Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[Benhur]

I don’t really agree with all this though. I am no fan of Armstrong, but if something is not being tested at a certain time, then it was, in a sense, legal, or at least there has to be a short limit to how far into the future you can go fishing for witches into the past, otherwise this becomes a circus, with untold numbers of frozen samples for olympic and other athletes being kept who knows where and under who knows how much security, all subject to future re-examinations with new techniques, or the athletes themselves subject to new witnesses agreeing to do revelatory accusations. These are Inquisition-like techniques. When it comes to "doping", Armstrong is probably no different than the vast majority of elite cyclists. Why are they not looking into the frozen samples of everyone 12 or 15 years back?

[hollywood9826]

Originally Posted by Dedans Penthouse

Very good post, summed up the contrasting images between the two: Bonds a bonafide creep, Armstrong accessible, etc., ..... but unfortunately you then had to invoke the Rev. Al Sharpton school of thought: playing the race card and "rubber stamping" it as ordained knowledge with a very subjective, cynical ASSUMPTION. Bonds is dispised by many because of who he is: a very unlikeable creep. Honky Roger Clemens is also dispised because (while maybe not a creep on the level of Bonds) he too is judged by what people see him as: an arrogant liar.
.

But, Barry was the only guy who getting ostracized while he was actually still playing. People knew Roger was as big a dick as anyone, and they suspected he was using the roids as much as anyone. Ask any Red Sox fan about clemns last few years there and his tranformation in Toronto. but he was still touyed as being the best even at age whatever when he was with Houston. They never went after Clemons the same way the went after Bonds. The singled out Bonds, mainly becuase he was the best and breaking tons of records.

I failed in the comment as I can see it does appear that makes it seem like its the main issue, when in fact it is not.

[fundrazer]

What does my username have to do with anything? I've been using it for years for pc gaming among other things. Don't understand why you're even talking about it. Keep the personal insults to yourself please.

Look, it is very well possible that Lance brought his cancer upon himself with the massive doping regime that he was a part of during his cycling career. I think the whole Livestrong brand is a joke, and I was very displeased to see Tennis Warehouse begin carrying the brand. The way I see it, it's a brand built on a foundation of lies and deceit.

I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, but the reality is that Livestrong is more of a commercial enterprise than a charity foundation. But some people can say this better than I can, basically, Livestrong and even the pink breast cancer ribbons are commercializing the cancer awareness movement and exploiting human generosity.


"much of your donated money to LiveStrong is spent on legal fees, not cancer research."

Do a little bit of reading and you'll learn something. Livestrong is getting into legal fights with much much smaller cancer awareness groups, but for what reason? Why not all get along and support cancer awareness?

"In 2010 alone Livestrong reported spending $468,355 on ‘legal fees’ related to domestic and international trademark infringements."

This is another amusing and interesting bit "In the combined audit report of the livestrong family of charities the 2009 travel expenses total almost $2 million ($1,922,995). For comparison, the National Cancer Coalition, with 5 times as much money raised only claimed $108,559 in travel expenses"

[WARPWOODIE]

Cycling has become a dirty sport, and is one of many reasons I don't follow it any more. USADA is sending a strong message and the ICU should support them. I wish the Major Leagues would do the same thing. Just recently two players, one from the A's and Giants got suspended 50 plus games for doping. And I thought it was over when Clemens and Bond got caught. There will always be those who'll push the envelope.

[fundrazer]

Originally Posted by WARPWOODIE

Cycling has become a dirty sport, and is one of many reasons I don't follow it any more. USADA is sending a strong message and the ICU should support them. I wish the Major Leagues would do the same thing. Just recently two players, one from the A's and Giants got suspended 50 plus games for doping. And I thought it was over when Clemens and Bond got caught. There will always be those who'll push the envelope.

It has actually become much less dirty than it previously was. The 90's-early 00's era was probably the most dirty era of cycling ever. Back then they practically flew up the mountains every day. I'm not going to say it's super 100% clean of doping, but I do think that things are much better than they were.

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by FloridaAG

Always believed he was a doper, a liar and an a**hole.

That said, belief and proof are 2 different things

for the a**hole thing, i think the positive test was already confirmed a long time ago...

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Benhur

I...if something is not being tested at a certain time, then it was, in a sense, legal, or at least there has to be a short limit to how far into the future you can go fishing for witches into the past, otherwise this becomes a circus

Why? The rules of the sport don't specify specific drugs and limit the scope of their application to them alone, they have an umbrella coverall which includes stuff they don't know about yet. For quite obvious reasons too - because the tests for drugs always lag behind new drug developments (and which is why they keep tests quite secret for a while, so those trying to defeat them will take longer to work out how to beat those tests).

Participation in most sport, at least at a competitive level, requires acceptance by the athletes that they agree to the testing regime amongst other rules. If you don't accept, you can't compete - it's that simple. There is no "you can't do that" scenario with regards to testing for those who may have infringed - which is what Armstrong was effectively attempting to do when he tried to have the case thrown out recently but was rejected.

[jmverdugo]

I think it is very important the message USADA is sending: "we may not be able to catch you when you do it, but WE WILL catch you", it will make everybody think twice before trying a "new" and indectectable way to dope, you may get away NOW but you will get caught.

[jonnythan]

But they didn't actually catch him. There are still no samples from his Tour championships that have tested positive for doping.

They have stripped him of his titles based on statements from his competitors and pretty much nothing else. They say they have recent samples - not from the winning days - that "are consistent with" doping but don't actually prove any doping!

Maybe he doped. Maybe he didn't. Either way, they're stripping him of titles without ever producing a single failed blood sample.

[tennismonkey]

dopers are always 1 step ahead (at least) of the drug testers. as drug testing and technology gets better, a lot of past "clean" athletes get caught. the olympics recently busted athletes 8 years later.

i remember when armstrong retired after winning 7 TDFs and thinking - why the heck would you stop?

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

But they didn't actually catch him. There are still no samples from his Tour championships that have tested positive for doping.

They have stripped him of his titles based on statements from his competitors and pretty much nothing else. They say they have recent samples - not from the winning days - that "are consistent with" doping but don't actually prove any doping!

Maybe he doped. Maybe he didn't. Either way, they're stripping him of titles without ever producing a single failed blood sample.

Yep, and all anyone can say is that it is pretty obvious that he doped. I don't know how you go from that to stripping someone of their titles.

As soon as they prove it, then go ahead and take the titles. If your personal sports hero has never tested positive for ped's, but then someone who knows him claimed that he used, are you all going to jump on the doping bandwagon?

Perhaps someone should pay members of high profile sports stars' teams to claim that said stars are doping in order to show why it doesn't necessarily mean anything. They can out their scheme after the players are "proven" to be dopers.

[jonnythan]

1 step?

How many steps ahead do you have to be in your doping technology for them still not to be able to detect anything in a blood sample taken 13 years ago?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

But they didn't actually catch him. There are still no samples from his Tour championships that have tested positive for doping.

Incorrect. Old samples of his were tested a few years ago which unequivocally showed banned substances. However, Armstrong's PR machine was in full swing at that stage and, as he's always been so adept at, managed to obfuscate the result by accusing the testing facility of all manner of incompetence and painting the French a biased... his defence in that respect hasn't changed and, to his supporters at least, is a "perfect" defence.

[jonnythan]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Incorrect. Old samples of his were tested a few years ago which unequivocally showed banned substances.

Can you provide a link?

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

But they didn't actually catch him. There are still no samples from his Tour championships that have tested positive for doping.

That doesn't seem to be quite correct, according to this and similar articles at the time:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/sp...24cycling.html

However, I still think this retroactive stuff going back years should not be allowed. Why not go back all the way to Merckx (who actuall was caught at least three times) and try to get some people to testify against him?

Interesting read: Confessions of a drug pedlar
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/s...481510,00.html

[Sentinel]

Can the USADA strip Lance of his 2000 OG medal ? Or is the IOC supposed to do that ?

From what I know, Gatlin was not stripped of his 2004 Gold, just given a ban, and he's back. Same goes for about 5 or 6 others I know of.

[volleygirl]

Originally Posted by jonnythan

They have stripped him of his titles based on statements from his competitors and pretty much nothing else.

Not only his competitiors, almost every single team mate he had has come out saying Lance was a cheater as well.

[Bartelby]

The simple explanation for Armstrong's actions is that he doesn't want the spectacle of former team mate after former team mate standing in front of a tribunal telling the world what was happening and Armstrong's involvement in it.

Armstrong is basically cutting his losses.

[FastFreddy]

If everyone u beat is dirty and all of your team is is dirty u r dirty!!

[jonnythan]

If it's so obvious he's a cheater, why don't they grab one of his samples from one of his victories and have an independent lab somewhere test it and prove it?

With all the effort they've put into this, it seems strange that they can't produce one doped sample.