By no means am I saying doping is acceptable. But making this big case about it and publicly stripping him of his wins is like a public scape goating. Just put an asterisk beside his name in the history books and call that decade the 'doping decade' and move on trying to clean up your sport, not condemn the guy who arguably made your sport interesting to people who otherwise dont care

An asterisk is not enough.

You can't for one moment acknowledge the achievements through cheating. It doesn't matter if others are cheating; it doesn't matter if everyone is doing it too. You're the one who got caught; most likely because you're the guy who has the most attention.

The Lance Armstrong case is as simple as that, to me at least.

This to me is a bit of a damage control move from the sport trying to rebuild its reputation from the days when entire teams would be thrown out of the Tour, most of the contenders were dq'd during the Tour, for doping. The UCI is sending the message to the public and to racers that if they are willing to throw the book at Lance, arguably the biggest name in cycling over the past 25 years, they are willing to hold everybody else accountable. We'll see if they follow through on this.

Ironically Lance is actually the one who avoided getting caught all these years. And to this day there is still not a 100% confirmed positive test that he was doping.

Just because he founded a charity, doesn't mean he won the Tours for a charitable cause. He wasn't thinking "I have to resort to doping so I can win these races for a charitable cause". Let's not kid ourselves, if Lance didn't win his 7 Tours, he wouldn't be enjoying the fame and success that he has. Yes he beat cancer, but if he was just some middle of the pack rider after beating cancer, it would make a nice story but he would largely be forgotten.

Many are willing to cut him some slack because of the good he has done as a result of his success. At this point he's gone too far to publicly admit that he lied and doped. If he had done so earlier, he would have faced his punishment and most would have forgiven him by now. IMO you absolutely must separate Lance the doping cyclist and Lance the charitable philanthropist.

I'm quite surprised that he was undiscovered throughout his 7 year reign. I'm pretty oblivious to his trial and doping charges, but the fact that he wasn't called on it, or was successfully charged, with doping during those years doesn't sit right to me. I don't know. Either he really is innocent or the investigators are crap?

well there are the hundreds of tests he's passed and the trials against him that he's won.....

this time he's just stopped fighting back

that's the other thing too. he has never actually failed a drug test ( there are rumors of one or 2 that were covered up and some funny business with a test in 99 tho). this whole thing is completely based on circumstantial evidence. overwhelming evidence or not, there has been no documented failed test.

Person A kills person B in a room with 10 random people who witnessed the murder and clearly identified who person A is. He escapes but it is later caught, lets just say there is no physical evidence at the crime scene that proves he committed the crime except the 10 witnesses. Is he innocent because theres no physical evidence?

Numerous witnesses testifying Lance Armstrong cheated...His Discovery team and Radio Shack teams both testified.

Witnesses provide testimonial evidence. You don't need physical/documented evidence to prove someone is guilty.

^what if Person A has 10 other people who say he was with them at the time of the crime? What if 10 other people also witnessed the murder and clearly identified Person C as the killer?

^^^ not exactly accurate to the case at hand

you'd have to add that there was blood on the scene from the murderer and it doesn't match the suspects blood

there's the fact that the suspect has been tried in court for the murder and he's won the cases multiple times

there's the fact that the eyewitness testimony is called into question due to credibility and witness motives (they're testifying exempts them from prosecution)

etc etc etc

hard evidence vs hearsay

unless the suspect is Black and being tried in the USA he'll more than likely be found not guilty ;)

blood/urine tests are YES or NO. your blood cant lie and say no but be proven to be yes via witness accounts. its yes or no.

murder cases generally don't have a test as simply accurate as yes or no.




its like if someone is driving down the road and is pulled over and given a breathalizer and blows a 0.00 and then is hauled to the station and blows a 0.00 again. even if the person in the passenger seat swears the driver drank 24 beer an hour earlier, and there is a receipt in the guys pocket for 24 beer, he still blew a 0.00 and therefore is not intoxicated. you can't give that guy a DUI just to prove a point.

There's a strong belief that whatever Lance was on was untraceable at the time of testing, that he was able to stay a couple of steps up on the testing procedure. It's not like he was only on 1 PED his whole career. Once they get close to being able to test for whatever he's on, he'll be on something new and another couple of years away from being detectable. If they don't know what they are testing/looking for, how can there be a 'positive' test?

So this is where the rest of the testimonial evidence comes in, the fact that the doctor he was working with was renowned for doping, etc etc.

So who wins the 7 tittles then?.. If the next runner up is also doping, and the next 80 riders are also doping. ........

No one gets to inherit the titles, they just remain as years with no winners.

if it walks like a duck, quackes like a duck, it's a duck...

Lance has given up the chance to defend himself...so Im wondering why u guys are doing it for him?

except it doesn't a handful of people are saying it looks like a duck you could easily describe those people as schizophrenic as they're seeing something that isn't there or hallucinating because based on dna testing its not a duck ;)

If you relate your case to Lance Armstrong's, the person in your case has found a way to beat the breathalyzer just like how Armstrong found a way to beat getting caught by blood doping tests.

There are many ways to not get caught blood doping and one is via autologous tranfusions (ie. a procedure in which blood is removed from a donor and stored for a variable period before it is returned to the donor's circulation).

The point is Armstrong beat the tests but there is simply too much testimonial evidence from too many people. The fact that he gave up defending himself just solidifies USADA's case even more.

Eleven of his former teammates testified. A continued relationship with a doctor known for helping athletes cheat (Michele Ferrari). USADA has financial records of Armstrong paying that doctor, what else could he be paying him for?

really? he should stand there and take another 10 years of their shit?

if i was him and lets say i was actually innocent (i'm not saying he is or isn't), i'd probably hold up 2 middle fingers and tell them to fuck themselves too.

seems like the USADA already made up their minds...it wasn't a matter of him being guilty or not, it was a matter of trying to force him to fess up to it. the whole situation is just a big pile of poo.

i'm not sure which i'm more sick of hearing these days, the BS from cycling or the BS from boxing.

I can't imagine that would be cheap. He could spend his life savings in legal fees to prove his innocence, is it worth it? "Congratulations! You cleared your name, now file for bankruptcy!"

http://t.qkme.me/3q2cos.jpg

he's gotta pay legal fees during this entire circus act?

in that case not only would i stop fighting it if i was him, i'd tell them to go suck on whichever nut he has left too

Okay, explain to me the 11 testimonies from his former teammates? His relationship with a doctor known for assisting athletes in doping? Why risk that? He lost a nut not a brain.

I'll respond to what you're saying though. From all accounts of Lance Armstrong he's a very competitive athlete who does not give up. Who does whatever it takes to win. Why give up if he's innocent? His net worth is estimated at $125 million, I really don't think money is the issue. If it was the issue, I think losing his endorsements with Nike and whoever else is the same if not more then what his lawyer fees would be.

sure, rationalize it that way.

If he really wasn't guilty; I'm sure retaining all his titles, contracts, organizations and sports endorsements wouldn't have yielded a better return than just surrendering them all in lieu of lesser legal expenses.

On another note: Although I'm already far skeptical with today's charitable organizations, if he really did believe in himself; and/or if he really did believe in his charity, I'm sure he would've fought "false allegations" all the way in the name cancer research; not just as Lance "the 7 time TDF winner"


The guy is beat; and he folded. And it's not like it's just the USADA is out for a witch hunt. It's his own team/teammates that are calling him out too.




Let's put it this way. If I had the chance to cheat on my doctorate or bar exam for a chance at a luxurious life; would my being charitable somehow justify cheating my way to success?

Or is the sympathy for Lance purely just for the lore of a man who beat cancer and won tournaments thereafter?

I have no emotional attachment to Armstrong, cycling, doping, his charities, or cancer. Im simply offering an other side of the coin perspective.

Hell, Im as certain he cheated as you guys saying he did are. But like you, I don't have any solid proof he did.


As for him 'giving up his fight' its like if you're getting bullied and told you're gay every day for 13 years and every day you say "no Im not" After a while you just get tired of defending yourself and find new people to hang out with or make a youtube video or whatever.

(I'm gonna thank your post because I completely understand your argument; and will just retort in as objective a manner as possible)


I don't buy it. At least my common sense and deductive reasoning won't allow me to.


Firstly, this guy made a name for himself by remaining strong in the face of adversity. He was "supposedly" an inspiration because he was strong enough not just to beat cancer but to be a world class elite athlete in addition.

However, (if he really is legit) facing false accusations and public rumors, he conveniently doesn't have the strength to fight that?




Secondly, this isn't just like your "bullying" example where surrendering means that all you have to endure is "a label" like being gay. In Lance's context, surrendering also means he's giving up what he stood for; what he was inspiring people to be. If he really is legit, his decision is then a discredit to the "Live Strong" movement/philosophy/organization.

If Armstrong really had a case for himself, the UCI would have backed him up in that fight as well, and I presume would have taken care of a good portion of his legal fees.