re: Armstrong Officially Stripped of Tour Titles

quote:

---

So check out the people that were runners up to Lance and can consider themselves champions now:

---

Doping was institutionalized within every team during this period. Basically, you were going to go on the team doping regimine or you weren't going to race because you wouldn't be able to hang when it mattered. It's just the reality. It wasn't even like baseball where it was individualized guys choosing to do it. Most of the guys in cycling basically had no choice if they wanted to make a living

quote:

---

It wasn't even like baseball where it was individualized guys choosing to do it.

---

This is false. It wasn't individual players on their own in baseball. Owners and teams were tacitly encouraging players to use steroids - which is why they didn't test, or pass any rules against PED use. Even if a player was doping in the 90s, he wasn't breaking any rules.

quote:

---

The Fed just finished a probe on him, and he was acquitted. You mean to tell me the USADA had a sample the was "Fully consistent with blood doping" yet noone else has been able to come up with this?

They have had the better part of a decade to make accusations against Lance. At some point, you have to say this is just a witch hunt.

---

+1

He's been found guilty of doping by an agency that didn't even exist when he won some of his yellow jerseys. At the same time the agency that oversees the sport of cycling has found no evidence to proceed with any further investigation.

From my understanding the USADA's main evidence is the testimony of other cyclists, who have all been found to have doped. They failed the same drug tests that Lance never failed.

Did he dope? Maybe.
Is he a jerk? I've read that he is a total a-hole.
Is he stupid for dumping Sheryl Crow? Yup

Nonetheless, the method by which USADA has arrived at their ruling really bothers me. Any other professional cyclist would be ruined at this point if they didn't have Lance's cash flow, yet there is still no evidence that he doped.

Facts are that Lance won on a level playing field. All of the cyclists were doping. I would put it at 90% and it may actually be higher. Stripping titles in cycling is ridiculous. who are you going to give the titles to? you would have to go down the chain pretty far to some unknown peleton dog to find someonen who was "clean" and even then there would be no way to know.

He was at the time "the best of the dopers". Everyone doped in that era. The evidence against him is a mountain of circumstantial but it is a mountain. As a cycling fan I want the sport as clean as it can be, and if this helps, so be it.

anyone defending Lemond as 'clean' should take a look at the pot calling the kettle black here.

I wonder which 'doping' helps the most? mechanical or EPO?

-------------
LeMond put his bike into a huge 55 x 12 gear. His effort was the fastest individual time trial for a distance longer than 10 km ever ridden. A November 1989 Bicycling Magazine article, supported by wind-tunnel data, estimated that LeMond may have gained 1 minute on Fignon through the use of the new aerobars.[8] He also could have gained 16 seconds by wearing his aero helmet with a slightly elongated tail section for better aerodynamics, while Fignon rode bare-headed with his ponytail exposed to the wind.
-------------

So Lemond gained over a minute & 16 seconds over Fignon because he attached aero bars to his bike and used an aero helmet.

Clearly this didn't tilt the playing field at all.

Also interesting this is the FASTEST TT EVER at that time and second fastest EVER. Wow, I figured with the super drugs of the early 2000s Lance would have been much faster over "clean as a whistle" Lemond.

eta Clearly Lemond had an advantage; aero bars in particular..that destroyed Fignon..and even then he won by the barest of times..7 seconds.

Sooo, because Fignon failed (or didn't know) what a huge advantage aero bars provided Lemond's win is ok? No doubt Fignon could have held onto those 7 seconds if he had stuck some aero bars on his bike.

quote:

---

This attitude is by far the most depressing aspect of this. Wow, so someone that is super successful is an a-hole, big deal. Why does that make it OK to just keep investigating him until we get the results we want.

---

+1000

A friend of a friend of my sister says:

Micheal Jordan is an a-hole
Tiger Woods is an a-hole
Lance Armstrong is an a-hole
Tom Brady is an a-hole
Joe Montana is an a-hole

etc etc.

Most of this comes from a losers jealous mentality. The real studs are so focused that Im sure they appear as assholes to the average.

quote:

---

He was at the time "the best of the dopers". Everyone doped in that era. The evidence against him is a mountain of circumstantial but it is a mountain. As a cycling fan I want the sport as clean as it can be, and if this helps, so be it.

---

never been a fan of the ends justifying the means. A mountain of shite is still filled with shite

Sopmeone should update the original title with a question mark

quote:

---

The UCI has contended that it should have jurisdiction over Armstrong's case as it was responsible for carrying out doping tests while he competed. The American has been at pains to point out he has never failed a test.

The UCI could choose to appeal to the court of arbitration for sport in Switzerland against the Usada ruling, or to gain jurisdiction over the case.

But for now it has chosen to wait for Usada to provide a required communication explaining its actions before making further comment.

A statement read: "The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that Usada has brought against him.

"The UCI recognises that Usada is reported as saying that it will strip Mr Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

"Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, Wada and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

"Until such time as Usada delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."

---

quote:

---

The waters are muddied further by Wada's eight-year statute of limitations. That would throw doubt on Usada's move to strip Armstrong of all his results from 1 August 1998.

Of Armstrong's Tour wins, only his victories in 2004 and 2005 fell within the eight-year window when proceedings were started against him, although Usada maintains evidence from prior to that period can still be utilised.

A further can of worms would be opened when it came to deciding the winners of the tours that took place between 1999 and 2005, if Armstrong is excluded from the results.

For example, runners-up to Armstrong during that period include the German Jan Ullrich and Ivan Basso, both of whom have served bans for doping offences.

---

LINK