Lance Armstrong

My take is this. I am not saying that he is innocent, I don't know. What I am saying is this....If we in our country believe that you are innocent until proven guilty then how is it that you can strip a man of his titles and state that he is banned for life when he has never failed one drug test?

I believe they are using as evidence from some of his former team mates and others in the cycling world who say they have heard him say or have seen him doping.

Not sure that is right either that breakes it down to a he said vs. he said.

My first reaction: What a shame! A major achievement tarnished. How could he?

My second reaction: What a great strategy on his part. He knows he accomplished it. No one really has proven he doped up. And why should he expend more resources when the next step is a kangaroo court?

I'm still a fan.

Roughly equivalent to Barry Bonds except Bonds probably posted better numbers pre-steroids.

I've always wondered given the type of cancer that Armstrong suffered from how he could've avoided having some sort of supplementation as a necessary part of his treatment.

Not only do they seek to strip him of Titles and Championships, but they want to strip him of all the income he generated over his career.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
Roughly equivalent to Barry Bonds except Bonds probably posted better numbers pre-steroids.

I've always wondered given the type of cancer that Armstrong suffered from how he could've avoided having some sort of supplementation as a necessary part of his treatment.

Nothing proven. Can't assume the negative.

Kind of like going to a murder trial and all the prosecution witnesses are being led to the stand in shackles and orange jump suits.

While part of me thinks he had to dope to dominate like that he never failed a test and I don't think your case should be built on the testimony of guys who did fail a bunch of tests.

RSF21,
I can assume anything I want to since I don't have any impact on their futures. Not a court of law, don't have a HOF vote and don't buy anything based on their endorsements.

It's obvious he's guilty since he gave up the fight. Am innocent man will fight to the end to clear his name. He knows if he fought to the end he would get exposed for the fraud he is so why not just bail out and get it over with


I got no issue with them stripping him of his titles and income. He earned that loot under false pretenses.

When are these athletes ever gonna learn they're not above the law and are no better than anyone else.

zomby,
Given the world of cycling he was probably guilty IMO, but there are many, many documented cases of people copping to lesser penalties who were totally innocent simply because the alternative was too nasty to face.

quote:

Originally posted by CADad:
zomby,
Given the world of cycling he was probably guilty IMO, but there are many, many documented cases of people copping to lesser penalties who were totally innocent simply because the alternative was too nasty to face.

I tend to think those copping pleas who are innocent are those who somehow have all this circumstancial evidence mounted against them, are facing jail time if it goes thru a trial, are told they'll never win the case and/or can't afford to hire a slick shister lawyer to confuse and convince a jury in their favor. And last but most importantly, can't afford that shrewd lawyer to guarentee or at lesst show overwhelming proof of their innocence.

In Armstrong's case, i don't see what he has to lose since his reputation is down the toilet, is getting stripped of all his wins and are coming after his income.

My question is why were so many of his peers willing to testify against him which meant exposing themselves as dopers. Was he an ******* while winning all these races?

Often, where there is smoke, there will be fire! Lance, the USPS team, his assistants or team assistants have been surrounded by smoke "of doping" tracing back to 1999.

I love what he's done for cancer patients and he's been rewarded thru his wins and sponsors to the tune of a personal fortune estimated at about $100 mil... As long as cheating pays, elite athletes will continue to try to beat the system.

But yea, I think he's dirty...

Who does the money go to? Whose the winner of all those races? What good is the test if he passed it every time?

Seems like if all the contestants are doping, then a doper is going to win the race.

Even in baseball, everyone jumps on the super stars when it comes to PEDs. How come all the thousands of others that were using PEDs never became super stars? After all, they cheated just as much. Geez, those guys must have really stunk before using PEDs.

I know some people will disagree with me but does anybody really care about the Tour de France? If Armstrong had never existed most Americans would equate the Tour with a Kazakistanian land rally or something. It sounds like this race is rife with drugs and Lance was probably the best of the druggers. I'm surprised someone who had had cancer which is often accompanied by the multiplication of the cells going crazy, would be brave enough to use something that causes cellular and organ changes like anabolic steroids.

One of those who was going to testify was Floyd Landis who did test positive. Wonder what kind of deal he cut?

I remember a news story from years ago that explained part of Armstrong's extraordinary success was due to physiological traits. I found the following on-line:

"Researcher Edward Coyle studied Armstrong from 1992 to 1999 and shared his findings in the Journal of Applied Physiology in 2005. Armstrong, he wrote, has exceptional cardiovascular and lung capacity and exceptional muscular efficiency – a combination of lucky genetics and intensive training and motivation."

I understand Armstrong not wanting to fight this any longer. This has been dogging him for years even though he has never had a positive test and now it continues even though he has retired. Fighting allegations takes a lot of time and money. Yes, he has a lot of both but this probably isn't the way he wants to spend it.

I absolutely do not believe he doped. With all of the chemo and radiation as well as other drug treatment he received to conquer cancer throughout hie entire body, he would be another cancer waiting to happen. He is a tremendous athlete and his treatment actually enhanced his athleticism. The fight and determination to live translated to his fight to master the Tour.

I good friend of mine had extremely aggressive breast cancer. Her prognosis was not good at all.
after 4 rounds of chmo and radiation, losing all of her hair, and the struggle most of us are familiar with, she has been cancer free for almost 10 years. Her hair, which was graying, came back pitch black. She is early 50's with NO gray in her hair. She just lost her gray hair after chemo and it has stayed brunette, thick, and shiny. You can't explain it, just as you can't explain Armstrong's physical gifts. He has proven to be quite a good triathlete. Jealous people wanting to bring him down. Research his antagonizers. Some have serious character issues.

I realize I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think I am.

PG,
Nah, Melky was pretty much average and Bartolo was hanging on before using. I wouldn't say they stunk.

The ones who weren't good enough to make it to mlb and used PEDs to get their cup of coffee don't get noticed however they got to that point and don't have much of an effect on wins and losses. On the other hand,however their teams do from here on out, it is safe to say that Melky and Bartolo helped put their teams in a good position before they got caught.

JMO, but I think that good players can become much better by using PEDs as has pretty much been proven by Melky and Bartolo but that if you can't make contact or throw a strike in the first place then they aren't going to help much.

As far as earnings go I doubt the USADA will get any of the earnings from Armstrong. That would go to a whole different court of law.

I'll keep my comments brief since the last time I jumped in to a discussion about law etc. I had words with an old friend. Lance's case has proven that in today's society, he is guilty until proven innocent. He was administered tests and passed them. The only evidence against him is another's word. That word has not been proven. Yet, he will be stripped of his medals and titles. That is not right in my opinion. Is he innocent? I don't know. I know he has not been proven guilty.

I'm not really for or against Lance Armstrong, but it does seem that as the dust settles on that era, the rampant use of PEDs has become obvious. I heard the editor of Velo News cycling publication interviewed today and he said that there is essentially no one that shared a medal stand with Armstrong who has not already been disqualified from being declared the winner for similar violations. I can see one or two witnesses being suspicious as sour grapes, but when there are ten plus and the team doctors and directors also accused, it looks like a lot more than a vendetta.

He's got a $100+ million that were made on a reputation for tenacity and he decides to not fight charges that will strip him of his titles? That's his decision, but I don't see how anyone can argue his decision undermines the presumption of innocence. If you are charged and don't show up to challenge or rebut the evidence, you are going to lose. He can say what he wants about why he didn't show up, but I don't find it convincing.

If you dont think Lance did PEDs, I feel for you and your children.

People like DoperLance will tempt YOUR children to take PED.

quote:

Originally posted by IEBSBL:
My take is this. I am not saying that he is innocent, I don't know. What I am saying is this....If we in our country believe that you are innocent until proven guilty then how is it that you can strip a man of his titles and state that he is banned for life when he has never failed one drug test?

Ask this of many baseball pundits, and many posters on this site, who have flatly shunned every player from the steroids era...most of whom have never had positive drug tests made public.

He's not been before a court of law. This is all the agencies that oversee doping, cycling etc. It is interesting that he hasn't taken them to court for defamation.... so perhaps he isn't as clean as he projects. Or maybe the testimony of Landis and others is more of them covering their hineys instead of them telling the truth.

I did read the article about his extraordinary physical abilities - and chemo/radiation does have some interesting side effects....

I don't know if he did anything or not, but for $100 million payoff ... well ... what would you do? (especially if others are doing it?)

So let's say there was a kid I had in my class about 5 years ago and I didn't like them or their parents. Can I now go back and take away the credit they received for my class although they passed it?

I realize there are ways to mask and hide and cheat the tests but do we really want to throw away the process just to hang someone? Did he use? Maybe or maybe not but right now nobody can prove he did so therefore he needs to be considered innocent.

The way I understand things, not one test ever came back positive. ... imo, I think it's a witch hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by Three Bagger:
I know some people will disagree with me but does anybody really care about the Tour de France? If Armstrong had never existed most Americans would equate the Tour with a Kazakistanian land rally or something.

I agree. The Tour de France wouldn't make the news if it wasn't an American winning. Another event of similar stature is the America's Cup. It used to be front page news when America dominated. Name the last American captain you can think of. They used to be American heroes.

As for the situation I believe in innocent until proven guilty. This current scenario seems to be in reverse.

WOW, it funny how everyone can convict a guy who has passed every test given to him and will take the "hearsay" testimony of those proven to have cheated. I also find it funny that all the nay-sayers here have failed to mention the the governing body of international cycling, UCI, is backing Lance.

if he doped, make THEM prove it, not him

quote:

Originally posted by lefthookdad:
WOW, it funny how everyone can convict a guy who has passed every test given to him and will take the "hearsay" testimony of those proven to have cheated. I also find it funny that all the nay-sayers here have failed to mention the the governing body of international cycling, UCI, is backing Lance.

if he doped, make THEM prove it, not him

I want to see ten years of Armstrong's tax returns too. Otherwise he's cheating.

THe statute of limitations on common sense expires after 7 years. This drug testing organization apparently has all the time and money in the world to go after an ex-athlete, and reopen cases that were closed years ago. It is a an attempt to earn their 15 minutes of fame. I've not seen or heard of any smoking gun, and I fully expect none will be forthcoming.

I'm not buying it, and I don't blame Armstrong for telling the world he's had enough.

I jsut read an article in a local paper. Every one of the cyclists who stood on the podium with Armstrong from 1999 to 2005 has either been ban for doping, admitted to doping or cleared after an investigation of doping, except one.

To me that leaves very little doubt that Armstrong was the other one who didn't dope. I'd call that a smoking canon.

He probably cheated. I don't see any good reason to take his titles yet, though. There is no proof! Like it or not, we don't take things away without proof in most organizations. Unfortunately, cycling is not under any law that requires it to act like a real legal system. Their governing bodies can do as they wish.

I found this article a good discussion on the topic. http://www.wired.com/playbook/...-doping-allegations/

In the Wall Street Journal today there is some pretty interesting info that is definetly not in his favor as to his innocence. Plus now team mates (bike makes?) are speaking up.

How did he pass the tests? How did Marion Jones pass all of those tests as well. I am going to assume it is the same way for those that do PEDS and not detected, they have figured out a way to beat the system.

It is stated that Armstrong did transfusions during rest periods, who knows what really happened. He has not lost any sponsorship, the man has done good things for those that are seriously ill.

I suppose that when you get to a certain point in your life those medals and records don't mean as much as they did at one time.

Why he didn't fight to keep his name clean, probably can't, so why not just call it a day and move on.

quote:

Originally posted by lefthookdad:
WOW, it funny how everyone can convict a guy who has passed every test given to him and will take the "hearsay" testimony of those proven to have cheated. I also find it funny that all the nay-sayers here have failed to mention the the governing body of international cycling, UCI, is backing Lance.

if he doped, make THEM prove it, not him

Most of us don't have a a "dog in this hunt" so are just voicing personal opinions. Certainly, I get those who want to believe his innocence.

The UCI is no more than the cyclist Union I believe. We all know how Unions make their money and pay their Administrators. There is proof of his usage going as far back as 1999 when they found a small trace of a banned steroid in his blood. His "Team" said yes he used a steroid cream but just to treat saddle sores." Yea, right! Moreover, he also tested positive for the hormone EPO widely used in blood doping which all his former teammates have said they participated in. The practice of taking a pint of blood a few weeks before a race, and letting the body replace it, then at just before race time transfuse that earlier pint back, provide a huge Oxygen boost to the body for use during the race. A banned practice!

Then, as in DNA testing used in recent years to overturn many a Criminal injustice. Technology has
moved on. Now they have tested, in 2009, many of his earlier samples, that showed nothing then with older testing, now shows EPO. Armstrong's worth is estimated at $100 million. Guess he can "afford" to finally say "no mas" given the evidence forthcoming..

Innocent, come on, get real!!

I remember the first time I cheated in elementary school. The smartest girl in the class (turned out to be the high school valedictorian)sat in front of me. She had a little crush on me and would put her test out to the right of the desk so I could look over her shoulder for answers to tough questions. With her seated in front of me, I became a straight A student for the first time. It wasn't like I planned it. The opportunity just arose and well I guess I seized it. I felt a little guilty at first but then I kind of warmed up to the idea when the first test score came back with a big smiley on it from the teacher. Then when the old man started bragging, well I couldn't stop now could I? truth is I was smart enough to get those grades honestly and did way more often than not the rest of my academic career.

If Lance Armstrong won all those races and awards without the help of performance enhancements, then he is the greatest athlete that ever lived. If he didn't then he is the greatest cheat. It doesn't matter to me because when I look at the man's entire contribution to society, I am impressed with his zest for life and his desire to help others. In my mind, he's a winner and the controversy is more of a ****ing contest between jealous losers who probably either weren't savvy enough to beat the system or too timid to try.

I met my childhood hero when I took my youngest child to college 600 miles away from home. We were eating in a restaurant in the town where my son would be continuing his efforts to develop a baseball career on the mound. To my left I noticed a man dressed in San Francisco Giants apparel having dinner. I immediately recognized Gaylord Perry and blurted it out to my son who responded," Who's Gaylord Perry?" After briefly explaining to him that Perry was a Hall of Fame pitcher and my childhood hero, I tossed in, "and he admittedly threw a great Vaseline ball."

Now, some are going to say, "How can you speak about cheating like this? Makes you no better than Armstrong." Exactly. If you can say that you never once enjoyed an "advantage" in this life, that would make you a rare person. And so I take a look at the man or woman's complete body of work because that's the only fair way to analyze it.

You know what they call people who don't cheat. Runner ups.

For those that say he wasn't cheating because he was never caught, I suppose you all believe that Cabrera and Colon are the only two guys in MLB that are using a substance to enhance their performance. Or that Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens never used any PED, or did any other player for that manner.

For those who say you don't have a dog in this fight, you should, because even if this MIGHT be true, you probably are one of those who believe that your sons would NEVER do anything to cheat at getting better at the game they so badly want to excel at or that they never took a drink of alcohol, or never used anything else that is available out there today.

Folks, don't be so naive.

What I am trying to say is this is a great opportunity to sit down with your players, no matter what age and talk about what may or may not have happened, the consequences, etc.

quote:

he's a winner and the controversy is more of a ****ing contest between jealous losers who probably either weren't savvy enough to beat the system or too timid to try.

Wow! I'm no longer shocked by statements like this as sadly, for many, "the end justifies the means."

No offense meant as I'm sure I'm taking this out of context but I believe there is still a "higher road" and would prefer that my children take it even if it doesn't get them that proverbial "carrot."

And TPM, my "dog in the hunt" statement was directed to the Armstrong debate, not to the overall prevalence of PED's in Sports. And yes, I do know what my son is willing to do regarding PED's in his baseball life, and recreational alcohol usage, for that matter. You point to take this opportunity to talk to you children about the issue, however, is a valid one!