Armstrong stripped of titles

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520

[Future17]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20008520

He should get McLeish in his corner when they come for his medals. :rolleyes:

If he changes his name by deed pool to TheLanceArmstrong, can he keep them?

[CropleyWasGod]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/scottish-bookstore-shelves-lance-armstrong-bio-fiction-213336327--oly.html

[deeks01]

I find the subject of drug cheats in sport very tyresome.

I do think it's a bit harsh banning him for life though , poor guy can't even bike it over to the local shop for his morning paper now. Still at least a comeback is no longer in the frame.

[Hibernia Na Eir]

I'm glad I didnae join the "yellow rubber band" gang now ;)

[Eyrie]

Looks like Armstrong is going to have to defend the USADA case after all because the alternative is to hand back $7.5m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617) which would effectively admit his guilt.

[RyeSloan]

Looks like Armstrong is going to have to defend the USADA case after all because the alternative is to hand back $7.5m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617) which would effectively admit his guilt.

Oh that's nice! Good to see a bit of payback (literally!) for his cheating.

[Future17]

Looks like Armstrong is going to have to defend the USADA case after all because the alternative is to hand back $7.5m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20029617) which would effectively admit his guilt.

I think there is little to no chance of him having to pay that money back.

[RyeSloan]

I think there is little to no chance of him having to pay that money back.


Why?

[Future17]

Why?

I'm making a few assumptions but, if the last of the prize money was actually awarded in 2005, it will be well past the statute of limitations for clawing it back unless cycling has some very specific clauses in the T&Cs of its tournament contracts. He certainly won't be handing prize money back unless he has some bizarre motivation for doing so of his own volition.

In reality, he might be in danger of being sued, but I think it would have to be a fellow competitor who raised proceedings on the basis of lost earnings (if they lost out to LA's alleged cheating). I doubt any lawsuit raised by the International Cycling Union would be successful for a variety of reasons.

Having thought more about it, the insurers might stand a better chance of getting their cash back as it relates to performance bonuses and will probably be under separate contract, but I don't know much about that.

[HibsMax]

I'm glad I didnae join the "yellow rubber band" gang now ;)

Why? He may have cheated in cycling but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be fighting cancer. I read a story online last week about people who want their money / donations back. Again, why? Unless there is any evidence of the collected money being used inappropriately then I am happy to have contributed.

[(((Fergus)))]

Why? He may have cheated in cycling but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be fighting cancer. I read a story online last week about people who want their money / donations back. Again, why? Unless there is any evidence of the collected money being used inappropriately then I am happy to have contributed.

Talking of which - wonder if these holier-than-thou ****wits will have to pay back people's donations:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20040835

[RyeSloan]

I'm making a few assumptions but, if the last of the prize money was actually awarded in 2005, it will be well past the statute of limitations for clawing it back unless cycling has some very specific clauses in the T&Cs of its tournament contracts. He certainly won't be handing prize money back unless he has some bizarre motivation for doing so of his own volition.

In reality, he might be in danger of being sued, but I think it would have to be a fellow competitor who raised proceedings on the basis of lost earnings (if they lost out to LA's alleged cheating). I doubt any lawsuit raised by the International Cycling Union would be successful for a variety of reasons.

Having thought more about it, the insurers might stand a better chance of getting their cash back as it relates to performance bonuses and will probably be under separate contract, but I don't know much about that.

Fair enough...i thought you had some inside info :greengrin

I think the fact that Armstrong only obtained the payment by going to court and getting a specifc judgement makes it much more likely that he could lose a counter case. It would appear the judgement in his favour effectively fell on one statement about him being the 'official winner'...very very enlightening though the fact that the insurance company seemed so sure he was doping that they refused to pay and were prepared to go all the way in trying not to pay out because of that.

[CropleyWasGod]

Strange one:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066

I don't remember anyone ever suggesting anything about Indurain. Was he protected by the Spanish media, or was he just the best there ever was?

[RyeSloan]

Strange one:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20048066

I don't remember anyone ever suggesting anything about Indurain. Was he protected by the Spanish media, or was he just the best there ever was?

Loved tbis quote:

And Olympic gold medallist and USA cycling coach Jamie Staff told BBC South East Today: "He's been kind of a scapegoat really.

"A lot of people have done it, probably everyone in his generation.

"He seems to be the one everyone is picking on, probably as he was the most successful."


As Private Eye would say; Well that alright then! :rolleyes:

[Purple & Green]

Indurain lost out to Riis who came from nowhere and used EPO to get there. I suspect big mig was clean of EPO, but who really knows any more.

I still think the best article on lance so far is this one http://shar.es/cuMRS and I'm so glad for Paul he's finally vindicated

[CropleyWasGod]

Another Spaniard defends Armstrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20071585

[Purple & Green]

Another Spaniard defends Armstrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20071585

Wow. I think that tells you all you need to know about Lance and Contador.

You'd think Greg Lemond had never existed:- but Lemond did say of Armstrong in 99 "it's either the greatest comeback or the biggest fraud"

Hopefully the UCI will now have Contador in their sights.

[RyeSloan]

Wow. I think that tells you all you need to know about Lance and Contador.

You'd think Greg Lemond had never existed:- but Lemond did say of Armstrong in 99 "it's either the greatest comeback or the biggest fraud"

Hopefully the UCI will now have Contador in their sights.


Only strengthens the 'code of silence' argument put forward by USDA....there is/was clearly a very strong group of senior riders that have accepted for a very long time that doping was/is acceptable in cycling and they really can't understand why Lance is now being singled out for such a doing.