# Lance Armstrong done______



## orbital (Aug 24, 2012)

+

The most drug tested person on the planet is saying 'enough is enough' on drug allegations.
Important,,this is NOT an admission of guilt







~ the 2004 'tour' _time trial_,, 3,600 foot vertical climb up alpe d'huez ^^^


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

So what does that mean? He doesnt really make the decision whether to continue these investigations, thats done by the officials.


----------



## Launch Mini (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Where there's smoke, there's fire...


----------



## fastgun (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Eddie Merkx was and now still is "The Man!!"


----------



## Launch Mini (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I prefereed Miguil Indurain. Loved watching him ride


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

nearly everyone dopes at that level. yes it is bad but an actual fact that will
never be controlled.

Lance doped but *was never busted via the established rules*, that is the issue. He gave up
and said whatever...so he can just move on and let the cards fall where they may.

the problem is: sponsors, high salaries for winning and dirt money for losing, 
and these racers, the majority come from dirt poor beginnings. the desire to win is strong, but to beat dopers you
must be a doper. that is the real problem in cycling. not Lance, not the dopers, but the structure and pay system for teams,
and the old-boy network holding it together.

there is zero doubt in anyones mind that Lance, at the time, was the king of all cycling. He was racing on
the same rules as everyone else---> Need to do some type of boosting at this level<----, because almost everyone else
in contention is doing the same exact thing. those who don't, cannot win.

Lance also _*rode harder and trained smarter*_ than anyone else, dope or no dope. he is insanely focused and fit

and I am not a Lance fan, I think he is a total ****. but I also respect the absolute killer hard work
he put into the bike, day in day out for year after year.


----------



## will (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Does the term 'Witch Hunt' ring a bell here? There is no physical proof of doping. Only the say so of 10 unnamed riders. Why is this gov't agency wasting all this time and money on this? If they did not find anything at the time of race conclusion, that should be the end of it. Congress found that there was nothing to the charges a few months ago and dropped all their investigations against him. 

He has done more for American Cycling that any other rider before him. 

Would you believe that someone in France is ultimately behind this? Conspiracy Theory - maybe. The French have been after him since the first win. One French Newspaper even claimed that they had a blood sample of his tested and it was positive, the thing is - how did the news paper get the sample and how many hands has it passed through, remember the chain of evidence. there was none. Eventually, this was debunked as fiction. 

How can a US agency strip him of seven Tour de France wins? Isn't that a French title?

I bet the head of the agency doesn't even know how to ride a bike........


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I'm unsure why the following language is used in their statement:

US ADA statement:

_"However, when given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and with full knowledge of the consequences, Mr. Armstrong chose not to contest the fact that he engaged in doping violations from at least August 1, 1998 and participated in a conspiracy to cover up his actions."_

No investigation has "facts" of guilt before it begins. There are indeed questions, such as the meaning of blood irregularities in a 2009 race... but it is farcical to state the above: "We know you're guilty, let us hold the hearing already."


----------



## orbital (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



will said:


> ..
> How can a US agency strip him of seven Tour de France wins? Isn't that a French title?
> 
> .......



+

I believe only the* UCI* has that power


----------



## sidecross (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

'Guilty until proven innocent' :devil:


----------



## Steve K (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

So many of Lance's contemporaries have already been caught or implicated in doping, who will the UCI say actually won those 7 TdFs?? After spending all of these years chasing Lance, aren't they obliged to reexamine all of the samples by the riders who might be declared the winner?

I'd like to see bike racing cleaned up, but it's not clear what has been accomplished by USADA's actions. If there is proof of doping, show it. If not, then drop the matter.


----------



## rufus001 (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Cadel Evans still clean!!!!


----------



## will (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Steve K said:


> After spending all of these years chasing Lance, aren't they obliged to reexamine all of the samples by the riders who might be declared the winner?



I think that the top finishers in each stage are tested immediately after finishing. But. Lance would have had the same tests performed...


----------



## WoodMan (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



will said:


> Does the term 'Witch Hunt' ring a bell here? There is no physical proof of doping. Only the say so of 10 unnamed riders. Why is this gov't agency wasting all this time and money on this? If they did not find anything at the time of race conclusion, that should be the end of it. Congress found that there was nothing to the charges a few months ago and dropped all their investigations against him.
> 
> He has done more for American Cycling that any other rider before him.
> 
> ...


 
USADA is *not, repeat not*, a U.S. government agency or a court. They don't follow rules of evidence, don't presume innocence, don't give the accused due process, they don't even name the witnesses against him. They are no better than the kangaroo courts in the old Soviet bloc. In fact, they are the U.S. anti-doping representative only because they figured out how to do it before anyone else did. If I, or anyone else on this forum, had figured out how to run this absolutely perfect *scam* first then we would be the USADA. 

I'm no fan of Armstrong, but this is a total railroad job.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



will said:


> Does the term 'Witch Hunt' ring a bell here? There is no physical proof of doping. Only the say so of 10 unnamed riders. Why is this gov't agency wasting all this time and money on this? If they did not find anything at the time of race conclusion, that should be the end of it. Congress found that there was nothing to the charges a few months ago and dropped all their investigations against him.
> 
> He has done more for American Cycling that any other rider before him.
> 
> ...


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Aug 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Cant they just take a blood sample from each and every racer at the beginning and/or end of each race, and test it, but also keep some of the sample for future testing once they figure out how to detect the newest drugs on the scene at any one time?

That way they can always check to see if racers were using some new cheating substance that they werent aware of and didnt know how to test for til a year later or whatever....


----------



## will (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

My mistake, I thought the USADA was a quasi Gov't agency. At any rate, they are at odds with some of the other cycling associations. 

I was under the impression that the winners of each stage were tested and they do in fact store some/all of the samples for future testing. Unfortunately, the samples are not as secure as they should be. That was how some French newspaper got hold of some of his blood. The first rider who was stripped of the tour win, due to doping, is the one who came out against Armstrong. 

I would think that after 500 blood tests that came back negative, they would leave him alone. 

He did take a bunch of stuff after his Chemo treatments for cancer. That was a few years before his first win. 

I thought the US no longer had Kangaroo Courts. There is no direct evidence, only what unnamed sources are saying.


I remember reading a few years back that some of the other riders did not like Armstrong. They were saying he was only training to race the Tour de France and no other major races, that is why he won. He did not have the full race schedule that some of the other riders had. They felt it was an unfair advantage.

I am not a chemist, nor a biologist . I do have a question about blood being stored for an extended period of time. Is it possible that through decay or freezing and thawing samples, that the blood is not exactly the same as it was when it was first drawn? I know that certain medications that are legal, will change into other elements in a short period of time.


----------



## makapuu (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I think Lance Armstrong is one of the most amazing athlete I have seen in my lifetime.
This article nails it on the head as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...940afa-ee0a-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html


----------



## will (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



makapuu said:


> I think Lance Armstrong is one of the most amazing athlete I have seen in my lifetime.
> This article nails it on the head as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...940afa-ee0a-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html




Great article +1


----------



## mvyrmnd (Aug 25, 2012)

sidecross said:


> 'Guilty until proven innocent' :devil:



That's it. They couldn't prove him guilty, so now they've decided to make him prove he's innocent - and he's not playing their game - so they've claimed the moral victory.


----------



## rufus001 (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

7 wins in a row against a bunch of future drug cheats all before EPO was tested for properly. I don't believe in Superman.


----------



## CDR_Glock (Aug 25, 2012)

It's a travesty that they are having these relentless attacks on Lance. Whatever the case may be, to carry out the wins was a feat. It takes a great degree of dedication, ambition and hard work. 7 times he won. 500 times he was tested. He beat cancer and served as an inspiration For those who fought and are still fighting cancer. Live Strong, Lance.

You are still a champion in my eyes.


----------



## cnjl3 (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



makapuu said:


> I think Lance Armstrong is one of the most amazing athlete I have seen in my lifetime.
> This article nails it on the head as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...940afa-ee0a-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html



Great article.


----------



## orbital (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



WoodMan said:


> USADA is *not, repeat not*, a U.S. government agency or a court. They don't follow rules of evidence, don't presume innocence, don't give the accused due process, they don't even name the witnesses against him. They are no better than the kangaroo courts in the old Soviet bloc. In fact, they are the U.S. anti-doping representative only because they figured out how to do it before anyone else did. If I, or anyone else on this forum, had figured out how to run this absolutely perfect *scam* first then we would be the USADA.
> 
> I'm no fan of Armstrong, but this is a total railroad job.



+

USADA is attempting to get people to think they're credible, by trying to _use_ Armstrong.
...along with having no authority or credibility,, the UCI thinks they are complete tools.

I'v followed cycling most my life, what many people don't know is how the French tried their damnedest to prove Armstrong was doping.
It was a never ending saga.

In the end, the French could do nothing more than respect his unusual ability.


----------



## WoodMan (Aug 25, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

By contrast to Armstrong: Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP tested positive for PEDs in the offseason and yet is widely considered "clean." Why? Because he is subject only to the sanctions of the MLB drug testing policy and not the USADA. Braun's positive testing sample suffered minor mishandling: the testing official could not get the sample to the shipper in time for shipping the same day and so stored it in his own refrigerator overnight. Due to this technicality, Ryan Braun beats the rap. 

Armstrong, the most tested athlete in the history of drug testing, *never* tested positive either in or out of competition. The current allegations of positive tests are based on old samples, some more than a decade old. It is widely known that most, if not all, of these samples were improperly stored, labeled, and secured. Nor is it definitively known how the age of the sample affects the accuracy of current tests.

Again, not a fan of Armstrong, only a fan of justice.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 26, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



orbital said:


> +
> 
> The most drug tested person on the planet is saying 'enough is enough' on drug allegations.
> Important,,this is NOT an admission of guilt.



NYPD gets sued often when officers are alleged to have done something wrong. Sometimes they settle for an undisclosed sum. And, never actually admit to any wrongdoing. Is the fact that the plaintiff is getting a ton of money from the NYPD an admission of guilt? No. Is it seen as such by pretty much every civilian in NYC. Yes, yes it is.

Is the fact that Armstrong threw in the towel going to be seen as an admission of guilt by many? Yes, yes it is.

*EDIT:*

I heard that he has been stripped of all his titles and medals. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## rufus001 (Aug 26, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

The reality is people will believe what they want to believe.


----------



## will (Aug 26, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> I heard that he has been stripped of all his titles and medals. Can anyone confirm this?



The USADA stripped him of the titles, But, correct me if I am wrong. They do not have the authority to do so. 

By the way . he took second in a mountain bike race on Saturday.

Here is a link to a news article..
In a nutshell, USADA can't strip him of the tour wins because they did not award him the wins...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...f7d382-ee04-11e1-afd6-f55f84bc0c41_story.html


----------



## iapyx (Aug 26, 2012)

will said:


> Does the term 'Witch Hunt' ring a bell here? There is no physical proof of doping. Only the say so of 10 unnamed riders. .......



That is not the only reason why they say he is guilty. There's a lot more. E.g Lance always knew ahead of drug/dope test when they were about to test him. He delayed which gave hime like 20 minutes to cover things up. And he did this each time. He was surrounded by experts in hiding the use of dope. I think he was so determend to be perfect in covering up the use of dope that he only thinks one thing: There has never been found any proof of the use of dope in my blood, so therefore I am not guilty. But he forgot about all the other ways that proof he used dope. But that simply doesn't count for him, but unfortunately for him it does count for USADA. 

I hope that they will save a bloodsample they can test so that in the future when new methods have been developed new proof that doesn't allow any room for discussion will say wether he is guilty or innocent


----------



## will (Aug 26, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



iapyx said:


> I hope that they will save a bloodsample they can test so that in the future when new methods have been developed new proof that doesn't allow any room for discussion will say wether he is guilty or innocence.


 
The French tried that a few years back. The samples had not been stored or secured in a way that would have prevented unauthorized people from access. 

Here again, not an expert, but 20 minutes to cover up? is that possible? 

Is it possible that in the future they will want tissue samples from kidneys and liver? 

USADA is a US committee, They do not have the authority to strip him of an award issued by the International Cycling Union, or even the Tour de France.


----------



## rufus001 (Aug 26, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



will said:


> USADA is a US committee, They do not have the authority to strip him of an award issued by the International Cycling Union, or even the Tour de France.



Yes they do. All these groups are signatories to a drug code that requires them to abide by each others rulings. Unless they of course appeal the ruling. Which would open up a whole other can of worms.


----------



## StarHalo (Aug 26, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Clarifying - Armstong is not being accused of using drugs, but rather blood doping; the process of transfusing blood prior to an event, or use of a hormone that causes the body to produce more blood cells. There's no test for this as of now, aside from searching athletes' training areas for the necessary medical equipment.

Another point to ponder is artificial blood; if you need blood at a local hospital and they don't have your particular type, one option is to try artificial blood, which can work across many types. But this is only Artificial Blood 1.0 - if you can create it, then you can improve on it over time. This means the artificial blood of the future will be able to hold way more oxygen than standard old human blood cells. Runners doing multiple Ks at full sprint, swimmers doing lengthy races without ever raising their head out of the water, etc will all be possible, at speeds that are currently not. So will athletes who receive better blood simply no longer be able to compete? Will there need to be entirely new sporting leagues for the enhanced?


----------



## z17813 (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*




127.0.0.1 said:


> nearly everyone dopes at that level. yes it is bad but an actual fact that will never be controlled.



I think this is a good point that isn't discussed enough because while scandals always get press coverage people always want to see records broken and people achieving more and more. 

IMO with the rewards on offer for highly successful athletes there are always going to be a lot of people that will do anything to increase their chances of achieving that level of success.




will said:


> Does the term 'Witch Hunt' ring a bell here? There is no physical proof of doping. Only the say so of 10 unnamed riders.



Most legal cases are built on circumstantial evidence rather than physical evidence, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." 
In the US in murder trials where no body has been found the conviction rate is still over 90%. 
A great many people have been found guilty in cases without physical evidence and less than 10 witnesses testifying against them.

One only has to read about the BALCO scandal to see just how many athletes who were using performance-enhancing drugs routinely passed drugs tests. 
Marion Jones was one of the most drug tested athletes in the world. She passed test after test and maintained that she did not use performance enhancing drugs. Later, when potentially facing prison for perjury, she later admitted to having taken PEDs for most of her professional career and having lied about it.

The fact that Marion Jones was a drug cheat does not prove that Lance Armstrong is a drug cheat, simply that being tested for drugs a lot and saying that you have not used drugs does not = not having used drugs

Many of the cyclists that Armstrong beat have been implicated in drugs scandals or faced suspensions or bans as a result of drug use

http://www.brettluelling.com/post/3435612945/armstrongs-tdf-victories





HighlanderNorth said:


> Cant they just take a blood sample from each and every racer at the beginning and/or end of each race, and test it, but also keep some of the sample for future testing once they figure out how to detect the newest drugs on the scene at any one time? That way they can always check to see if racers were using some new cheating substance that they werent aware of and didnt know how to test for til a year later or whatever....



There a couple of hundred racers competing each year, with A and B samples taken at each drug test and multiple tests per racer, plus long term secure storage for thousands and thousands of samples for future testing, this is a massive and expensive undertaking.
With drugs like synthetic testosterone able to leave an athlete's body within six to eight hours even with exhaustive testing many cheats will still avoid detection.
In the case of an athlete who is caught as a result of a sample given years earlier and stripped of their titles they may still have received millions of dollars from endorsements in this time which they will keep. Many people are willing to risk much greater penalties for much lesser rewards.

Also while sports bodies are opposed to drugs use in their sports they are also aware that whenever an athlete is caught using PEDs it damages the reputation of the sport. Perhaps for that reason as much as any other some of the drug testing protocols in various sports have left a lot to be desired.
In Major League Baseball for example, while steroids were banned in 1991 it took more than a decade to introduce league wide PED testing. Even in the last week two MLB players have received bans for PED use, suggesting that it is still commonplace in this sport.




rufus001 said:


> The reality is people will believe what they want to believe.



Agreed




StarHalo said:


> Clarifying - Armstong is not being accused of using drugs, but rather blood doping; the process of transfusing blood prior to an event, or use of a hormone that causes the body to produce more blood cells. There's no test for this as of now, aside from searching athletes' training areas for the necessary medical equipment.



While blood doping did originally refer only to the process you describe, these days it more commonly refers to use of the genetically engineered hormone EPO, which increases the percentage of red blood cells in blood thus improving endurance and aerobic capacity.
Many cyclists who have been banned for taking PEDs have tested positive to taking EPO. 
EPO testing was not available at the time of Armstrong's first Tour wins and the tests for EPO are not considered as sophisticated as many other drug tests.


----------



## will (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



z17813 said:


> Most legal cases are built on circumstantial evidence rather than physical evidence, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> In the US in murder trials where no body has been found the conviction rate is still over 90%.
> A great many people have been found guilty in cases without physical evidence and less than 10 witnesses testifying against them.



In the case of no body being found, there is certainly evidence that the person is no longer around. No credit card transactions, no social security activity, no contact with family or friends. There is a reasonable assumption that something happened to the person. It could be that the person simply 'ran away'. There may have been threats, there may have been any number of things that would indicate that some harm came to that person.

In the case of doping, the only circumstantial evidence here is that he won the race. Comparing circumstantial evidence in a murder case to sports doping is like comparing apples and oranges, not the same thing.

Anyhow, my opinion is that he was treated unfairly by the USADA

( There was a story on the news here in NY about this whole situation, In summary, the USADA recommends to the International Cycling union to strip Armstrong, They will then review and make a decision whether to go along with the USADA or not. Other news sources have mentioned that the two organizations are at odds with each other. I honestly do not know how much of this is true, it seems that most seem to agree that this is what will happen. )


----------



## z17813 (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

The murder example was not meant to be a direct comparison (and I agree with you that it isn't) but was an example that in cases with much more serious consequences, convictions can be recorded (and usually are) even without direct physical evidence that an offence has taken place. 

If it is reasonable to assume that something has happened to a person because they are no longer around, no credit card activity etc. 
then couldn't you also argue that in Armstrong's case it's reasonable to assume that if numerous people who have said that Armstrong both admitted to using PEDS and gave them PEDs (and have been banned for life as a result of their statements) that it is reasonable to assume that Armstrong used PEDs? 

I have not seen any proof that he has used PEDs but IMO there is certainly circumstantial evidence and many cases have been made on strong circumstantial evidence alone. 
I believe that he is innocent until proven guilty and that while I would like to see anyone who is innocent continue to fight any accusations that are brought against them, and challenge the validity of any evidence that their accusers would use against them, his choice to stop fighting hasn't lead me to draw any conclusions regarding his guilt or innocence. It is nonetheless disappointing. 

I agree that the USADA has aggressively pursued Armstrong and that anytime an organisation with a multi million dollar budget is willing to spend years pursuing anybody, even someone with the means that Armstrong has to defend himself, it is an inherently difficult battle. 

I also believe that irrespective of whether Armstrong did use PEDs that he is an extremely talented athlete and that the amount of money his organisation has raised for cancer research has made a positive difference in the lives of a great many people.


----------



## Obijuan Kenobe (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

It has all been said, but I'll type it again.

Nearly everyone in professional cycling dopes legally. Whatever is legal at the time is done. Doctors are paid and consulted to help them find legal ways to gain an edge. This does not even acknowledge those that have managed to get away with illegal ways of doping. And there are likely plenty that have risked both.

This pseudo legal battle is all based on the false premise that ONLY LANCE DOPED, WHILE EVERYONE ELSE WAS PLAYING FAIR. This assumption is ridiculous. But he was guilty before this even left the office. 

For me, he won...in the face of every other competitor doing anything and everything (legal and otherwise) to win...he won. There were plenty of cheaters in all those years from 1999 through 2005, and somehow the USADA is privy to the facts regarding exactly who.

This is pure unadulterated hogwash. There is something fishy going on here behind the scenes. He might be a real creep of a guy, but he was a hell of a cyclist. 

obi


----------



## orbital (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



iapyx said:


> That is not the only reason why they say he is guilty. There's a lot more. E.g Lance always knew ahead of drug/dope test when they were about to test him. He delayed which gave hime like 20 minutes to cover things up. And he did this each time. He was surrounded by experts in hiding the use of dope. I think he was so determend to be perfect in covering up the use of dope that he only thinks one thing...



*Please provide your source..*



StarHalo said:


> Clarifying - Armstong is not being accused of using drugs, but rather blood doping; the process of transfusing blood prior to an event, or use of a hormone that causes the body to produce more blood cells. There's no test for this as of now, aside from searching athletes' training areas for the necessary medical equipment.
> 
> Another point to ponder is artificial blood; if you need blood at a local hospital and they don't have your particular type, one option is to try artificial blood, which can work across many types. But this is only Artificial Blood 1.0 - if you can create it, then you can improve on it over time. This means the artificial blood of the future will be able to hold way more oxygen than standard old human blood cells. Runners doing multiple Ks at full sprint, swimmers doing lengthy races without ever raising their head out of the water, etc will all be possible, at speeds that are currently not. So will athletes who receive better blood simply no longer be able to compete? Will there need to be entirely new sporting leagues for the enhanced?



True StarHalo, he's accused of doping,,
outside of insane high altitude training, just not alot of natural ways to increase oxygen in blood & that takes a manufacturing process.
...so I used the word _drug_ in title not to confuse anyone



rufus001 said:


> Yes they do. All these groups are signatories to a drug code that requires them to abide by each others rulings. Unless they of course appeal the ruling. Which would open up a whole other can of worms.



rulings?...._where's the beef_ :kiss:


----------



## will (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

z17813 and obi 

I agree with both of you. 

If you are into conspiracy theory - this might be one good example. Starting with the French a number of years back. To a large extent, he has been way too successful and a very visible target. 

Interesting side note to all this . Alberto Contador was banned for 2 years after his win in the Tour de France. The story is that he ate some beef that had been from a cow that had been fed steroids. The amount detected had been so insignificant that it would have had no improvement on his performance. The Spanish cycling authority was going to ban him for a year, The Prime Minister of Spain made a statement in public that there should be no penalty due to the minute amount detected. The Spanish Cycling authority, in a move of power due to the Prime Ministers statement banned him for 2 years. Why - because they could. Power corrupts.... Andy Schleck finished second and has stated the Contador was the winner, Lance Armstrong finished third...

It seems that here in the US that most of the public is behind Armstrong and the USADA is a power hungry bunch of - well - insert your own derogatory term....


----------



## rufus001 (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



orbital said:


> rulings?...._where's the beef_ :kiss:



In English?


----------



## iapyx (Aug 27, 2012)

orbital said:


> Please provide your source..



NRC Handelsblad
I hope you can read Dutch


----------



## jtr1962 (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I agree with those who say this is a witch hunt. It's a fact that most pros and many amateurs dope. This is the case in _most_ sports where doping would make a measurable difference, not just cycling. It's also a fact that the system in place to detect who is doping just doesn't work. It's the old game of cat and mouse. Invent new ways to detect illicit drugs, the riders will find ways around them. If they're going to strip Lance of his Tour de France titles, then they might as well vacate the record of just about everyone else who rode with him. Maybe the rider who came in 100th place will be declared the winner when all is said and done. Or maybe nobody at all was "clean".

I wish Lance would have fought this but in the end everyone has their breaking point. You can't fight what amounts to a kangaroo court anyway. They picked Lance only because of his success. If you ask me, the only dopers are the ones running the USADA.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Sad to say, but the guy who comes in dead last in professional cycling is probably one of, if not the only one not doping.


----------



## Launch Mini (Aug 27, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

At lease he didn't get busted for betting on cycling. ( meant to take a poke at baseball, boxing, basketball...)


----------



## rufus001 (Aug 28, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Sad to say, but the guy who comes in dead last in professional cycling is probably one of, if not the only one not doping.



But nobody will stand up for him because he is a "loser". Whereas the "winners" who cheat are applauded and protected. So what should you teach your children to do?


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 28, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Teach them not to cheat, and not to worship the Almighty *$*


----------



## z17813 (Aug 28, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Or just create a separate competition for clean athletes and athletes using PEDs. 
Then when the times in the clean competition and the drugs competition are the same we can draw the only logical conclusion, that nobody uses drugs in professional sport :devil:


----------



## rufus001 (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

http://www.theonion.com/articles/lance-armstrong-lets-down-single-person-who-still,29313/


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Not sure what's worse . . . The level of disappointment the guy in the article felt, or the level of jack-assness of the guy who wrote the article.


----------



## rufus001 (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

It's The Onion. A comedy website with made up articles. No real life person was targeted for humiliation.


----------



## nbp (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Not sure what's worse . . . The level of disappointment the guy in the article felt, or the level of jack-assness of the guy who wrote the article.







You've never heard of the Onion? You have missed out my small town friend.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 1, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

LOL

We New Yorkers are good, humble, salt of the earth people, who . . . I'm sorry I can lie like that.

Yeah, it's the Onion, but still; came off mean-spirited as Hell.


----------



## will (Sep 2, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I understand what blood doping is, adding previously drawn blood rich in oxygen. 

I understand that steroids build muscle mass quickly and more than the body would normally do, think body builders. This additional muscle mass can increase performance a great deal.

With blood doping - how much of an advantage does that get the athlete? Isn't that 'enriched blood' used up fairly quickly? With an event like any bicycle tour that runs longer than a week, the body will get run down and need time to recover. I am thinking like an extra cup of coffee in the morning to get going. Is it significantly more than that? Is it just any advantage is better than none?

I never really read anything about this or looked into it in any detail..


----------



## TONY M (Sep 5, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



rufus001 said:


> The reality is people will believe what they want to believe.


I could not agree more, this is generally the case with things like this.


----------



## orbital (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

+

The dagger!:banned:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/usada-outlines-armstrong-evidence-in-case-file_256450

Hincapies' testimony sealed it..


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

It shocks me that - whatever the outcome of the investigation - upstanding news organizations like the New York Times have published letters calling these alleged actions "Armstrong's crimes" - As in words to the effect that "These testimonies reveal a stark contrast with Armstrong's outspoken position on his crimes."

Regardless of guilt in breaking sports group rules, laws were not broken... were they?


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



AnAppleSnail said:


> It shocks me that - whatever the outcome of the investigation - upstanding news organizations like the New York Times have published letters calling these alleged actions "Armstrong's crimes" . . .



Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. The New York Times isn't respected by any New Yorker except Uber liberal Manhattanites.

At one time it was a respectable newspaper, but has become little more than a tabloid rag in recent years.

As for Armstrong, the bottom line is; he quit. That's not something you do if you haven't cheated in some sort of way to win.


----------



## orbital (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

+

Full complaint :: nearly 200 pages

http://velonews.competitor.com/files/2012/10/Reasoned-Decision.pdf


~ Side note, I really wonder if the ability to carry more oxygen in your blood is such a bad thing?
Being seriously here, possible productivity gains in certain high stress/demanding jobs, military, pilots,
truckers for that matter ect...
I'm not siding w/ Armstrong here, just thinking.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> As for Armstrong, the bottom line is; he quit. That's not something you do if you haven't cheated in some sort of way to win.


Most often people quit because they're tired, or want to do something else. Countless beings through the ages have allowed themselves to die for lack of will to go on and giving up the right to spend all one's time, money and energy to fight lawyers, courts and witch hunters is no more an admission of guilt than the charges being brought in the first place were even valid.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



orbital said:


> I really wonder if the ability to carry more oxygen in your blood is such a bad thing?
> Being seriously here, possible productivity gains in certain high stress/demanding jobs, military, pilots,
> truckers for that matter ect...



More oxygen in the blood is a great thing, enough so that the military endorses it; the Defense Department did extensive studies on what "performance enhancing" drugs and techniques actually work, and blood doping is indeed one of the things on the list. 

Truckers drink coffee, students take adderall, don't be surprised that those easy-to-acquire things are just the tip of the iceberg of what's possible when you have serious resources..


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> Most often people quit because they're tired, or want to do something else. Countless beings through the ages have allowed themselves to die for lack of will to go on and giving up the right to spend all one's time, money and energy to fight lawyers, courts and witch hunters is no more an admission of guilt than the charges being brought in the first place were even valid.



All of the things they accused him of . . . What I'm saying is, no; perception doesn't become truth. But it does become what the vast majority of folks believe is the truth. 

On a baser note, Armstrong made millions as a professional athlete. Not just winning races but sponsorship dollars as well. Who is really going to give up on all of that? Who wouldn't fight for that if they weren't guilty?

On a much higher note, you're going to let down all of the young kids who look up to you as a hero? You're going to do that if you're not guilty??


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 10, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> ...no; perception doesn't become truth. But it does become what the vast majority of folks believe is the truth.


Unfortunately this is all too true.


> On a baser note, Armstrong made millions as a professional athlete. Not just winning races but sponsorship dollars as well. Who is really going to give up on all of that? Who wouldn't fight for that if they weren't guilty?
> 
> On a much higher note, you're going to let down all of the young kids who look up to you as a hero? You're going to do that if you're not guilty??


Just because a spectator cannot fathom why one would continue in the face of difficulty, or why they would give up when it seems unreasonable from the outside, does not mean that there can be only one conclusion. 
Lacking facts and knowledge, presumption should not be allowed to rule the day.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> . . . presumption should not be allowed to rule the day.



True. But unfortunately it often does.


----------



## TONY M (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I imagine not many can believe his pleas of innocence anymore... he is well and truly smoked now. 
The question now is will or won't he admit guilt. :thinking: Lots of money at stake either way.


----------



## Fresh Light (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

My opinions on whether he doped or not are exactly that, just my opinions. But that fact remains that he finished in first position 7 times in the TdF and an 8th podium standing. There were many cheating riders, who were caught, out there that couldn't beat him. Were those riders not at an advantage or at least at a level playing field? Yet they could not beat him. That is why I think he's the greatest TdF rider in history, irregardless of the outcome of any of this.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> On a baser note, Armstrong made millions as a professional athlete. Not just winning races but sponsorship dollars as well. Who is really going to give up on all of that? Who wouldn't fight for that if they weren't guilty?



What if they don't have the money to fight it? What if they don't have the energy to fight it? How do you think Apple wins so many cases that either they initiate or are initiated against them - they've got all the money and lawyers in the world and will out arbitrate any company that comes up against them.

The truth is - some fights just aren't worth fighting.



Monocrom said:


> On a much higher note, you're going to let down all of the young kids who look up to you as a hero? You're going to do that if you're not guilty??



Unfortunately our youth is fickle, as is most of the world. Our heros are always forgiven no matter what their malaise and life goes on. This will blow over in another year and no one will care because there will be propaganda over the next news breaking item.


----------



## z17813 (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> What if they don't have the money to fight it?



Armstrong has an estimated net worth of $125 million. The USADA is a non-profit NGO that has a yearly budget of approximately $13-15 million. 



ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> What if they don't have the energy to fight it?



A fair point and certainly one that Armstrong made. Though I would like to believe that people would continue to fight to clear their name if they are innocent and accused of cheating, especially when their life's work and legacy is at stake.



ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> The truth is - some fights just aren't worth fighting.



While a matter for the individual about whether or not to fight I would think it would always be worth it to, if possible, defend your name.


The USADA now say that the _"....different categories of eyewitness, documentary, first-hand, scientific, direct and circumstantial evidence reveal conclusive and undeniable proof that brings to the light of day for the first time this systemic, sustained and highly professionalized team-run doping conspiracy." 
_They also have testimony from 26 individuals including 15 riders. 
I am not sure how Armstrong could possibly defend himself against that, though if as he maintains he is innocent, I think it is unfortunate that he would not use some of his considerable resources and media influence to do so.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Not really a defense per se, but it seems just about every rider at that level was doping. In the interests of consistency, if they strip Armstrong's titles because of doping, they'll need to go down the line until they find a "clean" rider to hold the title. Good luck with that. Besides, if nearly everyone was doping, the playing field was pretty much level.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



TONY M said:


> I imagine not many can believe his pleas of innocence anymore... he is well and truly smoked now.
> The question now is will or won't he admit guilt. :thinking: Lots of money at stake either way.



It's a lot like a civil case in which the NYPD gets sued for wrongful death. They settle out of court. The victim's family gets a gag order not to talk about the settlement. And the NYPD doesn't admit to any wrong-doing. But, the fact that they paid out is the admission of guilt. Being the NYPD, and not a private individual, it's not as though they couldn't fight due to a lack of money in their savings account. Armstrong isn't the average person. He's worth at least a few million dollars. If he had wanted to, he could have fought it. (At least from a financial perspective.)


----------



## 97catintenn (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Speaking of money, Lance is holding one last card. Next year, he'll write a book, "The Real Story" and be right back on top! 

Remember the saying about bad publicity,


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



jtr1962 said:


> Not really a defense per se, but it seems just about every rider at that level was doping. In the interests of consistency, if they strip Armstrong's titles because of doping, they'll need to go down the line until they find a "clean" rider to hold the title. Good luck with that. Besides, if nearly everyone was doping, the playing field was pretty much level.



Saturday Night Live once, obviously as a joke, proposed a special Doping Olympics. Designed specifically for those on the juice.

Sounds like the guys in the biking world decided that was a great idea.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



97catintenn said:


> Speaking of money, Lance is holding one last card. Next year, he'll write a book, "The Real Story" and be right back on top!
> 
> Remember the saying about bad publicity,



Oh please. I predict his book will be in the Bargain Bin selling for $2.oo six months after it comes out. No one is going to care what excuses a disgraced national athlete will be able to come up with, and put into print.

When Ben Collins (former Stig on Top Gear) wrote that tell-all book of his because he was greedy for more money, the bad publicity surrounding it backfired. His book was one of the biggest flops in UK publishing history. He sold out his friends, and his good-name. Lost his job too. All for what? A bit of extra money. Collins also had a side business related to his driving talents. You can bet that suffered as well.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I'm not really concerned about Armstrong's future money making deals - and if he is it doing for more money or not. I wouldn't buy the book either way.

I think the move he made was smart. It sounds like he knew he was guilty and bowed out before both he and his name were publicly dragged through the dirt. But now he only has to worry about the case through one side. They can throw as much evidence of the obvious out there but he doesn't have to acknowledge or respond to it. He was already doomed - personally I think he made a very wise tactical decision early on. Whether or not the decision was ethically correct is not something I care to get into a conversation over because that is all a matter of opinion.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



TONY M said:


> I imagine not many can believe his pleas of innocence anymore... he is well and truly smoked now.
> The question now is will or won't he admit guilt.


How people can know what they don't know is beyond me. :thinking:
The evidence against him is anything but concrete and at best people should continue with their own lives and quit weighing in on either side of the unknown. 
One thing is for sure - there are those who would have forced him to defend himself all the way to the grave and his decision to get on with his life shows that he actually has one.


----------



## blasterman (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



> Saturday Night Live once, obviously as a joke, proposed a special Doping Olympics. Designed specifically for those on the juice.



HeHe.......various riders can be sponsored by the drug company of their choice.


----------



## TONY M (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> How people can know what they don't know is beyond me. :thinking:
> The evidence against him is anything but concrete...


Not entirely sure what you mean? As a former competitive road cyclist who does not live with his head in the sand I have known what Armstrong has got up to and who he has associated with for over 10 years, the evidence is clearly there and is as close to undeniable as you are going to get. It is interesting to hear lately from the horses mouths the wipers now coming out that have been going around in the cycling would for many years.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> One thing is for sure - there are those who would have forced him to defend himself all the way to the grave and his decision to get on with his life shows that he actually has one.



What? 

His Life was biking. When you're a professional athlete to the extent that he was, his life consisted of biking in competitions or training to bike in competitions. That training eats up so much time, there's barely room for socializing. You're right about Armstrong having a life. It was one filled with training and competiting. And he just threw all that away. Will be interesting to see what he does next.


----------



## Chicago X (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Not sure if you're being sarcastic or serious. The New York Times isn't respected by any New Yorker except Uber liberal Manhattanites...



Are you sure this isn't code for something else ?


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> His Life was biking. When you're a professional athlete to the extent that he was, his life consisted of biking in competitions or training to bike in competitions. That training eats up so much time, there's barely room for socializing. You're right about Armstrong having a life. It was one filled with training and competiting. And he just threw all that away. Will be interesting to see what he does next.


Very true. I don't even compete and I'd say cycling on average takes up a good 40 hours a month of my time (25-35 hours actually riding, then time working on my bike, looking at data from my rides, reading about cycling, etc.). The pros easily spend at 6 or 7 hours a day training, most of the rest figuring out how to optimize their training and equipment. When they're no longer competitive (Lance probably still would have had perhaps 5 more years, maybe even more, where he would be reasonably competitive) they go into coaching or other pursuits related to cycling. He can't do any of that now. The only thing he can do now is ride a bike recreationally or as transportation. That can hardly replace being involved in the sport at its highest levels.


----------



## Launch Mini (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Just an observation.
So, many of his teammates he raced with were taking PED, that were not caught by the strict testing, yet Mr A was clean. 
Mr A has said many times, he has been tested and passed. Well apparantly so his teammates were "dirty" yet passed these same tests.
Just making an observation.
I agree, he has won the TdF 7 times. That is a fact. Did he win it within the rules? Yet to be determined.


----------



## TedTheLed (Oct 12, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

one thing for sure; he won with testicular, lung, and brain cancer, and a brain operation for necrotic tumors. there should be EXTRA medals for that.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 12, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



TONY M said:


> Not entirely sure what you mean? As a former competitive road cyclist who does not live with his head in the sand I have known what Armstrong has got up to and who he has associated with for over 10 years, the evidence is clearly there and is as close to undeniable as you are going to get. It is interesting to hear lately from the horses mouths the wipers now coming out that have been going around in the cycling would for many years.


Maybe you're in possession of knowledge the rest of the world isn't, but I've seen nothing yet that says he's inarguably guilty.


Monocrom said:


> His Life was biking. When you're a professional athlete to the extent that he was, his life consisted of biking in competitions or training to bike in competitions. That training eats up so much time, there's barely room for socializing. You're right about Armstrong having a life. It was one filled with training and competiting. And he just threw all that away. Will be interesting to see what he does next.


Exactly - his life was biking, not arguing with lawyers and board panels who are never going to give up. 

The self-induced poisoning of Socrates was not done because he felt he was wrong and there is nothing new in someone deciding to give up in the face of insurmountable opposition. 


TedTheLed said:


> one thing for sure; he won with testicular, lung, and brain cancer, and a brain operation for necrotic tumors. there should be EXTRA medals for that.


+ 1


----------



## TONY M (Oct 12, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> Maybe you're in possession of knowledge the rest of the world isn't, but I've seen nothing yet that says he's inarguably guilty.


Mainly these things have been VERY well known and discussed in the cycling world for many years and there is not much new other than hearing the majority of his teammates now spilling the beans on the TV. 

I do not know much that the rest of the world could not easily find out, the only thing I did come to know by complete chance was when somebody I know well informed me that he had spotted Armstrong and Michele Ferrari "working together" around Easter time 2008 (by memory in Tenerife). That was obviously highly suspicious and interesting to us, he being no fool knew guessed correctly exactly what was going on and it came as no surprise when Armstrong announced his comeback plans later that summer.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 12, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> Exactly - his life was biking, not arguing with lawyers and board panels who are never going to give up.
> 
> The self-induced poisoning of Socrates was not done because he felt he was wrong . . .



Yeah . . . Not even remotely on the same level or for the same reason. Socrates sacrificed himself not because he threw in the towel in a gesture of "I'm too tired to fight." He did it as the ultimate protest. He knew he was right. His followers knew it too. By sacrificing himself, he ensured that others would follow in his footsteps and that he would, in death, achieve immortality. More importantly, so would his teachings.

Armstrong is worth millions. You take a percentage of that, you pay the best lawyers you can find . . . And then you keep on training to win races while those lawyers fight for you. That's how it works. But Armstrong decided not to do that. He decided to quit. His decision. Not even remotely the same as what Socrates did.


----------



## rufus001 (Oct 12, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Drugged to the eyeballs. Bullied other people in to taking drugs to help him win. People still defend him. WOW!!!!


----------



## TedTheLed (Oct 12, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Socrates was sentenced to death by popular vote, twice.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 12, 2012)

*Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Those who voted against Socrates thought he was a thorn in their sides (he was). They expected him to do what everyone else so sentenced did in similar circumstances - flee (into self exile). But to do so would have meant throwing out everything he spent his life teaching. He chose death over inconsistency.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Don't read too much into the Socrates analogy other than as it was meant - sometimes people do things that others wouldn't do, or more to the point here, in ways that armchair quarterbacks feel they should or shouldn't have done. 

If I was Lance this, if I was Lance that... ad infinitum. None of you are Lance and hence, cannot speak to what his actions mean, but I doubt that any of you could have considered going for the goal he did after his fight with cancer being what it was. 

Best not to throw ones opinion too strongly in one direction for the other, but some of you have a bone to pick and it's not pretty. I know not his guilt or innocence, but neither do you. Speculate, but refrain from condemnation.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

It's clear you're one of the few supporters he has left. One thing that we do know regarding his actions is that he threw in the towel. That is certainly not in dispute. As for how one of us would handle life if we had to fight for it against cancer . . . You're right. Certain things we should not speculate about. Especially with regards to the fortitude of fellow members. 

With regards to Mr. Armstrong, there's plenty of speculation along with plenty of facts as well.


----------



## rufus001 (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> Best not to throw ones opinion too strongly in one direction for the other, but some of you have a bone to pick and it's not pretty. I know not his guilt or innocence, but neither do you. Speculate, but refrain from condemnation.



You do actually realise that he has been found guilty don't you? That he isn't challenging it is irrelevant. Maybe you should update yourself on the facts.

http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> It's clear you're one of the few supporters he has left.


I've never been so much one of his supporters or fans, but simply have a natural aversion to trial by public consensus, which at last reading (months ago) it still appeared to be. 


rufus001 said:


> You do actually realise that he has been found guilty don't you? That he isn't challenging it is irrelevant. Maybe you should update yourself on the facts.
> 
> http://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/ReasonedDecision.pdf


Having just finished reading a bit more on both the document presented and what others have weighed in with it does appear that you were right, and I hope that they will go after all the other riders with as much energy as they have this one. Next they'll also need to run computer simulations showing what his, and everyone elses corrected times should have been.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> I've never been so much one of his supporters or fans, but simply have a natural aversion to trial by public consensus, which at last reading (months ago) it still appeared to be.



Appearances can be deceiving. Still, when a _man_ has both the money and resources to fight slanderous and libelous allegations that threaten not just his very livelihood but his personal life-long dedication, but he just quits instead? That is indeed very telling. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quakes like a duck, chances are . . . it's not a cat in a Halloween costume.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Appearances can be deceiving. Still, when a _man_ has both the money and resources to fight slanderous and libelous allegations that threaten not just his very livelihood but his personal life-long dedication, but he just quits instead? That is indeed very telling. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quakes like a duck, chances are . . . it's not a cat in a Halloween costume.


As noted in the rest of my previous post, I now believe he's not only giving up the fight, but is actually guilty of that with which he's charged. 
Now that they've succeeded in demoting and banning him, I wonder why they're letting others still race with the same 'crimes' on their respective consciences?


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 13, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> As noted in the rest of my previous post, I now believe he's not only giving up the fight, but is actually guilty of that with which he's charged.
> Now that they've succeeded in demoting and banning him, I wonder why they're letting others still race with the same 'crimes' on their respective consciences?



You're 100% right.

They shouldn't do that. It's ridiculous to make an example of Armstrong, but everyone else guilty of doing the same gets a free pass. Why? Because they didn't win races as often as he did?? The act of cheating, regardless of winning, is what counts. Those other pro bicyclists should face consequences for doing the very same thing.


----------



## rufus001 (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> As noted in the rest of my previous post, I now believe he's not only giving up the fight, but is actually guilty of that with which he's charged.
> Now that they've succeeded in demoting and banning him, I wonder why they're letting others still race with the same 'crimes' on their respective consciences?


I couldn't agree more. I feel sorry for the guys who actually refused to allow themselves to be corrupted. They took a BIG financial hit. Apart from any deals that may be done to extract information their shouldn't be any sort of amnesty.


----------



## TedTheLed (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



ElectronGuru said:


> Those who voted against Socrates thought he was a thorn in their sides (he was). They expected him to do what everyone else so sentenced did in similar circumstances - flee (into self exile). But to do so would have meant throwing out everything he spent his life teaching. He chose death over inconsistency.



http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm

Socrates
*
Socrates was 70 years old and familiar to most Athenians. His anti-democratic views had turned many in the city against him. Two of his students, Alcibiades and Critias, had twice briefly overthrown the democratic government of the city, instituting a reign of terror in which thousands of citizens were deprived of their property and either banished from the city or executed.
After hearing the arguments of both Socrates and his accusers, the jury was asked to vote on his guilt. Under Athenian law the jurors did not deliberate the point. Instead, each juror registered his judgment by placing a small disk into an urn marked either "guilty" or "not guilty." Socrates was found guilty by a vote of 280 to 220.

The jurors were next asked to determine Socrates' penalty. His accusers argued for the death penalty. Socrates was given the opportunity to suggest his own punishment and could probably have avoided death by recommending exile. Instead, the philosopher initially offered the sarcastic recommendation that he be rewarded for his actions. When pressed for a realistic punishment, he proposed that he be fined a modest sum of money. Faced with the two choices, the jury selected death for Socrates.

The philosopher was taken to the near-by jail where his sentence would be carried out. Athenian law prescribed death by drinking a cup of poison hemlock. Socrates would be his own executioner...."


----------



## rufus001 (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

And that's the end of him

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/22/uci-lance-armstrong-press-conference-live


----------



## orbital (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

+

Hopefully the sport of cycling can rebound in the most positive way.

..personally, I'd like to see cross country mountain bike racing back to where it was in the '90s

..


_ride~on!!_


----------



## will (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

A little side note to all this. Way back when, Greg LeMond was the the winner of a few Tours, Lance was just coming up in the cycling world. LeMond had stated,very publicly, there was something about Lance he did not care for. The two of them remained at odds over the years. 

LeMond's career was cut short after a hunting accident left a few shotgun pellets in his back. The pellets eventually became toxic to his system and he could no longer compete.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Just heard on the news that it's now official, with regards to the outcome of those 7 victories for Armstrong (1999 - 2005).

The record books will from now on show that there was no winner of the Tour de France for those years. Yup, no official winner.


----------



## Launch Mini (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Tour de Farce?


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Launch Mini said:


> Tour de Farce?



Sounds like it. 

7 years in a row, no official winners? How about the guys who came in 2nd place? (As long as they weren't caught up in the scandal.)


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> How about the guys who came in 2nd place? (As long as they weren't caught up in the scandal.)



The problem with such good cheaters is that it's hard to say who wasn't. As seen here, someone can pass enough tests for years and then later be accused and struck from all records.


----------



## Obijuan Kenobe (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

The way everyone misses the fact that loads of people outside of the riders make tons of money off these riders. 

You will never be able to convince me that while all this was going on, no one on the organisational side knew what was up. Complete and utter boloney. They knew, and they did nothing. Too much money to risk the bad publicity. 

The entire tour, from perhaps the last 15 years, is a FARCE. This is the only conclusion that doesn't require ignoring common sense. 

And once you admit that most or all were doping (as all or many of these witnesses state), just because Lance was militant about his teammates keeping up doesn't make him an especially evil player in this.

People lie, cheat and steal. Lance Armstrong is just a man. Surprised? I am only surprised by how much everyone is willing to just focus on him.

Face it...the Tour has been a Shame for decades. Get over it already. 

What about those that came in second??? You have read nothing up till now then? The entire tour was doping with the help of doctors, teammates, and the tour officials likely knew and did nothing. 

Sorry, but neither you nor the USADA can bring down Lance without the whole sham coming to light. 

obi


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Obijuan Kenobe said:


> The way everyone misses the fact that loads of people outside of the riders make tons of money off these riders.
> 
> You will never be able to convince me that while all this was going on, no one on the organisational side knew what was up. Complete and utter boloney. They knew, and they did nothing. Too much money to risk the bad publicity.
> 
> ...



true. Lance did rule the TDF for 7 years straight. he played the same game everyone else has to play...that is
get an edge by any means necessary. The top competition is doping, you need to dope to be able to hammer
up hills in the mountains and hammer time trials for 23 days in a row. 

yeah it is bad that is why there are rules. But almost everyone cheated, and has been doing this for decades.

there is huge money at stake...
combined, fwiw, there is more sponsorship money transacted around professional cycling 
teams and individuals than any other athletic sport.


----------



## baterija (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

To misquote Casablanca:
Lance: How can you close me up? On what grounds? 
Cycling world: I'm shocked, shocked to find that doping is going on in here! 
[sponsors and media hand cycling a pile of money] 
Sponsor: Your winnings, sir. 
Cycling world: Oh, thank you very much.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Just heard on the news that it's now official, with regards to the outcome of those 7 victories for Armstrong (1999 - 2005).
> 
> The record books will from now on show that there was no winner of the Tour de France for those years. Yup, no official winner.


Given the levels of doping during those years, this is the only outcome which would have made any sense. Awarding the titles to other known dopers would have been a travesty of major proportions. I have my doubts also that the sport is currently clean. Maybe the best we can hope for here is _cleaner_.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Obijuan Kenobe said:


> Face it...the Tour has been a Shame for decades. Get over it already.
> 
> What about those that came in second??? You have read nothing up till now then? The entire tour was doping with the help of doctors, teammates, and the tour officials likely knew and did nothing.
> 
> ...



Wow . . . I have this odd ability to sometimes touch a nerve just with my blatant honest. 

But without even actually trying??

I'm good. But I'm not even remotely that good. Sorry Bro, but you read _*way*_ too much into that post of mine above.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



jtr1962 said:


> Given the levels of doping during those years, this is the only outcome which would have made any sense. Awarding the titles to other known dopers would have been a travesty of major proportions. I have my doubts also that the sport is currently clean. Maybe the best we can hope for here is _cleaner_.



Main issue is, we honestly don't know who was or wasn't doping. Perhaps all the guys who came in 2nd honestly were. Perhaps not. It's such a mess that I guess they decided this was the only decision that made sense to them. So they declared no official winners for those years.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 22, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

One interesting statistic here is to look at the average speeds of the Tour de France winners, courtesy of wikipedia. There was a huge increase from the early 1900s through the mid 1950s, mostly due to better bicycle designs but also due to the fact that in early Tours riders were forbidden to ride together. The aerodynamic advantages of riding in a peloton can add a few mph to overall average speeds. From the mid 1950s through the late 1970s average speeds more are less stayed the same, fluctuating around 36 km/hr, plus or minus 1 km/hr. Speeds started rising again in 1980 with the introduction of more aerodynamic bicycle designs. However, the UCI stepped in and banned any non-functional aerodynamic aids in 1989 IIRC. Bicycles could still have aerodynamically shaped components, but couldn't add things like fairings which served no functional purpose beyond reducing drag. However, speeds still continued to rise by 2 or 3 more km/hr. This is leaps and bounds in the world of elite pro cycling where differences of less than 0.1 km/hr often separate winners and losers. There is pretty much only one explanation for the continued rise in speeds. Refining the aerodynamics of bicycle components further and better training may have accounted for half of it at best. Basically, once a few elite riders decided to dope, so did anyone else hoping to remain competitive. For what it's worth, Lance Armstrong in the beginning of his career, when he didn't finish 3 tours, and came in 36th place in another, likely wasn't doping. At some point he came to the realization that the only way to win would be to dope, same as any other rider who had a chance at winning. To be sure, he didn't introduce doping to the sport. He just carried it to a new level of sophistication.

I think we'll only be able to assume the sport is mostly clean when you start seeing average speeds of 37-38 km/hr for the TDF winner over the span of a few years. From year to year the course varies enough that a single average speed statistic is meaningless, but if the speeds stay lower for a few years running then we're hopefully mostly past the doping era.


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 23, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Great post, especially for those like myself who never cared much about most competitive sports.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 23, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



kaichu dento said:


> Great post, especially for those like myself who never cared much about most competitive sports.



Healthy competitive sports builds character. I played Little League, and it made me a better person as I grew up. Parents can teach you all they want. But as a kid, it was Little League that showed me the importance of team work, fair play, sportsmanship, mutual respect for the players on the other team, the importance of doing one's best, as well as the importance of spending time to improve one's self for both the benefit of the team as well as yourself. All excellent qualities to have. Plus, our coach also emphasized having fun. 

When it gets to the point that competitive sports are mainly about money, then it becomes an issue.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 23, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I only take a little drugs


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 23, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

That explains a lot. (Just kidding.) :thumbsup:


----------



## kaichu dento (Oct 23, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Healthy competitive sports builds character. I played Little League, and it made me a better person as I grew up. Parents can teach you all they want. But as a kid, it was Little League that showed me the importance of team work, fair play, sportsmanship, mutual respect for the players on the other team, the importance of doing one's best, as well as the importance of spending time to improve one's self for both the benefit of the team as well as yourself. All excellent qualities to have. Plus, our coach also emphasized having fun.
> 
> When it gets to the point that competitive sports are mainly about money, then it becomes an issue.


I always liked playing team sports, even now, but like watching solo sports where it's one-on-one, or one against oneself - tennis, downhill skiing, gymnastics, boxing.

We know we've really won if we've tried to the best of our abilities to make sure the playing field is even for all.


----------



## N10 (Oct 23, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I don't know about you guys but i'd like to hear or see some of the proofs everyone has been talking about lately..not saying Amstrong is innocent but since it's such a public thing already,why not make at least make some of those "pertinent" evidence public?..I'm kind of already tired of hearing pple talk about doping and apparently even some cycling sponsors are getting tired of it too..Rabo banks is ending its sponsorship.A lot of people are just getting disinterested by professional cycling these days


----------



## Lite_me (Oct 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



N10 said:


> I don't know about you guys but i'd like to hear or see some of the proofs everyone has been talking about lately..not saying Amstrong is innocent but since it's such a public thing already,why not make at least make some of those "pertinent" evidence public?..I'm kind of already tired of hearing pple talk about doping and apparently even some cycling sponsors are getting tired of it too..Rabo banks is ending its sponsorship.A lot of people are just getting disinterested by professional cycling these days


Did you see the link in post #89.


----------



## Launch Mini (Oct 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Did you also see the Post that Nike had(has) on their website. Very pointed nothing held back why they cancelled his contract. 
I found this quite surprising, usually the big Co's ***** foot around the issue.
http://nikeinc.com/news/nike-statement-on-lance-armstrong


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Very surprising indeed. That level of blatant honesty is rare as Hell in the corporate world.


----------



## N10 (Oct 24, 2012)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Lite_me said:


> Did you see the link in post #89.


lol thanks for the pointer...i didn't pay attention to all the links on the forum.


----------



## Walterk (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Makes me think of the arrogance he expressed. He is a shame.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Walterk said:


> Makes me think of the arrogance he expressed. He is a shame.




he went out of the way to try to RUIN peoples lives, for years

now he says 'OMG j/k I doped.'

he NEEDS prison time, and I hope that is coming....

*Lance Pharmstrong*


----------



## Beamhead (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

livewrong, and to think this fraud tried to raise taxes on my smokes..............


----------



## TEEJ (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Its like the baseball hall of fame...no one was voted in this year due to concerns about steroid records, etc.

No WONDER no one confesses, it essentially makes THEM the ONLY one who did it....and if they testify about their peers/others who also did it, all it does is make them pariahs in the sport, AND make only the few they can prove did it, the only ones who did it, repeating the cycle.


----------



## flashfan (Jan 18, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Saw just a snippet of the interview on the news, but if the entire interview is much the same, Armstrong came across as arrogant, with no apparent remorse or shame. On the bright side, Armstrong will likely be sued by a whole bunch of people/companies who have been "wronged." They deserve to win big, but I would guess that his assets are long "gone" (hidden).


----------



## TedTheLed (Jan 20, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I'll pay cash for the bike.


----------



## Gregozedobe (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

It is interesting reading some of the posts in this thread now that Lance Armstrong has admitted he was a doper. 

But I don't think he was any worse than many of his competitors (just better at covering up). He was probably targeted because he was winning so many races. 

Seems the whole professional "tour" racing scene was tainted, I wonder if it is any cleaner now ?


----------



## orbital (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

^

Road Cycling needs more than just a recovery meal to repair itself, it just has to press on.
I think people will be interested simply because of all this Armstrong mess/saga/coverup/ect.

_______________________________________________________

Side note:
How many sports would be greatly benefited by being able to carry more oxygen in the blood,,,,,,,,,EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!
How many sports do as stringent of testing as cycling,,,,NONE!!

*The EPO & blood doping story has just begun *


----------



## Fresh Light (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Gregozedobe said:


> It is interesting reading some of the posts in this thread now that Lance Armstrong has admitted he was a doper.
> 
> But I don't think he was any worse than many of his competitors (just better at covering up). He was probably targeted because he was winning so many races.
> 
> Seems the whole professional "tour" racing scene was tainted, I wonder if it is any cleaner now ?



I don't think there were any people more vocal about not being a doper than Armstrong nor more insistent that they were tested more. Yet 7 straight titles and another podium finish later and nobody was able to catch this before. I think there was too much money to be made and it was allowed to happen because the sport needed a superstar. There were undoubtedly payoffs along the way.


----------



## jezdec (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Armstrong was certainly under the influence of stimulants, as well as ALL of his opponents!
In fact, this is all a bit silly now .... like they don`t know that they are ALL ussing
banned substances....:shakehead

I don`t know if they are total idiots or they think we are..??...


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



orbital said:


> How many sports do as stringent of testing as cycling,,,,NONE!!



One of the grand master Chess championship groups counts caffeine as a performance-enhancing drug. The young chess players insist that this is meant to keep young people (College or new professional) out of the Grand Master rosters.


----------



## orbital (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

^

You know those grand master Chess groups are some of the most routy around,, 
you know darn tootin' that Sildenafil is not tested for them :banned:



_*hey now!*_


----------



## TedTheLed (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Imagine the effect on mail delivery.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Gregozedobe said:


> It is interesting reading some of the posts in this thread now that Lance Armstrong has admitted he was a doper.
> 
> But I don't think he was any worse than many of his competitors (just better at covering up). He was probably targeted because he was winning so many races.
> 
> Seems the whole professional "tour" racing scene was tainted, I wonder if it is any cleaner now ?



Keep in mind that Armstrong vigorously sued everyone who publically said that he was doping. That's a scumbag move that wasn't something all of the other cyclists engaged in.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 24, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> Keep in mind that Armstrong vigorously sued everyone who publically said that he was doping. That's a scumbag move that wasn't something all of the other cyclists engaged in.


That's really the thing which I find most disturbing here, not the fact he doped. I'll bet good money nearly everyone in every sport who competes at the professional level takes both legal and illegal substances to enhance their performance. That actually doesn't bother me much because if anything it takes these sports to a higher level than they would otherwise be. If doping does bother me at all, it's only because of the possible long-term health effects of some of these substances. Then again, nobody forces athletes to dope. If they know and are willing to take the risks, then that's their business.

What does bother me is the hypocrisy. Why sue people who say you're doping if you know it's true? Had he let it go, he may not have made so many enemies (some of whom no doubt are more than a little satisfied at the recent turn of events). You know the old saying-be nice to people on your way up because you might meet them on the way down. He ignored that, with predictable results.

Want to know how to end the doping culture for good? Make every banned substance legal (the article mentions steroids but why stop there?). Why? For starters you won't have to waste an enormous amount of resources trying to catch cheaters. As for an potential danger of some of these substances, my guess is the athletes will eventually self-regulate. As much as these athletes want to win, they also want to live happy, long, productive lives after their sporting careers are over. Once a few prominent athletes die or become incapacitated using certain performance enhancers, most of the rest won't touch them. The fact is most professional athletes are already using these substances now. Might as well get it out into open. It might even save a few lives because at least you'll know who was taking what should they suddenly die of cardiac arrest on the field.


----------



## will (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



jtr1962 said:


> ... As much as these athletes want to win, they also want to live happy, long, productive lives after their sporting careers are over. Once a few prominent athletes die or become incapacitated using certain performance enhancers, most of the rest won't touch them...



A long time ago, we met the sister of a professional football player. We followed, very loosely his career. He left the sport, then after a few years, came back - very bulked up. Steroids gave him another year on the field. A few years later we read about his death at an early age. The steroids did damage some of his body systems...

Unfortunately, most who want to reach that high level of performance will do anything to get there. 

I haven't followed all the things that Armstrong admitted doing, but I believe that he admitted to blood doping. My understanding of that is he added his own blood back into his system. 

Did he admit to some drug that enhances the oxygen level in the blood?


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



will said:


> A long time ago, we met the sister of a professional football player. We followed, very loosely his career. He left the sport, then after a few years, came back - very bulked up. Steroids gave him another year on the field. A few years later we read about his death at an early age. The steroids did damage some of his body systems...


And stories like that might be more widely known if there wasn't a veil of secrecy over doping. The more stories like this which show the bad outcomes of some performance enhancing drugs, the fewer people will use them, no matter how great the potential rewards. It's important that any wannabe athlete put things in perspective. Most likely, no matter what you do, even if you dope, you won't make the pros. Few people have the physical makeup to perform any sport at the highest levels, even with performance enhancers. This might reduce the incentive to dope. Most likely you won't make it anyway, but if you dope, you'll have lifelong health problems.

When I was young I thought about pursuing cycling as a career. It was the rumors of doping, the hypercompetitive atmosphere, and the sheer number of miles I would need to put in to even have a hope of being competitive which turned me off. I loved and still do love to ride, but 3,000 to 5,000 miles a year, not 10,000 or 15,000 miles, plus gearing every aspect of my life to being competitive in the saddle. I would have had to essentially live for cycling, and even then I probably wouldn't have made it to the highest levels. And who knows what damage I might have done to my body trying? Just the sheer number of miles and crashes take their toll, nevermind the effects of any performance-enhancing drugs. Still, I understand the drive these guys feel. I still do my level best to drop every rider in front of me when I'm out on my "recreational" rides, even those half my age.



> I haven't followed all the things that Armstrong admitted doing, but I believe that he admitted to blood doping. My understanding of that is he added his own blood back into his system.
> 
> Did he admit to some drug that enhances the oxygen level in the blood?


Yep. He admitted to using EPO, along with HGH and testosterone.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

So why does the USPS sponsor bicycle racing? they don't even even ride bikes.


----------



## Obijuan Kenobe (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Do not underestimate the motivative power of competitiveness. 

Most professional athletes understand they only have a short window in their adult lives to achieve greatness. If the difference between the big bucks and being one of the crowd is a little drugs, most of these folks at this stage will face a serious dilemma. It is not an easy choice when the thing you have dream of your whole life seems just out of reach, especially if you are acutely aware that everyone ahead of you is likely doping also.

This is essentially the scenario that this confession and previous reports seem to paint.

There is a big reason why testing is such a controversial issue in professional sports? Certainly as was pointed out above, they don't even test for many of the drugs we are talking about. And certainly every professional basketball player would benefit from EPO. Who could argue otherwise? So why not test for it? Profit.

They (those in charge) know it is happening, but they also know they profit from it directly. The same thing can be said for those responsible for testing the riders in the Tour.

obi


----------



## Fresh Light (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

I find it really hard to feel sorry for anyone involved in this cover up. Armstrong sued to perpetuate the lie. If he was not going to end his career at those points, then, there was no other choice. The people that lost those lawsuits and paid out court costs or settlements for libelous or slanderous words apparently did not come out with overly convincing evidence and that is their own fault. 

An analogy to Armstrong getting away with doping is a person slipping something forbidden though airport security an many hundreds of flights. Then, after many calls accusing you of sneaking things, enough people say they too were involved and saw this happening over the past decade. I think the security had been blindfolded by greenbacks and are just as much at fault for letting things get through.


----------



## will (Jan 25, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



TedTheLed said:


> So why does the USPS sponsor bicycle racing? they don't even even ride bikes.



USPS stopped the sponsorship in 2007


----------



## flashy bazook (Jan 26, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

The nice thing about biking to my mind is that it is less commercialized than many sports.

Sure there are championships and competitions, personally I pay little attention to them.

What can a normal person that likes biking learn from competitions with super expensive, carbon fiber bikes, or from people who cycle in line to reduce air friction, or from people biking at neck-breaking speeds down mountains?

If I did any of those things I wouldn't last a day.

All the noise really comes from those that make money from this particular sport, and they know that without Lance Armstrong biking was not very popular (and hence, commercialized), but with him the money through endorsements and commercials would pour in.

I am happy to see the sport go backwards and away from the TV-endorsed sport extravaganza many who profited wanted it to be, and that's what's going to happen now.


----------



## SeamusORiley (Jan 26, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



jtr1962 said:


> That's really the thing which I find most disturbing here, not the fact he doped. I'll bet good money nearly everyone in every sport who competes at the professional level takes both legal and illegal substances to enhance their performance. That actually doesn't bother me much because if anything it takes these sports to a higher level than they would otherwise be. If doping does bother me at all, it's only because of the possible long-term health effects of some of these substances. Then again, nobody forces athletes to dope. If they know and are willing to take the risks, then that's their business.
> 
> What does bother me is the hypocrisy. Why sue people who say you're doping if you know it's true? Had he let it go, he may not have made so many enemies (some of whom no doubt are more than a little satisfied at the recent turn of events). You know the old saying-be nice to people on your way up because you might meet them on the way down. He ignored that, with predictable results.
> 
> Want to know how to end the doping culture for good? Make every banned substance legal (the article mentions steroids but why stop there?). Why? For starters you won't have to waste an enormous amount of resources trying to catch cheaters. As for an potential danger of some of these substances, my guess is the athletes will eventually self-regulate. As much as these athletes want to win, they also want to live happy, long, productive lives after their sporting careers are over. Once a few prominent athletes die or become incapacitated using certain performance enhancers, most of the rest won't touch them. The fact is most professional athletes are already using these substances now. Might as well get it out into open. It might even save a few lives because at least you'll know who was taking what should they suddenly die of cardiac arrest on the field.



Armstrong reportedly targeted those in the peloton who refused to dope. We also heard of those who were paid far less because they refused to dope up. 

I initially bought into the "everyone was doing it" talk, and that Armstrong was just keeping a level playing field. 

Then, I read the report. 

Armstrong was king of the cheaters, using his money to not only influence justice, but to get the best drugs, the best testing, the best training, and clearly had an advantage over others, using or not. The best doctors were able to get him to peak performance off the drugs. It was elaborate and sophisticated. 

He is a sociopathic liar who did not even tell the truth on the Oprah interview. He lied, specifically, about his son, ex and about the comeback tours. He lied about not using during these tours. 

He cannot tell the truth and destroys anyone who gets in his way.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jan 26, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Calling dr narcissistic personality disorder..!


----------



## dudemar (Jan 27, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Saw the 60 Minutes clip on Armstrong. It put everything into perspective. Sometimes I feel like America is playing out like the film "The Watchmen", how those in power are not all they're built up to be.

Well before these revelations came about, Armstrong never came across as genuine to me. Maybe it was something I suspected subconsciously, but I never thought much of his accomplishments. Something about him came off as "whatever". Maybe it was the way he appeared in a film (can't remember which) and boasted his 7 Tour de France wins after being diagnosed with cancer. Does he have to star in a film and brag about it? It all seemed too good to be true. Reminds me of Manny Pacquiao's gains in weight class despite getting older.


----------



## beerwax (Jan 28, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

ive really enjoyed the 'tour de france' for a great many years, its made my life richer. 
this 'armstrong' thing just reinforces that we have never had and probably never can have a drug free tour. 
on reflection, and on balance, i would rather have a dirty tour than no tour at all.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 28, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



beerwax said:


> ive really enjoyed the 'tour de france' for a great many years, its made my life richer.
> this 'armstrong' thing just reinforces that we have never had and probably never can have a drug free tour.
> on reflection, and on balance, i would rather have a dirty tour than no tour at all.



If you want to see a bunch of dope fiends riding around on bicycles, come to San Francisco.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 28, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



dudemar said:


> Well before these revelations came about, Armstrong never came across as genuine to me. Maybe it was something I suspected subconsciously, but I never thought much of his accomplishments. Something about him came off as "whatever". Maybe it was the way he appeared in a film (can't remember which) and boasted his 7 Tour de France wins after being diagnosed with cancer. Does he have to star in a film and brag about it? It all seemed too good to be true. Reminds me of Manny Pacquiao's gains in weight class despite getting older.


I kind of agree here. What did it for me though was his comeback tour in 2009 where he placed third. Basically, he seemed lackluster about the whole thing, even disappointed. Granted, after you've won seven times I suppose third place seems pedestrian, but still this is the Tour de France you're talking about. I would be happy to ride in it and finish, even in last place. It was almost as if he felt he should win all the time. Maybe I can understand a smug attitude like that in a sport where everything is in a controlled environment and you really know you're the best. Cycling isn't like that. You could be at the top of your game and the guy in front of you has a momentary lapse of concentration. Boom, down you go, tour over, possibly even career over. You just can't count on good luck every time. Actually, thinking about it, Lance's run of luck in the Tour seemed almost freaky.


----------



## beerwax (Jan 28, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Monocrom said:


> If you want to see a bunch of dope fiends riding around on bicycles, come to San Francisco.



as in life , as in the tour. neither can be made clean by the efforts of man.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 28, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



beerwax said:


> as in life , as in the tour. neither can be made clean by the efforts of man.



True . . . But the dirt can be kept to a minimum.


----------



## flashy bazook (Jan 28, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

No sooner did I put here a "it's all about the money" type of post, that I read an article saying:

Lance Armstrong gear going on close-out as the value of his brand collapses.


----------



## Steve K (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

As Lance moves from fame to infamy, I wonder if some of the collectible stuff might still have value sometime in the future. Maybe stuff from the days when he was young and a new winner? Isn't there some instance of this in other sports? 

Not that it'll be worth anything, but I still have a couple of the Wheaties boxes that he appeared on. I haven't had the heart to throw them out yet.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Lance Armstrong, a perfect example of why we should choose our role models very carefully. 

~ Chance


----------



## Steve K (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Lance Armstrong, a perfect example of why we should choose our role models very carefully.
> 
> ~ Chance



In all fairness, people who were impressed and inspired by Lance's story back at the beginning of his career didn't know what he was doing. I see this more as a reminder that all humans are flawed. We can be inspired by what others do, but we have to expect that there may be some less admirable traits in them. 

As far as cycling heros go, I've always been very impressed by Andy Hampsten's stage win on the Gavia in the snow...
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=1827
By all accounts, he's led a very ethical life both in cycling and after his cycling career.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Steve K said:


> In all fairness, people who were impressed and inspired by Lance's story back at the beginning of his career didn't know what he was doing. I see this more as a reminder that all humans are flawed. We can be inspired by what others do, but we have to expect that there may be some less admirable traits in them.



Yes, exactly. There's nothing wrong with being inspired by someone's achievements, but, I'll repeat myself, at the risk of being rude, Mr. Armstrong is a perfect example of why we should choose our *role models* very carefully. 

~ Chance


----------



## Steve K (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

maybe I should clarify my point... the folks who were inspired by Lance's early actions were utilizing all public knowledge. Further care would not have changed their impression, unless they were personally shadowing Lance throughout day. Plenty of people who lead exemplary lives in public have very well hidden dark secrets that are a complete surprise to their closest friends and companions. 

I've heard it said that we shouldn't pick role models. Instead, we should pick models for specific behaviors that we admire. Lance appeared to be a good model of a person who didn't give up and worked hard to achieve a goal. That's generally considered a desireable trait. One behavior that we don't admire is the harassment of those who aren't willing to accomodate one's method of achieving goals.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Jan 29, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Steve K said:


> maybe I should clarify my point... the folks who were inspired by Lance's early actions were utilizing all public knowledge. Further care would not have changed their impression, unless they were personally shadowing Lance throughout day. Plenty of people who lead exemplary lives in public have very well hidden dark secrets that are a complete surprise to their closest friends and companions.
> 
> I've heard it said that we shouldn't pick role models. Instead, we should pick models for specific behaviors that we admire. Lance appeared to be a good model of a person who didn't give up and worked hard to achieve a goal. That's generally considered a desireable trait. One behavior that we don't admire is the harassment of those who aren't willing to accomodate one's method of achieving goals.





Yeah, Lance was very good at _seeming_ like an honest, good guy for many years, and he played the role of cancer victim who overcame that tragedy to be the world's best cyclist, and there was NO way anyone could have known he was full of BS the whole time and was cheating..... Except for the people who were closest to him, and I guarantee you some of them knew. 

What really tees me off is this whole parade of talk show hosts like Oprah who line up to pay big money so they can profit off these scumbags. Our society used to look down on bad behavior and we didnt put these people on pedestals and profit off them, but now the media will put you on parade and make you an instant multi-millionaire for being a lowlife!


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

You can't even give away boxes of Cheaties on ebay.

~ Chance


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Bic...D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Even the Homeless don't want them.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

Maybe, if you were to cut the top off the box the homeless would take it? 

~ Chance


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Maybe, if you were to cut the top off the box the homeless would take it?
> 
> ~ Chance



I'd rather hand out a few homemade MREs that don't require any heating. The Homeless suffer more than enough as it is.


----------



## Chauncey Gardiner (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*



Chauncey Gardiner said:


> Maybe, if you were to cut the top off the box the homeless would take it?
> 
> ~ Chance



 ~ Chance

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=0eipl17WpOo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=0eipl17WpOo


----------



## Kestrel (Jul 23, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

A little bit of an update on CNN this morning:

Lance Armstrong Expects Doping Fallout




> "I think it's a polarizing topic for some people. I'm not ignorant when it comes to that," he told the paper. "I know it was an unfortunate period in our sport. When I say period, I mean 10, 15, 20 years, and unfortunately for me, I came right smack dab in the middle of that period."



Gotta feel sorry for him, what with him being such a victim and all.


----------



## Steve K (Jul 23, 2013)

*Re: Lance Armstrong done contesting drug allegations*

RAGBRAI is his first "major cycling event" since his admission? RAGBRAI draws a lot of riders, but it's not a competitive ride (if you don't count the beer drinking...). I hope Lance gets his life together, but why is the media still listening to him? I think there is still some lingering question as to whether any of this year's TdF riders were doping, but why ask Lance? 

And if anyone asks, yes, I've ridden in RAGBRAI many times, and I've never, NEVER, been caught doping! 
There were a few unfortunate incidents regarding the pie eating contests, but I prefer to not talk about that.....


----------

