Italy Marco Pantani Mercatone Uno-Bianchi 3,875 km (2,408 mi) 92h 49' 46" + 3' 21" 2
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006 Spain Óscar Pereiro[C] Caisse d'Epargne-Illes Balears 3,657 km (2,272 mi) 89h 40' 27" + 32" 0
2007 Spain Alberto Contador# Discovery Channel 3,570 km (2,220 mi) 91h 00' 26" + 23" 1
2008 Spain Carlos Sastre Team CSC 3,559 km (2,211 mi) 87h 52' 52" + 58" 1
2009 Spain Alberto Contador Astana 3,459 km (2,149 mi) 85h 48' 35" + 4' 11" 2
2010 Luxembourg Andy Schleck#[D] Team Saxo Bank 3,642 km (2,263 mi) 91h 59' 27" + 1' 22" 2
2011 Australia Cadel Evans BMC Racing Team 3,430 km (2,130 mi) 86h 12' 22" + 1' 34" 1
2012 United Kingdom Bradley Wiggins Team Sky 3,496 km (2,172 mi) 87h 34' 47" + 3' 21" 2
2013 United Kingdom Chris Froome Team Sky 3,404 km (2,115 mi) 83h 56' 20" + 4' 20" 3Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
As you have proven, no-one beat him :P0
-
Armstrong is the greatest tour rider of all time. He was the best climber. He's ITT was pretty dam good and his skill on a bike was superb in the heat of battle. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,,,that's a lot of wins and against riders who doped.0
-
Crankbrother wrote:Err, this would be a thread about doping and a past TdF champion so relating other winners to the situation is par for the course (and Wiggins was brought into this by someone else) ...
It's a thread about Lance Armstrong which is indicated by the first 2 words in the title which are Lance and Armstrong. How whether or not a lad from Kilburn doped has anything to do with it is beyond me frankly...
Oh and and I don't need to stir, you re more than capableWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Has anyone done a quick balance sheet as to Lance's presumed wealth/assets versus size of litigation claims against him? I'm assuming that if he settled them all tomorrow he would still be an extremely wealthy man which is a hardly a discouragement to riders.0
-
ddraver wrote:Crankbrother wrote:Err, this would be a thread about doping and a past TdF champion so relating other winners to the situation is par for the course (and Wiggins was brought into this by someone else) ...
It's a thread about Lance Armstrong which is indicated by the first 2 words in the title which are Lance and Armstrong. How whether or not a lad from Kilburn doped has anything to do with it is beyond me frankly...
Oh and and I don't need to stir, you re more than capable
It doesn't matter which thread you use ... It's the tapestry you weave ... You, on the other hand, would likely have trouble sewing on a button ...0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Has anyone done a quick balance sheet as to Lance's presumed wealth/assets versus size of litigation claims against him? I'm assuming that if he settled them all tomorrow he would still be an extremely wealthy man which is a hardly a discouragement to riders.
Why shouldn't he be a wealthy man? Are all those sponsors who made millions off his tour wins going to make a refund to the those who bought their goods? Are the UCI going to refund my travel costs for every time I have watched a doped rider win. Like him or not, Armstrong opened up the doors of cycling to a whole new generation, no matter what has happened since.0 -
Guys,
Can you please stop this petty and unedifying name calling and challenging of each other. Someone holding a different opinion to you does nothing to diminish the validity of your own.
Moreover, while this arguing does not reflect well on anyone involved, it does do a lot to make the forum a less pleasant place to be.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Has anyone done a quick balance sheet as to Lance's presumed wealth/assets versus size of litigation claims against him? I'm assuming that if he settled them all tomorrow he would still be an extremely wealthy man which is a hardly a discouragement to riders.
This was Serena Roberts' take on Lance's strategies, 2 months ago:
'What Armstrong fears the most is a financial collapse. Without wealth, his power is diminished, access to celebrity circles shrinks and his relevance fades. As Bloomberg News has pointed out, Armstrong earned more than $218 million in prizes, salary and endorsements during a cycling career now erased from the record books.
It is unknown how much income he still earns from licensing fees and stock deals he made with corporations, which, while ending public relationships with him, may still have business ties with him. In public records, Lance's cash reservoir has been filled by real estate deals and a liquidation of assets, but that bounty can be quickly drained. Beyond the insurance companies' claims -- and the August settlement he made to end a $1 million suit brought by the Sunday Times of London -- there is the $120 million whistleblower case sitting on the federal docket with Landis and the U.S. government as plaintiffs.
Armstrong bullied the wrong cyclist. After being mistreated by Armstrong, and weary of living the doping lie, Landis exposed the USPS drug-laced fraud to cycling and anti-doping officials in 2010. At some point, Armstrong will have to pay for the gross miscalculation of underestimating Landis. According to two sources with knowledge of the whistleblower case, Armstrong has not offered a settlement greater than $13.5 million -- about $30 to $40 million short of what would be a more acceptable number for the plaintiffs. Armstrong argues the government has no damages to claim because, like everyone else, US Postal took a lucrative flight on an image that happened to be a mirage.'
A big issue for him is that he's bleeding money on legal costs - I think he's running 4 sets of legal teams. And he's current earning potential is highly uncertain. He cant rake in the huge public speaking fees, for starters. And his sponsorship deals are all gone.0 -
rayjay wrote:Armstrong is the greatest tour cheater of all time. He was the best climber cheat. He's ITT was pretty dam good and his skill on a bike was superb in the heat of battle only to be equalled by his skill in the doctors surgery. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,,,that's a lot of cheating and against riders who also cheated.
I've corrected that for you ...
Whether doping was the norm/expected or not - it's still cheating - you can't win if you cheat - if you still think you've won when you've cheated - no matter what everyone else is doing - then you obviously have no morals.
LA DID NOT WIN the Tour de France - he was just the rider with the lowest accumulated time. With all the cheating he (and all the other cheats) might as well just have caught the train ...0 -
rayjay wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Has anyone done a quick balance sheet as to Lance's presumed wealth/assets versus size of litigation claims against him? I'm assuming that if he settled them all tomorrow he would still be an extremely wealthy man which is a hardly a discouragement to riders.
Why shouldn't he be a wealthy man? Are all those sponsors who made millions off his tour wins going to make a refund to the those who bought their goods? Are the UCI going to refund my travel costs for every time I have watched a doped rider win. Like him or not, Armstrong opened up the doors of cycling to a whole new generation, no matter what has happened since.
+ 1 for RayJay's take on things ...
LA's share of wealth from these companies gains from his activities would be <1% ... No shareholders are handing back dividends ...
Look at Hincapie, multi-million dollar sports resorts etc. ... All from his 'Lance Bonus' ...0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Has anyone done a quick balance sheet as to Lance's presumed wealth/assets versus size of litigation claims against him? I'm assuming that if he settled them all tomorrow he would still be an extremely wealthy man which is a hardly a discouragement to riders.
A lot of very interesting stuff about Lance's money and legal worries...
Doesn't he have twitter? Do we have a defintive on whether he made any moeny on the twitter flotation. Maybe it's somewhere in this thread but I'm too scared to look :shock:
Anyway, everyone just remember:
This is what's important people. Oh and bikes of course, that goes without saying. Now let me tell you about the student I have that looks just like Richie Porte, it's very distracting...Correlation is not causation.0 -
^Beautiful!
Where is that? Meanwhile I like the rainbow mountains in China:
EDIT - someone is going to tell us off for these.Correlation is not causation.0 -
rayjay wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Has anyone done a quick balance sheet as to Lance's presumed wealth/assets versus size of litigation claims against him? I'm assuming that if he settled them all tomorrow he would still be an extremely wealthy man which is a hardly a discouragement to riders.
Why shouldn't he be a wealthy man? Are all those sponsors who made millions off his tour wins going to make a refund to the those who bought their goods? Are the UCI going to refund my travel costs for every time I have watched a doped rider win. Like him or not, Armstrong opened up the doors of cycling to a whole new generation, no matter what has happened since.
I didn't think my post would illicit some sort of steroid rage response but hey -ho you live and learn.0 -
I see he has 3.9 million twitter followers still. Jail time would be his rehab...that would be deserved if Lemond's allegation is true but it would create sympathy for LA among a section of his ex following0
-
Dave_1 wrote:I see he has 3.9 million twitter followers still. Jail time would be his rehab...that would be deserved if Lemond's allegation is true but it would create sympathy for LA among a section of his ex following
He'd be running that jail by Day 3. At a push.0 -
It always amazes me the number of people on here who feel LA's life MUST be ruined and suffer penalties outwith sporting sanctions ...
In reality, the man means nothing more than a tv character to you and I ... God knows what justice you lot would have dished out to Tom if Jerry started legal proceedings ...0 -
Slowbike wrote:rayjay wrote:Armstrong is the greatest tour cheater of all time. He was the best climber cheat. He's ITT was pretty dam good and his skill on a bike was superb in the heat of battle only to be equalled by his skill in the doctors surgery. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,,,that's a lot of cheating and against riders who also cheated.
I've corrected that for you ...
Whether doping was the norm/expected or not - it's still cheating - you can't win if you cheat - if you still think you've won when you've cheated - no matter what everyone else is doing - then you obviously have no morals.
LA DID NOT WIN the Tour de France - he was just the rider with the lowest accumulated time. With all the cheating he (and all the other cheats) might as well just have caught the train ...
Well you changed it. But what you can't change is the FACT that there was some cycle races in France you could say it was a tour of France and Armstrong won them. He was brilliant. The fact that a lot of riders were taking naughty things cannot make the events of time go away. You can pretend it did not happen, you can leave an empty space on the results board but it did happen he got the best time and we had some great racing. How on earth did you not realise that they were doping? I mean did you think Ricco was clean until you found out? As for morals. It's more about reality and enjoying sport for what it his. If they want to dope themselves up to the eyeballs and race up a mountain in super fast time then I'm going to watch it. Remember it's sport just like all the other sports you watch that athletes take naughty things. Seriously
it's just not cycling that has a PEDs issue . Now I must finish drawing my pentagram as my wife and kids have to sacrifice their granny later in order to keep Satan happy. 0 -
rayjay wrote:Slowbike wrote:rayjay wrote:Armstrong is the greatest tour cheater of all time. He was the best climber cheat. He's ITT was pretty dam good and his skill on a bike was superb in the heat of battle only to be equalled by his skill in the doctors surgery. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,,,that's a lot of cheating and against riders who also cheated.
I've corrected that for you ...
Whether doping was the norm/expected or not - it's still cheating - you can't win if you cheat - if you still think you've won when you've cheated - no matter what everyone else is doing - then you obviously have no morals.
LA DID NOT WIN the Tour de France - he was just the rider with the lowest accumulated time. With all the cheating he (and all the other cheats) might as well just have caught the train ...
Well you changed it. But what you can't change is the FACT that there was some cycle races in France you could say it was a tour of France and Armstrong won them. He was brilliant. The fact that a lot of riders were taking naughty things cannot make the events of time go away. You can pretend it did not happen, you can leave an empty space on the results board but it did happen he got the best time and we had some great racing. How on earth did you not realise that they were doping? I mean did you think Ricco was clean until you found out? As for morals. It's more about reality and enjoying sport for what it his. If they want to dope themselves up to the eyeballs and race up a mountain in super fast time then I'm going to watch it. Remember it's sport just like all the other sports you watch that athletes take naughty things. Seriously it's just not cycling that has a PEDs issue . Now I must finish drawing my pentagram as my wife and kids have to sacrifice their granny later in order to keep Satan happy.
I did change it - corrected in fact ...
I don't dispute that there were cycle races in france and that they were called the Tour de France - Armstrong may have come first - but he didn't win ... he (and many others) cheated .. there is no winning when you cheat - and that goes for any sport.
We're far from pretending it didn't happen - although many of us would wish that it hadn't ...
Was it great racing? It was a spectacle and at the time there may not have been the thought of how the riders are cheating - was there the awareness of doping (outside competitive cycling) that we have today? No, not really.
Btw - that pentagram needs 5 points ...0 -
No you changed it. I think Armstrong was the greatest tour rider. You can't correct it. You can't tell me what I think. Are you a wizard Your point about the awareness of doping is fair enough although sports fans with just a bit of insight into cycling's culture would know that riders dope. Riders doped a long time before Armstrong and even made jokes about it. I mean even the great EM doped. How many races do you wish had not happened because of drugged riders? There's not really much cycling left for you to watch if that's you standard.
Thanks for the pentagram advice. I'll give you a shout out to Satan later once we sorted the granny business out. 0 -
Its the last bastion of LA fanboys - "yes he was doping, but they were ALL doping so that's OK". Add a sprinkling of "it was obvious all along" (really? I seem to recall a few "never tested positive" arguments over the years) and "he was still the best as he won 7 in a row" (completely failing to address how different athletes respond differently to PED's and the extra assistance from the UCI) and its all depressingly predictable.0
-
rayjay wrote:No you changed it. I think Armstrong was the greatest tour rider. You can't correct it. You can't tell me what I think. Are you a wizard
Maybe time to let this thread go again folks.
It seems to be spiralling ever downward.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:rayjay wrote:No you changed it. I think Armstrong was the greatest tour rider. You can't correct it. You can't tell me what I think. Are you a wizard
Maybe time to let this thread go again folks.
It seems to be spiralling ever downward.
Tailwind you said "Infamy, infamy, they've all have it in for me"
and now it's spiralling ever downward :roll:0
