Fair enough! I guess I've picked a fight I can't win 
Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping offences - Washington Post
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Or you're just clutching straws.
Originally Posted by SirAF
Why did you delete the comment?
All three cases are morally wrong but Lance's issue just affects the people around the world more than either Rooney or Giggs' issue. Also maybe what Rooney and Giggs did may not be affecting anyone big outside their family since it is their personal issue. What Lance has done for the cancer community for the last 15 years has been so big and the lives he has touched and affected are far greater. I am not saying all his work has been undone here. I know cancer and cycling are like two separate things that kinda got mixed up here. But the fact is his story affected and inspired so many millions of people worldwide. Everyone just thought he won everything on his own even after surviving cancer.
Why did you delete the comment?
All three cases are morally wrong but Lance's issue just affects the people around the world more than either Rooney or Giggs' issue. Also maybe what Rooney and Giggs did may not be affecting anyone big outside their family since it is their personal issue. What Lance has done for the cancer community for the last 15 years has been so big and the lives he has touched and affected are far greater. I am not saying all his work has been undone here. I know cancer and cycling are like two separate things that kinda got mixed up here. But the fact is his story affected and inspired so many millions of people worldwide. Everyone just thought he won everything on his own even after surviving cancer.
Can't argue with that.
I deleted it because it was not very well thought-through, due to reasons you are touching upon here. Anyway, I was just trying to make a point about me thinking that he is being treated unfairly.
Not defending what he did, but the does not deserve the "death penalty" (meaning being banned for life, not the literal meaning), as he put it himself. And yes, he deserves his suspension and need to pay back prize money. However, I think that this great athlete (and he was either way how you are looking at it) should be allowed to run in sanctioned marathons or triathlons before he is too old. There is not much to gain there, other then him being allowed to do what he loves the most.
It's quite likely given how freely they bribed other teams/referees under Bernard Tapie, particularly with the PED infrastructure and culture already embedded in cycling in France.
Yay, lets give the most notorious sports doper ever exactly what he wants. That will send out a great message in the fight against doping!
Armstrong's actual physical doping is almost a side issue now. The guy amassed a $100m fortune solely on the back of his lies. He then proceeded to aggressively destroy the credibility of anyone who dared to tell the truth about him.
His Oprah interview was a farce anyway, everyone with a brain knows that he is lying about his comeback. His biological passport was stated as having 'a million in one chance' of belonging to a clean athlete. There is little doubt in my mind that he paid the UCI off and that he was doping before his cancer too.
The guy actually deserves to be in prison, in my opinion. What he did might not strictly be a crime but he managed to amass a fortune via an elaborate fraud.
How do you know that he is a 'great' athlete? He never won anything significant that he can prove being clean for. It is more likely that he is just the guy that EPO had the most profound effect on and the guy who pursued and ran the most effective and sophisticated doping program.
As I said above, I can't win this argument. I can appreciate some of your points, but I'm not, personally, going to hang Armstrong.
I've made my views on him clear, and I'm not going to further discuss the subject of Lance Armstrong in public again. That does not do any good.
Of course he does.
This is the Cycling Federation or what ever its called sending a message to the other cyclists about doping. If this is what they do to the 'supposedly' best, high profile cyclist of all time, then the same will go for the others. If you get caught, your life is basically over. At least if you are Lance, you have ways of earning money due to your name but what about someone is below par and gets caught?
Agreed. He has done this to himself. He wasn't held down and forcibly injected with the drugs, he made the choice, therefore he suffers the consequences. Think of the damage he's done to others, the distress he's caused launching legal action against people trying to unmask him previously, the damage he tried to cause to others reputations in order to defend his position. How is it fair that he ever be allowed to return to the arena of professional sport having betrayed it so exhaustively? The guy is rumoured to be worth $100 million, how much would he be worth without the help of drugs? Cheating has given him everything he has. We'd all be happy to see someone in jail, all their money gone, their luxury lifestyle gone, if it had been earned fraudulently. In effect, that's exactly what Armstrong has done, committed a fraudulent act in order to gain his lifestyle.
Another money spinner for poor old Lancey.
Mind you, could be an interesting story if done properly.
Are there clean, elite-level, trophy winning cyclists? I don't really care much about this sport, it's as boring as it gets, in my opinion. But the general idea I have is that most (recent) past figures of the sport have at some point being accused of doping.
Would it be too naive to think that all of them (at the top top bracket) do it and we are witnessing a collective fraud being gradually unveiled.
I don't disagree with what is happening to Armstrong. Being the highest profiled athlete ever in his sport, it's a wonderful example that it's being set for future generations of cyclists and other sportsmen. That said I maintain my (fairly superficial) admiration for him as an athlete, as I don't think he was doing any different than most his competitors. And it's fairly easy to understand why and how it happened, and also fairly easy to understand why he lied and denied it all for ages. Certainly not an example of character, but are any of his past competitors?
Would it be too naive to think that all of them (at the top top bracket) do it and we are witnessing a collective fraud being gradually unveiled.
I don't disagree with what is happening to Armstrong. Being the highest profiled athlete ever in his sport, it's a wonderful example that it's being set for future generations of cyclists and other sportsmen. That said I maintain my (fairly superficial) admiration for him as an athlete, as I don't think he was doing any different than most his competitors. And it's fairly easy to understand why and how it happened, and also fairly easy to understand why he lied and denied it all for ages. Certainly not an example of character, but are any of his past competitors?
He should change his name to Lance Regulararms.
(Thanks Ellen).
(Thanks Ellen).
I find the entire thing rather distasteful. Maybe I am just overly pragmatic about the entire sport, but I understood that Lance and all those guys were taking something and I didn't care.
I also understood the need for them to keep it secret, because it was cheating, however I think that the cheating was so widespread in the sport that it could hardly be called cheating when we actually define cheating.
I also initially thought that the guys most recently going after him really didn't have much evidence other than understanding the depth of cheating in the sport and knowing Lance was almost certainly involved in it as well.
I never really cared about the feel good story about Lance, because I personally think deifying people is silly. People deified Lance based on a PR image and a feel good story combined with an amazing athletic achievement. It's still an amazing athletic achievement by the way. Now however people are upset because they allowed themselves to be duped.
I don't blame them for being upset, but I do blame them for being naive. The sport is so unbelievably dirty that I would have been more shocked if Lance actually wasn't doing something.
Ultimately I think Lance is just the latest victim of the medias desire to build people up and then to destroy them later. There is nothing the media likes more when it comes to celebrities than the fall.
Lance was/is a cnut. Lance was almost certainly the greatest cyclist in the sports history. Lance bullied a lot of people. Lance inspired and through his narrative inspired tens of millions and raised billions for cancer.
Basically, Lance has achieved more and done more for society that most people. Most people are douchey, and most people love nothing more than to shit on someone who is more successful than they can ever dream of being. Now it is PC to shit on Lance. Probably not going to be a popular post, but then that sort of supports my point here doesn't it.
Yeah we get it, you love Lance, you admired him greatly. Now you chose to ignore the facts about his case i.e. the way in which the drugs that he was using affect different people and the focus and funding of his doping programme.
He was the best cheat whose body reacted best to EPO, what a hero, what an athlete - what a guy. Revere and rejoice.
Eddy Merckx says hello.
Technically, Armstrong hasn't won the Tour De France, so it's kind of hard to justify that statement, anyway.
Stick doping in there and you will never know what the true level of human performances are. Everyone reacts to doping differently, and not everyone dopes to the same levels (indeed, some won't dope at all).
He is probably the greatest doper and greatest fraud in cycling of all time (and you could make an argument for all sport). He's probably a good cyclist and athlete because he does do triathlons but for all intents and purposes, we probably won't ever know how good he was at cycling.
Not even close...
You think cycling was invented in 1999 or something?
Like x42bn6 said, he doesn't compare with Eddy Merckx. But I rate cyclists like Hinault, De Vlaeminck, Anquetil, Coppi, Bartali, etc higher as well. Some people seem to forget that cycling is more than just the Tour de France or even the three big tours.
Isn't it pointless to even discuss the farcical idea that Armstrong was 'the greatest cyclist in the sports history' when prior results strongly suggest he'd never have achieved anything truly special without doping?
What he wants most is to compete but he's shown he is not capable of real competition; he prefers to cheat and win.
The best solution is for him to be unable to compete in any sanctioned sport, ever.
I think a ban from all sports is OTT. It should have been kept to the sport he cheated at. IMO it should only have been cycling.
I'd just like to point out, that if Lance's comeback was found to hold EPO, then why the feck was he not pinged like Alberto Contador was? Yes a 1 in a million chance, but he didn't fail a test in that time period. If he did indeed cheat, then it makes a complete mockery of the system and this super fantastic blood passport that the UCI keep waving around as the bee's knees in the battle against doping.
Also i'd have money on Lance joining at somepoint WADA and using his experiences to help rat out cheats etc.
Also i'd have money on Lance joining at somepoint WADA and using his experiences to help rat out cheats etc.
'they are probably hiding in the toilets when the testers come, now for my $1000 dollar consultancy fee'.
I kind of agree with what Nucks is saying.
I wouldn't doubt it (as long as the money and fame are right).
He never did (well, probably once) so that's no argument. We're literally talking about a one in a million shot here. Not even Mother Teresa deserves the benefit of the doubt at them odds.
Maybe, but even if you ignore the doping, his palmares is no where near that of many other riders. Except winning the Tour 7 times, he didn't win much else of note in his career. World champion once (his pre-cancer years) and some smaller pre-Tour races. That's about it.
Compare that to Merckx' 500+ victories in his career, including 5 Tours, 5 Giros, a Vuelta, three WCs, 30 victories in the so called 'classics', 34 Tour stage victories (more than anyone else). In his prime, he won about a third of the races he participated in. Which is absurd.
Yes but we know why he got away with it in the first career. How he got away with it in the second career with the blood passport is beyond me. Putting it simply, it may be a one in a million shot, but it seems there was enough doubt to not fail the test.
I don't really care anymore but if the passport didn't work then, than its a complete failure.
http://fox59.com/2013/02/01/lance-a...r-reflects-on-treating-cyclist/#axzz2JhN608i3
It’s hard to find any one more willing to support Lance Armstrong than the man who helped save his life.
Two weeks after Armstrong went on TV to admit he’d been lying, the Indianapolis doctor who treated him is talking about the cyclist’s tarnished legacy, and Armstrong’s enduring legacy in the cancer community.
“What he’s done for the cancer community has been unprecedented,” said Dr. Lawrence Einhorn, the first-ever Lance Armstrong Foundation Professor of Oncology at IU Medical School.
“We’ve treated a lot of important people and athletes, but no one has done for the cancer community what he has done,” said Dr. Einhorn, who watched the Oprah interview last month on TV.
During the exchange with Oprah, the embattled cyclist answered just about every question, except for one. He refused to give an answer when asked about whether he talked about using performance enhancing drugs while undergoing cancer treatment at Indiana University Hospital in Indianapolis in October 1996. That’s when he was being treated by Dr. Einhorn.
In the interview, Winfrey asked Armstrong if Betsy Andreu’s claims of what she heard at IU Hospital were true. Andreau claimed she had overheard Armstrong tell doctors he had taken performance enhancing drugs.
Oprah Winfrey: “Was Betsy telling the truth about the Indiana hospital – overhearing you in 1996?”
Lance Armstrong: “I’m not going to take that on, I’m laying down on that one.”
Oprah Winfrey: “Was Betsy lying?”
Lance Armstrong: “I’m going to put that one down.”
In an exclusive interview with Fox59, Dr. Einhorn said if any of that happened, it wasn’t while he was in the room.
“Believe me, I would remember that,” Einhorn said. “He may have had some friends who were there, or some cycling buddies… but I can’t imagine a doctor asking a patient a question like that.”
Einhorn said, for him, the information would not be medically relevant.
These days, he’s choosing to remember Armstrong, not for lying, but for living, and helping others.
“He cheated in a sport,” Einhorn said. “He didn’t murder anyone, he didn’t steal money from anyone. He’s still a hero for people in the cancer community, and let’s be honest, if he didn’t dope, he would not have won seven straight Tour de Frances, because so many people were doping at that time. If he didn’t dope, and finished 17th, there wouldn’t have been a Livestrong foundation that helped millions of people with cancer.”
It’s hard to find any one more willing to support Lance Armstrong than the man who helped save his life.
Two weeks after Armstrong went on TV to admit he’d been lying, the Indianapolis doctor who treated him is talking about the cyclist’s tarnished legacy, and Armstrong’s enduring legacy in the cancer community.
“What he’s done for the cancer community has been unprecedented,” said Dr. Lawrence Einhorn, the first-ever Lance Armstrong Foundation Professor of Oncology at IU Medical School.
“We’ve treated a lot of important people and athletes, but no one has done for the cancer community what he has done,” said Dr. Einhorn, who watched the Oprah interview last month on TV.
During the exchange with Oprah, the embattled cyclist answered just about every question, except for one. He refused to give an answer when asked about whether he talked about using performance enhancing drugs while undergoing cancer treatment at Indiana University Hospital in Indianapolis in October 1996. That’s when he was being treated by Dr. Einhorn.
In the interview, Winfrey asked Armstrong if Betsy Andreu’s claims of what she heard at IU Hospital were true. Andreau claimed she had overheard Armstrong tell doctors he had taken performance enhancing drugs.
Oprah Winfrey: “Was Betsy telling the truth about the Indiana hospital – overhearing you in 1996?”
Lance Armstrong: “I’m not going to take that on, I’m laying down on that one.”
Oprah Winfrey: “Was Betsy lying?”
Lance Armstrong: “I’m going to put that one down.”
In an exclusive interview with Fox59, Dr. Einhorn said if any of that happened, it wasn’t while he was in the room.
“Believe me, I would remember that,” Einhorn said. “He may have had some friends who were there, or some cycling buddies… but I can’t imagine a doctor asking a patient a question like that.”
Einhorn said, for him, the information would not be medically relevant.
These days, he’s choosing to remember Armstrong, not for lying, but for living, and helping others.
“He cheated in a sport,” Einhorn said. “He didn’t murder anyone, he didn’t steal money from anyone. He’s still a hero for people in the cancer community, and let’s be honest, if he didn’t dope, he would not have won seven straight Tour de Frances, because so many people were doping at that time. If he didn’t dope, and finished 17th, there wouldn’t have been a Livestrong foundation that helped millions of people with cancer.”
Doctor says that he never asked him if he was taking other drugs? Weird doctor. You wouldn't get away with that if Dr House was doing the exam.
Lance is in the news again, and while this is a necro, Eddy Merckx was doping too.
In fact, I believe that there is substantial evidence to suggest that tour winners going back to the 19th century have been using substances that if were not initially banned, were banned later. I mean, professional cycling has NEVER EVER BEEN CLEAN.
Eddie Merckx has multiple doping scandals, and he was booted out of several races. He failed doping tests four times. Imagine if we had the ability to go back and test all the "B" samples from every champion of the Tour from the 19th century until now with modern testing processes. How many of those guys do you think were clean? I'd guess, conservatively less than 5%. Again, Lance has been drug through the mud, and "stripped" of his titles, but he still won those races. He still won more than anyone else.
Technology has just caught up with doping, at least for that generation. Perhaps the ability to test a decade after the fact will help clean the sport up, but to seriously suggest guys like Eddie Merckx were clean and therefore better than Lance is absolutely absurd. There is a naivety involved in this that is pretty disgusting. Merckx got away with it because he pulled out some pathetic excuses, and being that he was competing in the stone age before doping corruption was completely understood, he got away with it. The sport has been dirty at the top since its inception. Guys were dying in the 19th century from massive stim cocktails of caffeine and cocaine. Later they got into amphetamines.
Again, to remind you, Eddie Merckx failed 4 drug tests, was kicked out of several races. Lance never failed a test, he was never booted out of a race. Lance was doping. Eddie wasn't? I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
You need to read what I quoted again.
Nothing to do with doping.
I never suggested Merckx was completely clean. I just said that Merckx was better (just look at his race record). Even factoring in the doping, it's hard to compare Merckx with Armstrong (Lance got stripped of all titles since 1998!).
I don't see the point in chucking around random statistics like 5% of riders being clean. This link suggests it's in the region of 30-40% in terms of Tour de France years' winners being clean.
Is the sport clean? No, but Armstrong was taking stronger stuff for longer, and his record is still inferior to Merckx's.
Nothing to do with doping.
I never suggested Merckx was completely clean. I just said that Merckx was better (just look at his race record). Even factoring in the doping, it's hard to compare Merckx with Armstrong (Lance got stripped of all titles since 1998!).
I don't see the point in chucking around random statistics like 5% of riders being clean. This link suggests it's in the region of 30-40% in terms of Tour de France years' winners being clean.
Is the sport clean? No, but Armstrong was taking stronger stuff for longer, and his record is still inferior to Merckx's.
You say that its nothing to do with doping and then you use that as your argument. Comparing drugs used and records doesn't really work. Armstrong was up against people taking the same hard core drugs whereas Merckx was up against people drinking too much coffee. I've never seen Merckx ride so I can't comment on him being better/worse than Armstrong but my guess is like most sports it is very difficult to compare across decades.
I bet the wiki article it inaccurate. Not too long ago all of lances wins would have been considered clean and now we all know it is not. My guess is that there are many others on that list that were not hounded like Armstrong was and they've simply gone unnoticed perhaps even purposefully to give the sport at least a shred of credibility.
I use doping in my argument to show that even despite the doping, Merckx's record is superior.
I don't know why you assume everyone on the circuit doesn't have access to similar things. They did have performance-enhancing drugs in Merckx's day, you know, just as everyone who wanted to do EPO back in the 90s could get their hands on it.
You still think Lance is a scapegoat? Seriously? Just look at the list of sanctions done by USADA: http://www.usada.org/sanctions/
Lance isn't a scapegoat. USADA and WADA go after anyone they think is doping. Maybe they haven't found all the cheats yet - but then again, maybe they are clean. Innocent until guilty. Be sceptical about their cleanliness, sure, but to think that USADA and WADA care about the sport's credibility needs a tin-foil hat, quite frankly. Maybe the UCI care - but the doping agencies sure don't.
Again, both were doping and both were up against others who were doping. Armstrong was up against dopers who were using drugs/methods relevant to their era whereas Merckx was up against dopers from another era. Therefore, to say Armstrong had an advantage over merckx because he used more serious drugs is absurd. You can't compare like that. It would be like saying armtrongs record is not as good because he had access to a better bike.
Not sure why you think I believe others didn't have access. I believe they all have access and most use(d) it. That's precisely my argument. Both riders doped and both were up against other dopers.
Scapegoat? Absolutely not. Spacegoat perhaps. Actually, the only thing that bothers me is that others are not treated the same way. They all should be hung drawn and quartered like he was. Why arent others getting life bans in all sports? The only reason is because he won so many tours and to me that is irrelevant. Cheats are cheats.
By the way, when he was winning the tours I hated this guy. Aside from the amazing work he's done for cancer I still do. I just dislike hypocrisy.
You said Merckx was up against those who drank too much coffee while he was getting found doping. I'm saying that's silly because people were doping too in Merckx's era, not just "coffee".
Because it's not just doping Lance is getting done for. The doping is arguably the least of his offences, in many ways. He threatened his teammates to comply with the doping regime, putting others in danger. He covered up evidence. He may have bribed or blackmailed the testers to get away with positive tests. He spoke out against those who called the sport dirty, such as Filippo Simeoni. He committed perjury. He did all of this for over a decade. This isn't just doping during a tour - this is systemic bullying and cheating. That is why he is getting a life ban, rather than a ban for a number of years.
His foundation does very little for cancer. It donates little, if anything, to actual research - it's just support and a useful PR facade for Lance.
Just support. Wow I can't believe you'd just dismiss that. I'm in research myself and I have far more admiration for those who provide support than my fellow researchers.
Systemic bullying isn't worthy of a lifetime ban. Systemic cheating is but then they are all systemic cheats. Why do they get to compete? Ban them for life and use the same rules for all. This reminds me a little of Rio's ban. 9 months for missing a test versus others who were actually positive and got less.
Absolutely this!! We all know Armstrong is a cheat and has been rightly stripped of his TDF titles. However, if he got a ban for cheating, then it should apply to all the others i.e. Schleck or Contador for a start. The authorities have turned a blind eye on letting these two take part in this years TDF when in reality they should have been banned. This would have sent an even clearer message to all those who want to win through cheating. I am not a great fan of the bible, but I do believe that this particular expression rings true for the TDF: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There is not one rider who has ever won the TDF cleanly, yet they make an example out of Armstrong, yet by the same token treat the likes of Mercxx like a hero. They were both cheats, nothing more, nothing less.
Threatening others to keep up with the doping regime, with drugs that are potentially fatal? That is worse than doping. He could have got someone else killed with that.
Name me someone else who doped for over a decade, bullied his teammates into following the same doping regime, bullied his peers who spoke out against doping in sport, threatened legal action for positive tests or doping, dodged tests, covered up positive tests, and was finally caught.
This is what I mean by systemic - no cyclist has done anything close.
The rules are applied consistently. Lance is the exception - because he dodged tests and covered up positive ones.
USADA and WADA codes state that Contador should have been banned for 2 years as a first offence, and that was backdated to the time of his offence. He was stripped of all his titles from then onwards, too. He's now served his ban and is free to compete.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/feb/06/alberto-contador-ban-tour-cycling
Personally, I don't believe first offences should carry life bans, although there should be a serious punishment nevertheless.
Are you suggesting there is substantial evidence that, say, Bradley Wiggins doped? I'd like to see that.
Not all Tour de France winners have been convicted of doping. In the absence of such convictions, you should presume them innocent until proven guilty.
Nobody is making an example out of Armstrong. It's simply that his offences are so much more severe than a blood bag and needle that his punishment needs to be upped in a similar fashion.
Freud is pissing himself in his grave.