# BREAKING...Lance quits the fight...



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

To beat the dead horse into submission, this was just released...

Lance Armstrong Drops Fight Against Doping Charges, Will Likely Be Stripped Of Tour Titles And Banned For Life

Armstrong drops drugs fight: cycling legend to lose Tour de France titles


----------



## pop_martian (Mar 20, 2007)

We all knew it was coming. So is dropping the case the equivalent of an admission of guilt?


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

pop_martian said:


> We all knew it was coming. So is dropping the case the equivalent of an admission of guilt?


His statement was so wordy, repeating stuff we already know. It seems like if you are trying to lie, you make up a whopper of a story...


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

Its not the first or last time someone has used stuff.. Nothing new


----------



## gddyap (Sep 29, 2011)

pop_martian said:


> We all knew it was coming. So is dropping the case the equivalent of an admission of guilt?


Lance says he's not admitting guilt but the USADA considers it an admission of guilt if you don't go to arbitration with them. I think he figured USADA was going to win their own arbitration process no matter what so there was no use going through with it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## lidarman (Jan 12, 2004)

Damn, It's a conspiracy to take away from the awesome Jens Voigt stage win today!


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

:thumbsup:


lidarman said:


> Damn, It's a conspiracy to take away from the awesome Jens Voigt stage win today!


----------



## Mr. D (Jun 1, 2008)

bummer


----------



## rideit (Jan 22, 2004)

"I'm taking my ball and going home! "


----------



## GhostRing (Feb 29, 2012)

rideit said:


> "I'm taking my ball and going home! "


Zing!


----------



## bigpedaler (Jan 29, 2007)

about all it means is that LA can't do tri's anymore, like the XTerra he just did recently. Probably done w/ Leadville, too. The 7 titles are up to someone else, though.


----------



## The Grouch (Dec 31, 2010)

This sucks Lance is the man.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

The second place cheat will get the title until proven guilty.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

aedubber said:


> Its not the first or last time someone has used stuff.. Nothing new


If it's true, It's a huge legacy to win and then lose all of it. It's worse than S.F. Giants, Barry Bonds. Barry just gets an asterisk. Baseball doping comes in a lot of flavors. It's nothing new and they keep catching the cheaters every season.

But here Lance is losing everything, not fifty games. AFTER the USADA statue of limitations and never publicly testing positive.

It just completely tarnishes the idea of a hero. I'm bummed but not surprised.


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

best comments ever ftw!


----------



## bamwa (Mar 15, 2010)

even if the lab had a snail area, and a brain-cross-section area.......that's comedy gold.
I'm dying ova heer lol


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

This is a full admission of guilt, i'll start by saying i rate the guy highly, i have nothing against him n i have always been a great fan of the man and the rider..
But i'll tell you now theres no way a guy with his convictions n spirit would say 'enoughs enough' if he is innocent, he has faught many great battles in his life and if he was innocent theres no we he would take this line..
He has decided to do this so the truth has no way of being validated in court, imo his excuses were very weak n precious, he knows he is gone and does not want to face the music..
There is no person on this planet that would walk away from these accusations after winning the tour 7 times if they were really innocent, the guy is as guilty as they come and i believe he would have been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt..
I have lost a great deal of respect for him after this, and dont buy into his excuses for one second, he was one of many many riders on the tour that are guilty of using drugs, and there is also plenty of Aussie riders that have done and are doing the same thing..


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

johnnyb said:


> If it's true, It's a huge legacy to win and then lose all of it. It's worse than S.F. Giants, Barry Bonds. Barry just gets an asterisk. Baseball doping comes in a lot of flavors. It's nothing new and they keep catching the cheaters every season.
> 
> But here Lance is losing everything, not fifty games. AFTER the USADA statue of limitations and never publicly testing positive.
> 
> It just completely tarnishes the idea of a hero. I'm bummed but not surprised.


Yea i get what your saying and it def sucks but there is nothing we can do about it . I respect that guy for everything he has done, even if he did use, i still think hes a great athlete regardless . Everyone has to pay some consequences for their actions , i think this is a real wake up call to all the athletes . Hey clean or not we cant hate the guy :thumbsup: hes only human


----------



## Sean K (Mar 25, 2012)

I've been in and out of cycling for many years, so here's my take:

Lance may of doped (just blood) and used EPO at times, but he only did because basically EVERYONE else was doing it. All the hard hitters from Italy, France and Belgium were. Mario Cippolini, Marco Pantani and others were busted for EPO.

What chuffs me is that regular folks and the press especially act like any slob could juice up on EPO and win the Tour. When in all actuality, these guys are all nearly as fit as the human body will allow and the doping/EPO allows about an extra 3-5% in performance.

If the front runners are all doping and Lance beat them to win the tour, it's a legit win in my book. However Lance did other things that while legal, caused MANY competitors to cry foul. The nutritionist for the USPS team concocted what were deemed 'scooby snacks' that included many secret ingredients, but no drugs. They were rumored to have a special blend of sugars, carbs, amino acids and other compounds that after much research, were found to give an edge.

It's also rumored that Lance's blood chemistry is simply different and that his body makes more 'go' juice than most mere mortals, meaning that he would fail a dope test looking for elevated red-blood cells and EPO.



Lance shouldn't be stripped, but perhaps an asterisk added to indicate that doping was prevalent during the time he competed.

EPO / extra blood or not, he WON those tours.


----------



## blue42blue42 (Mar 17, 2012)

two cents:

He took the test that was presented and passed. For 13 years, they have done forensics to try to re-test. When that didn't work, they go on the word of others. Shouldn't there be a point in time where they give up? If they don't it really looks like they are on a witchhunt. 

How far back will they go to find others? Eddy Merckx? Will they investigate the rider that they give Lance's titles witrh the same agressiveness?

Lance was and it great for cycling, and for cancer research. If he was embarrassing cycling, or, for example, got caught doping in a triatholon, maybe they could justify the effort to discredit him.


----------



## 245044 (Jun 8, 2004)

Lance's "kobayashi maru", a No-win scenerio. This is why he gave up. He felt as though he couldn't win.


----------



## Millfox (Jun 22, 2012)

Thats quite a bummer. Lance is the reason I started biking. Some people just like to watch other people squirm.


----------



## pathetic_earthling (Jul 7, 2011)

Ah...maybe Lance should have channeled a little James T. Kirk and 'changed the circumstances of the test'.....


----------



## Fat Bob (Mar 5, 2004)

Lawyers cost a lot of $, trials take a lot of time... road bikes are ghey, so who gives a phuk.... I'd be interested to know what the ratings of the TdF are these days as compared to when the "doper" was bringing home the 5, 6, or 7th title? Fine with me, now I have more time to be Ameriken and watch Nascar & Football.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

blue42blue42 said:


> two cents:
> 
> He took the test that was presented and passed. For 13 years, they have done forensics to try to re-test. When that didn't work, they go on the word of others. Shouldn't there be a point in time where they give up? If they don't it really looks like they are on a witchhunt.
> 
> ...


Mate Marion Jones took n passed hundreds of tests, it means nothing if you have the best chemists on your side, they are miles infront of the testers, if the USADA did not act on this it would have been an epic fail, you dont need hard proof in life to find anybody guilty, 5 witnesses is more than enough to lock somebody away for life for murder, 5 witnesses is more than enough to have somebody found guily of doping, and if they were team mates even better, cheers


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Lance is guilty but it is still a witch hunt. Somewhere down the line he made an enemy he shouldn't have and is now paying the ultimate price (IMO). The politics of cycling- shouldn't be.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

Fat Bob said:


> Fine with me, now I have more time to be Ameriken and watch Nascar & Football.


Or how about watching Aaron Gwin killin' it on the DH worldcup?!


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

" leave me in peace, everybody takes dope."

Jacques Anquetil, tour winner '57, '61-'64


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

It has been suggested that Lance did not want to face the onslaught of witness testimony so he capitulated. Bruhneel is going to arbitration, so the story has yet been told. It will me interesting to hear what testimony comes out of this in the future as this is not the end, rather the beginning.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> It has been suggested that Lance did not want to face the onslaught of witness testimony so he capitulated. Bruhneel is going to arbitration, so the story has yet been told. It will me interesting to hear what testimony comes out of this in the future as this is not the end, rather the beginning.


It could be that he didn't want to put the witnesses, some who use to be his teammates and friends, though the whole ordeal when it appeared that the only outcome was a guilty conviction. Or maybe it's time for another book.

Isn't it time for bee and Prodigal Son to show up and get this thread closed?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

bedwards1000 said:


> Isn't it time for bee and Prodigal Son to show up and get this thread closed?


bee won't likely be making an appearance :
http://forums.mtbr.com/off-camber-off-topic/p-s-808004.html

And TPS would be wise not to make any rhetoric filled tirades imo.


----------



## Sean K (Mar 25, 2012)

pathetic_earthling said:


> Ah...maybe Lance should have channeled a little James T. Kirk and 'changed the circumstances of the test'.....


And munch an apple while doing so.:thumbsup:


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

:thumbsup: I agree. This entire thing is lame.


saturnine said:


> The second place cheat will get the title until proven guilty.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

Radio just reported that UCI is going to wait until they get to review USADA's info before stripping any titles from Lance.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

Well at least some organization is being practical.


----------



## pcoady (Feb 23, 2007)

S. s


----------



## blue42blue42 (Mar 17, 2012)

I definitely see your point. How many years do you think it is fair to defend your reputation? Lets say 5 people said the winner of the first tour (back in 1903?) was doping. Should we dig his grave up, take hair folicles, and try to prove it? At what point should they let it go? So they strip him of titles, who will they give it to? Will they perform the same scrutiny on that cyclist?

From Ocanada.com
PARIS — The cyclists Lance Armstrong beat to win his seven Tour de France victories may soon get a chance at his titles. But their ranks include men who have faced a tangle of doping bans and accusations, possibly presenting a headache for Tour leadership.

Here’s a look at who else was on the podium in the seven Tours that Armstrong won from 1999-2005:

1999

No. 2 : Alex Zulle, Switzerland. His 1998 team, Festina, was ousted from the Tour that year in connection with the widespread use of the performance-enhancing drug EPO. Zulle later admitted to using the blood-booster over the four previous years. The Festina affair nearly derailed the 1998 Tour, and is widely seen as the first big doping scandal to jolt cycling.

No. 3: Fernando Escartin, Spain.

2000

No 2: Jan Ullrich, Germany. The 1997 Tour winner, a five-time Tour runner-up and longtime Armstrong rival. He was the top-name cyclist among at least 50 implicated in the “Operation Puerto” police investigation in Spain in May 2006. Ullrich was stripped of his third-place finish from the 2005 Tour and retired from racing two years later. Earlier this year, he confirmed that he had had contact with Eufemiano Fuentes, a Spanish doctor at the centre of that scandal, calling it a “big mistake” — but did not admit to doping.

No. 3: Joseba Beloki, Spain. Implicated in Operation Puerto, he retired in 2007. He was reportedly was cleared by a Spanish court of any involvement in the case.

2001

No 2: Ullrich.

No. 3: Beloki.

2002

No. 2: Beloki.

No. 3: Raimondas Rumsas, Lithuania. On the last day of the 2002 Tour, police stopped his wife, Edita, at the Italian border and searched her car, turning up suspected doping products. A French court later handed them four-month prison sentences on doping-related charges. The cyclist denied taking banned substances at that event, and all his tests came back negative. He said the products in his wife’s car were for his mother-in-law. The next year, he was given a one-year ban after testing positive for EPO in the 2003 Giro d’Italia.

2003

No. 2: Ullrich.

No. 3: Alexandre Vinokourov, Kazakhstan. He later served a two-year doping suspension after twice testing positive for banned blood transfusions during the 2007 race. He won the Olympic road race in London last month and has announced plans to retire.

2004

No. 2: Andreas Kloeden, Germany.

No. 3: Ivan Basso, Italy. Excluded from the 2006 Tour because of his involvement in Operation Puerto. He claimed that he gave his blood to Fuentes — the Spanish doctor at the centre of that scandal — but never used it. Later that year, Basso received a two-year doping ban; he later returned, and won his second Giro d’Italia in 2010.

2005

No. 2: Basso.

No. 3: Ullrich.

08:27ET 24-08-12




twitter.com/canadacomnews© COPYRIGHT - POSTMEDIA NEWS 
They should stop worrying about what happened in the past, and figure out how to ensure it doesn't happen in the future.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

^^^^^ Doping was so widespread how is it fair to just go after Lance?


----------



## Methodical (Jul 14, 2012)

I think someone had a personal vendetta against him. I wish he'd fought them to the end though, but how can you beat the people who will make the final decision. Do they even have jurisdiction over the Tour? One thing for sure, I would not want any of the titles as the 2nd place winner - it ain't the same as being 1st across the line.

Just One Man's Opinion.


----------



## JibbaJam (Aug 15, 2012)

Even if he were innocent, i dont blame him for giving up the fight. Im sure hes tired of dealing with it and wants to kick back and enjoy his money. 

That being said.....hes guilty. But it doesnt bother me. i think most professional athletes have taken some form of PED in their life.


----------



## BCTJ (Aug 22, 2011)

Not that I support doping, but just a few thoughts - 

A) You don't see the French, Spanish or other national antii-doping agencies tearing down their national icons. 

B) So, you're going to strip Lance of his titles and give them to some other doper? How does that equate to Justice?


----------



## PcolaDirtDevil (Aug 23, 2012)

*Brawndo!* Now w/ electrolytes!!!!


----------



## GTscoob (Apr 27, 2009)

I believe that him refusing to go to court with the USADA is an admission of guilt. He knew they had a good case against him and didnt want to go down in public. 

When everyone at the top level is doping, you have to play along. He either doped with the best of them and still won or somehow is superhuman.


----------



## BigKahuna (Jan 19, 2004)

There was no way the organizations were going to ever give up the fight against Lance. They wanted a witch...and he was the biggest one. My only question is, who would have won all those titles, AND was 100% clean at the time? No one.


----------



## RoninTheDog (Aug 10, 2012)

BlackCanyonTrailJunkie said:


> Not that I support doping, but just a few thoughts -
> 
> A) You don't see the French, Spanish or other national antii-doping agencies tearing down their national icons.
> 
> B) So, you're going to strip Lance of his titles and give them to some other doper? How does that equate to Justice?


I think it's because the USADA hasn't been all that successful at nailing doping in baseball when it actually comes to getting them in court. They've had some big high profile losses and they HAVE to tear someone down to make up for it.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Fact of the matters is this, if his ego wasn't so damn big and he'd kept his a$$ retired like he said he was doing, none of this would have come up and all those people he's inspired would still have a hero, his foundation would still have their hero, BUT, he couldn't just sit there and chill and now he pays the ultimate price.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

BlackCanyonTrailJunkie said:


> Not that I support doping, but just a few thoughts -
> 
> A) You don't see the French, Spanish or other national antii-doping agencies tearing down their national icons.
> 
> B) So, you're going to strip Lance of his titles and give them to some other doper? How does that equate to Justice?


very very typical thoughts from a Lawyer lol, just hilarious stuff, from the same guy that just wrote the thread ''why all the lawyer hate'' dead set words fail me.........


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

i come away with two things from all this

1. your ego is not your amigo

2.road racing is the only cycling discipline where the admission has always been free for the spectator...your gonna get what you pay for eventually..

guilty or not it's sad to see all this play out like it has. hopefully it helps the talented kids coming up in the sport and not harm them instead.


----------



## abelfonseca (Dec 26, 2011)

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge on the subject but from what I have read, I understand the USADA is behind the accusation. The USADA is an organization based in the United States. Now, the question(s) is, why are the poeple in the US trying so hard to destroy their own hero? How will they benefit from this? Are the french also behind this? Is it because some scumbag lawyers want to get some money from this in some way which I dont understand yet? I understand an investigation (which he already proved innocent), but it seems they are doing "investigation" after investigation until they finally destroy this mans life accomplishments. Shouldnt Mr Barack Obama or someone else in the government step in and tell these people to F&%K off and stop messing with one of the greatest athletic heroes ever?


----------



## Drth Vadr (Jul 24, 2009)

It comes down to this thought from the USADA, "you must be doping, to beat doper's." Add in the fact he did it consistently is even more of an indictment.
He couldn't win, even if he had never doped.The USADA's burden of proof is less then a civil case. 
My question is, "didn't Lance teach his teammates how to beat the test?"Those guy on his team started dropping like flys once he retired and that is his undoing.


----------



## nOOky (May 13, 2008)

dickeydoo said:


> ^^^^^ Doping was so widespread how is it fair to just go after Lance?


Because he is the most accomplished cyclist, and the only one most people outside the cycling community are aware of. You don't see them going after George Hincapie for a reason, he really didn't win that much, or profit from his wins with huge endorsements, or come back from cancer.
All you have to do in cycling is win, and automatically you must be doping. And you probably are...


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> This is a full admission of guilt, i'll start by saying i rate the guy highly, i have nothing against him n i have always been a great fan of the man and the rider..
> But i'll tell you now theres no way a guy with his convictions n spirit would say 'enoughs enough' if he is innocent, he has faught many great battles in his life and if he was innocent theres no we he would take this line..
> He has decided to do this so the truth has no way of being validated in court, imo his excuses were very weak n precious, he knows he is gone and does not want to face the music..
> There is no person on this planet that would walk away from these accusations after winning the tour 7 times if they were really innocent, the guy is as guilty as they come and i believe he would have been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt..
> I have lost a great deal of respect for him after this, and dont buy into his excuses for one second, he was one of many many riders on the tour that are guilty of using drugs, and there is also plenty of Aussie riders that have done and are doing the same thing..


You couldn't be more wrong. Deciding to fight a contest in which he had no chance of winning was a smart thing to do. Whether he doped or not, the USADA was going to "determine" that he did; they've already said as much if you read between the lines. As the saying goes, if you fight with a pig, you both get dirty... and the pig likes it.

Dropping the fight won't change most people's opinion (yours apparently excluded) and will put an asterisk next to the USADA's ruling. Remember, this wasn't a court hearing where the USADA would have to prove anything; it was arbitration to see if they were going to implement their already made decision and its ramifications. Nothing more. And it was obviously tilted in the USADA's favor. I firmly believe that if every single witness decided not to show up, they'd find some way to twist that and STILL rule against him.

He's repeatedly said he did not dope. Point blank. He's passed hundreds or thousands of tests. The USADA appears to have broken many of their own rules and completely and utterly discarded their own science in pursuit of a predetermined outcome.

You say he wouldn't quit any thing, but I beg to differ. If he broke a leg during the ride, he'd abandon rather than having someone "tape it up" and continue. There comes a point where you just can't do anything to affect the outcome of something no matter what.



GTscoob said:


> I believe that him refusing to go to court with the USADA is an admission of guilt.


And when the cops show up at your door and ask to search your house, you refuse unless they have warrant... is an admission of guilt? No, refusing to play in this farce is nothing more than acknowledging he couldn't change the outcome no matter what he did.

And again, for the record, I have no idea whether he's doped or not. It's likely he did, but the USADA's not playing fair in this case.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

nOOky said:


> Because he is the most accomplished cyclist, and the only one most people outside the cycling community are aware of. You don't see them going after George Hincapie for a reason, he really didn't win that much, or profit from his wins with huge endorsements, or come back from cancer.
> All you have to do in cycling is win, and automatically you must be doping. And you probably are...


I understand he is the most accomplished rider here but his competitors were cheating too.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

skiahh said:


> You couldn't be more wrong. Deciding to fight a contest in which he had no chance of winning was a smart thing to do. Whether he doped or not, the USADA was going to "determine" that he did; they've already said as much if you read between the lines. As the saying goes, if you fight with a pig, you both get dirty... and the pig likes it.
> 
> Dropping the fight won't change most people's opinion (yours apparently excluded) and will put an asterisk next to the USADA's ruling. Remember, this wasn't a court hearing where the USADA would have to prove anything; it was arbitration to see if they were going to implement their already made decision and its ramifications. Nothing more. And it was obviously tilted in the USADA's favor. I firmly believe that if every single witness decided not to show up, they'd find some way to twist that and STILL rule against him.
> 
> ...


LOL Mate your an American, to most of the rest of the world this is an admission of guilt, and most of the public opinion here is that he is guilty as charged and that will be the same opinion around the world..

Ive actually been quite impressed to read that many here on this forum have put their bias n patriotic thought aside, if you think that most people in the world think he is innocent of the charges imo you are naive n very mistaken..

If tomorrow 5 ex team mates of Cadel Evens came out n said they have doped with him n seen him do it and can give dates n times well he is guilty imo, mate Aussies do it n so do riders from all round the world, i cannot believe this is a suprise to you, its life in the cycling world get used to it, cheers:thumbsup:

And one more thing, you say he has said he did not dope end of story, lol, thats pretty funny, what do you expect him to say.

Marion Jones said she never doped, she passed hundreds of tests as well, it was others that exposed her that got her nailed, mate these guys are miles in front of the testers, its not some other tour de france competing country thats taking him to court, its your own country, basically your whole argument above smacks of bias patriotism n no body else from around the world would buy it for one second..

I was a big fan of Lance on n off the bike and i still have a great deal of respect for him, but i have lost some of that now, i can see straight through his not wanting to contest this charge..

He was still the best rider in a field of cheats, mate they were all on the gear n most still are, even our winner Cadal could be, im not naive enough for a second to count him out, cheers


----------



## nOOky (May 13, 2008)

Unfortunately that doesn't make most of the world correct either. Here in the U.S.A. we generally require proof, not just he said she said.That's hearsay.

I think what frosts most people's asses about the whole affair is the fact that he was the guy that is being singled out, when everyone around him did the same damn things. I should think many of his ex teammates are very lucky he didn't confess and rat the whole lot of them out, or start some accusations just to say eff you those he didn't like.


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

Lance hasn't given up the fight at all. He does not recognize USADA's jurisdiction to strip his tour titles...and he's right. USADA'S has to submit a request to the UCI, who is on armstrongs side. Further, lance's lawyers have sent a letter to USADA saying if they call it an admission of guilt they will sue.

I kind of wish they would just move on and focus their efforts on keeping doping out of cycling NOW...but also think the truth should come out if only so the general public who may view Lance as "the greatest cyclist of all time" will know.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

And so it continues... same sh!t, different target:

As questions arise, Wiggins lashes out at doping doubters


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

MTBNate said:


> And so it continues... same sh!t, different target:
> 
> As questions arise, Wiggins lashes out at doping doubters


That was from July.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

nOOky said:


> Unfortunately that doesn't make most of the world correct either. Here in the U.S.A. we generally require proof, not just he said she said.That's hearsay.
> 
> I think what frosts most people's asses about the whole affair is the fact that he was the guy that is being singled out, when everyone around him did the same damn things. I should think many of his ex teammates are very lucky he didn't confess and rat the whole lot of them out, or start some accusations just to say eff you those he didn't like.


In America the same as Australia, witnesses and in this case many of them, some that had very close ties to him is proof enough, its proof enough to have somebody put away for murder and its proof enough for Lance to be found guilty, but it has to go through the right process of court and he must be given a fair trial that these witnesses can be very strongly interrigated..

The guy is only being singled out by your own USADA, plenty of other riders get caught out down the track, and no it doesnt make the rest of the world right at all that they think he is guilty, but im just letting the guy know that the majority of people around the world do not hold his views, you only have to get on to cycling websites around the world to see the views of non Americans, cheers


----------



## adkmtnbkr (Feb 24, 2004)

Forfeit the titles, say "FU" to all the nay sayers, and go to court and lambaste everyone. Hang them all out the dry (teammates, officials, lawmakers, corporate sponsors, and every one else who took the hopes and dreams of cancer victims and smashed them into nothingness . Lance's accomplishments were at one time based on the will to live, not win. 

There was a reason the French handed this case over to the USADA, cause they paid for the outcome.


----------



## The Grouch (Dec 31, 2010)

Lance helped so many cancer survivors , he will always be my favorite cyclist , no matter what they try to pin on him.


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> LOL Mate your an American, to most of the rest of the world this is an admission of guilt...


I'm Canadian and I agree with Skiiah.

If I was Lance, I'd do the same thing. Why fight something that is already pre-determined where you can't win? At least with Lance's statement, some people will have pause to consider whether this "confirmation" of guilt is true and just. I think it's the best way for Lance to handle this.

Please note my quotations on "confirmation", not guilt. I think Lance doped, but I don't hold that against him as I also believe his main competition doped too, so it equalled the playing field. Sort of like Mr. Olympia - many dopers compete, it's who's the best of the dopers.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

hands down the BEST American win on a grand tour was Andy Hampsten on the Gavia for the Giro. end of story.


----------



## mountainbiker24 (Feb 5, 2007)

This whole thing started because somebody was jealous of his accomplishments. Whether he cheated or not is really irrelevant in my mind, because they all take performance enhancing drugs. France didn't like a single person winning all those years in a row. It hurt their race and image. Once the allegations were there, it was only a matter of time.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 30, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> In America the same as Australia, witnesses and in this case many of them, some that had very close ties to him is proof enough, its proof enough to have somebody put away for murder and its proof enough for Lance to be found guilty, but it has to go through the right process of court and he must be given a fair trial that these witnesses can be very strongly interrigated..


Witnesses can not trump actual science and all of the negative tests. If you have a million witnesses but DNA proof the man was innocent, he's innocent. So all of the tests he passed are not proof of innocence? I know people think the tests can be beat, whatever. If he beat them, he beat them and its still proof. If he can beat the tests, then they need better tests before they can convict him of anything.


----------



## drizzoh (Jul 18, 2012)

I just posted about this on FB. This is so messed up. He's tested negative every time, and they keep pressing on.


----------



## gregdr (Sep 21, 2005)

If you want to stop doping you have to give all cyclist a pardon for past uses. You give them one chance to fess up. Interview them, find out which doctors, teams, whoever were involved and what drugs. Prosecute those who don't admit to use. You will also find out the latest and greatest drugs being used and you should be able to figure out how to test the atheletes better.

Who does the USADA have the authority to go after?


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

jkirkpatri said:


> I'm Canadian and I agree with Skiiah.
> 
> If I was Lance, I'd do the same thing. Why fight something that is already pre-determined where you can't win? At least with Lance's statement, some people will have pause to consider whether this "confirmation" of guilt is true and just. I think it's the best way for Lance to handle this.
> 
> Please note my quotations on "confirmation", not guilt. I think Lance doped, but I don't hold that against him as I also believe his main competition doped too, so it equalled the playing field. Sort of like Mr. Olympia - many dopers compete, it's who's the best of the dopers.


I agree with your last paragraph, i do think most of them doped, but is that reason to ignore the charges? if so we should just say no more doping tests no more nothing let them do it.
In life some get caught n some dont thats life.

And i hear every second person say its pre determined, are you saying this is rigged n the witnesses have been paid off n its a massive set up? C'MON...

If having massive evidence against you that is almost unfightable is a set up, thats a pretty long stretch of the bow, if he is innocent he should fight the charges simple as that, its not rocket science he doesnt want it to go to court because he knows the evidence will be unfightable, even you say you think he doped but because others did you think he should not have to account for his actions, if the greatest cyclist the worlds ever seen has to face the music so be it..
for the record i think he is an exceptional human being for what he has accomplished in his life but i think its time to face the music and answer the questions, cheers:thumbsup:


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

drizzoh said:


> I just posted about this on FB. This is so messed up. He's tested negative every time, and they keep pressing on.


And so did Marion Jones and plenty of other dopers, they are miles in front of the testers..


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Dalton said:


> Witnesses can not trump actual science and all of the negative tests. If you have a million witnesses but DNA proof the man was innocent, he's innocent. So all of the tests he passed are not proof of innocence? I know people think the tests can be beat, whatever. If he beat them, he beat them and its still proof. If he can beat the tests, then they need better tests before they can convict him of anything.


Witnesses can trump tests, they can only test for what the know, the tests are very beatable, we will never ever have a testing system that is infront of the chemists n dopers its not possible, DNA is a very different trump card than doping tests, its a totally different story all together and the example you have given there in no way matches the situation Lance is dealing with here..


----------



## Centurion_ (Aug 13, 2011)

Have any of you ever have to defend yourself in a criminal or civil case? Having to defend every action, every word you said on a particular day or a number of days that occured maybe...ten years ago? Answering depositions, undergoing cross examination by a$$holes with law degrees and attitudes, having to travel back and forth all over the country to appear in hearings...

There is little or no physical evidence to tie him to blood doping or drug use. And the man has been defending himself for well over ten years. The allegations go back nearly twice as long. Can you imagine the time, the money, and the aggrivation this has cost him?

Maybe the guy just wants to do what he does better than anyone else in the world. Maybe the guy just wants to ride, to train, and to race. Maybe the guy is just tired of all the allegations, the accusations, and the bull$hit.

I know_* I* _am...


----------



## byknuts (Aug 9, 2008)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> to most of the rest of the world this is an admission of guilt, and most of the public opinion here is that he is guilty as charged and that will be the same opinion around the world..


don't lump the rest of the world in with your personal opinion.
don't imply that hose who share your opinion are the majority of the rest of the world.
some of us think for ourselves, don't speak for us.

my 2 cents about the OP: this is way past the realm of logical timeframe of prosecution, it's well into persecution.
I don't blame him for pulling up stakes, it's pointless at this stage in his life to keep fighting. He's not in the Tours anymore and even his Tris seem to be just for kicks.
What's left to fight for? the opinions of people like the one listed above?
Smear campaigns work because they're opinion based and everyone loves to dig on someone who's done more than they have because it makes them feel better about their level of accomplishments.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> And i hear every second person say its pre determined, are you saying this is rigged n the witnesses have been paid off n its a massive set up? C'MON...


Well, in a manner of speaking. From some articles I've read, the USADA has promised immunity to some of the witnesses if they speak out against Lance. They won't be investigated or be determined to be a doper. It may not be cash, but it's still being paid off.

And I just read another article that says at this arbitration hearing, Lance can't compel witnesses to show up on his behalf, nor will the USADA produce theirs, rather submitting affidavits for their testimony, meaning Lance can't confront and cross-examine their testimony. That's a complete lack of "due process", a pretty fundamental element of our justice system here. So, basically, the USADA has just decided that he's a doper absent of ANY of our legal protections and Lance can either go to a hearing and let them tell him to his face or just say screw you, do what you will anyway. By not going to the hearing, he prevents the USADA from putting an "official" proceeding stamp on it, though it wouldn't be anyway for the reasons I already mentioned.

Again, given the whole situation, he probably did dope, but other than a few anecdotal stories that have been tainted by the USADA's promise not to go after them, there is no proof. Certainly none that would rise to the level of "reasonable doubt" required for a criminal conviction.

But if the or decision is based on the face that everyone was doping then why doesn't the USADA go after EVERY SINGLE cyclist racing in that time frame? Strip any and all American riders wins, titles and medals. And, since the USADA can go on conjecture and innuendo, all they have to do is just decide that everyone was doping and, voila! They win.

Yeah, they've just given their credibility a "huge" boost....


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Centurion_ said:


> Have any of you ever have to defend yourself in a criminal or civil case? Having to defend every action, every word you said on a particular day or a number of days that occured maybe...ten years ago? Answering depositions, undergoing cross examination by a$$holes with law degrees and attitudes, having to travel back and forth all over the country to appear in hearings...
> 
> There is little or no physical evidence to tie him to blood doping or drug use. And the man has been defending himself for well over ten years. The allegations go back nearly twice as long. Can you imagine the time, the money, and the aggrivation this has cost him?
> 
> ...


So why pull out now then.?

If there is little or no physical evidence, why pull out now, he has the best Lawyers money can buy, if there is nothing that can get him convicted, whats the problem?


----------



## mbcracken (Aug 12, 2006)

_tom_ said:


> Lance hasn't given up the fight at all. He does not recognize USADA's jurisdiction to strip his tour titles...and he's right. USADA'S has to submit a request to the UCI, who is on armstrongs side. Further, lance's lawyers have sent a letter to USADA saying if they call it an admission of guilt they will sue.


+1
What Lance and his lawyers have done is turned the fight from Lance v USADA to USADA v UCI. Purely looking from a law perspective...brilliant move. Especially when one considers Lance was starting to run out of appeal options.

Cheers,
Mike


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

byknuts said:


> don't lump the rest of the world in with your personal opinion.
> don't imply that hose who share your opinion are the majority of the rest of the world.
> some of us think for ourselves, don't speak for us.
> 
> ...


I made the point to say go n have a look at other bike forums from other countries n look at media from other countries, i never once implied i was talking for others, and did i or did i not say i rated n respected the guy, you have gone on to speak for everybody else ''everybody love to dig in'' thats a bit hypocritical from you, cheers


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

byknuts said:


> don't lump the rest of the world in with your personal opinion.
> don't imply that hose who share your opinion are the majority of the rest of the world.
> some of us think for ourselves, don't speak for us.
> 
> ...


I made the point to say go n have a look at other bike forums from other countries n look at media from other countries, i never once implied i was talking for others, and did i or did i not say i rated n respected the guy, you have gone on to speak for everybody else ''everybody love to dig in'' thats a bit hypocritical from you, cheers


----------



## hags707 (Apr 22, 2010)

Who cares? I don't, he passed the tests and won, if he used something and they don't have a test for it he outsmarted them double win. He is still a awesome athlete and no can say other wise.


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> I agree with your last paragraph, i do think most of them doped, but is that reason to ignore the charges? if so we should just say no more doping tests no more nothing let them do it.
> In life some get caught n some dont thats life.


He hasn't ignored the charges. He's been dealing with them for years. This is just a new charge that re-covers ground already covered.

You can live your life how you want and you should live it according to how you want to live it (rhetoric here, so not aimed at "you" or "him" ).

There's threads on this board about moving to various regions solely for the outdoor element, there's threads about how great 29ers are compared to 26ers, the list goes on. It all comes down to how you want to live your life with your choices (fight, move or don't move, 29 vs 26, et al). He choosed to ignore this latest charge and he's willing to live with the consequences of that choice.

He's chosen to stop fighting an uphill battle that from all appearances, has already been decided against him. It's a no win situation for him. Go to a hearing where the plainteff is the judge and lose. Don't go to court and lose. What's the point? His response is the best response IMO. He doesn't need to fight anymore. Everybody already has his or her opinion regardless of what the outcome of this latest charge would have been (as evident by this thread). I personally think that his legacy will be most remembered by his Foundation, not his Tour titles.

Cycling is entertainment, cancer is humanity. Anything that happens to his cycling career ought not to tarnish his humanitarian cause. It won't work that way as people will tarnish him and everything he does for his cycling "conviction", but it ought not to.

I personally think that they all doped, he won the races, the playing field was as level as it could get, and that's about it. Trying to oust one individual is pointless when most everybody did it/does it/will do it.

Trying to make cycling or other sports at the professional level clean is an excercise in futility. That doesn't mean that I think it's right, but if you're going to label one person a cheater, then all cheaters need to be accounted for, not just the first cheater to cross the finish line first.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

J.B. Weld said:


> Lance is guilty but it is still a witch hunt. Somewhere down the line he made an enemy he shouldn't have and is now paying the ultimate price (IMO). The politics of cycling- shouldn't be.


I have to agree with this. I always thought he doped, but I think this process is also utter crap. They could find anyone guilty of anything with that sort of judicial process.



skiahh said:


> Well, in a manner of speaking. From some articles I've read, the USADA has promised immunity to some of the witnesses if they speak out against Lance. They won't be investigated or be determined to be a doper. It may not be cash, but it's still being paid off.


If that is true then it is pretty much complete bollocks. If you are a doper and say someone else doped then we will hold you blameless for doping


----------



## pathetic_earthling (Jul 7, 2011)

Sean K said:


> And munch an apple while doing so.:thumbsup:


...and rocking that cool turtleneck!


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

The USADA's court of marsupial justice has issued a 'guilty' verdict.

The haters are going to continue to hate, the defenders will continue to defend, and post-Lance professional road cycing will continue on down the road of complete sucktitude.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

"you're guilty"
_no, i'm not"_
"prove it"
_"YOU prove it"_
"you're guilty. we win"


----------



## Muffinhead (Jul 30, 2012)

If nearly all pro road cyclists dope, like many people have said on this forum, then didn't Armstrong still technically legitimately earn his titles?


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

Muffinhead said:


> If nearly all pro road cyclists dope, like many people have said on this forum, then didn't Armstrong still technically legitimately earn his titles?


they will (and do) say that his body reacts better to doping than others, which is still apparently an unfair advantage.


----------



## BigwheelsRbest (Jun 12, 2007)

Sean K said:


> I've been in and out of cycling for many years, so here's my take:
> 
> Lance may of doped (just blood) and used EPO at times, but he only did because basically EVERYONE else was doing it. All the hard hitters from Italy, France and Belgium were. Mario Cippolini, Marco Pantani and others were busted for EPO.
> 
> ...


I so agree with you. If everyone was doping at that time and Lance won he's still the best there was at that time. He's is definitely da man.

People's ideas of what is right and wrong change over time. When I was young (30 years ago) it wasn't frowned upon to have a few beers and drive home. Now if you do that you're an ar$ehole - and you are, rightly so. We used to smoke 40 a day and it was cool - it wasn't proved to be bad for you - remember? Don't get me wrong - doping is wrong and bad and should be eliminated from sport.

If they strip Lance of his achievements, how long before they do the same for the new champion - the guy who was second?

Lance does a lot of good - giving his time and efforts to help others fight cancer. I hope this doesn't interfere with those efforts. It's not right to vilify him.

Oh, and a stupid question - the Tour de France is French - but the US ADA can strip his titles, just like that? What do the French say about it?


----------



## jkirkpatri (Sep 16, 2008)

spencerfrater1 said:


> ...Oh, and a stupid question - the Tour de France is French - but the US ADA can strip his titles, just like that? What do the French say about it?


I'm under the impression that the USADA "says" that he's been stripped, but the UCI is waiting for a formal written notice from USADA before passing judgement. AFAIK, it's only within the UCI to strip him of his Tour victories whereas the USADA has formally announced that they don't recognize him as the winner. Sort of like a Canadian Prime Minster concluding on a US issue that is not in his realm.


----------



## Muffinhead (Jul 30, 2012)

I'd also like to add that Armstrong can be viewed as a product of his time, a time of doping and other performance enhancers. It shouldn't necessarily be called cheating because it's a necessity in the competitive cycling world; otherwise you'll be left in the dust by other riders.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

jkirkpatri said:


> I'm under the impression that the USADA "says" that he's been stripped, but the UCI is waiting for a formal written notice from USADA before passing judgement. AFAIK, it's only within the UCI to strip him of his Tour victories whereas the USADA has formally announced that they don't recognize him as the winner. Sort of like a Canadian Prime Minster concluding on a US issue that is not in his realm.


yeah, the UCI has final say, and so far they are not exactly on the USADA's side on this.

at this point whether he doped or not is largely irrelevant. the physical evidence is gone. the statute of limitations is up. let. it. go. this is good for noone. Lance is diminished, the USADA is diminished, professional cycling is diminished. everybody involved here has a black eye.



> I'd also like to add that Armstrong can be viewed as a product of his time, a time of doping and other performance enhancers


tons of guys back then were doing it, for sure. I won't say everyone was, but we know a bunch got caught with physical evidence for doing so. sure, catching those guys and punishing them has helped clean the sport up. it's probably better nowadays. it's at least harder to get away with. busting Lance at this point does nothing to further the cleanup of the sport, because Lance is past tense. It's like going after Hinault and Mercx and other past tour winners who quite probably doped. What does that do? Not a damn thing.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

WTF they are all doped up, or were at least. So what if he was doped up too? It was/is part of the game. He won fair and square, playing by whatever rules they all were playing by.

He still won all those races, no one else did. And they had access to whatever he had (if any), he is still the best rider.

FREE LANCE!!! 

spineless muddafukcas going after him now.

Hey why not disqualify everone except the slowest on in all of his races, then they will finally get the only person not on the juce.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

saturnine said:


> they will (and do) say that his body reacts better to doping than others, which is still apparently an unfair advantage.


ROFL that is priceless. A better rider and a better doper. So unfair  Plus he didn't get caught. Man those other poor slobs...

BTW in other headlines today



> A man (named Wiggins ) who spent more than two decades behind bars was freed Friday after DNA evidence cleared him in the rape of a 14-year-old Fort Worth girl.


But of course witnesses said he did it.

Granted in this case one would hope the witnesses would actually know who the heck Lance was, but since they were bribed and coerced to be witnesses of certain events it really doesn't matter too much what they say. If they did not witness wrongdoing then they do not get their own free pass


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

:thumbsup:To yours and a bunch of other posts in this thread. What a giant waste of time and resources this has been. On a personal level I don't particularly care for the man but I have absolute respect for his athletic accomplishments.


hags707 said:


> Who cares? I don't, he passed the tests and won, if he used something and they don't have a test for it he outsmarted them double win. He is still a awesome athlete and no can say other wise.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

:thumbsup:LOL...true.


jkirkpatri said:


> I'm under the impression that the USADA "says" that he's been stripped, but the UCI is waiting for a formal written notice from USADA before passing judgement. AFAIK, it's only within the UCI to strip him of his Tour victories whereas the USADA has formally announced that they don't recognize him as the winner. Sort of like a Canadian Prime Minster concluding on a US issue that is not in his realm.


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

I don't blame the guy, he fought the important fight and at this point in his life after passing countless drug tests why should he have to answer to anyone.


----------



## jmmUT (Sep 15, 2008)

Dang by the time they are down the line finding someone "worthy" of the title, I'm gonna wish my drunk ass was in the Tour de France. I'd been DFL and the winner!


----------



## mhix01 (Apr 26, 2011)

Tone's L'axeman, it's "and", not "n". What? You got a speech impediment or something?


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

mhix01 said:


> Tone's L'axeman, it's "and", not "n". What? You got a speech impediment or something?


guy writes the way he speaks...with a dialect.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

mhix01 said:


> Tone's L'axeman, it's "and", not "n". What? You got a speech impediment or something?


It's an Aussie thing.


----------



## reedfe (Sep 5, 2011)

pathetic_earthling said:


> Ah...maybe Lance should have channeled a little James T. Kirk and 'changed the circumstances of the test'.....


haha awesome! rep for you!


----------



## Cormac (Aug 6, 2011)

Figures they just keep at him till he gave up. Anyone would have gotten tired of all the extra press and nonsense this kind of things brings up and would have given up by now. I'd have given up long before he did.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Just saw the twitter; "How can USADA punish Armstrong for never failing the system that was put into place?" So true.

Witchhunt and slanderous. And I'm glad that a lot of people are stepping up for him.


----------



## THowie (Mar 30, 2012)

I'm with you johnnyb. I think this whole thing is a witchhunt. Its sad to see someone so talented have his career tarnished.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

pathetic_earthling said:


> Ah...maybe Lance should have channeled a little James T. Kirk and 'changed the circumstances of the test'.....


Actually, if you think about it, that's exactly what the USADA did.

Can't get him with the science, make deals to get people to accuse and say they saw/used/were encouraged by him and just ignore the science.

Brilliant!


----------



## ralph3 (Dec 16, 2007)

What he do thought he retired


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

skiahh said:


> Actually, if you think about it, that's exactly what the USADA did.
> 
> Can't get him with the science, make deals to get people to accuse and say they saw/used/were encouraged by him and just ignore the science.
> 
> Brilliant!


I think the real discussion here should be the credibility of the USADA. Clearly they are witch hunting and convicting Armstrong on hearsay and circumstantial evidence. It seems to me as a tax payer that in part funds this organization I have to ask: What is I am paying for here? Clearly a lot of tax dollars have been spent on some vendetta.


----------



## Mazda Guy (Jul 12, 2012)

My two cents, if they test him and he's clean when he passes, you don't have the evidence to nail him for it. To keep on is just to show that you do have a vendetta, that you want him in particular. When it comes to any sport.

If you really think someone's doing something, use technology to work on newer styles of testing that can prove something, but administer it to everyone. We all know randomizing just isn't "random" enough.

Irregardless, the whole scenario is a shame. If only there were a way to just flat out know if someone is innocent, or guilty, for any case. Until that day comes, it's all up to man, and we all know how imperfect we are. So in this case, whether he's guilty or not, how much will it really matter to those who want a certain outcome?

I'd like to hope he's innocent, but that's just hope. That goes for any athlete. All we can do is speculate.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

Ol' Floyd's in the news too:

Landis to pay $478K for defrauding donors | UTSanDiego.com


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 24, 2012)

He will always be a 7X Tour winner in my book. How many test do you have to pass before the witch hunt will stop. well it must be over 500.


----------



## lil'stink (Dec 25, 2005)

Witch hunt? Really? So do we just let cheaters get away with it? I suppose Barry Bonds and Marion Jones were victims of a witch hunt as well. 

I am sure Lance has Obama, W, and numerous state, local, and national politicians on is speed dial. He has many friends in high places. Travis Tygart has more to lose than to gain by going after someone of Lance's stature. And all the people who testified before the grand jury - it wasn't a matter of them "getting a deal". It's called telling the truth. Sure, you can impugn the credibility of guys like Landis and Hamilton. But there were plenty of others who weren't caught cheating who gave supposedly strong testimony against Lance. Again, many were people who stood nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by telling the truth about LA.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

lil'stink said:


> Witch hunt? Really? So do we just let cheaters get away with it? I suppose Barry Bonds and Marion Jones were victims of a witch hunt as well.
> 
> I am sure Lance has Obama, W, and numerous state, local, and national politicians on is speed dial. He has many friends in high places. Travis Tygart has more to lose than to gain by going after someone of Lance's stature. And all the people who testified before the grand jury - it wasn't a matter of them "getting a deal". It's called telling the truth. Sure, you can impugn the credibility of guys like Landis and Hamilton. But there were plenty of others who weren't caught cheating who gave supposedly strong testimony against Lance. Again, many were people who stood nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by telling the truth about LA.


I bet I can find 10 people who will testify in non-judicial kangaroo court they saw you cheating. I don't have any scientific or forensic proof or anything, but the word of the 10 people is all I need to prove you guilty. The real burden of proof is on you to prove you didn't.


----------



## techfersure (Dec 17, 2010)

It is what it is! I'm sure in the bigger picture it's only a title in his mind,his greatest work is with his commitment to cancer support and research.a road racing title is really small stuff in comparison.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

lil'stink said:


> Witch hunt? Really? So do we just let cheaters get away with it? I suppose Barry Bonds and Marion Jones were victims of a witch hunt as well.
> 
> I am sure Lance has Obama, W, and numerous state, local, and national politicians on is speed dial. He has many friends in high places. Travis Tygart has more to lose than to gain by going after someone of Lance's stature. And all the people who testified before the grand jury - it wasn't a matter of them "getting a deal". It's called telling the truth. Sure, you can impugn the credibility of guys like Landis and Hamilton. But there were plenty of others who weren't caught cheating who gave supposedly strong testimony against Lance. Again, many were people who stood nothing to gain, and a lot to lose, by telling the truth about LA.


So tell me... how do you know Landis and Hamilton are telling the truth? What makes their word any better than Armstrong's?

And remember, they're both proven or admitted cheaters... Lance hasn't popped (conclusively) once.

You're willing to take the word of known cheaters over that of a suspected cheater. Just why is that?


----------



## Mazda Guy (Jul 12, 2012)

I know I'm butting in, but this is just my point. We're people, just as any jury, judge, or anyone who would determine guilt. We can bicker all we want, but we need scientific proof to back anything up.

Anyone can say one thing or another. Hell, someone can believe something that isn't true, if they fully believe it really is true, and they'll stick to it.

So I feel like, without any proof, they shouldn't have a thing to stick to anyone.

But then again, so much is circumstantial.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Here is some discussion of the science of the issues.

Lance Armstrong: What Really Happened - Spreecast


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

FYI many people believe we never went to the moon, even whole documantaries are based on this.

Lance won one time to many and now "they" the same nutjobs believe there is a mighty conspiracy going on here, how could he win so much??? He must have been doping!! 
Doping conspiracy ring!! You gotta be ****ing kidding me.

Seriously.

No technical evidence at all, and witnesses change their mind whenever. Bribes, threats, personal problems, feelings. Bottom line they are unreliable all steps of the way and therefore should count for nothing. They could be setting him up for all we know, and they probably are. To get a few minutes of fame.

I'd say maybe he did it, and if that maybe turns into yes somewhere down the line, then I'd say they were all doping, everybody! At least in the top 25, and does it really matter then? When all the good riders were doing it? Isn't this really an indicator of either a retarded regulation, or a governing/controlling body not in touch with reality?

Are they worse riders because they_ eventually_ doped? I'll tell you what. They doped because they had to, because they had to stay competitive, had to win (or at least try) I don't think you can really opt out on this level if one single rival rider does it. Then you_ have_ to do it too. The sport itself is its own enemy.

Its not black or white as usada want to think it is. They have to nail like 500 riders for this to be fair.
I want to see 500 witch hunts!! Not gonna happen. Because this is not a fair sport, they just find a victim to make an example of and go with it, because they know just as the idiot they can drag you down and just beat you with experience (or money, or time, or persistence, whichever comes first).

But now its just a witch hunt, uncomfortably close to stalking, and they do this with impunity, without a single piece of evidence to show for it. Dopers have always been caught, but lance was never caught, if he would have, then they would have banned him immidiately at the spot. AND made a scene out of it. And we all know it. But this didn't happen, he won and won and won, because he was that good. He deserved those wins, because he was the best at the time.
And now they're gonna take it away?

USADA! don't hate the player, hate the game! (or gtfo of the kitchen)

The usada people deserves to be sent to guantanamo. And stay there! Waterboardings all day long!!!
That would teach them the gray areas of pro sport. And rocknroll I guess


----------



## spity (Mar 7, 2012)

I support Lance and im upset my tax dollars are being wasted on this. Regardless of guilt or not. He has done great things and I hope he continues. Its inspiring.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

If Lance doped, he was playing on a level field. Still the best rider out of all of them.

If Lance was clean, wow, just wow...

You can get your Wiki on here: Doping at the Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Eddy Mercyx was caught doping.

And to quote Jacques Anquetil; "Leave me in peace; everybody takes dope."


----------



## dave54 (Jul 1, 2003)

One must consider where the allegations are coming from. Travis Tygart has been observed accepting bribes to clear athletes and to frame others He also has been suspected of downloading child pornography and wife beating.

I have witnesses. So he is guilty until he proves himself innocent. Refusing to defend himself is an admission of guilt.


----------



## BCTJ (Aug 22, 2011)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> very very typical thoughts from a Lawyer lol, just hilarious stuff, from the same guy that just wrote the thread ''why all the lawyer hate'' dead set words fail me.........


It's a tad bit unfair, don't you think, to penalize Lance when there is a 99.9% chance that all of his competitors were also cheating? My point is that if you're going to strip Lance of all of his Titles, you really can't give it to the second place person, because they were probably cheating too.

The just solution would be to a) eliminate all Titles for Tour winners going back to the age before doping (did such an age ever exist?) or b) give the title to any rider who can definitively prove that they did not dope during the Tour - which, at this point, might be a bit difficult considering how many years have passed.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*UCI will not have a choice on this one*

without making it painfully obvious to the point that IOC may suspend cycling from the Olympics...



NateHawk said:


> yeah, the UCI has final say, and so far they are not exactly on the USADA's side on this.
> 
> at this point whether he doped or not is largely irrelevant. the physical evidence is gone. the statute of limitations is up. let. it. go. this is good for noone. Lance is diminished, the USADA is diminished, professional cycling is diminished. everybody involved here has a black eye.
> 
> tons of guys back then were doing it, for sure. I won't say everyone was, but we know a bunch got caught with physical evidence for doing so. sure, catching those guys and punishing them has helped clean the sport up. it's probably better nowadays. it's at least harder to get away with. busting Lance at this point does nothing to further the cleanup of the sport, because Lance is past tense. It's like going after Hinault and Mercx and other past tour winners who quite probably doped. What does that do? Not a damn thing.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*the only worse thing to admitting is:*

perjury...

he made the best possible move...



mopartodd said:


> Lance's "kobayashi maru", a No-win scenerio. This is why he gave up. He felt as though he couldn't win.


----------



## Barheet (Jul 13, 2012)

Wow, I did not see this coming. Never thought Lance would ever back down...from anything. Except maybe push-ups. But hey, nobody's perfect. 

Seriously though, even if he admits to using doping, he still did an incredible thing. But I'll consider him innocent until proof pops up.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

mhix01 said:


> Tone's L'axeman, it's "and", not "n". What? You got a speech impediment or something?


Champion, you know what they say about Grammar, its a personal thing, you can always change it if you want, and in my case i write the way i chose, you knew what i meant or you wouldnt have been able to try n correct me on it, 
Now in your case i might be able to change my grammar, but you cant change being a pure bred .......... thats in your blood, cheers mate...:thumbsup:


----------



## kabayan (Oct 25, 2004)

I really would like to know where else we can use the "They all cheated so he's cool" excuse? Tax returns? 

If Lance won one and they are going after him like this, that, to me would be a witch hunt. This, on the other hand, is straight out of the big fish playbook. They put the little fish back and go after the big one. And with 7 consecutive TdF victories, Lance is Moby Dick. 

I'd much rather idolize the dude who toils in 11th place, knowing full well what he's giving up by playing within the rules. After all, it's tough passing up a chance to make out with an Olson twin :thumbsup:

I know I know whales ain't fish.

And this ain't over yet. With the Bruyneel arbitration still a go, who knows if the 10 angry men will still make an appearance.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

After he dropped the fight his foundation donation increase 25% not too shabby. I don't know if he doped or not frankly I don't care, they tried to catch him from year one and failed, just let it go USADA.

I think he attracts more people to the sport, myself included the Seven years I watched him racing was kinda interesting a few years afterward were so so the last 2 years I didn't really pay much attention. Stop spending my tax dollars on some nonsense and move on. Plus if I understand correctly USADA does not have the power to strip his title, why all this muscle flexing?

Edit: I missread the article not 25%, but 25 times increase in donation.


----------



## chevygonemad (Dec 28, 2010)

My roommate told me that Nike is standing by Lance. It looks like this is going better than expected for him.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 14, 2012)

"It ain't what you know, but what you can prove in the court of law"

Denzel Washington - Training Day.


----------



## Empty_Beer (Dec 19, 2007)

....and I'm not talking about being an independent contractor


----------



## frontierwolf (Sep 28, 2005)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> I agree with your last paragraph, i do think most of them doped, but is that reason to ignore the charges? if so we should just say no more doping tests no more nothing let them do it.
> In life some get caught n some dont thats life.
> 
> And i hear every second person say its pre determined, are you saying this is rigged n the witnesses have been paid off n its a massive set up? C'MON...
> ...


I think the problem with your witness testimony angle is that there isn't a crime here. Sure witness testimony is useful when you have a dead body or a building burns down but here the only thing that was stolen was a Yellow Jersey. And the whole world watched him earn the wins on live TV while doing it within the rules of the game.

Witnesses weren't paid off in cash unless you count Landis and Hamilton who got back in the spotlight for bringing the allegations. Landis just settled a $500k case for wire fraud relating to his own doping. You think that being part of the USADA investigation bought any leniency in that case?

When you look at the train of events you get Landis in legal trouble so he makes the allegations about Postal. USADA doesn't need any other evidence so when they go to Hincapie, Dave Z, whoever and tell them they've been implicated and will be sanctioned unless they give up Lance you start building your case on the statements of someone who definitely has an axe to grind and a real motive to see Lance convicted. Looking back even further Floyd initially went to the DOJ as a whistleblower and stood to make $3 mil if USPS was found to have defrauded the US government.

That said I still think Lance doped and I have for years. I think they all did and I think they're still at it. They're finding Clenbuterol and Xipamide now because the DS's haven't kept up with the testing sensitivity and those traces are in the blood bags. It's still there but that doesn't mean USADA handled this in an ethical way and that's the problem. The trail of evidence has to lead back to at least one solid physical fact other than "he won 7 in a row so he must have been cheating." You shouldn't base the whole case on witness testimony when there's no other evidence that a crime was even committed. And then determine guilt before letting the accused see the evidence? Where's the body? Where's the burned down building?


----------



## tucoramirez (Aug 7, 2012)

techfersure said:


> It is what it is! I'm sure in the bigger picture it's only a title in his mind,his greatest work is with his commitment to cancer support and research.a road racing title is really small stuff in comparison.


 so true who am I to judge Lance? he who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at him  I am doubtful any of you detractors are completely free of sin...so ease up on the guy?


----------



## Frozenspokes (May 26, 2004)

USADA arbitration is not acoourt of law. USADA makes the rules and to quote NPR, "they never loose." Why would LA justify that farce by participating.

The US dept of Justice dropped it's case against LA as it determined that the evidence against him would not hold up in a court of law.

Did LA use? None of us know. But the evidence (seven tour wins against dopers) suggests that he did. That is not proof.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> This is a full admission of guilt, i'll start by saying i rate the guy highly, i have nothing against him n i have always been a great fan of the man and the rider..
> But i'll tell you now theres no way a guy with his convictions n spirit would say 'enoughs enough' if he is innocent, he has faught many great battles in his life and if he was innocent theres no we he would take this line..
> He has decided to do this so the truth has no way of being validated in court, imo his excuses were very weak n precious, he knows he is gone and does not want to face the music..
> There is no person on this planet that would walk away from these accusations after winning the tour 7 times if they were really innocent, the guy is as guilty as they come and i believe he would have been found guilty without a shadow of a doubt..
> I have lost a great deal of respect for him after this, and dont buy into his excuses for one second, he was one of many many riders on the tour that are guilty of using drugs, and there is also plenty of Aussie riders that have done and are doing the same thing..


Constantly for 13 long years he fought against this, a battle that cannot be won, part of being a champion is picking your battles. 
There is no guilt here, only usless jealous human beings who operate on their feelings rather than logic. There simply was no evidence, nothing worth destroying the mans life, or destroying a sport he helped make popular. 
The fact is this, he passed the testing requirements, over and over again, but if you terrorize anyone enough you will get the answer you want.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Frozenspokes said:


> USADA arbitration is not acoourt of law.


No, it's not. But it is an agency of the US Government and you'd think, therefore, it would be bound by the laws and Constitution of the US. Apparently not.

I'll say it again, I don't know if he doped. The science weighs pretty strongly with me; stronger than disgraced riders and potentially disgraced riders given immunity. Saying everyone else was doing it so he must be is a pretty stupid argument if you're actually trying to prove anything. That's like saying the mail clerk at Enron was ripping off customers and shareholders - intentionally - because the executive suite was. It's just piss poor logic.

Anyway, here's a really good Op-Ed piece on the process and hypocrisy of the USADA and WADA and whole drug testing process. The more I read about the USADA, the more I am convinced they need to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch... with all new employees.

Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA's hypocrisy - The Washington Post

I read another that suggests just voiding ALL the TdFs from that period, since the whole peloton was doping. Now there's an idea that'll shake things up!

And here's one more that's really good.

Lance Armstrong vs. USADA: What are we to believe? - The Washington Post

Again, not debating the "did he or didn't he" argument, but the very obviously flawed process. A couple of good quotes from this piece:



Tracee Hamilton said:


> I don't know if these witnesses are telling the truth, and neither do you. I do know two things: First, he passed all his tests. And second, if he had failed a drug test, and brought in 10 people to testify that they were with him every minute of every day leading up to the test and he never ingested anything, never injected anything, never doped his blood, would we be having this debate today? No, because he would have failed a drug test, and all the testimony in the world wouldn't matter.
> 
> It can't work both ways. Either a drug test is the standard, or it isn't.


And my favorite:



Tracee Hamilton said:


> And he never failed a test. We know this because if he had, Travis T. Tygart, the head of USADA, would have personally delivered the results to every home in America, like a grim little Santa Claus.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

That Washington Post is spot on. There are serious problems here. I'm going back to my boycott argument. Imagine the power for reform that would be generated if the 40,000 NYC marathoners said they will not run until USADA is sanctioned and reorganized. This same crap happened in the 70s with the AAU. People need to make the difference with people tainted by power.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

USADA is not an official government agency. It is a private non-profit that receives grant monies from the fedgov.

It should be sh!tcanned.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> USADA is not an official government agency. It is a private non-profit that receives grant monies from the fedgov.
> 
> It should be sh!tcanned.


Nobody cried when Contador was axed. What is the difference?

I personally think that investigating past is not going to get us far in fighting dopers. Dealing with it now and In the future - is what is important.

If Lance had nothing to hide - he should have fought till the end the way he fought it until he quit. He had too much at stake to quit like that - if he is indeed innocent.

For me - he remains 7 time TdF winner. Everyone else was doped as well and he still beat them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

osokolo said:


> Nobody cried when Contador was axed. What is the difference?
> 
> I personally think that investigating past is not going to get us far in fighting dopers. Dealing with it now and In the future - is what is important.
> 
> ...


Cantador failed a drug test.

Lance did not.

Whether he doped or not is really only known by a handful of people. The best piece of evidence we have to look at is the testing done.


----------



## gretch (Aug 27, 2010)

Just a really sad time for the sport of cycling....


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> Cantador failed a drug test.
> 
> Lance did not.
> 
> Whether he doped or not is really only known by a handful of people. The best piece of evidence we have to look at is the testing done.


Keep in mind that dope doctors are way ahead of those fighting them. For every banned substance there are few that are not banned but equally as good.

By the time blood transfusion was banned , many medals and races were won by cheaters.

How do you fight pregnancy doping?

With good masking agents and advanced doctors - one may never get caught.

So failed drug test as "best evidence" is not really the only evidence.

Lance should have fought and proved his innocence - if he could. But I suspect the word "perjury" was too big of an axe above his head.

Otherwise - why didn't he testify?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mhix01 (Apr 26, 2011)

Tone's L'axeman wrote:
_...i might be able to change my grammar, but you cant change being a pure bred .......... thats in your blood,..._
__________________

Whatever dude, just trying to help you out "n" stuff. When you write like that, people are going to think you're an idiot, but I'm sure now that you're used to that so carry on.

I am a pure bred - both my parents were human. Since that seems odd to you I'm now picturing you as one of those 1/2 human, 1/2 kangaroo dudes in "Tank Girl". And here I thought they used makeup for that.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

osokolo said:


> Keep in mind that dope doctors are way ahead of those fighting them. For every banned substance there are few that are not banned but equally as good.
> 
> By the time blood transfusion was banned , many medals and races were won by cheaters.
> 
> ...


So, if there is something that provides the boost, but is not banned, is it cheating?

And like it or not, the fact of the matter is Lance was going to loose in the arbitration hearing. Do you know why?

Every athlete that has gone to arbitration - with ONE exception - has lost. With those odds, and the fact that the fight is now between USADA and UCI, how could he have made any other choice?


----------



## DLd (Feb 15, 2005)

osokolo said:


> Keep in mind that dope doctors are way ahead of those fighting them. For every banned substance there are few that are not banned but equally as good.
> 
> By the time blood transfusion was banned , many medals and races were won by cheaters.
> 
> ...


If the only evidence is this "he said, she said" testimony from these "witnesses", then how do you fight that? The USADA has already shown who they're going to believe. Should he try to find ways to bash the character of all of these "witnesses" to show that their testimony can't be trusted? In what way is he supposed to fight this. As has been mentioned before the US Department of Justice dropped the case, because of the lack of evidence. Apparently, that lack of evidence is not a problem for the USADA to move forward with this case, so how do you fight that?

From a completely different point of view. I heard someone from USADA saying in a radio interview that they had proof that blood manipulation was taking place. If they're going to hand the win to the guy in #2, then I think it's only right that they submit all of his blood samples to the same testing for blood manipulation before they hand him the win. I have a feeling they may have to go down pretty far in the standings before they find someone whose blood samples pass whatever requirements they have for not appearing manipulated. Either you submit everyone to the same requirements for testing, or no one. Let's keep it a level playing field here.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

But people have to realize "dope" can be anything. We are not just talking about steroids to make you look like a professional wrestler, we are talking about caffeine and even your own blood. But things like scientifically developed nutritional supplements and sports drinks get a pass. This is what is absurd. there are no standards for what enhances performance. You can open a sports oriented magazine and see on practically every page an ad for something that will enhance your performance. These products change with time so that is the importance of statute of limitations. Coca cola had cocaine in at one time. Things change. Standards evolve. Drink a coffee and take a couple power gels and you are a doper and would be suspended for at least two years if you were spot tested at an event. 

Lance had the best trainers possible. I feel sure he had cocktails that were straddling the gray area of illegal. This is not a reason for sanctions, though. It is the mark of a competitor and an evolving science.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

DLd said:


> If the only evidence is this "he said, she said" testimony from these "witnesses", then how do you fight that?


I suspect a few defendants were sent to electric chair based on similar circumstances (testimony) in the court of law. If innocent - YOU FIGHT IT. there is no other way about it.



> The USADA has already shown who they're going to believe. Should he try to find ways to bash the character of all of these "witnesses" to show that their testimony can't be trusted? In what way is he supposed to fight this. As has been mentioned before the US Department of Justice dropped the case, because of the lack of evidence. Apparently, that lack of evidence is not a problem for the USADA to move forward with this case, so how do you fight that?


O.J. Was acquitted. The case against him was infinitely more solid than against Lance.



> From a completely different point of view. I heard someone from USADA saying in a radio interview that they had proof that blood manipulation was taking place. If they're going to hand the win to the guy in #2, then I think it's only right that they submit all of his blood samples to the same testing for blood manipulation before they hand him the win. I have a feeling they may have to go down pretty far in the standings before they find someone whose blood samples pass whatever requirements they have for not appearing manipulated. Either you submit everyone to the same requirements for testing, or no one. Let's keep it a level playing field here.


They would probably have to go down to 68th in the GC to maybe find someone squeaky clean, and hand him the trophy. No doubt.

That is why Lance is still a champion for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

heyyall said:


> But people have to realize "dope" can be anything. We are not just talking about steroids to make you look like a professional wrestler, we are talking about caffeine and even your own blood. But things like scientifically developed nutritional supplements and sports drinks get a pass. This is what is absurd. there are no standards for what enhances performance. You can open a sports oriented magazine and see on practically every page an ad for something that will enhance your performance. These products change with time so that is the importance of statute of limitations. Coca cola had cocaine in at one time. Things change. Standards evolve. Drink a coffee and take a couple power gels and you are a doper and would be suspended for at least two years if you were spot tested at an event.
> 
> Lance had the best trainers possible. I feel sure he had cocktails that were straddling the gray area of illegal. This is not a reason for sanctions, though. It is the mark of a competitor and an evolving science.


BINGO. that is what I've been saying forever.

The foundation must be changed to level the playing field. I just don't see how it will be possible.

Hence let them dope. All of them. That is the ONLY level playing field.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

osokolo said:


> I suspect a few defendants were sent to electric chair based on similar circumstances (testimony) in the court of law. If innocent - YOU FIGHT IT. there is no other way about it.


As I already posted in this thread, the very day this occurred a convicted rapist was let go after 19 years because it turned out he was innocent. Fighting did not help him much. And this won't be in a real court with due process. Still I think it likely he doped, but I also thing the USADA just thinks he did and so did what it took to say he did.



> O.J. Was acquitted. The case against him was infinitely more solid than against Lance.


Once again that was a real courtroom. There you are innocent until proven guilty not guilt until proven innocent.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

heyyall said:


> But people have to realize "dope" can be anything. We are not just talking about steroids to make you look like a professional wrestler, we are talking about caffeine and even your own blood. But things like scientifically developed nutritional supplements and sports drinks get a pass. This is what is absurd. there are no standards for what enhances performance. You can open a sports oriented magazine and see on practically every page an ad for something that will enhance your performance. These products change with time so that is the importance of statute of limitations. Coca cola had cocaine in at one time. Things change. Standards evolve. Drink a coffee and take a couple power gels and you are a doper and would be suspended for at least two years if you were spot tested at an event.
> 
> Lance had the best trainers possible. I feel sure he had cocktails that were straddling the gray area of illegal. This is not a reason for sanctions, though. It is the mark of a competitor and an evolving science.


I agree, after reading the guidelines it's almost like you are at their whim. I think we need to take a hard look at how the USADA does business. I mean we are the tax payers funding the organization.


----------



## sooner518 (Aug 1, 2007)

Some of you people do not understand the term statute of limitations (which ran out long ago in lance's case but USADA just decided that was irrelevant in this case once it ran out), nor do you understand that the burden of proof in this case is MUCH, MUCH lower than a criminal trial for the prosecution. 

There is no point in lance continuing to fight this. How do you prove that something did not happen? Logically it is impossible. If I show up to your house, and accuse you of beating your wife, and tell you that it is your job to prove that you haven't beaten your wife, how do you prove it? And I have a witness who said you beat your wife ten years ago. And i deem your physical evidence (in lances case, hundreds of negative drug tests) to not be allowed in my investigation because I deem it unreliable. And the only evidence I have is hearsay witness testimony and that testimony is allowed in court. How do you prove that you're innocent? 

That's a pretty damn ridiculous scenario isn't it? I think so, and apparently lance does too. The statute of limitations is up and it is impossible to prove ones innocence in this scenario. Why keep throwing away time and money on a case that is unwinnable?


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

sooner518 said:


> Some of you people do not understand the term statute of limitations (which ran out long ago in lance's case but USADA just decided that was irrelevant in this case once it ran out), nor do you understand that the burden of proof in this case is MUCH, MUCH lower than a criminal trial for the prosecution.
> 
> There is no point in lance continuing to fight this. How do you prove that something did not happen? Logically it is impossible. If I show up to your house, and accuse you of beating your wife, and tell you that it is your job to prove that you haven't beaten your wife, how do you prove it? And I have a witness who said you beat your wife ten years ago. And i deem your physical evidence (in lances case, hundreds of negative drug tests) to not be allowed in my investigation because I deem it unreliable. And the only evidence I have is hearsay witness testimony and that testimony is allowed in court. How do you prove that you're innocent?
> 
> That's a pretty damn ridiculous scenario isn't it? I think so, and apparently lance does too. The statute of limitations is up and it is impossible to prove ones innocence in this scenario. Why keep throwing away time and money on a case that is unwinnable?


Lance did not have to prove his innocence, the USADA had to prove his guilt. They obviously felt that the testimony against him by 10 of his close associates was evidence enough to do this. Lance chose not to contest their evidence.

I have no dog in this race. I admire the man but, as has been said, many men have been jailed, some even executed on the uncorroborated evidence of a single accuser. Eye witness testimony from 10 associates would stand as exceptionally strong evidence in any court in the developed world.

And I still think he's a hero.


----------



## goalie (Feb 17, 2008)

nuffink said:


> I have no dog in this race. I admire the man but, as has been said, many men have been jailed, some even executed on the uncorroborated evidence of a single accuser. Eye witness testimony from 10 associates would stand as exceptionally strong evidence in any court in the developed world.
> .


I have been seeing this reasoning all over the internet in regards to this whole thing. I find it pretty funny, since, when you look at the situation, this analogy is flawed in a big way.

Now, if you want to use a more accurate analogy, tell me, would eye witness testimony from 10 associates, all given plea deals for providing said testimony, be considered exceptionally strong evidence in a murder trial *IF THAT TESTIMONY WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE????*

If the gun has someone else's fingerprints on it, the accused is tested and does not test positive for firing a handgun recently, and the tire tracks on the vehicle seen at the crime scene don't match the car the accused was "caught" in, well, that testimony is going to be seen differently than in a vacuum where no forensic evidence is present.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

goalie said:


> Now, if you want to use a more accurate analogy, tell me, would eye witness testimony from 10 associates, all given plea deals for providing said testimony, be considered exceptionally strong evidence in a murder trial *IF THAT TESTIMONY WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE????*


Yes, it would. Especially in sports doping where every single person who has ever been caught has passed many, many tests over the course of their careers. The saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a two edged sword.


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

I don't really agree that 10 "witnesses" is evidence of anything really. They have axes to grind and money or whatever to gain from being a "witness". The many doping tests he has went through and not been caught in should weigh heavier than 10 nutjobs on a mission.

Its the same with the "moon hoax", lots of people gladly tells you why going to the moon is/was impossible at the time. Its the van allen belt radiation, the flag was blowing in the non existent moon wind so it was shot in the nevada desert instead etc etc. All these are valid points if it wasn't for the little fact the astronauts actually left a retroreflector on the moon which smart people use to measure the distance to the moon with a laser, EVERY DAY.

And the little "fact" here in this case is that he tested negative lots and lots of times (otherwise they would have suspended him immediately long long ago) so it could be hundreds if not thousands or even millions of witnesses that has "seen" him doing whatever, it don't mean jack sh1t. Millions of people "see" alien ufos every year, yet not a single god damn alien ufo has ever been presented to the scientific community ever. Go figure.


----------



## goalie (Feb 17, 2008)

nuffink said:


> Yes, it would. Especially in sports doping where every single person who has ever been caught has passed many, many tests over the course of their careers. The saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a two edged sword.


But then it begs the question: if testing negative means nothing and is not going to be the standard of guilt, WHY TEST?

But, to actually address your, "yes it would" reply. If I was a juror, I am not sending someone to prison on the work of punks, thugs and criminals if the physical evidence doesn't support their story in any way.

If Lance actually got a jury, he may not have quit. Again, the analogy is fatally flawed.....


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

goalie said:


> But then it begs the question: if testing negative means nothing and is not going to be the standard of guilt, WHY TEST?


Because testing positive does mean something.


----------



## goalie (Feb 17, 2008)

nuffink said:


> Because testing positive does men something.


So, let me get this right: you are saying that a positive test means something, but a negative doesn't? Is that correct?

:thumbsup:

Again, IMO (yes we all have them, I know) if you are going to use the drug test, then that test needs to be the threshold. You can't have it both ways. Well, unless you're the USADA......


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

goalie said:


> So, let me get this right: you are saying that a positive test means something, but a negative doesn't? Is that correct?


Not quite. Testing positive means you're guilty. Testing negative means that you're innocent for now.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

The USADA is using the "biological passport", too. There are key problems with this approach. For example, part of USADA's claim is that Lance's hematocrit changed substantially over the course of a couple of day. Therefore, there must have been a transfusion. Well, that is unless there are other credible explanations as explained here:

Lance Armstrong doping case | Human Limits: Michael J. Joyner, M.D.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

nuffink said:


> Not quite. Testing positive means you're guilty. Testing negative means that you're innocent for now.


So another words guilty until proven innocent then maybe still guilty?


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

FX4 said:


> So another words guilty until proven innocent then maybe still guilty?


No. Try harder.

And it's "in other words".


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

Whatever it is I maintain this judgement brings into question the impartiality of the USADA. It seems to me they have an agenda and that agenda is going to happen, damned be the evidence. This entire thing is just wrong on so many levels.


----------



## dobovedo (Feb 13, 2011)

nuffink said:


> Not quite. Testing positive means you're guilty. Testing negative means that you're innocent for now.


The legal determination is usually "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"... it is not "Guilty" or "Innocent". Just because I'm found Not Guilty of something doesn't mean I didn't do it, it only means there wasn't enough proof to find me Guilty.

Testing negative can mean one of two things, either I really am innocent OR I'm guilty but the test wasn't good enough to catch whatever it is I'm doing.

Using a different example besides drug testing, say I drive down the highway at 70mph in a 65mph zone. I'm guilty of speeding. If a cop fires a laser gun but the gun isn't calibrated correctly and shows 65, it does not mean I wasn't speeding. It doesn't mean I'm innocent. It just means I didn't get caught.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

dobovedo said:


> The legal determination is usually "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"... it is not "Guilty" or "Innocent". Just because I'm found Not Guilty of something doesn't mean I didn't do it, it only means there wasn't enough proof to find me Guilty.
> 
> Testing negative can mean one of two things, either I really am innocent OR I'm guilty but the test wasn't good enough to catch whatever it is I'm doing.
> 
> Using a different example besides drug testing, say I drive down the highway at 70mph in a 65mph zone. I'm guilty of speeding. If a cop fires a laser gun but the gun isn't calibrated correctly and shows 65, it does not mean I wasn't speeding. It doesn't mean I'm innocent. It just means I didn't get caught.


Fair enough. I stand corrected in my use of the word innocent.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

dobovedo said:


> The legal determination is usually "Guilty" or "Not Guilty"... it is not "Guilty" or "Innocent". Just because I'm found Not Guilty of something doesn't mean I didn't do it, it only means there wasn't enough proof to find me Guilty.
> 
> Testing negative can mean one of two things, either I really am innocent OR I'm guilty but the test wasn't good enough to catch whatever it is I'm doing.
> 
> Using a different example besides drug testing, say I drive down the highway at 70mph in a 65mph zone. I'm guilty of speeding. If a cop fires a laser gun but the gun isn't calibrated correctly and shows 65, it does not mean I wasn't speeding. It doesn't mean I'm innocent. It just means I didn't get caught.


No, the court of law exists to determine guilt ot innocence, if you are found not guilty, then by the standard of the law, you are well get this NOT ****ING GUILTY. 
Your analogy is also ridiculous since well we already know he takes testosterone since he only has one nut, we also know he has been tested several hundred times, so unless the test was wrong 500 times, he is INNOCENT. now move along nothing to see here.


----------



## adam728 (Jan 25, 2006)

dobovedo said:


> Using a different example besides drug testing, say I drive down the highway at 70mph in a 65mph zone. I'm guilty of speeding. If a cop fires a laser gun but the gun isn't calibrated correctly and shows 65, it does not mean I wasn't speeding. It doesn't mean I'm innocent. It just means I didn't get caught.


And if 8 years later someone getting a ticket says that they know you have sped on that highway, should you be ticketed for every time you drove on it in the past? And lose your license and car? Even if you went through speed traps hundreds of times and never were found to be speeding?


----------



## dobovedo (Feb 13, 2011)

adam728 said:


> And if 8 years later someone getting a ticket says that they know you have sped on that highway, should you be ticketed for every time you drove on it in the past? And lose your license and car? Even if you went through speed traps hundreds of times and never were found to be speeding?


Absolutely not. You'll get no disagreement from me about how many ways this whole situation is wrong, most especially the statutes of limitations and selective persecution (yes, persecution, not just prosecution). I've gotten into more arguments about it than I care to count in the past few days.

I was just offering an interpretation of the statements about positive vs negative and the distinctions between guilty vs. not guilty vs. innocent.


----------



## dobovedo (Feb 13, 2011)

Blurr said:


> No, the court of law exists to determine guilt ot innocence, if you are found not guilty, then by the standard of the law, you are well get this NOT ****ING GUILTY.
> Your analogy is also ridiculous since well we already know he takes testosterone since he only has one nut, we also know he has been tested several hundred times, so unless the test was wrong 500 times, he is INNOCENT. now move along nothing to see here.


Since I never offered a single opinion about Lance, his guilt or innocence, or his nut for that matter, I have no idea why you'd be so angry about it. Must be 'roid rage. Have you been tested lately?


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

osokolo said:


> I suspect a few defendants were sent to electric chair based on similar circumstances (testimony) in the court of law. If innocent - YOU FIGHT IT. there is no other way about it.


I hear you Unfortunately we don't live in the country where looser pays. This case lawyers from both sides win collecting their fee and move on. USADA can keep bringing up charges as and Lance just have to spend to defend his name.

I'll tell you, I'd buy a ringside seat if Lance can sue whoever in charge of this case as well as USADA for legal expense+damage when he's proved not guilty. That would stop or at least slow down these nonsense lawsuits.

On the side note, I hope nobody comes after me I remember on my last race I'm pretty sure I'd tested positive for something illegal since I used ointment that contain heavy dose of steroid for my muscle pain, and I had poppy seed bagel with cream cheese for breakfast .


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

I read Lance is banned from the NYC Marathon as well. Apparently there is no end to the bullsh!t.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> So, if there is something that provides the boost, but is not banned, is it cheating?
> 
> And like it or not, the fact of the matter is Lance was going to loose in the arbitration hearing. Do you know why?
> 
> Every athlete that has gone to arbitration - with ONE exception - has lost. With those odds, and the fact that the fight is now between USADA and UCI, how could he have made any other choice?


simple. it is the matter of principle...

this way - more people than not - will say - yep. this is his admission of guilt...

i heard that Clemens spent $20 million on the process of defending himself (successfully). for that kind of cash - i'd say go to hell as well...


----------



## uzyrmind (Nov 17, 2011)

jmmorath said:


> Dang by the time they are down the line finding someone "worthy" of the title, I'm gonna wish my drunk ass was in the Tour de France. I'd been DFL and the winner!


Classic!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

alphajaguars said:


> Cantador failed a drug test.
> 
> Lance did not.
> 
> Whether he doped or not is really only known by a handful of people. The best piece of evidence we have to look at is the testing done.


Are you aware of the alleged EPO positive at the 2001 Tour De Suisse...and the subsequent donations from Armstong to the UCI of $25,000 and $100,000?


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Blurr said:


> No, the court of law exists to determine guilt ot innocence, if you are found not guilty, then by the standard of the law, you are well get this NOT ****ING GUILTY.
> Your analogy is also ridiculous since well we already know he takes testosterone since he only has one nut, we also know he has been tested several hundred times, so unless the test was wrong 500 times, he is INNOCENT. now move along nothing to see here.


This post is pretty much complete blather. First, the court of law does NOT exist to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine guilt under the law. Because of that, you are either guilty or not guilty, but make no mistake, not guilty does not equal innocent.

As for us all knowing he takes testosterone because of his cancer, do you have a link to that? Or is that just an assumption of yours? I don't know that he takes it for any reason. If he did, I wonder if that would disqualify him from competition since there would be no way to disqualify him for taking too much.

Oh, and he's never faced a court of law as far as I know; the criminal investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. He wasn't going to this time either, just a biased, pre-determined arbitration hearing that was going to determine he doped regardless of what was said at the hearing.

Before you start flaming people, you need to have your own ducks in a row; you don't.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Moving on now, I wonder how long it'll be before the USADA goes after Michael Phelps. I mean... there's no way a mere mortal could win that many Olympic medals unless they had an artificial advantage. Especially when we know he doesn't train hard.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

skiahh said:


> This post is pretty much complete blather. First, the court of law does NOT exist to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine guilt under the law. Because of that, you are either guilty or not guilty, but make no mistake, not guilty does not equal innocent.


 It is the means of determining it, keep up *snaps fingers*



> As for us all knowing he takes testosterone because of his cancer, do you have a link to that? Or is that just an assumption of yours? I don't know that he takes it for any reason. If he did, I wonder if that would disqualify him from competition since there would be no way to disqualify him for taking too much.


 oh friggin brother, they have a standard which you cannot test over, thus the purpose of said test.



> Oh, and he's never faced a court of law as far as I know; the criminal investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. He wasn't going to this time either, just a biased, pre-determined arbitration hearing that was going to determine he doped regardless of what was said at the hearing.
> 
> Before you start flaming people, you need to have your own ducks in a row; you don't.


lol ok there champ whos flamin? 
:skep: r you smoking some wacky by chance?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

skiahh said:


> Moving on now, I wonder how long it'll be before the USADA goes after Michael Phelps. I mean... there's no way a mere mortal could win that many Olympic medals unless they had an artificial advantage. Especially when we know he doesn't train hard.


And he smokes dope, like a forest fire. Lol


----------



## timeis45 (Aug 18, 2012)

Please, can someone comment on how the USADA is involved with the results of Tour? From the USADA website, the organization is for the Olympic movement. Is it that the organization was approached by the Tour or its governing body? 

"The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."
(August 25 2012)


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

^ That's a great question. It seems, if the French could have stripped him of his wins, they would have done it a long time ago.


----------



## edebolt (Feb 22, 2008)

Greg Lemond is probably celebrating somewhere. He is probably too far back to investigate.

Would seem like a lock that Indurain probably also broke a few rules. 

Seems really questionable to go back so far against Lance.


----------



## roblee (Sep 26, 2011)

This has nothing to do with doping after this many years.
Think about it? 
Sad for the sport of cycling.


----------



## geo025 (Dec 20, 2010)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> ^ That's a great question. It seems, if the French could have stripped him of his wins, they would have done it a long time ago.


I think it has gone on way too long for the French to step up & do any stripping.
They would more likely want it to go away.

Funny how many here thought Lance was on a banned substance, but still think all is OK & he should keep his wins/spoils....

Is Lance the only person in the world that thinks he's clean?


----------



## BigwheelsRbest (Jun 12, 2007)

geo025 said:


> I think it has gone on way too long for the French to step up & do any stripping.


Aww - don't say that - I'd love to see someone French doing some stripping... 

Apologies - completely off topic, I know. Neg rep me all you want, I deserve it :thumbsup:

(*LEAVE LANCE ALONE!*)


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

osokolo said:


> simple. it is the matter of principle...
> 
> this way - more people than not - will say - yep. this is his admission of guilt...
> 
> i heard that Clemens spent $20 million on the process of defending himself (successfully). for that kind of cash - i'd say go to hell as well...


Was Clemens charged by USADA, or just perjury?


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

_tom_ said:


> Are you aware of the alleged EPO positive at the 2001 Tour De Suisse...and the subsequent donations from Armstong to the UCI of $25,000 and $100,000?


Yep.

And the alleged EPO positives from the '99 TdF.

So, is the whole system crooked, or were those just more stories to try and slight Armstrong?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> Yep.
> 
> And the alleged EPO positives from the '99 TdF.
> 
> So, is the whole system crooked, or were those just more stories to try and slight Armstrong?


Lance was a golden goose for UCI for the longest time. Who knows what went on with his positive tests but it easily could have been a business decision by UCI no less, to turn their blind eye to it and cash in big at the same time. Who knows if there were individual bribes as well. It's Europe after all.

Having said all that - doing all this 8 years later - is troublesome indeed. Perception is bad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

osokolo said:


> Lance was a golden goose for UCI for the longest time. Who knows what went on with his positive tests but it easily could have been a business decision by UCI no less, to turn their blind eye to it and cash in big at the same time. Who knows if there were individual bribes as well. It's Europe after all.
> 
> Having said all that - doing all this 8 years later - is troublesome indeed. Perception is bad.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perception is VERY bad, especially since the DOJ dropped the case.

I just have to believe that just like in other scandals, SOMEONE involved in the testing would have come forward with enough info to nail him long before this.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

timeis45 said:


> Please, can someone comment on how the USADA is involved with the results of Tour? From the USADA website, the organization is for the Olympic movement. Is it that the organization was approached by the Tour or its governing body?
> 
> "The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."
> (August 25 2012)


It has to do with "_The Code_" (Dah dah dahhhhhh). If your country, sport or organization has signed "The Code" - that is, the WADA "World Anti Doping Code", then you have to enforce it. So, while the USADA technically doesn't have the ability to strip him of his wins (despite their self aggrandizing claims of authority), the UCI, a signatory to "The Code" does. And if they are satisfied of the results that the USADA MUST (under that same "Code") present to them, then they are pretty much obligated to act on the determination of doping.

I just waded through "The Code" and there's not much wiggle room or apparent fairness to athletes in there. Despite saying it's the ADA's responsibility to prove doping, it's the athletes absolute responsibility to make sure no banned substance enters their body in any way. So, even if you eat a steak with hormones in it and they show up in your body (not sure if it's possible, but at least one athlete claimed this), it's still your fault. Oh, it also says that you can be found to have doped based on witness statements and even single test results of either an A or B sample without a positive result in the other one.

Yeah, burden's on the ADA - and the burden is "Comfortable Satisfaction" of the panel hearing the case. That's supposed to be greater than "mere balance of probability" but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yeah... sure. Tygart is Comfortable that Lance doped and therefore, he did. Burden of proof met.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Somebody decided to go into the UCI office on a Sunday. Must be serious.
*
Press Release: UCI's statement on Lance Armstrong's decision
*
24.08.2012

_The UCI notes Lance Armstrong's decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.

The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.

UCI Press Services_

Translation:- Get your putain de tanks off our lawn.


----------



## aedubber (Apr 17, 2011)

skiahh said:


> It has to do with "_The Code_" (Dah dah dahhhhhh). If your country, sport or organization has signed "The Code" - that is, the WADA "World Anti Doping Code", then you have to enforce it. So, while the USADA technically doesn't have the ability to strip him of his wins (despite their self aggrandizing claims of authority), the UCI, a signatory to "The Code" does. And if they are satisfied of the results that the USADA MUST (under that same "Code") present to them, then they are pretty much obligated to act on the determination of doping.
> 
> I just waded through "The Code" and there's not much wiggle room or apparent fairness to athletes in there. Despite saying it's the ADA's responsibility to prove doping, it's the athletes absolute responsibility to make sure no banned substance enters their body in any way. So, even if you eat a steak with hormones in it and they show up in your body (not sure if it's possible, but at least one athlete claimed this), it's still your fault. *Oh, it also says that you can be found to have doped based on witness statements and even single test results of either an A or B sample without a positive result in the other one. *
> 
> Yeah, burden's on the ADA - and the burden is *"Comfortable Satisfaction" of the panel hearing the case. That's supposed to be greater than "mere balance of probability" but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt"*. Yeah... sure. Tygart is Comfortable that Lance doped and therefore, he did. Burden of proof met.


Yea now i see why Lance just gave up , there is NO way in hell any athlete or ANYONE could win against something like this . This is extremely favored to one side and not fair at all :nono: .


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

nuffink said:


> The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to *imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code*.


I'll say this, I'd do my very best to participate in whatever backyard sports event Lance would organize, just to pissed off USADA and WADA. I'm sure that plenty of people woud do the same, heck it would be funny if they put up "dopers welcome"


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> heck it would be funny if they put up "dopers welcome"


I wouldn't go that far. I don't think anyone is promoting doping. No one has ever proven that LA ever did any doping.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I wouldn't go that far. I don't think anyone is promoting doping. No one has ever proven that LA ever did any doping.


Yeah you're right. I still don't believe LA did any non-approved supplements. So I guess my original "Dopers Open" would also be a bad idea.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> Yeah you're right. I still don't believe LA did any non-approved supplements. So I guess my original "Dopers Open" would also be a bad idea.


I'd show up and eat a poppy seed bagel right before lining up.


----------



## jollybeggar (Feb 2, 2004)

Why don't we just all get our heads out of the sand and come out of the closet with the fact that they all dope. Then we can have a best dopping tour and be done with all this nonsence.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

jollybeggar said:


> Why don't we just all get our heads out of the sand and come out of the closet with the fact that they all dope. Then we can have a best dopping tour and be done with all this nonsence.


That's not true, they don't all dope. The Tour does testing everyday during the tour. If everyone was doping, no one would be left to finish.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> That's not true, they don't all dope. The Tour does testing everyday during the tour. If everyone was doping, no one would be left to finish.


Yes, but as we've seen, positive tests mean you doped... but negative tests don't mean squat.


----------



## Mikecito (Jun 2, 2007)

It would be cool if Lance started party crashing bike races. No number, just show up, kick ass and ride off...


----------



## Sage of the Sage (Nov 10, 2011)

+1 ^


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

skiahh said:


> Yes, but as we've seen, positive tests mean you doped... but negative tests don't mean squat.


There is more truth in this statement than you would ever think.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> That's not true, they don't all dope. The Tour does testing everyday during the tour. If everyone was doping, no one would be left to finish.


They probably do. Just don't get caught as the substance is not banned - yet, or they have perfect masking agents and/or procedures.

Obviously, I do not have much illusions - after "been there seen that".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jollybeggar (Feb 2, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> That's not true, they don't all dope. The Tour does testing everyday during the tour. If everyone was doping, no one would be left to finish.


Yea right, so Lance is the only one who didn't get caught until after winning 7 Tours. Come on, testing is obviously fallible. Sure not everybody is dopping but maybe they should so everybody would all have the same chance.

It's all a bunch of testosterone fueled ball waving nonsence.


----------



## jollybeggar (Feb 2, 2004)

Mikecito said:


> It would be cool if Lance started party crashing bike races. No number, just show up, kick ass and ride off...


Only if he test positive first.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

jollybeggar said:


> Yea right, so Lance is the only one who didn't get caught until after winning 7 Tours. Come on, testing is obviously fallible. Sure not everybody is dopping but maybe they should so everybody would all have the same chance.
> 
> It's all a bunch of testosterone fueled ball waving nonsence.


Sports are woefully unimportant in the grand scheme of things anyhow. 
People put far, far to much into it all, we should be looking up to scientists and people truly making a difference in this world, not someone standing on a podium who usually is one of he biggest cry babies you would ever meet.
Now with that said we should look up to those who do make a difference in the world. I do believe Lance is one of those people, who is inspiration for other cancer survivors ect.
Tebow for his tremendous charity on and on.
Yet somehow all that is lost with who is finishing first, beh.


----------



## ddouble518 (May 18, 2011)

I think people training in CO should be banned racing at sea level. They are all EPO dopping


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

Regardless of what the whistle blowers have achieved to discredit Lance....he still won the tour 7 times and passed the doping tests at the time he was competing in it !


----------



## Swissam (Apr 8, 2008)

ddouble518 said:


> I think people training in CO should be banned racing at sea level. They are all EPO dopping


and people from Colorado should not enter any drinking compititions at sea level either, completely unfair.


----------



## ddouble518 (May 18, 2011)

Swissam said:


> and people from Colorado should not enter any drinking compititions at sea level either, completely unfair.


Yeah...and all those people racing on carbon frames and using ceramic bearings....Whats the matter? Can't make it up the hill with that extra pound you coefficient of friction cheats.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

ddouble518 said:


> Yeah...and all those people racing on carbon frames and using ceramic bearings....Whats the matter? Can't make it up the hill with that extra pound you coefficient of friction cheats.


Lol that's called unfair advantage - not doping. But I like the turn that this thread has taken. 

I think Lance is less concerned about this shyte than ourselves.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jollybeggar (Feb 2, 2004)

"we should be looking up to scientists and people truly making a difference in this world"

I know Lance does. Winning through "science" is a time honoured tradition in cycling. ;O)


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

nuffink said:


> Somebody decided to go into the UCI office on a Sunday. Must be serious.
> *
> Press Release: UCI's statement on Lance Armstrong's decision
> *
> ...


Wow this is a complete farce.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

It keeps getting more farcical..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...9510839091278.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

The last paragraph had an interesting point I did not know before: the USADA doesn't have the power to call witnesses before arbitration. Hum...I wonder who is on first


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

must read... excellent education on the case....

Balls, Wheels, Doping. • It's not about the bike


----------



## jollybeggar (Feb 2, 2004)

"Drugs or no drugs," Matthew Serge wrote on Twitter, "anyone that raises $500 million to fight cancer is cool by me."

Moral relativism wins the day! The democrats are doing high fives.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> must read... excellent education on the case....
> 
> Balls, Wheels, Doping. • It's not about the bike


A strictly opinion article with nothing to back it up save speculation and hearsay, piss poor IMO.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

jollybeggar said:


> "Drugs or no drugs," Matthew Serge wrote on Twitter, "anyone that raises $500 million to fight cancer is cool by me."
> 
> Moral relativism wins the day! The democrats are doing high fives.


If only that money had help cancer research... American hero that the beat, it's about time.


----------



## trodaq (Jun 11, 2011)

jollybeggar said:


> Why don't we just all get our heads out of the sand and come out of the closet with the fact that they all dope. Then we can have a best dopping tour and be done with all this nonsence.


 I wasnt thinking sand but I agree with the rest.


----------



## Blubaru (Aug 26, 2012)

Yeah, I kind of get the feeling that this will not change people's opinions of the man one bit


----------



## ddouble518 (May 18, 2011)

It's all a witch hunt.... I find it funny all the uproar about this yet they were PROMOTING a "lactic acid buffer":skep: when you look at the chemistry of it, works on the back end to give you a comparable, while in a later stage, effect of EPO on muscle endurance. Not to mention the the self induced polycythemia causesing a lower venus return thus limiting the cardiac output. The "supplement" they were promoting seems to be a greater advantage.


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

Blurr said:


> A strictly opinion article with nothing to back it up save speculation and hearsay, piss poor IMO.


Except for the biological passport thing near the end...I have seen everything in that article reported elsewhere.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

_tom_ said:


> Except for the biological passport thing near the end...I have seen everything in that article reported elsewhere.


No bibliography, no specific legitimate scientific references nothing.

Here is the thing, you can assume all you want, but when someones life & way of making a living are at question you damn sure better have strong evidence or it never should even be considered and the false accusations (which is what they are without evidence) needs to stop.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Blurr said:


> No bibliography, no specific legitimate scientific references nothing.
> 
> Here is the thing, you can assume all you want, but when someones life & way of making a living are at question you damn sure better have strong evidence or it never should even be considered and the false accusations (which is what they are without evidence) needs to stop.


Yep, That's just bad journalism.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Blurr said:


> No bibliography, no specific legitimate scientific references nothing.
> 
> Here is the thing, you can assume all you want, but when someones life & way of making a living are at question you damn sure better have strong evidence or it never should even be considered and the false accusations (which is what they are without evidence) needs to stop.


I'm kinda with you there. It was a good read with interesting reference but half way thru I couldn't help but thinking all the people sure sounded like a disgruntle employees. Simeoni reference is not entirely true either that's just one sided report making him look like a victim of a bully. I remember watching every stage of 04 TDF and that's not how I remember it.

There are different side of the story, even the truth/fact can be viewed different ways I usually just draw my judgement based on a commonsense, it's not always the correct one but it's always get me closest to the truth.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*state of denial?*

every single statement in that blog was pulled from publicly available reports. It is your choice if you do not want to believe it - that is completely fine.

Lance's urine samples tested positive for EPO in testing that was performed a few years WHEN the test BECAME AVAILABLE. This confirms statements that dopers and their doctors are ALWAYS ahead of available testing methods. This is the reason why I believe that there should not be statute of limitation on anti-doping testing... The ONLY reason why these tests were not accepted was that they were done in "scientific research" environment, using the (then) new method of detecting EPO... This was published all over the media at the time. UCI surpresed it as much as they could...

Corticosteroid creme episode is also a public knowledge... Lances explanation was as valid as Contadors "tainted meet" explanation.

By all means - believe all you want - but the evidence is so overwhelming that denying it is quite ignorant...

Lance will not lose his money, or job that he doesn't have... He made enough money for the kids of his kids...

I can't even imagine what the reaction would have been if all these charges were laid by French authorities, and not USA own agency.

Everyone should own up to their mistakes. If he was innocent - he should have defended himself till the end. At least in America - and with the cash that he has - it is not that easy to convict people without overwhelming evidence - sometimes even WITH overwhelming evidence (O.J. Simpson comes to mind).

Just saw Lance on TV, on his bike - giving statements... he didn't look too worried about this "noise" as he called it...



Blurr said:


> No bibliography, no specific legitimate scientific references nothing.
> 
> Here is the thing, you can assume all you want, but when someones life & way of making a living are at question you damn sure better have strong evidence or it never should even be considered and the false accusations (which is what they are without evidence) needs to stop.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> I'm kinda with you there. It was a good read with interesting reference but half way thru I couldn't help but thinking all the people sure sounded like a disgruntle employees. Simeoni reference is not entirely true either that's just one sided report making him look like a victim of a bully. I remember watching every stage of 04 TDF and that's not how I remember it.
> 
> There are different side of the story, even the truth/fact can be viewed different ways I usually just draw my judgement based on a commonsense, it's not always the correct one but it's always get me closest to the truth.


Why do you think Simeoni reference is not entirely true either???

Simeoni: Justice Has Come A Bit Late In Armstrong Case | Cyclingnews.com

Armstrong Chases Down Simeoni Attack | Bicycling Magazine

Tour de France: Simeoni bullied into line by boss | Sport | The Guardian

Armstrong, Simeoni Clash at Tour De France - General News - redOrbit


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> every single statement in that blog was pulled from publicly available reports. It is your choice if you do not want to believe it - that is completely fine.
> 
> Lance's urine samples tested positive for EPO in testing that was performed a few years WHEN the test BECAME AVAILABLE. This confirms statements that dopers and their doctors are ALWAYS ahead of available testing methods. This is the reason why I believe that there should not be statute of limitation on anti-doping testing... The ONLY reason why these tests were not accepted was that they were done in "scientific research" environment, using the (then) new method of detecting EPO... This was published all over the media at the time. UCI surpresed it as much as they could...
> 
> Corticosteroid creme episode is also a public knowledge... Lances explanation was as valid as Contadors "tainted meet" explanation.


 Do you mean the test where he tested positive and it was also scientifically linked to a prescription saddle sore cream he was using at the time? The same cream which the panel then excused and gave him the green light with?



> Lance will not lose his money, or job that he doesn't have... He made enough money for the kids of his kids...


 actually he will have to repay that money, but I am sure you are aware of that and simply jealous of someone elses success.



> I can't even imagine what the reaction would have been if all these charges were laid by French authorities, and not USA own agency.


 the french have rattled the sabre but just as with the USA agency they had no real evidence, however unlike the french US agencies seem to not be bound by any real law so they can do as they seem fit.



> Everyone should own up to their mistakes. If he was innocent - he should have defended himself till the end. At least in America - and with the cash that he has - it is not that easy to convict people without overwhelming evidence - sometimes even WITH overwhelming evidence (O.J. Simpson comes to mind).


 again that is nothing but Subjective, do you have any actual evidence? No, I did not think so.



> Just saw Lance on TV, on his bike - giving statements... he didn't look too worried about this "noise" as he called it...


See above. Pray you never are accused of a crime you never committed, thousands of people each year are forced to confess and go to prison, you have zero Idea what you are talking about and are very very naive.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

The Simeoni instance is one of my favorite memories. Racing is part mental and this was a good head game at that point in his career.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Blurr said:


> Do you mean the test where he tested positive and it was also scientifically linked to a prescription saddle sore cream he was using at the time? The same cream which the panel then excused and gave him the green light with?


of course - the cream that Armstrong did not report to the race management AHEAD of using it - as he was supposed to and the same cream for which the prescription was backdated... yep, the same cream... it is a steroidal cream, and not to report it to race management would be too ridiculous and out of their mind - for Armstrong's team - as organized and professional as they are... or was it just a cover up - as good as tainted meat explanation???

we will never find out because Lance does not want to testify and DEFEND himself...



> actually he will have to repay that money, but I am sure you are aware of that and simply jealous of someone elses success.


you mean he will have to repay $100 million to Nike, like Tiger Woods repaid his chunk to Nike after his affairs? not really... he will keep every cent. if he repays anything, it will be peanuts. pocket money. and it will go to those that he so unjustly sued and took THEIR money yet they were right...



> the french have rattled the sabre but just as with the USA agency they had no real evidence, however unlike the french US agencies seem to not be bound by any real law so they can do as they seem fit.
> 
> again that is nothing but Subjective, do you have any actual evidence? No, I did not think so.


the law in the USA is hardly subjective - why did he not testify and defend himself?



> See above. Pray you never are accused of a crime you never committed, thousands of people each year are forced to confess and go to prison, you have zero Idea what you are talking about and are very very naive.


the percentage of wrongly convicted people - compared to rightly accused - is still overwhelmingly correct. mind you - one wrongly accused is one too many for me.

but if you do not defend yourself - you WILL lose. How much worse can it get if you DEFEND yourself. Please tell me why he did not defend himself - it would not have gotten any worse - could it?

we can probably agree that we disagree after this... that is fine with me... :thumbsup:


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> of course - the cream that Armstrong did not report to the race management AHEAD of using it - as he was supposed to and the same cream for which the prescription was backdated... yep, the same cream... it is a steroidal cream, and not to report it to race management would be too ridiculous and out of their mind - for Armstrong's team - as organized and professional as they are... or was it just a cover up - as good as tainted meat explanation???
> 
> we will never find out because Lance does not want to testify and DEFEND himself...
> 
> ...


He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
\The Declaration of Independence


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Blurr said:


> He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
> 
> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
> \The Declaration of Independence


The Declaration of Independence nor the Bill of Rights have any bearing on the actions of USADA.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

AZ.MTNS said:


> The Declaration of Independence nor the Bill of Rights have any bearing on the actions of USADA.


They have every bearing upon it, I find it sad you do not understand the basic foundation of this country nor our basic laws, but fear not, you obviously are not alone :nono:
Your rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not tossed aside at a whim.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Blurr said:


> They have every bearing upon it, I find it sad you do not understand the basic foundation of this country nor our basic laws, but fear not, you obviously are not alone :nono:
> Your rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not tossed aside at a whim.


By agreeing to the terms of use by racing under the sanctioning umbrella of USADA, racers agree to the rules set forth by USADA, and give up those rights. This is a legally binding agreement and is by no means untested territory. I'm sorry you cannot grasp that very fundamental concept.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*see, when Lance applied and was granted*

an UCI license, so that he can compete in UCI sanctioned events, like TdF and others, he accepted the terms and regulations that go with this membership. no one forced Lance to join UCI - he chose to join UCI and accept it's rules.

Part XIV of UCI rules talks about anti-doping.

Union Cycliste Internationale

Every UCI member may be subject to anti-doping test, at any time. Including me, who had to get UCI license to compete in Provincial Cup Expert Masters category... At any given time, maybe right now, someone can knock on my door and ask me to submit my urine for testing... I agreed to that by requesting and being granted an UCI license. It is not even in small print. It is in big print.

Guess what is happening around here lately - donut ride racers are being tested, not even pros.

Canadian Cyclist - Cyclist Suspended for Testosterone Violation

No one took away Lance's freedom or individual rights... He did sign off some of them, by his own volition and himself, by becoming a licensed member of UCI.

But really - should we be discussing technicalities here - or ethics and morality?

Short of stripping Lance his TdF titles - which I am not sure about - I believe that USADA is well within their rights to do what they are doing.



Blurr said:


> They have every bearing upon it, I find it sad you do not understand the basic foundation of this country nor our basic laws, but fear not, you obviously are not alone :nono:
> Your rights are supposed to be guaranteed, not tossed aside at a whim.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

This post is drawing heavily on another post I submitted to another subforum, but...

Just my opinion, but I think the cause is largely due to our general predisposition to (where possible) try to support and defend all things cycling whether it's competition, trail projects, bike lanes and infrastructure, assigning fault in motor vehicle vs. bike incidents, etc. Or if not to extend our support, at least to shade our benefit of doubt toward the cycling side in any otherwise balanced position. Among non-cycling friends, family, and co-workers we're accustomed to being misunderstood or perhaps even ridiculed at times.

Following this logic, it's easy to see where cycling enthusiasts of most types might tend to think of Lance as the cyclist that needs to be defended against the non-cycling bureaucratic, government funded entity USADA, especially when combined with the general distrust most of us have for our respective federal governments (not just speaking about U.S.A. here). We become easily emotionally invested in scenarios that paint cycling in a bad light. I'll admit that it doesn't take much for me to adopt a pro-cyclist stance in most debates, but in this case it's getting all turned around in a reactionary manner without considering the possibility that maybe the so-called "Lance Effect" isn't positive for cycling after all, when all is said and done?

This isn't about the big bad USADA going after the poor little athlete. Armstrong *IS* the establishment, "The Man", in league with the UCI, with his business partners such as Thom Weisel controlling the USAC's board of directors, and exercising influence where possible over many media sources such as the ubiquitous Phil and Paul (with whom he shares business interests) and others. Armstrong is the 800lb gorilla in the room, with personal funds available for legal purposes far exceeding USADA's relatively modest resources. USADA is the little guy, the underdog, in this whole scenario.

A major error here is in thinking this case is all about Armstrong. In fact, the USADA charging document was targeted at all of the following subjects;

- 1 active pro tour directeur sportif (Bruyneel)
- 3 active team doctors (Marti, Ceyala, Del Moral)
- 1 independent doping guru (the legendary Dr. Ferrari - active???)
- 1 cyclist (Armstrong)

The USADA case is about hacking away a significant number of major enablers involved in doping on the pro tour. It's only the fact that Armstrong is the highest profile among them, and the only one who chose to launch major (failed) legal challenges against the USADA charges, that leads casual followers to believe it's all about Armstrong. USADA can't go after the other five without bundling in Armstrong who is too intertwined with the consolidated case to ignore, but most people have barely heard of the others and would probably be hard-pressed to even remember that all six were charged since 99% of the media focus is on Armstrong.

Regardless, I strongly believe it has value to go after Armstrong now even in his retirement from pro cycling. At the time of the charges in June, Armstrong was still competing at a high level in triathlons that were under the domain of USADA and WADA's anti-doping programs, but more important to me is that it's supporting the concept of a deterrent for current cyclists knowing that if they choose to dope, it can still come back to bite them later.

Part of the problem is the tendency to build up famous athletes to icon status that transcend reasonable limits of their sphere of influence. Like it or not, these iconic figures play some role in shaping the morals of society. I'm not going to digress too far on this topic, but with items like gene therapy on the near horizon some new ethical and moral issues are going to be in play, and sooner or later everyone is going to need to decide where they are going to draw their own personal line in the sand.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

AZ.MTNS said:


> By agreeing to the terms of use by racing under the sanctioning umbrella of USADA, racers agree to the rules set forth by USADA, and give up those rights. This is a legally binding agreement and is by no means untested territory. I'm sorry you cannot grasp that very fundamental concept.


Ever hear of the right to a fair and speedy trial? Evidently not.

Your rights cannot be taken away from you until that has happened in the court of Law, until then are to have basic rights agains this sort of harrassment, you and others would do well to educate yourself as to how and why this country was founded, I wont hold my breath though, if you have not by this time in your life, I doubt you ever will.

Good day.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> an UCI license, so that he can compete in UCI sanctioned events, like TdF and others, he accepted the terms and regulations that go with this membership. no one forced Lance to join UCI - he chose to join UCI and accept it's rules.
> 
> Part XIV of UCI rules talks about anti-doping.
> 
> ...


To harass Americans for over a Decade? GTFO

Edit: If in thirteen years this organization has failed to come up with any actual evidence against Lance, if it has not been able to analyze blood samples and interview even 20 people in that time and come up with actual legitimate evidence, if its only plan is to win from attrition, then it is nothing more than a complete and total waste of money that needs to be done away with.
They are the real criminals around here, how anyone can in good and clear mind think that someone winning a friggin game is somehow of more importance than another corrupt organization is absolutely beyond me.


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

Blurr said:


> To harass Americans for over a Decade? GTFO
> 
> Edit: If in thirteen years this organization has failed to come up with any actual evidence against Lance, if it has not been able to analyze blood samples and interview even 20 people in that time and come up with actual legitimate evidence, if its only plan is to win from attrition, then it is nothing more than a complete and total waste of money that needs to be done away with.
> They are the real criminals around here, how anyone can in good and clear mind think that someone winning a friggin game is somehow of more importance than another corrupt organization is absolutely beyond me.


Has the USADA investigation been going on for 13 years?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

_tom_ said:


> Has the USADA investigation been going on for 13 years?


If I was innocent - I wouldn't be fighting in court to stop the investigation and due process - quite to the contrary - I would want to testify and face those that are accusing me. After fighting for so many years - Lance stopped at the FINAL step. He could have cleared his name. And put a final nail in the USADA coffin. But he didn't.

I guess you can run, but you can not hide. Justice was slow in this case, but not too late.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

heyyall said:


> The Simeoni instance is one of my favorite memories. Racing is part mental and this was a good head game at that point in his career.


Mine too
What I remember was Filippo ran his mouth off about there's no clean riders it pi$$ed many people off, and got spank by Lance and the peleton supported that. What Lance did was not illegal it's within the rule, he should not have done it, I think but it made for good TV. I also like when he out sprint Kloden, that was good TV.

I'm a casual fan who was inspired by LA, he follow the UCI rule and never got caught, now years later another organization is going after him it just seem so personal. Let just say doping is a common thing on the tour and UCI deliberately turn the blind eyes then it's their problem, take a crack at them first then the athletes to get to the root of the problem.

About the defense, if I understand correctly the judge dismissed the case because he didn't want to be a referee and the platform change to the arbitrary platform, CAS. CAS hardly ever lost the case 58-60, Lance think it's an unfair platform so he stopped. I don't agree but I can understand:thumbsup:


----------



## timeis45 (Aug 18, 2012)

skiahh said:


> It has to do with "_The Code_" (Dah dah dahhhhhh). If your country, sport or organization has signed "The Code" - that is, the WADA "World Anti Doping Code", then you have to enforce it. So, while the USADA technically doesn't have the ability to strip him of his wins (despite their self aggrandizing claims of authority), the UCI, a signatory to "The Code" does. And if they are satisfied of the results that the USADA MUST (under that same "Code") present to them, then they are pretty much obligated to act on the determination of doping.
> 
> I just waded through "The Code" and there's not much wiggle room or apparent fairness to athletes in there. Despite saying it's the ADA's responsibility to prove doping, it's the athletes absolute responsibility to make sure no banned substance enters their body in any way. So, even if you eat a steak with hormones in it and they show up in your body (not sure if it's possible, but at least one athlete claimed this), it's still your fault. Oh, it also says that you can be found to have doped based on witness statements and even single test results of either an A or B sample without a positive result in the other one.
> 
> Yeah, burden's on the ADA - and the burden is "Comfortable Satisfaction" of the panel hearing the case. That's supposed to be greater than "mere balance of probability" but less than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Yeah... sure. Tygart is Comfortable that Lance doped and therefore, he did. Burden of proof met.


Thank you for the reply and all of the other replies to the question. It was my intent to understand the connection between the organizations and the posts have provided the information. :thumbsup:


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

bigpedaler said:


> about all it means is that LA can't do tri's anymore, like the XTerra he just did recently. Probably done w/ Leadville, too. The 7 titles are up to someone else, though.


1. The organizer for Leadville has never agreed to WADA's anti-doping standards. it would be nice if they did for 2013, but not likely...

2. According to the forum they have set up over at yahoo, Armstrong's title stays despite USADA having concrete evidence of, at minimum, transfusions during the 2009 performance at Leadville. IMHO, Weins was robbed of his seventh victory. No, I'm not making that number up. Interview: Dave Wiens And Susan DeMattei - BikeRadar

I guess the bottom line is EPO and HGH dopers like David Anthony are welcome at Leadville. David Anthony Tests Positive | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events Definitely not going to consider the trip any more.

The road racing stuff is a mess that was never fixed 10 years ago and it doesn't look any better now.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

_tom_ said:


> Has the USADA investigation been going on for 13 years?


No.

The investigation to compile evidence was only initiated a couple of years ago, apparently as an offshoot of an investigation into the now defunct Rock Racing. USADA probably could have brought charges sooner within that span, but the federal investigation (for possible criminal charges (not for sports doping which isn't a crime) was still ongoing until February 2012. In the grand scheme of things, USADA acted fairly quickly to ramp up their proceedings again once the fed's investigation was wrapped up, filing their charging documents only four months later in June.

The evidence that USADA compiled during its investigation leads back to alleged doping violations from 1998 onwards. The statute of limitations for going back all the way to 1998 is definitely a question mark, but USADA felt they had the legal basis on which to extend the SOL from previous case law precedent citing active fraudulent concealment over time of the older incidents.

That issue of extending the SOL was meant to be heard and ruled upon by the neutral arbitration panel (1 panel member chosen by USADA, 1 chosen by Armstrong, and the last 1 jointly chosen by both sides) but Armstrong declined to proceed with the arbitration process and therefore this extension of the SOL went essentially unchallenged.

Funny footnote is that in the last few months Armstrong was quoted in a press session as saying that he welcomed the USADA investigation so that the whole issue could be cleared up. He only started to object to USADA's participation in the process when it became apparent that the evidence wasn't looking good for him.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Circlip said:


> No.
> 
> The investigation to compile evidence was only initiated a couple of years ago, apparently as an offshoot of an investigation into the now defunct Rock Racing. USADA probably could have brought charges sooner within that span, but the federal investigation (for possible criminal charges (not for sports doping which isn't a crime) was still ongoing until February 2012. In the grand scheme of things, USADA acted fairly quickly to ramp up their proceedings again once the fed's investigation was wrapped up, filing their charging documents only four months later in June.
> 
> ...


Mate your last paragraph is a breath of fresh air to this thread, and pretty much sums up the whole situation..


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

This weekend Lance got beaten by a 17 year old kid on a bike with one gear (apparently the kid's shifter broke):

Lance Armstrong says on penalty: 'Nobody needs to cry for me' - ESPN


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

When all is said and done he still won fair and square. Remember this is the only sport where a common cause of death is that your blood is too thick to be pumped through your body.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

MTBNate said:


> This weekend Lance got beaten by a 17 year old kid on a bike with one gear (apparently the kid's shifter broke):
> 
> Lance Armstrong says on penalty: 'Nobody needs to cry for me' - ESPN


Did they test the kid?


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Did they test the kid?


No kidding he beat lance by like 5 mins

Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

Moar:

The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes

Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping charges | The Daily Caller


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Cool links. I counter with;

The Science of Sport: The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories



MTBNate said:


> Moar:
> 
> The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes
> 
> Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping charges | The Daily Caller


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

Circlip said:


> Cool links. I counter with;
> 
> The Science of Sport: The Armstrong fallout: Thoughts and theories


There really is nothing for you to legitimately counter with unless you believe in taking away peoples birthdays :skep:


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

Really? As academic arguments go this one is seriously lacking. It's an opinion piece. I think I would have received a C- for turning in an argument this weak as an undergraduate. It's hardly a PhD level defense of the USADA position or scientific in nature. It's just a long winded opinion piece that I disagree with most of the author's positions. His entire argument is easily deconstructed but honestly I just don't want to spend the time to go through it point by point.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Blurr said:


> People put far, far to much into it all, we should be looking up to scientists and people truly making a difference in this world


What if the scientists are doping though? 

Edit: 
Oh btw they said he doped in the comeback too? Honestly that makes me believe the whole thing a lot less. I strongly doubt he had any desire to dope then. No real point. I was pretty sure he doped in the 7 wins before since they all did, but that sort of makes the whole hearsay steaming pile seem a little more ripe.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

It occurs to me this morning after reading several long winded blog posts defending the USADA case against Armstrong yesterday just how poor the entire USADA case is against him really was. Build a straw man, defend it, build a straw man, defend it. In a way it's like the Salem Witch Trials of the modern day. Any guesses who is next or are they satisfied now that they got the big fish? We can't prove squat so if we say it enough times, throw out a bunch of circumstantial evidence it's enough to convict him. Really pathetic IMO.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

Did you all see this? Tygart is all but admitting to a vindictive persecution against Armstrong - why else would he be allowed to keep up to 5 of his TdF victories if he'd admitted doping, yet be stripped of all 7 if he didn't?

He probably did dope at some point, but love him or hate him, he did the right thing by walking away from an totally unjust situation with the USADA.

Report: Armstrong could have kept some titles if he had cooperated - Chicago Tribune



> Tygart told USA Today in an article released Sunday that if Armstrong had "come in and been truthful, then the evidence might have been that the statute (of limitations) should apply."
> 
> Tygart said that "would have been fine by us."
> 
> Tygart acknowledged that would have meant that Armstrong could have kept five of his Tour de France titles.


----------



## brianwon (Jun 2, 2012)

I'm wearing yellow this Friday..

Rick Reilly: Armstrong still worth honoring - ESPN


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

FX4 said:


> Really? As academic arguments go this one is seriously lacking. It's an opinion piece. I think I would have received a C- for turning in an argument this weak as an undergraduate. It's hardly a PhD level defense of the USADA position or scientific in nature. It's just a long winded opinion piece that I disagree with most of the author's positions.


Of course it`s an opinion piece, just like the two articles linked in the post I responded to.



FX4 said:


> His entire argument is easily deconstructed but honestly I just don't want to spend the time to go through it point by point.


Instead of deconstructing the entire argument, how about start with just a couple of points? Otherwise you are using the same "I could have won this easily, but I didn't feel like it" strategy that Lance used in declining to contest the USADA charges (which is very appropriate given the thread title).


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

MTBNate said:


> Did you all see this? Tygart is all but admitting to a vindictive persecution against Armstrong - why else would he be allowed to keep up to 5 of his TdF victories if he'd admitted doping, yet be stripped of all 7 if he didn't?


Proves the exact opposite to me, that Tygart and USADA aren't fixated on the concept of torching Lance and only Lance, and instead would have preferred to do more for the sport as a whole by lightening his sanction in return for receiving information about the doping networks within the sport.

That's standard practice also for law enforcement agencies trying to deconstruct illicit networks.

Instead, the most complimentary thing you can say about Lance in declining to talk to or bargain with USADA is that he refused to implicate doctors, suppliers and team management. If you want to congratulate Lance as a martyr for perpetuating the code of silence among dopers, then I'll concede that point.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

Circlip said:


> That's standard practice also for law enforcement agencies trying to deconstruct illicit networks.


Sure, that's a given.

But the USADA isn't a law enforcement agency and the one law enforcement agency that was involved, the US Justice Dept, dropped its case since there wasn't enough in it to bring charges.

Pro road racing is lame and I don't care if it dries up and blows away, but I do care that folks accused of 'crimes' have an opportunity at a fair trial.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

MTBNate said:


> But the USADA isn't a law enforcement agency and the one law enforcement agency that was involved, the US Justice Dept, dropped its case since there wasn't enough in it to bring charges.


Here's the million dollar issue, so to speak;

It seems that when USADA follows its own procedural rules for charges, hearings, due process, and sanctions you have supported the concept that it should act *more* like an actual criminal court case, but when USADA does mimic standard legal processes (e.g. seeking to deconstruct networks violating its rules) you want them to act *less* like a formal legal agency. In other words, you are asking the winds to blow both ways alternately, depending on what suits your purpose on a given point.

BTW, the DOJ investigators themselves were apparently very surprised that the case was dropped, as they thought they had a strong case built. The directive to wind down the investigation came from further up the chain (Birotte) for reasons that are anyone's guess. The Armstrong advocates will say it's because Birotte didn't want his side to risk a loss, while the other opinion is that it was purely a politically motivated decision by Birotte. That was all behind heavy doors though. We'll never really know and anyone outside of DOJ purporting they have firm information on this (to either side) isn't on the level - unless they decide to reopen the investigation at a later date.



MTBNate said:


> I do care that folks accused of 'crimes' have an opportunity at a fair trial.


In what way was the USADA arbitration hearing (that Lance declined) not going to be fair?


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Here's the million dollar issue, so to speak;
> 
> It seems that when USADA follows its own procedural rules for charges, hearings, due process, and sanctions you have supported the concept that it should act *more* like an actual criminal court case, but when USADA does mimic standard legal processes (e.g. seeking to deconstruct networks violating its rules) you want them to act *less* like a formal legal agency. In other words, you are asking the winds to blow both ways alternately, depending on what suits your purpose on a given point.
> 
> In what way was the USADA arbitration hearing (that Lance declined) not going to be fair?


Yes, I agree it's very dangerous for everyone when USADA can choose to be less or more formal then there's no end to their power and reach. It's a billion dollar question to me for sure.

The million dollar question would be with all this exercise and the aftermath how much more testing has to be done to determine the next clean rider for the title and would all the podium winners be stripped of their title too, or it just end with Lance and his posses. All I can see is more of our money pouring into the case. They already spent tens of millions to fight basically one guy how much more to sort out everyone else. Does USADA even have that kind of jurisdiction?

Furthermore, this kind of testing is not exact like CSI Vegas, where they make it look so Quick'n'easy to match the fingerprints, DNA, or identify the substance. The real one test still involve a lot of interpretation of data and assumption.

As for the CAS they don't have good record of losing 58 wins out of 60 cases I can see why it would be an easy enough decision for Lance to say enough is enough, this way at least it's a good excuse.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> Yes, I agree it's very dangerous for everyone when USADA can choose to be less or more formal then there's no end to their power and reach. It's a billion dollar question to me for sure.


Good try on the turnabout but we are not agreeing on this point. I believe USADA has been very consistent in its position. My million dollar question was why posters in this thread alternately use complaints of too formal, or not formal enough to suit their purposes at any given time.



mimi1885 said:


> The million dollar question would be with all this exercise and the aftermath how much more testing has to be done to determine the next clean rider for the title and would all the podium winners be stripped of their title too, or it just end with Lance and his posses. All I can see is more of our money pouring into the case. They already spent tens of millions to fight basically one guy how much more to sort out everyone else. Does USADA even have that kind of jurisdiction?


Put your worries aside. It's not within USADA's mandate or sporting jurisdiction to try to figure out how to adjust results, other than to remove results from riders who are sanctioned. The event organizer (ASO) and UCI have to figure out what they want to do with the remaining results list. One option is to just leave a big blank space at the top (ie. no winner) although that's not how ASO/UCI have handled other similar cases in the past. Anyhow, not USADA's concern and no draw on USADA resources for this aspect of the issue.

BTW, where did you get that figure of USADA spending tens of millions of dollars on the Armstrong case? That's way beyond the financial resources and budget they have access to. Also, the case is about six people being charged. Of course, from the media reports I couldn't blame anyone for thinking it was all about Armstrong.



mimi1885 said:


> As for the CAS they don't have good record of losing 58 wins out of 60 cases I can see why it would be an easy enough decision for Lance to say enough is enough, this way at least it's a good excuse.


You're mixing up information. The 58-2 winning record is not CAS. That's USADA's record in cases where the athlete has opted to go to an arbitration hearing to contest the charges. Since we know the arbitration panel's members are selected completely 50/50 by USADA and the athlete for each individual case (1 chosen by athlete, 1 chosen by USADA, 1 chosen jointly by both sides) that means USADA must have had strong enough evidence 58 times out of 60 to convince the balanced selection of arbiters.

That tells me that USADA is very efficient in their use of their funding, only proceeding with charges in cases that are very strong, as opposed to wasting funding dollars trying to proceed when the evidence is weak. That's just a clear indication USADA is good at what they do!

An interesting footnote to this is that Bill Stapleton, who is Armstrong's personal agent and business/investment partner, was the president of the Athletes' Advisory Council when USADA's policies and procedures were written, and was closely involved in developing the USADA code under which Armstrong has been charged and sanctioned.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Good try on the turnabout but we are not agreeing on this point.
> 
> That tells me that USADA is very efficient in their use of their funding, only proceeding with charges in cases that are very strong, as opposed to wasting funding dollars trying to proceed when the evidence is weak. That's just a clear indication USADA is good at what they do!


You are right we are not agreeing on USADA point. Government funded and efficient spending? I too young or too old to see that connection. My stand is still the same there are better ways to discourage doping and this is not one of them. However, I do find it interesting reading up articles for both side of the coin.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> Government funded and efficient spending? I too young or too old to see that connection.


I hear you. Maybe efficient spending really means not-terribly-horribly-inefficient spending?



mimi1885 said:


> However, I do find it interesting reading up articles for both side of the coin.


This entire Armstrong affair has certainly become a very complex topic with a soap opera type of air to it. I wish I could say something worthwhile in a few words when discussing the issues involved, but that wouldn't do justice to giving properly formed answers.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

I have enjoyed reading both sides, too. I am about over it though.


----------



## MTBNate (Apr 6, 2004)

heyyall said:


> I have enjoyed reading both sides, too. I am about over it though.


Ditto.

I don't have a dog in the fight, and certainly I don't know the true details of anything for or against Armstrong, so I'm out.

But I'll always question "the government."


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

So what's with all the sanity and reason, chaps? All this fair minded discussion of differing points of view has to stop. This is MTBR dammit!


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

I still find it hard to believe that Lance could just slide under the radar for all the years he competed and be tested anytime without warning and pass which must have been done a number of times ! I guess the mental and physical toughness that Lance had shown when he won seven times had nothing to do with it.....I'm skeptical and whistle blowers are uncool ! :skep: TIG.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Circlip said:


> You're mixing up information. The 58-2 winning record is not CAS. That's USADA's record in cases where the athlete has opted to go to an arbitration hearing to contest the charges. Since we know the arbitration panel's members are selected completely 50/50 by USADA and the athlete for each individual case (1 chosen by athlete, 1 chosen by USADA, 1 chosen jointly by both sides) that means USADA must have had strong enough evidence 58 times out of 60 to convince the balanced selection of arbiters.


One blog (sorry, there have been a lot of them) outlined three options for LA a few weeks ago, and pointed out that one option for LA would be to capitulate and not go to arbitration, thereby ensuring permanent ambiguity on the doping issue as well as getting it out of the way prior to the release of the Tyler Hamilton book due out in Sept. It is quite easy to see even on this thread how that is playing out.

My sense was that the capitulation was a faux "I will fight no more forever" and a very carefully considered strategy to avoid damning witness testimony at arbitration; USADA cannot subpoena witnesses without arbitration.

Witnesses (cyclists) testified to the grand jury in the federal case with full awareness that lying to the grand jury can result in a prison sentence (just ask Marion Jones). This is a tremendous incentive to tell the truth. It would be unlikely that past associates would be willing to risk a stay in the gray bar hotel at this point out of a misplaced sense of loyalty.

In arbitration, it would have been very apparent if the witnesses perjured themselves; i.e., their testimony varied in any way from the grand jury testimony.

I'm not a lawyer & I don't play one on TV; if any lawyer-ly person can clarify the grand jury proceedings, please do.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

as simple as that ^ ^ ^

+1


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

June Bug said:


> Witnesses (cyclists) testified to the grand jury in the federal case with full awareness that lying to the grand jury can result in a prison sentence (just ask Marion Jones). This is a tremendous incentive to tell the truth. It would be unlikely that past associates would be willing to risk a stay in the gray bar hotel at this point out of a misplaced sense of loyalty.
> 
> In arbitration, it would have been very apparent if the witnesses perjured themselves; i.e., their testimony varied in any way from the grand jury testimony.


I believe it's important to point out that in your narrative, the DOJ's grand jury and the USADA case are entirely separate from a technical perspective. Regardless, the USADA arbitration is still a formal legal proceeding (though not of the criminal type) and therefore if any of the witnesses contradicted their testimony they presented to the grand jury and/or federal investigators they would be in world of hurt from a perjury perspective.

Therefore, even though the unrelated DOJ case is closed, it would have indirectly ensured the veracity of testimony in any USADA arbitration hearing. The good news for everyone is that would have cut both ways e.g. it's almost inconceivable that any riders testifying for USADA against Armstrong would risk contradicting the testimony given to the feds and grand jury. Any possible sporting sanctions, or alternatively easing of sanctions, wouldn't be worth the hard jail time that would likely result if they weren't truthful - whatever that meant to either side.


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

TIGMAN said:


> I still find it hard to believe that Lance could just slide under the radar for all the years he competed and be tested anytime without warning and pass which must have been done a number of times ! I guess the mental and physical toughness that Lance had shown when he won seven times had nothing to do with it.....I'm skeptical and whistle blowers are uncool ! :skep: TIG.


It's easy to pass tests when you're tipped off ahead of time.
Lance Armstrong was tipped off 20 minutes before he was tested, claims French anti-doping official - Telegraph


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

osokolo said:


> If I was innocent - I wouldn't be fighting in court to stop the investigation and due process - quite to the contrary -* I would want to testify and face those that are accusing me.* After fighting for so many years - Lance stopped at the FINAL step. He could have cleared his name. And put a final nail in the USADA coffin. But he didn't.
> 
> I guess you can run, but you can not hide. Justice was slow in this case, but not too late.


That's the point. He wouldn't have even be able to cross examine, or even see in a court room the witnesses accusing him. Read:

The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*i read that article*



mbco1975 said:


> That's the point. He wouldn't have even be able to cross examine, or even see in a court room the witnesses accusing him. Read:
> 
> The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes


keep in mind that the panel would consist of 3 people.

1 chosen by USADA
1 chosen by LA
1 chosen by both USADA and LA

That seems to be pretty fair to me.

Testimonies given by witnesses were already given to DOJ - if they are changed or manipulated - witnesses face perjury - don't think any of the witnesses will go this way and face jail time.

Honestly - if one KNOWS he is innocent - and with Lances cash - one fights to the end, period. Doesn't matter who the accuser is. I know I would and I don't think Lance is any less stubborn and strong. It can not be any worse IF ONE IS INNOCENT. Can it?

But if one is not innocent - it may get worse...

LA pulled another brilliant move... Beats that stare at Ulrich before he annihilated him on that climb...


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

Circlip said:


> Of course it`s an opinion piece, just like the two articles linked in the post I responded to.
> 
> Instead of deconstructing the entire argument, how about start with just a couple of points? Otherwise you are using the same "I could have won this easily, but I didn't feel like it" strategy that Lance used in declining to contest the USADA charges (which is very appropriate given the thread title).


Why? It's just not a good argument. It's an opinion piece. The author does not back up a single statement with factual data in his argument. It's poorly written.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

FX4 said:


> Why? It's just not a good argument. It's an opinion piece. The author does not back up a single statement with factual data in his argument.


Pick a statement - any statement - and I'll see what I can provide as backup from other sources to give it a reasonable level of validation for discussion. Let's not confuse discussion on this forum as a court of law, nor was the article a submission for a peer reviewed journal. What media/news item or blog type of post is?

The question is whether there's at least enough behind the statement to table them as reasonable discussion issues among an audience like this forum. Not saying I can do that for every statement in the piece (I don't know) but it would be an interesting quiz. I'm up for it if you are.



FX4 said:


> It's poorly written.


Doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any value to the content. Not everyone can whip up flowery prose.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

skiahh said:


> Tygart is Comfortable that Lance doped and therefore, he did. Burden of proof met.


Except that Tygart isn't allowed to be a part of the three person arbitration panel that would have actually heard and judged the evidence i.e. what Tygart thinks doesn't come into play at all in determining whether Armstrong is guilty or not guilty of the charges. Since Armstrong gets to select 50% of the arbitration panel, he has as good a chance as USADA. In fact, he has an even better chance than USADA if the evidence is on his side, but he declined to see it through.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mbco1975 said:


> That's the point. He wouldn't have even be able to cross examine, or even see in a court room the witnesses accusing him. Read:
> 
> The Kafkaesque Trial Of Lance Armstrong: A Former Federal Prosecutor On The US Anti Doping Agency's Disregard For Due Process - Forbes


The article is a series of legal "What if?" scenarios taken to the extreme degree. USADA was fully aware (as noted by Judge Sam Spark of the U.S. Federal Court in Austin) that they had a choice to present witness testimony either in the form of affidavits or testimony in person, but that if the testimony was via affidavit only then the arbitration panel would have reason to consider the lesser amount of weight this evidence would carry i.e. if USADA wants to make their case largely on witness testimony then it is likely the majority of it would have to be in person, allowing the opportunity for cross examination. So, nothing to worry about there.

Judge Sparks also indicated in his full report (not a couple of cherry picked comments to support one side as in the article you've linked above) that he had every confidence in the USADA arbitration hearing meeting sufficient due process requirements. Edit: found the document now;

Sparks Decision

I can't fault Sparks for thinking there's was some larger agenda behind the Armstrong case. Actually, I'm fairly certain he's correct. USADA has made it fairly clear it wants to go after the UCI as part of their cleanup of the sport, and I don't blame them. The current UCI is a benchmark for cronyism and corruption. Sparks isn't part of the cycling community of course, and so it may seem odd to him that USADA would target the sport's governing body (which is why he called it out in his report as a political squabble within the sporting/cycling world) but it makes perfect sense to anyone following the machinations of the UCI over the last few years.


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

Circlip said:


> The article is a series of legal "What if?" scenarios taken to the extreme degree. USADA was fully aware (as noted by Judge Sam Spark of the U.S. Federal Court in Austin) that they had a choice to present witness testimony either in the form of affidavits or testimony in person, but that if the testimony was via affidavit only then the arbitration panel would have reason to consider the lesser amount of weight this evidence would carry i.e. if USADA wants to make their case largely on witness testimony then it is likely the majority of it would have to be in person, allowing the opportunity for cross examination. So, nothing to worry about there.
> 
> Judge Sparks also indicated in his full report (not a couple of cherry picked comments to support one side as in the article you've linked above) that he had every confidence in the USADA arbitration hearing meeting sufficient due process requirements. Edit: found the document now;
> 
> ...


If you'd like to read more about UCI involvement have a read here USADA denies UCI request to take control of Armstrong/USPS doping proceedings

Especially the letter from USADA to UCI


----------



## Simplemind (Jul 17, 2006)

Not to hijack the thread, but isn't the bigger question "where does cycling go from here"? All this conjecture, is just that. Like someone said earlier, "it's like a soap opera". If someone can "beat the system" for seven years in a row, it seems futile to test at all, since the argument for doping in the first place is "everybody does it"! Unfortunately there not a code of ethics like there is in golf. :madmax:

Soapbox - off


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

I think that's why things like the bio passport, to test for blood manipulation over time are important. Also investigations into suspected doping, where they rely on eyewitness accounts without some massive or machine labeling it a "witch hunt". Most dopers who have been caught have been caught by criminal investigations, not testing. 

The first step is to overhaul the UCI. If LA had been banned for 2 years in 2009 for the corticosteroid positive, we wouldn't be in this mess now.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Simplemind said:


> Not to hijack the thread, but isn't the bigger question "where does cycling go from here"?


Not a threadjack at all. That truly is the more important issue. Pursuing sanctions against the six individuals in this case is very helpful, since they represent a relatively significant cross-section of the "old guard" in pro cycling that needs to be expunged if we are holding out any hope for a change going forward. It's also key that the change needs to include the top level of UCI management, which is too closely intertwined with the charges against Armstrong and the other five to let off the pressure on any of them.



Simplemind said:


> If someone can "beat the system" for seven years in a row, it seems futile to test at all, since the argument for doping in the first place is "everybody does it"!


These basic tests only represent one level in what is a multi-pronged anti doping effort by agencies such as USADA. The tests _*are*_ important, as they do trip up some athletes who make errors in their doping regimes (incorrect dosages or timing, failure of masking agents, or having their number come up for random testing when they are in the midst of a doping cycle) and make sure that even those athletes who are doping but beating the tests aren't going so extreme in their programs so as to run health risks with life and death consequences.

No one with any knowledge of this system would purport that the simpler tests are the be all and end all in the testing and anti doping process. They are simply another tool in the toolbox, along with the biopassport (long term longitudinal blood profiling and testing) and non analytical positives that originate from other types of investigative evidence.

No different from most other types of investigations. For example, what if we said that law enforcement agencies can't press charges for a gun related crime unless they have the suspect's fingerprints or DNA on the weapon? The suspect may have simply wiped it clean, but if the authorities have a collection of other types of evidence, including documentation, gunshot residue taken from the suspect's hands, and witness testimony of sufficient quality to convince whatever jury or panel is hearing the case, it is unreasonable that they may be charged and perhaps even found guilty?

Note that I'm not equating doping in sports to a violent crime, but instead I'm only illustrating how multiple investigative techniques and forms of evidence are necessary by common sense rather than restricting evidence to one narrow format.

Getting back to how this applies to cycling, the WADA code governing anti doping expressly allows for multiple types of evidence. The UCI agreed to the WADA code, as did USAC. Armstrong agreed to the code also when applying for his international race license (through USAC) each year, as part of his license application.


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

_tom_ said:


> It's easy to pass tests when you're tipped off ahead of time.
> Lance Armstrong was tipped off 20 minutes before he was tested, claims French anti-doping official - Telegraph


 So a French official claims Lance had all sorts of officials , scientists , and other influential friends at his disposal to help him pass through the testing system ! Not only that he could manipulate the results in about 20 min after being told ahead of time he was going to be tested even though the tests are supposed to be done at anytime and without warning..........forgive me for being skeptical !  TIG


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

TIGMAN said:


> So a French official claims Lance had all sorts of officials , scientists , and other influential friends at his disposal to help him pass through the testing system ! Not only that he could manipulate the results in about 20 min after being told ahead of time he was going to be tested even though the tests are supposed to be done at anytime and without warning..........forgive me for being skeptical !  TIG


yes exactly... pretty unbelievable and i do not blame you for being skeptical...

that is what USADA is trying to deconstruct and destroy... big undertaking, but it has to start somewhere...

cheers...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Not a threadjack at all. That truly is the more important issue. Pursuing sanctions against the six individuals in this case is very helpful, since they represent a relatively significant cross-section of the "old guard" in pro cycling that needs to be expunged if we are holding out any hope for a change going forward. It's also key that the change needs to include the top level of UCI management, which is too closely intertwined with the charges against Armstrong and the other five to let off the pressure on any of them.


to me this is the MOST IMPORTANT issue.

by fixing the past, as much as we can, the new generation of racers may, just may start to realize that doping does not pay off in the long run. the system in which non-dopers were a minority and outsiders - must be destroyed in order for cycling to take the right direction...

as long as youngsters can see that dopers are getting away with cheating, nothing will prevent them from doping. and the vicious circle continues...

at this point, it seems that the village has to be destroyed in order to be saved...



> Getting back to how this applies to cycling, the WADA code governing anti doping expressly allows for multiple types of evidence. The UCI agreed to the WADA code, as did USAC. Armstrong agreed to the code also when applying for his international race license (through USAC) each year, as part of his license application.


and these simple facts give USADA every legal right to do exactly what they are doing - confirmed by judge Sparks.

good analysis Circlip...


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

TIGMAN said:


> So a French official claims Lance had all sorts of officials , scientists , and other influential friends at his disposal to help him pass through the testing system ! Not only that he could manipulate the results in about 20 min after being told ahead of time he was going to be tested even though the tests are supposed to be done at anytime and without warning..........forgive me for being skeptical !  TIG


Apparently only 15 minutes is needed to dilute the blood with saline. And Lance has plenty of influential friends...

http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf


----------



## _tom_ (Jun 18, 2005)

And it's not just the past...there are many people and organizations involved that are CURRENTLY involved with pro cycling.


----------



## 996freak (Feb 21, 2010)

Poor lance


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

osokolo said:


> at this point, it seems that the village has to be destroyed in order to be saved...


Yep just get rid of competitive cycling and problem is solved. Semi-serious too 
Still the whole thing seems stupid. Was lance just super nice so everyone wanted to help him cheat, but not the other cheaters that were caught doping with tests?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

sxotty said:


> Yep just get rid of competitive cycling and problem is solved. Semi-serious too
> Still the whole thing seems stupid. Was lance just super nice so everyone wanted to help him cheat, but not the other cheaters that were caught doping with tests?


If he was cheating, and that's a big IF, others helped him because they were also cheating. Effing hypocrites!


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*LA is not the only one*

accused though. He is only one of few that are accused of doping and other illegal practices... what is hypocritical about it?



Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> If he was cheating, and that's a big IF, others helped him because they were also cheating. Effing hypocrites!


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

osokolo said:


> accused though. He is only one of few that are accused of doping and other illegal practices... what is hypocritical about it?


I was referring to those team mates who were willing to testify against him.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I was referring to those team mates who were willing to testify against him.


Hypocrites or not, I would like to see change and perpetuating the "omerta" (see link below ) isn't the way we're going to get from A to B ;

The United States Of Omerta | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*all cheaters, including those that*

would testify against LA and the rest of the group, have already been convicted - some of them with leniency due to cooperation - like in criminal courts... no one who was found or admitted to cheating, was left unpunished... the most prominent of those that were still managing to get away with it - has reached the dead end....

i would even agree that the perception on this case is bad, but it is still the lesser of two evils...

what do we do? say, okay, he did dope but it was 12 years ago... who really cares? well, that evil is worse than the one that is unfolding right now, at least for me...



Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I was referring to those team mates who were willing to testify against him.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

osokolo said:


> what do we do? say, okay, he did dope but it was 12 years ago... who really cares? well, that evil is worse than the one that is unfolding right now, at least for me...


Loved this analogy (that I am paraphrasing from another source);

*A couple of years ago I quit my job at Enron, and moved on to another company. You can't come after me now for the $15 million I embezzled. I don't work there any more and so it has nothing to do with me now. I will not be available for further comment, as my time is occupied either vacationing in the Hamptons or else hosting my foundation's annual charity ball.*


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

If you really want hypocrisy, try this one on for size with the UCI being the hypocrite in this case having double standards for treatment of different riders with Ullrich in the example below vs. their current support of Armstrong;

UCI explains CAS action against Jan Ullrich

_The UCI has now explained the motives for its action against the German, who had a racing licence registered in Switzerland. "There are two main reasons," said UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani to VeloNation. "First of all, because we can't accept that just because you say 'I am retiring' that we don't do anything against you. Maybe in the future you could then say you will come back [to racing]&#8230;if you are not been sanctioned by UCI you could , and we don't want that.

"Secondly, and more generally, we can't from a legal point of view create a precedent. In the future we could have the same situation appearing with another rider who says 'listen, why are you suing me - you didn't do the same with Ullrich two or three years ago?' So we were obliged to do it."
_


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

_tom_ said:


> Apparently only 15 minutes is needed to dilute the blood with saline. And Lance has plenty of influential friends...
> 
> http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBusinessConnectionsV2.pdf


 Just curious , could they not detect if someone was injecting saline solution as well and is this a foolproof method of hiding the use of a banned substance ? Also , if some officials( like the French official ) were having suspicions of Lance during the years he was competing on tour why did they not do more about it then ? If racers are known to be cheating...you would think they would want to resolve the problem quickly !


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

Circlip said:


> If you really want hypocrisy, try this one on for size with the UCI being the hypocrite in this case having double standards for treatment of different riders with Ullrich in the example below vs. their current support of Armstrong;
> 
> UCI explains CAS action against Jan Ullrich
> 
> ...


hypocrisy

Its hypocrisy because they only go after lance and obvious open goals. If they want to turn this around and quit the hypocrisy they have to send everybody except the last 5 men to usada guantanmo in each race. We all know it, they all did it. Except those 5 last dudes. I rest my case. And I can testify they all sold doping here on my street and injected it in front of children, if that would make usada feel better. Sure why not. Just give me some pics and names to go with it. I'll name names like no one else before. No one.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

car bone said:


> hypocrisy
> 
> Its hypocrisy because they only go after lance and obvious open goals.


Yep. Everyone's going after Lance. Only Lance. Lance totally singled out. No one else but Lance.

List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Grinderz (Aug 31, 2012)

Hopefully all the good that has come from Lance over the last 10+ years is not forgotten or name too tarnished from this latest media attention.

Regardless of if he is guilty or not, he was a great athlete and many people were moved by him.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

TIGMAN said:


> Also , if some officials( like the French official ) were having suspicions of Lance during the years he was competing on tour why did they not do more about it then ? If racers are known to be cheating...you would think they would want to resolve the problem quickly !


It's a money making business for most of the parties concerned, including the riders, and especially those at the top of the food chain pulling in the big bucks. Even if there were some people in cycling who wanted to clamp down on the doping, there were others (in very high places) that didn't seem so keen to interrupt the gravy train, and used their influence to achieve that outcome.



TIGMAN said:


> Just curious , could they not detect if someone was injecting saline solution as well and is this a foolproof method of hiding the use of a banned substance ?


It doesn't have to be 100% foolproof. It only has to work the relatively low number of times that an athlete is in the middle of a doping cycle and gets caught out on an OOC (Out of Competition) test, meaning the athlete has pretty good odds of beating the system, at least on the day of. The OOCs are supposed to be a surprise, but if an athlete has some advance notice from "friendlies" somewhere along the chain, their chance of taking corrective measures on short notice increases significantly.


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

Lance Armstrong: Case Closed Tyler Hamilton's new book, The Secret Race, makes it impossible to believe Lance's story anymore

Lance Armstrong's Secret Is Out The news leaks about The Secret Race have vastly undersold its importance. Tyler Hamilton's book is a historic, definitive indictment of cycling's culture of doping during the Armstrong era.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

TIGMAN said:


> Just curious , could they not detect if someone was injecting saline solution as well and is this a foolproof method of hiding the use of a banned substance ? Also , if some officials( like the French official ) were having suspicions of Lance during the years he was competing on tour why did they not do more about it then ? If racers are known to be cheating...you would think they would want to resolve the problem quickly !


As I already said unless Lance was just super nice and the others that got caught were *******s then this excuse doesn't work either. Why didn't the people who got busted get tipped off as well? I mean it only takes 15 minutes supposedly... they could just put them off for 15 minutes...

It is just more excuses from people that like to pretend they are important and have a special insight. Occam's razor still applies so yes he beat a bunch of dopers and was likely doping. All the rest is a bunch of BS being trotted out by people who have some sort of issue.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

I don't buy the "you can hide doping" with 15 minute saline infusion. By the same logic, everybody would be turning us as a false positive if they were tested at the end of a ride due to dehydration.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

I do find it entertaining that the cycling community is willing to hang lance on mere assumptions. Yet in other sports it is not taken seriously, In MMA fighters piss hot and get a few months suspension. In boxing my favorite all time was Sugar ray Lenard who was a major coke addict, think that helped him win? Nobody is talking about taking away his belts. Bas Ratten LEgendary Kickboxwer and MMA fighter was addicted to pain killers and did PEDS, again, nobody after his belts, the list is endless, yet in cycling? OMG hang Lance, get the **** out, You people dont get it. Notice the only two recent americas to win the Tour conviently have their titles stripped? lol phony as hell.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

sxotty said:


> Why didn't the people who got busted get tipped off as well? I mean it only takes 15 minutes supposedly... they could just put them off for 15 minutes...


It's not allowed by protocol. The subject has to remain in the presence of the anti doping representative once they arrive on site. Of course, some specific athletes may be given a get out of jail free card even if they breach this protocol;

Lance Armstrong's 'Showergate' Saga Continues - BikeRadar

Once again who comes to his rescue? Pat McQuaid of the UCI, who has also reversed just about every other rule in the book to favor Armstrong's evasion of doping charges (but not doing the same for many other riders).

Seriously though, haven't we all heard the saying "Where there's smoke there's fire?" Even with the USADA's evidence buried for now by Lance choosing not to contest charges, the amount of smoke here could fill a national park.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Blurr said:


> You people dont get it. Notice the only two recent americas to win the Tour conviently have their titles stripped? lol phony as hell.


But.... Lance was stripped off his titles by an USA anti-doping body... it's not like the whole world is against USA... is it?

Are you saying that LA was prosecuted because he is an American?

Johan Bruyneel is Belgian and accused as well. Is he just a collateral damage?

Charges against Bruyneel can be read in this article:

Belgian cycling federation president says there

The names of the rest of the accused can be found in this article:

USADA makes formal doping charges against Armstrong, Tour titles at risk

and here is the excerpt:

"Amongst the claims made are that Armstrong, team manager Johan Bruyneel, doctors Michele Ferrari (Italy), Pedro Celaya (Luxembourg, who currently works with Team RadioShack), Luis Garcia del Moral (Spain) and the Spanish trainer Pepe Marti, who has coached Alberto Contador, were involved in what is being termed a massive doping conspiracy between 1998 and 2011."


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

osokolo said:


> But.... Lance was stripped off his titles by an USA anti-doping body... it's not like the whole world is against USA... is it?


Doesn't match the facts. The last TdF winner before Armstrong stripped of their title was Spanish (Contador). Three of the last five Grand Tour winners stripped were not from U.S.A. (Contador, Di Luca, Heras).



osokolo said:


> Are you saying that LA was prosecuted because he is an American?


Well, heck ya USADA charged Armstrong because he's American because that's USADA's role - to hold up anti doping practices for U.S. athletes. If he weren't American, it would be the responsibility of whatever other country's anti doping agency the rider was licensed through.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Circlip said:


> It's not allowed by protocol. The subject has to remain in the presence of the anti doping representative once they arrive on site. Of course, some specific athletes may be given a get out of jail free card even if they breach this protocol;


Whatever it makes no sense. On site? Yeah like I said "oh he's busy be right down..." Such a non-issue. You people are just being crybabies about this.

Like I said. Occam's razor. He doped. All this showergate type nonsense is just that.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> But.... Lance was stripped off his titles by an USA anti-doping body... it's not like the whole world is against USA... is it?


 Seems like it



> Are you saying that LA was prosecuted because he is an American?


 Possibly


> Johan Bruyneel is Belgian and accused as well. Is he just a collateral damage?
> 
> The names of the rest of the accused can be found in this article:
> 
> ...


 are you incapable of independent and objective thought?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Blurr said:


> Seems like it





> Possibly





> are you incapable of independent and objective thought?


you may as well ask that question of yourself... thanks for your factual participation in this discussion...


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Wow, what a stream of opinion!

Here's are some links to two stories from Outside online from one of Lance's personal assistants, Mike Anderson. Apparently released today (Aug. 31). As he says, when it comes to money he has a chip on his shoulder.

Link one

Link two


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> you may as well ask that question of yourself... thanks for your factual participation in this discussion...


The factual part of the discussion would be actual evidence against him, which as noted he passed all his testing however your argument is well, talk about being of a subjective nature. 
The next set would be the two Americans who won the tour recently were stripped of their titles after a massive witch hunt. 
Hell after both of what those have went thru to win regardless is amazing. 
Not to mention floyd currently needing a Hip and he still dominated? way cool, **** he could have snorted coke instead of drinking water and I would have been impressed.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> Wow, what a stream of opinion!
> 
> Here's are some links to two stories from Outside online from one of Lance's personal assistants, Mike Anderson. Apparently released today (Aug. 31). As he says, when it comes to money he has a chip on his shoulder.
> 
> ...


That is all there will ever be on this. Opinion.

But in my opinion I would be happy to write a tell all book. I doped, what a doper I was. You doped, everyone doped. Dope for you, dope for me...now give me truckloads of money


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

This just in, don't shoot the messenger.

Report: USADA In Possession Of Positive Armstrong Samples | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

Not really sure how I feel about Lance, but I do believe that if the USADA has been retesting his blood samples from long ago, then every racer who has submitted a blood sample should be retested under the guidelines currently used. That way it is not just a (perceived by many) witch hunt.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Adim_X said:


> Not really sure how I feel about Lance, but I do believe that if the USADA has been retesting his blood samples from long ago, then every racer who has submitted a blood sample should be retested under the guidelines currently used. That way it is not just a (perceived by many) witch hunt.


I don't know if they bothered keeping them though. Or if they have a long line of samples to compare them to. It takes that sort of effort now. That is what the blood passport thing was all about.


----------



## Wingspan (Jul 10, 2012)

sxotty said:


> I don't know if they bothered keeping them though. Or if they have a long line of samples to compare them to. It takes that sort of effort now. That is what the blood passport thing was all about.


Which is exactly, IMO, where the "witch hunt" comes into play. If they're keeping and retesting one competitor's samples, they should be doing them all. If they can't retest them all then they shouldn't be able to retest any. FWIW, I think he's probably guilty of everything they claim he is but I also belive this whole drama is more about bringing one man down and create an example than it is a fair minded effort to clean up the sport as a whole. I don't have a problem with them stripping Lance of his titles if the same level of effort is made to investigate every rider in the tour so that ALL the results can be adjusted accordingly. However, we all know that can't or won't happen.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*What if?*



Wingspan said:


> Which is exactly, IMO, where the "witch hunt" comes into play. If they're keeping and retesting one competitor's samples, they should be doing them all. If they can't retest them all then they shouldn't be able to retest any. FWIW, I think he's probably guilty of everything they claim he is but I also belive this whole drama is more about bringing one man down and create an example than it is a fair minded effort to clean up the sport as a whole. I don't have a problem with them stripping Lance of his titles if the same level of effort is made to investigate every rider in the tour so that ALL the results can be adjusted accordingly. However, we all know that can't or won't happen.


What if this is exactly what is going on? What if this is just the tip of the spear so to speak? Is USADA using Lance to leverage other cases, with other cyclists? I am of the opinion that Lance is not the prize, the be all to end all. The race directors, team managers, doctors and suppliers are the ultimate goal, the root of the problem. This appears to be the avenue in which to finally cut the head of the serpent off. Look how long they have been aware of Dr. Ferrari and his complicity, the facilitation afforded by McQuade, the overt favoritism and aiding and abetting of the UCI. There usually is much more going on behind the scenes than us mere mortals are privy too.

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight, just offering up a possible scenario.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*+1 i believe this is exactly what is going on..*

gotta cut the head of first...

dog or no dog in this race, we have to detach ourself from any person that may be prosecuted here... Lance was my hero, in a way still is, just not as bright as he used to be...

His foundation is worth of all respect.

Let's get it over with on all doping counts so that things can be put in prospective as well as sport cleaned up...

Also - don't be fooled into thinking that only cycling is plagued...

All high level sports have dirty players and the war against doping is going to be a long one... It has to start somewhere and with someone.... Lance is just the most prominent of them all...

Good comment AZ...



AZ.MTNS said:


> What if this is exactly what is going on? What if this is just the tip of the spear so to speak? Is USADA using Lance to leverage other cases, with other cyclists? I am of the opinion that Lance is not the prize, the be all to end all. The race directors, team managers, doctors and suppliers are the ultimate goal, the root of the problem. This appears to be the avenue in which to finally cut the head of the serpent off. Look how long they have been aware of Dr. Ferrari and his complicity, the facilitation afforded by McQuade, the overt favoritism and aiding and abetting of the UCI. There usually is much more going on behind the scenes than us mere mortals are privy too.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight, just offering up a possible scenario.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Adim_X said:


> Not really sure how I feel about Lance, but I do believe that if the USADA has been retesting his blood samples from long ago, then every racer who has submitted a blood sample should be retested under the guidelines currently used. That way it is not just a (perceived by many) witch hunt.


How do we really know they are testing Lance's blood? This whole thing, 7 years later, just stinks of corruption!


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

Here are some bits of info casual fan like me knows and enjoy reading more about both side so far. 

Lance has never tested positive in competition at least it's not published. 

You can't load a donkey with epo and expect a thorough bred performance it just does not happen.

There are some riders who use epo and or hgh. Some got caught and disciplined for it. 

Some friends of lance would testify against lance for some reasons
-not because it's the right thing to do that's for sure. This reason also applies to USADA.
-Lance may or may not know all of the witness on the list but the best he could do is offer them money. The opporsition can offer both money and immunity.

If there's no incentive USADA would not have their witness or case. It's also more expensive to testify against your friends and fellow team members.


----------



## HarryCallahan (Nov 2, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> What if this is exactly what is going on? What if this is just the tip of the spear so to speak? Is USADA using Lance to leverage other cases, with other cyclists? I am of the opinion that Lance is not the prize, the be all to end all. The race directors, team managers, doctors and suppliers are the ultimate goal, the root of the problem. This appears to be the avenue in which to finally cut the head of the serpent off. Look how long they have been aware of Dr. Ferrari and his complicity, the facilitation afforded by McQuade, the overt favoritism and aiding and abetting of the UCI. There usually is much more going on behind the scenes than us mere mortals are privy too.
> 
> Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight, just offering up a possible scenario.


I think this is what is going on as well. This is about hanging a big trophy on the USADA wall. If they can pull this off, they will have added enormously to their ability to intimidate people.

I'm not defending doping in sport, but am in concurrence with others here who have noted that this level of scrutiny is not being extended to other riders of the same era.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Wingspan said:


> Which is exactly, IMO, where the "witch hunt" comes into play. If they're keeping and retesting one competitor's samples, they should be doing them all. If they can't retest them all then they shouldn't be able to retest any. FWIW, I think he's probably guilty of everything they claim he is but I also belive this whole drama is more about bringing one man down and create an example than it is a fair minded effort to clean up the sport as a whole. I don't have a problem with them stripping Lance of his titles if the same level of effort is made to investigate every rider in the tour so that ALL the results can be adjusted accordingly. However, we all know that can't or won't happen.


I don't know it is exactly a witch hunt. He did after all win those tours. By doing so he singled himself out for more scrutiny. However I honestly believe that if they cannot subject other athletes who placed 3rd, 4th, etc. to similar scrutiny they should just say no one won those tours or leave them to Lance with the asterisk (I say 3rd, 4th b/c the 2nd place riders were already busted years ago doping).


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

*I can't wait for Lance's tell all*

book to come out some day.:thumbsup: Man, that will be interesting if truthful! Maybe even turned into a Hollywood movie too! Drama drama!!

If he does a tell all book, it will be the biggest money maker in his whole career imo. It needs to happen soon though while people (even the gen public) are interested...

It's all so sad, yet predictable these days. PEDs are everywhere in so many sports now and have been for a long time it seems..


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> book to come out some day.:thumbsup: Man, that will be interesting if truthful! Maybe even turned into a Hollywood movie too! Drama drama!!
> 
> If he does a tell all book, it will be the biggest money maker in his whole career imo. It needs to happen soon though while people (even the gen public) are interested...
> 
> It's all so sad, yet predictable these days. PEDs are everywhere in so many sports now and have been for a long time it seems..


The problem is do to cohercing confessions the truth is never known, I look at any crime like this, if the punishment is worse than the crime, why in the hell are we bothering punishing someone?
to me if you are stripping someone of their title you damn sure better be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are truly doping and that without the doping he would not have been able to win said title, nobody can say that IF he was not doping he could not have done that.


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

Blurr said:


> to me if you are stripping someone of their title you damn sure better be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are truly doping and that without the doping he would not have been able to win said title, nobody can say that IF he was not doping he could not have done that.


 I'm trying to figure out how doping can give the edge to winning....does the substance really give the athlete higher endurance , more strength and stamina , and or more ability to withstand muscle pain or fatigue ? Can doping eventually hurt the athlete physically ? I mean these guys are all training very hard to succeed in the tour......why the heck do they have to mess with this stuff ? Is this stuff much different then drinking a bit of coffee for a caffeine buzz before the race ? Stripping his wins does seem unfair to me .....why , because at the time he was racing they did not find conclusive evidence he was doping and he still had to beat all the others that most likely were !


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

It depends on the nature of the doping and the sport. For cycling, EPO and "blood doping" increase the number of red blood cells. Thus, you have an increased oxygen carrying capacity, higher muscle output and are less likely to go into anaerobic metabolism. Mix in a little steroid to increase healing / muscle rebuilding and you become stronger faster with greater recovery potential. 

Other sports, such as shooting sports, a beta blocker will slow the heart and therefore make it easier to shoot between the heart beats (yes, the vibration of the heart can be enough to move out of a bull's eye). 

All this said, doping can only enhance natural gifts. It can't take a nobody and put them on the podium without the work and dedication.


----------



## hags707 (Apr 22, 2010)

heyyall said:


> All this said, doping can only enhance natural gifts. It can't take a nobody and put them on the podium without the work and dedication.


 Truth!


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

hags707 said:


> Truth!


HOWEVER,

in the group of, say, 50-60 top cyclists in the peloton, who are within 2-3% performance factor of each other, that little advantage that doping provides, can make an athlete jump from 50th to 1st...

If all dopers are not caught, we do not know who won cleanly and fairly.

One at a time, if needed - but get them all... Please...


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> HOWEVER,
> 
> in the group of, say, 50-60 top cyclists in the peloton, who are within 2-3% performance factor of each other, that little advantage that doping provides, can make an athlete jump from 50th to 1st...
> 
> ...


You do realize it is a team sport and there is strategy involved right>?

I also suggest you research the history of the Race, doping is mild.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*with regard to doping education, i am a former winter olympian*

having competed in 3 winter olympics, last of which was the Nagano Olympics - just 14 years ago, when i retired...

you really think i need more education on doping???

to say that TdF "doping is mild" would be humorous, if it wasn't so sad - please do not take it personally...

organizers would have hard time finding someone that DID NOT DOPE at TdF if all cheaters are/were caught...

mild??? gawd...

with regards to team sports, i guess since strategy is involved - there is no need for doping in baseball, hockey, football etc?



3% that dope will afford you, is the difference between the gold and a hasbeen...



Blurr said:


> You do realize it is a team sport and there is strategy involved right>?
> 
> I also suggest you research the history of the Race, doping is mild.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> having competed in 3 winter olympics, last of which was the Nagano Olympics - just 14 years ago, when i retired...
> 
> you really think i need more education on doping???
> 
> ...


Reading comprehension is fundamental, you aught to try it :thumbsup:


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*since that is the best you can do*

cheers....

you win i lose...



Blurr said:


> Reading comprehension is fundamental, you aught to try it :thumbsup:


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

I will add I did my share of competing in a variety of sports, nothing, I repeat nothing is worse than a corrupt organization screwing over athletes. you can cry sack all you want, but when you step into that arena, you know it is you against them, they will do whatever it takes to win, so will you. but when an organization does not give you the chance, or screws you over for someone else, yea, that is not right at all which is exactly what is happening here.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*thanks for the neg rep bud...*

at least you signed it, but there is no need for name calling...

I believe I left you + rep a while ago... I will stand by it.

the difference in opinion should not be a reason for neg rep, but if that floats your boat - you win again...

cheers

Oggie

"I hate to leave neg rep but here goes, the tour d france suffered from major cheeting with even people towing eachother in the past, you should educate yourself and are an absolute idiot~Blurr"



Blurr said:


> I will add I did my share of competing in a variety of sports, nothing, I repeat nothing is worse than a corrupt organization screwing over athletes. you can cry sack all you want, but when you step into that arena, you know it is you against them, they will do whatever it takes to win, so will you. but when an organization does not give you the chance, or screws you over for someone else, yea, that is not right at all which is exactly what is happening here.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

TIGMAN said:


> I'm trying to figure out how doping can give the edge to winning....does the substance really give the athlete higher endurance , more strength and stamina , and or more ability to withstand muscle pain or fatigue ?


No, they do it just for shits and giggles.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

osokolo said:


> organizers would have hard time finding someone that DID NOT DOPE at TdF if all cheaters are/were caught...


It's probably been a level playing field for a long time.

From Wikipedia:
1973: Eddy Merckx tested positive for a banned substance in the Giro di Lombardia classic. He was disqualified from first place. Runner-up Felice Gimondi was declared the winner.

And as far back as 1886 (but it might not have happened): In 1886 an English cyclist is popularly reputed to have died after drinking a blend of cocaine, caffeine and strychnine, supposedly in the Bordeaux-Paris race. This was included in the 1997 International Olympic Committee study on the Historical Evolution of Doping Phenomenon, and listed as the presumed first death due to doping during a competition. The report did allow that in this period it was common practice, and not illegal.[1] This is alternatively reported as trimethyl poisoning.[2] However, the main Bordeaux-Paris race did not start until 1891, and the cyclist who supposedly died in 1886, Arthur Linton, actually finished second in 1896 and died a few weeks later, reportedly from a combination of drug induced exhaustion and typhoid fever.[3] Linton was managed by the notorious Choppy Warburton - See 1896 below.[4] The story may be apocryphal.

Anyways, WADA, USADA and all are in a paradigm here. They can stop one form of doping, but human ingenuity will find another solution. It's too bad that the competitive spirit crosses the line of character and people will do anything for a win.


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

heyyall said:


> It depends on the nature of the doping and the sport. For cycling, EPO and "blood doping" increase the number of red blood cells. Thus, you have an increased oxygen carrying capacity, higher muscle output and are less likely to go into anaerobic metabolism. Mix in a little steroid to increase healing / muscle rebuilding and you become stronger faster with greater recovery potential.
> 
> Other sports, such as shooting sports, a beta blocker will slow the heart and therefore make it easier to shoot between the heart beats (yes, the vibration of the heart can be enough to move out of a bull's eye).
> 
> All this said, doping can only enhance natural gifts. It can't take a nobody and put them on the podium without the work and dedication.


 Thanks for the info.....sometimes you can actually learn something here ! :thumbsup: TIG.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

osokolo said:


> organizers would have hard time finding someone that DID NOT DOPE at TdF if all cheaters are/were caught...


If this is true, which I don't doubt at all, I still stand by what I said. Unless they can subject every rider below lance to the same level of scrutiny then they should not be giving them the titles.

Also I still think that is is a bit bogus to suggest as you always do the LA got some sort of ridiculous special treatment. It seems he was treated special only in that he was placed under far more scrutiny.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

johnnyb said:


> Anyways, WADA, USADA and all are in a paradigm here. They can stop one form of doping, but human ingenuity will find another solution. It's too bad that the competitive spirit crosses the line of character and people will do anything for a win.


The testing will always be behind the latest PED. How could it be otherwise? You can't test for something until it has been invented and then discovered.

I'd argue that's why I support the USADA taking Lance down a decade after the fact. If the precedent is set that we'll hunt you down after the testing is developed, then that creates a different level of concern for the athletes when they choose to dope.


----------



## Blurr (Dec 7, 2009)

osokolo said:


> at least you signed it, but there is no need for name calling...
> 
> I believe I left you + rep a while ago... I will stand by it.
> 
> ...


I always sign except for two special snowflakes on the site who constantly leave me unsigned Neg Rep.
I will counter it in another thread, I do not carry grudges from thread to thread, I will also add that it is pretty cool you had the chance to compete at such a high level.


----------



## Fischman (Jul 17, 2004)

[email protected] Lance will NEVER get into the MLB Hall of Fame!


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

I could be mistaken, but from what I have read, EPO affects individuals differently. 

Again, I may be off, but it seems that everyone just taking EPO does not "level the playing field".

For example, rider A with starting hematocrit level of 40 + EPO will quite possibly end up stronger/faster than rider B with starting hematocrit level of 48 + EPO. This would mean that the rider who is actually genetically inferior has an advantage when EPO is introduced into the equation.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

rydbyk said:


> I could be mistaken, but from what I have read, EPO affects individuals differently.
> 
> Again, I may be off, but it seems that everyone just taking EPO does not "level the playing field".
> 
> For example, rider A with starting hematocrit level of 40 + EPO will quite possibly end up stronger/faster than rider B with starting hematocrit level of 48 + EPO. This would mean that the rider who is actually genetically inferior has an advantage when EPO is introduced into the equation.


Yes, it is a complicated interplay of several physiological variables. There are some research papers (e.g., Effect of rhEPO administration on serum... [Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI ) that looks at the effect of EPO on VO2 max.

Simply: bigger engine, faster results. What exactly is the big engine? Well, that is complicated. It is heart stroke volume, vessel heath/circulatory system, lung health, lactic acid threshold, oxygen transport capacity, strength to weight ratio, ....


----------



## ProfGumby (Feb 27, 2008)

Sean K said:


> I've been in and out of cycling for many years, so here's my take:
> 
> Lance may of doped (just blood) and used EPO at times, but he only did because basically EVERYONE else was doing it. All the hard hitters from Italy, France and Belgium were. Mario Cippolini, Marco Pantani and others were busted for EPO.
> 
> ...


Agreed!:thumbsup:


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

ProfGumby said:


> Agreed!:thumbsup:


Me too!


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

I think blood samples should be like tax records. Keep them for three years and then destroy them. This isn't to condone cheating or beating the system, but rather to ensure timely testing and actions. It also eases the anxiety in the athletes minds by removing some of the what ifs and self doubts.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

heyyall said:


> I think blood samples should be like tax records. Keep them for three years and then destroy them. This isn't to condone cheating or beating the system, but rather to ensure timely testing and actions. It also eases the anxiety in the athletes minds by removing some of the what ifs and self doubts.


but if you know you are clean - there is no anxiety, is there?


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

heyyall said:


> I think blood samples should be like tax records. Keep them for three years and then destroy them. This isn't to condone cheating or beating the system, but rather to ensure timely testing and actions. It also eases the anxiety in the athletes minds by removing some of the what ifs and self doubts.





osokolo said:


> but if you know you are clean - there is no anxiety, is there?


Oh yes there is! Because the government and the USADA don't care if you are clean. They will still take more of your money and your Tour titles, clean or not.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

I think there is anxiety anytime someone is subjected to testing whether it be a quiz in school or a random drug screen at work. Pharmaceuticals in the water and food supply is a potential concern. False positives are a concern. Sample degradation is a concern. Chain of custody is a concern. 

I know with the drug screens I have had to do for work and have been involved with in a research setting, the chain of custody is critical. When the seal is broken and the test is run, the sample is destroyed and/or is no longer fit for use.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Oh yes there is! Because the government and the USADA don't care if you are clean. They will still take more of your money and your Tour titles, clean or not.


USA government is regarded as one of the most democratic and free governments. USADA is arms length agency - under WADA, rather than under government...

If such agency goes after one of it's own heroes, I would think that they would not do it unless they have some heavy weapon in their possession - like positive EPO test results (which they apparently do have according to cycling news) - done under WADA strict regulations...

But less disregard all the evidence and links that were posted in this thread - let's go in the direction of the witch hunt.

What is the objective of such a hunt and why would one country want to take down one of it's biggest sports (and social) heroes ever?

The man who beat the cancer and then conquered the world (and became pretty rich in the process - as a result of his racing success).

Is there a personal vendetta thing here in play and how can such a strong democracy afford that witch hunt and personal vendetta unfairly and without any evidence take down one of the most powerful social icons on the planet?

What is to be gained out of disgracing one of our own shiniest stars?

Just looking for different opinions here, lets try to go beyond just calling this a witch hunt... Let's try to substantiate it...


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Witch hunts are sort of a tradition here. If a prosecutor can take down a big name then they can get into elected office. They said they will release the test results. I look forward to that.


----------



## TIGMAN (Nov 18, 2004)

*how did I miss this ?*



Sean K said:


> I've been in and out of cycling for many years, so here's my take:
> 
> Lance may of doped (just blood) and used EPO at times, but he only did because basically EVERYONE else was doing it. All the hard hitters from Italy, France and Belgium were. Mario Cippolini, Marco Pantani and others were busted for EPO.
> 
> ...


 Exactly what I was trying to ask in a not so well worded question posted earlier....on getting the impression that doping could make an ordinary athlete become a super achiever which is just not true ! As far as the nutritionist concocting a wonder health bar....to me that's just good fair strategy and something his competition could whine about or make excuses over ! TIG.


----------



## mimi1885 (Aug 12, 2006)

osokolo said:


> USA government is regarded as one of the most democratic and free governments. USADA is arms length agency - under WADA, rather than under government...
> 
> If such agency goes after one of it's own heroes, I would think that they would not do it unless they have some heavy weapon in their possession - like positive EPO test results (which they apparently do have according to cycling news) - done under WADA strict regulations...
> 
> ...


USADA is like OSHA, started with good ideas but too many unintended consequence, plus when the agents abuse their power only bad things follow.

You asked the right question, why Lance and why now. It's about power and control, lots of it. Think about it they have the power to forgive anyone who help them and they can also offer money. That's why they said they have some heavy weapons, they are best witness money can buy.

On the case at hand why not approach Lance and offer immunity to bring all of the others down. It would make more sense, no? What the hell is only stripping Lance of 2 years if Lance comes clean? It's just to prove that they are right.

USADA should stick with the corrupted organization like the Olympic. I only watch it as an entertainment show. The BS surround the event really take away the competitive spirit.:thumbsup:


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

osokolo said:


> but if you know you are clean - there is no anxiety, is there?


But what happens when the rules get changed retroactively?

Not saying this is what happened here, but for the sake of the argument, someone comes up with a supplement that preforms just like EPO, but it is NOT on the banned substance list.

5 years later, it is, and they go back to stored blood samples, and negate the wins of anyone who now tests positive for it.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> But what happens when the rules get changed retroactively?
> 
> Not saying this is what happened here, but for the sake of the argument, someone comes up with a supplement that preforms just like EPO, but it is NOT on the banned substance list.
> 
> 5 years later, it is, and they go back to stored blood samples, and negate the wins of anyone who now tests positive for it.


That's actually covered already quite clearly in the rules. Prohibited substances include not only those on the banned list by name, but also any similar substances which have like chemical properties and effects (which athletes and their medical staff at that level can easily recognize). That's not a retroactive rule change. That would be a violation of rules already in effect.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

Circlip said:


> That's actually covered already quite clearly in the rules. Prohibited substances include not only those on the banned list by name, but also any similar substances which have like chemical properties and effects (which athletes and their medical staff at that level can easily recognize). That's not a retroactive rule change. That would be a violation of rules already in effect.


Can they decide something previously not banned is now banned, and make it retroactive?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

mimi1885 said:


> On the case at hand why not approach Lance and offer immunity to bring all of the others down. It would make more sense, no?


The WADA code does no permit 100% immunity for athletes found guilty of doping violations. USADA has to adhere to WADA code as a signatory. At least a partial sanction must be applied to any athlete found guilty of doping violations, with the amount of leeway to set minimum sanctions clearly defined.

USADA offered Lance the opportunity to participate in the process prior to being charged, to discuss what kind of a deal might be possible if he would help dismantle the doping infrastructure within the sport. He refused.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> Can they decide something previously not banned is now banned, and make it retroactive?


Can you give an example? (that isn't already covered by my previous post)

I'll try my best to answer with whatever information I know.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Can you give an example? (that isn't already covered by my previous post)
> 
> I'll try my best to answer with whatever information I know.


Say calcium supplements.

It really doesn't matter what, I am just trying to get a feel for if they can shift the standard to trap someone in the future.

My big beef with all of this is how long it has been. It is one thing to go back and try to verify new procedures and tests to see if what was once possible to do is no longer possible wrt doping, but it's been so damned long.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Here is a nonspecific example: The FDA struggles with what is a supplement and what is a drug. Supplements do not have FDA approval, but a supplement can be "elevated" to a drug should a medical claim be substantiated with testing. In this process, a supplement could be crossed over into an investigational drug and therefore be a banned substance according to section S0.

Ps--any new line of toothpaste would also be an investigational drug and could be an issue.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*"what if" is not really applicable here - we can*

spend days discussing different "what ifs"...

at the time EPO was banned.

the technology did not exist then to easily detect it at the time, but it is available now.

Lance knew EPO was banned. allegedly he took it regardless, knowing that he can successfully mask it and test negative.

so allegedly he cheated.

"what if" does not apply in this case, but i will give you my opinion. if there is a substance - and i bet you there is - that is TOTALLY unique and affects the performance in a different way than any known banned substance - USADA is SOL. too bad. if they tried to prosecute anyone, including Lance based on "changed rules" - i'd agree with witch hunt qualification completely.

however, allegedly - they nailed Lance for EPO. we will find out once UCI gets all the evidence from USADA and makes their judgement based on it.

we'll most likely come back to this thread, just to conclude the discussion, hopefully...

:thumbsup:



alphajaguars said:


> Say calcium supplements.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what, I am just trying to get a feel for if they can shift the standard to trap someone in the future.
> 
> My big beef with all of this is how long it has been. It is one thing to go back and try to verify new procedures and tests to see if what was once possible to do is no longer possible wrt doping, but it's been so damned long.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

Agreed.

I do hope it turns out to be BS, though. LA has been a huge figure both in out out of cycling, and it will hurt his credibility to no end.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*honestly, i do not think it will hurt Lance too much*

he will always play the card - it was a witch hunt and samples were mismanaged etc... actually, he will not say anything and people will be left to come with their own conclusions. because the perception is not completely against Lance (took USADA way to long to come up with all the evidence and charges - i agree) - most people will side with Lance - because people need heroes, and Lance is a great story...

this case is more important to young athletes, Lance is yesterdays news.

hopefully, young athletes realize that it is not worth it, though i am a big skeptic on this after all...



alphajaguars said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I do hope it turns out to be BS, though. LA has been a huge figure both in out out of cycling, and it will hurt his credibility to no end.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

At least the NICA is taking a very aggressive stance. They are not even allowing caffeine in competition--no 2x caffeine gels; no coca-cola. 

I played high school football and was clean throughout even though the temptation was there. There were a few people on the team that seemed to have the body of a body builder and there were always some thoughts. There was no testing, though.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Lance Armstrong's innocence is refuted in 'The Secret Race,' but many may not care - Yahoo! Sports


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance Armstrong's innocence is refuted in 'The Secret Race,' but many may not care - Yahoo! Sports


I'm not sure what to make of Tyler, but this book should be a good read. Contrary to my participation in this thread, I don't really care what happens to Lance. I would like to see some changes at the USADA. Some of the enforcement is unnecessary (and yes, I've made more than one joke at the policies) and we need to be careful to not criminalize perfectly legal behavior, but we need to have standards of performance adhered to. The problem, of course, is that competition naturally encourages people to seek competitive advantages. Technology is applauded. Physical attribute tinkering is hit or miss.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> Say calcium supplements.
> 
> It really doesn't matter what, I am just trying to get a feel for if they can shift the standard to trap someone in the future.


The answer is "no". Calcium supplements are not on the banned list, and furthermore chemically similar substances to calcium supplements would also not be prohibited. The banned substances list is only in valid for whatever is in effect at the time of sample collection. If the list changes, the ADAs can't go back afterwards. This has already been demonstrated in practical applications, since some substances have actually gone on/off/on the list over a number of years.

However, it is important to note that doping violations are not limited to testing positive for banned substances. Certain methods, such as transfusing one's own blood, are also banned even though it's not involving anything on the banned substance list. In fact, the U.S.A. cycling team at the 1984 Olympics publicly acknowledged doping by blood transfusion, since it was not a banned method at the time (and consequently no punitive measures could be taken).

USADA's case against Armstrong seems to involve both banned substances, and also banned methods (blood transfusions) that don't involve banned substances.



alphajaguars said:


> My big beef with all of this is how long it has been. It is one thing to go back and try to verify new procedures and tests to see if what was once possible to do is no longer possible wrt doping, but it's been so damned long.


There's a statute of limitations to deal with this topic, and even case law precedent in special circumstances to provide extensions of the statute of limitations period. Those laws and precedents aren't specific to doping, and have been examined many times under a much higher level of legal scrutiny and consequences than are in play here.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

heyyall said:


> I'm not sure what to make of Tyler, but this book should be a good read. Contrary to my participation in this thread, I don't really care what happens to Lance. I would like to see some changes at the USADA. Some of the enforcement is unnecessary (and yes, I've made more than one joke at the policies) and we need to be careful to not criminalize perfectly legal behavior, but we need to have standards of performance adhered to. The problem, of course, is that competition naturally encourages people to seek competitive advantages. Technology is applauded. Physical attribute tinkering is hit or miss.


Vaughters "accidentally" incriminates some big names for doping - in an internet debate about dope... Is there really any doubt any more that most everyone doped - at least in cycling?

Vaughters outs Garmin riders for past doping in online forum


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

Lance will always be a 7 time TDF Winner in my book. He won the races on the road. Look at the other guys that shared the podium with him, Ullrich, Mayo, Zulle, Basso.. He beat a fully juiced field. Who's the greatest GT racer now? Contador, guilty!!! Take Andy Schlecks reaction to being awarded the 2010 TDF, he doesn't want it, he wants to win it on the road. Lance may be a liar, a cheat, a prick, and a bully, but he's the greatest TDF racer of all time.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

snowdrifter said:


> Lance will always be a 7 time TDF Winner in my book. He won the races on the road. ... Lance may be a liar, a cheat, a prick, and a bully, but he's the greatest TDF racer of all time.


Snow has this exactly right.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> Lance will always be a 7 time TDF Winner in my book. He won the races on the road. Look at the other guys that shared the podium with him, Ullrich, Mayo, Zulle, Basso.. He beat a fully juiced field. Who's the greatest GT racer now? Contador, guilty!!! Take Andy Schlecks reaction to being award the 2010 TDF, he doesn't want it, he wants to win it on the road. Lance may be a liar, a cheat, a prick, and a bully, but he's the greatest TDF racer of all time.


Yep


----------



## ghort5 (Mar 1, 2012)

snowdrifter said:


> Lance will always be a 7 time TDF Winner in my book. He won the races on the road. Look at the other guys that shared the podium with him, Ullrich, Mayo, Zulle, Basso.. He beat a fully juiced field. Who's the greatest GT racer now? Contador, guilty!!! Take Andy Schlecks reaction to being awarded the 2010 TDF, he doesn't want it, he wants to win it on the road. Lance may be a liar, a cheat, a prick, and a bully, but he's the greatest TDF racer of all time.


BS, he is the greatest doper of all time.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> he's the greatest TDF racer of all time.


I agree, in the same way that Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter of all time.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

OK, who's the greatest TDF racer of all time? Eddy Merckx is the greatest Road Racer, he tested positive 3 times. Let's hear it, don't play favorites.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

snowdrifter said:


> OK, who's the greatest TDF racer of all time? Eddy Merckx is the greatest Road Racer, he tested positive 3 times. Let's hear it, don't play favorites.


I don't have time to type. Here's the wikipedia link. Scroll down to the table "Status of Tour de Cure winners"

Doping at the Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Doping in cycling has been going on since the before the Tour, isn't it about time it stops?


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

heyyall said:


> I don't have time to type. Here's the wikipedia link. Scroll down to the table "Status of Tour de Cure winners"
> 
> Doping at the Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you have an opinion, please type. There's only a few who have never tested positive, Lance being one of them. If you have no opinion, please refraim from posting.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> If you have an opion, please type. There's only a few who have never tested positive, Lance being one of them. If you have no opion, please refraim from posting.


Lance never testing positive is a myth.

USATODAY.com - Story: Armstrong had six positives from 1999 tests

Lance Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Doping in cycling has been going on since the before the Tour, isn't it about time it stops?


Yes, but the drugs are ahead of the tests. Until that ends, the doping will continue. Most pros would rather get results and money for a few years, testing positive years later only affects the icons of the sport.

Why is the USDA not banning and removing racords of hamilton, landis, hincapie, vandevelde,danielson, and all the rest of USA cheats. And what about the International Governing Bodies? Why don't they remove records and ban their cheats? The list goes on and on, and on....

Lance was a prick to former teamates, they went on hardtimes, and sold him out. They cheated and prospered from Lance's success. Now they're singing like a canari.

The USDA is out to make a name for themselves. Today's media sucks.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

heyyall said:


> I don't have time to type. Here's the wikipedia link. Scroll down to the table "Status of Tour de Cure winners"
> 
> Doping at the Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This history is nothing new. If you are too lazy to read this, though, just shut up.

I think it is interesting that adult endurance athletes took cocaine and amphetamines to kill pain and boredom in race stages years ago. I worry that 13 year-old athletes will emulate today's juice stars and take artificial hormones that will give them cancer or heart disease.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Lance never testing positive is a myth.
> 
> USATODAY.com - Story: Armstrong had six positives from 1999 tests
> 
> Lance Armstrong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


They're all on it. It's too bad the USDA couldn't dig up pissss on all the past champions, and really toot their horn.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> Why is the USDA not banning and removing racords of hamilton, landis, hincapie, vandevelde,danielson, and all the rest of USA cheats. And what about the International Governing Bodies? Why don't they remove records and ban their cheats? The list goes on and on, and on....


dude, they did or are on the way to do it... why do you think VdV, Levi, Zabriskie and Hincapie took themselves out for the 2012 Olympics consideration? They may be on the list of witnesses who may get reduced penalty in exchange for cooperation... What is coming down the pipe is pretty predictable...



> Lance was a prick to former teamates, they went on hardtimes, and sold him out. They cheated and prospered from Lance's success. Now they're singing like a canari.


Honestly, if Lance said "Yes, I doped like everyone else. So what" he would have kept more of my respect towards him. This way - not really...


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> Lance was a prick to former teamates, they went on hardtimes, and sold him out. They cheated and prospered from Lance's success. Now they're singing like a canari.
> .


This is the way it usually works, someone rats out another and then they fall like domino's. It has been reported that Lance was given an opportunity to come clean and opted out, apparently others are taking advantage of the same opportunity. The USADA report will be out in about one week, maybe there will be some new info contained in it. Meanwhile Tyler Hamilton's book is out and contains even more damaging accounts of doping if one is to believe him. We shall see.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

snowdrifter said:


> If you have an opion, please type. There's only a few who have never tested positive, Lance being one of them. If you have no opion, please refraim from posting.


I have expressed numerous opinions in this thread. Speculations about what Lance did or did not do is simply senseless on my part. While I have seen him race, I have never had 1 on 1 contact with him, I don't walk in the circles he walks in, etc. I could comment on things I have read, but I have no knowledge of what Lance did or did not do so either a repeat what has been said ad nauesum or say nothing.

But, why should I make a statement regarding my opinion? Will that bring things closer to the truth in this matter? Honestly, do you feel you are helping Lance's cause?

I will say, I admire him for his athletic accomplishments no doubt. He is an incredible cyclist on and off the road. Perhaps the worlds most gifted talent. I don't idolize athletes, though, but I see them for what they are--human beings.

I could also say I work in research and teach methods on diagnostic accuracy. I'm well aware of the implications of both false positive tests and false negative tests. I understand that these definitions are often based assumed distributions of values under two alternatives: negative cases and positive cases. Under most circumstances, these distributions overlap and will misclassify certain individuals.

Now, things I have said: 
I believe Lance made the correct decision to stop fighting. Doping or not doping, there are times you simply say enough is enough and move on with life.

I believe the USADA has acted inappropriately throughout this case. It needs to be reinvisioned to better (timely, more conclusively) identify PEDs

I give little weight to "eye witness accounts" of events that happened a decade ago. I care very little if a person remembers the facial expression or exact quotes of events that happened a decade ago.

I know there are coverups in nearly every walk of life. These happen when the stakes are trivial. These happen when potential world altering events happen too.

So there you have it. You goated me off the fence.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*BINGO - that is exactly why this charade must be*

pursued till the very end, and get over with... so that young athletes realize that it is not worth it...



DavyRay said:


> This history is nothing new. If you are too lazy to read this, though, just shut up.
> 
> I think it is interesting that adult endurance athletes took cocaine and amphetamines to kill pain and boredom in race stages years ago. I worry that 13 year-old athletes will emulate today's juice stars and take artificial hormones that will give them cancer or heart disease.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

osokolo said:


> dude, they did or are on the way to do it... why do you think VdV, Levi, Zabriskie and Hincapie took themselves out for the 2012 Olympics consideration? They may be on the list of witnesses who may get reduced penalty in exchange for cooperation... What is coming down the pipe is pretty predictable...
> 
> Honestly, if Lance said "Yes, I doped like everyone else. So what" he would have kept more of my respect towards him. This way - not really...


I get it, reduced suspension, they continue on with their career if they want. I don't give a crappp about Lance, I just think the whole thing serves very little purpose. Anyone who follows the sport knows the history. The sellouts are Landis and Hamilton IMO, they got busted when the sport was trying to clean up. Hamilton will make a bunch of cash from his book, Landis was too stupid not to do it first. It's a sellout.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> I get it, reduced suspension, they continue on with their career if they want. I don't give a crappp about Lance, I just think the whole thing serves very little purpose. Anyone who follows the sport knows the history. The sellouts are Landis and Hamilton IMO, they got busted when the sport was trying to clean up. Hamilton will make a bunch of cash from his book, Landis was too stupid not to do it first. It's a sellout.


The purpose is to break the cycle. Are we to see another generation of cyclists doping? This is the best opportunity to shine the light on what has up until now in the shadows. The public is getting a look at the undesirable aspect of the sport that has been largely unknown. Do we want our kids or grand kids following in the same foot steps? I think not.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> The purpose is to break the cycle. Are we to see another generation of cyclists doping? This is the best opportunity to shine the light on what has up until now in the shadows. The public is getting a look at the undesirable aspect of the sport that has been largely unknown. Do we want our kids or grand kids following in the same foot steps? I think not.


I'm all for getting rid of PEDs, but stripping records is a very slippery slope. Handing the yellow jersey down to a fellow doper is nutz. Witch hunting is bush league, no one should be singled out, they should all fry, or all walk. Lance was the most talented of the bunch, if the field was clean, his team, legs, lungs, and mental ability would have still won the race.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*if WADA let's them keep their victories*

then what would really prevent riders from doping, and winning - who cares about suspensions later...

upcoming athletes should see and learn, that victories are no more if PED are used....

i agree with you, had everyone been clean - Lance would have most likely still win... but coulda, shoulda, woulda.... it is what it is and SOMEONE has to deal with it. don't care who - as long as the sport is cleaned up... all sport...



snowdrifter said:


> I'm all for getting rid of PEDs, but stripping records is a very slippery slope. Handing the yellow jersey down to a fellow doper is nutz. Witch hunting is bush league, no one should be singled out, they should all fry, or all walk. Lance was the most talented of the bunch, if the field was clean, his team, legs, lungs, and mental ability would have still won the race.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> I'm all for getting rid of PEDs, but stripping records is a very slippery slope. Handing the yellow jersey down to a fellow doper is nutz. Witch hunting is bush league, no one should be singled out, they should all fry, or all walk. Lance was the most talented of the bunch, if the field was clean, his team, legs, lungs, and mental ability would have still won the race.


It is not a "witch hunt". They have evidence to support the assertions. Lance was pack fill in his early career before he turned to PED's.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

osokolo said:


> then what would really prevent riders from doping, and winning - who cares about suspensions later...
> 
> upcoming athletes should see and learn, that victories are no more if PED are used....
> 
> i agree with you, had everyone been clean - Lance would have most likely still win... but coulda, shoulda, woulda.... it is what it is and SOMEONE has to deal with it. don't care who - as long as the sport is cleaned up... all sport...


I agree it should be "all sport", starting with America's past time. Restore the Home Run , and Strike Out Records, Bonds, Clemmons, McGuire, Souza, they should go down! And the teams who won a championship with them, we should remove their records, their championships. Cycling should not be singled out. Why doesn't USDA clown on MLB or the NFL? They have a bunch of dopers too.

I'm not saying Lance wasn't a prick and a doper, and the sport shouldn't be clean. I'm saying Lance won 7 TDFs, his peers will mostly agree.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> It is not a "witch hunt". They have evidence to support the assertions. Lance was pack fill in his early career before he turned to PED's.


I might not go as far as saying just pack fill. He was accomplished but not seasoned. Clearly, the post cancer profile was much stronger, but his precancer record (triathlon + early road days) still would qualify as a remarkable.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> It is not a "witch hunt". They have evidence to support the assertions. Lance was pack fill in his early career before he turned to PED's.


The rest of the peloton must have been pack mules. Considering he whooped their arse. Guys like Ullrich, Zulle, Mayo, Basso, Beloki, The Pirate!!!.... It wasn't even close. His competition was all doped up too.

Who is the best TDF champ in your opinion?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> The rest of the peloton must have been pack mules. Considering he whooped their arse. Guys like Ullrich, Zulle, Mayo, Basso, Beloki, The Pirate!!!.... It wasn't even close. His competition was all doped up too.
> 
> Who is the best TDF champ in your opinion?


Obviously the one who doped the best. At best you're question detracts from the real issue.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Obviously the one who doped the best. At best you're question detracts from the real issue.


So LA should be fall guy? Everyone else should get a nooggie rub? So our children are better off?


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

snowdrifter said:


> So LA should be fall guy? Everyone else should get a nooggie rub? So our children are better off?


We do not know what USADA will do next.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

heyyall said:


> We do not know what USADA will do next.


It came out a while ago, 6 month suspensions for the bean spillers still racing.

If the USDA was out to save our kids, why don't they stick their noses in MLB, last years MVP positive for HGH.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> If the USDA was out to save our kids, why don't they stick their noses in MLB, last years MVP positive for HGH.


USADA has no jurisdiction over anti-doping efforts in MLB. MLB does their own anti doping. Same with all the major U.S. pro sports. USADA can't take on an anti doping role for sports that don't agree to sign on to the WADA code.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Obviously the one who doped the best. At best you're question detracts from the real issue.


Well since he wasn't caught at the time he certainly did something the best.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

snowdrifter said:


> So LA should be fall guy? Everyone else should get a nooggie rub? So our children are better off?


He had his chance to come clean and opted out, that does not make him a fall guy.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

Circlip said:


> I agree, in the same way that Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter of all time.


No to Barry "my hat size increased 2 sizes in 1 year" Bond. He doesn't even come to mind as a legitimate home run hitter. Hank Aaron was the man.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*no doubt about it...*

though he did get caught at least twice, but "pardoned".



sxotty said:


> Well since he wasn't caught at the time he certainly did something the best.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

dickeydoo said:


> No to Barry "my hat size increased 2 sizes in 1 year" Bond. He doesn't even come to mind as a legitimate home run hitter. Hank Aaron was the man.


What's the difference between Bonds and Armstrong? Anyone?


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Circlip said:


> What's the difference between Bonds and Armstrong? Anyone?


Bonds was caught up in a perjury issue. Armstrong knew enough to not be seen in court.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*the only difference is their body weight...*

and yes, Lance is smarter. He pulled the plug at the right time.



Circlip said:


> What's the difference between Bonds and Armstrong? Anyone?


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Circlip said:


> I agree, in the same way that Barry Bonds is the greatest home run hitter of all time.


I feel this would be more accurate if close to 100% of MLB players were doped during Bond's dominance. The percentage of dopers in MLB is not even remotely close to the TdF peleton.

It is more like a pro bodybuilding championship really. All doped. Still, the hardest working, best genetics, best diet etc wins.

Not a perfect analogy, but maybe a little better than the Bonds thing... imo...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

* better analogy - here i have one for you...*

so you are out with the guys and passing by a bank - the group robs it... everyone steals $20,000 but you only steal $5,000.

you feel good, because you stole the least amount of money - therefore you are the most honest guy in the group...

but for Chuck Norris - you are all thieves...





rydbyk said:


> I feel this would be more accurate if close to 100% of MLB players were doped during Bond's dominance. The percentage of dopers in MLB is not even remotely close to the TdF peleton.
> 
> It is more like a pro bodybuilding championship really. All doped. Still, the hardest working, best genetics, best diet etc wins.
> 
> Not a perfect analogy, but maybe a little better than the Bonds thing... imo...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> Bonds was caught up in a perjury issue. Armstrong knew enough to not be seen in court.


If you believe that Armstrong doped, then he similarly perjured himself under oath in a formal legal proceeding, in the course of a lawsuit against SCA Promotions that netted him a $7.5M settlement.


----------



## kabayan (Oct 25, 2004)

*I'll play*



Circlip said:


> What's the difference between Bonds and Armstrong? Anyone?


How about Bonds actually has someone who is willing (and did) go to jail for him. :thumbsup:

They started govt hearings to try and bring back integrity into baseball.

They will start govt hearings to undermine the march towards integrity in cycling.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Circlip said:


> What's the difference between Bonds and Armstrong? Anyone?


My OPINION is:

Bond's dominated in a sport where perhaps 5% to 20% of his competition was doped.

Armstrong dominated in a sport where perhaps 80% to 100% of his competition was doped. So, he had more doped competition than Bonds.

Lance competed on a "more" level playing field.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

My OPINION (which may eventually be backed up by release of evidence) is that Armstrong was given a "get out of jail free card" that allowed him to dope more than the other riders.

There was no level playing field.



rydbyk said:


> My OPINION is:
> 
> Bond's dominated in a sport where perhaps 5% to 20% of his competition was doped.
> 
> ...


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Circlip said:


> My OPINION (which may eventually be backed up by release of evidence) is that Armstrong was given a "get out of jail free card" that allowed him to dope more than the other riders.
> 
> There was no level playing field.


I will be even more disappointed if/when we find this out Time will tell... I don't recall any pro cyclists etc claiming that Lance was able to do MORE and BETTER dope than everyone else. I am not disagreeing with you. Just seems like this would be a legitimate argument that would arise over and over and over and over if it were the case...

Links?

I did say "more" of a level playing field btw


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

rydbyk said:


> I will be even more disappointed if/when we find this out Time will tell... I don't recall any pro cyclists etc claiming that Lance was able to do MORE and BETTER dope than everyone else. I am not disagreeing with you. Just seems like this would be a legitimate argument that would arise over and over and over and over if it were the case...
> 
> Links?


Holy moly. This is the entire premise of most of this thread and the subject of many, many links that have already been provided.

I'll be happy to provide links if you want for your convenience, but it's all been put out there already.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Circlip said:


> What's the difference between Bonds and Armstrong? Anyone?


Bonds was into hardcore steroids. That hasn't been proven to be the case with Lance.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

rydbyk said:


> I feel this would be more accurate if close to 100% of MLB players were doped during Bond's dominance. The percentage of dopers in MLB is not even remotely close to the TdF peleton.
> 
> It is more like a pro bodybuilding championship really. All doped. Still, the hardest working, best genetics, best diet etc wins.
> 
> Not a perfect analogy, but maybe a little better than the Bonds thing... imo...


Well the other home run kings near the same period I do believe were doping so it is close. Just doesn't work the same way since they play different positions for the team.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Circlip said:


> My OPINION (which may eventually be backed up by release of evidence) is that Armstrong was given a "get out of jail free card" that allowed him to dope more than the other riders.
> 
> There was no level playing field.


You don't really have any links to back that up. The get out of jail free business youguys have been citing is not very compelling actually. If anything it still appears to me that he was doping less since he did not get caught at the time as his competition did get caught. I mean this is assuming the release the test that shows EPO, which still hasn't happened. Like I said all along I assume he doped, but I don't see any evidence that he was more egregious than others and if anything the evidence points to the contrary.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Tyler Hamilton spoke of the cover up of positive tests during the tour, if that is not a get out of jail free card then it doesn't exist. At this point the evidence is becoming overwhelming and only the most ardent of supporters would be blind to it.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Circlip said:


> Holy moly. This is the entire premise of most of this thread and the subject of many, many links that have already been provided.
> 
> I'll be happy to provide links if you want for your convenience, but it's all been put out there already.


The confusion is from the comment "dope more" Bigger doses of more effective EPO vs. more often? Although both are cheating, those are different. That is all I was referring to.

What I was attempting to suggest was simply that if we find that Lance had MORE and BETTER dope than ALL of his competition, that I will be further disappointed.

No need for the "holy moly" thing...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Bonds was into hardcore steroids. That hasn't been proven to be the case with Lance.


You're right that it hasn't been proven yet, but the typical regime for pro cyclists that have already admitted their doping activities was heavily dependent on HGH, testosterone, etc.

As an endurance sport though, the big key for doping in cycling though isn't traditional steroids, it's "oxygen vector doping" methods to increase the effectiveness of the oxygen delivery system through the blood, most notably achieved through EPO and blood transfusions (both of which have been common threads in all the discussion/reports/charges surrounding Armstrong).

Prior to the use of oxygen vector doping methods, the benefits of other types of doping to endurance sports was marginal. Better cyclists (genetics and/or training) could still win clean against dopers. It's highly probably that cyclist winning in these prior eras (Mercx, etc.) would have won anyhow with or without their doping. That's not to say they weren't cheating, but we can have reasonable belief that the pecking order was established correctly in history.

However, the EPO and blood transfusions that were ushered into the sport as common doping practices beginning mostly in the early 1990s were complete game changers. The pecking order of genetics and training could be completely turned upside down by oxygen vector doping. Any confidence that the results properly reflected abilities was destroyed. The balance of power shifted to riders and teams who had more sophisticated doping programs, in terms of their access to medical staff or cooperation from the people running the sport allowing them to dope more heavily or more often than other riders.

The sport of cycling lost its premise of who was the best rider, and instead became a competition of who could dope the most and get away with it. The level playing field had evaporated.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Tyler Hamilton spoke of the cover up of positive tests during the tour, if that is not a get out of jail free card then it doesn't exist. At this point the evidence is becoming overwhelming and only the most ardent of supports would be blind to it.


It's pretty obvious the UCI protects it's stars, not just Lance. Contador served very little of his 2 year suspension, it was mostly retro. It's not right, but that's the way it is, it's not just LA getting preferential treatment.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Circlip said:


> The sport of cycling lost its premise of who was the best rider, and instead became a competition of who could dope the most and get away with it. The level playing field had evaporated.


That's the case with any sport, weather it's doping or cheating.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

snowdrifter said:


> It's pretty obvious the UCI protects it's stars, not just Lance. Contador served very little of his 2 year suspension, it was mostly retro. It's not right, but that's the way it is, it's not just LA getting preferential treatment.


The UCI did indeed seem to try to bury the Contador positive at first, before they were forced to act to save face once media leaks brought the issue to light. Contador did get sanctioned, had TdF title stripped, etc. though.

The media keeps trying to make this about Lance doping/not doping, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The USADA charges are for a conspiracy between Armstrong, team managers, and team doctors in which all were complicit in facilitating and encouraging (requiring?) other team members to participate in doping if they wanted to continue their employment as pro riders. That's very different than Contador or just about any other rider.

One might say that pro riders at that level should have expected it, but still that shouldn't let the enablers and ringleaders off the hook.


----------



## Adim_X (Mar 3, 2010)

................BREAKING NEWS........

Lance banned from Chicago marathon

"Spokeswoman Katherine McLane said Friday that Armstrong will not be allowed to participate in the Oct. 7 race."

Later in the article it states "Marathon officials said Armstrong didn't formally register for the race"

Lance Armstrong banned from running Chicago Marathon - News | FOX Sports on MSN

Good thing he is preemptively banned, I was worried I was gonna get beat by him, even though neither one of us entered the race..........


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

osokolo said:


> having competed in 3 winter olympics, last of which was the Nagano Olympics - just 14 years ago, when i retired...
> 
> you really think i need more education on doping???
> 
> ...


I cant spread my goodwill to you because i have already given it it says. but this is so true. heck even people in gyms does dope, and they have nothing to gain. in pro sports i'd say almost everybody does whatever they feel they can get away with. and the higher you go the more they can get away with because they are more advanced and can spend more money plain and simple. i know a guy that knows some competing guys in body building and they spend at least the equivalent of $7-9000/ year on doping, and thats not really a sport where you make any money, i'm going out on a limb here and i say its not even a sport at all, at least not more sport than gay cruising, still they dope.

did lance dope?? yes! but he was never caught so then he technically did not dope, because we have to draw a line here somewhere, and the line is proven and caught or not. thats the line. they all do but thats another story, they don't all get caught though and thats innocence. they can keep on keeping on with the charades until the cows come home for all i care, because i know the charades are charades, and look at it as, yup you guessed it, charades. people going 50km/h average for 200-400km, you gotta be fukcing kidding me if these people are clean, or sane for that matter.


----------



## jummo (Sep 8, 2005)

I think all said and done, this is the best outcome that was possible, for all concerned.

Even Lance.

I think USADA told Lance who was going to testify and to what. Lance knows what George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer know and he knows they will be believed.

This way it never comes out. Lance can continue to deny and those who want so desperately to believe him still can.

You can't take TDF's away from Contador, Landis and the others and look the other way for the guy who fights cancer.

Even if they officially strip the Yellow Jerseys, everyone still knows who won.

jummo


----------



## ArcticCat500 (Sep 5, 2011)

Im finally glad they caught the cheating bastard,


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

jummo said:


> I think all said and done, this is the best outcome that was possible, for all concerned.
> 
> Even Lance.
> 
> ...


I don't belive him. I'm 110% sure he did it too, all the time. but he was never caught so its not fair to burn him at the stake. the had wmds in iraq too you know. what happened to that guy? Lance has to be the most uninocent guy out there. But he did it under the radar, except those 7 tdf wins... But still even when he won those they didn't nail him even thoiughbwe all know what it takes to win that one. so i say drop it. If he didn't cheat then he didn't. technicality? yes but you still have to draw the line somewhere.

and morally and ethically, I'd say he won fair and square. they all did their mandatory epo, thats just how it works, he still won all those races, un fukcing touchable, so either he does the best dope or he's the best rider, or most likely 50/50, best doper, best rider. Its nothing wrong with that, its the dirtiest sport of all sports, you wanna win, you gotta be ready to take, no pain no gain.

Does he deserve it? i think he does, this is not some type of charity races and he won faitr and square. thats all there is to it.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Tyler Hamilton spoke of the cover up of positive tests during the tour, if that is not a get out of jail free card then it doesn't exist. At this point the evidence is becoming overwhelming and only the most ardent of supporters would be blind to it.


That certainly isn't decent evidence. It is poor evidence at best. Ardent supporter would imply they don't think he cheated. I am just an ardent supporter of reality and real evidence. I don't care about road riding, I don't care about the TDF. I really don't care about Lance as a rider to be honest. I watched a little road riding in the Olympics it is more boring than golf which is saying something. I just think that people are being silly about all this. I mean look at your foolish little custom user title ("livewrong"). You seem to have some sort of obsession which is humorous.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

sxotty said:


> That certainly isn't decent evidence. It is poor evidence at best. Ardent supporter would imply they don't think he cheated. I am just an ardent supporter of reality and real evidence. I don't care about road riding, I don't care about the TDF. I really don't care about Lance as a rider to be honest. I watched a little road riding in the Olympics it is more boring than golf which is saying something. I just think that people are being silly about all this. I mean look at your foolish little custom user title ("livewrong"). You seem to have some sort of obsession which is humorous.


It wouldn't be decent evidence on its own but when added to the already mountainous amount of evidence it stands up. Obsession? The same could be said of anyone with more than a couple of posts in this thread. Trying to paint someone who has attempted to do nothing more than present facts with levity as obsessed could make one appear to be nothing more than a disgruntled fanboi. As far as my user title, if you bothered to read the entire thread I have explained previously explained my motives behind it and do not intend to do so again. Don't make yourself a fool by making assumptions.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

A pile of crap is still a pile of crap. It could be a tall pile or a small pile. Like I said I look forward to them releasing the actual test results. Hopefully this time proper procedures were followed with the samples. I just cannot believe how terrible the "damning" evidence has been so far. The anti doping regime in the past had incredibly slip shod procedures. If they had kept their house in order they could have busted him long ago.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

*The Secret Race*

I am currently reading this book. I strongly recommend it for both Lance fans and others. Just do it and get it over with

LA skeptic?

TH skeptic?

Just read the book and see where you are at after...


----------



## timeis45 (Aug 18, 2012)

Will this clear things up?
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...ed-list/2013/WADA-Prohibited-List-2013-EN.pdf


----------



## asphalt_jesus (Aug 13, 2010)

johnnyb said:


> If it's true, It's a huge legacy to win and then lose all of it. It's worse than S.F. Giants, Barry Bonds. Barry just gets an asterisk. Baseball doping comes in a lot of flavors. It's nothing new and they keep catching the cheaters every season.
> 
> But here Lance is losing everything, not fifty games. AFTER the USADA statue of limitations and never publicly testing positive.
> 
> It just completely tarnishes the idea of a hero. I'm bummed but not surprised.


Welll.... He was doped as a junior under Chris Carmchael and Rene Wenzel's USA Cycling Junior development program. Armstrong and a couple of other now suddenly retired veteran American cycling careers were founded on rampant doping that got some riders sick.

I'm not sure why this isn't common knowledge. Maybe you guys weren't around? Look up the name "greg strock" and "usa cycling." That should put it all together for you. The stories mention two coaches. Carmichael bought his way out of the lawsuit.


----------



## Jaybo (Mar 5, 2008)

I read the Secret Race and it became clear to me they all cheated and probably still do. Lance sounds like a hard driving SOB! BIg surprise. Hamilton claims in the book that he got all these hand me down bikes and helmets while Lance got the best. Really? A guy making six figures plus can't afford his own helmet? Really? Hamilton is a questionable guy but Armstrong and the other riders all use EPO and other drugs. BFD!


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Just reading back through this thread i am totally astounded at the amount of people that believed this guy was clean and have made excuse after excuse for him and even got upset n threw neg rep around, 
Heres a few of the best ones in this thread,
1. but everybody else was doing it.
2. he never tested positive
3. its a conspiracy
4. the guys that testified against him are drug cheats and cant be trusted
5. the USADA are not a law enforcement agency n have no power
6. this is a witch hunt
7. Lance has done great charity work so lets just forget it and remember him for that.
8.but the guys that came 2nd n 3rd cheated too n they where all cheating so its not fair on lance
9. theres no proof
10. its a kangaroo court.

Those are just a small amount of ridiculous, naive n bias excuses doing the rounds in this thread, this thread is a 'comedy' and is a great example of how many people walk around with their eyes open but are actually asleep, Well done to every person in this thread that could see the situation n charges for what they where and see Lance exactly for what he is, A systematic long term drug cheat and a very poor lier..


----------



## Centurion_ (Aug 13, 2011)

You want to talk ridiculous? You want to talk comedy?

Given the pervasivness of drug use and doping in professional cycling, stripping Lance of his TDF and world championship titles will result, in all probability, in them being re-awarded to another cyclist who has used banned substances.

So...millions of dollars have been spent over a ten year period to dethrone a _suspected_ cheat, only to crown a new champion who is most likely using the same drugs that Lance has been accused of using.

Now *that*, my friend, is ridiculous...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

No.

Here`s a link to the latest comments from Christian Prudhomme, race director for the Tour de France suggesting that the best resolution is to leave a blank spot in the results i.e. no winner (as has been discussed and proposed several times in this thread already);

Tour De France Director Against Reassigning Armstrong's Victories | Cyclingnews.com



Centurion_ said:


> You want to talk ridiculous? You want to talk comedy?
> 
> Given the pervasivness of drug use and doping in professional cycling, stripping Lance of his TDF and world championship titles will result, in all probability, in them being re-awarded to another cyclist who has used banned substances.
> 
> ...


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

At least if this other ¨cheater¨ isn't arogant as Lance is... It only positive to me 

Lance is a cheater! i really cover it up, and make you feel guilty by ¨helping¨ other (only if you consider is fondation as usefull for other people than him 

Would a killer be more innocent if he had a fondation helping the familly of people who loose a member by violence?

Yes for sure, let him out, he got a fondation... Fondation our fund...ation.



Centurion_ said:


> You want to talk ridiculous? You want to talk comedy?
> 
> Given the pervasivness of drug use and doping in professional cycling, stripping Lance of his TDF and world championship titles will result, in all probability, in them being re-awarded to another cyclist who has used banned substances.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dibbs_ (Feb 17, 2009)

Good riddance Lance.

The sport of cycling can move on.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

How do we know Wiggins is clean?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

dickeydoo said:


> How do we know Wiggins is clean?


We don't. However, neither do we have a mountain of evidence and information telling us he's a doper.

There are some suspicious elements to him also (Sky team doctor with doping history - just dismissed a few days ago, sudden emergence as a top GC rider out of the blue in 2009, etc.) so Wiggins deserves some ongoing scrutiny like all pro cyclists due to their collective history of doping, but we can't hang him out to dry on known information.

Even from the first year of Armstrong's TdF wins in 1999, he had already racked up a bunch of items that should have had the UCI all over him. That would have stopped the bleeding way before it got to the current point. However, the UCI were complicit in cover up, positioning Armstrong as their poster child in their attempts to rebuild cycling's image after the huge Festina scandal of 1998 which was - until now - the watershed moment in pro cycling that was supposed to yield a cleaner future going forward. That future was co-opted in favour of greed and profiteering.


----------



## dickeydoo (May 11, 2007)

^^^^ My cynical opinion is it won't stop. So far he is clean, to me his showing in the TDF does'nt pass the smell test. I just don't think it stops with the complete pantsing of LA.


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

dickeydoo said:


> How do we know Wiggins is clean?


We don't, but we can hope.

His run to the top has been a pretty slow affair, back before the Athens Olympics he announced his intention to go from track to road. Whilst his arrival in the top ten at the 2009 tour was pretty sudden, his road race results had been on a steady upward curve for five years before that. Does it make him clean? Possibly probably not, but as a Brit I want him to be.

If nothing else, I think Wiggins will damage fewer people than Lance, he doesn't seem the type to hold deep grudges.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

lapinGTI said:


> Would a killer be more innocent if he had a fondation helping the familly of people who loose a member by violence?


How do you get from a guy who kills other people to a guy who dopes?

We're not even talking apples and oranges here... more like apples and the moon.

??????


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Centurion_ said:


> You want to talk ridiculous? You want to talk comedy?
> 
> Given the pervasivness of drug use and doping in professional cycling, stripping Lance of his TDF and world championship titles will result, in all probability, in them being re-awarded to another cyclist who has used banned substances.
> 
> ...


What are you suggesting Centurion, that they let lance off the hook because some other dope cheat will get the titles, first of all i dont think the titles will go to anybody, but if they do well its just how it works..
This is a great thing for cycling, the dominos are falling everywhere, And the dominos are falling in Australia too.
Today former pro and now high ranking coach Matt White has admitted he to was involved in the systematic drug taking as well, he has only admitted this since he was implicated in the Armstrong case, he has stood down as coach of the green edge team with further investigation n bans to come n this is fantastic, this bloke needs to be wiped out from Australian sport and he will be, he is a disgrace to the nation.
Lances case has not only bought down lance but its going to have a massive domino effect..

If some of lances titles go to other cheats that havnt been caught yet, so be it, its a sport thats rife with drug use, but they have now got the biggest fish, and he has chosen to run away like a little kid n put his fingers in his ears n say 'im not listening'.Now thats Ridiculous....


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

And they start lining up the potential lawsuits:

UK paper says considering legal action against Lance Armstrong - Yahoo! News


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

AZ.MTNS said:


> And they start lining up the potential lawsuits:
> 
> UK paper says considering legal action against Lance Armstrong - Yahoo! News


...tip of the iceberg imo


----------



## markymark (Oct 30, 2004)

The great irony now is that is clear he was using: steroids, epo, testosterone, and cortisone_ before_ he got the cancer and the use of all those things is probably what gave him the testicular cancer in the first place.

He has committed so much fraud and even perjury in court on many occasions. When all this is over he is gonna be locked up jail for a very looong time. So sad.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Australians speak English so why do you seem so confused.


Tone's L'axeman said:


> Just reading back through this thread i am totally *astounded at the amount of people that believed this guy was clean* and have made excuse after excuse for him and even got upset n threw neg rep around,
> Heres a few of the best ones in this thread,
> 1. but everybody else was doing it.
> 2. he never tested positive
> ...


You pick only two items that even suggest he was clean. Number 2 and number 9. All the rest are irrelevant to whether he was cheating. By far the majority thought he was cheating and all the rest were as well. BTW it is liar, and I would say he was a darn good liar. A poor liar doesn't go this long without getting caught. However if you have lay with him in bed or something so know he is a poor lier then feel free to inform us :thumbsup:


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

AZ.MTNS said:


> And they start lining up the potential lawsuits:
> 
> UK paper says considering legal action against Lance Armstrong - Yahoo! News


They will come and they will come. How many people has Armstrong sued over the years for suggesting he wasn't clean, how many people were intimidated into signing NDA's that are now a moot point, even how many people lost their job or their reputation for attracting the ire of camp Armstrong?

The phrase queuing down the street comes to mind.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

sxotty said:


> Australians speak English so why do you seem so confused.
> 
> You pick only two items that even suggest he was clean. Number 2 and number 9. All the rest are irrelevant to whether he was cheating. By far the majority thought he was cheating and all the rest were as well. BTW it is liar, and I would say he was a darn good liar. A poor liar doesn't go this long without getting caught. However if you have lay with him in bed or something so know he is a poor lier then feel free to inform us :thumbsup:


Im not confused at all, the things above where excuses that were thrown about in this thread, I think he is a poor liar and easier to see through than a glass window, his backing out of defending himself and the reasons he gave where a joke.
You have defended him throughout this thread, im not surprised your all upset, your dead right the rest of my points above are irrelevant to him cheating thats the reason i found them so funny in this thread, they are excuses that people put up in defence of him.
Ive never been confused over the issue of him being a drug cheat, he is and always has been, i was attacked for that a month ago on here for saying it, theres nothing im confused about at all, but it looks like your very confused when you look over your previous posts in this thread...:thumbsup:


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

markymark said:


> The great irony now is that is clear he was using: steroids, epo, testosterone, and cortisone_ before_ he got the cancer and the use of all those things is probably what gave him the testicular cancer in the first place.


you got that right...

most likely self inflicted horrible disease - as he knew the risks of taking steroids and other performance enhancing drugs...



> He has committed so much fraud and even perjury in court on many occasions. When all this is over he is gonna be locked up jail for a very looong time. So sad.


it is going to be a very interesting few years ahead, for Lance. we'll be hearing a lot about this in the next little while.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> Im not confused at all, the things above where excuses that were thrown about in this thread, I think he is a poor liar and easier to see through than a glass window, his backing out of defending himself and the reasons he gave where a joke.
> You have defended him throughout this thread, im not surprised your all upset, your dead right the rest of my points above are irrelevant to him cheating thats the reason i found them so funny in this thread, they are excuses that people put up in defence of him.
> Ive never been confused over the issue of him being a drug cheat, he is and always has been, i was attacked for that a month ago on here for saying it, theres nothing im confused about at all, but it looks like your very confused when you look over your previous posts in this thread...:thumbsup:


I did not defend him. If you could actually bother to read what I wrote I repeatedly said I thought he was guilty. I don't really care about the man, I don't care about the sport. I care about justice as a concept. I just think the evidence was pretty crappy. The failed drug test that did not stand up is a perfect example. The people in charge of running the tests that were supposed to be blind were stupid and did not actually make the test blind. It was embarrassing that the folks trying to catch the cheats were so sloppy. I just don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping the difference between opinions, facts, and the quality of evidence. As I said previously a large pile of crappy evidence is still crappy evidence. That is why the court of law gave up on it. The evidence was poor. Why was the evidence poor? The quality of the witnesses is low since they are all admitted liars. The quality of the laboratory tests was poor b/c those running them were too stupid or incompetent to do their jobs correctly. The list goes on. Yes I suppose it is hard to catch cheaters, but that is not excuse for such laziness. If they did not want to do a good job testing then don't waste money testing to lend legitimacy to a sport that has no legitimacy.

edit: BTW Tones thanks for the negative rep man. I am so glad that system is in place lol


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

skiahh said:


> This post is pretty much complete blather. First, the court of law does NOT exist to determine guilt or innocence. It is to determine guilt under the law. Because of that, you are either guilty or not guilty, but make no mistake, not guilty does not equal innocent.
> 
> As for us all knowing he takes testosterone because of his cancer, do you have a link to that? Or is that just an assumption of yours? I don't know that he takes it for any reason. If he did, I wonder if that would disqualify him from competition since there would be no way to disqualify him for taking too much.
> 
> ...





anonymous coward negative repper said:


> well your looking rather silly on your stance with Armstrong now, infact you always looked silly with your stance...


Really? Tossing around the negative rep to make yourself feel vindicated? I don't look silly at all - especially for this post.

Absent any evidence other than self serving statements and no drug tests, I wasn't going to judge. With this pretty conclusive evidence, there's no doubt left, so no benefit of the doubt to give.

He STILL hasn't faced a court of law. Still isn't guilty under the law, only under the WADA and USADA rules. He's not going to jail, just going to get stripped of his official wins.

There's enough evidence now, in my opinion, to convict him in a court - beyond a reasonable doubt - as well as to say he broke the rules, obviously.

Don't YOU look silly (and pathetic) for trolling old posts and assuming that people can't/won't change their minds when real evidence is presented vice the hearsay, rumor, innuendo and other trash you seem willing to accept as accurate.

Oh, and for the final touch... it's you're (as in your are) and in fact are two distinct words. If you're going to flame someone, you should make sure your words are accurate, otherwise your flame pretty much fizzles.


----------



## bridger (Dec 7, 2010)

Everybody laughed at Greg Lemond when he said lance was doping as well as most of the peloton.....said he was old, fat & jealous....
I'm just sayin'...


----------



## bridger (Dec 7, 2010)

Everybody laughed at Greg Lemond when he said lance was doping as well as most of the peloton.....said he was old, fat & jealous....
I'm just sayin'...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

bridger said:


> Everybody laughed at Greg Lemond when he said lance was doping as well as most of the peloton.....said he was old, fat & jealous....
> I'm just sayin'...


Lemond was dead on with evverything. Stuck to his guns, refused to be intimidated even with his business interests being dismantled by Trek. Of course, that must have been all completely coincidental with Armstrong and Trek tied at the hip. 

Participation of Trek and it's president John Burke in legal efforts to silence Lemond from speaking out publicly about Armstrong is a story that should be revisited and retold. Very few people seemed to care at the time, or support Lemond's position, since Amstrong still had the full halo effect going and many still bought into the "Greg is just jealous" narrative spread by the Trek/Armstrong combo.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

osokolo said:


> you got that right...
> 
> most likely self inflicted horrible disease - as he knew the risks of taking steroids and other performance enhancing drugs...
> 
> it is going to be a very interesting few years ahead, for Lance. we'll be hearing a lot about this in the next little while.


Sadly, this is true. Things are going to get real ugly for Lance. He will be sued by everyone and may have to serve time for his actions. The livestrong foundation is the biggest loser in all this.


----------



## Ridnparadise (Dec 14, 2007)

I suspect he would have to have had testicular cancer for the steroids to have an influence. The whole issue of androgenic agents is so poorly researched (because they are banned in most cases) that there are probably large gaps in the knowledge base. However, if testosterone compounds caused testicular cancer, there's be an awful lot of young men with no balls.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Vespasianus said:


> Sadly, this is true. Things are going to get real ugly for Lance. He will be sued by everyone and may have to serve time for his actions. The livestrong foundation is the biggest loser in all this.


It is hardly clear that the drugs he took caused his cancer. Maybe, maybe not.

And yeah, Livestrong will lose big. They have been mum since the report came out.


----------



## markymark (Oct 30, 2004)

Now it's coming out that he fixed races too. Geez, this is getting very very sad.


----------



## jayoutside (Mar 21, 2004)

*don't hate the player, hate the game*

some of you know this, and some don't, but Lance is not the only problem here. The problem is FAR bigger than any one person.

Check out this read on the state of sport right now. We need an overhaul. Badly.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

markymark said:


> Now it's coming out that he fixed races too. Geez, this is getting very very sad.


Uck! Sad indeed: Australian cycling legend 'witnessed Armstrong bribe'


----------



## ozz (May 30, 2006)

Lance has a illegitimate son with his Mexican housekeeper. And he hates puppies.


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Circlip said:


> Lemond was dead on with evverything. Stuck to his guns, refused to be intimidated even with his business interests being dismantled by Trek. Of course, that must have been all completely coincidental with Armstrong and Trek tied at the hip.
> 
> Participation of Trek and it's president John Burke in legal efforts to silence Lemond from speaking out publicly about Armstrong is a story that should be revisited and retold. Very few people seemed to care at the time, or support Lemond's position, since Amstrong still had the full halo effect going and many still bought into the "Greg is just jealous" narrative spread by the Trek/Armstrong combo.


Honestly, Trek should apologize to Greg Lemond.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

another sad pathetic cowardly neg repper said:


> Baby


Bwahahaha!!

What a hypocrite.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Vespasianus said:


> Honestly, Trek should apologize to Greg Lemond.


/\/\/\ This. If the public knew what Lance and Trek did to Lemond, Trek would be selling low price bikes ala Bikes Direct.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

NateHawk said:


> And yeah, Livestrong will lose big. They have been mum since the report came out.


I heard on the news the other night that Livestrong is taking in more donations then ever, because of this.


----------



## snowdrifter (Aug 2, 2006)

markymark said:


> Now it's coming out that he fixed races too. Geez, this is getting very very sad.


This happens in the pro peloton, alliances are formed, and yes sometimes money even changes hands.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> I heard on the news the other night that Livestrong is taking in more donations then ever, because of this.


Since I don't have any knowledge of your source, or the specific information that was given, I can't say for certain. However, it may be simply regurgitating slightly the news item linked below (which is now slightly dated) which made its rounds of circulation to many media outlets

Lance Armstrong Livestrong Donations Increase 25 Times Following Controversy

The funny things which stick out for anyone paying attention are;

1. It's only a comparison between one single day to the next. Not a very good sampling to indicate a verifiable trend.

2. If donations were $3,200 the day before and Livestrong in it's PR is positioning this as an average day, that means their annual revenue from donations is $3,200 x 365 = $1.168 million annually. If true that means an organization which has raised ~$500M over the last 15 years or so is choking.

3. Even if the new norm is $78,000 /day average, then that means annually $28.5M annually. $500M / 15 years = ~$33M per year revenue already, so that the supposedly remarkable performance of $78,000 per day for a whole wouldn't even net them their historical annual average revenue.

In summary, looks like misdirection and flawed information presented once again, designed to fool weak minds who simply believe whatever they read without scrutinizing it properly.

I've posted it up already recently, but I'll do so again ; I think the best thing for Livestrong (a.k.a. the Lance Armstrong Foundation) would be for their namesake to back away from it, and try to leave it to run quality programs for cancer survivors and awareness that are about the mission itself, and not so much about one "halo" figurehead.


----------



## pimpbot (Dec 31, 2003)

*Heh....*



Tone's L'axeman said:


> And so did Marion Jones and plenty of other dopers, they are miles in front of the testers..


... not going to name names, but my real estate agent was a former olympian, and she got busted along with Marion Jones, and that kinda ended her career as an athlete.

Lady is in freaky amazing shape, tho. Freaky smart, too.

I still stand that doping has to be stamped out, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't start which hunts. I know a lot of folks who say 'let them dope', but I think that just leads to behavior that will have a body count. I don't need to watch cycling so badly that people have to have their lives ruined or taken away by it.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*and we, the fools, thought*

the best would win...



snowdrifter said:


> This happens in the pro peloton, alliances are formed, and yes sometimes money even changes hands.


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm curious what other methodology would be as publicity-engendering as a witch hunt? To me there was no other option. Let it burn, baby!

LA put his neck out there. I wrote to someone a few days ago about a Dutch saying "hogen bomen vangen veel wind" which means basically if you have a big ego and put yourself out there as a public figure, well, then you're gonna get burned!!


----------



## smoothsam (Mar 27, 2011)

The bigger they are,


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)




----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


>


What did you think of this lil Aussie doco AZ? i watched it last night, it had some very interesting testimonies in there, The Lance affair is massive news over here, the dominos are falling as we have had aussie Matt White stand down from his role as coach of Aussie team Green edge and admit to his drug use and links to doping due to the Lance investigation. did you watch the 4 corners doco AZ?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> What did you think of this lil Aussie doco AZ? i watched it last night, it had some very interesting testimonies in there, The Lance affair is massive news over here, the dominos are falling as we have had aussie Matt White stand down from his role as coach of Aussie team Green edge and admit to his drug use and links to doping due to the Lance investigation. did you watch the 4 corners doco AZ?


The whole Australian connection as it pertains to Armstrong's comeback in 2009 was very weird. Armstrong stated he was coming back strictly to help promote Livestrong, and so would not be taking any salary on his rider's contract with the team. However, he did accept a $1 million dollar personal appearance fee to participate in the Tour Down Under as his big comeback event, directly paid for by government money from the province hosting the race as I understand it.

The UCI also agreed to waive its rules on the minimum amount of time an athlete is supposed to have as a sort of cooling off period when resuming racing out of retirement, during which they are back in the anti-doping testing stream. The rationale is that without this cooling off time buffer, a retired athlete could train and build themselves up for months on a full doping program with zero restrictions, then ease off under the control limits just in time to "unretire" and start racing again. For Armstrong the UCI decided these rules needn't apply.

Armstrong publicly announced that his entire comeback would be monitored by a totally transparent anti-doping program run by Don Catlin, who used to manage one of the major U.S. testing facilities. The ongoing test results were to be posted online according to Armstrong's press release, with Catlin given complete independence to call it like he saw it for any adverse findings. After receiving all the publicity kudos for this new transparency, Armstrong quietly pulled the plug on the Catlin testing program after only one set of samples had been collected, citing that the ongoing cost of maintaining the program would be too costly. Really? Armstrong has a reputed $125M net worth, just collected a $1M appearance fee, but the cost of the testing he promised to implement was too much?

I can provide links to all if anyone is interested. EDIT: convenience links now included below;

UCI waives normal buffer period;
UCI Allows Armstrong To Start The 2009 Tour Down Under | Cyclingnews.com

No salary claim wasn't even strictly on the level;
Armstrong

No salary, but sure a whopping personal appearance fee;
Lance Down Under: Are Armstrong's seven-figure appearance fees worth every dollar?

Armstrong's personal testing program with Don Catlin announced;
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling

Personal testing program, more details;
Armstrong Addresses Industry, LeMond Crashes Party | Cyclingnews.com

Personal testing program swept under the carpet;
www.cyclingnews.com - the world centre of cycling

The major news programs are covering the big ticket items, but there are so many other "stunners" like those above (in my opinion) that they haven't even gotten to yet, or are just getting lost in the jumble.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Circlip said:


> The whole Australian connection as it pertains to Armstrong's comeback in 2009 was very weird. Armstrong stated he was coming back strictly to help promote Livestrong, and so would not be taking any salary on his rider's contract with the team. However, he did accept a $1 million dollar personal appearance fee to participate in the Tour Down Under as his big comeback event, directly paid for by government money from the province hosting the race as I understand it.
> 
> The UCI also agreed to waive its rules on the minimum amount of time an athlete is supposed to have as a sort of cooling off period when resuming racing out of retirement, during which they are back in the anti-doping testing stream. The rationale is that without this cooling off time buffer, a retired athlete could train and build themselves up for months on a full doping program with zero restrictions, then ease off under the control limits just in time to "unretire" and start racing again. For Armstrong the UCI decided these rules needn't apply.
> 
> ...


Very interesting stuff that leaves a lot of questions to be asked.
Theres no doubt that Lance coming here for that event was great for Aussie cycling at the time, he had alot of fans here..


----------



## Nickjr (Oct 15, 2012)

This whole thing sickens me. Like poison for the youth. Lots of kids looked up to LA, a hero to many, he is to biking like Tiger Woods is to golf. Lot of people got into biking because of him. The sport will feel an impact in the future from all this.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Nickjr said:


> This whole thing sickens me. Like poison for the youth. Lots of kids looked up to LA, a hero to many, he is to biking like Tiger Woods is to golf. Lot of people got into biking because of him. The sport will feel an impact in the future from all this.


unfortunately - it is even worse than that...

like if it was discovered that the Santa Claus was a vicious child molesting monster...

huge...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

osokolo said:


> unfortunately - it is even worse than that...
> 
> like if it was discovered that the Santa Claus was a vicious child molesting monster...
> 
> huge...


Hahahahaha, thats pretty funny....:thumbsup:


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Nickjr said:


> This whole thing sickens me. Like poison for the youth. Lots of kids looked up to LA, a hero to many, he is to biking like Tiger Woods is to golf. Lot of people got into biking because of him. The sport will feel an impact in the future from all this.


What happened with Tiger Woods? Idolizing sports stars is foolish. They do nothing useful. The only good that comes from them is that which could come from any rich person who decides to be generous. I suppose one could argue for inspiration but look where that gets you


----------



## ccm (Jan 14, 2004)

I wonder how much Armstrong paid Ullrich?
did Ullrich stop and wait after Armstrong was snagged by the musette bag out of good sportsmanship or to not contest for a win?


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

Analysis: How Spain became center of operations in Armstrong's doping ring.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

sxotty said:


> What happened with Tiger Woods? Idolizing sports stars is foolish. They do nothing useful. The only good that comes from them is that which could come from any rich person who decides to be generous. I suppose one could argue for inspiration but look where that gets you


Tiger Woods looks like a saint next to Lance, they are not even comparable in the slightest degree.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> Tiger Woods looks like a saint next to Lance, they are not even comparable in the slightest degree.


Oh yeah, if you're bangin' chicks, you're a hero!


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Lance Armstrong steps down as head of Livestrong; Nike terminates contract | Fourth-Place Medal - Yahoo! Sports

Nike severs ties with cyclist Lance Armstrong following doping scandal - Yahoo! Sports


----------



## Dibbs_ (Feb 17, 2009)

The Ivory towers come crashing down.

The arrogant a-hole always thought he was above the law.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Oh yeah, if you're bangin' chicks, you're a hero!


i never said Tiger was a hero, i dont care what he did in his sex life, the only person he cheated was his wife, ...
Lance has cheated the whole world of cycling, he has cheated to gain an advantage regardless of who ever else has doped, cheated his sponsors, cheated his fans etc.
At least when the truth came out about tiger he had the courage to stand up and admit it n face the music.
Tiger and Lance are not even in the same book, and totally non comparable....


----------



## EnduroT (May 17, 2011)

Too early to look for steep discounts on trek bikes, oakley sunglasses... etc?


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

Article pointing out that a corp entity is distancing itself from him.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/10/17/us/ap-cyc-armstrong-livestrong-future.html?hp&_r=0

Nike, by the way, prob knew what was going on. Not to ruffle any feathers or nuthin  Seems like strategic positioning occurs in many senses of the term. Livestrong will continue to be supported by Nike.

Good of LA to sever himself from the LA Foundation. They need all the credibility they can get - which no doubt is for a great cause.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

beerrun said:


> Good of LA to sever himself from the LA Foundation. They need all the credibility they can get - which no doubt is for a great cause.


I still haven't figured out what the LA foundation does beyond throwing lavish events with LA's name plastered all over it


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

AZ.MTNS said:


> /\/\/\ This. If the public knew what Lance and Trek did to Lemond, Trek would be selling low price bikes ala Bikes Direct.


You are not kidding. I wonder if Greg will actually sue Lance and Trek. They really, really screwed him.


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

I expect to see lots of lawsuits filed in the near future. I expect most of them will be settled out of court. I expect Lance to be "poor" for awhile, and then somehow regaining a decent portion of his wealth.

I would guess a tell-all book after USADA is finished with the other folks in this investigation.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

alphajaguars said:


> I expect to see lots of lawsuits filed in the near future. I expect most of them will be settled out of court. I expect Lance to be "poor" for awhile, and then somehow regaining a decent portion of his wealth.
> 
> I would guess a tell-all book after USADA is finished with the other folks in this investigation.


LOL, do you think a book written by lance would be classified as fiction, im sure he will write one too, can you imagine the amount of dribble n lies in it, it would be called ''10000 lies according to Lance''...


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> LOL, do you think a book written by lance would be classified as fiction, im sure he will write one too, can you imagine the amount of dribble n lies in it, it would be called ''10000 lies according to Lance''...


Bookstore Labels Lance Armstrong Memoir As Fiction [Photo]


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Bookstore Labels Lance Armstrong Memoir As Fiction [Photo]


BWAHAHAHA, AZ, that gave me a good laugh, i havnt seen that before, thats 24c gold, cheers for puttin that link up lol:thumbsup:


----------



## manual63 (Nov 5, 2006)

My 2 cents!

Since they all dope, Lance still beat them fair and square whether he doped or not. I sure wish this was realized because if they take his wins, they will just give them to the second place doper.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

manual63 said:


> My 2 cents!
> 
> Since they all dope, Lance still beat them fair and square whether he doped or not. I sure wish this was realized because if they take his wins, they will just give them to the second place doper.


Everybody realises this, but its a poor excuse to not strip him of his wins.
Thats like saying let all the car thieves off because somebody else out there will still steal tomorrow, or let somebody off if the kill somebody because somebody else will still do it again, its a stupid excuse. 
Second of all if they strip him they are not going to give the title to the second place getter so forget that idea, its not gonna happen.
Third of all not everybody dopes, yes the majority did for sure but im sure there was a few guys doin it on 'bread n water' thats the bikers slang term for a clean rider.
Sometimes in life the right call has to be made, and this is one of those times, its either that or let everybody dope as much as they like.
I congratulate the USADA, they have stood up to the critics and got a great result here, to a point they have silenced the critics n doubters and have proved themselves correct with the evidence they have accumulated.
Theres a reason why lance wouldnt fight this case, because he knew damn well he was going to be proven guilty, and he has taken the cowards option and ran away with his fingers in his ears and said im not listening instead of facing the music...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Vespasianus said:


> You are not kidding. I wonder if Greg will actually sue Lance and Trek. They really, really screwed him.


Here's some background - at least on the final outcome - of the legal issues between Trek and Lemond at the link below. If the reporting is accurate, under the terms of the settlement Lemond cannot reopen the issue with Trek, but he can go after other parties (hint, hint).

Good Advice: Don't Sue Greg LeMond | Boulder Report | Bicycling.com

More for anyone who is interested;

LeMond And Trek To Consider Settlement | Cyclingnews.com

Greg LeMond on doping accusations: I feel vindicated - USATODAY.com


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> Everybody realises this...


Realized, asked, and answered so many times in this thread and other Armstrong threads I have lost count!


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*Nike*

covering their tracks?

Report: Did Nike Pay $500,000 To Verbruggen To Cover Up Armstrong Positive? | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

second place doper.
love it.
hopefully not, cuz it'll f everything up.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Its an enthralling story, so many angles to it, i wonder how long its going to take them to make a big block buster movie about it, and i wonder who is going to take the role of Lance, i think its a role only Lance himself could play, hes had some great acting experience...


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

I dug through the LA Foundation financials during lunch. What a crock of isht! This is most definitely just a marketing scam.

For 2011 
$43mil in net revenue
$35mil in expense (the remainder goes to investments)

Holding $38mil in cash/equivalents at end of year 2011
$103 MILLION in assets EOY 2011 (WTF!!!!)

Attached below is the breakdown of their expenses. Of the $43mil in revenue, ~11.3% leaves the building. What does that remaining $38 mil get you?
- LA promotion
- Cancer awareness (seriously, WTF is this?)
- A call center for cancer patients to call, which will then give them the name of some other organization that can help them. Meaning, you call them up and say "I have colon cancer and am in California" and they'll give you the names of other charities/organizations that can _actually _help you.


----------



## Dirt Engineer (Sep 12, 2012)

car_nut said:


> I dug through the LA Foundation financials during lunch. What a crock of isht! This is most definitely just a marketing scam.
> 
> For 2011
> $43mil in net revenue
> ...


That's no different than any other business that solicits money/donations for a charity. It's usually 10%-20% that actually goes to the charities themselves. And 20% is optimistically high! :O


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> Its an enthralling story, so many angles to it, i wonder how long its going to take them to make a big block buster movie about it, and i wonder who is going to take the role of Lance, i think its a role only Lance himself could play, hes had some great acting experience...


Tom Cruise.

No, wait...

Arnie.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> Oh yeah, if you're bangin' chicks, you're a hero!





Tone's L'axeman said:


> i never said Tiger was a hero, i dont care what he did in his sex life, the only person he cheated was his wife, ...
> Lance has cheated the whole world of cycling, he has cheated to gain an advantage regardless of who ever else has doped, cheated his sponsors, cheated his fans etc.
> At least when the truth came out about tiger he had the courage to stand up and admit it n face the music.
> Tiger and Lance are not even in the same book, and totally non comparable....


I'm totally agreeing with you!


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

car_nut said:


> I dug through the LA Foundation financials during lunch. What a crock of isht! This is most definitely just a marketing scam.
> 
> For 2011
> $43mil in net revenue
> ...





Dirt Engineer said:


> That's no different than any other business that solicits money/donations for a charity. It's usually 10%-20% that actually goes to the charities themselves. And 20% is optimistically high! :O


I'm struggling to reconcile the information presented in posts above with this snip from the Associated Press article that was circulating in the media outlets today;

*"CharityWatch, which analyzes the work of approximately 600 charities, lists the foundation among its top-rated organizations. That status normally goes to groups which "generally spend 75 percent or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve" and disclose of basic financial information and documents.

Livestrong says it had functional expenses totaling nearly $35.8 million last year and 82 percent of every dollar raised went directly to programs, a total of more than $29.3 million."
*


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> i think its a role only Lance himself could play, hes had some great acting experience...


Such as his cameo in Dodgeball?


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

Circlip said:


> Livestrong says it had functional expenses totaling nearly $35.8 million last year and 82 percent of every dollar raised went directly to programs, a total of more than $29.3 million."


Same numbers I quoted. 
$43 mil Revenue (in)
$35 expense (out)

This means 18% of revenue was held internally as cash/investments.

Of the $35 mil, $5mil left the building in the way of grants to other organizations. I'm not entirely sure where they're getting the 82% from since expense/revenue and (expense-grants)/expense both equal 82%.

The issue at hand here is what is a "program". The detailed expense sheet I posted was straight from the LA Foundation website. That shows where the $35mil went. The issue is what does the Foundation produce with that $35mil? If they were running a first class research lab, I'd say good job. The problem is that I'm only aware of two things produced by the Foundation:
- Fancy Foundation events with LA's name plastered everywhere.
- A call center that will give you the phone number of someone else that can actually help you.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

car_nut said:


> Same numbers I quoted.
> $43 mil Revenue (in)
> $35 expense (out)
> 
> ...


The way things are falling the IRS will probably be having a look at this very soon.


----------



## BRWhelan (Oct 16, 2012)

Great, now the "Americans" will get **** on even more about having the cheat to win sports...


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*And now the "Shack"*

bails on Armstrong:

RadioShack ends personal sponsorship of Armstrong, Oakley reiterates it awaits UCI decision


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*Ferrari fallout*

After working with USADA, Padua investigators close in on Ferrari, riders

So much for the "European conspiracy" theories.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Az, have you found anything on what Trek is considering? I'm thinking they are done soon too.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*Olympic bronze at stake*

IOC Vice President Says Armstrong May Lose 2000 Olympic Bronze Medal | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> Az, have you found anything on what Trek is considering? I'm thinking they are done soon too.


Not a peep out of Trek so far, but things are changing so fast that could be a different answer in a few minutes.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

heyyall said:


> Az, have you found anything on what Trek is considering? I'm thinking they are done soon too.


This is the last from Trek, ancient history, waiting for the updated company stance.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...yIGYBw&usg=AFQjCNHK-OsMMoaTm4FUeHScMxWaa-7Q3g


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> IOC Vice President Says Armstrong May Lose 2000 Olympic Bronze Medal | Cyclingnews.com


I wonder if Armstrong will be stripped of his 4th place finish at the Texas State 1,500 freestyle swimming championships when he was 12 years old? I wouldn't have brought it up, but Armstrong's team included this factoid in their initial legal submission to Judge Sam Sparks in the U.S. Federal Court case a couple of months ago seeking to block USADA from proceeding, as supposed proof that Armstrong was always an elite athlete even from an early age.

Sounds like a good accomplishment for young Lance, but does anyone else find it a stretch that a 4th place as a 12 year old in swimming was offered up in a critical legal document as a clear indication that he was on his way to becoming a 7 time TdF winner, who people liked to refer to as the world's greatest endurance athlete?

Gag.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Circlip said:


> I wonder if Armstrong will be stripped of his 4th place finish at the Texas State 1,500 freestyle swimming championships when he was 12 years old? I wouldn't have brought it up, but Armstrong's team included this factoid in their initial legal submission to Judge Sam Sparks in the U.S. Federal Court case a couple of months ago seeking to block USADA from proceeding, as supposed proof that Armstrong was always an elite athlete even from an early age.
> 
> Sounds like a good accomplishment for young Lance, but does anyone else find it a stretch that a 4th place as a 12 year old in swimming was offered up in a critical legal document as a clear indication that he was on his way to becoming a 7 time TdF winner, who people liked to refer to as the world's greatest endurance athlete?
> 
> Gag.


Last gasp of a dying defense. How long until the Feds renew a case against him? His political allies cannot possibly see it as advantageous to publicly support him any longer. It has been suggested that the only reason the Feds case was dropped was because of political pressure exerted by some of his supporters.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> How long until the Feds renew a case against him? His political allies cannot possibly see it as advantageous to publicly support him any longer. It has been suggested that the only reason the Feds case was dropped was because of political pressure exerted by some of his supporters.


The public tar and feather job is in full effect now. Armstrong is so toxic that no sensible politician is going to touch this with a proverbial 10 foot pole. Still, maybe it's easier for the DOJ to let this lie and watch him get torn apart in civil proceedings over the next few years? Birotte closed it, but someone else will actually need to backtrack and reopen it.

Other than throwing him in jail, there's not much else they'll be able to do to him by that point that won't already have been done by others. On one hand, it seems like Armstrong could wait this one out for a few years then try the tell-all book route. The problem is that if SCA hasn't already tagged him for a reversal of the $7.5M (plus interest) judgement by that time, then any subsequent admission will have him going to the road of perjury and then SCA will kick in anyhow.


----------



## steelbike (Jan 6, 2004)

Add Budwiper to the list of bailers:

Armstrong Dropped by Nike, Anheuser-Busch, Quits Foundation - Businessweek


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Circlip said:


> I'm struggling to reconcile the information presented in posts above with this snip from the Associated Press article that was circulating in the media outlets today;
> 
> *"CharityWatch, which analyzes the work of approximately 600 charities, lists the foundation among its top-rated organizations. That status normally goes to groups which "generally spend 75 percent or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve" and disclose of basic financial information and documents.
> 
> ...


Foundations have a payout requirement - usually only 5% of total assets - to keep their status with the IRS. This enables them to live in perpetuity. the fact that it paid out much more than that is rare depending on what the programs were.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*One more.*

Bike Helmet Company DROPS Lance Armstrong | TMZ.com


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Lance Armstrong out as Nike spokesperson, Livestrong chair

Nike signs uniform deal with International Olympic Committee 


The above are headlines from CTV news.....

So we move frrom drug fraud to influence pedalling and big time bucks.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

no web redemption for this one. 
to some degree he can still do right by his kids, family and friends i would hope. 

i liked the snl line myers had though..something like "well, all this controversy certainly will not make me watch the tour de france in the future..or before" on point me thinks.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Bike Helmet Company DROPS Lance Armstrong | TMZ.com


Geez you think protecting a doped up racer for 7 tour de france rides would be a good thing......

The straight guys would be far safer....

Still like Lance when he road off that switchback down the steep hill, and picked up the lead.

That was just skill and guts.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> Still like Lance when he road off that switchback down the steep hill, and picked up the lead.
> 
> That was just skill and guts.


Maybe so, but it was also a rules violation, since strictly speaking he "cut the course".

Naturally, a special exception was made for Armstrong by the race jury to allow him to avoid disqualification for the rules transgression. Maybe justified, it's just that preferential treatment of Armstrong allowing him to break rules in ways that other riders never previously had the benefit of is a bit of a hot button at the moment.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

Circlip said:


> Maybe so, but it was also a rules violation, since strictly speaking he "cut the course". Yeah I wondered about that, but it is up to the Tour to make the call
> 
> Naturally, a special exception was made for Armstrong by the race jury to allow him to avoid disqualification for the rules transgression. Maybe justified, it's just that preferential treatment of Armstrong allowing him to break rules in ways that other riders never previously had the benefit of is a bit of a hot button at the moment.


Sorry that was a classic ride....he sure didn't do it on purpose...

The right call was made.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

jeffscott said:


> Sorry that was a classic ride....he sure didn't do it on purpose...


He didn't initially go off the road on purpose, but he sure did continue all the way down the next switchback with every intent of cutting the course. Next time I miss a marker on a race course, cut a section of trail, and end up at the front of the pack I'll be sure to tell the race director it's not a problem because it was unintentional.


----------



## gddyap (Sep 29, 2011)

Circlip said:


> Maybe so, but it was also a rules violation, since strictly speaking he "cut the course".
> 
> Naturally, a special exception was made for Armstrong by the race jury to allow him to avoid disqualification for the rules transgression. Maybe justified, it's just that preferential treatment of Armstrong allowing him to break rules in ways that other riders never previously had the benefit of is a bit of a hot button at the moment.


It was a violation but they didn't make a special exception. I think the judges made a reasonable decision that would have applied to anyone in that situation. Lance either could have gone off course or crashed into Beloki who had suffered multiple broken bones. And the course he ended up taking across the grass resulted in him meeting back up with the group he was riding with so there was no advantage.


----------



## gddyap (Sep 29, 2011)

Here is the video. Skip to 2:20. Vino was doped up but he was hauling the mail down that descent. Can't improve handling skills with dope.

Descent into Gap: Lance Armstrong Vinokourov - YouTube


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

gddyap said:


> It was a violation but they didn't make a special exception. I think the judges made a reasonable decision that would have applied to anyone in that situation. Lance either could have gone off course or crashed into Beloki who had suffered multiple broken bones. And the course he ended up taking across the grass resulted in him meeting back up with the group he was riding with so there was no advantage.


Yeah well get a video and if it is half the ride he did....I am all for the exemption

Hell in the 2008 Trans Rockies the leaders down to about 50 place all took a wrong turn....went up a mountain side lost couple of hours.

some guy in 51 place went the right way...and was leading the race.......Course they put the leaders back in front by ignoring that stage.....

In the rules it says going off course is your problem not the TRs....

Sometimes exemptions make sense....I kinda wish the TR did not apply an exemption.

What about the golf Pro that gets to ride a cart.

So there are exemptions all over the place


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

gddyap said:


> Lance either could have gone off course or crashed into Beloki who had suffered multiple broken bones. And the course he ended up taking across the grass resulted in him meeting back up with the group he was riding with so there was no advantage.


Sorry, not buying it. His avoidance of Beloki probably took him 20 feet off the road. A racer is supposed to back it up and re-enter the course where they left it, not continue on several hundred feet further. Crashes and getting caught up in them by bad luck happens to everyone. Other than the last few kilometers of a sprint stage, the riders are responsible for any time losses they incur being caught in or behind crashes that impede their progress. Unless you are Lance it seems.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Lance's pumpkin has turned into a poopkin around these parts. He can't catch a break. 

Start PSA
cheaters are always viewed as a cheater no matter what they do. Do not be a cheater. 

End PSA


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Trek is done.

Trek Bicycle

And 
USA TODAY


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> Trek is done.
> 
> Trek Bicycle
> 
> ...


Wow. Thanks for the links.

It's a snowball rolling into avalanche now, with anyone of the corporations involved looking very bad if they don't follow suit. If they do so now, it probably just gets lost in the shuffle instead of sticking out like a sore thumb a few weeks down the road and potentially dampening performance of shares.

I wonder what the chances are that Armstrong sent a message to each of his key corporate sponsors today telling them he would quietly fall on his sword, and to go ahead with any public denouncements they deemed necessary? Seems almost too well orchestrated otherwise.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Honey stinger (which Lance is part owner of) has cut ties also. Reports also cite FRS as doing the same.

From a ABC report "Honey Stinger told ABC it is cutting ties with the cyclist, though he is still a part of the ownership team of the latter.

That leaves Oakley as a hold out.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

Oakley is on pacific time. Give them another hour or so.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Honey stinger (which Lance is part owner of) has cut ties also. Reports also cite FRS as doing the same.
> 
> From a ABC report "Honey Stinger told ABC it is cutting ties with the cyclist, though he is still a part of the ownership team of the latter.





heyyall said:


> Oakley is on pacific time. Give them another hour or so.


Ya, this is all too perfect to be anything less than a managed retreat conducted together by all parties involved, including Armstrong himself. There's nothing principled about it. They're all just following the money.

Armstrong is now a martyr for corporate America. Perfect pitchman to the bitter end.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Hey Lance, not sure if you can read this or if you can respond, but I'm sorry to hear about your mom. Find me on Tennesseemountainbikeforum.com if you want to chat with a stranger. My dad died when I was 15. I don't know your situation, but I'll do what I can to understand of you need someone to talk to.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

car_nut said:


> The problem is that I'm only aware of two things produced by the Foundation:
> - Fancy Foundation events with LA's name plastered everywhere.
> - A call center that will give you the phone number of someone else that can actually help you.


that is because you are not a cancer patient.

Livestrong works with the YMCA to provide free 1yr memberships to survivors, as well as fitness programs geared towards survivors.

Livestrong provides financial support for various survivor retreats. I attended a weekend retreat organized by Planet Cancer and an organization called Next Step. I didn't pay a dime for it. Livestrong employees were on hand and organized some of the discussion sessions.

I have actually been inside the call center. They do far more than just refer you to someone else. They actually hire specialists who can provide actual assistance to people who call. They will refer people to other organizations that Livestrong partners with if there is one better able to provide support than they are. However that call center also serves to assist local (to Austin, TX) underserved populations with regards to support. When I was in there a couple years ago, they wanted to see how it worked in Austin and they were considering the possibility of opening something similar in other cities in the future. Not sure where that stands now because they will have to do some damage control related to recent events and I think funding is going to decline for awhile before they can recover.

These are just the programs that I have personal experience with.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

wmac said:


> Hey Lance, not sure if you can read this or if you can respond, but I'm sorry to hear about your mom.


Breaking news??? More info?


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*she must have cut her ties with Lance...*



Circlip said:


> Breaking news??? More info?


time to get some Livestrong Jawbones at steep discount.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Meh...America has WWE...Europe has Road Biking...


----------



## Live2rideUtah (Jan 3, 2012)

osokolo said:


> time to get some Livestrong Jawbones at steep discount.


Boy is that the truth, I said the same thing to my wife! Time to puck up some discounted gear. Livestrong still has a great purpose so it's win win.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

BRWhelan said:


> Great, now the "Americans" will get **** on even more about having the cheat to win sports...


Not at all Whelan, this is not about country of origin, That hasnt come into my mind or i havnt heard any talk or innuendo along those lines in any opinion or media.
This is about cycling, every country has dopers in cycling including Australia and everybody knows that.
Yes Lance was the biggest fish in the pond, and regardless of how many dopers there are its a big win to catch the biggest fish out.
Often in life people whinge about only the small fish getting fried and the big fish getting away, well in this case they have nailed the biggest fish and the dominos are falling around him..
To me this has nothing to do with country of Origin, if anything i think this whole situation makes the States look good, the USADA has given them some credibility in this situation, if i was an American i would be very proud or the work of the USADA have done with this, many countries would attempt to brush this under the carpet and cover it up but thanks to the USADA this has not happened, i think the world is applauding their efforts, i certainly am, and thats the impression i get out of the world media and public opinion..


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

So sad that several of Armstrong's kids are old enough to read about this and know what's going on. 

Anyway, too much static for RadioShack. They are out.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 14, 2012)

Life goes on. The world keeps spinning.


----------



## steelbike (Jan 6, 2004)

June Bug said:


> So sad that several of Armstrong's kids are old enough to read about this and know what's going on.


I wouldn't feel sorry for his kids. Don't you think that there might be other kids out there that might be finding life a little bit harder?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

*Ferrari*

The fallout spreads.

Gazzetta Reveals Scale Of Doping And Money Laundering Under Dr. Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com

The Spaniards:

Spanish prosecutors looking into USADA files


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

This is one of those life lessons--lies catch up with you. Lance could sit the kids down and say he broke the rules and there will be consequences. He could encourage them to make better choices in life.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

osokolo said:


> time to get some Livestrong Jawbones at steep discount.


Just sharpie over the yellow part, all-black, problem solved.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*Or*

he may tell them that their daddy was "never caught cheating" and use "witch hunt" buzz word again, like he's been doing for years...

either way, he put his family in this predicament himself, and though i do sympathize with any hurt human being, i would not single out his kids only.

many will be hurt and disillusioned by this discovery, and though i always suspected (based on my involvement in high profile sports), a small bit of me secretly hoped that he was indeed clean - just because i needed that light at the end of the tunnel, i was hugely disappointed as well.

his arrogance during his denial years, aggravates the whole situation and makes him fall harder... it also makes it harder on those who idolized him.

quite frankly - what was there NOT to idolize him...

from the underdog, beating the vicious disease to becoming an undisputed champion and a hero and a good-doer with his charity. a perfect story with an awesome human touch...

the higher you get, the more painful is the fall...

it's too bad... but we must face and acknowledge the truth... i can't believe Oakley had guts to state that they are awaiting for UCI decision...

Nike redeemed themselves after keeping Tiger Woods under their wing, which they should not have - in my opinion...

Trek has one more horrible deed to reverse - i am hoping they will, very soon.



heyyall said:


> This is one of those life lessons--lies catch up with you. Lance could sit the kids down and say he broke the rules and there will be consequences. He could encourage them to make better choices in life.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> The fallout spreads.
> 
> Gazzetta Reveals Scale Of Doping And Money Laundering Under Dr. Ferrari | Cyclingnews.com


30 million Euros leaves a large number big fish still swimming free in the sea.

I was happy to see Garmin's name not on the list.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

osokolo said:


> Nike redeemed themselves after keeping Tiger Woods under their wing, which they should not have - in my opinion...


Or Tiger redeemed himself while sheltering under Nike's wing...

Nike stood by Tiger, Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger--sleazebags without exception. However, these men all exhibited profound moral failings in their personal lives rather than cheating their way to the top of their sport....

As noted in one of the articles referenced below, the bottom line for Nike is moving product and if you compromise that, well, 
"Lance Armstrong enters the next phase of his non-person stage today, now that Nike has given him the traditional Viking funeral - setting him adrift and letting the tide do its work."

Couple interesting articles on Nike, Armstrong, the nature of disgrace, and rebirth, if you will: 
Armstrong enters the next phase

or not

Nike's split from Lance? 'Whatever It Takes'


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

osokolo said:


> Trek has one more horrible deed to reverse - i am hoping they will, very soon.


Any sort of apology - above and beyond the statement that was offered in their settlement - would have good optics for Trek now IMHO. However, I'll bet their lawyers and PR will advise to let sleeping dogs lie so long as this item isn't getting pushed to the front of any current news.

If the Lemond brand became available again (almost certainly not under the Trek umbrella since that bridge is long burned), I'd definitely look at one next time I am in the market for a road rig.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*redemption is optional*

however, by standing by Tiger - Nike confirmed that it is all about money - which indeed it is... I believe that these role models are not allowed such lapses of their conscience. Cheating on his wife (family), many, many times is unforgivable in my books - but obviously - there are different thresholds... Same goes for the others on your list...



June Bug said:


> Or Tiger redeemed himself while sheltering under Nike's wing...
> 
> Nike stood by Tiger, Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger--sleazebags without exception. However, these men all exhibited profound moral failings in their personal lives rather than cheating their way to the top of their sport....
> 
> ...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

June Bug said:


> Or Tiger redeemed himself while sheltering under Nike's wing...
> 
> Nike stood by Tiger, Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant, Ben Roethlisberger--sleazebags without exception. However, these men all exhibited profound moral failings in their personal lives rather than cheating their way to the top of their sport....
> 
> ...


June correct me if im wrong but none of the guys you made a comparison to Lance above ever cheated to gain an advantage over others in their chosen sport did they?
There is no comparison to be made.
Nike n every other sponsor that Lance has, has no alternative than to end their sponsorship with him..
And on the subject of Tiger, at least after he was caught ot he had the courage to admit to his wrong doing, i dont care what Tiger does in his personal life, the only people he cheated was his wife n himself, he is like a saint in comparison to Lance in the context of sport....


----------



## DirtyHank (Jul 2, 2012)

Any truth to the rumor Lance will be continuing his career as a new co-star in Breaking Bad. Is it true he's changing his screen name to Lance Boil.

I can't find anything good to say about him,

Hank


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

this is BS

there should just be a forum for griping about Lance Armstrong


how many threads is this now?


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

ehigh said:


> this is BS
> 
> there should just be a forum for griping about Lance Armstrong
> 
> how many threads is this now?


Then again, this is a global news story. About cycling.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

ehigh said:


> this is BS
> 
> there should just be a forum for griping about Lance Armstrong
> 
> how many threads is this now?


You do have the option of not opening the thread ya know.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*get outta here*

how do i do that?

:skep:



roadie scum said:


> You do have the option of not opening the thread ya know.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

roadie scum said:


> You do have the option of not opening the thread ya know.


When I click on "forums" and 4 threads catch my eye because they're all about Lance, I'm bound to say something. It's disorganized.

There are tons of threads filled with people griping about Lance Armstrong.

I figure we should take them all and put them in a forum called,

"Let's gripe about Lance Armstrong"

or something..


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

ehigh said:


> When I click on "forums" and 4 threads catch my eye because they're all about Lance, I'm bound to say something. It's disorganized.
> 
> There are tons of threads filled with people griping about Lance Armstrong.
> 
> ...


Or not. :skep:


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*i'd go for*



AZ.MTNS said:


> Or not. :skep:


"something..."


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

ehigh said:


> When I click on "forums" and 4 threads catch my eye because they're all about Lance, I'm bound to say something. It's disorganized.
> 
> There are tons of threads filled with people griping about Lance Armstrong.
> 
> ...


I agree it is disorganized, but that's the nature of a free form web discussion forum. As for creating a separate forum, I'm fairly certain saying this in jest but I think it is important to note that marginalizing the issue(s) and trying to stuff it away in a corner where it's less visible is exactly what has caused the problem to fester so long.

The internet and social media have an interesting way of shining light on things that previously could be more easily hidden, or at least kept out of sight / out of mind.


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Circlip said:


> I agree it is disorganized, but that's the nature of a free form web discussion forum. As for creating a separate forum, I'm fairly certain saying this in jest but I think it is important to note that marginalizing the issue(s) and trying to stuff it away in a corner where it's less visible is exactly what has caused the problem to fester so long.
> 
> The internet and social media have an interesting way of shining light on things that previously could be more easily hidden, or at least kept out of sight / out of mind.


Yeah, my comment was made entirely in jest. It just feels like "passion" has become "passion for griping about Lance Armstrong"

as well as other forums.

MTBR feels like a bit of an Armstrong b!tchery with so many threads about it.

oh, and don't forget me. there's always going to be me b!tching about the b!tching.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> June correct me if im wrong but none of the guys you made a comparison to Lance above ever cheated to gain an advantage over others in their chosen sport did they?
> There is no comparison to be made.
> Nike n every other sponsor that Lance has, has no alternative than to end their sponsorship with him..
> And on the subject of Tiger, at least after he was caught ot he had the courage to admit to his wrong doing, i dont care what Tiger does in his personal life, the only people he cheated was his wife n himself, he is like a saint in comparison to Lance *in the context of sport*....


Sorry I wasn't clearer and I'm pretty sure we agree, but let me clarify. Nike sells sporting goods. Nike apparently tolerates moral failings* in the personal lives of its sponsored athletes, but when *an athlete* cheats, lies & organizes cheating at the highest level in the sponsored *sport,* he (or she) is history. For Nike and all of these companies, the bottom line, is well, the bottom line. If you move product, you stay. If your ability to move product is compromised, and worse, appears to compromise the brand (as Armstrong is on the verge of doing with Nike), it is auf wiedersehen, sayanora, adios, ciao.

*I mean moral failings in the largest sense of the word here--two of these guys were charged with sexual assault, one tortured dogs for entertainment & went to prison and finally, the last was a spectacular adulterer/sex addict (and the least reprehensible in this quartet).


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*i agree with this logical assertion*

of Nike rationale behind their decisions...

we can debate now if it is acceptable according to our own criteria, which will be as diverse as discussing foods...



June Bug said:


> Sorry I wasn't clearer and I'm pretty sure we agree, but let me clarify. Nike sells sporting goods. Nike apparently tolerates moral failings* in the personal lives of its sponsored athletes, but when *an athlete* cheats, lies & organizes cheating at the highest level in the sponsored *sport,* he (or she) is history. For Nike and all of these companies, the bottom line, is well, the bottom line. If you move product, you stay. If your ability to move product is compromised, and worse, appears to compromise the brand (as Armstrong is on the verge of doing with Nike), it is auf wiedersehen, sayanora, adios, ciao.
> 
> *I mean moral failings in the largest sense of the word here--two of these guys were charged with sexual assault, one tortured dogs for entertainment & went to prison and finally, the last was a spectacular adulterer/sex addict (and the least reprehensible in this quartet).


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

osokolo said:


> of Nike rationale behind their decisions...
> we can debate now if it is acceptable according to our own criteria, which will be as diverse as discussing *foods.*..


So true. I'm sure the gross national product of this entire country is being compromised while people neglect work & other obligations to "*hash*" this out. :thumbsup:
Ooops, gotta get back to work.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

from the new york times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/s...rongs-eventual-fall.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

shekky said:


> from the new york times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/s...rongs-eventual-fall.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp


Thanks for the link. It's a great illustration of why this was no witch hunt targeting Armstrong - if anyone still believes that - and why USADA's case coming of the heels of the closed FDA / DOJ investigation was simply a logical progression of following the evidence up the chain, terminating at the USPS team operations.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Thanks for the link. It's a great illustration of why this was no witch hunt targeting Armstrong - if anyone still believes that - and why USADA's case coming of the heels of the closed FDA / DOJ investigation was simply a logical progression of following the evidence up the chain, terminating at the USPS team operations.


actually, to some readers and mostly uninformed folks - it is a PROOF that it is a witch hunt, as one of the fist questions that the tatooed guy was asked was: "do you think Lance did it?"

anyway - proves that though he was using EPO - he passed the doping test - which confirms that cheaters were and always will be three steps ahead of the WADA testing abilities... sad...


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

when the dust begins to settle, this will be an interesting topic for a timeline infographic tying all of this stuff together.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*i want to read this book*

and see this movie...

in due time...



NateHawk said:


> when the dust begins to settle, this will be an interesting topic for a timeline infographic tying all of this stuff together.


----------



## Live2rideUtah (Jan 3, 2012)

Movie will be great, I am sure at some point in time Lance will make a killing off the tell all book especially if he gets his head out of the sand and owns up to it sometime soon which i suspect will occur at some point in order to stop the hemmoraging. The majority of the wins were in the late 90's early 2000's and I would give him at least some credit if he can own up to it and just let it pass or else he is going to take the Pete Rose stance and just dissapear for years and maintain that he didnt do it. He just needs to own up to it, salvage what he has now and look to the future. Pretty sure he will bounce back in due time if he owns up to it. Hell even Charlie Sheen can stay afloat, I would think that Lance will be fine and judging from his strava comments etc. he still has support from some people looking to the future and letting the past be the past


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

Remember OJ's "If I did it" ?

Maybe Lance will write one, too!


----------



## markymark (Oct 30, 2004)

My favourite thing about this thread is the lance armstrong advertisment on the right side of the page that keeps popping up saying "tired of being tired?" WTF??? Are the people at frs, whatever that is, insane?


----------



## Dibbs_ (Feb 17, 2009)

Perhaps it has Lance's custom ingredients.


----------



## markymark (Oct 30, 2004)

and this one for lance:


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

Rabobank has announced they will no longer sponsor a team because of all of this.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

osokolo said:


> actually, to some readers and mostly uninformed folks - it is a PROOF that it is a witch hunt, as one of the fist questions that the tatooed guy was asked was: "do you think Lance did it?"
> 
> anyway - proves that though he was using EPO - he passed the doping test - which confirms that cheaters were and always will be three steps ahead of the WADA testing abilities... sad...


It's a witch hunt because everybody was guilty at the top level of the sport. It's a witch hunt because the sport itself failed to police itself properly. I think the thing that surprises me is people are shocked and looking. Are people really that naive? I certainly don't condone cheating but when everybody is doing it at the top level of the sport why waste the time and effort on singling out an individual? They need a fall guy? Maybe the sport needs to look hard at how it is doing business and testing. So what there are no winners in the years of the sport Lance is convicted by the USADA? I think top level athletes in many sports are three steps ahead of drug testing today too. I don't compete competitively, I don't have the legs or lungs for it but I ride with a lot of people that do in all kinds of sports. My favorite parking lot questions to them this year are always surrounding Lance and the USADA. In my conversations with a dozen or so people that compete competitively no one person thought Armstrong was innocent and only one person thought this investigation was a worthwhile endeavor. So I do still think it was a witch hunt and if my parking lot conversations with runners, cyclists, and triathletes are any indication of the public's opinion at large most people do too. Even following this discussion not a lot of people thought Lance was innocent. A lot of people also didn't and still don't think it was a worthwhile investigation. I'll revise my opinion on that last point because I think the USADA investigation showed us how elaborate a doping program can become and what it will take to stop athletes and teams from cheating. I still don't think it was a worthwhile endeavor on the point that they got Armstrong or the US Postal Service team. He is just the fall guy for a sport that cheating is systemic.

Now five people can neg rep me...LOL.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

If the sport survives this month, it will be better off. 

I believed this was a witch hunt from the start. I didn't like the amount of "leaked" information in the press. I didn't approve of what appeared to be a lack of due process. I still believe there needs to be a change in the way these cases are handled. Now some months later, I do have questions as to who was actually releasing the information. It seems like USADA actually handled the scope of the investigation very well. Their report was comprehensive enough that others will be able to follow up on many issues, too.

Now with sponsors dropping teams left and right, I'm hopeful the message will be very clear to riders. You need to play be the rules or not have a venue to play in. While I can appreciate that it takes an enormous amount of dedication to ride at the pro level, riding a bike for big money really isn't a bad way to spend some time.


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Dibbs_ said:


> Perhaps it has Lance's custom ingredients.


I wish. I volunteered a few years ago for the Mellow Johnny's mtn bike race out at Lance's Texas ranch (now sold). It was incredibly hot and they were handing out cans of iced FRS like there was no tomorrow. Went down easy but no special effects. Meh.

Yup, lots of FRS and LiveStrong banners; it helps pay the mtbr bills.

24 Hour Fitness has bailed.


----------



## steelbike (Jan 6, 2004)

markymark said:


> My favourite thing about this thread is the lance armstrong advertisment on the right side of the page that keeps popping up saying "tired of being tired?" WTF??? Are the people at frs, whatever that is, insane?


Looks like FRS has removed any mention Armstrong from their web site today

FRS, Lance Armstrong Sever Ties : BevNET.com : BevNET.com


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

steelbike said:


> Looks like FRS has removed any mention Armstrong from their web site today


FRS severed ties a couple of days ago.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

Monday,

UCI will announce Armstrong decision on Monday


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

FX4 said:


> I certainly don't condone cheating but when everybody is doing it at the top level of the sport why waste the time and effort on singling out an individual? They need a fall guy?


it was not a witch hunt, it was a cheating/liar/doper hunt. nor was lance alone, singled out, or a fall guy. MANY people were bagged in the hunt. but which would you reasonably expect to hear about more in the news? 0-time champion "racer-x" or 7-time world cheater, errr... "champion", lance armstrong?

as to why they seemed to most aggressively pursue lance? simple. they just went after the guy that painted the biggest bullseye on his OWN back.


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

AZ.MTNS said:


> Monday,
> 
> UCI will announce Armstrong decision on Monday


That should be entertaining.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

monogod said:


> it was not a witch hunt, it was a cheating/liar/doper hunt. nor was lance alone, singled out, or a fall guy. MANY people were bagged in the hunt. but which would you reasonably expect to hear about more in the news? 0-time champion "racer-x" or 7-time world cheater, errr... "champion", lance armstrong?
> 
> as to why they seemed to most aggressively pursue lance? simple. they just went after the guy that painted the biggest bullseye on his OWN back.


You make a fair point but from everything I read the investigation centered around Armstrong, the rest were just caught in the net as the investigation went on. He was the target, the boggie man they were after. They got him more or less.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

FX4 said:


> You make a fair point but from everything I read the investigation centered around Armstrong, the rest were just caught in the net as the investigation went on. He was the target, the boggie man they were after. They got him more or less.


He was the fulcrum, the mastermind, the king pin, it makes perfect sense that they targeted him.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

nuffink said:


> That should be entertaining.


There will be mass confusion and fallout on many levels if they do not adopt the USADA sanction.


----------



## jeffscott (May 10, 2006)

AZ.MTNS said:


> He was the fulcrum, the mastermind, the king pin, it makes perfect sense that they targeted him.


No has just a good rider when it started....

I have to think Bruynel or some one above him put it together.


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

McQuade is under a lot of pressure behind the scenes, it would not be advantageous for him to ignore the USADA decision imo. Sponsors are already wary, many have bailed, the consequences of the UCI ignoring this could spell the end of the TDF.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

AZ.MTNS said:


> McQuade is under a lot of pressure behind the scenes, it would not be advantageous for him to ignore the USADA decision imo. Sponsors are already wary, many have bailed, the consequences of the UCI ignoring this could spell the end of the TDF.


Nope, the UCI is not going to honor the USADA findings, Armstrong will blackmail McQuade into it.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> McQuade is under a lot of pressure behind the scenes, it would not be advantageous for him to ignore the USADA decision imo. Sponsors are already wary, many have bailed, the consequences of the UCI ignoring this could spell the end of the TDF.


AND hopefully this set of UCI big wigs...

I agree - they are under enormous pressure from BOTH sides. Like nuts in between two bricks...

Either way it goes - it will hurt them (UCI). They managed to cover it up for way longer than it is conceivable at this moment, after reading through a lot of info...

Circlip was a big help in presenting factual info... thanks. I almost wish I didn't read some links... the level of deceit is beyond belief...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

roadie scum said:


> Nope, the UCI is not going to honor the USADA findings, Armstrong will blackmail McQuade into it.


I wouldn't be surprised at anything any more. Holding my breath.

Even if the UCI does adopt the USADA sanctions, I'll be looking for some long-winded explanation and disclaimer from McQuaid about how everyone else is to blame except the UCI. Count on it.


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

Their burning Lance in effigy in Texas.


----------



## Toff (Sep 11, 2004)

Id rather they get rid of radios in road racing than the dopers. Its boring enough to watch as it is.


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

should be interesting, as stated, to see what the industry does to control damage. UCI's move will be pretty important. bet anyone a cool $mil that they've been deliberating day and night with heated discussions. LA will likely put out a press release after the decision, either pinpointing vindication or otherwise further digging his own hole by stating it was all a conspiracy against him.
HA!


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

AZ.MTNS said:


> McQuade is under a lot of pressure behind the scenes, it would not be advantageous for him to ignore the USADA decision imo. Sponsors are already wary, many have bailed, the consequences of the UCI ignoring this could spell the end of the TDF.


I certainly hope it spells the end of TDF. Maybe then some of that ridiculous amount of money can go to something entertaining instead like mountain bike races .


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

beerrun said:


> should be interesting, as stated, to see what the industry does to control damage. UCI's move will be pretty important. bet anyone a cool $mil that they've been deliberating day and night with heated discussions. LA will likely put out a press release after the decision, either pinpointing vindication or otherwise further digging his own hole by stating it was all a conspiracy against him.


Why do a get a nagging feeling that Armstrong has actually been a party to the discussions within the UCI about the best way of handling this?


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

AZ.MTNS said:


> He was the fulcrum, the mastermind, the king pin, it makes perfect sense that they targeted him.


I don't see it that way. He was a guy that wanted to win. What he did was do it better than anybody else. He worked harder, worked smarter, and yes cheated better than anyone else. But I am still hung up on how did have a competitive advantage when it's pretty clear from the USADA report that all the top teams were doing exactly the same thing? I'm not condoning the actions taken by Armstrong or anybody else involved, I'm just pragmatic about the whole thing. I do think he should lose his sponsorships. This is not the kind of thing corporations want their name associated with, but stripped of titles when everyone else in the field was doing exactly the same thing. I don't think so. The discussion should be about how do we permanently clean the sport up and not about an individual that cheated in the past. Asterisk his name and anybody else involved and move on.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

AZ.MTNS said:


> He was the fulcrum, the mastermind, the king pin, it makes perfect sense that they targeted him.


Perhaps from the pure doping perspective Armstrong and Bruyneel were co-captaining the good ship EPO, but as far as the true identity of the man behind the curtain, pulling on everyone's strings, it's all here;

http://forums.mtbr.com/9797439-post37.html


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

Circlip said:


> Why do a get a nagging feeling that Armstrong has actually been a party to the discussions within the UCI about the best way of handling this?


seems plausible although prob conjecture. they wanna restore the sport, not taint its image anymore. personally i couldn't really tell you what the correct thing to do in this situation. i sway toward stripping him, but then not upgrading 2 place to 1 place, etc. how long do we have to go back? only the 7 TDF titles?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

beerrun said:


> seems plausible although prob conjecture. they wanna restore the sport, not taint its image anymore. personally i couldn't really tell you what the correct thing to do in this situation. i sway toward stripping him, but then not upgrading 2 place to 1 place, etc. how long do we have to go back? only the 7 TDF titles?


I hear ya. Yes, total conjecture on my part with regard to what the UCI will do on Monday.

On a related note, Hein Verbruggen who headed up the UCI during Armstrong's TdF reign and still holds a position with the UCI as past president, made it pretty clear which camp he was in with his statements to the Dutch press in May 2011;

Verbruggen Says Armstrong €never, Never, Never? Doped | Cyclingnews.com

Truly comical stuff. Given the history of doping in cycling and other sports, one would think a person in his position would be more tactful in the use of absolute statements, especially when those statements would have required him to observe Armstrong 60x60x24x365 for several years in a row.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

It's all about Living Wrong. More ugly.

Bribery allegations add to Armstrong's bad week

Things just keep getting worse for Lance Armstrong. Stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, banned from cycling by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, dropped by top sponsors Anheuser-Busch and Nike among others, and forced to step down as chairman of his Livestrong charity after the release of the USADA's 1,000-page case file last week, the once-hero's already rapid fall from grace is still accelerating.

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported Friday that it obtained evidence that suggests Armstrong wasn't just doping his way to wins, but also paying for them.

According to ABC's Four Corners program, Australian cycling star Phil Anderson witnessed Armstrong bribing a member of another team in order to fix a series of three races that, if swept, earned the victor $1 million. The Philadelphia Inquirer identified the event as the 1993 CoreStates Pro Cycling race, held in Philadelphia, and said Anderson told them that he remembered an offer being made.

The allegation of bribery originated in the sworn deposition New Zealand cyclist Steven Swart gave in the midst of a 2006 suit Armstrong made against SCA promotions, an insurance firm he said failed to pay him money owed. The report obtained by the ABC indicated that a member of Armstrong's then-team, Motorola, approached Swart and arranged a meeting in the midst of the second leg of those three races. Anderson, Armstrong, and Swarts met, the report says, and Armstrong offered Swart $50,000 to pull back and pose no serious challenge to Armstrong in the rest of that race in West Virgina and the final leg of the series in Philadelphia. Swarts took the money and distributed it amongst his Coors teammates, and said in a 2004 affidavit that they took the bribe because "we considered it to be a good deal for our team."

Armstrong probably needn't have bothered: Swart said in his deposition he believed Armstrong would win all three races anyway, which made the money "a bonus."

The allegation is another blow to Armstrong's crumbling credibility, another facet of what is revealing itself as a career-long culture of cheating. Already banned by the USADA, Armstrong is awaiting the International Cycling Union (UCI)'s decision regarding his fate in the wake of the doping evidence, and while it's hard to imagine a fate worse than stripped titles and a lifetime ban, Friday's revelations likely won't help his cause.

Bribery allegations add to Armstrong's bad week | Sports Events | an SFGate.com blog


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

If true, that's not good.


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

If this were a movie, I would walk out on the grounds that this all was simply too absurd to be believable. Could Lance really be this much of an evil genius?


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

heyyall said:


> If this were a movie, I would walk out on the grounds that this all was simply too absurd to be believable. Could Lance really be this much of an evil genius?


Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


----------



## markymark (Oct 30, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> It's all about Living Wrong. More ugly.
> 
> The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported Friday that it obtained evidence that suggests Armstrong wasn't just doping his way to wins, but also paying for them.


key player interviews here:

The World According to Lance - key players - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

heyyall said:


> If this were a movie, I would walk out on the grounds that this all was simply too absurd to be believable. Could Lance really be this much of an evil genius?


Armstrong & Bruyneel = Capos

Weisel = Godfather


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*doesn't make me wonder any more*



FX4 said:


> Makes you wonder, doesn't it?


after all that is presented so far - i am just overwhelmed and in proverbial disbelief...

the only wonder that i have is - how was all this possible in front of everyone's eyes...


----------



## bikeabuser (Aug 12, 2012)

*The real fallout is about to begin ... It seems.*

*Sunday Times considers legal action against Lance Armstrong *

Cyclist could face more legal trouble over new doping report


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

:skep:


----------



## kabayan (Oct 25, 2004)

Funny how things have turned out. 
Some strategists were giving props to LA team's move not to contest the allegations in arbitration. As long as LA maintains he "never took PEDs and passed 500 tests", they figured his sponsors would continue to stick by him.
LA's legal team had sued to get their day in court. Arbitration was rigged, unfair etc. they were saying. 
Fast forward two weeks, post USADA reasoned decision, and practically all his sponsors have dropped him and they're all lining up to sue him.
Or maybe this was the plan all along. Avoid arbitration knowing the odds were against them and knowing the lawsuits would come. Then bring out their 27 witnesses, and 12 teammates, all Europeans , all of whom will claim they never saw Armstrong dope.
They'll get a hung jury.
A few of the ones who confessed will recant with reasons already provided by the LA legal team.
And the sponsors will come back.:thumbsup:
Or not.
What's for sure is that LA's legal team and Johan's legal team are hunkered down somewhere, going over the USADA document, figuring out how to discredit Big G. :nono:
More entertainment to be served up.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

heyyall said:


> Could Lance really be this much of an evil genius?


talk about the textbook definition of a rhetorical question...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

kabayan said:


> Funny how things have turned out.
> Some strategists were giving props to LA team's move not to contest the allegations in arbitration. As long as LA maintains he "never took PEDs and passed 500 tests", they figured his sponsors would continue to stick by him.
> LA's legal team had sued to get their day in court. Arbitration was rigged, unfair etc. they were saying.
> Fast forward two weeks, post USADA reasoned decision, and practically all his sponsors have dropped him and they're all lining up to sue him.
> ...


LA and his legal team will not be fighting anything, it will only dig him deeper into the mire, they have nothing, they know that any fighting they do will show him up more n more...

If anything that LA was saying is true n he wasnt guilty LAs legal team would be looking to sue for deformation and the likes, but they have no leg to stand on n they know it.
Its game set and match from LAs side and that was very obvious from the moment he said he was not fighting the charges, it was a full admission of guilt, anybody with a quarter of a brain could see that when it happened.....


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

Tone's L'axeman said:


> LA and his legal team will not be fighting anything, it will only dig him deeper into the mire, they have nothing, they know that any fighting they do will show him up more n more...
> 
> If anything that LA was saying is true n he wasnt guilty LAs legal team would be looking to sue for deformation and the likes, but they have no leg to stand on n they know it.
> Its game set and match from LAs side and that was very obvious from the moment he said he was not fighting the charges, it was a full admission of guilt, anybody with a quarter of a brain could see that when it happened.....


It'll be very interesting to see how this goes down. A first for crazy corporate American sports culture.

We can speculate, however I do believe that we have no idea what the repercussions will be.


----------



## Ltdan12a (Jun 15, 2012)

Is it possible he just doesn't care any more? He's filthy rich, getting older... It's not like he has to work or anything... Maybe he just said "eff it, let them think what they want... I'm done."


----------



## bt (Nov 24, 2007)

Ltdan12a said:


> Is it possible he just doesn't care any more? He's filthy rich, getting older... It's not like he has to work or anything... Maybe he just said "eff it, let them think what they want... I'm done."


If he really said "eff it" he would start by letting go of the lies he's perpetuating.

Imagine the burden of upholding such a huge false persona.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

Ltdan12a said:


> Is it possible he just doesn't care any more? He's filthy rich, getting older... It's not like he has to work or anything... Maybe he just said "eff it, let them think what they want... I'm done."


That's exactly what he said in public statements when declining to proceed with the USADA arbitration hearing, but only after (unsuccessfully) challenging the validity of the charges in U.S. federal court in an attempt to have the USADA evidence suppressed.

Since that time it's clear that Armstrong lied about that too, as he and his team have been continuing to wage a PR campaign at every opportunity to try to keep public opinion in his favor. The damage to his personal "brand" has been extensive though with the mass exodus of his sponsors over the past week (although I personally think even this was a "managed" effort in cooperation with Armstrong's team).

Here's some plucked from another forum, which is an interesting article linked below from way back in 1997 in the Austin American-Statesmen, written by Suzanne Haliburton, another of Armstrong's journalistic sycophants who helped to build the myth over the years. Bill Stapleton - still Armstrong's personal agent and business partner to this day - explains plans to leverage the cancer survivor angle well before he even won his first TdF in 1999.

Austin cyclist back on track after cancer

Key section from the article here;

*Bill Stapleton, Armstrong's agent, said his client is more marketable now than he was before the cancer, although he said many cycling teams view him as "damaged goods." Cofidis, his former team, dropped him on Sept. 1 because officials said they needed to go in another direction. Several weeks after Armstrong's diagnosis, the team renegotiated his contract, lowering his salary from $1.2 million to about $800,000 because he could not pass a physical.

Armstrong will receive a base of about $400,000 from the U.S. Postal Service. His contract is laced with performance-based incentives, and he could make as much as he did back in 1996.

This summer Armstrong picked up a new sponsor in CycleOps, which is producing a training bike. He also has a shoe deal with Nike and a sunglasses endorsement with Oakley.

"Lance isn't just a cyclist anymore - because of the cancer, the Lance Armstrong brand has a much broader appeal," Stapleton said. "Our challenge is to leverage that now. He's on the verge of being a crossover-type spokesman. He could be just like an athlete who does a Pepsi or Gatorade commercial. If his comeback has success, we hope to take him to a Kodak or Sony and hope they will turn him into a corporate pitchman.

"We're really just beginning. In January and February people will realize that Lance is back on the bike. And once they realize it, that's when the marketing will pay off."
*


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

bt said:


> Imagine the burden of upholding such a huge false persona.


well, if he's not up to it he's got a pantry full of p.e.d.'s he can turn to...


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

monogod said:


> well, if he's not up to it he's got a pantry full of p.e.d.'s he can turn to...


Personality Enhancing Drugs?


----------



## bt (Nov 24, 2007)

he wants us to believe he is a great cyclist who doesn't enhace.

what does that say about him?


----------



## SV11 (Jan 2, 2011)

Even though FRS have severed ties with LA, their ads are still promoting him.


----------



## Fix the Spade (Aug 4, 2008)

UCI To Strip Lance Armstrong Of Seven Tour De France Titles - BikeRadar

It's official, the UCI agrees with USADA and Lance Armstrong is no longer a winner of The Tour de France. Guess that defiance they showed a couple months ago evaporated when the words secret and payments started popping up...


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

Fix the Spade said:


> UCI To Strip Lance Armstrong Of Seven Tour De France Titles - BikeRadar
> 
> It's official, the UCI agrees with USADA and Lance Armstrong is no longer a winner of The Tour de France. Guess that defiance they showed a couple months ago evaporated when the words secret and payments started popping up...


Great news, in Lances case, justice has been done even if its late in coming....


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

Et tu Wiki?
Tour de France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lance joins the two world wars in causing a gap in the winners list.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Cool, now the UCI needs to be investigated.


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

I guess I imagined this result. I agree with acer66 that UCI is suspect as well. They are complicit in shuffling drug use under the table!!!!!!! LA is prob pissed at them. Here come the lawsuits!


----------



## nuffink (Feb 21, 2010)

acer66 said:


> Cool, now the UCI needs to be investigated.


Absolutely. For all the flak that USADA has taken for its so called witch hunt, that's where the real corruption needs to be cut out.


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE USADA, you have proved the doubters wrong and done your country proud, you are the shining light in this dark affair, more power to you......


----------



## Lule (May 4, 2009)

It is a shame we cannot inject 'character.'


----------



## heyyall (Nov 10, 2011)

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling," Mr. McQuaid said. (World Cycling Body Strips Armstrong of Titles - WSJ.com)

Now those are strong words. While I sad that doping has made such a mark on professional cycling, I'm pleased to see the UCI has taken a strong stance.


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

Lule said:


> It is a shame we cannot inject 'character.'


That is probably the best statement I have read in this entire thread. And that goes way beyond Armstrong.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

In other news, Trek bicycle has announced plans to rekindle the LeMond brand stating that the bikes are a "celebration of integrity, sportsmanship and hard work – values that Trek emphatically share".

Investors are pleased that the company has found a new "cash cow" to replace the hole in their bottom line that the other guy (who shall not be named) left.

just kidding  But seriously, I might buy one if they ever started making them again...


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

cackalacky said:


> In other news, Trek bicycle has announced plans to rekindle the LeMond brand stating that the bikes are a "celebration of integrity, sportsmanship and hard work - values that Trek emphatically share".
> 
> Investors are pleased that the company has found a new "cash cow" to replace the hole in their bottom line that the other guy (who shall not be named) left.


Is this true, or did you just come up with this on your own? (Just curious)

Oakley Comes Through.


----------



## Space Robot (Sep 13, 2008)

Stugotz said:


> Is this true, or did you just come up with this on your own? (Just curious)


Ha! No, I was reading the wiki above and got on a reading tangent. I read how Trek basically dropped Lemond after his comments on doping and L.A. I just find it a little ironic...


----------



## FX4 (Jun 12, 2012)

I think a lot of people and corporations were giving Lance the benefit of the doubt until USADA report came out, including myself. It's kind of hard to remain supportive after a report like this. Good for Trek reversing direction and realizing they wronged Lemond.


----------



## Wishful Tomcat (Mar 6, 2009)

USADA Armstrong "Reasoned Decision" -

Reasoned Decision


----------



## ehigh (Apr 19, 2011)

A cute couple of French Canadian's on the road with their dog broke down just down the road from my buddies ranch. Their old 68' VW bus was running on just a single cylinder when the tractor pulled it across the creek. They stayed on the ranch for nearly two months before getting their bus going and I find out he's into bikes. He speaks terrible English and tells me, "Oh look I have man doing wheelie across chest" 

"what?" I respond
and so he shows me the BMXer figure doing a wheelie on his chest. 

after talking with him more, he made the sport I'm into sound funny. My buddy who lives on the ranch asks him what he likes most about biking, to which he responds with a thick French Canadian accent, 

"you know DOWN heel moon tain bike best, ven you are flying down road and it's like, booosh and you're flying over all the rocks and your buddies in the background screaming and before you know it find you face in tree, but ehh you know how it is so you have couple beers and before you know it RIGGITITTITY YOU just FLY down more roads arms shaking face biting" 


Joking with a buddy, he asks me months later what I like to do, and so I tell him, "oh DOWN heel moontain bike is best, like ven you fly down trail and BOOSH there you are" 


road bikes get taken to very uncomfortable extremes and brings out some funny aspects of humans. Look at this! It's worse than spider webs full of semen in here!


----------



## roadie scum (Jan 21, 2011)

It's a sad day in Homerville.


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

heyyall said:


> I'm pleased to see the UCI has taken a strong stance.


Yes, but the UCI looked the other way and continued to do nothing about it for very many years, now they could not do anything other than take Lance titles away.
But it was not them who went after Lance, the UCI took at least once a "donation" over 100k from Lance after he was tested positive.


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

Here's my tongue in cheek headline:

*Oprah will offer to come out of retirement and pay LA $25m (or more) to confess on her show live! Bet the commercials would sell for Superbowl prices.*


----------



## roblee (Sep 26, 2011)

Stugotz said:


> Here's my tongue in cheek headline:
> 
> *Oprah will offer to come out of retirement and pay LA $25m (or more) to confess on her show live! Bet the commercials would sell for Superbowl prices.*


And her best friend O Barry will come out and tell LA you didn`t win those!:nono:


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

roblee said:


> And her best friend O Barry will come out and tell LA you didn`t win those!:nono:


Oprah or Lance? Who puts out more watts updoped?

Set them up on trainers with power display and let them go nuts.

j/k


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*did you say*

let them go nuts?

i guess no pun intended?





Circlip said:


> Oprah or Lance? Who puts out more watts updoped?
> 
> Set them up on trainers with power display and let them go nuts.
> 
> j/k


----------



## alphajaguars (Jan 12, 2004)

It seems the hits keep on coming.

Texas insurance firm asks Lance Armstrong to repay $7.5 million in bonuses - ESPN


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

cackalacky said:


> In other news, Trek bicycle has announced plans to rekindle the LeMond brand stating that the bikes are a "celebration of integrity, sportsmanship and hard work - values that Trek emphatically share".
> 
> Investors are pleased that the company has found a new "cash cow" to replace the hole in their bottom line that the other guy (who shall not be named) left.
> 
> just kidding  But seriously, I might buy one if they ever started making them again...


that sounds like the perfect Onion article.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

alphajaguars said:


> It seems the hits keep on coming.
> 
> Texas insurance firm asks Lance Armstrong to repay $7.5 million in bonuses - ESPN


They can demand first, but I have no doubt this is only a required progression before formal legal proceedings and negotiations begin. I rate the chances of Armstrong agreeing to the initial demand at somewhere between zero and none.


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

acer66 said:


> Yes, but the UCI looked the other way and continued to do nothing about it for very many years, now they could not do anything other than take Lance titles away.
> But it was not them who went after Lance, the UCI took at least once a "donation" over 100k from Lance after he was tested positive.


Verbruggen denies Kathy LeMond's story of cover-up payment


----------



## StCarpenter (Dec 8, 2011)

sad day today.


----------



## phoenixnr (Jul 26, 2009)

I think we all need to quit the Lance thread. Just sayin.... 

"So I'm packing my bag for the misty mountain.."


----------



## acer66 (Oct 13, 2010)

Stugotz said:


> Verbruggen denies Kathy LeMond's story of cover-up payment


I was refeering to a specific incident but it does not really matter,
the UCI was to put it in nicer words IMHO at least willfully ingnorant when it came to doping.
So to me he is just covering his tracks.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

It wasn't a sad day today, I worked out in the gym, pulled a muscle, didn't have to run because I did yesterday, etc. People are basing their lives on this man and the story, and they need to move on. How many pilots lied to get into piloting in the Air Force and other organizations (hint, a lot of em!)? What if some of your most heroic figures weren't great people all-around? I don't excuse what he did, but it is what it is. I don't follow "sports" like some people follow soap operas. It doesn't matter to me if he wins, or loses, or whatever football team wins a game, or whatever. It matters what I do, and how I live up to my own expectations, and how I challenge myself when I get out there on the trail. At this point, nothing good comes from pushing this issue forward and getting a "confession" just so you can sleep at night. Move on, maybe take up WWE or Pro-Bass fishing? I remember that video of Bear Grylls bravely navigating the lava-bridge...that was shown to be next to a highway while a plump hiker happily skipped over it without all the drama, not to mention when it broke out he was saying in hotels at night, etc. You trust and believe in yourself, the rest works itself out.


----------



## skiahh (Dec 26, 2003)

So here's a question. How many of Lance's sponsors were complicit in the whole thing?

Nike? They're a sports company. They obviously didn't ask, but I have no doubt they knew the landscape.

Anhueser Busch? Maybe not, since they're not a sports company.

Oakley? 
Radio Shack?
Trek? Yeah, right.

Makes you wonder.


----------



## babar (Feb 20, 2004)

I am really happy to see that BIG cheatter out of cycling for EVER.
In Europe it was a done deal since his 1st victory that he was a cheater but for sure it was pretty easy to say that it was jealousy from french bastard racer the German bastard racer then from his own team mates (Landis, Hamilton...).


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*i don't think they were*

actively involved in this, nor had a first hand knowledge...

they were "riding" him for as long as he was making them money. when he became a liability - he was quickly ditched...



skiahh said:


> So here's a question. How many of Lance's sponsors were complicit in the whole thing?
> 
> Nike? They're a sports company. They obviously didn't ask, but I have no doubt they knew the landscape.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

The Influence Peddler


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

Every professional athlete on the planet does something that would be considered "doping". Stop deifying athletes and you won't have these kind of let downs.


----------



## Mountain Cycle Shawn (Jan 19, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> Every professional athlete on the planet does something that would be considered "doping".


That is so untrue and very stupid to say!!!


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*very untrue...*

and i know first hand.



OneBadWagon said:


> Every professional athlete on the planet does something that would be considered "doping". Stop deifying athletes and you won't have these kind of let downs.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

skiahh said:


> So here's a question. How many of Lance's sponsors were complicit in the whole thing?


I suppose that depends how you define the "whole thing". To say that all the upper execs responsible for approving the contracts knew there was a comprehensive doping program propping up Armstrong's racing career is pure speculation. Seems an unlikely stretch. Unless you are way on the inside, or someone talks, we'll never know.

However, I also think it's obvious some folks in these companies were either suspending rational thought while they were focused only on the short term $$$, or were entering into shades of complicity. There are stories associated with this case (not verified) describing how Oakley pressured Stephanie McIlvain and her husband who was also an Oakley employee, into following a specific narrative for her testimony at the SCA arbitration hearing.


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

there are clean pros and deification will never, ever go away. it's part of human culture. we need heroes, and sport provides the perfect televisable archetype. the TDF and other pro races, albethey not so exciting on camera, are pretty amazing human feats. 
i would like to see a dedicated response and publicly outlined strategy by UCI dealing with doping in pro cycling. how would the public benefit? only in the fact that those aspiring to go pro need not worry that they'll be forced to participate in something they're ethically opposed to. 
where can we draw the line? apparently, UCI wants to draw a line in the sand when it comes to LA. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHERS, i.e. Alberto Contador, Frank Schleck, etc.?
i would also like to see this thread shift from accusatory to suggestive. WHAT SHOULD UCI DO TO CHANGE THE CULTURE IN RACING? WHAT SPECIFIC STEPS COULD IT TAKE, RATHER THAN WORK RETROACTIVELY?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

beerrun said:


> apparently, UCI wants to draw a line in the sand when it comes to LA. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHERS, i.e. Alberto Contador, Frank Schleck, etc.?


Contador just came off of suspension and the nullification of a TDF win.


----------



## MOJO K (Jan 26, 2007)

I haven't read back across the whole thread but, just so long as Peaty hasn't been implicated in anything I think I'm solid!!


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

Contador was a reference implicating the picky-choosey nature of UCI. they know that the guys, and gals, use PEDs. wondering if it'll remain retroactive for the duration.


----------



## car_nut (Apr 5, 2010)

beerrun said:


> where can we draw the line? apparently, UCI wants to draw a line in the sand when it comes to LA. WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHERS, i.e. Alberto Contador, Frank Schleck, etc.?
> i would also like to see this thread shift from accusatory to suggestive. WHAT SHOULD UCI DO TO CHANGE THE CULTURE IN RACING? WHAT SPECIFIC STEPS COULD IT TAKE, RATHER THAN WORK RETROACTIVELY?


USADA and UCI are separate organizations. There is a process where UCI is to follow the recommendation of USADA. They could have challenged the USADA recommendation, but chose not to since the evidence was overwhelming and made public.

However, remember UCI's stance on all of this until the evidence was made public. They would have been more than OK with leaving this all behind and celebrating LA. For the same reason, the UCI isn't investigating others and USADA doesn't have authority over other nations. Most of those nations aren't interested in dethroning their champs over doping and even go so far as to help hide the doping.


----------



## beerrun (Jul 31, 2007)

car_nut said:


> USADA and UCI are separate organizations. There is a process where UCI is to follow the recommendation of USADA. They could have challenged the USADA recommendation, but chose not to since the evidence was overwhelming and made public.
> 
> However, remember UCI's stance on all of this until the evidence was made public. They would have been more than OK with leaving this all behind and celebrating LA. For the same reason, the UCI isn't investigating others and USADA doesn't have authority over other nations. Most of those nations aren't interested in dethroning their champs over doping and even go so far as to help hide the doping.


I hear ya, however UCI has been struggling with the efficacy of road cycling as a tv spectator sport, at least in USA. I, as a few others in this thread, see that UCI is suspect, if not complicit, in the rampant doping. While it will always be behind the latest technology, I think there should be a more concerted effort to stem future doping. Let there be true competition. 
Maybe I have my head in the sand a bit, but I wish there'd be true change.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*yeah, UCI behaved like a corporate entity*

going after the money...

little bit of bleeding was worth the earnings...

there is no doubt that Lance was as marketable as any other top level athlete, plus his impact on sport itself and bicycle sales is huge...

that is the biggest mistake UCI made. they should have remained within the confines of a sports governing body, not a business....

without a complete change within UCI - the sport does not have as good a chance to recover...



beerrun said:


> I hear ya, however UCI has been struggling with the efficacy of road cycling as a tv spectator sport. I, as a few others in this thread, see that UCI is suspect, if not complicit, in the rampant doping. While it will always be behind the latest technology, I think there should be a more concerted effort to stem future doping. Let there be true competition.
> Maybe I have my head in the sand a bit, but I wish there'd be true change.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

Mountain Cycle Shawn said:


> That is so untrue and very stupid to say!!!





osokolo said:


> and i know first hand.


Are you a professional athlete? Possibly not in sports like Tennis or basketball, but football, baseball, mma, boxing, etc. you bet your ass. They aren't just talking about steroids, they are talking about all "performance enhancing drugs" which is a very broad net. I've known plenty of pro athletes, plenty of coaches, etc. You don't have to believe me, but if you are actually under the impression that the majority of pro athletes are all natural, then you're quite oblivious.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> *Every* professional athlete on the planet does something that would be considered "doping". Stop deifying athletes and you won't have these kind of let downs.





OneBadWagon said:


> Are you a professional athlete? Possibly not in sports like Tennis or basketball, but football, baseball, mma, boxing, etc. you bet your ass. They aren't just talking about steroids, they are talking about all "performance enhancing drugs" which is a very broad net. I've known plenty of pro athletes, plenty of coaches, etc. You don't have to believe me, but if you are actually under the impression that the _*majority*_ of pro athletes are all natural, then you're quite oblivious.


Assuming you believe your second statement is more correct, then you can see why some disagreed with your first statement.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

Circlip said:


> Assuming you believe your second statement is more correct, then you can see why some disagreed with your first statement. There's a gap between "every" and "majority" where there are clean athletes.


Okay. I can't guarantee that every single person uses some PED, but VIRTUALLY every one does. Why do we deify professional athletes only to be let down when they turn out to be human? It's absurd.

People are more up in arms when they find out that some athlete uses steroids than they are when some politician embezzles millions, or lies, passes unconstitutional legislation, etc. People need to get a clue. Athletes are going to do what makes them competitive in their sport. If that's wearing pink underwear, going to church twice on Sunday or using a substance, then they are going to do that. People hear these things and blame one, singular, solitary person for being a cheater. It's not cheating when they're all doing it, and they're pretty much all doing it.


----------



## bt (Nov 24, 2007)

OneBadWagon said:


> Okay. I can't guarantee that every single person uses some PED, but VIRTUALLY every one does. Why do we deify professional athletes only to be let down when they turn out to be human? It's absurd.
> 
> People are more up in arms when they find out that some athlete uses steroids than they are when some politician embezzles millions, or lies, passes unconstitutional legislation, etc. People need to get a clue. Athletes are going to do what makes them competitive in their sport. If that's wearing pink underwear, going to church twice on Sunday or using a substance, then they are going to do that. People hear these things and blame one, singular, solitary person for being a cheater. It's not cheating when they're all doing it, and they're pretty much all doing it.


stop while you're behind


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

bt said:


> stop while you're behind


LOL. Just because you or anyone else doesn't want to believe it doesn't change its validity.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

OneBadWagon said:


> Okay. I can't guarantee that every single person uses some PED, but VIRTUALLY every one does. Why do we deify professional athletes only to be let down when they turn out to be human? It's absurd.
> 
> People are more up in arms when they find out that some athlete uses steroids than they are when some politician embezzles millions, or lies, passes unconstitutional legislation, etc. People need to get a clue. Athletes are going to do what makes them competitive in their sport. If that's wearing pink underwear, going to church twice on Sunday or using a substance, then they are going to do that. People hear these things and blame one, singular, solitary person for being a cheater. It's not cheating when they're all doing it, and they're pretty much all doing it.


it's cheating when the drugs and the distribution system are illegal.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

shekky said:


> it's cheating when the drugs and the distribution system are illegal.


Are you talking about in Lance's case specifically, or the "doping" witch hunt as a whole?


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

OneBadWagon said:


> Are you talking about in Lance's case specifically, or the "doping" witch hunt as a whole?


doping "witch hunt"?

are you trying to say that the use of performance enhancing drugs deemed illegal by local, state (when applicable) or national laws should be condoned?

do you believe that the sport's sanctioning bodies should permit the widespread use of substances unproven drugs with unknown and potentially dangerous side effects?

clarify your postion, please.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

If the sanctioning bodies of any sport want to actually level the playing field, they would have a very hard road ahead of them, but it's getting to the point of absurdity when recently mma fighter Nick Diaz was found positive of using "performance enhancing drugs" for marijuana. (he lives in a friendly state, IIRC). Half of the fighters in MMA (speculation) probably use marijuana. You won't see widespread testing, or if they do test positive, you won't see a widespread exodus of these fighters.

I don't believe they should "permit" anything, but ultimately I don't agree that steroids should be illegal either. Singling Lance out in this case leads people to believe that he was the only one doing it, but he wasn't. There is plenty of documentation to support that many of the other cyclists were using similar tactics, but you don't see their names in the headlines. If you're going to discredit someone for winning against a field of people who are probably using comparable techniques, then you might as well take away all of the accomplishments of almost everyone in professional sports.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

shekky said:


> doping "witch hunt"?
> 
> are you trying to say that the use of performance enhancing drugs deemed illegal by local, state (when applicable) or national laws should be condoned?
> 
> ...


The bolded part screams bias on your part. This isn't professional wrestling in the 70's and 80's when they were popping dianabol like candy. These athletes have doctors watching them every step of the way.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> Singling Lance out in this case leads people to believe that he was the only one doing it, but he wasn't. There is plenty of documentation to support that many of the other cyclists were using similar tactics, but you don't see their names in the headlines.


It's all over this thread already in many places, but Armstrong isn't being singled out. There are a total of 11 riders, team doctors, and managers that have been charged and/or sanctioned in this investigation.

Armstrong is indeed getting singled out in the media and popular discussions, but that's a completely separate issue entirely that is not under the control of the sanctioning agency.

Much of that ongoing attention is due to Armstrong's ridiculous attempts at denial. His PR team has grossly miscalculated the scenario and ramifications.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

OneBadWagon said:


> If the sanctioning bodies of any sport want to actually level the playing field, they would have a very hard road ahead of them, but it's getting to the point of absurdity when recently mma fighter Nick Diaz was found positive of using "performance enhancing drugs" for marijuana. (he lives in a friendly state, IIRC). Half of the fighters in MMA (speculation) probably use marijuana. You won't see widespread testing, or if they do test positive, you won't see a widespread exodus of these fighters.
> 
> I don't believe they should "permit" anything, but ultimately I don't agree that steroids should be illegal either. Singling Lance out in this case leads people to believe that he was the only one doing it, but he wasn't. There is plenty of documentation to support that many of the other cyclists were using similar tactics, but you don't see their names in the headlines. If you're going to discredit someone for winning against a field of people who are probably using comparable techniques, then you might as well take away all of the accomplishments of almost everyone in professional sports.


fair enough. you make some good points but then again, a lot of pro cyclists have been caught and publicly paraded via the headlines of major cycling publications and in some cases, national sports outlets. (alberto contador, tyler hamilton and marco pantani immediately come to mind)

i wonder if the politicians will ever catch wind of this and produce another document similar to the mitchell report?

here's an interesting wikipedia page with a ist of doping cases in the sport. it goes back quite a few years: List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

Circlip said:


> It's all over this thread already in many places, but Armstrong isn't being singled out. There are a total of 11 riders, team doctors, and managers that have been charged and/or sanctioned in this investigation.
> 
> Armstrong is indeed getting singled out in the media and popular discussions, but that's a completely separate issue entirely that is not under the control of the sanctioning agency.
> 
> Much of that ongoing attention is due to Armstrong's ridiculous attempts at denial. His PR team has grossly miscalculated the scenario and ramifications.


The media are the ones making a circus out of it, as they always do. There wouldn't be enough people to have an NFL, or major league baseball if they actually prohibited all steroid/banned substance using athletes from playing. It's not about eliminating the drug use, it's about burning someone at the stake. I haven't seen a single headline including the names of any of the other riders found using banned substances.


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

OneBadWagon said:


> The bolded part screams bias on your part. This isn't professional wrestling in the 70's and 80's when they were popping dianabol like candy. These athletes have doctors watching them every step of the way.


You can't be serious.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

shekky said:


> fair enough. you make some good points but then again, a lot of pro cyclists have been caught and publicly paraded via the headlines of major cycling publications and in some cases, national sports outlets. (alberto contador, tyler hamilton and marco pantani immediately come to mind)
> 
> i wonder if the politicians will ever catch wind of this and produce another document similar to the mitchell report?
> 
> here's an interesting wikipedia page with a ist of doping cases in the sport. it goes back quite a few years: List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The unfortunate part (IMO) is that the way these allegations are paraded through the mainstream media makes steroids and other substances look MORE attractive to the children that proponents of this movement proclaim they're trying to protect. If they never did a story about steroids, then kids wouldn't hear/see the winners winning and assume that they have to use steroids because of that. Ultimately there are people who are going to use, and those who won't, but all of the headlines definitely put it in the minds of young athletes who wouldn't have thought for a moment about them if it weren't for the press.


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

OneBadWagon said:


> The media are the ones making a circus out of it, as they always do. There wouldn't be enough people to have an NFL, or major league baseball if they actually prohibited all steroid/banned substance using athletes from playing. It's not about eliminating the drug use, it's about burning someone at the stake. I haven't seen a single headline including the names of any of the other riders found using banned substances.


dude. major league baseball just did the whole mitchell report thing. players have been getting suspended on a regular basis over the past two seasons.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> I haven't seen a single headline including the names of any of the other riders found using banned substances.


You haven't been looking very hard then. It is true that in the general media almost all of the headlines name Armstrong only, while the names of the others charged and sanctioned have generally only been appearing in the full article texts. Cycling specific media, as expected, have featured the others much more prominently. This is no surprise as for the general media outlets they're speaking another language to casual fans if they name anyone other than Armstrong.

Still, I maintain that is a media problem which should in no way deter agencies like USADA from their mandate. It's not their responsibility to run damage control for athletes in the media, and any change in their actions aimed at doing so would be a conflict of interest IMHO.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*dude, you sound*

like you have not been following cycling closely for a long time...

dozens of riders have been disqualified as well as penalized with multiyear suspensions. there were all caught and were in the media. Lance is probably THE LAST of the big names that was nabbed, rightfully so - as he was a mastermind of one of the most sophisticated and vicious doping schemes.

you have a lot of reading to go through. google is your friend...



OneBadWagon said:


> If the sanctioning bodies of any sport want to actually level the playing field, they would have a very hard road ahead of them, but it's getting to the point of absurdity when recently mma fighter Nick Diaz was found positive of using "performance enhancing drugs" for marijuana. (he lives in a friendly state, IIRC). Half of the fighters in MMA (speculation) probably use marijuana. You won't see widespread testing, or if they do test positive, you won't see a widespread exodus of these fighters.
> 
> I don't believe they should "permit" anything, but ultimately I don't agree that steroids should be illegal either. Singling Lance out in this case leads people to believe that he was the only one doing it, but he wasn't. There is plenty of documentation to support that many of the other cyclists were using similar tactics, but you don't see their names in the headlines. If you're going to discredit someone for winning against a field of people who are probably using comparable techniques, then you might as well take away all of the accomplishments of almost everyone in professional sports.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> The unfortunate part (IMO) is that the way these allegations are paraded through the mainstream media makes steroids and other substances look MORE attractive to the children that proponents of this movement proclaim they're trying to protect. If they never did a story about steroids, then kids wouldn't hear/see the winners winning and assume that they have to use steroids because of that. Ultimately there are people who are going to use, and those who won't, but all of the headlines definitely put it in the minds of young athletes who wouldn't have thought for a moment about them if it weren't for the press.


You've posted up with many different devil's advocate arguments in favor of limiting attempts at control over PEDs in sports. I can appreciate that you are "glass half empty" to my "glass half full", but you'll never get me to agree with you. Agree to disagree is the only path left.


----------



## blast_off (Mar 31, 2011)

they should just legalize all the performance enhancing drugs in cycling... think of how much of a boon to science all the real world testing would be!


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

Circlip said:


> You haven't been looking very hard then. It is true that in the general media almost all of the headlines name Armstrong only, while the names of the others charged and sanctioned have generally only been appearing in the full article texts. Cycling specific media, as expected, have featured the others much more prominently. This is no surprise as for the general media outlets they're speaking another language to casual fans if they name anyone other than Armstrong.
> 
> Still, I maintain that is a media problem which should in no way deter agencies like USADA from their mandate. It's not their responsibility to run damage control for athletes in the media, and any change in their actions aimed at doing so would be a conflict of interest IMHO.


exactly.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*interesting observation, i do not think i can agree with it...*



OneBadWagon said:


> The unfortunate part (IMO) is that the way these allegations are paraded through the mainstream media makes steroids and other substances look MORE attractive to the children that proponents of this movement proclaim they're trying to protect.


can you tell me exactly why would kids go for steroids and other banned substances after they see their HERO goes down because he took them, encouraged others to take them, destroyed many that tried to oppose him and then lied even in face of indisputable evidence...

just why would kids be attracted to banned substance after this?

i'd say kids would be more attracted to EPO if they saw that those that use it would get away with it. luckily, most of them didnt.



> If they never did a story about steroids, then kids wouldn't hear/see the winners winning and assume that they have to use steroids because of that. Ultimately there are people who are going to use, and those who won't, but all of the headlines definitely put it in the minds of young athletes who wouldn't have thought for a moment about them if it weren't for the press.


have you ever participated in any sports in your high school, college or university?

they do not need media to find out about steroids... they need media do see what happens to those that use steroids and EPO and other banned substances... lance could have been a true hero...

but then he decided to cheat... and then worse and worse - persistently lie about it...


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

DavyRay said:


> You can't be serious.


About which part? How much knowledge do you have about steroids or blood doping?


shekky said:


> dude. major league baseball just did the whole mitchell report thing. players have been getting suspended on a regular basis over the past two seasons.


You're right, and as testing gets better, they'll find more and more athletes using.



Circlip said:


> You haven't been looking very hard then. It is true that in the general media almost all of the headlines name Armstrong only, while the names of the others charged and sanctioned have generally only been appearing in the full article texts. Cycling specific media, as expected, have featured the others much more prominently. This is no surprise as for the general media outlets they're speaking another language to casual fans if they name anyone other than Armstrong.
> 
> Still, I maintain that is a media problem which should in no way deter agencies like USADA from their mandate. It's not their responsibility to run damage control for athletes in the media, and any change in their actions aimed at doing so would be a conflict of interest IMHO.


I don't read cycling periodicals, but have seen plenty of mentions of Lance (many of the articles have supplied absolutely zero evidence, and seemed mainly aimed at smearing his image. I agree that to non-cycling fans, the other names would be greek to the public, but by not naming anyone else, the masses are free to believe that he was / is the only athlete found to be using.



osokolo said:


> like you have not been following cycling closely for a long time...
> 
> dozens of riders have been disqualified as well as penalized with multiyear suspensions. there were all caught and were in the media. Lance is probably THE LAST of the big names that was nabbed, rightfully so - as he was a mastermind of one of the most sophisticated and vicious doping schemes.
> 
> you have a lot of reading to go through. google is your friend...


I truthfully don't care enough to read about what a brilliant mastermind Lance Armstrong was. He had help along the way, as most top performing athletes do. You can either believe me when I tell you that at the top levels of performance, you have plenty of people trying to keep you on top.



Circlip said:


> You've posted up with many different devil's advocate arguments in favor of limiting attempts at control over PEDs in sports. I can appreciate that you are "glass half empty" to my "glass half full", but you'll never get me to agree with you. Agree to disagree is the only path left.


In a perfect world, it'd be nice if nobody played outside of the spirit of the game. In reality it's a cat and mouse game, and the end result is that the careers of these athletes take a big hit for the same practices that less accomplished athletes in the same sport do just as consistently. I'm completely fine with agreeing to disagree, I was just trying to raise awareness that "doping" is far more common than you'll ever here in the media, and it's not because "they" (media, sanctioning bodies, etc) don't know about it. 


blast_off said:


> they should just legalize all the performance enhancing drugs in cycling... think of how much of a boon to science all the real world testing would be!


Legalization has nothing to do with stopping it.

I just think it's unbelievable to take accomplishments away from someone who was "doping" and give them to someone who was probably "doping".


----------



## shekky (Oct 21, 2011)

OneBadWagon said:


> About which part? How much knowledge do you have about steroids or blood doping?
> 
> You're right, and as testing gets better, they'll find more and more athletes using.
> 
> ...


the tours lance won will be vacated in the same manner they were in world wars one and two.

Tour de Farce: Armstrong's titles vacated | PoconoRecord.com

Tour de France would vacate 1999-2005 titles if UCI strips Lance Armstrong of titles - ESPN


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

osokolo said:


> can you tell me exactly why would kids go for steroids and other banned substances after they see their HERO goes down because he took them, encouraged others to take them, destroyed many that tried to oppose him and then lied even in face of indisputable evidence...
> 
> just why would kids be attracted to banned substance after this?
> 
> i'd say kids would be more attracted to EPO if they saw that those that use it would get away with it. luckily, most of them didnt.


Athletes get away with it all of the time. Young athletes are not blind, and the bigger the coincidence between "steroid" and "winner", the more likely they are to use them.



osokolo said:


> have you ever participated in any sports in your high school, college or university?
> 
> they do not need media to find out about steroids... they need media do see what happens to those that use steroids and EPO and other banned substances... lance could have been a true hero...
> 
> but then he decided to cheat... and then worse and worse - persistently lie about it...


I participated in sports through my youth, and worked out with, trained with and knew personally more than a few professional athletes.

Have you ever seen Lyle Alzado's first interviews about steroids? Where he swore adamantly that he hadn't and wouldn't use steroids? Then later recanting and admitting it? Roger Clemens would have been better off pleading the 5th, and he wouldn't have had to face that perjury rap.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

shekky said:


> the tours lance won will be vacated in the same manner they were in world wars one and two.
> 
> Tour de Farce: Armstrong's titles vacated | PoconoRecord.com
> 
> Tour de France would vacate 1999-2005 titles if UCI strips Lance Armstrong of titles - ESPN


Good to know, thanks for the links.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> I don't read cycling periodicals, but have seen plenty of mentions of Lance (many of the articles have supplied absolutely zero evidence,


dude, just read please...

Cycling Investigation - USADA

Lance Armstrong Ran Biggest Doping Conspiracy in Sport Says USADA



> I truthfully don't care enough to read about what a brilliant mastermind Lance Armstrong was.


how can you then debate the issue, if you do not have knowledge about it? and refusing to educate yourself on the subject!



> In a perfect world, it'd be nice if nobody played outside of the spirit of the game. In reality it's a cat and mouse game, and the end result is that the careers of these athletes take a big hit for the same practices that less accomplished athletes in the same sport do just as consistently. I'm completely fine with agreeing to disagree, I was just trying to raise awareness that "doping" is far more common than you'll ever here in the media, and it's not because "they" (media, sanctioning bodies, etc) don't know about it.


you are stating the obvious. everyone who is cheating should be prosecuted and penalized, from top to bottom. are you saying that because it is so wide spread - no one should be prosecuted?



> I just think it's unbelievable to take accomplishments away from someone who was "doping" and give them to someone who was probably "doping".


no one is going to get anyone's accomplishments, including Lance's - if you can call them accomplishments. the victories are taken away and records are expunged. no mention about Lance in TdF victories page in Wikipedia any more. if you are any sort of an athlete - you'll know how much it hurts.


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

osokolo said:


> dude, just read please...
> 
> Cycling Investigation - USADA
> 
> ...


I read plenty a few months ago when they were still discussing whether or not they had a case (and at the time the evidence didn't look conclusive) so I haven't bothered to since.

Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated when so many people overlook it. I don't care much either way when it comes to Lance. It's moreso the overall refusal by the majority of people in America to believe that most athletes are doing something that they aren't allowed to do. Ever heard the story of Jim Thorpe?


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

OneBadWagon said:


> I read plenty a few months ago when they were still discussing whether or not they had a case (and at the time the evidence didn't look conclusive) so I haven't bothered to since.
> 
> Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated when so many people overlook it. I don't care much either way when it comes to Lance. It's moreso the overall refusal by the majority of people in America to believe that most athletes are doing something that they aren't allowed to do. Ever heard the story of Jim Thorpe?


Yeh, but did Jim threaten Presidential candidates?
Atavist Web Viewer


----------



## OneBadWagon (Mar 29, 2007)

rydbyk said:


> Yeh, but did Jim threaten Presidential candidates?
> Atavist Web Viewer


I read what you linked and didn't see any threats to presidential candidates. Ultimately, if he's as shady as it's implied, then I'm certain that he's broken *gasp* actual laws that he can be held accountable for.


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

Whoa, wait. What is Lance Armstrong being accused of?


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

OneBadWagon said:


> I read what you linked and didn't see any threats to presidential candidates.


The article says that Armstrong threatened to influence political outcomes by distributing opinions & voting recommendations to millions of people contained in Livestrong's contact database, if Obama wouldn't change his itinerary to appear at Armstrong's side at a Livestrong event.

Threats are not related only to physical acts. It sure sounds like a threat to me, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the veracity of the story. I doubt it's something a relatively well-known sports journalist would float out there if she couldn't back it up.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

wmac said:


> Whoa, wait. What is Lance Armstrong being accused of?


Ignoring the kittens.

Federal probe followed shortly after it was reported.


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

OneBadWagon said:


> I read what you linked and didn't see any threats to presidential candidates. Ultimately, if he's as shady as it's implied, then I'm certain that he's broken *gasp* actual laws that he can be held accountable for.


Paragraph 6/7 on page 2. He threatened John Kerry with using his Livestrong leverage against him to ruin him. It is pretty clear. Bully tactics were far reaching....well beyond the peleton!:eekster:


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

Circlip said:


> Ignoring the kittens.
> 
> Federal probe followed shortly after it was reported.


Ignoring teh kittehs is not cool imo.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

rydbyk said:


> Paragraph 6/7 on page 2. He threatened John Kerry with using his Livestrong leverage against him to ruin him. It is pretty clear. Bully tactics were far reaching....well beyond the peleton!:eekster:


like kerry really needed any assistance in that department anyway... :lol:


----------



## wmac (Sep 29, 2010)

501(c)3 orgs cannot endorse or influence political campaigns or else they face loss of tax exempt status.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Posted on EC subforum - i think we all need to check this and read Greg Lemond's open letter to UCI President as well as the link to help journalist Paul Kimmage (who was sued by UCI for calling them CORRUPT) defend himself in court... i contributed as much as i could...

open letter and linky to paypal account - Paul Kimmage defense fund

inrng : the lemond letter


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

osokolo said:


> Posted on EC subforum - i think we all need to check this and read Greg Lemond's open letter to UCI President as well as the link to help journalist Paul Kimmage (who was sued by UCI for calling them CORRUPT) defend himself in court... i contributed as much as i could...
> 
> open letter and linky to paypal account - Paul Kimmage defense fund
> 
> inrng : the lemond letter


Errmmm...

Maybe hold on the Kimmage donations for a bit? UCI and McQuaid now say they are suspending their lawsuit according to the outcome of the UCI Management Committee meeting today;

UCI Management Committee Will Not Reallocate Armstrong's Tours | Cyclingnews.com

I donated about 9 hours ago  but I'm confident that if the lawsuit is ever fully closed rather than only "suspended", the funds will still be put to good use in some related anti-doping capacity.

The Lemond letter link provided by Osokolo is still a good read for anyone though.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*that is a good news...*

regardless, Paul deserves my support and i know the money, if not used for his defense, will used for a good cause to clean up the sport of cycling...

Paul was only one of few journalists who was brave enough to engage and challenge UCI.

UCI could not make a better PR move but to drop the lawsuit against Paul. Though, in a way, i wish they dont - as the process will undoubtedly uncover more interesting information...



Circlip said:


> Errmmm...
> 
> Maybe hold on the Kimmage donations for a bit? UCI and McQuaid now say they are suspending their lawsuit according to the outcome of the UCI Management Committee meeting today;
> 
> ...


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

osokolo said:


> UCI could not make a better PR move but to drop the lawsuit against Paul. Though, in a way, i wish they dont - as the process will undoubtedly uncover more interesting information...


Going by the media report, it sounds like UCI is in complete backpedaling, damage control mode now. I can't believe they let McQuaid and Verbruggen run amok for months on end before finally putting some brakes on the runaway train by convening a Management Committee meeting.

BTW, if this so-called independent commission inquiry described in the article is anything like the infamous "Vrijman Report" that the UCI used to whitewash the whole Armstrong EPO scandal in the media in 2005, it will be a complete joke. Let me guess about the summary of the report now, "We find that the UCI is not at fault for the doping culture in professional cycling. Everyone else is to blame." :madman:


----------



## car bone (Apr 15, 2011)

car bone said:


> Wow this is a complete farce.





anonymous coward said:


> well well well, your looking rather naive and stupid now regarding your defence of the low life Lance, actually, you looked the same back then as well...


*LOL !*


Maybe I should clarify so you'll understand,

*THEY

----------------------------------------------->ALL<--------------------------------------------------

DOPE*,

ALWAYS HAVE BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL, its part of the game. Keyword is "all" if you are uncertain.​


----------



## rydbyk (Oct 13, 2009)

car bone said:


> *LOL !*
> 
> 
> Maybe I should clarify so you'll understand,
> ...


So.......all?


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

rydbyk said:


> So.......all?


If one repeats it enough, one starts to believe. :skep: Kinda like the "tested over 500 times" b.s.


----------



## monogod (Feb 10, 2006)

*greg didn't...*



car bone said:


> *LOL !*
> 
> 
> Maybe I should clarify so you'll understand,
> ...


_"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed"_. ~ Adolf Hitler


----------



## DavyRay (Apr 13, 2012)

monogod said:


> greg didn't


Contrast. Good stuff. Not everyone in bike racing is a lying arrogant cheat.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

monogod said:


> Greg didn't


Do you have proof of that? Or just the imaginary building up of icons that was so much decried here. Oh wait now we want innocent until proven guilty? Personally I think he doped too after the hunting accident. But hey whatever back the the hero worship


----------



## Moe Ped (Aug 24, 2009)

*Speaking of heros...*



sxotty said:


> ...But hey whatever back the the hero worship


...I think that ultimately LA may be noted in history as a "Great American Hero"; Americans don't always play by the "rules". (I'm not saying here that the "Great American Hero" is my kind of hero; Lance is a lying rat but I'm cutting him some slack) Several random-assed examples:

We won our freedom from the British by hiding behind trees and shooting them; not _by the rules._

We signed the Geneva Protocol (against the use of chemical and biological weapons) in 1925 and then developed the atom bomb (not in the rule book!) for WW2. Death by radiation poisoning is OK but death by chemical poisoning is not!?!?

How about Chuck Yeager? Became famous when he broke the sound barrier; later revealed that he did this while flying with a broken arm (against the _rules_) And there was a _race to beat the sound barrier..._

I could go on...

Here's some food for thought about integrity:





FWIW I placed a similar post in the NorCal forum http://forums.mtbr.com/9817864-post237.html


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

pliebenberg said:


> ...I think that ultimately LA may be noted in history as a "Great American Hero";


Pariah yes, hero unlikely.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

sxotty said:


> Do you have proof of that? Or just the imaginary building up of icons that was so much decried here. Oh wait now we want innocent until proven guilty? Personally I think he doped too after the hunting accident. But hey whatever back the the hero worship


You can't prove a negative. But the same sort of circumstantial evidence that buried Dopestrong clears Greg. Greg started getting passed by nobodies who couldn't carry his jock the year before while Lance was burying known dopers.

Anyway, it's history now. Lemond has 3 TdF victories, Dopestrong has zero. Deal with it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## H0WL (Jan 17, 2007)

Circlip said:


> Going by the media report, it sounds like UCI is in complete backpedaling, damage control mode now. I can't believe they let McQuaid and Verbruggen run amok for months on end before finally putting some brakes on the runaway train by convening a Management Committee meeting.
> 
> BTW, if this so-called independent commission inquiry described in the article is anything like the infamous "Vrijman Report" that the UCI used to whitewash the whole Armstrong EPO scandal in the media in 2005, it will be a complete joke. Let me guess about the summary of the report now, "We find that the UCI is not at fault for the doping culture in professional cycling. Everyone else is to blame." :madman:


I'd be perfectly happy for Paul Kimmage to take his donations and file a counter suit in Britain against Hein und Pat for harassment and defamation of character.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

sxotty said:


> Do you have proof of that? Or just the imaginary building up of icons that was so much decried here. Oh wait now we want innocent until proven guilty? Personally I think he doped too after the hunting accident. But hey whatever back the the hero worship


Forget the hero talk, let's just look at the doping angle. You are correct that we don't really know for certain that Lemond didn't dope. History has shown us that it's not wise to speak in absolutes when it comes to stating whether someone did PEDs. However, if we apply the casual smoke->fire test, Armstrong was virtually camping out in the middle of a raging forest fire even prior to the USADA case. Contrast this to Lemond who, even though he essentially painted a bullseye on his back within the doping community due to his very vocal public stance for many years, has never had one decent shred of information emerge suggesting he doped.

EPO in particular was the first game changer that, when adopted by the peloton was capable of a level of transformation that could potentially shuffle the deck of results through different response rates from athlete to athlete. The timeline of Lemond's career in relation to EPO can essentially be summarized as;

1) Fantastic results before EPO even existed.

2) Shortly after EPO was introduced, Lemond couldn't even keep up with the peloton any longer even though he was only 2 years removed from having won the TdF and said he was still in good condition. He subsequently retired.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Circlip said:


> However, if we apply the casual smoke->fire test, Armstrong was virtually camping out in the middle of a raging forest fire even prior to the USADA case...
> 2) Shortly after EPO was introduced, Lemond couldn't even keep up with the peloton any longer even though he was only 2 years removed from having won the TdF and said he was still in good condition. He subsequently retired.


He said he had some mitochondrial condition at the time if I recall. EPO wasn't the beginning of doping though. It was just the beginning of EPO 

I just thought Greg's comeback from a horrific injury was better than one would normally expect. Of course Armstrong's comeback from a horrific disease was also better than one would normally expect. And heck if doping made that happen then more cancer survivors should dope  Although I did read recently that exercise seems to diminish the recurrence of cancer for some reason and whatever drugs and doping Lance was doing no one can deny he got plenty of exercise.

And BTW your smoke/fire test doesn't really work. Armstrong was camping out in an inferno like you said for a decade and it took forever to catch him. Given that comparison it seems many many dopers could easily slide through the cracks.

edit:

Anyway sorry to piss off all the loyal followers and lauders who are giving anonymous neg rep, but like I said long ago I figured all the top riders are cheating. It is just the nature of the sport.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

It's like you sort of read my post, but didn't really read it. 



sxotty said:


> He said he had some mitochondrial condition at the time if I recall. EPO wasn't the beginning of doping though. It was just the beginning of EPO


EPO was the first "game changer" in PEDs for cycling.



sxotty said:


> And BTW your smoke/fire test doesn't really work. Armstrong was camping out in an inferno like you said for a decade and it took forever to catch him.


The "smoke" isn't referring to actual charges or sanctions, it's referring to publicly available information that would have convinced any reasonable person paying any attention that Armstrong had been doping. In this context, Armstrong has been in the middle of the inferno for a decade. Lemond who has built himself up into a very sizable target for any part of the entrenched doping establishment who would love to take him down also, barely even generates a wisp.


----------



## sxotty (Nov 4, 2005)

Circlip said:


> The "smoke" isn't referring to actual charges or sanctions, it's referring to publicly available information that would have convinced any reasonable person paying any attention that Armstrong had been doping. In this context, Armstrong has been in the middle of the inferno for a decade. Lemond who has built himself up into a very sizable target for any part of the entrenched doping establishment who would love to take him down also, barely even generates a wisp.


I really don't see that. If you are a big time cheater you increase your odds of being caught by getting small time cheats caught. It seems you would just want everything hush hush. After this bruhaha though I could see it. Once a person is caught and cast out (if they admit it unlike contador (sp?), lance etc) then they have less to lose. So I guess if someone like Landis knew about Lemond doping then they would have little reason not to write a tell all. I don't even know who overlapped him though or if the general public cares enough to make it a lucrative endeavor. The wiki link earlier in this thread talks about PEDs starting in the 1920s. It seems that the drugs changed from cocaine, amphetamines, hormones, etc...

PS. btw I do hope Lemond was clean just because I am not enamored with huge hypocrites, but otherwise it is his deal.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

DavyRay said:


> Contrast. Good stuff. Not everyone in bike racing is a lying arrogant cheat.


On this note, check out interesting article by Brad McGee:

http://m.theage.com.au/sport/cyclin...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Selzz44 (Oct 28, 2012)

IMHO it's all politics. I think everyone was doping so it was a level playing field.


----------



## lapinGTI (Dec 30, 2009)

Shoud we apologise to Festina team and all other who have been kick out for doping? After all they were only leveling the field...



Selzz44 said:


> IMHO it's all politics. I think everyone was doping so it was a level playing field.


----------



## dwt (Jul 19, 2009)

Selzz44 said:


> IMHO it's all politics. I think everyone was doping so it was a level playing field.


Wrong. There were a courageous few who did not and got screwed by the scum who did. I'll repost the link to Brad McGee from my post above

http://m.theage.com.au/sport/cyclin...e-best-years-of-my-career-20121026-28aif.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tone's (Nov 12, 2011)

dwt said:


> Wrong. There were a courageous few who did not and got screwed by the scum who did. I'll repost the link to Brad McGee from my post above
> 
> Bradley McGee | Armstrong Doping | Tour de France
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Great article, theres no way in the world that 'every' rider is n always has been on the juice, you i agree its a lot, but not all....
Even the guys that are caught out say that there are 'bread n water' riders..


----------

