- 10,836
- Belgium
- bramturismo
As a Belgian I am embarassed Johan Bruyneel was the mastermind behind the entire doping project
hawkeye122In 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.
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.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!
The real villains here are the suits who allowed this to go on, just like baseball.
**** you, Lance. **** you.
I am done with cycling.
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.
Oprah reveals that Armstrong did confess:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/oprah-discusses-armstrong-come-clean-interview/4466540
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:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/armstrong-admission-could-kick-cycling-out-of-olympics/4466638
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.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?
Why? Cycling probably hasn't been this clean for 40 years.
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?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.
I don't think Armstrong can clear his name. At all. Even if he publicly reveals the full extent of cheating within the sport.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.
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.
Because he cheated in order to make himself millions... what sort of message does that put out?Why do we (we being the US) care about a guy who cheated at a sport that most of us never cared about anyway?
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.Even most of those who talked up Armstrong's achievements can't name five other cyclists.
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).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.
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.And why can't we just start a league or class for those using performance enhancing drugs?
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.Are they truly that bad?
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.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.
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.
FoolkillerAnd 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.
FoolkillerAnd 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.
FoolkillerAnd ultimately, if cancer research suffers because of Armstrong's actions it says far more about us than it does about him.
Because he used that sport to make himself millions... what sort of message does that put out?
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.
*snip*
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.
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.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?