The Long Fall of Lance Armstrong

It would not surprise me to learn that a majority of professional athletes were using one or more banned performance-enhancing drugs.
 
This thread created some stir when I posted it a few months ago, and I thought about just letting it die, but this is the cafe after all, so here goes the latest.

More ex-teammates have spoken out against Lance Armstrong, not only about doping, but about cheating tests, more. 60 Minutes ran an extensive segment on it last week. Well worth watching, if the topic interests you.

Link here.

 
Continuing with the story, Armstrong has chosen not to go to arbitration and instead take his case to the court of public opinion with PR, while hoping the growing amount of evidence that he doped never sees enough light, and people choose to not look into the issue very deep, instead buying his claim that the evil USADA was engaging in a witch hunt, for some undefined reason.
 
Still innocent until proven guilty which they've never done. Heresay is one thing especially among teammates. Bottom line is after hundreds of passed tests and countless court accusations he said F-it. Not worth it. And I agree. Only he and God knows the truth. And that's all that matters.

//edit: And thus the notorious Thread Killer strikes again. -beers.
 
Last edited:
Granted I do not follow this other than the occasional glance but Lance is high profile so...

As Gord.T says, Lance has never been found guilty of anything, just gave up trying to prove innocence. Frankly I think someone up there has a major cactus up their ass about lance and was/is determined to try and bring him down. Lance beat out cancer and as such I belive he would do everything he could not to engage in activity that could/would damage his health, after all.. he fought to defeat cancer.

Lance has passed many, many tests and the more high profile he has gotten the close he has been watched. How stupid would you have to be to engage in that activity with that much attention on you.

Any way, that my not so engaged half penny.
 
I would suggest following the sport closer. There is NO test that detects autologous blood doping, which he was primarily found guilty of. Much of the testing for PEDs such as EPO or HGH are highly ineffective.

As to innocent before proven guilty, I believe this proves he is guilty, and some serious evidence will come out in the arbitration hearings for Johann Bruyneel, Pepe Marti and Del Moral, of not sooner, including some detailed eye witness testimony from credible people. Jerry Sandusky for example was convicted with zero physical evidence, all of it eye witness testimony. Armstrong also isn't facing a court of law, he faced fraud for violating sporting rules.

Look into the case closer. Read the articles on sites like Cycling News, listen to interviews with people like former pro Paul Kimmage. Lance doped. He doped in all of his wins, and lied about it at very step. At best he was the top in a dirty game. But that doesn't excuse the cheating and the lies.

The group that deserves credit here is USADA. They followed the rules and law at every step of the way, and fought against what former pro cyclists Alexander Vinokourov, Joe Papp and Tyler Hamilton each seperatly called a mafia of doping, to help clean up a beautiful sport that had become the dirtiest and most corrupt in the world. One where it had become impossible to even compete clean,let alone win, as the very respected Jonathan Vaughters recently said.

Its a damned shame Armstrong was part of that, but the truth is he was. If you dont see enough evidence of that now, look into it, and keep your eyes open in the weeks to come. If his walking away gives him a clean break from that past in his eyes, so be it. But it doesn't mean he got where he was, as a sportsman, with honor.
 
groveChuck said:
The higher (and faster) they climb, the further they fall...
Damn, I hate BALCO- all the other labs too.
Click to expand...

Some recent information on BALCO:


"What Do Usain Bolt And Juan Manuel Marquez Have In Common? They Train With The Same Admitted Steroids Dealer"

"Angel Hernandez is the person formerly known as Angel "Memo" Heredia. Heredia, with a BALCO connection of his own, has been training both Marquez and Bolt under an assumed name."

http://deadspin.com/5857439/what-do...-train-with-the-same-admitted-steroids-dealer
 
I think why this story doesn't resonate with the general public, and why there isn't a huge uporoar over it, is that it's so far after the fact. It would be one thing if he won the tour de france, then tested positive for drugs after the race and was stripped of his medals shortly thereafter. But for it to happen a decade after the fact seems fishy to people, and doesn't speak well of the effectiveness of the organization in charge of keeping watch over it. I mean isn't the whole point of an organization like the USADA to PREVENT people from competing using performance enhancing drugs during competitions. Catching someone ten years later doesn't do any good for a sport. That's why people have the sense that it's a witch hunt, rightly or wrongly.
 
Last edited:
It's all a shame, really.

Here's a link to the index of doping allegations and history with Armstrong. Also suggest anyone read the Michael Ashenden interview. He is a renowned and respected scientist who looked into EPO retests and in his words Armstrong undoubtably doped with EPO, very likely more than others. The facts are out there, if people choose to open their eyes.
 
This is not a legal case. It is about sporting fraud. If you insist on legalaties, Armstrong lost his appeal to a federal judge trying to stop arbitration. He lost.

As go logic. Let me ask you a few questions.

Exactly how closely have you followed this? Or the sport of pro cycling? What are you using as your source of information? What references are you looking at?

What exactly would it take to convince you that he doped? I gave numerous references to credible sources, most of which would have come up in the USADA arbitration Armstrong chose not to contest. As to raw science, USADA was ready to present said hard evidence that Armstrong doped, showing blood manipulation in his profile, and several failed tests. Since Armstrong was innocent in your eyes, would it not have been easy for him to point out that this was not factual? Do you know how USADA arbitration hearings are presented? Have you followed many in the past? Which ones can you point out that show were not fair or just? What reasoning do you have that such an arbitration hearing for Armstrong would not be just?

It has been stated by many others, not just me, that there are very credible witnesses ready to testify that he doped. USADA says over a dozen. Do you not consider this to be credible? Why specifically not? Because anyone can say anything? Then what would possess all of these people to universally lie? What makes you certain they would be lying, but Armstrong alone would be telling the truth?

Finally, you asked why I "badly want this to be true". Because it is true, and numerous other cyclists were cheated out of their winnings by dopers. I do not tolerate cheating and find it immoral. Having studied cycling for over a decade now, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Armstrong cheated by doping. More than most other cyclists, and definitely in a way that made it impossible for anyone clean to win. And he lied about it every step of the way. It's really quite that simple.
 
snowleopard said:
...
As go logic. Let me ask you a few questions.

Exactly how closely have you followed this? Or the sport of pro cycling? What are you using as your source of information? What references are you looking at?

What exactly would it take to convince you that he doped? I gave numerous references to credible sources, most of which would have come up in the USADA arbitration Armstrong chose not to contest. As to raw science, USADA was ready to present said hard evidence that Armstrong doped, showing blood manipulation in his profile, and several failed tests. Since Armstrong was innocent in your eyes, would it not have been easy for him to point out that this was not factual? Do you know how USADA arbitration hearings are presented? Have you followed many in the past? Which ones can you point out that show were not fair or just? What reasoning do you have that such an arbitration hearing for Armstrong would not be just?

It has been stated by many others, not just me, that there are very credible witnesses ready to testify that he doped. USADA says over a dozen. Do you not consider this to be credible? Why specifically not? Because anyone can say anything? Then what would possess all of these people to universally lie? What makes you certain they would be lying, but Armstrong alone would be telling the truth?

Finally, you asked why I "badly want this to be true". Because it is true, and numerous other cyclists were cheated out of their winnings by dopers. I do not tolerate cheating and find it immoral. Having studied cycling for over a decade now, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Armstrong cheated by doping. More than most other cyclists, and definitely in a way that made it impossible for anyone clean to win. And he lied about it every step of the way. It's really quite that simple.
Click to expand...

I understand the frustration and that's why we have judges. I personally do not have the time nor the education to see each case through. He's had many fair trials. If anyone knows something they don't, present it to the courts. Let the people we hire to judge do their job. This is endless. To be honest.
 
This is not a legal case. It is about sporting fraud. If you insist on legalaties, Armstrong lost his appeal to a federal judge trying to stop arbitration. He lost.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make the allegation true. Not legally, not in any other way.

And no, giving up the fight doesn't make him guilty in any respect. I never said he was "innocent," only that this doesn't prove him to be guilty.

Look, I have no interest in his having done it OR not done it. I don't have any agenda whatsoever. I just don't get why it's so important to you (or anyone) to believe that he doped. If he did, he did, but I do not understand why someone would NEED for him to have done so, or why it's so personally important to tear him down.

That is true of many people regarding many figures, not just Armstrong, and not just in sport (like, say, the achievement of the other Armstrong who sadly passed on yesterday). There are those who need to destroy anyone who achieves what others don't. It's a mindset I simply do not understand.
 
David Jimerson said:
That doesn't make the allegation true. Not legally, not in any other way.

And no, giving up the fight doesn't make him guilty in any respect. I never said he was "innocent," only that this doesn't prove him to be guilty.

Look, I have no interest in his having done it OR not done it. I don't have any agenda whatsoever. I just don't get why it's so important to you (or anyone) to believe that he doped. If he did, he did, but I do not understand why someone would NEED for him to have done so, or why it's so personally important to tear him down.
Click to expand...

Do you not care about trying to make the world as just as one can? Maybe if your brother was the top ranked clean rider in one of those TdFs that Lance won, you would have a stronger opinion on whether it's important or not?
 
Danj85 said:
Some recent information on BALCO:


"What Do Usain Bolt And Juan Manuel Marquez Have In Common? They Train With The Same Admitted Steroids Dealer"

"Angel Hernandez is the person formerly known as Angel "Memo" Heredia. Heredia, with a BALCO connection of his own, has been training both Marquez and Bolt under an assumed name."

http://deadspin.com/5857439/what-do...-train-with-the-same-admitted-steroids-dealer
Click to expand...

The thing about people who use steriods is you can easily see it in their face (especially while they are competing). Not only do their bodies get that chisled look but so does their face....making it look hard (especially the women sprinters...remember Marion Jones?). Lance Armstrong always had that same kind of face....it's hard to miss. But Usain Bolt never came accross that way to me. He's got so much more advantage than most people on the track because he's taller than everyone else (standing at 6'5") and is genetically gifted. He broke all kinds of records even in high school. As far as strides....I read that the average person needs at least 46 strides to win that sprint....where Usain only needs 41. It's like a boxer having a reach advantage over another. That's why he makes it looks so much easier than everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top