The Long Fall of Lance Armstrong

snowleopard

Well-known member
As this is the Cafe, here goes off topic. I've been a cyclist for 25 years, a former amateur racer, and followed the sport very closely for the last two decades. So close I'm an admin on the world's biggest pro cycling website. Everyone has heard of Lance Armstrong. Most heard of him for years as a hero. The story about beating cancer, winning the Tour de France, starting his own foundation.

But over the last several years many of us grew increasingly suspicious of a darker side to his winning. That the reasons weren't merely from determination and hard work, but in a sport dominated by one doping scandal after another, by those very same methods.

This was brought face first to the US forefront when last year Floyd Lands - himself one of those who had tested positive for doping - changed his mind and spilled his guts, naming Armstrong in the process. At the time his credibility was brought into question by many. But the closer people looked, and the more he spoke, the greater the ring of truth started to be. Soon it was revealed that Armstrong was under investigation by the FDA, and the lead investigator none other than Jeff Novitzky, the same man who took on Balco for MLB. The Wall Street Journal, of all publications, ran a very detailed article looking into the matter.

The investigation quietly continued, with many ex-teammates, trainers, doctors, all being called to testify before a grand jury. Armstrong and his attorney referred to this as a "witch hunt", but that didn't alter the course. As time passed, more and more people started to abandon ship, and leaks became very porous out of the so-called Livestrong camp. Rumors great about two very detailed and long articles on the issue. One to be published by Sports Illustrated in the US, the other out of Europe. While it took a while for the SI article to clear legal hurdles, it hit the presses today. Unlike allegations in the past, this brought the story more to the forefront. It appeared on the NBC Nightly News tonight, and two PhD scientists who run a site called the Science of Sport, wrote a detailed comment on the article. Joe Lindsay, respected long time author for Bicycling magazine, and other periodicals, and one who looked favorable upon Armstrong in the past wrote this article today further dissecting the situation.

Rumors continue beyond what was published. Misuse of money, tax fraud, etc. Some rumors being that an indictment from the FDA, or DOJ could come anytime, but as more people seek to speak out, the indictment is held while the new info comes in to pile on.

What complicates this is unlike someone like Michael Vick who eventually did plea out, and admitted his guilt for dog fighting, Armstrong built his entire career, and his reputation, on the pillar of being the clean athlete. One who never used drugs, and would never do so, because he had received a gift after beating cancer. By pleading out, if charged, Armstrong could avoid large fines and prison time. But everything he built upon it, his reputation and beyond, millions of dollars worth, would completely crumble. It would quite possibly considered the biggest fraud in the history of sports. And in the end, whether he is taken to court or not, once this is further in the open, that's exactly what I think is going to happen.
 
Hardly a surprise.

I mean...
lance-armstrong-douche.jpg
 
I haven't followed the issue closely. However, I do have an opinion regarding illegal drugs/enhancements. If an athlete passes tests and there is no reasonable supicion of tampering, then he is clean. It's that simple.
 
What about cheating others who don't want to dope (or don't have access to the same medical care) out of their winnings? What about gaining access to medical products that are intended for people who truly are sick and really need it? What about damage done to sponsors?

Is it really that simple?
 
It's such a shame when atheltes go down that road.

I was hugely dissapointed when it came to light that Chael Sonnen was done for PEDS when he fought UFC middleweight champ Anderson Silva.

All the great work he'd done in that fight not only means nothing now but he will never really be looked at the same again.
 
What about cheating others who don't want to dope (or don't have access to the same medical care) out of their winnings? What about gaining access to medical products that are intended for people who truly are sick and really need it? [...]

If he tests clean, no one is being cheated. Money (or its lack) does create inequalities but so does DNA.
 
I'm with Jordan_S on this. I really don't have a strong opinion against doping. There's always that extra training or DNA or whatever that one athlete may chose (or have an ability to do) over another.

There is no fairness in life.

None.
 
I'm with Jordan_S on this. I really don't have a strong opinion against doping.[...]

In case I wasn't clear, I do believe doping is wrong. It just seems problematic to rely on motivated witness testimony instead of strictly hard science, which must be tempered by a proper and objective investigation, as in this case.
 
I don't know what Armstrong did. Only he and maybe a few others know for sure. But allegations have been coming out for as long as he's been dominant in the sport and there has never been a whit of actual evidence.

I really do not understand the need for some people to take a hero figure, any hero figure, and trash them -- usually specifically because they're hero-figures. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, snowleopard, but clean or not, "rumors," as you put it, would be flying about Armstrong no matter what, and no amount of evidence he could provide would satisfy anyone who wants to believe he doped. The more dominant you are, the more people want to believe you cheated, and the harder they believe it.
 
I don't know what Armstrong did. Only he and maybe a few others know for sure. But allegations have been coming out for as long as he's been dominant in the sport and there has never been a whit of actual evidence.

I really do not understand the need for some people to take a hero figure, any hero figure, and trash them -- usually specifically because they're hero-figures. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, snowleopard, but clean or not, "rumors," as you put it, would be flying about Armstrong no matter what, and no amount of evidence he could provide would satisfy anyone who wants to believe he doped. The more dominant you are, the more people want to believe you cheated, and the harder they believe it.
Agreed.

Innocent until proven guilty.

If he did it someone out there knows and evidence will come to light. Just as it did in baseball.
Guess we'll see what happens. Until then it's just a bunch of people pointing fingers.
 
Testing is inefficient. According to Bernard Kohl, who finished third at the Tour de France and won the King of the Mountains jersey a few years back, he was tested some 200 times before he was caught. And he was caught only because the drug he used (CERA) it's manufacturer, Roche, had worked with WADA to help make the drug detectable before anyone knew this was even possible. Immediately after Kohl and a few others were caught, CERA was no longer used by cyclists. Joe Papp, who testified at Landis hearing, said he was tested about 100 times before being caught, and even then he had a way to get out of the test, but didn't think he'd fail.

Armstrong actually tested positive many times, but was able to escape sanctions. in 1999 he tested positive for cortisone. Before this he had flatly stated he never had a TUE (therapeutic exemption) for anything. When the test was revealed as positive, he then was issued a backdated TUE, which was accepted by the UCI (governing body). In 1999-2000 there was no test for EPO. So in 2005 when the test for it was refined and deemed inescapable, samples from 1999 were re-tested. Guess who came up positive, six times? There's enough sample left to re-test again, at any lab in the world. Lance refuses to allow the samples to be retested. Lance also tested positive for testosterone at least twice, as noted in the article, but the test results were never issued to USADA. According to Landis, Lance also tested positive for EPO in 2002 - a hasty trip was made to Switzerland where Lance met with UCI head Hein Verbruggen and a payment was made to have the positive test disappear. Sour grapes by Landis? It has been determined now that Lance "donated" at least $100,000 to the UCI around that time.

This information isn't very secret, and readily available, so I won't dig up the links.
 
Innocent until proven guilty.
As applies to law, yes. But for a set of sporting rules, how do you define guilty? Only when one is sanctioned? What if they have the ability to bribe or influence the sanctioning body?

Or do you mean even if sanctioned by the sporting commission, they still are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law?
 
It just seems that if there was hard evidence that he cheated his way to all those wins he would be labeled a fraud. The evidence just isn't strong enough. Obviously, he was never disqualified from a tour he won. Saying he bribed someone without real proof doesn't mean anything.

Get me a doctor testifying that he provided him with the drugs at a legal hearing and you'll have something. Hearsay is not evidence.
Sorry, you can't bribe everyone, that excuse doesn't float with me.

I'm not even a fan of the guy. Just saying, I need more EVIDENCE. Not finger pointing. Anyone will say anything in a magazine article.
 
If all of this adds up to what you're saying it does, then it seems to me that the sport of cycling is horribly corrupt and Armstrong is the least of its worries. It's hard to imagine he could be such a flagrant cheater in an honest sport.

I would say, then, the honest cyclers who don't want to cheat should form their own association.
 
Back
Top