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

      

    Actually, I retract the word "chumps."  Here is what Fernando Escartin, who finished third in 1999, said:

    "For me, Lance Armstrong remains the 1999 Tour winner, second (Alex) Zulle and third, me," the now-retired Escartin told Reuters.

    "It's 13 years now since this all happened. It seems completely illogical and unreal. I don't want to even think about it."

     

     

    I bet a lot of people who finished second or third to Lance don't want the potential scrutiny of being labeled the Tour winner, especially if they ducked under all the drug controls. New evidence or witnesses might come out of the woodwork. They might also know better than we that most everyone was doped and Lance was the best of the tainted.


    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

      I bet a lot of people who finished second or third to Lance don't want the potential scrutiny of being labeled the Tour winner, especially if they ducked under all the drug controls. New evidence or witnesses might come out of the woodwork. They might also know better than we that most everyone was doped and Lance was the best of the tainted.

       

      "Best of the tainted" -- this sounds pretty pathetic, but not quite as awful as "best cheater"

      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


      HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

        Totally disagree (a lot earlier in this thread).  Without repeating, I'll just say "what she said

         

        You presented a lot of arguments, but it appeared to me that in the end you resorted to essentially claiming Lance should be idolized as the best cheater, and additionally you called the losers "chumps".

         

        I think it should be not be a surprise that that type of defense of cheating, and insulting of all losers, makes your entire argument look very unsavory to those of us who have no real interest in celebrating cheaters, and who do not want to get aboard this concept of valuing results over fair play and sportsmanship.

        It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

          "Best of the tainted" -- this sounds pretty pathetic, but not quite as awful as "best cheater"

           

          What is a taint anyway?


          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

            2 x Lance plus a gorilla

             

            vs

             

            a polar bear

            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

              By the way, personally, I didn't find Escartin's comment honorable at all.  What do you think Frank Shorter's reaction would be if Cierpinski said; "Oh, come on, Frank!  It was 36 years ago; why don't you just drop it...?"

               

              Nobby, I think that's a little different.  Shorter was clean and Cierpinski was not.  If we knew that Armstrong was the only one doping and said to Escartin, "why don't you just drop it?"  I could see the analogy.  Nobody could defend that.  

               

              Here's more from Escartin.

               

              "Once they have done all the doping tests then that's as far as it should go," the Spaniard said. "It makes no sense.

              "In Spain, after five years a legal case is dropped and for me, Lance Armstrong is as much a champion now as he was yesterday."

               

              I'm down with that too.  If we want to go back in time and re-evaluate every rider from the tours in 1999-05 then let's do it.  Actually, why limit it to those years.  Let's have a full-on investigation like baseball conducted.  I think we all suspect how that would turn out and we would have to wipe those tours out completely.  Picking and choosing selected athletes for retroactive punishment based on vendettas or politics still seems wrong, particularly the way it has been handled.  

               

              I would much rather see USADA focus its efforts on prevention and really cleaning up sport going forward.  Spend the money to drill down into college sports, conduct more tests, develop better testing and stop chasing headlines.  There is a limited amount of resources and far too many of them have been spent trying to achieve a somewhat Pyrrhic victory.

                 


              Hawt and sexy

                You do know that banning Lance for life and preventing him from being a future team manager cleans the US side of the sport up a bit, right? He just laid down against charges of trafficking. So, if he has those connections, he can't spread them to a new generation, well, in theory anyway.

                I'm touching your pants.


                jules2

                  What's the implications of stripping Lance of his title? 1999 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO) 3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04) 4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO) 5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2000 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO) 5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO) 2001 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Andrei Kivilev 5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2002 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping) 4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2003 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA) 4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping) 5. Haimar Zubeldia 2004 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08) 3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties) 4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2005 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties) 3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)

                  Old age is when you move from illegal to prescribed drugs.

                    What's the implications of stripping Lance of his title? ...

                     

                    I don't think they're obliged to give anyone else the title. 

                      What's the implications of stripping Lance of his title? 1999 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Alex Zülle (‘98 busted for EPO) 3. Fernando Escartín (Systematic team doping exposed in ‘04) 4. Laurent Dufaux (‘98 busted for EPO) 5. Ángel Casero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2000 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Christophe Moraue (‘98 busted for EPO) 5. Roberto Heras (‘05 busted for EPO) 2001 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Andrei Kivilev 5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2002 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Joseba Beloki (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Raimondas Rumšas (Suspended in ‘03 for doping) 4. Santiago Botero (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Igor González de Galdeano (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2003 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 3. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA) 4. Tyler Hamilton (Suspended ‘04 for blood doping) 5. Haimar Zubeldia 2004 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Andreas Kloden (Named in doping case in ‘08) 3. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties) 4. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Jose Azevedo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 2005 1. Lance Armstrong 2. Ivan Basso (Suspended in ‘07 for Operacion Puerto ties) 3. Jan Ullrich (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 4. Fransico Mancebo (‘06 implicated in Operacion Puerto) 5. Alexander Vinokourov (Suspended in ‘07 for CERA)

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

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

                         

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

                        2014 Goals:

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

                        #2: 365 Hours training

                         


                        Fat butt on couch

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

                           

                          For one thing, it perpetuates the myth that his foundation raises money for cancer research...

                          "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

                           

                            For one thing, it perpetuates the myth that his foundation raises money for cancer research...

                             

                            +1

                            Dont call it a comeback

                              For one thing, it perpetuates the myth that his foundation raises money for cancer research...

                               Never would I have guessed that would have been the answer for why it was "THE worst" article ever regarding the Armstrong case.

                               

                              From their website:

                              Known for its iconic yellow wristband, LIVESTRONG has become a symbol of hope and inspiration to people affected by cancer around the world. Since its inception, the organization has raised more than $400 million for the fight against cancer.

                              Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/aboutus/#ixzz24lmLmWzF

                               

                              And, if there is general knowledge that they abuse the funds they've raised, then I guess that general knowledge is well founded?

                              How does it compare to Susan G Komen?

                              Or Ronald McDonald house?

                              Or United Way?

                               

                              Basically, I'm VERY surprised that it's so very well known by everybody that it's a myth that the foundation raises money for cancer research....

                              (Truth is, I'd like to get Nobby's thoughts as well for why he thought that it was the worst).

                              2014 Goals:

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

                              #2: 365 Hours training

                               

                                I don't think Livestrong even makes the claim that they raise money for cancer research, do they? Their mission is to provide "support" for people affected by cancer but I don't think they make any claims about funding research.

                                Runners run.