Armstrong potential return?

[Tipex]

Been listening to the various reports today and yesterday about Lance Armstrong asking for his lifetime ban to be reduced to 6-8 years, Of course he'd be daft if he didn't ask, but what do you guys think? Should his ban be reduced or not?

The reasoning behind it, is that he's prepared to testify against pretty much everyone that was involved in doping, so do you think he should do that anyway, without the ultimatum that he won't if there is nothing in it for him, out of a moral duty, or should he get something in return?

His argument centres around other athletes committing the same offences, and receiving only 6-8 year bans when they have bargained and testified against others, and that he was made a scapegoat when given the lifetime ban?

Personally as much as I don't like the chap, and I think he should testify anyway, as it may go some small way towards vindicating him as a person, I also don't believe in scapegoats.

I think it's fundamentally unfair to give someone a harsher sentence just to make an example to frighten others, I think the punishment should be the same for everyone if they've committed the same offence.

I guess ultimately it boils down to whether you think people deserve a second chance or not?

[Waylander]

No it shouldn't - one offence okay; systematic abuse over many many years (yes the UCI may have turned a blind eye but even so...)

And all the guff about being 100% transparent now - as opposed to the multiple inquests he had previously....

Let him name and shame then - undoubtedly the Tour is slower now than in his day so it may well have been rampant; doesn't justify leniency.

[Twinspark]

I still think it's bloody impressive, what he achieved, even if it was drug enhanced!

 

Coming back from cancer to win the Tour is absolutely astounding.

[garcon magnifique]

I think there is a huge problem in the lack of consistency across sports.

 

Armstrong is guilty of prolonged systematic abuse and bullying of other riders into similar abuse. For me that should remain a life ban.

 

To address the consistency, other punishments should be more severe rather than Armstrong's be more lenient.

 

Of course the lack of consistency isn't just in the punishments meted out. It is also a major issue in the testing regimes in different sports and in different countries.

 

I do believe in giving people a chance to recover from a mistake. If testing could be made more consistent and more effective, I would advocate a one year ban for a first offence and a life ban for any further offence. Simple - one chance to put it right.

[Milo]

Have a read of Seven Deadly Sins by David Walsh. He is the Times journalist who went for Armstrong from Day 1, believing him to be a cheat.

It gives an insight into the kind of 'man' Armstrong is and the lengths he would go to destroy anyone who crossed him, questioned him or simply refused to be part of what he was doing.

 

He's a ruthless, horrible bastard and deserves to kicked out all sport. For good. It would be a better place without him.

 

He was a top 50 rider before he started doping.  That's pretty damn spectacular by our standards, but decidely average in the world of professional sport.

To suggest his 'achievements' were remarkable, even when he was doping, shows an ignorance of professional sport.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Milo

[Mook]

What Milo said.

 

Legally, lifetime bans will be impossible to enforce apparently (according to Seb Coe this morning).  It's not as much the cheating by taking drugs that's the problem, it's the fact he was an absoloute cünt.  And still is in my view.  If he'd not started Livestrong, he'd not have as much "respect" as he does.

[Scotty]

Keep him out. If you can't ban him for life for drugs cheating then ban him for being a total ****. Horrid piece of work. He fecked over so many people in covering up his secret. I hope it haunts him.

[Tipex]

I agree with the sentiment that he's not a nice bloke, however, not being nice has absolutely no bearing on it whatsoever, you can't get banned for being an arśehole.

Which brings us back to the real issue, should he be treated more harshly than someone else who has been found guilty of doing the same thing?

And should he testify in order to achieve equality in punishment, or should he testify anyway?

My thoughts are that he should be treated equally, however his ban should not be reduced, everyone else's should be increased.

And the fact he's issued an ultimatum that he'll testify if his ban is reduced, just backs up the fact he's a selfish arśehole, and that he may, possibly, have earned a tiny smidgeon of respect back if he'd just agreed to testify.

[patently]

And the fact he's issued an ultimatum that he'll testify if his ban is reduced, just backs up the fact he's a selfish arśehole, and that he may, possibly, have earned a tiny smidgeon of respect back if he'd just agreed to testify.

 

Yep.  

 

Armstrong: "I'll do the thing that's right & proper if you let me off the punishment that I rightly deserved"

 

Rest of world: "Feck off"

[garcon magnifique]

The thing is, I don't know of any other sports person who is guilty of the same catalogue of doping related crimes as Armstrong.

 

Should we break it down and give him two years for each individual offence?

[Milo]

He's had countless opportunities to testify and tell the truth. And he's lied under oath and dodged those opportunities time and time again, while systematically destroying the careers (and sometimes the lives) of riders and physios and journalists and support staff who challenged him or refused to play ball.

He was banned not just for doping, but for bringing the sport into disrepute.  And to my knowledge, no one has ever been found guilty of the manipulaltion of a sport on the scale Armstrong carried out. Hence his lifetime ban versus others' timed bans.

 

 

edit - the authorities should treat him with the respect he treated them, with regards to hearing appeals etc. 

Edited November 15, 2013 by Milo

[Milo]

Seriously, I'd recommend anyone who might think Armstrong has been 'hard done by', to read Seven Deadly Sins by David Walsh.

[Mook]

you can't get banned for being an arśehole.

 

Evidenced by the fact you're still here 

[Ian_C]

He's had countless opportunities to testify and tell the truth. And he's lied under oath and dodged those opportunities time and time again, while systematically destroying the careers (and sometimes the lives) of riders and physios and journalists and support staff who challenged him or refused to play ball.

 

This.  Lifetime ban should mean lifetime ban.  He's already had multiple chances.

[Tipex]

Evidenced by the fact you're still here

Funny, I was going to mention something about TSN members after that comment too, but raised above it!

[S3Bangs]

Seriously, I'd recommend anyone who might think Armstrong has been 'hard done by', to read Seven Deadly Sins by David Walsh.

 

I have just purchased this from Amazon on your recommendation, as stuff like this intrigues me and I really want to find out how much of a di*k he really is/was.

 

If it's not as good as you say, a lifetime ban perhaps?

[Milo]

I have just purchased this from Amazon on your recommendation, as stuff like this intrigues me and I really want to find out how much of a di*k he really is/was.

 

If it's not as good as you say, a lifetime ban perhaps?

 

 

I'm sure my Uncle David will be pleased you've bought his book

[NewNiceMrMe]

I'll keep it short.  He needs to feck off into prison and disappear.