Lance Armstrong Is Stripped of His 7 Tour de France Titles

but we all know he is the best cyclist ever.

1
Eddy Merckx



Eddy Merchx was born in Belgium in 1945 and became the best road bicycle racer the world has ever seen. He won the Tour de France 5 times in 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1974, the Giro D’Italia 5 times in 1968, 1970, 1972, 1973 and 1974 and the Vuelta a España once in 1973. Merckx also won the Tour de Suisse once, Paris-Nice 3 times, Dauphné-Libéré once, Paris-Roubaix 3 times, Liège-Bastogne-Liége 5 times and the World Road Race Championship 3 times. Eddy Merckx is also one of only five riders to win all three big stage races during their career, the four others are: Jacques Anquetil, Felice Gimondi, Bernard Hinault and Alberto Contador.
Read more at http://listverse.com/2009/05/08/top-10-best-road-cycle-racers-of-all-time/


This list puts Lance at #9 on the all-time list. I'm not sure where he belongs on it. But I do think Eddy was the stronger and more prolific winner, and he did so without all the technical and doping help.

nonsense about his record and Babe Ruth. It was personal and racist rants by people with an agenda. Racism isn't involved with Armstrong but it smells of a personal vendetta.

It seems people have problems accepting change.

It's just many people cannot accept change.

It was about a disagreement over who is the greatest cyclist. I stated there are people who still can't accept Hank Aaron's record because they can't accept change. There are some people who can't accept records being broken by new people.

Are you kidding? So why would these people would choose Lance from the whole world of sports to "not accept"? Why aren't they rejecting Michael Phelps?

The racism faced by Hank Aaron and others is a whole different thing.

smoking a joint. Then after the Olympics there were some trying to strip him of his medals because some Advertising photos were released a few days early. Something he had nothing to do with and I thought that was also a witch hunt by sore losers. It was all over the news and some people were really pushing to enforce it. Phelps had to get an attorney.

http://www.complex.com/sports/2012/08/michael-phelps-could-lose-medals-from-2012-summer-olympics-because-of-leaked-louis-vuitton-photos

Of course, stripping the titles of a man who was ran a decades-long doping ring, who not only doped himself during every single one of his victories, but also coerced his teammates to dope in order to remain on the team is a whole different story.

I guess your theory is that all athletes are subject to "witch hunts" from "sore losers" so we should just ignore the sworn testimony of 25 witnesses, the positive tests, and the rest of the evidence?

I guess you are also going to claim they didn't want to strip him of his medals over the ads? You raised Phelps as an example and I proved you wrong.

If you hadn't noticed, Phelps still has his medals, and nobody is challenging his records. He is widely hailed as the greatest swimmer ever.

It probably has to do with the fact that there isn't 1,000 pages of evidence demonstrating that he systematically took performing enhancing drugs and forced others to do so throughout his career.

He doesn't deserve a defense if he wont defend himself. He cheated. That makes him the worst racer ever

Its a witch hunt....no one can pass that many drug tests and not be found out.
Unless LANCE is a MAD CHEMICAL SCIENTIST GENIUS as well.

cleans out fast?
I am not familiar with how drug testing is done in the lab which is why I asked rather than automatically assume that its all a frame job.

Look it up though I don't think his was quite as extensive as Armstrong.

I don't know much about cycling, I just know that the fact is Lance beat all his peers, who were also doping.

To say that the playing field is level because they all dope is incorrect. Not everyone responds in the same way to PEDs. Not everyone had as sophisticated and intensive a doping program as Armstrong and his USPS team. Not everyone is willing to take the risks involved with this level of doping. And so on.

Armstrong was the best at cheating. But not the best cyclist.

he beat Ulrich and Pantini and they were doping. NoW I think Mercx is the best of all time and I have been watvhing racing since the seventies. Cycling has always had doping.

Armstrong only did the Tour de France, conserving himself by skipping the other big-name races. Merckx was an all-rounder.

what I've dubbed the next Shoeless Joe Jackson. ahem as in they banned him from baseball and took their money but still played like he should.

Lance I don't know there is no proof. But was still banned for life..

sanctioning bodies.

No matter what they say, Armstrong won the Tour 7 freakin' times.

And he beat cancer!
3 times!

Oh gosh, I guess that doesn't count!

Why in the fuck did he cheat and take banned drugs and coerce his team mates to lie for him?

Time for him to get a real job.

He " stole " a lot of money by stealing those titles. And also he let down a lot of people who believed in him.

what are the odds?

they all cheated and they even have a monument for a guy on Alp D'uez for dying from drugs.

The man was a cheat and a liar, and gave false hope to a lot of people who now may lose that. We don't have any idea of the harm he may cause in the future. He is scum.

for a cheat.

as long as those other cyclist were playing by the rules, which I doubt unfortunately.

That was what the Tour de France director proposed before today's decision, anyway:



So there is an implication they don't know if any of them were obeying the rules.

they all dope.

Anyone who believe differently is either very naive or willfully so.

others playing by the rules. Pantini and Ulrich were caught doping.

He's kind of both, IMO. Good decision.

He and they have been very adversarial against Armstrong. WADA won't appeal the ruling unless it would further bury Armstrong. The report the USADA put together is pretty overwhelming and very damning. It's all over except the crying.

made to ride his bike along the route of Tour de France in that state.

But I don't think he has the SLIGHTEST intention of giving a DIME back to anyone.

It reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials where they bring in a bunch of hysterical people to accuse a person. No facts, just personal stories to use for a conviction.

I was never into the sport and was not a fan of Armstrong. I do think he did some great things and is a great athlete. What is not great is the McCarthyism style of this agency.

There isn't and that fact has been obscured by "stories". Armstrong passed more drug tests than any other cyclist. Are you going to tell me that he is a chemical genius who can outsmart any chemist this agency can find around the world? Really?

This is a similar to a witch hunt. I also believe that one day this agency will be the one investigated and issuing apologies. There is something very dishonest and predatory about their actions. It smells.

I have nothing in this personally and it won't make a difference in my life. I just don't like seeing these types of things. It is wrong no matter if it happens to someone rich or poor.

Any inocent person would do that, but he isn't.

Actually he has numerous times and was tired of this circus.

They had no evidence so they hounded him. That is wrong.

The truth has come out. He was not an honest player. Just because others were doping didn't mean he had to do it himself.
He dissapointed A LOT if people.

There is none. Just stories and innuendo. Those are the only facts.

the entirety of evidence and out of person-worship declare someone innocent.

The "entirety of evidence" is nothing but stories. It seems we fail to learn from history. Armstrong will survive and this has nothing to do with worshiping or liking him. It is about what is right and wrong. This is wrong whether it is done to someone rich or poor or someone liked or disliked.

I think you need to look up the word "innuendo" in the dictionary, because direct eyewitness testimony and innuendo are entirely different things.

Of course, on top of the witnesses, there are also the positive tests for cortisone and EPO, the financial records, etc.

from a large group of people has been proven historically to be accurate . There are inconclusive tests, not any that would stand up in court. This is a witch hunt.

You know, in a court of law, a case with 25 eyewitnesses testifying under oath would be considered strong.

Also, what makes you think the tests are inconclusive and wouldn't stand up in court? Is that what Armstrong's lawyer said? If you are actually interested, here is an interview with a sports doctor discussing Armstrongs six positive EPO samples from 1999:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

have been convicted on many eyewitnesses testifying against them. Later we have found in many cases it was motivated by anything but the truth and now are viewed as travesties of justice. This interview is not proof, it is an opinion. I do not know if Armstrong is guilty or innocent but I do know this is the wrong way to convict anyone.

The actions of these agencies and the willingness of people to accept it is frightening. If people want to accept this as justice then that is their opinion and right. I just hoped that we had moved past such things and it is my fault for believing it was possible.

As far as I know, the case against him was based purely on eyewitness testimony, which according to you is worthless. Is it "frightening" to you that he is now in prison?

Also, the interview I posted is the opinion of an expert. The evidence itself is six of Armstrong's urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France which contained EPO in them. I mean, you were asking for physical evidence in the form of test results, and here you have it.

Finally, what is wrong with the way that Armstrong was convicted? They gathered 1,000 pages of evidence, including 25 eyewitnesses, lab test results, financial records, etc. They gave Armstrong a chance to have his case heard before an arbitration hearing -- the same kind of arbitration hearing that every other cyclist accused of doping gets, and a hearing that a US Judge declared satisfied all of due process requirements, including the right to appeal, etc. -- but Armstrong turned that down.

He admitted showering children and inappropriate touching. He even apologized to the mother of one child. Sandusky just could not accept the fact that his actions were not harmless and went beyond boundaries. So it was not based on eyewitness testimony only.

So now Armstrong is comparable to a pedophile? This is getting ridiculous.

He did not admit to child abuse. He was convicted based on eyewitness testimony. There was no physical evidence. That was your standard. Just like Armstrong, Sandusky blames the whole thing on a witch hunt/conspiracy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-jerry-sandusky-20121009,0,2935489.story

BTW, if you really are trying to stand up for "due process" and against witch hunts, it is completely preposterous for you to take some statements that Sandusky made to the media as an admission of guilt. He has very clearly proclaimed his innocence in court, and if your standard is physical evidence only, then Sandusky walks (but Armstrong is still guilty).

Also, as should be obvious, I'm not comparing Armstrong to a pedophile, I'm comparing the standard of proof used in the two cases. You are apparently willing to accept eyewitness testimony in some cases but not others. I wonder why that is. If anything, you should be a lot more concerned about Sandusky, because while Armstrong just lost his titles and sponsors, Sandusky actually went to prison.

Sandusky did admit committing certain acts and that is a fact. Your denial sounds as lame as Sandusky's. He was convicted based on things he admitted to that were then tied to testimony by his accusers.

BTW, I can bet you Penn State won't be permanently banned from participating in football.

I am not concerned about Sandusky but I find it strange you are.

Sandusky did not admit to child rape, he denied it, with the same amount of vigor that Armstrong has denied doping. He was convicted of rape based entirely on eyewitness testimony of others, the same kind of evidence that was used for part (not all) of the case against Armstrong.

The fact that you are not concerned about Sandusky demonstrates that your defense of Lance Armstrong has nothing to do with concerns about a witch hunt or due process. You simply want to defend Lance, and you are digging for whatever excuse you can find. If you actually believed that eyewitness testimony was unreliable, you would also be defending Sandusky (and any number of other people who have been convicted based on witness testimony).

ETA: this should be obvious, but I'm not actually defending Sandusky. I'm just pointing out the double standard of yours when it comes to eyewitness testimony.

Of course he would not admit to rape because he thought he did nothing wrong. Obviously you and Sandusky think a grown man playing "tickle monster" with a child in a shower is OK. Fortunately sane people don't. He admitted actions that normal people know is sexual abuse of children. He doesn't see it that way because he is a pedophile.You raised the issue of Sandusky so you really are not paying attention to your own posts.

Also, you should read again. My issue is with the way this was handled and it was wrong. The only person making this personal is you.

You did not point out anything and all you have done is make yourself look silly and defend Sandusky.

Sandusky did not admit to rape. He admitted to something like "horseplay" -- I don't feel like getting graphic, so I'll assume you understand the key differences between horseplay and rape.

More importantly, of course, he admitted to nothing during the trial, because he didn't even testify. So whatever he said to a reporter makes no difference. He was convicted of rape based on eyewitness testimony. The same kind of testimony that made up (part of) the case against Lance Armsrong.

And, not surprisingly, his attorneys tried to argue the same sorry "conspiracy" defense that you are putting up. That's what all guilty people say when there are dozens of witnesses testifying against them under oath. However, like you, they couldn't present any evidence of a conspiracy. Which is why Sandusky was found guilty, and why Armstrong was banned and had his title stripped.

Here's a serious question. Do you really believe that all convictions that are based on eyewitness testimony should be overturned?

Why is the Lance Armstrong case special?

You haven't explained your issue with the way it was handled. It was handled the same way as any other doping case. Arbitration, with option to appeal to the CAS. The process all cyclists agree to be governed by when they become professionals, and the process that a US Judge found provided for the necessary Due Process requirements of the constitution.

and ignoring "sworn testimoy" where people state under oath and penalty of perjury the FACTS!

Have fun in your alternate universe.

If anyone is delusional and has a grandiose view of themselves it is you. You think you know someone because they disagree with you? That is pomposity and ignorance to the max.

he never tested positive, and still they take away his win's. why in the world do we bother drug testing then?!
this whole drug testing thing has gotten way out of hand. I remember the days before all this BS.

He never tested positive and so they just used stories to convict him. I find it scary that they can get away with this.

Again, you are wrong. You are buying into the LA PR hype. He tested positive for corticosterioids in 1991, and had a team doctor back-date a prescription so he could obtain a Therapeutic Use Exemption. He made a $125,000 donation to the UCI (Nike allegedly paid another $500,000) allegedly to avoid another questionable result. Retained samples tested using emerging testing technology also were suspect for EPO use.

Stop making this crap up. You have no clue what you are talking about.

is when they engage in personal attacks. Your post is full of "allegedly" and you sound a bit hysterical. More proof that for some of you this is more a personal issue.

So far you're the only person on here engaging in that.

I did not apply personal attacks to any poster. I attacked the actions of the agencies. Learn the difference.

.......... the U.S. anti-doping agency and the Cycling Association are engaged in a massive conspiracy against Lance Armstrong?

Did you read the report that was released a couple of weeks ago?

doping. It was all innuendo and stories.

The same accusations use to be made about people convicted in similar ways. Gee, you mean the whole village is in cahoots to convict you of being a witch? Gee, you mean the whole congress and American government is in cahoots to convict you of being a communist? Gee, you mean the whole French government is in cahoots to tarnish and imprison you Alfred Dreyfus?

In all cases the answer was yes. It is not as farfetched as you think. People with personal vendettas can have powerful allies.

I point out they have no factual proof? They can convict Armstrong on stories only but any dissenting voices asking for proof and facts are to be silenced? This is just the type of mentality I am referring to.

You admittedly never followed the sport. I presume that you never read the USADA report or the 800 pages of affidavits and other documentary evidence? This was no witch hunt, and you should stop buying in to the failed Pharmstrong PR effort.

There is irrefutable proof that Pharmstrong perpetrated perhaps the largest fraud in sports history. It's not only the fact that he used PEDs, but his bullying tactics and his coercion of teammates into also using PEDs.

What about honor? Fairness? Truth? Avoiding lying and cheating for personal glory?

Yes, a personal vendetta. Sure.

No DNA or physical evidence. Just a bunch of stories.

And Barry Bonds. Worship of sports idols is so childish and it makes me sick. This guy made millions being a total fraud.

As someone who thinks our society worships sports figures to an absolutely ridiculous extent, and who thinks that with the billions and billions of dollars in stake in pro sports, cheating goes on to a much, MUCH greater extent than we can ever imagine, I can't say I give two shits about Lance Armstrong. Maybe after all his endorsement and media deals dry up, he can console himself by buying himself a new Schwinn at Sears. Maybe he can even clothespin a playing card into the spokes.

I don't follow sports, and I'm about as athletic as the next snail you see sliming its way across the sidewalk. Lucky enough to marry a guy who didn't have the sports gene. Our kids were into karate instead of the usual school sports - at which they did not excel. So it just hasn't been part of my life. It was actually kind of a rebel pleasure NOT to be involved in - what's it called? Pop Warner or something? Whatever it is for kids' baseball or softball, and kids football or whatever - I don't even know, really. We were just so completely out of it in that regard.

I hate how the whole competition thing leads to such insanity - with parents fist-fighting each other in the stands and this killer competitive shit that is taught in school athletics. I hate how the big money and the hero-worship in this country always seems to go to lunkheads who can do nothing more than throw a ball or run fast or hit something (or someone) instead of to teachers, scientists, Nobel Prize-winners, and peace activists. Total weirdo here, I know. Probably, in many people's eyes, downright un-American. I think our priorities are just so cock-eyed sometimes. But I live with geeks and nerds and our daughter was the great student and our son was the music kid in school and distinguished himself that way. I remember how, in his graduation-class's yearbook, one of the candid shots of him was out on the playground. In the background you could see kids playing and balls bouncing and stuff going on, and there he was, standing there noodling around with his guitar that he brought to school with him sometimes.

I just don't get the hero worship of sports and sports figures. It's never made much sense to me. What's to worship? Abnormally-enlarged musculature? Pituitary cases? Sheer physical mass? We really have to throw such obscene amounts of money at that? It makes other people happy so I'm okay with it, but for me, it's a big fat "meh..."

So Lance Armstrong fell off his exalted bicycle seat. Yawn. When you hero-worship someone, chances are strong that they still have feet of clay just like everybody else. And it's YOU who winds up getting hurt the most. Especially when they cheat, as he evidently did according to the case that's been presented. Frankly, I don't like him for the cavalier way it appeared he treated his women. Sure threw poor Sheryl Crow over rather rudely. As I recall, he did that to his wife, too, some years earlier. Bruce Fucking Jenner did that to his wife after he made it big following his Olympics Decathlon win. And she'd been there for him when he was a nobody, through all the tough times and the long arduous training and she bore his children and held down the fort and kept the faith, and when his ship comes in, BOOM! Their marriage is over and here come the bimbos. SCHMUCK. He deserves how he looks now! So does der Gropenator, for that matter.

I'm always bemused during Super Bowl season and the finals of whatever sport it is or whatever championships there are of this or that. Super Bowl Day for us has always meant a great time to go shopping or something, because everybody's home watching and obsessing the game. And it makes no sense to me to have to sit through the game just to see the commercials.

That said, dear DU brothers and sisters, it's just ME and my weirdness. Go celebrate your sports and have a great time! I won't be there with you, which means there'll just be more room for how you want it!

Just about every one of Armstrons compeditors have admitted to it.

It's completely obvious Armstrong was doped too. Almost his entire team was, and the sporting director admitted to them using it. But also people like Jan Ulrich. Have you seen how Lance destroyed Ulrich in the mountains? Ulrich had no chance.

But if you have been training every day since you were a kid, then you find out that every top rider is using this stuff to win, you have three options.

1. Quit
2. Enter clean, never race for the big bucks, big contracts and never be famous or win anything.
3. Do what the others do.

Doping is like an arms race, a game of prisoners dillemma. Only when everyone are completely sure the others arent cheating will cheating stop.

They should have just given all the older guys amnesty, the entire sport was complicit in it anyway.

Interesting perspective.

I was merely explaining how cheating works and how to get rid of it. With transparency. Several teams are now publishing all their testing online so everyone can monitor the different values. This means that other cyclists feel like they do not have to cheat to compete with them.

Back in the old days everyone did it, so the playing field was even in a way. Instead of retroactively punishing them, they should have had an amnesty. But it would've had to happen in the beginning, not half way when some were punished. Now they all will have to be punished and several generations of riders and results tarnished.

Now that his longstanding defense that he didn't take PEDs has been shredded, its time to start looking at the documented cases of blatant intimidation against anyone who dared question him over the years.

There have been lawsuits, reputations ruined, and much more. I think that a careful examination of what Armstrong has actually been all about will cast him in a much less favorable light.

Really, it was such an amazing story, sad its ended like this. For me, there's no choice and its the best possible move.

be a great day.

All night.

Some of us forget that. It's best to admire someone but I don't see the case for putting someone on a pedestal. Everyone fails at some point. It's human nature.

Armstrong is banned because he wasn't as clever as the other bikers in hiding his doping.

So they ban him for being stupid.

Folks, they are all doping. If you honestly believe that only armstrong is doping in a high profile, high money, high marking, professional sport, I have several bridges I want to sell you.

Here's my other post on this subject...

The dark side of corporate sport sponcorship...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1567986

Sanctimonious. His bad treatment of others won him no silence and no defenders

Guys I knew that trained with him intimated that he was very full of himself.

it seemed to me that just about everyone I met in racing circles was "very full of himself".　

hopefully.

Donations to LIVESTRONG were up 25x the day following Armstrong's announcement in August.

(See http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=livestrong+donations+up+25x&oq=livestrong+donations+up+25x&gs_l=hp.3...2727.8053.1.8879.27.20.0.1.1.2.774.9078.0j1j4j3j3j7j2.20.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.T4yKVVGjUio&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=d3ddaee4ee84f1b4&bpcl=35466521&biw=1821&bih=857 )

http://newcycleto.posterous.com/
CYCLE TO
It's More Than Just The Bike

Denial is sad, particularly here.

All this attempt to vilify Armstrong for what every cyclist on the tour was doing seems rather arbitrary.

His real crimes were

1. Not being French.

2. Doing a lot more good in the world (his cancer work) than any other pro cyclist in living memory.

The doping obviously runs deep and if their testing methods cannot detect properly, what good are they.

On a side note, it would be interesting to see if Armstrong's drugging held any promise for cancer treatment. That would be one good thing that came from this entire mess.

As for now, the entire sport is a farce.

pronto. That is NOT what we should be teaching our children.

This is just a coordinated effort to bring him down. He is innocent as a newborn baby.

he is not alone and the entire sport needs to be investigated from top down.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8537796/texas-insurance-firm-asks-lance-armstrong-repay-75-million-bonuses

Makes me kind of sick to my stomach. 7 straight titles... gone.

Unlike other Tour champions, Miguel was a modest and humble competitor and rarely stepped into the limelight.

Indurain was the biggest doper there was.


It's perfectly natural for a "clean" 6'2" 170lb guy to hang with the best climbers in the world during the height of the EPO era.

Lance Armstrong is a victim of hypocrisy and a real con job perpetrated by his enemies in the bicycling world. It has never been proven that Lance took performance drugs over so many years.

What should be investigated is the French Sponsors and Tour De France Officials.

United States television should black out the race in 2013. I refuse to watch this abomination.

We as a Country have failed to stop the illicit use of Drugs and have lost the War.

Decriminalize and treat this scourge as a health epidermic.

Next we'll have people shocked - shocked I say - that Mr Olympia uses HGH, and yet certain that all his competition simply eat lots of protein.

The farce is not the doping - it's the absurdity of pretending that doping is not universal at that level.

I suppose it is rather convenient in this day and age to label a desire, a wish, and an expectation of sportsmanship and honor to " puritan hand-wringing..."

I.e., 'the convenience though is not the labeling, it's the absurdity of rationalizing chemical assistance.'




Yet I'm the first to concede that our personal expectations of humanity in general are most probably set at two very different levels.

Yes it would be fine if the only differentials in athletic performance were those granted by nature and hard work. But that doesn't give us any real reason to believe that this is so, and certainly no reason to be blind to obvious indications that it is not so.

There is no superiority of character in expecting that which is clearly demonstrated to be false, or feigning surprise and disappointment at the next demonstration in a long long series. There is only a rather transparent attempt to exaggerate disapproval and establish a moral high ground. It's somewhat analogous to parents who (hopefully only pretend to) think their teenager is always honest and polite and never swears, and remains ignorant of sex.

Elite athletes in any sport that generates significant personal rewards will seek a performance boost via chemistry. Feel free to wish it were otherwise, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it is otherwise.

medals and records before this date. Don't take away their medals, just say ok we are resetting the record books at 0. All previous records and titles now no longer count (place an asterisk next to any mention of them in the history books, "earned before the reset"). Then going forward promise even tougher punishment, make it stick and make it fair. If one person in a team dopes the whole team / country is out no matter what. Ban them from all professional sport no matter the type. Doesn't matter what the others did or did not do. It's simple Mathematics from Game Theory. You have to make the potential losses if caught so large that they outweigh the potential gains if not caught.

That is the current American cultural standard. Lance Armstrong was a hero, and a winner until his cheating was discovered.

Here is a Yahoo comment on Armstrong:
"Everybody loves a winner. And apparently it is just fine and dandy to cheat-- unless you get caught in which case you're persona non grata. And its not just sports. Big Business is renowned for rewarding backstabbing, lying, idea stealing, cheating, brown-nosing etc. Take a look at the satirical "How to Succeed in Business Without really Trying" from the early 60s. This carries over to politics as well. In all cases, lip service is given to honesty, but winning apparently justifies breaking all the rules."

Look at Mitt Romney. He is lying at the same level as Armstrong cheated and doing it with impunity.

He knows he cheated, everyone knows he cheated and he knows that everyone knows he cheated but he still denies it.

I wonder if he has an ounce of self-respect left.

The apology Lance Armstrong will never give
By Bruce Arthur, Postmedia News October 23, 2012 7:22 PM

.....I was a triathlon champion as a teenager, and I was the world road race champion at 21, and I came to Europe and watched Miguel Indurain pedal away from me like I was a kid. That was the 1994 Tour de France. He kicked my ass.

Then everybody started to kick my ass. EPO came in, and guys were so much stronger, so much faster. I could win one-day races, but I wasn't the greatest climber, and I had to withdraw in three of my first four attempts at the Tour; the other time, I finished 36th.....

....there are some things I'm sorry for. I'm sorry I ran Christophe Bassons, one of the sport's truly noble men, out of the Tour in 1999 for daring to say that you couldn't reach a top 10 at the Tour without doping. I'm sorry for attacking Frankie and Betsy Andreu for being in the hospital room with me in 1996 when I admitted to the doctors that I had used EPO, testosterone, growth hormone, cortisone and steroids. I'm sorry I sued our former soigneur, Emma O'Reilly, who wouldn't back down from the truth.

I'm sorry I called her a prostitute, and a drunk.

I'm sorry for attacking journalists like David Walsh and Paul Kimmage, who is still being sued by the UCI in what is as unconscionable a lawsuit as even I've ever seen. I'm sorry I told Christian Vande Velde to dope or get dropped from the team, and I'm sorry I allowed David Zabriskie to dope, because he got into cycling to escape his drug-addict father, the way I used it to pedal away from my absent father and my abusive stepfather and the emptiness of Plano, Texas. I'm sorry David broke down and cried the night he agreed to go against everything he believed in.

I'm sorry for sending a text message to Levi Leipheimer's wife Odessa after I found out he was testifying that said, "Run, don't walk." I'm sorry I threatened to blackmail Greg LeMond. I'm sorry for painting Floyd Landis as an unbalanced lunatic, and for telling Tyler Hamilton in an Aspen restaurant that I would make his life a living hell. I'm sorry that the International Cycling Union is so warped that its president, Pat McQuaid, called Landis and Hamilton "scumbags" on Monday. I'm sorry he was following my lead.....

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/apology+Lance+Armstrong+will+never+give/7435491/story.html#ixzz2ABN73PPO

I'm glad he's a celebrity against cancer, because most celebrities are in favor of cancer.