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; } } }

Child Item

'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

Quick Links

Comments

mcgratheoin

Donelson wrote: »

I don't get all this outrage, he is no worse than any other cheat.

Yes. Yes he is. Can you give me examples of other cheats who have so mercilessly attacked anyone who dared to question them?
Another cheat who called his former soigneur a whore?
Another cheat who called a former friend a crazy bitch?
Another cheat who confronted a teammate in a restaurant and threatened to destroy him?
Another cheat who texted a whistleblower's wife "Run, don't walk"?
Another cheat who manipulated the entire cancer support community into supporting him?
Another cheat who forced one of the few who wouldn't cheat to leave the sport?

It has been said again and again that the animosity towards Lance is not related to his doping. There are umpteen former dopers that have been accepted back into the sport and are seen as a key component in the fight against doping going forward. The outrage that you don't understand is that this one man was allowed to ruin the lives of so many other people simply because they refused to facilitate his cheating.

el tel

Donelson wrote: »

I don't get all this outrage, he is no worse than any other cheat. yes he was a ruthless peace of work. but I seriously doubt the rest of pro cycling are cuddle teddy bears. compare lance to someone like Michael shumacker how deliberately crashed into his opponent to win and in the process risked their lives. would the world be a better place with out this crap, absolute yes! but it is part of human nature.

LA didn't push the odd rival off their bikes.

What he did was systematic, prolonged, covert doping with a vengeful persuit of anyone who questioned him and which defrauded everybody from clean riders, sponsors, fans and cancer sufferers.

I don't think there is a valid comparison to be made.

Beasty

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

ive never taken PED's or any other performance enhancing substances

Ever taken Day Nurse?

ROK ON

I watched the 1st one yday morning before work and the second episode just now.

Guy is clearly driven. But in a sad pathetic way really. I dont feel sorry for him, but I think if there is ever a reminder to kids as to why cheating is so bad in any walk of life, it is the ritual humiliation that occurs when the cheater has been apprehended.
Despite all of this, folks still cheat. Mind boggles really - its like we as a species are hardwired to be fu*k-ups.

What was amazing to me is what he didnt say.
I dont recall hearing any mention of his war cabinet (Brunyeel, Bill Stapleton, Weisel etc). To cover what he has covered without mentioning Brunyeel seems very deliberate somehow.

He is such a pathetic creature. Like Gollum, but with no Smeagol lurking beneath.

Capt'n Midnight

Donelson wrote: »

I don't get all this outrage, he is no worse than any other cheat. yes he was a ruthless peace of work. but I seriously doubt the rest of pro cycling are cuddle teddy bears. compare lance to someone like Michael shumacker how deliberately crashed into his opponent to win and in the process risked their lives. would the world be a better place with out this crap, absolute yes! but it is part of human nature.

Was it proven that the crash was deliberate ?
Yes it was convenient.
Did he sue people who suggested he cheated ?
Did he force team mates to do likewise race after race ?
Has F1 been tainted by the continued evidence that the only way to win is to cheat by ramming other competitors cars ?

Yes there has been plenty of moral cheating in F1 with creative interpretations of weight limits etc. Yes a lot of the field were doing it, yes it was against the spirit of the rules BUT it wasn't against the letter of the rules and rules were tightened and punishments were swift and those particular rules were adhered to. They were pushing the boundaries rather than starting from an indefensible position far beyond what was acceptable.

kmart6

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Another cheat who manipulated the entire cancer support community into supporting him?

Show me another cheat who has raised $400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

Beasty

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Would that make up for the increase number of premature deaths ?

No, but I don't think you can lay 100% of the blame for them on Armstrong. Anyone who has contributed in any way to the doping culture has got to share some of that

Moflojo

Lumen wrote: »

Your analysis is flawed. Oft-quoted research has shown that top athletes would die for medals. A life ban is therefore no disincentive. If the choice is to quit the sport clean because you can't compete or dope and risk being forced out, what's the downside to doping? Reputation?

Reputation of the sport or reputation of the individuals? Why allow dopers back in? The disincentive of a life ban is financial - this is a professional sport after all and money talks.

Lumen wrote: »

Lifetime bans would also mean that fewer people were caught under the bio passport, since the balance of probability would have to be stronger if the penalties were harsher.

I don't agree. As I see it, a doper is committing an offence against both the sport and the clean rider whose place in the peloton he is taking. For every doper who's made it to the peloton there is at least one clean talented rider whose career never materialises as a result. The clean rider is denied an entire career, why shouldn't the doper be?

Lumen wrote: »

The solution is constant vigilance and competent administration of the sport to the point where clean riders can more or less compete on a level playing field.

This suggests you'd accept a few dopers existing in the peloton and I think this attitude is pervasive in followers of the sport. There is too much acceptance of doping as being an unavoidable part of the sport, this is part of the reason why the general public has so little confidence in cycling.

I don't think a sporting organisation should have to waste resources trying to catch a cheater twice.

Oryx

kmart6 wrote: »

Show me another cheat who has raised $400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

Why, who did? Cos for the umpteenth time Livestrong DO NOT FUND RESEARCH.

Bluefoam

kmart6 wrote: »

Show me another cheat who has raised 400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

He raised money for cancer awareness, not cancer research. It's basically a pr company & he was at the centre of all the publicity...

kmart6

Oryx wrote: »

Why, who did? Cos for the umpteenth time Livestrong DO NOT FUND RESEARCH.

Oh you know what was meant by it, to rephrase it for you then, raised money to go towards cancer awareness programmes and activities!

Icyseanfitz

Beasty wrote: »

Ever taken Day Nurse?

Are you insuating something? Get your legal team ready buddy

mcgratheoin

kmart6 wrote: »

Show me another cheat who has raised $400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

The two don't cancel each other out - they're separate issues. Livestrong has done some good work and been involved in some dodgy dealings with its founder - many other charities can be accused of the same. You won't hear anybody suggest that Livestrong should be disbanded or shut down or liable for any claims arising from Lance's fraudulent behaviour.

The fact remains however that Armstrong leveraged his battle with cancer in an attempt to distract from any questions about his doping. He used the millions of people worldwide who either had cancer or had loved ones with cancer to create a church of believers. The inspirational positive story that he genuinely had - pro athlete gets cancer, is at death's door, recovers sufficiently to be a pro athlete again - was insufficient for his purposes and he invented a new narrative where a cancer survivor became stronger than before. The object of Livestrong from his point of view was not as a cancer support charity, and he did not plough millions of his own dollars into it, nor did he donate his speaking fees or his appearance fees to it. The object of the charity for Lance was to create a legion of followers who would so desperately want and need to believe the miracle that they would overlook the inconvenient truths pointed out by the "haters".

As an aside, Michael Schumacher was mentioned as a comparable cheat - between 2002 and 2006, he personally donated over $50 million to charities in Germany - all a matter of public record.

Chips Lovell

kmart6 wrote: »

Show me another cheat who has raised $400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

How much money did Jimmy Saville raise for charity?

robs1

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

How much money did Jimmy Saville raise for charity?

That's a ridiculous comparison

Moflojo

robs1 wrote: »

That's a ridiculous comparison

Not really, Saville's charity work appears to have shielded him to some degree from the scrutiny that would have exposed him during his lifetime.

Armstrong uses cancer, and his work for it, as such a shield and a sword.

letape

mcgratheoin wrote: »

As an aside, Michael Schumacher was mentioned as a comparable cheat - between 2002 and 2006, he personally donated over $50 million to charities in Germany - all a matter of public record.

How could Michael Schumacher be considered a comparable cheat - it is rudiculous to even try and make that comparison - 3 or 4 spur of the moment very questionsble actions v years of premeditated cheating, doping and lying.

letape

Oryx wrote: »

Why, who did? Cos for the umpteenth time Livestrong DO NOT FUND RESEARCH.

For a number of years yes livestrong did fund research. Not recently though.

robs1

Moflojo wrote: »

Not really, Saville's charity work appears to have shielded him to some degree from the scrutiny that would have exposed him during his lifetime.

Armstrong uses cancer, and his work for it, as such a shield and a sword.

Saville didn't cheat he raped about 300 kids. Armstrong took PEDS and should not be compared to saville on any level.

Capt'n Midnight

Beasty wrote: »

No, but I don't think you can lay 100% of the blame for them on Armstrong. Anyone who has contributed in any way to the doping culture has got to share some of that

agreed totally that Lance wasn't the only one

and yes lots of people willingly doped

but you have to feel sorry for the poor bastards who were pressurised into a lifestyle where if their heart alarm's went off in the middle of the night a 10 minute spin on the rollers was essential if you ever wanted to wake up again in the morning

Capt'n Midnight

kmart6 wrote: »

Show me another cheat who has raised $400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

LOL at the $400

Jeremy Beadle raised £100 Million

OK he wasn't a cheat.

But he didn't pimp it or his cancer all over the place

Moflojo

robs1 wrote: »

Saville didn't cheat he raped about 300 kids. Armstrong took PEDS and should not be compared to saville on any level.

Armstrong ruined lives, I think he's comparable with Saville on that level, at the very least.

niceonetom

"compare" =! "equate"

Beasty

Moflojo wrote: »

Armstrong ruined lives, I think he's comparable with Saville on that level, at the very least.

Savile was mentioned in the context of a specific question concerning "cheats" raising money for charity. Please do not use this as an opportunity to try and compare their respective "crimes"

Thanks

Beasty

mcgratheoin

letape wrote: »

How could Michael Schumacher be considered a comparable cheat - it is rudiculous to even try and make that comparison -

Come on man, read all the posts. Donelson brought up Schumacher, I said Lance was completely different. :rolleyes:

Donelson

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Yes. Yes he is. Can you give me examples of other cheats who have so mercilessly attacked anyone who dared to question them?
Another cheat who called his former soigneur a whore?
Another cheat who called a former friend a crazy bitch?
Another cheat who confronted a teammate in a restaurant and threatened to destroy him?
Another cheat who texted a whistleblower's wife "Run, don't walk"?
Another cheat who manipulated the entire cancer support community into supporting him?
Another cheat who forced one of the few who wouldn't cheat to leave the sport?

It has been said again and again that the animosity towards Lance is not related to his doping. There are umpteen former dopers that have been accepted back into the sport and are seen as a key component in the fight against doping going forward. The outrage that you don't understand is that this one man was allowed to ruin the lives of so many other people simply because they refused to facilitate his cheating.

did he play nice no. but lets for example compare him to a tobacco producer who knowingly creates an addictive cancer causing product. or a shop keeper who knowingly sales this product. the shop keeper will say if I don't sell it someone else will. no morale outrage. but I suppose the shopkeeper never says nasty thIngs so that's ok. then.
none of the above people are my idea of a hero. but I do think people are over reacting when it comes to Armstrong.

el tel

kmart6 wrote: »

Show me another cheat who has raised $400+ for cancer research....in fairness!

$400+ is a paltry sum.

I raised £400 on a single Macmillan Cancer Support charity ride. I didn't use PEDs either and no one's reputation was destroyed in the process :pac:

letape

mcgratheoin wrote: »

Come on man, read all the posts. Donelson brought up Schumacher, I said Lance was completely different. :rolleyes:

My bad mcgratheoin - I had read them but prob should have quoted the earlier post!

WhatNowForUs?

What does cancer awareness mean?. It sounds like a silly question maybe it is but if i give 50 euro to cancer awareness what does people get back fRom it. Should I give it to research instead.

Cienciano

WhatNowForUs? wrote: »

What does cancer awareness mean?. It sounds like a silly question maybe it is but if i give 50 euro to cancer awareness what does people get back fRom it. Should I give it to research instead.

It's pretty much to promote itself. Ads on tv for livestrong, ads at football matches for it. Advertising "livestrong" is money towards "cancer awareness".
And awareness for Livestrong is awareness for Lance.
It was money well spend, me and all my friends never knew what cancer was till we saw yellow wristbands on people.