http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19365234Just don't know what to think now was a hero of mine growing up after surviving testicular cancer to win 7 tour de Frances on the bounce and would be a killer blow to his fans and him if he was stripped of his 7 tour de France titles.
Comments
1999
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO)
3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04)
4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2000
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO)
5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO)
2001
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Andrei Kivilev
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2002
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping)
4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2003
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping)
5. Haimar Zubeldia
2004
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08)
3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
2005
1. Lance Armstrong
2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties)
3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto)
5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)
Right- o
I couldn't care less who they give it to instead as long as they remove it from him.
Anyone who knows their cycling has been expecting this for years
He has always said I've never given a positive sample
... Instead of I've never taken performance enhancing drugs
- a hug difference
Read some of the books about it and you'll soon see that this was no secret - would recommend "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle, and David Millars autobiography.
DickVanDykesDiscoDog- I respect your opinion as you sound like you know what you are talking about on this, but if he wasn't clean, then can you offer some hard evidence that no one else has been able to present (other than hearsay and libellous accusations).
velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/news/usada-letter-paints-dark-picture-of-armstrong-era_223925
online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrongcharging0613.pdf
Google him.
did he make more money from"the book" than he did his cycling ?
It was also always common knowledge that before the main cycling season every year he visited his 'friend' for a 2 week holiday. His 'friend' just happened to have the nickname in the cycling of Dr drugs.
Also hard to believe that every member of the postal team has been done and admitted drug taking but their main bloke wasn't.
Fantastic natural cyclist who was still better than most, but still a cheat.
The books go into far too much detail that I could ever capture in a post so if you want to find out why I hold this opinion then a quick search online along with Paul Kimmages opinions should explain my thinking - though no I have no proof - just the opinions of cyclings experts.
I think a lot of ppl were very happy to look the other way on this as a result of him raising in excess of I think $500M via his charity.
A great fundraiser yes but still a cheat
If a person is accuse of a crime and does not mount a defense case then they are by default guilty aren't they .... So no libellous comments whatsoever.
I'm not glad he's been caught just disappointed that it's taken this long and that people who dont know that much about the sport will assume that drugs are rife in cycling - they are not, due to the work of drug free team ethics of teams like Garmin and Sky, plus the campaigning of ex-dopers like David Millar.
It used to be rife but the sport has cleaned up its act with a few exceptions recently (Contador and Schleck etc).
Graeme Obree also blew it open, when he packed his bags on his first day at a French team Le Groupment, and headed home, not wishing to participate in the teams drug programme.
As Rothko says, how far do you go in re-writing history? The results either stand or the whole race is void. Don't forget, even Eddy Merckx - the greatest of all time - was done for drugs.
The peleton seems to be about 75% clean at present. Brailsford has created a magnificent programme, allowing GB riders to dominate, which I believe is clean. The rest of Europe has come back to us because they have been forced into riding clean. I feel sorry for the British riders who weren't able to compete on level terms in the Armstrong era. The British based ANC team got blown away in their attempt to compete in the TDF in the 80's.
The French press are still bitter that Festina and in particular Golden Boy Richard Vireque, were the first to be caught. They have set out to prove everyone was at it, not just their boys, so much so that they can't help themselves pointing the finger at anyone who improves. I was pleased to see Bradley slap them down when they tried to stain his performance. Unfortunately it will never go away, we have previous drugs cheats still winning races. Vinokourov winning the Gold in London & Contador challenging for the Vuela - not a good advert for the sport.
A lot of ppl thought Millar should not have been allowed to compete at London 2012 - so it appears that maybe we in the UK manage not to be blinkered by winning by cheating which isn't a bad thing really.
France, Italy and especially Spain are happy to forgive if it means that the forgiven rider wins again - clean or otherwise.
That makes him alright by me.
It's easy to point out how dirty cycling was in the 1990s and 2000s, and previously. It's an easy leap to say that "they were all dirty, he must have been", and *perhaps* an accurate one. That said, from a strictly procedural point of view, the USADA's relentless pursuit of Armstrong is troubling. I'll cut to the chase and people can read the excerpts below if they wish. The one thing that I am convinced of in this case is that there are no white hats between the USADA and Armstrong.
Remember the finding of the judge who threw out Armstrong's challenge of the jurisdiction of the USADA, even while ultimately ruling in its favour:
“USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping or if it is acting according to less noble motives“.
He went on:
Almost predicting there will be more legal battles in different venues, Sparks found "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA' s apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."
"Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum," Sparks said.
"The issue is further complicated by USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's proceeding — a wrinkle which does not change the court's legal analysis, but only confirms that these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this court."
Sparks had no desire to intervene in the fight between cycling and drug-testing authorities in a case that cites offences going back 14 years.
"As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal — the regulation and promotion of cycling," Sparks said.
"However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts."