Author Topic: USADA to Ban Lance Armstrong for Life and Strip him of all tour titles (Read 10534 times)

jsem · « **Reply #140 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:39:31 AM »

Lance was a total douche on many occasions to, just read about Simeoni - epic douchebaggery on Lance's part.

rumborak · « **Reply #141 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:41:34 AM »

Every time I see responses like the three above, I am at a loss of words. The guy cheated his way into winning by setting up bloodwashing labs in hotel rooms alongside an enormous network of helpers and informants, and you want the statue of limitations to protect him? Wtf? Should Nobel price winners keep their medal if they're shown to have copied other people's work?

EDIT: Remove jsem's ninja post from my "three posts" list.

yorost · « **Reply #142 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:44:43 AM »

Quote from: jsem on October 22, 2012, 11:39:31 AM

Lance was a total douche on many occasions to, just read about Simeoni - epic douchebaggery on Lance's part.

Armstrong's part? Perhaps, but Simeoni was not a popular rider at that time, Armstrong got a lot of support from the rest of the cyclists for those actions. He was cycling's de facto leader at the time and, well, led them.

SinTrade · « **Reply #143 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:45:50 AM »

There is no witch hunt. As I stated earlier he had the chance to take the same deal as everyone else, but he chose to turn it down. This case is also not just about Lance. Team managers and doctors cases are going forward in USADA. Also he still has an active competition licence and biopass proof in USADAs case was from 2010. It's not all old news.

black_biff_stadler · « **Reply #144 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:51:33 AM »

*off topic* I keep on seeing your name as "SkinTrade" and think of human trafficking because of it

jingle.boy · « **Reply #145 on:** October 22, 2012, 11:59:08 AM »

Quote from: rumborak on October 22, 2012, 11:41:34 AM

Every time I see responses like the three above, I am at a loss of words. The guy cheated his way into winning by setting up bloodwashing labs in hotel rooms alongside an enormous network of helpers and informants, and you want the statue of limitations to protect him? Wtf? Should Nobel price winners keep their medal if they're shown to have copied other people's work?

EDIT: Remove jsem's ninja post from my "three posts" list.

I'm not trying to defend LA. But yes, Nobel prize winners should keep it. It's easy to look back in hindsight and say 'whoops, we made a mistake, let's fix it. Hindsight is 20/20. Just like people can't be prosecuted for a cheating on their taxes from 15 years ago, or be re-tried of murder if found not guilty already. Double Jeopardy. If one was judged worthy of something at some point in time, there can't be an indefinite period of 'if we can measure you better and don't like what we find, we'll take it away'

I'm not gonna disagree that he cheated. How many others in the history of sports would be caught *now* for having cheated based on the doping rules of their day? I don't know the answer, but what about the 1998 TdF winner? Is anyone investigating him? What about '97? Should the IOC start looking at multiple gold medalists from the 90s? I guess the question to any governing body is 'Where IS the line, and at what point do you know you've crossed it?'

SinTrade · « **Reply #146 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:00:35 PM »

Quote from: black_floyd on October 22, 2012, 11:51:33 AM

*off topic* I keep on seeing your name as "SkinTrade" and think of human trafficking because of it

SkinTrade sounds great

Back in 2003 I chose my name after a Sinergy track. Ohh well

SinTrade · « **Reply #147 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:16:38 PM »

Quote from: jingle.boy on October 22, 2012, 11:59:08 AM

I'm not gonna disagree that he cheated. How many others in the history of sports would be caught *now* for having cheated based on the doping rules of their day? I don't know the answer, but what about the 1998 TdF winner? Is anyone investigating him? What about '97? Should the IOC start looking at multiple gold medalists from the 90s? I guess the question to any governing body is 'Where IS the line, and at what point do you know you've crossed it?'

The investigations were started in 2010, when Lance was still an active cyclist (and still today is an active triathlonist, USADA controlled sport). Had he not returned from his retirement I doubt we'd be here today. 1996 winner Bjarne Riis admitted to doping, although never tested positive, and his victory was taken away. 97 winner was found guilty of doping later and 98 winner died few years back. If Lance had gone through with the USADA case, it is possible he could have kept some of the earlier TdF victories.

yorost · « **Reply #148 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:27:57 PM »

Armstrong could have stayed retired and we'd be in this exact same position. He's been their high profile target for years.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #149 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:38:24 PM »

Fair enough, and I'm not close enough to (or a big enough fan of) the sport to know said details. And maybe the media is blowing it way out of proportion (shocking, I know), but it seems like it's turned into a 'let's pile on LA' event. I got no beef with LA, nor am I a die-hard fan of his trying to defend him. I could give two shits. The whole thing (both his and the USADA/UCI approaches/tactics) seems like a cluster fuck.

rumborak · « **Reply #150 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:39:52 PM »

Quote from: jingle.boy on October 22, 2012, 11:59:08 AM

I'm not trying to defend LA. But yes, Nobel prize winners should keep it. It's easy to look back in hindsight and say 'whoops, we made a mistake, let's fix it. Hindsight is 20/20. Just like people can't be prosecuted for a cheating on their taxes from 15 years ago, or be re-tried of murder if found not guilty already.

Well, let me just point out that I am heavily, heavily disagreeing with that stance. There is a big distinction between a tax return and a Tour de France/Nobel Peace Prize win. The difference being, the latter are awards made by others for outstanding achievement. They are supposed to be a historic monument to be read 100 years from now on (especially the Nobel Prizes) as markers of timeless achievement. If time shows that it was never you own doing, you don't deserve that statue.

jingle.boy · « **Reply #151 on:** October 22, 2012, 12:58:34 PM »

Quote from: rumborak on October 22, 2012, 12:39:52 PM

Quote from: jingle.boy on October 22, 2012, 11:59:08 AM
I'm not trying to defend LA. But yes, Nobel prize winners should keep it. It's easy to look back in hindsight and say 'whoops, we made a mistake, let's fix it. Hindsight is 20/20. Just like people can't be prosecuted for a cheating on their taxes from 15 years ago, or be re-tried of murder if found not guilty already.

Well, let me just point out that I am heavily, heavily disagreeing with that stance. There is a big distinction between a tax return and a Tour de France/Nobel Peace Prize win. The difference being, the latter are awards made by others for outstanding achievement. They are supposed to be a historic monument to be read 100 years from now on (especially the Nobel Prizes) as markers of timeless achievement. If time shows that it was never you own doing, you don't deserve that statue.

I hear ya, and I see your point. There absolutely is a big distinction. At one end of the spectrum, Nobel prize winners; at the other end, Joe Schmo and his tax return. Where is the line, and when do you know you've crossed it? *I* honestly don't know the answer, and not sure anyone does really.

And exactly what you are stating doesn't occur with Nobel prizes. Great example, the 1909 Physics Nobel Prize. Given to Marconi even though it was subsequently established that Tesla demonstrated that technology in 1893. Maybe Marconi didn't "cheat" but won a nobel prize for something that was already accomplished. Other examples of exactly what you're stating are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies.

Also, Hitler and Stalin. Both nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. Shouldn't they have been stricken from the history books knowing what we know now?

I'm not trying to say I'm right, just that there is a statute of limitations for a reason. I'm not sure officially what it is for USADA and/or UCI, and frankly, don't care.

I'll just end again with the opine that the whole thing is a cluster on both sides.

rumborak · « **Reply #152 on:** October 22, 2012, 03:15:20 PM »

Quote from: jingle.boy on October 22, 2012, 12:58:34 PM

I hear ya, and I see your point. There absolutely is a big distinction. At one end of the spectrum, Nobel prize winners; at the other end, Joe Schmo and his tax return. Where is the line, and when do you know you've crossed it? *I* honestly don't know the answer, and not sure anyone does really.

There's of course always grey lines, but to me the Armstrong case is far away from that grey line. As simple rule of thumb that works for me, anything that is an award should be possible to be stricken, no matter how long ago. Awards are an affirmation of honor, and if you cheated, you don't deserve the honor. Not now, not 50 years later.

Quote

And exactly what you are stating doesn't occur with Nobel prizes. Great example, the 1909 Physics Nobel Prize. Given to Marconi even though it was subsequently established that Tesla demonstrated that technology in 1893. Maybe Marconi didn't "cheat" but won a nobel prize for something that was already accomplished. Other examples of exactly what you're stating are here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies.

Well, it's not the first time for me disagreeing with the Nobel Prize Committee

Quote

Also, Hitler and Stalin. Both nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. Shouldn't they have been stricken from the history books knowing what we know now?

Well first of all, neither Stalin nor Hitler actually got the price. And Hitler was nominated as an act of satire by a Swedish parliamentarian.

Cool Chris · « **Reply #153 on:** January 12, 2013, 08:22:37 PM »

https://seattletimes.com/html/sports/2020115321_apcycarmstrongdoping.html

Quote

Armstrong will answer 'honestly' during Oprah talk

Oh good.

jsem · « **Reply #154 on:** January 13, 2013, 12:50:49 PM »

Hahahaha. Does anyone remember the epic phail that was the Marion Jones interview with Oprah?

black_biff_stadler · « **Reply #155 on:** January 14, 2013, 01:15:32 PM »

No. Phill me in?

jsem · « **Reply #156 on:** January 14, 2013, 01:32:24 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ewja4q0z7s

jsem · « **Reply #157 on:** January 18, 2013, 12:43:46 AM »

I just watched the first part of the Oprah interview. It got off to a good start, then he was clean in 2009... lol.

His blood passport indicated that he was doping, big time, yet he says the biopassport works? Lol?

Level playing field too, LOL. His program was way more sophisticated. Yes, in theory everyone could have been as bold as him and as risky, but weren't.

The way he avoided the Betsy Andreu question was interesting took, but at least he didn't call her fat,

. Betsy's reaction to this on CNN afterwards is gold: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTrkBRwT5Uc, he probably won't talk about it for perjury reasons or what not. It's pretty sad.

Ferrari too, ducking the questions. There are possible criminal charges to be made so he won't go there.

#doprah trending on twitter. Lol. PR failure.

yorost · « **Reply #158 on:** January 18, 2013, 07:51:06 AM »

Why did he do this interview, anyways? All things considered, he looked to be pretty well positioned after he took the bans, as enough people still seemed to believe he didn't do it. Now, people that think he cheated are vindicated, probably not forgiving, but with the people he had hooked he's now going to take a big hit. His PR move, from what I was seeing, was to just deny to the grave.

rogerdil · « **Reply #159 on:** January 18, 2013, 09:10:50 AM »

Good question. I think he and his team may have underestimated the short-term hit, but still in the long run it will probably benefit him -- not sure in exactly what way -- maybe not monetarily, but public relations-wise (a la Nixon, though don't think he ever admitted much about Watergate IIRC). Eventually, dorkies will fawn, "he did the right thing" and his conscience will be clearer.

Also, the fact that tenor of interview was "leaked" on Monday seemed to be a good strategy since everybody seems to "buy on the rumor, sell on the news" (of course, it was to build ratings, but that's more Oprah's motivation),

KevShmev · « **Reply #160 on:** January 18, 2013, 09:16:04 AM »

Watching that last night, he really is a deranged human being. Even though he said the words "I was wrong" and admitted to some doping (those in-the-know know he doped after 2005, so those are more lies), he didn't come off as contrite at all. And then he continued to evade and lie. Him saying he didn't require other team members to dope to keep their spot was a flat-out lie. And defending Dr. Ferrari, one of the worst doping doctors in sporting history? Good grief.

He deserves any and all public scorn he gets. The way he tried to ruin the lives of people who he knew were telling the truth about him was sociopathic. He is a disgusting human being.

rogerdil · « **Reply #161 on:** January 18, 2013, 09:28:20 AM »

There are a lot of Lance Armstrongs in the top echelons of sport, business, politics, media, entertainment, etc. Of course, to point it out is to be called a "hater." Maybe people should stop worshipping all these people in the first place.

rumborak · « **Reply #162 on:** January 18, 2013, 11:49:09 AM »

I predict that class of sports, which solely relies on plain body output, will more and more be marred by this stuff.

kirksnosehair · « **Reply #163 on:** January 18, 2013, 12:26:38 PM »

Maybe it's time to just let them all use whatever junk they want. May the best genetic engineering win

yorost · « **Reply #164 on:** January 18, 2013, 01:11:34 PM »

Yeah, sounds great, except now it isn't about athletes, just doctors, chemists, and biologists. These things can be harmful, and I hate to see an otherwise clean player feeling like they have to use it even though it might be detrimental to their health.

jsem · « **Reply #165 on:** January 18, 2013, 02:48:05 PM »

Quote from: kirksnosehair on January 18, 2013, 12:26:38 PM

Maybe it's time to just let them all use whatever junk they want. May the best genetic engineering win

That's how it used to be. Charly Gaul is a legendary rider, won a couple of Giros and Tours, and he was one who would dare to put anything in his body to win. Fausto Coppi is known to have used amphetamine. This was common practice and wasn't prohibited. Jokes were made on TV and in media about using pills to win races. Riders would end up dead or collapse due to certain drugs they were using.

There are reasons why anti-doping actually took off in the 60's. Not that it helped a great lot, people were still doping left and right and still are.

Quote from: rumborak on January 18, 2013, 11:49:09 AM

I predict that class of sports, which solely relies on plain body output, will more and more be marred by this stuff.

Not just endurance sports mind you. In the Operacion Puerto case, a lot of athletes were implied - including boxers, tennis players, football, etc.

Tennis has a problem too, and the testing regimes are ridiculous. Wouldn't be surprised to see major storms happening in the tennis world soon enough, the finesse and technique isn't as prevalent as it was before and now it's more about strength.

And when an NFL player had apparently given a non-human urine sample, he was suspended... for a whopping NINE games (CMIIW). Wow, what's that, three months? I'd say the anti-doping regimes in cycling are MUCH tougher than in ANY other sport, but even that isn't enough.

antigoon · « **Reply #166 on:** January 18, 2013, 03:23:32 PM »

People don't really seem to care about PEDs in the NFL for whatever reason.

millahh · « **Reply #167 on:** January 18, 2013, 07:33:09 PM »

Quote from: yorost on January 18, 2013, 01:11:34 PM

Yeah, sounds great, except now it isn't about athletes, just doctors, chemists, and biologists.

Hey, just because we pasty, scrawny lab folks found a way to win at sports without any physical exertion is no reason to get upset...

yorost · « **Reply #168 on:** April 24, 2013, 08:33:23 AM »

https://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/story/_/id/9204928/justice-department-says-lance-armstrong-was-unjustly-enriched

I'm sorry, but Armstrong cheating was better for the US Postal Service than if he had not. They should be thanking him, not suing him.

I've wondered if the US Postal Service backed out because they knew something was going on.

rumborak · « **Reply #169 on:** April 24, 2013, 10:22:28 AM »

I don't blame the USPS. They need the money, and Armstrong knew this was gonna come his way if they ever found out.

yorost · « **Reply #170 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:07:55 AM »

...so needing money is justification to sue now?

black_biff_stadler · « **Reply #171 on:** April 24, 2013, 11:43:08 AM »

Seriously. What a horrible rationalization.

rumborak · « **Reply #172 on:** April 24, 2013, 02:31:09 PM »

Armstrong grossly violated the contract they had. It would be negligent of USPS to not go after him. Their dire straits might be additional motivation.

yorost · « **Reply #173 on:** April 24, 2013, 02:44:16 PM »

I'm not sure nailing him would improve their situation a whole lot, though. You might be right it is motivation.

I don't think he didn't violate the contract, sounds like he did so they have a case. I just think it's backwards that by his violating the contract they already reaped dividends, but now they get to try and nail him for it. To me their only reasonable ground is he risked harming them against their consent. ...so they were already rewarded but are going after a reward?

rumborak · « **Reply #174 on:** June 17, 2013, 07:00:59 PM »

95% of Dutch riders found to have been doped:

https://m.cyclingnews.com/news/doping-rampant-amongst-dutch-cyclists-earlier-report-says

At this point I'm starting to agree with the people who say the riders should be allowed to dope. The sport seems to be beyond repair.

News: Fall Into the Light, official video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFxH4kky6z4

Author Topic: USADA to Ban Lance Armstrong for Life and Strip him of all tour titles (Read 10534 times)