Dan Burkhart 

Looks like maybe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sp...ping.html?_r=0

BluesDawg

Although it is far too late for a good outcome in this matter, I think it would be better overall if he does come clean than if not.

howsteepisit

Just cannot imagine that Armstrong would confess after all the grief he dealt out to others. But since its not abut the bike, more like its all about the Lance.

billydonn

Interesting article. It has to be very hard on him to be locked out of competition. (Not intended as a statement of real sympathy... just saying.)

Burton

Even if that happens it won't change the fact that doping and corruption were rampant throughout the competitions the whole time Lance was winning those titles. Claiming he was the only one doing that is about as honest as him claiming he was clean. Sorry if I can't take any of it seriously.

Gerryattrick

Is the title of this thread an oxymoron?

GeorgeBMac

+1

bruce19

Think of it as government corruption. Even if they are all doing it, you can't ignore it. I take it seriously to the extent that I don't take professional cycling seriously. And, that can't be good for the sport. So, IMO, people like Armstrong, Landis and a host of others are bad for the sport.

BluesDawg

This is, in part, why it would be better for Lance to come clean. Telling what happened and how it happened instead of just denying it all, will shine light on the corruption throughout the sport and hopefully, contribute to flushing it out.

CraigB

I just got Tyler Hamilton's book for Christmas and started reading it last night. Just in the first couple of chapters, he and his co-author site performance statistics that make it clear the problem is widespread and rampant (like average speed for the TdF jumping from mid-30s (kph) to over 40 since EPO became available). Also, I wasn't aware of the early history of US Postal until reading this. They started with Andy Hampsten (who was adamantly anti-doping) as the team leader. He was producing the same power output he did when he had his successes at the Tour and Giro but was now being routinely passed on climbs by heavier riders. When it was clear that this was the future of cycling, at least successful cycling, he chose to retire instead.

Anything that can shine a light on the situation would be welcome, IMO.

Burton

LOL Funny you should mention that with the current ongoing construction industry corruption investigation in the city I'm living in!
Agreed - I don't take any professional sports seriously. For the organizers - its a business not a sport. So I stay out of all of it and then it doesn't really affect me. Its not like I'm in a position to affect anything any way.

billydonn

I don't think many people "claim he was the only one...".

Burton

Maybe you're right - I just find all the finger pointing hilarious!
"He was doping! He was doping! He HAD TO HAVE BEEN DOPING, because ......... I was doping myself and he still beat me, dammit!"

I'm thinking that if there was mandatory testing for ALL contestants, instead of just the top riders - it would be much harder to hide how widespread the problem is.

Blues Frog

Just depress that handle. A thorough FLUSH might help!!!

BigJeff

You can cheat until your method of cheating is restricted.

As long as you are one step ahead of the rule book, go ahead and use all the crazy doping methods the rule book doesn't know how to restrict.

I think we was a step ahead, yes it was cheating, but as long as the rulebook never caught him it was "legit".

dbg

I've kind of used that argument in some discussions. They were expected by their supporters and advertisers to win. Doping was rampant. He/they figured out how to stay just below the detection limit. Perhaps they interpreted the detection threshold as the OK amount of doping (and, again, everyone else was doing it --and they were expected by those paying the bills that they would come out as winners).

What if carb-loading were to be outlawed? What if those with greater access (money) to various scientific training methods were deemed to have an unfair advantage? It seems like a continuum.

freedomrider1

Good point Big Jeff. As a Lance fan i could never wrap my head around the him denying it.So Lance thinks he did not do anything wrong.And why don;t they just test everybody in cycling?

Tony N.

I read the article and a lot of the comments but saved my reponse for here as the Forum is what's important me (you guys). I don't think he will or possibly should "come clean". As I understand it most of the latest and greatest come clean cyclist were given deals and even rewarded to give up a fellow cyclist. They were and still are my cycling heros but did what they felt they had to do to get to continue in their respective cycling related careers. For example, George was allowed to compete in the TDF and will be allowed to coach/train future cycle teams. Others were given similar rewards to give up LANCE and confess. Please understand me, I'm 100% against drugs and applaud all legit efforts to clean up all sports but this was and is an attack on an individual cyclist. One of the reponders said to give the medals to the second place finishers but he/she apparently don't remember/know that they had been tested positive and confessed already. Like it or not, and for whatever the reason, there is not a positive non contested test that would/will bust Lance. If so, lets see it. Did he dope? I don't KNOW and obviously they don't either. Just based on the word of dopers that were given rewards and freedom from prosecution to give up a certain individual. I don't like it one bit but during the last 15+ years, you either doped or did not sucessfully compete at the pro level and that has/is becoming all to common for local races as well. IMO pardoning/rewarding thru a selective process may not be the best way to clean up cycling. I hope someday in the not so distant future, testing will get ahead of the dopers.

TomD77

Just out of curiosity, where is the line between legal supplements and illegal supplements/doping? Is there some logical point or just whatever the rules happen to say on a particular day?

My question is from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't follow organized sports of any type. Considering changes coming down the road as organic processes are understood and modified on more and more fundamental levels, I think attempting to outlaw physical modification processes would be similar to trying to sweep back the tide. Very similar to "The War on Drugs".

Garfield Cat

That's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The two are about moral decay. Its a form of "gaming the system". For instance the use of food stamps that are passed on to others to buy alcohol.

Dudelsack 

Illegal supplements pose a potential threat to the health of the user. The danger of amphetamines speaks for themselves. EPO and blood doping puts you at risk for strokes and sudden death. Industrial strength steroids cause all sorts of physical issues. Heck, even replacement dose steroids put you at some risk, as I found out when I picked up my Androgel. HGH in industrial strength also causes all sorts of bad stuff (see acromegaly).

Without doing a lengthy in depth 30 second Google search, I don't know what the risk of clen or heptamine are. I suspect they're not good for you.

Reductio ad absurdum rant to begin in 5...4...3...2...

Garfield Cat

Yes, and the last thing was being disqualified to compete in the Ironman triathlon. I think for his age group, he would have done well but not against the best in the Kona Hawaii world championship.

Looigi

Here's an article that claims Armstrong never lied about it... https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50367628.../#.UOhQiXewV8E

mprelaw

It has always been all about Lance. Still is.

However, if he does make a confession, and it's a full confession, which includes the purpose behind his "donations" to UCI, that should help bring down McQuaid and Verbruggen. If Lance makes a buck or two in doing his tell-all and it has that end result, fine by me.

TomD77

Ever listened to one of those rapid fire disclaimers listing possible side effects that are at the tail end of any TV commercial for prescription drugs? If the line of acceptability for any substance or activity is drawn at possibly harmful, we'd have to stay in bed (but that's harmful too). There has to be some risk/benefit calculation but who draws the line? Is/should the acceptable risk/benefit be an individual decision? What about steroids ingested from doped cattle? It's easy to say no doping but once you start looking at the details it becomes anything but clear. There is too much inducement to dope, or at least take it to the edge of the line, a line that is changing, unclear and arbitrary.