Looks like this sad story is finally over.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-ends-fight-against-doping-charges-losing-his-7-tour-de-france-titles.html?pagewanted=all
While I'm not surprised and have thought for awhile he's a bit of a douche, it's not a happy day for cycling.
Not really over so much. There's still the fact that he tested clean every single time. I'm not saying he wasn't using, everyone at that level was using as much as they could get away with, him included. The thing is that as far as I can read into it, he's being stripped based on the testimony of others that have been caught, not on the basis of test results.
Basically, they've bullied him into giving up. Why would any get into cycling if they're just going to find you guilty of doping?
By the same standards who's to say that earlier title holder weren't doping in the days when testing for it was more difficult?
I kind of assumed when he cheated on his first wife that he wasn't above cheating at bicycle racing. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but I sure believe he could.
Personally I think the retroactive crap is a bunch of BS.
They should just say "if we can catch you within the time period between events, you will be stripped of that title."
I'm pretty Greg Lemond doped. So did Maurice Garin. Are you going to start point fingers at every winner?
What people BELIEVE shouldn't have anything to do with it. Nor should testimonies.
Tests, and tests only.
Disgusting.
After all this time, i would have thrown in the towel, too.
I wanted to believe Lance, but he sure looks guilty. He gave up because they had 10 teammates lined up to testify against him.
Did you guys ignore the part where he tested positive in '99 and came up with a "backdated" prescription?
Or where it said his blood tests were consistent with markers found in other blood doping conspirators?
/don't care either way, just stirring the pudding
If an organization has tests in place but does not believe they are accurate so they then destroy the most famous champions of their sport outside that process...
Congratulations on making your sport irrelevant to anyone!
z31maniac wrote: Did you guys ignore the part where he tested positive in '99 and came up with a "backdated" prescription? Or where it said his blood tests were consistent with markers found in other blood doping conspirators? /don't care either way, just stirring the pudding
There's a difference between "consistent" and "positive." Any highest level athlete would probably come up as "consistent" due to extreme conditioning, whether they doped or not.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: If an organization has tests in place but does not believe they are accurate so they then destroy the most famous champions of their sport outside that process... Congratulations on making your sport irrelevant to anyone!
This.
I saw the editor of Bicycling magazine on CBS news this morning. He said that even he is 100% convinced that Lance did what he is accused of doing.
When asked if the yellow jerseys would be awarded to the second place finishers in the seven TDFs that Lance won, he said that they have each been found to have been dirty as well.
Given the history of the sport, I suspect that each of the TDFs that Lance won, would have been won by the best "cheating" cyclist there.
Woody wrote: I saw the editor of Bicycling magazine on CBS news this morning. He said that even he is 100% convinced that Lance did what he is accused of doing. When asked if the yellow jerseys would be awarded to the second place finishers in the seven TDFs that Lance won, he said that they have each been found to have been dirty as well.
That's the thing. Lance apologists act like it is some sort of witch hunt against Lance. It isn't. They nail tons of people.
Otto Maddox wrote:Woody wrote: I saw the editor of Bicycling magazine on CBS news this morning. He said that even he is 100% convinced that Lance did what he is accused of doing. When asked if the yellow jerseys would be awarded to the second place finishers in the seven TDFs that Lance won, he said that they have each been found to have been dirty as well.That's the thing. Lance apologists act like it is some sort of witch hunt against Lance. It isn't. They nail tons of people.
They don't really spend decades going after others, though.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
Has anybody ever kept fighting back like Lance?
I think the important part here is that US tax dollars are being spent by the USADA to go after people for decades though. What a berkeleying waste of money.
I don't understand (from a business perspective) what de-throning past champions accomplishes if a majority of the field were doping and all you are doing is erasing past race results.
They should be focusing on ensuring that they have absolute confidence in the results of a race. If they suspect it after the race - too late. It's in the books. If you cannot trust your testing - get better testing. Fans AND SPONSORS need confidence you are no going to berkeley up their heros or they will not come to spend.
Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: Has anybody ever kept fighting back like Lance?
Why shouldn't he? Tests were all good save for the one, which admittedly was a little sketchy.
And either way... who gives a E36 M3 at this point? He's got nothing to prove at this point.
He either:
A) Is a cancer survivor that won 7 times clean against a field of dopers
or
B) Is a cancer survivor that won 7 times doping against a field of dopers.
If i were in his spot, with the ridiculous bullE36 M3 that goes on in this sport, i would have thrown in the towel as well, knowing that really, it's probably more damaging to this ridiculous organization and the sport itself than it would have been if he continued fighting.
Because after 10 years of "he said she said" crap without proof, i'd be feeling pretty vindictive.
^You have 5 posts in this thread already. 
z31maniac wrote: ^You have 5 posts in this thread already.
One more after this one and i can be the Lance Armstrong of this thread, right?
A couple of points.
Passing a drug test means only one thing; that you passed a drug test. It does not mean that you have not taken drugs. It is relatively easy to design a doping program that will not get you caught. Following it consistently is the challenge and is why most people get caught.
There has been a fair amount of research into the idea of blood/urine markers that would indicate doping even if you have not found banned doping agents. I've been out of the loop for awhile, but I know there were several labs looking into this and I believe a few publications in peer review. The idea is that it's impossible to keep abreast of all the possible doping agents. Looking for indications of doping give one a tool to combat the drug of the month mentality.
I'm out before Celica gets stripped after his seventh post. 
You'll need to log in to post.
