'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Raam

No

Pantani defo didn't get off light though. He is dead.

Macy0161

No

marienbad wrote: »

The reason he is treated differently is not just the drugs but because he destroyed anyone that threatened him.

A complete psychopath deserving of everything he got .

Actually, the reason he's treated differently is his own decision to fight it the whole way. He could've cooperated and got a reduced ban too.

Jim Stynes

marienbad wrote: »

The reason he is treated differently is not just the drugs but because he destroyed anyone that threatened him.

A complete psychopath deserving of everything he got .

Im talking about on a pure sporting perspective. If he was a nice guy and did the same thing then would he be allowed to cycle again?

marienbad

No

Jim Stynes wrote: »

Im talking about on a pure sporting perspective. If he was a nice guy and did the same thing then would he be allowed to cycle again?

Who knows , but it is irrelevant and you can't ignore how he crushed other people and careers without a second thought .

CramCycle

Yes, but he's still great

Jim Stynes wrote: »

Im talking about on a pure sporting perspective. If he was a nice guy and did the same thing then would he be allowed to cycle again?

If a nice guy threatened or in some cases did destroy the lives of those who became involved, then no. If he held his hands up, admitted his errors, cooperated, helped the UCI and various agencies do their actual job, then I would be happy with a ban of a certain time period. Maybe have them stay on the bio passport and random test list if they say they wish to compete again.

MPFG

No

I don't like Lance Armstrong...In fact I disliked him so much that I did not watch the Tour de France in the years he rode but I think he has been treated unfairly

He has been given a lifetime ban because he doped not becasue he was/is an ash*** ...In the context of all the other riders who doped in that era especially , many who are still in the sport and who made a lot of money and who are held up as sporting legends then his lifetime ban is wrong and unfair..There is no punishment for being an asshole in the eyes of the law

Its like going into a town and sending one guy to jail for a crime whie all the others who committed the same crime are still free and some are even running the town

How many other riders bullied people in cycling that we know nothing about and how many were champions. How many who doped also destroyed the careers of non doping cyclists becasue they got the contracts while the non dopers were dropped.....Armstrong is not alone in this

There is so much hypocricy in cyling that it is impossible to see the truth
People over on cyclingnews listing the best riders of the 21st centuary list Vino, Rebellin, etc ...How good would these guys have been without the PEDs ???

Others on twitter lambasting Armstrong while idiolising known dopers
Leinders gets a life ban (as he should because doctors have a duty of care to riders) and this is used just to beat SKY over the head with ...its not like he worked anywhere else

What happened to the Truth & Reconcillation initative ...

Hermy

No

MPFG wrote: »

...In the context of all the other riders who doped in that era...who are held up as sporting legends...

There isn't one legend among them in my opinion.

pelevin

A nice guy couldn't have done the same thing or things Armstrong did. While trying to stick to a sporting perspective of his doping crimes as all that's relevant rather than the treatment of others off the bike, the thing is how Armstrong & his team behaved during the entire process off his pursuit by USADA can't be cut from the equation. We all have an idea of how ruthless Armstrong was in the face of obstacles, and given the huge power of the Armstrong machine in the US, inclusive of his backing from financial monsters like Nike & serious political friendships, then what Tygart & co were facing in this case was something very, very heavy - e.g. Tygart was getting protection after getting, unsurprisingly, death threats. Remember the US authorities with access to loads of damning evidence dropped a case late on & for no logical reason - why? - but with then USADA picking up the pieces. & in a place where someone like Schwarzenegger became Governor of California, very imaginable that Armstrong could have been a future US Republican President. The perfect superhero to lead the nation. I'd say it's a fair stretch to describe his behaviour as simply 'not cooperating,' - implying some passive response. Behind the scenes it would have been very active & aggressive.

I'd say a life ban in the minds of Tygart & co did not simply reflect on the actions of an unhelpful doper, but I'd say a very, very hostile & powerful foe, & I'd say if people here had any real idea of the forces & pressures USADA were facing in the US, no one would be saying Armstrong was treated harshly. Remember this was all in no way sealed within a simple sporting process & in terms of scale wouldn't be remotely comparable to anything that could happen here. Not a pretty path I'd say from start to finish for Tygart.

Lusk_Doyle

MPFG wrote: »

I don't like Lance Armstrong...In fact I disliked him so much that I did not watch the Tour de France in the years he rode but I think he has been treated unfairly

He has been given a lifetime ban because he doped not becasue he was/is an ash*** ...In the context of all the other riders who doped in that era especially , many who are still in the sport and who made a lot of money and who are held up as sporting legends then his lifetime ban is wrong and unfair..There is no punishment for being an asshole in the eyes of the law

Its like going into a town and sending one guy to jail for a crime whie all the others who committed the same crime are still free and some are even running the town

How many other riders bullied people in cycling that we know nothing about and how many were champions. How many who doped also destroyed the careers of non doping cyclists becasue they got the contracts while the non dopers were dropped.....Armstrong is not alone in this

There is so much hypocricy in cyling that it is impossible to see the truth
People over on cyclingnews listing the best riders of the 21st centuary list Vino, Rebellin, etc ...How good would these guys have been without the PEDs ???

Others on twitter lambasting Armstrong while idiolising known dopers
Leinders gets a life ban (as he should because doctors have a duty of care to riders) and this is used just to beat SKY over the head with ...its not like he worked anywhere else

What happened to the Truth & Reconcillation initative ...

To be fair to the others posting, he didn't get the life ban solely for doping. He got it for the manner in which it was done (a$$hole behaviour included).

ZiabR

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

To be fair to the others posting, he didn't get the life ban solely for doping. He got it for the manner in which it was done (a$$hole behaviour included).

It still does not excuse the UCI and all other cyclists who are just as guilty as Lance. Rough Rider and The Armstrong Lie were both great watches for me and more than one person being interviewed on Rough Rider said that 70%~ were doping during that 80's. It was the thing to do, everyone was doing it.

Sean Kelly tested positive twice for doping yet refuses to admit it and he has a job commentating on the sport which he doped in. <snip>

I would love the riders of the 80's,90's to have their samples tested for drugs that tests could not pick up back then. I bet the numbers doping would be huge.

Yes, Lance was/is an absolute dickhead but he is not alone. The UCI and cycling as a whole has used him as a scape goat to take the heat off them so that cycling was able to continue.

Just look at Astana this year. 5-7 of their riders tested positive for drugs in the past 12 months and the UCI still grant them a UCI licence. What a complete joke.

Leroy42

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

To be fair to the others posting, he didn't get the life ban solely for doping. He got it for the manner in which it was done (a$$hole behaviour included).

I'm not sure that is true.

I think that the liftime ban came from a number of reasons.

1. The use of PED's obviously
2. Being the team leader and noted as one of the main drivers behind a PED scheme, including the active cover up.
3. He was part owner of the team and thus was implicated in the misuse of funds
4. Taking no part in the process. He can complain all he wants that others were given an option to tell their story but he knew what was going on and instead of fighting it he could have just as easily told the truth.
5. Based on his interviews since it is clear that he is unrepentant and continues to deny PED in 2009 onwards despite the clear evidence to the contrary. (I assume that came clearly across to Tygart during the process). This would signal that a short term ban would have little to no effect.
6. The lenght of his PED's use, the success that it delivered and his standing within the sport (both in the history books and as a focal point) meant that it had to be shown clearly that it wasn't worth it.

Macy0161

No

The lifetime ban isn't really anything to do with whether he's a nice guy or not. Or his bullying. He got a much more significant ban than those that testified, because he wouldn't cooperate. He can whinge about it not being fair and being a scapegoat, and how he'd cooperate with some truth and reconciliation etc. etc., but he could've just cooperated with the federal investigation, or the USADA investigation. Instead, he got the federal investigation shut down and refused to cooperate with USADA.

If he'd been open once the writing was on the wall, he 100% wouldn't have got the life ban. Yet even this is someone else's fault to him. Which I suppose show the flaws of the man. How some people fall for the whole scapegoat bull though, I really don't know. They're playing right into his hands in the PR battle imo.

Lusk_Doyle

logik wrote: »

It still does not excuse the UCI and all other cyclists who are just as guilty as Lance. Rough Rider and The Armstrong Lie were both great watches for me and more than one person being interviewed on Rough Rider said that 70%~ were doping during that 80's. It was the thing to do, everyone was doing it.

Sean Kelly tested positive twice for doping yet refuses to admit it and he has a job commentating on the sport which he doped in. <snip>

I would love the riders of the 80's,90's to have their samples tested for drugs that tests could not pick up back then. I bet the numbers doping would be huge.

Yes, Lance was/is an absolute dickhead but he is not alone. The UCI and cycling as a whole has used him as a scape goat to take the heat off them so that cycling was able to continue.

Just look at Astana this year. 5-7 of their riders tested positive for drugs in the past 12 months and the UCI still grant them a UCI licence. What a complete joke.

Did I say it did excuse anyone?

Lusk_Doyle

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not sure that is true.

I think that the liftime ban came from a number of reasons.

1. The use of PED's obviously
2. Being the team leader and noted as one of the main drivers behind a PED scheme, including the active cover up.
3. He was part owner of the team and thus was implicated in the misuse of funds
4. Taking no part in the process. He can complain all he wants that others were given an option to tell their story but he knew what was going on and instead of fighting it he could have just as easily told the truth.
5. Based on his interviews since it is clear that he is unrepentant and continues to deny PED in 2009 onwards despite the clear evidence to the contrary. (I assume that came clearly across to Tygart during the process). This would signal that a short term ban would have little to no effect.
6. The lenght of his PED's use, the success that it delivered and his standing within the sport (both in the history books and as a focal point) meant that it had to be shown clearly that it wasn't worth it.

That's basically what I said. I didn't list it to the nth degree because it has been done umpteen tines already. I said the manner in which it was done. A catch all phrase.

ThisRegard

No

MPFG wrote: »

Its like going into a town and sending one guy to jail for a crime whie all the others who committed the same crime are still free and some are even running the town

This does happen, mitigating factors come in to play, such as being cooperative, admitting guilt from the outset etc so being given probation. None of which Armstrong displayed.

MPFG wrote: »

Leinders gets a life ban (as he should because doctors have a duty of care to riders) and this is used just to beat SKY over the head with ...

And rightly so, Sky put themselves on a pedestal claiming how they're a new fresh force in cycling, super clean and all that. Yet affiliating themselves with people who were known to be involved in doping, least of all their team doctor.

ZiabR

ThisRegard wrote: »

And rightly so, Sky put themselves on a pedestal claiming how they're a new fresh force in cycling, super clean and all that. Yet affiliating themselves with people who were known to be involved in doping, least of all their team doctor.

But isn't it hard to avoid team members, managers, doctors etc basically everyone involved with cycling given how prevalent doping has been in the last 20 years?

Teams are going to want to hire people who are experienced in the sport and sadly that means being associated with people who may or may not have had involvement with doping in the past.

MPFG

No

There are alot of peple/riders in the 'Town' who have not admitted to anything and still reap the rewards of cycling.....


My problem with Leinders & Sky .....is not that they did not do due dilligence in their recruitment process (which they did not) but that people are using it to point to the fact that SKY are not clean ...which I find a little ridiculous...alot of these people support convicted dopers .....this is is the hypocracy I am referring to

ThisRegard

No

logik wrote: »

But isn't it hard to avoid team members, managers, doctors etc basically everyone involved with cycling given how prevalent doping has been in the last 20 years?

Teams are going to want to hire people who are experienced in the sport and sadly that means being associated with people who may or may not have had involvement with doping in the past.

It's one thing to find it difficult to find untainted people, completely another to actively hire people that are well know to have played a big part in it.

ZiabR

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Did I say it did excuse anyone?

No, you didn't. My post was not specifically aimed at you. I was more having a rant at how much I dislike the UCI for their spineless approach to doping in their sport. They have made an example of Lance but I my opinion they need to make an example of an entire team. Astana was the perfect opportunity to do so. When in 2014 5-7 of their riders test positive for doping I think the UCI should have revoked the teams world tour licence.

ZiabR

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's one thing to find it difficult to find untainted people, completely another to actively hire people that are well know to have played a big part in it.

Can't argue with that.

EDIT - No idea how i clicked the big Red thumb in my reply

ThisRegard

No

logik wrote: »

Astana was the perfect opportunity to do so. When in 2014 5-7 of their riders test positive for doping I think the UCI should have revoked the teams world tour licence.

I think their problem was they feared they'd lose if Astana took them to the court of arbitration for sport.

Chips Lovell

No

I think a lot of the UCI's recent decision making with regard to Astana is informed by its experience with Katusha in 2013.

mcgratheoin

No

logik wrote: »

But isn't it hard to avoid team members, managers, doctors etc basically everyone involved with cycling given how prevalent doping has been in the last 20 years?

Yes, and it may be impossible to put together a competent team with zero doping background. However, the reason Sky have been castigated is that they launched their team with a huge fanfare about how they were going to be 100% clean and they would hire nobody who had any doping connections. They then went and hired a selection of staff/riders, some of whom had very clear, obvious and well documented doping pasts. Sky quite publicly and voluntarily held themselves to a higher standard than other teams, and cannot therefore complain when the general public also holds them to a higher standard.

In my opinion, the question you asked is extremely pertinent, and is one that Sky have never fully addressed;

• Do you (Team Sky) still believe that it is possible to run a successful cycling team with zero involvement from any person with links to a doping past?

If the answer is yes, then Sky has failed miserably in its corporate governance structures since its foundation. From a governance point of view, if you are setting up a team with no ex-dopers, then the least I would expect is that you get all staff members to sign an affidavit stating that they have never been involved in doping. However Sky seem to have adopted a "don't ask don't tell" policy rather than doing the work that would be expected of a team with their public policies. From a PR point of view, while the initial message from Sky could have been "we have nobody in our organisation who was involved in the systemic and institutionalised doping that has blighted cycling up to this date" this message was completely undermined by the personnel that they chose to hire.

If the answer is no (and I don't have a problem with a team believing that) then they should have the courage and the honesty to come out and say so. Tell us that the problems were so widespread that there isn't a single former cyclist/DS/doctor/soigneur that could claim to be completely untainted by doping and therefore our focus going forward is on re-education and ensuring that the system never again allows for and encourages this behaviour.


The nub of the issue with Sky is that they are judged by a higher standard because that is the standard that they stated they would strive for.

ThisRegard

No

Pay Kenny discussing his latest interview now with Paul Kimmage.

dave2pvd

No

I think some of you are confused. The UCI did not issue a life ban for Armstrong. They reluctantly accepted the USADA sanctions. So claiming the UCI are treating Astana differently to Armstrong/USPS is not true. On the contrary, the UCI are being quite consistent.

Now, it wasn't only Armstrong that got a lifetime ban. There were other key players associated with Tailwind/USPS that also refused to testify: Luis Garcia del Moral, Michele Ferrari and Jose Marti. All got lifetime bans. Additionally, Johan Bruyneel got 10 years.

Armstrong was given the opportunity to come to the table, but refused to do so (arbitration). USADA was never going to make much in the way of concessions to Armstrong for any kind of settlement. Part of that may have been due to an edict from on high: Armstrong defrauded the US government.

So perhaps others did not receive lifetime bans for doping. However, 'others' didn't mess with the Feds.

dastardly00

No

Here's a link to the discussion Pat Kenny and Paul Kimmage were having about the Armstrong-BBC interview.

bbolger

Saw this on Twitter this morn



Initially wondered whether the Alien's aero helmet was UCI legal...

Then I thought... "One of these riders has luminous green blood, the other 2 are from outer space"

buck65

No

Armstrong has done more harm to cycling than any other person in the history of the sport.

Pro road cycling is a busted flush, I would guess that any one that wins an event is doping and at least half the peloton en masse is drugged even today.

What I can't understand is that some people here and thousands on the continent follow and watch it and still get up in arms when faced with the truth.

There will be some here that will defend the indefensible. I followed cycling for many years and also deluded myself about some of the Irish greats of the sport who i no longer doubt were doping.

Sometimes you just have to stop and look at the evidence and the reality and admit that you follow a distorted and corrupted sport.

Kaisr Sose

⬆Pretty extreme views. Could be said about a lot of spoetst where possitive tests have been found.

You have to hope that sporting associations (UCI, FINA, IOC, FIFA, IAF etc) are determined to eradicate drug use in their sport. If not, clean sport goes contrary to human behaviour (ie. success, winning...over just competing)

buck65

No

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

⬆Pretty extreme views. Could be said about a lot of spoetst where possitive tests have been found.

You have to hope that sporting associations (UCI, FINA, IOC, FIFA, IAF etc) are determined to eradicate drug use in their sport. If not, clean sport goes contrary to human behaviour (ie. success, winning...over just competing)

I don't think too many of the organisations mentioned are very determined tbh. Look at the current Kenyan running doping scandal, athletes for years held up as clean and pure.
When you see under McQuaid what UCI was upto and the current FIFA administration I would have little confidence in alot of pro-sport.

Too much sponsorship money and vested interests. Power corrupts and the athletes are pawns in the game, sure throw a few under the bus but as long as the game continues and the TV revenues keep rolling in most are happy.

I see it first hand in business.