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

1…199200202204205…239

Comments

  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    Art Vandelay wrote:
    Yet another Armstrong film:
    https://abccommercial.com/contentsales/ ... rong-story


    Yet another version of the Armstrong story but Cameron's version remains unsurpassed...

    Titanic (1997) - IMDb
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • Le Commentateur
    Le Commentateur Posts: 4,099
    I guess people can't make money from Lance the Winner anymore, but they can with Lance the Cheat.
    Un uomo solo al commando
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    I guess people can't make money from Lance the Winner anymore, but they can with Lance the Cheat.


    Yep. Multiple films, multiple books...
  • diplodicus
    diplodicus Posts: 722
    Looks like LA's attempt to stop SCA's claim going to a hearing has been denied.

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/headline ... ck_check=1
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,253
    I have no sympathy for SCA. They're just a glorified bookie. They took a bet and lost.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    Not at all, its a form of reinsurance and LA defrauded the company by claiming he had won in a fair manner when lying under oath during testimony. Imagine you were in the same position after a car crash and lied through your teeth, would you describe your insurance company as '... just a glorified bookie. They took a bet and lost.'

    SCA set up LA during the arbitration hearing into making repeated admissions he hadn't doped. No court in the world (except Bangladesh maybe) would uphold that award based on purposely distorted and fraudulent evidence. SCA are a very professional company, they calculated the odds of a normal clean rider winning the TdF 7 times and said the odds were infinitesimal - just as they probably would do again today - and therefore having been proved right, they want their money back. With interest.

    And what pray tell, would be your defence for NOT ordering the cheat to give it back then prosecute him for perjury?
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    RichN95 wrote:
    I have no sympathy for SCA. They're just a glorified bookie. They took a bet and lost.


    Nah, sorry Rich, not with you on this one. Smacks a little of the 'insurance fraud's ok because it's victimless' line
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    Given the number of riders implicated in Puerto, and being advised by Ferrari, he wasn't doing anything that the other GC contenders weren't doing.

    On the aggression towards the media and other riders, whilst abhorrent, he was kind of stuck between two stools unlike any other rider who didn't get anywhere near the same kind of attention from the press.

    Also don't forget that the complicit nature of the UCI also helped escalate this whole affair.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he should be treated the same as the others? Yes. Do I think that he would have been a top rider if all the riders were not doping? Yes.
  • Bo Duke
    Bo Duke Posts: 1,058
    So in a situation where a group of people is breaking the law, as long as you're one of the group then according to you you're safe from prosecution?

    Sorry pal but you're other points are simply too wide of the mark to respond too, I suspect you don't know the full extent of LA's hate campaigns to warrant your easy to accept response.
    'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP
  • Crankbrother
    Crankbrother Posts: 1,695
    Joelsim seems to have the rational view of things Bo ... Just because not everyone feels so indignant about the whole debacle doesn't make their opinion wrong ...

    TBH it's just another internet high-horse for folk to ride ... As far as I know Brian Smith will be the only contributor to this board that has any real reason to bother caring ...
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Absolutely. We should all cancel our accounts and stop posting forthwith.
  • Crankbrother
    Crankbrother Posts: 1,695
    bompington wrote:
    Absolutely. We should all cancel our accounts and stop posting forthwith.

    If the only reason you are a member is to vent about how LA ruined your life, then maybe best ... Otherwise, as you were ...
  • philbar72
    philbar72 Posts: 2,229
    Joelsim wrote:
    Do I like him? No. Do I think he should be treated the same as the others? Yes. Do I think that he would have been a top rider if all the riders were not doping? Yes.

    Not sure on that last point, based on natural ability, he wouldn't have been able to get GC's anywhere, he just wasn't good enough, but then again if everyone was natural, and not on the EPO etc we'd probably have a differing group of tour winners etc. Maybe the odd stage win, but not much else. his sheer bloody mindedness might have made some difference though!
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Crankbrother wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Absolutely. We should all cancel our accounts and stop posting forthwith.

    If the only reason you are a member is to vent about how LA ruined your life, then maybe best ... Otherwise, as you were ...
    Quite right, it's much more important to vent about how Wiggo is ruining your life.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 22,726
    Joelsim wrote:
    Given the number of riders implicated in Puerto, and being advised by Ferrari, he wasn't doing anything that the other GC contenders weren't doing.

    On the aggression towards the media and other riders, whilst abhorrent, he was kind of stuck between two stools unlike any other rider who didn't get anywhere near the same kind of attention from the press.

    Also don't forget that the complicit nature of the UCI also helped escalate this whole affair.

    Do I like him? No. Do I think he should be treated the same as the others? Yes. Do I think that he would have been a top rider if all the riders were not doping? Yes.

    Do you have evidence to support this?
    I would say that the USADA report highlights several differences between what riders implicated in OP were doing
    and the level to which Armstrong operated.
    The "product" might have been much of a muchness, but it's not just about the "product" used.
    So not, just the same as the rest.


    As to him then being treated differently to the rest by the media, that unfortunately came with the territory.
    He very much enjoyed his celebrity status and especially the way in which it generated income.
    Dealing with the negative stuff must have been a small price to pay, at the time. Now, obviously, the cons completely outweigh the pros.

    I do agree that he would have been a top rider, given a dope free, level playing field.
    Just not the rider who stood on top of the Paris podium, seven times.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Crankbrother
    Crankbrother Posts: 1,695
    bompington wrote:
    Crankbrother wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Absolutely. We should all cancel our accounts and stop posting forthwith.

    If the only reason you are a member is to vent about how LA ruined your life, then maybe best ... Otherwise, as you were ...
    Quite right, it's much more important to vent about how Wiggo is ruining your life.

    Exactly! I knew you would come around to my way of thinking ...
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    bompington wrote:
    Crankbrother wrote:
    bompington wrote:
    Absolutely. We should all cancel our accounts and stop posting forthwith.

    If the only reason you are a member is to vent about how LA ruined your life, then maybe best ... Otherwise, as you were ...
    Quite right, it's much more important to vent about how Wiggo is ruining your life.

    Ha Ha Ha...touche. :lol:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    I guess people can't make money from Lance the Winner anymore, but they can with Lance the Cheat.
    A good point. Maybe the old saying of "there is no such thing as bad publicity" has a lot more truth to it than we think.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    I'm bored with the whole thing but I've been looking forward to Juliet Macur's book - And the extract doesn't disappoint

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/sport ... share&_r=0
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Crankbrother
    Crankbrother Posts: 1,695
    Thanks for linking Iain ... Great extract with a nice early years slant on things ... After watching the Gibney docu. I had got a bit bored with the same merry-go-round but this might be worth a read ...
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Not trying to flog a dead horse but......
    I just read about The London - Surrey sportive attracting 24,000 or so riders. Amazing.

    Anyway my first thought was this long LA thread and how there were so many dire predictions on the death of cycling posted in it's 300 or so pages.

    24,000 riders, at one event, doesn't sound like a dead sport to me.
  • mm1
    mm1 Posts: 1,063
    dennisn wrote:
    Not trying to flog a dead horse but......
    doesn't sound like a dead sport to me.

    Well quite so, I can remember talking to my mother when she lived in Italy at the height of some doping scandal or other (it may have been San Remo raids, drugs for oil, or Pantani's death) and asking whether she thought the sport was dead / dying? Mum immediately said no, because too many people like riding their bikes and as long as people ride, they will race. By way of context, Mother isn't Italian (Dad was) and not a sports fan.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    dennisn wrote:
    Not trying to flog a dead horse but......
    I just read about The London - Surrey sportive attracting 24,000 or so riders. Amazing.

    Anyway my first thought was this long LA thread and how there were so many dire predictions on the death of cycling posted in it's 300 or so pages.

    24,000 riders, at one event, doesn't sound like a dead sport to me.

    This is poor even by your standards Dennis. Do you care to point at a quick selection of the 'so many dire predictions' that might even make even some tenuous link to an expected reduced attendance at such a big sportive? (or, maybe just post some other dross).
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    mm1 wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Not trying to flog a dead horse but......
    doesn't sound like a dead sport to me.

    Well quite so, I can remember talking to my mother when she lived in Italy at the height of some doping scandal or other (it may have been San Remo raids, drugs for oil, or Pantani's death) and asking whether she thought the sport was dead / dying? Mum immediately said no, because too many people like riding their bikes and as long as people ride, they will race. By way of context, Mother isn't Italian (Dad was) and not a sports fan.

    I think your mum hit the nail on the head. Too many people like riding bikes to be bothered by "...some doping scandal or other...".
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    mfin wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    Not trying to flog a dead horse but......
    I just read about The London - Surrey sportive attracting 24,000 or so riders. Amazing.

    Anyway my first thought was this long LA thread and how there were so many dire predictions on the death of cycling posted in it's 300 or so pages.

    24,000 riders, at one event, doesn't sound like a dead sport to me.

    This is poor even by your standards Dennis. Do you care to point at a quick selection of the 'so many dire predictions' that might even make even some tenuous link to an expected reduced attendance at such a big sportive? (or, maybe just post some other dross).

    I'm just going to say that you're absolutely right. You've beaten me. Congratulations. :wink:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Dave_1 wrote:
    all done. Move on folks. Joke of a sport

    What with 24,000 people doing a London sportive, would you care to re-evaluate your "..joke of a sport.." comment? I'm thinking most of them might disagree with you these days? :?
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,698
    I'd guess maybe 12 000 of them could tell you who won The TOur

    maybe 1,200 who won the Giro

    120 who won Paris Roubaix maybe?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    ddraver wrote:
    I'd guess maybe 12 000 of them could tell you who won The TOur

    maybe 1,200 who won the Giro

    120 who won Paris Roubaix maybe?

    Does it really matter? It's about a bunch of people cycling. Isn't that what riding is about? :?
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,698
    I'm not going to explain the difference between Pro Sport and Amater participation to you. Experience suggests that it is futile.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    dennisn wrote:
    ddraver wrote:
    I'd guess maybe 12 000 of them could tell you who won The TOur

    maybe 1,200 who won the Giro

    120 who won Paris Roubaix maybe?

    Does it really matter? It's about a bunch of people cycling. Isn't that what riding is about? :?



    We love cycling, dennis

    you could ask dave1 about his comment on the 1st page of this thread, but unfortunately he rarely seems to be posting here at the moment

Categories