Lance Armstrong - Have the last remnants of his credibility now vanished?

[Hibbyradge]

Or does he still have his believers?

And what now for the Livestrong brand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716

[lapsedhibee]

Cancer awareness raising, etc etc, is not really tied up with Lancyboy's cheating at cycling.

Similarly, Jimmy Savile's perving is not really tied up with his charity fundraising.

You would hope that the good causes these bad people helped would survive relatively unscathed after removing the figureheads - but I reckon they will suffer, since many peeps will not bother to make the effort to dissociate the personalities from the causes.

[Scouse Hibee]

Cancer awareness raising, etc etc, is not really tied up with Lancyboy's cheating at cycling.

Similarly, Jimmy Savile's perving is not really tied up with his charity fundraising.

You would hope that the good causes these bad people helped would survive relatively unscathed after removing the figureheads - but I reckon they will suffer, since many peeps will not bother to make the effort to dissociate the personalities from the causes.

It is when he used it as a lever to prevent being named and shamed!

[Eyrie]

The USADA stuff looks pretty damning, so I'd say his credibiity is irrevocably damaged.



Cancer awareness raising, etc etc, is not really tied up with Lancyboy's cheating at cycling.

Similarly, Jimmy Savile's perving is not really tied up with his charity fundraising.

You would hope that the good causes these bad people helped would survive relatively unscathed after removing the figureheads - but I reckon they will suffer, since many peeps will not bother to make the effort to dissociate the personalities from the causes.

I think the problem is that donors will not want to be associated with Livestrong, and may then find an alternative charity to donate to which may not be a cancer charity. Others will simply keep their cash in their pocket.

[(((Fergus)))]

Cancer awareness raising, etc etc, is not really tied up with Lancyboy's cheating at cycling.

Similarly, Jimmy Savile's perving is not really tied up with his charity fundraising.

You would hope that the good causes these bad people helped would survive relatively unscathed after removing the figureheads - but I reckon they will suffer, since many peeps will not bother to make the effort to dissociate the personalities from the causes.

Essentially, what he did was use other people's money to pay for sex with vulnerable people. If it wasn't for the money - and promise of more - there is no way he would have been given the run of those institutions.

[goosano]

Cancer awareness raising, etc etc, is not really tied up with Lancyboy's cheating at cycling.



It is irrevocably tied up with his cheating at cycling. If he had been just another cancer survivor his charity would not have got off the ground. The fact is that it is because he is LA, 7 times tour winner and cancer survivor that he raised so much money. The sad thing is that it will be cancer sufferers that will suffer. Major brands won't pull their sponsorship as that would be bad publicity for them but will slowly diminish their support

As for Lance I hope he gets the book thrown at him. I had always thought he doped as I could not see him winning when all those placed around him in the 7 tours were being convicted. I still had nagging doubts when liars like Landis and Hamilton were main witnesses. However when men like Levi Lippheimer his right hand man swear under oath (and the reason he told the truth was the threat of what could happen if he commited perjury) and come out and testify I have no doubt as to his guilt.

It could be interesting times. A possible trial for perjury (lying under oath to the Grand Jury), reclaiming of prize money and bonuses-he went to court in 2005 over unpaid bonus money when suspicions were coming to light re doping-it'll be interesting to see if this goes back to court

[Killiehibbie]

Or does he still have his believers?

And what now for the Livestrong brand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716Has there ever been a 'clean' winner of the Tour de France? I remember reading a quote from Eddy Merckx 'no man has ever won the tour on water alone' and it looks like not much has changed.

[Hibbyradge]

Has there ever been a 'clean' winner of the Tour de France? I remember reading a quote from Eddy Merckx 'no man has ever won the tour on water alone' and it looks like not much has changed.

This won't have helped Bradley Wiggins' chances of winning BBC Sports personality of the year.

[s.a.m]

Has there ever been a 'clean' winner of the Tour de France? I remember reading a quote from Eddy Merckx 'no man has ever won the tour on water alone' and it looks like not much has changed.

I think things have changed. No doubt there are still riders getting away with it, but I think the culture is changing. There are several teams taking an active anti-doping stance, and opinion about doping seems to have changed.

There were a couple of interesting articles during this year's TdF: one talking about the 2012 Tour being 'boring', and a belief that this may be the result of cleaner racing, with fewer stunning recoveries or improbable contests, and another with input from sports' scientists who are involved in collecting physiological data from cyclists, and comparing it to their physical output in races. As part of the drug testing strategy, they look for evidence that riders are racing beyond their physical capacity - apparently until recently this was commonplace, but in this year's Tour very few riders were 'overperforming', or making unlikely recoveries after a difficult day (which is associated with doping).

As an aside, in a book I read recently, one of the Team Sky staff was questioning the overall improvement athletes get from doping. There's a percentage gain that one of the drugs (cannae mind which one, or what the percentage was) is said to buy you, but he reckoned that, given the training or performance deficiencies that you're trying to conceal with doping / the fear that you're living with, dreading the knock on the door, or the phone call / having to organise your life around accessing your drug of choice, you'd be very lucky to get all of that gain.

[s.a.m]

Has there ever been a 'clean' winner of the Tour de France? I remember reading a quote from Eddy Merckx 'no man has ever won the tour on water alone' and it looks like not much has changed.

Wiggins is thought to be 'clean'.

[Hibbyradge]

Wiggins is thought to be 'clean'.

So was Armstrong.

[One Day Soon]

Or does he still have his believers?

And what now for the Livestrong brand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19903716


I'd say his credibility has gone running away over the horizon with its erchie on fire.

[hibsbollah]

This won't have helped Bradley Wiggins' chances of winning BBC Sports personality of the year.

Since the new anti-doping regime came into force, the stage times have been slower and slower in successive years. Unless the riders are just less able than they were five years ago, that's pretty clear evidence that doping is gradually being eradicated in the Tour.

[lapsedhibee]

It is irrevocably tied up with his cheating at cycling. If he had been just another cancer survivor his charity would not have got off the ground. The fact is that it is because he is LA, 7 times tour winner and cancer survivor that he raised so much money.

Not sure that's true. He seemed in his book to be a totally driven character. Once he'd finished cycling, whether he'd won 7 or 0 TdFs, imo the drive would still have been there, looking for an outlet.

Sure his fame enabled him to raise plenty, quickly, but I think it's wrong to say he would have failed to raise awareness if he hadn't cheated.

[lapsedhibee]

Essentially, what he did was use other people's money to pay for sex with vulnerable people. If it wasn't for the money - and promise of more - there is no way he would have been given the run of those institutions.

Agree he used his reputation as a good guy to be a bad guy.

Think there's a genuine question, however, about whether assessment of his crimes should be mitigated - and, if so, how much - by the good effect some of his actions had.