Armstrong Robbed

[David48]

Cycling Australia vice-president admits to doping, resigns

Cycling Australia's vice-president Stephen Hodge has resigned from the board after revealing he took performance enhancing drugs.

In a letter to the board, Hodge admitted taking the drugs during one stage of his career.

The Canberra cyclist represented Australia and was regarded as one of the country's leading riders during the 1980s and the early 1990s before retiring in 1996.

He completed the Tour de France six times and represented Australia at 10 World Championships, as well as the 1986 Edinburgh Commonwealth Games and the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

From HERE

[isawasnake]

I don't know what the actual contracts currently say, but I strongly feel there should be a stipulations in place stating that if you pass the testing before and during the event, and you are allowed to compete, that is it. The results go in the books. Done deal. EVERYTHING should be based on those tests, and 0 should be based on anything else. People can say what they want, who the hell knows what their motivation is. Lance can do whatever he wants, who the hell knows why he's doing it. It should be 100% based on the tests and the burden of proof should be on them and at that specific time. Think about what you are saying if you DON'T do that. Are we going to strip people of titles after a person accuses them of doping after a race. Is one witness enough to strip? 2? It is ridiculous. Again... the only thing that makes sense is base it all 100% on the tests. If athletes pass, you have given them the right to earn the title, and if they do so it is theirs forever.

Edited October 19, 2012 by isawasnake

[carmine]

Since everyone seems to have been doping shouldn't Armstrong be allowed to keep his titles with the with the wording "doping tour' against the winners name.

Just seems to me that the sport was, certainly at this time, an absolute farce with zero credibility.

[isawasnake]

Since everyone seems to have been doping shouldn't Armstrong be allowed to keep his titles with the with the wording "doping tour' against the winners name.

Just seems to me that the sport was, certainly at this time, an absolute farce with zero credibility.

Well, who gets the titles? Nobody. Or do they redistribute? This is why I say competitors have to be allowed/disallowed to compete based on current technology (we must also come to grips with the fact that any system like this will never be perfect), and after that the results are set in stone. All this stuff going on now is 100% bs, that i am sure of.

[carmine]

Since everyone seems to have been doping shouldn't Armstrong be allowed to keep his titles with the with the wording "doping tour' against the winners name.

Just seems to me that the sport was, certainly at this time, an absolute farce with zero credibility.

Well, who gets the titles? Nobody. Or do they redistribute? This is why I say competitors have to be allowed/disallowed to compete based on current technology (we must also come to grips with the fact that any system like this will never be perfect), and after that the results are set in stone. All this stuff going on now is 100% bs, that i am sure of.

He keeps the titles because it appears everyone was cheating anyways. The whole thing is so ridiculous its staggering.

Thank heavens for this new era of cyclists that might save the tarnished reputation of the sport.

I wonder if the time is fast approaching whereby armstrong will have to hold his hands up just to take the media heat away from him. I mean, is it even remotely concievable he's telling the truth and he didn't dope?

[StreetCowboy]

Since everyone seems to have been doping shouldn't Armstrong be allowed to keep his titles with the with the wording "doping tour' against the winners name.

Just seems to me that the sport was, certainly at this time, an absolute farce with zero credibility.

Well, who gets the titles? Nobody. Or do they redistribute? This is why I say competitors have to be allowed/disallowed to compete based on current technology (we must also come to grips with the fact that any system like this will never be perfect), and after that the results are set in stone. All this stuff going on now is 100% bs, that i am sure of.

He keeps the titles because it appears everyone was cheating anyways. The whole thing is so ridiculous its staggering.

Thank heavens for this new era of cyclists that might save the tarnished reputation of the sport.

I wonder if the time is fast approaching whereby armstrong will have to hold his hands up just to take the media heat away from him. I mean, is it even remotely concievable he's telling the truth and he didn't dope?

I thought that was what he'd done.

[Jingthing]

He clearly saw the writing on the wall that the gig was up, so he made an attempt at a diplomat exit that would preserve a good chunk of his loyalists and economic interests. It didn't work. Hardly the crime of the century but role model for children -- no. I wonder if George W. Bush will still be hanging with him.

[StreetCowboy]

He clearly saw the writing on the wall that the gig was up, so he made an attempt at a diplomat exit that would preserve a good chunk of his loyalists and economic interests. It didn't work. Hardly the crime of the century but role model for children -- no. I wonder if George W. Bush will still be hanging with him.

I'm not sure I would condemn him as a poor role model. To the extent that I would, it would only be the jealous spleen of the mediocre, and the holier-than-thou righteousness of those who have never been offered the temptation of international greatness. At the end of the day, he sacrificed his life, and possibly his health, and perhas his morals, for cycling glory. If a young person is not willing to do that, then perhaps they should seek a career more suited to compromise

SC

[Jingthing]

Well, it's really hard for me to imagine good parents telling their kids NOW: be like Lance Armstrong. Label that how you like. I just don't see that happening anymore.

[isawasnake]

He clearly saw the writing on the wall that the gig was up, so he made an attempt at a diplomat exit that would preserve a good chunk of his loyalists and economic interests. It didn't work. Hardly the crime of the century but role model for children -- no. I wonder if George W. Bush will still be hanging with him.

I must say, this is some of the logic I really don't care for. It reminds me of the Kaley Anthony case when the mom went to a baseball game after the murder, and also did some shopping or something. Maybe not a good example using her to prove my point, which is the fact that she went shopping or to a ballgame should have nothing to do with anything. Nobody knows people's motivations. That is not using proper logic.

I still don't get the whole situation here. I must admit, i am not a real cycling fan, but i am a huge sports fan. If a world series ball from 3 years ago was found to have the starting pitchers spit all over it, and then video showing him putting it on and thus no doubt of his guilt, i mean the game was officiated, they didn't get him, and case closed. I have no idea why this would be any different. And mind you, in that example they prove the guy is guilty, so even if LA is guilty, and definitive evidence found, I think they have to eat it. The officials do all they can during the event, and after that the game is over and the champion is crowned.

[Mossfinn]

Armstrong never failed a test. Previous to USADA, never been banned from any event, plenty of speculation and hyperbole, 4 failed tests, 2 failed tests, nothing has been held up.

Plenty of testimony, eye witness accounts, all tainted, some taking reduced sentences in the only sport they know, sponsors jumping out because of guilt of association, nothing concrete.

Did he take PED's, I personally think, probably believe so, but can anyone outside of personal tainted testimony prove it, not at this time.

The weight of accusation is too strong to discount entirely, but the witch hunt is of such a scale, it is almost hard to believe, I feel the organisations have a major input here, they knew what was going on and perpetuated the wrong doing by ineffective and almost incompetent behaviour.

[endure]

The Times have got the real hots for LA at the moment. They've had an article about him in every edition this last week.

[David48]

IOC to wait for UCI to act before considering stripping Lance Armstrong of medal.

LONDON - The IOC will wait for cycling's governing body to act on Lance Armstrong's doping case before it considers taking away his Olympic bronze medal from the 2000 Sydney Games.

The Olympic body also will look into removing Levi Leipheimer's bronze medal from the 2008 Beijing Games after his admission of doping, IOC Vice-President Thomas Bach told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Bach said the IOC will wait for the International Cycling Union, or UCI, to determine whether Armstrong should have been banned before the Sydney Olympics and Leipheimer suspended before the Beijing Games.

The medals are at stake following the release of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's report last week that identified Armstrong as a serial drug cheat and erased his seven Tour de France titles. Leipheimer, one of the key witnesses in USADA's case against Armstrong, confessed to his own doping - and was fired Tuesday by the Omega Pharma-Quick Step team.

From HERE

[isawasnake]

^The ridiculousness continues.

Can we strip the Women's Brazilian olympic volleyball team of their clothes instead? This would make much more sense, and be a much more productive exercise.

Edited October 20, 2012 by isawasnake

[tim armstrong]

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.

The real truth will probably never be told. For sure he is innocent until proven guilty. But remember, the French legal system adopts a different principle - which is that you are guilty until proven innocent. That is one reason that this has gone on for so long.

[Jingthing]

A note on the public media perception about Armstrong in his home country.

I was watching a panel of legal speaking talking heads on Fox News a few days ago.

They were talking about the case of The Times suing Armstrong for a million dollars now because he had previously received a financial settlement from them for their long ago accusations about his doping.

They thought the Times may have a difficult case getting their money on this, but on the topic of did Armstrong dope or not, one guy said 99 percent chance of guilt and nobody else rebutted that. This from a media source that is naturally pro Armstrong as he brought a lot of patriotic pride in the past (not to mention how they liked how he was doing it in France in the days of "Freedom" fries).

I'd say based on that alone, Armstrong is totally finished as any kind of public figure. Like it or not. Fair or not.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Jingthing

[Will27]

He clearly saw the writing on the wall that the gig was up, so he made an attempt at a diplomat exit that would preserve a good chunk of his loyalists and economic interests. It didn't work. Hardly the crime of the century but role model for children -- no. I wonder if George W. Bush will still be hanging with him.

I'm not sure I would condemn him as a poor role model. To the extent that I would, it would only be the jealous spleen of the mediocre, and the holier-than-thou righteousness of those who have never been offered the temptation of international greatness. At the end of the day, he sacrificed his life, and possibly his health, and perhas his morals, for cycling glory. If a young person is not willing to do that, then perhaps they should seek a career more suited to compromise

SC

You wouldn't condemn him as a poor role model?

You cannot defend the indefensible, which is why everyone including sponsors

are dropping off him so quickly.

Lance Armstrong is one of the most calculating biggest drug cheats in the history

of sport.

And as for your last sentence. So what you're saying is, that if someone decides to

hold on to their morals and NOT to cheat, they should find another sport. Please!

Will

[GuestHouse]

The USADA are asking the UCI to strip Armstong of his TdF titles on the basis of accusations which the USADA chose not to take before a court of law.

The USADA know that 1000 pages + 1000 witnesess cannot prove guilt in a court of law where there is "reasoble doubt".

The USADA know that passing over 500 independent drug tests conducted in multiple countries and in multiple laboratories constitutes hard evidence that creates unequivocal reasonable doubt.

The USADA want to strip Armstrong of his reputation and career acheivements on the basis of accusations they absolutely know they cannot prove in a court of law.

Recognise this for what it is... WIN AT ALL COST.

And they say Americans don't do irony!

[GuestHouse]

You cannot defend the indefensible

Then go to a court of law, take along the evidence and the 'plea bargin' witnesses and give the accused JUSTICE.

Or resort to a subjudicial Kangaroo process of accusations the accusers know will mot stand up in court.

But that's precisely the point.

The USADA WILL NOT STAND UP AND MAKE THERE ACCUSATIONS IN A COURT OF LAW!

WHY NOT?!

[whybother]

The USADA are asking the UCI to strip Armstong of his TdF titles on the basis of accusations which the USADA chose not to take before a court of law.

The USADA know that 1000 pages + 1000 witnesess cannot prove guilt in a court of law where there is "reasoble doubt".

The USADA know that passing over 500 independent drug tests conducted in multiple countries and in multiple laboratories constitutes hard evidence that creates unequivocal reasonable doubt.

The USADA want to strip Armstrong of his reputation and career acheivements on the basis of accusations they absolutely know they cannot prove in a court of law.

Recognise this for what it is... WIN AT ALL COST.

And they say Americans don't do irony!

I thought they weren't taking it to court because Armstrong chose not to defend himself.

[isawasnake]

This all makes me sick actually. I am not even an Armstrong fan either.

This is what is happening, I think every one can relate to this....

First day of class, and you get the rubric. It says 90% of the grade is based in classwork... the last 10% on the final. A student analyzes that, he then gets all the points in the class to receive his 90%. Skips out on the final because he is smart and knows he has a A already. The teacher then says no, you can't do that, I am going to fail you because you didn't take the final. The student says "but what about this rubric you gave us". The teacher answers, "oh, that is meaningless, all that matters is what I say now".

I don't even care if 18 videos come out showing the guy pumping steroids into his body, they have no right to be taking his titles away. Anyway, just like the student in the above example would have to get an F even though he should get an A, life goes on. The sponsors may be the real winners here though. Can you imagine an athlete selling 100's of millions of product for you, and then having to pay you back his endorsement funds. Wow.

[StreetCowboy]

He clearly saw the writing on the wall that the gig was up, so he made an attempt at a diplomat exit that would preserve a good chunk of his loyalists and economic interests. It didn't work. Hardly the crime of the century but role model for children -- no. I wonder if George W. Bush will still be hanging with him.

I'm not sure I would condemn him as a poor role model. To the extent that I would, it would only be the jealous spleen of the mediocre, and the holier-than-thou righteousness of those who have never been offered the temptation of international greatness. At the end of the day, he sacrificed his life, and possibly his health, and perhas his morals, for cycling glory. If a young person is not willing to do that, then perhaps they should seek a career more suited to compromise

SC

You wouldn't condemn him as a poor role model?

You cannot defend the indefensible, which is why everyone including sponsors

are dropping off him so quickly.

Lance Armstrong is one of the most calculating biggest drug cheats in the history

of sport.

And as for your last sentence. So what you're saying is, that if someone decides to

hold on to their morals and NOT to cheat, they should find another sport. Please!

Will

They didn't condemn him when he was winning. To win, he had to do all that he could.

Now they condemn him, because he pushed the limits in a sport that was putting forth rules that they could not enforce, and he was playing the enforcement, not the rules.

Now, they're retrospectively stripping him of titles. Let's face it, it makes a laughing stock of a sport if they retrospectively decide who the winner was, several years after the event.

Are they going to revisit the 1966 world cup as well?

SC

[Jingthing]

Well from an American cultural perspective which maybe is universal, Americans love a winner.

(Honestly, what fraction of one percent of Americans cared about who won the Tour de France before Lance.)

But we also love to see super successful people get ruined by scandals.

That's entertainment!

Sorry I can't take this seriously.

I feel he's had his run and now c'est la vie. Literally.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Jingthing

[Briggsy]

Is there any link between doping and ball cancer?

Absolutely

In the earlier 90's, on the American team, Worlds Olympics etc, the coaches went ballistic on the use of cortisone. It enhances your performance and recovery but your immune system pays a heavy toll. Viruses that young healthy males would normally resist easily persist and produce symptoms normally only seen in immuno-depressed patients.

See parvovirus and testicular cancer in young males.

[isawasnake]

Yes. Let's turn every sporting event and every champion that has ever existed into "cold cases". Not only that, when the next champion is crowned let's put an asterisk next to their name saying "until we can definitively solve whether or not he cheated with future technology". That is how ridiculous this is.

[uptheos]

No-one will ever win 7 Tour de France titles again, drugs or no drugs it was quite a feat.

Edited October 23, 2012 by uptheos

[Jingthing]

No-one will ever win 7 Tour de France titles again, drugs or no drugs it was quite a feat.

That is true. Because if it starts to happen again, they'll bust the guy quicker.

[uptheos]

No-one will ever win 7 Tour de France titles again, drugs or no drugs it was quite a feat.

That is true. Because if it starts to happen again, they'll bust the guy quicker.

I see the UCI are today asking him to pay back 3.8 million.

[StreetCowboy]

No-one will ever win 7 Tour de France titles again, drugs or no drugs it was quite a feat.

That is true. Because if it starts to happen again, they'll bust the guy quicker.

I see the UCI are today asking him to pay back 3.8 million.

Because of they're own poor enforcement of rules?

I hope they don't start issuing retrospective speeding fines based on the testimony of other motorists

SC

[GuestHouse]

I thought they weren't taking it to court because Armstrong chose not to defend himself.

By that logic, the police would not take murderes to court if they said they refuse to defend themselves.

Amstrong said he would nolonger take part in the USADA subjudicial witch hunt.

The USADA did not go to court because they know they will mot get a conviction - passing 500 independent drug tests = Reasonable Doubt!