Read this today: http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Lance-Armstrong-worst-cheat-ever-if-doping-claims-are-true-080610 It will be interesting to see if this gains any traction.
The walls are forming around him that's for sure. I don't like the guy (never met him), but as soon as he did his cameo in "Dodgeball" he's been on my **** list. I've probably said this multiple times, but it still angers me.
Mark Kriegel. 'Nuf said. I don't have a problem with Lance, but you have to wonder when soooo many people are pointing fingers at him. Smoking gun needed, though.
who in their right mind ever thought Lance was innocent of ever using any performance enhancing drugs in his career?
The Tour de France is a major sports-event in Europe and its impossible to cycle through France onto several serious mountains in 3 weeks on a sandwich or plate of pasta. Doping has been, and is a big problem in any sport. What is doping, or a drug? The list of forbidden substances is never complete.. There is allways a new "miracle-drug" in development.. What is good and what is wrong.... Records have been crushed in cycling since the 1980's and there is NO way that can be done by only perfecting equipment. Fill in the blancs and its obvious.. In cycling, non of the cyclists from the Tour CAN be clean.. Its about what they use, and IF its legal or not... Hans
the game like NASCAR is not getting caught. Lance was making more money than any other cyclist and had the best group money could buy surrounding him. There is word Lance failed a very few tests, but for the most part only thing the international and national doping agencies have him on is witnesses. That's the angle they are going after now, 50+ people that can testify under oath he used PED's. if you want to watch a great documentary find 'Bigger Stronger Faster' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/ it actually changed my complete perspective on steroids. I now feel embarrassed I have got caught up over the decades in the "Steroid Hysteria" especially since I did figure out the "Pot Hysteria". I'm still against illegal steroid use, but the documentary is awaking how little medical danger there really is in steroids and how the USA was just as involved in steroid programs for athletes as the East Germans, but you never hear that story and now we're so quick to burn at the stake athletes that our government once supported with those PED programs.
You could probably find 50+ people will to claim under oath that President George W. Bush was a practising Sadist, or 50+ people perfectly happy to, under oath, recall the time when they witnessed the birth of President Barack Obama in Siberia to a mother koala and a proud cartoon duck. Not everything said under oath is always true, as not everyone places the same value on the honor of their word and will lie if they think they won't be caught. I would need empirical evidence to convict. All the best, Andrew.
I can't believe it, if you are saying Lance Armstrong never used PED's? That all the witnesses will be lying? That's really what blows my mind more than anything, not that Lance used drugs, but that some still don't believe it. Maybe my perspective is wrong, but I can still respect Lance for what he accomplished on his bike and off because he was playing a game and that was the game.
Lance Armstrong is a prolific champion and, for some reason, people always seem to like watching the great ones fall. How about Tiger Woods? I don't think his marriage would have been saved, but perhaps his mindset, game, and career on the golf course wouldn't have suffered so much if he hadn't been hounded so mercilessly. His transgressions didn't even involve any cheating to win tournaments and titles! When Arnold Schwarzenegger was first running for governor, the opposition managed to "find" a bunch of people in Austria who testified to the media that he was raised as a Nazi. How many crazy women claim they're pregnant with the Pope's baby? What are the motivations of the people stepping forward? Amnesty for their own misdeeds, personal prestige (attention), riches for being able to sell the story afterwards, or simply the satisfaction of knowing they were a small part of destroying a legend? Or are they the cyclists who finished behind him in that era and stand to inherit a win by discrediting him? Who then steps forward to discredit them and try to claim the win next? My perception is that most (if not all) of the elite riders in the Tour de France were probably using some form of drug administration in their training regimes and that the line as to what was 'passed' and what was deemed 'illegal' was a constant battle of the team scientists (designing the drugs) versus the scientists of the governing body (designing the tests). There comes a point where the continued pursuit of bygone champions over alleged offences becomes more damaging for the sport than healthy. Lance Armstrong probably did use performance enhancing drugs, however the riders he was up against (whatever they may claim) were probably using the same drugs... so it's all relative. As a doped up rider beat other doped up riders on the day, you can say he still earned the titles he won - even if he didn't deserve to be lauded for breaking records of absolute performance relative to riders of the previous eras. The sport can use the excuse that he passed the tests of the day and move on. What they're doing by continuing to pursue him is hammer home the message that all of cycling is built upon cheating (which, it probably was). Are they going to hold trials for all of the previous participants or only the former champions? The energies of cycling's governing bodies would be better spent on making sure that future results are cleanly contested and let commentators draw their own conclusions about the health of the sport. All the best, Andrew.
I agree, that was the game of the sport. I would agree to let him get off if it wasn't for his own actions. He has continually lied saying he never used PED's, which again is part of the game. What upsets me the most are the lives he went after to discredit them and threw more legal money at them than they could defend. There were many innocent people that suffered because of his guilt and lie covering. That isn't excusable.
I don't really follow cycling (on or off course), so I've no idea about the specifics. If lying to say that PEDs were not used is/was part of the game, why were people going after him to try to expose their use instead of just carrying on to try to improve the future of cycling? I think he was probably more aggressive than most because he was more successful than most and felt he needed to discourage further people from making revelations. It's inexcusable, but you can predict it. All the best, Andrew.
If he didn't go after every little person that said every little thing then it would have snowballed and game would have been over. He wouldn't have won that many tours, he wouldn't have raised that much money for cancer, and he wouldn't have made that much sponsor money. I certainly understand his perspective through all of that, but now the game is coming to an end and not only can I say "I told you so", but he's going to get everything he deserves for playing the game for so long and calling other liers when he was the lier all along. Besides the personal feelings of guilt (which has done in more cyclists than convictions) he is still riding high now, it will only go downhill from here as his career is over. In 10-20 years only Lance will be able to answer if it was all worth it.
I don't see how anyone could ever think Lance could win that many Tours', let alone in a row! You can be the best of the best, but not that far ahead of everyone.
I think he was still the best of the best, I think almost everyone in the tour was on some illegal drugs at some point in their career or the year. He couldn't have beat everyone only clean himself, but he might have still been the best if everyone was clean too.
Don't quite know why, but I suspect if Lance has to come clean, he's not likely to do the sob story, "Mea Culpa" kinda thing. His personality type seems to me to indicate he'd just walk away vs. face the music. Be interesting to see how it all plays out. Btw, you think drugs are sumpin', wait until DNA/genetic modifications get into the picture; you ain't seen nuthin' yet. Sports will(even more so than now) get to the point where world-class is synonymous with 'Freak'.
Innocent until proven guilty. Only once in my life have I ever not believed in that thought, and that was OJ in 1995. I'm not saying Lance is innocent, I'm just saying nobody has shown credible proof of anything. And I have been wrong before.
no fair! you can't use "Innocent until proven guilty" and preempt the OJ response! In my life I don't form my opinions and views based only after an official legal decision. Even after a legal decision there seems to be much debate on the accuracy which often leads to appeal. My view is based more on how I know the sport was (facts about almost every single major competitor of Lances at the time) and just simple common sense what most likely occurred. Lance has won the "game" so far and he might always win the "game". I think more likely he will give in because of guilt and conscious. That has done in more of the pro cyclists than positive tests. 5 years? 20 years? It will come and FerrariChat.com will still be around for me to top this thread and scream "I told you so!".
I think everyone pretty much knows who the guilty party is in the OJ case, but dammit, OJ will continue to search for that killer when he gets out of prison. I hope he never looks in a mirror - he might just find that person. I have to agree, soooo many folks are writing soooo many stories on Lance, it's hard to not think something goofy was going on, but also, so many stories contradict each other on exactly what he 'did', all Lance has to do is keep his yap shut. Lance does not = Barry or McGuire. YET.
I can't say it yet, but one of these days I will be able to say "I told you so!". I might even increase the font size to 2.
