'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

furiousox

No

There's another book to come from Armstrong, that's for sure.

Jawgap

Her interview from Matt Cooper's show

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/The_Last_Word_with_Matt_Cooper/17001/0/emma_oreilly

Germancarfan

furiousox wrote: »

There's another book to come from Armstrong, that's for sure.

I fear you might be right

petethedrummer

No

Germancarfan wrote: »

He's going for a psychological benefit IMO. With the foreword he's saying " she's better than me for doing what she did , therefore I've been a bad man , therefore i'm acknowledging I've done wrong , therefore please rest assured i'm not evil anymore " - beginning of a crawl back to a positive public eye ?

He's rumoured to be vying for "Nasty" Nick Bateman's part in this year's Christmas panto.

RobFowl

No

furiousox wrote: »

There's another book to come from Armstrong, that's for sure.

Only after he goes bankrupt to clear all debt from the lawsuits.

Russman

No

SWL wrote: »

Having Armstrong contribute to the book ,yes I think see did,I think it was a bad move, its turning into a pantomime and I think Emma lacks some creditability as a result, if Betsy Andreu had done it I would say the same

Sold out to what though ?
What was she supposed to do, hold a grudge for ever more ? I don't think it matters one way or another, but if it helps her get some form of closure, I've no issue with it tbh.

Jawgap

Stephen Roche among former Tour winners who say Lance Armstrong’s wins should still count

Stephen Roche is among a group of former Tour de France winners who have questioned erasing Lance Armstrong’s seven wins in the race from the official records, according to a report in the Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf.

It attempted to ask 23 former winners of the race if they felt it was right to erase Armstrong’s wins, which he was officially stripped of when USADA concluded he was at the centre of a major doping ring and had groomed others to cheat.

In subsequent interviews, the American has admitted he used drugs during all of his Tour victories, starting in 1998, including EPO and human growth hormone.

De Telegraaf carries the responses of some of the riders who replied, with some saying while Armstrong’s doping was not good, history could not be changed by taking a name from a list of winners.

There's a certain logic to it, but I can't say I agree.

Russman

No

Its a tricky one, I can see his point about Virenque keeping his jerseys and other riders from the distant past, so there is a sort of logic there. But still....hmmm, lots of contradictions, it'd still be farcical in the extreme if he was reinstated. Yes, LA was a vindictive so and so, and was different to other dopers in that respect, but is being a d1ck enough reason to be treated differently ?

Then again, those 7 tours without a winner are IMO kind of being used by the current generation as a year zero moment in time, and everything since then is fine because cycling has changed. I'm not convinced it has and if reinstating LA removes that watershed type moment, then I'd be ok with that too.

laraghrider

Jawgap wrote: »

There's a certain logic to it, but I can't say I agree.

What's interesting in the article is this quote from Roche:

“Doping has been part of sport, not only for cycling, for decades. Who tells me Jacques Anquetil won clean. Should we take his victories away? Or why does Richard Virenque gets to keep his polka dot jerseys?”

Jacques Anquetil won the tour during the 60's so the quote states that Roche knows doping was going on back then. Rough Ride came out in 1990 and we all know the implications made against Roche. The response from Roche in the Indo was to say that he had never ever heard of doping and and now idea what it even was.

So for Stephen Roche to be beating the drum for the doping brigade I find very hard to swallow.

death1234567

No

Jawgap wrote: »

Stephen Roche among former Tour winners who say Lance Armstrong’s wins should still count



There's a certain logic to it, but I can't say I agree.

There certainly is, Roche standing up for a fellow doper.

aloyisious

No

Read through it, I suppose he could have his name re-instated on the lists with the rider, in brackets, of proven and self-admitted guilt of his cheating his way to the titles, so that those on the way up should learn the lessen that cheating destroy's. Otherwise all's fair in the race.

pelevin

Getting caught for breaking the doping rules means you're kicked out of the race and obviously face further sanctions in terms of a ban. Don't see much potency in the argument for re-awarding someone his titles when he broke the rules that meant they were never legitimate wins first day. "Eh . . .we'll forget about the rules, they didn't really matter, and whatever people were pumping into their veins, sure all's fair in love and professional sport." Would just make a a total joke of the competition & its rules & supposed codes of conduct.

And regardless of the endlessly tedious arguments about so many others doping, how farcical would pro-cycling, the UCI & the TdF look if they did re-award Armstrong those wins. That would really send out a great signal of cycling's credibility and commitment to ethical standards and clean racing.

TObh more so than the riders who gave their views on the matter, it's the relevant media asking the question that I find more annoying. It's no surprise cyclists from within that environment lack distance & so may give answers I for one would disagree with; but it's the sensationalist sh..-stirring of the relevant journalists that leads to those inevitable responses. Can't they just move on from f....g Armstrong dominating headlines yet again, & in this case creating a divisive story out of nothing.

Statler

McQuaid says Armstrong was the victim of a witch hunt......

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/pat-mcquaid-softens-view-on-lance-armstrong-now-says-he-was-victim-of-witch-hunt/

Leroy42

^^^This is exactly why McQuaid HAD to go. Imagine finding out that someone had basically made a laughing stock of the sport that you had spent your whole life working for. They had caused it massive reputantial damage and pretty much had a direct impact on you losing your job.

Yet, all he wants to say is that maybe LA isn't so bad after all. The guy is such a idi)Y that he thinks that it a good line to say that LA wasn't the biggest doper ever, sure look at Festina...you were involved in the UCI at the time and your ex boss had responsility.

And then he states that what he said about LA not having a place in cycling, well that was just emotional! So we had some emotional wreck of a nutj9b as the president of the UCI who now attempts to claim that even at a press conference that he calls he can't control himself!

Good grief

And I don't see anywhere in the article that McQuaid try to claim that LA didn't dope, so whether it was a witchhunt or not is surely academic as in the end we got the right man. He should be happy that the man whio tried to steal the sport has been caught!

not sane

It wasn't just Roche another 11 tour winners also had the same view. And to be honest I think I agree with him. He is right about the other riders keeping their victories. What about the classics are you going to start taking them of the Muesseuw etc. And if you go all the way back even Merckx has a cloud over him on the doping front.

So is it fair that Armstrong is getting the brunt of the backlash against doping?

Capt'n Midnight

No

not sane wrote: »

So is it fair that Armstrong is getting the brunt of the backlash against doping?

If Armstrong had only doped himself then he'd be lumped in with the others.

But as you well know he caused damage to a lot of other people and that is why he has to remain a pariah

ThisRegard

No

WTF is going on with the rehabilitation of Armstrong ? No wonder people keep electing the same moron politicians over and over thinking they'll somehow be different this time around.

dastardly00

No

Lance Armstrong gives evidence to Cycling Independent Reform Commission

Lance Armstrong met with the Cycling Independent Reform Commission in May, and was “asked about everything,” according to a report from the AP news agency. His attorney Elliot Peters said that Armstrong had asked him to arrange the May 22 meeting, which lasted seven hours. Peters called it a “very good meeting,” and added that “They asked him about everything ... If you made a list of all the questions people would want to ask about Lance and his activities in cycling and everything else, those were the questions that were asked and answered.”

LennoxR

No

Pro cycling can fup off from the point of view of this consumer if they gave Armstrong his titles back. Fortunately they won't. Roche, sad to say, must have a lot to hide.

If anything they should take more titles off people once it's proven they were doping.

Russman

No

LennoxR wrote: »

Pro cycling can fup off from the point of view of this consumer if they gave Armstrong his titles back. Fortunately they won't. Roche, sad to say, must have a lot to hide.

If anything they should take more titles off people once it's proven they were doping.

I agree with the sentiment, but how far back do you go ? What does the world of cycling do if there'd be, I dunno, maybe the last 50/60 years (or whatever it is), with no official winners of the major races ?

Or just go back to the start of the EPO generation ? But why stop there ? Are we upset at the notion of cheating, or the performance boost from certain types of cheating ?

LennoxR

No

Russman wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment, but how far back do you go ? What does the world of cycling do if there'd be, I dunno, maybe the last 50/60 years (or whatever it is), with no official winners of the major races ?

Or just go back to the start of the EPO generation ? But why stop there ? Are we upset at the notion of cheating, or the performance boost from certain types of cheating ?

The more radical the punishment the better. It's the only way to clean up the sport. If there is proof that someone doped, strip them of their titles.

Tombo2001

Russman wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment, but how far back do you go ? What does the world of cycling do if there'd be, I dunno, maybe the last 50/60 years (or whatever it is), with no official winners of the major races ?

Or just go back to the start of the EPO generation ? But why stop there ? Are we upset at the notion of cheating, or the performance boost from certain types of cheating ?

Thats precisely the point that I think Roche is making.

By just singling out Armstrong, you are making it look like an Armstrong problem.

Thats what Emma O'Reilly was kind of saying last week also, that her bigger problem was more with the authorities that allowed this to happen, than with Armstrong personally.

The reality is that the whole history of the sport going back to the 1920s should be wiped out, to be consistent with what has happened to Armstrong.

not sane

So is it one rule for Armstrong and a different one for the rest of the dopers? By the way I was never a fan of Armstrong. Isn't it a bit true that he is the only one being singled out with this kind of punishment?

Leroy42

But LA has been proven to have been doping, the others in most cases there is only a feeling. There is a difference between the authorities proving you have cheated and you climing you did.

Maradona's Hand of God gola for example. He fully accepts he handled it but it was missed by the ref at the time so they can't undo the result. The rules in cycling say that they can amend the result if the dope tests prove positive.

Has Roche ever been proven to have doped? What about the others (I don't mean having tested positive at any time, but actually during the race itself)?

So it is right the LA has the titles taken off him as it has been shown, and then accepted by LA, that he cheated.

RobFowl

No

not sane wrote: »

So is it one rule for Armstrong and a different one for the rest of the dopers? By the way I was never a fan of Armstrong. Isn't it a bit true that he is the only one being singled out with this kind of punishment?

He was singled out but the duration of his ban was largely due to his non co-operation.
If he'd co-operated would have got between 2 and 8 years.

pelevin

not sane wrote: »

So is it one rule for Armstrong and a different one for the rest of the dopers? By the way I was never a fan of Armstrong. Isn't it a bit true that he is the only one being singled out with this kind of punishment?

Floyd Landis 'won' the TdF, was caught for doping, his career basically ended. If Armstrong was caught at the time rather than later, his career path could have been very similar. And you could argue that he was singled out in terms of not being treated the same as the likes of Landis when his failed drug test during his first TdF 'win' wasn't acted upon the way it should have been. Instead it was brushed under the carpet.
Similarly Michael Rasmussen was caught for doping & thrown out. Don't know how Armstrong being treated as a victim makes much/any sense. If he was treated properly by the authorities, his first TdF win wouldn't have happened & he'd probably be at best by now a minor footnote the same as riders like Rasmussen.

RobFowl

No

pelevin wrote: »

Floyd Landis 'won' the TdF, was caught for doping, his career basically ended. If Armstrong was caught at the time rather than later, his career path could have been very similar. And you could argue that he was singled out in terms of not being treated the same as the likes of Landis when his failed drug test during his first TdF 'win' wasn't acted upon the way it should have been. Instead it was brushed under the carpet.
Similarly Michael Rasmussen was caught for doping & thrown out. Don't know how Armstrong being treated as a victim makes much/any sense. If he was treated properly by the authorities, his first TdF win wouldn't have happened & he'd probably be at best by now a minor footnote the same as riders like Rasmussen.

Some are treated more harshly than others. Landis/Rasmussen had careers effectively ended. Contador/Valverde/Scarponi allowed back with hardly an eye turned.

UCDVet

not sane wrote: »

It wasn't just Roche another 11 tour winners also had the same view. And to be honest I think I agree with him. He is right about the other riders keeping their victories. What about the classics are you going to start taking them of the Muesseuw etc. And if you go all the way back even Merckx has a cloud over him on the doping front.

So is it fair that Armstrong is getting the brunt of the backlash against doping?

Just me 0.02 here but...

When I first learned that Lance doped, I shrugged my shoulders. So what? Everyone was doing it. He did it too, and he won. He's not any less of a champ. Everyone did it, he came out on top. No reason to think that, if everyone was clean, he wouldn't still be on top.

What I didn't know about was the great lengths he went through to DESTROY people's lives who got in his way. He sued people for MILLIONS of dollars, lying under oath, and EVEN WINNING the lawsuits. People who were compelled/forced to testify, under oath (IE lying would be a crime) who admitted they'd seen Lance use drugs, found themselves blacklisted by him. Teams wouldn't touch them any more, and Lance would go in front of the press and lie, saying how jealous everyone was of him and how he never failed a test.

Doping? Meh, I don't care much either way. But Lance Armstrong is a heartless bastard. No doubt about that.

Ole Rodrigo

No

^ LA represents American competitive sports (and corporate ) culture. He is a product of both with qualities that are common in each area. Qualities that, it must be said, are not generally rewarded in Irish or European culture.

Demonising him outside that context doesn't seem right, even though what he did was reprehensible. But the culture to win at all costs is sort of reprehensible yet we enjoy it in our growing economies and on our sports screens, until it arbitrarily does something we don't like, and then we turn on it.

In some ways its childish to demonise him for being an arsehole. And you can't really demonise him for cheating either, with a straight face, when so many others where at it and crucially so many of those came to his defence at some point. Why should someone else's cheating be more palatable than his ? Because they are mild mannered, polite and charming ? That doesn't add up.

Maybe only way this makes any sort of sense is money. When money is threatened, like mass pulling of sponsorship, whatever it takes to stop that will happen. And if it seems to be good business - directly or indirectly - to give him back his jerseys at some point that will probably happen too.

letape

No

RobFowl wrote: »

Some are treated more harshly than others. Landis/Rasmussen had careers effectively ended. Contador/Valverde/Scarponi allowed back with hardly an eye turned.

And all the others - Virenque, Basso, Millar, Vinokourov even Fignon (RIP).. Incredible really how these riders are not only respected like they are but they even feature as commentators and analysts every July.