Lance Armstrong

[stevieq]

This drugs business with the cyclist Lance Armstrong doesn't sit easy with me, here's why.
I've no doubt that he's a top class cyclist, but at the end of the day he cheated with performance enhancement drugs.
But as he is now being stripped of his 7 Tour De France titles (yet to be ratified by the cycle federation). Should he also have the millions of dollars taken away from him too? After all, isn't 'winning' those titles made him the multi-millionaire he is today?
Should his sponsors be suing him?
And many other avenues of his money making through his racing career, shouldn't they be looked at closely too?
That's my humble opinion anyway, what do you think.

[Sam Slater]

It's sad because even without the drugs he's have won his fair share of TdFs. He was so much better than the field and enhancements can only do so much.

What people have to realise about all this, which sticks in my throat a little, is that some of the runners up who'll most likely be awarded with his wins have also been caught for the exact same thing!

But to get onto your point, I think the ban and him being stripped of his titles is punishment enough. It's dragged on too long already. Cycling doesn't need yet more unfortunate court cases and the like. Time to move on and if some sponsors are a little pissed off at Armstrong then I say that's the chance you take. It's a gamble to raise your product/company/name's profile when you sponsor someone, not a guaranteed investment. They've had more airtime with him winning (with drugs) than staying clean and him being a middle of the pack cyclist that amounted to nothing.

Large companies suing an individual for cheating at a sport they CHOSE to sponsor him/her in is just bullying and greed. No one put a gun to their head to sponsor him. Maybe the people that made that decision should pay with their jobs if it has hurt the company that much.

[Lizard]

As far as I'm aware, he's never tested positive for anything has he?

[David Johnson]

First, Armstrong has

1. Admitted nothing.
2. Never failed a dope test during his career.

The evidence that the authorities have is from testimonies of up to 10 of his team mates and a couple of incriminating blood samples taken in 2009 and 2010 at the end of his career.

If the decision to strip him of the Tour de France victories is ratified then presumably there could be a case for stripping him of the relevant prize money. I seem to recall that Dwayne Chambers, the British athlete had to return prize money he won in 2003 after being found guilty of a doping charge.

With regard to sponsorship, it depends on how complex the contract is. Does it refer to drug testing? Are extra payments related to winning certain events like the Tour of France? If there are no references to drug testing and no victory related payments I would have thought the sponsors would be pissing in the wind trying to get their money back.

Armstrong has already been here before. In 2006 Armstrong successfully sued SCA Promotions, a company used by his US Postal Service team, who wanted to insure against the financial liability of paying Armstrong for his victories. SCA refused to pay Armstrong his winnings amid suspicion of his doping but lost in court.

[Arginald Valleywater]

Who told you he cheated? As said never failed a drugs test so on what grounds can they ban him? I hope the French let his results stand and tell the sanctimonious Yanks to fack erfff.

[David Johnson]

"Who told you he cheated? As said never failed a drugs test so on what grounds can they ban him?"

The issue as to whether the USADA can strip Armstrong of his titles is one thing.

A separate issue completely is that Armstrong did everything he could to stop any case against him being heard and then when he had finally run out of options, he walked away and withdrew any cooperation rather than attend a hearing when a whole pile of witness evidence from a dozen people including team masseuse etc etc would be played out in public.

USADA claim they have 2 dodgy samples taken from the last 2 years of his career. Sometimes the testing science takes awhile to catch up with the people doing the cheating.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/au ... intcmp=239

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/au ... intcmp=239

Armstrong knew his number was up, so he threw in the towel and walked away from the process. You can smell the stink from the UK.

[David Johnson]

Armstrong has been found guilty by virtue of a "non-analytical positive" ? not a blood test, but the testimony of witnesses: the same way that former US sprint champion Marion Jones was stripped of her medals. So there are precedents for this.

Secondly, in 2004 a French anti-doping laboratory decided to conduct retrospective research using its new test for the blood agent erythropoietin (EPO) on samples taken from riders during the 1999 Tour. The lab identified six positive results from a batch of 15 that the sports newspaper L'Equipe matched to blood-sample records Armstrong and the world cycling federation had agreed to supply to the newspaper.

As Armstrong once said, "Pain is temporary," "If I quit, however, it lasts forever." And quit is what Armstrong did on Friday last week when he walked away from the hearing.

[Arginald Valleywater]

So is every East German athletics medalist going to be stripped of their titles between 1972 and the fall of the Berlin Wall? Will Jack Nicklaus be awared the 1977 Open as we can finally prove Watson had too many grooves in his irons?
I once did 130 on the M6........yada yada .......

[dog]

"lance armstrong and the witch hunt" that should be the title. It seems the 'witch hunt' by one Travis Tygart of USADA contains zero evidence, on the other side Armstrong has passed 100's of tests over the years both blood and Urine. What is also odd about this whole farce is the USADA has itself an 8 year limitation and no legal power to remove his medals and the claims go back 17 years!

[David Johnson]

"So is every East German athletics medalist going to be stripped of their titles between 1972 and the fall of the Berlin Wall?"

No idea.

But there is sufficient evidence in Armstrong's case to strip him of his Tour de France successes which is what this thread is about.