USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
LeicesterLad wrote: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.
It's funded by charitable donations and registered as a not for profit organisation.
Ergo it's a charity.
I didn't make any comment on what it does in the fight with cancerIt's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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 dollars whenever he won the Tour would presumably want their money back.
Unfortunately, and this was proven in one of his previous court cases, the Insurers lost and had to pay because of their wording. Their wording stated they would pay LA $1million if he won the tour - end of, no exclusion or endorsements. If he had stood up in court and sworn I won by drinking epo every morning and had a motor on my bike they would still have had to pay becasue they failed to include an endorsement about cheating.
This is one of the oft quoted cases his lawyers are now using to prove his innocence, despite it not actually being about his drug use.dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
Timoid. wrote:LeicesterLad wrote: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.
It's funded by charitable donations and registered as a not for profit organisation.
Ergo it's a charity.
I didn't make any comment on what it does in the fight with cancer
Relax
it wasn't a dig it you, merely pointing out that it's all one big scam.
A charity it is by law.
Disgusting organisation created by a disgusting human being.0 -
bigdawg wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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 dollars whenever he won the Tour would presumably want their money back.
Unfortunately, and this was proven in one of his previous court cases, the Insurers lost and had to pay because of their wording. Their wording stated they would pay LA $1million if he won the tour - end of, no exclusion or endorsements. If he had stood up in court and sworn I won by drinking epo every morning and had a motor on my bike they would still have had to pay becasue they failed to include an endorsement about cheating.
This is one of the oft quoted cases his lawyers are now using to prove his innocence, despite it not actually being about his drug use.
Surely that changes if the titles are taken off him? (Which they would be if USADA found him guilty.)
Since he's no longer won them...0 -
all the press statements have said USADA can take his tour titles off him if he's found guilty0
-
Well at the time SCA had to pay the results stood... and if they get stripped cos of doping then they the results won't. I would imagine seeing as the case was originally brought about cos SCA claimed doping, they would be able to sue. But, at the time, as correctly said, the case was diverted away from a doping one into being a contractual one dealing with the specific agreed contract, LA and his team did this.... sounds familiar, now we have a doping case, and LA and his team want it all diverted away from a doping case so they don't have to answer it and change it into a fight over 'how' the case is being done.
Lets face it, anyone with a clear cut conscience that they never doped will have nothing to worry about if they believe all the evidence to be false. Ive never doped. Id say 'sure, lets see the evidence'.... this is the simple essence of it all to most people with half a brain (ive got half a brain I think).
If this case sticks there's 2 things Id predict would happen:
First, Armstrong will repeat he's never cheated and he'll say 'well, take it all from me, I know I never cheated, and I will continue to focus on the fight against cancer that seemingly other people have little or no respect for'... he'll think it will be over and it will go quiet, but the press will then hammer him and re-iterate all the evidence.
Secondly, a fair few companies and individuals will line up to sue him.
Thirdly, if its proved he was doping and for instance doping (for one example) with Floyd Landis, then his initial support for Landis when Landis declared his innocence will look worse than Landis himself, then switching to declare Landis a cheat and uncredible... so so many issues, I think it will go on for a long long time. This isn't a Ben Johnson, this is one of the biggest internationally dominant names in a modern sport who's created huge self-worth.0 -
--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
0
-
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-30/Doctor-USADA-only-wanted-Lance-Armstrong/56620818/1
Del Moral saying he was banned because he did not want to provide info on Lance that he didn't have... USADA saying that's complete rubbish, and that they have evidence on him (re blood transfusions etc.), which of course they do, but no-one's heard it, so Del Moral can come out with this guff I suppose.0 -
The UCI have asked for the USADA case files. They have said some of Lance's points are valid.
The USADA have said they are afraid of a conflict of interest and the sporting federations have shown unwillingness to take these things on so have declined.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
USADA's Travis Tygart statement begins: "The USPS Doping Conspiracy was going on under the watch of UCI..."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-tea ... -1.1128343Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Also, Lance missed the court date for filing.
Brilliant.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Also, Lance missed the court date for filing.
Brilliant.
I'm tempted to believe that there was a reason for missing it. Whatever it may be.
Everyone on here says he has the best lawyers. Can't imagine those guys not working some angle for LA's benefit. Brilliant??? It may turn out to be just that. :? :?0 -
-
dennisn wrote:Everyone on here says he has the best lawyers. Can't imagine those guys not working some angle for LA's benefit. Brilliant??? It may turn out to be just that. :? :?
They're on the back foot - A few athletes with a lot more money than Lance have tried this same argument and lost every time.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:
thanks for that. Saw the info that they asked for more time and didn't get it.
The whole LA case is a waste of time anyway and should have been thrown out a second time.0 -
iainf72 wrote:dennisn wrote:Everyone on here says he has the best lawyers. Can't imagine those guys not working some angle for LA's benefit. Brilliant??? It may turn out to be just that. :? :?
They're on the back foot - A few athletes with a lot more money than Lance have tried this same argument and lost every time.
Even if they are on "the back foot" I would think that they are going with their best options. As for USADA, well, they may in fact have him by the ball, but I'm reminded of an old saying "Nobody wins them all". We shall see. :?0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
ddraver wrote:The UCI are wading in with some bollocks about it being their jurisdiction and not USADA's now. Can only see this on twitter tho....
Sounds like Pat/Hein are getting nervous!
Its on AP and new York sports daily. Velonation also have highlightsFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:
Sadly, the suggestion is that they will probably still be allowed to file. In any case, it is probably better that the judge throws out the case than Armstrong has a legal technicality to complain about.0 -
iainf72 wrote:
Not gonna lie, reading that makes me glad I didn't have the A-levels to study law
Who is representing Lance, dopinglawyers4u?
I can see why Dennis suspects they are trying to be clever, but I don't buy it.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Jez mon wrote:iainf72 wrote:
Not gonna lie, reading that makes me glad I didn't have the A-levels to study law
Who is representing Lance, dopinglawyers4u?
I can see why Dennis suspects they are trying to be clever, but I don't buy it.
Whatever LA and his team are doing is all about how the laws read and if they can find a weakness or exploit some area of the charges and the law says they can. Well, it just might work. It's not about what you and I will buy. It's about using the laws to your advantage. USADA must dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If they don't then appeals are sure to follow(if there is such a thing as appealing the outcome).0 -
dennisn wrote:Jez mon wrote:iainf72 wrote:
Not gonna lie, reading that makes me glad I didn't have the A-levels to study law
Who is representing Lance, dopinglawyers4u?
I can see why Dennis suspects they are trying to be clever, but I don't buy it.
Whatever LA and his team are doing is all about how the laws read and if they can find a weakness or exploit some area of the charges and the law says they can. Well, it just might work. It's not about what you and I will buy. It's about using the laws to your advantage. USADA must dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If they don't then appeals are sure to follow(if there is such a thing as appealing the outcome).
...and cocking up in this instance if that link assessing the filing deadlines is correct.
What's more unsettling is the UCI trying to take this over. Disgusting.0 -
dennisn wrote:Whatever LA and his team are doing is all about how the laws read and if they can find a weakness or exploit some area of the charges and the law says they can. Well, it just might work. It's not about what you and I will buy. It's about using the laws to your advantage. USADA must dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If they don't then appeals are sure to follow(if there is such a thing as appealing the outcome).
I agree. But, from what we've seen so far, USADA are very, very aware of this and have ensured that they've followed the stated procedures to the letter. They've clearly gone through the expected scenarios too, and worked out what their strategy should be in each instance.0 -
Especially when, according to inrng, their own anti doping rule 11 proves USADA have jurisdiction.mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:Jez mon wrote:iainf72 wrote:
Not gonna lie, reading that makes me glad I didn't have the A-levels to study law
Who is representing Lance, dopinglawyers4u?
I can see why Dennis suspects they are trying to be clever, but I don't buy it.
Whatever LA and his team are doing is all about how the laws read and if they can find a weakness or exploit some area of the charges and the law says they can. Well, it just might work. It's not about what you and I will buy. It's about using the laws to your advantage. USADA must dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If they don't then appeals are sure to follow(if there is such a thing as appealing the outcome).
...and cocking up in this instance if that link assessing the filing deadlines is correct.
What's more unsettling is the UCI trying to take this over. Disgusting.0 -
mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:Jez mon wrote:iainf72 wrote:
Not gonna lie, reading that makes me glad I didn't have the A-levels to study law
Who is representing Lance, dopinglawyers4u?
I can see why Dennis suspects they are trying to be clever, but I don't buy it.
Whatever LA and his team are doing is all about how the laws read and if they can find a weakness or exploit some area of the charges and the law says they can. Well, it just might work. It's not about what you and I will buy. It's about using the laws to your advantage. USADA must dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If they don't then appeals are sure to follow(if there is such a thing as appealing the outcome).
...and cocking up in this instance if that link assessing the filing deadlines is correct.
What's more unsettling is the UCI trying to take this over. Disgusting.
In the end. Whatever and whenever that may be. The result will look not so good for either the prosecution or the defense lawyers. I'm thinking both sides want to look good IN THE END and looking good IN THE END is all that counts. For that reason alone I don't buy LA's team screwing up. They have a plan. Whether it's a good or bad plan will be known later. They didn't "miss" doing anything. It's all part of the plan(good or bad).0 -
USADA have good experience with this.
They've busted bigger athletes.
UCI are shitting as per usual.0
