Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges

Status
Not open for further replies.
This whole thing is ridiculous. They just were jealous of him,
or were being paid off by other cyclers who whined and moaned.
He never failed a test, ie he is not guilty. In other words,
in this case opinion and whining beats out physical evidence.
 
So did Armstrong blood-dope and use performance-enhancing drugs? Yeah, probably.

Did pretty much every other world-class athlete he competed against? Yeah, probably!

To say that Armstrong won only because he was doping and whatnot is one thing. But to imply that he was the ONLY one doing so is hilarious. ALL of these guys are on something, be it straight-up steroids right down to creative supplement-mixing. Why? Because everyone else is doing it, and you have no chance to win if you don't. The governing body of cycling which 'allows' this to happen are the ones who should be on trial, not Armstrong. For them to imply that whoever came in 2nd place in all those races was more deserving to win is laughable.

This is the epitome of "Don't hate the player, hate the game". And as they say in NASCAR, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying".
 
Originally Posted By: Jocephus
Lance Armstrong went from CANCER survivor to champion.Since these wins, Lance has provided support and has raised millions of dollars for research and support of cancer victims and families. Somewhere out there, there is a person riding a bike who sat in chemotherapy in 2005 and said "I can do that" because of Lance.


No one is accusing Lance Armstrong of not being a good guy, not raising money, not massively increasing cancer awareness, not helping out families or not being inspirational.

He's been accused (and rightfully so, IMO) of using illegal performance enhancing drugs & treatments.

Neither has anything to do with the other.
 
Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
He's saying "technically" he passed them all. The doping agencies claimed no. What we know is the he dropped the fight shortly before his team mates were set to testify against him. One could conclude there was something definitive coming. Roger Clemens never gave up and he was eventually cleared so when somebody quits shortly before trial there's always a reason

Another issue is better testing of the old samples. Uh oh..That was scheduled to be admitted as well. So tests he passed years ago may be a fail now. He's afraid of something, why people "plead" or quit rather than a go through with it. Would you fight to clear your name till the bitter end if you were innocent? Of course you would. If he gets exposed he will lose his cash cow, the foundation. The real reason he quit, he's basically saying it. But somebody will leak the proof anyways sooner or later.
 
It doesn't matter if he doped or not. This is a legal move and a very good one.

He's following every lawyer move in the book.
Step 1 was to deny everything.
Step 2 was to file a lawsuit so ridiculous it gets thrown out of court.
Step 3 is to look like a victim and "just give up." Notice his use of the word "unconstitutional."
Step 4 is to get UCI to decide the USADA has no jurisdiction in the case and fights for him to retain the titles.

This is the most intelligent move for him at this point. He's stated multiple times he wants the evidence, the names of those going to testify against him, and the USADA has denied those requests. Therefore, if he bows out, the UCI now can request all of the evidence and information for him.


Quote:
A statement read: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that Usada has brought against him.

"The UCI recognises that Usada is reported as saying that it will strip Mr Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

"Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, Wada and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

"Until such time as Usada delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."
 
I think he just got tired of the constant ridiculous pressure and said the h... with you. I don't think there was ever any circumstanceual evident, let alone solid evidence. I think the jerks who continued to try him in public without evidence has really hurt the cycling sport. JMO.. Ed
 
Originally Posted By: 3311

With such a visceral hatred of Armstrong you must be French. I think it's scummy and low on your part to accuse him of "wrapping himself in the cancer flag". He has done a lot of good for a lot of people.


funny! yet another one of the parroted myths.."they French are out to get me"...

No, I work in the sport and I see how many careers and lives he's destroyed in an attempt to keep the myth alive. I know some of the people who's careers have been destroyed because they spoke the truth long ago.

Call it scummy if you want, but it's true. He's used Livestrong as a shield to deflect criticism. That's reality. I'm sorry if it upsets you.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I really don't have a horse in this hockey match, but is it true he actually passed the screening tests?


The drug tests aren't perfect (far from it). They DO catch riders, so it's good that they're done (and they're a deterrent, to a degree). Still, Marion Jones never tested positive...

But no, he didn't pass all of his drug tests. If you repeat something enough times in the media, people will believe it's true.

-He had 4 adverse findings for testosterone in 1994. The USOC (who was managing results at the time) never tested the B-sample (they covered up a bunch of other Olympic athletes like Carl Lewis, LA wasn't the only one). The head of USOC quit in protect, and this scandal is the whole reason USADA exists

-positive for corticosteriods in 1999. The UCI (sports governing body) accepted a backdated prescription (the rules have since been changed to stop this sort of nonsense). Nevermind that the stuff he was taking is counter-indicated for saddle sores...

-6 of his 1999 TDF samples came back positive for EPO when they were tested retrospectively (there was no test for EPO in 1999)

-there was an alleged positive in 2001 at the TDSuisse, which was supposedly covered up by the lab and the UCI. The details would have come out during arbitration, but LA didn't show up to that...

-his 2007-2009 samples are indicative of blood doping. This part is trickier, since it's not a "yes or no" thing. There's no direct test for doping your own blood. There are indirect methods through the test (it's a long-winded thing, and I could give you a link to read if you really cared). But, riders have been sanctioned using these methods.

So, no...he didn't pass all of the tests. Not even close.
 
Originally Posted By: mpvue
I have grown so weary of this story. back when Lance started, there were tests done on him and he DID have 'superhuman' ability; I forget the technical terms, but his VO max whatever it was was off the charts. he does have a naturally superior athletic ability.


I've grown weary of it as well. I wish he were actually sanctioned in 1994 when he first tested positive. But the above line is yet another one of those urban legends. His highest tested vo2 prior to 1995 was 81 ml/kg/min. That's certainly good, at the bottom end of world-class athletes. It's no where near someone like LeMond, who was >90 ml/kg/min.

He was a great athlete without drugs, no question. But we'll never really know how good he would have been without them. But he certainly didn't have the physical capabilities of a grand tour winner. Yes, compared to you or me he has superior athletic ability. Compared to the top 100 cyclists in the word? Not really. They're ALL genetic mutants at that level.
 
Originally Posted By: Indydriver
You do realize of course that steroids are routinely given as part of chemotherapy? They are still the best anti-inflammatory drugs known to man and are required in order for cancer patients to tolerate ever higher doses of chemo. Of course the chemo suppresses (a nice way of saying "destroys" the immune system (that would be blood cells) and that blood boosters such as EPO are a godsend to patients undergoing various types of cancer treatments.

There is no doubt that his cancer treatment introduced Lance to a new world of blood altering drugs. What he did with them after his cancer treatment will apparently remain a mystery.


They are given corticosteriods which are the opposite of anabolic steriods. EPO statement is correct, however.
 
Last edited:
He just doped better than anyone else. Pro cycling is a farce, there's so much cheating going on. I'd rather go down to the local track and watch the cat 5 race. Those are real people racing bikes.

I've done a lot of ultradistance riding, events up to 1000km/625mi and I didn't get into the sport because of Lance, I got into it because it was fun and challenging. IMO Lance had very little to do with expanding the sport's popularity at the local level with charity rides and so forth, much better equipment had everything to do with that.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I mostly agree with Jocephus, except that once you tolerate and relax doping rule, then athletes and future athletes (i.e. students who play sports) would try to keep up by doping. That can cause serious problem to their health and safety, and is not something that our society should encourage or tolerate.

I'm not saying Lance is doping or the approach the governing body use to "prove" him guilty is good, or the other way around. I'm just stressing the importance of keeping doping away from sport.


The next control would be on hard working school kids.
Kids who work more than 4 hrs a day on their work @ home after school would be deemed unhealthy and risky, and not something our society should tolerate or encourage.

Where will this control stop?
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I really don't have a horse in this hockey match, but is it true he actually passed the screening tests?


I'm so sick of this story that I hardly follow it and I lost most of my respect for Lance when he dumped his family to bang Cheryl Crow. But that aside, I think its most of the tests he took passed at the time (although I think there were a few "iffy" ones even then). I think the real allegation is that he was just always ahead of the test- using PEDs that couldn't be detected by the tests available at the time. The whole thing smacks of hearsay and he said - she said accusations.

A FB friend of mine said, and I agree, that it would have been nice to hear Lance categorically say "I never used PEDs". I think he should let them re-test all of the stored samples from way back when using modern methods, or even that statement carries the same weight as a Bill Clinton denial.

And finally (dang I've got a lot to say for someone who doesn't care... but this is the only point that matters to me) IT REALLY HACKS ME OFF WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS INVOLVED IN THIS like they did with baseball. Talk about a waste of my taxpayer dollars. Let athletes dope themselves until their privates fall off for all I care, but don't spend TAX DOLLARS regulating entertainment.
 
Yet all the other 100 cyclist in the world are clean.
smirk.gif

This is nothing more than witch-hunt because a bunch of other cheaters are hurt they were dominated by another cheater.
This whole prosecution is being conducted out of jealousy not for so noble cause if you believe otherwise you are only fooling yourself. I thought that I should of teach my children to keep a eye out for a woman scorned. I guess I should include jealous "self righteous men" also.

I will admit it also I am a former athlete and I use PED's everyday while I was training, practicing, and competing. I use performance enhancers today also you can buy them at your local grocery store and out of vending machines. I wonder what would of happened during the whole Capt Phillips rescue if me and my two other counterparts providing telecom support did not have our caffeine and nicotine working 8 straight 20-22 hour days for that whole mess.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251

This whole prosecution is being conducted out of jealousy not for so noble cause if you believe otherwise you are only fooling yourself.


You're being ridiculous. Take a look at the list of sanctioned athletes: http://www.usada.org/sanctions/

Yes, USADA is "jealous" and just "targeting Lance". Please... With the amount of evidence they had, they would have been negligent not to follow-up. This is hardly a fight those guys wanted, knowing full well the PR $#%storm which was going to follow.

Given your own history with PEDs I understand your apologist outlook on it, but not ALL athletes are willing to go down that road, and they shouldn't be forced to just in order to be competitive.
 
Look at who is being delusional there is not a professional athlete that does not use PEDs. Yes when I eat my breakfast it is accompanied by coffee which contains caffeine a PED. When I did heavy weight training I took Creatine a PED. When I was/am hurt I took and take a NSAID PED. All are PEDs. When I am working out harder than I normally do I eat more fish and beans for additional protein, I drink Gatorade while endurance training to replenish my electrolytes. Everything I do enhances my performance so therefore each is a performance enhancer. If you believe that you or anyone else is not using performance enhancers while competing and training you are lying to yourself there is no way around that. I can take all the HGH, steroids, and dope my blood but that will not make me a professional athlete and it will not enhance anything I do unless I work my behind off and push myself to the absolute physical limit.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: 3311

With such a visceral hatred of Armstrong you must be French. I think it's scummy and low on your part to accuse him of "wrapping himself in the cancer flag". He has done a lot of good for a lot of people.


funny! yet another one of the parroted myths.."they French are out to get me"...

No, I work in the sport and I see how many careers and lives he's destroyed in an attempt to keep the myth alive. I know some of the people who's careers have been destroyed because they spoke the truth long ago.

Call it scummy if you want, but it's true. He's used Livestrong as a shield to deflect criticism. That's reality. I'm sorry if it upsets you.


It's undeniable that the French were out to get him. Your bias is even more clear now. And if your work in the sport you should be ever grateful to Armstrong for elevating your sport. Although it still only ranks just ahead of competitive breathing and slightly behind full contact nose picking.

I fully reiterate my stance that only low grade scum would accuse Armstrong of "wrapping himself in the cancer flag" as you do.
 
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Look at who is being delusional there is not a professional athlete that does not use PEDs.


This is 100% untrue, but if you need to believe that in order to justify your own use of peds, I can understand.

Gatorade and food are not "PEDs". The rules are pretty clear: if it's on the banned list, it's doping, period. Sports are defined by their rules. If you don't like it, don't play. Did Rosie Ruiz really win the Boston Marathon? I mean, she crossed the line first and all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

OVERKILL
  • Locked
Federal Agents Charged With Stealing Bitcoin
Replies
9
Views
3K
Electromotive
A
  • Locked
Kerry Resume For President
2 3
Replies
47
Views
16K
motorguy222
Back
Top Bottom