The Legacy of Lance Armstrong?

[Roy Hersh]

Did he ... or didn't he?

http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story ... d%3D196448

[Glenn E.]

I think it's telling that even UCI thinks that USADA is wrong.

Note: My understanding is that USADA cannot strip Lance of his titles. They can only recommend that he be stripped. UCI has to then choose whether or not to do it, and given the previous I'd bet that they don't.

[Andy Velebil]

Of course he did. That's why he's not fighting it. He's fought every allegation tooth and nail since he started winning, but now he gives up the fight when it's clear that past teammates are going to testify against him. Hmm, not hard to read between the lines here. And have you noticed LA has NEVER explicitly said he didn't dope? He only says he's never tested positive. A very careful play on words all these years.

Oh, and even in his own statement and the statement of his lawyer that was released yesterday, no where in it does he say he's never used dope. Anyone else find that's odd?

There is more to this if you really do research and follow more than the little bit that is reported on. But basically (one of the issues) there is a fight with the UCI as one of the allegations is that the UCI covered up a positive test from LA. If that would have come out it would destroy the UCI's credibility. So of course they are now at odds with the USADA. The funny part was at the early stages of this the UCI were supportive of USADA going after him. Only later did they change their tune.

[Moses Botbol]

Doper or not (like Andy - of course he doped), I do not take away anything from LA's palmares. So, who really won those 7 TdF's? Ullrich, Jullich???

It was a long time coming and I thought the organizations would just let if fade away, but I guess not. I hope Contador can be the most winning TdF rider in a few years.

[Andy Velebil]

Doper or not (like Andy - of course he doped), I do not take away anything from LA's palmares. So, who really won those 7 TdF's? Ullrich, Jullich???
.

Agree. I don't see the point in trying to strip him of his wins. In one year all top ten finishers in the Tour have now either tested positive or been sanctioned in some way for doping. Ullrich, who finshed second to Lance a number of times is currently serving a doping sanction for when he was racing. What's the point?

[Michael Hann]

I think sports doping is unfortunate. My son is a competitive arm wrestler in the 154 LBS and below weight class. He has twice arm wrestled for the US team at the world arm wrestling competition. My son does not dope and does not like any supplements or additives. He doesn't even like to take prescription medicine or asperin -- not from point of view of doping issues but just because he doesn't trust medicines or synthesized quasi-food products. I drink protein shakes I make with some sort of whey-based protein powder: not doping, but arguably a bizarre quasi-food. He won't have anything to do with that. My son alleges that doping is rampant among eastern European arm wrestlers. This bothers the crap out of him. He feels the competition is unfair. Only a selection of competitors are tested for doping at these world events, thus there is a pretty good chance to slip past undetected, particularly as the tests focus on the heaviest weight class -- the over 220 LBS weight class. If you knew you couldn't win without doping . . . would you dope if you had a fair chance of slipping through undetected? I think the answer to that is yes, for most competitors. My son also refuses to use chalk and tacky rock climbing shoes while rock climbing, though this is standard practice among rock climbers.

It is unfortunate, but it will remain until it is impossible or highly improbable for a competitor to avoid being caught. I would also guess that many of these competitors would be satisfied NOT to dope, if only they could be sure the competition was not cheating and stealing an advantage over them.

I have no idea whether Lance doped or not.

[Glenn E.]

And have you noticed LA has NEVER explicitly said he didn't dope? He only says he's never tested positive. A very careful play on words all these years.

Oh, and even in his own statement and the statement of his lawyer that was released yesterday, no where in it does he say he's never used dope. Anyone else find that's odd?

Not even a little bit odd. When you consider the number of liars who have protested their innocence only to eventually admit that they were lying the entire time, it's neither fair nor relevant to parse an accused athlete's language of defense.

Is LA the most tested athlete in the history if sports? Yes.

Has LA ever tested positive for a banned substance? Other than the one time when he had an allowed prescription, no.

Has the statute of limitations passed on some of these charges? Yes.

This is a witch hunt and nothing more. It's a waste of taxpayer money and frankly I think the USADA needs to be audited for ethics.

Did LA dope 12 years ago?

Who cares? If he did, it was during a period when everyone was doing it. Thus his victories are legitimate either way. UCI, the USADA, and the media need to just move on. Find another story, because LA is old news.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Eric Ifune]

I agree with Glenn. McGuire and Bonds will eventually get into the MBL HOF. It'll take some time, but they'll eventually get in, otherwise you have to ignore a complete generation of players.

[Brian C.]

The only way McGwire and Bonds will get in is through the Veterans Committee. The writers will not vote them in while believing that they used. I see no reason not to ignore a wide swath of players from the Steroid Era. Besides the PED's, they had smaller ballparks, smaller strike zones, and baseballs that were wound much tighter. To allow people in just because we can't ignore a whole generation of ball players defeats the purpose of having the HOF.

As it pertains to cycling, the sport has been broken for a long time. I don't even care what happens.

[Roy Hersh]

I agree with Glenn.

I also think that Eric's contention that McGuire and Bonds make the HOF eventually, is incorrect. I don't see them or Clemens or ARod ever getting in. That being said, of those four baseball players, at least once his back was against the wall, Alex admitted what we all knew already ... and for once in his life, seemed rather humble. That was never the case with Bonds or McGuire and Clemens continues to lie to this day ... a la Pete Rose. So, if I was in charge ... the only one of these four that I would ever consider to make the HOF would be ARod. Nonetheless, I don't think the sports writers that have the vote will ever forgive any of them, or others of their ilk. It is one thing to come clean immediately when one makes a mistake or breaches a regulation. But how often does that ever happen in sports, politics or the majority of other scenarios? Lies, coverup denials, lawyer protectionism and double speak are par for the course.

At this point, if I was in LA's shoes, I'd have walked away from the fight too. He's already retired and proved his point for years. Although it is certainly possible that he ingested or injected performance enhancing solutions, it is time to find something else to investigate.

[Derek T.]

It has been reported here in the UK that if he is stripped of his titles those titles will go to someone else. In a sport that is so tainted with drug use how on earth will they ever know for sure who to give those titles to?

The money would be better spent making sure the current crop are playing by the rules.

[Roy Hersh]

+1

[Glenn E.]

It has been reported here in the UK that if he is stripped of his titles those titles will go to someone else. In a sport that is so tainted with drug use how on earth will they ever know for sure who to give those titles to?

The money would be better spent making sure the current crop are playing by the rules.

They can't possibly know who to give them to, so realistically they can't reassign them. If they actually try to strip Lance of those TdF titles they'll have to leave those years vacant or it will be a complete farce.

Right? Basically their whole case against Lance is essentially that everyone was doping, so Lance must have been doping too, and they have enough other cyclists that they've blackmailed into testifying to make it stick. Well if that's the case then there's no one left to award the victories to!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Rob C.]

The "most tested athlete" stuff is a complete red herring. We're talking about EPO and transfusions, in the main. For many years, the only thing you had to watch was your blood hematocrit, and keeping it under a certain level (no questions asked how one could stay miraculously close to the limit over the length of a 3-week tour....).

Tim Montgomery likewise never tested positive - neither did Marion Jones. Athletes implicated in the BALCO scandal were caught because of a tip-off from a rival coach who anonymously sent in a sample of the designer steroid (THG) for which there was no existing test.

My opinion - there will be drugs cheats who manage to stay ahead of the testers in every era. That's why they are keeping the samples for the London Olympics for 8 years. But over time - as with EPO - the testers catch up (even if the athletes are by that point on the next generation of the drug).

And that's the best reason for making sure that even retired athletes like Lance Armstrong are hounded down and confronted - it's a very powerful disincentive (perhaps the best disincentive) for any current athletes given the obvious limitations of testing. Do you want to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life?

For cycling as a sport, i also think it has been vitally important to confront the realities of the Lance era and get them out in the open. The only reason there is any complication in this is because of his cancer work and charity links. That is, of course, unfortunate (enough of a reason to sweep the whole thing under the carpet....? don't know. Christophe Bassons might feel more strongly...).

NB: an old article on EPO (and Lance's potential use on the 99 tour), but contains a good summary of EPO use in the 90s and early 00s and the limitations of the testing system. (I'm also told that Tyler Hamilton's newly released book is a very revealing expose of that whole era that is well worth a read if you want to know more about the subject - but i have not yet seen it myself).

[Andy Velebil]

I just got Tyler Hamilton's new book, "The Secret Race". So far the first part has been very informative background info about life in the racing scene back then. Some races and names I've not heard in a long long time, and most of them people would never of heard of unless you raced back then. It's been pretty hard to put down as, so far, it flows nicely. I've just gotten to the part where he starts taking PED's (in his 3rd year as a pro) at the recently formed U.S. Postal squad (pre-Lance). Interesting....

And it's interesting to see some interviews with other old pro's mixed in, namely a short bit by Andy Hampsten. He essentially says he retired as he could no longer hang due to everyone taking EPO and he didn't want to take it himself.

[Moses Botbol]

Can't wait to read his book. I hope he does a book signing locally. He is originally from my neck of the woods...

[Ray Barnes]

I'm convinced that LA's bike had banned substances (ducks).

[Glenn E.]

And that's the best reason for making sure that even retired athletes like Lance Armstrong are hounded down and confronted - it's a very powerful disincentive (perhaps the best disincentive) for any current athletes given the obvious limitations of testing. Do you want to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life?

What about the statute of limitations? That has expired in some of the cases alleged against Armstrong. USADA claims that the statute was extended because he defended himself against prior charges. Oh... that's an excellent precedent to set. All you have to do is accuse an athlete of something every year, and if they defend themselves then the statute of limitations never expires! BRILLIANT!

No, in this case I think the time has passed. They never should have wasted the money to continue the witch hunt. And frankly the assumption that he's guilty because he stopped defending himself is disgusting. The government tried to make a case and failed. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't exist against LA or the government wouldn't have dropped its case. Which means that whatever USADA has contains significant, reasonable doubts as to its veracity.

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying he's not guilty because it hasn't been proven.

[Ray Barnes]

I share the views expressed elsewhere that refusal to engage in further self defense is not an admission of guilt, overtly or not.

[Andy Velebil]

And that's the best reason for making sure that even retired athletes like Lance Armstrong are hounded down and confronted - it's a very powerful disincentive (perhaps the best disincentive) for any current athletes given the obvious limitations of testing. Do you want to be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life?

What about the statute of limitations? That has expired in some of the cases alleged against Armstrong. USADA claims that the statute was extended because he defended himself against prior charges. Oh... that's an excellent precedent to set. All you have to do is accuse an athlete of something every year, and if they defend themselves then the statute of limitations never expires! BRILLIANT!

No, in this case I think the time has passed. They never should have wasted the money to continue the witch hunt. And frankly the assumption that he's guilty because he stopped defending himself is disgusting. The government tried to make a case and failed. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't exist against LA or the government wouldn't have dropped its case. Which means that whatever USADA has contains significant, reasonable doubts as to its veracity.

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying he's not guilty because it hasn't been proven.

Glenn,

Having now finished reading Tyler's book it mentions some reasons why the criminal case was dropped. Namely and in all probability was for political reasons. Even the investigator wasn't told by his boss the case was going to be dropped until 15 minutes prior to the press release. I can tell you from experience, that means the boss was getting political pressure to drop it and he did. Is that wrong, you bet it's wrong.

What everyone has to remember is USADA is a sporting "trial" and is not bound by any laws other than their own for the sport (and WADA's as well). Yes, maybe not fair but remember there was no rules on this type of thing back then. Their rules about doping are relatively new.

After reading Tyler's book it's very evident that Lance doped and doped big, just like many other pros. Now his house of cards is starting to crumble. Considering his reputation on how he treats people (poorly), the guy deserves everything he gets now. Rumors also have it that Sheryl Crow and his first ex-wife, among others, have talked about his doping to authorities and told all. Should be interesting when that info comes out (USADA has stated they will release some info they have in their case in coming months).