'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Kev M

Inquitus wrote: »

They do it in your sport (possibly the most reprehensible in existence) so its cool for everyone to do it?

Oh god.. no, I was giving partial background to reasons behind me perhaps straying from the 'He cheated, he's a doper, he's a despicable human' reaction. Again, in a perfect world, there would be no PEDs.

Kev M

Hermy wrote: »

That's not sport - it's chemistry!

I agree.

Beasty

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I imagine many people are going through the same denial phase they went through when the big kids at school told them ***** wasn't real

Spoiler tags, please!!!

Tombo2001

Kev M wrote: »

Well now 'don't care' might be a bit strong, I'd rather not see PEDs in sport, however I just don't think that they negate Lance's greatness, all things considered.

Well thats the debatable thing really.......but is it even a debate worth happening.

Can one argue that Lance is one of the greatest cyclists of all time?

Possibly one can. Still.

I dont really care myself if he is recognised as such.

But it does raise the issue: if one is to say that Lance Armstrongs achievements lack any credit whatsover, then by extension should one be saying the same for every other 'Great Cyclist' that has doped (whether proven or 'generally accepted').

And if one does say that, then pro cycling's recent history is all but erased....

And maybe it should be.

robs1

petethedrummer wrote: »

robs1 wrote: »

they took drugs just like he

Nobody said they were great guys and there aren't a bunch of loonies still in denial that those guys doped. Their impact on the sport was less than Armstrongs, so you have to expect less of an interest in their fates. Also they fully complied with the body in charge of Anti-doping in the USA.

“With the exception of Mr. Armstrong, every other U. S. rider contacted by USADA regarding doping in cycling agreed to meet with USADA and to truthfully and fully describe their involvement in doping and all doping by others of which they were aware. Mr. Armstrong was likewise contacted through his legal counsel and given the opportunity to meet with USADA to fully and truthfully disclose all knowledge of anti-doping rule violations committed in the sport of cycling. However, Mr. Armstrong declined USADA’s offer.”
http://timewellness.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/armstrongcharging0613.pdf


Do you need it explained to you again?

complied maybe.i would say they struck a deal for themselves. yes you are right that he had a higher profile so of course it will be talked about more but so far i have seen no one has come asking questions about them.

Monty Burnz

No

petethedrummer wrote: »

complied maybe.i would say they struck a deal for themselves. yes you are right that he had a higher profile so of course it will be talked about more but so far i have seen no one has come asking questions about them.

Because they have admitted guilt, while the number 1 cheat hasn't, perhaps? The guy that many of them towed to victory...

petethedrummer

No

robs1 wrote: »

complied maybe.i would say they struck a deal for themselves. yes you are right that he had a higher profile so of course it will be talked about more but so far i have seen no one has come asking questions about them.

They all admitted their wrong doing. Vaughters has been not so subtly tweeting his guilt for months now, he just recently wrote an article admitting it. Hamilton admitted it on American TV a year ago. Flandis admitted it years ago and was the instigator of all this. Hincapie is (maybe was) a close friend of Armstrong's so is probably going to maintain his silence. Leipheimer seems also to be in the Armstrong inner circle so will probably do the same.

None of them is being a massive hypocrite. None of them challenged the WADA sanctioned independent body (USADA) in the courts. They doped, they owned up, they received bans. What questions are there?

robs1

Monty Burnz wrote: »

petethedrummer wrote: »

complied maybe.i would say they struck a deal for themselves. yes you are right that he had a higher profile so of course it will be talked about more but so far i have seen no one has come asking questions about them.

Because they have admitted guilt, while the number 1 cheat hasn't, perhaps? The guy that many of them towed to victory...

they havant been banned ,stripped of titles or prize money.
lads im not defending Armstrong i was just trying to say that all the other cheats are getting away fairly easily. if there was this much effort made for all cyclists taking drugs then the sport would be in a much better place.

wpd

No

examples of some of the cycling media knowing which side their bread is buttered on when it comes to Armstong.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/liggett-on-armstrong-the-whole-investigation-was-a-waste-of-money

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/commentary-armstrong-the-martyr-changes-the-conversation-by-refusing-arbitration_235712

and what Walsh said about Armstrongs bully affect on journalists
In 2004 I was meant to travel in a car that had an American writer, a British writer and an Australian writer and I had travelled with them many times. I first travelled with the English journalist back in 1984, if memory serves me. They didn’t want me in the car because Armstrong’s team had made it known to them that they wouldn’t get a lot of cooperation if I was in the car. And rather than stand by journalism they chose to do what was expedient but that’s what people did. Pretty much every English speaking journalist on the Tour in those early Armstrong years was in one way or another trying to defend Armstrong.

I love cycling as a sport but i am sick of pro cycling and the lies we are fed

Reekwind

No

robs1 wrote: »

they havant been banned ,stripped of titles or prize money

Landis was stripped of his Tour win; Hamilton lost his Olympics gold; Vaughters had retired years before admitting anything

If Armstrong had gone to court and lost then there's a good chance, via the stature of limitations, that he would have only lost 1-2 Tours. The complete sweep is because he has refused to even enter into arbitration. And that is his choice to try to preserve what remains of his reputation: better to forfeit them all and claim innocence than keep five and be inescapably branded a cheat

petethedrummer

No

robs1 wrote: »

they havant been banned ,stripped of titles or prize money.
lads im not defending Armstrong i was just trying to say that all the other cheats are getting away fairly easily. if there was this much effort made for all cyclists taking drugs then the sport would be in a much better place.

If Armstrong had dealt with USADA then he may have received a much reduced sanction, but he didn't. Would he have got the same leniency?? we do not know because he refused to recognise the WADA endorsed independent USADA.

He chose to engage in legal obstruction and now a "witch-hunt" PR campaign rather than enter an independent legal process.

Edit: Reekwind's answer is better than mine.

Russman

No

Totally Rambling post alert, please forgive me

Surely there's different degrees or types of cheating, or are we condemning all "cheats" ? Is doping different to other forms of cheating ? If it is, then why is it ? Health issues ?

Is the issue with LA his cheating (ie doping) per se or the fact that he intimidated & bullied anyone who questioned him etc etc, whereas other dopers took their bans and kept the omerta ?

Of course cheating is wrong but its an intersting subject when you think about it, where do you draw the line with "acceptable cheating" ? As someone mentioned earlier there's different standards in different sports, look at soccer where its practically a must to cheat to try to gain advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending LA for a second, I think the book should be thrown at him, but the more I think about it, I don't really know why I think that. Probably because of the way he treated others.

There was a really interesting programme on RTE a few weeks back before the Olympics about doping etc and it really gave food for thought IMO about doping and the reasons for it and where the line should be drawn. They were looking at stuff like sleeping in an oxygen tent and if that should be banned because not all competitors have access to that, or if food supplements should be banned for the same reason that not everyone could afford or was in a position to buy them.

Ahhh f--k it, on balance I think scrub his name from the record books and award the titles to the highest placed rider with no question marks over them. If nothing else it sends out the message that you can dope now and get away with it but you still might get caught and have your titles taken away in the future.

Apologies again for a bit of an incoherent ramble !

GT_TDI_150

No

This tread is getting sickening now, some take LA at face value and still believe the "most tested, never positive, to tired to continue fighting" stance he has taken and others believe the thruth is out and by LA not contesting the charges he finally 'confirmed' as much. We're never going to agree!

Im on the 'he defo doped' side and find it odd to see people condone it coz they were all at it. Surely we all want the same thing, a clean sport, not the appearance of clean but actually clean.

I say, sanction, ban, remove titles from anyone caught. Dont hand the title down to the next in line,leave all those races without winners as a reminder of the drug fuelled days.

Here's to a clean cycling world.

ozzy jr

No

Russman wrote: »

Surely there's different degrees or types of cheating, or are we condemning all "cheats" ? Is doping different to other forms of cheating ?

Cheating is cheating. It doesn't matter if you're diving for a penalty or doping up to the eye balls. You're doing your best to gain an unfair advantage over your opposition. It's not entering into the spirit of the game.

There was a really interesting programme on RTE a few weeks back before the Olympics about doping etc and it really gave food for thought IMO about doping and the reasons for it and where the line should be drawn. They were looking at stuff like sleeping in an oxygen tent and if that should be banned because not all competitors have access to that, or if food supplements should be banned for the same reason that not everyone could afford or was in a position to buy them.

Where do you draw the line? Some athletes don't have access to a 50m swimming pool, a proper track, decent running shoes etc. There's always going to be some with better facilities then others. It's not cheating though.

Hermy

No

Raam wrote: »

At the time of posting, five people have voted that they think he didn't dope. Are they for real?

That figures is now 12.

alfalad

No

Kev M wrote: »

Not necessarily buy it, but choose to support you anyway regardless of it!

Nobody knows the intricacies of what the top riders at the time (Lance's peak) were doing... apart from they were all doing whatever they could (inside and outside the rules) to compete and win. Sports scientists, physios, doctors, training programming, wind tunnels, equipment, nutrition, supplements, drugs etc. all falls under the same banner to me and many others - performance enhancement... but of course, some are allowed and others aren't. Morality, legality, it's a loaded topic and you can go round in circles all day and people will still disagree.

Lance is still the greatest ever in my view, even though I believe he used everything under the sun to enhance his performance. I feel sorry for the very honest few who might have had a chance at competing with him on a level playing field (if such a thing even exists!), but 'don't hate the player, hate the game' - pro cycling has needed to take measures to clean itself up for years (since way before big bad Lance came along ) and is finally appearing to do that now.

How about the people who's lives he tried to ruin cause they told the truth? Where do they come into it? The game didn't sue/abuse/bully etc those people, Lance did, knowing full well that what they said was true and he was the one that was lying. I honestly don't know how people can say he's the greatest when he acted in such a way.

Syferus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well that's ironic, because that's exactly what you did. Read the post you responded to again.

The burden of proof is on the person claiming someone else said something. Show me where I passed any comment on Armstrong's cycling career than was even remotely defensive.

I see this all to often in life, people reading some completely unfounded subtext into opinions or failing to comprehend what the point made actually is.

Capt'n Midnight

No

Russman wrote: »

There was a really interesting programme on RTE a few weeks back before the Olympics about doping etc and it really gave food for thought IMO about doping and the reasons for it and where the line should be drawn. They were looking at stuff like sleeping in an oxygen tent and if that should be banned because not all competitors have access to that, or if food supplements should be banned for the same reason that not everyone could afford or was in a position to buy them.

Oxygen isn't that expensive, once you buy the machine you only have to pay for the electricity.

concentrators http://www.medicaldepartmentstore.com/Oxygen-Concentrators-s/30.htm
tents http://www.dotmed.com/equipment/38/38/1398


food supplements - this is why some samples should be kept for many years , in case a banable substance is found later.


Some day we'll know enough about DNA to identify the important genes and determine the winner without needing to run races :pac:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/quotes
Vincent: You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back.

kumate_champ07

http://www.velodromeshop.net/index.php?p=catalog&parent=208&pg=1

Kev M

alfalad wrote: »

How about the people who's lives he tried to ruin cause they told the truth? Where do they come into it? The game didn't sue/abuse/bully etc those people, Lance did, knowing full well that what they said was true and he was the one that was lying Well actually the game did sort of allow it at the time.... I honestly don't know how people can say he's the greatest when he acted in such a way How he acts towards people is nothing to do with how well he rides a bike.

In red.

Pisco Sour

No

hardCopy wrote: »

Does it matter if we don't have any greats?

Why not keep at it until the sport is clean? Then we can witness true greatness.

Anyway, we still have Lemond and I'm not aware of any scandal surrounding Cadel Evans, who finished 8th in 2005 and was the only top 10 finisher that year with no doping allegations against him.

I'm not doubting the legitimany of Greg Lemond, but if we assume him to be clean wouldn't that make him the greatest tour rider of all time, winning 3 titles when everybody before and after him were doped to the gills?

alfalad

No

Just want to say a thank you to those who posted up links to articles, many make great reading and I wouldn't have been able to get to a fraction of them if it wasn't for people posting the links.

On the issue of do we have a cycling legend, to me Greg LeMond is a legend and as many may not know he almost died himself after his first tour win, spent nearly two years recovering before he won two more tours with nearly 40 gunshot pellets in his body and two in his heart lining. He has been very vocal against drugs in cycling and paid the price financially (and more) for it. He has never been accused or suspected of doping so for me he is a true legend of the sport. He prob should have won the 85 tour only for he was loyal to the badger, and the gunshot robbed him of two more chances before the EPO era came in.

corny

No

alfalad wrote: »

Just want to say a thank you to those who posted up links to articles, many make great reading and I wouldn't have been able to get to a fraction of them if it wasn't for people posting the links.

Couple more for everyone.

Kimmage: UCI needs root and branch surgery

Former WADA president calls Armstrong's tactics 'desperate'

alfalad

No

Kev M wrote: »

In red.

The game didn't do it Armstrong did, the UCI didn't make the call to Trek, didn't sue the Sunday Times etc. That was all Armstrong off the bike, trying to protect the fact that he was a fraud.

Of course how people act off the bike also influences how you view them as the greatest or not. But if you feel it doesn't then fair enough, surely the fact that he was doped up to the gills does. The improvements that drugs gave cannot be compared to other advantages because it was illegal and not available to every team and rider, and many riders want no or limited part in.

By the way, it's good to have someone with your point of view (and I respect it),otherwise the debate would be very one sided, even if I still can't believe anyone could think he is great.

alfalad

No

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I'm not doubting the legitimany of Greg Lemond, but if we assume him to be clean wouldn't that make him the greatest tour rider of all time, winning 3 titles when everybody before and after him were doped to the gills?

As stated previously the drugs people used before him had minimal effect in comparison to EPO. Some hindered more than helped. When EPO started to become widespread he couldn't compete. As shown in his form in 92-94 when he retired.

On another note I'm surprised at deafening silence from current cyclists, thought a number of them would have said something at this stage.

Monty Burnz

No

Syferus wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the person claiming someone else said something. Show me where I passed any comment on Armstrong's cycling career than was even remotely defensive.

I see this all to often in life, people reading some completely unfounded subtext into opinions or failing to comprehend what the point made actually is.

I'm sorry, I can't make this any simpler for you. You posted that I was 'reading things that aren't there'. Bizarrely, however, it was you who posted this:

Syferus wrote: »

Your post in endemic of what I was talking about, trying to tear down a charity with a cyclist.

In response to a post where I talked about Armstrong and didn't even mention his charity.

Understand now?

You might save your lessons on subtexts and such until you learn how to read simple posts like mine.

Chips Lovell

No

LOL

Junior

To those who say everyone was on it, that he was the best and he was doing it to compete, I say Mark Scanlon.

Hermy

No

Or David Moncoutié?

elguapo

No

Or Christophe Bassons.