Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped

mfin

DNQ wrote:

mfin wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Lance could have kept and still could keep 5 wins according to Travis Tygart

Why has Tygart come out and said that? I can't understand it. Is it because it is something of a hollow victory, with no evidence in the open and no confession, LA maintains some credibility in some circles, evidenced by the increase in donations?

I don't know.

But my guess would the reasons for saying it are pretty much already in what he has said there. He's said it'd be better for cycling, I agree it would be. USADA weren't 'out to destroy LA's reputation', its simpler than that, they go after anyone where they have evidence presented to them which is compelling and clear. It doesn't matter that its Armstrong. ...some people, not directed at you, almost seem to think USADA have gone after LA based on the fact they don't like his face or something.

dave_1

mfin wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

mfin wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Travis Tygart is still holding out the possibility that 5 of Lance's Tour de France wins will be his if he tells the truth...but what would you rather, a lifetime ban from a sport you've retired from , the respect of most of your profesional cycling peers as the 7 time winner, much wealth still that can't be touched by ex sponsors, or confess to USADA and do jail time and be bankrupt?

What are you on about?? Who's said anywhere any hint of jail time or made any assumption that he'll be bankrupt if he 'confesses'??

...and, taking the stance he has... does this actually mean he has the respect of most of his professional cycling peers as a 7 time winner.

I assume you're just sticking a big spoon in and having a laugh here though

It's not my fault the reaction of most pros, past and current is pro Armstrong and unsupportive of USADA. . LA has the respect of many of his peers, of which you and I, I might remind you, are not.
And secondly, Feds investigate to see if federal funds used in a fraudulent way..what consequences are there Mfin? Huge fines and possible jail time. He's denied previously in 2004 at SCA case.

Don't ask me "what I am on about and accuse me of stirring. The facts are he's still respected and he risked deep legal and financial problems by admitting what he did

But doping is not illegal... misuse of us postal's money would be as we know... but thats not the case in hand.

I thought you might be having a laugh.

Unless you're saying if he confesses to USADA that he'll then get prosecuted for misuse of funds? Are you making that guess?

As for pro's reactions, there's been barely any yet, lets see what the responses are when more of the evidence comes out, and even then Id guess the great bulk of their opinions will be kept to themselves, which wont mean they don't have one.

10 pro's on his own teams dont support him thats for sure (so we're told, if theyve testified against him, which im prepared to take as fact), how many pro's responses have you found to it all so far which are supportive? is it that many that you can conclude that most pro's are pro Armstrong and anti-usada if that is what you are saying?

yes, confessing to fraud might lead to heavy fines and jail in the US. Yes, there are a hundred or more reactions from within the pro cycling community which you couldn't possibly construe as pro USADA out there. have you been reading what is being reported from pros, ex pros the last few days? And yes, those 10 did not support Armstrong cause they'd have got thrown in the can for perjury..

mfin

Dave_1 wrote:

yes, confessing to fraud might lead to heavy fines and jail in the US. Yes, there are a hundred or more reactions from within the pro cycling community which you couldn't possibly construe as pro USADA out there. have you been reading what is being reported from pros, ex pros the last few days? And yes, those 10 did not support Armstrong cause they'd have got thrown in the can for perjury..

Confessing to doping and confessing to fraud are different things though aren't they?

Can you go to jail in the US for confessing to doping?

Umm... yes, I have been reading reactions, but I haven't got to the point where I can say the concensus is pro-Armstrong, and, more importantly, any reaction at this stage is loosely 'emotional' in its stance. What Im saying is the real reactions will be when the evidence is out there.

Many pro Armstrong reactions aren't even taking in what has already been reported on Armstrong over the years, let alone what we are all yet to know.

LangerDan

Especially for Rick and his recent "smiley" outburst
(I wish I could give credit to someone for this, but it just seems to floating in the ether at the moment)


Lances Career in Icons

Richmond Racer

A masterpiece of visual summation, if I may say

DNQ

mfin wrote:

DNQ wrote:

mfin wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Lance could have kept and still could keep 5 wins according to Travis Tygart

Why has Tygart come out and said that? I can't understand it. Is it because it is something of a hollow victory, with no evidence in the open and no confession, LA maintains some credibility in some circles, evidenced by the increase in donations?

I don't know.

But my guess would the reasons for saying it are pretty much already in what he has said there. He's said it'd be better for cycling, I agree it would be. USADA weren't 'out to destroy LA's reputation', its simpler than that, they go after anyone where they have evidence presented to them which is compelling and clear. It doesn't matter that its Armstrong. ...some people, not directed at you, almost seem to think USADA have gone after LA based on the fact they don't like his face or something.

I can't accept that Tygart is prepared to make such a substantial offer because he cares for cycling, he deals with all Olympic sports, cycling is just one of them.
Would it be in cycling's best interests for Armstrong to retain 5 TdF wins? There again, who are they going to given to?
They don't "go after" anyone, they haven't taken any action against any of the "10 witnesses" some of whom must have taken EPO (and I would assume confessed to it), because Armstrong was charged with forcing/encouraging them to.
Having destroyed the "Statute of Limitations" argument, he then offers Armstrong exactly that as an olive branch.
I'm beginning to think we might not have heard the last of the Statute of Limitations!

mfin

Couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy.

LA could have confessed to it before the charging, back at the point the other 10 did.

As for the offering, whilst admitedly a little confusing, if he admitted it now, then it would be saving resources in the outstanding arbitrations etc?

As for who they are going to be given to... lots of people posting on this in the last week, seems irrelevant, deal with the cheating first. Any argument which seems to go along the lines of 'there's no point as who exactly is worthy of the wins', is that really some sort of logic that should mean a cheat with evidence against them should be let go?

Worth remembering that this isn't just about LA, its about the other accused too.

It is apparent a lot of people have some emotional investment in LA though. I suppose Im only really interested in the facts, and if the facts condemn him, he deserves everything he gets. ...and everytime the 'never got tested positive' comes out, I do feel like bursting out laughing.

Tom Butcher

mfin wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Lance could have kept and still could keep 5 wins according to Travis Tygart

There's something about offering TdF wins as bargaining chips that just seems wrong to me. Either they have evidence he cheated for those wins - in which case strip him of the titles - or they don't - in which case he should keep them.

mfin

Tom Butcher wrote:

mfin wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Lance could have kept and still could keep 5 wins according to Travis Tygart

There's something about offering TdF wins as bargaining chips that just seems wrong to me. Either they have evidence he cheated for those wins - in which case strip him of the titles - or they don't - in which case he should keep them.

Yes but couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy or cover up. What's key is there's wrong done here, cheating, doping.

Tom Butcher

So the argument is what - if he confesses then the statute of limitations applies, if he doesn't then it counts as a cover up and it doesn't ? Seems an odd rule if that is indeed the case - admit it and you can keep your wins, deny and you lose them - has that really applied to previous doping cases ?

DNQ

mfin wrote:

Couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy.

LA could have confessed to it before the charging, back at the point the other 10 did.

As for the offering, whilst admitedly a little confusing, if he admitted it now, then it would be saving resources in the outstanding arbitrations etc?

As for who they are going to be given to... lots of people posting on this in the last week, seems irrelevant, deal with the cheating first. Any argument which seems to go along the lines of 'there's no point as who exactly is worthy of the wins', is that really some sort of logic that should mean a cheat with evidence against them should be let go?

Worth remembering that this isn't just about LA, its about the other accused too.

It is apparent a lot of people have some emotional investment in LA though. I suppose Im only really interested in the facts, and if the facts condemn him, he deserves everything he gets. ...and everytime the 'never got tested positive' comes out, I do feel like bursting out laughing.

I think under WADAs rules you can’t go past the Statute of Limitations, full stop. I’m not a lawyer though, so if you know where it says differently I’d be interested .
I don’t see how a deal struck between Armstrong and USADA would affect the other arbitrations, they should be dealt with on their own merit, they should be able to do their own deals.
A lot of people let their emotions override their judgement about Armstrong on both sides.
“Never got tested positive” seems to be a fact, if you take allegations as allegations and invalid tests as invalid tests. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t doping, just that he didn’t fail a valid test.
The status of those who would inherit his titles doesn’t prevent them being taken from him, but it’s as well to consider it beforehand, to avoid looking foolish.
I will be very interested in Bruneel’s arbitration, I hope it isn’t conducted behind closed doors.

Spiny_Norman

I think the point is that if he talks, "turns Queen's evidence" as they say, they'll accept a confession of doping but a denial of conspiracy and cover-up, so only his most recent wins would be on the table to be taken away, because they wouldn't be able to override the statute of limitations if he wasn't involved in a cover-up or conspiracy.

But that would involve throwing Bruyneel under the bus.

DNQ

Spiny_Norman wrote:

I think the point is that if he talks, "turns Queen's evidence" as they say, they'll accept a confession of doping but a denial of conspiracy and cover-up, so only his most recent wins would be on the table to be taken away, because they wouldn't be able to override the statute of limitations if he wasn't involved in a cover-up or conspiracy.

But that would involve throwing Bruyneel under the bus.

They have already charged him of a cover up and conspiracy, decided that he is guilty, and issued their sanctions.
It's a little late to say the he wasn't involved.
Perhaps the case against Bruyneel isn't a strong as we are led to believe ?

insane_onerr

JAN ULLRICH 4 TIMES TOUR WINNER

Lichtblick

While looking for something else, I came across these links which may be of interest:

1. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012 ... -stapleton

That one contains " Livestrong has raised over $470 million for cancer research, in part through the sale of its yellow wristband that became a global phenomenon with over 84 million bands distributed."

Cancer research? Uh-huh. "Raising cancer awareness", more like.

Also: "Armstrong's net worth has been estimated at roughly $125 million. According to Forbes magazine, he earns more than $10 million a year in speaking fees and endorsement deals."

2. http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... undeclared

Can't see a date on that: may be up to a year old, but still worth a look. (Friends and Foes list)

3. http://velorooms.com/files/ArmstrongBus ... ctions.pdf

This one's a PDF, showing LA's business connections (Tailwind Sports, Livestrong, US Postal Team, Discovery Channel Team etc.)

Monty Dog

DNQ wrote:

I think under WADAs rules you can’t go past the Statute of Limitations, full stop. I’m not a lawyer though, so if you know where it says differently I’d be interested .
I don’t see how a deal struck between Armstrong and USADA would affect the other arbitrations, they should be dealt with on their own merit, they should be able to do their own deals.
A lot of people let their emotions override their judgement about Armstrong on both sides.
“Never got tested positive” seems to be a fact, if you take allegations as allegations and invalid tests as invalid tests. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t doping, just that he didn’t fail a valid test.
The status of those who would inherit his titles doesn’t prevent them being taken from him, but it’s as well to consider it beforehand, to avoid looking foolish.
I will be very interested in Bruneel’s arbitration, I hope it isn’t conducted behind closed doors.

USADA case is built on the evidence of systematic and organised doping arranged by Armstrong which is far more serious than any positive test - the witness testimony likely demonstrates that he was the 'dealer', chief conspirator from as recent as 2010 and on this basis he's been given a lifetime ban and all results nullified. Regardless of whether he tested positive or not, this is about his role along with Bruyneel, Ferrari, Moral et al as drug-dealers-in-chief and main beneficiary.

Who gets the titles is irrelevant and just a smoke-screen created for the fanboi sock-puppets as to why it's "unfair".

k-dog

iNsaNe_oNERR wrote:

JAN ULLRICH 4 TIMES TOUR WINNER

Next weeks headline:

ULLRICH STRIPPED OF 4 TDF TITLES!
no idea who wins now.

DNQ

Monty Dog wrote:

DNQ wrote:

I think under WADAs rules you can’t go past the Statute of Limitations, full stop. I’m not a lawyer though, so if you know where it says differently I’d be interested .
I don’t see how a deal struck between Armstrong and USADA would affect the other arbitrations, they should be dealt with on their own merit, they should be able to do their own deals.
A lot of people let their emotions override their judgement about Armstrong on both sides.
“Never got tested positive” seems to be a fact, if you take allegations as allegations and invalid tests as invalid tests. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t doping, just that he didn’t fail a valid test.
The status of those who would inherit his titles doesn’t prevent them being taken from him, but it’s as well to consider it beforehand, to avoid looking foolish.
I will be very interested in Bruneel’s arbitration, I hope it isn’t conducted behind closed doors.

USADA case is built on the evidence of systematic and organised doping arranged by Armstrong which is far more serious than any positive test - the witness testimony likely demonstrates that he was the 'dealer', chief conspirator from as recent as 2010 and on this basis he's been given a lifetime ban and all results nullified. Regardless of whether he tested positive or not, this is about his role along with Bruyneel, Ferrari, Moral et al as drug-dealers-in-chief and main beneficiary.

Who gets the titles is irrelevant and just a smoke-screen created for the fanboi sock-puppets as to why it's "unfair".

Don’t sling too much mud at Armstrong, save some for Bruyneel otherwise he’ll walk free.
“Irrelevant” is a word used when the realisation kicks in that the titles are just going to another doper. There has to be a good reason Tygart has offered to reinstate Armstrong with 5 TdF wins.

dennisn

DNQ wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

DNQ wrote:

I think under WADAs rules you can’t go past the Statute of Limitations, full stop. I’m not a lawyer though, so if you know where it says differently I’d be interested .
I don’t see how a deal struck between Armstrong and USADA would affect the other arbitrations, they should be dealt with on their own merit, they should be able to do their own deals.
A lot of people let their emotions override their judgement about Armstrong on both sides.
“Never got tested positive” seems to be a fact, if you take allegations as allegations and invalid tests as invalid tests. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t doping, just that he didn’t fail a valid test.
The status of those who would inherit his titles doesn’t prevent them being taken from him, but it’s as well to consider it beforehand, to avoid looking foolish.
I will be very interested in Bruneel’s arbitration, I hope it isn’t conducted behind closed doors.

USADA case is built on the evidence of systematic and organised doping arranged by Armstrong which is far more serious than any positive test - the witness testimony likely demonstrates that he was the 'dealer', chief conspirator from as recent as 2010 and on this basis he's been given a lifetime ban and all results nullified. Regardless of whether he tested positive or not, this is about his role along with Bruyneel, Ferrari, Moral et al as drug-dealers-in-chief and main beneficiary.

Who gets the titles is irrelevant and just a smoke-screen created for the fanboi sock-puppets as to why it's "unfair".

There has to be a good reason Tygart has offered to reinstate Armstrong with 5 TdF wins.

Or a bad reason.

DNQ

dennisn wrote:

DNQ wrote:

Monty Dog wrote:

DNQ wrote:

I think under WADAs rules you can’t go past the Statute of Limitations, full stop. I’m not a lawyer though, so if you know where it says differently I’d be interested .
I don’t see how a deal struck between Armstrong and USADA would affect the other arbitrations, they should be dealt with on their own merit, they should be able to do their own deals.
A lot of people let their emotions override their judgement about Armstrong on both sides.
“Never got tested positive” seems to be a fact, if you take allegations as allegations and invalid tests as invalid tests. It doesn’t mean he wasn’t doping, just that he didn’t fail a valid test.
The status of those who would inherit his titles doesn’t prevent them being taken from him, but it’s as well to consider it beforehand, to avoid looking foolish.
I will be very interested in Bruneel’s arbitration, I hope it isn’t conducted behind closed doors.

USADA case is built on the evidence of systematic and organised doping arranged by Armstrong which is far more serious than any positive test - the witness testimony likely demonstrates that he was the 'dealer', chief conspirator from as recent as 2010 and on this basis he's been given a lifetime ban and all results nullified. Regardless of whether he tested positive or not, this is about his role along with Bruyneel, Ferrari, Moral et al as drug-dealers-in-chief and main beneficiary.

Who gets the titles is irrelevant and just a smoke-screen created for the fanboi sock-puppets as to why it's "unfair".

There has to be a good reason Tygart has offered to reinstate Armstrong with 5 TdF wins.

Or a bad reason.

Good reason or bad reason... WHY?
a. Does he feel sorry for Armstrong
b. Does he want to quell the sympathy vote
c. Doesn't he have enough evidence against Bruyneel
d. Has he only just realised who will get Armstrong's titles

itisaboutthebike

Livestrong is a sham...............

dave_1

As I mentioned, if LA confesses, will he stay out of jail and avoid being bankrupt? If so, it's a good tactic by Tygart as he's willing Lance to throw Bruyneel and UCI under the bus..smart tactic and door has clearly been left open for USADA to recover 5 of his 7 TDF wins to him..even though USADA can't do time travel and those races were won by LanceA. Floyd, ALberto

dave_1

itisaboutthebike wrote:

Livestrong is a sham...............

TDF is a sham? 1991-2010 (minus perhaps 2008) are the biggest sham in the history of all sport..

No_Ta_Doctor

mfin wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

mfin wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Lance could have kept and still could keep 5 wins according to Travis Tygart

There's something about offering TdF wins as bargaining chips that just seems wrong to me. Either they have evidence he cheated for those wins - in which case strip him of the titles - or they don't - in which case he should keep them.

Yes but couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy or cover up. What's key is there's wrong done here, cheating, doping.

USADA have always said they're interested in the conspiracy, they're after the doctors, the managers, those that supplied or encouraged or enabled. That's the exact reason the testifying riders aren't on the charge sheet.

Lance is being offered a last chance to do what the others did. If he does then they'll drop the conspiracy charges against him and the statute of limitations will apply, meaning he "keeps" five of his wins. It's entirely consistent with what USADA have been saying all along, and it's another nail in the coffin for the "they're out to get Lance" argument (along with their offer to go straight to CAS).

That's all.

itisaboutthebike

"TDF is a sham from 1991-2010 (2008 excepted)" - couldn't agree more.

rick_chasey

No doubt Prudhome will use the 100th anniversary to draw a line under it, ala '98.

"The first 100 years was marred by cheating throughout. The next 100 years, will be better" blah blah.

Monty Dog

Larry retaining his TDF titles with an asterisk might be a fair compromise if it forces a fundamental reform of the UCI. UCI have been as complicit in the corruption of cycling as Larry and the Hog.
There's going to be an interesting 'wrestling' match between Larry and the Hog as to who throws who under the bus first? Bruyneel can probably make a better claim as it would have been Armstrong, Weisel and the Tailwind Sport financiers who brought him in i.e. he was only an monkey to the others' organ grinding.

pat1cp

I've considered this for a while... I fail to see what sripping LA of his titles will do, it creates more problems than it solves. At the end of the day, he won them on a "levelish" playing field. I know he's made alot of money but that was probably more to do with the USA public and the recovery from cancer.

If that is the way they want to go you might as well delete all results between 92 and 2010, which doesn't help anyone. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Filippo Simeoni has said as much "That entire decade was one big bluff," Simeoni said

A few apologies from LA would be nice and refreshing....

mfin

No tA Doctor wrote:

mfin wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

mfin wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-26/Lance-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/57336128/1

Lance could have kept and still could keep 5 wins according to Travis Tygart

There's something about offering TdF wins as bargaining chips that just seems wrong to me. Either they have evidence he cheated for those wins - in which case strip him of the titles - or they don't - in which case he should keep them.

Yes but couldnt go past statute of limitations unless it was a conspiracy or cover up. What's key is there's wrong done here, cheating, doping.

USADA have always said they're interested in the conspiracy, they're after the doctors, the managers, those that supplied or encouraged or enabled. That's the exact reason the testifying riders aren't on the charge sheet.

Lance is being offered a last chance to do what the others did. If he does then they'll drop the conspiracy charges against him and the statute of limitations will apply, meaning he "keeps" five of his wins. It's entirely consistent with what USADA have been saying all along, and it's another nail in the coffin for the "they're out to get Lance" argument (along with their offer to go straight to CAS).

That's all.

Yep. Completely agree.

slim_boy_fat

pat1cp wrote:

I've considered this for a while... I fail to see what sripping LA of his titles will do, it creates more problems than it solves. At the end of the day, he won them on a "levelish" playing field. I know he's made alot of money but that was probably more to do with the USA public and the recovery from cancer.

If that is the way they want to go you might as well delete all results between 92 and 2010, which doesn't help anyone. Let sleeping dogs lie.

Filippo Simeoni has said as much "That entire decade was one big bluff," Simeoni said

A few apologies from LA would be nice and refreshing....

Vaughters had a bit to say on that.

Take two riders of the same age, height, and weight, says Vaughters. They have identical VO2max at threshold—a measure of oxygen uptake at the limit of sustainable aerobic power. But one of them has a natural hematocrit of 36 and one of 47. Those riders have physiologies that don’t respond equally to doping.

It’s not even a simple math equation that, with the old 50 percent hematocrit limit, one rider could gain 14 percent and another only three. Even if you raise the limit to the edge of physical sustainability, 60 percent or more, to allow both athletes significant gains, it’s not an equal effect, Vaughters says.

He goes on to explain that the largest gains in oxygen transport occur in the lower hematocrit ranges—a 50 percent increase in RBC count is not a linear 50 percent increase in oxygen transport capability. The rider with the lower hematocrit is actually extremely efficient at scavenging oxygen from what little hemoglobin that he has, comparatively. So when you boost his red-cell count, he goes a lot faster. The rider at 47 is less efficient, so a boost has less effect.

“You have guys who train the same and are very disciplined athletes, and are even physiologically the same, but one has a quirk that’s very adaptable to the drug du jour,” Vaughters says. “Then all of a sudden your race winner is determined not by some kind of Darwinian selection of who is the strongest and fittest, but whose physiology happened to be most compatible with the drug, or to having 50 different things in him.”

It’s basically a Darwinian selection based adaptations to modern pharmacology. On the psychological side, Vaughters says that the playing field becomes tilted even among dopers because not everyone dopes to the same degree.

“If you make everything legal, believe me, some people are going to push things way beyond where they are now,” he argues. “Some people will say no to what is essentially suicide, so the winner is the guy who’s willing to risk his health more than anyone else.”

Vaughters stresses that this is a practical opposition to allowing doping. “It’s not that my holier-than-thou position leads me to believe that pureness is the way forward,” he says. “Logic leads me to that conclusion. If you’re looking to find the best athlete who can win because he works the hardest and is the most talented and has good tactics and all that, then the path of opening doping is not a plausible one to end up at that objective.”

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-insider ... -?page=0,0