[POLL] Are you satisfied with the Lance Armstrong Confession

[MarkG]

Funny side note - I was doing some hills work on the weekend when a bloke in a 4WD pulled up along side my bunch and said "get some drugs in ya!" and drove off.

Fair to say he probably watched the interview ahahah

[brentono]

Confession? More like an act of contrition, which the yanks luv, with the Queen of talk-hosts, Oprah.
Lance begins to cry. Oprah leans in and says "I think what you need, is a....performance enhancing hug"

[Apple]

I don't want him anymore
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thyFmxusB9E&NR=1[/youtube]

And this one blew me away.

[ozstriker]

I don't get why everyone seems to be more upset since he admitted cheating.

Whilst he does sound like a bit of a bully and douchebag, and I find it totally ridiculous that that live strong hasn't given a cent to cancer research, only to bring 'awareness', give me a break, I think people are 'aware' of cancer.

But seriously people need to stop acting like he was a pioneer behind drug use in cycling.
Google how many cyclists have been caught for drug use..... Hundreds and hundreds of cyclists have.

And what about bloody Tyler Hamilton, people are acting like he's the hero, he only ratted lance out to give himself a lesser ban.

Read the book 'Rough Ride' and you will understand why he didn't see it as cheating. And the fact that he is just like the other 80% of professional riders.

[biker jk]

I don't get why everyone seems to be more upset since he admitted cheating.

Whilst he does sound like a bit of a bully and douchebag, and I find it totally ridiculous that that live strong hasn't given a cent to cancer research, only to bring 'awareness', give me a break, I think people are 'aware' of cancer.

But seriously people need to stop acting like he was a pioneer behind drug use in cycling.
Google how many cyclists have been caught for drug use..... Hundreds and hundreds of cyclists have.

And what about bloody Tyler Hamilton, people are acting like he's the hero, he only ratted lance out to give himself a lesser ban.

Read the book 'Rough Ride' and you will understand why he didn't see it as cheating. And the fact that he is just like the other 80% of professional riders.

I'm growing tired of this re-writing of history being repeated to suit Armstrong's cause. Yes drug use in cycling has existed since day one but blood doping/EPO allowed donkeys to be turned into racehorses which wasn't the case with previous performance enhancing drugs. LA wasn't just another drug cheat, he lead an organised team doping ring which produced the greatest sporting fraud in history. He himself acknowledged that it was impossible to win seven TDFs in a row without blood doping/EPO and Armstrong was the king of blood dopers/EPO, paid the best doping doctor $1 million per year and bribed the UCI to not test positive. He wasn't just another doper.

[ozstriker]

I don't get why everyone seems to be more upset since he admitted cheating.

Whilst he does sound like a bit of a bully and douchebag, and I find it totally ridiculous that that live strong hasn't given a cent to cancer research, only to bring 'awareness', give me a break, I think people are 'aware' of cancer.

But seriously people need to stop acting like he was a pioneer behind drug use in cycling.
Google how many cyclists have been caught for drug use..... Hundreds and hundreds of cyclists have.

And what about bloody Tyler Hamilton, people are acting like he's the hero, he only ratted lance out to give himself a lesser ban.

Read the book 'Rough Ride' and you will understand why he didn't see it as cheating. And the fact that he is just like the other 80% of professional riders.

I'm growing tired of this re-writing of history being repeated to suit Armstrong's cause. Yes drug use in cycling has existed since day one but blood doping/EPO allowed donkeys to be turned into racehorses which wasn't the case with previous performance enhancing drugs. LA wasn't just another drug cheat, he lead an organised team doping ring which produced the greatest sporting fraud in history. He himself acknowledged that it was impossible to win seven TDFs in a row without blood doping/EPO and Armstrong was the king of blood dopers/EPO, paid the best doping doctor $1 million per year and bribed the UCI to not test positive. He wasn't just another doper.

You can't possibly know how it is with other teams

[sogood]

I don't want him anymore

Rejected!

[sogood]

... but blood doping/EPO allowed donkeys to be turned into racehorses which wasn't the case with previous performance enhancing drugs. LA wasn't just another drug cheat, he lead an organised team doping ring which produced the greatest sporting fraud in history...

To be objective, blood and EPO doping weren't invented by LA. As for systematic doping, that's not new within the peloton nor within the sports community at large. As suggested elsewhere, LA/Johan Bruyneel and others in their team just have been more rigorous in their approach. Does that make them more guilty? To some it does and others it doesn't.

[Mulger bill]

As for systematic doping, that's not new within the peloton nor within the sports community at large. As suggested elsewhere, LA/Johan Bruyneel and others in their team just have been more rigorous in their approach. Does that make them more guilty? To some it does and others it doesn't.

Yes it does. Because they took it beyond the next level.

I fully spport any push to criminalise sports doping. Forget WADA and the UCI, let Plod wave the jars about.

[sogood]

As for systematic doping, that's not new within the peloton nor within the sports community at large. As suggested elsewhere, LA/Johan Bruyneel and others in their team just have been more rigorous in their approach. Does that make them more guilty? To some it does and others it doesn't.

Yes it does. Because they took it beyond the next level.
I fully spport any push to criminalise sports doping. Forget WADA and the UCI, let Plod wave the jars about.

Given that sports are now money making careers for participants, it's no different to financial and other professional/corporate services. As such, I also support criminalising sports doping. However and as a devil's advocate, take the example of robbery robbery, why should a failed bank robber be punished less than one who successfully robbed a bank? Obviously it's not black and white but there's something to think about. At least superficially, it's all so easy for those ex-dopers to lay all the blames on LA. If there's blame, Johan Bruyneel would be just as responsible but the media nor riders are highlighting him.

[ozstriker]

As for systematic doping, that's not new within the peloton nor within the sports community at large. As suggested elsewhere, LA/Johan Bruyneel and others in their team just have been more rigorous in their approach. Does that make them more guilty? To some it does and others it doesn't.

Yes it does. Because they took it beyond the next level.
I fully spport any push to criminalise sports doping. Forget WADA and the UCI, let Plod wave the jars about.

Given that sports are now money making careers for participants, it's no different to financial and other professional/corporate services. As such, I also support criminalising sports doping. However and as a devil's advocate, take the example of robbery robbery, why should a failed bank robber be punished less than one who successfully robbed a bank? Obviously it's not black and white but there's something to think about.

+1 that's the point I'm trying to make, as much as it will probably upset some people, LA and taking drugs aside, LA had an assload of natural talent to go along with the drugs that helped him win.

To me it shouldn't matter whether you win 10 times or none they should all be treated the same. In cycling most of the cyclists aren't out there to win, but still dope to help there teammates out.

[biker jk]

+1 that's the point I'm trying to make, as much as it will probably upset some people, LA and taking drugs aside, LA had an assload of natural talent to go along with the drugs that helped him win.

To me it shouldn't matter whether you win 10 times or none they should all be treated the same. In cycling most of the cyclists aren't out there to win, but still dope to help there teammates out.

In four previous attempts at winning the TDF Armstrong made it to Paris once (prior to 1999). He himself didn't believe he was GT winning material, "i'm not a guy to win grand tours but i will do well in tough single day races". In 1999, the majority of the peloton was clean. Of 100 odd samples retested for EPO only Armstrongs and a handful of other samples tested positive. So much for natural talent explaining his seven TDF wins in a row.

[sogood]

In four previous attempts at winning the TDF Armstrong made it to Paris once (prior to 1999)...

That's a hard argument. We all know for a fact that riders improve with age and this could easily be the case for LA too across those years ie. Not a watertight argument. What we do know is that other key riders also took PED of their choice.

In any case and as I suggested, LA and his team was rigorous and smart in their approach, no different to how corporations win business battles. Was it dirty? Sure it was as dirty as other doper. Was it fair? Sure it was not fair to the minority of clean rider but nothing unfair to the numerous dopers of the time. Should he be punished? Sure he should. But punished in the proper context of those years.

[ozstriker]

+1 that's the point I'm trying to make, as much as it will probably upset some people, LA and taking drugs aside, LA had an assload of natural talent to go along with the drugs that helped him win.

To me it shouldn't matter whether you win 10 times or none they should all be treated the same. In cycling most of the cyclists aren't out there to win, but still dope to help there teammates out.

In 1999, the majority of the peloton was clean.

Bahahaha you gotta be kidding me.
Where are you getting this top notch information

Seriously, read 'Rough Ride' its a real eye opener

[ozstriker]

Eddy Merckx tested positive three times, why isn't there a hate train after him.

[biker jk]

+1 that's the point I'm trying to make, as much as it will probably upset some people, LA and taking drugs aside, LA had an assload of natural talent to go along with the drugs that helped him win.

To me it shouldn't matter whether you win 10 times or none they should all be treated the same. In cycling most of the cyclists aren't out there to win, but still dope to help there teammates out.

In 1999, the majority of the peloton was clean.

Bahahaha you gotta be kidding me.
Where are you getting this top notch information

Seriously, read 'Rough Ride' its a real eye opener

1999 was the year after the Festina scandal at the TDF. As such, most in the peleton were not doping in 1999 while Armstrong took it to a new level. It was only after a few years of LA dominance that other teams started to dope again but LA was well in front in the doping arms race having never participated in the detente.

[brentono]

Eddy Merckx tested positive three times, why isn't there a hate train after him.

As a matter of fact, there was a hate train against Eddy,
IN ITALY, the Giro, IN 1969, by officials, and that was one "so-called" positive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_Merckx#Doping
Your starting to spin like a top... get the facts


Think with Lance Armstrong were talking Complicity and Conspiracy to pervert the course of Cycling.

[sogood]

1999 was the year after the Festina scandal at the TDF. As such, most in the peleton were not doping in 1999...

Wouldn't that be a bit naive? Given how hard it has been to eradicate the habit, even in recent years. Do you really think that most of the peloton were dope free after one season?

[biker jk]

1999 was the year after the Festina scandal at the TDF. As such, most in the peleton were not doping in 1999...

Wouldn't that be a bit naive? Given how hard it has been to eradicate the habit, even in recent years. Do you really think that most of the peloton were dope free after one season?

You clearly didn't read what I wrote so I will repeat. There were around 100 samples retrospectively tested for EPO from the 1999 TDF and only Armstrong and a handful of others were positive. So yes most of the peloton weren't doping in 1999. Armstrong completed the prologue in 8 min 2 sec in 1999. The same course in 1993 was won in a time of 8 min 12 sec by Indurain who had passed Armstrong in the 1994 time trial. Armstrong was doped to the gills in 1999 while most of the peloton were clean.

[sogood]

You clearly didn't read what I wrote so I will repeat. There were around 100 samples retrospectively tested for EPO from the 1999 TDF and only Armstrong and a handful of others were positive. So yes most of the peloton weren't doping in 1999. Armstrong completed the prologue in 8 min 2 sec in 1999. The same course in 1993 was won in a time of 8 min 12 sec by Indurain who had passed Armstrong in the 1994 time trial. Armstrong was doped to the gills in 1999 while most of the peloton were clean.

EPO wasn't the only dope in town. Limited 100 in-competition samples with retrospective testing only provided suggestive information of that narrow time frame, nothing confirmatory. So it's a a bit of a stretch to claim that "most" word. 5 years can be significant for a rider's maturity. It's again insufficient evidence for definitive conclusion.

I think this point of discussion is also reason why it's hard for scientists/regulators to draw a firm conclusion, versus punters making claims using very limited data. Some may turn out to be true in due course but that's a chance event.

[Mulger bill]

Wasn't the Festina business way back then more a police than a WADA thing? I repeat, get the Plod involved.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Wasn't the Festina business way back then more a police than a WADA thing? I repeat, get the Plod involved.

WADA wasn't in existence at the time of the Festina affair.

[Mulger bill]

Wasn't the Festina business way back then more a police than a WADA thing? I repeat, get the Plod involved.

WADA wasn't in existence at the time of the Festina affair.

Point taken Alex, maybe I should have just said anti doping, but without police involvement I somehow doubt that the Festina thing would have been as important as it was.

Shaun

[MarkG]

The thing that jacked me off mostly about the whole interview was the fact (and the amount of times) Lance kept alluding to the fact he had cancer, almost hoping that sympathisers would almost forgive his actions by pitying him - what a joke.

My mother is 58 - she's had cancer for nearly 30 years of her life, from ovarian to breast to cervical cancer, and never once, in any argument or heated debate with anyone, has she ever thrown in the words 'you know I have cancer' or 'back when I had cancer' . She's got more more balls in her cancer ravaged body than that tool LA ever had.

[rdwaltonut]

Well, since we are on the topic of LA, I have a Team Discovery jersey that needs a new home. Definitely cheap. Don't want it trying to wrestle my other jerseys into any sordid activity