USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
-
dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What other interests do they have Dennisn?
What are the possibly likely ulterior motives?
I can't think of any credible ones.
Money??? I don't know why but I have a feeling that at the end of the day you'll find that money was / is somehow involved. The big dogs are playing this game and with them it's always about money, one way or another.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, ISN'T IT DENNISN.....ha0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Luckao wrote:It's jealousy. They resent success. They're obsessed, etc.
Who are, an anti-doping authority?
Eh?
I don't know. Generic statements expressing contempt seem to be the key to undermining USADA. Don't ask me any difficult questions, Lance didn't brief us on answering them.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What other interests do they have Dennisn?
What are the possibly likely ulterior motives?
I can't think of any credible ones.
Money??? I don't know why but I have a feeling that at the end of the day you'll find that money was / is somehow involved. The big dogs are playing this game and with them it's always about money, one way or another.
That's not very specific is it?
And the 'money' argument can very easily be leveled at Armstrong too.
That's what I don't get with Armstrong's current defence on twitter - he's saying it's a witch-hunt but I can't see the incentives or motives for that. No-one's been able to come up with any credible or specific ones. Just saying "money" doesn't work.
"....specific.." I think money is very specific. Anyway it was a question rather than a statement. Although money is the motive for all kinds of things.
Never said LA wasn't after the money or looking to keep(and make more) than what he already has. Done that myself and I would assume you have too.
As for the witch hunt, well, it's a possibility. USADA wants to become a household name AND flex their muscle a bit. They want everyone to know that they are going to protect us(you, me, everyone) from these drug abusers. Would that be so unheard of?
I'm not saying it's THE reason but it COULD be A reason. Then again maybe they do know something. If we get lucky we might even be let in on what's happening.0 -
coriordan wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What other interests do they have Dennisn?
What are the possibly likely ulterior motives?
I can't think of any credible ones.
Money??? I don't know why but I have a feeling that at the end of the day you'll find that money was / is somehow involved. The big dogs are playing this game and with them it's always about money, one way or another.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY, ISN'T IT DENNISN.....ha
I promise to never say "it's all about the money" again. Just mostly about the money.0 -
Luckao wrote:It's jealousy. They resent success. They're obsessed, etc.
Plenty of truth there. Lots of people are jealous and resentful of others who are more successful than themselves. As for this LA thing there do seem to be a few people who fit this description(Landis, Lemond). And both of them seem pretty obsessed about it.
Plenty of really big egos playing around out there and then throw in USADA....0 -
dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What other interests do they have Dennisn?
What are the possibly likely ulterior motives?
I can't think of any credible ones.
Money??? I don't know why but I have a feeling that at the end of the day you'll find that money was / is somehow involved. The big dogs are playing this game and with them it's always about money, one way or another.
That's not very specific is it?
And the 'money' argument can very easily be leveled at Armstrong too.
That's what I don't get with Armstrong's current defence on twitter - he's saying it's a witch-hunt but I can't see the incentives or motives for that. No-one's been able to come up with any credible or specific ones. Just saying "money" doesn't work.
"....specific.." I think money is very specific. Anyway it was a question rather than a statement. Although money is the motive for all kinds of things.
Never said LA wasn't after the money or looking to keep(and make more) than what he already has. Done that myself and I would assume you have too.
As for the witch hunt, well, it's a possibility. USADA wants to become a household name AND flex their muscle a bit. They want everyone to know that they are going to protect us(you, me, everyone) from these drug abusers. Would that be so unheard of?
I'm not saying it's THE reason but it COULD be A reason. Then again maybe they do know something. If we get lucky we might even be let in on what's happening.
Given the names USADA have already put away, Jones, etc, they're already pretty well known. I also don't beleive an anti-doping authority has any interest in being a household name. I think they do want to flex their muscles, in that they want to do the job they're there to do - prevent doping, and punish past doping.
Your money reason was not specific. You're not saying what money, and what for, and how USADA expect to financially gain.
You're right, they have an interest in busting people for doping, but after all, that's why they exist, so I think we can give thme that.
But you're hypothosising a lot more than the people who think Lance has been done. You're saying it could be all sorts of things. You're right in a theoretical sense, but practically, things aren't looking good.
We're hearing a third party, USADA, have 10 witness testemonies saying Lance did the bad thing. They're also saying they have data on some tests Armstrong has done that corrolate with doping practices, and what the testemonies say.
Now, for sure, these may not be concrete, but they seem sure enough to go and press charges. Furthermore, of the 5 mentioned, 3 have already been banned since they didn't deny the charges.
All we've heard from Lance is airy fairy guff about witch hunts and poor incentives, without giving specifics.
His line of "never tested positive" is, in the strictest terms, not true (since he tested positive for something that was retrospectively allowed through a doctor - perfectly fine, but makes his 'never' tested postive incorrect), nor does it prove much, as we have seen with the scores of athletes and cyclists who have admitted to doping despite never testing postive. Ullrich, Basso, Jones, Riis, Museeuw etc etc.
So, all those combined begins to make it look difficult, even before we look at the likelihood that someone was winning with the fastest ever average speeds when it's widely considered by experts that those speeds are beyond what can be expected of a human without doping.
So, unless, one by one, each of those can be taken down comprehensively and consistently, you have to think that, on balance, things aren't looking strong for the Armstrong case.
It's not certain, but day by day it's looking more and more unlikely he was clean. And after all, you need to work with the probabilities, not absolutes when you don't have the ability to KNOW for sure.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:dennisn wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:What other interests do they have Dennisn?
What are the possibly likely ulterior motives?
I can't think of any credible ones.
Money??? I don't know why but I have a feeling that at the end of the day you'll find that money was / is somehow involved. The big dogs are playing this game and with them it's always about money, one way or another.
That's not very specific is it?
And the 'money' argument can very easily be leveled at Armstrong too.
That's what I don't get with Armstrong's current defence on twitter - he's saying it's a witch-hunt but I can't see the incentives or motives for that. No-one's been able to come up with any credible or specific ones. Just saying "money" doesn't work.
"....specific.." I think money is very specific. Anyway it was a question rather than a statement. Although money is the motive for all kinds of things.
Never said LA wasn't after the money or looking to keep(and make more) than what he already has. Done that myself and I would assume you have too.
As for the witch hunt, well, it's a possibility. USADA wants to become a household name AND flex their muscle a bit. They want everyone to know that they are going to protect us(you, me, everyone) from these drug abusers. Would that be so unheard of?
I'm not saying it's THE reason but it COULD be A reason. Then again maybe they do know something. If we get lucky we might even be let in on what's happening.
Given the names USADA have already put away, Jones, etc, they're already pretty well known. I also don't beleive an anti-doping authority has any interest in being a household name. I think they do want to flex their muscles, in that they want to do the job they're there to do - prevent doping, and punish past doping.
Your money reason was not specific. You're not saying what money, and what for, and how USADA expect to financially gain.
You're right, they have an interest in busting people for doping, but after all, that's why they exist, so I think we can give thme that.
But you're hypothosising a lot more than the people who think Lance has been done. You're saying it could be all sorts of things. You're right in a theoretical sense, but practically, things aren't looking good.
We're hearing a third party, USADA, have 10 witness testemonies saying Lance did the bad thing. They're also saying they have data on some tests Armstrong has done that corrolate with doping practices, and what the testemonies say.
Now, for sure, these may not be concrete, but they seem sure enough to go and press charges. Furthermore, of the 5 mentioned, 3 have already been banned since they didn't deny the charges.
All we've heard from Lance is airy fairy guff about witch hunts and poor incentives, without giving specifics.
His line of "never tested positive" is, in the strictest terms, not true (since he tested positive for something that was retrospectively allowed through a doctor - perfectly fine, but makes his 'never' tested postive incorrect), nor does it prove much, as we have seen with the scores of athletes and cyclists who have admitted to doping despite never testing postive. Ullrich, Basso, Jones, Riis, Museeuw etc etc.
So, all those combined begins to make it look difficult, even before we look at the likelihood that someone was winning with the fastest ever average speeds when it's widely considered by experts that those speeds are beyond what can be expected of a human without doping.
So, unless, one by one, each of those can be taken down comprehensively and consistently, you have to think that, on balance, things aren't looking strong for the Armstrong case.
It's not certain, but day by day it's looking more and more unlikely he was clean. And after all, you need to work with the probabilities, not absolutes when you don't have the ability to KNOW for sure.
I know what you're saying and really couldn't agree more. I'm simply throwing things out there as questions, speculation, and conspiracy theory. I only do this because someone should present an opposing view.
In any case I believe that many people aren't giving LA a chance against USADA because he hasn't really said much other than a few "guff" comments. My way of thinking is why say much at all(which he is doing / not doing)? What point would there be in "tipping your hand" so to speak. Of course that would hinge on him having a "hand to tip". Soap operas and courtroom antics don't get much better. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.0 -
USADA file for dismissal of Armstrong's lawsuit
WSJ article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... 62652.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100571623
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1005715440 -
That is embarrassing in anyone's book. I mean, I'm not saying I've never contradicted myself, but I've not done it in documents to courts!!!! (prepared by expensive lawyers....)0
-
USADA 2
Lance 00 -
Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.0
-
To be fair his legal team are hamstrung with a client who believes in his own deity-like status.Luckao wrote:Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
symo wrote:
To be fair his legal team are hamstrung with a client who believes in his own deity-like status.Luckao wrote:Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.
I'm not so sure he believes he's a deity but there seem to be more than a few people on this forum who give him credit for being more than simply human.0 -
symo wrote:
To be fair his legal team are hamstrung with a client who believes in his own deity-like status.Luckao wrote:Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.
That's a good point. I'd still have expected them to pursue the angle of USADA having a grudge against him, not questioning their authority. I don't expect it would have done much to influence any future decision. All they've succeeded in doing is making Judge Sparks' decision that much easier. Like you've said, they'll probably just be going along with what the man himself wants. As long as they get paid, I guess.0 -
Luckao wrote:Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.
I've been recently closely following a court case in which it looked cut and dried in favour of the rugby team I support. Needless to say, they lost. It's amazing how the law has a habit of coming out against the 'no brainer' decision you would think. Hopefully it won't happen here but I am no longer confident!!0 -
Pross wrote:Luckao wrote:Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.
I've been recently closely following a court case in which it looked cut and dried in favour of the rugby team I support. Needless to say, they lost. It's amazing how the law has a habit of coming out against the 'no brainer' decision you would think. Hopefully it won't happen here but I am no longer confident!!
Yep. Too difficult to call. There are some dumb contradictions by LA and his team over the years highlighted, but for all of that (which really isn't too surprising as LA does come across as a bit dim a lot of the time) his lawyers, well, what have they really got to work with? its difficult trying to defend someone with such a blackened record.... and it could just take one technicality for it all to fall apart for USADA. I sincerely hope it doesnt.0 -
All true. I'm not really too confident until it's made official. Maybe, just maybe, the "come out fighting and discredit everybody" method has truly backfired. Here's hoping.0
-
mfin wrote:Pross wrote:Luckao wrote:Woah. That's quite damning. His legal team are making a complete mess of this.
I've been recently closely following a court case in which it looked cut and dried in favour of the rugby team I support. Needless to say, they lost. It's amazing how the law has a habit of coming out against the 'no brainer' decision you would think. Hopefully it won't happen here but I am no longer confident!!
Yep. Too difficult to call. There are some dumb contradictions by LA and his team over the years highlighted, but for all of that (which really isn't too surprising as LA does come across as a bit dim a lot of the time) his lawyers, well, what have they really got to work with? its difficult trying to defend someone with such a blackened record.... and it could just take one technicality for it all to fall apart for USADA.
I think the flaw in your thinking is that your assuming LA doesn't have some "backup plan" or "technicality" or whatever on his side because he hasn't told you about it. Which goes back to one of my previous posts about why would he "tip his hand", so to speak. Why would he or his lawyers tell USADA, you, or anyone their plans?0 -
Oh, man, Lance is sandbagging again. Genius.0
-
-
Luckao wrote:Oh, man, Lance is sandbagging again. Genius.
Worked for him once, as I recall. IF, and it's a big IF, he and or his lawyers have anything up their collective sleeves I'm sure that the smart thing to do is keep it to themselves and possibly distract USADA lawyers with other things. Him telling the world his plans is not the best strategy. I know you would love to hear all about it but you'll just have to wait like the rest of us.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:If he can't keep his reputation, Lance'll probably settle for keeping his cash.
+1...... laughing all the way to the bank does have it's good moments.0 -
dennisn wrote:Luckao wrote:Oh, man, Lance is sandbagging again. Genius.
Worked for him once, as I recall. IF, and it's a big IF, he and or his lawyers have anything up their collective sleeves I'm sure that the smart thing to do is keep it to themselves and possibly distract USADA lawyers with other things. Him telling the world his plans is not the best strategy. I know you would love to hear all about it but you'll just have to wait like the rest of us.
I think I just entered your list of "the obsessed". Pleasure to be here.0 -
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/lance-armstrong-seeks-peddle-influence-washington
Busy making the connections between cancer efforts and unfairness.... makes me feel a bit sick.0 -
-
mfin wrote:http://www.washingtonguardian.com/lance-armstrong-seeks-peddle-influence-washington
Busy making the connections between cancer efforts and unfairness.... makes me feel a bit sick.
So he's using money donated to a charity to clear his name? Isn't that fraud? Surely if the case is against Armstrong the athlete and not Livestrong the charity, he should have no legal right to Livestrong funds for this?
Right now I just wish the whole thing would go away. It's depressing. But maybe that's what he's banking on. Everyone will bored and frustrated, pack their things and call it a day.
His legacy is still forked though.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Point of order - Do USADA have any ability to PUNISH Armstrong? I though all they could do is reccomend a sanction to the UCI, who as signatories to the WADA code, have to follow it? So USADA will decide the case but the UCI can decide to enforce/not enforce any sanction?We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Timoid. wrote:mfin wrote:http://www.washingtonguardian.com/lance-armstrong-seeks-peddle-influence-washington
Busy making the connections between cancer efforts and unfairness.... makes me feel a bit sick.
So he's using money donated to a charity to clear his name? Isn't that fraud? Surely if the case is against Armstrong the athlete and not Livestrong the charity, he should have no legal right to Livestrong funds for this?
Right now I just wish the whole thing would go away. It's depressing. But maybe that's what he's banking on. Everyone will bored and frustrated, pack their things and call it a day.
His legacy is still forked though.
I find it amusing that you even referred to Livestrong as a charity. In reality livestrong does nothing for cancer patients, carers or medicine. It's purely a tool to highlight the plight of 'cancer' - but in reality is just used to pay for Armstrongs legal fee's and to make him look good.0 -
ddraver wrote:Point of order - Do USADA have any ability to PUNISH Armstrong? I though all they could do is reccomend a sanction to the UCI, who as signatories to the WADA code, have to follow it? So USADA will decide the case but the UCI can decide to enforce/not enforce any sanction?
The insurers who paid him $1m whenever he won the Tour would presumably want their money back.0
