Bob Barr: The Crucifixion of Lance Armstrong

Sep 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Townhall

Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest endurance athletes of modern times, who won the grueling Tour de France bicycle race a record seven consecutive times from 1995 to 2005, has been stripped of all awards and prizes he won during his storied cycling career.

Comments
1 - 20 of 36 Comments Last updated Oct 7, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
george bremer

Wymondham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What concerns me mostly is that Lance has long since be retired from cycling. He rode in an era of doping so i suppose that levels the field. who can be awarded the victories?
What happened to Innocent until proven guilty.
now even if he doped we must consider the immense contribution he has made to combating cancer. If Lance had solely lived of the glory for his own benefit i would have some sympathy with stripping him of his achievements. as it is the puritan attitude of the doping agency is very hypocritical
the methods they have used to obtain information is not applaudable it reeks
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Good post George and Iagree wth you.
The other disturbing pointin all of this they are allowing others to testify and receive little or no punishment (some are actually benefitting financially) whilst theychase 1 person.
If it is a fair and transparent process there should be no isue of making the punishment fit everyone and not just 1 targetted individual.
As far as a lifetime ban from all competions does not conform to WADC rules. Take the lifetime ban from the Olympics by the British Olympic Board against Dwayne Chambers (a sprinter) who contested it and it was over ruled as they cannot impose such a long ban. He won his case and run in the Olympics this year.
Time will tell how it shall be approved fully, approved with amendments or rejected by all the other associated agencies.
It may also ed up with Armstrong taking Legal action on his lifetime ban to help with his fund raising efforts through cycling, running etc events.
DaveUK

Milton Keynes, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I've been following this story for the past few weeks and Iím amazed that USADA has yet to provide the UCI or the general public with the evidence it say it has on Mr Armstrong. If you are going to take such a drastic step of stripping someone of their life's work, you must ensure everything is above board and beyond question. I am sorry but the testimony of witnesses does not meet this criteria. Mr Hamilton is an admitted doper who is making money of a book while Mr Landis recently had to appear in court on issues relating to fraud. If USADA offered inducements or lower sentences for others to implicate Mr Armstrong then this raises questions about the way they conduct their operations. I have no evidence if Mr Armstrong used drugs in the past and neither it appears does anyone else. If USADA had a failed drugs test the world would have known about it.

What worries me about the way they are behaving is their inability to build their case on physical evidence. Letís say I drove home one day and was pulled over by the police who then administered a breathalyser. It shows I am below the legal limit and therefore I pass the test. What if 10 people state under oath that they saw me drink 3 bottles of vodka along with 10 pints of beer before going home? Would a court believe them or the physical evidence i.e. the fact I passed the breathalyser test? Any court would use physical evidence. What USADA is doing cannot stand up to scrutiny and as far as I am concerned appears to be a witch hunt. It is we say you are guilty now prove your innocence.
LeonG

Cairo, Egypt

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

With regard to the Armstrong saga - I have never so far read such ignorant and uninformed comments on this topic tyhat has been going on for many years. No wonder there are nly three of you.
get informed - there is plenty o hard evidenc4 against this man.
Gus

Vancouver, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

LeonG wrote:
With regard to the Armstrong saga - I have never so far read such ignorant and uninformed comments on this topic tyhat has been going on for many years. No wonder there are nly three of you.
get informed - there is plenty o hard evidenc4 against this man.
...print it all out,show the World what you know to be TRUE!...everyone is innocent until proven!
Laurent

Fort Lauderdale, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Guilty 100%, everyday in court poeple get pronounced guilty for crime just base on witness declaration . But what is shame is all those fan who still do not want admit it.same bag ,douche bag.
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

DaveUK it is not just th UCI who does not have the file report USADA say they have compiledto charge Armstrong with it is in fact No One including Armstrong and they wanted him to appear to defend charges with evidence no one has been issued with.

Laurent the point you make is correct in a court of law however you appear not to hve all the past facts in the matter. The US Government with the same evidence USADA have were told by the Justice Department (Attorny General Office) to Drop the Case as it would be thrown out as soon as it was presented due to insecure nature of the evidence.

The Federal Court Judge in recent hearings for a temporary restraining order by Armstrong against USADA condemned USADA case and stated their was serious constitutional issues in the way they have compiled their case and pursued Armstrong. Armstrong lawyers were also chasticed for asking a single law court (US Law and Courts System) to rule on an issue that had over 3 administering bodies who could not agree on the jurisdiction let alone anything else.

The simple Fact is it has been stated by the US Government they do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Armstrong. Their case was a Fraud case based on him doping whilst in a Team funded by US Government money therby defrauding the US Government. Point to note also is that everyone else in his Team who say they were all at it were not receiving lawsuuits but would testify against Armstrong in return.

Its OK to like someone to the point of not seeing any wrong doing in the same way it is to hate someone you think is a douche bag but both are the same from positions of not having all the facts and based on what you see and like/dislike, nothing more or less.

For me I dont care if he did or didnt dope because as a cycling fan it was rife and so many others from domestiques to title winners have been caught so if we take it they all doped he still was the best on a level playing field.

Laurent, you also may think he is a douche bag and he may bethe most horrible person someone could wish to meet but if he is he is also someone who doesnt just take the money and run and set up his foundation when he survived Cancer and has dedicated his life to it helping and saving many.
If you were in the unfortunate of needing help from his foundation would you pass it up because he is, in your opinion a douche bag? I wouldnt and neither would you.

People need to see him in his separate roles

A man with a a family
A Cancer survivor
A serious charity founder and benefactor
A cyclist who won many big titles

He was a serious contender who demanded the most from himself and his team with a drive very few have and this drive has run through his life right into his foundation. His foundation would not have raised $500million without it and it was not just after he won the titles it happened as soon as he started to recover.

Laurent, just remember its not what we say or claim to do in life that measures us but what we actually do and his worth FOR ME is greater off the bike than on it but on the bike it was immense and I would rate him as the 2nd best rider of all time after Eddie Merckx who will take a hell of a lot to surpass and even Eddie received a ban for doping but his standing and record are not contested due to his greatness on the bike.

Finally Laurent it not about admission of guilt or acceptance if he did or did not but the immoral process being pursued to tarnish someone at USADA wants to bring down even by breaking their rules and those of the associated bodies and regulations they agreed to work within. I would assume if that happened to you you would be unhappy as well? we all would.
Charles Darwin

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Armstrong is the greatest fraud to exist. An innocent man of Armstrongs narcissistic character would never ever ever give in. Armstrong did not want to face the likes of George Hincappie and many others who witnessed his drug taking.Lance has become very wealthy via fraud...FULL STOP !
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Charles Darwin, that doesnt seem to be the best of names to quote against Armstrong which after all appears to be just an 'evolution of the species'! Thats just a joke mate.

One MAJOR issue in reviewing this matter is the single concentration on Armstrong as a PED cheat which I understand due to his standing in Sport and Life however the whole Sport has an admitted issue with PED's used wide spread and this is nothing new. Armstrong deserves the same treatment as anyone and everyone else accused and you will not find anywhere else the intensity of of approach and the severity of proposed punishment under the same circumstances.

Armstrong joined US Postal after Hincapie and the PED culture was already in place there before he joined and this includes Hincapie and the others.

I cannot say he took PED's or didnt and the likelihood is he did because you simply cannot win against those who take them unless you are super human and thats also unlikely. The measurement of his success therefore has to be, assuming he and the rest cheated and we know all the TDF winners who did to date, is that he is actually the best and for such a long time as well.
Is it also not strange that whilst he was winning he was hailed by everyone ESPECIALLY the sponsors as Great and now he has been tarnished with this brush of cheating are the Sponsors demanding their money back? NO because he was everything they wanted and more.

Everyone also needs to be very careful NOT to cast other riders as lilywhite and clean just because they want to see Armstrong fall from grace, this simply is nieve and foolish.

Armstrong did set many records and so diid Hincapie. Whilst thinking he was the gentleman of the peleton and a reliable witness has anyone thought to question how 1 cyclist can ride at the front of a peleton assumed to be full of PED's for all the years he did and be a member of 9 different TDF winning teams. How did he achieve this without PED's? How did he achieve this as Sport Science moved on dramatically with all the new young riders coming through who were far better trained and prepared for Road Cycling than he ever was and they are younger, faster, fitter. How did an aging cyclist do all of that, was he super human? Is it worth questioning?
Also remember he and the rest are receiving endorsements for their testimony.

The point people need to remeber is the process must be fair and just, the evidence used secure and without reproach and the witnesses reliable. Public perception is also important and the longer Hincapie and the rest are set on pedastals as truth seeking contrite athletes the harder the fall shall be when all of this finally unravels.

This whole issue to me resembles a incensed crowd baying for some kind of blood before all the facts are known and what we all should remember is that we only see and hear a very small portion of what is happening behind the scences.

Armstrong doesnt do anything without consideration and this situation is the best he was able to achieve under the circumstances of a loaded hearing from USADA and during this time everyone who has a vested interest in him now and for the future work whatever magic they need to, and make no mistake it is happening. Amnesty for riders from UCI being considered by WADA....well where do you think that has come from?
Armstrong has also been asked many times to enter Politics and those who want to see this happen will be pushing it harder which may see the USADA case dissolve.

Is he the greatest Fraud ever..NO..there are far greater Frauds in history and currently that we see and most we dont.
If he is a Fraud then I would like everyone else who great/cause a Fraud to produce the same results away from Sport/Life as Armstrong has.

History will remembr him lastly as a Sportsman and more as great Fundraiser and more than likely a Politician. If Ronald Regan can become Presidet of USA 'twice!' I think Armstrong is capable of it once.
Gus

Vancouver, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 18, 2012
 
Charles Darwin wrote:
Armstrong is the greatest fraud to exist. An innocent man of Armstrongs narcissistic character would never ever ever give in. Armstrong did not want to face the likes of George Hincappie and many others who witnessed his drug taking.Lance has become very wealthy via fraud...FULL STOP !
...and the Crook old Band played ''Believe it if you Like!''
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

GeeMan wrote:
DaveUK it is not just th UCI who does not have the file report USADA say they have compiledto charge Armstrong with it is in fact No One including Armstrong and they wanted him to appear to defend charges with evidence no one has been issued with.
Laurent the point you make is correct in a court of law however you appear not to hve all the past facts in the matter. The US Government with the same evidence USADA have were told by the Justice Department (Attorny General Office) to Drop the Case as it would be thrown out as soon as it was presented due to insecure nature of the evidence.
The Federal Court Judge in recent hearings for a temporary restraining order by Armstrong against USADA condemned USADA case and stated their was serious constitutional issues in the way they have compiled their case and pursued Armstrong. Armstrong lawyers were also chasticed for asking a single law court (US Law and Courts System) to rule on an issue that had over 3 administering bodies who could not agree on the jurisdiction let alone anything else.
The simple Fact is it has been stated by the US Government they do not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Armstrong. Their case was a Fraud case based on him doping whilst in a Team funded by US Government money therby defrauding the US Government. Point to note also is that everyone else in his Team who say they were all at it were not receiving lawsuuits but would testify against Armstrong in return.
Its OK to like someone to the point of not seeing any wrong doing in the same way it is to hate someone you think is a douche bag but both are the same from positions of not having all the facts and based on what you see and like/dislike, nothing more or less.
For me I dont care if he did or didnt dope because as a cycling fan it was rife and so many others from domestiques to title winners have been caught so if we take it they all doped he still was the best on a level playing field.
Laurent, you also may think he is a douche bag and he may bethe most horrible person someone could wish to meet but if he is he is also someone who doesnt just take the money and run and set up his foundation when he survived Cancer and has dedicated his life to it helping and saving many.
Maybe an exact quote of the judges response to armstongs temporary restraining order is in order "Sam Sparks, of United States District Court, criticised Armstrong's lawyers for submitting a lengthy complaint filled with allegations that "were totally irrelevant to Armstrongís claims".
Sparks went further and concluded the court was left to presume that the allegations "were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against" the anti-doping agency and Travis Tygart, the agency's chief executive, who is also named as a defendant.
"This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims," Sparks said:"
I am sorry i do not have the quote for his opinions of the usada which i am sure would lend some balance to what i have written above. But it is worth mentioning that that the judge does not have any of the material USADA have compiled on Armstrong or any knowledge of the details of where and how and when it has been compiled. Just as we do not, and it is not correct to say that "The US Government with the same evidence USADA have were told by the Justice Department (Attorny General Office) to Drop the Case as it would be thrown out as soon as it was presented due to insecure nature of the evidence" It has been made clear by UASDA that it is not using the us governments evidence but it is using its own evidence that it has independently gathered. I hope this helps to clear up some of the facts about this case for you, as you clearly did not have them all.
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

turtle you are wrong about the evidence, the Judge commented on it as well as USADA themselves which you should quote both sides of and not just one. He made damning comments about USADA and basically stated they dont have a case.

Its all in the record clear as day which you obviously found and did not quote acurately.

The evidence being used by USADA is in fact the same and admitted as such when asked about the oath used to gain the testimony USADA said it was to Federal Investigators NOT USADA Official who are not and cannot engage Federal Investigators in their work.

Try researching a lot more about this case before making one sided comments. If you take time to read my other posts on this matter you will see I try and make even handed comments based on FACTS and not what suits my views which you appear to be doing. The Judges ruling in FULL is available on the net for you to read and then change your opinions.

As I said above find the FACTS first as you are only making stuff up otherwise which is clear to see.

You should also try and read up on USADA other cases and see if you still wish to jump to their defence.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 18, 2012
 
GeeMan wrote:
turtle you are wrong about the evidence, the Judge commented on it as well as USADA themselves which you should quote both sides of and not just one. He made damning comments about USADA and basically stated they dont have a case.
Its all in the record clear as day which you obviously found and did not quote acurately.
The evidence being used by USADA is in fact the same and admitted as such when asked about the oath used to gain the testimony USADA said it was to Federal Investigators NOT USADA Official who are not and cannot engage Federal Investigators in their work.
Try researching a lot more about this case before making one sided comments. If you take time to read my other posts on this matter you will see I try and make even handed comments based on FACTS and not what suits my views which you appear to be doing. The Judges ruling in FULL is available on the net for you to read and then change your opinions.
As I said above find the FACTS first as you are only making stuff up otherwise which is clear to see.
You should also try and read up on USADA other cases and see if you still wish to jump to their defence.
must just say that i am not making things up, maybe i am mistaken or confused but was honestly writing what i thought to be factually correct and intended nothing more than to clarify matters. Put me in my place, if i am wrong. No problem, but the line between facts and fiction was not crossed deliberately. The mixing of opinions with facts is something i wished to prevent.
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

turtle the only information that interests me in the Judges summing up was his own which was made public and available for all to see.

Both sides were criticised but USADA got the worst of it questioning their motives, evidence to charge sheet balance which was poor to say the least and also raised the possibility that USADA approach against LA raised serious concerns on his Civil Liberties.

Check it out and you will see what I am saying is correct and balanced.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 20, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

GeeMan wrote:
turtle the only information that interests me in the Judges summing up was his own which was made public and available for all to see.
Both sides were criticised but USADA got the worst of it questioning their motives, evidence to charge sheet balance which was poor to say the least and also raised the possibility that USADA approach against LA raised serious concerns on his Civil Liberties.
Check it out and you will see what I am saying is correct and balanced.

I did read the summing some time ago and remember it a bit differently than you.U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the lawsuit as speculative."With respect to Armstrong's due process.challenges, the court agrees they are without merit" Sparks also criticized USADA's initial charging letter sent to Armstrong in June, stating that "the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern.Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding there under,"Sparks said. "First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration."
HE chose not to, and by doing so he accepted the following charges

1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.
The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused. He has chosen to be where he is, if anyone started a witch hunt it is armstrong himself. He bated investigators using social media and has history of interfering with a witness. Many people believe he bully's people with these actions.
Having weathered Armstrong's attempts to have this case thrown out by a judge, political pressure from one of the rider's supporters in Congress, criticism from sections of the US media, and the UCI's opposition to the process, Usada remains confident its side of the story will convince all but the most ardent of the rider's supporters.
Also to just to clarify, "Usada has not had access, despite requests, to the evidence the Food and Drug Administration investigators gathered, and has built its own case". Some misunderstanding has occurred because facilitators from both the federal investigation and usada were present during the taking of some of the witness statements.
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 20, 2012
 
turtle - see other post for full judges comments
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

GeeMan wrote:
turtle you are wrong about the evidence, the Judge commented on it as well as USADA themselves which you should quote both sides of and not just one. He made damning comments about USADA and basically stated they dont have a case.
Its all in the record clear as day which you obviously found and did not quote acurately.
The evidence being used by USADA is in fact the same and admitted as such when asked about the oath used to gain the testimony USADA said it was to Federal Investigators NOT USADA Official who are not and cannot engage Federal Investigators in their work.
Try researching a lot more about this case before making one sided comments. If you take time to read my other posts on this matter you will see I try and make even handed comments based on FACTS and not what suits my views which you appear to be doing. The Judges ruling in FULL is available on the net for you to read and then change your opinions.
As I said above find the FACTS first as you are only making stuff up otherwise which is clear to see.
You should also try and read up on USADA other cases and see if you still wish to jump to their defence.
If you have gone back and re read the summary as you have advised me to, checked some of the facts you implied i made up or misrepresented. Hopefully you will of concluded that your high handed tone about checking facts, making things up, cherry picking may just of been a little unfair. Also that some of your comments ("He made damning comments about USADA and basically stated they dont have a case) for example and there are many more i could quote. Are in fact your opinion or interpretation of the facts. Which i and many others would disagree with. We are all entitled to our own opinions and thoughts. But as i originally said to you. I thought that your mixing of the two, could in some cases be quite blurred. Giving the impression that some of your comments or opinions were facts or obvious conclusions to draw from the said facts.
You do make some good points and have some interesting things to say on the subject. So it is a shame that you opinions do not always match the facts you are quoting. Try researching a lot more about this case before making one sided comments. If you take time to read my other posts on this matter you will see I try and make even handed comments based on FACTS and not what suits my views which you appear to be doing. The Judges ruling in FULL is available on the net for you to read and then change your opinions.
I think you will find that comments like the above paragraph can come across as being a little condescending and insulting. If you do look at my other posts i think you will see that i stay clear of making, what some people may view as being obnoxious comments like these.
ok, hopefully we can both move past slight digs at one another, and if you feel i have been rude or in anyway offensive i apologies wholeheartedly.
GeeMan

Liverpool, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

turtle there shall be enough in the summary document on the link along with reported summary comments made by the judge in the press that shall keep you, me and everyone else occupied in debate and determining what has and has not been said. Thats the beauty of debates and there are, I would imagine, far better minds involved closer to the events that will have different opinions to ours.

If you read other posts Ive written my stance is not to do with doping but how they are pursued and caught which will shape the future of Sport, in my opinion. This could be an important watershed case for the future and it has many great aspects to it none less than LA refusal to participate which may well not have run it course.

One point that can be struggled with is if it is suitable to take whatever measures to catch real criminals should the values applied there be changed in the pursuit of Sportsmen and woman who cheat? I would say no as one set of rules is consistent and that is what I dont see we have in this case and with the new approach from UCI/USADA on amnesties I am not sure it will be achieved.

Anyway I dont take offence at what you say or anyone else on here, even those who like to invest time in wasting it which you will have seen by now.
skicoach

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Turtle, you seem to be very well informed so please tell me exactly what Hincappie has to say about Lance Armstrong. I mean, I live in France and I actually saw him win his tours and it mean't a great deal to me - but I haven't heard or seen anything credible that could undo this. As far as I know neither has anybody else. What happened to the American constitution and the right to presumption of innocence and a fair trial - not a kangaroo court? I gather that the "due process" that USADA has applied is completely transparent, isn't it? That was a month ago now so where is the evidence? You can't fight a witch hunt - that's why there is a constitution prohibiting it. I would have had no objection whatsoever regarding a proceeding from the Department of Justice - but this is a real joke.
GeeMan

Bo'ness, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ski - charge sheet was issued 12 June this year.

USADA advised it shall be a few weeks before their Report to UCI/WADA/Armstrong is ready to release.

It looks like to me USADA have been caught out by Armstrong decision not to participate and now the evidence they would have tabled before now needs to be stronger for the formal issue rather than amended via the Hearing process.

It doesn't come across as being well managed if you consider if it was anyone of us who was at the end of no information.

We shall all see in time if the case is robust or not and we can all see if it was a worth the effort or not.

One factor that has made the process distasteful is the same efforts have not been made for other athletes let alone cyclists and the attraction of the Armstrong name appears to be sufficient vindication for USADA.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Tour de France Discussions

Search the Tour de France Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13) Jul 3 DCDierking 38
Shadows on the Road, by Michael Barry Apr '14 Donna OBrien 1
Cycling: Lance Armstrong 'still lying' says USA... (Jan '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 27
Opinion: Should we just stop asking about doping? (Jul '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 31
Lance Armstrong tweets that he's returned Olymp... (Sep '13) Apr '14 Carly Jane 2 2
Tygart waits for Armstrong to be part of the so... (May '13) Aug '13 My Opinion_El Paso_Texas 3
Tour convenes former riders for 100th edition (Jul '13) Jul '13 My Opinion_El Paso_Texas 6
•••
•••
•••