|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 1, 2012 11:19:12 GMT -5
Huge difference IMO. Johnson got caught when doing a test. Just like Landis, did the test, failed, you're busted. Armstrong never tested positive, and now 10 years later, the USADA is claiming "new evidence"... I'm just questioning why they also stripped him of the 1987 achievements, when he obviously didn't test positive then, if he was tested at all. I recall Carl Lewis was doing an awful lot of public complaining and alleging back then....as Johnson was beating him regularly. In 2009, Lewis also suggested that Bolt and the other Jamaican sprinters were suspect. "Wow, that’s a huge improvement in a year. And in the 100m it’s gone from ten flat to nine seven. It’s a huge improvement."
"We’ve (Americans) dominated and then all of a sudden, one Olympics and these Jamaicans come along and run these crazy times and performances and all of a sudden everyone says now they are the fastest. It’s like everyone just lays down.
"Really, it’s ridiculous."Yeah, the American sprinters have all been clean...  ...talk about ridiculous. How about this tidbit from 2003.... Olympic legend Carl Lewis is among more than 100 American athletes involved in a cover-up of drug use, documents reveal.
Lewis and two of his training partners all took the same three types of banned stimulants and were caught at the 1988 US Olympic trials, according to the documents released by a disgruntled former senior US anti-doping official, Dr Wade Exum.
But on appeal to their national Olympic committee, all were cleared of inadvertent doping. Two months later, at the Seoul Olympics, Lewis finished second in the 100 metres sprint. But when Canadian Ben Johnson failed his Olympic drug test, Lewis was awarded the 100m gold.
Lewis also won the Olympic long jump - as part of his career tally of nine Olympic gold medals - and his training partner, Joe De Loach, won the 200m in Seoul.
Lewis's lawyer, Martin Singer, has responded to the revelations by saying his client had taken only a herbal remedy.
"Carl did nothing wrong," Mr Singer told The Orange County Register. "There was never intent."
The latest documents show Lewis tested positive for the banned stimulants found in cold medications: pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine.
The World Anti-Doping Agency's chairman, Dick Pound, dismissed the "no intent" defence. Mr Pound has seen copies of the documents and said that in some instances there was almost "automatic forgiveness" by the US officials.
Letters written by a US Olympic Committee executive, Baaron Pittenger, were sent advising some athletes of their positive drug-test results - and at the same time told them they were being cleared.
"It's got to be pretty embarrassing to the USOC," said Mr Pound, "to have their secretary-general writing in the letter, where he advises an athlete of a positive A sample, 'I have to send you this, but we already decided this was inadvertent.' That whole process turned into a joke."
Dr Exum said there were more than 100 positive tests for US athletes who won 19 Olympic medals between 1988 and 2000, but many were allowed to keep competing.Imagine that....the best masking agents are your own officials AFTER you've tested positive....at least in some countries. I won't get into specifics, but I view Carl Lewis as a failure, not only as a track star, but as a human being as well. Not only did he jump on Ben Johnson after Johnson tested positive, he was part of what I remember reading as part of The Dirtiest Race in History. As your article pointed out Lewis tested positive for steroids but he hasn't been stripped of anything. Nay, he was actually awarded another gold medal. But, even if it was proven he cheated did the American media hang him out to dry? No, but they had no problem whatsoever jumping on Ben Johnson.  Lewis was already jacked at the time this photo was taken. What about Lindford Christy? He tested positive and did the British media hang him out to dry? No, but they, too, jumped all over Johnson. Convenient, he? From an article this year. [url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/olympics/4432926/David-Cowan-gives-Olympics-best-drug-testing-system-ever.html[/url] The poster boy.[/url] I feel badly for Lance Armstrong, but I have no sympathy for him if he is, indeed, guilty. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 1, 2012 13:58:14 GMT -5
At least Canada has some integrity left in its sports ethics....re: the Dubin Inquiry being formed after the Johnson debacle. Ben admitted his wrongdoing and is still suffering the consequences of cheating. And so it should be, IMO.
But I do understand why athletes use illegal substances. If they want to win, knowing that their competition is cheating, what are the other options? Hence the masking agents, excuses, denial, etc.
Oh what a web we weave... An apt adage if ever there was one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 1, 2012 15:05:05 GMT -5
Well, until these countries start using their own ethics many countries such as Canada will continue "doing (their) best" as Chris de Burgh would say.
Still, while Johnson was publicly executed for the first offence, he did get busted again. After all of the fuss he still didn't learn. Like you said, our athletes see others getting away with it and all they want to do is compete. I don't know if this was Johnson's reasoning or not.
Interesting that Johnson's nickname in the track circles back in the day was, "Benoid."
Don't know what Carl Lewis' nickname was, but he's still got all of his medals. And he was throwing tomatoes at Johnson too.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 1, 2012 18:24:20 GMT -5
Right on, Dis! Except it was tomato juice!
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 3, 2012 18:35:42 GMT -5
Tyler Hamilton--a former Armstrong teammate--has a dope-and-tell book, The Secret Race, to be released Wednesday, Sept. 5. In The Secret Race, Hamilton recounts that it took him about 1,000 days of riding clean as a rookie professional to reach the opposite conclusion, to cave in and take drugs to keep up with the other riders who were doping. He started by swallowing a capsule of testosterone — “a tiny red egg” — and later graduated to injecting the hormone EPO and storing and transfusing bags of his own blood to boost his endurance, performance and recovery.“Yes or no. In or out. Everybody has their thousand days; everybody has their choice,” Hamilton says.
Millar, too, resisted for a while, riding clean in this same era of cycling with two speeds, where those who doped overpowered holdouts who, for whatever reason, didn’t.
In Racing Through The Dark, Millar says that by 2001 he, too, “accepted that it was easier to dope than not to dope.”
Jonathan Vaughters, another former teammate of Armstrong’s, says he doped because it was either that or renounce his dream of riding the Tour de France in this era when cycling’s rules against doping were dead letters, largely unenforced or unenforceable because a test for EPO wasn’t validated until 2000 and because then, as now, there was no single test to spot self-transfusions.
“When I was racing in the 1990s and early 2000s, the rules were easily circumvented by any and all and if you wanted to be competitive, you first had to keep up,” Vaughters wrote this August in The New York Times. “This environment is what we must continuously work to prevent from ever surfacing again. It destroys dreams. It destroys people. It destroys our finest athletes.”
Hamilton’s accounts of doping with Armstrong when they rode together for the U.S. Postal team are the headline-generators for his book. Armstrong points to hundreds of drug tests he says he passed in arguing that he won his record seven Tour titles legitimately. Readers can make up their own minds who to believe.======================================================== From another article.Evidence of cheating, says Doug MacQuarrie, the chief operating officer for the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, is not solely reliant on laboratory detection which can flag a drug user immediately — as happened most famously with Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson at the 1988 Seoul Olympics.
“The reality under the (international) rules of doping is that there are eight ways to generate what is known as an anti-doping violation,” says MacQuarrie whose organization is the Canadian counterpart of USADA.
Flunking a drug test is only one of those ways.
“When presence (of a banned substance) is the issue and there’s a certified laboratory analysis, that is a very easy process to prove that A equals B (with a positive test).
“With the other violations, it is far more judicial. You have to go out and obtain evidence. The evidence has to be legitimate.”
That evidence can come from those closest to the athlete. Friends and rivals.
Inner-circle colleagues and teammates who witnessed, participated in or were counselled in performance-enhancing drug use or prohibited practices can provide powerful testimony. Particularly in a discipline like professional cycling that for years has been linked closely with dirty doctors, police raids and doped-up riders.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 7, 2012 15:27:20 GMT -5
Lance is lucky the USADA only stripped him from his titles and medals. They originally wanted to vote to agent his cancer out of remission too but it was voted down.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 7, 2012 18:05:20 GMT -5
Lance is lucky the USADA only stripped him from his titles and medals. They originally wanted to vote to agent his cancer out of remission too but it was voted down. Beating cancer is totally unrelated to cheating at a sport. No link at all. And beating cancer doesn't give one the license to cheat, either. Neither does starting a foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 8, 2012 8:54:53 GMT -5
I don't know, guys. I'm reading differing opinions on Armstrong. He was a roll model to a lot of people, but there are a lot of others who really regard this guy as an arrogant scumbag. Guess it depends on who you read. I don't know columnist Dave Golokhov at all, but he doesn't seem to like Armstrong too much. I don't like seeing stuff like this written about other people. More often I find that it's more about putting the columnist on the radar than it is about the person they're writing about. A story that just didn't go away. And the longer it draws out the nastier it gets. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 8, 2012 15:58:34 GMT -5
Lance is lucky the USADA only stripped him from his titles and medals. They originally wanted to vote to agent his cancer out of remission too but it was voted down. Beating cancer is totally unrelated to cheating at a sport. No link at all. And beating cancer doesn't give one the license to cheat, either. Neither does starting a foundation. I surprise myself defending Lance Armstrong. I don't do it for pragmatic reasons or becuase he's a nice guy. I don't think he really is a nice guy, but rather a cutthroat competitor. The tour de france rewards riders that let others do the hard work and then jump in fresh at the last minute to celebrate the victory, not unlike France in the world wars. My defense is simply, he won the race, he was tested and passed. Years later a group of riders accuse him of cheating and the victories are taken away. In hockey players cheat using illegal sticks. If members of the Kings say that Gretzky and McSorley used illegal sticks, do you go back and eliminate their names from the cups, invalidate their records and pretend they never played. Players cheat by diving and faking injury to draw penalties. If a penalty is called and later review shows that there was no contact, do you remove the powerplay goal. Not ater the next puck is dropped, the game is ended and 10 years have passed. Isn't there a statute of limitations? If Jack Nicklas clubs are examined and the coefficient of restitution is 1% over the USPGA limits, how many records are dropped. The difference between illegal stick and illegal doping is one of degree. Both are intended to enhance performance. Both make it more difficult for the competition to win. Leave Lances records intact, let him find another country singer girlfriend to cheat on. Bill Clinton lying to congress and cheating were far more serious infractions. He still was the 42nd President. There is enough evidence to convict Clinton and Nixon of treason and remove them from the history books, but it really doesn't make sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 8, 2012 23:13:22 GMT -5
Beating cancer is totally unrelated to cheating at a sport. No link at all. And beating cancer doesn't give one the license to cheat, either. Neither does starting a foundation. I surprise myself defending Lance Armstrong. I don't do it for pragmatic reasons or becuase he's a nice guy. I don't think he really is a nice guy, but rather a cutthroat competitor. The tour de france rewards riders that let others do the hard work and then jump in fresh at the last minute to celebrate the victory, not unlike France in the world wars. My defense is simply, he won the race, he was tested and passed. Years later a group of riders accuse him of cheating and the victories are taken away. But see my post above which explains that flunking a test is only one of the several ways you can generate an anti-doping violation. The testimony and evidence from inner-circle colleagues and teammates is another of those ways....and it appears the 10 of them had built quite a case. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Sept 10, 2012 12:32:28 GMT -5
Beating cancer is totally unrelated to cheating at a sport. No link at all. And beating cancer doesn't give one the license to cheat, either. Neither does starting a foundation. The tour de france rewards riders that let others do the hard work and then jump in fresh at the last minute to celebrate the victory, not unlike France in the world wars. Majorly off topic, but I just had to remark this point. In the First World War, France had about twice the casualties of the UK and about 20x the casualties of the US. Further, France had more military casualties in the First World War than all US casualties in all their wars combined, including the civil war. How is this not doing the hard work? |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 10, 2012 14:45:35 GMT -5
I just can't generate any moral outrage here. This is not a new story. Doping in cycling has been suspected & maybe even accpted for years. If Armstrong doped then so did a lot of his competition and like it or not, he did what he felt was necessary to win. It's not honorable but it's commonplace & something I've suspected abou him for years.
Just because this agency is recommending he be stripped of his titles means nothing to me & probably won't mean much to the guy who came in second because he will have to be investigated too.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 10, 2012 17:28:55 GMT -5
The tour de france rewards riders that let others do the hard work and then jump in fresh at the last minute to celebrate the victory, not unlike France in the world wars. Majorly off topic, but I just had to remark this point. In the First World War, France had about twice the casualties of the UK and about 20x the casualties of the US. Further, France had more military casualties in the First World War than all US casualties in all their wars combined, including the civil war. How is this not doing the hard work? Actually, if anyone is to be accused of jumping in late after others did the hard work, it's the US.... WWI was largely won by France and the UK, with a major contribution by Russia before the revolution. WWII was essentially won on the Russian front, the US jumped in in time for some glory, but the credit should go to all those (dead) Russians. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 10, 2012 18:32:40 GMT -5
I just can't generate any moral outrage here. It's not honorable but it's commonplace & something I've suspected abou him for years. Isn't asserting dishonour a level of "moral outrage"? A lot of his competition DID get caught....even some of his own teammates....and they all paid the price. Why should Armstrong continue to bask in glory and fortune if he cheated in the same manner? The governance of cycling, the Olympics, and other major sporting events will likely never have the perfect system in place to catch all the frauds and cheats....but as long as they have caught some and still have the rules in place to catch more, then they have to act whenever such instances come to light, IMO. Why they cheat is a given...but they do so knowing full well there are severe consequences if found out. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 10, 2012 19:32:16 GMT -5
There is a principle in the law that a man can not be tried for the same crime twice and there is a statute of limitations. Armstrong cheated, there is little dispute.
He was tested continually and passed.
1. It doesn't matter if he is a good guy or not. If he cheated, is caught and convicted, he is guilty.
2. The race is over. There is no do over. A winner was declared they can implement improvements in testing but they can't redo the race or award a new winner.
3. The concept of a three week race with teams, drafting, multiple winners in
Various categories all supports cheating and questionable values.
4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once."
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Sept 10, 2012 20:39:02 GMT -5
4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once." Broken record alert... ----- On an unrelated note, CO and mods, is there a way to ban a poster from posts as we see them so we don't have to endure their repetitive, offensive and pointless posts? |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 10, 2012 20:40:48 GMT -5
There is a principle in the law that a man can not be tried for the same crime twice and there is a statute of limitations. If that applied to this case, Armstrong would be using it...and there would be no course of action against him. Obviously, it does not apply.... That's his only defense.....and it doesn't wash....which is why he can still be "pursued". “The reality under the (international) rules of doping is that there are eight ways to generate what is known as an anti-doping violation,” says MacQuarrie whose organization is the Canadian counterpart of USADA.Flunking a drug test is only one of those ways.
“When presence (of a banned substance) is the issue and there’s a certified laboratory analysis, that is a very easy process to prove that A equals B (with a positive test).
“With the other violations, it is far more judicial. You have to go out and obtain evidence. The evidence has to be legitimate.”
That evidence can come from those closest to the athlete. Friends and rivals.
Inner-circle colleagues and teammates who witnessed, participated in or were counselled in performance-enhancing drug use or prohibited practices can provide powerful testimony. Particularly in a discipline like professional cycling that for years has been linked closely with dirty doctors, police raids and doped-up riders. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 10, 2012 23:53:49 GMT -5
There is a principle in the law that a man can not be tried for the same crime twice and there is a statute of limitations. Armstrong cheated, there is little dispute. He was tested continually and passed. 1. It doesn't matter if he is a good guy or not. If he cheated, is caught and convicted, he is guilty. 2. The race is over. There is no do over. A winner was declared they can implement improvements in testing but they can't redo the race or award a new winner. 3. The concept of a three week race with teams, drafting, multiple winners in Various categories all supports cheating and questionable values. 4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once." You can keep saying he passed , it doesn't make it true. Lance had many questionable tests that authorities suspected where suspicious, and retested when technology allowed them. They even contacted Armstrong and his team, and they tried not to have them retested .... If the race is over, then why do many Olympic athletes lose their medals, not only immediately afterwards, but many years later. The Tour de France is no different .... If you have to award it to the 42nd place finisher before you find a clean winner, so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 11, 2012 8:58:17 GMT -5
There is a principle in the law that a man can not be tried for the same crime twice and there is a statute of limitations. Armstrong cheated, there is little dispute. He was tested continually and passed. 1. It doesn't matter if he is a good guy or not. If he cheated, is caught and convicted, he is guilty. 2. The race is over. There is no do over. A winner was declared they can implement improvements in testing but they can't redo the race or award a new winner. 3. The concept of a three week race with teams, drafting, multiple winners in Various categories all supports cheating and questionable values. You can keep saying he passed , it doesn't make it true. Lance had many questionable tests that authorities suspected where suspicious, and retested when technology allowed them. They even contacted Armstrong and his team, and they tried not to have them retested .... If the race is over, then why do many Olympic athletes lose their medals, not only immediately afterwards, but many years later. The Tour de France is no different .... If you have to award it to the 42nd place finisher before you find a clean winner, so be it. I don't care if he passed all of them.  Again, the "test" is only one of EIGHT ways to generate a violation. The testimony/evidence from teammates and inner-circle personnel is the one that applies now. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 11, 2012 9:41:47 GMT -5
The tour de france rewards riders that let others do the hard work and then jump in fresh at the last minute to celebrate the victory, not unlike France in the world wars. 4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once." As has been pointed out already...these assertions are simply not true....and could be seen as quite offensive to those of French descent or to those who lost ancestors in those wars. A quick look into military deaths in both wars shows the following. --In WWI, France suffered nearly 1.4 million military deaths. --In WWII, France suffered approx. 217,600 military deaths. (almost 5X Canada's amount.) In both wars, France was directly involved right away...so in neither war did France jump in at the last minute to celebrate a victory. Their surrender to Germany on June 22, 1940 should do nothing to detract from the bravery of their soldiers....many of whom continued to fight as the Free French. The Free French fought Axis and Vichy troops, and served on battlefronts everywhere from the Middle East to Indochina and North Africa. The Free French Navy operated as an auxiliary force to the Royal Navy, and there were Free French units in the Royal Air Force, Soviet Air Force, and British SAS. Wiki No more of these false statements, please. |
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Sept 11, 2012 11:20:08 GMT -5
I just can't generate any moral outrage here. It's not honorable but it's commonplace & something I've suspected abou him for years. Isn't asserting dishonour a level of "moral outrage"? A lot of his competition DID get caught....even some of his own teammates....and they all paid the price. Why should Armstrong continue to bask in glory and fortune if he cheated in the same manner? The governance of cycling, the Olympics, and other major sporting events will likely never have the perfect system in place to catch all the frauds and cheats....but as long as they have caught some and still have the rules in place to catch more, then they have to act whenever such instances come to light, IMO. Why they cheat is a given...but they do so knowing full well there are severe consequences if found out. There's no moral outrage on my part because most cycling fans probably suspected most riders were doping including Armstrong. IMO this is hardly a news flash. I'm not going to get worked up about a sport with that kind of reputation. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 11, 2012 12:00:07 GMT -5
Understood, jkr. Thanks for clarifying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Sept 11, 2012 13:39:51 GMT -5
The tour de france rewards riders that let others do the hard work and then jump in fresh at the last minute to celebrate the victory, not unlike France in the world wars. 4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once." As has been pointed out already...these assertions are simply not true....and could be seen as quite offensive to those of French descent or to those who lost ancestors in those wars. A quick look into military deaths in both wars shows the following. --In WWI, France suffered nearly 1.4 million military deaths. --In WWII, France suffered approx. 217,600 military deaths. (almost 5X Canada's amount.) In both wars, France was directly involved right away...so in neither war did France jump in at the last minute to celebrate a victory. Their surrender to Germany on June 22, 1940 should do nothing to detract from the bravery of their soldiers....many of whom continued to fight as the Free French. The Free French fought Axis and Vichy troops, and served on battlefronts everywhere from the Middle East to Indochina and North Africa. The Free French Navy operated as an auxiliary force to the Royal Navy, and there were Free French units in the Royal Air Force, Soviet Air Force, and British SAS. Wiki No more of these false statements, please. There were some soldiers in France who fought valiantly, qlost their lives and were genuine heros. I certainly do not want to disparage them or their memories. France was quickly defeated in the wars and they have long been a target of easy jokes. I want to make it clear that I do not want to discredit the true French heros that fought valiantly against overwhelming odds. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Sept 11, 2012 14:37:54 GMT -5
There were some soldiers in France who fought valiantly, qlost their lives and were genuine heros. I certainly do not want to disparage them or their memories. soldiers who fought valiantly? How can that distinction be made? France was not defeated in WWI. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 17, 2012 10:42:38 GMT -5
Armstrong steps down as chairman of Livestrong. Also...longtime sponsor Nike dropped him. ArticleIf he's innocent, he'd better start building a case, wouldn't you say? All of this occurring after the USADA released a report last week: ArticleThe reasoned decision document said: “USADA has found proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Lance Armstrong engaged in serial cheating through the use, administration and trafficking of performance-enhancing drugs and methods and that Armstrong participated in running in the US Postal Service Team as a doping conspiracy.
“Armstrong and his co-conspirators sought to achieve their ambitions through a massive fraud now more fully exposed. So ends one of the most sordid chapters in sports history.”
The former team-mates who gave evidence against Armstrong were Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis, Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie.
USADA claimed Armstrong, 41, supplied banned drugs to other riders on the team, pressured them into participating in the doping programme and threatened to get them removed from the team if they refused.
The document said: “His goal (of winning the Tour de France multiple times) led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his team-mates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own.”
It added: “It was not enough that his team-mates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping programme outlined for them or be replaced.
“He was not just a part of the doping culture on his team, he enforced and re-enforced it. Armstrong’s use of drugs was extensive, and the doping programme on his team, designed in large part to benefit Armstrong, was massive and pervasive.”
USADA praised the “courage” shown by the 11 riders in coming forward and breaking the “code of silence”.
They said: “Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long-running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth.”=================================================== Appears as if he had his own little "Regime of Lance" going on...and it's now crumbing around him. If guilty, and it certainly appears so...(I mean, the only thing coming out of his lawyer is "hatchet job"..is that the best you can do, if innocent?)....I don't feel sorry for him one iota. You intimidate/threaten, cover-up, and lie ONLY when you know you're doing something wrong and will pay a hefty price if caught. What a web..... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Oct 17, 2012 19:09:06 GMT -5
Not often I nail one of these things .... Personally, I have always thought that Lance should be stripped of his victories, regardless of if he was using illegal substances or not. Why? Well, most avid cyclers, and cycling fans, are pretty quick to tell you (well, the ones I know anyway) that cycling is moreso a team sport than an individual sport. I've been told, that most riders are told they are there to support a particular teammate who is thought to have a chance of winning .... So if Lemond, Hamilton, and Landis were doping to keep up with Armstrong, and give him a chance to win (drafting, protecting him in the peloton and so forth) then whether Lance doped himself or not, his victories were aided by doping/cheaters. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 18, 2012 14:08:25 GMT -5
Seven sponsors have parted ways. Article1. Nike 2. Anheuser-Busch (Michelob) 3. Trek bicycles 4. 24-Hour Fitness 5. FRS (Sports Drink) 6. Honey Stinger (Energy Foods) 7. Giro helmets RadioShack said it's under no current obligations in a contract signed in 2009. In other words, they won't be using him. The empire is crumbling. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Oct 22, 2012 10:07:52 GMT -5
It's official. Stripped of titles, banned for life by the UCI. Apparently, this decision has "destroyed Armtrong's last hope of clearing his name." ArticleGENEVA - Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life on Monday after the International Cycling Union (UCI) ratified the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) sanctions against the American.
The long-awaited decision has left cycling facing its "greatest crisis" according to UCI president Pat McQuaid and has destroyed Armstrong's last hope of clearing his name.
"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. Lance Armstrong deserves to be forgotten in cyclling," McQuaid told a news conference as he outlined how cycling, long battered by doping problems for decades, would have to start all over again.
"The UCI wishes to begin that journey on that path forward today by confirming that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognize the sanction that USADA has imposed.
"I was sickened by what I read in the USADA report."
On Oct. 10, USADA published a report into Armstrong which alleged the now-retired rider had been involved in the "most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen".
Armstrong, 41, had previously elected not to contest USADA charges, prompting USADA to propose his punishment pending confirmation from cycling's world governing body.
Former Armstrong team mates at his U.S. Postal and Discovery Channel outfits, where he won his seven successive Tour titles from 1999 to 2005, testified against him and themselves and were given reduced bans by the American authorities.
"It wasn't until the intervention of federal agents...they called these riders in and they put down a gun and badge on the table in front of them and said 'you're now facing a grand jury you must tell the truth' that those riders broke down," McQuaid added.
Armstrong, widely accepted as one of the greatest cyclists of all time given he fought back from cancer to dominate the sport, has always denied doping and says he has never failed a doping test.
He said he had stopped contesting the charges after years of probes and rumours because "there comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'".
McQuaid, who faced criticism from several quarters for his and the UCI's handling of the affair, said he would not be resigning.
"Cycling has a future. This is not the first time cycling has reached a crossroads or that it has had to begin anew," he said in front of a packed room full of journalists and television cameras.
"When I took over (as president) in 2005 I made the fight against doping my priority. I acknowledged cycling had a culture of doping. Cycling has come a long way. I have no intention of resigning as president of the UCI.
"I am sorry we couldn't catch every damn one of them red handed and throw them out of the sport."
Other issues such as the potential re-awarding of Armstrong's Tour titles and the matter of prize money will be discussed by the UCI Management Committee on Friday.
Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said he believes no rider should inherit the titles given doping was so widespread among the peloton at the time but McQuaid made it clear that that decision rested with his organization, not the Tour organizers.
USADA charged five people over the doping ring. Doctors Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari and trainer Pepe Marti have been banned for life while Armstrong's mentor Johan Bruyneel has chosen to go to arbitration along with doctor Pedro Celaya.
Armstrong's last hope that the UCI might not ratify USADA's ruling sprang from long-running dispute between the two bodies over who should handle of the case.
In statements issued at the news conference, the UCI continued the feud with USADA despite ratifying its decision.
"Even apart from any discussion on jurisdiction, it would have been better that the evidence collected by USADA had been assessed by a neutral body or person who was not involved in collecting the evidence and prosecuting the defendant," it said.
"This would have avoided both the criticism of a witch hunt against Mr Armstrong and the criticism that the UCI had a conflict of interest."
The UCI also said it had dope tested Armstrong 218 times and the fact he never tested positive and "beat the system" means that other organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency should share the responsibility of accepting the results.
USADA CEO Travis Tygart later issued a statement approving of the UCI's action but warning that more needed to be done.
"Despite its prior opposition to USADA's investigation into doping on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team and within the sport, USADA is glad that the UCI finally reversed course in this case and has made the credible decision available to it," he said.
"This determination to uphold USADA's decision on the U.S. Postal Services case does not by itself clean up cycling nor does it ensure the sport has moved past the obstacles that allowed doping to flourish in the age of EPO and blood transfusions.
"For cycling to truly move forward and for the world to know what went on in cycling, it is essential that an independent and meaningful Truth and Reconciliation Commission be established so that the sport can fully unshackle itself from the past. There are many more details of doping that are hidden, many more doping doctors, and corrupt team directors and the omerta has not yet been fully broken."
In recent years the Tour de France and cycling had looked to be winning the battle against dopers but when asked if the sport would one day be free of the scourge, McQuaid answered: "No."
There was no immediate response from Armstrong or his lawyers.
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) did respond, amid suggestions that Armstrong could be stripped of his 2000 Sydney Olympics time trial bronze.
"We will study UCI's response to the USADA report and await to receive their full decision including further potential sanctions against Lance Armstrong as well as regarding any ramifications to his case," an IOC official told Reuters.
"The UCI has announced that its Management Committee will meet on Friday to decide on further action in the light of today's statement. It is good to see that all parties involved in this case are working together to tackle this issue." |
|
|
|
Post by habernac on Nov 3, 2012 16:18:50 GMT -5
I defended the man for years but I am on the side who thinks the correct course of action has been taken. He's a terrible human being. He's ruined more than a few lies to try to keep his titles. Greg Lemond lost his cycling brand because of pressure from Lance. Trek decided to keep Armstrong instead. Frankie and Betsy Andreu, his former soigneur, numerous cyclists, all of them were brushed away and had to basically quit the sport due to Lance's influence. If you threatened to tell, he'd destroy you. I hope they all launch lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jan 17, 2013 10:56:47 GMT -5
There is a principle in the law that a man can not be tried for the same crime twice and there is a statute of limitations. Armstrong cheated, there is little dispute. He was tested continually and passed. 1. It doesn't matter if he is a good guy or not. If he cheated, is caught and convicted, he is guilty. 2. The race is over. There is no do over. A winner was declared they can implement improvements in testing but they can't redo the race or award a new winner. 3. The concept of a three week race with teams, drafting, multiple winners in Various categories all supports cheating and questionable values. 4. I was at a gun show where they had WW II rifles. "French Army rifles, good condition, never fired, dropped once." Now that we know how he continually passed those tests (reports are now surfacing that he bribed the people conducting the tests), has your opinion changed? And from what I am reading, he is only coming clean now because the statue of limitations on purgery has passed, and he realizes that even if he loses all future lawsuits, he wont lose half of the 100 million he is worth. I saw a show a couple of days ago that added up all his possible legal loses that might come and they figured he could lose about 20 million, maximum. Not bad ... cheat, lie, threaten, bribe, coerse ... make 80 million and not spend a day in jail. A true American hero. |
|
...talk about ridiculous. How about this tidbit from 2003....
Again, the "test" is only one of EIGHT ways to generate a violation. The testimony/evidence from teammates and inner-circle personnel is the one that applies now. 