Looks like Lance wasn't dealing off the top of the deck.
Dang it ...so disappointing.... even IF cycling 'invented' the art of drug cheating....
Edited in fairness to Lance Armstrong.
Let's not forget he might have been on hormone replacement therapy... so that he could compete equally. Testosterone is necessary for that.
Some may argue with this but it is all part of the bigger world we live in. As individuals we tend to lose sight of that.
I have always attempted to live a life that broke no rules of the established society that I live in. It is a pity that there are many that walk amongst us that don't care to or see no reason to do that. Of course though this is nothing new, been going on for ages, long before any of us were here and will go on long after we are gone.
It's also possible that he didn't dope and that he's just tired of fighting a fight he can never win.
Yup.
An international sports committee getting something wrong? Never....
He may have cheated, but there's a sizable chance that he didn't.
If he can't win it means he can only lose....and that means 'no contest'.
What bugs me is I followed him...loyally in spite of his arrogance...and in spite of him quaintly avoiding all the other first class events...eg the Giro just so he could magically [it seems] be sure to win Le Tour.
Cycling 'invented' drugs in sport... even before the steroids of weight lifting, etc...so it's certainly not uncommon. Heck, people have died on the road due to drug use during the race.
When someone ends up stripped of a title/win my feelings go out to the poor bastard who [then] came second....and missed out on the legitimate kudos [and income] HE deserved.
Same with the Olympics.....you're the poor bugger on the lower step....missing out on all the fame and fortune attributed to the 'winner'.
It's shitty for ALL 188 OTHER riders in the field.....AND the 2 million LIVE spectators...and the hundreds of million TV viewers.
If he believed in himself and his(undoped) abilities, imho, he should have made a stand, even if it was a last stand.
A "last stand" is a last resort tactic, and is chosen because the defending force realizes the benefits of fighting outweigh the benefits of retreat or surrender. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_stand
Sometimes, even in the face of overwhelming odds and certain defeat, the battle must still be fought. Not for hope of a victory, but because it must be fought.
His reasons for lying down and letting himself be kicked are solely his own.
Exactly...if he can't be blowed to defend his reputation then I'm certainly not in his stead....
It does not make sense if he was allowed to compete at the time after completing a drug test and being cleared. If there were no drugs then, how could there be now? Sounds really fishy and corrupt to me. He did not admit to using drugs, which is highly unlikely anyway, he just got tired of all the abuse and bullshit. I probably would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes. He is a good man, leave him to hell alone.
Right, because there's no evidence around the world of individuals losing fights against large government or governing organizations that are in the wrong simply due to a lack of resources or bureaucratic inertia or the overwhelming reach and strength of those institutions.
Edit: For the record I have no idea, and not much opinion, on whether or not Armstrong is guilty. I don't really care, because I find cycling boring. But the idea that "well clearly if he's not willing to continue his fight against some big, super powerful organization, then he must be guilty" strikes me as wrong-headed.
You do know there IS NO political [or other] advantage to be had [for the UCI] in stripping a person's results years AFTER an event, not when the very act indicates some failing in the system at the time. The results were/are done and dusted. The only on-going result from 7 Tour victories is to Armstrong's bank balance. The reason the issue has come to light NOW rather than then is clearly [a bit of] finger pointing and subsequent proficiency in testing methods.
Changes to drug restrictions obviously can't be retrospective.... but transgressions of then-current restrictions certainly can....as that appears to be the case here.
He's certainly not being victimized.....how many entrants got their bums kicked this year alone?
Well said Zu! I totally agree!
Enough said.
