USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
Bernie, we've got a real live genuine fanboy for you over on Bottom Bracket that might need educating
http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=30005&t=12859824&start=200 -
Then you had better get over too the Sky thread where most people seem to be intent on discussing car insurance claims at the moment.Rick Chasey wrote:
The odd tangent off topics is fine. It's part of a discussion.BikingBernie wrote:
Because that is what a number of the posters on here clearly want to discuss in this thread at the moment. Including, or so it seems, yourself. :roll:Rick Chasey wrote:Why are you arguing about the French in a thread about Lance & former team managers/doctors are about to get done by the USADA?
Perhaps you should issue yourself with a warning for going off-topic and lock the thread. :roll:
If the off topic tangent BECOMES the discussion, the discussion longer on topic. People come here to read and write about pro-race - not national attitudes to life, winning, and losing. There is another part of the forum for that. I'd be happy to point you there.
We've all been there, when there's that bait, that big incorrect thing that you must write to correct or argue about. I get that. Hence the post. Consider that .
In my view if people want to discuss something 'off topic' that is up to them. Plenty of other posters have contributed to 'off topic' discussions both here and on other threads, but I don't see you taking issue with any posters apart from myself. Are you going to also give them a 'a nudge to start writing back on topic'? Probably not seeing that your moderation seems to be more about enforcing your own personal 'values' than truly unbiased moderation.
I would also say that a thread has 'had its day' and needs to be locked when no one posts on it any more, not when the 'moderator' reads something they don't like...
Cheers!0 -
I see that the noble sporting hero has been banned from the IronMan in Nice
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/14/sport ... index.html
http://www.chron.com/sports/cycling/art ... 650557.php
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/06/ ... ing-probe/
He reminds me of a Prep Schoolboy when called up before the Beak:
What me Sir? Oh no Sir. Not me Sir. It was all the other boys Sir.0 -
Have a read of this opinion piece, it's interesting.
Why fans shouldn't forgive Armstrong
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/15/opini ... index.htmlGreat sports cheaters are always the last to anticipate their downfall0 -
Armstrong has previously tweeted that people should go to http://www.facts4lance.com/
What should we read into this message displayed on there ?NOTICE: This domain name expired on 05/19/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion.0 -
RichN95 wrote:It's strange, a week or so ago I suggested that French riders were more interested in getting on TV showing their 'panache' and playing up to the French crowd than they were in winning and I was called xenophobic. Cut and paste the same argument from elsewhere and it's 'philosophy' or 'social history'.
Good point, well made! You can be King of the Forum today!
PS one more page and I get to call Nwestyn a dumbowumbo for not predicting how amazingly sad we all are...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Where are we in the USADA hearing timeline now? What happens next and when?0
-
Except Rich was not making 'the same argument' previously. :roll:ddraver wrote:
Good point, well made! You can be King of the Forum today!RichN95 wrote:It's strange, a week or so ago I suggested that French riders were more interested in getting on TV showing their 'panache' and playing up to the French crowd than they were in winning and I was called xenophobic. Cut and paste the same argument from elsewhere and it's 'philosophy' or 'social history'.BikingBernie wrote:Here I am effectively arguing that for the French followers of the Tour 'winning is not everything' and, for them, it is more important for a rider win with style, or to fail gloriously whist trying to do so, than just to win at any cost.
That is a rather different proposition to your earlier argument that French riders 'just attack to get on the television' and are not actually trying to win at all, that French teams don't even deserve a place on the Tour as they only get in the race because 'they're promised a Tour place regardless of how incompetent they are', and that no one racing in France can even consider themselves even to be a 'proper racer'.0 -
skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Where are we in the USADA hearing timeline now? What happens next and when?
USADA is trying to find a clever way to not provide their "evidence" aka interviews with compulsive liars (Landis and Hamilton) to Lance Armstrong and Co.
This will die once again and then next year just before the Tour it will resurface and then die....0 -
cycling5280 wrote:skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Where are we in the USADA hearing timeline now? What happens next and when?
USADA is trying to find a clever way to not provide their "evidence" aka interviews with compulsive liars (Landis and Hamilton) to Lance Armstrong and Co.
This will die once again and then next year just before the Tour it will resurface and then die....
I take it you've seen this evidence then? And know exactly which 10 riders (all of them apparently compulsive liars) have testified?
Because the best guesses out there suggest the list may well include Hincapie, Liephiemer, Zabriskie, Vaughters....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
cycling5280 wrote:skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Where are we in the USADA hearing timeline now? What happens next and when?
USADA is trying to find a clever way to not provide their "evidence" aka interviews with compulsive liars (Landis and Hamilton) to Lance Armstrong and Co.
This will die once again and then next year just before the Tour it will resurface and then die....
I gather they're not going to use Floyd. Plenty of other people where prepared to talk. At least 10 very bitter people who make up lies obviously.
USADA were following their standard process (some of which was orginally worked out by some of Lance's management team). Lance will get the evidence when he is supposed too. Lets not get confused by the BS his lawyer is spouting.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:cycling5280 wrote:skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Where are we in the USADA hearing timeline now? What happens next and when?
USADA is trying to find a clever way to not provide their "evidence" aka interviews with compulsive liars (Landis and Hamilton) to Lance Armstrong and Co.
This will die once again and then next year just before the Tour it will resurface and then die....
I gather they're not going to use Floyd. Plenty of other people where prepared to talk. At least 10 very bitter people who make up lies obviously.
USADA were following their standard process (some of which was orginally worked out by some of Lance's management team). Lance will get the evidence when he is supposed too. Lets not get confused by the BS his lawyer is spouting.
It's all old news to me. If everything is so concrete and convincing and all these people have already testified why not just list it all out when you charged Armstrong the other week? Why the delay to Armstrong and even the media with real evidence? Right now it just doesn't make the USADA look good or even credible.0 -
You know Armstrong hasn't been charged yet, right?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
cycling5280 wrote:iainf72 wrote:cycling5280 wrote:skavanagh.bikeradar wrote:Where are we in the USADA hearing timeline now? What happens next and when?
USADA is trying to find a clever way to not provide their "evidence" aka interviews with compulsive liars (Landis and Hamilton) to Lance Armstrong and Co.
This will die once again and then next year just before the Tour it will resurface and then die....
I gather they're not going to use Floyd. Plenty of other people where prepared to talk. At least 10 very bitter people who make up lies obviously.
USADA were following their standard process (some of which was orginally worked out by some of Lance's management team). Lance will get the evidence when he is supposed too. Lets not get confused by the BS his lawyer is spouting.
It's all old news to me. If everything is so concrete and convincing and all these people have already testified why not just list it all out when you charged Armstrong the other week? Why the delay to Armstrong and even the media with real evidence? Right now it just doesn't make the USADA look good or even credible.
As Iain said, it's standard process.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
iainf72 wrote:You know Armstrong hasn't been charged yet, right?
I believe he has.
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has filed formal doping charges against. I believe that's why he can't participate in any of his triathlons?0 -
and you'd be wrong.
No one has been charged. The USADA informed people they were opening an action and gave them a chance to respond. Their responses, along with the USADA case will go to the review board who will decide whether to formally charge them.
So according to the process, they get to find out after that happens what the evidence is and who the witnesses are. There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
The triathlon thing is about being investigated. In cycling, he'd still be able to compete but the WTC have different rules.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:You know Armstrong hasn't been charged yet, right?
Well I'm sitting here with a 15-page PDF file, the first sentence of which is:
Dear Mr. Bruyneel, Dr. Celaya, Dr. del Moral, Dr. Ferrari, Mr. Marti and Mr. Armstrong
This letter is to notify each of you (collectively referred to as the "Respondents") that the United States Anti-Doping Agency ("USADA") is hereby opening a formal action against each of you based on evidence that, as described below, you engaged in anti-doping rule violations.......
There's a link to the full text on this page:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/06/ ... era_2239250 -
iainf72 wrote:and you'd be wrong.
No one has been charged. The USADA informed people they were opening an action and gave them a chance to respond. Their responses, along with the USADA case will go to the review board who will decide whether to formally charge them.
So according to the process, they get to find out after that happens what the evidence is and who the witnesses are. They is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
The triathlon thing is about being investigated. In cycling, he'd still be able to compete but the WTC have different rules.
Now I know. Thanks for the clarification. Will the public have access to all the evidence?0 -
That's right.
But they've not been charged. That comes later.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
I thought that too, having now read many books and web links about him. Extremely wealthy, extremely litigious, throws lawyers and millions of dollars at anyone who dares to - well - disagree with him, basically. This includes former colleagues, team members, mechanics, friends...........
A more unpleasant person I have yet to read or hear about, in any sport on earth.0 -
Lichtblick wrote:iainf72 wrote:There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
I thought that too, having now read many books and web links about him. Extremely wealthy, extremely litigious, throws lawyers and millions of dollars at anyone who dares to - well - disagree with him, basically. This includes former colleagues, team members, mechanics, friends...........
A more unpleasant person I have yet to read or hear about, in any sport on earth.
Lance should have the right to know who is testifying against him so that he can provide his best response or defense before it goes to the review board. If you were in Lance's position being notified of doping allegations I think you would like to know. I would.0 -
Do any of you remember the 2009 TdF. Time trial stage 18 in Annecy.
Contador (Astana) was leading and therefore went off last. He had most of the day at the hotel before he had to get to the start.
What he didn't know was that Bruyneel/Amstrong had taken all the Astana cars, deliberately. The only way that Contador got to the start on time was his brother driving him there. Had he been late, every second would have been knocked off his Time Trial time.
I am not making this up: it'll all be on the internet somewhere.
It is the most spiteful, and deliberate act of spite, from a so-called fellow team member that I have ever heard of. And Armstrong had the nerve to tell Contador "There's no "i" in "team".
Armstrong? Team? The only team he knows about are docile workhorses, and all for him.0 -
cycling5280 wrote:Lichtblick wrote:iainf72 wrote:There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
I thought that too, having now read many books and web links about him. Extremely wealthy, extremely litigious, throws lawyers and millions of dollars at anyone who dares to - well - disagree with him, basically. This includes former colleagues, team members, mechanics, friends...........
A more unpleasant person I have yet to read or hear about, in any sport on earth.
Lance should have the right to know who is testifying against him so that he can provide his best response or defense before it goes to the review board. If you were in Lance's position being notified of doping allegations I think you would like to know. I would.
Why, what good would it do?
Either he is innocent, and they are making it up, so knowing who they are is unlikely to be any help, as you wouldn't know what they would have been telling the investigation.
Or, those testifying against him are telling the truth, in which case, he probably knows what sort of stuff he is going to be against.
Of course if I was in his position I would like to know who was testifying against me, but that doesn't mean I would have any right to.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
-
This whole "who are the witnesses" lark is nonsense. He knows who they are. FFS, I can probably figure out who they are.
When they've been charged, they find out what the evidence is and who the witnesses are. It's like that whole USADA director earns x thing the Armstrong camp tried....If he got paid $1bn a year, would that somehow change the evidence.
As the LA Times pointed out, Armstrong could've submitted an affidavit saying he'd never doped. Simple, clear and legally valid. He didn'tFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Lichtblick wrote:"There's no "i" in "team".
There's "me" in "team"0 -
lichtblick- A few items:
1) Armstrong has not been "banned" the WTC has a rule about not allowing people "under investigation" to compete.
2) Nice job running from my last response to you...oh, wait I forgot you are following the CN Clinic playbook. So which poster are you over at the asylum?0 -
cycling5280 wrote:Lichtblick wrote:iainf72 wrote:There is extra sensitively around the witnesses here as Armstrong has form for witness intimidation
I thought that too, having now read many books and web links about him. Extremely wealthy, extremely litigious, throws lawyers and millions of dollars at anyone who dares to - well - disagree with him, basically. This includes former colleagues, team members, mechanics, friends...........
A more unpleasant person I have yet to read or hear about, in any sport on earth.
Lance should have the right to know who is testifying against him so that he can provide his best response or defense before it goes to the review board. If you were in Lance's position being notified of doping allegations I think you would like to know. I would.
Why ? All he really needs to know is what evidence they are going to give. Who is saying it has no relevance whatsoever0
