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

Le Commentateur

In this age of moral relativism the concept of guilt is slippery, especially in the sport of pro cycling. In addition he has apparently discarded the baggage of the champion cyclist and now gets his supply of emotional sustenance from his cancer cult of acolytes, who willingly accept the image of the great survivor-champion and reflect it back to him in their praise and donations.

Mikey23

No tearful public confession then... Bit of a surprise that

nathancom

Link to his cringeworthy speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=go-gPUZJJ_E&feature=youtu.be&nomobile=1

Dorset_Boy

~He won't confess until someone coughs up sufficient money to make it worth his while - probably waiting for one of the US networks to offer him enough to confess on primetime TV.

bigdawg

I half expected some kind of 'confession' but it looks as though he's going down a road where hes just going to keep denying everything. but why should he confess, despite the teetering pile of evidence against him he still has huge amounts of people that believe him, in fact will pay money to here him speak still. Until the money dries up hes not going to confess anything...

This also now puts me in serious doubt about the UCI on monday... Im sure he's still in touch with Verbrougen, surely they can't all be silly enough to just continue denying everything..?!?!?!

iainf72

He can't confess for fiscal reasons, it would bankrupt him

There is no benefit for the UCI to go to CAS. I expect they'll ratify. There is not much in the usada report to worry them despite what the pearl clutching brigade think

iainf72

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

He can't confess for fiscal reasons, it would bankrupt him

There is no benefit for the UCI to go to CAS. I expect they'll ratify. There is not much in the usada report to worry them despite what the pearl clutching brigade think

Seeing as LA has already said he's ignoring this I expect the UCI will say something similar and issue a weak statement saying it's not going to CAS etc and try to sweep it away

rob churchill

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

I wonder how many of the fanboys still defending him have any idea how much of the money donated to Livestrong just gets troused by their hero?

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

Wow 1m for two rides being a cancer survivor is a well paid job. Again the author thinks Livestrong \ LAF helps to fund cancer research when it doesn't

This is interesting

http://www.livestrong.org/What-We-Do/Ou ... Money-Goes

Not sure what the $5m on government relations is for ?

nathancom

yeah meals at Washington restaurants with your friendly congressmen aren't cheap.

plectrum

delete dupe

plectrum

plectrum wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

I wonder how many of the fanboys still defending him have any idea how much of the money donated to Livestrong just gets troused by their hero?

Rob,

Realistically neither do you and I do not know how the contributions to Armstrong for his affiliation to Livestrong differ from that of other stars' charities and foundations. It is all pretty standard stuff, there really isn't a story here.

In 5 years time if Armstrong is no-longer a key protagonist of major donation then obviously he shouldn't receive anywhere near the amounts. (bear in mind we don't knwo and basing this discussion on a report from a bus driver!!!)

Sure he could do everything for free and the pure goodness of his heart but I'm just not so convinced that this is in in anyway the norm, no-one is whiter than white.

I wonder if his relationship with Livestrong is in anyway different to the charitable relationships of the likes of Bill Clinton, Annie Lennox, Elton John, Bono, Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.

Also considering the scrutiny of Lance Armstrong and everything he stands for by the global press, if Livestrong or LA in association with LS was doing anything untoward I think we would read something more than a garbage article re-tweeted by psycho-bitch Kathy Lemond.

I guess the merits of looking in from outside, especially here in UK and not a yank is that it is possible to be a little objective and perhaps not blame everything under the cycling sun on Lance Armstrong i.e. doping before, doping after US Postal and as serious if not more so programs during that time i.e. Telekom and certainly the Vienna based Rababank system... also god knows what used to happen in Italy! As for being a bully, oh surprise a natural competitor is dosed high on testosterone and becomes even more of an ass! There are far fewer 'nice' sportsman than aggressive competitive assholes! The likes of Roger Federer are far and away the rarity!

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

Sounds like he's got enough trousered to be OK...

nathancom

plectrum wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

I wonder how many of the fanboys still defending him have any idea how much of the money donated to Livestrong just gets troused by their hero?

Rob,

Realistically neither do you and I do not know how the contributions to Armstrong for his affiliation to Livestrong differ from that of other stars' charities and foundations. It is all pretty standard stuff, there really isn't a story here.

In 5 years time if Armstrong is no-longer a key protagonist of major donation then obviously he shouldn't receive anywhere near the amounts. (bear in mind we don't knwo and basing this discussion on a report from a bus driver!!!)

Sure he could do everything for free and the pure goodness of his heart but I'm just not so convinced that this is in in anyway the norm, no-one is whiter than white.

I wonder if his relationship with Livestrong is in anyway different to the charitable relationships of the likes of Bill Clinton, Annie Lennox, Elton John, Bono, Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.

Also considering the scrutiny of Lance Armstrong and everything he stands for by the global press, if Livestrong or LA in association with LS was doing anything untoward I think we would read something more than a garbage article re-tweeted by psycho-bitch Kathy Lemond.

I guess the merits of looking in from outside, especially here in UK and not a yank is that it is possible to be a little objective and perhaps not blame everything under the cycling sun on Lance Armstrong i.e. doping before, doping after US Postal and as serious if not more so programs during that time i.e. Telekom and certainly the Vienna based Rababank system... also god knows what used to happen in Italy! As for being a bully, oh surprise a natural competitor is dosed high on testosterone and becomes even more of an ass! There are far fewer 'nice' sportsman than aggressive competitive assholes! The likes of Roger Federer are far and away the rarity!

That makes it all ok then. Since there are other bad people in the world no one should care that LA cheated his way to 7 TdF, ruined several careers and enriches himself from people who think they are donating to cancer research when not one penny goes in that direction. Thanks for helping me get past this.

plectrum

Nathan,

Best to get a grip of some of the facts prior to you getting yourself all worked up for nothing.

Livestrong does make it quite clear in their promotions and in their method statements that they no-longer support cancer research (and havent for quite a while) and so I doubt people if they actually give a crap about where they donate their money are misled.

For what it is worth Livestrong also make it clear why they don't think it wise to support research, being that they feel money is better spent in delivering support whilst others support research. Whether they are right or wrong who knows but I'm pretty sure any donation going in anyway to a beneficial place is a good thing.

As for all the rest, it is your opinion of which you are welcome to, I do not really agree bar that people should care that there was a big doping problem in pro-cycling which was detrimentally affecting the universal well being of cycling.

Certainly focus should be made to understand the problem, learn from it and try to avoid a repeat.

plectrum

Nathan,

Wouldn't mind a view on this:

Andreu called out as a cheapskate by Armstrong for not paying Ferrari sufficient to dope properly.
Festina directly offer Bassons £27,000 per month to take EPO.

Which doping program or rider influence was worse?

i'm not advocating Armstrong or anyone else within this web but just that a little peespective is not a bad thing.

rob churchill

plectrum wrote:

plectrum wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

I wonder how many of the fanboys still defending him have any idea how much of the money donated to Livestrong just gets troused by their hero?

Rob,

Realistically neither do you and I do not know how the contributions to Armstrong for his affiliation to Livestrong differ from that of other stars' charities and foundations. It is all pretty standard stuff, there really isn't a story here.
{snip}

I'm not persuaded, Plectrum. If LA thinks cancer is important and sets up a 'charity' to solicit donations, then I expect him to be a net contributor to the charity, in time and cash. Limited expenses fine, anything else and the so-called 'charity' is a business and his involvement is pure hypocrisy. Other slebs may be as bad, but that's no excuse.

Le Commentateur

nathancom wrote:

Link to his cringeworthy speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=en&client=mv-google&v=go-gPUZJJ_E&feature=youtu.be&nomobile=1

"Pay no attention to that Italian behind the curtain."

deejay

rob churchill wrote:

I wonder how many of the fanboys still defending him have any idea how much of the money donated to Livestrong just gets troused by their hero?

Quite a bit, I would say. :roll:

AUSTIN, Texas, Oct 19 (Reuters) - Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong told supporters of his Livestrong cancer charity on Friday that it had been a difficult couple of weeks but the foundation's mission must go on.

The seven-time Tour de France winner stepped down as the foundation's chairman on Wednesday after a doping scandal badly tarnished his cycling career.

But Armstrong still took the stage at a gala dinner in Austin, Texas, on Friday to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the charity's founding.

"This mission is bigger than me - it's bigger than any individual," Armstrong said of the foundation, which helps people and families affected by cancer.

"We will not be deterred; we will move forward," he said.

Armstrong, who is expected to learn on Monday whether he will be stripped of his titles, said that when people ask how he is, he says: "I've been better but I've also been worse."

And he then sought to put his professional troubles to one side, telling the 1,500 gala guests: "Let's have a hell of a good time tonight."

The 41-year-old Armstrong founded Livestrong in 1997, after he was diagnosed with testicular cancer and before he first won the Tour de France. Since then, it has raised nearly $500 million and has evolved from a focus on testicular cancer research to addressing the needs of survivors of all cancers.

Armstrong, who lives in Austin, is still on Livestrong's board and despite the doping scandal, the $1,000-a-head gala, which featured musicians Norah Jones and Stephen Marley and actors Sean Penn, Matthew McConaughey and Robin Williams, is expected to raise $2.5 million.

Guests, some wearing dresses or ties in the foundation's signature yellow, bid on auction packages, including a dinner with Armstrong that required a starting bid of $3,000.

So far the foundation's financial health appears not to have suffered from the scandal and contributions have actually risen this year as the probe gathered momentum. For the year 2012 so far, it has reported revenue of $33.8 million, up 2.1 percent from the same period of 2011.

Armstrong is expected to lose his record seven Tour de France titles after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency published a 1,000-page report last week that said Armstrong organized and took part in an elaborate, sophisticated doping scheme on his way to his unrivalled success.

The retired cyclist has always denied he took banned substances during his career but decided not to challenge the USADA charges against him.

Cycling's world governing body, the International Cycling Union, is expected to rule on Monday on the USADA report. It can either confirm Armstrong's life ban and strip him of his Tour titles or take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sportswear maker Nike Inc and beer maker Anheuser-Busch were among corporate sponsors who said this week that they would end their relationship with Armstrong, but continue to back the foundation.

Feelings were mixed at Friday's gala.

Jeff Bennett of Portland, Maine, who was diagnosed with breast cancer nine years ago, said just before he walked down the yellow carpet into the Austin Convention Center that he came to support both Livestrong and Armstrong.

"Livestrong has provided a ton of opportunities for me to give back," he said. "Lance started it."

Michael Parmet, a cycling enthusiast from the Houston area, had a slightly different view, saying: "We believe in the purpose, not necessarily the man."

timoid.

FJS wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Hincape says he noticed in '95 that the peloton was going mega fast, so we can assume that's the year EPO took hold of a good portion of the peloton.

Probably a good guess, 1995. In 94 Gewiss-Ballan with Ferrari as team doctor could still properly dominate, out-preparing the rest. Giro, San Remo, LBL, their Fleche Wallonne 1-2-3, Lombardy, TdF 2nd, etc. In '95 they lost that dominance.

Mind, i remember Lemond talking about a sudden change in pace in 1991 at top GT level

When did Hincapie join the European peloton? What is he comparing to.

Looking at the careers of Indurain, Rominger and Chiapucci, I think its fair to say that EPO took off c 1990/1991

frenchfighter

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

This is absolutely disgusting.

I hope this guy gets totally destroyed for all he is worth.

ddraver

Got to be honest guys, were you really expecting a confession? Really?

THe speech was exactly what i expected it to be, i.e. it totally ignored the issue and focused on the charity work. I ll bet you a groat that the UCI one on Monday will be much the same!

plectrum

rob churchill wrote:

plectrum wrote:

plectrum wrote:

rob churchill wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-860283

He really is trailer trash, isn't he?

I wonder how many of the fanboys still defending him have any idea how much of the money donated to Livestrong just gets troused by their hero?

Rob,

Realistically neither do you and I do not know how the contributions to Armstrong for his affiliation to Livestrong differ from that of other stars' charities and foundations. It is all pretty standard stuff, there really isn't a story here.
{snip}

I'm not persuaded, Plectrum. If LA thinks cancer is important and sets up a 'charity' to solicit donations, then I expect him to be a net contributor to the charity, in time and cash. Limited expenses fine, anything else and the so-called 'charity' is a business and his involvement is pure hypocrisy. Other slebs may be as bad, but that's no excuse.

Rob,

I appreciate what you are saying, I just don't think there are many saints walking the planet and out of those most of them are crap at fund-raising! I'd sure most Slebs start charities for tax and earning opportunities sold on the basis that it will also do some good. It is a balance.

I'm pretty happy to see LA as a dope punished fairly and in proportion to the standards set out within the sporting world and if it is proved in court that he is guilty of perjury then punished here but I'm not sure I feel happy slating him for his charitable contributions based on the word of a bus driver.

Living in the western capitalist world and taking that into account it seems on the surface Livestrong is a pretty good foundation but heh the exacts of what goes on behind the scenes i'll leave up to an award winning investigative journalist to present a well researched case before I alter my superficial view.

Turfle

ddraver wrote:

Got to be honest guys, were you really expecting a confession? Really?

THe speech was exactly what i expected it to be, i.e. it totally ignored the issue and focused on the charity work. I ll bet you a groat that the UCI one on Monday will be much the same!

Didn't expect it, but thought the chances of it had increased with his sponsors bailing, and with his ex-wife and other riders confessing.

The timing still doesn't make sense for him yet though. If he could now confess, and have all potential liabilities disappear, I think he would. Maybe.

frenchfighter

8mins in.

I bet Chavanel just wants to punch doped up Lance when he brings his walking pharmacy of a body passed the clean as water Chavanel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKmn8GLy ... re=related

deejay

plectrum wrote:

Living in the western capitalist world and taking that into account it seems on the surface Livestrong is a pretty good foundation but heh the exacts of what goes on behind the scenes i'll leave up to an award winning investigative journalist to present a well researched case before I alter my superficial view.

Do you mean "Biking Bernie" who got banned from this forum, . ? :roll:

frenchfighter

skylla

plectrum wrote:

Nathan,

Wouldn't mind a view on this:

Andreu called out as a cheapskate by Armstrong for not paying Ferrari sufficient to dope properly.
Festina directly offer Bassons £27,000 per month to take EPO.

Which doping program or rider influence was worse?

i'm not advocating Armstrong or anyone else within this web but just that a little peespective is not a bad thing.

I'll give you a little perspective: a small fraud or a big fraud, you're still a fraud. A big fraud offsetting some of their bad karma by supporting a charity is still a big fraud. A small fraud etc etc

frenchfighter

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc3wf ... 1_1280.jpg