BREAKING Report: Lance Abandoning Fight vs Doping Charges, TDF Titles Gone

Totally concur Tor. I think alot of the Lance apologists have never looked at the mountain of circumstantial evidence against Lance. People need to spend 20 minutes googling Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, George Hincapie, Jonathan Vaughters, Frankie Andreu, Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson, Emma O'Reilly, Stephanie Mcilvain, David Walsh, Pierre Ballester, and others to get the whole massive picture. This is a no brainer, but apparently we have a bunch of Sarah Palin's commenting on this board.

sandybeaver wrote:

What most people don't get about Lance doping is that it doesn't matter. Cycling is so dirty throughout that if you're clean, you don't make the Tour at all. The playing field is fairly level. This is why I have

1) accepted a long time ago that Lance doped,

2) have no problem with it at all.

the sport has been rotten to the core for years. Scottish cyclist Graham Obree was sacked from his TdeF team for refusing to take drugs.

"But the pros were so glib. It wasn't like, how was your flight, or what did you have for breakfast - it was what did you use for the hour record?

"I was like, what? And they would say, who was your doctor? I'd say, oh, a GP in Irvine. And they'd say, no no - who's your doctor? Who's your trainer?

"I'd say, I don't have a trainer. They'd say, what did you use? I'd say - nothing. And I could see their impression of me going down and down. They're thinking - 'amateur'.

"That opened my eyes. You'd heard all the stories about drugs, but you'd dismissed them. And here it was, almost openly being done.

"I must have had five or six different invitations to get involved in the process of doping - from teams, doctors, people who knew somebody.

"We all knew who was doing what, years before they were getting caught. And we all know people who didn't get caught.

"It was like two worlds - we knew what was going on, but we weren't meant to tell anyone outside our world. But I didn't want to be part of it. I didn't want to be involved."

But my career was cut short because of other people's drug-taking. To put it more bluntly, my career was cut short because I wouldn't take them.

"I wasn't accepted; I was considered a risk to have in a team. I was considered a loose cannon, so that was it - wallop. Persona non grata. And I couldn't even say why at the time, because I would have been sued.

"I know that there's still a big pile of it going on, and it's so hypocritical that I can't stand to watch these guys come past. Their ilk in that sport have robbed me of my career.

Azia wrote:

Totally concur Tor. I think alot of the Lance apologists have never looked at the mountain of circumstantial evidence against Lance. People need to spend 20 minutes googling Tyler Hamilton, Floyd Landis, George Hincapie, Jonathan Vaughters, Frankie Andreu, Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson, Emma O'Reilly, Stephanie Mcilvain, David Walsh, Pierre Ballester, and others to get the whole massive picture. This is a no brainer, but apparently we have a bunch of Sarah Palin's commenting on this board.

Exactly. I meant to sign my previous post... Tor (former fanboy). A number of years ago I was steered to the Clinic on cyclingnews and my eyes were opened to the harsh reality. I guess I always suspected that he was a doper (it was just too good to be true), but "it was such a great story." So many of us only knew Lance via SI, Outside, etc. Everyone was riding the Lance $ machine.

To the commenter (many pages ago) who wrote that we are "fools on the world stage" for what has happened to Lance. You couldn't be more wrong. Much of Europe has suspected that Lance was a fraud for a long time. Walsh and Kimmage wrote about Lance being a doper years ago. The French have long suspected he was cheating, but Lance used the anti-French feeling in the U.S. (started by his ex buddy George W) to trigger emotions with his fan base. Look around at today's press from around the world, there is no question on whether or not they think he is guilty, yet in the U.S. some journalists are still throwing softballs.

Lance = biggest sporting fraud in U.S. history!

I think Lance made a huge PR mistake giving up this fight. Now the story has finally got traction with the general public when it all of us understood the situation all alone.

Dumb Engineers wrote: Uncivil. Try reading your own links.

"USADA said it expected cycling’s governing body to take similar action, but the International Cycling Union was measured in its response, saying it first wanted a full explanation on why Armstrong should relinquish titles he won from 1999 through 2005."

Uncivil Engineer wrote: Not sure what you're having trouble with here. USADA has in fact officially stripped Armstrong of his Tour victories. Elsewhere in this thread, which you are probably too attention-starved to digest in its entirety, I have pointed out that the USADA clearly does not have the final say in the matter. Sorry for your confusion.

You are the worst type of engineer possible. One that can't read. You are alone, sadly.

USADA "expects ICU action"

ICU "wants a full explanation"

It is asking too much, of someone like yourself, to understand that someone wants someone else to do something, and the someone else says not so fast.

Does this mean that all the riders that were promised immunity or a shorter retroactive ban in order to testify against Lance are now screwed?

I was close enough with a famous cyclist to be in the know when he was asked to dope upon joining his first professional cycling team. It was a dope or be dropped from the team moment and it was totally devastating to this person who eventually relented and took his fame on those terms. Lance was on that team. Enough said. So I have known that Lance, and the peleton, doped for a long time. It annoyed me then and still does, although I watched, and was thrilled by, every one of the 7 victories.

Lance is an arrogant jerk but is liked by some for it. So was/is Michael Jordan. Lance is unethical. He lies while looking straight into the camera. Many others who were never busted are also unethical. Some are jerks and some are not. Some were champions and some finished in second place and some were just trying to stay at or near the top level of their sport.

Who exactly is going to get Lance's 7 TdF titles? Second place? Please. I'm curious to read the narrative that the riders themselves provide in light of this. I think we'll be reminded of the Patriots "Spygate" scandal -- remember that very few coaches had anything to say about Belicheck's behavior because they all had spying systems to stay competitive. The riders tearing Lance down were/are either forced to or are clamoring for attention, or dignity, or they really feel that this is what is required to change the sport for the better. Let's see.

If Usain Bolt or Rupp had a positive test then yes, I would be against him. If Gatlin tested positive again then the USADA gave him a reduced sentence only if he testified against Bolt....I would not put as much weight into it. I am no expert, but I believe this is considered coercing a witness and is not admissible in court as evidence.

What does evidence does this new investigation have that the 2-year investigation that was dropped did not (which the USADA assisted in)? Did they not have witnesses before? How about that blood test? You cannot tell me they did not have this information during the last investigation that was dropped.

Why won't the USADA "submit to the parties concerned (Mr. Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken"? If their case is a slam dunk, why not?

If the UCI will not strip Lance of his titles because the USADA will not send them the appropriate information, why should Lance waste time and money fighting this if it really does not amount to anything anyway?

How does Lance Armstrong not wasting time or money to fight the USADA mean he is guilty of all charges? That is like saying that because Mayweather will not fight Pacquiao, Mayweather is scared of losing and therefore is not as good as Pacquiao.....Nope just means Mayweather will not fight. Or because Pacquiao will not take a drug test immediately before a fight with Mayweather, Pacquiao is guilty of doping.

I will never say Lance did not dope as most riders even the great Lemond probably did at some point, but you have to have hard evidence to make a guilty charge. The USADA dispite what they have said so far has not provided any of this evidence or shown how this evidence differs from the previous investigation.

Dumb Engineers wrote:

USADA "expects ICU action"

ICU "wants a full explanation"

It is asking too much, of someone like yourself, to understand that someone wants someone else to do something, and the someone else says not so fast.

I still don't know why you are struggling, other than the fact that you appear to be one of the waterheaded skeptics who fails to accept that Lance unquestionably was dirty (what the penalty should be isn't my concern).

Yes, I know that USADA wants the ICU to uphold its decision. A child could figure that much out, given the rudiments of the subject matter.

ALL I SAID is that USADA has officially stripped Armstrong of his TdF victories. I wrote this in response to Randy Oldman's expressing doubt (rightfully so) about USADA having the authority to do so.

I think it's you who can't read what was at the other end my my link. Here is the opening sentence:

"The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency erased 14 years of Lance Armstrong’s career Friday — including his record seven Tour de France titles — and banned him for life from the sport that made him a hero to millions of cancer survivors after concluding he used banned substances."

Hence, USADA, at their end and by their standards at least, "made it official."

Now please don't waste any more of our time with irrelevant sidebars and noncontributory babble.

gonchar wrote:

Exit question: What incentive and why would USADA have such a bitter vendetta against Armstrong?

I do not know, but they clearly do as they ran roughshod over their own statue of limitations to charge him.

Not to be negative, but... wrote:

USADA is on the chopping block for many politicians who are looking to trim the government budgets.

Proof? I could certainly be mistaken, but the IOC requires sports (and countries) to maintain an anti-doping agency. Do you think the U.S is going to give up the Olympics because Travis busted an American icon? Not a chance.

Who receives his titles now?

Jan Ulrich? - Doper

Marco Pantani? - Doper

Alexander Vinokourov? - Doper

Ivan Basso? - Doper

etc. etc.

Any sport that sanctions and welcomes doping will die a slow, financially nasty death. Not right away, but a slow fade, destined to a life at some less-than-obscure cable channel.

Doper for Doper, I think your question has been answered numerous times on here. NO ONE claims the titles during those 7 years. No Tour Champions during that very black time in cycling. Basically, those years should be voided, wiped away from the Tour history.

Interesting for me (in the US) to read an international (non-US) take on it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/aug/24/how-lance-armstrong-strongarmed-cycling

The Guardian pretty much has what I would consider the "rational" view. They're wrong about one thing - they underestimate the (majority?) support for Lance in the US.

Americans are collectively taking leave of our senses. Is it the schools? Too much TV? Junk food? I don't know, but I'm worried.

Mr. Bass,

I'll try, but might be wrong on a few points.

Marion Jones never tested positive. Do you think she was railroaded by the process?

I think this idea of coercing witnesses has been a Lance sound bite. We don't know, but eyewitness testimony is often used to convict someone. My take from USADA statements is they have other evidence as well.

Feds were not pursing doping charges. Their case was more difficult. We also don't know why it was suddenly dropped. Rumors circulated that the investigators were very confident the grand jury would rule in their favor. Evidence was presented to the GJ, but the case was dropped. On cycling sites, there has speculation that it was political. Maybe the Feds were simply worried about the difficulty of proving the charges.

I wouldn't be so confident about the UCI (or ASO?) not stripping Lance of his 7 titles. The IOC will likely expect UCI to respond to the USADA's case.

USADA has followed the guidelines to a T. There has been no lack of due process despite Lance and his lawyers claiming otherwise. They were going to get access to the evidence based on the written protocol - the same protocol that others facing arbitration have used.

As others have posted, the USADA does have every intention (and this is within their rights) to release their evidence "at the appropriate time." They still have 3-4 others who have asked to go to arbitration. Naturally, they will not release evidence until others have had their chance in arbitration. My guess is most/some of the others will decline. They are stuck. Bruyneel needs cycling for employment. He's fu*ked with a lifetime ban. But if he goes to court, ALL the evidence becomes public domain. I hope one of the others takes their case to arbitration, then perhaps the Armstrong apologists will stop the bullish*t argument that this isn't fair.

As you say, if there isn't hard evidence, Lance should have liked his chances in arbitration. Lance was toast and he knew it, but this gives him the best opportunity to spin the narrative. Just look at the ridiculous comments on this thread (not yours, BTW).

gonchar wrote:

Exit question: What incentive and why would USADA have such a bitter vendetta against Armstrong?

People forget USADA wasn't going after just Lance, they were going after 5 "big dogs" associated with doping, kind of like going after a Mafia boss or a Cartel drug kingpin. They flipped the small fish (Hamilton, Andreu, Hincapie, Landis, Vaughers, etc.) to get to the big fish.

The big five they went after:

- Lance

- Johan Bruyneel, team manager

- Luis Garcia del Moral, team doctor

- Michele Ferrari, consulting doctor

- Jose "Pepe" Marti, team trainer

All had been accused by USADA of participating in a vast doping conspiracy on those teams during part or all of Armstrong's seven Tour victories from 1999-2005.

Reminds me of modern day prosecutions of RICO statute, i.e., cut the head off the snake.

The Lance stuff is all the same old news. They all cheated for years and

he was the only one they couldn't catch at the time. Finally they have

enough evidence now. Who cares anymore? He won all his titles against

competitors doing the same thing at the time. The people who run the

anti doping just want to make a name for themselves and get in the

newspapers. I bet if they had samples from Mercyx, Hinault, Indurain and

the rest of the multiply TDF winners they would fine the same thing,

just different drugs...

Did he dope, probably. However, even those in authority who believe he doped believe this has been a flawed process. Armstrong was smart to avoid arbitration, has he lost his titles, no. USADA must now present their evidence to the UCI in order to have the titles stripped. There is no middle ground for Armstrong, either you love him or you hate him. I think those of you who hate him on this message board need to expand your horizons a bit and look at other message boards for reaction. Being part of these message boards I would say that right now he has 75% of the people in his corner wondering how in America a person can be proven guilty without a proper trial. So once the dust settles, I think at most you will see him lose 2 titles but not all 7.