If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sports Illustrated) NewsFlash Lance Armstrong's time in France rubs off as he surrenders to U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, loses Tour titles   (sportsillustrated.cnn.com) divider line 524
    More: NewsFlash, United States Anti-Doping Agency, United States, International Cycling Union, Floyd Landis, U.S. Agent, Tour de France, blood doping, EPO  
•       •       •

4115 clicks; posted to Sports » on 23 Aug 2012 at 11:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

524 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-24 12:09:06 AM

Sgygus: Lance's last Tour win was July, 2005. Seven years ago. This whole sorry mess reeks of politics.


THIS! FARKING THIS!
 
2012-08-24 12:09:35 AM
Like everyone else in this thread, I have no idea if he doped or not. But for those that are saying he doped, how can you possibly know? You can't. He passed all his drug tests, and you know damn well if there was any clear-cut evidence, the French would have been all over it. Instead, we're relying on arseholes like Floyd Landis for the truth? He's hardly an impartial witness.

At what point are your accomplishments no longer worth fighting for? There has to be a point where you just want to spend your time with your family and friends and not have to worry about this stuff any more. I think Lance has gotten there.
 
2012-08-24 12:10:09 AM

Your_Huckleberry: consider this: USADA has at least 10 witnesses ready to testify against him and blood samples consistent with blood doping.

Blood samples? I thought all this was based on the witness testimony, which if why I found it odd he'd give up after passing all those drug tests
. I dunno. On one hand, I can see where he would be sick of everyone from the French to that obsessed Nowisky guy coming after him year after year and just gave up. But then, he's fought this long, why not keep going?
I personally got tired of hearing about him all the time (Outside Magazine and Mens Journal seemed obsessed with him for years) and I'm not defending him or anything, but this whole thing does carry an Ahab/Moby DIck crazy vendetta vibe going. Like no matter, what, they were going to get this guy. Wierd.

JohnBigBootay: I_Hate_Iowa: How was he the only one who wasn't caught? He was the most-tested athlete in the world for a while. Why are they suddenly railroading him with witness testimony instead of blood? Don't they hold onto samples like the Olympics' anti-dopers? If they have witnesses that can say what exactly he was using, then they should be able to test for exactly that.

I assume you know that all those confirmed dopers passed many test themselves, right? And they have lance's old samples. Lance is trying to make sure you don't hear the expert testimony that those samples are consistent with doing. But mostly I think, and this is conjecture, he doesn't want you to hear Georges testimony. He's thrown everyone else under the bus already but George won't lie and lance knows it.

Is the testing so much better now or something? I'd assume it is. But do ...uh...'they' keep everyone's samples or just those they want to nail down the line when testing gets better? I admit I've tuned a good deal of this out over the years, struck me as the supercharged version of the "hype them up!Tear them down!" deal, but one of the few detailed articles about Armstrong I read was a couple months ago in Mens Journal and there was no mention of this George person, but like I said, I'm no expert.


Just google George Hincapie. He was on every team and considered to be his number one lieutenant and extremely loyal and honest to a fault. Never tested positive for anything either. He certainly has no reason to lie about lance and every reason to lie for lance. Anyway, that's whose testimony I want to see.
 
2012-08-24 12:10:21 AM

apachevoyeur: Seriously? Seven years after his last Tour? Blood shows up with evidence of doping now? I call bullshiat.


He last raced in the Tour de France in 2010.
 
2012-08-24 12:10:40 AM

apachevoyeur: consider this: apachevoyeur: Over 500 hundred tests and no sign of doping.

Well except the blood samples in the hands of the USADA that show doping.

Seriously? Seven years after his last Tour? Blood shows up with evidence of doping now? I call bullshiat.


Hey, f*ckwit.

ARMSTONG COMPETED IN THE TDF IN 2009 AND 2010.


Perhaps you'll see that point now.

The USADA has samples from those years and claim that they show evidence of blood doping.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:01 AM

kliq: My headline would have been, "Armstrong to eat Crow."


Heh, again? :P I like it.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:06 AM

Sgygus: jekostas: The USADA has the samples from those years and has said they're definitely consistent with blood doping.

Yes, I remember this! The Tour threw his ass out of the race.

/no they didn't


I don't suppose it's possible that they came up with a test that shows masking agents or things they were not previously able to test for. No, science never progresses.
 
2012-08-24 12:11:27 AM
well the new winners of those 7 tour de frances get it easy. how will they prove they didnt cheat?
 
2012-08-24 12:11:29 AM
That guy has some ball to put out a statement like that.

Seriously, though, he fought back from cancer, he fought to win seven Tour de France titles, and he won't fight this? Yeah, I don't buy it.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:28 AM

JohnBigBootay: You think they're gonna post a bittorrent for you an hour later?


Cyclists have been busted with failed blood tests and the public has known the full details within hours of the cyclist being told they were caught. There's been no "We have something, but we're not saying what, so give up or else". The whole point to the tests is you can remove the human element, either someone passes, or they fail. If they fail, then that's that. Afterwards they can file an appeal. But you don't go around saying you have a failed drug test and try to string people along. The rules say that if you fail a test, that's it. You ask for a test of your B sample and then you can lodge an appeal, but if you fail a test, any expectation at privacy is out the window. You're busted, and everyone gets to find out that you're busted and just what you were busted with.
 
2012-08-24 12:12:43 AM
I had a weird epiphany about the whole thing in that I realized that since they were all doping, he was the best of all the dopers, so theoretically he is still the best. it was an odd realization, in that it made me respect him more in a retarded way, because I think he deserves to be shamed for it.
 
2012-08-24 12:13:20 AM
Did you dope?
No.
Did you dope?
No.
Did you dope?
I'm not talking about this anymore.
A ha! He's guilty!
 
2012-08-24 12:13:41 AM

jekostas: apachevoyeur: consider this: apachevoyeur: Over 500 hundred tests and no sign of doping.

Well except the blood samples in the hands of the USADA that show doping.

Seriously? Seven years after his last Tour? Blood shows up with evidence of doping now? I call bullshiat.

Hey, f*ckwit.

ARMSTONG COMPETED IN THE TDF IN 2009 AND 2010.


Perhaps you'll see that point now.

The USADA has samples from those years and claim that they show evidence of blood doping.


Excuse me, arseface, 7 years since his last Tour WIN. The USADA is stripping him of his wins... not his losses.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:18 AM

apachevoyeur: Sgygus: Lance's last Tour win was July, 2005. Seven years ago. This whole sorry mess reeks of politics.

THIS! FARKING THIS!


You seem like you know a lot about this.
 
2012-08-24 12:14:42 AM
Suck it Lance. Take your fraud ass and go somewhere else. Back in the day, everyone knew you were a doper when you were riding for Subaru Montgomery. LeMond was right about you all along. Suck it again doper. DOPER!
 
2012-08-24 12:15:25 AM

jekostas: claim that they show evidence of blood doping.


If they had the evidence back then, that should've been the end of it. Declare he failed a test and handle things from there.
 
2012-08-24 12:16:25 AM
This is really surprising. Wow
 
2012-08-24 12:17:27 AM

consider this: Your_Huckleberry: Blood samples? I thought all this was based on the witness testimony, which if why I found it odd he'd give up after passing all those drug tests

There are two allegations against him, blood doping to boost red blood cell count and transfusions to eliminate banned substances.


Interesting. All I had heard of was the witness testimony. But I wonder:

jekostas: Sgygus: Lance's last Tour win was July, 2005. Seven years ago. This whole sorry mess reeks of politics.

Lance last competed in the TdF in 2009 and 2010 and placed pretty well in both instances. The USADA has the samples from those years and has said they're definitely consistent with blood doping.


From 09 and 10? What about the years he won? And if they have him dirty in 09 and 10, I suppose that warrents a lifetime ban and said ban negates anything prior?

JohnBigBootay: Your_Huckleberry: consider this: USADA has at least 10 witnesses ready to testify against him and blood samples consistent with blood doping.

Blood samples? I thought all this was based on the witness testimony, which if why I found it odd he'd give up after passing all those drug tests
. I dunno. On one hand, I can see where he would be sick of everyone from the French to that obsessed Nowisky guy coming after him year after year and just gave up. But then, he's fought this long, why not keep going?
I personally got tired of hearing about him all the time (Outside Magazine and Mens Journal seemed obsessed with him for years) and I'm not defending him or anything, but this whole thing does carry an Ahab/Moby DIck crazy vendetta vibe going. Like no matter, what, they were going to get this guy. Wierd.

JohnBigBootay: I_Hate_Iowa: How was he the only one who wasn't caught? He was the most-tested athlete in the world for a while. Why are they suddenly railroading him with witness testimony instead of blood? Don't they hold onto samples like the Olympics' anti-dopers? If they have witnesses that can say what exactly he was using, then they should be able to test for exactly that.

I assume you know that all those confirmed dopers passed many test themselves, right? And they have lance's old samples. Lance is trying to make sure you don't hear the expert testimony that those samples are consistent with doing. But mostly I think, and this is conjecture, he doesn't want you to hear Georges testimony. He's thrown everyone else under the bus already but George won't lie and lance knows it.

Is the testing so much better now or something? I'd assume it is. But do ...uh...'they' keep everyone's samples or just those they want to nail down the line when testing gets better? I admit I've tuned a good deal of this out over the years, struck me as the supercharged version of the "hype them up!Tear them down!" deal, but one of the few detailed articles about Armstrong I read was a ...


Guilty conscience or did someone roll him? I could see where his testimony would be a game changer.
 
2012-08-24 12:18:14 AM
I don't know who to believe in this until I see the evidence. Honestly I don't care enough either way, but so far its just been Armstrong saying he didn't and USADA saying he did based on so called evidence that they haven't shared yet and witness statements. Which eh. Either way its a clusterfark for this sport.
 
2012-08-24 12:21:41 AM

Jumpthruhoops: Did you dope?
No.
Did you dope?
No.
Did you dope?
I'm not talking about this anymore.
A ha! He's guilty!


It went more like this:

Did you dope?
No
This evidence says you did, and the world will find out about it tomorrow.
I QUIT
 
2012-08-24 12:22:08 AM
I'm pretty sure someone just copied one of the Penn State threads and did a find/replace on "Joe Paterno" and "child rape" with "Lance Armstrong" and "doping."

Hero worshippers gonna hero-worship.
 
2012-08-24 12:22:59 AM

Your_Huckleberry:
From 09 and 10? What about the years he won? And if they have him dirty in 09 and 10, I suppose that warrents a lifetime ban and said ban negates anything prior?


Maybe, maybe not, I don't pretend to understand how the USADA works.

However, physical evidence that Armstrong did dope and 10 eyewitness accounts from previous years does not exactly paint a very positive picture.
 
2012-08-24 12:23:21 AM

cameroncrazy1984: will find out about it tomorrow.


That's where the rub is, if they have proof of a failed blood test, why wasn't it made public as soon as they had it? That's how it usually is done, you get the results, inform the athlete, then release the results to the public.
 
2012-08-24 12:23:54 AM

Dr. Steve Brule: I'm pretty sure someone just copied one of the Penn State threads and did a find/replace on "Joe Paterno" and "child rape" with "Lance Armstrong" and "doping."

Hero worshippers gonna hero-worship.


If a biker isn't doping, he's not really trying. Is wussy sports whats the itser bitser baby wants?
 
2012-08-24 12:23:54 AM
Sounds to me like Lance insulted some petty USADA bureaucrat.

You lose, Armstrong!

/never underestimate low-paid vindictive shiats with a lot of power
 
2012-08-24 12:24:37 AM
I guess he just decided it was time to take his ball and go home.
 
2012-08-24 12:24:49 AM

Dr. Steve Brule: I'm pretty sure someone just copied one of the Penn State threads and did a find/replace on "Joe Paterno" and "child rape" with "Lance Armstrong" and "doping."

Hero worshippers gonna hero-worship.


Pretty much. Who cares about this dimwit anyway? Wow, he can ride a bike fast and only has one ball.

OMG WE MUST DEFEND HIM AGAINST THE NAYSAYERS!

Screw Lance Armstrong. He's no hero to anyone but people with pretty screwed-up ideals.
 
2012-08-24 12:25:24 AM
So, since 1990 how many tour titles have been stripped now?
 
2012-08-24 12:25:46 AM

consider this: the USADA has data from 38 blood samples that are consistent with doping.


Per the rules, one test is enough to kick him on his ass. Per the spirit of the rules as soon as they had that first result, it should've been all over. Tell Armstrong, put out a press release, go from there.
 
2012-08-24 12:25:57 AM
I still think he's innocent. Sure he had help, it's called a team. They all support 1 rider.
 
2012-08-24 12:26:41 AM

Sgygus: Sounds to me like Lance insulted some petty USADA bureaucrat.

You lose, Armstrong!

/never underestimate low-paid vindictive shiats with a lot of power


And US government funding. Your tax dollars paid for this pile of crapola.
 
2012-08-24 12:27:18 AM
Your tax dollars at work.

The USADA should not exist.
 
2012-08-24 12:27:32 AM
Hates to say "I told you so", but...
i28.photobucket.com

I do think the agency should be required to show some evidence before formally stripping Lance of the TDF titles, but I am having a really hard time believing that he would give them up simply because he was "tired of fighting the doping allegations". That just doesn't pass the smell test.

Lance, I am disappoint.
 
2012-08-24 12:27:36 AM

WhyteRaven74: cameroncrazy1984: will find out about it tomorrow.

That's where the rub is, if they have proof of a failed blood test, why wasn't it made public as soon as they had it? That's how it usually is done, you get the results, inform the athlete, then release the results to the public.


This

Sgygus:
Sounds to me like Lance insulted some petty USADA bureaucrat.
You lose, Armstrong!
/never underestimate low-paid vindictive shiats with a lot of power


And that 
 
2012-08-24 12:27:44 AM
I feel vindicated.
 
2012-08-24 12:28:20 AM
Whether or not he is guilty of doping, this kind of scandal casts a dark pall over sports and brings down our heroes rather than edify the athletes of tomorrow.
 
2012-08-24 12:28:38 AM
nascarcasm @nascarcasm

Hey everyone - our long national nightmare is over. Lance Armstrong had been stripped of his Tour De France titles. You're safe now.
 
2012-08-24 12:28:46 AM
Michael Phelps can still smoke a bowl and swim circles around this guy anyway.
 
2012-08-24 12:30:15 AM
Regarding the 2009/2010 samples, what does "fully consistent with doping" mean? And why would someone with the microscope on him take that risk? It doesn't add up.

If the USADA had something solid on Armstrong, why would they not state: "we found specific chemicals in his blood samples that are banned as performance enhancing drugs". And maybe "And we were too farking dumb to find them two and three years ago".
 
2012-08-24 12:30:26 AM
LI_ESTRONG
 
2012-08-24 12:30:33 AM

cc_rider: i28.photobucket.com


Funny thing is, I think he still as the record, unofficial though it is, for most powerful legs ever measured for a Tour cyclist.

Also, I'm pretty sure this guy is safe

www.triathlonbusiness.com
 
2012-08-24 12:31:43 AM

jekostas: Your_Huckleberry:
From 09 and 10? What about the years he won? And if they have him dirty in 09 and 10, I suppose that warrents a lifetime ban and said ban negates anything prior?

Maybe, maybe not, I don't pretend to understand how the USADA works.

However, physical evidence that Armstrong did dope and 10 eyewitness accounts from previous years does not exactly paint a very positive picture.


Oh come on. Those ten guys just must be jealous. Don't you have a smarmy sort of successful guy at your work? Wouldn't you like to take that guy down a peg? Of course you would, the smug bastard getting all the chicks and making all that money. Well, here's what you do. You just find ten of your buddies - it's ok if a couple of them are dirtbags - and get them to agree to lie to federal prosecutors about something this guy did. Just say he did something he didn't do. It'll be easy. Oh stop it - don't tell me you can't find ten guys to lie in a deposition. It's easy.
 
2012-08-24 12:31:51 AM

apachevoyeur: And we were too farking dumb to find them two and three years ago


If drug technology in sports is anything like drug technology at your local seedy convenience store, they're usually at least that far ahead of anyone involved with enforcement. It always takes years for the coppers to dig what's up in the streets, man.
 
2012-08-24 12:32:17 AM
1- Does the USADA have any physical evidence of his juicing?

2- Does the USADA have any witnesses that haven't lied about their own use of PEDs?

3- What does it say that the world cycling governing body, the UCI, was backing Armstrong's attempts to shut down the USADA's efforts?

4- What does it say that the judge who denied Armstrong's case questioned the USADA's motives on this matter on Monday? "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote. (from ESPN.com)

I don't know what to think here. All I know is that there's something really rotten going on here. Whether it's Armstrong having cheated all along and fooled everybody in the process or it's the USADA having a case with more holes in it than swiss cheese... I don't think we'll ever know.
 
2012-08-24 12:32:28 AM

jekostas: Your_Huckleberry:
From 09 and 10? What about the years he won? And if they have him dirty in 09 and 10, I suppose that warrents a lifetime ban and said ban negates anything prior?

Maybe, maybe not, I don't pretend to understand how the USADA works.

However, physical evidence that Armstrong did dope and 10 eyewitness accounts from previous years does not exactly paint a very positive picture.


You're right about that.

Still, getting him for 09 and 10 (and not the years he won) kind of has that 'getting Capone for tax evasion and not murder' feel. Gets the job done, but not as flashy. I bet there are quite a few people out there that oh-so-want positive proof those titles are dirty.
 
2012-08-24 12:32:51 AM

Sgygus: Sounds to me like Lance insulted some petty USADA bureaucrat.

You lose, Armstrong!

/never underestimate low-paid vindictive shiats with a lot of power


Yeah, that's the ticket.

Forget that he had testicular cancer, a known effect of long-time doping.

Forget that his own teammate years, Floyd Landis, was found guilty of doping.

Forget that there were questionable samples in Armstrong's past.


This is all because some desk jockey at the USADA wanted to take Armstrong down because he had a vendetta.

Do you realize how retarded you sound?
 
2012-08-24 12:33:07 AM

Confabulat: Michael Phelps can still smoke a bowl and swim circles around this guy anyway.


what if it were a bike race in the pool though???
 
2012-08-24 12:33:54 AM

contrapunctus: Anyone genuinely upset about something like this is an utterly clueless moron who's not paying attention to the world we live in.

We all talk a good game about how "it's not whether you win or lose..." but we all know deep down that that's grade A bullshiat. The rewards we bestow upon sports winners are so excessive that it's not even remotely surprising that many of them cheat. The difference between a winner and a loser on the national stage can be measured in millions of dollars. If Usain Bolt left London with silver medals, his earning potential would be quite different right now.

So Armstrong cheated better than anyone in a field of cheaters. BFD.


That's my problem with this. Every goddamned one of the guys he raced against was doping too. Every single guy in the sport now still is.

It's gotten to the point where if you want to win the Tour De France, you aim for second, because the guy who comes in first gets extra scrutiny, somebody finds a positive test, and since you don't get everybody hunting for fault with your tests for those years, the title sticks with you.

And I'm supposed to care? You didn't catch him the first time around. Get over it and move on. There's a reason real laws usually have statutes of limitation for everything but the most major crimes. Acknowledge that everybody cheated, and try to fix it in the future.

I have the same attitude with Baseball, for the record. Maybe keep the earliest group of big name dopers out of the hall- Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, Clemens, but let the rest in like normal. Don't strip records or change results. Those things verifiable happened, and they don't go away because of that. Stripping wins and crap like that always reminded me of 1984- editing the past to fit the narrative you want rather than what actually happened. Make a note of the circumstances in the history books and move the fark on.
 
2012-08-24 12:34:29 AM

Confabulat: Michael Phelps can still smoke a bowl and swim circles around this guy anyway.


Pot isn't a PED unless there's a giant Hershey bar at each end of the pool (cheerfully stolen from Robin Williams)
 
2012-08-24 12:34:30 AM

thisiszombocom: Confabulat: Michael Phelps can still smoke a bowl and swim circles around this guy anyway.

what if it were a bike race in the pool though???


I'd smoke up and watch that.
 
Displayed 50 of 524 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report