Armstrong charged with doping.

Hopk1ns – Member
If he is convicted then the general public will just see cycling as à cheaters sport.

mrlebowski – Member

To sum up, I think he probably was a a doper…Personally I hope he’s not convicted, the World needs heroes & sometimes the ones we get are the oes we deserve.

Best just to sit with our fingers in our ears then? Just stop testing? Make other exceptions cos we feel like it?

C’mon guys 🙄

deadlydarcy – Member

Ah right, just read like you’d made your mind up already; based on circumstantial evidence and allegations.

Oh, I pretty much have – at least in the sense that I think there’s too much, too consistent information for him not to have been doping. Of course, if things come out in the trial that refute that to my satisfaction, I’ll change my view. But then I’m not in charge of convicting him so my burden of proof isn’t as rigid as it rightly will be for the hearing(s!).

FWIW, some time back, I did have the opposite view so I’m quite happy to change my mind based on latest information.

I’ll admit to biking on dope…. didn’t really help. 😯

Altho on ‘shrooms it was an absolute hoot. 😛

Oh god al – you really do live upto your name don’t you..

LA’s innocent till proven guilty. My suscipions regardless. No fingers in my ears period. I’ll wait till a court convicts him before I judge him.

Proof rumoured or otherwise needs to be PROOFED.

As I said, sometimes we get the heroes we deserve I.e. they come with baggage.

I’ll be happy to admit he’s a doper if he’s proved to be so – will you admit he’s clean if he’s not convicted?

But this is where it gets confusing. His charity work. There’s no doubt he’s raised awareness for cancer & a lot of money too. BUT there’s also a very convincing argument that his foundation hasn’t been much more than a tax-exercise for LA. I’ve read some very compelling arguments suggesting so..

I’m sure he uses the foundation to optimise his own tax position but I suspect all that means is that his tax dollars are directed to cancer research and treament rather than going into general taxation.

It’s quite some stretch though to say that the Foundation “hasn’t been much more than a tax-exercise for LA“

See more detail here: http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/lance-armstrong-foundation-in-austin-tx-3996/conclusions

[/quote]
LAF provides grants for cancer survivorship research; grants to community organizations; delivery of cancer survivorship education and support services; and grants to survivorship centers at academic medical institutions. In addition, LAF focuses on building partnerships with other national organizations and individuals to enlist them in the fight to establish high quality services and policies benefiting those affected by cancer. LIVESTRONG® Young Adult Alliance works to improve the survival rates and quality of life for young adults living with cancer. LIVESTRONG® Survivorship Center of Excellence Network is an initiative to create and maintain a network of survivorship centers that fosters collaboration to increase the impact in cancer survivorship. LAF funds programs initiated at community-centered non-profit organizations and agencies that cover topics such as general cancer survivorship education and support, physical activity, exercise and nutrition for cancer survivors, and pain, palliative and end-of-life care. LIVESTRONG® SurvivorCare provides cancer survivors with information, referrals, case management and patient navigation, allowing them to identify and address critical cancer-related issues and communicate with their health care team. The program assists cancer survivors in managing the physical, emotional and practical aspects of their cancer experience, including psychosocial support, patient navigation services, and matching to cancer clinical trials.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, LAF’s program expenses were:
Grants and programs 13,485,452
Education and program development 7,268,168
Grassroots advocacy 3,800,251
Programs and policy 1,962,285
Government relations 997,955

Total Program Expenses:$27,514,111

I’ll be happy to admit he’s a doper if he’s proved to be so – will you admit he’s clean if he’s not convicted?

That’ll never happen though, will it? Now the wheels are in motion he will be found guilty of something, no matter how small the sample, no matter how little direct proof there is. Probability will be enough for a conviction.

But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be.

One of the biggest obstacles to dealing with drugs in cycling is not the riders, but the attitude of the fans. It’s very difficult to see cycling really cleaning itself up when people are still prepared to overlook alleged cheating and “move on” because it’s “just entertainment” or “everyone’s at it”.

Competition is about striving to be first, within the boundaries set by the rules of the sport. You enter a race under those conditions, and if there are credible allegations that you have broken the rules, you will be subjected to the disciplinary process.
In Armstrong’s case, the authorities are doing their job. They allege that their is evidence of wrongdoing, they are laying charges, and it is up to Armstrong to defend himself. That’s the process, and whether anyone thinks it is good or bad for the sport is irrelevant.

Try a wee thought experiment. You’re riding a local race, and it’s come down to you and one other rider. As you approach the finish line, the other competitor swings a sneaky punch while no-one is looking, puts you into the hedge, and takes the win. I’m guessing most people wouldn’t be too happy with that outcome, and would not have a great deal of respect for the “winner”. Is there any difference if the other competitor beats you to the line because they used performance enhancing drugs?
Cycling is an open sport, and the same rules apply at any level. If you think this is just an issue for pro cycling, have a read of this:
http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/dan-staites-epo-positive-27221/
Personally, I want to race against other people on a level playing field, as defined by the rules of the sport. I don’t have any respect for people who actively choose to go outside those boundaries, and I want due process to be applied when cheating is alleged.
Let’s see what the outcome of the Armstrong case is.

Higgio I’m not saying it is – I just remember reading a very good thread on an American cycling forum with some very well argued points that suggested it was.

Like I said, I’m not judging the man…yet.

Arrrr you guys!

It is odd though how they do it two weeks from the tour. It just concerns me that its for the publicity. Who ever is leading the case probably has à big ego like lance. Great for their career.

Done for maximum publicity and not for cyclings benefit. Why now, why when the biggest race is about to start.

Good article in the Guardian about it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/jun/14/lance-armstrong-usada-doping-charges

I’m fed up of hearing about it. The same old stuff, wheeled out 2 or 3 weeks before the Tour. Every year, the same.
Let it go. Look forwards, clean the sport up. Picking on one athlete over and above others (like Bjarne Riis for example) is pointless and self defeating.

What next? Strip Virenque of all his Polka-Dot jerseys? Just tear up the whole bloody results list for the last 100 years? Looking back does no-one any favours, especially not with the one person in cycling that virtually every person on the street has heard of.

Not sure if it has been mentioned but wiping Armstrong’s records ’98-’11 would make Ullrich the winner of 3 TdF’s and Wiggins the runner-up of the ’09 tour.

Ullrich winning 3 TdFs would be hugely offensive.

How could any record adjustment in the event of LA being found guilty be attempted? After all this time how would you know which TDFs were ridden doped or not?

mrmo – Member

Are we to believe that Merckx was clean?

Merkx tested postive in ’69 and was thrown out of the Giro.
Giro di Lombardia in 1973:

“It was Dr Cavalli, of Molteni, who prescribed it to me a bit lightly [un peu légèrement]. And he admitted his error publicly. Looking back, I can’t see why they could disqualify me for such a ridiculous and inoffensive product as norephedrine*.”

1977 Flèche Wallonne:

“That, I can’t deny. I was positive along with around 15 others. I was wrong to trust a doctor.”

*removed from banned list in 2004

If you are found to have cheated – your wins should be wiped – doesn’t make the other 2 winners. Placing should be left open and winners money not paid to anyone who has doped.
Bored of all this histrionic revisionism.

Why dont we wait to see if he IS actually charged and convicted before slagging him off?

What do you think this thread is about if not about the fact Armstrong has been charged?

Even on a level playing field his achievements are awesome.

By level you mean everyone cheating??
True but he does get a fair degree of mileage for his image and his “charity/publicity machine” based on his cleanness

I used to be an Armstrong fan, I hoped he did not dope and that all the naysayers were wrong.
Having read much on the subject I now don’t believe he can be and am saddened by that.

This is pretty much my view
To much evidence IMHO – though most circumstantial – many who have admitted cheating never failed a drug test at the time either for example

Its funny how some of the proven cheats bring out books after they are convicted. I suppose if you add thé name of the most well known cyclist then you’ll sell xxxxx number of extra copies.

Might sell just as many if they declared he never cheated and they snuck around behind his back, perhaps all his team were cheating and that well know n non control freak LA just did not know what was going on with the team he handpicked to support him to won the tour.

I suspect all that means is that his tax dollars are directed to cancer research and treament rather than going into general taxation.

It barely funds any research or treatment and it promotes “awareness” and “survivability” as your own link proved – what was your point?

DD you are correct but there is so much dirt thrown in his general direction it seems , on the balance of probabilities, that he , like many other elite cyclists at the time , cheated.

the alternative is that members of Lances team cheated , the one he hand picked to win him the tour, he , know for not being a control freak or a details person, was oblivious to this, every other major competitor cheated, many associated with him then slowly started lying about his cheating in order to discredit him.
However LA alone was so god damn great he could beat the cheats anyway and everyone else is just jealous of his awesomeness

Another thought on this..(Im having a good day – multiple thinking stuff going on!)

The evidence wasnt good enough for a US Attorney to prosecute but its good for USADA? I have to admit Im scratching my head over that one a little bit…UNLESS there is new evidence?

or a lower standard of proof?

there was rumours about political interference in the us attorneys investigation and decision to drop it as criminal charges were being prepared.

I do hope they have something more tho or else it will fizzle out

mrlebowski – Member
I’ll be happy to admit he’s a doper if he’s proved to be so – will you admit he’s clean if he’s not convicted?

Innocence through lack of proof of guilt – it means he’s innocent in the eyes of the law, as I said above, along with amny others, there’s too much evidence the other way IMO for me to believe this.

I’m sorry but if good lab work proves he was doping then there isn’t anything to argue about.

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

It would be good for cycling (and all sport) if we look for cheats, shame them, prosecute them and remove them. Regardless of how long it takes.

Cheating is not sporting and letting it go by unchallenged is bad for sport.

I do hope they have something more tho or else it will fizzle out

You’re just desperate for him to be found guilty aren’t you?

There are zero positives in this (including zero positive dope tests against Armstong…)
LA is one of the few people that transcends cycling, he’s bigger than the sport; trashing him trashes cycling, and this has been going on for years. The focus should be on catching dopers now. If he doped then as I pointed out earlier he definitely wasn’t the only doper in the peloton so its essentially pointless.

Thats one of the most damming pieces of evidence crikey.

Inadmissible as the samples are old and the wada code does not allow for retrospective testing

People claim the accusers all have agendas – I don’t know what Ashendens agenda could be

REALMAN “Armstrong being found guilty in any way would be bad for cycling. I like cycling. So I choose to believe that Armstrong is innocent. I choose to believe he was a fantastic athlete and an awesome inspiration. It’s a good feeling. If you don’t like him, that’s fair enough. But wanting him to be found guilty is wanting bad things to happen to cycling. For the greater good and what not, it would be better to let him be. The only good that can come from him being found guilty is for a few grumpy old men on internet forums to have a massive “I told you so” orgy, and I’m not even sure that’s a good thing. Besides, Lance has the best tweets.”

Having a laugh???

Well Said, in total agreement with you there

Love the irony – it is ironic? isn’t it??

I don’t have any issues with Lance, but I do have issues with the so-called “pinnacles of achievement”, the role models, those who inspire, (whether cyclists, other sports stars or other public figures), when they are not actually what they are portrayed as.

If he is / was a worthy champion, he should be vindicated as such.

If not, he should be exposed as a fraud, stripped of his titles and prosecuted.

Quite simple really.

crazylegs – not quite what I meant ( i realised afterwards tho thats how it sounded)- what I meant was it is pointless going after him again without new and strong evidence. No one wins if its just the same old he said she said.

No point in grandstanding – either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up

Reckon we should be dope testing some posters the way they crack on about stuff and always seem a bit cranky. I mean no vehement anti-dope poster would even remotely have a history of illegal drug usage would they……….

TJ: apologies, I misread your earlier comment.

No point in grandstanding – either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up

Agreed.

For the people saying ‘let it go’, it’s worth pointing out that some of the allegations in the USADA letter specifically relate to doping practices “…through to the present”

Bruyneel Johan – currently manager of Team Radioshack Nissan Trek
Pedro Celaya – currently doctor of same team
José Pepi Marti – currently trainer at Saxo Bank

Lance Armstrong – currently winning Triathalons

crazylegs – it wasn’t clearly expressed hence the clarification – ta tho

Innocence through lack of proof of guilt – it means he’s innocent in the eyes of the law, as I said above, along with amny others, there’s too much evidence the other way IMO for me to believe this.

Fair enough, thats your opinion – I can respect that.

either have the stuff to nail him good and proper or shut up

totally agree.

this isn’t just about Lance Armstrong. Doping isn’t done by an individual, there are Doctors and others who may still be involved in the sport and in my opinion it is them who need to be found out and dealt with appropriately.

Um, everyone asking for ‘evidence’ might want to read through the actual letter that was sent out, and look at the number of times eyewitnesses have said they saw EPO, blood transfusions, Testosterone, Human Growth hormone, Corticosteroids,saline and plasma infusions being used by Lance.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf

I’m just wondering what the real motive is for USADA to prosecute him. The fact that he’s walked away from quite a high level of investigation with no conviction shows that he’s either clean or very good at getting away with it.

I don’t really buy the whole ‘witch hunt’ idea, unless Sheryl Crow has some very influential friends.

Maybe they’re trying to break the culture of secrecy up a bit.

Either the testing shows it or it doesn’t.

Personal testimony is worth what someone is getting out of it, either reduction or absolution for their crimes or something for seeing the rest fall.

I think bust any one for whom there is a valid sample for any performance enhancing drug now on the list. Regardless of whether it was banned at the time they were engaged in trying to attain an unfair advantage and so are guilty of perverting the rules of fair play.

Nah, too tricky to do and would cause too much litigation I’d imagine. “Sorry, you didn’t win the TdF in 1980 because we’ve decided to ban lucozade this year, but it was perfectly legal when you won.”

Though it does bring up a question to me – when does something become banned? Presumably there are many millions spend every year in all sports to be the best – nutrition, fitness regimes, equipment etc. – when does a cocktail of vitamins every day turn from good to bad?

These will be the last charges he has to answer IMO, its about as high as it can go.

So, lets all walk away from this thread and all agree to abide by the decision made!

The really interesting thing is not Armstrong, not even Bruyneel, or any of the dodgy doctors…

The really interesting thing is the UCI; Hein Verbruggen and Pat McQuaid must be looking through brochures for retirement homes right about now, because if Armstrong and Bruyneel go, there are some very searching questions going to be asked about Armstrongs ‘donations’ to the UCI.

Kimmage was right.

Check out the list of dopers

merckx, Freddy Maertens, tommy simpson, moser, pedro delgado, fignon, sean yeates..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

there are some very searching questions going to be asked about Armstrongs ‘donations’ to the UCI.

Good point. MAJOR repercussions that go beyond LA, Postal & Floyd..

I think there is a small chance Lance may be in for a fall here.

That said, his allegedly Livestrong funded legal team are powerful and too many important parties stand to lose out in a big way.