Lance Armstrong

You are welcome to continue believing all of that Sylus.

However, the 1999 test keeps coming up because of the illigal way it was made to "go away":
The prescription was retrospective. Illegal.
The cortisone was not declared on LA's prior medical use declaration. Therefore he was liable for its illegal use. Somehow he persuaded the UCI to allow him to use the illegal retrospective prescription for an undeclared medical use for a drug known to be used to aid recovery and future performane.

Tazio":m8x7ux86 said:

It may have just got really bad for him. Perjury now being brought up from a court case a while back.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705

Click to expand...

Regardless of anything Armstrong himself may have done, Hamilton's well-known past record means that in that list of statements made under oath there are at least two big fat fibs. Oops.

David

sylus":2ycg4iv2 said:

........In truth the USDA have always hated the fact that Lance was successfull in his field in a way the usda have never been sucessfull in theirs

They have hated Lance from day 1 and even to the point of trying to get him after he has retired they still want to stick it to him

The usda themselves have shown themselves to be inadequate as a testing body both by science and by public relations, so bad in fact that they have painted thereselves into a corner and are trying to cover up there embarrasment by bullying, blustering,piss and wind tactics on a retired champion...........

Click to expand...

Or perhaps he is guilty.

One of my current favourites, though it would have been even better if they'd changed the title to Chainspotting.

grahame":2z0pqhj7 said:

One of my current favourites, though it would have been even better if they'd changed the title to Chainspotting.

Click to expand...

I wasnt really intending to post again on this thread but I have to say that I am unsure as to whether I am more disgusted at whichever idiot has time on their hands to design such a pointless poster.....or Grahame for deciding to share it with us all.

I am sorry but guilty or not, I find this a step too far.

As I said last night, everyone will have their own opinion and there is quite a bit of arrogance in the world!

Oh, come on... have you read the report for yourself? My own previous personal opinion of the man, formed by reading his own words, was that he was unbearably arrogant and self-congratulatory. It's clear he wishes to be held in other people's esteem as a god. I'm sure his ego should be able to handle that little poster...

What I find interesting about Armstrong is the very careful phrasing of so many of his public statements and denials of wrongdoing - if you read carefully, he is usually avoiding making any direct refutation of specific allegations.

While the report is quite compelling reading, it just reinforces my previous opinion of the sport - it's just pure pointless vanity. I have the same opinion of pretty much all high-level spectator sports - can't stand any of them really. I love cycling because I love getting out in the fresh air, pushing myself a little bit sometimes, enjoying the scenery sometimes, going somewhere under my own steam. It's a great pastime, way of keeping fit for the deskbound worker or a useful means of transport - but if you've dedicated the best part of your life to going faster than other people on particular days and getting public recognition and little medals for it, you've wasted your time and energy in my opinion.

As LA fans have pointed out, but drawing the opposite conclusion - precisely what is important here is the palmares and the stature of Lance Armstrong. This is why it has to be done. An example has to be set and a line has to be drawn.

I read the entire reasoned decision - and started the appendices instead of being a sensible adult and going to bed at a sensible time.

What the USADA has to prove is that no matter how big and successful you are, how long ago you did it, or how successful you may have been covering it up by intimidation or other means, that you are not immune from being found guilty of cheating and that if you are arrogant enough to take it to the levels involved here, that you WILL be brought down.

Yes, they've been after Lance for years.
Yes, they're making a sacrificial offering of him.
Yes, there are plenty of others who have escaped the same treatment.

But please excuse me if I don't feel any sympathy for what he's done.

And frankly, the UCI needs to fire some top management.

The irony here is

they are after a man who has retired but they have still banned him for life for all competitive competitions that they control or have an input with

how are they after him?

by using the testimony of people who are self confessed drug cheats who they have allowed to continue professionally racing to the end of the season when ..in exchange for testimony..they will recieve only a 6 month ban

This is where I feel the witch hunt has most of it's basis. Was this about catching and punishing drug cheats as an example to all and to clean up the sport...then those witness's should have been banned for life immediately

I think whilst Lance may be the witch they want to burn, it's quite clear that the uci have made judgements based on money income rather than correctness and the usda will bring the sport into more disrepute than any individual by continually washing the dirty washing in public without caring who gets in the crossfires

I have no doubt the biggest loser will be professional cycling and not some retired multi multi millionaire

No.

It is precisely because organisations like USADA are not prepared to let it drop that this is a GOOD thing for the sport of cycling.

Once people know that if they cheat, it will come out. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday. And their ill-gotten gains will be wiped out. Maybe then they will start to realise that cheating is not worth it.

Dopers not only cheat the viewing public, but they steal. That's right, they are theives. Stealing prize money and titles from clean competitors.

This report and the ban for LA are good things for our sport. My only disagreement is with the discount on the bans for the confessed cheats. A reduction from 2 years to 6 months seems overly generous to me. 12 months would seem fairer.

We wait to see if the UCI has the commitment and integrity to do the right thing (require the resignation of McQuaid, drop the lawsuit of Kimmage, redouble the effort against the cheats, reform the sport, lead a clean version of cycling with zero tolerance of cheating and theft.)

Miss Money Penny - my disappointment at your comment is as nothing to my disgust at the antics of LA that are coming out into the public eye, and to the willful ignorance of the LA accolytes who continue to defend him in the face of all the evidence.

I fear this is now going to turn into mud-slinging at personal level.

Please prove me wrong.