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

resdubwhite

T-K-O wrote: »

He made me do it.... is something a child would say.

or a man needing to feed a family. I'm thinking of Frankie Andreau as a prime example.

LeftBlank

T-K-O wrote: »

Guys could and have walked away, refusing to take drugs.

Easier said than done - imagine you've wanted to ride in the TdF since you were a kid. You finally make it onto the US Postal team and the leader of the team "encourages" you to dope in order to able ride in the TdF. I think most people would find it hard to walk away from that. I know I would, given how many years of my life I would probably have given in order to get there.

feck sake lads

Surinam wrote: »

Are you a troll or are you actually being serious?

Sean Kelly did test positive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Kelly_%28cyclist%29#Doping

no i am not a troll far from it but why cant you guys relax about this its not that you ever be able to ride a pro tour or anything like it, as the man said cop on there lads ,
i honestly could not give a rats ass if armstrong or kelly were on drugs i liked them to me there were fantastic to watch and i got hours of great entertainment from them;)
and if you or othere still want to make a comment please don't come on here with an insult say what you have to say in a light hearted way as i do .:D:D

T-K-O

resdubwhite wrote: »

or a man needing to feed a family. I'm thinking of Frankie Andreau as a prime example.

I dont know much about him but point taken

T-K-O

LeftBlank wrote: »

Easier said than done - imagine you've wanted to ride in the TdF since you were a kid. You finally make it onto the US Postal team and the leader of the team "encourages" you to dope in order to able ride in the TdF. I think most people would find it hard to walk away from that. I know I would, given how many years of my life I would probably have given in order to get there.

This kid we are talking about could very well have been Armstrong himself. The kid falls in face first and then becomes the team leader. A vicious circle during a rotten period

I would say it would be extremely difficult choice to make, however the person has a choice.

Lusk Doyle

T-K-O wrote: »

This kid we are talking about could very well have been Armstrong himself. The kid falls in face first and then becomes the team leader. A vicious circle during a rotten period

I would say it would be extremely difficult choice to make, however the person has a choice.

Didn't Brian Smith say no and was promptly shown the door?

T-K-O

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Didn't Brian Smith say no and was promptly shown the door?

There was few guys to the best of my knowledge.

niceonetom

I must be missing something here - what's in it for LA if he confesses? Why would he?

Would he risk both civil and criminal actions, the loss of tens of millions of dollars to SCA etc. and conceivably even jail time just so he can, what? Do some triathlons after serving a four year ban instead of a lifetime one?

Ryder

niceonetom wrote: »

I must be missing something here - what's in it for LA if he confesses? Why would he?

Would he risk both civil and criminal actions, the loss of tens of millions of dollars to SCA etc. and conceivably even jail time just so he can, what? Do some triathlons after serving a four year ban instead of a lifetime one?

presume to generate a revenue stream.....book, interviews, tv. What's in it if he doesn't? Either way he is vulnerable to lawsuits and losing money, at least with a confession he can generate money

niceonetom

Ryder wrote: »

presume to generate a revenue stream.....book, interviews, tv. What's in it if he doesn't? Either way he is vulnerable to lawsuits and losing money, at least with a confession he can generate money

There's no need to confess just to flog a book. And being vulnerable to lawsuits is one thing, positively inviting them by admitting liability up front is quite another. Seems to me that rumours of impending confession serve him better than actual confession so maybe we're all dancing to his tune right now.

resdubwhite

I presume he thinks if he confesses he can use the confession as collateral for no prosecution.

He confesses if the Feds don't prosecute. And he gives up Bruyneel, the doctors and Verbruggen.

ROK ON

niceonetom wrote: »

I must be missing something here - what's in it for LA if he confesses? Why would he?

Would he risk both civil and criminal actions, the loss of tens of millions of dollars to SCA etc. and conceivably even jail time just so he can, what? Do some triathlons after serving a four year ban instead of a lifetime one?

Tom, I am of the opinion that LA is like the fairies. If you stop believing in them they simply cease to exist - that terrifies him.

corny

niceonetom wrote: »

I must be missing something here - what's in it for LA if he confesses? Why would he?

Would he risk both civil and criminal actions, the loss of tens of millions of dollars to SCA etc. and conceivably even jail time just so he can, what? Do some triathlons after serving a four year ban instead of a lifetime one?

I agree.

I don't see any logic in keeping quiet for months only to speak up just as the general furore is losing steam. Lets not forget he had his chance at a confession and taking a token punishment like Danielson and the rest. If his athletic career was that important that was the option to take.

The way i see it he'll settle the suits against him, accept his punishment (begrudgingly) and continue to keep a very low profile for the foreseeable future.

Fr D Maugire

T-K-O wrote: »

This kid we are talking about could very well have been Armstrong himself. The kid falls in face first and then becomes the team leader. A vicious circle during a rotten period

I would say it would be extremely difficult choice to make, however the person has a choice.

This is really simple.

There is one simple difference between Armstrong and pretty much every other athlete who doped and it is the same thing that made him into the star he was and that is cancer.

Living in the sportsworld bubble, it is very easy to get drawn into the nefarious side of a sport when everybody else is doing it, part of the game so to speak. Well when Armstrong was diagnosed with cancer, he was out of that bubble, he had one of those events that usually makes people re-assess their life choices.

As a former World Champion and top rider, Armstrong had a lot more options than your average athlete. Armstong had a big profile even just by coming back to the sport after cancer and could easily have made a decent wage dope free and been a powerful advocate for his foundation without ever doping.

Instead he chose the least moralistic option after such a life changing event and decided to dope to the max and use his cancer charity as his shield. Armstrong was more famous than any other cyclist ever after just one Tour victory, why? Because of the cancer angle of course.

Lots of people like Kimmage and Walsh had Armstrong pinned from the start but their voices were drowned out in the rush to make a few dollars of the back of 'cancer Jesus'. I doubt that without the cancer angle, Armstrong would not have won a single Tour, never mind 7. He would have been busted or called out right from the get go.

It is the sheer cynicism of using cancer as a tool in his pursuit of fame, money and glory that makes him 1000 times more despicable than any other doper out there and worthy of every bit of punishment and scorn he receives. Armstrong is a complete sociopath and is currenlty just testing the waters to see how the public might react to an actual confession.

Armstrong will always do what is best for Armstrong, to keep the money rolling in and to keep his over-inflated ego in the news. Undoubtedly THE MOST DESPICABLE sportsman of all time.

Capt'n Midnight

niceonetom wrote: »

I must be missing something here - what's in it for LA if he confesses?

You have to sin to be saved

He could see the light and find Jesus and become a preacher with his own mega-church, curing cancer saving souls, and looking for donations

Harrybelafonte

niceonetom wrote: »

There's no need to confess just to flog a book. And being vulnerable to lawsuits is one thing, positively inviting them by admitting liability up front is quite another. Seems to me that rumours of impending confession serve him better than actual confession so maybe we're all dancing to his tune right now.

Thought it was so he could partake in athletic events he's currently banned from?

resdubwhite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You have to sin to be saved

He could see the light and find Jesus and become a preacher with his own mega-church, curing cancer saving souls, and looking for donations

Even America would see through that. He's a well known practicing athiest aswell.

corny

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Thought it was so he could partake in athletic events he's currently banned from?

He had his chance with Tygart to confess and get away with 6 months. If his athletic events were important that was the course to take surely? 6 Months V 4 years?

I find it hard to believe that either himself or his lawyers are giving any consideration to his athletic future (he's 41 lets not forget). Money and damage limitation is what its been about since Sparks ruled against them in July or August.

Capt'n Midnight

resdubwhite wrote: »

Even America would see through that. He's a well known practicing athiest aswell.

So it'll be like Paul on the road to Damascus ?

"Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public"

resdubwhite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So it'll be like Paul on the road to Damascus ?

With an haemotocrit level of 49.9

furiousox

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Thought it was so he could partake in athletic events he's currently banned from?

You'd wonder, does he really think he would be welcomed back to the triathlon community by confessing to using PEDs??

RobFowl

furiousox wrote: »

You'd wonder, does he really think he would be welcomed back to the triathlon community by confessing to using PEDs??

The American non drafting races (includes the Ironman events) seem quite keen to have him. His use of PED's (in the past) don't seem to bother them that much.

If he comes clean and admits fully then I suppose he should be given an approriate ban instead of the lifetime one.

Would think a hell of lot more of him if he does unreservedly confess.

GT_TDI_150

niceonetom wrote: »

I must be missing something here - what's in it for LA if he confesses? Why would he?

I think he is an attention-whore, why did he come back to do the TdF after few years off? Publicity....

Look at the attention Tyler H. got when he confessed .... LA wants some of that and then some.

Doing a deal on his pending chargers and lawsuits will help but he's mad for attention

Either that or the attention to detail attributed to him in the WADA report means he wants the first bio-pic of him to be 100% accurate and by a confession he reckons he might become an advisor on the film

furiousox

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536246/comment-don-t-get-too-excited-about-an-armstrong-confession.html

Cienciano

furiousox wrote: »

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/536246/comment-don-t-get-too-excited-about-an-armstrong-confession.html

All makes sense, I won't be holding my breath anyway

Capt'n Midnight

RobFowl wrote: »

If he comes clean and admits fully then I suppose he should be given an approriate ban instead of the lifetime one.

Unfortunately it's unlikely that he would ever be held accountable for the deaths

mcgratheoin

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I think he is an attention-whore, why did he come back to do the TdF after few years off? Publicity....

I also think he felt he could control the media and the rest of the peleton much more from being inside cycling than when he was retired. Remember that he toyed with the idea of buying the Tour de France at one stage, so imagine how difficult it would be for anybody to speak out against him if he controlled the biggest race in the calendar and decided who would or wouldn't be invited.

As an aside - merely admitting what he has already been found guilty of will not result in any reduction of ban (or at least I fervently hope so). For there to be a quid pro quo deal, he would have to offer something up, and I can't see how he has anything left to offer unless he goes nuclear and comes up with proof of UCI shenanigans. Even with that, USADA who administered his ban should technically have no interest in the internal wranglings of the UCI, so would they accept that information as part of a bargaining strategy?

Aside number 2, great link from furiousox - brilliant analysis of the de Jongh admission actually strengthening the omerta..

godtabh

At what level is he looking to come back at? Is he looking to compete for the sake of competing or is he looking to win local, national or international titles?

I laughed at this bit

There are four subjects that are guaranteed to cause a storm in the cycling community: Mandatory helmet use, riders not waving back once they've been waved at, the cost of Rapha clothing, and Lance Armstrong.

CatFromHue

Can you imagine if Armstrong wrote a book similar to Hamilton's?

It would make him a lot of money but would it cancel out the money he'd have to pay via court cases?

godtabh

CatFromHue wrote: »

Can you imagine if Armstrong wrote a book similar to Hamilton's?

It would make him a lot of money but would it cancel out the money he'd have to pay via court cases?

If he was going down that route I'm sure it would be in the pipeline. I think I read in an interview Hamilton more or less said one of the reasons of coming clean was to fill out his book.