# Armstrong is done.



## robdamanii

The UCI just upheld the USADA findings, stripping Armstrong of his results and confirming his lifetime ban.

McQuaid just stated they haven't had time to delve into the Ferrari links, but are now waiting for Padova/Mantova results.

Via Inrng on twitter and via live Sky news feed.


----------



## robdamanii

Ooops. 

Here too:

Cycling body strips Lance Armstrong of Tour de France wins – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## cda 455

I'm watching the Q&A's now.


----------



## slegros

McQuaid makes me sick...... His BS about how cleaning up doping in cycling has been his #1 job since becoming president.... LOL! Nice way to spin history!!!

Him and Verbruggen should get the same lifetime bans as LA!!!


----------



## Salsa_Lover

online TV sending here

Live from Geneva, sound in English 

20 Minuten Online - Armstrong verliert alle sieben Tour-Titel - Radsport


----------



## robdamanii

And here:

UCI Confirms Lance Armstrong's Life Ban | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## sir duke

Pat holding forth, admits sport is in crisis. He feels Lance deserves to be forgotten, blah, blah, blah.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20026834


----------



## jlandry

Wait! What? Armstrong doped???


----------



## mtnroadie

*This just in... Armstrong doping on Butters' Creamy Goo!*
















Butters creamy goo - YouTube


----------



## PDex

McQuaid is slipperier than a Mississippi sturgeon. 

Kimmage, test cover-up, donations, etc.


----------



## roddjbrown

Q: "Do you think the sport will ever be free of doping"

McQuaid: "No"

Honest perhaps, but maybe not the message they should be sending out!


----------



## sir duke

PDex said:


> McQuaid is slipperier than a Mississippi sturgeon.
> 
> Kimmage, test cover-up, donations, etc.



He's so brazen over the donation issue, he says the UCI would take a donation from the likes of Boonen, Cancellara or Gilbert if offered. Basically money is money to him, screw ethics, not a resignation issue. Unconscionable. 
Love how he slipped in a quote from JFK to reassure any future Chinese interests in the sport. Cheeky bastid.


----------



## sir duke

At times like this I always think it best to turn to my old buddy Prince for his penetrating insights into the cycling world:






Edit: I hope no-one confuses intellect and savoir-faire with Pat McQuaid, that was never my intention.


----------



## Marc

roddjbrown said:


> Q: "Do you think the sport will ever be free of doping"
> 
> McQuaid: "No"
> 
> Honest perhaps, but maybe not the message they should be sending out!


Definitely NOT the message that sponsors and ex-sponsors were wanting said out loud.


----------



## natedg200202

I know of only one sponsor left for Armstrong - *Oakley*. Do they drop him now?


----------



## troutmd

slegros said:


> mcquaid makes me sick...... His bs about how cleaning up doping in cycling has been his #1 job since becoming president.... Lol! Nice way to spin history!!!
> 
> Him and verbruggen should get the same lifetime bans as la!!!


^this^


----------



## Marc

natedg200202 said:


> I know of only one sponsor left for Armstrong - *Oakley*. Do they drop him now?


I was thinking of all the team sponsors of the sport.


----------



## nymackem

troutmd said:


> ^this^


yep - after all the talk of armstrong being more powerful than your average pro, it turns out that, just as we see in all other walks of life, he's just another piece of collateral that an authority figure will cut loose to try to save their asses.


----------



## Lazy Spinner

A wholesale exodus of sponsors, a strong rider's union, and/or a rival cycling league may be the only things that will bring down Verbruggen and McQuaid.


----------



## mpre53

natedg200202 said:


> I know of only one sponsor left for Armstrong - *Oakley*. Do they drop him now?


By 5 PM PDT today. :wink:


----------



## Marc

mpre53 said:


> By 5 PM PDT today. :wink:


Probably, the decision by the UCI was announced before the sun even rose in the US.


----------



## Fireform

Where are the squadrons of fanboys deployed to explain to us that nobody cares? They seem to be late to the party.

I'm a little disappointed that UCI didn't refuse the USADA's findings. That would have been the quickest route to overthrow of Hein and Pat.


----------



## sir duke

Lazy Spinner said:


> A wholesale exodus of sponsors, a strong rider's union, and/or a rival cycling league may be the only things that will bring down Verbruggen and McQuaid.


Fat Pat is having a meeting with all the stakeholders in early Dec, by then hopefully there will be a groundswell of opinion that the UCI is incapable of policing the sport or repairing it's tarnished image. it's obvious that the UCI has always been re-active not pro-active.

The wit and wisdom of McQuaid at the press conference:



> "When I took over [as president] in 2005 I made the fight against doping my priority. I acknowledged cycling had a culture of doping. Cycling has come a long way. I have no intention of resigning as president of the UCI," McQuaid said.


----------



## MaddSkillz

John Mellencamp - Crumblin' Down - YouTube


----------



## russman

Oakley dropped him:

http://www.oakley.com/sports/road-c...mc=twitter-_-news-story-_-lance-armstrong-_-_


----------



## EuroSVT

Oakley Statement on Lance Armstrong

Oakley dropped him


----------



## sir duke

Fireform said:


> Where are the squadrons of fanboys deployed to explain to us that nobody cares? They seem to be late to the party.
> 
> I'm a little disappointed that UCI didn't refuse the USADA's findings. That would have been the quickest route to overthrow of Hein and Pat.


Nobody cares. Lance who? What did he win? Never liked him. I always knew he doped, it was just that there was no evidence, need to be fair, cured cancer, blah de blah.

Unfortunately it might end up a hollow victory if nothing changes at the UCI.


----------



## Ken

Does this mean that Lance will have to return all his prize money?


----------



## fschris

sir duke said:


> Nobody cares. Lance who? What did he win? Never liked him. I always knew he doped, it was just that there was no evidence, need to be fair, cured cancer, blah de blah.
> 
> Unfortunately it might end up a hollow victory if nothing changes at the UCI.



After this witch hunt the younger cyclist are totally screwed. The Lance Hate Fan Boys destroyed cycling rather than just say we know there is a problem lets fix it going forward.

USADA dropped a NUKE on cycling. As a former Cyclist/Racer/Triathlete It will be interesting to see how the local bike markits in small town USA survive. Before Lance a high end bike cost 2500 after Lance High end bikes fetched 12K.


----------



## Retro Grouch

Now that the final verdict is in on Lance, we can move forward.

It's time to focus all this energy in a new direction: Maybe Contador's way?

I really hate that pistol thing he does.


----------



## Marc

fschris said:


> After this witch hunt the younger cyclist are totally screwed. The Lance Hate Fan Boys destroyed cycling rather than just say we know there is a problem lets fix it going forward.
> 
> USADA dropped a NUKE on cycling. As a former Cyclist/Racer/Triathlete It will be interesting to see how the local bike markits in small town USA survive. Before Lance a high end bike cost 2500 after Lance High end bikes fetched 12K.


You can be mad at Lance for lots of things...but bike toy price inflation is not one of them.


----------



## M5Manny

retro grouch said:


> now that the final verdict is in on lance, we can move forward.
> 
> It's time to focus all this energy in a new direction: Maybe contador's way?
> 
> I really hate that pistol thing he does.


^this^


----------



## fschris

Marc said:


> You can be mad at Lance for lots of things...but bike toy price inflation is not one of them.


I'm not mad at Lance.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

every active pro that answered about the LA case when it started, with something like "the sport needs to look to the future and not the past" must be investigated in depth too


----------



## JoelS

Salsa_Lover said:


> every active pro that answered about the LA case when it started, with something like "the sport needs to look to the future and not the past" must be investigated in depth too


That may be one of the very first things I've agreed with you on.


----------



## danl1

natedg200202 said:


> I know of only one sponsor left for Armstrong - *Oakley*. Do they drop him now?


Done.

Oakley latest sponsor to drop Lance Armstrong following ICU decision; joins Nike, Trek, others - The Washington Post


----------



## danl1

fschris said:


> I'm not mad at Lance.


yeah - it's the haters that drove the bike prices up.


----------



## danl1

Ken said:


> Does this mean that Lance will have to return all his prize money?


They haven't fully determined that yet, but I'd say probably. And it will be interesting to see if he fights _that. _

But really, that's relatively small potatoes compared to the sponsorship / spokesmanship losses.


----------



## fschris

danl1 said:


> yeah - it's the haters that drove the bike prices up.


the lance phenomenon drove up prices. an American winning the tour 7 times drove the prices up. Americans were getting interested in cycling. my family was semi interested in the the tour and watching.

you think they are have any interest now?

nope. cycling in the USA is dead now.


----------



## fschris

the lance phenomenon drove up prices. an American winning the tour 7 times drove the prices up. Americans were getting interested in cycling. my family was semi interested in the the tour and watching.

you think they are have any interest now?

nope. cycling in the USA is dead now.


----------



## Fireform

Shocking, really. Even the UCI loves cancer.


----------



## Marc

fschris said:


> the lance phenomenon drove up prices. an American winning the tour 7 times drove the prices up. Americans were getting interested in cycling. my family was semi interested in the the tour and watching.
> 
> you think they are have any interest now?
> 
> nope. cycling in the USA is dead now.


Lance Phenomenon didn't drive up prices. First gas/shipping prices and inflation did...and now parts makers and bike frame labels have discovered enthusiasts are willing to spend stupid amounts of money on toys.

Do you blame Lance for the spike in computer HDD prices too?


----------



## fschris

Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?

All the major sponsors are out and no one is going to step in. Good job USADA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Ken said:


> Does this mean that Lance will have to return all his prize money?


Yes, Prudomme said this today. $3-4 million


----------



## FR hokeypokey

danl1 said:


> They haven't fully determined that yet, but I'd say probably. And it will be interesting to see if he fights _that. _
> 
> But really, that's relatively small potatoes compared to the sponsorship / spokesmanship losses.


So just Armstrong to return his winnings? Or every rider that profited from participating and being protected in the shadow that Armstrong cast?


----------



## brentley

Ken said:


> Does this mean that Lance will have to return all his prize money?


Don't know about prize money, but he will be returning his Sydney medal.

His bigger problem will be SCA promotions and the Times of London. Both of whom lost litigation with team Armstrong in the past, based on his claim of no doping.


----------



## Marc

fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?


...Because the sport activity is fun??...


----------



## danl1

FR hokeypokey said:


> So just Armstrong to return his winnings? Or every rider that profited from participating and being protected in the shadow that Armstrong cast?


Hard to say. It would be tough to draw that line. 

I'd guess it would be limited to 'convicted' dopers. The winnings for the team classification would be an interesting problem.


----------



## fschris

Marc said:


> ...Because the sport activity is fun??...


fun does not pay the bills. you become a pro for money. now there is none.


----------



## Marc

fschris said:


> fun does not pay the bills. you become a pro for money. now there is none.


Umm...unless you're playing NFL or NASCAR, you don't become a pro for money. Unless you are either a Lance or a Contador or any of the other very top names in the sport you'd not bringing that much home.


----------



## brentley

Marc said:


> Lance Phenomenon didn't drive up prices. First gas/shipping prices and inflation did...and now parts makers and bike frame labels have discovered enthusiasts are willing to spend stupid amounts of money on toys.
> 
> Do you blame Lance for the spike in computer HDD prices too?


The spike in prices on bikes rests almost solely on the rise of carbon as a bike component as well as the increase in interest in powermeters and the emergence of electronic shifting.

Lance had little to do with most of that.


----------



## pretender

fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?
> 
> All the major sponsors are out and no one is going to step in. Good job USADA.


What should USADA have done differently? Ignored the case? Participated in the cover-up? Phoned Pat and asked his permission?


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

McQuaid comments not at all surprising. 

Crucify Lance with deflective statements of condemnation, "Lance must be forgotten to cycling" while simultaneously defending himself and Verbruggen. 

What a mess. 

I don't have any LA memorabilia (even though I was a fan) except for a book my mom gave me as a gift, "Lance 2.0." It's somewhat chilling thumbing through those pages now. He had no idea what was in store for him.


----------



## slegros

I'm wondering if there is discord between McQuaid and Verbruggen, and if McQuaid's quote may be the beginning of McQuaid throwing Verbruggen under the bus to save his own a$$.....

Verbruggen's retracted quote of only a few days ago saying that there was no positive test in Armstrong's case might indicate that Verbruggen up until at least a few days ago was still thinking of siding with Armstrong.....


----------



## Marc

pretender said:


> What should USADA have done differently? Ignored the case? Participated in the cover-up? Phoned Pat and asked his permission?


We'll have to wait and see what happens...but I can easily see that the only "good" that comes out of this is the banning of the ex-US-Posties. Otherwise the only other thing to happen is the sponsors en masse leaving the sport a la Rabobank.

Is getting Lance black listed worth driving even more sponsors from the sport? IMHO, not at all but that is my opinion.


----------



## slegros

The funniest thing I have heard so far relating to this mess is a book store putting 'It's Not About the Bike' on sale, and moving it to the fiction section......


----------



## CSquare43

Disclaimer: This is solely my opinion on this matter.

These companies using this to eradicate their marketing budget spends now (years after Lance retired), should be ashamed of themselves. 

Professional cycling is a PED enhanced sport and these companies welcomed Lance (and the others) with open arms while he (and the others) were likely doped to the gills.

Now that this has happened, they want to release Lance and put out press releases that talk of their commitment to a clean sport, and they they had been fooled...and we all know (at least we should) that this is utter BS...

This is an easy way to chop $XX million of dollars from their marketing budgets for the next 2+ years. And don't get me wrong, it's the smart thing to do from a business perspective (to save money when/where they can).....but to lay all the blame at Lance's feet and act surprised it ludicrous...


----------



## EpicX

fschris said:


> fun does not pay the bills. you become a pro for money. now there is none.


If you are in any sport to "pay the bills", I've got a news flash for you... there are easier ways to do that. 

If you're picking a sport to get rich in , I've got another news flash for you... cycling should be at the bottom of your list, you'd make more as a backup, backup, backup soccer, football, baseball, curling player than most pro cyclists. 

As for why a kid would get involved? For the same reasons a lot of us did, it's fun and it's not the same old ball sports. It also gives you a lot of very attractive freedom that you might not otherwise have. Age 15, tell parents I'm going out with friends age 20-40 and oh yeah, we'll be 80 miles away. Yeah right. Tell them I'm going on an 80 mile bike ride with the shop guys, no problem, have a good ride son.

There was cycling before Lance, there will be cycling after Lance. Very few non cyclists I know are really surprised he doped. They ARE surprised at the extent of the system and at the huge difference between the sainted Lance portrayed in books and media and the angry, vengeful, manipulative and dishonest Lance revealed in Tyler's book and the USADA reports.


----------



## fschris

I think all the lance haters who wanted him to go down hard did not fully appreciate the full ramifications it would have for the sport if and when he was stripped.


----------



## Marc

fschris said:


> I think all the lance haters who wanted him to go down hard did not fully appreciate the full ramifications it would have for the sport if and when he was stripped.


Agreed. That being said...many seem to have read too much Rand-ian fiction and think demolishing the entire system is the best course of action.


----------



## 3rensho

fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?
> 
> All the major sponsors are out and no one is going to step in. Good job USADA.



When I was a youngster, I got my sponsorship from a local team and the local bike shop. I'd imagine that this will continue despite the latest 'news'. They had racing before Lance too, it was awesome. They'll have races next week and on into the end of the calendar year. When 2013 gets here. They'll have even more races.

If people, sponsors included, want to walk away because they have finally accepted the conclusion that many have known all along, I say "see ya". Hope there's some sweet Madones on eBay for cheap now. That'd be a bonus, wouldn't it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Armstrong is not the sport of cycling. The sport will learn and grow from this. As we have seen repeatedly it does far more damage to ignore the issue then address it

Armstrong fans may move on to the next thing, rollerblading, golf, but cycling fans will remain.


----------



## Skinner222

fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?
> 
> All the major sponsors are out and no one is going to step in. Good job USADA.


What do you suggest should have been done then?


----------



## nate

Marc said:


> We'll have to wait and see what happens...but I can easily see that the only "good" that comes out of this is the banning of the ex-US-Posties. Otherwise the only other thing to happen is the sponsors en masse leaving the sport a la Rabobank.
> 
> Is getting Lance black listed worth driving even more sponsors from the sport? IMHO, not at all but that is my opinion.


You don't think banning the others charged in the case is a good thing? The doctors? Presumably Bruyneel will also be banned or at least suspended.

Even just banning the riders could be a big deal, particularly when you consider current or potential future team ownership, management, and involvement with younger riders. I'm not sure how the bans effect team ownership. Is this addressed anywhere? Will Armstrong have to get rid of any current ownership stakes?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

fschris;4154392[/QUOTE said:


> nope. cycling in the USA is dead now.


Bye, Bye, Have fun watching Golf. 

Cycling is not dead. Even with all the Armstrong chaos the sport is growing
USA Pro Challenge?s economic impact grew in 2nd year - Denver Business Journal


----------



## Skinner222

fschris said:


> I think all the lance haters who wanted him to go down hard did not fully appreciate the full ramifications it would have for the sport if and when he was stripped.


The "lance haters" part of your comment doesn't deserve a reply. As for the ramifications - crap happens and there will be fallout. This doesn't mean for even a millisecond that the USADA/UCI verdicts should not have happened.


----------



## Marc

nate said:


> You don't think banning the others charged in the case is a good thing? The doctors? Presumably Bruyneel will also be banned or at least suspended.
> 
> Even just banning the riders could be a big deal, particularly when you consider current or potential future team ownership, management, and involvement with younger riders. I'm not sure how the bans effect team ownership. Is this addressed anywhere? Will Armstrong have to get rid of any current ownership stakes?


It probably is a good thing, my query was a value judgement: if black-listing Lance et al results in even more sponsors leaving the sport, is it worth it? I strongly suspect the bans will end with the banning of the US Posties riders/staff. Let us say that the ASO can't get funding for another TdF (or any other grand tour or big-name classic or stage race) next year due to sponsors fleeing in droves, is it worth it? Who is to say what will happen.

Is burning down a house worth it to catch (ban) a few rats? Because odds are only a few will be caught (banned), and business will continue as per normal.


----------



## Rip Van Cycle

Marc said:


> Agreed. That being said...many seem to have read too much Rand-ian fiction and think demolishing the entire system is the best course of action.


Agree with your general point... except I would have substitututed the phrase "Cloward-Piven _non-_fiction" for "Rand-ian fiction."


----------



## sir duke

fschris said:


> the lance phenomenon drove up prices. an American winning the tour 7 times drove the prices up. Americans were getting interested in cycling. my family was semi interested in the the tour and watching.
> 
> you think they are have any interest now?
> 
> nope. cycling in the USA is dead now.


Cycling did OK before fairweather fans like you came along. I suppose WWF gets your money now. See ya! :thumbsup:


----------



## fschris

Skinner222 said:


> The "lance haters" part of your comment doesn't deserve a reply. As for the ramifications - crap happens and there will be fallout. This doesn't mean for even a millisecond that the USADA/UCI verdicts should not have happened.


okay, I agree I am not trying to say lance haters did this. just the fact reading here how some people were so involved in watching this all unfold and the excitement some had was odd. lance may have doped but I would not say he was the only problem. Sure the UCI stripped lance but UCI seems like it just stripped itself and a lot of awesome cycling history.


----------



## nOOky

I love cycling and racing because I love cycling and racing. While Lance helped encourage and promote the sport to the masses, it will always be a fringe sport here in the U.S. 
As the American population gets older and fatter, I see cycling getting less popular anyway


----------



## Salsa_Lover

Fireform said:


> Shocking, really. Even the UCI loves cancer.


Lance Armstrong was Cycling's Cancer


----------



## FR hokeypokey

I still find it fascinating that the majority of the rhetoric and focus is on Armstrong and Postal. 

Comments of "ban all the Posties" are comical. Comments of Armstrong "deserves it because he was a bad guy". What about every other "nice guy" that doped and is getting a free pass? When did cleaning up the sport become a popularity contest?

What about every other team? Every other rider or director that has been caught or linked to any PED scandal? Consider the TdF titles can not even be awarded because of the overwhelming number of doping riders and teams involved (before, during and after the Armstrong years, in fact)

It seems to be trendy to pile on the Armstrong "conviction" (Is it really? Or is it legally a finding?) But to really clean house cycling needs to expand the focus of the investigations and bans to all the teams, management and riders. 

Truly clean house or it is is hypocritical to be so selective towards some Posties, not even them all because we know some of them are such "good guys" as dopers.


----------



## silverbullet84

Going to be interesting to see whether or not Lance challenges this. I'm pretty certain that he needed to show some kind of a physical "loss" in order to file a lawsuit in civil court. Now, he may have that opportunity.

Look, I am not supporting him and really don't care if he did or didn't. He still beat the rest of the dopers.

Throughout his career, he has always been the alpha male, and a proud Texan. I don't see this being the last we have heard from him.


----------



## TerminatorX91

Marc said:


> Definitely NOT the message that sponsors and ex-sponsors were wanting said out loud.


You're right and they are one piece of the larger problem.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

OldEndicottHiway said:


> I don't have any LA memorabilia (even though I was a fan) except for a book my mom gave me as a gift,


I had completely forgotten I have a signed Sports Illustrated with him on the cover that I was given as a gift years ago. I don't even know where it is, but I guess I missed the opportunity to cash in on that when the getting was good?


----------



## Rashadabd

There is absolutely NO WAY the dude files a suit over this if he has any brains at all. There are far too many witnesses (like 30 of them) and too much evidence. Moreover, he has suits against him to worry about (he actually won a couple of multimillion dollar awards against companies & or individuals that doubted he was riding clean and didn't want to pay him as a result--- uh, those folks want their money back).


----------



## PatheticHack

fschris said:


> okay, I agree I am not trying to say lance haters did this. just the fact reading here how some people were so involved in watching this all unfold and the excitement some had was odd. lance may have doped but I would not say he was the only problem. Sure the UCI stripped lance but UCI seems like it just stripped itself and a lot of awesome cycling history.


I'll agree that many appear to be over the moon at his freefall. IMO much of that stems from his his extreme arrogance & righteous indignation for sooo many years. I'm totally fine with having years of the cycling record books completely blank. It would serve as a reminder of a time cycling completely lost its way. 

Maybe it will take major sponsors pulling-out of cycling in the short-term to save it in the long run. UCI also needs to change and reform. But doing nothing and simply saying that everything that happened was in the past, let's leave it there, is like painting over toxic mold in a house. It may look nice and presentable to the outside world but eventually that house is gonna have to come down.


----------



## sir duke

silverbullet84 said:


> ......
> 
> Look, I am not supporting him and really don't care if he did or didn't. He still beat the rest of the dopers.
> 
> Throughout his career, he has always been the alpha male, and a proud Texan. I don't see this being the last we have heard from him.


You _are_ supporting him and you _do_ care, why else would you drag up the tired old excuse that he beat the rest of the dopers? The dream is over, mate. Lance cheated and the record will forever state that he won next to nothing in the sport. 

Texas is welcome to him. He can be master of all he surveys on the porch at Mellow Johnny's. Since I can't forgive him at least I can start to forget him. Who knows, the time may soon come when all his apologists will have drifted away from this forum and found themselves a new fake hero.


----------



## wrongway

fschris said:


> okay, I agree I am not trying to say lance haters did this. just the fact reading here how some people were so involved in watching this all unfold and the excitement some had was odd. lance may have doped but I would not say he was the only problem. Sure the UCI stripped lance but UCI seems like it just stripped itself and a lot of awesome cycling history.


Who cares. 

Cycling history just got replaced by Strava KOMs.


----------



## loubnc

3rensho said:


> Hope there's some sweet Madones on eBay for cheap now. That'd be a bonus, wouldn't it?


Here's one: Trek Madone Frameset Frame 2009 Handmade 6 9 Project One Custom Livestrong | eBay

It's damaged goods, but so is Armstrong. Fitting symbol.


----------



## Marc

loubnc said:


> Here's one: Trek Madone Frameset Frame 2009 Handmade 6 9 Project One Custom Livestrong | eBay
> 
> It's damaged goods, but so is Armstrong. Fitting symbol.


A possibly cracked frame with as-is sale-is-final terms, that the owner claims to not have checked isn't exactly a desirable item. Whether it is Livestrong branded or not.


----------



## Tschai

Growing, not growing, dead or alive - none of this matters. The vast majority of Americans have and always will think that cycling is essentially a joke. I am tired of hearing all this crap about how cycling in America is dead or dying or whatever. It has always been a fringe sport in the US. I don't care if it grows or not. I will enjoy it now as much as I did 30 years ago.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad

Through all of this I find it hard to believe there is anyone that's clean in cycling. Sure, I always hopes LA was clean, but I knew it was a pipe dream. But when George H say "I asked Lance for some EPO and he gave it to me.", so you know GH is playing dirty, then who the F is clean?

What stuck in my crawl was how they continued to pursue LA after he had retired so many years ago. Are they building cases on ALL past grand tour winners? Based on what happened with LA, they should. But my guess is that they were so PO's that he beat Eddie's record of 5 (being tied with 5 is acceptable, but you aren't allowed to beat him), that they drove this thing all the way into the ground.

Now, my head really starts to wonder what attendance and sponsorship for the future of the Grand Tours will be like, and if the Tour of California will continue to exist at all.

It's too bad. Honestly (and yeah, I think I really do believe this), I think they should have done what other pro sports are doing, and ignored the issue so that they could claim to be clean and let the sport survive/thrive. God knows the NFL isn't clean, but no way in Hades are they going to admit such and let the sponsors pull out.


----------



## jorgy

OldEndicottHiway said:


> McQuaid comments not at all surprising.
> 
> Crucify Lance with deflective statements of condemnation, "Lance must be forgotten to cycling" while simultaneously defending himself and Verbruggen.
> 
> What a mess.
> 
> I don't have any LA memorabilia (even though I was a fan) except for a book my mom gave me as a gift, "Lance 2.0." It's somewhat chilling thumbing through those pages now. He had no idea what was in store for him.


Lance must be seething. Wonder if Pat's little show will push Armstrong to expose him and Heiny?

What a mess, indeed.


----------



## YamaDan

wrongway said:


> Who cares.
> 
> Cycling history just got replaced by Strava KOMs.


:idea: that could be bad...


----------



## jorgy

Salsa_Lover said:


> Lance Armstrong was Cycling's Cancer


Catchy.


----------



## bayAreaDude

fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?
> 
> All the major sponsors are out and no one is going to step in. Good job USADA.


You mean good job cheating dopers.


----------



## spade2you

Just remember, Vino has now officially won more grand tours than LA.


----------



## jorgy

FR hokeypokey said:


> I still find it fascinating that the majority of the rhetoric and focus is on Armstrong and Postal.
> 
> Comments of "ban all the Posties" are comical. Comments of Armstrong "deserves it because he was a bad guy". What about every other "nice guy" that doped and is getting a free pass? When did cleaning up the sport become a popularity contest?
> 
> What about every other team? Every other rider or director that has been caught or linked to any PED scandal? Consider the TdF titles can not even be awarded because of the overwhelming number of doping riders and teams involved (before, during and after the Armstrong years, in fact)
> 
> It seems to be trendy to pile on the Armstrong "conviction" (Is it really? Or is it legally a finding?) But to really clean house cycling needs to expand the focus of the investigations and bans to all the teams, management and riders.
> 
> Truly clean house or it is is hypocritical to be so selective towards some Posties, not even them all because we know some of them are such "good guys" as dopers.


Postal was akin to a terrorist cell. There are lots of them out there and getting rid of one doesn't impact the larger group all that much.

Cleaning house is difficult, though, as the national anti-doping agencies have to be on board.


----------



## loubnc

Marc said:


> A possibly cracked frame with as-is sale-is-final terms, that the owner claims to not have checked isn't exactly a desirable item. Whether it is Livestrong branded or not.


Hence the last part of my post about "Damaged goods". I wouldn't suggest anyone ride it.


----------



## Brad the Bold

Fireform said:


> Shocking, really. Even the UCI loves cancer.


Seriously?

Speaking as a cyclist, a person who has donated thousands of dollars for cancer research (Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer - MACCfund.org) and as a physician who images cancer patients almost every day...

The fight againt cancer was happening long before Lance sold his first yellow bracelet and will go on long after him. 

*Don't* insult every other charity, philanthropist, reseacher and care giver by suggesting that *Lance, and only Lance, IS the fight against cancer* or that his foundation, and his works, somehow absolve him of being a cheat and a fraud.


----------



## pianopiano

*Adios Big Tex*



Tschai said:


> Growing, not growing, dead or alive - none of this matters. The vast majority of Americans have and always will think that cycling is essentially a joke. I am tired of hearing all this crap about how cycling in America is dead or dying or whatever. It has always been a fringe sport in the US. I don't care if it grows or not. I will enjoy it now as much as I did 30 years ago.


Thanks for writing this. I completely agree with you. I love cycling just as much as I did 30 years ago, and I'm sure that I always will.

Imho, Paul Kimmage was 100% correct; Lance Armstrong _was_ the cancer in cycling. Thankfully, he's finally been exposed not only as an incredibly poor example of a human being, but as a complete sporting fraud as well. There is absolutely no valid reason for continuing to defend him at this point.

Hopefully, more news will come out about the UCI habits of accepting bribes and covering up doping positives as well. Verbruggen and McQuaid are as corrupt as they come, and neither deserve to be allowed to continue in their current positions within the UCI.


----------



## JasonB176

JohnnyTooBad said:


> Through all of this I find it hard to believe there is anyone that's clean in cycling. Sure, I always hopes LA was clean, but I knew it was a pipe dream. But when George H say "I asked Lance for some EPO and he gave it to me.", so you know GH is playing dirty, then who the F is clean?
> 
> What stuck in my crawl was how they continued to pursue LA after he had retired so many years ago. Are they building cases on ALL past grand tour winners? Based on what happened with LA, they should. But my guess is that they were so PO's that he beat Eddie's record of 5 (being tied with 5 is acceptable, but you aren't allowed to beat him), that they drove this thing all the way into the ground.
> 
> Now, my head really starts to wonder what attendance and sponsorship for the future of the Grand Tours will be like, and if the Tour of California will continue to exist at all.
> 
> It's too bad. Honestly (and yeah, I think I really do believe this), I think they should have done what other pro sports are doing, and ignored the issue so that they could claim to be clean and let the sport survive/thrive. God knows the NFL isn't clean, but no way in Hades are they going to admit such and let the sponsors pull out.


I'm not sure what you mean when you say he retired 'so many years ago'. He retired on February 16, 2011. No one forced him to come back to the sport. This makes his behavior entirely relevant.


----------



## MG537

brentley said:


> Don't know about prize money, but he will be returning his Sydney medal.
> 
> His bigger problem will be SCA promotions and the Times of London. Both of whom lost litigation with team Armstrong in the past, based on his claim of no doping.


The SCA case had nothing to do with him having doped. It was a contract based on him having won the most TdF's ever, ie no. 6 and 7. 
How he won it was besides the point. It only mattered that he was declared the winner.


----------



## Tschai

JohnnyTooBad said:


> But my guess is that they were so PO's that he beat Eddie's record of 5 (being tied with 5 is acceptable, but you aren't allowed to beat him), that they drove this thing all the way into the ground.


So many problems with your post, but let's start with who exactly is PO's?


----------



## MG537

jorgy said:


> Lance must be seething. Wonder if Pat's little show will push Armstrong to expose him and Heiny?
> 
> What a mess, indeed.


Now that would be great. *Dis*honor among thieves.


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n

I do not condone what LA did, but the multicorporations and individuals behind him are getting away with it. As in most cases like this, someone needs to be hung for it, but of course in this case, he is guilty too.


----------



## robdamanii

YamaDan said:


> :idea: that could be bad...


I want that shirt.


----------



## PatheticHack

JohnnyTooBad said:


> What stuck in my crawl was how they continued to pursue LA after he had retired so many years ago. Are they building cases on ALL past grand tour winners? Based on what happened with LA, they should.


USADA is only going to investigate US cyclists. Cyclists from other nations may be implicated but that's just collateral damage. It's up to authorities in Italy, Spain (both of which have ongoing investigations), France, Belgium, etc. to investigate others cyclists.

Law enforcement & regulatory agencies have often gone after the "big fish" throughout history. I don't think that you're saying if you can't go after everyone with equal vigor, don't go after anyone? I choose to look at it a little differently. If LA ultimately wasn't "too big to fall", then ostensibly no one is.


----------



## mpre53

fschris said:


> okay, I agree I am not trying to say lance haters did this. just the fact reading here how some people were so involved in watching this all unfold and the excitement some had was odd. lance may have doped but I would not say he was the only problem. Sure the UCI stripped lance but UCI seems like it just stripped itself and a lot of awesome cycling history.


_Never mind. Not worth it._


----------



## Local Hero

fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?


This is flawed on a few levels. First, are youngsters getting into sports for the money? If so, cycling is the wrong sport!

Next, is crossfit a sport? There are no pro crossfit athletes and crossfit is huge right now. 

What about triathletes or pro runners? There are a dozen professional triathletes who can make a living being triathletes. And about triple that many professional runners. The rest work at shoe stores or as coaches. Being a competitive endurance athletes isn't about the money.

So what makes you think youngsters will avoid cycling? It's still fun to ride bikes. 


fschris said:


> just the fact reading here how some people were so involved in watching this all unfold and the excitement some had was odd.


I also find it odd. People take Armstrong personally. I made a joke thread about burning Armstrong memorabilia and nobody questioned it.


----------



## trailrunner68

brentley said:


> The spike in prices on bikes rests almost solely on the rise of carbon as a bike component as well as the increase in interest in powermeters and the emergence of electronic shifting.
> 
> Lance had little to do with most of that.


Carbon is cheap. It had nothing to do with it. The price increase is due to yuppies who want to put one over on the Joneses. The price increase has nothing to do with materials or cost of manufacturing. Cycling became and industry of Veblen goods.

If bibs stop costing $300 because the Armstrong fanboys leave the sport then it's all good. Let golf take them back.


----------



## trailrunner68

JohnnyTooBad said:


> What stuck in my crawl was how they continued to pursue LA after he had retired so many years ago. Are they building cases on ALL past grand tour winners? Based on what happened with LA, they should. But my guess is that they were so PO's that he beat Eddie's record of 5 (being tied with 5 is acceptable, but you aren't allowed to beat him), that they drove this thing all the way into the ground.


Stop the BS. Armstrong was not retired. He was too stupid to retire. He was racing as a pro triathlete just a few months ago.


----------



## il sogno

Brad the Bold said:


> The fight againt cancer was happening long before Lance sold his first yellow bracelet and will go on long after him.
> 
> *Don't* insult every other charity, philanthropist, reseacher and care giver by suggesting that *Lance, and only Lance, IS the fight against cancer* or that his foundation, and his works, somehow absolve him of being a cheat and a fraud.


Exactly. One of the most reprehensible aspects of Lance's conduct is how he used Livestrong as a shield against the allegations. As if his establishment of Livestrong was an excuse for his doping. As if the ends justified his means. :nonod:


----------



## Cableguy

Tschai said:


> Growing, not growing, dead or alive - none of this matters. The vast majority of Americans have and always will think that cycling is essentially a joke. I am tired of hearing all this crap about how cycling in America is dead or dying or whatever. It has always been a fringe sport in the US. *I don't care if it grows or not*. I will enjoy it now as much as I did 30 years ago.


As cycling becomes more popular in the US, awareness of the activity increases and it becomes safer to ride in the US. I'm sure there are a bunch of other positive side effects too.


----------



## Fireform

Brad the Bold said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Speaking as a cyclist, a person who has donated thousands of dollars for cancer research (Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer - MACCfund.org) and as a physician who images cancer patients almost every day...
> 
> The fight againt cancer was happening long before Lance sold his first yellow bracelet and will go on long after him.
> 
> *Don't* insult every other charity, philanthropist, reseacher and care giver by suggesting that *Lance, and only Lance, IS the fight against cancer* or that his foundation, and his works, somehow absolve him of being a cheat and a fraud.


I had my sarcasm turned up to 11. Sorry it didn't come across.


----------



## mpre53

trailrunner68 said:


> Stop the BS. Armstrong was not retired. He was too stupid to retire. He was racing as a pro triathlete just a few months ago.


I guess he also forgot that he stood on the podium in 2009. :wink:


----------



## spade2you

mpre53 said:


> I guess he also forgot that he stood on the podium in 2009. :wink:


Mostly because Contador wasn't allowed to attack too hard, which would have put Frandy on the podium instead.


----------



## silverbullet84

We can respectfully disagree. I am not saying it is in his best interest to do so, but now he has legal grounds if he wants to go that route. And perhaps I am a contrarian when I say that the case is weak at best. If there are blood samples that have been stored, then why have they failed to bring up a positive test with current testing methods? There is plenty of speculation about the 2001 test, and until I hear the lab come out and declare that it was a clear positive, then it wasn't.

And if it was a true positive, then how the hell could it take this long to come to light? And wouldn't people at the USADA and UCI have to be involved in keeping it quiet? What would that say about the legitimacy of these agencies and their employees?

I am not naive, nor do I believe most of what I read as being unbiased reporting. My point is that as far as I am aware at this point, not reading the 200 page report in any great detail, the case against Armstrong is strongly based on the testimony of those who were caught and took a deal, no positive test results that have been verified or released, a Federal prosecution that couldn't make enough of a case to go to trial, and a USADA who seemed more interested in press conferences and badmouthing Armstrong than it was at trying to figure out how the hell they failed to catch him if he was doping so often.

Something just doesn't make sense, or provide a clear picture. The "conspiracy" could not have been that good to have gone this long without a huge red flag, someone who hadn't been caught and offered a deal making accusations, and labs that had positive tests for others and not Lance, although they were all doing it.

Prove it and I will listen.


----------



## mpre53

silverbullet84 said:


> We can respectfully disagree. I am not saying it is in his best interest to do so, but now he has legal grounds if he wants to go that route. And perhaps I am a contrarian when I say that the case is weak at best. If there are blood samples that have been stored, then why have they failed to bring up a positive test with current testing methods? There is plenty of speculation about the 2001 test, and until I hear the lab come out and declare that it was a clear positive, then it wasn't.
> 
> And if it was a true positive, then how the hell could it take this long to come to light? And wouldn't people at the USADA and UCI have to be involved in keeping it quiet? What would that say about the legitimacy of these agencies and their employees?
> 
> I am not naive, nor do I believe most of what I read as being unbiased reporting. * My point is that as far as I am aware at this point, not reading the 200 page report in any great detail,* the case against Armstrong is strongly based on the testimony of those who were caught and took a deal, no positive test results that have been verified or released, a Federal prosecution that couldn't make enough of a case to go to trial, and a USADA who seemed more interested in press conferences and badmouthing Armstrong than it was at trying to figure out how the hell they failed to catch him if he was doping so often.
> 
> Something just doesn't make sense, or provide a clear picture. The "conspiracy" could not have been that good to have gone this long without a huge red flag, someone who hadn't been caught and offered a deal making accusations, and labs that had positive tests for others and not Lance, although they were all doing it.
> 
> Prove it and I will listen.


The proof is there. People have gone to the electric chair on less proof. By your own admission, you haven't bothered to read it.


----------



## Brad the Bold

Fireform said:


> I had my sarcasm turned up to 11. Sorry it didn't come across.


Opps! Sorry for maxing out a blast of "Righteous Indignation" in response then!

Sarcasm is so wonderful, but the internet just doesn't do it justice.


----------



## silverbullet84

mpre53 said:


> The proof is there. People have gone to the electric chair on less proof. By your own admission, you haven't bothered to read it.


Give me page numbers and I will take a look. In the past when I have read reports like this, I usually have to read and re-read all the legal-ese to figure out what they are claiming, and right now I just don't have the time for 400+ pages of this.

Not a smart ass remark, just looking for help if you have read it already:thumbsup:


----------



## Fireform

Agreed.


----------



## usernametaken

Retro Grouch said:


> Now that the final verdict is in on Lance, we can move forward.
> 
> It's time to focus all this energy in a new direction


Team Sky would be a good start. 

UCI needs a house cleaning and overhaul as well.


----------



## BigDweeb

Sorry if someone already posted this. But after reading The Secret race I find this to be somewhat ironic

http://www.livestrong.com/article/97729-personality-traits-sociopath/


----------



## wrongway

YamaDan said:


> :idea: that could be bad...


Strava dopers are easy to spot.... they use Iphone and Android apps, instead of real GPSes.


----------



## silverbullet84

Quite to the contrary, I am not supporting him. I just don't believe that what we have seen to this point constitutes all of the attention that it has been given, no has it been the type of investigation that has produced a clear result.

You may think of it as me keeping my head in the sand, but I simply do not approve of the way in which he was "found" to be guilty of doping. It seems like a merry-go-round of government and quasi-government agencies that are each taking their turn for reasons that we will never know.

I have nothing to gain by simply raising the point that I have little confidence in the USADA or UCI, and to have money and titles taken away without a court deciding it is scary. All cyclists may have to agree to be bound by this system in order to compete, but it simply worries me that a quasi-goverment agency can take away personal possessions without a court hearing, not a USADA appointed arbitrator.


----------



## 32and3cross

silverbullet84 said:


> Quite to the contrary, I am not supporting him. I just don't believe that what we have seen to this point constitutes all of the attention that it has been given, no has it been the type of investigation that has produced a clear result.
> 
> You may think of it as me keeping my head in the sand, but I simply do not approve of the way in which he was "found" to be guilty of doping. It seems like a merry-go-round of government and quasi-government agencies that are each taking their turn for reasons that we will never know.
> 
> I have nothing to gain by simply raising the point that I have little confidence in the USADA or UCI, and to have money and titles taken away without a court deciding it is scary. All cyclists may have to agree to be bound by this system in order to compete, but it simply worries me that a quasi-goverment agency can take away personal possessions without a court hearing, not a USADA appointed arbitrator.



Other athletes have been found guilty of doping with out a positive test - using other evidence. I keep searching for your protests of those but can't find them can you point them out please?


----------



## silverbullet84

32and3cross said:


> Other athletes have been found guilty of doping with out a positive test - using other evidence. I keep searching for your protests of those but can't find them can you point them out please?


And you can keep searching. I haven't written about any, however you should not confuse that with me being comfortable with it. I would love to see cycling get rid of all the doping, but it is quite doubtful that this will happen.

Give me some examples of other athletes that have had titles taken away without a positive test, or being caught in possession of doping paraphernalia.


----------



## Fireform

silverbullet84 said:


> And you can keep searching. I haven't written about any, however you should not confuse that with me being comfortable with it. I would love to see cycling get rid of all the doping, but it is quite doubtful that this will happen.
> 
> Give me some examples of other athletes that have had titles taken away without a positive test, or being caught in possession of doping paraphernalia.


Marian Jones.


----------



## LostViking

YamaDan said:


> :idea: that could be bad...


Too funny!


----------



## LostViking

silverbullet84 said:


> It seems like a merry-go-round of government and quasi-government agencies that are each taking their turn for reasons that we will never know.


I love plot theories - especially those promoted by doper lawyers - please go on.
I'm sure there is a good book in there somewhere.


----------



## silverbullet84

Fireform said:


> Marian Jones.


Marion Jones had an A sample test positive, then a B sample test negative, so the results were thrown out.

She only lost her medals and was stripped of her titles after publicly admitting that she lied before 2 juries, and took a plea deal to serve 6 months for lying to federal investigators. 

3 days later, she surrendered her olympic medals. It was two months later that the IOC formally removed her performances from the record books, which now show "DQ".

Much different case, and one that may happen again with Armstrong, but that remains to be seen.


----------



## LostViking

Rashadabd said:


> There is absolutely NO WAY the dude files a suit over this if he has any brains at all. There are far too many witnesses (like 30 of them) and too much evidence. Moreover, he has suits against him to worry about (he actually won a couple of multimillion dollar awards against companies & or individuals that doubted he was riding clean and didn't want to pay him as a result--- uh, those folks want their money back).


Not to mention that the USADA actually had to hold back evidence - Lance goes to court and it all comes out - I'm sure Lance has no interest in that.


----------



## MG537

FR hokeypokey said:


> I still find it fascinating that the majority of the rhetoric and focus is on Armstrong and Postal.
> 
> Comments of "ban all the Posties" are comical. Comments of Armstrong "deserves it because he was a bad guy". What about every other "nice guy" that doped and is getting a free pass? When did cleaning up the sport become a popularity contest?
> 
> What about every other team? Every other rider or director that has been caught or linked to any PED scandal? Consider the TdF titles can not even be awarded because of the overwhelming number of doping riders and teams involved (before, during and after the Armstrong years, in fact)
> 
> It seems to be trendy to pile on the Armstrong "conviction" (Is it really? Or is it legally a finding?) But to really clean house cycling needs to expand the focus of the investigations and bans to all the teams, management and riders.
> 
> Truly clean house or it is is hypocritical to be so selective towards some Posties, not even them all because we know some of them are such "good guys" as dopers.


Five letters for you.
*U*nited *S*tates *A*nti-*D*oping *A*gency.


----------



## silverbullet84

All I am looking at is the sequence of events. How many times did Federal Presecutors try to bring charges against him? It was only after the case was dropped that the USADA jumped in and took the lead in the case against Armstrong.

I don't believe in big government conspiracies, but that seems to be exactly what the USADA is claiming Armstrong and company were a part of. Kind of ironic, no?


----------



## 32and3cross

silverbullet84 said:


> And you can keep searching. I haven't written about any, however you should not confuse that with me being comfortable with it. I would love to see cycling get rid of all the doping, but it is quite doubtful that this will happen.
> 
> Give me some examples of other athletes that have had titles taken away without a positive test, or being caught in possession of doping paraphernalia.



Plenty of examples do your own research.


----------



## YamaDan

wrongway said:


> Strava dopers are easy to spot.... they use Iphone and Android apps, instead of real GPSes.


LOL! That is a fact!:thumbsup:


----------



## MG537

silverbullet84 said:


> And you can keep searching. I haven't written about any, however you should not confuse that with me being comfortable with it. I would love to see cycling get rid of all the doping, but it is quite doubtful that this will happen.
> 
> Give me some examples of other athletes that have had titles taken away without a positive test, or being caught in possession of doping paraphernalia.


Michael Rasmussen TdF 2007. He was the yellow jersey wearer and was dragged away smack in the middle of that race, with no positive test and was not in possession doping paraphenalia either.


----------



## Rashadabd

silverbullet84 said:


> Going to be interesting to see whether or not Lance challenges this. I'm pretty certain that he needed to show some kind of a physical "loss" in order to file a lawsuit in civil court. Now, he may have that opportunity.
> 
> Look, I am not supporting him and really don't care if he did or didn't. He still beat the rest of the dopers.
> 
> Throughout his career, he has always been the alpha male, and a proud Texan. I don't see this being the last we have heard from him.


Ummmm... Lance already had the chance to challenge the USADA findings, but didn't my friend. You don't win against approximately 30 eyewitnesses and you don't go to an arbitration or hearing and give them a greater platform to further damage your reputation if you know what they are all going to say is true and all you have to rebut the evidence (which included emails, etc.) is "you jealous, biased liars!!" Furthermore, uh...the "court" for cycling is the UCI and they just found against Lance. Keep in mind, he has friends in high places with the UCI, if he was going to catch a break anywhere, it was there and he didn't. Finally, HE WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST ANYONE, ever, if he has one ounce of sense. He would lose in a big way (See previous reference to 30 or so witnesses (please read the affidavits on the usada homepage). He will also likley be sued and settle complaints from the parties that he previously won multimillion dollar awards against because they didn't want to pay him bonuses/prize money for his wins because they believed he was doping. Well, it turns out they were right. This is getting the press it is because 1) it is a huge moment for cycling becuase it now has the chance to stop living a lie 2) Lance's arrogance, attitude of invincibility and other negative behavior over the last decade has frustrated many outside of his die hard fans and 3) humans have become addicted to hero worship and watching those heroes rise and fall.


----------



## silverbullet84

If time permits, I will. My concern is how much of this falls outside the court of law, and tends to play out int he public. Do you feel as though an athlete has the ability to defend themselves in front of an unbiased public, jury, or judge, when someone accuses them of taking a PED? 

Perhaps I am being too optimistic in simply wanting all of this info to come out in front of a judge and possibly a jury, rather than on the evening "news" or other forms of, ah-hem, "unbiased" media.


----------



## thechriswebb

fschris said:


> okay, I agree I am not trying to say lance haters did this. just the fact reading here how some people were so involved in watching this all unfold and the excitement some had was odd. lance may have doped but I would not say he was the only problem. Sure the UCI stripped lance but UCI seems like it just stripped itself and a lot of awesome cycling history.



What you have to consider here is that the majority of dedicated cycling fans struggle to look at the "history" that you are referring to seriously. The level of unmediated drug use during that time renders the performances as demonstrations of technology and bio/medical prowess as opposed to a test of the true limits of human endurance. That period of history is under such a cloud that it has lost appeal to most other than those who only care about 7 specific years of cycling history, one particular race, and probably can't name very many cyclists other than Lance and _maybe_ George Hincapie. 

I think you are also making the mistake of assuming that cycling _is_ Lance Armstrong. To many American fans, I know that it is. This is evident to me every time someone goes blowing by me when I'm riding on the road and yells obscenities at me, typically precluded with "hey, Lance Armstrong...." The sport is much bigger than Lance Armstrong and his absence only sheds the fans who were only watching cycling because he was in it anyway. They were fans of Lance, not necessarily fans of cycling. The sport will be okay. 

If you feel like the sport suffers now with the loss of the powerful Lance story, remember this: once upon a time, there was a very talented young American cyclist who was full of promise. He had to leave cycling for two years after he nearly died and wasn't sure if he would recover at all, much less race competitively again. He came back from the very brink of death and won the Tour de France in a peloton hostile to American cyclists and then he won it again. You can wipe Lance clean out of the record books and that American cycling story still happened.


----------



## Rashadabd

One more thing, the clean doping tests don't matter (yeah I said it). Hincapie, Levi, Tommy D, Van de Velde, Vaughters, etc. all have clean tests too, but they all doped for years (with Lance). That's the whole point actually.... they devised and organized a system for beating the testing program and successfully cheated their way to the top, so to constantly harp on the fact that he has no dirty tests is meaningless in a conversation about cyclists that have admitted to having a system of cheating that actually worked and does little to rebut the 11 or more cyclists that admitted their own doping and his with incredible detail. He doped and played a central role in others decision to dope as well. Nike had to face it, Trek had to face it, Oakley and Livestrong had to face it and now his die hard fans have to face it as well. It's not a moment of joy really, it's sad for everyone involved in my opinion, but the reality is what it is....


----------



## Rashadabd

Again, the UCI is about as biased in Lance's favor a forum the guy was ever going to get. If he lost there (where he has influential friends), he wasn't going to win anywhere.


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

jorgy said:


> Lance must be seething. *Wonder if Pat's little show will push Armstrong to expose him and Heiny?*
> 
> What a mess, indeed.



Only if he's (Armstrong) willing to implicate himself in the process.


----------



## Rashadabd

[REPOST] It doesn't look like this one made it through: Ummmm... Lance already had the chance to challenge the USADA findings, but didn't my friend. You don't win against approximately 30 eyewitnesses and you don't go to an arbitration or hearing and give them a greater platform to further damage your reputation if you know what they are all going to say is true and all you have to rebut the evidence (which included emails, etc.) is "you jealous, biased liars!!" Furthermore, uh...the "court" for cycling is the UCI and they just found against Lance. Keep in mind, he has friends in high places with the UCI, if he was going to catch a break anywhere, it was there and he didn't. Finally, HE WILL NOT FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST ANYONE, ever, if he has one ounce of sense. He would lose in a big way (See previous reference to 30 or so witnesses (please read the affidavits on the usada homepage). He will also likley be sued and settle complaints from the parties that he previously won multimillion dollar awards against because they didn't want to pay him bonuses/prize money for his wins because they believed he was doping. Well, it turns out they were right. This is getting the press it is because 1) it is a huge moment for cycling becuase it now has the chance to stop living a lie 2) Lance's arrogance, attitude of invincibility and other negative behavior over the last decade has frustrated many outside of his die hard fans and 3) humans have become addicted to hero worship and watching those heroes rise and fall. 

__________________


----------



## silverbullet84

It may be as you say, time will tell.

I don't see this doing much to change cycling. If it is like any other sport, it will continue, and some will get caught, others won't.

Perhaps some people on here suspect that I am a blind supporter, not taking in to account all that is piled up against Lance. My issue is more with the process than anything else. I don't believe in issues like this taking place outside of civil court (and I don't buy an agency arbitrator being unbiased- on that account, I do agree with Mr. Armstrong. He had nothing to gain by going that route). 

Why were the Feds not able to make a case, where the USADA was able to only months apart? Are we to assume that the standard of evidence was so much higher in the Federal Courts? And if that is the case, than what does that say about the standards that are accepted at the USADA and UCI?

Perhaps someone here can clear that up for me. That is where I have the greatest issue. I would love to see all of the evidence and testimony come out in a public civil trial, and give Lance the opportunity to face his accusers and question them and everyone in the USADA and UCI. If there is plenty of evidence there- take everything from Lance. Fine, over and done. I'd love to know all the details of the great conspiracy, hear from all of those involved, how they were able to hide products, keep themselves from testing positive, and which executives in these agencies were in on the cover up.

Then we can put it to rest. I simply think there is a lot more to the story than we are being told.


----------



## silverbullet84

It may be as you say, time will tell.

I don't see this doing much to change cycling. If it is like any other sport, it will continue, and some will get caught, others won't.

Perhaps some people on here suspect that I am a blind supporter, not taking in to account all that is piled up against Lance. My issue is more with the process than anything else. I don't believe in issues like this taking place outside of civil court (and I don't buy an agency arbitrator being unbiased- on that account, I do agree with Mr. Armstrong. He had nothing to gain by going that route). 

Why were the Feds not able to make a case, where the USADA was able to only months apart? Are we to assume that the standard of evidence was so much higher in the Federal Courts? And if that is the case, than what does that say about the standards that are accepted at the USADA and UCI?

Perhaps someone here can clear that up for me. That is where I have the greatest issue. I would love to see all of the evidence and testimony come out in a public civil trial, and give Lance the opportunity to face his accusers and question them and everyone in the USADA and UCI. If there is plenty of evidence there- take everything from Lance. Fine, over and done. I'd love to know all the details of the great conspiracy, hear from all of those involved, how they were able to hide products, keep themselves from testing positive, and which executives in these agencies were in on the cover up.

Then we can put it to rest. I simply think there is a lot more to it than we are being told.


----------



## rufus

MG537 said:


> The SCA case had nothing to do with him having doped. It was a contract based on him having won the most TdF's ever, ie no. 6 and 7.
> How he won it was besides the point. It only mattered that he was declared the winner.


Except now he's not.


----------



## Rashadabd

You are comparing apples to chocolate cake buddy. These are two completely different animals (the goverance of sport vs. criminal and civil charges for defrauding the U.S. government-which is what Lance was facing there). The feds made their choice based on what made sense when facing a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in federal court during an election year. Also keep in mind that EVERYONE was shocked by their decision not to move forward including their own investigators reportedly (it's out there if you want to look it up) and the USADA. It made no sense at the time because they had the same evidence which everyone believed was a slam dunk except the head of the local U.S. Atty's office and whoever told him to shut it down. Moreover, the UCI is not unusual in how it is set up. You can look to the Olympics, NCAA, NFL, NBA, etc and see similar systems for addressing doping and other violations and all use arbitrators and not courts for these issues.


----------



## PbOkole

silverbullet84 said:


> If time permits, I will. My concern is how much of this falls outside the court of law, and tends to play out int he public. Do you feel as though an athlete has the ability to defend themselves in front of an unbiased public, jury, or judge, when someone accuses them of taking a PED?
> 
> Perhaps I am being too optimistic in simply wanting all of this info to come out in front of a judge and possibly a jury, rather than on the evening "news" or other forms of, ah-hem, "unbiased" media.


Perhaps you should stop typing and start reading. At this point you don't know nearly enough about the case or the process of arbitration that every pro cyclist agrees to when he applies for a UCI license. A judge or jury are simply not in the picture and you just continue to display your ignorance with every post. How about doing a little research. Read the USADA summary. It is not written in legal speak so you should be able to understand it. You might also try "The Secret Race" or "From Lance to Landis". Right now you are arguing from a position of ignorance and you will never have any credibility with those who have done their homework.


----------



## silverbullet84

According to Wikipedia, he was removed for lying about his whereabouts a month earlier. He broke team and UCI rules, and was suspended for 2 years.

Maybe he was doping, I don't know. It seems that most riders at the time were, and many still are.

Should these riders not be showing positive results from all of their samples going back approximately 15 years? Seems odd that the anti-doping agencies admit that some of their tests at the time were not looking for certain drugs/hormones, etc, but if they do have a test now, shouldn't it test positive on those samples? Or have they exhausted most of the samples for these riders at this point?


----------



## PbOkole

silverbullet84 said:


> It may be as you say, time will tell.
> 
> I don't see this doing much to change cycling. If it is like any other sport, it will continue, and some will get caught, others won't.
> 
> Perhaps some people on here suspect that I am a blind supporter, not taking in to account all that is piled up against Lance. My issue is more with the process than anything else. I don't believe in issues like this taking place outside of civil court (and I don't buy an agency arbitrator being unbiased- on that account, I do agree with Mr. Armstrong. He had nothing to gain by going that route).
> 
> Why were the Feds not able to make a case, where the USADA was able to only months apart? Are we to assume that the standard of evidence was so much higher in the Federal Courts? And if that is the case, than what does that say about the standards that are accepted at the USADA and UCI?
> 
> Perhaps someone here can clear that up for me. That is where I have the greatest issue. I would love to see all of the evidence and testimony come out in a public civil trial, and give Lance the opportunity to face his accusers and question them and everyone in the USADA and UCI. If there is plenty of evidence there- take everything from Lance. Fine, over and done. I'd love to know all the details of the great conspiracy, hear from all of those involved, how they were able to hide products, keep themselves from testing positive, and which executives in these agencies were in on the cover up.
> 
> Then we can put it to rest. I simply think there is a lot more to the story than we are being told.


The federal investigation was not about his doping. It was about whether federal funds were being used to fund the doping operation. Two completely different issues. Many involved with the investigation wer shocked that it was dropped. Incidentally, Friday night before the Superbowl so as to slide off the news cycle almost unnoticed. 

Again, I implore you to do a little reading so you can at least come up with sustainable arguments.


----------



## rufus

OK, so a brief radio report I heard earlier this morning said that the reason the UCI chose to leave the winner's spot vacant was that during those seven Tours, 20 of the 21 podium places have been implicated in some doping scandal. 

Now looking at those Tour results, the only guy I can see as possibly being clean is Kloden. Is he the one, or has he been tainted by scandal also, and there's really no one who stood on the podium for those seven years who hasn't been implictaed as a doper.


----------



## Rashadabd

These are the kinds of things Lance is concerned about right now (or at least he should be):

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sca-to-seek-dollar-7-5m-from-lance-armstrong


----------



## Rashadabd

It looks like you may get to see the civil court system test these facts after all:

Analysis: What is next for Lance Armstrong?


----------



## Rashadabd

McQuaid on police involvement in the gathering the information and the validity of the affidavits:

Police Involvement Crucial In Anti-doping, Says McQuaid | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## OldEndicottHiway

BigDweeb said:


> Sorry if someone already posted this. But after reading The Secret race I find this to be somewhat ironic
> 
> What Are The Personality Traits Of A Sociopath? | LIVESTRONG.COM



"..._Sociopaths often show little remorse for their behaviors, blame others for their behavior, do not ask for forgiveness and provide shallow rationalization for having hurt someone. They lack empathy and tend to be cynical and coldhearted but at the same time have inflated self-esteem and are arrogant.._."


I've met a couple people like that over my lifetime, and have deeply regretted any time I've invited them into my life. 

Sociopaths are usually quite charming. 

Numerous studies including gene analysis, brain morphology via CT and PET scans, and brain activity patterns, have shown that whether at the top of the food chain and successful, or in prison, the only significant difference is familial stability (or lack thereof) in childhood.

What makes a "great" CEO, is essentially the same thing that makes a great serial criminal.


----------



## danl1

Rashadabd said:


> McQuaid on police involvement in the gathering the information and the validity of the affidavits:
> 
> Police Involvement Crucial In Anti-doping, Says McQuaid | Cyclingnews.com


A tiny bit off topic, but this statement from McQuaid bugs me, because it's not based in fact. Certain of the riders came forward without legal threat or promise of leniency, and none of the Grand Jury testimony (the 'badge and gun' stuff of McQuaid's wet dreams) was used in the USADA investigation. 

He's either a complete idiot ignorant of the facts in the very report he's discussing, or is trying to shift blame for UCI incompetence. Or both.


----------



## Rashadabd

or he is setting the stage for attempting to penalize those that cooperated much more harshly than the USADA did....


----------



## g29er

Does anyone where I can view the entire press conference?


----------



## YamaDan

rufus said:


> Now looking at those Tour results, the only guy I can see as possibly being clean is Kloden. Is he the one, or has he been tainted by scandal also, and there's really no one who stood on the podium for those seven years who hasn't been implictaed as a doper.


Kloden was investigated in 2006 for doping, he paid 25k Euro's to stop the investigation. 

Beloki is the one that was cleared of the charges against him, at that point.

At this stage, I don't beleive anyones inocent.


----------



## Robert1

Now there's a real example of government over regulation destroying U.S. business if I ever saw one. lol. Pro biking in the U.S. is finished. And all that this has done is hurt any businesses associated with it down to the lbs. It won't change anything as far as doping goes going forward other than making sure future dopers make sure to keep it quiet rather than involve a dozen people in their activities.

Anyone that thinks LA did not have a positive influence on the cycling industry in the U.S. is delusional. Interesting that they will not name any runner ups from 99-05 as the new ToF winners. Duh!! That's cuz they were all doping! If anyone really cared about the sport and doping they spend the resources on preventing it going forward. Nah, that's not what they care about. Better to hang a scapegoat and destroy an entire sport's image in the U.S.



fschris said:


> Why would any youngster get involved in a sport that will have Few if NO American sponsors or American backing?
> 
> All the major sponsors are out and no one is going to step in. Good job USADA.


----------



## Robert1

Fun don't pay for the support needed to attain that level.



Marc said:


> ...Because the sport activity is fun??...


----------



## Marc

Robert1 said:


> Fun don't pay for the support needed to attain that level.


And 99% of the people on this board and in the real world will never have to worry about getting sponsored to be pro. Fun is all we have invested in it. Just like any art or sport. You don't do it to get rich because gawd knows you're almost certainly not going to, you do it to enjoy and have fun.


----------



## Robert1

Simple economics. Prices are dictated by supply and demand. It doesn't matter what the components cost, you won't get what you're asking if there is no demand. Cycling popularity has gone up in the U.S over the last decade. That is a fact. That demand increase is the biggest contributor to increased prices...fact plain and simple. Now you can argue about why the popularity has increased all you want, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show that the U.S. winning 7 straight tours had nothing at all to do with it. 




brentley said:


> The spike in prices on bikes rests almost solely on the rise of carbon as a bike component as well as the increase in interest in powermeters and the emergence of electronic shifting.
> 
> Lance had little to do with most of that.


----------



## Robert1

Right for 99.99% of the people that is true. But it's the tiny percentage that need it to attain the levels to promote the sport in their country. Let's face it you need money and promotion/marketing to get something to a main stream level.




Marc said:


> And 99% of the people on this board and in the real world will never have to worry about getting sponsored to be pro. Fun is all we have invested in it. Just like any art or sport. You don't do it to get rich because gawd knows you're almost certainly not going to, you do it to enjoy and have fun.


----------



## trailrunner68

Robert1 said:


> Simple economics. Prices are dictated by supply and demand. It doesn't matter what the components cost, you won't get what you're asking if there is no demand. Cycling popularity has gone up in the U.S over the last decade. That is a fact. That demand increase is the biggest contributor to increased prices...fact plain and simple. Now you can argue about why the popularity has increased all you want, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show that the U.S. winning 7 straight tours had nothing at all to do with it.


Jeebus! Someone flunked out of economics 101.

Cycling goods do not have a fixed supply. The supply produced is the amount of the estimated demand.


----------



## roddjbrown

Robert1 said:


> Fun don't pay for the support needed to attain that level.


Rubbish. 

Cycling is, at its base level, not a sport of skill. It's a sport of tactics and physiological constitution. It's a sport of drive and determination. 

If you've got what it takes and you want it enough, you can make it. A multicoloured jersey doesn't make you into a future GT winner.


----------



## mariomal99

Robert1 said:


> Now there's a real example of government over regulation destroying U.S. business if I ever saw one. lol. Pro biking in the U.S. is finished. And all that this has done is hurt any businesses associated with it down to the lbs. It won't change anything as far as doping goes going forward other than making sure future dopers make sure to keep it quiet rather than involve a dozen people in their activities.
> 
> Anyone that thinks LA did not have a positive influence on the cycling industry in the U.S. is delusional. Interesting that they will not name any runner ups from 99-05 as the new ToF winners. Duh!! That's cuz they were all doping! If anyone really cared about the sport and doping they spend the resources on preventing it going forward. Nah, that's not what they care about. Better to hang a scapegoat and destroy an entire sport's image in the U.S.


Thanks sooo much USADA.....wondering how this wille effect us in Canada


----------



## philippec

Robert1 said:


> Now there's a real example of government over regulation destroying U.S. business if I ever saw one. lol. Pro biking in the U.S. is finished. And all that this has done is hurt any businesses associated with it down to the lbs. It won't change anything as far as doping goes going forward other than making sure future dopers make sure to keep it quiet rather than involve a dozen people in their activities.
> 
> Anyone that thinks LA did not have a positive influence on the cycling industry in the U.S. is delusional. Interesting that they will not name any runner ups from 99-05 as the new ToF winners. Duh!! That's cuz they were all doping! If anyone really cared about the sport and doping they spend the resources on preventing it going forward. Nah, that's not what they care about. Better to hang a scapegoat and destroy an entire sport's image in the U.S.


Strong the delusion in this post is.....

Cycling existed before Lance, (even in the US - remember the 1980s and Lemond?), cycling will continue after Lance. It wil continue on a sounder basis with fewer cheating azzhats and that is something we should all be thankful for...


----------



## terzo rene

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, Prudomme said this today. $3-4 million


 Hmmm....Since the money was split with teammates, who also cheated, will LA sue them to recover the money and recoup his losses?


----------



## triscuit

silverbullet84 said:


> And if it was a true positive, then how the hell could it take this long to come to light? And wouldn't people at the USADA and UCI have to be involved in keeping it quiet? What would that say about the legitimacy of these agencies and their employees?


I think that is why a lot of people want the UCI overhauled. They seriously lack credibility. 



silverbullet84 said:


> the case against Armstrong is strongly based on the testimony of those who were caught and took a deal, no positive test results that have been verified or released, a Federal prosecution that couldn't make enough of a case to go to trial, and a USADA who seemed more interested in press conferences and badmouthing Armstrong than it was at trying to figure out how the hell they failed to catch him if he was doping so often.


Not quite accurate. Most of those who testified were never actually caught either. Many of them were implicated by Floyd Landis's testimony, and were subsequently subpeonad to answer questions under oath about what they knew (first at the Grand Jury and then before the USADA). They chose to answer rather than face contempt charges, or whatever else could have been leveled against them. If Floyd had not pushed his accusations forward, the others would never have been questioned. Most of them also never had positive results, nor were caught with paraphenalia. 

As for the federal case, it was dropped, but that does not necessarily mean it is over. Since no trial ever happened, the case can be re-opened if new evidence comes to light. Dan Coyle (guy who co-wrote Tyler Hamilton's book) theorizes there may have been political motivation to drop the case at this time. However, it is my understanding that doping in sports is not a criminal activity in the U.S., so proving a criminal case against Lance over doping is a stretch anyway. I think Lance will much more likely face criminal penalties for perjury or maybe witness tampering than for doping.


----------



## tnvol123

+1. Good post..



Brad the Bold said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Speaking as a cyclist, a person who has donated thousands of dollars for cancer research (Midwest Athletes Against Childhood Cancer - MACCfund.org) and as a physician who images cancer patients almost every day...
> 
> The fight againt cancer was happening long before Lance sold his first yellow bracelet and will go on long after him.
> 
> *Don't* insult every other charity, philanthropist, reseacher and care giver by suggesting that *Lance, and only Lance, IS the fight against cancer* or that his foundation, and his works, somehow absolve him of being a cheat and a fraud.


----------



## Tschai

Cableguy said:


> As cycling becomes more popular in the US, awareness of the activity increases and it becomes safer to ride in the US. I'm sure there are a bunch of other positive side effects too.


I don't think this will ever happen. The vast majority of people think cycling is riding a toy. Besides, I don't think pro-cycling is the path to better safety. The nexus is too weak. I hope safety improves, but popularity via pro-cycling is not the path.


----------



## rufus

If cycling has to go back to where it was when Jock Boyer was breaking into racing in Europe, and Greg Lemond was winning his first Tour, I'm ok with that. 

It'll be nice to see fewer US Postal and Discovery kits out there on the roads, and fewer Trek Madones, and maybe see more old guys in wool jerseys on old steel bikes instead.


----------



## YamaDan

rufus said:


> If cycling has to go back to where it was when Jock Boyer was breaking into racing in Europe, and Greg Lemond was winning his first Tour, I'm ok with that.
> 
> It'll be nice to see fewer US Postal and Discovery kits out there on the roads, and fewer Trek Madones, and maybe see more old guys in wool jerseys on old steel bikes instead.


Worst fear...realised.


----------



## a4avant

*Meet Your New Tour de France Champ - Vacated*

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203630604578072920179356816.html


----------



## triscuit

For direct testimony about witnessing Lance doping or Lance directly providing PEDs, read the following affidavits of people never caught doping:

Frankie Andreu, bottom of page 4
George Hincapie, pages, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12
Jonathan Vaughters, pages 7, 10
CVV, page 19

These two tested positive, but have several statements directly about LA and his doping or providing PEDs:
Tyler Hamilton, pages 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12
Floyd Landis, pages 3, 5, 6, 8, 10

The other riders from USPS/Discover who testified provide hearsay on LA, corraboration to others testimony about doping practices on the teams, and about Bruyneel directly providing PEDs or instructing them to use them. 

None is in legalese. Just statements by guys (though clearly written up in the format affidavits take). 

Jaksche's and Simeoni's affidavits are interesting because they do not specifically talk about LA or USPS/Discover at all, but instead talk about the doping practices of other teams. 

I am really curious about how Kevin Livingston got out of providing an affidavit based on the other statements. I wonder if he testified before the Grand Jury.


----------



## robdamanii

silverbullet84 said:


> It may be as you say, time will tell.
> 
> I don't see this doing much to change cycling. If it is like any other sport, it will continue, and some will get caught, others won't.
> 
> Perhaps some people on here suspect that I am a blind supporter, not taking in to account all that is piled up against Lance. My issue is more with the process than anything else. I don't believe in issues like this taking place outside of civil court (and I don't buy an agency arbitrator being unbiased- on that account, I do agree with Mr. Armstrong. He had nothing to gain by going that route).
> 
> Why were the Feds not able to make a case, where the USADA was able to only months apart? Are we to assume that the standard of evidence was so much higher in the Federal Courts? And if that is the case, than what does that say about the standards that are accepted at the USADA and UCI?
> 
> Perhaps someone here can clear that up for me. That is where I have the greatest issue. I would love to see all of the evidence and testimony come out in a public civil trial, and give Lance the opportunity to face his accusers and question them and everyone in the USADA and UCI. If there is plenty of evidence there- take everything from Lance. Fine, over and done. I'd love to know all the details of the great conspiracy, hear from all of those involved, how they were able to hide products, keep themselves from testing positive, and which executives in these agencies were in on the cover up.
> 
> Then we can put it to rest. I simply think there is a lot more to the story than we are being told.


Blah blah blah.

The same old tired, bullsh!t talking points that every other closet supporter of the Pharmstrong scumbag has tried to raise. They didn't work before, they don't work now.

Your hero just went down in flames.


----------



## triscuit

silverbullet84 said:


> Why were the Feds not able to make a case, where the USADA was able to only months apart? Are we to assume that the standard of evidence was so much higher in the Federal Courts? And if that is the case, than what does that say about the standards that are accepted at the USADA and UCI?
> 
> Perhaps someone here can clear that up for me. That is where I have the greatest issue. I would love to see all of the evidence and testimony come out in a public civil trial, and give Lance the opportunity to face his accusers and question them and everyone in the USADA and UCI. If there is plenty of evidence there- take everything from Lance. Fine, over and done. I'd love to know all the details of the great conspiracy, hear from all of those involved, how they were able to hide products, keep themselves from testing positive, and which executives in these agencies were in on the cover up.


Using EPO, transfusing your own blood, taking HGH and testosterone are not illegal in the United States. Taking them to compete in sports is not against the legal code of the U.S. It is that simple. For criminal charges to be brought against Lance, et. al., they need to be found guilty of committing a crime. 

Doing these things, however, are against the rules of bicycle racing per the agreement signed when one gets a USA Cycling (or country-appropriate) license to race. USADA is the governing body on such infractions. 

Per USA Cycling: "By using a USA Cycling license, you agree to know and abide by the applicable rules and regulations of USA Cycling and the UCI, including the anti-doping rules and procedures as set forth by USADA, the UCI or WADA and that you agree to submit to any drug test organized under the rules by the UCI, USA Cycling, USADA, or the official anti-doping authority of a foreign country where you are competing."


----------



## natedg200202

There are some really long posts in this thread and in my experience, where
there are long posts there is stupidity.


----------



## redlude97

triscuit said:


> Using EPO, transfusing your own blood, taking HGH and testosterone are not illegal in the United States. Taking them to compete in sports is not against the legal code of the U.S. It is that simple. For criminal charges to be brought against Lance, et. al., they need to be found guilty of committing a crime.
> 
> Doing these things, however, are against the rules of bicycle racing per the agreement signed when one gets a USA Cycling (or country-appropriate) license to race. USADA is the governing body on such infractions.
> 
> Per USA Cycling: "By using a USA Cycling license, you agree to know and abide by the applicable rules and regulations of USA Cycling and the UCI, including the anti-doping rules and procedures as set forth by USADA, the UCI or WADA and that you agree to submit to any drug test organized under the rules by the UCI, USA Cycling, USADA, or the official anti-doping authority of a foreign country where you are competing."


Unless Lance has a prescription, it is definitely illegal since EPO is a prescription drug in the US.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

terzo rene said:


> Hmmm....Since the money was split with teammates, who also cheated, will LA sue them to recover the money and recoup his losses?


It might be hard to recover as many of those teammates were never paid


----------



## sir duke

silverbullet84 said:


> Quite to the contrary, I am not supporting him. I just don't believe that what we have seen to this point constitutes all of the attention that it has been given, no has it been the type of investigation that has produced a clear result.
> 
> You may think of it as me keeping my head in the sand, but I simply do not approve of the way in which he was "found" to be guilty of doping. It seems like a merry-go-round of government and quasi-government agencies that are each taking their turn for reasons that we will never know.
> 
> I have nothing to gain by simply raising the point that I have little confidence in the USADA or UCI, and to have money and titles taken away without a court deciding it is scary. All cyclists may have to agree to be bound by this system in order to compete, but it simply worries me that a quasi-goverment agency can take away personal possessions without a court hearing, not a USADA appointed arbitrator.


So 'Big Government' killed the Golden Calf? Too funny. I'm sure Lance doesn't approve of the way USADA went about things (well he wouldn't, would he?), but he tried to question the legality of the proceedings and got nowhere. Them's the breaks, game over.


----------



## CHL

Looks like he's facing a number of potential lawsuits for judgments he had won in court. Should the courts force him to repay for previously "supposed" damages, would this bankrupt Armstrong? He has lost all (nearly all) of his sponsorship money. He can't earn a living from cycling/triathlons (although winnings were small).

Lawyers cost quite a bit. With mounting legal fees, how do you guys think Armstrong will fare in the near future?


----------



## burgrat

He removed the "7-time Tour de France winner" from his twitter account. 
Lance Armstrong (lancearmstrong) on Twitter


----------



## mpre53

silverbullet84 said:


> Give me page numbers and I will take a look. In the past when I have read reports like this, I usually have to read and re-read all the legal-ese to figure out what they are claiming, and right now I just don't have the time for 400+ pages of this.
> 
> Not a smart ass remark, just looking for help if you have read it already:thumbsup:


You can start with the affidavits in the appendix. I don't have the document at my fingertips, but as I recall, there's also a table of contents providing easy reference to the text relating to the headers in the table of contents.

It's not a one-sitting read.


----------



## mpre53

wrongway said:


> Strava dopers are easy to spot.... they use Iphone and Android apps, instead of real GPSes.


I find that the Android app short changes you on average speed, mileage, and climbing :lol:

Real cheaters drive the segments at 25-30 mph. :wink:


----------



## mpre53

redlude97 said:


> Unless Lance has a prescription, it is definitely illegal since EPO is a prescription drug in the US.


So are HGH and testosterone supplements. They aren't controlled substances (whereas most anabolic steroids are) but still are prescription only.


----------



## g29er

Lance has nothing to lose now. Even though his credibility is zero I would come clean and maybe write a book outling this entire thing. I bet he has info on sponsors/UCI floating around in his head that would blow our minds.


----------



## il sogno

rufus said:


> OK, so a brief radio report I heard earlier this morning said that the reason the UCI chose to leave the winner's spot vacant was that during those seven Tours, 20 of the 21 podium places have been implicated in some doping scandal.
> 
> Now looking at those Tour results, the only guy I can see as possibly being clean is Kloden. Is he the one, or has he been tainted by scandal also, and there's really no one who stood on the podium for those seven years who hasn't been implictaed as a doper.


I say give it to the 21st guy.


----------



## il sogno

silverbullet84 said:


> Why were the Feds not able to make a case, where the USADA was able to only months apart? Are we to assume that the standard of evidence was so much higher in the Federal Courts? And if that is the case, than what does that say about the standards that are accepted at the USADA and UCI?
> 
> .


The feds were looking to bust him for using taxpayer $$ to commit fraud. 

USADA was looking to bust him for doping. 

These are two different charges and two different cases.


----------



## SFTifoso

He could easily write the defining book on doping in the pro-peleton. I hope he does. I would buy it in a heart beat.


----------



## Salsa_Lover

il sogno said:


> I say give it to the 21st guy.


Exactly.

This is also needed to debunk one of the LA camp arguments, "everyone was doping" to justify their actions and the corruption of the beginners.

Lots doped for sure, but not everybody, there are certainly many finishers on those years who were not in dope.


----------



## LostViking

SFTifoso said:


> He could easily write the defining book on doping in the pro-peleton. I hope he does. I would buy it in a heart beat.


Do you believe he would be truthful?
I suspect he would just carry-on his war(s) with all those who outted him. Starting with LeMond and working his way to Tagert and all of his old teammates who have "betrayed" him.
Seems out of his nature to write a tell-all book that wouldn't protect Johan Bruynell and his other allies and slam his enemies relentlessl without being limited by a little thing called the truth. Yeah he'd slam the sponsors that have dropped him lately, but I wouldn't hold my breath for details on how and whom he bribed in the UCI and elsewhere.

Lance could lose even more if the truth came out, so his book would probably be light on the facts and heavy on the vitriole.

That said, he could probably recoup a lot of his $$$ losses if his agent gets him the right deal.


----------



## CSquare43

rufus said:


> If cycling has to go back to where it was when *Jock Boyer* was breaking into racing in Europe, and Greg Lemond was winning his first Tour, I'm ok with that.
> ..........


Because having a convicted child molester as a cycling icon is better than a PED using one??


----------



## triscuit

redlude97 said:


> Unless Lance has a prescription, it is definitely illegal since EPO is a prescription drug in the US.


If that is the case, the issue may be that the statements don't mention actual use within the U.S. I may have missed it, but what I remember clearly talked about use in Europe, particularly Spain, France, Italy and Switzerland. EPO can be bought OTC in Switzerland, at least it could, according to the statements. 

The only mention of the U.S. I recall is George Hincapie getting caught at customs with it, and claiming it was a drug for his wife or someone else, and customs letting it through. 

That doesn't mean he didn't use in the U.S, but I don't recall statements about it.

But I am basing this on an article that was in Slate. Maybe incorrectly, I was making the assumption the article was correct. 

Also, if one does need a prescription for EPO, I am willing to bet most of these guys could find one who would say they were anemic, maybe because they just had a bag of blood drained, and prescribe it.


----------



## oily666

LostViking said:


> Do you believe he would be truthful?
> I suspect he would just carry-on his war(s) with all those who outted him. Starting with LeMond and working his way to Tagert and all of his old teammates who have "betrayed" him.
> Seems out of his nature to write a tell-all book that wouldn't protect Johan Bruynell and his other allies and slam his enemies relentlessl without being limited by a little thing called the truth. Yeah he'd slam the sponsors that have dropped him lately, but I wouldn't hold my breath for details on how and whom he bribed in the UCI and elsewhere.
> 
> Lance could lose even more if the truth came out, so his book would probably be light on the facts and heavy on the vitriole.
> 
> That said, he could probably recoup a lot of his $$$ losses if his agent gets him the right deal.


I've always regarded him as a manipulator. I don't know what Armstrong could write that I could accept as complete truth. Over his entire TDF career, he's spun things to put him in the most positive light, even when, IMO, he ended up looking like a tool.

The brake pad rubbing on Alpe d'Huez in 2003.....why not just admit six months later to Paul and Phil that he was not in peak form? Can you imagine LA not publicly sacking the mechanic that allowed that to happen? Do you actually believe "Mr. Attention to Detail and Diet" _forgot to eat _while Pantani was dragging him through the mountains for a second day? Then there's the bullshort excuses he gave after the Filippo Simeoni stunt.

At the end of the day, the sad fact is Armstrong's doping was merely a way to get a level playing field in pro cycling and it's not going to change.


----------



## cda 455

oily666 said:


> I've always regarded him as a manipulator. I don't know what Armstrong could write that I could accept as complete truth. Over his entire TDF career, he's spun things to put him in the most positive light, even when, IMO, he ended up looking like a tool.
> 
> The brake pad rubbing on Alpe d'Huez in 2003.....why not just admit six months later to Paul and Phil that he was not in peak form? Can you imagine LA not publicly sacking the mechanic that allowed that to happen? Do you actually believe "Mr. Attention to Detail and Diet" _forgot to eat _while Pantani was dragging him through the mountains for a second day? Then there's the bullshort excuses he gave after the Filippo Simeoni stunt.
> 
> At the end of the day, the sad fact is Armstrong's doping was merely a way to get a level playing field in pro cycling and it's not going to change.


Wow; A pathological liar; even right down to small details? 


That_ is_ a serious problem.

I can see lying about big stuff, but small stuff like why he didn't perform well on a given day of a race months ago  ???


----------



## mpre53

oily666 said:


> At the end of the day, the sad fact is Armstrong's doping was merely a way to get a level playing field in pro cycling and it's not going to change.


No, actually it was a way to tilt the field in his favor. If you start with deeper pockets than anyone else, can buy the services of the best doping doctor on the planet, can get unlimited access to the drugs, and create a grinding machine around you via those drugs and doctor, how is that making the field level? 

That's even discounting the possibility that he could buy his way out of those potential positive tests, if Ferrari or he screwed up on dosages.


----------

