Cycling | Lance Armstrong | News | Sports

Lance Armstrong Flips the Bird at the International Cycling Union: PHOTO

Armstrong

Lance Armstrong clearly has no shame about the doping scandal that stripped him of his Tour de France titles, posting this photo to his Twitter account in what Yahoo Sports calls "a finely-honed troll move."

Tweets Armstrong: "Back in Austin and just layin' around ... "

Writes Yahoo!:

Now, obviously the UCI wasn't going to come into Armstrong's house and yank the jerseys off his walls. (The International Olympic Committee could be a different story. They have ordered disgraced medalists to surrender their medals in the past.) But even though Armstrong has removed the Tour de France victories from his Twitter profile, he's clearly not relinquishing the titles in the public eye.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. is it really that unclear what lance did?!?, he used methods of cheating that could not be detected at the time(baring the samples of his blood used to develop the actual EPO test used today, yes they used samples of lance's blood to research how to detect EPO)...nearly everyone on his team has come forward saying how they did it, and how they didn't get caught...ABC(aus) and CNN aired nearly everything used to come to the conclusion, and he was dirty, his team was dirty, and the truth is the sport is mostly a sham.

    I think the biggest part of what made lance famous was THE DRUGS WERE PROBABLY THE CAUSE OF HIS CANCER...all of the things he took(EPO, HGH, Testosterone, corticosteroids) are all significant risk factors in androgenic cancers AND HE TOOK THEM ALL FOR YEARS before he was diagnosed.

    the USADA doesn't need to have a positive sample at this point(the french have vials of lance's blood laced with EPO if you are still in doubt) there is enough evidence outside of samples that it is enough to know with certainty that he cheated, encouraged/coerced others to cheat, and profited immensely from not only his wins but the endorsements, and from the livestrong foundation that funded his celebrity(BY CANCER HE MOST LIKELY CAUSED TAKING PEDs)

    Posted by: epic | Nov 12, 2012 6:57:02 PM


  2. I guess I was wrong, Endo, the samples were retested and found to be positive.

    That is so much better. He is a liar, a cheat, and a fraud.

    And Livestrong couldn't fund both research and "awareness?"

    Posted by: PDX_Guy | Nov 12, 2012 9:21:10 PM


  3. Unfortunately Lance is a cheater.

    Posted by: andrew | Nov 12, 2012 11:15:52 PM


  4. One thing is certain, he won those jerseys, that's why he has 'em. Most people who scoff at that will never even try.

    Posted by: Hubert | Nov 12, 2012 11:46:23 PM


  5. It's amazing how many people choose to spew vitriol without knowledge of facts. Also a reason reading Internet comments is usually an enormous waste of time.

    Posted by: Mark | Nov 13, 2012 2:14:32 AM


  6. Regarding the testing, Armstrong's Wikipedia page indicates a 1999 sample was claimed to have tested positive in 2005, but that claim was retracted with a statement that 'tests on urine samples were conducted improperly and fell so short of scientific standards that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest they "constitute evidence of anything." (single quotes delimit the Wikipedia quote, which used double quotes to quote the actual report).

    In 2009, Michael Ashenden claimed the only way a test could turn out positive was if EPO was actually used or if the laboratory "spiked" the samples. This guy has obviously never done any scientific research - if he had, he'd know that there are lots of ways to get erroneous results and its the ones you haven't thought of that you should really worry about. You don't have to "spike" samples to accidentally have some cross contamination or for a technician to record data incorrectly. In a 2001 incident (not clear who was tested), they found four urine samples "suspicious" of EPO use but could not produce definitive results.

    There were allegations from teammates - who were probably under a lot of pressure from the USADA and just might have a motive to say something to save their own skins. The French Cycling Federation supposedly claimed that a failure to contest sounded like an admission of guilt.

    A Wall Street Journal article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609510839091278.html from late August of this year also indicates a very weak case based on physical evidence - mostly the charges rely on testimony from others.
    One positive test was reversed due to a prescription for saddle sores (if you absorb trace amounts of an ointment, a sensitive test might find something). Meanwhile the USADA's case was apparently largely based on what the Wall Street Journal called "a mechanism called a "non-analytical positive." I get skeptical when I see terms like "non-analytical" - it sounds like hand waving. Meanwhile, the U.S. government dropped its investigation even after interviewing the same witnesses - which suggests something about their reliability or credibility.


    I'll make an assessment of a "definite maybe" - nobody really knows for sure.

    Posted by: Bill | Nov 13, 2012 3:21:21 AM


  7. Sure he helped a lot of people through LiveStrong but here's a question: if he hadn't won the Tour de France (where he cheated), would it have been as big or would it even exist in the first place?

    Chicken or the egg?

    Posted by: Glenn | Nov 13, 2012 5:50:51 AM


  8. I read both of his autobiographical hagiographies. I think he has a gay side. And I do believe that he and Matthew McConnaughey were more than friends. Just sayin'. I think when he has nothing left to lose we may hear more about it.

    Not saying I condone what he has done and the people I met in his foundation are TOTAL jerks, as well.

    Posted by: Rob | Nov 13, 2012 6:29:22 AM


  9. I'm sorry, anybody heard of Occam's Razor. WHY would so many multiple parties attest to having doped with him? (Which, by the way, does not constitute "hearsay") Are they all haterz? Is some shadowy entity paying them off? The preponderance of evidence suggests he broke the rules. It's as simple as that. The fact it had become obvious to everyone who wasn't a sycophant of Armstrong and/or is outside the world of cycling is why they had to strip him of his medals; it was a face-saving gesture to try to preserve what little credibility the sport still has. Believe me, they would rather have been able to sweep it under the rug. They have almost as much to lose as he does.


    Posted by: EchtKultig | Nov 13, 2012 7:07:44 AM


  10. EPIC - wow that's powerful and compelling speculation, along with a lot of other actual information here. So his jerseys signify the apex of drug use and its cancerous results, as well as of lying. Professional biking no longer interests me at all.

    Posted by: UFFDA | Nov 13, 2012 11:19:58 AM


  11. I am a cyclist and a cancer survivor. To ANYONE who is bitching about the livestrong bracelets I have one thing to say... " shut the f..k up if you've never had cancer." I bought 500 of those bracelets to give to people and families who were suffering and still suffering from the effects of this horrible disease. You simple minded sub human f..ks don't even know why. It's called H--O--P--E !!! The only hope you f..ks know is how to destroy something good and genuine. I pray for all of you You are the true losers. Yeah YOU!! I don't care what lance did or didn't do. He gave and continues to give HOPE!! I wish him the best and he will always be my hero in many ways

    All the best Lance

    Posted by: Lucien Mancini | Nov 13, 2012 1:41:28 PM


  12. By the way. For all those people bitching about the bracelets and the Livestrong foundation I have a question for you. " do you believe in a higher power??". If you do then you know what faith and hope are all about. I say.. Shut the f..ck up!! I say to all those people who don't believe in a higher power. Shut the f..ck up!!

    I'm buying 500 more bracelets tomorrow to give to people children and families suffering from cancer because I know what they are going
    through and what they need. That is FAITH&HOPE so I say to
    All of those people who have neither of these...

    SHUT THE F..CK UP!!!

    Posted by: Lucien Mancini | Nov 13, 2012 2:28:16 PM


  13. Regarding the comment, "I'm sorry, anybody heard of Occam's Razor. WHY would so many multiple parties attest to having doped with him?" .... check out http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-issues-stinging-criticism-of-usada-in-armstrong-case (dated August 20, 2012). It states, "Texas district court judge Sam Sparks may have sided with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) by agreeing to dismiss the case against it by Lance Armstrong's attorneys, but in his full decision Sparks was highly critical of the agency and the lack of cooperation between the various bodies tasked with running the sport of cycling." The judge also stated, "if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC."

    The USADA (according to that article) admitted that it kept the identity of witnesses testifying against Armstrong secret, which sounds kind of un-american given our normal legal standards.

    I think one has to ask if the USADA is populated by "drug warrior" types who don't care if there is any "collateral damage" as they try to stamp out some threat, real or imagined, and whether the "witnesses" were coerced into testifying the way the USADA wanted under a threat of being treated the same way as Armstrong. Face it, when questioned by the Grand Inquisitor, you are expected to grovel, and if you don't grovel, you're guilty regardless.

    Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Armstrong "cheated" as nearly everyone apparently was. If he did, though, it is unlikely to have given him an unfair advantage, and there aren't records such as the best time for an event in which you compare people who participated in different years. It's more how well you did compared to your peers. You can't meaningfully compare times from one year to the next because these races are more like a team sport (each team works as a group because "drafting" saves energy) and speed is impacted significantly by external factors such as headwinds or tailwinds.

    You also have to wonder about them going after a guy years after he stopped racing professionally.

    I think the evidence is not conclusive.

    Posted by: Bill | Nov 13, 2012 2:49:46 PM


  14. Good for Mr. Armstrong, this whole stripping of the titles thing is ridiculous! It's quite petty, in my opinion.

    Posted by: Ryon | Nov 13, 2012 4:03:42 PM


  15. If Armstrong used drugs, and was able to prevent tests from finding them, he has the potential to be a multi, multi millionaire selling his method to all of those bike riders that are complaining about him. Where did Armstrong get his chemistry education to be that smart?

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Nov 14, 2012 12:42:55 AM


  16. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Man Burns Down Buckingham Palace: VIDEO« «