nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Lance armstrong drops fight against doping charges

Hasmunch

Lance Armstrong has dropped the fight against doping charges against him. This means he will be stripped of his seven tour titles and his olympic bronze medal. :eek::eek:

He never tested positive in any test however several ex-team mates were lined up to testify against him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sp...ce-titles.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mossess

I think we can all agree on a few things.
1) it is a witch hunt.
2) People are being incentivised to testify in a certain way
3) The USADA are breaking many of their own rules
4) He did not test positive
5) Given the above a fair hearing/trial would not be possible.
6) The USADA does not have the power to strip him of his tour titles.
7) The USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring the charges based on its own rules

Ok, Number 5 is opinion. And my opinion is that if I was him I think I would too call it a day. Some people are saying that he was able to keep ahead of the testing. If this is the case what’s the point in testing any athlete? Why not simply accuse every single athlete who won a medal at this year’s Olympics of doping? The evidence would be exactly the same. IMO the USADA have lost all credibility. I would not let an organisation with no credibility ruin my life.

Jerrica

Jerrica wrote: »

The second one anyone could have. The first is a whole other story and few could successfully achieve. You could do it clean, no problem, but it's generally a lot more difficult than only going to the gym 2/3 times a week (unless you're incredibly gifted genetically).

opinion guy wrote: »

My point was that in mainland Europe most guys look like that. Its not the momentous doping requiring feat you are making it out to be - the other poster was right.

It doens't require doping in Ireland to be skinny/built if its common in France Germany etc.

errr.... I said explicitly that you don't need to use PEDs to get a body like that .... I said it takes some work to look like Christiano Ronaldo.

Wibbs

SHOVELLER wrote: »

Why would a guy who nearly died from cancer knowingly inject himself with cocktails of harmful substances?

The hunger for fame, money and winning.

Why would a guy with his talent and resources cheat?

see above.

And from PeeJay's link above by a world expert and tester;

"There is no doubt in my mind these samples contain synthetic EPO, they belong to Lance Armstrong, and there's no conceivable way that I can see that a lab could've spiked them in a way that the data has presented itself. So there is no doubt in my mind he took EPO during the '99 Tour."

Sorry I find it inconceivable that someone who has raised half a billion dollars in the fight against cancer is a cheat.

Why not? That seems with respect terribly naive. The two can be mutually exclusive. And let's look at the charity he heads shall we? http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/01/news/must-read-livestrong-facts-and-fiction_203023

For folks on mobies;

"Gifford did not uncover any legal misuse of Livestrong funds. That being said, he reported that, “Livestrong spends massively on advertising, PR, and ‘branding,’ all of which helps preserve Armstrong’s marketability at a time when he’s under fire. Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally, an ethically questionable move.”

Gifford found that the brand name was used in an unusual way, as there is a for-profit active lifestyle website also called Livestrong. In addition, the foundation has scaled back its research funding, although many people still assume Livestrong is a research-based foundation.

According to Gifford, the benefit Armstrong gains most from the foundation is the image of himself as a charitable individual. Good press from his foundation gives him credibility for his good character when scandal allegations arise.

They donate almost nothing to cancer research which is a tad odd. IMHO it's as much a PR and ego boosting front as a cancer support organisation and it makes millions doing it. His best selling book was entitled "it's not about the bike. Indeed Lance, it seems it's more about the spin, the greed for winning at all costs and the pill and needle.

WhatNowForUs?

kneemos wrote: »

If they're all on drugs it's a level playing field,whats the problem.His team mates turning against him after all this time definitely looks suspect.

Because there is no way in hell I would introduce my chrildren into the sport with all that **** being taken.

Wibbs

Mossess wrote: »

4) He did not test positive

Yes he did. Read Peejay's post and attendant link. His preserved samples tested positive for EPO in the 1999 Tour De France, but the official test for EPO didn't come in until 2000.

summerskin

Mossess wrote: »

I think we can all agree on a few things.
1) it is a witch hunt.
2) People are being incentivised to testify in a certain way
3) The USADA are breaking many of their own rules
4) He did not test positive
5) Given the above a fair hearing/trial would not be possible.
6) The USADA does not have the power to strip him of his tour titles.
7) The USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring the charges based on its own rules

Ok, Number 5 is opinion. And my opinion is that if I was him I think I would too call it a day. Some people are saying that he was able to keep ahead of the testing. If this is the case what’s the point in testing any athlete? Why not simply accuse every single athlete who won a medal at this year’s Olympics of doping? The evidence would be exactly the same. IMO the USADA have lost all credibility. I would not let an organisation with no credibility ruin my life.

Yep, that this is your own, very flawed, opinion.

The man is a cheat, was a cheat and always will be a cheat. The only people who think otherwise are gullible fools who bought into his Livestrong nonsense, which was nothing more than a marketing tool and ego booster for himself.

Jerrica

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

Because there is no way in hell I would introduce my chrildren into the sport with all that **** being taken.

But the drugs are being taken at the highest levels. It takes a lot of money to (a) get the PEDs needed and (b) have the support team needed for them to be utilised properly. Ten year olds aren't the target group for doping avoidance

It's not really fair to use what's being done at the top international level as a benchmark for whether kids should be involved in a sport.

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

Do you think all of Paris are doping ? No. (Unless you count coffee, cigarettes and cocaine )

And this is where the skinny but not necessarily healthy part comes in. Footballers would be more disciplined than this.

Jerrica wrote: »

errr.... I said explicitly that you don't need to use PEDs to get a body like that .... I said it takes some work to look like Christiano Ronaldo.

This.

SHOVELLER

But he already had money and fame and was a world champion.

I'm not denying the tester's credentials.

You cant argue that he has raised the profile and awareness of the fight against cancer.

Its naive to think that all monies raised by any charity goes to solving the disease. Of course money gets spent on salaries, advertising etc.

Wibbs

opinion guy wrote: »

My point was that in mainland Europe most guys look like that.

That's up there with "foreign biiirds are all skinny". Yes they're generally thinner, but ripped like that photo? Eh not so much. I've been in a Milanese gym(for my many and varied sins) and yes you do see less of the stodgy male builds you get here, but thelow bodyfat ripped guys are working hard on it.

Its not the momentous doping requiring feat you are making it out to be - the other poster was right.

Dope no, not necessarily at all, however for a guy to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, he's gonna be working out and hard and eating clean and lean to get down to that level of definition and bodyfat. Genetically more blessed would help. In fact Google up Italian/French/Spanish/ beaches in their search for images and try and find a pic that shows "most guys like that" pic of yer man. Good luck.

fishy fishy

summerskin wrote: »

Yep, that this is your own, very flawed, opinion.

The man is a cheat, was a cheat and always will be a cheat. The only people who think otherwise are gullible fools who bought into his Livestrong nonsense, which was nothing more than a marketing tool and ego booster for himself.

wow,

:o
did you buy into the livstrong nonsense, is that why your post seems a little bitter.

Wibbs

SHOVELLER wrote: »

But he already had money and fame and was a world champion.

Not at that stage he didn't. NOt even within an asses roar of the fame and money that came later. IN any event whose to say he wasn't sipping at the cheaper end of the trough back at that stage. As quite a few have noted even support level riders were taking this and that to keep up in the 80's. It was an open secret as far back as the 60's. One of the UK's most talented riders died in a 60's tour after taking amphetamines.

I'm not denying the tester's credentials.

In which case he took a performance enhancing drug.

Its naive to think that all monies raised by any charity goes to solving the disease. Of course money gets spent on salaries, advertising etc.

Read the link and read wider on the charity in question. Sure stuff like that grabs money, but their percentages are among the highest in that field.

summerskin

fishy fishy wrote: »

wow, :o
did you buy into the livstrong nonsense, is that why your post seems a little bitter.

Nope, it's bitter because I feel sorry for the people he has fooled for all these years. The cancer patients who saw him as a beacon of hope. And he could have been one. Just to compete at that level after cancer was enough, but he had to tarnish it all by cheating to increase his profile and wealth.

Do you think it's a coincedence that cyclists in the peloton at this year's Tour were significantly a slower than they were in 2005? That scientists are now happy that they are competing at what is considered a "human" level?

Armstrong, Landis, Riis and many others were cheats. At least the others were man enough to finally admit it.

Seaneh

Pace2008 wrote: »

Of course we know, everyone competing in the sport at that level is doping. It's an absolute farce.

It's always nice to see the educated well informed members of AH give their opinion on topics they clearly know a lot about...:rolleyes:

SHOVELLER

Wibbs wrote: »

Not at that stage he didn't. NOt even within an asses roar of the fame and money that came later. IN any event whose to say he wasn't sipping at the cheaper end of the trough back at that stage. As quite a few have noted even support level riders were taking this and that to keep up in the 80's. It was an open secret as far back as the 60's. One of the UK's most talented riders died in a 60's tour after taking amphetamines.

In which case he took a performance enhancing drug.

Read the link and read wider on the charity in question. Sure stuff like that grabs money, but their percentages are among the highest in that field.

He was a millionaire before the cancer struck. Granted he made multiples after.

In the tester's opinion:
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

I did and as said nothing illegal about that. We only have to look at home to see some charities are paying very generously to their CEOs.

Mossess

summerskin wrote: »

Yep, that this is your own, very flawed, opinion.

The man is a cheat, was a cheat and always will be a cheat. The only people who think otherwise are gullible fools who bought into his Livestrong nonsense, which was nothing more than a marketing tool and ego booster for himself.

You hit the nail on the head there when you said the word THINK. It’s all what people THINK. No Proof. It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage? It’s all opinions and what people THINK.

pc7

Mr. Anderson wrote: »

. A bit long but fascinating/depressing.
http://www.pendlayforum.com/showthread.php?t=6611

Wowzers great read thanks for that, as someone who was glued to their tv during the Olympics I feel kinda robbed now

fishy fishy

Seaneh wrote: »

It's always nice to see the educated well informed members of AH give their opinion on topics they clearly know a lot about...:rolleyes:

for once I agree with you seanah

Jerrica

pc7 wrote: »

Wowzers great read thanks for that, as someone who was glued to their tv during the Olympics I feel kinda robbed now

That's a really understandable reaction, but just to play devil's advocate for a second...

So let's assume (hyoooge assumption granted) that the majority of top athletes are using PDEs. How much are those PDEs actually giving them? They need to have the ability in the first place, the genes, the mental strength, the determination. So does using PDEs actually make them less of an athlete? Or is it the cheating element that's takes away their shine? (Genuine question btw, I'm not being awkward!).

GerM

Mossess wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head there when you said the word THINK. It’s all what people THINK. No Proof. It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage? It’s all opinions and what people THINK.

Once again, as Wibbs said, his preserved blood samples from 1999 were positive for EPO. Scientists didn't develop a conclusive test for EPO until 2000 so it could not be detected prior to then.

summerskin

Mossess wrote: »

You hit the nail on the head there when you said the word THINK. It’s all what people THINK. No Proof. It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage? It’s all opinions and what people THINK.

So the EPO from 99 doesn't count for you then?

What about "In June 2012, the United States Anti-Doping Agency officially charged Armstrong with doping and trafficking of drugs, based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists"?

None of that enough for you? Not even when it's backed up by dozens of others? You'd just rather take good ole Lance's word for it would you?

Keep buying the bracelets... He'll need the money to pay back the $9.5m he got in bonuses for winning the TdF.

hardCopy

SHOVELLER wrote: »

He was a millionaire before the cancer struck. Granted he made multiples after.

In the tester's opinion:
"So there is no doubt in my mind he (Lance Armstrong) took EPO during the '99 Tour."

I did and as said nothing illegal about that. We only have to look at home to see some charities are paying very generously to their CEOs.

According to Andreu he was already on the hot sauce before he got sick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Andreu#Armstrong_testimony

DEFTLEFTHAND

Cycling has such a tarnished reputation. I'm amazed the sport has remained as popular with the amount of damage its taken over years, even recently major guys like Contador have had titles stripped. Doping seems to be a problem that hasn't yet been eradicated.

Chips Lovell

Mossess wrote: »

It anything the PROOF is the drugs tests which came back as negative. With all the athletes in all sports that are caught every year do you not think that he would have been caught at some stage?

How can you fail a drugs test if there is no test for the doping method you're employing?

You are aware that there is a list as long as my arm of riders who've been suspended or proven to have doped without ever failing a drugs test? Ullrich, Basso, Valverde, Millar, Pantani, Zabel, Riis, Pellizotti, Astarloa, Scarponi etc. were all uncovered as dopers without them testing positive.

It wasn't me!

Wibbs is right. As someone who exercises a lot, that build is anything but easy to achieve, and requires serious dietary focus to lower body fat to get the definition. You can be in just as good shape in terms of your physical fitness, strength and abilities and most people will still not look like that. And it's certainly not the prevalent build on the continent either. Most folks everywhere look pretty ordinary.

pc7

Jerrica wrote: »

So does using PDEs actually make them less of an athlete? Or is it the cheating element that's takes away their shine? (Genuine question btw, I'm not being awkward!).

For me I think its a bit of both, I look to these people as the elite, the best of the best, no matter how hard I train etc I'll never be to their level, they are 'Olympians', marvels of the human race pushing the boundaries of the human body. To read an article like that and feel its all false kinda takes the marvel out of it. (does that make sense?)

eta - when gatlin came 3rd in the Olympics I wasn't happy, I felt he shouldn't have been there, once caught as a cheat that should be it (in my humbler)

opinion guy

Wibbs wrote: »

That's up there with "foreign biiirds are all skinny". Yes they're generally thinner, but ripped like that photo? Eh not so much. I've been in a Milanese gym(for my many and varied sins) and yes you do see less of the stodgy male builds you get here, but thelow bodyfat ripped guys are working hard on it. Dope no, not necessarily at all, however for a guy to look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club, he's gonna be working out and hard and eating clean and lean to get down to that level of definition and bodyfat. Genetically more blessed would help. In fact Google up Italian/French/Spanish/ beaches in their search for images and try and find a pic that shows "most guys like that" pic of yer man. Good luck.

Ok lets say here - I'm talking aobut footballers physiques in general - not specifically Ronaldo - who is more ripped than most of them. Most footballers are fairly ordinary looking skinny guys.

Any you know what Wibbs- foreign women are skinny. We here that all the time on here followed by much consternation. What we here less on here but is equally true - foreign blokes are also skinny. Simple fact of lie here. Irish people on average are fat. You know that's why you hear about the obesity epidemic we are in the midst of. So yes , as much as AH doesn't like it - Irish women are fatter than European counterparts. So are Irish men (myself included). Simple facts.

I will grant you most are not built like ronaldo in Europe. But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.

(Aside: I once read up on the Brad Pitt Fight Club workout - f***king insane. he also dropped his bodyfat to like 5% or something crazy for that)

WhatNowForUs?

fishy fishy wrote: »

ah that explains it.
Known for years but kept quiet - these lot should be stripped as well then. whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I can't believe people sat and watched this farce if they were so sure the competitors were drugged up. That was a little silly wasn't it.

Stopped watching it years ago. The sport started to sadden me.

opinion guy

pc7 wrote: »

For me I think its a bit of both, I look to these people as the elite, the best of the best, no matter how hard I train etc I'll never be to their level, they are 'Olympians', marvels of the human race pushing the boundaries of the human body. To read an article like that and feel its all false kinda takes the marvel out of it. (does that make sense?)

eta - when gatlin came 3rd in the Olympics I wasn't happy, I felt he shouldn't have been there, once caught as a cheat that should be it (in my humbler)

Yes - through doping you too could have the looks of an Olympian.....

http://www.sportinglife.com/london-2012/news/article/6932/7987168/ostapchuk-loses-title

:pac:

Doping......or beer.....lots of beer

Quorum

opinion guy wrote: »

I will grant you most are not built like ronaldo in Europe. But on average they are much more like Beckham say, who is rather more ordinarily built than Ronaldo.

Becks, ordinarily built? Yes, that why lots of ordinary Joes are lining up to do underwear ads. :cool: