BikePGH!

Armstrong to be stripped of all Tour de France wins

This topic contains 268 replies, has 49 voices, and was last updated by  jonawebb 1 yr.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 269 total)
 
Author Posts
Author Posts

Pierce

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 4:17am #

I’m envisioning a grin across Colin’s face:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?pagewanted=all

I’ll be even more annoyed now when people call me “Lance”


cburch

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 4:34am #

huge fucking grin. fuck that guy and the entire era in cycling he represents. greg lemond might be a bitter old fuck but he’s been right about the stupid amounts of doping going on at the top for years and no one wanted to hear it. its always been around and it will always be around, but much like baseball over the last decade it got so out of control that the sport turned into a bad parody of itself.

fuck lance and his one stupid ball. the only people i feel bad for are the ones at or related to livestrong who depended on this asshat’s reputation for their living/treatments/research.


Pseudacris

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 4:48am #

Interesting choice of photo on the part of the NY Times.


rice rocket

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 5:08am #

If they were to conduct the same investigation on all the TdF winners of 2005, you’d have to go pretty far down the list to find a clean rider. Only 2 of the top 15 HAVEN’T been suspended for doping, but who says a multi-million dollar investigation of those wouldn’t find the same thing for them too?


cburch

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 5:18am #

Like I said. The dominant rider an symbol of one of the saddest eras in cycling history.


cburch

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 7:11am #

Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg


mr marvelous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 9:20am #

I don’t care what happens to his 7 titles, I do care about what happens to The Livestrong foundation. working in oncology it is very important, I wish we could separate it from this mess.


stefb

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 9:21am #

Pseuda, it looks like he is pooping.

He is a poop.


sloaps

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 9:58am #

meh… it’s like interpol accusing a pittsburgher of speeding when the pennsylvania state police had their case throw out due to an expired annual inspection report for their radar gun.


tetris_draftsman

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 11:13am #

Livestrong doesn’t do and doesn’t support cancer research. There was an outside magazine article about that fact a while back.


edmonds59

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 11:13am #

As one of the commenters on the article said – great, now the second best doping cyclists inherit those Tour titles.

So depressing. People suck.


brian j

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 11:40am #

I don’t think this is tied at all to Livestrong (regardless of what you think, personally, of LA or his foundation). Armstrong is a polarizing figure–either you think he doped or he didn’t, and I suspect that most people who support Livestrong believe the latter.

I’m in the former camp, and I suspect Armstrong didn’t want to go to arbitration, lest at some point, he has to actually say the words “yes, I doped.” More to come, though, since the USADA is still after Bruyneel.


mr marvelous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 11:49am #

@ tetis when Elizabeth Edwards died it was a big deal in the oncology world. Not because of any cancer research but because she was the largest inspiration to female cancer patients she gave them hope. When she died that inspiration and drive to survive suffered. Livestrong does the same thing. It give encouragement and hope. Most cancer patients don’t care about cycling, doping or even if Livestrong donates money. They like the encouragement and hope that something as simple as wearing a bracelet brings. My first day working in oncology 8 patients asked me where is my Livestrong bracelet. They expect and need the support.


orionz06

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 11:57am #

Livestrong also does a great deal for people to just be healthier. I know an app doesn’t seem like much but just among close friends Livestrong played a major role in 300#, collectively, being lost.

As for Lance I don’t know, didn’t really care much then and now it is hard to have perspective. I have already railed on a few people about it though. People are just piling on. If you are gonna hate on him like he kicked your dog at least know something about him and be able to answer on demand.


brian j

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:10pm #

@Marv: I think some people are cynical about Livestrong because of what they believe the root of it to be: a cyclist who said “look, I beat cancer and succeed in my field, and you can, too.” If LA doped, then his promise could be perceived as a lie–sure, you can beat cancer, too, if you have a doctor pushing you the right drugs. I’m not expressing personal opinion here, just sharing what I’ve heard.

Personally, I don’t “hate” Armstrong or Livestrong. I watched him win those tours, and enjoyed it. Heck, I watched a young Lance win the Thrift Drug classic from the flanks of Sycamore Street. Given the mountains of evidence around him, I think he probably doped (since everyone else around him was doped to the gills). I don’t hate the guy, though. And, I suspect that’s part of his plan here: he assumes that the majority of people either think he didn’t dope, or don’t really care much that he doped.


orionz06

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:18pm #

If he is clean he is still guilty in the eyes of the public, not worth the fight if it hasn’t impacted him already. What will happen, more people who don’t know what brand of bike he rode not going to… Yeah, they have zero impact on him.


tetris_draftsman

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:26pm #

@Mr. M, my views are along what Brian J just expressed. Tons of people have survived cancer, my aunt did. No one in the world knows who she is though. I just hate that people look to someone for inspiration who is only known because he cheated and lied to get to where he is.

If people get hope out of him good.

I don’t like cheaters and would much rather support a foundation that is based in reducing the numbers of people who have cancer.


mr marvelous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:46pm #

I understand hating cheaters, but most patients don’t follow cycling or even know about his doping. I think the death of Elizabeth Edwards and the fall of Lance Armstrong are the two largest setbacks to oncology in recent years. Livestrong is so much larger than Lance and I hope it can survive without him. You may hate that people look up to those two people who may or may not have actually done anything for oncology they have made a difference and that fact can’t be disputed. I don’t care if Armstrong, or Bonds or any other athlete cheated, I think they all cheat. I do care about positive things people do and contribute to the world. In the end does it really matter that baseball, cycling, track and field are full of dopers.


sarah_q

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:50pm #

If everyone on the tour is doping then there is no advantage to doing it, it’s just leveling the playing field. Fact: LA survived cancer and went back to win the tour. I think it’s an incredible survival story and I can see why it brings hope to cancer patients. For the haters, let’s see you go through a grueling cancer treatment and then ride the tour — have all the dope you’d like to get through it. I couldn’t make it healthy, doping, and on a power assist bike!


tetris_draftsman

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:55pm #

I have no problem with Elizabeth Edwards or the fact that people look up to her and never said I do.


orionz06

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:56pm #

In the end the only people who can really be concerned with cheating are those who did not and lost. That leaves the rest of us to just stew over it at home.

As for baseball… I am not supporting breaking the law, though I question steriods, I have zero issues if players take any advantage the rules of the game allows. If your sport doesn’t ban steroids and someone takes them… Oh well, they are following the rules of the game.


Marko82

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 12:57pm #

I’m not a huge fan of LA simply because I think he is an arrogant prick. Of course I wish that pro athletes would not dope or cheat, but where do we set the bar. If I have TJ surgery, ligaments replaced in my knees, or sleep in a hyperbaric chamber – how is that not cheating? If someone someday develops some super-duper new way of eating exotic (natural!) foods that cause your testosterone level to double – will that be cheating?

The real harm I see is that young athletes that will never compete above the high school level will do real harm to themselves by following the pro’s lead.


edmonds59

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:01pm #

If you don’t like cheaters I hope you’re not a pro sports fan of any ilk. I think it’s sickening the amount of importance, money, and energy society attributes to pro sports. That’s why athletes risk ruining their bodies with ridiculous enhancements, because there’s such a huge potential paycheck at the end. When I watch the Euro fucktards chasing riders up climbs in a near religious attempt to touch the holy relic it makes me ill. And if every NFL fan who spends 8 hours on Sunday drinking beer and watching TV would actually go out and do something, throw a ball with the kids or anything, the world would be a much better place. Lance is just one particular lightning rod on a fk’ed up system.


rice rocket

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:15pm #

http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids

Good article on how easy it is to cheat WADA testing.


mr marvelous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:18pm #

I wonder why the punishment for some dopers is more harsh than others. Alberto Contador got a slap on the wrist not a ban from the sport.


jonawebb

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:21pm #

As Eddy Merckx said, “Do they expect us to ride the Tour de France on water?”


brian j

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:25pm #

There’s a larger issue here: that doping trickles down. VeloNews recently ran a story about a Cat 3(!!!!) racer who was doped to the gills. Seriously. So now it’s just not about the guys riding their bikes professionally around Europe, it’s about the guy who is winning at, say, the Oval. That’s my issue with the “level playing field” argument about doping–suddenly, everyone’s playing field is tilted toward cheating, and I can’t even go to a local crit without racing against someone who is doping.

Marv, like Eric, I’ve had family members both survive and die from cancer, so this isn’t an academic discussion. My only question about Livestrong stands: what if the whole thing is built on a lie? All that hope? What if it just a fairy tale, constructed through EPO and blood transfusions and who knows what else?


ejwme

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:26pm #

I always figured cheating required a couple criteria:

1. the act is against the rules of the sport (banned steroids).

2. the act is against what is perceived by society to be good sportsmanship (throwing badminton matches in early round robin to get an easier match later).

The first one is easy, provided you can find proof. The second is more difficult, I don’t know about that one.

I was going to add “not everyone can have the same advantage” but realized… that’s sports. Some people have oodles of natural talent, some have less talent. Some people are tall and lean and began training at an early age and thus just ARE better basketball players.

So we’re left with written rules and sportsmanship.

If everybody’s doing it, I still believe everybody can be wrong, but I don’t see how trying to rewrite history can help anybody. Why not just write off the past decade or two as “the saddest era of cycling” and figure out how to move forward?


Anonymous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:29pm #

I am kind of fan of LA as well of other cyclists. I don’t like dope even one time I was really close to it. I think people should be judged not base only on one side. Good acts do not give someone rights to do bad things and bad things do not nullify good ones. We all human beings with our own strengths and weaknesses. I don’t like LA arrogance. But I don’t like arrogance in many other people.

And it’s society demand on big wins and big heroes that makes people to win at any cost.

I am on the same page with Marko82 and Edmonds59.

And I very disappointed in USADA (and other similar agencies over the world) actions. Instead of really cleaning doping from the sport they just pursue big names. And even among beg ones not all of them. I thing big sport is too tightly connected to politics today. As a result both systems behave in the same way.


mr marvelous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:31pm #

I hate that it could have been built on a lie. And I don’t know where it goes from here. I do know Livestrong is important. I would be sad to see it go away. I don’t see any good outcome from all of this. Innocent or guilty non of this is good for the sport, or oncology. I’m all for cleaning up sports but it may be too late.


mr marvelous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:33pm #

frank schleck wasn’t punished at all.


Anonymous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:41pm #

@brian j And look at this scandal from other side. Let say LA doped (I believe any one 20 riders deep in any three big races are on some kind of dope). He had cancer. He survived. He restored his body to level where doping help him to win. And we all know that doping screws you body significantly. This fact makes LA cheater but even “more survivor”.

PS I have history of cancer in my family. No survivors.


tetris_draftsman

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:43pm #

The UCI (Union Cyclist International) gave Contador a two year bane which is typical of doping.

The United States Anti-Doping Agency went after Armstrong this time and decided his punishment.

I think Armstrong’s punishment is a lot easier on him than Contador. Armstrong has already made his millions and is done competing stripping the titles doens’t hurt him. Contador has to, rightfully, take two years off in the prime of his career that hurts him.


brian j

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 1:48pm #

@Marv: Schleck’s case is pending and will come before his home federation. He’s been suspended by Radio Shack because of the finding. This is all quite normal. Final sanctions don’t happen very quickly, given the judicial process in place.


Anonymous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 2:05pm #

@tetris Spanish ADA did nothing. And LA banned from competing forever. And from coaching. In addition Contador already made some money. So I disagree that Contador punishment is a lot heavier. It’s a lot easier. Taking into account that did a lot of very specific training including those in mountains that increase thickness of blood without EPO.


tetris_draftsman

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 2:56pm #

My main point in my last post is that it’s not the same governing bodies handing down the punishment.


Anonymous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 3:12pm #

I got it. :) And UCI ban is for UCI events only. While USADA is more broad. At least at national level with consequences to international level. I guess, LA could change citizenship and start to compete again.

The problem with USADA as I see it is that USADA is similar to IRS in methods. You have to prove your innocence and not them prove you are guilty.


jonawebb

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 3:37pm #

Well, Mikhail… they were going to have arbitration, with testimony from Lance’s teammates. That is what is not going to happen now that Lance has given in. There is lots of evidence that Lance doped but one way or the other it has been kept out of the official record, up until now. It’s not really a question of “you have to prove your innocence”, it’s more a question of “you have to stop using legal technicalities and confront the evidence.” Lance just decided not to do that.


Anonymous

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 3:50pm #

@jonawebb The problem is that all evidence are circumstantial ones. In a regular court it’s not enough. And even for a regular court we know now how many errors were made base just on DNA analysis (granted it was not available earlier). But in no circumstances “given in” should not be considered as a plea. And legal technicalities is what makes “equal rights for everyone”. Or you are going to get to the point RIAA wanted — you are given in hence you are guilty. And as usual most people just don’t have enough resources to fight against RIAA. And I don’t care much about LA. Or Landis. But i don’t want to have body (USADA) completely out of control and setting its own rules. BTW I have similar problems with Olympics bodies.


Greasefoot

Private Message

Aug 24 2012 at 3:54pm #

+1 Mikhail

“The problem with USADA as I see it is that USADA is similar to IRS in methods. You have to prove your innocence and not them prove you are guilty.”

I’m not a fan of LA. He comes across as an arrogant jackass.

But what the USADA is doing is ex post facto.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 269 total)
 

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.