Lance Armstrong... greatest doper there was or ever will be

I thought for a minute this would make Jan Ullrich 'the most winningest tour de France athlete' in history. But I was wrong, he would be tied on 5.

'cept he was pied doped to the gills too.

Armstrongs foundation just spend $185,000 on www.whatever.livestrong so they've got some dollar hanging around...

They should've spent some more on web devs to put a site there...

maybe it is costing them that much to make .livestrong a top level domain.

ah... he's moved from outright denial to the 'Whatever' defence. It's a very strong choice and a good tactical decision.

'So, those 7 TdF titles you won whilst doping... the money you won for doing so, the sponsorship, hiding behind a charity foundation to promote cancer 'awareness' having taken HGH throughout your career and possibly given yourself the disease before continuing to take illegal substances, earning money off of this foundation, using its private jet to fly yourself and your buddies around on non-foundation business, slandering others, bullying people, destroying careers, generally being a total cock... what do you say to this now?'

'I have never tested... I mean, like, whatever'

from twitter:

                    In 2004 Lance **Armstrong** sneezed while sitting at a table next to me and I was immediately able to rip a Houston phonebook in half.

Kids, look at Lance Armstrong. It takes balls to say no to drugs.

Lance Armstrong has once again denied taking drugs but has admitted to pedaling

Since Johan Bruyneel is in the crap too does he get banned from working in cycling?

Apparently so:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-could-face-lifetime-ban-if-usada-charges-are-upheld

I gotta say when I first heard about this I thought just leave, everyone knows he was doping, but everyone was at the time. Stripping him of titles only gives them to someone else who doped, just not as well

Who USADA and the Federal investigation really wanted to nail is probabaly Tailwind Sports who were originally behind all the LA teams.

One reading of the first para of the letter is that if LA had co-operated when invited to give evidence to USADA then he could have had some kind of reduced punishment. i.e. with 10 witnesses corroborating he's fucked anyway so why not give up the Austin mafia?

Apparently so:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-could-face-lifetime-ban-if-usada-charges-are-upheld

I gotta say when I first heard about this I thought just leave, everyone knows he was doping, but everyone was at the time. Stripping him of titles only gives them to someone else who doped, just not as well

The sport needs closure on the wild west years of the 1990s and 2000s and no-one, not least the most successful cyclist of that era, should be immune from prosecution should the evidence surface.

That he was part of a management conspiracy to set up, run and disguise a systematic, team wide doping programme makes it even more important that these charges are raised.

maybe it is costing them that much to make .livestrong a top level domain.

My point was it's devoid of content..

Care of Cycling Tips:

http://www.cyclingtipsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/armstrong1150px.jpg

^^ Interesting.

That's quite interesting.

What's with the white/grey box thought?

the most successful cyclist of that era

Is he now? Is he really? :)

That's quite interesting.

What's with the white/grey box thought?
grey has been busted for doping

Apparently so:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-could-face-lifetime-ban-if-usada-charges-are-upheld

I gotta say when I first heard about this I thought just leave, everyone knows he was doping, but everyone was at the time. Stripping him of titles only gives them to someone else who doped, just not as well

I get what you're saying but you have to consider the culture he helped and encouraged in cycling that led to your riders doping who didn't have his medical experts and either resulted in their deaths or the end of their careers.

Not to mention the fact that all 'the other' dopers of that era he was competing against that you mention, a great number have been caught and punished, and even if all their titles haven't been stripped their names have been tarnished permanently, which is fair enough I reckon.

I look at that era with regret, as it was pretty hardcore in the sheer speed and power the riders showed, but it's more like WWF in the fact that it just isn't a real reflection of the sport, even compared to earlier days when guys definitely cheated but in a more amateurish way that didn't rely on a 200,000 grand a year supply of EPO and a team of blood specialists...

And of all the cynical things in a cynical world, I think the cancer foundation shield mechanism is really just the cherry on the EPO trifle for me so I'll be happy to see him get knocked off his throne once and for all.

The sport needs closure on the wild west years of the 1990s and 2000s and no-one, not least the most successful cyclist of that era, should be immune from prosecution should the evidence surface.

That he was part of a management conspiracy to set up, run and disguise a systematic, team wide doping programme makes it even more important that these charges are raised.

I agree but my hesitancy is where does it end? If you strip Lancey boy of his titles what about Ullrich's, or Pantani's, or Riis'? When Tom Simpson keeled over on the Mount Ventoux his belly was full of amphetamine, do you strip him of his World Championship? Jacques Anquetil was vociferous in his defence of drugs. Aren't there massive doubts over Indurain also?

As Hippy points out, if you strip Lance's titles away from him, who gets them?

I think the most important thing is that it doesn't happen again

I agree but my hesitancy is where does it end? If you strip Lancey boy of his titles what about Ullrich's, or Pantani's, or Riis'? When Tom Simpson keeled over on the Mount Ventoux his belly was full of amphetamine, do you strip him of his World Championship? Jacques Anquetil was vociferous in his defence of drugs. Aren't there massive doubts over Indurain also?

As Hippy points out, if you strip Lance's titles away from him, who gets them?

I think the most important thing is that it doesn't happen again

Ullrich-banned, disgraced, not even allowed to compete in sportives.

Pantani-dead, disgraced, titles tainted.

Simpson is the same really... I think he was a cautionary example for a while after his death and maybe other riders toned it down a bit.

Indurain... well, massive doubts there everywhere outside Spain but he's kept a low profile so i guess people don't focus on him so much.

Riis even winning in '96 was a total joke in itself and everyone knew it. He's publically admitted it though and made a gesture of contrition so i suppose that goes in his favour but imhop he shouldn't be allowed to work in the sport now, and I think the same goes for Johan B.-what values can he teach a young rider?

He's not co-operating with USADA or coming clean so he should be cast out like the others then a line will be definitively be drawn under it.

That's why point: all their wins are tainted but won't be stripped away, but Lance's will? Doesn't sound like cricket to me...

Oh yeah it isn't

They should've spent some more on web devs to put a site there...

maybe it is costing them that much to make .livestrong a top level domain.

My point was it's devoid of content..

Smiff is bang on the money- and they only announced it yesterday, so it won't go live until (minimum) end of Q1 next year.

Prepare youself for:

www.cleanestathleteever.livestrong
www.nevertestedpositive.livestrong
www.7tours.livestrong

etc etc

^^
To be fair, Lance has taken cheating and moved it up a notch to the point he's blamed for starting some kind of nuclear arms race in cycling and actively enforcing compliance in the peloton.

No one you mention stands accused of actually bribing the head of UCI to cover up positive tests, or have profited to the degree Armstrong has from their actions.

Article on this here interviewing Ashenden.

I don't think that's just doping, that's endemic corruption and it all comes from one guy and his entourage.

I think the arms race had been going on for a while, Armstrong was just the most American about it...

What always annoyed me the most about Armstrong wasn't even his doping, just the power politics in the peloton that he practised perfidiously.

I agree but my hesitancy is where does it end? If you strip Lancey boy of his titles what about Ullrich's, or Pantani's, or Riis'? When Tom Simpson keeled over on the Mount Ventoux his belly was full of amphetamine, do you strip him of his World Championship? Jacques Anquetil was vociferous in his defence of drugs. Aren't there massive doubts over Indurain also?

As Hippy points out, if you strip Lance's titles away from him, who gets them?

I think the most important thing is that it doesn't happen again

I don't care what they do with Armstrong's tour wins.

For me, what is important here is that a clear message is given that if a team institutes a systematic doping programme then the team management can be banned from the sport. The USADA charges are not solely against Armstrong but against those in management positions, and Armstrong was a shareholder in the management company that ran the USPS, Discovery Channel and Radioshack teams hence his inclusion.

The unwritten rule previously was that if a rider tested positive then he was discarded and toed the line that he'd acted alone. Then he'd likely get a new contract when his ban expired.

Yes you're right, and clearly we need to get people currently involved in the sport out if they had a hand in Lance's wins

Sun sub-editor Schick ^