Lance Armstrong won't fight doping charges; loses titles

encorp

Your logic is flawed here.

The problem is, Lance was leading the charge - since he had the most money to afford the doping - thus the only people (by your logic, Mentalist) that shouldn't have lost their medals
were all those that lost to him.

He wasn't levelling the field - he was making it uneven and others were catching up.

Armstrong is a fraud, a sociopath, and a narcissist. Also the entire pelaton is STILL doing transfusions as we speak - it will never stop either.

Ivan Seeking

In regards to Mentalist's position, it is possible that no one who doesn't cheat can ever win.

Evo

If the sport isn't possible without cheating, shut it down. I for one am tired of bogus sports records. The one with the access to the best drugs wins. Why not do away with the cycling part and just award the title to the person with the highest level of drugs in their blood? (Not aimed at you Ivan, just that we as a society would accept how low some people have sunk). We need to keep going after these frauds and disgualify them and strip them of titles and any financial gains. I for one can't wait to see the lawsuits start against Armstrong.

Ivan Seeking

I actually resent the level to which sports and athletes have been elevated and think it is very unhealthy for us as a culture; not to mention the ridiculous salaries, but that's capitalism.

However, I think the problem is not that we have certain persons trying to cheat. I think the problem is deeper than that and cultural. Beyond that, there will always be a certain percentage of people who want to win at any cost so you can never really stop it. By definition some of the most highly competitive people around are the ones involved, and they are probably the most likely to cheat. So unless there is a failsafe method of testing, I think trying to stop cheating will be fruitless. And the cheaters will continue to get the big pay offs.

Just another reason to not like the influence that sports has on society. People would always talk about the great benefit of playing sports, which I did. What I saw were some positives and a lot of negatives. The win-at-any-cost attitude is found from the pros all the way down to the grade school level. For example, I've seen parents get into fist fights! I've seen kids pressured far beyond what is reasonable and healthy. In fact I could easily write a lot about this and seriously question the value we place on competitive sports generally. So I won't get into that any more but this is just more of the same.

Ivan Seeking

Playing the devil's advocate for a moment [Mentalist I think this makes you the devil! ], if everyone has access to the same performance-enchancing drugs and practices, and if people are willing to risk this for the sake of the big prize, money, then you would still have a level playing field. Just as people knowingly risk death in various other sports [auto racing, boats, motorcycles, airplanes...] and serious brain or spinal injury in other risky sports such as boxing and American football, and also those who put it all at risk in the settings world's records and so forth, people will do what it takes to win. Why are these drugs any more dangerous or unacceptable than other competitive sports and activities that we find perfectly acceptable? If everyone knew that bicycle racing means conceding to be a drug user, then at least one wouldn't go into this with their eyes closed. And maybe parents wouldn't be so quick to pressure their kids into things like this.

WannabeNewton

It's just a sport. This whole incident is giving the field far more importance than it is due. Soccer players cheat all the time but they aren't publicly criticized and humiliated to this extent. Sure he cheated so take away his medals yes but leave it at that for pete's sake - all he did was cheat in a sport he didn't murder anyone. The media glorifies and vilifies people for the most mundane, harmless things.

Evo

He ruined people lives and destroyed them financially as revenge if they tried to report him, or go against him. It wasn't just a simple case of illegal drug use, the man was, as was said previously, a psychopath.

Ivan Seeking

Ultimately the money is what makes it important.

I thought it was sad when Congress took up the issue of drugs in professional baseball. With all of the problems that any Congress faces, they worry about who cheated in baseball.

Borek

He was already partying in 2002.

BobG

Keep in mind that Armstrong could just be Phase I. Phase II could be the UCI (cycling's governing body), itself.

Just by actions, I think the UCI was more interested in suing people who made "unsubstantiated" claims about doping in cycling than in investigating those claims. They seemed to protect Armstrong more than other cyclists, but that may not be Armstrong's doing. Prior to Armstrong, the USA, a very large market, had very little interest in cycling. The UCI had a lot to gain from Armstrong's hero status and a lot to lose if he were caught doping.

I imagine quite a few will have a similar view as yours, including the International Olympic Committee (Armstrong scandal could see cycling dropped from Olympics).

WannabeNewton

As insanely despicable as that is, we've seen time and again that more media coverage of these guys only helps their notoriety rise to a level where the focus stops being on the issue of drug use in the sport and more on who next can get Lance Armstrong on their talk show. That is all I meant. I don't disagree with you that he is a horrible person of course.

BobG

Actually, Greg LeMond is probably partying now.

He's the only American to win the Tour de France and not be stripped of his title(s).

Not only that, but criticizing Armstrong financially wrecked LeMond's bicycle business (Trek manufactured and distriuted LeMond bicycles Armstrong was a major spokesman for Trek bicycles). I don't think he feels much sorrow for Armstrong.

Were the 80's the only era in pro cycling where clean athletes won? (Hinault five times and LeMond three times.)

At least LeMond's victories are believable. He was virtually the first cyclist to use very aerodynamic bicycles and helmets in the time trials, providing him with a technological advantage (plus he was unbelievably lucky in '89 when the race favorite, Pedro Delgado, incredibly showed up late for the start of the race, falling 7 minutes behind after only 2 days of racing and winding up finishing third, 3 1/2 minutes behind).