lying is big in this country...it is all around us

So will all of these people that made money by riding his coatails and then turned on him return their blood money?

Another Good Democrat: the ends always justify the means. What a proud moment in American Athletic Excellence.

Armstrong still denies doping, and I have yet to see a definite description of How He Did It.

I saw Lance Armstrong win those races, and I will always think he was the winner. If they can prove doping, I will reconsider, but until then Lance won.

I don't know why but something tells me this is a witch hunt. I could be wrong but I don't know...

There's lots of good sources out there to find out "How He Did It". You just need to look.

Tyler Hamilton's book "The Secret Race" is very good as well as going to the source:

http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/

The sworn affidavits in the appendices are quite good and illustrative.

USADA called it 'the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen', apparently because after passing hundreds of drug tests there appeared to be no evidence that he did anything wrong, so therefore he must have been doing something very sophisticated and wrong.
I see some lawsuits happening here.

guess what. They can't take his 7 victories away. He earned them and did a lot of good in the world. Bite me.

He won those races, you can't take that away from him. Apparently many of the second and third place winners have also been banned for drugs. Are they going to pretend they didn't hold the races those years? Will they give the medals to someone who knows they didn't earn it? Rewriting history can be so awkward, just ask the Russians.

USADA has about as much credibility as the Code Pink group.

A certain amount of the reporting on this is based on projection rather than investigation. While I have little doubt Lance crossed the line with steroids, I don't see any reason to suggest he is particularly humiliated by recent developments. If I had to imagine a "final humiliation" for him, it might be hearing that doctors erred in his diagnosis, and that he never had cancer after all.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Armstrong -- here are your testicles back... Sorry about that, old chap.

I was never a fan of Armstrong - didn't follow him - barely registered his Tour de France victories...

Something about this smells.

Why do I ask myself, even after the testimony, "Is this man being railroaded?"

Maybe its because I cared so little about the whole thing that I haven't really looked through the evidence. Maybe its because I don't trust the Anti-Doping Agency, which has been after his tail from the beginning, with no evidence at the time. Maybe its because the French hated him so vigorously. Maybe its because I often heard how various competitors, hating and accusing him of robbing them of victories, were so often caught for Doping, themselves.

Something really smells in this case. And I would like to remind everyone that consensus is not truth. In trials, we offer evidence and come to a consensus opinion. That doesn't mean the convicted is guilty in the eyes of God.

Nope. The "final humiliatoin" would be to find that the doping led/contributed to his cancer.

Were the 80s and 90s totally fraudulant in sports? My goodness... What happened to everybody.

I agree with #12.

I'm with #5. It seems odd that this much energy is being spent on stripping somebody of his medals. Whatever happened, it was apparently a widespread practice. And probably continues to be, using new and creative applications. If doping is such a problem, why aren't people using their outrage to prevent it from happening in current events rather than becoming hysterical about past history?

They have literally dozens of witnesses including 26 teammates that testified against him and blood samples showing Armstrong used drugs. He just used newer drugs then tested for at that time or as has been shown once caught he bribed his way out. He is very rich as a result but in the end he lost his medals and probably will his life as he had cancer probably caused by doping.

"Group think" is dangerous in this case. I would submit that he is not the only one doping in sports of cycling, but why single him out? Is it because he seemed to get away with it for so long?

Lance Armstrong is a jerk! He deserves everything he gets! I totally support an "agency" that can go after someone for years and years, changing the parameters of the investigation again and again until they finally bully/bribe enough people to testify against him so they can take as much of what he's achieved as they can.

/sarcasm

Be careful what you wish for. I don't care about his personality. I do care about a rogue agency that set out on a witch hunt.

And now I demand that anyone who takes the Tour de France win after Armstrong's ouster be investigated just as fully. Will we see it? Not likely. Where's the "fair" in that?

Until I see some actual proof, not just testimony of people who stand to gain by rolling over I am not buying.
Maybe the doping scheme was so sophisticated that no doping was involved.

Gosh, if we'd only go after elected officials when they lie, cheat and steal from us lilke they are going after a cyclist. You know, the elected officials who work for us and continually thumb their noses at us once they are re-hired each election cycle. Now, there is my idea of doping in cycling.

The Anti-Doping agency and their idea of arbitration is a joke. It is designed so that the accused has to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to prove their innocence with no legal recourse for the accused at all.

It's a huge miscarriage of justice.

I'm originally from Austin, worked for lawyers and knew one of the ones that worked for Lance. I'm not surprised by any of this, frankly. I've read many articles of his former team mates, I've read things former girlfriends (or whatever) have written, and there is a pattern of hiding. He had a very clever physician and they stayed ahead of the kind of chemical testing that could be done to find enhancers in the urine and the blood. I guess this is a great lesson in not putting anyone too high on a pedestal, it is not good for you, for you will be disappointed, nor is it good for them. Armstrong has lied to many people, and I think started believing his lies. He has hurt many people. He has not apologized. But I can tell you this: his personality and the way it is, he never would have back down from suing if he didn't finally realize they had the goods on him. Listen, if someone I knew was cheating and was basing his whole life on all the cheating, I wouldn't stay with him either.

#22 - pure, unadulterated baloney. The arbitration process is based on the American Arbitration Association (AAA) guidelines. Armstrong, had he chosen to, could have gone to arbitration.

He would have had pre-hearing access to evidence, he could have cross-examined witnesses. If the hearing was not to his liking, he could have appealed to CAS (Court of Arbitration of Sport) OR he could have appealed to a Federal Court.

He tried to get around the arbitration process previously, but a Federal Judge ruled against him saying that his rights were not impinged. However, Federal Court was always an option *after* the arbitration hearing.

Armstrong (as well as *every* other licensed rider in the US) agrees to this process. Every single one; from 10 year old juniors to the top ranked pro riders.

Lance tried to change the rules just for himself.

So who do they give these titles too?

The guy who finished 50th place each year, since he is probably the only one who didn't dope or otherwise cheat?

Wait, I know, let's give them to N∅bama. He deserves them every bit as much as the deserved that Nobel Peace Prize...

I am with #26 - these astute posters said it well.

I have a good friend that is part of the biking world and he said that everything that is coming out against Armstrong is true. He also said it's true that everyone in pro-cycling is doping. He said that it's almost impossible to get it out of the sport because there is so much money involved and most of these guys are only high school graduates so they literally have nothing to fall back on.

He also said that Armstrong is a first-rate jerk, which is also one of the reasons they pursued him with such tenacity. Apparently, Armstrong is a lot like Tiger Woods in that he created this great public persona but is really nasty and has destroyed more than few people, both professionally and personally.

He will have a hard time getting by on his $100 million... no friends, no women...