BBO Discussion Forums: Armstrong loses his Tour de France titles? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Armstrong loses his Tour de France titles? Will Hamman be going after that $7.5 million?

#121 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,596
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-October-24, 14:04

I wonder what would have happened if, back in the day, Lance had said something like "I can win this, but I can't win it without doing what every other competitor is doing — doping. So either I cheat like everyone else, or I don't play. I choose not to play."

He probably would have been crucified.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#122 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,925
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2012-October-24, 16:18

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-24, 14:04, said:

I wonder what would have happened if, back in the day, Lance had said something like "I can win this, but I can't win it without doing what every other competitor is doing — doping. So either I cheat like everyone else, or I don't play. I choose not to play."

He probably would have been crucified.

This is more or less what one of the French guys said, and the rest of the peloton crucified him.
0

#123 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,596
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-October-24, 16:44

Q.E.D. :(
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#124 User is offline   Aberlour10 

  • Vugrapholic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 2004-January-06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the Rhine River km 772,1

Posted 2012-October-24, 17:03

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-24, 16:18, said:

This is more or less what one of the French guys said, and the rest of the peloton crucified him.


This "closed society" behaves simply like a mobsters. And the organizers of the next (100th) edition of Tour de Cheaters push the doping by planning extra hard stages in Alpes and Pyrenees next year. For ex >>>the climb to Alp d'Huez is not enough, this time it must be reached twice at one stage! This makes the decision to stay clean or not much much easier. I watched this poor show not for a minute this year, and for sure wil not do it next summer.
Preempts are Aberlour's best bridge friends
0

#125 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,925
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2012-October-24, 17:57

 Aberlour10, on 2012-October-24, 17:03, said:

This "closed society" behaves simply like a mobsters. And the organizers of the next (100th) edition of Tour de Cheaters push the doping by planning extra hard stages in Alpes and Pyrenees next year. For ex >>>the climb to Alp d'Huez is not enough, this time it must be reached twice at one stage! This makes the decision to stay clean or not much much easier. I watched this poor show not for a minute this year, and for sure wil not do it next summer.

I always thought they should go DOWN Alpe d'Huez, not sure what drugs would be best for that, but probably not the ones you'd want to go up it :)

TBF the climbs are being done much slower now than they were in the Armstrong era, so they may be getting somewhere.
0

#126 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,667
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2012-October-25, 06:27

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-October-24, 16:18, said:

This is more or less what one of the French guys said, and the rest of the peloton crucified him.

These days the peloton does not have to crucify the whistleblowers, the UCI* does it for them.

* International Cycling Union, the body supposedly responsible for making sure the sport is fair.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#127 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,925
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2012-October-25, 08:27

 Zelandakh, on 2012-October-25, 06:27, said:

These days the peloton does not have to crucify the whistleblowers, the UCI* does it for them.

* International Cycling Union, the body supposedly responsible for making sure the sport is fair.

It was entirely fair, they were pretty much all on drugs :(
0

#128 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-October-30, 22:40

I guess we've known this for a while but it's apparently hitting the news now

Quote

AUSTIN (AP) – A Texas company is closer to forcing Lance Armstrong to return about $12 million in bonuses he was paid for winning the Tour de France while secretly using performance-enhancing drugs.

In a key ruling against Armstrong, a Texas arbitration panel said Wednesday it would consider Dallas-based SCA Promotions’ appeal to recover its money. The company tried to prove Armstrong used steroids and other drugs and doping methods back in 2005, but ultimately agreed to pay him in a 2006 settlement.


link
OK
bed
0

#129 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-October-30, 22:56

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-27, 14:45, said:

I don't even understand what arguments there are to let him use those prosthetic devices while competing. All I have heard amounts to some version of "he didn't come close to winning a medal anyway so why would we be so heartless as to stop him from competing?" Well what about the next time the same situation comes up and does win a medal? I would feel completely screwed if I were the person who lost out on a medal due to him competing. I see that argument above with "Good grief people, the guy has no legs. No freaking legs!! And this isn't a Monty Python skit! He competed against the best athletes in the world who have freaking legs, and advanced from a preliminary to a semifinal, where he finished last. The dude is awesome." of which the only subjective portion with which I agree is that he is awesome.


also lol
OK
bed
0

#130 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-16, 10:22

bump
OK
bed
0

#131 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,087
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-February-16, 10:46

jjbr, when you necro such an old thread you really must include a cat picture.
Posted Image
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
1

#132 User is offline   jjbrr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,525
  • Joined: 2009-March-30
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-16, 11:18

 helene_t, on 2015-February-16, 10:46, said:

jjbr, when you necro such an old thread you really must include a cat picture.

Posted Image
OK
bed
1

#133 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,380
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2015-February-16, 13:20

 jjbrr, on 2015-February-16, 11:18, said:

Posted Image


I, for one, am glad that the thread is back from the dead.
Its interesting to know how this is turning out.

Anyone know whether Armstrong's perjury exposes him to criminal charges?
Alderaan delenda est
0

#134 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,516
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-16, 16:49

As much as I am in favour of Armstrong losing every court battle he is involved in - he certainly deserves it...

Anyone negotiating payments to a Tour de France winner in 2002 would either have to
  • assume that the winner will likely have doped, or
  • be incredibly naive.

Somehow, I am not willing to assume 2. about Bob Hamman. If you assume 1., it's a double shot (either others are better at doping than Lance, or he gets caught and we can recoup our payments).

I mean, in no other sport did the competitors complain so much more about the doping controls and a sport that's unfairly targeted, instead of complaining about their competitors who had been caught in doping tests...
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
1

#135 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,055
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2015-February-16, 17:03

Doesn't it come to this?

Unless we can say that they are all dopers so all prize money is withheld, we punish the doper we catch and we don't punish the doper we don't catch. There are more than a few sports, and other activities as well that do not involve sports, that need to clean up their act if they expect to continue to enjoy public support. I hope that they do.
Ken
0

#136 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-February-16, 22:24

 cherdano, on 2015-February-16, 16:49, said:

Anyone negotiating payments to a Tour de France winner in 2002 would either have to
  • assume that the winner will likely have doped, or
  • be incredibly naive.


That is how we look back on 2002 from 2015. However, that is not the way we looked at the situation in 2002.

Back then, doping rules were considered very strict and advanced. We had just had the affaire with Richard Virenque and the Festina team, and, as a result, many actions had been taken to prevent wide spread use of performance enhancing drugs. You could be tested any place, any where, any time. At the race, during practice, over Christmas. The public did not have a clue that doping use was or could be as wide spread as it was. In fact, the general idea was that cycling was, at last, reasonably clean. As an example, Jan Ullrich was suspended in 2002 for use of the party drug ecstacy. The general idea was that Ullrich had been an idiot for taking it when he should have known that it was on the doping list and that he would be caught.

Anybody who would have said that cycling was completely clean would indeed have been considered naive. But a claim that everybody who meant something in cycling would be doped (in hindsight a fairly accurate description of the situation) would have been considered extremely cynical.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
1

#137 User is offline   billw55 

  • enigmatic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,757
  • Joined: 2009-July-31
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-17, 11:36

I any case, I am happy to see Armstrong's favorite weapons - lawsuits and lawyers - now working against him. So many times, he aggressively attacked anyone who suggested he doped. So this outcome is quite fitting, I think.
Life is long and beautiful, if bad things happen, good things will follow.
-gwnn
0

#138 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,516
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-February-17, 15:52

 Trinidad, on 2015-February-16, 22:24, said:

That is how we look back on 2002 from 2015. However, that is not the way we looked at the situation in 2002.

Back then, doping rules were considered very strict and advanced. We had just had the affaire with Richard Virenque and the Festina team, and, as a result, many actions had been taken to prevent wide spread use of performance enhancing drugs. You could be tested any place, any where, any time. At the race, during practice, over Christmas. The public did not have a clue that doping use was or could be as wide spread as it was. In fact, the general idea was that cycling was, at last, reasonably clean. As an example, Jan Ullrich was suspended in 2002 for use of the party drug ecstacy. The general idea was that Ullrich had been an idiot for taking it when he should have known that it was on the doping list and that he would be caught.

Anybody who would have said that cycling was completely clean would indeed have been considered naive. But a claim that everybody who meant something in cycling would be doped (in hindsight a fairly accurate description of the situation) would have been considered extremely cynical.


Maybe we were reading different media back then. The media I read did not fail to point out that no testing (back then) would be able to detect blood doping - other than the ridiculous haemoglobin testing, where riders were taken out of the competition for their safety if their value was too high, i.e. if the tuning of their blood doping hadn't worked out.
See for yourself at
https://www.google.c...=cycling+doping
E.g. http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/1789625.stm

So it was clear cyclists could get away with it if they were smart about it. And the large number of scandals in the previous years made it clear that cyclists would cheat if they thought they could get away with it.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#139 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,662
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2015-February-18, 08:13

Lance Armstrong Loses $10 Million Arbitration Ruling

Quote

“Perjury must never be profitable,” the majority wrote in the new decision. “Tailwind Sports Corp. and Lance Armstrong have justly earned wide public condemnation. That is an inadequate deterrent. Deception demands real, meaningful sanctions.”

Bob Hamman, SCA’s president and founder, praised the ruling.

“It is hard to describe how much harm Lance Armstrong’s web of lies caused SCA, but this is a good first start toward repairing that damage,” Hamman said.

Armstrong argued his original settlement could not be overturned under state law. The arbitration majority said the $10 million was a penalty for Armstrong’s lying and efforts to intimidate or coerce witnesses in the previous case.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#140 User is offline   Aberlour10 

  • Vugrapholic
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,018
  • Joined: 2004-January-06
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:At the Rhine River km 772,1

Posted 2015-February-18, 14:40

A short necro trip to the year 1921 showing how EPO worked in those times.

These doped dudes did not think about the lawyers and about 10 000 000 pics with G. Washington.

Posted Image
Preempts are Aberlour's best bridge friends
2

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users