Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Lance Armstrong being stripped of all titles.

1234689

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor



    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Clearlier


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,366 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    I'm sure it'll be heartwarming.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,386 ✭✭✭✭rubadub




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭Duck's hoop


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


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

    So is every other pro cyclist


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,154 ✭✭✭✭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.”


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,530 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,762 ✭✭✭jive


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,714 ✭✭✭✭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.



    How many clean riders on that hill?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,714 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,947 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,714 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,714 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,947 ✭✭✭Jude13


    Give it a read or re-read


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,714 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,714 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭eyescreamcone


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


Advertisement