Armstrong says he's broke and may file BK!

Tor wrote: Perfect moniker for this tired and overused defense of Armstrong's cheating. If there weren't clean cyclists, why did other dopers apologize to all the clean cyclists?

How do we determine when using PEDs is cheating or just "leveling the playing field?" Ben Johnson thought he was just doing what everyone else was doing.

I don't think it's a defense of his cheating. I think it's a statement of fact. How would you answer the question that was asked of Armstrong in the Oprah interview: (paraphrased) "Could you have won the TDF without doping?"

It goes without saying that Armstrong was one of the greatest cyclists in the world. The doping only ENHANCED his performance; it didn't CREATE his ability. We know that cycling is (or was) dirty and there seems to be an acceptance that the majority of competitors - at least the best ones - cheated. Again, with those things in mind, could Armstrong have won the TDF if he was the only favorite not doping?

If your answer is no, then you must also acknowledge that his PED use leveled the playing field.

as it turns out no one on the us postal service team was particularly promising before the use of EPO. Lance actually failed to finish the tour multiple times, his best overall position was 97th and then he droped out at stage 12(92), so there is really slim evidence to suggest that he was "one of the greatest" unless you mean a$$hole, or doper.

False. You are correct about the liens, but taxes and levies are routinely removed by bankruptcy. Many tax bills do not have recorded liens, so the point is moot there.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/bankruptcy-tax-debts-eliminating-29550.html

Broken Record wrote:

Could Armstrong have won the TDF if he was the only favorite not doping?

If your answer is no, then you must also acknowledge that his PED use leveled the playing field.

Armstrong's natural hematocrit level was lower than for the average male (39 versus 45). Back in the era when he was winning, the UCI would allow a maximum hematocrit level of 50.9. So Armstrong was able to raise his level by 30 percent, whereas the typical rider was only able to raise his by 13 percent.

Armstrong "leveled the playing field" only in the sense that he was able to eliminate a natural weakness. If everyone had been riding clean, Armstrong's low hematocrit level would have prevented him from recovering day to day and from winning in the mountains. That's probably what Lemond meant.

Talk all you want about bankruptcy and homesteads and hematocrits, etc. etc. blah blah blah, but where Lance Armstrong belongs is P-R-I-S-O-N. REAL PRISON, not "Club Fed," not house arrest....REAL PRISON, where lunch is a bologna sandwich and a cup of kool-aid, and where large men will look at his a$$ and mouth and go "mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm."

What the entire US Sports Industry needs to do is even the playing field by requiring 2 years in a Federal Prison for all

positive tests. That should cut down on positive tests in a big hurry!!!

this just proves you cant make alot of money as an elite shotput athlete. what a shame...

His crimes completely overshadow anything positive he did. He literally cheated his way to fame and fortune. All. Based. On. A. Lie. What does this teach people. That the end justifies the means.

fdahad wrote:

Good news.

Yes it is. He can file and keep his assets, thereby remaining a millionaire. Which he deserves. Had he been politically protected, like say Bernard Lagat, nothing would ever have happened to him. Please stop with the bunk broscience "false positive" story. WADA and the IAAF told Bernie and his agent to SHUT UP or the behind closed doors story would come out.

There's been a lot of talk about cleaning up sports, but here and there an athlete is named, and then it becomes old news rather quickly. Even the villainous Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens ended up getting off lightly. Armstrong? There must be more to the story for the campaign against him to gone on for so long, no matter how big a cheat he was. Likely he was made an example for "sociological" reasons. Had Armstrong been from Central America, South America, Africa (except S. Africa), he would likely have been let off a lot easier, or possibly never even exposed in the first place. Such is the way things are today. Too bad Ben Johnson wasn't born ten years later. He'd likely have gotten away with it, just like Carl Lewis did for years, with the help of the US's "governing body". It's all a joke.

Where did he say this? Please provide a link.

Armstrong may be 'broke', but he's not like he's going to be downsizing to a used Nissan Camry any time soon. Being broke in the context of a person like Armstrong is very different from the meaning of broke for the rest of us.

As many have pointed out, it didn't have to be like this. There are many that came before him that have cheated in sport and in life to elevate their success. He chose a much more dishonest and destructive path that created a mountain of enemies and he now must absorb the cost of such behavior.

Actually your wrong, if he started Livestrong donated what he said he did to cancer, raced 7 tours inspiring generations, and was clean...I would agree. But he is the largest fraud in sports. So the charity and the wins cancel out with the lies and cheating, so you are left with a dude on the street who owns a bike shop and has a flock of kids. Not exactly earth shattering, and this is coming from a fan.

Dartmouth,

Least I didn't throw anyone under the bus and ruin careers and reputations of those who, years ago, merely told the truth.

DW wrote:

when he saw the lawsuits coming.. he probably just took out $10M+ and put it in a safe and had it burried in someones backyard.

How could anyone stop him from doing this? and how will they ever find the money?

You are a GD moron.

Actually your wrong, if he started Livestrong donated what he said he did to cancer, raced 7 tours inspiring generations, and was clean...I would agree. But he is the largest fraud in sports. So the charity and the wins cancel out with the lies and cheating, so you are left with a dude on the street who owns a bike shop and has a flock of kids. Not exactly earth shattering, and this is coming from a fan.

M. Pantani wrote:

Actually your wrong, if he started Livestrong donated what he said he did to cancer, raced 7 tours inspiring generations, and was clean...I would agree. But he is the largest fraud in sports. So the charity and the wins cancel out with the lies and cheating, so you are left with a dude on the street who owns a bike shop and has a flock of kids. Not exactly earth shattering, and this is coming from a fan.

A dumb fan.

Everyone knew he was dirty, the whole tour was dirty. He deserves some credit for livestrong they have raised something like 500 million.

forrealllll wrote:

Everyone knew he was dirty, the whole tour was dirty. He deserves some credit for livestrong they have raised something like 500 million.

No he does not deserve any credit. Manipulating cancer patients to create a positive image is not a good thing. It is disgusting.

ooodles wrote:

forrealllll wrote:

Everyone knew he was dirty, the whole tour was dirty. He deserves some credit for livestrong they have raised something like 500 million.

No he does not deserve any credit. Manipulating cancer patients to create a positive image is not a good thing. It is disgusting.

How many cancer patients(along with healthy people at that) do you think he has inspired? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Who knows but it is a lot. I don't care if he doped or was secretly a robot, the guy is a hero for what he has done for those people. If you don't believe me read some of the stories.

He can and has been an ass. His personality requires him to win at everything. It comes with both costs and benefits. I could explain to you that whether everyone doped, or if nobody would have doped, he would have won the tour multiple times. I doubt you know enough about cycling to enter that conversation so we'll skip it for now.

Whether you like him or hate him, he deserves respect and credit for what he has done for a lot of people.

Sam F wrote:

as it turns out no one on the us postal service team was particularly promising before the use of EPO. Lance actually failed to finish the tour multiple times, his best overall position was 97th and then he droped out at stage 12(92), so there is really slim evidence to suggest that he was "one of the greatest" unless you mean a$$hole, or doper.

This doesn't get brought up enough.

That's probably THE thing I look for when I suspect someone of doping. Do they go from just being a national level athlete then suddenly jump up to world class? The second is if they are putting up crazy performances well past their prime.