Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[eddy]

 

*of couse livestrong is in existence solely for Lance's vanity / to sifon off money bla bla bla, right?

 

So it is true, if you hang around the internet long enough you will eventually find an accurate statement....

[GrumpyOldGuy]

He was not planning to race for the prize money. So what does it achieve? - oh ja it achieves a "screw you and your foundation* Lance".

 

Convicted rapists and child molestors are not barred from participating in what is a mass participation event, but Lance Armstong running for his foundation - perish the thought.

 

As I said, childish.

 

*of couse livestrong is in existence solely for Lance's vanity / to sifon off money bla bla bla, right?

 

Its a bit of a double edged sword, so lets turn it around a bit and say should a convicted child molester be allowed to participate / teach / train youngsters at school? even if they have paid their debt to society and happen to be very good teachers / coaches etc, maybe they dont even want remuneration.?

 

I would say "No way", and so would most people, there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, maybe it is a little tough on him not been able to participate, but he knows the rules, he knows he was not allowed to go, he knows he would have been asked to leave, but he is pushing the boundaries and working the US public up, basically I see it as him testing the limits, sometimes he will get away with it, sometimes he wont.

[SwissVan]

You raise an interesting point. I thought about it over the weekend. At first, you'd imagine that such a ban covers elite competition. But, don't USADA and other doping rules apply to all athletes - professional and amateur?

 

Do they also apply to those who came clean, fessed up, hung their luandry out to dry, admitted to cheating or got caught and served a penalty of some sorts?

 

TBH i think its a bit optermistic of LA to expect to be allowed to compete in any sanctioned type of athletic event under the present circumstances still "under investigation"

[dracs]

Its a bit of a double edged sword, so lets turn it around a bit and say should a convicted child molester be allowed to participate / teach / train youngsters at school? even if they have paid their debt to society and happen to be very good teachers / coaches etc, maybe they dont even want remuneration.?

 

I would say "No way", and so would most people, there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere, maybe it is a little tough on him not been able to participate, but he knows the rules, he knows he was not allowed to go, he knows he would have been asked to leave, but he is pushing the boundaries and working the US public up, basically I see it as him testing the limits, sometimes he will get away with it, sometimes he wont.

taking it to the extreme there. its the hypocrasy. Anyone know if the same ridgid approach has been taken on other athletes? When did Jan Ulrich compete in the Argus?

 

My point is don't keep saying there has been no witch hunt etc and continue to treat the man differently to all others past and present. Contador is hailed as a hero yet was convicted of doping and has shown no remourse - still claiming his 7 grand tours just as armstrong claims his 7 tours. how is it different?

[Tumbleweed]

Do they also apply to those who came clean, fessed up, hung their luandry out to dry, admitted to cheating or got caught and served a penalty of some sorts? TBH i think its a bit optermistic of LA to expect to be allowed to compete in any sanctioned type of athletic event under the present circumstances still "under investigation"

 

I see what you're getting at. I guess it would apply to. They will have served their sanctions, or been given amnesty, etc…LA has been banned for life. On that note, I wonder what'll happen to the Garmin riders Vaughters "outed"?

 

You can understand the Chicago Marrathon peeps' reluctance to admit LA. They'd been in danger of losing their IAAG Gold status.

[Jigghead]

Let me start off by saying that I am very against doping of any knid in sport. It's wrong and I believe that these 2-3 yr bans are nonsense. Doping or any cheating for that matter should carry a lifetime ban from any professional sport. Where an individual, like Armstrong starts to participate in events for charity/fundraising, he needs to justify his participation on those grounds, and still be tested. If still doping, no further participation, even for charities.

 

Results in these events, if won or even placed should be disregarded due to the competitive ban, even if clean. So no prize money, no recognition etc.

 

My thought is this, if everyone in cycling was, as it seems and by the admission of a lot of them, cheating when LA won all his tours and other races, the playing fields were level, so he's still a machine. A cheating machine, but when in Rome..... I still do not agree with it and think that if he was cheating, he should suffer the punishment, but the guy is still a hell of an athlete.

 

I wish he'd pursued his defense, just to expose the evidence (or lack thereof as he claims).

 

He does some awesome work for cancer, I hear he's raised around $250m for research. So, don't ban him from raising funds the only way he knows how, allow him to do it, but don't allow him any medals/recognition. His finishes should be "unofficial", but let him raise the money for those who need it!

 

My 2c, for what it's worth!

[Tumbleweed]

taking it to the extreme there. its the hypocrasy. Anyone know if the same ridgid approach has been taken on other athletes? When did Jan Ulrich compete in the Argus? My point is don't keep saying there has been no witch hunt etc and continue to treat the man differently to all others past and present. Contador is hailed as a hero yet was convicted of doping and has shown no remourse - still claiming his 7 grand tours just as armstrong claims his 7 tours. how is it different?

 

How many other athletes have refused arbitration?

[Lucky Luke.]

taking it to the extreme there. its the hypocrasy. Anyone know if the same ridgid approach has been taken on other athletes? When did Jan Ulrich compete in the Argus?

 

My point is don't keep saying there has been no witch hunt etc and continue to treat the man differently to all others past and present. Contador is hailed as a hero yet was convicted of doping and has shown no remourse - still claiming his 7 grand tours just as armstrong claims his 7 tours. how is it different?

 

Ullrich - only banned (retroactively) this year. He was barred from the tour in 2006 but not banned or sanctioned AFAIK. Retired by choice in 2007.

Contador - missed the tour and served his ban, short and backdated though it was.

Armstrong - caught in-competition at the 1999 TDF for cortisone. Was allowed to continue racing, won it. Caught in-competition at the TDS in 2001. Continued racing and stood on top of the podium. '99 samples retroactively positive for EPO. Nothing came of it. etc etc etc

[dracs]

How many other athletes have refused arbitration?

I don't know, but my question remains, have other sanctioned athletes (from baseall players testing positive for steroids to the grand chess master who was banned for 2 years for refusing to take a drug test) been prevented from doing fun runs during the period their sanctions were effective? Edited September 10, 2012 by dracs

[Lucky Luke.]

I don't know, but my question remains, have other sanctioned athletes (from baseall players testing positive for steroids to the grand chess master who was banned for 2 years for refusing to take a drug test) been prevented from doing fun runs during the period their sanctions were effective?

 

Ok, I'll help you out on this one. Roberto Heras was criminally allowed to race the 2009 Brompton World Champs, which he won. I'm not sure if they controlled him after or not.

 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/399834/heras-crowned-world-champion.html

 

http://cyclingweekly.media.ipcdigital.co.uk/11141%7C00000288c%7Cafc0_Brompton-podium-123.jpg

[eddy]

 

My thought is this, if everyone in cycling was cheating when LA won all his tours and other races, the playing fields were level,

 

 

As attractive as it sounds, that statement is neither scientifically nor logically sound.

 

Dr Ross Tucker of the Sports Science Institute at UCT is widely quoted internationally on this aspect and in this excellent analysis, he points out why, even if everyone dopes, the field is not level. It is well worth the read.

 

http://www.sportssci...oughts-and.html.

 

Briefly LA was more likely the strongest responder to the chemicals, had the biggest wallet to spend on his regime or possibly the highest risk-taker in the doping game.

 

 

 

I hear he's raised around $250m for research.

 

 

Unfortunately, again not true.

 

Despite the good work it does, Livestrong does NOT fund cancer research. It gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005 but stopped even taking proposals for research shortly thereafter.

 

Livestrong is a Cancer Advocacy initiative that “spreads the word” and assists cancer survivors with advice and access to US programs.

 

It spends massively on advertising, PR, and “branding,” all of which helps preserve Armstrong’s marketability at a time when he’s under fire.

 

Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally. So, while Livestrong.org is a “charity, Livestrong.com is a commercial venture with LA and the large media companies as shareholders.

 

Have a quick read on the relationship between LA and Livestrong in this article below.

 

http://www.outsideon...s.html?page=all

 

 

.

[Jigghead]

As attractive as it sounds, that statement is neither scientifically nor logically sound.

 

Dr Ross Tucker of the Sports Science Institute at UCT is widely quoted internationally on this aspect and in this excellent analysis, he points out why, even if everyone dopes, the field is not level. It is well worth the read.

 

http://www.sportssci...oughts-and.html.

 

Briefly LA was more likely the strongest responder to the chemicals, had the biggest wallet to spend on his regime or possibly the highest risk-taker in the doping game.

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, again not true.

 

Despite the good work it does, Livestrong does NOT fund cancer research. It gave out a total of $20 million in research grants between 1998 and 2005 but stopped even taking proposals for research shortly thereafter.

 

Livestrong is a Cancer Advocacy initiative that “spreads the word” and assists cancer survivors with advice and access to US programs.

 

It spends massively on advertising, PR, and “branding,” all of which helps preserve Armstrong’s marketability at a time when he’s under fire.

 

Meanwhile, Armstrong has used the goodwill of his foundation to cut business deals that have enriched him personally. So, while Livestrong.org is a “charity, Livestrong.com is a commercial venture with LA and the large media companies as shareholders.

 

Have a quick read on the relationship between LA and Livestrong in this article below.

 

http://www.outsideon...s.html?page=all

 

 

.

 

 

OK, I'm not an LA fan. But to be honest, their work, although not research related as I thought, is still good (as per this article). They "spotted" a greater need for support funding for cancer sufferers as in their opinion, research was well funded already, with close to $3b coming from only sources already.

 

As far as using the foundation for self promotion is concerned, the foundation exists because he does and as mentioned in the article, when he has been out of the spotlight and out of favor, the income of the foundation has declined. It is therefore in the foundation's interest to continue to promote their reason for existence. Perhaps, if this amount or percentage is not spent, they will be unable to adequately punt the foundation? Who knows, I do not think the author is in a much better position to comment on the need for such expenditure than either of us are.

 

If you look at many charitable organisations set up by companies and well known individuals, they all get some sort of mileage out of their "charitable" work. Be it in the form of tax deductions or positive press (advertising & self promotion), most of them do not do it because they're just a bunch of nice guys. Self enrichment on the website issues is just wrong, the guy has made a bucket of cash and should keep his personal and charitable financial affairs separate.

 

As for the doping "benefits", this is just me playing devil's advocate. I still think some sort of unofficial participation in sporting events needs to be considered in the name of charity, be it Livestrong or any other charity a banned "athlete" attempts to promote.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Jigghead

[Tumbleweed]

Sheryl Crow: No one trained harder than Armstrong

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/sheryl-crow-no-one-trained-harder-than-armstrong

Edited September 11, 2012 by Tumbleweed

[petatodd]

Sheryl Crow: No one trained harder than Armstrong

 

http://www.cyclingne...-than-armstrong

Because he was more doped up he could train harder than anyone. Is that not the point. The dope doesn't always help you go faster. It helps you recover faster.

[Tumbleweed]

Because he was more doped up he could train harder than anyone. Is that not the point. The dope doesn't always help you go faster. It helps you recover faster.

 

Yeah, and as my mate, Willehond, pointed out this morning, how would she know how hard everyone else trained?

[petatodd]

As for the doping "benefits", this is just me playing devil's advocate. I still think some sort of unofficial participation in sporting events needs to be considered in the name of charity, be it Livestrong or any other charity a banned "athlete" attempts to promote.

A bit like Osama Bin Laden was actually a pretty reasonable guy because he gave hope to so many poor and down trodden souls, even though in some eyes he was a mass murderer? It's ok to be evil if you do some good in addition to being evil?

 

No right mind thinking person can actually believe all this justification, can they?