'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Fr D Maugire

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I dont think you have the information to make that judgement.

You know all about Lance Armstrong.

But you cant tell me that what he was doing wasnt going on in twenty other teams.........that Ullrich or Pantani or Virenque or Riis or their team managers didnt put huge pressure on cyclists to dope. How would you know? You dont....

Well straight up, we can tell you that wasn't going on in the French teams so that knocks about 4-5 teams from your every other team list. I do agree with your point that Armstrong was not the only athlete cheating the clean guys, other's done that as well so he is not to be solely blamed for that.

Even if everyone were doping. There is no such thing as a level playing field. I posted before about the money Armstrong was making in comparison to his rivals, who do you think was able to buy the best doping program?? Money talks.

What we also know as fact is that Armstrong made donations to the body who was responsible for dope testing, the UCI. The amount he donated was probably more than 80% of pro cyclists were getting paid annually. We have never heard of any other athletes making such donations.

To say everyone was 'doing it' is just a line thrown out there by those who don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

Unfortunately we will never know if someone like David Moncoutie would have been able to beat Arsmtrong without his doping.

happytramp

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

ok Mr Pedantic, in that case you'd be better off saying he might be an incomparable bollix but he might not....

And by the way........you are right I dont know, but I'd be very very very surprised if he was the only team leader who ever put huge pressure on his team mates to dope......

Ever get that feeling when you are writing something that is so obvious that you dont know why you need to write it.....well I just got that.

Funny. I had the exact same feeling about reading it. Lets just leave it at that shall we.

Tombo2001

happytramp wrote: »

Funny. I had the exact same feeling about reading it. Lets just leave it at that shall we.

Thats fine.

My point is simply this.

Is it an Armstrong issue or is it a cycling issue.

I think its a cycling issue.

gordongekko

Can someone explain to me how Armstrong went to postal as number 1 rider and hired and fired at will during 98 and 99. His race form in 98 was poor so i just can't figure out how he become their top rider in such a short time space

happytramp

No

gordongekko wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how Armstrong went to postal as number 1 rider and hired and fired at will during 98 and 99. His race form in 98 was poor so i just can't figure out how he become their top rider in such a short time space

Small American outfit, with ex world champ on their team. He had quite a reputation as well. Might have been a pure 'force of personality' thing too.

marienbad

No

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Thats fine.

My point is simply this.

Is it an Armstrong issue or is it a cycling issue.

I think its a cycling issue.

why can't it be both ?

elduggo

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Well straight up, we can tell you that wasn't going on in the French teams so that knocks about 4-5 teams from your every other team list.

how about Cofidis?

TheBlaaMan

No

gordongekko wrote: »

Can someone explain to me how Armstrong went to postal as number 1 rider and hired and fired at will during 98 and 99. His race form in 98 was poor so i just can't figure out how he become their top rider in such a short time space

Look up Thom Weisel if you want to get some history on the subject of Armstrong and his post-cancer return to the sport. A perfect storm in some ways........right place, right time.

Start here - from a 2005 article http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full/

wonderfullife

No

This might belong more in the conspiracy theory forum but you would really have to question 2 things retrospectively:

1. why did the Attorney General drop the federal investigation? I mean, the wealth of evidence USADA had was mostly available to the Feds - they took sworn testimony from Hamilton, Landis et al

2. Why have the US government not yet joined the Landis suit? Surely they should have been on top of that about 10 seconds into the Oprah interview.

It might be a stretch, it may not, but Lance is/was so tight in with so many people - what other cyclists have George Bushs mobile number - high up in the political system, it makes you wonder what calls were being made to who to make this go away. Strange one. Marion Jones coulda done with being best buddies with Clinton, coulda had some leverage

dub_skav

No

I always assumed that the reason the federal case was dropped was that they had a very specific goal / remit. Namely to see if federal money was used directly to buy performance enhancing drugs.
I'd imagine they had plenty of evidence that he cheated, but no specific evidence of using federal money for nefarious activities.

I could be talking completely out of my helment on that one though.

Fr D Maugire

No

elduggo wrote: »

how about Cofidis?

I always forget Cofidis, duh. However if David Millar is to be believed, there was no insane pressure to dope to just make the Tour team like at Postal. Millar made the Tour team before he was doping and again if Moncoutie was clean as suggested, he also rode the Tour without being forced to dope. Slightly different mentality than seemed to prevail at Postal.

Cienciano

No

velo.2010 wrote: »

That 'interview' with Lance is a wind-up surely, isn't it? I mean someone hacked into Cyclingnews' website and posted that 'interview' there?

Shameful that a supposedly respected and popular website would give Armstrong his opportunity to begin his redemption by asking such half-arsed questions.

Worth it just so he could describe Pat McQuaid as pathetic. All the support the mcquaid family gave lance, and were giving up until recently was sickening. Darach constantly ripping into David Walsh (and making a fool of himself) on twitter.

petethedrummer

No

dub_skav wrote: »

I always assumed that the reason the federal case was dropped was that they had a very specific goal / remit. Namely to see if federal money was used directly to buy performance enhancing drugs.
I'd imagine they had plenty of evidence that he cheated, but no specific evidence of using federal money for nefarious activities.

I could be talking completely out of my helment on that one though.

I don't think there was ever a proper explanation as to why it was closed. All the investigators thought they had a rock solid case and were on the verge of charging.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal

Fr D Maugire

No

Even though the Rasmussen confession is not very big in details(he is constrained at the moment because of the ongoing case being run by the Danish authorities) It is more akin to the kind of confession we wanted from Lance.

Admitting to all the doping, admitting to cheating others and not trying to blame anyone else and accepting his punishment as well as working with the anti-doping authorities. I am sure at a future date, Rasmussen will talk about having to become part of the doping culture but as an initial confession, it has more substance and gravitas than anything Armstrong put forward.

Cienciano

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

I don't think there was ever a proper explanation as to why it was closed. All the investigators thought they had a rock solid case and were on the verge of charging.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/concerns-over-closure-of-federal-investigation-into-armstrong-and-us-postal

My money is on political pressure. Armstrong apparently tried absolutely everything to get USADA investigation shut down.

dave2pvd

No

Cienciano wrote: »

Worth it just so he could describe Pat McQuaid as pathetic. All the support the mcquaid family gave lance, and were giving up until recently was sickening. Darach constantly ripping into David Walsh (and making a fool of himself) on twitter.

I thought the Armstrong 'dissing' of McQuaid/UCI was surprising. Surely there are many stories to be told from both sides about what went on back in the era of 'donations'.

Up until the Oprah interview, Armstrong and the UCI remained quite PC in their commentary towards each other. Perhaps Armstrong thinks that due to self-incrimination, the UCI will never take the nuclear option and spill the beans?

I'm thinking Armstrong wants to disclose more. If so, Pat and Hein are sh1tting themselves.

My opinion about the Armstrong CN interview: he came across far better than he did on Oprah's 'couch'. He will always be a selfish, narcissistic SOB. However, he made statements about TRC needing to be quite a comprehensive process. That would not be a Lance reputation/ego-enhancing exercise in the least. For a moment there, he almost came across as someone who actually cares about his former sport. Did he truly manage to step outside of his narcissistic bubble for a few minutes?

Beasty

No

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I don't think it was even a real interview. Just a list of questions that were e-mailed to Armstrong and he could respond any way he wanted knowing there was no follow-up on any of them. Easy for him to control the message.

Not real journalism at all. All about getting the hits on the website without any real investigative work.

It was mentioned on BBC 5 Live yesterday that the interview was conducted by text!

wonderfullife

No

dave2pvd wrote: »

I thought the Armstrong 'dissing' of McQuaid/UCI was surprising. Surely there are many stories to be told from both sides about what went on back in the era of 'donations'.

Up until the Oprah interview, Armstrong and the UCI remained quite PC in their commentary towards each other. Perhaps Armstrong thinks that due to self-incrimination, the UCI will never take the nuclear option and spill the beans?

I'm thinking Armstrong wants to disclose more. If so, Pat and Hein are sh1tting themselves.

My opinion about the Armstrong CN interview: he came across far better than he did on Oprah's 'couch'. He will always be a selfish, narcissistic SOB. However, he made statements about TRC needing to be quite a comprehensive process. That would not be a Lance reputation/ego-enhancing exercise in the least. For a moment there, he almost came across as someone who actually cares about his former sport. Did he truly manage to step outside of his narcissistic bubble for a few minutes?

Ummm.... NO?

He doesn't care about the sport whatsoever. He might care about triathlon as he wants to compete in that, but when his triathlon days are over he won't care about that either. He's a ruthless competitor all he cares about is winning at any and all costs. Being a winner not a competitor.

If he cares about cycling he would have:

a) Come clean to USADA under oath last year
b) Come clean to USADA now under oath
c) Issue a meaninful public apology to the people he ruined in cycling. Not the half-assed smirky smarmy sorry Walsh received on Oprah.

He doesn't 'care' about cycling. What he cares about is limiting the damage to his self-interest. A TRC with full amnesty from prosecution means he can get rid of every skeleton in the closet in one swoop and be done with it with no further repercussions. No further lawsuits, no further loss of income and, perhaps, if WADA/USADA have any involvement in a TRC, get the ban down to 8 years.

Do you really believe Lance gives a rats ass about the state of the sport? He couldn't give 2 flying f's about anybody other than himself.

Him turning the focus on the culture of doping is a nonsense. Even if the entire peloton was crooked and bent as fcuk, he still stands above all them with his ruthless bullying and intimidation and ruining of careers. For all the faults Ullrich, Basso etc may have, im pretty sure they didn't file hundreds of lawsuits, slander anybody who challenged them and ruin peoples lives in the manner LA did. So, no, it's not about the doping culture in general Lance and you are being singled out because of the lot of them you were the biggest and the worst, as a competitor and human being, in cheating your way to the top.

dave2pvd

No

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ummm.... NO?

He doesn't care about the sport whatsoever. He might care about triathlon as he wants to compete in that, but when his triathlon days are over he won't care about that either. He's a ruthless competitor all he cares about is winning at any and all costs. Being a winner not a competitor.

If he cares about cycling he would have:

a) Come clean to USADA under oath last year
b) Come clean to USADA now under oath
c) Issue a meaninful public apology to the people he ruined in cycling. Not the half-assed smirky smarmy sorry Walsh received on Oprah.

He doesn't 'care' about cycling. What he cares about is limiting the damage to his self-interest. A TRC with full amnesty from prosecution means he can get rid of every skeleton in the closet in one swoop and be done with it with no further repercussions. No further lawsuits, no further loss of income and, perhaps, if WADA/USADA have any involvement in a TRC, get the ban down to 8 years.

Do you really believe Lance gives a rats ass about the state of the sport? He couldn't give 2 flying f's about anybody other than himself.

Him turning the focus on the culture of doping is a nonsense. Even if the entire peloton was crooked and bent as fcuk, he still stands above all them with his ruthless bullying and intimidation and ruining of careers. For all the faults Ullrich, Basso etc may have, im pretty sure they didn't file hundreds of lawsuits, slander anybody who challenged them and ruin peoples lives in the manner LA did. So, no, it's not about the doping culture in general Lance and you are being singled out because of the lot of them you were the biggest and the worst, as a competitor and human being, in cheating your way to the top.

I acknowledge your strong sense of outrage. However, I suspect you have me confused with someone else.

Defending the guy, I was not. Any of my previous contributions will confirm this.

TheBlaaMan

No

...' not a fan then, eh?

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ummm.... NO?

He doesn't care about the sport whatsoever. He might care about triathlon as he wants to compete in that, but when his triathlon days are over he won't care about that either. He's a ruthless competitor all he cares about is winning at any and all costs. Being a winner not a competitor.

If he cares about cycling he would have:

a) Come clean to USADA under oath last year
b) Come clean to USADA now under oath
c) Issue a meaninful public apology to the people he ruined in cycling. Not the half-assed smirky smarmy sorry Walsh received on Oprah.

He doesn't 'care' about cycling. What he cares about is limiting the damage to his self-interest. A TRC with full amnesty from prosecution means he can get rid of every skeleton in the closet in one swoop and be done with it with no further repercussions. No further lawsuits, no further loss of income and, perhaps, if WADA/USADA have any involvement in a TRC, get the ban down to 8 years.

Do you really believe Lance gives a rats ass about the state of the sport? He couldn't give 2 flying f's about anybody other than himself.

Him turning the focus on the culture of doping is a nonsense. Even if the entire peloton was crooked and bent as fcuk, he still stands above all them with his ruthless bullying and intimidation and ruining of careers. For all the faults Ullrich, Basso etc may have, im pretty sure they didn't file hundreds of lawsuits, slander anybody who challenged them and ruin peoples lives in the manner LA did. So, no, it's not about the doping culture in general Lance and you are being singled out because of the lot of them you were the biggest and the worst, as a competitor and human being, in cheating your way to the top.

TheBlaaMan

No

Now formally suspended by Blanco while investigations continue to his links to Fuentes

CramCycle

Yes, but he's still great

Beasty wrote: »

It was mentioned on BBC 5 Live yesterday that the interview was conducted by text!

Journalistic integrity at its finest.

RobFowl

No

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

Now formally suspended by Blanco while investigations continue to his links to Fuentes

And we thought the Irish justice system was dragging it's heels over Anglo :rolleyes:

IM0

No

buffalo wrote: »

New interview: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-exclusive-interview

He's an advocate of the TRC.

thats actually really good, and relatively accurate picture of Pro cycling I think, truth hurts though. something like the top 5 riders from the TDF one year were all proved to be doping at a later date, its rampant in Pro cycling and like he says other endurance sports, athletes want an edge doping/performance enhancing drugs give them this as lots know. sports such as football, tennis winter sports cross country ect.

Armstrong might come to be known as a whistleblower in a decade or decades, either way though he should be sued left right and centre and/or go to prison as he is being, afterall he acquired the money through fraud essentially [anyway Ill park that one] ...

he should be financially castrated, but like he says so should a big number of others. he is being made a scapegoat out of in ways, this guy is a massive symbol in the world*, he rose to incredible false heights, but the higher you go the harder the fall.


*source needed cause I use to be big into cycling so Im biast like that, but his work on cancer ect seems to have done a lot of good work, a hero in manys eyes a symbol for hope and better things even when you consider all the performancing drugs/measures he done it was still a big and noteworthy achievement, performance enchancing drugs dont get you in to cycling well they can but chances are you wont be long around or reach the highs anywhere close to where this guy got to. you will probably be fishing around in the lower ranks of peleton fodder.

Lumen

IM0 wrote: »

Armstrong might come to be known as a whistleblower in a decade or decades

You can't be a whistleblower if you get caught.

IM0

No

Lumen wrote: »

You can't be a whistleblower if you get caught.

course you can, you have nothing left to lose so you take everyone down around you or in his case try to route out the corruption in sport and set a more level playing field. look at millar for example, he was caught doping he told us he was going to be clean and discourage doping.,and again he was a whistleblower. Armstrong wont hang the people who were involved in his conspiracy [team boss' and anyone else directly or indirectly related who know allowed or santioned it.] but he is giving alot of clue to where you can start looking and what tree to bark up.

mcgratheoin

No

IM0 wrote: »

look at millar for example, he was caught doping he told us he was going to be clean and discourage doping.,and again he was a whistleblower.

OK, I respect Millar's volte face and current anti doping stance, but your assertion that he was a whistleblower is complete rubbish. He didn't hang anyone out to dry or name all the names and there's no way he handed over all the information he had to the authorities. To be fair to him, there's no way he'd have been accepted back into the peleton if he hadn't stuck to the omerta but all he really did was apologise for his own behaviour and spout a load of rhetoric about cleaning the sport up.

good review of his book here
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/6/17/2228568/Racing-Through-The-Dark

Capt'n Midnight

No

IM0 wrote: »

course you can, you have nothing left to lose so you take everyone down around you

Supergrass / Turning state's evidence


Basically shafting others for their own benefit.

So no change there.

crumliniano

No

This article was tweeted by a few cycling twitter accounts yesterday. It's not specifically about cycling (though it does mention Lance in passing) but it looks at PED use in professional sports (mostly American) in general and the hypocrisy of the media and fans in general in turning a blind eye.

It's a great read, though a long one. I wasn't sure which thread to post this in as there are a few active at the moment on doping related topics. By posting it here I am in no way suggesting that we should go easy on Lance or any of the other cheats just because all sports are at it. It's an interesting wider view, that's all.

Enjoy. http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8904906/daring-ask-ped-question

full_irish

No

Two citizens of the USA (where else?) are looking to get their money spent on buying Lance Armstrong autobiographies refunded through the courts.

Buyers of Lance Armstrong's books to get a refund?

Taking the absolute piss at this stage. I'm completely anti-lance and he should be rightly vilified but looking for the money back from buying the book!?

In short, 2 whiny yanks (with too much time on their hands) crying about one more drugged up cheating yank. The result, one annoyed Irish person.