'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

Monty Burnz

No

jhegarty wrote: »

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

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

morana

No

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

mark kiernan

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

Bozacke

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

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

Chips Lovell

No

Bozacke wrote: »

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

Yes there is:

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

Monty Burnz

No

Bozacke wrote: »

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

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

Cardinal Richelieu

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

C3PO

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

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

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

buffalo

No

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

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

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

Capt'n Midnight

No

"you have to sin to be saved"

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

Dermot Illogical

No

Bozacke wrote: »

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

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

Pougle

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

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

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

K_1

No

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

paddy no 11

No

Can i agree with the poster who suggested lifetime bans


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


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

531

mark kiernan wrote: »

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

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

kincsem

No

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

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

RobFowl

No

531 wrote: »

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

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

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

Monty Burnz

No

kincsem wrote: »

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

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

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

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

crumliniano

No

Bozacke wrote: »

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

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

GT_TDI_150

No

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

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

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

Seweryn

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

Syferus

morana wrote: »

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

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

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

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

marienbad

No

Syferus wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syferus

marienbad wrote: »

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

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

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

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

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

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

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

marienbad

No

Syferus wrote: »

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

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

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

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

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

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

Or do you think it does (ho ho)?

corny

No

Syferus wrote: »

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

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

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

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

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

seeing_ie

No

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

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

The evidence is overwhelming.

Syferus

corny wrote: »

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

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

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

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

But ok.

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

AstraMonti

No

A bit of laugh.

Monty Burnz

No

Syferus wrote: »

That is borderline vindictive grandstanding.

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

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

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

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