Armstrong drops fight against doping charges

[Jay_The_Nomad]

After having read some of that 200+ pages report and a few of the affidavits, I really do think Armstrong doped. I was on the fence previously.

But I think labeling Armstrong a cheat is only half the story and a tragic one as well. Let's not forget the entire pelothon (or very close to it) was also doped up.

It is tragic because I really think without doping, he could have still won a few TDFs. Doping helps, but legally winning the general category in the TDF still requires plenty of planning, preparation and strategy.

[adventure]

The Lance doping scandal is front page of the hard copy of the New York Times. I'll get around to reading it when I have a chance.

If you go through some of the earlier posts, there is evidence which suggests that doping while widespread, was not universally practiced.

We will never know if he could've won any tours without doping. He started doping very early on, but I'd rather not go into the grisly details.

Originally Posted by Jay_The_Nomad

After having read some of that 200+ pages report and a few of the affidavits, I really do think Armstrong doped. I was on the fence previously.

But I think labeling Armstrong a cheat is only half the story and a tragic one as well. Let's not forget the entire pelothon (or very close to it) was also doped up.

It is tragic because I really think without doping, he could have still won a few TDFs. Doping helps, but legally winning the general category in the TDF still requires plenty of planning, preparation and strategy.

[Jay_The_Nomad]

Originally Posted by adventure

The Lance doping scandal is front page of the hard copy of the New York Times. I'll get around to reading it when I have a chance.

If you go through some of the earlier posts, there is evidence which suggests that doping while widespread, was not universally practiced.

We will never know if he could've won any tours without doping. He started doping very early on, but I'd rather not go into the grisly details.

We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.

According to George Hincapie's affidavit, doping was widespread enough to cause the peloton to suddenly get very very quick in 1995 which is the time when Armstrong allegedly finally snapped and made the decision to start doping.

Those who didn't dope ended up quiting the sport or getting dropped real quick.

[Underhand]

I couldn't wait for the next one, Phelps maybe? In a couple of years, I guess.

[chrischris]

These Texans..

Just kidding , i hope there will be good outcomes now from this.

[FloridaAG]

Frankly if he was not such a jerk, I would not really care - the fact that he denied it so vehemently, called everyone else liars, attacked and intimidated everyone and was so sanctimoneous was the problem.

Be a man, say everyone else was doing it, I had to and apologize. Would have been much cheaper and everyone would have gotten over it

[Bartelby]

Armstrong has a gigantic business empire that would crumble immediately if he told the truth.

[FloridaAG]

I highly doubt that

[F. Perry]

Originally Posted by Jay_The_Nomad

After having read some of that 200+ pages report and a few of the affidavits, I really do think Armstrong doped. I was on the fence previously.

But I think labeling Armstrong a cheat is only half the story and a tragic one as well. Let's not forget the entire pelothon (or very close to it) was also doped up.

This is one of the biggest pro-Lance arguments: if everyone was doping, then it was a level playing field, and Armstrong really did deserve to win after all.

But the USADA report argues that the playing field wasn't level, even if doping was widespread. The culture of doping favored those with more money and resources. Armstrong hired Ferrari, the acknowledged top man with respect to cutting edge doping, and paid him over a million dollars; this gave him a distinct advantage over other riders, even the ones already taking EPO. Armstrong helped, encouraged, and bullied his teammates to dope in the same manner as himself, again giving him an advantage over other riders, even the ones already doping. Armstrong also donated large amounts of money to the UCI, effectively putting that organization in his pocket--something that less wealthy riders from other teams would not have been able to do.

I read many of the comments to the Times articles, and person after person writes that everyone was doping at the time and therefore we should leave Armstrong alone. The point isn't that doping equalized all the riders in the peloton, and Lance won because he was the fittest and most skilled of those doped riders. The point is that Lance was wealthy, famous, and strong-willed enough to hire the best doctors and put in place the most sophisticated doping program, and this, in effect, allowed him to win WITHOUT being the fittest or most skilled rider.

[fusion91]

From Twitter:

@davidschneider: Lance Armstrong isn't even the worst offender in cycling history. Look at this guy. What the hell was he on? http://twitter.com/davidschneider/st...164738/photo/1

[fundrazer]

In related news, Lance's buddy Johan Bruyneel has been released from his position at RadioShack Nissan Trek. Goodbye and good riddance.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by F. Perry

I read many of the comments to the Times articles, and person after person writes that everyone was doping at the time and therefore we should leave Armstrong alone. The point isn't that doping equalized all the riders in the peloton, and Lance won because he was the fittest and most skilled of those doped riders. The point is that Lance was wealthy, famous, and strong-willed enough to hire the best doctors and put in place the most sophisticated doping program, and this, in effect, allowed him to win WITHOUT being the fittest or most skilled rider.

It makes Lance Armstrong look like something out of The Godfather, which shows how completely farcical this whole thing is.

[adventure]

Originally Posted by Mustard

What evidence? Armstrong has not failed a drugs test according to the official rules. He doesn't have to prove anything. The USADA has to do that, and getting plea bargained cyclists to make outlandish claims of "someone did this" and "someone saw that" isn't evidence to get someone found guilty, or at least it never should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKIGXiI

[vive le beau jeu !]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It's complete nonsense. We all know who won those 7 Tour de Frances from 1999-2005, having beaten off cancer that had given him a very low chance of survival. The USADA asks us to believe that Armstrong, was not only a taker of PEDs while simultaneously passing hundreds of drug tests and winning 7 Tour de France titles, but was also the leader of pushing PEDs onto other cyclists, and that the evidence of the witnesses who accuse Armstrong (including PED users like Hamilton and Landis) is sacred, despite the plea bargaining scandals that dominate the US justice system.

hey mus' i didn't know you were an armstard too...



(just kiddin' !)

[r2473]

Originally Posted by Jay_The_Nomad

We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.

Originally Posted by FloridaAG

Be a man, say everyone else was doing it, I had to and apologize. Would have been much cheaper and everyone would have gotten over it

Originally Posted by Bartelby

Armstrong has a gigantic business empire that would crumble immediately if he told the truth.

[chrischris]

L.A. seemed such nice guy. its sad. We have all been taken for a ride. They should make a statement at next year Tour de France.
Cermonies for all the guys who were 2nd to LA every one of those years should be given the trophy and the guy 3rd get 2nd and the guy 4th gets 3rd place on the podium with flags and athems .. the whole 9 yards..


That would look good and send a clear signal.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by chrischris

L.A. seemed such nice guy. its sad. We have all been taken for a ride. They should make a statement at next year Tour de France.
Cermonies for all the guys who were 2nd to LA every one of those years should be given the trophy and the guy 3rd get 2nd and the guy 4th gets 3rd place on the podium with flags and athems .. the whole 9 yards..


That would look good and send a clear signal.

Uh.....those guys were all doping too you know, right?

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by r2473

Uh.....those guys were all doping too you know, right?

Uh , then you pick the guys who finished best that werent.
Simple as that.

[r2473]

Originally Posted by chrischris

Uh , then you pick the guys who finished best that werent.
Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Jay_The_Nomad

We will never know what percentage of pro cyclists actually doped during those years. But from what I gather (from all the affidavits and ex pro cyclist opinion) it is probably more than 90%. And if that is true then doping was as good as universal.

I'll try, but it could take a while to find those guys

That award ceremony is going to look pretty strange:

"Originally finishing 3,456th in 2002, but now recognized as the TRUE Tour champion for that year, please put your hands together for........"

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by r2473

I'll try, but it could take a while to find those guys

That award ceremony is going to look pretty strange:

"Originally finishing 3,456th in 2002, but now recognized as the TRUE Tour champion for that year, please put your hands together for........"

Well , that is precisely the whole point of it all. To show what a low its been at and by showing and admitting that , then be able to move on.
Strong signal. Very strong.