Tour de Lance 2012

[quote=“headhonchoII”]I was interested to see your take on this for a number of reasons. I recall that you were a big fan of this guy.

I’m wondering what do you think of the fact that more honest riders may have been cheated out of the yellow jersey? Surely you must be disappointed about this?

I also find it curious that you seem to think it’s fair in this case because ‘everybody is doing it’ but when we were talking about paying back loans it was all black and white and about doing the right thing and paying everything back?[/quote]

I believe you’ve seriously misconstrued my words.

I don’t recall all I’ve said in the past, but I don’t think I’ve ever been a “fan” of his. However, like many, I’ve been very impressed with his performance. How could one not be? Heck, it looked like he would die from cancer, then he went and won the Tour seven times, often putting in a very strong, decisive performance. He kicked ass many times. I did question once what evidence there was of him doping, not because I believed he was clean, but simply because I didn’t know what evidence was against him and I was curious.

Of course I feel badly for all the clean riders, if any, who worked their asses off, struggling to compete with the dopers. Even without doping, most of the dopers still would have performed extremely well undoubtedly (I once saw a fascinating documentary on how Lance’s unique physiology is far better suited for pro cycling than not just non-pros, but even compared to top pros – he did have great genes and put in lots of very hard work), but the doping did give them an unfair advantage and that’s terribly wrong. Do those who were 2d now go into the record books as 1st? (Although I admit that would be a lame consolation at this late date).

I’m also fairly certain I’ve never said doping’s OK because they all do it. I certainly don’t believe that. I did say, WOW, Lance suffered an immense penalty (stripped of all titles, earnings and right to make a living cycling in the future). Wouldn’t you agree that’s a huge penalty? But I didn’t say he didn’t deserve it. So, your loan default comparison’s not right. I believe those who cheat in sport and those who intentionally default on loans for no legitimate reason are both wrong and both should be punished.

Let’s read the steaming turdfest of a statement

[quote]LANCE ARMSTRONG MAINTAINS HE IS INNOCENT

Full statement by Lance Armstrong:

There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart’s
unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense.

I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA’s charade. Although the court was sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in USADA’s motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could not intervene.

If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and - once and for all - put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to
support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?

From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks jurisdiction even to bring these charges.The international bodies governing cycling have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in USADA’s improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are made without authority. And as many others, including USADA’s own arbitrators, have found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade USADA to honor its obligations. At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully,
threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions its motives or its methods, all at US taxpayers’ expense. For the last two months, USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules, applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top
of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.

The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged ex-teammate can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It’s an unfair approach, applied selectively, in opposition to all the rules. It’s just not right.

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront. There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.

Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a lot of work to do and I’m looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z24RzHLEvm
[/quote]

I just took exception to this statement. Because what happened here was not loss of the victories but stealing of victories from other more worthy competitors. Not only that it tarnishes the whole sport and puts suspicions on innocent riders too.

Beyond that, the man has no integrity even in defeat, and I just found it strange that you did not condemn him but somehow found it acceptable to condemn loan defaulters, who may not have much integrity, but at least are being honest about it.

From Bradley Wiggin’s biography regarding another team member getting caught for doping-

[quote]I felt physically sick when I heard the news. My first reaction was purely selfish and related only to me. “You b****** Landis,” I thought. “You have completely ruined my own small achievement of getting around the Tour de France and being a small part of cycling history. You and guys like you are ping on my sport and my dreams. Why do guys like you keep cheating? How many of you are out there, taking the p and getting away with it? Sod you all. You are a bunch of cheating b******* and I hope one day they catch the lot of you and ban you all for life. You can keep doing it your way and I will keep doing it mine. You won’t ever change me, you sods. B******s to all of you. At least I can look myself in the mirror”.’

Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sport/others … z24S1at4S1
[/quote]

How are they going to deal with that? Earnings in the Tour are mostly split up by the team … :ponder:

I just took exception to this statement. Because what happened here was not loss of the victories but stealing of victories from other more worthy competitors. Not only that it tarnishes the whole sport and puts suspicions on innocent riders too.

Beyond that, the man has no integrity even in defeat, and I just found it strange that you did not condemn him but somehow found it acceptable to condemn loan defaulters, who may not have much integrity, but at least are being honest about it.[/quote]
From what I can gather, there’s no conclusive evidence he was doping; that’s why the whole thing has dragged on for so long. He refused to testify (seriously, did they expect him to incriminate himself even if he did?) and was presumed guilty. That’s witch-trial stuff.

In any case, I don’t think the comparison with loan defaulters is valid. If he cheated, then justice has been served; and the rest of his life has been exemplary. A loan defaulter walks away from it all with his middle finger in the air.

I just took exception to this statement. Because what happened here was not loss of the victories but stealing of victories from other more worthy competitors.[/quote]

You’re right. My statement was poorly worded. What I meant was that even if pro-cyclist dopers didn’t dope they would surely be outstanding cyclists anyway. It’s quite possible Lance might have won a few of those Tours even without doping (though we’ll never know) and same for all the other dopers. But of course it’s not right for them to be given the win when they cheated and some of their competitors may have struggled up those hills clean and honest. I completely agree with you.

I may not have voiced express words of condemnation for him, but only because my initial reaction was (a) amazement that this day has finally come and (b) impressed with the severity of the punishment. I didn’t make any excuses for him. If he cheated, as apparently he did, then that was a really crappy thing to do and his in-your-face aggressive challenging of his challengers is highly offensive.

I do think his type of aggressive defense is fairly common. Don’t most liars attack their accusers initially as a means of defense. If you’re lying and cheating at first you hope to keep getting away with it, so you say “no, that’s not true.” Then they pick up the pace and you have to dig in more and defend your position more aggressively. It’s like the frog in the pot of slowly heated water; there’s no good time to jump out and say, “ok, you’re right, I cheated, I was wrong.” Little by little the heat increases, you keep denying, there’s no way to save face, so you end up looking like an asshole, completely remorseless to the end.

Take our friend, Zane Dean. I have no idea if he’s guilty or not, but the court punished him for not showing remorse. HOw could he show remorse when he denied it all along. Same with Lance. Same with most people accused of wrongdoing.

I’m NOT condoning that behavior. There are some who at some point change course and make a humiliating admission that not only did they cheat but they lied about it repeatedly. But lots of others can never make that change of course.

Again, I don’t excuse Lance’s doping or his attitude. Just interested in observing it. And, I feel badly for the sport and for any clean athletes who suffer an unfair disadvantage.

Huh Finley, he won the Tour de France 7 times, which is the cycling world’s greatest achievement. He has at least 10 witnesses who have testified against him and a long association with dope doctors. He has really brought the sport to a new low and denied victory and prestige to people who played by the rules. He has questioned his detractors all the way making false claims of witch-hunts to distract people’s attention from the problem at hand. Now you are playing into it too.

I don’t get the idea ‘he cheated and the rest of his life is exemplary’. So I can rob a bank and live in the Bahamas at my beach house throwing the locals my left-overs, everything is great then?
And again it is not just that he cheated, but he STOLE the victories from people more deserving than him. This is sports where the idea is that you are supposed to have some sort of level playing field. If you don’t have that then what value does it have?

What’s worse after years and years of this charade he still won’t admit to what he did. That’s a real low-life.

Incidentally, HH, we had discussion about sportsmanship a few years ago, when I started this thread about how the lamest thing about hockey is all the fights.

As I explained then, I’ve got nothing against violent sports, but it seems to me hockey could celebrate the players’ skills at skating well and passing, blocking, shooting, etc (or whatever) and the fights seem almost like cheating – using brute force and breaking the rules to interfere with those trying to win within the rules. I admit that I don’t know much at all about hockey but that’s my gut feeling. I feel that way because I DO feel that cheating is the sleazy, dishonest loser’s way. Real champions win by hard work and skill and defeating their opponents fairly, honestly, within the rules.

Same goes for dopers in sport. Even if 90% of them are doing it, if it’s illegal it’s cheating, it’s wrong, and the wins shouldn’t count. Same for baseball, weightlifting, etc. And, I also think it’s wrong to sign a contract, take someone’s money, then intentionally break the contract and refuse to pay the money just because you don’t want to crimp your lifestyle by having to honor your word. That’s also sleazy, dishonest and wrong. No discrepancy.

What happened is that back in the late 90s, Armstrong paid Dr. Ferrari (amongst others) huge amounts to put together the perfect doping plan. Everything was done meticulously, to avoid failing doping tests. The ingestion of testosterone, the blood extractions and transfusions. His fellow riders kept the omerta. Others outside the circle suspected, but nothing could be proven. That’s why it dragged on so long.

Now that USADA finally have evidence, partly in the form of confessions from his ex-teammates (and we presume some of those confessions are from Hincapie etc., not just the known exposed dopers of Landis and Hamilton), Armstrong has refused to go into arbitration. He knows that he can’t explain the weight of testimony against him. There’s no witch-trial here, much as Lance and his supporters would like everyone to believe there is.

He’s chosen the cowardly way out, and as HH rightly calls it, his statement is a steaming turdfest.

Any truly innocent man would confront such allegations in an open and public tribunal. That’s the bottom line here.

Not really. I’m just giving him the benefit of the doubt. I admit I haven’t been following his career in minute detail, but AFAIK what he said is true: he’s never failed a drugs test. I appreciate that the tests are extraordinarily difficult to administer, for all sorts of reasons, but nevertheless it’s up to the regulators to offer conclusive proof. It’s not good enough to have random people coming out of the woodwork (some of whom might - and did - hold grudges) saying “that guy took drugs”. I agree there’s probably no smoke without fire, but that’s not evidence.

But that’s not what happened. He’s been thoroughly hauled over the coals, without trial or incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing. I’m sure he’s still done pretty well out of it all, but probably no beach house in the Bahamas now.

Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t. What Nuit said above is quite plausible and might be true. But nobody has been able to prove it. I’m not convinced, for example, that someone could undergo repeated blood transfusions without some vein damage showing. If anything, the whole fiasco suggests that the testing authorities need to update their testing protocols. It seems to me, for example, there’s no way of reliably testing for EPO doping unless you know, in detail, how the athlete’s body normally produces it - which is going to be a lot different from the average slob in the street.

Sure. Unfortunately, it’s what innocent people do too. How do you tell the difference?

Yeah that was the clincher for me. It will be interesting to see what evidence comes out in the trial.

Also, this will surely affect the Lance Armstrong Foundation, won’t it? Psychologically, he will be trying to isolate himself from the scandal by burying himself in his charity work. But the impact of the scandal will follow him, won’t it? Won’t donors be reluctant to associate their money with a doping cheat? He’ll go postal :smiley: if the donations start to dry up.

One interesting side-note…what happens with the second place finishers who are themselves known dopers? Do they get the retrospective yellow? Basso and Ulrich for starters were not racing clean.

I’m surprised he got such a crappy outcome. He lost everything. He’s got $100M. Couldnt he hire great lawyers to work out a compromise where he could be affiliated with cycling in the future, but still relinquish all titles and earnings, for example?

It’s too impractical to go down through the list of finishers trying to retro-find clean riders. The results will just have to be blanked, or a star put against LA’s name.
It remains to be seen if the UCI and ASO will accept the USADA verdict though.

That was what made me wonder if maybe he’s telling the truth. If (for the sake of argument) you knew you were innocent, you might be disinclined to give away the remainder of your winnings to lawyers.

That was what made me wonder if maybe he’s telling the truth. If (for the sake of argument) you knew you were innocent, you might be disinclined to give away the remainder of your winnings to lawyers.[/quote]
The USADA arbitration process is a lawyer-free zone, as I understand it. You just face the accusations, the witness testimony, and the panel of 3 arbitrators (you and USADA get to choose 1 each, and then those two together choose number 3).

No-one forced LA to take the USADA to Federal Court in the recent case. He could’ve gone straight to arbitration with USADA. But (presumably because he is guilty), he spent $$$ in legal fees trying to argue that USADA had no jurisdiction to do what they were trying to do.

(edit - that should probably be $$$,$$$).

Still seems like his lawyers screwed up. Or maybe they gave good counsel but he refused to accept it (given his stubborn arrogance). Maybe they should have tried harder to work out a compromise for him BEFORE losing their federal case. After that I guess it was a done deal.

Losing the titles is a given and maybe relinquishing the earnings was too. As for his right to race in the future, perhaps that’s somewhat moot due to his age, but maybe not completely. Maybe there’s Masters events he might have participated in.

But the other stuff, no coaching or anything else connected with pro-cycling, OUCH, isn’t that what you’d expect him to do after retirement? And, seems to me that’s where maybe they could’ve gotten some leeway. But I guess not.

Again, I’m not feeling sorry for him; just surprised – as a lawyer – that his lawyers couldn’t get a better deal for him.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Still seems like his lawyers screwed up. Or maybe they gave good counsel but he refused to accept it (given his stubborn arrogance). Maybe they should have tried harder to work out a compromise for him BEFORE losing their federal case. After that I guess it was a done deal.

Losing the titles is a given and maybe relinquishing the earnings was too. As for his right to race in the future, perhaps that’s somewhat moot due to his age, but maybe not completely. Maybe there’s Masters events he might have participated in.

But the other stuff, no coaching or anything else connected with pro-cycling, OUCH, isn’t that what you’d expect him to do after retirement? And, seems to me that’s where maybe they could’ve gotten some leeway. But I guess not.

Again, I’m not feeling sorry for him; just surprised – as a lawyer – that his lawyers couldn’t get a better deal for him.[/quote]

The one thing that bugs me is that we’re going to have to listen to him go on for all eternity about what a witch hunt this all was. The ten witnesses will not be called to give public testimony (basically the whole of US Postal) so we’ll never get the Senator McCarthy moment or even the Jack Nicholson/a few good men moment. I for one would love to hear Lance just say; “yeah fuck it I done a bunch of drugs, so what?”. He’s going to be peddling this shtick till he’s 83 and propping up a bar in Austin. There’ll be a book out shortly a la Landis (who coincidentally has just been ordered to start repaying donors to his own legal defence.)

Let’s see… If you take into account that the guys taking part in the Tour de France (or the giro, or la vuelta) put their bodies in a huge strain for days, one day after another… I bet that the exception there are the guys who are NOT using doping, not the ones they do.

The human body is not designed to do this kind of physical prowess. Maybe some exceptional guy could manage to do that… But really? So many people? I’m sure that if they did strict controls everyday to everyone, more than the half of those guys would be sent home. And ALL the teams would have someone kicked out.

It’s not just if one of them did or did not, it’s how well he hid it. And Armstrong failed to hide it, so he’s taking the fall for it. And I think that this does not make him less of an atlethe, I think that beating the cancer and winning what he won, that makes him exceptional. But the sport has rules, and he cheated.

Other thing to take into consideration is: if so many people does cheat, shouldn’t they change the rules? Or enforce them well, so no one could cheat? If they don’t, the results are a joke, being unable to know for sure that the winner didn’t cheat (most probably he did).

[quote=“Nuit”]It’s too impractical to go down through the list of finishers trying to retro-find clean riders. The results will just have to be blanked, or a star put against LA’s name.
It remains to be seen if the UCI and ASO will accept the USADA verdict though.[/quote]

This is [for me] interesting. It’s all very well USADA saying it, but if the UCI and ASO don’t… Then what? Confusing situation. This whole thing is far from played out and I don’t think we’ve heard the last of Lance in all reality. I stand by my earlier posts – the links are good reading, especially the Bicycling one by Bill Strickland.