Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs? Behold our shock!

Discussion in 'Other Sports' started by Theatregirl1122, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. BittyBug

    BittyBug Kiteless

    15,483
    3,821
    113
    Alleged. It seems it was people around her, but despite charges against her, there was no conviction.
     
  2. Cachoo

    Cachoo Well-Known Member

    2,539
    290
    83
    I'm not a cycling fan but have read that doping is so prevalent that perhaps the only way to stop it is lifetime bans. One strike and you are out. And how can Lance's bullying and threats NOT be a crime? The guy should spend some time in jail.
     
  3. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    I would suggest to start at the lower levels too, before someone gets uber-famous and becomes either "too big to fail" or "richer than God to pay off the right people."
     
  4. bek

    bek Guest

    I don't buy the everyone was cheating thing. I'm sure there were some who weren't. Or perhaps there were some who quit the sport because they didn't want to be part of the cheating.
     
  5. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    Apparently he did say that he would apologize to Walsh (source).

    As for the death penalty stuff, I don't know about how it's perceived in other countries, but I suspect that a lot of American sports fans might associate the expression, in a sports context, with bans in college sports. As I said earlier, my first association was SMU football, and I'm not that big of a college football fan. The few college programs that were given the death penalty deserved it - but it is still considered a severe punishment.

    They could maybe get Armstrong for something like obstruction of justice (that's what Barry Bonds was convicted of in the BALCO case). The statute of limitations has run out on a lot of it anyway. But I think it would be better if he faced civil lawsuits, and there's certainly no shortage of people who could sue.
     
  6. bek

    bek Guest

    Barry Bonds case is extremely sad. Armstrong never won anything without those drugs. But Bonds it seems clearly had a period in his career when he was this skinny guy ripping out home runs and stealing bases. Many say he was the greatest ever. But he got jealous over guys like Mark getting attention when he knew they were juicing and so made that decision.

    So now this guy who could have gone down without drugs as one of the greatest ever, has this kind of rep...What an idiot.
     
    Vash01 and (deleted member) like this.
  7. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Vera

    26,863
    4,052
    113
    ITA about Barry Bonds. Same can be said of Roger Clemens. Both were already great and would have gone to the baseball hall of fame. They got greedy and used drugs to get better after their bodies aged. Armstrong never won anything without drugs, and he is a bigger disgrace, IMO.
     
  8. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    Well, he won some triathlons as a teenager. Was he already doping when he won the world championships in 1993? I don't think he's been stripped of that title, and AFAIK the doping allegations are dated back to the mid-1990s when he was with Motorola (as a young rider, I doubt he would have been the ringleader back then). If we accept that, he had some minor wins early in his career.

    Re Bonds, a lot of baseball players got sucked into the steroid era. It is sad. A key difference is that in baseball, there was basically no testing so considerably fewer players were caught. As for the HoF, eventually they will have to decide what to do with the steroid era players. I think there will be more willingness to vote them a few years down the line and not as first ballot hall of famers, since that is something of an extra honor. Especially if they did have strong careers pre-PEDs, and/or if there's no hard evidence connecting them with PEDs (e.g. people like Piazza and Bagwell). As I said on the baseball thread, what we know now does put a different spin on this commercial, doesn't it?

    For all that Bonds is considered a jerk, I don't believe he ever went after people the way Armstrong did.
     
  9. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Vera

    26,863
    4,052
    113
    I don't think those early wins need to be considered here. Everyone starts somewhere. It's like comparing little league player with his pro career.

    For many years I actually believed that Armstrong was clean because he so vehemently denied it. Now I know he was just acting and he is still acting.

    The biggest problem I have with Armstrong is the way he destroyed people who questioned and even told the truth about his doping. He destroyed their careers and caused a lot of mental anguish to them. He even pressured his teammates to take drugs. They guy is almost a criminal in my mind.
     
  10. Cachoo

    Cachoo Well-Known Member

    2,539
    290
    83
    Ita Vash: Regarding the doping in cycling: I want to know the thought process involved in stripping him of his titles but not awarding it to the cyclist who took second place in each race. The report I heard on ESPN was there was so much of this crap going on that they decided to leave the titles vacated. If I was the person who took second place I would certainly want my name to be in the winner's circle.
     
  11. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    Winning the world championships is not a little league result.

    Not a defense, but I believe that Emma O'Reilly has stated that USPS was not running a clean operation even before Armstrong's arrival, with cyclists complaining that the team wasn't sufficiently aggressive in its commitment to doping :eek:. Looks like he simply extended the tradition and took it to new lows; for many cyclists, I doubt much pressure was required.

    Err, not so fast. Take a look at the other top finishers in Armstrong's wins and the reasoning becomes clear. And these are just the guys against whom there is concrete proof; others have been implicated in various doping offenses, but do not appear in the graph.
     
  12. Yehudi

    Yehudi Well-Known Member

    2,207
    430
    83
    Given that the US Postal Service, a government organization, was a sponsor of Armstrong's team, are there any actions the government can take in regards to this whole mess, aside from perjury or obstruction of justice?
     
  13. Scintillation

    Scintillation New Member

    2,727
    542
    0
    Well investigators are claiming he is still lying about his races in 2009 and 2010, so maybe they can get him for that? They claim the test results from those races show obvious manipulation of his red blood cell count. Would perjury be a potential possibility?
    I just want him to hit such a low point that maybe he'll finally realize what a despicable person he is. It's doubtful that'll ever happen, but I can hope.
     
  14. Vash01

    Vash01 Fan of Julia, Elena, Anna, Liza, and Vera

    26,863
    4,052
    113
    was referring to the start of your post that referred to his winning a triathlon as a teenager.

    He pressured his teammates to start taking drugs, and if anyone disagreed with him, he would do everything in his power to destroy that person.

    If the #2 guy checked out clean, I don't see why he should not get the title vacated by Lance.

    You appear very defensive of Armstrong. Somehow trying to reduce the seriousness of what he did over 10 years.
     
  15. bek

    bek Guest

    Well how do we know that Lance was clean then? I was watching Anderson Cooper (etc) and they were asking some cyclist experts and they were saying no-they don't think he'd be anywhere near as successful without the drugs. Yes everyone was doing but Lance because of his money had access to the very best drugs, best doctors etc..

    In contrast Barry Bonds/Roger Clemons its clear they were great, great well before the Performance enhancers.
     
  16. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Eh, if what's already happened won't lead to some introspection, it's doubtful anything else will.
     
  17. overedge

    overedge Well-Known Member

    18,189
    2,768
    113
    Not directly, for sure, but it sounds like he took every opportunity to let them know he was "better" than him (e.g. demanding a separate part of the locker room for his use alone).
     
  18. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    Bek - I'm basing this on the fact that he has not been stripped of that specific title, and also because most accounts I've read don't suggest that he was doping back then. This does not mean that he wasn't, but I'll defer to the experts and the officials on this matter, and until it's confirmed otherwise... he does still have that title. FWIW, he probably couldn't have afforded the best money can buy in banned substances that far back.

    Really? In what way am I defensive of him? Because I suggested that he made a bad situation worse rather than arguing that he invented doping and no cyclist would have considered it without his involvement? Is he to blame for, say, the Festina Affair?

    I feel that I've been consistent in this thread and earlier, in the cycling thread: I think Armstrong is a jerk. I think he owes apologies and restitution to a lot of people, because his actions in covering up his doping were shameful. I think he has his own agenda that's led to this confession, its content and its timing. I don't think he is the source of all evil and I believe that he has done a lot of good outside of cycling. This does not excuse his actions. But this is more complicated than "Armstrong is responsible for everything that has ever ailed cycling", and there have been worse scandals and behavior in sports.

    According to the graph I posted earlier, so many top riders were doping during the Armstrong era (and before it, and after it) that trying to work out who should be the TdF champion for those years is probably an exercise in futility. Therefore, I believe that keeping the titles vacated is a powerful statement and the right thing to do.
     
    Erin and (deleted member) like this.
  19. bek

    bek Guest

    Even so though that was one race.....
     
  20. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    Thanks for posting that link. I disagree that vacating the titles is the morally "right" thing to do, but it's probably the best option for not publicizing just how dirty the sport was, and the latter is what's motivating TdF officials. It would be pretty awkward, for example, to publicly award the 2003 title to the fifth-place finisher, thus calling attention to the fact that the four finishers above him have subsequently been nailed for doping. Notice that you don't see many of those apparently "clean" finishers themselves coming forward to claim those titles, which might indicate that they fear their own possible PED activity will eventually be detected, and/or they would feel a little embarrassed to be pulled up from so many spots down the list.
     
  21. Zemgirl

    Zemgirl Well-Known Member

    5,592
    1,858
    113
    All credit to Garden Kitty for finding that link - I got it from an older post in the cycling thread.

    And yeah, I doubt most riders from the 1990s and 2000s would want anyone taking a closer look at their samples and activities during that time.
     
  22. Anita18

    Anita18 Well-Known Member

    11,214
    1,039
    113
    I finally caught up on AC360 about this, and the way that Lance described telling his 13-year-old son to stop defending him online because he did cheat broke my heart. Not because of Lance's supposed remorse, because there was something about his demeanor that said he didn't have the ability to fathom how much it devastated his son. That if he could, he would make the same decision again. Because he always has to win.

    I don't even know how he could be a role model for his own children like that.

    But how could he have done it so well when he was just up-and-coming and wasn't so successful and rich? Some of the other folks doping used to be more successful than him and could also afford the best doctors, etc.

    I have no doubt that he would be a less accomplished cyclist without the drugs. But to say that he would have been a nobody without PEDs is a little preposterous. It almost presumes that someone higher up in cycling personally anointed him as the next great one, and decided they would take him under their wing and do all it would take to get this useless pipsqueak all the way up to the top. That's a little too conspiracy theory for me. :lol:
     
  23. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    3,807
    956
    113
    Yes.

    The Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Lance Armstrong: What to Expect Next

     
  24. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    So Landis, a cheater himself who knowingly bilked his supporters for four years to pay for bogus legal challenges, and who also doped as a USPS rider, is suing Lance for doping while racing for USPS? We shouldn't be surprised at the depths Landis will reach, since this was the same person behind the obscene calls to Greg LeMond, making reference to LeMond's being molested as a kid.
     
  25. Alex Forrest

    Alex Forrest Banned Member

    916
    114
    0
    So what bothers me the most about this, is that Lance has ALWAYS been an athlete a world apart from everyone else. Growing up in Plano/Richardson he had no peer. I am still a supporter, he has done way too much for pediatric cancer to criticize him. I find it quite telling that all those titles have not been replaced. I'd bet that everyone (EVERYONE) was using at the time. Go Lance.
     
  26. Vagabond

    Vagabond Well-Known Member

    3,807
    956
    113
    In my view of things, Floyd Landis has even less credibility than Armstrong, but that doesn't mean that his suit is without merit. He probably realized it's one way he can still make money from his cycling career.

    And while it may be true that all elite cyclists of Armstrong's era (and many others before and even after that) doped, there were plenty of people who dropped out of competitive cycling rather than dope.
     
  27. heckles

    heckles Well-Known Member

    3,121
    634
    113
    It actually does have merit, but, man, that Landis guy is something else. Wish someone else had filed.
     
  28. made_in_canada

    made_in_canada INTJ

    4,492
    1,587
    113
    I don't understand this thinking at all. Just because a person has done something good doesn't mean that the bad stuff should just be overlooked. There's consequences for actions and Armstrong has put himself in a position through his actions that means he is going to be criticized and will have to face the legal consequences as well. I don't see how his charity work should have any bearing at all on how his treatment around the doping and his accomplishments (or non-accomplishments) in the the cycling world.
     
  29. bek

    bek Guest


    Yes in Plano/Richardson he had no peer. But that doesn't mean he had no peer anywhere. Yes he won one world title before but he was hardly undefeated back then pre drugs..Drugs too effect different people differently.

    The fact two there is very likely folks that COULD have been competitive that perhaps quit precisely because they didn't want to dope. We will never know what he would have accomplished without drugs. But even he says he wouldn't have won 7 Tours De France. And there are cyclists who are clean. The French for example I've read make their cyclists who live in France do all kinds of testing.. (The most successful ones live with it)...

    And do you think his personal story and his work on cancer research didn't also get him attention/sponsors.. (I hate to be cynical). But this is a guy who sued newspapers for telling the truth about him....

    Don't get me wrong I'm glad millions of people with cancer at least benefited from Lance's selfishiness, it doesn't make him a good guy though.

    However there are other messages sent, and one of them is the message is drugs are okay.. And drugs including steroids do kill people and destroy a lot of lives.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 21, 2013
  30. overedge

    overedge Well-Known Member

    18,189
    2,768
    113
    So what? Does that make it OK for him to have doped and then lied about it, bullied his teammates, and sued people who told the truth?