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

'Enough is Enough' - Lance Armstrong

my friend

Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges

“There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough,’ ” Armstrong said in a statement.

“The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html

Lance's decision means he will be stripped of his seven Tour titles, the bronze medal he won at the 2000 Olympics and all other titles, awards and money he won from August 1998 on.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hardCopy

furiousox wrote: »

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Is this about Puerto now?

Fr D Maugire

Bollbill wrote: »

It's sad that a charity that does so much good is built on a lie.

I think that is at the core of why so many people wanted to see Lance go down and are happy he did.

People are always arguing about how everyone was doping so its somehow unfair to pick on Lance. Well nobody other than Lance was trying to cover their doping by using a horrible disease that touches almost everyone. Doping is one thing but what Armstong was doing was on another level altogether.

I have always believed that Lance would never have even considered aiming for the Tour if he hadnt had cancer and the charity.

He was never a Tour contender pre cancer(35th was his best) so why decide to aim for such an event if you had never challenged before.

When he returned to the pro scene in 1998, he received a huge amount of goodwill purely because of his recovery from cancer. His return was widely covered within cycling circles and was hailed as a miracle and he didnt even do anything truly amazing.

The same year the Festina affair went down but Armstrong was one of the few top riders not tainted as he wasnt even at the Tour that year. It was still clear what was "needed" to be a Tour contender.

Somewhere along the lines, Lance and his cohorts got together and figured that with the untainted reputation and the goodwill in regards to cancer, they figured he would be the perfect candidate to win the Tour. Clearly they knew what was required in terms of doping and they knew that questions would be asked in regards to doping but having the cancer shield and slick PR was the perfect riposte. They figured that once the public and media swam in behind them, they were on easy street.

Exactly what happened, the Tour organisers got the great new hero they so badly needed, the press provided the unquestioning adulation and the public lapped it up. Once the governing bodies and the sponsors saw the positive effect of Armstrong and the enlarged markets etc, everything fell into place for the great swindle. Win-Win for all. All Lance had to do was stay true to the Cancer line and promote it at every turn. He became bigger than the sport itself and as such was an "untouchable".

I will always argue that without the cancer shield, Armstrong would never have won a single Tour, indeed I dont think he would have even aimed for the Tour.

The whole thing worked so well that we still have people who believe he didnt dope or that he done too much good. That was the whole point of the entire swindle and it's amazing to see how many people cannot see that.

THE GREATEST SPORTING FRAUD EVER. PERIOD

vetinari

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I think that is at the core of why so many people wanted to see Lance go down and are happy he did.

People are always arguing about how everyone was doping so its somehow unfair to pick on Lance. Well nobody other than Lance was trying to cover their doping by using a horrible disease that touches almost everyone. Doping is one thing but what Armstong was doing was on another level altogether.

I have always believed that Lance would never have even considered aiming for the Tour if he hadnt had cancer and the charity.

He was never a Tour contender pre cancer(35th was his best) so why decide to aim for such an event if you had never challenged before.

When he returned to the pro scene in 1998, he received a huge amount of goodwill purely because of his recovery from cancer. His return was widely covered within cycling circles and was hailed as a miracle and he didnt even do anything truly amazing.

The same year the Festina affair went down but Armstrong was one of the few top riders not tainted as he wasnt even at the Tour that year. It was still clear what was "needed" to be a Tour contender.

Somewhere along the lines, Lance and his cohorts got together and figured that with the untainted reputation and the goodwill in regards to cancer, they figured he would be the perfect candidate to win the Tour. Clearly they knew what was required in terms of doping and they knew that questions would be asked in regards to doping but having the cancer shield and slick PR was the perfect riposte. They figured that once the public and media swam in behind them, they were on easy street.

Exactly what happened, the Tour organisers got the great new hero they so badly needed, the press provided the unquestioning adulation and the public lapped it up. Once the governing bodies and the sponsors saw the positive effect of Armstrong and the enlarged markets etc, everything fell into place for the great swindle. Win-Win for all. All Lance had to do was stay true to the Cancer line and promote it at every turn. He became bigger than the sport itself and as such was an "untouchable".

I will always argue that without the cancer shield, Armstrong would never have won a single Tour, indeed I dont think he would have even aimed for the Tour.

The whole thing worked so well that we still have people who believe he didnt dope or that he done too much good. That was the whole point of the entire swindle and it's amazing to see how many people cannot see that.

THE GREATEST SPORTING FRAUD EVER. PERIOD

A bit OTT.

His foundation has done a lot of good work. Him doping doesn't invalidate that.

alfalad

vetinari wrote: »

A bit OTT.

His foundation has done a lot of good work. Him doping doesn't invalidate that.

His foundation was helped immeasurably by him winning the TDF 7 times. Winning the TDF only happened because he doped etc. While the cause is good, it's still a fraud.

h2005

alfalad wrote: »

His foundation was helped immeasurably by him winning the TDF 7 times. Winning the TDF only happened because he doped etc. While the cause is good, it's still a fraud.

At least he got a private jet out of it was handy for ferrying his bloods around.

AstraMonti

vetinari wrote: »

A bit OTT.

His foundation has done a lot of good work. Him doping doesn't invalidate that.

Give me 5 examples of what good his foundation has done (apart from the awareness.. even my 150y old aunt knows what cancer is by now..)

Mcofferon

AstraMonti wrote: »

Give me 5 examples of what good his foundation has done (apart from the awareness.. even my 150y old aunt knows what cancer is by now..)

Armstrongs involvement with drugs taints his cycling career and makes a sham of his athletic achievements.

Livestrong flourished on his sporting succes.

I can understand that anger at the former can cause a backlash against the later, but don't feel that way myself. Conversely I don't feel that Armstrongs charitable works mitigate his actions in sporting life.

As for what Livestrong does. Well imagine you live in a country where there is no public health service, where there are no medical cards for the elderly and impoverished. Where health insurance is beyond the reach of 49 Million americans (us 2008 census). Where the safety net (Medicaid) fails to cover even the most basic of treatments for the very few who qualify.

Here's an example from USA Today in an article on healthcare back in June...
"Some have already benefited from the law. Brian Rose is a coach with the minor league Wichita (Kan.) Wingnuts baseball team, not for the money, but for the love of the game. Three years ago, when he was 31 and uninsured, Rose, of Austin, was diagnosed with stage 4 melanoma, a life-threatening form of skin cancer, that had spread to his brain, bones and liver.
Although Rose qualified for emergency coverage from Medicaid, his coverage lasted only six months, Rose says. Thanks to LiveStrong, the cancer non-profit founded by cyclist Lance Armstrong, Rose learned how to apply for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. He now pays about $200 a month in premiums — a good deal, he says, given that he had more than $250,000 in medical bills last year."

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Idleater

Mcofferon wrote: »

... Rose learned how to apply for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. He now pays about $200 a month in premiums...

Livestrong helped him fill out some forms to apply for something he was entitled to?. :rolleyes:

Beasty

vetinari wrote: »

A bit OTT.

His foundation has done a lot of good work. Him doping doesn't invalidate that.

If Livestrong didn't exist the money it raised would probably have gone to other worthwhile (possibly quite a lot more worthwhile;)) causes. There's an argument that he not only defrauded the Cycling world (including those that ultimately fund it buy buying the likes of Trek bikes) but also those who supported this Charity in the belief that the guy who gave it it's name was "genuine"

MrCreosote

Beasty wrote: »

If Livestrong didn't exist the money it raised would probably have gone to other worthwhile (possibly quite a lot more worthwhile;)) causes. There's an argument that he not only defrauded the Cycling world (including those that ultimately fund it buy buying the likes of Trek bikes) but also those who supported this Charity in the belief that the guy who gave it it's name was "genuine"

I disagree with this- it's not like everybody has some set amount of money that they sit down with and say "Let me see...which deserving charity should I give this to today". They're just as likely to drop their money on Dutch Gold.

Not saying there aren't more worthwhile charities out there mind you...

hardCopy

MrCreosote wrote: »

Beasty wrote: »

If Livestrong didn't exist the money it raised would probably have gone to other worthwhile (possibly quite a lot more worthwhile;)) causes. There's an argument that he not only defrauded the Cycling world (including those that ultimately fund it buy buying the likes of Trek bikes) but also those who supported this Charity in the belief that the guy who gave it it's name was "genuine"

I disagree with this- it's not like everybody has some set amount of money that they sit down with and say "Let me see...which deserving charity should I give this to today". They're just as likely to drop their money on Dutch Gold.

Not saying there aren't more worthwhile charities out there mind you...

The main beneficiary of Livestrong has always seemed to be Lance Armstrong

Was anybody unaware of cancer before he came along?

Lots of people were unaware of Lance before his foundation became active.

Oryx

I've always felt very uneasy about the focus of livestrong being 'awareness'. The foundation generates megabucks and that is ALL they do with it? Tell people cancer exists, and can be cured? Provide a bit of sideline support (not funding, not medical care) to those who realise its available? Doesn't sound like much to me. The only thing I was aware that livestrong actually did was make yellow plastic bracelets. I'd love if someone could link to all the wonderful work they say they do.

DeadMan1

Pisco Sour wrote: »

It's official. There are at least 5,480 complete idiots on this planet!

http://www.facebook.com/ISupportLanceArmstrong

that is one scary bunch of crazies

hardCopy

DeadMan1 wrote: »

that is one scary bunch of crazies

That's some messed up logic.

The Lance cause also seems to have attracted a lot of Anti-Federal-Government nuts from the US who probably never even heard of USADA, WADA or the UCI before last week.

mcgratheoin

vetinari wrote: »

Guilty or not guilty, an athlete is almost certainly going to be found guilty by USADA arbitration.

Firstly, the arbitration is not "USADA arbitration". By definition, it involves a third party - in the case of USADA, this is quite rightly the American Arbitration Association or the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Secondly, guilt is not assured when bringing a case to arbitration. LaTasha Jenkins escaped a positive test in 2007 when CAS ruled that the lab standards for testing were not met. I'm not sure that I can identify any USADA arbitration victories where I would have any doubt over the guilt of an athlete - if someone wants to do a more exhaustive search, then the decisions are all here.

On another note, it should be remembered that the refrain about a witch hunt in the USADA does not bear scrutiny when you realise that the arbitration would be an independent third party. Is he genuinely expecting people to believe that any arbitrator selected would be a part of this huge conspiracy against him or has he finally realised that the evidence is so overwhelming that anybody with an objective bone in their body would have no choice but to find against him.

DeadMan1

I can't get this image out of my head ...

hardCopy

DeadMan1 wrote: »

I can't get this image out of my head ... http://www.causticsodapodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/simpsons-the-leader.png

He does look a bit like a lima bean

buffalo

hardCopy wrote: »

I notice poor Gene didn't even reply to the right guy - his mate Keith probably responded a little later saying, "Screw that communist muslim Obama!"

hardCopy

buffalo wrote: »

I notice poor Gene didn't even reply to the right guy - his mate Keith probably responded a little later saying, "Screw that communist muslim Obama!"

I think "Who do you worship, Obama?" could be this year's "Your mom goes to college!".

I'm going to use it as often as I can.

Decuc500

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I have always believed that Lance would never have even considered aiming for the Tour if he hadnt had cancer and the charity.

He was never a Tour contender pre cancer(35th was his best) so why decide to aim for such an event if you had never challenged before.

It's pretty much unheard of for a 23 year old to challenge for the Tour. Cyclists usually develop into three week stage race winners in their late twenties and early thirties. I'm not going to defend him because I'm sure he doped but I can't agree with this point at all.

RobFowl

Decuc500 wrote: »

It's pretty much unheard of for a 23 year old to challenge for the Tour. Cyclists usually develop into three week stage race winners in their late twenties and early thirties. I'm not going to defend him because I'm sure he doped but I can't agree with this point at all.

Of the 5 riders who've won 5 or more tours (I know, I know there's only 4)
Hinault won his first TDF aged 23
Jacques Anquetil was 23
Eddy Merckx was 22
and Miguel Indurain was 26

Decuc500

RobFowl wrote: »

Of the 5 riders who've won 5 or more tours (I know, I know there's only 4)
Hinault won his first TDF aged 23
Jacques Anquetil was 23
Eddy Merckx was 22
and Miguel Indurain was 26

Ok so maybe I should have said it's pretty much unheard of for a 23 year old to challenge for the Tour nowadays. It's impossible to compare modern cycling to the eras of Merckx, Antuetil or Hinault.

Tombo2001

Decuc500 wrote: »

Ok so maybe I should have said it's pretty much unheard of for a 23 year old to challenge for the Tour nowadays. It's impossible to compare modern cycling to the eras of Merckx, Antuetil or Hinault.

Andy Schleck
Contador was young when he won it.
Ullrich was young when he won it.

I know that raises other questions.

Decuc500

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Andy Schleck
Contador was young when he won it.
Ullrich was young when he won it.

I know that raises other questions.

Absolutely.

I was really replying to the point raised that Armstrong only finished the Tour in 35th pre cancer (when he was 23) which meant he was never going to be a Tour rider. This logic means there's no hope for Dan Martin and I certainly think he can challenge for a Tour podium one day!

petethedrummer

Decuc500 wrote: »

Ok so maybe I should have said it's pretty much unheard of for a 23 year old to challenge for the Tour nowadays. It's impossible to compare modern cycling to the eras of Merckx, Antuetil or Hinault.

Yes, because EPO and blood doping were not around then. EPO arrived properly in 1991, that changed everything. Loads of guys who were not competitive blossomed in their late 20's and 30's. Its not that they had been close to victories, they had been nowhere.

You either have the genetics to be a tour contender or you don't. No amount of focus or WANTING to win will get you there. If you don't have the genetics, the only that will help you is extraordinary luck or a charity-owned-"private"-jet full of drugs.

noddy69

Decuc500 wrote: »

Absolutely.

I was really replying to the point raised that Armstrong only finished the Tour in 35th pre cancer (when he was 23) which meant he was never going to be a Tour rider. This logic means there's no hope for Dan Martin and I certainly think he can challenge for a Tour podium one day!

Dan is a great rider but a tour podium is out of his reach I feel. His time trialling is just not good enough. However a Giro or vuelta podium if he can keep himself upright on the flat is a possibility. I felt this year the vuelta should have been his target as the course really suited a natural climber with his abilities while le tour did not.

As for armstrong, seems people do believe in faerie stories especially in the states. Shame they get their beliefs from fabricated press releases from pharmsrong rather than actual facts.

Fr D Maugire

vetinari wrote: »

A bit OTT.

His foundation has done a lot of good work. Him doping doesn't invalidate that.

How is what I say OTT. The foundation doing a whole lot of good was the front for doping and that strategy was so successful that people(like you) are unable to see the reality from the fraud. The simple reality is this, if people knew in 99 that Lance was doping, would the charity have gone anywhere? No because people do not wish to be associated with a cheat. Too late now but doesnt excuse it either. Are you saying its ok to cheat, lie, bully, bribe and destroy other people as long as you have a nice little charity doing some good?

If you have never been a Tour contender before and you know what it takes to become one, why would you go down that route especially when you have just survived cancer and are patron of a cancer charity. Why?

Fr D Maugire

Decuc500 wrote: »

Absolutely.

I was really replying to the point raised that Armstrong only finished the Tour in 35th pre cancer (when he was 23) which meant he was never going to be a Tour rider. This logic means there's no hope for Dan Martin and I certainly think he can challenge for a Tour podium one day!

If Dan Martin rocked up next year and won the Tour, no way would I believe it and he is around the age of Armstrong winning the Tour now. Same applies to Roche who has made year on year progression but I simply wouldnt believe it if he started dominating the Tour overnight. It does not work like that.

<snip>

Flandria

petethedrummer wrote: »

Yes, because EPO and blood doping were not around then. EPO arrived properly in 1991, that changed everything. Loads of guys who were not competitive blossomed in their late 20's and 30's. Its not that they had been close to victories, they had been nowhere.

You either have the genetics to be a tour contender or you don't. No amount of focus or WANTING to win will get you there. If you don't have the genetics, the only that will help you is extraordinary luck or a charity-owned-"private"-jet full of drugs.

1991 seems to have become generally accepted as a 'year zero' for EPO but I'm not sure that it wasnt in cycling earlier than that. I think its fair to suggest that if an undetectable wonder drug was available at trial stage then the nefarious doctors that associate with cycling might well have had access to it very early on. I'm sure I recall Stephen Rooks admitting to using it in the 1989 TDF and I think the first of the spate of 'thick blood' cyclist deaths was in 1988. IIRC the IOC discussed concerns about some performances at the 1986 winter Olympics that were comparable to EPO use. Luckily there were no outstanding superhuman performances in cycling from that period for us to concern ourselves with...;);)

In the 1980s, Adamson, Joseph W. Eschbach, Joan C. Egrie, Michael R. Downing and Jeffrey K. Browne conducted a clinical trial at the Northwest Kidney Centers for a synthetic form of the hormone, Epogen produced by Amgen. The trial was successful, and the results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 1987.[25]
In 1985, Lin et al. isolated the human erythropoietin gene from a genomic phage library and were able to characterize it for research and production.[26] Their research demonstrated that the gene for erythropoietin encoded the production of EPO in mammalian cells that is biologically active in vitro and in vivo. The industrial production of recombinant human erythropoietin (RhEpo) for treating anemia patients would begin soon after.
In 1989, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the hormone, called Epogen, which remains in use today.

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

elguapo

lennymc wrote: »

does lance weigh the same as a duck?

Oh god, this is a goldmine:

'Lance turned me into a newt!.....I got better'

'How do we tell if Lance has doped?.....Build a bridge out of him!'

Completely nonsensical, but I'm laughing myself silly.