Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

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.