Suppose he's got to say that.
The man obviously juiced - there's no real shame in it as everyone he was competing against did as well. You still have to put in the training and effort in the race, steroids (or EPO, which I presume is what he's accused of) doesn't just magically make you as good as he is/was.
Because it's hard to beat juicers without juicing ... Juice is used ridiculously in cycling and in most pro sports far more than most will believe.
Ugh. I'm pretty sure he did take performance enhancing drugs. Not sure if I agree with people when they say 'others were doing it so he should of as well'. If he did he's a cheat, in a sport where cheating is common. You either constantly turn a blind eye to it such as they do in professional bodybuilding, or you punish those who do it. What's sad about this is that it means that Alberto Contador, Floyd Landis and Lance Armstrong will have made well over half the Tour de France results wrong. In fact from 1996-2011 only two results will be unchanged by performance enhancing drug use. That's shocking.
whether or not he did use the drugs, he still had a massive advantage over the other blokes, he didn't chafe as much as the others and also didn't have as much resistance on the seat as the other guys... that alone should be grounds for investigation.
He could always argue that his cancer therapy was the reason his samples proved positive...
The Official 2012 TRF Best Newcomer
AIUI, Armstrong was given the all clear by a Federal Grand Jury, effectively saying he has no case to answer. Now you might have to ask an American if I am correct on this, but if I recall correctly, the US Federal Court takes a very dim view of lesser courts and agencies usurping its authority; they have a long history of walloping lower courts and agencies with a big stick. If this is correct, then even if Armstrong is found guilty by the USADA, he would be able to appeal to the US Supreme Court, who would, I have no doubt overturn any USADA decision if no other reason, to put them firmly in their place.
I have far bigger things to worry about in life than whether or not Armstrong used drugs. I have no way of knowing for sure so I'm not going to bother with it. The evidence against him is only circumstantial but still damning. For me, cheat or otherwise, he is still a cycling legend. I don't think whether or not he doped actually matters.
Read a cutdown version of the 202page report this morning - pretty damning stuff.
No wonder he decided he wasn't going to try and prove his innocence anymore...
Who wasn't on the juice? Not that many it seems, and given the fact that the illicit PE drugs labs are ahead of the testers by 2 to 4 years, who knows how many current supposedly clean cyclists/athletes are as "dirty" as he is.
Can't remember the name of the guy, but another cyclist (possible a team member?) who never once tested positive (unlike Armstrong, who then donated a large sum to the UCI and his test was forgotten) recently came out and said he doped, so Armstrongs "I had XXXXX number of tests and all were clean" doesn't mean anything anymore.
I read something earlier that basically said: Pro cycling wasn't (isn't?) about who had the best trainers, it was who had the best doctors, and that it's easy to say that it's a level playing field because everyone was on it, but XXXXX rider/team with little money aren't going to be as good/successful at juicing (and getting away with it) at Armstrong et al.
Armstrong has arguably the best PR team in the world.
He was one of the biggest cheaters and frauds yet he can still persuade gullible people through his PR team that he wasn't a cheater and is still a legend.
Because other people cheated as well doesn't mean that he can still be called a legend, the others may have taken less drugs than him but still been on drugs, so that does not make it an even playing field just because others were doing it too.
Look at the amount of drugs cheats in this sport, and these are only the ones who got caught.
Perhaps this will be a turning point like "the dirtiest race in history" was for the 100 metres in 1988, 6 of the 8 athletes in that final failed a drugs test in their career, and then in early 2000's there was the BALCO scandal. Now the 100 metres is cleaner, although there will always be doubts thanks to those cheaters.
Rumours that cycling might be dropped from the Olympics if a UCI cover up is discovered... wont happen, but bad news for Team GB if it does!
However, that is not what's important here What is important, is the fact that the Olympic spokesperson is called 'Dic.k Pound'... haaaaaa
ELI WALES: Awkward moment your hungover typo ends up in an epic nickname...
It's unfair to label everyone in cycling or everyone in the TDF a 'drug cheat'. Not everyone was or is doping. There are a lot guys out there who are nowhere near the top 20 guys and could do the basic maths and figure out that even with drugs they are still not going to break into the top 20 or top 10. There are a lot clean cyclists out there. And incidentally, LA did fail tests. But he had Drs filling out fake prescriptions for medicine for him that were officially acknowledged as being a reason for a failed test. And the failed test would be dismissed.
cycling just has a dark cloud hanging over it now. Been there for a while I guess but now there is thunder and lightning. how can anyone take it seriously?
I'd love to think that NZ cyclists don't dope, I mean the thought of our top cyclists doping just doesn't compute but who knows? It's obvious that doping and lying are rampant in the sport. Maybe they find it easy to lie because everyone is doping and lying about it?
you look at the tour these days and you have to think the guy that wins surely must dope, because how would he win if he didn't because there must be loads of other guys doping. Heck the maybe the majority of the top 10 dope.
I think in reference to the dropping of cycling there has to to be a line. Note that over the last few years its primarily been the road cyclists that have been caught, not those that compete in the Velodrome events so dropping them seems wrong.
That said penalising people like Chris Froome and other riders (I don't know many other Tour cyclists) is unfair based on what a minority decide to inject into themselves.
"The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move"
2010's Most Underrated
2012's Best Signature
the only thing that's for sure is we have no idea to what the extent of doping in the sport really is, best guess would be it's worse than we think even though we know it's bad.
Armstrong is such an unapologetic liar that I'm finding it hard to believe any athlete now who claims to be clean. I guess doping is pretty big in every sport, and not just cycling. Here in the US it's sullied baseball's reputation, that's for sure. You don't hear much about other sports, but I'm guessing it's fairly widespread. Any ideas if it's a big problem in rugby?
I'm actually proud of Lance...
When I was on drugs, I couldn't even find my ****ing bike!!
The Official 2012 TRF Best Newcomer