BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

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.

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

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?

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

Also this:

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

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.

Pseuda, it looks like he is pooping.

He is a poop.

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.

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

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

So depressing. People suck.

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.

@ 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.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

frank schleck wasn't punished at all.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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.

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

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.

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.

@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.

+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.

I don't really get how this continues to go on.

I don't really get how this continues to go on.

This discussion, or the Armstrong case?

If it's the former, it's because it's the internet.

If it's the latter, it's because some people just really don't like Armstrong. I also suspect the whole "defrauding the government" thing while the Postal Service team was around is pushing the government to continue the case.

The Armstrong case.

Question: Will USAC/USADA ban Jonathan Vaughters, too, since he just publically admitted to using EPO while a Postie with Armstrong?

levi leipheimer admitted to doping and he still races. It seems that if you are likable you get a pass.

The USDA is making this decision with no physical evidence. It’s all based hearsay and questionable testimony.

I find it interesting the Amaury Sport Organization that runs the tour and the UCI have not yet officially vacated the tour victories. They have requested more details from the USADA. The UCI backed LA’s failed legal challenges to USADA, it appears they don’t approve of the procedures or methods of the USADA. Is it possible they are not going to recognize the USADA’s decision based on the fact they don't have any proof or an admission of guilt?

@Mr Marvelous when did Levi admit? Have a link?

Is it possible they are not going to recognize the USADA’s decision based on the fact they don't have any proof or an admission of guilt?

That's pretty possible.

If you view this through the eyes of the UCI, Armstrong has had hundreds of drug tests and have failed none. That's like you getting drug tested at work, peeing clean test after test, but some co-worker of yours said "well I saw him do it".

Also, admitting USADA's testimony is basically saying "our testing isn't adequate", so where does that leave the sport in terms of the UCI's authority? They need to maintain some semblance of control, whether real or not.

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120705/WIRE/120709794

Thanks.

Look, he failed a test a while ago and then brought a back-dated prescription for the drug. And his stored blood was found to contain EPO (there was no test when he was competing while using it). So it's simply not true that he never failed a test. It's just that one way or another, his failed tests never made it into the official record. Until now.

I'm a testicular cancer survivor, so I probably have a slightly different perspective on this.

Chemo was rough. Mostly it was my badass attitude that got me through it, but more than once during the darker times, I thought about Lance Armstrong, and how his cancer was already in his brain before it was caught, and how he still bounced back and won a shitload of titles afterwards. It really helped to think of him, during the lowest of the lows, and know that afterward I could do anything I wanted so long as I set my mind to it.

Fuck him for being a cheater. Fuck him even harder for being a liar. I can understand the doping...EVERYONE was doping...but he stood there dozens of times and lied to everyone about how he never did anything wrong. Fuck him for that. Fuck him for robbing thousands more of the inspiration I was able to use to get past my lowest points.

I've got a bright yellow "Livestrong" shirt someone gave me shortly after I finished chemo. I think I'm going to wipe my ass with it tomorrow and mail it to his foundation's headquarters.

Fuck Lance Armstrong. Fuck him right in the ear.

@jonaebb To say so you have to have facts. Do you have them? Or is it whatever you read in newspaper? Notice, I think he doped (I've been real close too). But I don't say "he doped", I say "I think he doped". There is a big difference between fact and opinion.

Look, he failed a test a while ago and then brought a back-dated prescription for the drug.

Is the incident you mean the same one mentioned in this old Velonews article (via Wikipedia):

Throughout his career only one test showed indications of the presence of doping products. In the 1999 Tour, a urine sample showed small traces of cortico-steroids. Armstrong was cleared, however, when his U.S. Postal team, produced a medical certificate showing that he used a cream to ease the pain of a saddle sore. Even that sample, however, was below the levels that would have triggered a positive result at the time.

Or is there a different incident?

If it's this one, do you think Velonews was wrong in saying it was detected at below the level required for a positive result? Do you disbelieve that he really used a saddle sore product with corticosteroids, or that it accounted for the test result?

I knew Armstrong was a cheat more than a year ago when everyone on his team,(to their credit), admitted to taking steroids.The house of cards fell hard when Floyd Landis got caught and spilled the beans on Lance abd his teammates.All his teammates,with the exception of 2 who took the fifth because they didn't want to get their good friend Lance in trouble, all admitted to cheating.I used to look up to the guy,but now he make sick!!

I didn't know that corticosteroids treated skin issues. They usually delay wound healing.

So who gets the wins? Will it end up being like the guy that finished 38th because the other 37 all got caught doping?

It isn't the UCI or the ASO (the organization behind Le Tour) that is stripping Armstrong of his wins--it's the USADA. I believe it's up to the UCI to invalidate those victories based on the USADA's decision, but, as others have pointed out, there's no benefit in that since nearly every rider on those podiums was dirty.

As for why the USADA still pursued this, I suspect it is retribution, as well as a way to punish LA, since the ban will effect his career as a triathlete.

@jonaebb someone posted once that you drive in a car to find the locations playing the Tag-O-Rama game? Based on methods used by the USADA all of your tags should be vacated and you should be banned from playing the game.

@Greasefoot I'd take it to arbitration.

Also, that was mostly Joan Webb.

Not making a statement here, I just thought this was relevant and funny:

http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-cheat-to-win-bracelet.aspx

I didn't know that corticosteroids treated skin issues. They usually delay wound healing.

I thought most of the OTC anti-inflammation and anti-itch skin products were 1% hydrocortisone, a type of corticosteroid. Like this.

Over the year athletes have done horrible things yet no one gets such an emotional backlash like Even if you look at this thread people are angry at LA like no other. Bathroom rape, murder, dog fighting, wife beating, assault and so on.

As far as cheating no one cheated like the whole Spygate thing. No one is even close to as angry with the Patriots or asking bill belichick or tom brady to forfeit their superbowls or ban them for life. And we know they cheated.

The minor fraud of Lance Gunderson is that he cheated to win the Tour de France. It's a fraud with financial benefit, but it's not an issue on the scale of, say, the Iranian nuclear program. (edit)

The larger fraud of Lance is that he built a self-serving organization by playing on the emotion of cancer patients and their families.

That's the bigger issue: cheating to win the Tour, and leveraging that fraud into a bigger game - selling yellow rubber bands to say "I Care" and building an affinity movement with Lance as the Hero.

@ Vannevar I'm not defending LA because I don't know 100% if he's guilty or innocent. I am defending the Livestrong foundation. I would like it to go on with or without LA.

As far as him being more evil than the Patriots are you saying because he started a foundation and Brady never said he cared about anyone but himself. If LA said he never cared would he just be like other forgiven athletes who have done much much more awful things.

hello Mr. Marv, I really have no statement on the relative evil of anybody. Any discussion of "who's got a bigger wrong?" isn't of interest.

I am saying that LiveStrong is a scam arranged by a con artist. Like many scams, it may offer some solace to some people in certain situations; that's how scams work.

No disrespect intended, truly.

I do understand what you are saying and it makes sense. There was no disrespect.

Steven, I thought that topical agents have mostly localized effects, and don't have much systemic effect, but maybe with a saddle sore, a larger amount is absorbed and detectable? I am not a pharmacokinetic expert.

Me neither. But the article said what they detected was "below the levels that would have triggered a positive result at the time", so perhaps that's consistent with just a little getting absorbed?

Depends on which topical agent and how much of it you're using and how long you're using it. Temporary use of a milder corticosteroid for one saddle sore... ehhh, maybe a teeny, tiny effect that you could detect if you were really trying, but IDK if I buy it in Armstrong's case. Long-term use of a Group I topical steroid like clobetasol for something like plaque psoriasis that requires it to be applied to a large skin area: sure, absolutely, you'll see systemic effects (sometimes significant and problematic ones).

@Vannevar

Solace is a pretty nice thing when you're facing death

If you're up for reading about one man's experience, check out:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Cancer-Year-Harvey-Pekar/dp/1568580118

Hi Pierce, i understand that. Solace based on a lie isn't real. People selling false stories (ie LAF) to weak needy people are scoundrels and they make the patients into victims twice over.

Also +1 re Harvey Pekar

This hasn't hurt Livestrong in the least. In fact, donations skyrocketed at the news.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-24/lance-armstrong-livestrong-response/57309064/1

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8310275/armstrong-worth-honoring

Many people are wearing yellow on Friday for this.

Decent article, I dig it. Did not know that about 2003's race.

Everybody in the top 10 of 2003 was sketch.

Just cause zubeldia went into anonymity

does not mean that he was clean.

10th place now races crappy american pros for

25k a year.

If Bernie Madoff took some of his power and

used it for a good cause would that ESPN

writer have similar article?

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/athletes/lance-armstrong/Its-Not-About-the-Lab-Rats.html

That "Outside" article makes it appear a little scandalous that little of the LiveStrong money goes to cancer research, but otherwise it a pretty good article.

I'm a medical researcher by profession. I think it's correct that LiveSTrong could add very little to the progress of research, which gets big bucks from other sources. And if they tried to support medical charities, a lot of that money would go to millionaire surgeons and other rich people.

I'm skeptical of "charities" that transfer funds from ordinary folks to some wealthier members of the 1%.

Offering user-friendly support for cancer victims? That gives me warm fuzzy feelings. You need to spend a lot of money on the ephemeral "awareness" to make diagnosis-traumatized people understand that there are places they can call for help. YOu need to put effort into making a place somewhere sick peop0le can call and feel welcome (even when the staff is having, as we all do, a really bad day). I'm OK with that.

Many of you recall that I am no fan of doping racers, so you know I'm not saying this out of any Lance adolation.

Now does Lance divert scrutiny from the more sordid aspects of his bike career with the charity and use the charity to build his name-recognition/income potential? Sure.

You gotta take the yin with the yang.

In other news, do I think the 3 best-ever male swimmers are all current US olympians without anything funny using the latest biotech going on?

HAHAHAHA!

You gotta be careful of who you make a hero.

You know... Why don't they just do a grand tour where the athletes are ENCOURAGED to dope up with blood, testosterone, weed, and whatever other substances they cam cram into their bodies and see who wins it!

I bet the spectacle would be more exciting to watch than this last summer's tour. If every other day a new rider gains a 10 minute "Landis Style" over the field, followed by some other juicer fetching it back the next day and gaining a 5 minute lead on the field — following by someone "OD-ing" and dropping dead on the side of the road, etc...

More people would be watching the sport.

That's just my $.02

Heck, maybe someone can OD on some heroin or something and jump off his bike running around trying to get all of the "spiders" off of him, or running around like Ricky Bobby in his underwear rolling on the ground because he thinks he is on fire...

It would be as dramatic as back in the day when tour riders had to change their own flat tires!!!

Sort of like professional wrestling. But the problem is, these guys would die pretty young. So, pretty sad in the end.

Once again, I think our stupid government has better things to do than chase around athletes who cheat.

How about going after all the politicians who cheat in elections? You never see anyone losing their "titles" from that do you?

IIRC back in the day there was a rider in the Tour who died as a result of amphetaimine-induced, florid hallucinations, so maybe this isn't all that far-fetched.

Umm ...

Why do they test for weed?

@Steveo - Bernie Madoff stole millions & millions of dollars from a lot of people and also ruined several non-profit organizations that invested in his firm.

You can’t compare the financial crimes of Madoff with LA. They ain't the same ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same sport…

How about going after all the politicians who cheat in elections? You never see anyone losing their "titles" from that do you?

You mean apart from

Jane Orie

Mike Veon

Bill DeWeese

John Perzel

Brett Feese

Vincent Fumo

etc.

Yeah, nobody.

I would be interested in seeing how much tax money was spent on the steroid and doping witch hunts.

I'm still waiting for the Patriots to be stripped of their Superbowl wins. And there is 100% proof they cheated.

I believe, with the Pats, that they only broke a major rule during the game they got caught.

LOL touché!!!

@Mick — do you remember who the snowboarder was who lost his gold medal I believe it was Salt Lake because he got caught smoking weed?

He should have gotten a "Green" medal to go along with his gold instead for that feat!

Once again, I think our stupid government has better things to do than chase around athletes who cheat.

I think this has been mentioned before, but the government is rather interested in LA because his team during some of his glory years was essentially sponsored by the US government (USPS).

That said, yeah, it seems like our elected officials have better things to spend their time (and our money) on.

Ok, so they get a test that proves he was cheating when USPS sponsored. What then? What does our tax money get us? What is the net return, counting all the money spent hunting him down, add up to? What else could have that money been used for?

Yeah the USPS DEFINITELY needs that money back (and all the rest they can get) — nowadays!!!

But it isn't just cycling. What about all these baseball and basketball doping witch hunts and CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS...

I mean the words "Congressional hearing" and "Cheating athlete" should NOT be in the same friggin' news article for christ sake.

I don't pay enough attention to sports to really know the details because I am paying attention to things we SHOULD be worried about but to each his own I guess.

I would guess the USADA's interest in Armstrong has more to do with his being, or having been, the 7-time winner of the Tour de France and prominently claiming never to have doped (or never to have failed a drug test, which isn't quite the same thing). If I was in charge of an agency responsible for enforcing some rule and I thought someone very prominent had broken that rule I would take a very close look at that person. It would be my responsibility.

I agree — it is just not the government's role. It should be the governing body of the sport itself that decides.

This whole thing is about as ridiculous as it would be for Jamaica to strip the Pittsburgh Penguins of their Stanley Cups, which is ALMOST as ridiculous as Jamaica having a bobsled team!

I would be interested in seeing how much tax money was spent on the steroid and doping witch hunts.

Here's a recent USADA financial statement. They're a non-governmental nonprofit, but they were getting about $10 million a year in federal grants, about $5 million from other sources (mostly the US Olympic committee), and spending about $9 million of that on testing services, $6 million on other stuff.

prominently claiming never to have doped

No, I believe LA's claims are two-fold:

1. "I played by the rules"

2. "I never failed a test and I was the most tested athlete ever"

Claim #1 can be interpreted in different ways, given how dirty cycling was/is. As for claim #2, there are stories floating around that LA generally had information on when he would tested (which is not how out-of-competition is supposed to work).

@adam @Mick — do you remember who the snowboarder was who lost his gold medal I believe it was Salt Lake because he got caught smoking weed?

A quick google search says it was Ross Rebaglati in the 1998 Japanese Olympics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Rebagliati

Not in Wiki, but my recollection is:

The Japanese take drug offenses very seriously. They held Rebaglati for questioning about whether he possessed pot in Japan.

His coach's comment: "If you can't board baked, you probably shouldn't be out there."

I'm sure the authorites involved found that very helpful.

I don't think that an agency whose mission is to keep athletes from biologically cheating should be the weed police.

$10 million dollars can paint a lot of bike lanes.

Well-written article on Lance.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,0

The UCI has not yet officially commented on the USAD’s decision and it looks as if LA does not recognize the USADA’s authority either!

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48830374/ns/sports-cycling/

Yeah, it's not up to the USADA to actually strip LA of his wins. Only the UCI can do that, so it'll be up to them to pursue the matter from here. I'm curious how it will play out, since there are many accusations that LA has paid off the UCI over the years with rather large donations to the organization.

Hummm, maybe LA has the UCI in his pocket and that’s why he did not go to arbitration?

oh my. was this article posted yet? the plot thickens.

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/Keyes-hamilton-the-secret-race.html?page=1

Well that sucks (the apparent truth that is)

Devil's advocate: Hamilton, like Landis, fought vehemently that he was completely innocent, so a book like this looks like a money/fame grab.

Interview with Hamilton on 60 minutes.

brian, the Outside article addresses that:

Next Wednesday, when The Secret Race comes out, backers will probably make the familiar claim that Hamilton is a disgruntled, bitter ex-rival who got popped for doping and is now looking to cash in. But that doesn’t explain why nine former teammates agreed to cooperate.

The Hamilton that viewers saw on 60 Minutes was nervous and visibly conflicted about his decision to come clean and tell the truth. The Hamilton in The Secret Race is a different being altogether.... By the end, Hamilton has journeyed so far beyond a mere thirst for revenge that he confesses that he feels sorry for Armstrong—a teammate who once tried to destroy him.

How many of the nine former teammates were kicked out due to failed testing before deciding to cooperate with Hamilton? Are any trading their testimony for better deals? And what exactly are these teammates affirming? Are some just affirming that they once saw Armstrong perspiring and looking nervous on the very same day Hamilton says Armstrong cheated? Or are they saying they saw Armstrong actually cheating?

The article stressed how important it was that there were nine teammates stepping forward, but provided zero details on what they said, and what credibility they have. That's the aspect that could move this from "disgruntled guy makes same accusations as before, this time in detail" to the big deal this article claims it is, but they left out the evidence for that.

From the number of "LIVESTRONG" jerseys I saw biking from PGH to DC last weekend — including my own LMFAO (come on now, it is in my collection of jerseys that I don't mind getting completely trashed) — I don't think anyone really gives a crap about all of this. Just a waste of government money, but then again — the government never seems to have any trouble figuring out ways to waste our money.

I wonder how many of our combined taxes from the last year it would take if we added it all up to cover the cost of the LA witch hunt. Probably everyone on the forum and then some I would assume. Money well spent!

From the google machine (Courtesy Wiki): "The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is a non-profit, non-governmental[1] organization and the national anti-doping organization (NADO) for the United States. "

" USADA is not a government entity, however the agency is partly funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee."

And from the USADA 2011 Annual Report:

Revenues, Grants and Other Support - Federal grants $8,982,000

United States Olympic Committee (USOC) contractual agreement 3,450,000

Investment return 17,719

Income from third parties 1,272,751

Total revenues, grants and other support 13,722,470

Conclusion: USADA received $8.9 million in 2011 from the Federal Government.

“The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is a non-profit, non-government organization” – that’s the rub. Because they are non-governmental they don’t have to provide a burden of proof or use due process. They are just a well funded kangaroo court. I guess the government figured out the best way to catch a cheater is to cheat them self, so now we have a non-profit group that can circumvent the constitution.

The constitution of bike racing? WTF are you

talking about?

When Lance bought his racing license,it was

through USAC who are governed by USADA...

He signed up for it and agreed to their terms.

The UCI is the kangaroo court....

http://www.usacycling.org/health-anti-doping.htm

I think he means that he's getting a conviction w/o due process.

From what I gathered, due process was offered, but Armstrong decided that it was a losing battle and declined.

I don't have any idea if LA doped and I don’t care.

I'm fed up with zealous politically motivated jackasses wasting millions - millions - and millions of taxpayer’s dollars investigating drug use by athletes.

Over the past decade they spent millions after millions going after baseball players Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds. And now the Fed funded USADA investigation of LA is another waste of money.

They had no legitimate authority to go after LA. They claim they do, but that doesn't mean they have. For almost a decade LA passed hundreds of drug tests conducted by the TDF governing body, the UCI.

The US Attorney’s office did their own investigation of doping by LA and of other members of his bike team but closed the investigation with no findings. February 2012 the U.S.Attorney stated in a press release that his office is "CLOSING" an investigation into allegations of federal criminal conduct by members and associates of a professional bicycle racing team owned in part by LA."They found "NO EVIDENCE" of wrongdoing.

Then in June of 2012 the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency brought new charges against LA. WHY?

To block the case from going further LA, supported by the UCI, the governing body of the TDF, sued the USADA. Last month the judge threw out the case, siding with USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of LA. The U.S.District Judge wrote, "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether it's real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," If such strong words come from a U.S.District Judge it begs the question, if the judge believed for one second politics or publicity may be involved, but why didn't he rule for LA and put an end to this charade? After the judge's ruling the anti-doping agency announced they were stripping LA of all his TDF titles and banning him from sports for life. What am I missing here?

If LA is a "doper" that's something he'll have to live with the rest of his life. He'll know he's a fraud. Today I'm more inclined to believe that the USADA had "less noble motives" for trying to prove he took the juice. Once the US Attorney’s office closed their investigation, this should have ended.

There's millions of dollars at stake. It's not surprising that they would spend a lot of money investigating.

And $8.9 million total in annual funding from the Federal Government doesn't actually sound like that much when you get right down to it. It's something less than 100 people, once you figure in all the overhead. This is for all sports, right?

So it doesn't sound to me like anyone's wasting money, judging by the size of the budget.

Recently on the radio somebody pointed out that it's not uncommon for an athlete to get caught doping years after they won their major medals. People can be very careful about this sort of thing, the tests aren't really that hard to defeat, actually, and don't forget that Lance is accused of using drugs for which there was no test at the time. When they went back and tested his stored blood for EPO after a test was finally developed, they found it.

(I know, you don't believe that either, it was just a French lab slandering the great Lance...)

@steveo after reading more information from the link you provided it clears up some things for me. If you join the USAC you agree to rules of the USADA. (edit) No sympathy for the devil.

The USADA is supposed to be a non political independent non profit organization but it's motives for going after LA seem to be questionable.

@Jonawebb how much do you think the US Attorney's office spent on it's invetigation? They did not rubber stamp a fraud investigation and LA certainly did not have them in his pocket.

I do have a real question, I read an online article that I'm trying to find from a non-American journalist saying that one reason that LA is so confidant is that the USADA can't really strip him of his TDF wins only the UCI can do that. And the UCI has supported LA from the beginning. The UCI can override any decision made by the USADA. I don't know if this is true or not I know you can't believe everything on the internet.

So my question is: Is this true? If it is true and the USADA knew this why did the bother with this whole thing?

If its not true then disregard my post.

I don't understand people's questions as to why the US Anti-Doping Agency is going after a suspected doper.

“Unlike the US attorney, USADA’s job is to protect clean sport rather than enforce specific criminal laws,” USADA chief executive Travis Tygart said. “Our investigation into doping in the sport of cycling is continuing and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but the case against Lance was dropped by the US Attorney with no comment as to why. There was never a statement of "NO EVIDENCE" as you claim Greasefoot. In fact the evidence collected seems to be large part of the case against LA.

The UCI: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12786/McQuaid-says-UCI-will-sanction-Armstrong-if-necessary.aspx

Mr. Marv: the USADA can only make recommendations to the sport's governing body. If you read through the stories of other dopers (Contador, for instance), the national body lays out a course of action, and it's up the UCI to either accept that (and impose whatever punishment was meted out) or go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and pursue the punishment they believe the doper should have received.

The USADA is well within their purpose as an organization by pursuing Armstrong, especially if new evidence has come to light (a failed drug test is not the only reason for a sanction--see the Festina affair).

As for "wasting tax money"--I can be slightly sympathetic to this argument, but it also seems like a bit of straw man. The government "wastes" a fair bit of tax money on superfluous things. And, if you're going to subsidize sports generally with tax money (see the Olympic teams, or USPS), it would be wise to have an organization in place to be sure those folks are doped to the gills.

@ Brian j thanks for explaining.

So does this mean we are still waiting for UCI to make their decision and they can choose to strip LA or not? So this is still not over?

Yep, it's not over 'til the UCI sings. And, as I mentioned, they could contest the USADA's findings, too.

@Eric the US Attorney's 2 year investigation and Grand Jury concluded without comment and no charges filed. 

Prosecutors rarely announce the closure of a secret probe, but The US Attorney said a public disclosure was warranted. 

@Mr Marv If you check out the link Steevo posted it explains some of the relationship between the the USADA, World Anti-Doping Agency, and the UCI. They all agree to certain standards for testing and to abide by each others findings and respect each others rulings. I'm not an expert but it sounds like a gentlemen's agreement.

If the UCI does not up hold the USADA decision it could blow up the entire relationship between the organizations.

The USADA may have its hands full, given that Jonathan Vaughters just outed a bunch of Garmin riders as past dopers.

I have a feeling that all of those past

dopers are of the 8 ex teammates that were

going to testify against Lance if he proceeded

Greasefoot: you are arguing two separate

things here... you seem to be angry about

the waste of tax money more than you seem

to be informed about the specifics of the

case... That is fine, but the fact of the

matter is that we are where we are. You

cant stand at the end of a road that should

not have been built complaining to people

using it. USADA are doing their job.

Floyd got popped,contested,came forward and

turned the sport upside down. He led alerted

everybody as to how things happened and

broke the omerta. For USADA to ignore it

would have been more unethical than doping.

Landis told the truth about the UCI.

Mcquaid said that they were going to sue.

Never happened. Other teammates got deposed.

The case got built. They all cheated and

never got caught.

Google "non analytic positive." In the past

few years these have become common because

USADA and WADA know that people are beating

their tests. If you have EPO delivered to

your house = ban. Photos ofyou holding EPO

= Ban. Again, you play by USADA rules when

you sign up. Dont like their rules... dont

sign up.

it is interesting to consider if perhaps the "kingpin-badguy" isn't Lance, or Lance alone, but rather UCI. (which is why Lance wanted WADA to cede jurisdiction to UCI). curiouser and curiouser.

Might as well toss in my 2 cents, as only a casual but interested observer of racing.

I was a fan of Armstrong, he is an icon, and it's sad to see an icon fall. But they all are human, and fans have to be cautious of how much expectation they place on their heroes. I still don't view him as a bad person, I see him as the most visible cog in an incredibly fk'ed up machine. Even with current testing, fines, bans, etc, riders and teams have continued to connive the system with winks and nudges, the attempts to sneak by continue. I don't view this at all as vengeance on the part of this USADA, it seems to me to be a serious attempt to get this garbage out of sport.

In some ways this situation is similar to the Penn State tragedy - people continue to pursue individuals for fault while simultaneously protecting an institution that is rotten at the foundations. Oversight agencies must bring in bigger and bigger guns until real change occurs and people fk'ing "get it". IMO.

If Lance was innocent and seriously cared about the sport, and the titles, he would pursue this to his last dime. I believe he has made an economic calculation as to what is in his best interest, and given the system that hangs individuals out in the wind, I can't fault him for that.

edmonds59 - well said. I think that aligns a bit what Tyler Hamilton's co-author has been suggesting - that it's a culture/organizational issue and that's the level any solution/condemnation belongs. It's not about the person, it's about the structure.

if lance cared about the sport he'd come clean and use his significant influence to push for the systemic changes that are needed.

“If lance cared about the sport…”

He doesn’t. Lance cares about Lance.

well, duh.

@edmonds59 - agreed well said!

@Steevo - I was misinformed about the USADA. So much of what is available on LA and this subject is skewed or polarized. I have to find the article from CBS sports I saw last month that was absolutely wrong. Like edmonds59 I’m only a casual fan of professional bicycle racing. The link you provided cleared a lot of thing up for me. If someone wants to be a member of the USAC they agree to the terms of USADA & WADA. These originations are all linked together so their sanctions have teeth. If someone is found cheating by USADA and suspended or banned they can't move to Europe or some place else to race.

I do find it very interesting that after a 2-year investigation with the weight of the US Justice department they could not file any charges. But somehow the USADA can claim to have enough evidence to hand out a punishment.

the usada isn't handing out a punishment for a criminal act, which is the limit of the doj's powers. they are sanctioning an athlete who agreed to compete in a sport governed by them and then, in their opinion, violated the rules for said sport. i don't see how there is any sort of disconnect (cognitive or otherwise) here. its quite likely that the doj was looking to prosecute for fraud because of the federal money that went to postal, but while they found plenty of evidence of cheating in the sport, they didnt have anything that rose to the level of prosecutable criminal fraud.

Yeah, Colin nailed it. The DOJ investigation wasn't about whether LA doped--it was about defrauding the government because of a systematic doping scheme at an organization that received federal money. It's certainly fair to question whether the DOJ should have spent its time and money on that particular case, but the USADA is doing its job.

I get it, the USADA only has to prove he cheated and it’s not a court of law. They are just doing their job but it seems like they are flogging a dead horse.

The Federal Grand Jury investigation is sealed and no one really knows the scope of investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/sports/cycling/agency-details-doping-case-against-lance-armstrong.html?hp

Here's a summary, directly from the USADA:

Today, we are sending the ‘Reasoned Decision’ in the Lance Armstrong case and supporting information to the Union Cycliste International (UCI), the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and the World Triathlon Corporation (WTC). The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.

The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants’ doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.

Together these different categories of eyewitness, documentary, first-hand, scientific, direct and circumstantial evidence reveal conclusive and undeniable proof that brings to the light of day for the first time this systemic, sustained and highly professionalized team-run doping conspiracy. All of the material will be made available later this afternoon on the USADA website at www.usada.org.

This is George Hincapie's public statement, which I think reads well and is about all a person could say.

That sound you hear is the last of air being let out of Armstrong's tires.

I wonder if Hincapie doped primarily during the Tour when he was tasked with supporting Armstrong? While he's never truly matched his second place at Paris-Roubaix (achieved during those doping years), he's been fairly consistent during the spring over the last six years of his career (numerous top tens at classics and semi-classics).

Ha-ha, list of dopers just from the article:

Levi Leipheimer;

Tyler Hamilton;

George Hincapie

Frankie Andreu; Michael Barry;

Tom Danielson;

Floyd Landis;

Stephen Swart;

Christian Vande Velde;

Jonathan Vaughters;

David Zabriskie;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling -- adds a little bit more.

Lots of cyclist on this list.i had no idea it was this bad. Are they all banned from cycling? I haven't heard anything about their punishment.

The riders haven't been suspended yet. More here. From the sounds of it, it is likely the active riders might receive back-dated six month bans, which means they could begin racing next spring.

Why not a life ban like Lance? It seems they all where in it together.

Because they cooperated and ratted out Armstrong and the whole operation. That was stated at the end of a USADA statement I read somewhere. They said Armstrong had the opportunity to go against the operation as well and opted not to.

Edit: I think it's good they talked my first sentence sounded negative which was not intended.

In trade for testimony.

I see. It makes some sense. I still sounds like they got off easy. I wonder if Lance would have gotten off with a slap on the hand also if he came forward.

the same reason they tear down statues during revolutions. he was not only the leader of the team and by most accounts the leader of the doping efforts, but a symbol of the era.

Essentially. He could have kept some number of Tour titles had he not fought. (kept 2, lost 2, I forget what the original deal was)

The report has been released by the USADA.

200 pages or so.

Follow a live-blog of analysis on the report at The Wall Street Journal. The complete report can be found here.

Edited to add link!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109619079/Reasoned-Decision

The VN article I linked to above has the relevant bits of the code that allows those riders to receive reduced bans.

Admission of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation in the Absence of Other Evidence Where an Athlete or other Person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation before having received notice of a Sample collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation (or, in the case of an anti-doping rule violation other than Article 2.1, before receiving first notice of the admitted violation pursuant to Article 7) and that admission is the only reliable evidence of the violation at the time of admission, then the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable.

"his competitive results since August 1998.....have been disqualified....." per the conclusion of the report.

Levi's statement

and

pretty much everyone else's statements

Pretty good summing up of the issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDwJQM-YNek

There are a lot of big names on the list that surprise me. Lance being guilty is no real surprise, but some of the others are.

I think Levi's statement is the most honest. He basically says that it wasn't just one man who doped, but EVERYONE did. These are just the names that got caught. I think Lance was guilty but to say he was the ring leader or think no one would have doped if he didn't make them sounds crazy. I think they all are equally guilty and doping would have happened with or without Lance. To ban one man and do nothing to another doesn't help the sport. People are angry at LA but give all others a pass. Levi's cheating upsets me more than anyone. I cheered for him more than any other cyclist. But he gets a pass because he isn't a jerk like LA. It seems if LA were more likable he would have received a pass also. I don't see how any of this cleans up the sport.

@ Mick your video is correct none of this hurts LA at all, and he doesn't care about his legacy just his millions of $

Levi is a cheater and a liar and cant be

trusted.

He tested positive in the 90's as a freaking

amateur.

From www.stevetilford.com

I pretty much agree with this 100%

"Let’s take a look at Levi. (Here’a a wiki list of all his results.) Since 2007, the last date he has admitted to taking drugs, he rode 4 out of the next 5 years for the Bruyneel program. During this time he won the Tour of California a couple times, The Tour of Utah a couple time, The Tour of Switzerland, The Pro Challenge in Colorado, finished 2nd in the Tour of Spain behind Contador, and was 3rd in the Olympics. We’re to believe that Levi is such a naturally talented athlete that he can compete at this level, drug free, when he couldn’t attain those same results taking drugs. I think not. Here’s a quote by Levi from the Wall Street Journal piece he wrote – I am sorry that I was forced to make the decisions I made. I admit that I didn’t let doping deter me from my dream. I admit that I used banned substances. So now Levi has been “deterred” from the sport of cycling for 6 months during the winter. For his 2nd positive doping violation. Perfect."

I've discussed this often with my husband. I don't understand all the anger against Lance for doing what clearly EVERYONE else was doing. Did he make it worse? Maybe. And if that is the evidence and/or that he encouraged doping in others, then I can understand anger.

All that taking away his wins does is the give the win to the second-best doper in the race. If everyone was doping, and everyone was basically at the same level, then what he did was still an incredible athletic feat. If doping alone gave him such an advantage, why didn't the other dopers win?

I don't understand all the anger against Lance for doing what clearly EVERYONE else was doing. Did he make it worse? Maybe. And if that is the evidence and/or that he encouraged doping in others, then I can understand anger.

Maybe because, in this country, he was/is the face of professional cycling? How many other cyclists' names are even vaguely recognizable by the man on the street?

I could be wrong, but most of the anger seems to come from the cycling community, not the general public. Whether or not you liked Lance, he was the symbol of cycling in the US mind; having the symbol of your community be exposed for a cheat hurts.

I agree with reddan. The other names on the list twist the knife Lance put in our back.

I can't say I'm mad at any of them disappointed yes. I will continue to watch cycling knowing that most are cheaters.

If Lance, Levi and others were to race again I would still watch as it is still entertaining to watch and enjoy pro cycling.

I still watch Football despite the NE Patriots, and baseball despite Bonds. I still love pro cycling.

I guess people would be less angry at him if he admitted what he was doing and said it was wrong. Basically he's still got a lot of people convinced he was clean, in spite of all the evidence, and he's still holding himself up as this great humanitarian with his cancer foundation. I can understand people being angry at someone who does that when their biggest accomplishment is based on a lie.

And don't forget "the story"--not only was Lance super-duper awesome, but he was extra-super-duper-awesome because he came back from cancer and beat all those dudes who were doped to the gills.

Now we know why.

For me it's the same as football. Basically just assume everyone is doping (or almost everyone) and take the sport for what it's worth. Enjoy the spectacle, don't expect the athletes to be more than they are.

Read Dave Zabriskie's affidavit.

Actually, here:

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/Zabriskie+David+Affidavit.pdf

"Cycling became a refuge for me. Long, hard training rides were cathartic and provided an escape from the difficult home life associated with a parent with an addiction. My father had a long history of substance use and addiction. Seeing what happened to my father from his substance abuse, I vowed never to take drugs. I viewed cycling as a healthy and wholesome outlet that would keep me far away from following my father’s footsteps…I attribute his untimely death to his drug use. I missed my dad’s funeral because of a race—the GP Des Nations. I won the under 23 category and Lance Armstrong won the professional category…Of course, I understood that some cyclists in the peloton fueled their success with banned substances. I suspected that some of my teammates were using performance enhancing drugs. But until this very moment, I was unaware of how involved the team leadership was in drug use by its riders on the team. Until then I had been largely shielded from the reality of drug use on the Postal Service Team… I felt cornered. I had pursued cycling to escape a home life torn apart by drugs, and no I was faced with this. I looked to Michael [Barry] for support, but it became clear he had decided to use EPO. He kept repeating [US Postal Service Team Director] Bruyneel’s opinions that EPO use was required for success in the peloton…I went back to my Spanish apartment and had a breakdown. I called home, crying. I had pursued cycling as an escape from drugs, and here I was, having succumbed to the pressure."

Lance's legacy was trashed regardless. He could have all of his tests come back clean, tested other ways, etc, and people would still be convinced enough such that he would always be a doper.

I am torn- I do (did?) enjoy watching. Some enjoyment was just for the helicopter shots of castles. Maybe I can just watch documentaries of France and skip the racing part.

Fortunately I am a big track fan, where they at least try to catch the cheaters, as opposed to most other sports.

I guess, you guys (who was surprised) never were close to big sport. I was never that close to the top as LA, just won or was second on state level for 4 years and once 3rd on national level. But complex of B1-B12, Aloe, ATF, other vitamins adn chemicals were must all year around. And just one step from anabolics (no EPO was available in 70-s. And all 60 team mates did the same. Best of us (whoever competed at international level) did anabolics, drug performance, and blood transfusions. This was in track and field.

Sara,

Not everybody is / was. Read stuff vaughters

and all wrote after leaving LA's teams. Other

teams were much cleaner and the riders were

not forced from the top down (ala Dave Z)...

Many of the people that have gone on record

claim to be clean before and after LA.

Another person with a bit of a question mark over his head is Michael Berry. I have trouble believing he stopped doping when he left USPS for T-Mobile, which was also a doping operation disguised as a cycling team.

Hey, we all quit doping in 2006. Cross our hearts. Yep, 2006, that was it, no more dope, I swear. Now I can race again next year? Cool, where do I sign?

+1 Eric

@ steevo I disagree. I was a huge LA supporter and was naive to believe he didn't dope. But to think that only LA teammates doped and that cycling was clean before and after LA is just as naive. Thats why naming a winner of the Tour to replace LA is hard because everyone who finished behind him doped.

I wish we could say that LA was the cause of doping and without him doping will go away. But Alberto Contador and Frank Schleck proves that wrong.

My problem with this is that this will not clean up cycling. The reason that they will not give any current riders a ban from cycling is because it would effect the rating and money if all the top cyclist are banned. Thats why we will see Levi, Contador and Schleck riding again with no real punishment. There is no reason to stop doping.

Pity the poor TdF team that didn't dope (there's got to be at least one) -- everyone assumes they did, and they didn't get the trophies, either.

For a second I read that as Team Decaf

That could explain why I always get dropped on the Decaf rides.

@Brian j some versions of T-Mobile were for sure but not the last year or so when it was basically High Road under another name.

That said, I call total BS on all the guys (all!) that say they stopped after 2006. More omerta.

Maybe they are able to dope now without it being picked up by current technology? Yeah they're all dopers. I dislike pro athletics. I feel like I am getting cheated out of seeing what people are naturally able to do.

Also, let's face it- the tour is pretty boring. When they sprint at the end of the stages and when they ascend/descend in the mountains, that may be only slightly entertaining.

A friend and I were chatting, and we made some connections. Levi was apparently still doping while with the Disco team. Guess who else was riding on the Disco team? Alberto Contador. While that team wasn't the focus of the investigation, most of the staff came from USPS.

Also, Tom Boonen was another Postie. Granted, it was just for a year, and it was several years later that he truly rose as a classics specialist (and sprinter...remember when he took the green jersey?). I wonder if he took away any habits from USPS? The rabbit hole is likely going to be pretty deep here.

Chris, thanks for the clarification. I had forgotten about that transition prior to becoming High Road.

Also, if you purchased Michael Berry's book Inside the Postal Bus, you can now file that in the "Creative Non-fiction" section of your bookshelf.

Lots of crow and humble pie on the menu these days for the Armstrong groupies, supporters, apologists, etc., who are now in about the same category as folks with tin foil on their hats to ward off alien mind control waves from outer space.

I can admire someone for pushing the envelope and reading between the lines of a sanctioning body's rules (google "Smokey Yunick Cheating" for a good example). But that's certainly not what LA and company were doing, to say the least!

Mr. Marvelous,

Im not naive and have probably read more about

this than anybody on the board. However a few

years ago an AIM convo between vaughters and

Frankie A came out about when JV switched to

CA from postal and how clean the team was. It

blew his mind.No pressure to dope. No top

down program.

If you read Tylers book, lance seems to be

a pusher as much as a user. Reading Dave z's

affidavit is much the same.

He wasnt the only one, but he was surely

pushing the limits and winning the arms

race so to speak.

@ steevo, I'm sorry I didn't mean to say you are naive. It's not what I was saying but re-reading what I wrote thats how it sounds. In fact I trust your knowledge on this subject.

I do agree with you that LA was a user and a pusher. I just don't believe he brought doping to cycling and that doping left with him. I think if all the names and the extent of the doping truly came out it would kill the sport. Making LA the Kingpin of doping and saying that it's over now sounds like another cover up.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/FA+Exhibit+J+2005-07-26+Vaughters+-+Andreu+IM+Exchange.pdf

I'm hardly surprised that a bunch of guys who got a deal to rat out Lance are claiming that he was the kingpin of the whole thing and their poor sweet innocent selves never did anything bad like that before or since. Seems to me a whole ton of riders who weren't on Lance's teams have already been busted for doping.

I'm no Lance apologist but I'm also not buying that he's the source of all evil.

Salty, I think the better way to look at it is that at USPS, Lance and his advisers/coaches built an incredible doping machine. If you read the documents, Dr. Ferari had a long list of clients from other teams. I suspect, however, that no one had the deep pockets that Lance and company did to really build a comprehensive program. If the other teams could have afforded/organized such a program, I'm sure they would have.

The only person I feel sorry for is Zabrinski--he had a lot of baggage when he came to USPS (not PED doping baggage), and he made some bad decisions. He was at least the most forthcoming with his feelings about how screwed up things had become.

I'm also not sure what to make of guys like Devolder and Van Den Broeck saying they didn't see anything as USPS. I would kinda believe that given they weren't Tour specialists, they were outside the inner circle, but Devolder also just had his career resurrected by a contract with Radio Shack/Nissan, so he has to say the right things, or he's riding in the Belgian B league next year.

Its been a couple of years, but their was some leaked testimony from I think Franky Andrieu to the effect that Lance told the Doctor back when he was first diagnosed with cancer that he took a whole list of stuff -- including Human Growth Hormone. So its possible that PEDs caused his cancer in the first place.

@Boazo So its possible that PEDs caused his cancer in the first place

+1

I've always suspected that.

For what it is worth...

It seems to me that

A: someone had/has a big hard-on for Lance, chasing after this for so long. Why I don't know... but he obviously pissed someone off.

B: I dont know that I can find the link, someone had done an analysis of one year of the Tour which Lance had won. The next person to have finished the Tour, after Lance, who has not since either been caught doping, or has not admitted to doping was something like 23rd, or 25th place. If I can find the link I'll either edit this post or post it later.

C: a lot of the testing evidence was done on old samples using current technologies and testing for substances which are now known and how to test for - which was not available at the time.

Which is why, I assume, he passed ALL of his testing.

For more then 7 years, at every race Lance won, he was tested, and EVERY TIME he tested clean.

To Me - what Lance and company did was what most racing teams in auto racing do, as an example. They read the rules (in the case of auto racing the specifications for the vehicle), and find/found loop holes. The rules don't say we can't use so we can/will. This applies to all of the various technologies that can be brought to bear.

For example :

Can we use a covered wheel? no, can we use a solid disk wheel? rules don't say we can't - so we do. Next year, or next race, the rule maybe changed to specifically outlaw solid wheels, so we don't use a solid wheel, we use something else.

Can we use testosterone? no, Can we use "Ultrasuperspecialcalifragilious" - rules don't say we can't. so we do. The rules change and "Ultrasuperspecialcalifragilious" is no longer legal, so use something else.

Is the doping ethical? no. is it against the spirit of the rules? yes. Was/were the specifics of USPS's team doping specifically outlawed? I don't know, but if it wasn't then it wasn't "illegal".

Going back and taking his wins - I see this as applying rule changes retroactively.

Using NASCAR as an example, taking a victory away from a winner because he didn't use a restrictor plate (a device to limit the amount of fuel the engine can use at one instant, and indirectly limit speed) BEFORE restrictor plates were required.

you are all welcome to disagree

Wow. Still with the head in the sand.

@been_there_done_that

... someone had/has a big hard-on for Lance, chasing after this for so long. Why I don't know... but he obviously pissed someone off.

Like maybe anyone who didn't do exactly what Lance wanted when Lance wanted it and then faced the consequences?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Lemond#Anti-doping_stance_and_controversy

Seems Lance doesnt' get the "Sportsmanship Award" for this one.

In a reply to "Been there done that"all of of L.A. teammates finally came clean and admitted L.A. took E.P.O. including themselves.A couple of his teammates pleaded the "fifth",because they stated Lance was their friend. But even leaving that aside,they found a number of enhancing performing drugs in his blood!! I also used to admire L.A.,but I now know he's nothing but a cheat and a liar!!

here are some excerpts, links follow, the people with there heads in the sand - are anyone thinking cycling is, or ever has been 'clean'.

Jacques Anquetil is the five-time Tour winner who in **1961** took the yellow jersey on Stage 1 and wore it all the way to Paris, not a boastful cheater who said, during a French television interview, "Leave me in peace—everybody takes dope." And Fausto Coppi is il campionissimo, the champion of champions, not an admitted doper who said on Italian television that he only took drugs when necessary—"which is nearly always."

(** added be me)

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,0

I wonder why the gap in 1985... and look there is a doping issue in 1886 ! ! !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

Tour specific doping

http://tinyurl.com/9evc2qb

there are 2 (count them TWO) riders of the next 4 finishers of the Tours of the 7 years, in which Lance won, who have not, yet, been caught or confessed to doping.

http://tinyurl.com/94m2gos

Doping on the tour started off with wine & a cigarette before a big climb to open up the lungs 100 yrs ago. 40+ years later, meth, steroids, & coke kept everyone going. It was always a dirty sport.

By today's standards, I wonder how clean Hinault, Indurain, and Merckx actually were.

If you ain't first, you're last.

That there is trademarked, not to be used without written permission of Ricky Bobby, Inc.

Merckx has admitted to it..

Perception is reality.

The investigation of Armstrong was so intent on proving their suspicion that it basically offered immunity to ELEVEN other riders for their testimony. (So, ELEVEN riders basically walk, to catch the one big fish.)

And to what end? Has the investigation proved to anyone the sport is clean? (No.) That the sport is serious about getting clean? (No.) That the sport even has the means about how to get clean? (No.)

The lingering perception now, is this is a sport where everyone cheats. Where the governing body was so intent to catch the one big bad guy they were willing to accept the PED use of ELEVEN other riders. Where it's okay those eleven other riders get to continue their careers.

So the reality is, it was all window dressing.

Finally, this (courtesy Outside magazine):

""Twenty of the 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the 45 podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, 36 were by riders similarly tainted by doping." —USADA Reasoned Decision Against Lance Armstrong"

http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/outdoor-adventure/no-official-winner-of-the-tour-de-france.html?173931501

@Been: Malcolm Gladwell made the point you are making. Deep down, there is an ethical/philosophical discussion about the science of pushing limits. I think the auto racing analogy falls apart, however, because it's much more difficult to break the rules without getting caught. I'm not very familiar NASCAR, but I do know in rallying (at least in the WRC), the homologation rules are quite strict, and in my memory, several top teams have lost results because of technical infractions.

As for your claim that the USADA is applying new rules to Armstrong's career, that's just wrong. Blood doping (auto and homologous) was banned by the IOC in 1985. The first reliable tests for EPO started in 2000, I think.

So, as far as retroactively punishing Armstrong for new rules, I guess the only results he should keep would from 1998 and 1999.

How about - instead of trying to 'clean the sport' and chase technological ghosts, why not just turn the rules upside down.

Everyone must divulge all doping they are using .

Then potentially dangerous cocktails can be caught and the users informed.

It becomes an open system, no possible problems with dirty needles, hiding in 'shadows', potentially dangerous mixtures of doping agents, etc. The competitors know what they are up against. Hell, they could even have a new category of winner 'clean'. Of course the penalty for failure to divulge would be the same as it is now for getting caught doping.

I love the way Merckx admitted it: "Do they expect us to ride the Tour de France on water?"

As far as an open doping regimen goes, the problem is those guys would do serious damage to their bodies, not entirely voluntarily. They would end up dying young. No one would want to watch that.

@Jona

they are probably doing that now. With an open system multiple experts can examine the cocktails and stop/warn extra dangerous combinations

@jonawebb - that was anquetil who is reputed to have said that (though i can find no reliable source that gives the exact quote).

merckx tested positive three times in his career, but always maintained his innocence, once claiming that the test was wrong, and twice blaming team doctors.

Armstrong Dropped by Nike, Steps Down as Chairman of His Charity

Sometimes I feel the need to double-check and make sure the Onion hasn't jumped the shark.

Also Levi was terminated from his team. Its been an interesting week

I wonder if LA is preparing to "come clean" and throw a bunch of other people other the bus to make himself look like a bit of victim.

he'll never admit it.there is no benefit to him

Lance should get the Barry Bonds asterisk. Maybe carry the shame on a scarlet pie plate? Pie plates are pro.

Nike dropping him makes this hurt Lance where it actually hurts him, his wallet.

brianj: I wonder if LA is preparing to "come clean" and throw a bunch of other people other the bus to make himself look like a bit of victim.

I think that's spot on. If there is such a thing as a "they" with a "goal", try this narrative on: they want Lance to give up ASO and UCI and expose systematic, corporate profiteering and explicit hypocrisy.

And I don't think Lance has a history of taking a beating for anybody else's benefit. It might be that "interesting" hasn't even started yet.

You guys are living in a dream world. Lance is not going to admit to anything. He's already lost everything he's going to lose -- trophies, endorsements, his foundation. Why would he publicly admit what he's been denying for years? What would he gain? He's not going to get anything back. And as long as he keeps denying it he'll still have a few people fooled, and be able to pretend to himself, if no one else, that he's innocent.

Agreed

I don't know. I wonder if the USADA would consider lifting the ban if LA gave up names/sources. Would be interesting to know if there are any offers/deals like this on the table for him. Doing so might allow him to return to the sport(s) even if it is with a tarnished name.

But he's retired. Still no benefit to him.

Double post.

He retired from cycling and took up triathlons, again. There was a lot of speculation about him giving the rest of the pro field a run for their money in the world championship. Lifting the ban would allow for his return to triathlons and open up the possibility for him to coach/manage a team later in life as well.

Maurice Garin, who won the first-ever TdF in 1903, got caught riding the train in 1904.

Besides, who's left that hasn't already been implicated to be thrown under the bus?

If you look at this diagram from the New York Times it doesn't look that impossible to find other winners:



It looks to me like you could get a replacement for TdF winner from the top three finishers in every year except 2003 and 2005. But maybe the other competitors are dirty too and not shown in this diagram; does anyone know?

Nevermind

What would he gain?

BOOK DEAL!

Besides, who's left that hasn't already been implicated to be thrown under the bus?

The UCI. All LA needs to say is "yeah, I paid off McQuaid and Verbruggen to cover up doping positives."

LMFAO — what is worse, cheating by riding the train, or riding the snake?

Exactly. If he told them who gave him advanced warnings on when tests would be, to who he paid to cover it up within the organization, etc... Although at this point I think Lance is/was the biggest possible target.

Oh add Radioshack and Trek to the huge LA backers that have now dropped him.

I can't find the link but apparently even Nike paid off the former UCI president $500k to cover up a positive test in 1997(?). So them dropping Lance doesn't clear their name yet either.

With LA stepping down from Livestrong does this bring some legitimacy back to the organization? I know there are some issues with it outside of LA, but it seems people have issues with all of the big cancer organizations. Is there any saving Livestrong? I'm hoping that without LA's involvement maybe something good still can come out of it.

Also my most comfortable cycling kit, helmet, and sunglasses are Livestrong (and expensive) I really don't want to wast such good equipment. But it feels awkward wearing it because people think it's in support of LA, but I purchased it because I work in oncology.

mr Marv: they don't even donate to research anymore

Mr. Marv, I wouldn't worry about the kit, fortunately you are in the city of black and yellow.

@W Roger mr Marv: they don't even donate to research anymore

As a medical statistician, Livestrong (uh ... DopeStrong?) not giving to research is fine with me.

"NCI’s budget for FY 2010 was $5.1 billion, excluding the additional $1.3 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds received by the Institute for spending in FY 2009 and FY 2010."

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding

That is aside from massive civic charity donations (that mainly stays in massive civic charities, but...)

Armstrong's cash is just a drop in the bucket for research.

Medical research charities have another problem, too, in my opinion. I just don't think it's appropriate for the charitable giving of folks like me should go to millionaire surgeons. When, after all, we could be giving to Bike Pgh.

I'm not an Armstrong fan (putting it mildly), but the mission of LiveStong as I see it - helping sick, worried, shell-shocked cancer patients navigate through the maze of bureaucracy the folks need to to find the numerous programs and funding available to them - is not only a valid goal, it's a mission that does best with at BIG! NAME! attached to it.

There are some things Lance does very, very well. Being a BIG ! ! NAME ! ! ! is one of them.

Glad to provide the board with another fact bomb!

@ Mick I agree with you about Livestrong. It is a resource that is used often in my workplace. Example. Doctor recommends treatment. Patient doesn't understand, is unsure, or unwilling. Printout info from Livestrong website. Same info as what doctor said but with so so much more info, resources, survivor testimonies, and other info. Helps patient make informed decision.

It seems sort of ironic that Livestrong ends up being used as a way to get people to use drug therapy. Perhaps Armstrong is a good spokesman after all.

Edit -- didn't mean to imply anything negative about cancer therapy involving drugs; if you can cure cancer via exercise that's great. But I do know that drugs are sometimes involved.

Not just drugs but any treatment, even if its just exercise. Never said anything about drugs.

What I'm hoping for is a complete separation between LA and Livestrong. I'm hoping that Livestrong can become something major and relevant in the fight against cancer.

I'm also hoping that people understand the fact that all my Livestrong stuff was way to expensive and comfortable to stop wearing and not give me grief about it.

@Mick n' @Marv : first, my hat's off to you for working in that field, I don't know that I could do it. Second, IANALFE (i am not a lance fan either) but I do appreciate hearing a balanced story about something good that's being done. thanks.

This whole thing is one big joke. Sure Lance did what they all did, or most likely. Who do you give those titles to? Jan? The entire field did the same crap. All this does is hurt Livestrong at this point. That calladeral damage is too great. If they had half a brain, they would have started over and forgot the past. What are they going to do, strip everyone that won since the 70's? Do what football did. Just look forward and tell the riders, we aren't messing around and mean it. You can't go backwards. Lance's career has been over for years. He won those tittles and that is that. They can't give those titles to anyone else, because they have to check all that crap all the way down the line. I will bet the top 20 all were doping. Maybe everyone. This is poorly handled and is just making the sport a joke. Don't dredge up old stuff. Start new and look forward.

at the end of the day I'm still showing up to the first team decaf ride next year in full USPS kit. Those memories (as a very young kid) can't ever be erased. I just can't be mad. Its weird. Bonds, and Gatlin, and Armstrong can't NOT be heroes in my mind. Not anymore at least.

They were great Tours. I wanted Jan to win later, because I could related to some dude that drinks beer and eats pizza. He was much cooler than Lance, but I really respect Lance for pursuing a cancer cure through his foundation. Of course he has stepped down from that role and maybe the foundation will not be the same. All because of this witch hunt that went backwards. You can't go that far back and change history. They should have caught him when he was racing, not several years later. He is the 7 time Tour Champ. Jan even said, I am happy with my second place finishes.

via NY publisher Melville House: Lance Armstrong gets reshelved. "A bookstore in Glasgow aims to add insult to injury by reclassifying [Armstrong's] memoir Every Second Counts as fiction."

I think we should stop tarring all the riders in the Tour de France with the same "doping" brush. Of course, we've heard in testimony from riders who were accused of doping, and who testified in exchange for leniency. But it's unfair to the other riders who performed well to assume that they, too, doped and just didn't get caught.

For example, in the notorious 1998 Tour Bobby Julich finished third and so far as I can tell from Internet search, didn't dope. It really isn't fair to assume he did, just because others did.

It is fun for people to try and topple the former world's number one cyclist especially since he is an American and not from the UK. IMHO, it doesn't add insult or anything really. The whole field was doing the same thing. Lance won the 7 regardless. His closest rival Jan even credits him and says he is happy with second. This is backwards and if you don't catch someone when they are competing, sorry you lose. You just can rewrite history like that. Not to mention the amazing effort Lance has done for cancer. Of course he has now stepped down. Nice. Catch the athletes when they are competing, or shut up. There are no go backs. Who do the titles go to? Just say there was no tour since the 70's? I guess that would be fair.

From the google:

"From Tyler Hamilton's book, about the 1998 Festina Tour de France debacle and aftermath:

"The race was won by Marco Pantani, the Italian climber, and dominated by the French team Cofidis, whose riders took three of the top seven spots, with none other than Bobby Julich finishing third. Cofidis's performance sparked rumors that the team had kept using EPO after the rest of the peloton had stopped; nothing was ever proven. The rest of us rode paniagua, dragged ass, survived."

And there is a footnote to that passage:

"Cofidis's 1998 performance was statistically unusual. Over the rest of their careers, the top four Cofidis finishers (Julich, Christophe Rinero, Roland Meier, and Kevin Livingston) rode the Tour a collective fifteen times, averaging 45th place."

Smoke fire etc."

Just look forward and tell the riders, we aren't messing around and mean it. You can't go backwards.

the problem with this sentiment is that all it does is encourage riders to resort to greater measures to circumvent the rules. if you can only be caught the moment it happens, the rules prohibiting doping have no teeth. riders simply think, as lance did, great, i'll just take something they can't test for.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODgzNA&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=%2FTemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI8%2Flayout.asp%3FMenuID%3DMTYzMDQ%26LangId%3D1

There really was no Tour back then I guess. Sure was fun to see Lance and Jan riding through the mountains. I was more of a Jan fan. Always like that style of drinking beer and eating pizza. Anyway, I am going to forget the Tour and not bother with it. I am not going to watch a race where they can go back in time and change everything. What would be the point? You catch the person while they are in the Tour or you don't. There is going to be no winner during those years? What about back in the 70's? 80's? They didn't use anything like other pro athletes?

Yeah, but what are you going to do? If, as it appears, Lance won partly or mostly because he was better at doping than others, well, are you just going to ignore it? He got away with it long enough, so let it go? That would send a pretty bad message to future competitors, wouldn't it? This way everyone knows that even if they're using something that no one can test for right now, as Lance and others were, they're still at risk of losing everything if they dope. I think we want potential dopers to be thinking about that.

It's also part of the contract you sign when you get your pro license. Retroactive testing exists because the dopers are always one step ahead of the tests. How can you design a test for something that hasn't been used yet?

@cburch if it wasn't used and it wasn't illegal then making it illegal later should not be retrospectively introduced into the past.

And if it wasn't used then we don't know effect of this substance on a body.

One of the things that reading about the history of doping makes really clear is that doping was accepted practice until fairly recently. So we could either accept that, and go back to cyclists doping themselves with whatever they want -- and they used some pretty awful things, and this was before modern pharamacology -- or we can try to stop it. I see the latest investigation as an attempt to change the culture and stop it. So the people who were part of that culture, definitely including Lance, get punished somewhat unfairly because even though what they did was officially illegal (EPO was definitely illegal; they just didn't have a test for it) at the time, they had to do it to compete, at least at some level, perhaps not as much as Lance, who knows. But that is the only way to stop it. There has to be a cutoff somewhere, and people at that point will get "unfairly" punished. And couldn't happen to a nicer guy, eh?

I like the decision not to name a winner of the Tours that LA has been stripped of. It would be a mess figuring out who to name a winner.

When I find the link I'll post it but I read today that the 11 cyclist who came forward to admit doping with LA have also named other cyclist in addition to LA. Apparently the USADA was only interested in LA but passed on to the UCI names of 30+ cyclist that have also been named.

A Tweet from yesterday:

"If anyone is feeling worthless today, just think, you have now got the same amount of Tour De France titles as Lance Armstrong" #VeryProud

— Chris Rock (@chrisrockoz) October 22, 2012

Charity Navigator has always given LIVESTRONG high ratings as a charity. Does anyone else feel like Lance's attorneys and their relentless attacks on everyone prevent you from having any sympathy for Lance? What a mess.

What was the famous Eddie Merckx quote on doping? Something like " we took stuff to make us less tired-today they take stuff to make them better" I think Tyler Hamilton also said modern doping was like being on rocket fuel.

I do not think anyone can say if Lance would have won if he had not been doping. Also, I never like when people say "everyone else was doing it" as a justification. That is what the Nazis on trial in Nuremberg.

OK that being said-regardless of what you think of Lance-LIVESTRONG has done some good things. Can a good thing come out of a bad thing?

Finally! Lance = Nazi!

I was wondering how long that would take.

We can all move on now.

@Mikhail

My understanding is that EPO has been illegal all along; they were just micro-dosing to avoid detection. Circumventing the tests != clean / legal

C'mon now. I am not calling Lance a nazi-just questioning the rationale of "if everyone else is doing it-it is ok". A number of posts argue that all the doping he did was OK because everyone else did it and I reject that logic. I understand it, and don't think I can judge the guy, but don't think that means it is ok. It really bums me out SO MUCH!! This guy really meant a lot to me personally. I am a former BIGTIME Lance fan and a 2x cancer survivor. I would get on my bicycle after different surgeries and think of him when I was only able to ride 1/2 mile. I just wish he had admitted it and didn't go around attacking everyone who finally DID admit it. I also read the entire USADA report. He definitely engaged in years of threats and intimidation personally and through his lawyers. There seems to be this idea floating around that he is just this great athlete who got sucked into doping innocently, but the report clearly show that was not the case. Sorry if the Nazi thing offended anyone.

(Just taking a good-natured poke - no offense taken. It just seems like with certain message board threads, or "comments" to news stories, that it is only a matter of time before a "Nazi" mention is made...)

@ALMKLM what are you, some kind of Godwin's Law Nazi?

@Pierce

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/Resources/Q-and-A/EPO-Detection/

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WADA/History/WADA-History/

"EPO was included in the IOC's list of prohibited substances in 1990." But it was in use since at least 1980 (I don't know when ICU included it into list).

Problem with EPO detection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping#Detection_of_EPO_use, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gel_electrophoresis

is that you have to exclude any other possibility of contamination with proteins.

@cburch: everybody knows Hitler doped...

EPO became banned when the Olympics began to allow all professionals athletes to compete. 1990 sounds about the right time. All professional sports groups and organizations had to agree to WADA testing standards if they wanted to compete.

LMFAO — @AtLeastMyKidsLoveMe — That is because calling people nazis is listed in the "Liberal Playbook" as what you do when someone disagrees with you.

Calling someone a "Commie" or a "Socialist" when they disagree with you is the "Conservative Playbook" equivalent.

Bill Clinton discusses Lance Armstrong's downfall at Ohio town hall Q&A event.

Who I feel bad for in all of this. He finished 133rd in the tour he mentions in the article. He's the true loser from all of this.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/how-dopers-stole-the-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

Jon said: "Yeah, but what are you going to do? If, as it appears, Lance won partly or mostly because he was better at doping than others, well, are you just going to ignore it? "

Yes, you do ignore it because it is too late. What about the '70s Steelers? The line all benched over 500lbs. Do you know what they were doing back then? What did the NFL do? They put a stop to that stacking of steroids and the NFL did change. There is still some problems, but lets face it, there is no one out there that has Webster's arms these days. Of course they are all dead, but they didn't know or whatever. You need to fix the problems ahead and not try and rewrite history. I feel as if the entire experience of watching the Tour back then didn't happen. A waste of time. That is pretty empty considering I was a huge Jan fan and was routing for him, but enjoyed those races. There are no winners. Those races wasted my time. F them. I am not going to bother with it because they are just going to change the outcome later anyway, so why bother. They lost me as a fan and I am sure there are others that just won't bother with it.

You need to look forward, not backwards. What about Lance's Livestrong that he stepped down from? Is that enough collateral damage? Who paid for this witch hunt? Was it worth it? It was personal and stupid.

The TDF has reached the levels of professional wrestling and they should call them self sports entertainment. 

I saw on the evening news the TDF is asking LA to give back all the prize money he won. I recall back in the day he was bragging in interviews that he always spilt his winnings evenly with his team. If this is true all his doping team members should man up & give back the money.

gg it's like those other commercials - "you didn't see that". All these years I thought I was standing there in Paris watching Lance win his 6th tour, but I just got a cease and desist letter from the UCI informing me I didn't actually see it, and I should retract any such statements I've ever made to the contrary.

I agree with W Roger. I really felt sorry for that guy. But, to be able to compete at that level, and to do it without doping, is pretty impressive. He can hold his head up high.

I don't think any of them can hold their head up high. They all did something to win that they shouldn't have. The whole sport is a joke. Best to enjoy local races, but who knows what goes on with them?

Back in Austin and just layin' around

What a prick.

I think that picture is hilarious.

I like the picture. He is a motivated person. Not sure what he is going to do with himself now? Sadly his motivation can't go towards Livestrong where it was well put to use. Personally, I feel that is bigger than the Tour de France. We are talking about cancer research. Doesn't get much more important than that.

I'm sure he'll figure something out. Like maybe he could start competing in some sport he's not yet banned from, which takes a lenient attitude towards doping. Professional wrestling? Could be. Or maybe he'll just settle down with his money and spend his time defending himself against all the people he's libeled when they said he doped. The options are wide open for him.

He and Tanya Harding should get together. She could coach him skating, he could coach her cycling.