USADA files doping charges against Lance

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Armstrong's response on Twitter.

So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...

...in exchange for immunity, anonymity, and the opportunity to continue to race the biggest event in cycling..

This isn't about @usantidoping wanting to clean up cycling - rather it's just plain ol' selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta.

Do we think he wrote that response last night before the leak?

So they're all lying... Whatt's their motivation for that?

And what's USADA's motive for doing Lance?

Where did he say anyone was lying? He was pointing out how they are, allegedly, cutting multiple deals in order to go after one person. The big name bust gets more funding and PR for USADA and certain individuals. They ignored many easy to nail small fish in order to get Landis.

In that case is he admitting guilt?

Rundfahrt · July 2012

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Armstrong's response on Twitter.

So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...

...in exchange for immunity, anonymity, and the opportunity to continue to race the biggest event in cycling..

This isn't about @usantidoping wanting to clean up cycling - rather it's just plain ol' selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta.

Do we think he wrote that response last night before the leak?

So they're all lying... Whatt's their motivation for that?

And what's USADA's motive for doing Lance?

Where did he say anyone was lying? He was pointing out how they are, allegedly, cutting multiple deals in order to go after one person. The big name bust gets more funding and PR for USADA and certain individuals. They ignored many easy to nail small fish in order to get Landis.

In that case is he admitting guilt?

Where do you get that from? His comment was exactly what I pointed out in the second sentence of my quoted post.

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Armstrong's response on Twitter.

So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...

...in exchange for immunity, anonymity, and the opportunity to continue to race the biggest event in cycling..

This isn't about @usantidoping wanting to clean up cycling - rather it's just plain ol' selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta.

Do we think he wrote that response last night before the leak?

So they're all lying... Whatt's their motivation for that?

And what's USADA's motive for doing Lance?

Where did he say anyone was lying? He was pointing out how they are, allegedly, cutting multiple deals in order to go after one person. The big name bust gets more funding and PR for USADA and certain individuals. They ignored many easy to nail small fish in order to get Landis.

In that case is he admitting guilt?

Where do you get that from? His comment was exactly what I pointed out in the second sentence of my quoted post.

But if you claim he wasn't accusing anyone of lying does that infer they are telling the truth?

iainf72 · July 2012

Dave_1 wrote:

There are 5 people who should leave the TDF by tomorrow morning. They did it , they should be banned or nobody should be. George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie and Vaughters should go away tomorrow

So they should leave the Tour de France because Johan Bruyneel made something up and had it published in a newspaper he writes a column for?

They should leave the Tour based on something USADA have denied?

They should leave the Tour based on something happening within the WADA code?

Rundfahrt · July 2012

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Armstrong's response on Twitter.

So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...

...in exchange for immunity, anonymity, and the opportunity to continue to race the biggest event in cycling..

This isn't about @usantidoping wanting to clean up cycling - rather it's just plain ol' selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta.

Do we think he wrote that response last night before the leak?

So they're all lying... Whatt's their motivation for that?

And what's USADA's motive for doing Lance?

Where did he say anyone was lying? He was pointing out how they are, allegedly, cutting multiple deals in order to go after one person. The big name bust gets more funding and PR for USADA and certain individuals. They ignored many easy to nail small fish in order to get Landis.

In that case is he admitting guilt?

Where do you get that from? His comment was exactly what I pointed out in the second sentence of my quoted post.

But if you claim he wasn't accusing anyone of lying does that infer they are telling the truth?

I was tempted to comment on the "intelligence" involved in your response but then saw that you just joined today. Taking both items into account I am betting you belong to another forum where they regularly join forums to simply stir up trouble in discussion about Armstrong. It's pretty sad what those that are obsessed and at one extreme or the other will do to get their rocks off.

iainf72 · July 2012

Ok, I take it back. Story not from Bruyneel the paper says.

More : Source was in the US but the journos won't disclose who it was. And the story was given to 3 papers at the same time (Gazetta and el Pais were other 2)

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Armstrong's response on Twitter.

So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...

...in exchange for immunity, anonymity, and the opportunity to continue to race the biggest event in cycling..

This isn't about @usantidoping wanting to clean up cycling - rather it's just plain ol' selective prosecution that reeks of vendetta.

Do we think he wrote that response last night before the leak?

So they're all lying... Whatt's their motivation for that?

And what's USADA's motive for doing Lance?

Where did he say anyone was lying? He was pointing out how they are, allegedly, cutting multiple deals in order to go after one person. The big name bust gets more funding and PR for USADA and certain individuals. They ignored many easy to nail small fish in order to get Landis.

In that case is he admitting guilt?

Where do you get that from? His comment was exactly what I pointed out in the second sentence of my quoted post.

But if you claim he wasn't accusing anyone of lying does that infer they are telling the truth?

I was tempted to comment on the "intelligence" involved in your response but then saw that you just joined today. Taking both items into account I am betting you belong to another forum where they regularly join forums to simply stir up trouble in discussion about Armstrong. It's pretty sad what those that are obsessed and at one extreme or the other will do to get their rocks off.

Well thank you very much for the warm welcome and for the insult about my intelligence. This is the first cycling forum I have become a member of and I didn't sign up with the intention of stirring up trouble. I have watched the TDF for over ten years and taken a keener interest in other professional races in the past five watching whenever I can. I was actually looking for somewhere to discuss the TDF and after looking at a few forums since the start of this years tour , I'd decided this looked a nice place to join, maybe I was wrong. This story happened to break this morning when I joined. I follow Armstrong on twitter and posted in this thread his twitter response to the story. I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

frenchfighter · July 2012

TMR · July 2012

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

blazing_saddles · July 2012

cycling5280 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

There are 5 people who should leave the TDF by tomorrow morning. They did it , they should be banned or nobody should be. George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie and Vaughters should go away tomorrow

Not sure why the USADA hasn't presented their findings/facts to the UCI by now? I agree if there is any truth to the allegations against these riders in the Tour they should not be racing tomorrow.

Errrrr, there aren't any allegations against these riders.
Follow the words of Guru Iain.

skavanagh.bikeradar · July 2012

I know this is boring for a forum, but a this point we need to wait and be patient. Suffice to say the leak - whoever it came from - was designed to disrupt and obfuscate. It was not a calculated attempt at assisting in the investigation or the public's understanding of the issues. It worked.

I could be wrong. I often am. Daily. Hourly. Okay, okay minute by minute.

Rundfahrt · July 2012

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

Exactly. When you try to twist everything into saying something that has not been said, then it's easy to be seen as a troll.

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

Exactly. When you try to twist everything into saying something that has not been said, then it's easy to be seen as a troll.

I asked a couple of questions. If that makes me a troll then I'm not sure what to say.

rick_chasey · July 2012

The journo who got the news for the telegraaf is on the avondetappe right now.

A Belgian cyclist died last night too. Missed his name but he'd just been on the Blemish equivalent prog

ratsbeyfus · July 2012

Rick Chasey wrote:

The journo who got the news for the telegraaf is on the avondetappe right now.

A Belgian cyclist died last night too. Missed his name but he'd just been on the Blemish equivalent prog

Rob Goris - story here:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/accent-jobs-goris-dies-of-heart-attack-at-age-30

Rundfahrt · July 2012

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

Exactly. When you try to twist everything into saying something that has not been said, then it's easy to be seen as a troll.

I asked a couple of questions. If that makes me a troll then I'm not sure what to say.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

All I did was ask a question! (let's see if you grasp the point, miss it or get angry)

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

Exactly. When you try to twist everything into saying something that has not been said, then it's easy to be seen as a troll.

I asked a couple of questions. If that makes me a troll then I'm not sure what to say.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

All I did was ask a question! (let's see if you grasp the point, miss it or get angry)

I fail to see why you have to be such an arse about it. If you have a problem with anything I have said instead of attacking me and accusing me as you have why not be adult about it and simply question me about it? I'm a reasonable person and would have put you right about you incorrect assertion that I am here to cause trouble. Unfortunately you didn't give me that oppurtunity.

sherer · July 2012

so basically we can assume this was a leaked story from the LA camp to try to find out who has testified against him.

As others have said we still need to wait for something a bit more contrete

cycling5280 · July 2012

Blazing Saddles wrote:

cycling5280 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

There are 5 people who should leave the TDF by tomorrow morning. They did it , they should be banned or nobody should be. George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie and Vaughters should go away tomorrow

Not sure why the USADA hasn't presented their findings/facts to the UCI by now? I agree if there is any truth to the allegations against these riders in the Tour they should not be racing tomorrow.

Errrrr, there aren't any allegations against these riders.
Follow the words of Guru Iain.

Of course there are allegations against these riders. It is out there in the media alleging that they witnessed LA doping and on top of that doped themselves during the LA era. If it's true that USADA will shortened their own doping suspensions in return for testifying against Lance then they should be out of the Tour.

Rundfahrt · July 2012

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

Exactly. When you try to twist everything into saying something that has not been said, then it's easy to be seen as a troll.

I asked a couple of questions. If that makes me a troll then I'm not sure what to say.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

All I did was ask a question! (let's see if you grasp the point, miss it or get angry)

I fail to see why you have to be such an ars* about it. If you have a problem with anything I have said instead of attacking me and accusing me as you have why not be adult about it and simply question me about it? I'm a reasonable person and would have put you right about you incorrect assertion that I am here to cause trouble. Unfortunately you didn't give me that oppurtunity.

I see you missed the point. Not surprised.
I am terribly sorry, I should have known your twisting of words to keep trying to turn them into something they weren't was merely innocent questions intended to start an intelligent dialogue. :roll: Please forgive me.

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I apologise if you don't like that I have an opinion.

It's not the fact you have an opinion that's the issue. Oh, and as long as you haven't joined just to wind people up and troll, then welcome

Exactly. When you try to twist everything into saying something that has not been said, then it's easy to be seen as a troll.

I asked a couple of questions. If that makes me a troll then I'm not sure what to say.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

All I did was ask a question! (let's see if you grasp the point, miss it or get angry)

I fail to see why you have to be such an ars* about it. If you have a problem with anything I have said instead of attacking me and accusing me as you have why not be adult about it and simply question me about it? I'm a reasonable person and would have put you right about you incorrect assertion that I am here to cause trouble. Unfortunately you didn't give me that oppurtunity.

I see you missed the point. Not surprised.
I am terribly sorry, I should have known your twisting of words to keep trying to turn them into something they weren't was merely innocent questions intended to start an intelligent dialogue. :roll: Please forgive me.

I understood your point perfectly. However, I have no wish to enter into a conversation with someone who is responding in the way you are. You know nothing about me, have not bothered to ask any questions to find out, yet have formed this opinion of me based on a few posts I made on an internet forum. I was asking the question because it appeared to me that Armstromg was only questioning why USADA had agreed to a small ban for these four in return for evidence against him even though they had admitted their guilt to the same offence they had accused him of. It suprised me that he didn't comment on the fact that they had testified against him. I would have thought he would have said that they were incorrect to testify that he had doped. That was it. I don't claim to be an expert on this matter, far from it. It would have been nice if you had bothered to ask a few questions before jumping down my throat.

Rundfahrt · July 2012

Perhaps you should have not tried to twist words into something they were not.

Perhaps you should stop trying to play the roll of innocent victim.

Perhaps, if I am so awful and so horribly mean to you, you should just move on.

Your choice, but I am thinking its a solid bet that you will have to have another response.

Jez mon · July 2012

sherer wrote:

so basically we can assume this was a leaked story from the LA camp to try to find out who has testified against him.

As others have said we still need to wait for something a bit more contrete

I think it has been put out by the LA camp, but more as part of a PR campaign. This whole 6 month ban thing fits right into the witch-hunt narrative. He probably knows who has testified against him, or at least, would have a fairly good short list of people.

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Rundfahrt wrote:

Perhaps you should have not tried to twist words into something they were not.

Perhaps you should stop trying to play the roll of innocent victim.

Perhaps, if I am so awful and so horribly mean to you, you should just move on.

Your choice, but I am thinking its a solid bet that you will have to have another response.

I'm not going to be bullied by some tit on the interwebz into not posting. So you can stick that up your arse and fuck off while your doing it. You wan to continue being a wanker then that's up to you. So your turn, have you got the balls to move on and leave it big man?

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Jez mon wrote:

sherer wrote:

so basically we can assume this was a leaked story from the LA camp to try to find out who has testified against him.

As others have said we still need to wait for something a bit more contrete

I think it has been put out by the LA camp, but more as part of a PR campaign. This whole 6 month ban thing fits right into the witch-hunt narrative. He probably knows who has testified against him, or at least, would have a fairly good short list of people.

But why would he have a short list? Did these people not like him? What would be the reason for having anyone on a short list? How reliable is this leak?

Anonymous · July 2012

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Jez mon · July 2012

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

sherer wrote:

so basically we can assume this was a leaked story from the LA camp to try to find out who has testified against him.

As others have said we still need to wait for something a bit more contrete

I think it has been put out by the LA camp, but more as part of a PR campaign. This whole 6 month ban thing fits right into the witch-hunt narrative. He probably knows who has testified against him, or at least, would have a fairly good short list of people.

But why would he have a short list? Did these people not like him? What would be the reason for having anyone on a short list? How reliable is this leak?

From what he's said in the media, he wants to know who testified against him, but USADA won't tell him. Assuming he's guilty, he would know which member's of his team knew detailed info on his doping regime, et voila, he's got a shortlist.

Whether or not the leak is reliable or not is immaterial (IMO) the Lance camp is just throwing **** around in the media and seeing what sticks.

slim_boy_fat · July 2012

Jez mon wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

sherer wrote:

so basically we can assume this was a leaked story from the LA camp to try to find out who has testified against him.

As others have said we still need to wait for something a bit more contrete

I think it has been put out by the LA camp, but more as part of a PR campaign. This whole 6 month ban thing fits right into the witch-hunt narrative. He probably knows who has testified against him, or at least, would have a fairly good short list of people.

But why would he have a short list? Did these people not like him? What would be the reason for having anyone on a short list? How reliable is this leak?

From what he's said in the media, he wants to know who testified against him, but USADA won't tell him. Assuming he's guilty, he would know which member's of his team knew detailed info on his doping regime, et voila, he's got a shortlist.

Whether or not the leak is reliable or not is immaterial (IMO) the Lance camp is just throwing **** around in the media and seeing what sticks.

Just seems a bit dumb of him to go down this route. Surely other people are now thinking, like you, that's he's fishing for names of those who testified against him because he knows they know. Unless he literally is just fishing and suspects people, if he is innocent that's all it could be. That's why I asked is their bad blood between him and the four. I wasn't aware of any but then don't know a huge amount about riders relationships.

LangerDan · July 2012

Rick Chasey wrote:

A Belgian cyclist died last night too. Missed his name but he'd just been on the Blemish equivalent prog

Rob Goris

Rundfahrt · July 2012

Jez mon wrote:

sherer wrote:

so basically we can assume this was a leaked story from the LA camp to try to find out who has testified against him.

As others have said we still need to wait for something a bit more contrete

I think it has been put out by the LA camp, but more as part of a PR campaign. This whole 6 month ban thing fits right into the witch-hunt narrative. He probably knows who has testified against him, or at least, would have a fairly good short list of people.

It fits perfectly. It's pretty hard to look at this and not wonder why, if they are trying to clean up the sport, they are focusing so much on one retired rider while cutting easy deals with current riders.

USADA files doping charges against Lance

Comments

Categories