Lance Armstrong stripped of his 7 Tour de France titles

[El Kabong]

Greg LeMond might rise back to the top as the Greatest American cyclist ever after this....he always was in my mind.

He always was in his own mind as well. Ever hear Lemond talk about Armstrong? Not a fan.

He used to be an Armstrong fan....until Armstrong threatened him. He told LeMond "I'll have cyclists testify that you used PEDs"....what an ironic turn of events eh?

[Fenster]

I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.

Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.

Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.

[El Kabong]

I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.

Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.

Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.

Yes but he was caught ATTEMPTING to fight with loaded gloves

[Fenster]

I read some articles from the links provided in this thread.

Ten "team mates," numerous doctors, journalists that were friends with him and people that worked for him all said he was doping. Now surely he must have been an unbelievable scumbag for that many close aides to lie about him.

Barry Bonds never failed a drug test apparantly (I don't even know who that is) and there is ZERO evidence Margarito ever fought a single bout with loaded gloves.

Yes but he was caught ATTEMPTING to fight with loaded gloves

Yes but that still doesn't mean he used loaded gloves. (maybe he did in the past but there's no EVIDENCE)

Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test yet everyman and his dog that knew him says he was a drugs cheat.

[Andre]

I dont know innocent or what? But like everything else Margaritto included; if he was innocent and wanted it proven beyond public doubt, he would sit his own lie detector test. He'd be screaming for one right about now.

[TitoFan]

Well..... here's an inkling as to how the U.S. public is reacting to Lance's misfortunes:


Livestrong donations skyrocket in wake of Lance Armstrong’s decision to stop fighting charges | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

[Fenster]

"Drugs or no drugs," Matthew Serge wrote on Twitter, "anyone that raises $500 million to fight cancer is cool by me."

That there sums it up.

He had cancer and raised money for charity so his "possible cheating" should be given the spanish archer. Cheating at sport doesn't make you a peado. It just means you didn't win fair and square. That's it.

[TitoFan]

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

[Cressa121]

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

Rightfully, there are a lot of questions over Armstrong though.

In the 1999 tour he tested positive for corticosteroids, but it was overturned after he produced a prescription for it.

When his frozen samples from '99 were tested in '05 for EPO, which wasn't something that was tested for at the time, they came back positive.

One of his old team mates, Tyler Hamilton, also said Armstrong failed a test at the 2001 Tour de Suisse - for EPO - but the UCI helped brush it under the carpet. The director of the lab that carried out those tests told the FBI that he met with the UCI to discuss the positive test and was told that it wasn't to go any further.

Doping was rampant in cycling in that time and with the amount of people willing to testify that they saw him use drugs, or used drugs alongside him, and the reports above, he has a lot of questions to answer imo.

Unfortunately he's chosen not to answer them.

[TitoFan]

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

Rightfully, there are a lot of questions over Armstrong though.

In the 1999 tour he tested positive for corticosteroids, but it was overturned after he produced a prescription for it.

When his frozen samples from '99 were tested in '05 for EPO, which wasn't something that was tested for at the time, they came back positive.

One of his old team mates, Tyler Hamilton, also said Armstrong failed a test at the 2001 Tour de Suisse - for EPO - but the UCI helped brush it under the carpet. The director of the lab that carried out those tests told the FBI that he met with the UCI to discuss the positive test and was told that it wasn't to go any further.

Doping was rampant in cycling in that time and with the amount of people willing to testify that they saw him use drugs, or used drugs alongside him, and the reports above, he has a lot of questions to answer imo.

Unfortunately he's chosen not to answer them.

While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.

[Cressa121]

While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

Didn't know that it was often prescribed in cancer patients. That's fair enough

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

I think that would be the case had they gone and tested Armstrong's samples specifically. I believe the French lab that conducted the tests used many samples from the '99 tour, and they didn't know which athlete they were testing as the samples only had a reference number and not the name. It wasn't until a journalist got his hands on the results and matched the code on the sample to the code on Armstrong's registration forms that this got out.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

It's possible. I know a number of the witnesses have been implicated in doping themselves and have been offered reduced sentences if they testify against Lance, which doesn't sit too well with me. A number also fell out with him so could have an axe to grind. Hincapie would be the most compelling witness imo, as they are, or were, close friends throughout Armstrong's career. I don't see what he'd stand to gain by lying


d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.

I do see where you're coming from. They're going after Armstrong, they're going after him hard and he has had to deal with these questions for over a decade. I can see why some people feel he's been singled out given how dirty the field was back then, and you do kind of feel they won't rest until they get their man.

What I will say is I don't like how USADA and other people/organisations have come out and said his decision not to contest the charges is an indication of guilt. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. Personally I have plenty of doubts given what I've read, but I still want to see the evidence before I draw a definite conclusion one way or the other.

There's also the issue of stripping the titles from him. Again, he hasn't been found guilty yet going by the punishment you'd think he had been. Who do the titles go to now? Good luck finding the next clean cyclist, iirc the rest of the top 5 in nearly every year Armstrong won has either tested positive or admitted to doping.

Here's an article I read the other day about this anyway, it's a decent read.

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport

[Beanz]

While I'm not disputing anything you've said, you should consider the following:

a) Corticosteroids, not to be confused with anabolic steroids, are commonly prescribed to reduce inflammation, and are commonly prescribed to reduce pain related to cancer. Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 1996. So it's not far-fetched that he would have a legitimate prescription for the stuff.

Didn't know that it was often prescribed in cancer patients. That's fair enough

b) Testing frozen 1999 samples in 2005, for something that... as you said... wasn't even tested for at the time (EPO), sounds completely "witch-hunt"-ly to me. Maybe it's just me... but it sounds they were working awful hard to try and discredit one of the greatest athletes of our time.

I think that would be the case had they gone and tested Armstrong's samples specifically. I believe the French lab that conducted the tests used many samples from the '99 tour, and they didn't know which athlete they were testing as the samples only had a reference number and not the name. It wasn't until a journalist got his hands on the results and matched the code on the sample to the code on Armstrong's registration forms that this got out.

c) Testimony from old teammates can sometimes come across as "sour grapes". I'd have to read something from a more credible source before taking it as gospel.

It's possible. I know a number of the witnesses have been implicated in doping themselves and have been offered reduced sentences if they testify against Lance, which doesn't sit too well with me. A number also fell out with him so could have an axe to grind. Hincapie would be the most compelling witness imo, as they are, or were, close friends throughout Armstrong's career. I don't see what he'd stand to gain by lying


d) And yes..... doping in cycling WAS rampant during that time. Doesn't it strike you as a bit unfair that they've decided to single out Lance Armstrong and make him the target of this crusade?


I'm not saying there's absolutely no possibility that Lance may have doped. But why now, after 7 years removed from his last title.... does the USADA remain so bent on ruining this man's record? Again, I'm not an advocate of cheating in sports... and there's been plenty of that to go around. But I'm also against witch hunts... and it seems a lot of people see it that way also.

I do see where you're coming from. They're going after Armstrong, they're going after him hard and he has had to deal with these questions for over a decade. I can see why some people feel he's been singled out given how dirty the field was back then, and you do kind of feel they won't rest until they get their man.

What I will say is I don't like how USADA and other people/organisations have come out and said his decision not to contest the charges is an indication of guilt. It isn't, or at least it shouldn't be. Personally I have plenty of doubts given what I've read, but I still want to see the evidence before I draw a definite conclusion one way or the other.

There's also the issue of stripping the titles from him. Again, he hasn't been found guilty yet going by the punishment you'd think he had been. Who do the titles go to now? Good luck finding the next clean cyclist, iirc the rest of the top 5 in nearly every year Armstrong won has either tested positive or admitted to doping.

Here's an article I read the other day about this anyway, it's a decent read.

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport

Great article. Interesting that many of the comments despite disputing the writers assessment of his character then went on to confirm it when relating their own dealings with Armstrong.

[Fenster]

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

Actually I think you're the one verging on the "double-standard." My views haven't even come close it.

You are defending Armstrong with "he never failed a test," therefore the dozens of associates claiming he cheated are lying and it's a huge conspiracy against him.

I've never claimed Margarito did not load his gloves. I only know that there's no evidence he ever fought with loaded gloves.

I find it hard to understand how you can so confidently see one man as guilty and the other innocent? Is it really as simple as - you like Armstrong but dislike Margarito?

[El Kabong]

If you put everything in context and the cyclists are/were all doping then you can't take Lance's titles because if everyone is doing it then it's not cheating it's merely leveling the playing field. Everyone that finished close to Lance in those 7 years was caught doping after those wins so who do the titles go to?

In baseball there is even more grey area as steroids & hgh weren't even illegal when McGuire & Sosa were hitting all those homeruns so how can you punish those guys if they weren't breaking any rules?

[AdamGB]

I'm glad you said "possible cheating". 'Cause there's been no documented proof that Lance ever used PEDs. And given the way you defend Margarito after he was caught intending to cheat... I'm sure you'll avoid the double-standard.

Actually I think you're the one verging on the "double-standard." My views haven't even come close it.

You are defending Armstrong with "he never failed a test," therefore the dozens of associates claiming he cheated are lying and it's a huge conspiracy against him.

I've never claimed Margarito did not load his gloves. I only know that there's no evidence he ever fought with loaded gloves.

I find it hard to understand how you can so confidently see one man as guilty and the other innocent? Is it really as simple as - you like Armstrong but dislike Margarito?

Disliking Margarito would be understandable, he at the very least tried to use loaded gloves against Mosely, which could have caused injury or death.

Armstrong doping would have physically harmed people how?

Of course Margarito is going to beheld with my scorn... 'fair' or not.