I believe in Lance Armstrong
I believe in Lance Armstrong. I am not saying I believe Lance Armstrong. I am not going to tell you that I believe that he never used performance-enhancing drugs or that he never presented false evidence to the USADA or that the teammates who claimed they doped with him are liars. I am not saying that I believe everything that Lance Armstrong has said regarding the accusations that he used EPO blood boosters, testosterone injections, masking agents and blood transfusions (also known as blood doping) to help make himself into the greatest cyclist and endurance athlete in the world. I am also not saying that he did not deserve to be banned from cycling or stripped of his Tour de France titles. I do not know the facts surrounding these allegations any better than any other cycling fan in the world, so I’ll leave it to trained federal investigators to determine whether or not Armstrong cheated.
Despite these allegations, Lance Armstrong will still always be one of my biggest heroes for several reasons. First and foremost is his status as perhaps the greatest cancer activist of the past two decades. At the age of 25, at the beginning of a promising cycling career, Armstrong was diagnosed with testicular cancer that had metastasized into his lungs and brain. He was given about a 40 percent chance to live.
However, after two surgeries and four rounds of chemotherapy, Lance Armstrong was still alive. He started training again and went on to win the Tour de France every year from 1999 to 2005. During this seven-year run, Armstrong devoted countless hours to creating the Livestrong Foundation and the iconic yellow bracelet campaign. Since its inception, the foundation has raised more than $450 million for cancer. And most of the money goes to the more neglected sides of the global fight against cancer, such as mental health, nutrition and physical rehab efforts for cancer patients. Armstrong has been the highest-profile cancer survivor in the world for 15 years, serving as a source of hope and inspiration to millions of people. And the doping allegations have not slowed the Livestrong Foundation’s fundraising efforts—in fact, the organization received 25 times its average weekly donations in the week after Armstrong announced that he would no longer contest the charges. Tour de France champion or not, Lance Armstrong has been one of the greatest cancer activists in the world throughout his career.
Lance Armstrong has not only been an inspiration to cancer survivors but to an entire generation of Americans who started biking because of him as well. He elevated the sport of cycling to its highest level of publicity in history. Lance Armstrong’s inspirational life story, dramatic come-from-behind defeats and indomitable will motivated thousands of people to start exercising. The percentage of Americans registering as cyclists with the American Cycling Association rose by about 5 percent a year in the final years of Lance’s seven-year run as Tour champion, with an additional 6 percent spike when he made a comeback in 2009.
As a kid, I would watch the Tour de France every summer with my dad and brother. Lance was our hero, and my trip with my dad to Atlanta, Ga., to see him race one summer was one of the best memories of my childhood. Getting caught up watching this courageous, outspoken, American cancer survivor come from behind to win year after year made me want to start exercising. I started running cross country the week after Lance won his record-setting sixth Tour de France and have played sports ever since. And I am not alone—thousands of other American kids like me watched Lance Armstrong overcome all odds to win and were inspired to be the best they could be. No doping allegations will ever change that.
I have a hard time believing in Lance Armstrong the athlete these days. But even if I cannot believe in Lance Armstrong the athlete, I can still believe in Lance Armstrong the hero. I can still believe in the millions of dollars raised for cancer and the thousands of kids inspired by his story. Lance Armstrong the athlete has been disgraced, but Lance Armstrong’s status as an American icon will never fade away.
I just read an article which made me think more deeply why some people chose to overlook LA’s doping allegations over his contribution to cancer awareness and research. The author of the article brought to light that some people stuck to LA’s side because more likely they are cancer survivor themselves or their friends or family member(s)are. When faced with mortality or a life-threatening illness like cancer, one will most likely choose life over a mere issue of cheating/doping. LA himself,therefore, represents a possibility of a cure – hope. So why smash that hope?
But, must we make choices in life based on “survival” only? Our parents, grandparents, great grandparents …..have made many sacrifices so that we can have the things we have today because their choices were based on what and how their choices and decisions will impact the “future” generations, not just their own survival. LA has been instrumental to bringing greater awareness to cancer. But, does he hold all that power? Is he the ONLY man who can help raise money for cancer awareness and research? Don’t we have obligations to ourselves to teach our children not to dope/cheat/lie and mistreat those with less opportunities and fortune? Aren’t we obligated to new generation of cyclists whom has no choice but to dope so that they can do what they love and carry on LA’s legacy? There have been many cases of reported “natural death” in young cyclists that many suspected really stem from doping/EPO use.
I believe we live in the world today where we don’t have to make our decisions on “survival” only. We can certainly make decisions that will have positive impact on our future generations.
If you are going to quote Sparks’ verdict criticising USADA’s motives it seems disingenuous to conveniently overlook the main point of the verdict that completely dismissed Armstrong’s argument about due process, attached below if you actually did just miss it; “With respect to Armstrong’s due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit,” Sparks wrote in a 30-page order.
“…the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA,
and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling’s will, whether the USADA arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered;” (p. 29);
“…its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process”, reasonably means what? If USADA respects its own rules to satisfy due process, but was that the case? Did they abide by their own rules when the statue of limitations was extended from 8 to 14 years? Or, did they abide by their own rules when issuing “woefully inadequate” charging letter in June? Judge Spark’s main issue was to resolve jurisdiction question, which he ruled was binding, but also he found many troubling points;
“The events in USADA’s charging letter date back fourteen years, span a multitude of international competitions, and involve not only five non-citizens of the United States who were never licensed in this country…”, which points again to how USADA disregards its own rules when convenient, charging people who are not even under their jurisdiction. Judge Sparks’ ruling is one of several issues in this drama and can’t be taken as the only and the final answer. “Dismissed Without
Prejudice” means it can be argued with, appealed. So, you have no finality to this case yet and that’s troubling for you, isn’t it?
Thank you for this article! I, too, followed Lance Armstrong’s career from the very beginning. My brothers and
sister were all athletes and so are my sons (one a cyclist with his wife in Singapore who make a trip to Thailand
every October with 50 other cyclists and raise money for different charities and this past year built a school for
Thailand’s children). After the continued accusations regarding Lance’s doping, I was extremely disappointed
as were my friends and family. Your analysis of letting go of the hero aspect but staying with the person is brilliant and I can’t thank you enough for redirecting my thoughts to the positive attributes of the person we worshipped as our hero, to a outstanding person with qualities we all should strive to emulate.
He was a hero to me as well. But ultimately he has let us all down. He made it a little more difficult to believe magical turn-around stories from now on.
USADA is courageous for addressing this. There was never any reassurance that he did not have the power to destroy them. He sure tried. They had to address concerns like witness intimidation and increasing security at their office. They have a shoestring budget compared to LA’s millions. My deepest admiration for MR. Tygart. I have heard him talk and his professional, dispassionate demeanor is exemplary. A modern day Sherlock Holmes in my book.
I Completely agree with you, Steven H. I read how vehemently Hubert here argued about due process and fairness and it makes me sick. People like LA, who has means beyond most people, uses due process to talk their way out of wrong doing. They tried to argue that there must be enough evidence. Everyone knows that hard evidence is hard to find and just one mere “reasonable doubt” gets him out of trouble. So on that basis he is trying to get himself out of trouble by creating doubts about the lack of “due process” and the lack of “evidence.” I believe most people respect our justice sytem, but we know it is flawed. How many believe many who had gone through the justice system actually got away with murder because there was “reasonable doubt” and not enough evidence against them? The answer is MANY. But does it make them not GUILTY? No. All it meant was they were good at evading the system. Something tha LA is definitely banking on,again. Having the courage to stand tall and steadfast with a conviction like USADA in a society that worships heroes/celebrities and money is COMMENDABLE.
USADA is soo “courageous” they forgot about due process. Judge Sparks himself called their charging letter “woefully inadequate”. Woefully simply means unacceptable. So, their manner of bringing charges is unacceptable, call it “courageous” but I prefer the standard English usage of “unacceptable”. Simply put it, it is a medieval justice court where person charged is presumed guilty to begin with but you’re very impressed with that. “They had to address”, and the rest is just common paranoia, paranoia is fear that you create yourself. If you live in paranoia you are not free.
‘…I’ll leave it to federal investigators to determine whether or not Armstrong cheated.’ They have, and he did.
It’s up to you how you feel about him, but the fact is that everything was built on a lie. It’s a house of cards. The reason for everything is that he was a cycling champion, and it now turns out that he wasn’t.
“everything was built on a lie…” — and what would that be? Any details? Your arrogant comment shows how little care you take to justify what you write. None. So, it is a lie.
If he were a real and honest man, he’d have faced his accusations, which apparently have some pretty serious merit, with head held high. Instead, he tried to wage his media war and lawyer the system to death.
Now all he has is his money and those hanger-ons that don’t want their childhood dreams nullified.
“accusations, which apparently have some pretty serious merit” — it is easy to level some accusations that apparently have no merit; read your words, it is an accusation. So, you accusing him for walking away from accusations. Now, “serious merit” is an assumption you’re making, despite the fact that it is the opposite, no merit at all. Do you even know what USADA is?
Wow, Hubert, you make all sorts of assumptions about other people. You assume people who disagree with your position are arrogant and liars and that they don’t know what USADA is. You argue that we have no proof that Lance is a liar. Where is all your proof that we’re liars? You say we’re making all sorts of assumptions. In these comments, I have seen you make more assumptions about people that you know little about. Lance is a public figure. We can draw our own conclusions about him. Name calling is child’s play, Hubert. Learn to disagree without insults. People who don’t have a good argument or run out of one resort to insults. It’s a coping mechanism meant to distract from the truth.
The logic is simple: you started accusations against Armstrong despite the fact that he didn’t do anything wrong to you personally. So who suppose to prove what? Now, you’re so offended that I called a spade spade. Besides, I don’t need to prove that you lie, you doing it yourself by exposing false logic, logic that purports to be true while it isn’t. That shows in generalizations, tenuous assumptions, mixing fact with fiction, and above all unchecked desire to harm. Ohh, how do I know that? Because, if a person didn’t cause you any harm but you desire to see him down, defeated, eliminated, humiliated, etc., you’re driven by low emotions that originate in anger, disgust, and hate. At least, you could understand that. Place to start.
So, you are saying the ends justify the means? What if, without cheating, he would not have won, would have remained relatively anonymous and raised only a few pennies for any cause? Your blind loyalty is part of the problem. Even as we talk, there is someone counting on it to defraud us in the name of some worthy cause and reap gains for themselves.
Lance can stay American.
We Canadians will keep our Terry Fox; a true cancer hero, adn a real human being.
(As info, you are transgressing into what the media likes to term moral decoupling, although they generally use it in the consumer context. It boggles my mind how people still walk around with yellow rubber bracelets on their wrists; I suppose theya re more linked to a loved one fighting (or who died from) cancer). Lance has tarnished those too.)
Every hero has a tragic flaw. I believe Lance Armstrong cheated, just like the vast majority of elite cyclists on the world stage. I believe large numbers of elite athletes are probably guilty of using performance-enhancing substances because that is what it takes to consistently perform at such extreme levels. Does that make it right? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean you have to overlook the good he has done. I happen to think Bill Clinton was one of our best presidents, despite serious lapses in moral judgment (blow jobs under the desk in the Oval Office come to mind). The writer isn’t arguing Lance’s innocence. He is just willing to overlook his tragic flaw.
Better: “every human has a tragic flow”, that includes you. So, where do you go from here? Why should a hero have not any flow? By your definition if every hero has a flow then we don’t really have any heroes. Whoever hero is, he/she would automatically be imperfect, more so, tragic imperfect. Therefore, if there are no heroes, people who excel, do something extraordinary, then the world is all flat, grey, uninteresting, tragic. Your view of the world is tragic.
Bill Clinton’s transgression was far more than a sexual/moral transgression. It paralyzed the nation’s ability to protect itself because the right was accusing him of pursuing Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda as a means to deflect criticism. Informed Americans should never forgive either him or the zealous right for that. I am surprised that nobody ever mentioned a mandatory primer in avoiding the abuse of power for all presidents after that. Lance can’t even be mentioned in that level of deficiency. And, yes, I am democrat. Go Obama.
Beth, the problem is people are ignoring this hero’s most tragic flaw – his cheating costed millions: the prize money that he won, the money he got from insurance companies, the lawsuits that were fought, the jobs that people lost when he defamed them, etc… The lawsuit the federal government fought against him cost the taxpayers millions. If you believe he cheated, like I do, don’t you find it sad that his cheating cost us millions? And the foundation he started, raised awareness for cancer and for Lance. It didn’t go to cancer research. We all donated money to a cause that made him look innocent, and made us aware of cancer. Much like Bernie Madoff, Lance cost us millions and we don’t even know it. Maybe if Bernie had an awareness foundation, we could call him a tragic hero too.
It is sad to hear someone mentioned that all LA did was just a MINOR flaw. The same logic could easiy apply for stealing, cheating, killing, molesting and raping as just minor flaws. As long as the Pope done good most of his life, his only minor flaw for molesting his subordinates or people who came to depend on him are forgivable. It is also forgiveable of the Philadelphian coach who had molested many of his students because he had done an excellent job of coaching and mentoring many others. There should be no forgiveness when one breaks the moral codes upon which the human race is built upon. I don’t believe there is such thing as forgiveness for someone who knowingly cheat the public and his own comrads to elevate himself to immortality.
The unfortunate reality is that failing a doping test is akin to failing an intelligence test, this is acknowledged by those that administer the tests (WADA, USADA). Hence, reliance on this story of passing X number of tests is frankly irrelevant and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the doping (and testing) process. So Lance never failed a test (which he couldn’t produce a cert for) Marion Jones never failed a test, Festina, Operation Puerto – no failed tests. The unfortunate upshot of this is that we no longer live in a tidy black and white world of passed tests and failed tests, and must now rely on some pretty shady guys “turning state’s evidence” to save their own hides. This is a shaky moral situation but it has to be better than the worst offenders getting away with ruining such a phenomenal sport because they were smarter (and had better doctors) than the “dopey dopers” who screwed up and got caught?
Your argument about irrelevance of passed tests makes the whole idea of testing irrelevant. Because no matter how many tests are past that is not enough for you. So, why do tests at all? “he couldn’t produce a cert for” – it’s not something that is readily available for you since those results have jurisdiction of more than one organization. But if he was positive in any of those he’d had been red flagged long time ago. Comparing Armstrong to M. Jones is apples and oranges, ’cause she acknowledged complicity in doping, while Lance never did. Besides there’s a big difference b-n number of tests that were done in both cases. But, yes, if you want to make testing irrelevant, what do you propose? Testimony of competitors who were already sanctioned? We’d have a lot bigger circus than it is now.
Hubert, you seem to have faith that if Lance had any positives he would’ve been red flagged. It’s a known fact that when he first had cancer, and raced not knowing he had cancer, his test should’ve shown huge spikes of testosterone in his urine – not related to steroid abuse, but related to the type of cancer he had – testicular cancer. The testosterone spikes from his cancer should’ve been caught in these doping controls. Nobody knew at the time he had cancer, he didn’t know it. The test results knew it. Why did UCI not red flag this? Either these so called doping tests that you put so much faith in overlooked his cancer, or UCI did. Hmmm… Seems his cancer can’t even be detected in these so called tests, or there’s some incompetency at the highest level.
And by the way, comparing Marion Jones to Lance IS like comparing apples to oranges. She’s an admitted cheater. Lance is just a cheater. Passing 500 tests in a sport where cheating is so prevalent doesn’t mean he’s innocent. It just means he’s the most talented cheater in the race.
“the most talented cheater in the race” — your comment is cheating ’cause you don’t have a proof he cheated. It is like several other comments here, uneducated, arrogant, self-serving.
Yes, Hubert, there is proof. It’s called witnesses to a grand jury. It’s convenient that we believe witnesses who testify against a crime boss, that’s enough to put someone in prison. But witnesses testifying against Lance is not proof to you? There are 15-20 witnesses who say Lance cheated. And please don’t tell me everyone is a liar except for Lance. Not all of these witnesses are liars. Not all of them had anything to gain by accusing him. Not all of them want to perjure themselves at the risk of jail time to get back at him.
And most definitely yes, there is proof. Back dated prescription from a doctor to cover up one of his positive test results. $125,000 donation to UCI after another alleged positive test. Never in the history of UCI has any athlete donated money to a governing body. This is unusual in any sport. Especially unusual was this donation happened after it was alleged that Lance failed another test. This test can’t be found. But his unexplained ‘donation’ can be. More proof you need? 87 frozen samples from the past Tours were retested with more sophisticated testing. 13 of them were positive. 7 of them were Lance’s. And if you believe in these tests so much, than can you explain why these tests didn’t even catch his cancer when he raced before he knew he had cancer? He had testicular cancer which would mean huge spikes of testosterone in his urine. Uci did not red flag this. So you want proof? UCI couldn’t even prove he had cancer, much less catch his doping.
Hubert, at least I support my stance with information & education. I don’t merely call people arrogant and self serving like you do. My kids resort to name calling when they don’t have a good defense.
Hubert, do you have proof I am arrogant, uneducated, or self-serving? As you have called others on this blog? No you don’t have proof that I am any of those things. If you’re basing your insults because my view point does not align with yours, then that is ignorance. You’re telling us we don’t get to draw conclusions about Lance, a public figure whose dirty laundry has been aired. But you get to draw conclusions about us whom you know very little about. Double standard. And by the way, there is proof. You’re conveniently ignoring it.
That is going back all the way to 1996. If you believe there’s a statue of limitations of 8 years (as per WADA/USADA/UCI code), then it is not even possible to establish some firm facts about those times (16 years ago). “raced not knowing he had cancer” — how can you race when cancer is already progressively developed? You would not have needed strenght to even walk for any longer time. You’re assuming that he tested positive during his cancer and then wonder why he wasn’t flagged for that. Furthermore, that those positive tests were covered up. Any evidence of that? I can talk about life on Pluto but how is that believable? Need some data, right? Possibility is that during the time when his cancer manifested he didn’t race in competitions sanctioned by UCI, so there were no tests done by them then. Those would have to be international races, not US races where he did compete.
william hernandez from purto rico i believe in lance armstrong 150%
william hernandez you must believe in father christmas !!!
See what you say next week when they lay out the evidence he tried and failed so hard to hide.
Ive seen some stupid lance armstrong supporters comments and youve really really impressed me because that one has gone straight to the top of the list.
Happy doping dude !
To the above post,are you privy to the evidence? I doubt it. Then how can you make comments on the validity of said evidence? Time will tell how valid it is. The fact that someone who said quitting is forever,quit, says alot. If la cheated he knows what the evidence is, if he didn’t cheat he would have fought it . He fought to stop the process he had agreed to abide by as a professional cyclist. When he lost that battle he threw in the towel. It’s bs that it’s a witch hunt. Others were accuse . Are we to believe it is a witch hunt against eveyone? What about past banning? All witch hunts? Why didn’t la stand up for all the others ? Why not because it’s bs.
You’re making implausible assumptions. Walking away from that fight does not constitute admission of guilt, which you take as a fact. The fact is that charges and the arbitration process done by USADA is a low level proof value. What do you say about those hundreds of tests that don’t show doping? Any value in that? Ok, so you’ll say tests can be cheated. Yes, where is the proof of that? You need some material, hard facts to back up what you’re saying. If we apply thinking of yours anyone can be charged for whatever at any time. Tell me about “the witch hunt” then when that happens to you.
@Hubert: LA actually failed a drug test for his 1999 tour de France win, but got off the charge thanks to a backdated medical ordnance (i.e. easily falsifiable).
An expert medical team analyses his 1999 blood samples using new tests for EPO, and they came back positive. However since they were all B samples, the tests were not strictly valid. In 2008, he went and had a shower for 15 minutes leaving a dope tester at the door. Of course, you can say that this is circumstantial, but the probability of actually failing a drugs test while doping is insanely small. Almost no one gets caught actually doping, it’s investigative work such as the Puerto operation or the work done by the USADA on US Postal that actually reveals who has cheated.
Check some facts on this (TdF 1999), “they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.” From: http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/jul99/jul22.shtml
So, he was way below the positive score value to begin with. But media jumped on it trying create some sensation to win some points of him “doping”. Unless you show some facts, testes that he doped, you have none. Knowing that USADA decided to use “testimony” of others to implicate him in doping. Yet that approach has major shortcomings, one is lower believability value. Then, there’s that suspect notion of “conspiracy” to distribute, transport drugs. If you ready Tyler Hamilton’s book even he has no proof beyond some observed incidents, no photos, images, camera work, audio, etc. If there was a widespread organized doping in US Postal, why the federal investigation dropped the case? Etc.
Hubert,
And I guess you think Van Der Sloot didn’t kill Natalie Holloway? Here’s a case where there wasn’t enough proof. And yet years later he was imprisoned after he killed another woman. So sometimes lack of proof is just lack of proof. It doesn’t mean lack of guilt.
And the federal investigation ending doesn’t clear Lance of doping. Just like you believe Lance quitting the USADA case is not an admission of guilt. Double standards, Hubert. You think because the feds dropped Lance’s case it means he’s innocent. Yet you think Lance quitting a case doesn’t mean he’s guilty? This federal investigation was already costing $40 million. Maybe, like Lance, the feds thought enough was enough. I don’t think they would’ve opened this case or spent that much money if they weren’t on to something.
hubert – you must have thought OJ Simpson was not guilty did you??
LA used the words witch hunt because he is going down, Lying to federal government under oath and a stack of witnesses against him will make sure he gets sued until he going to have to confess and then you LA fans going to say “WOW” but everyone cheated in the corrupt sport he was just the best cheater. Wake up its a witch hunt because hes guilty of sports biggest fraud
WW,
“the federal investigation ending doesn’t clear Lance of doping…” — that investigation ending means that there was no convincing evidence of organized doping program in US Postal team. By extension, that also means that Armstrong can say “I never doped”. It’s not 100% proof by itself but if you add to it those hundreds of tests passed the whole thing with him not doping is solid. On the other hand, doping accusations are bogus on many counts. First, you have to break the state of limitations close (8 years); then, not having direct evidence you have to restore to witness testimony, which is a secondary evidence not primary; then, on top of that USADA did not provide discovery process after they issued charging letter, something that shows ridiculous disregard for due process. So, basically, you have to use medieval justice tactics to convince Armstrong in doping; you have this emotionally charged agenda that you’re trying to prove by all means at the cost of truth and due process. That kind of justice will never stand, I can promise you that.
juan-read the article!!
Meh. If he did not win (…by using PEDs) then you would probably not know who he was. There are other people who have survived cancer, and there are other donors and fundraisers who are unsung heroes. Why focus on a fraud, and a cheat? Would you canonize Bernie Madoff if he had donated millions?
An American icon? Materialistic, Machiavellian, and self-righteous –is that what being American is to you ?
“Why focus on a fraud, and a cheat?” — show us some facts first. You believe what you want to believe without checking facts.
Les Carpenter puts it eloquently in his article, “Lance Armstrong gives up fight against USADA, raising questions about his innocence” when he says, “… he sent out a flimsy statement explaining why the man who never quit was suddenly quitting.”
“I can still believe in the millions of dollars raised for cancer”
I invite you to have a close look at exactly what dollars Mr. Armstrong has raised. And yes, he HAS raised millions of dollars. But what FOR exactly?
Awareness. That’s the only noun they’ll commit to. They do not raise one dime for research (which is where the money is actually needed). They raise money through these bike rides. This allows them to grow bigger and hold more and more bike rides, from which they raise more and more money. Spreading the word that cancer is bad. Had any relatives that have died of cancer? Probably. Consider yourself aware. Mission accomplished.
Lance has the LAF pay his jet-fuel expenses every time he travels somewhere. All he has to do is make a speech at a dinner and the travel and jet fuel expenses are all covered by his foundation. The LAF is simply a tax shelter for Lance.
Well Said! Sad that these lance worshipers try to argue for such nonsense. Donnating millions of dollars to a cause does not make one less of a cheat, a liar and a doper. As a matter fact, that is exactly what they aimed for to make them look better. Smelltheglove, smart and correct on many points. He only used these as his tax shelter and to benefit from expansion of the biking enterprise of raising more money for his bike races and more awareness of him as the hero rather than getting real results through research to help save lives. If anyone had followed all the other drug allegations and convictions of elite atheltes, they would know that the majority of the times these elite athletes had the means to hire Doctors and scientiests to figure out ways to cheat the system. Even the WADA, USADA and UCI admitted to not having the means to test banned substances back then, until now. Even now, they are still working on it.
Awareness and advocacy have their place in fighting cancer. If you believe you can overcome cancer that is awareness. You don’t submit to fear. And that is what Armstrong did. But you need to develop that awareness with the help of others. He shown that in some cases at least awareness can be a cure because it constitutes the basis for the will power to resist cancer. So, “smelltheglove”, you need to take a closer look at this and not just accept a convenient and simplistic surface level critic that suppose to give you some false sense of being right. Besides, if you don’t like what Livestrong is doing why don’t you start your own organization?
Yup. Greg Mortenssen built a few stone schools in Pakistan/Afghanistan, but used a lot (most?) of money he raised to sell his books (Three Cups of Tea, etc.). He’s another American millionnaire; another American swindler — taking from the vulnerable, turning them into schleps. Apparently, there’s one born every minute.
It’s too bad that Lance Armstrong doesn’t believe in Lance Armstrong.
“He elevated the sport of cycling to its highest level of publicity in history.”
This is indeed true. But he also upped the bar on cheating, so badly that of the 9 people who shared the podium with Lance during his 7 tour wins, only ONE of them has not been sanctioned for doping.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/24/sports/top-finishers-of-the-tour-de-france-tainted-by-doping.html
“Lance Armstrong the athlete has been disgraced” — not so, if you apply your own logic. As it is, charges brought against him are broad and unspecific, lacking due process, so the question remains not about if he doped or not but about the agency that charged him with those offences. We can’t clean sports from doping if we use corrupt means of medieval justice. We should focus our attention on that. There’s a reason, however, why Armstrong was charged and it is not about doping. By the way, the current prosecution is not a federal prosecution, which was dropped last Feb, but the anti-doping agency USADA was created by US Congress and then left without any oversight or checks, so it developed into a power of its own at the expense of athletes that fall under its jurisdiction. That agency uses corrupt justice system to convince those charged. Just check the history of it. Plenty of examples.
I am a ulta distance runner ,i have run 12 Comrades marathons (89km) 10 silver medals we know the training we have to do to achive this , and on our long training runs our topic is often Lance Armstrong .In my opinion Lance is the greatest athlete ever . How can you expect these riders to ride those distances week in and week out and perform at the same time without some form of assist but legal assist i belive . They are stripping Lance of everything but he has never ever been found guilty . How does that work , everybody are going on hear say . When you that good people dont like it , they are jealous people that have never achived anything in there lives before and are loses so they have to bring down a supurb athlete . All his teammates that have had something to say about Lance be it George , Tyler , Floyd and anybody else are little men , cowards two faced , how can a man go and stab other man in the back , who has made them very rich men , but now its ok to try and bring him down . Lance has not been disgraced but everybody that are trying to bring him down is a disgrace . Lance will always be a 7 time winner of the Tour and they can try as they will , he has never been found guilty , dig as much as you want to try and justify yourself to bring a superb man down . They still on his case on samples that have been tested negative years ago , and now trying very had to find something on him . Dont get me wrong i oppose doping in any sport , but dont bring the worlds best athlete down unless he has been tested positive which he has not , just to suit youself to try amd make a man out of youself when you actually a litte mouse .
Regards
Darrel Laybourn
South Africa
what an idiotic peace. greatest athlete ever comment !!! what a tool you are.
All his team mates are confirming hes not the greatest athlete just had the greatest team doctor and cheaters.In one weeks time when USADA put there evidence on the table see if you still come out with incredulous and heinous comment.Disgraced cheat and hes going to be facing alot of litigation regarding 15 years of lies – sponsors – journalists – newspapers – event organisers. Do me a favour and post a reply next week when they going to show WHY HE TRIED TO STOP THEM AND WHAT THEY GOING TO SHOW.
agree completely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Moral decoupling — you’ve got it.
Darrel, you don’t even know the story (or a small part of it). GO read up on the evidence and why his teammates had to testify. Jeepers, don’t espouse from cluelessness.
We’ll never know how good Lance might have been as an undoped athlete. Same might be said of many pro cyclists. Most of Lance’s performances of any note have been wiped out — he was drugging adn dopihg before cancer, and after.
Should it not be dramatic stay-just-behind defeats? Or dramatic come-from-behind victories?
Also, would he have seemed as iconic at the time, do you think, if instead of “He started training again and went on to win the Tour de France every year from 1999 to 2005″ the statement was “He started training again and due to his involvement in one of the most sophisticated doping programme ever seen went on to win the Tour de France every year from 1999 to 2005″ Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it does it.
“his involvement in one of the most sophisticated doping programme” — that is a conjecture (unproven) that you’re using and conveniantly dwell on it. Show some facts first. Testimony of the former competitors against him should not alone constitute a proof because then what you’re saying is that all those tests he passed have no value. But we can’t discard those tests ’cause it is the fact that they don’t show doping.
During Lance’s 7 year TDF reign, he consulted with Michele Ferrari. Ferrari is the most sophisticated doping doctor. Ferrari has been banned for life for doping athletes. Also, one of Lance’s doctors, Dr. Del Moral, was videotaped disposing medical waste associated with doping. Furthermore, one of Lance’s cycling trainers, Jose Marti, was given a lifetime ban for delivering doping products. Lance’s team mates and his staff have been caught for doping or assisting in doping. It’s like a crime boss not getting busted, while his men are caught. Lance is the crime boss who didn’t get caught, that’s all. Use your common sense.
Yeah, your notion of “common sense” is really uncommon. Neither Marti, nor Del Moral were banned by UCI, it was USADA that issued that ridiculous ruling without jurisdiction, arbitrary and with no formal justification. They don’t have jurisdiction ’cause those people are not even US citizen, not even sanctioned under UCI rules. So, there’s 0 credibility in the sanctions by USADA, let’s repeat, justification is required if an arbitration hearing is not taking place. “Lance is the crime boss”, easy said, whatever, his crime is winning 7 Tour de France titles that you don’t believe he won, ’cause your belief system is limited and not allowing for some human greatness. Everything has to be flat and predicable. He won because to this day USADA can’t even prove their “evidence” in any manner, shape, or form. He’ll always be a winner. Just give it some time for the things to turn around.