Lance Armstrong at Center of Cycling's Most Sophisticated Doping Program, Officials Charge

Umm..

So everyone in cycling USED to dope. Yawn.

So if everyone doped, who was cheating and had an unfair advantage to win? Shame that all the Tour winners have been stripped when they competed fair and square against other dopers. It was top international competition and doping was considered a scientific advantage BEFORE it became illegal. Tough to stop 50 years of practice in one day.

Need to move forward. Glad we have new processes in place.

We used to do lobotomies too. Used to be racially segregated. we have moved on and focused on how we can make life better going forward. We are cleaning up the sport now. The past had a different context.

Querfeldein wrote:

LETS MF RUN wrote: Based on the physical evidence, he is still a 6 time tour de france winner. And besides, most of the evidence for his other doping violations were mostly by witness testimony as well.

No he isn't. You yourself quoted three separate incidences of doping for which there is physical evidence. Someone caught doping three times would have probably received a 1 year ban on the first instance, a 2-4 year ban on the second instance, and a lifetime ban on the third instance. The history of cycling would have played out very differently, but there is no way he would have been able to win 6 tour titles, even if you only rely on the physical evidence for doping.

No. There was no way they would find out he had taken EPO in '99 until after his career was over. Assuming UCI knew he failed in 2001 at Tour de suisse, he would have missed a year max, maybe less due to his notability. That still leaves him with 5-6 titles.

Rupp/Farah.

If Nike are continueing to support Armstrong .... do they also support ahtletes doing similar..[/quote]

Lagat.[/quote]

READ THE REPORT... YOU NEED TO WAKE UP!

Nutella1 wrote:

Nutella1 wrote:

Vandevelde, Leipheimer, Hincapie, Zabriskie, Landis, ... all former teammates, all testified against him.

I forgot Hamilton.

Trivia: is there any former teammate besides the redneck that has not testified against him?

Livingston. work in Mellow Johnnies' basement as a texas version of what Ferrari was supposed to be : a trainer.

I bet Lance has some non-doping dirt on him. Not unlikely involving Becky Livingston, who on the 1999 home video appears to be a stunning beauty, cuter than Olivia Newton John, and just Lance's type (look at his list of exes, see a pattern? And compare Lance's mother's picture).

I don't understand turn incredulity surround LA's lack of response to all of this. The fact remains that the guy almost died from cancer and everything in his life since that time has been gravy. I'm not sure I fault him when you consider:

-the cancer point above.

-the fact that ALL of his main rivals did similar drugs and/or doped

-his public image and success allowed him to start Livestrong, bring attention to the fight on cancer and raise some money for it (who knows how much really but it's at least something)

LA may be a flawed human being in many respects, but the points above make it perfectly understandable why he may either (1) feel justified being self righteous and (2) just not care what anyone thinks about him or his legacy. Ultimately it's a calculated decision on his part to do what is necessary (not admit to cheating) to ensure that Livestrong continues to operate and he can justify his income and public image through the fight against cancer.

The big question is what is Nike's stance going to be on all this? Isn't there a Lance Armstrong building on the Nike campus? Not exactly the type of role model you would want to align yourself with, huh? Same goes for all of his other sponsors. Are we going to be seeing any more Michelob Ultra commercials featuring this proven (yes, "proven" -- read the report, moronic naysayers) liar and drug cheat? For that matter, given what we now know about Kristin Armstrong's role in her husband's doping regimen, what is Runner's World magazine planning on doing about the revelations? (Not that I ever understood why she was hired as a columnist in the first place).

No. There were a few clean riders. Some such as Bassons were stronger than Virenque when both were clean.

THEY would have been top contenders had the whole peloton have been clean. THEY were cheated, as was every clean riders out there at any level of racing.

There are victims here, and they need to be vindicated. So lazy to just call of a whole era after so much money was made (stolen) and lied together followed by a formal race.

FIND THE CLEAN FINISHERS!

you don't need a cheater to be aware of cancer.

you don't need a selfish, rude liar to exercise and be healthier by riding a bicycle.

lance is not a doctor that treats cancer patients.

lance is not a scientist who is looking for new drug treatments.

you don't need to give money to livestrong. there are other cancer foundations.

i'm tired of this dumb lance brat.

What a lot of you fail to understand is that everyone at that level in Europe is not clean. People are acting like Lance was the only one. EVERYONE did it when he raced and everyone is still doing it.

You just can't train or race like we did week in and week out without some pharm.

You can see that a lot of people here haven't read the report.

Once you read the report, there's no doubt, Lance is a HUGE douchebag. Just a terrible, terrible person. All the cancer work is a front.

And where in that report does it say that LA had a positive test? Maybe I missed it the first time through.

I could care less one way or the other about LA, but if I was going to be accused of drug use - I would expect them to have real evidence - video, audio, positive lab tests. All I see is a lot of cyclists that said what was needed to be said to save themselves and then a fairy tale.

Stupid People wrote:

And where in that report does it say that LA had a positive test? Maybe I missed it the first time through.

You're just like your hero, lying! If you had read the report, you'd seen the part about the positive tests.

Stupid People wrote:

And where in that report does it say that LA had a positive test? Maybe I missed it the first time through.

I could care less one way or the other about LA, but if I was going to be accused of drug use - I would expect them to have real evidence - video, audio, positive lab tests. All I see is a lot of cyclists that said what was needed to be said to save themselves and then a fairy tale.

Search for the information about the 1999 positive at the TdF for a corticosteroid with the backdated TUE. That was a positive test. There are lab results and scientific data in the full 1000+ pages but I haven't worked my way through all of that.

the problem with the "it was an even playing field and lance was still better" argument is that it wasn't even. lance's whole team were involved and based on the report, it was required to dope to ride on his teams. other team's didn't have that requirement even if their leader did. cycling is a team sport. an entire team that is doped is much stronger than a team with one or two doped guys.[quote]Mr. Obvious wrote:

Look, I think Lance doped all through his career just like the rest of pro peleton. Pro cycling should be considered entertainment first and foremost, just like pro wrestling. But this USADA report is a bit of a joke.

Start with the very first paragraph that USPS had the "most sophisticated, professionalized, and successful doping program the sport has ever seen." That may or may not be true, but we certainly can't find evidence to support it in the body of the report, because that's not what USADA actually investigated. They didn't compare USPS' program to ONCE's or T-Mobile to get the kind of evidence to back up such an assertion. So why make such a hyperbolic statement right off the bat? This sort of sensationalism unfortunately carries right through the rest of the report.

Same with TT's trumping up of the "eyewitness" part of the evidence. When you actually look through the report there's precious little "eyewitnessing". Lots of "I heard this" or "someone told me that". Never is there an "I saw Lance use PEDs". No new scientific evidence. The same old 1999 testosterone test and (still unconfirmed) Tour de Suisse unreported positive still stand as the most compelling "hard" evidence. Just like they did before this report.

How much tax money did this just cost?

Regarding your first paragraph... all sports should simply be considered entertainment as PED use is rampant in every sport. Should we do nothing to fight PED use? Are you pro-cheating? Feel the same about T&F?

"Trumping" up evidence? If there is no evidence, why didn't Lance go to arbitration? He's fought every other accusation that has come his way, why suddenly give up now? Do you honestly believe 20+ people have come together to bring Lance down? Lance has never hesitated to take others to court - why not now?

Tax dollars? Yeah, USADA gets about 3 cents per U.S. citizen. Do you realize the IOC expects each country to have an independent anti-doping agency? Do you expect the UCI to control PED use in cycling? IAAF in T&F? A quick look at the USADA site indicates they have sanctioned quite a few athletes. Have you ever been concerned about anti-doping tax dollars before Lance?

DanTheMastersMan wrote:

Never is there an "I saw Lance use PEDs".

Yes there is, read the report.

No new scientific evidence.

Yes there is, read the report.

How much tax money did this just cost?

Less than 0.1 cents per tax payer. I'd be glad to send you a penny for your part. Post your postal address and I'll get it done tomorrow.

I feel sorry for Lance's kids. I remember seeing her daughter taking flowers to his hero dad in one of his Triathlons. Now that the Hero is back to zero, it must be so hard for the kids.