Uhm, How did you get to that conclusion?
Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping offences - Washington Post
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Uhm, How did you get to that conclusion?
They need money to pay their riders. Seeing as how sponsorship money is crucial to keeping cycling teams running, they took their money and were content to break the rules, so it's an abuse of the agreement.
Never said a word about his competitors, or his greatness or otherwise in the annals of cycling history, just purely on a physical level, even riding in race again is a huge achievement.
The physical toll of chemo and radio therapy is immense, and take a long time to recover from. To get back to the top of any sport, albeit with the help of the unicorn blood, is an out of this world achievement and I would take my hat off to him for it.
In a sporting sense, well as I said, he's a cheat.
That's another argument and it will be settled by the law suit which is coming up. But I don't think US Postal has a leg to stand on - they profited as much from this as anyone else. They got their moneys worth in terms of exposure during those years.
I'd be inclined to agree if they were privy to any information about what was happening within the team and turned a blind eye to it. The fact that they profited from it doesn't really change the fact that they can still label it as an abuse of the agreement.
I agree, but I'm not so sure that they did not know about it. I guess the upcoming trial will be the judge (literally) of that.
As for sponsorship money, cry me a river.
They're still getting mileage out of their dollar.
They're still getting mileage out of their dollar.
They certainly are! That will probably be the main defence from the Armstrong camp - along with any evidence that might indicate that US Postal knew about it. If such proof would even exist.
I doubt many cycling fans give a crap about the sponsors. At the end of the day, though, they're businesses. I'm not surprised they're seeking something out of it. Their greedy nature couldn't possibly resist piggybacking on the entire thing.
How can you possibly call Lance Armstrong the biggest cheat? The highest profile cheater caught? Sure. However you can't possibly know who the biggest cheat was, when virtually (possibly even 100%) of every TDF winner since its inception up until recently WAS FRIGGING CHEATING.
If we had blood samples for every winner of the TDF, this would be kind of a non-story. They were all doping. From cocaine and meth in the early days to the more scientific EPO and test of today.
Oh yes. And a bigger cheat than the programme which the East Germans ran? Hardly.
I can say it because USADA's report is damning enough to allow me to.
There's nothing equivocal about that. The fact that they were "ALL FRIGGING CHEATING" doesn't mitigate what he did.
Only on the caf would I expect to see a defense of Lance Armstrong, a nasty, bullying cheat with absolutely no redeeming qualities. The fact that he bullied, pressured and coerced others into cheating too and deliberately set out to ruin the lives and careers of those who stood up to him says all you need to know about his character. Oh, and he continues to lie about the extent of his doping to this day. What a champ.
i can't believe there's still people defending that cnut
Only on the caf would I expect to see a defense of Lance Armstrong, a nasty, bullying cheat with absolutely no redeeming qualities. The fact that he bullied, pressured and coerced others into cheating too and deliberately set out to ruin the lives and careers of those who stood up to him says all you need to know about his character. Oh, and he continues to lie about the extent of his doping to this day. What a champ.
It still makes me laugh that people think he doesn't have some kind of personality disorder, and that he's merely a similar kind of cheat as, say, Levi Leipheimer. As I alluded to in my original contribution to this thread, it's not as if he cheated and politely declined to comment and merely rejected the accusations. He actively went after people if they weren't on-board.
Last edited:
Only on the caf would I expect to see a defense of Lance Armstrong, a nasty, bullying cheat with absolutely no redeeming qualities. The fact that he bullied, pressured and coerced others into cheating too and deliberately set out to ruin the lives and careers of those who stood up to him says all you need to know about his character. Oh, and he continues to lie about the extent of his doping to this day. What a champ.
That is certainly not true.
Oh, what are his redeeming qualities? "Determination" hardly counts when he uses that determination to ruin others' lives and use the "I beat cancer" angle to manipulate others into defending him too.
You deserve a proper answer, and I'll try to give it to you.
He gave so much to so many people, in terms of his charity work. I don't give a monkey's ass about how it came about. He helped people. Period. I think, honestly, we can all agree that is a redeeming quality. Oh and he sent me a personal email which is always redeeming for me
Look, as I've said to other people: What he did off the bike was not good. But Jesus, he is not the great Satan people make him up to be
He is still reaching out to people with cancer trying to help them/encourage today. Now, his critics will say that it is simply PR. I don't think it is, but so fecking what? He is still helping those people.
Those are big words from Mr Travis Tygart, he sure does love to talk a big game! I know you probably will go nuts from this response so I'll elaborate.
"defrauding" "ringleader" "grand heist" That's how Tygart is talking. It's silly.
What's there to go nuts over? The report backs up USADA's statement. Simple.
Those words are too much trying to describe a team that cheated in that era. They were good and organized. But most sophisticated ever? Come on, they tranfused blood in their team bus after a stage once
And Moto Man; clever, but not exactly ground breaking.Those words are too much trying to describe a team that cheated in that era. They were good and organized. But most sophisticated ever? Come on, they tranfused blood in their team bus after a stage once
The report has much more than "transfusing blood in their team bus after a stage once." Cycling hadn't seen anything like it.
You deserve a proper answer, and I'll try to give it to you.
He gave so much to so many people, in terms of his charity work. I don't give a monkey's ass about how it came about. He helped people. Period. I think, honestly, we can all agree that is a redeeming quality. Oh and he sent me a personal email which is always redeeming for me
Yes, he gave money to charity. He then used those charities and the people he helped as a shield against those who tried to expose him and even manipulated them into defending him too. His charity work might have done a lot of good but it hardly reflects well on him that he did it largely out of self interest. Without that "Hero Lance" image he would have made a lot less money and would have been caught much sooner.
That said, can't argue against a personal e-mail. Though, given everything we know about him, you might want to check how legit that is.
I've read it, and I agree. However, I don't agree with the wording of Travis Tygart - but it doesn't really matter now does it.
Yes, he gave money to charity. He then used those charities and the people he helped as a shield against those who tried to expose him and even manipulated them into defending him too. His charity work might have done a lot of good but it hardly reflects well on him that he did it largely out of self interest. Without that "Hero Lance" image he would have made a lot less money and would have been caught much sooner.
That said, can't argue against a personal e-mail. Though, given everything we know about him, you might want to check how legit that is.
It's legit in all seriousness.Yeah, he did use it as a shield. But the help which was provided was still real. The organization is still active and still helping out - which will be a part of his legacy. Event though LiveStrong have washed their hands off him, people will always associate it him him. And I do think history will look more kindly at Lance Armstrong.
I hope you understand my thinking here and what I'm saying. I agree that he profited from the Hero Image - hell I don't begrudge him that. It still helped folks.
Not really.
On a more general note, I just hope cycling doesn't look at it as a case of "we got Lance. Job done." As the likes of Landis and Rasmussen showed after Lance's first retirement, it runs much deeper than just him. I still think there are some major existing problems and the fight against cheating is far from over.
We'll never agree on Lance at least
So we'll just agree to disagree?Yeah, I agree that it does run much deeper than him which is why I think it is not right that he's been treated more harsh than others. Bjarne Riis has admitted to EPO use and he still has his Tour win from '96 (I think it was that year?). He's even a directeur sportif to this day (if he still is?)! I'm also iffy about Froome - but that is for another thread I suppose.
We'll never agree on Lance at least
Yeah, I agree that it does run much deeper than him which is why I think it is not right that he's been treated more harsh than others. Bjarne Riis has admitted to EPO use and he still has his Tour win from '96 (I think it was that year?). He's even a directeur sportif to this day (if he still is?)! I'm also iffy about Froome - but that is for another thread I suppose.
I think it's safe to say we disagree, sure.
I think anybody who's shown to be a cheat, whether it's through an investigation or their own admission, should be stripped of the prizes they won when they cheated. As a former Contador fan, I was glad to see him lose his 2010 Tour.
Oh, and I'm also quite suspicious of Chris Froome. I just don't buy his rise to prominence. Cadel Evans is one of the very few Tour winners who I'd put my trust in.
Yeah, I think Froome beat Lance's time up a certain climb during his tour win? I don't remember the numbers but they were impressive (read in Ferrari's voice). I could trust Evans too.
Don't understand how anyone can defend the man.
Lots of cheats have been redeemed, and pretty much forgotten or a least not discussed/thought of anymore.
But the sheer arrogance and audacity of the man to sue and humiliate others in attempts to "prove" his innocence, and use his influence over those who dared question him. Then to drag a host of others with him as well.
I don't buy into the theory that he made others do what they did by bullying them and they felt as though they couldn't go against him - it's a two way street, and they were probably paid handsomely for their service and secrecy.
Lots of cheats have been redeemed, and pretty much forgotten or a least not discussed/thought of anymore.
But the sheer arrogance and audacity of the man to sue and humiliate others in attempts to "prove" his innocence, and use his influence over those who dared question him. Then to drag a host of others with him as well.
I don't buy into the theory that he made others do what they did by bullying them and they felt as though they couldn't go against him - it's a two way street, and they were probably paid handsomely for their service and secrecy.
Any idea which climb? I'd be interested to read about that. There's a good website that I used to read and they would dissect cyclists' performances on certain climbs, so maybe they have something on it. Sadly, Froome was one of the reasons I decided to give up on cycling for a few years, which makes me all the more interested after hearing something like that.
I don't remember which climb, but I'm sure we could dig it up by some searching. I'll have a crack at it.
Edit: @Fener1907
http://journalvelo.com/opinion/did-froome-climb-faster-than-armstrong-the-answer-at-last/
I only skimmed, quickly, through this article but it does seem like the climb in question was Ax-3 Domaines and that he did indeed do it faster than Lance. There were, apparantly, some disagreement/confusion weather he had climbed it faster or not.
Edit 2: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23368970 This BBC article has him 12 seconds behind, I don't really have the time to go properly through it right now.
Last edited:
Ax-3-Domaines?
As if I needed more reason to distrust him.
Edit - Yep, just got it at the same time as you. Thanks for the other article.
Yup.
So, he climbed it faster than Lance in 2003, and just some seconds behind his 2001 time.
Edit: No worries!
Don't ruin the good mood in here now! We've worked hard for that
Lol sorry! Let me leave
There seems to be some ambiguity about how long it took him to complete the climb on that stage. Nonetheless, even after factoring in all of the variables, I'd dare to suggest that he shouldn't be touching Armstrong's times.
Absolutely agree with that. That actually reminds me of an interview with Ferrari about the 2005 tour: "Lance took it easy, because if you win by too much than everyone go blah blah blah" Froome could have done well with taking it easy, it seems like!
What a joke
It's a charity ride! Organized by someone who was banned for PED use to boot.He should just turn up and have a ride with George anyway, what are they going to do? Give him two life-time bans?