Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping offences - Washington Post

He'd have treated people exactly the same, because it was an integral part of keeping himself where he was.
 
Look who's showing up at 4:15 in Tim Commerford's music video for "Mountain Lion" :D





The backstory is that Tim and Lance are best mates and will phone up each other with trash talk before going on a ride together.
 
I've got a better official time on Alp d'Huez than Lance Armstrong. Proud.

But he's still a hell of an athlete, I refuse to watch any more interviews with that era and self-justification, write it all off, yes he won 7 when all the top dogs were doped, but for the sake of the very small percentage of cyclists who were clean, it needs to stay wiped off the books, as should Ulrichs and Pantani's by the way....but they don't have the balls to take away Pantani's now. That era was fun for what it was(Pantani-Ulrich-Lance had some terrific battles that are great to watch), as were other sports that were heavily juiced up(baseball......), but it's time to move on. The days of like 80%+ of the peloton doping are well and truly done.
 
Madthinker said:
He's still claiming that he was clean on his comeback, and probably will until 2018.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't shock me if he was clean for his comeback. It would be consistent with his calculated and behavior. By then things were closing in on him, jumping back into the Tour and riding clean could have served two purposes for him in my thinking.

1) Fresh tests and test samples that would be clean. Basically misdirection.
2) If he eventually got burned for his previous doping he could point to his come back and say "I was clean there as a past his prime athlete and I was competitive with the elite guys". Even better for Lance that the guys who beat him and won during his come back were all juiced up and were DQ'd. This is an ego thing. It's an if then construct. If I was competitive with the elite guys (who were doped up) and I am past my prime, then I could have won clean in a clean race in my prime.

Zen, you do not have a better time on Alpe d'Huez than Lance. He rode it in 1995 and I'd guess that he was faster than you were and those results as far as I know are still official.

Ultimately I think the whole thing is a huge joke. The hyperbole about Lance is honestly kind of silly. There is no question what he did was wrong, but I find it problematic that people think that what he did was not something the majority of people in his same position would have done. From top to bottom the entire situation in the Peleton was screwed up. It had an endemic doping culture, and everyone was clean with a nudge and a wink. Lance lied because the truth would have destroyed him. Racers lied for Lance because the truth would have destroyed them. Most people, the majority of people would also lie in the same situation and people who say they wouldn't are almost certainly full of it. Very few people actually have the kind of integrity they like to pretend they have. I don't even know what I would do in that situation if I am being honest. I'd like to say "Ya I could walk away from the sport and be honest". That however is a complete lie. I don't know how I would react until I was in that situation. It is exactly like guys saying "If I was in a war this is what I would do" as they beat their chests. No, that is what you would like to think you would do. You don't know till you're there and in it how you will react.

I think Lance being unrepentant about doping is actually admirable. That is honesty. His repentance whether or not you believe it is towards the people he hurt trying to cover up. On the topic of doping however, he's said he'd do it again in the same situation and THAT is an honest answer. Yet the media and many people crucifying him over his position would rather he lie and say "ya I'm sorry I doped, I totally wouldn't do it again in that situation".

You have guys like Miguel Indurain who have 5 wins during the craziest period in this era where EPO use wasn't just rampant but it was TOTALLY untested for. He was never caught, but he was putting out MORE wattage than Lance. Think about that. Ya, totally natty. Will Indurain ever be punished for what is almost certain EPO abuse? No. Why? He slipped in under the wire.

I'm not trying to excuse Lance, I just see the entire thing as a massive hypocrisy. Lance was the scapegoat for the entire sport and it's still dirty. If you think otherwise I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
 
Great post, mate! I can't be arsed with discussing in this thread anymore because of the warped views on Armstrong, but I really hope that the CIRC report could go some way to reducing his ban.
 
CIRC findings indicate:

1. UCI officials protected, defended and made decisions favorable to Armstrong despite concerns that he was doping.

2. Armstrong was given special treatment as they "saw Lance Armstrong as the perfect choice to lead the sport's renaissance" as "the fact that he was American opened up a new continent for the sport, he had beaten cancer and the media quickly made him a global star,"

3. The UCI limited the scope of a supposedly independent investigation into allegations that Armstrong had tested positive in a drug test at the 1999 Tour de France. UCI officials and Armstrong's team became heavily involved in the drafting of the investigation's report, which was released in 2006. "The main goal was to ensure that the report reflected UCI's and Lance Armstrong's personal conclusions," the commission says. "The significant participation of UCI and Armstrong's team was never publicly acknowledged."

4. UCI's top officials focused on protecting cycling's reputation rather than trying to root out "endemic" doping practices of which they were well aware.

5. McQuaid's decision to allow Armstrong to participate in the 2009 Tour Down Under even though the cyclist hadn't been in the testing group for the required period of time was temporally linked to Armstrong's decision to participate in the Tour of Ireland, run by people known to McQuaid.
Click to expand...

Sort of undermines the "they were all at it" argument when Armstrong was so clearly favoured above all others.

Edit: The "people known to McQuaid" in part five include his brother, I believe. Neat coincidence that.​
 
Nucks said:
It wouldn't shock me if he was clean for his comeback. It would be consistent with his calculated and behavior. By then things were closing in on him, jumping back into the Tour and riding clean could have served two purposes for him in my thinking.

1) Fresh tests and test samples that would be clean. Basically misdirection.
2) If he eventually got burned for his previous doping he could point to his come back and say "I was clean there as a past his prime athlete and I was competitive with the elite guys". Even better for Lance that the guys who beat him and won during his come back were all juiced up and were DQ'd. This is an ego thing. It's an if then construct. If I was competitive with the elite guys (who were doped up) and I am past my prime, then I could have won clean in a clean race in my prime.

Zen, you do not have a better time on Alpe d'Huez than Lance. He rode it in 1995 and I'd guess that he was faster than you were and those results as far as I know are still official.

Ultimately I think the whole thing is a huge joke. The hyperbole about Lance is honestly kind of silly. There is no question what he did was wrong, but I find it problematic that people think that what he did was not something the majority of people in his same position would have done. From top to bottom the entire situation in the Peleton was screwed up. It had an endemic doping culture, and everyone was clean with a nudge and a wink. Lance lied because the truth would have destroyed him. Racers lied for Lance because the truth would have destroyed them. Most people, the majority of people would also lie in the same situation and people who say they wouldn't are almost certainly full of it. Very few people actually have the kind of integrity they like to pretend they have. I don't even know what I would do in that situation if I am being honest. I'd like to say "Ya I could walk away from the sport and be honest". That however is a complete lie. I don't know how I would react until I was in that situation. It is exactly like guys saying "If I was in a war this is what I would do" as they beat their chests. No, that is what you would like to think you would do. You don't know till you're there and in it how you will react.

I think Lance being unrepentant about doping is actually admirable. That is honesty. His repentance whether or not you believe it is towards the people he hurt trying to cover up. On the topic of doping however, he's said he'd do it again in the same situation and THAT is an honest answer. Yet the media and many people crucifying him over his position would rather he lie and say "ya I'm sorry I doped, I totally wouldn't do it again in that situation".

You have guys like Miguel Indurain who have 5 wins during the craziest period in this era where EPO use wasn't just rampant but it was TOTALLY untested for. He was never caught, but he was putting out MORE wattage than Lance. Think about that. Ya, totally natty. Will Indurain ever be punished for what is almost certain EPO abuse? No. Why? He slipped in under the wire.

I'm not trying to excuse Lance, I just see the entire thing as a massive hypocrisy. Lance was the scapegoat for the entire sport and it's still dirty. If you think otherwise I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Click to expand...

Superb post.
 
Nucks said:
It wouldn't shock me if he was clean for his comeback. It would be consistent with his calculated and behavior. By then things were closing in on him, jumping back into the Tour and riding clean could have served two purposes for him in my thinking.

1) Fresh tests and test samples that would be clean. Basically misdirection.
2) If he eventually got burned for his previous doping he could point to his come back and say "I was clean there as a past his prime athlete and I was competitive with the elite guys". Even better for Lance that the guys who beat him and won during his come back were all juiced up and were DQ'd. This is an ego thing. It's an if then construct. If I was competitive with the elite guys (who were doped up) and I am past my prime, then I could have won clean in a clean race in my prime.

Zen, you do not have a better time on Alpe d'Huez than Lance. He rode it in 1995 and I'd guess that he was faster than you were and those results as far as I know are still official.

Ultimately I think the whole thing is a huge joke. The hyperbole about Lance is honestly kind of silly. There is no question what he did was wrong, but I find it problematic that people think that what he did was not something the majority of people in his same position would have done. From top to bottom the entire situation in the Peleton was screwed up. It had an endemic doping culture, and everyone was clean with a nudge and a wink. Lance lied because the truth would have destroyed him. Racers lied for Lance because the truth would have destroyed them. Most people, the majority of people would also lie in the same situation and people who say they wouldn't are almost certainly full of it. Very few people actually have the kind of integrity they like to pretend they have. I don't even know what I would do in that situation if I am being honest. I'd like to say "Ya I could walk away from the sport and be honest". That however is a complete lie. I don't know how I would react until I was in that situation. It is exactly like guys saying "If I was in a war this is what I would do" as they beat their chests. No, that is what you would like to think you would do. You don't know till you're there and in it how you will react.

I think Lance being unrepentant about doping is actually admirable. That is honesty. His repentance whether or not you believe it is towards the people he hurt trying to cover up. On the topic of doping however, he's said he'd do it again in the same situation and THAT is an honest answer. Yet the media and many people crucifying him over his position would rather he lie and say "ya I'm sorry I doped, I totally wouldn't do it again in that situation".

You have guys like Miguel Indurain who have 5 wins during the craziest period in this era where EPO use wasn't just rampant but it was TOTALLY untested for. He was never caught, but he was putting out MORE wattage than Lance. Think about that. Ya, totally natty. Will Indurain ever be punished for what is almost certain EPO abuse? No. Why? He slipped in under the wire.

I'm not trying to excuse Lance, I just see the entire thing as a massive hypocrisy. Lance was the scapegoat for the entire sport and it's still dirty. If you think otherwise I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Click to expand...

It would shock the experts, who say the chances of a clean Armstrong producing those figures in his biological passport are a million to one. That's not honesty.

That he is unrepentant doesn't really surprise me - it fits in with his narrative that doping was endemic and that it was necessary to win. It's a story I find quite believable, but overlooks the reasons (aside from his fame) why Armstrong comes in for particular criticism - because he was able to push the boundaries and get away with more than others, because he still lying and because he bullied and threatened others.
 
Madthinker said:
It would shock the experts, who say the chances of a clean Armstrong producing those figures in his biological passport are a million to one. That's not honesty.

That he is unrepentant doesn't really surprise me - it fits in with his narrative that doping was endemic and that it was necessary to win. It's a story I find quite believable, but overlooks the reasons (aside from his fame) why Armstrong comes in for particular criticism - because he was able to push the boundaries and get away with more than others, because he still lying and because he bullied and threatened others.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Madthinker said:
It would shock the experts, who say the chances of a clean Armstrong producing those figures in his biological passport are a million to one. That's not honesty.

That he is unrepentant doesn't really surprise me - it fits in with his narrative that doping was endemic and that it was necessary to win. It's a story I find quite believable, but overlooks the reasons (aside from his fame) why Armstrong comes in for particular criticism - because he was able to push the boundaries and get away with more than others, because he still lying and because he bullied and threatened others.
Click to expand...
This is true, though, isn't it? I don't know much about cycling but that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his era.

He's a cheat who deserves to have every penny he made taken off him in lawsuits. I just feel the need to add that, lest I look like I'm defending him here.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
This is true, though, isn't it? I don't know much about cycling but that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his era.

He's a cheat who deserves to have every penny he made taken off him in lawsuits. I just feel the need to add that, lest I look like I'm defending him here.
Click to expand...

And it's not just cycling, it's endemic in most sports where physicality is the deciding factor. The 100m sprint is an obvious example - if anyone thinks that those guys are natural, they are very naive.
 
He's a calculating and manipulative piece of shit, he built an empire on his lies and then threw all sorts of people under the bus when they threatened to show him up.
 
others doped as much but none were as big an as5hiole as this guy. the tour is dirty , and has been for 100 years , it's the reason there are no winners recognized in the 7 they took away from this cun7.
 
mu77 said:
others doped as much but none were as big an as5hiole as this guy. the tour is dirty , and has been for 100 years , it's the reason there are no winners recognized in the 7 they took away from this cun7.
Click to expand...

Aye, it's true that he couldn't have won without doping given how many other were at it.

What pushes Armstrong beyond the rest though is his level of involvement in his team's doping, the bullying, the aggressive reaction towards those who tried to expose him, the fact that he used his history with cancer to manipulate people, the special treatment he received even above other dopers and the fact that he continues to blatantly lie today.

So yeah, definitely an asshole.
 
DiseaseOfTheAge said:
This is true, though, isn't it? I don't know much about cycling but that's the impression I've gotten from what I've read of his era.

He's a cheat who deserves to have every penny he made taken off him in lawsuits. I just feel the need to add that, lest I look like I'm defending him here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure it's true (I wasn't actually being sarcastic when I said I said it was believable). I get the general impression that essentially all the GT winners, and maybe 80% of the peloton were at it in Lance's era and prior.

Now it's undoubtably less - maybe 20% at a wild guess. I think the 'bio passport' approach means that it's possible to micro-dose without triggering a red flag, but that would require some in-depth medical knowledge, so it would be hard to do it alone. The fact that Sky can sack Tiernan-Locke without any apparent worry that he might blow the whistle on them gives me confidence that they're not sanctioning it within the team. But then again, I don't think there's any doubt that Astana are/were at some level.
 
Madthinker said:
It would shock the experts, who say the chances of a clean Armstrong producing those figures in his biological passport are a million to one. That's not honesty.

That he is unrepentant doesn't really surprise me - it fits in with his narrative that doping was endemic and that it was necessary to win. It's a story I find quite believable, but overlooks the reasons (aside from his fame) why Armstrong comes in for particular criticism - because he was able to push the boundaries and get away with more than others, because he still lying and because he bullied and threatened others.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You quote and bold a bit where he is being absolutely honest that he would dope again in the same situations, and then reply to something completely different.

Lance says he was clean on his come back. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Neither outcome would shock me. I made a statement that being clean expecting to lose would fit in with his calculated behavior.

I made another comment that him saying he would dope again is honest. You bold this, but apply it to the first bit. That is called intellectual dishonesty chum. See how easy lying is? ;) You do it on a forum with nothing at stake!
 
Nucks said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You quote and bold a bit where he is being absolutely honest that he would dope again in the same situations, and then reply to something completely different.

Lance says he was clean on his come back. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Neither outcome would shock me. I made a statement that being clean expecting to lose would fit in with his calculated behavior.

I made another comment that him saying he would dope again is honest. You bold this, but apply it to the first bit. That is called intellectual dishonesty chum. See how easy lying is? ;) You do it on a forum with nothing at stake!
Click to expand...

Him being clean should shock you given that the same experts who spent years saying he was doping before his comeback insist he was doping afterwards too.

Be a bit strange to take Armstrong's word over the opinions of those who have already caught him out as a cheat once before.
 
Nucks said:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You quote and bold a bit where he is being absolutely honest that he would dope again in the same situations, and then reply to something completely different.

Lance says he was clean on his come back. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Neither outcome would shock me. I made a statement that being clean expecting to lose would fit in with his calculated behavior.

I made another comment that him saying he would dope again is honest. You bold this, but apply it to the first bit. That is called intellectual dishonesty chum. See how easy lying is? ;) You do it on a forum with nothing at stake!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're failing to get here.

You said that you wouldn't be shocked if Armstrong was clean on his comeback. I pointed out that the overwhelming evidence is that he is still lying.

I bolded your continued references to his apparent honesty in the same paragraph, not because it disproves the idea that he said he'd dope again out of honesty, but because it shows there's no reason to believe that it is the case (cod-psychology aside).

Of course, it is possible that part of he 'admitted' that he'd dope again out of a sudden desire to be sincere about such things. But as it fits in with the image he wants to project anyway, you're basically crediting him with being honest when it suits him.

Nothing I've said is close to a lie, no matter how much you contrive to make a half-baked point.
 
11069405_10153742769394778_8950883703255389306_n.jpg


Enjoying himself at Hawaii! If they eventually lift his ban he's good to go straight into an Iron Man.
 
But who's playing PantanGOAT?

It does look pretty decent though. It's a pretty much tailored made for the big screen the Dopestrong story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.