USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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.Jez mon wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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?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.
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.
He is not fishing, if this was his camp. It's all about influencing the public and the media to look at it as a witchhunt. That's why he never said anything about the riders in his tweets. The focus isn't on individuals it's on the actions being taken.
Have you got a clue now, or will it be another, profanity laced tirade in order to have a desperately needed last word?
0 -
He did have something to say. A later tweet.Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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.Jez mon wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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?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.
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.
He is not fishing, if this was his camp. It's all about influencing the public and the media to look at it as a witchhunt. That's why he never said anything about the riders in his tweets. The focus isn't on individuals it's on the actions being taken.
Have you got a clue now, or will it be another, profanity laced tirade in order to have a desperately needed last word?Let me be clear: the riders in question are also victims of @usantidoping's unfair process and antics. #unconstitutional
So I'm not sure what he is saying about their testimony. Is he saying they lied, were coerced to lie, threatened with something if they didn't lie. How else could they be victims?
Edit: and can you leave the last word bit out. Each time you mention it your having it yourself
0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote: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.
As far as I can see it, he has three options:
1) Confess
2) PR campaign
3) Stay schtum, and concentrate on the possible upcoming charges
Number one seems unlikely, and number three only works if he is wins v USADA. If he gets convicted as a cheat, then it becomes too late to start a PR campaign.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Until you remember LA is merely one of five people here being up for doping violations. People who are still involved in the sport.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Exactly, he's just the most high profile and gets all the attention understandably. And when it comes down to it, does it really matter who gets the heat? Whatever they do people who doped are going to get away scott free. Is it not more important that as much as possible of the truths outs so the sport can rebuild itself?Jez mon wrote:Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Until you remember LA is merely one of five people here being up for doping violations. People who are still involved in the sport.0 -
Jez mon wrote:Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Until you remember LA is merely one of five people here being up for doping violations. People who are still involved in the sport.
1) Yet the ADA's of those other people's countries appear to be doing nothing.
2) Yet the USADA itself has made sure to put the focus on Armstrong and not on the others. Even, allegedly, cutting deals with current riders to testify against him.0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
He did have something to say. A later tweet.Rundfahrt wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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.Jez mon wrote:Slim Boy Fat wrote:
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?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.
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.
He is not fishing, if this was his camp. It's all about influencing the public and the media to look at it as a witchhunt. That's why he never said anything about the riders in his tweets. The focus isn't on individuals it's on the actions being taken.
Have you got a clue now, or will it be another, profanity laced tirade in order to have a desperately needed last word?Let me be clear: the riders in question are also victims of @usantidoping's unfair process and antics. #unconstitutional
So I'm not sure what he is saying about their testimony. Is he saying they lied, were coerced to lie, threatened with something if they didn't lie. How else could they be victims?
Edit: and can you leave the last word bit out. Each time you mention it your having it yourself
1) I responded to a different discussion, not your angry, anonymous Internet tough guy tirade that you had to have to ge in the last word.
2) You still have no clue what his tweets meant?!?!?!
Good God, man. :shock:0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Jez mon wrote:Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Until you remember LA is merely one of five people here being up for doping violations. People who are still involved in the sport.
1) Yet the ADA's of those other people's countries appear to be doing nothing.
2) Yet the USADA itself has made sure to put the focus on Armstrong and not on the others. Even, allegedly, cutting deals with current riders to testify against him.
1) And? The investigation hasn't got anywhere near concluding yet. Presumably they will make appropriate sanctions when it does and perhaps even carry out their own investigations.
2) Have they? Or does the media just ignore the four others. As far as the testifying against him part, the riders would also be testifying against the other four (I should imagine.)You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Rundfahrt 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.
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.
It's like when Virgin Atlantic got let off price fixing with BA because they reported it.
If you don't give immunity / reduced penalties to those who talk, no-one will ever talk. Omerta, right?0 -
Jez mon wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Jez mon wrote:Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Until you remember LA is merely one of five people here being up for doping violations. People who are still involved in the sport.
1) Yet the ADA's of those other people's countries appear to be doing nothing.
2) Yet the USADA itself has made sure to put the focus on Armstrong and not on the others. Even, allegedly, cutting deals with current riders to testify against him.
1) And? The investigation hasn't got anywhere near concluding yet. Presumably they will make appropriate sanctions when it does and perhaps even carry out their own investigations.
2) Have they? Or does the media just ignore the four others. As far as the testifying against him part, the riders would also be testifying against the other four (I should imagine.)
1) Have any of them even looked into it? One would think they would look into it since that is what they have done in other cases.
2) Fine, show me articles where the focus is not 100% on Armstrong. Where the leaks have been talking about info on the others. I have followed this for a while and have seen very little of it focused on anyone else. The info the USADA wanted to use was from the grand jury examinations in the federal case which was all about Armstrong...unless they have secretly brought people in.
As I have said earlier this is all about getting the biggest fish possible, even if it means ignoring clear cut cases. Just like what they did when they went after Landis. The USADA wants funding and recognition first and clean sport second. That's been proven over and over. Hell, the way the appeal process is set up insures they win every time.0 -
RoadPainter wrote:Rundfahrt 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.
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.
It's like when Virgin Atlantic got let off price fixing with BA because they reported it.
If you don't give immunity / reduced penalties to those who talk, no-one will ever talk. Omerta, right?
Interesting how many brand new posters are chiming in today.
I understand why to give immunity, but what actually backs up their insistence on trying to clean up cycling? Focusing on letting current riders off easy in order to get a retired guy or going hard after current athletes, managers/DS and team doctors?0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:RoadPainter wrote:Rundfahrt 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.
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.
It's like when Virgin Atlantic got let off price fixing with BA because they reported it.
If you don't give immunity / reduced penalties to those who talk, no-one will ever talk. Omerta, right?
Interesting how many brand new posters are chiming in today.
I understand why to give immunity, but what actually backs up their insistence on trying to clean up cycling? Focusing on letting current riders off easy in order to get a retired guy or going hard after current athletes, managers/DS and team doctors?
Surely (if true) it's just showing leniency to those who finally confess? I would argue that going after the team managers, DSs and doctors is more valuable than getting one rider.
You can ban riders all you want, but if you don't stop those that run the programs, the next riders will still do it.
Your point about it all being about Armstrong is incorrect. In the media it's all about Armstrong. The media and USADA are not the same person.
I think getting Armstrong will send a clear strong message to all riders of "even if you get away with it now, you'll be got later". But getting Ferrari, Bruyneel etc is where the big win is. Destroy the doping structures that have resisted change in the sport.
BTW I'm not a new poster, just a new username (couldn't change my display name and didn't like old one - FlipFlopper). I like the way you attack the posters not what they're saying, discrediting by association - a little bit of Armstrong right there!0 -
so how come Bernie is banned but Rundfhart gets away with such obnoxious ad hominem attacks?0
-
RoadPainter wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:RoadPainter wrote:Rundfahrt 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.
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.
It's like when Virgin Atlantic got let off price fixing with BA because they reported it.
If you don't give immunity / reduced penalties to those who talk, no-one will ever talk. Omerta, right?
Interesting how many brand new posters are chiming in today.
I understand why to give immunity, but what actually backs up their insistence on trying to clean up cycling? Focusing on letting current riders off easy in order to get a retired guy or going hard after current athletes, managers/DS and team doctors?
Surely (if true) it's just showing leniency to those who finally confess? I would argue that going after the team managers, DSs and doctors is more valuable than getting one rider.
You can ban riders all you want, but if you don't stop those that run the programs, the next riders will still do it.
Yet they are going after one retired rider hardest.
Your point about it all being about Armstrong is incorrect. In the media it's all about Armstrong. The media and USADA are not the same person.
I love when people make assumptions or simply make things up. Nothing the USADA has actually done or is alleged to have done has been anything less then Armstrong being the main focus. Stick to the info that is out there.
I think getting Armstrong will send a clear strong message to all riders of "even if you get away with it now, you'll be got later". But getting Ferrari, Bruyneel etc is where the big win is. Destroy the doping structures that have resisted change in the sport.
Wouldn't a stronger message be one that says you won't get away with doping during your career, rather then after? Has it made any difference in the life of Riis? Still has his Tour title, has his team, can get the best riders. Your preferred strategy didn't work in that case.
Getting the doctors and management is the real key, as I said earlier, but the USADA prefers to go after the big fish. If the real focus were the doctors and management they would be working with their home ADA's to get them.
BTW I'm not a new poster, just a new username (couldn't change my display name and didn't like old one - FlipFlopper). I like the way you attack the posters not what they're saying, discrediting by association - a little bit of Armstrong right there!
I go after whatever should be gone after, if you feel the need to whinge about, so be it, but you are simply trying to attack me...very cyclingnews Clinic gang tactics!0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:RoadPainter wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:RoadPainter wrote:Rundfahrt 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.
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.
It's like when Virgin Atlantic got let off price fixing with BA because they reported it.
If you don't give immunity / reduced penalties to those who talk, no-one will ever talk. Omerta, right?
Interesting how many brand new posters are chiming in today.
I understand why to give immunity, but what actually backs up their insistence on trying to clean up cycling? Focusing on letting current riders off easy in order to get a retired guy or going hard after current athletes, managers/DS and team doctors?
Surely (if true) it's just showing leniency to those who finally confess? I would argue that going after the team managers, DSs and doctors is more valuable than getting one rider.
You can ban riders all you want, but if you don't stop those that run the programs, the next riders will still do it.
Yet they are going after one retired rider hardest.
Your point about it all being about Armstrong is incorrect. In the media it's all about Armstrong. The media and USADA are not the same person.
I love when people make assumptions or simply make things up. Nothing the USADA has actually done or is alleged to have done has been anything less then Armstrong being the main focus. Stick to the info that is out there.
I think getting Armstrong will send a clear strong message to all riders of "even if you get away with it now, you'll be got later". But getting Ferrari, Bruyneel etc is where the big win is. Destroy the doping structures that have resisted change in the sport.
Wouldn't a stronger message be one that says you won't get away with doping during your career, rather then after? Has it made any difference in the life of Riis? Still has his Tour title, has his team, can get the best riders. Your preferred strategy didn't work in that case.
Getting the doctors and management is the real key, as I said earlier, but the USADA prefers to go after the big fish. If the real focus were the doctors and management they would be working with their home ADA's to get them.
BTW I'm not a new poster, just a new username (couldn't change my display name and didn't like old one - FlipFlopper). I like the way you attack the posters not what they're saying, discrediting by association - a little bit of Armstrong right there!
I go after whatever should be gone after, if you feel the need to whinge about, so be it, but you are simply trying to attack me...very cyclingnews Clinic gang tactics!
I'm glad we agree that going after the doctors etc is the best way to fight doping.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought USADA were going after Armstrong, Bruyneel, Celaya, del Moral, Ferrari, Marti. Oh look, I've named Armstrong first - it must all be about him!
What's the benefit of sharing with other ADAs now? Given not all ADAs are actually that AD, sharing evidence now could have an adverse impact. Surely they're duty-bound to enforce whatever penalties USADA apply.
One thing I don't understand: Would you let Armstrong off? If not, why do you seem to have such a problem with him being investigated?0 -
I think/thought they had made it fairly clear why Lance (amongst others) was in their sights?
He isn't being viewed a a cyclist who doped (though this is now without doubt). He is being viewed as part of the actual doping problem, someone who organised, orchestrated, managed, supplied.
Most on here may get more excited that he was a doper than a dealer but in truth, the dealing/organising side of things is by far the bigger crime.
Nailing him as a doper is potentially just a by-product of what that are actually after him and his accomplices for.
However, he must feel pretty aggreived that there are several individuals being investigated - yet the world only has eyes for Lance.0 -
Armstrong's apparent response on Twitter. ( quoted from a few pages ago)So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...Rundfahrt wrote:Where did he say anyone was lying? ...
See the bit about saying what usda wanted to hear? That is an accusation they are lying. Armstrong is saying they are not telling the truth.
what do you think that sentence means?--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Tell us what happened to you on CN Rundy, You have a real problem with them dontcha? Maybe talking about it will help let all the bad blood (fully intended) out and help you recover some credibility and happiness.
You are a new poster yourself compared to most of us, Stop being such an arse to the other newbies!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:Tell us what happened to you on CN Rundy, You have a real problem with them dontcha? Maybe talking about it will help let all the bad blood (fully intended) out and help you recover some credibility and happiness.
You are a new poster yourself compared to most of us, Stop being such an ars* to the other newbies![/quote]
+10 -
So, where did this 6 months thing come from? Well, it looks like someone has been reading the WADA code and extrapolated. And in a way, if you take the seriousness of the conspiracy charges into account, this would probably apply.
10.5.3 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or
Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations
An Anti-Doping Organization with results
management responsibility for an anti-doping
rule violation may, prior to a final appellate
decision under Article 13 or the expiration of
the time to appeal, suspend a part of the
period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual
case where the Athlete or other Person has
provided Substantial Assistance to an AntiDoping O
rganization, criminal authority or
professional disciplinary body which results in
the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or
establishing an anti-doping rule violation by
another Person or which results in a criminal
or disciplinary body discovering or establishing
a criminal offense or the breach of
professional rules by another Person. After a
final appellate decision under Article 13 or the
expiration of time to appeal, an Anti-Doping
Organization may only suspend a part of the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
with the approval of WADA and the applicable
International Federation. The extent to which
the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be suspended shall be based on the
seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation
committed by the Athlete or other Person
and the significance of the Substantial
Assistance provided by the Athlete or other
Person to the effort to eliminate doping in
sport. No more than three-quarters of the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be suspended. If the otherwise
applicable period of Ineligibility is a lifetime,
the non-suspended period under this section
must be no less than eight (8) years. If the
Anti-Doping Organization suspends any part
of the otherwise applicable period of
Ineligibility under this Article, the AntiDoping
Organization shall promptly provide a
written justification for its decision to each
Anti-Doping Organization having a right to
appeal the decision. If the Anti-Doping
Organization subsequently reinstates any part of
the suspended period of Ineligibility because the
Athlete or other Person has failed to provide the
Substantial Assistance which was anticipated,
the Athlete or other Person may appeal the
reinstatement pursuant to Article 13.2.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Was just about to post something similar after I had calmed down and had a chance to think about it. (apologies to everyone else for lowering the tone, sometimes you have to stick up for yourself). That reads to me as a direct accusation of lying, what else could it be?andrewjoseph wrote:Armstrong's apparent response on Twitter. ( quoted from a few pages ago)So let me get this straight...come in and tell @usantidoping exactly what they wanted to hear...Rundfahrt wrote:Where did he say anyone was lying? ...
See the bit about saying what usda wanted to hear? That is an accusation they are lying. Armstrong is saying they are not telling the truth.
what do you think that sentence means?0 -
ddraver wrote:Tell us what happened to you on CN Rundy, You have a real problem with them dontcha? Maybe talking about it will help let all the bad blood (fully intended) out and help you recover some credibility and happiness.
You are a new poster yourself compared to most of us, Stop being such an ars* to the other newbies!
+1Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
rundfarht go back and read the original letter from USADA to those accused - it names armstrong among others, it does not single out armstrong in any way shape or form. The place you would have heard that armstrong is being singled out is in press releases from the armstrong camp and the general media, who without armstrong's name being involved wouldnt even sniff at the story.
And this isn't even just about 7 tour wins, some of the charges relate to as late as 2008.
The fact that the last few pages have been going on about 6 months bans and armstrong being picked on just shows how effective the spin from certain quarters is, there are no 6 month ban deals, there is no investigation solely chasing a retired rider, it's all come from sources trying to discredit the USADA, which sounds to me as though someone's panicking with their back against the wall.
And of course the list of witnesses is private everyone else who has ever spoken out against LA or ferrari has been bullied, harrassed or driven out of the industry and thier jobs.dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
I think that you're mainly correct!skavanagh.bikeradar wrote: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.
However would you bet against the "De Telegraaf Five" testifying against Lance et al, in return for a ban which is substantially reduced from the 2 year norm?
How far is this leak from the truth?
When will USADA put their cards on the table? They have to at some point before the arbitration panel sits, or is even agreed upon.
Are they waiting until after the TdF/ Vuelta, thus confirming another element of the leak?0 -
Yes
Forget that post. It was Dan Freibe lyingFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
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.
sorry I've tried but I can't let this go
*role* of innocent victim.
Thanks. Chest clear.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
Going back to Lance's comment on twitter re the DC 6 and their 'deal':
'I wasn't offered that deal (by USADA)'
odd response :shock:'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:
1) Have any of them even looked into it? One would think they would look into it since that is what they have done in other cases.
2) Fine, show me articles where the focus is not 100% on Armstrong. Where the leaks have been talking about info on the others. I have followed this for a while and have seen very little of it focused on anyone else. The info the USADA wanted to use was from the grand jury examinations in the federal case which was all about Armstrong...unless they have secretly brought people in.
As I have said earlier this is all about getting the biggest fish possible, even if it means ignoring clear cut cases. Just like what they did when they went after Landis. The USADA wants funding and recognition first and clean sport second. That's been proven over and over. Hell, the way the appeal process is set up insures they win every time.
1) Have they? I can't think of a similar situation to this, where 5 people are tried as a conspiracy.
2) Again, the media write the articles, not USADA. The USADA letter makes it clear that the focus of USADA is on everyone. Hasn't this case arisen from a completely separate investigation from the grand jury...You live and learn. At any rate, you live0
