Armstrong Robbed

[7by7]

manarak, where have I said that you support Armstrong?

You don't appear to know the meaning of 'others' in the context of my post. It means other people, people who are neither you nor I!

You say "I was only asking the readers what their take is on the fact that the top athletes are people with genetic anomalies giving them an unattainable advantage over the other athletes"

I gave you mine; which you seem to disagree with. Maybe when you ask for peoples opinions you only want those that agree with yours?

You are correct, though, in saying that life is unfair and people are not created equal. We are not all a Pele or a Bradman or a Bolt or a Wiggins and never will be, no matter how hard we train.

But, as I said before, there is a big difference between using the body one was born with and training it to compete at the highest level in one's chosen sport and enhancing that training by using banned substances and methods.

One is fair competition and the other is cheating.

[carmine]

Well, this has been an interesting story. Lance Armstrong, whether you like to admit it or not, was no doubt the best in the world at something for a certain amount of time. That is quite an accomplishment, and it is also really easy to try and tear down a man of that stature. The reason it is so easy is because you will probably never be anywhere near that good at anything. And when I say anywhere near, I really mean it. If you have never been very competitive at any sport, you probably have no idea what I am talking about. He was great. Did he make mistakes? yes, but so have we all.

Is it an interesting story or just a very sad one about a very sad dysfunctional bully who happened to be a world class cyclist.

Whats so wrong about your post begins with you saying he was the best in the world when really you have no idea how good he would have been without the huge help of illegal performance enhancing drugs and secondly the disservice you do to clean athletes.

How on earth do you know he was a better cyclists who were having to race against him at a constant disadvantage. There is NO evidence to suggest he was EVER the best. The only evidence you have is listening to this pathological liar that simply wasn't good enough to do it clean and emulate the likes of Indurain.

Armstrongs was a big enough liar and vindictive bully to ruin and discredit his countryman though that did 'prove he was the best winning it clean.' Armstrong was probably jealous because he was never up to much without his performance enhancers

Your own words just magnify your lack of understanding. Think of it like the home run record... did Bonds juice? I'm sure. Is anybody in the world capable of hitting that many home runs, ON OR OFF steroids. No. You dont understand that point, and that it fine. You have never been in the middle of dozens of the best cyclists in the world and came out on top (neither have i to be honest), under all the intimidation and motivation to bring you down. Bottom line, people just have no idea what they are talking about. They dont. People like you are also blind to the fact that most of the people you admire probably cheated in many ways... from businessman, to who knows, a cy young winner who put some spit on a baseball. Show me the guy at the top of wall street and i swear id give 5 to 1 he is a total scumbag cheat.

Really, my only point is that I still think he's a great athlete. People can think what they want of him, of course, but it is just way off in my estimation to just think "oh, he's nothing, he won nothing and never did a thing". That is a 100% crock, but that is what people think.... so it is what it is that's all... not the first time everybody was wrong about something.

I don't think Bradley Wiggins or Greg LeMonde would agree with oyur sentiments and neither do i.

The one aspect i am in agreement with you is that he's a great athelete. You have to be to become a professional cyclist. About that theres no denying.

I'm just saying his position over the years in cycling is false because he wasn't good enough to win with illegal help

[manarak]

manarak, where have I said that you support Armstrong?

You don't appear to know the meaning of 'others' in the context of my post. It means other people, people who are neither you nor I!

Apologies, the comma didn't register when I read the post.

[whybother]

Anti-doping boss claims Armstrong still lying

LANCE Armstrong has until February 6 to do something he has always resisted - co-operate fully with the US Anti-Doping Agency - and is being lured by the promise his lifetime ban from sport will be reconsidered.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/antidoping-boss-claims-armstrong-still-lying-20130126-2ddse.html#ixzz2J5RNAqf6

[carmine]

Anti-doping boss claims Armstrong still lying

LANCE Armstrong has until February 6 to do something he has always resisted - co-operate fully with the US Anti-Doping Agency - and is being lured by the promise his lifetime ban from sport will be reconsidered.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2J5RNAqf6

Yes he's obviously still lying especially if you read the article relating to an interview with Bradley Wiggins. I believe Wiggins referred to him as a lying bastard with reference to Armstrong telling Oprah he didn't dope for the 2009 tour!

i really don't care for the comments made on this thread by some regarding him. A great athlete yes, but good enough to win in his sport clean...quite obviously not. He's a kind of great athlete on a second level of great athletes. The likes of Indurain, LeMonde and Wiggins being on the top tier.

Antway, lets hope the cheating lying runt gets sued into financial oblivion paying back all those people that he bullied with his legal actions

Edited January 27, 2013 by carmine

[steveromagnino]

Big Mig was just perhaps a doper as well; EPO appeared in the late 80s early 90s....it is difficult to imagine that he was racing clean when those around him were dirty...and also explains why he didn't come down like a bag of bricks on Riis and other admitted dopers as they came clean (always when they were caught, I don't think any other than the underlings like Steve Swart came clean of their own volition). He was also offered a place on ONCE which were well known dopers in 1997....so the jury is out.

The story of asthma medication (for which he was initially pinged since it is a performance enhancing drug or that's what is commonly believed so is rife in triathalon and I presume also in most other endurance sports); amazing how many people suffer asthma when they compete and need inhalers..similar to clenbuterol which is banned generally (hence why so many athletes seem to suffer from it so get an excemption)....

Big Mig was also coached (I think) by Conconi who introduced much of the EPO to the peleton from Italy and was the mentor to Ferrari and Cecchini....but Big Mig was a gentleman on and off the bike and never played the holier than thou role so in some way we give him the benefit of the doubt. And who knows, maybe he really did suffer from Asthma too and never took anything..certainly would make the whole nature of cycling a little different given most of the other TdF winners in the last 50 years has probably been taking something.His physiology is incredibly impressive vs. normal people and perhaps slightly less amazing vs. other cyclists relating to VO2 max and resting heart rate...

It is indeed true that Armstrong didn't beat a clean person to 1st...rather he beat another 20 dopers and then somewhere among that lot there was a clean rider...somewhere....propped up (as team sports are) but a bunch of dopers; the doping culture began before Armstrong started winning in 1999. Why he is being singled out is

1. his profile as the most successful cyclist in the TDF

2. his arrogance and power in the sport to crush those who didn't see life as he did

3. that he's not a European

4. that he was a little unlucky and foolish in coming back and snubbing Landis along the way

5. that he doesn't seem to pretend to be contrite, and has lousy PR agents who have not schooled him on how to handle

in this respect, I consider Thaksin to be exactly the same; at some point the truth will come out and the guy will be in the same position Lance is in now; both were super powerful at one point...but the edifice is built on sand and lies and it only takes a few honest people to blow down the house of cards...however a lot of luck is involved and Lance got a little unlucky; so far Thaksin has got relatively lucky.Having said all of that, I still think Lance won an unfair sport in the same way that everyone else was doing; so I still consider him to be amazing. Just not quite as amazing as I would have liked...but I presumed he was a doper anyhow (they all are). YOu would have to look very hard to find a non doper up near the front in a clean team.

Edited January 29, 2013 by steveromagnino

[David48]

The Lance Armstrong saga is without a doubt the greatest fraud in the history of sport. To understand the scale of what we are talking about, try to imagine discovering that Mohammed Ali had won seven World Heavyweight boxing titles fraudulently -

VOICEOVER: His name is Lance Armstrong and today, if his legs feel strong, this 21 year-old Texan can become cycling's first million dollar baby…

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: But now a second rider has told Four Corners that a payment was offered and made by Lance Armstrong.

Tonight for the first time Frankie Andreu alleges that Armstrong - contrary to his denial under oath - paid other riders to allow him to win the deciding final leg of the Triple Crown.

VOICEOVER: After over 140 miles of racing, Lance has somehow found the strength to put it in overdrive...

FRANKIE ANDREU: I know in Philadelphia Lance was in a break and he made a deal with some Italians to be able to pay them some money in order to arrange so that he would, you know, be in the position to be able to win. And so, um, I want to say it was it was $50,000, was was the amount, and yeah he won and then he won the Triple Crown.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Armstrong crossed the finishing line in triumph and won the first-ever million dollar bonus.

ABC's 4 Corners program aired this past Monday night

[David48]

^^ Later in that same program ...

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: If, as seems almost certain, Lance Armstrong was doping when he returned to the Tour de France in 2009,

why not admit it now?

USADA's chief, Travis Tygart, thinks he has the answer.

(Extract from CBS 60 Minutes Sports interview with Travis Tygart)

TRAVIS TYGART: I think it stops the criminal conspiracy and protects him and the others that helped him pull off this scheme from potential criminal prosecution if that was in fact true.

SCOTT PELLEY: How does that help him in that way?

TRAVIS TYGART:

There's a five-year statute on a fraud criminal charge. So the five years today would have been expired.

However, if the last point of his doping - as we alleged and proved in our reasoned decision -was in 2010, then the statute has not yet expired and he potentially could be charged with a criminal violation for conspiracy to defraud.

I love cyclying ... and I was a fan of Lance Armstrong ... but now the truth has come to light of not only the lies, but the doping, the fixing of races, the strong arm tactics, the bibery, the want and desire to crush anyone who stood in his way ...

And then, just when you think he has fessed up all ... you have the story above.

He fessed up the criminal activities for the stuff that now he can't be legally charged with ...

[whybother]

'Bully' Armstrong faces new jail threat

The chances of Lance Armstrong facing criminal proceedings looked increasingly likely after the US Department of Justice reopened its investigation into him.

US television network ABC News reported that the investigation into Armstrong centred on possible obstruction, witness tampering and intimidation.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2KBSe2DDC

Edited February 7, 2013 by whybother

[lomatopo]

Winning without doping was impossible, says Armstrong

PARIS | Fri Jun 28, 2013 3:51am EDT

(Reuters) - Disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong, who cheated his way to seven Tour de France victories from 1999-2005, claims it would have been impossible to win the world's greatest race without doping. Asked if riders won races drugs-free in the era when he competed, a bullish Armstrong told French daily Le Monde on Friday: "It depends on the races. The Tour de France? No. Impossible to win without doping.

"My name was taken out of the palmares (list of achievements) but the Tour was held between 1999 and 2005 wasn't it? There must be a winner then. Who is he? Nobody came forward to claim my jerseys."

Five-times Tour champion Bernard Hinault was quick to react, the Frenchman telling local TV channel BFM: "He must not know what it was like to ride without doping."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-cycling-doping-armstrong-idUSBRE95R08Y20130628

[manarak]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

[StreetCowboy]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

It doesn't seem right, though, to rely on rules that they cannot enforce by objective measurement. He was tested, he passed. if he was clean enough to pass the test, surely he should've been clean enough to cycle?

SC

[Loptr]

'Bully' Armstrong faces new jail threat

The chances of Lance Armstrong facing criminal proceedings looked increasingly likely after the US Department of Justice reopened its investigation into him.

US television network ABC News reported that the investigation into Armstrong centred on possible obstruction, witness tampering and intimidation.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2KBSe2DDC

Lance Armstrong, coming to a moo bahn near you. After all, isn't Thailand the country of choice for fugitives?

[Loptr]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

It doesn't seem right, though, to rely on rules that they cannot enforce by objective measurement. He was tested, he passed. if he was clean enough to pass the test, surely he should've been clean enough to cycle?

SC

IMO, they should remove all drug testing in the sport. There will always be those that bend the rules to their own advantage. Let the team with the best chemist win.

[manarak]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

It doesn't seem right, though, to rely on rules that they cannot enforce by objective measurement. He was tested, he passed. if he was clean enough to pass the test, surely he should've been clean enough to cycle?

SC

you mean the driver of a car equipped with stealth technology should not be fined for speeding?

[isawasnake]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

It doesn't seem right, though, to rely on rules that they cannot enforce by objective measurement. He was tested, he passed. if he was clean enough to pass the test, surely he should've been clean enough to cycle?

SC

you mean the driver of a car equipped with stealth technology should not be fined for speeding?

What if somebody told a boxer they had to weigh 78 kilos or below before a fight, and then after the fight was over they said something like "oh wait, we changed that weight requirement to 77 kilos, you lose since you were 78, give us your title belt". If you don't already get it, I suspect you never will to be honest.

Edited June 29, 2013 by isawasnake

[whybother]

What if somebody told a boxer they had to weigh 78 kilos or below before a fight, and then after the fight was over they said something like "oh wait, we changed that weight requirement to 77 kilos, you lose since you were 78, give us your title belt". If you don't already get it, I suspect you never will to be honest.

They didn't change the rules after Armstrong competed. He broke the rules that were current at the time that he raced.

[manarak]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

It doesn't seem right, though, to rely on rules that they cannot enforce by objective measurement. He was tested, he passed. if he was clean enough to pass the test, surely he should've been clean enough to cycle?

SC

you mean the driver of a car equipped with stealth technology should not be fined for speeding?

What if somebody told a boxer they had to weigh 78 kilos or below before a fight, and then after the fight was over they said something like "oh wait, we changed that weight requirement to 77 kilos, you lose since you were 78, give us your title belt". If you don't already get it, I suspect you never will to be honest.

I can return the same to you: "If you don't already get it, I suspect you never will to be honest. "

He broke the rules he was competing under - but the doping detection tests were not able at the time to detect the substance he used to cheat.

[StreetCowboy]

well, it might not have been possible *for Armstrong* to win without doping...

makes it even more unfair to the others.

It doesn't seem right, though, to rely on rules that they cannot enforce by objective measurement. He was tested, he passed. if he was clean enough to pass the test, surely he should've been clean enough to cycle?

SC

you mean the driver of a car equipped with stealth technology should not be fined for speeding?

It seems slightly arbitrary to only fine the man who won the race. It would seem that the people who should be vilified are the people who introduced rules that they could not enforce, and thus encouraged cheating. Races will always be won by single-minded individuals who will stop at nothing to win; we can't expect all sportsmen to have the honour, good humour, discipline and grace of Johnny Wilkinson or Chris Patterson, and our rules should not be based on trusting that they do

SC

[frankold]

Its quite funny that no one else has stepped foward to claim these yellow jerseys now that these new tests are available.

[StreetCowboy]

Its quite funny that no one else has stepped foward to claim these yellow jerseys now that these new tests are available.

The organisers should stand up and say "We were unable to run a race within our rules. We apologise to everyone who put in so much effort, but the game's a bogey", and stop pointing the finger at one cheat out of many

SC

Edited June 30, 2013 by StreetCowboy

[whybother]

Its quite funny that no one else has stepped foward to claim these yellow jerseys now that these new tests are available.

The organisers should stand up and say "We were unable to run a race within our rules. We apologise to everyone who put in so much effort, but the game's a bogey", and stop pointing the finger at one cheat out of many

SC

One? It wasn't just Armstrong that was caught and banned.

[frankold]

But if they did a backtest now that they have a new way to pickup these previously undetectable substances, the first to come up negative would probably be pierre the french onion salesman whos still not got past the first stage that would end up with the yellow jersey?

Rather than doing that, everyone is too busy crucifying Armstrong.

[manarak]

But if they did a backtest now that they have a new way to pickup these previously undetectable substances, the first to come up negative would probably be pierre the french onion salesman whos still not got past the first stage that would end up with the yellow jersey?

Rather than doing that, everyone is too busy crucifying Armstrong.

He brought it onto himself with the image he has been trying to construct.

"Mr Clean", "Mr Hero", "Mr no drugs", "Mr I beat cancer", "Mr Honest"... a cheater.

Edited July 1, 2013 by manarak

[frankold]

Fair enough.