Lance Armstrong ... doping

The place for news, information and discussion about anything related to pro sports.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Post Reply
ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by ilovethecats » Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:20 pm

doubt it'll change peoples' views but this will probably be in the news the next few days.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/sto ... usada-says" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:57 pm

Does this officially put Armstrong into the Pete Rose category (in terms of denying the truth long after it's clear that he's lying)?

http://www.businessinsider.com/usada-ev ... ng-2012-10

Granted, Armstrong lent his name to a lot of great charity work, and that should be commended. But let's not forget that the charity work also served as excellent promotion of his own brand (which certainly helped with his endorsement income), and could be seen as having self-serving motives as well.



John K
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by John K » Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:59 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:Does this officially put Armstrong into the Pete Rose category (in terms of denying the truth long after it's clear that he's lying)?

http://www.businessinsider.com/usada-ev ... ng-2012-10

Granted, Armstrong lent his name to a lot of great charity work, and that should be commended. But let's not forget that the charity work also served as excellent promotion of his own brand (which certainly helped with his endorsement income), and could be seen as having self-serving motives as well.
It does in my book. Anyone who still proclaims his innocence should be officially inducted into the Flat Earth Society. After reading that piece, it's impossible to imagine that they just fabricated all of those details. I saw an interview with the guy from USADA a couple of days ago, and the interviewer asked him about Armstrong's claims that he'e passed more than 500 drug tests in his career, and the USADA guy scoffed at that, saying the actual number was probably closer to 60. Now that's still a lot of clean tests, but Armstrong exaggerating the truth so wildly does nothing to enhance his credibility. And frankly, it seems that they had perfected the art of cheating to such a high degree, that he probably could have been tested 5,000 times and passed them all, so it's really a moot point in my opinion



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:18 am

I guess this is the next stage of grief -- now that denial is past, we are into anger.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... arges.html



User avatar
MashTun
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1473
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Near the fridge...

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by MashTun » Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:09 pm

John K wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Does this officially put Armstrong into the Pete Rose category (in terms of denying the truth long after it's clear that he's lying)?

http://www.businessinsider.com/usada-ev ... ng-2012-10

Granted, Armstrong lent his name to a lot of great charity work, and that should be commended. But let's not forget that the charity work also served as excellent promotion of his own brand (which certainly helped with his endorsement income), and could be seen as having self-serving motives as well.
It does in my book. Anyone who still proclaims his innocence should be officially inducted into the Flat Earth Society. After reading that piece, it's impossible to imagine that they just fabricated all of those details. I saw an interview with the guy from USADA a couple of days ago, and the interviewer asked him about Armstrong's claims that he'e passed more than 500 drug tests in his career, and the USADA guy scoffed at that, saying the actual number was probably closer to 60. Now that's still a lot of clean tests, but Armstrong exaggerating the truth so wildly does nothing to enhance his credibility. And frankly, it seems that they had perfected the art of cheating to such a high degree, that he probably could have been tested 5,000 times and passed them all, so it's really a moot point in my opinion
Apparently anything this guy says is gospel to some people, unquestionable. It's amazing to me that while the "USADA guy" scoffs at the number of passes, does he say which ones were not passed? That's because Armstrong hasn't failed a test(for whatever reason), because if he had, then he would had suffered consequences resulting from the test , AND that information would have been use in making the USADA's case. Why wouldn't it? It's not in their case because the positives don't exist! The only way the USADA "got him" is testimony from other riders, not failed tests. So to me this USADA guy is totally "talking out his a$$". The widespread testimony just seems to confirm the widespread use of PED's during that era of competition. I believe it was rollo tumasi at the beginning of this thread made the statement that in that era, "if you weren't doping, you weren't trying". And that getting one guy like Lance just gives the title to the next doper. I'm beginning to think he's right.

That said, this whole thing is a complete witchhunt. If this was justice as BAC has posited, then all the riders who testified would receive punishment commensurate with the infraction. Obviously the whole thing was geared to getting one guy by any means possible. A far stronger message would have be sent by numerous riders being sanctioned. It's waaay more about this guy making a career acheivment that anything else. Cycling has done a lot to clean up it's act, far before all the USADA business this last year. If the USADA had done a better job at the time, then they wouldn't have to reach back ten years to get something done they should have handled a long time ago. Curious how their competency goes unquestioned.

What good does this whole fiasco serve? Nothing positive that I can see, as someone who has followed the sport for a long, long, time. I don't see what improvement this action will bring among the active racing community. Deterrence from doping? I'd say the current climate of "racing clean" and better testing(never perfect, but better) does more to deter doping than this case EVER will. Time and resources are better exhausted focusing on current methods to catch the cheaters. See previous comment regarding the competency of the USADA.

Apparently cycling is like many other sports, baseball and football for example that had doping eras where the records can be questioned. Sad, since it's a great sport.


"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza." - Dave Barry

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:46 pm

The case against Armstrong is quite well (extraordinarily competently) documented. There is a 200 page report available that extensively documents the case against him. If you truly aren't convinced of his guilt, then read the full report, see the evidence they present, and reach your own conclusion.

And yes, it was more than enough to convince me of his guilt. And no, I don't really have a problem with cheaters being punished ... even if all of the other kids were doing it, too. Especially when the cheater won't admit he cheated and instead tried to destroy anyone in the business that was speaking the truth.



User avatar
MashTun
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1473
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Near the fridge...

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by MashTun » Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:59 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:The case against Armstrong is quite well (extraordinarily competently) documented. There is a 200 page report available that extensively documents the case against him. If you truly aren't convinced of his guilt, then read the full report, see the evidence they present, and reach your own conclusion.

And yes, it was more than enough to convince me of his guilt.
You really need to read what I posted BAC. While I have been a big defender of Armstrong, I think my previous post shows a change in tone.

I still think it's witch hunt(guilt aside) as they obviously really only went after one guy. To be taken seriously the should go after all guilty parties. No just hand out slap on the wrists.

I don't think it took much to convince many of you of his guilt. If you are so convinced of the competency of the USADA now, why didn't they catch him years ago. I think it's fair question.


"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza." - Dave Barry

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:29 am

The same reason it took the Feds a long time to bring down any major mafia don? They know he's guilty, but its very hard to accumulate the evidence to convict due to the fact that the don goes to great lengths to cover his tracks. Until his capos start to flip on him, at which point he becomes vulnerable.



User avatar
MashTun
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1473
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Near the fridge...

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by MashTun » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:53 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:The same reason it took the Feds a long time to bring down any major mafia don? They know he's guilty, but its very hard to accumulate the evidence to convict due to the fact that the don goes to great lengths to cover his tracks. Until his capos start to flip on him, at which point he becomes vulnerable.
Are you really comparing the Mafia to bicycle racing? No one got whacked =;


"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza." - Dave Barry

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:38 am

MashTun wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:The same reason it took the Feds a long time to bring down any major mafia don? They know he's guilty, but its very hard to accumulate the evidence to convict due to the fact that the don goes to great lengths to cover his tracks. Until his capos start to flip on him, at which point he becomes vulnerable.
Are you really comparing the Mafia to bicycle racing? No one got whacked =;
Yes, I am comparing them, because there are a lot of similaries between the two. Armstrong was the Godfather of bicycle race doping, and that's why it was so hard to bust him and why he's getting punished more than others.

I'm certainly not saying the severity of the crimes is equal, though. But structurally, it's a pretty firm analogy.



John K
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by John K » Mon Oct 15, 2012 12:38 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
MashTun wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:The same reason it took the Feds a long time to bring down any major mafia don? They know he's guilty, but its very hard to accumulate the evidence to convict due to the fact that the don goes to great lengths to cover his tracks. Until his capos start to flip on him, at which point he becomes vulnerable.
Are you really comparing the Mafia to bicycle racing? No one got whacked =;
Yes, I am comparing them, because there are a lot of similaries between the two. Armstrong was the Godfather of bicycle race doping, and that's why it was so hard to bust him and why he's getting punished more than others.

I'm certainly not saying the severity of the crimes is equal, though. But structurally, it's a pretty firm analogy.
Also, to make another baseball analogy, does anyone really care about the myriad of average players that were very likely using PED during baseball's steroid era? But we most certainly do care about the guys who were setting career and single season records and were HOF caliber players, such as Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, et al. That's just the way it is, whether or not it's "fair".



User avatar
MashTun
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1473
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Near the fridge...

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by MashTun » Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:46 pm

John K wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
MashTun wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:The same reason it took the Feds a long time to bring down any major mafia don? They know he's guilty, but its very hard to accumulate the evidence to convict due to the fact that the don goes to great lengths to cover his tracks. Until his capos start to flip on him, at which point he becomes vulnerable.
Are you really comparing the Mafia to bicycle racing? No one got whacked =;
Yes, I am comparing them, because there are a lot of similaries between the two. Armstrong was the Godfather of bicycle race doping, and that's why it was so hard to bust him and why he's getting punished more than others.

I'm certainly not saying the severity of the crimes is equal, though. But structurally, it's a pretty firm analogy.
Also, to make another baseball analogy, does anyone really care about the myriad of average players that were very likely using PED during baseball's steroid era? But we most certainly do care about the guys who were setting career and single season records and were HOF caliber players, such as Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, et al. That's just the way it is, whether or not it's "fair".
Wow is all I can say. Only being concerned with the big fish, and it's tacitly "ok" for player/riders that aren't a good. Nice double standard.


"Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza." - Dave Barry

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Oct 16, 2012 2:03 pm

This whole argument that suggests that nobody else has been punished for doping is kind of misleading, isn't it? Isn't the reality that many, many HAVE been punished in the past as well (including many that were not big fish)?

The fact is, Armstrong deserves a harsher punishment than most because he not only doped (and made tons of money for himself by doing so), but he was a ringleader that encouraged others to dope, and he created an entire network of people specifically for the purpose of promoting doping, and when people tried to clean up the sport, he attacked them and ruined a lot of people's careers and defamed (for a period of time) a lot of honest people. And then he continued to lie about it and attack people even after the evidence came out that showed his guilt.

So Armstrong certainly isn't being punished any more than he deserves -- he honestly DESERVES to be punished to an extraordinary degree.

Of course, if they changed the rules and just let everyone dope, I'd have no problem with that. As long as the playing field is level. After all, if they allow people with bad eyesight to improve their performances with corrective lens, I see no reason why people with lower O2 capacities in their blood or slower recovery times or whatever correcting those natural imperfections through the miracles of modern science.

But as long as it's banned, it makes sense for the competitive body to punish those who broke the rules -- especially those who actively promoted the breaking of the rules and elevated cheating to an artform.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by ilovethecats » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:12 am

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/sto ... -armstrong" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the real question is.....what does nike have against lance to terminate his contract. it's a witch hunt! the guy NEVER tested positive!!!

:-^



User avatar
wbtfg
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 13622
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:52 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by wbtfg » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:26 am

I didn't read this entire thread, so my apologies if this has been posted, but I just read that Levi Leipheimer from Butte was also busted for doping.



John K
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by John K » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:45 am

wbtfg wrote:I didn't read this entire thread, so my apologies if this has been posted, but I just read that Levi Leipheimer from Butte was also busted for doping.
Several of Armstrong's former teammates were busted, including Leipheimer, and he was also one of the former teammates that testified against Armstrong.



ilovethecats
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6509
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:12 pm

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by ilovethecats » Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:56 pm

this could be interesting. although, my prediction is that even if he did this....some would still say he never used peds and is just saying it to restore his image and land more endorsments. some just don't want to see what they don't want to see....


http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/sto ... cing-drugs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



John K
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8620
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:04 am
Location: Great Falls MT

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by John K » Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:49 am

ilovethecats wrote:this could be interesting. although, my prediction is that even if he did this....some would still say he never used peds and is just saying it to restore his image and land more endorsments. some just don't want to see what they don't want to see....


http://espn.go.com/sports/endurance/sto ... cing-drugs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm sure you're right. The Armstrong apologists will continue to defend him, no matter what. There's probably some people who still believe that Pete Rose never bet on baseball too.



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:27 pm

It's sounds more and more like he's going to use the Oprah interview to confess his cheating.

I wonder if he will also issue a huge apology to each and every person he has tried to destroy for their efforts to expose the truth? I wonder if financial reparations will be in order in many of those cases?



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Re: Lance Armstrong ... doping

Post by SonomaCat » Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:23 pm

One apologist who turned in a big way:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... um=twitter



Post Reply