Lance Armstrong found guilty of doping

[Mark]

BBC News - Lance Armstrong ends fight against doping charges (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384)

Given up fighting the doping accusations. But the US doping agency has now demanded his Tour de France titles are removed. It's yet to be seen if they will actually do it.

[donKey jote]

big fat donkey :mad: :(

[Mark]

Revisionist history

1999: Alex Zulle
2000: Jan Ullrich
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andréas KLÖDEN
2005: Ivan Basso
2006: Oscar Pereiro Sio
2007: Alberto Contador
2008: Carlos Sastre
2009: Alberto Contador
2010: Any Schleck
2011: Cadel Evans
2012: Bradley Wiggins

[GridGirl]

Jan Ullrich was found guilty of doping. His results from 2005 onwards were nullified. Interesting that he is could now be awarded tour wins.

[Ranger]

Revisionist history

1999: Alex Zulle
2000: Jan Ullrich
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andréas KLÖDEN
2005: Ivan Basso
2006: Oscar Pereiro Sio
2007: Alberto Contador
2008: Carlos Sastre
2009: Alberto Contador
2010: Any Schleck
2011: Cadel Evans
2012: Bradley Wiggins

I'm not moral absolutist but this case is so murky it seems like the USADA are adopting a 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality... which I find reprehensible.

[Mark]

And Bjarne Riis who has admitted he was on drugs during his tour win, and yet his win still stands.

Revising history at this point is, well, pointless. Especially since it's almost certain that Armstrong did in fact dope, based on the fact that around that time everyone was doping! So if we assume that everyone was doping - Armstrong was still the worthy winner!

[Mark]

I'm not moral absolutist but this case is so murky it seems like the USADA are adopting a 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality... which I find reprehensible.

Yes, and they are declaring his TdF wins void - without any authority to do so. It's far from certain the Tour de France organisers will take this view.

[Mark]

1999
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO)
3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04)
4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2000
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO)

2001
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Andrei Kivilev
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2002
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping)
4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2003
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping)
5. Haimar Zubeldia

2004
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08)
3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)

2005
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)

[big_sw2000]

One of the most drug tested sportsman alive. Never missed a test, NEVR FAILED A TEST.

Thats good enough for me.

The guy is my hero, and always will be.

The guy was given about 5% chance survival, from his testicular cancer, which had spread to his brain and lungs. Read his book to find out what chemo did to his body. To get back on a bike is something, to be the best in the worl, and win 7 tours is something else.

Steve

[Rollo]

They can take away Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour victories but they can't take away his moon landing.

[BleAivano]

One of the most drug tested sportsman alive. Never missed a test, NEVR FAILED A TEST.

Steve

you could say the same about Marion Jones. Then she eventually admitted that she had been cheating.

Marion Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones#Use_of_illicit_performance_enhancing_ drugs)

[Mark]

They can take away Lance Armstrong's 7 Tour victories but they can't take away his moon landing.

Idiot. That was Louis Armstrong.

[big_sw2000]

you could say the same about Marion Jones. Then she eventually admitted that she had been cheating.

Marion Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Jones#Use_of_illicit_performance_enhancing_ drugs)

Absolutly true. Lance Armstrong has been, and always wil be a hero to me. Probley makes me a little bias but so what.

Lance Armstrong's statement. Makes a god read.

Lance Armstrong (http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012)

Steve

[N4D13]

If all of Armstrong's tours were awarded to the best-classified riders who had never been involved in any doping scheme that we know about, the list would look like this:

1999 Olano (6th)
2000 Nardello (10th)
2001 Kivilev (4th)
2002 Sastre (10th)
2003 Zubeldia (5th)
2004 Sastre (8th)
2005 Evans (7th)

[Rollo]

Idiot. That was Louis Armstrong.

O|¯|_

I must humbly tender my apology.

I see skies of blue; clouds of white,
The bright blessed days; the dark sacred night,
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

It all makes sense, how could he have written this truthfully unless he'd seen all of the "wonderful world" at once.

[Mark]

If all of Armstrong's tours were awarded to the best-classified riders who had never been involved in any doping scheme that we know about, the list would look like this:

1999 Olano (6th)
2000 Nardello (10th)
2001 Kivilev (4th)
2002 Sastre (10th)
2003 Zubeldia (5th)
2004 Sastre (8th)
2005 Evans (7th)

Two wins for Sastre, not bad!

[DonJippo]

Especially since it's almost certain that Armstrong did in fact dope, based on the fact that around that time everyone was doping!

Nothing has changed since then they still are.

[Mark]

Maybe they are maybe they aren't. We know they are going slower so perhaps they aren't doping, perhaps they are doping less.

[GridGirl]

Since the introduction of biological passports it's harder to dope and get away with it. Having read Team Sky's: Sky's the limit book it was stated that various riders biological passports were analysed and Team Sky came to the conclusion that some riders were doping and immediately ruled them out as potential riders. Team Sky have also made the decision to never employ anyone who had been found guilty of doping offences.

I went cycling with Bradley Wiggins on a route he uses for training a few days ago. It was one of the hardest physical challenges that I've put myself though. I'm not saying I condone doping but I can see why some are driven to dope.

[Mark]

Maybe you should take all the drugs and try the ride again, for comparison?

[MrJan]

Since the introduction of biological passports it's harder to dope and get away with it. Having read Team Sky's: Sky's the limit book it was stated that various riders biological passports were analysed and Team Sky came to the conclusion that some riders were doping and immediately ruled them out as potential riders. Team Sky have also made the decision to never employ anyone who had been found guilty of doping offences.

I'd love to believe that this is true, however I'm fearful that they're just paying lip service. The way that Froome didn't have a bad day on the TdF in particular makes me sceptical.

[janneppi]

A cycling forum I visit has had discussion about doping in professional cycling for a long time and it has some good insight in to the matter. ;)
Few weeks ago there were two interesting articles
Ashenden: Understanding USADA’s Armstrong charges (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833)

and
Behind the Scenes of the Contador CAS hearing with Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden)

The second one was very interesting, if bit technical.

[janvanvurpa]

Is it really over for Lance? Over?

Reminds me of.....
D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
Bluto: What the f*ck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my *ss from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic, but absolutely right. We gotta take these *******s. Now we could do it with conventional weapons that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: Let's do it.
Bluto: LET'S DO IT!

[GridGirl]

What I have found interesting in the whole USADA debacle is that the USADA have shown to my knowledge absolutely no interest in investigating George Hincapie. He's American and was Lance's loyal domestique during every one of Armstrong's Tour de France wins. He's falls under the same remit as Armstrong and was there every step of the way including in the less successful years after Lance's comeback. Maybe only having four Tour de France stage wins doesn't warrant an investigation. :s

[MrJan]

What I have found interesting in the whole USADA debacle is that the USADA have shown to my knowledge absolutely no interest in investigating George Hincapie. He's American and was Lance's loyal domestique during every one of Armstrong's Tour de France wins. He's falls under the same remit as Armstrong and was there every step of the way including in the less successful years after Lance's comeback. Maybe only having four Tour de France stage wins doesn't warrant an investigation. :s

Wasn't Hincapie one of the ones that was trading information about Armstrong in return for them turning a blind eye.

I've always suspected that Lane was high as a kite but it still feels a bit wrong that they've stripped his wins when they haven't really brought forward much proof.

[GridGirl]

I suppose it's a possibility that Hincapie was trading information but I've never seen anything actually stating who the team mates that have testified against Lance actually are. When there are 20 plus riders in a team and you take into account a period in excess of 15 years it could easily be anyone of say 100 to 150 riders that have spoken out.

My honest opinion is that he probably did dope. They all doped during those days. You can't change history but maybe if you're the USADA you can.

[Malbec]

I'm not saying I condone doping but I can see why some are driven to dope.

I studied elite athletic physiology for a degree with a particular focus on cyclists because these guys are the ultimate aerobic exercise machines.

Their exercise tolerance and therefore competitiveness is based on three factors:

1)Their cardiac output which can be increased with training.

2)Their blood oxygen carrying capacity which is what stuff like EPO increases but otherwise they can't do much about.

3)Their VO2Max, or their maximum oxygen uptake capacity in their lungs which is something they can do nothing to improve.

They can improve 1) by training to a certain level but all these guys are fit so they are equal in this regard. When it comes to 2) they are either equal or they are on easily identifiable drugs or have to self transfuse. Either way these methods are detectable. 3) they can do nothing about.

For motorsports guys it would be as if drivers were given a maximum engine capacity randomly at the start of their careers which they could never change. However talented they were, however well they trained if another guy had a higher VO2max you could do nothing to close the gap with them except for taking drugs. Given how competitive these guys are I really am not surprised one bit that they're tempted to take drugs. Must be heartbreaking to realise you'll never be the best regardless of how hard you train or how well you do on the day because your lung capacity isn't big enough.

[ioan]

Revisionist history

1999: Alex Zulle
2000: Jan Ullrich
2001: Jan Ullrich
2002: Joseba Beloki
2003: Jan Ullrich
2004: Andréas KLÖDEN
2005: Ivan Basso
2006: Oscar Pereiro Sio
2007: Alberto Contador
2008: Carlos Sastre
2009: Alberto Contador
2010: Any Schleck
2011: Cadel Evans
2012: Bradley Wiggins

At least until those and the next ones in the queue are all found guilty of doping. Truth is they all did it.

[ioan]

I'm not moral absolutist but this case is so murky it seems like the USADA are adopting a 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality... which I find reprehensible.

Just another modern witch hunt. Makes them feel 'strong'.

[ioan]

A cycling forum I visit has had discussion about doping in professional cycling for a long time and it has some good insight in to the matter. ;)
Few weeks ago there were two interesting articles
Ashenden: Understanding USADA’s Armstrong charges (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/07/news/ashenden-understanding-usadas-armstrong-charges_227833)

and
Behind the Scenes of the Contador CAS hearing with Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events (http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2012/behind-scenes-contador-cas-hearing-michael-ashenden)

The second one was very interesting, if bit technical.

Interesting reads, however both of them show that a rather high level of subjectivity was/is involved in the proceedings, they can never explain what exactly is the cause that produces the suspicious results and they are mostly guessing instead of pinpointing the cause.

With the level of guessing involved a scientist would have a hard time to have an article accepted in a high level publication ( for example Nature) let alone use it as a base in court.

[ioan]

I studied elite athletic physiology for a degree with a particular focus on cyclists because these guys are the ultimate aerobic exercise machines.

Their exercise tolerance and therefore competitiveness is based on three factors:

1)Their cardiac output which can be increased with training.

2)Their blood oxygen carrying capacity which is what stuff like EPO increases but otherwise they can't do much about.

3)Their VO2Max, or their maximum oxygen uptake capacity in their lungs which is something they can do nothing to improve.

They can improve 1) by training to a certain level but all these guys are fit so they are equal in this regard. When it comes to 2) they are either equal or they are on easily identifiable drugs or have to self transfuse. Either way these methods are detectable. 3) they can do nothing about.

For motorsports guys it would be as if drivers were given a maximum engine capacity randomly at the start of their careers which they could never change. However talented they were, however well they trained if another guy had a higher VO2max you could do nothing to close the gap with them except for taking drugs. Given how competitive these guys are I really am not surprised one bit that they're tempted to take drugs. Must be heartbreaking to realise you'll never be the best regardless of how hard you train or how well you do on the day because your lung capacity isn't big enough.

Your conclusion to point 1 is misleading and I would say not true. Even though they are all fit they are not all equal.

[janvanvurpa]

I studied elite athletic physiology for a degree with a particular focus on cyclists because these guys are the ultimate aerobic exercise machines.

Their exercise tolerance and therefore competitiveness is based on three factors:

1)Their cardiac output which can be increased with training.

2)Their blood oxygen carrying capacity which is what stuff like EPO increases but otherwise they can't do much about.

3)Their VO2Max, or their maximum oxygen uptake capacity in their lungs which is something they can do nothing to improve.

They can improve 1) by training to a certain level but all these guys are fit so they are equal in this regard. When it comes to 2) they are either equal or they are on easily identifiable drugs or have to self transfuse. Either way these methods are detectable. 3) they can do nothing about.

For motorsports guys it would be as if drivers were given a maximum engine capacity randomly at the start of their careers which they could never change. However talented they were, however well they trained if another guy had a higher VO2max you could do nothing to close the gap with them except for taking drugs. Given how competitive these guys are I really am not surprised one bit that they're tempted to take drugs. Must be heartbreaking to realise you'll never be the best regardless of how hard you train or how well you do on the day because your lung capacity isn't big enough.

Tell me about it. no3.... :bigcry:
Elite level moto-cross guys are up there with bicycle guys,,,a little different from a duration of work being between 30 and 45 minutes and much much harsher enviroment (bicycle guys are not getting showered with rocks coming at them at who knows what speed and approaching the rocks at 10-75 mph--that breaks fingers and teeth and noses and toes) or breathing in what should be choking dust, mud, cow-poo, bugs, or enduring repeated compressive forces ( I lost 40mm in height in 5 serious years--and 35 years later had crushed the nerves exiting the spine in 2 places; taller guys lost more height).

Years of training and to know you are stupid strong but your lungs just won't get any better is very frustrating...especially when this is what you are doing to pay the rent.
And yes it was really odd watching guys you'd known since forever suddenly in 2 years go from being a fit but kinda skinny Swede bulk up to something that looked like "the Hulk".. Hmmmmm. never knew we needed to have necks like tree trunks. :uhoh:

[Alfa Fan]

I think the only real solution to the problem is clear, remove the ban on performance enhancing drugs. In all sports. It's silly to pretend that any sport at the professional level its played at these days is purely about ability. Every single sport requires not only for the athlete to be talented, but also for them to have sufficient financial support to have access to the best training facilities, the best "legal" performance enhancing supplements, the best doctors, etc.

Performance enhancing drugs and human augmentation technology is a very interesting area of research, and some of the things discovered and developed in sport might have benefits for all of us. You are never, ever going to be able to eradicated the use of what are currently considered illegal performance enhancers, and the only way to ensure that at an elite level, everyone is on an even playing field, is to to have a lassiez-faire approach to enhancement.

[Mark]

Because they are highly dangerous. EPO for example can thicken the blood so much that you'll just have a heart attack and die.

[ioan]

New doping techniques and technologies are always a step ahead of the doping tests and that will always be like that.
IMHO doping is not the cause it's just the symptom of a deeper cause and it is that cause which should instead be investigated and eradicated.

[ShiftingGears]

Because they are highly dangerous. EPO for example can thicken the blood so much that you'll just have a heart attack and die.

Exactly.

[DonJippo]

New doping techniques and technologies are always a step ahead of the doping tests and that will always be like that.

True but luckily now they can keep the samples for five years and do the tests again with new developed methods, at least one athlete was banned from London Olympics because of this.

[Dave B]

One dopehead beat lots of other dopeheads lots of times. He's still the best... dopehead.

[race aficionado]

speaking of dopeheads . . . this forum has some cases :look:

specially in the cases where topics go round and around and around . . . . . . .

[ioan]

speaking of dopeheads . . . this forum has some cases :look:

specially in the cases where topics go round and around and around . . . . . . .

Don't be so harsh on yourself. :p

[race aficionado]

FDHA Forum DopeHead Anonymous

[Alfa Fan]

Because they are highly dangerous. EPO for example can thicken the blood so much that you'll just have a heart attack and die.

Of course they are dangerous. But they are only dangerous to the people taking them. It's all about where you draw the line. I'd say some of the training regime's and other techniques and substances which are legal are just as dangerous.

The problem is, sports like cycling will never be clean when the benefits of enhancements are so large.

We've already started to see in running that prosthetic legs may have an advantage (i.e. "The Blade Runner" Oscar Pistorius whose leg prosthesis are claimed to be superior to normal legs. With further developments in that technology, where do you draw the line in what is legal and what is not? I have absolutely no doubt that within the next decade prosthetic legs will be comprehensively superior to able-bodied people.

Would it be right for someone to have their legs removed and replaced with prosthesis in order to compete at the highest level? With what's at stake I'm sure there would be people who would do it.

[Knock-on]

Good point. Surgery to fix an athletes body is One thing but where does this become an enhancement? I can't see why someone with a sight impediment or a false arm cannot legally compete in the normal Olympics so why not the blade runner against Bolt. Would it be discrimination to deny him? I don't know?

I bet swimmers would get a benefit from cosmetic surgery to streamline them or web their feet and hands for example. Would this be allowed?

[Robinho]

i'm not sure the thread title is entirely fair, seeing as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, nor has he accpeted any guilt - he's just given up the fight against the USADA. what that actually means i don't know, and I'm unsure whether he perhaps was or wasn't doping, given the prevalence of it in that period and his dominance I am scpetical at least. we will probably never know, although it is likely that the evidence will still need to see the light of day for the international cycling body to be convinced to take the tour titles away from Lance, something the USADA has no remit over and the "trial" wll probably be between the 2 organisations instead. I hope he is/was innocent, as its an amazing story, but I think everyone has pretty healthy doubts.

But it is definatley wrong to say he has been found guilty, as no drug trial, arbitration, hearing or whatever has actually taken place.

[Mark]

By accounts not only was he doping but he was pretty much the ring leader in the peloton making sure it was kept quiet.

[donKey jote]

It's fairly simple for someone like Armstrong to pass every test (except for one for corticoids from his saddle sore cream in 1999 with the subsequent cover-up, and the retest of old urine samples for EPO), when he's given at least 20 minutes warning beforehand. Plenty of time to top up plasma or micro-inject EPO, allegedly :dozey:


Everyone was doing it? Everyone was a dopehead.

[FIAT1]

Tested after every race, tested hundreds of times every year, nothing found. Get of his back already. They can take the titles ,but the fact remain he won and I know who I was watching pedal Pyrenees . Stay strong champ!!!

[GridGirl]

FIAT1, have you ever read David Millar's book. He never failed a drug test either. Fascinating book and one I recommend if you want to know more about doping in that era.

[FIAT1]

FIAT1, have you ever read David Millar's book. He never failed a drug test either. Fascinating book and one I recommend if you want to know more about doping in that era.

I understand what you are saying, and if everyone was doping ,he still won, point is punish the sport as a whole for those years by eliminating all the records as they never took place or stop the bs.How do we know that 2nd place did not use miracle to be 2nd? Now it looks like after all these years someone is playing big shot for his own political gain.

[donKey jote]

nothing found.
really?


Get of his back already.
why? so as not to spoil the fairy tale?


They can take the titles ,but the fact remain he won
but the fact remain his blood was dodgy, as was that of many


and I know who I was watching pedal Pyrenees .
so do I

[FIAT1]

really?


why? so as not to spoil the fairy tale?


but the fact remain his blood was dodgy, as was that of many


so do I

Little to late to matter one way or the other.

[donKey jote]

for him yes, but it sends a pretty strong signal to the current lot, that even the untouchables aren't any more

[Lousada]

But it is definatley wrong to say he has been found guilty, as no drug trial, arbitration, hearing or whatever has actually taken place.

He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.

[FIAT1]

He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.

I'm not here to defend Lance or sport of cycling and would agree with all, if this was done for the good of the sport. All these years of testing and spending money to defend allegations one have to stop spending money ,as next will be defence against usage of aspirin. I don't know the truth and we never will, but to me Lance won against competition that was doing same thing, therefore he will always be the champ. USADA needs to investigate whole field and a sport ,placing allegations on one to advance someone political career don't impress me much.

[janvanvurpa]

He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.

It could simply be in effect simple disgust and resignation.. Nobody likes to get singled out and penalized for doing what every other person was doing.
And I emphasize I am not advocating or justifying the well know and obvious widespread doping, I am suggesting only what anybody would probably feel.

[ioan]

i'm not sure the thread title is entirely fair, seeing as he hasn't been found guilty of anything, nor has he accpeted any guilt - he's just given up the fight against the USADA. what that actually means i don't know, and I'm unsure whether he perhaps was or wasn't doping, given the prevalence of it in that period and his dominance I am scpetical at least. we will probably never know, although it is likely that the evidence will still need to see the light of day for the international cycling body to be convinced to take the tour titles away from Lance, something the USADA has no remit over and the "trial" wll probably be between the 2 organisations instead. I hope he is/was innocent, as its an amazing story, but I think everyone has pretty healthy doubts.

But it is definatley wrong to say he has been found guilty, as no drug trial, arbitration, hearing or whatever has actually taken place.

Exactly.
Good summary of the facts up to this point. :up:

[ioan]

for him yes, but it sends a pretty strong signal to the current lot, that even the untouchables aren't any more

As he said:


Little to late to matter one way or the other.

[ioan]

He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.

Absolute rubbish.

I've found you guilty too, but won't show you, or anyone else entitled to, the proof unless you agree to go to court on my terms for years to come. Have fun.

[ioan]

I'm not here to defend Lance or sport of cycling and would agree with all, if this was done for the good of the sport. All these years of testing and spending money to defend allegations one have to stop spending money ,as next will be defence against usage of aspirin. I don't know the truth and we never will, but to me Lance won against competition that was doing same thing, therefore he will always be the champ. USADA needs to investigate whole field and a sport ,placing allegations on one to advance someone political career don't impress me much.

USADA can not investigate athletes that are not from the US, thus they just witch hunt for the big US names.

[Malbec]

I've found you guilty too, but won't show you, or anyone else entitled to, the proof unless you agree to go to court on my terms for years to come. Have fun.

The nature of the evidence though was widely known no? Several witnesses who had seen Lance Armstrong take drugs or admit to it right? The only question was who those witnesses were.

I'm aware that many of Lance's competitors also took drugs and that several have already been penalised which would make the re-awarding of the TdF championships that Lance has been stripped of a ridiculous exercise, however current cyclists need to know that noone is either immune or above being disgraced if they use drugs. Lance was one of the greatest, if he had gotten away with widespread drug use merely because of his reputation then that destroys the sport's integrity and would not serve to discourage current competitors.

As with anyone else cyclists will look at the pros and cons of drug use before deciding whether to use them. Pros are obvious. The cons are increasing. The likelihood of being found out and the consequences of that are much greater than before. Lance's case merely reinforces the cons. As far as I am concerned that can only be a good thing.

[Robinho]

and what is better for the guys who finished behind Armstrong whilst on drugs to say - "we were beaten by a drug free athlete despite all our efforts", or, "he was on the same or more stuff as us"?

[Lousada]

Absolute rubbish.

I've found you guilty too, but won't show you, or anyone else entitled to, the proof unless you agree to go to court on my terms for years to come. Have fun.

You don't know what you are talking about. First of all, during his competition time Armstrong accepted the Anti-Doping rules, including the way the arbitration works. These rules are the same for every athlete in an Olympic sport by the way, not just cyclists.
Secondly, Armstrong recently sued the Anti-Doping agency claiming he was being hunted down and the process was unfair. The American court rejected his suit and said he was given due process.

[Mark]

He is found guilty. There was no arbitration because Armstrong refused that. He could have challenged the allegations by USADA, but he didn't. That is in effect an acceptance of guilt.

While I think he's guilty as hell - I don't accept this point. He may well have thought, well if I stop fighting, what's the worst that can happen, how can it affect me personally, and he's come to the conclusion - 'hardly at all'.

[Malbec]

While I think he's guilty as hell - I don't accept this point. He may well have thought, well if I stop fighting, what's the worst that can happen, how can it affect me personally, and he's come to the conclusion - 'hardly at all'.

If he had been found formally guilty could his old sponsors have sued him? Presumably being drug free is one of the conditions in major sponsorship deals? Since he's backed out of contesting the charges he hasn't been found formally guilty of anything and this might get him off the hook from such courtcases.

[Mark]

If he had been found formally guilty could his old sponsors have sued him? Presumably being drug free is one of the conditions in major sponsorship deals? Since he's backed out of contesting the charges he hasn't been found formally guilty of anything and this might get him off the hook from such courtcases.

Yeah, possibly he thought he'd lose any forthcoming hearings, so backing out now is the least worst outcome and at least leaves some doubt.

[ioan]

You don't know what you are talking about. First of all, during his competition time Armstrong accepted the Anti-Doping rules, including the way the arbitration works. These rules are the same for every athlete in an Olympic sport by the way, not just cyclists.
Secondly, Armstrong recently sued the Anti-Doping agency claiming he was being hunted down and the process was unfair. The American court rejected his suit and said he was given due process.

Sorry man, you do not know what you are talking. he was not found guilty of anything yet.

[DonJippo]

Sorry man, you do not know what you are talking. he was not found guilty of anything yet.

Yes he was, don't think they give life-time ban for nothing...

[Robinho]

and what is the worth of a lifetime ban for a man who has retired?

[Mark]

and what is the worth of a lifetime ban for a man who has retired?

Nothing, it's entirely symbolic, however he's had a comeback before, and this would stop him returning in any senior events. But at the moment, only in the US. The UCI has yet to announce its position.

[ioan]

Yes he was, don't think they give life-time ban for nothing...

Sure sure, with no proof shown. I call that a witch hunt, you might call it justice though.

[Robinho]

So, now the USADA have released their evidence, which on first glance is pretty damning

BBC Sport - Lance Armstrong: Usada report reveals doping evidence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716)

another of his teammates has admitted being part of the drug taking scene

BBC Sport - George Hincapie admits to using performance-enhancing drugs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903814)

and the actual report is here

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHNHNQTUV4MkpSSWc/view?sle=true

I remain sceptical that we will ever get an admission from Lance, he is too entrenched to turn round and admit it (if true), but I have to say I'd made up my mind that there was more than smoke around this having read David Millar's autobiography, which gives great insight into the sport and its culture at the time Lance was at the very top. It is simply inconceivable to me that he managed to win so many races, and so many tours whilst completley drug free against so many top riders who were definitivley on drugs. Add to that the evidence of the teammates, which has to be taken as what it is, evidence provided by people who cheated, but is too accurate and consistent to be false IMO, unless there is a massive conspiracy created to discredit Lance, which would be expensive, pointless and ultimately far more far fetched than the doping allegations.

I await with interest what the UCI come up with in response, whether they accpet the charges brought by the USADA and strip Armstong of his TDF's or whether they choose to attempt to discredit the evidence

[Robinho]

Having read the 1st 75 pages of the document (another 125+to go) I fail to see how Lance could possibly assert his innocence in the face of the evidence. It is far to elaborate to be a fabrication, with 2 many people recalling the same incidents in detail

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[ioan]

From what I did read in the news today, I still didn't see any hard proof of it.
Now we are lead to believe that he had built up some kind of a criminal organization and he was forcing grown up people to do doping for his own benefit.
Call me a skeptic, but I only believe what the anti-doping tests say not what someone tells 10 years later under pressure from the USADA.
This looks more an more like a witch hunt to me.

[Firstgear]

The evidence shown today has testimonies from 26 people testifying against Armstrong. If they're making this stuff up - and with so much detail, there should be loads of people out there ready to contradict and discredit what they've said.

Where are these loads of people? The only one's I know of, are Lance and his lawyer.

[ioan]

The evidence shown today has testimonies from 26 people testifying against Armstrong. If they're making this stuff up - and with so much detail, there should be loads of people out there ready to contradict and discredit what they've said.

Where are these loads of people? The only one's I know of, are Lance and his lawyer.

So now we accuse sportsmen of doping based on testimonials instead of lab tests. What next? Middle age witch hunt coming back?

[Robinho]

You need to read the actual report produced by the USADA, not just the news spin based on a couple of headline making statements. The evidence is incredibly damming, the statements are detailed and consistent and very believable. Included is a failed test for testosterone which went away, and a retest of old samples taken before the EPO test was developed, which show the presence of EPO. The association with Michele Ferrari, the denials of continued association disproved by email communication and massive sums of money changing hands. The denials of any knowledge of his teammates doping when he was the kingpin of the team and the de-facto team principal, it all stinks. The sport was rotten to the core at that time and to believe that Armstrong was able to rise above it all, not observe the drug culture first hand and win against these guys for 7 years is scarcely believable. That's not to say it wasn't still an incredible achievement, as the playing field was pretty level, most if not all of the top competitors were in it just as deep.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Robinho]

Read the evidence, the testimonies and the lab evidence, the riders, team staff and relatives all telling the same consistent story. To construct and maintain such a fabrication over 7 years and 20+ people would be impossible for the USADA. I strongly recommend you read David Millar's autobiography as well, just to give an understanding of the culture that existed at the time.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Mark]

For those who are saying "There's no evidence", there is masses of evidence, from eye witness testimony. Seriously; that sort of thing would be good enough for a murder conviction, nevermind cheating at sport.

[Robinho]

I'm still not all the way through it, (140 pages so far) and it gets worse and worse. Including some pretty damming scientific evidence based on old blood and urine tests on top of all of the testimonies

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Malbec]

For those who are saying "There's no evidence", there is masses of evidence, from eye witness testimony. Seriously; that sort of thing would be good enough for a murder conviction, nevermind cheating at sport.

Chances are it'll go to court anyway as former sponsors start asking for money back. There's even talk of trial for perjury.

I didn't think the level of evidence would be this strong. No wonder he refused to give them the chance to have this all come out in a trial.

[Big Ben]

it all seems like a witch hunt to ioan... I´m just filling in for ioan. he´s having a break now

[BDunnell]

Damn. I had been thinking of hiring ioan as my solicitor, but on reading this thread I'm beginning to doubt his legal expertise.

[FIAT1]

Finally we can all sleep better at night. I'm not traying to defend Lance here, but it is amazing that all these years of testing nothing showed ,and now all these creepers are coming out and spilling the bins for sake of the sport(really?) or tv time ,book deals etc. Where was everyone before when they all got nice checks from federal agency sponsoring the team. I thought so, life was good and it's all about winning. We will never know the real story ,and if Lance blew competition in some high margon than I would understand big fuss, oterhwise to me looks like whole cycling circuit was big doping club and winner is one that does it better. Whole cycling circuit from A to Z should be punished equally in my opinion ,but they already are, therefore it's waste of money and time.

[ioan]

For those who are saying "There's no evidence", there is masses of evidence, from eye witness testimony. Seriously; that sort of thing would be good enough for a murder conviction, nevermind cheating at sport.

Well that's exactly the problem with the system when you could convict someone of murder without the actual proof just with testimonies of people who are trying to save their own backsides.
As for cheating, they all cheated so one has to wonder why all of a sudden they are all becoming angels? Would it be because huge pressure form the USADA? Just wondering.

In the end I couldn't care less, but things need to be clear and regulated in a sensible way, not in witch hunting fashion.

[ioan]

it all seems like a witch hunt to ioan... I´m just filling in for ioan. he´s having a break now

How kind of you. LOL
Now bugger off and mind your own business.

[ioan]

Finally we can all sleep better at night. I'm not traying to defend Lance here, but it is amazing that all these years of testing nothing showed ,and now all these creepers are coming out and spilling the bins for sake of the sport(really?) or tv time ,book deals etc. Where was everyone before when they all got nice checks from federal agency sponsoring the team. I thought so, life was good and it's all about winning. We will never know the real story ,and if Lance blew competition in some high margon than I would understand big fuss, oterhwise to me looks like whole cycling circuit was big doping club and winner is one that does it better. Whole cycling circuit from A to Z should be punished equally in my opinion ,but they already are, therefore it's waste of money and time.

I for one I am curious to see if all these wannabes will also get stripped of all their sporting achievements and their sponsorship money and so on, if after all they say the truth. I guess it won't happen as the USADA was only after Armstrong since the start of this whole thing.

Time will tell.

[Roamy]

I am not reading up on this but have a question:
Is the any material proof other that others testamoies ??

[Robinho]

Yes there is

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[AndyRAC]

While I'm not surprised by the findings, I wasn't wholly aware of the full scale mass doping programme asking place. I knew there were whispers/ rumours about various things, but it's pretty sensational. As a cycling fan, it's both sad, and good. Most of the people he beat we're also doped; in fact, most of the post 1999 TdeF winners have been caught for doping. The only exceptions are 2008 Carlos Sastre, 2011 Cadel Evans, and 2012 Bradley Wiggins. I haven't counted Andy Schleck in 2010, as Bertie actually won it, but later had it taken away - similarly with Oscar Pereiro in 2006, after Floyd Landis had his taken away.

Also, don't assume cycling is the only 'dirty' sport. The are many more sports which are protected and turn a blind eye to doping, but claim they are clean. Yes, dream on....

[janneppi]

A another forum I visit had this link to a BBC radio program, A bit long at 2 hours but very interesting listening.

BBC Radio 5 live - 5 live Sport, Peddlers - Cycling's Dirty Truth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd)

Hear from one of Armstrong's former team mates, Tyler Hamilton, as well as interviews with Dick Pound, the former head of WADA and Emma O'Reilly, Armstrong's former masseuse. Plus British cyclist David Millar who was banned for two years after admitting taking performance enhancing drugs and Christophe Basson, a French cyclist who was driven out of the sport by Armstrong and other riders after he spoke out against drugs

[gloomyDAY]

I smell a witch hunt. I've read up on it, and I'm sure that Lance Armstrong was doping -speculation on my part-, but this just screams witch hunt. Where is the proof? So far we have a bunch of disgruntled cyclists ratting out Lance. That's all well and nice, but show me the evidence! Show me the evidence! It's all well and nice that these guys are stabbing someone in the back, but where is Lance's pee-pee test failure? USADA got threatened by some higher authority (Jesus, probably) and is reacting in the most severe way possible.

Strip Lance of his titles, coerce his sponsors to drop him, and tarnish his reputation. Sickening!

[BleAivano]

I smell a witch hunt. I've read up on it, and I'm sure that Lance Armstrong was doping -speculation on my part-, but this just screams witch hunt. Where is the proof? So far we have a bunch of disgruntled cyclists ratting out Lance. That's all well and nice, but show me the evidence! Show me the evidence! It's all well and nice that these guys are stabbing someone in the back, but where is Lance's pee-pee test failure? USADA got threatened by some higher authority (Jesus, probably) and is reacting in the most severe way possible.

Strip Lance of his titles, coerce his sponsors to drop him, and tarnish his reputation. Sickening!

read post 72 and the links in it:

http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/154525-lance-armstrong-found-guilty-doping-4.html#post1073330

[Malbec]

That's all well and nice, but show me the evidence! Show me the evidence!

Positive retrospective EPO tests on blood samples taken before the EPO test was introduced in 2000.

High EPO levels in a group of samples that include (but are not exclusively for) Lance from the Tour de Suisse 2001 with a refusal by Armstrong to give consent for his own sample result to be specifically made public.

Reduced reticulocyte count in samples from races in 2009 onwards in keeping with autologous blood transfusion.

Read the report. Its all in there.

[Mark]

He didn't test positive because as the report says, he and his team worked out how to get around the testing procedures. As EPO is only detectable for a short time after it's injected, it was just a matter of making sure you weren't tested during that time - which turned out was easy.

[Robinho]

Plus the blood doping which went on after the EPO test was introduced is not detectable as its your own blood. It shows as highly suspicious when certain levels in the blood are high after being so far through a race and after previous low readings.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[veeten]

Well, looks like the bureaucrats have had their day in the sun.

Now, the real work begins.

Who, out of the present group of cyclists, will be able to sustain a chain of wins during a given season, muchless a TdeF win, and do it "clean". The hard part being trying this endeavor in the age of 'social media', where anyone with a smartphone and a youtube/twitter account can become an unofficial reporter.

[Malbec]

He didn't test positive because as the report says, he and his team worked out how to get around the testing procedures. As EPO is only detectable for a short time after it's injected, it was just a matter of making sure you weren't tested during that time - which turned out was easy.

In the report it says clearly that a retrospective retest of the 1999 samples (when EPO testing was not performed and therefore Lance and his team presumably didn't make any attempt to circumvent them) came back as positive. Once EPO testing was introduced from 2000 he and his team took steps not to get caught and therefore there aren't positive samples from that period.

Thats probably the single most damning bit of evidence in the whole paper.

[Mark]

Well, looks like the bureaucrats have had their day in the sun.

Now, the real work begins.

Who, out of the present group of cyclists, will be able to sustain a chain of wins during a given season, muchless a TdeF win, and do it "clean". The hard part being trying this endeavor in the age of 'social media', where anyone with a smartphone and a youtube/twitter account can become an unofficial reporter.

That will help; yes. It does seem that blood tests alone are no longer sufficient to detect doping, as there are ways around that. So it looks like cyclists and athletes in general will have to accept much closer monitoring.

I think part of the issue was that the people looking for doping - namely the UCI, are the same people who are promoting cycling. Thus a conflict of interest, one shouldn't under estimate the amount of influence someone of the standing of Armstrong had at the time. Anyone standing up to him would find themselves out of a job really quickly, and few are prepared to take that risk.

[BleAivano]

He didn't test positive because as the report says, he and his team worked out how to get around the testing procedures.
As EPO is only detectable for a short time after it's injected, it was just a matter of making sure you weren't tested during that time - which turned out was easy.

It is also against the rules to fail to allow yourself to be tested.

Remember the Greek athletes Kenteris and Thanou who (repeatedly?) avoided testing and even faked a car accident
just prior the 2004 Olympics in Athens. As a result they were suspended and not allowed to compete in Athens.

[ioan]

Now I get it, retrospective testing of a 13 year old sample. And we are all sure that the sample wasn't tampered with? Don't know. Do you know it for sure?
Did it take science 13 years to devise a procedure that would change the outcome of the tests? Not sure about that.
Let's admit that the tests are 100% correct (which is not really possible but anyway), were all the other riders tested and retrospectively tested? Will they ban them all? It doesn't look like that to me.
What about those who doped back in the days before Lance Armstrong and were never caught and especially there are no samples to be tested retrospectively? Shall we let them keep their trophies?
Where those the retrospective testing start and where does it stop? Is it Arbitrarily defined?
It looks like game in which some people in key power positions are changing the rules of the game all the time in order to attain a predefined target, or you can just call it a witch hunt.

There are some things in the world that are useless and the USADA's hunt of Lance Armstrong is one of them. If they manage to turn him into a martyr then they will have absolutely failed at their own game.

[Malbec]

It looks like game in which some people in key power positions are changing the rules of the game all the time in order to attain a predefined target,

Why? Did Lance Armstrong compete at a time when drugs were legal? Is the drugs ban retrospective or was it there at the time? What rules have been changed?

[Mark]

Any samples in themselves are not proof. The rest of it is and it's more than just hearsay.

[ioan]

Why? Did Lance Armstrong compete at a time when drugs were legal? Is the drugs ban retrospective or was it there at the time? What rules have been changed?

There certainly was a ban on drugs before Armstrong's string of TdF wins, yet he's the one targeted out of plenty of riders. How do we call that?

[Malbec]

There certainly was a ban on drugs before Armstrong's string of TdF wins, yet he's the one targeted out of plenty of riders. How do we call that?

Sure thing. Lance is the only cyclist from that era to be targeted for drug use. Right.

[Mark]

The other riders didn't win 7 Tour de France's in a row, and they were prepared to admit it too.

[Robinho]

In excess of 75% of podium finishers in the Tour de France in the period 1997 to 2005 (possibly to 2009) have been caught, implicated or confessed doping and have had bans, how you can say that they are singling out Lance is beyond me. Prior to that period the samples aren't available and testing was no good. Since then the testing and procedures is vastly improved and the teams and organisers are taking an active anti doping stance rather than turning a blind eye or actively promoting it.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[AndyRAC]

That will help; yes. It does seem that blood tests alone are no longer sufficient to detect doping, as there are ways around that. So it looks like cyclists and athletes in general will have to accept much closer monitoring.

I think part of the issue was that the people looking for doping - namely the UCI, are the same people who are promoting cycling. Thus a conflict of interest, one shouldn't under estimate the amount of influence someone of the standing of Armstrong had at the time. Anyone standing up to him would find themselves out of a job really quickly, and few are prepared to take that risk.

Nail on head - they've proven themselves poor at doing both. They should regulate cycling, and nothing else. Others should be Promoting the different cycling disciplines - similar to the FiA with F1, WRC, WEC, WTCC, etc

[ioan]

In excess of 75% of podium finishers in the Tour de France in the period 1997 to 2005 (possibly to 2009) have been caught, implicated or confessed doping and have had bans, how you can say that they are singling out Lance is beyond me. Prior to that period the samples aren't available and testing was no good. Since then the testing and procedures is vastly improved and the teams and organisers are taking an active anti doping stance rather than turning a blind eye or actively promoting it.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

So how many of them have had life bans and have been trashed in public like this?!
Also how many of them have been done with a 13 years old sample?
For how many of them did they heard together several dozens of 'witnesses' who all have a personal issue with Armstrong?

The question isn't if Armstrong doped, they all did. The issue is with the way in which 'justice' is being done.

If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.

[Robinho]

So how many of them have had life bans and have been trashed in public like this?!
Also how many of them have been done with a 13 years old sample?
For how many of them did they heard together several dozens of 'witnesses' who all have a personal issue with Armstrong?

The question isn't if Armstrong doped, they all did. The issue is with the way in which 'justice' is being done.

If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.

The bans others received were proportionate to their offences at the time as per the rules in place. It is also proportinate to the cooperation they had when caught/investigated. Multiple cyclists at the height of their careers have had 2 year bans from their sport. A life ban from a professional elite physical sport when you are twice retired and over 40 is purely decorative. There have been at least 3 riders since this has all come out in the last couple of weeks who have confessed to using the same doping methods as detailed in USADA's report. They have been dropped by their teams and been banned. several ex riders who are now involved in teams who have been implicated by this scandal have been sacked and or banned. There is every chance of there being further criminal charges against seme of the dr's etc who are implicated in this scandal.

The public trashing is directly proportional to the status of the athlete involved. outside of cycling who really knows much about Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton, Bjarne Rjiis, Marco Pantani etc. There bans and doping made little more than a few days/weeks sports page news due to their status. Lance Armstrong has a much wider appeal, due in part to his success, his cancer survival, his foundation (I can't call it a charity, have a little dig to see how much of the Livestrong money raised has actually been used in cancer research). he has courted the media to enhance his profile all his career, he has several best selling books, celebrity relationships etc beyond his sport. The media attention is therefore directly proportional to his status.

They are debating whether to reopen previous cases, look into other old sample from previous events, etc, this is the tip of a potential rewriting of the recent history of cycling. there are 2 competing voices within the UCI, whether to draw a line and do the best they can going forward to improve doping education, testing, transparency etc or whether to also dig up everything they can about the last 10-15 years.

In terms of justice, bear in mind the financial implications, the prizemoney, the sponsors bonuses received by all these riders and teams who were not only cheating, but engaging in illegal activity in some european coutries. like I said there could be criminal charges as a repercussion of all of this.

The judgements themselves were provided a. by the USADA and b. by the UCI, not by the media, althogh they have reported all the evidence. I for one welcome the tranparency allowing what is an informed decision. this is of course only available as evidence for the prosecution, but it was Armstrong himself who denied himself his opportunity to provide a defence in a bona-fide arbitration, meaning that USADA coule do nothing other than submit their report to UCI. Modern media, beyond the tabloid headlines, has allowed far greater ability for us to actually review the same evidence as the decision makes. should people not wish to and only rely on the headlines written by those who did read it, then that is up to them.

whether Lance has been targetted, or suffered more than others is certainly up for debate, but I feel given the rewards he made from a career of cheating and then lying about it (including under oath) the attention he has received has been proportionate. It is probably the only way that cycling can rid itself of the image and rumours going forward, by taking the full action they can against as many of the protaganists from the period in question.

I only hope that Lance does either choose to provide a reasoned evidence based defence, or comes clean. the only the way the 2nd will happen is through another book, which will sell millions and will probably recoup whatever he has to repay or loses from sponsors.

as an aside, I still think the physical acheivement in his 7 tour "wins" is incredible. he was far from the only doper, and he still beat them all, repeatedly

[Daniel]

So how many of them have had life bans and have been trashed in public like this?!
Also how many of them have been done with a 13 years old sample?
For how many of them did they heard together several dozens of 'witnesses' who all have a personal issue with Armstrong?

The question isn't if Armstrong doped, they all did. The issue is with the way in which 'justice' is being done.

If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.

Lance made it a public issue that he wasn't doping and still refuses to admit it. So it should be made public and a big thing made of it.

[Rudy Tamasz]

If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.

Justice is supposed to be the same in every possible world. You do the crime, you do the time. Simple.

[dj_bytedisaster]

So how many of them have had life bans and have been trashed in public like this?!
Also how many of them have been done with a 13 years old sample?
For how many of them did they heard together several dozens of 'witnesses' who all have a personal issue with Armstrong?

Ioan. I've seen a lot of posts from you that made me laugh, but for all the 10 years I've been in here, I can't remember you talking trash like you have done in this thread. Do you want to found the Curch of the Seventh Win Apologists? Are you paid by the Liestrong Foundation or by Armstrongs Demand Media spin-doctors?

Of course Armstrong gets a harder punishment than others. Just as you get a harder punishment for blackmailing someone as opposed to shop-lifting.

Whether the sample is 13 years old or 13 minutes doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. It still proves that he doped and he stated under oath that he didn't and he filed bogus lawsuits against people, who said he did. He pressured other riders to take part in Michele Ferrari's organized doping system. He harrassed riders, who dared to break the Omertá. He didn't just dope, he furthered it. That deserves jail-time, not just a lifetime ban.

He (ab)used the hero status he gained from seven fraudulent Tour de France wins to setup a bogus charity of which he extracted a lot of money from. He used it as a shield against all allegations.


The question isn't if Armstrong doped, they all did. The issue is with the way in which 'justice' is being done.

Justice was attempted to be done, but Birotte was forced to drop the lawsuit, because the Washington regime was afraid of taking down a 'national hero' in an election year.


If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.

How democratic was Lance's world? He was proved guilty of doping three times:
- 1999 he was positive for corticostereoids, but the UCI covered it up by accepting a back-dated prescription from the team doctor. He didn't have a TUE, so he was positive despite the forged prescription.
- He tested positive for EPO in the 2001 Tour de Suisse. Not long after the UCI received a 25.000$ donation from Armstrong and the test was covered up
- 6 of his 1999 urine samples were tested positive for EPO. Again the UCI refused to ban him.

How many more proof do you need? And Armstrong is facing a ****storm because it isn't the mere doping. Just look at this little laundry list:

- defrauded SCA by suing them to pay several million buck in bonuses for his TdF wins, even though they were achived in a fraudulent manner.
- pressured Trek into forcing Greg Lemond out of business after the latter had accused Armstrong of doping.
- assulted and harrassed Hamilton when he learned that he would testify against him in the Feds investigation
- terrorized Levy Leipheimers wife after learning that Leipheimer would testify
- slandered Frankie Andreu and his wife after those two testified against him in the SCA lausuit.
- bullied Christophe Bassons out of the sport
- Harrassed Fillipo Simeoni during the 18th stage of the 2004 TdF in plain view of the cameras
- Filed a bogus lawsuit against Simeoni, because the latter had accused Armstrong of being a client of Michele Ferrari, which was proven to be true now.
- tried to blackmail Barrack Obama into attending a Livestrong event in 2005 (Selen Roberts' Sen. Kerry's eyewitness account)

That man isn't a hero - he's bloody psychopath.

[dj_bytedisaster]

Finally we can all sleep better at night. I'm not traying to defend Lance here, but it is amazing that all these years of testing nothing showed ,and now all these creepers are coming out and spilling the bins for sake of the sport(really?) or tv time ,book deals etc. Where was everyone before when they all got nice checks from federal agency sponsoring the team.

Several have spoken up way before the USADA case. Bassons did and was bullied out of the sport. Simeoni did and both Armstrong and the UCI retalliated severely. Frankie and Betsy Andreu did and and were harrassed and slandered by Armstrong. Floyd Landis confessed already two years ago - ask him how much good it did him. Leipheimer, Hincapie and Co. would have said anything hadn't they been subpoenaed during the Federal investigation. That was before the USADA case. The fact is, until recently breaking the Omertá was career suicide and Armstrong was its fierced enforcer.


I thought so, life was good and it's all about winning. We will never know the real story ,and if Lance blew competition in some high margon than I would understand big fuss, oterhwise to me looks like whole cycling circuit was big doping club and winner is one that does it better. Whole cycling circuit from A to Z should be punished equally in my opinion ,but they already are, therefore it's waste of money and time.

That's male bovine excrement. First of all not everyonbe was doping. Christophe Bassons for instance didn't. And not everyone took every drug this side of Agent Orange, like Armstrong did. Not everyone had the luxury of a complicit gouverning body that covered up doping positives.

The whole thing of 'they all did it, so it was a level playing field is bull$hit. Zabel for instance went on Terrorkoms doping program in 1996, but had to stop after a week, because he suffered severe adverse reaction, so basically he couldn't dope with EPO, like most others because his body couldn't cope with it.

[Malbec]

If you have nothing against strange justice and judgements done with and through mass media, fine, however this is not the way justice is meant to be done in modern democratic world.

Did you really write that after what you've described in the Assange thread where you've decided he's innocent purely through what you've read in the mass media?

[Mark]

There are quite a few parallels with the Savile case here - (what Savile did was an order of magnitude worse of course), that things were either covered up or ignored for many years.

[Dave B]

Lance Armstrong is going to give an exclusive interview to Oprah Winfrey. Wow, she'll really get to the truth with her tough no-holds-barred interview technique. Thank goodness he's not British otherwise he'd have to go head to head with Fearne Cotton....

[BDunnell]

Lance Armstrong is going to give an exclusive interview to Oprah Winfrey. Wow, she'll really get to the truth with her tough no-holds-barred interview technique. Thank goodness he's not British otherwise he'd have to go head to head with Fearne Cotton....

Or Phillip Schofield, who'd probably show Armstrong a list of drugs people on the internet have said he took.

This was very awful for me.As I was a great fan to him.But when I came to know the sad news then I really get surprised.

[Roamy]

they should dismantle that bike and shove it right up his ass.

[Knock-on]

they should dismantle that bike and shove it right up his ass.

Quite surprised to hear that from you Unc's. As a 'good ole boy", I thought you would stick your head in the sand as I found a lot of Texans doing when I was in Austin.

Surprised but impressed :up:

[Mark]

Knockie, There are indeed a few who still believe it isn't true, and claim that he's been forced into confessing something he hasn't done as it's easier.

[MrJan]

Knockie, There are indeed a few who still believe it isn't true, and claim that he's been forced into confessing something he hasn't done as it's easier.

Bloke at work still doesn't like to believe it, and does have even a hint of suspicion about other riders (e.g 5 time winner Miguel Indurain who was dominant at a time when doping was particularly prevelant). I always thought that Armstrong was up to something and that it was well thought out so as to avoid detection...although reading David Millar's book I was amazed by how simple it was/is to avoid being caught for a positive test.

[Mark]

Well yes I've thought about Indurain too, as you say, most of the other winners at the time were doping - Riis, Ullrich, Pantani.

[janneppi]

If you look at the people on the podium of Tour De France, you see three riders who will be caught in three years time.

[ioan]

Curious about what Armstrong confessed on Oprah's show. 2 more days to wait for the whole package.

[Spafranco]

Indurain had an advantage that most riders or for that matter other people in the general population. He had larger lungs than most people and that combined with his larger body gave him a huge advantage. Still, like Mark, I have been suspicious.What was the riders name that fell while going downhill with Armstrong and at the time his GC had him at #2. He crashed heavily and that ended his tour. Blanco?

[GridGirl]

The interview will be shown on the discovery channel at 2am tomorrow morning in the UK. We have set it to record.

[Mark]

Thanks for that! Remote record set.

[MrJan]

Indurain had an advantage that most riders or for that matter other people in the general population. He had larger lungs than most people and that combined with his larger body gave him a huge advantage. Still, like Mark, I have been suspicious.What was the riders name that fell while going downhill with Armstrong and at the time his GC had him at #2. He crashed heavily and that ended his tour. Blanco?

Joseba Beloki ran him fairly close one year IIRC. Armstrong also has a 'larger than average lung capacity' apparently, although I now wonder if that's just a PR line to avoid questions about his success.

[Dave B]

So he's admitted doping to Oprah. He didn't exactly look sorry though, despite his protestations. I think he's sorry he got caught, and sorry his career is over, but he still seems to be normalising and rationalising his actions.

Oprah gave him a soft ride, as predicted. She should have asked him about his alleged cancer, and whether that was a front to cover his tracks and engender sympathy. Frankly I don't believe a word the maggot says, he's a prize a-hole.

[ShiftingGears]

Worth a read. The more I read about Armstrong the more I think that he's a psychopath.

Lance Armstrong's doping admission: Questions Oprah should have asked - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/questions-oprah-should-ask-lance-armstrong-230849439.html)

[Ranger]

Worth a read. The more I read about Armstrong the more I think that he's a psychopath.

Not true. Sociopath would be a much closer definition.

Sociopath Vs. Psychopath: There is a Difference - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com (http://voices.yahoo.com/sociopath-vs-psychopath-there-difference-1906224.html)


Characteristics of a sociopath are as followed :

1. Sociopaths are very charming. Tick.
2. Sociopaths can be extremely manipulative and will try to con you whenever possible. Tick
3. Sociopaths feel that they are entitled to everything. Not so much.
4. Sociopaths will lie continuously to get what they want. They can even sometimes manipulate a lie detector. Tick.
5. Sociopaths have no remorse, shame or guilt. Tick.

He is no monster, but he is definitely a deeply flawed man.

[rjbetty]

Wow that full ticklist is quite alarming. I believe I am with such a person right now!

(and yet they will believe that just because there's one condition - no.14 - they don't necessarily meet, that the whole thing is invalid, no matter how much the rest of is surely them to a T - and also, the whole thing is written by someone else who doesn't know them or their situation, so it's completely invalid)

[BDunnell]

Armstrong fits many of the definitions of both. I wonder whether he has ever given any consideration to psychiatric treatment.

[ioan]

So he's admitted doping to Oprah. He didn't exactly look sorry though, despite his protestations. I think he's sorry he got caught, and sorry his career is over, but he still seems to be normalising and rationalising his actions.

It all depends on the environment in which one lives and the reality to which he/she has to adapt.
Sometime people become soldiers, go to war and there they kill other people and they get to the point where that becomes normal life for them.
The same goes for sportsmen, and women, who live for the sport.
It's sad but it is how it is in professional sports, and sometimes even at lower levels. It's human nature.

This doesn't excuse Lance, just tries to explain why he behaves the way he does.

[BDunnell]

It all depends on the environment in which one lives and the reality to which he/she has to adapt.
Sometime people become soldiers, go to war and there they kill other people and they get to the point where that becomes normal life for them.
The same goes for sportsmen, and women, who live for the sport.
It's sad but it is how it is in professional sports, and sometimes even at lower levels. It's human nature.

This doesn't excuse Lance, just tries to explain why he behaves the way he does.

Equally, though, that behaviour does not always end in cheating and lying.

[Mark]

For me the most interesting point was that he said he didn't use drugs in 2009 & 2010. If we believe that we know he's a good rider at least and capable of winning without drugs. Which makes it even more sad really.

[janneppi]

For me the most interesting point was that he said he didn't use drugs in 2009 & 2010. If we believe that we know he's a good rider at least and capable of winning without drugs. Which makes it even more sad really.
He probably had sticker sponsor rules about doping and when hasn't been caught about those offenses, doesn't want to loose the money.

And they are still fresh enough for WADA and USADA to investigate until their 8 year statute of limitations runs out.

[Dave B]

As I understand it, admitting anything in 09/10 could leave himself open to perjury charges, whereas the statute of limitations has run out for him to be charged for earlier lies. He's not sorry about anything, other than the fact he's been caught, in my opinion. He still believes he "deserves" to compete in triathlons, for goodness sake.

All I saw in the interview was a serial liar who knows how and when to turn on the tears, and a pushover of an interviewer who couldn't probe a stool for sweetcorn. Hopefully both of them will go away now, and the media will stop giving them the oxygen of publicity.

[GridGirl]

He's only admitted it so he that he will be able to compete in triathlon's again. I have watched part one of the interview. I am not sure whether I can be bothered to watch the second part which I recorded last night which appears to be the sob story element of the interview. I like cycling and pushing yourself to such limits I can fully believe that people would dope, just to get through it, if not to win. I'll say it again, Lance Armstrong was just the best doper of them all on that era, it's all a bit boring now.

[Robinho]

Having heard both sides of the story, I think, on balance, there is a chance he may have doped, possibly. I think.

[Bagwan]

Having heard both sides of the story, I think, on balance, there is a chance he may have doped, possibly. I think.

Yeah , you're right .
If he's admitting he lied , then he's a big fat liar , and why should we believe anything that "pants on fire" says ?

[Mark]

Apparently some libraries are going to move books on Lance Armstrong into the fiction section ;)

[MRvideorally]

is a blight on the sport and should be punished

[Spafranco]

Isn't it strange when you think of this doping as it is so common in cycling. Take the domestiques out and just take the leaders and potential winners. I believe that they are doping because the other guy is. On Mark's list he has Ivan Basso. Was he the one that almost beat Armstrong and had that horrendous crash. If so, then my theory is that all these guys do not want to lost that edge and so they dope. The reason so many do is because of the fact that without that 2% or 5% you will be nowhere.
Miguel Indurain I feel was an enigma because of the size of his heart and lungs. He gained his 2% to 5% naturally. Who knows.
I just wonder if these guys, free of doping could win?

[mousti]

Doping will probably never leave cycling and other sports, it's everywhere.. Reports that Merckx was dissapointed in Lance, is bullcrap because Merckx used blooddoping and was caught 3 times but our government protected him.. Also the time when he got hit in the liver is a false statement to camouflage that he got sick of the stuff he used.. Cycling and dope will be a never ending story. I witnessed Juniors winning races here who were on dope like amfetamines (speed)..

Btw that whole Oprah thing what's for me is quite a Lance show and yes I find itself that he's a sociopath, he even said that he doesn't felt that he cheated.. But I wonder if he didn't earn something with this again..

[ioan]

... he even said that he doesn't felt that he cheated..

Do you cheat if you dope in a sport where everyone else does it? It really depends on the POV.
Not that I agree with doping, just putting a bit of perspective into this whole mess.

[mousti]

I follow you but still it's still cheating because it's not allowed. Luckily for me this wasn't all a surprise for me, and it's like some said in Belgium the a "colored truth". It was a whole "show" nothing more to save Lance a bit.. Because in a real interview with someone who knows alot of cycling and who want to dig in very deep in this story, he would be even more damaged.. Now some people get respect for him, I'll never have the respect for him and I never had that.

[BDunnell]

Do you cheat if you dope in a sport where everyone else does it? It really depends on the POV.

Yes, you do if it's illegal. That's not a matter of point of view, but of fact.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Do you cheat if you dope in a sport where everyone else does it? It really depends on the POV.
Not that I agree with doping, just putting a bit of perspective into this whole mess.

Were your views on cheating influenced by the history of a certain seven time champ?

[Mark]

I might consider some EPO for all the cycle rides I'm doing this year. I hear it's good stuff :D

[Knock-on]

Cheating was (is?) endemic within professional cycling. That's not an excuse or a reason but as Ben says, a fact.

Lance was obviously one of the figureheads of this conspiracy and reaped great rewards through using illegal drugs but it's difficult to asertain any credibility from the results of competition for the last 30 or so years.

[mousti]

Even longer than 30 years.

Yes Mark epo is still one of the best stuff to take and is probably still in use to get there hematocrit values just under 50 higher I wouldn't do because then it's getting life threatening.. Although with the Bio passport it's not so easy anyway to do it.

Btw is Lance not a bit the Walter White in the real world..? There are some common things between them..

[Dave B]

Do you cheat if you dope in a sport where everyone else does it? It really depends on the POV.
Not that I agree with doping, just putting a bit of perspective into this whole mess.
Yes.

It's cheating if you prevent perfectly clean riders from having a cat in hell's change unless they too put themselves at risk, of course it is.

[BDunnell]

Cheating was (is?) endemic within professional cycling. That's not an excuse or a reason but as Ben says, a fact.

My actual comment was that it's a fact that doping is illegal. Of course, what you say is right as well.

[Roamy]

Plus I am sick of hearing about this Piece of Sh!t. Give him a couple of years with Bubba and move on.

[ioan]

Were your views on cheating influenced by the history of a certain seven time champ?

I want some of the stuff you are smoking.

[ioan]

Yes.

It's cheating if you prevent perfectly clean riders from having a cat in hell's change unless they too put themselves at risk, of course it is.

Were there any perfectly clean riders though?

PS: I'm playing devils advocate, though some seem to be to serious around here. :\

[ioan]

Yes, you do if it's illegal. That's not a matter of point of view, but of fact.

Is so clear cut though?
Is cheating really only about legal vs illegal, or is it about a fair and level playing field?

Just heard a long radio discussion about doping and it wasn't as black and white as some people would like to think it is.

As I said before, and those who read before posting did see it, I am not saying he didn't do anything illegal, I am just putting things into perspective, the perspective of human beings with flaws and with a strong drive for results and under enormous pressure to succeed.

[ioan]

You used a similar logic when you fiercely defended Nelson Piquet Jr after Crashgate all those years ago. I admire your consistency in supporting those who cheat but remind me never to go out for a cycle with you :p

I will always give it my best to understand circumstances before consider to criticize someone who's just been knocked down.

[ioan]

I might consider some EPO for all the cycle rides I'm doing this year. I hear it's good stuff :D

Nah, from what I read about it you're not yet at the point where it would make a difference.

[Mark]

I know ;)

[GridGirl]

EPO, you can buy it on EBay. We bought a box of energy gel's online last summer and received them but then a few days later the same company sent us a bag of 1000 testosterone pills although they were invoiced to some bloke on Scotland. I read the side effects on the back of the packet and needless to say they were returned quickly. :s Quite worrying really. :s

[ioan]

EPO, you can buy it on EBay. We bought a box of energy gel's online last summer and received them but then a few days later the same company sent us a bag of 1000 testosterone pills although they were invoiced to some bloke on Scotland. I read the side effects on the back of the packet and needless to say they were returned quickly. :s Quite worrying really. :s

Too many details. ;)

[GridGirl]

Reading the side effects is too many details. Did make me wonder whether the Scottish guy had anger issues and was beating his partner. :s

P.s I haven't bought EPO.

[Robinho]

Do you get it for free somewhere then? Cos everyone is on it ;)

Sent from the moon using a shoe

[Roamy]

I will always give it my best to understand circumstances before consider to criticize someone who's just been knocked down.
are you sh!tting me - while he is down they should give him a Chicago heel stomp !

[Rudy Tamasz]

I want some of the stuff you are smoking.

Hennessy. My stuff yesterday was Hennessy, but only a little bit and only late in the evening, long after I made my post.

I am sure you can find it in finer stores in your area.

[Knock-on]

:laugh: well, I agree with Uncs. This man is a disgrace and I'm bored with him. He's a cheat and a sociopath. End...

[keysersoze]

As an avid cyclist, I share Armstrong's passion. We also share a birthday.

I wanted to like him but what a repugnant human being he turned out to be.

[ruesluporp]

How many liars in the cyclism?

[Donney]

I guess the number of honest ones would be smaller...

[ioan]

Hennessy. My stuff yesterday was Hennessy, but only a little bit and only late in the evening, long after I made my post.

I am sure you can find it in finer stores in your area.


Plenty of fine stores in Austria, do not worry.
I'll see if it has the same effect on me as it had on you.

[ioan]

I guess the number of honest ones would be smaller...

Probably by far.

[mousti]

Topsport is full of liars, it's just the same like the businessworld. Because also in sports, having power, money, and pressure is there too.

[BDunnell]

Topsport is full of liars, it's just the same like the businessworld. Because also in sports, having power, money, and pressure is there too.

Doesn't mean it should be condoned.

[mousti]

All depends how it is going and with Lance it went way too far.. Suing people for millions that accuse u for something that's true is wrong on different levels

[BDunnell]

All depends how it is going and with Lance it went way too far.. Suing people for millions that accuse u for something that's true is wrong on different levels

Definitely.