Is Lance Armstrong being unfairly punished compared to his peers?

[lance_armstrong]

Some Lance fans are more concerned with the light sentences (or none) received by the likes of Bjarn Riis, Jan Ullrich, and members of U.S. Postal and Discovery, compared to Armstrong's lifetime ban.

I feel that Lance Armstrong has been making his bed for 15 years, all the while wreaking havoc on peoples lives trying to cover up the truth of what is now known as the biggest doping scandal in cycling, if not sports in history. I also feel that while others doped, most did so for a relatively short period of time, and most reaped practically none of the rewards that Lance did, including his 7 TDF victories. Isn't it fair that the one who did the most damage to the sport, and the one who garnered the most fame and fortune deserves to be punished the most for what he did? Besides his transgressions on the bike, he did a tremendous amount of damage to people lives in what has now been a vain effort to cover up his ridiculous lie. The final nail in his coffin, in my opinion, is that he stayed with his lie to the very end, using the powers of threat and intimidation until the last minute before giving up a fight he knew he couldn't win. Does this sound like a guy who should get any amount of slack?

What do you think?

 

[jhuskey]

I saw little or no concern over the hundreds of other cyclists that have banned from cycling and I see reason to defend Armstrong.It is hard for some to step back and relate objectively.

 

[slovakguy]

i have no objection to the severity of his penalty. given the level of his involvement, the period over which his cheating occurred, the lengths he went to keep it secret, the lengths he went to in order to squash those who would speak against him, and his utter contempt for the process in its discovery i think he and those yet to have their involvement in postal's actions should set the standard for punishment.

 

[alienator]

I've no problem with his punishment. I've also no problem with his punishment compared to others in the past. When it's apparent that laws or rules aren't working and an organization wants to stiffen the laws and rules to better root out a problem, someone has to be the one to be punished first under the new regime. That could very well mean that others before will have had less severe punishment than those who were or will be punished after the stricter efforts are enacted. Armstrong got to be the first guy to feel the weight of those new efforts.. Oh well. Timing is everything I guess.

 

[tonyzackery]

I would hope so due to the fact what he did on a personal level and the gain from his multitude of offenses on a financial basis compared to his peers, was extremely unfair./img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

The bigger the fish, the larger the frying pan.

 

[limerickman]

I think Armstrong's own actions have created his own fate.

I believe that if he had co-operated with the USADA, he wouldn't have been banned for life.
But it was his choice not to do so.

In that context, I do not believe that he has been unfairly punished compared to his peers.

 

[lance_armstrong]

Here is an interesting article in Bloomberg Business Week, part of which relates his earning to other world class cheaters.

Cheating Won Lance Armstrong Riches of More Than $218M
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-20/armstrong-is-richest-cheater-218-million-for-one-big-lie

 

[tmctguer]

Many other elite cyclists have doped as long as Armstrong did, and a few rose to the top of the sport and reaped significant financial rewards. However, Armstrong's fame, notoriety, and financial gain from his cycling career appear to be light years ahead of other elite cyclists who doped in that era.

Also, Armstrong's viciousness to silence those who spoke out (both about his doping and the doping culture in cycling) appears to have been off the charts. Armstrong's desire to harm others who broke the omerta was on par with his desire to win the TDF.

Armstrong also appears to be toying with the USADA because of anger towards Travis Tygart who's great work blew the lid of Armstrong's cheating. Also, all of Armstrong's "in your face" defenses of his "drug free" performances (e.g., ESPN interviews, taped depositions in the SCA Promotions lawsuit, "don't believe in miracles" speech on the podium) were evidence that he had taken lying to a level on par with his cycling ability.

Finally, when i watched the Oprah "confession", Armstrong still appeared to be lying & evasive on topics. Sure he answered the first few "yes or no" questions truthfully. But then his self defense mechanism kicked in. His comment about "not calling Betsy Andreu fat" sure seemed like a not-so-subtle "f*ck you" broadcast on national TV. He seemed less concerned about contrition than repairing his public image, with the exception of his tear filled comments about his children. It must have felt like sh*t to know as a parent, you put your own kids in a position to defend your own lies.

For these reasons, Armstrong deserves the strongest penalties possible.

 

[San Remo GT]

In answer to the topic title, NO. He unlawfully tried to gain an unfair advantage over his so called peers by doing what he did. What goes around comes around. I hope bees make a nest in his pubes.

 

[jpwkeeper]

It's a fair question, but it's a hard one for me to separate.

Is Lance worse than Riis, if you talk solely cycling and nothing else? Not really. Riis doped to win, then went on to run cycling teams and orchestrate their doping. He even went so far as to hire Tyler Hamilton (if the book is to be believed) at least in part to find out what US Postal was doing that they weren't.

However in my mind I can't separate the rest of Lance from that. Lance did much more than cheat. He went after people. He sued them. He cost them their livelyhood. People who never raced a day in their lives were ruined by him. Riis is a scumbag, but he never did any of that to my knowledge. That puts Lance on a whole different plane.

And let's face the facts here: a lifetime ban is kind of poetic, but in the big picture, is that so freaking bad? Even compared to going to prison for 1 month, a lifetime ban from sanctioned sports seems kinda laughable. And ultimately I think a lifetime ban may be the only thing that can save Lance Armstrong the man, not the cyclist or competitor, from himself, so it's good for us and ultimately good for him too. So is it too harsh? No, it's just right.

So let's look at it the other way. Are his peers (we'll leave Riis out since he is more complex) getting off too lightly? The ones who testified; maybe but only a little. They took an awful risk in testifying; some of them like Leipheimer are paying that price even without a suspension. Others retired, and I'd like to hope that Hincapie comes back to the sport someday since it's better with him in it. So may be a little; perhaps 1 year would have been better.

Riis should get life as well, either officially or by just nobody being willing to work with him, and with Puerto going on who knows, maybe he's not out of the woods yet.

 

[oldbobcat]

Remember that time, place and the athlete's nationality play a role in the enforcement of anti-doping rules.

Riis did his doping before the existence of WADA and a test for EPO. By the way, the Danish anti-doping agency is working on the feasibility of a case against Riis.

WADA has been apparently less zealous than USADA.

Spanish enforcement seems to occur only when the UCI makes the need so obvious that it's causing embarrassment.

In France, using PEDs is a criminal offense that can result in imprisonment.

 

[Busch]

Originally Posted by lance_armstrong .

Some Lance fans are more concerned with the light sentences (or none) received by the likes of Bjarn Riis, Jan Ullrich, and members of U.S. Postal and Discovery, compared to Armstrong's lifetime ban.

I feel that Lance Armstrong has been making his bed for 15 years, all the while wreaking havoc on peoples lives trying to cover up the truth of what is now known as the biggest doping scandal in cycling, if not sports in history. I also feel that while others doped, most did so for a relatively short period of time, and most reaped practically none of the rewards that Lance did, including his 7 TDF victories. Isn't it fair that the one who did the most damage to the sport, and the one who garnered the most fame and fortune deserves to be punished the most for what he did? Besides his transgressions on the bike, he did a tremendous amount of damage to people lives in what has now been a vain effort to cover up his ridiculous lie. The final nail in his coffin, in my opinion, is that he stayed with his lie to the very end, using the powers of threat and intimidation until the last minute before giving up a fight he knew he couldn't win. Does this sound like a guy who should get any amount of slack?

What do you think?

I think we can dispense with the ideology that says "people should not cheat". The fact is given the opportunity they will! For me it makes absolutely no difference at all that there was someone got better results from cheating than others. Had others come across the right system for cheating they would have taken advantage of it. If you had given Tyler Hamilton or most any other rider in those tours the keys to victory they would have taken it. They were still cheating just, not as good at it. Look at it this way, there were a whole lot of riders that never made the tour cause the last place finisher in the tour that year doped.

I say leave the titles for everyone where they are to much of a mess to clean up.

Give him a lifetime ban up until he comes clean and helps out getting things cleaned up. 8 years if he does that. I am not in favor of life time bans for any athlete.

Now the UCI and WADA need to get their **** together. No excuse for letting Riis and Ullrich and the others off. WADA and the UCI need to make sure tht the rules and punishment are applied unilaterally across the sport objectively and without prejudice.

As far as the bullying, I dont much care about that. I have seen far worse on school yard. Tygart saying "he could destroy you" is melodramatic ********. Frankly, I think ******** that Tygart did not get nominated for an Oscar for that perfromance.

If someone sent me a text that said "run dont walk" to my wife's phone I would have done an about face and kicked his ass and then taken the text to the papers with Lance's phone number on it. Is humiliating that a dress was the only one standing up to Lance.

 

[Busch]

Originally Posted by lance_armstrong .

Here is an interesting article in Bloomberg Business Week, part of which relates his earning to other world class cheaters.

Cheating Won Lance Armstrong Riches of More Than $218M
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-20/armstrong-is-richest-cheater-218-million-for-one-big-lie

Cancer won Lance riches more than $218M. Lets get it right!!!!!