'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

bazermc

Kimmage on Saturday night show on RTE. Wonder who he will be talking about.

fran oconnor

No

what time is he on at?.

bazermc

fran oconnor wrote: »

what time is he on at?.

Not too sure. I am sky plusing it so I can skip the other crap.

Hermy

No

Doc07 wrote: »

Great athlete,

Great attitude to cancer,

Great athletes don't take performance enhancing drugs.

People with a great attitude to cancer don't set up meetings with Michele Ferrari with a view to resuming doping the minute they've completed their cancer treatment.

Leroy42

Hermy wrote: »

Great athletes don't take performance enhancing drugs.

People with a great attitude to cancer don't set up meetings with Michele Ferrari with a view to resuming doping the minute they've completed their cancer treatment.

Great athletes who are in a sport where everyone else is taking them would be stupid not to. Not taking them might make them a great person but not a great athlete (in terms if records).

LA didn't invent drug taking, he wasn't the 1st to partake in it and we've seen that he wasn't the last.

Don't get me wrong, LA is a cheat, bully, a&$3hole, and deserves everything that was thrown at him but lets not pretend he was the only one to blame.

Where is the purge of Pantanis records, Riis and so on?

fran oconnor

No

He wasn't the only one to blame, but everyone that went against him he brought them to their knees. He might have went along with it because its what everyone else did but its still no excuse for having the best doping plan and doctor that the sport has ever seen, the bloke came from doing little enough to the top because of that doping plan he had. Remember when Paul Kimmage said the cancer was back in the sport when he talked about Lance's return, how Lance reacted to turn the tables was nothing short of disgusting, you'd think Armstrong was the spokes person for all things cancer related. He's a filthy liar a cheat and if you ask me he should be stripped of all assets.

I looked at the bbc interview for around 15mins and turned it off, I can't sit there and look at him feeling sorry for himself. I'm just glad after all them years of wanting to see him fall it's finally happened.

Leroy42

What did you want him to do? Just admit he was doping? Allow people to go around telling the truth about him?

Of course he took that approach, the only other was to ignore it but since he was the main star that wasn't an option.

And it wasn't just him bullying. He was allowed to do so by the UCI, other riders etc. The Simeoni (I think that was his name) incident being the clearest example.

The fact he perfected his doping regime is hardly relevant. Are we really annoyed because he was better at it than the others?

Fr D Maugire

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

What did you want him to do? Just admit he was doping? Allow people to go around telling the truth about him?

Of course he took that approach, the only other was to ignore it but since he was the main star that wasn't an option.

And it wasn't just him bullying. He was allowed to do so by the UCI, other riders etc. The Simeoni (I think that was his name) incident being the clearest example.

The fact he perfected his doping regime is hardly relevant. Are we really annoyed because he was better at it than the others?

No, because over and over it comes back to the cancer angle, that was his greatest weapon that nobody else had.

If he had been a regular athlete, he would never have earned the money he did, he would have never had the power he had within the sport and he would never have had the protection he had. Finally, he would never have got near winning 7 Tours. Not a hope. Cancer gave him all that and he used it every opportunity he had.

You cannot simply judge Armstrong as just another athlete who doped, he was so much more and that is why he has fallen so hard.

nak

fran oconnor wrote: »

He wasn't the only one to blame, but everyone that went against him he brought them to their knees. He might have went along with it because its what everyone else did but its still no excuse for having the best doping plan and doctor that the sport has ever seen, the bloke came from doing little enough to the top because of that doping plan he had.

They had the same drugs as everyone else and
a good few cyclists went to the same doctor. It was the combination of training, doping and sheer bloody mindedness/ruthlessness that led to success.

Jan Ulrich would probably have been more successful if he had shared Armstrong's work ethic. Ulrich was probably the greater talent, but enjoyed his off season too much.

MPFG

No

I sometimes think that when we are all dead and gone and the world is submerged in water like on the flm AI this thread will still be going

I reiterate - Whatever Armstongs sins ( and he had/has many) it is unfair that he is punished in a totally disproporinate manner to others who doped and are unrepentent.Armstrong is held up as the poster boy of drug mis use in cycling to all the world while the whole system which was corrupt gets no or little scrutiny

And don't forget alot of people made alot of money out of him ...some still do

Armstrong admits he was an ass***e and he has tried to apologies to some people ....

IMO cycling will not move on until and unless there is honest appropraition of blame and there is some sort of reconcilliation

Fr D Maugire

No

nak wrote: »

They had the same drugs as everyone else and
a good few cyclists went to the same doctor. It was the combination of training, doping and sheer bloody mindedness/ruthlessness that led to success.

Jan Ulrich would probably have been more successful if he had shared Armstrong's work ethic. Ulrich was probably the greater talent, but enjoyed his off season too much.

Nah, it was mostly down to who reacted best to the drugs of the time and who had the best protection from the UCI.

A quashed positive test in 99 and another one in 01 or 02 pluse plenty of advanced warnings inclduing meetings with the head of the UCI would give a better idea of the advantages certain athletes had.

Armstrong was too big to fall for a long time.

Fr D Maugire

No

MPFG wrote: »

I sometimes think that when we are all dead and gone and the world is submerged in water like on the flm AI this thread will still be going

I reiterate - Whatever Armstongs sins ( and he had/has many) it is unfair that he is punished in a totally disproporinate manner to others who doped and are unrepentent.Armstrong is held up as the poster boy of drug mis use in cycling to all the world while the whole system which was corrupt gets no or little scrutiny

And don't forget alot of people made alot of money out of him ...some still do

Armstrong admits he was an ass***e and he has tried to apologies to some people ....

IMO cycling will not move on until and unless there is honest appropraition of blame and there is some sort of reconcilliation

Yes but always remember Lance did disproporinately better out of the sport than anyone else because of his cancer story.

Anyone think that the guys who all got 6 months ever made anywhere near as much money as Lance. I would bet most of them made less in their entire career's than Lance would make in a year.

Again, none of the other guys had the cancer angle going for them.

nak

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Nah, it was mostly down to who reacted best to the drugs of the time and who had the best protection from the UCI.

A quashed positive test in 99 and another one in 01 or 02 pluse plenty of advanced warnings inclduing meetings with the head of the UCI would give a better idea of the advantages certain athletes had.

Armstrong was too big to fall for a long time.

I doubt he was the only one who was protected in that era.

George Hincapie supposedly has a net worth of $40 million that's not too shabby.

Fr D Maugire

No

nak wrote: »

I doubt he was the only one who was protected in that era.

Who else? because of most of his rivals, only Escartin never tested positive or was linked to a doping scandal. Ullrich, Hamilton, Landis, Rumsas, Heras, Mayo, Simoni, Moreau, Virenque, Zulle, Vinokourov, Basso, Beloki all positive or directly linked to doping scandals. Some protection:rolleyes:

Lance dwarfed the sport, he was so much bigger than any other athlete it was unreal. I would imagine the golden goose was the most protected of all those athletes.

fran oconnor

No

Lance came along at the right time for cycling, big story after the cancer, someone to bring the sport back to life. The UCI had a massive part to play in this. But between them all they set the sport back years from a fairness point of view.

Fr D Maugire

No

nak wrote: »

I doubt he was the only one who was protected in that era.

George Hincapie supposedly has a net worth of $40 million that's not too shabby.

That was built up over a 20 year career. Armstrong made that in a year. Hincapie will be a footnote in the history of the sport as he never won a major race in his career. Ghent-Wevelgem and a few stage wins at the Tour will not resut in you being remembered as a major player.

nak

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Who else? because of most of his rivals, only Escartin never tested positive or was linked to a doping scandal. Ullrich, Hamilton, Landis, Rumsas, Heras, Mayo, Simoni, Moreau, Virenque, Zulle, Vinokourov, Basso, Beloki all positive or directly linked to doping scandals. Some protection:rolleyes:

Lance dwarfed the sport, he was so much bigger than any other athlete it was unreal. I would imagine the golden goose was the most protected of all those athletes.

Some of those riders were only taken down by Operation Puerto, which was outside the control of the UCI as it involved the police, same goes for the Festina case.

There are still some big name riders of that era and before Armstrong's hey day who have never been found guilty even though suspicion is there.

nak

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Who else? because of most of his rivals, only Escartin never tested positive or was linked to a doping scandal. Ullrich, Hamilton, Landis, Rumsas, Heras, Mayo, Simoni, Moreau, Virenque, Zulle, Vinokourov, Basso, Beloki all positive or directly linked to doping scandals. Some protection:rolleyes:

Lance dwarfed the sport, he was so much bigger than any other athlete it was unreal. I would imagine the golden goose was the most protected of all those athletes.

Some of those riders were only taken down by Operation Puerto, which was outside the control of the UCI as it involved the police, same goes for the Festina case.

There are still some big name riders of that era and before Armstrong's hey day who have never been found guilty even though suspicion is there.

Fr D Maugire

No

nak wrote: »

Some of those riders were only taken down by Operation Puerto, which was outside the control of the UCI as it involved the police, same goes for the Festina case.

There are still some big name riders of that era and before Armstrong's hey day who have never been found guilty even though suspicion is there.

There are very few big names left from the Armstrong era who have not been tarnished. Care to name a few?

Armstrong might be seen to be treated unfailry and I don't really care how long he was banned for, I just wanted the truth revealed. I thing his ban is as much for his misue of cancer as anything else and I think that is just. How else would he be punished for that?

It is like this, if you have 10 people caught for drink driving, they should all be treated equally. But what if one was a politican leading a campaign against drunk driving. Who would be people be baying for to have the book thrown at. It is human nature.

nak

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

There are very few big names left from the Armstrong era who have not been tarnished. Care to name a few.

Can't name riders, but one had 191 wins in that era and was never convicted of doping.

Fr D Maugire

No

nak wrote: »

Can't name riders, but one had 191 wins in that era and was never convicted of doping.

Sounds like Cipollini with that amount of wins. Sprinter who always win far more races that non-sprinters. I think he was linked with Ferrari at one stage but that was it in terms of suspicion I think. Wasn't illeagl to work with Ferrari back then.

Hermy

No

Leroy42 wrote: »

Great athletes who are in a sport where everyone else is taking them would be stupid not to. Not taking them might make them a great person but not a great athlete (in terms if records).

I don't associate doping with greatness.

If you dope then you're breaking the rules and your results are irrelevant.

full_irish

No

nak wrote: »

They had the same drugs as everyone else and
a good few cyclists went to the same doctor. It was the combination of training, doping and sheer bloody mindedness/ruthlessness that led to success.

Jan Ulrich would probably have been more successful if he had shared Armstrong's work ethic. Ulrich was probably the greater talent, but enjoyed his off season too much.

In his book, Tyler Hamilton talks about how he suspected Lance of keeping the best for himself etc.. (i can't remember the quote exactly)

MPFG

No

This is not about who had the best drugs or benefited the most from drugs, made the most money, had cancer or even bulied others...This is not about the judgement of a person on any of these criteria, which are beyond the remit of the law on the use of banned PEDs

This is about taking drugs, facilitationt he use of drugs for others, trafficking drugs and fraudulent acquisition of funds/prize money ...These are the only criteria where Armstrong is/should be judged in the eyes of the law

AND how many others did the same and have never been sanctioned

Herein lies the unfairness in this situation and it is not just unfair to Armstrong ...it is unfair to cycling as a whole and all cycling fans

CramCycle

Yes, but he's still great

MPFG wrote: »

Herein lies the unfairness in this situation and it is not just unfair to Armstrong ...it is unfair to cycling as a whole and all cycling fans

But its not just that, he should be held to account for the active and ferocious obstruction of the process.

He just kept going though, he done everything in his power, very little of it legal or moral, to keep himself going. You can argue that's the alpha personality you need for a sports star but I disagree.

Would the other names have been as belligerent if they thought they would get away with it, I don't know, they weren't, so it's not a valid point to compare them IMO.

There are those that got away with it, there are those that get away with breaking the rules/law every day, doesn't mean we should let those who get caught off lighter. Much like a fine for a motoring offence, if you fight it, but are still guilty, you deserve to get a higher penalty, the longer and harder you fight it, knowing you are guilty, the longer and harsher your punishment should be.

Nothing to do with being a bully, nothing to do with being an a**hat, that's just the way it has to be or else there is no incentive to come clean and everyone would fight it to the bitter end for the hell of it.

wonderfullife

No

If you were to sum up the Dan Roan interview it would be - nothing has changed.

His biggest regret remains getting caught. That much is crystal clear. And I don't blame him. Life was peachy, he gets bored, makes a comeback and put his head above the parapit again.

There can be no contrition from a person who firmly believes everyone was doping so he won fair and square. How can you be sorry when you dont think you cheated? Cheated the rules, sure, cheated the competition, nope.

And im sure its great he can text emma about Sons of Anarchy and gets xmas texts off others he screwed over. Shows the innate human decency of those people to forgive.

He still isnt sorry and never will be. Just annoyed at himself.

magicbastarder

Ah here. Can we trust him on *anything*?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/lance-armstrong-let-girlfriend-take-blame-after-hitting-parked-cars-1.2090258

spoke2cun

The @ hole should be in jail. Defrauding the US government of $100s millions. Drug trafficking, lying under oath. The list goes on and on. If I don't pay a speeding fine, I'd get community work to do or possibly jail. And he says is it fair that he's not allowed to raise money for charity because of his lifetime ban? Go and fcuk yourself you ignorant bas turd.

dave2pvd

No

spoke2cun wrote: »

The @ hole should be in jail. Defrauding the US government of $100s millions. Drug trafficking, lying under oath. The list goes on and on. If I don't pay a speeding fine, I'd get community work to do or possibly jail. And he says is it fair that he's not allowed to raise money for charity because of his lifetime ban? Go and fcuk yourself you ignorant bas turd.

You know he's under federal investigation, right?

Junior

https://twitter.com/charolyn_/status/567346588448612352