Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:TailWindHome wrote:"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now,"Quitting lasts forever
*like*
Ooh yes indeedy !
0 -
andy_wrx wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:TailWindHome wrote:"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now,"Quitting lasts forever
*like*
Ooh yes indeedy !
Outstanding.
10 points to you.0 -
Anyone got a good link to a summary of all the "evidence" from down the years
i.e. 99 samples, motorola days, hospital confession, landis allegations etc.
one one page preferably :-)0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Does he lose his $7m?
He probably has that kind of money gathering dust down the back of his sofa."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
inkyfingers wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does he lose his $7m?
He probably has that kind of money gathering dust down the back of his sofa.
He'll have no problem paying it back then.0 -
chevinhawk wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Love the number of 'new posters' already signing up for todays discussions
Truly at the continued 'but he didn't test positive'? and 'how can USADA strip his titles? what do they know anyway?'
Keep 'em coming.... 8)
Have been signed up for some time - just my first posting. It was, actually, a genuine question - I wasn't sure how this worked, and am grateful for the clarification.
Welcome aboard Chevinhawk. New people to the forum is Lance's real legacy. Enjoy the wealth of info that some forumites have to offer and don't forget to roll with the punches in the banter.
0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:inkyfingers wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does he lose his $7m?
He probably has that kind of money gathering dust down the back of his sofa.
He'll have no problem paying it back then.
"I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
inkyfingers wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does he lose his $7m?
He probably has that kind of money gathering dust down the back of his sofa.
Could be a bit of a pointer on this one. Pure speculation, but legal action doesn't come cheap and less so for the rich and famous), and long term is usually pursued by people who actually think that one day they will win and have all there costs awarded. Maybe Lance put his hand down the back of ths sofa and came up with a few bits of change and a used.....0 -
oneof1982 wrote:inkyfingers wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Does he lose his $7m?
He probably has that kind of money gathering dust down the back of his sofa.
Could be a bit of a pointer on this one. Pure speculation, but legal action doesn't come cheap and less so for the rich and famous), and long term is usually pursued by people who actually think that one day they will win and have all there costs awarded. Maybe Lance put his hand down the back of ths sofa and came up with a few bits of change and a used.....
Mellow Johnny?0 -
By my rough and ready calculations - Sastre probably won the Tour 4 times now.
The whole thing is clearly a mess - but <big breath> I believe this years tour was the cleanest we've seen for decades.
<crosses fingers>0 -
Me and my bro were having that conversation a few weeks back. Big losers in Tour terms would be Evans and Sastre from this whole mess"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 -
Lance's statement on it is great.
Apparently he's never doped, It goes on an on about tests, the 500 test stuff.
Then it slips in this:
"From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs."
So, Mr Lance is saying that people wanted to 'punish him at all costs' for something he did not do and have no evidence on him... thats clearly Lance's view.
BUT if there was no evidence, no anything, with his logic then if they wanted to 'punish him at all costs' but there was no evidence, then why did they want to punish him??? Cos they didn't like his face? ...no. Lance is spouting bollocks here, the fact is they had evidence that was their duty to act on, evidence on him and others. Overwhelming evidence, not some gut feeling that they came up with on the back of what someone else said who didnt like Lance so thought 'we dont like Lance either, lets mess with him'.
Fact is Lance is just as cowardly not defending this as he is disrespectful of USADA/WADA. Why, cos he's a doper. A self-righteous bullying doper who's got very very rich from it.0 -
mfin wrote:Lance's statement on it is great.
Apparently he's never doped, It goes on an on about tests, the 500 test stuff.
Then it slips in this:
"From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs."
So, Mr Lance is saying that people wanted to 'punish him at all costs' for something he did not do and have no evidence on him... thats clearly Lance's view.
BUT if there was no evidence, no anything, with his logic then if they wanted to 'punish him at all costs' but there was no evidence, then why did they want to punish him??? Cos they didn't like his face? ...no. Lance is spouting bollocks here, the fact is they had evidence that was their duty to act on, evidence on him and others. Overwhelming evidence, not some gut feeling that they came up with on the back of what someone else said who didnt like Lance so thought 'we dont like Lance either, lets mess with him'.
Fact is Lance is just as cowardly not defending this as he is disrespectful of USADA/WADA. Why, cos he's a doper. A self-righteous bullying doper who's got very very rich from it.
This is the bit I don't get about his "witch hunt" defence... why? What possible moivation do USADA have to get Lance on a fit up at all costs, staking their credibility and budget on it?"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:Me and my bro were having that conversation a few weeks back. Big losers in Tour terms would be Evans and Sastre from this whole mess
Evans has done alright.0 -
I expect posthumously to be named winner of at least a few TdFs once all pro-riders disqualified. I didn't actually RIDE them, but I was doing a bit of cycling and I never took performance enhancing drugs. Plenty that had the opposite effect, though!d.j.
"Cancel my subscription to the resurrection."0 -
Unfortunately I think he has still won. Checking the none cycling forums I frequent, and the overwhelming attitude seems to be that Lance is the victim and USADA are the bad guys. So whilst within cycling he may be seen for what he is, the general populous would appear to think very differently. The coward he is, he had a chance to come clean and do some good for a sport that has given him so much wealth and fame. Instead he hides behind this BS like a coward. Chapeau.0
-
Guys.......you're all missing the point here..................basically he sacrificied himself for the UCI.
He was hoping (from his recent court case) that the judge would rule in his favour and say the UCI should have results durisdiction( and we all know they'd have swept the allegations under the carpet yet again). When that didn't happened , I basically thought he'd accept the charges - becuase otherwise all evidence USADA have against the UCI collusion would have come out and would basically have meant the end of the UCI.
Thats why, when the UCI realised (much too late - what a bunch of idiots), the gravitas of the case they tried to wrestle jurisdiction from USADA.
He had no other chioce - he'd have gone down anyway and taken the UCI with him.
Whether we've heard the last of this I don't know. But whatever evidence USADA have on the corruption of the UCI does need to be bought out into the open.0 -
itisaboutthebike wrote:Guys.......you're all missing the point here..................basically he sacrificied himself for the UCI.
He was hoping (from his recent court case) that the judge would rule in his favour and say the UCI should have results durisdiction( and we all know they'd have swept the allegations under the carpet yet again). When that didn't happened , I basically thought he'd accept the charges - becuase otherwise all evidence USADA have against the UCI collusion would have come out and would basically have meant the end of the UCI.
Thats why, when the UCI realised (much too late - what a bunch of idiots), the gravitas of the case they tried to wrestle jurisdiction from USADA.
He had no other chioce - he'd have gone down anyway and taken the UCI with him.
Whether we've heard the last of this I don't know. But whatever evidence USADA have on the corruption of the UCI does need to be bought out into the open.
Why does Armstrong give a toss about the UCI?"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:itisaboutthebike wrote:Guys.......you're all missing the point here..................basically he sacrificied himself for the UCI.
He was hoping (from his recent court case) that the judge would rule in his favour and say the UCI should have results durisdiction( and we all know they'd have swept the allegations under the carpet yet again). When that didn't happened , I basically thought he'd accept the charges - becuase otherwise all evidence USADA have against the UCI collusion would have come out and would basically have meant the end of the UCI.
Thats why, when the UCI realised (much too late - what a bunch of idiots), the gravitas of the case they tried to wrestle jurisdiction from USADA.
He had no other chioce - he'd have gone down anyway and taken the UCI with him.
Whether we've heard the last of this I don't know. But whatever evidence USADA have on the corruption of the UCI does need to be bought out into the open.
Why does Armstrong give a toss about the UCI?
$$$$$$
The Buns!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Guys.......you're all missing the point here..................basically he sacrificied himself for the UCI.
He was hoping (from his recent court case) that the judge would rule in his favour and say the UCI should have results durisdiction( and we all know they'd have swept the allegations under the carpet yet again). When that didn't happened , I basically thought he'd accept the charges - becuase otherwise all evidence USADA have against the UCI collusion would have come out and would basically have meant the end of the UCI.
Thats why, when the UCI realised (much too late - what a bunch of idiots), the gravitas of the case they tried to wrestle jurisdiction from USADA.
He had no other chioce - he'd have gone down anyway and taken the UCI with him.
Whether we've heard the last of this I don't know. But whatever evidence USADA have on the corruption of the UCI does need to be bought out into the open.
Why does Armstrong give a toss about the UCI?
$$$$$$
The Buns!
HOw does he gain Buns from the continued reign of McQuaid and the Big V?
This is totally about salvaging what he can of his own legacy by attempting to remain the victim."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Trivial fact - Lance gets banned on the 20th anniversary (give or take a couple of weeks) of his turning pro for Motorola'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Guys.......you're all missing the point here..................basically he sacrificied himself for the UCI.
He was hoping (from his recent court case) that the judge would rule in his favour and say the UCI should have results durisdiction( and we all know they'd have swept the allegations under the carpet yet again). When that didn't happened , I basically thought he'd accept the charges - becuase otherwise all evidence USADA have against the UCI collusion would have come out and would basically have meant the end of the UCI.
Thats why, when the UCI realised (much too late - what a bunch of idiots), the gravitas of the case they tried to wrestle jurisdiction from USADA.
He had no other chioce - he'd have gone down anyway and taken the UCI with him.
Whether we've heard the last of this I don't know. But whatever evidence USADA have on the corruption of the UCI does need to be bought out into the open.
Why does Armstrong give a toss about the UCI?
$$$$$$
The Buns!
HOw does he gain Buns from the continued reign of McQuaid and the Big V?
This is totally about salvaging what he can of his own legacy by attempting to remain the victim.
You're right.0 -
Witch-hunt ?
Lance would know all about that, after being patron of the peloton, his treatment of Bassons & Simeoni, his/Trek's/etc treatment of LeMond, Mike Anderson, etc
I have lots of money and lots of time and I will destroy you. I'll make you give up racing
That's what I hate about the man - not the doping, they were [almost] all at it at the time, it's the sheer malice and vindictiveness of him which I object to0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:mfin wrote:Lance's statement on it is great.
Apparently he's never doped, It goes on an on about tests, the 500 test stuff.
Then it slips in this:
"From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs."
So, Mr Lance is saying that people wanted to 'punish him at all costs' for something he did not do and have no evidence on him... thats clearly Lance's view.
BUT if there was no evidence, no anything, with his logic then if they wanted to 'punish him at all costs' but there was no evidence, then why did they want to punish him??? Cos they didn't like his face? ...no. Lance is spouting bollocks here, the fact is they had evidence that was their duty to act on, evidence on him and others. Overwhelming evidence, not some gut feeling that they came up with on the back of what someone else said who didnt like Lance so thought 'we dont like Lance either, lets mess with him'.
Fact is Lance is just as cowardly not defending this as he is disrespectful of USADA/WADA. Why, cos he's a doper. A self-righteous bullying doper who's got very very rich from it.
This is the bit I don't get about his "witch hunt" defence... why? What possible moivation do USADA have to get Lance on a fit up at all costs, staking their credibility and budget on it?
Exactly. Its the first thing Id say to anyone who thinks Lance is clean based on what Lance says. Why else would an agency try to 'do him'?? DO people really think an agency would go after him 'with no evidence' on a purely motivational basis that 'they don't like him'???
If anyone does think that, then they can't think straight/at all, in fact they must be blinkered and delluded.0 -
mfin wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:mfin wrote:Lance's statement on it is great.
Apparently he's never doped, It goes on an on about tests, the 500 test stuff.
Then it slips in this:
"From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs."
So, Mr Lance is saying that people wanted to 'punish him at all costs' for something he did not do and have no evidence on him... thats clearly Lance's view.
BUT if there was no evidence, no anything, with his logic then if they wanted to 'punish him at all costs' but there was no evidence, then why did they want to punish him??? Cos they didn't like his face? ...no. Lance is spouting bollocks here, the fact is they had evidence that was their duty to act on, evidence on him and others. Overwhelming evidence, not some gut feeling that they came up with on the back of what someone else said who didnt like Lance so thought 'we dont like Lance either, lets mess with him'.
Fact is Lance is just as cowardly not defending this as he is disrespectful of USADA/WADA. Why, cos he's a doper. A self-righteous bullying doper who's got very very rich from it.
This is the bit I don't get about his "witch hunt" defence... why? What possible moivation do USADA have to get Lance on a fit up at all costs, staking their credibility and budget on it?
Exactly. Its the first thing Id say to anyone who thinks Lance is clean based on what Lance says. Why else would an agency try to 'do him'?? DO people really think an agency would go after him 'with no evidence' on a purely motivational basis that 'they don't like him'???
If anyone does think that, then they can't think straight/at all, in fact they must be blinkered and delluded.
Oh, i don't know. I work in financial services, and the FSA hates IFAs and has been trying to destroy them for a number of years, based on nothing more than dislike........
Didn't USADA turn a blind eye to PEDs in the US Olympic programmes for many years, and could now be out to prove their worth? (Or am I incorrect in that?)
I'm not saying he's innocent, because there is clearly a stack of evidence to prove otherwise.0 -
Why does he lose money if the UCI get taken down, I'm confused!
Shame that he didn't fight it though, or give an admission of guiltYou live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
