In the 1950’s, when I was a little boy my dad took me to U of U basketball
games, it was a lot of fun and I really enjoyed it. I became a real sports fan.
I cheered; I thought athletes were great people; and I enthusiastically followed
nearly every sport. Both my joy if my team won and my frustration if my team
lost were disproportionate. I actually believed in fair play and “good
sportsmanship”—but I was naïve. Closer inspection reveals an
ugly, disgusting underside to sports and athletics. From high school on,
athletics and sports are drenched with cheating, gambling, crime, bribery,
drugs, sex, arrogance, etc. In an athletic competition, how does anyone know
who the victor is? The best athlete or the best cheater? All over the world,
fans dress and act like idiots. Sometimes I wonder how desperate someone must be
to have nothing better to do with their time than to watch modern sports events.
The real cheater is the USADA - these people have one job - to justify their
existence by claims of doping. They have no money limitations and just make
accusations until someone breaks. It is not a question of guilt or innocence it
is their ability to hound you as long as they see fit.Armstrong had
hundreds of test without having a dirt test. He was cleared in previous
hearings. But the USADA people with unlimited power just keep coming. They
cannot prove it except with some witnesses that are disgruntled opponents of
Armstrong.The horror is not the claim of doping - its that the
government has the ability to keep coming without retribution if wrong. Thy
don't lose anything if Armstrong wins. He can't sue them and they
aren't fired or stripped of their titles. They can attack without and
repercussions.This is authority at it most unrighteous. THis
article should be about that and how prosecutors have to much power with no
downside if they are wrong. To enforce is good but to which hunt to
justify your job just took one of Americas great sports legends and tarnished
him. This is a sad day.
I'm so confused by all of this. I thought Lance Armstrong was tested every
year he competed and always turned up clean. So, why is he being tested now or
refusing to be tested now of he has nothing to hide. And even if his tests came
up positive for drug use, shouldn't he still be able to keep the trophies
he won when he tested clean? What's really at stake her?
What does it say about our society when we pre-determine a mans guilt and then
harrass him for over a decade (when he legally passed tests administered by his
sports governing body and was pronounced 'clean') to the point that he
gives up the fight due to the emotional and financial toll on his family and
then we ASSUME that to be an admission of guilt??? What does it say about our
society that we assume that a US investigative body that is unaffiliated with
the sport can strip a man of his titles? In another country no less...I wonder
if we don't have some strange national obsession with wanting to see people
It says winning at all cost has become too important in our society. We see
this in our current election cycle. You would think winning with integrity
would mean something. But as we look at our society, honesty and integrity, and
commitment have been lost in the quest to win at all cost.We see it
from what happened with the New Orleans Saints,We are seeing it
here with the academic fraud uncovered here at UNC.We see it in
Lance Armstrong's case.And we see it in today's politics
where being lied to, and the other misrepresented no long shocks or raises an
eyebrow. Daily people on the forums here in the DN say horrible things about
others just to win.Winning without dignity is no win at all. An
honorable second place means so much more than a dishonorable first.
It says that sports is becoming our god and that we believe as Vince Lombardi
said, "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."Add the money motive that pervades every level of sports competition
from little league to the pros and we lose all perspective of what is truly
important in this over-privileged life we lead.
If everybody is cheating, how is it an unfair advantage?
The subtext of Lance's statement is "this is the closest I'll ever
come to admitting to you that my results were claimed through cheating and
doping." I'm amazed at how the honorable Marion Jones lied, got
caught, tearfully apologized and was demonized and now has nothing. Roger
Clemens and Lance Armstong, meanwhile (being of a slightly different shade of
skin--get a pass from most of the white and delightsome crowd. This guy is
a cheat and to say "everyone was doing it," is naive and missing the
point. Just as in baseball-not EVERYONE was doing it. And that's the
problem in a nutshell. An unfair playing field that cheaters took advantage of.
"If everybody is cheating, how is it an unfair advantage?"You just MAY have missed the point.
Well said BYU Joe and Pierda. Lance Armstrong has admitted to no wrongdoing
despite the suggestions in this and many other articles to the contrary. It
seems to me that the USADA is an organization that is full of itself and has
assumed far too much power over the lives of professional athletes. It is not
unlike the seemingly unbridled power of the House Un-American Activities
Committee of the 1940's and 50's. A mere unsubstantiated accusation
by that committee could and often did ruin the accused's professional and
private reputation. McCarthyism (named after Joseph McCarthy, the hard-charging
chairman of the committee) has come to be known as the practice of making
accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for
evidence. Substitute doping for disloyalty, subversion, or treason and you
arguably have the USADA, a modern doping incarnation of McCarthyism.
ShortGuyWest Jordan, UTHa ha ha! That's a real funny
one.Keep laughing 'cause when we all lose our integrity,
we're not going to want to live here.
Whatever happened to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty?"Do I think that Armstrong used PEDs? Not sure. All I know is that he
passed hundreds of tests. You can fool the tests with masking agents a lot of
the time, but not that much. Eventually he would have been caught. But he
wasn't. You can bring out all the witnesses you want to say he used, but
he never failed a test under one of the most intense testing programs in the
world. I don't care what your personal opinion is. Justice says he keeps
his titles.What USADA is doing isn't justice.
It says that anyone who believes Lance wasn't doping is naive. That said,
he won fair & square because all his competitors were doping as well. The USADA is out of control. They need to worry about doping that is occurring
RIGHT NOW, not 15 years ago.
Without ever finding any doping evidence through numerous testing throughout his
entire career, the USADA has determined his guilty without evidence other than a
few disgruntled cyclists who were frustrated they never beat him. They simply
determined his guilt because he no longer wanted to waste his money fighting
them in court. If he was doping, the tests would have shown it. Floyd Landis,
who won the Tour De France the year after Armstrong retired and won his seventh
title, was caught doping and stripped of his crown. Somehow, the USADA who never
had such evidence against Armstrong, decides by fiat that he is guilty. If this
isn't a kangaroo court, then nothing is.
All this shows is Armstrong is tired of the constant hounding of those who are
trying to bring him down and he wants to get away from their badgering. He has
not been found guilty of anything but common sense in walking away from these
jerks who do nothing to help. Years of clean tests while the French were trying
to get rid of him. Now these jerks 'strip him of Tour de France
titles'? They do not run the race. Armstrong won. Armstrong tested clean.
The way these guys run things they would indict George Washington of crimes.
They are a farce.Armstrong won the races, he is the champion.
What does this say about us? Nothing. It says something about
professional cycling and also reveals the gang at USADA really needs to have
some oversight and be reigned in. Many cyclists think there is a pretty good
chance Lance used PEDs and did a pretty good job at hiding it while some got
caught. And many cyclist think there is a pretty good chance that all the guys
he crushed on the climbs in his TDF wins were doping too. And most cyclist
believe the best guy won in those races. Lance a freak specimen of nature that
we won't see again for a long while.Not sure how this is of
public interest and why my tax dollars should support USADA. EPO and other PEDs
can actually help the sick and aged--good for the public. The US cycling
industry accounts for jobs and lots of commerce thanks to Lance--good for the
public. Pop musicians and actors promoting hard-core drug use--bad for the
public. Maybe USADA should start testing our pop icons in the interest of public
I guess I'm a little confused by all this too. I thought Lance won the
Tour De France titles in France. Why is some USA anti-doping agency stripping
him of these titles? Isn't somebody in France the ultimate authority
regarding his achievements ? It's obvious that the USADA is on a witch
hunt and finally got Lance to cave in and give up the fight. But is this an
admission of guilt? I'm not sure. The USADA could not prove he enhanced
his performance so they concluded that he must have to win 7 times. But
shouldn't they then prove he used some kind of masking agent to hide his
usage? I don't see any proof of that so far. What a strange world we live
in when a group such as the USADA can do stuff like this.
Lance cheated - what else is there to say? The worst thing is the money he made
as a result of the cheating. I am thinking that law suits ought to be filed to
reclaim some of that money.
Armstrong has maintained all along that he did not use performance enhancing
drugs during competition or in training for it. He did have quite a battle with
cancer; is it possible that some of those drugs could have produced a "false
positive"?Isn't it also possible that he is telling the
truth? Many of us have had some experience, either in our youth or later as
adults, with someone who says bad things about us and causes a lot of trouble
for us, sometimes ruining lives in the process. They have self-serving reasons
for slandering, and people seem more ready to believe them than to believe the
victim of the slandering. I think there is a very strong possibility that those
who accuse Armstrong are doing so for such reasons. If we are going to take a
"guilty until proven innocent" stance with regard to Armstrong, we must
also take that stance with his accusers.It is mighty suspicious that
Lance never failed a drug test at a competition. One may be able to trick the
testing once or twice, but as many times as he competed, and was tested, I
don't think he die.
I have been less and less interested in sports and competitions as time has
passed. Its not because I am getting older, or because sports are not fun to be
involved in. It is because of the steady decline in qualities of character
which I have seen demonstrated, praised and encouraged by those who bring the
sporting events to us through television and radio.There is one
example which stands out in my mind, which I will use to illustrate the problem.
It is in football and basketball, collegiate as well as professional.Imagine you are watching an important game. During a play, a player is
obviously seen to monitor the attention of the officials, and, when he knows
they are not looking, he commits a foul which has an effect on the outcome of
that play, and does not get caught. What is the typical reaction of the
announcers?More and more, it is "that is obviously a foul, but,
if you can get away with it and not get caught, it really isn't wrong. It
is good technique if you can get away with it."What do you think
young people learn from that?
regarding my comments about Lance Armstrong:The last word in the
comment should be "did", not "die". It is just a typo. I am
usually more careful but I have very poor eyesight; I guess I just missed one.
The Moral Majority is Neither! They are not the majority nor are they moral.Obviously it is easy to cheat and many people have cheated at something,
sometime. We are all Hippocrates. No one is excited to own up to cheating.Fact-BYU benefited from all sorts of players using steroids. No one
wants to talk about that and I don't need to name names. We are
throwing rocks in our big glass house. Sure catch the cheaters and kick them
out. but this whole business of trying to hunt down Lance year after year is
crazy. We are paying for this? Our taxes are being wasted. This is a joke.
Good areticle and response that should be given a good deal of credit and why
the decline of what the call sports in this country. I don't look at
professional athelest as sportsmen of anyone to idolize. Its a known fact that
the sports industry is not a game of sports, its a league of investors and
profiteering gangsters who think it is a sport. These games are an act of war
and fought and lived like a war where death of a player is inevitable by age or
misconduct. Which doesn't make sense eight because their are no standards
of conduct, just standards or how you kill the enemy.As far as I am
concerned, games are no longer a sport, not when profit is the motivation to
play it. If any game is to be called a sport, it should ban all sponsorships and
advertising promoting the events.Motivation to win is also
motivation to cheat and beat the system. Calling these professional games a
sport is an injustice.