Lance Armstrong gets life ban,loses 7 TDF,confesses he doped
Comments
-
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
on TALKSport, both Gary Imlach and a journo from USA Today think that the sponsors will stick with him (both assuming that he wont admit) because they've all got too much invested. In Imlach's words, 'Good luck getting Trek or Nike on the programme'
Nike getting a kicking for turning a blind eye0 -
Only just started reading now, table of content on its own is already pretty impressive....0
-
Hmmmm... what will the UCI have to say about pp51-52:Armstrong’s suspicious test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of SwitzerlandThe 2001 Tour du Suisse (Tour of Switzerland) was conducted from June 19 – 28, 2001and was won by Lance Armstrong. Armstrong told both Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis thathe had tested positive for EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and stated or implied that he had been able to make the EPO test result go away.246Armstrong’s conversation with Hamilton wasin 2001, and he told Hamilton “his people had been in touch with UCI, they were going to have ameeting and everything was going to be ok.”247Armstrong’s conversation with Landis was in2002, and Landis recalled Armstrong saying that, “he and Mr. Bruyneel flew to the UCIheadquarters and made a financial agreement to keep the positive test hidden.”248Consistentwith the testimony of both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Landis, Pat McQuaid, the current president of UCI, has acknowledged that during 2002, Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel visited the UCI headquarters in Aigle in May 2002 and offered at least $100,000 to help the development of cycling.249UCI vehemently denies that this meeting or payment was, as Mr. Armstrong told Mr.Hamilton and Mr. Landis, tied to a cover-up of the 2001 Tour de Suisse sample. In any case,what is important for the case is that substantial parts of Mr. Hamilton’s and Mr. Landis’srecollections of Mr. Armstrong’s statements have been corroborated.As discussed in more detail in Section V(C) below, Dr. Martial Saugy, the Director of theWADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne, Switzerland has confirmed to bothUSADA and the media that his laboratory detected a number of samples in the 2001 Tour deSuisse that were suspicious for the presence of EPO. Dr. Saugy also told USADA that he wasadvised by UCI that at least one of these samples belonged to Mr. Armstrong. Therefore, evenwithout any consideration of the laboratory test results for these samples, as set forth above,Tyler Hamilton’s and Floyd Landis’s testimony regarding Mr. Armstrong’s admission that heused EPO at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland finds substantial corroboration in the statements of both Dr. Martial Saugy and UCI President Pat McQuaid.0
-
-
I had all but blanked out the years Leipheimer was at Rabo.0
-
Richmond Racer wrote:
Gazzetta Dello Sport wrote an article that said investigators had uncovered that Ferrari had received $465,000 from Armstrong in 2006. Even if LA deferred payment since 2004 to avoid any suspicion that he was still in contact with Ferrari, the figures for 2004 / 5 / 6 don't add up. Is there even more money out there somewhere?'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
TheStone wrote:Live feed on the Gaurdian!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oc ... -case-live
Thanks for the link.
I think the top comment was a corker, prosaic but apt, "The great irony is America would be thrilled to have a performance-enhanced Postal Service."
We in the UK would also.
"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
iainf72 wrote:Big George up next for a tearful confession?
What are Friday night's Euromillions numbers going to be please Iain? 0 -
Page 80 -
We met at the American Airlines Admiral’s Club in theconference room, and the senior guy at Coke asked me: I need you to look me inthe eye; I need you to tell me that I don’t have anything to worry about here, andI need you to give me what I need in terms of your word. And I said, I’ll do better than that. I’ll give you a contractual provision that gives you a total and completeout, and I’ll offer to refund the money you’ve paid us if this investigation ever turns anything up in terms of a positive test or if it ever happens in any other setting.
Do they now owe Coke alot of money then!?0 -
Re. Nike. I'm in holiday in Florida and made a point of checking a couple of large Nike stores. No Livestrong on display at the moment. Maybe coincidence, maybe back burner for a while.0
-
So Stephanie McIlvain at least partly corroborated the Andreu's hospital room statement.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0
-
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan
RIP Lance Armstrong's reputation - the biggest cheat in sporting history. #LiveWrong“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
It never occurred to me before and it may be old news, but reading Hincapie's affidavit about what Lance was using before he had cancer, could he have caused it through steroid use?0
-
Any word from Phil Liggett? Poor deluded fool.0
-
You've got to feel sorry for all those people that always claimed and believed that Lance was the cleanest rider around.... There are countless blogs, forum threads.... way to many to post the link to USADA's report and "told you so...."
0 -
"As reflected in emails sent by Mr. Armstrong, and as set forth in the affidavit of Michael Barry, Mr. Armstrong contacted, or attempted to contact, former teammates and others,including Dr. Michele Ferarri and Paolo Salvodelli, and asked them to sign affidavits affirming that there was no “systematic”doping on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team."
Hadn't heard that before.0 -
This is a goldmine, and a fascinating insight0
-
The text messages to Leipheimer's wife are rather sinister.0
-
I expect Hincapie Clothing to be at least Half price tomorrow in the shops 8)
Yes were is Phil "I looked in Lance's eyes" Liggett tonight in all of this .....moving his money to swiss bank accounts :?:0 -
He definitely did it.0
-
The report doesn't have a feel of a reasoned decision though does it? The intro is like the opening statement for the prosecution. Perhaps I'm deluded as to what 'reasoned decision' means.
Anyway, it shows lots of people in cold light of day, including the USADA. The bottom of page 4 is disturbing in it's tone. It suggest that they got p*ssed because he wouldn't cooperate and that is why we are here stripping him of his titles...so if he had 'fessed up, then what?
As an aside, I should say I thought he doped before (he was just too good against full blown dopers) and now I think he doped but I also think the USADA should be buried alive. Or maybe I'm just getting old...0 -
Just some random thoughts but is there any chance that the criminal prosecution will be reopened as more details become available?0
-
twoshots wrote:The report doesn't have a feel of a reasoned decision though does it? The intro is like the opening statement for the prosecution. Perhaps I'm deluded as to what 'reasoned decision' means.
Anyway, it shows lots of people in cold light of day, including the USADA. The bottom of page 4 is disturbing in it's tone. It suggest that they got p*ssed because he wouldn't cooperate and that is why we are here stripping him of his titles...so if he had 'fessed up, then what?
As an aside, I should say I thought he doped before (he was just too good against full blown dopers) and now I think he doped but I also think the USADA should be buried alive. Or maybe I'm just getting old...
The reasoned decision reads like the case for the prosecution as there was no defence offered.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
A small item that doesn't tie in too well with Hamiltons book is the response of Martial Saugy, the Director of the WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne to the infamous 2001 positives. From the USADA report, it appears that Saugy knew from quite early on that the suspicious samples belonged to Lance.
In "Secret Race", the US version mentions that a "source in the FBI" said how a UCI official had intervened and arranged a meeting between Armstrong / Bruyneel and Saugy.
Given that Saugy seemed to know at that stage whose sample it was and that is was "suspicious", why would he even agree to meet the athlete involved?'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
Hmm, I'm not going to be able to swallow that. Maybe you're right, but it just leaves a sour taste. They should present the facts if they are so damning, not ham it up.TailWindHome wrote:The reasoned decision reads like the case for the prosecution as there was no defence offered.0 -
twoshots wrote:
Anyway, it shows lots of people in cold light of day, including the USADA. The bottom of page 4 is disturbing in it's tone. It suggest that they got p*ssed because he wouldn't cooperate and that is why we are here stripping him of his titles...so if he had 'fessed up, then what?
If he'd fessed up, the statute of limitations would've applied and he would''ve kept some of his Tour wins.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
twoshots wrote:The report doesn't have a feel of a reasoned decision though does it? The intro is like the opening statement for the prosecution. Perhaps I'm deluded as to what 'reasoned decision' means.
Anyway, it shows lots of people in cold light of day, including the USADA. The bottom of page 4 is disturbing in it's tone. It suggest that they got p*ssed because he wouldn't cooperate and that is why we are here stripping him of his titles...so if he had 'fessed up, then what?
As an aside, I should say I thought he doped before (he was just too good against full blown dopers) and now I think he doped but I also think the USADA should be buried alive. Or maybe I'm just getting old...
The problem for USADA is that their evidence is "the prosecution". Don't forget that this was all meant to go in front of an arbitrator, where the prosecution would be put, and the case for the defence also put. LA has chosen not to put forward his defence, leaving us with only the prosecution. In the absence of a hearing, USADA are left trying to balance a prosecutors case, which they clearly believe in, (and by your comments so do you), without the benefit of cross examination and a counter case. It is, by dint of LA's non participation, one sided.
If he has fessed up, he would have been enitled to consideration of a reduced punishment - like the rest of them.0 -
I need more wet wipes0
-
twoshots wrote:
Hmm, I'm not going to be able to swallow that. Maybe you're right, but it just leaves a sour taste. They should present the facts if they are so damning, not ham it up.TailWindHome wrote:The reasoned decision reads like the case for the prosecution as there was no defence offered.
That document is only the summary - the whole report, which presents the facts, is over 1000 pages long.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0
