Lance Armstrong appears finally to have run out of rope. (Read 2696 times)

    So what is YOUR implication?  "Everybody cheats so let it be"?  This is probably THE worst article I've read on this Armstrong case.

     

    If we had to boil it down to a sentence, that's close, if we're talking about the Tour de France back then.  I would phrase it more like "it's time to move on."  (I don't see why that article is so horrible either.) 

     

    To practice what I preach, I will now move on.  The thing is done.  Armstrong's got his health, his fans, his money, and a pretty good life overall.  The Foundation is getting more donations than ever before.  Debating his legacy will soon reside mostly in bars as the tastes great crowd stomps the table insisting he was The Man who killed cancer and Dougied with one of the Olsen twins and the less-filling crowd calling him an arrogant cheat and philanderer who didn't have the nut to fight it out.  

     

    At least I can still wear my running shorts for men with big thighs but no package.  Farewell cruel thread.

     

      Can you explain why you feel it's the worst?

      Well, I never even saw the argument Spaniel had started; whether it's a terrible thing to do some good deed based on lie or not is complete another argument and I would prefer not to even get there--because I don't know.  

       

      The reason why I felt that article was the worst, and I'd have to admit that I had in the past misunderstood some of the "points" (because it's not my language!! ;o)) but, it seems to me, this guy was not just "implying" but outwardly stating that; "hey, everybody cheats so let's legitimize it"("There’s no question that Armstrong’s decision to stop fighting is a tacit admission of guilt. So what? If the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that the sports world, like the real world, is filled with compromised heroes. Maybe we’re finally at a place where we’re ready to accept this." ).  We have plenty of idiots out on the internet message board already saying that "Hey, everybody cheats.  Let's make it legal!"  But those are pimple-popping "know-it-all" idiots.  Journalist shouldn't suggest that.  Would the argument of "hey, everybody speeds; why should I get a ticket?" ever work?  Or what if police officers say; "Hey, this is the 5th bank robbery in this town...  Let's make it okay to rob the bank..."  I know some people would argue that it's completely different situation.  But the same fundamental principles.  

       

      On the other hand, I felt THIS was one of the best articles.  Here's what it says about "well, it's been 13 years; it's time to move on...":

       

       

      『4.  It's 13 years too late, why does it matter now?

      It matters now for a few reasons.  In fact, it's absolutely crucial now.

      First, remember that this was never solely a case against Lance Armstrong.  Yes, he's the biggest name in the case, the media spotlight falls squarely on him, but there were other defendants in what was actually a "conspiracy to dope case".  Johan Bruyneel is the next biggest name, but so too, we care about the doctors, like Michele Ferrari, who oversaw the doping conspiracy.  Armstrong may have left the sport, at least as a competitor, but others are still there as doctors, managers, and if cycling is to move beyond its past, those people need to be removed from it. 

      Secondly, if you adopt the view that says "it's been 7 years, move on", then you are effectively saying to the current generation that "as long as you can get away with it for long enough, you can have it forever".  And I appreciate that there is a statute of limitations, and it does seem ridiculous at some point to go back.  But given the anti-doping landscape, even from a scientific perspective, if you know that drugs are used today that will only be detectable in ten years, fifteen years, you should recognize that such limitations should not apply.

      Is it not a bit ridiculous to change the winner of a sport 12 years after the fact?  Yes it is, but that's still better than never knowing, and never understanding who the true champion is.  Valerie Adams was recently awarded the Olympic gold in the women's shot put after Nadzeya Ostapchuk failed a drug test.  Adams was denied her gold medal ceremony.  The woman in fourth was denied a ceremony at all.  But today, they both know that they are the rightful gold and bronze medalists, respectively.  Would you rather have a silver medal with a ceremony, or a gold medal even though your ceremony was denied?  I believe that a hard line on doping (which is fraud, after all) should see that dopers are told "If you dope, then it doesn't matter how long it takes us to figure it out, when we do, you will be sanctioned".』


      Hawt and sexy

        Update on the others named in this query. One was already banned for life and didn't bother to show. Two others were no shows and had lifetime bans thrown on them. The only one to show was Johan Bruyneel, a coach. I would guess that this guy was given the list of witnesses. It would stand to reason that he shared that info with Lance's team, but we can't know for sure. Would they have given him info on Lance's bloodwork too? Crap, I lost the article in this mess. I think it said his arbitration was set for October.

        I'm touching your pants.


        just a simple cat

           

          At least I can still wear my running shorts for men with big thighs but no package.  Farewell cruel thread.

           

           Big grin

           

          I  guess as you get more bodacious, you begin to lose more brain cells, because there is a limit to how much magnificence your body can house


          Feeling the growl again

            PARIS (AP) - French Authorities arrested Lance Armstrong and disqualified him from this year's Tour de France on Friday after cleaning personnel discovered 3 substances in his motel room that are explicitly banned in France. Tour Officials are saddened by this turn of events and Lance Armstrong was not available for comment. When asked by reporters as to the identification of the substances, Police Crime Lab Investigators confirmed that the substances were in fact, toothpaste, deodorant and soap.



            (Sorry if I unwittingly offend any of my European friends, just a good-natured French joke)

            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

             

               ... ("There’s no question that Armstrong’s decision to stop fighting is a tacit admission of guilt...

              Respectfully this statement is flat-out wrong.  I no longer litigate (although I still regularly advise my employer of legal risks and whatnot), but the truth is that far more goes into the fight/no-fight decision than solely whether one is guilty or innocent.  Even in criminal law, some guilty people press the fight and some innocent people plead out -- decisions completely opposite your statement.

               

              Taking things at face value: if there were not yet a binding decision on the matter, and I were faced with the prospect of going before a tribunal that I (and others, including a federal judge) felt was not set up to be impartial and instead was slanted against me, and the decision of that tribunal would be final, AND everyone would regard that decision as having been fairly reached and representative of the "truth" ... I wouldn't walk in the door either.  Guilty or innocent.

              “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


              In it for the long run..

                Respectfully this statement is flat-out wrong.  I no longer litigate (although I still regularly advise my employer of legal risks and whatnot), but the truth is that far more goes into the fight/no-fight decision than solely whether one is guilty or innocent.  Even in criminal law, some guilty people press the fight and some innocent people plead out -- decisions completely opposite your statement.

                 

                Taking things at face value: if there were not yet a binding decision on the matter, and I were faced with the prospect of going before a tribunal that I (and others, including a federal judge) felt was not set up to be impartial and instead was slanted against me, and the decision of that tribunal would be final, AND everyone would regard that decision as having been fairly reached and representative of the "truth" ... I wouldn't walk in the door either.  Guilty or innocent.

                 

                 

                Absolutely.

                "It's not who wins the workout..."

                  On the other hand, I felt THIS was one of the best articles.  Here's what it says about "well, it's been 13 years; it's time to move on...":

                   

                  A couple quotes from the Link:

                  "The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced.  Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught."

                       Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                   

                  "You see this most strikingly in women's athletics - prior to 1987, there were no out-of-competition tests.  Once introduced, performances dropped instantly, and the current record books are dominated by those 1980s performances.  The poor female sprinters and power athletes of the current era cannot get close to their event world records, and that's thanks to better anti-doping control today."

                       Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                   

                  So, technology caught up with Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France riders.

                  Where's the cry from the running community regarding the running athletes from the 1980's.

                  Any thoughts regarding the 1984 Olympics? 

                  This good article claims that athletes doped and wouldn't get caught.  I'm guessing that some of our "hero's" aren't all that we've made them out to be.

                   

                  Basically, what bugs me about the spotlight on Lance Armstrong and the "he's so evil" type of talk relates to a basic understanding that MANY others have done the same thing (cheated).  Some of them may be your idols.

                   

                  See Link:

                  "If the public received any warning of what was to come, it occurred at the 1983 Pan American Games.

                  Officials arrived in Venezuela with an improved test for banned substances, triggering a new age in doping control. Fourteen athletes tested positive and more than a dozen members of the U.S. track and field team abruptly withdrew from their events, flying home."

                       Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                  2014 Goals:

                  #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                  #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                   

                    Respectfully this statement is flat-out wrong.  I no longer litigate (although I still regularly advise my employer of legal risks and whatnot), but the truth is that far more goes into the fight/no-fight decision than solely whether one is guilty or innocent.  Even in criminal law, some guilty people press the fight and some innocent people plead out -- decisions completely opposite your statement.

                     

                    Taking things at face value: if there were not yet a binding decision on the matter, and I were faced with the prospect of going before a tribunal that I (and others, including a federal judge) felt was not set up to be impartial and instead was slanted against me, and the decision of that tribunal would be final, AND everyone would regard that decision as having been fairly reached and representative of the "truth" ... I wouldn't walk in the door either.  Guilty or innocent.

                    Just to clarify...  You realize that the comment you quoted is what the guy who wrote the article I called "the worst one I read" wrote.  I'm not saying anything about Armstrong himself one way or the other; I'm only criticizing some people's attitude about "Everybody cheats so let it go" or "it's been a long time so let it go".  Like I said, I have a several friends who had been busted.  They're still my friends.  I wouldn't change my view on them as a person; but the act of "cheating" needs to be dealt with.  They all paid the consequence--HARD.  So we moved on.  We didn't "move on" by "letting it go" simply because everybody's cheating or simply because it's more than 10 years ago.  That's exactly why the state of the sport of cycling is what it is today.  If the athlete cheats, it's not just him or her being guilty; if's all those people who "let it go" are just as guilty.


                    Feeling the growl again

                      A couple quotes from the Link:

                      "The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced.  Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught."

                           Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                       

                      "You see this most strikingly in women's athletics - prior to 1987, there were no out-of-competition tests.  Once introduced, performances dropped instantly, and the current record books are dominated by those 1980s performances.  The poor female sprinters and power athletes of the current era cannot get close to their event world records, and that's thanks to better anti-doping control today."

                           Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                       

                      So, technology caught up with Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France riders.

                      Where's the cry from the running community regarding the running athletes from the 1980's.

                      Any thoughts regarding the 1984 Olympics? 

                      This good article claims that athletes doped and wouldn't get caught.  I'm guessing that some of our "hero's" aren't all that we've made them out to be.

                       

                      Basically, what bugs me about the spotlight on Lance Armstrong and the "he's so evil" type of talk relates to a basic understanding that MANY others have done the same thing (cheated).  Some of them may be your idols.

                       

                       

                      Of course we are outraged that people got away with it back then.  The Chinese women's distance records, for example, are absurd.  But there is no available evidence, too much time passed before technology became available to test remaining samples, and much of it was done behind the former Iron Curtain.

                       

                      Of course we would all like justice but if this is your argument you need to be realistic about what is possible.

                       

                      If you are pulled over and ticketed for speeding, do you get upset that the police don't try to track down those who sped on the same road the week before when resources were not available to patrol it, even though they have no evidence to work with?

                       

                      I hope none of my idols were dopers.  I am realistic enough to accept that some of them probably were.  If they were outed I would be disappointed in them but glad they were caught....same as I am with one of my former sports heroes....Lance Armstrong.

                       

                      MTA:  My God Brian, 1983?  30 years ago?  C'mon dude, what are they going to do about it now?  You can't even test samples that old if they still existed.  There weren't electronic communication trails like email to follow back then.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                        A couple quotes from the Link:

                        "The paradigm change really began in the 1980s, when out-of-competition testing was first introduced.  Prior to this, athletes were tested only at events, which meant they could dope liberally until just before the event, and still get the benefit without the risk of being caught."

                             Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                         

                        "You see this most strikingly in women's athletics - prior to 1987, there were no out-of-competition tests.  Once introduced, performances dropped instantly, and the current record books are dominated by those 1980s performances.  The poor female sprinters and power athletes of the current era cannot get close to their event world records, and that's thanks to better anti-doping control today."

                             Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                         

                        So, technology caught up with Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France riders.

                        Where's the cry from the running community regarding the running athletes from the 1980's.

                        Any thoughts regarding the 1984 Olympics? 

                        This good article claims that athletes doped and wouldn't get caught.  I'm guessing that some of our "hero's" aren't all that we've made them out to be.

                         

                        Basically, what bugs me about the spotlight on Lance Armstrong and the "he's so evil" type of talk relates to a basic understanding that MANY others have done the same thing (cheated).  Some of them may be your idols.

                         

                        See Link:

                        "If the public received any warning of what was to come, it occurred at the 1983 Pan American Games.

                        Officials arrived in Venezuela with an improved test for banned substances, triggering a new age in doping control. Fourteen athletes tested positive and more than a dozen members of the U.S. track and field team abruptly withdrew from their events, flying home."

                             Who are those athletes?  Anybody care to fight for justice against them?

                        As far as I personally know, yes, there are people who are going after "those athletes".  There ARE some people I personally know who are doing something to nail "those athletes" as well as the circumstances that pushed them to do what they did.  And, hate to say, but don't be too naive that it's not happening today either.  In fact, I just had a long talk with a friend of mine last night to get certain people together to get some documents revealed.  Maybe I'M naive to think that, in the end, the good will win over evil.  But, as far as I know, there are plenty of people who have every intention NOT TO LET IT GO.  Unfortunately, to me, public is a lot more easily to dismiss it simply because it's not personal to them.  They see the headline of Lance Armstrong nothing more than just a tabloid article--like, to me, that article that I had pointed out as the worst; "nah, we should recognize that all the heroes have the dark-side to it so just accept it and 'let it go'..."


                        Needs more cowbell!

                          One of my idols (FloJo) was strongly suspected of doping.  While the official reason for her death was deemed an epileptic seizure, there's a strong suspicion among many that her body was damaged from PEDs.  She paid the ultimate price, if that's the case.

                           

                          I've often wondered what goes on in the heads of these elite athletes...knowing that they could be causing themselves long-term harm for short-term success.  Perhaps it's a bit of that "teenage" mindset that they will beat the odds--that they are special and the likely bad things won't happen to them.

                          I shoot pretty things! ~

                          '14 Goals:

                          • 6 duathlons (1 Olympic distance)

                          • 130#s (and stay there, gotdammit!)

                            Of course we are outraged that people got away with it back then.  The Chinese women's distance records, for example, are absurd.  But there is no available evidence, too much time passed before technology became available to test remaining samples, and much of it was done behind the former Iron Curtain.

                            Just because someone, or a group of people, ran very fast or improved dramatically, THAT ain't enough for suspicion.  I don't see those Chinese women's records as "suspicious" as some of the records today simply because of the circumstantial reasons, or lack thereof.  I'm not saying they were clean either.  But, if there's fire, there will be plenty of people near that fire who would start whispering "smoke!"  I hear more legitimate "smoke" stories about 1980s as well as today than those Chinese women's.  

                              I've often wondered what goes on in the heads of these elite athletes...knowing that they could be causing themselves long-term harm for short-term success.  Perhaps it's a bit of that "teenage" mindset that they will beat the odds--that they are special and the likely bad things won't happen to them.

                               

                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGV35u35UM4


                              Feeling the growl again

                                Just because someone, or a group of people, ran very fast or improved dramatically, THAT ain't enough for suspicion. 

                                 

                                Actually Nobby, anytime someone runs ahead of the pack these days the suspicion of doping is immediately raised.  Look at the chatter on Bolt and his partners as an example.  I mentioned the Chinese not just because someone ran fast, but several someones in the same group who had not previously been world-beaters suddenly established eye-popping records, all at the same time and same place, then immediately faded back and never even approached those times again.  To me that is certainly enough to raise suspicion. Note I did not say we should invalidate them or anything.  But suspicious, absolutely.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand