Lance Armstrong

Awkward30

I think he was doping. No way someone would give up their titles and reputation to get back to his good works, when those causes will probably be harmed by his tarnished reputation.

Dissenting opinions?

TheRoadDog

You think he was doping? So do a lot of people that haven't been able to prove it. Can you prove it?

fbmandy55

Didn't he pass hundreds of drug tests??? From what I hear, the Tour is on a witch hunt and he's sick of being prodded. The man never failed a test through his career and they continue to request tests from these guys. Leave them alone already!

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough,'" Armstrong said. "Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's unconstitutional witch hunt.

"The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today — finished with this nonsense."

Azdak

As someone who follows professional cycling with a passion and has done so for almost 30 years, I think I have a little insight into this, but there are several layers. I will try to be succinct:

1. Unfortunately, given the evidence, it is virtually certain that Armstrong took performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). The "clean" tests are not proof of innocence. The science of doping has always been ahead of the science of discovery. There is evidence of doping when previously "clean" tests were reanalyzed using newer methods. (NOTE: after rereading my post, I realized I spent a lot of time on peripheral factors, that may have minimized the evidence of guilt--it needs to made clear: there is a LOT of evidence against Armstrong--multiple witness statements, further analysis of past samples, etc).

2. Virtually every major cyclist who rode during the Armstrong era has been shown to have used PEDs in one way or another. It is inconceivable that Armstrong would have been able to defeat the top cyclists of his day by such significant margins riding clean while everyone else was doping.

3. Conversely, IMO, one of Armstrong's biggest defenses is that his career followed a normal trajectory. In other words, he did not, like Barry Bonds, all of a sudden emerge at an age when everyone else's skill start to decline and show a superhuman increase in performance. Armstrong won his Tours when he was at the ages to be at a physiological peak. When he reached the age where riders start to decline (early 30s), his performance declined as well. The Armstrong who won the Tour in 2004 and 2005 was no where near the rider who won in 1999-2003. And when he tried his "comeback" in 2009 and 2010, he performed exactly like you would have expected. But there is a lot more evidence than just performance--it's just that the average person has never seen any of it.

4. I dispute the idea that Armstrong's performance was a complete fabrication due to PEDs. The irony is that he likely could have won the Tour without enhancement--maybe not 7 in a row, and maybe not by a dominating margin, but Armstrong was and is a world-class athlete.

5. Why the investigation after all these years? There has always been a lot of hatred towards Armstrong within the cycling community. From what I have seen, it often borders on the pathological (and it's not from Europeans angry that an American "stole" their sport--the real hatred comes from American cyclists). Why that is I am not exactly sure. Part of it is envy--there are a lot of guys who raced and seem to think "I could've been a winner like Armstrong, but I wouldn't dope". Part of it is vendetta--Armstrong was and can be a world-class a-hole, especially in his younger days. From the comments I have read over the years, I am convinced that a lot of American riders still hold grudges because Armstrong was mean to them or their older brother at some junior race 25 years ago.

6. However, Armstrong has also created a lot of animosity because of his outspoken claims that he never doped and his belligerence in defending himself. If you live in the cycling world and know how it works, the allegations of doping always had a lot more credibility -- people know the players, guys move around from team to team and talk about what they saw, etc. To many, Armstrong's protestations of innocence seem especially hypocritical and phony, which produced a much stronger response than for other riders.

7. This particular case brought by the USADA came from the closed investigation started by another govt agency two years ago. The lead investigator, Jeff Novitsky, was the lead guy going after Barry Bonds and others. A couple of years ago Floyd Landis, a former teammate of Armstrong who was also convicted of doping after winning the 2006 Tour, made specific accusations against Armstrong. Novitsky then decided to take up the case. After two years, the case was abruptly dropped earlier this year. The sudden decision by "superiors" to drop the case surprised many of the investigators, who thought they had sufficient evidence to bring charges. Those investigators then turned over all of their evidence to the USADA, which does not have as high a standard of proof, since they are not presenting in a court of law. It is thought by many that the original investigators pushed hard for the USADA charges, as "revenge" for the criminal case being dropped.

8. So, is this a "vendetta" as Armstrong claims? Yes and no. Are the US authorities making a special effort to single out Armstrong and bring him down hard--you betcha! For the reasons I have described above, they have gone out of their way to single him out, IMO. There have been plenty of other riders who have done as much if not worse than Armstrong and have not been treated as harshly (it's important to remember, however, that imposing sanctions is the responsibility of each national body, so the French or Danish federations might act differently towards their riders than the US). For example, Bjarne Riis, the 1996 Tour winner admitted to wholesale blood doping to achieve his victory. Yet, while he is said to "no longer be recognized as the winner", his title has not been removed from the record books and, indeed, he continues to be the director of the Saxo Bank professional racing team and is in the team car at every Tour. A number of Spanish riders have been closely associated with known dopers or have even been banned at times in the past (Valverde, Contador), yet are still allowed to compete. I think it is also fair to ask why are we spending $ millions (the original Novitsky investigation that lead to this) to go after a performance in an obscure sport that occurred outside the US 10-15 years ago? There is likely more to this than just a "search for justice", but I don't know exactly what.

9. On the other hand, with his public statements and constant belittling of his accusers, Armstrong has made himself a huge target and has almost forced authorities to go after him more harshly.

10. The irony in this, of course, is that if Armstrong is stripped of his titles, many if not most of the other riders next in line are convicted dopers as well--Ullrich, Basso, Zulle--so the whole thing is kind of a farce. What will be more interesting is what lawsuits Armstrong might face. According to public statements, books, etc, Armstrong had clauses in many of his endorsement contracts that stated if he were ever caught doping, he would have to return all the money. Whether or not anyone goes back and tries to recoup the $$$ is a big question. Given that Armstrong is still popular with average Americans and that most people will likely believe the "vendetta" story, I suspect that if Michelob or Subaru went after him, it would hurt them as well, so I think they'll pass.

11. What does it all mean? As someone who considers himself a realist, but also a fan of Armstrong's performances, I am torn. And I will admit that I am opening myself to charges of being in denial. In a review I wrote of a book about Armstrong written by Daniel Coyle, I stated that I felt that Armstrong was one of those complex individuals about whom probably everything said about him---from the best things to the worst things-- was true. I think Armstrong was a world-class athlete--the guy was competing successfully against adult triathletes when he was in his teens--who could have achieved victories without any PEDs, but who probably felt that "everyone was doing it" and so felt compelled to make sure he didn't get left behind. Do I think his victories were "real"? This is where I become more subjective--I guess I feel like since everyone else was doping too, you still saw the best guy win. So there is a part of me that can still watch the old races and feel I am seeing a true competition. But I also can't say that he is being treated unfairly. He almost certainly did use PEDs and he repeatedly, publicity, and sanctimoniously lied about it for years.

12. Why did Armstrong give up now? There have been rumors for months that this was the course he was going to take--so for us who follow the sport, the announcement was no surprise. I can only conclude that he saw enough of the evidence to know that they had the goods and that going forth with arbitration and a public defense would only bring out all of the details. This way, he can still pretend to be the "victim". Maybe pleading "no contest" affects his legal standing vis a vis the endorsement money as I mentioned earlier. Other than that, I am not sure.

The only thing I would caution people is to not vociferously defend Armstrong or completely buy into the story that he is "clean" and the "victim of a witch hunt". You will kind of embarrass yourself, because he is undeniably guilty. For those who found him inspirational, it might be a bitter reality to confront, but unfortunately, that's the way it is.

JustJennie1

Choosing not to participate in a witch hunt is not an admission of guilt. I can't say whether or not he doped however I'm apt to believe all the tests that he took that came up negative.

There are lots of reasons why people choose not to fight something. I believe in this instance it's because no matter how hard he fights, what he does or all the proof he can supply to the contrary they would still somehow find him guilty. IMO he did the smart thing by saying "Screw it. I'm not going to waste my time and money fighting this" because who really wants to be involved in a long, drawn out legal battle that would end up costing him -- and YOU -- thousands of dollars to fight.

Lots of people and corporations for that matter choose to settle and it's not because their guilty it's because sometimes it's not worth it and it's more cost effective to just pay whatever fine/price they impose.

Lance's fans will always stay true to him no matter what.

doorki

I read somewhere that the 10 witnesses who agreed to testify against him in exchange for leniency were all members of his inner circle or former teammates.

That being said, if he chose to continue to follow through with this, his reputation and that of Livestrong would have been further tarnished so he is belligerently falling on his sword while gaining a bit of the moral high ground.

summertime_girl

I think he probably was.I think they all are, frankly. But he passed EVERY SINGLE test ever given to him. I think it's bull**** to strip him of the titles this many years removed too.

fbmandy55

I think he probably was.I think they all are, frankly. But he passed EVERY SINGLE test ever given to him. I think it's bull**** to strip him of the titles this many years removed too.

Yep, regardless of if he is guilty or not, this is kind of double jeopardy on him.

Espressocycle

They should just require all the riders to dope, since most of them do anyway, and then things would be fair again. The way it is now, most non-doping athletes who win races have genetic mutations that do the same thing as the dope anyway.

Azdak

I read somewhere that the 10 witnesses who agreed to testify against him in exchange for leniency were all members of his inner circle or former teammates.

That being said, if he chose to continue to follow through with this, his reputation and that of Livestrong would have been further tarnished so he is belligerently falling on his sword while gaining a bit of the moral high ground.

Well, based on the other comments, that strategy seems to be working.

Because of the relative obscurity of professional cycling in the US, Armstrong has had the unique position of being a world-class athlete who has had almost complete control over his own narrative. Like the Missionaria Protectiva, he has been able to create a powerful hagiography, which he is probably counting on to maintain his public image in the US.

Gilbrod

Yeah, I was reading about all the witnesses. The saying goes, haters gonna hate. But in this case, can everyone truely be lying? If he was doping, anyone know how he was able to beat the tests constantly while these other guys got caught? I guess all will be revealed one way or another.

Azdak

Yeah, I was reading about all the witnesses. The saying goes, haters gonna hate. But in this case, can everyone truely be lying? If he was doping, anyone know how he was able to beat the tests constantly while these other guys got caught? I guess all will be revealed one way or another.

There are numerous ways. These guys are pretty sophisticated about it--at least the top ones are. They have learned to use just enough and time it precisely so that it's on board just to give a little boost, but then washes out before you get the pee cup at the end of the race. It's a constant cat-and-mouse game, but sometimes the mouse trips and gets caught.

Laces_0ut

of course he was taking PEDs...just like Bonds, Jones, McGuire...they all deny...but they all did it. Lance is probably walking away now because he knows they finally got him. and by doing what he's doing he's hoping to leave doubt in peoples minds.

Gilbrod

of course he was taking PEDs...just like Bonds, Jones, McGuire...they all deny...but they all did it. Lance is probably walking away now because he knows they finally got him. and by doing what he's doing he's hoping to leave doubt in peoples minds.

Don't forget Sosa and A-Rod.

tsh0ck

if Armstrong didn't dope then he's the only high-level, winning cyclist who didn't. That takes a pretty big leap of faith.

I don't buy this whole, "the fight's too hard so I'll quit" stuff.

"I doped. And I apologize. Unfortunately, everyone in that era did the same." -- or something like that would have been a good apology about 5 years ago.

look. all but one of the top three finishers in the years he won have been accused of or found guilty of doping. every winner since his last win? same thing. he's not a special snowflake. he did what everyone in the sport did. and 10 of his former teammates were going to say that very thing.

tsh0ck

as far as beating the tests, cheaters cheat. good cheaters cheat very well. he was a good cheater. and as victor conte has said about testosterone here recently, it will vanish from your system in 6 to 8 hours. on top of that, small enough amounts of it will still boost ability but not bring the levels in the body high enough to trip a flag on a test.

in baseball, the amount has to be something like 4 times the normal amount. so if they take enough to jack it to 3 times, still a big boost, but not enough to trigger a positive result.

and, you want evidence? nothing here is a smoking gun ... but there are sure A LOT of folks trying to take this guy down, lying under oath, if this isn't legit stuff:

* floyd landis says he saw him blood doping along with him.
* landis also said he heard rumors of the team selling off gear to pay for the doping. george hincapie was said to have been there for the transfusions, too, but we don't know what he was going to say.
* landis, again, said that armstrong made several 'donations' to UCI in an effort to hush test results. armstrong says that the donations were honest, but the man did give $125,000 to a testing agency. which seems odd.
* a former teammate and his wife said, under oath in 96, that armstrong admitted to his doctors that he had taken EPO, growth hormone, testosterone and other drugs.
* Sports Illustrated had a report in the early 90s talking about three tests that indicated testosterone. but then there were screwups at the lab with the testing agents. can't be confirmed, of course, but the story seemed to color the relationship between the testers and the riders wasn't all the way up-and-up.
* SI also reported that armstrong had gotten his hands on HemAssist, a drug that was pulled from clinical trials and was illegal to own.
* his soigneur said that in 1999, the team forged a back-dated prescription to explain a positive test after the first stage of that Tour.
* for many years, armstrong was coached and trained by, and defended, dr. michele ferrari -- who was linked to many doping cases. he was actually finally convicted, and armstrong officially dumped him.
* then there are the '99 samples that allegedly show EPO.

Azdak

as far as beating the tests, cheaters cheat. good cheaters cheat very well. he was a good cheater. and as victor conte has said about testosterone here recently, it will vanish from your system in 6 to 8 hours. on top of that, small enough amounts of it will still boost ability but not bring the levels in the body high enough to trip a flag on a test.

in baseball, the amount has to be something like 4 times the normal amount. so if they take enough to jack it to 3 times, still a big boost, but not enough to trigger a positive result.

and, you want evidence? nothing here is a smoking gun ... but there are sure A LOT of folks trying to take this guy down, lying under oath, if this isn't legit stuff:

* floyd landis says he saw him blood doping along with him.
* landis also said he heard rumors of the team selling off gear to pay for the doping. george hincapie was said to have been there for the transfusions, too, but we don't know what he was going to say.
* landis, again, said that armstrong made several 'donations' to UCI in an effort to hush test results. armstrong says that the donations were honest, but the man did give $125,000 to a testing agency. which seems odd.
* a former teammate and his wife said, under oath in 96, that armstrong admitted to his doctors that he had taken EPO, growth hormone, testosterone and other drugs.
* Sports Illustrated had a report in the early 90s talking about three tests that indicated testosterone. but then there were screwups at the lab with the testing agents. can't be confirmed, of course, but the story seemed to color the relationship between the testers and the riders wasn't all the way up-and-up.
* SI also reported that armstrong had gotten his hands on HemAssist, a drug that was pulled from clinical trials and was illegal to own.
* his soigneur said that in 1999, the team forged a back-dated prescription to explain a positive test after the first stage of that Tour.
* for many years, armstrong was coached and trained by, and defended, dr. michele ferrari -- who was linked to many doping cases. he was actually finally convicted, and armstrong officially dumped him.
* then there are the '99 samples that allegedly show EPO.

They had to have had more than that, because those are all old stories, most of which are of questionable credibility. If that's all there was, he would still be fighting.

tsh0ck

of course they are old. that's when the thing was happening.

VelociMama

Azdak, as usual, you've posted a thoughtful and informative comment, and for those of us who are not into cycling, I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify a lot of the details that get brushed over by the media.

I think it is also fair to ask why are we spending $ millions (the original Novitsky investigation that lead to this) to go after a performance in an obscure sport that occurred outside the US 10-15 years ago? There is likely more to this than just a "search for justice", but I don't know exactly what.

To me, this is the real question. From what I gather, the USADA is at least partially funded by a grant from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Unless USADA proves otherwise, this means that taxpayer money is going towards this investigation in the range of possibly millions of dollars.

I don't see how it is any use for the federal government to fund an agency responsible for managing athletes who are doping in privately-funded sports, especially those involving sporting events that do not take place within the United States. This makes no sense to me.

Now, if the grant money were going to fund the research end, I could understand that as the results could benefit ONDCP, the scientific community, and other drug-enforcement agencies. What I don't understand is how taxpayer money gets used for the policing end of doping, if it does.

Azdak

Azdak, as usual, you've posted a thoughtful and informative comment, and for those of us who are not into cycling, I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify a lot of the details that get brushed over by the media.

I think it is also fair to ask why are we spending $ millions (the original Novitsky investigation that lead to this) to go after a performance in an obscure sport that occurred outside the US 10-15 years ago? There is likely more to this than just a "search for justice", but I don't know exactly what.

To me, this is the real question. From what I gather, the USADA is at least partially funded by a grant from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Unless USADA proves otherwise, this means that taxpayer money is going towards this investigation in the range of possibly millions of dollars.

I don't see how it is any use for the federal government to fund an agency responsible for managing athletes who are doping in privately-funded sports, especially those involving sporting events that do not take place within the United States. This makes no sense to me.

Now, if the grant money were going to fund the research end, I could understand that as the results could benefit ONDCP, the scientific community, and other drug-enforcement agencies. What I don't understand is how taxpayer money gets used for the policing end of doping, if it does.

There was definitely taxpayer money involved--if not in the USADA process, certainly in the Novitsky investigation that preceded it.

However, I also think it is important for those fans of Armstrong to not engage in comparative trivialization and to keep the issues separate.

The issues that one might have with the investigation itself--the cost, the motivation, the practices, etc--do not negate any actions that it appears Armstrong was engaged in. I mean if he doped, he doped and that fact is not changed because of questions about the investigation. Unfortunately, if you do the wrong thing, you don't have a lot of moral standing to question the propriety of those who caught you (even if warranted). .

Just ask Bill Clinton.

VelociMama

Azdak, as usual, you've posted a thoughtful and informative comment, and for those of us who are not into cycling, I really appreciate you taking the time to clarify a lot of the details that get brushed over by the media.

I think it is also fair to ask why are we spending $ millions (the original Novitsky investigation that lead to this) to go after a performance in an obscure sport that occurred outside the US 10-15 years ago? There is likely more to this than just a "search for justice", but I don't know exactly what.

To me, this is the real question. From what I gather, the USADA is at least partially funded by a grant from the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Unless USADA proves otherwise, this means that taxpayer money is going towards this investigation in the range of possibly millions of dollars.

I don't see how it is any use for the federal government to fund an agency responsible for managing athletes who are doping in privately-funded sports, especially those involving sporting events that do not take place within the United States. This makes no sense to me.

Now, if the grant money were going to fund the research end, I could understand that as the results could benefit ONDCP, the scientific community, and other drug-enforcement agencies. What I don't understand is how taxpayer money gets used for the policing end of doping, if it does.

There was definitely taxpayer money involved--if not in the USADA process, certainly in the Novitsky investigation that preceded it.

However, I also think it is important for those fans of Armstrong to not engage in comparative trivialization and to keep the issues separate.

The issues that one might have with the investigation itself--the cost, the motivation, the practices, etc--do not negate any actions that it appears Armstrong was engaged in. I mean if he doped, he doped and that fact is not changed because of questions about the investigation. Unfortunately, if you do the wrong thing, you don't have a lot of moral standing to question the propriety of those who caught you (even if warranted). .

Just ask Bill Clinton.

Honestly, I just don't care if he doped or not. The only issue for me is that taxpayer money went to fund this thing. That's the only part that bothers me.

Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I have a hard time believing that most professional athletes don't dope at some point during their career. Like you said, the technology of doping is always ahead of the technology of detection.

tsh0ck

the head of the USADA was on the Dan Patrick Show yesterday morning. here's a partial transcript of the interview.



*****


Why the decision now?
"Well, the evidence that we've received over the last few months was just overwhelming, unfortunately, that Lance Armstrong and the other participants on the U.S. Postal Service pro cycling team participated in a very professionalized and sophisticated doping program all aimed to win. Really, under our rules and our obligation on behalf of clean athletes and all athletes at every level, who want to compete without having to use dangerous, performance-enhancing drugs, we had an obligation to initiate the process and allow the legal process to ensue. … Lance Armstrong chose not to contest that, so that's now on him."

If he would have decided to fight this, what would you have done?
"We, frankly, we would have welcomed that opportunity. It's every athlete's right within our system and we would have had an open legal process where every piece of evidence, bit by bit, piece by piece, would have been presented in open court to the arbitration process. He and his lawyers would have the opportunity to cross-examine it, to confront it, to argue that it wasn't reliable or didn't prove what we believed and are confident that it proved."

Do you think Armstrong was afraid of getting in front of the court?
"It's hard to say, but I think at the end of the day, yeah. The better move now for him is to walk away on these terms and hold onto a sound byte with no basis about an unfair process or a witch hunt or a personal vendetta and all these things that you've heard. Because I think it would've been much tougher had all that evidence, over a two-week, three-week period of time, under oath, been presented on the stand. We'll be providing a reasoned decision based on that evidence to the International Federation and the World Anti-Doping Agency, so I think in the weeks to come, that will be revealed in paper form."

Do you respect Lance Armstrong?
"I think there's a bad culture in the sport and we really saw the win-at-all-costs culture take over. I think he did what a lot of other athletes did at that time. A number of them, when we confronted them with all the evidence we saw, came forward and were truthful and sat down with us and said, ‘Yeah, here's everything that went on and here's how we did it and here's who was involved and here's who taught us to beat the test.' They helped and they felt bad about what they were put into and the decisions they were forced to make. … He chose to go an entirely different route and, unfortunately, this is the conclusion at this stage, at least, that results from it. I don't fault any athlete to succumbing or being tempted to the pressures."

How do you respond to Lance saying he's passed close to 500 drug tests?
"Look, we've asked to see the proof of that. I'm not sure that's accurate. At the end of the day, we know athletes, and Marion Jones made the same claim. There were the '99 Tour de France samples that were retested. There was the 2001 evidence that we have that there was [something] suspicious indicative of EPO use that didn't go forward. There was the '99 glucocorticosteroid and we have evidence of cover-up of that positive. And then we included the analytical data from '09 and '10 that, in our charge letter, clearly indicates manipulation of his blood at that time. That is corroborated by other evidence that we have."

How did they beat the tests?
"One was they would use plasma expanders. They would use saline expanders so they would have notice of the test or they would delay being tested and then they would use substances that would easily mask the things they were doing. They were also using things like blood transfusions … which, unfortunately, there's not a current test for. There's good indications that can be drawn from that data I just mentioned to you of the '09 and '10 blood data that we have and presented to him."

Do you think most riders used?
"At that time, I think, not unlike baseball in the late 90s and early 2000s, the culture of drug use overtook the rules. I think, like Senator Mitchell, we got handed a really bad, terrible set of facts, and we had an obligation to weed through those facts and appropriately and responsibly piece those facts together. Our number one objective, and this was told to every athlete that we spoke to, including Lance Armstrong, was to ensure that the doctors, the sport director that's still in the sport, are no longer allowed to continue to advising young athletes and grooming young athletes to do what we've seen this U.S. Postal Service team do."