USADA files doping charges against Lance

1…5960626465…77

Comments

  • bigdawg
    bigdawg Posts: 672
    to save copying and posting the whole thing this is why I perosnally think wiggo is clean...

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12382 ... -blog.aspx

    Re Lance - even his most die hard fans must now be wondering why he isnt just standing up and answering questions instead of playing hide and seek and using courts to delay things
    dont knock on death\'s door.....

    Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Posts: 79,667
    bigdawg - I think the point of this is that that's what everyone who has doped USED to say the same thing, until they were caught doping
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Marvellous letter to mcquaid included there.

    Though it doesn't appear a slam dunk.

    This is better than the racing :)

    Ave Golden calves
  • LeicesterLad
    LeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    Brendan Gallagher just told me on Twitter, he's not running a story on McQuaid becuase he doesn't like the USADA or the way they have gone about it...

    :?

    He just branded the USADA case as a shamble built on cutting deals and bought evidence. Says they should have followed due process - because that works :roll:
    http://www.twitter.com/InTheGC http://www.InTheGC.com http://www.facebook.com/intheGC
  • rdt
    rdt Posts: 869
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    Marvellous letter to mcquaid included there.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USA ... -Dismissal

    "The UCI, an entity which knows nothing about what Mr. Landis or any of USADA’s many witnesses observed, an entity which never met with any witness and never conducted any investigation, is claiming to have “discovered the violation” and yet at the same time the UCI is, as you said in your July 13, letter, unable to determine “whether or not an anti-doping violationhas occurred.” So, in your own words UCI claims both to have “discovered” a violation and to not know whether a violation occurred. This is exactly the sort of “Never, Never Land” created by the UCI’s nonsensical discovery rule and it well illustrates why that rule cannot possibly be enforceable under the Code."

    and

    "In your July 11, 2012 interview captured on video tape (and for which a transcript has been provided) you acknowledge that USADA’s case is not based on sample collection saying, “this is actually outside of that because you’re looking at witness testimonies, et cetera, et cetera, which is not within our responsibility. We can’t – we cannot be questioning riders no more and we don’t have the authority, nor the judicial authority to question riders and ask them what goes on here, what goes on there.”

    So again, the UCI has made a complete about face in order to take a position in support of Mr. Armstrong’s position in his lawsuit against USADA. This is contrary to the UCI’s responsibilities under the Code. As an ADO under the Code if UCI was truly interested in ensuring clean sport and protecting the rights of clean athletes the UCI should be supporting USADA’s investigation of doping in cycling rather than attempting to subvert and undermine it."
  • MrTapir
    MrTapir Posts: 1,206
    LeicesterLad wrote:
    Brendan Gallagher just told me on Twitter, he's not running a story on McQuaid becuase he doesn't like the USADA or the way they have gone about it...

    :?

    He just branded the USADA case as a shamble built on cutting deals and bought evidence. Says they should have followed due process - because that works :roll:

    Which 'side' is Brendan Gallagher usually on, is this the position you would expect him to take usually?

    Inner Ring points out that its the few officials at the top making the whole UCI look bad. Bearing this in mind, there must be other UCI staff that arent in the spotlight thinking that McQuaid and Verbruggen should be thrown to the wolves so to speak? I'm imagining a Caesar/Brutus dynamic of sorts.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Brendan has no idea what he is talking about. He's created a straw man and is basing his argument on it
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • avoidingmyphd
    avoidingmyphd Posts: 1,154
    iainf72 wrote:
    Brendan has no idea what he is talking about. He's created a straw man and is basing his argument on it
    +1. That tweet to LeicesterLad is embarassing.
    He didn't create the straw man though. Lance did. Brendan just abbreviated it to 140 chars.
  • LeicesterLad
    LeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    avoidingmyphd wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Brendan has no idea what he is talking about. He's created a straw man and is basing his argument on it
    +1. That tweet to LeicesterLad is embarassing.
    He didn't create the straw man though. Lance did. Brendan just abbreviated it to 140 chars.

    He seems pretty oblivious as to why the 'proper' channels have come up pretty fruitless.
    http://www.twitter.com/InTheGC http://www.InTheGC.com http://www.facebook.com/intheGC
  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493
    Well, I've been ploughing through the docs - less interested in Lance, than what UCI are up to....

    1) the very public castigation of UCI Has to be embarrassing for them....
    2) the fact that USADA and WADA have directly commented on UCI using same arguments as Lance - just after Lance submitted them - Iis doubly embarrassing
    3) the fact UCI claim to have discovered violations on one hand, and claim not to know if there have been violations on the other is triply embarrassing
    4) but quadrupraly - nay, Infinitely - embarrassing in my book? Not just the fact that the piece of information they are now quoting as discovery is the email from Floyd that they dismissed, didn't investigate and threatened to sue over? That very same email was originally sent to US Cycling, who only copied it to UCI, as USC forwarded it to......USADA!!!!

    Irrespective of protocols etc. I can't believe someone has the bare faced cheek to think that being copied in to an email sent to someone else somehow gives you ascendancy over the proper recipient!!!!
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    iainf72 wrote:
    Brendan has no idea what he is talking about. He's created a straw man and is basing his argument on it


    Iain, who should Lance's 7 TDFs go to? :|
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    For some strange reason, after reading the the last couple of pages, I'm reminded
    of the guy who was hounded for most of his life over a loaf of bread.
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    dennisn wrote:
    For some strange reason, after reading the the last couple of pages, I'm reminded
    of the guy who was hounded for most of his life over a loaf of bread.
    And I am reminded of a guy who will happily watch another man be robbed and does nothing except wag a finger at the thieves.
  • andrewjoseph
    andrewjoseph Posts: 2,165
    I'm intrigued by the fact Landis met with USDA, and then sent the emails to UCI (or whomever). Sounds planned to me. USDA setting up UCI and seeing which way they jump?
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    nathancom wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    For some strange reason, after reading the the last couple of pages, I'm reminded
    of the guy who was hounded for most of his life over a loaf of bread.
    And I am reminded of a guy who will happily watch another man be robbed and does nothing except wag a finger at the thieves.

    And there's the difference between you and I. You're making it into the crime of the century and I'm not giving the whole thing any more credence than a loaf of bread.
    Add to that the fact that I only do this because no one else does. Think how boring the world would be if no one disagreed with anyone else.You have your beliefs and I have mine. That they don't exactly come together shouldn't be any suprise to anyone. I do have question though. Does anyone out there really think that I am LA's biggest fan, that I have a statue of him in my home, that I am the VP of his fan club, etc? It would seem that I have achieved that stature by simply cheering for the underdog. Although I really don't look upon him as such. I look upon this whole thing as a game of King of the Mountain between people whos egos and wallets need to be fed and fed a lot.
  • slim_boy_fat
    slim_boy_fat Posts: 1,810
    dennisn wrote:
    nathancom wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    For some strange reason, after reading the the last couple of pages, I'm reminded
    of the guy who was hounded for most of his life over a loaf of bread.
    And I am reminded of a guy who will happily watch another man be robbed and does nothing except wag a finger at the thieves.

    And there's the difference between you and I. You're making it into the crime of the century and I'm not giving the whole thing any more credence than a loaf of bread.
    Add to that the fact that I only do this because no one else does. Think how boring the world would be if no one disagreed with anyone else.You have your beliefs and I have mine. That they don't exactly come together shouldn't be any suprise to anyone. I do have question though. Does anyone out there really think that I am LA's biggest fan, that I have a statue of him in my home, that I am the VP of his fan club, etc? It would seem that I have achieved that stature by simply cheering for the underdog. Although I really don't look upon him as such. I look upon this whole thing as a game of King of the Mountain between people whos egos and wallets need to be fed and fed a lot.
    Come on Dennis, this is a little more than a loaf of bread. And you cheer for an underdog when Accrington Stanley meet Man Utd in the FACup. This is nothing like that.
  • nathancom
    nathancom Posts: 1,567
    Sorry you have lost me there. He cheated. He cheated his fellow cyclists out of victories and the livelihood that goes with that. He cheated the spectators out of the spectacle of an equal contest between riders. He cheated cancer sufferers by holding up a false image of what can be achieved and then leaving them to fail. He is a shoddy man and has lived his life in public so deserves to be found innocent or guilty in public not just be allowed to slink off when he is finally shown up for what he is. Others have been found guilty, why shouldn't he?

    You don't seem like a fanboy more someone who is cynical and apathetic and probably bored so playing devil's advocate. That can only be fun for so long...
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Slim Boy Fat wrote:
    Come on Dennis, this is a little more than a loaf of bread.

    Sorry, but like I said "the difference between you and I". It's still just a loaf of bread, to me, filled with a whole bunch of Soap Opera and a side order of righteousness. :wink:
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    nathancom wrote:
    Others have been found guilty, why shouldn't he?

    You don't seem like a fanboy more someone who is cynical and apathetic and probably bored so playing devil's advocate. That can only be fun for so long...

    No reason he shouldn't be like everyone else. Either found guilty OR innocent.

    Cynical and apathetic I'll buy into, but only about certain things. As for devils advocate, you're right again, but I really enjoy the banter with everyone on this site and I am much more interested in reading what people have to say than trying to figure out what's going on in the "lawyer wars".
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    dennisn wrote:
    nathancom wrote:
    Others have been found guilty, why shouldn't he?

    You don't seem like a fanboy more someone who is cynical and apathetic and probably bored so playing devil's advocate. That can only be fun for so long...

    No reason he shouldn't be like everyone else. Either found guilty OR innocent.

    Cynical and apathetic I'll buy into, but only about certain things. As for devils advocate, you're right again, but I really enjoy the banter with everyone on this site and I am much more interested in reading what people have to say than trying to figure out what's going on in the "lawyer wars".

    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    mfin wrote:
    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?

    What do I think? Most likely did the deed. Only problem is, I know that what I think doesn't count. In any case it's only what I think. I'm going to go along with whatever is found out in all this mess. What other choice do we have? While I have little faith, or should I say trust, in lawyers and their motives I do have some belief in justice systems.
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    dennisn wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?

    What do I think? Most likely did the deed. Only problem is, I know that what I think doesn't count. In any case it's only what I think. I'm going to go along with whatever is found out in all this mess. What other choice do we have? While I have little faith, or should I say trust, in lawyers and their motives I do have some belief in justice systems.

    Yes, thanks for that Dennis, but the question was do you think he's a bit cross-eyed? he looks a bit in photos don't you (ya) reckon (I chucked in some American for you).
  • ratherbeintobago
    ratherbeintobago Posts: 636
    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?

    I thought he had the evil eye, so he could put a hex on those that cross him?

    Andy
    On twitter
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    ratherbeintobago wrote:
    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?

    I thought he had the evil eye, so he could put a hex on those that cross him?

    Andy

    Well, he was called The Boss, so I always assumed that was a reference to his eye?
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    mfin wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?

    What do I think? Most likely did the deed. Only problem is, I know that what I think doesn't count. In any case it's only what I think. I'm going to go along with whatever is found out in all this mess. What other choice do we have? While I have little faith, or should I say trust, in lawyers and their motives I do have some belief in justice systems.

    Yes, thanks for that Dennis, but the question was do you think he's a bit cross-eyed? he looks a bit in photos don't you (ya) reckon (I chucked in some American for you).

    Hmmmm. Stupid me. I thought you were making a euphemism of sorts about drug use.
    Cross eyed? Lazy eye? Never noticed either. :?
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    dennisn wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    dennisn wrote:
    mfin wrote:
    More importantly then, do you think lance is a bit cross-eyed, or is it a lazy eye he has?

    What do I think? Most likely did the deed. Only problem is, I know that what I think doesn't count. In any case it's only what I think. I'm going to go along with whatever is found out in all this mess. What other choice do we have? While I have little faith, or should I say trust, in lawyers and their motives I do have some belief in justice systems.

    Yes, thanks for that Dennis, but the question was do you think he's a bit cross-eyed? he looks a bit in photos don't you (ya) reckon (I chucked in some American for you).

    Hmmmm. Stupid me. I thought you were making a euphemism of sorts about drug use.
    Cross eyed? Lazy eye? Never noticed either. :?

    wot? not even when you had a few beers with him?


    AVE GOLD WINNING CALVES
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    Fat Pat's letter to Howman:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat ... -to-Howman
    Fat Pat's letter to Bock:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat ... er-to-Bock

    (Thanks to RR for links)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Has anyone worked out the cash Armstrong stands to lose if he confesses?
    _
  • rdt
    rdt Posts: 869
    edited August 2012
    ThomThom wrote:
    Fat Pat's letter to Howman:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat ... -to-Howman
    Fat Pat's letter to Bock:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat ... er-to-Bock

    (Thanks to RR for links)


    That letter to Brock reads like some dodgily-written forum post rather than a formal letter between international sporting bodies. :shock:

    TBH, it's so shockingly written that I assumed it was a spoof :lol:
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    Dave_1 wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Brendan has no idea what he is talking about. He's created a straw man and is basing his argument on it


    Iain, who should Lance's 7 TDFs go to? :|

    How about no winner :shock:
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'

Categories