Lance Armstrong to be charged with doping?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

I still don't understand what the big deal is that he doped. Of course he doped. We all knew he doped. Everyone in cycling dopes and likely still dopes.

The purpose of testing in my opinion isn't to catch dopers it is to limit doping. You want to keep doping to a level where people aren't dying to win. You will never eliminiate it.

I dont quite understand the villification from strangers. He is a jerk, and a doper, all things we have known for 10 years. This interview in my mind changed nothing.

The guys a role model for: children, atheletes, etc...

He shouldn't be:

1) Cheating by doping. Saying "Everyone does it" does not make it right. And no the point of testing is not to "limit" doping. It's to stop it. Hence why they went back and tested atheletes. The whole point of sport is fair competition.

2) Lying about doping.

3) Encouraging others to cheat and attacking those who don't.

LA went out of his way to promote fair play, determination, etc.. It wasn't just that he cheated, it was also the attitude that went with it. He made a fortune off his ongoing self-promotion.

The way to get rid of doping/PEDs is pretty simple. Once someone registers themselves for a level of competition, take samples once every 3-4 months. Keep those samples. When ever a new PED is discovered go back and test to the date that PED is likely to have been introduced.

[chemgear]

^ And he destroyed people that called him out on his lies and cheating for years. He made good amounts of money taking those people out.

[chemgear]

Speaking of which:

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/...-action-looms/

Armstrong was, if anything, vicious in the way he went after O’Reilly. He intimated she was let go from the Postal team because she seemed more interested in personal relationships than professional ones.

“She, she’s one of these people that I have to apologize to. She’s one of these people that got run over, got bullied,” he told Oprah on Thursday.

“You sued her?” she asked.

“To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many people I don’t even,” Armstrong said, then paused, “I’m sure we did.”

[Bagor]

Senior legal analyst at CNN says this whole Oprah thing is a huge mistake on his part from a civil liability POV. Gonna be spending a lot of time in court in the next few years.

Found the whole interview unconvincing.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

The guys a role model for: children, atheletes, etc...

He shouldn't be:

1) Cheating by doping. Saying "Everyone does it" does not make it right. And no the point of testing is not to "limit" doping. It's to stop it. Hence why they went back and tested atheletes. The whole point of sport is fair competition.

2) Lying about doping.

3) Encouraging others to cheat and attacking those who don't.

LA went out of his way to promote fair play, determination, etc.. It wasn't just that he cheated, it was also the attitude that went with it. He made a fortune off his ongoing self-promotion.

The way to get rid of doping/PEDs is pretty simple. Once someone registers themselves for a level of competition, take samples once every 3-4 months. Keep those samples. When ever a new PED is discovered go back and test to the date that PED is likely to have been introduced.

Athletes have no obligation to be role models. Anyone with half a brain new he was doping the whole time. The bullying other people to keep quiet bothers me but that really has nothing to do with the doping it just makes him an #######.

The point of sport is not fair competition, that may be an ideal that people have given it not something it ever was. Rich people win, not the the best person. The best coaches, nutrition, training time and drugs wins. Calling sport fair competition is as laughable as saying you can eliminate doping.

Even if you test old samples indefinately it wont stop doping because 5 years later when the tests catch up to the doper the doper has already made money, won and became famous. Lance is sitting on 100 million dollars or he could be a consistant 20th place finisher nobody ever heard of. Given the choice again knowing the outcome he dopes 10 out of 10 times.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by GGG

Given the choice again knowing the outcome he dopes 10 out of 10 times.

I think we can agree that his legacy will be that of a fraud, a cheat, a bully, a liar and a control freak.

You saying that knowing the outcome and the legacy he creates for himself and to a lesser extent his family he choses 10 times out of 10 for the same end result?

If so, I'd have to question his sanity.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bagor

I think we can agree that his legacy will be that of a fraud, a cheat, a bully, a liar and a control freak.

You saying that knowing the outcome and the legacy he creates for himself and to a lesser extent his family he choses 10 times out of 10 for the same end result?

If so, I'd have to question his sanity.

Or the best cyclist of the doping era who sleeps on a 10 million dollar pile of money (even after settling a bunch of lawsuits) vs being middling low end tour rider who opens a bike shop. And whether or not he doped he probably always was a liar, bully and control freak.

He just went on TV to continue the lie. He wants to get into triathalon to continue competing and doping. No way he doesnt do it again.

[saskflames69]

I nominate Floyd Landis for "Told-Ya-So Of the Decade"

Alas, four years in is too early to be making claims like that. If anybody remembers the guy in 2019, give him some acknowledgement.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by chemgear

“She, she’s one of these people that I have to apologize to. She’s one of these people that got run over, got bullied,” he told Oprah on Thursday.

“You sued her?” she asked.

“To be honest, Oprah, we sued so many people I don’t even,” Armstrong said, then paused, “I’m sure we did.”

This has to be a lie. I guaran-damn-tee you he knew that she was sued. He was all about winning and squashing anyone who got in his way. He would've wanted to know that he was actively destroying another person's life. Total psychopath.

Also, I feel like there is a poster or two that should be a little sheepish in this thread now. Not naming any names...

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Senior legal analyst at CNN says this whole Oprah thing is a huge mistake on his part from a civil liability POV. Gonna be spending a lot of time in court in the next few years.

Found the whole interview unconvincing.

Better to be in trouble in a civil court, than a criminal one though, no? He can lose all his money, file bankruptcy...etc, but if he avoid jail then he's better off. At least I think so. Unless civil court can send him to jail, but I thought that was unlikely at best.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or the best cyclist of the doping era who sleeps on a 10 million dollar pile of money (even after settling a bunch of lawsuits) vs being middling low end tour rider who opens a bike shop. And whether or not he doped he probably always was a liar, bully and control freak.

I believe this is where the old saying "money isn't everything" applies.

Being the best cyclist of the doping era is nothing. It's not a good thing. So he doesn't really "have" that.

If he'd do it all again, he's essentially saying he is willing to sell his family name, his own reputation, future opportunities for his own children, and finally the honor of becoming a universally-recognized symbol for cheating, selfishness, bullying, and generally being an #######, for 10 million bucks. Oh yeah, and also the honor of spending the remainder of his life being publicly ridiculed.

Maybe he would do it all again. He is a little kooky. A rational person would probably take the alternative of being a middling professional athlete and moving on to a normal life.

[RogerWilco]

nm
]

[RogerWilco]

George Carlin on Lance Armstrong. Not safe for work, lots of F-Bombs and one in the video title as well.

Spoiler!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlTr2GSVUGg

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I believe this is where the old saying "money isn't everything" applies.

Being the best cyclist of the doping era is nothing. It's not a good thing. So he doesn't really "have" that.

Who is the best finishing rider in any drug tainted tour de france who hasnt been caught yet? No one knows beacuse all of the named riders were caught. Over time people will have a more pragmatic view of drug use especially when the governing bodies endorsed or turned a blind eye to its use. The greatest bike ride I ever watched was Floyd Landis demolishing the field after bonking the day before. Even drug aided it was still amazing.

In a sports illustraded survey of 1996 olympians found 50% of atheletes said they would use drugs even if it would eventually kill them if it would guarentee they would win every event they entered for 5 years. These super elite athletes are wired differently.

Even now lance instead of doing oprah could have just moved away to a tropical island and relative obscurity. His name would only come once a year when the tour de france was happening.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

This has to be a lie. I guaran-damn-tee you he knew that she was sued. He was all about winning and squashing anyone who got in his way. He would've wanted to know that he was actively destroying another person's life. Total psychopath.

Also, I feel like there is a poster or two that should be a little sheepish in this thread now. Not naming any names...

I don't feel sheepish at all. He's a great con artist, I bought it hook, line and sinker. I have a flaw. I feel that most people are decent and good. Sometimes it bites me in the ass.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by GGG

In a sports illustraded survey of 1996 olympians found 50% of atheletes said they would use drugs even if it would eventually kill them if it would guarentee they would win every event they entered for 5 years. These super elite athletes are wired differently.

This. I admit I find it somewhat an admirable quality. Not the cheating aspect, but the flat out desire to push performance to the very, very, absolute pinnacle of whats possible short of killing themselves. These are highly motivated and determined individuals - their singular focus and drive is attractive to me in some ways.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Better to be in trouble in a civil court, than a criminal one though, no? He can lose all his money, file bankruptcy...etc, but if he avoid jail then he's better off. At least I think so. Unless civil court can send him to jail, but I thought that was unlikely at best.

To clarify, I didn't say or suggest that he was immune from criminal prosecution. It's not as simple as a case of either/or. Both are possible.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

Who is the best finishing rider in any drug tainted tour de france who hasnt been caught yet? No one knows beacuse all of the named riders were caught. Over time people will have a more pragmatic view of drug use especially when the governing bodies endorsed or turned a blind eye to its use.

I don't know and I don't care who the best finishing rider in a drug-tainted tour is. What's the difference? If the whole era is tainted by cheating, it's finished. There's no respect left for it. It might as well not exist. Nobody won. Everybody lost.

A "more pragmatic view of drug use" is the same thing as "a pragmatic view of cheating".

Ben Johnson was the fastest runner in the world in 1988. 25 years later, has anyone taken a "pragmatic" view on what he was up to?

All he did was cheat. He didn't deny it for years, wracking up gold medal after gold medal, and suing anyone who suggested he was cheating, but he's still a villain.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know and I don't care who the best finishing rider in a drug-tainted tour is. What's the difference? If the whole era is tainted by cheating, it's finished. There's no respect left for it. It might as well not exist. Nobody won. Everybody lost.

A "more pragmatic view of drug use" is the same thing as "a pragmatic view of cheating".

Ben Johnson was the fastest runner in the world in 1988. 25 years later, has anyone taken a "pragmatic" view on what he was up to?

All he did was cheat. He didn't deny it for years, wracking up gold medal after gold medal, and suing anyone who suggested he was cheating, but he's still a villain.

There definately isnt vitriol directed toward johnson like there used to be. And if they could ever prove that Lewis doped too I think then Johnson would be vidicated as a doper in a dopers event. Have you watched the 30 for 30 on the race? I would say the view presented in that doc is much more pragmatic than anything produced in the wake of the scandel. I would disagree that people see him as a villian now.

So while people now are outraged that will mellow and in the end people will view what Armstong did as an impressive athletic achievement in a doped era. The part people should be concerned about isnt the doping its the people he destroyed protecting the lie.

20% of baseballs writers have already accepted that Maguires doping shouldnt stop him from getting into the hall. Society has begun accepting that athletes are flawed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by habernac

I don't feel sheepish at all. He's a great con artist, I bought it hook, line and sinker. I have a flaw. I feel that most people are decent and good. Sometimes it bites me in the ass.

Same here.

After reading 'Its about the Bike'....I really wanted to believe him.

Still like the guy though, even if he might be a d-bag.