USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:
Two weeks ago everyone was excited by dressage, taekwando and trap shooting. Now they don't give a toss.Rick Chasey wrote:mercsport wrote:[
Dennis would likely say "who cares?"
Well my phone's been off the hook with friends calling me to ask WTF it all means and twitter's been trending Lance Armstrong, USADA, TdF and EPO since 6am this morning when I first checked - ahead of Brevik half the time.
True. True.
Nice to know I'm the trap shoot to my friends.0 -
OK so WADA are agreeing with the USADA decision - now just waiting on the UCI...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
They're playing for time:bigdawg wrote:OK so WADA are agreeing with the USADA decision - now just waiting on the UCI...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375
"The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.
The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.
Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.
Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."0 -
When is the Hog's arbitration hearing?0
-
has anyone been over to the asylum today, they must be going mental over there0
-
Pretty relaxed.
They're less interested if it's actually true and their global conspiracy theories are proved right.0 -
David Walsh has a word or two - wise words - about all this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-w ... as-charges
Looking forward to hearing Paul Kimmage's take on it all."Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
0
-
Self loathing?Rick Chasey wrote:0 -
bigdawg wrote:If the testimonies do come out Im sure LA will use his usual bullying and character assasination to discredit them
I find that statement somewhat interesting in that you accuse him of character assasination yet choose to ignore the veritable barrage of "character assasination" that takes place on this, and many other threads and forums. How does that work in your world? It's all A-OK if you, and people who agree with you, do it but it's definately not OK for the other side(if you will) or anyone else who doesn't share your thinking to do anything like "character assasination"?? :roll: :roll:0 -
DeadCalm wrote:
They're playing for time:bigdawg wrote:OK so WADA are agreeing with the USADA decision - now just waiting on the UCI...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19369375
"The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration in the case that USADA has brought against him.
The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World Anti-Doping Code.
Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.
As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.
Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make."
I don't think you can fairly accuse UCI of playing for time, if Article 8.3 is quoted correctly then the ball is in USADA's court. It'll be interesting to see the extent of the "reasoned decision"!0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
He was describing his career I believe0 -
Slim Boy Fat wrote:
I guess if you play with big dogs you sometimes get bit. Soap opera over. Well never say over till it's over. Who can say what he may do next? But it would appear that every LA hater will be tossing back a few beers today. Me I had too much to drink last night so I think I'll pass. Gonna go watch a bike race on Saturday.
0 -
Moray did put in an appearance in this thread quite a while ago. Been conspicuous by his absence.0
-
LeicesterLad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
He was describing his career I believe
Either that or he has just bought a mars bar ice cream for the first time in 10 years.0 -
MrTapir wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
He was describing his career I believe
Either that or he has just bought a mars bar ice cream for the first time in 10 years.
Yes.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:MrTapir wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
He was describing his career I believe
Either that or he has just bought a mars bar ice cream for the first time in 10 years.
Yes.
I see I'm not the only one thats felt let down0 -
MrTapir wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
He was describing his career I believe
Either that or he has just bought a mars bar ice cream for the first time in 10 years.
I have the same feeling when I see a Wagon wheel 0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:MrTapir wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
He was describing his career I believe
Either that or he has just bought a mars bar ice cream for the first time in 10 years. I have the same feeling when I see a Wagon wheel
Dont even go there. :evil:
Although Fox's Classics are pleasantly as they always have been.0 -
Put his head back in the Sand, no doubt. To look for the other (and I quote David Walsh) non intelligent people. I cannot say such things for fear of being banned but I did stop going to the TDF because of them :roll:dennisn wrote:ddraver wrote:Now, Moray Gub is someone I'd like to hear from....
Yeah, whatever happened to him? :?
Quote from David Walsh.
"People have been saying to me for a number of years now, because it was perfectly clear to most intelligent people that Armstrong had been doping, and they asked if I felt vindication because I was accusing him for many years. I’ve never felt vindicated because I’ve never needed vindication in my life. I was never sure of anything more in my life than that this guy and his team were doping and that was form the very first Tour in 1999.”
Biking Bernie might feel vindicated after being banned from here.
You want evidence, then bring him back to reveal it all.
My Cap fits this one :- "I was never sure of anything more in my life than, this guy and his team were doping and that was from the very first Tour in 1999.” The same regarding Bjarne Riis in 1996Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
That's funny, I wasn't aware that you could be banned for making a case that someone doped. Rather a lot of contributors to this thread need to worry...deejay wrote:Biking Bernie might feel vindicated after being banned from here.
Oh hang on - perhaps that wasn't why he was banned. As for vindicated, I don't think many of us ever disbelieved his evidence or disagreed with his opinions, annoying as he was with his obsessions and (let's say) poor manners.0 -
It will be out in no time.0 -
Is this what you call a bad day in the office?
USADA statement: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-b ... since-1998
“Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong, or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.”
I feel bad for all those people that have kept on claiming he never doped.....
I am still intrigued how he managed to evade so many doping controls...0 -
Index of Lance Armstrong doping allegations over the years
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/ind ... -the-years0 -
This isn't nearly as much fun as I hoped it would be."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0
-
bompington wrote:
That's funny, I wasn't aware that you could be banned for making a case that someone doped. Rather a lot of contributors to this thread need to worry...deejay wrote:Biking Bernie might feel vindicated after being banned from here.
Oh hang on - perhaps that wasn't why he was banned. As for vindicated, I don't think many of us ever disbelieved his evidence or disagreed with his opinions, annoying as he was with his obsessions and (let's say) poor manners.
I'm thinking he's in a "told ya so" mode right now. Can't say as I blame him.
bb - if you're reading this - you win. :P :P0 -
mididoctors wrote:This isn't nearly as much fun as I hoped it would be.
agree... the fun part is a bit gone now he's pulled out....0
