I've now read most of the 200-page report outlining the doping evidence against 7-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.

I suppose there is still a very small possibility that Armstrong is telling the truth about never having doped (anything's possible).

But based on the evidence in the report, that possibility is very, very small.

More likely, as the USADA concluded, Armstrong built, managed, and enforced a systematic doping program for the US Postal Service team and doped himself every year in which he won the Tour de France.

And then, yes, lied about it for more than a decade.

Given how much has come out about this era of pro cycling, this news isn't shocking: Most (all?) of the top riders in that era appear to have doped. And as many of Armstrong's teammates have since said, you simply couldn't have remained competitive if you didn't dope.

What would have been shocking would have been if Lance Armstrong had told a persuasive story explaining how he won 7 Tours racing clean while everyone he was racing against, and most of his teammates, were doping.

I was willing and eager to hear that story.

But Armstrong chose not to tell it.

Rather, Armstrong chose to do what he has always done when confronted with increasingly conclusive evidence of his doping: Attack the accusers and portray himself as a victim.

I believe that if Armstrong had been wrongly accused, he would have told his story. He still might have lost his case--the evidence against him is so overwhelming that any defense would be very hard to believe--but he would have had nothing to lose by telling his story and getting it out there.

So I regard Armstrong's decision not to tell his story as further evidence that he did what most reasonable people now think he did.

And that brings us to what Armstrong should do now that the evidence has been released.

Based on the aggressive and defiant statement he issued when he announced that he would not fight the doping charges, Armstrong still believes that he is the one who has been wronged.

That's absurd.

The revelation that "everyone was doing it" explains why everyone on Armstrong's team doped, but that doesn't make it right. And as is clear in the lengths Armstrong's team went to to hide their doping, they knew it wasn't right.  But, unlike Armstrong, Armstrong's teammates eventually chose to tell their stories anyway and accept the consequences.

I'm still hopeful that, someday, Armstrong, too, will decide to tell his story and accept the consequences (which, in his case, could include major financial damage and, possibly, perjury charges related to statements he made while testifying under oath in a lawsuit with a sponsor).

Given all Armstrong has overcome in his life, and everything he has accomplished, I have no doubt that he could overcome the consequences of telling his story. And he would he could end up being an even more inspiring role model and human being if he did.

Based on Armstrong's recent statement, he doesn't appear to be anywhere close to doing that.

But if he's not going to tell his story, Armstrong could still do one thing that would mark a small but meaningful step toward redemption.

He could apologize to the many people he savaged and attacked over the years for telling their stories and accepting the consequences.

In the "doping era" of professional cycling, it is now clear, you did not just have to agree to break the rules.

You had to agree to lie.

And Armstrong was brutal to those who broke that tacit agreement.

Who were the people Armstrong savaged over the years?

• Many of his former teammates and friends, including Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis.
• The wife of one of his teammates, Betsy Andreiu.
• A former team "soigneur," Emma O'Reilly
• Former champion cyclist Greg LeMond
• Other professional cyclists
• The head of the US Anti-Doping Agency, Travis Tygart
• A journalist named David Walsh, who was one of the first to write extensively about the doping story
• And others

As the USADA evidence makes clear, all these people had very good reason to believe that Armstrong doped, that Armstrong insisted that his teammates dope, and that Armstrong hired and managed the doctors and managers who established the systematic US Postal Service doping program that helped all of them dope.

If, somehow, all these people were wrong about Armstrong--or "misremembered" events and conversations--they can be forgiven for doing so. As the USADA's report makes clear, the appearance of impropriety was overwhelming.

No one deserves to be savaged for telling the truth, especially when the story is, in some cases, forced out of them with the threat of prosecution.

So, whether or not Armstrong actually doped, he owes these people an apology.

SEE ALSO: Here Are The Two Choices Lance Armstrong Has Now

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Lance Armstrong has stepped down as chairman of the Lance Armstrong Foundation on the same day that Nike terminated his contract in the face of "seemingly insurmountable" doping allegations.

Armstrong will remain on the 15-member board, the AP reports, but stepped down as chairman "to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding [his] cycling career."

Here's his statement:

"In 1996, as my cancer treatment was drawing to an end, I created a foundation to serve people affected by cancer.  It has been a great privilege to help grow it from a dream into an organization that today has served 2.5 million people and helped spur a cultural shift in how the world views cancer survivors.  This organization, its mission and its supporters are incredibly dear to my heart.

"I am deeply grateful to the people of the foundation who have done such hard and excellent work over the last 15 years, building tangible and effective ways to improve the lives of cancer survivors. And I am deeply humbled by the support our foundation has received from so many people throughout the world – survivors, world leaders, business leaders and of course, the cancer community itself.  We turn to this community frequently for guidance and collaboration to achieve our shared goals.  They are unfailingly generous with their wisdom and counsel and I can never thank them enough.

"I have had the great honor of serving as this foundation’s chairman for the last five years and its mission and success are my top priorities. Today therefore, to spare the foundation any negative effects as a result of controversy surrounding my cycling career, I will conclude my chairmanship."

The announcement came minutes before Nike announced that it was cutting ties with Armstrong. The company said in a statement that it will continue to support the cancer-fighting charity.

Darren Rovell of ESPN reports that Nike and Livestrong has raised $80 million on the sale of Livestrong bracelets since 2004. The charity on the whole has raised $480 million to fight cancer since 1997.

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Nike terminated its contract with Lance Armstrong today, a rare move for a company known for standing by its embattled athletes.

For context, Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, and Marion Jones were all Nike endorsers when their respective scandals blew up, and the company didn't terminate any of them.

Interestingly, Nike also stood by Alex Rodriguez when confessed to using steroids in 2009.

Here's what Nike said at the time (emphasis ours):

"Nike does not condone the use of illegal substances in sport and agrees with Alex Rodriguez that they should not be used. We will have no further comment at this time."

And here's what they said about Armstrong today (emphasis ours):

"Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him. Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner."

Nike made similar statements, but they took different actions.

The company didn't terminate Rodriguez when he admitted to cheating. Instead, as ESPN's Darren Rovell points out, they did what they almost always do in these situations: they waited for the endorsement deal to expire in 2010 and didn't renew it.

While Rodriguez still wears Nike gear, he is not under contract with the company today, Rovell reports.

A-Rod's case reveals one key fact about the nature of Nike's firing of Armstrong — it wasn't just because he cheated. While Nike has never condoned steroids use, the company doesn't have any precedent of canning cheaters on principle.

Rodriguez, Marion Jones, Justin Gatlin — they all used PEDs, and they all stayed on Nike's books until their contracts expired.

It takes something extraordinary to get terminated by Nike. Only Michael Vick and now Armstrong have ever managed to do it.

So the likely real reason Nike canned Armstrong — the extraordinary, fireable offense — is actually hidden in the first part of their statement this morning: He "misled Nike."

The suggestion that Lance lied to them and betrayed the company is the only thing present in the Armstrong statement that isn't present in the company's handling of other known PED users. It wasn't the PED use, it was the professional betrayal that did Lance in.

This isn't to say that Nike was wrong for terminating Armstrong. But the notion that Nike is making a statement about the morality of PED use by firing him is false.

DON'T MISS: The Long, Ugly Downfall Of Lance Armstrong >

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Nike terminated Lance Armstrong's contract today in the face of "insurmountable evidence" that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.

Even though it seems like Armstrong's world has only recently come crashing down, the fact is he has been fighting cheating allegations since his first Tour de France in 1999.

It has been a long, long downfall.

We took a look back at this past decade or so to see trajectory of Armstrong's fall, from the failed drug test in 1999 to Nike's termination today.

In the early '90s he wasn't yet a contender for the Tour de France title. He won a stage in 1995, but that was as far as his success went

In 1996, he was diagnosed with late-stage testicular cancer that had spread all over his body

Source: Cycling News

He was only given a 40% chance to live

Source: People

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Union Cycliste International (UCI) president Pat McQuaid will not appeal the ban on Lance Armstrong ordered by the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling," McQuaid said at the 7 EDT press conference.

This drives the final nail in the coffin for Armstrong.

Tour de France president Christian Prudhomme has said that he will strip Armstrong of his Tour titles from 1999-2005 if UCI supports the USADA decision.

The USADA report found that Armstrong and other members of his team "ran the most sophisticated doping program ever."

Armstrong has already lost most of his sponsors—worth around $50 million over the next five years—and may face lawsuits from them too.

More from the press conference ...

McQuaid explains why UCI didn't stop Armstrong and other dopers earlier. He points to limits in technology and enforcement powers, both of which have improved in recent years.

"I'm sorry that we couldn't catch every damn one of them red handed at the time and throw them out of the sport," McQuaid says.

What elements of the USADA report surprised him most?

"As a cyclist and someone coming from a cycling background, I was sickened when I read the USADA report," McQuaid says.

How will Armstrong be remembered?

"He deserves to be forgotten," McQuaid says.

McQuaid takes a series of questions about a donation UCI received from Armstrong.

"Don't try to make the connection between the donation and the tests," McQuaid said testily. Accusations that Armstrong bought off the UCI are "absolutely untrue."

McQuaid quotes John F Kennedy: "When written in Chinese the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger and the other represents opportunity. I like to look at this crisis as an opportunity."

UCI will decide on Friday what to do with the titles and prize money from Tour races that Armstrong won.

Now see a complete guide to the long, ugly downfall of Lance Armstrong >

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Lance Armstrong hasn't admitted to doping, but he has accepted the UCI's decision to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles, at least based on his Twitter bio.

Yesterday, Armstrong's twitter bio said, "Father of 5 amazing kids, 7-time Tour de France winner, full time cancer fighter, part time triathlete," the AP points out

Now it looks like this:

He still has the Livestrong URL in there, even though he resigned as chairman in the wake of the scandal last week.

Armstrong has spoken indirectly about the doping charges against him in the days and weeks after the USADA dropped its bombshell report. The night the report came out, he tweeted this:

What am I doing tonight? Hanging with my family, unaffected, and thinking about this. bit.ly/Po6mXT #onward

— Lance Armstrong (@lancearmstrong) October 11, 2012

In August he announced that he wasn't going to fight the USADA charges. And his strategy in the wake of the report seems to be consistent with that.

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Speaking as an ex-bike racer and a cycling fan, I never really liked Lance Armstrong. I was always an Eddy Merckx man.

I admired how he would begin his season in the mud and rain of the early Spring classics, win them, and still go on to win the Giro d’Italia, the Tour de France, and even—in 1974—the World Championship.

To me, that’s how you race a bike. You get out in the rain and you suffer and you go the whole way. I always found something kind of prima donna-ish about the way Lance would concentrate on only the most celebrated races, leaving gritty unpleasantries like Paris-Roubaix to cycling’s working class. That said, however, Lance was good. In the years of his activity, in fact, he was the best. And he won the Tour de France seven times.

The above statement, as of yesterday, is no longer technically true. On Monday, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI)—professional cycling’s governing body—declared that Lance Armstrong has never won the Tour. In accordance with the findings of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which has ruled that Armstrong took performance-enhancing drugs throughout his professional career, the UCI has banned Lance Armstrong from cycling for life, and stripped him of his professional titles.

According to all official histories—including Lance Armstrong’s personal Twitter account —the Texan cyclist has never won the Tour de France.

But he has.

I am not a defender of doping. I’m not one of these gladiatorially-inclined sportswriters who believe that the desire of fans to watch “the best of the best” should result in the chemical cyborg-ification of professional athletes. I’ve been too close to it all for that. I have known the 17-year-old guys who were hustled into vans and injected by shady “team doctors”; who stayed up all night shivering and pissing the bed with God-knows-what in their veins.

I know that it is not hugely uncommon for low-level pros to collapse in amphetamine-induced cardiac arrest after competing for 100 euro sprints in fairground races outside places like Delft. This type of thing is grotesque, is pernicious and is hugely more toxic on its crude, outer fringes than it was for pampered pros like Lance Armstrong, and I hope it will one day disappear. But Lance still won the Tour seven times.

European cycling is not the gentrified, North Face-clad sport that it is over here. It’s big money, and it’s a way off of the farm or the construction site for strong young guys named Oskar and Philippe and Ernst. At its highest levels, traveling from these muddy cobblestones to those icy mountain passes, six hours on the bike every day, it’s no fun at all. It’s a hyper-competitive world of wiry, improbable, strung-out greyhounds, and it’s druggy as hell.

Five-time Tour winner Jacques Anquetil (whose records still stand) once debated a government minister on the subject of doping. On live television, he told his stunned opponent that “only a fool would believe that one could do Paris-Roubaix on just water.” This is how cycling has mostly been, and there was a tacit acceptance of it. When French President Charles de Gaulle was asked about Anquetil’s unrepentant drug-taking, he responded "Doping? What doping? Did he or did he not make them play La Marseillaise abroad?"

This is why I think it’s still acceptable, and it’s more accurate, to say that Lance Armstrong won the Tour seven times. In my opinion, you would have to be a fool to believe that Lance Armstrong—teammate of Floyd Landis, patient of convicted drug-trafficker Michele Ferrari—did his Tours “on just water.”

He doped. So did the guys he beat. Sure, the higher-up guys got EPO and blood doping, and the working-class, the domestiques, probably got cheap crank and testosterone—but there were drugs everywhere. The Tour is big business, and if you want to ride in it, you do what your team says.

I’ve been following this story. I have heard the arguments of the purists, you know, “the winner is the one who placed first in accordance with the rules.” I understand that. I think that all bicycle races should be constantly monitored, and should be immediately followed by thorough testing of every rider. I don’t think, however, that you can go in years after the fact, and change an entire history due to a court ruling.

If Lance Armstrong didn’t win his seven Tours, then Jacques Anquetil didn’t win his five. Perhaps fellow Michele Ferrari patient Miguel Indurain didn’t win his five. Perhaps Eddy Merckx and Bernard Hinault didn’t win their five, and the Tours of the past half-century mostly didn’t happen. Maybe nothing happened. Do you see how ridiculous this gets?

Unfortunately for cycling and for the world, there is such a thing as an ill-gotten gain. Was J.P. Morgan, whose steel concerns violated all manner of labor laws, not a rich man? Did Idi Amin not retire in luxury? Are the villagers of Halabja, gassed by Saddam Hussein in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention in 1988, still alive? You might find it distasteful to compare the erasure of a cycling record to a humanitarian catastrophe, but it’s the same dangerous process. This is history. This affects our ability to talk about what took place. If we try and correct for crime and deceit, we’re left with very little.

There comes a point at which the past can no longer be edited. Where even sporting officials, whose job is to preserve one little part of human activity where fairness matters, should sit back and say “this happened.” Anything else gets very tangled and political, becomes a subject for experts and not for regular people. As I write this, the Wikipedia graphic for “Tour de France winners” displays three broad blanknesses: One for World War One, one for World War Two, and one for Lance Armstrong.

This is weird and jarring and trivial. It’s not a realistic approach. When we give up our actual history in favor of a better, fairer one that has the one disadvantage of not having occurred, we depart into fantasy. In the end, my solution for this isn’t medical or philosophical, or even cycling-specific. It’s typographical. In my view, as a writer and an editor, all of this would be better solved by the addition of one little symbol—the asterisk. Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France*. (* while on drugs, in a culture that is riddled with drugs, and against competitors who were likely on drugs.)

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Though U.S. has seen 40 percent growth in bicycle commuters since 2000, their numbers have yet to surpass 1 million. In contrast, there are 204 million personal vehicles on the road on a given day.

That's a shame.

Not only does biking to work have the potential to improve individuals' health, wealth and standard of living, but the combination of more cyclists and fewer cars on the road could give the entire country a much-needed boost. 

Here's why:

It is vastly cheaper than driving. Due to rising fuel costs and tire upkeep, the cost of owning a car increased nearly 2 percent in 2012 to $8,946, according to AAA. It costs just $308 per year to keep bikes in shape––nearly 30 times less than cars, according to the Sierra Club: "If American drivers were to make just one four-mile round trip each week with a bicycle instead of a car, they would save nearly 2 billion gallons of gas. At $4 per gallon, total savings would be $7.3 billion a year."

It's a free gym on wheels. Unlike taking an extra two hours per day (and a chunk of your paycheck) to hit the gym, cycling can be a seamless way to weave a workout into your daily routine. On average, bicycle commuters lose 13 pounds in their first year of cycling alone.

"[Bike commuting] can be a very effective cardiovascular benefit," says Lisa Callahan, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City.  "If you're overweight and start an exercise program, sometimes it's harder on your joints because you are overweight ... so something like swimming or biking that's not pounding on the joints can be a good thing." 

You won't miss morning traffic jams. Americans spend more than 25 minutes driving to work each day, according to the latest U.S. Census data, and trips can take nearly twice as long in populous cities like New York and Atlanta.  Cycling could help you get there faster. 

"Half of the working population in the U.S. commutes five miles or less to work, with bike trips of three to five miles taking less time or the same amount of time as commuting by car," writes Kiplinger editor Amanda Lilly.

You don't even have to own a bike. There's been a wave of new bike share programs in major cities like Washington, D.C., Boston, Chicago and Miami, which typically allow riders 30 to 45 minutes of free transportation for a small annual fee. When New York City's bike share launches in Spring 2013, annual memberships will cost $95 –– about $10 less than subway commuters spend per month.

We could save hundreds of millions on healthcare expenses. "The most important socio-economic impact of cycling lies in the area of health care," says Andy Clarke, president of the League of American Bicyclists. Nowhere is that more clear than in Portland, Ore. A study published in the Journal of Physical Activity and Health found that "during the next 30 years, Portland’s residents could save as much as $594 million in health care costs because of an investment into biking culture" and "fuel savings of $143 to $218 million." 

Businesses will save millions in lost productivity. A recent study by Dutch economic think tank TNO found people who commuted to work by bike were less likely to call in sick.  "Commuting to work by bicycle by just 1 percent could save [Denmark’s] employers approximately $34 million in lost productivity from absenteeism," Oregon state rep. Earl Blumenhauer writes in American Bicyclist.  "That’s assuming a workforce of 7.1 million people. The U.S. has more than 154 million people in its workforce."

It would make cycling safer for everyone. Much unlike cars, the more bicycles on the road, the safer it becomes for cyclists, research shows. "It's a virtuous cycle," Dr. Julie Hatfield, an injury expert from UNSW, says. "The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. And the safer cycling is perceived to be, the more people are prepared to cycle."

You're way more likely to get sick taking the bus. Fresh air does a body good. A recent study by the University of Nottingham found public transit riders were "six times more likely to suffer from acute respiratory infections," the New York Daily News reports. Supposedly, occasional riders were even more at risk. Another study found a host of illness-causing viruses lurking in passenger vehicles, including  E. coli, salmonella, and campylobacter, according to Safetyissues.com.

Uncle Sam will pay you to bike. Since January 2012, cyclist commuters have been entitled to a $20 per month tax-free reimbursement for bike-related expenses.  This applies to workers who bike at least three days per week to the office. Qualifying expenses include bike repairs and storage expenses, according to the National Center for Transit Research.

Women could use the extra bone support. As women age, they become increasingly susceptible to bone deterioration through osteoporosis.  A team of researchers from a Swedish university found middle-aged women were less likely to sustain wrist fractures if they commuted by bike or participated in other physical activities like walking.

You inhale more harmful exhaust in your car than on a bike.  While fuel emissions are bad news for any set of lungs, drivers are actually more susceptible to harmful air than bicyclists. "Studies show you get the biggest hit of the nasties when you’re inside a car," notes the Grist's Umbra Frisk. "Sure, a personal Mobile Emissions Source [ie: cars] appears hermetic, but it’s an illusion: MES occupants are very close to sucking on the tailpipe of the MES just ahead of them. In a bus, riders’ lungs are a bit above these sources. And bikers and pedestrians are on the outskirts."

You'll never have to worry about a parking spot again. Hundreds of major companies have entered the American League of Bicyclists' "Bicycle Friendly Business"  program and cities like New York require commercial office buildings by law to offer some sort of bike storage. Otherwise, invest in a sturdy bike lock and all you need is a spare bike rack or street sign to park your ride. Folding bikes are another useful option, as they can be packed into a bag and stashed easily under a desk or a closet. 

Our economy could use a boost. Cyclists in cities like Copenhagen have become the poster children for the benefits of cycling, both at the micro- and macroeconomic level.  In its 2012 Bicycle Account, the city says bike commuters generated savings ($0.42 for each mile biked) in just about every way imaginable: lowered transportation costs, security, branding/tourism, traffic infrastructure and public health. 

See Also: 15 cheap or free ways to lose weight >

Please follow Your Money on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Lance Armstrong has chosen to ignore the USADA's mountain of evidence against him and the UCI's decision to strip him of his seven Tour de France titles so far.

The night the USADA report dropped, he tweeted that he was "unaffected" without explicitly mentioning the charges. But other than quietly taking the "Tour de France winner" distinction out of his Twitter profile, he's trying to ignore the reality of what his public perception has become.

He appears to be doing great, though. He's currently lounging on the beach. It's unclear if he will ever address his many fans and talk about his doping use:

Alive and well in Hawaii.

— Lance Armstrong (@lancearmstrong) October 29, 2012

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Taxco, in southern Mexico, is home to an especially frightening sort of cycling race: the urban downhill.The course includes jumps, alleys, tight corners, and a lot of stairs.

Winner Brendan Fairclough did it all in under four and a half minutes.

The 24-year-old British rider's winning run was filmed via helmet cam by an equally daring biker trailing him. Check it out:

SEE MORE: Here's How The Wild Opening Scene Of "Skyfall" Was Filmed

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

A new safe cycling campaign calling risk-taking cyclists "stupid twats" has gotten attention and angered many.

Ride-Smart.org, created by advertising agency Karmarama, offers tips for safely cycling in the city, using the slogan: "Ride Smart — Don't Die Stupid."

The site notes that about 19,000 cycling accidents are reported on English roads every year, resulting in 3,000 fatalities or serious injuries. "A percentage of these," it says, are caused by "cyclists riding like twats."

The campaign includes a series of videos, posted on YouTube, featuring examples of unsafe cycling. Each is accompanied by a limerick, some of them surprisingly graphic and violent (see below), and is punctuated with the line, "What a stupid twat." Karmarama has also printed out the limericks and posted them around London.

While the campaign has certainly garnered attention, it has rankled some British cycling advocates, and not becuase it uses bad words. The problem, they say, is that it puts the blame for road accidents on cyclists, without addressing the need for drivers to use caution as well.

Mark Ames, a sustainable urban tavel advocate and editor of the blog ibikelondon, argues blaming cyclist stupidity is the wrong approach:

With over 3,000 cyclists injured and over 100 killed on Britain's roads so far this year - some in the most awful of circumstances - I'm not sure how this finger pointing campaign describing the deceased as "stupid" and "twats" can be seen to be in anyway helpful.

It is unclear if Karmarama produced this campaign for a client; the advertising agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Ames also pointed to a 2009 study by the Transport Research Laboratory that found cyclists were to blame in only seven percent of accidents. He is not alone in being angry with Karmarama:

Yes @karmarama, some cyclists are stupid, but the most common causes of serious injury are driver error. How about talking to them?

— Mike Pearson (@mikepearson) November 12, 2012

@karmarama Will you be doing a similar campaign for drivers telling them not to be stupid? And When? Ride-Smart is condescending at best

— Gary Dawes (@gazza_d) November 12, 2012

well you've got to admire @karmarama for uniting the entire cycling community ... against them

— Sally Hinchcliffe (@sallyhinch) November 12, 2012

Not all of the reactions on Twitter have been negative:

@eoghanlondon @karmarama as someone who's been knocked down by a cyclist jumping a light I'm with you

— Kilburn Mat (@MatofKilburnia) November 12, 2012

Here's one video produced by Karmarama:

And two of the limericks in question:

Updated: Karmarama has removed the content from Ride-Smart site, and replaced it with an apology:

We're very sorry for the offence caused by our efforts to create debate around the critical issue of cycling safety.

We're hugely pro-cycling and wanted to do something that would highlight the plight of cyclists on the road, as well as open up a debate about some of the less smart practices a minority of cyclists follow, like jumping red lights.

Again, sorry for the offence caused, it won't happen again.

SEE MORE: All Of These Cars And Boats Were Destroyed By Hurricane Sandy

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The launch of the long promised, often delayed bike share program for New York City was pushed back again on Friday.

In a press release, the New York City Department of Transportation announced the program will begin in May 2013.

In May of this year, the DOT and CitiBank, the program's sponsor, planned to launch the bike share in July 2012.

The launch was pushed back until August, then to March 2013, according to Transportation Nation.

Those delays were due to problems with the program's software.

The latest delay is the work of Hurricane Sandy, which flooded the New York City Bike Share (NYCBS) facility at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, damaging some electrical systems.

According to the press release:

NYCBS is currently working to identify, repair and replace these damaged parts, aided through insurance and supplemented by equipment that wasn’t stored at the Navy Yard, as well as by additional equipment from its supplier and from elsewhere in the delivery pipeline.

When Citi Bike does launch, it will be the largest bike share program in the country, with 5,500 bike at 293 stations in Manhattan (all south of 59th Street) and Brooklyn (all north of Atlantic Avenue).

By the end of 2013, another 1,500 bikes are expected to be installed, in Brooklyn and Long Island City, Queens.

SEE ALSO: Underground Construction Photos From NYC's New $2.4 Billion Subway Station

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Houston's bike share program, B-Cycle, will soon grow 11-fold, thanks to a $750,000 investment by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (BCBSTX).

A pilot program, launched in May 2012 with three Downtown kiosks and just 18 bikes, has been greatly successful: 1,200 people joined and bikes were checked out 2,000 times, according to Houston Public Radio.

With the funding from BCBSTX and a grant from the US Department of Energy, B-Cycle will expand to 24 stations and 222 bikes, Mayor Annise Parker said in a statement.

That expansion will take place in two phases: Phase II (the pilot being Phase I) will include 16 new stations in Downtown and other neighborhoods; four will be built at METRORail stops.

Phase III will bring stations to the Texas Medical Center, local universities, and more neighborhoods.

On top of the publicity, it is a good deal for the health care provider: Making bikes more available encourages cycling and healthier lifestyles, reducing medical costs.

"We hope this investment will help Houston children and families, not only find more convenient transportation, but get healthy and stay healthy through increased, fun physical activity," Bert Marshall, president of BCBSTX said in a news release.

SEE ALSO: This Deal Could Have Brought Life-Saving Subway Barriers To NYC For Free

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

After more than a decade of denials, Lance Armstrongwill come clean tonight in an interview with Oprah.

After the USADA released a mountain of evidence against Armstrong last fall, it was only a matter of time before he admitted to doping.

He'll do so tonight after losing his career, his rule in the Livestrong Foundation, his titles, and his lucrative endorsement deals.

It's a stunning fall from grace, but not a quick one. There have been whispers about Lance doping since 1999, and it took a lot of time and work to build the case against him.

1995: He won a single stage at the Tour de France, but found only limited success otherwise in the early 90s

1996: He was diagnosed with late-stage testicular cancer that had spread all over his body

Source: Cycling News

He was only given a 40% chance to live

Source: People

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Lance Armstrong confessed to doping his way to seven Tour de France titles in a 90-minute interview with Oprah tonight.

He said he started cheating in the mid-1990s, and took EPO, blood transfusions, and testosterone until 2005.

"I view this situation as one big lie that I repeated a lot of times," he told Oprah.

He also said he was done calling people liars.

But later in the interview, he denied former teammate Tyler Hamilton's story that Armstrong tested positive at the 2001 Tour de Suisse and had it covered up.

Hamilton testified that it happened in the USADA report against Armstrong. But Armstrong flat-out denied it to Oprah.

Armstrong also denied that he has ever bribed any person or governing body to cover up a positive test.

Here's the moment Armstrong came clean:

The confession was light on specifics, but Armstrong admitted that he was a bully, telling Oprah he wanted to hide the truth at all costs. He reflected on his past self and said, "Look at that arrogant prick."

Interestingly, Armstrong said that he didn't view himself as a cheater, and didn't see himself as doing anything wrong at the time. He viewed it as "a level playing field."

In the strangest moment of the night, Armstrong tried to tell a joke about a recent conversation he had with Betsy Andreu, who is the wife of Armstrong's former teammate Frankie Andreu. Betsy was one of the first people to say Armstrong was taking drugs, and Armstrong responded by publicly belittling her for years.

Armstrong, smiling, said he called her in the past few months and told her, "I called you crazy. I called you a b*tch. But I never called you fat."

Here's that video:

People who were adamant that Armstrong show contrition to the people he tried to destroy for telling the truth — his greatest crime — will likely not take the joke well in the coming days.

Overall: Lance said he was cheating the whole time in a general sense, but when Oprah pressed him on specific people or instances, he got slightly defensive.

Below you can find our live-blog with more quotes and screenshots.

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

The strangest moment of Lance Armstrong's doping confession last night was when he talked about a recent phone call he had with Betsy Andreu— the wife of Armstrong's former teammate, whom Armstrong tried to destroy for accusing him of taking PEDs.

"I called you crazy, I called you a bitch, but I never called you fat," Armstrong said he told Andreu.

Andreu previously said that she overheard Lance tell doctors in 1996 that he took PEDs. Armstrong refused to address the specific allegation last night, and the "I never called you fat" comment was all Andreu got in the way of a public apology.

She went on Anderson Cooper and absolutely unloaded on Armstrong immediately after the interview:

"I'm really disappointed. He owed it to me, you owed it me to Lance, and you dropped the ball. After what you've done to me, after what you've done to my family, and you couldn't own up to it. And now we're supposed to believe you? You have one chance at the truth, this is it. If he's not going to tell the truth, if he can't say, 'Yes the hospital room happened,' then how are we to believe everything else he's saying?"

A lot of people think suing and trying to destroy people like Andreu was Armstrong's worst offense. At least in Andreu's eyes, Lance didn't do enough last night to let him off the hook.

The video:

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Worried about cyclists with bells that cannot be heard by drivers, an Oregon man created the Orp Smart Horn: an incredibly loud, piercing bike horn that could save lives, but will certainly annoy bystanders.

Tory Orzeck of Portland designed the Orp's loudest sounds — what he calls "WAY loud"— to reach 96 decibels. That is louder than a motorcycle 25 feet away, and as loud as a power mower, according to Purdue University's Department of Chemistry.

On top of the sounds it plays, the Orp works as a strobe lamp, using two LEDs to pump out 87 lumens. The hope is to make cyclists visible and audible to drivers who might otherwise strike them accidentally.

While the device could certainly save lives, it just as likely to horrify pedestrians, drivers, and anyone in earshot.

To fund the Orp, Orzeck has launched a Kickstarter campaign, hoping to raise $90,000. With 19 days left to go, backers have pledged nearly $47,000.

Check out Orzeck's video pitch, which includes the Orp's sounds. Warning: Turn the volume down before playing.

Hear Here the Movie from Toren Orzeck on Vimeo.

WATCH: Researchers Blew Up Subway Cars To Prepare For Future Terrorist Attacks

Please follow Getting There on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Lance Armstrong's lawyers say the cyclist will talk more about drug use in the sport, just likely not to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency that led the effort to strip him of his Tour de France titles.

In a testy exchange of letters and statements revealing the gulf between the two sides, USADA urged Armstrong to testify under oath to help "clean up cycling."

Armstrong's attorneys responded that the cyclist would rather take his information where it could do more good — namely to cycling's governing body and World Anti-Doping Agency officials.

USADA's response to that: "The time for excuses is over."

The letters, obtained Friday by The Associated Press, underscore the continuing feud between Armstrong and USADA CEO Travis Tygart, the man who spearheaded the investigation that uncovered a complex doping scheme on Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service teams.

Armstrong's seven Tour de France victories were taken away last year and he was banned for life from the sport.

In an interview with Oprah Winfrey last week, Armstrong admitted doping, said he owed a long list of apologies and that he would like to see his lifetime ban reduced so he can compete again.

His most realistic avenue toward that might be telling USADA everything he knows in a series of interviews the agency wants started no later than Feb. 6.

That seems unlikely.

Armstrong attorney Tim Herman responded to USADA's first letter, sent Wednesday, by saying his client's schedule is already full, and besides, "in order to achieve the goal of 'cleaning up cycling,' it must be WADA and the (International Cycling Union) who have overall authority to do so."

By Friday night, Herman strongly suggested Armstrong won't meet with USADA at all but intends to appear before the UCI's planned "truth and reconciliation" commission.

"Why would we cooperate (with USADA)?" Herman said in a telephone interview. "USADA isn't interested in cleaning up cycling. Lance has said, 'I'll be the first guy in the chair when cycling is on trial, truthfully, under oath, in every gory detail.' I think he's going testify where it could actually do some good: With the body that's charged with cleaning up cycling," Herman said.

In its last letter to Armstrong, sent Friday evening, USADA attorney William Bock said his agency and WADA work hand-in-hand in that effort.

"Regardless, and with or without Mr. Armstrong's help, we will move forward with our investigation for the good of clean athletes and the future of sport," Bock's letter reads.

The letters confirm a Dec. 14 meeting in Denver involving Armstrong, Tygart and their respective attorneys, which is when, in Tygart's words, Armstrong should have started thinking about a possible meeting with USADA.

"He has been given a deadline of February 6th to determine whether he plans to come in and be part of the solution," Tygart said in a statement. "Either way, USADA is moving forward with our investigation on behalf of clean athletes."

The letters were sent to the AP after details about a Tygart interview with "60 Minutes," being aired Sunday, were made public.

Among Tygart's claims: Armstrong is lying when he says he didn't dope during his 2009-10 comeback.

Tygart said USADA's report on Armstrong's doping included evidence Armstrong was still cheating in those years.

"His comeback was totally clean," Herman said. "It's pretty fashionable to kick Lance Armstrong around right now."

Tygart also reiterated that an Armstrong associate offered USADA a donation of more than $200,000. Armstrong denied that in his interview with Winfrey, too.

In advancing his claim that USADA is only a bit player in the investigation, Herman noted in his letter, sent to USADA on Friday, that most cycling teams are based in Europe.

"I'm pretty sick of people trying to blame a European cycling culture that goes back to the 1920s on one guy," Herman said.

Bock's response to that: "Your suggestion that there is some other body with which Lance should coordinate is misguided," he said in his final letter.

SEE ALSO: Professional Chef And Other Readers Sue Lance Armstrong Over 'Memoir'

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Two weeks after he publicly admitted to using PEDs in an Oprah interview, Lance Armstrong spoke with Daniel Benson of Cycling News today.

And he had much more interesting things to say than he did two weeks ago.

Armstrong flat-out said that he views himself as the fall guy for an entire sport, and hinted that cycling's governing bodies have unfairly focused their attentions on him and his team.

He also questioned the assumption that his generation of cycling was uniquely dirty.

Here are the most interesting quotes.

On being scapegoated:

Cycling News: Do you feel like you're the fall guy for an entire sport/system?

Armstrong: Actually, yes I do. But I understand why. We all make the beds we sleep in.

On how his era of cycling wasn't particularly dirty:

"My generation was no different than any other. The 'help' has evolved over the years but the fact remains that our sport is damn hard, the Tour was invented as a 'stunt, and very tough mother f**kers have competed for a century and all looked for advantages. From hopping on trains a 100 years ago to EPO now. No generation was exempt or 'clean'. Not Merckx's, not Hinault's, not LeMond's, not Coppi's, not Gimondi's, not Indurain's, not Anquetil's, not Bartali's, and not mine."

On USADA CEO Travis Tygart saying Lance only came clean so he could compete in sanctioned events again:

"That was Travis' stunt to make me look self-serving."

On how to fix cycling:

CN: Why do you believe that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) is the best way forward for cycling?

Armstrong: It's not the best way, it's the only way. As much as I'm the eye of the storm this is not about one man, one team, one director. This is about cycling and to be frank it's about ALL endurance sports. Publicly lynching one man and his team will not solve this problem.

Read the entire interview here. >

Please follow Sports Page on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

US prosecutors said Tuesday they have no plans to press criminal charges against cycling cheat Lance Armstrong, despite his confession that he owes his Tour de France victories to illegal doping.

US Attorney Andre Birotte, who led a federal investigation into the disgraced rider, did not definitively rule out action, but said Armstrong's public admission had not yet changed the decision not to prosecute.

"We made a decision on that case, I believe, a little over a year ago," he said, when asked about the status of the federal inquiry into long-standing claims that Armstrong had run a doping program and had lied to federal agents.

"Obviously we've been well aware of the statements that have been made by Mr Armstrong and other media reports," he said, referring to Armstrong's bombshell confession to chat show legend Oprah Winfrey last month.

"That has not changed my view at this time. Obviously we'll consider -- we'll continue to look at the situation, but that hasn't changed our view as I stand here today," Birotte told a news conference in Washington.

The 41-year-old Texan was stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles last year after the US Anti-Doping Agency gathered compelling testimony that he had been the ring-leader of a large-scale doping conspiracy.

He had long angrily professed his innocence, including in questioning by US federal agents investigating the same allegations, but the mask fell away last month when he confessed his guilt to Winfrey in detail.

The admission threw up a number of legal questions, including whether the federal probe might be re-opened, whether he might be prosecuted for perjury and whether he might be sued to recover former payments and prize money.

Dallas insurance company SCA Promotions has already demanded the return of $12 million in bonuses it paid to Armstrong for multiple Tour titles.

SCA withheld a $5 million bonus due after Armstrong's sixth Tour de France win in 2004 because of doping allegations circulating in Europe, and Armstrong took them to court.

He won the case because SCA's original contract had no stipulations about doping, and Armstrong attorney Tim Herman told USA Today that the shamed cyclist doesn't intend to pay back any of the money.

"My only point is no athlete ever, to my understanding, has gone back and paid back his compensation," Herman told the newspaper in an article published Tuesday.

Herman cited New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton, who was suspended for a season by the NFL for the team's alleged pay-for-hits "bounty" scheme.

"They were suspended, but nobody said you've got to give your paycheck back," Herman said.

While Armstrong told Winfrey he would like to get his lifetime ban reduced, so that he could eventually compete in marathons, for example, by the time he's 50, Herman said the shamed cyclist was now prepared to cooperate with anti-doping authorities in a bid to clean up cycling even if is eligibility isn't restored.

"Whether it's a Truth and Reconciliation Commission or some comprehensive attempt to clean things up, it doesn't make any difference as long as something like that is convened," Herman said. "Lance will definitely cooperate."

Herman told the newspaper that Armstrong doesn't believe that USADA is best-placed to lead the battle against doping in cycling, since the sport is largely based in Europe.

Nor has USADA chief Travis Tygart's claim that Armstrong lied in some of his comments to Winfrey eased relations between the two parties.

"To hear Tygart tell it, Lance Armstrong is responsible for the culture he was dropped into on a team (that) was engaged in misconduct long before he got to the team," Herman said.

"He was a 19-year-old kid dropped in this culture, just like everybody else. He didn't create it."

SEE ALSO: Professional Chef And Other Readers Sue Lance Armstrong Over His 'Memoir'

Please follow Law & Order on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »