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; } } }

'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

Comments

corny

dave_o_brien wrote: »

We're in agreement that Hamilton's testimony is unnecessary in determining Armstrong's guilt, and that Hamilton as a witness ON HIS OWN would be easy to dismiss.

We are not in agreement about Hamilton being a serial liar because he lied before, and that as a result of those lies he is totally and utterly to be dismissed regardless of what he has to say.

Oh i see. He's easy to dismiss but not to be totally and utterly dismissed. Glad we cleared that up.

Ciarán_R

I agree with corny that advertising Hamilton's book as proof against Armstrong is a bit weak. It's like saying "It's not about the Bike" is proof Armstrong didn't cheat. Believing everything that confirms your opinion, while ignoring the source, isn't very prudent. It seems some people think it's okay that Hamilton cheated because he "came clean" but he didn't come clean, he got caught! just like Landis.

The problem for me with Landis and Hamilton is, if they were in Armstrongs shoes, they would be doing the exact same thing! Landis took $1 million off his fans to help pay his legal bills! He lied for years and the same with Hamilton, I read his book and to me he doesn't seem sorry at all. In fact he is only pissed off that he got caught and Armstrong didn't. He is 100% convinced that everyone doped so he hardly recognizes that there were clean cyclist.

marienbad

Ciarán_R wrote: »

I agree with corny that advertising Hamilton's book as proof against Armstrong is a bit weak. It's like saying "It's not about the Bike" is proof Armstrong didn't cheat. Believing everything that confirms your opinion, while ignoring the source, isn't very prudent. It seems some people think it's okay that Hamilton cheated because he "came clean" but he didn't come clean, he got caught! just like Landis.

The problem for me with Landis and Hamilton is, if they were in Armstrongs shoes, they would be doing the exact same thing! Landis took $1 million off his fans to help pay his legal bills! He lied for years and the same with Hamilton, I read his book and to me he doesn't seem sorry at all. In fact he is only pissed off that he got caught and Armstrong didn't. He is 100% convinced that everyone doped so he hardly recognizes that there were clean cyclist.

Do you believe Lance is a doper ?

Ciarán_R

marienbad wrote: »

Do you believe Lance is a doper ?

Why? does it sound like I don't? Questioning the integrity of some of Armstrong's accusers, doesn't mean I think he is any less guilty.

alfalad

FISMA wrote: »

Leroy,
It appears that you have posted on the "I Hate Lance Armstrong" thread where conjecture, hearsay, opinions, feelings, pishogues, funny vibes, and tea leaves are all kinds of evidence, admissible in court, sorry, arbitration.

I will reserve a guilty judgement until the science tells me so.

You say you want science, took me ages to find it but knew I read an article which has some science in it, by a sports scientist in Australia see here. This should help to keep people happy until the evidence is released. Oh by the way he was one of the people responsible for the first EPO test, so I'd say he is well regarded!

On the same site there is actually an other article after Ferrari tried to go against what Robin said.

noddy69

Ciarán_R wrote: »

I agree with corny that advertising Hamilton's book as proof against Armstrong is a bit weak. It's like saying "It's not about the Bike" is proof Armstrong didn't cheat. Believing everything that confirms your opinion, while ignoring the source, isn't very prudent. It seems some people think it's okay that Hamilton cheated because he "came clean" but he didn't come clean, he got caught! just like Landis.

The problem for me with Landis and Hamilton is, if they were in Armstrongs shoes, they would be doing the exact same thing! Landis took $1 million off his fans to help pay his legal bills! He lied for years and the same with Hamilton, I read his book and to me he doesn't seem sorry at all. In fact he is only pissed off that he got caught and Armstrong didn't. He is 100% convinced that everyone doped so he hardly recognizes that there were clean cyclist.

I agree that Hamilton is unrepentant in his views and does not seem to understand the gravity of his actions on the sport of cycling and how it affected many lives and cheated those that were clean and victimised other cyclists. Its not ok that he did what he did.Yet his evidence cannot be ignored as it is backed up by volumes of evidence from other people who were also involved in the era.
My issue is only with those who spin the Armstrong line on Tyler and Floyd, that because they lied they cannot be trusted ever to tell the truth. It clearly only serves one purpose and that is to make it that the evidence is cast aside and taken as bull therefore LA gets off.Thank god more are willing to come clean and the myth and outright fairytale that enriched a serial cheat,liar and downright bully can be broken.
Yes Tyler lied,cheated and took money, yet that does not mean that when his story changes he is doing the same thing. When taken in conjunction with others testimony on the matter it becomes evident that what he is saying is more than likely true for the most part.Over the passage of time some of the events may be hazy through memory and not 100% factual as exact replications of how they occurred ,yet that would be true of most people recalling events. The fact is what he is saying must be taken seriously and cannot be rubbished as a liar at it again.

dave_o_brien

corny wrote: »

Oh i see. He's easy to dismiss but not to be totally and utterly dismissed. Glad we cleared that up.

He's easy to dismiss by people who

corny wrote: »

either don't know enough about cycling or (are) emotionally compromised (to) believe Lance Armstrong didn't take PED's

Just because he lied about his own guilt doesn't mean it's necessary to dismiss everything he says.

But as I said initially, I just don't think he's necessary, and people get hung up on his reliability instead of focusing on Armstrong, Bruyneel and co. It's an ingenious distraction tactic that's been utilised cynically by the LA camp, and it continues to surprise me that people like yourself who are in no doubt about LA's guilt still succumb to the opinion that Hamilton or Landis can't be trusted, cause they're liars and only out to make a buck. Why reduce their entire process of reasoning to one regrettable series of denials and the most cynical possible reading of a scenario? Surely they have other reasons to confess (guilt at what they had done, the realisation that they had done wrong, the desire to see things improve, the nagging feeling that the public had been duped, a vague sense of the need for justice, etc)? Why tar them with the bruh LA and co. want them to be tarred with when you realise that LA and co. are capable of horrific crimes against their profession and fellow professionals?

Again, I know that you think LA is guilty. Hamilton is too. Lying about something doesn't make you Pinocchio.

dave_o_brien

Ciarán_R wrote: »

Why? does it sound like I don't? Questioning the integrity of some of Armstrong's accusers, doesn't mean I think he is any less guilty.

In my opinion, the sheer number of eye-witness testaments and their consistency would lead me to believe that on the whole, they are probably all telling the truth. The motivations for doing so are not what a court has to decide on, simply if whether or not the version of events told by these people is believable.

Would you have believed it if it had been only Landis? Probably not.

Landis and Hamilton? Probably not.

Landis, Hamilton, Andreu, Mrs. Andreu, Kirstin Armstrong, Hincapie, etc? Now it's hard to dismiss, and it would seem that Hamilton and Landis have corroboration. Now, while it's easy to dismiss them as unreliable on their own, there's too much consistency to ignore.

Ciarán_R

I agree we shouldn't completely rubbish their testimonies. My point though is, I wouldn't advertise Hamilton's/Landis' accusations by themselves, as absolute proof against Armstrong. But yes, taken in the context of the wider picture, certainly makes them more compelling.

Chips Lovell

More than a dozen witnesses have testified against him. Unless you believe they're all lying, positive tests are pretty much superfluous.

noddy69

Ciarán_R wrote: »

I agree we shouldn't completely rubbish their testimonies. My point though is, I wouldn't advertise Hamilton's/Landis' accusations by themselves, as absolute proof against Armstrong. But yes, taken in the context of the wider picture, certainly makes them more compelling.

If it was just the two of them what exactly would be the argument against them. If they lied about not taking drugs and were both team mates of armstrong, how then would you take the testimony now ?

They lied then, there lying now ? Its a vendetta ? In anyones mind that would be a bit of a stretch considering they were on the same team.
As absolute proof, no, but you could say that about anyones testimony.
People in favour of him doping will jump on it, much as people against will dismiss them . A reasoned approach is what is needed and taken as such it is pretty damning evidence. No one person's evidence can be taken as absolute proof, so when people start on about them being liars and to discount the evidence it only serves to diminish the pool of evidence from eye witnesses,therefore lessening the impact of the evidence there is.
Until it can be proven otherwise the confessions have to be considered and when taken this way alongside others testimony it seems clear that there is truth in what they are saying.

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

More than a dozen witnesses have testified against him. Unless you believe they're all lying, positive tests are pretty much superfluous.

Right, the whole point of this case is that Lance won 7 tours without ever getting sanctioned for a positive test.

The big question is now not whether he did it, but how he did it.

allybhoy

Lumen wrote: »

Right, the whole point of this case is that Lance won 7 tours without ever getting sanctioned for a positive test.

The big question is now not whether he did it, but how he did it.

Exactly....

This story is much bigger than Lance his titles and his fanboys. For me the USADA evidence cant come quick enough so we can see the level of complicitness that has corrupted cycling and permanently damaged its reputation. USADA have stripped a 7 time TDF champion of his titles whilst the sports governing body are fighting their jurisdiction powers and suing journalists for defamation...absolute madness

Personally i will never have an interest or trust in professional cycling until either the UCI is dissolved or they have a serious clearout at the highest level. People can talk about Wiggins and lower power outputs all they want, but in my view if the UCI are that inept and corrupt then surely it has to be still prevalent in the sport. Afterall, LA's last TDF was only in 2010...what has changed in 2\3 years? Self governance?

Now before i start a whole other debate, Im not saying that Wiggins\Cavendish etc arent clean, but until there are major reforms within the UCI I will remain sceptical of all riders on tour.

Hopefully the USADA report (due in less than two weeks) will start balls rolling but i have my suspicions anything will change, hope im wrong.

BTW, I know on this forum and indeed this thread in particular that Paul Kimmage's name throws up a host of opinions but I came across this earlier and thought it was interesting. The UCI are still going ahead with their defamation suit against him. But what i found interesting was that Cyclismas created a chipin account to help his legal bills against the UCI and they are fast approaching 50k in donations!

corny

dave_o_brien wrote: »

But as I said initially, I just don't think he's necessary, and people get hung up on his reliability instead of focusing on Armstrong, Bruyneel and co. It's an ingenious distraction tactic that's been utilised cynically by the LA camp, and it continues to surprise me that people like yourself who are in no doubt about LA's guilt still succumb to the opinion that Hamilton or Landis can't be trusted, cause they're liars and only out to make a buck.

Again i don't know what LA's or JB's opinion on the matter has to do with me. Thats more than once you've lumped me in Lance lovers. Thanks.

Last i have to say on the matter but for the record I didn't succumb to that opinion, its an unquestionable fact that you gloss over far, far too casually. They are liars and since they had no conscience using other peoples money to fund their lies i'm sceptical that they're suddenly living by a moral code, especially after reading Hamiltons book. It was full of bitterness, hypocrisy and nothing to do with redemption. Frankly i found it transparently manipulative. He has no credibility in my eyes so i ignore what he has to say.

dave_o_brien

corny wrote: »

Again i don't know what LA's or JB's opinion on the matter has to do with me. Thats more than once you've lumped me in Lance lovers. Thanks.

Last i have to say on the matter but for the record I didn't succumb to that opinion, its an unquestionable fact that you gloss over far, far too casually. They are liars and since they had no conscience using other peoples money to fund their lies i'm sceptical that they're suddenly living by a moral code, especially after reading Hamiltons book. It was full of bitterness, hypocrisy and nothing to do with redemption. Frankly i found it transparently manipulative. He has no credibility in my eyes so i ignore what he has to say.

I don't mean to lump you in with Lance Lovers, I know you don't believe he's innocent or anything like that. It's just that the reasoning for you're dismissal of Hamilton is the same as LA's PR team: He lied, so he's a liar, so he's lying. Why you think that doesn't really bother me, but while I agree with you that his testimony is unnecessary, it has been corroborated by many, many more eye witnesses, many of whom are reliable. So that would suggest that his testimony is not a lie. His motivation for testifying is not the question (at least, not for now), the only question is that is it believable. I think, on the balance of probability (which is what would have been crucial in the USADA's case, as distinct from Beyond Reasonable Doubt), he's telling the truth.

I also think that his motivation for coming clean is questionable. I think he has got an axe to grind. I think that I wouldn't ask him for how Lance treated him while they were on the same team, but I would ask him how many people Lance distributed drugs to. One of those is subjective, one objective. I believe he is subjectively compromised, but was an objective witness to the criminal acts, whose testimony can be taken in the context of many other testimonies which broadly establish a consistent message.

I also firmly believe that you could get rid of his testimony and still have a case strong enough to remove LA, Bruyneel and the gang from the sport forever.

Once again, I don't think you're a Lance Fanboy, or think he might be innocent, or anything ridiculous like that.

leftism

FISMA wrote: »

Absolutely. I will accept the science community's conclusion.

As was stated above, the most highly regarded scientist in the field of blood doping (Dr. Michael Ashenden) has categorically stated that Armstrong's blood values from 2009 and 2010 are fully consistent with blood manipulation.

Based on the fact that he has published more scientific literature in this field than any other author, that he was instrumental in developing several EPO and blood doping tests, and that he served as an international expert on both the UCI and WADA's biological passport committee, how is his conclusion unacceptable to you?

I was lucky enough to attend a lecture given by Ashenden last year and my lasting memory is how their first goal when setting up the blood passport was to protect the honest riders. To its detriment, it probably allows many "questionable" results through the net, in order to achieve this. So when Ashenden states publicly that all the data points towards Armstrong having manipulated his blood (either through EPO or transfusions), i pretty much take his word as Gospel. This is not some disgruntled rider or ex-employee with an axe to grind. He has no reason to lie or embellish the truth and his entire scientific reputation is on the line.

RobFowl

leftism wrote: »

As was stated above, the most highly regarded scientist in the field of blood doping (Dr. Michael Ashenden) has categorically stated that Armstrong's blood values from 2009 and 2010 are fully consistent with blood manipulation.

To be fair the only one who holds Ashenden in that high regard is Ashenden himself ....

thebouldwhacker

I haven't been on this thread for a while but thought I'd post up that I was in a large and well known bike shop over the weekend and while looking at sun glasses noticed that the lance advert for oakleys was still being displayed (where he is in a dressing room, wearing the shades looking I at himself in the mirror).
I was going to post up if people thought it was 'acceptable' but I am blown away that the 'did he dope' debate still exists.
Ffs my sister lives and cycles in California where he is god (think Christy Ring in Cork or DJ in kilkenny except more) and even she now admits that he is guilty.

In any court in the world if you refuse to defend yourself there is only ever one reason, its because you know you can not defend yourself.

Anyway what do people think of his image still appearing in shop adverts?

noddy69

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

I haven't been on this thread for a while but thought I'd post up that I was in a large and well known bike shop over the weekend and while looking at sun glasses noticed that the lance advert for oakleys was still being displayed (where he is in a dressing room, wearing the shades looking I at himself in the mirror).
I was going to post up if people thought it was 'acceptable' but I am blown away that the 'did he dope' debate still exists.
Ffs my sister lives and cycles in California where he is god (think Christy Ring in Cork or DJ in kilkenny except more) and even she now admits that he is guilty.

In any court in the world if you refuse to defend yourself there is only ever one reason, its because you know you can not defend yourself.

Anyway what do people think of his image still appearing in shop adverts?

They should not be there, especially on sporting goods for god sake. Brings a whole new dimension to "Just do it".
The fact that he also enriches himself off the products and the fact that the endorsements were gained through doping means I wont buy anything with his name attached. The companies have little or no moral ground left with him advertising their goods. It would be like michele smith( DB) advertising speedo's in Ireland. Shameful.

fran oconnor

Anybody see the new southpark having a dig at him??, I honestly can't see how anyone can defend him at all. Do people think the dirty cheat was that super human that he could beat all the other cheats around him clean??.

dave_o_brien

noddy69 wrote: »

Brings a whole new dimension to "Just do it."

That is brilliant!

lescol

It’s a little early for the UCI to be this exasperated, isn’t it? From VeloNews
http://tinyurl.com/8ow5lud

hardCopy

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

In any court in the world if you refuse to defend yourself there is only ever one reason, its because you know you can not defend yourself.

AKA: The Milosevic Defense.

I think it's ridiculous that Lance's sponsors are standing by him. I bought a pair of Brook's runners last week instead of a pair of Nike Pegasus that I've been admiring for a while. Maybe next year if they've dropped him I'll pick up a pair.

leftism

RobFowl wrote: »

To be fair the only one who holds Ashenden in that high regard is Ashenden himself ....

It is true, he does like the sound of his own voice (as do top scientists in many fields), but his scientific track record is beyond question. I cannot think of anyone that has contributed more to the literature regarding blood manipulation in sport.

His pubmed list for anyone interested:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Ashenden%20MJ[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10502083

corny

Tygart praises Mercier for refusing to dope

Pleased to see Tygart spelling out the consequences for the more trenchant Armstrong supporters. We've heard the line 'sure what does it matter they all did it' far too often.

alfalad

Liked this quote from the article;

"The time has come for the doors of secrecy to be kicked open. It’s time for a revolution and the overthrow of the tyrannical leadership of McQuaid and Verbruggen. I urge the board members of the UCI to take control of the sport and start with a clean slate. This is the only way cycling can truly grow on a global scale.”

Fr D Maugire

corny wrote: »

Again i don't know what LA's or JB's opinion on the matter has to do with me. Thats more than once you've lumped me in Lance lovers. Thanks.

Last i have to say on the matter but for the record I didn't succumb to that opinion, its an unquestionable fact that you gloss over far, far too casually. They are liars and since they had no conscience using other peoples money to fund their lies i'm sceptical that they're suddenly living by a moral code, especially after reading Hamiltons book. It was full of bitterness, hypocrisy and nothing to do with redemption. Frankly i found it transparently manipulative. He has no credibility in my eyes so i ignore what he has to say.

On the subejct of Hamilton being a liar and his book being fully of lies, that is incredibly unlikely.

Hamilton testified in front of a Grand Jury whilst the Federal investigation was taking place. The penalty for lying and perjury is prison time.

So in this case, if all the others called to testify had contradicted what Hamilton had said, he would be most likely be in prison by now. It would seem that in fact they actually confirmed what Hamilton said.

Likewise if the FEDs realised what he had put in his book was different from his sworn testimony, he would be guilty of perjury and once more run the risk of prison time.

What I read in Hamilton's book was no big surprise, perhaps the level of detail but it echoes what most other admitted dopers have said whether it be Landis, Manzano, Millar, Kohl, Jaksche or whoever.

I dont see why I should give any more credence to books from the likes of Wiggins, Cavendish, S.Roche, N.Roche. Just because they were never caught doesnt mean they are telling the truth either. In actual fact I would imagine their particular books are more embelished that Hamilton's.

Whilst I wouldnt take everything in The secret Race as gospel, I would bet that most of it is in fact reality regardless of whether he lied before or not.

Fr D Maugire

I think its time for an updated inventory on the US Postal team now.

Let's see, that 99 team?

L.Armstrong-banned
F.Andreu-Admitted to doping
P.Derame
M.Jemison-More or less admitted to doping
T.Hamilton-Positive/Admitted to doping
G.Hincapie-directly implicated by Hamilton
K.Livingston-directly implicated by Hamilton
P.Meinert-Nielsen-Positive
J.Vaughters-Admitted to doping

Subsequent Postal/Discovery riders:
F.Landis- Positive/Admitted to doping
R.Heras-Positive
M.Beltran-Positive
A.Contador-Positive
I.Basso-Admitted/Banned
k.O'Bee-Positive
B.Joachim-Positive
C.Vandevelde-outed by J.Vaughters
D.Zabriskie-outed by J.Vaughters
P.Padrnos-Linked to doping investigation
P.Salvodelli-Worked with Michele Ferrari
T.Danielson-outed by J.Vaughters
J.L.Rubiera-Directly implicated by Hamilton
M.Barry-Directly implicated by F.Landis
M.White-Directly implicated by F.Landis
L.Leipheimer-Directly implicated by T.Hamilton
C.Vasseur-Cofidis affair
G.Mondini-Positive

Anyone I missed??? of course Lance was still clean the whole time:rolleyes:

leftism

hardCopy wrote: »

I bought a pair of Brook's runners last week instead of a pair of Nike Pegasus that I've been admiring for a while. Maybe next year if they've dropped him I'll pick up a pair.

Just run in Asics...

I sleep soundly at night! Clean conscience and pain-free feet...

Lumen

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

I think its time for an updated inventory on the US Postal team now.

All hail Pascal Derame!

"Quick, put away those blood bags, the Frenchman is coming!"