Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[neilr]

i commented on LA in the pro cycling thread, i wont post it all here but i agree about his levels of manipulation etc.

some of what i put in that thread was...

"For him to say that now he'll tell the truth is one of the most laughable things I've heard, he's lied so much that I wouldn't be surprised if his name wasn't Lance Armstrong. The conviction with which he did it means he should become a pro poker player. He doesn't get that its a case of 'the punishment needs to fit the crime' not 'the punishment needs to be based on what the other bloke did"


What LA did goes waaaaay beyond just regular doping. He strikes me as a proper sociopath. A shame really when he has done, and still could do, so much for cancer.

[London424]

Jacobyte said:

London424 said:

Digger said:

Boo fking Hoo. Sorry Lance no sympathy from me I'm afraid.

You reap what you sow.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/24896216

I think his overall point is you can't pick and choose the punishment. He has been made a "special case" and it's frankly a bit laughable when you think of all the dopers throughout the history of cycling in comparison.

He wasn't just a doper like the rest of them. The extreme levels of manipulation and fraud he committed have had a far more wide reaching and damaging effect than someone just doing drugs to be a competitive cyclist. He deserves not a jot of sympathy.

But this is the point. They were all doing it. They all manipulated, they all cheated, they all committed fraud.

Do you think he was the first?

I'm not suggesting he gets any sympathy, and I don't think he particularly wants any. What he is saying is treat everyone the same. Just because he's the most "famous" of recent years and wasn't European he has had a much harsher punishment than anyone else.

ETA: This case has some parallels with the Alex Rodriguez and Major League Baseball case and they punishment they are trying to give him.

Edited by London424 on Monday 11th November 16:48

[Jacobyte]

London424 said:

But this is the point. They were all doing it. They all manipulated, they all cheated, they all committed fraud.

Do you think he was the first?

My point is that they weren't doing the same as Armstrong. They just wanted to win races and stay professional. Armstrong didn't stop at just taking PEDs. He lined his pockets by buying people off, betraying millions of people (professional and individuals including cancer sufferers and their families) by building up a worldwide legacy of triumph-over-disaster in the full knowledge that it was all a lie. He took people to court who suggested that he might have doped - and he won. He was continually reinforcing his innocence by bluffing and bullying, so the magnitude of followers would far outweigh anyone daring to call that bluff. He committed fraud to the tune of tens of millions of dollars; that's not your usual doper's fodder.

Even after he was busted he posted on twitter a photo of himself in his sitting room with the yellow jerseys on the wall.

Sociopath? Probably, although that's probably rather tame when compared to usual sociopaths.

[Digger]

Jacobyte said:

Even after he was busted he posted on twitter a photo of himself in his sitting room with the yellow jerseys on the wall.

That image redefined sporting arrogance IMO.

[Welshbeef]

But surely the sport can only punish him for taking drugs.

Bullying and sueing people is out of their hands and just highlights that he might not be a very nice individual or is willing to go a long way to hide his big lie.


What have the UCADA actually charged him with? If its doping /PED then he gets the punishment associated to that big that should be identical for all. If its lifetime ban (which generally now in sport everyone wants a lifetime ban) then they all get it rightly

As for the nasty bully person who ruined people's lives close friends etc then they can sue his arse.
As for the Cancer suffers surely everyone benefitted from him giving awareness and rasing money. I cannot see how him telling a big fat porkie pie about his drug taking and cheating in sport would harm their recovery. There wouldn't be any "claim" from cancer suffers due to his lie.


Lastly he is getting vilified worse than a pedo or killer when all he has done is cheating and drug taking plus being a not very nice person. It needs to be put into perspective its all the sports regulator who are to blame they allowed this to go on for so long they had mass cheating under their watch and did nothing about it. Were they complicit or if not then not fit for purpose so let's nail them too

[London424]

Welshbeef said:

But surely the sport can only punish him for taking drugs.

Bullying and sueing people is out of their hands and just highlights that he might not be a very nice individual or is willing to go a long way to hide his big lie.


What have the UCADA actually charged him with? If its doping /PED then he gets the punishment associated to that big that should be identical for all. If its lifetime ban (which generally now in sport everyone wants a lifetime ban) then they all get it rightly

As for the nasty bully person who ruined people's lives close friends etc then they can sue his arse.
As for the Cancer suffers surely everyone benefitted from him giving awareness and rasing money. I cannot see how him telling a big fat porkie pie about his drug taking and cheating in sport would harm their recovery. There wouldn't be any "claim" from cancer suffers due to his lie.


Lastly he is getting vilified worse than a pedo or killer when all he has done is cheating and drug taking plus being a not very nice person. It needs to be put into perspective its all the sports regulator who are to blame they allowed this to go on for so long they had mass cheating under their watch and did nothing about it. Were they complicit or if not then not fit for purpose so let's nail them too

That basically sums up my thoughts.

[Jacobyte]

Agreed, being an unpleasant individual isn't a crime. But in the context of everything else, it is likely to offset any mitigating circumstances that he might plea.

Regarding those he has upset, it's more than someone just being disingenuous; He built himself up as a bastion of righteousness and a leading light in schools as an example of honourably overcoming the odds. He created a global role model of himself for honesty and hard work. Now the house of cards has collapsed, people have been emotionally cheated and rightly feel aggrieved and disillusioned about whether anyone in a position of accepted trust can ever genuinely be believed again. It's extremely damaging for more than just sports fans or cancer sufferers, the philosophical consequences really are far-reaching.

I agree about the actual punishment for taking drugs - it should be consistent. Fraud should be dealt with separately, which could even result in some porridge.

Welshbeef said:

Were they complicit or if not then not fit for purpose so let's nail them too

Absolutely.

[Sway]

Whilst you're correct that they can't include some charges within sporting sanction, there is an elephant you're both missing.

The coercion and supply of drugs to others.

So the sanction is not merely as user, but supplier too.

He also removed any possibility of leniency through co-operation, which others took advantage of...

[prand]

I found the fact he has even been allowed airtime extremely distasteful. Looking cynically at his non-cycling activities, his books and public service campaigns, this all appears now as an elaborate scheme to deflect suspicion and make him untouchable, and this he's now trying to be able dictate his own damage limitation exercise. I might upset a few by comparing him to Jimmy Savile, and I apologise, but it is clear he used his clout and connections and charity work to protect himself from being caught during his cycling years, while being hailed as a hero, and such a commercial draw, everyone felt they had to turn a blind eye.

I cannot believe people have sympathies with him, his current treatment or say that there are others who deserve similar. Armstrong was a massive figure outside of cycling, and he won the tour an absolutely awe inspiring 7 times. Clearly a superhuman feat as we now know ( and many knew all the time).

Like Savile and other 70's heroes caught up in Yewtree, I feel tainted because of these revelations, what do I do with the memories of my younger years now they are ruined by scandal? What does the inspiration and anchor points of younger years go when they have to be wiped from the record?

Frankly I'd like nothing more than to never hear about this man again, allowing him the oxygen of publicity would be a fitting punishment.

Edited by prand on Monday 11th November 21:54

Edited by prand on Monday 11th November 21:59

[Welshbeef]

What about Schumacher who cheated what about Prost and Senna too?

What about Dywane Chambers


What about Team Honda F1 with the illegally large Fuel tanks

What about the fact most of the pentagon were on drugs so your iconic winner won when vast majority of his peers were also on drugs too!?



To me any professional sport no drugs period if your caught lifetime ban no questions - but no one even if they come forward as a cheating drug taker should be seen in any better light than another cheating drug taker.
When are those in the USADA who were in charge at the time going to be taken to court banned from being involved in any sport again as they were either complicit or naive and either makes them untenable to be lin those positions.

I don't care one way or the other about LA he has been caught - good job - but his treatment has to be fair and just as we live within laws and a civilised country. However as pretty much all top ten runners wee drugged up for his 7 years of wins wiping all history seems daft and given they didn't test everyone they cannot reallocate the medals to say 20th position it makes it an utter farce.

[mattnunn]

I see Chris Hoy has been caught up in a new drugs scandal...

































He wasn't taking them, just peddling.


I thankyou, goodnight!

[1]

prand said:

I found the fact he has even been allowed airtime extremely distasteful. Looking cynically at his non-cycling activities, his books and public service campaigns, this all appears now as an elaborate scheme to deflect suspicion and make him untouchable, and this he's now trying to be able dictate his own damage limitation exercise. I might upset a few by comparing him to Jimmy Savile, and I apologise, but it is clear he used his clout and connections and charity work to protect himself from being caught during his cycling years, while being hailed as a hero, and such a commercial draw, everyone felt they had to turn a blind eye.

I cannot believe people have sympathies with him, his current treatment or say that there are others who deserve similar. Armstrong was a massive figure outside of cycling, and he won the tour an absolutely awe inspiring 7 times. Clearly a superhuman feat as we now know ( and many knew all the time).

Like Savile and other 70's heroes caught up in Yewtree, I feel tainted because of these revelations, what do I do with the memories of my younger years now they are ruined by scandal? What does the inspiration and anchor points of younger years go when they have to be wiped from the record?

Frankly I'd like nothing more than to never hear about this man again, allowing him the oxygen of publicity would be a fitting punishment.

Edited by prand on Monday 11th November 21:54

Edited by prand on Monday 11th November 21:59

You need to take yourself outside and get some perspective.

[TedMaul]

I guess it depends on which angle you look at it from. In terms of the actual substance taking/blod tranfusions, he is no better or worse than others so you may think him being singled out is unjust, as he himself clearly does.

From which I have read and heard, there is more to it than that though - testimony that not only did he coerce others into doing likewise, he and his team exiled those that didnt follow, to that end he propogated the problem. Also his ferocious denial, going after those who questioned him.

As House MD says 'Everybody lies' so the fact he let a lot of people down is immaterial. Id suggest the net gain to Cancer charities easily outweighs any downside. I doubt any cancer survivors who sought inspiration from him went into remission on hearing his admission. If his supported charities have gone into liquidation or lost sponsorship, than that is indeed very sad, but without him they wouldnt have existed in teh first place or at least have been as successful. I watched all his victories, on TV admittedly and it was hard not to be impressed, so I do feel let down, but thats life.

Me personally, it just comes down to whether what is in 2nd paragraph matters or not. To me it does, the bullying, the propogation of the abuse and the lies goes aginst my personal values and hence the additional vilification he gets is well deserved.

[LocoCoco]

Welshbeef said:

What about the fact most of the pentagon were on drugs so your iconic winner won when vast majority of his peers were also on drugs too!?

That mistake made me chuckle, I wouldn't be surprised if you got extradited for confusing the two. I agree with your point of view on LA.

[prand]

1 said:

You need to take yourself outside and get some perspective.

I do have perspective, but this is not about someone just cheating in sport to be the best, however heroic that is. People are being jailed for defrauding others all the time, and that's really what this is. It comes across to me that Armstrong's entire life, once he realised he had a talent to exploit, was set up around his desire to win, and as a result, to earn money. To do this he had to lie, threaten, coerce and create a false persona and a rotten system to protect his position. And surely this is where a definition of fraud comes from: to obtain money or benefit by deliberate deception?

Not much different to any Alan Stanford type who sets up an elaborate ponzi scheme in my mind. Setting up the Armstrong pyramid scheme generated a lot of cash, and this was dishonestly achieved. It's a perfect crime though, because Trek, Nike and Oakley will just keep quiet as they will have made many millions on their investment, the charities the same, it's the mugs like me, who donated, bought the books, the wristbands, the endorsed kit who lost out.

[1]

prand said:

I do have perspective, but this is not about someone just cheating in sport to be the best, however heroic that is. People are being jailed for defrauding others all the time, and that's really what this is. It comes across to me that Armstrong's entire life, once he realised he had a talent to exploit, was set up around his desire to win, and as a result, to earn money. To do this he had to lie, threaten, coerce and create a false persona and a rotten system to protect his position. And surely this is where a definition of fraud comes from: to obtain money or benefit by deliberate deception?

Not much different to any Alan Stanford type who sets up an elaborate ponzi scheme in my mind. Setting up the Armstrong pyramid scheme generated a lot of cash, and this was dishonestly achieved. It's a perfect crime though, because Trek, Nike and Oakley will just keep quiet as they will have made many millions on their investment, the charities the same, it's the mugs like me, who donated, bought the books, the wristbands, the endorsed kit who lost out.

The difference is huge. They were all doing it he was simply better at it. Your donations went to charity the book was entertaining and gave people inspiration at the time. When I was 8 I used to think my dad was invincible, he was my hero. It turns out he's not invincible but just an ordinary bloke, where do I claim?

[anonymous-user]

prand said:

it's the mugs like me, who donated, bought the books, the wristbands, the endorsed kit who lost out.

I dont think anyone has "lost out" so to speak, many people had an idol brought crashing down to earth, I supported Lance in hte belief that no one would establish LiveStrong with a doping past but hey, turns out I was wrong. At the very worst, I embarrassed myself on an internet forum (which happens daily, no dramas!) but I havent lost out.

In my opinion, its what Lance does next that shows his true character. He has the chance to whine to the press and claim he is being treated unfairly or he can MTFU and do a lot of good. Its his call. If he chooses the latter then I think he will go some distance in redeeming himself....or he can go crying to Oprah again...

[prand]

1 said:

The difference is huge. They were all doing it he was simply better at it. Your donations went to charity the book was entertaining and gave people inspiration at the time. When I was 8 I used to think my dad was invincible, he was my hero. It turns out he's not invincible but just an ordinary bloke, where do I claim?

Ok, we really won't agree on this. I'll leave it.

[Digger]

LocoCoco said:

Welshbeef said:

What about the fact most of the pentagon were on drugs so your iconic winner won when vast majority of his peers were also on drugs too!?

That mistake made me chuckle, I wouldn't be surprised if you got extradited for confusing the two. I agree with your point of view on LA.

I actually read that as is, without batting an eyelid.

Now I feel like a fool!

[London424]

Interesting interview with Lance and O'Reilly meeting up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/artic...