Lance Armstrong doping ?

PJ_Soul

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21115720

Wobbie

pdalowsky wrote:

Now I keep hearing this rumour about a very high profile tennis player and that it will blow up soon .. That would shatter my Illusions

a chick with very big biceps?? :?

musicismylife78

polaris_x wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

The only reason any of those guys admitted it, was because they were subpeoned. Had they not been, I have no doubt they and Lance would still be denying it.

what you fail to understand here is that yes - these guys were subpoenaed and gave testimony ... but this is what is key:

1. they could have all pleaded the 5th like mcgwire
2. all these guys stopped doping a looooooong time ago ... on their own ... not from being caught but because they made that choice
3. lance was still doping in 2009/2010 during his comeback when most riders were clean ... his audacity to bring up his wife and tell further lies is even more astonishing ... we already know that his wife used to run drugs for him ...

and again - you are free to judge him how you see fit ... my only point is that you judge him with all the appropriate facts ... it just seems like you are cherry picking to suit your purpose ... the main thing is that you keep referring to his doping as a necessity and the focus when we've already explained that people aren't disgusted by him not because he chose to dope in a time of rampant doping but because of how he acted as a human being ... again - bullying, ruining people's lives, bribing officials, threatening sponsors and journalists, exploiting cancer for personal gain despite being mega rich, and now continuing to lie to the world as he's done the better part of his adult life when he's being given an opportunity to come clean ... in the face of all that is in front of him - he continue to exhibit the behaviour of someone with entitlement issues, no remorse or a victim ...

I disagree. I assume his teammates were put under extreme pressure to tell what they knew. Tyler hamilton only admitted he doped once subpeoned. He lied repeatedly and doped since 1997. He doped also was doing in 2009 as well. The only thing that changed about Hamiltons situation was the subpeona.

They couldnt have pleaded the 5th like mcgwire. The entire team was under investigation. In mcgwires case it was only himself under investigation. You dont think they told Hamilton-"we know about Landis, we have hincapie saying you all doped, we have Leipheimer and Barry, we will go easy on you if you tell what you know about Lance". I think thats exactly what happened. They already had evidence on those guys, so its not like they could deny it.

Hamilton denied it just as long as lance did. I see now reason why he would have suddenly reversed 14 15 years of denials and changed his mind without significant pressure on him.

Its hard to tell when all these guys stopped doping. Landis came back during the 2009-2010 seasons. Hincapie was vague about his use. Hamilton failed a test in 2009, so we know he was doping until the end there.


Its like copping to a lower plea in the justice system. If you admit your guilty, you get a lesser sentence. Most of those guys got 6th month bans.

musicismylife78

also I dont buy the idea that hamilton, landis, leipheimer, or anyone else, whether its Basso, or Ulrich or Contador, they didnt just quit because they felt like it. All were exposed as dopers. All of them doped. You cant quit doping on your own out of the goodness of your heart, then get caught failing a test. That obviously means you didnt quit.

They may have quit it once they were caught, but it wasnt the idea that it was wrong. Thats the whole point of it all. Why would they quit prior to being caught? Every single person I listed viewed it exactly the way lance did, you needed to dope to keep up with the peloton and to put yourself in contention to win the Tour.

What makes it tricky is the cover up by the higher ups in cycling. Thats the discrepancy you point out. Everyone knew these guys were doping and failing drug tests. Everyone knew it was going on, but no one exposed it or called it out. Thats why you have someone like Vande Velde stripped of victories from 04-06, but it only coming to light as a result of the Reasoned Decision, and Vande Velde's reputation remained intact all those years. The idea that he doped didnt come out until all the subpeonas and testimony happened last year.

If the whole systems corrupt and everyones doping why report it during those years? Why tell anyone who could do anything about it? Thats the whole point. It was sanctioned and allowed to occur by the powers that be in cycling just as the powers that be in the MLB allowed steroid use to occur.

The fact that so many dopers were top riders only streghtens that idea. If the only dopers are guys who place 100th, or hit 5 home runs a year, it really doesnt matter. But if the dopers are future Hall of Fame candidates and are finishing near the top every year, and hit 60 homers a year, and are the face of the sport, then you have a problem. And instead of doing something about it, both the MLb and the cycling world acted criminally.

musicismylife78

id like to see serious litigation against cycling officials and MLB officials who knowingly hid the doping of athletes all those years.

That should be the next course of action.

Its like the bankers or something. So far, all these athletes have gotten exposed. Thats fine, but behind them, and allowing it to happen, or winking and turning a blind eye to it all were millionaire CEO's and buisnessmen and commissioners and officials, who tacitly allowed all this to happen out of greed.

You want to talk psychologically and mentally sick and disturbed? that to me is. Selig should be thrown in jail for what he did, or rather did not do. Theres something going on in your brain if you know your sport is dirty, and that all your top athletes are cheating to win, and your response to it is to sit on your hands. Thats gross

You think about what you could have done, exposed the cheating in your sport, exposed these athletes prior to the mitchell report, you could have made the drug tests 100 times harder and more accurate. Instead you sat back and did nothing.

Same goes for all those cycling big wigs.

Shame on them.

musicismylife78

what explanation is there for lance getting 3rd and then 25th place in 2009 and 2010? How can you go from being the clear winner for 7 years, then seeming to fall so far behind? I know what the reasoned decision says about his blood results looking consistent with doping, but how do you explain him not winning? He clearly had the system figured out, and doping was working for him like gangbusters those 7 tours. Did those 3 or 4 years away from the Tour just hurt him or something?

Theres no doubt the guy does indeed train like a maniac, despite his doping. Riding 90-100 miles a day on off days and to relax, which is pretty insane actually.

I do think he is a athletic obsessive, and gym rat, always training and doing something active and physical.

polaris_x

musicismylife78 wrote:

what explanation is there for lance getting 3rd and then 25th place in 2009 and 2010? How can you go from being the clear winner for 7 years, then seeming to fall so far behind? I know what the reasoned decision says about his blood results looking consistent with doping, but how do you explain him not winning? He clearly had the system figured out, and doping was working for him like gangbusters those 7 tours. Did those 3 or 4 years away from the Tour just hurt him or something?

Theres no doubt the guy does indeed train like a maniac, despite his doping. Riding 90-100 miles a day on off days and to relax, which is pretty insane actually.

I do think he is a athletic obsessive, and gym rat, always training and doing something active and physical.

you can always plead the 5th ... you can tell these guys weren't doping when they said they weren't because of the things i pointed out ... their metrics ...

he finished 3rd in his comeback year because he doped ... he was already 38 at that time (4 years after his last tour) ... pretty old to win a grand tour and not being a full time cyclist ... so, he doped and finished 3rd ... he finished 25th the year after because he crashed ... and he was another year older ... he finished as high as he did because he doped ...

and going back to the other guys ... garmin sharp was not being investigated ... some key people on that team were subpoenaed based on testimony of floyd landis and hamilton because they rode with lance all those years ... there are a lot of guys who were also subpoenaed but did not respond ... if subpenaing someone is all that needs to happen - they would have just done that with lance ...

in any case - you do have the part about the corruption in the governing body correct ... it definitely needs to be exposed and the guy holding that magic key right now is lance ... it's why he will not testify under oath - he's still got a lot of lies and a lot of covering up ...

musicismylife78

polaris_x wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

what explanation is there for lance getting 3rd and then 25th place in 2009 and 2010? How can you go from being the clear winner for 7 years, then seeming to fall so far behind? I know what the reasoned decision says about his blood results looking consistent with doping, but how do you explain him not winning? He clearly had the system figured out, and doping was working for him like gangbusters those 7 tours. Did those 3 or 4 years away from the Tour just hurt him or something?

Theres no doubt the guy does indeed train like a maniac, despite his doping. Riding 90-100 miles a day on off days and to relax, which is pretty insane actually.

I do think he is a athletic obsessive, and gym rat, always training and doing something active and physical.

you can always plead the 5th ... you can tell these guys weren't doping when they said they weren't because of the things i pointed out ... their metrics ...

he finished 3rd in his comeback year because he doped ... he was already 38 at that time (4 years after his last tour) ... pretty old to win a grand tour and not being a full time cyclist ... so, he doped and finished 3rd ... he finished 25th the year after because he crashed ... and he was another year older ... he finished as high as he did because he doped ...

and going back to the other guys ... garmin sharp was not being investigated ... some key people on that team were subpoenaed based on testimony of floyd landis and hamilton because they rode with lance all those years ... there are a lot of guys who were also subpoenaed but did not respond ... if subpenaing someone is all that needs to happen - they would have just done that with lance ...

in any case - you do have the part about the corruption in the governing body correct ... it definitely needs to be exposed and the guy holding that magic key right now is lance ... it's why he will not testify under oath - he's still got a lot of lies and a lot of covering up ...

the subpeona obviously had an impact on his teammates. Nearly every single one was given a 6 month ban, a clear indication that they were offered deals, or lesser sentences as a result of their coming forward. Secondly, few if any had ever come forward before. They indeed could have pleaded the 5th, but they obviously knew the investigation was massive and had gathered tons of information on the doping on the team.

we are just now getting word that sheryl crow was also a unnamed witness in the reasoned decision. So I think all these guys, his teammates knew what was up. Had the investigators gone in half ready, and not had the evidence I dont think they would have said a word. I dont consider Landis, Hamilton or anyone else named in the report honest or forthcoming. They lied repeatedly and for years.

I dont consider his teammates any less culpable or dishonest than Lance himself. Just because as Oprah put it to Lance, "the wolves are at the door" and you tell the truth, as Landis, Hamilton and others did, then you tell the truth. Seemed like thats what went on with nearly every single one of his teammates that also doped. Lets be clear I dont think they were speaking out for the good of cleaning up the sport and telling the truth. They were saving their own skin.

In fact it could be argued Hamilton came forward, less for telling the truth, and more for paying lance back for things like the Colorado restaurant incident and the years lance treated Hamilton like dirt. Hamiltons career was nonexistant at that point. It was ruined. And in fact he had at first flat out refused to talk to the prosecutor initially. It was only after being subpeoned that he spoke out.

You underestimate the power of a subpeona and being forced to testify. Its a powerful thing.

polaris_x

i get your reasoning but it's based on some assumptions that aren't necessarily true ...

1. despite your reservations of landis, hamilton et al. they have all testified under oath ... now, that is something that used to be pertinent until lance had the audacity to lie ... coincidentally, his statute of limitations on perjury on that matter ended recently ... yes, those guys lied for years ... and there credibility is open for debate but they have at least put themselves in the position that if they were found to lie - they would all face prison time ... something lance isn't prepared to do right now ...

2. the thing with a bunch of his ex-teammates is that they have been the most vocal opponents to doping ... if you read vandevelde's testimony or even someone like zabriskie ... it's gut wrenching ... ya - these guys doped and they admitted it but they all stopped not because they were caught but because they didn't want to and had a way out ... the sport was changing ... teams like garmin took a stance and there was a home and the culture started to change ... the only thing that didn't was the omerta ... so, despite cycling cleaning itself up - the cyclists kept quiet ...

3. again - if a subpoena is all one needs ... why hasn't lance had to testify under oath to any of the multiple investigations against him?

PJ_Soul

If they'd just stop at stop signs...

Bathgate66

PJ_Soul wrote:

If they'd just stop at stop signs...

this is especially true in Manhattan !

musicismylife78

polaris_x wrote:

i get your reasoning but it's based on some assumptions that aren't necessarily true ...

1. despite your reservations of landis, hamilton et al. they have all testified under oath ... now, that is something that used to be pertinent until lance had the audacity to lie ... coincidentally, his statute of limitations on perjury on that matter ended recently ... yes, those guys lied for years ... and there credibility is open for debate but they have at least put themselves in the position that if they were found to lie - they would all face prison time ... something lance isn't prepared to do right now ...

2. the thing with a bunch of his ex-teammates is that they have been the most vocal opponents to doping ... if you read vandevelde's testimony or even someone like zabriskie ... it's gut wrenching ... ya - these guys doped and they admitted it but they all stopped not because they were caught but because they didn't want to and had a way out ... the sport was changing ... teams like garmin took a stance and there was a home and the culture started to change ... the only thing that didn't was the omerta ... so, despite cycling cleaning itself up - the cyclists kept quiet ...

3. again - if a subpoena is all one needs ... why hasn't lance had to testify under oath to any of the multiple investigations against him?

I dont think cycling is cleaned up. Maybe its better than it was in 2002, but cyclings reputation currently as the most dirtiest sport I think is well deserved. I see no major effort on the part of people who could actually do something to clean it up-the officials and head honchos of cycling to do things like-toughen drug tests, do a zero tolerance policy-if you get caught you get kicked out.
And certainly it wasnt cyclists that cleaned up the cycling world. Everyone had a role to play, the athletes role is to honestly compete without cheating, and the cycling bodies and governments job is to make sure cheaters arent rewarded, let go, given a pass, and that any cheater is exposed and weeded out inmediately. Both entities failed miserably. I see no effort on behalf of the governing bodies of cycling to want to deal with cheating in cycling on a wider scale than one rider and one team. In my opinion they should go after cyclists who cheat like they have with lance. Across the board. Contador should have been treated this way. Hamilton too.

Wiggins hasnt been accused of doping, but i dont think im unique in wavering between wanting to watch the tour and not wanting to watch for fear of putting trust in an athlete who has doped or cheated. And thats not just all on Lance, thats cycling as a whole, and everyone in charge of it, from the governing bodies to the UCI to whoever.

You are making assumptions when you talk about why people did things. Its just as true to say all his teammates went under oath and testified because they were cut deals and lesser sentences and punishments. The fact their admitting to doping after years of denials and lies, happened to coincide with the case against Lance, this isnt coincidence. I think his teammates felt cooperating with the authorities was wiser than continuing to deny, not neessarily to expose cheaters and clean the sport up, but more so to save their own skin and not have as harsh a penalty as they ordinarily would. Hamilton lied for 13 or 14 years. Why suddenly change your mind? I think he knew the evidence against him and Lance and everyone else was overwhelming.

Its as i said, its common for defendents to cop a plea so as to reduce their sentence. You cop to involuntary manslaughter instead of murder and the judge and jury may give you a lighter sentence. Same with Hamilton and Lance's other teammates. By going under oath and testifying and giving information, they were more than likely thinking they'd get better deals and sentences than if they rode it out to the end denying everything. Its not like Hamilton and the others are bastions of transparency and openness.

I also think the increased pressure by the public on cheating in cycling, exposing cheaters, and in sports in general, played a part in them cooperating with the investigation. They knew it wasnt going away, and they knew it was a serious investigation that had uncovered massive amounts of damning evidence linking them and the team to the doping scandal. The fact Lance was the leader only heightens this aspect, because the investigators can use that as leverage, "i'll go lighter on you, if you tell us all you know about Lance".

Wobbie

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/internatio ... 3qur2ceDYL

polaris_x

musicismylife78 wrote:

I dont think cycling is cleaned up. Maybe its better than it was in 2002, but cyclings reputation currently as the most dirtiest sport I think is well deserved. I see no major effort on the part of people who could actually do something to clean it up-the officials and head honchos of cycling to do things like-toughen drug tests, do a zero tolerance policy-if you get caught you get kicked out.
And certainly it wasnt cyclists that cleaned up the cycling world. Everyone had a role to play, the athletes role is to honestly compete without cheating, and the cycling bodies and governments job is to make sure cheaters arent rewarded, let go, given a pass, and that any cheater is exposed and weeded out inmediately. Both entities failed miserably. I see no effort on behalf of the governing bodies of cycling to want to deal with cheating in cycling on a wider scale than one rider and one team. In my opinion they should go after cyclists who cheat like they have with lance. Across the board. Contador should have been treated this way. Hamilton too.

Wiggins hasnt been accused of doping, but i dont think im unique in wavering between wanting to watch the tour and not wanting to watch for fear of putting trust in an athlete who has doped or cheated. And thats not just all on Lance, thats cycling as a whole, and everyone in charge of it, from the governing bodies to the UCI to whoever.

You are making assumptions when you talk about why people did things. Its just as true to say all his teammates went under oath and testified because they were cut deals and lesser sentences and punishments. The fact their admitting to doping after years of denials and lies, happened to coincide with the case against Lance, this isnt coincidence. I think his teammates felt cooperating with the authorities was wiser than continuing to deny, not neessarily to expose cheaters and clean the sport up, but more so to save their own skin and not have as harsh a penalty as they ordinarily would. Hamilton lied for 13 or 14 years. Why suddenly change your mind? I think he knew the evidence against him and Lance and everyone else was overwhelming.

Its as i said, its common for defendents to cop a plea so as to reduce their sentence. You cop to involuntary manslaughter instead of murder and the judge and jury may give you a lighter sentence. Same with Hamilton and Lance's other teammates. By going under oath and testifying and giving information, they were more than likely thinking they'd get better deals and sentences than if they rode it out to the end denying everything. Its not like Hamilton and the others are bastions of transparency and openness.

I also think the increased pressure by the public on cheating in cycling, exposing cheaters, and in sports in general, played a part in them cooperating with the investigation. They knew it wasnt going away, and they knew it was a serious investigation that had uncovered massive amounts of damning evidence linking them and the team to the doping scandal. The fact Lance was the leader only heightens this aspect, because the investigators can use that as leverage, "i'll go lighter on you, if you tell us all you know about Lance".

oh dear ... so, let me get this straight ... you stopped following cycling for a while now ... and yet you are basically going to assume all that you assume ... you disagree with me based on assumptions ... whereas i am telling you things as someone who has continued to follow cycling and reads up on the subject ... have you read the affidavits of these cyclists? ... i suppose i am making assumptions but at least it is based on reading what they have said not based on how i want to rationalize it in my head ...

yeah hamilton lied all these years and his credibility is shot ... but at least he voluntarily gave up his olympic medal which has to say something ... but i find it strange that you are hell bent on defending lance, the person who has exhibited the least amount of remorse ...

anyways - all i suggest to you is that you get all the facts ... as much as it may hurt you to do so ...

musicismylife78

polaris_x wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

I dont think cycling is cleaned up. Maybe its better than it was in 2002, but cyclings reputation currently as the most dirtiest sport I think is well deserved. I see no major effort on the part of people who could actually do something to clean it up-the officials and head honchos of cycling to do things like-toughen drug tests, do a zero tolerance policy-if you get caught you get kicked out.
And certainly it wasnt cyclists that cleaned up the cycling world. Everyone had a role to play, the athletes role is to honestly compete without cheating, and the cycling bodies and governments job is to make sure cheaters arent rewarded, let go, given a pass, and that any cheater is exposed and weeded out inmediately. Both entities failed miserably. I see no effort on behalf of the governing bodies of cycling to want to deal with cheating in cycling on a wider scale than one rider and one team. In my opinion they should go after cyclists who cheat like they have with lance. Across the board. Contador should have been treated this way. Hamilton too.

Wiggins hasnt been accused of doping, but i dont think im unique in wavering between wanting to watch the tour and not wanting to watch for fear of putting trust in an athlete who has doped or cheated. And thats not just all on Lance, thats cycling as a whole, and everyone in charge of it, from the governing bodies to the UCI to whoever.

You are making assumptions when you talk about why people did things. Its just as true to say all his teammates went under oath and testified because they were cut deals and lesser sentences and punishments. The fact their admitting to doping after years of denials and lies, happened to coincide with the case against Lance, this isnt coincidence. I think his teammates felt cooperating with the authorities was wiser than continuing to deny, not neessarily to expose cheaters and clean the sport up, but more so to save their own skin and not have as harsh a penalty as they ordinarily would. Hamilton lied for 13 or 14 years. Why suddenly change your mind? I think he knew the evidence against him and Lance and everyone else was overwhelming.

Its as i said, its common for defendents to cop a plea so as to reduce their sentence. You cop to involuntary manslaughter instead of murder and the judge and jury may give you a lighter sentence. Same with Hamilton and Lance's other teammates. By going under oath and testifying and giving information, they were more than likely thinking they'd get better deals and sentences than if they rode it out to the end denying everything. Its not like Hamilton and the others are bastions of transparency and openness.

I also think the increased pressure by the public on cheating in cycling, exposing cheaters, and in sports in general, played a part in them cooperating with the investigation. They knew it wasnt going away, and they knew it was a serious investigation that had uncovered massive amounts of damning evidence linking them and the team to the doping scandal. The fact Lance was the leader only heightens this aspect, because the investigators can use that as leverage, "i'll go lighter on you, if you tell us all you know about Lance".

oh dear ... so, let me get this straight ... you stopped following cycling for a while now ... and yet you are basically going to assume all that you assume ... you disagree with me based on assumptions ... whereas i am telling you things as someone who has continued to follow cycling and reads up on the subject ... have you read the affidavits of these cyclists? ... i suppose i am making assumptions but at least it is based on reading what they have said not based on how i want to rationalize it in my head ...

yeah hamilton lied all these years and his credibility is shot ... but at least he voluntarily gave up his olympic medal which has to say something ... but i find it strange that you are hell bent on defending lance, the person who has exhibited the least amount of remorse ...

anyways - all i suggest to you is that you get all the facts ... as much as it may hurt you to do so ...

What have I said thats not fact? Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they didnt read the reasoned decision. You made a huge assumption, in that you said lance was a complete jerk but seem willing to view the 11 teammates as somehow paragons of good. In reality, they lied for just as long as lance did, and only came forward once they were offered clear deals that would reduce their possible sentences. You make quite an assumption when you argue everyone of those 11 came forward not to save their own skin, which is exactly what happened, but to rid the sport of cheating, something that hadnt crossed their mind at all prior.

Its as I said the day he confessed. In some narrow minded folks eyes, you cant have a conflicted view of things. You can say you hate cheating and want the cycling officials who allowed this to go on to go to jail, and that any cheater should be exposed and banned, but when you say you feel conflicted about lance somehow Im defending cheating and lying and bullying. Its silly.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem willing to ignore facts and continually support and defend 11 of his teammates who are known liars and cheats. The facts are indeed in the reasoned decision.

They came forward to get better deals. Period.

Wobbie

musicismylife78 wrote:

Its like the bankers or something. So far, all these athletes have gotten exposed. Thats fine, but behind them, and allowing it to happen, or winking and turning a blind eye to it all were millionaire CEO's and buisnessmen and commissioners and officials, who tacitly allowed all this to happen out of greed.

agreed......shit always, always, always runs downhill :x

polaris_x

musicismylife78 wrote:

What have I said thats not fact? Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they didnt read the reasoned decision. You made a huge assumption, in that you said lance was a complete jerk but seem willing to view the 11 teammates as somehow paragons of good. In reality, they lied for just as long as lance did, and only came forward once they were offered clear deals that would reduce their possible sentences. You make quite an assumption when you argue everyone of those 11 came forward not to save their own skin, which is exactly what happened, but to rid the sport of cheating, something that hadnt crossed their mind at all prior.

Its as I said the day he confessed. In some narrow minded folks eyes, you cant have a conflicted view of things. You can say you hate cheating and want the cycling officials who allowed this to go on to go to jail, and that any cheater should be exposed and banned, but when you say you feel conflicted about lance somehow Im defending cheating and lying and bullying. Its silly.

I could say the same thing about you. You seem willing to ignore facts and continually support and defend 11 of his teammates who are known liars and cheats. The facts are indeed in the reasoned decision.

They came forward to get better deals. Period.

for one they have not lied as long as lance has ... read up the definition of lying ... show me an instance when david zabriskie, jonathan vaughters or christian vandevelde lied about doping since 2005 ... and how can you say they didn't want to rid the sport of cheating when they decided to either form or be part of a team that is the most vocal against doping ... a team that started a movement in cycling that commits their team and riders to a level of doping standards that are stricter than wada's? ... those are facts

and again for the umpteenth time - it isn't about lance cheating ... how many times does one have to say that? ... you keep harping on everyone else cheated ... it's secondary as to why lance is an asshole ... he's an asshole because of how he treated people, how he exploited cancer for personal gain, for how he ruined people's lives and for continuing to lie to people despite the hurt he's caused ...

SatansFuton

I don't watch Entertainment Tonight, but Sheryl Crow did an interview last night and I was reading about it today. It sounds kind of funny. Apparently she kept repeating all this crap about honesty being the best thing, and the truth will set you free, etc.... then refused to answer whether or not she knew about Lance's doping.

RKCNDY

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ba ... 14537.html

Wobbie

I just watched the interview....two things:

altho I don't think lance was completely forthcoming (and may have even lied some more), I like him more than I did before.

I'm a cancer survivor and wear a livestrong bracelet. I took it off for a while but it's back on. I never wore it as a tribute to lance...I wear it to remind people of the insidious disease it represents.