Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

Inspector Coptoor

eyescreamcone wrote: »

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

So a recreational heroin user and a big time heroin importer if caught for the first time should serve the same sentence?

Please

Clearlier

eyescreamcone wrote: »

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

It's not out of kilter at all. In fact, it's precisely in line with what others got. 2 others (Dr. Michele Ferrari and Dr. Garcia del Moral) have been banned for life and there are three others who (I believe) are going through the process and potentially facing the same sanction.

Armstrong was offered exactly the same deal as Landis et al. (a 6 month ban if he told USADA everything that was going on) but refused it. It has been reported that in the Oprah interview (I haven't been able/wanted to sit through the whole lot) he said that he regretted not accepting this deal. This press release also confirms that he was offered the same deal.

This article gives a pretty good summary of what has happened.

Armstrong has been very fairly treated. It stands in contrast in fact to his treatment of anybody who objected to doping e.g. Christophe Bassons hounded out of the sport or who tried to lift the lid on what he did e.g. his former physio Emma O'Reilly.

aloyisious

Just heard about Michael Rasmussen (Danish Pro Cyclist) on RTE radio news, so googled his name and found this in Irish Indo' online:

DANISH cyclist Michael Rasmussen on Thursday (two hours ago) admitted to 12 years of doping after making a tell-all deal with anti-doping authorities.

Rasmussen said in a news conference that he took performance-enhancing drugs between 1998 and 2010, both before and after he served a suspension for evading doping controls.

In 2007, Rasmussen was kicked off the Tour de France by his team while leading the overall standings for lying about his whereabouts - information required under anti-doping regulations. He served a two-year suspension between 2007 and 2009.

The revelation comes after American Lance Armstrong earlier this month admitted he took performance-enhancing drugs during all his seven Tour de France victories, saying he was part of a doping culture in the sport.

- Johan Ahlander

aloyisious

Well, Lance ran out of time at midnight last night to make any statements he wanted to USADA ref the drugs scandal. USADA moved the time limit it had given him to make a presentation forward by about three weeks from the original date.

On an aside, it's good that we have the Giro d'Italia visiting us next year.

aloyisious

USADA bans for Johan Bruyneel and two other former management members of Lance Armstrongs defunct team https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsport%2F2014%2Fapr%2F22%2Flance-armstrong-johan-bruyneel-banned-10-years-cycling-doping&ei=LqdWU46ZCoPR0QX4gYHgBA&usg=AFQjCNHgrEEULfrpL5AWDCz4hzqFEt433w&bvm=bv.65177938,d.d2k...

aloyisious

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/lance-armstrong-writes-foreword-for-whistleblowers-book-273876.html

Lance writes foreword for whistleblowers book

Alf Veedersane

I'm sure it'll be heartwarming.

rubadub

emma o reilly on tv3
http://www.tv3.ie/ireland_am_video.php?locID=1.65.74&video=81812

jive

Emma O'Reilly wrecks my head, goes on about how great an athlete he was... Christ

Duck's hoop

Very unpleasant individual Lance. But it's hard to deny he was a machine.

jive

Duck's hoop wrote: »

Very unpleasant individual Lance. But it's hard to deny he was a machine.

So is every other pro cyclist

Duck's hoop

And this means..?

He won 7 Tours de France. In a row. The majority of pros are delighted to win a stage.

anewme

dont know if Willie Nelson actually said that, but it's attributed to him and always makes me laugh..........


"I think it is just terrible and disgusting how everyone has treated Lance Armstrong, especially after what he achieved, winning seven Tour de France races while on drugs. When I was on drugs, I couldn't even find my bike.”

ThisRegard

Duck's hoop wrote: »

And this means..?

He won 7 Tours de France. In a row. The majority of pros are delighted to win a stage.

He is in the official record books as having won none.

Duck's hoop

ThisRegard wrote: »

He is in the official record books as having won none.

That's just the farce filled cherry on top of the whole thing.

jive

Duck's hoop wrote: »

And this means..?

He won 7 Tours de France. In a row. The majority of pros are delighted to win a stage.

Hahahah c'mon

LuckyLloyd

jive wrote: »

Emma O'Reilly wrecks my head, goes on about how great an athlete he was... Christ

jive wrote: »

So is every other pro cyclist

And in the era Lance was in every other pro cyclist was cheating just like Lance was. And he beat their ****ing brains out. Time after time after time after time.

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT.

I personally think it's fascinating that people are displeased with her book and position on the whole thing. They want an easy 'Lance was a cheat and is essentially the Devil' narrative. Instead, she is detailing exactly how he cheated but also explaining that the medical program he was engaged in was the standard at the time and he was an unbelievable physical specimen and competitor on top of it all.

Armstrong was a tremendous athlete who used doping protocols to push his body to the limit.
Armstrong is a man who has made a huge personal contribution to the fight on cancer while also being central to bringing a major sport into disrepute.
Armstrong has been described as a loyal and caring man on a personal level while also being aggressive to a ridiculous and indefensible extent against those who blew the whistle on him and chased him down.
Armstrong is a man who might have got away with it all if he'd allowed accusations to swirl around him and hadn't felt the need to sue and face down all of his detractors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

How many clean riders on that hill?

Alf Veedersane

Given that he cycled when a lot of top cyclists were engaged in drug-taking to some degree, there's the argument to say he'd have bossed a 100% clean field...but it's hard to ignore Greg Lemond suggesting that he'd have been top 30 but not top of the pile.

LuckyLloyd

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Given that he cycled when a lot of top cyclists were engaged in drug-taking to some degree, there's the argument to say he'd have bossed a 100% clean field...but it's hard to ignore Greg Lemond suggesting that he'd have been top 30 but not top of the pile.

There's a strong argument that he was clean in 2009 and was podium level as a 38 year old. LeMond also described Armstrong as a "thug" and has argued that he should be jailed for his transgressions. I'd have to question how rational and objective that claim is tbh.

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's a strong argument that he was clean in 2009 and was podium level as a 38 year old. LeMond also described Armstrong as a "thug" and has argued that he should be jailed for his transgressions. I'd have to question how rational and objective that claim is tbh.

To be fair, there's a strong argument that Armstrong was a thug.

Clearlier

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There's a strong argument that he was clean in 2009 and was podium level as a 38 year old. LeMond also described Armstrong as a "thug" and has argued that he should be jailed for his transgressions. I'd have to question how rational and objective that claim is tbh.

Science of sport guys are worth a read on this but the long and the short of it is that drugs don't benefit all cyclists equally. EPO was the big drug in Armstrongs era and those with naturally lower haematocrit levels benefited more than those with higher ones. It's only possible to speculate on how he would have done if everyone had been clean. The informed speculation that rang true to me is that he would have been a factor in the classics but not been able to hold his place during the mountain stages of the big tours. At his peak he might have been a top 10 finisher but he probably wouldn't have been able to lead a team.

Jude13

"Armstrong is a man who has made a huge personal contribution to the fight on cancer while also being central to bringing a major sport into disrepute."

Debatable, he used his Livestrong foundation to raise cancer awareness, not research just to make sure no one is being mislead. Now I would be quite confident that there was a huge cancer awareness prior to Livestrong and would question his motives in relation to a smokescreen (not the cancer the foundation) but hey ho, that neither here nor there. I believe an awful lot more will come out of his foundation. use of private jets etc on foundation cash.

If anyone's interested in the murkiness of his business and charity works have a read of the Wall Street Journal writers book Wheelmen (by Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell ) it is a great read. If not, let the internet rules apply where we sling mud without any info.

LuckyLloyd

Clearlier wrote: »

Science of sport guys are worth a read on this but the long and the short of it is that drugs don't benefit all cyclists equally. EPO was the big drug in Armstrongs era and those with naturally lower haematocrit levels benefited more than those with higher ones. It's only possible to speculate on how he would have done if everyone had been clean. The informed speculation that rang true to me is that he would have been a factor in the classics but not been able to hold his place during the mountain stages of the big tours. At his peak he might have been a top 10 finisher but he probably wouldn't have been able to lead a team.

That is true but the fact that he was a completely different type of cyclist before cancer confuses the issue too. Absent of cancer in the drug era that assessment is probably spot on. But the loss of weight and mass meant that when he returned he was likely to be a far superior climber than he was before.

What we probably could agree on is that the make up of the peleton 1998 - 2005 in a fully clean era would have been dramatically different and Armstrong would have been a professional cyclist pushing his ability to the absolute maximum.

LuckyLloyd

Jude13 wrote: »

"Armstrong is a man who has made a huge personal contribution to the fight on cancer while also being central to bringing a major sport into disrepute."

Debatable, he used his Livestrong foundation to raise cancer awareness, not research just to make sure no one is being mislead. Now I would be quite confident that there was a huge cancer awareness prior to Livestrong and would question his motives in relation to a smokescreen (not the cancer the foundation) but hey ho, that neither here nor there. I believe an awful lot more will come out of his foundation. use of private jets etc on foundation cash.

If anyone's interested in the murkiness of his business and charity works have a read of the Wall Street Journal writers book Wheelmen (by Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell ) it is a great read. If not, let the internet rules apply where we sling mud without any info.

The organisation was engaged in funding Cancer Research for a period. It now focusses on patient research, support services and lobbying. If you wish to narrow the definition of 'fighting cancer' to research alone that is fine. What I think is inarguable is that his charitable foundation made a hugely positive impact.

You are entitled to believe the bolded of course, but I'm not sure what you're basing it on tbh. Wheelmen is a good breakdown of the world of cycling and its failings, but I fail to see how it is authoritative in demeaning his foundation.

Jude13

Give it a read or re-read

The Guvnor

Kind of following this and kind of not...

I have a feeling this is far from over and when and if he blows the whistle completely it will be 'interesting'.

I personally am not shocked to learn that drugs were used in cycling - I would only be shocked to learn that they were not used!

He is being vilified from a great height and given how prevalent drug use was in cycling I find that hard to take - he was still the best - bottom line - maybe his crime was being too successful?

Clearlier

The Guvnor wrote: »

Kind of following this and kind of not...

I have a feeling this is far from over and when and if he blows the whistle completely it will be 'interesting'.

I personally am not shocked to learn that drugs were used in cycling - I would only be shocked to learn that they were not used!

He is being vilified from a great height and given how prevalent drug use was in cycling I find that hard to take - he was still the best - bottom line - maybe his crime was being too successful?

He was only the best when he took drugs. He probably wouldn't have been if there had been no drugs in the peleton. He brought with the help of Ferrari doping to a new level in the sport. He trafficked drugs, co-erced other riders into taking drugs and forces riders out of the sport. Kimmage was right in his description of him. Still he would have only had a very short ban if he had accepted the deal offered that was taken by other riders.

LuckyLloyd

The Guvnor wrote: »

Kind of following this and kind of not...

I have a feeling this is far from over and when and if he blows the whistle completely it will be 'interesting'.

I personally am not shocked to learn that drugs were used in cycling - I would only be shocked to learn that they were not used!

He is being vilified from a great height and given how prevalent drug use was in cycling I find that hard to take - he was still the best - bottom line - maybe his crime was being too successful?

An American leader of an American team winning seven Tour De France titles meant that he was going to have an unusually vociferous and determined bunch of people on his trail. The European journalists leading the hunt as it were clearly 'hate' him. The likes of Kimmage seems utterly consumed by the subject.

Some things might have saved him from this outcome:

- if he had been able to reign himself in when allegations were flung his way. Sueing everything that moves; calling O' Reilly a 'whore'; always going one step too far in his denials ("you require 'extraordinary' proof);
- if he hadn't returned in 2009. This was a red rag to a large group of already extremely pissed off people. It also reopened him to scrutiny and provided one more chance to pin something on him;
- if he had kept the likes of Landis close and given him a role on the Astana team for the 2009 tour;

And this is all his fault (just as the decision to accept the lie of the land in cycling and also cheat was his own). He pushed back too hard, but that desire to fight and achieve total victory is what made him the seven time champion in the first place.

I'd be fairly comfortable in assuming Indurain and Wiggins weren't fully clean. But it's naïve to think that 'clean' exists at the elite level of endurance sport where there is so much at stake and winning means so much. Fully clean sport is about as achievable as world peace.

LuckyLloyd

Clearlier wrote: »

He was only the best when he took drugs. He probably wouldn't have been if there had been no drugs in the peleton. He brought with the help of Ferrari doping to a new level in the sport. He trafficked drugs, co-erced other riders into taking drugs and forces riders out of the sport. Kimmage was right in his description of him. Still he would have only had a very short ban if he had accepted the deal offered that was taken by other riders.

It was necessary for riders who wished to operate at the required level of his team. Riders had the option to not take but be a dead duck for the remainder of their contract and get dropped thereafter. Armstrong didn't introduce doping to the sport, it was there long before he started riding.

Like all aspects of his preparation, he wanted it more and was more determined to win than the rest of the peleton. I've always thought this criticism particularly weird - like he would be less hateable if he'd only cheated in a half hearted manner?

eyescreamcone

Do people think that <snip> was clean throughout 1987?

LuckyLloyd

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Do people think that <snip> was clean throughout 1987?

I don't!

Alf Veedersane

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Do people think that <snip> was clean throughout 1987?

I'd say he was covered in oil and dirt having to sleep with his bike during the Giro.

shutup

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT.

1 ) Even with all his titles he was not considered the Greatest of all Time.

b ) Also, if everyone cheated and he won does not mean that if nobody cheated he would have still won. It does not work like that. The drugs have different effects on different people. He also had more money to put into it so had the best doctors ( or the same doctor working more for him then the rest ).




[/QUOTE]How many clean riders on that hill?[/QUOTE]

None

Clearlier

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It was necessary for riders who wished to operate at the required level of his team. Riders had the option to not take but be a dead duck for the remainder of their contract and get dropped thereafter. Armstrong didn't introduce doping to the sport, it was there long before he started riding.

Like all aspects of his preparation, he wanted it more and was more determined to win than the rest of the peleton. I've always thought this criticism particularly weird - like he would be less hateable if he'd only cheated in a half hearted manner?

What's so complicated about thinking that his actions in raising the doping bar which eventually lead to the death of several riders is more reprehensible than a guy who tried to level his perceived playing field by taking what everyone else is taking? As I read your view of the world it was ok for him to dope more than anyone else because he was more determined to win than anyone else. Otherwise read as - everyone else was a loser because they didn't dope like Armstrong and that's ok.

Nobody has ever suggested that Armstrong introduced doping into cycling.

You mentioned in an earlier post that Armstrong might have been a great because cancer changed his body. That's another myth he peddled to try and explain away his inexplicable performances.

I don't understand why anyone would continue to defend Armstrong. He's by his own admission a serial liar and cheater. He has done some horrible things to colleagues. The good that he has done with his foundation should not be dismissed but it shouldn't be overestimated either.

eyescreamcone

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't!

So in a dirty sport "everyone cheated" - everyone except the tour de france, giro and world championship triple winner.

And he was so good that year, but he never won anything before or after. 

Alf Veedersane

eyescreamcone wrote: »

So in a dirty sport "everyone cheated" - everyone except the tour de france, giro and world championship triple winner.

And he was so good that year, but he never won anything before or after. 

If you read your question again, LL is agreeing with you.

LuckyLloyd

Clearlier wrote: »

What's so complicated about thinking that his actions in raising the doping bar which eventually lead to the death of several riders is more reprehensible than a guy who tried to level his perceived playing field by taking what everyone else is taking?

There's nothing complicated about that line of thought, infact it's far too simplistic. Because everyone knows the sport of cycling was / is / always will be crooked beyond compare the only way to assign moral failing to Armstrong is by whinging about him cheating more efficiently than everyone else.

Clearlier wrote: »

As I read your view of the world it was ok for him to dope more than anyone else because he was more determined to win than anyone else. Otherwise read as - everyone else was a loser because they didn't dope like Armstrong and that's ok.

No, everyone else loses any right to complain or feel cheated when they were taking the same thing as he was. If he was smarter about avoiding detection and more efficient in his overall scientific / nutrition / training / race strategy approach then so what? The argument here is incredibly weak and ultimately pares down to a sense of outrage at him being too good for too long allied to a frustration that pretty much everyone else got done apart from him.

Nobody has ever suggested that Armstrong introduced doping into cycling.

Good. They should also park the suggestion that Armstrong himself took it to the next level. Ferrari was just a more studied scientist and Armstrong just had tighter and better coordinated teams. Armstrong didn't create new technologies or introduce strategies no one else used.

You mentioned in an earlier post that Armstrong might have been a great because cancer changed his body. That's another myth he peddled to try and explain away his inexplicable performances.

It's not a myth that he dropped weight and mass, it's just fact. It's not a myth that he changed gear and cadence and set his objectives differently, it's just fact. He was doping before cancer too, his results and impact was different.

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would continue to defend Armstrong. He's by his own admission a serial liar and cheater. He has done some horrible things to colleagues. The good that he has done with his foundation should not be dismissed but it shouldn't be overestimated either.

He has also done some great things for colleagues too. Lance Armstrong's professionalism, determination and will to win displayed during his career is inspirational. Coming back from cancer like he did to get back to being one of the most elite athletes in the world is inspirational.

My opinion is different to yours and we may never agree, but cycling is a doper sport and has been for a very long time. Armstrong played by the 'rules of the road' that everyone else did and beat them hands down time after time after time. I think there is a lot of sanctimonious bull**** written about sport in general when it comes to drugs but the cycling media are the worst offenders by far. As Armstrong has said - everyone made money off his back, including the likes of Kimmage and Walsh who made Armstrong their cash cow cause celebre and got plenty of work bleating about his moral failings.

The world doesn't want fully clean sport. The consequences of clean sport is catapulting back to pre 1960 and never seeing anything amazing yet again; not having world records broken, etc. Maybe there are the few who truly believe in the glory of a clean contest and the joy of pure competition. I could embrace it, but there are no doping controls strong enough to ensure that when there is so much money at stake. But the majority of sport is about entertainment and awe, and it is the height of naivety to think that the bulk of competitors are clean and that holding Armstrong up as an example will even scratch the surface of the problem.

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote:

As Armstrong has said - everyone made money off his back, including the likes of Kimmage and Walsh who made Armstrong their cash cow cause celebre and got plenty of work bleating about his moral failings.

To be fair, Kimmage's pursuit of Armstrong came with a high tariff for quite some time.

LuckyLloyd

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

To be fair, Kimmage's pursuit of Armstrong came with a high tariff for quite some time.

It also gave him lots of work and relevancy though, you can't deny that.

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It also gave him lots of work and relevancy though, you can't deny that.

And I wouldn't try. But I don't think he's all that much better off now because of Lance Armstrong than he would have been if Lance Armstrong had never been a story.

LuckyLloyd

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

And I wouldn't try. But I don't think he's all that much better off now because of Lance Armstrong than he would have been if Lance Armstrong had never been a story.

Okay, fair enough. Unfair of me to unconsciously imply their Armstrong crusade was financially motivated anyway. I don't buy for a single second however his sell that in the absence of Armstrong we would have had a clean tour. You may have had a lower percentage of riders and teams doping in 1999 in the immediate aftermath of the Festina scandal, but things would have cascaded back to normal soon enough. Just too much of a payoff to using EPO in 99 and 00 before it was testable for teams to not risk it.

The nature of the sport will always lend itself to doping imo.

Alf Veedersane

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Okay, fair enough. Unfair of me to unconsciously imply their Armstrong crusade was financially motivated anyway. I don't buy for a single second however his sell that in the absence of Armstrong we would have had a clean tour. You may have had a lower percentage of riders and teams doping in 1999 in the immediate aftermath of the Festina scandal, but things would have cascaded back to normal soon enough. Just too much of a payoff to using EPO in 99 and 00 before it was testable for teams to not risk it.

The nature of the sport will always lend itself to doping imo.

I suppose it's because the full extent of his reach has been revealed and the lengths he went to whereas a lot of other cases are only ever seen in isolation, apart from Festina obviously. So it looks like his role sent blood doping and drug taking through the roof.

I don't buy it either but it will always be speculated on in that context.

The blood passport is a positive but it's hard to think the pharmacists won't always be at least one step ahead of the game.

scrumqueen

This popped up on my newsfeed this morning, good read on what he's up to now..

http://www.esquire.com/features/lance-armstrong-interview-0814

LuckyLloyd

scrumqueen wrote: »

This popped up on my newsfeed this morning, good read on what he's up to now..

http://www.esquire.com/features/lance-armstrong-interview-0814

Thanks for linking that article, brilliant read.

Chucky the tree

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And in the era Lance was in every other pro cyclist was cheating just like Lance was. And he beat their ****ing brains out. Time after time after time after time.

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT.

Bit of a contraction here...

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Good. They should also park the suggestion that Armstrong himself took it to the next level. Ferrari was just a more studied scientist and Armstrong just had tighter and better coordinated teams. Armstrong didn't create new technologies or introduce strategies no one else used.
.

I'm not saying every cyclist was clean. But if you're a cyclist who is finishing 50th in the tour de France and you know the 49 ahead of you are on drugs then what do you do? If everyone on the Tour knew Lance was on drugs, they probably did then there only two options were to settle for average finishes or join him. Lance isn't the big evil monster, but I think that's the reason drug cheats have to be crushed when found out.


Also, Lance Armstrong was in the business of cheating with drugs. He had everything set up perfectly because he knew this is what he wanted to do. Drugs are a leveler. Other riders who took drugs would have less knowledge etc so their effects would have been less so I certainly wouldn't agree that it can be said that he wold have done just as well if he and everyone else wasn't on drugs.

LuckyLloyd

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'm not saying every cyclist was clean. But if you're a cyclist who is finishing 50th in the tour de France and you know the 49 ahead of you are on drugs then what do you do? If everyone on the Tour knew Lance was on drugs, they probably did then there only two options were to settle for average finishes or join him. Lance isn't the big evil monster, but I think that's the reason drug cheats have to be crushed when found out.

Lance Armstrong didn't introduce that dilemma to the sport. He admits himself that as a World Champion he had to suck it up and get on the medical program to be competitive in 1994. Kimmage's book on his pro career clearly shows that the issue existed in the Roche era and clean winners of major races were unlikely.

Despite repeated doping bans the issue was prevalent all the way through to 2009 at least - and it remains to be seen whether the blood passport will fully eliminate dopers.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Also, Lance Armstrong was in the business of cheating with drugs. He had everything set up perfectly because he knew this is what he wanted to do. Drugs are a leveler. Other riders who took drugs would have less knowledge etc so their effects would have been less so I certainly wouldn't agree that it can be said that he wold have done just as well if he and everyone else wasn't on drugs.

He knew he wanted to compete in a doping era against doping riders so he doped. Again, other riders cheating less efficiently is not his problem and a very poor stick to beat him with.

I'll agree that there is doubt as to what would have happened in a fully clean race. Would we have Indurain's five wins? Would Ulrich have been competing for the prize? Would Pantani have been the supreme mountain goat? We can be certain Armstrong would have had the determination to push himself to his own personal limit and that he had talent. The rest is very debateable I'll agree.

kevpants

That esquire article made me realise why I still kinda like Armstrong. Despite all he's been through, cancer survival, 7 tours and all the lies and bullying and now going through a downfall the likes of which hasn't been seen before (much worse than Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton or pretty much anyone bar Jimmy Saville) he never once mentions Jesus.

Any American scandal-ee who's high profile will always play the Jesus card because you're pretty much guaranteed a portion of society will forgive you if you go with christ (brah).

I respect that he never played that card. He clearly has no faith but neither do most of the people who miraculously find J-Dog after a scandal. He could have easily pedalled another lie there but he hasn't.

Fair play to him on that.

conzy

kevpants wrote: »

I respect that he never played that card. He clearly has no faith but neither do most of the people who miraculously find J-Dog after a scandal. He could have easily pedalled another lie .

+1 for J-Dog

Alf Veedersane

kevpants wrote: »

He could have easily pedalled another lie there but he hasn't.

Nice work.

jive

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And in the era Lance was in every other pro cyclist was cheating just like Lance was. And he beat their ****ing brains out. Time after time after time after time.

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT.

I personally think it's fascinating that people are displeased with her book and position on the whole thing. They want an easy 'Lance was a cheat and is essentially the Devil' narrative. Instead, she is detailing exactly how he cheated but also explaining that the medical program he was engaged in was the standard at the time and he was an unbelievable physical specimen and competitor on top of it all.

Armstrong was a tremendous athlete who used doping protocols to push his body to the limit.
Armstrong is a man who has made a huge personal contribution to the fight on cancer while also being central to bringing a major sport into disrepute.
Armstrong has been described as a loyal and caring man on a personal level while also being aggressive to a ridiculous and indefensible extent against those who blew the whistle on him and chased him down.
Armstrong is a man who might have got away with it all if he'd allowed accusations to swirl around him and hadn't felt the need to sue and face down all of his detractors.

How many clean riders on that hill?

Your argument for how he is a tremendous athlete is horribly flawed. How many clean riders on that hill? Not many, but not all cheaters are created equal are they? Armstrong was a better doper, not a better cyclist; not like that matters, because how many people were left off that hill as a result of all those cúnts cheating a living?

In a fully clean era he still would have been the GOAT... my arse. He wasn't exactly great prior to doping, was he? If a sex trafficker made major contributions to charity on the back of money he made illegally would you be singing his praises as well? The guy stole a living off many clean athletes and is widely regarded as a complete arsehole from anyone that has had any dealings with him. He pressured others to use drugs and essentially rid the team of anyone unwilling to dope. He's a complete príck I literally can't believe that there are people who defend him, still, despite everything finally being laid out.