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

T-K-O

Kav0777 wrote: »

My point was it was the same federal investigators who investigated the the BALCO scandal, which caught among others Marion Jones and Barry bonds, who carried out the investigation into the US Postal Team, using the same methods.

Point taken, but it is widely known that you can evade these tests and eliminate the risk of failing a test with the correct team around the athlete

Fr D Maugire

T-K-O wrote: »

Athletes smashing records left right and centre and I'm ignorant. Please.

I did not say the authorities should chase people without suspicion but they should at least design a testing system that is capable of catching these cheats. You continue to make out like I'm in favor of Armstrong when that is simply not true. There is no question that the authorities put an extra shift in to catch him. I'll say it again, rightfully so. The system is broke and while it remains that way we will have guys who will use every mean possible to get that leg up.

Armstrong is a cheat but he is not alone. If that offends you or clearly winds you up, well that is your problem.

In relation to Jones and Bonds, I would imagine as they got older they took more risks with their doping, for example taking more of what ever substance they were taking to combat their age

Not defending Lance yet trotting out all the same BS his lawyers have been trotting out, witch-hunt, unfair blah, blah, blah. Armstrong doesn't wind me up because he is a doper, its because he is a total scum-bag as I have demonstrated on numerous occasions now. Dopers per se don't really offend me.

You are trying to make out Armstrong was the only one busted whilst the reality is pretty much all his rivals were busted long before he was.

Ullrich, Basso, Zulle, Rumsas all busted. There are plenty of charts floating around the internet of how many podium finishers during the Lance years were busted for doping. I think only one guy(Escartin) from 21 podium finishers hasn't been busted and banned at some point. Stretch out to Top 10 finishers during the same period and its just as bad.

Is it fair that all Armstrong's opponents were busted whilst he got away because he was clearly protected by the UCI and making donations to said UCI. What about Armstrong tipping of the UCI on what other athletes were doing in terms of doping. After all Armstrong was the biggest fraud and benefactor of the whole charade.

Have you ever heard of Operation Puerto? An investigation that was carried out by the Guardia Civil(Spanish police) in Spain. What have the Spanish police got to do with anti-doping anymore than the FBI??? They were acting on info from a disenchanted former pro much like USADA were acting on info from Landis. Even though Puerto was eventually dropped, it helped bring down Ullrich, Basso, Scarponi, Valverde and that was purely based on nicknames of riders like "Hijo de Rudy"!!! How is that much different from happened in the Postal investigation and that happened almost 8 years ago now.

The whole Festina affair of 98 was conducted by the French police, not anti-doping authorities. Is that fair?? Let me tell you something, most true fans of cycling don't care how athletes are caught as long as they are caught, period. I think most fans would welcome the inetervention of the authorities as it might speed things up a bit.

Mate as I have said before, you are clueless. You think you know about doping but really you don't and definitely not about what has happened in cycling down through the years. Trying to claim Armstrong has been unfairly treated is just the drivel that his lawyers and clueless fans have been spouting.

T-K-O

Jesus christ, I said the authorities should put in the same effort across the board, across every sport to kick out drugs. But go ahead push you agenda but you are boring me now

Kav0777

T-K-O wrote: »

..... I said the authorities should put in the same effort across the board, across every sport to kick out drugs. ..

They did..

Kav0777 wrote: »

......it was the same federal investigators who investigated the the BALCO scandal, which caught among others Marion Jones and Barry bonds, who carried out the investigation into the US Postal Team, using the same methods.

T-K-O

Kav0777 wrote: »

They did..

OK if you know about Balco or if you have ever listened to the man talk about drugs in sport, you have to ask your self the question. Why was Jones and Bonds the only two busted for drugs.

Everyone knows what the top guys are up to yet we still only have a handful of busts, usually guys lower down the pecking order. The super stars get a free ride. Tie's nicley into the Armstrong situation, we are supposed to beleive that theses guys get busted for drugs yet the champion is clean as a whistle, out performing the drug cheats

It's impossible to catch everyone but like I said before they could at the very least design a more efficient testing system

Colonialboy

T-K-O wrote: »

Jesus christ, I said the authorities should put in the same effort across the board, across every sport to kick out drugs. But go ahead push you agenda but you are boring me now

t-k-o I see your point and its a good one.
It was a bit of a hunt on Lance, (as you say deservedly), and yes it would be interesting to see the authorities go after ALL sports with equal diligence. Maybe they dont have resources to go after everyone all the time.

Also its a societal thing, America really loves a winner, loves the winner story with an angle, thats where the money is, same ways as a loser is vilified and run out of society.
I think Europe is a bit more balanced , well we used be anyways, if Lance had been French I dont think it would have all been the same circus. He woulnt have been rasied so high in society and had so far to fall once he was discredited.

I still like the Livestrong foundation , maybe its not pure research it funds but it does seem to look after survivors improving their lot, it was inspirational and yes I accept it had high overheads what charity doesnt seem to (but thats another topic) . Besides the money it collected was small in the grand scheme of cancer charities and at least it focused on male health issues .

Lances current plight where he cant race or compete seems like some form of punishment, thats got to really hurt him.

Fr D Maugire

Colonialboy wrote: »

t-k-o I see your point and its a good one.
It was a bit of a hunt on Lance, (as you say deservedly), and yes it would be interesting to see the authorities go after ALL sports with equal diligence. Maybe they dont have resources to go after everyone all the time.

Also its a societal thing, America really loves a winner, loves the winner story with an angle, thats where the money is, same ways as a loser is vilified and run out of society.
I think Europe is a bit more balanced , well we used be anyways, if Lance had been French I dont think it would have all been the same circus. He woulnt have been rasied so high in society and had so far to fall once he was discredited.

I still like the Livestrong foundation , maybe its not pure research it funds but it does seem to look after survivors improving their lot, it was inspirational and yes I accept it had high overheads what charity doesnt seem to (but thats another topic) . Besides the money it collected was small in the grand scheme of cancer charities and at least it focused on male health issues .

Lances current plight where he cant race or compete seems like some form of punishment, thats got to really hurt him.

Perhaps if Armstrong hadn't set himself up as some honest, clean-living cancer Jesus, who bullied and threatened everyone who dared question him, he wouldn't have had so far to fall. Nowt to do with being American. The bigger the fraud, the bigger the fall and punishment.

Lusk Doyle

Smashingly interesting debate between you pair. Time out boys.

I reckon that the movie should be done in the style of the wire.

Beasty

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Mate as I have said before, you are clueless.

Attack the post, not the poster, or we'll be handing out cards

Any questions PM me, do not respond in-thread

Thanks

Beasty

Fr D Maugire

T-K-O wrote: »

Jesus christ, I said the authorities should put in the same effort across the board, across every sport to kick out drugs. But go ahead push you agenda but you are boring me now

Well all you have done is moan about how unfair it is on Armstrong solely. If you had said that cycling as a sport is under greater scutiny by authorities than most other sports then I would agree but then that's not what you said, is it?

There have been literally loads of doping investigations down through the years but like most things, the big names will always get the most media attention making it seem like it is somehow unique or lop-sided. Justice is not doled out equally always but is far from limited to just Armstrong either.

Pro cycling has been at the forefront of anti-doping for years now but still lags behind the cheat. When outside organisations like the police have got involved, they have been more effective.

One thing that needs to happen in cycling is have anti-doping taken out of the hands on the governing body the UCI. How can the same body which promotes the sport also be responsible for controlling the sport. Huge conflict of interest, no way will the promoter want to kill the golden goose.

RobFowl

LA was targeted heavily, to critise that now seems bizarre. It took many levels of investigation to catch the fecker and now the turuth has come out (maybe more to come ...) it seems incomprehensible that anyone critises the methods used.

Fr D Maugire

RobFowl wrote: »

LA was targeted heavily, to critise that now seems bizarre. It took many levels of investigation to catch the fecker and now the turuth has come out (maybe more to come ...) it seems incomprehensible that anyone critises the methods used.

I would say Armstrong was heavily targeted by some media, particularly the French and the likes of David Walsh & Paul Kimmage. This was primarily because they knew straight away he was doping and like I listed before, they were incensed at the whole cancer masquerade and his arrogance in using it to cover his tracks. They put their own integrity before the quick buck/

I believe that without the whole cancer angle, he would have been called out sooner by a far more sizeable section of the media and the mainstream media would have steered clear of cycling like they always did. He would not have been in the exalted position he was put in and would not have had the finance to fight the various accusations. No way would he have been allowed to ride roughshod over the sport the way he did. No fore-warnings of tests, no cover-ups like in 01, no white-washes like the Vrijmen report.

I don't think he was any more targeted than other athletes by the anti-doping authorities until he returned in 2009 when every man his dog knew what he was about. He was unreachable and untestable most of the season as he rarely raced outside of summer and he had that exclusive deal with Ferrari going on.

At the end of the day, the whole Postal investigation started because of the E-Mails sent by Floyd Landis to US Cycling detailing the doping at Postal. This is the exact same way Operation Puerto started with Manzano spilling the details. The main difference between the two was that Puerto was focused on a doctor, Fuentes whilst Postal was focused on one team. The FBI were looking more at the fraud angle than the doping which is why people confuse things. Without Landis, Armstrong would still be riding around unhindered today.

I do think the USADA did a great job as they realised what they were up against in terms of dealing with an 'untouchable' who clearly had political backing. To paraphrase Armstrong, "extraordinary cheats require extraordinary persistence to catch them" which I think is the message USADA wanted to get across. Nobody is too big to be caught which is what this is about after all.

Fr D Maugire

As if he could look much worse:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/

Yes, yes, our Lanceness was no worse than any of those other dopers:rolleyes:

Man this guy would have made one hell of a politician. He was practically made for it.

petethedrummer

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

As if he could look much worse:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57562781/armstrong-offered-large-donation-to-doping-agency/

What's the story here? He was just buying another sysmex machine.

happytramp

God, he's on fire today.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2013/01/news/armstrong-still-the-tour-champion-or-so-he-says-on-social-media_270725?fb_comment_id=fbc_100371060140377_776_100408046803345#f3a0936f84

2 Wheels Good

More arrogance on Strava! Wonder who the rivals, peers and teammates are?

Offside

He's doing an interview with Oprah, airing January 17. http://www.oprah.com/pressroom/Lance-Armstrong-on-Oprahs-Next-Chapter

Should be interesting! Must be that admission, but expect him to defend himself as winner of tour de france if it is.

McTigs

Oprah?!? I ****ing knew it. I said months ago there'd be an Oprah special.

So cue stoney faced interview where he claims he was a victim of era when doping was the norm and he only did it in order to be able to compete on a level that would enable him to raise awareness of cancer.

ednwireland

McTigs wrote: »

Oprah?!? I ****ing knew it. I said months ago there'd be an Oprah special.

So cue stoney faced interview where he claims he was a victim of era when doping was the norm and he only did it in order to be able to compete on a level that would enable him to raise awareness of cancer.

honestly it wouldnt suprise if he carries on denying everything

Diarmuid

ednwireland wrote: »

honestly it wouldnt suprise if he carries on denying everything

It will be interesting. If the "leaks" about him coming clean are true, there's no way he's going to dig himself into a bigger hole but going on Oprah and denying it further.

furiousox

There'll be no humility that's for sure.

niceonetom

I can imagine some carefully managed and negotiated scenario where a confession of some sort is given (though I'm still unsure as to how the financial gains outweigh the legal risks). What I cannot imagine is anything resembling contrition. And confession without contrition is just another form of bragging.

I expect the new narrative to be "I did what had to be done." and that'll go down well in Mericuh.

buffalo

"Lance on Oprah" was yet another headline I thought was from a humorous site. The man knows how to make a story run and run, can't deny that.

godtabh

I wonder will he do a Tom Cruise on it?

Diarmuid

godtabh wrote: »

I wonder will he do a Tom Cruise on it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ddvdxPamHU

Kav0777

T-K-O wrote: »

OK if you know about Balco or if you have ever listened to the man talk about drugs in sport, you have to ask your self the question. Why was Jones and Bonds the only two busted for drugs.

They weren't, there were a number of athletes and baseball players incriminated. I just gave those two as an example.

ThisRegard

ednwireland wrote: »

honestly it wouldnt suprise if he carries on denying everything

The quote I heard from one of his spokesmen was that he was on to discuss his alleged doping activities. Yip, they're still saying alleged so to me it doesn't sound like it's going to be a full admission.

RobFowl

ThisRegard wrote: »

The quote I heard from one of his spokesmen was that he was on to discuss his alleged doping activities. Yip, they're still saying alleged so to me it doesn't sound like it's going to be a full admission.

Is it going to be like OJ's "fictional" story about how his wife "might have been killed"?

Can see why he's avoiding USADA and WADA for this interview. Thought he may go for the Ligget route for this but if appealing to the American court of popular opinion Oprah is the way to go....

Esroh

McTigs wrote: »

Oprah?!? I ****ing knew it. I said months ago there'd be an Oprah special.

So cue stoney faced interview where he claims he was a victim of era when doping was the norm and he only did it in order to be able to compete on a level that would enable him to raise awareness of cancer.

+1

And then
I have decided to tell all so we can finally clean up cycling for the Kids. I realise I am in a position where I can save cycling by telling all.

All Hail I .The new Saviour of Cycling.
I was the best for a decade when things were at their worst, by using my knowledge I can clean up the sport

buffalo

ThisRegard wrote: »

The quote I heard from one of his spokesmen was that he was on to discuss his alleged doping activities. Yip, they're still saying alleged so to me it doesn't sound like it's going to be a full admission.

That may have been the blurb released by the Oprah show, which also referred to, "alleged doping". It's going to be a hard-hitting interview, I can feel it!