'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Chips Lovell

No

It's not hearsay though. There are 10 ex-teammates who've testified that they saw him taking drugs and him giving drugs to others. USADA's case also involves samples he provided in 2009 and 2010, which it says were consitant with blood doping.

From this it appears that USADA is happy it has evidence that he doped in every year since 1998.

In the case of Smith, there was only evidence relating to one year.

Monty Burnz

No

Bozacke wrote: »

I don't understand how they can strip him of all his medals, prize money and even his Olympic medal where the only legitimate evidence seems to be hearsay.

Oh Jesus. First-hand eyewitness accounts? Hearsay? FFS. Actual failed drugs tests - hearsay? Mountains of other compelling evidence - hearsay?

frostie500

No

For one thing it is not hearsay, it is sworn testimony from witnesses under oath in a federal investigation. The USADA was handed over the documents by the FBI after the federal case was rejected.

It has become common place to say that the witnesses are only testifying because the USADA offered them deals of leniant bans from the sport-2 years instead of a life ban lets say etc.-but the majority of the testimonies were originally made in the federal case when the riders were told "tell us the truth or go to jail"....for some reason im inclined to think that the riders told the truth in those circumstances

Inquitus

No

http://store.theonion.com/

Get your cheat to win yellow bracelets!

kumate_champ07

niceonetom wrote: »

If there's one thing I'll remember the about the day that Lance finally quit fighting (if not yet quit lying) it was the AVALANCHE of stupid that got vomited onto the internets.

I've never seen so much stupid. It was everywhere. Inescapable. It seems like every comment section on every blog and journal and paper and twitter has been blitzkrieged by crack stormtroopers of idiocy, people so assuredly certain and yet so ill-informed that only their sheer number and the variety of stupid that they've created assures us that they cannot all be trolls. No, there really are that many morons and they really are all that keen to have their worthless say and none of them, even by accident, seem capable of making a coherent point in any direction either for or agin the monorchid.

Just to be clear, for the most part I'm not including this thread (I've only skimmed it), but just commenting on my general internet experience since yesterday morning.

every media/news person during interviews keeps saying 'but he never failed a test', it's like with Graham Obree they always mention he made his famous 1hour record bike with actual washing machine parts when in fact he got the idea from washing machines to use larger size bearings, he didnt build his bike from a washing machine!!

ROK ON

No

One aspect of this case thy I find fascinating is the role of corporate sponsors.
Nike are standing by a cheat (as are Trek). Nike cut loose Tiger Woods for cheating on his wife. Lance has cheated on the sport and they stick by him.
I would have thought that the latter cheat is more damaging to the business of a sports goods company than the former but I guess not.

As an aside, Specialized were purported to be paying Contador €1m as part of his Saxo contract even while he was banned.

Unless corporates take similar action to that of Deutsche Telekom then it will be hard to eradicate cheating.

The piper calls the tune.

hardCopy

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Bozacke wrote: »

I don't understand how they can strip him of all his medals, prize money and even his Olympic medal where the only legitimate evidence seems to be hearsay.

Oh Jesus. First-hand eyewitness accounts? Hearsay? FFS. Actual failed drugs tests - hearsay? Mountains of other compelling evidence - hearsay?

Hear'say must be the most over used word of the week, it's astounding how few know what it means.

If I see somebody murder my neighbor and testify against them, along with 9 other neighbors, that's not hear'say.

mark kiernan

ahh hardcopy the muderer is a nice guy does great things in the area raises lots of money for charity hes a sound fella dont hold this one tiny thing against him lol!! the sean quinn story springs too mind all .those people out on the streets of cavan supporting him cause he was great for the community does it matter that were all paying for hit

hardCopy

No

mark kiernan wrote: »

ahh hardcopy the muderer is a nice guy does great things in the area raises lots of money for charity hes a sound fella dont hold this one tiny thing against him lol!! the sean quinn story springs too mind all .those people out on the streets of cavan supporting him cause he was great for the community does it matter that were all paying for hit

I think I might be one of those typical Irish begrudgers, is Tygart from USADA Irish?

jhegarty

frostie500 wrote: »

For one thing it is not hearsay, it is sworn testimony from witnesses under oath in a federal investigation. The USADA was handed over the documents by the FBI after the federal case was rejected.

It has become common place to say that the witnesses are only testifying because the USADA offered them deals of leniant bans from the sport-2 years instead of a life ban lets say etc.-but the majority of the testimonies were originally made in the federal case when the riders were told "tell us the truth or go to jail"....for some reason im inclined to think that the riders told the truth in those circumstances

It's not tell us the truth or go to jail. It's tell us what we want to hear or go to jail.

Monty Burnz

No

jhegarty wrote: »

It's not tell us the truth or go to jail. It's tell us what we want to hear or go to jail.

Yes, that's how the legal system works in the US. They just really, really want to put philanthropist and man-crush magnet Lance Armstrong in jail. :rolleyes:

morana

No

this takes the pain out of working who will get the jerseys

mark kiernan

sorry anto kivlev was with cofids at the time dodgy team and asavedo spent 5yrs or so with us postal so they will have to go way down the list a sprinter probably won the tour !!!!

Bozacke

Hearsay may not be the right word and there is mountains of other compelling evidence, but there is no positively failed drug test, other than a drug test that failed several years after the sample was taken. Meanwhile there are many questionable athletes with plenty of "Hearsay" evidence, eyewitness reports etc such as Baseballs Barry Bonds and Roger Clemmens, but nothing has been taken off any of them yet. Only the ones that failed specific drug tests have been disqualified. Even Michelle Smith who apparently tampered with her urine sample 2 years after her Olympic glory didn't loose her medals, but in the case of Armstrong they want to even take back his Olympic medal from 12 years ago.

I think Lance probably did use PEDs, but things seem very inconsistent.

Chips Lovell

No

Bozacke wrote: »

..but there is no positively failed drug test, other than a drug test that failed several years after the sample was taken.

Yes there is:

The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.

Monty Burnz

No

Bozacke wrote: »

I think Lance probably did use PEDs, but things seem very inconsistent.

It's rather more difficult to penalise players in team sports though - you are penalising the innocent along with the guilty if you punish the team.

Cardinal Richelieu

His prize money for the Tour De France alone amounts to €3 million which he has to pay back but then again Alberto Contador is still allowed to compete after his ban and he never paid back his 2010 prize money to the Tour.

C3PO

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

His prize money for the Tour De France alone amounts to €3 million which he has to pay back but then again Alberto Contador is still allowed to compete after his ban and he never paid back his 2010 prize money to the Tour.

That's the least of his worries - SCA Promotions paid him over $9million + court costs and no doubt they'll be looking for it back!!

buffalo

No

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

His prize money for the Tour De France alone amounts to €3 million which he has to pay back but then again Alberto Contador is still allowed to compete after his ban and he never paid back his 2010 prize money to the Tour.

Armstrong isn't merely charged with using EPO, but also administering and trafficking it. Essentially, he was a drug dealer, and so the penalty is much larger than a simple user.

Capt'n Midnight

No

"you have to sin to be saved"

what's the chance he'll be on talk shows and other way of miking publicity out of it ?

Dermot Illogical

No

Bozacke wrote: »

I don't understand how they can strip him of all his medals, prize money and even his Olympic medal where the only legitimate evidence seems to be hearsay.

He has essentially pleaded guilty by not contesting the case, so that's how.
Seems like the evidence was good enough for Lance.

Pougle

I’m really sickened by the whole affair. Lance’s decision to just walk away to ‘Protect his family’. Fans and supporters deserve an admission and an apology. People within the sport who spoke out against him had to suffer the wrath of the Armstrong Empire.

Greg LeMond who spoke out against Armstrong for his superhuman performances got a dressing down by Trek who handled the LeMond bike brand. They seized the promotion and subsequence production of the LeMond bike to protect their Golden Boy.

Heads should role, too many people protected the fraud that is LA

K_1

No

How long til he releases a new book I wonder? ''It's not about the drugs''. :rolleyes:

paddy no 11

No

Can i agree with the poster who suggested lifetime bans


As much as i've enjoyed armstrong being exposed the comments of total muppets who know nothing about cycling )or sport) is sickening.


As to who should get his titles, as a symbolic jesture i think basson should be given the titles with an asterisk beside his name. Guy got bullied out of professional cycling by the omerta of drug abuse, to hear Paul Kimmage talk about him last night was horrifiying.

531

mark kiernan wrote: »

sorry anto kivlev was with cofids at the time dodgy team and asavedo spent 5yrs or so with us postal so they will have to go way down the list a sprinter probably won the tour !!!!

Didn't Andrei Kivilev die in a cycling accident? RIP Andrei, we'll let you have it, the first rider to be awarded a TdF posthumously.

kincsem

No

I'm sure Filippo Simeoni managed a smile this week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni

RobFowl

No

531 wrote: »

Didn't Andrei Kivilev die in a cycling accident? RIP Andrei, we'll let you have it, the first rider to be awarded a TdF posthumously.

He died in a race as result of a head injury, a close friend of Vino's who was gutted by his tragic death. One of the reasons compulsory helmets are here. no doping allegation other than by assosciation (and no-one involved in cycling is more than 2 degree's of seperation from that).

Please give a man who died while cycle racing a break......

Monty Burnz

No

kincsem wrote: »

I'm sure Filippo Simeoni managed a smile this week.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Simeoni

Interesting story of how Armstrong, Mr. Nice Guy, intimidated and bullied other riders, and the complicity of others in the Peloton:

More famous is Simeoni's argument with Lance Armstrong. Simeoni was treated by doctor Michele Ferrari, who was also Armstrong's doctor. Simeoni testified in court that he began doping in 1993, that Dr. Ferrari had prescribed him doping products such as EPO and Human Growth Hormone in 1996 and 1997, and that Ferrari also gave him instructions on how to use these products.[3] In 2001 and 2002 Simeoni was suspended for several months for doping use. Armstrong reportedly called Simeoni a "liar" in an interview with the French newspaper Le Monde in July 2003. Simeoni lodged a charge of defamation against Armstrong and demanded €100,000. Simeoni announced that he would give any money awarded to him to charity.
On the 18th stage of the 2004 edition of the Tour de France, Simeoni gapped up to a breakaway of six riders that posed no threat to Armstrong's leading position. Nevertheless, Armstrong followed Simeoni, which prompted Armstrong's rival T-Mobile Team to try to catch the breakaway. This would not only catch Armstrong but also eliminate the stage winning chances of the six riders in the original breakaway. The six riders implored Armstrong to drop back to the peloton, but Armstrong would not go unless Simeoni went with him and the two riders dropped back to the peloton.[4] When Simeoni dropped back, he was abused by other riders, including Andrea Peron, Filippo Pozzato and Giuseppe Guerini. In a later interview, he told of how Daniele Nardello also abused him, calling him "a disgrace".[5] Afterwards, Armstrong made a "zip-the-lips" gesture but later said that Simeoni "did not deserve" to win a stage. Two days later was the final stage, which is usually a slow stage in which the Tour winner (in 2004 it was Armstrong) already celebrates his victory. But in this stage Simeoni continuously attacked, to take revenge for what Armstrong did three days before, but was reeled in every time by Armstrong's team.[6] Simeoni was again insulted and spat at by other riders after this.

crumliniano

No

Bozacke wrote: »

I think Lance probably did use PEDs, but things seem very inconsistent.

I agree. The whole sorry affair leaves me wondering what next for cycling.
Looking at the Contador case it seemed wrong that the national agency had jurisdiction (because they made the wrong decision) so uci appealed it. This time the national association USADA seems to have made the right decision, but will UCI Appeal this too because they may be complicit?
It seems to me that there should be a single infallible body with jurisdiction instead of national bodies, even though I think this ruling is probably right. I don't fancy that being the uci though.
The whole thing makes me wonder if the oft threatened breakaway league with new agencies and regulations might be the best way to break with the past.

GT_TDI_150

No

Het nieuwsblad has a story stating that armstrong was aware of when 'unannounced' dope test were being executed.

He'd have 20-30mins time to thin his blood or replace urine before he got a test sprung on him. Also rumours that he used his private jet to have blood flown in.

Aparently he visited sarkozy to request the resignation of the head of afld, french anti doping agency

Seweryn

Some sickening story and I do not know what to make of it and who is telling the truth.
I was thinking a lot once reading the posts and would like to know what the man is on, simply...
I thought he was the last professional cyclist that would ever face any charges against doping, but I guess, I was wrong...

Syferus

morana wrote: »

I am both saddened and delighted. Sad for all the cancer sufferers who put their hope in him and looked up to him who he conned but delighted that the cheat has been caught. Delighted also for Nobby O'Reillys sister Emma, bassons and all the rest he bullied.

The almost palpable glee around here is seriously blinding some people and it's unbelievable to me anyone thanked a post that claimed Armstrong 'conned' cancer suffers.

Doping is a completely separate issue to Armstrong's fight against life-threatening and aggressive cancer and the incredible work Livestrong have done. He's done more for cancer advocacy than anyone in history.

He may have conned cycling fans, but don't be so crass as to claim he conned cancer victims.

marienbad

No

Syferus wrote: »

The almost palpable glee around here is seriously blinding some people and it's unbelievable to me anyone thanked a post that claimed Armstrong 'conned' cancer suffers.

Doping is a completely separate issue to Armstrong's fight against life-threatening and aggressive cancer and the incredible work Livestrong have done. He's done more for cancer advocacy than anyone in history.

He may have conned cycling fans, but don't be so crass as to claim he conned cancer victims.

Nobody is denying the work he has done for cancer and if he is sincere he will walk away from his foundation so as to save it being tarnished .

And please remember it was LA that crushed any dissent from journalists by playing the cancer card - witness how he tried to side sideline Paul Kimmage among others.

So let Lance lead the way from now on in seperating his foundation from the doping controversy.

Syferus

marienbad wrote: »

Nobody is denying the work he has done for cancer and if he is sincere he will walk away from his foundation so as to save it being tarnished .

And please remember it was LA that crushed any dissent from journalists by playing the cancer card - witness how he tried to side sideline Paul Kimmage among others.

So let Lance lead the way from now on in seperating his foundation from the doping controversy.

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

Why should he, after he is judged to have been doping in the sport of cycling, quit a cancer charity? It's particularly nonsensical when he's its founder and by virtue of his star power and own fight with cancer capable of plenty of good through it in the future.

Disgraced, glorified, loved or hated, Lance Armstrong can do more for cancer charity and research than any other public figure.

In the hunt for blood (ho ho?) you're just going to end up harming the wrong people.

marienbad

No

Syferus wrote: »

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

Why should he, after he is judged to have been doping in the sport of cycling, quit a cancer charity? It's particularly nonsensical when he's its founder and by virtue of his star power and own fight with cancer capable of plenty of good through it in the future.

Disgraced, glorified, loved or hated, Lance Armstrong can do more for cancer charity and research than any other public figure.

In the hunt for blood (ho ho?) you're just going to end up harming the wrong people.

I don't know what you mean by grandstanding- I am just following your own logic. Armstrong is now officially a drugs cheat and this is going to get a lot worse as more and more information comes into the public domain and not from journalists etc that he can bully with lawyers but from official sources. Then you will see the sponsors walk away .

I have no interest in hunting for blood ,but the cancer work he has done does not exonerate him from destroying others good names , cheating , taking money under false pretences ,bullying others out of the sport they loved , the list is endless .

Or do you think it does (ho ho)?

corny

No

Syferus wrote: »

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

Why should he, after he is judged to have been doping in the sport of cycling, quit a cancer charity? It's particularly nonsensical when he's its founder and by virtue of his star power and own fight with cancer capable of plenty of good through it in the future.

Disgraced, glorified, loved or hated, Lance Armstrong can do more for cancer charity and research than any other public figure.

In the hunt for blood (ho ho?) you're just going to end up harming the wrong people.

Afraid not. Livestrong don't believe in giving to cancer research.

seeing_ie

No

Everyone's entitled to their opinion of course, but some opinions are better informed than others.

Unless you've read all the books, the multiple hundred-page threads on multiple forums, the sports science blogs, watched the races, watched the press conferences etc. etc. your opinion isn't fully informed imo.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Syferus

corny wrote: »

Afraid not. Livestrong don't believe in giving to cancer research.

So you're trying to tell to me that entirely zero of the $500 million Livestrong has raised in the last decade and a half has went into cancer research? Good luck trying to sell that one.

http://www.kintera.org/site/c.khLXK1PxHmF/b.2661097/k.D25F/Research.htm

I assume you're trying to play up this angle, where they moved away from accepting research grant in 2010 and more towards patient advocacy. None of that means they've donated no research money, or that they don't 'believe' in funding for cancer research, and indeed the opposite is clearly stated above.

But ok.

Let's just throw an entire charity into the smouldering wreckage.

AstraMonti

No

A bit of laugh.

Monty Burnz

No

Syferus wrote: »

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

Why should he, after he is judged to have been doping in the sport of cycling, quit a cancer charity? It's particularly nonsensical when he's its founder and by virtue of his star power and own fight with cancer capable of plenty of good through it in the future.

Disgraced, glorified, loved or hated, Lance Armstrong can do more for cancer charity and research than any other public figure.

In the hunt for blood (ho ho?) you're just going to end up harming the wrong people.

There's some amount of people out there with a huge man-crush on Armstrong. It's like a cult.

tfrancer

lookitsme wrote: »

i thought it was humorous looking through the list of doping cases in cycling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling
to read about our own sean kelly, firstly i was surprised he cheated but how he got caught has to be a bit of murphys law

• Sean Kelly of Ireland was described in Willy Voet's book 'Massacre à la Chaine': He won the Tour of Lombardy three times (1983, 1985, 1991 (also won amateur version in 1976)) and on at least one occasion he did it with the help of a corticoide injection. Kelly was controlled positive after Paris–Brussels in 1984 and that came as a surprise because he used the urine of a mechanic. But the mechanic was using a banned substance himself because he had to work long hours at night and needed the lift to stay awake."[107]

we can have a chat with him on sunday about it

Please don't call him some of the names Lance has been called on here!

casion3

No

As a bit of back round, followed cycling on and off through to my teens, got a bike partly because if "it's not about the bike"

As I continued my my cycling education it's becomes obvious that my new "hero" was doped to the hilt. Reccomend reading The life and death of marco pantani, and bad blood.

For those who who say he never failed a test. He defo tested positive for the one, the TUE. So that's that dead. Basso never failed a test, Marion jones never failed a test

But does it really matter if LA did or did not test positive, he team was doped with rocket fuel, If in a magical world he was the only clean rider on the team when he won he should still be stripped, he might as well have had motor scooters drafting him.

That might get team managers active, one of your guys goes down, you loose all your results.

It baffles me that team managers allow their guys swan around Europe train in their own, with dodgy doctors and coaches, and then they are surprised when the **** hits the fan. It's the equivalent of Alex Fergie allowing his players carry out their own training a meeting up on the day if a match!

If I was paying someone that kinda coin to ride a bike I want to see what they were doing everyday

blorg

No

Seweryn wrote: »

I thought he was the last professional cyclist that would ever face any charges against doping

Is this satire?

blorg

No

casion3 wrote: »

Basso never failed a test, Marion jones never failed a test

Rasmussen never failed one either.

buffalo

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There's some amount of people out there with a huge man-crush on Armstrong. It's like a cult.

I didn't really have an opinion on Armstrong either way until the last few months. I got interested in cycling after his dominant era, but the amount of blind loyalty I've seen, and some from people who I would expect to think more logically... it reminds me of Sean Quinn in Cavan - he created a lot of jobs, great. But then he threw it all away and now it's costing everyone. Loyalty is all well and good, but it should only go so far. As the case stands, Armstrong has conceded that the evidence against him is too strong for him to fight, which is an inherent admission of doping. Why would a clean cyclists need such a massive trigger-happy team of lawyers anyway?

This crap of "sure everyone was doing it, and he still won", is nonsense. A lot of people were doing it alright, so let's disqualify all of them, including the winner. The guy is a master of PR spin (the mythical 500 tests, never failed a single one. Except the one that he did.), but at the end of the day he's a cheater. He cheated the sport cycling, he cheated the clean cyclists, he cheated his fans and cycling fans. And based on several accounts (Emma O'Reilly, Simeoni, etc), he's a jerk too.

buffalo

No

PS I'd be interested in the results of a poll with the following options:
Did Lance dope:
-Yes
-No
-Yes, but he's still great.

The amount of stuff I've seen written with 'doping' or 'evidence' in quotation marks, like it's not ****ing real. Your hero has failed you. It happens. It's ****, and he's a dickhead, but you need to accept it.

furiousox

No

Bassons & Simeoni

Brave? Foolish?
Vindicated

blorg

No

buffalo wrote: »

PS I'd be interested in the results of a poll with the following options:
Did Lance dope:
-Yes
-No
-Yes, but he's still great.

The amount of stuff I've seen written with 'doping' or 'evidence' in quotation marks, like it's not ****ing real. Your hero has failed you. It happens. It's ****, and he's a dickhead, but you need to accept it.

Stick up the poll, it would be interesting. I can't believe anyone is still defending him, much less the quite a few people who have posted as such on this thread, but in fairness the defence posts are getting very few thanks compared to the ones believing it.

On US sites there are still a shocking number of people with their heads in the sand.

Beasty

No

blorg wrote: »

Stick up the poll, it would be interesting.

Oh, go on then:)

Poll added

Edit - 100% "yes" last time I checked

j@utis

Yes, but he's still great