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

Lumen

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

That is such a horsesh1t leap of logic. I'm sorry to have to come out and say this Buffalo, but you are wrong.

What are you bickering about now? Is this still about Nick Clegg? I'm confused.

Diarmuid

RobFowl wrote: »

Yeah if Kimmage accused Wiggins and his team of doping just after winning the TDF(cleaner in most peoples book).

FYP

Surinam

I am suspicious of any professional cyclist who doesn't seem to care about this scandal - their life and career is cycling and people like Armstrong destroy any chance of them getting ahead on a fair playing field. If you are in that field, how could you not be outraged by everything that has taken place??.....unless you yourself have something to hide.

MPFG

Nick Clegg....causing trouble wherever he goes !!!!

Lusk Doyle

Lumen wrote: »

What are you bickering about now? Is this still about Nick Clegg? I'm confused.

As I can't attack the poster, let's just say yes!

Lumen

Surinam wrote: »

I am suspicious of any professional cyclist who doesn't seem to care about this scandal - their life and career is cycling and people like Armstrong destroy any chance of them getting ahead on a fair playing field. If you are in that field, how could you not be outraged by everything that has taken place??.....unless you yourself have something to hide.

It is quite difficult for most normal people to sustain outrage for a long time, it requires an element of surprise. For instance, I wasn't remotely outraged by the USADA report because it confirmed what I thought was common knowledge. Does that mean I don't care about cycling or support doping?

There have been a few posts on this thread which criticized other pro riders (e.g. Cancellara) for naivety when displaying surprise. Precisely what range of emotional responses is now considered acceptable?

In Wiggins' case, any outrage over past wrongdoing may have been dulled by his TdF win and Olympic success this last year.

I just don't think that failing to be "on message" with the constant level of indignation required by some fans is suggestive of anything very much. If the last couple of decades of pro cycling have taught us anything, it's that distinguishing a doper from a non-doper by what comes out of his mouth is akin to soothsaying.

Of course, nothing would surprise me.

AlreadyHome

I'm Bradley Wiggins (I'm not really, I am actually Nick Clegg) and I've finished the 2009 Tour de France clean, getting 4th (at that time) behind Schleck, Armstrong and Contador.

I know that the top two guys are dirty. I have my suspicions about the next guy, too...his brother looks dodgy.

The next few years don't go so well and I'm still having to struggle to beat these same old faces. Finally everything falls into place with a good team, quality set-up etc. and some of the dodgier characters not around. Then some old guy who makes his money by being (correctly/incorrectly) controversial starts questioning me.

I think I tell him to f*** off. Wouldn't you?

buffalo

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

That is such a horsesh1t leap of logic. I'm sorry to have to come out and say this Buffalo, but you are wrong.

If my workmates are stealing from the company kitty, and I don't say anything, what does that say about me? That:
a) I think it's okay
b) I think it's bad, but not bad enough to say anything, and therefore really I think it's okay
c) I think it's bad, but I don't say anything because I don't want to lose my job

Now, imagine I'm leaving the job, why wouldn't I tell everyone about it? Option c no longer applies, so therefore if I don't say anything, it's a or b.

Colonialboy

ah celebrity culture look where its gotten us .
We are talking about LA as much on his way down as we did on his way up. And in the media sports world talk = money = bums on seats.
Its known that if Lance did race in Tris now the coverage would far exceed anything that the tri events have seen before.
Thats the same reason why McIlroys getting a bazillion from Nike , we are all part of the big picture game .
As for Miss Cooke moaning about how unfair her sport became cos she didnt dope, I dont see her moaning about how unfair it is for tax payers to be dumped with bank debt and people losing houses thru no great fault of her own. Why should we or even why should she expect some special consideration just cos its cycling and a sport.
Lifes unfair and full of cheats .
Just ranting ...

Lusk Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

If my workmates are stealing from the company kitty, and I don't say anything, what does that say about me? That:
a) I think it's okay
b) I think it's bad, but not bad enough to say anything, and therefore really I think it's okay
c) I think it's bad, but I don't say anything because I don't want to lose my job

Now, imagine I'm leaving the job, why wouldn't I tell everyone about it? Option c no longer applies, so therefore if I don't say anything, it's a or b.

You are comparing apples with oranges here friend. You can't generalise accurately like that. It's a contradiction in terms.

Eg: Have you heard of the party whip system? You may be a backbencher of party A but really support the idea of party b on a particular issue. The whip is enforced. You vote with the party. It doesn't mean that you agree or condone the issue/action/whatever.

MPFG

This in from Nick Clegg
“ I want to categorically deplore and denounce performance enhancing drugs in politics (PEDIP) I say this today just in case anyone out there should suggest my silence on this matter as in any way a support of PEDIP. I am looking to meet with Mr Kimmage as soon as is possible to let him hear my views in person so he can be of no doubt as to my feelings and record on this matter. I plan to take the opportunity to sit down with him and allow him ot grill me for hours so he can be satisfied that I am clean and truthful and can then tell the world of my innocence…..If he cannot or will not meet with me I plan to camp outside his home in Dublin until such time as he can clear my name… Thank you for your continued support”

Lusk Doyle

Nick Clegg says......"RELAX EVERYBODY. IT'S GOING TO BE OK."

buffalo

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

You are comparing apples with oranges here friend. You can't generalise accurately like that. It's a contradiction in terms.

Eg: Have you heard of the party whip system? You may be a backbencher of party A but really support the idea of party b on a particular issue. The whip is enforced. You vote with the party. It doesn't mean that you agree or condone the issue/action/whatever.

I'll accept the party whip analogy might work in US Postal, but are you saying all pro-teams (except Sky, who are gods) have a policy to shut up about doping?

Hermy

RobFowl wrote: »

The relentless negativity from Kimmage and Walsh particularly is soul destroying...

I'll never tire of listening to people give their honest opinion about their desire to see clean sport.

Soul destroying is seeing Lance Armstrong on the podium in Paris seven years on the trot telling me that he's fighting cancer so I don't have to. Yeah Lance, tell that to my Dad who's 'fighting' it for the second time or my brother who's wife wasn't able to 'fight' it when it came back!

Surinam

Lumen wrote: »

It is quite difficult for most normal people to sustain outrage for a long time, it requires an element of surprise. For instance, I wasn't remotely outraged by the USADA report because it confirmed what I thought was common knowledge. Does that mean I don't care about cycling or support doping?

.

But it almost seems like tacit acceptance if we are to believe that doping is still as rampant as people suggest.

Do you remember that Prime Time interview a few months back where Claire Byrne interviewed Nicholas Roche? Like a lot of his colleagues he just kept saying things like "it's in the past, Lance was 6 years ago, blah blah move on etc...". Until Claire Byrne, who had clearly done her homework, pointed out that he was joining a team with Contador on it, a man who was caught a couple of years ago doping.

Nico didn't know how to respond to that. To me that summed up the attitude of most of these pros - they just don't seem to care that much.

Imagine for one minute that cycling was all you knew, it was your full time career and life ambition. Would not even be a little bit annoyed that so many others around you have been doping up to their gills and the only real winners were the ones with the most sponsorship money behind them?

Surinam

Hermy wrote: »

I'll never tire of listening to people give their honest opinion about their desire to see clean sport.

Soul destroying is seeing Lance Armstrong on the podium in Paris seven years on the trot telling me that he's fighting cancer so I don't have to. Yeah Lance, tell that to my Dad who's 'fighting' it for the second time or my brother who's wife wasn't able to 'fight' it when it came back!

Hear hear.

Diarmuid

Lizzie Armitstead wrote:

I just find it upsetting because the sport that I love, cycling, is clean now.

I think I've heard this one before.

Cienciano

AlreadyHome wrote: »

I'm Bradley Wiggins (I'm not really, I am actually Nick Clegg) and I've finished the 2009 Tour de France clean, getting 4th (at that time) behind Schleck, Armstrong and Contador.

I know that the top two guys are dirty. I have my suspicions about the next guy, too...his brother looks dodgy.

The next few years don't go so well and I'm still having to struggle to beat these same old faces. Finally everything falls into place with a good team, quality set-up etc. and some of the dodgier characters not around. Then some old guy who makes his money by being (correctly/incorrectly) controversial starts questioning me.

I think I tell him to f*** off. Wouldn't you?

I would if it was them talking to me and questioning me on drugs.
If it I was wiggins and I was asked if I'll be watching the Oprah interview by a random journalist, I wouldn't go on a rant about journalists that helped expose a guy that's cheated me.

Lusk Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

I'll accept the party whip analogy might work in US Postal, but are you saying all pro-teams (except Sky, who are gods) have a policy to shut up about doping?

No. I'm saying that you can't say that, because someone doesn't do or say something, they condone or agree with something.

buffalo

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

No. I'm saying that you can't say that, because someone doesn't do or say something, they condone or agree with something.

I'll accept this is true in a general sense, but the original point was that Nicole Cooke had every right to say what she said. To claim that she shouldn't say it because she's damaging the sport is bollocks, those who doped damaged the sport. Those who don't say anything aren't helping.

mcgratheoin

Diarmuid wrote: »

I think I've heard this one before.

Depressing remarks by Wiggo and Armistead today. I understand that they might get frustrated by the constant focus on doping but they have to understand how it looks to everybody not within the pro peleton.

To just explain my outlook on it - I'm a geologist and I work a lot of the time abroad. I constantly get asked by people about fracking, offshore oil reserves, environmental concerns, corruption etc. despite the fact that I don't actually work in any of these areas. Do I get annoyed and tell people to go and get a life? Do I say "that was all in the past and it couldn't happen now"? Do I say, that was other companies and people, not me? No, I answer the same questions over and over again, because I realise that I work in an industry where there has been less than optimal behaviour by others in the past.

Wiggins and Armistead should have the grace and intelligence to do the same. Instead they are merely repeating the exact same quotes that were trotted out in 1999 when the sport was declared to be finally clean following a major doping scandal. For Wiggins to suggest that Kimmage's fight against doping in cycling stems from bitterness is at best arrogance, and at worst another in the long line of cyclists who believe Kimmage guilty of spitting in the soup. I would imagine that once SKY's PR team get hold of him in the next few days there'll be another semi-apologetic column or interview where he explains his stringent anti-doping stance and how he and Sky and British cycling are at the vanguard of a new era for the sport and how it's just because he and Sky are so clean that he flips his top at any questions about Armstrong or Sean Yates or Geert Leinders.

el tel

MPFG wrote: »

Totally disagree ...he is entitled to his opinion......
And as for Kimmage saying on Twitter

"Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success:" is totally insulting as Wiggins is no where near Armstrong in any respects

And USADA uncovered Armstrong doping .....

Chuchill was the only one speaking against Hitler in 1930s UK...Eventually he was proved right but it didn't mean that Chuchill wasn't interested in maintianing the empire at all costs and rallied so against Hitler because of the consequences to the British Empire...

Fair enough but my point is that Wiggins isn't the brightest spark in any sense. He says and does **** without thinking, plenty of examples of that. ok I guess it doesn't require a huge amount of intelligence to ride a bike quickly and to listen to a bloke shout down and earpiece to tell you what to do, but he should know his cerebral limitations and think before talking ****.

secondly, is calling Kimmage bitter. Bitter how? Bitter he didn't get to ride shotgun with Sky or bitter because he doped yet still couldn't win a race? It seems to me that to the pro peleton the only acceptable and redeemable drug cheats are the ones who won stuff and the more the better.

bedirect

his interview with Ophrey is on the discovery channell at 2am on Friday morning

petethedrummer

RobFowl wrote: »

Yeah if Kimmage accused Wiggins and his team of doping just after winning the TDF(clean in most peoples book). He has publicly stated that Wiggins win ahs question marks and doubts. He also knows Wiggins has in the past refused PK access to the Sky team for the duration of the 2010 or 11 tour due to his abrasive style.

Garmin just won a GT (clean in most people's book) and Kimmage has no problem with them. They are also full of ex-dopers with ex-dopers in the support staff. The difference is Garmin haven't tried to bullsh!t anyone about their past or fire a bunch of people who did a good job just because the PR went bad.

No dodgy pasts -> ok 1 guy can have a dodgy past -> oh really 8 of them are dodgy? -> ok no doping pasts.

Yes Paul you can come on the bus -> Sorry Paul you can't come on the bus.

petethedrummer

bedirect wrote: »

his interview with Ophrey is on the discovery channell at 2am on Friday morning

whose interview?

Lusk Doyle

bedirect wrote: »

his interview with Ophrey is on the discovery channell at 2am on Friday morning

Who is ophrey?

ThisRegard

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Who is ophrey?

She's grand and old apparently.

High Nellie

Surinam wrote: »

But it almost seems like tacit acceptance if we are to believe that doping is still as rampant as people suggest.

Do you remember that Prime Time interview a few months back where Claire Byrne interviewed Nicholas Roche? Like a lot of his colleagues he just kept saying things like "it's in the past, Lance was 6 years ago, blah blah move on etc...". Until Claire Byrne, who had clearly done her homework, pointed out that he was joining a team with Contador on it, a man who was caught a couple of years ago doping.

Nico didn't know how to respond to that. To me that summed up the attitude of most of these pros - they just don't seem to care that much.

Imagine for one minute that cycling was all you knew, it was your full time career and life ambition. Would not even be a little bit annoyed that so many others around you have been doping up to their gills and the only real winners were the ones with the most sponsorship money behind them?

I believe that Nicko is probably a decent chap but I am glad he isn't the national champion. It would sicken me to see a rider in the Irish champion's jersey riding in support of Contador in the Tour.
I just don't understand why someone would sign up to support such a high profile doper.

Seweryn

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Who is ophrey?

Opera, not ophrey.

Jeezzzz :rolleyes:.

lennymc

part two of the interview is on Saturday morning at 2.am and repeated at 8 pm saturday evening.