[Closed] Armstrong, filthy hatefull scumbag of a man.

You don't need to go far to find cancer survivors who believe that Livestrong have done lifechanging work

What about the other riders who said the same thing?

Why are there no consequences for Trek, Oakley and Nike?

Because they dropped him like a hot coal once it became clear that he was cheating?

Speculation, but common practice in all sports - sportsman does something untoward, sponsors leave in droves.

I do wonder what happened to LA's stake in Trek tho.

According to the Beeb doc Oakley even helped to pressurise witnesses.

I wouldn't be surprised. But can it be proven?

Because they dropped him like a hot coal once it became clear that he was cheating?

The didn't drop him until the gravy train had stop paying (The USADA report 2012), long after the event. They should have dropped him before he got to seven.

They should have dropped him before he got to seven.

But then it'd raise questions and they'd lose a great promotional asset, especially one fighting in a Rocky-esque style for a final, record-breaking victory.

I very much doubt they were sponsoring LA for his good looks.

His shares in Trek remain his, the law cannot force him to hand them over; but if he is repeatedly sued for cheating money out of people (by cheating at races and buying expensive investment/insurance products) then the damages may force him to sell them in order to pay back.

Lance used the 'everyone was at it' as personal justification - a load of crap because it wasn't everyone, just the few at the top of the GC who doped as hard as he did thanks to Ferrari and Fuentes, but by his own twisted logic the ones not as fast as him (non-dopers) didn't matter just the other riders who were his competitors (the dopers)

Junkyard - lazarus

Nor do you need to go far to find folk who think the money could have been better spent on other things

But then you get into, would it have been raised for other causes/charities? The cult of personality gave livestrong fundraising power and visibility that most other charities lacked. So, just taking Armstrong or Livestrong out of the picture wouldn't mean all that money and visibility just goes to another equivalent charity. And for good or for bad, Armstrong was [i]the[/i] cancer rock star. Who is it now? Walter White...

No way to know for sure o'course but whenever you get into paid charity work etc you run into this sort of problem- net benefits, impact on other charities etc, it's a morally messy thing at the best of times.

Aye, USADA went after him pretty strongly once evidence began to surface, the UCI burred their head in the sand and did nothing until they looked stupid by not acting due to the weight of the evidence. Prior to that the UCI actively tried to help dopers not get caught as it would damage the sports and in particular Armstrong was their golden goose - no way did they want him caught.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514

In all of that mess there were people that show that there was an option and excuses from the dopers aren't really worth much. If your morals are true then there isn't a choice really. Lemond managed it right, even at his level?
This idea that it was acceptable because they all did it and he was just a better doper than the rest .. rubbish imo. It just means the whole sport was rotten. The real legends of the road are the guys scraping into the top 10-20 or so of the classics and grand tours clean and staying clean. And tbh there are guys doing equally impressive things on a bike, clean, that aren't on pro wages or on TV.

Armstrong is no doubt a filty hateful scumbag of a man... but also a convenient distraction from the problems cycling has always (and probably will always) face in cheating.

Riis (still referred to as "TDF winner*" despite admitting doping) is DS for Contador (largely celebrated as one of the greatest of all time despite serving his doping ban and somewhat dropping off the radar since then) who in turn enjoyed great battles with Schleck (a guy who bro and dad got popped for doping offenses and has never raced anywhere near the same level since). No-one even mentions their indiscretions. Add to that that the guy sweeping up all the sprint stages (Kittel) openly admits to blood manipulation using new techniques that have only recently been banned and the 2014 Giro route was in honour of a guy dogged by doping and drug abuse.

Lance is a despicable human being but also a convenient distraction from the hoards of others in pro cycling who perhaps lack the same power but lack none of Lance's absolute desire to win at all costs. If the guys swept under the rug knew Clinton etc, who knows how many Lances there truely are out there.

Calm down Hora you drama queen - you were his biggest defender until even you finally had to concede...

As DanW says, it does seem odd that prolific dopers such as Pantani et al are still held in high regard, yet Armstrong is almost universally hated.

Hamilton is almost painting himself out to be some sort of reformed hero - he's made a load of money off the back of a book released at just the right time yet he was just as guilty as Lance in taking the substances. Landis will be next, as will Big George and the rest.

No, Armstrong did go after families of those that spoke out against him and thats inexcusable. But to me, the biggest crook of them all is Mcquaid. Total utter scumbag, if anyone should be banned for life its him.

Mcquaid
Vinokourov
Riis
Bruyneel

All of these have got off pretty much scott free, yet continue to be involved in the sport. And little noise is made about them...

Personally before watching the film the other night I never really thought Armstrong was cheating as everyone else was doing it. So were they all just on the same level playing field, just an illegal one and was he not just the best rider. What I hadn't realised is how much of a bastard he was at going out to destroy anyone else's life who questioned him and what was going on. Also how he blatantly lied time and time again and actually proactively pushed the agenda that he was not cheating.

The one thing that they kind of touched on in the film but didn't go into much detail was all the other people in the sport and industry who wanted to keep the lie going as they were all making money. How many other people both cyclist and sponsors knew what he was doing and covered it up.

The biggest problem with cycling is the same as FIFA and the IOC, there are too many officials who are lining their own pockets and will turn a blind eye to anything. There is a whole establishment of them so to make any changes is almost impossible.

As DanW says, it does seem odd that prolific dopers such as Pantani et al are still held in high regard, yet Armstrong is almost universally hated.

I think that's it though. The difference in my mind is that LA embraced the media, openly lied, was a pack leader and an intimidating bully. He made a lot of money through it, and raised a lot of awareness for Livestrong.

However, he was still in the spotlight during his fall from grace and had made [i]plenty[/i] of enemies along the way eager to take a piece out of him.

Pantani et al may have also been doping, but it's arguable they were doing it to be genuinely competitive in a time when it was rife.

Sweeping I know, but that's my take of it on the surface.

Edit: just seen Woody74's post. 🙂

Mcquaid
Vinokourov
Riis
Bruyneel

All of these have got off pretty much scott free, yet continue to be involved in the sport. And little noise is made about them...

Add pretty much every DS and star rider of a Pro-Tour team. Vaughters, Yates, Rogers, Riis, Horner, would be some that really get overlooked. SKY and Saxo-Tinkoff both conduct their training camps deep in the Spanish hills away from civilization (read: difficult to have surprise out of competition testing), Horner and lots of the USA guys that got popped/ current prominent Columbians also train deep in the middle of nowhere and have almost zero out of competition tests. The Secret Pro believed to be Aussie said that there was something like just one out of competition test amongst all Aussie riders last year.

I think that's it though. The difference in my mind is that LA embraced the media, openly lied, was a pack leader and an intimidating bully. He made a lot of money through it, and raised a lot of awareness for Livestrong.

But all of that just makes him an even more convenient distraction. Lance was able to make the planets align with his cheating but plenty of others were trying to do exactly the same thing with the same lying, same denial, same bullying of team mates and of others but were less successful. Doesn't make them any better people because they were worse at the cheating and intimidation and it happens on several levels.

Sure the testing will always be behind the cheats but Armstrong is a convenient distraction to think that this horrible person is out so everything is rosy again. Where on earth is JTL? Seems SKY have disowned him and swept everything under the rug there too (even if it was all pre-SKY)....

[quote=flange ]Calm down Hora you drama queen - you were his biggest defender until even you finally had to concede...

Nothing like an ex-[s]smoker[/s] LA supporter for being virulently anti!

[quote=butcher ]When Fuentes' place was raided they found over 200 blood bags... Not just belonging to cyclists either.

Yet strangely we've never heard any more about most of those belonging to people in other sports.

Yet strangely we've never heard any more about most of those belonging to people in other sports.

#bloodycyclists

I hope this bloke was clean. I have trawled the interweb and all I ever found was something to do with a asthma drug.

a proper cycling hero, in my eyes.

[img] [/img]

Just another cheat in a field of cheats, I've no reason to hate him as he's never took a dump on my lawn!

Do those of you who follow road cycling think the sport is still riddled with doping?

[quote=ton ]I hope this bloke was clean. I have trawled the interweb and all I ever found was something to do with a asthma drug.

You're talking about failed tests? Just like LA (and Marion Jones et al, as I was fond of pointing out back in the days when hora was still a LA supporter). I'm not sure what the latest thinking is, but understood the perceived wisdom was that he wasn't clean.

Actually what I find slightly surprising out of all of this is the assumption that LeMond was clean - not that I'm disputing that at all if it is the case as it's nice to know there was a clean interlude at the top of the sport.

Wasn't baseball supposedly the most drug ridden sport? Could never figure out how they'd help. Other than possibly with the boredom.

Usually it was for strength. Hitters can knock the ball further and pitchers can throw harder. It was why in the mid to late 90s there was an explosion in home runs.

SKY and Saxo-Tinkoff both conduct their training camps deep in the Spanish hills away from civilization (

Pretty sure Froome highlighted not a single test had been done in their hotel and asked the UCI why, given there were 3 teams and some of the GC candidates training there. The problem with most mountain locations without a lot of road traffic is that they're remote. Finding one with a hotel is pretty hard so teams tend to flock to them. The UCI know they're there though so it's not like they're hiding.

Yet strangely we've never heard any more about most of those belonging to people in other sports.

The Spanish courts ordered the bags destroyed rather than allow further investigation over who they belonged to.involved.

Various bodies have appealed the decision, the Spaniards are dragging their feet on it.

If they do ever appear, we may get to find out who else is

[quote=saxabar ]Do those of you who follow road cycling think the sport is still riddled with doping?

Not in the same way it was - I think fundamentally it is actually largely clean now - but then it also depends exactly what you mean by "doping". I've no doubt that significant numbers are taking stuff which will be banned when the gamekeepers catch up.

Yet strangely we've never heard any more about most of those belonging to people in other sports.

And you never will. The judge ordered evidence destroyed as it wasn't in the public interest. I guess he assumes that tennis players and footballers from Spain might have been a bit embarrassed.

Sastre is the only Grand Tour winner that springs to mind as even vaguely clean. He did ride on some shady teams but the stories of people not wanting to work/ ride with him due to absolutely refusing to agree to various "training methods" much to the frustration of teams at least restores some faith

Sneaky Edit: Wiggins too. The feeling seems to be that Evans most likely won clean but has too many question marks earlier in his career to say he rode entirely clean

Do those of you who follow road cycling think the sport is still riddled with doping?

Not in the same way it was - I think fundamentally it is actually largely clean now - but then it also depends exactly what you mean by "doping". I've no doubt that significant numbers are taking stuff which will be banned when the gamekeepers catch up.

Totally agree. I don't think it is as blatant now but they are definitely still making the most of the areas of "grey". As I wrote above, Kittel has been very open as recently as last year about taking part in trials experimenting with blood manipulation that wasn't banned at the time. Didn't even cause a stir in the media or cycling community as no rules were broken. Morals don't seem to come in to it which is the real issue you can't fix easily

Not Evans or Wiggo then?

[quote=DanW ]Morals don't seem to come in to it which is the real issue you can't fix easily

So how many people have taken creatine? Surely there must be some on here...

I think most would think like you and me that what Kittel is doing is dubious, but what about creatine, what about using recovery drinks, where exactly is that line?

The line is surely where various substances or methods introduce risk to the athlete. It isn't about making you better at something but being dangerous for you. Add to that substances which are used to mask the other damaging substances and you have a banned list- which seems to be how the prohibited list comes about. Creatine or recovery drinks have absolutely minimal health risks. Blood doping carries significant risks as does Tramadol etc.

Actually what I find slightly surprising out of all of this is the assumption that LeMond was clean - not that I'm disputing that at all if it is the case as it's nice to know there was a clean interlude at the top of the sport.

I've wondered that too, especially as Fignon admitted to it.

a proper cycling [s]hero[/s] dullard, in my eyes.

FTFY.

Can't knock the guy's cycling credentials, but my word he was boring.

[quote=DanW ]The line is surely where various substances or methods introduce risk to the athlete.

Though CB reportedly couldn't take the drugs which would have been good for his health because they were banned - I'm not sure it's that simple.

(not trying to have an argument over this in case it comes across that way)

Completely agree aracer and it isn't black and white. I guess the example you make could be similar to a CT scan for example being "bad" for you healthy and carrying risks without clinical indications to do so but also very helpful for diagnosing certain medical issues. The metaphor falls down because X-rays aren't performance enhancing (out of the super hero universe 😀 ) but you get the point.

(not trying to have an argument over this in case it comes across that way)

Doesn't come across that way 😀 One of the reasons I find pro cycling so fascinating is that these types of discussions are a good reflection of wider society... plus the racing is pretty damn entertaining 😀

So how many people have taken creatine? Surely there must be some on here.

😆

what about creatine, what about using recovery drinks, where exactly is that line?

But we were discussing:

[quote=DanW ]

I've no doubt that significant numbers are taking stuff which will be banned when the gamekeepers catch up.

He's called Lancelot ffs. Alarm bells should have been ringing from birth.

Do those of you who follow road cycling think the sport is still riddled with doping?

Though CB reportedly couldn't take the drugs which would have been good for his health because they were banned - I'm not sure it's that simple.

A lot of people on this thread seem to be taking the position that it was LA's character rather than the cheating that the issue.

I think that misses the point.

LA was clearly an exceptional individual. Driven, intelligent, articulate and utterly ruthless but also charismatic and persuasive. Given these qualities he could have chosen another path. He could have been the one speaking out about doping and people might have listened. He could have personally changed cycling for the better.

But he chose to win at all costs instead.

richmtb - Member

He could have been the one speaking out about doping and people might have listened. He could have personally changed cycling for the better.

The only reason people paid him any heed was because he was winning. He'd probably have been yet another midpack rider nobody remembers if he'd not doped.

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]

Though CB reportedly couldn't take the drugs which would have been good for his health because they were banned - I'm not sure it's that simple.

Apparently not in this case. Of course this is a link to another bit of the internet, so that presumably makes this an internet fact
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/0,3604,380917,00.html

Yawn, more hate for the already ruined Armstrong, meanwhile lets keep repeating the legends of Pantani, Merckx, Coppi, Simpson etc etc as if they are better.

Sorry fella, but they are better than armstrong.
He is an utter c*** simply because he attempted to destroy the lives of anyone who suggested something wasn't right.
That to me makes him one of the worst.
The cheating is a totally different thing and yeah as people have said a lot were doing it.

My issue is that Armstrong is ruined, there is no benefit to getting angry at him, its done, the federal case will bury him financially and he has no reputation beyond that of a cheat. Meanwhile Merckx has his picture on every bike cafe wall and Pantani is portrayed as some tragic rock star. You can't selectively ruin cheats just because one was mean, I reckon St Eddy would get pretty nasty if journalists started asking him how often he used and if he ever raced clean, of course he is too well connected and 'special' to attack even though he was the one who introduced Armstrong to Ferrari.