Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

Hasmunch

Lance Armstrong has dropped the fight against doping charges against him. This means he will be stripped of his seven tour titles and his olympic bronze medal. :eek::eek:

He never tested positive in any test however several ex-team mates were lined up to testify against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sp...ce-titles.html

Xavi6

Given the bloke has fought through all sorts of adversity including cancer to prolong his career it's a bit suss that he's giving up on clearing his name.

I'd say he's guilty but we'll probably never know.

mackg

Has he made much money? Does he get to keep that?

If the answer to both questions is yes I'm sure he'll survive.

Pace2008

Xavi6 wrote: »

I'd say he's guilty but we'll probably never know.

Of course we know, everyone competing in the sport at that level is doping. It's an absolute farce.

Guill

He's guilty but now it'll never be officially 'proven'.

Sparks43

Im sure he just got a pain in his balls with all of it.


:pac:

Ghandee

I froze dried one of his nuts.
I keep it in a glass case now and stare at it frequently.

swimming in a sea

so who would get the tour de france titles?

Jan Ullrich (who finished 2nd to him a good few times) a man who was brought up in the east german doping culture and was actually banned for drugs during his career.

Best thing would be just to void the races for those years:(

ronan45

Hmmm Call me stupid but.....

Why would would the American U.S. Anti-Doping Agency want to screw up the legacy of one of its own athletes... "Witch hunt" if there is no evidence

Is there some evidence he took illegal substances? Ok Can i see it maybe?

Did he or did he not take all their drug tests? He says he did........

Im kinda not getting this whole thing lol

danniemcq

so in dogeball they could have just doped themselves up instead?

so much for your speech

hardCopy

Paul Kimmage just did a sex wee.

Armstrong had no way out this time, the mountain of evidence got too big when his former teammates turned witness against him.

kneemos

If they're all on drugs it's a level playing field,whats the problem.His team mates turning against him after all this time definitely looks suspect.

danniemcq

ronan45 wrote: »

Hmmm Call me stupid but.....

Why would would the American U.S. Anti-Doping Agency want to screw up the legacy of one of its own athletes... "Witch hunt" if there is no evidence

Is there some evidence he took illegal substances? Ok Can i see it maybe?

Did he or did he not take all their drug tests? He says he did........

Im kinda not getting this whole thing lol

The whole things seems to be going on suspicion and eyewitness accounts. There seems to be a string of people ready to testify and he failed one drug test before but was able to show a backdated percription from his doctor. so the little things add up.

suicide_circus

ronan45 wrote: »

Is there some evidence he took illegal substances? Ok Can i see it maybe?l

Well if LA had continued to fight the charges, i'm sure that the evidence these charges are based on would have been published. But now that he is no longer challenging the allegations, the evidence may never make its way into the public domain....which is probably why he is dropping his challenge....and that i'm afraid, speaks volumes.

Wibbs

Pace2008 wrote: »

Of course we know, everyone competing in the sport at that level is doping. It's an absolute farce.

To be sure cycling is very dubious for doping and has been for a long time. Back in the day, before the mid 80's it was mostly amphetamines etc to keep them upright in the saddle as the toll on the body was and is unreal compared to other sports. Especially back in the days of small enough money and near daily racing not just the big tours. Most of the greats in cycling back then were implicated, caught or admitted it outright. Jaques Anquetil a monster of a cyclist, who unlike your Lances of the world competed throughout the season and not just aimed at the tour de france, he said that all the riders doped(with speed) and that you'd have to be mad to think anyone could do what they did without it. Problem was a couple of them died from it.

The diff came from the mid 80's onwards. Speed etc isn't much of a performance enhancer. In the sense that there's no way it's going to turn a carthorse into a racehourse, it'll just keep the carthorse going. It's still a level playing field. Drugs like EPO actually improve physical performance and can do so markedly and different people react in different ways. Some can make huge improvements on that stuff and win where they otherwise wouldn't have.

It was as clear as the nose on your face there was something other than water in his water bottle. When you see someone built for spinting/time trialling hammering specialised climbers on mountain stages you think GTFO. When you see damn near all his ex teammates done for doping and he expected us to believe he as the team leader was clean, you think GTFO. When his name is connected with dopers and suppliers and "doctors" in a cynical drive to win the Tour for the US of A and his backers, you think GTFO. When you see him play the cancer violin or the anti American bleat to deflect the accusations you think GTFO. In short Lance Armstrong, GTFO.

He'll still get support in the US. The mouthbreathers among them will refuse to admit he dopes. Doping in sport in the US is as bad or worse than it ever was in the old Soviet bloc(they dope in baseball FFS), they're just better at covering it up and backing their dopers. Fair play to the few yanks that have kept the anti doping pressure on, this day will be a nice reward for them.

It's not just cycling either. Not by a long shot. It just had the beady eye on it because it was sooooo obvious. IMHO there are bugger all in athletics that are clean and near zero among the consistent winners.

ronan45

suicide_circus wrote: »

Well if LA had continued to fight the charges, i'm sure that the evidence these charges are based on would have been published. But now that he is no longer challenging the allegations, the evidence may never make its way into the public domain....which is probably why he is dropping his challenge....and that i'm afraid, speaks volumes.

Is there something stopping them publishing the evidence even if he drops his legal challenge? Or must this evidence be kept hidden now that he no longer wants to challenge?

martingriff

Newstalk had a guest on David Walsh. He was sounding very superior a I told you so attitude. But he was asked how had Armstrong not failed all the drugs test par the 1st Tour De France. He basically said the testers may not have watted to show a positive test so doctored it. If this is so do the anto doping organisation have something to say. Were various people and organisations banking on Armstrong quiting the fight rather than having a public tribunal and there may be some relieved people.

Have the American the authority to strip him of all titles and ban worldwide or does this now go to the international anti doping do it.

ronan45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S02BHmWPZNs&feature=related

suicide_circus

martingriff wrote: »

the anto doping organisation.

They're based up in Tallaght aren't they?

Fuinseog

Hasmunch wrote: »

Lance Armstrong has dropped the fight against doping charges against him. This means he will be stripped of his seven tour titles and his olympic bronze medal. :eek::eek:

He never tested positive in any test however several ex-team mates were lined up to testify against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sp...ce-titles.html

were the accusations sour grapes? he was one of the most tested athletes in the world and they never found anything yet the accusations still persisted. why?
he was an inspiration for many folks of how you can come back from the edge and win.

Live Strong.

pc7

Reports this morning said he received 9 1/2 million in bonus payments alone for winning the Tours and that the company is looking for that back. Also said that he failed a test after his first tour win but then produced a back dated prescription. Awful for the sport and perhaps people he inspired, seems rife with it.

In some ways if you liked him as a sportmans and a person who achieved what seemed amazing results it is so disheartening for it to end like this. Some ways comparable if Usain Bolt was found guilty of doping, 2 billion people watched him claim gold a few weeks back, I know if it came out he was a cheat I'd feel fairly hard done by.

BarnhallBull

If you were known as the best of all time, at anything, and were being falsely accused of cheating would you ever stop trying to clear your name?

No, me neither.

buck65

Fuinseog wrote: »

were the accusations sour grapes? he was one of the most tested athletes in the world and they never found anything yet the accusations still persisted. why?
he was an inspiration for many folks of how you can come back from the edge and win.

Live Strong.

By doping?

I would rather my heros play by the rules and have some integrity.

Armstrong is a cheat. Always was.

Fuinseog

BarnhallBull wrote: »

If you were known as the best of all time, at anything, and were being falsely accused of cheating would you ever stop trying to clear your name?

No, me neither.

the accusations have been going on for more than 13 years.

kfallon

Fuinseog wrote: »

were the accusations sour grapes? he was one of the most tested athletes in the world and they never found anything yet the accusations still persisted. why?
he was an inspiration for many folks of how you can come back from the edge and win.

Live Strong.

He was nothing but a run of the mill team cyclist for years, I remember him getting a Stage victory for the team he rode for the day after one of their cyclists died years ago. Then he got cancer, recovered (fair play to him) and came back as Superman, it was obvious he was on drugs and tbh I'm actually delighted he's been caught. However I can never take cycling serious anymore, it seems to me they are all on something.

Swampy

mackg wrote: »

Has he made much money? Does he get to keep that?

If the answer to both questions is yes I'm sure he'll survive.

Armstrong’s decision, according to the World Anti-Doping Code, means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 forward.

buck65

Maybe Fr Brian Darcy and Mickey Harte should organise a rally.

fishy fishy

look, I say make it fair - put them all on drugs - then watch them compete - it would be a lot more entertaining and they would all be on the level playing field.

BarnhallBull

Fuinseog wrote: »

the accusations have been going on for more than 13 years.

What's your point? Like I said, if the accusations against me and my reputation were false, then I'd keep fighting to clear my name, no matter how many years it took. Wouldn't you?

swimming in a sea

fishy fishy wrote: »

look, I say make it fair - put them all on drugs - then watch them compete - it would be a lot more entertaining and they would all be on the level playing field.

I know you said that in jest, but its not as simple as let them all on drugs, because if so it becomes a game of chicken. Who has the nerve to take the most drugs or the best drugs to avoid the testers, to know that the drugs their on may win them the tour de france but could kill them win they are 40 years old. This person could then be beat by the guy who drops dead of a heart attack while standing at the top of the podium on the champs elysees.

V_Moth

fishy fishy wrote: »

look, I say make it fair - put them all on drugs - then watch them compete - it would be a lot more entertaining and they would all be on the level playing field.

Except we don't really have an idea about the long-term effects of using those substances. Look at roid rage for example.

martingriff

suicide_circus wrote: »

They're based up in Tallaght aren't they?

Damn spelling my arch nemises

BarnhallBull

martingriff wrote: »

Damn spelling my arch nemises

What's his name? I'll spell it for you

kneemos

fishy fishy wrote: »

look, I say make it fair - put them all on drugs - then watch them compete - it would be a lot more entertaining and they would all be on the level playing field.

Kinda the way it is apparently.

martingriff

BarnhallBull wrote: »

What's his name? I'll spell it for you

Wibbs

martingriff wrote: »

Have the American the authority to strip him of all titles and ban worldwide or does this now go to the international anti doping do it.

I don;t think so. That'll be up to the UCI AFAIK. That's where it's gonna be interesting as they always backed him. Armstrong is playing the odds here. He damn well knows he'll lose the case, but by pulling out like this with the usual whinge of sainthood he'll leave enough doubt. The UCI are gonna be interesting in how they react. The sport in a few areas has been bent as a threepenny bit for a while.

Fuinseog wrote: »

were the accusations sour grapes? he was one of the most tested athletes in the world and they never found anything yet the accusations still persisted. why?

Because when you see a cyclist with his build consistently hammer and I mean hammer specialists in areas where he shouldn't be near the front, never mind breaking away questions are gonna be asked.

Chips Lovell

There's a couple of long running threads over at the Cycling forum about Armstrong for anyone who's interested in having a nose around and learning more.

To answer a few questions that are cropping up here:

Q: How come he never failed a drugs test?
A. Drug testing has struggled to keep up with with doping. For example, it was only 2000 that a test for EPO was introduced. Most of the top riders then switched to blood transfusions, which mimics the effects of EPO. To date, there's no way of testing for people transfusing their own blood. What the sport has been forced to do in recent years is regularly test riders' blood and check for abnormal fluctuations. These days you can be banned for having a blood composition deemed unnatural, but in Armstrong's Tour winning years, that wasn't in force yet.

Q: Is the evidence against him going to be published?
A: Yes, once all the other people involved in the case have had their hearings. Armstrong opted not to contest, others did.

Q: Aren't they all on drugs and, if they are, doesn't it create a level playing field?
A: Even at the height of the doping years, in the 90s and early 00s, there was still people riding clean. Even if everyone doped, it didn't create a level playing field. Some people respond better to doping than others. Also some people were prepared to take more risks with their health than others. The doping culture rewarded the lunatics who were prepared to turn their blood into soup and risk dying in their sleep.

Q: Cycling is still riddled with drugs though?
A: It's actually improved immensely in recent years. With riders having their blood monitored regularly its become increasingly difficult to get away with it. This is evidenced by the fact that riders who're widely regarded to be clean beginning to win major races. The peloton has also gotten slower in recent years, with sport scientists calculating that the top contenders power outputs are now within the bounds of what's regarded as humanly possible.

fishy fishy

BarnhallBull wrote: »

What's your point? Like I said, if the accusations against me and my reputation were false, then I'd keep fighting to clear my name, no matter how many years it took. Wouldn't you?

just to give the "other option" an airing - maybe he just said that after 13 years of his life being tormented and trying to defend himself, he has taken a decision to cut it out of his life and to get on with living. Personally I know if I had something hanging over me like this for 13 years I would seriously think about what damage mentally it could do to me if it went on indefinitely. Maybe he had a good think and just said that he can HAVE a bit of a life without torment if he lets it go - maybe he just can't deal with it anymore and maybe his life might mean more to him now than a few medals.

You do, after all, only get one life - maybe he wants to live the rest of it stress free.

At the end of the day - only he and whoever tested him knows if he is guilty of drug taking or not - any one else's opinion is just heresay.

Wibbs

V_Moth wrote: »

Except we don't really have an idea about the long-term effects of using those substances. Look at roid rage for example.

Well the roid rage thang can be exaggerated a fair bit. Drugs like EPO that boost red blood cell production can cause problems pretty quickly. Their blood can be come to thick. Blood doping is similar. Allied to a their superhuman fitness and low resting heart rates this can cause life threatening problems. They take aspirin as one way to lessen the risk. Some teams were necking aspirin like tic tacs. Hmmm. Plus EPO causes low level headaches.

Human growth hormone can give real boosts in performance, hard to trace too. The jury's still out on the long term effects but increased risk of certain cancers may be one.

Testosterone again can give boosts in performance and so long as they keep it under certain levels in competition hard to trace, but again long term effects are up in the air.

How do they beat the tests? A couple of ways. Out of competition they can(or used to be able to) go pretty much nuts as they're not being tested. Leave enough of a gap to clear the markers and you'll look "clean" in competition. Other ways include masking agents that they're not testing for yet. Some yahoos have even catheterised themselves and flushed their bladder with clean urine. Blood doping is about the hardest to test for. They're injecting the red cell concentrate of their own blood. How do you spot that? "Here you've high levels of red blood cells WTF?" "Oh yea I've been training at altitude so eff off" kinda thing. Of course there are likely drugs and techniques so far undiscovered that they're simply not testing for. It's relatively easy to do and plenty of ex pros have come out and detailed how they did it.

hardCopy

fishy fishy wrote: »

At the end of the day - only he and whoever tested him knows if he is guilty of drug taking or not - any one else's opinion is just heresay.

And the team-mate who he gave testosterone patches to, and the physio who gave him her make-up to cover needle marks and the lab who found EPO in his old blood samples.

But I guess we'll never really know...

BarnhallBull

fishy fishy wrote: »

just to give the "other option" an airing - maybe he just said that after 13 years of his life being tormented and trying to defend himself, he has taken a decision to cut it out of his life and to get on with living. Personally I know if I had something hanging over me like this for 13 years I would seriously think about what damage mentally it could do to me if it went on indefinitely. Maybe he had a good think and just said that he can HAVE a bit of a life without torment if he lets it go - maybe he just can't deal with it anymore and maybe his life might mean more to him now than a few medals.

You do, after all, only get one life - maybe he wants to live the rest of it stress free.

At the end of the day - only he and whoever tested him knows if he is guilty of drug taking or not - any one else's opinion is just heresay.

The man has 5 young children, there's no way I would allow people falsely accuse me of cheating if I was innocent, that would, in my opinion, be an awful example to set for my children.

As for him and the testers being the only ones who know the truth, not if he sat and doped with the rest of his team, which his teammates are all claiming he did.

B0jangles

I can see the tabloid headline now:

"Lance Armstrong: Drug Pedlar"

summerskin

The man is a cheat, as many of us have insisted for years. His performance was impossible, he did not have build to beat the mountain specialists, but somehow managed to.

I'm delighted he's been caught.

Ronin247

Wibbs wrote: »

..............................................

It's not just cycling either. Not by a long shot. It just had the beady eye on it because it was sooooo obvious. IMHO there are bugger all in athletics that are clean and near zero among the consistent winners.

pc7 wrote: »

................................................Some ways comparable if Usain Bolt was found guilty of doping, 2 billion people watched him claim gold a few weeks back, I know if it came out he was a cheat I'd feel fairly hard done by.

Tetrahydrogestrinone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrogestrinone Was a drug developed by the Americans which was undetectable and was known by its street name "The Clear" because when tested the results came back Clear.

Ben Johnson took part in "The Dirtiest Race In History" with most of the participants having since been implicated in some doping controversey or other.Johnson has said that he was on steroids for seven years and the only reason he was done for doping was that his sample was tampered with,this leaves the question "how could he have been tested so many times and never came up positive?"

I fear that all top athletes are at it.

fishy fishy

hardCopy wrote: »

And the team-mate who he gave testosterone patches to, and the physio who gave him her make-up to cover needle marks and the lab who found EPO in his old blood samples.

But I guess we'll never really know...

no we won't - unless we were standing right beside those people when they performed those actions. I;m sure his kids will be delighted that he can break free from 13 years of torment and live his life.

whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

fishy fishy

BarnhallBull wrote: »

The man has 5 young children, there's no way I would allow people falsely accuse me of cheating if I was innocent, that would, in my opinion, be an awful example to set for my children.

As for him and the testers being the only ones who know the truth, not if he sat and doped with the rest of his team, which his teammates are all claiming he did.

maybe he would prefer to spend time with his children and have a life with him.

It's all very well saying "oh I would never do that" but y'know at the end of the day, you don't know what you would do, until you are in that position.

This bandwagoning always makes me laugh.

kfallon

fishy fishy wrote: »

maybe he would prefer to spend time with his children and have a life with him.

It's all very well saying "oh I would never do that" but y'know at the end of the day, you don't know what you would do, until you are in that position.

This bandwagoning always makes me laugh.

Ditto for your posts

hardCopy

fishy fishy wrote: »

no we won't - unless we were standing right beside those people when they performed those actions. I;m sure his kids will be delighted that he can break free from 13 years of torment and live his life.

whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty.

He's been proven guilty by the US Anti Doping Agency, the body charged with preventing drug use in US sport, whose jurisdiction he signed up to as a UCI licensed racer.

The fact that such a determined and aggressive individual won't even try to defend himself speaks volumes.

ronan45

fishy fishy wrote: »

look, I say make it fair - put them all on drugs - then watch them compete - it would be a lot more entertaining and they would all be on the level playing field.

Spose you could have the "Alternative Olympics" Could actually make for some excellent viewing

ronan45

Wibbs wrote: »

I don;t think so. That'll be up to the UCI AFAIK. That's where it's gonna be interesting as they always backed him. Armstrong is playing the odds here. He damn well knows he'll lose the case, but by pulling out like this with the usual whinge of sainthood he'll leave enough doubt. The UCI are gonna be interesting in how they react. The sport in a few areas has been bent as a threepenny bit for a while.

Because when you see a cyclist with his build consistently hammer and I mean hammer specialists in areas where he shouldn't be near the front, never mind breaking away questions are gonna be asked.

Whats a cinema in Coolock got to do with this:P

fishy fishy

hardCopy wrote: »

He's been proven guilty by the US Anti Doping Agency, the body charged with preventing drug use in US sport, whose jurisdiction he signed up to as a UCI licensed racer.

The fact that such a determined and aggressive individual won't even try to defend himself speaks volumes.

it's not that simple - this has been going on for well over a decade. As I say, nobody knows except himself and the person testing him.