Lance Armstrong Dilema

vinny - i don't think i've read many of those sentiments.

here are a couple thoughts:

1. I've known guys who have gone belly-up because they had to defend themselves in a lawsuit - which they WON! But they ultimately lost due to the cost of defending themself.

2. I've had a simple foreclosure/eviction lawsuit in Texas that was a massive headache for me (i won every step of the way). But, there were a few technical errors to start out with that had to be unwound. Normally a guy wouldn't fight it because he'd have to pay an attorney and ultimately he'd lose. But in this case the guy qualified for a PUBLIC DEFENDER. Took several years, won every step of the way, but i had to shell out plenty of coin to do so because my opposition had an unlimited source of tax payer money. See: USADA. There were many times I thought along the way 'f it' because of the circumstances of having to compete v. public dender (open checkbook).

3. Lance has certainly done well for himself, but he's spent millions of dollars defending himself along the way, winning every time. His income is certainly less than it once was - every body has a limit on funding, no doubt. This is certainly a factor at this point in his life. Now it is over for him. He can move on. He certainly now has no more 'worries' about having to face this 'yet again'.

4. Why lifetime ban for first offense? Guys like Landis and Hamilton got 2 year bans (first offense) when they actually tested positive in a drug test.

Great post. I tend to think that he saw the future of spending years and his personal treasure defending his name...and decided just to quit. It was going to cost him millions and millions.

I also do not understand the lifetime ban. As you noted, Landis and Hamilton both doped to the gills and lied about it, yet could race again.
 
Great post. I tend to think that he saw the future of spending years and his personal treasure defending his name...and decided just to quit. It was going to cost him millions and millions.

I also do not understand the lifetime ban. As you noted, Landis and Hamilton both doped to the gills and lied about it, yet could race again.

Thanks.

Not only did Hamilton not get a lifetime ban for his first offense, he got an 8 year ban for his second positive test.

Lifetime ban and no positive tests? no 2 year ban?

Tygart has a huge agenda.

Would be classic if UCI didn't back them up.

And it's funny, no...lance doesn't get caught because he's so 'superior' in his methods that 'evade' the tests. what are these other top cyclists missing- it's not like they are bad - they too are the elite of the elite, but yet they test positive. you're telling me that lance is the only one to have access to the 'super top secret formula'......no doubt the guy that fed lance the 'super top secret formula' also fed other cyclists. yet they all tested positive......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks.

Not only did Hamilton not get a lifetime ban for his first offense, he got an 8 year ban for his second positive test.

Lifetime ban and no positive tests? no 2 year ban?

Tygart has a huge agenda.

Would be classic if UCI didn't back them up.

And it's funny, no...lance doesn't get caught because he's so 'superior' in his methods that 'evade' the tests. what are these other top cyclists missing- it's not like they are bad - they too are the elite of the elite, but yet they test positive. you're telling me that lance is the only one to have access to the 'super top secret formula'......no doubt the guy that fed lance the 'super top secret formula' also fed other cyclists. yet they all tested positive......


Hamilton and Landis both raced on Armstrong's team at one point or another. It's interesting that they (and others) were positive and Armstrong never was. I'm quite sure Landis (who would've won the Tour), Hamilton (olympic medal winner and Liege Bastogne Liege winner) had access to the "secret sauce." Good points.
 
Maybe.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRQCN5x1-NI]Dave Clark Five - Catch Us If You Can (1965) - YouTube[/ame]
 
Jon - You are right. All of the top riders were blood doping at the time. He had 11 riders on the Postal Team that said he did, because they did as well. Since they were all blood doping, then he's still the best. It's all relative.
 
Dope in baseball: 50 game Suspension, keep records
Dope in CYCLING: No MARATHONS, no TRIATHALONS

I'm finding a dilemma in this as well. All sports that no one gives an Apple map about, yet such different punishment. Oh modern society, your plot twists and turns, your infinitely rising action, your un-ending lust for perfectly timed, 3 day news cycle stories just keep me waking up in the morning!
 
Dope in baseball: 50 game Suspension, keep records
Dope in CYCLING: No MARATHONS, no TRIATHALONS

I'm finding a dilemma in this as well. All sports that no one gives an Apple map about, yet such different punishment.

And banned for life from your primary sport.

You make an excellent point.

Then again, baseball's been way behind the curve on this.
 
Nike announced they've dropped their sponsorship of Armstrong and will pull his name from a building on their corporate campus.

One local sportswriter wondered if they'll be any buildings left there with names on them. "How about a new Phil Knight / Lance Armstrong Center for Situational Sports Ethics?"
 
From everything I've gathered, Lance was a D'bag that new how to cheat and get away with it. However, he may have been scum, but he raised over $500 million to fight a disease more disgusting then he could ever be. Regardless of what his legacy is as an athlete, I don't think that should taint his legacy in the fight against cancer. Great deeds don't always come from the noblest of individuals.
 
Top