'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

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

Monty Burnz

No

j@utis wrote: »

Yes, but he's still great

Same as sprinter, Ben Johnson. He was running at near Usain Bolt speeds 25 years ago.

RobFowl

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

j@utis wrote: »

Yes, but he's still great

Same as sprinter, Ben Johnson. He was running at near Usain Bolt speeds 25 years ago.

Steroid Ben ran 9.79, Bolt has run 9.58 !

Monty Burnz

No

RobFowl wrote: »

Steroid Ben ran 9.79, Bolt has run 9.58 !

Right, but he never reached his full potential as those anti-doping ninnies stopped him doing so. Even that record would have stood for nearly 20 years, which is a lifetime in sprinting.

morana

No

its starting to emerge...the tests were delayed for 20 mins claims a french guiy from the anti doping agency(?) and a French lawyer of Walsh and ballister claims a hotel search was called off whne the guys were at the door. I expect we will get more of this and we will see why it was easy to see why he passed/manipulated 499 tests...

Monty Burnz

No

morana wrote: »

499 tests...

I'm led to believe that the 500 tests figure came from his imagination too.

Syferus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

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

I have no real love for Armstrong and know full well he's proven himself a manipulative force on alot of levels. None of that negates the good work his charity and he himself has done through it.

You assumed I cared about his cycling career and that I was using charity as a cover - poor show.

corny

No

Syferus wrote: »

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.

Not trying to tell you anything just correcting your mistake http://www.lateenough.com/2012/02/cancer-politics/

Grandstanding is a good word btw.

el tel

No

blorg wrote: »

Rasmussen never failed one either.

Neither did David Millar

Monty Burnz

No

Syferus wrote: »

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

I have no real love for Armstrong and know full well he's proven himself a manipulative force on alot of levels. None of that negates the good work his charity and he himself has done through it.

You assumed I cared about his cycling career and that I was using charity as a cover - poor show.

And you assume that others think that his charity work should negate the fact that he cheated his way to success. Poor show.

GT_TDI_150

No

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm led to believe that the 500 tests figure came from his imagination too.

yep, his lawyers first quoted a figure of 250-300 test, then when infront of court the number became 500ish

Syferus

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And you assume that others think that his charity work should negate the fact that he cheated his way to success. Poor show.

You're reading things that aren't even there.

Monty Burnz

No

Syferus wrote: »

You're reading things that aren't even there.

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

Fr D Maugire

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.

Really, do you think if Armstong had been exposed as the cheat he was in 99, that many people would have continued to contribute to Livestrong or have even known what Livestrong was.

Armstrong conned the cancer suffer's into giving him the support that seen him elevated to a level above the sport where he became untouchable, whether it was by the media, the authorities, whoever. It was all based on the lie that he was doing it for "them" whilst riding cleanly.

Just because you have cancer or have a cancer charity does not give people the right to cheat, lie, bribe and bully. I think most people who are involved in charity are expected to be of a fit and proper standing. This is not Armstrong and its just sad its taken this long for people to get some idea of that and most still dont see it.

Armstrong ruthlessly exploited cancer to further his own sporting and financial ambitions as well as his huge ego. The two are inseperable as is the way Armstong always wanted. If you cannot walk the walk, dont talk the talk.

furiousox

No

Two page spread on Armstrong by David Walsh in the Sunday Times today.

Hermy

No

Polygon_window wrote: »

lads arguably the vast majority are on the stuff, get over it, his achievements were huge, he should not be stripped!

What achievements?

Syferus wrote: »

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.

He didn't fight cancer - he was just lucky that the treatment worked. Many others, including friends and family of everyone here, are not so lucky.

Seweryn

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.

One more option should be added - "I don't know".

Monty Burnz

No

Seweryn wrote: »

One more option should be added - "I don't know".

Yeah, we need more options to cater for the deluded.

Chips Lovell

No

Can we keep it civil please.

scrawnybawny

Originally Posted by Polygon_window
lads arguably the vast majority are on the stuff, get over it, his achievements were huge, he should not be stripped!

yeah but i think the general consensus seems to be that he railroaded lots of other (younger) riders into doping (the argument goin that they were letting the team and other cyclists down if they didn't 'prepare adequately' [as david millar says it was explained to him] and then bullied, threatened and demonized anybody who tried to expose him - as previously discussed here

by the time he had won a tour or two his word seems to have been taken as gospel on the tour and to question him, even for some journalists, was career suicide - look how david walsh and other cyclists were ostracized.
kimmage had the balls to critisize him in public, despite the machine that armstrong was then running, and was willing to use the strong, politically incorrect language ("the cancer was in remission, the cancer is back"...etc) that he did because he knew the real effect Armstrong had on the attempts of the cycling world to clean up its act

armstrong's biggest crime wasn't doping,(as many others obviously did the same) it was what he did to try and ensure the sport couldn't clean itself up (whether the powers that be really tried hard enough is a separate debatable issue) and for this reason alone he should lose his titles - the culture of fear his tactics caused brought the sport to its knees.
his behaviour is completely at odds with the central integrity and hard-work that are at the heart of the sport (which is unfortunate cause to be fair he did work as hard as any body else in races but let himself down off the road).

Chips Lovell

No

furiousox wrote: »

Two page spread on Armstrong by David Walsh in the Sunday Times today.

I read this over lunch and it made for depressing reading. Essentially it was a catalogue of bullying and intimidation. At one stage it got so bad that during the 2004 Tour, no English speaking journalist would share a car with Walsh in case word of it got back to Lance and he blacklisted them.