Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs? Behold our shock!

[BittyBug]

There was cheque fraud in there somewhere as well wasn't there?

Alleged. It seems it was people around her, but despite charges against her, there was no conviction.

[Cachoo]

Lance is a narcassist and a bully.. I have been involved a little in the cycling world and was ironically involved in the world cycling championships here in canada with the anti doping.. and it was then I had my eyes opened to the realities of elite cycling.. they ALL do it!! The winner of one of the races - may have been the time trial - British guy Miller - failed his doping.. the Canadian girl - failed her doping.. then I observed first hand juniors informing us about blood transfusions etc., It reminds me of the sprinters - the Ben Johnson era - where they were ALL doing it.. Maybe some good will come from this and for once the mess gets cleaned up.. the coaches who allow and encourage this should be banned for life.. and bullies like Armstrong should never again be allowed to compete in an Olympic sport.. IMHO..

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.

[Anita18]

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.

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."

[bek]

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.

[Zemgirl]

You would think a cancer survivor would have a little more perspective about death sentences (even in the sports sense).

I am with those who think the worst thing Armstrong did was to sue the people who had accused him of doping. *This whole thing about defending to the hilt was just unacceptable behaviour. *It was interesting he didn't make any comment about David Walsh, the journalist who had been saying for so many years that Armstrong was a drug cheat.

For him to say that he has received a "death penalty" with regards to not being able to compete again is just a load of BS.

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.

Marion Jones didn't go to jail for doping. She was convicted of cheque fraud.

She was convicted of perjury, not check fraud.

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.

[bek]

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]

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.

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.

[Zemgirl]

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.

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.

[Vash01]

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.


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

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.

[Cachoo]

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.

[Zemgirl]

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.
...

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.

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 . Looks like he simply extended the tradition and took it to new lows; for many cyclists, I doubt much pressure was required.

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.

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.

[Yehudi]

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?

[Scintillation]

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.

[Vash01]

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 . Looks like he simply extended the tradition and took it to new lows; for many cyclists, I doubt much pressure was required.

I

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.

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.

[bek]

Winning the world championships is not a little league result..

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.

[heckles]

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.

Eh, if what's already happened won't lead to some introspection, it's doubtful anything else will.

[overedge]

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

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).

[Zemgirl]

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.

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.

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.

[bek]

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.

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

[heckles]

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.

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.