Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Sports' started by Earth, Aug 24, 2012.
As a Belgian I am embarassed Johan Bruyneel was the mastermind behind the entire doping project
If this is true, and he really did do something, then its quite obvious that cycling, like baseball, covered up steroid users who brought publicity to their sport. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire and other baseball steroid users didnt face the heat until 10 years after they set their records. Why not sooner? Those leagues were making money off them so they looked the other way.
Theres absolutely no way he goes untested for so long without there being helped by people on the inside. Obviously cycling looked the other way and thats how he "passed" so many tests for so long. It wouldnt surprise me if they gave him plenty of warning ahead of time to get ready for tests etc
The real villains here are the suits who allowed this to go on, just like baseball.
And there I was, cheering on Mark McGuire and Lance Armstrong when in reality the big wigs behind the scenes knew they were cheating and assisted in their cheating by looking the other way.
Further proof to me that sports in general, are a joke, and not to be taken seriously. I wont make that mistake again.
Early 'leaks' of the interview is that he's admitted to it...
In the 7 years that he won it, I'd say that 80% of the peloton was doping anyways. So either way...
Plus, he returned after a several-year absence and got THIRD. And that was with all of the new doping guidelines.
Great cyclist? Absolutely. He won the 7 titles because he was the best among a field of dopers.
But did he do it? Yes. Should he have? Well, thats debatable. Literally every other team from that era was caught for some form of doping or another, how could you have been competitive without doping?
Sad day for Cycling fans.
Support Livestrong! Their organization still does masses of good, and the fact that they got caught in the bad press pains me. He set that up to help people, and to see it lose steam is really saddening. I hope to see their booth at the Tour of California this year!
USADA's case against Armstrong is partly built on the fact that his blood levels during the 2009 Tour were downright weird, and indicative of blood doping. So he was still at it when he came back.
Great cyclist yes, but he won because he was the best doper. What other cyclists could go to the UCI and ask how the new EPO test works? Or cover up positive results?
Having read Tyler Hamilton's book, it seems to suggest everyone had a choice to be competitive, and that was cheat. If you didn't, you left the sport. It was so ingrained it wasn't even thought of as cheating, that was the culture.
It's more of the steady process of awakening for cycling fans, it's sad for the sport, which is going to suffer as a result.
Why is it never Armstrongs fault? If you have read the USADA case against Armstrong, Leipheimer gave a figure of 50% of people doping at the biggest races. So it was by no means everyone. And if you want to see a great cyclist who managed to do it without doping, read Nicole Cookes retirement statement from yesterday.
As for Livestrong, you do realise they put exactly zero money into research. What they do is cancer awareness. So basically they advertise cancer. And if you think he really set it up to help people then I think you misunderstand the man he is. Livestrong undoubtedly helped a lot of people however I think it would be closer to the truth to say that is set it up to help him, he made millions of dollars from charging appearance fees at Livestrong events, got use of the Livestrong private plane and had billions of people saying what a swell guy he was when all the time he was cheating, bullying and dishonestly working his way to great fame and unbelievable fortune.
Everything Lance Armstrong has done has been for Lance Armstrong, and that doesn't stop with this confession. He want's to compete in triathlons again, he's worries about how he's going to make money, now that all his sponsors have deserted him and people are lining up to ask for their money back. The only question I have is, 'Will people buy it?'
I refuse to believe the UCI themselves are all that clean. If they'd really wanted they probably could've caught Lance many years ago. But now they're suddenly going "Armstrong did doping? We never knew, away with him!".
Even though cyclists do doping, I never lose my respect towards them. Because during the Tour these guys are still doing 200-250km per day, for 3 weeks straight. They suffer more in these 3 weeks than any of us do in a lifetime, whether they are juiced or not. I don't see why we should suddenly portray these people as villains when they make a misstep.
Notice how I'm talking about doping cases in general, before anyone thinks I'm trying to justify Lance's many years of cheating.
There you have it fellas. What a fraud.
**** you, Lance. **** you.
I am done with cycling.
Why? Cycling probably hasn't been this clean for 40 years.
It seems to me that Lance feels like he can no longer pretend, and is going for the sympathy and "Look what I've done for cancer and stuff" approach. I'm interested to see this interview, though I have no idea where it would be broadcast in the UK.
It's apparently going to be put online on Oprah's website.
Will that be live?
EDIT: Says on the website that it will be broadcast live, however its at around 2am my time.
Oprah reveals that Armstrong did confess:
And he has allegedly implicated the International Cycling Union in taking part in a cover-up, which has prompted the IOC to threaten to drop cycling from the Olympic schedule in 2016:
I always wondered that when all these allegations came out. Something makes me think that Armstrong didn't just get away with it.
There are three possible interpretations of such a conspiracy theory, some of which open up some interesting avenues:
1) That certain members of the UCI were corrupt, and accepted bribes in exchange for help in doctoring test results.
2) That the members of the UCI recognised the value of Armstrong as an athlete and spokesperson, particularly in light of his cancer remission, and so doctored test results to keep him at the forefront of the sport and in the public spotlight.
3) That the members of the UCI recognised that the sport was plagued with blood-doping, and so doctored test results to try and manipulate the outcome of events so that drug cheats would appear to experience less success than they actually did.
If the 3rd one ends up being the case (as I'm guessing it is probably the most likely scenario), how will they know that similar activity hadn't already been going on in the Olympics as well? Or would that be the reason they would drop cycling?
If Lance wants to spin it like he did the drugs so he could build up LiveStrong, then have someone else take over, then admit to the doping and retire in shame, etc., then I can respect that. A career for yellow wristbands and cancer research fundraising at the expense of his legacy.
Because the Olympics have the presence of the IOC in running the events. If the UCI was trying to fight doping from within the belly of the beast by manipulating the test results and timing announcements to influence the results of those caught doping, they'd need the help of someone within the Olympic management structure to do it at the Games.
Of course, blood doping is incredibly sophisticated these days. Armstrong was caught based on urine samples that were a decade old, and the anti-doping agencies have only just developed testing procedures for the drugs that were being used then. It's entirely plausible that everyone is using performance-enhancing drugs and the governing body is not aware of it. But if scenario number three is true, that would imply that the agencies can test for the drugs, but haven't announced it so that the blood-dopers keep going, unaware that the Powers That Be know all about it.
Wait. I think I misread #3 when I responded.
It does still seem to be most likely that this had to have been known for a while know, but then kept hidden away so it wouldn't make the sport look bad. Simply the way that all of this hit all at once makes me think that this case dates back a long time but someone was quashing it. So I guess that does answer my question anyway.
Unfortunately, has any sport been clean?
Well, that did occur to me, but I was wondering how someone might fight blood doping when it is as widespread as it is now. Do you just release test results as you get them, and admit that the sport is being overwhelmed by cheating? Or do you pick your battles by sitting on the test results and releasing them at the moment they will do the most damage to those responsible, simultaneously scoring victories for the sport by appearing to catch out the biggest cheats?
What I do find irritating is that Floyd Landis is trying to clear his name by saying "Well he did it too so, I'm not that bad". Dude. Sit down, it's not about you.
I reckon he can clear his name is he pays 90 Million of his 100 million dollar worth into a charity. But that won't happen.
And I can't really say that I blame the IOC. Cycling seems to have been pretty heavily tarnished by all of the doping over the years. Hopefully we can move on from this, and have a sport where fitness and talent are what makes the winners, not drugs and blood-doping.
But while were at it, can we re-test the blood from every winner since, oh, 1990? Why stop at Lance? If cycling is this corrupt, lets get it all out now.
I don't think Armstrong can clear his name. At all. Even if he publicly reveals the full extent of cheating within the sport.
Can't say I lost any respect for him as I didn't really have ant left. Perhaps if he came out and admitted right after all this started happening he could have saved face, but he waited until there wasn't much point in denying it to do so instead.
Am I the only person that doesn't care? Aside from David Letterman?
To paraphrase David Letterman; Why do we (we being the US) care about a guy who cheated at a sport that most of us never cared about anyway? Even most of those who talked up Armstrong's achievements can't name five other cyclists.
And if you felt inspired by him for winning after surviving cancer, guess what? He still survived cancer and still won against others doing the same thing he was. Last I checked, none of the cheaters he beat were cancer survivors. It is safe to assume that if no one were doping he would have at least still beat all those guys, maybe even still won.
And why can't we just start a league or class for those using performance enhancing drugs? Are they truly that bad? My daily performance is enhanced by drugs. Without them I would be 50+ pounds heavier, struggling to breath, and stuck in a bed. And yes, some of the drugs I take are banned drug classes for certain sports. And from a technical standpoint even OTC decongestants or antibiotics are performance enhancing drugs. They enhance your body's immune system by aiding in fighting diseases.
And ultimately, if cancer research suffers because of Armstrong's actions it says far more about us than it does about him. If it requires hero worship for someone to want to help cure cancer then that person cannot claim to be caring. The awareness is still there and Armstrong wasn't the first famous person to be successful after surviving cancer. To quote South Park: When we become caught up in our scauses we forget about our causes.
That's what I don't understand about it either. I hear people on the radio/tv going nuts over it and saying that they hope he loses everything and blah blah blah and it just bothers me that anyone could be that hostile about it. I enjoy cycling for exercise myself but I don't follow the sport very closely. My father, however, likes to watch the tours so I have, on occaision, seen a bit of the racing. Between what I know from that, and what I know from talking to the guys at the bike shops who have closely followed the sport for many years, it seems it has been well known that a large population of professional cyclists have been using PEDs going back to the 60's and possibly earlier.
From what I've seen of the Tour de France it takes a lot more than just being on drugs to win that race, let alone win it 7 damn times. I've seen guys literally get hit or run off the road by idiotic support vehicles, guys lose tires or chains at critical times, and guys get caught in massive domino effect crashes with serious injuries. Then you take into account that half the other guys were cheating too and he still won and I can't understand the anger that people have shown towards him. It takes as much luck and skill as it does extra performance from drugs to win one of those things (or to even finish for that matter).
Maybe you and I are just weird for not caring if athletes use PEDs or not. Pro sports are just a business like anything else now. Passion/fun/love of the game left the picture many years ago. Fanatics only have themselves to blame.
Because he cheated in order to make himself millions... what sort of message does that put out?
Irrelevant. There are millions of people who watch cycling and feel cheated, not just by Armstrong, but particularly by him - not least because he persisted for so long and seemingly was instrumental in perpetuating the cheating culture that has all but wrecked an otherwise great sport. The Tour De France is watched by millions every year (in person, not just on TV), and used to be (hopefully might still be) one of the greatest sporting spectacles on Earth - no matter that some of Armstrong's detractors are ignorant of the wider sport - millions of others are certainly not.
Maybe so. But we'll never know because he did cheat - and, furthermore, he actually used his cancer treatment as cover (both in bolstering his sympathy vote from influential friends and fans, and in gaining leniency from officials/drug testing schemes that spotted some odd results coming from Armstrong years ago).
Again, irrelevant. The rules of the contests in which Armstrong took part clearly prohibited the use of such chemicals and techniques. I don't personally wish to watch a sport where drugs are allowed, but if that was the set-up then fine - but it wasn't, hence it's a rather pathetic attempt to reverse-engineer some justification for cheats like Armstrong.
Again, if there are those who wish to risk their lives for a career in sport, fair play to them - but it sends out completely the wrong message to aspiring athletes that their skill, physique, fitness and years of training are not enough.
I think it is debatable whether or not Armstrong's nose-diving reputation will affect cancer research in any substantive way - but that aside, what a pathetic attempt at shifting the blame away from a man who persistently cheated and lied, bullied and abused staff and (now former) friends to get his way, and happily earned himself a fortune along the way.
If you care about honesty, integrity, fairness, justice and truth, then you ought to care about this case and hope that Armstrong gets what he deserves.
That's not the point, to some it means everything. It Usain Bolt were busted for taking PED's it would be exactly the same.
That was part of why he won. He was the UCI's poster boy, the proof that anyone could do it, even if you've just survived cancer. Hence why they didn't do anything about the positive at the Tour of Switzerland, and why they showed the world's leading cyclist the very test for EPO designed to catch him! So he couldn't fail.
People respond to the drugs in different ways. Never mind legalising that would lead to dangerous extreme's of PED just to win. The cyclists of Armstrong's era were limited by a level of Hematocrit. Without that, the bounds could be full of risk. People died from experimenting with drugs on the Tour in the past.
It would indeed, though people could associate it with lies.
As a fan, I do feel cheated of an idol, and a false sport. Armstrong will get sympathy, but he's going to lose a lot too, which he deserves partially.
His successes through cheating his tits off saw him given millions of taxpayer dollars - he cycled for the US Postal team sponsored by the USPS, a taxpayer funded body.