Armstrong Robbed

[JimmyTheMook]

USADA to strip Lance Armstrong of 7 Tour de France titles, ban him from cycling for life.

Armstrong finally threw in the towel.

Edited August 24, 2012 by JimmyTheMook

[whybother]

The USADA can't strip him of the tour titles.

[whybother]

A good detailed article: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/armstrong-drops-drugs-fight-cycling-legend-to-lose-tour-de-france-titles-20120824-24qk5.html

[cluby]

At least they will not ask him money back and it's normal, even if he cheated, he gave a good show for years !

I think cycling is a tough sport and they use dop since the very beginning

[meatboy]

100's of drug tests not one has ever been positive,he's upset someone,where's the evidence,i hope he's inocent and then take those pillocks to the cleaners to strip him of his 7tour wins they have already tried and found him guilty.

[jingjoe8]

100's of drug tests not one has ever been positive,he's upset someone,where's the evidence,i hope he's inocent and then take those pillocks to the cleaners to strip him of his 7tour wins they have already tried and found him guilty.

Didn't his team mates who travelled with him around different tournaments come out and say he was one of the biggest users of illegal substances,but everyone turned a blind eye to it because he was" lance armstrong"

[steelepulse]

Do you mean the teammates that tested positive?

[jingjoe8]

Do you mean the teammates that tested positive?

yes one was banned.

[Jingthing]

I really never liked him much. His personality rubs me the wrong way. Yes I'm happy for him surviving cancer and all that but I don't feel sorry for him at all. I did like how his winning the Tour so many times messed with French people's egos though. Now he can go through life saying he was robbed, when he probably wasn't robbed, but enough people have bought into his PR machine that he still has a career for life. Whatever.

My only point in bringing up this list is to show that during the decade that Armstrong raced, and for many of the proceeding years, doping was endemic. If you strip Armstrong of his titles then you should also declare all seven years null and void. There should be no Tour de France winner on the record books from 1999 to 2005. Those years should be vacated.

No one man is to blame for this fact. But Armstrong is as guilty as any.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/08/24/lance_armstrong_doping_scandal_everyone_was_chating_from_1999_to_2005_.html

[jingjoe8]

an interesting interview with floyd landis by graham bensinger replayed today on setanta where he implicates armstrong in dope using.

Landis was stripped of a tour de france victory in 2006 and was a former team mate of armstrongs.

[Jingthing]

If I was a betting man, I would bet he was doping. So why get so upset about justice being served? Just because at one time you believed in him as a moral hero?

[Wentworth]

I'm a cycling fan and totally abhor the Misuse of Illegal drugs in the sport. By the way I'm not a die-hard Armstrong fan, I think others proved themselves in the Classics and other major tours, that Armstrong didn't. I hear both sides of this argument that's been going on for many years. From what I read it appears that basically he hasn't failed any tests but there's anecdotal evidence from team mates etc. That's just hearsay and it doesn't matter how many people say it - what about hard physical evidence or test results? There was the case of the Chinese girl swimming at the London Olympics - they tested her and found nothing. At least one British track athlete, his name I forget, said that he'd posted a similar improvement in performance result without drugs. Is it right to just label all of them as drug cheats?

How about Flo Jo, the American sprinter. Her incredible improvement over a short time span was compared to Ben Johnson. The difference was that Ben got caught and she didn't fail the drugs tests. The majority of general opinion says that she had to be on something and by the fact she died in 1998 at age 38 just confirmed it to some. If she did dope then she paid a heavy price. Some people would rather die young and glorious.

In terms of testing, I wonder if it is possible or even right and ethical to keep urine samples so that tests can be carried out after subsequent advances in procedures; as they do with DNA in criminal cases. If that were the case and Lance Armstrong failed then I would happily accept he cheated, but until then I choose to believe that he is innocent until proven guilty, just like all the others in sport that have been accused of wrong doing and can't seem to shake off the cheat tag.

[whybother]

I'm a cycling fan and totally abhor the Misuse of Illegal drugs in the sport. By the way I'm not a die-hard Armstrong fan, I think others proved themselves in the Classics and other major tours, that Armstrong didn't. I hear both sides of this argument that's been going on for many years. From what I read it appears that basically he hasn't failed any tests but there's anecdotal evidence from team mates etc. That's just hearsay and it doesn't matter how many people say it - what about hard physical evidence or test results? There was the case of the Chinese girl swimming at the London Olympics - they tested her and found nothing. At least one British track athlete, his name I forget, said that he'd posted a similar improvement in performance result without drugs. Is it right to just label all of them as drug cheats?

How about Flo Jo, the American sprinter. Her incredible improvement over a short time span was compared to Ben Johnson. The difference was that Ben got caught and she didn't fail the drugs tests. The majority of general opinion says that she had to be on something and by the fact she died in 1998 at age 38 just confirmed it to some. If she did dope then she paid a heavy price. Some people would rather die young and glorious.

In terms of testing, I wonder if it is possible or even right and ethical to keep urine samples so that tests can be carried out after subsequent advances in procedures; as they do with DNA in criminal cases. If that were the case and Lance Armstrong failed then I would happily accept he cheated, but until then I choose to believe that he is innocent until proven guilty, just like all the others in sport that have been accused of wrong doing and can't seem to shake off the cheat tag.

"In terms of testing, I wonder if it is possible or even right and ethical to keep urine samples so that tests can be carried out after subsequent advances in procedures;"

They already do.

[brit1984]

Maybe his bike had a hidden motor

[apetley]

an interesting interview with floyd landis by graham bensinger replayed today on setanta where he implicates armstrong in dope using.

Landis was stripped of a tour de france victory in 2006 and was a former team mate of armstrongs.

Landis is a cheat and a proven liar for years so his word is virtually useless.

However I am inclined to believe those former teamates who have now admitted drug use and implicated Armstrong. Some of them also never tested positive.

[endure]

If I was a betting man, I would bet he was doping. So why get so upset about justice being served? Just because at one time you believed in him as a moral hero?

Because there's no evidence?

[apetley]

If I was a betting man, I would bet he was doping. So why get so upset about justice being served? Just because at one time you believed in him as a moral hero?

Because there's no evidence?

No evidence of positive tests but then again teamates have admitted to doping and they never tested positive either.

Either way a very unsatisfactory outcome to the investigation.

[brit1984]

The fact that a guy (who is celebrated as one of the greatest examples of human determination in the world) can't be bothered to clear his name from allegations that all the glory he fought for all his career, was actually a big con is a bit suspicious.

However, suspicion does not necessarily equal guilt and we will never really know the whole truth. Regardless of whether he was taking performance enhancing drugs or not, he was (and still is) better at riding a bicycle than me and most other people in the world.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

[billd766]

The fact that a guy (who is celebrated as one of the greatest examples of human determination in the world) can't be bothered to clear his name from allegations that all the glory he fought for all his career, was actually a big con is a bit suspicious.

However, suspicion does not necessarily equal guilt and we will never really know the whole truth. Regardless of whether he was taking performance enhancing drugs or not, he was (and still is) better at riding a bicycle than me and most other people in the world.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

To me it is not suspicious as he has fought it over so many years and so many negative drug tests that he is most probably sick of it all.

I would have thought that if he was taking stimulants at least a percentage however small of the random tests would have been positive but none have, so why is the USADA still hounding him?

[AllanB]

I wonder how many other athletes from the more sophisticated nations would be stripped of their medals if they tested old blood samples. Ben Johnson would get his gold medal back on the basis that all the others in that final were on drugs too.

They got away with it and still do by being one step ahead with the testers.

[brit1984]

The fact that a guy (who is celebrated as one of the greatest examples of human determination in the world) can't be bothered to clear his name from allegations that all the glory he fought for all his career, was actually a big con is a bit suspicious.

However, suspicion does not necessarily equal guilt and we will never really know the whole truth. Regardless of whether he was taking performance enhancing drugs or not, he was (and still is) better at riding a bicycle than me and most other people in the world.

Sent from iPhone; please forgive any typos or violations of forum rules

To me it is not suspicious as he has fought it over so many years and so many negative drug tests that he is most probably sick of it all.

I would have thought that if he was taking stimulants at least a percentage however small of the random tests would have been positive but none have, so why is the USADA still hounding him?

I don't know but I guess it has something to do with all the witness statements against him.

I do not follow cycling enough to know if they could be pursuing this matter just for the fun of it.

What is your theory? Did he do something to annoy them?

[Jingthing]

Let's get real. He stopped the fight because he realized he was probably going to lose the fight. Fairly or not. If he had let that happen, there would have been a definitive judgment against him and he really would be finished. The way he copped out, now the public can decide for themselves whether they believe him or not. It's totally subjective. As like I said I find his personality super annoying, I just don't believe him. Others who like him can regard him as clean. I agree he is a great athlete whatever the reality. I could take 100 times more meds and still be last in the Tour de France and doped or not he was clearly in a race full of dopers!

Edited August 27, 2012 by Jingthing

[Bung]

Is there any link between doping and ball cancer?

[MonkeyMagic3]

Still proclaiming his innocence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Jxu4QXRdJE

[Jingthing]

Armstrong denying isn't news. That describes the rest of his life.

[StreetCowboy]

Given that he was probably the most heavily-scrutinised cyclist in the world, it seems to me an admission of abject and pitiful inadequacy on the part of the testing authorities that they cannot rely on the evidence of the earlier testing.

SC

[endure]

As like I said I find his personality super annoying, I just don't believe him. Others who like him can regard him as clean.

His guilt or innocence doesn't rely on whether you like him or not. It relies on first hand evidence. There isn't any.

[Jingthing]

As like I said I find his personality super annoying, I just don't believe him. Others who like him can regard him as clean.

His guilt or innocence doesn't rely on whether you like him or not. It relies on first hand evidence. There isn't any.

Fine. I don't really care. He's the one that withdrew from the normal process of judgment and he's the one who is going to have to deal with that.

[el jefe]

As like I said I find his personality super annoying, I just don't believe him. Others who like him can regard him as clean.

His guilt or innocence doesn't rely on whether you like him or not. It relies on first hand evidence. There isn't any.

You need to return that mail-order law degree.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence in any court.

The fact that at least 10 of his former teammates were willing to testify against him, not to mention all the others (including his masseuse) that saw his use of performance enhancing drugs, was enough for Armstrong to say "I give up." Now his supporters can continue to say it was a "witch hunt" while the most damning statements won't come out for another year or two.

The doping itself isn't so bad. Most cyclists in that era doped. The bigger problem is the systematic doping by the team and the requirement to be a "team player" that gave other riders on the team no choice but to dope.

Armstrong is no hero.

[Mossfinn]

I have followed the tour for many years and in those years I never really took to LA, his abrasive manner always annoyed me, I guess he had reason to be prickly, he was tested on many occasions, not once positive.

Do I think he took performance enhancing drugs, yes I do, but that means nothing without evidence, at this stage there is none published.

Because of his refusal to fight the charges USADA are stripping him of his seven titles, not sure of the legality of that, but the UCI will challenge unless evidence is provided and ultimately CAS will be involved.

Eye witness testimony may well be permitted, but if those bearing witness are themselves discredited, does that not in it self cast shadow on the allegation? Although I am not sure of the stature of those giving statements, if this goes past USADA and UCI without a stong case, my personal belief will see CAS throw it out.

I think he took PED's, but I also stand by being innocent until proven guilty, he has not proven positive and he has been tested many times, I think he should have gone all the way.