Lance Armstrong - well ... damn

[Edward64]

Wonder what he took and how he hid it. Probably a designer drug that only more recent tests were able to detect?

Armstrong faces lifetime ban, loss of 7 Tour titles after dropping doping charges fight | Fox News

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency chief executive Travis Tygart says the agency will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles for doping.

Armstrong on Thursday night dropped any further challenges to USADA's allegations that he took performance-enhancing drugs to win cycling's premier event from 1999-2005.

Armstrong says USADA doesn't have the authority to vacate his Tour titles. However, Tygart told The Associated Press that USADA can do it.

Tygart called the Armstrong case a "heartbreaking" example of a win-at-all costs approach to sports.

[sabotai]

Here's a longer article on it

Armstrong Won’t Fight USADA Charges | Keeping Score | TIME.com

And Lance Armstrong's statement about it

Lance Armstrong

[cartman]

Here's what the judge said in dismissing Armstrong's lawsuit against the USADA, which led to Armstrong's decision to not go to arbitration:

"Federal courts should not interfere with an amateur sports organization's disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules," Sparks said. "To hold otherwise would be to turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little."

Sparks also cautioned that "the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern."

"Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder," he said. "First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration."

Almost predicting there will be more legal battles in different venues, Sparks found "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA' s apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."

"Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum," Sparks said. "The issue is further complicated by USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's proceeding — a wrinkle which does not change the court's legal analysis, but only confirms that these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this court."

Sparks had no desire to intervene in the fight between cycling and drug-testing authorities in a case that cites offenses going back 14 years.

"As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal — the regulation and promotion of cycling," Sparks said. "However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts."

[Young Drachma]

Vacating wins is the stupidest thing ever. No matter what sport.

[bhlloy]

It is when there's probably not a clean cyclist in the whole damn sport - at least at the time Armstrong won his titles.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Vacating wins is the stupidest thing ever. No matter what sport.

I agree. He gets to keep the most important thing-money.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

It is when there's probably not a clean cyclist in the whole damn sport - at least at the time Armstrong won his titles.

This.

[stevew]

Liveweak

[MrBug708]

This is him basically pleading no contest

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I agree. He gets to keep the most important thing-money.

I think USADA claims that it should get its grubby hands on prize money, too.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

This is him basically pleading no contest

So, how are we to respond?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

This is him basically pleading no contest

Or it could be construed that he feels the USADA has already made up its mind, no matter what happens in arbitration. Which would likely be in their favor, since they get to pick the arbitrator.

[Izulde]

Side note: Does anyone besides me keep reading the title as Louis Armstrong?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'd say this is more along the lines of Armstrong deciding "y'know, life is too short. I'm retired, so fuck 'em"

People are most likely going to believe what they already believe - barring anything new anyway - so the research most likely showed Armstrong that he would remain marketable & at this point he's decided that's more important than investing any more energy in fighting it.

[miami_fan]

So who is the drug cheat that will be punished next week?

[chadritt]

What does the USADA gain from him being deemed a cheat in arbitration?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cartman

Or it could be construed that he feels the USADA has already made up its mind, no matter what happens in arbitration. Which would likely be in their favor, since they get to pick the arbitrator.

+1

If you know what the outcome of the rigged game is going to be, why continue to spend money at that table?

That was basically the whole point of going to court. "Help, I'm being railroaded." "Yeah, you maybe are, but even if I intervene, they're just going to railroad you a different way, so whatever the case, why don't you two just figure it out on your own?"

At that point, might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat.

[MrBug708]

Would have made a hell of a LF for the giants too

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by chadritt

What does the USADA gain from him being deemed a cheat in arbitration?

POWERGRAB!!!

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Would have made a hell of a LF for the giants too

Ah the comparisons between the Bonds case and the Armstrong case. Fun times.

[Raiders Army]

I can only think of one thing right now.

Originally Posted by Lance Armstrong

Hey, aren't you Peter La Fleur?

Originally Posted by Peter La Fleur

Lance Armstrong!

Originally Posted by Lance Armstrong

Ya, that's me. But I'm a big fan of yours.

Originally Posted by Peter La Fleur

Really?

Originally Posted by Lance Armstrong

Ya, I've been watching the dodgeball tournament on the Ocho. ESPN 8. I just can't get enough of it. Good luck in the tournament. I'm really pulling for you against those jerks from Globo gym. I think you better hurry up or you're gonna be late.

Originally Posted by Peter La Fleur

Uh, actually I decided to quit... Lance.

Originally Posted by Lance Armstrong

Quit? You know, once I was thinking of quitting when I was diagnosed with brain, lung and testicular cancer all at the same time. But with the love and support of my friends and family, I got back on the bike and won the Tour de France 5 times in a row. But I'm sure you have a good reason to quit. So what are you dying of that's keeping you from the finals?

Originally Posted by Peter La Fleur

Right now it feels a little bit like... shame.

Originally Posted by Lance Armstrong

Well, I guess if a person never quit when the going got tough, they wouldn't anything to regret for the rest of their life. Well good luck to you Peter. I'm sure this decision won't haunt you forever.

[Thomkal]

Or there really could be actual evidence that the USADA has now that shows Armstrong cheated and he knows that and doesn't want it revealed. So he stops fighting them so the evidence does not come out and ruin his reputation and legacy for ever.

Of course he's never failed a drug test, he's been investigated by the US government and others and they chose not to pursue it, so it could be a witch hunt by the USADA.

[Ksyrup]

It's cycling. Who cares? This won't affect Armstrong's "legacy" where it matters - the US - because his legacy is cancer research and overcoming the odds. It's not cycling.

We actually care about baseball, so that's why Bonds and Clemens and others get so much shit. Armstrong participated in a largely overseas sport that was big once a year and that no one here really follows or cares about. He's probably known more for being Sheryl Crow's ex than for being a cyclist. This really isn't a big deal.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It's cycling. Who cares? This won't affect Armstrong's "legacy" where it matters - the US - because his legacy is cancer research and overcoming the odds. It's not cycling.

We actually care about baseball, so that's why Bonds and Clemens and others get so much shit. Armstrong participated in a largely overseas sport that was big once a year and that no one here really follows or cares about. He's probably known more for being Sheryl Crow's ex than for being a cyclist. This really isn't a big deal.

While I tend to agree that his cancer research overcomes some (a lot?) of his doping legacy (if its true that he did it), just because the sport involved is not a popular one here in the US, doesn't mean he should receive less scorn and condemnation because of it. He was an incredible athlete winning 7 Tour De Frances, and certainly inspired a certain amount of young people to try the sport and compete professionally in it.

If he cheated it doesn't matter which sport or if everyone else was doing it-he made the choice to cheat and he should be right up there with Bonds and Clemens in that regard.

[Ksyrup]

But who cares? I think I have the typical US citizen's opinion on the sport of cycling, and that is EVERYONE cheats. It's like a sport made up of nothing but Barry Bonds's. The sport is really not legitimate to begin with, since they don't seem to have any semblance of a handle on the drug issues in the sport.

Throw on top of all of that what appears to be a witch hunt (he's out of the sport, isn't he?) and the fact that he's passed so many tests over the years, and I have a hard time working myself up about this. Heck, even if he came out and admitted it I wouldn't care. Dude was among the best cyclists ever, he got cancer, he came back. He still did those things - hell, just finishing the Tour de France once after battling cancer is a pretty inspiring story. So if you strip out the wins and dominance, that still remains.

But still... it's cycling.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by britrock88

POWERGRAB!!!

That's how I read. They aren't really viewed as a legit org in cycling so this is their showcase.

I believe Lance probably cheated along the way, but also think he probably could have won if he'd really wanted to fight it.

Also - how do they strip an international cycling title from him? Wouldn't that come from the French?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

But who cares? I think I have the typical US citizen's opinion on the sport of cycling, and that is EVERYONE cheats.

Maybe that's the typical *sports fan's* view, but I think the typical citizen's view is that it's that sissy, irrelevant little game they do in France every so often, a bit like the Iditarod or the olympic biathlon.

The bigger effect of this might be on the foundation, which regardless of your views on LA personally, has done a lot of good.

[Ksyrup]

I just don't see it. The cancer survivor persona has completely overriden his cyclist persona. People will mostly see them as unrelated. It's not like Barry Bonds, where he will always be identified as a baseball player first, no matter what he does (unless he pulls an OJ, I guess). And there's so much clutter in this story that people can choose to believe whatever they believe, to the extent this issue is even relevant to them.

I think for him, this was an easy decision because there was no upside to him going through this process. Now, you can say that's because he was guilty, but it appears he was going to be found guilty either way. So why do it?

[Bobble]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Side note: Does anyone besides me keep reading the title as Louis Armstrong?

"Hey, I was the first man to walk on the moon. You can't take that away from me!"

[kmbgolf]

bill giffords piece in the mag called outside,gives some good info on his so called charity

[kmbgolf]

bill giffords piece in the mag called outside,gives some good info on his so called charity

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor....html?page=all

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Maybe that's the typical *sports fan's* view, but I think the typical citizen's view is that it's that sissy, irrelevant little game they do in France every so often, a bit like the Iditarod or the olympic biathlon.

The bigger effect of this might be on the foundation, which regardless of your views on LA personally, has done a lot of good.

His success and Live Strong campaign did a lot to increase the popularity of road cycling in the US and as a side effect, triathlons. You think back 10-15 years or so and there were hardly any serious bikers on the roads. Now you see pelotons on the weekend.

[nilodor]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

+1

If you know what the outcome of the rigged game is going to be, why continue to spend money at that table?

That was basically the whole point of going to court. "Help, I'm being railroaded." "Yeah, you maybe are, but even if I intervene, they're just going to railroad you a different way, so whatever the case, why don't you two just figure it out on your own?"

At that point, might as well be hung for a sheep as a goat.

Totally agree. Him dropping fighting the doping allogations does not change my stance on whether he used PED's or not. I still don't know I probably won't ever know if he did or not.

[Ksyrup]

The other thing is, this isn't some recent allegation. This has been in his shadow for almost as long as he's been in the public eye. So to some extent, the doping taint has already been baked into people's perception of him for years. And I think enough people generally distrust some European attempt to discredit him winning THEIR sport that people will discount it as likely untrue, in addition to the favorable view of him for the whole cancer survivor thing.

[ISiddiqui]

I always thought he was doping (I mean it's cycling), so not really a shock.

[korme]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Side note: Does anyone besides me keep reading the title as Louis Armstrong?

No because this is a sports website

[korme]

I can't believe so many people are defending him like he didn't cheat. He did. Who cares, but don't be silly.

[molson]

I don't think the people that think/assume he cheated care that much, but the real pro-Lance believers are definitely out in full force - just according to facebook and twitter. I don't have any feelings about the guy but he has a really, really intense and loyal fanbase.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by korme

I can't believe so many people are defending him like he didn't cheat. He did. Who cares, but don't be silly.

+1

[MIJB#19]

Just curious: what would happen if we replace "Lance Armstrong" with "Michael Jordan" or "Wayne Gretzky"? I realize that basketball and hockey don't have the 'everybody is drugged' perception like cycling and baseball have, but would that have changed the whole 'guilty' until proven otherwise sentiment that goes around in this thread?

[Ksyrup]

Is that sentiment limited to just this thread?

It seems to me that in most other cases, there is some real, rumored, or anecdotal evidence that people will point to as confirming the athlete as guilty until proven otherwise. Here, it's almost totally (again, from a typical US citizen perspective) the sport itself that serves as the indictment. I have no idea why this has even come up again. What is their evidence, and why does that override what I believe is hundreds of samples he's given over more than a decade? I seem to recall something about an old, controversial specimen they had. Is that still the evidence?

Since hist sport is dirty as hell and all the top riders seem to have been implicated at one point or another, and he regularly beat all of them, it stands to reason he was doing what they did. But I have no idea what actual evidence there is of that, other than he wears tights and rides a bike professionally.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by korme

I can't believe so many people are defending him like he didn't cheat. He did. Who cares, but don't be silly.

that's where I'm at as well.

[molson]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Just curious: what would happen if we replace "Lance Armstrong" with "Michael Jordan" or "Wayne Gretzky"? I realize that basketball and hockey don't have the 'everybody is drugged' perception like cycling and baseball have, but would that have changed the whole 'guilty' until proven otherwise sentiment that goes around in this thread?

I think with bigger stars there's more of a witchhunt. The case against Armstrong goes back a lot of years, that SI article last year spelled it out pretty convincingly. Accused athletes love to talk about the "guilty until proven innocent" sentiment, but it's a red herring, there's no definitive truth-revealing procedure here. People can have different opinions based on the info we have, which will always be inconsistent and will never really prove anything either way. But nobody's rushing to judge Armstrong. This has been going on forever.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I think for him, this was an easy decision because there was no upside to him going through this process. Now, you can say that's because he was guilty, but it appears he was going to be found guilty either way. So why do it?

Because you're NOT GUILTY. But I guess when you cheat your way to 7 Tour titles, you lose your principles a bit.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Just curious: what would happen if we replace "Lance Armstrong" with "Michael Jordan" or "Wayne Gretzky"? I realize that basketball and hockey don't have the 'everybody is drugged' perception like cycling and baseball have, but would that have changed the whole 'guilty' until proven otherwise sentiment that goes around in this thread?

If it was pretty much a fact that you needed to dope to win in hockey or basketball, then no

[cartman]

The letter from Armstrong's attorney to the USADA spells out why he declined arbitration with the USADA.

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/...ock-letter.pdf

[spleen1015]

How does the USADA have the authority to take his titles away from him?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Because you're NOT GUILTY. But I guess when you cheat your way to 7 Tour titles, you lose your principles a bit.

But if the whole process is slanted to where NOT GUILTY would never be the outcome, what would he gain by going through a process and having GUILTY splashed all over the world?

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How does the USADA have the authority to take his titles away from him?

POWERGRAB!!!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How does the USADA have the authority to take his titles away from him?

They don't. They're trying to assert an authority they don't have to improve a joke of a reputation at the expense of an athlete the French have been trying and failing for years to take down.

Did he dope? Maybe. Dunno. But the USADA lacks jurisdiction on the matter.