# USADA to ban Lance Armstrong for life, strip Tour titles



## screature (May 14, 2007)

USADA to ban Lance Armstrong for life, strip Tour titles

Travis Tygart the USADA's chief executive, the new McCarthy, finally gets his way with his witch hunt.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

Not going to comment on this event, but what I will say is this..
what message does it say for sport athletes that use enhancements and win major titles and events?
so I am all for this witch hunt.. when baseball players look like hulk hogan and hit balls out of the stadium and say they are drug free then get caught, but get to keep their jobs and titles to me that is a shame in its self..

The message it sends to your young is get drugged up, you will do well then lie about and you will be fine..


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

screature said:


> USADA to ban Lance Armstrong for life, strip Tour titles
> 
> Travis Tygart the USADA's chief executive, the new McCarthy, finally gets his way with his witch hunt.


Travis will go down with McCarthy as one of the most inhumane person known in history. Kudos for Lance to stop the witch hunt and is to me the greatest cyclist known. Is Michael Phelps next?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> Not going to comment on this event, but what I will say is this..
> what message does it say for sport athletes that use enhancements and win major titles and events?
> so I am all for this witch hunt.. when baseball players look like hulk hogan and hit balls out of the stadium and say they are drug free then get caught, but ge to keep their jobs and titles to me that is a shame in its self..
> 
> The message it sends to your young is get drugged up, you will do well then lie about and you will be fine..


Do you know the specifics of this case?! He was not caught at anything and has passed hundreds of doping tests even the judge ruling in Armstong's bid to have the USADA's charges thrown out said this:

_*USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote*._


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> Not going to comment on this event, but what I will say is this..
> what message does it say for sport athletes that use enhancements and win major titles and events?
> so I am all for this witch hunt.. when baseball players look like hulk hogan and hit balls out of the stadium and say they are drug free then get caught, but ge to keep their jobs and titles to me that is a shame in its self..
> 
> The message it sends to your young is get drugged up, you will do well then lie about and you will be fine..


Lance hasn't been proven guilty just "witnesses" reports and we know how unreliable they are as facts.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

Exactly Screature, "Questions", witnesses report from 10 riders, a few who are known to despise LA is not evidence.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

JCCanuck said:


> Lance hasn't been proven guilty just "witnesses" reports and we know how unreliable they are as facts.


as I mentioned - I was not commenting on this event just sports in general.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> as I mentioned - I was not commenting on this event just sports in general.


Sorry! Just venting, can't think straight.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

JCCanuck said:


> Travis will go down with McCarthy as one of the most inhumane person known in history.





JCCanuck said:


> Sorry! Just venting, can't think straight.


Clearly!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

JCCanuck said:


> Sorry! Just venting, can't think straight.


glad I can take the brunt of it.. 

thats why I clearly - stated what my opinions were before I wrote it.. but I guess sometimes it does not matter what you write..


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> as I mentioned - I was not commenting on this event just sports in general.


But sports in general don't deserve to have witch hunts driven by the ego's and political motivations of one man... you said you supported this witch hunt.

Even if you were speaking generally you over spoke IMO. Cheaters should be found out but personal vendettas on the part of the investigators should not be part of the process.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

screature said:


> But sports in general don't deserve to have witch hunts driven by the ego's and political motivations of one man... you said you supported this witch hunt.
> 
> Even if you were speaking generally you over spoke IMO. Cheaters should be found out but personal vendettas on the part of the investigators should not be part of the process.


Okay I agree with you some what - but what you are saying 10 witnesses all say he did it..
seems a lot to say they all lied? [ that would be a conspiracy than ]

But if all of these athletes say they didn't do it, keep lying until they do get caught even then say they didn't do it because some one else gave it to them under duress or no knowledge, how is any one to believe anything out there?
So in some cases you have to be aggressive with these athletes.
look at Jose Conseco, all of them.. said they didn't do it till the very end..still even after being caught say it doesnt count as some one else gave it to them under false pretenses - seriously ??


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> Okay I agree with you some what - but what you are saying 10 witnesses all say he did it..
> seems a lot to say they all lied? [ that would be a conspiracy than ]
> 
> But if all of these athletes say they didn't do it, keep lying until they do get caught even then say they didn't do it because some one else gave it to them under duress or no knowledge, how is any one to believe anything out there?
> ...


10 out of how many pro cyclists on this planet is miniscule and is not a conspiracy. Sure others have lied but that doesn't mean LA lied.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

JCCanuck said:


> 10 out of how many pro cyclists on this planet is miniscule and is not a conspiracy. Sure others have lied but that doesn't mean LA lied.


So, hold on a minute... do you think that Lance was clean during his racing years?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

crawford said:


> So, hold on a minute... do you think that Lance was clean during his racing years?


The tests he took say he was.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> Okay I agree with you some what - but what you are saying 10 witnesses all say he did it..
> seems a lot to say they all lied? [ that would be a conspiracy than ]
> 
> But if all of these athletes say they didn't do it, keep lying until they do get caught even then say they didn't do it because some one else gave it to them under duress or no knowledge, how is any one to believe anything out there?
> ...


The thing is Lance wasn't caught. He was tested hundreds of times and tested clean on both blood and urine analysis and this witch hunt is being conducted years after his retirement from the sport... seems like someone with an axe to grind or political opportunism to me... as is it did to the US District Court Judge.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

crawford said:


> So, hold on a minute... do you think that Lance was clean during his racing years?


Yes!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> The thing is Lance wasn't caught. He was tested hundreds of times and tested clean on both blood and urine analysis and this witch hunt is being conducted years after his retirement from the sport... seems like someone with an axe to grind or political opportunism to me... as is it did to the US District Court Judge.


Beyond that the 'witnesses' are about as reliable as jailhouse informants as the hunters do have the witnesses future and past achievements under direct control.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

crawford said:


> So, hold on a minute... do you think that Lance was clean during his racing years?


its hard to say, with so many claiming to be drug free - it has tainted the sports in general for me.
At the time, he was going through treatment for his illness, which means he could have had some drugs to counter act the illness and fatigue he would be suffering..More research has to be done - as to when he began winning so frequently vs his treatments - lets put that into a chart and see .

so to be honest - I can not say he was drug free nor can I say he was .


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

The process that has taken the Armstrong case to this point is deeply, deeply flawed. It smacks of personal vendettas, government bureaucracy run rampant and looks like a misappropriation of public resources.

However, trying to circumvent the process in the courts (which he failed to do) and claiming that he "never a failed test" are not the strongest platforms upon which to rest one's case.

History has shown that many riders from that era have either: 

been caught (e.g., Landis, Basso, Ulrich, etc.)
been linked to doping and have been sanctioned (e.g., Operación Puerto, past clients of Michele Ferrari, etc.), or 
confessed to doping without ever testing positive (e.g, Jonathan Vaughters)
Here's a look at the top 10 riders from Lance's TdF era. It's a damning picture. Here's another look from today's New York Times. 

Given the body of evidence that has accumulated over the years, particularly from those close to him like former teammates, I find it difficult to believe that LA never doped. We may never know, but neither can we say for certain that he was totally clean. 

Further, given his past leadership and ownership positions, I have to wonder what was his role in orchestrating the training and medical regimins of his past teams. That's really what this USADA case was about, IMO. Well, that and trying to make an example of the most high profile cyclist in American history. 

Time will tell, particularly if others caught up in this mess end up testifying at USADA hearings. Perhaps some more facts will come out. 

In the end, it's a sad day for cycling. Perhaps other pro sports will have their own day of reckoning.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Personally I don't really care if he was doped up or not. He passed the test at the time and even after. They are taking the fact that he is giving up the fight as a sign that he is guilty. What logic is there in that?

What about being innocent until proven guilty?

Waste US taxpayers money elsewhere where it is needed regardless of if he was doping or not at this point. Let him keep his titles & let him race triathlons if he really wants too. 

I understand prosecuting athletes if they are found guilty but stripping somebody of titles that they won from 99-05 with no physical proof is ridiculous.

Better yet the USADA shouldn't even have jurisdiction in this case and the UCI agrees with this. Dumb. 

Lance has two Olympic medals, are they taking those away two. A gold from 1993 & a bronze from 2000. If they take anything else away, I shotgun his car & money. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> its
> At the time, he was going through treatment for his illness, which means he could have had some drugs to counter act the illness and fatigue he would be suffering..More research has to be done - as to when he began winning so frequently vs his treatments - lets put that into a chart and see .


Keep in mind that he was a world class cyclist before his cancer fight, he was just a lot less known, but he has an Olympic gold from 1993. 

While his recovery was remarkable its not unexplainable. 



Sent from my iPhone


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> Keep in mind that he was a world class cyclist before his cancer fight, he was just a lot less known, but he has an Olympic gold from 1993.
> 
> While his recovery was remarkable its not unexplainable.
> 
> ...


There is ample evidence that Lance worked more than hard enough to achieve those wins. 

Seriously the guy is not an idiot. Anyone who was cheating in such a sophisticated manner as to leave zero physical evidence is very unlikely to have talked openly about it to anyone including his teammates. The witnesses they do have are clearly under duress, hence the earlier reference to jailhouse informants.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Here's the statement from Lance Armstrong:

*Lance Armstong's Statement of August 23, 2012*

AUSTIN, Texas - August 23rd, 2012 - There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.

I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.

If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and – once and for all – put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?

From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges. The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA’s own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations. At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully, threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.

The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.

Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I'm looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet."


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

The man has been a moving target for well over a decade. The fact that team members started to testify against him didn't seem to phase him until news that George Hincapie was going to corroborate doping on the team during the 7 year tour run. Relatively recent (2010) samples when retested show abnormal traits in Armstrong's physique. There are at least two team medics who will be presenting their stories to the doping czars, so the details will leak out. 

With the writing on the wall that Lance would be outed, he did the logical thing to protect his brand....he refuses to testify, keeps denying that he doped, and maintains lucrative marketing contracts (for the time being). 

Armstrong played the Babe Ruth type myth to the U.S. market to his full advantage and he's a very wealthy man as a result. But the guy sure has a lot of enemies and the past is coming back to tell the dark side of the story. Within a year there will be no more Trek, Oakley, Nike, etc, backing him up.

Much like Pete Rose he's in a no win situation, but he'll still have millions to live off of.

I don't think doping can be stopped. I think the answer is to allow doping to flourish for all sports to see how hideous the consequences are. For example I would propose a full born doped up Olympics and a parallel organic olympics for pure athletes. Then we'll see who has better TV ratings.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> its hard to say, with so many claiming to be drug free - it has tainted the sports in general for me.
> At the time, he was going through treatment for his illness, which means he could have had some drugs to counter act the illness and fatigue he would be suffering..More research has to be done - as to when he began winning so frequently vs his treatments - lets put that into a chart and see .
> 
> so to be honest - I can not say he was drug free nor can I say he was .


In any event, you don't have to be drug free. You just aren't allowed to have certain specific performance-enhancing drugs in your bloodstream when you are racing. Even with steroids, some are permitted and some are not, or in limited amounts. There is no such thing as drug-free; never has been.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

Dr_AL said:


> Keep in mind that he was a world class cyclist before his cancer fight, he was just a lot less known, but he has an Olympic gold from 1993.
> 
> While his recovery was remarkable its not unexplainable.
> 
> ...


I agree, he is strong, stubborn and not a quitter. Not everyone can take the punishment to do what he did to overcome cancer. Same with his winnings. And geez the USADA wouldn't quit long after he retired, they just didn't want to look bad.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> I don't think doping can be stopped. I think the answer is to allow doping to flourish for all sports to see how hideous the consequences are. For example I would propose a full born doped up Olympics and a parallel organic olympics for pure athletes. Then we'll see who has better TV ratings.


the issue is not who will watch which one.. the issue would be which would be sponsored the most or more?
then you get the ratings and then you set the standards of allowed sports and expectable.. sadly i think the drugs and doped up one would win, that is the society we live.. 

perfect example is : olympics vs Paralympics.. Who watched it after the regular one ended?
how much coverage did it get? ZIP NADA.. and sponsors? ZIP nada...
that is the society we live in..
The olympics is a political corrupt organization.. which should be put down like old yeller 

I feel so bad and sad for those athletes who were ignored .. they should have them side by side to be fair and honour all and any athletes.

IMHO..


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Good article from the Guardian - it will get worse before it gets better:

Lance Armstrong saga must reveal all, then cycling can press on | Richard Williams | Sport | The Observer


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Here's another Guardian piece with quotes from a masseuse, a former rider, and the threats Armstrong made against them:
Lance Armstrong: the whistleblowers | Sport | The Observer


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

And the walls keep falling in on Lance as rider come "clean" about their doping history.
Cycling?s wall of silence crumbling as former riders line up to talk about doping - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Although I'm still on the fence whether Lance did doping or not, there are apparently very "natural" ways of getting your body to produce performance enhancing hormones or whatever. I was just reading the other day that Paraolympians can break a toe to give themselves a boost over other athletes.



> His team is also looking out for examples of boosting – the practice of artificially raising blood pressure to improve performance, which some athletes with spinal injuries have practised. Boosting deliberately induces a condition called autonomic dysreflexia, which affects quadriplegics, and boosts blood pressure and heart rate. It can be brought on by deliberately self-harming – breaking a toe bone, for example, or using tight leg straps.
> "Boosting is a concern from a health perspective. For athletes with a high number of spinal cord lesions, if they sit on something sharp overnight, the stimulus from the discomfort goes up but the response is deviated to the cardiovascular system, causing hypertension.


Who knows if Lance found something like that. A natural way to boost adrenaline, blood pressure, etc.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm late to this, but have recently scoured the internet and read as much about this as there is out there.

Personally I can't get past that fact that he won't fight. I mean it's his legacy, his everything. I don't understand with his clout why he wouldn't. He's hung out with the last 2 presidents. He has an army of celebrity friends. Millions (estimated at $125 million) of dollars. A huge charity. Massive sponsors (well maybe not so much now).

You can't tell me if he made a public statement to every online and print newsagency that he was innocent and was going to fight it until the end the world wouldn't rally around him.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

The evidence they have is all witnesses, but that doesn't mean that they have concrete evidence.

Some of the witnesses are current riders who in exchange for testifying are being let off free from their doping allegations and are still able to race.

Some witnesses are foes of Lance Armstrong and wouldn't hesitate to smear his name.

Some witnesses would appear to have no reason to lie, but the US Anti-doping agency could be pressuring them as the motives of the Anti-doping agency are questionable. 

All in all Lance probably did do some blood manipulation during his racing career, heck everybody was doing something in the cycling world, but it's no like he was using steroids or obviously band substances. He got away with it at the time, deal with it, focus on current issues. 

I'm all for cleaning up cycling and if they can figure out what cyclists are/were doing to develop test to clean up the sport today then great, but going after retired cyclists is a bit over the top. While his more recent tour wins still would fall under the US Anti-Doping Agencies self exposed statute of limitations his earlier wins do not, but yet they are still stripping him of those wins. 

Who wins the Tour de France? The second place guy? Wait his is/was accused of doping too...

Cycling will always have a cloud over it for all the doping, blood manipulation and well anything that could be done to make these athletes quicker. They are being subject to 3 weeks of non stop riding.

The case against Lance wouldn't be going to a court of law or anything. It would be going in front of a judge/panel and he would be found guilty regardless of the circumstantial evidence. Lance was in a loose loose situation. If he is actually guilty he would be found guilty. If lance is/was innocent he would be found guilty. With Lance giving up, he can say he tried his best and it was a witch hunt, and some people will still believe he is innocent. 

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr_AL said:


> The evidence they have is all witnesses, but that doesn't mean that they have concrete evidence.
> 
> Some of the witnesses are current riders who in exchange for testifying are being let off free from their doping allegations and are still able to race.
> 
> ...


Yep I agree 100%.


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Dr. Al,

I'm not sure I'm following you. 

When you say blood manipulation why do you think that's not doping?

Red blood cells are increased by injecting synthetic EPO which boosts them on set schedule with measured predictable results. It is a banned substance.
Normal doping agents are no better, after all your naturally produce Testosterone. Injecting a synthetic version of it or an agent to increase production is the same thing right?

Unless you are talking about natural EPO? But I don't think Lance had a freezer of his own blood with him on the Tour. Not to mention giving blood transfusions is a bit hard to hide. The results are also not predictable. And he was on cancer treatment which would have made his own blood toxic and unadvisable to draw in large quantities.

I'm not sure that the USADA only has heresay evidence. I mean clearly the witnesses are suspect at best (except maybe the masseuse). Surely Lance could have a high powered attorney tear them up? 

Prior to 2005 synthetic EPO was near impossible to detect (from what I read) and certainly hard to distinguish from natural EPO. So they must be after him for his return to cycling in 2008 and 2009. Maybe he doped then too? Or maybe only then? Some discussion on the net (what it's worth) hints that they have a blood sample from him with team radioshack. Maybe that's why he won't fight it?

Maybe we will have to agree to disagree but again from my point of view if it was me I'd have a scorched earth policy if I was wrongfully accused of something. Especially if it threatened my crowning moments and awards.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

smashedbanana said:


> Dr. Al,
> 
> I'm not sure I'm following you.
> 
> ...


We can agree to disagree, but we actually agree on many things even though I would seem to come across as a "Lance defender". 

First off, I've always considered doping to be drugs, and personally consider blood manipulation to be separate regardless of if it is illegal or not. Personal opinion regardless of the definition. I'm also no doping specialist. But the extent on what people will do to get an edge never ceases to surprise me.

As far as the USADA case goes, I believe it would go in front of an arbitration panel and not a court so I'm not even us if Lance's high end lawyers could tear USADA's evidence apart. So I would defend Lance primarily from what would appear to be a flawed system/process. I feel if it went to arbitration he would be found guilty anyways.

In this case (and most cases) I would rather see USADA working with retired athletes to improve testing and in turn help clean up the sport for the future.

I ink the UCI and other cycling organizations are still waiting for the reasoned decision, which should bring light of that actual evidence they have or do not have. That should be interesting, and hopefully it is made public.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## tdu (Sep 15, 2008)

Dr_AL said:


> We can agree to disagree, but we actually agree on many things even though I would seem to come across as a "Lance defender".
> 
> First off, I've always considered doping to be drugs, and personally consider blood manipulation to be separate regardless of if it is illegal or not. Personal opinion regardless of the definition. I'm also no doping specialist. But the extent on what people will do to get an edge never ceases to surprise me.
> 
> ...


I agree. People argue that him giving up is like 'admitting guilt'. He's going to be considered guilty even if he 'won', and as you point out there really is no way to 'win'. So should he spend the rest of his life fighting them? I'd venture to say a lot of people have had a battle in their lives that they decided just wasn't worth the trouble anymore. 

I would say it's very possible he used PED's of some kind. But I just disagree with the process going on though. If you have solid evidence, then get things over with. If you don't, let the guy be.

The one thing I find interesting is that if there is 'evidence', it would either mean the testing is useless, or there may have been fraudulent tests. So how do the cycling organizations deal with that if they blow this wide open.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Tyler hamilton on lying for a long, long time -
BBC News - Hardtalk - Tyler Hamilton: 'I feel awful' about doping


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Tyler hamilton on lying for a long, long time -
> BBC News - Hardtalk - Tyler Hamilton: 'I feel awful' about doping


If anyone was still not convinced that LA was a doper, they should be now.


----------



## imachungry (Sep 19, 2004)

jimbotelecom said:


> Good article from the Guardian - it will get worse before it gets better:
> 
> Lance Armstrong saga must reveal all, then cycling can press on | Richard Williams | Sport | The Observer


This is a good piece. 

Many people seem entirely uninterested in whether he doped. They're happy to have him as an icon of possibility. It's just the inconvenience of the fact that he is a cheat, a very serious bully, and has enriched himself utterly and completely off a giant lie. 

Some of us don't care whether he was the Greatest (Doping) Cyclist of all time, or that he "defeated" cancer. He was a cheat, and now worst of all, has just enough contempt for his Oprah-like following not to actually level with them and tell the truth and then let people assess. 

Ironically, if he did come clean, and not after he was pushed right up against the wall, which is all that he respects, apparently, his legacy would be softened. No doubt in a world of cheats, he played the game the best, people would say. 

But as it is, faced with the tribunal's entirely damning evidence, he chose to play the victim to the end, cheating all those fans of something more valuable than yellow wrist bands and rah rah cancer rallies, which is....The Truth.

He handled this badly, as all narcissists and ego maniacs who stage manage the truth do. A mea culpa would have saved him some shred of dignity. As it is, he's done. Just another lier and cheat not man enough to "come clean." Good riddance.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Here's a review of Tyler Hamilton's book. The reviewer pretty much says he's a sleaze too..

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/b...yler-hamilton-and-daniel-coyle.html?src=rechp


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/s...key-details-in-lance-armstrong-case.html?_r=1

This is where Hincapie will weigh in apparently.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

imachungry said:


> This is a good piece.
> 
> Many people seem entirely uninterested in whether he doped. They're happy to have him as an icon of possibility. It's just the inconvenience of the fact that he is a cheat, a very serious bully, and has enriched himself utterly and completely off a giant lie.
> 
> ...


I recall a recent story about a Calgary Cop being busted at the US Border with $500,000 worth of Steroids. Pointed the story out to a couple of eMail correspondents. Then 3 days later all traces of the story had been pulled from the internet. Wasn't a dream as the people who received the links did read and remember them. Given the number of 'Roid Rage type incidents we are seeing from our men in blue, it begs the question. How come athletes are banned for life while cops are not even tested?


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Report is 202 pages and then there are additional emails. videos, etc.

BBC summarized the report as follows:
-Achievements of USPS/Discovery Channel pro cycling team accomplished through the most sophisticated, professional and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen
-Armstrong's career at the team was fuelled from start to finish by doping
-More than a dozen former team-mates, friends and former team employees confirm a fraudulent course of conduct
-Armstrong acted with the help of a small army of enablers, including doping doctors, drug smugglers and others within and outside the sport and his team
-He had ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use but over the doping culture of the team
-Team staff were good at predicting when testers would turn up and seemed to have inside information
-Evidence is beyond strong and as strong as any case brought by Usada in its existence

I spent time reading emails between teammates Andreau and Hincapie and Armstrong and they are damning. There are also bank statements illustrating payments made to Dr. Ferrari even after Armstrong says he cut ties with the renowned performance enhancing doctor.

They paint a picture of organized drug taking and that Lance was really not a nice guy. It appears that there was a lot of love/hate among the team and their wives. 

It's going to be interesting to see how the cycling union rules in November. Cycling is going to suffer big time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

'Overwhelming' evidence in Armstrong doping case: USADA | CTV News


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

^^^^^^

I'm not a lawyer and I really don't know if the evidence is "overwhelming", but it looks pretty damning to me. It's a shame that he wasn't caught long ago but the report also specifies that he was caught and worked out a deal to bury the incident through making a huge donation to the Cycling Union. 

This story will go on for a while waiting for the various reg. bodies to evaluate the report.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

They released over 200 pages. I read elsewhere the report is about 1000 pages.Documents show he paid over 1 million to the Italian doctor. Hamilton says Armstrong told Landis and him that he tested positive for EPO at the 2001 Swiss Tour but his people were in contact with the UCI and everything will be ok.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I hope they do go after the doctor. AP reporting that Dr. Ferrari may be charged.

Lance Armstrong's doctor could face criminal charges


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Timeline graphic illustrating drug use over the 7 tour wins -

Evidence From the Investigation Into Alleged Doping by Lance Armstrong - Graphic - NYTimes.com


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

To quote Jim Morrison: "This is the end, beautiful friend, the end"......

Lance Armstrong steps down as chairman of cancer charity, dumped by Nike - The Globe and Mail


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Will Nike ask for their money back? Apparently a couple of others might be suing for their money to be returned. He could be financially ruined.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Armstrong case: Sunday Times and SCA Promotions considering options


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

arminia said:


> Will Nike ask for their money back? Apparently a couple of others might be suing for their money to be returned. He could be financially ruined.


they should.. Hopefully teach other athletes not to lie and not to take drugs..
what does it teach our young?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

Asking for the money back would set an interesting precedent, given the current and former prevalence of illegal drug use in other professional sports and Nike's vast portfolio of celebrity endorsements.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

crawford said:


> Asking for the money back would set an interesting precedent, given the current and former prevalence of illegal drug use in other professional sports and Nike's vast portfolio of celebrity endorsements.


the tour the france asked for the money back so why not nike it is only fair..


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> the tour the france asked for the money back so why not nike it is only fair..


Who has asked for the money back?


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

crawford said:


> Who has asked for the money back?


it was on CBC news radio that tour de France is asking for the winnings back..


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

Well then CBC news misunderstands how prize money at the Tour de France is awarded and distributed.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

crawford said:


> Well then CBC news misunderstands how prize money at the Tour de France is awarded and distributed.


They said that tour de france is asking for the money back for the reason that Lance sued them originally for the prize money.. Back when he won there was the issue of doping and he threatened to sue them for the money.. So therefor they claim it is only fair they receive it back..

Lance is worth about $120 Million.. I think he can give back what is rightfully not his..
Not to mention, I am hoping to see NIKE do the same, Budweiser just dropped him as well..

this is getting exciting..  Hoping this sends a message to all would be cheats and liars..


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I don't quite understand. I thought every time Lance tested he was clean, whether he used masking techniques or not. The only thing that makes him "guilty" is anecdotal evidence from other athletes. Yeah, I'm sure their testimony is unbiased. He hasn't actually been PROVEN guilty of anything.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> I don't quite understand. I thought every time Lance tested he was clean, whether he used masking techniques or not. The only thing that makes him "guilty" is anecdotal evidence from other athletes. Yeah, I'm sure their testimony is unbiased. He hasn't actually been PROVEN guilty of anything.


incase you missed it.. the news is out that he doped and forced his team mates to do the same, or risk not being on the team..

Lance Armstrong dropped by sponsors Nike following 'insurmountable evidence' in USADA report that he doped - Telegraph

Doping costs Lance Armstrong sponsors, charity role - CNN.com


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> incase you missed it.. the news is out that he doped and forced his team mates to do the same, or risk not being on the team..
> 
> Lance Armstrong dropped by sponsors Nike following 'insurmountable evidence' in USADA report that he doped - Telegraph
> 
> Doping costs Lance Armstrong sponsors, charity role - CNN.com


Still it is in effect, Jailhouse Testimony. Something no matter how compelling that a wise jury should demand be corroborated independently. That is the element that remains AWOL. 

That said it seems extremely likely he was cheating as was everyone that placed in the upper tiers, so the playing field was indeed level and had everyone run clean there is no evidence as to the results being any different. 

Blood Doping is of course very hard to detect, which is why it is so popular.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

eMacMan said:


> Still it is in effect, Jailhouse Testimony. Something no matter how compelling that a wise jury should demand be corroborated independently. That is the element that remains AWOL.
> 
> That said it seems extremely likely he was cheating as was everyone that placed in the upper tiers, so the playing field was indeed level and had everyone run clean there is no evidence as to the results being any different.
> 
> Blood Doping is of course very hard to detect, which is why it is so popular.


so now that he is caught.. should he give back his winnings?


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

macintosh doctor said:


> They said that tour de france is asking for the money back for the reason that Lance sued them originally for the prize money.. Back when he won there was the issue of doping and he threatened to sue them for the money.. So therefor they claim it is only fair they receive it back..


You're mixing up facts from two different cases.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> so now that he is caught.. should he give back his winnings?


Still nothing has been proven... seems you don't quite get that fact. 

Good luck to Nike and others getting their money back... Like they didn't benefit by sponsoring him when they did... Phullleasssse.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> so now that he is caught.. should he give back his winnings?


Since it is quite clear that testing is now being discounted as insufficient evidence of being clean, who would you award it too????

As I said if you choose to convict on rumours or coerced testimony the entire upper echelon of competitors would be similarly disqualified.

Want to come up with clean testing. Put the athletes under 24 hour supervision for 3 months, test for normal levels before and after competitions, then use these as a base-line for future competitions. OTOH I can't see too many athletes accepting that level of intrusion into their private lives.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Since it is quite clear that testing is now being discounted as insufficient evidence of being clean, who would you award it too????
> 
> As I said if you choose to convict on rumours or coerced testimony the entire upper echelon of competitors would be similarly disqualified.
> 
> Want to come up with clean testing. Put the athletes under 24 hour supervision for 3 months, test for normal levels before and after competitions, then use these as a base-line for future competitions. OTOH I can't see too many athletes accepting that level of intrusion into their private lives.


Easier to just hold the Doper Olympics and have done with it!


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

screature said:


> Still nothing has been proven... seems you don't quite get that fact.
> 
> Good luck to Nike and others getting their money back... *Like they didn't benefit by sponsoring him when they did..*. Phullleasssse.


Very good point. In addition, Armstrong's winning spree certainly did a lot to make the TDF as popular and recognized as it is today. 

Sure, the case could be made that his alleged doping hurt the reputation of the TDF, but if so, he's definitely not alone in that.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> so now that he is caught.. should he give back his winnings?


He hasn't been caught. He still proclaims his innocence and the blood tests he took support that view. This "evidence" is a witch hunt, no more and no less. They haven't proved anything yet.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> He hasn't been caught. He still proclaims his innocence and the blood tests he took support that view. This "evidence" is a witch hunt, no more and no less. They haven't proved anything yet.


A Lance supporter, get ready to get flamed...

The sport (cycling) is seriously flawed. It needs to be cleaned up period. I still support the view of the UCI and USADA working with retired riders who may or may not have doped to improve testing and figure out ways to eliminate the doping/cheating attitude.

On a side note the London Olympic gold medalist Alexander Vinokurov had tested positive in 2007 when the whole Astana team pulled out of the TDF. Lets start the witch hunt to figure out why a 39 year old could beat a field of capable riders seeing as he had no real help with fellow countrymen on the road race. 

I think the cycling sport may forever have the guilty until proven attitude towards a used riders. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> A Lance supporter, get ready to get flamed...
> 
> The sport (cycling) is seriously flawed. It needs to be cleaned up period. I still support the view of the UCI and USADA working with retired riders who may or may not have doped to improve testing and figure out ways to eliminate the doping/cheating attitude.
> 
> ...


Well why not just eliminate the sport then? I mean, since everyone probably cheats anyway. Or we could marvel at the accomplishments of the human body with or without drugs. I mean, these are still some pretty incredible accomplishments either way.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Well why not just eliminate the sport then? I mean, since everyone probably cheats anyway. Or we could marvel at the accomplishments of the human body with or without drugs. I mean, these are still some pretty incredible accomplishments either way.


Hardly. One is honest and incredible. The other dishonest, dirty and not worthy of respect. Lance falls into the latter category.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Hardly. One is honest and incredible. The other dishonest, dirty and not worthy of respect. Lance falls into the latter category.


I see. And how do you prove that theory?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> I see. And how do you prove that theory?


Don't have to prove anything. He's been exposed. Get over it.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

The USDA hasn't delivered a single page of medical fact, a document describing the performance-enhancing drug Armstrong took, the test that finally detected that drug and/or the metabolic residue of said drug in his system. Instead all they have is documents of circumstantial evidence, many from convicted drug users in cycling. Armstrong probably was under the scope more than any other cyclist for sure and not once was any drug or whatnot discovered in him.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Don't have to prove anything. He's been exposed. Get over it.


A rather facile response. If he is absolutely guilty of doping, them there should be at the very least one single blood test out of the hundreds that he submitted to over the years that confirms this. So either all the testers were wrong, or perhaps people in power have jumped to a mistaken conclusion. For a reporter/editor like yourself, you'd think this one salient fact—no failed blood tests—would counteract the allegations being levelled by third parties with vested interests.

I'm not saying btw that Lance Armstrong has never used performance enhancing drugs (he very well may have at some point); I'm saying the allegation has not been PROVEN.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

JCCanuck said:


> The USDA hasn't delivered a single page of medical fact, a document describing the performance-enhancing drug Armstrong took, the test that finally detected that drug and/or the metabolic residue of said drug in his system. Instead all they have is documents of circumstantial evidence, many from convicted drug users in cycling. Armstrong probably was under the scope more than any other cyclist for sure and not once was any drug or whatnot discovered in him.


Seems to indicate that in the absence of actual evidence, a very strong opinion should carry more weight. In fact, it's the "faith is greater than science argument all over again." As long as you believe something is true strongly enough, scienctific evidence does not matter.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So lemme review. His fellow team mates have confirmed he doped. The UCI and USADA say the same. The Tour de France want their money back saying the same. Nike has dropped him, as have other sponsors because of doping. And he gives up on his own defence. Just what part of all that don't Lance supporters get? If it walks like a duck . . . well. I'm sure you know the rest.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> *Don't have to prove anything*. He's been exposed. Get over it.


Sorry SINC so without a shred of real evidence you want to convict someone solely based on "testimony"? 

I wonder how many people have been lynched solely on the basis of testimony...?? It is at least in the millions over time.

With that kind of statement (really surprising coming from an ex-journalist) you join this club/mob.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> So lemme review. His fellow team mates have confirmed he doped. The UCI and USADA say the same. The Tour de France want their money back saying the same. Nike has dropped him, as have other sponsors because of doping. And he gives up on his own defence. Just what part of all that don't Lance supporters get? If it walks like a duck . . . well. I'm sure you know the rest.


He is accused of using banned substances and blood doping. Like it or not he has consistently passed the physical objective tests. All of the "witness" testimony seems to have been obtained under duress and could certainly apply equally to any and all of the top level competitors. Under this scenario removing his claim from the titles by definition means no-one else can claim them either. 

If you enjoy witch hunts it seems reasonable to insist that you hunt any and all witches.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> So lemme review. *His fellow team mates have confirmed he doped. The UCI and USADA say the same. The Tour de France want their money back saying the same. Nike has dropped him, as have other sponsors because of doping. And he gives up on his own defence.* Just what part of all that don't Lance supporters get? If it walks like a duck . . . well. I'm sure you know the rest.


So lemme review. He has passed over 500 doping tests negatively, kicked the asses of his fellow team mates repeatedly none of which can actually testify that they saw him doping, the USADA has a man with political ambitions at its helm, the Tour de France would like nothing more than to get some money back and rebuke a foreigner as having won the Tour de France more than any Frenchman or European, Nike does whatever is best for Nike, as do all the other sponsors and it is supposed to be surprising that he gives up his own defence when the deck is so obviously stacked against him???

Just what part of all that don't Lance haters get?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

OK boys, then let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove he didn't use dope. It's just as silly as your asking me to prove it I know, but hey.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> OK boys, then let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove he didn't use dope. It's just as silly as your asking me to prove it I know, but hey.


That's easy SINC. In the US, Canada and in most parts of the modern world you don't need to prove innocence, you have to prove guilt, except in the so self righteous court of public opinion.

So your point is moot.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> So lemme review. His fellow team mates have confirmed he doped. The UCI and USADA say the same. The Tour de France want their money back saying the same. Nike has dropped him, as have other sponsors because of doping. And he gives up on his own defence. Just what part of all that don't Lance supporters get? If it walks like a duck . . . well. I'm sure you know the rest.


Then explain why he passed every single drug test he ever took. Are you suggesting that everyone who ever tested him was in on this conspiracy not to smear his reputation?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> OK boys, then let's put the shoe on the other foot. Prove he didn't use dope. It's just as silly as your asking me to prove it I know, but hey.


Yeah, see they don't actually test for individuals who don't use dope. They test for ones who do, and work with the assumption that if their blood does contain banned substances, then they are not doping. Not that they can find at any rate. Am I missing something? Is there a more reliable method than blood testing?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Yeah, see they don't actually test for individuals who don't use dope. They test for ones who do, and work with the assumption that if their blood does contain banned substances, then they are not doping. Not that they can find at any rate. Am I missing something? Is there a more reliable method than blood testing?


Coercion and innuendo seems to be all that is required. 

Still I am curious. Those of you who are willing to convict based not on scientific test but flawed testimony, to whom would you give those titles too? Obviously if LA can fool the tests so can every other upper echelon rider.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

screature said:


> Sorry SINC so without a shred of real evidence you want to convict someone solely based on "testimony"?
> 
> I wonder how many people have been lynched solely on the basis of testimony...?? It is at least in the millions over time.
> 
> With that kind of statement (really surprising coming from an ex-journalist) you join this club/mob.


Isnt our criminal system based on testimony and witnesses? huh?!?
12 peers sit and decided based on testimonies of others ..  am I wrong?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

macintosh doctor said:


> Isnt our criminal system based on testimony and witnesses? huh?!?
> 12 peers sit and decided based on testimonies of others ..  am I wrong?


Yep and using the same methods of persuasion, similar testimony could be compiled against all the top competitors. Having discounted the scientific tests as proof of innocence who gets the titles all those years that Lance won?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Just what part of all that don't Lance haters get?


This part is what I 'get':



> The United States Anti-Doping Agency released vivid details and damaging testimony against Lance Armstrong and his teammates on Wednesday in what is described as one of the most sophisticated and successful doping programs the sport of cycling has ever seen.
> 
> The agency released more than 200 pages that detail the charges and evidence brought against Armstrong and the U.S. Postal Service Pro Cycling Team he led to multiple Tour de France titles. The report includes sworn testimony from 11 of Armstrong’s former teammates.
> 
> ...


'Overwhelming' evidence in Armstrong doping case: USADA | CTV News


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

*One reason he didn't test positive*

What Vaughters called "an outstanding early warning system regarding drug tests." One example came in 2000, when Hincapie found out there were drug testers at the hotel where Armstrong's team was staying. Aware Armstrong had taken testosterone before the race, Hincapie alerted him and Armstrong dropped out of the race to avoid being tested, the report said.
Lance Armstrong Doping: Anti-Doping Agency Says 11 Teammates Testified Against Him In Probe

The supposedly positive test at the 2001 Swiss Tour went away after Armstrong gave the UCI $125000. Seems the UCI was protecting Armstrong.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> This part is what I 'get':
> 
> 
> 
> 'Overwhelming' evidence in Armstrong doping case: USADA | CTV News


"As strong or stronger" sounds like a back-handed compliment. Overwhelming circumstantial evidence still does not outweigh overwhelming blood tests that were negative for doping. Prove the errors in at least some of the blood tests and you may have a case. Otherwise, people should just leave the poor man alone and find a new hobby. Fighting cancer inside your body is a pretty big accomplishment in and of itself. I'll bet there's people who believe he should have fought cancer without using drugs too.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

I just don't like how that the USADA, knowing they have no criminal case and no way to charge Lance, they figure they will just beat him in the world of public opinion. Of corse they will win as people hate cheaters. 

Same goes for accused pedophile, how many people were accused and convicted on witness testimony, then something comes along like DNA testing, and wait they were innocent all along, but yet their lives were ruined, for what being accused. 

I might be wrong, (and I agree I probably am) but until Lance is criminally charged (which he won't be) I will consider him TDF 7-time winner regardless. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

macintosh doctor said:


> *Isnt our criminal system based on testimony and witnesses*? huh?!?
> 12 peers sit and decided based on testimonies of others ..  *am I wrong?*


In part but without corroborating evidence... i.e. hard scientific evidence to back up the testimony it is only so much hearsay. Just like in this case.

Thank god we are past public lynchings but it seems you and SINC among others are still all for them. 

Yes you are wrong in terms of the weight of evidence and also because this was never a criminal investigation so was never subject to the same kind of scrutiny of evidence that would be required in a criminal court. This is and always has been a kangaroo court carried out in the court of public opinion. 

Personally I feel the USADA with it's politically motivated gestapo like head is the 21st century McCarthy.. all filled with his own sense of self importance and "just cause" and is willing to bribe and elicit fake testimony from as many people that he possibly can to get ahead and look like he is the good guy all the while in fact he is more scrupulous than those that he wishes to lay charges against.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

Hopefully some of you will read this excellent piece by Juliet Macur. She knows the history and the riders. Let's put an end to the nonsensical "never failed a drug test" line of reasoning. 
Armstrong’s Wall of Silence Fell Rider by Rider


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

crawford said:


> Hopefully some of you will read this excellent piece by Juliet Macur. She knows the history and the riders. Let's put an end to the nonsensical "never failed a drug test" line of reasoning.
> Armstrong’s Wall of Silence Fell Rider by Rider


You really think this is any different than other "testimonials" and is supposed to be revelational? It is just so much more hearsay.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Hincapie hearsay nonetheless. That and proof of payments to a certain doctor even though the relationship had been severed according to LA himself. 

Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Hincapie hearsay nonetheless. That and proof of payments to a certain doctor even though the relationship had been severed according to LA himself.
> 
> Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.


The plot thickens, sorry make that stiffens, or solidifies is even better. Night LA.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

jimbotelecom said:


> Hincapie hearsay nonetheless. That and proof of payments to a certain doctor even though the relationship had been severed according to LA himself.
> Nudge nudge wink wink say no more.[/QUOTE}
> 
> Proof in USDA eyes only. The doctor denies all allegations made against him made by USDA.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

His troubles continue:

Armstrong appeals to cancer supporters as some donors ask for their money back - CNN.com


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

An Explanation as to how one after another the riders came clean. Probably a matter of time before LA comes clean too in my opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/s...-one-rider-at-a-time.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Just heard this..LA has lost his Tours. I really think LA will have to come clean about his drug use.
Lance Armstrong stripped of 7 Tour de France titles


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Still, all circumstantial. Failing to catch Armstrong with drugs in his bloodstream is the failure of the case.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Still, all circumstantial. Failing to catch Armstrong with drugs in his bloodstream is the failure of the case.


No doubt. Perhaps criminal trials should adopt the same lax standards. Your honour, we the jury find the defendant guilty because we have a pretty strong hunch and we're a little jealous of the guy's accomishments.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Just heard this..LA has lost his Tours. I really think LA will have to come clean about his drug use.
> Lance Armstrong stripped of 7 Tour de France titles


No official winners for those years. A clear admission that the tactics used to declare LA a cheat could be successfully applied to any of the top competitors.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Highlights of the Armstrong report - CNN.com


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Highlights of the Armstrong report - CNN.com


Over a thousand pages. I strongly suspect if the evidence was solid it could be concisely presented. A thousand plus pages indicates a desire to keep people from examining the evidence presented too closely.

Sort of like a government omnibus bill; The longer the bill the more likely that various parts of it are not what they claim to be.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Over a thousand pages. I strongly suspect if the evidence was solid it could be concisely presented. A thousand plus pages indicates a desire to keep people from examining the evidence presented too closely.


So which is it? Not enough evidence, or too much evidence? That the document is too long and is therefore indicative that it should not be read is rather silly. Besides, the version of the report that was released was only 202 pages and can be found here.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

crawford said:


> So which is it? Not enough evidence, or too much evidence? That the document is too long and is therefore indicative that it should not be read is rather silly. Besides, the version of the report that was released was only 202 pages and can be found here.


So they managed to for public consumption. The full report is still over 1000 pages.

It is a reasonable conclusion that a report this long means the authors were trying to cover a flawed approach with a mountain of detail. 

I saw it in the oil industry. Geological studies that led to big finds were usually under 50 pages. Reports trying to justify money spent drilling for dust were often at least a thousand pages long. 

Put simply the value/validity of a report is inversely proportional to its length.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

*And so it begins*

BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong asked to repay $7.5m bonus to insurance firm


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

eMacMan said:


> Put simply the value/validity of a report is inversely proportional to its length.


That's ridiculous. It's the entire case file that is more than 1,000 pages and it includes all of the affidavits, correspondence, rules, exhibits, etc.

What do you propose should be the appropriate length of a report that chronicles and substantiates more than a decade of systematic cheating by one of the leading teams in a professional sport?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

crawford said:


> That's ridiculous. It's the entire case file that is more than 1,000 pages and it includes all of the affidavits, correspondence, rules, exhibits, etc.
> 
> What do you propose should be the appropriate length of a report that chronicles and substantiates more than a decade of systematic cheating by one of the leading teams in a professional sport?


Think about it. When Parliament wants to divert an obscene amount of money to political buddies do they put it out there by itself in a three page bill? No they hide it in an omnibus bill. The bigger the better.

Was OJ Simpson guilty of murder? Almost certainly but the prosecution buried the jury in details to the point that they grasped onto the one thing they could understand. The glove did not fit. Of course had even a single member of the jury ever worked for a living they would have known that keeping the fingers spread wide is not how you put on a glove, and OJ would not have had to go to such extraordinarily stupid lengths to finally land in jail.

The flaw in this report is that the same tactics could be used to convict any rider on the circuit including those that are clean. This became glaringly obvious when the Tour de France chose to leave the titles vacant.

Want to prove LA a cheat. Straight up tests that can be demonstrated accurate regardless of the age of the sample being tested. The claims that LA fell within accepted parameters but is still guilty if you sufficiently massage the testing procedure, is questionable at best.

Did LA 'cheat'? It seems extremely likely. Is the method used to vacate his titles any cleaner? No! Were his toughest competitors cheating as well? Almost certainly. Hence the titles being left vacant.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

crawford said:


> That's ridiculous. It's the entire case file that is more than 1,000 pages and it includes all of the affidavits, correspondence, rules, exhibits, etc.
> 
> What do you propose should be the appropriate length of a report that chronicles and substantiates more than a decade of systematic cheating by one of the leading teams in a professional sport?


It does not matter how long or short the document is; it still does not constitute PROOF. That people are willing to come out now and give their "testimonies" does not outweigh blood tests that were negative for banned substances. 200 pages, 1000 pages…it's still circumstantial evidence, even if there is a preponderance of it. This also sets a new precedent: any athlete that tests clean can be disqualified because someone else came forward with a story. Think about it. Blood tests for doping are now irrelevant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, right. All those dozens of people are lying and it's a giant conspiracy to get LA. Yep I get it now. Odd some cannot fathom it though.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

What would happen if Canada Revenue started to charge people with tax evasion based solely on suspicion or testimony of others when nothing can be found to prove that the filings were anything but in accordance with the tax laws?

Tax laws are constantly subject to change to prevent crafty people from using loopholes to their advantage. 

Some pro athletes will play a similar game because the risk/reward is worth the big payoff. 

There's always been more money/technology supporting winners than there ever will be in detecting losers. 

LA played by the rules of his day, passed the tests he needed to pass and to this date, no hard scientific proof exists that he failed. If there was a weakness in the testing system, then perhaps the testing system failed.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, right. All those dozens of people are lying and it's a giant conspiracy to get LA. Yep I get it now. Odd some cannot fathom it though.


Fame and fortune can be cruel mistresses sometimes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

KC4 said:


> LA played by the rules of his day, passed the tests he needed to pass and to this date, no hard scientific proof exists that he failed. If there was a weakness in the testing system, then perhaps the testing system failed.


So, if he cheated and didn't get caught, that somehow makes it honourable?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

SINC said:


> So, if he cheated and didn't get caught, that somehow makes it honourable?


If one takes advantage of an existing loophole, are they dishonorable?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

KC4 said:


> If one takes advantage of an existing loophole, are they dishonorable?


Your call. I know the my answer when it comes to sports and accusations of drug use.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Here's a laundry list of dopers in cycling. Some big names in there that haven't been banned from the cycling world. 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
I like how most of the penalties seem like a slap in the wrist even for being found in possession of band substances. If a governing body is only going to give 6 month penalties for being caught in possession they they are just as guilty for building the sport the way it was. If lance is going to be stripped of all of his wins and banished from the sport then the USADA should strip the TDF's ability to run the race. They have helped create the worlds greatest doping sport along with the UCI. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Or better yet the 1984 US cycling team which had blood doping scandal against them. The team coach which had directed the doping scandal had one months pay deducted and was demoted. Wow there's a penalty. And the Olympics only discouraged blood doping at the time.

Heck why weren't they stripped from the record books. If lance is dragged down the who sport should. Lance is getting what he deserves from the world but there are way too many double standards and lack of physical charges for him to banshee from the record books and had all his titles removed. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> So, if he cheated and didn't get caught, that somehow makes it honourable?


Nobody said anything about honourable. It's about legal and it's about scientific. It's not about pejorative.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

So using drugs and masking agents that are undetectable is ok?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

I can't say I've read the full report. I went through all the emails and then choice sections.
Scientifically, the tests reveal more than once that there was EPO use in LA's body during Tour races. These tests were performed retroactively and expert opinion was sought out for interpreting data. Based on science and the admission of riders and staff members, LA is as guilty of using EPO and other drugs as all the others. Legally, LA, was able to avoid prosecution.

One very interesting part of the report is an allegation (yes, allegation) that LA tested positive and worked out a deal with cycling's governing body. Indeed there is proof of LA making a substantial donation to the union. Dick Pound has long held the opinion that administrator's were aware of rampant drug use in the sport.

There are a lot of opinion pieces in recent days calling for LA to come clean and admit error.
What is the thinking of all of LA's supporters if he does admit guilt? That he was shamed into lying that he was a cheater? Or that it really doesn't matter because you all condone the use of performance enhancing drugs?

Personally I'm glad this is happening because cycling has a chance to clean up its act.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

LA alters his twitter bio removing Tour wins. I find his move interesting for obvious reasons.

Lance Armstrong removes Tour titles from Twitter bio - World - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Let's see LA is getting a lifetime ban and his name removed from the books. Everyone else gets a slap on the wrist and their status in various races remain unaltered. How is this anything but a witch hunt? 

The only science involved is retroactive, required considerable massaging and may or may not have been impacted by aging of the samples. More specifically the conclusion that LA is guilty was built into the test parameters. 

Sorry but if you want to convince me that the ethics of the guys censuring LAs ethics are at all ethical, then apply the same tests and consequences across the board. As it is, this is like the DA saying to a murderer you can walk cause you helped us get another murderer against whom we have a personal grudge.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm really not sure where I stand on this. The "performance enhancing drugs" are often things (like testosterone or EPO) that are normally produced by the body, and since some of us produce more and some produce less, some of us are "naturally" better athletes. So I'm sort of inclined to say "let anyone take whatever natural substance they want" and see who wins when you level the biochemical playing feild. However, just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it isn't a dangerous drug; take too much testosterone and you turn into a rage-fueled killing machine and also die yourself from any one of dozens of physiological side effects.

I think maybe the best course of action here is to take the money out of it; as usual, it's primarily when there are piles of money at stake that cheating becomes an issue. If Trek or Nike or whoever were not allowed to sponsor athletes, and the prize money was small potatoes, I don't think doping would be much of an issue. Of course, that would also mean that the caliber of competition would decrease, but so what? How would that make it less of a race?


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Synthetic EPO is not available over the counter.

So you have to get it through nefarious means. So if you need a crooked doctor or back alley dealer can you really make the arguement thats its somehow sudo okay?

I'm following this whole thing intently. 

Did anyone catch the CBC Radio 1 interview with that reporter that was imbedded with LA's team? Seems everyone suspected LA was doping but at the height of it he was suing 5 people/organizations and that created a wall that scared off investigative reporters.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Now journalist's are writing LA's apology -
The apology Lance Armstrong should - but will never - give


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> Now journalist's are writing LA's apology -
> The apology Lance Armstrong should - but will never - give


Awesome. Now I wonder, who is going to write the apologies to Lance?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

KC4 said:


> Awesome. Now I wonder, who is going to write the apologies to Lance?


Certainly not his trusted lieutenant for all 7 Tour victories - Hincapie who came clean.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Not that it means much but Miguel Indurain believes Lance is innocent...

http://mobile.news.com.au/news/cycl...te-admits-doping/story-fnejlub9-1226502446396



> "I am a bit surprised. It is a bit strange that this has only been based on testimonies,'' Indurain said on Radio Marca.
> 
> "The rules said one thing and now it seems they have changed.''


Eddie Merckx tested positive 4 times... Never at the Tour de France but really if we are going to bastardize Lance what makes Merckx's victories any better? He could have doped right up to the Tour de France then then went " clean" for the event.

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Dr_AL said:


> Not that it means much but Miguel Indurain believes Lance is innocent...
> 
> Cycling great Miguel Indurain believes Lance Armstrong is innocent | News.com.au
> 
> ...


No denying Merckx's use of amphetamines. Hinault and Lamonde also likely doped. Cycling and nordic skiing are full of dopers for the last 30 to 40 years. Time to clean up and I don't mind if they go all the way back.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> No denying Merckx's use of amphetamines. Hinault and Lamonde also likely doped. Cycling and nordic skiing are full of dopers for the last 30 to 40 years. Time to clean up and I don't mind if they go all the way back.


Or better yet, just allow all the drugs in the world and see what happens, like they did for the All Drug Olympics on Saturday Night Live several years ago, where Phil Hartman was trying to lift a dumbbell and ripped his arms off.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Or better yet, just allow all the drugs in the world and see what happens, like they did for the All Drug Olympics on Saturday Night Live several years ago, where Phil Hartman was trying to lift a dumbbell and ripped his arms off.


I've said as much. Create a full borne drugged up version of sport just to see how hideous things will become and a parallel organic sport.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Anyways this will prove a tempest in a teapot. 

I am sure the first GBAs are already competing in various venues. GBA being of course a Genetically Bred Athlete. If it turns out that an athlete contains LAs DNA and also that of a top female cyclist should that individual be forever banned from cycling?

That however is just the tip of the iceberg. The first GEAs may already be being cooked up in secret labs. Yep Genetically Engineered athletes. Talk about an unfair advantage. Will the super cops soon be testing for Cheetah genes?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I realize that your post was in jest, but it raises a philosophical question that I think really is worth considering.

Why do we admire athletes or care about athletic competitions?

Presumably, at some level this is largely about seeing who has prepared the best and can push themselves hardest to achieve the most that is humanly possible. We want these competitions to be "fair", and "unfair" is generally viewed as taking some short cut (wether literally, by taking a shorter route around a track, or figuratively, by using some technological approach to improving your performance that other competitors are not using).

But the fact is that every human is genetically different, so if we take any two athletes, one of them will have a genetic advantage; one of them will perform better independently of their preparation and personal effort. So no athletic competition is really fair. By taking performance enhancing drugs like EPO, an athlete changes something about their physiology that is inherently variable between people already; so there is no unbiased standard that anyone could be compared against.

Given that what defines the limits of human capacity are always changing, and a big part of what causes that to change is our use of technology (nobody minds that the bikes the TdF riders use today are vastly superior to what riders used a few decades ago), I'm not sure we should be reflexively opposed to using technology to enhance our physiology.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Confirms my view that it would be impossible to name a winner under the new conviction by inquisition system.

Raises the question, since they won't be giving the title to someone else, which fat cat will pocket the prize money should LA and others return it? No reason to think the prize money would be returned.



> (Reuters) - No one will replace Lance Armstrong as winner of the Tour de France from 1999-2005 after the American was stripped of the titles for doping, the International Cycling Union (UCI) said on Friday.
> 
> The decision, supported by Tour organizers, was widely expected given so many riders finishing behind Armstrong have also been associated with doping offences.
> 
> ...


Complete??? story here: No winner for 1999-2005 Tours, says UCI - Yahoo! Sports


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Good post, bryanc. It's kind of like when consumers figured out P2P sharing and undermined the whole CD-purchasing industry. When somebody comes up with a better system that creates a whole new accomplishment, it threatens our whole established order and perception of success. Drugs or not, those athletes still accomplished incredible feats of strength, more than I ever could.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

A nice article explaining how amateurs played a major role in outing LA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/b...ongs-misdeeds-from-the-sidelines.html?hp&_r=0


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

jimbotelecom said:


> I've said as much. Create a full borne drugged up version of sport just to see how hideous things will become and a parallel organic sport.


There are many, many organic drugs, does that count in organic sports?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Former outside magazine editor apologises for getting sucked in by LA -

http://m.theatlantic.com/entertainm...i-enabled-the-cult-of-lance-armstrong/264430/


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Armstrong in withdrawal.
Lance Armstrong cuts formal ties to Livestrong, resigns from board - The Globe and Mail


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Livestrong and Armstrong cut association.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/s...th-his-livestrong-charity.html?src=rechp&_r=0


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Manny Pacquiao says Armstrong is a fink - 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/article...-to-disassociate-himself-with-lance-armstrong


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

You really seem to enjoy piling on when it comes to Lance Armstrong there, Jimbo. If he did take PED's as you say, can you explain how he fooled the hundreds of blood tests he took over the years? If he did do it, I want to know how he got away with it. If he didn't do it, we should stop throwing stones.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> You really seem to enjoy piling on when it comes to Lance Armstrong there, Jimbo. If he did take PED's as you say, can you explain how he fooled the hundreds of blood tests he took over the years? If he did do it, I want to know how he got away with it. If he didn't do it, we should stop throwing stones.


When you have time you might delve into the report. The email section alone speaks volumes. That and the fact that Hincapie has come clean and revealed that Lance cheated says it all. I predict that LA will come clean too. It's a matter of time. 

Will you believe it if LA admits or would you still think he was a non steroid user?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Next up, jimbotelecom reports how squirrels in the park now avoid Lance Armstrong and descending raindrops deflect their trajectories.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Next up, jimbotelecom reports how squirrels in the park now avoid Lance Armstrong and descending raindrops deflect their trajectories.


Easy to do considering the toxicity of LA.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> When you have time you might delve into the report. The email section alone speaks volumes. That and the fact that Hincapie has come clean and revealed that Lance cheated says it all. I predict that LA will come clean too. It's a matter of time.
> 
> Will you believe it if LA admits or would you still think he was a non steroid user?


If he admits, absolutely. Will you believe there's a possibility he's innocent if he doesn't?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> If he admits, absolutely. Will you believe there's a possibility he's innocent if he doesn't?


Yes there is a slim possibility that he didn't dope. Very slim and getting slimmer.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yes there is a slim possibility that he didn't dope. Very slim and getting slimmer.


Well okay then.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

🚲🚲🚲🚲


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> 🚲🚲🚲🚲


Cute. It must really "bike" to be so sure of something but still have no conclusive proof. 

It will be interesting to see how long you continue the anti-Armstrong missiles.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

duplicate.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

As long as the news articles on the topic continue to appear.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Doctor Armstrong no more - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/sports/cycling/armstrong-loses-degree.html


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jimbotelecom said:


> Doctor Armstrong no more - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/sports/cycling/armstrong-loses-degree.html


The university said Wednesday that while its board respected Armstrong’s cancer-fighting efforts, it had concluded that his “actions as an athlete are inconsistent with the values of the university.”

That's rich—I thought that the schools' top priority was to get to be number one by whatever means necessary. Students lie and cheat to get the marks needed to get into university, students plagiarize all the time while they pursue their degrees, only occasionally getting caught, and the people with the highest marks are usually the ones who get the jobs. Doping, if it could actually be proven that that's what took place, would be entirely consistent with these values.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Students lie and cheat to get the marks needed to get into university, students plagiarize all the time while they pursue their degrees, only occasionally getting caught, and the people with the highest marks are usually the ones who get the jobs. Doping, if it could actually be proven that that's what took place, would be entirely consistent with these values.


That line of thinking seems pretty inconsistent with the way you've been arguing the case up until now. You seem very comfortable smearing students (and presumably lazy faculty) with considerably less evidence than what exists for dopers within cycling.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

crawford said:


> That line of thinking seems pretty inconsistent with the way you've been arguing the case up until now. You seem very comfortable smearing students (and presumably lazy faculty) with considerably less evidence than what exists for dopers within cycling.


Wrong again. There is no evidence that exists against Lance Armstrong and doping--only conjecture. As far as evidence of academic cheating, however--there's plenty of that. My point is how we reward those with the highest grades, regardless of how those grades were achieved. Personally, I think anyone who even completes the Tour de France should be given a medal.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Crack investigative CBC programme The Fifth Estate delves into Armstrong and doping. They apparently cover collaboration between LA, the Cycling Union, and sponsors in hiding LA's positive tests. I'll be watching this tonight. The show is entitled "Master of Spin".
Watch Preview - Lance Armstrong: Master of Spin - the fifth estate


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Also worth noting that the the IRS is looking into the relationship between the Livestrong foundation and LA. LA was regularly charging $500,000 for appearances at Livestrong events around the Globe. Forbes is reporting that some fraudulent financial activity may have gone on. All speculation at this point, but this kind of stuff could see LA behind bars.
Is The IRS Investigating Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation? - Forbes


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Here's a pic of LA before losing Radioshack and Nissan :


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Somebody on Lance's team who pleaded guilty didn't protest or show up for his hearing. This leave is previous testimony as evidence where he pleaded guilty but claimed it was an isolated case, and he had no evidence or testimony of an infrastructure of doping on the US Postal team...

Former Armstrong teammate George banned for two years

At this point who cares anymore...


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Quite the thread here. 

This report comments that Lance Armstrong is "considering" admitting having used performance enhancing drugs. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?_r=2&

I did not know that US Postal had a no doping clause in their contract with Lance and team. Consequently the US government is suing Lance Armstrong.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Quite the thread here.
> 
> This report comments that Lance Armstrong is "considering" admitting having used performance enhancing drugs.
> 
> ...


From what I read currently only Floyd Landis is being sued, but Lance could be next. It would surprise me if all cycling contracts had that clause so the sponsors could use the line we don't condone it. Really the sponsors don't care if the team wins and if it promotes their name. They just don't want their name dragged in the mud.

Will be interesting if Lance were to admit to it. I think I would loose more respect for Lance if he did admit.


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

This is going to be interesting.

The speculation is Lance Armstrong will confess to who other than Oprah!

I can see the tears now. The toll that the controversy has taken on the Armstrong family.
How Cheryl Crowe won't return his phone calls, texts or emails.

Armstrong Set to Appear on Oprah Next Week, as New Allegation Surfaces - NYTimes.com


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> This is going to be interesting.
> 
> The speculation is Lance Armstrong will confess to who other than Oprah!
> 
> ...


Hey, it worked for various tele-evangelists ............. so, who knows. Hopefully, it won't be a whitewash. We shall see.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

I wonder if Roger Clemons will be next.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Joker Eh said:


> I wonder if Roger Clemons will be next.


Well, as much as I like Clemens, I would not be voting for him, along with Bonds, et al.

Here is a good article that I agree with totally. 
Steroid cheaters may reach Cooperstown but won't get my vote - MLB - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy Advice


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> This is going to be interesting.
> 
> The speculation is Lance Armstrong will confess to who other than Oprah!
> 
> ...


So what happened to his last comments when he said they would be his last? Right until Oprah and some self promotion come calling. 

I am starting to not trust any sport or athlete no matter what they say.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, as much as I like Clemens, I would not be voting for him, along with Bonds, et al.
> 
> Here is a good article that I agree with totally.
> Steroid cheaters may reach Cooperstown but won't get my vote - MLB - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy Advice


I am in total agreement as well. All fail the integrity, sportsmanship, and character points.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Joker Eh said:


> So what happened to his last comments when he said they would be his last? Right until Oprah and some self promotion come calling.
> 
> I am starting to not trust any sport or athlete no matter what they say.


Loss of sponsorships, legal actions, abandoned relationships, following the revelations. He has no choice but to face the fact he lied for years and he let down millions of people. 

🚴🚵💉💉💉💉🚵🚴💉💉💉💉🚴🚵


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I am interested to find out how he fooled all the hundreds of drug tests, if that is in fact what happened. But I thought Oprah was also finished her show.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> I am interested to find out how he fooled all the hundreds of drug tests, if that is in fact what happened. *But I thought Oprah was also finished her show*.


Her show in terms of airing on normal network. Now she has her OWN (Oprah Winfrey Network) network. She does interviews now called the Next Chapter. Some are actually good but you have to question this one as remember which logo was on Lance jersey and who is in partnership with OWN network.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Can a Race Among Doped Cyclists Be Fair? One Former Armstrong Teammate Says No. - NYTimes.com


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> Well, as much as I like Clemens, I would not be voting for him, along with Bonds, et al.
> 
> Here is a good article that I agree with totally.
> Steroid cheaters may reach Cooperstown but won't get my vote - MLB - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy Advice


:clap::clap:

No players elected to Baseball Hall of Fame by writers - ESPN


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Cue the violins - Lance Armstrong, Performance Enhanced Druggie. The buildup to the show is starting.

Source: Lance Armstrong plans to admit doping to Oprah


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Cue the violins - Lance Armstrong, Performance Enhanced Druggie. The buildup to the show is starting.
> 
> Source: Lance Armstrong plans to admit doping to Oprah


Stories that start with, unnamed sources say or 


> a person with knowledge of the situation said


 really carry a lot of weight of credibility with me.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

screature said:


> Stories that start with, unnamed sources say or
> really carry a lot of weight of credibility with me.


Stay tuned.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

We're so sorry - Lance Armstrong.

Prepare yourselves everyone...Here comes a flood of tears.


Source: Armstrong apologizes to Livestrong staff - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

They say he didn't admit to doping though in his address to the Livestrong staff. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Dr_AL said:


> They say he didn't admit to doping though in his address to the Livestrong staff.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone


It's a matter of days before Lance Armstrong admits he is a loud mouth schnook.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> It's a matter of days before Lance Armstrong admits he is a loud mouth schnook.


When are you going to admit to who you are?


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Skippythebushkangaroo just wants lance to burn in hell, and then drive over him a few times with a bus. 

This whole story is getting a bit boring in my mind. I don't care what lance did or didn't do at this point just move on. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> When are you going to admit to who you are?


jimbotelecom anyone? He was truly obsessed with Armstrong and his guilt.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr_AL said:


> Skippythebushkangaroo just wants lance to burn in hell, and then drive over him a few times with a bus.
> 
> This whole story is getting a bit boring in my mind.* I don't care what lance did or didn't do at this point *just move on.
> 
> ...


Personally I do care what Lance Armstrong did. Doped or not he did what he did while doping was rampant in the sport and did what no one has done before. They can take his titles away from him... in the end I don't care as this whole debate is so convoluted as to be simply ridiculous...

Known "cheaters" in one sport get a slap on the wrist while others have their lives ruined... even though they displayed great compassion and raised millions of dollars for a great cause...

Lance had the misfortune of being an American and American's love nothing better than to see a good "scandal". 

If Lance was from Europe it would be all hush, hush... shhh... because Euro's take care of their own... FIFA anyone?

Lance may have lied (do clinical tests lie?)... I still have trouble with the "postmortem" evidence/analysis as it it still seems like a witch hunt to me I have to say.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Armstrong gets emotional in Oprah interview, source says - CNN.com

"Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone."


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Armstrong gets emotional in Oprah interview, source says - CNN.com
> *
> "Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone."*


Indeed Marc... indeed.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> You really seem to enjoy piling on when it comes to Lance Armstrong there, Jimbo. If he did take PED's as you say, can you explain how he fooled the hundreds of blood tests he took over the years? If he did do it, I want to know how he got away with it. If he didn't do it, we should stop throwing stones.


Mister Foreman, I'd like to change my vote to guilty.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lance Armstrong is guilty all right... guilty of living large, riding fast, dating Sheryl Crow, and... OK, maybe gulping 'roids like candy.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

screature said:


> Indeed Marc... indeed.


Well, once he starts to cry, and Oprah hugs him, all will be forgiven. Now, as for the lawsuits, that's another matter. We shall see.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Public takes its shots at Armstrong after reported admission to Oprah - CNN.com


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> Public takes its shots at Armstrong after reported admission to Oprah - CNN.com


Vox populi ............. but then again, with Oprah's hug all will be forgiven.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Oprah Winfrey says Lance Armstrong admits drug use

Now the s**ts really going to hit the fan...

Opps sorry SINC I missed your link to a different story on the same thing.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Looks like redemption to me. 

In a three-hour interview for which Armstrong showed up with 10 friends and handlers, he reportedly didn't tell Oprah more than he needed to say. According to those in the room, who spoke with various media outlets after the interview had concluded, Armstrong admitted to doping.

But he claimed he wasn't the ringleader of the most widespread organized and sophisticated network of cheaters the world of cycling has ever known. Armstrong claimed he was just a member of the team, doing what all his other teammates were doing.

So, now he will claim that he was just a follower, duped into lying and taking these drugs. Next, he will be quoting Mother Teresa and Gandhi, going to India to help the poor learn how to ride a bike. We shall see.

“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway. 
If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.
If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway. 
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.” 
― Mother Teresa 

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” Gandhi


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think he should be named to President Obama's not-yet-established Council on Doping in Competitive Sports--with a handsome salary, I might add.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I think he should be named to President Obama's not-yet-established Council on Doping in Competitive Sports--with a handsome salary, I might add.


No way. He will be spending his time riding with/for God. He will go from the Vince Lombardi vision of sport -- "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing", to one of spiritual inner reflection. To paraphrase an old Yiddish saying --

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a race track. I will meet you there, and together we shall ride with/for God."

Bon voyage, Lance. Hopefully, your 15 minutes of fame are now up.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

screature said:


> When are you going to admit to who you are?



Joop Zoetemelk gets his revenge!

Long live Joop.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> jimbotelecom anyone? He was truly obsessed with Armstrong and his guilt.


It was obvious a few minutes after the new ID signed on.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Joop Zoetemelk gets his revenge!
> 
> Long live Joop.


Strange you would think that considering he was a doper long before doping was all the rage in cycling...

Joop Zoetemelk



> Doping
> 
> *Zoetemelk was caught in drugs tests during the Tour de France in 1977 and 1979. He also tested positive in 1983.* At the time, blood doping was not considered a huge deal in road cycling and he mostly escaped punishment. He was not implicated during his Tour win in 1980.[


It seems you choose your heros very indiscriminately when it comes to doping.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Doping touched Merckx too. The sport has been very sick many decades. 

Joop finished 2nd in the tour how many times? Great cyclist but a doper. 

Glad it's time for a clean up.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Doping touched Merckx too. The sport has been very sick many decades.
> 
> Joop finished 2nd in the tour how many times? Great cyclist but a doper.
> 
> Glad it's time for a clean up.


He won once and came in 2nd (the first loser) 6 times. And yet you say he got his revenge and long live Joop? Just how and why exactly when he was a doper? Just wondering what the requirements are for accolades in your world.

Just curious, have you ever raced and if so for how long?


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Geez, the man is pathetic: Hiding his "confession" behind Oprah. Wonder how much she paid him for that?


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

rgray said:


> Geez, the man is pathetic: Hiding his "confession" behind Oprah. Wonder how much she paid him for that?


His previous winnings so be can pay them back...

Yes I'm happy the sport is cleaning up, but I still want the USADA, UCI, & Retired dopers to work together to figure out new tests, better rules, and clean up the sport.

I'm more concerned by the links from dopers to the UCI. If the UCI wasn't doing its part, hiding tests, & taking "donations" then that's a huge issue in my mind.

The athletes might be duchebags but the organization running it might as well be the mafia if they are willing to hide tests and take money. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

rgray said:


> Geez, the man is pathetic: Hiding his "confession" behind Oprah. Wonder how much she paid him for that?


Not near enough to cover his ass, from the lawsuits about to land on his head.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dr_AL said:


> His previous winnings so be can pay them back...
> 
> Yes I'm happy the sport is cleaning up, but I still want the USADA, UCI, & Retired dopers to work together to figure out new tests, better rules, and clean up the sport.
> 
> ...


Exactly... FIFA anyone...?

Like I said before if Lance was a Euro this would be "much ado about nothing". 

The Euro's couldn't stand for a non-Euro to have the title and the record for wins for so long...

He *HAD* to be dethroned and the head of the USADA, Travis Tygart, was only more than happy to oblige considering his political aspirations.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

screature said:


> He won once and came in 2nd (the first loser) 6 times. And yet you say he got his revenge and long live Joop? Just how and why exactly when he was a doper? Just wondering what the requirements are for accolades in your world.
> 
> Just curious, have you ever raced and if so for how long?


Joop was a great competitor. He respected Merckx in the 70's and allowed Eddie to win. Then came Hinault. Joop was relegated to 2nd place finishes. But then look at the rest of his record. Armstrong focused only on the tour and avoided the rest. Joop probably doped as much as everyone else. He had an alcoholic wife. Quite a story there. I think Joop was the greatest cyclist of all time for a long time. But he was a doper. 

I agree with you that as an American he was a target. But Lance's own brand of cycling chauvinism did him in. He didn't race Paris-Roubaix for example and he pissed off the tradition. 

Yes I raced but only mountain bikes in the 80's. No road racing - although I love it.

Accolades should be reserved for organic athletes who are few and far between.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Oh oh. Lance Armstrong selling off his household goods :


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

And from The New Yorker -

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/01/what-lance-armstrong-did.html


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Oh oh. Lance Armstrong selling off his household goods :
> 
> View attachment 26187


damn kids, now they're burning everything in the house including the rug.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Just because we are getting a different answer this time doesn't mean it is the truth. It is just the answer people want.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Joker Eh said:


> Just because we are getting a different answer this time doesn't mean it is the truth. It is just the answer people want.


And a mix of the two as well. From here on in it's all recollections and perspectives. Some truth is better than no truth for the sake of sports.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> And a mix of the two as well. From here on in it's all recollections and perspectives. Some truth is better than no truth for the sake of sports.


What some truth? You assume there is truth, which part? The part you want to be true? 

If you can't believe anything that comes out of a person’s mouth than none of it is true it’s all what you want to hear.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> And from The New Yorker -
> 
> What Lance Armstrong Did : The New Yorker


Why now? From the comments section: the statute of limitations for perjury is 7 years (Armstrong testified under oath in 2005 that he had not doped.) Now that makes sense.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *Why now?* From the comments section: the statute of limitations for perjury is 7 years (Armstrong testified under oath in 2005 that he had not doped.) Now that makes sense.


Why at all? I mean he has been lying all this time so why not just keep it going? I can't see how he stands to gain anything at all by confessing... now or ever.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Why now? From the comments section: the statute of limitations for perjury is 7 years (Armstrong testified under oath in 2005 that he had not doped.) Now that makes sense.


In Texas it is only three years. So, he is off the hook there.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Why at all? I mean he has been lying all this time so why not just keep it going? I can't see how he stands to gain anything at all by confessing... now or ever.


See, that's the thing about human beings. Nobody really wants to lie. Even when we know are lying we find ways to twist it and rationalize in our brains so we can tell ourselves we are not technically lying. "I didn't have sex with that woman." Weapons of mass destruction. There is no fiscal cliff. Yes, I was listening to what you said. My, that's a lovely haircut. Sometimes truth can be too much, or we don't want to face it. I'll bet LA has been carrying this guilt for a long time and really wanted to get it off his chest and get on with life, but he also didn't want to go to jail for lying under oath. So he waited the full seven years and now he can say a great many things. I just want to know HOW de did it. That's a book that would sell, and maybe that's what he's saving the details for.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> See, that's the thing about human beings. *Nobody really wants to lie. *Even when we know are lying we find ways to twist it and rationalize in our brains so we can tell ourselves we are not technically lying. "I didn't have sex with that woman." Weapons of mass destruction. There is no fiscal cliff. Yes, I was listening to what you said. My, that's a lovely haircut. Sometimes truth can be too much, or we don't want to face it. I'll bet LA has been carrying this guilt for a long time and really wanted to get it off his chest and get on with life, but he also didn't want to go to jail for lying under oath. So he waited the full seven years and now he can say a great many things. I just want to know HOW de did it. That's a book that would sell, and maybe that's what he's saving the details for.


While I know where you are coming from for the average individual, some people relish in lying. "Putting one over on someone" gives them a sense of power, I have met a number of individuals like this. Then of course there is the pathological liar where it takes over rational judgment and progresses into the fantasy world and back.

Most of us lie as a means of defending or protecting ourselves from unwanted/undesirable repercussions for what we actually did, "Who broke that dish?!!" "It wasn't me!" to avoid punishment. But some people lie to gain an advantage over someone.

I doubt that LA has any guilt over what he did as he was simply doing what needed to be done to beat the other "cheaters". He was being pragmatic. He may have some guilty feelings because of his lies but who knows.

Just because the statute of limitations of lying under oath is over does not provide enough reason (IMO) for him to confess now as there are are going to be significant financial repercussions for doing so, it is far from over and I doubt there is much sense of relief on his part so that argument doesn't sit as being right with me either. He could have taken his lies to the grave all the while professing his innocence.

I think there is much, much more as to why he confessed at all than we will most likely ever know.

As for a book written by him selling all that much I rather doubt it as there are so many LA haters out there... a book written by someone else telling the "whole truth and nothing but the truth" I could see selling very well... Perhaps that is where it is going, he is going to sell the rights to someone to write the tell all book.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Talk about kicking someone when they are down ............. You would think that he did the "high crimes" that were done by Jim Thorpe when he dared to earn $50 playing semi-pro baseball. 

(CNN) -- Not only is disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong no longer officially a Tour de France winner -- he's no longer an Olympic medalist either.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

For Sale: Liestrong Bracelet (Yellow).


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Luke, I am your father. And I have fibbed.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

^At least a few people are getting their jollies from this. 

I am just sad. 

My one and only sporting superhero has revealed himself to be just another unsporting stupid human.

I know the LIVESTRONG organization is about way more than one man, but somehow I cannot (yet?) put the bracelet back on that I have worn since they first came out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A friend I have known for 25 years and an avid runner who wore a yellow bracelet that was a fixture for years, yesterday borrowed my pocket knife, cut it in two and tossed it in the garbage can at the pub. He's a non drinker and co-owner of the pub. It was done in front of a group of regulars. Message received and clearly understood.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

In the immortal words of that horrible Kansas song: "The dream never dies, just the dreamer".


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Say what you want, but even with performance enhancing drugs, there's no way you or I could have completed that grueling race, let alone come in first place. The use of drugs that boost the oxygenation level of the blood was common among many if not all of the racers, so call it an adaptation for the sport if you wish. I think most people have a disproportionately negative reaction to the word "drug" and the word "cheat" when you know darn well you're probably taking some kind of drug right now (morning coffee, anyone?) and you've probably cheated to gain an advantage at some point in your life (no officer, I didn't have anything to drink tonight). Money that you donated to Livestrong still went to a good cause. You just need to take a reality check when it comes to your supposed heroes---they're only human too. I admire anyone who completes the course, with drugs or not. I know I'd need painkillers at the very least.


----------



## partsguy (Jul 24, 2012)

KC4 said:


> ^At least a few people are getting their jollies from this.
> 
> I am just sad.
> 
> ...


One of the reasons I've never indulged in hero worship, or felt the need to publicly identify myself as a supporter of any specific cause via wrist bands. I prefer admiring people who accomplish much, but don't require public acknowledgement and adoration.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

partsguy said:


> One of the reasons I've never indulged in hero worship, or felt the need to publicly identify myself as a supporter of any specific cause via wrist bands. I prefer admiring people who accomplish much, but don't require public acknowledgement and adoration.


Even a sinner can do good deeds.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Even a sinner can do good deeds.


Thanks a heap. 

There goes my game plan, all shot to Hell. tptptptp


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

My personal view remains unchanged. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> My personal view remains unchanged.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone


Mine, too, funnily enough. I mean, the guy's a jock, right? I just _assume_ there's a lot of cheating going on in sports with the huge pressures put on people to win win win at all costs. It's really about who can fool the tests the best. To think anything less is naive. Athletes are strong, specialized, and trained well, but they are not meant to be the moral beacons of society. We shouldn't build them up to be more than they are. For the sake of comparison, here's something my friend wrote earlier today.

"What if CNN reporters learn that Lennon/McCartney and Jagger/Richards were using banned/illegal potentially performance enhancing substances while composing/recording and performing music which earned them hundreds of millions of dollars?

Can you imagine Keith on Oprah, with his current day pickled cackle? Paul with his big eyes pleading with the camera? Mick with his wide grin? 

Let's put their chairs in a circle, tell them they are in a safe place, get the confessions going,and let the healing begin! ...Oh, wait a minute, they already "confessed" in countless interviews and books. 

Ah ha ha! Poor sad sack sports figures caught using performance enhancers have it a lot rougher than those in the performing arts, fine arts and literary worlds."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This pretty much says it all:

Curtains for Lance and Oprah | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> This pretty much says it all:
> 
> Curtains for Lance and Oprah | Full Comment | National Post


Harsh, but I guess Rex calls 'em as he sees 'em. To be honest, I was getting bored after the fifth question at the beginning of the interview (the yes/no section); the 2 minute highlights on Oprah.com are plenty. Certainly not riveting television. Which begs the question, is it all really that big a deal? Are there bigger fish to fry? I mean, the guy's exposed himself as a fraud, a rep he'll have to live with, though I predict if he writes a book, it'll sell millions. If OJ could sell a book, I imagine so can Lance, though the thrill factor has definitely subsided.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

I think the Armstrong scandal has legs and a life. For example, how long will we have to wait for Cheryl Crow to come out and say whenever she wanted to have some fun, Lance resorted to Viagra. 

From his former bike mechanic to his former masseuse and everyone in between, Lance has been a nasty piece of work. 

Schadenfreude.


My larger concern is the competitive cycling community. Lance had millions of dedicated followers within it. Many were attracted to cycling by Lance. What do they think?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> My larger concern is the competitive cycling community. Lance had millions of dedicated followers within it. Many were attracted to cycling by Lance. What do they think?


Hmmm. Let me think about that...

I know--who gives a crap what they think! Are they going to fold like cheap suits now? Let them switch to soccer or jogging if this upsets them too much.


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> My larger concern is the competitive cycling community. Lance had millions of dedicated followers within it. Many were attracted to cycling by Lance. What do they think?


A number of high end team sponsors have dropped support, or publicly raised concerns in regards to sponsorship for competitive cycling in the past year and it will probably continue.

I think this is where the UCI needs to dig deep and find some real answers to move forward to help the sport and bring back credibility to it and quickly.




Sent from my iPhone


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> I think this is where the UCI needs to dig deep and find some real answers to move forward to help the sport and bring back credibility to it and quickly.


UCI only wants to bring credibility to non-European competitors.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

And so the saga continues . . .

Lance Armstrong books moved to fiction section in Australian library - NY Daily News


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Canadian cheat weighs in...
Lance Armstrong will be forgiven, Ben Johnson says | Other Sports | Sports | Toronto Sun


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Canadian cheat weighs in...
> Lance Armstrong will be forgiven, Ben Johnson says | Other Sports | Sports | Toronto Sun


Hey man, I didn't take no stereo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Why, Ben?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Winning.

Now we need a resident psychiatrist, to moderate a thread on that word alone.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Lance graffitti -


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That kind of thing is all over the web now, like this one for example:


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

SINC said:


> That kind of thing is all over the web now, like this one for example:


Nice one. I like the speed element to it.

Here's another -


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I spewed coffee when I saw this one:


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

I get dizzy looking at this -


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Like this one too -


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

I find the hypocrisy overwhelming. People sure love their scapegoats. Not Lance's hypocrisy, but the rest if the sporting world and its fans. We demand to see performance, we demand the greatest achievements in human endurance and strength imaginable and we expect to see our athletes win T all costs. When it is revealed that some of those wins involved performance-enhancing drugs, we must shun the winner, even if all the other competitors are doing the same thing. It's like that between Psalm Sunday, when JC was top of the charts, til the crucifixion five days later. Scapegoats. Human sacrifice. In many ways we're no different as a species than we've ever been. We love to tear down our heroes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I find the hypocrisy overwhelming. People sure love their scapegoats. Not Lance's hypocrisy, but the rest if the sporting world and its fans. We demand to see performance, we demand the greatest achievements in human endurance and strength imaginable and we expect to see our athletes win T all costs. When it is revealed that some of those wins involved performance-enhancing drugs, we must shun the winner, even if all the other competitors are doing the same thing. It's like that between Psalm Sunday, when JC was top of the charts, til the crucifixion five days later. Scapegoats. Human sacrifice. In many ways we're no different as a species than we've ever been. We love to tear down our heroes.


When all the other competitors are revealed to be druggies, they are also shunned.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Brennan: Spin cycle - Armstrong, doping and the lies he told


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> When all the other competitors are revealed to be druggies, they are also shunned.


Won't be necessary. You only need one scapegoat according to General ad Specific Scapegoat Theory. Only one virgin needs to be thrown into the volcano at each annual appease-the-gods event. beejacon


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> When all the other competitors are revealed to be druggies, they are also shunned.


Given that Tour de France could not produce a drug free candidate to benefit from Lance's lost titles, I would say the reveal is complete.


----------



## milhaus (Jun 1, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> I find the hypocrisy overwhelming. People sure love their scapegoats. Not Lance's hypocrisy, but the rest if the sporting world and its fans. We demand to see performance, we demand the greatest achievements in human endurance and strength imaginable and we expect to see our athletes win T all costs. When it is revealed that some of those wins involved performance-enhancing drugs, we must shun the winner, even if all the other competitors are doing the same thing. It's like that between Psalm Sunday, when JC was top of the charts, til the crucifixion five days later. Scapegoats. Human sacrifice. In many ways we're no different as a species than we've ever been. We love to tear down our heroes.


I think you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

milhaus said:


> I think you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy.


Nope, that's the word I'm looking for. This whole "drug-free" concept is just silly. Everyone uses drugs, including you. Everything from your morning coffee to your headache relief, from cigarettes to crystal meth to cough syrup to synthetic hormones. I get a real sense of judgement about Lance from the comments here and in the press about how he should be ashamed because he used performance enhancing drugs. It's hypocritical because we admire another athlete that we don't know whether or not they're using performance enhancers. Drugs or not, the man still accomplished something incredible that I won't achieve in this lifetime. It's too bad that we put so much emphasis on winning at all costs and we look the other way when people cheat, because we just want to see that first place standing. Personally, I feel anyone who can even complete the Tour de France has my respect, regardless of how they did it. But as long as we have arbitrary guides as to what drugs are allowed or not, or in what amounts, this sport will never be completely "clean." So because we say we want one thing but we really want another, we are indeed hypocrites.

It's the age of the modern anti-hero; the heros are not always heroic and the villains aren't always totally bad.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Current tour holder not amused by Sir Lancelot -
Cycling: Bradley Wiggins: Lance Armstrong is a 'lying bastard' - Others - More Sports - The Independent


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Current tour holder not amused by Sir Lancelot -
> Cycling: Bradley Wiggins: Lance Armstrong is a 'lying bastard' - Others - More Sports - The Independent


Wiggins has always gone on the offensive and had verbal attacks when accused of doping... Deja vu...

Hopefully the next rider to test positive has the book thrown at him as well, I just want consistent penalties. Maybe if everybody gets lifetime band I'll start racing. Granted I would die on stage 2. 


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## smashedbanana (Sep 23, 2006)

Lance Armstrong is pure evil.

Not because he doped, because of the lives he destroyed.

Look at the many press conferences he held attacking reporters and other riders.
... at the lawsuits he filed against anyone who dared speculate he doped.
... at how he brutalized Greg Lemond
... at the attack on the innocents (wives of riders, he masseuse)

And he is still lying. The USADA has tainted urine from 2009/2010. It's in the report. He is lying because it falls into the statute of limitations.

When he went on Opera he was accompanied by 12 people (2 lawyers, a PR person, his agent among others).

Not a role model by any standard of conduct! No matter what the playing field is...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Nope, that's the word I'm looking for. This whole "drug-free" concept is just silly. Everyone uses drugs, including you. Everything from your morning coffee to your headache relief, from cigarettes to crystal meth to cough syrup to synthetic hormones. I get a real sense of judgement about Lance from the comments here and in the press about how he should be ashamed because he used performance enhancing drugs. It's hypocritical because we admire another athlete that we don't know whether or not they're using performance enhancers. Drugs or not, the man still accomplished something incredible that I won't achieve in this lifetime. It's too bad that we put so much emphasis on winning at all costs and we look the other way when people cheat, because we just want to see that first place standing. Personally, I feel anyone who can even complete the Tour de France has my respect, regardless of how they did it. But as long as we have arbitrary guides as to what drugs are allowed or not, or in what amounts, this sport will never be completely "clean." So because we say we want one thing but we really want another, we are indeed hypocrites.
> 
> It's the age of the modern anti-hero; the heros are not always heroic and the villains aren't always totally bad.


milihaus is correct.

If we admire any athlete because we think they competed fairly, we are not hypocrites when we abandon admiration for those who are proven to be liars. This is a consistent stance without hypocrisy.

Likewise, if we admire athletes who do well, we are not instructing them to "win at all costs." 

If I take a pain killer or insulin, the fact that I am taking "drugs" does not in any way equate to someone who takes drugs in such a way that it violates the pre-ordained rules of the competition in which they compete.

If you happen to be a self-admitted hypocrite regarding sports figures, wear the crown proudly. The rest of us are simply not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

smashedbanana said:


> Lance Armstrong is pure evil.


Particularly in the way he dragged others down. You are right.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Particularly in the way he dragged others down. You are right.


That's right. Black or white. Hero or villain. Never somewhere in between. You have myopia, my friend.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Lance will be cleaning up cycling - 


http://www.cbc.ca/sports/cycling/story/2013/01/25/sp-cycling-lance-armstrong-clean-up-sports.html


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> That's right. Black or white. Hero or villain.
> 
> Never somewhere in between.
> 
> You have myopia, my friend.


You mean the $500M he raised for Cancer research?

That just gets in the way of his castigation, even with only one ball left.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iMouse said:


> You mean the $500M he raised for Cancer research?
> 
> That just gets in the way of his castigation, even with only one ball left.


At least he had the ball(s) to do something positive with his fame. People, especially Americans, can be so obtuse about their heroes. It would be impossible, for example, to believe that a criminal could do a good thing that helps someone else. As far as cleaning up the sport? Who better than LA to know all the dirty little secrets and expose them? Why waste all that useful insider knowledge?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> At least he had the ball(s) to do something positive with his fame. People, especially Americans, can be so obtuse about their heroes. It would be impossible, for example, to believe that a criminal could do a good thing that helps someone else. As far as cleaning up the sport? Who better than LA to know all the dirty little secrets and expose them? Why waste all that useful insider knowledge?


Only after he makes restitution for the suffering he caused others, by dragging their names through the mud.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Only after he makes restitution for the suffering he caused others, by dragging their names through the mud.


And what if some of those requiring restitution are already dirty themselves from having cheated likewise?


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I guess everything is tainted now, even the purportedly true revelations about his sport-mates.

If he waits 'till he does his "AA" penance, by the time he is finished everyone will have lost interest.

And that could be a serious problem for the 'sport'.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> And what if some of those requiring restitution are already dirty themselves from having cheated likewise?


They will, in turn, need to make their own restitutions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

iMouse said:


> You mean the $500M he raised for Cancer research?
> 
> That just gets in the way of his castigation, even with only one ball left.


It's like saying that someone who cheated at the craps table in Las Vegas or robbed a house did a good thing by giving his stolen swag to charity.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's like saying that someone who cheated at the craps table in Las Vegas or robbed a house did a good thing by giving his stolen swag to charity.


Not sure how stealing from crooks equates to LA.....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

iMouse said:


> I guess everything is tainted now, even the purportedly true revelations about his sport-mates.
> 
> If he waits 'till he does his "AA" penance, by the time he is finished everyone will have lost interest.
> 
> And that could be a serious problem for the 'sport'.


I lost interest about five minutes into the Oprah interview.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I lost interest about five minutes into the Oprah interview.


I didn't watch!


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Here's last night's "60 Minutes" segment on Lance Armsrong. It includes accusations of Mafia, and UCI involvement in the doping scheme. Also questions of U.S. political pressure pressuring the Department of Justice to drop the investigation into Lance's doping. Did someone say conspiracy? In the words of Sarah Palin "you betcha".

Is Lance Armstrong still lying? - 60 Minutes - CBS News


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

More baseball players being linked to performance enhancing drugs. Some already known, but a couple more. Of corse they are denying any use...
Report: A-Rod linked to clinic alleged to deal in PEDs
Maybe they will be next on Oprah.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr_AL said:


> More baseball players being linked to performance enhancing drugs. Some already known, but a couple more. Of corse they are denying any use...
> Report: A-Rod linked to clinic alleged to deal in PEDs
> Maybe they will be next on Oprah.


Somehow Pete comes out of all of this smelling more and more like a Rose.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

I think the NHL is tainted with steroid use too. There are several known cases like John Kordic.

Take Alex Ovechkin for example. When a known "Doctor" (Dr. Anthony Galea) was fingered hanging around the Washington Capitals in 2010 the team did a quick denial and the doctor disappeared. Ever since that point Ovechkin's stats have really taken a beating. He's turned into a mortal hockey player.

No proof of course but some odd coincidences follow the outing.


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Danish cyclist Michael Rasmussen admits to 12 years of doping | Sport | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

Moving to Australia now... No real details released to the public, but surprise surprise doping...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=7935642&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Deluded or what? The man is clearly troubled.
Really, Lance? Why Armstrong shouldn't compare himself to Bill Clinton - The Globe and Mail


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Deluded or what? The man is clearly troubled.
> Really, Lance? Why Armstrong shouldn't compare himself to Bill Clinton - The Globe and Mail


The difference of course is that Clinton is a Professional Liar. I mean politicians are not allowed to participate in lying contests because they have an unfair advantage.

Armstrong's supporters did have a reasonable expectation of honesty and he betrayed that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Deluded or what? The man is clearly troubled.
> Really, Lance? Why Armstrong shouldn't compare himself to Bill Clinton - The Globe and Mail


What a ridiculous column. She complains about Armstrong not letting us forget and writes an article to tell us about it, seems she is the one who does want to let us forget. Just plain stupid. I guess she was right out of ideas to write about this in the first place. Totally lame.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Truth.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

:lmao: :clap:


----------



## Dr_AL (Apr 29, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Truth.
> 
> View attachment 26740


Saw that today too. Made me laugh...


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't know what that's doing near a photo of Willy Nelson, but that quote was already shared on March 17th.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Why don't we all just accept that if someone is successful as a pro athlete, he is doping.


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

I think Rob showed be treated the same way.. looked at what he achieved while on drugs too LOL


----------

