# Lance Armstrong banned for life,stripped of 7 Tour wins.



## yosoyellobo

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-23/Armstrong-doping-charges/57258616/1

Cycling is the one sport that I have no trouble with doping. I would love to see Hulk Hogan win the Tour.


----------



## sigma1914

That's not the same type of doping. :lol: Cyclists aren't getting HGH and steroids,


----------



## yosoyellobo

sigma1914 said:


> That's not the same type of doping. :lol: Cyclists aren't getting HGH and steroids,


I believe they do something call Blood Doping were they take their own blood for later use.


----------



## dpeters11

Here is his statement:

http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012


----------



## Carl Spock

Such a shame.

Feet of clay in stirrups.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

This entire process has been a debacle.

Having read the complete history on what tests have been conducted to date over many years, I lost total respect for the organization overseeing the sport.

Ironically, the promotion of guilty until proven innocent has been the marching order of the day for this organization. 

It's a shame for Lance, the sport, other riders, and those who are followers of the sport as well. Everyone lost in this process and these latest actions.


----------



## Laxguy

How can an American institution strip any athlete of titles or medals from a French or international competition?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> How can an American institution strip any athlete of titles or medals from a French or international competition?


It's *the French*....

...let's just say *they're retreating *from their original position...


----------



## Laxguy

Well, I mean, did the USADA threaten to invade France or something?? :nono2:


----------



## dpeters11

"Laxguy" said:


> How can an American institution strip any athlete of titles or medals from a French or international competition?


I do t think they really can. The organizers of the Tour can strip the winnings I think, or the UCI. USADA does not have the jurisdiction.


----------



## djlong

Think about this for a minute.

The USADA, a non-profit organization, has spent $1.2M persecuting a man who has never failed a single drug test - even when old samples were tested with new technology.

The guy at the head of the USADA said Armstrong was sanctioned because of "his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others" - and yet I haven't seen a single conviction for drug trafficking or anything of the sort except the occasional allegation by someone that Armstrong beat.

Reading Armstrong's statement, I read is as "I've had enough of this fighting to clear my name - you guys can take your years upon years of unproven allegations and your vendetta and stick it where the sun doesn't shine - cancel my subscription, I'm done with your issues".

The USADA said that his history of passed tests were "irrelevant". WELL THEN WHY DO YOU TEST?


----------



## davidjplatt

Couldn't have set it better myself.

This is a witch hunt that the French are behind. They can't stand the thought that Lance Armstrong won their race and they've been out to get him or to get someone else to get him ever since.

If they could show one positive test it would be a different matter but the USADA can't show a single test that Lance Armstrong failed.

The USADA should be disbanded - they don't give the athletes due process and they claim they are doing a service to sports - quite the opposite, they make a mockery of the entire drug testing process.

And they never actually gave the name of anyone that had any evidence against Lance Armstrong. They were always nameless entities and how do you ask a nameless entity if they really said that?


----------



## Laxguy

dpeters11 said:


> I do t think they really can. The organizers of the Tour can strip the winnings I think, or the UCI. USADA does not have the jurisdiction.


That's my contention. So it would seem erroneous to say the bloody USADA "stripped him". They may have pressured others, certainly.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

The Tour without Lance Armstrong is just another bike race...

This witch hunt process for so many years has been a farce.

Lance will move on, be appreciated by millions of followers for how he contributed to the sport, and the sport itself may just perhaps die a slow death now (as an international event of major proportion).


----------



## sigma1914

What pisses off the Lance haters off in Europe and what this is all about is is that he DOMINATED the Tour de France, however and this is the kicker, it's the only race he'd compete in. Almost all other riders ride month after month & tour
after tour on the European pro circuit, then Lance comes in and whoops ass and gets the glory. Many cyclist have said if you train just for the Tour then you can do it like Lance. Unfortunately the haters want to bring him down so they constantly make doping claims.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

As stated earlier...he'll be just fine going forward...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/48788983/ns/sports-cycling/



> _ASPEN, Colo. - Lance Armstrong says he's more at peace now than he has been in a decade.
> 
> In his first interview since the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency disciplined Armstrong with a lifetime ban from professional cycling and vacated his seven Tour de France titles, he said, "Nobody needs to cry for me. I'm going to be great." _


----------



## Sandra

Lance competed and won Tours at a time where virtually everybody was cheating in one form or another. I love Lance, but it's hard to believe he was the only person not doping...and he was winning regardless.

It's not just the French who were making accusations, a number of American racers were also lining up to testify that they saw him taking banned substances. It's sad.

I was hoping Lance would make it to the Olympics in the triathlon (his original sport at 16-18), but now that does not seem possible.


Sandra


----------



## dpeters11

Older thread I know, but it has really heated up. Recently several other major riders, including George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer admitted they doped in the past. Of course, not to defend them, but it got to the point where you felt like you had to dope just to keep up, it was so rampant. In baseball, if you're only one of 2-3 players on both teams that isn't doping, your performance will look a lot lower than the others, and you can't compete.

Armstrong has stepped down as Chairman of Livestrong, and Nike has severed their deal with Armstrong. They will continue their relationship with Livestong. Of course they could face other problems as well. Armstrong received bonuses for performance in race results. The USADA also says he testified under oath that he did not use performance enhancing drugs, so there's possible perjury as well.

Leipheimer has been dropped from the Quick Step team as well, due to his admitting to doping previously. I don't think it had been shown that he did this year while on the Quick Step team.

To say this is a huge mess is an understatement.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

More interesting to me... I remember all the anti-French stuff when France kept saying they thought Lance and others were doping... people said they were just jealous.

I hope France gets an apology out of this too.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> More interesting to me... I remember all the anti-French stuff when France kept saying they thought Lance and others were doping... people said they were just jealous.
> 
> *I hope France gets an apology out of this too*.


No way - let them eat cake.


----------



## dpeters11

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> More interesting to me... I remember all the anti-French stuff when France kept saying they thought Lance and others were doping... people said they were just jealous.
> 
> I hope France gets an apology out of this too.


Of course French cyclists were doping as well.

More companies have dropped Armstrong or will when contracts run out, including Trek, Giro, 24 hour Fitness, Honey Stinger (which he owns part of) among others. Petty much all of them say they'll continue to support Livestrong.


----------



## kikkenit2

Armstrong's boss during all those years, Johan Bruyneel just got fired
from the Radio Shack team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...c12e86-148a-11e2-9a39-1f5a7f6fe945_story.html

Greg Lemond still strongly claims he was clean when he won the tour. 
If so he was probably the only clean winner in 40 years.
And they didn't have near as much drug testing back then.

I hope no tour winner ever tests positive again.
All the recent winners tested positive at some point.
My advice to Lance. Never admit fault and don't give them
a dna sample. Oh wait that was Clinton.:lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

dpeters11 said:


> Of course French cyclists were doping as well.


That wouldn't surprise me... I mean, I gather the sport has been "dirty" for a while.

Where I think an apology is owed, though... is all the people who accused the French of being against Armstrong out of jealousy.

With the cat pretty much out of the bag... all the people accused of only being anti-Armstrong out of jealousy are owed an apology in my opinion.

I'll even go first... because I was a pro-Armstrong guy at the time... and I too thought the French were just mad because an American was winning "their" sport... so, knowing what we appear to know now... I apologize for the ill will I had at the time in thinking that they were just jealous. It appears there was fire where there was smoke.


----------



## kikkenit2

I meant to say the last 40 years. A quick wiki check of history shows the french 
had a lot of reason to be jealous of american riders winning their race.
From 1977 to 1985 france dominated the yellow jersey winning every year but one. 
Lemond should have won in 85, but french rider Bernard Hinault wouldn't let him due to team rules.

Greg L. won the next year over french rider Laurent Fignon by 8 seconds on the last day! 
Fignon had already won twice, but wiki says he admitted using amphetamines and steroids(cortizone) 
on his death bed. Hinault still runs the tour and his legs were like an elephant. Thick! 
If Lemond didn't get shot in a hunting accident he would have won lot more than 3 tours.

Then eventually Armstrong comes along and breaks all the records.
Amazingly saved from race ending crashes seven years straight!
If that doesn't make them jealous I don't know what could.

Then Floyd Landis comes along and dominates the end of the next race
only to test positive for cortizone? We are lucky they even let americans
in that race after all that. Most of france respects Armstrong doping or not.
So basically no french rider has won since drug testing started.


----------



## sigma1914

Stewart Vernon said:


> That wouldn't surprise me... I mean, I gather the sport has been "dirty" for a while.
> 
> Where I think an apology is owed, though... is all the people who accused the French of being against Armstrong out of jealousy.
> 
> With the cat pretty much out of the bag... all the people accused of only being anti-Armstrong out of jealousy are owed an apology in my opinion.
> 
> I'll even go first... because I was a pro-Armstrong guy at the time... and I too thought the French were just mad because an American was winning "their" sport... so, knowing what we appear to know now... I apologize for the ill will I had at the time in thinking that they were just jealous. It appears there was fire where there was smoke.


That's me...I thought it was jealousy. Not just from France, but from everyone who lost. I was wrong.


----------



## BLWedge09

As a two time testicular cancer survivor, I can honestly say that I'm much more concerned with all the good that Lance Armstrong has done through LIVESTRONG than what he did or didn't do with regards to doping. Looking at the so called "evidence", it still consists almost entirely of testimony from other people. Third party (eye witness) testimony is widely agreed to be the least reliable form of "evidence".

Regardless of all of that, I sincerely home that this doesn't affect LIVESTRONG too negatively in the future. It's not one of the biggest cancer related charities, but it is among the most efficient at getting donations back into cancer research.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

Stewart Vernon said:


> That wouldn't surprise me... I mean, I gather the sport has been "dirty" for a while.
> 
> Where I think an apology is owed, though... is all the people who accused the French of being against Armstrong out of jealousy.
> 
> With the cat pretty much out of the bag... all the people accused of only being anti-Armstrong out of jealousy are owed an apology in my opinion.
> 
> I'll even go first... because I was a pro-Armstrong guy at the time... and I too thought the French were just mad because an American was winning "their" sport... so, knowing what we appear to know now... I apologize for the ill will I had at the time in thinking that they were just jealous. It appears there was fire where there was smoke.


I tend to disagree with you here. The French leading the charge were doing so because they were jealous. There's not a doubt in my mind of that. That they were chasing down a guilty man is irrelevant, IMO.

They weren't chasing down Lance because they wanted to clean up the sport. They were chasing down Lance because they disliked him.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that 90% of the field was doing SOMETHING against the rules. It's not an uncommon practice to wear a testosterone patch after a grueling stage to help recover before the next stage. Not long enough to elevate your blood test, but long enough to "take the edge off". (At least that's the theory. I don't know if it actually works or not). Everybody knows it happens, but if you don't fail a test, then it's no harm, no foul.

From the sound of it, Lance's regimen may have been more sophisticated than some of the others... but they were all cheating. Lance is the poster boy for that generation of cheaters because the French hate him and they've been dying to catch him at something for years.

What's happening to Lance today is like a teacher who knows that the entire class got the answers to the test before hand... and instead of punishing the whole group, singles out the person who got the highest score and flunks only that student while the rest of the class gets the grade they "earned".

Yes, they caught a cheater. But they're ignoring the other 150+ racers who were all cheating with him.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Yes, they caught a cheater. But they're ignoring the other 150+ racers who were all cheating with him.


I don't disagree with the sentiment... but the only way to do that?

Shut down ALL professional sports today. Wait several years and start up again with a new crop of YOUNG people who have been rigorously tested for years.

I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.

So... you can never get all the cheating out. All you can do is catch the ones you catch and hope others will stop on their own.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't disagree with the sentiment... but the only way to do that?
> 
> Shut down ALL professional sports today. Wait several years and start up again with a new crop of YOUNG people who have been rigorously tested for years.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
> 
> So... you can never get all the cheating out. All you can do is catch the ones you catch and hope others will stop on their own.


Sadl but ture...your assessment is spot on right.

The whole thing is a shame on multiple fronts - the sport, the fans, and the other partipants.


----------



## dpeters11

The fallout expands...Rabobank, a very large cycling team sponsor for the last 17 years from The Netherlands, a big cycling country, has dropped all support for sponsorships. They are including dropping support for women's cycling, so some question whether they used it as a reason for a business decision.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't disagree with the sentiment... but the only way to do that?
> 
> Shut down ALL professional sports today. Wait several years and start up again with a new crop of YOUNG people who have been rigorously tested for years.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.
> 
> So... you can never get all the cheating out. All you can do is catch the ones you catch and hope others will stop on their own.


That's the problem though, Stewart. I don't believe that this was an attempt to 'get the cheaters' as much as it was an endeavour to 'get Lance'.

Did he cheat? Yes. Was this a fair and impartial investigation aimed at cleaning up the sport as a whole? Not a chance.

I believe we will continue to see winners, leaders, participants, etc, caught cheating at the same rate they are now. Cycling will once again turn a blind eye to the cheating, IMO.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Sharkie_Fan said:


> That's the problem though, Stewart. I don't believe that this was an attempt to 'get the cheaters' as much as it was an endeavour to 'get Lance'.
> 
> Did he cheat? Yes. Was this a fair and impartial investigation aimed at cleaning up the sport as a whole? Not a chance.
> 
> I believe we will continue to see winners, leaders, participants, etc, caught cheating at the same rate they are now. Cycling will once again turn a blind eye to the cheating, IMO.


The thing is... you can say that about anyone caught doing anything... and it may even be true... but when a problem is as pervasive as everyone thinks it is... there's no way to get rid of ALL the people cheating at one time. You can only catch the ones you catch and move forward.

The world seems to have adopted the mindset that "it isn't cheating if you don't get caught"... so... as long as there are people, there will be people trying to get around rules and take risks to win... especially when the penalty for getting caught isn't worse than the rewards of getting away with it.


----------



## dpeters11

Considered putting this in the TV reminders thread but thought if just put it here. My guide isn't updated, but he will be doing a "no holds barred" 90 minute interview with the tough and hard hitting Oprah on OWN, January 17 at 9 EST.


----------



## Lord Vader

After learning how this guy was downright methodical in his destroying ANYone who dared to accuse him of doping, and of the manner in which he did dope, I think Armstrong is an absolute total piece of sh*t, nothing less than human debris. He ought to be shunned by everyone for life. 

He lied to everyone, including his charity, which was a sham itself. What a scumbag this guy is.


----------



## sigma1914

Lord Vader said:


> After learning how this guy was downright methodical in his destroying ANYone who dared to accuse him of doping, and of the manner in which he did dope, I think Armstrong is an absolute total piece of sh*t, nothing less than human debris. He ought to be shunned by everyone for life.
> 
> He lied to everyone, including his charity, which was a sham itself. What a scumbag this guy is.


It hurts to type this... I agree with LV.


----------



## Lord Vader

There's hope for you yet, my young apprentice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> It hurts to type this... I agree with LV.


Funny... I had the same thought 

But, yeah... Vader nailed it here.

The actual cheating could have been defensible back then... even his early denials...

But, that he didn't just deny it... Lance Armstrong vilified anyone who dared accuse him... chastising, ruining reputations, and suing people AND winning!

That type of arrogance, to me, trumps all the drug charges... in fact, you can be sure the only reason he would be "repenting" now is because he knows it is he only way to keep living the high life to which he has become accustomed.

I feel sorry for anyone he trampled on, anyone who trusted/believed in him, and the people at his charity that really wanted to help cancer patients.

Armstrong even used to play the "I had cancer" card when people attacked him for doing drugs... hard to be much lower if you ask me.


----------



## djlong

I wouldn't be so quick to call his charity a sham.

Unless you're talking about the act of creating it being an attempt to salve his conscience.. THAT I could agree with - but from everything I've heard, the charity itself is reputable.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Does the end justified the mean. Not in this case. If he is taken to the cleaners by all those that been damage by his action so be it.


----------



## Lord Vader

A charity that spends in excess of 40 cents to collect a dollar is not a reputable charity, IMHO.


----------



## djlong

Well, at least I see where you're coming from. From that point of view, yeah, Livestrong, like so many other charities, can be measured as "wanting".


----------



## Lord Vader

After seeing the recent episode of _60 Minutes_ where the USADA investigator was interviewed in length, I learned even more just how much of a vile human being Lance Armstrong truly is. I'd go so far as to say based on what I heard in that _60 Minutes_ piece about how Armstrong destroyed peoples' careers and lives if they dared to "spread lies" about his cheating (he actually went through with his threats against several persons), I don't believe he should *ever *be forgiven and *ever *allowed into competitive sports again. He's an evil person.

I also believe civil suits aren't punitive enough for this scumbag. He needs to spend time in jail for what he did.


----------



## fluffybear

Lord Vader said:


> After seeing the recent episode of _60 Minutes_ where the USADA investigator was interviewed in length, I learned even more just how much of a vile human being Lance Armstrong truly is. I'd go so far as to say based on what I heard in that _60 Minutes_ piece about how Armstrong destroyed peoples' careers and lives if they dared to "spread lies" about his cheating (he actually went through with his threats against several persons), I don't believe he should *ever *be forgiven and *ever *allowed into competitive sports again. He's an evil person.
> 
> I also believe civil suits aren't punitive enough for this scumbag. He needs to spend time in jail for what he did.


I have not been following this close enough.. Is there proof he actually did destroy people's lives? No offense but when it comes to investigators, a lot of what they say needs to be investigated..

I won't disagree with you about Lance needing to serve time for what he did but I'm not convinced that USADA was not going to extra mile just to nail him.


----------



## dpeters11

Well, one thing would be that while he claims he never made anyone dope, the reality is that anyone that didn't measure up performance wise wouldn't have lasted on the team. But in reality, would they have lasted on any team?

One thing I actually agree with Armstrong on, I cannot see how USADA can say that he led "the most sophisticated, professional and successful doping program sport has ever seen."

I just cannot see this as surpassing cases like East Germany.


----------



## Lord Vader

fluffybear said:


> I have not been following this close enough..


Apparently there is. The USADA investigator and the _60 Minutes_ journalist both discussed by name the persons Lance destroyed.


----------



## Lord Vader

dpeters11 said:


> One thing I actually agree with Armstrong on, I cannot see how USADA can say that he led "the most sophisticated, professional and successful doping program sport has ever seen."
> 
> I just cannot see this as surpassing cases like East Germany.


From _60 Minutes'_ explanation, what Lance and several of his teammates did was, to say the least, one hell of a complex and elaborate cheating system.


----------



## dpeters11

I'm not saying it wasn't, though the system didn't help any if they didn't do out of competition testing. It's like MLB, they didn't exactly make it hard to dope in the past.

But I don't see it as being more sophisticated etc than an entire government sponsored system.


----------



## Lord Vader

I think what differentiates it from others is how Armstrong *vehemently *denied ever doing anything wrong and actively went after *any*one who dared to expose him, to the point where his threats became reality for some people, as he ruined the lives of more than one person, each of whom was totally correct in their accusations of Lance.


----------



## dpeters11

Now that I agree with.


----------



## fluffybear

Lord Vader said:


> Apparently there is. The USADA investigator and the _60 Minutes_ journalist both discussed by name the persons Lance destroyed.


First, the interview was with Travis Tygart, USADA CEO and not an investigator.

Second, Tygart has had a hard on for Armstrong for many years and has made his personal mission to completely destroy Armstrong.

Third, I don't put a lot of faith in Greg LaMond's honesty either. LaMond and his wife like to claim that Armstrong destroyed them but one has to realize that sounds a lot better than saying, "we screwed up".

As I said before, I am not defending what Armstrong did and believe he needs to pay a severe price for his actions but by the same token have doubts about the honesty of Tygart and this entire investigation. In a lot of ways it gives the appearance of being a rather large witch hunt and nothing Armstrong will ever do will make Tygart happy.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I don't normally support witch hunts... but when I do... I catch witches 

But seriously... I was one who thought people were unfairly persecuting Armstrong for years. He wasn't a "hero" to me or anything, but the way he denied everything and sued people and ruined reputations of people who dared accuse him of cheating... well, it sure seemed like he must be clean or why open that pandora's box?

To then find out he was doing all of this stuff and himself daring to question people's motives or honesty... in my mind it makes him worse than they could ever have been.

Were there people pursuing Armstrong with less evidence but ulterior motives or bias? Sure. I'm sure there were... But was he arrogant and cheating and wrong and blatantly lying and ruining other honest people's reputations? YES!

Hindsight is 20/20... so I've already said I apologize for in my mind thinking the French were just jealous and wanting to get that American for winning "their" race... I fell into the trap of bias against the French... and I should have known better... but at least I didn't go after people's money and reputation to support the lies like Armstrong did.


----------



## Lord Vader

fluffybear said:


> First, the interview was with Travis Tygart, USADA CEO and not an investigator.
> 
> Second, Tygart has had a hard on for Armstrong for many years and has made his personal mission to completely destroy Armstrong.


You mean like Armstrong making it his personal mission to destroy those who dared to expose his cheating? Of course, Tygart never did do that. Armstrong, however, did. He ruined the careers of more than one person.

BTW, I referenced Tygart as an investigator because I didn't have handy his title, and since he headed the investigation as the USADA CEO, I referred to him as one.



> Third, I don't put a lot of faith in Greg LaMond's honesty either. LaMond and his wife like to claim that Armstrong destroyed them but one has to realize that sounds a lot better than saying, "we screwed up".


I wasn't referring to LaMond; rather, there were others whom _60 Minutes_ referenced and said their careers were ruined by Armstrong.



> As I said before, I am not defending what Armstrong did and believe he needs to pay a severe price for his actions...


Prison time would be a good start.


----------



## Lord Vader

Love this!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

fluffybear said:


> First, the interview was with Travis Tygart, USADA CEO and not an investigator.
> 
> Second, Tygart has had a hard on for Armstrong for many years and has made his personal mission to completely destroy Armstrong.
> 
> Third, I don't put a lot of faith in Greg LaMond's honesty either. LaMond and his wife like to claim that Armstrong destroyed them but one has to realize that sounds a lot better than saying, "we screwed up".
> 
> As I said before, I am not defending what Armstrong did and believe he needs to pay a severe price for his actions but by the same token have doubts about the honesty of Tygart and this entire investigation. In a lot of ways it gives the appearance of being a rather large witch hunt and nothing Armstrong will ever do will make Tygart happy.


There's alot of reality and truth to those points. There are plenty of "bandwagon critics" when things turn sour.

I also recall how Ray Lewis was "going to be destroyed" on many fronts years ago for very nearly being charged within a murder case in Atlanta.

At that time, the general consensus was that not only was his career toast, but any chance for a personal life free of ridicule and turmoil would be gone.

My how things change. More information came out, and his life changed for the better. He admittedly made the best of the "turnaround", even though a number of folks (including me) don't personally care for him.

I'll only reference Bill Clinton and his bad choices and situations in the past as another example. He now is embraced as a public speaker and garners big bucks doing it. In the present time, Monica L. is a distant memory to many.

No doubt Lance Armstrong made some poor choices and those led to more bad choices. His various deeds over the past 10 years also led to alot of people getting badly-needed help and gaining improved lives based on his efforts.

I don't think anyone can really forecast how this situation will look 5 years from now.


----------



## fluffybear

Stewart Vernon said:


> I don't normally support witch hunts... but when I do... I catch witches


My concern is that the USADA is a private organization and pretty much can do what they want. They can continue to hound someone even after they have determined the individual did nothing wrong. I am not saying this is the case with Armstrong but from what I have read (this afternoon) on Tygart, this was a man who was not going to be happy until Armstrong went down.


----------



## Lord Vader

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There's alot of reality and truth to those points. There are plenty of "bandwagon critics" when things turn sour.
> 
> I also recall how Ray Lewis was "going to be destroyed" on many fronts years ago for very nearly being charged within a murder case in Atlanta.
> 
> At that time, the general consensus was that not only was his career toast, but any chance for a personal life free of ridicule and turmoil would be gone.
> 
> My how things change. More information came out, and his life changed for the better. He admittedly made the best of the "turnaround", even though a number of folks (including me) don't personally care for him.
> 
> I'll only reference Bill Clinton and his bad choices and situations in the past as another example. He now is embraced as a public speaker and garners big bucks doing it. In the present time, Monica L. is a distant memory to many.
> 
> No doubt Lance Armstrong made some poor choices and those led to more bad choices. His various deeds over the past 10 years also led to alot of people getting badly-needed help and gaining improved lives based on his efforts.
> 
> I don't think anyone can really forecast how this situation will look 5 years from now.


Considering how he poorly managed his charity, how he used it, IMHO, to advance his fraudulent career (sure, a few folks might have been helped, but that was probably more so by accident), I can't agree that any good he did, of which there was little, made any difference.


----------



## Lord Vader

fluffybear said:


> My concern is that the USADA is a private organization and pretty much can do what they want. They can continue to hound someone even after they have determined the individual did nothing wrong. I am not saying this is the case with Armstrong but from what I have read (this afternoon) on Tygart, this was a man who was not going to be happy until Armstrong went down.


Tygart did not start out from the very beginning with that attitude. It developed, understandably, after he kept getting the runaround from Armstrong. When it became clear Armstrong was running an elaborate, extensive, deceptive doping/cheating ring, stonewalling the USADA, lying, and threatening numerous people, Tygart included, it's understandable the latter made it his goal to nail Armstrong, and for that, Tygart should be commended.

Tygart wasn't the one who wanted this "vendetta". It was Lance who caused it. Now he has to suffer the consequences.


----------



## fluffybear

Lord Vader said:


> Love this!


One can only hope that you do not believe this letter was real.


----------



## Lord Vader

You mean it isn't? OMG!!!

(Duh.)


----------



## Stewart Vernon

fluffybear said:


> My concern is that the USADA is a private organization and pretty much can do what they want. They can continue to hound someone even after they have determined the individual did nothing wrong. I am not saying this is the case with Armstrong but from what I have read (this afternoon) on Tygart, this was a man who was not going to be happy until Armstrong went down.


I would have to know the mindset of the guy... A cop who harasses people as a rule might be unhinged... but a cop who doggedly pursues a specific person whom he knows (but cannot yet prove) is guilty, might be worthy of a commendation when finally catching the culprit.


----------



## Lord Vader

I agree. It sounds like he strongly believed Lance was deeply involved in an extensive doping program and wanted to pursue Lance to get enough proof to convincingly nail him.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Lord Vader said:


> Considering how he poorly managed his charity, how he used it, IMHO, to advance his fraudulent career (sure, a few folks might have been helped, but that was probably more so by accident), I can't agree that any good he did, of which there was little, made any difference.


I personally know of 2 hospitals that received funds from his charity, and gratefully so. Many people were helped by those contributions.

You could not be more wrong about those moneys failing to do good, or doing so "by accident".

That's not meant to (in any way) condone his bad decisions and actions...rather...it's to take a more realistic perspective in contrast to a cynical view.


----------



## Lord Vader

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You could not be more wrong about those moneys failing to do good, or doing so "by accident".


I never said that. You misinterpreted what I said.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Lord Vader said:


> I never said that. You misinterpreted what I said.





Lord Vader said:


> Considering how he poorly managed his charity, how he used it, IMHO, to advance his fraudulent career (sure, *a few folks might have been helped*, but that was *probably more so by accident*), *I can't agree that any good he did, of which there was little, made any difference*.


That post speaks for itself...nothing to misinterpret.


----------



## Lord Vader

Sorry, but it's clear that you misinterpreted my post. Any good that he did made little difference; he's guilty. If a murderer saves 100 children, does that lessen his crimes of killing 10? All of Lance's charity work is irrelevant; it has no impact upon his cheating.


----------



## Hoosier205

Lord Vader;3171527 said:


> Sorry, but it's clear that you misinterpreted my post. Any good that he did made little difference; he's guilty. If a murderer saves 100 children, does that lessen his crimes of killing 10? All of Lance's charity work is irrelevant; it has no impact upon his cheating.


Then why didn't you say that? Instead, you claimed that the charity had been ineffective and poorly managed.


----------



## Lord Vader

It was. You simply misconstrued my post to mean his "good" actions didn't affect the charity. I meant that his good actions have had no effect on his cheating, his lying, his entire reputation. Perhaps the original post was a wee bit ambiguous.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Lord Vader said:


> Sorry, but it's clear that you misinterpreted my post. Any good that he did made little difference; he's guilty. If a murderer saves 100 children, does that lessen his crimes of killing 10? All of Lance's charity work is irrelevant; it has no impact upon his cheating.


Your original post, as well as this one...is easy to understand. You basically are saying *in this 2nd post* that no matter what he did that could be construed as a positive thing, it doesn't matter to you because of his actions toward doping. That's different than your statement in the 1st post, but appreicate the clarity to your view.

All that said - respectfully disagree.

There may not be any positive value in terms of how people perceive him overall in the context of his negative actions...*but* there is plenty of positive and lasting impact of how the recipients gained from the positive charity activities he performed.

Looking at the big picture - the glass is not half empty here, nor half full...it's completely full - part negative and part positive.

Just ask the cancer patients and others who have better lives because the funds were there to treat them, regardless of what happens to Lance at this point. At one hospital alone, there were literally hundreds of beneficiaries.

Unfortunately he made some very foolish choices that now pretty much prevent him from continuing the positive activities.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I get where Vader is coming from, though...

Say there is a serial killer (to go to an extreme)... but he is also a philanthropist... so he kills by night BUT by day he contributes to a charity that does good work.

The charity doesn't mitigate his serial killing does it? He isn't a "good" guy because he also helps, right?

And the charity... even if no fault of their own... kind of gets associated with the serial killer and it taints them a bit.

That's all I think Vader is saying.

Lance isn't helped by his charity work, because the bad he has done personally outweighs any good he has done... From the charity's perspective, even if they were good and didn't know about Lance, they still carry a bit of that negative with them going forward because of being associated... whether fair or not.


----------



## Lord Vader

Stewart Vernon said:


> I get where Vader is coming from, though...
> 
> That's all I think Vader is saying.
> 
> Lance isn't helped by his charity work, because the bad he has done personally outweighs any good he has done... From the charity's perspective, even if they were good and didn't know about Lance, they still carry a bit of that negative with them going forward because of being associated... whether fair or not.


You are correct. A good reiteration of what I was trying to get across.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> Lance isn't helped by his charity work, because the bad he has done personally outweighs any good he has done... From the charity's perspective, even if they were good and didn't know about Lance, they still carry a bit of that negative with them going forward because of being associated... whether fair or not.


Your summation certainly is concise - no disagreement to it.

My issue with a previous post was the clear inference that the good stuff had no value just because it was initiated by Lance. Thanks for your rendition.


----------



## Lord Vader

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Your summation certainly is concise - no disagreement to it.
> 
> My issue with a previous post was the clear inference that the good stuff had no value just because it was initiated by Lance. Thanks for your rendition.


Except that the inference _*wasn't *_clear. :raspberry


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Lord Vader said:


> Except that the inference _*wasn't *_clear. :raspberry


It was quite clear to the 3 people who read it and told me that they came to the exact same "mis-interpretation". :eek2:

So we can now move on.


----------



## Lord Vader

Hey! I can't help it they couldn't understand what they're reading. What about the 4 people who told ME they understood things perfectly.


----------

