Ramifications of Lance Conviction

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
Clemson Cycling said:
hahahahahah. Armstrong technically never tested positive at the Tour either. According to the UCI anyway
According to their rules he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999 but they ignored it
May 7, 2009
Clemson Cycling said:
From 2000-2005 all of the 2nd and 3rd place finishers with the exception of Klöden were banned for using POD's.
What, you mean like Ipods ???
I can see that, they keep you from hearing what is around you, dangerous.
Mar 17, 2009
My hope is that Armstrong fights this all the way and as a result all the nefarious goings on at the UCI are revealed in full. That way perhaps Mquaid's grubby empire is fatally undermined forcing a radical revamp of cycling's organisation.

Well one can dream!
Jul 20, 2010
Who really knows. I think it would be more damaging to Armstrong's image and his Livestrong foundation. It's sad because Livestrong does a lot of good things for people, but people are so bent up at crucifying Armstrong there is a blatant disregard for the good that gets damaged in the process.

Now I'm not saying Armstrong deserves a pass if he cheated, but it's just the reality of the situation...Livestrong gets hurt in the process, and those programs that serve cancer patients gets hurt int he process, etc. They will lose funds. This is a sad thing to me and all because we want to crucify a guy where 2nd and 3rd place probably cheated any way.

All I know is if Lance is lying and he has cheated he deserves to be stripped of all his titles. But at the same time if they do this, there should be no winners for those years that Lance raced.

But until we know exactly who these witnesses are, I'll reserve judgement. Unlike other people in this forum, I remain objective and want to look at the facts and evidence of the case, not just heresay and slander taken as fact.
Apr 8, 2010
SilentAssassin said:
... It's sad because Livestrong does a lot of good things for people ...
Square-pedaller said:
I've never really understood what Livestrong does for cancer sufferers. As far as I know it has never put money into research on cancer. At one stage it was touting itself as a source of information, but there's tons of free information on the internet.
What are these good things that Livestrong does?
BigPhil3 said:
I guess I'm obliged to say that I am in no way a Lance fan nor have any allegiance to the Livestrong army before I start out.

If at all possible, can we take off the I hate Lance colored glasses and speculate on what happens if he does get banned? I know that can be tough, but I think there is much more to the Lance Armstrong USADA case than is being discussed. Namely, what happens 6 months, 1 year, 5 years down the road?

First off, what does the sport gain from Lance receiving a ban? Does the sport take a step towards becoming cleaner or do we all just get the smug satisfaction that we were right the whole time and feel vindicated for Lance getting his just desserts for cheating and lying to us?

Secondly, what does it do to the sport of cycling and those associates of Lance not charged? Does Radioshack, a company with zero European stores, pull sponsorship money out of a sport where even the most successful team from a year ago had to disband? Does Bontrager Livestrong fold leaving fewer chances for developing young riders? And what about people like Levi and George? If it comes out that they doped for all those years how does that affect them? To use George, since that is a very popular rumor, do people come down on him as they have come down on Lance over the years if it comes out or he admits to doping? Does BMC cancel their contract with his clothing company? Does his development team fold?

Third and final, what about Lance's influence outside the sport? Even though some would argue this isn't important, I feel it is really being overlooked. Although some magazine articles would have you think otherwise, Livestrong does help many people. And, even though I definitely don't agree with his rhetoric concerning cancer, Lance is a very big inspiration to multitudes of people who frankly couldn't care less about cycling. But does a conviction hurt this?

I realize that is a lot, but to be honest I don't have a ton of people I know that I can volley cycling related questions off of. Also, I know that showing any sort of sympathy towards Lance is not the most popular thing to do. I feel we gravitate towards sport because in a world that is infinitely grey, sport is supposed to be black and white. The best man wins, and if you do something wrong, you are punished for it. But is sport really black and white? And in a case like this where the athlete is an icon outside of his sport, does this make it more grey? As hard as it is to do, I think it is important to remove ourselves from our emotions toward Lance and analyze the situation as objectively as possible.
It only goes to show how humanity is based entirely on wishful thinking. That it prefers falsehood to facts.

Because man is a coward and can't accept his own mortality.

Dr. Maserati

Jun 19, 2009
Why do people bring up Livestrong like its the only 'charity' around?

There are plenty of cancer charities out there that do excellent work.
Livestrong is just another one - if there core mission is cancer then drop the sports fraud guy and continue doing whatever they do, it will survive - if they dont people will give money to a worthy charity.
Oct 25, 2010
If he gets banned, many things will happen simultaneously:

1) All current sponsors will back him. They've long since decided that they'll ride this one down together. Look for them to just criticize the USADA and WADA.

2) All kinds of lawsuits will be filed. The jilted will want their money. Sponsors do not consider themselves the jilted ones.

3) USADA will come under fire from all directions. And I hope they can weather the storm. It will be difficult.

4) Cycling will lose again (but Lance made that decision long ago).
May 19, 2012
May 7, 2009
SilentAssassin said:
....Livestrong gets hurt in the process, and those programs that serve cancer patients gets hurt int he process, etc. They will lose funds.
Livestrong isn't that great of a charity. I knew someone who was involved as a pateint and they got some free printed materials in the mail, a binder, perhaps a T-shirt or two. Nothing that really mattered in the big scheme of things.

SilentAssassin said:
This is a sad thing to me and all because we want to crucify a guy ...
sanctioning a guy for cheating that he commited is far from Crucifying him- in fact, it is clear that he got a free pass for years

SilentAssassin said:
.. But at the same time if they do this, there should be no winners for those years that Lance raced.
FWIW, I agree
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2