Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:ReesA wrote:accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/
That makes for some kind of reading... it almost seems a bit like its leading somewhere too, like subtle Scientology stuff does sometimes.
...is Lance Armstrong a total cult?
He's actually two cults. One with the people who almost, or do, worship him and one with the people who believe he's the cause of all ills. Sounds like you're in the latter "total cult". Either way it's full of people who, for whatever reason, can't break
away from the idea of idols and demons.
You think he's two cults? Not heard of that. I suppose we can agree he's the biggest cult in cycling though if nothing else.
Sure can. There have always been cults of people who hate certain people(Nazi's, KKK, etc.) and plenty of cults(most religions and stalker types) that proclaim to love their gods, be they human gods or more traditional gods in heaven. To some LA is a god and to some he's a demon. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:ReesA wrote:accepting personal responsibility
http://www.livestrong.com/article/14698 ... nsibility/
That makes for some kind of reading... it almost seems a bit like its leading somewhere too, like subtle Scientology stuff does sometimes.
...is Lance Armstrong a total cult?
He's actually two cults. One with the people who almost, or do, worship him and one with the people who believe he's the cause of all ills. Sounds like you're in the latter "total cult". Either way it's full of people who, for whatever reason, can't break
away from the idea of idols and demons.
You think he's two cults? Not heard of that. I suppose we can agree he's the biggest cult in cycling though if nothing else.
Sure can. There have always been cults of people who hate certain people(Nazi's, KKK, etc.) and plenty of cults(most religions and stalker types) that proclaim to love their gods, be they human gods or more traditional gods in heaven. To some LA is a god and to some he's a demon. The truth is most likely somewhere in the middle.
Good. A right cult then. A complete cult.0 -
So... its a week Thursday the UCI get their info from USADA, then they could go on to dig themselves a big hole if they choose to say its not conclusive enough.
The story that 'keeps on giving' this is going to be.0 -
Arguments like this don’t make any sense because if one applied them to other aspects of life, one could say why still bring to trial those now-90-year old camp commandants who were involved in and responsible for Nazi atrocities. In the near future one might similarly decide what happened at Srebrenica in 1995 was irrelevant.step-hent wrote:.. for me, make any sense pursuing them for old offences with no real relevance in the sport today.
Within each sphere of activity, whether war or sport or even simple shop-theft, surely the degree of misdemeanour compared to the rules in state at the time should determine whether some degree of amnesty or mercy should apply or not, not the time since the misdemeanour occurred.
As to relevance in sport today, the argument can be the other way around from what you imply, because it's hard to judge relevance. Any pre-judging of future activities could actually be disadvantageous to a defendant, thus why it isn’t usually the way to make a successful defence or judgement about an offence.0 -
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”
Interesting quote from an article about the death of sports journalism after LA.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/08/29/friday-night-lights-out/0 -
Joe Lindsay's certainly firing on all cyclinders at the moment.
Hamilton's 'The Secret Race' available for pre-order now, worth 13 quid of anyone's money
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Race ... 05930717350 -
-
Richmond Racer wrote:Hamilton's 'The Secret Race' available for pre-order now, worth 13 quid of anyone's money
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Race ... 0593071735
You've read it already?????0 -
dennisn wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Hamilton's 'The Secret Race' available for pre-order now, worth 13 quid of anyone's money
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Secret-Race ... 0593071735
You've read it already?????
Oh, I think I can take a flyer on spending my hard-earned ££s on that0 -
dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.0 -
dougzz wrote:
just confirming what a completely deluded fanboy he is! Trotting out the usual no evidence, passed 500+ tests, politically motivated investigation etc etc etc b0ll0k$
I lost any respect I had for him long long ago and I've been watching cycling since the 80s Channel 4 TdF coverageKev
Summer Bike: Colnago C60
Winter Bike: Vitus Alios
MTB: 1997 GT Karakorum0 -
kfinlay wrote:dougzz wrote:
just confirming what a completely deluded fanboy he is! Trotting out the usual no evidence, passed 500+ tests, politically motivated investigation etc etc etc b0ll0k$
I lost any respect I had for him long long ago and I've been watching cycling since the 80s Channel 4 TdF coverage
+1000000 ...using his public profile to spout utter sh!t, its honestly like he's read nothing of the charges, what's being said, any history of the suspicions, the EPO positives, how doping works, the fact its so easy to get round the tests its ridiculous.... what a tw@t... if I read the evidence and testimony that becomes available I'd be the first to look at it and be prepared to realise there's nothing there though, but at the moment, everything seems to point to the contrary.
Why on earth couldnt he say 'I'll reserve judgement until I hear enough to form an educated opinion' thats what well-known people like this should do.0 -
mfin wrote:dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.
Its not the point. The point is that the Federal Investigation was to investigate misuse of US Postal Funds given to the team in sponsorship but partially spent on doping. It was about the funds, cos spending those funds on doping would have broken the law.
They could have found the doping, but not the misuse of funds, and then drop the case as the latter is what they were investigating.
Mr Liggett doesn't seem to understand/know/recognise this, and dare I say it, neither do you???
(If you're gonna philosophically comment, don't do it when you're not even addressing the point in hand... well, you can if you like, but it makes you look a bit daft... which I dont believe you are!).0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.
Strawman: The Federal invesigation was dropped because it failed to uncover sufficient evidence of misuse of public funds, it wasn't a doping invesigation."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
dennisn wrote:...
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.
From what I understand of this, the investigators were ready to bring charges, but were surprised when their bosses suddenly pulled the plug.
The investigators themselves thought they had enough evidence to make charges stick.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
deleted, repeat post, accidental click
0 -
Rich old man who has made a lot of money out of cycling supports another rich old man who has made a lot of money out of cycling. Next item, dog bites man :roll:
At least he is superior to the cycling media people who will now start to say, covertly, yeah well I knew all that stuff.....'fool'0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.
Strawman: The Federal invesigation was dropped because it failed to uncover sufficient evidence of misuse of public funds, it wasn't a doping invesigation.
I didn't say anything about doping. Just confirming why the feds drop investigations.
You said it fairly well "...failed to uncover sufficient....". Although I might put it like this, ".... failed to FIND sufficient...". Your "uncover" would sort of denote that they missed something, which I doubt. After all it took a really long time. More than enough to either build a solid case or admit they couldn't.0 -
dennisn wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.
Strawman: The Federal invesigation was dropped because it failed to uncover sufficient evidence of misuse of public funds, it wasn't a doping invesigation.
I didn't say anything about doping. Just confirming why the feds drop investigations.
You said it fairly well "...failed to uncover sufficient....". Although I might put it like this, ".... failed to FIND sufficient...". Your "uncover" would sort of denote that they missed something, which I doubt. After all it took a really long time. More than enough to either build a solid case or admit they couldn't.
I think you're reading too much into my choice of language."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
-
disgruntledgoat wrote:dennisn wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:dougzz wrote:
What a prick. He's even brought out the naive 'Federals dropped it from not enough evidence' when they didnt say much but also they were only investigating misuse of funds.
Isn't that usually why the authorities drop investigations? Oh wait, Lance and all his millions bought / bribed his way out of that. That makes sense, especially when you realize that a certain crooked Wall Streeter couldn't buy his way out of jail and he had billions and billions.
Strawman: The Federal invesigation was dropped because it failed to uncover sufficient evidence of misuse of public funds, it wasn't a doping invesigation.
I didn't say anything about doping. Just confirming why the feds drop investigations.
You said it fairly well "...failed to uncover sufficient....". Although I might put it like this, ".... failed to FIND sufficient...". Your "uncover" would sort of denote that they missed something, which I doubt. After all it took a really long time. More than enough to either build a solid case or admit they couldn't.
I think you're reading too much into my choice of language.
Didn't mean to. Just making a comment in my own weird way.0 -
knedlicky wrote:
Arguments like this don’t make any sense because if one applied them to other aspects of life, one could say why still bring to trial those now-90-year old camp commandants who were involved in and responsible for Nazi atrocities. In the near future one might similarly decide what happened at Srebrenica in 1995 was irrelevant.step-hent wrote:.. for me, make any sense pursuing them for old offences with no real relevance in the sport today.
Within each sphere of activity, whether war or sport or even simple shop-theft, surely the degree of misdemeanour compared to the rules in state at the time should determine whether some degree of amnesty or mercy should apply or not, not the time since the misdemeanour occurred.
As to relevance in sport today, the argument can be the other way around from what you imply, because it's hard to judge relevance. Any pre-judging of future activities could actually be disadvantageous to a defendant, thus why it isn’t usually the way to make a successful defence or judgement about an offence.
Applying the same rule as for war crimes ignores the fact that the severity of an offence will have an impact on whether it should be prosecuted and whether there is sufficient benefit to make it worthwhile. The greater the severity of offence, the longer the limitation period, because of the public policy reasons for making sure you punish the perpetrators. Is there even a statute of limitation on war crimes? I always thought not, and if there isn't its because of that public policy aspect.
But doping in sport just doesn't come up in that category. Sport is for enjoyment and entertainment. It is also (now) a business. There are good reasons for preventing doping and promoting fair competition. But how far back do you go? A line has to be drawn, and a time limit imposed. I just think that line should be drawn sooner, so we can all move on - Roulston suggested six months, I think thats a bit short. Everyone else thinks that's madness and the deterrent effect is worth the money being spent and the disruption to the sport - perhaps I'm just too prepared to accept that the doping cheats will never all be caught and its not worth killing the sport to do it. There's probably a good reason I'm not working for an Anti Doping Agency!0 -
step-hent wrote:perhaps I'm just too prepared to accept that the doping cheats will never all be caught and its not worth killing the sport to do it.
Why do you think doing all this is killing the sport?? In what sense??
Ive yet to see a single race affected by this case.
If there has been any effect, I cant see it being reported on. (have you?)
The only effect I can see at the moment is some more polarisation on opinions about LA, and that's about it.0 -
Why does a time limit have to be drawn?step-hent wrote:A line has to be drawn, and a time limit imposed0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Getting kind of weird out there. Almost starting to sound like the upcoming Presidential election. People on both sides rabid in either there praise or hatred of the man. Only difference is that, in LA's matter, 99.99% of the worlds population is sitting this one out because they don't care either way. And the .01% who do care are most likely split 50/50 in their opinions. Me, I'm kind of sitting back in a comfortable chair watching and enjoying the fight and not overly interested in the outcome. Sort of like watching a baseball game. Would love to see the hometown win but realize that doesn't always happen and actually just glad to watch the game.0 -
mfin wrote:step-hent wrote:perhaps I'm just too prepared to accept that the doping cheats will never all be caught and its not worth killing the sport to do it.
Why do you think doing all this is killing the sport?? In what sense??
Ive yet to see a single race affected by this case.
If there has been any effect, I cant see it being reported on. (have you?)
The only effect I can see at the moment is some more polarisation on opinions about LA, and that's about it.
+1
Really, this is not the end of the world or the end of much of anything for that matter.0 -
dennisn wrote:mfin wrote:step-hent wrote:perhaps I'm just too prepared to accept that the doping cheats will never all be caught and its not worth killing the sport to do it.
Why do you think doing all this is killing the sport?? In what sense??
Ive yet to see a single race affected by this case.
If there has been any effect, I cant see it being reported on. (have you?)
The only effect I can see at the moment is some more polarisation on opinions about LA, and that's about it.
+1
Really, this is not the end of the world or the end of much of anything for that matter.
Finally you agree. Im glad it doesn't matter... so, I'll get the petrol and you get the lighter and we can now burn him.
Right, who's supplying the Marshmallows and the beers?
(Don't worry our Den, Im misinterpreting you on purpose
) 0 -
Face the facts. The feds wanted to try to prove public money was used for doping and they could not prove that. 1 court recognised the 7 TDFs wins could not be disproven and the USADA says it could be proven. Armstrong is a drug cheat but he won the TDF 7 times or you are saying Indurain did not win 7 times as well as they both used Epoh0
-
I think we can agree that Indurain didn't win seven times.Dave_1 wrote:Face the facts. The feds wanted to try to prove public money was used for doping and they could not prove that. 1 court recognised the 7 TDFs wins could not be disproven and the USADA says it could be proven. Armstrong is a drug cheat but he won the TDF 7 times or you are saying Indurain did not win 7 times as well as they both used EpohTwitter: @RichN950
