Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Cheats!0
-
rayjay wrote:Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
Compare Hitler to Armstrong
Armstrong is a gangster. Like who? Al Capone or a gangster rapper like Ice T or perhaps James Cagney the gangster actor
How do you know how other cyclist/team leaders acted? Are you a wizard? Did you go to Hogwarts ?
Do you think Vino's a Saint? Do think Chipo's an angel?
oh you missed ,,,Armstrong is Satan and will destroy us all with his evil powers and his fridge full of special blood
Having said that, if he does go in to politics he could get a bit close to that big red button
Hitler brilliant.
Is that you Lance? Prefer to skit rather than hold up your hand and admit you defrauded the sport out of more than 100 million USD$?
Nothing more to add, those who defend LA clearly can't differentiate between fact and fiction.'Performance analysis and Froome not being clean was a media driven story. I haven’t heard one guy in the peloton say a negative thing about Froome, and I haven’t heard a single person in the peloton suggest Froome isn’t clean.' TSP0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:
It's simple really. The appropriate sporting body's bring in a life ban for a first offence.
David Millar for example would not have been allowed to ride again. Simple isn't it :roll:
Thanks for clarifying that, I was in some doubt as to what a life ban was, now I'm clear :roll:rayjay wrote:Chris Hoy and other athletes who have called for life ban's for doping athletes would soon change their mind's once you wave your statistics at them about young men driving cars fast
enjoy your doghnut
While I respect Chris Hoy's achievements on a bike and generally think he's a decent chap I've yet to see anything from him that suggests he's considered the matter in any depth. I'd certainly hope that if he was proposing life bans as a deterrent then he'd have a good look at the research on punishment and crime prevention, and of risk taking in general, first. If, on the other hand, he just wants to see cheats punished as severely as possible, as a form of retribution, then that's his prerogative. That's fair enough, it just won't stop cheats cheating.
You haven't quite managed to describe how a life ban with no possibility of appeal would be legally possible though. It would be in contravention of most national legislature, international human rights laws, employment laws and God knows what else.... Natural justice in general.
Enjoy your simplicity.
Danilo Di Luca has been banned from cycling for life after being found guilty of a third doping offence by an Italian Olympic Committee tribunal
Just swap 3rd offence to 1st offence and perhaps then it will sink into your over filled mind of irrelevant information that has no bearing on a sporting related issue. These are sportsman and women not criminals.
Simple isn't it
I'm sure his lawyers are on the case 0 -
Bo Duke wrote:rayjay wrote:Bo Duke wrote:Joelsim wrote:I think I also said that LA should be treated the same as everyone else too, not made the scapegoat, no matter how much I dislike his bullying attitude.
If LA had acted in the same manner as 'everyone else' then fair enough, but its pretty clear the guy acted in a gangster like fashion that separates his actions and the consequences of his actions from those of the other cyclists who simply doped and kept their heads down. So Hitler was no more guilty than a soldier on the front line?
Compare Hitler to Armstrong
Armstrong is a gangster. Like who? Al Capone or a gangster rapper like Ice T or perhaps James Cagney the gangster actor
How do you know how other cyclist/team leaders acted? Are you a wizard? Did you go to Hogwarts ?
Do you think Vino's a Saint? Do think Chipo's an angel?
oh you missed ,,,Armstrong is Satan and will destroy us all with his evil powers and his fridge full of special blood
Having said that, if he does go in to politics he could get a bit close to that big red button
Hitler brilliant.
Is that you Lance? Prefer to skit rather than hold up your hand and admit you defrauded the sport out of more than 100 million USD$?
Nothing more to add, those who defend LA clearly can't differentiate between fact and fiction.
Tell me how Armstrong Defrauded sport out of $100 million?
Tell me what's fact ?0 -
He didn't defraud 'the sport' of that much - just the prize money (around $3m), which he only kept part of. He got his money from sponsorship. The team sold advertising space to US Postal, Discovery etc and they got exactly what they paid for, and they did quite nicely out of it. I struggle to see where the fraud was. The likes of Nike and Oakley profited enormously off the back of him. At least they have the decency not to try and pretend otherwise.Bo Duke wrote:
Is that you Lance? Prefer to skit rather than hold up your hand and admit you defrauded the sport out of more than 100 million USD$?Twitter: @RichN950 -
rayjay wrote:
Danilo Di Luca has been banned from cycling for life after being found guilty of a third doping offence by an Italian Olympic Committee tribunal
Just swap 3rd offence to 1st offence and perhaps then it will sink into your over filled mind of irrelevant information that has no bearing on a sporting related issue. These are sportsman and women not criminals.
Simple isn't it
I'm sure his lawyers are on the case
Assuming your line of reason has something to do with Armstrong finally getting canned, you do realise that his "1st offence" actually documents 2 doping infractions, plus we have his 6 other positives from 1999 now confirmed
by LA's own confession.
That's a heck of a lot of 1st offences!"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
So Di Luca knew a 3rd strike would leave him banned for life.
Yet he still commited the offence?
I'm not sure that example helps your argument Rayjay.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:So Di Luca knew a 3rd strike would leave him banned for life.
Yet he still commited the offence?
I'm not sure that example helps your argument Rayjay.
I don't think Rajay has an argument. I think he is an argument.
I've yet to see any attempt to present an argument that would clarify why cheating at sport by taking PEDs is any different to any other form of cheating in life that carries a punishment if caught. Other than that cycling and cyclists are somehow so inherently different from the rest of life and people that any comparison is just absurd.
There are lots of smileys though, which does suggest that ignorance really is bliss.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I do find it strange that Di Luca gets such bad press on this forum, and Valverde et al...they were all doing it, and plenty still are. It's just Di Luca didn't do it properly for whatever reason and got caught. Thicko perhaps.
What about Merckx, or Anquetil, or Indurain? I don't see the same level of animosity towards them.
Don't forget in those times, as in the 90s/00s, doping was effectively legal in many ways, an accepted part of the sport. Don't we all feel that the cover ups suggested to LA that it was perfectly ok to dope?
The whole thing is a shoddy state of affairs, which is why Cookson needs to draw a line under things, and start afresh.
Quite how that is done when the testing is so limited in its effectiveness I don't know. You can take EPO at 11pm and it will be out of your system by the time the testers turn up the next morning...blood values can be manipulated to compensate for the passport readings...riders can blame steak...can state human rights to not be tested when they are glowing...can take lots of things in far-flung places when training with very little chance of anyone turning up.
The last point seems to be the only way things can improve, free license to the testers to do it anytime, anyplace 365/24/7. Surely the only time this could cause problems is during races when you wouldn't want to wake someone at 3am just before an important stage.
The Jamaicans who were caught recently have passed many tests but they were surprised. Hey presto!0 -
DiLuca because he got busted and then came back, then got busted again and then came back and then got busted again. I'm willing to give anyone a second chance, but a third and fourth? No, sorry.Joelsim wrote:I do find it strange that Di Luca gets such bad press on this forum, and Valverde et al...they were all doing it, and plenty still are. It's just Di Luca didn't do it properly for whatever reason and got caught. Thicko perhaps.
Valverde because he used his lawyers to obstruct justice for three or four years.
They both did more than the average doper.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
DiLuca because he got busted and then came back, then got busted again and then came back and then got busted again. I'm willing to give anyone a second chance, but a third and fourth? No, sorry.Joelsim wrote:I do find it strange that Di Luca gets such bad press on this forum, and Valverde et al...they were all doing it, and plenty still are. It's just Di Luca didn't do it properly for whatever reason and got caught. Thicko perhaps.
Valverde because he used his lawyers to obstruct justice for three or four years.
They both did more than the average doper.
I'm not sure he did you see. He just got caught.0 -
Joelsim wrote:RichN95 wrote:
DiLuca because he got busted and then came back, then got busted again and then came back and then got busted again. I'm willing to give anyone a second chance, but a third and fourth? No, sorry.Joelsim wrote:I do find it strange that Di Luca gets such bad press on this forum, and Valverde et al...they were all doing it, and plenty still are. It's just Di Luca didn't do it properly for whatever reason and got caught. Thicko perhaps.
Valverde because he used his lawyers to obstruct justice for three or four years.
They both did more than the average doper.
I'm not sure he did you see. He just got caught.
It's what they did after they got caught that gives them a bad name. We'd react the same to pretty much any other rider that did that.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
rayjay wrote:Danilo Di Luca has been banned from cycling for life after being found guilty of a third doping offence by an Italian Olympic Committee tribunal
Just swap 3rd offence to 1st offence and perhaps then it will sink into your over filled mind of irrelevant information that has no bearing on a sporting related issue. These are sportsman and women not criminals.
Simple isn't it
I'm sure his lawyers are on the case
Di Luca may or may not choose to appeal his life ban and if he does so, the courts will consider his case. The point that you're missing - sorry, one of the many points you're missing - is that NO-ONE can stop Di Luca from asking a court to hear his appeal or stop him from suing a sports governing body or anti-doping agency for unfair treatment, and NO-ONE can tell the courts that they're not allowed to hear his case. Life bans (or any other sanction regardless of how harsh or lenient) without possibility of appeal are simply not an option that is ever going to be available.
So if life bans increase the likelihood of expensive, time-consuming litigation then they may be counter-productive.
(That said, No tA Doctor, there are reasons other than deterrence that we might want to consider life bans.)I have a policy of only posting comment on the internet under my real name. This is to moderate my natural instinct to flame your fatuous, ill-informed, irrational, credulous, bigoted, semi-literate opinions to carbon, you knuckle-dragging f***wits.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
DiLuca because he got busted and then came back, then got busted again and then came back and then got busted again. I'm willing to give anyone a second chance, but a third and fourth? No, sorry.Joelsim wrote:I do find it strange that Di Luca gets such bad press on this forum, and Valverde et al...they were all doing it, and plenty still are. It's just Di Luca didn't do it properly for whatever reason and got caught. Thicko perhaps.
Valverde because he used his lawyers to obstruct justice for three or four years.
They both did more than the average doper.
I think it may serve to mention that his first, three month suspension was not due to being "busted" by a positive test, but through a taped telephone conversation.
Done for dodgy dealings over the phone. Words about deeds, not an actual deed.
So not unlike getting done through witness testimony. 8)"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
rob churchill wrote:rayjay wrote:Danilo Di Luca has been banned from cycling for life after being found guilty of a third doping offence by an Italian Olympic Committee tribunal
Just swap 3rd offence to 1st offence and perhaps then it will sink into your over filled mind of irrelevant information that has no bearing on a sporting related issue. These are sportsman and women not criminals.
Simple isn't it
I'm sure his lawyers are on the case
Di Luca may or may not choose to appeal his life ban and if he does so, the courts will consider his case. The point that you're missing - sorry, one of the many points you're missing - is that NO-ONE can stop Di Luca from asking a court to hear his appeal or stop him from suing a sports governing body or anti-doping agency for unfair treatment, and NO-ONE can tell the courts that they're not allowed to hear his case. Life bans (or any other sanction regardless of how harsh or lenient) without possibility of appeal are simply not an option that is ever going to be available.
So if life bans increase the likelihood of expensive, time-consuming litigation then they may be counter-productive.
(That said, No tA Doctor, there are reasons other than deterrence that we might want to consider life bans.)
You could argue that some people need a life ban, from competing, for there own good, and health. Take Ricco for example.0 -
For the education of No tA Doctor.
Lawyers can and will argue a 2 year ban a 4 year ban a life ban. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE :roll:
You don't seem to have the brain capacity to understand such a simple matter and over complicate it with your drivel and pathetic attempt to feel superior. YOU HAVE NO FACTS,
AND THE FACT IS A LIFE BAN AS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO DI LUCA. SO IT COULD EASILY BE GIVEN TO ANYONE ELSE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES WHETHER IT BE FOR A 1ST OFFENCE OR 3RD.
Giddy up 0 -
rayjay wrote:For the education of No tA Doctor.
Lawyers can and will argue a 2 year ban a 4 year ban a life ban. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE :roll:
You don't seem to have the brain capacity to understand such a simple matter and over complicate it with your drivel and pathetic attempt to feel superior. YOU HAVE NO FACTS,
AND THE FACT IS A LIFE BAN AS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO DI LUCA. SO IT COULD EASILY BE GIVEN TO ANYONE ELSE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES WHETHER IT BE FOR A 1ST OFFENCE OR 3RD.
Giddy up
Complete failure to engage with any of the arguments. Failure to explain why increased punishment should work in cycling where it doesn't work anywhere else, failure to back up your ridiculous assertion that the governing bodies of the sport could remove the appeals process, failure to understand very basic concepts in a very simple argument.
I'm out, that's a fact for you. In your simple world that probably counts as a win for you. Enjoy.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
-
TailWindHome wrote:
Well, leaving Rajay's obvious faux pas aside, but addressing this lifetime ban for a first offence being no different to the current ban, nonsense.
As the law stands, a LTB is both narrow minded and short sighted.
It offers no leeway for accidental positives.
The onus would therefore have to shift from the rider to the testers for substances where accidental ingestion/contamination can be claimed.
Making this a weaker stance than offered by the current 2 (moving to 4) year maximum."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Well, leaving Rajay's obvious faux pas aside, but addressing this lifetime ban for a first offence being no different to the current ban, nonsense.
As the law stands, a LTB is both narrow minded and short sighted.
It offers no leeway for accidental positives.
The onus would therefore have to shift from the rider to the testers for substances where accidental ingestion/contamination can be claimed.
Making this a weaker stance than offered by the current 2 (moving to 4) year maximum.
Dont bother arguing with fools, they just drag you down to there level and beat you with experience.
I have Rayjay on ignore. His overuse of emoticons and SHOUTING was giving me a headache. :roll:0 -
mike6 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Well, leaving Rajay's obvious faux pas aside, but addressing this lifetime ban for a first offence being no different to the current ban, nonsense.
As the law stands, a LTB is both narrow minded and short sighted.
It offers no leeway for accidental positives.
The onus would therefore have to shift from the rider to the testers for substances where accidental ingestion/contamination can be claimed.
Making this a weaker stance than offered by the current 2 (moving to 4) year maximum.
Dont bother arguing with fools, they just drag you down to there level and beat you with experience.
I have Rayjay on ignore. His overuse of emoticons and SHOUTING was giving me a headache. :roll:
First off , If you are caught doping i.e. it is clear from both your samples or in a case like Millars you are caught red handed then there is no legal challenge. You are clearly guilty. That is my point. No faux pas.
As for the testing. There would be a need for a independent lab to test samples and made full proof.
And the results of that lab must be accepted.
Every rider caught doping through testing could claim contamination so setting up an independent lab would be a given.0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:rayjay wrote:For the education of No tA Doctor.
Lawyers can and will argue a 2 year ban a 4 year ban a life ban. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE :roll:
You don't seem to have the brain capacity to understand such a simple matter and over complicate it with your drivel and pathetic attempt to feel superior. YOU HAVE NO FACTS,
AND THE FACT IS A LIFE BAN AS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO DI LUCA. SO IT COULD EASILY BE GIVEN TO ANYONE ELSE WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RULES WHETHER IT BE FOR A 1ST OFFENCE OR 3RD.
Giddy up
Complete failure to engage with any of the arguments. Failure to explain why increased punishment should work in cycling where it doesn't work anywhere else, failure to back up your ridiculous assertion that the governing bodies of the sport could remove the appeals process, failure to understand very basic concepts in a very simple argument.
I'm out, that's a fact for you. In your simple world that probably counts as a win for you. Enjoy.
Well once again you are blabbering on. You analogy's have no relevance to an athlete doping.
I'm sure you could find lots of statistics to try and fit in to any point you make but it would be of use if they actually referred to the subject in hand rather than a vague attempt at trying to compere the minds of young men.
You have know idea how any one individual will behave or react to a situation or a ruling that has been put into place. I don't recall you making a reply just making childish comments once I disagreed and destroyed your weak argument .
Victory is sweet 0 -
mike6 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Well, leaving Rajay's obvious faux pas aside, but addressing this lifetime ban for a first offence being no different to the current ban, nonsense.
As the law stands, a LTB is both narrow minded and short sighted.
It offers no leeway for accidental positives.
The onus would therefore have to shift from the rider to the testers for substances where accidental ingestion/contamination can be claimed.
Making this a weaker stance than offered by the current 2 (moving to 4) year maximum.
Dont bother arguing with fools, they just drag you down to there level and beat you with experience.
I have Rayjay on ignore. His overuse of emoticons and SHOUTING was giving me a headache. :roll: I HOPE YOUR HEADACHE GO'S AWAY SOON. TRY SOME PARACETAMOL 0 -
rayjay wrote:mike6 wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:TailWindHome wrote:
Well, leaving Rajay's obvious faux pas aside, but addressing this lifetime ban for a first offence being no different to the current ban, nonsense.
As the law stands, a LTB is both narrow minded and short sighted.
It offers no leeway for accidental positives.
The onus would therefore have to shift from the rider to the testers for substances where accidental ingestion/contamination can be claimed.
Making this a weaker stance than offered by the current 2 (moving to 4) year maximum.
Dont bother arguing with fools, they just drag you down to there level and beat you with experience.
I have Rayjay on ignore. His overuse of emoticons and SHOUTING was giving me a headache. :roll:
First off , If you are caught doping i.e. it is clear from both your samples or in a case like Millars you are caught red handed then there is no legal challenge. You are clearly guilty. That is my point. No faux pas.
As for the testing. There would be a need for a independent lab to test samples and made full proof.
And the results of that lab must be accepted.
Every rider caught doping through testing could claim contamination so setting up an independent lab would be a given.
An independent lab is of absolutely no use in tracing contamination.
You cannot expect riders (at all levels and in all disciplines)to shoulder strict responsibility and the likelihood of a lifetime ban, when competing in compulsory UCI events held in ingestion/contamination hot spots.
For example, we have two track world cups being held in Mexico, this season.
These guys have to stay in ordinary hotels and have only limited say in how meals are prepared.
Any positive is likely to be confirmed by any lab in both "A" and "B" samples.
What would you do: Lock them out for a lifetime, shift the burden of proof or de-classify certain substances in certain countries?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
The sporting body's concerned cannot be responsible for what go's in a athletes body. That would be his and his teams responsibility to make sure that does not happen. That is what happens now.
As for contamination. The samples would be sealed and stored straight away in front of the athlete and also his team manager or team Dr would witness this. Once sealed and stored there can be no contamination. They are then only opened at a verified LAB. It sounds like something from James Bond .
It could be done that way.
As long as everything is run by an outside agency.
The problems faced are still the same. Money for testing is one of the major factors.
That's seems to be why in big name sports dopers are getting away with it by complicity all around i.e. Soccer for instance.
The point of a life ban would be there to make riders think about the consequences of their actions.
Once a rider gets banned for life it will have a massive impact for other athletes IMO.
This has never been tried.
As for the Banned substance list ,maybe that should be revised.
But for a rider to get banned for life it has to be very clear that he has been doping or like Millars case caught red handed.
We know it's very hard to get caught as so many riders have proved and have never been tested positive.
You would hope that the testing would get better but the dopers will always be one step ahead.
IMO it's the only way any sport may deter a young athlete from doping/PED'S if they realise their competitive sporting life will be over. IMO0 -
That's not the contamination issue. It's not contamination of the sample but inadvertent ingestion if eg tainted food. That would be harsh to be banned for life for eating something innocent in China as per a previous post.I'm left handed, if that matters.0
-
I think it was Rick who I first ever heard say, "Don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it", which is currently my favourite aphorism. But, grief, sometimes it's hard to follow.0
-
rayjay wrote:First off , If you are caught doping i.e. it is clear from both your samples or in a case like Millars you are caught red handed then there is no legal challenge. You are clearly guilty. That is my point. No faux pas.
As for the testing. There would be a need for a independent lab to test samples and made full proof.
And the results of that lab must be accepted.
Every rider caught doping through testing could claim contamination so setting up an independent lab would be a given.
So you propose setting up lab which can't make a mistake, a process under which the rider has no right of appeal and must (presumably) agree to signing away their right to legal representation.
Can you see how this may not work?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Coriander wrote:I think it was Rick who I first ever heard say, "Don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it", which is currently my favourite aphorism. But, grief, sometimes it's hard to follow.
Think that's Mark Twain.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
It's George Bernard ShawNo tA Doctor wrote:Coriander wrote:I think it was Rick who I first ever heard say, "Don't wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it", which is currently my favourite aphorism. But, grief, sometimes it's hard to follow.
Think that's Mark Twain.Twitter: @RichN950
