Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lance Armstrong Statement  
User currently offlinebestwestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 7313 posts, RR: 57
Posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4219 times:

Lance Armstrong has decided to stop fighting the USADA campaign against him, and has released the following statement.


There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For
me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair
advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999. Over the past three years, I have
been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's
unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our
foundation and on me leads me to where I am today - finished with this nonsense.
I had hoped that a federal court would stop USADA's charade. Although the court was
sympathetic to my concerns and recognized the many improprieties and deficiencies in
USADA's motives, its conduct, and its process, the court ultimately decided that it could
not intervene.

If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA's process, I could confront
these allegations in a fair setting and - once and for all - put these charges to rest, I
would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided
and unfair. Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to
support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the
hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors. I made myself available around
the clock and around the world. In-competition. Out of competition. Blood. Urine.
Whatever they asked for I provided. What is the point of all this testing if, in the end,
USADA will not stand by it?

From the beginning, however, this investigation has not been about learning the truth or
cleaning up cycling, but about punishing me at all costs. I am a retired cyclist, yet
USADA has lodged charges over 17 years old despite its own 8-year limitation. As
respected organizations such as UCI and USA Cycling have made clear, USADA lacks
jurisdiction even to bring these charges. The international bodies governing cycling
have ordered USADA to stop, have given notice that no one should participate in
USADA's improper proceedings, and have made it clear the pronouncements by
USADA that it has banned people for life or stripped them of their accomplishments are
made without authority. And as many others, including USADA's own arbitrators, have
found, there is nothing even remotely fair about its process. USADA has broken the
law, turned its back on its own rules, and stiff-armed those who have tried to persuade
USADA to honor its obligations. At every turn, USADA has played the role of a bully,
threatening everyone in its way and challenging the good faith of anyone who questions
its motives or its methods, all at U.S. taxpayers' expense. For the last two months,
USADA has endlessly repeated the mantra that there should be a single set of rules,
applicable to all, but they have arrogantly refused to practice what they preach. On top
of all that, USADA has allegedly made deals with other riders that circumvent their own
rules as long as they said I cheated. Many of those riders continue to race today.
The bottom line is I played by the rules that were put in place by the UCI, WADA and
USADA when I raced. The idea that athletes can be convicted today without positive A
and B samples, under the same rules and procedures that apply to athletes with
positive tests, perverts the system and creates a process where any begrudged exteammate
can open a USADA case out of spite or for personal gain or a cheating cyclist
can cut a sweetheart deal for themselves. It's an unfair approach, applied selectively, in
opposition to all the rules. It's just not right.

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip
my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates
know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won
those seven Tours. We all raced together. For three weeks over the same roads, the
same mountains, and against all the weather and elements that we had to confront.
There were no shortcuts, there was no special treatment. The same courses, the same
rules. The toughest event in the world where the strongest man wins. Nobody can ever
change that. Especially not Travis Tygart.

Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the
circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single
Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in
underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of
service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million. We have a
lot of work to do and I'm looking forward to an end to this pointless distraction. I have a
responsibility to all those who have stepped forward to devote their time and energy to
the cancer cause. I will not stop fighting for that mission. Going forward, I am going to
devote myself to raising my five beautiful (and energetic) kids, fighting cancer, and
attempting to be the fittest 40-year old on the planet.


The world is really getting smaller these days
109 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4193 times:

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/...nce-enhancing-drugs-cycling-career

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mor...ng-agency/?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a0

An innocent man would not give up like this. His reputation, endorsements, financial support for his foundation, are all going to disappear. His career is over. And what the hell kind of message to his admirers is this ? When things get tough and beyond your control just give up ? That's not the attitude that he had while fighting cancer...

Maybe there WAS something he didn't want discovered during this investigation. So many other prominent bicyclists have been caught doping over the years that the sport is already damaged beyond recognition....

[Edited 2012-08-23 21:21:19]


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15840 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4189 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Thread starter):
Lance Armstrong

A man known as a colossal jerk whose reputation and legacy has been built almost entirely on his ability to cheat successfully.

Quoting bestwestern (Thread starter):
Regardless of what Travis Tygart says, there is zero physical evidence to
support his outlandish and heinous claims. The only physical evidence here is the
hundreds of controls I have passed with flying colors.

All that means is that Armstrong is a step ahead of testing. Testing will always be trying to catch up with the chemists.

Quoting bestwestern (Thread starter):
I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates
know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won
those seven Tours. We all raced together.

To be fair, a lot of the competitors were probably cheating as well.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

In other words, Armstrong has been found to have been doping during his cycling career and consequently has been stripped of all his Tour de France titles, on top of a lifelong competition ban.

The slightly less heroic version.

It's not even that easy putting all the blame on him – he was competing with others who had doped as well; It would have been exceedingly unlikely that he'd actually won seven times against a field of notorious dopers all around. That is almost inconceivable, even apart from the mounting evidence.

It is somewhat tragic on various levels, but the whiny tone has never suited any of his doped predecessors either.

Cycling is crashing down even further than it had before. It may be best to just give it up and call it a day. This sport has been completely destroyed by a doping arms race in which Armstrong was only one of the major exponents, not by any means a truly exceptional offender.

He would be better off if he rethought his approach there and faced his own reality instead of continuing the obvious denial. Maybe there is a shred of personal integrity left for being salvaged somewhere, but given that statement I'm not getting my hopes up.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
A man known as a colossal jerk whose reputation and legacy has been built almost entirely on his ability to cheat successfully.

And the evidence you have is....?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 2):
All that means is that Armstrong is a step ahead of testing.

Again, the evidence you have is...?

I don't know one way or the other but perhaps this is the reason why Armstrong chucked in the towel. It doesn't matter what the results show, there will be those who cast aspersions and feed the cancer of suspicion, while inventing reasons for not having any evidence. Whatever happened to the notion innocent until proven guilty?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15840 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4141 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
And the evidence you have is....?

Ask a lot of people who have covered sports for any amount of time who the biggest jerk they've run into is and there's a good chance they'll say Lance Armstrong. Seems a lot of people would like to kick him in his ball.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Again, the evidence you have is...?

How many drug tests have dopers passed before being caught? A positive test is proof of guilt, but a negative test is not proof of innocence. Sad but true.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Whatever happened to the notion innocent until proven guilty?

Reality happened. And innocent until proven guilty only applies in court.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3410 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Quoting bestwestern (Thread starter):
USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip
my seven Tour de France titles.

This strikes me as very odd that the USADA can do this, they don't govern cycling. I can see the ban but not stripping the titles.

This is key:

Quote:
Still to be heard from was the sport's governing body, the International Cycling Union, which had backed Armstrong's legal challenge to USADA's authority.
Quoting alberchico (Reply 1):
An innocent man would not give up like this. His reputation, endorsements, financial support for his foundation, are all going to disappear. His career is over. And what the hell kind of message to his admirers is this ? When things get tough and beyond your control just give up ? That's not the attitude that he had while fighting cancer...

I think this behaviour is more common than people think it is. If he was going to go bankrupt fighting a charge which has no legal binding as in facing a judge what is the point as some will never be convinced. Many people who are innocent accept plea bargains because they still run the risk of being found guilty.

If he gets indicted like Marion Jones did then by all means strip the titles from him and throw him in jail. I am not sure what legal authority the USADA has.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
I don't know one way or the other but perhaps this is the reason why Armstrong chucked in the towel. It doesn't matter what the results show, there will be those who cast aspersions and feed the cancer of suspicion, while inventing reasons for not having any evidence.

That is nonsense and you know it. If he actually was innocent, there is absolutely no way in hell he would give up since starting today his reputation is completely and utterly ruined (at least what was left of it) while if he had actually been innocent there could be no accusation in the world causing even a tenth of the same devastation to him and to his family.

He has just realized that his lie is up and there is no realistic way out left for him to pretend his innocence any longer. He is finally caught at having been a cheat among cheats and all his high-brow pretenses were just part of the act, the same as with all the other cheats. At least a few of those had the guts to come out with the truth eventually. We'll see whether Armstrong has what it takes to come clean at long last. My guess? He'll keep on sulking for at least a few years.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Whatever happened to the notion innocent until proven guilty?

It still applies. But the evidence – witness accounts and a mountain range of circumstances – leaves effectively no place for the assumption of his innocence any more.

Ironically all the other doping cheats having been uncovered over the years have left him standing in an ever more exposed position which became ever more implausible for a presumably "clean" athlete.


User currently onlinealberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):
I think this behaviour is more common than people think it is. If he was going to go bankrupt fighting a charge which has no legal binding as in facing a judge what is the point as some will never be convinced. Many people who are innocent accept plea bargains because they still run the risk of being found guilty.

Armstrong has amassed considerable wealth over the years so he could easily pay for his defense out of his own pocket. Not to mention that if he started a legal fund and asked his supporters for donations he could easily raise the several millions needed to pay for his defense.

This isn't a plea bargain. Its essentially throwing in the towel and committing suicide to avoid disgrace. USADA is basically claiming they have old samples that have been tested with new methods of detecting steroid use. Now if Armstrong never doped, then what would he have to fear ???



short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

I think he should keep his titles. He definitely didn't have an unfair advantage as most of the rest of the field was on the juice as well.

User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

I think it can be therapeutic for the entire sport (if one can really still call it that with a straight face) when they are forced to dig ever deeper down until they finally find someone who probably(!) wasn't doped – at least until a later check might still find something again...

All their "stars" have been exposed as cheats by now. At some point the sad remainder might actually be able to force some new insights, one could hope.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10350 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4009 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 6):

I think this behaviour is more common than people think it is.

WAY more common, I'm sure. I've certainly experienced it plenty of times. In the end, some things just aren't worth fighting anymore. We weigh the pros and cons, make a decision, and don't look back (ok, we do look back, but whatever).

Quoting alberchico (Reply 8):
Armstrong has amassed considerable wealth over the years so he could easily pay for his defense out of his own pocket. Not to mention that if he started a legal fund and asked his supporters for donations he could easily raise the several millions needed to pay for his defense.

It's not always about money.

Quoting alberchico (Reply 1):
An innocent man would not give up like this.

An innocent man who has 5 kids to take care of very well might.

I don't know if he doped, and to be honest, I don't care. But I can completely understand his wish to just be left alone and put this all behind him.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3992 times:

Fun fact: This is the very first time he has actually been legally charged with doping. And he immediately throws in the towel and states that "enough is enough".

All those court cases in the last years were him suing journalists to stop writing about him, not anti-doping authorites going after him.


User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13767 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3946 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
If he actually was innocent, there is absolutely no way in hell he would give up

If he were tired of fighting and seeing his bank account depleted, sure he would - especially if there were no point in fighting just to save face. It's not like "losing" equals prison time.

Quoting alberchico (Reply 8):
Armstrong has amassed considerable wealth over the years so he could easily pay for his defense out of his own pocket

Yes, and by many accounts, his legal defense has depleted quite a bit of that wealth. And let's face it, he doesn't earn anywhere near the money he used to.

Quoting alberchico (Reply 8):
if he started a legal fund and asked his supporters for donations he could easily raise the several millions needed to pay for his defense.

Is that so? Many worthy charities have a hard enough time raising funds in these trying economic times; you think the "I want to clear my good name" fund will have an easy road?   

I'm not saying the guy is guilty or that the guy is innocent; frankly, I don't know, nor do I care. What I'm saying is that I CAN see where there would come a point where someone would choose to be pragmatic and just say, "Fuck this shit, I'm done with this," and give up the costly fight, and let the USADA or whatever the hell the governing body of cycling is have their pound of flesh and get on with his life.

[Edited 2012-08-24 03:19:03]


"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7847 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3935 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 9):
I think he should keep his titles. He definitely didn't have an unfair advantage as most of the rest of the field was on the juice as well.

Did Marion Jones get to keep her titles, nope they were stripped, no need for Lance to get special treatment is there?


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13202 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3926 times:

One has to wonder if Armstrong's cancer was triggered by his use of performance enhancing drugs (PED's).

I think he just faced reality that to keep fighting will only make him look much worse, eat up more of his personal financial worth and eventually never win in the court of public opinion. He and several other top cyclists have all been caught doping, it is impossible to keep up with the more sophicated drugs and techniques racers have used over the years, often finding out a few years later when then testing and what to look for catches up.

I believe that major level cycling racing should be suspended for a year, especially the Tour de France or even totally ended. Sponsors need to withdraw all their support, governments need to say no to support of races especially considering the costs to taxpayers to hold them and the limited benefit of them.

Lance Armstrong will have as his obit opening 'he was a 7-time winner of the Tour de France, but lost all those titles for what was believe his doping in all of them'. What a sad legacy.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7847 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

So have the 7 titles actually been stripped from him?

User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4796 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 16):
So have the 7 titles actually been stripped from him?

According to CNN yes,
But then again, who will get the wins? and When will they be charged with doping?

It is all just a sad sad state of affairs.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3903 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 13):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
If he actually was innocent, there is absolutely no way in hell he would give up

If he were tired of fighting and seeing his bank account depleted, sure he would - especially if there were no point in fighting just to save face. It's not like "losing" equals prison time.

"Tired" from what if this is just the first actual case? Why fold at the first actual accusation already if he was actually innocent?

So far he was the one who filed suit after suit against others.

It's just cowardly taking the backdoor out because he knows he doesn't have a chance to beat the overwhelming evidence, simply because he has been doping like all the other top cyclists (he would not have been capable of keeping up with those otherwise).


User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 15):

One has to wonder if Armstrong's cancer was triggered by his use of performance enhancing drugs (PED's).

That's the elephant in the room that people don't want to touch because proving it is impossible, but it is a matter of fact that especially in the 90's, cycling was so rotten that many medications were used that hadn't even completed clinical trials.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3873 times:

1. Armstrong managed to ride in the 2009 Tour de France and come in third. You know there's no way he would've risked doping that year and he still managed to come in third even after taking three years off from competitive cycling.

2. The USADA does not conduct trials like a federal court and is not bound by judicial law or precedent. Going before a judicial panel of a bureaucracy is like a pilot fighting to defend his license during an NTSB hearing--it's not necessarily going to be fair to the accused and there is no worthwhile appeal if you lose.

3. He should've stayed retired.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7847 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3868 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 20):
1. Armstrong managed to ride in the 2009 Tour de France and come in third. You know there's no way he would've risked doping that year and he still managed to come in third even after taking three years off from competitive cycling.

My guess is the drugs that he used are so far undetectable, so he probably felt pretty confident doping in 2009.


User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 14):
Did Marion Jones get to keep her titles, nope they were stripped, no need for Lance to get special treatment is there?

I was making an ironic statement. Of course I don't think he shuold keep his titles


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4796 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3852 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 21):
My guess is the drugs that he used are so far undetectable, so he probably felt pretty confident doping in 2009.

This pretty much can be summed up as no one is innocent, becase they are all dopers. You are basically implying everyone in every sport or job that has ever passed a drug test is covering it up.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12898 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 16):
So have the 7 titles actually been stripped from him?

No, not yet. In all probability they will be though.

Despite what the USDA says, those titles are not theirs to give or take away. That decision rests with the ICU.
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENew...sp%3FMenuId%3DMTYzMDc%26LangId%3D1

Quote:
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.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
25 racko : The USADA has blood samples from 2009 and 2010 that are consistent with drug use. The USADA is subject to the WADA code, just like all national ADAs.
26 racko : WADA has already said that the USADA has the authority to sentence Armstrong. If the UCI continues to try protecting their benefactor (Armstrong has
27 blink182 : Yep. Very true. Many of Armstrong's teammates and competitors were doping. Many of Armstrong's teammates even stated he was doping. Armstrong may hav
28 us330 : I was reading the statement, looking for the part where he says "I have never doped" or a sentence somewhere along those lines. A passage like that n
29 Flighty : Armstrong's language is legalistic and includes weasel words. He knows he was doping. He just argues the rules do not specifically rule out what he wa
30 casinterest : He was in the 1992 and 2000 olympics. he had cancer in 1996
31 Dreadnought : No evidence whatsoever. As Lance said, he provided all the test samples required, and passed. That should be the end of all discussion.
32 SW733 : Agreed Agreed Here's my thought - what does USADA have to gain by saying he is guilty of doping? Not much beyond getting their conclusions out there.
33 scbriml : Yes, as a US citizen, Armstrong falls under the USDA's jurisdiction. They can fine and ban him. I don't believe they can take away his TdF titles, on
34 Acheron : In theory, you could argue they are doing this to deter any future doper and stop them from thinking that if they perform like Armstrong, they'll get
35 Dreadnought : You neglect the possibility that he could simply be a tremendous athlete. You mention the other dopers - how were they proven to be dopers? Did they
36 Post contains images vikkyvik : Again, I'll provide the disclaimer that I don't know whether he doped, and I don't care. It's also absolutely none of our business. It's unfortunate,
37 Post contains links us330 : Deadspin points out something rather interesting: all seven of Lance Armstrong's tour de france titles would go to cyclists with doping scandals of th
38 mham001 : It was already long over. I think his point is, he no longer cares.
39 bestwestern : Like the young Chinese swimmer in the Olympics? I want to believe that Armstrong is innocent. I just don't know.
40 MD-90 : He's said it many times in the past. Frankly I don't care if he doped or not. All of his closest competitors, the only ones who could've beaten him w
41 starbuk7 : So basically he has never popped positive on a drug test yet everyone is accusing him of doping. Even with all the witness statements they say they no
42 Post contains images StarAC17 : Marion Jones was convicted of a crime and admitted it, she was busted with BALCO. She also voluntarily gave back the medals before they were stripped
43 Acheron : Or it could simple be a case of the substances being ahead of the test. Bjarne Riis, 1996 TdF winner, accused multiple times of doping but never prov
44 Aesma : Innocent until proven guilty doesn't work if you throw the towel before the court date, then you're assuming guilt. I think his reasoning is that doi
45 StarAC17 : It is the USADA that is doing this and this isn't being done in a courtroom. If this went in front of a US Grand Jury or Congress where a judge is pr
46 sbworcs : What overwhelming evidence? All I have read seems to be he said / she said and he had to be because they were etc. etc. Consistent with does not mean
47 Dreadnought : When the prosecution keeps attacking you, in spite of having no evidence, at some point the accused will break, and either shoot up the prosecutor's
48 Post contains images EA CO AS : USADA has been after him for many, many years, and this isn't the first accusation. He's been battling them in court and it has been taking a persona
49 BMI727 : No it shouldn't. A negative test isn't proof that one isn't doping, it's just a negative test.
50 Silver1SWA : So what would be considered proof? Where does it end for someone who is innocent? I'm not talking about Lance Armstrong specifically because I know k
51 Aesma : He could prove innocence by actually facing the charges, then the evidence would be brought up. In fact I hope that the evidence will still be reveale
52 Post contains links NorthStarDC4M : ... in absence of evidence to the contrary that's the best you are ever going to get. You cannot prove a negative except by the absence of something
53 Mortyman : From what I have read today, evidence will be presented sooner or later. However because there are also other individuals who are facing charges, the
54 johns624 : How about the ex-teammates?
55 Post contains images vikkyvik : While you're correct, that's the most twisted logic to bring to the table on something like this. I mean, hell, how do you know I'm not a serial kill
56 BMI727 : Frankly nothing. In this environment no athlete is above suspicion. Some should be suspected more than others, but there's no athlete that can be dec
57 Silver1SWA : So then perhaps the only option for the accused is to eventually throw in the towel and give up, ya? It just seem like such a lose-lose for Lance Arm
58 BMI727 : I don't. But there's one difference here though: unlike dopers, it isn't like serial killers are always developing new ways to kill people without be
59 racko : The IOC requires all sports that are part of the olympics to be under WADA supervision. Sometimes with positive tests (the stupid and/or poor ones),
60 Post contains links NorthStarDC4M : OK facts about the facts then: 6 of 12 them, not all 6, and chain of custody is questionable. Test was not done properly for enforcement. Test results
61 Dano1977 : I'm waiting to see if Johan Bruyneel testifies or not. If he does, then all those riders allegedly waiting to spill the beans on Armstrong will be hea
62 Dreadnought : Whatever happened to guilty until proven innocent? I would hope that Armstrong take the case to civil court and put the USADA out of business.
63 BMI727 : Like I said, reality happened. The judge already gave Lance a pretty nice smackdown.
64 Dreadnought : The judge said, “USADA’s conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is
65 vikkyvik : If by smackdown, you mean ruling that the court shouldn't intervene. Anyway, more about what the judge said: Sparks also questioned USADA's pursuit o
66 StarAC17 : From your previous posts how can someone that is so ambitions to be as rich as you possibly can be can be so cynical. I don't often agree with your p
67 BMI727 : I didn't know that out of control optimism was a prerequisite for success. I'm just pointing out the reality. In modern sports, doping is like speedi
68 Dreadnought : It doesn't mean you were speeding, either. That's why cops are supposed to catch you in the act.
69 KiwiRob : Those people would be correct, he tested positive for PED's three times in 1988, for some reason he was still allowed to compete in the 88 games and
70 StarAC17 : Exactly why they would get ripped apart in a courtroom. I never followed the case but I'm sure this is why someone like Roger Clemans was acquitted.
71 racko : The USADA is acting on international sports law. The opinion of a US court on it is irrelevant. Because back then there was no USADA and the US Olympi
72 sbworcs : Ok then by your logic ALL athletes should be considered dopers unless they can prove their innocence which is impossible because you would not accept
73 BMI727 : Nobody is above suspicion. Certainly some arouse more suspicion than others, but I don't think there's any athlete out there that you could say with
74 Post contains links scbriml : For drug testing, yes. WADA doesn't run or govern individual sports and has no direct jurisdiction over the bodies that do. From the WADA's WADC (Wor
75 Maverick623 : This IS the logic employed by the USADA. Armstrong has said he has been tested over 500 times, and during the Tour de France, they get tested every d
76 Dreadnought : It can be replaced by an all-new organization. The USADA is corrupt beyond the possibility of reform, IMHO, and like all such bureaus, should be repl
77 johns624 : I find it humorous that the people that have followed UCI racing for years know what's going on know that he doped but those that have no idea because
78 StuckInCA : My only objection to your statements is that you make it sound as if the time period of Lance's success is some sort of golden era of doping. Doping
79 Klaus : This arms race has been going on for many decades by now; The level of sophistication and the extent of the effects has just reached an unprecedented
80 Post contains links SuperCaravelle : 1. Not true. His blood values in 2009 were extremely suspicious. They were normal in the Giro in May of that year, but not in July. Armstrong also st
81 sebolino : Oh my god ! Lance Armstrong has been dopped ? What a surprise ! OK, anything new lately ?
82 Post contains images fridgmus : Totally agree Vikkyvick! I'm surprised to hear all the negative comments about Lance Armstrong. I met him once, in Dec 2008 in Tikrit, Iraq. He was p
83 Aesma : One thing would help : if you're convicted of doping, no 6 months or 2 years ban, but a ban for life.
84 sbworcs : But accorrding to the naysayers on here there is no such thing as a clean rider. Thre French alluded to it about the British durign the Olympics.
85 KiwiRob : That must have been exciting entertainment for the troops, seeing Lance ride a bike, it's not like he can do much else is it!
86 racko : And what kind of proof do you have for that, except for that they went after one of the biggest doping conspiracies of the last decades that happened
87 scbriml : Lifetime bans are easily overturned in a court of law, normally because they're viewed as unfair restraint of trade.
88 Dreadnought : The very fact that they gave a lifetime ban, after years of persecution, to someone who has yet to fail a legitimate drug test. All the evidence agai
89 fridgmus : Sorry, a little off-topic. He pretty much didn't do anything Rob! He came out, said a few words, let Robin Wiliams go off on the crowd and then went
90 2707200X : Sometimes I think when I read this, by God, these punks at the USADA just hate Lance Armstrong and are jealous of him, he has done a hell of a lot mor
91 Klaus : Nope. Multiple eyewitness accounts with first-hand knowledge.
92 EA CO AS : All from less-than-credible sources with axes to grind.
93 Post contains images Klaus : What axes would that be, exactly? The motivations for that kind of presumably false accusation seem somewhat murky, particularly in view of all the o
94 Post contains images Maverick623 : Which is not the same as hearsay. You can attack the credibility of those testifying, but for it to be hearsay, they would have to testify that while
95 tugger : Yet I am sure you realize it is not always true. Right? In fact quite often it is not true, that is why "science" developed. Because simplistic expla
96 Klaus : It says something about the relative probabilities of the proposed explanations. And the probability of the assumption that Armstrong actually didn't
97 StuckInCA : At this point in time I honestly think that trying to convince an Armstrong "believer" that Armstrong is almost certainly guilty of doping is just abo
98 Aesma : I you put it as a rule for being a professional, I don't see how it could be overturned. When you see that the biological passport and reporting wher
99 BrouAviation : Really, your arguments are so flawed (juridically) that it hurts my eyes. I Hope both of you never ever get yourself a job in the justice department
100 scbriml : Banning someone for life for a breach of sporting regulations is unfair restraint of trade and has been ruled as such in courts of law. It doesn't ma
101 racko : For the 100th time, he got caught. He is not contesting the charges, that's why there won't be an arbitration trial. There is no witch hunt, this is
102 BrouAviation : That doesn't make their arguments any more valid, it actually makes them even more pointless.
103 Klaus : Wrong. By not contesting the accusations Armstrong accepted them as valid. That is simply it.
104 Post contains links starbuk7 : Question now will be who gets the titles. It looks like all the second place finishers have already been tied to doping. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.
105 BrouAviation : That is not what I am saying. As you might have read, I was replying to the arguments of BMI727 and Acheron which are invalid, pointless, and lack ba
106 Acheron : one could argue it really wasn't a level playing field if whatever he was taking couldn't be picked up by the standard doping test of the time while
107 BMI727 : First, this isn't court and neither is the USADA so your argument is invalid and pointless. Secondly, you know I'm right. A negative test doesn't mea
108 Aesma : I don't think the wins should go to anybody. However I disagree that everyone doping levels the playing field. If you naturally have a low hematocrit,
109 StuckInCA : That's my opinion as well. It's really not reasonable to award the wins to anyone.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lance Armstrong Vindicated: Anti Doping Misconduct posted Wed May 31 2006 16:44:29 by Dougloid
Comeback For Lance Armstrong? posted Tue Sep 6 2005 15:23:13 by OYRJA
Lance Armstrong Announces Retirement. posted Mon Apr 18 2005 21:39:00 by Jetjack74
Has Lance Armstrong Deserved Too Win posted Sat Jul 24 2004 23:06:38 by SASlover
Race Fans Spit On Lance Armstrong posted Thu Jul 22 2004 01:29:41 by Galaxy5
Can/Will Lance Armstrong Win 6 TDF'S? posted Fri Jul 2 2004 11:46:30 by Imonti
Will Lance Armstrong Win Record 6th TdF? posted Sun Jun 6 2004 23:09:10 by Dl757md
A Random Statement About Your Life posted Thu Aug 6 2009 12:42:09 by CanadianNorth
Fascinating/Worrisome Statement By Dick Cheney posted Mon Feb 9 2009 08:33:59 by Blackbird
Dumbest Statement On A-net You Read posted Fri May 11 2007 18:26:51 by SJCRRPAX