Bye Lance

[woollypigs]

http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstongs-statement-of-august-23-2012

[Jakob]

Hmmm. Not sure what to say..

[LittleWheelsandBig]

LA didn't want testimony from lots of former team mates coming out in open court, along with the other evidence. This way, he is appealing to the court of public opinion, regardless of how he is sanctioned.

I wonder if this approach is also damage control for his link with the UCI and the associated corruption.

It'll be very interesting to read the evidence against Bruyneel.

[rogerzilla]

It reads more like "I never got caught" than "I didn't dope".

[AndyK]

It's over. Armstrong says he will no longer fight doping charges and USADA says he will be stripped of all titles.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE87N03N20120824?irpc=932

[Chris S]

Well. That's an ignominious end to a great sporting story, isn't it? 

[LittleWheelsandBig]

This isn't the end until the rest of the systemised doping, the covered-up positives, the intimidation and the corruption comes out.

[Aidan]

Maybe he is just fed up of it all, I know I am.   

Whether he did or not  , he has been great to watch, inspirational, exciting and a bloody good cyclist. And that isnt all down to drugs.

And the Usada thing stinks of someone trying to make a name for themselves by bringing him down.

My two penneth worth.  And I'm not arguing about it

[LittleWheelsandBig]

And there we have the reason why LA isn't actually fighting the mountain of evidence but instead going for public relations damage limitation.

USADA's rules don't really allow the evidence to be released to the public unless the accused fights the charge but I imagine there is a lot of crossover with Bruneel's evidence and he is fighting. Then there will be no way for any sensible person to say "maybe LA did, maybe he didn't"

[rafletcher]

This isn't the end until the rest of the systemised doping, the covered-up positives, the intimidation and the corruption comes out.

Who's next on your list?  Not being sarcastic, genuinely interested.

[Redlight]

It's very sad.  My heart wants to believe he was clean but my head keeps coming back to the absence of an unequivocal statement that he did not dope rather than did not ever test positive.  The USADA looks to be a bit of a kangaroo court and AFAIK has no power to strip him of his titles, but the stink will always linger unless he is proven innocent.  You can't take away from him thr admiration he deserves for his fight back after the cancer but if he did dope then what about the damage done to the careers of any riders that he beat who were not doping?

PLus, of course, the damage to the reputation of the sport. Maybe it's down to the Brits now to revive it - please, please, please let all "our" lot be clean.

[TheLurker]

It's very sad.  My heart wants to believe he was clean but my head keeps coming back to the absence of an unequivocal statement that he did not dope rather than did not ever test positive.

He did state unequivocally that he didn't dope.  There was another thread on this general theme some little while back and I made the same point and someone (Citoyen? Mattc?) pointed to a link that had a quote to that effect.  If I could find the thread I'd link to it.

Whatever.  It's all very depressing.

ETA.  Sadly it smells (to me) very much of damage limitation.  I can't imagine someone as famously tenacious and pugnacious as Armstrong ever walking away from a fight if he believed he was right.

[clarion]

Flouncetastic!

[LittleWheelsandBig]

This isn't the end until the rest of the systemised doping, the covered-up positives, the intimidation and the corruption comes out.

Who's next on your list?  Not being sarcastic, genuinely interested.

After Bruyneel, the UCI. If that happens, it will lay bare why the UCI tried to stop the matter previously.

If that doesn't happen, we'll continue on with the UCI playing favourites and not picking up the big fish.

[spesh]

[ETA.  Sadly it smells (to me) very much of damage limitation.  I can't imagine someone as famously tenacious and pugnacious as Armstrong ever walking away from a fight if he believed he was right.

+1

He said he was "done fighting" in a magazine interview earlier this year, which makes you wonder what the last couple of months have been all about, beyond shrinking the corner that he has painted himself into. In not going to arbitration, he's effectively pleading "no contest", but in a way that avoids making any admission.

There's a good piece by Matt Seaton in the Guardian this morning:

The most important lesson of the Lance Armstrong story, though, is the hardest to prepare for and guard against: our own gullibility and willing complicity. What is astounding and disturbing is that one man – a dominant personality as well as a dominant athlete – was able to enforce his will, isolate, bully and silence his doubters and critics, and win the world's top cycling event year after year and make people believe in him, despite there being, apparently, dozens of witnesses to its utter phoniness. Too many people had too much invested in the Lance Armstrong story, and the power of persuasion followed the money.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2012/aug/24/how-lance-armstrong-strongarmed-cycling

[Wowbagger]

It's not about the bike.

[Charlotte]

I tend to agree.  Training your body to that degree means staying *just* within the limits of what's legal and what's not.  Every so often, someone who means to stay legal, slips over the line.

Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?

[clarion]

I'd say there was a lot of keeping things just within the limit, but I suspect they were also one step ahead with masking agents.

[eeymsmo]

I'd say there was a lot of keeping things just within the limit, but I suspect they were also one step ahead with masking agents.

Or a big enough budget to have allegedly had test results 'sorted' for them

Hopefully Bruyneel won't back down and we'll get to see the testimonies.

[spesh]

An interview between VeloNation and USADA head honcho, Travis Tygart, suggests that USADA's evidence will be made public in due course:

VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

VN: So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?

TT: No, no.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712/Travis-Tygart-Interview-Armstrongs-results-from-August-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24R6Deq5I

[Exit Stage Left]

The drugs do work though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iji8xKgDzaQ

[spesh]

Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?

That's up to ASO, the organisers of Le Tour. Depending on what doubts one has about how clean Contador and even Schleck minor were in 2009, then morally, Wiggins could be on any step of the podium you like. 

[Rhys W]

Rewriting the history books is a real can of worms, considering the even stronger evidence for those below him. I'm guessing they'll strip him of his wins but that the record books will be appended with asterisks and footnotes. The entire era will written off with this taint.

[Ian H]

It's all just part of the rich tapestry of cycle sport.

[Wascally Weasel]

I tend to agree.  Training your body to that degree means staying *just* within the limits of what's legal and what's not.  Every so often, someone who means to stay legal, slips over the line.

Does all this mean that Our Bradley now comes 3rd in the 2009 Tour?

I’m not blanket condoning doping or seeking to ignore Lance’s wrongdoing either but consider too how small a mental jump it must have been to undertake performance enhancing doping techniques after several years of the medical procedures he received to save his life.