325 replies to this topic

[BigFatCoward]

Lance Armstrong has announced he is no longer going to fight the USADA charges.  the levels of evidence against him seem pretty strong.  while i have no end of admiration for anybody that comes back from the illness he had to win 7 tours i don't believe for a second he didn't dope.  the amount of people that are lining up to knife him in the back isn't what convinces me.  its the fact that all his main rivals at the time - ullrich, basso, pantani were all doped up to the eyeballs and still couldn't get near him.

i hope, without any real conviction, that he is able to continue his charitable work with the same success.  finding redemption and maybe, eventually being primarily remembered for that.

[Calibandar]

I agree with you that it is so likely that he doped. He's never been caught but neither was Valverde and they sent him off for two years based on circumstancial evidence fro two years anyway.

It's mostly because all the other top guys in his time are known dopers, and doping at that time was part and parcel of the sport. It seems so unlikely that the man who dominated all other riders, hasn't used dope.

I am not sure what to make of this declaration though. He's still denying he's ever used, and presumably he would still declare so in court, so in what sense is he giving up the fight? In the sense that he isn't trying to obstruct USADA anymore?

[baxus]

if they prove he's been doping then he's a cheat, no doubt.
there is no two ways about it, he's used means that are not allowed to win.
that's got to be a definition of a cheat.

[BigFatCoward]

Calibandar, on 24 August 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

I agree with you that it is so likely that he doped. He's never been caught but neither was Valverde and they sent him off for two years based on circumstancial evidence fro two years anyway.

neither did david millar, jan ullrich, basso, marion jones or a whole host of others.  this is why blood passports, which illustrate issues without a positive are a step in the right direction.

[Arthmail]

Sorry, how would the law apply in this sort of situation? He has never, at any point, tested positive. Once, but there was a doctors note, from what i understand. A bunch of other guys saying that it happened is not enough for me, to be honest. They could be attacking him on purely personal levels, and though i suspect that he probably did dope, i think that without evidence there is simply no way to justify these actions.

To be honest, it does seem like a witch hunt. Besides which, what right does the USADA have over an international sport? None.

[Greywolf2375]

Arthmail, on 24 August 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

To be honest, it does seem like a witch hunt. Besides which, what right does the USADA have over an international sport? None.

It sounds like they are pushing for them to be taken really by the ICU under the anti-doping agreement.

I don't following racing enough to really know, but just based on the number of stories of doping there's a legit question. It seems that the question gets answered with all of the tests he had taken, but I'm sure there's parts...lots...of it I don't know enough about.

[Elder Sister]

I don't really have an opinion on Lance Armstrong's situation, although, as others have mentioned, I admire his ability to come back from cancer.

I did hear interesting commentary from Frank Deford on NPR.  His take on it is that drug testing should be done away with.  Just let everyone take whatever they choose to, as they're already doing it anyway.  He was discussing cycling, MLB, everything.

I thought it made sense.

[Dr. Tachyon]

Calibandar, on 24 August 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

I agree with you that it is so likely that he doped. He's never been caught but neither was Valverde and they sent him off for two years based on circumstancial evidence fro two years anyway.

It's mostly because all the other top guys in his time are known dopers, and doping at that time was part and parcel of the sport. It seems so unlikely that the man who dominated all other riders, hasn't used dope.

I am not sure what to make of this declaration though. He's still denying he's ever used, and presumably he would still declare so in court, so in what sense is he giving up the fight? In the sense that he isn't trying to obstruct USADA anymore?

He avoids a court verdict. USADA will have his Tour wins annulled but he'll claim it's unjustified. He couldn't do it if a court found him guilty of doping. As for the evidence, apparently enough of his former team mates have testified against him to turn the tide.

[Maltaran]

Can the USADA really annul his Tour wins? I would have thought that's a decision for the UCI to make.

[Dr. Tachyon]

Maltaran, on 24 August 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

Can the USADA really annul his Tour wins? I would have thought that's a decision for the UCI to make.

Apparently UCI is obliged to annul his titles under the world anti doping code if USADA demands it.

[Inigima]

I don't know shit about cycling and I don't really give a fuck about Lance Armstrong but it seems pretty heinous to take away his titles and persecute him for literally years on the basis of "we don't believe you despite our repeated investigations failing to find any problems."

[Padraig]

Arthmail, on 24 August 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

To be honest, it does seem like a witch hunt.

Why?  They clearly have evidence against him.  Enough for him to give up fighting the case.

Is a witch hunt trying to convict a very prominent probable cheat?

[Inigima]

For those of us who don't follow cycling, what is the evidence?

[Padraig]

Inigima, on 24 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

"we don't believe you despite our repeated investigations failing to find any problems."

But now they have found problems.  I admire the doggedness in exposing him.

[Lord O' Bones]

Inigima, on 24 August 2012 - 07:15 AM, said:

For those of us who don't follow cycling, what is the evidence?

He won a lot. And is an American. That shouldn't happen.

Apparently.

[baxus]

Inigima, on 24 August 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

I don't know shit about cycling and I don't really give a fuck about Lance Armstrong but it seems pretty heinous to take away his titles and persecute him for literally years on the basis of "we don't believe you despite our repeated investigations failing to find any problems."

i thought this as well, until he gave up fighting.
you don't give up fighting and let them crap all over your life's work unless you know they have a great case and you'll get destroyed in court.

Padraig, on 24 August 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

But now they have found problems.  I admire the doggedness in exposing him.

it's a shame they couldn't do it in time, but better late than never i guess.

[Alisa]

It's fairly big new to take away his titles.  That's as big as stripping Schumacher of his 7 titles, Armstrong is that big of a name in Tour cycling, he was pretty much the only cyclist whose name I knew growing up.  I wonder who's left, un-banned, from that era to claim his titles.

But if he did it then the punishment is right, it serves as a deterrent and that is sorely needed in cycling, and other sports.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

These anti-doping rules are out of control. I can see them stripping him of his wins if he tested positive but he's passed hundreds of tests.  And stripping him of those wins isn't going to change the fact that he won those races.

[Lord O' Bones]

baxus, on 24 August 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

i thought this as well, until he gave up fighting.
you don't give up fighting and let them crap all over your life's work unless you know they have a great case and you'll get destroyed in court.

Please do let us know if this is what you do when it happens to you.

And remember: when you get sick and tired of it all, don't stop fighting it. Forget living your life, just keep fighting against hateful people to prove that you're not a cheater for a few decades, above all else. Because that's how you should spend your life. Dealing with fucking assholes.

[mormont]

I understand the USADA have said they'll release the evidence, but IIRC it was said to include eyewitnesses who would testify to Armstrong receiving blood transfusions. Now, they might be lying, or they might not. As Bonesy says, Armstrong might just have got fed up dealing with the whole thing, or he might have decided he couldn't win, either because of bias, or because he genuinely is guilty. None of us can say, yet, and possibly we won't be able to say for sure ever. One way or the other, though, it's a sad day for sport.