Lance Armstrong ends fight against doping charges

[Woodchip]

But what he was alleged to have taken (and what other retrospectively banned athletes took) was illegal then, is now, and forever shall be.

Which is?

 

[edna krabappel]

This is potentially a masterstroke by Armstrong, of course.

Keep fighting, and run the risk that it will all come out in the wash. Quit now, and no evidence will ever come to light, as he won't be suing anyone, won't be in court, won't have to say the words "I didn't use drugs", as opposed to "I never failed a test".

He gets to walk away, alright, with a lot of questions unanswered, but also with no evidence being held up against him. His supporters will always back him, and his detractors will always doubt, but nobody will ever be able to say unequivocally "Lance Armstrong cheated". And he can carry on claiming it's a witch hunt.

Genius.

 

[Woodchip]

Also, can I point out that Lance HAS taken EPO. He would have taken it during his fight against cancer as it helps the anemia caused by chemotherapy.

 

[m20gull]

The easiest thing in the world would have been for Armstrong to say in that statement "I never doped", but he didn't. He has never said it. All he has said is that he was never caught.[/I]

What about this?

http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstrong-responds-to-usada-allegation

 

[severnside gull]

I can't believe he is just giving up unless he has no chance of countering the allegations in which case he is effectively admitting guilt.
I can empathise because the drug-to-achieve culture in cycling has been so all-pervading for the last forty years or more.
But sympathise? No.

 

[m20gull]

I can't believe he is just giving up unless he has no chance of countering the allegations in which case he is effectively admitting guilt.
I can empathise because the drug-to-achieve culture in cycling has been so all-pervading for the last forty years or more.
But sympathise? No.

He has no chance of countering the allegations because he cannot prove he is innocent and the USADA has convicted him before the trial based on hearsay evidence. There is no point in him contesting it.

 

[severnside gull]

He has no chance of countering the allegations because he cannot prove he is innocent and the USADA has convicted him before the trial based on hearsay evidence. There is no point in him contesting it.

So speaks an apologist.

Sorry but there is EVERY reason to fight to the very end. An athlete depends on REPUTATION and RESPECT and he will lose both in the eyes of the vast majority of casual onlookers.

Only his fans and those who delight in conspiracy theories will care enough to buy his (inevitable) book on the subject ............. should be enough to make it a decent earner though

 

[teaboy]

This is potentially a masterstroke by Armstrong, of course.

Keep fighting, and run the risk that it will all come out in the wash. Quit now, and no evidence will ever come to light, as he won't be suing anyone, won't be in court, won't have to say the words "I didn't use drugs", as opposed to "I never failed a test".

He gets to walk away, alright, with a lot of questions unanswered, but also with no evidence being held up against him. His supporters will always back him, and his detractors will always doubt, but nobody will ever be able to say unequivocally "Lance Armstrong cheated". And he can carry on claiming it's a witch hunt.

Genius.

Is the right answer.

What about it?

What's your answer to your question then, Lynford Christie, or are you stripping him of medals because of subsequent failures?

This is my point really, an athlete fails a test during or immediately after a competition, and they get stripped of it. 2010, Andy Schleck is the winner of Le Tour because of Contadors failed test, but that didn't mean they also stripped Contador of 2007 and 2009. In the case of Lance, this will always remain a stain on his reputation, but that's been around for a while now with this whole case anyway, and the insistence of some that he had been "cheating." But it's too late and too inclusive to have Greg LeMond suddenly re-instated at the last American winner of Le Tour.

That's just not going to be how people consider it, IMHO.

My answer is similar to the one for the Tour de France victories.

Ben Johnson*
*subsequently found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs.

This allows EVERY winner of every race ever found guilty to have their victory remembered for what it was - sporting fraud. It avoids the problem of awarding the win to a second cheat, or 8th place clean racer. It gives scope for dealing with a race where EVERY person is found guilty of doping, and remembers the fact that there people cheated in the records FOREVER. It allows for retrospective bans, testing of old samples with new technology and for currently unknown drugs/techniques. There is no escape.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I can't believe he is just giving up unless he has no chance of countering the allegations in which case he is effectively admitting guilt.I can empathise because the drug-to-achieve culture in cycling has been so all-pervading for the last forty years or more.
But sympathise? No.

Are you a Sun journo?

 

[severnside gull]

Are you a Sun journo?

Aah bless.

 

[sten_super]

So speaks an apologist.

Sorry but there is EVERY reason to fight to the very end. An athlete depends on REPUTATION and RESPECT and he will lose both in the eyes of the vast majority of casual onlookers.

Only his fans and those who delight in conspiracy theories will care enough to buy his (inevitable) book on the subject ............. should be enough to make it a decent earner though

This is all true, but he's being asked to prove a negative (that he didn't dope) when there is no hard evidence that he did. I'm not clear on how he could ever prove that.

I'm torn on the Armstrong issue. I want to believe that he was clean, because it's such a great story. But that list of top 5 finishers in the Tour that someone posted earlier is incredibly compelling.

Either way, I think that the actions of the USDA have been shocking. They've offered all kinds of incentives to a load of implicated drugs cheats if they say (presumably under oath) that they know that Armstrong was doping. Who's not going to take that deal? The USDA have seemingly got no proper evidence at all.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

They are proceeding on testimonies rather than scientific evidence. Personally I am wary of it, but that's a very different debate to this one.

The point is, this has gone on for well over 10 years, and the USADA and members of the press have investigated, interviewed, made deals etc all in the interests of getting people to stand up and testify against Lance. Surely you'd need to then carry out similar investigations against every other tour rider before awarding them stripped titles. But they won't, they have put a ridiculous amount of resources into "catching" one guy.

This is my feeling as well. Years and years have been spent trying to find Armstrong guilty. And relying on testimonials from other teams and riders smacks of desperation as well as being unreliable. Who knows what agendas all these other caught cyclists might have?

 

[severnside gull]

This is all true, but he's being asked to prove a negative (that he didn't dope) when there is no hard evidence that he did. I'm not clear on how he could ever prove that.

I'm torn on the Armstrong issue. I want to believe that he was clean, because it's such a great story. But that list of top 5 finishers in the Tour that someone posted earlier is incredibly compelling.

Either way, I think that the actions of the USDA have been shocking. They've offered all kinds of incentives to a load of implicated drugs cheats if they say (presumably under oath) that they know that Armstrong was doping. Who's not going to take that deal? The USDA have seemingly got no proper evidence at all.

The problem with the whole argument rests on believing that he is countering (or not) a trumped up charge for which there is no evidence. With the media and PR team he could rally behind him he could create more than enough hype to counter that, particularly in the US. A "guilty but we have no evidence" indictment simply would not hold and he would be both the moral and the financial victor if the USDA pursued it on that basis.

Ergo, there must be some evidence and his capitulation is indicative at very least that he knows it.

No-one loses their reputation without a fight if there is NO evidence and if what evidence there is was as trumped up as suggested then go to court and claim that the "witnesses" are disreputable and have been bought. There is no nation on earth more prepared to believe that and get a not guilty verdict than the US.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This is all true, but he's being asked to prove a negative (that he didn't dope) when there is no hard evidence that he did. I'm not clear on how he could ever prove that.

I'm torn on the Armstrong issue. I want to believe that he was clean, because it's such a great story. But that list of top 5 finishers in the Tour that someone posted earlier is incredibly compelling.

Either way, I think that the actions of the USDA have been shocking. They've offered all kinds of incentives to a load of implicated drugs cheats if they say (presumably under oath) that they know that Armstrong was doping. Who's not going to take that deal? The USDA have seemingly got no proper evidence at all.

This.

During the Wiggins victory I read that Armstrong was universally disliked by almost everyone connected with the Tour de France. A reason which kept cropping up was his lack of historical knowledge of the race and ignoring the unofficial protocol and traditions of the race, something which Wiggins did to the letter; hence his nickname Le Gentleman. Add to this the fact he won a lot then you could form a pretty long queue of people who would like to get on over on him. As I say, this latest attempt looks very desperate.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The problem with the whole argument rests on believing that he is countering (or not) a trumped up charge for which there is no evidence. With the media and PR team he could rally behind him he could create more than enough hype to counter that, particularly in the US. A "guilty but we have no evidence" indictment simply would not hold and he would be both the moral and the financial victor if the USDA pursued it on that basis.

Ergo, there must be some evidence and his capitulation is indicative at very least that he knows it.

No-one loses their reputation without a fight if there is NO evidence and if what evidence there is was as trumped up as suggested then go to court and claim that the "witnesses" are disreputable and have been bought. There is no nation on earth more prepared to believe that and get a not guilty verdict than the US.

Armstrong has effectively issued a 'put up or shut up.' Let's see what comes out next. If he is found guilty by way of some dodgy testimonials then I think most people will see USADA for what they are. If there is more compelling evidence then maybe me and some others will have to admit we are wrong. Personally, I do not find people guilty on the grounds that they cannot be arsed any more....I'll therefore wait until more comes out.

 

[keaton]

Personally I'll believe he's clean unless they bring any evidence to the table.
You've got a man who's never failed a drug or doping text, who'll now be labelled guilty based on very little proof, most of it being the testimoney of people who are both dopers and enemies of him.
I'd like him to keep on fighting but really he's done it for a long time and it seems pretty impossible for him to win this even if he was innocent.

And even if he is guilty, we all cheered along some drug cheats at the Olympics in Chambers and Millar and no-one seems to give Rio or Ohorougu much shit anymore so we don't care too much about it

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Armstrong has effectively issued a 'put up or shut up.' Let's see what comes out next. If he is found guilty by way of some dodgy testimonials then I think most people will see USADA for what they are. If there is more compelling evidence then maybe me and some others will have to admit we are wrong. Personally, I do not find people guilty on the grounds that they cannot be arsed any more....I'll therefore wait until more comes out.

Looks like USADA and WADA are already jumping that bit - both claiming in the press that this counts as an admission of guilt, I suspect we will never hear the testimonies or see the evidence that they speak of.

 

[keaton]

Looks like USADA and WADA are already jumping that bit - both claiming in the press that this counts as an admission of guilt, I suspect we will never hear the testimonies or see the evidence that they speak of.

They'd have to come up with a bit more proof to take away his Tours though

 

[Stat Brother]

So very very tired of the whole bloody thing.

Cycling is moving heaven and earth to get into a brave new world, I'm done with looking back.

 

[Gritt23]

My answer is similar to the one for the Tour de France victories.

Ben Johnson*
*subsequently found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs.

This allows EVERY winner of every race ever found guilty to have their victory remembered for what it was - sporting fraud. It avoids the problem of awarding the win to a second cheat, or 8th place clean racer. It gives scope for dealing with a race where EVERY person is found guilty of doping, and remembers the fact that there people cheated in the records FOREVER. It allows for retrospective bans, testing of old samples with new technology and for currently unknown drugs/techniques. There is no escape.

Does that apply to EVER race Ben Johnson ever ran? It comes with an * ? Or just the 1988 Olympics?
What about Contador, does he get the 2010 Tour back from Andy Schlek, but with an * ?