Lance Armstrong confession.

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently Lance Armstrong has admitted to using performance enhancing drugs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-575 ... -to-oprah/

So what should happen now?

Should he return all the prize money? Does this change how people will view/support his charity work? Interested in any opinions you might have on this.

I don't care. The majority of those cyclists were "doping" at the time so I don't think he gained a significant advantage because of it. It's a sport, who cares? How about they drug test congress? What they do actually has an effect on the world.

I find the idea of prize money itself ridiculous, so whether he gets to keep it or not doesn't really matter to me.

It will probably change how people view his charity work and how they support those charities. It shouldn't because they're separate things, but people tend to be irrational.

The whole sport has to be filled with others who use performance enhancement drugs. Just look at those who finished right behind him.

I think the main point of the sorry mess is this:

He practically made a side-career out of denying it, yet the whole thing - his wins and his doping denials - turns out to be faked.

Lack of integrity is a big problem in the world right now.

To the OP,

Armstrong needs to give all that prize money to charity and then he needs to disappear.


However, I don't think that will happen.

Armstrong is doing this in hopes of getting his ban lifted so he can cheat.... err.... compete in triathlons.

Another snake, another day. Wish they would all just go away.

Agreed. I don't care how good the cause was, those Livestrong wristbands were CREEPY.

If all the top form athletes do doping then they are playing on a level field. So what is the complaint?

ruveyn

I also think that the officials should take some of the responsibility. From what I heard, some accepted bribes or let him go after catching him. I mean yes he did threaten people according to CBS but that shouldn't deter them from prosecuting a cheater.

And if everyone's cheating, there must be a problem with their regulation, no?

Edit:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story ... e-contract

Apparently his cancer was caused by using PEDs?

I guess he isn't "Superman" anymore, is he?
In my opinion, it has always been obvious Armstrong and everyone else (perhaps not the ones who consistently come in last) were using "performance enhancers." Our society tends to view these people as being gods, worthy of unconditional worship and veneration.

I feel a great sense of disappointment ... no, make that betrayal.

To think that I once joined in the chorus of "Let's give him the benefit of the doubt / Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is to feel anger and no small amount of nausea for having once again been fooled.

Never again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -wins.html

For a start, how about that if they're doping, they're not "top form athletes"?

I actually *liked* Tour de France once, but this is just one big farce:

Look at the winners in the last years who did doping (not necessarily the year they won, though).

1996: Bjarne Riis - And is now a ProTeam manager...
1997: Jan Ullrich
1998: Marco Pantani
1999-2005: That's one small fall for man, one giant fail for cycling*
2006: Floyd Landis*
2010: Alberto Contador*

*Stripped of their titles.

First, your premise is faulty. We certainly have reason to believe that doping was widespread; but we cannot assume that every rider who ever broke away from the péloton was doping. Second, even if they were all doping, the were not all using the same methods; so the prize is no longer an athletic competition, but a competition of applied biochemists.

The complaint is that there are rules, and both the competitors and the UCI chose to flout those rules for gain, and then participated in a decade long orgy of denial and obstruction.