Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Lance Armstrong


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#1 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 October 2012 - 23:31

Is this the greatest fall from grace in sporting history?
- The seven Tour wins didn't actually happen.
- Millions of fans have been duped.
- The inspiration drawn from his books by millions is fake.
- The UCI seems to be guilty of turning a blind eye sending the entire sport into disrepute.
- Cancer sufferers have lost a source of inspiration along with the support of Armstrong's charity which will surely decline.

Every cycling fan I talk to is just disillusioned and deflated.

Australian ABC TV report.

Edited by gruntguru, 17 October 2012 - 23:36.


Advertisement

#2 John Brundage

John Brundage
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:11

And he still says he didn't use any ped's
When will he come clean?

#3 Marc Sproule

Marc Sproule
  • Member

  • 666 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2012 - 01:33

Since Nike dumped him the question becomes how much it will affect his ability to raise money for Livestrong.

It will be interesting to see the pr campaign they wage in the face of such seemingly overwhelming evidence.

What a sad story, no matter what the truth is.

#4 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:07

He is quitting Livestrong.

#5 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 02:35

He's stepped down as Chairman, but he's still on the board. Nike, Trek, Radio Shack, Giro and InBev (micheolob light) all pulled the pin publicly today. At this time, only Oakley remains as one of the household names though for how much longer remains to be seen. Then there's SRAM to which he's part owner and HoneyStingers which have his name all over them (they are good I must admit). I feel some empathy at the moment because I can't imagine the absolute sh*tstorm his life has become at this moment. On the other hand, having read a reasonable portion of the USADA file, I think he earned every last bit of it. He built this downfall.

He didn't just cheat - the man bullied and threatened people as a regular course of action. His actions are not those of a hero. Period.

#6 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 03:43

As one journalist said back when Armstrong said he would fight it no more, far more important than stripping Armstrong of his titles is who is going to listed as winner.

The journalist said, all the riders that finished anywhere even close to the front were doping, so there is no honest way they can simply name replacements and be sure that rider was not doping also.

#7 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 04:22

As one journalist said back when Armstrong said he would fight it no more, far more important than stripping Armstrong of his titles is who is going to listed as winner.


I heard something along the lines of "if the titles are stripped, there would officially be no Tour winner for those years".

#8 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,088 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:17

The Olympics gives it to the next guy. Not that find it likely that anyone at the time was clean but i feel sad for that guy who is clean and would have gotten it if he was in the olympics.

It would also be a good way to "forget" about the cheaters.

#9 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 06:21

I say if they have no way of "clearing" other riders of that era - give it to no one. Times have been getting worse as they clear up the doping, so it is probable that none of the front runners were clean in those days.

#10 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:51

Every cycling fan I talk to is just disillusioned and deflated


Not this little black duck, I went off Armstrong after the witness intimidation of Simeoni in the 2004 tour.

The most interesting aspect of this whole debacle for me is the balance between Armstrong being, from all accounts, a thoroughly dislikable individual and his charitable work.


#11 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 13:06

Blood doping has been known since 1970s and it wasn't banned until 1980s. It's such a big help I can't imagine anyone winning The Tour without it. Maybe in the last couple of years if the tests are really good.

#12 ray b

ray b
  • Member

  • 2,580 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 18 October 2012 - 14:33

just like cars
stock AND MOD CLASS

LET THE DO WHAT EVER
JUST IN THEIR OWN CLASS

#13 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 17:05

As one journalist said back when Armstrong said he would fight it no more, far more important than stripping Armstrong of his titles is who is going to listed as winner.

Disagree. That's a hollow argument and entirely irrelevant in the overall picture. You don't avoid sanctioning one rider because it makes results administration complicated. The results are bunk/garbage/meaningless whether we care to admit it or not. What matters is routing out the remaining cheaters and those that promote, administer or otherwise assist them out of the sport. If my kid(s) want continue to enjoy riding their bicycles and want to pursue it, I want them to have a fighting chance based on their abilities, not on their willingness to cheat.

Armstrong and the rest of them made millions by cheating, screwing clean riders out of that same chance. They forced people out of racing for being honest. Who won? Who cares - what is

#14 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 17:08

As one journalist said back when Armstrong said he would fight it no more, far more important than stripping Armstrong of his titles is who is going to listed as winner.

Disagree. That's a hollow argument and entirely irrelevant in the overall picture. You don't avoid sanctioning one rider because it makes results administration complicated. The results are bunk/garbage/meaningless whether we care to admit it or not. What matters is routing out the remaining cheaters and those that promote, administer or otherwise assist them out of the sport. If my kid(s) want continue to enjoy riding their bicycles and want to pursue it, I want them to have a fighting chance based on their abilities, not on their willingness to cheat.

Armstrong and the rest of them made millions by cheating, screwing clean riders out of that same chance. They forced people out of racing for being honest. Who won? Who cares - what is important is cleaning it up and maintaining that cleanliness.

As a side note - to the free for all dope-what-you-will idea. We are not a rational species and that competition would immediately find itself dominated by utter freaks. One need only look to the body-building world to understand how far we are willing to go to win - and that world pays nothing compared to cycling.

#15 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,022 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 18 October 2012 - 19:33

I'm surprised by the people who honestly believed he wasn't doping until recent weeks.

Dude only has one testicle. I always assumed he was using exogenous testosterone--his body's natural ability to produce it had been halved, for God's sake! Of course he was injecting testosterone!

#16 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 18 October 2012 - 22:40

It was not an arguement, it was/is a simple fact that will have to be dealt with.

#17 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 1,891 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:17

How many races would AJ have won if we were able to take away those that happened with a cheated up car? I've got a bit to write on this. I might or might not. I'm a bit conflicted on the whole thing. I'm at work this week/weekend. I'll have to come back to it later.

Is what he did wrong? Yes. Do I understand it? Yes.

#18 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,108 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:22

The root problem was that rules against doping weren't enforceable. When you have unenforceable rules in a competitive environment, they're going to be broken by virtually anyone. Those who will refuse to go along with the charade will be swept aside by those who are, and then every single competitor will be living a lie. You don't have to be a ****: any competitor who can read the situation will understand that the only way to stay in the sport is to cheat.

#19 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 October 2012 - 19:44

Uhm...let's put the responsibilty for individual actions where it belongs - on the individuals. Ease of screwing the system does not make the system to blame, any more than saying your inability to radar-patrol the roads makes my excessive speeding your fault. What a lame position.

Everyone knows the rules, individuals choose to cheat. The lack of personal responsibility is horrendous.

Advertisement

#20 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,920 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 19 October 2012 - 19:46

I think there's Cycling Cheating, and there's Armstrong Cheating. He went around pissing people off, suing them, etc, et al. I think people have a bigger problem with the fraud than the cheating.

#21 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,108 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 19 October 2012 - 21:54

Uhm...let's put the responsibilty for individual actions where it belongs - on the individuals. Ease of screwing the system does not make the system to blame, any more than saying your inability to radar-patrol the roads makes my excessive speeding your fault. What a lame position.

Everyone knows the rules, individuals choose to cheat. The lack of personal responsibility is horrendous.

Sure, blame the individuals if you want to feel good about yourself, especially while not having to face the moral dilemma yourself. If you want the cheating to stop, however, then taking a look at the system is the intelligent approach.

In the long run, human behavior is governed by incentives, positive and negative. Systems that relied on humans honorably ignoring personal incentives, especially in a competitive environment, have never worked out historically. This point applies on a much wider scale than just sports.

#22 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,108 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 19 October 2012 - 22:11

I think there's Cycling Cheating, and there's Armstrong Cheating. He went around pissing people off, suing them, etc, et al. I think people have a bigger problem with the fraud than the cheating.

Well, one of the consequences of having a system that corrupts everyone inside of it is that those who are natural-born **** have an extra advantage.

#23 bigleagueslider

bigleagueslider
  • Member

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 20 October 2012 - 00:58

I say if they have no way of "clearing" other riders of that era - give it to no one. Times have been getting worse as they clear up the doping, so it is probable that none of the front runners were clean in those days.


How true. And it wasn't just the front runners that were doping, every rider at that level of competition was. The doping is so effective for cycling performance that the riders only had two choices, use the PED's or go find a new profession. It's a bit pathetic to see how they went after Armstrong after the fact. The governing bodies were more than happy to look the other way when Armstrong was helping to make them money.

If pro cycling were somehow entirely drug free during those years, Armstrong probably still would have been very successful. He was a very hard working athlete. The advantage provided by PED's to cyclists is a bit like the advantage a great engine or chassis gives an F1 driver. There have been quite a few F1 world champs whose titles were mostly the product of the car they were driving at the time, as opposed to their "superior" driving talent.



#24 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:18

The debate over Lance Armstrong reminds me of the same over USF1, under normal circumstances perfectly logic and reasonable american friends of mine all of
a sudden became outraged when it was suggested that the team was a farce at best. I hear the same song now, all the far-fetched explanations and excuses.

Fact is that Armstrong was a systematical cheat for many years and that's all there's to it.

Edited by Rasputin, 20 October 2012 - 05:19.


#25 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,755 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:49

If pro cycling were somehow entirely drug free during those years, Armstrong probably still would have been very successful.

He may have been. Or it may have been that he scared off half the competition by doping. Those who were successful in Olympic track, for example, where the drug tests were more stringent, might have had a go at the TdF a la Wiggins, but had zero chance without cheating. So he was successful by cheating against a depleted field. It's like Pironi at San Marino 1982. Was that really a win, or just coming first?

#26 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:30

He didn't just cheat - the man bullied and threatened people as a regular course of action. His actions are not those of a hero. Period.

bigleagueslider
Today, 01:58

The advantage provided by PED's to cyclists is a bit like the advantage a great engine or chassis gives an F1 driver. There have been quite a few F1 world champs whose titles were mostly the product of the car they were driving at the time, as opposed to their "superior" driving talent.

I have experienced similar actions by people who you would expect to act in a manner befitting their title,

Edited by malbear, 20 October 2012 - 09:33.


#27 malbear

malbear
  • Member

  • 244 posts
  • Joined: September 02

Posted 20 October 2012 - 20:38

http://powercommunic...Psychopaths.pdfnarcissist psychopath
this may explain a lot

#28 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:57

Not to mention money. There are many who are prepared to do far worse than "cheat" when there are millions of dollars on the table.

#29 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:03

Sure, blame the individuals if you want to feel good about yourself, especially while not having to face the moral dilemma yourself. If you want the cheating to stop, however, then taking a look at the system is the intelligent approach.

In the long run, human behavior is governed by incentives, positive and negative. Systems that relied on humans honorably ignoring personal incentives, especially in a competitive environment, have never worked out historically. This point applies on a much wider scale than just sports.

I have no hesitation in saying I would (likely) have used PEDs if I was in that scenario. Hell - I heavily researched "traditional" steroids for the sole purpose of getting bigger, with no economic upside and, ultimately economics, and not morals, determined that I would not go down that path. I'm not trying to claim any moral high ground here. Shifting the blame doesn't change the individual's actions and choices. They - and only they - made the decision to cheat. Blaming the poor enforcement is...I'm not sure. I find the lack of expectations disturbing. oh, it's not their fault - they're victims!. Nauseating.

I can use your line of reasoning to defend high-level drug dealing - hugh economic payoff, low risk of getting caught, lower risk of suffering any meaningful punishment if I am. Not faced with their moral dilemma...give over. They lied. They cheated. They $&#*ed clean racers out of careers. They were all dirty together and the handful of clean and honest riders? They paid the price for not "becoming victims of the unenforceable rules".

I typically tend to agree with you but am astounded at your justification of their shit choices and actions. Go ahead and choose to be the villain, the cheat, the bad guy, but have the balls to own your actions. Blaming the system is pathetic - that's not the action of strength - that is the path of a sissy and that is more despicable, more loathsome, more...pathetic. That is the ultimate weakling.

#30 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:16

It's a bit pathetic to see how they went after Armstrong after the fact. The governing bodies were more than happy to look the other way when Armstrong was helping to make them money.

Them who? USADA? Armstrong never made them money. No sport puts money in USADA's pocket based on their popularity. The growth of cycling in the US did nothing for their coffers. Let's be clear about things though - Armstrong's camp has done a very, very effective job painting that picture - an Armstrong witch hunt, vilifying an American hero! Sadly it's not true. Every rider they approached was offered the same opportunity to assist, the same vague deal, the same uncertainty that anyone else was talking. Armstrong turned it down and refused to speak truthfully. Instead of telling the truth, the man lied under oath to the DOJ folks, to the courts in the SCA case, the lawsuits they initiated against media and journalists that were connecting the dots - and he turned down USADA when they approached him.

Unlike his spin, I don't think it was about Lance. I think it was about the UCI leadership, Bruyneel (who until last week was still working as a team manager), the Pepes, Ferraris and so on. Lance would like us all to think it was about him, as that garners some sympathy from the populace - but it's just not true.


#31 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:21

. . . . and accepting his money.



#32 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,108 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 21 October 2012 - 09:02

I have no hesitation in saying I would (likely) have used PEDs if I was in that scenario. Hell - I heavily researched "traditional" steroids for the sole purpose of getting bigger, with no economic upside and, ultimately economics, and not morals, determined that I would not go down that path. I'm not trying to claim any moral high ground here. Shifting the blame doesn't change the individual's actions and choices. They - and only they - made the decision to cheat. Blaming the poor enforcement is...I'm not sure. I find the lack of expectations disturbing. oh, it's not their fault - they're victims!. Nauseating.

I can use your line of reasoning to defend high-level drug dealing - hugh economic payoff, low risk of getting caught, lower risk of suffering any meaningful punishment if I am. Not faced with their moral dilemma...give over. They lied. They cheated. They $&#*ed clean racers out of careers. They were all dirty together and the handful of clean and honest riders? They paid the price for not "becoming victims of the unenforceable rules".

I typically tend to agree with you but am astounded at your justification of their shit choices and actions. Go ahead and choose to be the villain, the cheat, the bad guy, but have the balls to own your actions. Blaming the system is pathetic - that's not the action of strength - that is the path of a sissy and that is more despicable, more loathsome, more...pathetic. That is the ultimate weakling.

We come at it from different directions. You seem to be interested in feeling superior to cheats. I seem to be interested in having fewer cheats. When you blame people who cheat without taking into account the circumstances that pushed them to cheating, you're going to have an endless supply of people to feel superior over, but alas the world won't be made better one iota.

I've had an opportunity to live in two different countries. My country of birth of is one of the most corrupt in the world. My adopted country is fairly free of corruption. What would explain the difference? Are people in one country more genetically predisposed towards corruption compared to the other? Are they all weak, whereas Americans are all strong in character? Or could it be that in my birth country there is an unceasing systemic pressure that corrupts people at every step of the way, whereas in America in most walks of life there are no consequences to living completely honestly?

Every man has a breaking point, and every man has his price. I'm not interested in judging people who are put in a situation that puts them past the breaking point. I'm a problem solver by nature, not a moralist. The key to having 95% of people acting honestly is to put in place a system that rewards honesty, and punishes cheaters. There will always be sociopaths who will lie and cheat their way to success, and by all accounts Armstrong is one of those people, but when all people cheat, then it seems like a no-brainer that you have a systemic problem. Blaming the individuals doesn't solve anything.

#33 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 945 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 21 October 2012 - 13:12

I'm surprised by the people who honestly believed he wasn't doping until recent weeks.

Dude only has one testicle. I always assumed he was using exogenous testosterone--his body's natural ability to produce it had been halved, for God's sake! Of course he was injecting testosterone!


Only one testicle? Poor bastard - I've got three.

But on a more serious note I think this Armstrong business is a matter of "He who is without sin cast the first stone". They all seem to be "at it" - even the most self-righteous accusers. Until he admits guilt there must remain some doubt about whether he is a drug-cheat or not.

#34 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,503 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 21 October 2012 - 13:24

Only one testicle? Poor bastard - I've got three.

It takes someone with balls to admit that. I'm not sure that only having one is a serious problem in cycling. Have you seen those saddles?




#35 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 16:02

UCI.
The international federation is ultimately responsible for cycling's suicide. In a time when all sorts of sports took advantage of globalization, hi-tech info etc, cycling lost completely credibility by not having much stronger anti-doping stance and endorsing Armstrong's myth.

Agreed - but they haven't moved against Armstrong - they've stuck staunchly behind him the entire way. There are allegations they protected him. Monday they have a press conference scheduled where they will relay their stance on the matter. I can't imagine they can take the USADA file and do anything except support USADA's decision unless they're prepared to be the laughing stock of the sporting (and rest of the) world. Even shameless Nike has dumped him after having milked every last ounce of money they could from their relationship.

The initial assertion that "they" are hanging him out now is still incorrect. USADA built the file while the UCI tried to stop them. As signatories to the WADA doping code, they have little choice but to move in concert with USADA's determination now.

The idea that he didn't fail a test so he didn't cheat is a complete farce too. The rules weren't don't fail a doping test, they were don't use PEDs. 11 of his teammates, most with nothing to gain and lots to lose have come forward saying they doped with him, were supplied by him, supplied him, were admonished by him to use etc. etc. The only possible alternative explanation is that Lance Armstrong is a douche bag of heretofore unseen magnitude such that 25 separate people are willing to swear in a court of law under threat of perjury that he doped. Mind you, given the stories coming out about him, that's a reasonable possibility. By all accounts the man is in a league of his own in terms of being a captial "C" C&#$.



#36 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 16:27

I have no hesitation in saying I would (likely) have used PEDs if I was in that scenario. Hell - I heavily researched "traditional" steroids for the sole purpose of getting bigger, with no economic upside and, ultimately economics, and not morals, determined that I would not go down that path. I'm not trying to claim any moral high ground here. Shifting the blame doesn't change the individual's actions and choices.



We come at it from different directions. You seem to be interested in feeling superior to cheats. I seem to be interested in having fewer cheats. When you blame people who cheat without taking into account the circumstances that pushed them to cheating, you're going to have an endless supply of people to feel superior over, but alas the world won't be made better one iota.

I've had an opportunity to live in two different countries. My country of birth of is one of the most corrupt in the world. My adopted country is fairly free of corruption. What would explain the difference? Are people in one country more genetically predisposed towards corruption compared to the other? Are they all weak, whereas Americans are all strong in character? Or could it be that in my birth country there is an unceasing systemic pressure that corrupts people at every step of the way, whereas in America in most walks of life there are no consequences to living completely honestly?

Every man has a breaking point, and every man has his price. I'm not interested in judging people who are put in a situation that puts them past the breaking point. I'm a problem solver by nature, not a moralist. The key to having 95% of people acting honestly is to put in place a system that rewards honesty, and punishes cheaters. There will always be sociopaths who will lie and cheat their way to success, and by all accounts Armstrong is one of those people, but when all people cheat, then it seems like a no-brainer that you have a systemic problem. Blaming the individuals doesn't solve anything.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

You can't give a free pass to the cheaters because the system was easy to cheat. This isn't life, this is sport - people's dreams of glory, income and entertainment, but it's just riding a bike. People keep implying that everyone was doping - that's not true. Clean riders existed and raced and continued to race throughout the era, they just didn't get paid millions of dollars or become famous. Some quit when faced with the futility of racing clean. There's the rub - you say it's not the cheater's fault because the system made them cheat. I (strongly) disagree and say the clean riders who stuck it out or who opted to pursue a different career over cheating prove that while the system may well be broken, participation in it is still down to individual choice.

I don't know where you're from or what kind of corruption you grew up in. Having been born in what is - in my mind - the best country in the world, that's not something I've had to face. I don't have to cheat to eat or keep my family safe, healthy or fed. I don't need to bribe people so I can own a house, drive my car or ride my bikes. But then, that's not what we're talking about either. We're talking about getting paid to ride a bicycle not change the world. Nobody says it's an easy choice to do the right thing, but it's still a choice and it's down to the individual, not the system. The key to having 95% of people acting honestly is for society at large to hold people accountable for their actions, not making excuses for them.

#37 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,108 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 21 October 2012 - 17:21

The key to having 95% of people acting honestly is for society at large to hold people accountable for their actions, not making excuses for them.

That's the thing, though. When you have generally unenforced rules, you're not holding people accountable for their actions. Part of the "holding people accountable" thing is that violators need to be identified and punished quickly and effectively. Holding people accountable isn't just about reaming the unlucky guy who got caught while many others doing the very same thing are still out there doing their thing. That just holding people accountable for their luck.

#38 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 October 2012 - 18:39

That's the thing, though. When you have generally unenforced rules, you're not holding people accountable for their actions. Part of the "holding people accountable" thing is that violators need to be identified and punished quickly and effectively. Holding people accountable isn't just about reaming the unlucky guy who got caught while many others doing the very same thing are still out there doing their thing. That just holding people accountable for their luck.

On that we agree. Clean riders should have forced the doping managers and doctors out of the sport. Identifying riders would have been more problematic but folks like Bruyneel and Ferrari were "open secrets" and should never have been tolerated.

#39 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,258 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 October 2012 - 23:18

Cycling is such a tainted sport I doubt it will ever come back to the 'standard' it was.
A chap I know is a local rep for one of the sponsors. His personal take from dealing with his customers, and their customers feedback is that he has been no asset promoting the product. Or the sport that he has tarnished

Advertisement

#40 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 October 2012 - 23:46

Until he admits guilt there must remain some doubt about whether he is a drug-cheat or not.

So you didn't watch "Four Corners" last week? Check the link I posted earlier.

The UCI has been presented (by the US anti doping agency) with 1000 pages of sworn witness depositions. There is a 200 page summary to make for easier reading available HERE. The UCI are making an announcement today.

I don't think we will need to wait for Lance to put his hand up.

Edited by gruntguru, 22 October 2012 - 00:35.


#41 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:59

So you didn't watch "Four Corners" last week? Check the link I posted earlier.

The UCI has been presented (by the US anti doping agency) with 1000 pages of sworn witness depositions. There is a 200 page summary to make for easier reading available HERE. The UCI are making an announcement today.

I don't think we will need to wait for Lance to put his hand up.


Technically Kelpicross is correct, the standard of proof is not "beyond all reasonable doubt" in this case.

#42 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,493 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:27

Sure, but then we are not passing sentence here. We are entitled to form and express opinions and if Kelpiecross or yourself care to watch the 4 Corners episode and read the USADA's "reasoned decision" document you will probably share my conclusions on the subject.

#43 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:12

Cycling is such a tainted sport I doubt it will ever come back to the 'standard' it was.
A chap I know is a local rep for one of the sponsors. His personal take from dealing with his customers, and their customers feedback is that he has been no asset promoting the product. Or the sport that he has tarnished


Before they were all using and didn't get caught (too much). Before that they were all using and it was allowed. For example methamphetamine is older than The Tour.

I don't think cycling has been much more doped than other endurance or strength sports. They just haven't handled the situation very well. Some other sports have managed to keep things out of public much better. Some even do their testing all by themselves to make sure nothing too bad happens.

I think the fans and sponsors will come back once people are fooled to think it's all clean "again". Look at how popular Usain Bolt is despite beating records by known drug users and the weak anti-doping (no random testing in Jamaica) and all the past scandals in the sport. People want to believe. That's the 'standard'.

#44 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,755 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:22

Technically Kelpicross is correct, the standard of proof is not "beyond all reasonable doubt" in this case.

I think they've met that standard anyway.

#45 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 October 2012 - 23:49

Sure, but then we are not passing sentence here. We are entitled to form and express opinions and if Kelpiecross or yourself care to watch the 4 Corners episode and read the USADA's "reasoned decision" document you will probably share my conclusions on the subject.


I've seen/read both and certainly anyone who reads the reasoned decision would certainly form the opinion that Armstrong is guilty as have I. Having participated in the 2006 Etape du Tour I was pretty certain most of the Peleton must be on something anyway...

The reasoned decision was quite interesting on a personal level as myself and my wife followed the 2003 tour camping by the side of the road in a tent.

I'm still not sold that it's beyond reasonable doubt though, but with a potential trial for perjury, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

#46 Bob Riebe

Bob Riebe
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:17

I've seen/read both and certainly anyone who reads the reasoned decision would certainly form the opinion that Armstrong is guilty as have I. Having participated in the 2006 Etape du Tour I was pretty certain most of the Peleton must be on something anyway...

The reasoned decision was quite interesting on a personal level as myself and my wife followed the 2003 tour camping by the side of the road in a tent.

I'm still not sold that it's beyond reasonable doubt though, but with a potential trial for perjury, I guess we'll find out soon enough.

No failed tests no proof, no ability to convict him of anything. Ask Barry Bonds.

As all who testified against him have now lost their ability to have any positions in the Tour so why would they not say he did it also?

He may be guilty but without proof, those who point fingers are simply poor losers or self-righteous.

#47 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:35

Eye-witness testimony convicts people of far more serious crimes in criminal courts around the world. Eye witness testimony sends people to death row in the US. One does not need a failed test (or a smoking gun in suspect hands) to be "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The only - and I do mean only - alternative to his guilt is that two dozen people, at least one of which he described as a "almost brothers", all conspired to destroy him, McQuaid, Verbruggen, the UCI and international cycling. I find the former far more compelling and probable. To say they are nohing more than disgruntled, jealous has-beens or never-weres is nothing more than a gross defence of one's own inability to acknowledge that their hero-worship was in err. It sounds just like Lance's bullying lies.

#48 MattPete

MattPete
  • Member

  • 1,464 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:53

I have no idea wether Armstrong is truly guilty or not.


BUT, this investigation stinks to high heaven. It's guilty-until-proven-innocent, which is NOT the way it is done in America. And, if Lance was to be found innocent, then it would be another trial -- rinse, repeat.

To me, the integrity of the governing body is more important than the integrity of the athletes. This is where the USADA has failed.

#49 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:57

Eye-witness testimony convicts people of far more serious crimes in criminal courts around the world. Eye witness testimony sends people to death row in the US.


Wot he said.

#50 pugfan

pugfan
  • Member

  • 174 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 03:03

I have no idea wether Armstrong is truly guilty or not.


Really? Read the USADA considered report, have you?

BUT, this investigation stinks to high heaven. It's guilty-until-proven-innocent, which is NOT the way it is done in America. And, if Lance was to be found innocent, then it would be another trial -- rinse, repeat.

To me, the integrity of the governing body is more important than the integrity of the athletes. This is where the USADA has failed.


I think you'll find the USADA authority is really the only organisation that has come out of this with any integrity.