Armstrong gives up?

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Fri 24 Aug 2012, 7:57 am

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234

Very interesting story this. I can see his point about being one-sided and unfair, but is he jumping the gun, in case something did come out?

by SecretFly Fri 14 Sep 2012, 5:41 pm

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yup, no steroids at all in boxing, and a great drugs-testing policy

well when the guy ringing the bell is on them it's a difficult one to keep track of.

by Big Mon 17 Sep 2012, 10:44 am

Mad for Chelsea wrote:yup, no steroids at all in boxing, and a great drugs-testing policy

To be fair, if you were going to tell them not to take steroids because of the long term health risks you'd probably have to tell them to stop boxing as well...

by ChequeredJersey Sun 23 Sep 2012, 4:20 pm

Interview with Tyler Hamilton about his (and Lance's alleged) doping in the Sunday Times. Not available for free online but worth a look

by SecretFly Sun 23 Sep 2012, 4:23 pm

ChequeredJersey wrote:Interview with Tyler Hamilton about his (and Lance's alleged) doping in the Sunday Times. Not available for free online but worth a look

So................... a few copied excerpts?????????????????? Wink

No, only kidding Chequered, wouldn't want to get you in trouble.

by Mad for Chelsea Sun 23 Sep 2012, 6:40 pm

interesting part about the old "let them all take it, then it's a level playing field" argument.

Hamilton knows how brilliant, and brutally competitive, Armstrong was, better than anyone, but he also knows the notion of a level-playing field is a nonsense. He cites how EPO can help some riders much more than others.

“I was one of those with a lower haematocrit so I could benefit more from EPO [before reaching the legal limit],” Hamilton says. “Someone else might only be able to take a little.” Hamilton tried growth hormone and it made him feel sluggish. “Some riders loved it,” he says. So results might have been similar without doping and Armstrong might still have been the best, but the level playing field does not exist. And some poor souls in that peloton were slogging up those climbs “paniagua”.

“The level-playing field argument is bulls***,” Daniel Coyle says, Hamilton’s co-author interjecting forcefully. “With doping, the sport becomes a contest of information, connections and a test of money. Not everybody has a private jet or exclusive access to the best doctors. It’s a different game of chess.”

by **ShahenshahG** Wed 10 Oct 2012, 5:27 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

by LuvSports! Wed 10 Oct 2012, 6:16 pm

mixed feelings on this 2bh, its horrible finding out a huge role model and hero for so many, his legacy is based on a lie Sad

.

by SecretFly Wed 10 Oct 2012, 6:42 pm

............ his role model as a survivor of cancer doesn't have to be lessened...and basically that's the only time you could consider him a role model - to give hope to people under the cloud of the disease.

But it appears he did cheat, and cheat, and cheat again on his bike. It is possible to separate the two. He isn't the devil, he's just a guy who didn't play fair in his sport of choice. He's not the first - he won't be the last.

The valid lesson to be learned is that those who DID choose to shout down the world in his defence simply because he was their 'hero' might now realise that they got caught in a Cult. Nothing could ever be fake about Lance because.... well, because he said so himself and they were his followers.

No evidence or witness statements were ever enough for them - everyone who implied that all was not as it appeared with Lance were accused of many things - including being a alcoholic and prostitute - as Lance himself labeled one of his accusers. A man who wants to claim innocence and chooses language like that to offer as a defence shows that the warning signals are real. Don't attack the accusations but attack the character of the accuser.

Anyway - maybe people could relax when they follow their favourites - be they actors, singers or sportsmen. They are human, they're not perfect, they're not infallible. Listen to the accusations and then disagree but don't set the hero so high that he becomes a living god.

by LuvSports! Wed 10 Oct 2012, 7:36 pm

for cycling fans around the world he could be seen as a hero and a role model for purely cycling reasons no?
obviously what he did to fight off cancer was incredible but did he not use his success to build the foundation further still.
I guess the positive is just that, the foundation is a phenomenon!

by SecretFly Wed 10 Oct 2012, 8:11 pm

Not talking about his foundation, Luvsports - that's a business. I'm saying as a role model to show people suffering from cancer that there can be hope and that personal determination might get you far. His personal battle, not his subsequent foundation

As regards the cycling - No. That was a mirage. That wasn't real. He didn't fall from some sort of grace as a rider - he never had grace. As you say, he was a lie. So feeling it's horrible that it wasn't real is suggesting it's something of a tragedy that he turned out to be a lie.

In my opinion, it isn't a tragedy - there were many heros cycling at his time and he, by his actions, denied them their time as real heros. That Armstrong thrived for a time means he denied cycling fans honest 'heros' who couldn't compete against him or his team. Indeed, the honest heros were also attacked by those cycling fans because those riders hinted that the people's hero was a fraud.

There is nothing horrible, in my opinion, about Armstrong being a lie - the horrible thing is that his followers weren't able to decipher just who the real heros were.

by aucklandlaurie Thu 11 Oct 2012, 7:43 am

I think Armstrong should be applauded, after all those years of getting away with cheating he would have to be one of the most successful cheats in sporting history. I pity though the genuine honest people in cycling that provided him with the vehicle.

I also feel the "Foundation" was part of the cheating, he didnt seem to mind people defending him merely on the basis that," he cant be a drug cheat, look at all the good he does through his foundation for cancer sufferers."

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Thu 11 Oct 2012, 7:53 am

The scale of this is quite shocking really. I think it would be best if Lance just came out and admitted it fully now, because if he keeps defending himself, it's only going to make him look even worse. It's completely lose lose either way though lol

by Guest Thu 11 Oct 2012, 9:10 am

It's just hugely disappointing. A really sad day for cycling, but hopefully now they can start to rebuild it properly.

by Azabache Thu 11 Oct 2012, 10:08 am

Agree with everything here but I thought we were going to get some great revelation.

I still think a top lawyer could have a field day here, but, as said, if Lance isn't prepared to enter the arena...

by Big Thu 11 Oct 2012, 12:27 pm

I have now flicked through the 'Reasoned Decision'. What a load of tosh! Even the worst of the tabloids could have done a better job of giving the facts in an objective manner. This does not read like a document aimed at presenting the facts of the case to the UCI (and others) it reads like a document aimed at the public - presumably in an attempt to win them over before the UCI have any chance to respond.

The report contains almost 200 pages presenting their findings from witness statements seemingly presented as facts - in some cases it almost seems like they hammed up what the witnesses said, and in a couple of others there seemed to be glaring inconsistencies (not so much suggesting Lance was innocent, but rather that those testifying were much less innocent than their testimony and the report would like you to think). It's bonkers.

On the flip side the actual physical test results that should be considered proof of Armstrong's doping get's just one effing page (blood testing from the 2009 giro and tour looking at reticulocytes, section 5a if anyone is interested), with another 4 pages dedicated to historic test results that quite rightly can't be used alone in the absence of a B sample. Now why didn't they want a lot of focus on the 2009 results that should be considered evidence in their own right? Could it be that they are scared of the implications of expanding testing and analysis of that nature to all US athletes?

It has left me unchanged in my view that both USADA and Armstrong are guilty, and with little satisfaction that the right outcome has been achieved. Not suggesting Armstrong should not be banned/stripped of titles, but they seem to be willing to forgive a lot (in my view too much) to achieve that and they have failed to push forward with emphasising the results of doping as sufficient proof in the absence of a positive test.

by incontinentia Thu 11 Oct 2012, 1:12 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: I pity though the genuine honest people in cycling that provided him with the vehicle.

Are you talking about Trek?

I agree with you that Lance can at least take some solace from the fact he was a world class cheater.

by Azabache Thu 11 Oct 2012, 2:25 pm

Of course another scenario is that Lance was Superhuman (clean) so all his underlings were compelled to enhance their capabilities.

(Remember that TTT where he was streaking ahead up that very steep bridge, raging at them to keep up.)

I do think, though, that Lance will be around long after this tormentor has moved on (probably to politics).

by djlovesyou Thu 11 Oct 2012, 3:22 pm

I love how people still try to make out that poor little bully Lance is some sort of victim in all this.

It takes a rather odd political system that a person who is now most famous for being a cynical and serial lying cheat could find any sort of career. I appreciate he still has quite a large following of poor deluded souls, but it still shouldn't be enough.

by **ShahenshahG** Thu 11 Oct 2012, 3:25 pm

Dj loves you - have you ever come across a politician? Laugh

by djlovesyou Thu 11 Oct 2012, 3:46 pm

Haha, I see the point.

I really meant that it's hard to be a proven cheat and start a political career. You have to be able to at least keep up appearances that you're an honest, reliable, stand-up servant to the nation.

Cathal Lombard, the Irish runner who got done for EPO a number of years back had to give up his career as a solicitor because of it.

by Azabache Thu 11 Oct 2012, 4:02 pm

Sorry, I didn't phrase my piece well. I meant that the Tormentor-Travis-will move on. An obsessive self publicist if I ever saw one

I don't believe in him (Travis) one iota.

We've waited-how long?-for the "evidence" and we get this trash.

by ChequeredJersey Thu 11 Oct 2012, 6:08 pm

What I did think was rather rich was how Armstrong's side called the evidence one-sided when the sole reason for this was because he refused to give his evidence

by damage_13 Fri 12 Oct 2012, 9:55 am

re: the 'passed' tests, it is clear from the report just how easy it was for that team (NOT just LA) to avoid the tests and test when they wanted.

It is a highly complex scam, I have my doubts whether LA was the 'evil mastermind' behind it all, as too many of the interviews have come about under duress (reduced and quite pathetic 6month bans). USDA have made it clear they were gunning for him alone and the entire report is tainted with that pre-conception.

The wider picture needs to be looked at, in those years its hard to find any 'clean' finishers in the top 5, or indeed, nearly 10. Retrospectively amending it all would be a nightmare and just stripping LA of his titles sends out the wrong message.

ALL those found guilty, confessed, or otherwise should be given life bans. Most of whom are of an older generation of cycling.

Lance Armstrong the man, should, when he comes to be judged, be judged differently than Lance Armstrong the Sportsman.

by bogbrush Fri 12 Oct 2012, 9:21 pm

I imagine some people are also raging that Jimmy Savile is being wrongly vilified. After all, he did great work for charity and was never caught with his hand in the... er...... till, was he?

by **Biltong** Mon 15 Oct 2012, 1:44 pm

I don't follow cycling, but what does this mean for Armstrong?

Are his titles he won being removed?
Does his sponsors claim back all the money they paid him.
How does this affect him financially?

by dummy_half Mon 15 Oct 2012, 2:17 pm

Biltong wrote:I don't follow cycling, but what does this mean for Armstrong?

Are his titles he won being removed? - If the UCI uphold the decision put forward by USADA. All results from 1999 are to be stripped

Does his sponsors claim back all the money they paid him. - Doubt it. Most of the money went to the team rather than to LA individually, and we are mostly talking about money paid between 1999 and 2005, so it would probably cost more to try and recover than would be made back. Actually, a lot of the evidence used by USADA was brought to light by a US Federal Grand Jury investigation, because the team sponsor for the first 4 (iirc) years of Armstrong winning the Tour de France was the US Postal Service, a branch of the Federal government - the investigation was to determine whether any money from the US Government (i.e. USPS) was being used for the purchase of illegal drugs, which would have been a Federal offence. No charges were brought through the Grand Jury, because it was unprovable what money went where.

How does this affect him financially? - As far as prize money, I suspect he will have to return all of it, as his results are being stripped (first prize for the Tour de France is 1 million Euros, and he won it 7 times). Money paid through endorsements (for example, LA had a huge contract with Nike) will depend on what they want to do as corporations. My suspicion is that most will not pursue the issue as they got value for money from Armstrong at the time that he was endorsing them.

by djlovesyou Mon 15 Oct 2012, 3:03 pm

Would be pretty surprised if Nike do anything. I wouldn't put it past them to have had full knowledge of what was going on.

I don't think they don't see an ethical problem with doping in sport.

I doubt he'll have to pay his prize-money back either. The money for winning doesn't go to the rider, it goes to the team and split between the riders and support staff.

by SecretFly Mon 15 Oct 2012, 3:19 pm

Didn't Armstrong offer to make a contribution to the UCI anyway?

When a cyclist wants to contribute to the organisation that he's taking his prize money from then you know the balance is all wrong.

These major sportspeople are billboards. They create the product the corporates want to attach their logo to. That's the real prize money. And that's where Armstrong's real protection came from - big business that coughs up the big money for these events. Armstrong brought too much commercial weight with him to the cycling world for anyone in authority to want to hang him... American's loved him as their sporting god and that's a big market to insult. So the blind eye continued as everyone helped themselves to their slice of the sponsorship 'shut-up' money that stampeded into the sport.

by Mike Selig Mon 15 Oct 2012, 3:36 pm

ON the financial side, surely any out of court settlements following libel actions after allegations of doping were made (I know of one against the Sunday Times, any others?) will be reviewed in light of this judgement.

by dummy_half Mon 15 Oct 2012, 3:38 pm

djlovesyou wrote:Would be pretty surprised if Nike do anything. I wouldn't put it past them to have had full knowledge of what was going on.

I don't think they don't see an ethical problem with doping in sport.

I doubt he'll have to pay his prize-money back either. The money for winning doesn't go to the rider, it goes to the team and split between the riders and support staff.

I think you're probably right re Nike. Maybe one or two of the other companies Lance endorsed or did advertising work for might seek to recover their money - probably depends on how tough and 'ethical' they want to appear to be.

The prize money one I'm not sure of - I'm well aware that the convention is the TdF winnings go into a central pot and is distributed through the team, but I'm not sure that makes any legal difference (maybe it moves the obligation from LA individually to the owners / operators of USPS-Discovery - Can't remember when Tailwind Sports took over), Since Armstrong was one of the owners of Tailwind, it's maybe a distinction with little difference. Most of what I've read elsewhere suggests that by having the results stripped, prize money must be paid back (after all, if you never won the race, how can yuo have been paid for it?).

Of course, one issue is how closely will the UCI follow the recommendations given by USADA? That, and then probably some decision by CAS will probably be important in deciding the financial side of all of this noting that in addition to Armstrong, 10 other US-based riders have been banned and had results stripped over varying time periods, and that riders from other countries are now going to be subject to sanctions based on the evidence provided by USADA - 21 rider names have been redacted from the report because of the possibility of investigations and sanctions against them, including one other multiple Grand Tour winner [although redacted, there is sufficient information in the text to determine unequivocally who the majority are].

by dummy_half Mon 15 Oct 2012, 3:44 pm

Mike Selig wrote:ON the financial side, surely any out of court settlements following libel actions after allegations of doping were made (I know of one against the Sunday Times, any others?) will be reviewed in light of this judgement.

Mike

I suspect out of court settlements on libel cases, provided no evidence was ever aired in open court, are binding regardless of what subsequently occurs. Certainly is the case with other civil actions, and is why it is usually impossible to find what the settlement actually was.

There is an interesting question over whether Armstrong can be tried for perjury because he did get involved in a legal case against a company who initially employed him to do some advertising work and then pulled the contract in light of the David Walsh allegations. In Court, Armstrong stated that he did not use PEDs, so it looks like he explicitly lied (although it may need someone more involved in legal stuff than me to verify exactly what was said, to see if he has any wiggle room).

by aucklandlaurie Tue 16 Oct 2012, 9:09 am

Mike Selig wrote:ON the financial side, surely any out of court settlements following libel actions after allegations of doping were made (I know of one against the Sunday Times, any others?) will be reviewed in light of this judgement.

Well not just libel actions, but would there not be an arguement that some prize money should be paid back?

by Redharry Wed 17 Oct 2012, 11:40 pm

Who'd want to advertise association with him?

by dummy_half Thu 18 Oct 2012, 9:04 am

Redharry wrote:Who'd want to advertise association with him?

perhaps Amgen - long term sponsors of the Tour of California (biggest stage race in the US) and manufacturers of EPO

by The genius of PBF Fri 19 Oct 2012, 1:44 am

I have read that Armstrong did blood doping...Google that up if you dont know what it is.

I hear rumours that a certain boxer does this as well. Wink

by incontinentia Sat 20 Oct 2012, 7:32 pm

It would be a good PR move for Armstrong to come clean and admit everything. Let's face it, things can't get much worse for him. Some honesty would improve his image at this point I think, wouldn't you agree?

by LuvSports! Sat 20 Oct 2012, 8:53 pm

he will be open to so many lawsuits among other things to be honest, can't see it.
Bet his lawyers wont agree with you

by Guest Thu 25 Oct 2012, 5:28 pm

Likely face jail time too for perjury.

by Guest Thu 25 Oct 2012, 5:29 pm

The scumbag; hope he gets screwed for every penny, and ends up a penniless beggar.

by The genius of PBF Thu 25 Oct 2012, 10:39 pm

I did say he is going to end up like Marion Jones and do time.

by **Good Golly I'm Olly** Thu 25 Oct 2012, 10:47 pm

He needs to just confess. He is single handedly ruining the image of cycling again, just when it was/is getting cleaner

by LastDamnation Fri 26 Oct 2012, 11:11 am

Finally got round to reading the whole report, was good to finally see George and Levi give their evidence, but there were a few things that bothered me:

Not gone far enough - I didn't feel like there was anything here which hasn't been apparent for years. Obviously there hasn't previously been this level of eyewitness accounts, but it was patently obvious the stuff he was doing was EPO, testoterone etc. and then blood transfusions.

I felt like there was too much holding back of information. It bothered me a lot reading the affadavit's where it would say things like "I saw rider-18 on team xxx getting an injection" - I understand they don't want to publish anything that isn't corroborated but in my mind any rider referenced in these affadavit's should have to answer questions. With some non-riders it is possible to work it out from the dates, but in other cases I have no clue (is there a link which details who blanked out names are?).

I wish there was more said about his return. It was good they established a continued link with Ferrari and that in itself is incriminating and there was some mention of obvious blood manipulation (from a few samples when UCI had far more suggests UCI failing to act on biopassport data - I've always had the impression it was a means to catch more under the radar guys rather than their moneymakers so to speak). Astana were completely ridiculous in their performance in 2009 and more should be said about this (hell if they'd gone slightly faster in the TTT armstrong could easily have won the tour)

Riders claiming they stopped after a certain date was in many cases absurd. The only ones who really admitted to doping after no longer on a team with Armstrong were Landis (who was forced to a few years ago after he couldn't lie anymore) and Hamilton. I can believe in some cases like Hincapie that he wasn't doping at BMC (also there was the soigneur incident), but for example Levi claiming he didn't dope after 2007 is ludicrous given his performance at Vuelta 2008 and that he roder with Astana/Bruyneel in 2009 as well.

More could have been said about the UCI. It was good that Hein Verbruggen was talked about as being corrupt in some of the affadavits, but it's only really allusions that there was dodgy dealings rather than confirmed. They really need to address the issues of these payments, since they've contradicted themselves on many occasions (http://www.siab.org.au/58dgETdx002ag/ArmstrongTriangle.pdf). LeMond was 100% correct about McQuaid/Verbruggen in his statement yesterday. Sueing Paul Kimmage just underlines how much the UCI have lost all sense of priorities. As noted before, from 7 samples USADA established that it was almost certain evidences of blood manipulation and supposedly UCI had 22?

by LastDamnation Fri 26 Oct 2012, 11:15 am

The genius of PBF wrote:I have read that Armstrong did blood doping...Google that up if you dont know what it is.

I hear rumours that a certain boxer does this as well.

There are many other sports where blood doping is obviously prevalent. Dr Fuentes said after Operacion Puerto that he had clients who were tennis players and footballers, but NOTHING is ever said or done in these sports.
Tennis in my mind is the most ridiculous, particularly when you see players who previously had endurance problems transform into 5-set heroes.

by Big Fri 26 Oct 2012, 11:54 am

LastDamnation - a lot of riders saying that they stopped doping after date X may well be telling the truth. The fact that the UCI were beginning to crack down (whatever the rights and wrongs of the Armstrong era, they did ban Landis and Vinokourov and Rasmussen was pulled out) knowing that they were going to do that despite the negative publicity generated probably scared those riders that were still doping. And of course there was the Puerto case about then as well. Plus a lot of those claiming to have stopped did so not long after the improved tests for EPO came out and about the time that biological passports came in. So very believable that they did, albeit not for the altruistic reasons given in their affidavits...

by The genius of PBF Fri 09 Nov 2012, 12:13 am

Olly wrote:He needs to just confess. He is single handedly ruining the image of cycling again, just when it was/is getting cleaner

If he confesses he would go to jail and could be sued for millions...He has too much to lose.

Cycling cant be saved anyway.

by Sponsored content