Armstrong formally charged by USADA

[giwi2]

so he gives back the $$$$ he fraudently appropriated????? Not just cut his losses for a few Million.

Whatever the outcome it just goes to show that hero worship is a fickle thing and Lance is just a bike rider (albeit an allegedly good one)like the rest of us.

[AUbicycles]

I totally agree with sogood. Rational says he is guilty for the reasons listed here but by stopping at this moment and making this statement (spin) he is suggesting innocence and in the history books it will remain an allegation with facts clouded over.

Smart move for Lance, also a conviction for USADA but dissappointing because a) we don't have the clarity of a verdict after evidence is presented and b) all indications is that this step is an admission of guilt and confirmation of the conspiracy and wrong-doing by an iconic cyclist who had the trust of so many - what will they think about cycling now? Betrayal?

Maybe it will be unfair that Floyd Landis is still considered the bad man (he gathered donations to fight his innocence) and Lance will be considered the better person.

While I had my own views, I still chose to keep an open mind and await for the official verdict. Now the verdict is in.

But next comes the book, might change your mind...

[toolonglegs]

Except everything WILL still have to come out as Johan Bruyneel has not accepted anything yet ... if he wants to carry on with his career then he will have to fight the charges against him.

[Christine Tham]

Must say that Armstrong and his team of lawyers/advisors have made a very smart and calculated call.

1) It preserved the doubt on his innocence.

2) It cut his financial losses in terms of multi-million legal expenses.

At the end of the day, reputation has a price. Given what he has and what he may lose, it's probably still not worth a $3+M of legal expenses. At worst, he is a winner amongst a sea of dopers of that era. At best, he is a legend.

Smart move! Very smart move!

I agree with this. Basically Lance is doing the equivalent of a boycott: "I don't want to play ball, so do what you think you can do and see how far you go." Now the battleground shifts from USADA vs Lance to USADA vs UCI. In the meantime, Lance can play the role of the innocent martyr.

The next step is for USADA to put forward a position to UCI, and for UCI to respond whether they agree or not.

Should be interesting, and I don't think the show is over yet.

[clackers]

Basically Lance is doing the equivalent of a boycott:

He (and his doctor, already banned for life) basically did a plea of no-contest, which is not something we have in the Australian court system. We do insist on a defendant declaring they're guilty/not guilty.

In the States, it's understood as the same thing as guilty but with different subsequent ramifications and liabilities.

Like others, I admire Armstrong's win-at-any-cost spirit, but that clearly has a flipside. The idea that he was a saint repeatedly winning against a horde of drug cheats has had its day.

[Retro man]

Even though Armstrong is not one of my favorite people. I do feel for him in a way.
I am not an intellectual, I am someone who has reasonable common sense (my wife would argue that). I'm not a cycling history or know all guru, so please take this into account before attacking me!
From the biographies and cycling history I have read it seems that performance enhancing substances have been taken since cycle racing began and has continued to this day.
Being a competition sportsman all my life I know enough to understand the superhuman endurance these cyclists possess. I have always marveled at how a cyclist could race a bicycle in a race that covers 1200km in 50hours (Paris-Brest-Paris) Opperman won in 1931. Or 56okm (Bordeaux–Paris) in 14 hours, and the old Six day track races, just three examples.
And then the Grand Boucle itself. Three weeks of 200 or so kms almost every day, and then the other grand tours. How can a human accomplish these things on diet and vitamins alone.
I don't proffer to know what the answer is to all this. Should Armstrong be stripped, I'm not sure. I don't like that he may of used them, but I can understand why if he did.
I just hope cycling can move on and not be too damaged by it. I love this sport and all the amazing history that goes with it. I have an admiration for the efforts that these athletes can produce.
Have a read of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_do ... in_cycling

[wombatK]

Basically Lance is doing the equivalent of a boycott

The analogy that springs to my mind is that Lance is trying a "Joan of Arc".
He is seeking to portray himself as a saint who's the victim of the USADA's evil witch-hunters.

When the evidence is put out in the sunlight, we will know better.

[Bentnose]

So who won those seven tours now? I really don't care if he took the drugs or not, as far as I'm concerned 7 years plus is too far back, where do you stop, should we strip Eddie Mercx of all his titles. Things like this make people less interested in the sport, what is the point of spending three weeks watching a a race when 7- 14 years later the entire result will be annulled. I believe the pursuit of Armstrong and banning him will damage the sport more than them being able to say we caught all the drug cheats here are your clean winners (or are they, will there be another changed result in the future?). I'm thinking its a waste of time watching the racing from now on, I've got better things to do.

[skull]

Basically Lance is doing the equivalent of a boycott:

He (and his doctor, already banned for life) basically did a plea of no-contest, which is not something we have in the Australian court system. We do insist on a defendant declaring they're guilty/not guilty.

In the States, it's understood as the same thing as guilty but with different subsequent ramifications and liabilities.
.

But that would be banned from competing in the US only right? Does the USADA the ability to prevent him from competing in other countries?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Very unamerican for Americans to head hunt an American so publicly and with such conviction.

I take it you've never heard of Joseph McCarthy?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Basically Lance is doing the equivalent of a boycott:

He (and his doctor, already banned for life) basically did a plea of no-contest, which is not something we have in the Australian court system. We do insist on a defendant declaring they're guilty/not guilty.

In the States, it's understood as the same thing as guilty but with different subsequent ramifications and liabilities.
.

But that would be banned from competing in the US only right? Does the USADA the ability to prevent him from competing in other countries?

It is a requirement under the WADA code for all signatory sports that sanction(s) be applied gloabally. If they are not, then those sports themselves will be sanctioned, with for example, a removal of the sport from the Olympic Games.

[bigfriendlyvegan]

[bigfriendlyvegan]

[find_bruce]

Thanks for the chuckle BFV, they didn't take long

[Christine Tham]

Looks like Armstrong's "martyr" strategy is already working. Donations are up at Livestrong, and sponsors like Nike are continuing to support him.

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/ne ... ng-scandal

In the meantime, USADA is already being portrayed like the EPA guy in Ghostbusters - overzealous, over-reaching, and not understanding who the bad guy really is.

Interesting, because that will automatically make Armstrong the Bill Murray character - shady, dubious, quite possibly guilty of fraud, but trying to save the world. And ends up getting the girl.

[wombatK]

In the meantime, USADA is already being portrayed like the EPA guy in Ghostbusters - overzealous, over-reaching, and not understanding who the bad guy really is.

Interesting, because that will automatically make Armstrong the Bill Murray character - shady, dubious, quite possibly guilty of fraud, but trying to save the world. And ends up getting the girl.

Armstrong's remarks are at best self-serving and deserve to be treated with contempt on that basis. At worst,
he is libelling USADA - and particularly Tygart. His legal actions against USADA failed so he seeks to undermine them by publicly trashing them. You'd have to be a complete buffoon to believe his accusations.

LA thoroughly deserves to be taken to court to shake-out some of the ill-gotten $125 million he's earned at the expense of competitors not prepared to dope up.

Cheers

[roller]

In the meantime, USADA is already being portrayed like the EPA guy in Ghostbusters - overzealous, over-reaching, and not understanding who the bad guy really is.

Interesting, because that will automatically make Armstrong the Bill Murray character - shady, dubious, quite possibly guilty of fraud, but trying to save the world. And ends up getting the girl.

Armstrong's remarks are at best self-serving and deserve to be treated with contempt on that basis. At worst,
he is libelling USADA - and particularly Tygart. His legal actions against USADA failed so he seeks to undermine them by publicly trashing them. You'd have to be a complete buffoon to believe his accusations.

LA thoroughly deserves to be taken to court to shake-out some of the ill-gotten $125 million he's earned at the expense of competitors not prepared to dope up.

Cheers

in BNA terms, he's certainly playing the man not the ball.

[blkmcs]

...
LA thoroughly deserves to be taken to court to shake-out some of the ill-gotten $125 million he's earned at the expense of competitors not prepared to dope up. ...

He needs to be taken to court so the truth can be told, whether he wants to contest or not should not be an issue.
Not so sure about the practicalities of recovering money.
How many competitors were not prepared to dope as opposed to not being prepared to admit to doping?
What was the winning margin in each tour to the first "clean" competitor?
How much of that margin can be attributed to doping?
Is there any research that proves that had Armstrong not doped then he would definitely have been beaten by another non doping competitor?
If Armstrong's claims of not doping are not to be believed then why should similar claims from other athletes be believed?
They all have the same motive for denying any wrongdoing.
Sponsors bought a product that at the time of buying provided them with exactly what they wanted, if a sponsor now wants to recover that money then they should also pay back all benefits they received from that sponsorship.

[jules21]

LA thoroughly deserves to be taken to court to shake-out some of the ill-gotten $125 million he's earned at the expense of competitors not prepared to dope up.

i'm not so sure about this bit. jan ulrich is now possibly going to be named 6-time(?) winner of the Tour

[DavidS]

I don't think there is any choice, the titles for those years need to be vacated.

DS

[wurtulla wabbit]

LA thoroughly deserves to be taken to court to shake-out some of the ill-gotten $125 million he's earned at the expense of competitors not prepared to dope up.

i'm not so sure about this bit. jan ulrich is now possibly going to be named 6-time(?) winner of the Tour

who also has been banned for doping.

The sport is as bad as athletics.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

As an aside, here is the Top 10 from each of the Armstrong TdF wins. Red means that rider has had a ban/sanction for doping violation or subsequently admitted to or was found to have doped through later investigation. List originally from another forum, although I did update some names.

Of those remaining, there are a few that are still suspected (e.g. Pereiro & Azevedo).

2005
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) Discovery Channel
2 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC
3 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team
4 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Illes Balears-Caisse d'Epargne
5 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) T-Mobile Team
6 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Gerolsteiner
7 Michael Rasmussen (Den) Rabobank
8 Cadel Evans (Aus) Davitamon-Lotto
9 Floyd Landis (USA) Phonak Hearing Systems
10 Oscar Pereiro Sio (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems


2004
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal p/b Berry Floor
2 Andreas Klöden (Ger) T-Mobile Team
3 Ivan Basso (Ita) Team CSC
4 Jan Ullrich (Ger) T-Mobile Team
5 Jose Azevedo (Por) US Postal p/b Berry Floor
6 Francisco Mancebo Pérez (Spa) Illes Balears - Banesto
7 Georg Totschnig (Aut) Gerolsteiner
8 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC
9 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank
10 Oscar Pereiro (Spa) Phonak Hearing Systems


2003
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal-Berry Floor
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) Team Bianchi
3 Alexandre Vinokourov (Kaz) Team Telekom
4 Tyler Hamilton (USA) Team CSC
5 Haimar Zubeldia (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi
6 Iban Mayo (Spa) Euskaltel-Euskadi
7 Ivan Basso (Ita) Fassa Bortolo
8 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Credit Agricole
9 Carlos Sastre (Spa) Team CSC
10 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com


2002
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service
2 Joseba Beloki (Spa) ONCE-Eroski
3 Raimondas Rumsas (Ltu) Lampre Daikin
4 Santiago Botero (Col) Kelme-Costa Blanca
5 Igor Gonzalez de Galdeano (Spa) ONCE-Eroski
6 José Azevedo (Por) ONCE-Eroski
7 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) iBanesto.com
8 Levi Leipheimer (USA) Rabobank
9 Roberto Heras Hernandez (Spa) US Postal Service
10 Carlos Sastre (Spa) CSC-Tiscali


2001
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) Telekom
3 Joseba Beloki (Spa) ONCE-Eroski
4 Andrei Kivilev (Kaz) Cofidis
5 Igor Gonzalez De Galdeano (Spa) ONCE-Eroski
6 Franois Simon (Fra) Bonjour
7 Oscar Sevilla (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca
8 Santiago Botero (Col) Kelme-Costa Blanca
9 Marcos Serrano (Spa) ONCE-Eroski
10 Michael Boogerd (Ned) Rabobank

2000
1 Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal Service
2 Jan Ullrich (Ger) Team Deutsche Telekom
3 Joseba Beloki (Spa) Festina
4 Christophe Moreau (Fra) Festina
5 Roberto Heras (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca
6 Richard Virenque (Fra) Team Polti
7 Santiago Botero (Col) Kelme-Costa Blanca
8 Fernando Escartin (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca
9 Francisco Mancebo (Spa) Banesto
10 Daniele Nardello (Ita) Mapei-Quick Step


1999
1. Lance Armstrong (USA) US Postal
2. Alex Zülle (Swi) Banesto
3. Fernando Escartin (Spa) Kelme-Costa Blanca
4. Laurent Dufaux (Swi) Saeco-Cannondale
5. Angel Casero (Spa) Vitalicio Seguros
6. Abraham Olano (Spa) ONCE-Deutsche Bank
7. Daniele Nardello (Ita) Mapei-Quick Step
8. Richard Virenque (Fra) Team Polti
9. Wladimir Belli (Ita) Festina
10. Andrea Peron (Ita) ONCE-Deutsche Bank

[Trev Campbell]

That list makes for pretty sad reading !!!

[Alien27]

Good God that is a very depressing list.

There is a good opinion piece in todays SMH that suggests just leaving the affected years blank with no winners as a monument to remind us of how bad it was.

[warthog1]

As an aside, here is the Top 10 from each of the Armstrong TdF wins. Red means that rider has had a ban/sanction for doping violation or subsequently admitted to or was found to have doped through later investigation. List originally from another forum, although I did update some names.

Of those remaining, there are a few that are still suspected (e.g. Pereiro & Azevedo).

That list has cleared LA as far as I'm concerned. That whole era is broken . Time to reflect and move on what a farce