Lance Armstrong admits to cheating.

I will still wait for it all to come out. And again this is nothing like Joe Paterno, sorry it is a very bad comparison. Molesting children for years and possibly doing what probably every other athlete has done at some point in their careers is not the same thing in any way. Could be you are right, I'm not disputing it but do hope you are wrong, I am however just curious as to why now, and why not before if they were able to test in 2009 as another poster said, what stopped them doing this sooner? There are many questions that will probably never be answered regarding this, unless he puts something in his book, who knows. In any case, it is a very very sad day for the sport.

im not comparing what armstrong and paterno did i am comparing the responses of their fans. in both cases fans are in a state of denial of the wrongdoing.

Yes I see that, it just left a bad taste in my mouth and I'm sure many others who may feel you are comparing them to the supporters of a child abuser... iykwim.

Whoa, Joe Paterno was no child molester. He is guilty of not going to the Police on the child molester, but Joe P was not the abuser.

Might as well have been. But this is a different discussion.

It is a different discussion, but your level of judgement against other people makes you all high and mighty and perfect, right??

The person I responded to called Joe P a child molester. I would not even say that he "might as well have been", because the fact is that he was not.

And with Lance Armstrong, the only questionable tests were those that he underwent when he was going through cancer treatments. Hard telling what they were giving him to help him fight cancer.

All I can say is shame on all of you.

How can you even sleep at night?

My apologies I confused Paterno with the other dude.

All I can say is shame on all of you.

How can you even sleep at night?

It's easy. I don't have doping and cheating on my conscience.

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

(oh, and noticed someone saying the only time he tested positive was when he was getting cancer treatment? not sure why I didn't see this before, but, no. his last treatment of chemo was in december of 1996. his first Tour win -- and first positive test -- was in 1999.)


****

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."

Kind of hypocrite society we live in. Everybody in sports cheats literally. Those scumbags in the government should clean their freaking closets before trying to clean up somebody else's *kitten*. Same people he raced with cheated too and lost to him. Nothing ever changes with sports in this era or the next. Everyone will be cheat but I guess you are only a cheater when you are caught.

Um....the government wasn't involved. It's funny how no matter the context, some folks try to find a way to blame the government.

It sounds like he has more important things in life to worry about than continuing to fight a claim that has been wearing on hin for YEARS.

I always liked him and is efforts to help those inflicted with cancer. There were some personal things in his past I didn't agree with, but I still followed his career. I wish I could ride even an tiny bit as good as him.

it's interesting that the people that say they like him are just fans ... most of the people he ever dealt with in the racing world said he was a remarkable talent but an equally remarkable a-hole.

A lot of serious cyclists are a-holes. I know. I deal with them on a daily basis. If you read Armstrong's books, he's the first to admit to being arrogant and impetuous. By the way, I'm not really a fan but just someone who has followed his career even before he won the world title and later the Tour de France. If you read the history of the Tour, doping and other cheating has always been a problem. Lance isn't the first. In fact, a big bunch of the people who finished second to him in the Tour were later involved in doping scandals themselves.

I always liked him and is efforts to help those inflicted with cancer. There were some personal things in his past I didn't agree with, but I still followed his career. I wish I could ride even an tiny bit as good as him.

it's interesting that the people that say they like him are just fans ... most of the people he ever dealt with in the racing world said he was a remarkable talent but an equally remarkable a-hole.

A lot of serious cyclists are a-holes. I know. I deal with them on a daily basis. If you read Armstrong's books, he's the first to admit to being arrogant and impetuous. By the way, I'm not really a fan but just someone who has followed his career even before he won the world title and later the Tour de France. If you read the history of the Tour, doping and other cheating has always been a problem. Lance isn't the first. In fact, a big bunch of the people who finished second to him in the Tour were later involved in doping scandals themselves.

absolutely. as were the guys to take third. saw somewhere that only one of the top three finishers in the last 15 years hasn't been accused of/found guilty of/admitted to doping. read, too, that 86 percent of the winners of the tour since 1967 have been at least implicated. the guy wasn't unique in his doping. many of the guys that did it, though, have come clean.

sad thing is, he might have been able to be great without the drugs. at least we know barry bonds was at the least very, very good before he started juicing. with armstrong, we'll never know.

yall just need to worry about losing some weight....another venure to perpetuate gossip. shame on yall!

I think this is a case where they are over reaching their authority. If they have tests at events, and the riders pass them - either by doing something or not doing something - then frankly they shouldn't be allowed to ride in an event. If they were given the ok then there should not be a turn back point.

I think the USADA was intentionally hunting for a witch and if they really had evidence of this sort - why aren't they putting it out there? At this point, I think there are a lot of agencies out there looking for reasons to survive because we're in a political climate where cutbacks are becoming the norm. Either way, if their witnesses are so solid, bring them forward. If not, I'll have to go with Lance and believe it's someone trying to make a name for themselves. Evidence that is solid should come forward but there just doesn't seem to be anything out there which is why I really, really have to question what they are up to at this point.

lol at calling it a witch hunt. as been shown over and over in this thread he has failed tests and there are many witnesses lining up against him.

hes been lucky in the past that he could buy his way out of failed tests. this time they have too much evidence against him and hes taking the cowards way out.

How has it been "shown in this thread"? Are any of the alleged witnesses here on MFP? Or ..are you referring to people's opinions? Because...opinions aren't showing anything.

Oh, Moses, smell the roses.

There has been plenty of evidence talked of on this thread. But too many people have blinders. Whether because they love Armstrong, love his new cause, hate authority, whatever, many peoples refuse to see what is clearly laid out in front of them. And I get the feeling that even if he were to admit to cheating this afternoon, people would go around saying it is because the big, bad government made him say that. Of course, the government isn't the group bringing charges, but as people like to twist facts and all ...

USDA have published their statement and it's pretty damning - sworn testimony from 26 people including 15 riders, 11 of whom were Armstrong's team mates:

http://www.usada.org/cyclinginvestigationstatement.html

Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out - stats show the front of the pelaton at this year's Tour was 10% slower than the late 90s/early 00s. Great that clean riders now stand a chance when competing - but it's time that those who doped to admit what they did was wrong. They should take a leaf out of David Millar's book.

I dont think this is important