Looks as if Lance Armstrong will lose it all

[jolimont]

Originally Posted by zama

As for passing drug tests that is just good management, Marion Jones never failed one either.

x2
From my understanding, the testers are always 1 step behind the dopers

[MoBe]

Lance Armstrong did not subject himself to the USADA arbitration process because he knows that they have him by the ball.I have no doubt that the UCI will find the evidence presented by the USADA to be compelling.

The cancer community may be fooled but the cycling community is most definately not,you still can`t fool all of the people all of the time no matter how hard you try to spin the story,not even if your name is Lance Armstrong.I am not persuaded by any of Armstrongs arguments,especially not the supposed 500+ negative drug tests.The argument that this is all a "Witch Hunt" doesn`t stand up,the motivation of the USADA is political insofar as they are funded by taxpayer money to prosecute drug cheating in sports,it`s their duty.

In time this debacle may prove to be beneficial to the sport of cycling by proving that you can`t fool everybody all of the time and that you will be caught and held accountable and ultimately punished,there`s no free ride in cycling anymore.Maybe the USADA will finally prove to be effective where the UCI and WADA are not,we will see.

[77T]

Originally Posted by MoBe

Lance Armstrong did not subject himself to the USADA arbitration process because he knows that they have him by the ball.I have no doubt that the UCI will find the evidence presented by the USADA to be compelling.

The cancer community may be fooled but the cycling community is most definately not,you still can`t fool all of the people all of the time no matter how hard you try to spin the story,not even if your name is Lance Armstrong.I am not persuaded by any of Armstrongs arguments,especially not the supposed 500+ negative drug tests.The argument that this is all a "Witch Hunt" doesn`t stand up,the motivation of the USADA is political insofar as they are funded by taxpayer money to prosecute drug cheating in sports,it`s their duty.

In time this debacle may prove to be beneficial to the sport of cycling by proving that you can`t fool everybody all of the time and that you will be caught and held accountable and ultimately punished,there`s no free ride in cycling anymore.Maybe the USADA will finally prove to be effective where the UCI and WADA are not,we will see.

I hope you are wrong about Armstrong - at least in the parts about "cheating". I do believe he (and most athletes I know) sought the best advantages/techniques just barely on the legal side during his competitive years.

The title of a book I love sounds bad, but may be an apt parallel in this situation. It's "The Unfair Advantage" by Mark Donohue who was a great American sportscar driver. In it he proved ( to me at least) that rules define the line you can't cross but also skip all the the other advantages you can use.

Only time will tell...

[mtrunner]

The entire USDA process is a witch hunt and is completely unfair. There is really no way for an athlete to prove themselves innocent. He really had no options and if he did go into arbitration with the USDA all evidence would be out in the open including several other riders testifying against Lance. Many of these riders are well respected in the peleton.

It is also absolutely ridiculous he received a lifetime ban. Rider after rider has been caught and almost all riders get a 2 year ban on their first offense. Why would Lance receive a lifetime ban? And why would the USDA give the riders who would testify against him 6 month bans? The process is beyond flawed. The entire process is ridiculous and athletes need more rights when they enter into arbitration. There is too much on the line and the system is currently set up to prove your innocence when the USDA should have to prove guilt!

Having said that I still think Lance doped. The only consolation is the rest of the riders around him were doping as well. A majority of the peleton in the 90s and early 00s were using performance enhancing drugs. And testing means nothing. Athletes have surrounded themselves with good doctors who know how to circumvent the testing process. Numerous athletes have doped for years and passed numerous tests before finally making a mistake and getting caught.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

The entire USDA process is a witch hunt and is completely unfair. There is really no way for an athlete to prove themselves innocent. He really had no options and if he did go into arbitration with the USDA all evidence would be out in the open including several other riders testifying against Lance. Many of these riders are well respected in the peleton.

It is also absolutely ridiculous he received a lifetime ban. Rider after rider has been caught and almost all riders get a 2 year ban on their first offense. Why would Lance receive a lifetime ban? And why would the USDA give the riders who would testify against him 6 month bans? The process is beyond flawed. The entire process is ridiculous and athletes need more rights when they enter into arbitration. There is too much on the line and the system is currently set up to prove your innocence when the USDA should have to prove guilt!

Having said that I still think Lance doped. The only consolation is the rest of the riders around him were doping as well. A majority of the peleton in the 90s and early 00s were using performance enhancing drugs. And testing means nothing. Athletes have surrounded themselves with good doctors who know how to circumvent the testing process. Numerous athletes have doped for years and passed numerous tests before finally making a mistake and getting caught.

Gary, you summed up my opinion perfectly and I agree with everything you said 100% I'm just too much of a Dorklehead to express it clearly enough. Thanks,

[Route 66]

Maybe they should just allow all athletes to use performance enhancing drugs and then we'll know who's really the best at their particular sport.

[david_ord]

Originally Posted by SteveArn

Maybe they should just allow all athletes to use performance enhancing drugs and then we'll know who's really the best at their particular sport.

Sounds radical, but I have to agree. One of the most awe-inspiring moments in history, for me, was the sight of Ben Johnson clocking 9.79 in 1988. The fact that he tested positive did nothing to take away my admiration of him.

[wantonebad]

Originally Posted by david_ord

Sounds radical, but I have to agree. One of the most awe-inspiring moments in history, for me, was the sight of Ben Johnson clocking 9.79 in 1988. The fact that he tested positive did nothing to take away my admiration of him.

So now we devolve sports into "Those with the best chemicals win" scenario? No thanks, want no part of that. Much as I loved the Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire battle at the time, right now it makes me sick! It also proves how awesome Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris were! I don't care about laboratories or chemical science. I care about honest physical achievement.

[MoBe]

Originally Posted by david_ord

Sounds radical, but I have to agree. One of the most awe-inspiring moments in history, for me, was the sight of Ben Johnson clocking 9.79 in 1988. The fact that he tested positive did nothing to take away my admiration of him.

It makes me wonder how the current WR in the 100 is two tenths faster at 9.59.

Have training and nutrition gotten so much better in the last 25 years?

The genie is out of the bottle and I don`t think it`s ever going back.

You can believe that Armstrong rode clean while all those surrounding him doped if you like just don`t expect it from me.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

...

It is also absolutely ridiculous he received a lifetime ban. Rider after rider has been caught and almost all riders get a 2 year ban on their first offense. Why would Lance receive a lifetime ban? And why would the USDA give the riders who would testify against him 6 month bans? The process is beyond flawed. The entire process is ridiculous and athletes need more rights when they enter into arbitration. There is too much on the line and the system is currently set up to prove your innocence when the USDA should have to prove guilt!

Having said that I still think Lance doped. The only consolation is the rest of the riders around him were doping as well. ...

i feel differently about the lifetime ban,

if we assume he is guilty, that means in 7 races (many more races of course) his competitors were deprived of a victory in their lifetimes work, if you will, by a competitor who gained an unfair advantage... ie cheating. he has directly affected the lives & livelihood of those competitors and their families and their trainers etc.

a competitor who cheats and loses, perhaps could justify a lessor of a punishment (i wouldn't agree with this) but someone who wins, repeatedly, again if we take it for a given that lance is guilty, seems to be an abundant amount of evidence.

imho he should be banned for life and every competitor caught doping should be treated the same, how else can you curtail the desire to cheat/dope?

if doping were overlooked or allowed even in a small way, and if the punishment is not severe enough, athletes would surely suffer greatly with medical problems and death... the competitive nature of the athletes if left unchecked would have them go to any extremes to win.

[BarkMaster]

Like Roger Clements, I think he did it... and like Roger Clements, I couldn't care less one way or the other. In the end, he may be known for "never testing positive" (aka "never having been caught"), but like OJ.... most people will think he's guilty and dishonorable.

His foundation may leave him a positive legacy for the faithful / hero worshippers. I hope the foundation does benefit some - it certainly seems to, but history is replete with less than honorable folks doing "good" deeds. Usually it is for their own benefit (ego, legacy, etc.). In the end, they are remembered for their less than honorable actions. Al Capone ran soup kitchens... Ken Lay (Enron CEO) gave multi-millions to charity... How does history view them?

Personally, I think less of people for dishonesty than I do for trying to gain an edge. I know for some it is hard to admit someone you admire is flawed. I became cynical long ago and with good reason... I lost any idealism I had long ago pulling evidence on various "good people". It's was eye opening for me to see what "good" people do when they believe they aren't being watched or can't be caught.

[GradyPhilpott]

Do we really need to drag the United States Department of Agriculture into this?

[Pup]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Do we really need to drag the United States Department of Agriculture into this?

Too funny, Grady!

[RACER_X]

well at least for the time being, donations to LIVESTRONG have surged

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...162605579.html

being wife is a Cancer Nurse Navigator, she is greatly saddened of waht the future holds for LS

[MoBe]

Originally Posted by RACER_X

well at least for the time being, donations to LIVESTRONG have surged

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...162605579.html

being wife is a Cancer Nurse Navigator, she is greatly saddened of waht the future holds for LS

It`s true...........any publicity is good publicity and there`s one born every minute.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by MoBe

It`s true...........any publicity is good publicity and there`s one born every minute.

Very charitable of you to label donors to a good cause as suckers.

[TheVTCGuy]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Very charitable of you to label donors to a good cause as suckers.

I think we need to keep his charity work separate from his athletic life, his organization has done lots of good for people in real need (cancer patients). As far as I know, there has never been any questions on the funds or operations of that part of Lance Armstrong's life. Persucute him if you like for his (alleged-non alleged-cheating (?), but unless someone knows something dishonest about his charities, I don't think that's a part of this discussion.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I think we need to keep his charity work separate from his athletic life, his organization has done lots of good for people in real need (cancer patients). As far as I know, there has never been any questions on the funds or operations of that part of Lance Armstrong's life. Persucute him if you like for his (alleged-non alleged-cheating (?), but unless someone knows something dishonest about his charities, I don't think that's a part of this discussion.

You should say this to the guy I quoted, not me. He's the one who thinks the donors to the good cause are suckers, not me.

[77T]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

I think we need to keep his charity work separate from his athletic life, his organization has done lots of good for people in real need (cancer patients). As far as I know, there has never been any questions on the funds or operations of that part of Lance Armstrong's life. Persucute him if you like for his (alleged-non alleged-cheating (?), but unless someone knows something dishonest about his charities, I don't think that's a part of this discussion.

I agree in principle.

Looking at the Foundation's 2011 records reveals about 70-80% of donations and earnings go to helping cancer research, victims, etc. Only super efficient orgs. can hit 85%. So no hanky-panky inferred. Most charity watchdog orgs. can't assign LAF a rating for lack of data on program spending at the Foundation.

They already had higher than normal fundraising costs (5 points more than average) and now are facing a debacle. In other words, his actions in one area has significant impact in the charity work. SO much less will be going to the good work they do.

That's the only part where the cycling controversy is linked to the Foundation IMHO.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by subtona

i feel differently about the lifetime ban,

if we assume he is guilty....

Of course, if we assume he's guilty then his punishment can be justified.

However, if we first assume his innocence until proven guilty, then perhaps we might conclude differently.

Then, there is the fact that very many riders have been caught red-handed doping who've been given far less severe penalties.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

I tend to put my faith in substantive, empirical evidence and somewhat less in the testimony of those who've had their punishments reduced in exchange for that testimony.

I think Armstrong did the right thing. He's retired. He has more important things to be concerned with than perpetual harassment by a quasi-legitimate agency with an ax to grind.

Or, perhaps, as someone else noted, he may be working the system to get his case into a different, more fair venue.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Of course, if we assume he's guilty then his punishment can be justified.

However, if we first assume his innocence until proven guilty, then perhaps we might conclude differently.

Then, there is the fact that very many riders have been caught red-handed doping who've been given far less severe penalties.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

I tend to put my faith in substantive, empirical evidence and somewhat less in the testimony of those who've had their punishments reduced in exchange for that testimony.

I think Armstrong did the right thing. He's retired. He has more important things to be concerned with than perpetual harassment by a quasi-legitimate agency with an ax to grind.

Or, perhaps, as someone else noted, he may be working the system to get his case into a different, more fair venue.

Grady, my point was not to assume the man is guilty, but to say that the punishment, imho is justified if the man were guilty.

floyd landis was stripped of his win when they found him guilty... he turned on lance... they say he wore a wire and a camera... i can appreciate that we may never know all the facts and the inner workings of the sport and those that police it...

just like i will probably never know where jimmy hoffa is buried, who was behind the shooting of jfk, who killed nicole and ron, or even if my high school girlfriend cheated on me, but those making the call are saying they have enough evidence to justify their actions.

those many riders that have been caught before imho cant hold a candle to a guy that has taken a TDF title 7 times... lance is a household name, like bandaid and ketchup, he has attained a higher station with that comes greater rewards and a greater penalty.

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by subtona

Grady, my point was not to assume the man is guilty, but to say that the punishment, imho is justified if the man were guilty.

Thanks for the clarification.

[airchitect]

He can never be proven innocent (or guilty for that matter) this many years later, but once thats stuff is in the heads of the ignorant they never forget. To me (unless indisputable proof emerges) he will be the top guy. By the way, didnt they test for all of this then? And nothing was found? So why give any credibility to these allegations now. Very stupid, IMHO.

[mtrunner]

Looks like Lance Armstrong is going to go to do an interview with Oprah to finally confess that he used performance enhancing drugs. From what I read he is hoping to get his lifetime ban reduced so he can continue competing in Triathlons. Should be an interesting interview if he answers the questions honestly.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

Looks like Lance Armstrong is going to go to do an interview with Oprah to finally confess that he used performance enhancing drugs. From what I read he is hoping to get his lifetime ban reduced so he can continue competing in Triathlons. Should be an interesting interview if he answers the questions honestly.

Yeah but, does anybody truly believe that he can be believed or trusted at this point in time?

You know why they say he chose Oprah?


She's never asked the tough questions of those who have confessed to her to this point.

[SUBversive]

Originally Posted by mtrunner

Looks like Lance Armstrong is going to go to do an interview with Oprah to finally confess that he used performance enhancing drugs. From what I read he is hoping to get his lifetime ban reduced so he can continue competing in Triathlons. Should be an interesting interview if he answers the questions honestly.

Pete rose should go on Oprah with him

[advocatia]

The Pete Rose of cycling. Rightfully, a pariah. Shame for the charities. He messed up bad. The cover-up is usually worse than the crime.

[threemonkeys]

Sorry, kids, I don't see the good in this person. A liar without a conscience. But, hey, people have short attention spans and he's got 100 million.

[TheVTCGuy]

You know the REAL irony in all of this?

For the first time in my life I'm looking forward to an Oprah Winfrey interview....

[77T]

Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy

You know the REAL irony in all of this?

For the first time in my life I'm looking forward to an Oprah Winfrey interview....

And she's streaming it on the web for those at their desks!