Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

Happyman42

Hanley wrote: »

That should say "probably not". It's a typo. Move on.

I sympathise with you, I keep telling my wife that instead of saying 'I do', I MEANT to say 'I do not'.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Hanley wrote: »

That should say "probably not". It's a typo. Move on.

:pac:

ronan45

Ive said it before ill say it again

There should be 2 seperate Camps

Drugs users and non Drug users

I would love to see some doped up roid monster smash Bolts record by 5 or 6 seconds :cool: Would make for great entertainment

Hanley

ronan45 wrote: »

Ive said it before ill say it again

There should be 2 seperate Camps

Drugs users and non Drug users

I would love to see some doped up roid monster smash Bolts record by 5 or 6 seconds :cool: Would make for great entertainment

The most likely scenario is that Bolt would come out and smash it...

Dave 101

ronan45 wrote: »

Ive said it before ill say it again

There should be 2 seperate Camps

Drugs users and non Drug users

I would love to see some doped up roid monster smash Bolts record by 5 or 6 seconds :cool: Would make for great entertainment

Wouldn't happen, if you took more stuff the bolt it would be a case of diminishing returns, there's only so much you could take before it would give negative results

Inspector Coptoor

Hanley wrote: »

The most likely scenario is that Bolt would come out and smash it...

Yeah - cause he's on like Donkey Kong

myflipflops

Hanley wrote: »

Read what I actually said, not what you think I said. And read it in context. It all still applies. There's nothing "wrong" there.

Find a post where I believed Armstrong was drug free (don't bother wasting your time - there is none). All my posts are in relation to how the case was conducted. And as someone who's had similar accusations thrown at them, I still think it was a bull**** investigation carried out as a witch hunt.

Armstrong's "actual" doping status is not something I've ever questioned.

So you still believe that it is 'a f**cking disgrace' as you wrote before?

Not a disgrace what Armstrong has done over the last 15 years but a disgrace that people went to such lengths to go after him and show him up for what he is?

Aquarius34

He offered to go on Oprah, he's asking for it!, seriously... What I find odd is people still paying attention to this. All roid heads are cheaters and I think it's time for them to come to terms with it. I don't understand how people can lie to themselves and call themselves natural when they are not.

Gummy Panda

Aquarius34 wrote: »

He offered to go on Oprah, he's asking for it!, seriously... What I find odd is people still paying attention to this. All roid heads are cheaters and I think it's time for them to come to terms with it. I don't understand how people can lie to themselves and call themselves natural when they are not.

If they are all using PEDs, how is it cheating?

People are never going to be honest when honesty gets you a prison sentence

Oryx

Gummy Panda wrote: »

If they are all using PEDs, how is it cheating?

Those who refuse to dope are squeezed out of the sport.
It is hidden.
It lies to the public about what is naturally achievable.
It is physically damaging (riders have died).
The rules say your ride clean. If youre careless with the rules anyway, why not just disregard all rules and ride a bloody motorbike?

Just because it is common and hard to detect does not mean we should accept it. It removes the whole reasoning behind competition. Instead of pitting your natural ability against others, youre pitting your wallet and pharmaceutical nous against your competitors.

People are never going to be honest when honesty gets you a prison sentence

People generally dont break the law BECAUSE of the threat of a prison sentence.....

mattser

Just wondering. Does anyone have even the slightest bit of compassion for LA ?

Oryx

mattser wrote: »

Just wondering. Does anyone have even the slightest bit of compassion for LA ?

Im waiting to see the interview to see exactly how cynical I should be.

Gummy Panda

Oryx wrote: »

People generally dont break the law BECAUSE of the threat of a prison sentence.....

No but he wants people to be honest and open about PED use. No one is going to be honest with the threat of prison and loss of sponsership.

Its like Christian Boeving when he admitted PED use and got dropped by sponser. Everyone knew he was using PEDs except the most naive.

EDIT: I know he is a bad example but I can't think of any sports star that admitted PED uses who then didn't turn around and blame all their ills on it

Dave 101

mattser wrote: »

Just wondering. Does anyone have even the slightest bit of compassion for LA ?

Definitely, he just did wat everyone else did, the sport is full of users even at the low level,I remember back in '99 I witnessed a cyclist receive peds he was a top 5 in Ireland so I was told and tat everyone he knew around him was using, and it's the same in every sport, all Olympians and others that are at the top of there sport are using something and if people don't beleive tat there naive

myflipflops

mattser wrote: »

Just wondering. Does anyone have even the slightest bit of compassion for LA ?

What are people supposed to have compassion for?

Gummy Panda wrote: »

If they are all using PEDs, how is it cheating?

Ignoring that massive flaws in the idea that it is ok because 'they were all doing it', read the below piece on Armstrong from The Science of Sport site, specifically point 3.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2013/01/guest-post-last-lance.html

Science of Sport wrote:

3. "If Lance doped, it doesn't matter - everyone else was doping too, so it was a level playing field"

This is another common defence, and it leads to all kinds of bizarre justifications of Armstrong's success and why he should be left alone. It's also frustratingly wrong, for three reasons.

First, remember that doping was illegal, which means that even though everyone may have been doing it, they were doing it with the pressure of a legal system on them. That means that some will have been brazen enough to try more than others. You are not seeing a level playing field because not every athlete is willing to risk as much given that there are penalties for cheating. And while the testing may have been grossly inadequate, as I explained above, it still forced athletes to take risks and spend more money to get away with doping. Therefore, the results of the race were strongly influenced by who was most successful at doing the illegal thing, who wanted to take the most risk, and who had the best systems to help them get away with the illegal action. That in turn is a function of money and power, but nowhere in this does being the best cyclist factor in. And yes, the playing field is never even, but when money, power and an appetite for illegal behavior affect results more than physiology and training, there's a problem.

Secondly, there is no doubt at all that drugs affect people differently. You and I may take two aspirin for a headache. Mine gets worse, you fall asleep 30 minutes later. Individual differences mean that you cannot assume, even if everyone dopes the same (which they don't - see previous point), that the race is equal.

And third, it's irrelevant anyway. I'm baffled by this pseudo-justification of Armstrong's doping because other guys were doping too. They should be viewed as parallel cases, that have cross-threads linking them (they're all in the same race, for example), but how does Ullrich's doping make Armstrong's or Basso's any less wrong? Surely the moral compass that is the foundation of all sport requires that everyone obey the rules that they have accepted in the first place?

If every single investment banker on Wall Street was dishonest and committing fraud, does that mean that none are in the wrong? Are Madoff and Stanford less guilty because fraud is widespread? If a student cheats on an exam to get into University, is that condoned as long as he's not the only one cheating?

Related to this is the idea that Armstrong's titles should be left alone because those who he beat have also been convicted of doping. As this graphic illustrates, the list of dopers in the Top 10 of the Tour de France is long, and if Armstrong is not the champion, who is? Ullrich, Zulle, Basso, Vinokourov, Rumsas are names on the podium with Armstrong. It would be laughable to take Armstrong's titles away and award them to a known doper.

But this is not a reason to do something. Perhaps the best action is to either leave the winner of those Tours blank, with the statement "No official winner due to doping controversies", or keep the names of the winners with a giant asterisk that acknowledges their place as champions of what was actually just a giant pharmacological experiment.

To defend Armstrong on this basis is symptomatic of the mindset that pushed cycling into this situation in the first place - cheating was condoned on the basis that it was a "necessary evil", "just to keep up". And believe me, I'm sympathetic to the plight of cyclists who face this decision. David Millar faced it. Jonathan Vaughters faced it, and both have written of the conflict they faced. Not everyone gives in. I dare say I'm grateful I didn't have to make such a decision, because I don't know that I would've resisted.

That confession out the way, my point is that we know others doped too. Many have been caught. To allow an athlete to get away with it for that reason is just not good enough. If there is a rule, then it must be enforced as many times as is necessary.

Scuba Ste

mattser wrote: »

Just wondering. Does anyone have even the slightest bit of compassion for LA ?

A teeny bit. No other athlete has had to go through this kind of public shaming. From some sources you'd think he was a murderer not an athlete that took PED's (which isn't that bad really). Still his public image and success left him open to it. I wonder if thinks 'I should have left it one or two, why did I have to win seven, stupid Lance, stupid, stupid'.

He's received a lifetime ban and the loss of all his TdF medals while some others are back cycling and winning again.

Scuba Ste

Gummy Panda wrote: »

If they are all using PEDs, how is it cheating?

Because he got caught .

mcmoustache

The whole witch-hunt defence is nonsense.

Lance was the biggest fish of all in that sport and made plenty from the media spotlight on him. He enjoyed it and made the most of it.

He made himself a high profile figure. It was his choice. As a result, of course he was going to show up on people's radar.

Plenty of smaller fish have been caught and punished - there is no reason why lance should have been left alone and plenty of reasons to go after him.

This is no more a witch-hunt than the pursuit of Al Capone.

Aquarius34

Gummy Panda wrote: »

If they are all using PEDs, how is it cheating?

People are never going to be honest when honesty gets you a prison sentence

Are you actually been for real standing by that statement "everyone" takes steroids. No everyone does not take steroids. It seems like you're defending this case, and to why I do not even want to know. Steroids are drugs and you're not a true athlete if you use drugs to help you to reach your goals.

Second point. The law is not their biggest worry, it's been found out by the sports field. They don't want to be stripped from their titles. Could you do less with the bluffing, those kind of response are so 1990................

Gummy Panda

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Are you actually been for real standing by that statement "everyone" takes steroids. No everyone does not take steroids. It seems like you're defending this case, and to why I do not even want to know. Steroids are drugs and you're not a true athlete if you use drugs to help you to reach your goals.

Second point. The law is not their biggest worry, it's been found out by the sports field. They don't want to be stripped from their titles. Could you do less with the bluffing, those kind of response are so 1990................

I don't even know what that last line is suppose to mean

Aquarius34

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I don't even know what that last line is suppose to mean

It means you're living in a different reality or timezone to this one if you think that everyone is taking steroids. Then you make it as if it looks like people are afraid to admit there're on steroids because they are afraid to go to prison. It was the greatest load of crap I've read in ages.

Gummy Panda

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It means you're living in a different reality or timezone to this one if you think that everyone is taking steroids. Then you make it as if it looks like people are afraid to admit there're on steroids because they are afraid to go to prison. It was the greatest load of crap I've read in ages.

This gave me a giggle

aloyisious

Lance has reaped what he sowed. Any attempt by him to justify his cheating must be thrown back in his face. If he names names within the UCI as being complicit (by way of knowledge and/or inaction) in his cheating, then let him do so but don't give him any kudos that'll enable him to re-enter the sports arena in any way. I assume with safety that by now he know's what happens to those who libel or slander any-one else.

Aquarius34

Gummy Panda wrote: »

This gave me a giggle

Thought so, it's a way of been defferal to acknowledging the errors in your previous statements

eyescreamcone

Why was he given a lifetime ban for a first conviction???

aloyisious

Armstrong (who was banned by U.S. doping authorities in August from all official sporting events and told all his cycling accomplishments would be forfeited) had won the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times between 1999 and 2005, but in 2012 he was disqualified from all his results since August 1998 for using and distributing performance-enhancing drugs and was banned from professional cycling for life.[4] Armstrong did not appeal the decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.[5] He repeatedly denied ever doping,[6][7] until he admitted in a television interview in January 2013 to systematic use of performance enhancing drugs throughout much of his career.

Happyman42

Is 'Lance Armstrong' any relation of 'That's A Bit Of A Stretch Armstrong'*?





*only really elderly people will understand this!:(

kumate_champ07

Hanley wrote: »

That should say "probably not". It's a typo. Move on.

nah

eyescreamcone

David Walsh on rte about LA "terrorising" individuals. Is this now a punishable crime??

LA has got a lifetime ban for a first conviction - some might say this is fair - but is this punishment in line with other sentences in cycling and other sports??

Inspector Coptoor

eyescreamcone wrote: »

David Walsh on rte about LA "terrorising" individuals. Is this now a punishable crime??

LA has got a lifetime ban for a first conviction - some might say this is fair - but is this punishment in line with other sentences in cycling and other sports??

He was given multiple chances in multiple fora to come forward and co-operate.
He chose to decline all those offers.

The book was rightfully thrown at him.
He wasnt just a doper, he was a serial doper
He was the ringleader of the most sophisticated doping circle ever.

And, he's not in the slightest bit contrite.
He's only sorry he was caught.

mattser

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

He was given multiple chances in multiple fora to come forward and co-operate.
He chose to decline all those offers.

The book was rightfully thrown at him.
He wasnt just a doper, he was a serial doper
He was the ringleader of the most sophisticated doping circle ever.

And, he's not in the slightest bit contrite.
He's only sorry he was caught.

I agree with all of the above, even though I fought his corner for a while. I just wonder where the sport goes from here. Is it the end of riders using banned substances ? The next few TDF's will be interesting.

eyescreamcone

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

He was given multiple chances in multiple fora to come forward and co-operate.
He chose to decline all those offers.

The book was rightfully thrown at him.
He wasnt just a doper, he was a serial doper
He was the ringleader of the most sophisticated doping circle ever.

And, he's not in the slightest bit contrite.
He's only sorry he was caught.

All dopers are serial dopers.
What has being contrite got to do with it.

He took PED. (He was not outed in the usual fashion).
He should get the same penalty as everyone else.

If someone failed a test what ban would they get (after probably doping for years) ???

Inspector Coptoor

eyescreamcone wrote: »

All dopers are serial dopers.
What has being contrite got to do with it.

His interview with Oprah was meant to have been a confession where he expressed remorse at what he did.

He made a ridiculous amount of money and won a unprecedented number of titles by cheating. He did all this under false pretenses, constantly and repeatedly denying his use of PEDs.

You can dress it up all you want, say that he worked hard to get where he did (of course he did, the juice didnt win the titles without outrageously hard work), but the fact remains, he broke the rules of the sport.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

He was not outed in the usual fashion
He should get the same penalty as everyone else.

He wasnt outed it the usual fashion because he was the big fish, he was the big kahuna and it took extraordinary measures to bring down an extraordinary cheater.

There's no way someone who went quietly and co-operated should get the same ban as someone who went kicking and screaming and fúcking and blinding at anyone who was trying to expose the truth

eyescreamcone wrote: »

If someone failed a test what ban would they get (after probably doping for years) ???

The bottom line is it's meant to be a drug free sport.
He wasn't.
He cheated.

They should all have got lifetime bans

eyescreamcone

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

His interview with Oprah was meant to have been a confession where he expressed remorse at what he did.

He made a ridiculous amount of money and won a unprecedented number of titles by cheating. He did all this under false pretenses, constantly and repeatedly denying his use of PEDs.

You can dress it up all you want, say that he worked hard to get where he did (of course he did, the juice didnt win the titles without outrageously hard work), but the fact remains, he broke the rules of the sport.




He wasnt outed it the usual fashion because he was the big fish, he was the big kahuna and it took extraordinary measures to bring down an extraordinary cheater.

There's no way someone who went quietly and co-operated should get the same ban as someone who went kicking and screaming and fúcking and blinding at anyone who was trying to expose the truth




The bottom line is it's meant to be a drug free sport.
He wasn't.
He cheated.

They should all have got lifetime bans

You're spouting rubbish now!
Ban all dopers for life or don't
Not just one!

Inspector Coptoor

eyescreamcone wrote: »

You're spouting rubbish now!

how is any of that rubbish?

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Ban all dopers for life or don't
Not just one!

That's what I said.

If it were up to me, Id' ban them all.

But it isn't, and they have, rightly or wrongly, various levels of punishment for wrongdoing in the sport.

Clearlier

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

how is any of that rubbish?



That's what I said.

If it were up to me, Id' ban them all.

But it isn't, and they have, rightly or wrongly, various levels of punishment for wrongdoing in the sport.

He trafficked (sp.) drugs which brings a penalty of between 4 years and a life ban. Comparing this ban to bans for taking drugs is like comparing apples to oranges. If you were looking at it from a moral perspective there's plenty of evidence that coerced others into taking drugs too which to my mind is even more reprehensible than taking them.

eyescreamcone

There is a lot of cheating in sports.

In soccer - players dive, defensive walls won't go back 10m, players steal yards when taking throw ins all the time.

In GAA - teams pay managers, players foul deliberately to gain an advantage.

In rugby - plenty of black arts going on in the scrum etc

Players will constantly cheat to gain an advantage. Sometimes we praise them (Maradona's hand ball goal 86)

Some sports like snooker and golf SEEM to be devoid of cheating. People who know more about these sports will no doubt educate me.

Cheating is present in most sports. We accept a lot of cheating. PED is just another form of cheating. (certainly not as bad as match fixing in my mind)

There are rules and penalties in place re PED.
Nobody thought Rio Ferdinand deserved a life sentence for missing a drug test.
Or Michelle de Bruin for tampering with a sample.

LA's sentence seems extremely harsh for a 1st conviction (in comparison with other first timer convictions).

squod

eyescreamcone wrote: »

LA's sentence seems extremely harsh for a 1st conviction (in comparison with other first timer convictions).

Don't think so. Reckon he knew what he was in for too, before he started doping.

Was great to watch him win. Not a fan of his but is does show what can be done with expensive medical treatment and some personal perseverance. Don't think anything will change in the sport because of it.

jive

eyescreamcone wrote: »

LA's sentence seems extremely harsh for a 1st conviction (in comparison with other first timer convictions).

It seems harsh when compared to others who have been caught doping but given his stature in the sporting world, how he treated those who accused him of doping and seemingly (based on interviews with former team mates) those on his team who refused to dope then not so much. He's made far more money than anyone else and it is based on cheating, I don't see why anyone feels sorry for him or why someone, when he has probably made hundreds of millions on the back of his fraudulent success, would see a 6 month ban appropriate to his particular activities. How could anyone, with even just a snippet of information of what went on, sympathise with him. He's a scumbag who sued people who printed what he knew to be the truth and cheated many clean athletes out of a career in cycling (not him alone obviously, but he was a part of the problem).

eyescreamcone

jive wrote: »

It seems harsh when compared to others who have been caught doping but given his stature in the sporting world, how he treated those who accused him of doping and seemingly (based on interviews with former team mates) those on his team who refused to dope then not so much. He's made far more money than anyone else and it is based on cheating, I don't see why anyone feels sorry for him or why someone, when he has probably made hundreds of millions on the back of his fraudulent success, would see a 6 month ban appropriate to his particular activities. How could anyone, with even just a snippet of information of what went on, sympathise with him. He's a scumbag who sued people who printed what he knew to be the truth and cheated many clean athletes out of a career in cycling (not him alone obviously, but he was a part of the problem).

A lot of subjective information going around about LA. You dont get a ban for being a "scumbag" i think.

Very few comments regarding his cancer charity work at the moment (for balance).

Clearlier

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A lot of subjective information going around about LA. You dont get a ban for being a "scumbag" i think.

Very few comments regarding his cancer charity work at the moment (for balance).

It's worth repeating because it may have been missed.

Armstrong was banned for life for trafficking drugs. The ban for trafficking is between 4 years and life. This cannot be compared with other people banned for taking drugs. We're not talking about the same offence.

hardCopy

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A lot of subjective information going around about LA. You dont get a ban for being a "scumbag" i think.

Very few comments regarding his cancer charity work at the moment (for balance).

Some might say that's because Lance benefits so much personally from the charity, both financially and from a PR perspective. They also don't do any cancer research, nor do they do anything at all outside the US.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html?page=all

kevpants

Ebay. Livestrong gear. Bargains.

jive

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A lot of subjective information going around about LA. You dont get a ban for being a "scumbag" i think.

Very few comments regarding his cancer charity work at the moment (for balance).

His charity work doesn't have much relevance to cycling though unless you make the valid argument that much of his work was fueled by an image and money that he garnered through the sport. He was doing charity work prior to cheating his way to that money and TDF titles. Very few comments regarding the clean athletes who had their careers stolen by dopers like Armstrong if you ask me. He has raised astronomical amounts for charity but it's all built on the back of fraudulent success; if I cheated my way to serious amounts of money I'm sure I could raise a lot more money too but the ends don't justify the means, IMO.

I've heard people say Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity too but would anyone actually use that to defend him? A different class of criminal to Armstrong obviously and I'm not trying to make the two in any way comparable I'm just highlighting the fact that it's not a valid defence of Armstrong. If anyone were to defend Armstrong then they should use his excuse which was that it was like putting air in your tires or water in your bottle - everyone was doing it and in reality it's likely that the vast majority were indeed doing it. He's his own man though and makes his own decisions and has to live with the consequences.

kumate_champ07

eyescreamcone wrote: »

A lot of subjective information going around about LA. You dont get a ban for being a "scumbag" i think.

Very few comments regarding his cancer charity work at the moment (for balance).

eyescreamcone

jive wrote: »

His charity work doesn't have much relevance to cycling though unless you make the valid argument that much of his work was fueled by an image and money that he garnered through the sport. He was doing charity work prior to cheating his way to that money and TDF titles. Very few comments regarding the clean athletes who had their careers stolen by dopers like Armstrong if you ask me. He has raised astronomical amounts for charity but it's all built on the back of fraudulent success; if I cheated my way to serious amounts of money I'm sure I could raise a lot more money too but the ends don't justify the means, IMO.

I've heard people say Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity too but would anyone actually use that to defend him? A different class of criminal to Armstrong obviously and I'm not trying to make the two in any way comparable I'm just highlighting the fact that it's not a valid defence of Armstrong. If anyone were to defend Armstrong then they should use his excuse which was that it was like putting air in your tires or water in your bottle - everyone was doing it and in reality it's likely that the vast majority were indeed doing it. He's his own man though and makes his own decisions and has to live with the consequences.

Jimmy Saville - back up the truck please!

Inspector Coptoor

jive wrote: »

His charity work doesn't have much relevance to cycling though unless you make the valid argument that much of his work was fueled by an image and money that he garnered through the sport. He was doing charity work prior to cheating his way to that money and TDF titles. Very few comments regarding the clean athletes who had their careers stolen by dopers like Armstrong if you ask me. He has raised astronomical amounts for charity but it's all built on the back of fraudulent success; if I cheated my way to serious amounts of money I'm sure I could raise a lot more money too but the ends don't justify the means, IMO.

I've heard people say Jimmy Savile raised a lot of money for charity too but would anyone actually use that to defend him? A different class of criminal to Armstrong obviously and I'm not trying to make the two in any way comparable I'm just highlighting the fact that it's not a valid defence of Armstrong. If anyone were to defend Armstrong then they should use his excuse which was that it was like putting air in your tires or water in your bottle - everyone was doing it and in reality it's likely that the vast majority were indeed doing it. He's his own man though and makes his own decisions and has to live with the consequences.

Excellent post.

His charity work has NOTHING to do with this.

eyescreamcone

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Excellent post.

His charity work has NOTHING to do with this.

Of course it does if "facts" like calling him a scumbag or an asshole are being used to justify a life sentence. (not that it matters anyway at his age as he's too old to be competitive again)

Clearlier

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Of course it does if "facts" like calling him a scumbag or an asshole are being used to justify a life sentence. (not that it matters anyway at his age as he's too old to be competitive again)

'Life' sentence was because of trafficking not doping.

eyescreamcone

Clearlier wrote: »

'Life' sentence was because of trafficking not doping.

Whatever!
Too harsh in my opinion.
Out of kilter with all other sentences.