Lance Armstrong Oprah Interview

[BoyBlue_1985]

My main question is why? Why after all the time that had passed did the USADA decide to go after him?

Because it was widely known throughout Professional Cycling that he was "at it".

It turns out almost everyone was

When Mr. Armstrong refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing before
neutral arbitrators he confirmed the judgment that the era in professional cycling which he
dominated as the patron of the peloton was the dirtiest ever. Twenty of the twenty-one podium
finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping
through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold.
Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six

(36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping[/quote]

 

[MCFC-alan88]

The question becomes, if doping causes such a huge advantage and it was so widely known, how was it not obvious that the man winning during the era was obviously participating in it.

 

[el blue]

Greatest cyclist of all time - regardless.

 

[malg]

I think the worst thing about Armstrong wasn't that he cheated but it was the extent of the cover up. He tried to ruin the careers of journalists who tried to expose him, he even bullied younger team mates to take the drugs as well.

I remember reading an article that said scientists in America could earn more money by finding masking agents to bypass drug tests than they could by finding a cure for cancer. Their athletes have been taking drugs for decades, but they are world leaders in masking agents, so they have gotten away with it.

 

[MCFC-alan88]

Greatest cyclist of all time - regardless.

Eh?

 

[malg]

Greatest cyclist of all time - regardless.

Hahaha - I'll be disappointed if anyone bites at that.

 

[SWP's back]

He did help raise $500 million for charity even if he is a cheating wanker

Jimmy Fucking Savile raised millions for charidee too.
I think I can see a flaw in your logic here.

I dont think we can compare a peado to someone cheating in sport really

With you on this. I can't stand the **** and glad he is caught but he was only doing what half of all cyclists were doing at the time. It's not the crime of the century and his cancer charity has done far more good than he did bad.<br /><br />-- Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:48 am --<br /><br />

I've not followed this bloke's case avidly but didn't he pass the tests each time he was tested? Then, suddenly the regulatory body just seemed to announce his guilt , without a proper explanation.
I confess that I may have missed something but can anyone explain this?

It was strange the way he was declared a cheat, very similar to the way Saville was outed and then all the evidence followed
Armstrong did pass all the tests and his team mates and team managers told of how powders were dropped into urine samples to sterilise them and other ways to beat the doping tests

If that's the case, then I still can't understand why the authorities didn't say so when they announced the ban, at the same time supplying the requisite proofs etc;
Just prove that the tests had been tampered with by Armstrong and there is then no doubt.

There is no doubt and if you had spent even 90 seconds reading up on it you would have learnt that they were going to take him through the courts with proof and testimony but he decided not to contest the charges (as he didn't have a leg to stand on).

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

I think he was worried he would do time like Marion Jones. How he has managed to not be sued for all his sponsorship money is a mystery

 

[el blue]

Greatest cyclist of all time - regardless.

Hahaha - I'll be disappointed if anyone bites at that.

I'm not on a wind up mate and I appreciate your other points about him bullying journos and corrumpting younger cyclists and I'm not saying he isn't a bellend. perhaps the word 'great' is a bad choice... essentially I believe that on drugs or off drugs he would have dominated any era of cycling. It's a shame he had to tarnish it, but as has been pointed out in this thread he was far from alone in his malpractice.

 

[malg]

Greatest cyclist of all time - regardless.

Hahaha - I'll be disappointed if anyone bites at that.

I'm not on a wind up mate and I appreciate your other points about him bullying journos and corrumpting younger cyclists and I'm not saying he isn't a bellend. perhaps the word 'great' is a bad choice... essentially I believe that on drugs or off drugs he would have dominated any era of cycling. It's a shame he had to tarnish it, but as has been pointed out in this thread he was far from alone in his malpractice.

I think Americans will forgive him, but the rest of the world won't. He's one of their own and they'll rally around him - the Oprah interview is the first step.

As for dominating cycling with or without drugs, I don't think it can ever be proved. I really want him to come clean and tell everyone exactly when he started taking the drugs. I really want to be told that he started taking drugs after a few wins of the Tour due to the pressure of winning rather than finding out that he cheated on every one of his Tour wins. Only time will tell. It will be an interesting interview, especially if Oprah doesn't hold back.