<p>I saw a poll over the Armstrong controversy on branding. 13% will no longer buy products affiliated with LiveStrong. That doesn’t seem like much of a commercial loss to Armstrong’s branding.</p>
<p>I do not follow bicycling, but this event wouldn’t dissuade me from buying or using LiveStrong products.</p>
<p>My prayers are with Lance Armstrong.</p>
<p>Sometimes you just get tired of fighting and it’s not worth it any more. Jealous competitors, committee members that want to set a tough example, all kinds of things can happen to destroy someone’s career and reputation.</p>
<p>I’ve been watching it happen with my husband. Two malcontents who have a history of running pastors out of other congregations attacked him verbally and made life miserable for him and the church. They were so antagonistic to the other church employees that they left the congregation but remain close friends with us. The denominational leaders (including an interim bishop) were told that DH ran them out. DH was then fired for “abandoning the congregation” while he was on a short-term medical disability leave. The denomination leaders have never asked the other employees why they left - says there is no point in speaking with them. They will not speak to anyone in the church or former members except the church council (which is now all family members of the two malcontents since half of the church membership left when DH did). The denomination sent DH for a psych evaluation, which came back stating he is perfectly capable of serving a church. </p>
<p>But now that the denomination has taken a stand against him, it would be embarrassing to reverse their stance, so they have thrown out the report, and refuse to allow him to serve as a pastor anywhere.</p>
<p>Armstrong knows what he has and hasn’t done, and if he has enough self respect, it doesn’t matter to him any more what others think. It isn’t worth the time, or the money or the frustration to continue the fight, knowing it’s a losing battle. And people can and do lose the battle even when they are innocent.</p>
<p>^^ Couldn’t agree more. It must have been clear to Lance that this was never going to be over. They were going to hound him for the rest of his life.</p>
<p>I feel for you and your husband. I used to be at a church where a small group took several pastors down.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know. My comment was in reference to the post highlighted below which talked about what value to give to the testimony of the witnesses the USADA has. My point was that people (such as jurors during a trial) often have to determine the value of testimony when the witness has been given something in return.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me, Lance is kind of like Barry Bonds:</p>
<p>1) The greatest player of his generation (in Bonds’s case… the best non-pitcher…)
2) Never tested positive
3) Several people (unknown motivation…) claim to have seen them taking performance enhancers
4) <em>If</em> they actually did take PEDs, both did so in an era in which PEDs were rampant in their sports. So… even if they did, what real advantage did they gain?</p>
<p>To me, #2 and #4 are huge… so much so that I can say that I still see them as the greatest in their respective sports of the past, oh, 25 years. </p>
<p>Lance would have won his 7 Tours with or without drugs, and Bonds’ eye (at the plate…) and bat speed are the reasons he hit all those home runs and hit .300+ for his career. They remain largely untainted legends to me.</p>
<p>And… what right does the USADA have to take away Lance’s Tours? They did not run the event, they did not confer the awards… so to me that is laughable. Who do they think they are? Regardless, he won them – saw all seven finishes with my own eyes. No revisionism can change that for me.</p>
<p>I don’t think Lance doped, at least not post-cancer. I don’t buy that someone who want through that much chemo would just inject illict drugs into his body willy-nilly. Also, no positive tests–and trust me, a lot of people were looking very hard to find positive tests. Sorry, but I don’t buy it at this point.</p>
<p>If his titles go to Ulrich, that will be ironic as all get it out.</p>
<p>Although I don’t support doping at all --the health risks are very present (although, AFAIK, largely untested due to legal/practical issues–if someone knows otherwise, I’d love to learn) and if it is currently illegal, then dopers should be held accountable–I just don’t get why it’s seen as the “worst thing ever” in sports. In contrast, other strange–and potentially unhealthy–practices that high level athletes consistently engage in are a-okay. It strikes me as a bit of a double standard, to be honest.</p>
<p>I fully agree with the Washington Post columnists Sally Jenkins and Tracee Hamilton linked above. This whole case is utter nonsense. If the fact that Armstrong passed every single drug test can be overridden by “witnesses” to his doping, then why have the drug tests at all, in any sport ever? After all, if he failed a drug test, would the sworn testimony of any witnesses that he never, ever took any drugs (and that they spent every minute of every day with him, so we should believe them) override test results? Of course they wouldn’t.</p>
<p>The whole affair is utter nonsense. No one here or on that commission knows whether or not Armstrong is guilty of doping and this commission is stupid and pointless.</p>
<p>If you read the evidence of doping against Armstrong, you will see that is is pretty overwhelming and it reaches the point of defying common sense to say he didn’t. It is the circumstances of his comeback after cancer that stood as proof to many that he did dope. This is not a case of where there’s smoke there’s fire. This is where there’s a bright hot flame, there’s fire. Dopers have been a step ahead of the testers for some time and they likely always will be. Armstrong and his handlers were particularly careful about his training schedule and his competitions in order to lessen the likelihood of getting caught. It seems to have been quite an elaborate scheme that went on for many years.</p>
<p>^^ A sensational career and careful scheduling constitutes “overwhelming” evidence and a “bright hot flame” of guilt. If we’re going to convict him despite a perfect testing record, why bother with testing at all?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Evidence is a term that seems to be thrown around lightly! Evidence in this case is mostly uncorroborated and sel-serving accounts. Analyses are usually mere opinions of journalists who hedge their bets to ensure pleasing their readers. Opinions will vary and change over time. But opinions do not amount to … Evidence. </p>
<p>And, as far as opinions, it is good to hear the unchanged opinion of the sport’s greatest rider of all times. Eddy Merckx called the entire USADA affair a disgrace, and added he understood Armstrong just had enough of the witch hunt.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not every method of ‘doping’ involves illicit substances that are going to give you a ‘gotcha’ result. The primary issue, as I understand it from what I’ve read and heard, is that there are blood anomalies that are indicative of doping, likely transfusions, that will not be evident in any type of actual test. Positive tests are apparently only one of the several ways that USADA and the other agencies that are responsible for anti-doping make their determinations. It’s actually pretty interesting to read. </p>
<p>The information and evidence, whether you want to call it that or not, would have been available for Armstrong and his attorneys to examine and rebut if he’d made the decision to proceed to arbitration. Of course, all of that information would then have been out for everyone to see. The fact that 10 of the 12 witnesses who were to be called were his buddies, his former teammates, who were well acquainted with the training regimen and whatever did or did not happen during it, was probably a daunting prospect for Armstrong. Can anyone honestly believe that that many men would concoct stories and all agree to lie about it? Really? Whether they have any financial incentive, I don’t know what that would be. Is the USADA paying them off? People in the cycling world have suspected, and many have known, for years that Armstrong did what many others were doing. I know that people often have a strong dislike for Armstrong, as has been said, he’s a very difficult man to like but even at that, this conspiracy/witchhunt speculation is a bit much.</p>
<p>I’ve wondered since the story broke if peoples’ opinions would be the same, and if the feelings would be as strong, had he never suffered cancer and Livestrong didn’t exist. The dichotomy of human behavior often makes us feel as though it’s impossible for someone who has suffered and done so much good as a result, to also have perhaps done something that’s not so good. I don’t think anyone disputes that Armstrong is to be admired for what he has done for those who have had cancer. </p>
<p>One question I haven’t seen answered in any of the articles I’ve read is what would happen if he had gone through the arbitration process and continued to profess his innocence, but at a later date, it was proven that he’d lied. It reminded me of the Marion Jones story where she lied for years before admitting she was guilty of doping, and she went to prison. Was that because she had lied? I don’t recall the details.</p>
<p>I agree that the circumstantial evidence appears to be huge. However, I am astonished that ALL these other riders, friends, etc who knew this for years managed to keep it quiet. That just baffles me. Lance has ****ed off so many people- how did this not come out sooner if there is really all this evidence? </p>
<p>I think a lot of the continued support for Lance is because he truly was the best for all those years and there does not appear to be a “clean” rider who was harmed by whatever he may have done or not done. His work for cancer is another thing in his favor, but more than that is the whole story of how he fought to beat his own cancer. Also, he never failed a drug test, so whatever he did, he sure knew how to cover it up.</p>
<p>
I think this is key–it gives a people a strong reason to want the allegations to be untrue. Because we have to think that a person is either a hero or a villain–our minds can’t deal with somebody who is both.</p>
<p>I can’t seem to be able to link the article but in the USA Today the head of USADA says that Lance didn’t have to give up all seven of his Tour wins just 2 but since he didn’t admit he doped they had to vacate all 7 titles. That he (Lance) is responsible for the loss of the 7 titles because he didn’t admit he doped and covered up his doping. What a crock of crap!</p>
<p>Sorry but this sounds more and more like a witch hunt and Lance had no hope of winning. Don’t really care if Lance doped or not. Since they decided he didn’t win the Tour, who are they going to give it to? If the person who wins before you and the person who wins after you are all banned because of positive banned substance testing, does that mean that nobody won the Tour for those 7 years. </p>
<p>My favorite Lance quote, he was talking about someone who I can’t remember. “He really is a nice guy, I’m an ass**** who pretends to be a nice guy”</p>
<p>Just wanted to add that I admire Lance Armstrong, and everything he has done for Livestrong. I think it’s terrible that he can’t compete in events, read that he can’t compete in the NY Marathon. Suspect that he won’t be able to compete in the Ironman competition. Just seems so silly.</p>
<p>Slate had an interesting overview on this in last Friday’s edition (“Lance Armstrong Loses (Almost) Everything.”) In the piece, the author claims that the reason Armstrong conceded the fight was that his best friend in racing - George Hincapie - was set to testify against him, and supposedly this was devastating to Armstrong.</p>
<p>Anyway, it was an interesting article, although the tone may bother some.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kind of reminds me of the Salem witch test: Throw a suspected witch into the lake. If she floats, she’s a witch; execute her. If she drowns, she’s innocent.</p>
<p>Outside Magazine has long been a supporter of Lance’s. Here’s their take on the USADA:[Lance</a> Armstrong: Victim? - Page 1 | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com](<a href=“http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html?page=1]Lance”>Lance Armstrong: Victim? - Outside Online)</p>
<p><a href=“Report Describes How Lance Armstrong Beat Cycling’s Drug Tests - The New York Times”>Report Describes How Lance Armstrong Beat Cycling’s Drug Tests - The New York Times;
<p>[Lance</a> Armstrong was the champion of a sick sport - The Globe and Mail](<a href=“http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/lance-armstrong-was-the-champion-of-a-sick-sport/article4607499/]Lance”>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/editorials/lance-armstrong-was-the-champion-of-a-sick-sport/article4607499/)</p>
<p>[Lance</a> Armstrongs ex-teammates do the right thing | Sports | National Post](<a href=“Sports Scores, Games, Schedules and Standings | National Post”>Sports Scores, Games, Schedules and Standings | National Post)</p>
<p>The report is in and it’s devastating, not only for Armstrong but for the sport itself.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure how devastating USADA’s report is for the sport. It just says what everyone already knew.</p>
<p>or what the goon that leads that sorry USADA organization wants “everyone” to know.</p>
<p>A certain Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin would have had little problem producing a report of his investigations.</p>