/ lance Armstrong

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
benstu - on 18 Jan 2013
Now he,s making money from the lie,s he told for year,s by owning up to lying & getting paid for it .Do you think he went on Oprah for anyone's benefit but his, book next i ask you
subalpine - on 18 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: lawsuits will be covered by book deals etc
benstu - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to subalpine: don't no what you mean but are you thinking he went on Oprah coss hes a good guy & there was nothing in it for him . He was a bully & why we even bother to be bothered with him anymore its like the world will remember you for being wrong forget those that are right & am still sure a book next
Lord of Starkness - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu:

To hear the poor soul claiming his lifetime ban is a 'death sentence' is total b@llocks.

It would be a death sentence for the credibility of cycling and the doping authorities if he received any clemency. What stronger message could be sent out to would be cheats that even the biggest name is the sport cannot hope to escape punishment for systematic cheating over an extended period.

Whilst not being a vindictive soul, I hope the arrogant B gets sued for every last cent - though doubtless he'll still end up living a lifestyle that few of us could hope to achieve.
benstu - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness: cant agree more as a 50 year old i think am a dinosaur when i speak to the younger generation who think nothing of taking performance enhancing drug,s most not cyclist i have to say what is to be done to stop them when guy,s like Lance do what they do & live the high life
being banned for life is to easy jail is a better option people get put in prison for less .rant over i hope he just disappears & lets forget him for what has he done to be remembered
Chris the Tall - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
I disagree, I think that an 8 year ban, starting from the time he starts to talk to the authorities, would be reasonable.

And of course repay all prize money earned whilst he was cheating. Which is probably his entire career.
Mutl3y - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness: I agree. He is a cockroach. Everything he has won, everything he has been paid to sponsor, every bit of publicity he has received, has been a theft from more deserving sportsmen and causes.

Not to mention the vile way he has treated, and been allowed to treat, those who have rightfully stood up to him or spoken the truth. Statute of limitations sadly means he will probably have got away with the vast bulk of it, sadly.

There is no practical way that his $100m fortune can be taken from him and shared among his victims, so not allowing him to compete again is the very minimum sanction.

He should be grateful to have got away with it the cheating 5hit.
JLS on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Mutl3y:

+1
Alan Taylor - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: His behavior towards Emma O’Reilly shows how big a SH**BAG he is.Hopefully she can take him to the cleaners
bobbybin - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: please remember that the top 30, 50 100 who knows were all on the go fast back then. yes he's cnut but he's only one of many. Even a guy i raced against every month got caught. 2nd/1st cats were doing it.
Toby_W on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to bobbybin: non have been quite so nasty, vindictive and bullying or sued so many honest people. Have a look at Betsy Andreus reaction on YouTube and read up on how he's harassed her and her husband and all the others. It's a sickening pr exercise, he's in no way sorry, is still lying (clean from 2005) so if his ban is reduced to 8 years he can compete from this year.
I hope there is no reduction in the ban and he gets sued a lot.

Anyone who thinks the sum of what he has done is in any way O.K must be to some degree a bit of a poor character.

Cheers

Toby
Goucho on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Mutl3y:

> There is no practical way that his $100m fortune can be taken from him and shared among his victims, so not allowing him to compete again is the very minimum sanction.
>

His fortune is most definitely at risk - Nike have already filed a multi-million pound lawsuit against him.

The only reason he did the Oprah interview, is because he was offered a shed load of money, which he is going to need, because he's going to be spending the rest of his life in court being sued, and of course in the supreme courts for at least 2 counts of perjury - the man is f*cked!

Enty - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to bobbybin:

Bollocks (with all due respect)

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=535228

E
bobbybin - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to Toby_W: His cheating was no worse than anyone elses cheating, they all cheated. Yes i know all about his off the bike antics, as i said he is a cnut. and he will be sued. but should everybody from back then give their prize money/wages back
Enty - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to bobbybin:

So what are your feelings about riders like Cairan Power?

E
Toby_W on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to bobbybin:

Ah, you've been on holiday and missed the whole USADA report thing.

Much worse, not only him but his entire team under his direction with more money more drugs and the best doctors.

Cheers

Toby
Enty - on 19 Jan 2013
In reply to bobbybin:

What would you say to Cairan power?

E
Moggsy on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness: And now he wants forgiveness.... he has got some ball
Iandavid - on 20 Jan 2013
the worst thing about this whole fiasco is that now people may look at other riders like Bradley and Chris in a different light and think, HOW did they do it? We need to get behind our lads (again) and show them our support for genuine honest riders.
earlsdonwhu - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: It is sickening that he presumably got hansomely paid to appear on TV to try to explain and justify his wrong doings.

His was not a one-off error of judgement but he led a long term programme of cheating/ bullying. His attitude to Bassons, investigative journalists, his masseuse etc etc stinks.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Alan Taylor - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: Does he have a financial stake in Team Radioshack?
subalpine - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Iandavid: or we need to be objective..
benstu - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty: what is Cairan Power?
Enty - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu:
> (In reply to Enty) what is Cairan Power?

Sorry spelt wrong. Ciaran Power - he's one of the guys who tried to ride clean but couldn't compete with the dopers.
http://tinyurl.com/bcnm3mm
The bit about him riding clean and finishing 14th at the Olympics then thinking about if everyone else had been clean where would he have finished - and the living he could have made on the strength of an Olympic medal.
That's whay I'm angry with all the folk who keep harping on about it being a level playing field.

E
Enty - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu:

There are lots more Ciaran Powers out there - that's why I'd be interested to know Bobbin's view on it.

E
Alan Taylor - on 20 Jan 2013
Enty - on 20 Jan 2013
benstu - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty: i agree
benstu - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty: ye i no thats what makes it so wrong & jail is the only way to stop it its a crime a bad one at that ,if you stole the money he made you would get a life sentence a life ban dont stop him cycling ye ban him from a bike too
kbow265 - on 20 Jan 2013
IainRUK - on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: why and how jail?

What did he do that others didn't?
JoshOvki on 20 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> What did he do that others didn't?

A better job of it.
digby - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

...behaved in a vile, bullying, lying, controlling way
IainRUK - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to JoshOvki:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> A better job of it.

Exactly.. as he said he doped conservatively.. which is why he wasn't caught.. he was also still a fantastic hard training athlete..

I'm dissapointed as I honestly thought/hoped he was clean, but stll admire him for what he did.. OK the rest was wrong, but I don't understand the total vilification of him, yet other dopers get fond memories... like Pantani.. or Merckx..
dissonance - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> Exactly.. as he said he doped conservatively

no he doped professionally.

> which is why he wasn't caught..

well that or the standards of drug testing left a certain amount to be desired.

> OK the rest was wrong, but I don't understand the total vilification of him, yet other dopers get fond memories... like Pantani.. or Merckx..

possibly because of his actions to others?
stevez - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Merckx and Pantani didn't go around bullying and intimidating the rest of the peloton, and anyone that dare suggest Lance was doping!
Mike Highbury - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> [...]
>
> no he doped professionally.
>
> [...]
>
> well that or the standards of drug testing left a certain amount to be desired.
>
> [...]
>
> possibly because of his actions to others?

This reminds me of trying to explain the joys of anal sex to my maiden aunt.
Rollo - on 21 Jan 2013
This Kimmage article in t'Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/19/lance-armstrong-cycling
is much the same as all the rest but does finish with a classic passage

In the autumn of 1993, Greg LeMond and his wife, Kathy, were sitting at home in the suburbs of Minneapolis, when they received a visit from Linda Mooneyham, the three-times Tour de France winner has recalled. Her 21-year-old son, Lance Armstrong, had just become the world champion and she had travelled from her home in Texas for advice.

"What does he do now?" she asked. "What does he do with his money?"

"Well, let him find an agent – a good one with an attorney," LeMond replied. "And one word of advice – just be his mom."

They sat on the porch for a while and then moved inside to the kitchen. Linda had something else on her mind: "How do I make him less of an asshole. He doesn't care about anyone."

"Well," LeMond replied. "I can't help you there."
Mike Highbury - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Rollo:
> This Kimmage article in t'Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/19/lance-armstrong-cycling
> ...
> "Well," LeMond replied. "I can't help you there."

Even his mum thinks that he's a tw*t.

I would be marvellous if that was true but I don't think that PK meant for us to believe that actually happened.
caver - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> (In reply to dissonance)
> [...]
>
> This reminds me of trying to explain the joys of anal sex to my maiden aunt.

Did she finally succumb...?
ads.ukclimbing.com
Mike Highbury - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to caver:
> (In reply to Mike Highbury)
> [...]
>
> Did she finally succumb...?

Of course. I'm a charmer, me.
benstu - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK: its illegal to use or sell controlled substances but to make others do it a long jail term & i mean 7 10 years will make sure this dont happen again the money involved the corruption its no worse than a gang gangsters why cant no one see it
benstu - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to bobbybin: ts illegal to use or sell controlled substances but to make others do it a long jail term & i mean 7 10 years will make sure this dont happen again the money involved the corruption its no worse than a gang gangsters why cant no one see it
Jimbo C - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Lord of Starkness:
>
> I hope the arrogant B gets sued for every last cent

That would be well deserved. Lance was a role model for many up and coming athletes. When I read his first book, I was impressed with his story, rags to riches, battle against adversity, etc. I just finished reading a book in which the author cites Lance as one of his inspirations (published 2006). That really made me cringe. To find out that he was cheating for all those years is apalling. He's let down so many people who looked up to him.
steveej - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Jimbo C: but wasn't everyone else cheating? or at least 95% of the peleton cheating? I agree they were all cheating as what they were doing was against the rules but there are plenty of others that seem to have gotten away completely scot free and with minimal public abuse.

Seems to me that because Lance was the most successful, he is taking the burden of shame for the whole era.

Even though road cycling has a massive history of performance enhancing drugs, amphetemines, alcohol etc.

Is there not an argument to say that as an individual who chooses to enter a world you accept the culture and play the game as best you can.

The rules effectively look nice to the people outside, but the insiders are playing their own game?
balmybaldwin - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to Jimbo C:

I have "It's not about the bike" on my bookshelf, it was inherited from my Dad when he died of Cancer, and I'm not sure what to do with it. I never read it as I'm not really into Autobiographies, it's more there as it was my dad's love of cycling that really got me into it (he used to sit and watch the TDF recordings of the previous summer all through the winter, and whilst it would get tedious at times (I was a teenager afterall), I still loved watching it with him from time to time, and we went out to see the Paris finish 4 times together, and would often have our family holidays timed and located to see the tour come whistling through a local village or 2

I hate to think the distress this would have caused him if he had known. LA wasn't his biggest TDF hero, and I don't know if the book or his story had any bearing on my dad's view of the disease (he didn't fight it/get more than 1 treatment due to the stage it was and the viscous nature of the treatment he had and died 3 months after diagnosis).

I remember growing up with these amazing heroes we shared:

Lauren(sp?) Fignon, Greg Lemond (I'll never forget that 8s finish), Pantani the Pirate, Big Mig Indurain, Riis, Ulrich, Armstrong (remember the bit of CX he did when Ulrich binned his wheel?).

Great times, and some very fond memories.

Fortunately my Dad died 6 years ago and didn't have to see this (although he did have to see the beginnings of the rumours and the troubles coming out and of course Floyd Landis he found devastating).

It pisses me off that he is still getting air time and money out of his deception (I hear he has sold the film rights to his life off the back of this interview)

So for me it's not just the other riders that should have made it, the fans and the people LA hurt like Betsy and the masseuse who's name escapes me, the whole sorry saga has tarnished some of my fondest memories of my dad, and for that alone I will never forgive him.

But that book still sits unread on my shelf, and I can't really part with it.

I still love the sport, and I wish above all else Dad would have seen Brad win it this year, and have seen Cav in full flight at the front of the peleton down the Champs Elysee lead out by the yellow jersey. The last couple of years I've found really emotional knowing how he would have felt had he witnessed this.

I hope the circling vultures strip him to the bone and he rots in hell, he deserves nothing less.

Gordon Stainforth - on 21 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu:

An Australian library this afternoon moved his books from 'non-fiction' to 'fiction'.
PMG on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:
> Is there not an argument to say that as an individual who chooses to enter a world you accept the culture and play the game as best you can.

By tolerating cheating you either drive honest guys "out of business" or convert them to villains. This is the best recipe to create "the culture".


janiejonesworld - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin: of all the thousands, indeed tens of thousands of words I have read on this subject your moving post gets right to the heart of it . It beggars belief that some are still pleading mitigations for Armstrong; deeply depressing.
benstu - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin: i feel your hurt may your dad RIP & i hope time will ease your pain
Enty - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to Jimbo C) but wasn't everyone else cheating? or at least 95% of the peleton cheating? I agree they were all cheating as what they were doing was against the rules but there are plenty of others that seem to have gotten away completely scot free and with minimal public abuse.
>
>

Hi Steve, no where near 95% were on it. I posted this http://tinyurl.com/bcnm3mm (there's loads more examples)
Bobbybin never replied to my question regarding this so I wonder if you'd like to comment on it.

E
IainRUK - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to janiejonesworld: I don't know.. I do have some sympathy..

Drugs fascinate me though..

What makes a clean, young rider make that step... many do, many good guys.

A runner I trained with doped using EPO.. she was banned for a few years, but she had mitigating circumstances and stress of a few issues (her daughter was severely injured, life changing injuries, in a crash and the company of the vehicle who hit her fought her so she had financial issues as well as the stress of competing plus NZ's Athletics treatment before this).

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Pressure-pain-drove-runner-to-use-drug-849078.ph...

But she's a great person, mother of 3, ones looking a class runner, her encouragement of her kids running is just superb to see, no pressure at all. What she did was awesome, having the kids and still running olympic standard. At the end she caved, but she was open about it after being caught and was willing to talk to me on it.

I never pushed her on it, she was great with me. I just emailed her out of the blue and said lets train as I was out in Texas and soon we were out most weeks, often with her husband and her daughter. Her enthusiasm for sport was great. Her love of running was undiminished, she just screwed up.

I also think there should always be a chance of a return, once a sufficient punishment is given. It's why I'm against the death penalty and any lifetime bans..
a lakeland climber on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

I think the prospect of lifetime bans for drugs cheats may be counter productive, and that's discounting UK Athletics' overturned lifetime ban. Presenting such a lengthy ban as the default punishment would just mean that the cheats would take even greater efforts to hide their misdemeanours and there'd be even greater incentive for corruption within the sport.

I'd like to see:
> Standard 4 year ban (2 years for recreational drug use that don't have a performance benefit)
> Immediate suspension on failure of the 'B' sample
> Adjudication to take place within a short time period, say a month, from the date of testing.
> No appeals beyond 3 months from the date of testing.
>A time limit (something like 6 or 7 years?) for initiating prosecution.
>A reduction in any ban to something like 6 months if the tested athlete provides credible information as to the source of the PED as well as the trail of the drugs leading to the athlete.

The above may be too simplistic but having lots and lots of clauses just gives the cheats more opportunities to pass the buck and lets things drag on.

ALC
steveej - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:

Hi Enty,

I'm not defending Armstrong but it depends how you look at it.

Maybe not 95% were on it, but the fact of the matter is that no one knows for certain howm many people were on it. Your article implicitly states that PEDs were rife in the early noughties. The fact is it wasn't just armstrong and his team, but many other teams and individuals.

Now I agree that they were cheating purely becuase its against the rules to use PED's in cycling.

Now people can use arguments like they never stood a chance, but even if none of them were taking anything, there is no guarentee Ciaran would have won anything - he may still have lost.

The fact he now feels sorry for himself because he's on minimum wage and blames armstrong for it doesn't wash with me. He must have known what he was getting into and should have accepted the risk that things may not have worked out. If he wasn't happy about that then maybe he should have spent less time cycling and more time working towards a more stable career.

Hey, I would love to spend the next ten years climbing full time but instead I choose to have a full time job that I don't particularly like but gives me stability and now and in the future.

Life is about sacrifice. We all make our choices in life. Its easy to blame others when things don't work out quite right.
steveej - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to PMG:

agreed, but this raises an interesting cultural issue.

What if the cycling rule book didn't have a rule against using PED's? Then they wouldn't be cheating.

In fact they would be unlikely to be breaking any laws either given that the majority of countries it is only the selling of PEDS on the black market that is illegal and not the actual possession for personal use.

So to change the rule book would have made this acceptable?

No! because mainstream culture (at least in Britain) tells us that sticking a needle in your leg is not acceptable. This goes back to my point about history and being an insider, playing your own game the way you want to play it, the governing body knowing about it and accetping it, but publishing a few rules to polish up the outer surface so that it is tolerated by all cultures.

Now look at the continentals culture and the fact there are dopers who have been caught and NOT banned for life. Their culture means that PED's are far more acceptable and its more about doing whatever it takes to succeed, its more important to participate and get off your bum and be doing something.

In Britain we like nothing more than judging others without ever getting off our own arse.

Adam W. - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu:

Imagine you're a young rider about to make it on the pro-circuit.You find out that your heroes are taking PEDs. Not only that, the whole team is and you're being actively encouraged to take them as well.
You have a choice take PEDs and compete in events that you've always dreamed of, or stay clean and accept the fact that you have to give up your dreams.

I don't know if I'd have been able to give up my dream, and it's unacceptable that the situation should arise. Armstrong did not operate in a vacuum, he was instrumenal in creating a climate in which many, though not all, cyclists felt they had to dope in order to compete. Any argument that we are being too hard on him is wrong, although I accept others also need to be investigated just as thoroughly.

Another thing I cannot forgive Armstrong for is the seeds of doubt that he has sown in my mind. As much as I believe Wiggins is clean, I can't be sure. There is always a nagging doubt in the back of my mind which tarnishes the accomplishments and hard work of clean riders.

Sorry - rant over.
steveej - on 22 Jan 2013
dissonance - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:

> What if the cycling rule book didn't have a rule against using PED's? Then they wouldn't be cheating.

ermm yes. Likewise if they were allowed motorbikes.

> No! because mainstream culture (at least in Britain) tells us that sticking a needle in your leg is not acceptable.

well that or its the health dangers.

> Now look at the continentals culture and the fact there are dopers who have been caught and NOT banned for life.

actually many dopers arent banned for life. Armstrong is an exception since, among other things, he didnt admit guilt and was also seen as an instigator of use in others.

> In Britain we like nothing more than judging others without ever getting off our own arse.

strange argument. he was a cheat who bullied those who were happy to get off their arses and train but werent willing to take drugs out of the sport.
Punter S Thompson - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu:

I think there's a lot to be admired about Lance Armstrong.

I tried cycling on drugs once, I hit a dog and fell in the canal.
steveej - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance:

the point is whats the difference between changing one rule over another, rules are amended and changed from year to year. A motorbike would be a fundemental change to the sport. Many would argue that PEDS would not.

Health dangers real? or imagined in the opublics perception? Do you think peak athletics is healthy?

Point accepted, but is this FACT, or a witch hunt by the newspapers?

Simply making a point that the world is a mix of cultures and viewpoints. Bully - this is being stated as FACT. I agree he probably was, but so was my old boss.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:

I tend to agree. Having read the report, the affidavits give the impression that the whole thing started because of a cultural shift, or worse still, not so much a cultural shift, but a different drug choice. A lot of those testifying started using drugs at around the same time as LA, but not under his influence. And, while I accept that LA may well have been a controlling character, and a bully (which isn't exactly an uncommon personality type), I find it ridiculous that LAs coercion and influence was the major factor in the cycling drugs culture during his time at the top of the sport. It is very sad that his actions, and equally those of all others who doped may have prevented clean riders from receiving their dues, but the management, and wilful financial negligence (or direct complicity) across the sport must have been staggering. Lance's persistence in lying have made him a guilty scapegoat for a sport that seems to have been systemically corrupt. Whether or not doping is still occurring (I find it difficult to believe it isn't, because that would make cycling pretty unique), cycling has a culture and nature with more affinity to Formula 1 then any other athletic sport... ...money / technical teams / doctors / medical testing etc all matter a lot, as it seems do the various stances of anti-doping agencies, UCI etc. Not wanting to do a Godwin, but frankly, passive conformism of many many people are responsible for LAs drug use, and LAs encouragement of that culture - no one nasty bully can be made the epitome of evil for what so very many were doing and allowing. Furthermore, such focal criticism shows a fundamental lack of insight into the universal nature of human flaws.
IainRUK - on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Superbly put... That's what I mean but couldn't get the point across as well..

I think the responsibility for this goes right through the sport and the UCI know this.. hence this refusal for amnesty as they known damn well they will be implicated.. they, the teams, the fans wanted to see the super human efforts.. the from the death revivals..



Timmd on 22 Jan 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to benstu)
>
> Walsh getting emotional.
>
> http://www.balls.ie/news/a-very-emotional-david-walsh-bbc-interview-further-exposes-the-utter-vilene...
>
> What an absolute wanker Armstrong was.
>
> E

It's one thing to cheat but it's another to be so nasty and go after people like he has.

benstu - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Adam W. then you are braking the law how do you think a drug abuser of any kind start,s but you brake the law you go to jail so what are you saying you would rather brake the law & go to prison or do you think its ok to take illegal substances ,
benstu - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Punter S Thompson: ye tryed that one too got three years in prison
dissonance - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:

> the point is whats the difference between changing one rule over another, rules are amended and changed from year to year.

not really. many rules have remained consistent, eg no PEDS and its generally considered bad form to decide not to worry about a rule because it might be changed.

> Health dangers real? or imagined in the opublics perception?

from the various PEDs. quite well known.

> Do you think peak athletics is healthy?

depending on the sport, fairly yes.

> Point accepted, but is this FACT, or a witch hunt by the newspapers?

by newspapers you mean USADA report?

> Simply making a point that the world is a mix of cultures and viewpoints. Bully - this is being stated as FACT.

someone who cant remember who he sued/threatened legally, for something he was guilty of, since there were quite a few I think can safely be called a bully.
You can also look at the testimony of various riders or look at some of the youtube clips.
Adam W. - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: I don't think it's so easy to compare the motives behind starting to use recreational drugs and PEDs. I'm saying that I wouldn't like to be put in the position where I have to choose between leaving my chosen profession and having to take PEDs. Luckily it's a choice I've never had to make. I was trying, obviously not very well, to criticise the culture in cycling that forced people to have to make the decision.
steveej - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance:

seems like you have failed to grasp the theme of my post that was indeed more clearly articulated by Jimbo above, and have resorted to taking things out of context - just to try an win an argument.

The rules are the rules and the riders should agree to abide by them. This argument is stated time and again by the Armstrong haters. My point is that if the rule was changed to allow PEDS would that make it all ok? at which point you replied about Motorbikes?

I disagree on peak athletics being healthy. The human body is just not designed to pump that much blood around your body time again, year after year.

You seem to blame Armstrong for the entire culture within the sport. I believ people should take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming others.

So what if he was a bully and a nasty man. Life is full of them.
yorkshireman - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to dissonance)

> The rules are the rules and the riders should agree to abide by them. This argument is stated time and again by the Armstrong haters.

Armstrong haters? Or do you mean people judging him on his actions?

> My point is that if the rule was changed to allow PEDS would that make it all ok?

If PEDs had been legal in the sport during Armstrong's period then technically it would have been 'ok' in the sense that:

a) we wouldn't be able to call him a cheat, since it would have been within the rules.

b) he would not have to resort to the coercion and bullying he did, since he wouldn't have to keep a secret.

But aside from that its an obviously ridiculous argument.

> I disagree on peak athletics being healthy. The human body is just not designed to pump that much blood around your body time again, year after year.

You may have a point, but thats a bit different to EPO pushing your hematocrit level so high you have to wake up in the night to do push ups to get the blood pumping so you don't die in your sleep.

> You seem to blame Armstrong for the entire culture within the sport. I believ people should take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming others.

Not entirely - the culture was there already - but he took it to a new level and was instrumental in perpetuating it for a decade.

> So what if he was a bully and a nasty man. Life is full of them.

So we should let them get on with it? Do you think we should let Assad continue 'bullying' the citizens of Syria? Different scale but just taking your logic to its extreme conclusion.

steveej - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to yorkshireman: but you take my comments out of context. The original reply was to PMG up thread as about cheating.

Armstrong haters / people judging call them what you like.

I agree some drugs are more risky than others. But the view that top end sport is perfectly healthy as long as you don't take PED's is quite frankly incorrect.

In my view, you can't blame armstrong for the entire culture in cycling that has been tolerated by the officials. There is plenty of evidence that large proportions of people were doing it. New drugs were coming out, but I think its naiive and irresponsible blame one man. He may well have had influence on his team, but the were numerous other teams doing exactly the same thing. Its the masses/majority that make up the culture, not one man or one team.
dissonance - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:

> seems like you have failed to grasp the theme of my post that was indeed more clearly articulated by Jimbo above, and have resorted to taking things out of context - just to try an win an argument.

perhaps you could try and write coherently then?

> The rules are the rules and the riders should agree to abide by them. This argument is stated time and again by the Armstrong haters. My point is that if the rule was changed to allow PEDS would that make it all ok? at which point you replied about Motorbikes?

yes because its the same or, if you would prefer a more simplistic example, take the cases of changes in bike design and those which are or arent allowed.
Turn up on a recumbent and you would have an advantage in some cases, however it would be cheating.

> I disagree on peak athletics being healthy. The human body is just not designed to pump that much blood around your body time again, year after year.

the science is out on that, however what is known is blood doping is dangerous. When carefully, eg professionally, monitored the risk is lower. however the problem is that professionalism costs money. If you allow it at the top end then lower down people will need to do so as well. the problem is they wont be able to afford the doctors to do it safely.

> You seem to blame Armstrong for the entire culture within the sport.

for someone complaining about taking things out of context you perhaps shouldnt do so yourself.
However he was, according to USADA etc a clear leader in it and hence bears additional responsibility.

> I believ people should take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming others.

well done. I am not sure of the relevance of this but well done anyway.
People did take responsibility and got attacked for it, including legal action which cost people, who were right, a shitload of money.

> So what if he was a bully and a nasty man. Life is full of them.

ermm, yes.
The point is if you bully a shitload of people you will likely face the repercussions eventually, as in this case.
most of the dopers when caught held their hands up , he didnt and as the consequence of what he did to keep his hands down has been hit a lot harder.
Uluru on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: I admit I have quite militant views on cheating in sport, but I believe that every sportsperson knows the rules with regards to doping. Whether is be Lance Armstrong, Dwain Chambers, the 2000 Chinese Olympic swimming team, if you're sneaky enough to take the drugs and try to deceive you fellow sports people and sport fans and you get caught then it should be one strike and you're out.

You should also have to pay beack any funding you were given to participate in your sport, espcially people like Chambers who received lottery funding.

People like that make you then question everyone in sport. Bas~ards.
steveej - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance: sorry to labour the point here.

Its not the same! The point is that even if the rules were changed to allow PEDs (so that it's not cheating) it would still be unacceptable in our culture - its not just about breaking a rule but its about what is acceptable from a cultural perspective. And culture is different the world over - thus some would argure that the continentals who have been caught by a drug test have had their respective agencies come down far less hard on them.

I am not arguing he did'nt break the rules and not arguing he shouldn't be punished for it. But the punishment should be scaled in comparison to what others have had given to them.

I agree that not all PED's are safe but many of them can be taken safely with minimal risk. But this has now become a side point.

I am on about people who are complaining that there careers were trashed because they couldn't compete against the chemically enhanced. The fact is they may still have lost even if everyone was squeaky clean. They would have known what they were getting into so I don't feel sorry for their niaevity.

Life is full of horrible people. But are people are making him out to be the main instigator in all PED taking in cycling in that era, as if it was his sole responsibility. This is BS, the history of PED's in cycling started way before Lance, the governing bodies tollerated it, the riders knew about it. To blame one man is unfair and is a witchhunt as far as I am concerned.
IainRUK - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Uluru: I strongly disagree.

Like the link I gave. These people give their all, they slip up.

I don't know what level you've competed at, but I think that may change your view slightly. Not always, but I think those that compete understand the pressures and also the justifications you can use.

Young lads, teenagers. As a 18 year old I was told to take a drug to bulk up by a semi pro football team. It was legal, but I didn't. I was tempted, read about it and decided not to. But I don't think my response would have been any different had it been legal or not. I think I'd have still been tempted and researched it myself. But I also knew the chances of me making thegrade were minimal, drugs or not. Had I been more borderline I think I may have considered things more closely. I don't know.

I just don't think young lads who turn to PEDS should face lifetime bans. In Rugby this is a huge issue and has been in the press recently.
IainRUK - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to steveej)
>
> [...]
>
> perhaps you could try and write coherently then?
>
> [...]

This is just a childish point.. and seems to be the standard response with the Lance arguments. Either insult them as apologists.. belittle like that. There's actually very little argument being delivered. TBF the cyclists on here, Enty et al do. But they know sport so talk to you on that level and I think understand the pressures more.

There was drugs pre Lance. Lance just happened to hit the top as the best drug came out, but whether be took amphetamines or EPO doesn't matter to me, or even simply transfusions, they still took that decision to cheat.. they made that step.

Also talking of Lances bullying.. do you not think that was the culture then. Lance was probably exposed to it when he started. Take drugs or don't get paid. Yeah he continued it.. invented it? I very much doubt.
balmybaldwin - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to dissonance) sorry to labour the point here.
>
> ... some would argure that the continentals who have been caught by a drug test have had their respective agencies come down far less hard on them.
>

This is just evidence of how wide the problem is, and that some parts of the world haven't yet sorted out their problems - Alberto Contador is a perfect example of this - a pathetic ban, and just goes to prove how much further cycling needs to go. Spain have not got the best record for comming down hard on drug cheats (regardless of sport) and WADA need more teeth

> I agree that not all PED's are safe but many of them can be taken safely with minimal risk. But this has now become a side point.

They may be able to be taken safely at low doses, but knowing how much to tae and when is what costs the real money and results in high risks for people without those resources

>
> I am on about people who are complaining that there careers were trashed because they couldn't compete against the chemically enhanced. The fact is they may still have lost even if everyone was squeaky clean. They would have known what they were getting into so I don't feel sorry for their niaevity.

Why would they have known what they were getting into? the whole point in this saga is the omerta that surrounded procycling couldn't be seen from the outside, it was only once they had commited to the "job" that they find out what it's really like.

We and they will never know who would have beaten who clean. What we do know is some very good cyclists were unable to compete because they were clean and the competition was not. they may not have won, but they would definitely have been able to make decent living as a mediocre Pro at the least
>
> Life is full of horrible people. But are people are making him out to be the main instigator in all PED taking in cycling in that era, as if it was his sole responsibility. This is BS, the history of PED's in cycling started way before Lance, the governing bodies tollerated it, the riders knew about it. To blame one man is unfair and is a witchhunt as far as I am concerned.

No one is blaming one man, but he was a dominant figure in the sport for 7 years, and actively enforcing the omerta, and this happenend just at a time that cycling had started it's revolution in outing cheats in episodes such as the festina afair amung others. This sudden more professional approach took the doping even deeper underground.

There is no doubt in my mind that the UCI especially were complicit or at the very least deliberatly negligent in their policing of the sport, and no Armstrong does not take all the blame, but the damage he has caused to his sport goes further than any other sportsman has ever damaged theirs.

dissonance - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> Also talking of Lances bullying.. do you not think that was the culture then. Lance was probably exposed to it when he started. Take drugs or don't get paid. Yeah he continued it.. invented it? I very much doubt.

todays quiz.
number of lawsuits launched by lance vs number launched by other cyclists.
dissonance - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:

> Its not the same! The point is that even if the rules were changed to allow PEDs (so that it's not cheating) it would still be unacceptable in our culture

considering that the law tends to follow the culture i am not sure what your point is?

> And culture is different the world over - thus some would argure that the continentals who have been caught by a drug test have had their respective agencies come down far less hard on them.

you could argue that. However I would suggest you might want to look why USADA went the route they did. As a starting point he hasnt cooperated with them which bins off the chance of a more lenient sentence for a early guilty plea (same as in a normal court).


> I agree that not all PED's are safe but many of them can be taken safely with minimal risk. But this has now become a side point.

oh, got the link to the journals?

> I am on about people who are complaining that there careers were trashed because they couldn't compete against the chemically enhanced. The fact is they may still have lost even if everyone was squeaky clean. They would have known what they were getting into so I don't feel sorry for their niaevity.

an interesting attitude. By the by, you know that they knew what they were getting into how exactly?

> To blame one man is unfair and is a witchhunt as far as I am concerned.

lucky no one is blaming one man then isnt it?
However what people are saying is he holds additional responsibility and his ban should reflect that.
As for the UCI, you do know that Kimmage is counter suing them and that i think the consensus is they need some some new leadership.
steveej - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I agree

I agree

I think the problem was even bigger than just the Pro level, and there was plenty of it going on at the top amateur ranks - British cycling has clauses all over its membership application form and it has done for years. I find it very hard to believe that a top amateur back in 2000 was oblivious to what was happening in the sport at the top levels. As a top amateur with a love for the sport you would think they would be clued up on the history.

I agree.
steveej - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance:

I am not going to explain it to you again.

I see you have changed your stance on the last point. Hey ho.
dissonance - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to steveej:

> I am not going to explain it to you again.

shame i was looking forward to seeing what your next rambling attempt was.

> I see you have changed your stance on the last point. Hey ho.

ermmm no i havent.
IainRUK - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance: He's a bad naughty man. I've not defended him, I'm just saying he didn't start all this. As cook said she was bullied by teams. It was endemic.
Just a bhoy - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Goucho:
> Nike have already filed a multi-million pound lawsuit against him.

Bit curious as to Nike's (and any other sponsors) issue here. He was paid, and I'm imagining that Nike et al saw an increase in sales due to their association. Can the sponsors prove that they have been damaged since the outing of LA? and how does this stack up against the benefits reaped during the course of the commercial tie in. Seems the sponsors have a cake and eat it attitude here.
balmybaldwin - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Just a bhoy:
> (In reply to Goucho)
> [...]
>
> Bit curious as to Nike's (and any other sponsors) issue here. He was paid, and I'm imagining that Nike et al saw an increase in sales due to their association. Can the sponsors prove that they have been damaged since the outing of LA? and how does this stack up against the benefits reaped during the course of the commercial tie in. Seems the sponsors have a cake and eat it attitude here.

I think a lot of this comes from the contracts he signed which included clauses insisting their athletes did not dope in order to avoid bringin controversy to their brand. I don't think they have to prove they were damaged, merely that LA was in breach of contract and therefore wasn't due the money in the first place.

Certainly the US Postal sponsorship from the governement paid bonuses based on results and no PEDs use

dissonance - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Just a bhoy:

> Bit curious as to Nike's (and any other sponsors) issue here.

the company suing him arent actually the sponsors but instead a different company who acted as insurers for the bonus payments.
As such they will be rather out of pocket.

Uluru on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to dissonance: I read somewhere that The Sunday Times are looking to get back the money be won by suing them when they reported that he was drug cheat. It's around £1 million
benstu - on 23 Jan 2013
In reply to Uluru: cant agree more
benstu - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK: he broke the law ,forget all the rest of it he broke the law & the punishment should justified the crime
IainRUK - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to Adam W.:
>
>
> Another thing I cannot forgive Armstrong for is the seeds of doubt that he has sown in my mind. As much as I believe Wiggins is clean, I can't be sure. There is always a nagging doubt in the back of my mind which tarnishes the accomplishments and hard work of clean riders.
>
> Sorry - rant over.

You can't be serious on this issue?

Armstrong made you doubt clean riders?

Look at the history of TDF winners who were confirmed dopers..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

If you look here, it gives the top 10 or so every year for the last 15 years and says who was or had suspicians of having doped..

To lay the doubt solely on Lance is rather silly.
IainRUK - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to benstu: Which law?
Graeme Alderson on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Perjury I assume
IainRUK - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson: Keep up Graeme.. :-)

That's gone by all accounts.. Statute of limitations was 5 years.. lapsed in 2012.. so he's free to contradict his court statements.
GrahamD - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Apparently only for criminal prosecution. He is still open to civil law suit (ie recovery of lost earning etc)
IainRUK - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to GrahamD: yeah for sure.. but Bentsu? was talking about a crime?


I thought it was quite hard to convict people for taking PEDs..

balmybaldwin - on 24 Jan 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

The USADA report provides evidence he was involved in trafficing PEDs in Europe which is quite a serious offence. (And incidentally the reason for a large number of the dopers caught at the TDF - not the UCI catching people, but the french Gendarmes raiding hotels

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.