Lance Armstrong won't fight doping charges; loses titles

[Evo]

Who's a scum bag? Lance Armstrong, David Walsh, or (gulp) me?

lol. Lance Armstrong.

 

[Jorriss]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

Well played.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

Not sure I'd admit to that.

 

[OMGCarlos]

It would be impossible, literally impossible, for the human body to train as hard and as long as the top tier athletes do, to include Armstrong, in any sport without some sort of performance enhancement. Fact.

Your body can only process so many nutrients per hour and your muscles can recover only so fast. Even with a "perfect" diet, supplementation and supreme genetics training hard for 8-10 hours a day 5-6 days a week, for years, will cause you to overtrain.

Supplementation (legal) helps you inch your way closer to the limits. For example, drinking down 200g of whey protein means you don't have to eat 10lbs of meat. Other supplements essential for training come naturally in such small quantities that it would be impossible to compete even at the amateur level without them. Multi-vitamins anyone?

Also, doping doesn't necessarily mean steroids as people I talk to sometimes think...it just refers to illegally using prescription drugs *OR* drugs banned in sports. What's the difference between a drug and a sports supplement?

Walk into GNC or other vitamin/nutrition stores and you'll find plenty of supplements bordering in the "gray area", stating plainly on the label "Taking this dietary supplement may cause you to fail X test" - and yet those aren't illegal to purchase, just banned from said test/sport.

I agree that his title should be stripped - he broke the rules and he got caught...he was stupid. But the sheer will and determination required to be at the level he is at, with or without banned supplements, is ridiculously ridiculous.

[edit]
Also, I'd like to point out...regardless of whether he doped or not, the money he has raised for cancer over the years STILL DID go for the cause. Millions of dollars that would not have otherwise been raised. What does it really matter if he doped in a sport where doping is expected?!

 

[Evo]

What does it really matter if he doped in a sport where doping is expected?!

He was a very mean, nasty, vindictive a-hole? Also, read some of the other links about this guy.

See here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4231162&postcount=24

 

[berkeman]

I believe she was referring to me. Maybe not, but my wife was when she found out I was using performance enhancing drugs.

But she benifited from that, no? Why would she be upset?

 

[Evo]

Wow, this guy was really not nice.

This was about Lance's sociopathic spectacle.

At one point during the interview, he couldn't recall how many people he'd sued. Really. He not only didn't know the number, he couldn't even be sure when asked about specific individuals that his mighty, powerful legal team relentlessly tried to bury.
It's worth noting that many of the people he's sued through the years in an effort to protect his lies and glory were one-time close friends, roommates, teammates, business partners and associates.

Is there another person in America who has sued so many people he once liked – for telling the truth, mind you – that he can't remember all of them? Anyone?
What you and your bank account and those sleepless nights you can't forget -- he can't remember.

He was, and likely remains, nothing but a machine of personal glorification, no concept of his real place in the world. Now that the truth is out, it's not about the cheating so much as it's about the way he fought dirty to protect the cheating.

"I was a bully," he acknowledged. "In the sense that I tried to control the narrative, and if I didn't like what somebody said, I tried to control that and say that's a lie."
Except he didn't stop at saying "that's a lie." He'd start there, then go on the attack, often trying to ruin his accusers professionally and, perhaps, personally, maybe legally and certainly financially.

So much wrong about this man. I can't post it all, but take a minute to read it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-...-image-in-mea-culpa-with-oprah-062222144.html

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It wasn't just that, it was the denials and the lawsuits.

 

[lisab]

Wow, this guy was really not nice.

So much wrong about this man. I can't post it all, but take a minute to read it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-...-image-in-mea-culpa-with-oprah-062222144.html

Wow. Reading that gave me the creeps. He truly seems to be a psychopath.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On one of the Sunday morning news shows, one person made the comment that she was glad that this finally came out so that kids will learn that it doesn't pay to cheat.

Someone else pointed out that the only real lesson here is that you can cheat, bank a hundred million or so, and then just apologize on Oprah.

Publicly humilitated? Lost trophies? Big deal. He's set for life.

 

[AlephZero]

Publicly humilitated? Lost trophies? Big deal. He's set for life.

He might end up losing a few of the "hundred million":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21102475

But let's not get too serious about this whole affair:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720

 

[Mentalist]

He was a very mean, nasty, vindictive a-hole? Also, read some of the other links about this guy.

See here.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4231162&postcount=24

Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling

This is a sport, not a beauty pageant. I'd be angry if people were being vindictive, accusing me of cheating (even if I were) when most of the people in the sport are also utilizing epo.

Do I believe these people had some "revelation" and wanted to out the cheaters of the sport? I cannot say for sure. However, I can understand Lance's frustration with those truth-tellers. He ultimately had no other choice but to confess in my opinion to stifle the process and have it be a long, on-going issue. Just end it now and by the end of the year people will have forgotten about it.

But to the comment about Lance being a sociopath:

Just because one is telling the truth doesn't mean that person is also a good person. There are many reasons as to why people do things, so saying Lance is being mean to those people really is looking at one side and nothing else. It is favoritism, and I dislike it when people equate "whistle-blowers" as saints that did nothing wrong or were just being good citizens.

 

[Evo]

Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.

It's the rules. Break the rules, you lose. "Everyone does it" is no excuse. Anyone that does it loses. That's the rules. To say there should be no punishment because of rampant abuse is idiotic, IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Him being mean doesn't really justify the quoted person's question. Doping, in the Tour de France is rampant, so why is Lance Armstrong being targeted so ferociously? He should keep his titles. Stripping him of his titles is nonsense in my opinion.

Why exactly should he keep those medals? They're awarded to the person who wins the tournament without breaking the rules. He didn't do that so he doesn't deserve them. Similarly the question of doping being rampant doesn't come into it. It can play a part in the debate about drugs in sport and what to do but it's irrelevant to this as no matter how you cut it he broke the rules. If everyone did then none of them deserve it.

This is a sport, not a beauty pageant. I'd be angry if people were being vindictive, accusing me of cheating (even if I were) when most of the people in the sport are also utilizing epo.

Being angry at people for revealing your cheating is one thing, persecuting them with every means you have is nothing short of evil. Unless you think it's morally acceptable to detour to devastate people financially and professionally so that they won't reveal that you don't deserve what you have?

Just because one is telling the truth doesn't mean that person is also a good person. There are many reasons as to why people do things, so saying Lance is being mean to those people really is looking at one side and nothing else. It is favoritism, and I dislike it when people equate "whistle-blowers" as saints that did nothing wrong or were just being good citizens.

What kind of comment is that? Are you saying that the people who have come forward deserved what they got? Do you think he is at all justified with the level of persecution that has come to light? Calling it "being mean" is disingenuous, being mean would have been to call them names not set out to ruin their career and have them sued.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

Arguably this isn't true if you take into consideration that the title is for those who win and by definition in the case that means coming first without cheating. If you didn't win then the title isn't yours. It's akin to giving out a world record to someone who it is later revealed didn't do the feat.

 

[rootX]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

I don't think dishonest people deserve fair treatment. People who are ruining sports with drugs should be thrown out of their profession for life and all their titles/awards should be burned down.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think dishonest people deserve fair treatment. People who are ruining drugs in sports should be thrown out of their profession for life and all their titles/awards should be burned down.

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

 

[rootX]

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

It's unfair to punish some and not punish others but I think that's fine. However in the future, I would wish to see all players to be punished as strictly as possible if tested positive for drugs.

 

[Evo]

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

As they are discovered, they should be, which, I believe, is the intent of the commitee in this case. There will be no alternate winners named for the years Armstrong won.

So perhaps it's not surprising that the director of the Tour de France declared that if the International Cycling Union (UCI) decides not to appeal USADA's decision to ban Armstrong for life and strip him of his seven Tour titles, there will be no replacement winner named for years 1999 through 2005.

"It indicates that no one in the races was above suspicion, which highlights the fact that doping was prevalent during the entire period," says Dick Pound, former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ance-armstrong-tour-de-france-doping/1635499/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is from Evo's link.

Of the 21 top three finishers in the Tour de France during Lance Armstrong's victory streak, only one has not been tied to doping, according to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. His name is Fernando Escartin, who finished third in 1999 -- the first of Armstrong's seven consecutive titles -- and even Escartin is subject to suspicion.

There appears to be a problem with the testing protocol. Is it the case that you can only get caught if someone blabs?

 

[Evo]

This is from Evo's link.

There appears to be a problem with the testing protocol. Is it the case that you can only get caught if someone blabs?

Armstrong was caught twice, but used his connections to get out of it. I believe it is in one of the previously posted links.

 

[Redbelly98]

On the narrow issue of stripping his titles, if they had a rule in place stating that riders would be stripped of their titles if they doped, then they were right to do it. If no such rule was in place, then they have exceeded their authority. Was there such a rule? If the rule was in place but not invoked until now, or invoked for some, but not for others, that would be a problem. Is that the case?

Don't know about what is spelled out in the rules, but Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador have also been stripped of TDF titles. It's not just Armstrong.

But do you punish some dishonest people and not other dishonest people.

Yes, in fact we do. We only punish the ones for which the evidence is solid enough, and/or we have the resources to pursue.

Not having a 100% effective system is no excuse for letting off the people who are caught.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't know about what is spelled out in the rules, but Floyd Landis and Alberto Contador have also been stripped of TDF titles. It's not just Armstrong.

Given that their titles were stripped, I can't see how mentalist can justify his position that Armstrong should not be punished in the same way.

 

[fourier jr]

about 1/3 of the way down there's a list of the top 10 riders where the ones who had doping issues at some point are highlighted. no wonder they didn't just promote everybody after disqualifying armstrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France

 

[Evo]

Given that their titles were stripped, I can't see how mentalist can justify his position that Armstrong should not be punished in the same way.

Bingo, he can't.

 

[Mentalist]

It's the rules. Break the rules, you lose. "Everyone does it" is no excuse. Anyone that does it loses. That's the rules. To say there should be no punishment because of rampant abuse is idiotic, IMO.

I am not saying there shouldn't be any punishment, I am saying that he should not have his medals stripped away from him given his testimony of the performance enhancement culture and other cyclists admitting that, "you'd be quite stupid to not use performance enhancing drugs."

The context matters most to me as this isn't a black and white issue. Taking away medals won't detour cyclists from using the drugs.

@Jimmy: I am not trying to show what Lance did was right or good, but rather, reasonable given the circumstances. It is true that if the UCI wants to take away the medals, they have the right, but I believe they are going about it the wrong way.

Punishments such as taking away the prize money, fines, and lawsuits would be much better while still acknowledging that he and other cyclists won a fair race.

Arguably this isn't true if you take into consideration that the title is for those who win and by definition in the case that means coming first without cheating.

Cheating is defined as having an unfair advantage. However, given the testimony of other cyclists, that isn't the case for the Tour de France.

What kind of comment is that? Are you saying that the people who have come forward deserved what they got? Do you think he is at all justified with the level of persecution that has come to light? Calling it "being mean" is disingenuous, being mean would have been to call them names not set out to ruin their career and have them sued.

I am saying we shouldn't look at them as the good guys in this rather we should scrutinize their reasoning. What prompted them to out Lance? The reason I am saying this is because people are demonizing Lance and heralding the people he lashed out towards as victims. We should look at both sides rather than choosing a side.

Being angry at people for revealing your cheating is one thing, persecuting them with every means you have is nothing short of evil. Unless you think it's morally acceptable to detour to devastate people financially and professionally so that they won't reveal that you don't deserve what you have?

The use of the word evil as a character description is too much here. We all have our own ways of dealing with, what seems to me, to be a targeted attack or betrayal. Lance dealt with it in anger, yes, and he did in my opinion go a bit overboard but saying he is evil is too much. We shouldn't be quick to judge how he personally dealt with the situation as he was, in my opinion, afraid of what would happen so, like any person afraid, they resort to what seems rational, "fight."

I heard people saying that because he wasn't fighting his medals being taken away (before admitting) he was guilty. So, was Lance at the time right to pursue those saying "slanderous" remarks? Probably so. But to me, it seemed to shed more light than cover up the situation.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If it is the case that the drugs are dangerous, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition.

 

[BobG]

If it is the case that the drugs are dangerous, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition.

What if they aren't dangerous? What if the only reason for banning them is because of the way the public perceives a sport that relies on drugs?

I think the latter is the real reason for banning drugs and that that's a legitimate reason. There's a danger that sponsors not only will pay less, but will decide they don't want to be associated with cycling, period.

In other words, the attitude of pro cycling (or at least the UCI) is that getting caught and bringing the image of the sport into disrepute is the crime; not necessarily taking the drugs. (And taking down the sport's greatest hero is, perhaps, the greatest crime a cyclist could commit, given the lack of enthusiasm the UCI had for following up on the possibility of Armstrong doping.)

If they are dangerous, it doesn't have an obvious effect on their lifespans: Increased average longevity among the "Tour de France" cyclists. Obviously, lifespan isn't the only measure of health and there could be non-life threatening side effects that seriously reduce the quality of life, if not the duration. Plus, one has no way of knowing if drugs really do shorten lifespan, but that effect is outweighed by the better fitness, health, and nutrition of professional cyclists. The danger of drugs would be hard to measure unless the dangers were truly extreme.

 

[Evo]

If it is the case that the drugs are dangerous, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition.

Did you mean "If it is the case that the drugs improve your performance, then by taking them, you are forcing others to either take them as well, or stay out of the competition."? Because being dangerous doesn't make sense in your statement.