AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Lance Armstrong stepped down as chairman of the cancer support charity he founded, as Nike Inc dropped the disgraced cyclist over the doping scandal that will cost him his seven Tour de France titles.

Armstrong's Livestrong foundation is best known for the more than 70 million iconic yellow rubbery wrist bands that have been distributed worldwide, but the scandal threatened to overshadow the group's wider work with cancer patients. So far, donations have actually increased despite the scandal.

"To spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship," Armstrong said in a statement on Wednesday. He will continue to serve on the board.

At around the same time that the foundation announced Armstrong's resignation, Nike posted a statement to its website saying the athletic apparel maker would still back the charity but could no longer sponsor the man behind it.

"Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him," the company said.

Beer maker Anheuser-Busch said it too would end its relationship with Armstrong when his contract expires at the end of this year, though it would also continue to back the foundation and its athletic events.

Oakley Inc, the sunglasses brand also associated with Armstrong, said in a statement it was reviewing the reports into the cyclist's conduct and awaiting a final decision from the sport's international authorities.

Armstrong, now retired, is set to lose his record seven Tour de France titles after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency published a 1,000-page report last week that said the American took part in and organized an elaborate, sophisticated doping scheme on his way to his unrivalled success.

'WHAT ARE YOU ON?'

Armstrong, 41, has always denied he took banned substances during his glittering career but decided not to challenge the USADA charges against him.

That defiance was such a part of Armstrong's personal brand that Nike made a commercial in the early 2000s featuring him being tested for drugs.

"Everybody wants to know what I'm on. What am I on? I'm on my bike, busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?" Armstrong said in a voiceover to the ad.

Before Armstrong, the most high profile athlete dropped by Nike was probably the football player Michael Vick, cut loose in 2007 amid charges he bankrolled a dog-fighting ring.

One analyst who follows the company dismissed the idea that separating from Armstrong would have any impact on Nike or its sales of Livestrong products.

"I am not sure the average Joe really cares. Nike and all sporting goods companies have a history of standing by their sponsored athletes," said Paul Swinand, a retail analyst at Morningstar.

"Let's put it this way. There's a guy on my street that has survived cancer three times. Brain cancer. Is he going to take out the Livestrong band? No."

CELEBRITY SPOTLIGHT

Armstrong founded the Lance Armstrong Foundation in 1997, not long after being diagnosed with testicular cancer, according to the foundation's website. The organization launched the Livestrong brand in 2003 as it widened its cancer patient-support services. The foundation is now known by both names.

His departure as chairman comes just two days before the foundation's fund-raising gala in Austin, Texas, where Armstrong lives. Celebrities such as Sean Penn and Ben Stiller are expected to attend, with comedian Robin Williams and singer Norah Jones to provide entertainment.

"It is his effort to inoculate the foundation against any risk or damage associated with current controversy in the cycling world," Livestrong spokeswoman Katherine McLane said in an interview.

So far, the foundation's financial health appears not to have suffered from Armstrong's cycling scandal.

Contributions have actually risen this year as the probe gathered momentum. For the year 2012 to date, the foundation has reported revenue of $33.8 million, up 2.1 percent from this point a year ago, according to documents provided to Reuters.

Since late August, when Armstrong said he would not contest the USADA findings and the agency said it planned to strip him of his titles, Livestrong has received more than 16,000 contributions, averaging about $97 each.

"This is almost twice normal levels," said Rae Bazzarre, another Livestrong spokeswoman.

Cycling's world governing body, the International Cycling Union, has yet to rule on the USADA report. They can either confirm Armstrong's life ban and strip him of his seven Tour titles or take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The USADA report accused Armstrong, as head of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team, of running "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

The report included sworn testimony of 26 people, including 15 riders, who described years of performance-enhancing drug use.

One of Armstrong's most prominent backers, Texas governor and one-time presidential candidate Rick Perry, insisted people should not connect the allegations or Armstrong's resignation to the cancer research he has backed.

"People of the state of Texas, and people around the world, have to decide whether or not Lance Armstrong is still a hero to them," he said at a press conference Wednesday.

Pretty sad.

NOt pretty sad, very sad.

play stupid games win stupid prizes

What's even sadder is that people actually care.

The dude rode a bike. With or without drugs...whoopteefrickindoo.

From what I've been reading, if he hadn't been using drugs, he would have been the only one.

the whole sport at that level is dirty. just like other sports and politics.

[size:14pt]A day of reckoning for Lance Armstrong's fans[/size]
The doping case will eventually chip away at the goodwill the cyclist has built up raising funds for cancer.

By Gale Holland, Los Angeles Times
October 16, 2012

Tim Loranger is a Los Angeles aviation attorney who was deeply moved by Lance Armstrong's story of beating cancer. The former Marine wears the Armstrong yellow wristband, races in an Armstrong hat and has raised thousands of dollars for Armstrong's cancer charity.

He's not convinced that Lance Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs.

"I don't think they have proven a case against him," Loranger said.

All due respect to Loranger, a dedicated philanthropist who has watched family and friends endure cancer, but the evidence is in: Armstrong used blood transfusions, the blood booster EPO, and testosterone "from start to finish" in winning an unprecedented seven Tour de France championships, the United States Anti-Doping Agency said last week. Now we can say it straight: Lance Armstrong is a doper.

Yet Loranger isn't alone. Armstrong still denies it; his spokesman, Mark Fabiani, argues the agency was "bending the rules at every opportunity," and its findings can't be trusted.

On one online forum after another, commenters attacked the anti-doping agency's case or insisted it doesn't matter.

What are we to make of this refusal to accept overwhelming evidence? No one cares?

Well I care. There's only one way to play sports: by the rules.

Let's run down some of the objections the Armstrongers raise against the anti-doping agency's proof:

� Armstrong never failed a dope test: Armstrong underwent far fewer tests than the 500 to 600 he has claimed, failed one and dodged others, the agency said. After testing positive for a cortisone injection, Armstrong had a prescription for cortisone cream back-dated, its report said. He said it was used to treat a saddle sore.

�The evidence against Armstrong is circumstantial: Nine professional cyclists were clients of Michele Ferrari, an Italian doctor hired by Armstrong, and gave eyewitness accounts of his doping practices; their statements are corroborated by financial records showing that Armstrong paid Ferrari $1 million, according to the agency's report. This is just the kind of case prosecutors like to tuck into their briefcases on their way to court.

And no, the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles did not clear Armstrong when he dropped a grand jury investigation into the cyclist in February. The case can be reopened and the agency evidence was developed independently of the criminal investigation.

�Armstrong's accusers have not been cross-examined: Armstrong in August walked away from a chance to put them on the grill. He and his lawyers said that's because the anti-doping agency's investigation was stacked against him, but he could have shown that at a hearing. Instead, he blew it off.

I could go on, but the real question is: Why does this matter?

Contrary to the rationalizers, not everybody was doping. Competitors who rode clean were cheated of a fair contest.

More importantly, Armstrong bullied his teammates into doping, supplied them with drugs and left their careers in tatters, the agency reported. When they talked about doping, he threatened their livelihoods, the report said. His Irish masseuse, Emma O'Reilly, told the New York Times that Armstrong impugned her as a prostitute with a drinking problem.

Livestrong, Armstrong's cancer charity, is no celebrity trifle. Armstrong has raised tens of millions of dollars for the charity, which is well-regarded in many circles for helping cancer survivors live better and overcome stigma.

But to my mind, Armstrong used the charity as a force-field to ward off doping accusations. He cultivated a public face both as a victim of the most dreaded disease of our time and a warrior vanquishing it. Quite a neat trick.

The Armstrongers shrug their shoulders: What are you going to do? Armstrong didn't invent doping, their argument goes, and you can't fight it. Bring on the pharmaceutical freak show, and may the best Dr. Frankenstein win.

Do these people play sports or just watch them? Throwing the sport wide open to pharma-meddling won't award the best cyclist, as they claim. It will award the best doper. And that would not only be immoral, and possibly dangerous. It would leach the magic from the sport.

The romance of cycling is a lone rider gritting up the Rockies beside a dancing creek, or schussing down a coastal incline. It is not a grubby little refrigerator stuffed with vials of fluids, or athletes hooked up to wheezing bags of blood with Dr. Vampire standing by thumbing rolls of cash.

Professional cycling inspires people to live clean and healthy and push for their personal best. The rest of it, the money and endorsements, is corporate noise.

But can anything really be done to clean up the sport? Forget about rectifying old titles and records. Ticking down the list of finishers to find a clean rider is a fool's errand. Everybody wasn't doing it, but the top guys clearly were.

However, the sport going forward can police itself a lot better. Cyclists including Armstrong wriggled out of drug testing by ludicrously simple stratagems like fleeing a hotel, dropping out of a race or simply not answering their door, the anti-doping agency said.

Sure, dopers will discover new chemicals, and we won't always catch them right away. But that's no reason not to try. The threat of stringent enforcement is a powerful deterrent. Doping enforcement in cycling hasn't posed a credible threat for a long time, if ever.

If Armstrong really cares about his charity, he should step down as the public face of Livestrong. Although his supporters are in full throat now, the doping scandal eventually will inflict damage, CharityWatch President Daniel Borochoff said.

"It will take a while before people accept it," he said. "But this latest evidence is so damning."

After leaving cycling, Armstrong has competed in marathons and triathlons, and according to the agency, he's remained in consultation with the Italian doctor. He shouldn't be allowed to taint these other sports.

A hero is a hard thing to give up. But a liar and a cheat is no hero.

Tested hundreds of times. Never found drugs in his system. Never.

play with fire and you eventually get burned. He has to live with himself over the whole thing. And it sure is fitting for the arrogant [bleep]. I don't even have problem with the arrogant part, but the [bleep] part stinks really bad...

End of the line for Mr. Gunderson:

[size:14pt]The UCI recognises USADA decision in Armstrong case[/size]

22.10.2012

The UCI has completed its review of USADA�s �Reasoned Decision� and appendices in the case against Lance Armstrong.

The UCI considered the main issues of jurisdiction, the statute of limitation the evidence gathered by USADA and the sanction imposed upon Mr. Armstrong.

The UCI confirms that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognise the sanction that USADA has imposed....



Let the crying begin.

Not quite correct. The levels in his blood and urine were below the level needed for sanctions to kick in. The evidence was there, it was just below the threshold for punishment.

What it finally took was for folks to come forward and testify. Some, obviously, had something to gain by testifying against Armstrong, others did not.

The totality of the evidence is what got him banned and his honors stripped.

I am glad that he used his fame to start Livestrong, and glad that most of the sponsors are going to continue their relationship with Livestrong, even though they have withdrawn any sponsorship from him. Livestrong has done some great things and I hope they can continue.

I'm with Bluedreaux. It's professional cycling. A sport. Not something I would spend my time on, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

Ed

As I see it,no different than Pete Rose....
got caught,end of story.
Trying cover up with the good,doesn't make the bad go away.

"People of the state of Texas, and people around the world, have to decide whether or not Lance Armstrong is still a hero to them," he said at a press conference Wednesday.


Don't have to decide. Never was a hero.

He wasn't caught...ever. They just kept hammering away with accusations until he couldn't take it anymore and stopped fighting back. He was NEVER proven to have cheated. Did he? We'll likely never know.

Anyone who thinks Armstrong is clean because "he passed all the tests" must also believe there's absolutely nothing hinky in Obama's past because they let him take the oath of office.

APDDSN0864 & RuffusG,





How do you know this? Are you going the the masses because they are the masses?

Let's see ... Armstrong and his team mates supposely "doped" all of those years and none of the numerous "tests" taken, none never came back bad!

Something just doesn't add up ....

I don't "know" anything. I believe it, because I see it, because I have two eyes and a brain that processes information, and no pre-existing bias to care either way.

And I couldn't give a rat-flying-fart what the masses think.

barry bonds never had a positive test either. but i am sure he is falsly accused too right ???

Guilty until proven innocent - that's the way of our media. I feel that they were doing something, but they were ahead of the testing at the time. What they were doing may not have been on the list of banned substances at the time and therefore not banned. Walking a very thin line, yes - but within the letter of the law at the time, could be.

EPO was banned, but there was no test for it for a while. And blood doping was banned, but, again, there was no good way to test for it until recently.

Doping in cycling is as prevalent as weed at Woodstock. I could care less if he did or didn't do it.

Guilty until proven innocent.

As if I am some sort of ignorant soul who mindlessly follows an emotional need to feel validated by agreeing to what others think and say?

I state my position based on what I have read and heard from a number of sources, including reading the reports and statements of the governing bodies.

Not because I have a dog in this fight, but because I love to learn and that involves learning about everything I can.

Ed

Armstrong actually tested positive twice for PEDs. Due to his money, connections, fame and a complicit UCI, he was able to make the charges "go away". Did you know he was making sizable "donations" to the UCI, supposedly to fund the anti-doping effort? Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

Nah...just another example of puss's getting their way.

Really caught twice URL please.

I believe the two positives Southerntier8 is referring to were the positive for glucocorticosteroids from the prologue of the 1999 Tour de France and the positive for EPO from the 2001 Tour de Suisse. Both are discussed in USADA's Reasoned Decision and documented (somewhere) in their 1000 pages of evidence (look under the "Appendices and Supporting Material" tab).

The Reasoned Decision also documents how Armstrong and other riders set up a sort of Early Warning System to alert them that drug testers were on their way, the techniques riders used to fool the tests, and how they sometimes hid from the testers, going as far as feigning illness, dropping out of a race and sneaking out of town before the tester could find them because they knew they were too doped to skirt the test.

Pharmstrong also had three abnormal T/E ratio test results before his cancer diagnosis, one each in 1993, 1994 & 1996. And then he had six positives for EPO from the 1999 Tour de France, all detected more or less by accident some years later. Which by my count comes to 11.

As for the six EPO positives, there was no direct test for EPO in 1999, and only a half-assed indirect test. Later, when the French Anti-Doping Laboratory (LNDD) came up with a direct test, they requested that WADA provide them some random samples to use in their research. So in 2004, WADA sent anonymous samples from the 1999 Tour de France, identified to the LNDD only by a serial number.

Twelve of the anonymous samples tested positive for EPO. And that would have been an end of it, the donors of those samples would have remained unknown, except some reporters from the French L'Equipe sports newspaper knew that meant some riders in the '99 TdF had got away with doping. So they investigated and ferreted out the names of the riders represented by those twelve serial numbers. And they found that six of them belonged to Lance Armstrong.

L'Equipe published the details in a 2005 story titled "Le mensonge Armstrong,", "The Armstrong Lie." The reaction from the American press was that it was just the French and sour grapes. The Lance-Bots said it couldn't be true because CancerJesus walks on water and poops marigolds. WADA, OTOH, said the tests were kosher and the results unequivocal but the UCI said it wasn't actionable because there was no follow-up testing of the "B sample" (which wasn't to be expected, under the circumstances).

But USADA wasn't targeting the 1999 TdF, they were investigating serial doping. So they accepted LNDD's 2004 test information, even without the customary "B sample" confirmation, not as primary proof of doping but as evidence in support of sworn testimony from seven teammates and staffers involved in Lance's 1999 Tour de France effort. People who had first-hand knowledge of his doping practices.

Those six urine samples still exist. USADA formally requested a retest but WADA, who is maintaining them, said that since they no longer are anonymous, retesting depended on the permission of the donor. And even though these tests would have exonerated Lance (if he was truly clean) and put all the rumors to bed, Armstrong refuses to allow the retests.

Curious behavior for an innocent man.

It bears noting that the UCI regulations prohibit the practice of doping, not just getting caught doping. That's a distinction Lance and his Fan-Bots would rather you'd forget. They're getting incredible mileage out of this "never tested positive" lie, even though it isn't true, and wouldn't be exculpatory even if it were. And the USADA's burden of proof is �to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made,� not beyond all doubt.

Further, USADA regulations stipulate that evidence �may be established by any reliable means,� which can include indirect evidence. For instance, Jan Ullrich never failed a doping control but investigators found bags of blood with his name written on them (not even in his handwriting) in the clinic refrigerator of one Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes during "Operation Puerto" investigations. The UCI concluded from this that Ullrich was doping, and they suspended him for two years, based on indirect evidence, and despite his never having failed a doping control.

When you were 14, and you walked in the house smelling of cigarettes, that was all the proof your parents needed. They didn't have to catch you with a smoldering butt between your fingers, they knew from the signs that they'd "caught" you smoking. Same principle.

Italian police investigating the business of one Dr. Michele Ferrari found several electronic fund transfers to his account originating from Lance Armstrong. These payments, totaling more than $1 million USD, were routed to him via the Swiss banking system and Lance undoubtedly believed they were untraceable. He was wrong. Again.

Dr. Ferrari's only business is sports doping so there is no doubt what Pharmstrong's million dollars bought from him. Based on the "Ullrich Protocol," I dare say the USADA commissioners would have been "comfortably satisfied" that Lance was doped to the gills solely on the basis of his payments to Ferrari, let alone from the sworn testimony from the more than two dozen eye witnesses.

Since the first publication to publicly sound the alarm to Lance's doping was L'Equipe, I thought this cover (from 20 Oct) was highly appropriate:



If you're looking for documentation that the UCI took bribes to cover up Pharmstrong's positives, that's not going to happen. Yet. That's actually the ideal outcome of all this, not that CancerJesus gets burned to the ground, but that all the collusion and corruption of the Pharmstrong/Verbruggen era comes to light. Absent that, if they don't root out all the putrescence, it's all just going to happen all over again.

It is only a surprise to those Americans who only casually follow the sport of professional cycling. No one else who follows it is surprised in the least. Not the French, Brits, Germans, Italians, Dutch....

The guy always has been an arrogant prick.

All cyclists are arrogant pricks they think they own every road.

Hahaha. They scare you, don't they?

Excellent summary XL5!

In general, I find cyclists to be more considerate than people with flashing avatars.

I was listening to someone on a talk show that called in to talk about the cyclists who don't dope and retired early because they couldn't compete. There were at least two who were considered "challengers" to Armstrong.

While doping is rampant in the sport, its not fair to the ones that followed the rules that Armstrong is living a millionaires life and celebrity fame while they are working at a Starbucks.

Another issue is Greg LeMond, the Lance Armstrong before there was Armstrong who was basically ostracized for dogging Armstrong early in his career for doping. This is a guy that won the tour 3 times, the first non European to win it, twice after being shot in a hunting accident, and Armstrong shut him down on his allegations by using his influence to threaten sales of his line of bicycles.

In 2007 LeMond said "If you knew the Lance I know, then you'd agree with me that when he finishes up in cycling he won't have any friends" or something to that effect.

Apparently you come in contact with a completely different type of cyclist, at a much higher percentage, than I do

In other words, all of those who Armstrong beat year after year after year after year after year, etc. Do you believe that the French, Brits, Germans, Italians, Dutch...etc. weren't all blood doping during the same time Armstrong is alleged to have been doing it?

This whole affair is reminiscent o "Casablanca".

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!

Why go after Armstrong after retirement? Why go after him after a career that never saw him sanctioned? Why the fervor to bust this guy so long after the fact?

What does cycling have to gain from this? Armstrong put cycling on the map in America. Armstrong's wins sold millions of bicycles and yellow jerseys. He increased the popularity of the sport to levels never imagined.

Did professional cycling do this to claim they were staunchly anti doping? It was much easier, and probably better for everyone if they had just let it go. Riders dope, they get tested, if they fail the test, they get busted. Armstrong slid through the system just like most of his teammates (Landis is an exception), and the dozens of others that raced.

For the typical sports fan to point a finger and say "He's a cheater, bust him" in a fit of sanctimonious self righteousness is ludicrous.

Stripping Armstrong of the titles does not change the outcome. Everyone knows who won. If you can't punish him on the spot (a la Floyd Landis) then let it go.

The real reason professional cycling is after Armstrong is that he is an arrogant ass, and has stepped on too many toes. Vendetta comes to mind. This is the big pay back.

Good post!
Well said!

Agreed. It's petty vengefulness at best.

IMO, the reason "they" keep going after Armstrong is that he's an unmitigated, unrepentant [bleep].

I read that whole report and the way he treated (treats) people is somewhat less-than-human. That makes for a lot of enemies with long memories...

As for cycling in general, 14 of the last 17 1st place TDF finishers have tested positive, as have 9 of 17 seconds, and 11 of 17 thirds. Cycling makes noises about "cleaning up" but they really don't seem to be trying too hard.

As far as integrity goes, EU cycling bodies ranks somewhere down in the cellar with the International Olympic committee....

Well you're not fooling anyone I cycle and most of them embarass the hell out of me. They run red lights and stop signs. They have to ride two and three abreast they can't keep their ass in the bike lanes we've paid for. But say this flash is for your ass don't forget it.

Just because Armstrong is, IMO, a grade A, blue ribbon, take him to the county fair, A-hole, does not make this whole process right. I'm not seeing much due process, just a lot of accusin and intimidation, prolly deserved, but not right.

Why go after Armstrong now?

1. The $4.5 million that were paid to him for winning his 5th, 6th and 7th titles. It is clear now that he won those titles by cheating. The payments were not prize money from the race but payments from an insurance company who had insured the bonuses. Armstrong won and claimed those bonuses using fraudulent means. The company, SCA can now go after Lance to get their money back.

2. He doesn't deserve the titles. While you may argue that the "playing field was level" it just wasn't true. The list of Armstrong's main challengers who were doping like he was (doing the exact same stuff) but were caught and suspended is long. Panatani, Zulle, Ullrich, Baso, Mayo, Hamilton, Landis and I'm sure I'm forgetting some. Lance should have been caught and suspended too, but he was tight with the president of UCI and then there is the matter of his "donations".


You are confusing the anti-doping agencies with professional cycling. Professional cycling (the UCI) come off looking horrible in this and I'm sure they wish the evidence against Armstrong never came out. They only agreed to strip Lance of his titles after the evidence became overwhelming. Yes, Armstrong brought cycling to America but now cycling is in shambles. It was all a fraud. If I were in charge I would erase all of the results from the grand tours from '94 on and start over with a serious anti-doping program and do it the right way.

Helluva bicycle motor...enhanced or otherwise. The other cheaters couldn't beat him 7 times.

See, this is the point.

Read the following link. How many of the Top 10 guys doped? Looks like all to me pretty much.

How many had to cough up prize money YEARS after the fact? This is payback. they all doped, Armstrong won. Same as Bodybuilding back in the '70's. They all took Dianabol, Arnold was the biggest. Armstrong was the fastest. You can strip him, but what's the point?

Seriously, take a look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#1998_Tour_de_France

WGAF, Lance is a dick head

Armstong ran a coordinated, sophisticated drug doping enterprise; he SHOULD be striped of all the wins, and the money.

This wasn't just one guy, but a sophisticated enterprise.

me. I want all DHs to be legally proven DHs, for all time.


An, ya never know when you're gunna be public's next DH on the choppin block.

;-{>8

True that!

Damn. Whether it's Lance Armstrong or Larry Weishuhn.....lots of folks here are supercritical of them. Armstrong has done LOTS of good for lots of people dealing with an awful illness. And he's helpred raise hundreds of millions of dollars to fight that illness. He's been called CancerJesus here! Weishuhn gets to hunt for a living, all over the place...and write about it. He's a decent guy...who shoots an ugly gun. So what?

....among human beings jealousy ranks distinctly as a weakness; a trademark of small minds; a property of all small minds, yet a property which even the smallest is ashamed of; and when accused of its possession will lyingly deny it and resent the accusation as an insult. - Mark Twain

The point you are missing is that when all of those guys tested positive they were suspended. For all of them, it was disruptive to their careers. Some never came back. Some came back but couldn't ride at the same level. That is to be expected. But when Armstrong tested positive, nothing. It all went away. It is much easier to win TdFs when your competition is serving a suspension.

Prize money? I hadn't read that the UCI was asking Lance for any money back. Do you have a link to that?

A common theme here seems to be that this is a witch hunt orchestrated by some vengeful, jealous Europeans. But the Europeans aren't doing anything to Lance that they haven't already done to their own. Heck, during the Festina affair the French hauled their own athletes off to jail and locked them up.

I've never read that Armstrong was EVER tested and found to be on drugs. Ever.

Anybody know if he was EVER tested and found to be drugs? Anybody? Ever? I mean, I really want to know cause all I have heard is a bunch of unproven accusations against him. Sounds more like sour grapes than anything else.

The Wall Street Journal's last-minute ideas for Halloween costumes:



The USPS Cycling Team

How do you hit up the most houses in the shortest amount of time? Don't be naive enough to think a sugar rush is enough. Like disgraced Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong and his posse of admitted blood dopers, you need a full entourage if you want to snatch the most candy by any means necessary. Start with a bike, a yellow jersey, a couple of friends in blue to play domestiques, and don't forget your doctor. For the perfect finishing touch, just add pretend blood bags and use red magic marker to achieve that perfect shade of crimson. If anyone asks you what you're on, you can reply with indignation, "I'm on my Radio Flyer, busting my ass."



I've never read that OJ was EVER caught killing Ron and Nicole?

Is that proof he didn't do it?

Gun_Geezer,

I agree. As far as I'm concerned he is still the winner. I mean how many times does a guy have to be tested "clean" before they give up? What we have here is a bunch of sore losers.

It's mind boggling enough to see how folks can't imagine how the wonderful "test" just wasn't good enough to catch the cheaters.

But when you consider what level and scope of conspiracy would be necessary to manufacture all the "false" evidence against the "innocent" Lance you just have to shake your head.

Throw into the mix the fact that the biggest sporting event those filthy conniving Frenchies have is now basically ruined, but they supposedly are the rats behind the whole witch hunt. "Oui oui, let's burn our country down to get that cocky American."

I honestly don't care either way, I wish he could prove himself clean, it's just scary watching people argue Lance's side of it.

Which celebrity will 'burn' on bonfire night?

The Edenbridge Bonfire Society has revealed which celebrity will grace the top of their biggest bonfire on Guy Fawkes night.

The effigy stands around 30 feet high and is packed full of fireworks to ensure he/she goes up with a bang.

The burning of the celebrity forms the end of an evening of events which attracts thousands of people to the small Kentish town.

Clues

Very well known
An international celebrity
Adored by many
Notorious for putting (his/her) foot in it rather too often


This year's effigy was chosen after he was stripped of all of his Tour de France titles following an extensive investigation into drug taking.



Lance Armstrong 2012 Credit: ITV Meridian

It's hard for me to understand the public's issues with ped use in professional sports.

It is pretty common and has been for a long long long time. Its just the way it is. I dont have any issue with it.

To make the guys that get caught out to be the bad guys is pretty silly considering what percentage of athletes use them.

Opinion: Armstrong case provides a window into our collective morality

By Dr. Phil Skiba
Published Nov. 2, 2012

�This is my body, and I can do whatever I want to it. [�] What am I on? I�m on my bike busting my ass six hours a day. What are you on?� � Lance Armstrong, from a 2001 Nike commercial

The above quote seems equally prophetic and disingenuous in light of recent events. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has revealed over 1000 pages of documentation in support of a single conclusion: Lance Armstrong achieved his near-superhuman results through a combination of performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions. He was the de facto ringleader of a breathtaking fraud. Despite this, I find myself answering a single question with alarming frequency: �Who cares?�

People who seek to minimize Armstrong�s transgressions often reference the doping present in other sports. They may point to Marion Jones or some similar story as evidence that doping is simply endemic to elite competition. Aside from the fact that it is ridiculous to excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, there is an important difference in the present case. We find it somehow more offensive than what has come before. I�ve puzzled over that fact for some weeks now, and I believe I understand why that is. I will begin my explanation with another Armstrong quote:

�Finally, the last thing I�ll say to the people who don�t believe in cycling, the cynics and the skeptics: I�m sorry for you. I�m sorry that you can�t dream big. I�m sorry you don�t believe in miracles.� � Lance Armstrong, 2005 Tour de France victory speech

Armstrong sold an intangible product coveted by all fair-minded people: the idea that clean living and a supreme work ethic are rewarded. He offered the belief that despite impossible odds, we can triumph over the insurmountable through the force of human will.

As a cancer survivor and as a physician, I wanted to believe in the Lance mythos more than anyone. I have used his example to help motivate my sickest patients for more than a decade. I am deeply disappointed at the way Armstrong provided false hope to desperate, vulnerable people, and then used them as his most ardent supporters. He sought veneration and financial gain in the hearts of people with catastrophic illness in the most craven way. This is the first reason you should care; Armstrong fed his own worst demons with our best angels.

The survivor community will recover from this blow. We will find hope in our families, in each other and in our doctors, as we should. Our society as a whole has something a bit more insidious to address, and this may represent a more important reason you should care. Armstrong has demonstrated that you can lie, cheat, bully, damage the personal and professional reputation of others, traffic in and use drugs, pressure others to traffic in and use drugs, and still come out a �winner� financially, professionally, and socially. He has reinforced the suspicion that has gone through the mind of anyone who has ever sat through an algebra test and noticed another kid using a crib sheet: Playing fair is for suckers.

You may believe that Armstrong�s sanction from USADA obviates this last point. You are wrong. Lance Armstrong Inc. is doing just fine. Nike, along with his other sponsors, have distanced themselves from him but are standing behind the LiveStrong brand. Celebrities continue to turn up at LiveStrong events. A bill has been proffered in Congress to defang the organization that caught him.

Rather than abiding by the reasoned decision of USADA, sporting events have given up the sanctioning of USA Triathlon so that Lance Armstrong was able to race. Allow that to sink in for a moment. Race organizations have actually turned their backs on anti-doping rules for the purposes of bringing the worst cheater in the history of sport to their events.

Simply put, the Armstrong case may be symbolic of a decline in our popular morality, which worships celebrity above fair play, hard work and decent behavior. It is also a window into how far the �win at all costs� mentality has contaminated our collective psyche.

Lance Armstrong has set, and continues to set, a very bad example, and in so doing works against what I do as a physician, teacher and professional sports consultant every single day. Unless we demand better, we risk continuing down a very cynical path. This is the final reason you should care. There will always be real heroes and false champions: it is for our collective good that we must elevate the former and demote the latter.

Dr. Skiba is the program director for Sport and Exercise Medicine at the University of Exeter, and is the incoming program director for Sports Medicine at Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL. Dr. Skiba has trained a number of elite endurance athletes, including two world champions.

He used to just spank you as a junior, didn't he. Or was it that he stole your bike-Betty back in the day?

Good read. Dr. Skiba makes his points very effectively.

Yeah, especially this one..."Simply put, the Armstrong case may be symbolic of a decline in our popular morality..."

So the decline of morality in our time is exemplified by the Lance Armstrong case? With all of the other horribly bad schit that has gone on and is still going on in our time, our decline in morality is represented by "the Armstrong case"? A guy who rides his bicycle fast and is accused of cheating?

Yeah...makes perfect sense.

NEVER.

That there are more dire wrongs in the world does not change the evidence off a sound chain of reasoning in the article above.

Question:

Whats better for mule deer - 7-08 or .308?

Answer:

.300 Win Mag will take elk out yonder every day of the week and twice on sundays.

The campfire way of debate?

The point I mentioned, in particular, wasn't a very good example of "evidence of a sound chain of reasoning."

What is it about the fact he was never tested positive that you fail to be able to comprehend?

Cheaters eventually get caught....this cheater was able to cheat a little bit longer. There's a reason Armstrong paid his doctor very well (as did Michael Jackson), and there's a reason (conflict of interest?) he gave the UCI lots of money.

Not only is he a doper, a cheater, but also a quitter. He quit his defense fight, as he knew his dirty little game was over. Eyewitness evidence is hard to beat, especially testimony of 10 people among other USADA evidence.

Why does this cheater get any sympathy? Is it because some love a bad-azz hero?

For the time period that Armstrong was winning and my aligned belief that he was clean, I thought that Armstrong was the best athelete in the world by any measure. Exposure of my naivete was disappointing.