So what do you guys think?
-
***Text Box Error UPDATE*** Folks- we were able to fix the underlying issue with the missing text box on the forum. Everything should be back to normal. - Honcho
Lance Armstrong
- Thread starter BD
- Start date
As far as whether to believe him when he still says he's innocent,
I'll just say that he was at the top of one of the dirtiest sports.
I'm glad the US Anti-Doping Agency cared enough to bring the case
against him to this point. Agencies in some other countries bend
to pressure from politicians and sponsors.
- Joined
- 5 August 2011
- Messages
- 401
Loved him in Dodgeball.
I usually couldn't care less about this sort of thing but since I'm local and have met Lance a couple times I'll throw in my two cents:
1. Lance is a "bit" of a jackass. My girlfriend during college was at a party with some football players and Lance showed up. Lance was married to Cheryl Crow at the time. He spent the entire night aggressively trying to talk college chicks into sleeping with him; one of which was my girlfriend and I's friend (gorgeous blonde, Lance does have good taste in women).
2. When I helped run the largest valet company in Austin, Lance parked with us about every other weekend. Most of the time he was cordial but I had more than one report (the 18 accounts reported problems/crashes/etc. to me) of Lance being a total jerk. Celebrities are generally quite kind to valets.
3. Despite the above and my obvious personal opinion, I think it's ridiculous they have been terrorizing this guy for what seems like a decade now. He is one man. He doesn't have infinite resources to defend himself. The Olympic committee is the organization harassing him and this has nothing to do with the Olympics. He probably did use at least blood enhancers (every top level Olympic athlete uses these FWIW) but if there isn't enough evidence to "convict" him during the first several years of hassling him, let him be!
4. I can't help but feel even if he is innocent this same outcome would have occurred. Something about that doesn't sit right with me. I probably would have given up after years of trying to defend myself as well. To tear the medals away from the guy that spends a lot of his time going to cancer wards telling kids they can be champions like him is just bull $hit. If the physical evidence of 100's of blood tests is meaningless toward his defense, what the hell is the point of them?
In conclusion, I don't particularly like Lance. I also think he probably used at least blood enhancers and at least some of this teammate's testimony is based on actual events. I do not, however, like the idea of anyone being the victim of this degree of harassment without any physical evidence against him. The guy had no chance and now realizes he fought for year after year in vain.
1. Lance is a "bit" of a jackass. My girlfriend during college was at a party with some football players and Lance showed up. Lance was married to Cheryl Crow at the time. He spent the entire night aggressively trying to talk college chicks into sleeping with him; one of which was my girlfriend and I's friend (gorgeous blonde, Lance does have good taste in women).
2. When I helped run the largest valet company in Austin, Lance parked with us about every other weekend. Most of the time he was cordial but I had more than one report (the 18 accounts reported problems/crashes/etc. to me) of Lance being a total jerk. Celebrities are generally quite kind to valets.
3. Despite the above and my obvious personal opinion, I think it's ridiculous they have been terrorizing this guy for what seems like a decade now. He is one man. He doesn't have infinite resources to defend himself. The Olympic committee is the organization harassing him and this has nothing to do with the Olympics. He probably did use at least blood enhancers (every top level Olympic athlete uses these FWIW) but if there isn't enough evidence to "convict" him during the first several years of hassling him, let him be!
4. I can't help but feel even if he is innocent this same outcome would have occurred. Something about that doesn't sit right with me. I probably would have given up after years of trying to defend myself as well. To tear the medals away from the guy that spends a lot of his time going to cancer wards telling kids they can be champions like him is just bull $hit. If the physical evidence of 100's of blood tests is meaningless toward his defense, what the hell is the point of them?
In conclusion, I don't particularly like Lance. I also think he probably used at least blood enhancers and at least some of this teammate's testimony is based on actual events. I do not, however, like the idea of anyone being the victim of this degree of harassment without any physical evidence against him. The guy had no chance and now realizes he fought for year after year in vain.
Now its a clouded issue at best.
Seems like all the top professional sports, they are all heros until they get busted. Love watching the Tour every year and hate to see Landis, Alberto, Tyler...etc get caught but Lance apparently passed many many test during his days.
It does seem "nearly impossible" to beat cancer and win THE toughest race in the world so many times. I am not well versed to know all the details except what I can read from difference sources. I read in a cycling mag that he has very high VO2 Max and low heart rate, as it should with these guys, and his body produces ~20% less latic acid compare to his peers at the top of their game. That is very unusual. Is it true? there were no data or charts to proof. but, we have no business to know such sensitive data to offer an edge to his competitors. They say something like one in every 200k people are like him....so, who knows for sure.
I don't how they measure that and if all that is true, he just keeps on going like a machine and recovers more quickly than anybody else for the next day and win.
They also said new PED are invented all the time and the governing body is always playing catch up to catch the offender. Ya, its a dirty sport for sure.
After watching him race, plan, prep, strategize, focus, train, compete ...etc.etc., He is a rare breed indeed and I am glad I got to watch him all these years. So now we will never know the real truth and I like to remember him as a real athlete competed in a real sport.
I have not followed this entirely and dont care...but it seems he was busted on "hear say" and no solid evidence.
If there was no concrete evidence against him I doubt he woul just give up fighting. I think most people who are the best in the world have had a little "help" along the way.
Hope he took Cheryl Crow "to school" every chance he had.
I think it became a personal vendetta by the USADA and Lance got tired of making lawyers rich(er). Not saying that he didn't do something but he passed literally hundreds of drug tests while Landis, Hamilton and others ALL got caught. IMO, if the French didn't catch him, he was probably "clean" according to the rules and testing procedures of the day because they wanted him BAD. I do agree in that he was at the top of one of the dirtiest sports going (although baseball is catching up) so either he was/is a physiological freak or his chemists were just better.
If the USADA wants to claim victory on the basis of hearsay evidence only, so be it but the whole thing just reeks of petty partisan politics, just like Congress. Sad...
- Joined
- 18 June 2011
- Messages
- 232
These are my exact thoughts and feelings.
There's a sense in which I see these lab tests as secondary. First and foremost is
a culture where athletes have the character to hold to the rules they agree to.
Once the culture becomes corrupt -- as it did in competitive cycling -- we are
already screwed, and rules/testing will have a hard time changing anything.
Laws in general have the best chance of working in a society that is already largely
honorable. If cheating is rampant, and if cheaters are determined to fight a
drug-chemistry arms race to stay ahead of the tests being used, then yes
the tests become of less value--and the cheaters deserve a large share
of the blame for that state of affairs.
We are so used to technology working that it is frustrating when it doesn't.
But where does the idea come from that a lab result is essential to establish guilt?
Eyewitness testimony can and does convict people in many types of proceedings;
why shouldn't it here? By all accounts, the USADA had an impressive group of
witnesses prepared to testify.
As far as whether it makes sense to take Lance's medals away, he got them
by participating in sports with clear ground rules. What work he does for
hospitals, commendable though it is, has no bearing on whether he deserves
the medals from racing.
Would the same situation have played out if he were innocent? I wouldn't expect
to see ten ex-teammates ready to testify against him if he hadn't done
anything wrong.
sahtt, you say it looks to you like Lance probably did engage in at least some
forms of doping. If he did, then his continued denial of the charges against him
(which he called "heinous" and a "charade") is just more lying. And bear in mind that
it was likely a group effort, with a team of people helping him to ensure secrecy and
to dope in ways that would evade detection. I think he asked for the trouble he got.
The chart says it all, showing how bad the sport is.
Cycling's doping era
<TABLE sizset="18" sizcache="8"><TBODY sizset="18" sizcache="8"><TR><TD align=middle>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-armstrong-cycling-20120825,0,7389543.story
Cycling's doping era
<TABLE sizset="18" sizcache="8"><TBODY sizset="18" sizcache="8"><TR><TD align=middle>
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-armstrong-cycling-20120825,0,7389543.story
doping is a funny thing, imho if only a select few get to "cheat" then yes not fair,but if everyone is allowed to "dope" then the winner is still the winner.Giving any and all chemicals to the average cyclist is not going to allow him to get through 1 mountain stage let alone 10.I feel the same about body building.
What 90% of the population don't understand about this case is that:
1. Lance had to give the USADA an answer whether he would attend the forced arbitration or not. As Lance's legal team lost the battle in Texas court to throw out the USADA arbitration he had no choice but to attend the arbitration or throw in the towel. Do a search on the USADA process of arbitration and how "one sided" it is...
2. USADA has not provided Lance's lawyers, media or the UCI (governing body of professional cycling) any evidence that Lance actually doped. As far as anyone can tell right now the USADA was solely relying on testimony of ex-riders who could be jaded or have something to gain from testifying against Lance. The USADA broke its own rules in giving these witnesses a deal of no sanction or prosecution in order to testify.
3. The USADA needs to now provide proof to the UCI who does have the ability to strip Lance of his results. Even though the media is reporting that the USADA has stripped him of his results the UCI needs to agree. So far they have not until the proof is provided.
It will be interesting to see whether or not they have proof...
1. Lance had to give the USADA an answer whether he would attend the forced arbitration or not. As Lance's legal team lost the battle in Texas court to throw out the USADA arbitration he had no choice but to attend the arbitration or throw in the towel. Do a search on the USADA process of arbitration and how "one sided" it is...
2. USADA has not provided Lance's lawyers, media or the UCI (governing body of professional cycling) any evidence that Lance actually doped. As far as anyone can tell right now the USADA was solely relying on testimony of ex-riders who could be jaded or have something to gain from testifying against Lance. The USADA broke its own rules in giving these witnesses a deal of no sanction or prosecution in order to testify.
3. The USADA needs to now provide proof to the UCI who does have the ability to strip Lance of his results. Even though the media is reporting that the USADA has stripped him of his results the UCI needs to agree. So far they have not until the proof is provided.
It will be interesting to see whether or not they have proof...
^^^^^^^^^Damn nice sig.
That's what I have read so far as well. I'm not a fan of Lance Armstrong not because of this issue, but what he did during the last election cycle, where he sponsored/promoted a bill in california which could have put me out of business.
I find it hard to believe that if he is completely free of doping, why would he stop fighting it?
He's been paid handsomely through endorsements and sponsorship and I don't think the sponsors can get the money back. He is retired and is still super wealthy. I can't imagine this guy stop fighting if there is a law that will force him to return all the sponsorship/endorsement money if found guilty.
Someone did point it out, even with doping, it is still a feat to win 7 Tour de France. A very interesting point.
Irrespectivegardless :smile: I'll just throw this out. My company was in a pretty basesless and frivolous lawsuit that lasted 9 months. The lawyers fees were $150,000 per week. You do the math. BTW my company won and the charges were dismissed. That's a lot of money to try to prove/pay for your innocence.
If I understand correctly, if the person who initiates the law suit and loses, they are obligated to pay for the attorney fee for both sides.
Nothing that has not been said before but the guy was the most tested athlete in the history of sports. When Bradly Wiggins won the TDF this year they were already talking about doping with him. They really wanted Lance bad because #1 he is American and #2 he won the race seven times!! I think if they look into anyone's life hard enough you are going to find some dirt. The thing is they looked and looked and looked some more for seven years and could not find anything. I don't know if Lance doped. He really is a freak of nature. He was a professional triathlete at 16 years old and (if he was doping ever) I doubt he would have been doing it then. If nothing else the Statute of Limitations should have expired on Lance since he won his last TDF in 2005.
I've been wearing a LiveStrong bracelet for the past eight years and will continue to do so.
I've been wearing a LiveStrong bracelet for the past eight years and will continue to do so.
This USADA isn't federally funded, right? God I hope not.
This is just my humble opinion, and I confess I don't know all the evidence there is against him. I have read that he did not fail any drug tests and the evidence is testimony from former teammates and a blood profile.
In all racing, the goal is to seek every competitive advantage you can get, right up to the limit. In auto racing, that means studying every rule and designing your car to exploit every loophole to the best advantage. In sports medicine, I would think this means studying a list of banned and tested drugs and using everything else that does not cause you to fail the test.
What it seems like is the rules for Lance seem to be enforced in the absence of concrete evidence. If he did take banned substances and still passed the drug tests, I would fault the testing and the way the rules are applied, not the competitor. It was his doctor's/coach's job to give him the nutrition/supplement program to win, and the one of the criteria was to pass any tests, which is what he did. I can't fault him for that.
I have to admit my view is influenced by a book called "Cheating" which chronicles the creative ways NASCAR racers have cheated and how the organization got better at policing. What NASCAR doesn't do is retroactively take away titles many years later. You win in the environment and situation that was present at the time.
In all racing, the goal is to seek every competitive advantage you can get, right up to the limit. In auto racing, that means studying every rule and designing your car to exploit every loophole to the best advantage. In sports medicine, I would think this means studying a list of banned and tested drugs and using everything else that does not cause you to fail the test.
What it seems like is the rules for Lance seem to be enforced in the absence of concrete evidence. If he did take banned substances and still passed the drug tests, I would fault the testing and the way the rules are applied, not the competitor. It was his doctor's/coach's job to give him the nutrition/supplement program to win, and the one of the criteria was to pass any tests, which is what he did. I can't fault him for that.
I have to admit my view is influenced by a book called "Cheating" which chronicles the creative ways NASCAR racers have cheated and how the organization got better at policing. What NASCAR doesn't do is retroactively take away titles many years later. You win in the environment and situation that was present at the time.
Yeah no shit...
