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

marienbad

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Yes but the Premier League is the biggest and most popular league in the World. The flagship and you say it is an abbeartion.

Champions league is another joke only really open to teams with money. Atletico broke that trend somewheat last year but first time in over 10 years that a non-major money bags club appeared in the final.

Italian football has faded badly since the money started to drain away whilst once it was the biggest league in the world. How many times has the Italian league been embroiled in match-fixing.

In France which was less-affected by money, PSG got the big bucks and won two titles on the bounce straight away.

Money might not always gurantee success but without you won't really win much in football.

You won't win much of anything in any sport without money , not just football . Its the way of the world

Bat at the same time not too many Federers or Contadors or Harringtons coming out of Africa but funnily enough a production line of Eto's ,Drogbas,
and Essiens.

They must be doing something right

Fr D Maugire

marienbad wrote: »

This is where you are utterly wrong , cycling is tested as much as it is because it deserves to be and whats more it brought it on itself despite many opportunities to halt the slide.

When push came to shove and the Festina affair offered a golden opportunity to clean up the sport not alone did the cycling authorities fail to take the necessary action they actually became the biggest part of the problem.

And it became the punchbag because tour winners kept failing drug tests as recently as 2010.

As regards other sports ,no one is naive enough to believe they are without sin, but we can only judge them on the crimes they have committed and not on what we think they have committed . So lets judge them when that time comes .

The thing that disappoints me most in both cycling and athletics is when the problem is so great the aficionados start saying others sports are just as bad. It is then I begin to fear the problem is beyond solving

You fail to address my points on why only cyclists were named in the Puerto affair which embroiled the likes of Ullrich, Valverde and a few other big names. Other sports were involved, sports that had some of Spains biggest national heros no less.

Why Guardiola is lauded as a hero? Why the likes of Edgar Davids, Jaap Stam, Rio Ferdinanad are not vilified the way cyclists are in the media.

Contador tested positive for a substance that if it were another sport, would be laughed off as nothing. Do you actually know the details of that case as I highly doubt it. Probably just know he tested positive.

Cycling is one of the most tested sports and at the forefront of testing. First sport to introduce set limit on Hct, first to introduce EPO test, first to introduce Bio-Passport.

If cycling is at the forefront of anti-doping and are still behind the ball, where are all the other sports in comparison?

You seem to ignore the fact that most of cyclings major scandals don't come about because of testing but due to police investigations.

I think most cycling fans are aware of the problems within their sport and don't deny it, just laughable when people think other sports are more believable. Cycling fans thought the same until the Festina affair.

Fr D Maugire

marienbad wrote: »

You won't win much of anything in any sport without money , not just football . Its the way of the world

Bat at the same time not too many Federers or Contadors or Harringtons coming out of Africa but funnily enough a production line of Eto's ,Drogbas,
and Essiens.

They must be doing something right

Money is a barrier to entry to some sports but that is lack of facilities, cultural, popularity trends but that it completely different to money itself distorting the field in favour of a handful of those already taking part.

marienbad

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

You fail to address my points on why only cyclists were named in the Puerto affair which embroiled the likes of Ullrich, Valverde and a few other big names. Other sports were involved, sports that had some of Spains biggest national heros no less.

Why Guardiola is lauded as a hero? Why the likes of Edgar Davids, Jaap Stam, Rio Ferdinanad are not vilified the way cyclists are in the media.

Contador tested positive for a substance that if it were another sport, would be laughed off as nothing. Do you actually know the details of that case as I highly doubt it. Probably just know he tested positive.

Cycling is one of the most tested sports and at the forefront of testing. First sport to introduce set limit on Hct, first to introduce EPO test, first to introduce Bio-Passport.

If cycling is at the forefront of anti-doping and are still behind the ball, where are all the other sports in comparison?

You seem to ignore the fact that most of cyclings major scandals don't come about because of testing but due to police investigations.

I think most cycling fans are aware of the problems within their sport and don't deny it, just laughable when people think other sports are cleaner. Cycling fans thought the same until the Festina affair.

Why are you focusing on other sports , they are irrelevant to your sport. Cycling was only the first to introduce all those things because it was the worst offender by a country mile .

When I see posters on here arguing that Armstrong was treated too harshly and others got off lightly I begin to wonder how far the sport has come .

Everyone one of those clowns and anyone ever associated with them or a associated with any offending team or any senior administrator from that era should be turfed out for life - no mercy no deals nothing.

marienbad

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Money is a barrier to entry to some sports but that is lack of facilities, cultural, popularity trends but that it completely different to money itself distorting the field in favour of a handful of those already taking part.

Money has always distorted top level sport , remind me again how much does a Tour bike cost, or that banned swim gear , or those training camps that every European athlete goes on ?

pelevin

marienbad wrote: »

Why are you focusing on other sports , they are irrelevant to your sport. Cycling was only the first to introduce all those things because it was the worst offender by a country mile .

When I see posters on here arguing that Armstrong was treated too harshly and others got off lightly I begin to wonder how far the sport has come .

Everyone one of those clowns and anyone ever associated with them or a associated with any offending team or any senior administrator from that era should be turfed out for life - no mercy no deals nothing.

So, & I'm not trying to contradict you, you presumably consider the results of one of the greatest football sides ever - Barcelona under Guardiola - are more or less wholly tainted because their mastermind should have been turfed out for life for his positive dope test, & so essentially that era shouldn't have happened?

Zidane, one of the greatest players ever, was playing with a side - Juve - we know was doping systematically. Should he & all the players in their prime involved have been kicked out of soccer forever? Certainly according to what you've said here. I'm just wondering how consistent you are. And btw you won't see any comments by me saying Armstrong was treated harshly.

Also not sure how you can make out cycling was worse by a country mile than athletics. However bad, & it was very bad, cycling was, athletics was/is also very, very bad.

Fr D Maugire

marienbad wrote: »

Why are you focusing on other sports , they are irrelevant to your sport. Cycling was only the first to introduce all those things because it was the worst offender by a country mile .

When I see posters on here arguing that Armstrong was treated too harshly and others got off lightly I begin to wonder how far the sport has come .

Everyone one of those clowns and anyone ever associated with them or a associated with any offending team or any senior administrator from that era should be turfed out for life - no mercy no deals nothing.

And the only reason people knew that is because of the Festina investigation which was a fluke catch by the police. If that had never happened, cycling would have continued on in wilful ignorance like everyone else, miles and miles behind the dopers with heads buried in the sand pretending there is no problem with their sport as nobody is testing positive. That was the case in the 90s as there was no test for EPO which was the drug of choice.

Instead they actually made attempts to improve anti-doping which of course is going to catch more cheats which in turn is going to make the sport look bad. Its cyclical, the more a sport tries to catch it cheats, the worse it will look in the public. This is common sense and the reason other sports don't make the same effort. Paul Kimmage has pointed out recently that drug taking is a big problem in rugby but there is little done to combat it as the authorities don't want it revealed. That is the problem.

As I said when other sports are subjected to the level of police scrutiny that cycling was after Festina, then we can talk. You seem to ignore this or are at best clueless about what happened in the Festina affair.

marienbad

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

And the only reason people knew that is because of the Festina investigation which was a fluke catch by the police. If that had never happened, cycling would have continued on in wilful ignorance like everyone else, miles and miles behind the dopers with heads buried in the sand pretending there is no problem with their sport as nobody is testing positive. That was the case in the 90s as there was no test for EPO which was the drug of choice.

Instead they actually made attempts to improve anti-doping which of course is going to catch more cheats which in turn is going to make the sport look bad. Its cyclical, the more a sport tries to catch it cheats, the worse it will look in the public. This is common sense and the reason other sports don't make the same effort. Paul Kimmage has pointed out recently that drug taking is a big problem in rugby but there is little done to combat it as the authorities don't want it revealed. That is the problem.

As I said when other sports are subjected to the level of police scrutiny that cycling was after Festina, then we can talk. You seem to ignore this or are at best clueless about what happened in the Festina affair.

Ignoring nothing and not clueless at all but thanks all the same for the ad hominem .

So what is it was a police affair ? Cycling has always been different when it came to drugs . Modern science just exacerbated that tendency and the authorities instead of clamping down on it became the problem .

Paul Kimmage may well be right but lets wait until we see the crime before we convict shall we . And if the Authorities facilitate the punishment or cover up the crime.

Fr D Maugire

marienbad wrote: »

Ignoring nothing and not clueless at all but thanks all the same for the ad hominem .

So what is it was a police affair ? Cycling has always been different when it came to drugs . Modern science just exacerbated that tendency and the authorities instead of clamping down on it became the problem .

Paul Kimmage may well be right but lets wait until we see the crime before we convict shall we . And if the Authorities facilitate the punishment or cover up the crime.

But that is the thing, if it is left to the governing bodies of the sport, nothing will happen, they will bury it. That is what I am trying to get across to you but you don't seem to get.

It was a random police check that opened up the dark-underbelly of cycling. It will take something similar to happen in other sports but certain others sports are more popular and involve a far greater amount of prestige and money, thus less likely to suffer the same fate. Can you imagine the police getting involved in checking athletes for drugs at Wimbledon. Will.never.happen.ever.

Again you have not answered my question as why only cyclists where named in the Puerto investigation when the guy at the centre of it said there were athletes from several different sports involved. That whole case was buried. Why?

Hermy

marienbad wrote: »

... lets wait until we see the crime before we convict shall we...

You don't need to have seen the crime to convict someone of wrong doing.

marienbad

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

But that is the thing, if it is left to the governing bodies of the sport, nothing will happen, they will bury it. That is what I am trying to get across to you but you don't seem to get.

It was a random police check that opened up the dark-underbelly of cycling. It will take something similar to happen in other sports but certain others sports are more popular and involve a far greater amount of prestige and money, thus less likely to suffer the same fate. Can you imagine the police getting involved in checking athletes for drugs at Wimbledon. Will.never.happen.ever.

Again you have not answered my question as why only cyclists where named in the Puerto investigation when the guy at the centre of it said there were athletes from several different sports involved. That whole case was buried. Why?

Because I don't agree with you dos'nt mean I don't get it ok ? Can you understand that ?
Now you may well be right but we have no way of knowing that . You are assuming because your sport utterly failed the challenge every other sport will too. Some might some might not .Some sports might fail in one part of the world and be pristine in another . Some might have learned from the mistakes of cycling and athletics and dare I say it some might actually be honest .

As for the Puerto investigation - I have no idea why only cyclists were named , maybe only cyclists were in involved . Your man is hardly a credible witness , but lets say a very much loved football club were heavily implicated , whats your point ? You keep dragging football into this and as I have repeatedly said it is like comparing an elephant to a gnat . Some stats for you - according to FIFA in 2007 there are 250 million people or 4% of the world population involved in football . There are 75,000 involved in cycling in the UK in 2013 on the back of Wiggins winning the Tour .I couldn't find a world wide figure .
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20130617-British-Cycling-reaches-75-000-members-milestone-0

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/bigcount/

Now if you show me 15 Wimbledons in succession , or 15 Champion Leagues Finals, or 15 Heineken Cup Finals that have questions hanging over them you can talk , but until then it is eyes down next number and lets get our own house in order before we start measuring others .

letape

marienbad wrote: »

Cycling has always been different when it came to drugs . Modern science just exacerbated that tendency and the authorities instead of clamping down on it became the problem

Conconi funded by The (Italian) Olympic committee (CONI) introduced EPO to assist with the performance of Italian middle distance runners and skiers. The use of EPO and blood doping is certainly not monopolised by cycling but is a problem across many sports including athletics, swimming and skiing.

marienbad

letape wrote: »

Conconi funded by The (Italian) Olympic committee (CONI) introduced EPO to assist with the performance of Italian middle distance runners and skiers. The use of EPO and blood doping is certainly not monopolised by cycling but is a problem across many sports including athletics, swimming and skiing.

Indeed and I have alluded to that in other posts . But you are right it is not just cycling.

pelevin

What re you hoping for here, Marienbad? People are going to say or think "Yeah, cycling is terrible. I had no idea. I'll stop looking at it. It's my sport. I'm a failure."

Just to repeat how serious a level you're operating on - you genuinely talked about the Olympics as having huge credibility. Does something as ludicrous as that not hit home that maybe there's not a lot of clarity in whatever you're trying to communicate. Next maybe you should go on to the Football forums and tell them what mindless sheep they are for following something as farcical and shameful as modern pro soccer. Would there be some point?

marienbad

pelevin wrote: »

What re you hoping for here, Marienbad? People are going to say or think "Yeah, cycling is terrible. I had no idea. I'll stop looking at it. It's my sport. I'm a failure."

Just to repeat how serious a level you're operating on - you genuinely talked about the Olympics as having huge credibility. Does something as ludicrous as that not hit home that maybe there's not a lot of clarity in whatever you're trying to communicate. Next maybe you should go on to the Football forums and tell them what mindless sheep they are for following something as farcical and shameful as modern pro soccer. Would there be some point?

Well as it is a discussion forum I was hoping for discussion and in that I was not disappointed .

But let me clarify , I only became involved when I answered a post that seemed to have some sympathy for Armstrong and the notion that he was maybe treated unfairly . I profoundly disagree with this I think it casts doubt to a wider world on how much cycling really has changed.
And then world war 3 kicked off with every other sport being dragged into it and again this is something I disagree with. When you have utterly failed in your responsibility as cycling has it is too soon to be casting aspersion on others .

Now as for the Olympics - let me again offer some clarification - saying the Olympics has a huge credibility issue was indeed a generalisation too far , but as the Civil Servant sitting with a Minister of Education one time said 'what the Minister meant to say was' - I believe that any one involved in any sport in a serious way particularly in the admin coaching side has serious reservations with the Olympics and I assumed most in this thread would be in that category . And I stand by that.

And you simply judge soccer solely through a European or british lens and why it was invoked in this discussion is beyond me . And for all its enormous faults its global march is just astounding so they must be doing something right.

I used to love cycling and athletics and the Olympics and I was in Atlanta in 96 when Michelle won all those medals but everyone even marginally involved or clued in knew they were tainted and all beauty of sport was tarnished even further . She did that and Christie and Johnson etc. But Armstrong was without peer and when people still think he was victimised it makes you wonder.

By the way I did try to extricate myself from this side track many posts ago but other posters 'kept pulling me back in '

Hermy

marienbad wrote: »

And you simply judge soccer solely through a European or british lens and why it was invoked in this discussion is beyond me . And for all its enormous faults its global march is just astounding so they must be doing something right.

With comments like that you keep dragging yourself back in.

Beasty

If anyone has anything more to say on Armstrong drop me or one of the other mods a line and we'll consider re-opening the thread

eeeee

What the actual fcuk:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/lance-armstrong-subpoenas-testified-154856

Meglomania much? He's not right in the head.

Lusk_Doyle

gadetra wrote: »

What the actual fcuk:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/lance-armstrong-subpoenas-testified-154856

Meglomania much? He's not right in the head.

That makes no sense. You subpoena someone to testify on your behalf, no?

eeeee

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

That makes no sense. You subpoena someone to testify on your behalf, no?

Would have thought so. It's like he's suing them for calling him out? What grounds can you do that? Can you even do that?

Unless either he's trying to take them down with him, make them pay some of his price? "If I'm going down you're all coming with me?"

Just boggles my mind! He is supposed to have lost $100m, which is about what he's suing for. Maybe he's going for loss of future earnings too :rolleyes:

Madness

Beasty

I'm re-opening this as there has been further Armstrong discussion in the off-topic thread which has been moved here

However the topic is Armstrong. Please stick to it, and do not start talking about other sports and their approach to doping. Please also note that doping speculation rules apply equally to other sports

Any questions PM me - do not respond in-thread

Thanks

Lusk_Doyle

gadetra wrote: »

Would have thought so. It's like he's suing them for calling him out? What grounds can you do that? Can you even do that?

Unless either he's trying to take them down with him, make them pay some of his price? "If I'm going down you're all coming with me?"

Just boggles my mind! He is supposed to have lost $100m, which is about what he's suing for. Maybe he's going for loss of future earnings too :rolleyes:

Madness

He can't be suing them if he is subpoening them as his own witnesses though. They have already given evidence to their own and his guilt. They are hardly going to say otherwise now for him?

full_irish

gadetra wrote: »

What the actual fcuk:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/lance-armstrong-subpoenas-testified-154856

Meglomania much? He's not right in the head.

What was disappointing to me was how the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) come down so hard on a person that contributes more then any other athlete I know to the war against chronic disease. Discrediting him was worth a lot to the medical pharmaceutical and industrial complex. I'm a health columnist for 5 middle Georgia newspapers and have really valued the www.livestrong.comfoundation for research on various health issues. I hope he continues his contributions to the fight against chronic disease

What's worrying is that this is the first post that appears in the comments section of this article - the mind frankly boggles.

What in the name of all that is holy is the 'fight against chronic disease' when it's at home.

Also, his statement that he was clean during his comeback. Not buying that for a second, especially when you look at the number of Astana riders currently testing positive, it would appear to indicate that there could maybe have possibly (enough ambiguity/not definitive accusation for legal purposes?) been a systematic doping regime going on at the team for a number of years. One could say similar to what occurred at Lance's previous teams.

Beasty

Don't know how the US legal system works, and I'm not in any position to understand what his actual motives are.

The article states

The subpoenas demand testimonies, documents and sworn statements that were used against Armstrong in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) cases

Which suggess to me that he simply does not have access to that information at this stage, but believes that testimony may help his case

I can think of 2 other ways he may be seeking to benefit from this:

1. He may get them to put things in a different light which he may believe could reflect better on him; or
2. He may believe he can get testimony from them that potentially discredits that prior testimony

full_irish

I feel that its probably number 1. Armstrong is calculated and its not a coincidence that his jump back into the limelight (BBC interview) and this come out the same time.

He said in the interview, it's pretty much time that he is forgiven. To me, it seems that its just the start of the Armstrong media-hype train prior to the CIRC release and his campaign to be able to raise money to treat his mother's MS.

mcgratheoin

Beasty wrote: »

I can think of 2 other ways he may be seeking to benefit from this:

1. He may get them to put things in a different light which he may believe could reflect better on him; or
2. He may believe he can get testimony from them that potentially discredits that prior testimony

Or

3. He may be hoping to show that they were coerced/bribed/illegally induced into giving evidence against him which would render their evidence inadmissable in the forthcoming civil lawsuit. (which probably slots more generally into your point 2)

Just to clarify a few things - Armstrong is not suing anybody - he is being sued by Floyd Landis and the US government. Landis filed the suit as a whistleblower - in the US if you believe the government has been defrauded you can take a case yourself and receive a portion of any settlement (between 15 and 30%, depending on the extent of the case's reliance on his evidence). In this situation, Landis filed the suit and then the US government attached themselves to the action, indicating that they also believe themselves to have been defrauded by Armstrong.

This is not about clearing his name or continuing his denials, this is about the $32 million that US Postal gave Armstrong back in the day and the $100 million that they want him to pay back.

Leroy42

I think it is very smart move. AS mentioned above, this has nothing to do with attempting to deny he took drugs, it is all about rehabilitating LA in the eyes of the public, a PR exercise.

He needs to put distance between the perception that he as at fault and create the narrative that he was a scapegoat, taken down by the man.

My bet is that he is now asking these guys to stand up in court and prove their claims. Not just an opinion, or I think he did this, but actual proof that he was the ringleader rather than just a pawn in the game. If he can get this he can move on with the line that all he did was play the game and he was taken down by left wing pinko types. He ain't bothered about his cycling, or running slowly the Boston marathon. He needs to be in the spotlight again, to be 'important' and for that he needs some credibility.

Hermy

Lance Armstrong said that he wants to “try and make it right”...

Yet he can't even accept that he did anything wrong.

full_irish

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/31073880

The Team-Armstrong media campaign has well and truly begun.

Doc07

Great athlete,
Great business man,
Great attitude to cancer,

Completely understand his decision to dope and have the team dope considering Pantani and his boys, T-mobile, Kelme, ONCE etc were all fully loaded up (fact not speculation),

However the man is an unrepentant bully so fully deserves his spot at the bottom of the barrel.