BengalCat

Lots of claims or allegations in your eloquent post. (It is eloquent.) Also a lot of emotion.

Obviously we disagree both on some of the issues and also where we share common ground are perspectives vary on the intensity or seriousness of the issues.

As a side note I don't think you will find too many cyclists or other athletes that having not failed a drug test freely confessed, were suspended, and were restored in that order.

One thing that I think all reasonable and prudent people, ( I think you are likely such a person), can agree on IMO, is that Armstrong is for a variety of reasons an incredibly polarizing topic as to what or who he is and what he did or did not do.

BengalCat

It was never proven that he doped by any investigation. He never failed a drug test unlike all other cyclists that were punished for doping. The USADA conducted a literally unprecedented and unparalleled in its scope and intensity "investigation", (even suspending in certain aspects of that investigation some its own limitations and concluded that he doped and was a ringleader of the doping operation. Their evidence was consisted of almost entirely of people that either said we saw him dope or he told us he doped. Some of those people were the equivalent of jailhouse informants others were people that had no known motive to lie or exaggerate and by most accounts were upright in character.

Upon reaching their conclusion, the pro-active plaintiffs or the prosecution which is what the USADA were then gave Armstrong the "opportunity" to offer whatever defense or rebuttal he wanted. Armstrong declined citing that the burden to continue the fight against the USADA would be too great upon himself and his family at that stage in his life. The USADA then declared themselves the winner by default and banned him. Then after all of that Armstrong publicly admitted he doped. Those are the facts.

Remember, Armstrong was punished solely at the official and athletic jurisdictional level for doping and helping or encouraging doping by others. (All based upon the USADA's investigation and ruling.) It was only after that most of his legal troubles loss of sponsors or financial penalties came up in response.

So some of the questions or issues that need to be answered to their satisfaction for those interested in the topic at an in depth level are:

1. Did Armstrong Dope?

2. Did he encourage or pressure others to dope?

3. Was he investigated or prosecuted in a fair and equal process at the same level of all or anyone else in cycling?

4. Was he punished for matters unrelated to doping?

5. Did the punishment fit the crime?

I submit that for me as an individual the answers to one and two are definitely yes.

The answers to the other questions are clear to me but rather than expound I will simply say each person can make their own decision about that.

In conclusion, as stated in another post, Armstrong is unquestionably an incredibly perhaps even an unequalled polarizing individual or topic in the context of the issue/issues being discussed. So much so that he and the facts or opinions transcend the single field of cycling or sports in general.

Regardless, what's done is done. My thanks to each of the posters that responded to my posts on Armstrong. We all share the common bond of the love of cycling. That's a good thing. I think we all can agree about that!

alathIN

Yes, polarizing, and mostly because people see him (and other public figures) through the lens of their own experience.

I absolutely abhor a bully, and have solid longstanding reasons for doing so. To me, there is really no other accomplishment that can make up for abusing people who are not in a position to fight back. It's not the unforgivable sin (don't believe in those), but a little bit of humility and repentance goes a long way in that direction. From this distance, I've seen a lot more on the bullying side and essentially no believable humility or repentance from Lance.

As to another of your posts, "investigated fairly and equally" - it's a pretty well established dynamic that people who show contempt for legitimate investigations by legitimate authorities are going to get the book thrown at them. Not a tax lawyer, but my understanding is that Martha Stewart's original offense was relatively minor, but she and/or her team were so hostile/recalcitrant/contemptuous toward the IRS that they escalated their trouble way beyond the original offense. In such a case, I do not put all of the blame on the investigating body. To some extent, it is normal and natural that a cooperative individual who respects the process will be treated differently than someone who responds with arrogance, hostility, and contempt. The appearance to me is that Lance was very accustomed to being able to bully, bluster, and intimidate his way out of any problem, and finally ran up against a problem that willing and able to fight back. Very difficult for me to muster bargeloads of sympathy for Lance in this situation.

I do appreciate your ability to disagree in civil way and to the extent I have not reciprocated that I apologize.

Miele Man

Armstrong was stripped of his TdeF wins.

What really irked me about the man wasn't his doping or even his denial of doping; no, it was his malicious and vengeful attacks verbally and financially (he ruined many people) against those who during his career were saying that he was doping. That's what turned me off ever respecting either the man or his accomplishments.

His famous quote, "it's not about the bike..." should have been, "It's not about the bike. It's about the dope and not getting caught".

I always figured if he was indeed doping then anyone who was able to keep reasonably close to him must have been doping too.

After all, the reality is not, "It doesn't matter if you win or lose it's how you play the game" it's, "It doesn't matter how you play the game. It matters wheter you win or lose". You don't get major sponsors or big bucks by losing.

Cheers

VNA

no!

mprelaw

FWIW, Lance wasn't the only member of Postal who lost results as a result of USADA's investigation. Levi Leipheimer lost all of his from 1999-2006 and another set in 2007, including his third place finish at a Vuelta early on and at the 2007 Tour. He also lost a stage win from that Tour. All of the major Postal riders lost some results---Leipheimer was the hardest hit after Lance.

Hincapie also lost several stage wins from various Tours, too. As did Dave Zabriskie. I think he lost some stage wins from the Giro and Vuelta, too???

work4bike

This is a 17-y/o Lance Armstrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUBTDIiKBNA

I'm not going to defend LA's actions during the winning years of the TdF, they were horrible, but he was a great athlete.

bicyclridr4life

What gets me, is that his biggest accuser, a Mr. Greg LeMond, if memory serves, claims that he (Mr. LeMond) "was the last clean TDF winner ..."
I find this most interesting. If memory serves, during Mr. LeMond's era, the entire peloton "suffered from asthma", including Mr. LeMond. I remember Mr. LeMond and the other top riders, openly taking a hit off their inhalers, during a race; especially during the mountain stages and time trials.
IMHO (which I will be the first to admit means nothing) Mr. LeMond was just as "dirty" as the next guy in the peloton, before, during, and after his era.
I wonder how Mr. Greg LeMond's (and the rest of the top riders during his day) "asthma" is affecting him these days. Does he still "need" his inhaler, or has he "outgrown" the asthma?

Also, "if" Mr. Armstrong was "dirty", why didn't any of the post race drug tests come back "FAILED"?
I did not want to think Mr. Armstrong was drugging. However, if you think about it, he had to be. The testicular cancer had spread to his lungs. At the very least, that would cause scar tissue in his lungs (just like pneumonia does), That is damage that does not go away - ever.
As far as I am concerned, the governing body's lost all credibility when they declared "NO ONE" won the 7 TDF's that Lance was being stripped of his wins. Normal procedure is to reward the win to the next rider down. However, in this case, the next rider down, had been convicted of doping ... and so on and so on and so on, presumably down to the last person to cross the finish line in the allotted time to finish the race. This being the case, that the entire peloton was drugging, Armstrong's wins should not have been taken away. Since everyone was dirty, it was still a "level" playing field.

Pro cycling was the last sport I followed. I do not follow any sport now. Baseball, Football, Basketball, Hockey, all discredited by drugging. Tennis and golf put me to sleep. I quit watching "pro wrestling" 50 years ago. nothing but a bunch of bad actors in that one. The "win" is decided before anyone steps into the ring. Their dancing moves are practiced before the "match" ...

andr0id

It was more than the few grams, one ball made him twice as fast. Think about it...

When you have two balls, you have to constantly adjust your package to keep it from getting smashed while riding.

Lance only had to adjust HALF AS OFTEN!!!

alathIN

Not sure if I agree with that. If the rule says that such-and-such an action disqualifies the rider, and everyone does that action, then nobody qualifies for the win.
If everyone in the next Olympics high jump used a ladder to get over the bar, then I'd say nobody actually did the high jump as called for by the rules and nobody gets a medal.

spec84

Right but that's a rule that's easily enforced. Back during the dark days of pro cycling the UCI had banned substance on the books(EPO) that were impossible to enforce. So everybody started using the stuff, why? Because they could! Someone like Lance was only interested in one thing, making as much money as possible. He didn't care about the rules, obviously. He was a grade A arsehole back then. He seems a little different these days, but who really knows?

Dave Cutter

Bicycle racing has a long and rich history of doping. Lance is by every measure... a "traditional cycling champion".

79pmooney

No. "Traditional cycling champions" did not sue those who spoke up, ruin careers and make (or have made) threatening phone calls to women.

Ben