Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
Sports => Other Sports => Topic started by: elan on August 24, 2012, 09:00:14 PM
-
Lance Armstrong subject to lifetime ban and fan fallout (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57499634/lance-armstrong-subject-to-lifetime-ban-and-fan-fallout/)
(CBS News) In a statement released late Thursday night, celebrated cyclist Lance Armstrong announced he would no longer fight charges that he used performance enhancing drugs throughout his esteemed career.
"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, enough is enough," Armstrong's statement read. "For me, that time is now."
Also on Thursday night, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said it will strip Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and Travis Tygart, USADA's chief executive, said Armstrong would be subject to a lifetime ban from the sport.
Friday on "CBS This Morning," CBS News chief investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian said the original charges brought against Armstrong in June were based on "non-analytical evidence" that he used performance enhancing drugs. This evidence reportedly included testimony from several former teammates, including Tyler Hamilton who told "60 Minutes" that he frequently saw Armstrong inject "EPO," a banned naturally occurring hormone known as a blood booster.
On Monday, a judge dismissed Armstrong's suit to dismiss the charges. Armstrong has vehemently denied the charges and cites the fact that he has passed over 500 drug tests throughout his esteemed cycling career.
Nike, one of the athlete's biggest sponsors, released a statement of support for Armstrong this week. "Nike plans to continue to support Lance and the Lance Armstrong Foundation," the statement read.
For his part, Armstrong who retired last year, said the USADA does not have the authority to strip him of his titles but in a phone call with "CBS This Morning," Tygart reiterated, "given that he's chosen not to contest, it's a legal fact that he's now disqualified and has a permanent ban from sport competition."
Peter Flax, the editor in chief of Bicycling Magazine, joined "CTM" on Friday to reflect on the fallout. Flax contends that Armstrong is "choosing the least worst option...it's a damage control move" and believes Armstrong is unequivocally guilty of the charges. "I'm absolutely convinced that he did, but I'm also convinced that he is the victim of a witch hunt," Flax said.
Still, Flax said he has seen many messages of support for Armstrong on Bicycling Magazine forums, "95 percent of them are pro-Lance people, communicating their support for him," he said. "He is guilty but in a lot of people's eyes, he's still an inspiration."
-
This dude has been doped up for a long time. But he is a golden boy and got protection, even Nike is sticking by him. Yet they crucify Bonds (though he a clown).
-
Bonds and Armstrong is two completely cases.
Armstrong has never tested positive (neither has Marion Jones) but in all fairness, what is the standard?
Is drug testing the standard? if it is what standard they holding Armstrong to?
-
Bonds and Armstrong is two completely cases.
Armstrong has never tested positive (neither has Marion Jones) but in all fairness, what is the standard?
Is drug testing the standard? if it is what standard they holding Armstrong to?
Eventually they said they found documnets at Balco that stated Bond had failed drug tests. Marion never failed and got banned, so there is your standard.
-
Marion admitted drug use and to lying to a grand jury. Armstrong did not do either.
Where is the standard?
Later reports on Bonds' leaked grand-jury testimony contend that he admitted to unknowingly using "the cream" and "the clear"
In July 2005, all four defendants in the BALCO steroid scandal trial, including Anderson, struck deals with federal prosecutors that did not require them to reveal names of athletes who may have used banned drugs.
Anyway i was just playing devil's advocate.
The anti doping folks say that based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists, that they have a case.
-
Marion admitted drug use and to lying to a grand jury. Armstrong did not do either.
Where is the standard?
Later reports on Bonds' leaked grand-jury testimony contend that he admitted to unknowingly using "the cream" and "the clear"
In July 2005, all four defendants in the BALCO steroid scandal trial, including Anderson, struck deals with federal prosecutors that did not require them to reveal names of athletes who may have used banned drugs.
Anyway i was just playing devil's advocate.
The anti doping folks say that based on blood samples from 2009 and 2010, and testimonies from other cyclists, that they have a case.
The last tour de France Amstrong won, I remember on the last hill section that he had to win to get the yellow jersey, half way through everybody struggling all of a sudden from in the middle pack he make a move and win the stage. what was remarkable for me was how he was able to just turn on the power and cruise past all the other riders almost Ben Johnson like.
-
Bonds and Armstrong is two completely cases.
Armstrong has never tested positive (neither has Marion Jones) but in all fairness, what is the standard?
Is drug testing the standard? if it is what standard they holding Armstrong to?
Has never tested positive even though the USADA say they have 38 samples that are entirely consistent with blood doping?
When 10 of your teammates are ready to testify against you, that's not a good sign.
-
If he had stayed retired there would be nothing they could do because of the statute of limitations. When he came out of retirement he reset the clock on the limitations and it allowed them to (I assume) retest past samples and make a case.
But I agree there is somewhat of a double standard.
-
Two Armstrongs in the news today
-
If he had stayed retired there would be nothing they could do because of the statute of limitations. When he came out of retirement he reset the clock on the limitations and it allowed them to (I assume) retest past samples and make a case.
But I agree there is somewhat of a double standard.
Statute of limitations doesn't apply in this scenario.
-
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lance-armstrong-gives-up-fight-against-usada--raising-questions-about-his-innocence-.html
I'm not a legal expert but an interesting read nonetheless.....
-
The USDA moved hard and fast because according to the rules, they had until end of this year to deal with Armstrong...well so I have heard and I have also heard that the clock was reset due to his comeback also.
-
I find it strange, that they have no evidence, only what his team mates say. But he get ban? Or I'm I missing something?
-
I find it strange, that they have no evidence, only what his team mates say. But he get ban? Or I'm I missing something?
What his team mates say is evidence...indirect evidence. What you referring to is DIRECT evidence, the lack of which isn't all that unusual. Even in criminal cases, most cases are solved by indirect (or "circumstantial") evidence, as opposed to direct evidence (DNA, video etc.).
The indirect evidence they had lined up was overwhelming:
“At the end of the day, a lot of people knew the truth, but they were silenced by the internal pressure from the team to keep everything secret,” Tygart said, adding, “This is the most witnesses we’ve ever had in any case come forward.”
Tygart would not divulge the names of any of the witnesses. But one thing was clear: they were the crux of the antidoping agency’s evidence against Armstrong. And in the doping world, that is known as a nonanalytical positive — an athlete implicated not by a positive drug test but by supporting evidence.
In recent years, it has become the new way to catch athletes who cheat.
“Science can’t decide everything,” David Howman, director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said. “These days, you need to complement a testing program with the gathering of evidence with other methods. To build your case, you put together strands that make one strong rope.”
...The antidoping agency has said its evidence includes blood profiles from 2009 and 2010 that were consistent with doping, which means they showed blood results that were outside his normal range.
“This is not an adverse finding, but this is certainly a sufficient equivalent to testing positive,” said Christiane Ayotte, the head of a World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited lab outside Montreal. “We’re at the point that if we’re not using these indirect markers, you can just forget about a case. For example, oral testosterone and microdoses of EPO will be detectable for only 12 hours. You just about have to be there when the athlete is doping to catch them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/sports/cycling/antidoping-officials-move-to-wipe-out-armstrongs-titles.html?src=me&ref=sports
According to the letter, "Armstrong's doping is further evidenced by the data from blood collections obtained by the UCI" -- the sport's governing body -- "in 2009 and 2010. This data is fully consistent with blood manipulation and EPO use and/or blood transfusions."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/austin_murphy/06/14/usada-versus-lance-armstrong/index.html#ixzz24bjeka1h
-
If he had stayed retired there would be nothing they could do because of the statute of limitations. When he came out of retirement he reset the clock on the limitations and it allowed them to (I assume) retest past samples and make a case.
But I agree there is somewhat of a double standard.
The USDA moved hard and fast because according to the rules, they had until end of this year to deal with Armstrong...well so I have heard and I have also heard that the clock was reset due to his comeback also.
You are both correct in that there is an 8-year statute of limitations (http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/Code_Review/Draft_3.0/WADA_Code_2007_V3.0.pdf):
ARTICLE 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for a violation of an anti-doping rule contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date the violation occurred.
So yes, they had to act before the 8-year anniversary of his last Tour win back in 2005, meaning June(?) of next year. I don't think it matters that he came out of retirement, unless USADA would have alleged that he was still doping after he came out of retirement. Whenever the last alleged violation took place, that's the date from which the clock would start counting. So yes, if they claimed he was still doping after he came back then that would have extended the clock beyond June of next year.
-
During the 1999 Tour, O’Reilly said, her workload had been lightened when one cyclist, the aforementioned Vaughters, dropped out of the race. That left her more time to minister to Armstrong and one other rider. On the team bus, she claimed, she heard several top team officials fretting about a positive test by Armstrong for steroids. They were in a panic, saying: “What are we going to do? What are we going to do?” Their solution was to get one of their compliant doctors to issue a prescription for a steroid-based ointment to combat saddle sores. If Armstrong had saddle sores, O’Reilly said, she would have known.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/sports/cycling/armstrong-best-of-his-time-now-with-an-asterisk-george-vecsey.html?ref=sports
-
Lance was still the best of his time..as all the other contenders to his drug throne were also all drugging and most if not all were caught and convicted drug cheats.
There are very few clean riders in the Tour De Farce
-
His drugs were better. American made
-
His drugs were better. American made
lol
-
Nike drops Lance Armstrong, who steps down from Livestrong (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2012/10/17/nike-drops-lance-armstrong/?wprss=rss_sports)
Posted by Cindy Boren on October 17, 2012
Nike has terminated its contract with Lance Armstrong, citing “seemingly insurmountable evidence” that he “participated in doping and misled” the company.
The Oregon-based company announced the termination of its long relationship with Armstrong shortly after he announced that he was resigning as head of his Livestrong cancer charity.
Nike, in a statement on its website, said:
“Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner. Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer.”
Armstrong resigned as chairman of Livestrong a week after a U.S. Anti-Doping Agency report called the former champion cyclist the driving force behind “the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.”
In announcing his resignation, Armstrong said in a statement: ”This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart. Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship.”
The USADA report made public its investigation into allegations that have swirled about Armstrong for years and portrayed Armstrong as the leader of his team’s doping efforts. The report contains statements from 26 witnesses, including 11 former teammates. Armstrong has always denied doping, but gave up the fight against the allegations in August.
Armstrong, who survived testicular cancer that had spread to his brain and lungs before becoming a champion cyclist, received no salary as chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation and will remain on its 15-member board. Vice chairman Jeff Garvey, the founding chairman in 1997, will assume his duties. Garvey will assume strategic-planning duties and will take over some of Armstrong’s public appearances and meetings.
Nike’s decision to sever its long relationship with Armstrong comes a day after a New York Daily News report that alleged the company paid $500,000 to help cover up a positive drug test. Kathy LeMond, wife of cyclist Greg LeMond, had testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid Hein Verbruggen, the former head of the international cycling union, $500,000 to cover up the positive result.
“Nike vehemently denies that it paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test,” it said in a statement, according to the Daily News. “Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs.”
Nike’s decision to sever ties with Armstrong is similar to the one it made with another celebrated hero. The name of Joe Paterno, the late former Penn State coach, was removed from the child-care center at Nike’s Oregon headquarters and now, ESPN’s Darren Rovell reports, the company will remove Armstrong’s name from its fitness center.
On Tuesday, Paul Willerton, a former teammate of Armstrong’s, led a small demonstration outside Nike headquarters, calling for the company to sever its ties with Armstrong. ”Nike should not condone the behavior that Lance Armstrong has demonstrated for so long,” Willerton told the Daily News. “To see Nike take this stance now is disgusting. Nike’s materials have stood for some of the greatest things you can stand for as a company. A clean sport should be another one of those things.”
The only other athlete Nike appears to have severed ties with is Michael Vick, the Philadelphia Eagles’ quarterback who served a federal prison sentence for his involvement in dog fighting. Nike re-signed Vick.
-
All good.
-
Correct result in both instances.. as I posted elsewhere today.
-
It is amazing how many people out there still drinking the Lance Armstrong koolaid and in denial even after the report came out. Blasted cheat! Nike never got my money and never will.
-
Guess which clothing sponser all these athletes had in common. Nike
Marion Jones, Kelli White, Tim Montgomery, lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Regina Jacobs, CJ hunter, Justin Gatlin, Chryste Gains, Torri Edwards, the list goes on....
-
Guess which clothing sponser all these athletes had in common. Nike
Marion Jones, Kelli White, Tim Montgomery, lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Regina Jacobs, CJ hunter, Justin Gatlin, Chryste Gains, Torri Edwards, the list goes on....
Doesn't really mean anything...
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ngqxd)
About 2 hours long but a real interesting listen.
Look up the Festina affair, Christophe Basson and Filippo Simeone.
-
It's amazing how the media just keep glossing over this. Where's ESPN with all the updates and analysis, and indepth look at how such an event unfolded.
Tiger dominated the air for week without cease, so to did Michael Vick, Bonds. Why no uproar?
Shouldn't Livestrong be renamed, since it was built on Liestrong?
-
http://search.espn.go.com/lance-armstrong/
84 pages of info
-
It's amazing how the media just keep glossing over this. Where's ESPN with all the updates and analysis, and indepth look at how such an event unfolded.
Tiger dominated the air for week without cease, so to did Michael Vick, Bonds. Why no uproar?
Shouldn't Livestrong be renamed, since it was built on Liestrong?
Sometimes I feel you have ah inferiority complex yes fella.
1) Both Tiger and Bonds were still active at the times of their investigation, Armstrong retire 2-3 years ago.
2) Bonds eventually retired before the investigation wrapped up, but his were criminal charges. Armstrong hasn't been charged with a crime... yet.
3) Back then people were already tuning out doping cases... the public kinda over it now, not really that 'news' worthy now.
4) Both Baseball and Golf are bigger than cycling... Armstrong is a big name because he American and because he dominated the sport, but in the grand scheme of things nobody really care about cycling (who was the last person to win the Tour befor Armstrong won his 7 straight? Who won after he did... can you answer those without Googling?).
-
but in the grand scheme of things nobody really care about cycling
Bakes, the French did. They did not mind an outsider winning one or two Tours, but for "un Americain" to dominate their national pastime "est sacre bleu". It use to drive them crazy. Some of the fans used to scream "...dupee, dupee..." when he passing by.
-
but in the grand scheme of things nobody really care about cycling
Bakes, the French did. They did not mind an outsider winning one or two Tours, but for "un Americain" to dominate their national pastime "est sacre bleu". It use to drive them crazy. Some of the fans used to scream "...dupee, dupee..." when he passing by.
Elan is talking about domestic coverage of the scandal...
-
It's amazing how the media just keep glossing over this. Where's ESPN with all the updates and analysis, and indepth look at how such an event unfolded.
Tiger dominated the air for week without cease, so to did Michael Vick, Bonds. Why no uproar?
Shouldn't Livestrong be renamed, since it was built on Liestrong?
Sometimes I feel you have ah inferiority complex yes fella.
1) Both Tiger and Bonds were still active at the times of their investigation, Armstrong retire 2-3 years ago.
2) Bonds eventually retired before the investigation wrapped up, but his were criminal charges. Armstrong hasn't been charged with a crime... yet.
3) Back then people were already tuning out doping cases... the public kinda over it now, not really that 'news' worthy now.
4) Both Baseball and Golf are bigger than cycling... Armstrong is a big name because he American and because he dominated the sport, but in the grand scheme of things nobody really care about cycling (who was the last person to win the Tour befor Armstrong won his 7 straight? Who won after he did... can you answer those without Googling?).
Yeah, sometimes I post bias.
I was more looking at it from the angle of the Livestrong foundation. I know cycling not on many radar, but the publicity and financial gains in developing the Livestrong foundation and brand through Armstrong achievements and accomplishments must be looked at. Or does it not matter?
-
Really disappointed in Lance, heard that he was one of the only athletes that could compete with Becks in the beep test. I was skeptical that a man with one testicle was so fit and so athletic.
-
Yeah, sometimes I post bias.
I was more looking at it from the angle of the Livestrong foundation. I know cycling not on many radar, but the publicity and financial gains in developing the Livestrong foundation and brand through Armstrong achievements and accomplishments must be looked at. Or does it not matter?
I think it's fair to shine a spotlight on Livestrong, but that was as much a success because of Armstrong as it was because of Nike. Armstrong was the face, but the financial muscle came in large part from Nike (sponsoring and then pushing Livestrong merchandise). I imagine much of their finances came from donations tied to Armstrong's promotion as well, no denying that, but speaking for myself I saw it very much a Nike vehicle as it was Armstrong's. By that I don't mean that Nike used it to make money... but Nike was the brand on the foundation's gear. All that to say that I have no issue separating Armstrong's scandal from the Foundation itself... and I wouldn't be surprised if others did as well.
All that said, the news of him stepping down from the board, and of Nike dropping him (while still supporting Livestrong) was front page news on the NYT, Washington Post and lead off ESPN's SportsCenter coverage. I don't watch a whole lot of local news, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was covered there as well.
-
Really disappointed in Lance, heard that he was one of the only athletes that could compete with Becks in the beep test. I was skeptical that a man with one testicle was so fit and so athletic.
Really disappointed in Lance, heard that he was one of the only athletes that could compete with Becks in the beep test. I was skeptical that a man with one testicle was so fit and so athletic.
U forget Dwight York?
-
All that ridin for nutting. He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.
-
Yankee love to dope boy.
-
Was never a fan of Lance, but respected what he did. Real disappointed that it was drug induced.
-
All that ridin for nutting. He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.
And banned for life.
-
Madame Curie ingested radium in her research. She should be stripped of her Nobel Prize.
Honestly - who cares. It's a bicycle race around France for god's sake.
-
???
-
More front page news today... in fact I have the NYT app on my phone and dai'z de only news item they 'push' to me this morning.
-
All that ridin for nutting. He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.
Titles schmitles...de man get to keep he million$ and he one ball....he eh end up scruntin like marion jones
-
All that ridin for nutting. He got stripped of the 7 Tour de France titles.
Titles schmitles...de man get to keep he million$ and he one ball....he eh end up scruntin like marion jones
Not so fast...
-
Hear what///Lance was de best rider still, afterall almost the entire field doping anyway...yuh feel de people who finish second through 300 eh dopers too?
Steups..like Palos saying for de past 8 years...let everybody dope and level de playing field...stop testing lol
-
Hear what///Lance was de best rider still, afterall almost the entire field doping anyway...yuh feel de people who finish second through 300 eh dopers too?
Steups..like Palos saying for de past 8 years...let everybody dope and level de playing field...stop testing lol
All that does is:
a) Ensure that the richest team (who could afford de best doctors and drugs) will win;
b) Send a message to kids (and most importantly, young riders) that the only way to win is to 'cheat', or put in the context you describe... to get the best drugs to help you win.
I'm sure you being facetious, but in the even you're not... neither of these is an ideal solution. Quite the opposite, I think the fact that the biggest name (perhaps ever) in all of cycling, it's most decorated rider (again, maybe of all time... certainly of the modern age), it's richest star... has been brought low and shamed within the sport. Riders don't race to become rich... they hope to, but tha that's not why they take up the sport. If they want to be rich there might be easier paths to riches in other sports. Instead they ride because they love the sport... and therefore their reputation in the sport matters to them... they don't want to be shamed within the cycling community and certainly don't want to be ostracized as he has. Armstrong will have his money, though how much of that he'll keep is currently in dispute. He'll never again ride competitively, and never again be received warmly within the international fraternity.
-
Lance Armstrong’s fall: A case for allowing performance enhancement
By Brad Allenby (Washington Post)
In the past month, cyclist Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. His commercial sponsors, including Nike, have fled. He has resigned as chairman of Livestrong, the anti-cancer charity he founded. Why? Because the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the International Cycling Union say he artificially enhanced his performance in ways not approved by his sport and helped others on his team do the same.
This may seem like justice, but that’s an illusion. Whether Armstrong cheated is not the core consideration. Rather, his case shows that enhancement is here to stay. If everyone’s enhancing, it’s a reality that we should embrace.
Look at any sport. People are running, swimming and biking faster and farther; linemen are bulkier than ever; sluggers have bigger muscles and hit more home runs. This might be due to better nutrition. Perhaps it is a result of legally prescribed drugs. Heck, it might simply be because of better training. But illegal enhancement has never been more evident or more popular.
Moreover, enhancement science — pharmacology, nanotechnology, biotechnology and genetics — is more sophisticated. A recent Nature article, for example, discusses oxygen-carrying particles that could be inserted in athletes’ blood and DNA therapies that could enhance muscle performance.
In an earlier time, rules limiting the use of such technology may have been a brave attempt to prevent cheating. Now, they are increasingly ineffectual. Humans are becoming a design space. That athletes are on the cutting edge of this engineering domain is neither a prediction nor a threat. It is the status quo.
Get over it.
Professional athletes didn’t always make big bucks, so when enhancement techniques were primitive, the payoff wasn’t necessarily worth the health risks. And with less demand, there were fewer nerds in fewer laboratories creating enhancement technologies. Anabolic steroids, for example, weren’t developed until the 1930s. Can you imagine Babe Ruth using a low-oxygen chamber that simulated a high-altitude environment to increase his red-blood-cell count and improve his respiratory system’s efficiency? That’s just one new way a player can get an edge.
Today, the gap between superstar athletes and almost-stars is rapidly growing. The benefits of being at the top of your game — money, sponsors, cars, houses, movie careers, book deals and groupies — have never been clearer. After all, how many lucrative marketing contracts go to bronze medalists?
To perform consistently, 21st-century athletes enhance legally with better gear, specialized diets, physical trainers, vitamin B, and energy drinks and gels. Why not add drugs and other technologies to the list of legal enhancements, especially when most of us are enhancing our workplace concentration with a morning coffee or energy shot?
In my engineering and sustainability classes, I ask my students how many have played sports in high school or college. Usually, at least half raise their hands. Then I ask how many know people who enhanced illegally. The hands stay up, even if I limit the question to high school athletes. Enhancement — legal or illegal, according to confused, arbitrary and contradictory criteria — is pervasive. Indeed, surveys show that significant numbers of non-athletes, especially in high school and college, use steroids to try to improve their appearance rather than to augment their play on the field. This should not be surprising, given the popularity of other cosmetic-enhancement techniques such as discretionary plastic surgery, even among young people.
Armstrong’s alleged doping in the Tour de France is just more evidence that human excellence is increasingly a product of enhancement.
Mischaracterizing a fundamental change in sports as merely individual violations of the rules has serious consequences. For example, this thinking has led to inadequate research on the risks of enhancement technologies, especially new ones. Why research something that can’t be used? My anecdotal class surveys show that students have significant skepticism about the reported side effects of such treatments and drugs, as well as perceptions of bias among regulators against enhancement. As a result of such attitudes, there’s a tendency to play down the risks of some technologies. Call it the “Reefer Madness” response — ignoring real risks because you think the danger is exaggerated. This is ignorance born of prohibition.
What should be done? Past a certain age, athletes should be allowed to use whatever enhancements they think appropriate based on objective data. Providing reliable information about the full range of technologies should become the new mission of a (renamed) Anti-Doping Agency, one not driven by an anti-enhancement agenda. It wouldn’t have to be a free-for-all: Age limits and other appropriate regulations could limit dangerous enhancements for non-professionals; those that are too risky could be restricted or, yes, banned.
How? Perhaps the Food and Drug Administration could take over these duties from the Anti-Doping Agency, using its own calculus. Is the proposed enhancement technology effective? Does it hurt more than it helps? It’s doubtful that a genetic enhancement, for example, would be allowed. The field is too new. However, some supplements such as creatine, alphalipoic acid and at least some currently banned steroids would probably be acceptable.
In professional sports, normal people do not compete normally. We watch athletes who are enhanced — through top-notch training, equipment and sometimes illegal substances — compete for our amusement. And, despite our sanctimonious claims that this is wrong, we like it that way. So we do athletes a deep disservice by clinging to our whimsical illusion of reality at the cost of their livelihood. If we allow football players to take violent hits and suffer concussions so that we might be entertained, why not allow them to use substances that might cause them health problems? It’s their decision.
If you yearn to watch “purer” athletes, check out a Division III football game. Visit the minor league ballpark near you. Set up an amateur league. Better yet, train for a marathon au naturel.
But don’t force the Tour de France to cling to outdated ideas of how athletes pedaling for their professional lives should behave. Cyclists have enhanced, are enhancing now and will continue to enhance. In his stubborn refusal to admit guilt in the face of the evidence, maybe this is what Armstrong is trying to tell us.
-
If they ever allow performance enhancement drugs, they might as well give back Ben Johnson his medal.
-
All now Oprah plotting how yuh make Armstrong cry.
-
All now Oprah plotting how yuh make Armstrong cry.
They are both phonies. Oprah also probably plotting how, and when she will turn on the tears during the interview. Mark my words, there will be time when she wells up with emotion.
-
This writer took some sharp hits at Lance Armstrong..
The fact he has chosen to bare all on Oprah, demonstrates just how far he has fallen – after all many losers have pleaded their case when, frankly it is probably too late and they are clutching at straws and their performance fee. Armstrong texted that he had put his whole story on the table and that is was up to the public to come to their own conclusions once the show went to air.
‘He answered the questions as if he had prepared’, says Oprah. Yet were they necessarily the truth, or a well-rehearsed version? Certainly a former team mate, Frank Andreu was a little sceptical when interviewed and said, ‘this admission was a long time coming’ and he went on to say it was a real pity people were not prepared to listen earlier. After all, he said ’there were signs’ and it would have prevented he and his wife from being torn to shreds when they first suggested doping was in the frame.
http://myvoicetv.net/lance-armstrong-in-oprahs-dock-tonight/
-
All now Oprah plotting how yuh make Armstrong cry.
They are both phonies. Oprah also probably plotting how, and when she will turn on the tears during the interview. Mark my words, there will be time when she wells up with emotion.
While I refused to watch the interview, I did read the reports in today's papers. The notion of "Armstrong comes clean" has no relevance in his admissions. He is a cheat and liar. Period.
-
Do you think Lance's reputation will take a hit and he he'll fall from grace as much as Tiger did? Or will people be willing to give Armstrong a break seeing all he did with cancer? Tiger's infidelity pretty much ruined his image and repuation in the public eye but I find with Armstrong like most peole don't seem to care, maybe the Manti Te'o's imaginary girlfriend overshadowed Armstrong's confession.
-
Lance ain't coming out of this. Tiger is nothing compared to this
-
Lance ain't coming out of this. Tiger is nothing compared to this
Let's hope so because in the grand scheme of things, people's feelings towards Tiger changes drastically due to a dmoestic matter, the guy still can't even catch a break to this day. I'm not seeing the same public perception for Lance as much, eventhough he admitted to cheating all seven years with little or no remorse. I feel because he did a lot for cancer research through his foundadtion people may not judge him the same.
-
Maybe in America, some people think that way. Internationally especially in France and England people hate him. Believe me he let down alot of people. Don't expect the celebrities to hang around him anymore. I don't see much support for him other than the odd comment online. He still has alot to explain still so it ain't over yet.
Maybe Michael Phelps will get caught someday. (i suspect he was one drugs too)
-
Lance Armstrong & Oprah Winfrey: I am disgraced & humbled
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21087593#TWEET535111
-
Armstrong's books now fiction?
-
Concerning Lance a friend of mine put it best "most don't even finish 7 Tours much less win 7." people just dam gullible. Any time I would say "one day day the mark would buss," man use to jump down my throat.
On another note: The doctor involved was Spanish. I very interested to know which other athletes outside of Cycling he was working with.