|
Armstrong stops fighting doping charges - USADA wants him banned and stripped for titles
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:24
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I think 'smokescreen' is a reasonable take on this, from Armstrong's POV. Where he's looking to protect what he can of his 'legacy', I note that on the ride in this morning I was listening to the radio talk on this. I'm in the USA, for my sins ...
They conducted a poll to see if people found this announcement made any difference to their option of LA. 84% said 'no'. It's indicative of the level of reporting on this story here, partially, people's inclination to not look for the actual evidence/details and the general bias/flag waving that's rather common here, regarding domestic athletes with a high profile. Let me put it like this; if Anders Breivik played point guard for the New York Nicks, he would be considered redeemable so long as his PPG average was high enough.
Ultimately his 'I've been the most tested athlete in history and have never failed a test' line is bought into here. A large % (see above) believe it and never look deeper. It's a rather fascinating slice of sociological cake, outside the cycling story. Obviously, many on a forum like this know more about the case and his testing history. You either have to conclude he did test positive (more than once) or there was a large conspiracy to frame him. That's long before these events.
As to 'witch hunt' ... sure, so far as anyone dominating one of the world's most prestigious sporting events for 7 years being an object of scrutiny if they cheated is a witch hunt, then I'll agree. Now, if he was French then you might find our French cousins a bit less animated on this but none the less, winning gets you a bigger magnifying glass. It's also his only remaining move - can't win in court so try to win or at least fight to an exhausted tie in the course of public opinion, at least in the USA.
Having said that, the idea that this makes him somehow more reprehensible than the other 96% of the pro field that I believe was doping from the 1930's through the mid-late 2000's isn't a logical or reasonable position. That means he's more reprehensible for winning/cheating more effectively than the next guy who just either didn't cheat enough/well enough or wasn't good enough under the PEDs. Or, for actually being better and doping at the same time. It's an impossible to untangle history.
As for promoting lower placed GC riders to the winner of the '99-2005 TDFs I think that's laughable, given my personal belief that almost all riders doped during the 90's and early 2000's. You might as well headline the next development as 'Rik Verbrugghe wins the 2001 TDF!' (check the GC that year). You could just give them all to Bjarne, of course. Or maybe Frankie Vandenbroucke.
Lifetime bans? A more mature discussion on the morality and causes of doping? Ha!
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| kolnierz |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:26
|
Amateur
Posts: 13
Joined: 14-03-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
kolnierz wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
kolnierz wrote:
Yeah, 27 people voted innocent and almost none of them feel like this discussion is worth their opinion?Cool
I voted that he is/was innocent. But I don't know all facts, as it was pointed to me some time ago.
I just don't "belive" in that, if someone could give me a reason to change my mind i'll do it. But for now, as much as i know there is only some "contaminated" blood tests and words of other dopers. I couldn't find any proof in strict definition of it. I hope he's innocent, until some fact or judge statement won't convince me to change that opinion. That's all, this discussion is pointless (I think) becouse, all of us has only own opinions and reasons to just "belive" in some answers.
I think you should read this (plus the messages above and under) :
https://pcmdaily.c...ost_524419
That might not change your opinion, but should learn you much about Armstrong's doings.
OK, this post is "a bit" confusing. But may I ask: issoisso is some kind of a specialist, is there any actual prove of those facts that are mentioned? Becouse - I think - all those opinion/proofs/facts is some kind of conspiracy theory that may be aswell created by media and some companies that really want to destroy Armstrong as a person. I really give a f**k is he take drugs or not, its not my buissness. I only worried about people who belived him and try to be like him. If everyone agree that he took that drugs, so what if everyone else do so aswell?
Issoisso isn't an expert, but he knows what he is talked about and everything there is documented.
To dispel that last point, drugs have different effects on different people and thus Armstrong's physiology reacting better to the drugs is why he performed better, and the point is null.
Sorry if anybody feel offended my "defence" of Armstrong. He really inspire me sometime ago. And sentence like:
His nickname in the pack in his early days was "Cortisone neck". What do you think that says?
or There's Armstrong making a living hell out of the lives of anyone who tried to come to public with evidence that he was doped, using his political leverage to make people lose their jobs (his Oakley liaison Stephanie and her husbamd, anyone?), credibility, race wins, contracts. heck, he flat out told Vaughters that if he gave Matt DeCanio a contract with Garmin, armstrong would have Trek withdraw sponsorship of the team.
won't convince me. Nickname - please. And second one - if you would be accused of e.g. rape - would you sponsor accuser? Those medial facts are disturbing and i don't have knowledge or any excuse for that. Becouse I'm not interested in this case so much, and I've got only somekind of a "Scientific American"/popular media knowledge about medical - drugs facts. |
| |
|
|
| Mresuperstar |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:29
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8059
Joined: 22-06-2009
PCM$: 650.00
|
Aquarius wrote:
Mresuperstar wrote:
Clean up the sport NOW, leave history and the PAST alone.
Sadly, cheaters and/or dopers are always or almost always one length further than anticheat/doping organisations, so retroactive investigations are the only efficient way to bust cheaters at some point.
Better late than never.
True, but surely there has to be a statue of limitations at some point. I'm not saying Armstrong is out of that range, but there does come a point.
What do you guys think is that point? I would say 15-20 years. 
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:33
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Mresuperstar wrote:
Aquarius wrote:
Mresuperstar wrote:
Clean up the sport NOW, leave history and the PAST alone.
Sadly, cheaters and/or dopers are always or almost always one length further than anticheat/doping organisations, so retroactive investigations are the only efficient way to bust cheaters at some point.
Better late than never.
True, but surely there has to be a statue of limitations at some point. I'm not saying Armstrong is out of that range, but there does come a point.
What do you guys think is that point? I would say 15-20 years.
I think it is 10 years.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:34
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
The statute of limitations is 8 years for doping offenses. The problem for Armstrong is that USADA has considered his (and Bruyneels's et al) offenses to be continue until 2011, so all of them fall into the statute of limitations.
Edited by kumazan on 24-08-2012 14:38
|
| |
|
|
| npass43 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:41
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 42
Joined: 18-08-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I admittedly have not followed cycling as closely and as long as some of you, and as a matter of fact I started watching cycling because of Lance, and what he had overcome. It showed me that no matter what happened to me in life that I could overcome obstacles set before me. I am saddened by the news that he was giving up the fight and in essence, conceding that he had doped... I have watched a lot of people on this board for a while now, and it seems like anytime someone has success, you have people who latch on to them, and then you have the people who are immediately negative towards the success of others. If you look in any of the conversations, it is always the same thing... Someone says "I like (rider)" followed by "He only won because he doped/cheated/paid off someone." I understand that there will always be cynics in everything, and on occasion I have been one myself. I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and take what I say however you choose, but just know it's my opinion and no one else's.
I believe that Lance may not have always been the best person in the world, but I believe that he should be remembered as a symbol of hope for those in the world who have been afflicted by cancer or other illnesses that seemed hopeless to overcome. He may have cheated, but he may have been the best cyclist in the world. I will always remember that when I was in my darkest hours that I could look to his struggles and say that I could overcome. You can remember him however you want, I will remember him as the one who pulled me back from the brink. |
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:42
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
The SoL will go up gradually too, as science makes it possible.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:45
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hah Jan as 4 time tour winner..ironic heh? |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 13:51
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:48
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
npass43 wrote:
... as a matter of fact I started watching cycling because of Lance, and what he had overcome. It showed me that no matter what happened to me in life that I could overcome obstacles set before me.
npass,
I think that's a reasonable point and ultimately I don't find it impacted by his doping issues. I wouldn't pay any attention to anyone who tries to tell you otherwise either, especially where it appears important to you personally. Surviving apparently advanced cancer and making it back into the upper echelons of perhaps the physically toughest endurance sport is indeed impressive. The TDF victories are of course very tarnished but his winning brought attention to his story before that point.
It raises questions as to whether he could have achieved that (the return) without doping but it seems more likely than not that he could.
As to the man himself, I've never met him so I've no idea. The stories one hears do paint a difficult picture, if you're inclined to believe the likes of the Lemonds, for example, but again, it doesn't affect your larger point. Lots of unpleasant people do impressive things.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| 9-Ball |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:50
|
Domestique
Posts: 477
Joined: 16-08-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Guido Mukk wrote:
Hah Jan as 4 time tour winner..ironic heh?
I wonder if Raymond Poulidor has his hopes up, today.
It was eleven more than necessary.
Jacques Anquetil
|
| |
|
|
| dienblad |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:55
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10-09-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
9-Ball wrote:
Guido Mukk wrote:
Hah Jan as 4 time tour winner..ironic heh?
I wonder if Raymond Poulidor has his hopes up, today.
Is there any chance that Richard Virenque becomes a TdF-winner, when you delete the doped riders from the result lists?? He for sure never doped (although all his team mates did) and deserves a Tdf -win 
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
npass43 wrote:
I understand that there will always be cynics in everything, and on occasion I have been one myself. I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and take what I say however you choose, but just know it's my opinion and no one else's.
How can someone who saw for example years 1998 and 2006/2007 be something different than cynical and pesimistic about the riders coming from nothing to domination?
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 24-08-2012 14:59
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
npass43 wrote:
I understand that there will always be cynics in everything, and on occasion I have been one myself. I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and take what I say however you choose, but just know it's my opinion and no one else's.
How can someone who saw for example years 1998 and 2006/2007 be something different than cynical and pesimistic about the riders coming from nothing to domination?
This isn't Sky's thread ffs.
Eh, oops. 
|
| |
|
|
| Guido Mukk |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:00
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 15830
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
npass43 wrote:
I understand that there will always be cynics in everything, and on occasion I have been one myself. I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and take what I say however you choose, but just know it's my opinion and no one else's.
How can someone who saw for example years 1998 and 2006/2007 be something different than cynical and pesimistic about the riders coming from nothing to domination?
look at present 2012..isnt that even more cycnical |
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:05
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
It's almost disturbing how blind some people are when reading through opinions about this around the web. I can't understand how they can claim things like that "the whole case is just based on accusations" and "there's no evidence".
A lot of people doesn't seem to know anything about this.
|
| |
|
|
| pcm2009fan |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:05
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1105
Joined: 30-07-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, as a doper, he deserves every ounce of legal and sporting punishment he's about to served.
As concerns Armstrong as a (faltering) public figure & inspiration for many:
Whilst the extent of the whole scandal is obviously a real tarnish on many people's impression of Armstrong (well in non-America-land anyway), I do get the impression that most dopers (ie most top riders then) would have reacted much the same way if 1) They managed to continue hiding their tracks for such a long period of time against countless accusations 2) If they had the sporting and political influence of Armstrong... imo Armstrong just exercised his cover-up more extensively and clinically than the others, and was probably quite effective in doing so.
Well you can't tell for sure, but I think that, over time, the whole situation exacerbated right in Armstrong's face, without ever fully compromising his defensive regime (till now). I wouldn't necessarily consider him a particularly "bad" person as such (at least compared to any other doped riders), given that the whole thing started out of a 'necessity' to compete on relatively level terms. |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:06
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Pellizotti2 wrote:
It's almost disturbing how blind some people are when reading through opinions about this around the web. I can't understand how they can claim things like that "the whole case is just based on accusations" and "there's no evidence".
A lot of people doesn't seem to know anything about this.
Many people are more willing to think with their flags than their heads.
|
| |
|
|
| Pellizotti2 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:09
|
World Champion
Posts: 10121
Joined: 01-05-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
Pellizotti2 wrote:
It's almost disturbing how blind some people are when reading through opinions about this around the web. I can't understand how they can claim things like that "the whole case is just based on accusations" and "there's no evidence".
A lot of people doesn't seem to know anything about this.
Many people are more willing to think with their flags than their heads.
Yeah, but it's far from just the Americans. For example, here in Sweden most people still seem to think that he was always clean. I've even seen ridiculous comments like "With the team he had, he could've won those Tours regardless of whether he was clean or not". 
|
| |
|
|
| baseballlover312 |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:10
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 16429
Joined: 27-07-2011
PCM$: 10438.70
|
laidbackmarc wrote:
Armstrong doped and so did the rest between 1999 and 2006. All results in this period, and a couple of years before should be deleted and forgotten. Let's draw a line over all of it and look forward instead, Armstrong, Ullrich and Riis etc. shouldn't be remembered as champions. They should rather be remembered as the best cheaters in a period full of cheaters, according to my opinion.
I totally agree. Anyone from 92-2006 should just be gone. Those tourse never existed.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy |
| |
|
|
| I_Mayo |
Posted on 24-08-2012 15:11
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1481
Joined: 25-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
He's not really being a pussy - he's being clever. He doesn't want most of America to actually know the details of the case. He wants to be able sit there and say it's a witchhunt and that USADA are chasing after him because of a personal vendetta/they hate America/they love cancer. If he goes to court and loses, then the whole of the USA will hear about how their cancer-beating hero was a cheat like everyone else. And Armstrong will no longer be powerful or important.
Watching ESPN First take and that's basically what Skip Bayless is saying. Quite surprised that he said that considering the fact how many crazy and outrageous things he has said before.
Edited by I_Mayo on 24-08-2012 15:13
|
| |
|
