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

wonderfullife

ThisRegard wrote: »

And don't forget the book. To be honest, if he did write one I would buy it, as long as he was completely honest in it.

It would be interesting to see into the mind of such a powerful personality, no matter how much you dislike that personality, and the machinations behind how he became such a powerful force within the peleton and doping.

Yeah i'm sure he'll be busy securing book and film rights before embarking on the full confession. The only way he doesn't come out of it a complete monster is to pull the old "i was driven by a desire to beat cancer and felt winning races, at any cost, would boost my profile and allow me to help defeat the disease". Total horsesh1t obviously but it'll be lapped up by many.

What i WOULD be interested in, is something like "yeah hands up, i may have given myself cancer, i was a lying, cheating , manipulator, driven to be the best of the best. They were all cheating but i cheated best". Be a good read.

letape

ThisRegard wrote: »

Wow, I don't think Nike would ditch him this quick, I thought they'd at least wait until after the UCI made some sort of statement. the thing is, they've probably made as much money as they can out of him at this stage. There's not a lot to be made from a retired cyclist or if they make much from tri gear.

Have Oakley or Trek made any public statements yet since USADA made public their information?

walshb

I wasn't aware that Lance had failed a dope test? Was this during his 1999-2005 record breaking years?

ThisRegard

I haven't seen any from them anyway

I read a good comment made by some elsewhere that this sounds like a settlement made between Nike and Armstrong. Nike end their sponsorship of Armstrong personally, he agrees to step down at Livestrong and Nike will continues with their yellow and black clothing range and sponsorship of the foundation.

On mature reflection it seems like a bit of a cop out. It's not like Armstrong won't be appearing in Nike Livestrong gear anyway, despite him having no sponsorhip deail with them anymore, I doubt they have a clause that he can't be seen wearing any of their clothing.

Edit, c'mon Walshy, take of those yellow shades and see the world for what it is.

feck sake lads

never took drugs just suplements say what you like about him he's class best cyclist ever :cool:

RobFowl

walshb wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Lance had failed a dope test? Was this during his 1999-2005 record breaking years?

The infamous 1999 cosrticosteroid positive. Was let off with a back dated letter from a doctor...

wonderfullife

I find it interesting what Lance said in his statement.

"due to the controversy surrounding my cycling career"

Interesting words. He could have gone with something like:

"due to the lies and witch hunt/vendetta against me"

It seems like he has to be close to an admission. His Twitter is very quiet, Nike gone today, Oakley will follow for sure (be nuts not to), lawsuits will start being filed soon and if Lance wants to mount any defence he'll have to hear all this in the courts under oath by so many people. It surely now has to be an admission of guilt, limit the damage, out of court settlements , lie low for a few years living the good life.

Surinam

walshb wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Lance had failed a dope test? Was this during his 1999-2005 record breaking years?

I wasn't aware it was possible for a sane human being to still believe in Lance's innocence.

walshb

RobFowl wrote: »

The infamous 1999 cosrticosteroid positive. Was let off with a back dated letter from a doctor...

Yes, but I read about this. In the strict regulatory sense it cannot be seen as a positive test:

“Of course it cannot be regarded as a positive test in the strict regulatory sense,” the newspaper said, claiming that there was no question of sanctions as a result of the findings."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/08/tour-de-france/lequipe-alleges-armstrong-samples-show-epo-use-in-99-tour_8740

steve9859

wonderfullife wrote: »

I find it interesting what Lance said in his statement.

"due to the controversy surrounding my cycling career"

Interesting words. He could have gone with something like:

"due to the lies and witch hunt/vendetta against me"

It seems like he has to be close to an admission. His Twitter is very quiet, Nike gone today, Oakley will follow for sure (be nuts not to), lawsuits will start being filed soon and if Lance wants to mount any defence he'll have to hear all this in the courts under oath by so many people. It surely now has to be an admission of guilt, limit the damage, out of court settlements , lie low for a few years living the good life.

It does seem that the edifice is starting to crumble, doesn't it?

I reckon admission of guilt isn't an option for him though....it would open the floodgates for claims and would hit him seriously in the pocket. And fighting everything is not an option either, as it would likely expose old instances of perjury, risking a heavy jail sentence.

Most likely I think is a series of out of court settlements, where it is agreed that he pays without admitting guilt. Happens all the time.

And that would allow the dwindling number of Lance apologists to claim of course that his guilt has never been proven or admitted to

Lumen

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but I read about this. In the strict regulatory sense it cannot be seen as a positive test:

“Of course it cannot be regarded as a positive test in the strict regulatory sense,” the newspaper said, claiming that there was no question of sanctions as a result of the findings."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/08/tour-de-france/lequipe-alleges-armstrong-samples-show-epo-use-in-99-tour_8740

That was just l'Equipe covering their arses. Obviously it was a positive test, just one that didn't attract a sanction.

walshb

Surinam wrote: »

I wasn't aware it was possible for a sane human being to still believe in Lance's innocence.

Like I said, I believe/feel that he did use PEDs. I cannot know for sure, but as far as I know he is/was one of the worlds most tested athletes. And never tested positive in the legal sense for PEDs.

I also believe that Flo Jo most likely used PEDs. Cannot know for sure.

Anyway, he won them races. Now they want to take them off him. And give them to who? He did not test positive for drugs for those tour wins.

Michelle Smith still has her 3 golds and a bronze from Atlanta!

RobFowl

walshb wrote: »

Yes, but I read about this. In the strict regulatory sense it cannot be seen as a positive test:

“Of course it cannot be regarded as a positive test in the strict regulatory sense,” the newspaper said, claiming that there was no question of sanctions as a result of the findings."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2005/08/tour-de-france/lequipe-alleges-armstrong-samples-show-epo-use-in-99-tour_8740

It was a positive test where the governing body declined to apply sanctions !!

paddyh117

walshb wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Lance had failed a dope test? Was this during his 1999-2005 record breaking years?

I can only assume, you're very very bored or trolling the forum!

Mycroft H

Nike has pulled their sponsorship of Lance.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/armstrong-steps-down-as-chairman-of-livestrong-as-nike-pulls-sponsorship-3263432.html

paddyh117

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, he won them races. Now they want to take them off him. And give them to who? He did not test positive for drugs for those tour wins.

..give them to nodody - the head of the Tour de France, has asked for those years to be "void" in the records.

ThisRegard

walshb wrote: »

but as far as I know he is/was one of the worlds most tested athletes.

You mean as far as Lance Armstrong repeated ad nauseum.

Beasty

BX 19 wrote: »

Nike has pulled their sponsorship of Lance.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/armstrong-steps-down-as-chairman-of-livestrong-as-nike-pulls-sponsorship-3263432.html

Can't say I'm surprised (except that it's taken so long, but I guess they had to get their lawyers crawling through the contracts as well as the USADA documents)

It would be nice if they tried to get their money back from him though.

Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade

walshb

paddyh117 wrote: »

I can only assume, you're very very bored or trolling the forum!

So, anyone who is not ready to lambast Lance is trolling?

I see! Best to leave this thread, or at least ignore you!

Lusk Doyle

walshb wrote: »

So, anyone who is not ready to lambast Lance is trolling?

I see! Best to leave this thread, or at least ignore you!

If you're not with us you're in al qaeda. This is the front line of the war on terror (in cycling).

Beasty

If anyone has a problem with a post or poster, report it and leave it to the mods to deal with as they see fit.

Anyone (other than Forum Mods, CMods or Admins) accusing any other poster of trolling can expect to be sanctioned for backseat modding.

walshb

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

If you're not with us you're in al qaeda. This is the front line of the war on terror (in cycling).

Lovin' it.

If folks would slow down and maybe try and discuss the topic without resorting to the troll card.

If I was a betting man, yes, I would bet that he did use PEDs. I am just not ready to slate and lambast and label him as easily as some others.

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence against him; but there is also the other side. There is also a lot of positive facts that Lance and his supporters have.

The guy is an awesome athlete, PEDs or not. He competed in possibly the dirtiest sport in history as regards PEDs.

Lumen

walshb wrote: »

So, anyone who is not ready to lambast Lance is trolling?

You're trotting out the same tired assertions in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Have you even bothered to take in 10% of the content of this thread, or read the USADA report?

paddyh117

walshb wrote: »

Lovin' it.

If folks would slow down and maybe try and discuss the topic without resorting to the troll card.

If I was a betting man, yes, I would bet that he did use PEDs. I am just not ready to slate and lambast and label him as easily as some others.

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence against him; but there is also the other side. There is also a lot of positive facts that Lance and his supporters have.

The guy is an awesome athlete, PEDs or not. He competed in possibly the dirtiest sport in history as regards PEds.

I'm not going to bother - you clearly need a cause, and have picked the defence of Lance, in the face of "seemingly insurmountable evidence"

enjoy - i'm out

RobFowl

walshb wrote: »

The guy is an awesome athlete, PEDs or not. He competed in possibly the dirtiest sport in history as regards PEds.

USADA disagree, as do WADA and possibly even the UCI.
Nike also disagree ...

Mycroft H

Beasty wrote: »

Can't say I'm surprised (except that it's taken so long, but I guess they had to get their lawyers crawling through the contracts as well as the USADA documents)

It would be nice if they tried to get their money back from him though.

Once bitten, twice shy. I'd say they'll be hesitant to sponsor any cyclist again.

MPFG

Lumen wrote: »

You're trotting out the same tired assertions in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Have you even bothered to take in 10% of the content of this thread, or read the USADA report?

Agree ....as they say there is none so blind as those who will not see

It is not just a matter of LA taking drugs among a culture of drug taking in cycling...He lead the assault, he encouraged and coerced others according to USADA and he continues to deny it..He has lied under oath and ran a campaign of intimidation and bullying to uphold his lies

Lusk Doyle

walshb wrote: »

Lovin' it.

If folks would slow down and maybe try and discuss the topic without resorting to the troll card.

If I was a betting man, yes, I would bet that he did use PEDs. I am just not ready to slate and lambast and label him as easily as some others.

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence against him; but there is also the other side. There is also a lot of positive facts that Lance and his supporters have.

The guy is an awesome athlete, PEDs or not. He competed in possibly the dirtiest sport in history as regards PEds.

He is in his bollock an awesome athlete. He is a lying, cheating, dirty, rotten to the core con man who deserves to be pulled along behind the peleton face first down the cobbles of the champs elyeese and thrown in the river. Then we would see just how hot a tri dork he really is.

This bullish1t "I suppose he could have doped" is so so short sighted and is just plain wrong.

RobFowl

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

He is in his bollock an awesome athlete. He is a lying, cheating, dirty, rotten to the core con man who deserves to be pulled along behind the peleton face first down the cobbles of the champs elyeese and thrown in the river. Then we would see just how hot a tri dork he really is.

This bullish1t "I suppose he could have doped" is so so short sighted and is just plain wrong.

Don't forget he was a drug dealer and supplier as well....

ThisRegard

I find your approach to anyone caught up in drugs scandals odd walshb. Didn't you imply some sort of conspiracy against Michele Smith a while back in the Athletics forum because the testers were married and that the authories were determined to get her ?

I don't know if you're just naieve or unwilling to accept scandals like this.