So here we are a year later, the verdict is in, and all his titles will be erased. Will we ever know the real truth? http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/23/sport/lance-armstrong-investigation/index.html
I personally think there is a high probability that he used some or all the methods of blood doping that I saw on 60 minutes special about this case. I also think all his relevant competitors were also doping. I still think he is the best tour rider with or without doping, but probably had to dope because other did it too. Not saying it's right or justifiable, just saying I understand it. Anyways it seems like he gets to keep all his money, so who cares in the end.
Just wait for a few weeks and more damaging evidences will appear. There are two types of doping. The most sophisticated dopers with the most money use transfusions. The least sophisticated dopers with the least money use drugs.
I thought he had already been sued by a gambling company that had a deal with him to pay a certain amount of millions if he won 3 consecutive tours from 2002-2004/ or just win the tour in any of these years ... They want their money back! If Hincapie, his lieutenant, and probably closest to him in the pack iirc, is one of the accusers how much doubt can you still have?? Probably shouldn't have been promised immunity to take away some uncertainty about the motivation for his statements ... And just like Schleck got "training schedules" from "Dr". Fuentes, Armstrong was visiting "Dr." Ferrari, the expert on EPO ...
His TdF titles stripped by who???.. Whilst i was still in London, heard there's a talk that it will be a battle with UCI/WADA.. LA could probably care less abt the current decision and will wait it out & let it all play out between USADA and WADA/UCI...why waste the effort & resources.. Another thing, why the decision to strip all his TdF titles & ban him permanently now?..
Read somewhere that when he came out of retirement in 2010, the statute of limitations was reset and allowed WADA to review all his previous years again.
regarding the statute of limitations issue, here's a link to an article (seems like USADA has found a loophole in withholding information from Armstrong? ): http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada
i got 3 silly question.. 1) is lance armstrong a " super cheater on drug test "? (after so long ) 2) is the testers of illegal drugs " super lousy testers "? (after so long ) 3) the next best competitors who got the titles.. will they really be proud n happy to receive the titles.. ( they got the titles, due to foul play by the one in front )
I believe the next 50 are also doping. After 20 years of investigation, the 51th best will finally get his well deserved title.
Well, I think whether he was using drugs or not, he still managed to be a beacon of inspiration and hope for many. So...
And so the noose tightens... http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/10/anti-doping-agency-to-release-evidence-against-lance-armstrong/... T The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency saysWednesday more than 1,000detailing the involvement of cyclist Lance Armstrong in what the agency calls “the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.”Armstrong, who won an unprecedented seven Tour de France titles, announced in August that he would no longer fight doping charges that the USADA brought against him earlier in the year. The famed cyclist’s decision prompted the USADA to ban the 40-year-old athlete from competition and strip him of his wins there though 1998, to datingwhether the organization had the authority to take such action.The USADA filed doping charges against Armstrong in June. Armstrong retired from professional cycling in February 2011, though he continued to compete in triathlon events.The USADA, a quasi-government agency recognized as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sports in the United States, accused Armstrong of using, possessing, trafficking and giving to others performance-enhancing drugs, as well as covering up doping violations.Armstrong’s attorney blasted“wrong” and “baseless,” much like Armstrongvehemently denied other such claims in the past.Armstrong, when he announced in August that he wouldn’t fight the charges, said there wasphysical evidence” to support the USADA’s claims, and that he was “finished with this nonsense” of fighting after charges fightingallegations for years.“The only physical evidence there is the hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors,” Armstrong said in August. “I made myself available around the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine. Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end, USADA will not stand by it?” Armstrong’s Wednesday,OnHincape admitted he used banned substances.“It is extremely difficult today to acknowledge that during a part of my career I used banned substances,” Hincape said in a statement. “Early in my professional me to clear became it career,widespread use of performance enhancing drugs by cyclists at the top of the profession,possible to compete at the highest level without them. I deeply regret that choice and sincerely apologize to my family, teammates and fans.”
There is 2 parts to Lance. One is he was the best cheater (won 7) than the rest of the cheaters in his sport. The other part is for for his contribution to humanity - raising $500M for cancer, fighting 3 forms of rare cancer as giving hope to cancer patients. i like to remember him for the latter part, how many sport personality has done that?. IMO, Lance could possibly win a few of his 7 triumphs without doping, but to continue at the top he resorted to dopes, prevalent among money sportsperson these days.
True. But he'll be forever known as the last one who refused to confess and face the music. His pride is his flaw and in the court of public opinion, he will be the loser whereas his other sorry riders will at least be partially forgiven. Of the Livestrong foundation, you can bet he will be a sore liability for them from now on and you'll never see him publicly represent them again.
And as Nike dumps Armstrong so begins the exodus of supporters. Wisely he leaves the Livestrong Foundation to spare them his infamy. ... http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...docId=CNG.dc7fb3a2b6a405ed3168a02343fffacd.21
Perjury charges and jail time may be on the horizon for Armstrong a là Marion Jones. http://www.3news.co.nz/Lance-Armstr...arges/tabid/415/articleID/272960/Default.aspx
So now that he's been officially stripped of all his wins, the psychoanalysis begins... Not that I'm interested in cycling, but I like understanding what makes exceptional people tick... and perhaps I like to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude... http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/cy...as-a-screw-loose/story-e6frf7jo-1226502263030 A LEADING Australian expert on emotional intelligence believes Lance Armstrong is a classic "corporate psychopath" who has hustled and bullied his way to the top his whole life. According to Sydney-based lecturer and author Chris Golis, the characteristics of a corporate psychopath are their charm, their lack of natural empathy, their ability to deceive and their view that life is a game with winners and losers – and that they are winners. “Typically they are manipulative, lack ethics, desire power and are very active players in corporate politics,” Mr Golis explains. “They meet someone and they say, ‘what’s in it for me? How can I make money from this person?’” Mr Golis says well known examples of the character type in the corporate sphere include businessman Alan Bond and the late Sydney stockbroker Rene Rivkin. But he says top sportsmen often exhibit the characteristics too, and Lance Armstrong appears to fall smack bang into the category. “Corporate psychopaths have a phenomenal desire to win or to make money and the two often go together, of course. “Obviously Lance had an incredibly strong desire to win bike races, but he also very much has the desire to make money through the deals he signed left, right and centre.” Mr Golis says corporate psychopaths are not all bad. “They’re wonderful rogues and fantastic company. They’re hustlers, they’re the ones who get deals done and the world would be more dull without them. “The problem is, many of them have no moral compass.” Many people are now asking whether Armstrong has actually come to believe the lies he has repeated so frequently and convincingly over the years. Chris Golis doesn’t think so. He believes Armstrong likely knows he’s lying, but that he has justified those lies to himself and simply can’t bring himself to back down. “People like Lance Armstrong divide the world into winners and losers. Then when someone raises doubts, they reconcile their actions internally by saying ‘yeah, I’m doing that but that’s what we winners have to do.” If there’s one piece of good news for Armstrong, it’s that corporate psychopaths can mellow as they get older. “It can happen,” Chris Golis says. “You do get these people suddenly working hard and becoming benefactors. By the time Lance is 60 I would say yeah, he may able to show some remorse.”