After years and years of being accused and hounded, I think he's reached his limit and just wants a normal life again. The guys been fighting these allegations for 15 + years. Think I'd have reached the end of my tether years ago. Still believe he is clean. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty????????
After years and years of being accused and hounded, I think he's reached his limit and just wants a normal life again. The guys been fighting these allegations for 15 + years. Think I'd have reached the end of my tether years ago. Still believe he is clean. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty????????
After years and years of being accused and hounded, I think he's reached his limit and just wants a normal life again. The guys been fighting these allegations for 15 + years. Think I'd have reached the end of my tether years ago. Still believe he is clean. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty????????
Sorry but I disagree. To me he seems the sort of person who would not give up on fighting something like that if he was completely clean. Why would someone who put all that work into winning something then years down the road someone wants to challenge your integrity you just give up fighting it and risk your whole reputation?
Not to mention of course as others have said that the rest of the team have all given postitive samples and many of those were willing to testify against him.
After years and years of being accused and hounded, I think he's reached his limit and just wants a normal life again. The guys been fighting these allegations for 15 + years. Think I'd have reached the end of my tether years ago. Still believe he is clean. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty????????
True, he still hasn't failed a drugs/doping test. However the USADA might have evidence that changes that completely but yes innocent until proven guilty.
You can also add to the above a long line of people willing to testify that they witnessed Lance doping, he has spent a lot of time and money trying to shut these people up but they will not stand down. It was even reported he threatened a former team mate (Floyd landis) to try and stop him giving evidence.
So if/when Armstrong is stripped of his titles, this is the sorry mess of trying to work out the winner.
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)
So it was an even playing field, they were all doing it. Let him keep the titles!
Sorry for my nievity but if he has not tested positive and it's only according to other people how has he been found guilty
It's a mess and the truth is no one knows for sure with the exception of Lance Armstrong himself. The evidence against seems to come from ex-US Postal/Discovery riders like Floyd Landis who won and was then stripped of the Tour de France title in 2006 after testing positive for synthetic testosterone. Landis spent his entire fortune fighting and threatening anyone who suggested that he doped with legal action and then when his money ran out he 'fessed up and dobbed Armstrong in for good measure. Floyd Landis has just been indicted for wire fraud - that is soliciting money on false pretenses to fight the accusations when he knew that he was guilty. So I'm not inclined to put too much confidence in his testimony. Similarly Tyler Hamilton who was a loyal domestique to Armstrong and then failed a dope test although in his case it was for EPO/blood doping rather than tstosterone or steroids.
The fact remains that unlike Landis and Hamilton Armstrong has not failed a dope test and he must have been the most tested athlete on the planet during those seven years he was winning the Tour de France. The rules are that wherever you are in the world you must inform the anti-doping authorities of your presence and they will drop in unannonced and test an athlete. Miss three dope tests for whatever reason and you are assumed to be guilty.
So the evidence appears to be circumstantial and to have come from flawed sources, which may however be telling the truth, but who knows? The other central accusation is equally circumstantial - that everyone was doping so Armstrong must have been doping as well and the received wisdom was that doping was so prevalent that it was impossible to win major races otherwise. Pro cyclists referred to clean riders as "little men" - as they never achieved or amounted to much in the sport. This does not prove his guilt however. But, if Armstrong juiced anything was it was the system. In that era the top riders were not that well paid and pretty much had to ride week in/week out and their season would include the three week Giro d'Italia a few weeks prior to the Tour de France as well as numerous other races including one day classics and the slightly longer six day tours as well as more mundane events. Armstrong was well funded with corporate sponsors and could afford to miss these events and would turn up and prepare for the TdeF by riding some of the classics - the Dauphine, Tour de Romandie etc and miss the gruelling Giro which Ullrich and co were forced to compete in. So he arrived on the start line fresh while many other riders were carrying injuries and were dealing with the stesses and starins of being a professional rider.
He was also one of the first riders to get a strong team around him that had one job - to look after and get him to the front he would do the rest and his pre-season training would be based around riding some of the climbs that would feature in the coming year's Tour. Tylet Hamilton for example had two jobs in his team - to go with him on the climbs and be his domestique and in the Individual Time Trials to ride the stage full on to give Armstrong a relaible guide as to what he should be achieving for each split. Few other riders had this luxury. Once he won the Nike PR machine swung into action and he was off to cash in rather than do as other Tour de France winners would do which was parade around Europe showing up in smaller races and getting appearance money. Understandably this and his prickly attitude won him many enemies and in addition his refusal to speak French in France (and French is the lingua franca of cycling) meant that the mostly French cycling establishment universally hated him and the rumours that he was doping began in earnest and I think these two events are connected. Compare with Bradley Wiggins who speaks French in interviews and upholds some of the traditions. But even if he did dope he still put in an amazing amount of graft and guts on the road and I think there's a case here that many people hate Armstrong for being what drove him on and cannot separate the art from the artist. Personally I think that having survived cancer, and a serious form of cancer which had metastasized into his lungs and brain that he would be damned stupid to mess with steroids. But then maybe his brush with death gave him a desire to achieve something and he thought to hell with the consequences and consequently his mortality became something that was no longer important to him. Who knows...
It's a pretty poor excuse , it is like saying he can't be bothered to fight charges, sounds like a guilty man to me. Can't blame him though, this way all he looses are his medals and not his anal virginity in some smelly American prison
According to a colleague a work, who is massively in to cycling, LA has done this to try and avoid the damning evidence against him coming out. Those 'in the know' in cycling having been waiting for this or for LA to be proven guilty for some while. Our boys and girls are tested even more regularly than the required tests and all the results published to show there is no variation in blood results compared to performance during the season, before/during and after events. As there is with others...yet to be proven guilty. Apparently LA could manage a fight in an empty room and would never give up on a fight to prove he was innocent. If he was innocent.
Lance was my first ever cycling hero. Having read "Its not all about the bike", you realise what Lance when through when he was first diagnosed with Cancer. I cant believe he was ever not clean. Innocent until proven guilty and the USADA dont have any hard evidence to prove otherwise.
There's some appallingly misinformed views on this site. Lance Armstrong has often threatened litigation, bullied, harrassed and ruined people's careers. Equally he's often threatened litigation, and subsequently backed down when it's cases he couldn't win or were in the wrong countries. So the 'opinion' that he wouldn't back down by experts, and sofa commentators, is utter bollox. He does.
As others have said Lance Armstrong has tested positive twice. The steroid cream for saddle sore, is something the UCI should be very ashamed of. The doctor's note was provided after the test, and even in the days of the test - 1999 - it is dubious on whether that should be accepted retrospectively: very different to Salbutomol being prescribed but not informing the UCI. The EPO test was a retrospective test of samples taken from I think Lance's tour win in 1999 or 2000. They were performed annonymously without anyone knowing the identity of the riders. Le Monde did an excellent piece of journalism that was able to link codes with the actual riders codes held at the UCI: this was done after the tests and their results. Armstrong refused to have other samples tested for EPO. The UCI employed a former Dutchmen to review the tests, who had been involved in Dutch anti doping circles but then resigned and was a lawyer who fought legally for accused dopers. A clear conflict of interests, and his report is on the net and full of illogical idiocy if anyone cares to read it.
A common thread is the complicity of the UCI, both under Hein Verbruggen and Pat Mcquaid. Pat McQuaid is a dick of the highest order who's abuse and vileness towards people who attempted to whistle blow on doping is well recorded. How there was no co-ordination between the UCI and Puerto case is something I could never understand, thank god for the Italian anti doping and their judiciary: Interesting to see that no Spaniard was banned via DNA test other than Valverde via the Italian authorities, shame on the Spanish who have a very dubious record of sportsmen doping. Again Armstrong donating money to the UCI anti doping cause is a clear conflict of interests that Verbruggen and McQuaid were guilty of knowing and accepting.
Lance was a great classics style rider, who could finish quite well if not compete with the best sprinters. He never was a great stage racer, and yet suddenly started winning Tours when he weighed virtually the same after his cancer: Another lie he disseminated about losing weight, helping him climb, his own testimony proved his weight was virtually identical to when he was a poor tour rider to a superstar. Make your own mind up how he changed his results.
BFR it is just not true what you are saying. LeMond helped revolutionise racing in the 80's, and he was paid superstar wages. In Kimmage's book a US rider who never did anything on the European Tour was paid $40,000 wages - before bonus - a month for his first year before he went home. PDM was a superstar team, almost definitely taking EPO around the late 80's early 90's. Steroids and amphetamines were generally considered cheap and any amateur could use them, EPO and doping especially requires a sophisticated medical setup costing a lot of money. Sports that pay their riders a pittance wage don't tend to be first responders to new expensive human growth hormone drugs: Festina riders paid many thousands into their EPO pot. Team Telekom had an incredibly strong team, whilst US Postal did not in the first few years. Which makes it more remarkable that the average riders US Postal had managed to outride Pantani. Subsequently we know many of them doped. Whatever happened Lance would never have won his first Tour without the assistance of average riders cheating. By the 90's superstar riders earnt enough to choose their races. Jan Ullrich rode the Giro once during his competing years on the Tour, he very rarely raced two Tours in one year. Frankly your assesment of cycling in the 90's is just wrong. Yes Lance's team did develop into a well oiled machine with super domestiques, but early days teams like Kelme, Once, Festina and Team Telekom were all stronger.
The issue with Lance was EPO and blood doping, whilst it is believed that he took testosterone with Dr Ferrari: Frankie Andreu testified of his EPO use and he is not a tainted character, though I never understand this puerile argument as what whistle blower is 'clean'. If he took EPO legally in his recovery, why wouldn't he when he was well if he knew all the facts. The cancer to definitve clean rider is clearly only one way to look at things. A rider well versed in the doping of the Tour, is quite likely to continue doping if he wants to stay in the sport. Depends on personalities, someone motivated to win and cruelly punish others, is quite likely to make the only rational choice and do as most others do and boost those corpuscles.
Interesting reading My wife finished reading his book yesterday and before the book knew less than zero about cycling , got the hump when I said about what happened recently and was a bit defensive of LA. I always thought cyclists were a bit odd and didn't know too much about it but reading here the corruption throughout it isn't pretty and makes sad reading Just hope in 10 years we're not reading about Team GB riders having "been on it"
The USADA have Floyd Landis as one of their witnesses. Oh well, that really seals Armstrong's fate. Landis is a lying, cheating, fraudster and a creep, that will do or say whatever it takes to get himself off the hook. How can anyone believe a word that man says? Also puzzled as to how the US authorities can strip him of his titles. This has been a one man vendetta for years and it finally ground LA down. That's my view on it. Might be proved wrong but really hope not.
The USADA have Floyd Landis as one of their witnesses. Oh well, that really seals Armstrong's fate. Landis is a lying, cheating, fraudster and a creep, that will do or say whatever it takes to get himself off the hook. How can anyone believe a word that man says? Also puzzled as to how the US authorities can strip him of his titles. This has been a one man vendetta for years and it finally ground LA down. That's my view on it. Might be proved wrong but really hope not.
I'm pretty sure that the TDF itself isn't that enamoured with him anymore either
A bad week for Clan Armstrong 'If you believe they put a man on the moon' (R E M) The first man to set foot on any solid ground other than earth died and a man who prefers bike riding to moon walking is stripped of all his major victories
The USADA have Floyd Landis as one of their witnesses. Oh well, that really seals Armstrong's fate. Landis is a lying, cheating, fraudster and a creep, that will do or say whatever it takes to get himself off the hook. How can anyone believe a word that man says? Also puzzled as to how the US authorities can strip him of his titles. This has been a one man vendetta for years and it finally ground LA down. That's my view on it. Might be proved wrong but really hope not.
Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton are widely reported as being nice guys by cycling journalists. The same isn't said about Lance Armstrong, whose bullying and ruining of other's careers is well recorded. Jonathan Vaughters and Frankie Andreu are both nice guys, and both believed anecdotes told to them by Landis. Vaughters and Andreu are thought to be two of the ten plus cyclists, who've probably admitted to federal investigators that they took PEP's and saw Lance Armstrong acquire and use them. Both refused to accuse or talk about this to journalists, and if they have to it is now because of the dropped federal investigation where if they lied they would be open to serious criminal charges and a decent jail term.
So you can't see the difference between a UCI and CAS investigation where you lose titles, money - often impossible to retrieve -, and career time to spending time in a one of those nice US prisons. Oh yeah a liar's gonna lie, because he's now faced with prison time if he lies. That's some amazing logic sralan.
It's hardly been a one man vendetta as USADA has only been around for ten odd years. The inception of WADA and USADA, occurred because all big money sports have been complicit or wilfully ignorant of PEP's being abused in their sport.
Look Lance's whole career was during a time when the majority of top cyclists were up to something. However you see it, his achievements were impressive. He's renowned as being vindictive and bullying, but he's also known to be thoughtful and giving of his time privately to those with cancer: Something that was rarely reported. He's raised an enormous amount for cancer sufferers and research, encouraged countless others to a healthier life. It doesn't really matter what happens, especially if through the furore the media attempts to destroy a foundation that does much good.
Points noted Colin, maybe it's because the man has become a symbol of winning, guts and a fighter, beating the odds, that no one really wants to believe that he's a cheat. That would be a massive bubble that's burst. But the vendetta has been ongoing for a long time, started by the French after winning the TDF. Regarding Landis, is he not up for trial regarding fraud?
Vaughters and Andreu are thought to be two of the ten plus cyclists, who've probably admitted to federal investigators that they took PEP's and saw Lance Armstrong acquire and use them. Both refused to accuse or talk about this to journalists, and if they have to it is now because of the dropped federal investigation where if they lied they would be open to serious criminal charges and a decent jail term.
Vaughters raced on the US Postal Team and then left for another squad and happily claimed to be clean and how unfair it was that he was being held back by cyclists who doped etc etc. Then he admitted that he doped as well. Perhaps the reason why he was dropped from US Postal was because he simply wasn't good enough?
Sometimes this can get like football, with ex-players of a club happily slagging off their former employees after they've been transferred.
Comments
Not to mention of course as others have said that the rest of the team have all given postitive samples and many of those were willing to testify against him.
He quit as he realised he wouldn't have a leg to stand on
Hairless or otherwise
So it was an even playing field, they were all doing it. Let him keep the titles!
Or one of the BMX Bandits
The fact remains that unlike Landis and Hamilton Armstrong has not failed a dope test and he must have been the most tested athlete on the planet during those seven years he was winning the Tour de France. The rules are that wherever you are in the world you must inform the anti-doping authorities of your presence and they will drop in unannonced and test an athlete. Miss three dope tests for whatever reason and you are assumed to be guilty.
So the evidence appears to be circumstantial and to have come from flawed sources, which may however be telling the truth, but who knows? The other central accusation is equally circumstantial - that everyone was doping so Armstrong must have been doping as well and the received wisdom was that doping was so prevalent that it was impossible to win major races otherwise. Pro cyclists referred to clean riders as "little men" - as they never achieved or amounted to much in the sport. This does not prove his guilt however. But, if Armstrong juiced anything was it was the system. In that era the top riders were not that well paid and pretty much had to ride week in/week out and their season would include the three week Giro d'Italia a few weeks prior to the Tour de France as well as numerous other races including one day classics and the slightly longer six day tours as well as more mundane events. Armstrong was well funded with corporate sponsors and could afford to miss these events and would turn up and prepare for the TdeF by riding some of the classics - the Dauphine, Tour de Romandie etc and miss the gruelling Giro which Ullrich and co were forced to compete in. So he arrived on the start line fresh while many other riders were carrying injuries and were dealing with the stesses and starins of being a professional rider.
He was also one of the first riders to get a strong team around him that had one job - to look after and get him to the front he would do the rest and his pre-season training would be based around riding some of the climbs that would feature in the coming year's Tour. Tylet Hamilton for example had two jobs in his team - to go with him on the climbs and be his domestique and in the Individual Time Trials to ride the stage full on to give Armstrong a relaible guide as to what he should be achieving for each split. Few other riders had this luxury. Once he won the Nike PR machine swung into action and he was off to cash in rather than do as other Tour de France winners would do which was parade around Europe showing up in smaller races and getting appearance money. Understandably this and his prickly attitude won him many enemies and in addition his refusal to speak French in France (and French is the lingua franca of cycling) meant that the mostly French cycling establishment universally hated him and the rumours that he was doping began in earnest and I think these two events are connected. Compare with Bradley Wiggins who speaks French in interviews and upholds some of the traditions. But even if he did dope he still put in an amazing amount of graft and guts on the road and I think there's a case here that many people hate Armstrong for being what drove him on and cannot separate the art from the artist. Personally I think that having survived cancer, and a serious form of cancer which had metastasized into his lungs and brain that he would be damned stupid to mess with steroids. But then maybe his brush with death gave him a desire to achieve something and he thought to hell with the consequences and consequently his mortality became something that was no longer important to him. Who knows...
Lance was my first ever cycling hero. Having read "Its not all about the bike", you realise what Lance when through when he was first diagnosed with Cancer.
I cant believe he was ever not clean. Innocent until proven guilty and the USADA dont have any hard evidence to prove otherwise.
As others have said Lance Armstrong has tested positive twice. The steroid cream for saddle sore, is something the UCI should be very ashamed of. The doctor's note was provided after the test, and even in the days of the test - 1999 - it is dubious on whether that should be accepted retrospectively: very different to Salbutomol being prescribed but not informing the UCI. The EPO test was a retrospective test of samples taken from I think Lance's tour win in 1999 or 2000. They were performed annonymously without anyone knowing the identity of the riders. Le Monde did an excellent piece of journalism that was able to link codes with the actual riders codes held at the UCI: this was done after the tests and their results. Armstrong refused to have other samples tested for EPO. The UCI employed a former Dutchmen to review the tests, who had been involved in Dutch anti doping circles but then resigned and was a lawyer who fought legally for accused dopers. A clear conflict of interests, and his report is on the net and full of illogical idiocy if anyone cares to read it.
A common thread is the complicity of the UCI, both under Hein Verbruggen and Pat Mcquaid. Pat McQuaid is a dick of the highest order who's abuse and vileness towards people who attempted to whistle blow on doping is well recorded. How there was no co-ordination between the UCI and Puerto case is something I could never understand, thank god for the Italian anti doping and their judiciary: Interesting to see that no Spaniard was banned via DNA test other than Valverde via the Italian authorities, shame on the Spanish who have a very dubious record of sportsmen doping. Again Armstrong donating money to the UCI anti doping cause is a clear conflict of interests that Verbruggen and McQuaid were guilty of knowing and accepting.
Lance was a great classics style rider, who could finish quite well if not compete with the best sprinters. He never was a great stage racer, and yet suddenly started winning Tours when he weighed virtually the same after his cancer: Another lie he disseminated about losing weight, helping him climb, his own testimony proved his weight was virtually identical to when he was a poor tour rider to a superstar. Make your own mind up how he changed his results.
BFR it is just not true what you are saying. LeMond helped revolutionise racing in the 80's, and he was paid superstar wages. In Kimmage's book a US rider who never did anything on the European Tour was paid $40,000 wages - before bonus - a month for his first year before he went home. PDM was a superstar team, almost definitely taking EPO around the late 80's early 90's. Steroids and amphetamines were generally considered cheap and any amateur could use them, EPO and doping especially requires a sophisticated medical setup costing a lot of money. Sports that pay their riders a pittance wage don't tend to be first responders to new expensive human growth hormone drugs: Festina riders paid many thousands into their EPO pot. Team Telekom had an incredibly strong team, whilst US Postal did not in the first few years. Which makes it more remarkable that the average riders US Postal had managed to outride Pantani. Subsequently we know many of them doped. Whatever happened Lance would never have won his first Tour without the assistance of average riders cheating. By the 90's superstar riders earnt enough to choose their races. Jan Ullrich rode the Giro once during his competing years on the Tour, he very rarely raced two Tours in one year. Frankly your assesment of cycling in the 90's is just wrong. Yes Lance's team did develop into a well oiled machine with super domestiques, but early days teams like Kelme, Once, Festina and Team Telekom were all stronger.
The issue with Lance was EPO and blood doping, whilst it is believed that he took testosterone with Dr Ferrari: Frankie Andreu testified of his EPO use and he is not a tainted character, though I never understand this puerile argument as what whistle blower is 'clean'. If he took EPO legally in his recovery, why wouldn't he when he was well if he knew all the facts. The cancer to definitve clean rider is clearly only one way to look at things. A rider well versed in the doping of the Tour, is quite likely to continue doping if he wants to stay in the sport. Depends on personalities, someone motivated to win and cruelly punish others, is quite likely to make the only rational choice and do as most others do and boost those corpuscles.
There is far too much evidence against him the game is up he knows it
My wife finished reading his book yesterday and before the book knew less than zero about cycling , got the hump when I said about what happened recently and was a bit defensive of LA.
I always thought cyclists were a bit odd and didn't know too much about it but reading here the corruption throughout it isn't pretty and makes sad reading
Just hope in 10 years we're not reading about Team GB riders having "been on it"
Also puzzled as to how the US authorities can strip him of his titles. This has been a one man vendetta for years and it finally ground LA down. That's my view on it. Might be proved wrong but really hope not.
Drug taking ?
Well I never...................
So you can't see the difference between a UCI and CAS investigation where you lose titles, money - often impossible to retrieve -, and career time to spending time in a one of those nice US prisons. Oh yeah a liar's gonna lie, because he's now faced with prison time if he lies. That's some amazing logic sralan.
It's hardly been a one man vendetta as USADA has only been around for ten odd years. The inception of WADA and USADA, occurred because all big money sports have been complicit or wilfully ignorant of PEP's being abused in their sport.
Look Lance's whole career was during a time when the majority of top cyclists were up to something. However you see it, his achievements were impressive. He's renowned as being vindictive and bullying, but he's also known to be thoughtful and giving of his time privately to those with cancer: Something that was rarely reported. He's raised an enormous amount for cancer sufferers and research, encouraged countless others to a healthier life. It doesn't really matter what happens, especially if through the furore the media attempts to destroy a foundation that does much good.
Regarding Landis, is he not up for trial regarding fraud?
Vaughters doped:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all
Vaughters raced on the US Postal Team and then left for another squad and happily claimed to be clean and how unfair it was that he was being held back by cyclists who doped etc etc. Then he admitted that he doped as well. Perhaps the reason why he was dropped from US Postal was because he simply wasn't good enough?
Sometimes this can get like football, with ex-players of a club happily slagging off their former employees after they've been transferred.