What will happen to Livestrong now?

[samgurt]

will it go under or no?

[seaborneq]

Just a lot of yellow wristbands will be thrown on the side of the road. Nothing more nothing less

[Shafted69]

they will change their name to Dopestrong

[Mriceyman]

Its all bullshit anyway... the.french hate him and would cheat to get him banned... fukk up situation all around ... dumb bicycles

[MatI]

will it go under or no?

Nothing will change, it will continue to live strong.

[icancount2one]

It will be fine. Armstrong's fanbase has been ignoring the evidence for years.

By issuing a denial and pleading "no lo contendre" he avoids having a huge, drawn out fight with loads of media attention. He knows what side his bread is buttered on.

[iifold]

If everyone is cheating... Is it still cheating??

If someone was man enough to stand up and say this they would be a hero...

[nic9212]

they will change their name to Dopestrong

[tony_come]

all ya fukks are no differ than lebroomstrong

have a smoke

its good for ya

but dont somke weeds

wtf??????

[MatI]

Surprise, surprise, Livestrong doing very well at the moment. Donations up 25x average amount...

http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/road/news/39151/livestrong-donations-boosted-in-wake-of-armstrong-scandal

[HoulihansTX]

I have no ill wil towards him. No matter how many PED's he took, none of them made training for, and winning the Tour De France easy.

[Br0nxer]

read yesterday lance's charity got something like triple the normal daily donations the day after the news broke

[SBR_John]

I love those Livestrong shirts. Best material of all the heat resistant shirts.

[Carseller4]

Lance Armstrong is the Barry Bonds of bicycling!!!

[MatI]

read yesterday lance's charity got something like triple the normal daily donations the day after the news broke

25x the normal amount.

[InTheDrink]

I have no ill wil towards him. No matter how many PED's he took, none of them made training for, and winning the Tour De France easy.

this is horrible logic

maybe they didnt make the tours easy....they made them possible

guy's a nobody without ped's

[Duff85]

this is horrible logic

maybe they didnt make the tours easy....they made them possible

guy's a nobody without ped's

Absolutely every cyclist to win that race has done it on the juice. There is no way that a guy is going to beat a whole herd of other racers who are on the juice with natural aerobic endurance and strength. So while he almost certainly took drugs, so did most other cyclists in the race. That came out with the fact that even if he is stripped of his titles - who do they award them to? The guys who came second in some of the years have already been outted as on illegal performance enhancers.

I will always have a lot respect for Lance Armstrong who has done a lot of work in raising awareness and funds for Cancer. That will be his legacy.

[paco]

Guy raised millions of dollars for cancer. Still a hero in my book

[samgurt]

Guy raised millions of dollars for cancer. Still a hero in my book

my exact thoughts too

[InTheDrink]

livestrong is a fraud

anyway his endorsement levels havent really changed....interesting read here

http://adage.com/article/news/anheuser-busch-oakley-nike-stick-lance-armstrong/236870/

[PuckOff]

Guy raised millions of dollars for cancer. Still a hero in my book

But he's no Terry Fox, Paco.

[Darkside Magick]

If you not "cheating" ...you not trying!!!!!!...lance Armstrong is a legend

[seaborneq]

Just a lot of yellow wristbands will be thrown on the side of the road. Nothing more nothing less

And lance will step down as the face of the organization.

[Cuse0323]

I don't think the majority who buy those products even know Lance Armstrong.

[chilidog]

Lance Armstrong is the Barry Bonds of bicycling!!!

And you're the Brock Landers of auto sales.

[soul786]

Doping or not, what he did with the Livestrong is different.

Doping was for himself, pride glory ego whatever.

A foundation for cancer fundraising and awareness? That's never just for a selfish somebody. I don't condone the doping but the guy did well on the other side of things.

Getting stripped of his winnings and titles is great, he deserved that for cheating. But it would be horrible to have a goodhearted endeavor helping others be harmed by it all.

[EVPlus]

The Live Strong supporters will now do what is predictable for human nature. They will learn to segregate the doping scandal from the cancer research. To them, Lance is still a hero albeit a tainted one.

As for the argument that if everyone is doping then he still should be the de facto winner is ABSOLUTELY WRONG in my book.

Those who make the argument fail to understand several key elements.

For starters, different people respond differently to anabolic steroids. Some respond quite well, others moderately well, and some repond to a lesser degree. How do we know that Lance wasn't a great responder and others in the peloton mediocre responders? How do we know that the likes of Marco Pantani and Jan Ulich responded to epo to the same degree that Lance did?

And let's not forget that Lance and his team went out of their way to acquire the services of Dr. Michele Ferrari - an undisputed leader in the science of doping+cycling. So here was a guy who not only doped but contracted out a leading expert on how to apply dope to cycling performance.

Another issue is the sheer logistics of cheating and getting away it during the Tour de France. As I've stated in a post a few months back (in which I called him a cheat), Lance was an absolute control freak who had a talent for planning things to the nth degree. And because US Postal and Discovery (the teams he rode for when winning the 7 Tours) had better logistics at the task of cheating, they were able to do so more efficiently.

The stripping of his 7 titles is fair in my eyes.

Should the titles be given to whomever placed second in those years? No, they should be left vacant.

[drc6491]

ya like someone else said his charity donations went up more than 3x, no one gives a shit he still does good through his charities and still won the tour de france 7 times against many other riders who were probably doping and after going through cancer. Even though some of you think steroids will instantly make you into a super athlete you are extremely stupid. He still won though hard work and determination, hell he should have been allowed to take them after what hes been through. So all in all it just gives him free advertisement and everyone knows the anti doping ppl who have been after him all these years have been kicking a dead horse and ppl still love him

[TheRifleman]

Every SINGLE one of those cyclers doped. Without exception. Lance had to dope to stay competitive.

[EVPlus]

ya like someone else said his charity donations went up more than 3x, no one gives a shit he still does good through his charities and still won the tour de france 7 times against many other riders who were probably doping and after going through cancer. Even though some of you think steroids will instantly make you into a super athlete you are extremely stupid. He still won though hard work and determination, hell he should have been allowed to take them after what hes been through. So all in all it just gives him free advertisement and everyone knows the anti doping ppl who have been after him all these years have been kicking a dead horse and ppl still love him

The increase in LiveStrong donations is a not-surprising reaction from those who think Lance was singled out. If you or anyone else actually believes that LiveStrong will continue to receive this much donations day in and day out...well, I don't think wagering on future events is for you.

As for the argument that they all doped and, therefore, Lance was still the best rider on an even playing field, read my earlier post on why this is the last piece of illusion Lance supporters are holding onto.

[TheRifleman]

The increase in LiveStrong donations is a not-surprising reaction from those who think Lance was singled out. If you or anyone else actually believes that LiveStrong will continue to receive this much donations day in and day out...well, I don't think wagering on future events is for you.

As for the argument that they all doped and, therefore, Lance was still the best rider on an even playing field, read my earlier post on why this is the last piece of illusion Lance supporters are holding onto.

Yeah, and your "points" are utterly without merit. So, what you are saying is that yes, everyone DID dope, but because Lance responded to the dope more favorably than the others, he cheated and stripping him of his well deserved, and hard-earned titles is fair. BS! Do you have proof that he responded more favorably then the others???? NO!! and even if it was true, so what! Everyone was cheating, it's not lance's fault that he may have responded better to doping than the others. Your argument is utterly ridiculous, imo. Lance is still, and always will be the King of cycling. Screw everyone who thinks otherwise.

[EVPlus]

Yeah, and your "points" are utterly without merit. So, what you are saying is that yes, everyone DID dope, but because Lance responded to the dope more favorably than the others, he cheated and stripping him of his well deserved, and hard-earned titles is fair. BS! Do you have proof that he responded more favorably then the others???? NO!! and even if it was true, so what! Everyone was cheating, it's not lance's fault that he may have responded better to doping than the others. Your argument is utterly ridiculous, imo. Lance is still, and always will be the King of cycling. Screw everyone who thinks otherwise.

Do you have proof that he did NOT respond more favorably?

Also, I never stated that EVERYone in the peloton doped. There are lowly domestiques who may not have. I did state that the argument that if everyone doped, Lance is still the best is an incorrect application of logic.

And it's clear that you're emotionally involved in this subject. That explains why you fail to entertain the possibility that there are great responders, mediocre responders, and poor responders to anabolic steroids. And you also fail to consider that teams Lance was in were simply better at the logistics of cheating and passing the tests.

And you're statement that Lance is the "King of cycling" shows how little you know about the sport.

Before Lance's era, the Giro d'Italia was held in equal regard. There was an Italian rider who won it 5 consecutive times. The race organizers actually paid to NOT compete because they thought having the same winner over and over again would be boring to the sponsors. Had this fellow continued to win - WHEN THE GIRO WAS HELD IS JUST AS HIGH ESTEEM AS THE TOUR - who know how many he could have won...?

Another great Italian cyclist, Fausto Coppi, could have just as many Tours. Like many cyclists of his era, however, the Tour simply wasn't the most important race on the calendar. And let's not forget that, being an Italian, winning the Giro had greater allure for him. Indeed, had it not been for World War II, he could, by all expert accounts, have easily won more than the 5 on his palmares.

Eddie Merkx - whom cycling historians consider to be the greatest cyclist who ever lived (just check every record in the sport and you'll most likely see his name) won the Tour de France 5 times. He could have won more but he was stabbed in the middle of a climb one year. And he did not focus all his efforts into the Tour. During his time, the Tour was considered important but NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT race in the world. The mark of a great cyclist, during his time was to win or do well in all the Grand Tours (Giro, Tour de France, Vuelta) as well as the Spring Classics.

Speaking of Spring Classics, there is a one-day race called the Paris Roubaix. The terrain is rather flat (no major hills or mountains) and only 260km. Yet this race is so brutal that it's commonly called The Hell of the North. Bernarnd Hinault, himself a 5-time Tour de France winner, called it a "freakshow." This race, among the Classics Specialists, is held in higher regard than the Tour. Yet only two men have won it 4 times. That's right - only 4 times each. Whereas in a race like the Tour de France, we have multiple 5-time winners (Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Anquetil).

And of those men, Merckx and Hinault have each won the Paris-Roubaix. Where is that on Lance's resume...?

By the way, Anquetil (full name Jacques Anquetil) could have easily won more than the five Tour de France. He actually took several years away from the race to pursue other things. It simply wasn't that important to him. And, like Merckx, the Tour de France wasn't the ONLY race to win like it appears in the modern era.

When Lance won all those Tours, he didn't focus on the other big races. Had he done so, like his predecessors, he certainly would not have those 7 victories (drugs or no drugs).

I have no doubt anything that I wrote is going to convince you otherwise; zealots are like that. However, an objective individual who chooses to read and comprehend ALL the relevant facts won't be as biased as you. For your sake, I hope you don't wager serious money. The lack of objectivity, the lack of research, the inability to emtionally detach yourself from a false belief are all things that bury sports bettors.

[SBR_John]

Love the shirts.

[TheRifleman]

Do you have proof that he did NOT respond more favorably?

Also, I never stated that EVERYone in the peloton doped. There are lowly domestiques who may not have. I did state that the argument that if everyone doped, Lance is still the best is an incorrect application of logic.

And it's clear that you're emotionally involved in this subject. That explains why you fail to entertain the possibility that there are great responders, mediocre responders, and poor responders to anabolic steroids. And you also fail to consider that teams Lance was in were simply better at the logistics of cheating and passing the tests.

And you're statement that Lance is the "King of cycling" shows how little you know about the sport.

Before Lance's era, the Giro d'Italia was held in equal regard. There was an Italian rider who won it 5 consecutive times. The race organizers actually paid to NOT compete because they thought having the same winner over and over again would be boring to the sponsors. Had this fellow continued to win - WHEN THE GIRO WAS HELD IS JUST AS HIGH ESTEEM AS THE TOUR - who know how many he could have won...?

Another great Italian cyclist, Fausto Coppi, could have just as many Tours. Like many cyclists of his era, however, the Tour simply wasn't the most important race on the calendar. Furthermore, his racing career was interrupted by World War II. And let's not forget that, being an Italian, winning the Giro had greater allure for him.

Eddie Merkx - whom cycling historians consider to be the greatest cyclist who ever lived (just check every record in the sport and you'll most likely see his name) won the Tour de France 5 times. He could have won more but he was stabbed in the middle of a climb one year. And he did not focus all his efforts into the Tour. During his time, the Tour was considered important but NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT race in the world. The mark of a great cyclist, during his time was to win or do well in all the Grand Tours (Giro, Tour de France, Vuelta) as well as the Spring Classics.

Speaking of Spring Classics, there is a one-day race called the Paris Roubaix. The terrain is rather flat (no major hills or mountains) and only 260km. Yet this race is so brutal that it's commonly called The Hell of the North. Bernarnd Hinault, himself a 5-time Tour de France winner, called it a "freakshow." This race, among the Classics Specialists, is held in higher regard than the Tour. Yet only two men have won it 4 times. That's right - only 4 times each. Whereas in a race like the Tour de France, we have multiple 5-time winners (Merckx, Hinault, Indurain, Anquetil).

By the way, Anquetil (full name Jacques Anquetil) could have easily won more than the five Tour de France. He actually took several years away from the race to pursue other things. It simply wasn't that important to him. And, like Merckx, the Tour de France wasn't the ONLY race to win like it appears in the modern era.

When Lance won all those Tours, he didn't focus on the other big races. Had he done so, like his predecessors, he certainly would not have those 7 victories.

I have no doubt anything that I wrote is going to convince you otherwise; zealots are like that. However, an objective individual who chooses to read and comprehend ALL the relevant facts won't be as biased as you. For your sake, I hope you don't wager serious money. The lack of objectivity, the lack of research, the inability to emtionally detach yourself from a false belief are all things that bury sports bettors.

Like I said, what you said has zero merit, thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Zealot? I couldn't give a rats' ass about cycling, or Lance for that matter. What I do care about is fairness and hypocrisy. The cycling commission(s) all knew that doping was rampant...how could they not.... but choose to turn a blind eye until for whatever reason, (most likely political) they decided to take a stand and make Lance an example.....you're the zealot.....an anti-lance zealot, not me in any way, pal.

[EVPlus]

Like I said, what you said has zero merit, thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Zealot? I couldn't give a rats' ass about cycling, or Lance for that matter. What I do care about is fairness and hypocrisy. The cycling commission(s) all knew that doping was rampant...how could they not.... but choose to turn a blind eye until for whatever reason, (most likely political) they decided to take a stand and make Lance an example.....you're the zealot.....an anti-lance zealot, not me in any way, pal.

Again you fail.

The UCI banned Jan Ulrich many years before this cureent Lance fiasco. So where is the hypocrisy?

They stripped Floyd Landis of his one Tour de France win when he tested positive. So where is the hypocrisy?

They banned Contador when he tested positive. So where is the hypocrisy?

They banned Ivan Basso when he tested positive. So where is the hypocrisy?

You are clearly choosing to select what you want to believe and what you don't want to.

You have already proven that you know little about the science of AAS, little about the history of cycling. You probably read a blurb or two on the subject, decided to jump on the "lance is a victim" bandwagon, and now find yourself on the losing end of a debate you regret starting. And I'm not your pal.