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

GT_TDI_150

CheGuedara wrote: »

Stick a stamp over GIRO too...

They just drop him too?!

C'mon oakley, the longer you hang in there the worse it looks!

Straatvark

Did someone remember to send the report to Oakley?

- At least they have kindly posted a link for you to report fake athletes:

http://www.oakley.co...2390-_-10477753

Please use as requested by them

wonderfullife

Just found this quote from Oakley:

"Oakley Inc., which has sponsored Mr. Armstrong for more than two decades, said Wednesday that it is "reviewing the extensive report from the USADA, as well as our relationship with Lance." It added that Oakley will await final decision-making by international cycling's governing body, the International Cycling Union, with a response to USADA's file. "

Why they need to wait for UCI i have no clue.

greenmat

Leave it out lance.:D

Eamonnator

hardCopy wrote: »

Awkward phonecall to Greg LeMond for somebody in Trek?

Here's a link to the connection between LeMond and Trek and Armstrong.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong

Zyzz

Oh damn..

If anyone see's a cyclist with a Livestrong helmet..that is eh..not me

hardCopy

Zyzz wrote: »

Oh damn..

If anyone see's a cyclist with a Livestrong helmet..that is eh..not me

I saw a lad on the Tour of Waterford on a LiveStrong bike, expensive piece of kit to replace.

A_Sober_Paddy

Anyone read this piece of trash...

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nike--livestrong-abandoning-lance-armstrong-at-wrong-time.html

Bit at the end about LA not been able to hurt anyone any more as his not competing...he lied and cheated for years, but he survived cancer(well...) so we should cut him a little slack...give me something to get sick into

buffalo

argh. While I do enjoy seeing the truth come out, I'm getting a little sick of comments from non-cycling friends (in this case my housemate) like, "your role model's gone now". A conversation followed where my housemate said, "you have to give him credit for doing it so well", and I said, "you can't admire anyone for being the best at cheating". And she replied, "no, no, I don't admire him. But you have to respect him..."

I don't think it's my role model that's gone.

letape

Trek and Anheuser-Busch are the lastest two to distance themselves from LA... Just seems like Oakley are the last to decide now...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/trek-breaks-ties-with-lance-armstrong

EDIT - just saw this had already been posted!

mitosis

greenspurs wrote: »

http://www.teamsky.com/article/0,27290,17553_8173493,00.html

Sky state their position......

Sky pull publicity stunt, more like. This is mere image management. If there was any real resolve they'll be making a few redundancies.

As for who would sign, why, if a player is prepared to cheat, would signing a bit of paper make a difference to them?

ednwireland

gonna throw all my oakleys in the bin in protest

not really.......

Finnrocco

walshb wrote: »

I am aware of the 1999 incident. Wow! Strip the man of all tours and lambast him all over the place. It was one incident that wasn't even legally sanctioned.

His samples from 1999 tour were tested a few years later and proved positive for EPO. (THere was no test for EPO in 99).

Get real, he was the ringleader.

ThisRegard

ednwireland wrote: »

gonna throw all my oakleys in the bin in protest

not really.......

No room, one of my bikes, the Trek, is already in there.

RobFowl

Hein "The Magnificent" offers his opinion...

http://tourdejose.com/2012/10/18/hein-verbruggen-vs-de-telegraaf-english-translations/

Hein Verbruggen: The only thing I can say is that there are many, many stories and allegations but not a tracé of EVIDENCE. There isn’t any. LA was never found positive, not by USADA either. And everyone who knows the control procedures knows there is nothing to arrange etc etc. I am a bit beyond the “tired of it” stadium. Have a good night! Hein.

DublinKev

Does anyone have a link to David Walsh's piece about Emma O'Reilly and Betsy Abreu other than the ST site (don't have a subscription to the ST but would love to read this piece)?

buffalo

DublinKev wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to David Walsh's piece about Emma O'Reilly and Betsy Abreu other than the ST site (don't have a subscription to the ST but would love to read this piece)?

It's a copyrighted piece, so no links allowed. But tbh there was nothing new in it if you're familiar with the stories. I actually found it a confusing read because he kept switching back and forth between the two. Was a little disappointed that they didn't have a detailed analysis of the report.

Cienciano

RobFowl wrote: »

Hein "The Magnificent" offers his opinion...

http://tourdejose.com/2012/10/18/hein-verbruggen-vs-de-telegraaf-english-translations/

Hein Verbruggen: The only thing I can say is that there are many, many stories and allegations but not a tracé of EVIDENCE. There isn’t any. LA was never found positive, not by USADA either. And everyone who knows the control procedures knows there is nothing to arrange etc etc. I am a bit beyond the “tired of it” stadium. Have a good night! Hein.

Did he come out with this before or after the USADA report?

RobFowl

Cienciano wrote: »

Did he come out with this before or after the USADA report?

After (in the past week) and was reported in the Dutch Telegraff today..

DublinKev

buffalo wrote: »

It's a copyrighted piece, so no links allowed. But tbh there was nothing new in it if you're familiar with the stories. I actually found it a confusing read because he kept switching back and forth between the two. Was a little disappointed that they didn't have a detailed analysis of the report.

Ok, thanks Buffalo. Was out of the country at the weekend and can't get my hands on a copy of the ST.

Cienciano

RobFowl wrote: »

After (in the past week) and was reported in the Dutch Telegraff today..

Jesus wept!

allybhoy

I have been thinking about the Oakley relationship, As a sideshow its really interesting in itself and its far more complex than just a simple case of dropping Lance. It will have huge ramifications if they do drop him.

Stephanie Mcilvain (Oakley employee) testified under oath at the SCA trial that she was in the infamous hospital room and never heard Lance admit to doping. Judging by the calls she had with LeMond and also the conversations she had with Betsy prior to this deposition, Its fairly obvious that she was forced into making this testimony by Oakley Execs.

So... if Oakley come out now and say "Overwhelming evidence, cant condone cheating blah blah blah" Then this would be the most contradictory corporate statement ever as one of their own employees knew that he was doping and leaves her totally exposed legally and she could be done for Perjury. I presume she could also sue Oakley for this... Be interesting to see how it plays out

Morrisseeee

emtroche

Emma O'Reilly and Shane Stokes are going to be on the Craig Doyle show tonight. RTE2 10.35

I'd be interested to hear more on the whole customs thing from 1998. Sounds very strange to me.

dub_skav

Oakley could use this as an opportunity.

years of lying and hiding the truth, can't look people in the eye?
choose Oakley

Itziger

allybhoy wrote: »

I have been thinking about the Oakley relationship, As a sideshow its really interesting in itself and its far more complex than just a simple case of dropping Lance. It will have huge ramifications if they do drop him.

Stephanie Mcilvain (Oakley employee) testified under oath at the SCA trial that she was in the infamous hospital room and never heard Lance admit to doping. Judging by the calls she had with LeMond and also the conversations she had with Betsy prior to this deposition, Its fairly obvious that she was forced into making this testimony by Oakley Execs.

So... if Oakley come out now and say "Overwhelming evidence, cant condone cheating blah blah blah" Then this would be the most contradictory corporate statement ever as one of their own employees knew that he was doping and leaves her totally exposed legally and she could be done for Perjury. I presume she could also sue Oakley for this... Be interesting to see how it plays out

Where's Machiavelli when you need him?

buffalo

emtroche wrote: »

Emma O'Reilly and Shane Stokes are going to be on the Craig Doyle show tonight. RTE2 10.35

I'd be interested to hear more on the whole customs thing from 1998. Sounds very strange to me.

oh no. I want to see them, but I can't stand that Doyle guy. ugh.

Hermy

emtroche wrote: »

Emma O'Reilly and Shane Stokes are going to be on the Craig Doyle show tonight. RTE2 10.35

That's a pity.:mad:

Zyzz

ThisRegard wrote: »

No room, one of my bikes, the Trek, is already in there.

I'll take it from you?

Or I'm willing to part some EPO for it..deal?

:pac:

GT_TDI_150

mitosis wrote: »

Sky pull publicity stunt, more like. This is mere image management. If there was any real resolve they'll be making a few redundancies.

As for who would sign, why, if a player is prepared to cheat, would signing a bit of paper make a difference to them?

Because you would think there are clauses in this document relating to subsequent disclosures of doping involvement and how this would initiate legal procedings in relation to moneys paid and the recouperation there of.