britexpat76

Sounds like he is a delightful chap, though without the bullying he would not of been able to keep the doping a secret.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-scandal.html

rowell

Its the old story "you get nothing for being second" and I feel for the guys who were 2nd in Armstrongs 7 title wins.

giddyup

it's just getting better all the time for Lance - please pay back our money! now we will see the feathers fly...I mean, he paid good money to win that money

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

scrubbedexpat141

I agree with you completely. Cannot argue that EVERY single doping rider needs to be punished.

Millhouse

must be a right pain in the balls.

scrubbedexpat141

I watched Ted last night, there's a blinding scene where a guy has Lance's left bollock dipped in bronze and in a display cabinet.

spartans53

All these people saying he should be strung up etc. Have any of them ever been in a position that you take something and can compete or dont and be an also ran or worse dont get to play at all?

He took drugs for sure but so did everyone else. Is it right? not really but without them he would have been in the pack at best. What would you do given the real chance? What about bankers taking coke and speed so they can make loads of money over a few years?

Have any of you taken and PEPs? Do you know how well they work? The difference is amazing and very quick. The temptation must be nearly imposible to resist.

My take would be to draw a line under the Drug years and move forward. Going back and taking titles off people should not happen. You played by the rules of the day, didnt fail the tests then and won.

scrubbedexpat141

I disagree with this.

If he played by the rules then he wouldn't be stripped of titles.

He didn't play by the rules, they did everything against the rules and were just clever enough to get away with it constantly.

Being smarter than the rules doesn't mean you can break them.

shiva

the fact it was tempting, hard to resist, everyone was doing it are all still rubbish. it was cheating end of argument. those that didnt cheat were also rans who we dont know the names of, yes its a shame for them and the sport but they didnt cheat. Perhaps the media should be digging up their names now and consigning the cheats to the shadows where they belong

Bahtatboy

This is relevant:

A Texas insurance company is demanding the return of $7.5m (£4.7m) in bonuses from cyclist Lance Armstrong.

SCA Promotions covered a performance bonus paid to the American after he won his sixth Tour de France in 2004.

Now that the International Cycling Union (UCI) has stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour titles, SCA will demand the money back from Armstrong.

SCA's lawyer Jeffrey M. Tillotson told BBC Sport: "We will make a formal demand for return of funds."

He added: "If this is not successful, we will initiate formal legal proceedings against Mr Armstrong in five business days (Monday 29 October)."

The insurance policy was taken out by Tailwind Sports, the then owner of the US Postal team, to cover performance bonuses that would be due to Armstrong if he won the Tour.

SCA refused to pay out the money because it argued Armstrong was not a clean rider.

Armstrong took legal action against the company and won, because the contract between the parties stipulated that the money would be payable if Armstrong was the "official winner" of the Tours from 2004 to 2006.

The company was forced to pay money relating to the bonus of $5m, plus $2.5m in interest and legal fees.
SCA will now attempt to recover that sum from Armstrong.

Tillotson added: "This is not a happy day for my client, but he feels Lance Armstrong has brought this upon himself."

On Monday, the UCI ratified the decision of the US Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) to strip Armstrong of his seven Tour titles - meaning the Texan can no longer be considered the "official winner" of those titles.

Usada had uncovered evidence that Armstrong was involved in "the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping programme" in the history of sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617

spartans53

You can all have your opinions they are like arseholes, all of them are valid and all have some justification.

One question have any of you ever been give a direct choice, except the bloke whos kid could have gone Div 1 in the US.

Take something and win/compete, be clean and be in the pack/dont compete?

Its easy to say now, I'd never take anything but what would you have really done at early 20s ish given the choice?

shiva

er not taken anything. i haven't been in the position but i'm pretty certain i know myself and have and will always have a moral compass that precludes cheating

scrubbedexpat141

I've never been offered anything like that and I played for England at U-19's.

I got there by being good and working hard. Not be injecting shit.

Theseus

I think most people can understand the temptation involved in knowing you can take something and possibly get away with it and win. Also most people with integrity would refuse. Though we know doping was prolific in cycling. the question is was he following a long line or was he an instigator?
If all the allegations around bullying, making his team mates join in etc etc etc are true that is where the understanding and that little bit of justifcation stops. That was cold and calculated strategy for winning, not just a bit of temptation.

scrubbedexpat141

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19930514

This bloke quit because he didn't want to.

Ballsy decision that meant he probably didn't earn what he could have but fair play. 1 in how many hundreds though...