USADA files doping charges against Lance

sherer

Rundfahrt wrote:

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

If he does not fight it then you guys say it's because he knows he's guilty. If he fights it he is a buffoon and the logic is amazing.

if he wants to fight it then man up and answer the USADA case and go through the proper channels. Don't start crying and run off to your mum by taking it through the US legal system

Rundfahrt

sherer wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

If he does not fight it then you guys say it's because he knows he's guilty. If he fights it he is a buffoon and the logic is amazing.

if he wants to fight it then man up and answer the USADA case and go through the proper channels. Don't start crying and run off to your mum by taking it through the US legal system

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

ddraver

I love the bit about "unconstitutional" too - No of course it is nt flipping constitutional. The US constitution is totally irrelevant to USADA or WADA or the UCI or any other form of Global Sport Government!

Jez mon

Rundfahrt wrote:

sherer wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

If he does not fight it then you guys say it's because he knows he's guilty. If he fights it he is a buffoon and the logic is amazing.

if he wants to fight it then man up and answer the USADA case and go through the proper channels. Don't start crying and run off to your mum by taking it through the US legal system

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Not in this case, no one would criticise him for not bringing this lawsuit

Rundfahrt

Jez mon wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

sherer wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

If he does not fight it then you guys say it's because he knows he's guilty. If he fights it he is a buffoon and the logic is amazing.

if he wants to fight it then man up and answer the USADA case and go through the proper channels. Don't start crying and run off to your mum by taking it through the US legal system

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Not in this case, no one would criticise him for not bringing this lawsuit

Past history shows that certain people will criticize no matter what. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

ddraver

Serious question Rundy - do you genuinely believe that Lance Armstrong thinks that this is the only way to clear his name? Or is it just delaying tactics? Or tactics to get the names of "the 10" or what?

In short, why do you think he has taken this tack?

Rundfahrt

ddraver wrote:

Serious question Rundy - do you genuinely believe that Lance Armstrong thinks that this is the only way to clear his name? Or is it just delaying tactics? Or tactics to get the names of "the 10" or what?

In short, why do you think he has taken this tack?

I think he knows that the USADA process is set up to always come back guilty.

ddraver

and do you think that is a fair reflection on USADA?

Rundfahrt

ddraver wrote:

and do you think that is a fair reflection on USADA?

If you were told that your trial would come down to three judges, one picked by the people accusing you, one picked by you and a third picked by both, but from a list compiled by the people accusing would you feel you have a real chance of proving innocence?

ddraver

Is that a No?

iainf72

Rundfahrt wrote:

ddraver wrote:

and do you think that is a fair reflection on USADA?

If you were told that your trial would come down to three judges, one picked by the people accusing you, one picked by you and a third picked by both, but from a list compiled by the people accusing would you feel you have a real chance of proving innocence?

Well, if I'd signed up for those rules many times, and if my management had helped come up with the rules, I may feel slightly odd complaining about it. But Lance is from Texas, and there are only 3 things in Texas. Beers, Steers and Lying knobs.

luckao

He'll fight until they surround his ranch in Texas. Alamo 2.0.

andrewjoseph

Rundfahrt wrote:

ddraver wrote:

and do you think that is a fair reflection on USADA?

If you were told that your trial would come down to three judges, one picked by the people accusing you, one picked by you and a third picked by both, but from a list compiled by the people accusing would you feel you have a real chance of proving innocence?

I may be naive, but if I was innocent I would trust to the process.

sherer

andrewjoseph wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

ddraver wrote:

and do you think that is a fair reflection on USADA?

If you were told that your trial would come down to three judges, one picked by the people accusing you, one picked by you and a third picked by both, but from a list compiled by the people accusing would you feel you have a real chance of proving innocence?

I may be naive, but if I was innocent I would trust to the process.

maybe that's the key here. If you were innocent.

Maybe LA just wants to do all he can to make sure none of the evidence goes public

dave_1

Gonnar be interesting. LA will fight USADA.

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

Gonnar be interesting. LA will fight USADA.

This has all been tried before and doesn't work.

The more interesting thing is Floyd vs Vaughters THIS VERY SECOND on twitter.

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Gonnar be interesting. LA will fight USADA.

This has all been tried before and doesn't work.

The more interesting thing is Floyd vs Vaughters THIS VERY SECOND on twitter.

what are they posting ?

TMR

iainf72 wrote:

The more interesting thing is Floyd vs Vaughters THIS VERY SECOND on twitter.

Posts have been deleted. What was said?

afx237vi

The Mad Rapper wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

The more interesting thing is Floyd vs Vaughters THIS VERY SECOND on twitter.

Posts have been deleted. What was said?

Go to JV's page and click Tweets > All.

It's all boring though. Bitching in public is all very unbecoming for everyone involved.

skylla

Sorry, don't quite understand how to follow a tweet conservation. What's the story with Dekker and Geert? Ta.

skylla

skylla wrote:

Sorry, don't quite understand how to follow a tweet conservation. What's the story with Dekker and Geert? Ta.

Humpfff, old news..

Rundfahrt

andrewjoseph wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

ddraver wrote:

and do you think that is a fair reflection on USADA?

If you were told that your trial would come down to three judges, one picked by the people accusing you, one picked by you and a third picked by both, but from a list compiled by the people accusing would you feel you have a real chance of proving innocence?

I may be naive, but if I was innocent I would trust to the process.

As you can see by the post you responded to the process is not set up for innocence, it's set up to get a guilty verdict no matter what. Even if you are innocent if they charge you then you are going down.

iainf72

Rundfahrt wrote:

As you can see by the post you responded to the process is not set up for innocence, it's set up to get a guilty verdict no matter what. Even if you are innocent if they charge you then you are going down.

If they charge you, it's because they believe they have enough evidence to win the case.

slim_boy_fat

iainf72 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

As you can see by the post you responded to the process is not set up for innocence, it's set up to get a guilty verdict no matter what. Even if you are innocent if they charge you then you are going down.

If they charge you, it's because they believe they have enough evidence to win the case.

More than enough if that piece you linked to the other day is anything to go by, at least I think it was you Iain.

luckao

That's quite a bold accusation. Admittedly, some organisations aren't bastions of credibility. It doesn't seem likely that this one would be audacious enough to find somebody guilty in such a high profile case if the evidence was inadequate. If it was, Lance would lawyer them until his he got hand cramp from all of the bragging on Twitter, whereas his legal team appear to be grabbing at the straws so far.

Rundfahrt

The problem is that, in order to compete in your sport you have to agree to it. There is no union fighting for the athletes rights or forcing it to be fair, it is just agree or don't play. USADA knows this so they set it up to always win the cases. Look at the situation I presented earlier and tell me if you think this would be a fair system anywhere else (unlike ddraver, who avoided it). Imagine your neighbor claims you have done something to his house and that is the system you have to try to prove your innocence under. I find it hard to believe anyone would be fine with a system like that where you had a choice of agreeing to it or (in this case) not being allowed to own a home. Unless it suits your opinion on this particular topic. Step back and ignore that it is Armstrong for a second and see if your opinion on the system changes.

luckao

I really don't think Lance needs a union working on his behalf. If the organisation does lack credibility, or even the case itself, he has the people to expose that.

Rundfahrt

Luckao wrote:

I really don't think Lance needs a union working on his behalf. If the organisation does lack credibility, or even the case itself, he has the people to expose that.

The union part was more about cyclists in general. They get screwed by the ADA's, the race management and the UCI at every turn.

Jez mon

Still Lance was a big name cyclist and never complained about USADA, or tried to get some kind of riders union. You would have thought, being as unconstitutional as they (USADA) are, Lance would have complained about them before all this happened.

Rundfahrt

Interesting how the angle keeps changing.