Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

BREAKING...Lance quits the fight...

59K views 733 replies 172 participants last post by  Tone's  
#1 ·
#14 ·
If it's true, It's a huge legacy to win and then lose all of it. It's worse than S.F. Giants, Barry Bonds. Barry just gets an asterisk. Baseball doping comes in a lot of flavors. It's nothing new and they keep catching the cheaters every season.

But here Lance is losing everything, not fifty games. AFTER the USADA statue of limitations and never publicly testing positive.

It just completely tarnishes the idea of a hero. I'm bummed but not surprised.
 
#240 ·
1. The organizer for Leadville has never agreed to WADA's anti-doping standards. it would be nice if they did for 2013, but not likely...

2. According to the forum they have set up over at yahoo, Armstrong's title stays despite USADA having concrete evidence of, at minimum, transfusions during the 2009 performance at Leadville. IMHO, Weins was robbed of his seventh victory. No, I'm not making that number up. Interview: Dave Wiens And Susan DeMattei - BikeRadar

I guess the bottom line is EPO and HGH dopers like David Anthony are welcome at Leadville. David Anthony Tests Positive | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events Definitely not going to consider the trip any more.

The road racing stuff is a mess that was never fixed 10 years ago and it doesn't look any better now.
 
#17 ·
This is a full admission of guilt, i'll start by saying i rate the guy highly, i have nothing against him n i have always been a great fan of the man and the rider..
But i'll tell you now theres no way a guy with his convictions n spirit would say 'enoughs enough' if he is innocent, he has faught many great battles in his life and if he was innocent theres no we he would take this line..
He has decided to do this so the truth has no way of being validated in court, imo his excuses were very weak n precious, he knows he is gone and does not want to face the music..
There is no person on this planet that would walk away from these accusations after winning the tour 7 times if they were really innocent, the guy is as guilty as they come and i believe he would have been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt..
I have lost a great deal of respect for him after this, and dont buy into his excuses for one second, he was one of many many riders on the tour that are guilty of using drugs, and there is also plenty of Aussie riders that have done and are doing the same thing..
 
#52 ·
You couldn't be more wrong. Deciding to fight a contest in which he had no chance of winning was a smart thing to do. Whether he doped or not, the USADA was going to "determine" that he did; they've already said as much if you read between the lines. As the saying goes, if you fight with a pig, you both get dirty... and the pig likes it.

Dropping the fight won't change most people's opinion (yours apparently excluded) and will put an asterisk next to the USADA's ruling. Remember, this wasn't a court hearing where the USADA would have to prove anything; it was arbitration to see if they were going to implement their already made decision and its ramifications. Nothing more. And it was obviously tilted in the USADA's favor. I firmly believe that if every single witness decided not to show up, they'd find some way to twist that and STILL rule against him.

He's repeatedly said he did not dope. Point blank. He's passed hundreds or thousands of tests. The USADA appears to have broken many of their own rules and completely and utterly discarded their own science in pursuit of a predetermined outcome.

You say he wouldn't quit any thing, but I beg to differ. If he broke a leg during the ride, he'd abandon rather than having someone "tape it up" and continue. There comes a point where you just can't do anything to affect the outcome of something no matter what.

I believe that him refusing to go to court with the USADA is an admission of guilt.
And when the cops show up at your door and ask to search your house, you refuse unless they have warrant... is an admission of guilt? No, refusing to play in this farce is nothing more than acknowledging he couldn't change the outcome no matter what he did.

And again, for the record, I have no idea whether he's doped or not. It's likely he did, but the USADA's not playing fair in this case.
 
#19 ·
I've been in and out of cycling for many years, so here's my take:

Lance may of doped (just blood) and used EPO at times, but he only did because basically EVERYONE else was doing it. All the hard hitters from Italy, France and Belgium were. Mario Cippolini, Marco Pantani and others were busted for EPO.

What chuffs me is that regular folks and the press especially act like any slob could juice up on EPO and win the Tour. When in all actuality, these guys are all nearly as fit as the human body will allow and the doping/EPO allows about an extra 3-5% in performance.

If the front runners are all doping and Lance beat them to win the tour, it's a legit win in my book. However Lance did other things that while legal, caused MANY competitors to cry foul. The nutritionist for the USPS team concocted what were deemed 'scooby snacks' that included many secret ingredients, but no drugs. They were rumored to have a special blend of sugars, carbs, amino acids and other compounds that after much research, were found to give an edge.

It's also rumored that Lance's blood chemistry is simply different and that his body makes more 'go' juice than most mere mortals, meaning that he would fail a dope test looking for elevated red-blood cells and EPO.



Lance shouldn't be stripped, but perhaps an asterisk added to indicate that doping was prevalent during the time he competed.

EPO / extra blood or not, he WON those tours.
 
#86 ·
I've been in and out of cycling for many years, so here's my take:

Lance may of doped (just blood) and used EPO at times, but he only did because basically EVERYONE else was doing it. All the hard hitters from Italy, France and Belgium were. Mario Cippolini, Marco Pantani and others were busted for EPO.

What chuffs me is that regular folks and the press especially act like any slob could juice up on EPO and win the Tour. When in all actuality, these guys are all nearly as fit as the human body will allow and the doping/EPO allows about an extra 3-5% in performance.

If the front runners are all doping and Lance beat them to win the tour, it's a legit win in my book. However Lance did other things that while legal, caused MANY competitors to cry foul. The nutritionist for the USPS team concocted what were deemed 'scooby snacks' that included many secret ingredients, but no drugs. They were rumored to have a special blend of sugars, carbs, amino acids and other compounds that after much research, were found to give an edge.

It's also rumored that Lance's blood chemistry is simply different and that his body makes more 'go' juice than most mere mortals, meaning that he would fail a dope test looking for elevated red-blood cells and EPO.

Lance shouldn't be stripped, but perhaps an asterisk added to indicate that doping was prevalent during the time he competed.

EPO / extra blood or not, he WON those tours.
I so agree with you. If everyone was doping at that time and Lance won he's still the best there was at that time. He's is definitely da man.

People's ideas of what is right and wrong change over time. When I was young (30 years ago) it wasn't frowned upon to have a few beers and drive home. Now if you do that you're an ar$ehole - and you are, rightly so. We used to smoke 40 a day and it was cool - it wasn't proved to be bad for you - remember? Don't get me wrong - doping is wrong and bad and should be eliminated from sport.

If they strip Lance of his achievements, how long before they do the same for the new champion - the guy who was second?

Lance does a lot of good - giving his time and efforts to help others fight cancer. I hope this doesn't interfere with those efforts. It's not right to vilify him.

Oh, and a stupid question - the Tour de France is French - but the US ADA can strip his titles, just like that? What do the French say about it?
 
#20 ·
two cents:

He took the test that was presented and passed. For 13 years, they have done forensics to try to re-test. When that didn't work, they go on the word of others. Shouldn't there be a point in time where they give up? If they don't it really looks like they are on a witchhunt.

How far back will they go to find others? Eddy Merckx? Will they investigate the rider that they give Lance's titles witrh the same agressiveness?

Lance was and it great for cycling, and for cancer research. If he was embarrassing cycling, or, for example, got caught doping in a triatholon, maybe they could justify the effort to discredit him.
 
#25 ·
two cents:

He took the test that was presented and passed. For 13 years, they have done forensics to try to re-test. When that didn't work, they go on the word of others. Shouldn't there be a point in time where they give up? If they don't it really looks like they are on a witchhunt.

How far back will they go to find others? Eddy Merckx? Will they investigate the rider that they give Lance's titles witrh the same agressiveness?

Lance was and it great for cycling, and for cancer research. If he was embarrassing cycling, or, for example, got caught doping in a triatholon, maybe they could justify the effort to discredit him.
Mate Marion Jones took n passed hundreds of tests, it means nothing if you have the best chemists on your side, they are miles infront of the testers, if the USADA did not act on this it would have been an epic fail, you dont need hard proof in life to find anybody guilty, 5 witnesses is more than enough to lock somebody away for life for murder, 5 witnesses is more than enough to have somebody found guily of doping, and if they were team mates even better, cheers
 
#80 ·
I have to agree with this. I always thought he doped, but I think this process is also utter crap. They could find anyone guilty of anything with that sort of judicial process.

Well, in a manner of speaking. From some articles I've read, the USADA has promised immunity to some of the witnesses if they speak out against Lance. They won't be investigated or be determined to be a doper. It may not be cash, but it's still being paid off.
If that is true then it is pretty much complete bollocks. If you are a doper and say someone else doped then we will hold you blameless for doping :)
 
#29 ·
It has been suggested that Lance did not want to face the onslaught of witness testimony so he capitulated. Bruhneel is going to arbitration, so the story has yet been told. It will me interesting to hear what testimony comes out of this in the future as this is not the end, rather the beginning.
 
#37 ·
I definitely see your point. How many years do you think it is fair to defend your reputation? Lets say 5 people said the winner of the first tour (back in 1903?) was doping. Should we dig his grave up, take hair folicles, and try to prove it? At what point should they let it go? So they strip him of titles, who will they give it to? Will they perform the same scrutiny on that cyclist?

From Ocanada.com
PARIS — The cyclists Lance Armstrong beat to win his seven Tour de France victories may soon get a chance at his titles. But their ranks include men who have faced a tangle of doping bans and accusations, possibly presenting a headache for Tour leadership.

Here’s a look at who else was on the podium in the seven Tours that Armstrong won from 1999-2005:

1999

No. 2 : Alex Zulle, Switzerland. His 1998 team, Festina, was ousted from the Tour that year in connection with the widespread use of the performance-enhancing drug EPO. Zulle later admitted to using the blood-booster over the four previous years. The Festina affair nearly derailed the 1998 Tour, and is widely seen as the first big doping scandal to jolt cycling.

No. 3: Fernando Escartin, Spain.

2000

No 2: Jan Ullrich, Germany. The 1997 Tour winner, a five-time Tour runner-up and longtime Armstrong rival. He was the top-name cyclist among at least 50 implicated in the “Operation Puerto” police investigation in Spain in May 2006. Ullrich was stripped of his third-place finish from the 2005 Tour and retired from racing two years later. Earlier this year, he confirmed that he had had contact with Eufemiano Fuentes, a Spanish doctor at the centre of that scandal, calling it a “big mistake” — but did not admit to doping.

No. 3: Joseba Beloki, Spain. Implicated in Operation Puerto, he retired in 2007. He was reportedly was cleared by a Spanish court of any involvement in the case.

2001

No 2: Ullrich.

No. 3: Beloki.

2002

No. 2: Beloki.

No. 3: Raimondas Rumsas, Lithuania. On the last day of the 2002 Tour, police stopped his wife, Edita, at the Italian border and searched her car, turning up suspected doping products. A French court later handed them four-month prison sentences on doping-related charges. The cyclist denied taking banned substances at that event, and all his tests came back negative. He said the products in his wife’s car were for his mother-in-law. The next year, he was given a one-year ban after testing positive for EPO in the 2003 Giro d’Italia.

2003

No. 2: Ullrich.

No. 3: Alexandre Vinokourov, Kazakhstan. He later served a two-year doping suspension after twice testing positive for banned blood transfusions during the 2007 race. He won the Olympic road race in London last month and has announced plans to retire.

2004

No. 2: Andreas Kloeden, Germany.

No. 3: Ivan Basso, Italy. Excluded from the 2006 Tour because of his involvement in Operation Puerto. He claimed that he gave his blood to Fuentes — the Spanish doctor at the centre of that scandal — but never used it. Later that year, Basso received a two-year doping ban; he later returned, and won his second Giro d’Italia in 2010.

2005

No. 2: Basso.

No. 3: Ullrich.

08:27ET 24-08-12




twitter.com/canadacomnews© COPYRIGHT - POSTMEDIA NEWS
They should stop worrying about what happened in the past, and figure out how to ensure it doesn't happen in the future.
 
#51 ·
Because he is the most accomplished cyclist, and the only one most people outside the cycling community are aware of. You don't see them going after George Hincapie for a reason, he really didn't win that much, or profit from his wins with huge endorsements, or come back from cancer.
All you have to do in cycling is win, and automatically you must be doping. And you probably are...